On mySimon: Gifts for the Outdoor Enthusiast
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 9 of 54:
Next »
« Previous
Paranoia Exceeded Regular Limits
Even if SCO owns the ORIGINAL UNIX source code, I seriously doubt that any of it has stayed around in the modern kernels: UNIX or Linux. SCO inherited the UNIX source back in the early 90's. The continuous modifications since that time to add functionality or correct bugs must have made the current source sufficiently different from the VERBATIM code that SCO 'owns'.

Even if some of the original code is still in the kernel, it is straightforward to replace it (yet messy at times) with NEW code.

Another importand issue here is that the SPECIFICATION of UNIX is owned by OpenGroup. The specification includes the APIs, the include header contents/definitions, and the BEHAVIOR of the various system calls and of the utilities. Most of these have changed over time, as well as, the corresponding implementations in the kernel and libraries.

By necessity, the structure definitions must have remained the SAME, to keep the next releases as much portable as possible. If SCO claims OWNERSHIP of the structure definitions then it will have a hard time proving that, since the structure definitions one can argue cross the line in the UNIX specification realm which SCO does NOT own.

To brand a system as UNIX one has to obay certain namespace definitions (standard headers) as well as use the STANDARD structures in which the kernel returns the values of the various system calls. But even so, the definitions do not require the use of certain structures verbatim, but that certain fields are ALWAYS defined.

It will be VERY hard for SCO to PROHIBIT people from using certain specific IDENTIFIERS in those structures. In the worst case the kernel/lib implementor will only have to apply a global RENAME....


It is interesting that they think they have a HUGE case. They must be speculating that out of all the organizations that will sue SOME of them will opt to settle and pay some money to SCO. I guess SCO hopes that this money will be sufficient to fuel the trials with the rest who do not want to settle.

Or it is just untreated paranoia.... wink

-m
Posted by: michael-t   Posted on: 03/04/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

This is so wrong  Chad_z | 03/04/04
A hundred million funnelled from Microsoft to SCO  David Mohring | 03/04/04
Don't believe everything you read  ShadeTree | 03/04/04
You're right...  Jose Jimenez | 03/04/04
Evidence backs the content of the email  David Mohring | 03/04/04
I hate to burst your bubble David, but ..  George Jay | 03/04/04
SCO: IT IS AUTHENTIC  wackoae | 03/04/04
You can believe it now!  Jose Jimenez | 03/04/04
Paranoia Exceeded Regular Limits  michael-t | 03/04/04
Why no SCO Halloween?  Nigel Johnstone | 03/04/04
Why no SCO Halloween?  richdave | 03/05/04
Thank Gawd for MS features and security  MacCanuck | 03/04/04
One has to wonder  Michael Kelly | 03/04/04
One also has to wonder  tic swayback | 03/04/04
not easy to shut down a bank  Romanval | 03/04/04
Coding by piracy  ggibson1 | 03/04/04
Oh, instead, just BUY CODE  metavurt | 03/04/04
Apples and Oranges  vferrara | 03/05/04
all sco has to do is tell everyone what code they mean  JWatson77 | 03/07/04
you of course know that  ryusen | 03/04/04
Takes one to know one  almacal | 03/05/04
Baloney  vferrara | 03/05/04
small technicallity,  ryusen | 03/05/04
are you saying  JWatson77 | 03/05/04
Coding by piracy  richdave | 03/05/04
MS has never made an OS?  vferrara | 03/05/04
Windows is not an OS  voska | 03/05/04
It all depends...  gaelwolf@... | 03/05/04
Windows is not an OS  croftsale | 03/05/04
Amplification  Update victim | 03/05/04
Not to nit a pick...  croftsale | 03/05/04
You tweaked my memory, VMS it was. (NT)  Update victim | 03/05/04
Amen!  rapson | 03/05/04
MS has never made an OS?  richdave | 03/05/04
Name One (NT)  Update victim | 03/05/04
Copy and paste coding has worked well for Microsoft so far!  B.O.F.H. | 03/05/04
wow  ryusen | 03/04/04
Why do they have to press charges?  Update victim | 03/05/04
but...  ryusen | 03/05/04
When is Darl going to  nite_w0lf | 03/04/04
He has to wait...  Rick_K | 03/04/04
SCO v. B of A  drichards1953 | 03/04/04
couple points:  ryusen | 03/05/04
IBM Buyout of SCO--Nah!  drichards1953 | 03/09/04
Technology prowess?  peterbk@... | 03/05/04
anouther reason to use open office  JWatson77 | 03/05/04
open office doesn't track revisions?  archerjoe | 03/05/04
the advantage...  ryusen | 03/05/04
Really?  rapson | 03/05/04
yep...  ryusen | 03/05/04
PDF is an open format  Romanval | 03/05/04
you can save to the pdf format  JWatson77 | 03/07/04
bugs not revision tracking  hipparchus | 03/05/04
Revision retention required?  Update victim | 03/05/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement
  • Smart Tech Expert advice on innovations in healthcare and the green technologies that make it happen. Find out more
  • Smart Business Discussion and advice on management issues that revolve around making your world smarter and more useful. More Smart Advice
  • Smart People The best and worst moves in the management and strategy trenches. Learn More