| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/4 |
| 2004/3/21-22 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux, Computer/SW/OS/SCO] UID:12789 Activity:kinda low |
3/21 Does anyone know the deal on this whole SCO/Linux thing? Has SCO
told anyone the specific code they think is stolen? Is it stolen
or copied? What is the deal here anyway? Couldn't Linux just
rewrite the code in question and the situation out be dead?
\_ kids these days and their researching skills...
\_ So far, every single line of code they showed turned out
to be BSD code, public domain code, genuine Linux code, and similar.
I think the claim of copied code was just a PR campaign to convince
the laymen that indeed something apparently has been copied from
SCO. The crux of SCO's case I think is that they're accusing IBM of
donating to Linux code that they claim has been "derived" from the
original Unix code, such as the JFS file systems. Maybe I am wrong,
you might want to list all the recent SCO-related articles on
slashdot, to get the idea ..
\_ SCO didn't want to release the code because they knew these hacker
geeks will do exactly that. SCO is desperate and looking for way
to milk money out of other people's hard work.
\_ Microsoft's puppet... to push people towards Windoze
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/36017.html
\_ I'll assume you're not trolling for a moment: assuming SCO is right
and code was stolen, changing it after the fact doesn't zero any
previous damage done to SCO's business. It *does* limit future
damage but the past is the past. I no longer believe they have a
case *but* if they did a rewrite won't save anyone from being sued
and paying penalties for previous theft.
\_ In a civil tort, the plaintiff has a duty to try and minimize
their damages. Since the open-source community basically told
them "show us the code and we'll fix it", SCO will have a hard
time claiming damages from the period after they notified the
community. They had an opportunity to to have people fix the
problem, for free, and they wouldn't identify the code. |
| 4/4 |
|
| www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/36017.html -> www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/04/email_leak_suggests_sco_got/ But we should be clear about what it is we have here if the email is genuine. It is from a CO contractor working with SCO IP licensing, and it contains a number of characterisations of what Microsofts views and intentions are. These are not necessarily quite how Microsofts execs might put it themselves, and the email does not constitute clear evidence that one or more senior Microsoft executives have as a matter of policy decided to launder vast sums of money into SCO in order to keep the company afloat and disrupt Linux. Not, of course, that were saying such a policy mightnt exist, just that the email does not provide evidence of its existence. If it turns out to be real, then this email and related traffic would clearly be logical subpoena subjects for the companies on the receiving end of SCOs lawsuits, and its not out of the question that such action would find a smoking pistol or two. Take one company nobody much likes any more, not much money, IP to convert, lawsuits to fight, whos it going to call? And take another with vastly more money than it needs, not many friends either, Linux-Unix interoperability-related goals, and a stated corporate view that Unix is good, Linux is bad. The latter doesnt actually have to invent the plot, because the plot will invent itself. Whatever - see if its real, wait for the subpoenas, see if it leads anywhere. Considering the crass exercises in futility some of the emails in the antitrust actions led to, it still might. More here Related stories: SCO takes Linux-loving auto industry to court Were just like the RIAA, says SCO Subpoenas fly in SCO vs IBM Try a range of Orange business services free for a month. |