This article on C|Net offers some insight on what they are claiming (comments from Darl McBride in the article):
"The System 5 source code, that is really the area that gives us incredible rights, because it includes the control rights on the derivative works that branch off from that trunk."
They are claiming that because they have rights over derivative works, everything IBM wrote for AIX is under there control, so IBM can't take code IBM wrote and distributed with AIX in Linux beause it is a derivative of SCO code.
That bascially is a claim that they own everything ever writte n for a Unix platform. They even mention JFS - that isn't exactly an SCO technology - but they claim it is a derivative work.
"the amount of code showing up inside of Linux today that is either directly related to our Unix System 5 that we directly own or is related to one of our flavors of Unix that we have derivative works rights over--we don't necessarily own those flavors, but we have control rights over how that information gets disseminated"
"They were going to take the know-how, the people, the methods they developed over the years around AIX--which is our licensed version of Unix--and they were going to transport all that in a wholesale fashion over to Linux."
How dare IBM port thier code for AIX to Linux!
The people at SCO behind these claims are idiots - that's a given. Any actual claims they have are weak, and they don't stand a real chance here.
You alos, in my opinion, are an idiot. You mistake a geographical culture for a religeous one. Yes, Mormons are all over Utah - they settled the state and many others around it. I am a Mormon, have been most of my life, and I'm not a blind dumb sheep as you suggest accompanies the religion.
SCO is after money - great - they will get an appropriate result - probably wiped out.
You on the other hand, are simply an idiot. People like that are allover the country, and span all religions and races. WHY DON'T YOU GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT before correlating religeous belief with bad decision making.
The underlying issues aren't about content entitlement. The media industry is so panicked about illegal use, that they are determined to even eliminate fair use. Not the right time to assert rights? These are rights defined by law. When is the right time to assert rights? After they are gone? If that is how you feel, there are a number of socialist and totalitarian regimes in the world that would be more than happy to accept you.
The push of the media companies right now is to subordinate our legal rights (fiar use, and they are rights under the law) to thier commerical concern. That should NEVER happen - but it slowly is happening anyway. Thier inability to protect themselves from illegal use is creating an environment where they are trying to restrict legal rights. If you question this, look at the blatent conflict between previous law and case law regarding revese engineering and the stazi approcach in the DMCA.
This is a free market, and as soon as the media companies come up with a way to sell to consumers in that protects them and that consumers find acceptable, we'll be fine. They haven't found it, and aren't even looking. Rather than respond to the market which is not willing to be MASSIVLEY inconveienced becuase of thier commerical concerns, they are trying to legislate their problems away. They have tried selling stuff with adequate rptection technology nobody buys it. The market rejects it. They need to keep trying, not try to legislate away our rights.
Two Seperate Points that you seem unable to differentiate:
1: Should anti-trust legislation exist?
2: Did MS violate existing laws?
You can debate the first one until you die, but the reality is that the laws DO exist, they are on the books, and MS DID violate them.
Maybe you misunderstnad what the laws say. It is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal to leverage a monopoly in one market space to obtain a monopoly in another, particularly if the freedom of the consumer is harmed along the way. That is what happened. They can do anything they want to keep Windoze on top, and do it legally - as long as they don't use it to force competitors out of other markets. Which of course they regularly do.
Now if you would like to debate the validity of anti-trust laws, fine, but if you think through it you will realize that because people are corruptable, those laws are key to PROTECTING freedom. Had Std Oil gone unchecked, what wouldn't they own?
They controlled oil, which meant they controlled transportation, power generation, manufacturing, etc. They don't like you, and your goods simply never get transported. Do you want blind consumerism to lock you into a totalitarian corporate world? THAT is what those laws are there to prevent.
You can take a purist argument that they should be free. Fine. You follow that path, and they will own your children.
How big does a company have to be and how much of the GDP does it have to control before the government becomes subject to it. 50% of the GDP? 75%?
Friggin think about a bit! History has proven over and over that you can be an enslaved purist or a free pragmatist. Your choice.
You think I'm overreacting? What do you think the motivation was for those laws?
Slashdot Mirror
SCO is claiming rights over all derivative works of Unix though - which is how they figure that counts too...
not sure what happened with the link - here is the article... http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-1017308.html?tag=r n
my bad...
This article on C|Net offers some insight on what they are claiming (comments from Darl McBride in the article): "The System 5 source code, that is really the area that gives us incredible rights, because it includes the control rights on the derivative works that branch off from that trunk." They are claiming that because they have rights over derivative works, everything IBM wrote for AIX is under there control, so IBM can't take code IBM wrote and distributed with AIX in Linux beause it is a derivative of SCO code. That bascially is a claim that they own everything ever writte n for a Unix platform. They even mention JFS - that isn't exactly an SCO technology - but they claim it is a derivative work. "the amount of code showing up inside of Linux today that is either directly related to our Unix System 5 that we directly own or is related to one of our flavors of Unix that we have derivative works rights over--we don't necessarily own those flavors, but we have control rights over how that information gets disseminated" "They were going to take the know-how, the people, the methods they developed over the years around AIX--which is our licensed version of Unix--and they were going to transport all that in a wholesale fashion over to Linux." How dare IBM port thier code for AIX to Linux!
The people at SCO behind these claims are idiots - that's a given. Any actual claims they have are weak, and they don't stand a real chance here.
You alos, in my opinion, are an idiot. You mistake a geographical culture for a religeous one. Yes, Mormons are all over Utah - they settled the state and many others around it. I am a Mormon, have been most of my life, and I'm not a blind dumb sheep as you suggest accompanies the religion.
SCO is after money - great - they will get an appropriate result - probably wiped out.
You on the other hand, are simply an idiot. People like that are allover the country, and span all religions and races. WHY DON'T YOU GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT before correlating religeous belief with bad decision making.
Unlike you, I found the login to work just fine.
The underlying issues aren't about content entitlement. The media industry is so panicked about illegal use, that they are determined to even eliminate fair use. Not the right time to assert rights? These are rights defined by law. When is the right time to assert rights? After they are gone? If that is how you feel, there are a number of socialist and totalitarian regimes in the world that would be more than happy to accept you.
The push of the media companies right now is to subordinate our legal rights (fiar use, and they are rights under the law) to thier commerical concern. That should NEVER happen - but it slowly is happening anyway. Thier inability to protect themselves from illegal use is creating an environment where they are trying to restrict legal rights. If you question this, look at the blatent conflict between previous law and case law regarding revese engineering and the stazi approcach in the DMCA.
This is a free market, and as soon as the media companies come up with a way to sell to consumers in that protects them and that consumers find acceptable, we'll be fine. They haven't found it, and aren't even looking. Rather than respond to the market which is not willing to be MASSIVLEY inconveienced becuase of thier commerical concerns, they are trying to legislate their problems away. They have tried selling stuff with adequate rptection technology nobody buys it. The market rejects it. They need to keep trying, not try to legislate away our rights.
Two Seperate Points that you seem unable to differentiate:
1: Should anti-trust legislation exist?
2: Did MS violate existing laws?
You can debate the first one until you die, but the reality is that the laws DO exist, they are on the books, and MS DID violate them.
Maybe you misunderstnad what the laws say. It is not illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal to leverage a monopoly in one market space to obtain a monopoly in another, particularly if the freedom of the consumer is harmed along the way. That is what happened. They can do anything they want to keep Windoze on top, and do it legally - as long as they don't use it to force competitors out of other markets. Which of course they regularly do.
Now if you would like to debate the validity of anti-trust laws, fine, but if you think through it you will realize that because people are corruptable, those laws are key to PROTECTING freedom. Had Std Oil gone unchecked, what wouldn't they own?
They controlled oil, which meant they controlled transportation, power generation, manufacturing, etc. They don't like you, and your goods simply never get transported. Do you want blind consumerism to lock you into a totalitarian corporate world? THAT is what those laws are there to prevent.
You can take a purist argument that they should be free. Fine. You follow that path, and they will own your children.
How big does a company have to be and how much of the GDP does it have to control before the government becomes subject to it. 50% of the GDP? 75%?
Friggin think about a bit! History has proven over and over that you can be an enslaved purist or a free pragmatist. Your choice.
You think I'm overreacting? What do you think the motivation was for those laws?