Originally posted by TazLinux
if that is true, then that means that everyone who has ran unix has ran an unregistered/pirated or stolen os or something along those lines?
no it doesn't. it would only mean that ibm violated
a contract with sco. sco is now amending their
complaint to include copyright violations too, i think.
assuming, and this is HUGE freaking assumption,
that a copyright violation was found, the court would
then have to issue a remedy. remember how long
that part went on, after microsoft was found guilty?
assuming this isn't settled, this would drag out for years.
as soon as linux people find out what the code is that
is in dispute, it will probably be redone, just in case, and
no longer be relevant, years before there could even be
a finding by the court.
the only reasonable thing to do would be to make ibm
pay some money for these trade secrets they have
or haven't taken.
if a copyright violation was found, then possibly
people or businesses who wished to continue using
the (by then years old) kernel, they should pay a
license. but basically that would require people to
turn themselves in. like you writing the riaa a letter
telling them you made a copy of a cd and you want to
pay for it.
this all assumes.
sco owns trade secrets and or copyrights ( doubt it )
that ibm stole ( doubt that )
that was significant to kernel development ( no way)
and people using linux were unjustly enriched
by getting to use linux for free ( possible, but all the
previous would have to be true ), and
the court thinks that people should have to pay, even
though they had no way of knowing that the code
was stolen, or what code was stolen. ( fat chance )