| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
SCO invokes DMCA, announces earningsSCO invokes DMCA, announces earningsPosted Dec 22, 2003 15:31 UTC (Mon) by mwilliamson (guest, #18025)Parent article: SCO invokes DMCA, announces earnings Wow, it seems rather funny that SCO's copyright letter actually mentions specific files in the linux kernel source tree, but all the files are HEADER FILES (except one). It's rather amusing to see SCO's legal department show off their vast breadth of technical knowledge.
(Log in to post comments)
Copyrighting error and signal numbers? Posted Dec 22, 2003 15:59 UTC (Mon) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] They are rather critical header files, which partly define the ABI. In a sane world such things should not be copyrightable, since they just define a technical interface, like the mapping of errno numbers to constants like EDOM etc. and there is really only one way to write these files (modulo some layout and commenting variations) for a given mapping.The big question in my mind is: is it conceivable that SCO could succesfully claim to own a certain numbering of error codes or signals? (assuming the numbering used by Linux really is the same as in the historical unix - i have no idea if this is true). If so, this could really drag Linux back to square one. It would also make it rather impossible in general to make free operating systems or emulators that would be binary compatible with some proprietary operating system. Set against this the fact that clone systems have been historically tolerated. For example, an IBM compatible PC BIOS must implement the same numbering for software interrupts as the original. Did IBM ever succesfully sue on this basis?
Copyrighting error and signal numbers? Posted Dec 22, 2003 17:08 UTC (Mon) by abhishek (guest, #10716) [Link] There are no commenting variations either ;-)http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/basedefs/errno.h.html
Copyrighting error and signal numbers? Posted Dec 22, 2003 17:11 UTC (Mon) by ken (subscriber, #625) [Link] As you yourself point out a large number of projects would be illegal if SCO was right. Every x86 clone ever made and every BIOS and the wine project could just stop as everything they do is reimplementation of an API including header files.It's simply no way SCO could convince a judge they are right. They can't possibly beleive in this them self and at the same time claim to have even a shred of intelligence.
Copyrighting error and signal numbers? Posted Dec 22, 2003 17:40 UTC (Mon) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] They are not trying to convice any judge. They are trying to convince clueless readers of various sycofant press outlets, and just maybe possibly a jury.Since McBride and friends took over, greed has been their single motivation, to the exclusion of all that is good about the sharing of computer software and technologies. It is truly sad that much of the press can't (or won't) see this.
Copyrighting error and signal numbers? Posted Dec 22, 2003 17:26 UTC (Mon) by wweber (guest, #11678) [Link] This proves it is no longer about the hard-won Intellectual Property at all. It is more as if they want to force all of GNU/Linux to rebuilt from the beginning by laying claim to something arbitrary like this.
SCO invokes DMCA, announces earnings Posted Dec 22, 2003 16:07 UTC (Mon) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] What's more ridiculous is that their claims are utter nonsense, and for two reasons as I see it. The more obvious one is that these files very easily could be the result of a clean room reimplimentation. Things like error numbers and codes are well documented, so there're really a very limited number of ways that you even could code them. More importantly, their claims under the USL/BSD lawsuit are ridiculous. They're claiming that the copied files were required, under the settlement, to have USL copyrights added. But A) the judge ruled that USL was unlikely to be able to claim copyright because of delay in adding the required notices and B) the Linux developers are not parties to that agreement. Thus the files are likely not to be under copyright anyway and there's no legal requirement for copyright notices.
|
|
||||||||||||