Re: [OT] SCO is going all out now

From: Andrew Perrin (clists_at_perrin.socsci.unc.edu)
Date: 07/24/03

  • Next message: Andrew Perrin: "Re: SCO, IBM, and cladistics" 
    Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:48:27 -0400 (EDT)
To: debian-user <debian-user@lists.debian.org>

    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
    >
    > 

    -- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
  • Next message: Andrew Perrin: "Re: SCO, IBM, and cladistics"

    Relevant Pages