LWN.net Logo

Linux users face licence cash call (BBC News)

Linux users face licence cash call (BBC News)

Posted Jan 16, 2004 22:19 UTC (Fri) by rheggs (guest, #4737)
In reply to: Linux users face licence cash call (BBC News) by Dabuk
Parent article: Linux users face licence cash call (BBC News)

Actually, I don't think the article to which you refer is all that bad. His turn of phrase is a bit abrasive here and there, but generally, I think that it is fair. The key points he makes, as far as I can see them are:

1) SCOX have sued IBM, claiming that the latter placed copyrighted material into Linux - but there may be nothing to the claim, and the evidence so far is not impressive.

2) SCOX was a struggling company before this, and since the whol fiaSCO (ahem :) began, senior executives have been selling their shares.

3) UNIX has a long and complicated history.

4) There is nothing inherently implausible about the claim (there really isn't - it's a perfectly reasonable question, to which the perfectly reasonable answer is 'NO'. :)

5) The typical response from Linux users (at the time of writing) was one of dismissal.

I think that this last point is perhaps the most arguable. In my not-so-humble this was indeed a common opinion, last summer; it was certainly mine. 'How dare they make such claims! Ignore them and they will go away.' The attitude has since shifted decisively towards 'We're convinced you're wrong; show us your proofs, and we will demolish them' - a much healthier attitude, I believe.

I disagree with the 5th and 4th paragraph from the end of the article (and the last bit of the 6th paragraph), but on the whole I think that this is a good article, given the facts available at the time. Of course, a great deal has happened since this article was written, almost 5 months ago. I would be very surprised indeed if Mr Thompson would write the same article today.


(Log in to post comments)

Linux users face licence cash call (BBC News)

Posted Jan 17, 2004 11:49 UTC (Sat) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link]

"4) There is nothing inherently implausible about the claim (there really isn't - it's a perfectly reasonable question, to which the perfectly reasonable answer is 'NO'. :)"

Well, there might by nothing inherently implausible about SCO's claim that it believes there's infringing code in Linux. There is something inherently implausible with SCO threatening to sue people if they don't pay for using SCO owned code that it didn't want to be in Linux but now doesn't want to be removed, thus wanting it to be in Linux, and for which it has given not a single bit of evidence that it actually exists. I find it deeply disturbing that this doesn't raise an eyebrow with a long list of journalists.

Copyright © 2008, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds