Sounds like a possiblity that someone copied the code from SCO. But if SCO management knew about this then they are leaving themselves wide open to huge countersuit from IBM. There is the possibility that SCO copied the code to save time. But I doubt SCO would be so stupid to pull such a stunt.
But even if IBM copied the code SCO's agreement with Linodows nullifies any claim SCO had. Anyways how is SCO going to prove who contributed what code to Linux. SCO has yet to even indicate what Linux distro the SCO code was copied to...........
Ok so SCO claims that companies that are using Linux are in violation of SCO's patents and other ip. So then what about their own Linux distribution??? So one can assume that under SCO's own claims that this must violate SCO's patents and copyrights as well......???
Heres more proof that SCO's claims are bogus at best:
OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint
(http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html)
"SCO/Caldera alleges (Paragraph 57): "When SCO acquired the UNIX assets from Novell in 1995, it acquired rights in and to all (1) underlying, original UNIX software code developed by AT&T Bell Laboratories."
SCO/Caldera neglects to mention that those rights had been substantially impaired before its acquisition of the ancestral Bell Labs source code. There was a legal action in 1992-1993, in which Unix Systems Laboratories and Novell (SCO/Caldera's predecessors in interest) sued various parties including the University of California at Berkeley and Berkeley Systems Design, Inc. for alleged copyright infringement, trade secret disclosures, and trademark violations with regard to the release of substantial portions of the 4.4BSD operating system[36].
The suit was settled after AT&T's request for an injunction blocking distribution of BSD was denied in terms that made it clear the judge thought BSD likely to win its defense. The University of California then threatened to countersue over license violations by AT&T and USL. It seems that from as far back as before System V Release 4 in 1985, the historical Bell Labs codebase had been incorporating large amounts of software from the BSD sources. The University's cause of action lay in the fact that AT&T, USL and Novell had routinely violated the terms of the BSD license by removing license attributions and copyrights.
The exact terms of final settlement, and much of the judicial record, were sealed at Novell's insistence. The key provisions are, however, described in Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix: From AT&T-Owned to Freely Redistributable, [McKusick99]. Only three files out of eighteen thousand in the distribution were found to be the licit property of Novell (and removed). The rest were ruled to be freely redistributable, and continue to form the basis of the open-source BSD distributions today.
Ten years ago -- at a time when Linux was in its infancy -- the courts already found the contributions of other parties to what is now UnixWare to be so great, and Novell's proprietary entitlement in the code so small, that Novell's lawyers had to settle for a minor, face-saving gesture from the University of California or walk away with nothing at all.
If the current lawsuit proceeds, justice requires that the court and settlement records in the AT&T-vs.-Berkeley lawsuit be unsealed, with a view to determining the degree to which SCO/Caldera's IP claims are nullified by the results."
This is the ultimate cheapshot from SCO on this issue. If SCO decides to sue Linus then I can assure you that the whole industry will rally behind him and provide financial legal support if necessary
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a possiblity that someone copied the code from SCO. But if SCO management knew about this then they are leaving themselves wide open to huge countersuit from IBM. There is the possibility that SCO copied the code to save time. But I doubt SCO would be so stupid to pull such a stunt. But even if IBM copied the code SCO's agreement with Linodows nullifies any claim SCO had. Anyways how is SCO going to prove who contributed what code to Linux. SCO has yet to even indicate what Linux distro the SCO code was copied to...........
Ok so SCO claims that companies that are using Linux are in violation of SCO's patents and other ip. So then what about their own Linux distribution??? So one can assume that under SCO's own claims that this must violate SCO's patents and copyrights as well......???
Heres more proof that SCO's claims are bogus at best: OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint (http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html) "SCO/Caldera alleges (Paragraph 57): "When SCO acquired the UNIX assets from Novell in 1995, it acquired rights in and to all (1) underlying, original UNIX software code developed by AT&T Bell Laboratories." SCO/Caldera neglects to mention that those rights had been substantially impaired before its acquisition of the ancestral Bell Labs source code. There was a legal action in 1992-1993, in which Unix Systems Laboratories and Novell (SCO/Caldera's predecessors in interest) sued various parties including the University of California at Berkeley and Berkeley Systems Design, Inc. for alleged copyright infringement, trade secret disclosures, and trademark violations with regard to the release of substantial portions of the 4.4BSD operating system[36]. The suit was settled after AT&T's request for an injunction blocking distribution of BSD was denied in terms that made it clear the judge thought BSD likely to win its defense. The University of California then threatened to countersue over license violations by AT&T and USL. It seems that from as far back as before System V Release 4 in 1985, the historical Bell Labs codebase had been incorporating large amounts of software from the BSD sources. The University's cause of action lay in the fact that AT&T, USL and Novell had routinely violated the terms of the BSD license by removing license attributions and copyrights. The exact terms of final settlement, and much of the judicial record, were sealed at Novell's insistence. The key provisions are, however, described in Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix: From AT&T-Owned to Freely Redistributable, [McKusick99]. Only three files out of eighteen thousand in the distribution were found to be the licit property of Novell (and removed). The rest were ruled to be freely redistributable, and continue to form the basis of the open-source BSD distributions today. Ten years ago -- at a time when Linux was in its infancy -- the courts already found the contributions of other parties to what is now UnixWare to be so great, and Novell's proprietary entitlement in the code so small, that Novell's lawyers had to settle for a minor, face-saving gesture from the University of California or walk away with nothing at all. If the current lawsuit proceeds, justice requires that the court and settlement records in the AT&T-vs.-Berkeley lawsuit be unsealed, with a view to determining the degree to which SCO/Caldera's IP claims are nullified by the results."
This is the ultimate cheapshot from SCO on this issue. If SCO decides to sue Linus then I can assure you that the whole industry will rally behind him and provide financial legal support if necessary