Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO To Show Copied Code

Posted by Hemos on from the throwing-mud-in-the-water dept.

A number of people have written this morning in regards to the latest update in the ongoing SCO dropping Linux, with word from LinuxJournal that SCO has broadened the implications of code copying. A number of analyst groups have come out, however, saying that it's fine to keep moving ahead with Linux adoption - and there's an interesting interview with SCO's General Manager of SCOSource.

6 of 563 comments (clear)

  1. Errrrr.... by defishguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sco claims that Linux violates their IP. Sco also distributes Linux. Linux is licensed by the GPL. GPL = Free Code Errr... Maybe the only blood that will be let is from the hole that they shot in their own foot? It seems to me that they've already GPL'd whatever Unix code there "may" be when they condoned, sanctioned, and released their own distro of Linux.

  2. Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As an astute poster pointed out on OSNews, they cannot collect on any damages anyway.

    They distribute(ed) a version of Linux under the GPL, a licence that legally permits people to copy and branch the code assuming they put it under the GPL. Unfortunately for SCO, whether or not they knew they were distributing their own IP under the GPL or not is irrelevant to the rather compelling argument that they did put their IP under the GPL, and now that they continued to distribute linux after they found the alleged infringements means that no court would declare that licence invalid.

  3. Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They distribute(ed) a version of Linux under the GPL, a licence that legally permits people to copy and branch the code assuming they put it under the GPL. Unfortunately for SCO, whether or not they knew they were distributing their own IP under the GPL or not is irrelevant to the rather compelling argument that they did put their IP under the GPL, and now that they continued to distribute linux after they found the alleged infringements means that no court would declare that licence invalid.

    If anyone argues this, we lose in a bigger way. MS can then say "see, I told you so! GPL caused SCO to lose their IP!!!!".

    It would benefit us greatly as a community if no company makes this argument in defense.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  4. Re:SCO is just mentally unstable. by gomerbud · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm glad that the three BSDs are not yet being bothered by these wonderful people.

    Sources seem to suggest that the BSD's cannot be bothered by the SCO suit. Recall the legal fiasco between the USL and the BSD's in the early 90's. There is a terrific history in Marshall Kirk McKusick's chapter Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix: From AT&T-Owned to Freely Redistributable in O'Reilly's Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution.

    The relevant paragraph:

    The lawsuit settlement also stipulated that USL would not sue any organization using 4.4BSD-Lite as the base for their system. So, all the BSD groups that were doing releases at that time, BSDI, NetBSD, and FreeBSD, had to restart their code base with the 4.4BSD-Lite sources into which they then merged their enhancements and improvements. While this reintegration caused a short-term delay in the development of the various BSD systems, it was a blessing in disguise since it forced all the divergent groups to resynchronize with the three years of development that had occurred at the CSRG since the release of Networking Release 2.

    --
    Kan jeg få en pils, vær så snill?
  5. Stabbing friends in the back by krumms · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the interview with Chris Sontag:

    Q: SuSE feels protected against any legal action you may consider because of contracts with SCO and with UnitedLinux in which you are a member. Do SuSE and other Linux distributors including Red Hat have reason to be worried?

    Regarding contracts we have with SuSE and UnitedLinux, I would unequivocally state that there is nothing in those contracts that provides them with any protection or shelter in the way they are characterizing this in the press. If I were them, I would not be making those kinds of statements.

    Further, he goes on to say that this temper-tantrum is the result of IBM saying things SCO didn't like:

    Basically, he [Steve Mills, IBM exec] said that IBM will exploit its expertise in AIX to bring Linux up to par with Unix and went on to say a lot of other things, like trying to help obliterate Unix. IBM is a licensee of Unix technology from SCO, originating back to contracts with AT&T Corp. So IBM's position became a big problem for us.

    On behalf of Linux users and developers everywhere, fsck you, SCO.

  6. Possible contamination source? by nerdsv650 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    If I recall correctly Sequent contributed significant amounts of MP code to SCO in one of its floundering attempts to partner up with an outside OS vendor so they could get rid of the base OS engineering group (this was before I worked for Sequent). Some years later IBM bought Sequent (this was while I worked in the base OS group there) and pushed many of the engineers off the Dynix/PTX boat onto the Linux boat with the stated goal of helping Linux scale to larger MP systems. I can't help but wonder if in this effort some Sequent code which had already been shared with SCO might not have made it into Linux.


    I never did work for the Sequent/IBM group that was doing this work so I have no concrete basis for this speculation.


    -michael