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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] * 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
