Re: [OT] SCO is going all out now

From: Bret Comstock Waldow (bwaldow_at_alum.mit.edu)
Date: 07/24/03

  • Next message: James Ng Yuen Sum: "Re: Some shell's problem" 
    To: Jody Grafals <jgrafals@techquest.cc>
Date: 23 Jul 2003 22:46:00 -0400

    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
  • Next message: James Ng Yuen Sum: "Re: Some shell's problem"

    Relevant Pages