[clug] Online protest against SCO

[Simon Haddon]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 27/05/03, 4:45:03 PM, Martin Pool <mbp at samba.org> wrote regarding Re: 
[clug] Online protest against SCO:


> On 27 May 2003, Basil Chupin <blchupin at tpg.com.au> wrote:

[snip]

> It's a decent summary but I think Cringely is losing his touch
> recently:

>    IBM has made a point not to do anything with the Linux source code.
>    They've taken the role of a Linux reseller and nothing more. It
>    would be very hard to make a case to treat IBM differently than
>    CompUSA or BestBuy.  IBM has ported its software to support Linux.
>    IBM has contributed some of its software to the open source
>    community.  But you can't be held liable for the guts of Linux if
>    you haven't touched the guts of Linux. [...]

According to SCO it is not the specifics of the code that they are 
concerned about.  It is the similarity that they are saying infringes on 
their IP.

They seem to think that no-one else in this world is capable of creating 
a system like theirs without prior knowledge of their system.  Thus it 
must be that the system is copied from the SCO system.

It is all in the wording.

> What is "not to do anything with the Linux source code" supposed to
> mean?  IBM must have dozens, if not hundreds of developers sending
> patches, not least of which the people here in Canberra, and certainly
> must be using it internally.  I can't think of things much closer to
> the guts than the kernel features they've contributed.


> Until SCO point out specific files which are supposed to have been
> appropriated the sensible thing is to ignore them like any other
> crackpot.

Having said what I said.  I agree.  They can't base it in conjester.  
Lets get to the actual instances of copyright infringement.  Common SCO 
show us what you have ....

> I don't think there is any legitimate legal reason for SCO not to
> provide details.  If they were really worried about people using their
> proprietary information then surely the responsible thing is to ask
> them to stop as soon as possible.

> Accusations about this being a particular problem with open source
> software are just bizarre.  If IBM programmers could hypothetically
> have copied SCO code into Linux then they could equally easily have
> copied it into proprietary software.  It would be even harder for SCO
> to find, and end users would be in the same situation.

> --
> Martin

> (speaking only for myself)