To: *tech_index; MizSterious; shadowman99; Sparta; freedom9; martin_fierro; PatriotGames; Mathlete; ...
2 posted on
06/18/2003 4:13:39 PM PDT by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(Recall Gray Davis and then start on the other Democrats)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Talk is cheap. Let 'em fight it out with the blue dinosaur.
3 posted on
06/18/2003 4:18:08 PM PDT by
dark_lord
(The Statue of Liberty now holds a baseball bat and she's yelling 'You want a piece of me?')
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The beauty of a software suit is that it is a physical thing: Either the code exists in the product or it doesn't.
We'll just have to see if SCO has rights to the code they claim Linux uses.
4 posted on
06/18/2003 4:18:23 PM PDT by
PatrioticAmerican
(If the only way an American can get elected is through Mexican votes, we have a war to be waged.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Hard to root for Microsoft or IBM, but these people are techno-vultures, pure scum of the earth.
SO9
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
So basically SCO are a bunch of lawyers out to grab what they can. The only problem is that IBM has lawyers upon lawyers. SCO are fools to think they will prevail.
6 posted on
06/18/2003 4:26:00 PM PDT by
ikka
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
My favorite thing about this case is trying to make people sign an NDA to view some of their code. If its in the linux source then its publically available so just tell us where the damn code is.
And if you do, open up yours to an independant auditor so that we can see if there's any GPLed code in there.
8 posted on
06/18/2003 4:36:14 PM PDT by
lelio
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
What is a
"crunchie in the Linux community"? An open source potato chip?
Was this article supposed to be a Microsoft zealot anti-Linux user hit-piece, or is this particular writer always rude and condescending.
To: rdb3
Ping!
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The AT&T and IBM license contract that SCO has on their web site is for Unix System Vr1 dated in 1985. It looks like a normal per CPU license with an annex for resale. It also talks about Unix for 390. See http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitA.qxd.pdf
When IBM talks about the license they use the language "perpetual, irrevocable, paid-up" license.
These sound like two different things. What are the odds that IBM really does have a different license? For example, after IBM got some experience with Unix, IBM may have gone back to USL and negotiated a later license for System Vr4. That release is generally the foundation for later versions of proprietary Unices, including AIX.
Perhaps, as the IP moved from AT&T to USL to Novell to the former SCO to the current SCO Group not all the paperwork moved along. IBM may have a surprise in their bottom drawer.
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
31 posted on
06/19/2003 5:12:08 AM PDT by
csconerd
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I think just for fun today at work I'll call our IBM vendor and see if he's still selling AIX and Linux. I bet he is.
46 posted on
06/19/2003 8:21:26 AM PDT by
Liberal Classic
(Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est.)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
"These guys in Utah are no dummies."The hell they aren't.
They picked the WRONG company to f**k with.
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
In 1996, SCO's predecessor company, Caldera... SCO was the Santa Cruz Operation long before Caldera acquired the rights to Digital Research. SCO isn't even run by the same people anymore.
103 posted on
06/21/2003 12:35:59 AM PDT by
Liberal Classic
(Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson