DragonFly BSD
DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-11
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SCO after BSD settlement

From: Gary Thorpe <gathorpe79@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 23:23:33 -0500

So its okay to throw crap at some company because they claim IBM misused it, but Microsoft can violate licenses and its all okay? Wierd world.

Matthew Dillon wrote:

:I'm confused. Clause #3 (advertising) was rescinded, yes, but isn't
:Gary referring to clause #2 (original copyright message included with
:docs/materials, for binaries), which is still very much in the license?
This was brought up long ago. I am fairly sure that some people ran
'strings' on MS windows offerings and found Berkeley copyright messages
embedded in the binaries, and I believe someone found copyright
messages in certain pieces of documentation as well.

    But even if MS did not follow the requirement to the letter there is
    no point suing them... what kind of damages could UC extract from them
    for using free software freely?  Nothing, really.  MS is basically using
    the code the way we meant it to be used, and it would be silly to take
    them to task for it.

The SCO situation is very different.

Matthew Dillon <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

The situation is different because I don't see SCO claiming they wrote Linux or suing Linux's owner (Torvalds) or making any move against Linux. IBM isn't Linux. SCO is in the position (or they claim to be in the position) that whoever owns BSD now is in with respect to Microsoft: someone is violating their license. The only difference is that they have to bother because its their business i.e. money.

[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]