SCO wrote: > As you may know, the development process for Linux has differed > substantially from the development process for other enterprise operating > systems.
Yeah. It doesn't suck. > Commercial software is built by carefully selected and screened teams of Indian sweatshop slaves. > programmers working to build proprietary, secure software. Microsoft Windows being the finest example, of course. > This process is designed to monitor the security and ownership of > intellectual property rights associated with the code. And insure that those intellectual property rights are violated as thoroughly as possible. See also AT&T's theft of BSD code in ESR's paper on this subject. > There is no mechanism inherent in the Linux development process to assure > that intellectual property rights, confidentiality or security are > protected. They make it sound like there /is/ such a mechanism inherent in commercial software development. Riiiiight. > The Linux process does not prevent inclusion of code that has been stolen > outright, or developed by improper use of proprietary methods and > concepts. As I recall, the PPP BSD compression code is /only/ buildable as a module, simply because building it into the kernel would be a copyright violation. > Many Linux contributors were originally UNIX developers who had access to > UNIX source code distributed by AT&T and were subject to confidentiality > agreements, including confidentiality of the methods and concepts involved > in software design. Proof? References? Hello? > We have evidence that portions of UNIX System V software code have been > copied into Linux and that additional other portions of UNIX System V > software code have been modified and copied into Linux, seemingly for the > purposes of obfuscating their original source. This isn't quite what I meant... > As a consequence of Linuxâs unrestricted authoring process, it is not > surprising that Linux distributors do not warrant the legal integrity of > the Linux code provided to customers. How can they? They don't even have customers, per se. > We believe that Linux infringes on our UNIX intellectual property and > other rights. We intend to aggressively protect and enforce these rights. By spewing more FUD than Microsoft ever did? How is this going to work, exactly? > Consistent with this effort, on March 7, we initiated legal action against > IBM for alleged unfair competition and breach of contract with respect to > our UNIX rights. Translation from lawyerese: We are currently in the process of committing legal and financial suicide. Did you guys bother to ask your shareholders about this first? > This case is pending in Utah Federal District Court. So as to make sure that the court is as ignorant of the truth as possible? > Similar to analogous efforts underway in the music industry, we are > prepared to take all actions necessary to stop the ongoing violation of > our intellectual property or other rights. What, denial of service attacks and purchasing senators? Where's all this money coming from, drug sales in a back room? > SCOâs actions may prove unpopular with those who wish to advance or > otherwise benefit from Linux as a free software system for use in > enterprise applications. Remove 'for use in enterprise applications'. > However, our property and contract rights are important and valuable; not > only to us, but to every individual and every company whose livelihood > depends on the continued viability of intellectual and intangible property > rights in a digital age. /Continued/ viability? That would imply that it is currently viable, doesn't it? Alex.
