http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html --- Orlando Andico <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mosaic Communications, Inc.
Hi,
People may want to see this must-read paper. It makes $CO's anti linux claims evaporate like dry ice: http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html
That paper is the official OSI answer to the original specific claims of $CO.
Contrary to what $CO claims, Unix SysV is still an intellectual property of Novell: http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/05/pr03033.html
Here is IBM's brief response to $CO's license revocation: http://newsforge.com/newsforge/03/06/16/2232255.shtml?tid=52
Here is a peek at the controversial SysV code by someone (possibly a German) who was didn't sign an NDA by accident (I first posted this one at compsci and openminds ml, sorry for posting it again) : -- Human translation: http://forum.golem.de/phorum/read.php?f=44&i=1869&t=1716 Original German version: http://forum.golem.de/phorum/read.php?f=44&i=1774&t=1716
Datum: 15.06.03 18:50
Today, I had the possibility to have a look at the incriminating code passages.
Due to a mistake on the part of the representing lawyer's office, my colleague and I - as opposed to the 7 other representatives that were allowed to look at things today - did not have to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement. This was in full contrast to the examiners of Microsoft corp., who apparently had to maintain silence even towards their own superiors and may only give notice to the internal company audit department.
Now for the code itself:
Under the supervision of a notary public, 46 pages were shown, each containing, by one half, code from Linux (for the most part, print-outs of posts taken directly from the Linux-Kernel-Mailing List) and, by the other half, listings of SCO. Whether these are indeed sources of SysV is not comprehensible that way, as they are taken out of their context. Another interesting thing is that all date and time details have been removed from both, even from the comments.
The comments themselves are really identical here and there, even some jokes are the same on both sides. It is, however, conspicuous that in the places that correspond most, the source code that can be found in front of the comments is quite dissimilar after all. The fundamental construction of the queried functions is similar; however, the concrete implementation is quite different. Variables and names of functions are different, loops are structured differently, conditions work via chain queries (?) (Kettenabfrage) or bit patterns (?) (Bitmuster). All in all, only one thing can be said for certain: The functions offered by the respective code passages are often equal, which, however, was to be expected from the start anyway.
In the concrete implementation, there are, however, so many differences, that a proof of the origin being the same will be difficult, even though certainly not impossible.
The crunch, however, is a function of the scheduler, which is, over a length of about 60 lines, indeed identical except for slight differences. In this section, there is also a whole lot of corresponding comments.
Comparable similarity can only be found in one routine of the memory management, which is, however, only in the Linux version accompanied by comments.
Whether a competent proof can be made out of these two correspondences can only be estimated with certainty by a lawyer. I consider the vague similarities in other passages to be insufficient, as the same standards were the basis for both and therefore, a certain correspondence is to be expected.
Concerning the same comments to different source passages, I can see no rhyme or reason in it. This would in any case have to be investigated in again meticulously, in particular with the date and time details provided. Because only with these could a breach of copyright be proved at all.
Concerning the discussion about the part of Linux sold under the GPL by SCO/Caldera, it must be stated that up to the present, no court has had to decide on the legal validity of the GPL. Should this, however, be ascertained, which is not certain, SCO can use only those parts of Linux by way of comparison that were not published by SCO and in the development or co-development SCO did not take part. I consider this, too, a difficulty in the proceedings to come.
As the original, unpatched Linux-sources were not touched but only modifications that had been inserted by different distributors, it has to be clarified in any case whether these might have rights to the queried passages, be it directly or indirectly, e.g. through company mergers, take-overs, "all-inclusive"-deals etc.
The chances for proceedings to open are not especially good, as in most comparable cases, there were agreements out of court.
This, however, is only my personal estimation; only the decision of the lawyers representing each side or, later, the court possibly in charge is binding. --
All these trouble may have its root in the Trillian Project. Here is a very informative piece: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=67717&threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=106&tid=185&tid=187&tid=88&mode=thread&cid=6207175
Last June 9, Opinder Bawa, Senior Vice President, Engineering and Global Services at The SCO Group sold almost all his stocks. Is he sensing $CO's imminent fate? http://newsvac.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/06/%2009/139257
-- Mike P Kawit, Cavite -- Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Official Website: http://plug.linux.org.ph Searchable Archives: http://marc.free.net.ph . To leave, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/plug . Are you a Linux newbie? To join the newbie list, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/ph-linux-newbie
