Possible Link to SCO Source licensing? [LWN.net]

Possible Link to SCO Source licensing?

Posted Nov 28, 2006 17:23 UTC (Tue) by tjasper (subscriber, #4310)
Parent article: Who is being divisive?

I postulated this on Groklaw:

If the license that M$ got from SCO (M$ paid large sums of money into SCO for source licensing) wasn't SCO's to give (whatever they licensed from SCO perhaps ought to have come from Novell instead) then M$ might, in using said source licensed from SCO have been severely infringing on Novell's rights.

So, is this some sort of cover-up to pay Novell off for stuff that M$ is using that Novell has found out they got from SCO and it wasn't SCO's to give? Seems to tie up reasonably well in terms of timing with the discovery in the Novell vs SCO case.

Thoughts?

YellowShed

(Log in to post comments)

Possible Link to SCO Source licensing?

Posted Nov 28, 2006 17:54 UTC (Tue) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]

Ye$. Plea$e $tick to the $tandard Engli$h Alphabet.

SCO made some silly accusations. Microsoft supported them (finacially, through buying a useless license they didn't need) in an attempt to scare off competitors.

This has failed.

Microsoft is not throwing 400 Milion dollars to save the 50 Milion Dollars or so it has already spent on SCO.

So please leave both that language and those theories to GrokLaw.

Possible Link to SCO Source licensing?

Posted Nov 28, 2006 20:12 UTC (Tue) by tjasper (subscriber, #4310) [Link]

And my theories and typographical conventions are less valid than yours because......

Possible Link to SCO Source licensing?

Posted Nov 28, 2006 21:14 UTC (Tue) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]

Please stick to standard English spellings if you wish to criticize others'.

SCO made some silly accusations. Microsoft supported them (financially, through buying a useless license they didn't need) in an attempt to scare off competitors.

This has failed.

Microsoft is not throwing 400 million dollars to save the 50 million Dollars or so it has already spent on SCO.

Possible Link to SCO Source licensing?

Posted Nov 29, 2006 9:55 UTC (Wed) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]

Pettier defeats petty? Maybe it was meant as a lesson by example, but I wish we'd all refrained.

Possible Link to SCO Source licensing?

Posted Nov 28, 2006 20:21 UTC (Tue) by sveinrn (subscriber, #2827) [Link]

There is a theoretical possibility that someone (SEC, antitrust judges, ...) is watching Microsoft because of their involvement in the SCO lawsuits. So it could be possible that Microsoft has a desperate need to show the world that Linux is the new best friend. But the US has so far been utterly incapable of regulating Microsoft's illegal use of their monopoly power, so I doubt it...

Possible Link to SCO Source licensing?

Posted Nov 29, 2006 2:27 UTC (Wed) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]

I believe "incapable" in your comment should be read more as "unwilling". Prior to the unfortunate change of Chief Executives in 2001, the antitrust suit against Microsoft was going decently well.

The Descent of David Boies

Posted Nov 29, 2006 13:13 UTC (Wed) by brugolsky (subscriber, #28) [Link]

David Boies is at the center of all three events: hailed as a trust-buster, derided for losing the 2000 election appeal, now roundly scorned for his role in a pump-and-dump stock scam.

Possible Link to SCO Source licensing?

Posted Dec 2, 2006 19:21 UTC (Sat) by Lorenzo (guest, #260) [Link]

Antitrust going well?

Ha! ... Let's see.

Judge Jackson, the first judge to hear the anti-trust case against Microsoft, saw exactly what Microsoft was doing and chastised them for it. He proposed to break up Microsoft.

Microsoft bought somebody to discharge Judge Jackson in favor of Judge Kolar-Kotely (the most business friendly judge sitting today). Judge K-K dismissed the proposed breakup order. Instead they appointed a do-nothing "special master" (or the like) to "supervise" Microsoft.

Microsoft continues its anti-trust behavior unabated.

Tell me again. Is the anti-trust action against Microsoft going well?