| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
SCOsource and LinuxSCOsource and LinuxPosted Jan 30, 2003 9:22 UTC (Thu) by pointwood (guest, #2814)In reply to: SCOsource and Linux by rknop Parent article: SCOsource and Linux I'm certainly worried about this too. I don't think SCO will get much out of this though, all the negative press they have already got, will certainly not give them many new customers. In regards to MS, I actually think their license says that they aren't responsible for that.
(Log in to post comments)
SCOsource and Linux - very bad for SCO. Posted Feb 2, 2003 2:49 UTC (Sun) by wolfrider (guest, #3105) [Link] >> The only way that SCO will be able to reduce that uncertainty is to research and investigate whether any of our intellectual property currently resides within Linux, which is what the law firm of Boies, Schiller and Flexner are currently doing.>> We do not feel we can rule out any particular response without impairing our fiduciary responsibility to our stockholders to protect their property. Certainly our first choice in helping to resolve this issue would not to be heavy handed in our response. --Fiduciary responsibility, my donkey... They're just trying to get some publicity, and it looks like it will backfire on them. The sensible thing to do would be to audit the code FIRST, and QUIETLY, using CODERS (programmers)... --Then, *if* they found something, go to the LKML and the distros. Involving lawyers before obtaining definitive proof puts them in a VERY bad light. The way they're doing things right now helps to spread FUD about Linux - even though with BOTD, that may not have been their *intention* when they thought up this press release. --But my perception is that nobody really cares about SCO anymore, and this may turn out to be another nail in their coffin. ** LKML == Linux Kernel Mailing List
|
|
||||||||||||