In the article, McBride talks about a "day of reckoning." That could be interpreted in any number of way. The article doesn't state anywhere that SCO is going to sue Red Hat and SuSE. SCO is a partner of SuSE's in UnitedLinux for crying out loud. Why would they choose to sue their own partner?
Anyone seen the CNET story yet today entitled "SCO to seek fees from Linux users."
http://news.com.com/2102-1001-980514.html
It seems to indicate that the company is targeting a subset of Linux users that are using SCO's UNIX libraries and not the whole community in general. I'm breathing a sigh of relief right now.
Here is SCO's Official comment on the whole thing:
SCO statement on Client Server News story
On January 10, 2003 Client Server News published a story concerning SCO and its UNIX intellectual property. This article states as fact speculations about what SCO may do or not do with regard to its ownership of core UNIX IP.
Darl McBride, president and CEO of SCO, has discussed SCO's UNIX IP ownership in many public venues and on the most recent quarterly investors' conference call. SCO has significant UNIX intellectual property dating back to the company's purchase of AT&T's Bell Labs UNIX technology. Our UNIX IP is a significant asset and for several months we have been holding internal discussions, exploring a wide range of possible strategies concerning this asset. We've reached no final decisions on any course of action.
SCO is a Linux vendor and a leading member of United Linux. Contrary to the claims in the Client Server News article, SCO has no desire to take legal action against fellow Linux vendors. As a normal part of business, SCO has had discussions with several legal experts in the field of intellectual property law, and these discussions included David Boies. Contrary to the claims in the Client Server News story, SCO has not engaged Mr. Boies to take legal action against our fellow Linux vendors.
It's unfortunate when a publication runs a headline, stating as fact in the present tense that our company is engaging in certain activities when, in fact, we've made no decisions, formed no programs and announced nothing about this.
Slashdot Mirror
In the article, McBride talks about a "day of reckoning." That could be interpreted in any number of way. The article doesn't state anywhere that SCO is going to sue Red Hat and SuSE. SCO is a partner of SuSE's in UnitedLinux for crying out loud. Why would they choose to sue their own partner?
Anyone seen the CNET story yet today entitled "SCO to seek fees from Linux users." http://news.com.com/2102-1001-980514.html It seems to indicate that the company is targeting a subset of Linux users that are using SCO's UNIX libraries and not the whole community in general. I'm breathing a sigh of relief right now.
Here is SCO's Official comment on the whole thing: SCO statement on Client Server News story On January 10, 2003 Client Server News published a story concerning SCO and its UNIX intellectual property. This article states as fact speculations about what SCO may do or not do with regard to its ownership of core UNIX IP. Darl McBride, president and CEO of SCO, has discussed SCO's UNIX IP ownership in many public venues and on the most recent quarterly investors' conference call. SCO has significant UNIX intellectual property dating back to the company's purchase of AT&T's Bell Labs UNIX technology. Our UNIX IP is a significant asset and for several months we have been holding internal discussions, exploring a wide range of possible strategies concerning this asset. We've reached no final decisions on any course of action. SCO is a Linux vendor and a leading member of United Linux. Contrary to the claims in the Client Server News article, SCO has no desire to take legal action against fellow Linux vendors. As a normal part of business, SCO has had discussions with several legal experts in the field of intellectual property law, and these discussions included David Boies. Contrary to the claims in the Client Server News story, SCO has not engaged Mr. Boies to take legal action against our fellow Linux vendors. It's unfortunate when a publication runs a headline, stating as fact in the present tense that our company is engaging in certain activities when, in fact, we've made no decisions, formed no programs and announced nothing about this.