The future of the global economy hangs in the balance

[Mac Medic]

Apparently anyway......

http://www.sco.com/copyright/

[RobH]

Is what hes saying is that you cant have anything free if it means an effect on SCOs quarterly profit???Hey lets steal an idea and make people pay for it.??!!

[kilgoretrout]

From a legal standpoint the claims are ridiculous and don't even pass the giggle test. I've tried many cases and have spent too much of my life in courtrooms. One thing you always try to do is have your clients keep their big mouths shut on any matters pertaining to any pending litigation. You don't have clients making legal arguments in the press. The fact that this is occurring in the SCO case, apparently with the blessings of their counsel, is a very good indication that the case has no merit IMHO. The sole purpose of these press releases is to spread FUD and pump up the stock price. If they had a meritorious claim, they'd be pressing it in court, not the press.

[jglen490]

Whether SCO wins in court, or not -- They lose.

If they win, the offending code will be a part of the public record. It'll be ripped out of Linux and replaced with original code. Linux will be booming, and CSO will be paying its lawyers.

If they lose, they will be recognized for the fools they are. And they will still have to pay their lawyers.

Either way, they won't be in good financial shape and Linux will be free of another bane.

[Strider]

SCO lawsuits have no merits, they are basically claiming that they are the ones who developed Linux. They bring this issue up from time to time on The Screensavers (TechTv).

[Mac Medic]

The issue here though goes beyond the offending code, now they are trying to put an end to the GNU and free software by saying that only "for profit" development is constitutional. God help us if they win this one.

[Computer Hobbyist]

Originally posted by oem_guy_2002 The issue here though goes beyond the offending code, now they are trying to put an end to the GNU and free software by saying that only "for profit" development is constitutional. God help us if they win this one.

They won't. The decision to sign on to the GPL is really a voluntary renunciation of the rights provided by copyright. No law says you can't voluntarily renounce your own intellectual property rights. That is what SCO did when they published using the GPL. They want to unring that bell, but can't.

FUD is what the article is all about.