Re: SCO's claims seem empty

From: Raimundo Bilbao (
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 22:02:21 EST

El Lun 02 Jun 2003 22:18, Lauro, John escribió:
> From what I read when SCO had more on their web site, it's more a
> question of contract violation. IBM had a contract for their Unix, and
> developed their code for that. Then IBM ported some of their "own"
> kernel mods that was written for AIX and released it into Linux for
> free. That violated some portion of the Unix contract. Thus, if IBM
> wins, could have implications against some parts of GPL, and maybe
> that is why Microsoft is backing SCO.
> I may be way off base, but SCO always stated it was contract issues
> and not code or copyright.

Ok, but all this noise (AFAIK) was started from a sue against IBM not Linux,
however (pretty) soon was focused on some _mitical_ portions of the linux
kernel (I really want to read those ET codes, maybe I can learn alot from
those aliens's gurues ;-D) and then toward GNU licenses and some others
wired implications.

I really think SCO haven't a real case against Linux (maybe toward IBM, but
not linux), however everybody knows what a _special_ group of lawyers can do,
no? ;-)

Another think what ringing on mi (little) brain is the simple question :
somebody remember the surprise off know, sometime ago, that NT was include
zlib's code into this?, now I asking myself, what else they have _included_?,
the SCO sue has some implications against them?. Maybe I never know, but it's
an intersting question, maybe SCO (or anybody else) ending with a sue to
every operating system on this planet from now toward if they want (a really
nasty scenario).

OK, enough of this, let's R&R and back to work... ;-D


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 07 2003 - 22:00:18 EST