SCO suit and Linux kernel

SCO suit and Linux kernel

[James Miller (office)]

This may seem a bit off topic for this list, but for me, as a newbie, it
does involve understanding some things about Linux.  I hope it doesn't
cause any flame wars or anything.  Anyway: I understand that SCO's claims
concern only the 2.4.x kernel and later (i.e., the 2.5.x and thus upcoming
2.6 as well).  I just don't quite understand how this represents such a
threat to Linux: Linux already has solid, working kernels in the 2.0.x
branch and the 2.2.x branch.  If the very worst came about (I have a hard
time seeing how anything worse than maybe removal of some code and some
fines being issued, but, for the sake of discussion . . .) and the 2.4.x
kernel series became off limits, couldn't development on the 2.2.x and
maybe even 2.0.x kernels continue and perhaps fill the needs the 2.4.x
kernel now fulfills?  I guess 2.0.x can't be made to support USB, so that
kind of makes it a less feasible option.  If I could put my inquiry into
the form of a succinct question it would be: what does the 2.4.x kernel do
that 2.2.x can't do?  Isn't it kind of insignificant from the perspective
of the average computer user whether they use a 2.2.x or 2.4.x kernel?
And, relatedly: isn't alot of the stir over how this could adversely
affect Linux based on consideration of Linux's adoption in the business or
corporate worlds, where there are some very specialized computing needs?
Or maybe it's seen as a setback for Linux running on the leading edge
hardware, like 64 bit processors?  Thanks for any help in understanding
how this could affect my world, i.e., the world of the average computer
user/tinkerer.

James
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs

Re: SCO suit and Linux kernel

[Stephen Samuel]

First of all IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) I just like to dabble
in legal issues from time to time.

It's really not clear exactly what SCO is complaining about with
Linux.  I'm among those who believe that if the Linux community
could get together, there is good cause for us to put together what
may be the first class-action libel suit. This would be true even
if SCO does have a claim, because they've been both overreaching
in their claims and wilfully vague about their complaint.

Once SCO'x impugned pieces of code are identified and verified as
really belonging to SCO (if that's true!) I would expect that the
Linux community would simply yank out the old code and replace it
with something different.

  As a worst case, this legal quagmire that SCO
is trying to create for Linux might stall distribution of 'dirty'
Linux kernels/programs until 'clean' code can be generated. as a
best case, we may end up counter-suing SCO into the ground for
slandering the community (or both!).


Right now, SCO's claim seems to be an inductive one... They're
basically claim that they own and control the rights to any
source that any UNIX licencee has ever put into any copy of
Unix.  They're not suing IBM over code that was written by
SCO and/or IBM.  They're (currently) suing them over code that
was written by IBM, and/or Coherent (a company that IBM ate).

The claim is a big legal stretch.  It's a very strict call on
a small bit of the license... Not only that, but some people
claim that being that pendantic about that piece of code^H^H^H^H
contract would also result in a determination that SCO would
  not inherit that right when the UNIX license was transferred
and re-transferred over the last decade.

I have a letter at http://www.bcgreen.com/txt/letters/sco-viral.html

James Miller (office) wrote:
 > This may seem a bit off topic for this list, but for me, as a newbie, it
 > does involve understanding some things about Linux.  I hope it doesn't
 > cause any flame wars or anything.  Anyway: I understand that SCO's claims
 > concern only the 2.4.x kernel and later (i.e., the 2.5.x and thus upcoming
 > 2.6 as well).  I just don't quite understand how this represents such a
 > threat to Linux: Linux already has solid, working kernels in the 2.0.x

-- 
Stephen Samuel +1(604)876-0426                samuel@bcgreen.com
		   http://www.bcgreen.com/~samuel/
    Powerful committed communication. Transformation touching
        the jewel within each person and bring it to life.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs