Can anyone tell me what part of Linux code they claim violates UNIX copyright? Would Linux function without it? It seems to me there is so much development going on for Linux that this is irrelevant unless the code they are claiming disables the kernel.

Any info would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Heh...that's the big question, innit?
So far SCO has apparently refused to say.

Does the IBM suit not say? I guess I could look it up myself, maybe on Smoking Gun. I am still a noob even though my status says member and I am wondering if it is "innit" is anyone working on a work around? Is that possible?

You might want to check out Groklaw for information on the SCO versus the free software world case. As mik pointed out SCO hasn't released their actual claims to the public, but all other information can be found at the site above.


Håkan

As a non-practicing but still interested lawyer, I agree. End users have nothing to fear from the SCO suit.

SCO hasn't released their claimed infringing code because there probably isn't any. You notice that SCO keeps missing discovery deadlines... a prime indicator that there is no valid claim.

SCO should have stayed with their one claim which MIGHT have allowed them to win,... that they justifiably relied on the contract with IBM, putting their resources to work for it, only to have IBM gut the agreement by switching their focus to Linux. THAT claim could have worked... But not this alleged infringing code crap.

Every time alleged infringing code has leaked out on the internet, someone has proven that it was released to a GPL or similar license on a previous occasion. The attempt to say that there is infringing code is revisionist history on the part of SCO. SCO's predecessor company even was responsible for releasing some of the code.