Discuss digest, Vol 1 #726 - 12 msgs

[richb at pioneer.ci.net (Rich Braun)]

Excerpting a couple of comments:
>> There is no reason SCO should want to release this information
>> except as required by the court.  What gain they ...
>
> I've heard this argument before, and it does not make sense.  Source code is
> checked into a globally available CVS server.  That means that if I change
> things today in the code, it is easy to prove that the code was put in today,
> and not three years ago.

SCO *cannot* release the information before the court's decision, if they want
to achieve their implicitly-obvious purpose.  One can assume that what they
are seeking to accomplish is to convert business Linux users to SCO users.

If they identify the allegedly-infringing code before the court's ruling, the
freeware community will develop replacement code and check it into the CVS
server in short order.

Sure, it will be obvious when the replaced code was checked in.  The freeware
community has no incentive to hide that information anyway.

SCO is not after money from the freeware community.  SCO is attempting to
deter business users from adopting Linux today, tomorrow, and for whatever
period they can maintain their FUD campaign up until the freeware community
develops its workaround.  That period will only end when the court reveals the
infringement and the freeware community can develop a workaround.

There is one obvious point to be made.  SCO could lose its case sooner rather
than later if (a) an insider leaks the contents of its court case to the media
or a cracker or (b) a cracker breaks into a system containing same.

This case could twist in some unpredictable ways.  But the outcome is
inevitable:  SCO will eventually have its day in court, and it will back down
within weeks of the court's decision (win, lose or draw).  In the meantime it
will gain some measure of support from business Unix users.

-rich