Update: SCO/IBM Discovery Process Continues
Jun 03, 2004, 15:15 (0 Talkback[s])
(Other stories by Pamela Jones, Iain Ferguson)
Desktop-as-a-Service Designed for Any Cloud ? Nutanix Frame
Groklaw: SCO Begs the Court for More AIX Code
"Now we know what SCO's Memorandum Regarding Discovery is. It's
SCO begging the court once again to give it yet more AIX code,
saying that '...because AIX's code does not contain any historical
comments, or at least the AIX code provided did not, SCO has had
difficulty determining all the portions of AIX that were taken from
UNIX System V.'
"Once again, they think it's probably the case that they could
find more infringing code if they just had more AIX code, plus
comments, revision control systems, interim versions of AIX and
Dynix, design documents related to modifications and
Groklaw: Exhibit 28-B- SCO's List of "AIX Files & Lines in
Code Drop for Linux 2.2.12"
" The problem with SCO's position is quite simply this: IBM's
JFS didn't come from AIX, from what I see in the historical record.
It came from OS/2, and then was ported separately to Linux and to
"In that connection, you might find this interview from 2001
with IBM's Steve Best about JFS of interest..."
ZDNet Australia: SCO Adamant Discovery Process Backs Linux
"Files produced by IBM back up SCO's claims Big Blue 'improperly
contributed code to Linux,' the Unix seller said in a memorandum to
a US court last week.
"In a strongly worded discovery submission to the US District
Court in Utah, SCO said the files provided by Big Blue to date,
though 'only partial responses to SCO's requests for information
and materials,' revealed the Dynix/ptx enterprise-class operating
system 'contains material and significant Unix system V
PR: The SCO Group: SCO Vs. IBM Filing From May 28, 2004
[Editor's Note: This brief press release was received after
this set of articles was posted. It is added to this post in its
This 18-page filing was delivered to the U.S. District Court in
Utah late on Friday, May 28, 2004.
"This is SCO's Memorandum Regarding Discovery or in other words,
our company's findings based on the evidence that IBM has turned
over to SCO pursuant to the judges order to compel discovery on
March 3, 2004.
In summary, this is what this filing says:
- Files produced so far show that IBM improperly contributed code
to Linux. (page 6)
- IBM has so far only produced selected pieces of AIX &
Dynix. (page 6)
- Dynix contains material and significant UNIX System V code.
- In the absence of the requested discovery items, SCO has had to
rely upon some alternative sources for proof. (listed on page
- SCO is requesting additional items surrounding AIX & Dynix.
(listed on pages 9-10)
- Files produced by IBM pursuant to the court's order of March 3,
2004 directly support SCO's defenses to IBM's contentions in this
case. (page 13)
- SCO attached a code comparison (Exhibit 6) of one such case
where Dynix code had been contributed into Linux (Dynix v4.6.1 and
the patches placed in Linux 2.4.1). (page 14)
- The burden on IBM is negligible for gathering the requested
versions of AIX and Dynix. Gathering these materials is, for a
competent engineer, a rather trivial task. (pages 15 & 16)