Re: [tlug] SCO's non-case

[Jonathan Byrne <jq@example.com>]

On Monday 09 February 2004 06:15 am, Raymond Regalado wrote:

> 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"

In SCOspeach, "derivative" and "any IBM-owned code" seem to mean the same 
thing.  As far as I can tell, after lots of reading on groklaw, SCO seems to 
hold that any and all parts of AIX are derivative works, even those in which 
100% of the code was written by IBM, and therefore cannot be contributed. 

Whether the courts will go along with such an assertion remains to be seen, 
but on the face of it, that seems ridiculous.  IBM seems extremely confident 
of achieving complete victory, at least judging by their refusal to settle 
and the fact that they did not request a summary judgement although they 
could well have when SCO failed to turn over all discovery by the deadline.  
They seem to smell blood in the water, and it ain't theirs.  I think IBM 
really wants a court decision, because it will effectively mean that no one 
will ever dare try something like this again.

Jonathan
-- 
99 pounds of natural born goodness
99 pounds of soul!