Replies

Now SCO is suing IBM, claiming that their UNIX intellectual property was used in the AIX operating system. SCO is also threatening Linux users with the same allegation. SCO has refused to publicly produce any evidence to support their allegations, and there is widespread skepticism about SCO's claims.

Sorry HAL9000, but I really don't think that is a fair representation of what is actually going on.

First, SCO never had issue with IBM using UNIX code in AIX. Hardly, this was one of their greatest revenue points, and it was how UNIX technology was legally getting to IBM from SCO in the first place.

Second, SCO is also threatening all Linux users in general not only for whatever code IBM may have put there, but what other UNIX licensees or other former ATT programmers may have contributed as well as have been found through examination of the mailist files as well as confirmed in the source code.

Also, SCO has offered anyone the right to view samples of their evidence, and many have including Ms. Didio who recently appeared in an article on EE Times that like many we are currently seeing seemed to add validity to SCO's claims.

http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20030609S0011

If I could recommend one additional link in addition to those on FR where the topic is discussed at great length, that may better focus these issues I am attempting to clarify it would be this one from Byte magazine:

http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html

Happy reading.

"First, SCO never had issue with IBM using UNIX code in AIX. Hardly, this was one of their greatest revenue points, and it was how UNIX technology was legally getting to IBM from SCO in the first place."

Okay, that part of the synopsis could have been better. I'll try again - SCO is suing IBM for $1 billion and demanding that AIX sales cease, alleging that IBM improperly transferred SCO's intellectual property from AIX to Linux.

"Second, SCO is also threatening all Linux users in general not only for whatever code IBM may have put there, but what other UNIX licensees or other former ATT programmers may have contributed as well as have been found through examination of the mailist files as well as confirmed in the source code."

That is their allegation, but contrary to your assertion, it has not been independently "confirmed".

"Also, SCO has offered anyone the right to view samples of their evidence, and many have including Ms. Didio who recently appeared in an article on EE Times that like many we are currently seeing seemed to add validity to SCO's claims."

Ms. Didio signed a draconian non-disclosure agreement with SCO in order to view two blocks of code, up to 80 lines, that looked similar to her. But as Robert X. Cringely points out - SCO, Not IBM, May Have Put Unix Code Into Linux. Furthermore, SCO itself distributed Linux under the usual GPL licensing terms that allow many other distributors to incorporate the code in their products.

One other point I should have added - SCO is represented by David Boies, the lawyer who lost Al Gore's case in the 2000 presidential election, and is currenlty charged with ethical violations by the Florida Bar in the matter of a client whom he was having a "personal relationship" with.

By the way, if you're going to insinuate that the White House is using an operating system from Communist China, why not go all the way and paste Dubya's head on your Red Star Penguin? Send it to Tblshow, he'll love it. Perhaps you'd like to add a Hammer and Sickle to the Free Republic logo as well.