Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by pimentoLoaf, Sep 10, 2003.
This is rather wild -- and it looks as if BSD Unix is off the hook.
FreeBSD, in particular, shouldn't be in contention at all.
The Free part of the name is not the price but that it has no AT&T UNIX code in it at all. That was checked several times to the satisfaction of the AT&T people.
This may be the wrong thread for this, and if so, flame me all you like.
That said, I don't understand any of this SCO Unix stuff. I understand that Unix was made at Bell Labs so there would be a portable operating system. It was distributed freely and folks could edit the code as they like and distribute the results. That much I get.
I also understand the GPL: you're allowed to write the code and sell it, but other folks may change it to their tastes and distribute that freely.
So what is the deal with SCO saying you can't do that? I've been confused from the get-go about this. Can somebody help me out here?
SCO claim (although in my personal opinion whithout any basis in reality) that some of their proprietary code was taken by IBM and added to the Linux kernal (under the GPL) improperly. The actual ownership of the various Unix source code versions is complicated and open to a certain amout of discussion (and the trademark is owned by the Open Group). To make things even muddier SCO were distributing the code they claim is their under the GPL in their version of Linux which may have forfieted their rights anyway.
All the code they have shown so-far is in the Linux kernel, but at the same time is not owned by SCO!
To clarify your point: SCO claims that IBM transferred AT&T code from AIX, which is subject to license fees, to GNU/Linux, which is not. I don't know if SCO is correct or not. However, my feeling is that SCO has evidence to support its claim. If SCO and my gut are correct, the raison d'etre of GNU/Linux has been compromised. GNU claims that Gnu is Not UNIX. SCO claims that now much of GNU is UNIX afterall.