[vox] Interesting thing i read today

[Micah J. Cowan]

On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 03:00:16AM -0700, Bill Kendrick wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 01:51:03PM +0530, karthikeyan.balasubramanian wrote:
> > http://www.sco.com/scosource/letter_to_linux_customers.html
> > 
> > You think this could have any Impact on Linux Development Efforts.
> 
> I haven't exactly done any studies, but most people seem to feel they're
> just blowing hot air.  LinuxTag recently filed a suit against Sco in Germany
> requesting they show _exactly_ what stolen code they're talking about, or
> drop their case.

<snip>

> I think once it's all done and over with, there are two possible
> outcomes:
> 
>   1. Sco was right; there's proprietary junk in Linux.
>      It gets removed.  A possible setback, and a potential nightmare
>      when it comes to 'rolling back' older versions of Linux, but doable.
> 
>   2. Sco was wrong or refuses to fess up.
>      Back to business as usual.  (For Linux, but most likely NOT for Sco :^/ )

Pertinent articles:

Novell points out that they, and *not* SCO, hold the rights to SysV
UNIX, and do not intend to prosecute. (SCO rebutts that the license
they have from Novell includes the right to protect the patents and
IP, upon which they did not refute Novell's claims).

  http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/28/1252229&mode=nocomment

...and yet, in the article for "SCO Might Sue Linus for Patent
Infringement?", they still talk about having ownership.

  http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/28/2240224&mode=nocomment

If the agreement was non-exclusive, Novell could certainly shut things
up by devising a public license for appropriate portions of their
source code whose appropriation might be in question.

Not that I ever thought SCO had a leg to stand on in the first
place... I don't know why they think they can honestly get away with
such sleaze.

-Micah