Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SGI's Letter to the Linux Community

Posted by michael on from the hard-news dept.

_Upsilon_ writes "SGI has released a letter to the Linux community in response to SCO's recent threat to revoke the UNIX licence for Irix. The letter mentions that they inadvertently did submit some System V code into the Linux kernel, that has since been removed (and some more in the process of being removed). The article points out that the code fragments in question had already been released into the public domain as well."

4 of 565 comments (clear)

  1. wow.. owned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is one of the most levelheaded, rational-sounding responses to SCO that I've seen in a long time. I hope they sent this to their customers. If it goes just to slashdot and associated sites it's sort of just preaching to the choir :)

  2. OK for me but not for you! by lcsjk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's see now; SCO claims that they inadvertantly released code under the GPL so they cannot be held accountable.
    SGI claims they inadvertantly released UNIX code into Linux, but SCO says they are accountable; ie., lawsuit.
    Is something wrong with this scene?

  3. The remedy for infringing code... by furry_marmot · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...is to remove it. Everyone knows that. The only reason SCO is acting the way they are is to get money. There's the brain-dead, pathetically desperate attempt to convince people (especially a judge, eventually) that they have been damaged and deserve money; and then there's the attempt to convince people that the infringing code is so extensive that it couldn't possibly be removed -- therefore, they should be able to license Linux/Unix/Irix/etc, with a right to prevent people from using it if they don't pay up.

    The correct solution in such cases is a) determine if damages apply, and b) cease and desist infringing (that is, remove or rewrite the code).

    But if the code is removed, then SCO can't charge everyone under the sun with licensing fees. And if they showed people what the hell code they're talking about, people would be able to remove the code, thus preventing them garnering licensing fees. Since removal of the code is the last thing they want to happen, they are probably unable to even present a coherent case in court. I mean, besides wanting to keep the purported infringements a secret, wouldn't a judge just order the offending code be removed?

    I believe their sole strategy is to whine, posture, lie through their teeth, and desperately hope people will be scared and cave in and purchase licenses, as some have done already.

    If they actually had a case, they'd take someone to court and win and be done with it. Resorting to scare tactics and hysterical accusations pretty much proves they have nothing, IMHO.

    --marmot

  4. Re:So that's where it came from!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, it's not immaterial at all.

    SGI has demonstrated that any copyright violation was inadvertent and that any such copied code was insignificant within the larger work, as it was so easily removed.

    Moreover, they've shown good faith by making every effort to mitigate the damages, even though SCO has shown no such willingness (by refusing to identify the infringing code).

    As a result, SCO would be unlikely to get anything more than actual damages, which would be small. And, if the infringing code was removed before SCO obtained its copyright registration (which you'll recall was quite late in the game), they probably wouldn't even get that.