Full Interview and discussion with Laura DiDio, The Yankee Group

(Continued from Credentials Appendix on page 4.)

Nevertheless, when this story moved from writing to layout, I e-mailed excerpts of the story involving Laura DiDio to her -- for her comments, clarifications, responses, and so forth, should she have any.

Laura DiDio did not reply with any clarifications of her statements reported in this story or offering any credentials other than she is "literate" or anything else germane to the topic -- as requested. Rather than cooperate with the request, she responded with an attack on this author and the article stating in part:

It is clear that you took my written responses out of context and twisted them. The manner in which you have chosen to present them and me, is so distorted and twisted that it does not have even the most tenuous connection to fact. It is obvious you set out to do a hatchet job on both myself and the Yankee Group. You have elected yourself judge, jury and sentencer.

This writer and MozillaQuest Magazine take the utmost care to try to ensure that sources' comments are not twisted or taken out of context. As a matter of course we send a draft version of a story to each source so that the source may check the story to ensure that his/her comments and statements are presented accurately and in context.

We often include in our articles an entire interview, uncensored, so that the readers can get the full flavor of an interview without any filters. Our interview with Linus Torvalds about the SCO IP farce is an example of that.

I decided to not include the entire Laura DiDio interview/discussion because she did not strike me as an adequately credentialed or creditable source. However, just to ensure that you have a chance to read her interview in its entirety, without filters, and entirely in context, it is appended.

We also have an interesting update on from where Laura DiDio seems to get the idea that Unix code was "cut and pasted" into Linux. Chris Sontag told her that: code, including the developers’ comments were simply cut and pasted into Linux,” Sontag said. SCO Suits Up Against IBM Over UNIX Source Code, Round 1, 13 June 2003, The Yankee Group. That certainly makes us wonder whether Laura DiDio and the Yankee Group are providing objective reports relating to the SCO IP matters of if they are just spreading SCO FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).

It also is interesting to note that SCO's Chris Sontag does not seem to know the difference between cut and paste and copy and paste.

The Full Interview and discussion with Laura DiDio

The original questions, e-mailed to Laura DiDio on 6 June 2003, are preceded with MozillaQuest Magazine:.

Her answers to those questions are preceded with Answer:. She made those answers via e-mail on 12 June 2003.

Questions in the original 6 June set of questions that Laura did not answer are followed by No answer.

The follow-up questions, none of which were answered, are indented and preceded with a double-dash, --. They were e-mailed to Laura DiDio on 12 June 2003.

MozillaQuest Magazine: I understand that you viewed the SCO Unix code and allegedly corresponding "Linux" code.

Answer: That is correct. I viewed the Unix System V code and the code that was allegedly purlioned [sic] into Linux in the Yankee Group's Boston office last Wednesday. As everyone knows, there are millions of lines of code and various versions of Unix and Linux. I saw only a very miniscule portion.

--Hmm. That is interesting. It seemed to me that one of SCO's prerequisites for viewing the code was that code-viewers would have to go to SCO's Utah HQ?

--So, how did this work procedurally? Did someone (who?) from SCO come to your office with the code or did you do it by e-mail or what?

MozillaQuest Magazine: How long (hours/days) did it take to do this?

Answer: I was shown two or three "snippets" that amounted to about 200 lines of code. The elapsed time was about 90 minutes. During that time I also questioned Chris Sontag, SCO's vice president about SCO's proof and various aspects of their case and strategy.

--Why was the viewing limited to only 200 lines of code?

--Were all these 200-lines of code allegedly Unix code copied in to "Linux"?

--Do you have any basis to form an opinion as to whether the common code was copied from Unix to "Linux" -- as opposed to being copied from "Linux" to Unix?

--If so, what is that basis?

--Which way did the copying go?

MozillaQuest Magazine: Did you find any "Linux" code that looked as though it might be purloined SCO-owned Unix code?

Answer: I saw Unix System V, version 4.1 and it appeared as though chunks of this code were cut and pasted into Linux, complete with developer comments. To reiterate, I realize that this represents only a small portion of the Unix and Linux code and we were shown the snippets that SCO wants us to see. My qualifying statement is this: "If there are more examples of code infringement beyond the approximate 200 lines of code that I viewed (as SCO claims) and if things are as they appear -- namely that licensees, including IBM, did put the Unix code into Linux, SCO has a credible case. Ultimately, SCO bears the burden of proof and the courts will decide."

--When you say "SCO has a credible case", are you referring to the Caldera v IBM lawsuit, or are you including SCO's claims that the allegedly SCO-owned Unix code in "Linux' constitutes copyright and/or patent infringement? (That sort of claim, of course extends way beyond the Caldera v IBM case.)

MozillaQuest Magazine: What did you see specifically that led you to believe that the "Linux" code might be purloined SCO-owned Unix code?

Answer: What I saw appeared to be a direct "cut and pasting of Unix code into Linux code." I am not a software developer but I am literate and it appeared as though it was copied directly.

--Do you actually have some knowledge that cutting and pasting took place or do you really mean to say that these 200-lines of code were identical?

--What do you mean by "literate"?

MozillaQuest Magazine: Was this code in the Linux kernel, the GNU/Linux operating system, a Linux distribution(s), or what?

Answer: The portion I viewed was in the Linux kernel.

--All from the kernel?

--How do you know it was "Linux kernel"?

--Was this kernel.org Linux kernel or some hacked or patched Linux kernel.

--Was the "Linux" code that you viewed taken from the official kernel.org Linux kernel, a Linux distribution (If so, which Linux distribution?), some sort of OEM (original equipment manufacturer) or IHV (independent hardware vendor) Linux-based system (If so, which OEM or IHV?), or what?

[If you are not up on these distinctions, please see http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-10_Story03.html

#Tainting-Linux-Distribution-Code

and

http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-10_Story03.htm

l#Linux-Distribution-Anatomy ]

MozillaQuest Magazine: If it is Linux kernel code, is it in kernel.org Linux kernel code or some patched or hacked version of the kernel?

No answer.

MozillaQuest Magazine: Is the subject Unix code stuff that is covered by SCO copyrights or patents or is it stuff that has migrated into Unix from the public domain or some third party?

No answer.

MozillaQuest Magazine: Do you have any other thoughts or comments about the code or the SCO IP issues?

No answer.

MozillaQuest Magazine: Do you have any programming experience? If so, could you please tell me a little about your programming experience? Also, anything else that would provide you with expertise for viewing the code and forming an opinion(s) as to whether there might be copyright or patent infringements involved.

No answer.

Please see the first two parts of our series about SCO-Caldera's IP claims plus its intentions to enforce and license its intellectual property rights.

SCO-Caldera & the GNU/Linux Community: The SCOsource IP Matter

SCO-Caldera & the GNU/Linux Community: Part 2, Under the Iceberg's Tip