SCO In the News: Facts Update - As Rumors Swirl

With misinformation and disinformation now having become so prevalent,
LinuxWorld here reminds readers of some of the items of the past few days, which
should help sort fact from fiction.

Read Story: http://www.linuxworld.com/story/43981_f.htm

Regards,
-TARUN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tarun Kant, M.Sc., Ph.D. -o)
Scientist C /\\
Biotechnology Laboratory _\_V
Forest Genetics & Tree Breeding Division
Arid Forest Research Institute
New Pali Road
Jodhpur 342005 India
Phone: +91-291-2722269 ext. 162
Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/bobkant/
I'm Registered Linux User # 284692
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SCO In the News: Facts Update - As Rumors Swirl
March 9, 2004
Summary
With misinformation and disinformation now having become so prevalent,
LinuxWorld here reminds readers of some of the items of the past few days, which
should help sort fact from fiction.
read story Read Story read story Email Story read story Print Story read story
Read/Add Feedback read story About LinuxWorld News Desk
Article comments

* cosmo7 commented on 9 March 2004:
o Forbes.com has an article on this right now that is full of
statements which don't really make sense.

I particularly liked this part: "Generally, if an IP holder is able
to demonstrate that others in the industry have taken a license, thereby
respecting the IP holder's claims, that can be used as evidence that is
persuasive to a jury,"


* kuwan commented on 9 March 2004:
o Basically Canopy threw in the licenses as part of a settlement with
Canopy's Center7 company. I wonder if SCO broke any confidentiality agreements
regarding the settlement by announcing that CA was a Linux IP Licensee. ;)


* tabgeldawad commented on 9 March 2004:
o It doesn't matter what they did or did not pay! They still
"acquired" the licenses, providing validation for SCO's claims.

If the SCO license cost 1 penny, would you buy one? No? Not because
you don't want to spend a penny, but because getting a license is pretty much an
admission that SCO may be right.

The damage is done, and CA should be taken to task for their
cowardly behavior.


* Jeffrey Baker commented on 9 March 2004:
o The relationship between SCOX and Canopy certainly seems, to us,
like an abuse of the corporate form. I'd guess the SEC will eventually become
involved.


* richm commented on 9 March 2004:
o > Articles say that the liscenses were thrown in
>as part of a seperate breach of contract settlement.
>They were not "purchased".

That's a crucial piece of information. One that SCO will
deliberately mishold or put endless spin on.

I think that CA wasn't thinking when they allowed that "licensing"
to be thrown in as part of the terms of any settlement. Now SCO will run around
using this as ammunition for their continued litigation.
CA should have known better than to allow this.

It's not like CA or anyone else doesn't know who or what they were
dealing with...



Your name:
(required)
Your e-mail address:
(required if you wish to be alerted to new comments)
Your blog or homepage URL:
Please enter your comments below:


Feel free to leave a comment for this article. If you enter your email address,
you will receive a short email alerting you when someone else leaves a comment
on this article. No-one will see your email address. You can stop receiving the
email alerts by simply clicking the URL inside the notification email. Thank you
for your contribution.


_____________________________________________________________
Linux.Net -->Open Source to everyone
Powered by Linare Corporation
http://www.linare.com/