On Saturday December 13 2003 9:28 pm,=20 plug-discuss-request@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us wrote: *v*Message: 12 *v*From: Chris Gehlker *v*Subject: Re: FYI *v*Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:16:39 -0700 *v*To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us *v*Reply-To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us *v* *v*On Dec 13, 2003, at 2:59 PM, Lee Einer wrote: *v* *v*> Carl Parrish wrote: *v*> *v*>> Unlike SCO this *actually* could hurt us. *v*>> http://www.linuxworld.com/story/38208.htm *v*> *v*> Key words- *v*> *v*>> / It's a hypothetical risk, but it's there."/ *v*> *v*> The argument as put forth by MicroSoft's counsel is basically that- *v*> *v*> If someone who is contributing to an open source project is also *v*> employed with a company writing proprietary software, and if that *v*> someone is both bright enough to write code and dumb enough to *v*> incorporate code which they know full well to be proprietary into t= he *v*> open source project, and if that someone actually does so, and if it *v*> is found out, there could be a legal conflict. *v*> *v*> I don't understand why this would be news- it is basically a summary *v*> of SCO's case, cast in extremely hypothetical terms. What am I *v*> missing? *v* *v*Hmm... *v* *v*SCO has made several arguments, different ones in the press and in *v*their filings, but I don't recall that they ever asserted that their *v*own employees put code in Linux without permission. *v* No, But they did claim that other company's employees were doing exactly = that=20 and now their SPONSOR is getting into the game with those same claims. It= 's=20 all about FUD, the more they create, more people will wind up paying M$ v= ia=20 SCO for licenses to use Linux. I was thinking about sending them $1299.00 in monopoly money but they're = not=20 worth the $.35 stamp and the envelope. SCO SUX ! --=20 Augie Grayfox grayfox78 at cox dot net "When things go wrong, don't go with them" Anonymous