RE: [SLE] OT: DVD-Jon acquitted/IBM pays CA AIX SMP royalties
Looks like the SCO claims to AIX SMP code is a fallacy - it seems SCO can't quite figure out if they have a little arse or big ears.
What makes you say that? I have been following the response to SCO's recent letter on the linux-kernel mailing list, and the issue seems very far from solved. Linus is convinced that SCO's claim is a fallacy as you say, but nevertheless he is trying to prove his claim by tracking down old sources from the kernel, which is proving to be more difficult than expected.
On Tuesday 23 December 2003 21:52, Pacheco Jason NPRI wrote:
Looks like the SCO claims to AIX SMP code is a fallacy - it seems SCO can't quite figure out if they have a little arse or big ears.
What makes you say that? I have been following the response to SCO's recent letter on the linux-kernel mailing list, and the issue seems very far from solved. Linus is convinced that SCO's claim is a fallacy as you say, but nevertheless he is trying to prove his claim by tracking down old sources from the kernel, which is proving to be more difficult than expected.
Personally, I think everyone is going about the defence wrong... sometimes offence is the best defence. The original AT/T licencing of Unix should never have been allowed, at all. Unix, was originally given free to all universities and a lot of the code that made unix what it was, didn't come from AT/T, at all. In fact, the Unix licence, was plain daylight thievery in the begining ... kinda like saying, "thank you all professors for you kind contributions, now pay up and smile". Same thing can happen to Linux, ya know...
Pacheco Jason NPRI wrote:
Looks like the SCO claims to AIX SMP code is a fallacy - it seems SCO can't quite figure out if they have a little arse or big ears.
What makes you say that? I have been following the response to SCO's recent letter on the linux-kernel mailing list, and the issue seems very far from solved. Linus is convinced that SCO's claim is a fallacy as you say, but nevertheless he is trying to prove his claim by tracking down old sources from the kernel, which is proving to be more difficult than expected.
If IBM is using AIX SMP technology licensed from a CA acquired company and paying royalties for it, then it can't be a derivative of any SCO IP, the article seems to draw a clear line under that - i.e no AT&T code. CA are also looking at Sequent in the hope that they can show that their stuff is also not SCO dreived, but was licensed by Sequent. I am not a lawyer (IANAL), but this seems obvious, unless IBM is using hybrid code or simply they forgot to cancel their license with CA. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce .... Hamradio G3VBV and keen Flyer Linux Only Shop.
participants (3)
-
Pacheco Jason NPRI -
Sid Boyce -
Örn Hansen