On Saturday 08 March 2003 04:53 pm, Joeb wrote: > Not to disagree with you Todd, but when you say "They get their billion..." > are you referring to SCO or the lawyers (not that it makes much > difference)? :) > > Way I see it, there are a couple of questions. Q1) Was IBM entitled to use > the code? A1) Yes, that is not part of the litigation. Q2) Was IBM > entitled to release said code under the GPL? A2) Maybe, that's what the > courts will now decide. Q3) What are the ramifications for Linux? A3) > Could be as simple as said code must be removed - as with most things, > there are several implementations that are submitted for the kernel, so a > different one might need to be chosen. Q4) If IBM was not entitled to > release said code, what are the damages? A4) That's the tricky part, since > SCO Unix's value has increased along with the work IBM did with Linux, it's > hard to argue damages (especially if the offending code is removed). > Remember, most of the code is in the 2.5 Kernel which isn't officially > released yet. Finally, Q5) What are the long term ramifications? A5) IBM > may have to pay some money, Linux will continue to grow (although with some > changed modules), SCO will continue to go down the tubes and most > importantly, the lawyers will laugh all the way to the bank. > The suit doesn;t just talk about code, but methods and concepts as well. If not one single piece of UNIX source code ended up in Linux, they are trying to say that the way it works still infringes on it's IP. I find that quite specious.
The way I read your response, you seem to assume that code actually made it into the kernel. This has only been alleged, not proven. The suit also refers to Linux capability today in production. It would seem to me that if any of this were true, but restricted to the 2.5 kernel, then damages would be significantly less since it is not in widespread use. -- Greg
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
