OK, I can't resist this whole SCO thing, since it has again raised its ugly head. My previous post on the subject the other day drew a lot of attention from a diverse gaggle of readers and commenters so I thought I'd go back to the well at least once more for good measure. Here's the real shocker in the whole SCO v. Everyone mess--they still think that they own Unix. Though they never produced proof in the past 6 or so years since the original lawsuit maelstrom began. They are so convinced that they own Unix, that they have it clearly stated so on their website.

Here is an excerpt and a link to that informative page:

SCO owns all rights and ownership of the core UNIX operating system source code originally developed by AT&T/Bell Labs. SCO’s ownership includes system source code, including all versions and copies, SCO OpenServer, and substantial copyrights and source code to UnixWare. SCO is the exclusive licensor to UNIX-based system software providers.

Pretty ballsy, huh?

My original post from May 2008 explains that SCO doesn't own Unix, Novell does. Novell never transferred the copyright to them and Novell has proof. SCO purchased UnixWare from Novell, which is a standalone product but is not Unix in the pure and copyrighted sense of the word. It is a derivative thereof.

At this point, I'm not sure if it matters who owns Unix. It might not matter who holds the copyright, the license, or the original source code. Why does it not matter, you ask? In the Linux perspective, Linus wrote the Linux kernel off of Minix and publicly available code--plus original code of his own.

Not that anyone in this world is 100% above reproach but come on, Linux Torvalds is one smart cookie who doesn't need or desire to rip off anyone's source code.

Let's say for a moment that Linus had ripped off the source from SCO or whomever, would he still be able to update the kernel and include new code into it on his own? If he's too lazy to do his own coding, what makes anyone think that he would have continued the project for more than 15 years? It would have been far easier to admit his transgression, take a smack on the head and go about his business. He chose, instead, to continue his legitimate pursuit of the perfect operating system kernel and allow others to expand on his creation.

On the shoulders of giants, as Einstein once said.

SCO was once a great company. I loved SCO. It was everywhere. It was stable. It was awesome. But then Linux came along and took the world by storm and put SCO into a tailspin.

It doesn't have to be this way. Radios still exist. Trains still exist. Horses still exist. SCO can still exist too. It just can't have the same impact it used to have.

So, to SCO, you'll always be remembered as one of the finest operating systems in the history of computing--you had your day. Don't spoil it. It's like that last Rocky movie--OMG, just retire and let us remember you as you were. Don't embarrass yourself with this kind of Al Goresque recountism. Just go away quietly--or don't--find your niche again and rise from the ashes with renewed strength and vitality. But, please, please don't continue this path of lawsuit destruction. It isn't pretty.

7 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by decentralist

Not that I disagree because if they haven't proved it yet they aren't going to...but they never accused Linus of using UNIX code to build Linux.. They accused IBM of contributing it to the kernel long after Linux was already established. Granted it's still a bunch of BS, they were just looking for some deep pockets to attack.


Though I agree with your side, your commentary is a little too sloppy. Plus, Caldera-SCO were almost like the Recording Industry, they needed to find a successful method to sell a product as making money off Linux takes work and intelligence, but like the RIAA they decided to sue their customers, but with radically less legal ground than the RIAA, and SCO customers had alternatives. Darl is focused on a "More Mormon than thou" approach so that he can hopefully bias a Mormon dominated jury. That is why only only the Mormon (and Microsoft) dominated press institutions make articles that don't show the obvious giant holes in SCO arguments. What we ought to be taunting in public blogs and articles is asking if SCO still claims to own the Berkeley Packet Filter, SGI's contributions to Linux, JFS which was used prior to any Unix version of it, etc. I don't know if SCO has ever acknowledged a single one of the hordes of mistakes as mistakes commonly known in detail to the public now.

Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.