Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 23:50:31 +0000 From: Ceri Davies <setantae@submonkey.net> To: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCO Lawsuits, round 2 Message-ID: <20031119235031.GJ66785@submonkey.net> In-Reply-To: <20031119233528.GB22360@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: <23740.216.195.235.103.1069277586.squirrel@webmail.gigguardian.com> <5.0.2.1.1.20031119222308.02cd8380@popserver.sfu.ca> <20031119224613.GI66785@submonkey.net> <20031119233528.GB22360@wantadilla.lemis.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 10:05:29AM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Wednesday, 19 November 2003 at 22:46:13 +0000, Ceri Davies wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:30:39PM +0000, Colin Percival wrote: > >> At 13:33 19/11/2003 -0800, Chip McClure wrote: > >>> Anyone happen to have a look at Slashdot recently? Happen to wander across > >>> an article on the next round of lawsuits, targetting the BSD community. > >>> > >>> IMO, SCO's grabbing at straws, and they're sinking fast. > >>> > >>> http://www.newsforge.com/business/03/11/18/1742216.shtml?tid=2&tid=82&tid=85&tid=94 > >> > >> Personally, I read this as "the SCO-is-evil crowd is grasping at straws". > >> > >> McBride said: > >>> But more importantly, what we are announcing today is a substantial number > >>> of copyright issues that relate to a settlement agreement that is already > >>> in place around the BSD settlement from the 1994 time frame. As we move > >>> forward, we will be outlining those issues > >> > >> I don't know how people get from there to "SCO is about to sue BSD"; all > >> he's saying is that someone has stolen code which *isn't* BSD -- code which > >> the settlement agreed belonged to AT&T (err, Novell). > > > > From http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/3110981: > > > > "I agree that the more yarn you pull out the more you see," McBride said > > during a press briefing at the inaugural Enterprise IT Week at cdXpo > > Conference here. "We have enough sorted out, but we are so focused on > > the [IBM litigation]. With our limited energies and what our guys are > > going through, we probably won't file any suits against BSD until > > sometime in the first half of next year." > > If you look at the followups to the newsforge article, you'll see (by gumout): > > In case you missed it above: > > "THE LAWSUIT SETTLEMENT ALSO STIPULATED THAT USL WOULD NOT SUE ANY > ORGANIZATION USING 4.4BSD-LITE AS THE BASE FOR THEIR SYSTEM." Absolutely, I'm aware of that. I was just pulling out the quote for Colin's benefit, as he said: > >> I don't know how people get from there to "SCO is about to sue BSD" This is how ;-) Ceri -- [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/vAHHocfcwTS3JF8RArmDAJ9z+N1A+MMJh4PRsVqnWKHz5B+v9gCfVnit BFdX6GHhJpuzze0q05TgPgI= =GA5e -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031119235031.GJ66785>