Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
AT&T trips up SCO (ComputerWorld)
ComputerWorld has
discovered AT&T's old communications on the meaning of the Unix
licenses, as dug up by Novell. "Of the million lines of Linux code
that SCO claims IBM hijacked from Unix, SCO hasn't identified a single line
that came from the original Unix source code. It was all created by
IBM. According to AT&T in 1985, that means it's IBM's to keep -- or give
away. And SCO's theory that it owns Linux code appears to be kaput."
(Log in to post comments)
AT&T trips up SCO (ComputerWorld) Posted Feb 17, 2004 19:39 UTC (Tue) by N0NB (guest, #3407) [Link] Intersting read. I only hope that TSG and its outlandish claims go "Poof!" as this becomes public.With TSG pretty much neutered now, I wonder how their only ally, Microsoft, is going to wield this "leak" of Win NT/W2K source code against the Linux Community? My guess is that they have some plan. The timing is just too coincidental. - Nate >>
AT&T trips up SCO (ComputerWorld) Posted Feb 17, 2004 20:05 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Any improvements in Samba will now come under suspicion: if the Samba team implements any Windows compatibility that they hadn't successfully implemented before, Microsoft could pull an SCO (only with far more credibility) and threaten legal action, scaring people away from Samba. Developers would be in the position of having to prove a negative (that they not only didn't look at the source code, but that they obtained no information from anyone who has). Similar problems could face anyone who improves NTFS support, although I'm not sure that the leak contains NTFS code (since the Mainsoft people from whom the leak came didn't need NTFS to implement the Windows API on top of Unix).
AT&T trips up SCO (ComputerWorld) Posted Feb 17, 2004 20:27 UTC (Tue) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link] Developers would be in the position of having to prove a negative (that they not only didn't look at the source code, but that they obtained no information from anyone who has).
Would it actually matter if they had? It's pretty clear that
information
AT&T trips up SCO (ComputerWorld) Posted Feb 18, 2004 0:37 UTC (Wed) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link] > It's pretty clear that information has made it from Unix to Linux in> one form or other, There is nothing secret about that. Linux was made by implementing the POSIX and SuS specifications and the published papers about writing an efficient operating system. This is totally different from reading UNIX source code and reimplementing it in Linux. If Linux is generally close to UNIX, it is because to be allowed to be called UNIX, an OS need to follow the SuS specifications.
AT&T trips up SCO (ComputerWorld) Posted Feb 18, 2004 13:17 UTC (Wed) by Zelatrix (guest, #5163) [Link] Don't think it would. If some of the methods are covered by patents, Samba can't use them even if it reverse-engineers them with no information coming from the leaked code at all. Trade secrets won't protect the methods, because now that there's been a widespread leak, they're not secret any more. And copyright would only protect against verbatim copying, which obviously the Samba team would not do.Of course, there would still be plenty of scope for unfounded FUD and frivolous litigation.
AT&T trips up SCO (ComputerWorld) Posted Feb 17, 2004 21:32 UTC (Tue) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link] can't prove a negative. Pretty fundamental concept in making a claim. The plaintiff has to prove the claim.
AT&T trips up SCO (ComputerWorld) Posted Feb 17, 2004 20:08 UTC (Tue) by neoprene (guest, #8520) [Link] Irrelevant.SCOX does not OWN any Patents or Copyrights regarding UNIX Sys-V. These are still held by Novell. Novell sold a DISTRIBUTORSHIP to Santa Cruz. Novell gets 100% of the fees collected by the Distributor and 10% get sent back to the Distributor by Novell. SCOX can't sue over rights they don't have. Case dismissed.
AT&T trips up SCO (ComputerWorld) Posted Feb 17, 2004 20:25 UTC (Tue) by mossc (guest, #19551) [Link] actually it is 5% going back to caldera/sco, minor issue
Text of $ echo issues are at Groklaw Posted Feb 17, 2004 22:24 UTC (Tue) by firasha (guest, #4230) [Link] As ever, PJ & co. have been busy. Groklaw posted the full text of the main issue in question, the August 1985 $ echo, a few days ago.They've also posted the text of the April 1985 issue, which references the (at the time) upcoming changes/clarifications to AT&T's licensing agreements.
Nice sentence Posted Feb 18, 2004 9:29 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] This one:And SCO's theory that it owns Linux code appears to be kaput.
|
|||||||||||||