Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--KscVNZbUup0vZz0f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 a=
cross
> >>> an article on the next round of lawsuits, targetting the BSD communit=
y.
> >>>
> >>> IMO, SCO's grabbing at straws, and they're sinking fast.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.newsforge.com/business/03/11/18/1742216.shtml?tid=3D2&tid=
=3D82&tid=3D85&tid=3D94
> >>
> >>   Personally, I read this as "the SCO-is-evil crowd is grasping at str=
aws".
> >>
> >> McBride said:
> >>> But more importantly, what we are announcing today is a substantial n=
umber
> >>> of copyright issues that relate to a settlement agreement that is alr=
eady
> >>> in place around the BSD settlement from the 1994 time frame. As we mo=
ve
> >>> 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."
>=20
> If you look at the followups to the newsforge article, you'll see (by gum=
out):
>=20
>   In case you missed it above:
>=20
>     "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
--=20

--KscVNZbUup0vZz0f
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/vAHHocfcwTS3JF8RArmDAJ9z+N1A+MMJh4PRsVqnWKHz5B+v9gCfVnit
BFdX6GHhJpuzze0q05TgPgI=
=GA5e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--KscVNZbUup0vZz0f--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031119235031.GJ66785>