Shawn,
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 07:18:10PM -0500, Shawn Robinson wrote:
> My little brother was approached by SCO yesterday regarding licensing his
> linux servers so as to avoid being possibly sued by SCO for copyright
> infringment. I am wondering as to what the Linux comunity thinks regarding
I'm no lawyer either, but I like to write. Please enjoy:
Let's Put SCO Behind Bars
http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html
Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc. - Expert Software Development and Consulting
http://www.goingware.com/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tilting at Windmills for a Better
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Langasek
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
That said, for my money, SCO's tactics smell of racketeering; but it's up to
judges to make the final decision about whether they're actually illegal.
Read up on www.groklaw.net for why SCOG don't have any claim (note the
This is not appropriate for this list. Please stop posting it here.
I don't mean to offend you, but there seems to be an astroturfing
campaign to make it look like various Free Software mailing lists have
been flaming about SCO; I can't imagine why they or anyone else would
want such a thing, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >You're asking why I think "can be flashed, but works just fine without
>> >being flashed" is different from "won't work without being loaded"?
>> >
>> >Fundamentally, the latter case forces us to not ignore it. The equipment
>> >won't work if we ignore the issue.
>
>O
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Yes, sure! If some stream of bits is considered software when stored in
>> RAM then I can't see why it should not be software anymore when stored
>> in some other media. I have not seen any convincing argument about why
>> software should lose its nature if stored in RO
> >> >You're asking why I think "can be flashed, but works just fine without
> >> >being flashed" is different from "won't work without being loaded"?
> >> >
> >> >Fundamentally, the latter case forces us to not ignore it. The equipment
> >> >won't work if we ignore the issue.
> >On Mon, Nov 01,
> >You're asking why I think "can be flashed, but works just fine without
> >being flashed" is different from "won't work without being loaded"?
> >
> >Fundamentally, the latter case forces us to not ignore it. The equipment
> >won't work if we ignore the issue.
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 01:51:56AM
8 matches
Mail list logo
