The SCO Legal Mess

Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by pimentoLoaf, Aug 20, 2003.

  1. pimentoLoaf macrumors 68000


    Dec 30, 2001
    The SimCity Deli
    Bookmark this.

    Interestingly, there is some BSD references -- could that cause problems for Apple? (Could we all be required to fork over $1699 in licensing fees to SCO, in other words?)
  2. Lanbrown macrumors 6502a

    Mar 20, 2003
    The root of the problem is that IBM took licensed code that was used under license from SCO for AIX and put it into the linux. BSD has been around for a longtime and is based upon on older type of UNIX. AT&T even licensed BSD at onetime, but they created it. Bell Labs was the one that invented UNIX and AT&T at onetime owned them.

    "In the middle 1970s, around the time Version 6 was released, AT&T began to license its Unix operating system. At little or no cost, individuals and organizations could obtain the C source code. When the University of California at Berkeley received the source code, Unix co-creator Ken Thompson was there as visiting faculty. With his help, researchers and students, notably Sun co-founder Bill Joy, improved the code and developed the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD). Funded by a grant from DARPA, the Berkeley Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG) was the most important source of Unix development outside of Bell Labs. Along with AT&T's own System V, BSD became one of the two major Unix flavors."

    "BSD stands for ``Berkeley Software Distribution''. It is the name of distributions of source code from the University of California, Berkeley, which were originally extensions to AT&T's Research UNIX operating system. Several open source operating system projects are based on a release of this source code known as 4.4BSD-Lite. In addition, they comprise a number of packages from other Open Source projects, including notably the GNU project."

    "If we take a broad look at the BSD toolbox, we will find that there are five BSDs. In alphabetical order, they are: BSDI, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and PicoBSD. Even though they all have the same heritage, stemming from the University California Berkeley 4.4BSD and 386BSD source code, they have diverged and specialized."

    As you can see, BSD is safe as long as they did not take linux code and put it into BSD. I have no idea why they would do that as they are different. BSD has been around longer then SCO, and SCO must accept previous licensing deal that AT&T/Bell Labs made.

    Since The Open Group is diligent in their trademark, UNIX is a trademark of The Open Group. All other trademarks mentioned in my post belong to their respective companies/holders.
  3. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    May 19, 2002
    I don't think it's going to end up a "licensed code" dispute with IBM, they'll probably agree in the end that IBM owns the code they're distributing.

    I think SCO is going to pursue a contractual dispute with IBM, that the contract states that any derivitive works of licensed SCO code cannot be distributed. Even if IBM owns the code.
  4. Lanbrown macrumors 6502a

    Mar 20, 2003
    IBM is allowed to distribute the code in AIX, as that is what the license is for and SCO gets money for it. The linux side SCO does not get money and supposedly contains their code. They have offered a few lines of proof. So IBM does not own the code, they own some of it and the code in question is what SCO owns.

    Your second part is correct though. It is a contract issue in terms of licensing.

    I think we both agree that BSD is safe, right?
  5. visor macrumors 6502

    May 13, 2003
    in bed
    Re: The SCO Legal Mess

    Haha, actually it will cause Problems for SCO as the BSD Licence does not allow to incooperate Code without the Reference to Berkely. Novell has been trough that in the early 90's and ran off with a very bloody nose. The files are non public, but might need to be opened if the SC= mess really gets going. Novell is going to hate itself for selling rights to SCO - even if Novell has experienced that those rights are virtually useless, it will still cause bad publicity.

Share This Page