Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Friday, 11 July 2003 at 9:03:55 -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> Terry Lambert wrote:
>> In any case, there wasn't any such legal precedent established
>> Novell permitting the distribution of FreeBSD and NetBSD.

> I'm still having trouble understanding the motive behind all this.
> Obviously, SCO can't seriously believe they can gain anything from
> this lawsuit ... Are they nuts and actually think they can win? Is
> there some other motive that no one has yet to discern? Even if
> the "Microsoft Conspiracy" theories are true, what does MS expect
> to gain from such a silly attack, and why would SCO agree to be
> a patsy?

My current best guess is that they're hoping to get royalties from
Linux. That's why they don't want to identify the code; they want it
to be in there. They've said a number of things that point to this
conclusion. See http://www.lemis.com/grog/SCO/sontag.html:

"GPL has the same derivative rights concept [as UNIX]," according
to Sontag: "Once contributed, code cannot be removed."

See complete headers for address and phone numbers

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD)