Re: [tlug] A SCO letter

[Marcus Metzler <mocm@example.com>]

Edward Middleton writes:
 > 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.
 > 
 > -- 

Like a said, no specifics. What could possibly be in the kernel which
is copied one to one from another Unix system that would then still
work. I don't think they have a patent case and it can't be copyright
because that wouldn't work. If they say the code has been obfuscated
than anybody could claim that their IP was stolen. If I write a
program that implements the same algorithm you have of course similar code,
but since you can't patent algorithms (o yeah only in the US, but
their Unix patents are long gone) they probably are just creating FUD.
In any case they published the Code under the GPL so anybody can use
it. Not knowing that it is their code is no argument. They should
check what they publish. Either they knew and tried to entrap people,
or they didn't and therefore neglected to check their own publication.
They can't expect to profit twice from their own negligence.

Marcus

-- 
/--------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Dr. Marcus O.C. Metzler        |                                   |
|--------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| mocm@example.com            | http://www.metzlerbros.de/        |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------/