[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       suse-linux-e
Subject:    Re: [SLE] LinuxTag to SCO: desist from unfair
From:       Jason Lotito <jlotito () ezpaynet ! com>
Date:       2003-05-27 18:15:07
[Download RAW message or body]

> > The idea here isn't that they are releasing a distro with non-gpl
> > code. That isn't the issue at all.  They are contending that the Linux
> > kernel is itself violating their IP. LinuxTag is saying that by
> > releasing their own distro which uses the Linux kernel, which they
> > released under the GPL, they have released their IP into the world
> > under the GPL, if indeed their IP is in the kernel.
> >
> > The problem isn't the software that comes with the Linux distro's,
> > it's the kernel itself SCO has a problem with.  So, by releasing the
> > Linux kernel under the GPL themselves, they have released their own
> > source out.  That's what LinuxTag is contending.
> 
> Once again I would disagree with most of the above.   If I am Caldera/SCO 
> and I enter into an agreement with IBM to provide them the Unix IP, and 
> IBM puts some of that code into the kernel (or allows it to happen), am 
> I expected to know that immediately?  Do I have to go through the kernel 
> line for line in every release to check for IP code of mine?   I don't 
> think so.

I don't see how you can agree with what I said above, it's fact, not
opinion.  They did release a Linux distro.  It had a Kernel that was
release under the GPL, that SCO released.  If they choose not to look at
what they are selling, that's their problem.

If Microsoft used a bit of GPL code in their system, and didn't follow
the GPL in using this code, who would we blame?

And of course, this is all moot, because their is no evidence that SCO's
IP is in the kernel.  So again, I really can't see how you disagree with
fact.

> Once I *discover* that the code is in there, if I continue to blissfully 
> release my own distro with that code, then I have let the horse out of 
> the barn.  But if I take steps to correct the issue and protect my IP, 
> then I don't think I would have weakened my case.

And they WERE still releasing their Linux distro after finding this out,
which still goes to prove the point.  Even AFTER thinking their IP was
in the Kernel, they were still releasing it.

> 
> Not saying any of this has happened, but it could have and if it did, I 
> can see where SCO would not be at fault.

If they hadn't been releasing their own version, I would agree that SCO
is right, but the fact is, they knew what they were doing.  Indeed, they
claim the things that Linux does (and they knew what it did because they
sold it) COULD NOT be possible without access to SCO code.

Obviously, it wasn't apparent, because even they didn't find out until
how many years after they have been in this business?

Jason


-- 
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]