Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Asks IBM To Make SCO's Case For It

Posted by timothy on from the it's-just-simpler-that-way dept.

acousticiris writes "According to an analysis of Friday's memorandum from SCO on Groklaw: 'If I had to characterize it in a brief sentence or two, the sentence would be that SCO tells the court, "How are we supposed to know what code IBM misappropriated? It's up to them to prove our case for us."...' It's also interesting to note that in Friday's memorandum, footnote 4, SCO uses Eric Raymond's Jargon File entry for FUD to take pot shots at IBM (footnote 4). Evidently, Eric was not pleased, according to the updated entry."

2 of 459 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Then the judge replies... by Ed+Bugg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And that would actually be bad. Linux needs to be totally vindicated of containing any tainted SysV code, and there is finally a chance that the GPL will be uphold as a valid enforcabled license. The case being dismissed will not clear Linux just gives SCO more of a chance to spread even more FUD.

    --
    -- Ed Bugg --You have freedom of choice, but not of consequences.--
  2. Re:umm.. dont they have the source code? by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually their claim is more targeted than that.

    They claim specific rights to JFS as a derivitive work of UNIX, (which is like saying that your HKK turbocharger is a "derivitive work" of your Ford Mustang)and to a Linux SMP implementation.

    Everything else that they claim to have claimed has actually been press release FUD. (See Jargon File)

    The JFS claim rests entirely on the terms of contract and the legal definition of derivative works. No need to even look at the code since it is stipulated that IBM wrote the whole thing themselves.

    The SMP claim depends upon the code in a very particular bit of code which may, but does not need to be, implemented in any particular Linux kernel.

    This filing by SCO amounts to more FUD. I can't imagine it's going to fly. To make a claim you must provide evidence for that claim or go home. Defendant then defends against that evidence. If it isn't introduced as evidence, not need to defend. A claim is not evidence.

    They're not only smoking, they're eating random mushrooms at the same time and the judege should throw their tripping asses out of court until they come back clean and straight.

    KFG