Well said. There's simply "no there there" - SCO has no plausible claim
against anyone on these grounds. Given that, there's no excuse for playing
it "safe" as they try to steal one.
ap
--
Andrew J Perrin - http://www.unc.edu/~ap
Please stop worrying and educate yourself. This is just muddying up the
mail list and the topic.
All this angst is easily dispelled. Consider this quote from the
article below:
"SCO/Caldera's claim to own the scalability techniques certainly cannot
be supported from the feature list of its own
Rich Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 12:32 AM, Brian McGroarty wrote:
>
> > SCO has made no claims against the 2.2 kernels.
> >
> > If worst comes to worst and SCO finally show some incriminating code
> > in 2.4, stepping back to 2.2 until the relevant bits are
I make a living (a meager one) building Linux server with debian for
small businesses. I have never needed to build a multi CPU system so I
always remove the systematic multiprocessing stuff from the kernel when
I build, shouldn’t this be good enough ? Going back to 2.2 would be a
nightmare
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:26, Rich Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 12:32 AM, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> > SCO has made no claims against the 2.2 kernels.
> >
> > If worst comes to worst and SCO finally show some incriminating code
> > in 2.4, stepping back to 2.2 until the relevant bits a
In response to:
From: John Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: linux.debian.user
Subject: Re: [OT] SCO is going all out now
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roberto Sanchez wrote:
>This Slashdot story
>(http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/21/1516240&mode=thread&tid=130&a
Roberto Sanchez wrote:
This Slashdot story
(http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/21/1516240&mode=thread&tid=130&tid=185&tid=187&tid=190&tid=88)
references this Yahoo! story (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030721/lam075_1.html)
where they talk about this:
"... it will offer UnixWare® licenses ta
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 08:26:49AM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote:
>
> I guess I'll be going back to 2.2 until this nonsense blows
> oversigh.
For a business, I'd just check to be sure that 2.2 will be okay for
your needs. But I wouldn't step back to 2.2 until SCO actually makes
the claims publi
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 08:26, Rich Johnson wrote:
> I guess I'll be going back to 2.2 until this nonsense blows
> oversigh.
This is terrorism (literally). They can't do much, but maybe they can
scare you into doing it to yourself.
Check this out:
http://www.cybersource.com.au/users/conz/li
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 08:26:49AM -0400, Rich Johnson wrote:
> I guess I'll be going back to 2.2 until this nonsense blows
> oversigh.
Why bother? Unless you're a corporate site, I really wouldn't worry
about it (otherwise consult a lawyer).
Rich Johnson wrote:
[SCO claims you Linux kernel 2.4 contains their intellectual property
and must be licensed]
I guess I'll be going back to 2.2 until this nonsense blows
oversigh.
Well if you're going to be that easy to push over . . .
I have undeniable proof that my intellectual prope
Rich Johnson writes:
> I guess I'll be going back to 2.2 until this nonsense blows over
Just because SCO has made some unsubstantiated claims?
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 12:32 AM, Brian McGroarty wrote:
SCO has made no claims against the 2.2 kernels.
If worst comes to worst and SCO finally show some incriminating code
in 2.4, stepping back to 2.2 until the relevant bits are purged from
2.4 is all anyone should need to do to cover the
On Tuesday 22 July 2003 18:42, cr wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 July 2003 17:37, Sharninder Singh-662 wrote:
> > > Do you suspect there could be a long enough delay between releasing
> > > the alleged infractions and producing a clean kernel that fully
> > > changing OSes could make sense, however?
> >
>
On Tuesday 22 July 2003 17:37, Sharninder Singh-662 wrote:
> > Do you suspect there could be a long enough delay between releasing
> > the alleged infractions and producing a clean kernel that fully
> > changing OSes could make sense, however?
>
> like u said .. if worst comes to worse. either ppl
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 00:11, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:37:10PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 23:32, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 06:25:18PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 07:03:55PM +0200, Roberto Sa
>
> Do you suspect there could be a long enough delay between releasing
> the alleged infractions and producing a clean kernel that fully
> changing OSes could make sense, however?
>
like u said .. if worst comes to worse. either ppl will develop patches and
features for the latest hardware or som
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:37:10PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 23:32, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 06:25:18PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 07:03:55PM +0200, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
> [snip]
> > SCO has made no claims against the
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 10:06:26AM +0530, Sharninder Singh-662 wrote:
> >
> > If worst comes to worst and SCO finally show some incriminating code
> > in 2.4, stepping back to 2.2 until the relevant bits are purged from
> > 2.4 is all anyone should need to do to cover their assets in countries
> >
>
> If worst comes to worst and SCO finally show some incriminating code
> in 2.4, stepping back to 2.2 until the relevant bits are purged from
> 2.4 is all anyone should need to do to cover their assets in countries
> where this becomes an issue.
ya .. very true and debian makes it even better by
On Mon, 2003-07-21 at 23:32, Brian McGroarty wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 06:25:18PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 07:03:55PM +0200, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
[snip]
> SCO has made no claims against the 2.2 kernels.
>
> If worst comes to worst and SCO finally show some in
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 06:25:18PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 07:03:55PM +0200, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
> > This Slashdot story
> > (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/21/1516240&mode=thread&tid=130&tid=185&tid=187&tid=190&tid=88)
> > references this Yahoo! story (htt
Roberto write:
> "... it will offer UnixWare® licenses tailored to support run-time, binary use
> of Linux ..." (quoted from the Yahoo! article.
> Any ideas is this will actually go through?
What do you mean by "go through"? They don't need anyone's permission to
sell a promise not to sue.
> Wh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 07:03:55PM +0200, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
> Any ideas is this will actually go through?
Around the time I get a 37-figure income.
> What will Debian do about it?
Laugh.
> Should we start looking at how the Debian GNU/FreeBSD
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 07:03:55PM +0200, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
> This Slashdot story
> (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/21/1516240&mode=thread&tid=130&tid=185&tid=187&tid=190&tid=88)
> references this Yahoo! story (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030721/lam075_1.html)
> where they talk about
On Monday 21 July 2003 19:03, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
> "... it will offer UnixWare® licenses tailored to support run-time, binary
> use of Linux ..." (quoted from the Yahoo! article.
>
> Any ideas is this will actually go through? What will Debian do about it?
> Should we start looking at how the D
This Slashdot story
(http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/21/1516240&mode=thread&tid=130&tid=185&tid=187&tid=190&tid=88)
references this Yahoo! story (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030721/lam075_1.html)
where they talk about this:
"... it will offer UnixWare® licenses tailored to support run-ti
27 matches
Mail list logo
