Re: [tlug] SCO's non-case

[Raymond Regalado <fwgk5942@example.com>]

On 2004.2.9, at 09:08  PM, Fredric Fredricson wrote:

> Actually, this what they have been saying all along. They say that they
> have a contract with IBM that says that what IBM develop for AIX can
> not be ported to any other product (this is _not_ the exact wording,
> but the end result). SCO do agree that IBM still owns the code.

My understanding is that SCO's contention is that IBM put *derivative* 
code developed for AIX into Linux.  I think it's not just "any 
IBM-owned code", since even SCO should know that IBM can do whatever 
they want with their own code provided it is not "derivative", i.e. 
"derived" from Unix.  The whole case now hinges on the definition of 
"derivative", maybe.  Bruce Perens (I think it was) wrote something 
concerning the true meaning of "derivative" many months ago where he 
showed that SCO's definition of the word is not right...

Kind Regards,

Raymond