amicus_curious <ACDC@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1363532.ooiXr2j3QL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> SCO no longer matters
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | You may have noticed that I don't cover news about the never-ending
>> | SCO vs. IBM, Linux, Novell, et al much anymore. There's a reason for
>> | that: SCO doesn't matter anymore.
>> |
>> | [...]
>> |
>> | As for me, though, except for the biggest of developments, like
>> | Novell's novel attempt to knockout SCO by going for its Microsoft-based
>> | funding, and the day I get to write, "The End" to SCO's litigation
>> | tales, I won't be reporting much on SCO.
>> |
>> | You see, the thrashing isn't done yet, but SCO is.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9812502019.html
>
> I don't think that the author is correctly framing the issues in the SCO vs.
> IBM case. The fundamental SCO claim, which has survived the summary
> judgment phase, is that IBM violated their Unix System V license by
> disclosing information that they were required to maintain as confidential.
> The issue with the destruction of evidence is that a number of IBM
> developers who were contributing to Linux development were simultaneously in
> possession of the AIX code, which is an uncontested derivative work of
> System V and covered by the non-disclosure provisions of the IBM license,
> while developing code for Linux. This precludes so-called "clean-room"
> defense on the part of IBM. The removal of the source from the developer
> machines thus constitutes a destruction of evidence of IBM's behaviour.
>
>
And the fact STILL remains that at any time SCO could have gone through the
GPLed linux source and found their stolen code and shown everyone.
But they haven't, and so we're all still laughing at them as they take their
last gasps in their crossover into utter irrelevancy.
-----yttrx
--
http://www.yttrx.net
|
|
