From: grog@lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Subject: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 10:07:46 +0930 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030530003746.GF20321@wantadilla.lemis.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030529.175639.34763729.imp@bsdimp.com>
On Thursday, 29 May 2003 at 17:56:39 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <20030529235027.GE20321 at wantadilla.lemis.com>
> "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog at lemis.com> writes:
>> On Thursday, 29 May 2003 at 6:33:54 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>>> In message: <BAFBB8B1.118%rob at vetsystems.com>
>>> Robert Tillyard <rob at vetsystems.com> writes:
>>
>>>> I believe the legal action is over breach on contract with IBM and
>>>> not on copyright issues.
>>>
>>> All of SCO's statements to the court have been contractual. Their
>>> statements to the press have been inflated to include things that
>>> aren't actually alledged in the court filings.
>>
>> What's not very clear here is that there seem to be two issues. The
>> IBM issue is, as you say, a contractual one which about which they
>> have been remarkably vague. The suspension of Linux distribution is a
>> different matter. From http://www.lemis.com/grog/sco.html:
>>
>> On Tuesday, 27 May 2003, I spoke to Kieran O'Shaughnessy, managing
>> director of SCO Australia. He told me that SCO had entrusted three
>> independent companies to compare the code of the UnixWare and Linux
>> kernels. All three had come back pointing to significant
>> occurrences of common code ("UnixWare code", as he put it) in both
>> kernels.
>>
>> In view of the long and varied history of UNIX, I wondered whether
>> the code in question might have been legally transferred from an
>> older version of UNIX to Linux, so I asked him if he really meant
>> UnixWare and not System V.4. He stated that it was specifically
>> UnixWare 7.
>
> I base my statements on the legal filings that are available at the
> SCO site. I do not base them on anything that SCO has said to the
> press, since those statements are nearly universally overinflated.
> Since these are statements to the press, or other public statements, I
> trust them as much as I trust public statements by politicians.
The trouble is that there *is* no legal filing on the Linux without
IBM case.
>>> That's the rub. Do they, in point of fact, actually have any code
>>> they own the Copyright to or the patent rights to?
>>
>> ...
>
> I was speaking of SCO, not IBM. What code does SCO own the copyright
> to?
Ah, sorry. Got to pass on that one. They probably have the rights to
XENIX.
>> For what it's worth, I'd be astounded if SCO's claims were found to be
>> true.
>
> Me too. There's another article that is saying that there are 10-15
> line snippets scattered all through the kernel. Give me a break.
> That claim is so absurd as to be not credible on its face. I can see
> one or two files, maybe stretching my disbelief to its limits, but I
> can't see anything more pervasive than that.
There are plenty of cases where you need to initialize a data
structure. Many data structures are public knowledge, and
initialization is a brainless enough task that the code could have
been written independently and look almost the same. Does this line
ring a bell?
(*bdevsw[major(bp->b_dev)]->d_strategy) (bp);
How many people have written that independently of each other?
Greg
--
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20030530/288820cf/attachment.sig>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-05-30 0:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-05-28 19:25 Norman Wilson
2003-05-28 23:24 ` Cornelius Keck
2003-05-29 0:02 ` Warren Toomey
2003-05-29 7:49 ` Mike Haertel
2003-05-29 12:16 ` Robert Tillyard
2003-05-29 12:33 ` M. Warner Losh
2003-05-29 23:50 ` Greg 'groggy' Lehey
2003-05-29 23:56 ` M. Warner Losh
2003-05-30 0:37 ` Greg 'groggy' Lehey [this message]
2003-05-30 1:01 ` Warren Toomey
2003-05-30 1:20 ` Greg 'groggy' Lehey
2003-05-29 13:18 ` Kenneth Stailey
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-06-09 14:00 Norman Wilson
2003-06-09 10:20 zmkm zmkm
2003-06-09 15:33 ` Boyd Lynn Gerber
2003-06-08 13:09 Aharon Robbins
2003-06-08 10:32 zmkm zmkm
2003-06-08 9:56 Aharon Robbins
2003-06-09 2:32 ` Kenneth Stailey
2003-05-30 9:01 Wesley Parish
2003-05-30 1:00 Norman Wilson
2003-05-28 12:11 [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: Eric Raymond striking a blow for ... something Kenneth Stailey
2003-05-28 18:49 ` [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate Kenneth Stailey
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030530003746.GF20321@wantadilla.lemis.com \
--to=grog@lemis.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).