Slashdot Mirror
13-Year-Old Linux Dispute Returns As SCO Files New Appeal (theinquirer.net)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from THE INQUIRER: Now-defunct Unix vendor, which claimed that Linux infringed its intellectual property and sought as much as $5 billion in compensation from IBM, has filed notice of yet another appeal in the 13-year-old dispute. The appeal comes after a ruling at the end of February when SCO's arguments claiming intellectual property ownership over parts of Unix were rejected by a U.S. district court. That judgment noted that SCO had minimal resources to defend counter-claims filed by IBM due to SCO's bankruptcy.
"It is ordered and adjudged that pursuant to the orders of the court entered on July 10, 2013, February 5, 2016, and February 8, 2016, judgement is entered in favor of the defendant and plaintiff's causes of action are dismissed with prejudice," stated the document. Now, though, SCO has filed yet again to appeal that judgement, although the precise grounds it is claiming haven't yet been disclosed.
Interesting take on reality.
This might give you some pointers on what they did show, why they didn't own it, and why trying to claim copyright on POSIX APIs is a daft thing to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO/Linux_controversies#SVRx_code_allegedly_in_Linux
However code was (allegedly) found that had been illegally copied into SCO's Unix products from Linux as part of it's Linux Kernel Personality feature.
If I remember correctly, you are talking absolute non-sense Mr. Daryl McBride.
The few infringing lines of code that they claimed and showed were actually UNIX header files and some API's. Novell clarified that UNIX header files and API's are in the public domain having been transferred to UNIX Sys Labs. SCO showed code from 'Berkeley Packet Filter' which then was shown to be under the BSD license. Then they went to show some macro definitions for silly things like MAX, MIN. When it got clarified by Torvalds that there were very very few ways to implement those silly macros in the *right* way, SCO just went mum. SCO refused to show anymore infringing source code and went about selling legal protection from "we want tell you" product. Intel, IBM and a few other companies pooled some money and told small and medium companies that the pooled money would help them defend against the stupid cases SCO was threatening to file against them if they did not pay their legal protection fees. Miscrosoft on the contrary went ahead and purchased legal protection from SCO for their UNIX tool-kit for windows, in order to help fund SCO in their legal litigation and there by undermine Linux.
Basically SCO lacked the ability to innovate and tried to become a troll.
Microsoft was basically the only company to buy a "unix license for linux" from SCO back in the day (mostly to keep the fight going and undermine their competition) so suing them now would be idiotic even by SCO standards. Don't bite the hand that fed you and all that.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
basically no process can die on its own.
once exit() is called its the job of parent to read the exist status. If the parent process does not do it then the process remains a zombie.
Usually the fix for the leak is to kill the parent. Doing so allows init to read the parents exit status, and the now orphaned children are then adopted by init which will read their status and clean them up.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
SCO was ordered by the court THREE TIMES to show their source code to the court. That is a different thing than a PR dog and pony show. SCO whined. Stalled. The court had to order them three times.
Eventually the court give SCO a third and final deadline. Dec 22, 2005. Disclose ALL allegedly misused materials in Linux by then.
What did we get? A lot of hand waving and nonsense. Nothing substantial.
After months more arguing, the court tossed out 2/3 of that. Of the remaining 1/3, the magistrate judge (Wells) was quite skeptical. But technically it wasn't crazy enough to throw out with the other 2/3, so SCO could keep it, although they probably wouldn't get anything out of it.
A side show in this matter was that SCO did not own any copyright in Unix in the first place. Years later, by 2007, the court finally concluded that SCO didn't even own any copyright in Unix. So they have no standing to sue in the first place. (eg, I can't sue you for stealing Jane's tires. Only Jane has standing to sue you for that.)
There are many more facets to this entire fiaSCO. And none of them are good for the SCOundrels.
On the Friday before SCO's scheduled trial to start on Monday in Sept 2007, where after years of saying they wanted to get their day in court, SCO declared bankruptcy. On the eve of the trial that would give them their supposed victory. And SCO was still financially solvent.
Everything about this entire farce stinks to high heaven.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.