[NCLUG] Organizing against SCO?

[J. Paul Reed]

On 23 Jul 2003 at 04:14:20, jbass at dmsd.com moved bits on my disk to say:

> To present your argument, you have to accept ""unsubstantiated claims and
> extortive legal threats for money." as fact, when in fact, independents
> taking SCO up on their offer generally agree that at least some of the
> claims are in fact very substantiated.
> 
> So, at face value, the Australian is harrasment and defformation by the
> open software community presenting it in that country.

Not really.

SCO has not proved anything, and yet they're sending threatening letters
claiming that they *have* proved that their IP was illegally leaked into
Linux, and that corporations using Linux must now "license" SCO technology
(which, amusingly enough they want corporations to buy a UnixWare license
as absolution).

But that's (again) the WHOLE POINT: SCO has not proved anything, in a court
of law or elsewhere. Just because some idiot CIO they sent a threatening
letter to--and who later caved--happens to agree with them doesn't change
the fact that they haven't proved anything (i.e. "unsubstantiated claims")
and that they're trying to bilk companies out of money to support the suit
(i.e. "extortive legal threats"), which is what the Australian complaint
(and Sean's message) are about. It has *nothing* to do with IP (SCO's,
IBM's, or anyone else's).

I'm not gonna do a thirty-message back-and-forth thread about SCO with you,
John; but I think you need to spend some time reading:

http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html

Later,
Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Paul Reed -- 0xDF8708F8 || preed at sigkill.com || web.sigkill.com/preed
To hold on to sanity too tight is insane.   -- Nick Falzone, Pushing Tin

I use PGP; you should use PGP too... if only to piss off John Ashcroft