Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:02:07 -0500 From: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> To: Ceri Davies <setantae@submonkey.net> Cc: advocacy@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: SCO goes after BSD? Message-ID: <20031118170207.754515ff.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20031118215034.GN385@submonkey.net> References: <200311182219.09828.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> <20031118215034.GN385@submonkey.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:50:34 +0000 Ceri Davies <setantae@submonkey.net> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:19:07PM +0100, Arjan van Leeuwen wrote: > Content-Description: signed data > > From http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/11/18/1742216 : > > > > (about the teleconference today) > > I, for one, don't care how SCO pays its counsel. But I do care about > > something new that came out of the teleconference. > > > > SCO is going to attack the 1994 AT&T/BSD settlement. That's a very interesting > > item that the few favored analysts (and only a select few journalists) who > > were allowed to ask questions failed to pick up on. Here's our take on why > > SCO is embarking on this new course of action: > > > > (read the article for more info) > > > > What to think of this? > > It's difficult to say when the only quote on the page is "broad and > deep". I would rather see exactly what SCO said regarding the 1994 > settlement before making my mind up, but my gut reaction is that someone > has been at the crack pipe again. Following Ceri's lead here, I agree that an outcome is very unpredictable at this time. Although, I'm wondering how plausable it is to "attack" something that happened almost ten years ago. I could see that happening if it was "unjust", but what merits "unjust" in a lawsuit of this kind? I'm not a law student, or anything else but I had to give an opinion. -- Tom Rhodes
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031118170207.754515ff.trhodes>