转贴Torvalds:Linux 知识产权的诚意挺好地被记载

本新闻报道由免费网站翻译. 内容跟原文有出入.


CRN：SCO-IBM 诉讼怎样影响了 Linux？
Torvalds：最大的效果仅仅迄今为止是被浪费在讨论上的许多时间。显而易见有过被其担心的许多人。但是没有事实上在任何真的意义中影响过 Linux。理由部分是它没有在任何真的意义中影响过它是我们做了的方式发展，因为它这样公开的，总是在那儿是很真电子的对每个东西确切地怎样从哪个发源进入核心的形迹和塞满喜欢。
这样我们事实上有一很好的对代码哪里来自的打算和知识产权纠正的是。... 它对我来说好象 SCO 真正介意的不是如此多代码本身。带 IBM 的合同诉讼。我不知道什么 IBM 合同是。有点儿是讽刺的，因为当涉及到 IBM 给其 Linux 了的物品的时候，特别我们关于怎样是非常小心的我们接受他们。一件东西 SCO 提及是 IBM 给其我们，和没有到内核中为最长时间被接受的阅读复件更新代码正好因为我们知道专利被 IBM 拥有。但是我们说我们不能够把它带直到你 IBM 很直率地说你也许可专利。
CRN：你为 Linux 发展有直率的 IP 保护或者预定的勤奋过程吗？
Torvalds：我们没有直率的一个。有点儿是陌生的因为开放资源的社区被认为如存在相当 laissez faire。但是同时，事实上做工作的人很严重地接受版权。版权是我们使用的我们自己为了有点儿做我们的工作。我太多知道方式关于版权法。我不该知道多达我做。方式东西被组织我们没有象你那样的过程会有在公司中通常。
CRN：有当前形势你在改变那完全？
Torvalds：我个人相信那正好因为我们是这样坦率，以至我们能够通过任何时间由代码引起。如果坏的某物发生，你有形迹，你能够看清谁做它，发生的，怎样做它到这儿，那事实上是不那共同在私人的系统中。通常大大更努力地事实上是明白那在其他系统中只因为你不能够通过主要的目录档案。那本身说如果坏的某物发生我们能够停止它。我们能够去看着在继续的。
CRN：是你的可能担心衣服的解决供应商的忠告的当他们在建设带 Linux 的企业解决方案？
Torvalds：问题中的一个真正是衣服完全不关于版权或者 IP。SCO 和 Darl McBride， SCO 执行总裁，亲爱的 Darl 让我们给他打电话，很一直在谈论 IP，但是事实上衣服关于在 SCO 和 IBM 之间的合同争论。以及我不关怀合同在 SCO 和 IBM 之间有争议。我认为 IBM 有律师保重那。我也认为无论什么发生发生。关于它的好事是合同争论是那纯粹在 IBM 和 SCO 之间。有同 Linux 无关。有同任何用户无关。显而易见 SCO 在尝试有点儿推 IBM 侵害的那打算他们的合同和现在 IBM 跟 AIX 失掉他们的牌照，那，让我们面对它，没人真正相信那。但是有同 Linux 无关完全。
CRN：非常怪异乘，考虑那 Linux 真正在开始建造接踵而来的商务。
Torvalds：但是那是使其变得不这样很怪异乘的东西。我不能够说我期望 SCO 起诉 IBM。但是我意味着它清楚的那在美国商务种气候中那一旦足够钱被涉及，诉讼将发生。这不是 ' 如果， ' 这是 ' 何时 ' 问题。以及大多数诉讼被解决。这一个得到了许多压因为 Linux 最后变得足够大的那人决定我们能够更容易地通过起诉某人赚钱而非通过使用 Linux。最终， SCO 不是很令人惊讶的公司为了进行诉讼。他们的商务是零和它在变小。
CRN：你在扮演角色尝试解决这件东西吗？
Torvalds：并非真的如此。我想要为了有尽可能很少处置诉讼。我在处境里那大概我将最终对于一个或者对方当事人是证人，十有八九它将是 IBM。但是我不以任何方式被涉及和我真正不想要为了。
CRN：你从解决供应商在看到什么种类的反馈？
Torvalds：我不在与那些人携手合作。每个东西我听到基本在说没人在意。... 我与其携手合作的人是我的技术人。他们被担心诉讼只因为他们想确认我们没有做任何事情错误。
CRN：最近微软凭借多达 35% 降低它的价格尝试赢得慕尼黑的桌面升级商务的城市。改变的微软的卖出战略怎样的？
       
Torvalds：你在跟错了的人谈话。你该跟 CA 人谈话。我真正真正是高兴的那我没有涉及到过销售人员，因为那不是我对有兴趣的。这样我不看见微软。
CRN：是你被诸如 CA 和系统的公司请来帮助赢得一些这些大的 Linux 交易的集成者？
Torvalds：不.我不去到顾客会议。我不喜欢顾客（笑）。
CRN：是那为什么你决定到去到开放源代码发展实验室和不商业的公司？
Torvalds：跟我，最重要的东西总是是了人能相信我。那不意味着他们与我持相同看法。刚刚意味着他们知道什么我的动机是。然后很重要的不在公司哪里人惊讶的开始， ' 所以他被公司激发吗？' 我说得更确切些得多会在人知道我在自己的私人的地上做我的决定的处境里。即使在人不与我持相同看法的时候，他们很是更高兴的大约那而非我是商业的公司部分，大概因为某物做我的技术决定他们的竞争在做。

CRN: How has the SCO-IBM lawsuit affected Linux?

Torvalds: The biggest effect by far has just been a lot of time wasted on discussion. Obviously there have been a lot of people worried. But it hasn't actually affected Linux in any real sense. Part of the reason is that it hasn't affected it in any real sense is the way we have done development, because it has been so open, there has always been a very real electronic trail of exactly how everything came into the kernel from which source and stuff like that.

So we actually have a very good notion of where the code came from and what the intellectual property rights are. ... It seems to me that what SCO really minds is not so much the code itself. It is the contract lawsuit with IBM. I don't know what the IBM contracts are. It is kind of ironic, because especially when it comes to the stuff that IBM has given Linux, we have been very, very careful about how we accept them. The one thing SCO has mentioned has been the Read Copy Update code that IBM gave us, and that wasn't accepted for the longest time into the kernel exactly because we knew the patents were owned by IBM. But we said we couldn't take it until you IBM said very explicitly that you also license the patents.

CRN: Do you have an explicit IP protection or due diligence process for Linux development?

Torvalds: We don't have an explicit one. It is kind of strange because the open-source community is regarded as being fairly laissez faire. But at the same time, the people who actually do the work take copyrights very seriously. Copyrights are what we use ourselves to kind of do our work. I know way too much about copyright law. I should not know as much as I do. The way things are organized we don't have a process like you would have in a company usually.

CRN: With the current situation, are you changing that at all?

Torvalds: I am personally convinced that exactly because we are so open we can follow the code through any time. If something bad happens, you have the trail, you can see who did it, what happened, how did it get here, which is actually not that common in proprietary systems. It is actually much harder, usually, to see that in other systems just because you can't go through the main list archives. That in itself says if something bad happens we can stop it. We can go and look at what was going on.

CRN: What is your advice for solution providers who may be concerned about the suit as they are building business solutions with Linux?

Torvalds: One of the issues is the suit really isn't about copyrights or IP at all. SCO and Darl McBride, SCO CEO, dear Darl let's call him, have been talking a lot about IP, but in fact the suit is about a contract dispute between SCO and IBM. And I don't care about contract disputes between SCO and IBM. I think IBM has the lawyers to take care of that. I also think whatever happens, happens. The good thing about it being a contract dispute is that is purely between IBM and SCO. It has nothing to do with Linux. It has nothing to do with any users. Obviously SCO is trying to kind of push that notion that IBM violated their contracts and now IBM lost their license to AIX, which, let's face it, nobody really believes that. But it has nothing to do with Linux at all.

CRN: It's awfully weird timing, considering that Linux is really starting to build a business following.

Torvalds: But that's the thing that makes it not so very weird timing. I can't say that I expected SCO to sue IBM. But I mean it was clear that in the U.S.-business kind of climate that once enough money is involved, lawsuits will happen. This is not an 'if,' this is a 'when' question. And most lawsuits are resolved. This one has gotten a lot of press because Linux finally got big enough that people decided we can make money more easily by suing somebody than by using Linux. In the end, SCO is not a very surprising company to bring a lawsuit. Their business was zero and it was shrinking.

CRN: Are you playing a role to try to resolve this thing?

Torvalds: Not really. I want to have as little as possible to do with lawsuits. I am in the situation that maybe I will end up being a witness to one or the other side, most likely it will be IBM. But I am not involved in any way and I don't really want to be.

CRN: What kind of feedback are you seeing from solution providers?

Torvalds: I am not working with those people. Everything I hear is basically saying nobody cares. ... The people I work with are my technical people. They are worried about the lawsuit just because they want to make sure that we didn't do anything wrong.

CRN: Recently Microsoft lowered its price by as much as 35 percent to try to win the City of Munich's desktop upgrade business. How are Microsoft's selling strategies changing?

         

Torvalds: You are talking to the wrong person. You should talk to the CA person. I am really, really happy that I have never been involved with the salespeople, because that is never what I was interested in. So I don't see Microsoft.

CRN: Are you being called in by vendors such as CA and systems integrators to help win over some of these big Linux deals?

Torvalds: No. I never go to customer meetings. I don't like customers (laughing).

CRN: Is that why you decided to go to Open Source Development Lab and not a commercial vendor?

Torvalds: To me, the most important thing has always been that people be able to trust me. That doesn't mean that they agree with me. It just means that they know what my motivation is. And then it is very important not to be at a company where people start wondering, 'So is he motivated by the company?' I'd much rather be in a situation where people know that I make my decisions on my own personal grounds. Even when people don't agree with me, they are a lot happier about that than me being part of a commercial company and maybe making my technical decisions because of something their competition is doing.

This article appears courtesy of CRN, the newspaper for builders of technology solutions.