Slashdot Mirror


Groklaw Traces Contribution of ABIs back to SCO.

Ptraci writes "Over at Groklaw they have been doing some digging and have found evidence that old SCO and Caldera did in fact contribute those files that they now want to charge us for."

4 of 611 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, it would suffice to say that Groklaw is more interested in finding information that would benefit SCO.

    In fact, the entire Linux community is more concerned with finding facts that could help SCO.

    Well, alteast they WERE. The simple fact is, SCO has lied and been caught soooo many times over the last few months... all we can do now is wait for them to lie again so we can disprove it.

    It's simple, SCO has lied and it's a known fact. They've lied a LOT, made a LOT of false allegations, etc al..

    If you bite into a terd, it's going to taste like shit. No amount of suger and spice is going to make it otherwise.

  2. Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This guy brings up a great point. I'm an IT manager at a Fortune 500, and we are considering the ramifications of this case everyday at work.

    Techies - if you want to convince your manager that SCO has no case, stop being so emotional about it. We in management have a hard time trusting your opinion when you seem to have so much invested in this emotionally.

    This is not some battle of good v. evil - you aren't Bilbo fighting that evil eye at the top of the tower (forgot his name, evil wizard guy).

  3. netcraft article by elvesRgay · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is OT but Netcraft has an amusing article about what options SCO, the litigious bastards, are not using to avoid being DOSed by Mydoom tomarrow.

  4. Re:Their contribution... by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To what end? The GPL is just the permission slip Linus gives you to use and copy Linux, not ownership of Linux (for example - this applies to all GPL'd code). If the GPL is ruled invalid by a court, all that means is that the license you hold for Linux is invalid. It doesn't invalidate Linus' copyright on the Linux code. Linus would remain free to re-license his code as he sees fit -- this would not grant Microsoft or anyone else the right to use Linus' code without his permission.

    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.