3 ms·
Indeed. The SCO lawsuits were brought over (wholly invented) claims that Linux contained copyrighted code "stolen" from source code that SCO claimed to own. No
by sabat 16y ago
Indeed. The SCO lawsuits were brought over (wholly invented) claims that Linux contained copyrighted code "stolen" from source code that SCO claimed to own. No genuine incidents of "stolen" code were ever discovered as far as I am aware, and SCO was shown not to own the copyrights to the source code anyway.
- koenigdavidmj 16y agoThe examples of `stolen code' were #define:s and things of that nature, which are so trivial that they're bound to be reproduced almost verbatim.
- davidw 16y agoAnd that's when they finally came out. They talked and talked and showed journalists who were sworn not to reveal what they'd seen in detail, and so on, and didn't show any code for the longest time. This is one of those cases where I'm curious what, if anything, will happen to the CEO. He didn't just make some honest mistakes, he really fucked things up, running SCO into the ground, and causing a not insignificant amount of trouble for Linux and open source companies at the time. Sure, he lost his job last year, but so did a lot of other people.
- rbanffy 16y agoLast time I checked, darlbehindbars.com was available. It still seems so.
- cabalamat 16y ago> The SCO lawsuits were brought over (wholly invented) claims that Linux contained copyrighted code "stolen" from source code that SCO claimed to own. Even if that claim was true, SCO would[1] still have lost, because SCO itself (under the name Caldera) had distributed the Linux source under the GPL, thus giving anyone the right to use it under that license. 1: or at least, should, in any sensible jurisdiction. IANAL.