on Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 02:22:14AM -0500, Daniel Carrera ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The letters SCO do not stand for anything.
Sure the do.
Smoking Crater Operation.
Curiously, the definition of Caldera.
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 21:29, Daniel Carrera wrote:
I hadn't thought of that. That might be part of the reason why the
GPL-based projects are so much larger than the BSD-based projects.
As much as we, in this forum, would like to believe that licensing
is a prime motivator, empirical data
To Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED],
I had never heard of this stumbling block (not to say that it wasn't
there). But I've never heard of someone not wanting to use a GPL
To OSI License Discussion subscribers,
By That Notorious Suit I mean the ongoing drama between The Santa
Cruz Operation and International Business Machines over breach of
contract.
I appears that the GnU General Public License, as part of routine
proceedings in the case, is to be examined:
Hi Nathan,
By That Notorious Suit I mean the ongoing drama between The Santa
Cruz Operation and International Business Machines over breach of
contract.
To be picky, Santa Cruz Operation != SCO. Inspite of the apparent
connection.
There was once a company called Santa Cruz Operation.
To Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED],
By That Notorious Suit I mean the ongoing drama between The Santa
Cruz Operation and International Business Machines over breach of
contract.
To be picky, Santa Cruz Operation !=
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 10:38:57PM +1100, Nathan Kelley wrote:
1) Within your scenario, you should also consider the *probability* of
the GPL being found wanting. This is an important point. For
example, I don't have a contingency plan in the event of meteor
collisions. But the
To Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Nathan Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED],
From: Daniel Carrera [EMAIL PROTECTED],
1) Within your scenario, you should also consider the *probability*
of the GPL being found wanting. This is an important point. For
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 06:58:09AM +1100, Nathan Kelley wrote:
I had never heard of this stumbling block (not to say that it wasn't
there). But I've never heard of someone not wanting to use a GPL
product because they weren't sure if the license would stand in court.
It's a point commonly
I agree wholeheartedly with this point. And there wouldn't be
thousands
of volunteers if they thought they were providing free labor for
others, particularly development houses that then released products
only for the Windows platform. Fortunately, we're not in that
dimension.
I hadn't
On Wednesday, Oct 29, 2003, at 20:29 Africa/Accra, Daniel Carrera wrote:
...
They don't put
stock into the GPL apparently because a high-priced team of lawyers
didn't create it. That is, of course, a silly point to make, but they
make it anyway. And people listen, including The People Who Matter
11 matches
Mail list logo
