Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:30:39 +0000 From: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> To: "Chip McClure" <vhm3@gigguardian.com>, <freebsd-chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: SCO Lawsuits, round 2 Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20031119222308.02cd8380@popserver.sfu.ca> In-Reply-To: <23740.216.195.235.103.1069277586.squirrel@webmail.gigguard ian.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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). The standard operating procedure of slashzealots seems to be "take a perfectly reasonable comment, find the most bizarre misinterpretation possible, and laugh at that misinterpretation". Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.0.2.1.1.20031119222308.02cd8380>