Mike McCallister

Subscribe to Mike McCallister: eMailAlertsEmail Alerts
Get Mike McCallister: homepageHomepage mobileMobile rssRSS facebookFacebook twitterTwitter linkedinLinkedIn


Article

Darl McBride's 5 Reasons Why SCO Can *STILL* Win vs IBM

Darl McBride's 5 Reasons Why SCO Can *STILL* Win vs IBM

In an interview just conducted by eWeek, SCO Group supremo Darl McBride demonstrates his unswerving and continuing confidence in SCO's case.

The eWeek interviewer, Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, didn't sound as confident in the arguments he heard as those making them, but that didn't stop McBride and Chris Sontag, senior vice president of the SCOsource division, from outlining at least five reasons why they still think SCO will prevail, in spite of the near-universal criticism the company receives from the Linux community.

Here they are. Draw your own conclusions.

1. "We never contributed our code to the GPL."

McBride: "The fact that we participated with Linux does not mean that we inadvertently contributed our code to the GPL. You can't contribute inadvertently to Linux. We feel we have a very strong position based on the GPL."


2. "If we did contribute code to the GPL...we didn't do so intentionally."

Sontag: "International copyright law does not allow for inadvertent assignments of copyrighted material; the copyright holder must make an explicit assignment, typically in writing, in a contract."


3. "The code IBM has put into Linux copies the sequence and organization of Unix code."

McBride: " A lot of code that you'll be seeing coming on in these copyright cases is not going to be line-by-line code. It will be more along the lines of nonliteral copying, which has more to do with infringement. This has more to do with sequence, organization, which is copyright-protectable. "


4. "System V and Linux have some identical implementations."

Sontag: "In Linux and System V, [dynamic shared libraries] are implemented in exactly the same way. They could have been done very differently and still accomplish the same thing."


5. "The source code underlying the ABI files is identical."

McBride: "When everything is said and done, when everything is on the table in the court case, there will be an argument when the Linux guys come in and say, 'Guys, the words are entirely different, how can you say that's a copyright violation?' But there are two parts to this. There are the words that are in the source code, and there's the music underneath. The actual code that drives these ABI files is structurally and sequentially the same. "

More Stories By Linux News Desk

SYS-CON's Linux News Desk gathers stories, analysis, and information from around the Linux world and synthesizes them into an easy to digest format for IT/IS managers and other business decision-makers.

Comments (22)

Share your thoughts on this story.

Add your comment
You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.