Why couldn't have SCO done this?
 

Hi,





I have some doubt. Remember I am not a lawyer. What SCO complains is some of its UNIX code gets mingled with that of Linux. Right? Why couldn't have SCO done this? They might have stealed some of code snippets from Linux ...
( note: some results say that Linux contains some 2-3 lines of UNIX code with even the comment repeated in english).


...and added it to their UNIX code such that it won't change the logic much. By doing so SCO can later sue some of Linux users as they planned.


Note my point: When SCO have stealed some of Linux code, no body could question it, since Linux is free software with no one owning it and UNIX was older than Linux.





Am I wrong? If I am then please point me out the reasons.





Any thoughts?


:o

The people currently running the lawsuit happy SCO did not put any code anywhere. That is the real point.
They are attempting to rewrite history to suit the contracts they have bought.

Re: Why couldn't have SCO done this?
 

You are wrong, and conspiracy theories in general are very annoying.

As is your use of huge spaces in between your paragraphs. Are you waiting for a drumroll in between or something?

Hi


still SCO hasn't shown the code which it says has been stollen

Sure it has; to the invited individuals who signed the NDA that basically limits their responses to "there are similarities" or "there aren't similarities". I've never heard of such a draconian NDA

sco said they didn't show to code to everybody because
the code would just get changed. they don't want the
evidence to exist that it would be so easy for us to change
the code. if they showed the code, we would change it,
and they wouldn't be able to sue for copyright violation, and it would show how worthless the code was in the first place if we could change it all out in a few days.
so they want to tell the court that the code is worth billions, and they should be reimbursed for all their
valuable code, while in reality, a few people working
for a few days could replace it all.
thats my take.

The latest guess is code added by Sequent Computer Systems which was then bought by IBM.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030619.html
Actually, any code becomes less important when you consider that SCO is attempting to claim everything is a derivative work of their System V. They actually want everyone that has developed software to pay them. Yes, everyone.
http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276..._marshall.html

sco is a derivitive work of my dog taking a dump.
my dog's dump stops stinking after a month.
sco is modified to stink permanently.

is it too unlikely that somebody was handed a page
of comments from code, but not the code, and told,
write code that does what the comments say? does
that never happen?

The code that SCO is hollering about now was put there on purpose by Sequent doing work on the Linux kernel. SCO is claiming Sequent had no right to do this. They are holding IBM, which bought Sequent, responsible.
It is really a case about contracts.
(Need I say, I am not a lawyer.)
:)

I think that SCO is walking a tight rope. Most people that learn programing learn from the examples of other. So if there is a code in a script in a UNIX progam that reads "ls -l", then this line of code is the IP right of SCO.

Good article about this here:

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030619.html

Flibble

That can't possibly be a good metaphor, whansard.
SCO is claiming their case is soild now.