Goes to my point about what prevents IP lawsuits from being filed... 8^(
Sounds like confusion about what copyright is (as opposed specifically to what patent is), but I now expect that sort of confusion.
(I don't know what 'IANAL' is...)
If someone is confusing patent and copyright protections, your clean-room efforts may not help much. Patent violations are patent violations clean room or not, and if someone decides to sue you for reading a manual or man page and working from it, all you can do is defend yourself against the charge, and try to get your lawyer to convince the judge to tell the plaintiff that they don't know what they're talking about and that what you've done has copyright protection if no patents have been infringed.
But this is hypothetical; I don't think it's likely.
-John
Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
John,
It appears that many of SCO's claims are that their rights are infringed by any implementation of an SVR 3 or later interface. Indeed their claims against AutoZone appear to be that just because Linux implements the same SVR 4 IPC interface that the mechanisms somehow must be derived from SCO's copyrights. IANAL, but that doesn't sound valid in of itself.
I will soon post a beta of Linux Fast-STREAMS. It might have the advantage that, as it stands, it is a single-authored clean room expression with no contributions from outside sources.
--brian
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004, John A. Boyd Jr. wrote:
It doesn't matter where intellectual property is hosted. IP ownership begins with authorship, and transfers only explicitly. Use of IP doesn't imply ownership at all, and hosting is only a form of use.
That said, very little can stop IP-related lawsuits from being filed, and little seems to be taken as obvious in such cases. One can only hope for reasonable and well-informed courts.
As for the authorship question, I can only speak for my contributions; I don't know about the rest of LiS. At least some of my contributions to LiS, which include fifos & pipes, FD passing, and fattach/fdetach, weren't part of any SCO or Caldera Unix variant when I wrote them (from scratch, using only manpages and books as references), so they couldn't possibly have been authored by any party with an SCO ownership interest.
I don't know if they're yet in AIX or other SCO-derived Unix variants, but I have no access to such systems to be able to check that for myself.
Maybe SCO has looked a little closer at LiS and realized that it's more original than not.
-John
Francois-Xavier 'FiX' KOWALSKI wrote:
Hello Dave & all,
anyone having a comment about the below? This is a quote from an article published on the excellent <http://lwn.net> so I assume that they are good sources, although I have not yet come to verify them.
Finally, and, perhaps, most interestingly, SCO has included a set of other files (exhibit 28-G) for which it claims ownership. The first part of this list consists of the Linux streams (LiS) patch <http://www.gcom.com/home/linux/lis/> which has never been part of the mainline kernel. Interestingly, the LiS distribution was hosted at Caldera <http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/9701.3/0585.html> for some time. But the company formerly known as Caldera would rather forget that now; the company claims, in its filing, the LiS has not appeared in "any Linux-related product distributed by SCO."
br.
-- Francois-Xavier "FiX" KOWALSKI /_ __ Tel:+33 (0)4 76 14 63 27 OpenCall Business Unit -- OCBU / //_/ Fax:+33 (0)4 76 14 14 88 Signalling Products Engineering / http://www.hp.com/go/opencall i n v e n t
_______________________________________________ Linux-streams mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gsyc.escet.urjc.es/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams
_______________________________________________ Linux-streams mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gsyc.escet.urjc.es/mailman/listinfo/linux-streams
