SCO and Linux, This One Will Run And Run (IT-Director)

Posted Aug 4, 2003 14:26 UTC (Mon) by jjstwerff (subscriber, #4082) [Link]

I really hope that this will not stop ximian from being the enfant-terrible of the Linux-bases software builders.

They should continue building that software that they think is necessary and not the software that only Novell wants... They started with some projects that no one would consider pratical:
- a mail client (hundereds of those exsist already)
- a .net implementation for linux (riding de bear = Microsoft this time)
- they started gnome-basic (for future connectivity with macro's)
- they helped with openoffice (too much code there already = difficult)

None of the projects seems sensible but they are necessary...

So all the good luck to the Novell ximian department.

Posted Aug 4, 2003 15:11 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

If it is about 80 lines, that someone that signed the NDA was showned, and even considering vality on the pretentions, wich much probabily there is none, than that supposed plagiarism could be cleaned in about 1 day or 2.

Posted Aug 4, 2003 16:27 UTC (Mon) by dbhost (guest, #3461) [Link]

This whole fiasco makes one wonder if McBride et al. have been drinking the bong water. This whole thing would be incredibly funny if it weren't for an insane legal system that seems to benefit the guilty and punish the innocent.

Posted Aug 4, 2003 17:09 UTC (Mon) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link]

Actually, even if the allegedly offending code would be completely rewritten, it wouldn't affect SCO's case really. After all, the dispute is about a supposed contract violation on IBM's side.

In fact, when you think about it, if SCO actually had intellectual property that's violated by the kernel code, they should have an interest in seeing that code replaced by something non-infringing as soon as possible.

Posted Aug 4, 2003 17:20 UTC (Mon) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link]

"it's hard but not impossible to believe that SCO would do this if it had nothing to complain about"

This must be an application of the "where someone is blowing smoke, there must be a fire" rule :)

Posted Aug 5, 2003 16:07 UTC (Tue) by spitzak (subscriber, #4593) [Link]

Actually revelation of the code would *help* SCO's case. Removal of the code from Linux would be proof that even the Linux kernel hackers agree that the code was stolen. SCO could then sue IBM or whoever copied the code and would certainly win in that case.

If SCO wanted to win the case, they would be documenting and publishing exactly the location of the code so that they can collect any counter-claims of "that was written by so-and-so" and figure out how to refute them or refine the set of code they want to claim is theirs. Or better yet, hope the kernel hackers replace the code without even questioning where it really came from. And they would be getting this into court as soon as possible so that it happens just after the code is removed. They could suboena some kernel developer to testify that the code was removed and that it is being done so because they did not have permission to use it, that would slam-dunk their case. IBM or whoever did the copying would be guilty of copyright infringement even though there is new Linux that is not infringing, and could be sued for huge amounts or forced to buy out SCO. They may even be able to sue other companies like RedHat if they can prove that somebody there knew of the copyright violation at the time they started using the code. Also if they are interested in hurting commercial Linux they would as all other work would be put on hold and sales halted until the companies could distribute a non-infringing version. But all of this requires that they reveal the exact location of the code.

The trick is that this is not what SCO wants. It should be obvious that SCO is being paid by a third party to publish FUD about Linux. Investors are not stupid, they are buying stock not in anticipation of SCO winning any case, but in anticipation of them collecting more payment from this third party.