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

[jbass at dmsd.com]

Daniel Miles <milesd at cs.colostate.edu> writes:
> First, lack of evidence to the contrary has no bearing, the burden of
> proof lies with the accuser. IBM doens't have to defend itself until SCO
> comes up with something truly damaging. For that matter, neither does
> the linux community.

Lack of evidence?

The trival code segments that SCO has already presented, show at minimum
past copyright violations which support the case against Linux developer
management of the kernel code base. That is hardly a lack of evidence.

While I think the SCO management team are idiots for using such code as
banner proof, it does make the case of direct copyright violation, even
if already corrected, that is running in a few million machines.

The exisiting example code however is yet to be tied to IBM, just the
linux community.  While it's convient to say, well the code has already
been removed, that is just an admission that violations have occured.

Once even small violations, like this are proven, then the burden of
proof is transfered to the defendant to show due diligence in protecting
SCO's IP rights in the migration of IP developed in the UNIX framework
to Linux.  That major UNIX systems shops are actively doing Linux kernel
development with experienced UNIX systems programmers responsible for the
same UNIX and Linux technology is quiet damning.

The entire dirty room and clean room management of the process is because
the burden of proof is easily transfered to the defendant if minor violations
are obvious and it used staff very aware of the source IP.

We have minor violations.

> As to your first hand experiance, am I to understand that you've seen
> similar violations?

That I am aware of experienced UNIX systems programmers assigned to
be involved in the conversion and porting of UNIX based code to Linux,
in violation of clean room principles, yes.

John