We're back in Wonderland, where up is down and it's off with IBM's head in SCO's happy dreams.

[rlk at alum.mit.edu (Robert L Krawitz)]

   Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 15:27:01 -0500
   From: Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>

   The real heart of the IBM vs. SCO case is whether IBM violated its
   contract by contributing NUMA, SMP, and JFS to the Linux kernel. These
   would be considered "derivative works" under the AT&T contract.

That's what SCO would like everyone to believe, at any rate.  ATT
clarified that things people write themselves are not covered.  This
is all discussed in detail on Grklaw.
								    
								    SCO
   also claimed some copyright violations, but has never provided the
   evidence, for which they were sanctioned. In the case of NUMA, SMP and
   JFS, these were never part of the SCO Unix code base.=20

SCO keeps changing their story, but they've been saying for a while
that it's purely contractual, not copyright.  In that case, I find it
hard to see how anyone beyond IBM could even in theory be liable for
anything.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.