Slashdot Mirror
SCO Tells Courts What IBM Did Wrong
linumax writes "It took more than two and a half years, but the SCO Group finally has disclosed a list of areas it believes IBM violated its Unix contract, allegedly by moving proprietary Unix technology into open-source Linux. In a five-page document filed Friday, SCO attorneys say they identify 217 areas in which it believes IBM or Sequent, a Unix server company IBM acquired, violated contracts under which SCO and its predecessors licensed the Unix operating system. However, the curious won't be able to see for themselves the details of SCO's claims: The full list of alleged abuses were filed in a separate document under court seal. The Lindon, Utah-based company did provide some information about what it believes IBM moved improperly to Linux, though."
Not quite. There were two filings. One was five pages. The other, the one that's sealed, includes the 217 "violations" and is of unknown length.
It's Letterman who does the Top Ten, not Leno.
While somewhat amusing, it's not at all accurate. The SCO lawyers stopped getting paid a while back. They, foolishly perhaps, agreed to a cap on legal fees which has been reached.
- AMW
Are you forgetting where they claimed that errno.h got lifted wholesale?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Actually, one of the novelties brought by C99 was the possibility of declaring variables anywhere in the code, just like C++; therefore,
for (int i = 0; i < something; i++)
is perfectly valid C (according to the latest standard).
Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
"It's been reported that IBM's contract with SCO stated that they weren't allowed to put technologies from their Unix into any other OS."
This is what SCO is trying to imply by twisting the meaning of the contract. IBM and the OSS world is on to their little scam however.
What SCO would like the court to rule is that any code that IBM included in any of the products covered by the original contract become derivative works and therefore is under the control of SCO.
This is not what the authors of the contract intended and they have testified proving that it was not their intention or understanding that IBM would lose control of its own code if it added it to the products covered under the contracts.
SCO has no real case.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
JFS was originally developed for AIX, but it was so dependent on the kernel that it was cleanroom-implemented for OS/2, and then ported to AIX, replacing the old version of JFS.