| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Let's all pat ourselves on the back againLet's all pat ourselves on the back againPosted Jun 26, 2003 20:43 UTC (Thu) by stevenj (guest, #421)Parent article: Penguin on Thin Ice? (FindLaw)
Without any knowledge of the specific code and contracts at issue, it seems like most "analyses" like this one are little more than wishful thinking. (But of course, people applaud it as "well-written" because they agree with the conclusions.) The article includes many statements that don't really stand up to close scrutiny, e.g.: Torvalds himself has provided the most compelling reason SCO's suit must fail: Had information truly been misused in Linux's open source software, everyone and his brother - and his foreign penpal - would have been well aware of it. How in the world would "everyone" know that a particular piece of code was copied from a proprietary codebase that is not accessible to the public? Or, for that matter, know whether IBM's contracts allow it to contribute a particular code segment or not? Richard Stallman's comment is much more sensible and conservative: "In a community of over half a million developers, we can hardly expect that there will never be plagiarism." (I won't dwell on the fact that the article, like SCO's complaint itself, is filled with confusion between the Linux kernel and Linux-based operating systems, i.e. GNU/Linux.)
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||