| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
SCO barrels ahead with lawsuit against IBM | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: Reuters | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Some industry experts see SCO's campaign as an attempt to gain a windfall settlement, most likely by selling itself to IBM or another industry heavyweight. Previously, Caldera bought the rights to a DOS operating system and used it in 1996 to sue Microsoft and reach a settlement. DOS was the predecessor to Microsoft's Windows, which runs more than 95 percent of the world's personal computers. Members of the Linux community have demanded that SCO reveal the code under contention, so that they can write their own software and "purify" their software while removing any liability. "We know that we didn't steal anything," said Jason Hall, a freelance programmer who was protesting outside SCO's headquarters. "If someone has (copied code) illegally, it should be taken care of." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 315 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:11:38 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 6/30/2003 12:32:26 PM |
|
jvmahon - "Hall, on the other hand, is taking the more reasonable approach which is to say that the Linux community will remove any code that was improperly included. "
Uhh, that's not a more reasonable approach. It's the response of a child. If SCO's claims are correct, the damage has already been done and replacing the offending lines of code isn't a remedy. The remedy has to be financial. How else do you compensate for loss of marketshare and licensing fees? |
| #2 By 2960 (156.80.64.196) at 6/30/2003 4:30:36 PM |
|
#3,
Define 'damage'. Please... What 'damage' has been done? If I understand the roadpath to all of this, SCO stumbled upon the 'infraction' themselves and no one even knew it existed before then. The Linux community is just saying that IF they did something wrong, they want to fix it. Plain & Simple. Therein lies the problem. SCO won't tell anyone WHAT the damned problem is! I can't help but think that if this ever gets to court, the Judge is going to have serious issues with that aspect of this case. And heaven help SCO if they are proven wrong in court. After everything they have done ? TL |
| #3 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 6/30/2003 7:48:45 PM |
|
jvmahon - "Hall's approach is hardly that of a child - rather, it is the approach that a court would expect"
No, a court would issue an injunction to halt the damage. An injunction would mean that people would no longer be able to sell Linux until this issue is resolve in the courts. That's not the same as trying to put the cookie back in the jar with a bite taken out of it. "However, I wasn't suggesting that removing the offending code is the end of the case - certainly there may need to be compensation for the harm caused and the ongoing results of that harm." That's not what I've been hearing coming from the Linux community. They want to put the cookie back in the jar with a bite taken out of it and be assured that the issue is over. I don't see that as a reasonable approach at all. If a violation has occured, then there needs to be penalties. "On the other hand, if you think there is a more reasonable approach for Linux developers to take, I'd be interested in knowing what that is. " Start figuring out how this might have happened and what can be done to prevent it in the future. This may be the first occurance, but it won't be the last. What they need is indemnification, i.e. something like all code changes are tagged as to author(easy to do with a SCM system) and people submitting said changes must sign a statement declaring they are the creator of the code and are turning copyright ownership over to whatever authority is in charge. That way if something like this does happen again, the Linux developers can point back to John Smith as having signed off on that submitted change as being the source of the violation, and the wronged party can go after them. |
| #4 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 6/30/2003 7:58:08 PM |
|
TechLarry - "Define 'damage'. Please... "
I did. Loss of marketshare and licensing fees. Presumably the code cut-n-paste from Unix added value to Linux, some feature or overcame some difficulty, whatever. That value made Linux more attractive to certain customers, who choose to use it over commercial Linux offerings which are licensed from SCO. "If I understand the roadpath to all of this, SCO stumbled upon the 'infraction' themselves and no one even knew it existed before then. " I don't see how that point is relevant to anything. Someone had to initially discover something that apparently existed. "The Linux community is just saying that IF they did something wrong, they want to fix it. Plain & Simple. " Yeah, the Linux community doesn't understand the law. Plain and simple. Look, we're not in Beaver Cleaver land here. You knock out the neighbors window, you can't expect him to say "Well boys will be boys... Dont' worry about it, I'll fix it. Why I remember when I was his age I accidentally killed old man jones' cow. hahahaha!" If Linux hopes to play with the big boys, then they play with Big Boy rules, not Beaver Cleaver rules. "Therein lies the problem. SCO won't tell anyone WHAT the damned problem is! " Yes they have, several people have looked at the code and commented that the allegations seem quite serious. "And heaven help SCO if they are proven wrong in court. After everything they have done ? " Oh, they're already doomed. This case won't change anything about that. But either way it will probably make companies think twice before involving themselves with the Linux kiddies. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 315 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:11:38 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
