Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Mar 2007 00:25 UTC, submitted by Z98
The latest ReactOS newsletter is out. "Reactions have varied in regard to 0.3.1, though one response was consistent. The difficulty in getting it to work on real hardware. As mentioned many times, 0.3.1 was branched in the middle of a kernel rewrite."
Permalink for comment 222551
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-01-21
Could you please point out specific examples to which code SCO (arguably, see the Novell vs. SCO case) has the copyright for, that has been dumped verbatim into the Linux kernel (by IBM or whoever)?
Hint: The code examples presented at the SCO forum some years ago have been shot down within days (IIRC, BSD code and therefore legally transferable to Linux, please correct me if I'm wrong).
The SCO legal team has used a very fancy theory concerning "methods and concepts" and a very adventurous interpretation of how the copyright system works in order to dance around the "verbatim copying of code" issue lately and has went to great lengths to turn this into a contract related issue (Linux on Power, Project Montery).
If you know of any specific examples of source code with a (at least somehow verify able) non-clean provenance, please do the right thing:
- point it out to the (Linux/BSD/ReactOs/...) devs directly
- provide specific information why this code is problematic (e.g. infringes upon library xyz of OS version a.b) (and in the case of SCO)
- tell it also the SCO legal team, they look as if they could need some help in finding infringing code in the linux base
EDIT: As elsewhere pointed out correctly in the comment above mine, not every instance of "verbatim identiy" is automatically a copyright infringement, for example in the case of header files (where it is pretty much impossible to deviate from existing implementations, when compability is an issue) or implementations of trivial (sub)routines, copyright is almost likely not infringed.
Edited 2007-03-19 18:20