[NCLUG] SCO (from Breaking news!...)

[jbass at dmsd.com]

statik at hate.cx appears to have written:
> Actually doesn't SCO have to prove that IBM has violated clean room practices.
> You are convicting IBM and Linux prior to the release of any damning
> information. IANAL, but why would IBM have to prove it's innocent? I thought in
> the US SCO would have to prove IBM is guilty. There has been no proof of this
> depite your claims that apparently you have personal experience the IBM doesn't
> have clean room practices. Is this correct? Because you say below you have
> "personal experience" in this matter. 

I'm sorry, but the proof has existed in Linux source archives for
quite some time, in the form of various UNIX systems programmers
and engineers (some very well known), contributing code. There has
been little, if any, effort to hide who has been working on contributing
source from IBM.

SCO is said to have a short list of a few dozen UNIX systems programmers
that were actively involved in the SCO/IBM IA64 joint development project
(aka Monterey Project) that have been actively working on IA64 in linux.

Install 2.4 kernel source, change directory to /usr/src/linux-2.4 and
simply "find . -type f -print | xargs grep -i ibm.com". When you are
done with that install all source pkgs from debian, and do the same.

You will find several hundred IBM software engineers responsible for
contributing source code in various areas, including a significant
number in the kernel. I suspect when this goes to court we will find
a number of them asked under oath if they have in the past worked on
UNIX source, and if they have made specific open source contributions
in similar areas (as obvious from the posting attributions).

> Just because SCO claims IBM doesn't have acceptable clean room pratcies doesn't
> make it so, depite all your arguments to the contrary.

Sometimes the obvious doesn't need to be claimed, or justified, or proven
when such good records exist.

John