> The biggest problem I see, is that the existence of this "tool" lends > some credence to SCO claims.
You know that SCO's claims are groundless, I know that SCO's claims are groundless, and IBM knows that SCO's claims are groundless. The problem is that not every CIO out there knows that SCO's claims are groundless, and some of them are very risk adverse. The presence of this tool helps remove any potential chill for Linux in their minds because the legal department may now say, "look, SCO's probably on shaky ground here but this tool is cheap relative to the cost of potential litigation and we can continue to enjoy the benefits of Linux." Also, if kernel.org obtains this tool (if they just don't remove the "offending" code carte blanc) then Linux 2.4.23 will have absolutely zero SCO code in it whatsoever. > To remove something requires that it exist. Right. It exists in the form of GPL'd code by Caldera who is now SCO. The problem is that once you GPL the code, you can't later go back and issue a new license just because it's not convenient for you. >From what I'm reading, if IBM prevails in it's patent infringement counter suit, and/or if Red Hat is successful in their preliminary injunction of SCO (a similar injunction of which was successful in Germany), SCO is likely to be a mere shadow of their business today. That's if they don't bleed to death by litigation with IBM and if the SEC doesn't launch a probe for artificially propping their stock price through inflammatory press releases shortly before insider trading. Best, Cooper Stevenson MWVLUG Coordinator Em: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Www: http://www.mwvlug.org On Sat, 2003-08-09 at 09:18, Russ Johnson wrote: _______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
