Re: SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux

[Shawn <core@enodev.com>]

Joe coder cannot reasonably "check" anyway, and therefore cannot be held
liable. Only those with access to someone else's IP can reasonably be
held liable.

I really think that even though this thread is meta-relevant, it should
die now. No one has any relevant input.

On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 12:34, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 17:08, Larry McVoy wrote:
> 
> > There seems to be a prevailing opinion that if there is stolen code in
> > Linux that came from SCO owned code that all that needs to be done is
> > to remove it and everything is fine.  I don't think it works that way.
> > If code was stolen and the fact that it is in Linux helped destroy
> > SCO's business then SCO has the right to try and get damages.  I.e.,
> > Linux damaged SCO by using the code.
> 
> I see the point but... Take Linux as a community. Let's say someone
> contributes stolen code, but the community doesn't check if the
> contributed code violates any IP or copyright law. So, is the Linux
> community guilty? Or else should the one that contributed code be
> considered guilty?
> 
> We can't be liable for the work of others over which we don't have total
> control. Or is the law forcing us to check line by line the
> contributions made by hundreds of programmers all around the world?