Without getting flamed, can someone answer me a question?

[Brian Densmore]

[IIRC] 

Unix was created by AT&T. All of those versions prior to
Unix system V release 4 are now public domain. In fact there are several 
places where they can still be downloaded.

Unix system V release 4 (and beyond) is the version of Unix that SCO now 
owns some rights to. Novell still owns the Unix IP though.

U. of Ca @ Berkeley has a separate Unix (BSD Unix), 
not derived from Unix system V release 4. FreeBSD is based on that.
FreeBSD and UCB have won the court fight stating that it is free of 
the claims of Unix system V release 4. In fact Sys V R 4 has infringing 
BSD code in it. Something that UCB could force to be removed.
[/IIRC]

[my understanding of it in a nutshell]
SCO can't demand license fees from Linux users even if they win the case.
They can demand of the distribution companies copyright infringement fees.
Linux users are immune, it is copyright infringement, but they are trying 
to call it something else. They are also trying to claim that Unix "techniques"
were incorporated in Linux. So what, nothing can prevent others from using
techniques that have been common knowledge for decades. They also are trying
to claim trade secret infringement. But they have nothing there either.
All of the claims they are making is without foundation.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ismgr [mailto:ismgr at atchisonkansas.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 9:03 AM
> To: KCLUG
> Subject: Without getting flamed, can someone answer me a question?
> 
> 
> I was reading about the SCO deal and to be quite honest, I 
> don't really 
> understand the argument.
> 
> That said, and not to cause a flame war, could one of you 
> that is much 
> more familiar with this issue enlighten me?
> 
> I know a little of the history of Unix, but I haven't really 
> done a lot 
> of research.
> 
> I'm trying to figure it out because I like Linux and the thought of 
> having to pay for it is as some type of service like 
> Microsoft and every 
> other Windows vendor sells it anymore is really aggravating to me.
> 
> Not that it wouldn't be worth it, but the reason that I chose 
> Linux was 
> because I could install it without the hassle of licensing 
> issues like 
> you do with Windows.
> 
> I don't know if it's my own miseducation or just how this whole suite 
> sounds, but I don't want software as a subscription service.
> 
> Thanks, all.
> 
> Take care.
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> majordomo at kclug.org
>