decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Sun Is Currently Distributing the 2.4 Kernel Under the GPL
Tuesday, July 29 2003 @ 06:53 PM EDT

My readers are the best. Here's a note from Dr. Stupid, which I decided to put up here, in case some of you don't read all the comments:
Check this: ftp://ftp.cobalt.sun.com/pub/products/ sunlinux/5.0/en/updates/i386/SRPMS/

kernels as recent as 2.4.20.

"Dr Stupid"

Well, then, it's under the GPL. No protest from SCO. License says they can do it anyway. You do the GPL math.

Heh heh.

SCO, Sun, and MS are the Keystone Kops of the GPL.




  


Sun Is Currently Distributing the 2.4 Kernel Under the GPL | 5 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 30 2003 @ 03:37 AM EDT
Q: If the code IBM added to the AIX kernal... NUMA, etc. was derived from MVS
and then applied to AIX, do the SCO claims still hold water? That is, does the
application of code derived in MVS to AIX constitute "derivation" in AIX? style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Rob Klopp

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 30 2003 @ 05:50 AM EDT
If IBM adapts MVS code to use it in AIX; the AIX code is derived from the MVS code according to the definition of copyright law.

If IBM writes original code and adapts it to fit it in AIX, the original code remains original code. It could be that the AIX adaption has become tainted with Unix code, but that is dependent on what modifications are made to have it fit.


MathFox

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 30 2003 @ 07:19 AM EDT
Keystone cops were hard workers, just not so smart.. I see that Sunlinux is being actively maintained. For example Security patches posted as recently as 2003-07-08 https://testzone.secunia.co m/advisories/9207/
Jason Cunliffe

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 30 2003 @ 09:36 AM EDT
Rob (and others) As reported in a recent MozillaQuest article, SCO have conceded that IBM own the copyrights to NUMA etc., i.e. that they don't contain SysV code. SCO's suit against IBM is contractual; they claim that IBM is contractually obliged not to put code developed for a SysV derivative into another system. However, even if IBM had violated such a contract, because IBM owns the copyrights (as SCO admitted) this has no bearing on Linux. The analogy is this: suppose A owns an orange, and promises C (in a contract) that he won't give the orange to B. Then he gives the orange to B. C can sue A for breach of contract, but B still owns the orange legally because it was A's property all along. A is IBM, B is Linux, C is SCO and the orange is NUMA/JFS etc.

Thus, SCO has - with respect to Linux - fallen back to allegations that there is *other* copied code, nothing to do with the IBM case. They claim it extends to "hundreds of files" (see the interview on MQ), but strangely have only showed the infamous 80 lines (which weren't even from the official kernel.org kernel.) Until SCO comes forward and says "the files bla bla and bla are lifted from SysV and here is the evidence" no-one can take this allegation seriously.


Dr Stupid

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 30 2003 @ 10:19 AM EDT
btw - Keystone cops? Surely the Three Stooges!
Dr Stupid

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )