«

"Anthony Neville" <> wrote in message
news:2A4Za.10277$...
>
> And if the code is proprietary, why would you expect its rightful
> owners to know about it, or for that matter anyone else besides
> the perpetrator?
>
> Tony.

This is the IBM code that IBM wrote to make Redhat Linux run on their IBM
servers.
Its a key feature of 2.4, so I expect all the kernel developers would know
about it.

It is not proprietary

In article <yEiZa.10401$>, says...
>
> "Anthony Neville" <> wrote in message
> news:2A4Za.10277$...
> >
> > And if the code is proprietary, why would you expect its rightful
> > owners to know about it, or for that matter anyone else besides
> > the perpetrator?
> >
> > Tony.
>
> This is the IBM code that IBM wrote to make Redhat Linux run on their IBM
> servers.
> Its a key feature of 2.4, so I expect all the kernel developers would know
> about it.
>
> It is not proprietary

It is proprietary if the court case proves so.

"Mainlander" <*@*.*> wrote in message
news:. nz...
> In article <yEiZa.10401$>, says...
> >
> > "Anthony Neville" <> wrote in message
> > news:2A4Za.10277$...
> > >
> > > And if the code is proprietary, why would you expect its rightful
> > > owners to know about it, or for that matter anyone else besides
> > > the perpetrator?
> > >
> > > Tony.
> >
> > This is the IBM code that IBM wrote to make Redhat Linux run on their
IBM
> > servers.
> > Its a key feature of 2.4, so I expect all the kernel developers would
know
> > about it.
> >
> > It is not proprietary
>
> It is proprietary if the court case proves so.

It is not proprietary now.
Do you understand the word _not_ ?

"Uncle StoatWarbler" <alanb+> wrote in message
news.. .
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 11:58:32 +1200, lily wrote:
>
>
> > SCO claims that the rights that they bought from Novell entitle them to
> > rights over IBM IP, the code for SMP RCU NUMA which are multiprocessor
> > technologies developed by IBM in AIX and contributed to the Linux kernel
> > by IBM.
>
> Which is is interesting as Linux has had multiprocessing capabilities
> since 1.* and NUMA capabilities well before IBM got involved (came from
> Sun and SGI). IBM's contribution was refinements, not wholesale
> replacements.
>
> > SCO claim that this makes that code derivative work that they have
> > authoritative rights to. This and only this is the basis of their whole
> > claim.
>
> Similarly, the claim over JFS is because the same programmers who wrote
> JFS for AIX wrote the ports for Linux.
>
> > Desktop users have no need of this code BTW and use kernels compiled
> > without these modules
>
> Ditto there. JFS is niche interest at best in Linux at present.
>
> As for the SysV claims, there has been extensive SysV workalike code in
> Linux since 1.2 days, so they'd have to tread very carefully about those
> claims.
>
>
> I think that SCO's claims may force unsealing of the USL vs BSD settlement
> of 20 years ago and SCO will hurt badly as a result.
>
> There are a _lot_ of people blowing the dust off 20-30 year old Unix
> archives to show that stuff they claim ownership of was more likely
> illegally incorporated into Unix code lines than illegal appropriated from
> Unix.
>
> The whole crux of the USL vs BSD case was that it was shown that AT&T had
> been stealing code from BSD and removing copyright notices + attributions.
> That effectively ended the case, as AT&T/USL had brought the case against
> BSD claiming that the code in question had been stolen by BSD.
>

The IBM code that SCO claims rights over is not in the 2.2 kernel, according
to SCO, in several interviews with Mozillaquest
mozillaquest.com
They are trying on a "gotcha" interpretation of the contract they have with
IBM. Nice try, nice tie guys.
Their response to the bitchslap countersuit from IBM sounds like it was
written by Steve Ballmer
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030807/lath091_1.html
"We view IBM's counterclaim filing today as an effort to distract attention
from its flawed Linux business model."
Wasn't that the same business that ScoCaldera were in ?
There are still quotes out there from McBride about how great it is.

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 11:58:32 +1200, lily wrote:


> SCO claims that the rights that they bought from Novell entitle them to
> rights over IBM IP, the code for SMP RCU NUMA which are multiprocessor
> technologies developed by IBM in AIX and contributed to the Linux kernel
> by IBM.

Which is is interesting as Linux has had multiprocessing capabilities
since 1.* and NUMA capabilities well before IBM got involved (came from
Sun and SGI). IBM's contribution was refinements, not wholesale
replacements.

> SCO claim that this makes that code derivative work that they have
> authoritative rights to. This and only this is the basis of their whole
> claim.

Similarly, the claim over JFS is because the same programmers who wrote
JFS for AIX wrote the ports for Linux.

> Desktop users have no need of this code BTW and use kernels compiled
> without these modules

Ditto there. JFS is niche interest at best in Linux at present.

As for the SysV claims, there has been extensive SysV workalike code in
Linux since 1.2 days, so they'd have to tread very carefully about those
claims.


I think that SCO's claims may force unsealing of the USL vs BSD settlement
of 20 years ago and SCO will hurt badly as a result.

There are a _lot_ of people blowing the dust off 20-30 year old Unix
archives to show that stuff they claim ownership of was more likely
illegally incorporated into Unix code lines than illegal appropriated from
Unix.

The whole crux of the USL vs BSD case was that it was shown that AT&T had
been stealing code from BSD and removing copyright notices + attributions.
That effectively ended the case, as AT&T/USL had brought the case against
BSD claiming that the code in question had been stolen by BSD.



It's a fairly common tactic btw - steal IP, then launch legal action
against the real originator claiming that they stole it, relying on having
deeper pockets to take the case through.

It doesn't just happen in the IT industry - the most common area for this
to happen is in the music bizzness.

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 12:42:14 +1200, T.N.O wrote:

> | Rubbish. There is no such entity as "Linux". And already German courts
> | have booted SCO in the bum and told them to **** off.
>
> Oh and because Germany did it, it must be true...

Several linux vendors took SCO to german courts over the claims and
advertising being made, telling them to put up or shut up.

SCO refused to do either. That's telling in itself.

As a result, those groups went back to court and managed to effectively
stop SCO trading in Germany.

The point made at the time is that the laws used are almost identical
in every western country. There is a similar case pending in Australia and
there will probably be a bunch of them in other EU countries.

Perhaps someone in NZ should consider similar action. Comcom won't get
involved as this isn't a consumer affairs matter, Fair Trading won't get
involved because they don't understand the issues.


I do find it amusing that SCO is getting legal advice in Australia and NZ
for how to proceed with licensing in NZ. Our laws are substantially
different to theirs and they're falling prey to the "connected by the
sydney harbour bridge" mindset you see so often.

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:25:22 +1200, Mainlander wrote:

>> If it does know it is there, why is SCO still distributing Linux under GPL
>> months after they claimed infringement?
>
> Because they're selling licenses for their proprietary code that is in
> Linux.

Which is a violation of GPL. Go read it.


SCO's case is not helped by their throwing their source code base open in
2000.

Once they did that, it was very difficult for them to pull it back and
claim trade secrets, etc.

More to the point, as the code base was thrown open, it's given people the
opportunity to do source code comparisons - and guess what, they haven't
found anything.

Whatever SCO is claiming ownership of, must be submarined, or
non-existant.

In article <OuqZa.10503$>, says...
>
> "Mainlander" <*@*.*> wrote in message
> news:. nz...
> > In article <yEiZa.10401$>, says...
> > >
> > > "Anthony Neville" <> wrote in message
> > > news:2A4Za.10277$...
> > > >
> > > > And if the code is proprietary, why would you expect its rightful
> > > > owners to know about it, or for that matter anyone else besides
> > > > the perpetrator?
> > > >
> > > > Tony.
> > >
> > > This is the IBM code that IBM wrote to make Redhat Linux run on their
> IBM
> > > servers.
> > > Its a key feature of 2.4, so I expect all the kernel developers would
> know
> > > about it.
> > >
> > > It is not proprietary
> >
> > It is proprietary if the court case proves so.
>
> It is not proprietary now.
> Do you understand the word _not_ ?

Do you understand that if SCO owns the code and someone else publishes it
under the GPL license, without permission from SCO, SCO's rights are not
annuled in any way? That's what this case is about.

In article <>, alanb+google4
@digistar.com says...
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 11:58:32 +1200, lily wrote:
>
>
> > SCO claims that the rights that they bought from Novell entitle them to
> > rights over IBM IP, the code for SMP RCU NUMA which are multiprocessor
> > technologies developed by IBM in AIX and contributed to the Linux kernel
> > by IBM.
>
> Which is is interesting as Linux has had multiprocessing capabilities
> since 1.* and NUMA capabilities well before IBM got involved (came from
> Sun and SGI). IBM's contribution was refinements, not wholesale
> replacements.
>
> > SCO claim that this makes that code derivative work that they have
> > authoritative rights to. This and only this is the basis of their whole
> > claim.
>
> Similarly, the claim over JFS is because the same programmers who wrote
> JFS for AIX wrote the ports for Linux.
>
> > Desktop users have no need of this code BTW and use kernels compiled
> > without these modules
>
> Ditto there. JFS is niche interest at best in Linux at present.
>
> As for the SysV claims, there has been extensive SysV workalike code in
> Linux since 1.2 days, so they'd have to tread very carefully about those
> claims.
>
>
> I think that SCO's claims may force unsealing of the USL vs BSD settlement
> of 20 years ago and SCO will hurt badly as a result.
>
> There are a _lot_ of people blowing the dust off 20-30 year old Unix
> archives to show that stuff they claim ownership of was more likely
> illegally incorporated into Unix code lines than illegal appropriated from
> Unix.
>
> The whole crux of the USL vs BSD case was that it was shown that AT&T had
> been stealing code from BSD and removing copyright notices + attributions.
> That effectively ended the case, as AT&T/USL had brought the case against
> BSD claiming that the code in question had been stolen by BSD.
>
>
>
> It's a fairly common tactic btw - steal IP, then launch legal action
> against the real originator claiming that they stole it, relying on having
> deeper pockets to take the case through.
>
> It doesn't just happen in the IT industry - the most common area for this
> to happen is in the music bizzness.

Some of the stuff I read said even the licensing for C++ could be
affected.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:56:21 +1200, Mainlander wrote:

> In article <>, alanb+google4
> @digistar.com says...
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:25:22 +1200, Mainlander wrote:
>>
>> >> If it does know it is there, why is SCO still distributing Linux under GPL
>> >> months after they claimed infringement?
>> >
>> > Because they're selling licenses for their proprietary code that is in
>> > Linux.
>>
>> Which is a violation of GPL. Go read it.
>
> GPL can't annul any existing rights that SCO have to their code, if the
> code was republished GPL without their permission.

SCO can't sell/distribute Linux _and_ claim licensing fees.

Which is what they're doing. One negates the other.

>> SCO's case is not helped by their throwing their source code base open in
>> 2000.
>>
>> Once they did that, it was very difficult for them to pull it back and
>> claim trade secrets, etc.
>
> What has changed is SCO purchasing rights to original Unix code from
> whoever owned it. I think that has happened more recently.

No, it didn't. Read your history on this properly.


The more I see from you, the more I'm convinced you're a M$ troll.