| |||||||||||
The UT site is incorrect and obsoleteThe UT site is incorrect and obsoletePosted Jun 26, 2003 22:46 UTC (Thu) by kmself (subscriber, #11565)In reply to: We should emphasise the GNU GPL and discourage "copyleft" by StevenCole Parent article: Penguin on Thin Ice? (FindLaw)
Mail to the page maintainer's address bounces. The information is incorrect, out-of-date, and unmaintained.
(Log in to post comments)
The UT site is incorrect and obsolete Posted Jun 26, 2003 23:49 UTC (Thu) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link] Thanks Karsten. It looks like that may have been a semester project which was abandoned when the course ended. It also appears from the phrase "our GPL" they intended on having their own GPL, since they didn't link to gnu.org. Now that would be interesting, lost in a maze of GPLs, all different. Not.The reason I'm making such a fuss over this is that it seems SCO's strategy is to win in the court of public opinion. They are probably smart enough to realize that they will eventually lose in a real court. But if they are able to convince enough IT professionals to hold off on moving to Linux or to move from AIX to Solaris, then IBM will make a "business decision" that buying SCO for $130 million is better than being attrited by say $200 million per year for the several years that it will take this case to play out.
IBM's strategy Posted Jun 27, 2003 17:08 UTC (Fri) by MathFox (subscriber, #6104) [Link] If IBM wanted it, they could have settled with or bought SCO. Doing so would have been an invitation for other extortioners to try too. I think IBM is taking the short- and medium term losses to keep up the image of a company that you don't want to meet in court.Looking at the news: SCO allready is rapidly losing attention from the media, they have nothing new to tell... I wouldn't be surprised if the IBM spin machine would start leaking bits of news to change the image SCO tried to create, or would they use their Open Source allies for that job??? From several sources I've heard that the SCO-IBM case delayed AIX or Linux deployments for one, sometimes two weeks. The amount of media attention the case generates (bad publicity is publicity too, and I'm not sure whether this media attention is bad for Linux) could even help Linux acceptance. At least it is a very good reason to educate people about the difference between GPL and propriatary licenses. I am sure that IBM is handling this case in the best of its own interests; but it is in the long term interests of IBM too to get Linux out free! I don't worry too deeply.
IBM's strategy Posted Jun 27, 2003 18:36 UTC (Fri) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link] "Millions for defense, sir, but not one cent for tribute".That misquote comes from the XYZ affair, but is good policy. I sincerely hope you are right on all your points.
|
|||||||||||