Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Analysts to SCO: No thanks to code review offer (ComputerWorld)
Here's a
ComputerWorld article (from a few days ago) on the lack of enthusiasm
for SCO's "sign an NDA to see the code" plan. "But Giga Information
Group Inc. analyst Stacey Quandt said she has discussed SCO's offer with
her legal counsel, and if she signs an NDA, it may hinder her ability to
write about it. She could get subpoenaed as well. Quandt called the offer a
PR stunt." Scroll down for a good Linus quote on the whole thing.
(Log in to post comments)
Analysts to SCO: No thanks to code review offer (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 3, 2003 15:38 UTC (Tue) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link] Quote from SCO, a company with a stock value of $70M, about their $1000M claim on IBM http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/05/28/HNnovellsco_1.html : "Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights,"NEVER sign a contract with such a company! This NDA is just a contract that will give SCO power over you, and we know what happens after you sign a contract with them.
Analysts to SCO: No thanks to code review offer (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 3, 2003 18:01 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] The best response that Linux can give is to have a development cicle well below 2 years...If that can be achieved then linux can fight easely any future claim of copyrights or patents... I CAN ALMOST GIVE YOU THIS ONE AS A LEGAL ADVICE AGAINST A EVIL HACKER AND REAL EVIDENCE...(WICH IS NOT THE CASE AS THIS NDA PROVES IT)... WHAT REAL LIABILITY CAN ARRIVE IF EVENTUALY SOME LINES OF EVIDENCE POP UP IN A 2.0 KERNEL OR LOWER??...CAN MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF SANE LINES OF CODE AND YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT CAN BE OUTLAWED BECAUSE OF A TINY FEW LINES BY A WRONG DOER??... PROTECT AGAINST "WRONG DOERS", AND ALWAYS GIVE THIS CLAIMS THE 3 FINGER SALUTE, NEVER GIVE IN TO M$ OR OTHERS FUD'S,... EVEN IN THE CASE OF EVIDENCE, EVENTUALY, THERE'S ALWAYS THE POSSIBILITY OF ERASING AND MOVING OVER.
Analysts to SCO: No thanks to code review offer (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 3, 2003 22:08 UTC (Tue) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] The Real crux ofthe matter is that in all the lines of code in the Linux kernelthere is bound to be an very small amount of crosover where two lines of code look similar if not the same , The question is does this prove theft of code or is it just coincedence (SP) chances are the latter is the case . This bieng the case then SCO aint got no muddy patch to squat on at all and it will just enhance the speed at wich they fade into obscurity and eventual death .. Pete .
Analysts to SCO: No thanks to code review offer (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 4, 2003 13:21 UTC (Wed) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Coding in C is coding in C, periodI DOUBT VERY MUCH THAT THERE IS ""crossover"" OF LINUX CODE WITH THE SAME RELEVANT FUNCTIONS ANS VARIABLES "NAMES".... IF IT DOES THEN IT WAS STOLEN FROM LINUX
Analysts to SCO: No thanks to code review offer (ComputerWorld) Posted Jun 4, 2003 4:12 UTC (Wed) by DaveK (subscriber, #2531) [Link] Quandt called the offer a PR stunt. I'm sure theres a good line of FUD to come based on this one. something along the lines of "We offered them a look at the code, but no-one wanted to see" followed by something like "they're scared of the truth" etc. There'll be no mention of the fact that signing the NDA, case proved or otherwise, could seriously damage a person/organisation's ability to contribute further to Linux.
check the source code of SCO, let us know if it used the code of open source Posted Jun 4, 2003 7:15 UTC (Wed) by adala (guest, #11607) [Link] I think if SCO want suit the IBM, firstly, we should know whether it have used the open source codes .if it have done , it should pay everyone who used the linux
|
|
||||||||||||