Talk:SCO–Linux disputes

message: Removed information about share price. Seems like trivial and constantly changing information. It also has the taste of something included just to tweak SCO's nose.
Removed the following "Core Issues" section as it only repeated what was written earlier in the article (and the same info is repeated again later): 
*The SCO Groups basic claim was that certain intellectual properties (IP) that they own has is some manner made its way into Linux.  They further claimed that this obligated users of Linux to aquire a license from SCO in order to legally run that operating system.  Thoughout the controversy that followed in both the public press and in the courts, several core questions have emerged and clear answers have not yet been arrived at.  The first one is specifically what intellectual property is at issue?  The second question is who actually owns what rights in the various elements of that intellectual property?  And the third question is where in the Linux source code base are any of these rights violated?
The following bit is garbled. I left it in because I have not idea what it means or what to do with it 
*Many of the UNIX Licensees took the license was to develop new and additional features for the core UNIX system and develop new products and services.  Those new features are provided by computer code that was not included in the initially licensed as the SVRx code base. --LeeHunter 03:13, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: * 
* 
* 
* 
--2mcm 05:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More links

message: Could we see a paragraph or two about the current state of the case ( which AFAIK SCO has 'lost' ) in the first 'screen' ? --2mcm 05:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A Summary?

message: I found it rather strange that the weasel phrase "Some open-source advocates claim that" was inserted. It's not a matter of claiming or not claiming. According to the terms of the GPL, if you include code from a product that is licensed under the GPL, you are required to release your work under that same license. While the truth of the claims has yet to be established, the consequences should they be shown to be true stand pretty much certain. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs  14:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accusations of Linux plagiarism

message: Given that these lawsuits are ongoing, should this page get a 'current event' tag? Is this too long of a current event to get such a tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkonc (talk • contribs) 
*I think the current event template is used on articles where information can change rapidly in the immediate future, which is not the case for this article. - Sikon 13:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Event?

message: It was pointing at an obsolete page. Apparently the original website changed their content management engine. The corrected reference points at the original article again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.82.203 (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: corrected reference no.32

message: What is the status of the old V6 or V7 UNIX code, which was widely distributed by Bell Labs in the 1970s?  I'm guessing it must be more or less public domain, since Bell Labs made no attempt to enforce a copyright of it.  I recall in those days, there was a book by a professor Lions in Australia that EVERY unix programmer had.  Lions did get into some trouble over that book, and was asked to stop printing it (thus the n-th generation xerox copies everyone had). DonPMitchell (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the results of USL v. BSDi was that the judge expressed doubts on whether the copyright to the early Unix code could have been sustained (because they didn't properly claim copyright or register it), which was part of the thing that convinced USL to settle so quickly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Interestingly, since the courts have ruled that the copyrights to the Unix source code did not transfer to SCO, Caldera did not hold the copyrights and therefore could not release the code under a different license. This applies to all the open sourcing of Unix including the subsequent deal with Sun to release the SVR5 code used in OpenSolaris. Ronald Joe Record (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: V6 UNIX

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "doc377" :
** Memorandum order and decision, document 377 in case 2:04CV139DAK, the court order on Groklaw
** MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Civil Case No. 2:04CV139DAK
DumZiBoT (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot report : Found duplicate references !

message: I think this article has been updated sufficiently since the bot flagged it; I'm going to remove the banner.  GuiderBob (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing "Needs Updating" bot message

message: I've tagged as POV this section.  Regardless of the merits of the claims of either party we have a list of reasons given conclusively "proving" a particular position.  However, that position is not linked any reliable source presenting that interpretation and as such is inherently POV.  Unless a source can be found that covers those points properly it needs a dramatic amount of trimming and refactoring. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SCO/SGI  

message: There is no mention of the insurance offered to users of Linux in this period. Here are some articles:
* "Once More Unto the Breach: OSRM [Open Source Risk Management], Lloyds of London, and Open Source Insurance" Aug 2005 
* 'HP to Indemnify Linux Customers'2003 
* 'Novell Offers Liability Shield for SUSE Linux'
* 'Red Hat to Protect Linux Customers' 2004 
* Open Source Risk Management still offer Open Source insurance. 
-- PeterEastern (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection for users of linux again the litigation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on SCO–Linux controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050213234612/http://www.zdnet.com.au:80/insight/software/0,39023769,39116509,00.htm to http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/software/0,39023769,39116509,00.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041009172817/http://www.caldera.com:80/scosource/letter_to_partners.html to http://www.caldera.com/scosource/letter_to_partners.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080314051749/http://www.smallworks.com:80/archives/00000250.htm to http://www.smallworks.com/archives/00000250.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on SCO/Linux controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060429152726/http://www.caldera.com:80/scosource/letter_to_partners.html to http://www.caldera.com/scosource/letter_to_partners.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091010163419/http://www.linux.org/news/sco/timeline.html to http://www.linux.org/news/sco/timeline.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081013001529/http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5811081.html to http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5811081.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on SCO/Linux controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041009172817/http://www.caldera.com:80/scosource/letter_to_partners.html to http://www.caldera.com/scosource/letter_to_partners.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on SCO/Linux controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://perens.com/Articles/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on SCO/Linux controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040806125142/http://www.novell.com:80/licensing/indemnity/legal.html to http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/legal.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.com.com/2100-1016-1007528.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023132946/http://www.thescogroup.com/ to http://www.thescogroup.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on SCO/Linux controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071109190233/http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/ to http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081105224359/http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/05/13/msft-linux-free-software-infringe-235-of-our-patents/ to http://legalpad.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/05/13/msft-linux-free-software-infringe-235-of-our-patents/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060106163301/http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/08/08/31OPcringely_1.html to http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/08/08/31OPcringely_1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060825130902/http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?releaseid=109360 to http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?releaseid=109360
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: All the article  needs  now is the intro to be reworded.  Think that: The SCO–Linux  disputes were  a series of legal and public arguments between the software company SCO Group (SCO) and various Linux vendors and users would suffice. Notice present tense  'are' is replaced by  'were' (plural simple past tense indicative). Second paragraph is should be replaced by 'are'.   Anyone agree along these lines? Aspro (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro wording

message: Could someone who's been following these cases update this page, summarize and collate the information present, and also provide the current status? I'm asking because I followed a link from Berkeley_Packet_Filter, which right now states:
:In August 2003, SCO Group publicly claimed that the Linux kernel was infringing Unix code which they owned. Programmers quickly discovered that one example they gave was the Berkeley Packet Filter, which in fact SCO never owned. SCO has not explained or acknowledged the mistake but the ongoing legal action may eventually force an answer.
This sounds like it was written 10+ years ago and not updated since --- but sadly so does this page. New information has been added, for sure, but the ,,big picture`` is missing. I'd be very happy if someone could take care of that. 178.11.76.218 (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update, summary, current status?