SCO is *still* distributing Linux.
On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 13:16, der.hans wrote:
>
> OK, just read it. He ignores the case where SCO didn't know there was code
> for which they had some claim in the kernel.
>
> Let's say someone has stolen code from me that I don't wish to distribute
> and added it to a Free Software project that is licensed under the GPL.
> Let's say further that I help distribute this project, but at some later
> point realize that it contains the code stolen from me. I certainly should
> be able to retract that code ( legally, in reality once pandora's box has
> been opened it's hard to get the lid back on ).
>
> SCO is starting to finally actually make a claim, but not quite. I have
> a feeling they just started the suit to see how much they could make on
> increased stock prices and they're just looking for excuses as they go.
>
> Did SCO stop distributing the tainted kernel immediately after knowing about
> the issue, though? If not, I'd think their claims are null and void.
>
> They claim the current kernel on their site is not tainted with the
> questionable code.
>
> What can we do to them for not being forthcoming in their claims? Can we get
> a cease and desist as has happened in .de?
>
> ciao,
>
> der.hans
--
Carl Parrish (
cparrish@carlparrish.com)
http://www.carlparrish.com
---
Registered Linux User #295761
http://counter.li.org
(text/plain)