Re: AIX 5L & SCO lawsuits.
From: Aaron Morris (aaronmorris_at_MINDSPRING.COM)
Date: 06/12/03
- Previous message: Stapleton, Mark: "Re: AIX 5L & SCO lawsuits."
- In reply to: MARLON BORBA: "AIX 5L & SCO lawsuits."
- Next in thread: Provoost, Richard: "Re: AIX 5L & SCO lawsuits."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 00:33:21 -0400 To: aix-l@Princeton.EDU
The "Linux integration" has nothing to do with SCO's lawsuit. The "L"
in AIX 5L is kind of a misnomer since what it actually means is you can
run applications that would normally run on Linux under AIX. The lawsuit
is only about putting AIX (Unix) code into the Linux kernel. Not the
other way around.
SCO has a very steep hill to climb. IBM's legal resources are virtually
unlimited in comparison to SCO's. IBM could possibly just ride it out
until SCO goes bankrupt from legal fees.
IBM will first try to get the lawsuit dropped on a technicallity (ie not
properly filed). If it gets to court, SCO will have to prove:
1. The code in the Linux kernel actually came from the UNIX codebase.
2. IBM was the source of the "leak" and not some other company (even
SCO themselves)
3. (If it was IBM) The individual that submitted the code had access to
the UNIX code and was acting in the interest of IBM and not as an
individual.
I think #2 is going to be the hardest for SCO to prove. IBM is not the
only contributor to Linux that has access to the UNIX codebase. I am
suprised not to have seen this point raised on any of the major
technology sites (at least none of the ones I've read). There is a HUGE
gapping hole in SCO's case as I see it. The reason SCO started
investigating is because they heard some IBM engineers say that they did
not have a problem contributing all of the AIX code to Linux, then they
find UNIX code in Linux and immediately come to the conclusion that it
must have been IBM that did it.
SCO will also have to face the fact that they themselves were
distributing the code in their own Linux distro: Caldera Open Linux.
"I did not know" is not usually a good legal defense in this case. :)
The issue about SCO not owning the copyrights is not going to stop SCO
if I understand correctly. Even if SCO does not own them, they have the
right to defend them because of the contracts they have that pertain to
the UNIX codebase.
Even if SCO wins, whatever contracts they get out of companies using
Linux will only be short-term. Once the Linux community learns of all
the code in question, it will be replaced and there will be no need for
the contracts anymore.
MARLON BORBA wrote:
> fellow AIXers,
>
> as everyone already knows, SCO in a surprising turnover threatens IBM
> with lawswits for 'infringing contract restrictions' over SCO
> proprietary Unix technologies which IBM allegedly 'delivered' into the
> Linux kernel. since these technologies probably shipped with AIX 5L --
> the L stands for 'Linux integration' AFAIK -- I would like to ask you
> what you think about SCO's arguments.
>
> SCO says that 'permission' granted to IBM for use of that technologies
> expires friday, June 13th. do we need to care about SCO's threats?
>
> TIA,
>
> marlon - aix & linux geek
>
> /*
> Marlon Borba
> Divisao de Suporte Tecnico
> TRF 3a. Regiao
> (11) 3311-4683 e 9692-8357
> mborba@trf3.gov.br - marlonborba@acm.org
> -------
> "We reject kings, presidents, and voting. We
> believe in rough consensus and a
> running code."
> --Dave Clark, pioneiro da Internet
> */
>
-- Aaron W Morris decep PGP Key ID: 259978D1
- Previous message: Stapleton, Mark: "Re: AIX 5L & SCO lawsuits."
- In reply to: MARLON BORBA: "AIX 5L & SCO lawsuits."
- Next in thread: Provoost, Richard: "Re: AIX 5L & SCO lawsuits."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
