SCO releases code to Aberdeen Group

[SAJChurchey]

SCO has apparently let the Aberdeen Group take a look at the code in question for analysis and comparison to Linux code.

Linux-Unix ties spelled out

Here is my analysis:

   

quote:
The two blocks of software, they said, contained as many as 80 lines of identical code, along with identical developers' comments.

OMFG a whole 80-line block of code.  OMG, Linux has 500,000 lines...that means that allegedly 0.016% of Linux code was stolen from SCO.

"Developers comments" are not operating code.  The similarities imply something, but it's not enough to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that anything was copied.  I'd be interested to see the comments and see how unique the comments are.  Programmers don't tend to have loft diction nor a wide vocabulary to describe the basic functionality of 80 lines of code.

   

quote:
"Can SCO prove that this code came from SCO to Linux, and not from Linux to SCO?"

Still a possibility.  Linux is open source and the code is wide open for use.

   

quote:
SCO's actions angered Linux supporters, who allegedly deluged the company with angry e-mails, threatened drive-by shootings, and posted SCO's executives' home phone numbers and addresses on Web sites.

Hmmmm...thanx for the idea SCO :-D

Violence is never the answer.  After all, we're not George "dubya".

   

quote:
SCO contends that by co-opting code from Unix, Linux has severely damaged SCO's intellectual property. According to some estimates, the company collected annual revenue of between $200 million and $250 million on Unix System 5 software before the rise of Linux. After Linux reached the mainstream, those revenue figures dropped to about $60 million a year.

First off, this code was apparently submitted around 1999 by IBM.  That's only four years ago.  Linux was created around 1993, could have been back in 1991.  In any case,  $60 million x 4 years does not equal the $1 Billion they're suing IBM for.  Even if they successfully sue IBM, I dont' think they can continue to sue Linux end users and distributors when all of their monetary damges had been accounted for from the IBM lawsuit, and the open source community was not aware of IBM's offense.

   

quote:

[SpeeDFreaK]

You know what pisses me off about this? The fact that nobody has gone after SCO legally and busted their ass for dragging this out. Why? Because this could have been solved easily by SCO just pointing out the lines of allegedly copied code and it would have been fixed. But NOOOoo, they had to drag shit out. And because they won't release the code they say is copied, then linux stays in legal limbo for as long as SCO chooses.

 

quote: SCO's actions angered Linux supporters, who allegedly deluged the company with angry e-mails, threatened drive-by shootings, and posted SCO's executives' home phone numbers and addresses on Web sites.

Couldn't the guys that sent in the threat for the drive by been a little more imaginative? How about a DDBS (distributed drive by shooting)?     How about signing this guy up for craploads of e-mail  and real spam?

[mobrien_12]

As ppl on slashdot have pointed out, if there are perfectly identical lines in the linux and SCO kernel, they could have come from the BSD source tree.  80 lines isn't very much and since BSD can be used for both open and closed source stuff, it's quite likely.

[SAJChurchey]

This may be true.  It could be from the BSD source tree, but the fact still remains that SCO is pissing me off.

They keep making all these claims that aren't really that significant, but at the same time they are creating tons of FUD against open source, and Linux is getting a bad rep w/ the gen. public and potentional corporation end users.

If Linux containst copyright code, it is not the open soruce community's fault; it's IBM's.  However,  Linux's name is being drug through the mud.

[HPC GUY]

so what if code was copied from sco, they do not own the patenets and copyrights, see my previous post.

[mobrien_12]

quote:Originally posted by HPC GUY:
so what if code was copied from sco, they do not own the patenets and copyrights, see my previous post.

 SCO found an amendment to their contract with Novell which does tranfer the copyrights.  Novell said it seems legitimate, but they do not have a copy.

[realist]

quote:Originally posted by MisteR2:
You know what pisses me off about this? The fact that nobody has gone after SCO legally and busted their ass for dragging this out. Why? Because this could have been solved easily by SCO just pointing out the lines of allegedly copied code and it would have been fixed.

they could not have done this because SCO's license agreement makes them scared shitless that people will copy their code. It costs a lot of money to see the code for Unix and if you do see it you have to sign a nondisclosure agreement to say you will not divulge the source in any way to anyone else except another license holder. I for one would not sign such an agreement, and therefore I would not be allowed to see the code. You and I will never know which lines of code are being contended until SCO loses the case for this reason.

As for the BSD slant, has this come up in official circles yet? This seems like the most probable situation (if only because it is the least sensational). I know that Linux didn't include any BSD code in the early days (ironically because BSD were involved in an almost identical lawsuit as this one with AT&T) but by 1996, that was all over so BSD code may well have found its way into the Linux kernel.

[neo_x500]

Are Santa Cruz operation and Caldera (SCO group) the same company?

[Refalm]

quote:Neo: Are Santa Cruz operation and Caldera (SCO group) the same company?

Yes.

[SAJChurchey]

SCO has changed there names on a few ocassions, and it's SCO now.

New developments keep coming from everywhere.  For the time being, the Novell development is still being argued, and it's not for certain that they have the copyrights or not yet.  It's only being argued.  I'm hoping Novell pulls through though, but for now they're just stalling SCO's case.  I'm a little worried that if Novell does own the rights, that Novell isn't going to do the same thing as SCO and sue IBM and trash Linux some more.

The BSD submissions are interesting, but have not read too many places about this possibility.

[HPC GUY]

i think Novell said (i read somewhere) they had no intention of sueing anyone and that they fully support the open source movement

[SAJChurchey]

I certainly hope you're right.  SCO seemed to support the open source movement w/ their distro of linux and their contributions to United Linux.

SCO also said that they had no intentions of suing distros, especially not end users, but they have changed their minds anyway.

Novell may say they don't have intentions, but you can't really trust corporate America these days neway.

[Kupotek]

but you can't really trust corporate America these days neway.

hate monger ;p  I find it alot easier to trust corporate america then my spouse most of the time

[HPC GUY]

good point Saj, but i would wonder why then are they trying to fight the company they sold they rights to and defending the little guy if its not profitable.

[SAJChurchey]

Novell is trying to prove that they did NOT sell the rights to SCO therefore keeping the rights themselves.

It is a proprietary softare company, even though they ARE defending the underdog in this particular situation, but there's no guarantee that in the future the might try to levy similar claims if they get in a finacial tight spot or see open source as a threat.