Counting Code

At that point in time when the teams came back and said, 'Yes, there are violations, and it's not an insignificant amount of code we are talking about,' we, after much dissecting of the problem and kicking it around, came to that we conclusion that we needed to send out an alert or notice to let people know that these problems existed. That notice came in two forms. One was a press release that went out [on May 14,] while the second was a letter that went out to customers.-- Darl McBride, 2003-05-16

"We're finding...cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code," McBride said in an interview. In addition, he said, "We're finding code that looks likes it's been obfuscated to make it look like it wasn't UnixWare code--but it was."-- Darl McBride, 2003-05-01

We're talking about line-by-line code copying. That includes not just the function but the exact, word-for-word lines of code. And the developer comments are exactly, 100 percent the same. The developer comments really get to the DNA of the code. It's one thing to have something look the same, but when the developer comments are exactly the same, that tells you everything you need to know that this is in fact lifted, that it has been copied and pasted from Unix into Linux.-- Darl McBride, 2003-06-16

We're talking about line-by-line code copying. That includes not just the function but the exact, word-for-word lines of code. And the developer comments are exactly, 100 percent the same. The developer comments really get to the DNA of the code. It's one thing to have something look the same, but when the developer comments are exactly the same, that tells you everything you need to know that this is in fact lifted, that it has been copied and pasted from Unix into Linux.-- Darl McBride, 2003-06-16

So, I have been waiting. And now Groklaw posts this:

On this day, we learn from IBM's attorney, David Marriott that the "mountain of code" SCO's CEO Darl McBride told the world about from 2003 onward ends up being a measly 326 lines of noncopyrightable code that IBM didn't put in Linux anyway.

On the other hand, SCO has infringed all 700,000 lines of IBM's GPL'd code in the Linux kernel.

SCO's GPL defense is of the lip-curling variety and quite funny. (You can find a few of the copyrighted Caldera and SCO contributions to Linux here and here, by the way, to help you to understand David Marriott's argument regarding SCO's switching-the-names game.)

And it's also quite amusing to watch SCO try to wriggle out of responsibility for all the trash talk its executives treated us to in its PR campaign.

and:

In the first motion, we learn a bit more about those 326 lines of code. Of those 326 lines, most are comments, not code. Allegedly, those lines of code infringe 320 lines of Unix code. But they aren't copyrightable, IBM says, because they are dictated by externalities, they are unoriginal and they are merger material. Even if they were protected by copyright, those 320 lines don't result in substantial similarity between Linux and Unix.

More details: As for the 326 lines, 11 of 12 files are header files, which aren't copyrightable. Header files don't do anything, IBM's attorney David Marriott explains. You can't run a header file or execute a header file. Header files are just descriptive of how information is shared among the components of an operating system.

Now, the header files themselves are of three types, #define statements, structure declaration, and function prototypes. The first specifies abbreviations. 121 of the 326 lines are #define headers.

What a joke. Why would anyone buy a used car from these guys? This is why we have had millions of dollars spent on lawyers and reporting?

No more IBM nice. . .

A one-time Linux company that sought to "unify UNIX with Linux", SCO repudiated and breached the GNU General Public License ("GPL") (SCO's only license to copy, modify and distribute Linux), turned on its own Linux customers and former partners in the Linux community, and sued IBM without evidence to support its claims. Now, confronted with record evidence on IBM's counterclaim establishing beyond doubt that SCO, when it embarked on its scheme in 2003, infringed copyrights owned by IBM (among many others), SCO presents to the Court an opposition memorandum filled with inapposite facts and irrelevant legal citations that seek to obfuscate its wrongdoing. Caught with its hand in the cookie jar, SCO tries to change the subject.

See Groklaw for the full IBM brief.

War Update

OK, I have heard two things over and over and they are starting to sound as stupid to me as anything coming from the (inferior)commander-in-chief.

1) "I support the troops but not the war." Ever stopped and asked one the troops how they fell about that? Fortunately, someone did! Jeremy Staat is a former professional football player and college roommate of Pat Tillman. ESPN reports:

"The way I look at it, we're spreading freedom, and you have to support the troops and you have to support the war," Staat, 29, told KITV in Honolulu on Tuesday as he prepared to leave from Hawaii. "You can't just tell some Marine who just lost his buddy that we supported you but not the war, because in that case you're basically saying that Marine, his buddy, just died for nothing. We're one team."

2) "We have to set milestones for the Iraqi government and if that cannot reach them, we have to pull out." If I said: "we have to set minimum reading standards for inner-city youth and if they cannot reach them; we have to kick them out of school," I would be vilified as a racist and Hitler, etc. Why is no one pointing out that this is equally as stupid; illogical, dumb?

One thing I have not heard: an honest assessment of what will happen in the region if we pull out early. . . It can easily include this:

1) Civil war in Iraq. Open fighting, mass atrocities, etc. A Sunni-Shiite war will not stay localized within the Iraqi borders; results will be felt throughout the region including Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Israel.

2) Iran involved with ground troops in Iraq and Kuwait.

3) A destabilized government in Turkey. France, Germany, and much of the EU can wring their hands and condemn the US, but it will be far worse for the EU if the US pulls out and their is a huge seperatist movement for a Kurd homeland that threatens to undermine Turkish stability. Then add in a Sunni-Shiite element from #1 and the EU will be drawn in.

4) End of democracy in Egypt. US turning and fleeing, leaving a regional war in its wake will embolden the radical elements. No idea who will win, but the cost will be large loss of lives, freedom, and peace in the region.

5) Increased starvation on the Horn of Africa. Again, islamic militants will stop the foreign aid flow.

6) Pakistan and Saudi Arabia will stop aiding the US in tracking terrorists. If they cannot trust us to stick by them, they will need to distance themselves from the US and ultimately return to "safe-havens for terrorist transit and funding. Expect at least two major assassinations during the transition. There is a 25% chance that the governments of one of the two countries will fall in the aftermath. In case you forget, Saudi Arabia falling will have a dire effect on the world's economy (oil); Pakistan will simply result in a radical regime with nuclear weapons.

The US has a major election coming in 2008. My early take on the field leaves me wishing for a "none of the above" option. I don't think any of them have a clue on how to resolve this, and most are so deep in denial that they are dangerous.

There are a few things I do know:

Democracy works better than any other form of government.

Democracy works best when people have an economic interest in a stable government.

People don't blow up their own homes, places of business, etc. People with steady incomes, families, and a bright future don't become suicide bombers.

Iraq has oil money; the world has enough money to solve the Palestinian problem, and many of the other problems can be made better if we can give the local 18 to 30 year olds a reason to see a future other than violence. Should be possible to do; how do we do it? Discuss among yourselves! :)

Yahoo and China

From Wired:

Early one Sunday morning in 2002, a phone rings in Yu Ling's Beijing duplex. She's cleaning upstairs; her son is asleep, while downstairs, her husband, Wang Xiaoning, is on the computer. Wang writes about politics, anonymously e-mailing his online e-journals to a group of Yahoo users. He's been having problems with his Yahoo service recently. He thinks it's a technical issue. This is the day he learns he's wrong.

Wang picks up the phone: "Yes?"

"Are you home?" asks the unfamiliar voice on the other end.

"Yes."

The line goes dead.

Moments later, government agents swarm through the front door -- 10 of them, some in uniform, some not. They take Wang away. They take his computers and disks. They shove an official notice into Yu's hands, tell her to keep quiet, and leave. This is how it's done in China. This is how the internet police grab you.

And:

"Yahoo betrayed my husband and deprived him of freedom," Yu says through a translator, her voice trembling. "Yahoo must learn its lesson."

Yu's husband is now in Beijing Prison No. 2, serving a 10-year sentence for inciting subversion with his pro-democracy internet writings. According to the written court verdict, the Chinese government convicted Wang, in part, on evidence provided by Yahoo.

And:

Legal experts are doubtful of Yu's chances in court. But her presence in the United States puts an inescapable human face on the pain caused by the uneasy alliances American technology companies have forged in the last five years with China's repressive regime. These partnerships are the price of admission to China's booming market, but they are not without their casualties.

It's also a trade-off that Yahoo is not alone in making. To comply with government requirements, Google's China search engine blocks access to sites the government deems objectionable. Microsoft launched its Chinese blogging service in 2005 with filters that prohibited sensitive words such as freedom and democracy in blog titles. And Cisco supplies internet backbone equipment the Chinese government uses in the so-called Great Firewall that shields citizens from websites about Tibet and the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Technology firms are "compromising their duties as responsible corporate citizens," Rep. Chris Smith (R-New Jersey) charged in a blistering opening statement during congressional hearings on the issue last year. "Women and men are going to the gulag and being tortured as a direct result of information handed over to Chinese officials."

[Disclosure, I make technology purchasing decisions for a company that uses technology from many companies including: IBM, Lenovo, Cisco, Google, and Novell.]

I am troubled at many levels on this. What the technology companies are doing is wrong. One needs only pick up Reinhold Billstein's book (Working for the Enemy: Ford, General Motors, And Forced Labor in Germany During the Second World War)
to understand that this is morally wrong and the current board and leaders will be judged negatively by history for their wrongdoing.

At the same time, it is nearly impossible to run Information Technology in a modern American corporation without using this technology (and supporting these companies). It is a Faustian bargain that bothers me; we cannot process the information necessary to continue to function without the tools; I feel dirty every time I sign a new contract and submit the paperwork for payment.

I honestly don't know what the solution is, but we have to keep the faces like Ms. Yu front and center and continue to ask these companies and their leaders to examine their consciences. . .