Re: Linux v2.6.9 and GPL Buyout

[Kelledin <kelledin@users.sourceforge.net>]

[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?"