Linux is copy of Unix - Says Darl McBride

[mfaridi]

I see this link
what is your idea

http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/linux-is-copy-of-unix.html

[corey_james]

haha i remember reading this last week ....

[phoenix]

Technically, he is correct. But not in the sense that he believes. :)

Linux is really nothing more than a copy (as in re-implementation) of UNIX. However, it is not a copy (as in copy/paste, photocopy, carbon copy, etc) of UNIX.

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

My concern would be whether or not either party - or another party - will try again to go after BSD. As far as I know, their last attempt to discredit the 1993 AT&T/BSD settlement failed - but being desperate now, who knows what tricks they'll try.

[FloridaBSD]

At this piont, IMHO the last thing open source needs is another SCO!!

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

"We use the one line of code rule. If you took one line of code from UnixWare and used it in a derivative work, that work would become subject to a UnixWare license," Maciaszek said.


Just off the top of my head:


#include <stdio.h>

int main()

i = 1;

return 0;


I guess there isn't a program in the world that they don't own. No wonder the judge did find for them. :rolleyes:

[ai-danno]

"When SCO sent threatening letters out to Fortune 1000 companies in May of 2003, it probably didn't expect this to be the result."

Ah, poetic justice is a beautiful thing.

[TerryP]

iirc, didn't SCO not even own what they were shouting about Linux copying?

[ninjatux]

Isn't Mach technically a copy of UNIX as well, or rather re-implementation. I'm sure most of you know that Mach is the kernel developed by CMU as the replacement for the BSD kernel. Only OS X and Tru64 UNIX use it. Honestly, I don't see a point to the differentiation between BSD, Solaris, Linux and others. They're all Unix, not UNIX, but Unix. Yes, there is a glaring difference between Linux distribution development ideology and BSD, Solaris, and other's development ideologies. They're polar opposites. While one employs tight control with a focus on F/OSS, most Linux distributions with the exception of Debian and Slackware and possibly others, are fairly loose. However, they all function quite similarly and are generally cross-compatible.

[DrJ]

My concern would be whether or not either party - or another party - will try again to go after BSD.
I doubt it. The early BSD got clearance from Mother Unix (namely, AT&T), so at that point there was no issue. It would have to be argued that some Unix code came back into the BSDs. That is really a stretch. I'd bet that the BSD we have today can be traced back to the original one at the time of the consent decree; the newer stuff would have a terrible burden of proof to show that it came from Unix and not the other way round (namely, from BSD -> Unix).

If I were the attorney, I would request dismissal with prejudice, and for sanctions.

[Oliver_H]

http://www.lemis.com/grog/sco.html#BSD

http://www.lemis.com/grog/SCO/code-comparison.html

It's nonsense.

[ninjatux]

I've always hated these stupid threats from big companies. FOSS has stood against a lot and will continue to do so.

[ai-danno]

And that's just it- SCO wasn't a big company. They went down the slash-and-burn litigious path because they weren't bringing in the dough in other avenues, like actual products- if they had been, they might not have become the ugly cancer on the community they became. No matter, though, now that that cancer is likely in permanent remission.

[ai-danno]

But this also goes back to how the code in your OS-of-choice is licensed. If it's consisting of binary blobs from commercial companies, full of NDA's and such, then you risk one day having another SCO-like situation rear it's ugly head. If you run something like OpenBSD (shameless plug, I know) then you pretty much avoid this risk altogether in the first place.