[plug] SCO

[Bernd Felsche]

On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:59:35AM +0800, James Devenish wrote:
> In message <20030607015144.GA7988 at gudgeon.innovative.iinet.net.au>
> on Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 09:51:44AM +0800, Bernd Felsche wrote:
> > I guess that's why Linus isn't too concerned about SCO's claims
> > because, in the first instance, it's up to the contributors to
> > ensure that their stuff is "clean" and really theirs to contribute.

> Er...is intellectual property so different from material property?

Oh yes!  Material property offences are crimes. IP is usually a
civil matter.

> If I receive stolen goods from you in good faith, after asking you
> not to give me stolen goods, I've still received stolen goods.

You're not guilty of _receiving_ stolen goods if you receive them in
good faith.

I took special care in my statement to include "in the first instance".

Apart from that, there is no way for Linus, or anybody else not
privy to all proprietary sources to be able to determine if the
contributions were "stolen". Even then, extensive vetting is
impractical.

Linux kernel sources have *always* been published. If SCO had
initially contacted Linus with their concerns and *detailed* their
concerns, then the "offending" code would be re-written and
disappear from the next release.

Of course, there's not US$1 billion to be made from that.
SCO's action appears vexatious.

More stuff, not directly related to this thread:
	http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/31086.html
-- 
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ /  ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
 X   against HTML mail     | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \  and postings          | to help me spread!