Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 25th Nov 2008 01:50 UTC, submitted by judgen
Legal "Federal district judge Dale A. Kimball has handed down the final judgment in the SCO case. The decision dismisses SCO's latest claims, grants declaratory relief to Novell, and sustains the court's previous judgment that SCO owes Novell over $2.54 million (plus interest) for unjust enrichment."
Thread beginning with comment 338313
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: serves them right
by lemur2 on Tue 25th Nov 2008 22:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: serves them right"
Member since:

"The only good thing I can see from this whole event is that the Linux kernel is clean against UNIX SVRX copyrights.
No it doesn't. It just established that Novell owns the UNIX SVRX copyrights. Luckily for us, Novell understands there is greater chance of a longer term profit in selling linux, than suing it. From the SCO vs IBM documents it doesn't appear that likely that there is any infringement, but that hasn't officially been decided by a court of law. "

Technically correct.

As Novell release a full Linux distro, including the kernel under the GPL license, I think that would prohibit them from suing for copyright infringement.

SCO had complete access to (Novell's) UNIX code, and also to the entire development history of IBM's AIX, and of course Linux code just as everyone else does, and a HUGE incentive to find any infringement.

In over two years of searching, they eventually came up with ... not one line of copied code.

Not one line.

I would conclude then that by far the largest factor that would prevent anyone at all going after Linux for violating UNIX copyrights is the simple fact that Linux code is not a copy of UNIX code.

Linux is a UNIX work-alike, but not a UNIX copy.

Then again ... Windows is a VMS work-alike, not a VMS copy, and yet somehow I never see anyone ever speculating about someone going after Windows for violation of VMS copyrights.

Let it rest. Linux is not a copy of anything. It is legitimately-authored original code, designed to oeprate in a similar way to UNIX. Perfectly legal.

Microsoft will just have to learn to try to honestly compete with something for a change.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: serves them right
by Blackwizard on Wed 26th Nov 2008 01:01 in reply to "RE[3]: serves them right"
Blackwizard Member since:

Windows is certainly not copy of VMS.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: serves them right
by lemur2 on Wed 26th Nov 2008 02:05 in reply to "RE[4]: serves them right"
lemur2 Member since:

Windows is certainly not copy of VMS.

Probably a fair enough observation, to be sure. Windows NT design was certainly based on VMS ideas, though:
"Microsoft hired a group of developers from Digital Equipment Corporation led by Dave Cutler to build Windows NT, and many elements of the design reflect earlier DEC experience with Cutler's VMS and RSX-11."

"Linux is certainly not a copy of UNIX".

Equally valid.

In fact the latter is more apparent and self-evident, because we can all inspect the source code of Linux and verify it to be so ... and many independent people early on in this whole farce in fact did an audit of Linux source versus UNIX, and found no infringement, so we have actual verification in the case of Linux that we do not have in the case of Windows.

It is interesting that SCOG Unix variants include a complete and complex "compatibility layer" that allows Linux userland code to be run under a UNIX kernel (sort of like Wine, but for running Linux programs on UNIX). The extent that they had to go to to do this means that SCOG knew very well that Linux was not a copy of UNIX.

I might also point out that Linux started out being written as a hobby by a lone student who didn't like Minix, as opposed to being written by professional people hired in from another OS software company ...

So how come Linux was the only one that was accused of plagiarism?

Edited 2008-11-26 02:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: serves them right
by Milo_Hoffman on Wed 26th Nov 2008 02:53 in reply to "RE[3]: serves them right"
Milo_Hoffman Member since:

>Windows is a VMS work-alike

BULLSHIT, that's bogus propaganda in some hopes of desperately making Windows seem cooler than it is.

.... Windows is a single user pc operating system that had a few sprinkles one or two 'concepts' that were VMS like in its virtual memory system, and io system.

Of course those same concepts such as split kernel/apps memory space, IRQs etc appear in just about every other modern OS as well, like Linux, OSX etc.

VMS shares as many similarities with other operating systems as it does with Windows...Lots of things about all OS's are somewhat the same. Leave it to Microsoft to try to desperately claim some legitimacy to their most bug ridden product in history just because they hired a manager away from Dec.

Believe me, I grew up on a RSX on a PDP as my first systems admin, and moved on to VMS from there including lots of learning about VMS internals....Windows is not any closer to VMS's design than Linux.

This is a huge myth that was started just because Cutler worked for Microsoft at the time. But the only similarities between his work at Dell and Microsoft was his MANAGEMENT not anything much technical.

Edited 2008-11-26 03:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3