Re: [PLUG] More SCOnanigans?

["William H. Magill" <magill@mcgillsociety.org>]

On 04 Mar, 2004, at 22:24, FloydLJohnsonIII@aol.com wrote:

> Sorry, dudes. I was late reading up on the matter, and am probably 
> more upset than need be.
>
> A former coworker sent me a few blood-pressure-raising links:
>
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1541140,00.asp is about their 
> first "licensee".
>
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1541393,00.asp states that SCO is 
> about to reveal their first ligation target.
>
> http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween10.html claims to contain 
> a leaked memo.
>
> If my guess is right, some of you have had to allay customers' 
> concerns about getting hosed by SCO attorneys. If that has been the 
> case, how did you do so?

The IBM case is now before a Judge.

The Judge in the SCO vs IBM case just declared that SCO has to come up 
with specifics about what code they claim belongs to them.

The information is not likely to be made public because of the nature 
of the trial and the strictures around it, but it means that SCO has 
anything but a free pass on this one.

It will likely be a long trial.

T.T.F.N.
William H. Magill
# Beige G3 - Rev A motherboard - 768 Meg
# Flat-panel iMac (2.1) 800MHz - Super Drive - 768 Meg
# PWS433a [Alpha 21164 Rev 7.2 (EV56)- 64 Meg]- Tru64 5.1a
# XP1000 - [Alpha EV6]
magill@mcgillsociety.org
magill@acm.org
magill@mac.com

___________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --        http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion  --   http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug