On TechRepublic: 10 cool USB flash drive tricks
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 36 of 55:
Next »
« Previous
No one argues they didn't do it....
Linux has JFS in it, that is IBM's. They took their JFS and put it into Linux... no argument. SCO seems to say that JFS is a derivative work of SysV so although IBM owns it, they have distribution rights on it and IBM was supposed to keep it in confidence.

SysV is less than 1 percent of AIX and Dynix. IBM argued that the rest of AIX can't be a derivative of it. According to their understanding, the contract doesn't say anything about IBM's creations being a derivative of SysV or distribution being limited (exact opposite of SCO). Therefore, IBM is free to do what it wants with its creations.

They put in a just in case point by saying even if the court rules otherwise, SCO isn't the owner of SysV, Novell is, and they have already overruled SCO's restriction (they did this publically). If IBM did anything illegal with its software, it is between them and Novell, SCO has nothing to do with it.

I would also be surprised if the judge drops the case, as he does seem to be extremely detailed so that no one will successfully appeal him. But IBM has hit the heart of the case: Does SCO own SysV and if so, the distribution rights of IBM's creations?

BTW, IBM has stated they didn't illegally contribute any SysV code to Linux. Infact their MIT professor, Dr. Randall Davis, has studied the code and hasn't found anything (we are still waiting for the missing MIT code divers from SCO who said otherwise a year ago). On that point they are still waiting for SCO to put forth the proof of their accussation.
Posted by: doe_z   Posted on: 08/17/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Call a priest...  Fred Fredrickson | 08/16/04
Your hero today...  balsover | 08/17/04
We already have one...  techboy_z | 08/17/04
Go IBM, Go !!! . . . . . . . . To SCO: "Hasta la vista, baby"  Plain Logic | 08/16/04
Hey, Don!  Yagotta B. Kidding | 08/16/04
Imagine that, your wrong again.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/17/04
So is it true?  Laff | 08/17/04
Many seem to think so....  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/17/04
Difficult times ahead for Linux...  Mike Cox | 08/16/04
Good one  swoopee | 08/16/04
I can't believe it!  spammyman | 08/16/04
There is one true OS  techboy_z | 08/17/04
Thanks for the laugh!  luke_sg | 08/16/04
Upgrade  in-DUH-vidual | 08/17/04
Yeah, OK  intellectualproperty | 08/17/04
Mike's Linux Theory  Yehuda Mann | 08/17/04
That is funny...  MG_z | 08/17/04
WOOOOSH!!!!!  James T. Kirk | 08/17/04
Absolutely correct!. Give that man a cigar!  bhanes@... | 08/17/04
Linux not the problem...  ECLS | 08/17/04
Cox....You're a scream  shawkins | 08/17/04
That could not have been a serious post.  balsover | 08/17/04
I suppose that your MSCE's can handle...  The King's Servant | 08/17/04
If you've seen overwhelming evidence ...  mlybbert | 08/17/04
SCO..Sorry Chapter 11 re-Organization  Laff | 08/17/04
Interesting from a couple of points.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/17/04
2.5  sa_z | 08/17/04
Aren't they saying something to the effect that  Laff | 08/17/04
No disagreement from me.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/17/04
Related issue, yes, already in court  mlybbert | 08/17/04
Not he said/she said.....They (AT&T) said.  aladorn@... | 08/17/04
Yes, Mr. Wilson is part of the "he said".  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/17/04
That's true but....  AmusedAtItAll | 09/02/04
When they drop it, can we take a picture?  Xunil_Sierutuf | 08/17/04
Or yours?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/17/04
No one argues they didn't do it....  doe_z | 08/17/04
I beleive that the court will drop the case  balsover | 08/17/04
You mean like Sun, IBM, Oracle, Sony, Apple, etc...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/17/04
Well to be fair...those others you listed do try  Laff | 08/17/04
You mean like Apple suing Real?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/17/04
Has Apple sued REAL or only threatened to?  Laff | 08/17/04
Is that happening?  voska | 08/17/04
Not even vaguely  IT_User | 08/17/04
No, more like MS  tic swayback | 08/17/04
Agree: "when a company needs to use attorneys ..."  mlybbert | 08/17/04
Gross misstatement with a dash of truth...  John Le'Brecage | 08/17/04
John, you misunderstand.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/18/04
Response about those couple of points  mlybbert | 08/17/04
Agreement not intended for homegrown code  dwjohnso | 08/17/04
IBM strikes at SCO claims  farson@... | 08/17/04
A lesson to be learned...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/17/04
Only SCO argues....  doe_z | 08/17/04
Partial agreement  mlybbert | 08/17/04
*Finally* ZDnet admits SCO is "faltering"  CobraA1 | 08/18/04
SCO leave IBM alone  FilledOut | 08/18/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement
Click Here

SmartPlanet

Click Here