Advertisement
Promo

Toolkit

Story: McBride denied telephone service

  • Previous comment

Posted by: Anonymous (Thursday 5 February 2004, 10:47 AM)

  • Reply

Such methods are not acceptable!
But to some extent I think Darl only can blame himself.

He was the one who first resorted to bad behavior when he tried to win this case in the press instead of in the court.

The people in the Linux community usually feel strongly about IP and copyright law. Copyright law is even the foundation of their beloved GPL license. Most of them have no problem with SCO suing IBM in court, and they would most certainly remove anything that a court would find violatess SCO copyright. In fact SCO would probably not even have to go to court to have this done. A friendly letter would have bin sufficient.

But so far the only lawsuits SCO has filed is aboud breach of contract and trade secret violations against IBM, and slander of title against Novell as Novell as they have registered the copyright to the SysV codebase SCO claims to own. That is SCO have no copyright case going yet they threaten end user with copyright suit if they don't pay up. This is even more funny since the ones that is responsible for copyright violations would have bin Linux distributers like Red Hat that do the copying, not end users. Provided there actually was any SCO copyright violated and this seams more and more improbable.

In the beginning it was millions of lines that was problematic, when SCO gives examples at their annual sales show, it turns out that they are in the clear.
Nobody seams to be able to find the MIT experts that analyzed the code. And lately SCO have changed their mind and it is evidently only 63 files that they find problematic. In realty they are only 9 files as they basicly do the same thing but for different processor architectures. The files in question is header files containing things like error numbers. It is very questionable if they are copyrightable in the first place. And even if they were, SCO was part of making them part of the Linux Standard base, and as such released them under GPL.

So the people who released Darls phone number is certainly not the only bad boys in this affair. And they were certainly not the first to misbehave. Anyway the behavior from both parties are unacceptable

  • Previous comment

  • Reply to this comment
  • Return to story
  • Report this as offensive


Full Talkback thread


Skip Sub Navigation Links to CNET Brand Links

Help

Become part of the ZDNet community.

Newsletters