Re: Does Microsoft thwart Intel initiatives? -- Don't confuse

["Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@ieee.org>]

Tom Bruno wrote:  
> I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that the software that SCO claims IBM broke
> contract by placing into linux, does not qualify as AIX derivatives.
> I mean, come on, how could a stand alone file system like JFS which
> ran on OS/2 before being put into AIX, be consided a derivative of
> AIX?  It can't.  
> SCO claims IBM broke contract, but the reality is, SCO wants IBM to
> give them their proof.  As far as the rest of SCO's claims, software a
> company writes that runs on a OS, does NOT mean the software is a
> derivative work.
> It was SCO who broked a non-revokable contract with IBM.

Okay, this is the problem with 90% of the Linux enthusiasts right now.

They cannot separate the contract which IBM _did_ break with SCO, and
what SCO _originally_ sued regarding in March of 2003 from the "Linux
IP" claims SCO _added_ to the lawsuit in May of 2003.

Yes, the "Linux IP" claims are bogus.  It's a "smokescreen" SCO put up
when it was clear IBM was not going to settle.  And the rest is history.

_But_ SCO's _original_ claims against IBM "breaking control" _clearly_
have merit.  IBM withheld the IA-64 port of "Project Monterey," which
SCO was entitled to as part of their contract with IBM.

In a nutshell, IBM screwed SCO first.  There was no reason why IBM
needed to withhold the IA-64 port of their joint effort.  IBM shipped
"Project Monterey" for Power in AIX 5L, while SCO had _nothing_ -- even
though they _were_ guaranteed a license to the same source, by contract.

That was why the _original_ lawsuit in March 2003 was filed, 2 years
after IBM broke it.  SCO had to use Linux as a "competitor" in its
original filing, to further support its stance (from a legal
perspective, showing IBM withheld the code, and then turned around and
supported a "competitor").  And that's when the community went ape.

It actually was _not_ until May 2003 when SCO started the "Linux IP"
smokescreen.  And yes, that is all BS.  Because "Project Monterey" has
0% to do with Linux.

But because 90% of Linux enthusiasts do not stop and think to read these
details, SCO has successfully "smokescreened" the whole ordeal.  Most
people think it's all about "Linux IP."  If you look at _all_ of the
actions SCO has taken, it's been about non-Linux contracts and dealings.

Because even _they_ realize their "Linux IP" has _no_ legal merit.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith, E.I. -- Engineer, Technologist, School Teacher
b.j.smith@ieee.org



-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.