Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Analysis of SCO vs. IBM

Posted by michael on from the paper-pushing dept.

icantblvitsnotbutter writes "An excellent -- and clear! -- article over at LinuxWorld.com has a multipoint analysis of SCO's 40-page complaint (this is a brief?!). For all those IANAL's out there, here's something to sink your teeth into. On the balance, the outlook seems positive for IBM. Still, the parallel invocation of a contractural clause potentially nixing AIX lends some credence to claims that this is a just way for SCO to coerce IBM into buying them out..." Some old documents from a similar lawsuit have surfaced, and naturally ESR has his own take on the case.

2 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Slashdot interview... by binaryDigit · · Score: 5, Informative

    some points are raised, some good and some bad for IBM, specially in the 2nd question

    They answered:

    We are definitely not allowed to cut and paste proprietary code into any open source projects (or vice versa!). There is an IBM committee who can and do approve the release of IBM proprietary or patented technology, like RCU.

    I don't see how this is "bad" for IBM. It shows that they are actively protecting any proprietary interests to the point that they actually have a committee.

    but some interchange of ideas could have been happened if a developer of one team talks with one of another.

    Again they replied:

    Having solved the problem once, our non-Linux peers can help steer us without spelling it out for us, allowing us to still develop solutions that can then be open sourced.

    Again, IBM seems to be keenly aware of the cross pollenation issue and actively taking steps to avoid any issues. It reads to me like it's all pro IBM?

  2. SCO SMP licensed from Corollary; 2 more i386 UNIX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    One trivia point: SCO's SMP implementation was not written by SCO but was licensed from Corollary.

    Two more i386 ports that ESR has forgotten about: Altos (later purchased by Acer). I was one of the engineers that ported SCO 3.2.0 (or was it 3.2.2?) to the Altos 1000 (see Google groups for info). The second is the "Sun 386i" 80386 computer which everybody seems to have forgotten about. Again, see Google groups.

    IMHO the only thing of value SCO was to contribute to Monterey was the X server.

    I believe that from a legal standpoint AIX is licensed SVR3 code (although having seen AIX kernel code, SCO OpenServer and UnixWare source, and "pure" virgin SVR3 code I can attest that AIX is a complete overhaul and bears no resemblence to pure SVR3 (or SVR4) except in the bowels of STREAMS).

    full disclosure: ex-SCO employee who worked on all kernels including Monterey prior to Caldera.