[Linux-aus] Re: Statement on SCO
jdub at perkypants.org
Wed May 21 20:37:02 UTC 2003
<quote who="Con Zymaris">
> > > Immediately upon initial reading: I'd strongly recommend canning all
> > > of the MS related stuff. It doesn't help or relate to your point, and
> > > is all conjecture and conspiracy theories at the moment anyway.
> > I'd also point out:
> > What is wrong with Microsoft purchasing a Unix licence from SCO?
> because their actions are a clear-and-present act of belligerence.
How on Earth so? Seriously, where is some relevant and reliable evidence
that suggests Microsoft are indirectly funding SCO or helping them out? I'm
flabbergasted that everyone is squealing like children about this. We don't
have to -> we're better than that.
> Remember, Microsoft have been purloining Unix/BSD code for years. Their
> current Unix Services product includes copious quantities of GPL code. Do
> you hear them sending out press-releases globally to alert the world to
> this fact? Not a chance.
Remember also that Caldera's previous target was none other than...
Microsoft. Ever considered the fact that MS would prefer *not* to ship GPL
code, and would be happier to base their SFU products on "the real thing"?
The fact is, we don't know, it's all conjecture, and we just look like kids
pointing at the bogeyman in the closet everytime we complain that Microsoft
is "being unfair". We're better than that.
> Although I'd agree with Jeff and possibly excise any comments on
> Microsoft, if Leon wants to include something, we need to ensure that
> people understand that Microsoft's actions in no way validate SCO's
Mentioning it validates it. First rule of combative marketing: Never say
"there's nothing to see here". It's not relevant to the point (SCO's inane
initial filing and subsequent FUD), and it's fact-free FUD repetition (at
this stage, because there is *no evidence* to suggest a relationship so far)
-> but it's FUD perpetrated by us!
> The only reason that Microsoft has elected to act in this way, at this
> juncture, as should be obvious to all observers, is to seek maximal damage
> to Linux, and try and fan Microsoft's claim that Linux is somehow
> 'illegal' or a 'cancerous infliction' on righteous and proper firms like
> This is why Microsoft has been claiming '...unlike some, we respect the
> intellectual property rights of others.' Oh really?
> Read this: http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/innovation.shtml
> and this:
... flame, flame, flame... C'mon. We're better than this.
linux.conf.au 2004: Adelaide, Australia http://lca2004.linux.org.au/
"I tried to make money ass signing, but the bottom fell out of the
market." - Liam Quin
More information about the linux-aus