From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [50.116.15.146]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C085724C82 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2024 01:06:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E42243AA0; Tue, 5 Nov 2024 10:06:05 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-wr1-x42b.google.com (mail-wr1-x42b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42b]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4ED743A9D for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2024 10:05:58 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-wr1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-37d538fe5f2so3215723f8f.2 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2024 16:05:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1730765157; x=1731369957; darn=tuhs.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ROXGnEDs/B10L6yr3+pU4VlpWhTU3Ce8TNaMIxOuK+4=; b=AIR+H+ENplO33rQZjzYCGG1s9HgJPAiBV12wyGgpjMJn9u2jLNWXUP+ZzmSP7XMlzz doP+8iY0MEUytldKYAiV4NGH+AE62In8L80nJSguKhpTnZe2taYoEGy7OH4WrisuRkJt VnhVkZ9jOXagjv6oObg3728C7G9HxMMiasLOVIJ5tW4vjE77y1CMY+3vgwTyjSBFdJeN 0mQJ6zXseN8PKewEP0vTtoRyCdYCRikY1p0WaiWeUgVSaXhwDbafzB0um3feOUhWvV04 hx1LbZ4iGYyQEUSJOm9vhibeVBFY2JKA5yODTYDlALsbjyS710lAWTDib2Pk6Cey+QAc NRzw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1730765157; x=1731369957; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=ROXGnEDs/B10L6yr3+pU4VlpWhTU3Ce8TNaMIxOuK+4=; b=vxOfAJX5tpnP2PI3oF6nQu07f6QgrkQb2YkRneZkfHlbo419FVZKg8UaNabSStKngL nCCDJXMScHT13FBQTaE+uAmvD5l6BV++rhza/XuLYdCH0uBZtB7hBXxeSN5GnM07gMk7 yk4bBaPbQjzwtN161w8bxvyuLxQNAfx2lIc/FBvzNVmOo1fMVZYsvCSLERuWq/4jHH/H fP0AU0nSW9mL/j0NYqRcmf4QKysV881Jokx1NPeS+ZBEz2WhjymAuKbw8ip7y1NPISoE tQ4pTV/Owh7D9UgLOgnoV3RZ/o19tfWc8lxx4FWrXkE4YLQAP3M8jgCtnzbkaHAYLWNi vnDA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzT7NfZCIl53ginX/54uONyYUqsqvR4lwf5OR9pMG8NqPD01HJR oTPX/+hhEsBF3iPUk2WZcoJbxMuIR2WlcON4E1Lul/B/tOl6w4cN1zGeu8cSeDBMAHaUPldDkMR snaIqDkoyvD27JHMWH9xW4Vd6Up7869g= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IELHOulr1UDqnmKwxQIsHUEbn51DDY1xBYROGwPZ0r8/1foh8kZDnSULPddv3jhXrAztN1QcOyaute07dP/YoI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1f8e:b0:380:8282:ea4a with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-381be7c7922mr14189111f8f.17.1730765156974; Mon, 04 Nov 2024 16:05:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <52a0ed21-2703-464d-b2e2-72fb44325d47@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Marc Rochkind Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 17:05:45 -0700 Message-ID: To: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005f087306261f2a5d" Message-ID-Hash: VDPT5WHY2QD6KTA2IB7GZFLNHIDZCP2Z X-Message-ID-Hash: VDPT5WHY2QD6KTA2IB7GZFLNHIDZCP2Z X-MailFrom: mrochkind@gmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tuhs.tuhs.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: tuhs@tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: SCO's "evidence" (was: RIP Darl McBride former CEO of SCO) List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --0000000000005f087306261f2a5d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable By evidence, I mean evidence that was part of the legal case(s). Material presented as a part of a marketing, sales, or public relations effort is not evidence in this sense. I don't know what Darl McBride and SCO were doing here, as I didn't work on that and only met Darl for 30 sec. (He came over to say hello to me in a conference room, and then the lawyers came over and told him to get away from me, for fear that he would pollute the waters. I worked extensively with his brother, Kevin.) My understanding is that SCO was trying to get money from Linux licenses of some sort. The Linux community freaked out. There were two principal legal cases. The first alleged copyright infringement in the development of Linux. I'm not sure who exactly was being sued, since I didn't work on this case. People tended to think that "Linux" was being sued, but I don't think there was any such entity like that. The second case, which I worked on, was about breach of contract between IBM and AT&T, and SCO I guess took on the rights and obligations of AT&T. This second case was extraordinarily complicated and, inasmuch as most everything about it was sealed, Groklaw and people in general never did understand what the issues were. Which, of course, didn't serve as an impediment for them offering up opinions about it. This second case started about 2005 and ended about two or three years ago, so it went on for about 15 years. The copyright case I think ended when it was determined that the copyrights in question didn't belong to SCO. The way the copyright case ended doesn't mean that Linux development didn't violate copyrights. I'm pretty sure that it did, based on conversations with a friend of mine who was a technical expert on that part of the case. One might ask, how could Torvalds and all those Linux developers violate System V copyrights since they had never seen System V code? The answer is that corporations such as IBM also contributed to Linux, and those corporations did have such access. If one wants to take all this seriously and differentiate between what one knows to be true, on the one hand, and what one thinks is true or wants to be true, on the other hand, then I think one would realize that nobody outside of the legal teams knows anything about the case. As I said, I know a whole lot about part of the case(s) and next to nothing about the other parts. Groklaw used to reprint redacted documents that had been released by the court, a couple of which I wrote, but ignored the fact that they were redacted and that all the juicy parts were missing. Generally, if anything was important, it was sealed. I just a few minutes ago glanced at the Wikipedia article "SCO=E2=80=93Linu= x disputes" and it's not bad. It does pretty much explain the breach of contract case. There is a section titled "IBM code in Linux" that lists some technologies (e.g., JFS, RCU), and that's the area that I worked on. I wrote a program that could in effect do a "diff" on entire operating systems, hundreds of thousands of lines of code. It was amazing to see the results. Even the attorneys who were doing the suing were amazed. (Whether all my discoveries represented actual breach of contract is a legal question, not a technical one, and was therefore well outside the scope of my work.) Marc On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 3:50=E2=80=AFPM Greg 'groggy' Lehey = wrote: > On Monday, 4 November 2024 at 10:35:40 -0700, Marc Rochkind wrote: > > Many opinions of the evidence, especially on Groklaw, but also > > elsewhere, including here. But none of these people offering > > opinions have really seen the evidence, > > I think that depends on what SCO (and when) claimed as evidence. They > did present slides of obfuscated code (replacing ASCII with Greek > letters in the assumption that nobody could recognize the original and > maybe that the code was too precious to show in the orignal). I can't > find that any more, and maybe its on one of the many dead links on > http://www.lemis.com/grog/SCO/. But > http://www.lemis.com/grog/SCO/code-comparison.php refers to it and > identifies the errors in the claims. > > > Mostly people talk about "evidence " offered by Darl at the > > start. But NONE of the actual evidence came from him. It was > > researched by a team of expert witnesses on both sides, of which I > > was one. > > I'd be very interested to hear what else they presented. Did your > conclusions agree with mine? > > Greg > -- > Sent from my desktop computer. > Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key. > See complete headers for address and phone numbers. > This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program > reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA.php > --=20 *My new email address is mrochkind@gmail.com * --0000000000005f087306261f2a5d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
By evidence, I mean evidence that was part of the legal ca= se(s). Material presented as a part of a marketing, sales, or public relati= ons effort is not evidence in this sense. I don't know what Darl McBrid= e and SCO were doing here, as I didn't work on that and only met Darl f= or 30 sec. (He came over to say hello to me in a conference room, and then = the lawyers came over and told him to get away from me, for fear that he wo= uld pollute the waters. I worked extensively with his brother, Kevin.) My u= nderstanding is that SCO was trying to get money from Linux licenses of som= e sort. The Linux community freaked out.

There were two = principal legal cases. The first alleged copyright infringement in the deve= lopment of Linux. I'm not sure who exactly was being sued, since I didn= 't work on this case. People tended to think that "Linux" was= being sued, but I don't think there was any such entity like that. The= second case, which I worked on, was about breach of contract between IBM a= nd AT&T, and SCO I guess took on the rights and obligations of AT&T= . This second case was extraordinarily complicated and, inasmuch as most ev= erything about it was sealed, Groklaw and people in general never did under= stand what the issues were. Which, of course, didn't serve as an impedi= ment for them offering up opinions about it. This second case started about= 2005 and ended about two or three years ago, so it went on for about 15 ye= ars. The copyright case I think ended when it was determined that the copyr= ights in question didn't belong to SCO.

The wa= y the copyright case ended doesn't mean that Linux development didn'= ;t violate copyrights. I'm pretty sure that it did, based on conversati= ons with a friend of mine who was a technical expert on that part of the ca= se. One might ask, how could Torvalds and all those Linux developers violat= e System V copyrights since they had never seen System V code? The answer i= s that corporations such as IBM also contributed to Linux, and those corpor= ations did have such access.

If one wants to take = all this seriously and differentiate between what one knows to be true, on = the one hand, and what one thinks is true or wants to be true, on the other= hand, then I think one would realize that nobody outside of the legal team= s knows anything about the case. As I said, I know a whole lot about part o= f the case(s) and next to nothing about the other parts. Groklaw used to re= print redacted documents that had been released by the court, a couple of w= hich I wrote, but ignored the fact that they were redacted and that all the= juicy parts were missing. Generally, if anything was important, it was sea= led.

I just a few minutes ago glanced at the Wikip= edia article "SCO=E2=80=93Linux disputes" and it's not bad. I= t does pretty much explain the breach of contract case. There is a section = titled "IBM code in Linux" that lists some technologies (e.g., JF= S, RCU), and that's the area that I worked on. I wrote a program that c= ould in effect do a "diff" on entire operating systems, hundreds = of thousands of lines of code. It was amazing to see the results. Even the = attorneys who were doing the suing were amazed. (Whether all my discoveries= represented actual breach of contract is a legal question, not a technical= one, and was therefore well outside the scope of my work.)

<= /div>
Marc=C2=A0

On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 3:50=E2=80=AFPM Greg '= groggy' Lehey <grog@lemis.com&= gt; wrote:
On Mo= nday,=C2=A0 4 November 2024 at 10:35:40 -0700, Marc Rochkind wrote:
> Many opinions of the evidence, especially on Groklaw, but also
> elsewhere, including here. But none of these people offering
> opinions have really seen the evidence,

I think that depends on what SCO (and when) claimed as evidence.=C2=A0 They=
did present slides of obfuscated code (replacing ASCII with Greek
letters in the assumption that nobody could recognize the original and
maybe that the code was too precious to show in the orignal).=C2=A0 I can&#= 39;t
find that any more, and maybe its on one of the many dead links on
http://www.lemis.com/grog/SCO/.=C2=A0 But
http://www.lemis.com/grog/SCO/code-comparison.php refers to it and
identifies the errors in the claims.

> Mostly people talk about "evidence " offered by Darl at the<= br> > start. But NONE of the actual evidence came from him. It was
> researched by a team of expert witnesses on both sides, of which I
> was one.

I'd be very interested to hear what else they presented.=C2=A0 Did your=
conclusions agree with mine?

Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger
grog@lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed.=C2=A0 If your Microsoft mail program
reports problems, please read
http://lemis.com/broken-MUA.php


--
My new email address is mrochkind@gmail.com
--0000000000005f087306261f2a5d--