I sincerely hope that is not the situation, but as you probably know my convictions on this issue go beyond this particular case. I'm not convinced yet of the proof you've shown that whoever first supposedly made this publically available had to the right to do so.
Who are you saying it was? BSD? So that makes it guaranteed not SCO? Careful here.
Well, yes. It may be ten years too late for SCO to exert control of BSD source code. Linux does contain BSD code in some areas, and if in some future court SCO is given a verdict against Linux, BSD will be the next logical target.
There are two important points to a copyright infringement case. One, that the work in question was copied from a copyrighted work, and more importantly two, that the copier has done so improperly. I believe that SCO vs. IBM will hinge on the second point, though there are some certian provisions for derivative works. They are that minimal creativity is required to meet the originality standard, and that a work can incorporate pre-existing material and still be considered original. A copyright on such a derived work only covers the new work not the original material the work was derived from.
Yes, I know this is all about a personal vendetta against people that you don't like. I'll be happy to provide the evidence to anyone that believes otherwise.
'm not convinced yet of the proof you've shown that whoever first supposedly made this publically available had to the right to do so.
Only because you are avoiding it. It's been provided at the very beginning of this thread.
Who are you saying it was? BSD? So that makes it guaranteed not SCO? Careful here.
Fron the article:
We've found the malloc() function this slide refers to. It is included in code copyrighed by ATT and twice released under the BSD license: once by Unix Systems Labs (ATT), and again by Caldera, the company that now calls itself SCO. The Linux developers have a legal right to make use of the code under that license. No violation of SCO's copyright or trade secrets is taking place.
This is important: as the rights to Unix passed from AT&T to Novell to SCO to Caldera to TSG (The SCO Group), the effects of actions by the holders of those rights are also passed on. SCO certainly can impose more restrictive terms on their new contributions to their Unix, but they can't lay claim to stuff already released into the public domain by previous "owners" of Unix.
Furthermore:
The malloc() code also appears in Lions Commentary on Unix, in this form:
[code excerpt snipped]
Lions' book was first published in the 1980's under non-disclosure and was used as a textbook by universities that had licensed the Unix source. ATT vended a copy of this book to Unix licensees for some time, and a photocopy version was widely circulated among Unix licensees. The original SCO, before its purchase by Caldera, allowed the book to be published without any non-disclosure terms in 1996.
I know you are being intentionally obtuse, but I've grown tired of pointing out the obvious to you. If you are still not convinced, it's only because you are blinded by your personal vendetta.
Don't even try it.
You've staked your entire rep on this single issue here.
You've made some amazing, wild predictions about this case, in the most obnoxious, rude manner.
If you do, in fact, turn out to be completely, totally wrong, it speaks directly to your credibility. You've wrapped yourself in the flag to defend apparent criminal stock manipulation.
Here on FR, where we take patriotism very, very seriously. You've used it as a weapon to further your own ends. Claimed to be the defender truth, justice and the American way as a method to aiding and abetting stock fraud.
You'll need to retire this screen name, after this is all said and done . . .