[NTLUG:Discuss] SCO, IBM, MS, Linux

[terry]

David wrote:

>On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 09:36:15AM -0500, terry wrote:
>  
>
>>BUT, anyone can use any of our open source code on any other application 
>>they want.  Once it's open source, it's free for all, it's public 
>>domain. Right?
>>    
>>
>
>Please don't confuse open source with public domain.  Doing so erodes
>the protections that our open source licenses provide to the community.
>
I stand corrected.  Please excuse my ignorance.  :)

>
>Public domain is that which is not covered by _any_ IP claim.  Anyone
>is free to take whatever they like from the public domain, and use it
>in any fashion they wish.
>
>That is not true of open source.  Open Source is covered by copyright,
>and its use is governed by a license.  Persons wishing to reproduce
>and distribute Linux can do so only by accepting the restrictions of
>the GPL.  Absent the GPL's permissions (which are granted only along
>with the restrictions), it is just as illegal to distribute Linux as
>proprietary work.  The key difference is just that the GPL is very
>liberal in granting permission, while Microsoft and SCO are not.
>
>  
>
>>If just one or two lines of code shows up somewhere in the thousands of 
>>lines of code in some open source program or library, who's to say, [or 
>>how can they prove], that it wasn't produced coincidentally via some 
>>sort of process other than thievery, i.e. reverse engineering, or..?? , 
>>well, I dono, cuz I'm not a programmer, but really curious as to how 
>>something like this can be proven "beyond the shadow of a doubt."
>>    
>>
>
>This is a civil case, so the standard is proof by preponderance of
>the evidence.  "Beyond reaonsable doubt" is the standard for criminal
>actions.  The law never uses "beyond the shadow of a doubt."
>
>In a copyright action, copying is shown by the combination of access
>to the copyrighted original, and similarity of the alleged infringing
>work.  SCO would need to show that IBM's programmers had access to
>SCO's proprietary code, and also show particular Linux code with a
>high degree of similarity.  SCO will also have to show that they do in
>
"high degree of similarity"?   Seems to me it would have to be exact.

>fact own what they allege to be their code, which makes the Novell
>press release a very interesting twist.
>
>IBM could negate the SCO argument by showing that their Linux
>developers had no access to the SCO code.  This is one of the reasons
>manufacturers sometimes employ "clean-room" tactics for development
>teams.
>
>IBM could also defeat SCO by showing that the Linux code derived from
>some other source than the SCO proprietary code.  Independent
>development is permitted under copyright law, though not under patent
>law.
>
>I am not your lawyer, and this has not been legal advice.  If you have
>a specific legal question, you should consult an attorney.
>
>  
>
I think a comment I saw on slashdot sums it up pretty good with the 
analogy of a rabit dog:
"SCO is an emaciated, rabid dog nearing its death-frenzy howling and 
trying to scratch or bite as many others as possible. It's only natural 
for its foamings to get worse and its anger to increase when presented 
with images of people playing in the open-sourced software fountain 
(rabies induces hydrophobia, you know). If you can't shoot this rabid 
dog, grab your children and run away from it. If you wait a few days, it 
will have drowned in its own spew - but anyone coming near, especially 
investors, will find that even its carcass is less than worthless and 
should be avoided."

-- 
Registered Linux User #188099
<><