Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Re: All the Lunix users, have you got you License..?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: All the Lunix users, have you got you License..?

 
 
Mainlander
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, alanb+google4
@digistar.com says...
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:02:02 +1200, Peter wrote:
>
> > If SCO has discovered it "only now", then why did they bring legal
> > action against IBM way back in March? If SCO discovered the alleged
> > theft back in January when they started spouting off on it, then why
> > have they continued to distribute Linux under GPL for months since then?

>
> It gets even more interesting.
>
> It appears from the claims made that the code they're claiming has been
> illegally inserted into the linux kernel was contributed by Caldera
> Germany, before Caldera renamed itself to SCO.
>
> SCO Xenix is crap (I've had to suffer the pain of using it and working
> round the y2k issues). Unixware is crap too (Ditto) and Caldera's own
> Linux distro was pretty dire too.


Was SCO Xenix the same as Microsoft Xenix?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2003
this quote is from Mainlander of Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:46 :
>
> Get it into your head, if I own some code and someone publishes it
> illegally under a GPL license, I still own it and can assert my rights to
> it and have the GPL license revoked and any rights conveyed by that
> license revoked as well. Quite legally.


Yes, but only in respect of your code. You can't demand a licence from
people who wish to use the other GPL code (as SCO is doing).
And you can't intermingle your proprietary code with GPL code. The GPL
doesn't allow it. (You really should read the GPL, you know.)

Anyhow, SCO have distributed Linux under GPL for the whole time that they
have been alleging infringement. So if any SCO code is in Linux, then SCO
themselves have distributed it under GPL.

> Just because someone else has published SCO's code without their
> permission doesn't annul their existing rights to that code.


But SCO have distributed Linux under GPL. And they still are doing so.

> Only if they actually published their own code under GPL knowing that it
> was their code. If the code was included in the distro without their
> knowledge then they still have the rights to revoke the GPL license that
> SOMEONE ELSE put on the code, not them.


Oh come on, how can SCO claim that they don't know their proprietary code is
in the Linux they are publishing under GPL, and at the same time claim they
do know IBM has put their proprietary code into Linux? Either they know it
is there, or they don't. Which is it?


Peter



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
T.N.O
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2003
"Mark Harris" wrote
| Ignorance of the action is no excuse. The fact that SCO issued and
| STILL issues a distro of Linux undermines their claim that SCO code
| has been inserted into Linux by a third party.

Who says that SCO Linux has the offending code in it... have you read the
code?


 
Reply With Quote
 
lily
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2003

"T.N.O" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Mark Harris" wrote
> | Ignorance of the action is no excuse. The fact that SCO issued and
> | STILL issues a distro of Linux undermines their claim that SCO code
> | has been inserted into Linux by a third party.
>
> Who says that SCO Linux has the offending code in it... have you read the
> code?


SCO says
Its the Linux 2.4 kernel complete.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Uncle StoatWarbler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2003
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 21:33:09 +1200, T.N.O wrote:

> "Mark Harris" wrote
> | Ignorance of the action is no excuse. The fact that SCO issued and
> | STILL issues a distro of Linux undermines their claim that SCO code
> | has been inserted into Linux by a third party.
>
> Who says that SCO Linux has the offending code in it... have you read the
> code?


SCO refuse to state what the ofending code is - to the extent that they're
in contempt of German court orders to put up or shut up.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Harris
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2003
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 21:33:09 +1200, "T.N.O" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Mark Harris" wrote
>| Ignorance of the action is no excuse. The fact that SCO issued and
>| STILL issues a distro of Linux undermines their claim that SCO code
>| has been inserted into Linux by a third party.
>
>Who says that SCO Linux has the offending code in it... have you read the
>code?
>

As SCO won't tell what the offending code is, it wouldn't matter
whether I had read the source or not. If it's based on a 2.4 kernal,
as I understand it, it has the offending code in it. Another poster
has said that the offending code appears to be the major change from
the previous kernel release. I don't know about that but, if true, it
undermines SCO's arguments.

cheers

mark
--
"Someone's been mean to you! Tell me who it is, so I can punch him tastefully."
- Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
This will make you all happy MS Lunix.. Gregory Parker NZ Computing 24 11-22-2003 09:55 PM
Have you payed your Lunix License..? Robert Kramer NZ Computing 12 08-23-2003 10:47 PM
Re: All the Lunix users, have you got you License..? GraB NZ Computing 14 08-09-2003 05:01 AM
Re: All the Lunix users, have you got you License..? Robert Mathews NZ Computing 6 08-08-2003 10:54 AM
Re: All the Lunix users, have you got you License..? StuM NZ Computing 5 08-06-2003 11:21 AM



Advertisments