Slashdot Mirror


OSDL Releases New Paper on SCO's Claims

Ridgelift writes "The Open Source Development Labs have released a paper entitled SCO: Without Fear and Without Research [PDF, HTML version at the FSF] where Eben Moglen debunks SCO's claims to copyright infringement, and also discusses how they contradict themselves by citing that the GPL is both invalid and provides them legal protection. More information at the OSDL site and via an Internet.com article."

2 of 290 comments (clear)

  1. What's the point... by An+Anonymous+Hero · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    What's the point of referencing this Internet.com article? All it does is rehash the actual source (which we also get, thanks) in biz-speak; add those "(Quote, Chart)" references for those who regard the market as the arbiter of all truths; terminate all sentences with "he wrote", "she said"; and wrap the whole thing in ghastly illiterate thoughtless style:
    The first employs the "Berkeley Packet Filter" (BPF) firewall but SCO ever held an ownership interest in the original BPF implementation
    s/ever/never
    Moglen said a pattern matching search shows SCO what it thought was an example of copying
    s/SCO what it/what SCO
    but the "C code" shown in the slides was first incorporated in Unix Version 3
    "C code"?! Please!! does "Christmas" need quotes now?
    SCO used pattern matching to associate code as its own
    s/associate/claim
    It has therefore published its supposed trade secrets and copy-righted material
    s/copy-righted/copyrighted
    distribute under GPL (define)
    Quote a totally botched "definition"...
    He also sees merit in IBM's counterclaim against SCO raises with respect to IBM's contributions to the Linux kernel.
    (Sentence doesn't parse.)
    anyone who violates GPL automatically loses
    s/GPL/the GPL

    Etc., etc. Wasn't Slashdot's point to link original sources so as to spare us such tripe? Editors: edit!

  2. Really! by whittrash · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Did you sell your soul to the devil yet?