To me it looks like the author is saying that SCO is angry because IBM let Project Monterrey die, and they're taking it out on Linux (starting with IBM). Maybe so. I just think they're trying either to be bought or to win enough money for the CEO to happily leave a little richer.
He also cited the fact that SCO [Caldera] has released Linux themselves under GPL, negating any claims they have on the IP it contains. Knowing this, legally, SCO doesn't have a leg to stand on; however, we can't yet trust the courts to understand what all this technology stuff means. It seems to me that even still, for most judges, when technological terms such as "kernel" and "source code" start being brought up, his eyes glaze over until either side comes up with the most convincing non-tech analogy that he then uses to base his opinion on. On Fri, 2003-05-16 at 09:17, Jim Carter wrote: > That didn't really say anything. > > Jim > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf > Of Dustin Puryear > Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 7:41 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [brlug-general] Good review of SCO issue.. > > > http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t479-s2134763-p1,00.html > > --- > Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Puryear Information Technology > Windows, UNIX, and IT Consulting > http://www.puryear-it.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net >
