Re: [tlug] A SCO letter

[Edward Middleton <edwardmiddleton@example.com>]

On Sun, 2003-05-18 at 18:31, Marcus Metzler wrote:
> Edward Middleton writes:
>  > On Sun, 2003-05-18 at 16:16, Godwin Stewart wrote:
>  > > And Thus Spake simon colston <simon@example.com> (on Sun, 18 May 2003
>  > > 11:10:45 +0900):
>  > > 
>  > > > Godwin was talking about the O/S, the operating system.  XFree, Apache,
>  > > > KDE, etc., are not part of the OS.
>  > > 
>  > > Thank you Simon. You beat me to it :)
>  > > 
>  > > I wonder what the initiator of the GNU project, Richard Stallman, has to say
>  > > about SCO claiming that all the work he did was nothing but an illegal clone
>  > > of Unix. I'd be livid!
>  > 
>  > I believe SCO is currently only looking at the Linux kernel (The IBM
>  > case).  The bottom line is they are going after money, i.e. direct
>  > copyright ("unauthorized derivative") infringement,because its easy to
>  > prove.  As far as I can see SCO hasn't really said anything specifically
>  > about GNU projects.
> 
> SCO hasn't said anything specifically about anything. If they are
> really worried about their IP then they should have named the
> infringements and sent a cease and desist. If they don't do that it isov
> almost entrapment and should not hold in court.

>From what I understand they have taken IBM to court over the use of Unix
code in the Linux kernel.  I imagine it is possible a judge could be
convinced that some Linux kernel code was obfuscated Unix code.  They
are also claiming that programmers who had access to the Unix code
worked on Linux which might be enough to convince a Judge that code was
stolen.   Their has been speculation that this is just a ploy to get IBM
to buy SCO (as a cheaper alternative to a court case).  If this is the
case then it would explain the FUD.

-- 
Edward Middleton <edwardmiddleton@example.com>