8/19 If SCO's UNIX code is already in the Linux Kernel source, why don't
they just show everybody the relevant parts of their code? If it
was just pasted in, then their code is no longer secret, and should
be identical to the Linux code. Why the NDA?
\_ because they're full of shit and they know it but
they want to drag this out as long as possible and cause
as much damage in the minds of IT people and programming
managers as possible, as per their instructions from their
not so secret corporate masters in Redmond. assholes.
\_ Will the evil assholes buy SCO?
\_ So this is all a MS plot? Uhm, yeah. Idiot.
\_ Probably because the instant they reveal it, coders will modify
the source within the next hour, hence no more SCO code in Linux,
hence they can't charge $199-$699 per copy of Linux.
\_ SCO was going broke, then the new CEO came along. He's like,
"Whoa, we own rights to selling Unix(TM) licenses. Unix(TM)!!
Doesn't everyone use that?" SCO tries to make IBM pay more. IBM
said, "We're moving everything to Linux, and it's free." SCO:
"You sure you didn't move Unix(TM) proprietary source code into
Linux?" IBM: "No, and if we did, show us, and we'll fix it."
SCO: "We'll get back to you."
A consultant for SCO says, "You know, they aren't too careful
about the Linux source. There's a lot of code, down to the
comment level, taken from Unix(TM)." SCO CEO says, "Whoa! Linux
has Unix(TM)-proprietary source code! We got a case!" This
doesn't seem that evil to me.
\_ the press releases and public statements from SCO remind
me a lot of the ramblings of est followers. - danh
\_ I thought it was "este".
\_ On second thought, not revealing the problem source code is
evil. -op of "SCO was going broke ..."
\_ Damn right! Bwahaha! Why work when you can be Evil? And
even better, sell your insider stock on the bump for being
Evil and then act suprised when your lawsuit tanks and sucks
down the shell company with it. Evil works!
\_ Why is it evil? If they publish it and someone replaces it
all then it only confuses the issues further and it doesn't
relieve anyone of any legal guilt for prior actions anyway.
\_ To bring an infringement case against someone you have to
make an effort to limit the damages... which means telling
the accused party what your claims are. If you move
straight into a lawsuit it shows you're only after money or
FUD.
\_ IBM/Linus's assimilating Unix(TM) source code is more
believably accidental than willful. To me at least, SCO can't
ask people to pay for Unix(TM) licenses because the Linux
source base accidentally includes Unix(TM) source code. They
can't do it without first telling them which part has been
copied. After identifying the problem code, SCO can also show
how Unix(TM) didn't itself borrow the code from BSD or another
free source. -op of "SCO was going broke ..."
\_ Your opinions and feelings are nice and all but that's not
how the law works. The law says you have to be responsible
and take responsibility for your actions. The law doesn't
say you're required to spend your own time and energy helping
everyone not infringe on your property they've been using for
years and get nothing in return.
\_ troll
\_ What's more evil? Stealing UNIX code to profit from it or to sue
over your rights to UNIX code and profit?
\_ If there is UNIX code in Linux, it will be removed. |