Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
SCO shows Linux code to analysts (InfoWorld)
InfoWorld reports
on SCO's NDA code show. "Specifically, SCO claims that IBM's
1985 Unix license, originally signed with AT&T but subsequently transferred
to SCO, prevents IBM from distributing software derived from the Unix code
base. IBM's contributions to Linux in the areas of non-uniform memory
architecture (NUMA), symmetric multiprocessing (SMP), and a journaling file
system all constitute breaches of that contract, [SCOsource manager Chris]
Sontag said." (Thanks to Peter Link and Ulrich Kunitz).
(Log in to post comments)
SCO shows Linux code to analysts (InfoWorld) Posted Jun 11, 2003 13:45 UTC (Wed) by pgallot (guest, #11799) [Link] were these technologies (NUMA, SMP, and a journaling file system) actually a part of Unix, circa 1985 ?That doesn't seem to be a particularly credible claim...
SCO shows Linux code to analysts (InfoWorld) Posted Jun 11, 2003 21:11 UTC (Wed) by Odysseus (guest, #11518) [Link] This is what esr is talking about when he refers to 'SCO is implying claims that it is legally barred from making" ... "that SCO owns AIX".Sounds like SCO is arguing that AIX is a derivative of SysV, therefore NOTHING in AIX could be contributed to Linux according to the IBM/AT&T contract, even if IBM had developed the tech in question. Is my understanding deficient here? Pls correct.
SCO shows Linux code to analysts (InfoWorld) Posted Jun 12, 2003 12:55 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] That's what SCO is arguing - yes. That they own AIX because AIX is derived from the original AT&T Unix.What they conveniently miss is that IBM's licence says that IBM owns any enhancements that IBM might have made. Indeed, it seems SCO haven't actually read the IBM licence, because they make great play on the fact that "linux comes without a warranty, *unlike* *licenced* *Unix*" - except that the licence says in big capitals "NO WARRANTY". As far as I can tell, while that may be what they are claiming, it has (like so much else in their lawsuit) no basis in fact whatsoever. Cheers,
SCO shows Linux code to analysts (InfoWorld) Posted Jun 11, 2003 14:09 UTC (Wed) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] 1) Since these features weren't in the 1985 code base, what they seem (to me, at least) to be claiming is that the contract disallows IBM from giving any code that they contribute to "Unix" to any other party.2) If this really is about a breach of contract (as is claimed by SCO in the article) and not about copyrights/patents, then no one but IBM needs to sweat about it. Once a trade secret is out, it's out. Right?
SCO shows Linux code to analysts (InfoWorld) Posted Jun 11, 2003 14:16 UTC (Wed) by southey (subscriber, #9466) [Link] Point 3) GPL: these would be the same things that were distributed in Caldera and SCO's Linux distros.
SCO shows Linux code to analysts (InfoWorld) Posted Jun 11, 2003 15:55 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] SCO doesn't distribute kernels with JFS code. Yes, I expected that SCO meant JFS among other things. Filesystems are more independent from the core kernel architecture than device drivers, let alone memory management. Besides, JFS came to Linux from OS/2, so it was easier for some UNIX code to get through because somebody didn't expect it to be in the OS/2 code.
IBMs JFS contribution Posted Jun 11, 2003 14:49 UTC (Wed) by drathos (guest, #6454) [Link] IIRC, the version of JFS that IBM donated came from OS/2, not AIX.Also, if the journaling filesystem is part of SysV, then why does every UNIX vendor have a different FS? IBM uses JFS, SGI uses XFS, HP-UX uses VxFS (which was made by Veritas, not HP), and, IIRC, Sun uses UFS (which is BSD derived, I think). Linux has support for all of them, but they all came from the appropriate sources. And let's not forget ReiserFS and ext3, probably the most popular journaling file systems used in Linux.
IBMs JFS contribution Posted Jun 11, 2003 17:11 UTC (Wed) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link] Why does every Unix vendor has a different FS? There was a time Unix evolved with some synergy, when code and interfaces were shared. That evolution stopped and I think the old Unix died together with OSF. As Unix users see the need of sharing code this empty space was filled with a number of free Unix variants.A few years later one of these free variants, Linux, was already so mature that one of the Linux distributors bought SCO, includning some rights on the old Unix, this was before any involvement from IBM in Linux. Another few years later this company makes some strange clams on IBM stating Linux could not have grown that big without the input of old Unix wishdom. It claims IBM is breaching a contract by contributing code, written by (hardware and software manufacturer) IBM, to the GPL OS Linux. I think SCO has a lot to proove to make this claim hold. The outcome is not very interesting. Both parties in the dispute claim the code is contributed to the GPL OS Linux, so the code clearly is part of the GPL OS Linux now.
|
|
||||||||||||