...and if SCO is right...? My suggestion:

Fellow Readers,
 
        I'm not a lawyer so take the following with a grain of salt. I do know
a little bit about the law and I seem to recall a process called
discovery. IBM should find out exactly what pieces of code SCO claims
ownership of. It would then be a simple matter to sort through the LKML
and find out who submitted the patch. Then most likely that person
never had access to the code in question. Failing that, it shouldn't be
too difficult for the hacker in question to give an explanation of the
code's origin. Specifically what itch he was trying to scratch with
it. It would be even better if the author could find some of the
original patches. You know the ones that are so alpha you'd be
embarrassed to have them to be seen in public.
 
        There is also the unfortunate possibility that the code in question is
indeed hijacked. If that is the case then a kernel cleansing needs to
happen as soon as possible. The possibility of SCO changing the license
on the code in question is not really a possibility. They *CAN'T*
change the license while they are fighting this court case; it would
invalidate the case and it would be dismissed. And Linux can't wait for
the completion of a court case to proceed.
 
        IBM needs to ask for an injunction or something to force SCO to reveal
whether they are claiming the code in its entirety or a substantial part
thereof. If they are only claiming that portions of the code have been
hijacked then they should not be allowed to slow or stop the Linux
juggernaut. They should be forced to reveal the parts of the kernel
that they are making a claim on so that they can be quickly excised from
the kernel on the grounds that any delay will cause irreparable harm to
itself and all of the other companies with Linux strategies.
 
        I think that the lawyers involved will be surprised by exactly how fast
the community is going to fix this problem once it is fully out in the
light. The only really bad possibility is if they can prove that a
major subsystem has been infringed; like the 'elf' file type. Most
likely it will end up being a few corner cases though. I do have one
question though: when we change the error "Printer on fire" to "Printer
exploded" do we have to notify The Department of Homeland Security of a
terrorist event every time the error is returned?
 
Just my Thoughts
Tres
 
--
Tres Melton <class5@pacbell.net>