On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 13:42, rm wrote: > Actually their claim is specifically the kernel; and more specifically > the multiprocessor capabilities that appeared rather suddenly in 2.4.
Suddenly? 1.3 saw the beginnings of SMP support. 2.0 definitely had SMP (although not very scalable). Improved SMP was one of the big goals of 2.4. That's like saying a building appeared "suddenly" after a bunch of people built it <wink>. http://www.linux.org.uk/SMP/title.html I was under the impression that JFS, NUMA and RCU are the actual technologies they are claiming ownership of (which is odd since these were all developed by IBM or companies that IBM bought [Sequent]). SCO is basically claiming that any Unix code developed by any companies who license Unix belongs to SCO. I understand that there are some other possible IP claims, but only a couple of people outside of SCO know what they are and there is much doubt as to the validity of these claims. > > They make statements that their IP rights have been violated, but > > refuse to show anyone what part of the code they believe they own. > They will show code to people willing to sign a brutal NDA. So far only > a few semi-informed journalist types seem to have taken the bait. Apparently at least one was a Unix kernel hacker: http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-20-CodeReview_Story02.html It should be noted that he takes a fairly neutral stance: he says there are identical lines. He refuses to say which way the code flowed (Unix to Linux or vice-versa) or whether the copying is enough to consitute copyright infringement. > > Ignoring for the moment that they may own nothing as far as any code is > > concerned (Novell's claim), > > Novell has significantly backed off their original claim that they only > sold limited rights. That's correct and very unfortunate. > That seems to clearly be the concern of SCO - that disclosing their > supposed "evidence" would cause it to disappear from the code. But that > may not nullify the claim if they can show damages. Of course, everyone knows that's irrelevant. The kernel source is archived since 0.1. It can't just "disappear". SCO simply doesn't want to show. > It's likely that everyone on this list, myself included, is hoping very > much that this SCO suit baseless and will quickly go away. In reality > though, none of us really knows if there is any truth to their claim. I suspect it's more likely that Linux code was copied to Unix (aside from the obvious IBM things like JFS, which I doubt SCO has any real claim to). > David Boise is a damn good lawyer, and they claim that the source code > has hundreds of directly copied UNIX files including comments, errors > and typos. If their claim is sound, it's possible the only way Linux > could remain "whole" is for IBM to buy SCO outright. And fire everyone, hopefully ;) Actually, another way out for IBM is to simply counter-sue. IBM has one of (or is it "the") largest patent portfolios anywhere. When someone sues them, they often find themselves the target of multiple patent-infringement suits. The result is usually a cross-licensing agreement ;) > Again, I hope they're full of crap - but it's possible they're not. Oh they most probably are, it's mostly a matter of getting a court to see it. That can be difficult. Luckily the Linux development process has been very open and very archived. Assuming SCO is full of it, this will probably be the lifesaver. Regards, -- Cliff Wells, Software Engineer Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net) (503) 978-6726 (800) 735-0555 -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
