Slashdot Mirror
USENIX Panel On SCO Lawsuit Now Available
porkrind writes "No Starch Press and The USENIX Association co-sponsored a discussion on the SCO vs. IBM case at the USENIX Annual Technical Conference. Now you can listen as Chris DiBona, Don Marti, Jon "maddog" Hall, and others explain the nuances of the case. Click here for the MP3."
Here are the points as you have misunderstood them.
1) The code exists in the kernel (regardless of whether it is in the "central part" or it or not).
2) The code was put there by someone other than the copyright holder i.e. not SCO and not Caldera. IOW, this code is in there contrary to the wishes of the copyright owner.
3) The code continues to exist, violating SCO's copyrights.
Now, maybe the code just happened to match up byte for byte with SCO's code and this is all a big misunderstanding. Or, someone stupidly thought that they had the right to stick into the Linux code any old code they found useful.
Considering the odds, the second one is the safer bet.
It all depends on how clueless the judge is.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Your premiss number (2) is false. The code was put there by the copyright owner. The code in question, according to SCO's own claim, came from IBM's engineers. If you had read the legal filings (which I doubt you have), and in particular Exhibit C Paragraph 2, you would see that EVEN if IBM added code that they then added back to System V "derived works"; e.g., AIX or UnixWare, since the code was written by IBM's engineers, now pay attention, IBM OWNS THE SOURCE CODE EVEN IF IT WAS PLACED INTO SYSTEM V DERIVATIVE WORKS. Why do you think that IBM has been so curt and so blunt in their statements? This lawsuit is a joke, and it's pure FUD. Once the case goes to trial and lawyers get to debate it in front of a judge, I doubt it's going to stay around very long. In fact, I would imagine that IBM's lawyers will file a motion on the first day of proceedings for dismissal on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
Regards,
Edward
It's a bit dangerous to compare books and software. Fair use might protect you if you were merely publishing a small section of code as text, but incorporating it into a runnable product is a bit different. It would be more like incorporating 1 min of someone else's movie in your movie. I doubt that fair use would protect you in that case.