tomdp writes "Eben Moglen, Law professor and general counsel for the Free Software Foundation, has written a statement about SCO's lawsuit against IBM."
nice to see such a clear, concise and complete dismissal of SCO's FUD. They kept it professional and straightforward, and with any luck, this'll defuse some of the tension surronding the entire situation.
Kudos FSF and Eben Moglen
--
Contingency Fee, not cash.
by
Arch_dude
·
· Score: 4, Informative
In a statement in late May, quoted in a CNET article on 28 May, Darryl McBride of SCO said that the SCO lawyers are are working on a contingency fee basis. SCO is not paying the lawyers anything. IFthey win, the lawyers get a big cut of the proceeds.
If SCO gets counter-sued for barratry, I hope their lawyers are required to pay an equivalent percentage of the penalty.
no shit sherlock
by
ArchieBunker
·
· Score: 4, Informative
"In most cases businesses aren't working for your best interests."
It took you this long to realize that? The whole point of a business is to make money. Although I do think acting like the GPL is the next messiah is childish. It makes you look like a teenage anarchist who hasn't grown up yet.
-- Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Re:First line...
by
Monkey-Man2000
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The interesting thing is that they aren't really the Santa Cruz Operation but The SCO Group.
-- This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
Novell: "Stolen Code" is Actually Public-Domain IP
by
jg21
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Summarizing what it terms Novell's "Linux ambitions," Maureen O'Gara's LinuxGram is reporting today that Novell is not only porting its services - including the services stack in the future NetWare 7 - to Linux and launching Novell Nterprise Linux Services to run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux and SuSE Linux Enterprise Server from later this year, but that it has also - as the company that sold Unix to SCO's predecessor - been tipped off by one of the folks who examined the source code that the SCO Group claims Linux copied from SVR4...and been able to trace the code back to a pre-SVR4 version of BSD.
"As a result, Novell is supposedly trying to figure out how to lob another discrediting hand grenade at SCO and claim that the code SCO is basing its $3 billion contentions on is actually in the public domain," LinuxGram says.
nice to see such a clear, concise and complete dismissal of SCO's FUD. They kept it professional and straightforward, and with any luck, this'll defuse some of the tension surronding the entire situation.
Kudos FSF and Eben Moglen
In a statement in late May, quoted in a CNET article on 28 May, Darryl McBride of SCO said that the SCO lawyers are are working on a contingency fee basis. SCO is not paying the lawyers anything. IFthey win, the lawyers get a big cut of the proceeds. If SCO gets counter-sued for barratry, I hope their lawyers are required to pay an equivalent percentage of the penalty.
"In most cases businesses aren't working for your best interests."
It took you this long to realize that? The whole point of a business is to make money. Although I do think acting like the GPL is the next messiah is childish. It makes you look like a teenage anarchist who hasn't grown up yet.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
The interesting thing is that they aren't really the Santa Cruz Operation but The SCO Group.
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
"As a result, Novell is supposedly trying to figure out how to lob another discrediting hand grenade at SCO and claim that the code SCO is basing its $3 billion contentions on is actually in the public domain," LinuxGram says.