Jerry Feldman wrote:
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.
Again, AT&T has stated, both in a letter to IBM and in a newsletter that
the intent doesn't come anywhere near what SCO is claiming and those
claims also far exceed what would be considered reasonable in a
contract. I believe the judge already commented on that point.
According to what I've read, neither SMP nor NUMA came from SCO or
predecessor. Also, as I mentioned in another note, if you accept SCO's
argument, then you also accept they own TCP/IP and anything else that's
touched Unix. Further, a lot of what they're claiming IBM contributed
to Linux, was in fact contributed by Caldera themselves, before they
became the re-invented SCO. It's as though I gave you something and
then accused you of stealing it from me. There's a letter from OSI that
you may find interesting. It's here:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/hackerlore/sco-vs-ibm.html , with an earlier
version here: http://www.d-axel.dk/pub/documentation/sco-vs-ibm.html .
--
Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
