Posted by: cornstalk
on September 11, 2003 09:10 PM
I do not rise to defend SCO's claims, but merely to point out that its statements are not logically inconsistent.
Suppose SCO's claims are correct, and that the Linux kernel does indeed contain lengthy, verbatim sections of SCO proprietary source code. So long as no one knows precisely which lines of code these are, no one will know how SCO's supposedly proprietary procedures work -- something desirable, from SCO's point of view. Certaily, SCO's direct competitors would gain advantage from this knowledge. Therefore it is consistent with SCO's position that they not make public which parts of Linux code supposedly trespass on their property.
Indeed, it is quite possible that SCO could lose its case against IBM and yet the particular lines of code at issue never be made public. If a judge ruled, for example, that the code is neither GPL'd nor property of SCO, but simply in the public domain, this would imply that SCO's software makes extensive use of code that is in the public domain. Well and good, but it would damage SCO's competitive position then to reveal WHICH lines of public-domain code are in SCO's software. A judge might rule that which lines of code were at stake be kept under seal.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:Another Proof -- SCO's False Claim(s)
Posted by: cornstalk on September 11, 2003 09:10 PMSuppose SCO's claims are correct, and that the Linux kernel does indeed contain lengthy, verbatim sections of SCO proprietary source code. So long as no one knows precisely which lines of code these are, no one will know how SCO's supposedly proprietary procedures work -- something desirable, from SCO's point of view. Certaily, SCO's direct competitors would gain advantage from this knowledge. Therefore it is consistent with SCO's position that they not make public which parts of Linux code supposedly trespass on their property.
Indeed, it is quite possible that SCO could lose its case against IBM and yet the particular lines of code at issue never be made public. If a judge ruled, for example, that the code is neither GPL'd nor property of SCO, but simply in the public domain, this would imply that SCO's software makes extensive use of code that is in the public domain. Well and good, but it would damage SCO's competitive position then to reveal WHICH lines of public-domain code are in SCO's software. A judge might rule that which lines of code were at stake be kept under seal.
#