On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:02:24 -0700, Lisa Horton wrote:

> Will that be the end of Linux as we know it?

It's a little late for this speculation.
They are just about to have a share price crash before IBM nail them
to the wall with their fradulent claims in court.

Have a look at www.groklaw.net to get up to speed.

--
Regards
garbage
garbagedisposal@despammed.com

garbagedisposal <garbagedisposal@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.04.19.13.58.32.714122@despammed.com >...
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:02:24 -0700, Lisa Horton wrote:
>
> > Will that be the end of Linux as we know it?
>
> It's a little late for this speculation.
> They are just about to have a share price crash before IBM nail them
> to the wall with their fradulent claims in court.
>
> Have a look at www.groklaw.net to get up to speed.

**
I think SCO is in deep POOP!!!!!

OSRM Certifies Linux Kernel Free of Copyright Infringement
Monday, April 19 2004 @ 08:00 AM EDT

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...40419080041607

Walt R.

Please stop crossposting to groups that have nothing to do with what you are
talking about. You linux user's insistance on spamming your posts into
rec.photo.digital is abusive. Why would anyone ever want to use Linux if
Linux users are all rude assholes and jerks who don't care about others?


Walt R <wmreinemer@tns.net> says...

>I think SCO is in deep POOP!!!!!
>
>OSRM Certifies Linux Kernel Free of Copyright Infringement
>Monday, April 19 2004 @ 08:00 AM EDT
>
>http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...40419080041607

In article <47958aeb.0404192045.6af51001@posting.google.com >,
wmreinemer@tns.net (Walt R) writes:
>
> I think SCO is in deep POOP!!!!!
>
> OSRM Certifies Linux Kernel Free of Copyright Infringement
> Monday, April 19 2004 @ 08:00 AM EDT
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...40419080041607

I've seen that. As I read it, it's basically just a group that's stated
their opinion; it carries no legal weight, although it might be presented
as evidence in court, because it's supposedly based on a review of the
code. Thus, I wouldn't interpret this as being extremely significant.
Don't get me wrong; it's my opinion that SCO never had a strong case (but
IANAL). I just wouldn't go touting the OSRM opinion as being terribly
important, compared to the numerous other problems with SCO's case.

--
Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

Rod Smith wrote:

> In article <47958aeb.0404192045.6af51001@posting.google.com >,
> wmreinemer@tns.net (Walt R) writes:
>>
>> I think SCO is in deep POOP!!!!!
>>
>> OSRM Certifies Linux Kernel Free of Copyright Infringement
>> Monday, April 19 2004 @ 08:00 AM EDT
>>
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...40419080041607
>
> I've seen that. As I read it, it's basically just a group that's stated
> their opinion; it carries no legal weight, although it might be presented
> as evidence in court, because it's supposedly based on a review of the
> code.

It has at least as much weight as anything the SCO would have.

> Thus, I wouldn't interpret this as being extremely significant.

It is *not* insignificant.

>Rod Smith wrote:
>
>> wmreinemer@tns.net (Walt R) writes:
>>>
>>> OSRM Certifies Linux Kernel Free of Copyright Infringement
>>>
>>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...40419080041607

>>I wouldn't interpret this as being extremely significant.

"Don't worry about it. It's nothing."

-U.S. Navy Lt. Tyler, Dec. 7, 1941, upon being informed
that radar had just picked a large formation of planes
heading for Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.


--
Guy Macon, Electronics Engineer & Project Manager for hire.
Remember Doc Brown from the _Back to the Future_ movies? Do you
have an "impossible" engineering project that only someone like
Doc Brown can solve? My resume is at http://www.guymacon.com/

In article <Urfhc.35128$yD1.100520@attbi_s54>,
mlw <mlw@nospam.no> writes:
>
> Rod Smith wrote:
>
>> In article <47958aeb.0404192045.6af51001@posting.google.com >,
>> wmreinemer@tns.net (Walt R) writes:
>>>
>>> I think SCO is in deep POOP!!!!!
>>>
>>> OSRM Certifies Linux Kernel Free of Copyright Infringement
>>> Monday, April 19 2004 @ 08:00 AM EDT
>>>
>>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...40419080041607
....
>> Thus, I wouldn't interpret this as being extremely significant.
>
> It is *not* insignificant.

I didn't say it was completely insignificant; I said it was not
*EXTREMELY* significant. The OP made it out to be the "smoking gun" that
would take SCO down. It's not that, but it's not completely worthless,
either; as I also wrote in my earlier post:

>> it might be presented
>> as evidence in court, because it's supposedly based on a review of the
>> code.

IMHO, there are three critical factors about the OSRM analysis:

1) If and when it comes to court, SCO is going to have to present
evidence of whatever wrongdoing they claim. If they say there was
line-for-line copying from Unix to Linux, SCO will have to pony up the
code. At that point, it'll be up to the court, presumably with the
help of expert testimony, to determine whether there was any
wrongdoing. The OSRM report could be considered here, but ultimately
it'll be up to the court to look at the specific lines in question; I
don't think they'll rely on a third party's "executive summary,"
created before the trial.
2) Those doing the analysis were not (AFAIK) appointed by a court, and in
fact have a vested interest in the case coming out against SCO. From a
*LEGAL* standpoint, that means that their findings aren't likely to
carry a lot of weight. If it ever comes to it, SCO will try to
demolish the study in court by claiming bias or by saying that
line-for-line similarity isn't the issue. This brings in my next
point.
3) SCO's claims have long had more to do with contract rights concerning
third-party's (such as IBM's) rights to distribute their own code that
they originally wrote *FOR* Unix than with line-for-line copying
*FROM* Unix. AFAIK, the OSRM study doesn't address this claim.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to defend SCO or say that their claims
hold any more water than your average collander. I'm just saying that the
cited study is only one of *MANY* problems with SCO's position -- it's
ONE hole in the collander, as it were. The OSRM study alone won't make
much difference in the outcome of the case.

--
Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

[Non-Linux groups trimmed]

Error BR-549: MS DRM 1.0 rejects the following post from Rod Smith:

>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...40419080041607
>
> I've seen that. As I read it, it's basically just a group that's stated
> their opinion; it carries no legal weight, although it might be presented
> as evidence in court, because it's supposedly based on a review of the
> code. Thus, I wouldn't interpret this as being extremely significant.

It is good PR for "Linux" to those people who follow the story only
peripherally.

--
Free software, Free society

Error BR-549: MS DRM 1.0 rejects the following post from Rod Smith:

> IMHO, there are three critical factors about the OSRM analysis:
>
> 1) If and when it comes to court, SCO is going to have to present
> evidence of whatever wrongdoing they claim. If they say there was
> line-for-line copying from Unix to Linux, SCO will have to pony up the
> code. At that point, it'll be up to the court, presumably with the
> help of expert testimony, to determine whether there was any
> wrongdoing. The OSRM report could be considered here, but ultimately
> it'll be up to the court to look at the specific lines in question; I
> don't think they'll rely on a third party's "executive summary,"
> created before the trial.

Would OSRM be brought in as expert witness?

> 2) Those doing the analysis were not (AFAIK) appointed by a court, and in
> fact have a vested interest in the case coming out against SCO.

Not necessarily. They do have a vested interest in ensuring the code is legit
before they offer their program.

> If it ever comes to it, SCO will try to
> demolish the study in court by claiming bias or by saying that
> line-for-line similarity isn't the issue.

I doubt that OSRM is basing their assertion on a mere lack of line-for-line
similarity.

> 3) SCO's claims have long had more to do with contract rights concerning
> third-party's (such as IBM's) rights to distribute their own code that
> they originally wrote *FOR* Unix than with line-for-line copying
> *FROM* Unix. AFAIK, the OSRM study doesn't address this claim.

True, but they work is of interest to others for the present and for the
future, I think.

> ONE hole in the collander, as it were. The OSRM study alone won't make
> much difference in the outcome of the case.

No, but it makes a difference in the size of their "war chest".

--
Free software, Free society

=?iso-8859-1?Q?Lin=F8nut?= <=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?=@bone.com> says...

>[Non-Linux groups trimmed]

Could you and Rod Smith please also trim the slackware group?
This topic isn't specific to slackware.