Randall Davis: IBM Has No SCO Code 405
Mick Ohrberg writes "As reported by Groklaw, Randall Davis, renowned professor of Computer Science at MIT has after an extensive search found no evidence of SCO's claims that IBM has incorporated parts of the Unix System V code. Davis says "Accordingly, the IBM Code cannot be said, in my opinion, to be a modification or a derivative work based on the Unix System V Code." Surprised, anyone?"
Counter example would have helped. (Score:5, Interesting)
It surely wouldn't have been hard to take some, say, early and "in the clear" code that has been reused and modified over time to show both that it can be identified and to show how code that has evolved can still leave the fingerprint of the original code. Without that counter example the failure to find matches would seem underwhelming. (The closest the testimony came to this was showing a positive result that was generated and showing how it was a commonly repeated pattern in all software written in C, not something specific to these two programs).
Perhaps elsewhere in IBMs testimony there was reference to this same procedure being successfully?
question (Score:5, Interesting)
Scope (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? 6 million lines of code compared against 6 million (or more) will take a exponentially more time than 27000 vs 6 million.
Re:Finally... (Score:4, Interesting)
The courts have their thorough processes to run through. SCO will get umpteen chances to submit memorandums, emergency memorandums, memorandums in opposition to motions, memorandums in support of motions, motions to support memorandums in support of motions for summary judgement, no wait, theres more...
It's making me ill to watch how easily the process is to abuse. But thank God, unless a MS steps in and ponies up the cash, it will eventually be over.
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Interesting)
Whether they still have any patents or copyrights on the functionality of UNIX remains to be seen, and such a case wouldn't necessarily NEED code theft to go forward. Any idiot can see that Linux is a UNIX clone -- the question at that point would be the legality of the cloning process and the layers of licensing that surround it.
Re:Finally... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a final word as far as I'm concerned, and I'd venture so far as to say if IBM wants to make it so it's the final word as far as the law is concerned.
His resume! (Score:4, Interesting)
"I have also been retained by the Department of Justice in its investigation of the INSLAW matter. In 1992 (and later in 1995) my task in that engagement was to investigate alleged copyright theft and subsequent cover-up by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the National Security Agency, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the United States Customs Service, and the Defense Intelligence Agency."
Holy rat shit Batman!
Re:Thanks Professor Davis... and thanks ESR... (Score:5, Interesting)
see my work used in this comparison. Extremely good.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:question (Score:5, Interesting)
If Novell did that they would be violating the GPL and infringing on the copyrighted work of Open Sorce programmers.
SCO tried almost the exact same thing (They distribute Linux source (including "stolen" code) under the GPL and then insist that it is illegel to distribute under the GPL and that the GPL is invalid and maybe even un American.
Re:Formal Request to Randall Davis (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm more interested in the Abstraction and Comparision aspect. Forget the Filtration aspect as they seem only to pertain to non-Copyright (mostly patentable objects).
Now, for Comparision... What are the wiggle room concepts introduced? I know of the most commonly used one such as "Upper-lowercase, multiple whitespaces"
And for the Abstraction, ones I know of are: inverse logic (a gt b) vs. (b lt a) and inverted or flipped loops.
I know in for Abstraction, one can evade the copyright in this manner. But for Comparision....?
Old news, McBride has already admitted this (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1561611,00
Re: a judge will weigh. (Score:5, Interesting)
As a matter of fact SCO did show the evidence. This was enumerated in Sandeep Gupta's deposition. The pointed to pdf file has a table of all the files aledged to be copied from Unix sources, and this deposition specifically states he looked at those also (since his automatic detection program failed to find it) and the evidence of copying failed to apply the normal legal standards (also outlined in the deposition). This is very interesting reading indeed.
Re:question (Score:3, Interesting)
It looks like they weren't transferred. It is an open question if Novell would be required to make such a transfer (although most people think it unlikely).
Novell could do that. They own they copyright. However, they would have to release the code under the GPL or whatever license is compatible with the GPL and on the files they release. This is fundamentally different than what SCO is doing. Novell would effectively be a first party inserting code into linux, so it is above board.
What SCO is alledging is that their code was taken, without their permission, by IBM (and others) and inserted into Linux. Their claims are about aledged theft of their property since they weren't the ones doing the insertion (they claim, others dispute this, but let's assumet they are right for the sake of argument). That's what makes it fundamentlaly different than Novell doing something: SCO is aldeging it was harmed by third parties doing something bad. If Novell inserted code, as suggested, as suggested, it would be in a much more difficult position given the license that they'd be required to submit it under for inclusion in the kernel (check #1) as well as being in the untenable position of saying "Yes, we gave it away, but others have no rights to use it." Sure, SCO is in that position too (due to their distribution of Linux), and you see how much that's helped them.
What did Didio see? (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.groklaw.net/quotes/showperson.phtml?pi
"My impression is that [SCO's claim] is credible," says Laura DiDio, a Yankee Group analyst who was shown the evidence by SCO Group earlier this week. "It appears to be the same" code.-- Laura DiDio, 2003-06-05
Re:At $550 per hour... (Score:2, Interesting)
At $550 per hour, I would've used something like a 386 processor with 8MB of RAM.
There's a reason some people get paid that much; some people know how to do their jobs well and efficiently.
Why pay someone for 100 hours at $55/hour and wait 3 weeks when you can pay this guy $550/hour and have your results the next day?
Re:What did Didio see? (Score:3, Interesting)
SO why is she publishing that she was copied code? If she does not have the qualifications to make such a decision then she certainly then she certainly should not be advising investors based on such analysis.
"Davis saw no -infringing- code. That's not the same thing as seeing no common code. Copying a ten-line function almost verbatim is likely a copyright violation. Ending up with a handful of lines that look a lot alike, by contrast, is often just an unavoidable side-effect of writing two pieces of code that do the same thing."
It's apparent now that you did not read the deposition. Go read it. He explains exactly how he searched and what he found. He found 15 instances of "same" code. It was crap like
#endif
return;
}
He says (rightly so) that this is like reading two novels and finding that they both contain the phrase "he gave it".
This is significant. He did not have to do any kind of "filtering" to weed out same code that does not infringe. He FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO DUPLICATION OF CODE AT ALL.
Re:Formal Request to Randall Davis (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Justice upgrade (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, all the talk of "tort reform", channeling distrust of "trial lawyers" will go in the other direction from clearly engineered justice procedures. It will unimpeachably establish corporate primacy in rights in law, severely curtail humans' rights to sue, and generate an edifice for injustice on the ruins of the old, flawed system. The barbarians are at the gate, and all that stands between them and us is an association of lawyers. We're doomed.
Hey Darl, had enough yet?!?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to mention the fact that you have no case!! Never had one, never will have one!! Do you sleep well at night, Darl? Do your employees welcome you to the office when you show up for work? Or do they jeer at the man whose cost them any future they could ever have had in the IT industry in the hope that they might "get rich quick" by trying to bust up Linux?
Caldera (let's call it what it is...) was one of the Linux leaders and you've turned this once Linux company into a litigation machine just like you're famous for. Well this time, the joke's on you pal. You've come up against two things you didn't count on. One, that a mega corporation like IBM might actually fight you instead of just paying you off and two, the tenacity of the Linux community and our unique ability to find the facts about a given situation. *This* is how it works here, we police each other with the very same eye we've used to scrutinize this farce of yours.
We have come out on top, and we will always come out on top. We've stared you in your ugly face and we've not flinched.
Screw you, Darl McBride.
Sincerely, Gregory Casamento.