Computer Associates Pays Off SCO
jford235 writes "Forbes reports that CA has paid the fee to SCO for their license. The deal went down in August but today CA has says that they have taken steps to "distance itself from SCO"."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
How the hell can you editors not detect a duplicate SCO story? Wave the marijuana smoke away from your faces at least once in a while.
How many times have we seen this story?
No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
fp?
Please don't ever spell 'loses' with a double 'o' again.
wfa misses you.
The grandparent is an old Slashdot trick to get karma points easier: hitch your post onto a FP, or one of the earlier posts, so it gets to be near the top, and more people will notice it.
Ideally, your post is vaguely related to the early post you reply to, but in this case, it seems Zackschil is so dumb he doesn't even bother to do his post's promotion subtly, since he ties his on-topic comments to a GNAA troll.
Yes, you're right. It seems Slashdot doesn't hesitate to sensationalize a headline in order to get more visits. But then, isn't that pretty much how they've always been?
Given the amount of ./-baiting crap they've published earlier, why should ./ reward them with page hits for stories that they didn't even originate?
Dotslash?
Attempting to distance yourself AFTER purchasing the license still doesn't help CA any if the want to do any development under the GPL since the SCO license is mutually incompatible with the GPL. CA really should have thought about all of this before making the purchase instead of acting on the impulsive fear of a lawsuit with SCO.
No, but you have to subscribe to get fp. The question is who is so desperate for attention that they pay money so they can post this tripe?
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?