Where to for the little people [Was: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] found this on SCO vs Linux]

[Darin W. Smith]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 09:10:06 -0500, Tom Adelstein <adelste at netscape.net> 
wrote:

> This is not a matter of whether SCOis innocent until proven otherwise. 
> They have the burden of proof. I don't believe they have the goods. 
> Therefore, I challenge them.
>
> I don't understand how discussing the future of Linux is off topic. Can 
> someone enlighten me?

I think discussing the future of Linux is entirely ON topic.

You are absolutely correct, IMO, that the burden of proof lies on SCO.  
What I think would be the most productive thing to do, legally, is to force 
them to reveal, clearly and openly, what code they contest.  As it is, one 
can only see particular examples they have chosen and only if you have 
agreed to a rather offensive NDA.

They may be only suing IBM (right now), but they should allow "discovery" 
by all involved parties--i.e., anyone who has anything to do with Linux 
kernel development.  As it is, they are (IMO) attempting to hold the entire 
Linux (and open-source in general) market for ransom.  I believe the word 
for that is "extortion."

\Ex*tor"tion\, n. [F. extorsion.] 1. The act of extorting; the act or 
practice of wresting anything from a person by force, by threats, or by any 
undue exercise of power; undue exaction; overcharge.
       ^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

2. (Law) The offense committed by an officer who corruptly claims and 
takes, as his fee, money, or other thing of value, that is not due, or more 
than is due, or before it is due. --Abbott.
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

3. That which is extorted or exacted by force.

-- 
D!
Darin W. Smith
AIM: JediGrover
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite 
you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." --Mark 
Twain "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"