| |||||||||||
SCO can not win "SCO vs Linux" case. Seriously.SCO can not win "SCO vs Linux" case. Seriously.Posted Jul 3, 2003 8:55 UTC (Thu) by beejaybee (guest, #1581)Parent article: SCO can not win "SCO vs Linux" case. Seriously. Nice points. But, does anyone _seriously_ think that a court injunction prohibiting distribution of linux would have any real effect? There are lots of court injunctions invoking copyright legislation & intended to prevent copyrighted music, videos etc. from circulation across the 'Net, but they don't seem to be especially effective. A distribution ban would, however, force development underground & would obviously have serious effects on the shrinkwrap box market. The obvious pre-emptive solution is to switch to Debian, which is least likely to be affected least by court action.
(Log in to post comments)
SCO can not win "SCO vs Linux" case. Seriously. Posted Jul 4, 2003 15:52 UTC (Fri) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] The obvious pre-emptive solution is to switch to Debian, which is least likely to be affected least by court action.Debian would be adversely affected as well, albeit in an indirect way. A majority of Linux development is done by individuals who are employeed full time by companies such as Red Hat, SuSE, IBM, etc. In a senerio where it becomes illegal to distribute Linux, the most likely outcome is IBM would cease Linux development and Red Hat and SuSE would go out of business. I agree that Debian would be the least affected in this senario (and I wouldn't even have to switch, since I'm already using it ;-), but the pace of development would slow down significantly. And of course Linux would become a non-player in the "enterprise" market overnight, which would adversely affect it's image as a "real" OS. On the other hand, Linux is getting close to Solaris in sophistication (and in many cases passed Solaris, if you consider simplicity to be a virtue), so there isn't that far to go anyway.
|
|||||||||||