[Talk] Re: [Linux-aus] SCO position, rationale and AUUG

Jonathan Oxer jon at ivt.com.au
Thu May 22 13:51:41 EST 2003

Perhaps it needs to be made more clear right up front what this doc is
all about. I know that we don't want to validate SCO's spurious claims
by restating them, but maybe it could start something like this (Based
on Leon's first couple of paras):

On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 10:56, Leon Brooks wrote:

> [Assorted organisations] are coming under increasing membership pressure 
> to respond to accusations of code plagiarism from the Santa Cruz 
> Operation (SCO).
> The extensive quality control systems which a patch must pass before it 
> is accepted into the main Linux kernel would massively modify and 
> almost certainly reject any incoming SCO UNIX code. The internal 
> systems of SCO UNIX and Linux are quite different, so it would make 
> little sense to try grafting code from one kernel into the other.


Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) has recently made accusations of code
plagiarism against developers involved with creation of the Linux
kernel, which forms the core of the Gnu/Linux Free/Open Source operating
system. These accusations appear designed to spread doubt within the
business community over the continued viability of Linux as a mainstream
operating system, by raising the spectre of a potential backlash by SCO
against end users of the system.

As a result, [Assorted organisations] are coming under increasing
membership pressure to respond to these accusations and reassure the
business community that widespread adoption of Linux is not only safe
but inevitable.

The principle argument behind SCO's accusation appears to be that Linux
developers have used SCO source code to patch and improve the Linux
kernel. However, the extensive quality control systems...  [etc,
continued from existing para]

Just a thought.



More information about the Talk mailing list