RE: [MLUG] latest SCO shite

["Matthew W. Ross" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> > If SCO does have a claim, what will happen when the offending code is
> > revealed?
>
> That would depend on what it was, and whether SCO turns out still to
> have a legitimate copyright themselves on the code.  Check google
> for the BSD/ATT case and see what I mean.

A) SCO does not have a legit. copyright anymore, but they did when they
worked with IBM, so this may well go against IBM, but when they start on
Linux, they will have to face the GPL itself, which they are violating
with any lawsuits or claims to ownership after they released their Linux
distro. The question we have to ask is, can their lawyers make a judge
stop thinking long enough to pretend the GPL is not a legally binding
document?
B) If there is a legitimate complaint, SCO has still commited several
crimes, including blackmail, libel, slander, and contract violation
through this process of propogandizing their "ownership" of Linux code.
They will have to face these before they take on the Linux community
itself.

> > You see there is a ploy going on here by IBM as well. IBM could be
> > simply forcing SCO's hand so they can get their hands on what SCO
> > has. Namely the information on what they are claiming to own.
>
> Really doubtful because of one word:  AIX.
> The SCO suggestion has always been that improper code has gotten
> into Linux, and from IBM's point of view, this would have happened
> through the source that creates AIX.  They have that source, and
> everybody has the Linux source.  IBM generally does not blow smoke,
> and the judge (and every lawyer commenting on the case) has always
> maintained that SCO has the burden to prove that something was
> illegitimately copied.

The burdon of proof is always on the accuser, unless the accuser has a
good lawyer, and the accused doesn't. IBM has good lawyers, SCO has
lawyers stupid enough to think this scam would work.

> > I guess the question is what happens to Linux if SCO's
> > intellectual property has been violated? Does SCO then own all of
> > Linux from now on?
>
> Of course not.  Offending code has to be removed or licensed, and
> there could be some monetary damages (real and punitive, if they
> could show that somebody copied the code with reckless disregard or
> an aim to ruin SCo or something).

SCO owns about .000001% of the code, they will try to leverage it, as they
already have, selling "licenses" to users. Can't remember exactlly, but it
seems there's a law against selling licenses to something you don't own
outright without an agreement with the other owners.

> > Does the Linux user have to pay a royalty for every copy they have
> > used and ever will use? Or does IBM just pay them off, adjust the
> > code, and go on their merry way?
>
> SCO has been shockingly slimy during this whole case by insisting
> that, yes, every Linux user is infringing (because they have the
> source, you see...) and trying to get people and companies to pony
> up EVEN BEFORE THEY SHOW THEY HAVE A CASE.  IBM would or could pay
> them off IF IBM saw a problem.  But since they have on staff some
> spectacular IP lawyers and feel that SCO has no claim, they're going
> this route.
>
> Or to put it another way, SCO could win big if they win, but there
> are only 2 stock analysts on the planet who follow them.  One has a
> strong "sell" out, while the other rated the stock as a "buy"
> because the lawsuit could or should be worth something.  Nobody
> with expertise (and that doesn't include me) who looks at the
> situaion hard enough sees anything more than a lottery ticket's
> chance that SCO could prevail, given that they have had such
> problems even producing a single line of infringing and infringed
> code.

And with that pesky thing called the law that isn't working to their
advantage consistently...
_______________________________________________
members mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members