TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:RE: Linux users' expectations of online help From:Bruce Byfield <bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Tue, 23 Sep 2003 13:05:48 -0700
Quoting John Posada <JPosada -at- book -dot- com>:
>
> Sean...nothing personal, but this Linux/SCO/everyone else has put a real wet
> blanket on the Linux efforts around here.
Why? The case may take years to settle, and I've yet to hear of anyone familiar
with the history of UNIX who believes that SCO will be successful.
For those who aren't familiar with the case, SCO (formerly Caldera) is claiming
that it owns the System V UNIX code outright, and that hundreds of thousands of
lines of its code were illegally added to the Linux 2.4 kernel. It's suing IBM
for releasing the code.
SCO has to establish that:
1.) It owns the UNIX code it claims to own.
2.) Its rights in the code take precedence over any rights granted to companies
such as IBM.
3.) The code comes from a source that it owns, rather than a common ancestor.
4.) The code has never been publicly released by its legitimate owner, whoever
that may be.
5.) Assuming that it does own the code, that the code hasn't become public
through a lack of any attempt by SCO or previous owners of the code to defend
their intellectual property.
6.) If the code was illegally released, which company was responsible.
The case is still in its early days, but, so far:
1.) The two samples that SCO claimed were proof were publicly and legally
released.
2.) IBM's counter-claim denies every part of SCO's claim, paragraph by
paragraph. (As a side note, IBM is fighting the case every step of the way;
aside from the case itself, IBM takes any questioning of its good name very
seriously)
3.) SCO was fined in Germany because it refused to substantiate its claims on
the subject.
This is a very brief summary of an already very complicated case. However,
given the difficulties in SCO's case, and the company's extreme evasiveness,
how can anyone imagine that it could be successful?
--
Bruce Byfield bbyfield -at- axionet -dot- com 604-421.7177
NEED TO PUBLISH YOUR FRAMEMAKER CONTENT ONLINE?
?Mustang? (code name) is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to Web, intranets, and online Help.
The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! See a live demo that
will take your breath away: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l3
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.