Today's SCO News

joebeone writes "Linus has commented on the SCO v. IBM suit saying "SCO is playing it like the Raelians" and that he will withhold his judgement until the code in question is shown in court. He has also recommended that former slashdot editor, Chris DiBona, be appointed to a panel offered by SCO to examine the evidence." Businessweek has an interview with SCO's CEO. The Open Group would like to remind everyone that SCO is only one of many in the Unix world.

Comments

opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html

[Mensa Babe]

OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint by Eric Raymond, President of The Open Source Initiative. Do we really have to say more, than what have already been said?

Re:considered the father of Linux?

[RoLi]

The person who did the paste would certainly be guilty of copyright infringement,

Exactly.

but is that liability passed on to every user of the infringing derivative work?

No, it isn't.

No matter how much you or SCO's CEO wishes it to be, there is no liability passed to the end user, period.

Wouldn't make any sense or would it? Just because some vendor is guilty of a crime, suddently all users shall be guilty of that crime, too? What nonsense.

Re:considered the father of Linux?

[Dr. Manhattan]

Weel, patents are a problem, but because of the stupid laws it's actually worse for the kernel types to check patents! If they do, they open themselves up to the charge of "willful violation" and triple damages; if they can plausibly plead ignorance the risk is much lower.

Just one of those fun legal quirks.

Re:show us the CODE!

[arivanov]

The article is incorrect. The actual SCO OpenServer certification status is:

1. SCO OpenServer does not hold a Unix 98 cert, AIX does.
2. SCO OpenServer does not hold a Unix 98 cert, True64 does
3. SCO OpenServer does not hold a Unix 98 cert, Solaris does.
4. SCO OpenServer does not hold a Unix 95 cert, AIX does

ad naseum...

infty. SCO holds only a 95 cert for Unixware which it bought (and certified for the bought code, nothing later on) and for which the Open Group holds some of the trademarks anyway.

More info on:

http://www.opengroup.org/products/cert/certprods .h tm

So SCO has no legal right to call their flagship product unix anyway. Openserver is not and should not be allowed to be called Unix.

Re:Something Mismatches

[GrenDel Fuego]

This months issue of a US linux magazine (Probably "Linux Magazine", but I'd need to go home to check) has a pretty favorable review of SCO Linux in it.

The problem is that magazines are put together quite a while before they actually are released, so the information in them can be out of date by the time people actually see it.

The May issue of a magazine usually comes out in April. It probably goes to the printers 6 weeks before being released, so that would put the magazine being created in each March, before the lawsuit.

Re:Something Mismatches

[steveha]

This months issue of a US linux magazine (Probably "Linux Magazine", but I'd need to go home to check) has a pretty favorable review of SCO Linux in it.

That's the June 2003 issue of Linux Journal, page 78. And I didn't think it was "pretty favorable". It was as neutral as possible. The part about the delays in the sendmail security patch was not at all favorable.

The May issue of a magazine usually comes out in April. It probably goes to the printers 6 weeks before being released, so that would put the magazine being created in each March, before the lawsuit.

The final draft was submitted to the magazine about a week after SCO announced its lawsuit, but most of the writing was before that.

I know this stuff because I wrote that article.

steveha