On Saturday December 13 2003 9:28 pm,=20
plug-discuss-request@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us wrote:
*v*Message: 12
*v*From: Chris Gehlker <
chris@GCCodeFactory.biz>
*v*Subject: Re: FYI
*v*Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:16:39 -0700
*v*To:
plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
*v*Reply-To:
plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
*v*
*v*On Dec 13, 2003, at 2:59 PM, Lee Einer wrote:
*v*
*v*> Carl Parrish wrote:
*v*>
*v*>> Unlike SCO this *actually* could hurt us.
*v*>>
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/38208.htm
*v*>
*v*> Key words-
*v*>
*v*>> / It's a hypothetical risk, but it's there."/
*v*>
*v*> The argument as put forth by MicroSoft's counsel is basically that-
*v*>
*v*> If someone who is contributing to an open source project is also
*v*> employed with a company writing proprietary software, and if that
*v*> someone is both bright enough to write code and dumb enough to
*v*> incorporate code which they know full well to be proprietary into t=
he
*v*> open source project, and if that someone actually does so, and if it
*v*> is found out, there could be a legal conflict.
*v*>
*v*> I don't understand why this would be news- it is basically a summary
*v*> of SCO's case, cast in extremely hypothetical terms. What am I
*v*> missing?
*v*
*v*Hmm...
*v*
*v*SCO has made several arguments, different ones in the press and in
*v*their filings, but I don't recall that they ever asserted that their
*v*own employees put code in Linux without permission.
*v*
No, But they did claim that other company's employees were doing exactly =
that=20
and now their SPONSOR is getting into the game with those same claims. It=
's=20
all about FUD, the more they create, more people will wind up paying M$ v=
ia=20
SCO for licenses to use Linux.
I was thinking about sending them $1299.00 in monopoly money but they're =
not=20
worth the $.35 stamp and the envelope.
SCO SUX !
--=20
Augie Grayfox
grayfox78 at cox dot net
"When things go wrong, don't go with them" Anonymous
(text/plain)