| |||||||||||||
Me, I don't like big gambles!Me, I don't like big gambles!Posted Aug 11, 2003 22:17 UTC (Mon) by mla (guest, #13935)Parent article: The text of IBM's counterclaims A riveting document. But I am unconvinced of the wisdom of dragging GPL into it in such a prominent a way. SCO now have to demolish GPL to get anywhere, and they have nothing to lose in attempting to do so. Let's hope that IBM's legal eagles know what they are doing. Should GPL fall in court (which is always possible!), we have serious trouble. OTOH, if it stands, MS will be royally pissed. Anybody got the rules of two-chamber Russian Roulette handy for consultation? :-)
(Log in to post comments)
Me, I don't like big gambles! Posted Aug 12, 2003 1:25 UTC (Tue) by namaseit (guest, #13940) [Link] Actually it is a very good thing. I mean the fact that IBM is using the GPL as a way to bitchslap SCO is showing that they stand behind, support, and validate the GPL because they are a huge company. I just got done reading "Rebel Code: Open Source and Linux History" and IBM is a hard company to get to do anything. In the book they compare IBM to an Elephant, hard to get moving. But once it is in the right direction its hard to stop. So I think this is suck a huge thing that IBM is standing by the GPL. I think this will be the first case that the GPL will be validated with. Which is a very good thing.
Betting on the favorite. Posted Aug 12, 2003 12:03 UTC (Tue) by economy1 (guest, #13962) [Link] The GPL was going to be tested in court at some point (that's ultimately the point of it, after all) and one can hardly imagine a better scenario than having IBM's legal resources vying to enforce its terms. I think open-source programmers should take heart. The only thing better would be if Microsoft were the GPL's champion. Reports are that some SCO management-types have been dumping stock recently as a result of all of this. Sounds like a good strategy...
|
|||||||||||||