1994 BSD/Unix Settlement Released On Groklaw 336
davidwr writes "Groklaw has the newly-released-previously-secret 1994 Berkeley/UNIX Systems Laboratories settlement which gave rise to BSD4.4(Lite) (as pdf and text with commentary). This may have an impact on the SCO vs. Linux war."
War? (Score:4, Funny)
War is easy when one side is DEAD (Score:3, Funny)
Re:War? (Score:3, Insightful)
Many overt battles were fought. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:War? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, there is a good example of this in the American war For independence - Gen. Green, an American leader in the fight for the South,lost every battle he fought, and yet he won the South. He did this by forcing the British to chase his forces deep inland, away from the coastal areas where the British troops were easily restocked or supplies by the Britist Navy. This forced the British forces to turn to the American populace for supplies
Re:War? (Score:2, Informative)
Greene did "lose" at Guilford, however, the British suffered sufficient casualties to force them to return to their safer coastal areas.
British brutality towards those favorable to the rebels (who they considered traitors) probably did gain them many new friends in the South. Indeed, they did
Re:War? (Score:2, Offtopic)
--
Un Cuento sobre Miguel y Lucifer [uchile.cl]
Re:War? (Score:5, Funny)
USofA lost both. (Score:3, Insightful)
Terror is something that exists. It won't cease existing. Oops, lost that one too.
You can fight a war against some people; you cannot fight a war against all the people.
USofA cited (financed) both. (Score:2, Insightful)
Sir, my need is sore.
Spirits that I've cited
My commands ignore
The Sorcerer's Apprentice - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Re:USofA lost both. (Score:4, Interesting)
No, we (they?) haven't lost this one. This isn't a war that you just "stop fighting" when you've "won". The drugs will keep fighting to exist, so society has to keep fighting the war forever if society chooses not to have drugs everywhere.
I used to not grok the war on drugs. I've done a few "light" drugs myself and never understood what the big deal was. Last April I thought I was getting a great deal on a house until I found out why the seller had priced it $30K below market - the house next door was infested with dealers and users. Guys doing crazy uppers - out shouting at each other every night at the top of their lungs until 4AM, going "MOTHERFUCKER MOTHERFUCKING UP IN MY SHIT SO I CHOKED THE BITCH OUT" and stupid nonsenese so loud it would shake my (closed, heavy 2-pane) windows. Then there were the fights. Then there were were ODs. That's when I learned real quick why we have a war on drugs. BTW this is in Campbell, CA - not the most expensive homes in the bay area, but certainly not the ghetto!
For months I talked to other neighbors who were all too afriad to give their names when the called the police - they were afraid they'd get shot, or their houses burned down if they complained. I'd call the cops but they always said they couldn't go in on a noise complaint, no matter how many.
So I tracked down the local drug enforcement czar, and he told me what to do. Keep a log, write down license plates, call the cops every time it gets out of hand. So I did, and I gave my name every time I called. It didn't help.
Finally I discovered that public records could point me to the owner of the rented property (the police and the occupants had refused to tell me). I started writing letters and telling the owner everything that happened - turned out the owners were the parents of one of the occupants. They'd given up on parenting and bought their son a house because they couldn't keep him under control and they wouldn't throw him out on the street. Great.
I researched the law and learned about the seizure process and how the owners could lsoe everything by letting it continue, and that neighbors could sue for noise. I bluntly informed them of all this, and finally it looks like the creeps are moving out - 8 months of turmoil later. Finally I have peace and safety.
You will not understand the war on drugs until you've had to fight it yourself. Only then will you see why it's a war that we are going to keep fighting forever as long as we as a society decide we don't want to be around the stuff.
Re:USofA lost both. (Score:5, Insightful)
A "war" is, generally speaking, a temporary situation which warrants the application of special powers during its (finite) duration.
The "war on drugs" doesn't have a finite duration. As you acknowledge, there is no achievable victory condition where we can all go home. Temporary "war powers" make no sense in this situation. Consequently, it's not a war, just another law-enforcement function, and calling it (thinking of it as) anything else invites bad decision-making.
Re:USofA lost both. (Score:2)
Now you're just arguing the semantics of the word "war".
dictionary.com [reference.com] defines it as anything but brief... actually "often prolonged" and "A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain."
You did not grok then. (Score:2, Insightful)
You made the creeps move out, you did not make them stop. You swept the problem under the rug. And the problem is: making drugs illegal is what causes the situation you lived. If they went to the pharmacy to get their fix, they wouldn't have to gather together in the "place". Believe me, I know. I worked two years as a para in a DA's office. The big drug guys profit huge BECAUSE the stuff is illegal. If pfizer and johnsons sold coke it would be 10 times cheaper a
Re:USofA lost both. (Score:2, Interesting)
So I was advised!
I decided instead to fight the problem and pocket the "discount". If I'd waited or haggled, someone else would have snagged the property - I offered on the first day it was listed. Next time, I will spend some time staking out the property on
Re:USofA lost both. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:USofA lost both. (Score:2)
Re:USofA lost both. (Score:2)
Re:USofA lost both. (Score:2)
Your post is amusing. let's see why. (Score:4, Insightful)
actually the war on terror isn't a loosing battle. There won't always be terror at least on the scale it is today.
Hmmmm. Let me see. when I was 11 (1982) I was all the time scared to hell that Reagan would push the red button. Let's go futher back...
1950's-60's people were scared of the commies
1940's - the war
1930's - the depression
1910's - the war
1890's - the war
1500's-1600's - the Inquisition
-500's - the Romans, Attila, Alexander, the Egyptians, etc. etc. etc.
Yes, I got it pretty much covered. It is -- and has always been -- a blood-covered world. Terror world. It's a lost battle to begin with... unless you make real peace, which we don't have today (like: Israelis out of Palestine, Palestine and Israel get some common ground about what to do to Jerusalem; reunite Koreas; separate Taiwan; separate Euskadi from Spain and a piece of France; figure out something to Africa as a whole; get russians out of Chechenia; get USofAns out of everywhere but the USofA)
The object of the war on terror isn't to make everyone agree and get along. It is to force the terrorist to make changes by piecful means.
Yeah, by bombing the crap out of Fallujah. This one made me LOL.
A group of people that don't reflect the population killing civilians is not a noble thing to do no matter how you try to justify it.
You are right, but this applies equally to the US Armed Forces.
There are alway other options like full blown war were you go after troops and military instead of average joe trying to make a living. No, in most cases full blown war is too expensive except for the US govment. I'm not justifying terrorism, just saying that it *is*, after all, a resource-efficient form of warfare.
You even have countries like spain that cave in and give terrorist legitamicy. Even now there is a push to clean up the U.N. because of it's support for different terrorist or the countries that support it.
I did not understand if you claimed Spain gave legitimacy for terrorists because of Euskadi or because of Iraq (from which they pulled out BTW, by popular force)
What is being said is that they cannot use terror as a weapon to express those differences or try to force policy changes.
And this is the real stupid part: if it comes to a group to get their claims unheard so much that they would resource to terrorism (because of scarcity of means to fight a full-fledged war -- including propaganda means) they will -- always -- use terror as the weapon.
And now, my flamebait (not really, but a lot of people tend to think it is): it's exactly what the USofAn population-backed government does. It's a minority (3% of the world's population) that, by slaughtering civilians and by maintaing other governments "on check", enforces its views on the others.
The war on terror also is fought several different ways. Some ways might include military action while others might make sure those disgressed have a voice in the politics surounding the issue. One thing is certain, once they decide to use terror as a bargaining chip, they won't get the second treatment.
First: the second way you cited is *never* used;
Second: usually, it's the other way around: the people who make use of terror are not listened to until they make use of terror; then they negotiate, then they are heard.
Re:Your post is amusing. let's see why. (Score:4, Informative)
Remember the recent US military operation in Fallujah? According to the US general in charge, of the thousand men they captured during that operation, only fifteen were foreigners. The idea that the majority of rebels in Iraq are foreign terrorists is a myth created by the new Iraqi government to make themselves look good to the US, and supported by Americans that don't want to believe that the Iraqis might not want what we're selling.
Re:Your post is amusing. let's see why. (Score:2)
It also appears that they have set up shop in thier nobel fashion in other areas too
Re:Your post is amusing. let's see why. (Score:4, Insightful)
90% of the spanish population was opposed to the war in Iraq - it's only natural that the new government would follow the will of the people. What you're suggesting, though, is that they should have stayed in Iraq because of the attacks - in other words, let their behavior be dictated by terrorists!
The fact of the matter is that the new Spanish govt. understands that the "war on terror" is a police effort, not a military one, and that there was no Iraq-Al Qaeda link before the invasion. Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror - a costly one at that - and a venture which was not approved by the spanish population. By helping the U.S. in Iraq, Aznar was going against the wishes of the citizens, and they voted accordingly.
Re:Your post is amusing. let's see why. (Score:2)
Re:Your post is amusing. let's see why. (Score:4, Insightful)
The "rest of the world" is better informed about what goes on in the world than you think - better informed than people in the U.S., for that matter.
The fact is that the new government had said repeatedly that they would pull their troops out of Iraq if elected. If they hadn't, then it would have looked as if they'd changed their plans due to terror - maybe not to people in the U.S., but their main responsibility is to spaniards, not americans. It's not their responsibility to change the way they act to make sure that their policies are not misinterpreted by americans - it's up to americans to find out what's going on in the rest of the world...
Re:Your post is amusing. let's see why. (Score:2)
I know thats not what happened but thats when people paid attention. Lets face it, from
Re:Your post is amusing. let's see why. (Score:2)
Actually, I think they should have made the point that they did. I.e. "We want to pull out, but we can't do that now as it would appear as weakness in the face of terrorism.", of course in diplomat-speak. It would have sent all the right signals, the people would understand (they're used to ETA) and they'd
Re:Your post is amusing. let's see why. (Score:2)
That's what I'm saying: from reading international papers, it seems pretty clear that most of the world (who was against the war in Iraq by a w
Re:Your post is amusing. let's see why. (Score:2)
I also think it is falicious to think that everyone from different countries knew what spains political enviroment was. They didn't. Other people in other countries Got the same impressions. There are internet groups that have members that are not american to proove this. I have seen and read posts by them usually with someone else setting them straight. Oh yea... those international papers came out about the same time american papers came out with the same i
Re:Your post is amusing. let's see why. (Score:2)
In any case, it is irrelevant: the new government had made its case clear to the Spanish people, to whom they are responsible. Changing policies because of the terrorist attacks would have first and foremost been badly interpreted by the Spanish voters themselves, and therefore it
My point exactly: (Score:2)
The only way of not having terrorists is listening to everyone and not turning people into terrorists in the first place.
Drug-abusing terrorists? (Score:2)
Really. Think. Give me an example of one person you know (more points if it's a public person -- the Dalai Lama is out) that:
1. does not abuse ANY drug. caffeine and all the other stuff in chocolate included.
2. does not tries in any way to impose its will upon others, by threatening force if necessary.
The prosecution rests its case. I, for one, know of no such person.
Re:Drug-abusing terrorists? (Score:4, Funny)
I think in his case the list would be
1. does not abuse ANY drug.
2. does not tries in any way to impose its will upon others.
3. Prophet!!
Re:War? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps it's because neither of them are 'conventional' wars, and we're not used to winning wars with anything other than bombs.
Re:War? (Score:4, Insightful)
How is that war on Drugs, and the war on terrah going for you guys?
I thought that was the "War on Terra".
You know, a shorthand description of Bush's environmental policies.
Re:War? (Score:2, Funny)
Insightful?
Hmmm. I think this is the first time I've been annoyed by a *positive* moderation of one of my posts.
Re:War? (Score:2)
What the fuck "objectivity" has to do with that, nobody knows. Not every issue has two sides, you know.
Re:Terrorism - going just fine, thanks for asking. (Score:3, Insightful)
Um... about the same number as before 9/11?
Or, do you want to count the killing of Randy Weaver's wife as terrorism too?
How about the killing of all those people in Waco?
Just *how* do you want to *define* terrorism? Because, seriously, I was a hell of a lot better off before my government tried to "help".
Re:Terrorism - going just fine, thanks for asking. (Score:2, Informative)
I'd have to agree. In fact the War or Terror actually hurt my family significantly. When some idiot said that a company called P-Tech *might* have terrorist ties just because they are middle eastern, some reporter found that my mother's company was doing some work for P-Tech at the time and also helping finance a new Cardinals stadium. From this amalgamation of false accusations and implications, the reporter created a huge story ov
Re:To paraphrase the simpsons (Score:2)
They have a shitty federal police, that is for sure, but
Great to read (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Great to read (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Great to read (Score:2)
Right, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:2, Insightful)
no (Score:5, Insightful)
does any of this in any way impact the slew of child BSD's out there?
The answer is no. Nobody but SCO has anything to worry about. As Grocklaw astutely notes:
Now we know why SCO keeps telling us the case is "just a contract" case, why it has a penchant for suing only those who are, or were, their licensees, and why it sued IBM instead of Red Hat. USL preserves its rights against licensees under the license agreements. I see no expanded rights against third parties who are not licensees, just the preexisting right to try to sue them, with the same likely outcome that USL experienced when it tried to sue the University and BSDi, using the same lame copyright claims that the judge back then found so unconvincing.
SCO owns nothing useful and never has. They have yet to show any infringement by IBM nor will they ever. The whole thing is FUD, funded by your friends at M$ and a pump and dump scheme, in short fraud and anti-competitive fraud. I hope someone goes to jail for it.
also no: look at the family tree (Score:5, Interesting)
history (Score:5, Informative)
Re:history (Score:5, Funny)
pay the cost to be the boss (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:pay the cost to be the boss (Score:5, Insightful)
Carrying it a step further, I'm leaning towards the idea that, once you've filed a lawsuit, an out-of-court settlement should no longer be possible. Why should it? If two companies can't agree before going to court, why should the courts be used to pressure one side or the other to give in? You're right, that's not justice and it is an abuse of the court system. Either you drop the case (and take your lumps) or pursue it to the bitter end and accept what the justice system hands you. If that's not worth the risk, then make a deal before going in.
Re:pay the cost to be the boss (Score:5, Insightful)
Civil suits are ways to remedy damages between citizens, so litigants should be able to "cut their losses" when Justice is going against them. Their active participation is required for our adversarial process of justice to work, but either side might not be in position to continue the process past a certain point, compared with settling. But, as we apparently agree, the public shouldn't be cheated of everything in that case. Their settlements are the only product available, and that should be used for the public benefit as much as is just, as decided by the judge in the case.
Re:pay the cost to be the boss (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:pay the cost to be the boss (Score:2)
out of EVERY lawsuit the Lawyers make almost all of the money in the lawsuit or settlement.
The only way to fix it is to make it illegal for a Lawyer to become a judge.
I'll call you on that one (Score:2)
Re:I'll call you on that one (Score:2)
Re:I'll call you on that one (Score:2)
> eolas
Just like I said then?
Re:pay the cost to be the boss (Score:2)
Carrying it a step further, I'm leaning towards the idea that, once you've filed a lawsuit, an out-of-court settlement should no longer be possible. Why should it? If two companies can't agree before going to court, why should the courts be used to pressure one side or the other to give in?
The court often directs the opposing parties to reach a settlement. If one party doesn't try or negotiate in good faith, then they are in trouble.
Re:pay the cost to be the boss (Score:2)
Change of ownership can get one of the sides to be more agreeable. IIRC, this is exactly what happened with the USL vs BSD suit. USL was bought by Novell, who decided they wanted to settle. I believe a Novell executive was quoted saying something like "Better to compete in the marketplace than the courts"
Re:pay the cost to be the boss (Score:5, Insightful)
Can I contribute to BSD code, or does someone else own it who can sue me for derivitive works? Can I legally use various open source software, or has it been decided that the company who allowed me that option has conceded that they really didn't own it in a sealed agreement? Do I owe SCO extortion fees because of something AT&T and BSD decided in a sealed settlement (SCO seems to think so, and somehow they seem to have the documents)? Has SCO, as they have claimed, given the courts proof of their ownership of Linux code in sealed documents? Can I be held liable for not knowing the contents of those documents?
As soon as something affects third parties, whether it's a settlement agreement, a court decision, or documents filed with the courts, it should not be allowed to be sealed and hidden from the other parties who are affected.
Re:pay the cost to be the boss (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:pay the cost to be the boss (Score:2)
Re:pay the cost to be the boss (Score:2)
Re:pay the cost to be the boss (Score:2)
Re:That legitimizes corporate black-mail though! (Score:2)
Re:pay the cost to be the boss (Score:2)
Wow! Earthshatering evidence. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wow! Earthshatering evidence. (Score:2, Funny)
Big Difference (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Big Difference (Score:2)
"SCO owns the concept of Unix. Linux is a successful Unix-like operating system. SCO sales are down. Linux has stolen the Unix concepts that we own. Look how similar each OS is implemented. Let's try to sue someone."
Re:Big Difference (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, I believe that Novell transferred the trademark UNIX(tm) to The Open Group [theopengroup.org], and that not even TSG has tried to dispute this.
sPh
Re:Big Difference - is your reading comprehension (Score:4, Informative)
That's not the difference (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux Popularity a Result of BSD/Unix Suit? (Score:5, Interesting)
For those of us accustomed to Unix and looking to run it on our desktops in the early 1990s, we found that there were very few options at the time. The popular choice was BSD, but those of us who read Boardwatch and kept up with the choice few Usenet groups knew only that there was some kind of a BSD lawsuit that made it bad to use. The details were fuzzy, but we thought that BSD would be a dead end.
Instead, we used Linux. It was much less popular, and way underpowered (compared to BSD), but it was unencumbered by lawsuits and would let us run all of those
I'll wager that, if not for the FUD that came of this lawsuit, BSD would be the OS of choice for geeks today. Instead, Linux is far more popular -- I continue to use it a decade later, with the vague guilt that I would be cooler if I were running BSD. I wonder to what degree the SCO FUD is similarly affecting the choice of Linux today?
-Waldo Jaquith
One wonders (Score:5, Interesting)
One wonders if Sun Microsystems might be hoping that the SCO suit will drive people from Linux to Solaris the same way that the USL suit drove people from BSD to Linux.
Re:Linux Popularity a Result of BSD/Unix Suit? (Score:2, Interesting)
Basically, the BSD case was settled because USL was sold to Novell and Ray Noorda was feeling charitable. At that time BSD4.4 was considered to be ridiclously obsolete ("dying") when compared to SVR4 UnixWare.
The real tragedy in all this is that that Novell didn't sell you
FUD in the Literal Sense (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure that's true, but I use the term "FUD" not in the pejorative sense, but instead in the literal one: there was fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the wisdom of using BSD, at least in the mind of this then-15-year-old.
-Waldo Jaquith
You tell me. (Score:3, Insightful)
By what you say, that would be a bad wager.
Perhaps I Was Unclear (Score:5, Interesting)
More people were using BSD because Linux barely existed. The Linux kernel hadn't even gone 1.0. It was under 1MB. It wasn't a matter of the lawsuit -- it was that Linux was unknown.
Moreover, you do not consider the very real philosophical difference between the BSD and GNU people.
What you mean is that I did not (past tense) consider the philosophical differences. And you're right -- I was totally uninterested. We didn't have "open source" -- the phrase didn't exist. We had free software. Both BSD and Linux were free. Both had source to edit. What teenager cared about some contract?
I'll wager that many of your peers made the choice based on the philisophical grounds.
My older friends surely chose based on philosophical grounds -- those old enough to be in any way interested in IP and related freedoms. I was writing for 2600 and decompiling and modifying MS-DOS for fun -- wasn't no contract going to stop me from doing whatever I wanted with an OS, or so I figured.
But you were the man on the spot, you tell me, was it impending abuse and the desire to not aid the abusers as obvious then as it is now?
I'm afraid that I'm not sure that I understand your question. But perhaps it would answer your question to restate my premise: we had no idea what the deal was with the lawsuit. Abuse schmabuse -- we figured that BSD might go away (whatever that would constitute), so why bet on a losing horse?
-Waldo Jaquith
yes, you confuse me. (Score:2)
I'll wager that, if not for the FUD that came of this lawsuit, BSD would be the OS of choice for geeks today. ,
implying the lawsuit made a difference in adaptation. On the other hand you say:
More people were using BSD because Linux barely existed. and we figured that BSD might go away (whatever that would constitute), so why bet on a losing horse?
as if the lawsuit made no difference. Which is it?
Now I'll clarify what I mean by abusers. The people at USL tried to gain exclusive
BSD not popular? (Score:2)
Jordan Hubbards' keynote
If you take Linux as a unique movement, then it is bigger than FreeBSD, but if you take each distribution (per Netcraft's Linux OS detection statistics), then FreeBSD has more users than Red Hat.
Advocacy speech by Murray Stokely
ONLamp.com: Inside EuroBSDCon 2004 [onlamp.com]
Good point (Score:2, Insightful)
There are projects I have on my "if only I had the time" list that make more sense as a BSD release, some that make more sense as a GPL or LGPL release, and some that are probably best left to the public domain.
The bottom line in each case seems to be "what type of people do I want modifying or selling my code?" and "how many people will use or expand the project i
Re:Linux Popularity a Result of BSD/Unix Suit? (Score:2)
You hit the nail on the head here. It was late 1992 and I was unhappy with Windows 3.1 (duh). While looking around for something better, I saw this new Linux thing along with some BSD Unix's. I knew that there was some lawsuit going on with BSD so I downloaded Linux and haven't looked back since.
Re:Linux Popularity a Result of BSD/Unix Suit? (Score:2)
http://www.linuxhq.com/lnxlists/linux-kernel/lk_9
Re:Linux Popularity a Result of BSD/Unix Suit? (Score:2)
Re:Linux Popularity a Result of BSD/Unix Suit? (Score:2)
Re:Linux Popularity a Result of BSD/Unix Suit? (Score:2)
Re:That's the beauty of it (Score:2)
But I suppose I'm not representative of most Mac users, because I'm an embedded developer.
Finially? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Finially, we have legally obtained the settlement agreement [PDF] between USL and The Regents of the University of California....."
A finial is "2 : a crowning ornament or detail (as a decorative knob)"
The reason I bring this up is most of the time I hear the word finial is that thing at the bottom of a bannister on a staircase on on a fence, and what happens when a burglar impales themselves on one (or more).
So if SCO is the burglar and the settlement papers are a finial.. well let the impaling begin!
Re:Finially? (Score:2)
Wow... (Score:2)
Can I have some of that you are smoking? =)
Apple & OS X (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Apple & OS X (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Apple & OS X (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple, of course, is contending that the term Unix has become a generic term and it not longer meets the needs of trademark protection.
Putting the PDF on P2P (Score:3, Insightful)
I tried to post the full text as an AC, but it's not getting in, since it's probably to big at 119k for the edited text.
PJ quit the OSRM (Score:4, Interesting)
SCO has been having a road show in the UK. As it happens, a Groklaw reader attended, and this individual reported to me that one of the speakers, in a talk about intellectual property risks in Linux and how you shouldn't use it in business as a result, mentioned me by name, and twisted my relationship with OSRM to say that it proved that I believe there are substantial IP risks in Linux.
That is nonsense, of course. It actually means the opposite, if anything. I was never involved in the insurance side of OSRM anyway. But I take it seriously that they are using my work relationship for FUD purposes. There was also the Ballmer FUD to factor in. I have thought about it carefully for a couple of days and brainstormed some. There is a scripture that says the heart is desperate, meaning it wants what it wants and tries to find a way to justify what it wants, and I'm only human. No one likes to separate themselves from an income stream if they don't have to. I tried to justify to myself maintaining the status quo. The FUD is unfair, but it doesn't matter. FUD is always unfair. One must simply deal with it. In analyzing my choices, I kept coming back to the same thing. If my working for OSRM is doing harm by creating FUD possibilities, I need to remove that issue. Money is nice, but integrity is everything.
So, I have resigned.
OSRM were extremely gracious about it. Down the road, when there's nothing left of SCO but an old blues song, perhaps we'll be able to work together again. But for now, I decided to try to find other work.
I have spoken with ibiblio about the UNIX/Linux Ownership History Timeline, and they have kindly agreed to host it. I love ibiblio.
SCO SUCKS (Score:4, Interesting)
In the case of $C0, those peaces of garbage stole code from Linux and misappropriated it into their software. A theft did NOT occur in the opposite direction.
And they're not very confident that they're going to win, those idiots. They just capped the lawyers' payments. THEY ARE GONNA LOSE! Nanny nanny boo boo.
Re:SCO vs. Linux War? (Score:2)
I'm not sure which side of the line we're on anymore...
Re:Lets not clobber groklaw please: (Score:3, Informative)
Groklaw.net [groklaw.net] is down and says: