Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Wed 12th Mar 2003 20:31 UTC
SCO's lawsuit filed in Utah last week claims that IBM integrated computer code belonging to another company into the Linux operating system, touching off speculation that the lawsuit could hurt other Linux companies, including Red Hat, the country's largest distributor of the software. Red Hat isn't involved in the dispute, but some analysts say that the Raleigh-based company won't be able to escape the fallout. "It's kind of irrelevant who wins the lawsuit," said Victor Raisys, analyst with Soundview Technology Group in San Francisco. "You can't take back the fact that someone has tried to claim intellectual property on Linux. The genie is out of the bottle."
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The old IBM interview that you quote, and keeps getting quoted over and over again, is from a IBM developer, who cannot and does not speak for IBM, as a corporation. Do you really believe that IBM would have invested the money, time, and self-identification with Linux if they believed that Linux is a potential IP timebomb ?
Get real. They are paying developers to work on Linux to help Linux support their computers, including the paycheck of the man who did this interview. Why would they do this if they were afraid of potential IP suits. IBM does not want to distribute Linux, because a) they could make no money from doing so-relative to what they earn with AIX, b) Linux is not their baby, they jumped on the bandwagon and are supporting it, but they will never control it, c) by distributing their own Linux distribution they would be acting against their own self-interest -firstly if the did ditribute Linux they would only distribute with/for and only support it for there computers-if they developed code which would better support their computers and they distributed Linux why would they not seperately liscence such IP as to prevent their potential competitors, Redhat and SuSE, from effectively competing with them on their own platform ? IBM knows that the only competition there is in the Linux world is in terms of support and to this end IBM has agreements with SuSE and Redhat to offer support for Linux on their platforms.
The man in the interview belongs to the generation of oh so cynical developers who have become jaded by years in the IP industry-whereas IBM, as a corporation, has already accepted the fact that Linux is for all intensive purposes belongs to the Commons, ie. everybody and nobody. Do you know why GPL is called copy-left software ? One reason for this name is because GPL-based software is only IP in the sense that companies which base their buisness off closed-source propietary software cannot benefit from GPL software. GPL software being something which propietary closed-source software cannot use or "embrace or extend" renders GPL relative to such corporations depenedent upon such practices as IP, as something which coporations cannot own, take credit for, or control.
GPL software is fundamentally anti-IP- the goal of GPL, born out of bitter experiences in the world of IP, is that noone ever will own GPL software, and software liscensced under GPL belongs evermore to the Commons and once it becomes part of the Commons it is for all intensive purposes even more "closed" than propietary closed-source software for corporation interested in acquiring it as IP- but for programmers, developers and enthusiasts beyond the corporate world it is the most "free" form of software which exists, and free in a real sense of the word, in that it entails duties and obligations in addition to the rights which it entails- and the principal duty and obligation of GPL software developers is to commit any and or all changes back to the Commons and to religiously safeguard their software from propitary corporate cooptation.
This notion that "lurking in the millions of lines of code lies patented propitary IP" is the FUD which MS and it's cohorts have beeen reaming down everyones throats for years now. In that you lend credibility to this- your are in effect nothing more than spokespersons for this FUD campaign. Luckily most of the really big IT corporations have gotten over this and realize that it is a red-herring argument, in fact MS and now SCO, through its own sheer stupidity, are practically the only ones left who buy into this FUD. The only IP in GNU/Linux is the GPL which itself is *NOT* IP-unless you want to try to buy it out, coopt it, pervert it or steal it from the Commons. This FUD is like a ghost, which rears its ugly head from time to time and even though it is long dead it continues to haunt us, ressurected by dying IP firms looking for financial salvation.
Sam and Vince: without people who argue like you do this ghost of IP days long past would stop haunting us contemporaries with such FUD-if you believe your concerns about supposedly potential IP misuse in GNU/Linux are greater than that of IBM,HP, Dell, SuSE, Redhat and many other corporations and an ever-increasing number of national/regional/local governments which have invested huge sums of money and self-identification in GNU/Linux then you are blowing smoke up your own *ss.