SEO

Check out this link:
http://www.perens.org/Articles/SCOCopiedCode.html

The code shown at the SCO Forum was published in Kernighan & Ritchie's The
C Programming Language, Prentice Hall 1978!

From the web page: Another version of the code is copyrighted by the
University of California as part of the BSD Unix system that they produced
for the U.S. Army and released as Open Source. That code is also under
the BSD license

Also from the web page: "We've found the malloc() function this slide
refers to. It is included in code copyrighed by ATT and twice released
under the BSD license: once by Unix Systems Labs (ATT), and again by
Caldera, the company that now calls itself SCO. Some of the released
versions include the comment in the first slide. The Linux developers have
a legal right to make use of the code under that license. No violation of
SCO's copyright or trade secrets is taking place. "

If they could not find a better example than this, what case do they have?

Harold <har5O-682c264@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Wow - pretty damning evidence against SCO. I wonder if SCO executives can

If it's real. Can anyone who attended verify that is a real picture of what
they actually showed? Sorry, but I just don't trust anything nowadays..
and I haven't seen this reported anywhere else.


>On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:55:45 +0000, Whoever wrote:

>> Check out this link:
>> http://www.perens.org/Articles/SCOCopiedCode.html
>>

tony@aplawrence.com geruhte am Mittwoch, 20. August 2003 11:02 kund zu tun:

> Harold <har5O-682c264@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Wow - pretty damning evidence against SCO. I wonder if SCO executives can
>
> If it's real. Can anyone who attended verify that is a real picture of
> what
> they actually showed? Sorry, but I just don't trust anything nowadays..
> and I haven't seen this reported anywhere else.
>
You should look here http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-19.08.03-000/
for the original article.
And here http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-20.08.03-000/ for a followup
of the article. Be aware these are german articles. The pictures a
journalist of the 'Heise Computer Magazin' took at the SCO Forum are used
as a reference by all other articles which exist on the net.

As far as I heard, SCO isnt saying that these pictures are a fake. They just
say it doesnt matter, all Unix code (even the one released under a BSD
License or in 2002 released by Caldera in a BSD like license) belong to us.



--
TH
mailto:sherlok@gmx.de
mailto:sherlok@timberbell.de
Registered Linux user #100649 at http://counter.li.org

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Thomas Humburg wrote:

> tony@aplawrence.com geruhte am Mittwoch, 20. August 2003 11:02 kund zu tun:
>
> > Harold <har5O-682c264@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>Wow - pretty damning evidence against SCO. I wonder if SCO executives can
> >
> > If it's real. Can anyone who attended verify that is a real picture of
> > what
> > they actually showed? Sorry, but I just don't trust anything nowadays..
> > and I haven't seen this reported anywhere else.
> >
> You should look here http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-19.08.03-000/
> for the original article.
> And here http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-20.08.03-000/ for a followup
> of the article. Be aware these are german articles. The pictures a
> journalist of the 'Heise Computer Magazin' took at the SCO Forum are used
> as a reference by all other articles which exist on the net.
>
> As far as I heard, SCO isnt saying that these pictures are a fake. They just
> say it doesnt matter, all Unix code (even the one released under a BSD
> License or in 2002 released by Caldera in a BSD like license) belong to us.

Ownership is not the issue. No-one has disputed that the SCO Group owns
the code (AFAIK).

What has been shown conclusively is that the code has been licensed
without restriction several times. It's just like the code in most GPL
programs: the original author (or his/her employer) owns the code, they
just license it in a fashion that allows other people to use it.

This is another classic piece of SCO FUD. Unfortunately, too many gullible
reporters are unable to properly analyze SCO's statements and understand
the real implications.

Here's my take on the real situation:

1. There is code that IBM (and not SCO) owns and might, perhaps, be
covered by covered by the ATT/IBM contracts so that IBM should keep the
code a trade secret. The use of this code in the kernel by anyone except
IBM is perfectly legal.

2. There is code that SCO owns in the kernel, but it has been released
under various open source licenses or at other times without any
restriction, so once again, linux users can use this code legally. Once
code has been released under a BSD-style license, the license can't be
revoked. But then, what else can one expect from a company that has
claimed to "revoke" an irrevokable license?

3. There is no SCO-owned, non-open-source code in the kernel. SCO has
presented no compelling evidence to contradict this assertion so far.

SCO keeps talking about "Intellectual Property". This is a term that has
no clear definition in law. The reason SCO uses this term is so that they
can make people think they are talking about copyright when they really
mean trade secrets.

>
>
>
>

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 tony@aplawrence.com wrote:

> Harold <har5O-682c264@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Wow - pretty damning evidence against SCO. I wonder if SCO executives can
>
> If it's real. Can anyone who attended verify that is a real picture of what
> they actually showed? Sorry, but I just don't trust anything nowadays..
> and I haven't seen this reported anywhere else.
>

Give it up Tony, SCO is screwed. The mainstream media has started
to pick it up and no-one has claimed that the photos are fake.

Even SCO's spokeman did not claim the photos were fakes. He just made a
lame statement that it was a matter of who could be believed and that SCO
really did own the code (which is probably true, but irrelevent, since the
issue is that is was released under a license that allows it to be used in
the kernel many years ago).

Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.0308191348180.656-100000@c941211-a>...
> Check out this link:
> http://www.perens.org/Articles/SCOCopiedCode.html
>
> The code shown at the SCO Forum was published in Kernighan & Ritchie's The
> C Programming Language, Prentice Hall 1978!

It's even older. The original copyright is AT&T Bell Labs.

1973 version here:
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/Nsys.../malloc.c.html
From 'nsys' kernel.

http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V5/u.../malloc.c.html
From 'V5' kernel.

_____________________________________________

#
/*
* Copyright 1973 Bell Telephone Laboratories Inc
*/

struct map {
char *m_size;
char *m_addr;
};

malloc(mp, size)
struct map *mp;
{
register int a;
register struct map *bp;

for (bp = mp; bp->m_size; bp++) {
if (bp->m_size >= size) {
a = bp->m_addr;
bp->m_addr =+ size;
if ((bp->m_size =- size) == 0)
do {
bp++;
(bp-1)->m_addr = bp->m_addr;
} while ((bp-1)->m_size = bp->m_size);
return(a);
}
}
return(0);
}

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 tony@aplawrence.com wrote:

> Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:
> >On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 tony@aplawrence.com wrote:
>
> >> Harold <har5O-682c264@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Wow - pretty damning evidence against SCO. I wonder if SCO executives can
> >>
> >> If it's real. Can anyone who attended verify that is a real picture of what
> >> they actually showed? Sorry, but I just don't trust anything nowadays..
> >> and I haven't seen this reported anywhere else.
> >>
>
> >Give it up Tony, SCO is screwed. The mainstream media has started
>
> Give WHAT up?
>
>
> I'm sorry to get pissed, but when a person who lacks the guts to even post
> under a real name says something like this, it just fries my butt.

Ad-hominem argument: if you can't argue the facts, attack the person.

What to give up: your refusal to accept that SCO's claims against Linux
have no credibility.

>
> >to pick it up and no-one has claimed that the photos are fake.
>
> Another post says otherwise.

Where, please show a reference?

> As I said, I have NOT seen this anywhere
> else. If it is real, I would expect that EVERYBODY and their brother
> would be on it like flies on dung.

Just because you cannot find it, does not mean it does not exist. Try
searching google news for SCO. Try this link:
http://www.boston.com/business/globe...its_linux_case


>
> >Even SCO's spokeman did not claim the photos were fakes. He just made a
> >lame statement that it was a matter of who could be believed and that SCO
> >really did own the code (which is probably true, but irrelevent, since the
> >issue is that is was released under a license that allows it to be used in
> >the kernel many years ago).
>
> yadda, yadda yadda. Typical dumb slash-dot nonsense.

I make specific comments, trying to distingush between licening the
copyrights and owning the copyrights (note, nothing about the GPL here)
and you just dismiss it as nonsense. How about a rational argument on the
facts instead of more ad-hominem arguments or groundless dismissals?

Don't you think it is important to SCO's claim against Linux users that
SCO's predecessors have allowed their copyrighted code to be used
anywhere, including in the Linux kernel?

Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:
>>
>> Give WHAT up?
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry to get pissed, but when a person who lacks the guts to even post
>> under a real name says something like this, it just fries my butt.

>Ad-hominem argument: if you can't argue the facts, attack the person.

Ad hominem? There's no fricking hominem there. You are a gutless
anonymous poster. Why should I care about what you think?

>What to give up: your refusal to accept that SCO's claims against Linux
>have no credibility.

Oh bull-hockey. Nobody, NOBODY has ANY idea whether or not there
is any credibility there. The history of Unix code is so damn
twisted and confused that no matter what a court says, there will
be people still passionately convinced that justice was not served.

That's why I get so annoyed with all this blather, 'cause that is
all it is: meaningless noise.

My opinion, btw,. and it is just another dumb opinion, is
that NONE of this stuff should be able to be patented or copy-
righted. It's ALL prior art and it's ridiculous. But that
has nothing to do with anything either.

What's IMPORTANT here is what happens to Open Source as
a result of this and other crapola. Most of that is
completely unrelated to whether SCO is right or wrong, but
you boneheads keep on yapping as though it matters.

>>
>> >to pick it up and no-one has claimed that the photos are fake.
>>
>> Another post says otherwise.

>Where, please show a reference?

In this thread. That's what "another post" means in this context.

>> As I said, I have NOT seen this anywhere
>> else. If it is real, I would expect that EVERYBODY and their brother
>> would be on it like flies on dung.

>Just because you cannot find it, does not mean it does not exist. Try
>searching google news for SCO. Try this link:
>http://www.boston.com/business/globe...its_linux_case

OK, thanks. I'm surprised this hasn't had more circulation. Maybe
Microsoft buys too much adverising.

So: if it's real: great. Maybe that will speed this g.d. mess up.
Maybe it won't. I can't honestly say whether that's good or bad:
I suspect it probably doesn't matter at all.

>I make specific comments, trying to distingush between licening the
>copyrights and owning the copyrights (note, nothing about the GPL here)
>and you just dismiss it as nonsense. How about a rational argument on the
>facts instead of more ad-hominem arguments or groundless dismissals?

It's nonsense. It's unimportant. IT DOESN'T FRICKING MATTER!

There is bigger game afoot, and you idiots aren't paying any
attention. Wake up: un-good things are about to happen. There
will be rumblings about national security, and the incredible
economic damage of viri, and it's going to be twisted and distorted
to make the real culprits here seem like heros.


>Don't you think it is important to SCO's claim against Linux users that
>SCO's predecessors have allowed their copyrighted code to be used
>anywhere, including in the Linux kernel?


No. IT DOESN'T MATTER. That's GPL nonsense again. The GPL
itself is under attack - THAT IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT.

--
tony@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 tony@aplawrence.com wrote:

> Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:
> >>
> >> Give WHAT up?
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm sorry to get pissed, but when a person who lacks the guts to even post
> >> under a real name says something like this, it just fries my butt.
>
> >Ad-hominem argument: if you can't argue the facts, attack the person.
>
> Ad hominem? There's no fricking hominem there. You are a gutless
> anonymous poster. Why should I care about what you think?

Apparently you do care, since you keep replying!

>
> >What to give up: your refusal to accept that SCO's claims against Linux
> >have no credibility.
>
> Oh bull-hockey. Nobody, NOBODY has ANY idea whether or not there
> is any credibility there.


The FACTS are that:
1. SCO showed an example of "copied code", claiming their copyrights were
violated.
2. The code was traced back and shown to have been licensed in ways that
allow use in Linux.

If the above does not show that SCO's credibility is shot, I don't know
what would. Any competant company concerned with credibility would make
damn sure that their "proof" could stand up to inspection.

>
> My opinion, btw,. and it is just another dumb opinion, is
> that NONE of this stuff should be able to be patented or copy-
> righted.


I believe that copyrights are very important. Copyrights are vital to the
GPL and so, I believe they are vital to open source.

>
> What's IMPORTANT here is what happens to Open Source as
> a result of this and other crapola.

And what happens to copyrights as a result of SCO's actions is vital to
open source, so you should care.

>
> >>
> >> >to pick it up and no-one has claimed that the photos are fake.
> >>
> >> Another post says otherwise.
>
> >Where, please show a reference?
>
> In this thread. That's what "another post" means in this context.

I can't find a post in this thread that supports your statement. If fact,
the only other comment is:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Thomas Humburg wrote:

>
> As far as I heard, SCO isnt saying that these pictures are a fake. They
just


back to your posting...
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 tony@aplawrence.com wrote:
>
> >I make specific comments, trying to distingush between licening the
> >copyrights and owning the copyrights (note, nothing about the GPL here)
> >and you just dismiss it as nonsense. How about a rational argument on the
> >facts instead of more ad-hominem arguments or groundless dismissals?
>
> It's nonsense. It's unimportant. IT DOESN'T FRICKING MATTER!

>
> No. IT DOESN'T MATTER. That's GPL nonsense again. The GPL
> itself is under attack - THAT IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT.

And that's why it is important to understand the distinctions between
ownership, licensing, trade secrets, etc.

Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 tony@aplawrence.com wrote:

>> Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Give WHAT up?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'm sorry to get pissed, but when a person who lacks the guts to even post
>> >> under a real name says something like this, it just fries my butt.
>>
>> >Ad-hominem argument: if you can't argue the facts, attack the person.
>>
>> Ad hominem? There's no fricking hominem there. You are a gutless
>> anonymous poster. Why should I care about what you think?

>Apparently you do care, since you keep replying!

I care about the subject. Because you hide your true identity, I don't
care about you. If you were real, I would have much more respect.

>>
>> >What to give up: your refusal to accept that SCO's claims against Linux
>> >have no credibility.
>>
>> Oh bull-hockey. Nobody, NOBODY has ANY idea whether or not there
>> is any credibility there.


>The FACTS are that:
>1. SCO showed an example of "copied code", claiming their copyrights were
>violated.
>2. The code was traced back and shown to have been licensed in ways that
>allow use in Linux.

>If the above does not show that SCO's credibility is shot, I don't know
>what would. Any competant company concerned with credibility would make
>damn sure that their "proof" could stand up to inspection.

So? It isn't important. You'll see..

>> What's IMPORTANT here is what happens to Open Source as
>> a result of this and other crapola.

>And what happens to copyrights as a result of SCO's actions is vital to
>open source, so you should care.

Right. But that crap is going down whether sCO wins or loses which is
why I do not give a rat's patootie about SCO is right/SCO is wrong
nonsense.


>And that's why it is important to understand the distinctions between
>ownership, licensing, trade secrets, etc.

You just don't get it. You'll see.. but then, because you an anonymous
piece of scum, you'll pretend you knew it all along.. which is
why I have no respect for anything you say.

--
tony@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html