Based on what I've seen of the patent, patches, published books, and kernel mailing lists, I believe that IBM's legal team might very well deflate SCO's ego in spectacular fashion. Maybe I've missed something, maybe I haven't. We shall see.
As a red-blooded American capitalist, I will graciously acknowledge and support SCO's rights -- if and when their claims are proven. Nothing has been proven yet, but you're not about to let that little detail hinder a good FUD fest, are you?
Do you honestly believe that closed source could never be polluted by stolen code? Do you believe that users of closed source products are somehow exempt from laws which could potentially affect open source users? Maybe you believe that users of closed source are safer because any potential theft would be hidden from prying eyes? I believe that users of open source are safer precisely because the code is exposed for the world to see, and any stolen code is more likely to be quickly located and replaced. Open source generally has multiple code branches to fall back on should one branch be lost for any reason. How many redundant code branches do you believe closed source vendors have at their disposal?
This case could very well spawn an effect which is the exact opposite of that sought by the plaintiffs. The credibility aspect of this case could explode in the faces of those that are prematurely celebrating the downfall of Linux.
The publicity from this case might, instead, open even more eyes to the high-end power made cost effective by OSS development. Many "Decision Makers" have been led to believe that Linux is a cheap toy, unworthy of their high standards and large budgets. This case might offer the DMs with a much clearer grasp of reality.
I believe the publicity from this case is also likely to demonstrate the resiliency of OSS to the most potent legal-wrangling/propaganda that money could buy. Even if SCO is proven correct, there is no doubt that teams of developers will rapidly replace any code necessary to bring Linux into compliance with the law. Regardless of this case's outcome, OSS is not going away, and it will continue to push the industry into the future. That which doesn't kill you, makes you stronger.
On the other hand, if IBM emerges victorious, many Decision Makers will have to ask themselves why SCO felt so threatened by Linux that such a potentially suicidal maneuver was necessary.
You believe SCO is correct, and that IBM is a thief. This much is obvious to anyone that has watched your antics around here lately. Will you come to the defense of IBM and Linux if the courts rule in favor of IBM?
Feel free to add any or all of the above to your collection of opinions, and by all means, ping me again if one of your posts can prove the origin of the code in question. I'll be offline until Monday, but I'll check for pings at that time.
Even if SCO is proven correct, there is no doubt that teams of developers will rapidly replace any code necessary to bring Linux into compliance with the law.
How will they do that, if the code is 'trade secret', and never publicly released?
Will you come to the defense of IBM and Linux if the courts rule in favor of IBM?
Unlikely, as I said to Danger, my concerns are bigger than this case itself (the growing loss of income to US software companies who sell products for profit, further expansion of insecure code created by foreigners into US markets and government) will not be addressed unless a US company or organization is somehow is given control of Linux as it's current licensing scheme is legally questionable (on what authority does it publicly release software, if no checks are made as to code legality). I also have a problem with Torvalds ego, whereby he refuses to give up personal ownership to IEEE at mininum, but instead insists on complete authoritative rights.
Again, thanks for your post, you did articulate your points well, even though as you might expect I do not agree with them. Have a great weekend, I'll be doing other things as well.
Do you honestly believe that closed source could never be polluted by stolen code? Do you believe that users of closed source products are somehow exempt from laws which could potentially affect open source users?
Certainly not, but if/when these instances occur, their damage to the market is much more easily calculated, making it subsequently much easier for proper restitution to be made back into the normal business community.
That may be a little hard to follow unless you admit that Linux is not a normal 'business', as they have nothing 'for sale', and most importantly to this point, that no one 'owns' the entirety of Linux and therefore there is no accountability.
What they do currently have, despite no accountability, is the ability to take privately owned works and redistribute them within new compilations of Linux to the world as 'free', as well as provide the source code along with a promise that it can be freely used and modified and even copied without return cost as well. This results in any code that is illegally GPL'd, which Torvalds himself has admitted can easily happen, to multiply it's usage unfairly, which is difficult to track, and leaves the affected 'victim' with little recourse other than to sue the possibly lone coder who put the trade secret in, and who in most cases would not be able to provide equal restitution, IBM in this case being an exception.
So in a nutshell the GPL multiplies the damages immeasurably, and there is no accountability to seek restitution. ("everyone" being allowed to not only use it but to "own" it illegally (modify, distribute, etc), instead of just one company doing so).
Again, thanks for your post, and hope you are enjoying your time away.
Maybe you believe that users of closed source are safer because any potential theft would be hidden from prying eyes? I believe that users of open source are safer precisely because the code is exposed for the world to see, and any stolen code is more likely to be quickly located and replaced.
This argument equates to saying "It's nice of my guys to leave their stolen cars in the front yard, so you cops can easily find them. You should let them keep doing it, just for that."
If you are unwilling to accept that analogy, perhaps you will understand this - this is strictly placing the burden of finding the stolen code on the true owners, or on law enforcement, as Torvalds freely admits he does not do this (in fact read this, for more interesting Torvalds comments: Linus Torvalds when warned by developers of patent infringement)
The owners should have no obligation to have to do this, at least until there are some provisions made by the accused theives to prevent it from accidentally (or purposefully) happening, which Linus Torvald's gang has been unwilling to do.
Where your specific argument breaks down even further is where you said quote "any stolen code is more likely to be quickly located and replaced"; wherein the adjective "quickly" incorrectly implies the event is likely to happen whatsoever at all.
Do you really think big software companies like M$, Oracle, CA, Symantec, have time to waste pouring through Linux source to see where pilfered items might be? No way, they are not the ones trying to 'keep up' with open source.
The reason SCO claims they found the duplicate code (and is an excellent 'excuse' per se) was the fact that they were working on some new interoperability projects between the two, when they "were appalled when they saw it and had their hearts broken by IBM". Quite a cheesy story if I say so myself, but it sets them up exceptionally well entering the trial as 'the victim'.
Again, in closing, I appreciate the dignified manner in which you delivered your comments and hope to dicuss these issues again.