SCO Lists Specific Code-Infringement Claims

Posted by timothy on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @03:33PM from the if-it-wasn't-for-you-meddling-kids dept.

mugnyte writes "Those tireless folks at groklaw have transcribed and published the documents from the latest IBM/SCO hearing. In it, the exact lines of the supposed Dynix / AIX / Linux logic are given. SCO claimed that Linux's read copy update, journaling file system, enterprise volume management system, AIO (Asynchronous I/O), and "scatter gather" I/O code had been derived from either AIX or Dynix/ptx. Now we can take a look at what SCO thinks makes Linux an enterprise-ready platform started at 2.4, stealing away their market share. However, IBM released these things under the GPL ... so what license did IBM really have from SCO to do this? Which raises the question, What license did SCO have from Novell to disallow this?"

1 of 780 comments (clear)

Re:Correct use of "steal"! by bonch · 2004-02-17 18:30 · Score: 2, Troll

It IS theft. It's theft of intellectual property. There are laws on this.

I don't know why Slashdotters keep arguing this. It's clearly defined by the law. If you obtain something without paying for it, it doesn't matter that the medium happens to allow a direct copy of it. It's irrelevant.

But Slashdotters want anything to shove in the RIAA's face as "wrong," ignoring the real issue of people downloading artists' music without paying them for it. It doesn't matter to them.