mikel <mikel@evins.net> wrote in
news:230720031140376230%mikel@evins.net: 

> In article <Xns93C152CBEA004qwpiofjfasd@140.99.99.130>, Constantinople
> <constantinopoli@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> mikel <mikel@evins.net> wrote in
>> news:220720031838301195%mikel@evins.net: 
>> 
>> > I should note also that I know of practical cotingency planning
>> > involving alternative configurations of free software, for use in
>> > the highly unlikely case that SCO manages to kill Linux.
>> 
>> What SCO seems to be threatening is this chain of events:
>> 
>> 1) SCO refuses to say exactly what code is theirs. (already
>> happening) 
>> 
>> 2) People, not knowing what code is SCO's, fail to remove it. Years
>> pass. 
>> 
>> 3) SCO sues users for having used their code illegally over the
>> years. Switching to BSD doesn't affect this because SCO is suing over
>> past actions. SCO claims it was the responsibility of users to
>> investigate and discover what code belonged to SCO.
>> 
>> Solutions:
>> 
>> 1) Switch to BSD now. (or it even may be too late)
>> 
>> 2) Pay the SCO, get a license.
>> 
>> 3) Ignore the SCO.
>> 
>> Obviously, SCO wants users to think that (2) is the only safe
>> solution. 
>> 
>> The contingency plan you briefly described doesn't seem to consider
>> that element of SCO's threat.
> 
> That's true. No one I know of who is putatively affected by that
> threat seems to be paying it the slightest attention.

That's a relief. They have more direct reason than I do to give it the 
correct weight given the known facts and laws, so I'll relax now.