Posted on 08/19/2003 11:00:12 AM PDT by shadowman99
It is, indeed. Thank you!
If you have evidence that the rest of the code SCO is claiming was "stolen" is any better than what has been publicly revealed, then show it.
The obligation is on you and your sycophants to prove your case. Otherwise, put down SCO's water and shut the hell up.
I'm not obligated to provide anything. However, I have made an attempt to give you enough information to draw your own conclusion. I can't do anything about your refusal to recognize the obvious.
You, on the other hand, have yet to live up to your same demand of providing irrefutable proof of your claims. So, I suggest you follow Bush2000's admonishment to the rest of us.
Move to Germany then, if things are so much better. Almost your whole life is socialized there, which would apparently be a big plus to many.
My challenge stands: if there are "other possibilities", then show your evidence that proves them. Otherwise, please honor Bush2000's admonishment to the rest of us.
Well since they never "explicitly" gave that code away, the fact that IBM may have snuck it in their under their nose will certainly carry relevance in a 'theft' trial. And your argument assumes the US Federal Judge will be sympathetic to your "free software" cause. If he's sympathetic so SCO, you could be in big trouble.
They are mistaken. The code in question is in a system that has already been established as an illicit source of code for SCO's proprietary Unix.
It is also in a version of Unix released into the public domain by Caldera (a predecessor owner of SCO's proprietary Unix).
That it was in some book before?
Since the book was publicly released with permission by a predecessor owner of SCO's proprietary Unix, it's one of the pieces of evidence.
So what, unless you got rights to redistribute, you can't.
Since I don't have the book, I can't comment on that issue. But, you are wasting your time flogging this dead horse, because it is irrelevant in the face of all the other evidence.
What else? It was in BSD? So what, I haven't seen any evidence that shows the settlement in that case gave complete freedom with Unix code that may be in BSD, freedom to copy, redistribute, etc.
The code in BSD was already released under the BSD license. The settlement denied AT&T claims of ownership, after a handful of issues were resolved. That means the code remained available under the BSD license, period. AT&T didn't own it, and therefore had no ownership rights to transfer to SCO. It doesn't prevent AT&T and subsequently SCO from using and redistributing the code originating in BSD, but they can't claim ownership.
What else? SCO released it under a BSD type license? Does that mean it can be used within GPL? I think the GPL website says no.
The GPL does not prevent the co-existent use of BSD code. In fact, there is code in the Linux kernel that has a BSD license. What the GPL says is that the GPL'ed parts of the code cannot be redistributed except under the terms of the GPL. There's nothing that prohibits the use or redistribution of BSD code along with it.
What else? That's it, right? Against my better judgement, I outlined your three points for you since you couldn't seem to do it yourself. If you ever have any more info about these now outlined points, you can try to make them.
I've (and others) have explained them repeatedly, if you simply took the time to read the information that has been provided by me and other constributors to this thread. Your refusal to do so is nothing more than an attempt to face the reality that SCO's claims are bogus.
My challenge remains: if you have proof of that SCO's claims are not bogus, then show it. Otherwise, shut the hell up.
Finally found an answer to this one.
Darl can't sell. His options don't vest until:
So he's got a reason to drag this out... but he can't sell (yet).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.