Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Adds SCO Counterclaim Charging Copyright Infringement

Posted by michael on from the both-barrels dept.

linuxjack55 writes "According to Yahoo! Finance, IBM has filed yet another counterclaim against SCO, this time claiming that SCO 'infringed IBM's copyrights by distributing IBM's contributions to Linux after SCO had violated its Linux license by claiming a copyright on parts of Linux.' Like it or not, it looks like the GPL is going to get a full vetting in this case. It is, however, nice to know that IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL."

6 of 743 comments (clear)

  1. Re:You reap what you sow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Thanks for your wonderful insight you dumb fucking frity ps0t whore!
    Have a nice day!

  2. In soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    SCO is going the way of the USSR...

    1. Re:In soviet Russia by SoTuA · · Score: -1, Troll

      I just had a vision of darl mcbride, staring at his browser in consternation while saying "what the fuck you mean 'In soviet russia, IBM sues YOU!'?!?". LOL :D

    2. Re:In soviet Russia by Perl-Pusher · · Score: -1, Troll

      I don't know about russia, but in redmond washington software owns you!

  3. You mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    ^
    |_____Here it is biatches!

    YFI!

  4. Kernel source ripoff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    I think that SCO's claim to own parts of the CODE are valid. As a former contributor to the Linux Kernel I can tell you that there are many parts inside the Kernel (drivers mostly) where copyright notices have been removed, code re-organized and implemented in the Kernel.

    Given an example are a few SCSI drivers that were offered in the form of GNU/GPL from their initial developers (mostly companies that like to support Linux). These drivers over the time changed from maintainer to other maintainer and everyone like to add his own codingstyle and documentation to the driver's code. Huge bulk of copyright notices at the top of sources usually have the tendency to look awfull after some time and thus people simply remove them.

    I think that this also happened to various other parts of the Linux Kernel where sources have been included without proper verification and after some time they got changes so what that they do not match the original copyright licensing modell anymore e.g. copyright notices, owner notices and claim for inclusion of copyright headers of the original driver.