[NCLUG] Breaking news! SCO is full of crap (big surprise)

Mike Loseke mike at verinet.com
Wed Aug 20 14:18:34 MDT 2003


Thus spake jbass at dmsd.com:
> 
> > Mike Loseke <mike at verinet.com> writes:
> > Thus spake Sean Reifschneider:
> > > 
> > > We can't discuss how much or how little of Linux is tainted, because SCO
> > > isn't providing enough details on which millions of lines of code they
> > > believe was copied from their IP.  The millions of lines of code number
> > > sounds quite high though...
> >
> >  Higher than the number of lines which differ from kernel 2.2 to 2.4, in
> > fact. Which is interesting since SCO themselves say that 2.2 is clean.
> 
> There have been a number of reports that SCO has said that
> violations existing in 2.2 as well, and that the SCO claim
> is a much smaller "hundreds of thousands of derivative lines
> of code". For instance:
> 
>    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/13/1055220751243.html

 The person being interviewed, a journalist admittedly lacking in
ability in the field, notes that she was told that there were "bits and
pieces" in 2.2.  SCO themselves have never made mention of this that I have
read anywhere. SCO has also yet to mention or pursue any action or
allegations against anything older than 2.4.

 Funny interview though, kind of like asking a child who likes to look at
the stars, and knows the name of a couple constellations, to describe
precession.

> Where is there an offical SCO quote online claiming 2.2 is clean
> and their are millions of lines "copied" (which is very different
> than possibly tainted)?

 This has been the general interpretation of the statements made by SCO
and their lawyers. They specifically call attention to the 2.4 and 2.5
kernels and have not made mention of any earlier kernels. In their lawsuit
against IBM (http://www.sco.com/scosource/complaint3.06.03.html), SCO
deliberately leaves out what versions they are referring to only stating
that since IBM's involvement in contributing to the Linux kernel it has
quickly caught up to UNIX. The timing in the complaint does seem to concur.

 http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=43982
 ...
 "attorneys pointed to exact copying of some code from Unix to Linux and
 claimed that IBM improperly donated almost a million lines of Unix System
 V code to the Linux 2.4x and Linux 2.5x kernel" ... "For example, 110,000
 lines of Unix System V code for read copy update, 55,000 lines of NUMA code
 and more than 750,000 lines of symmetric multiprocessing code from Unix
 System V has made its way into Linux, attorneys and SCO executives said."

 http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030805/latu094_1.html
 ...
 "We believe it is necessary for Linux customers to properly license SCO's
 IP if they are running Linux 2.4 kernel and later versions for commercial
 purposes." (Chris Sontag)

 http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1224877,00.asp
 ...
 "SCO Senior Vice President Chris Sontag said there are millions of lines
 of offending code involved and that it's highly unlikely the matter could
 be resolved by removing that code."


 I concede that my previous statement about SCO stating 2.2 was clean to
be false. However, SCO's own omission of that version implies that it is
currently free from violation.

-- 
                  | So, the Dalai Lama says to me, he says,
   Mike Loseke    | "On your deathbed, you will achieve total consciousness."
 mike at verinet.com | So, I got that going for me.



More information about the NCLUG mailing list