* Re: A quick and (relatively) easy response to this SCO BS
2003-08-07 17:49 A quick and (relatively) easy response to this SCO BS JLB
@ 2003-08-07 18:24 ` Richard B. Johnson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Richard B. Johnson @ 2003-08-07 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: JLB; +Cc: Linux kernel, rms, Linus Torvalds, alan
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, JLB wrote:
> O great ones:
>
> Some clever soul on Kuro5hin has posted information on how to obtain a
> recent 2.4 kernel from SCO legally.
>
You can download a kernel from SCO. So what? It doesn't mean
anything. The fact that SCO has been supporting Linux doesn't
mean anything either. If you are going to base a lawsuit on
falsehood, facts don't mean anything!
> I strongly recommend that the kernel maintainers create a new "SCOlegal"
> branch of the kernel, based on this source code. New drivers can simply be
> backported back in, and voila, there's not a thing SCO can do about it.
>
It's a waste of time and effort. There is no such thing as "SCO-legal".
SCO does not make law, not in the United States, not anywhere.
> If this is a waste of everyone's time, I beg your pardon. But given the
> current bizarre state of affairs in US law, there is always a chance that
> the SCO loonies might win. We need to be prepared. There is a chance,
> however slight, that the entire GNU/Linux community could crumble
> irrevocably as a direct result of this fiasco.
>
No. Contrary to world opinion, the United States is still a
Constitutional Republic, ruled by law, not men. But, with
freedom comes the right to sue anybody. SCO chose to sue
IBM. So? What else is new? I'm sure that IBM's lawyers are
not really bothered by SCO's lawyers. It just gives them
some more work to do. It's all in a day's work.
In the United States, one of the first things that happens in
such a suit is called "discovery". This is where the lawyers
from both sides sit down and talk about, not only the
information disclosed or to be disclosed in the case, but
also the consequences of proceeding further.
This is where SCO's lawyers are going to go back to SCO's
officers and tell them that they probably should not
proceed any further. Shortly after that time, you'll probably
hear some news about a "joint agreement to work together in
the future..."
> --Jessica
What you and others are doing is giving SCO too much
free publicity. Before this fiasco started, SCO could
have farted itself to death and nobody would have known.
But, now; "Aha, maybe SCO has some products that I
should be considering...." might be on the lips of every
IT manager in the known universe. Give it up. Let SCO
die. IBM knows how to kill them dead. It has; "been there..
done that..."
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread