On Wednesday 23 July 2003 07:46 pm, Stuart Biggerstaff wrote: > Well, yeah. But they are applying a very ambitious reading of what is > derivative. If the courts agree, ultimately BSD, MacOS X, and maybe even > Windows NT/2000/XP would also be vulnerable. For the most part SCO aren't > claiming that advanced features were "stolen" from UNIX by Linux, but that > because of contracts with them the companies actually doing the work should > have contributed it only to UNIX, but instead also contributed THEIR OWN > WORK to Linux. >
Seems by their reasoning, Ford can claim IP infringement, etc because the others have wheels and an engine. None of them could have possibly created a wheel and engine without copying their design. If you generalize any term or concept enough, it can eventually cover just about anything. > Funny, it has been the aim of the FSF since its start to produce a free > alternative to UNIX. SCO is saying that if it is indeed an alternative to > UNIX then by definition it falls under their IP. > The FSF has done a good job of ensuring GPL compliance. Since SCO will only show the code via NDA who's to know? The few that have signed the NDA agree they were not shown enough to make an informed judgment/opinion. I don't see how the FSF can be held responsible for that. To do so means they would have to had access to SCO code. In the end when I ride my alternative vehicle (bicycle) doesn't mean Ford can claim it falls under their IP. -- Registered Linux user 193414 http://counter.li.org "Trying"? My contribution was much closer to a "feeble wave in the general direction of something that might lead you one step closer to a solution if you squint really hard and do all of the work." _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
