Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/12/228247
Here we have a company that was accused of stealing code from Linux who has counterclaimed that their code was what was stolen. Strangely (considering that stance), they also have ticked off the Linux world by conjoining the words "weak" and "GPL" in a sentence.
Two small points. The first is that I have no valid opinion on the strength or weakness of the GPL because I am not a lawyer. However, neither are the legions of Linux supporters who happily chirp on command the GPL mantra:
The GPL hasn't been tested in court because it is so strong people know they would lose
Fiddle and poo. It hasn't been tested because companies looked at the cost of going to court vs. the cost of caving in and took the cost effective route. My hope is that someone does ultimately challenge the GPL and that it emerges as victorious as all the little penguins insist that it will, but until that happens, who knows?
More interesting, I think, is SCO's "you stole it from us" defense. While it is certainly possible this is a big bluff lie, I get more than a little disgusted by the Linux folk who knee jerk with "it can't be". Of course it can be: people steal code. Also, sometimes the ownership is muddled because the person who wrote it and the person they wrote it for both think they own it, and finally there are those situations where there really is only one reasonable way to write it in the first place.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the "SCO Defense" used more often in the future.
Have you tried Searching this site?
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X support by phone, email or on-site: Support Rates
This is a Unix/Linux resource website. It contains technical articles about Unix, Linux and general computing related subjects, opinion, news, help files, how-to's, tutorials and more. We appreciate comments and article submissions.
Many of the products and books I review are things I purchased for my own use. Some were given to me specifically for the purpose of reviewing them. I resell or can earn commissions from the sale of some of these items. Links within these pages may be affiliate links that pay me for referring you to them. That's mostly insignificant amounts of money; whenever it is not I have made my relationship plain. I also may own stock in companies mentioned here. If you have any question, please do feel free to contact me.
Specific links that take you to pages that allow you to purchase the item I reviewed are very likely to pay me a commission. Many of the books I review were given to me by the publishers specifically for the purpose of writing a review. These gifts and referral fees do not affect my opinions; I often give bad reviews anyway.
We use Google third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.
Click here to add your comments
Don't miss responses! Subscribe to Comments by RSS or by Email
Click here to add your comments
If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar