Message 01523 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01509 Message: 5/11 L3 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Impaired - is it SCO? preliminary thoughts.

On Monday 27 October 2003 08:23, Martin Hardie wrote:

But having said all that maybe what my little note makes clear to me now is
that the rhetoric of the OSI PP is not based in LAW but in a hackers idea
of what the law should be. In fact their references to what they seem to
think law is is much more about peer (to peer) ethics than law.

I'm obviously not a lawyer but as far as I understand, the question is if the 
current version of Linux (i guess they talk about the kernel only) contains 
specific lines of codes that are owned by SCO. It strikes me as significant 
that SCO does not want to reveal which lines of code they claim infringement 

AT&T did the same in the early 1990s, and what came out was that there were, 
yes, some lines in FreeBSD that were copyrighted but once they were 
identified, it was not terribly difficult to rewrite them and get rid of the 
copy-righted code.

In what sense in this case different?




Thread: oxenT01509 Message: 5/11 L3 [In index]
Message 01523 [Homepage] [Navigation]