Slashdot Mirror
SCO Says 'Linux Doesn't Exist'
4A6F656C writes "In an article on LinuxWorld.com.au, Kieren O'Shaughnessy, director of SCO Australia and New Zealand, details SCO's plans for Australia, stating that they have 'prepared a hit list' and "would approach Australian Linux users to ensure they had an IP licence." In closing, he adds 'Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix'." UnknowingFool writes "IBM's lawyers have been busy the last few days. Groklaw has reported a number of different filings. On the heels of last week's motions (1) and (2) for summary judgement, they have filed more documents. First, IBM wants large portions of SCO's testimonies striken (removed) on multiple grounds. Deep in the motion, they call out SCO to produce the 'experts' that did the code comparison analysis. If IBM wins on most of these points, SCO will have very little left in the way of legal evidence. SCO answers on IBMs 10th counterclaim. IANAL but from I understand SCO says this copyright infringment that SCO has allegedly committed on one of IBM's patents is irrelevant to the case and the court doesn't need to decide on it. So SCO is saying that they can sue IBM for infringing on their Unix copyrights and patents but IBM can't counter sue on a specific patent. IBM also filed another memo to support summary judgement. As a matter of law, SCO has to produce evidence to backup its claims. This mountain of evidence SCO has claimed all this time: If they don't produce it, the court has to rule in IBM's favor."
It's a dupe!!
It's a dupe!!
This is the same thing we've being hearing for more than a year
No, I'm sorry, your answer must be in the form of a question.
We would've accepted What is SCo; What was SCO.
$
You think AlSadr and BinLaden love the infidel?
Well, certainly more than they would like somebody who had approached the issue in a sane manner. Attacking an uninvolved country did nothing to harm the terrorist networks because that isn't where they were operating for the most part. It did lead pretty much the entire world to hate us and fear where the next unprovoked attack would land. So, in fact, Bush has given justification to the hatred so many already had for us.
The 911 attack was unprovoked.
That is playing pretty damn loose with the truth.
There is a huge difference between asserting that we didn't deserve the extremity of what happened and saying that we did nothing to provoke anybody.
We fully support and back up militarily a brutal vicious dictatorship in Saudi Arabia who oppress their people horribly, while at the same time teaching them in their schools that we are to blame for it all.
Our troops are the only thing keeping the brutal dictatorial regime in power.
That is a provokation.
We support Israel when they are in the right *and* when they are brutal terrorists themselves with no distinction.
That is a provokation.
We have overthrown democratically elected governments all over the world and replaced them with brutal dictators who killed 10s of thousands of their own people because they were better for business than a leader who had the best interests of his people at heart.
That is a provokation.
So you can argue that their actions against us are extreme, but to say they are unprovoked is either totally insane or completely ignorant.
Please save your jingoistic ignorant "they hate us for no reason" crap. Even the most cursory research would tell you that that isn't even remotely possible, let alone true.