Slashdot Mirror
Why SCO UNIX Is A Bad Idea
Ashcrow writes "SCO UNIX has long boasted its 'true UNIX' code base, but is that really the case? A story running at The Jem Report looks into SCO's claims and holds it up to other UNIX variants to try and find validity for SCO's claims." The author has a bit of a chip on his shoulder, but worth reading for the comparison of various *nix's.
SCO's own UNIX products, and the copyright and other rights sco owns with regards to the genetic UNIX codebase are two different things entirely.
Whether or not SCO UNIX sucks or not has no actual bearing on their lawsuit.
UNIX is a registered trademark of the Open Group in the United States and other countries. UNIX is available as a branding for operating systems which are certified by the open group to comply to various levels of the Single Unix Specification, a national and international standard. One such system, compliant at Unix95 level is OS/390 by Ibm with compatability extensions. This system is stated by the Open Group to not be derived from any AT&T code. You can find out more about the Single Unix Specification and UNIX in general at www.unix.org. While you're there you can familiarize yourself with the terms of their "license."
This site, http://www.levenez.com/unix/, has an historical timeline of *ALL* the Unix variants. One thing I don't see is anything crossing over from SCO to Linux. I do see SCO taking some stuff from Linux. Maybe Linus is owed some royalties?
--
Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.
Here is a number for SCO licensing for Linux. Lets see if we can make it slighty more expensive to do what they want to do.
/. and SCO will ignore us, but like any business, they WILL pay attention to the pocketbook.
We can all bitch and complain on
Capitulate or escalate. the choice is ours!
SCO's claims for the SMP and other code rely on an expansive notion of derivative copyright. SCO didn't actually write any of the code in question. They are claiming ownership essentially because some versions of that code were written as a part of Unix, and SCO claims that that makes the code a derivative work of Unix.
SCO goes further to claim that pretty much any connection between the code for which they claim ownership and the code contributed to Linux means that SCO owns the code contributed to Linux. For example, SCO claims that they own the JFS code contributed to Linux even though they admit that code was initially developed for OS/2, because the first version of the JFS code was developed using Unix, and some of the same people worked on the first version of JFS and the version of JFS which was contributed to Linux.
So, simply replacing the code in Linux isn't that simple. If there is any similarity, such as, perhaps, functional equivalence, SCO will claim that the new code is really a derivative work of the old code, and therefore a derivative work of Unix.
The only step which would avoid SCO's claim is a clean room implementation of Linux--a massive project which nobody is going to undertake.
Now, I happen to think that SCO's expansive claims won't hold up in court. But then SCO cares a lot more about spreading FUD now, and making some money on Unixware licenses now, then they care about winning in court in five years.
Anyhow, my point is that your simple tactic won't work. It won't make Linux more likely to win in court--Linux is already likely to win in court. It won't make SCO shut up--nothing will make SCO shut up.