| |||||||||||
An open letter to SCOAn open letter to SCOPosted Jun 12, 2003 19:52 UTC (Thu) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698)In reply to: An open letter to SCO by oloryn Parent article: An open letter to SCO What's really aggravating is the double standard they're trying to use. If any proprietary SCO code has been included in the Linux kernel, it was obviously not done with the knowledge and consent of Linus, most of the kernel developers, and most of the Linux distributors. It is basically an unintentional mistake. On the one hand, rather than just explaining the problem (in specifics) and allowing the kernel developers to remedy the mistake, they're suing for a billion dollars. On the other hand, they shipped the code in their own Linux distribution, but claim it was a mistake and that they shouldn't have to honor the GPL terms. Apparently they don't have to take responsibility for their own actions, and face the consequences thereof, but they expect everyone else to do so.
(Log in to post comments)
SCO doesn't want to rectify the mistake Posted Jun 14, 2003 0:29 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Sounds like you didn't read the comment to which you are replying. The point is that SCO doesn't care whether there was any evil intention in this copying, doesn't want to punish anyone, and definitely doesn't want the copying stopped. SCO wants its legal share of the value that companies are deriving from use of the code in question.The IBM case in particular is about a contract infringement. In a contract infringement case, there is no question of wrong or right or intent. SCO is simply entitled to be reimbursed by IBM for whatever damage it may have suffered because IBM failed to live up to that contract.
|
|||||||||||