On Friday 16 May 2003 09:53, Dave Smith wrote:
Whatever their motives were for distributing the code, they've done it. They have licensed their customers to distribute the disputed code on the CDs.
Period.
The only way in which they could revoke that license is by demonstrating that they were not entitled to grant the license it in the first place - i.e. they don't own the disputed code - and therefore the rest of their case falls to pieces.
Whether Caldera have a case against IBM and other distributions for earlier damages, I'm not sure. However, as I see it, they won't be able to prevent the continued distribution and development of Linux.
Again, IANAL, and these are my opinions, not ST's.
It would seem to me that if: 1) SCO was selling Unix code (and licensed it to IBM) and was also selling a Linux distro. and: 2) Used proper diligence to keep the two separate under their own roof, and also to properly protect their Unix rights by licensing agreements to other parties,, and: 3) The above was their intent. (that the two shall never share code) and then: 4) IBM, to whom they had licensed the Unix code, then *may* have let some of the code slip into Linux-land. I don't think it would be the burden of SCO to always look over any changes to the entire Linux-land of code for their Unix code. And I don't think, once discovered by SCO, that what they had been selling under the GPL would necessarily weaken their case. Once you discover the problem, you halt sales, which they did... and take action. What else could they do if in fact there is a legitimate complaint? Not trying to side with SCO here, but I could see a case where they *might* have a legitimate case. I guess the fact that they didn't immediately halt sales, and possibly enjoin other distros from halting their sales at the same time *might* weaken their case... but maybe not.