DescentBB

Darl McBride finally released all the code they claim has been stolen and placed in the Linux 2.4 kernel. The code (all of it) appears below!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3"><tt>REM ©SCO group 1994
EOF</tt></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looks like my old Basica-D files

postcount ++

Okkkiiieee

i smell a frivolous law suit

I could easily see a lawsuit being filed over something almost that trivial.

Not just filed, but also won. This is America, the Land of the Frivolous Lawsuits! You can sue for anything and win around here. Especially if it's your own fault.

like the guy who tried to break into someones house, but got locked in the garage for 6 day's because the owners were on vacation.
Or the guy got bitten by his neighbors dog because he was in they're yard shooting it with a pellet gun.

Actually, could that even be claimed as code that is in unix...being that it won't producing anything upon compilation?

On the surface, yes, it looks frivolous. However, in order to get away with producing and selling something that is that similar to copyrighted material, you need to be able to demonstrate a clean-room environment. You can't start with someone else's code, and then change it around enough so that it looks different. In my opinion, that's almost just as bad as copying it.

It's much harder to explain where the SCO reference came from, if they didn't have the code. I'm not sure if it's enough to prove anything, but if they DID have SCO code, and built from there, they deserve to be fried IMO.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Herculosis:
I'm not sure if it's enough to prove anything, but if they DID have SCO code, and built from there, they deserve to be fried IMO.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And now on to figuring out who is 'they'.

That "code" is a joke BTW - just in case....

I see Darl has now finally admitted that his company is on the verge of bankruptcy, and this case is essentially the only thing SCO has left to get some money from somewhere.

My response would be: "Well, Gee-Whizz Darl - perhaps if you hadn't turned your company into the most hated IT co. on the planet, and tried to earn some money rather than commit crimes of fraud and extortion, then SCO Group wouldn't be on the verge of bankruptcy.

How many tens of millions have you paid your lawyers in the last 12 months?"

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Herculosis:
<b> It's much harder to explain where the SCO reference came from, if they didn't have the code. I'm not sure if it's enough to prove anything, but if they DID have SCO code, and built from there, they deserve to be fried IMO.
</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There lies the problem. SCO isn't even trying to back themselves up. All they're doing is crying "You're using our code! We want your money because you're giving away our code without permission!" when infact the very code they're making a fuss over has been GNU for years.

I have to admit that I haven't followed this battle at all, and don't know any of the details. I didn't even really mean to try to make SCO's case at all, just to point out that copyright law goes further than just copying source code.

Let me relate an example that actually happened...

I was close to two companies. I won't give any names, and will just refer to them as CoA and CoB. CoA had a very powerful, but expensive product developed, and was gradually starting to turn a profit on it. CoB was a sales channel for CoA.

CoB, however, wanted the product to be deployable in a more common environment that would be cheaper, and easier to sell. So, CoB went and struck an under-the-table deal with the chief developer of CoA. The chief developer then went and organized the majority of the development staff at CoA.

One morning, CoA was notified that the group of developers had all resigned. It was common knowledge (though probably no proveable) that they took a copy of all of the sourcecode for CoA's product with them.

Those developers started a new company, the majority of which was owned by the head of CoB, and who took sole direction from CoB.

Within ABOUT 3 WEEKS, CoB was demo-ing the new product variant. The demo was a shell wrapping the original product code from CoA. The code was gradually re-written, however, so as to disquise its origin.

No lawsuits were ever successful.