Steve Langasek wrote: >It seems likely to me that SPI has similar cause to request declaratory >judgement; although Debian GNU/Linux has not been explicitly named as >an infringing product, SCO has claimed that the Linux kernel is >infringing -- and since Debian uses the Linux kernel, the FUD is >spread. However, there's not much sense in filing a separate suit for >this reason alone; one declaratory judgement against them ought to be >enough. On the other hand, even though SPI is not a for-profit vendor >and doesn't have customers, SCO's libelous claims certainly damage >SPI's reputation the same as they do the reputation of other Linux >vendors.
Given the number of separate people and organizations they've libelled, I wonder if a class-action suit is in order. Anyway, I believe it's possible sometimes to 'join' an existing suit rather than starting a new one, when the charges are the same but different people were injured. There might also be other ways SPI could legally defend itself against SCO by cooperating with others, without bringing its own suit. If SPI has a staff lawyer, maybe he or she should contact Red Hat and ask Red Hat's lawyers if there's any way they can help each other on this. :-) -- Nathanael Nerode <neroden at gcc.gnu.org> http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
