From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271155AbUJVAEn (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:04:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271151AbUJVAEG (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 20:04:06 -0400 Received: from c-67-172-209-82.client.comcast.net ([67.172.209.82]:47368 "EHLO skarpsey.home.lan") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S271135AbUJUX7z (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2004 19:59:55 -0400 From: Kelledin To: "Jeff V. Merkey" Subject: Re: Linux v2.6.9 and GPL Buyout Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 18:59:34 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.1 References: <1098218286.8675.82.camel@mentorng.gurulabs.com> <41757478.4090402@drdos.com> In-Reply-To: <41757478.4090402@drdos.com> Cc: "Linus Torvalds" , "Kernel Mailing List" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200410211859.35011.kelledin@users.sourceforge.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [I now pronounce the following benediction: IANAL. $DEITY, give me the strength to show reasoned restraint.] On Tuesday 19 October 2004 03:09 pm, you wrote: > No. They seem to have some factual concrete evidence IP > covered under Employee > agreements was used and subsequently converted into Linux, and > they are very > confident of this. From a cursory viewpoint, it looks valid. > I think they have a case > (having been sued and nailed for the same type of thing by > Novell). So very certain you are... ...but in any case, that doesn't mean much to me. I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to believe what SCO admits in court, rather than what SCO might have fooled you into believing (after all of a cursory inspection) or persuaded you to lie about. And what SCO is lately forced to admit in court is that it has no evidence of copyright infringement in Linux. After over a year of claiming to have "mountains" of this evidence and after multiple court orders to disclose this evidence, the best SCO can cough up doesn't pass muster. SCO's "smoking gun" samples were either nonprotectable or were cobbled together in a half-assed attempt at evidence doctoring. Not to mention which, "non-literal coypright infringement" is an oxymoron in almost all federal circuits, so don't even go down that road. [If this sounds to you like an ad-hominem attack, well...tough shit in advance, I'm just being realistic. Grow some thicker skin.] > Dump the FS's and NUMA guys. Then you are nearly there for > being squeaky clean. So far I've seen no plausible evidence that we aren't already there. The bare word of a company/CEO that's already been caught stretching the truth counts for pretty much nothing. -- Kelledin "If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does it still cost four figures to fix?"