Re: SCO after BSD settlement

[Gary Thorpe <gathorpe79@xxxxxxxxx>]

 --- Diego Calleja García <diegocg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > El Sat, 22 Nov
2003 20:52:38 -0500 (EST) Gary Thorpe
> <gathorpe79@xxxxxxxxx> escribió:
> 
> > Actually, Microsoft did not break the license: I am sure the
> "Copyright
> > Berkeley" etc. message is either in the soure or the manuals.
> 
> or in the binary code (or that's what it seems). Perhaps SCO will sue
> them
> too  :)
> 
> 
> 
> Diego Calleja.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /win/WINDOWS/system32/
> finger.exe: @(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of
> California.
> ftp.exe: @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of
> California.
> nslookup.exe: @(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University
> of California.
> rcp.exe: @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of
> California.
> rsh.exe: @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of
> California.
> 
> mib.bin: hrFSBerkeleyFFS
> nslookup.exe: @(#)nslookup.c  5.39 (Berkeley) 6/24/90
> nslookup.exe: @(#)commands.l  5.13 (Berkeley) 7/24/90
> nslookup.exe: @(#)debug.c     5.22 (Berkeley) 6/29/90
> nslookup.exe: @(#)list.c      5.20 (Berkeley) 6/1/90
> nslookup.exe: @(#)subr.c      5.22 (Berkeley) 8/3/90
> nslookup.exe: @(#)skip.c	5.9 (Berkeley) 8/3/90
> nslookup.exe: @(#)getinfo.c   5.22 (Berkeley) 6/1/90
> nslookup.exe: @(#)send.c      5.17 (Berkeley) 6/29/90
> query.dll: @(#)yaccpar     1.9 (Berkeley) 02/21/93
> query.dll: @(#)yaccpar     1.9 (Berkeley) 02/21/93
> query.dll: @(#)yaccpar     1.9 (Berkeley) 02/21/93
> query.dll: |@(#)yaccpar     1.9 (Berkeley) 02/21/93
> query.dll: @(#)yaccpar     1.9 (Berkeley) 02/21/93
> query.dll: @(#)yaccpar     1.9 (Berkeley) 02/21/93
> query.dll: @(#)yaccpar     1.9 (Berkeley) 02/21/93
> query.dll: @(#)yaccpar     1.9 (Berkeley) 02/21/93
> query.dll: @(#)yaccpar     1.9 (Berkeley) 02/21/93
> query.dll: @(#)yaccpar     1.9 (Berkeley) 02/21/93
> query.dll: @(#)yaccpar     1.9 (Berkeley) 02/21/93
> tlntadmn.exe: @(#)yaccpar	1.9 (Berkeley) 02/21/93

The BSD license requires that the copyright appear in the manuals or
the copyright notice provided with binaries. Have you checked the
manuals Mirosoft ships with windows to see if they have the required
copyrights? If they don't have the copyright notice, then they _can_ be
sued for copyright infringement by whoever now owns the originating BSD
code (which isn't SCO currently by the way, although they may challenge
that also). If people are not "up in arms" and it turns out Microsoft
is in violation, then that is a contradiction. I find it surprising
that people are attacking a company which has shown no real hostility
to Open Source (IBM is not Open Source) while letting another, which
has publically declared that it considers Open Source a threat, off the
hook. 

It is common knowledge that Microsoft has BSD code in their OS: the
issue is whether they are breaking the _copyright_ by not displaying
the notice. If someone infringe on SVRx's (or other commercial
software's) copyright however, the requiremnts for compliance will
probably be much more demanding and _costly_ (i.e. lawsuit) to
infringers. That is the issue. If all IBM had to do was include a few
lines of copyright notice _if_ they broke the terms of their license
agreement (which includes copyright issues), then there wouldn't be a
legal case.

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca