The easy part of the question is that Linus has final say.
It's more tricky to say who will take over. Probably a kernel developer who uses 2.2 at work. Quite a few companies still use 2.2 but most kernel developers prefer to use 2.6 or 2.4. Maintaining an older kernel is boring...
No matter how you look at it what SCO is doing with their stock is pretty interesting.
Redhat is already sueing SCO because SCO contacted Redhat investors and basically lied to them.
Or the Vultus purchase was a bit shady. Vultus was already owned by the Canopy Group. I don't think anyone knows yet how much SCO paid for Vultus, but it sort of looks like the Canopy group cut themselves a fat check for no reason.
There is stuff going on behind the scenes as well. There was one day when the SCO stock price shot up for no reason...
While SCO doesn't claim that they wrote those, they do claim that they own them. They claim that the original AT&T license to IBM said that derivative works became AT&T property. That is true, however, the amendments say that the source from the original belongs to AT&T but IBM owns code they wrote themselves.
The interesting thing about this lawsuit is how wildly dishonest SCO has been.
They claim to have a "hundreds" of lines of code. That's half a days work, and certainly not worth three billion dollars. (Kernel programmers create 50 thousand lines of code per month).
They are distributing the code under the GPL.
They have already lost basically the exact same court case in Germany.
And the trade secret rubish is nonsense. How can it be a secret if you can get the code from their website?
It's sort of interesting. SCO is both fulfilling and violating the GPL.
Yes there is a notice there. SCO placed the notice along with the other source on their ftp site. All the code is distributed under the GPL. Anyone can download the binary and the sources. If SCO complains they can just point to the GPL.
On the other hand, by threatenning people, they are violating the GPL. Anyone who contributed to the kernel could sue them and win a charge of copyright violation.
It annoys me when people who should know better assume there is some code to show. It's not just that open source programmers wouldn't copy MS code, we would refuse to look at it.
Just because no one likes the MPAA or the RIAA doesn't mean they are anything like SCO. If the MPAA says you're pirating a movie they tell you what movie it was. As opposed to SCO, which is just making crap up.
It would be cool if the *AA were like SCO because soon they would be a grease smudge in the history books the same as SCO will be.
If RedHat paid SCO they would be liable for copyright violation to every copyright owner of the kernel. That includes most hardware companies, the FSF, and hundreds of individuals...
An individual user could pay SCO some cash and not be liable, so long as they don't redistribute the kernel.
Most large open source projects have comercial aspects. The difference is that open source projects don't make money directly from selling new versions. A second factor is that there are often competing comercial interests involved with the same project.
Slashdot Mirror
The easy part of the question is that Linus has final say.
It's more tricky to say who will take over. Probably a kernel developer who uses 2.2 at work. Quite a few companies still use 2.2 but most kernel developers prefer to use 2.6 or 2.4. Maintaining an older kernel is boring...
Please don't associate SCO with the RIAA... It's not a valid comparison.
If the RIAA complained when people sung hymns at church then it would be reasonable...
Yes, but those are Enterprize Class comments...
Wasn't it $699 for 83 lines of code.
That's how much code they showed people under the nda.
No.
In other places SCO is claiming that it is "millions" of lines of code.
These guys are lunatics.
You need to hire a grumpy admin.
My attitude is that if I can do a job with half the techs and fire a bunch of my co-workers that's peachy.
No matter how you look at it what SCO is doing with their stock is pretty interesting.
Redhat is already sueing SCO because SCO contacted Redhat investors and basically lied to them.
Or the Vultus purchase was a bit shady. Vultus was already owned by the Canopy Group. I don't think anyone knows yet how much SCO paid for Vultus, but it sort of looks like the Canopy group cut themselves a fat check for no reason.
There is stuff going on behind the scenes as well. There was one day when the SCO stock price shot up for no reason...
While SCO doesn't claim that they wrote those, they do claim that they own them. They claim that the original AT&T license to IBM said that derivative works became AT&T property. That is true, however, the amendments say that the source from the original belongs to AT&T but IBM owns code they wrote themselves.
The interesting thing about this lawsuit is how wildly dishonest SCO has been.
The sources say SCO copied Linux code into their ext2 implementation and into their Linux Kernel Personality stuff.
I would be interested in analyzing that if someone could provide me with properly licensed UnixWare object code.
My email address is error27@email.com.
Not the first.
SCO has already been sued successfully twice in Germany. They are also been sued in Australia and Poland.
I meant that 50,000 is the total for all developers not for inviduals.
Come on...
They claim to have a "hundreds" of lines of code. That's half a days work, and certainly not worth three billion dollars. (Kernel programmers create 50 thousand lines of code per month).
They are distributing the code under the GPL.
They have already lost basically the exact same court case in Germany.
And the trade secret rubish is nonsense. How can it be a secret if you can get the code from their website?
That's Benford's Law at work.
Funny stuff math.
It's not reverse engineering.
It's about creating new products that are trade secrets owned by SCO. For example, JFS is a trade secret owned by SCO.
Yes, I known that SCO hasn't published anything like JFS, that's obviously why it's a secret.
It's sort of interesting. SCO is both fulfilling and violating the GPL.
Yes there is a notice there. SCO placed the notice along with the other source on their ftp site. All the code is distributed under the GPL. Anyone can download the binary and the sources. If SCO complains they can just point to the GPL.
On the other hand, by threatenning people, they are violating the GPL. Anyone who contributed to the kernel could sue them and win a charge of copyright violation.
It's a fascinating situation all around.
Sure, I'd be legally liable if MS found out I did it, especially if it was deliberate.
:P
As opposed to if you spent week after week copying the code "by mistake?"
It annoys me when people who should know better assume there is some code to show. It's not just that open source programmers wouldn't copy MS code, we would refuse to look at it.
Just because no one likes the MPAA or the RIAA doesn't mean they are anything like SCO. If the MPAA says you're pirating a movie they tell you what movie it was. As opposed to SCO, which is just making crap up.
It would be cool if the *AA were like SCO because soon they would be a grease smudge in the history books the same as SCO will be.
I know the FSF owns copyrights for some of the Linux kernel. I think IBM assigned their s390 code to the FSF...
:)
It will be interesting to watch the fun.
In 2.4, I wrote a couple lines of documentation. That's got to be worth a couple hundred grand by SCO calculations.
I'd pledge all my winings...
If RedHat paid SCO they would be liable for copyright violation to every copyright owner of the kernel. That includes most hardware companies, the FSF, and hundreds of individuals...
An individual user could pay SCO some cash and not be liable, so long as they don't redistribute the kernel.
You have a pretty optomistic worldview.
Dancing robots are just a funny diversion from the main goal of building this technology into millitary applications.
I stand corrected. That is a fairly huge difference.
Good on Munich for looking to the long term...
Suse comes with VMWare by default and as you suggest they would still use their old versions of windows.
This doesn't mean that Linux is cheaper. The Microsoft deal was 2-3 million dollars cheaper if I remember correctly.
Most large open source projects have comercial aspects. The difference is that open source projects don't make money directly from selling new versions. A second factor is that there are often competing comercial interests involved with the same project.