The Unix Heritage Society mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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>


  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).