On Sat, 2003-06-07 at 00:45, Alan Dayley wrote: > I don't understand a key in all of this. > > Basis: > 1. Assume for a moment that SCO's claims are true and Unix code that > they own is in Linux. > 2. Assume that I am CIO of a Fortune 1500 company using Linux in my IT > infrastructure. > > Question: > Can SCO simply give me an ultimatum, requiring me to pay them or forcing > me to stop using Linux? They obviously wouldn't own all of Linux so > wouldn't they only be able to make me stop using the offending code? > After the offending code is written out, I could go on using Linux again. The problem is, you've been using their code for x amount of time. They can sue you for whatever they feel like for using their code without paying/authorization. What they will collect is a whole other ballgame, but lawsuits are expensive no matter what. > That would be a worse case scenerio that I don't think will come to be. > However, I do worry that SCO can maintain a cloud over Linux and really > hurt people who have built their business on it. Well, I have used this lawsuit to convince one of my customers that the old SCO box they were thinking of upgrading should instead be replaced. With Linux. > On the other hand, once the mess is resolved, SCO will either slink away > in defeat or crumble away once the code is removed, since they > completely angered most of their potential market. Then, I would expect > Linux growth to explode because of the pent-up demand. I hope you're right, but the truth is that Main Street, USA is not even aware of this lawsuit. I don't think it will significantly affect demand for Linux one way or another. Thomas