[oclug] Case Closed
bb at L8R.net
Wed Jul 30 08:11:28 EDT 2003
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:36:38 +0200
"Christian (SerpentMage)" <mailing at devspace.com> wrote:
> At 21:13 28/07/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >re: SCO fuddle duddle..:)
> >End of story. Period
> >If interested consider reviewing...the following:
> No it is not. Lets assume that it is a contract breach. In that case
> IBM entered code into the Linux code base something that should not have
> been there. If SCO wins the contract breach then the code that is in
> Linux is not allowed to be there. The Linux community can then either
> roll back to 2.2 or pay SCO a fee for the sources.
Actually, not at all.
If this is not a copyright or patent issue at all, and merely a contract
breach, this means that Linux has even less to worry about.
Quite simply put, IBM owns that code in question. It is theirs. Period.
SCO may be able to win that contract breach, but that doesn't mean the
code wasn't IBM's. It just means that IBM broke that contract.
Linux, on the other hand, did not. ;) Linux received legitimate
copyrighted code from the owner, which was released into the GPL, and no
one has to give it back. The original copyright holder submitted it, of
A line by line theft of code is one thing, but writing code based upon
ideas learned from looking at other code is not illegal. Perhaps if SCO
had patents or some such on specific ideas, that would be a different
matter. They have the complete AIX sources, so all of this code that they
find matching may have been from AIX.
More to wait and see about.
> In fact this way of arguing like it states in the article is very
> dangerous. It could end up going SCO's direction...
> That is something to worry about...
Not any more.
> If I may add some spice to this argument, lets consider some
> ramifications. SCO is arguing about derivative works. Is that not what
> the GPL argues? The GPL says that if you add code and create a
> derivative work then you must Open Source your stuff as well. Well,
> gee, is this not what SCO is arguing? Except that SCO says you must
> keep the sources private.
> I am not a lawyer, but if SCO looses the GPL might loose as well... Not
> that I think it is a bad thing. I always hated the derivative works
> binding clause...
> Christian Gross
More information about the OCLUG