Re: [OT] SCO is going all out now
Well said. There's simply "no there there" - SCO has no plausible claim
against anyone on these grounds. Given that, there's no excuse for playing
it "safe" as they try to steal one.
ap
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J Perrin - http://www.unc.edu/~aperrin
Assistant Professor of Sociology, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
clists@perrin.socsci.unc.edu * andrew_perrin (at) unc.edu
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Bret Comstock Waldow wrote:
> Please stop worrying and educate yourself. This is just muddying up the
> mail list and the topic.
>
> All this angst is easily dispelled. Consider this quote from the
> article below:
>
> "SCO/Caldera's claim to own the scalability techniques certainly cannot
> be supported from the feature list of its own SCO OpenServer, a genetic
> Unix. The latest version[43] advertises SMP up to only 4 processors (a
> level which SCO's complaint dismisses as inadequate), no LVM, no NUMA,
> and no hot-swapping. That is, SCO/Caldera is alleging that IBM
> misappropriated from SCO technologies which do not appear in SCO's own
> product."
>
> How can IBM steal something SCO doesn't have?
>
> Here is the article:
> http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html
>
> A couple of other good items to look at:
> http://www.cybersource.com.au/users/conz/linux_vs_sco_matrix.html
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_v._IBM_Linux_lawsuit
>
> "From the moment that SCO distributed that code under the GNU General
> Public License, they would have given everybody in the world the right
> to copy, modify and distribute that code freely," ... "From the moment
> SCO distributed the Linux kernel under GPL, they licensed the use.
> Always. That's what our license says."
>
> "I allege that SCO is full of it, and that the Linux process is already
> the most transparent process in the whole industry. Let's face it,
> nobody else even comes close to being as good at showing the evolution
> and source of every single line of code out there." - Linus
>
> "As to its trade secret claims, which are the only claims actually made
> in the lawsuit against IBM, there remains the simple fact that SCO has
> for years distributed copies of the kernel, Linux, as part of GNU/Linux
> free software systems. [...] There is simply no legal basis on which SCO
> can claim trade secret liability in others for material it widely and
> commercially published itself under a license that specifically
> permitted unrestricted copying and distribution."
>
>
> And a very comprehensive (not for the faint of heart or the
> un-obssessive):
> http://sco.iwethey.org/
>
> Not taking time to understand the issue contributes to the FUD. Please
> take the time to read these resources. I'd be pleased if others on this
> list can provide better insight or knowledge than these articles, but
> I'd also be very surprised. RTFM, please.
>
> Cheers,
> Bret
>
>
> On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 17:20, Jody Grafals wrote:
> > I make a living (a meager one) building Linux server with debian for
> > small businesses. I have never needed to build a multi CPU system so I
> > always remove the systematic multiprocessing stuff from the kernel when
> > I build, shouldn’t this be good enough ? Going back to 2.2 would be a
> > nightmare......... :-(
> >
> > Any thougths ?
> >
> >
> > Brian McGroarty wrote:
> >
> > >On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 08:26:49AM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>I guess I'll be going back to 2.2 until this nonsense blows
> > >>over....sigh.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >For a business, I'd just check to be sure that 2.2 will be okay for
> > >your needs. But I wouldn't step back to 2.2 until SCO actually makes
> > >the claims public.
> > >
> > >If you're an individual, I'd definitely wait. I'd expect a long period
> > >of SCO waving its paper swords and grandstanding before they get to
> > >showing the specific alleged violations.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> --
> bwaldow at alum.mit.edu
>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
Reply to: