Oops...SCO used *Linux* (GPL) code in SCO Unixware......

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by steve, Aug 11, 2005.

  1. steve

    steve Guest

    ....and they didn't release the source as the license requires....

    http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/09/2358237

    Linux Kernel Code May Have Been in SCO UnixWare
    Posted by timothy on Wednesday August 10, @12:37PM
    from the hard-to-say-sonny-hard-to-say dept.

    Random BedHead Ed writes "Groklaw has some interesting new information
    online. In an entry today, PJ has posted the Deposition of Erik W.
    Hughes (PDF), a SCO employee. Hughes' 2004 testimony reveals that the
    Linux Kernel Personality (LKP) of UnixWare somehow used kernel code.
    Exactly how it was used is not clear. UnixWare was released under a
    proprietary license, but the General Public License under which Linux is
    distributed requires derivative works to use the same license. As PJ
    says, it's "now apparent why SCO tried to say the GPL is
    unconstitutional" back in 2003."
     
    steve, Aug 11, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. steve

    thing2 Guest

    steve wrote:
    > ...and they didn't release the source as the license requires....
    >
    > http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/09/2358237
    >
    > Linux Kernel Code May Have Been in SCO UnixWare
    > Posted by timothy on Wednesday August 10, @12:37PM
    > from the hard-to-say-sonny-hard-to-say dept.
    >
    > Random BedHead Ed writes "Groklaw has some interesting new information
    > online. In an entry today, PJ has posted the Deposition of Erik W.
    > Hughes (PDF), a SCO employee. Hughes' 2004 testimony reveals that the
    > Linux Kernel Personality (LKP) of UnixWare somehow used kernel code.
    > Exactly how it was used is not clear. UnixWare was released under a
    > proprietary license, but the General Public License under which Linux is
    > distributed requires derivative works to use the same license. As PJ
    > says, it's "now apparent why SCO tried to say the GPL is
    > unconstitutional" back in 2003."


    So what should happen next is the effected Linux copyright holders file
    for an injunction stopping the users of SCO from using this product as
    it breaks the GPL.

    This may sound like being as bad as SCO, but my understanding is if as a
    copyright holder you become aware of an infringment but do nothing, you
    loose all or a substantial amount of the copyright protection?

    So its catch22 me thinks.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing2, Aug 11, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. steve

    AD. Guest

    On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:06:58 +1200, thing2 wrote:

    > but my understanding is if as a
    > copyright holder you become aware of an infringment but do nothing, you
    > loose all or a substantial amount of the copyright protection?


    You're thinking of trademarks :)

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Aug 11, 2005
    #3
  4. steve

    thing2 Guest

    AD. wrote:
    > On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:06:58 +1200, thing2 wrote:
    >
    >
    >> but my understanding is if as a
    >>copyright holder you become aware of an infringment but do nothing, you
    >>loose all or a substantial amount of the copyright protection?

    >
    >
    > You're thinking of trademarks :)
    >


    Trademarks for definate.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing2, Aug 12, 2005
    #4
  5. On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:25:54 +1200, steve
    <> wrote:

    >...and they didn't release the source as the license requires....
    >
    >http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/09/2358237
    >
    >Linux Kernel Code May Have Been in SCO UnixWare


    it may have been
    It may have not been
    yet you claim not that it "may" have been
    that it IS been

    Dont misrepresebnt situations for your political crap causes
     
    FreedomChooser, Aug 13, 2005
    #5
  6. steve

    shannon Guest

    FreedomChooser wrote:
    > On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:25:54 +1200, steve
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>...and they didn't release the source as the license requires....
    >>
    >>http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/09/2358237
    >>
    >>Linux Kernel Code May Have Been in SCO UnixWare

    >
    >
    > it may have been
    > It may have not been
    > yet you claim not that it "may" have been
    > that it IS been
    >
    > Dont misrepresebnt situations for your political crap causes
    >
    >


    It IS been ?
    LOL
     
    shannon, Aug 13, 2005
    #6
  7. steve

    steve Guest

    FreedomChooser wrote:

    > On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:25:54 +1200, steve
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>...and they didn't release the source as the license requires....
    >>
    >>http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/09/2358237
    >>
    >>Linux Kernel Code May Have Been in SCO UnixWare

    >
    > it may have been
    > It may have not been
    > yet you claim not that it "may" have been
    > that it IS been
    >
    > Dont misrepresebnt situations for your political crap causes


    "may" is the voice of the article.

    "did" is the voice of the Linux kernel guy
    who says they did.

    Don't misrepresent the situation, FascistChamp.
     
    steve, Aug 13, 2005
    #7
  8. steve

    steve Guest

    shannon wrote:


    > It IS been ?
    > LOL


    FC can barely think...never mind speak English.
     
    steve, Aug 13, 2005
    #8
  9. steve

    Bret Guest

    On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 02:04:08 GMT, and
    (FreedomChooser) wrote:

    >On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:25:54 +1200, steve
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>...and they didn't release the source as the license requires....
    >>
    >>http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/09/2358237
    >>
    >>Linux Kernel Code May Have Been in SCO UnixWare

    >
    >it may have been
    >It may have not been
    >yet you claim not that it "may" have been
    >that it IS been
    >
    >Dont misrepresebnt situations for your political crap causes
    >

    Umm.... That's the heading of the article you didn't read or even look
    at.
     
    Bret, Aug 13, 2005
    #9
  10. On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:19:01 +1200, steve
    <> wrote:

    >FreedomChooser wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:25:54 +1200, steve
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>...and they didn't release the source as the license requires....
    >>>
    >>>http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/09/2358237
    >>>
    >>>Linux Kernel Code May Have Been in SCO UnixWare

    >>
    >> it may have been
    >> It may have not been
    >> yet you claim not that it "may" have been
    >> that it IS been
    >>
    >> Dont misrepresebnt situations for your political crap causes

    >
    >"may" is the voice of the article.
    >
    >"did" is the voice of the Linux kernel guy
    >who says they did.
    >
    >Don't misrepresent the situation, FascistChamp.


    ho ho ho
    thats rich coming from FascistCandadian
     
    FreedomChooser, Aug 13, 2005
    #10
  11. steve

    Bling-Bling Guest

    On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 02:04:08 +0000, FreedomChooser wrote:

    >>http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/09/2358237
    >>
    >>Linux Kernel Code May Have Been in SCO UnixWare

    >
    > it may have been
    > It may have not been
    > yet you claim not that it "may" have been
    > that it IS been


    "It is been" is nonsense language.


    Bling Bling

    --
    Fink: "The Linux market is growing 30% to 35% a year."
     
    Bling-Bling, Aug 13, 2005
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bob Mahan

    CASM logMine v1.2 released under GNU GPL

    Bob Mahan, Nov 12, 2003, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    631
    Bob Mahan
    Nov 12, 2003
  2. Peter

    Who put SCO code into Linux

    Peter, Aug 12, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    308
  3. steve
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    354
    steve
    Aug 21, 2004
  4. Daeron

    Contractors fired for using GPL code

    Daeron, Oct 27, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    924
    Thomas Wootten
    Oct 29, 2005
  5. Carnations
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    1,097
    Carnations
    Nov 17, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page