[linux-elitists] quote of the day
Tue May 6 01:30:45 PDT 2003
Quoting Jeff Kinz (email@example.com):
> On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 05:18:03PM +0100, Sean Neakums wrote:
>> But BSD was directly based on Unix until they rewrote the AT&T-owned
>> code. It is not currently a given that there is Unix code in Linux,
>> whereas it was in the BSD case, which seems to place the onus of proof
>> differently in each situation.
In this case, in a worst-case scenario where a court judged that all
code contributed by IBM employees has been tainted by Caldera Systems
d/b/a SCO Group property claims and must be removed, I believe there's a
pretty clear record of which snippet came from where. In such a case, I
expect there would be about a month of grubbing about by royally peeved
developers, and no more than a minor nuisance following that.
Given that, it'd be nice to see the case move towards adjudication. Not
only would it end the interminable and arrogant McBride Propaganda Hour
on CNet et al, but also would dispose of the long-term kernel issue
while (I predict) making clear that even a big loss for IBM would be no
big problem for Linux.
> Morally perhaps, but in a civil court case isn't the burden of proof is
> on the defendant? (ie - presumed guilty until proven innocent?)
No. The court's decision on plaintiff's claims must be based on the
preponderance of the evidence presented by the two sides.
Cheers, "By reading this sentence, you agree to be bound by the
Rick Moen terms of the Internet Protocol, version 4, or, at your
firstname.lastname@example.org option, any later version." -- Seth David Schoen
More information about the linux-elitists