Which is it? It's both. There are two different, albeit related, things going on.
SCO claims that IBM violated their contract. This is the basis for the lawsuit.
SCO claims that Linux distributions infringe on SCO's Unix copyright. This is the basis for the letters sent to Linux users, and the offer to not sue Linux users who purchase a Unixware license.
The alleged IBM contract violation involves code which IBM contributed to Linux. SCO has said what this code is: it's JFS, NUMA, etc.
The alleged Linux infringement involves code allegedly copied directly from Unix to Linux. SCO is not admitting what this code is, except under NDA.
SCO is throwing a lot of mud in the air and they are refining their story as they go along. And most of the journalists aren't helping much. But you can almost make sense of things if you keep track.
SCO claims that their contract with IBM (originally between AT&T and IBM) "requires that IBM maintain confidentiality of sources and derivative code." In other words, SCO has a two part claim. First, they claim that JFS, NUMA, etc., are derivative works of Unix. Second, they claim that when IBM donated the code to Linux, they violated the contract requiring them to maintain confidentiality of derivative code.
If SCO is correct about their contract, the second part of their claim will probably stand up. The first part is certainly questionable.
You've got it. The copied code sections are separate from NUMA, RCU, JFS, etc. The copied code sections are the basis for SCO's claim that Linux is a derived work of Unix. That copied code is only being revealed under NDA, and actually even if you sign the NDA you only get to see one example of allegedly copied code, not all the examples.
I signed the NDA and saw the code. Here is my writeup.
The scenario you describe did not occur for a few reasons.
First, I signed the NDA in good faith. I knew going in that I was not going to be permitted to disclose the code. Those were the ground rules which SCO set, and it was not my intention to cheat them.
Second, SCO is demonstrably a litigious company. Were they to sue me, that would be a major problem for me. Were they to win a lawsuit, I could lose everything I own and have my wages garnished for eternity. While it's true that it would hardly be worth their while to sue me, the level of risk requires cautious behaviour on my part. Basically, I want to be sure that if the code which SCO showed me is removed from the Linux kernel, that there is absolutely no reason to think that I had anything to do with it.
Third, SCO only showed me one example of what they claimed to be direct copying. They claimed that they had many other examples which they were not going to show me. So even if I were to quietly reveal the one example they showed me, it would not affect their claims significantly. Of course, it is possible that they are lying about having other examples. But since SCO's claims in general rely on FUD, removing one instance of potential direct copying, when there are other claimed instances, would not materially lessen the FUD.
I can't really speak to your suggestion that people routinely violate NDAs. I've never knowingly violated one. Aside from any considerations about keeping my promises, if people became aware that I had violated an NDA, I think it would be quite a bit harder for me to find my next job.
I've been saying this for a while now, but there are two different kinds of code here.
First, I'll note that SCO has never claimed a direct copyright on JFS, etc. They've claimed in the past that that code was a derived work of Unix, implying a copyright interest. If they are in fact abandoning that claim, that is good. It's not clear to me from the article that they are abandoning that claim.
In any case, that code--JFS, etc--is the basis for SCO's suit against IBM. SCO claims that IBM's contribution of that code to Linux violates the terms of the contract which IBM signed with a predecessor of SCO. SCO has tried to claim that that code makes Linux a derivative of SCO's Unix, but they haven't been pushing that claim all that hard, probably because they are aware that it would be very hard to make it stand up in court.
That brings me to the second kind of code which SCO is talking about: code which they claim has been directly copied from Unix to Linux. They claim that this code causes Linux to directly infringe on their copyright on Unix. This is the 80 lines of code which gets discussed here and there--SCO claims there are much more than 80 lines, actually. This is not part of JFS or any of the other code which is part of the IBM lawsuit.
So, in other words, even if SCO abandons all copyright claims to JFS, etc.--and it's still not clear to me that they are abandoning that claim--it does not mean that they are abandoning the claim that Linux violates SCO's IP.
SCO's claims for the SMP and other code rely on an expansive notion of derivative copyright. SCO didn't actually write any of the code in question. They are claiming ownership essentially because some versions of that code were written as a part of Unix, and SCO claims that that makes the code a derivative work of Unix.
SCO goes further to claim that pretty much any connection between the code for which they claim ownership and the code contributed to Linux means that SCO owns the code contributed to Linux. For example, SCO claims that they own the JFS code contributed to Linux even though they admit that code was initially developed for OS/2, because the first version of the JFS code was developed using Unix, and some of the same people worked on the first version of JFS and the version of JFS which was contributed to Linux.
So, simply replacing the code in Linux isn't that simple. If there is any similarity, such as, perhaps, functional equivalence, SCO will claim that the new code is really a derivative work of the old code, and therefore a derivative work of Unix.
The only step which would avoid SCO's claim is a clean room implementation of Linux--a massive project which nobody is going to undertake.
Now, I happen to think that SCO's expansive claims won't hold up in court. But then SCO cares a lot more about spreading FUD now, and making some money on Unixware licenses now, then they care about winning in court in five years.
Anyhow, my point is that your simple tactic won't work. It won't make Linux more likely to win in court--Linux is already likely to win in court. It won't make SCO shut up--nothing will make SCO shut up.
SCO does not have any kind of intellectual property claim to UNIX.
I think SCO is the villain here, but let's not go too far. SCO certainly does have an intellectual property claim to Unix. Thanks to Congress, copyright lasts, for practical purposes, forever, and SCO has purchased the copyright rights to the original Unix code.
If you meant to say that SCO doesn't have an intellectual property claim to the word Unix, or to published standards for Unix-type operating systems (e.g., POSIX or Unix98), then I agree.
One is the direct copying you discuss. However, that is a strict copyright claim applied to small bits of code. If the copied code is removed and replaced, the result will not be a derivative work (the replacement has to be done slightly carefully, but this is not hard). (I think that SCO does want to claim that direct replacement would still be a derivative work, but because we are talking about small pieces of code, this is unlikely to hold up in court.)
SCO's second claim is the basis for their lawsuit against IBM. There SCO claims that the contracts they signed with IBM and Sequent specifies that SCO owns all derivative works, and SCO claims that IBM took that derivative work and contributed it to Linux. This argument relies on an expanded notion of derivative work, basically claiming that any work built on top of Unix is owned by Unix, even if there is no actual code in common. If SCO's claims here are correct, then simply replacing the code won't help, because this is extensive portions of Linux and the new code, being functionally equivalent, would also be derivative of the original work. Or so SCO claims.
All of these claims rely on an expansive notion of derivative copyright which may not hold up in court. That is certainly a big part of the reason why SCO is not hurrying into court. They will do much better selling Unixware licenses to Linux users than they will suing Linux users.
What if you found out something you had a hand in was now the basis of a multibillion-dollar empire?
That's a weird question. SCO didn't have a hand in any of the code in question; they bought it. There is no multibillion-dollar empire anywhere in sight, unless you mean IBM, and Linux is certainly not the basis of IBM's money.
More to the point, even the code which SCO bought is not the basis for Linux in any meaningful fashion. The direct copying which they have alleged is, they admit, small chunks of code, and Linux is comparatively huge. The derivative copying which they allege that IBM has done is not their work at all--IBM and Sequent could have developed their code just as easily using *BSD or even Linux in the first place.
While SCO may possibly win in court--I doubt it, but it's possible--I don't think their claims have any moral standing whatsoever. They are exploiting the legal system in the name of pure greed, not in the name of justice.
You are correct that the SCO is suing IBM on the basis of code developed by IBM which SCO claims is a derivative of the Unix code which SCO owns.
However, SCO also claims that code has been copied directly from Unix to Linux, and that Linux is thus tainted. SCO apparently sent letters to 1500 Linux customers warning them that they may be using code which is owned by SCO. That is the basis of the concerns of Linux users. It's true that there is no actual lawsuit yet about this code.
I continue to expect SCO to announce a Linux Licensing strategy. I understand that the fact that SCO has distributed Linux code itself may make that strategy fail in court. But I wouldn't be surprised if SCO could collect some money for Linux licenses before the court case was finished. I expect that that is what SCO will be hoping for.
No, SCO is alleging that RCU, as well as other code, was contributed by IBM to Linux in violation of IBM's Unix licensing agreement. SCO does not claim that that code was copied from Unix to Linux, because that code was never in Unix; it was only in IBM's version, AIX.
There is different code which SCO alleges was copied directly from Unix to Linux.
I would very much like to see one of these 1500 letters and this very compelling information.
I can't help you with the compelling information, but SCO posted a copy of the letter on their web site for a while. I think they've taken it down since, but you can still see it here.
I saw the code, and I didn't say that their claims aren't FUD. I said it wasn't clear, and that the one piece of allegedly copied code they showed me proved little. See my writeup at the Linux Journal or on my own server.
It's true that there is little new in the article. However, each time such an article appears, it's a small win for SCO. If such an article appears with no response from the free software community, it's a bigger win for SCO.
Just wait until the facts of SCO case are fully public.
Since it is likely that the facts are not on SCO's side, it is likely that SCO will delay that time as long as they can--and that's a long time. The more nervous people are about the court case, the more delay plays into SCO's hands. For every article which makes people more nervous, we should provide information which makes them less nervous. Letting articles pass with no response is a bad idea.
On the other hand, obviously, chatting on Slashdot doesn't help very much. But writing a letter to the editor of EETimes--that might be a good idea.
The articles does mention "Unix patents," but SCO doesn't hold those patents. It's possible that SCO has some enforcement rights on them, but I haven't seen any evidence for that.
I think the author of the article confused patent and copyright.
I've seen that confusion fairly frequently. As somebody else said, maybe RMS, it happens in part because people think that the issue is ``intellectual property,'' and then start talking about patents and copyright interchangeably. In fact, of course, patents and copyrights are very different, and neither are analogous to ``property'' in the usual sense of the term.
SCO is claiming that code which they own was contributed to Linux, which means that it was not contributed by the copyright owner, which means that it was not properly put under the GPL. If you don't own code, you can't put it under the GPL.
If SCO would admit which code was copied, it would of course be immediately removed. But SCO is keeping it secret. SCO claims that current Linux kernels are not properly under the GPL, and are in part the property of SCO.
That was the point of the letter which SCO sent to 1500 Linux users: to announce their claim that they own part of the Linux kernel.
I predict that SCO will announce a Linux Licensing product. I predict that they will tell people that if they buy the license, they will be entitled to use Linux free of SCO's claims. I predict that SCO will claim that Linux users who do not purchase a license from SCO will be vulnerable to a lawsuit from SCO.
I do not know how well this will be received by Linux users. It's possible that some small businesses will buy a license from SCO rather than risk the lawsuit.
SCO's legal position is obviously shaky because SCO itself distributed the Linux kernel under the GPL. But the point of the exercise is not to prevail in court. It's to get people to start paying license fees to SCO.
Can't you see that you're being daft or just ignorant?
Hmmm, can't you see that you aren't really reading my posts, but just inserting your own interpretation of them? Try reading my posts again, but this time assume that they make sense.
Judging by the sly tone of your post, looks liek you're promoting the paranoia as well.
Wow, not only am I daft or ignorant, I'm also sly. Better pick one criticism; they don't work too well together.
While I disagree with some of your other comments, there seems to be little point to further discussion of them.
How is it that a 'potential' lawsuit will steer them clear of Linux, while long time anti-trust cases, and damning litigation from TimeLine etc., viruses, wormss, Service PAcks etc. haven't steered executives away from Windows?
Anti-trust cases and litigation never affected Windows users, only Microsoft itself. Your other comments are technical, not legal; technical problems are by nature easier to handle.
The potential lawsuit for company X to use Linux is that SCO sues company X. That's a risk few companies will take.
On the other hand, when SCO announces their Linux Licensing program, if it is cheap enough, it may encourage people to use Linux. Or they may be wary about the whole thing.
One is code which SCO claims has been directly copied from Unix into Linux. This is the basis for the letter sent to Linux users.
The other is code which SCO claims that IBM has contributed to Linux in violation of its contract. This is the basis for the lawsuit against IBM.
The former code is what could be discovered using source code comparisons.
The latter code is known: it is JFS, NUMA, etc., which IBM developed and then contributed to Linux. SCO claims that these projects are derived works of Unix, and, per the IBM contract, SCO claims ownership over that code.
I disagree. Executives have some sense of how to evaluate Gartner reports--when to take them seriously, when to take them with a grain of salt. If Linux seems appealing, perhaps because it seems cheaper, it is easy to try it out and test how it works.
Executives do not know how to evaluate SCO's legal claims. A potential lawsuit will cause them to steer clear of Linux until they know there is no threat.
Who wants to go 150 miles, only to wait 8 hours to recharge it?
Anybody who lives in a city, and doesn't commute to another city. I borrowed a Sparrow for about 8 months in San Francisco, and it was perfect. It got me anywhere I needed to go in the city, it was very easy to park--a real issue in SF--and I just recharged it overnight.
The Sparrow was the perfect city car. I was on the waiting list to get my own when the company shut down.
Hmmm, anybody who would say that Xenix was essentially indistinguishable from "official" Unix clearly never used Xenix. It was easily distinguishable by the weird library names, the weird function names, and the weird bugs.
At least it was a lot more similar than the Apollo DomainOS, in which they changed one letter in the name of most of the commands (so ls became ld, etc.).
Because we are designed to die, and we are designed to suffer in this world. That is the way life works. We are born, we live, and then we die.
That, and the rest of your post, isn't an explanation of specific facts. It's generalities. When it comes to specific facts, you are effectively saying "God works in mysterious ways." Evolutionary theory can provide a more complete answer, one which addresses specific facts and details.
That's not a logical proof, of course. It's merely an explanation of why, all else being equal, I would prefer a doctor who believes in evolutionary theory.
Reading through the first pages of Richard Dawkins book I found his perspective close-minded and insulting. He concludes that finding a watch on the road cannot mean it had a creator and a designer, because it cannot mean that. His evidence of proving Darwinism is Darwinism itself.
His point, and mine, is not that finding a watch cannot mean that it had a creator. The point is that alternative explanations are possible. The watch may indicate a creator. But it does not prove that there is a creator.
Believing that the existence of an apparently designed object proves the existence of a designer is the fallacy of the argument from design. Alternative explanations are possible. I suggested the books I did because they help explain the alternative explanation provided by evolutionary theory. Those books don't prove that evolution is real. They prove that evolution is a possible explanation for apparently designed objects. If you reject that possibility, then I have to conclude that you're simply being close-minded.
All else being equal, I would rather have the doctor that understood that the argument from design is an logical fallacy, and that the human body includes inefficiencies and complications due to its historical evolution. Or, in other words, how do you explain bad backs and appendicitis, without resorting to non-explanatory statements like "God works in mysterious ways?"
If you think the argument from design is some sort of proof, you need to read Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, and Daniel Dennett. I don't expect them to convince you that you are wrong, but they should convince you that the argument from design doesn't stand by itself.
As I and others have said, success for an open source project is defined by meeting your goals.
But let's say your real goal is to be a respected member of the open source community (which, as we all know, leads to fame, groupies, and vast wealth). What should you do to meet that goal? (Actually, there are several ways, but I'll only talk about ones which involve starting an open source programming project, since that is what the original question was about.)
First, your project needs to be something which other people will want to use. Don't write another mail reader. Write something new, at least new to open source. If you don't know what people want, you'll have to ask them. In general, your project needs to either be an open source replacement for an existing proprietary program, or it needs to create a new and interesting niche.
Second, your project needs to work, at least minimally. You have to be able to get it to the point of working, either by writing it yourself or talking people you know into pitching in. If your project doesn't work at all, few people will contribute to make it better.
Third, you need to sell your project by mentioning it on Slashdot, on relevant mailing lists, and on relevant web sites. You need to do this respectfully. One approach is ``I'm looking for suggestions on how to improve my FOOBAR program. It can already do AMAZING THINGS, and I'd like to know how to make it work better for specific users.''
If you follow these simple steps, you too will be on the road to fame and fortune! When you get there, just don't forget the little people who helped you along the way.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is it? It's both. There are two different, albeit related, things going on.
SCO claims that IBM violated their contract. This is the basis for the lawsuit.
SCO claims that Linux distributions infringe on SCO's Unix copyright. This is the basis for the letters sent to Linux users, and the offer to not sue Linux users who purchase a Unixware license.
The alleged IBM contract violation involves code which IBM contributed to Linux. SCO has said what this code is: it's JFS, NUMA, etc.
The alleged Linux infringement involves code allegedly copied directly from Unix to Linux. SCO is not admitting what this code is, except under NDA.
SCO is throwing a lot of mud in the air and they are refining their story as they go along. And most of the journalists aren't helping much. But you can almost make sense of things if you keep track.
SCO claims that their contract with IBM (originally between AT&T and IBM) "requires that IBM maintain confidentiality of sources and derivative code." In other words, SCO has a two part claim. First, they claim that JFS, NUMA, etc., are derivative works of Unix. Second, they claim that when IBM donated the code to Linux, they violated the contract requiring them to maintain confidentiality of derivative code.
If SCO is correct about their contract, the second part of their claim will probably stand up. The first part is certainly questionable.
You've got it. The copied code sections are separate from NUMA, RCU, JFS, etc. The copied code sections are the basis for SCO's claim that Linux is a derived work of Unix. That copied code is only being revealed under NDA, and actually even if you sign the NDA you only get to see one example of allegedly copied code, not all the examples.
I signed the NDA and saw the code. Here is my writeup.
The scenario you describe did not occur for a few reasons.
First, I signed the NDA in good faith. I knew going in that I was not going to be permitted to disclose the code. Those were the ground rules which SCO set, and it was not my intention to cheat them.
Second, SCO is demonstrably a litigious company. Were they to sue me, that would be a major problem for me. Were they to win a lawsuit, I could lose everything I own and have my wages garnished for eternity. While it's true that it would hardly be worth their while to sue me, the level of risk requires cautious behaviour on my part. Basically, I want to be sure that if the code which SCO showed me is removed from the Linux kernel, that there is absolutely no reason to think that I had anything to do with it.
Third, SCO only showed me one example of what they claimed to be direct copying. They claimed that they had many other examples which they were not going to show me. So even if I were to quietly reveal the one example they showed me, it would not affect their claims significantly. Of course, it is possible that they are lying about having other examples. But since SCO's claims in general rely on FUD, removing one instance of potential direct copying, when there are other claimed instances, would not materially lessen the FUD.
I can't really speak to your suggestion that people routinely violate NDAs. I've never knowingly violated one. Aside from any considerations about keeping my promises, if people became aware that I had violated an NDA, I think it would be quite a bit harder for me to find my next job.
I've been saying this for a while now, but there are two different kinds of code here.
First, I'll note that SCO has never claimed a direct copyright on JFS, etc. They've claimed in the past that that code was a derived work of Unix, implying a copyright interest. If they are in fact abandoning that claim, that is good. It's not clear to me from the article that they are abandoning that claim.
In any case, that code--JFS, etc--is the basis for SCO's suit against IBM. SCO claims that IBM's contribution of that code to Linux violates the terms of the contract which IBM signed with a predecessor of SCO. SCO has tried to claim that that code makes Linux a derivative of SCO's Unix, but they haven't been pushing that claim all that hard, probably because they are aware that it would be very hard to make it stand up in court.
That brings me to the second kind of code which SCO is talking about: code which they claim has been directly copied from Unix to Linux. They claim that this code causes Linux to directly infringe on their copyright on Unix. This is the 80 lines of code which gets discussed here and there--SCO claims there are much more than 80 lines, actually. This is not part of JFS or any of the other code which is part of the IBM lawsuit.
So, in other words, even if SCO abandons all copyright claims to JFS, etc.--and it's still not clear to me that they are abandoning that claim--it does not mean that they are abandoning the claim that Linux violates SCO's IP.
SCO's claims for the SMP and other code rely on an expansive notion of derivative copyright. SCO didn't actually write any of the code in question. They are claiming ownership essentially because some versions of that code were written as a part of Unix, and SCO claims that that makes the code a derivative work of Unix.
SCO goes further to claim that pretty much any connection between the code for which they claim ownership and the code contributed to Linux means that SCO owns the code contributed to Linux. For example, SCO claims that they own the JFS code contributed to Linux even though they admit that code was initially developed for OS/2, because the first version of the JFS code was developed using Unix, and some of the same people worked on the first version of JFS and the version of JFS which was contributed to Linux.
So, simply replacing the code in Linux isn't that simple. If there is any similarity, such as, perhaps, functional equivalence, SCO will claim that the new code is really a derivative work of the old code, and therefore a derivative work of Unix.
The only step which would avoid SCO's claim is a clean room implementation of Linux--a massive project which nobody is going to undertake.
Now, I happen to think that SCO's expansive claims won't hold up in court. But then SCO cares a lot more about spreading FUD now, and making some money on Unixware licenses now, then they care about winning in court in five years.
Anyhow, my point is that your simple tactic won't work. It won't make Linux more likely to win in court--Linux is already likely to win in court. It won't make SCO shut up--nothing will make SCO shut up.
SCO does not have any kind of intellectual property claim to UNIX.
I think SCO is the villain here, but let's not go too far. SCO certainly does have an intellectual property claim to Unix. Thanks to Congress, copyright lasts, for practical purposes, forever, and SCO has purchased the copyright rights to the original Unix code.
If you meant to say that SCO doesn't have an intellectual property claim to the word Unix, or to published standards for Unix-type operating systems (e.g., POSIX or Unix98), then I agree.
SCO has two different claims.
One is the direct copying you discuss. However, that is a strict copyright claim applied to small bits of code. If the copied code is removed and replaced, the result will not be a derivative work (the replacement has to be done slightly carefully, but this is not hard). (I think that SCO does want to claim that direct replacement would still be a derivative work, but because we are talking about small pieces of code, this is unlikely to hold up in court.)
SCO's second claim is the basis for their lawsuit against IBM. There SCO claims that the contracts they signed with IBM and Sequent specifies that SCO owns all derivative works, and SCO claims that IBM took that derivative work and contributed it to Linux. This argument relies on an expanded notion of derivative work, basically claiming that any work built on top of Unix is owned by Unix, even if there is no actual code in common. If SCO's claims here are correct, then simply replacing the code won't help, because this is extensive portions of Linux and the new code, being functionally equivalent, would also be derivative of the original work. Or so SCO claims.
All of these claims rely on an expansive notion of derivative copyright which may not hold up in court. That is certainly a big part of the reason why SCO is not hurrying into court. They will do much better selling Unixware licenses to Linux users than they will suing Linux users.
What if you found out something you had a hand in was now the basis of a multibillion-dollar empire?
That's a weird question. SCO didn't have a hand in any of the code in question; they bought it. There is no multibillion-dollar empire anywhere in sight, unless you mean IBM, and Linux is certainly not the basis of IBM's money.
More to the point, even the code which SCO bought is not the basis for Linux in any meaningful fashion. The direct copying which they have alleged is, they admit, small chunks of code, and Linux is comparatively huge. The derivative copying which they allege that IBM has done is not their work at all--IBM and Sequent could have developed their code just as easily using *BSD or even Linux in the first place.
While SCO may possibly win in court--I doubt it, but it's possible--I don't think their claims have any moral standing whatsoever. They are exploiting the legal system in the name of pure greed, not in the name of justice.
You are correct that the SCO is suing IBM on the basis of code developed by IBM which SCO claims is a derivative of the Unix code which SCO owns.
However, SCO also claims that code has been copied directly from Unix to Linux, and that Linux is thus tainted. SCO apparently sent letters to 1500 Linux customers warning them that they may be using code which is owned by SCO. That is the basis of the concerns of Linux users. It's true that there is no actual lawsuit yet about this code.
I continue to expect SCO to announce a Linux Licensing strategy. I understand that the fact that SCO has distributed Linux code itself may make that strategy fail in court. But I wouldn't be surprised if SCO could collect some money for Linux licenses before the court case was finished. I expect that that is what SCO will be hoping for.
The NDA explicitly permits the person who views the code to provide a ``general, brief summary.'' The NDA can be seen in a Linux Journal article.
No, SCO is alleging that RCU, as well as other code, was contributed by IBM to Linux in violation of IBM's Unix licensing agreement. SCO does not claim that that code was copied from Unix to Linux, because that code was never in Unix; it was only in IBM's version, AIX.
There is different code which SCO alleges was copied directly from Unix to Linux.
I would very much like to see one of these 1500 letters and this very compelling information.
I can't help you with the compelling information, but SCO posted a copy of the letter on their web site for a while. I think they've taken it down since, but you can still see it here.
I saw the code, and I didn't say that their claims aren't FUD. I said it wasn't clear, and that the one piece of allegedly copied code they showed me proved little. See my writeup at the Linux Journal or on my own server.
It's true that there is little new in the article. However, each time such an article appears, it's a small win for SCO. If such an article appears with no response from the free software community, it's a bigger win for SCO.
Just wait until the facts of SCO case are fully public.
Since it is likely that the facts are not on SCO's side, it is likely that SCO will delay that time as long as they can--and that's a long time. The more nervous people are about the court case, the more delay plays into SCO's hands. For every article which makes people more nervous, we should provide information which makes them less nervous. Letting articles pass with no response is a bad idea.
On the other hand, obviously, chatting on Slashdot doesn't help very much. But writing a letter to the editor of EETimes--that might be a good idea.
The articles does mention "Unix patents," but SCO doesn't hold those patents. It's possible that SCO has some enforcement rights on them, but I haven't seen any evidence for that.
I think the author of the article confused patent and copyright.
I've seen that confusion fairly frequently. As somebody else said, maybe RMS, it happens in part because people think that the issue is ``intellectual property,'' and then start talking about patents and copyright interchangeably. In fact, of course, patents and copyrights are very different, and neither are analogous to ``property'' in the usual sense of the term.
SCO is claiming that code which they own was contributed to Linux, which means that it was not contributed by the copyright owner, which means that it was not properly put under the GPL. If you don't own code, you can't put it under the GPL.
If SCO would admit which code was copied, it would of course be immediately removed. But SCO is keeping it secret. SCO claims that current Linux kernels are not properly under the GPL, and are in part the property of SCO.
That was the point of the letter which SCO sent to 1500 Linux users: to announce their claim that they own part of the Linux kernel.
I predict that SCO will announce a Linux Licensing product. I predict that they will tell people that if they buy the license, they will be entitled to use Linux free of SCO's claims. I predict that SCO will claim that Linux users who do not purchase a license from SCO will be vulnerable to a lawsuit from SCO.
I do not know how well this will be received by Linux users. It's possible that some small businesses will buy a license from SCO rather than risk the lawsuit.
SCO's legal position is obviously shaky because SCO itself distributed the Linux kernel under the GPL. But the point of the exercise is not to prevail in court. It's to get people to start paying license fees to SCO.
Can't you see that you're being daft or just ignorant?
Hmmm, can't you see that you aren't really reading my posts, but just inserting your own interpretation of them? Try reading my posts again, but this time assume that they make sense.
Judging by the sly tone of your post, looks liek you're promoting the paranoia as well.
Wow, not only am I daft or ignorant, I'm also sly. Better pick one criticism; they don't work too well together.
While I disagree with some of your other comments, there seems to be little point to further discussion of them.
How is it that a 'potential' lawsuit will steer them clear of Linux, while long time anti-trust cases, and damning litigation from TimeLine etc., viruses, wormss, Service PAcks etc. haven't steered executives away from Windows?
Anti-trust cases and litigation never affected Windows users, only Microsoft itself. Your other comments are technical, not legal; technical problems are by nature easier to handle.
The potential lawsuit for company X to use Linux is that SCO sues company X. That's a risk few companies will take.
On the other hand, when SCO announces their Linux Licensing program, if it is cheap enough, it may encourage people to use Linux. Or they may be wary about the whole thing.
There are two different kinds of code here.
One is code which SCO claims has been directly copied from Unix into Linux. This is the basis for the letter sent to Linux users.
The other is code which SCO claims that IBM has contributed to Linux in violation of its contract. This is the basis for the lawsuit against IBM.
The former code is what could be discovered using source code comparisons.
The latter code is known: it is JFS, NUMA, etc., which IBM developed and then contributed to Linux. SCO claims that these projects are derived works of Unix, and, per the IBM contract, SCO claims ownership over that code.
I disagree. Executives have some sense of how to evaluate Gartner reports--when to take them seriously, when to take them with a grain of salt. If Linux seems appealing, perhaps because it seems cheaper, it is easy to try it out and test how it works.
Executives do not know how to evaluate SCO's legal claims. A potential lawsuit will cause them to steer clear of Linux until they know there is no threat.
Who wants to go 150 miles, only to wait 8 hours to recharge it?
Anybody who lives in a city, and doesn't commute to another city. I borrowed a Sparrow for about 8 months in San Francisco, and it was perfect. It got me anywhere I needed to go in the city, it was very easy to park--a real issue in SF--and I just recharged it overnight.
The Sparrow was the perfect city car. I was on the waiting list to get my own when the company shut down.
Hmmm, anybody who would say that Xenix was essentially indistinguishable from "official" Unix clearly never used Xenix. It was easily distinguishable by the weird library names, the weird function names, and the weird bugs.
At least it was a lot more similar than the Apollo DomainOS, in which they changed one letter in the name of most of the commands (so ls became ld, etc.).
Because we are designed to die, and we are designed to suffer in this world. That is the way life works. We are born, we live, and then we die.
That, and the rest of your post, isn't an explanation of specific facts. It's generalities. When it comes to specific facts, you are effectively saying "God works in mysterious ways." Evolutionary theory can provide a more complete answer, one which addresses specific facts and details.
That's not a logical proof, of course. It's merely an explanation of why, all else being equal, I would prefer a doctor who believes in evolutionary theory.
Reading through the first pages of Richard Dawkins book I found his perspective close-minded and insulting. He concludes that finding a watch on the road cannot mean it had a creator and a designer, because it cannot mean that. His evidence of proving Darwinism is Darwinism itself.
His point, and mine, is not that finding a watch cannot mean that it had a creator. The point is that alternative explanations are possible. The watch may indicate a creator. But it does not prove that there is a creator.
Believing that the existence of an apparently designed object proves the existence of a designer is the fallacy of the argument from design. Alternative explanations are possible. I suggested the books I did because they help explain the alternative explanation provided by evolutionary theory. Those books don't prove that evolution is real. They prove that evolution is a possible explanation for apparently designed objects. If you reject that possibility, then I have to conclude that you're simply being close-minded.
All else being equal, I would rather have the doctor that understood that the argument from design is an logical fallacy, and that the human body includes inefficiencies and complications due to its historical evolution. Or, in other words, how do you explain bad backs and appendicitis, without resorting to non-explanatory statements like "God works in mysterious ways?"
If you think the argument from design is some sort of proof, you need to read Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, and Daniel Dennett. I don't expect them to convince you that you are wrong, but they should convince you that the argument from design doesn't stand by itself.
As I and others have said, success for an open source project is defined by meeting your goals.
But let's say your real goal is to be a respected member of the open source community (which, as we all know, leads to fame, groupies, and vast wealth). What should you do to meet that goal? (Actually, there are several ways, but I'll only talk about ones which involve starting an open source programming project, since that is what the original question was about.)
First, your project needs to be something which other people will want to use. Don't write another mail reader. Write something new, at least new to open source. If you don't know what people want, you'll have to ask them. In general, your project needs to either be an open source replacement for an existing proprietary program, or it needs to create a new and interesting niche.
Second, your project needs to work, at least minimally. You have to be able to get it to the point of working, either by writing it yourself or talking people you know into pitching in. If your project doesn't work at all, few people will contribute to make it better.
Third, you need to sell your project by mentioning it on Slashdot, on relevant mailing lists, and on relevant web sites. You need to do this respectfully. One approach is ``I'm looking for suggestions on how to improve my FOOBAR program. It can already do AMAZING THINGS, and I'd like to know how to make it work better for specific users.''
If you follow these simple steps, you too will be on the road to fame and fortune! When you get there, just don't forget the little people who helped you along the way.