Let's assume the company was Microsoft. Do you (meaning everyone reading this) think that the reason SCO didn't release the name is because M$ doesn't want the world to know it's running Linux (even in labs), or some other reason? If so, what reason?
> ---------- > From: Chris Merrill[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply To: Triangle Linux Users Group discussion list > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:55 AM > To: Triangle Linux Users Group discussion list > Subject: Re: [TriLUG] SCO Linux License > > P. L. Charles Fischer wrote: > <snip> > > So who do you think bought the license? > <snip> > > So my answer to the first question must be Microsoft. I am sure > > Microsoft has Linux running in labs, running bench marks and trying to > > break Samba. It fits with the Microsoft MO to buy the SCO license. More > > FUD thrown at Linux. > > I heard somewhere that M$ paid $6m for a blanket license to cover some > of their products that work with unix. Seems more like a "soft money" > contribution, to me. > > -- > ********************************* > Chris Merrill > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ********************************* > > -- > TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug > TriLUG Organizational FAQ : http://trilug.org/faq/ > TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/ > TriLUG PGP Keyring : http://trilug.org/~chrish/trilug.asc > -- TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug TriLUG Organizational FAQ : http://trilug.org/faq/ TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/ TriLUG PGP Keyring : http://trilug.org/~chrish/trilug.asc
