Very Computer

Microsoft's connection to the anti-Linux campaign being waged by the SCO
Group is becoming clear.

In the latest move, Microsoft has stepped up the battle with an
announced agreement to license SCO's Unix patents and the source code,
describing the deal as a reflection of its "ongoing commitment to
respecting intellectual property and the IT community's healthy exchange
of IP through licensing."

Nice rhetoric.
---

"..  the reality is that Microsoft is tying SCO's allegations into its
own anti-GPL campaign, a mostly unsuccessful effort to convince
customers that the sharing and openness methods used in Linux
development are unhealthy for the market .."
---

"The real story here is the lack of substance to the SCO claims, and the
increasingly remote chance that its lawyers will prevail .."
---

Microsoft hardly needs an SCO source license. Its license payment to SCO
is simply a good-looking way to pass along a bribe, coupled with an
announcement designed to further intimidate Linux users. It's hard to
imagine former Microsoft adversaries SCO and David Boies doing Bill
Gates' bidding, but Microsoft's money is green. SCO stockholders should
be asking questions.

....... unquote .......

....... quote .......



X-No-Archive: Yes
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.187.60.30
X-Trace: news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net 1053382520 24.187.60.30 (Mon, 19 May
2003 18:15:20 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 18:15:20 EDT
---

I disagree with 90 percent of what you say, but this time I have to agree
with you.

Sure seems fishy that MS is "right there" to $ave the day for SCO.

....... unquote.......

nothing
---

still peeved about that I see, you *ing retard

Quote:>I disagree with 90 percent of what you say, but this time I have to agree
>with you.

>Sure seems fishy that MS is "right there" to $ave the day for SCO.

This issue should be thoroughly examined and dealt with appropriately.
If SCO had to fight IBM alone, IBM could delay, file motions,  and
force SCO to answer endless requests for irrelevant documentation.
Then all IBM would have to do is simply sit back and wait for SCOs
coffers to bleed out.

--
Cheers
T.G. Reaper

It is surely not good for people (users, customers), because IT
industry is not good for people.

I sincerely belive and hope for IT industry to break down and dissapear
in next ten years. People do not need it any more, because they write
software themselves, I mean Opem Source.

The only ones to survive are small companies that write software for
specific customer needs and software that does not have enough critical
mass of common interest to start as Opens Source project.

                                        DG

Each of you would do well to scan the full document quoted below.

<source>
http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html
</source>

<viz.>
Legally, the term "Unix" has been since 1992 a trademark of the Open
Group[2], a technical standards organization, and describes any
operating system (whether genetic-Unix or not) that has been verified
to conform to the published Unix standard. We will refer to an
operating system of this kind as a "trademark Unix". The required
attribution is "UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in
the United States and other countries". However, The Open Group's
strict construction of the term "Unix" is more honored in the breach
than the observance.

SCO has never owned the UNIX trademark. IBM neither requested nor
required SCO's permission to call their AIX offering a Unix. That
decision lies not with the accidental owner of the historical Bell
Labs source code, but with the Open Group.

The Linux operating system is Unix-patterned and generally referred to
as a Unix, but is neither a genetic Unix nor a trademark Unix. Linux
was independently invented by Linus Torvalds in 1991, and most
versions have not been put through the rather expensive process
required to verify conformance with Open Group standards.

There is a body of code and associated intellectual property (IP),
originating in Bell Labs, which SCO purchased from Novell in 1995.
This IP had previously been owned by Unix Systems Laboratories (USL),
and before that by AT&T. We will refer to this IP by its location of
origin, as the Bell Labs code.

The contents of the historical Bell Labs codebase is well known;
through most of its history, AT&T/USL/Novell tacitly ignored source
license violations for non-commercial purposes, and many senior Unix
programmers still possess bootleg copies of that source code. (The
authors of this document could lay hands on one without difficulty.)
</viz.>

Quote:

> I sincerely belive and hope for IT industry to break down and dissapear
> in next ten years. People do not need it any more, because they write
> software themselves, I mean Opem Source.

> The only ones to survive are small companies that write software for
> specific customer needs and software that does not have enough critical
> mass of common interest to start as Opens Source project.

>                                        DG

So now with MS backing them, that SCO can now do the same to IBM?
i.e. "...delay, file motions,  and force IBM to answer endless requests for
irrelevant documentation..." ?

???

Justice is still not served.

Regards,
WS

--
Change to leews to mail

Quote:> This issue should be thoroughly examined and dealt with appropriately.
> If SCO had to fight IBM alone, IBM could delay, file motions,  and
> force SCO to answer endless requests for irrelevant documentation.
> Then all IBM would have to do is simply sit back and wait for SCOs
> coffers to bleed out.