Whoops! SCO goofed on the NDA?

Whoops! SCO goofed on the NDA?

Post by Spiceru » Sun, 15 Jun 2003 23:07:16



Original Message from NTLUG's mailing list follows:

Apparently a German fellow managed to get a look at SCO's "evidence"
without the NDA restrictions.  He then turned and posted some of it on a
message board!  His explanation for the NDA discrepancy is that there was
some negligence on the part of SCO's lawyers.

The original post (in German):

http://forum.golem.de/phorum/read.php?f=44&i=1774&t=1716

The Googled translation (difficult to read):

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.golem.de%2...

Two key points I take away from this, if my grokking of the translation is
correct:

1) SCO tampered with their "evidence" by removing date stamps.  I wonder
why?

2) A lot (all?) of SCO's evidence isn't actually taken from the kernel
sources, but from mailing-list postings whose contributions may or may not
have become stock kernel merges.

I'm guessing a certain SCO attorney is never going to work in the state of
Utah again...

...oh wait, yes he will.  SCO's probably going to be dead in a year
anyways.

-- Kelledin "If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it,
does it still cost four figures to fix?"

 
 
 

Whoops! SCO goofed on the NDA?

Post by Nucleo » Mon, 16 Jun 2003 07:39:22



> Original Message from NTLUG's mailing list follows:

> Apparently a German fellow managed to get a look at SCO's "evidence"
> without the NDA restrictions.  He then turned and posted some of it on a
> message board!  His explanation for the NDA discrepancy is that there was
> some negligence on the part of SCO's lawyers.

> The original post (in German):

> http://forum.golem.de/phorum/read.php?f=44&i=1774&t=1716

> The Googled translation (difficult to read):

> http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.golem.de%2...

> Two key points I take away from this, if my grokking of the translation is
> correct:

> 1) SCO tampered with their "evidence" by removing date stamps.  I wonder
> why?

The reason SCO won't disclose the code is simply that as soon as it was
out, people would immediately find it's origin, and SCO doesn't want this
to happen.  SCO's claims that they don't want us to destroy evidence are
laughable, and surely SCO must realize that collecting royalties is
impossible.

Quote:> 2) A lot (all?) of SCO's evidence isn't actually taken from the kernel
> sources, but from mailing-list postings whose contributions may or may not
> have become stock kernel merges.

> I'm guessing a certain SCO attorney is never going to work in the state of
> Utah again...

> ...oh wait, yes he will.  SCO's probably going to be dead in a year
> anyways.

> -- Kelledin "If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it,
> does it still cost four figures to fix?"

Does anyone here know German better than Google?  This is interesting, no
knowledge Google's translation but I.  It would also be interesting if
this was confirmed.  Why haven't we heard press about SCO trying to crush
this guy?  Shaky legal ground has never stopped them before.

--

Verbing weirds language.
 -- Calvin, Bill Watterson

 
 
 

1. SCO's NDA offer a PR stunt COMPUTERWORLD.com

http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,81...
Analysts to SCO: No thanks to code review offer
Linus Torvalds likened the fight to a Jerry Springer episode
Patrick Thibodeau, Todd R. Weiss  MAY 30 2003
-
Analysts are balking at The SCO Group Inc.'s offer to view its proof
that there is illegal Unix code in Linux, with one calling the move a
publicity stunt. Meanwhile, Linux creator Linus Torvalds today said that
he has no plans to look at the code and that the battle between SCO, IBM
and Novell Inc. is on par with a rancorous episode of the Jerry Springer
Show.
---

But Giga Information Group Inc. analyst Stacey Quandt said she has
discussed SCO's offer with her legal counsel, and if she signs an NDA,
it may hinder her ability to write about it. She could get subpoenaed as
well. Quandt called the offer a PR stunt.
-------

2. interupt 4 not serviced error

3. Matrox and NDA

4. shutting down script problem?

5. Fwd: Re: NDA used for drivers/usb/storage/shuttle_usbat.c?

6. How secure is this?

7. SCSA NDA Violations

8. SNMP on SUSE linux

9. Matrox info released without NDA

10. Matrox, XFree and NDA: the sokution?

11. APC refuses to give out info without NDA

12. GPL vs. NDA dilemma

13. A few questions about how things may change post-NDA, and general enquiries