Well said. There's simply no there there - SCO has no plausible claim
against anyone on these grounds. Given that, there's no excuse for playing
it safe as they try to steal one.
ap
--
Andrew J Perrin -
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:26, Rich Johnson wrote:
On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 12:32 AM, Brian McGroarty wrote:
SCO has made no claims against the 2.2 kernels.
If worst comes to worst and SCO finally show some incriminating code
in 2.4, stepping back to 2.2 until the relevant bits are
I make a living (a meager one) building Linux server with debian for
small businesses. I have never needed to build a multi CPU system so I
always remove the systematic multiprocessing stuff from the kernel when
I build, shouldnt this be good enough ? Going back to 2.2 would be a
Rich Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 12:32 AM, Brian McGroarty wrote:
SCO has made no claims against the 2.2 kernels.
If worst comes to worst and SCO finally show some incriminating code
in 2.4, stepping back to 2.2 until the relevant bits are purged
Please stop worrying and educate yourself. This is just muddying up the
mail list and the topic.
All this angst is easily dispelled. Consider this quote from the
article below:
SCO/Caldera's claim to own the scalability techniques certainly cannot
be supported from the feature list of its own
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 00:11, Brian McGroarty wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:37:10PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 23:32, Brian McGroarty wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 06:25:18PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 07:03:55PM +0200, Roberto Sanchez
On Tuesday 22 July 2003 17:37, Sharninder Singh-662 wrote:
Do you suspect there could be a long enough delay between releasing
the alleged infractions and producing a clean kernel that fully
changing OSes could make sense, however?
like u said .. if worst comes to worse. either ppl will
On Tuesday 22 July 2003 18:42, cr wrote:
On Tuesday 22 July 2003 17:37, Sharninder Singh-662 wrote:
Do you suspect there could be a long enough delay between releasing
the alleged infractions and producing a clean kernel that fully
changing OSes could make sense, however?
like u said
On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 12:32 AM, Brian McGroarty wrote:
SCO has made no claims against the 2.2 kernels.
If worst comes to worst and SCO finally show some incriminating code
in 2.4, stepping back to 2.2 until the relevant bits are purged from
2.4 is all anyone should need to do to cover
Rich Johnson writes:
I guess I'll be going back to 2.2 until this nonsense blows over
Just because SCO has made some unsubstantiated claims?
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Rich Johnson wrote:
[SCO claims you Linux kernel 2.4 contains their intellectual property
and must be licensed]
I guess I'll be going back to 2.2 until this nonsense blows
oversigh.
Well if you're going to be that easy to push over . . .
I have undeniable proof that my intellectual
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 08:26:49AM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote:
I guess I'll be going back to 2.2 until this nonsense blows
oversigh.
Why bother? Unless you're a corporate site, I really wouldn't worry
about it (otherwise consult a lawyer). I
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 08:26, Rich Johnson wrote:
I guess I'll be going back to 2.2 until this nonsense blows
oversigh.
This is terrorism (literally). They can't do much, but maybe they can
scare you into doing it to yourself.
Check this out:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 08:26:49AM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote:
I guess I'll be going back to 2.2 until this nonsense blows
oversigh.
For a business, I'd just check to be sure that 2.2 will be okay for
your needs. But I wouldn't step back to 2.2 until SCO actually makes
the claims public.
Roberto Sanchez wrote:
This Slashdot story
(http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/21/1516240mode=threadtid=130tid=185tid=187tid=190tid=88)
references this Yahoo! story (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030721/lam075_1.html)
where they talk about this:
... it will offer UnixWare® licenses tailored
In response to:
From: John Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: linux.debian.user
Subject: Re: [OT] SCO is going all out now
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roberto Sanchez wrote:
This Slashdot story
(http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/21/1516240mode=threadtid=130tid=18
5tid=187tid=190tid=88
This Slashdot story
(http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/21/1516240mode=threadtid=130tid=185tid=187tid=190tid=88)
references this Yahoo! story (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030721/lam075_1.html)
where they talk about this:
... it will offer UnixWare® licenses tailored to support run-time,
On Monday 21 July 2003 19:03, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
... it will offer UnixWare® licenses tailored to support run-time, binary
use of Linux ... (quoted from the Yahoo! article.
Any ideas is this will actually go through? What will Debian do about it?
Should we start looking at how the Debian
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 07:03:55PM +0200, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
This Slashdot story
(http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/21/1516240mode=threadtid=130tid=185tid=187tid=190tid=88)
references this Yahoo! story (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030721/lam075_1.html)
where they talk about this:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 07:03:55PM +0200, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
Any ideas is this will actually go through?
Around the time I get a 37-figure income.
What will Debian do about it?
Laugh.
Should we start looking at how the Debian GNU/FreeBSD
Roberto write:
... it will offer UnixWare® licenses tailored to support run-time, binary use
of Linux ... (quoted from the Yahoo! article.
Any ideas is this will actually go through?
What do you mean by go through? They don't need anyone's permission to
sell a promise not to sue.
What will
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 06:25:18PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 07:03:55PM +0200, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
This Slashdot story
(http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/21/1516240mode=threadtid=130tid=185tid=187tid=190tid=88)
references this Yahoo! story
On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 23:32, Brian McGroarty wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 06:25:18PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 07:03:55PM +0200, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
[snip]
SCO has made no claims against the 2.2 kernels.
If worst comes to worst and SCO finally show some
If worst comes to worst and SCO finally show some incriminating code
in 2.4, stepping back to 2.2 until the relevant bits are purged from
2.4 is all anyone should need to do to cover their assets in countries
where this becomes an issue.
ya .. very true and debian makes it even better by
Do you suspect there could be a long enough delay between releasing
the alleged infractions and producing a clean kernel that fully
changing OSes could make sense, however?
like u said .. if worst comes to worse. either ppl will develop patches and
features for the latest hardware or some
25 matches
Mail list logo
