| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Does SCO own read-copy-update?Does SCO own read-copy-update?Posted Jun 13, 2003 15:27 UTC (Fri) by southey (subscriber, #9466)Parent article: Does SCO own read-copy-update?
This seems to show that IBM has been very careful by going back to original code that predates this project or was unused (JFS came via OS2). Second, the terms of the Project Monterey contract needs to be made public, especially if exclusive rights of code were made. Otherwise there is nothing stopping Sequent and/or IBM from providing the code to two different places under two different licenses. This would mean that SCO doesn't have a case with this code and only can show that IBM may have used knowledge gained to improve this code. But, as pointed out by the NZheretic article, IBM can also claim the same.
(Log in to post comments)
Does SCO own read-copy-update? Posted Jun 13, 2003 18:52 UTC (Fri) by torsten (guest, #4137) [Link] Second, the terms of the Project Monterey contract needs to be made public, especially if exclusive rights of code were made. SCO has, from the beginning, stated that IBM violated their mutual contract by breaking off from the Monterrey project to develop Linux. I think the interpretation of the contract from the Monterrey project will be the defining factor of infringement. The only real problem for IBM is if they already agreed not to share Monterrey code outside of that project, and are still bound by that agreement. We'll see.
|
|
||||||||||||