O'Gara's reportage
More from Groklaw on Maureen O'Gara, IBM, SCO, and the courts.
posted Sun 24 Oct 2004 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
"Linux doesn't exist"
Computerworld speaks to SCO Australian directory: Kieran O'Shaughnessy, who says
IBM has transformed Linux from a bicycle to a Rolls-Royce, [...]
What a compliment. A Rolls Royce, that you can download for free and copy as many times as you wish. (IBM have done sterling work, though I don't think they would claim sole credit.)
SCO, [O'Shaugnessy] said, doesn't just expect financial compensation but removal of the stolen code.
This is a striking change from the position SCO have held in court over the last year. If only it were true: everyone could be easily satisfied, and SCO could stop bleeding $60,000 per day on lawyers.
All he needs to do is send a reasonably detailed and justified explanation of what SCO code is in Linux, and it'll be gone. When owners have wanted to remove their code before, it's been done within a week.
Of course SCO have no legal right to demand any copyrighted code be removed: for years they've been publishing it under the GPL, which gives broad rights to redistribute. Any removal would be at the discretion of the maintainers, but I think it would probably be done.
(Groklaw points out that SCO say they still haven't sought a second opinion on whether their bizarre theories will stand up in court.)
Linux doesn't exist.
I guess I'd better save this and log off...
I want to see Boies explain to a judge that SCO has spent man-years and millions of dollars suing over something that doesn't exist.
[thanks to LWN]
Get your free Rolls Royce at kernel.org — O'Shaughnessy
posted Tue 7 Sep 2004 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
O'Gara, DiDio, Forbes on SCO
Maureen O'Gara, Laura DiDio and Forbes Magazine stake their position on the SCO lawsuit. We can check back in six months or a year and see how right they were.
The Independent, reprinted in the Canberra Times, has a superbly accurate description of Forbes Magazine:
That mysterious publication Forbes Magazine has, for the first time, published a list of the 100 most powerful women in the world, and very fascinating reading it makes too. Not for its insights into the world of powerful women, because in many respects it is a ludicrous and rather embarrassing compilation, but as a demonstration of a particular way of looking at the world.
I called the magazine a mysterious publication, because, for the life of me, I can't really see what the magazine is doing, or what it provides for its readers. It's a strange kind of anthology of pieces about the very rich, corporate existence, and fairly unreadable think pieces, but something about it suggests to me that it isn't really read by opinion-formers or genuinely powerful people. It looks much more like corporate pornography, giving middle-management dreamers fodder for their fantasies, and this sort of exercise, basically meaningless, hardly seems useful or instructive.
posted Thu 2 Sep 2004 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
Growing Boies
Groklaw says:
Law.com has the most eye-opening article about David Boies and his firm. It is an older article, from February of 2003, which is just after SCO retained the firm, and the article explains some of the puzzling things we've noticed, like the abundance of typos in their legal pleadings. When you retain Boies, Schiller, you are expecting David Boies, that level of quality. According to the article, that isn't always what you get.
posted Mon 12 Jul 2004 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
(fwd) Corporate layoff advice
From the ineffable Don Marti:
Don't fire the one guy who has root on the web server. [mirror]
posted Mon 24 May 2004 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
SCO infringes copyright; settles case
Controversial UNIX vendor The SCO Group apparently has paid to settle a copyright infringement complaint from San Francisco publisher No Starch Press.
"We have no issues with SCO at this time", said No Starch founder Bill Pollock in a telephone interview Tuesday. However, Pollock said last fall that he would insist on a payment from SCO in order to resolve the copyright dispute.
Some time before mid-2003, SCO copied entire chapters of a No Starch book, The Book of Webmin by Joe Cooper, into SCO's on-line documentation. The infringement was described last summer as "an open-and-shut case" by a person familiar with the facts. The Book of Webmin, originally copyrighted in 2000, is available on the Web, but it is not licensed for redistribution.
posted Wed 12 May 2004 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
SCO: GPL is constitutional after all
Groklaw reports that SCO has retracted its claim that the GNU GPL is unconstitutional, unpatriotic, and violates export control laws:
DROPPED: "The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."
Well, that's a relief. The US constitution permits copyright holders to publish their work under a licence? How remarkable.
PJ writes:
This is the happy day that SCO acknowledges by its actions -- although it failed to put out a press release -- that the GPL isn't unconstitutional after all. A little smear here, a little smear there, and then, poof. All gone. "Sorry for having questioned your legality and trying to make people think you are subversive and unconstitutional and all. Our mistake." Of course, they didn't actually apologize. I'm just horsing around and pretending to apologize in their voice. You wouldn't want to hold your breath waiting for them to say they are sorry.
They are probably too embarrassed to do anything but quietly drop it and then skulk away. They do still claim the GPL is void or voidable, that it is unenforceable, and that the FSF selectively enforces it, so not all the silliness is gone. But they have tucked tail and begun to back down. They are getting their PhD in the GPL, and in time it will gradually dawn on them that they are wrong about all the rest too. Then they will completely throw in the towel, with a snarl, I have no doubt, and then we will have a party, an international celebration, which I will attend in a red dress. [...]
Humorously, SCO says the following allegations by IBM are "wholly irrelevant":
58. SCO submitted an Amended Complaint on July 22, 2003 and a Second Amended Complaint on February 27, 2004.
59. In its succession of complaints, SCO has asserted legal theories that are meritless , such as that SCO has ownership rights with respect to all of the code in AIX and Dynix . SCO has also sought relief to which it is plainly not entitled, such as a permanent injunction terminating IBM's ability to possess and use the software products it licensed from AT&T Technologies, Inc., notwithstanding the fact that those rights are expressly "irrevocable" and "perpetual".
60. SCO further persisted in maintaining for nearly a year the unsound claim that IBM had misappropriated its trade secrets. Yet when pressed to identify a single trade secret that IBM allegedly misappropriated, SCO could not, even after being ordered to do so by the Court. SCO finally (and properly) abandoned this claim, upon which SCO's entire lawsuit was initially premised, in its Second Amended Complaint.
73. At the December 5, 2003 hearing concerning discovery issues, SCO further represented to the Court that SCO would be filing a copyright infringement action against IBM "within the coming few days or no less than a week."
posted Fri 30 Apr 2004 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
Stroustrup on SCO
There is no shortage of credible voices pointing out that SCO is full of fertilizer. One more is added: Bjarne Stroustrup answers claims by Darl McBride that he "owns the C++ programming languages" (sic):
"But someone from SCO claimed that they own C++"; is that not so? It's complete rubbish. I saw that interview. The SCO guy clearly had no clue what C++ was, referreing to it as "the C++ languages". At most, SCO may own a 15-year old and seriously outdated version of Cfront - my original C++ compiler. I was careful not to patent or trademark anything to do with C++. That's one reason we write plain "C++" and not "C++(tm)". The C++ standard is unencumbered of patents - the committee carefully checked that also.
posted Wed 7 Apr 2004 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
LWN: SCO and Public Perception
LWN has a good article on SCO, stock prices and the media:
Anybody who was paying attention during the dotcom bubble knows better than to attribute too much rationality to stock prices. That notwithstanding, a stock market is an efficient machine for integrating the opinions of a large number of unrelated people. SCO's stock price peaked briefly at $22.29 in October, when the BayStar deal was announced. At that time, the company's market capitalization was a little over $300 million. Given that SCO has no business left other than its Linux-related litigation, its stock can be seen as a sort of call option on SCO's lawsuits. Even at its peak, SCO's stock price represented a perceived chance of collection of less than 10%. If the company were truly set to collect billions, it would not be valued in the millions.
posted Thu 11 Mar 2004 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
What you want...
From groklaw, quoting "SCOSource" VP Gregory Blepp:
"After that lawsuit, SCO will initiate actions against major users of Linux throughout the world, including in Spain, to establish legal precedent, because, explained Blepp, Linux users want legal certainty that SCO is right.
It is really remarkable how often I meet Linux users and developers who say, “I wish SCO were proved right”.
"Gregory G. Blepp said to EFE that SCO is not going to go against home users or educational use, only against large companies and institutions that are getting benefits from Linux without paying. It added that, with these actions, SCO isn't trying to attack open source code, only to defend its rights and that, in fact, it works together on Linux projects like Apache and Samba.
It ought to be fairly easy to establish how many Samba committers work at SCO. By my count it's about zero, but it might be a little less.
He figures that currently there are in the world between 2.5 and 3 million users of Linux who need to pay SCO for a license."
posted Fri 5 Mar 2004 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
Provenance of Linux errno.h
Warren Toomey has a great groklaw article on the origins of errno.h in Linux.
You might think that since both the names and values of Unix errors
are fairly standardized it would be hard to distinguish whether a
similarity was coincidental or infringing copying. So SCO's claims
are, at first glance, hard to dismiss. But it turns out that it can
be proved beyond (I think) reasonable doubt that Linux did not copy
errno.h from SysV. Yet another SCO claim bites the dust.
posted Mon 23 Feb 2004 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
Doug Nassaur on SCO
SCO supporters, many of whom are in the Unix camp, remain convinced that the company has a valid claim. "SCO is right. IBM is trying to steal the code under the cloak of open source," said Douglas Nassaur, president and CEO of True North Technology, a Sun Microsystems partner based in Alpharetta, Ga. "IBM supports open source and hopes SCO gets hijacked so they can steal it. At that point, IBM won't need the open-source community or SCO because they'll have the code."
posted Mon 23 Feb 2004 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
Understatement
Darl McBride is prone to making statements that seem pretty wild to informed observers. So it's good to see SCO can still come out with the occasional deadpan understatement:
If we do not prevail in our action against IBM, or if IBM is successful in its counterclaim against us, our business and results of operations could be materially harmed. The litigation with IBM and potentially others could be costly, and our costs for legal fees may be substantial and in excess of amounts for which we have budgeted. Additionally, the market price of our common stock may be negatively affected as a result of developments in our legal action against IBM that may be, or may be perceived to be, adverse to us.
(From SCO's recent S-3 filing, courtesy of groklaw.)
posted Mon 16 Feb 2004 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
SCO abandons trade secret attack on IBM
Andrew Orlowski writes on The Register:
The SCO Group abandoned a major rationale of its case against IBM by dropping its trade secret claims. These were the basis, last June, for SCO revoking IBM's UNIX license. IBM didn't blink, and has simply carried on selling its AIX Unix without blinking. But today SCO dropped the trade secrets and claimed breach of copyright instead.
But such claims need proof, and it proved to be another hearing in which the SCO Group vs. IBM without the Utah company showing any infringing code. SCO also admitted to not producing documents that IBM had requested.
In fact, IBM used Darl McBride's braggadocio performance at Harvard this week against him.
Darl McBride had stated that there "is roughly a million lines of code that tie into contributions that IBM has made and that's subject to litigation that is going on. We have basically supplied that."
"No you haven't" IBM replied, "and if you had we'd be seeing them today," in so many words. "SCO has identified no more than around 3,700 lines of code in 17 AIX or Dynix files that IBM is alleged improperly to have to have contributed to Linux." IBM describes this as a "significant disparity." As indeed it is.
posted Mon 9 Feb 2004 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
Home town advantage?
Salt Lake City Weekly has a good long article on SCO. They make an admirable effort to give a fair hearing to SCO's incredible claims.
posted Fri 23 Jan 2004 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
I pity the fools...
The Motley Fool looks at the 'shakedown' of Linux providers: "with the entire computing world putting its money behind Linux, it appears that, for SCO, the apocalypse is now."
posted Fri 16 Jan 2004 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
"Syn attack" on SCO
LWN reports on a SCO press release complaining that they're being attacked. SCO's flaks say
This specific type of DDoS attack, called a "syn attack," took place when several thousand servers were compromised by an unknown person to overload SCO's Web site with illegitimate Web site requests. The flood of traffic by these illegitimate requests caused the company's ISP's Internet bandwidth to be consumed so the Web site was inaccessible to any other legitimate Web user.
Of course network attacks are no laughing matter. Well, not normally.
It sounds like they're talking about a syn flood attack, to judge from the slightly mangled name and description. SYN floods are a problem that was basically solved by SYN Cookies in Linux, BSD and other systems as much as seven years ago. I haven't heard of such an attack in years, because they don't really have much effect on a modern kernel. The fact that they were ever possible was really just a misdesign in early stacks. (Completely understandable and forgiveable of course; the internet used to be a more friendly place.)
I think it's pretty damn funny that even when SCO are trying to paint themselves as victims they're really just showing that they're seven years behind the times.
As Mozilla says, "cookies are a delicious treat". No cookies for SCO customers though.
posted Thu 11 Dec 2003 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
SCO owns C++!
Courtesy of We Love the SCO Information Minister: McBride says "And C++ programming languages, we own those, have licensed them out multiple times, obviously. We have a lot of royalties coming to us from C++."
Wow.
posted Thu 20 Nov 2003 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
Tell us how you really feel...
posted Fri 14 Nov 2003 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
SCO releases a list of files
At long last, SCO have released a list of the Linux source files they claim infringe on their copyrights and/or proprietary information.
Intial analysis seems to show they just grepped for anything with the word "SMP". In particular, they think include/asm-m68k/spinlock.h infringes. The entire file is:
#ifndef __M68K_SPINLOCK_H #define __M68K_SPINLOCK_H #error "m68k doesn't do SMP yet" #endif
Jon Corbet writes:
The other amusing thing is that they listed the files in a different form:
include.asm-m68k.spinlock.h
People finally figured it out - they needed to flatten the entire kernel directory hierarchy in order to be able to grep through it. It seems that SCO's products, those luxury cars of operating systems, lack a recursive grep...
I can just imagine some law intern somewhere renaming all those files, one by one.
posted Fri 14 Nov 2003 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
No, SCO don't indemnify Samba customers
Turns out that SCO won't indemnify their customers:
In addition, the company continues to ship the GPL-covered Samba software, which lets Unix or Linux systems share files on Windows networks, as part of its UnixWare and OpenServer products.
SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said SCO doesn't offer indemnification, or legal protection, for use of Samba. As a hypothetical example, if Microsoft were to decide Samba violated its file system intellectual property and start suing companies that use the software, SCO would stop including Samba but wouldn't offer customers using the software legal protection, Stowell said.
"I'd be confident if we had any reservations that misappropriated code had gone into Samba, we ourselves would stop shipping it, and we would recommend to our users they stop using it," Stowell said. But of assuming responsibility for a Samba lawsuit, he said, "I don't think we could."
So, just to be clear: SCO's demanding that IBM and other vendors indemnify their customers against any problems arising from open source customers, but SCO won't do that for their customers. SCO would, if Stowell is believed, not only leave their customers open to lawsuits, but also stop providing updates. OK. Good to know.
And of course, if the GPL is invalid, SCO's presumably violating copyrights by distributing Samba without a licence...
SCO's Web site states unambiguously that it's not possible to offer indemnification on GPL software: "Some customers have asked their Linux distributors to indemnify them against intellectual property infringement claims in Linux. The Linux distributors are unable to do so because of the terms and conditions in the General Public License," a page describing SCO's Unix license said.
SCO has been suggesting that IBM should indemnify its Linux customers. "If IBM is so confident that Linux is free and clear, why don't they indemnify their users against any lawsuit SCO could bring against them?" Stowell said.
Not possible, eh? Unable? Not confident? HP just did it.
posted Fri 7 Nov 2003 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
One short question
Here's a question I'd like to hear SCO answer: do SCO indemnify their customers from any intellectual property issues arising from SCO software?
SCO are still (barely) in the business of shipping software, including both proprietary and open-source components. Either one could, hypothetically, infringe on some other party's copyrights or patent rights. Do SCO indemnify their customers? If not, why are they demanding that Linux distributors indemnify their customers?
posted Mon 13 Oct 2003 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
Comprehensive SCO fact set
PJ and the Groklaw community have written a superb comprehensive summary of the SCO suit for The Inquirer.
Linus Torvalds on his attitude toward IP: "Torvalds took issue with SCO's position. 'I care deeply about IP (intellectual property) rights. I've personally got more IP rights than the average bear, and as the owner of the copyright in the collective of the Linux kernel, I shepherd even more. It's what I do, every day. I personally manage more valuable IP rights than SCO has ever held, and I take it damn seriously,' Torvalds said in an e-mail interview."
posted Sat 20 Sep 2003 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
The View from Utah
Off GROKLAW's forum: mobucote talks about embarrasment that McBride is causing to Mormons:
When a fellow Mormon is mentioned in the media I usually feel excitement for the accomplishments of that person. However Darl McBride's behavior is hardly something to feel pride over. I feel his business ethics are questionable and embarrassing to his religious community. I hope no further reference in the media will be made to Darl McBride and his religion for the sake of all Mormons.
I think Mobucote (whose MT "Reply" link is broken) is a little oversensitive. "$company_name, a $location based $category company today announced" is absolutely standard cliched boilerplate for the start of a business news story. A fair fraction of the stories mention that IBM's headquarters are in Armonk NY, as if that has anything much to do with their global operations.
Aside from that - yes, Utah is a slightly unusual location for a software company (i.e. it's not California). No more strange than mentioning "Ottawa", or "Helsinki" or "Sydney". Yes, I realize Novell and WordPerfect are in Utah. Making the connection to them is one reason why it's interesting to mention the location.
Another reason is the presence of the Canopy Group in many Utah technology companies. Apparently they have a deeper involvement in this shambles than merely being a SCO shareholder. IBM's subpoena of Canopy may bring out more details.
Why does the Economist and other publications mention McBride's Mormon belief? Partly just human color for the story. Partly because if you publicly make some kind of commitment to a particular moral code, people are going to expect you to live up to it on little matters like honesty and fair dealing.
posted Mon 15 Sep 2003 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
Linus's reply to SCO
LWN reports that Linus wrote:
Dear Darl,
Thank you so much for your letter.
We are happy that you agree that customers need to know that Open Source is legal and stable, and we heartily agree with that sentence of your letter. The others don't seem to make as much sense, but we find the dialogue refreshing.
However, we have to sadly decline taking business model advice from a company that seems to have squandered all its money (that it made off a Linux IPO, I might add, since there's a nice bit of irony there), and now seems to play the U.S. legal system as a lottery. We in the Open Source group continue to believe in technology as a way of driving customer interest and demand.
Also, we find your references to a negotiating table somewhat confusing, since there doesn't seem to be anything to negotiate about. SCO has yet to show any infringing IP in the Open Source domain, but we wait with bated breath for when you will actually care to inform us about what you are blathering about.
All of our source code is out in the open, and we welcome you to point to any particular piece you might disagree with.
Until then, please accept our gratitude for your submission,
Yours truly,
Linus Torvalds
Many people have spent hours and pages going through Darl's letter paragraph by paragraph, pointing out inaccuracies, misquotes, misdirection and duplicity. There's plenty of material to work with.
I think Linus has a real talent for detecting bullshit, both in software design and in business letters, and then the good sense to simply refuse it, rather than worrying about the details.
posted Fri 12 Sep 2003 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
SCO may not know origin of code - Warren Toomey
Sam Varghese reports:
Dr Warren Toomey, now a computer science lecturer at Bond University, said today: "I'd like to point out that SCO (the present SCO Group) probably doesn't have an idea where they got much of their code. The fact that I had to send SCO (the Santa Cruz Organisation or the old SCO) everything up to and including Sys III says an awful lot."
He said that even though SCO owned the copyright on Sys III, a few years ago it did not have a copy of the source code. "I was dealing with one of their people at the time, trying to get some code released under a reasonable licence. I sent them the code as a gesture because I knew they did not have a copy," he said with a chuckle. [...]
SCO was unaware of the origins of much of the code and this "explains how they could wheel out the old malloc() code and the BPF (Berkeley Packet Filter) code, not realising that both were now under BSD licences - and in fact they hadn't even written the BPF code," Dr Toomey said.
posted Wed 10 Sep 2003 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
Million lines claim reiterated
Groklaw reports on McBride's recent open letter.
It is interesting to see the "million lines" claim restated, and in writing: SCO claims “that more than one million lines of Unix System V protected code have been contributed to Linux through this model.” I wonder where they are?
posted Wed 10 Sep 2003 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
Frank's page
Frank Sorenson has another SCO resource page, including a link to a SCO Princess Bride filk on slashdot.
posted Tue 9 Sep 2003 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
IBM Subpoena to Canopy
Groklaw reports that IBM has served a broad subpoena on the Canopy Group, SCO's parent company.
The subpoena includes a definition of the word “including”. Lest there be any doubt.
Also from Groklaw, and on a lighter note, Microsoft have chosen the acronym RMS for their Rights Management Server product, allowing such little gems as
To deploy RMS, organizations are required to have a Windows Server 2003 Server and Client Access Licenses as well as Windows Rights Management Services Client Access Licenses.[...]
An optional RMS External Connector License, which covers an unlimited number of outside users, costs $18,066.
Just imagine, Richard has probably been making external connections all these years without having a proper Licence...
posted Tue 9 Sep 2003 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
Changes between 2.2 and 2.4
SCO have said that there are over a million lines of code on which SCO owns the copyrights in the Linux kernel.
SCO have also said that the 2.2 kernel does not infringe, but all versions of the 2.4 kernel do. [Does anyone have a direct link for this?]
As background: 2.2 is what everybody used a few years ago; 2.4 is what most people use today except for hardy souls trying the 2.6 prereleases.
SCO have not deigned to identify any particular code, but we can do some calcualations just from this information.
What SCO said does not necessarily imply that they think there are a million lines of infringing in 2.4.0; possibly they leaked in over the course of the 2.4 development.
Therefore we can narrow down the potentially infringing code by looking at the changes between the last version of 2.2 (2.2.21), and the version of 2.4 that was current when SCO started this (2.4.20).
I took a unified diff between these two versions. The diff itself is quite hefty at 132MB, but that includes a lot of context lines that were not changed.
diffstat reports the changes are:
11184 files changed, 3032027 insertions(+), 884233 deletions(-)
Those numbers are in lines, so there were about three million new or changed lines in 2.4.20 relative to 2.2. At this level, it is not mathematically impossible that there were a million lines of SCO code in there.
However, as I previously discussed, I think you need to discount the sections that don't correspond to any existing SCO code. For example, this patch includes these large additions that are not in SCO code to the best of my knowledge. (SCO have some documentation on supported hardware for Unixware, and it's a pretty small list.)
- khttpd (kernel web server)
- irda (infrared comms)
- acpi (advanced configuration and power interface)
- ap1000 supercomputer
- atm networking
- parallel-port IDE
- bluetooth
- agp graphics
- joysticks
- Ham radio support
- Rio MP3 players
- i2c bus
- i2o IO
- firewire
- gigabit networking
- IBM zSeries devices
- ....
Looking through the list of changed files there is page after page that just can't possibly correspond to SCO code. Or are we supposed to believe that SCO spent millions of dollars writing code that was never released but still somehow leaked into Linux? I don't buy it.
Although the overall patch is pretty large, the bulk of it is changes to drivers and implementations for particular architectures. Typically drivers are maintained by people concentrating on just one type of device, fairly loosely coupled to the rest of the team.
This has two consequences for SCO, both of them bad. Firstly, if there were infringements in some drivers, those parts could be removed and replaced. People without the particular device are unaffected. It's not core code.
Secondly, and more interestingly, the change from 2.2 to 2.4 is the combined work of hundreds or thousands of programmers. There is no single programmer who contributed a million lines of code. I doubt if even the top ten most prolific contributors put in a million lines between them. The key developers are going to be reviewing other people's changes and working on core features, but not necessarily generating enormous volumes of code.
For a million lines of SCO code to get in, we would need to have a conspiracy of dozens of programmers, pretending to work independently, but actually organized and given SCO code by IBM.
It can't be just one person. If they suddenly rocked up with a million lines under their arm people might get suspicious. :-) I don't think it could even be all of the IBM programmers on the list. Without checking, I am fairly sure their total contributions are less than a million lines. It really would take a global conspiracy.
McBride has already advanced the hypothesis that everyone who objects to his campaign against the community is secretly being paid off by IBM. To substantiate the million-lines claim, they have to show a similar conspiracy dating back several years.
posted Thu 4 Sep 2003 in /issues/sco-vs-linux | link
Archives 2008: Apr Feb 2007: Jul May Feb Jan 2006: Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun Jan 2005: Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2004: Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan 2003: Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May
Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Martin Pool.