On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:45:49 -0400 James Knott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is that SCO's idea of derivative works doesn't fit with > reality, particularly when AT&T made it clear that what SCO is claiming > is false. Take for example JFS. It was created for OS/2 and then moved > to AIX & Linux. SCO is claiming JFS is theirs, simply because it was > used in AIX, even though there's not a single line of their source code > in it. There are many other examples of them claiming technology that > they had nothing to do with. Certainly, IBM does claim that the JFS contributed to Linux is from OS/2. But the other 2 elements, SMP and NUMA could be considered derivative works under the strict interpretation of the AT&T contract. Let us recall that compiler in easily DOS and Windows time used to require royalties from any product that was built with that compiler. However, IBM contends that they were specifically exempted from the derivative works clause. This is one reason why the IBM case is taking so long, because they have had to go back long before Novell bought Unix from AT&T. (AFIK, the AIX JFS is a separate piece of code from the OS/2 version, but that is not important here). Back in the early Unix days, the AT&T contracts were very tight. The company I worked for decided to reverse-engineer Unix, mainly because of their number of user pricing. We had a relatively low-cost system with 32 terminals all running the same application. Under Unix, we would have had to pay for a top-of-the-line large system license. (I am ignoring project Monterey which is nothing more than a sideshow in this case). We also see that SCO has been trying to expand their case through expert witness testimonies. At some point, Judge Kimball will rule, probably to support Judge Wells' June 2006 order, which essentially kills SCO. But I am more interested in the Novell case where if Judge Kimball rules in favor of Novell's summary judgement request, it totally knocks out SCO's case against IBM and Linux in general. There is also a financial aspect here because Novell is claiming royalties that SCO has not paid. -- Jerry Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
