I believe I read the report you speak of as well where the one who was
showed the "evidence" said that what was shown came from the mailing list. A
lot of their evidence so far seems to suggest that they are grasping at
straws in order to make a case.
After reading all of the articles I could on the case, my biggest question
is this...
SCO is claiming that IF IBM put Unix code into Linux, then that would damage
SCO's ability to conduct business, blah blah blah. But they have no problem
with licensing Unix code to M$??
What exactly do they think Bill and Co. are gonna do with that code once
they have it?
What's that in the sky? Oh... vultures.
Bradley
> -----Original Message-----
> From: slug@lists.nks.net [mailto:slug@lists.nks.net]On Behalf Of Levi
> Bard
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:19 AM
> To: slug@nks.net
> Subject: RE: [SLUG] Unix code disclaimer, and this SCO debacle
>
>
> Well, it's every developer's responsibility not to submit code that is not
> his/her own, regardless whether the code is going into an open-source
> product or not. (Although, if nobody sees the source of your product,
> it's easy to get away with using large blocks of code in a manner contrary
> to its license, as certain monopolistic corporations have been alleged to
> have done.)
>
> Many patches are submitted on the linux kernel dev list, except for those
> that are done by folks that can commit them directly to the tree. I found
> it interesting that a statement from somebody who claimed to have viewed
> SCO's "evidence" stated that the Linux code examples were taken from the
> kernel dev mailing list. However, patches that are submitted to the list
> are not necessarily committed to the actual source tree, and if committed
> are still subject to pre-commitment revision. This seems pretty shaky to
> me, like exhibiting photos of someone driving south on I-75 on a
> particular day as evidence that s/he was present in Miami at 12:15 on that
> day.
>
> Levi
>
> > Well said.
> > We as the open source community have the responsibility to protect
> > ourselves
> > from anything like this happening in the future.
> >>
> >> I don't comment often but this issue appears to be a consequence of the
> >> openness of the open source community itself, and as such begs for a
> >> resolution.
> >> I don't claim to know how patches or improvements are submitted by
> >> independent kernel programmers but it seems that some sort of
> disclaimer
> >> from them needs to be required before changes are incorporated into the
> >> Linux kernel. What if some programmer incorporates Unix code
> into their
> >> patch and that is incorporated into the kernel? What then? How would
> >> anyone know. Without a disclaimer stating that "no Unix code has been
> >> used", we have no way of assuring the open source community that the
> >> Linux kernel is really free of Unix code.
> >>
> >> I don't think that is asking too much of the programmers and would be
> >> easy to require before submitting code to be incorporated into the
> >> kernel.
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:50:09 EDT