Begun, this war has..

[Merrill Oveson]

>From the article:

"The Linux process does not prevent inclusion of code that has been stolen
outright, or developed by improper use of proprietary methods and concepts."

so if it's been "developed by improper use of  proprietary methods and
concepts", Linux must therefore be substandard to SCO products.  So what are
they so worried about then?  This sentence reminds of the OJ Simpson defense
that said two things a) OJ was framed by the police and b) the police are
incompetent - which in effect means if both a & b are true that we had an
incompetent police force who managed to frame OJ in spite of their
incompetence.  I don't understand why the prosecution didn't point this out
and force the defense to choose one defense not both.

Here SCO is trying to have it both ways  as well a) we were robbed and b)
Linux is crap.
To which I respond please stick to the arguement, which I understand is "We
were robbed."  If Linux is really crap then you wouldn't be suing, because
no one would even be using the software in the first place and you'd have
nothing to gain by the suit.

"Many Linux contributors were originally UNIX developers who had access to
UNIX source code distributed by AT&T and were subject to confidentiality
agreements, including confidentiality of the methods and concepts involved
in software design."
So if I work someplace and learn new methods and concepts I can't use what
I've learned any place else.  In effect, I must erase that part of my brain?

"We have evidence that portions of UNIX System V software code have been
copied into Linux and that additional other portions of UNIX System V
software code have been modified and copied into Linux, seemingly for the
purposes of obfuscating their original source."

OK, fair arguement, and should be easy to prove, especially if one finds
100's of lines of code that match verbatim or nearly verbatim.  So please
tell us where this occurs.

"As a consequence of Linux's unrestricted authoring process, it is not
surprising that Linux distributors do not warrant the legal integrity of the
Linux code provided to customers."

True, Linux distros, as I understand it, don't come with any kind of
warranty - so back to my earlier point - what does this statement have to do
with the central thesis "We were robbed"?

"Therefore legal liability that may arise from the Linux development process
may also rest with the end user."

Hugh leap here!  So if I my friend steals a car and I buy it from him with
the understanding that the car wasn't stolen, I'm legally liable?  No,
although I may be forced to return the car, I'm not legally liable.  So does
SCO expect, assuming they can prove their case, that a judge will create an
injunction asking everyone everywhere using Linux to cease and desist?  What
does SCO hope to accomplish by threatening a group that has by and large
absolutely no knowledge of any of this?  Does he think anything other than a
major backlash will occur?  This is guy who has only created a hugh PR
problem, while getting himself no closer to the goal of getting, at best,
some money out of IBM.

My two cents...

I couldn't help but point out the whole fallicies of logic in this letter
however..





http://www.sco.com/scosource/letter_to_linux_customers.html

Basically, a letter from SCO, stating that Linux has only been developed by
people who used to have access to Scot's ip, and because of it's free
nature,
it didn't verify their source.

Because of this, all linux is built off their IP, and subject to their
lawsuit.  They have even stopped work on their own version pending their own
lawsuit.

A favorite quote:
"Therefore legal liability that may arise from the Linux development process
may also rest with the end user. "

Umm.  We are all liable in the SCO lawsuit, according to them.

Comments :)

-- 
--Jayce^
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jayce^" <jason at infogenix.com>
To: <pluglist at plug.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 4:31 PM
Subject: Begun, this war has..