What about NUMA? That's Sequent-related, too.
Posted Jun 13, 2003 17:15 UTC (Fri) by emk
Parent article: Does SCO own read-copy-update?
SCO has complained several times about SCO-owned NUMA code winding up in Unix. This claim has always struck me as odd, because SCO doesn't even support NUMA (link, link).
On the other hand, Sequent had deep expertise in NUMA. And Sequent was also the source of the Linux RCU implementation.
Since Sequent participated in Project Monetery (along with SCO and IBM), and appears to have been bought by IBM, it looks like Sequent may be a major focus of this case.
Perhaps SCO is suggesting that since Sequent's Dynix was a version of Unix, any technology developed by Sequent--no matter how far advanced beyond the ancient SVR4 code SCO owns--is therefore inevitably contaiminated with SCO's copyrighted code? Or are they suggesting that no Project Monterey-related technologies--even if they were largely developed by Sequent or IBM--can be included in Linux?
Either claim would be pretty aggressive. Any advanced techniques developed internally at Sequent would probably contain only miniscule traces of SVR4 code, if they contained anything at all. (Similar things could be said about IBM's OS/2 version of JFS, also mentioned in the SCO complaint.)
Of course, SCO started seriously looking at the GPL very recently--despite the enormous implications of the GPL for this case--so we have to assume that their lawyers aren't necessarily on the ball. And their initial complaint included lots of dumb errors, too. So maybe SCO is a bit confused, here. It's hard to say.
to post comments)