You're looking at the short end of big stick people.
The problem is probably not going to be this case. It's the fact that this case opens the doors for a united assault on the open source paradigm.
Regardless of if there is, or is not any case for SCO, think about the big issue which is not accidental insertion of IP code, but deliberate
insertion of IP code.
Consider this:
Look at how the open source community for the kernel and all the other open packages out there is run. Imagine that some company Company$XXX
has hired some person PersonBad. PersonBad is told by the company to contribute (privately) to some open source product by placing some code from a proprietary product Product$XXX in the open source product.
Imagine that PersonBad pretends to be a NiceOpenSourceCoder, who is simply contributing to the open source product. Imagine that PersonBad does what they are told and takes the bonus Company$XXX is offering.
Now, six months later, Company$XXX launches a law suit (like SCO) claiming either the kernel or the open source product in question contains IP
belonging to the company. They (like SCO) refuse to disclose the details of the code in question outside of court.
The kernel or product must be changed to have the sections in question removed. Now, regardless of the fact that distributing versions of the
code with the IP in it is illegal according to the court case, making getting people to fix the problem is going to be difficult, just imagine:
Imagine that this six months later is just after a major new release of some distribution, and not only Company$XXX have done this, but Company$XXY and Company$XXZ and Company$XXP, who have formed a
consortium claiming that the open source community is ripping them off.
That could easily tie up distribution and development of the open source products (and the distribution in general) for days, weeks,
even months (if the court orders an injunction).
It would finally get resolved one way or another, but it'd be a serious blow to the open source community. It'd also be a serious blow to people
trying to distribute versions of the distribution that was infringing IP. It'd be bad.
Imagine if the same thing happened all over again six months later. It'd be a disaster.
The problem is that there is NO WAY to tell a decent open source coder from a nasty malicious coder who is pretending to be a decent open source coder but providing obfuscated IP code.
Look at all the people who are unhappy with the open source community of free stuff. Look at how they've been trying to cut it down to size for
a while now. Don't say the SCO thing is nothing to worry about. It's a serious, major concern that we should all be thinking about RIGHT NOW. It's not really SCO that a huge problem, it's other people who can use the same tactics (and do it properly).
Trying to tackle this problem once it has already happened is going to be a total pain.
Maybe I'm just being paranoid and cynical. Maybe not. Think about it.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is probably not going to be this case. It's the fact that this case opens the doors for a united assault on the open source paradigm.
Regardless of if there is, or is not any case for SCO, think about the big issue which is not accidental insertion of IP code, but deliberate insertion of IP code.
Consider this:
Look at how the open source community for the kernel and all the other open packages out there is run. Imagine that some company Company$XXX has hired some person PersonBad. PersonBad is told by the company to contribute (privately) to some open source product by placing some code from a proprietary product Product$XXX in the open source product.
Imagine that PersonBad pretends to be a NiceOpenSourceCoder, who is simply contributing to the open source product. Imagine that PersonBad does what they are told and takes the bonus Company$XXX is offering.
Now, six months later, Company$XXX launches a law suit (like SCO) claiming either the kernel or the open source product in question contains IP belonging to the company. They (like SCO) refuse to disclose the details of the code in question outside of court.
The kernel or product must be changed to have the sections in question removed. Now, regardless of the fact that distributing versions of the code with the IP in it is illegal according to the court case, making getting people to fix the problem is going to be difficult, just imagine:
Imagine that this six months later is just after a major new release of some distribution, and not only Company$XXX have done this, but Company$XXY and Company$XXZ and Company$XXP, who have formed a consortium claiming that the open source community is ripping them off.
That could easily tie up distribution and development of the open source products (and the distribution in general) for days, weeks, even months (if the court orders an injunction).
It would finally get resolved one way or another, but it'd be a serious blow to the open source community. It'd also be a serious blow to people trying to distribute versions of the distribution that was infringing IP. It'd be bad.
Imagine if the same thing happened all over again six months later. It'd be a disaster.
The problem is that there is NO WAY to tell a decent open source coder from a nasty malicious coder who is pretending to be a decent open source coder but providing obfuscated IP code.
Look at all the people who are unhappy with the open source community of free stuff. Look at how they've been trying to cut it down to size for a while now. Don't say the SCO thing is nothing to worry about. It's a serious, major concern that we should all be thinking about RIGHT NOW. It's not really SCO that a huge problem, it's other people who can use the same tactics (and do it properly).
Trying to tackle this problem once it has already happened is going to be a total pain.
Maybe I'm just being paranoid and cynical. Maybe not. Think about it.