My Visit to SCO (Linux Journal)
If this is SCO's only example of Unix code appearing in Linux, I very much doubt there is any real legal liability for Linux users. If the code is indeed derived from Unix, which is unproven, it is roughly equivalent to typing in some code from a basic computer programming text without permission. While I hesitate to predict the actions of the legal system, it is very difficult for me to believe that any judge actually would award damages on the basis of this code."
Posted Jun 20, 2003 14:13 UTC (Fri)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link]
Yes That's just great! Man, I think that if there's a Hell, the SCO executives are headed straight for it. This could have all been fixed by now, if they had any sense of decency.
Posted Jun 20, 2003 14:13 UTC (Fri)
by njd27 (subscriber, #5770)
[Link]
The kind of rearrangement and modification that code undergoes as it evolves could, of course, easily be mis-interpreted as an attempt to "hide its origin".
Posted Jun 20, 2003 14:49 UTC (Fri)
by bkw1a (subscriber, #4101)
[Link] (10 responses)
Until recently, my ideas about law, and the judiciary, were formed largely Lately, though, I've come to believe that we're very lucky that justice 1. Judges have immense discretionary power, with little oversight. Number 2 is the one that took a long time to sink in. Law != Science.
Posted Jun 20, 2003 15:23 UTC (Fri)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link]
In the 19th century, I could grow hemp on my farm. I could make it into rope. I could celebrate my few hours of relaxation with a pipe of leaves if I wished to. No longer. There are a lot of people on this planet who attribute this change to scheming, manipulation, politics, corruption, lies, media spin, and hypocricy. But what difference does it make? I will tell you: poor decisions by judges, juries, and politicians, especially if they come down because of some power grab result in: - Cynicism Kind of sad that techies are only just now learning about this. I used to be a member of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. I know someone who still is; her ex-husband is in jail over it, she keeps paying NORML her dues, and nothing is done; there is no justice for that man. Then again, back in the '70s and '80s, when I would campaign on this issue with my techie co-workers, I was often laughed away, as they lit their cigarettes at their desks and planned their Friday night bar-hopping. The few who used marijuana seemed to think "no one will ever bother me--why should they? I'm not hurting anyone?" Friends, learn this: When someone pleads to you for help getting justice, don't ever forget that you may be next person denied that justice.
Posted Jun 20, 2003 15:40 UTC (Fri)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link] (5 responses)
My opinion is that the hemp laws are what they are because of a media campaign started by the Hearst family. This happened shortly after someone invented a machine that made paper from hemp, and Hearst was afraid it would ruin his wood-pulp empire. Thing is, the wholesale slaughter of trees on this planet may very well cost all of us our lives. That would be an interesting kind of justice, no?
Posted Jun 20, 2003 17:45 UTC (Fri)
by tjc (guest, #137)
[Link] (4 responses)
Trees are a renewable resource. You cut some down and make guitars and houses out of them, then you plant some more. The idea that cutting down trees is going to end life on planet earth is just plain silly.
Posted Jun 20, 2003 18:17 UTC (Fri)
by jzb (editor, #7867)
[Link] (3 responses)
The idea that cutting down trees is going to end life on planet earth is just plain silly.
Er, not entirely. It kind of depends on how many trees are cut down, how many new trees are planted, and if the number of trees (and plants) are equal to the task of producing enough oxygen for the number of animals on the planet who need it. If you clear-cut 200 square miles of forest, then plant seeds in that same area, it's not as if they're going to magically spring up and produce the same amount of oxygen right away.
I'm not suggesting that we are, in fact, cutting down too many trees for life to be sustainable... but it's at least worth thinking about whether the logging industries are replacing the trees they're cutting down quickly enough, not to mention all the trees that are cut down to make room for development. I'm not trying to be a tree-hugger here, (literally) but I don't think the idea should just be dismissed out of hand as "silly."
Posted Jun 20, 2003 18:51 UTC (Fri)
by icc (guest, #9514)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 20, 2003 19:28 UTC (Fri)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Figures are necessarily rather rough, but best guess at present is that ~60--80% of oxygen production is in the oceans, of which most is algal, and an unknown but vast proportion is due to that wonderful microorganism, smallest of photosynthesisers, Prochlorococcus marinus. The contribution of kelp, while not nil, is not very large either. Certainly it's not 90% of the planetary total.
Posted Jun 20, 2003 22:16 UTC (Fri)
by tjc (guest, #137)
[Link]
They didn't used to, that's for sure. Anyone who has watched US public television know this. :-) But I think now days they probably do, partly due to government regulation, and partly out of self interest: there wouldn't be a logging industry for long if they didn't. ... not to mention all the trees that are cut down to make room for development. Well I have this theory that this is why people tend to be more liberal in metro areas -- not enough oxygen to the brain. :-D (running for cover...)
Posted Jun 20, 2003 16:35 UTC (Fri)
by southey (guest, #9466)
[Link]
Actually I sort of disagree because you can never prove a hypothesis - just disprove it. Likewise in Law guilt is virtually never proved, even when someone admits it. BUT the only things lawyers are interested in is obtaining either a guilty or non-guilty verdict for their client and nothing about what really happened.
Posted Jun 20, 2003 18:27 UTC (Fri)
by naughty-artkitekt (guest, #10552)
[Link]
Posted Jun 28, 2003 1:04 UTC (Sat)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
The reason law is so complex is precisely because of the current trend toward individual justice -- doing the right thing in every individual case. It wasn't always that way. Until the early part of the 20th century, the rules were simple and few. Accordingly, there were lots of individual cases of people getting screwed. The rule that gave the greatest good to the greatest number gave unreasonable results in individual cases. An example of this is the hearsay rule of evidence. Used to be, you just couldn't use hearsay evidence. Period. That meant on average you got better evidence in court, but sometimes good, verdict-changing evidence got excluded. Now the hearsay rule goes on for pages. Exceptions run into the dozens, different in every jurisdiction. Another example is contract liability. In the old days, you were nearly always bound by what you signed. The law assumed the fiction that if you signed a contract, you understood the deal and agreed to it. Naturally, people got screwed right and left. But at least cases were always predictable. Today, you must study for years to know just when a signature is binding. Cases go to trial 10 times as often as they used to, and when they do, the legal talent to try them costs a lot more. The first people to witness subatomic particles zipping around defying the laws of physics must have thought physics wasn't very scientific either. Eventually, they figured out the myriad refinements of Newton's laws that showed it really is scientific. Law is the same way.
Posted Jun 20, 2003 16:03 UTC (Fri)
by chel (guest, #11544)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jun 20, 2003 16:25 UTC (Fri)
by dr_lha (guest, #86)
[Link] (1 responses)
What are you talking about? Of course they had proof: Linux is now an enterprise grade operating system. There's no way on earth it could have got that way without people stealing code from SCO. I was so obvious actually looking and investigating the code isn't really necessary. It had to be IBMs doing as they're the only company currently making money off Linux. Those dirty cheats.
Posted Jun 20, 2003 16:52 UTC (Fri)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link]
Did you know that IBM spokespeople used to say that about the PC cloners? Again, per H. Rap Brown: "We have an understanding of Karma. What goes around, comes around."
Posted Jun 20, 2003 16:49 UTC (Fri)
by rriggs (guest, #11598)
[Link] (4 responses)
In written works, it is generally accepted that one may quote passages of other texts, including relatively sizeable portions (certainly more than 80 lines) as long as the source is attributed. Copying such portions without attribution is considered plagiarism, not copyright infringement. I would assume that one can copy a chunk of code under fair use as well: /* This is the best implementation of the baz function I have seen. */ int baz(void) {...} Leaving out the attribution would at most be considered plagiarism.
Posted Jun 20, 2003 18:10 UTC (Fri)
by jzb (editor, #7867)
[Link] (3 responses)
I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt, but I'd say it doesn't come into play at all if you're talking about unpublished source code -- or even published source code if the license prohibits redistribution.
You mention fair use in terms of copying text -- but that's not really quite appropriate when talking about code, because it's being used differently. That is to say -- you're not taking a chunk of code and elaborating on it in a text or something, you're using it to perform a function, which is different than what fair use would normally provide for. You might be able to argue fair use if you publish 10 lines of code in a magazine to illustrate a function, but I don't think you could argue fair use if you copied the same 10 lines to perform a function -- particularly if the code is only distributed in binary fashion where the end user has no opportunity to study the code.
Think about sampling music, for example. It's okay to use a small chunk of a song when you're producing a different work -- maybe a syndicated radio show where you play a snippet of a song to illustrate a genre of music.
That same snippet of a song used as a sample would not be okay unless previously approved by the copyright holder.
Posted Jun 21, 2003 0:18 UTC (Sat)
by petegn (guest, #847)
[Link]
Posted Jun 21, 2003 5:36 UTC (Sat)
by rriggs (guest, #11598)
[Link] (1 responses)
How many lines of code, in works that rank in the millions of lines of code, would you consider a "small chunk"?
Posted Jun 21, 2003 23:19 UTC (Sat)
by jzb (editor, #7867)
[Link]
Posted Jun 20, 2003 17:07 UTC (Fri)
by karim (subscriber, #114)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 20, 2003 21:14 UTC (Fri)
by nowster (subscriber, #67)
[Link]
Posted Jun 20, 2003 17:08 UTC (Fri)
by mmarq (guest, #2332)
[Link] (5 responses)
" I asked specifically about JFS, because I know that was originally developed for OS/2. SCO claims that JFS was originally developed for AIX, then ported to OS/2, then ported back to AIX; the port back to AIX was the basis for the Linux port." IBM AFAIK, dindnt have only AIX or OS/2 at the time, it had OS390, OS400, and others i belive,... how the hell can SCO prove to a judje that it knows more about IBM development plans than IBM ?... I belive that SCO is just blowing a lot of smoke,... and it entire case will colapse at the first examinations,... rendering them a beautifull and more then deserved funeral. MEANWHILE WHAT MATTERS "IS" GETTING OUT KERNEL2.5.73 AND OTHER GREAT OPENSOURCE SOFTWARE.
Posted Jun 20, 2003 17:17 UTC (Fri)
by nosnilmot (subscriber, #746)
[Link] (3 responses)
Because IBM told them ... and they interpreted it their own way :)
Posted Jun 20, 2003 18:59 UTC (Fri)
by mmarq (guest, #2332)
[Link] (2 responses)
" IBM introduced its UNIX file system as the Journaled File System (JFS) Could have been prior attempts to develop JFS1 for OS390 or OS400 or other (i'm supposing)... but IBM can easely "forge it" in a consistent way if necessary( dont bind this as a counsel or approval). "Historically, the JFS1 file system is very closely tied to the memory Dosent mean a s??t, IBM could have stoped prior work for other OSes, and shifted. As to Linux: "The new Journaled File System, on which the Linux port was based, was Is very consistent... So what makes SCO so confident, that it would not be entering is own funeral? (10 m?)
Posted Jun 20, 2003 22:02 UTC (Fri)
by MLKahnt (guest, #6642)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 21, 2003 15:32 UTC (Sat)
by mmarq (guest, #2332)
[Link]
CAN THE "PATENTS OFFICE" GRANT PATENTS OVER DERIVED WORKS OF OTHERS PROPERTY ? The question that everybody will ask: "" HOW"" CAN SCO PAY IF IBM COUNTERSUITS ANS WINS, FOR 300 MILLIONS(10x less) IN DAMAGES?
Posted Jun 20, 2003 17:19 UTC (Fri)
by nosnilmot (subscriber, #746)
[Link]
Posted Jun 20, 2003 18:33 UTC (Fri)
by dbhost (guest, #3461)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jun 20, 2003 18:58 UTC (Fri)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 21, 2003 0:26 UTC (Sat)
by petegn (guest, #847)
[Link]
Well, looks to me like we now have:My Visit to SCO (Linux Journal)
No
I don't knowObfuscation?
Naturally, SCO says many other examples exist, and it has found at least 10 to 20 specific examples of direct copying. SCO said there was much more derivative code. It claims there are cases in which copied code intentionally was obfuscated and rearranged to hide its origin.
The author says: "While I hesitate to predict the actions of the legal My Visit to SCO (Linux Journal)
system, it is very difficult for me to believe that any judge actually
would award damages on the basis of this code."
from the Perry Mason reruns I watched when I was a kid. Sure, I always
knew there were "bad people" out there, and that justice wasn't always
done. But, I thought that, by and large, the legal system did the
right thing, based on solid laws interpreted by intelligent judges who
carefully considered the facts of each case.
is EVER done. Here are a few principles:
2. Judicial decisions aren't like mathematical proofs. The truth
and the law are only two small components out of many that
contribute to the decision. Just being right is not enough to
win a lawsuit.
3. Spin matters. Looks matter. Who you know matters.
Don't forget it.
These are precisely the reasons why there are so many outlaws now that used to not be outlaws.My Visit to SCO (Linux Journal)
- Political corruption
- Disrespect for the laws, sometimes by those who are supposed to uphold and make them
- Black markets
- Ruination of families
- Civil war
- Human-rights violations
- Civil-rights violations
- Economic ruin (Harlem, early 20th century)
- Betrayal
Just thought of something.My Visit to SCO (Linux Journal)
Thing is, the wholesale slaughter of trees on this planet may very well cost all of us our lives.My Visit to SCO (Linux Journal)
This is way off-topic, but I can't resist commenting...
My Visit to SCO (Linux Journal)
Well, it is off-topic but I too can't help commenting:My Visit to SCO (Linux Journal)
Er, not entirely. It kind of depends on how many trees are cut down, how many new trees are planted, and if the number of trees (and plants) are equal to the task of producing enough oxygen for the number of animals on the planet who need it.
Actually, more then 90% of the oxigen we breath is produced by seaweeds (kelps). The problem with cutting trees is the enviroment inbalance that it produces if you cut too many. Animals and other plants that depended on them will suffer.
Igor Cananéa (icc)
Brazil - Pernambuco
"In a world without fences and walls, who needs GATES and WINDOWS?"
You said:My Visit to SCO (Linux Journal)
> Actually, more then 90% of the oxigen we breath
> is produced by seaweeds (kelps).
... it's at least worth thinking about whether the logging industries are replacing the trees they're cutting down quickly enough ...My Visit to SCO (Linux Journal)
"Number 2 is the one that took a long time to sink in. Law != Science.My Visit to SCO (Linux Journal)
Don't forget it."
Hehe, you got me humming and whistling the Perry Mason tune. It got me My Visit to SCO (Linux Journal)
thinking about Ironside, and that weird-assed panelwagon they hauled Raymond
Burr around in. Now, I'm thinking about Room 222, for some reason. I'm only 38,
but I guess I saw plenty/too much TV.
Speaking of distrust of the legal system, justice and so forth, I feel compelled to
reiterate my partial victory/partial failure against a lying lawyer. She outright lied,
and the lies came off her tongue, as in Matrix: Reloaded, regarding "cussing in
French", 'as smooth as wiping your ass with silk'. THAT was EXACLY how
smoothly an operator she was. Boy, she had SKILL and went for the KILL. I was
DUMBSTRUCK that she so boldly/brazenly/cooly LIED. OUTRIGHT LIED. Too
bad I didn't have Dr. Simon van Gelder's recidevist correction machine to strap
her ass into and sonically alter her brain. I am sure I'll someday need a laywer, but
I don't think I'll EVER lie to him or her, and I would fire him or her for lying on my
behalf. At least have a plausible, forgivable REASON or misunderstanding for
being in a fix, but to outright LIE and know your "oponnent" is lying is
unforgivable, particularly if the lie has nothing to do with saving a corporeal (not
corporate) existence.
Anyway, I will get back to my diabolical plan to start up a Linux Users business to
woo small businesses owners and motivated learners to come and get educated
for a low price, have fun, and learn about OSS and how free their companies'
futures from ms/proprietary tyranny. (Except, no, I will not do business with CNA
Insurance company if there are here...see below for why...)
Anybody know any secret, equally diabolical investors or donors who are itchin' to
flow some capital to a worthiy cause such as "McDonaldizing" Linux/OSS?
If/since ms still weids power over computer makers and unjustifiably commands
over 84 to 94% of the market, then a "market correction" is SORELY overdue.
Linux will NOT be competition for ms unless ms suddenly is at the
50%-market-share-and-plummeting threshold, says I...
David Syes
========
Excerpted from my drivel at:
http://lwn.net/Articles/36856/
I fought a case against Jack in the Box (Food Maker) back round 1992. I
essentially "lost" because I forgot to bring to court my developed, condemning
pictures showing the condition of JITB's property which led to damage to my car.
It was my proof that they "maintained an atractive nuissance" or invitation to
repeated right rocker-panel crushing. That JITB was there since the mid 70's and
the curb had been hit REPEATEDLY, nicked, chipped, cracked, damaged and
such all because it was a few inches higher than most cars' rocker panels and
because the long wait and no post sign lulled drivers to forget the curb was there,
particularly when no cars perpendicular-parked against the curb, which would
automatically prompt a driver to turn wider.
I wasn't trying to get rich, just make the franchise pay for its failure to maintain a
required danger sign (required because city code required it, and because the
repeated damaged clearly proved SOME reason existed for the curb being hit all
the time) due to their curb being high enough to damage cars when drivers pull
out. I only hit it because the heavily pouring rain distracted me and mainly
because they took over 5 or 10 minutes in the drive-thru to give me my food. It
was so bad a wait that I had to shut off the engine (to save gas and reduce
emissions), and I swear the wait was over 8-10 minutes. Long story short (or so
I'll attempt here), Food Maker's lawyer, (her name was Nyree (phonetically
Kachikian or something like that) LIED, GODDAM LIED to the judge stating:
"Your honor there was no damage, is no damage, and ther have been no
incidents since his. He is just a bad driver..."
That JITB was on Tully Road in San Jose, next to Alvin Street, near Highway
101. She lied her ass off, calmly, cooly and collectedly. But, I was honest, and
only lost because without my pictures, that dum-bass pro-tem was not about to
go to Tully Road and checkmate her off the bar/bench. And, my car was in the
parking lot of the court, and JITB did not dispute my being there that rainy night.
But, to add insult to injury, the after-case paperwork had to happen, and in the
foyer of the court house in Santa Clare, the JITB district manager (from
Richmond, CA area, I think) just snickered and sneered, as if to convey or effuse
"We're big corporations, and you're SMALL FRY, you scum...". I wanted to knock
him on his ass for being so cocky and gloating and arrogant that they LIED and
got away with it; maintained unsafe property conditions to save a buck, and got
away with it; KNEW that hundreds of customers from the 1970's on into the 1992
and beyond years hit and would continue to hit it, yet never get RID of that
damned nuissance curb. Bastard! Anyway, I told them that I believed in Karma,
and that something BAD would eventually happen to JITB. Sure enough, around
1993, SEVERAL people in CA died from e-coli in under-cooked meats (oh, let us
not forget the allegations of Kangaroo meat and deep-fried rats at JITB...). JITB
had a looong bout dealing with that bad press. Momma Nature? God? Fate?
Who the hell knows, but felt a small piece of vindication, but sadness for the
families who suffered to JITB's sloppy handling of food.
So, I swore I would ALWAYS dig into the background of ANY business
arrangement I would enter in the future with the SOLE purpose of excluding Food
Maker's insurance company: CNA Insurance. (Even when I hear or read ads for
Certified Nursing Assistant, I flash-back to 1992...) . CNA of Burlingame or San
Mateo or HIllsdale, CA. In contempt of court I refused to file the follow up
paperwork because the dumbass Pro-Tem let them off the hook. PRICK. I STILL
have the unfiled papers.. I wonder if there's a statue of limitations aganst the
state.... ANY one who's been to a tight drive through knows the curbs get hit. I
am sure that moron has been to a few dozen drivethrus scaling his way to the
bar exams, either as a driver or a passenger. Food Maker's franchise simply got
tired of re-installing the threaded steel poles and resorted to broom sticks and
candy-cane-striped plastic/PVC pipes, which all were removed by thugs,
ganger-bangers, and other miscreants who made the drive through dangerous,
PARTICULARLY since the lot-dividing curb was deep-gray and blended into the
night. ALL the manager had to do was to contract someone to weld the damn
pole into the base, reflective-stripe it, and only worry if it actually got knocked out
by a deep-incursion right turn. THEN, he/they could say the driver was a "bad
driver."
So, I have a HEALTHY, JADED, SKEWED, CYNICAL regard for the "justice"
system, the "legal" system, and pro-tems. Since the case information was a
matter of public record, I am legally free to disclose the stuff I said above, even
CNA's and Nyree Kachi something's name.
======
As a lawyer and scientist, I find law quite scientific. The problem with law is just that it is way too complex. The rules are there as surely as Newton's, but there are an incredible number of them. That makes legal decisions seem quite arbitrary to non-lawyers, especially when they are reported in snippets in the mainstream news.Law = science
"SCO said that only in the last month or two has it really started analyzing Linux kernels for cases of copying. "SCO started investigation of proof after the $1B claim?
As the claim on IBM was over 3 month old at the time of the visit, I understand the claim was made before investigation of any proof? Sounds strange!
I understand the claim was made before investigation of any proof? Sounds strange!
SCO started investigation of proof after the $1B claim?
"...dirty cheats."SCO started investigation of proof after the $1B claim?
At what point does the doctrine of fair use come into play with software?Fair Use?
/* It is taken from foo.c, Bar Product, Acme Corp. */
At what point does the doctrine of fair use come into play with software?
Fair Use?
Errrrrrrrr scuse me but like what is to say that 2 distinct individuals in 2 Fair Use?
completely seperate locations cant come up with the same collection of words and
other assorted charecters after all that is all we are talking about when push
comes to shove is it not i now announce my intent to screw anyone for using the
words "hello there " this is what it boils down to at the end of the day ..
jus SCO got caught short not sellin much an lookin' for a way out so sling som
muck an hope ol IBM will buy em' out well IBM i don't for one moment think will
fall for that one think again SCO'es...
Pete .
Think about sampling music, for example. It's okay to use a small chunk of a song when you're producing a different work...Fair Use?
That's up to the lawyers to decide...
Fair Use?
I've been watching all this thing unfold from a distance,
sometimes amused and sometimes worried, but this piece
is the first to create an itch ... this paragraph in
particular:
My Visit to SCO (Linux Journal)
Here is what I think I can say about the code I saw. The
code is fairly trivial--the kind of stuff I wrote in
school. The similar portions of the code were some 80
lines or so. Looking around the Net, I found close
variants of the code, with the same comments and variable
names, in sources other than Linux distributions. The
code is not in a central part of the Linux kernel. The
code does not appear to have been contributed to Linux by
SCO or Caldera. The code exists in current versions of
the Linux kernel.
It's a streach, but I bet it should be feasible to find
actual code based solely on this description. Don't know
how this would work out with google (and I personally
don't have the time to do this), but I'd be curious to
see what would come out from trying to engineer a
query system for comparing portions of the Linux kernel
to web results. Things to look for (as stated in
description):
- Same comments
- Variable names
- Similar algorithms
I know, I know, the kernel is huge, etc., etc., but maybe
if someone thought long enough about this sort of
problem ... After all, Google runs Linux, right?
Certainly they stand to loose a lot to SCO ... Maybe
they'd be willing to lend a hand ...?
My hunch would be that the disputed code is based on an algorithm that is well known, and which is documented in one of Knuth's TAOCP tomes, most probably Volume 3.
My Visit to SCO (Linux Journal)
How in the Hell could this --sontag-- thing, pardon SCO, know that JFS was first developed for AIX , then for OS/2, then back for AIX and Linux,...My Visit to SCO (Linux Journal)
DID he WORKED FOR IBM OR IS IT SIMPLE INDUSTRIAL ESPIONAGE ?...
EVEN "IF" SCO IS RIGHT IN THAT POINT(wich i doubt very much), IBM can easly setup a consistent demonstration that NUMA , JFS, RCU, SMP where indeed developded first for other operation systems.... HOW CAN SCO DEMONSTRATE OTHERWISE ?... Perhaps God told them ?,... or was Bill with 10 millions an other similar numbers for personal accounts ?...
My Visit to SCO (Linux Journal)
I belive what is mentioned is the first commercial version was for AIX version 3.1,... that is a finnished and usable version.My Visit to SCO (Linux Journal)
with the initial release of AIX Version 3.1"
manager of AIX"
first shipped in OS/2 Warp Server for eBusiness in April, 1999, after
several years of designing, coding, and testing."
What matters for SCO broad derivative work interpretation, is, WHERE IT WAS FIRST DEVELOPED... or no case.
My understanding, from when I was an OS/2 user and JFS arrived on the scene, was that it was developed as a design, targetted to a computing need rather than a particular o/s, and then separately implemented on AIX and OS/2 due to the different needs of the two systems (and on OS/2, a desire to move away from HPFS386, for which Microsoft was still collecting royalties.) When it was decided to create an open source port to Linux, the OS/2 base was used (A) to avoid the risk of intellectual property from AIX slipping into a GPL edition, and (B) while OS/2 does have important chunks of design that come from other sources (NeXT, Microsoft, Adobe, etc.,) JFS on OS/2 was IBM-clean, and looking at the market position of OS/2, what value was left for it in the OS/2 market?
My Visit to SCO (Linux Journal)
BETTER,... IBM "probably" will throw "in a couple" of patents, with request datas predating the signing of contrat for AT&T system V code, that experts can easly and consistently attach to JFS, NUMA, RCU, SMP;.... so, this question will never be posed:My Visit to SCO (Linux Journal)
And LWN told them about RCU
My Visit to SCO (Linux Journal)
I just visited SCOs website, (6-20-2003 1:25 P.M. CST). and amongst their fussing and fuming about Linux and IBM, in their products drop down they still list United Linux. So SCO, the company that is suing to try to kill off Linux, and is claiming infringement by Linux developers, is still promoting Linux on their website. As Dr. Phil would say, "How's that working out for you?". All I have to say is that this is very odd behavior for anybody that wants to be taken seriously....
Funny thing about SCOs objections to Linux.
They don't want to kill it, they want to own it.
Funny thing about SCOs objections to Linux.
thing is they wont/can't do either .. Funny thing about SCOs objections to Linux.
pete .