-
As you may have read (http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1007528.html) M$ is going to license code from SCO/Caldera. M$ said it is respecting IP, but maybe they are just trying to legitimize SCO’s claim that Linux violates their (SCO) IP (http://www.sco.com/scosource/letter..._customers.html).
Just a thought, but what if this Unix IP that SCO supposedly owns turns out to be GPL’d code that was taken from Linux. After all Caldera has sold their version of Linux for years. Wouldn’t that be something if it turned out M$ was licensing and using GPL’d code in violation of the GPL. Would M$ respect the IP that is under the GPL and free any extension or integration of the original GPL’d code?
-
As difficult as it may be to understand, this article is most definitely not a hoax... As MsMittens said, it is an effort at increasing SCO's profits. And after these press releases and such, they definitely need any help they can get. By even considering this lawsuit, they have permanently black-listed the SCO name.
But, as far as I can understand, the whole point behind Linux is that it IS open source. SCO's statement is trying to make it seem like having many different contributors to the source is a negative thing. I couldn't disagree more. The major strength of Linux is that we as programmers/users/hackers/whatever-we-are are free to change it as we see fit. SCO's "officially licensed" releases of UNIX are in fact "weaker" than Linux because of the relatively small group of people working on the UNIX project. Take the number of people on SCO's payroll and compare that to every single Linux user on this planet. Even if the Linux user is not a hardcore programmer, they still know enough to decide what they like and don't like about the OS, and they commonly forward that information to programmers. I used to try to send emails to Microsoft complaining about specific things in the Windows OS. After seeing no changes, nor even getting replies, I have given up. But when I suggest something to a Linux developer, I at least get a reply.
In conclusion, Linux is always going to have opposition from people who are afraid of how marvelous it could become with all the best programmers in the world working on it. But, more importantly, Linux has always had, has, and will always have, die-hard fans who have turned a simple OS into a religion. There is no end to the growth of Linux.
And even if Linux is "outlawed", who really cares? Downloading free music has been "outlawed", but it still happens. If Linux is outlawed, I will continue to use it and wear my "crime" as a badge of honor.
My 2 or so cents.
--PhirePhreak
-
Torvalds speaks out. http://www.crn.com/sections/Breaking...rticleID=42122
They compare SCO to the Raelians, on not releasing any real evidence. That's pretty funny. Torvalds said that he doesn’t see anything wrong in the code. The speculation that SCO is just out to make a quick buck continues. At one point Torvalds notes that since SCO cannot compete in the market they will sue instead.
-
It is impossible to declare linux illegal. without linux, the computers factorys can close their doors because if this happens M$ and the other companies will raise the price of their software.
-
Calm down everyone and read this
http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html#id2854550
Never piss off scary smart people.
