This scenario is playing out like some of the recent child abuse cases where proscecutors file a hundred or more chsrges against a defendant in the apparently correct belief that a jury will believe that at least some of those charges are true. All they have to do is get one to stick.
In this case, SCO is throwing out accusations left and right, the lates even more bizarre than the last, and they are getting some people to believe their line. "They must have some kind of case, else they wouldn't be suing" type of mentality.
Patents, copyright infringement, et al, when the case is really about contract violation and trade secrets. And that is what it will be about in court. The rest of this crap will not be allowed.
Did Microsoft actually license a Unix patent from SCO? Or did they sublicense the patent that is still owned by Novell? That situation is still murky to me.
Is there really RCU code in the Linux kernel that has a sequent copyright notice, or is it code with the same author as the one who wrote the code for Sequent?
Even so, RCU is not a derivative work of System V. It was developed independently and folded into Dynix. According to Bill Claybrook, Dynix is BSD based "with System V wrappers", whatever that means.
The RCU code was not folded back into System V code. SCO does not have it (although they really would like to have it).
What SCO does not want anyone to know is that they do not have any trade secrets to be violated, if you are to believe Richard Stallman, et al. And according to Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, and other kernel developers, there is no infringing code in the kernel.
SCO has asked for a jury trial, which to me is a sign that they are not attempting to try the case on its merits, but are going to try to win sympathy by taking the David vs Goliath approach. It is my understanding that most trials of this sort are handled only by a judge because of the technical nature the material being presented and the points of law that a jury would not have a grasp of.
"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. "
Unless Microsoft and maybe Sun help with SCO's bankroll, a long delay will bankrupt them. The discovery process also could be a can of worms for SCO as they may have to bare their own code to IBM people and the will be able to check for copyright infringement by SCO.
Debian does not try to be bleeding edge nor does it try to be Linux for the masses.
I am not a Linix guru by any means, yet Debian is my distribution of choice because it still gives me choices. Since Debian does not rest on a commercial foundation, it will continue to thrive and will still be around when several more commercial ventures go belly-up.
Glenn
In checking out ESR's postition paper and the relationship of the various Unix flavors, it doesa not appear that AIX is a derivative of System V, but more properly of BSD 4.3 and Unix Version 7 with some elements of System V being introduced in a later version. Is SCO saying that adding some System 5 elements makes it a derivative?
BSD clearly is not a derivative of System 5, although System V appears to have elements of BSD 4.2 added into it, which according to their logic (SCO's) would make System 5 a derivative of BSD 4.2, as well as Version 7.
They are going to have a very hard time with this in court.
Glenn
Add this to the mix. Here is an excerpt from a Novell information page on Unixware 2.
4. UnixWare 2 offers greater performance and scalability.UnixWare 2's multiprocessing technology has been in development, testing, tuning, and optimization for Intel SMP platforms since 1991, when it was originally designed as SVR4 ESMP in cooperation with Sequent, Pyramid, and other industry leading SMP platform providers.
(http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/1995/03/ pr00026.html)
The Unixware SMP capabilities was not developed by Novell alone when it owned Unixware. Who actually owns he copyright for the SMP (NUMA) code in Unixware?
Slashdot Mirror
This scenario is playing out like some of the recent child abuse cases where proscecutors file a hundred or more chsrges against a defendant in the apparently correct belief that a jury will believe that at least some of those charges are true. All they have to do is get one to stick. In this case, SCO is throwing out accusations left and right, the lates even more bizarre than the last, and they are getting some people to believe their line. "They must have some kind of case, else they wouldn't be suing" type of mentality. Patents, copyright infringement, et al, when the case is really about contract violation and trade secrets. And that is what it will be about in court. The rest of this crap will not be allowed.
Did Microsoft actually license a Unix patent from SCO? Or did they sublicense the patent that is still owned by Novell? That situation is still murky to me.
Is there really RCU code in the Linux kernel that has a sequent copyright notice, or is it code with the same author as the one who wrote the code for Sequent? Even so, RCU is not a derivative work of System V. It was developed independently and folded into Dynix. According to Bill Claybrook, Dynix is BSD based "with System V wrappers", whatever that means. The RCU code was not folded back into System V code. SCO does not have it (although they really would like to have it).
What SCO does not want anyone to know is that they do not have any trade secrets to be violated, if you are to believe Richard Stallman, et al. And according to Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, and other kernel developers, there is no infringing code in the kernel. SCO has asked for a jury trial, which to me is a sign that they are not attempting to try the case on its merits, but are going to try to win sympathy by taking the David vs Goliath approach. It is my understanding that most trials of this sort are handled only by a judge because of the technical nature the material being presented and the points of law that a jury would not have a grasp of.
"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. " Unless Microsoft and maybe Sun help with SCO's bankroll, a long delay will bankrupt them. The discovery process also could be a can of worms for SCO as they may have to bare their own code to IBM people and the will be able to check for copyright infringement by SCO.
Debian does not try to be bleeding edge nor does it try to be Linux for the masses. I am not a Linix guru by any means, yet Debian is my distribution of choice because it still gives me choices. Since Debian does not rest on a commercial foundation, it will continue to thrive and will still be around when several more commercial ventures go belly-up. Glenn
In checking out ESR's postition paper and the relationship of the various Unix flavors, it doesa not appear that AIX is a derivative of System V, but more properly of BSD 4.3 and Unix Version 7 with some elements of System V being introduced in a later version. Is SCO saying that adding some System 5 elements makes it a derivative? BSD clearly is not a derivative of System 5, although System V appears to have elements of BSD 4.2 added into it, which according to their logic (SCO's) would make System 5 a derivative of BSD 4.2, as well as Version 7. They are going to have a very hard time with this in court. Glenn
Isn't AIX built on the MACH kernel developed by Carnegie Mellon University and not System V? How can it then be a derivative work of System V? Glenn
Add this to the mix. Here is an excerpt from a Novell information page on Unixware 2. 4. UnixWare 2 offers greater performance and scalability.UnixWare 2's multiprocessing technology has been in development, testing, tuning, and optimization for Intel SMP platforms since 1991, when it was originally designed as SVR4 ESMP in cooperation with Sequent, Pyramid, and other industry leading SMP platform providers. (http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/1995/03/ pr00026.html)
The Unixware SMP capabilities was not developed by Novell alone when it owned Unixware. Who actually owns he copyright for the SMP (NUMA) code in Unixware?