This letter appears to be the misbegotten lovechild of the Unisys-Gif-LZW fiasco and the Microsoft "See our source and you can never code anything like it in your life" viral license.
And they don't appear to have any idea if Linux uses any of their code or not, so they're going to sue anyway. All very dog-in-the-manger.
So? It's not going anywhere. Much like DRM. End consumers won't have it.
For previous examples see DVDs and DeCSS (okay so they decided to prosecute the inventor but how has that affected the rest of us?), MP3s and the whole P2P thing.
So I'm confused. Does this mean they're going to come after everyone running linux on their home computer too, or just IBM? They didn't make that very clear, IMHO.
In any case, they sound like a bunch of whiney babies that had their seat taken in the bar after they got up to go to the bathroom. "that's my seat!" "where's your name on it?" "well, it's mine!"
Personally, I'm waiting to see what they present as evidence.
Automatic condemnation of someone asserting any property rights seems to be deriguer for open source fans; cf the thread on /. where someone was patenting a neat idea on smart matter, and getting ripped for it, despite it passing all the classical tests for being a good patent.
Given that no one commenting on the issue has access to Unixware source (or if they do, they are keeping quiet) there is no way to make a call on wether there is any milage in SCO's claim. Assuming there is not is, I suggest, a big mistake.
What we have here is, potentially, what will be the real test of the meaning, intent and legality of the GPL. Harumphing like a bunch of neocons dismissing the antiwar movement and throwing insults about makes for slashdot style karma whoring and little else.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-15 03:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-15 03:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-15 03:28 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-15 03:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-15 03:40 am (UTC)And they don't appear to have any idea if Linux uses any of their code or not, so they're going to sue anyway. All very dog-in-the-manger.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-15 04:58 am (UTC)For previous examples see DVDs and DeCSS (okay so they decided to prosecute the inventor but how has that affected the rest of us?), MP3s and the whole P2P thing.
They have no power ahahahahahaaaahahahaha!
(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-15 05:12 am (UTC)In any case, they sound like a bunch of whiney babies that had their seat taken in the bar after they got up to go to the bathroom. "that's my seat!" "where's your name on it?" "well, it's mine!"
(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-15 07:18 am (UTC)Automatic condemnation of someone asserting any property rights seems to be deriguer for open source fans; cf the thread on /. where someone was patenting a neat idea on smart matter, and getting ripped for it, despite it passing all the classical tests for being a good patent.
Given that no one commenting on the issue has access to Unixware source (or if they do, they are keeping quiet) there is no way to make a call on wether there is any milage in SCO's claim. Assuming there is not is, I suggest, a big mistake.
What we have here is, potentially, what will be the real test of the meaning, intent and legality of the GPL. Harumphing like a bunch of neocons dismissing the antiwar movement and throwing insults about makes for slashdot style karma whoring and little else.