From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 18 14:02:17 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 EF23416A4CE for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:02:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from pittgoth.com (14.zlnp1.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.149.111]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2DA843FCB for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:02:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (acs-24-154-239-203.zoominternet.net [24.154.239.203]) by pittgoth.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id hAIM28vd093517; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:02:09 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:02:07 -0500 From: Tom Rhodes To: Ceri Davies Message-Id: <20031118170207.754515ff.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20031118215034.GN385@submonkey.net> References: <200311182219.09828.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> <20031118215034.GN385@submonkey.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.6claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:02:18 -0000 On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:50:34 +0000 Ceri Davies 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