This is amusing
|
Posted by cypherpunks on 2003-09-10 07:59:28
|
|
In reply to Rob Enderle
|
Since http://www.sco.com has linked this story from their main page, somebody coincidentally keeps coming in and posting a short unsubstantiated reply praising Enderle for his lack of bias. This I find rather interesting since every reply before that was quite critical of Enderle for omitting certain facts, like the fact the SCO has already lost a court case in Germany over the allegations it's still making of the Linux community. In fact, SCO was fined as a result:
.
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,84564,00.html
.
Also, Rob Enderle's main contention that "Line-by-line replacement won't work in the SCO-vs.-IBM scenario" is also wrong, since mitigation is almost always how IP disputes are handled.
.
Enderle also neglected to mention this letter:
.
http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitC.qxd.pdf
.
Which gives IBM the right to use code they have created to use any way they see fit - this is in direct contrast to SCO's claims that RCU, NUMA, and JFS cannot be contributed to Linux because they were also in AIX. All this code was created and copyrighted by IBM. It is this code that SCO is claiming was improperly added to Linux, and the really amusing bit is that the code that was put into Linux was a clean room re-implementation of the code that previously existed in AIX. They are not the same code.
.
Enderle also didn't mention that SCO's "examples" of infringement were demolished the day they became available to be reviewed:
.
http://perens.com/Articles/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html
.
Rob Enderle has also neglected to mention that SCO's credibility is rather low. SCO, for example, stated they were going to audit AIX customers - something that not only did they fail to do, but something they have no legal right to do.
.
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1141817
.
Enderle has also neglected to mention that SCO is under investigation relating to irregularities of their IPO. You can find more details here:
.
http://www.legalcasedocs.com/120/248/211.html
.
And SCO may be involved in some questionable practices again, regarding their so-called "purchase" of Vultus. Read about it here:
.
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,83452,00.html
.
It surprising what Enderle has missed. From my perspective, it seems that SCO is being run by a gang of unprincipled criminals. I'm confident that the truth will eventually make it to the mainstream media, now that IBM has sent a subpoena to Canopy:
.
http://pel.cs.byu.edu/~sorenson/SCO/Docs/Subpoena.pdf
.
You can find the text version here:
.
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/
.
If you're not aware: Canopy is the majority shareholder in SCO, and also, was the VC behind Vultus, which SCO "bought" which allowed Canopy to make back their initial investment in Vultus - a company that was unprofitable, and worthless, and also coincidentally located in the same building SCO is.
|
|
Headline Feeds
