Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Does SCO Focus On A Minix-to-Linux Link?

Posted by timothy on from the sometimes-they-really-are-out-to-get-you dept.

ansak writes "In the latest scoop from Groklaw, Groklaw user talks_to_birds pointed out an error in SCO's version of the famous Levenez Unix Timeline. The important error is the green dotted line which shows Minix to be a derivative of Unix. If this were accepted, and if Linux was shown to be a derivative of Minix, then SCO's lawsuits would be more likely to have merit. As it turned out, even MS called Samizdat unhelpful, but at least now there may be a plausible reason why someone would try to make the link between Minix and Linux in the first place."

3 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. Linux a derivitive of Minix? by JoeShmoe950 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Inform me if I'm wrong, but didn't Linus make Linux because he didn't like Minix?

    --
    Help Fight SPAM today!
  2. Not plausible by fanatic · · Score: 5, Interesting
    plausible reason why someone would try to make the link between Minix and Linux in the first place

    No, because the guy who made this link, Ken Brown, intentionally ignored multiple sources of information that Linux was *not* derived from Linux. It was totally untrue, and he knew it because:

    • Tanenbaum, who wrote Minix, told him so.
    • The guy Ken Brown hired to find where Linux took from Minix told him that it had not in fact happened, after analysing the code.
    There never was *any* plausible support for Brown's case and he knew it *befire* making PR announcements, but he went ahead anyhow.
    --
    "that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
  3. Re:It doen't matter. by bwt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No! The GPL places an independent burden on distributors to independently re-GPL anything they distribute. SCO was certainly aware of what they were distributing. The alternative is that they distributed a mix of other peoples GPL code and their own proprietary code, which is for-profit copyright infringement. Since these acts (occur and continue even now) after they proclaimed linux infringing, they can't plead ignorance anymore.

    So they can choose between A) losing because they GPL'd everything in dispute regardless of whether it was proprietary or not before they distributed it, or B) losing because their entire linux business was based on willful, for-profit piracy.