|
| |
| | SCO v. IBM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
 | | Since SCO has never seen the AIX code, it has, as part of the discovery process, deposed IBM for the AIX code, so that it can compare AIX code to Linux kernel code. | | | The contract between IBM and ATandT (to which SCO claims to be successor in interest) allows IBM to use the SVR4 code, but the SVR4 code, plus any derivative works made from that code, must be held confidential by IBM. | | | SCO claimed that IBM had, without authorization, contributed SCO's intellectual property to the codebase of the open source, Unix-like Linux operating system. |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_v._IBM_Linux_lawsuit
(3676 words)
|
|
| |
| | Attorneys: SCO v. IBM Remains Murky |
| | SCO claims the AIX code IBM contributed is a derivative work of SCO's Unix System V and UnixWare intellectual property, making Linux an "unauthorized derivative" of Unix, according to SCO. | | | Carey explained that the letter permits IBM to have its employees use ideas they learned from seeing the Unix code and incorporate those ideas into other products, under certain conditions: the programmers could not refer to Unix code or manuals while doing their coding. | | | ongoing saga between SCO Group (Quote, Chart) and Linux with a position paper suggesting enterprise Linux users have little need for the protection of a SCO runtime license, based on what is currently known. |
|
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/2243311
(1791 words)
|
|
| |
| | Eben Moglen - SCO v. IBM |
| | IBM, that you took that code under license from ATandT, made AIX out of it and then turned around and contributed it to the Linux program, and when you did that you gave it away in a free software sense, which goes beyond what the license allowed you to do. | | | IBM will do the same with respect to its proprietary software. | | | So for example, SCO has argued that an implementation of the Berkley Packet-Filter protocol, the BPF, which was present in BSD Unix, belongs to it and has been copied into the program called Linux. |
|
http://www.itconversations.com/transcripts/61/transcript-print61-1.html
(4901 words)
|
|
| |
| | LWN: Transcript of SCO v. IBM motion to compel hearing |
| | if this is the only provision given on work added by IBM then this certainly doesn't stop IBM from taking their own copyrighted work, what they've added to the originally licensed Unix to create a new derivative work of Unix, and put that same work into Linux to create a new derivative work of Linux. | | | I think IBM has way more of a right to uter this crap about MVS. | | | SCO's license to IBM says the following: You may use this software product. |
|
http://lwn.net/Articles/62817
(989 words)
|
|
| |
| | NewsForge SCO v. IBM Part Deux |
| | Part of why IBM is so taken with GNU/Linux, I think, is that it's an operating system that no one can 'own'. | | | However, when push comes to shove, If IBM could simply make the pain go away and quietly shut down SCO with a minimum of fuss, and more important, protracted and EXPENSIVE legal proceedings, they I can see how they might be tempted to take the easy way out! | | | I have a feeling that many people would rather see IBM win the case on the basis of the facts -- i.e., that they did NOT illegally incorporate SCO IP into Linux, and that all the contributions they made were in fact their own property, which they were free to do with as they pleased. |
|
http://www.newsforge.com/newsvac/03/10/27/2118240.shtml
(509 words)
|
|
|
