Case closed?
crocd | 08/19/04
|
Would someone
Linux User 147560 | 08/19/04
|

No
Yagotta B. Kidding | 08/19/04
|
 
Yep, SCO was Microsoft's little experiment.
Xunil_Sierutuf | 08/19/04
|
HA!!!
Michael Kelly | 08/19/04
|
Fighting fire with fire!
George Mitchell | 08/19/04
|
BAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!
James T. Kirk | 08/19/04
|
SCO is in trouble
NonZealot | 08/19/04
|
Now hang on, ANYONE can distribute Linux.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|

You still have to follow the rules
Michael Kelly | 08/19/04
|
 
No disagreement there.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
  
But SCO insists that the GPL is INVALID!
George Mitchell | 08/19/04
|
   
Doesn't matter at all.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
    
The courts ARE already issuing decisions ...
George Mitchell | 08/19/04
|
    
A License not a Contract
Darth23 | 08/19/04
|
     
Same result, you can argue a license too.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
    
For those of you that have serious legal impairments...
AmusedAtItAll | 08/20/04
|
     
Good one!
mlynch1234 | 08/21/04
|
   
Invalid licenses
Chris Moller | 08/19/04
|
    
Re: Invalid licenses
none none | 08/19/04
|
   
try reading the license before commenting - SCO is clearly acting illegally
hipparchus2000 | 08/19/04
|
    
Again, I see your mistake.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
     
read the license
sbj | 08/19/04
|
     
The filing clears this up
mlybbert | 08/19/04
|
  
What is IBM's position anyway?
Still Lynn | 08/19/04
|
 
Which SCO didn't do...
Still Lynn | 08/19/04
|
  
Nope...
nomorems | 08/19/04
|

You talk big...
Jose Jimenez | 08/19/04
|
 
And where did they break anything?
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
  
public quotes saying it is invalid would do it. IBM have relevant evidence
hipparchus2000 | 08/19/04
|
  
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/licenses.html
Still Lynn | 08/19/04
|
  
Head in the sand?
Jose Jimenez | 08/19/04
|
   
You must have missed this part of it.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
    
You must not understand that part of it...
sbj | 08/19/04
|
    
Different Case Alltogether
GregSalts | 08/20/04
|
    
Been to MS FUD classes again?
AmusedAtItAll | 08/20/04
|

I also think since it's copyrighted...
Monkey_MCSE | 08/19/04
|
 
No, I am afraid you are mistaken.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
  
You are incorrect about the copyright
dscherf | 08/19/04
|
   
My bad, I mis-spoke.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
    
Follow dscherf's advice then....
Still Lynn | 08/19/04
|
     
Read them, and as i said, it's IBM's view.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
  
part of the "rules" include accepting the licence
hipparchus2000 | 08/19/04
|

Did you actually read the article?
Patrick Jones | 08/19/04
|
 
Yes I read it, I see nothing to agree with you.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
  
Read IBM's request for PSJ
dscherf | 08/19/04
|
   
Oh I am certain IBM has their own "view".
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
    
In court views don't matter
Darth23 | 08/19/04
|
     
100% spot on!!!
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
    
Thanks, but I already know yours
dscherf | 08/19/04
|
     
Not even close.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
     
Reply to Axe
dscherf | 08/19/04
|
     
Closer? (reply to No_Ax)
George Mitchell | 08/19/04
|
     
George, not at all...
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
     
RE: Axe's reply to George
Iain_Peters | 08/20/04
|
  
How about from the article...
Patrick Jones | 08/19/04
|
   
Once more...
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
    
I guess I can't help you..
Patrick Jones | 08/19/04
|
     
So....
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
     
Nice try..
Patrick Jones | 08/19/04
|
     
How about...
tic swayback | 08/19/04
|
     
Courts have already ruled tic.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
     
Where?
tic swayback | 08/19/04
|
    
the difference is...
ryusen | 08/19/04
|
     
There is no difference.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
     
but are they also violating it?
ryusen | 08/19/04
|
     
ZZ: That's what the court
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
     
of course...
ryusen | 08/19/04
|
    
SCO broke the terms of the GPL...
dutidjia@... | 08/20/04
|
  
here is a quote from "the register"
hipparchus2000 | 08/19/04
|
  
Well, duh!
Still Lynn | 08/19/04
|

Read the GPL
Darth23 | 08/19/04
|
 
How do arrive at that?
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
  
They can't have it both ways - at least not in the same court case
Darth23 | 08/19/04
|
   
Of course they can.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
    
That's a horrible analogy
Darth23 | 08/19/04
|
     
You fail to understand how convoluted the law is.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
     
The key phrase here
tic swayback | 08/19/04
|
    
If SCO claims the GPL is invalid then they owe IBM some big bucks.
Darth23 | 08/19/04
|
    
assumptions are different with a copyright license over employment contract
hipparchus2000 | 08/19/04
|
    
You missed the point of the world we live in....
Still Lynn | 08/19/04
|
     
I simply don't see that.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
    
Another of bitty's apples and oranges comparisons
AmusedAtItAll | 08/20/04
|
   
Sorry but...
bhanes@... | 08/19/04
|
    
You agree?
mlynch1234 | 08/21/04
|

Did you actually read the license?
George Mitchell | 08/19/04
|
 
And I ask again!!!
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
  
They ask for licencing fees
Michael Kelly | 08/19/04
|
   
A seperate issue.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
    
Wrong again, Axe
dscherf | 08/19/04
|
     
Whoa, isn't that what the courts are doing?
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
     
RE: Whoa, isn't that what the courts are doing?
Michael Kelly | 08/19/04
|
     
Reply to Axe
dscherf | 08/19/04
|
    
Well...
Michael Kelly | 08/19/04
|
     
That remains to be seen.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
    
Not separate
freecode_99 | 08/19/04
|
    
Wich they themselves have distributed under gpl
NemesisNL | 08/19/04
|
  
SCO is screwed
Darth23 | 08/19/04
|
   
Thanks!
dscherf | 08/19/04
|
  
The part you cut out when you quoted me.
George Mitchell | 08/19/04
|
   
You are sadly mistaken. Let me clarify.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
    
Clarify? How about some specifics.
Darth23 | 08/19/04
|
     
Not that simple...
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
    
RE Not that simple...
Darth23 | 08/19/04
|
    
True
NemesisNL | 08/19/04
|
  
Here's your answer...
gigglypuff | 08/19/04
|
  
Just say "No I'm still ignoring the license!"
Still Lynn | 08/19/04
|
   
You gotta give time for reading Lynn.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
    
Read those replies, that's how I got here....
Still Lynn | 08/21/04
|
  
SCO Breaks License by requesting per seat license fees
GregSalts | 08/20/04
|
 
Not quite
dscherf | 08/19/04
|

the basic logic here is:
ryusen | 08/19/04
|
 
I see your mistake.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
  
Very true
Michael Kelly | 08/19/04
|
   
ABSOLUTELY!!!
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
    
Thank you
Michael Kelly | 08/19/04
|
     
And thank you...
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
    
You're missing something: DMCA not GPL
Darth23 | 08/19/04
|
   
No!!
NemesisNL | 08/19/04
|
  
as i said...
ryusen | 08/19/04
|
  
A missing point
freecode_99 | 08/19/04
|
  
WRONG since the license clearly says "if you do not accept this License"
hipparchus2000 | 08/19/04
|
   
Again, I see your mistake.
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
    
your example is reversed in this case...
ryusen | 08/19/04
|
  
But do you see London and France?
Still Lynn | 08/19/04
|
   
Let's not get mean, ok?
No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
|
    
It's not quite like that
Michael Kelly | 08/20/04
|
    
Again, you need to read the court documents.
Still Lynn | 08/21/04
|

Not exactly
freecode_99 | 08/19/04
|

Clearly you did not read the GPL
NemesisNL | 08/19/04
|

Here ya go houndsmaster, bark at this.
Still Lynn | 08/19/04
|

Must keep it simple for No-Ax
Richard Flude | 08/19/04
|
Nanny, nanny, pooh, pooh!
Chad_z | 08/19/04
|
Yes but..
Darth23 | 08/19/04
|
I think SCO is done. On a personal note Go Axy!
Laff | 08/19/04
|
This is how it is done
fullebr@... | 08/19/04
|
Funny part is
mlybbert | 08/19/04
|
An obvious tautology motion...
John Le'Brecage | 08/20/04
|
Flush Zoon
Inventor_z | 08/20/04
|
If is such a convoluted question, get a lawyer on the TalkBack
FilledOut | 08/21/04
|