-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 25 July 2003 08:02 am, Brett Simpson wrote:
> Thoughts?
cleverly, Gartner, and the author, do not have any kind of "feedback" email
address information. I have to wonder why. If anyone can figure out a way to
forward this back to the "analyst" who-isn't-doing-his-job-well, perhaps he
would revise this furtherance of FUD. Or, maybe another Gartner "analyst" can
write a counter claim. If he's doing his job.
Russell
>
> I wrote the following to counter the forwarded email.
>
> This is incorrect.
>
> 1: SCO has not demonstrated that any infringement exists, nor has it
> established that it owns derivative works in UNIX. Nothing has been proven
> to establish that such a license is needed. This was uptained from Redhat.
> http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_rhletter2.html 2: Bill mentioned about
> "illegal in copyright law". This is true and is why SCO will not succeed in
> any lawsuit about "infringing code" since SCO has distributed the so called
> "infringing code" under the GPL itself. This means the "infringing code" if
> any has been been licensed under the GPL. So any claims by SCO in court to
> IP violations will fail. This is made very clear in the license FAQ and the
> license itself. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense
>
> Also two companies in Germany and Australia have filed lawsuits against
> SCO. Other companies in Japan have made statements that they see no reason
> to pay SCO any license fees. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10635
>
> Brett
- --
Linux -- the OS for the Renaissance Man
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE/ISGuAqKGrvVshJQRAoK+AJ4uF95mKMTgnrNMMGxhYvrnsOa4ZwCeIt06
2HnxsKrj3563RMwQfC7TFWI=
=MgEI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:56:26 EDT