[oclug] sco vs. linux cont....

[Dave Edwards]

On Tue. 2003-07-22, 12:50, Robert Brockway wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Asad Quraishi wrote:
> 
> > It seems that even under the worst-case scenario in which there is
> > some Unix SMP code that found its way into Linux, the comunity would
> > be given time to remove the offending code from the kernel.  Given
> > the stakes the
> 
> Exactly.  What a lot of people have forgotten is that there is a
> precedent for this.  FreeBSD was found in contain tained code about
> '95.  AT&T & the FreeBSD people came to an agreement and the code was
> removed.
> 
> > big boys have taken in Linux I am sure they would spare no effort to
> 
> Yes, it would become _the_ number one priority.
> 
> Having said this I am most dubious about SCOs claims.  Since the code
> is publically available, they should have no reason to not allow
> people to know what code it is.  The fact that they have not done so
> draws their claims into disrepute.  They have been asked why they are
> not providing specifics of the code and to my knowledge they haven't
> yet given a straight answer to the question.

I am convinced that it's because keeping their cards--such as they
are--close to their vests, they can continue to do damage and, as they
seem to think, extract value from their allegations.

> If SCOs claims are found to be baseless (which I am certain they will
> be) they are opening themselves up to a class-action suite from
> thousands of Linux companies and consultants 

And users!

> world wide who will argue
> that their profits have been reduced by the publicity.  SCO made the
> bed now they have to lie in it.

Dave.
-- 
Dave Edwards <dle at sympatico.ca>
Freelance and Technical Writer,
With Special Interest in Open Source Software
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://tux.oclug.on.ca/pipermail/oclug/attachments/20030722/8f0cd7f1/attachment.bin