This is called begging the question. You assume that some of the code was copied from SCOs IP to Linux. SCO asserts this but has produced no evidence. I could assert that I am Marie Queen of Romania but I would still be a Missouri redneck.
In your mind, does that absolve the author or editor from responsibility for plagarism? Keep in mind that the originally printed books are going to be out there no matter what.
Similarly, if SCO has a copyright-infringement case, then even if Linux is changed today, there will be many copies of Linux still out there. And just saying, "Hey, it was all an accident" does not absolve those who appropriated intellectual property.
Again, begging the question with a strawman added. No one is suggesting that any copying was accidental (if it exists) or that it would be ok if it were. If SCO has IP infringed by the Linux code, they are probably entitled to compenstion for actual damages. If any.
The big problem here, and the biggest difference from the book case posited above, is that no one owns Linux in any meaningful sense. Therefore, there is no easy way to assign responsibility for copyright infringement (or any other liability issues). Whether the Linux folks want to admit it or not, this is a serious flaw in Linux for business users. (Personal users don't have any realistic concern because it's not economic to sue them.)
Horse apples. The linux source and its evolution is as well documented as any such activity can be. The CVS archives contain records of every change ever made (well, after Linus released the first versions) and they are publicly readable.
I don't think so. I was replying to someone who said "What I don't understand is the Linux guys have offered to fix the problem by removing SCO code and replacing it with open source." I was pointing out that simply removing infringing code from Linux does not clear the table on past infringements. And yes, of course that argument was assuming hypothetically that some of the IP was copied. Was that assumption not obvious from the first line that said "I think I can explain SCO's point of view on that."?
"The linux source and its evolution is as well documented as any such activity can be. The CVS archives contain records of every change ever made (well, after Linus released the first versions) and they are publicly readable."
What good does that do for Linux users? From SCO's point of view, the end users are the ones using (hypothetically) infringing code. The license arrangements between those users and the original programmers are not relevant to SCO's case, because those license arrangements (as best as I understand them) do not assign any liability to those who produced the code.
Perhaps you are suggesting that, if SCO has evidence of infringing code, they should be suing individual programmers instead? That's an interesting thought.