jvollmer@visi.com
On Saturday 01 March 2003 20:54, James Mohr wrote:
IMHO, if there is any validity to Caldera's claims, I see the only way for it to work is on the basis of patents and not copyright. Since Linux source problably does not contain anything from the original AT&T source, I doubt that there is an issue of copyright, although the Boies gang might be able to twist things enough that something in the Linux source infringes on AT&T patents. However, IFAIK patents are only protected for 17 (?) years and is not simply renewed when the rights changes has. jimmo
Ar you sure it is AT&T? I would have said it is Lucent, but I don't know if that is correct or not. It depends who has the patent after the split-up between those two.
Maybe I'm way off-base, but isn't this the issue described on the following page? http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-01_Story01.html Further, according to this page: http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-01_Story01.html#in_Linux_Distr..., SuSE Linux doesn't contain any SCO libraries. I notice that there is a /lib/modules/2.4.18-64GB-SMP/kernel/abi/uw7 directory on my SuSE Linux 8.0Pro installation. Doesn't that sound like Unixware? Perhaps someone who knows more than I do could shed some light. Granted that's just about everybody. -- JAY VOLLMER JVOLLMER@VISI.COM TEXT REFS DOUBLEPLUSUNGOOD SELFTHINK VERGING CRIMETHINK IGNORE FULLWISE