|
|
| 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.
|
|
|
|
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 30 2003 @ 10:19 AM EDT |
btw - Keystone cops? Surely the Three Stooges!
Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
