In the latter case, anyone who asks an embarrassing question is likely not to be permitted to ask a second one. It may be useful to plant several confederates in the audience -- not sitting together -- who know the script and can ask the questions in turn.
If the latter is not practical, you can condense the whole dialogue into a single question, as posed at the bottom of this page.
Is Samba included in the software to be distributed by SCO?
Expected answer: yes. If the answer is no, then presumably the user is expected to get Samba from somewhere else, and the rest of this dialogue doesn't apply, at least not in the same form.Is Samba in the public domain?
Correct answer: No.Does SCO own the copyright to Samba?
Correct answer: No.What gives SCO right to redistribute Samba?
Correct answer: the GPL.Is the GPL a legally valid license?
Correct answer: yes.Likely answer: Well, er, um...
If you can get the SCO spokesperson this far, he's trapped. If he says yes, he contradicts SCO's party line that the GPL is not valid. If he says no, he admits that SCO is redistributing somebody else's software with no valid license to do so. The only way out is to say that the GPL is sort of valid -- and then look frantically for wiggle room.
SCO has asserted in the past that copyright law does not permit a licensee to make more than a single copy. If the spokesperson takes that line, the next question is: has SCO made more than a single copy of Samba?
The only other coherent response I can imagine is that the GPL is valid enough that SCO can redistribute Samba, but not so valid that the user is obliged to respect its restrictions. Depending on how blatantly this assertion is made, the next question may be: then how is the GPL different from the public domain?
Short version of the above, for use if you're only permitted one question:
If the GPL is not legally valid, as SCO has claimed, then what gives SCO the right to redistribute Samba?
Correct answer: if the GPL is not legally valid, then SCO has no right to redistribute Samba.