kaiocool Posted June 1, 2004 Report Share Posted June 1, 2004 Hey, I am here to learn, can someone explain to me this SCO/IBM/LINUX thing that is going on. Does SCO have a valid point, or are they chasing like the people who said they invented the hyperlink( or did they win that argument). Anyway, sounds really stupid, I want to hear your thoughts on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannonfodder Posted June 1, 2004 Report Share Posted June 1, 2004 It's too big to describe if you don't know the terminology or background. Try a google first if you haven't. Look for unix / sco / linus / linux copyright so on.. lots of good info on this board too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roland Posted June 1, 2004 Report Share Posted June 1, 2004 cannonfodder is right. may be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sco is a good entry point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkelve Posted June 1, 2004 Report Share Posted June 1, 2004 And for a detailed breakdown of things, there is no better source than www.groklaw.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero0w Posted June 1, 2004 Report Share Posted June 1, 2004 (edited) Read Groklaw. http://www.groklaw.net/ Well, my over-simplified summary is that SCO and its backer such as Microsoft cannot beat Linux on cost or technical merit, so instead they resort to opportunistic legal strategy and try to sue Linux backer and user such as IBM and Autozone to slow it down or cash in from stock speculation. So far, SCO has been inconsistent in its claim, some time SCO said it's a trade-secret issue, and then withdrew this claim and turned it into a contract issue, and then a copyright infringement issue. IBM now has asked for a partial summary judgment that there's no copyright infringement at all for its contribution to Linux. We shall see how Judge Wells will decide the case in the coming months. Edited June 1, 2004 by zero0w Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero0w Posted June 1, 2004 Report Share Posted June 1, 2004 If you can understand legal material then this article worths another reading: http://www.vssp.com/CM/Articles/Articles1016.asp http://news.com.com/2010-1071-5171635.html The Unix derivative ownership which SCO claimed to have is objected by Novell in the AT&T agreement as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkelve Posted June 1, 2004 Report Share Posted June 1, 2004 Conspiracy lovers also suggest this is Microsoft's way of hurting Linux sales/adoption, perceptance and slowing down deployment while they are working on Longhorn. But it's just a theory ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero0w Posted June 1, 2004 Report Share Posted June 1, 2004 I think Microsoft wants to slow down Linux anyhow. Never has Microsoft met a rival product that is so prevalent (working on many devices and hence capturing embedded market), and yet it can't steal or hurt it financially because the chief developer is not after profit, and GPL made any stolen derivative (which Microsoft has done to Stacker, OS/2, Softimage and a few other cases) useless and risky if it has to give the modified code back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.