lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux
From
Date
Joe coder cannot reasonably "check" anyway, and therefore cannot be held
liable. Only those with access to someone else's IP can reasonably be
held liable.

I really think that even though this thread is meta-relevant, it should
die now. No one has any relevant input.

On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 12:34, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 17:08, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> > There seems to be a prevailing opinion that if there is stolen code in
> > Linux that came from SCO owned code that all that needs to be done is
> > to remove it and everything is fine. I don't think it works that way.
> > If code was stolen and the fact that it is in Linux helped destroy
> > SCO's business then SCO has the right to try and get damages. I.e.,
> > Linux damaged SCO by using the code.
>
> I see the point but... Take Linux as a community. Let's say someone
> contributes stolen code, but the community doesn't check if the
> contributed code violates any IP or copyright law. So, is the Linux
> community guilty? Or else should the one that contributed code be
> considered guilty?
>
> We can't be liable for the work of others over which we don't have total
> control. Or is the law forcing us to check line by line the
> contributions made by hundreds of programmers all around the world?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:1.141 / U:0.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site