it was the definitive ruling
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| gus3 Aug 13, 2007 9:15 PM EDT |
Here's my answer: "If I'm a Linux user, do I really want SCO v. IBM to be called off without a definitive ruling on SCO's claims?" Judge Kimball's ruling was the definitive ruling on The SCO Group's claims. Novell, not SCO, owned the Unix copyright at the time in question, meaning Novell was free to waive IBM's transfer of "Unix IP" into Linux. (Whatever "IP" was involved, assuming you buy into that notion.) If The SCO Group wants to drive its stock into the negative territory by appealing the case, they have my unqualified support. |
| tuxchick Aug 13, 2007 9:18 PM EDT |
This is a seriously awful article. Is it malice, laziness, stupidity, trolling...? I can't think of even the feeblest positive spin to put on it. |
| gus3 Aug 13, 2007 9:48 PM EDT |
I'd say just ignorance, although I'm not sure on what level. However, in that vein, I think it's important that we have answers for other ignorami who ask the same questions. So, the article isn't totally useless. ("It may be that my purpose in life is to serve as a bad example.") |
| azerthoth Aug 13, 2007 9:51 PM EDT |
The question he asks though I believe is pertinent. Wouldn't it have been better is SCO vs IBM had finished playing through? Novell holding all the UNIX cards is a great thing, but will it last forever? If not then who might end up with it? From a personal stand point I think I would have preferred the long version of the IBM story, if for nothing other than the continued humiliation of darling Darl, but having that question answered would have been nice too. As it stands there is no reason for it to continue unless SCO is claiming that its UnixWare as well as SVRX that made it into Linux. |
| lcafiero Aug 13, 2007 11:02 PM EDT |
Paul McDougall, here's your Elmer . . . ["An anonymous blogger who goes by the name 'Pamela Jones' on the anti-SCO Web site Groklaw . . . ." Sheesh. Have the editors fallen asleep at Information Week?] |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 14, 2007 12:13 AM EDT |
Groklaw's PJ has written a great rebuttal to this: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007081316171269 |
| dinotrac Aug 14, 2007 1:12 AM EDT |
Before we start tossing "ignorami" around, we might want to consider the truth sowmewhere in this mix. The SCO litigation is, for all intents and purposes, dead. Even if the litigants want to soldier on, the court itself will pressure them mightily to go away. You simply can't pursue claims based on rights that you don't have. I suspect none of the other issues are so big they can't be settled, and I suspect even more strongly that this judge will be very unfriendly to efforts to drag things out. As to PJ's strange rant, ut ignores the fundamental question: Does Linux infringe Unix copyrights and are sufficient number of those copyrights held by somebody who could wreak havoc? We seem to have an awful lot of joy to see that the court has determined that the company formerly know as "The Devil Incarnate, Jr." owns the copyrights to Unix. Novell has tons more money than SCO. Of course, I don't think that Novell really is the Devil incarnate and that this is a major victory, but... it does leave us depending on Novell's good graces. |
| hughesjr Aug 14, 2007 4:09 AM EDT |
I don't think it leaves us depending on anything ... Novell clearly and with full knowledge, distributed and still distributes Linux under the GPL. IF there is (not that there is, but if there is) any UNIX IP in Linux, they (Novell) has issued it under the GPL, so they can't then "pull an SCO", as they would have release those parts themselves. That part of SCO's problem may still be tested (if the IBM case moves forward) ... however I can't see anyone ruling that someone who distributes the Linux kernel under the GPL could have a UNIX IP claim. Even SCO figured that out, which is why they tried to revise history and pretend that they didn't ever distribute any of the aforementioned code :D |
| jdixon Aug 14, 2007 5:17 AM EDT |
> We seem to have an awful lot of joy to see that the court has determined that the company formerly know as "The Devil Incarnate, Jr." owns the copyrights to Unix. Any attempt by Novell to pursue those copyrights against Linux will run into the same problem SCO would have eventually run into. They voluntarily published the Linux code under the GPLv2 themselves, thereby authorizing it's distribution under that license. As hughesjr notes, that fact could still be tested in the SCO case. We'll have to wait and see what actions IBM pursues. Bankrupting SCO will probably be the least of their goals. |
| dinotrac Aug 14, 2007 5:39 AM EDT |
>They voluntarily published the Linux code under the GPLv2 themselves, thereby authorizing it's distribution under that license. Yes, you're right. I'm on vacation and still recovering sleep. Essentially, even if Linux infringes Novell IP, IP has licensed it out. |
| Abe Aug 14, 2007 7:17 AM EDT |
Quoting:They voluntarily published the Linux code under the GPLv2 themselves, thereby authorizing it's distribution under that license. That is true but it doesn't mean that Novell wouldn't try something funny if they think they need to. With MS on their side with possible cash infusion to coerce Linux users to pay for IP, everything is possible. After all, they went into an IP agreement with MS just because they thought it would give them advantage over other Linux outfits to survive in the market. I hope Novell stays sane enough not to do that. I think it would be much to Novell's benefit to to declare that Linux has no Unix IP. This would give Novell so much credit in the FOSS community. |
| tuxchick Aug 14, 2007 7:37 AM EDT |
"Does Linux infringe Unix copyrights and are sufficient number of those copyrights held by somebody who could wreak havoc?" Dino, are you bored or just playing devil's advocate? That is most definitely not an important question. In fact it's a dumb question. It's a fake issue trumped up by SCO. You don't need to be a legal eagle to understand the obvious: -There are many variants of Unix descended from two main families, BSD Unix and System 1-7 Unixes. Novell "owns" System 5 only. -Linux has been developed completely in the open. You can still go back and download and examine nearly every iteration, release, patch, developer's mailing lists and forums- the works. No one has found any infringements because there aren't any. Don't be getting sucked into SCO's Bizarro World. It's a long strange trip, and no fun at all. |
| jdixon Aug 14, 2007 8:13 AM EDT |
> I think it would be much to Novell's benefit to to declare that Linux has no Unix IP. I doubt they could actually say that definitively. What they could say is that Linux does not infringe on any of the Unix IP to which they have the rights. There's a lot more to Unix than the part Novell owns. |
| gus3 Aug 14, 2007 8:50 AM EDT |
I wasn't meaning to toss around the term "ignoramus" as an insult, but as an objective observation: someone who doesn't know what's going on. Such a person asks the wrong questions, and we need the right answers when they do. |
| tuxchick Aug 14, 2007 8:53 AM EDT |
Oh, and the other obvious bit- when SCO could not find any of their "millions of lines of literally infringing code" they resorted to claims of "copying methods and processes" or some such weasel-wording. Uh huh. |
| Abe Aug 14, 2007 9:01 AM EDT |
Quoting:What they could say is that Linux does not infringe on any of the Unix IP to which they have the rights. There's a lot more to Unix than the part Novell owns. I thought that was implied; then again IANAL Either way, I am satisfied. |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 14, 2007 9:19 AM EDT |
If I could write the script for the remaining/following suits, it would end up with Microsoft executives having to take personal responsibility for bullying and money laundering, channeling funds into a _known_ bogus lawsuit. Considering the deliberate flexibility that the RICO statutes have written into them, I have no doubt they could be put in jail the same way other organized crime figures are. |
| jdixon Aug 14, 2007 9:32 AM EDT |
> I thought that was implied; then again IANAL By common sense, yes. You can't count on that either in court or on the net. :) |
| Abe Aug 14, 2007 10:04 AM EDT |
Quoting:You can't count on that either in court or on the net. :) That is what I hear. I have never been in court to know first hand. I image you are right from watching mostly made up cases on TV. |
| gus3 Aug 15, 2007 12:20 AM EDT |
Quoting:I have never been in court to know first hand.And I have never been on the net first hand. Oh, wait... |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!