Re: SCO's claims seem empty

[Richard B. Johnson]

On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Paul Rolland wrote:

> And if it is only comments, it could be Sco that has taken then from
> Linux, without any damage to their code ;-)
>
> Paul
>
> > If it isn't simply carefully doctored choices designed
> > mislead clueless analysts. You are also ignoring at least two
> > other things - code that is common because its from the
> > reference (eg intel locking code) and code from third party
> > vendors legitimately supplied to both Linux and SCO.
>

There is also the problem of those "skilled in the art" teaching
others "methods". If I worked for BCC (Big Computer Company) and,
after interfacing with others "skilled in the art", I might pick
up some programming methods which I may incorporate into open-
source code. For instance, I might use "for(;;)" at the start
of a "do forever" loop, instead of "while(1)". If I make many
contributions to open source, eventually the source may start
to show the "personality" of BCC, without anybody ever divulging
BCCs trade secrets. So, code inspection may "show" that some
code was stolen or trade-secrets divulged, without anything like
that ever actually happening. That's why, in legal battles, each
side usually hires its own experts. These experts will usually
disagree.

I remember something in an article, I think it was in IEEE
"Computer", several years ago, where attempts were made to
show that source-code was taken from several sources. It ended
up in a "tie". One theory would "prove" that AT&T got its
source from Berkeley and the other theory would "prove" that
Berkeley got its source from AT&T. The facts in the matter
were that the source could have been copied by BOTH from an
unknown source, probably public domain. The source was surprisingly
similar, even the variable names were the same. Certainly, if
I were to steal somebody else's' code, I would change the variable
names --at least.

I think we're just experiencing the death throes of SCO.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.