I think this article is a bit strange, most particulary this paragraph:
"On July 21, 2003, SCO announced that it intends to sell binary-only licences to use the encumbered Linux operating system which will remove the threat of litigation from licence-holders. Linux advocates aknowledged the encumbered quality of the code and, with great humiliation, decided that they would have to let it go because it was their fault the quality and open-source value of the Linux code has detoriated so rapidly ever since the 2.0.x kernels started appearing. SCO finally, out of their wholehearted generousity toward the open source community, said that they would hold back this action until the case is resolved and Linux is for sure confirmed to contain such encumbered code. Some open-source fanatics reacted by stating that SCO has no basis for this action, as their claims were not yet settled in courts."
Agreed. That seems like vandalism. I've restored the original paragraph from an earlier version. 22.214.171.124 18:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
IMHO there in the text should be some cross reference to the controversity about SCO actions. SCO would surely like to present the text here as the objective truth, but the court in Utah that really has already decided that Novell own the copyrights and SCO have no legal right to do the SCOsource initiative. The only things that remains to be seen is if anything of SCO will remain when they have payd Novell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)