on Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 10:28:00AM -0500, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> I agree that open source must win this thing, but thinking like a
> lawyer matters too...no need to chase false hopes or expend resources
> hopelessly.
I'm not saying that legal rigor doesn't matter, an
True, the potential impacts of U.S. litigation -expense- and -duration-
shouldn't be ignored, if one wants to speculate re. the outcome and/or re. the
interim tactical aspects of SCO v. IBM (and the IBM v. SCO counterclaims). (Those
factors can be huge. I often use documentation of U.S. lawsui
bsite: http://cyberspaces.org/dixon/
- Original Message -
From: "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'License Discuss'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: OFF-TOPIC - The SCO suit
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
on Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 09:38:42AM -0800, Lawrence E. Rosen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thursday, November 13, 2003 3:41 AM, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
> > Could not any of the copyright holders to the Linux Kernel sources
> > (I understand that there are several, since Linus does not
> >
Why would we bother? We'd be in the same court, with the same attorneys,
and the same issues to resolve, as SCO/IBM are already. Does the open
source community need yet another lawsuit? /Larry Rosen
> -Original Message-
> From: Mahesh T. Pai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Mah
5 matches
Mail list logo
