Re: SCO's claims seem empty

[Raimundo Bilbao <rbilbao@inzignia.cl>]

El Lun 02 Jun 2003 22:18, Lauro, John escribió:
> From what I read when SCO had more on their web site, it's more a
> question of contract violation. IBM had a contract for their Unix, and
> developed their code for that.  Then IBM ported some of their "own"
> kernel mods that was written for AIX and released it into Linux for
> free.  That violated some portion of the Unix contract. Thus, if IBM
> wins, could have implications against some parts of GPL, and maybe
> that is why Microsoft is backing SCO.
>
> I may be way off base, but SCO always stated it was contract issues
> and not code or copyright.
[...]

Ok, but all this noise (AFAIK) was started from a sue against IBM not Linux, 
however (pretty) soon was focused on some _mitical_ portions of the linux 
kernel (I really want to read those ET codes, maybe I can learn alot from 
those aliens's gurues  ;-D) and then toward GNU licenses and some others 
wired implications. 

I really think SCO haven't a real case against Linux (maybe toward IBM, but 
not linux), however everybody knows what a _special_ group of lawyers can do, 
no?  ;-)

Another think what ringing on mi (little) brain is the simple question : 
somebody remember the surprise off know, sometime ago, that NT was include 
zlib's code into this?, now I asking myself, what else they have _included_?, 
the SCO sue has some implications against them?. Maybe I never know, but it's 
an intersting question, maybe SCO (or anybody else) ending with a sue to 
every operating system on this planet from now toward if they want (a really 
nasty scenario).

OK, enough of this, let's R&R and back to work...  ;-D

cheers
mundo