Re: [ox-en] Impaired - is it SCO? preliminary thoughts.
- From: Felix Stalder <felix openflows.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:28:09 +0100
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
on.
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?
Felkix
----+-------+---------+---
http://felix.openflows.org
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/