Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] SCO vs. the world

[Tom Lord]

[Isn't this a silly way to inaugurate the new list? :-)]


    > From: Miles Bader <address@hidden>

    > > 1) Sequent had license to unix.   They could distribute modified
    > >    versions only if their modifications were, in essense, contributed
    > >    back to unix and controlled by the same license.
    > > 
    > > 2) They wrote a lot of code that fell under those terms.
    > > 
    > > 3) IBM bought Sequent.
    > > 
    > > 4) Lots of that code showed up in the Linux kernel, in violation of
    > >    the terms of the unix license.

    > I think it's hard to judge these issues unless you have actual 
information,
    > as the details (of both the source involved and the licenses) matter _a 
lot_
    > -- and of course none of us has any.

Well, I agree with that.  Look, if I had a dollar to bet I'd bet a
penny on SCO winning in the legal sense.  I just think the /.,
newsforge, gnu.misc.discuss, etc. coverage is _way_ out of balance.
The view that they are obviously wrong and idiots is far from
substantiated.



    > > I tend towards believing the large LOC counts.

    > I don't:

    >  (1) The functionality involved is not a very large portion of linux, and
    >      code that goes into central areas of linux usually gets massively
    >      scrutinized and mutated before it actually goes in.

    >  (2) This sort of code is interwined with many nit-picky details of the
    >      kernel implementation, and linux is unlikely to have much in common 
with
    >      SCO, other than when viewed from the 10,000 foot level.  This means 
that
    >      code copied from another system typically _can't_ be used as-is, and
    >      making it fit involves pretty serious restructuring.  The most likely
    >      thing to survive this is probably random trivial helper functions and
    >      the like (though random trivial code snippets and comments might
    >      also make the cut).

    >  (3) To the best of my knowledge, a lot of stuff related to this area has
    >      been changed a great deal since 2.4.x

    > The above comments pertain to the theorized SMP/NUMA breaches; I've also 
seen
    > it suggested that IBM's JFS filesystem is involved, which, being a more
    > self-contained body of code, may be more suspect -- but also far easier to
    > excise.


Personally, I tend to believe that software patents and copyrights are
a nearly incoherent idea but my intuition there is vague.   Something
about the topology if ideas and software not being one that usefully,
perhaps even meaningfully, supports the idea of regions which could be
called property.


    > > IANAL but to my ears, it sounds like a serious breach and it does sound
    > > like a decent percentage of kernel code isn't legitimately GPL'ed,

    > Naw, the possible problem areas are a very, very, tiny proportion of 
linux.

    > > particularly in economically significant areas of functionality.

    > _If_ the NUMA support turns out to be a problem, it might be annoying --
    > I gather than linux's support for such systems is a big brownie point with
    > large powerful corporations, though not particularly significant for the
    > general user base -- but I think that's all it will be.  IBM may owe SCO 
some
    > (or a lot) of money, and the code involved will have to be rewritten, but
    > SCO's really significant claim, that they somehow own basically 
everything,
    > is clearly silly.

I've never heard any such claim from SCO, even in the most anti-SCO press.

-t