From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 18 17:10:38 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94A7F16A4CE for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:10:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [203.10.76.45]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 435F943F93 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:10:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from grog@lemis.com) Received: from blackwater.lemis.com (blackwater.lemis.com [192.109.197.80]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F6712BD32 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:10:35 +1100 (EST) Received: by blackwater.lemis.com (Postfix, from userid 1004) id 23B97511FA; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:40:33 +1030 (CST) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:40:33 +1030 From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey To: Arjan van Leeuwen Message-ID: <20031119011033.GI8149@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: <200311182219.09828.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> <20031118222445.GA18709@pasternak.w.lub.pl> <200311190031.19174.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="l0l+eSofNeLXHSnY" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200311190031.19174.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: The FreeBSD Project Phone: +61-8-8388-8286 Fax: +61-8-8388-8725 Mobile: +61-418-838-708 WWW-Home-Page: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-PGP-Fingerprint: 9A1B 8202 BCCE B846 F92F 09AC 22E6 F290 507A 4223 cc: Michal Pasternak cc: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 01:10:38 -0000 --l0l+eSofNeLXHSnY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wednesday, 19 November 2003 at 0:31:16 +0100, Arjan van Leeuwen wrote: > On Tuesday 18 November 2003 23:24, Michal Pasternak wrote: >> So, who would be attacked by SCO in case they decide to run against BSD >> systems? Which one of big-bucks-worldwide-famous corporations would it b= e? >> >> No hype, no media, no big corporation to attack - no profit for them. > > The article seems to imply that by attacking the AT&T/BSDi settlement, SCO > would have more power over Linux source code (as some linux source code a= lso > comes from BSD). That is their angle. Also, they could attack Apple (?). It would be nice if you'd quote the text which you find suspicious. What I see is: (link) Newsletter Sign Up Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.=20 >> If profit is all they want, they will not attack BSD systems. Why should >> they? >> >> But. >> >> What if they want something else - eg. what if they are only a tool, >> financed by some other corporation, which has to spread FUD and eventual= ly >> make problems for whole opensource software? Yes, this seems reasonable. They don't need to attach BSD in court--indeed, they'd have difficulty finding somebody to serve the writ to. Also, less than two years ago they explicitly went beyond the terms of the settlement and released all the disputed code under a BSD-like licence. See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ for more details. So why do this? I'm currently guessing that SCO needs a steady stream of press announcements to maintain their stock price. My personal bet is that IBM is going to drag out the case forever, like they've done before. SCO can't afford that; they'll self-destruct. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers. --l0l+eSofNeLXHSnY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/usMJIubykFB6QiMRAisyAKCMTF01WkA2EvcDc4048werUkUaaQCgtTF8 sfHYbw5IyqEyuN6WOcu0nzE= =4dn8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --l0l+eSofNeLXHSnY--