On Saturday 14 June 2003 06:47, Curtis Rey wrote:
http://forum.golem.de/phorum/read.php?f=44&i=1774&t=1716
Can one of my SuSE botheren or Sisteren please check this out and tell me what you think. In English preferably.
Curtis :P :)
Here's a quick translation. I didn't do a lot of rewording, but simply tried to get the meaning down . My opinion is that, based on this, Caldera doesn't have a chance of a "big* win. Regards, jimmo Apparently Dr. Stefan Hildemann was allowed to see the code **without** signing an NDA. There was a notary watching the viewing 46 pages, half from Linux (apparently printed directly form the Linux Kernel mailing list) and the other half listings from SCO. He was unable to determine if is *really* was code from System V because there was no way to associated it with anything. It was interesting that all references to any files was removed (including from the comments). The comments themselves are, in fact, identical in some cases. How it is significant to note that the code that comes before the identical comments is substantially different. The basic construction of the functions is *similar*, but the concrete implementation is substantially different. Variables and function names are different, loops are constructed differently, conditions are defined either by chain-queries or bit maps. All together you can say that the provided code snippits are often the same (not necessarily *identical*), but this is expected from the beginning. In the concrete implentation, there are so many difference that it is difficult (if not impossible) to determine if they have the same source. A key point is a function within the Scheduler, (approx 60 lines) which is identical except for small differences. Here there are a lot of identical comments. Comparable similarities exist in the routine for memory managment, but here there are only comments in the Linux version. Only a lawyer can determine if this represents proof that would hold up in court. The vague similarities in other section, he believes are inusfficient because they are based on the same standards and therefore one would expect the same code. He cannot determine the reason for the same comments in different parts of the code and this must be examined in more details, especially in connection with the appropriate date information (I assume when these sections were include). Only then can one determine if the copyright has been violated. In terms of the parts of SCO/Caldera the they themselves sold under the GPL, no court has yet had to make a decision about the legal aspects of the GPL. Should this be defined, which isn't yet certain, SCO can only hold Linux accountable for parts of the code that it did not publish itself and on which its own developers be part of or contributed to. This would seem to be diffucult in what is to come. Because the original, unpatched Linux was not "attacked", but rather only the modification, that various distributions have included, it must certainly be clarified whether or not they have rights to the affected sections (either directly or indirectly, e.g. through company agreements, acquisitons, "all icnlsuive deals", etc.) The chances are not very high that really comes to a "revealing process", because in most of the similar cases they reached an out-of-court agreement. It must be noted that this is his personal evaluation and only the laywers involved are responsible for a decision. -- --------------------------------------- "Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden --------------------------------------- Be sure to visit the Linux Tutorial: http://www.linux-tutorial.info --------------------------------------- NOTE: All messages sent to me in response to my posts to newsgroups, mailing lists or forums are subject to reposting.