[d@DCC] The SCO case...
farrellj at stonehenge.pronym.org
Wed May 21 16:40:09 EDT 2003
On Wed, 21 May 2003, Russell McOrmond wrote:
> There are some alleged (but not disclosed) trade secret, copyright and
> patent infringements in "Linux" (The kernel? A distribution? That too is
> not disclosed). One of the questions that has come up in discussions is
> the question of originality: how will they prove that source code is
> unique if the routines were authored to solve the same problem.
The orignal complaint was that Caldera aka SCO claims that IBM
transplanted SCO Intellectual Property into the Linux Kernel. The only
"proof" they have stated is that the kernel supposedly sprouted "Enterprise
Level" features *overnight"...and thefore IBM *must* have transfered said
features from SCO's IP to the Linux Kernel.
> SCO (as Caldera) produced their own Linux distribution, and there is a
> belief that if source code was shared illegally that it is more likely SCO
> that infringed on GPL'd code than the other way around. The idea that
> this small Dot-Bomb company (which is what it is currently - a leftover of
> the dot-com bubble that didn't burst yet) had the resources to come up
> with ideas that weren't happening in the FLOSS community is amusing.
This is something that ESR speaking as OSI touched upon...see this
> The fact that Microsoft quickly 'signed up' and paid license fees for
> undisclosed IP begs the question of whether this is simply political
> theater in Microsoft's attempt to create FUD around Linux and FLOSS.
The more paranoid in the community would have that MS put SCO up to
it, and promised to bankrole the whole thing by "licensing" SCO so-called
IP. But that is just what the paranoids say....
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca
More information about the Discuss