Professional Web Applications Themes

A simple opinion of SCO vs. IBM - SCO

Here is an interesting, short viewpoint on the lawsuit. http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/31932.html Mike -- Michael Brown The Kingsway Group...

  1. #1

    Default A simple opinion of SCO vs. IBM

    Here is an interesting, short viewpoint on the lawsuit.

    http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/31932.html

    Mike

    --
    Michael Brown

    The Kingsway Group
    Mike Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: A simple opinion of SCO vs. IBM

    On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 02:06:05 GMT, Mike Brown <ca> wrote: 

    I just finished reading the article and the responses, and I'd suggest
    that you go back and read the responses. As I read Murphy's article, I
    could tell *something* didn't seem right about what he was saying based on
    what else I've been reading on the subject for some time, and when I read
    the responses, I was even more convinced of it.

    Mr. Murphy may have 20 years in the IT consulting business with extensive
    Unix experience per the footer, but IMHO his thoughts on the lawsuit, SCO,
    and IBM don't even qualify as HALF-baked.

    I won't reiterate what was said in the responses (with a few exceptions,
    it was said very well by the posters). I'll just say I agree with the
    posters' general conclusions that Mr. Murphy's article was quite poorly
    researched and even more poorly thought out.

    I think I'll stay with eWeek for my news on this subject. I've found them
    to have a good track record of knowing what they're talking about, and
    Steven Vaughan-Nichols is THE MAN as far as I'm concerned about the news
    on all this.

    That's my 2c, FWIW.

    ================================================== =====================
    I'm Mike--James' Dad, hence "JamesDad". I use this nym in memory of my
    son James Webb (1992-2000) who died fighting leukemia. He was a greater
    man at 8 than some ever become. May his life, battle and story never be
    forgotten! More info at <http://www.themiraclekids.com/mem-james.htm>.
    JamesDad Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: A simple opinion of SCO vs. IBM

    On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:38:47 GMT, JamesDad
    <com> wrote:
     
    >
    >I just finished reading the article and the responses, and I'd suggest
    >that you go back and read the responses. As I read Murphy's article, I
    >could tell *something* didn't seem right about what he was saying based on
    >what else I've been reading on the subject for some time, and when I read
    >the responses, I was even more convinced of it.
    >
    >Mr. Murphy may have 20 years in the IT consulting business with extensive
    >Unix experience per the footer, but IMHO his thoughts on the lawsuit, SCO,
    >and IBM don't even qualify as HALF-baked.[/ref]

    Even his comment about IBM denying that AT&T developed Unix is wrong.
    The current definition of Unix is whatever the Open Group say it is. If
    the Open Group say that both Win NT and IBM's System/390 are "Unix" then
    clearly AT&T did not develop Unix: they developed one flavor of Unix.

    Joe Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: A simple opinion of SCO vs. IBM


    "Joe Dunning" <invalid> wrote in message
    news:6sjsb.125793$.. 
    > >
    > >I just finished reading the article and the responses, and I'd suggest
    > >that you go back and read the responses. As I read Murphy's article, I
    > >could tell *something* didn't seem right about what he was saying based[/ref][/ref]
    on [/ref]
    SCO, 
    >
    > Even his comment about IBM denying that AT&T developed Unix is wrong.
    > The current definition of Unix is whatever the Open Group say it is. If
    > the Open Group say that both Win NT and IBM's System/390 are "Unix" then
    > clearly AT&T did not develop Unix: they developed one flavor of Unix.
    >[/ref]
    Interesting, I have always believed that AT&T developed Unix as well as C.
    They may hsve given the name to Open Group but that doesn't mean they didn't
    develop it and design telephone switching computers running Unix. Remember
    their 3B series of Unix Boxes?


    Don Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: A simple opinion of SCO vs. IBM

    Joe Dunning wrote:
     
    >>
    >>I just finished reading the article and the responses, and I'd suggest
    >>that you go back and read the responses. As I read Murphy's article, I
    >>could tell *something* didn't seem right about what he was saying based on
    >>what else I've been reading on the subject for some time, and when I read
    >>the responses, I was even more convinced of it.
    >>
    >>Mr. Murphy may have 20 years in the IT consulting business with extensive
    >>Unix experience per the footer, but IMHO his thoughts on the lawsuit, SCO,
    >>and IBM don't even qualify as HALF-baked.[/ref]
    >
    > Even his comment about IBM denying that AT&T developed Unix is wrong.
    > The current definition of Unix is whatever the Open Group say it is. If
    > the Open Group say that both Win NT and IBM's System/390 are "Unix" then
    > clearly AT&T did not develop Unix: they developed one flavor of Unix.[/ref]

    He seems to forget that SCO brought the suit so telling IBM to settle is
    going to the wrong person. They've been falsely accused. Why should they
    plead guilty?

    Even more bizarre:

    "...the lawsuit isn't about code used in Linux. It's about how that code got
    there."

    How can those two statements be reconciled?

    --
    John Collins Xi Software Ltd www.xisl.com
    John Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: A simple opinion of SCO vs. IBM

    On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 02:06:05 GMT, Mike Brown <ca> wrote:
     

    Manure. The reader comments at the bottom covered most of the
    inaccuracies. What I found most creative was reversing the order and
    sequence of when SCO initiated the suit and when it attempted to
    invalidate IBM's Unix source license. The author claimed that SCO
    noticed that Unix source code was appearing in Linux and attempted to
    invalidate IBM's Unix source license on that basis. When this failed
    in negotiations, SCO sued. I don't quite recall it happening in that
    order. SCO sued first and about a month later, announced that it was
    invalidating IBM's Unix license. The case was filed in late March
    while the attempted termination of the license was on June 16. Same
    with Novell's, Sun, and Microsoft renewing their licenses. That
    happened well after the initial filing. See the section titles "The
    Story So Far" which mangles the cronology.

    --
    Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
    (831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
    santa-cruz.ca.us com
    Jeff Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: A simple opinion of SCO vs. IBM

    On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:54:48 GMT, Don Williams <rr.com> wrote: [/ref]
    >on [/ref]
    >SCO, 
    >>
    >> Even his comment about IBM denying that AT&T developed Unix is wrong.
    >> The current definition of Unix is whatever the Open Group say it is. If
    >> the Open Group say that both Win NT and IBM's System/390 are "Unix" then
    >> clearly AT&T did not develop Unix: they developed one flavor of Unix.
    >>[/ref]
    >Interesting, I have always believed that AT&T developed Unix as well as C.
    >They may hsve given the name to Open Group but that doesn't mean they didn't
    >develop it and design telephone switching computers running Unix. Remember
    >their 3B series of Unix Boxes?[/ref]


    It depends what you mean by "Unix". Originally, yes, AT&T did develop
    what was then called "Unix", but the definition of "Unix" has changed
    and under the present definition, "Unix" includes other operating
    systems that were not developed by AT&T.

    "Unix" is no longer a single operating system: it is the set of
    operating systems that meet the Open Group's specification.

     
    Joe Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: A simple opinion of SCO vs. IBM

    A chronologic list of events can be found at
    http://www.linux.org/news/sco/timeline.html


    Terje Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: A simple opinion of SCO vs. IBM

    On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:16:54 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
    <santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
     
    >
    >Manure. The reader comments at the bottom covered most of the
    >inaccuracies.[/ref]

    <elaboration of the inaccuracies snipped>

    Having had a friend who was a freelance writer and has written for some
    technology sites, IMHO Mr. Murphy was given an assignment with an
    unrealistic deadline on a subject that he was not fully familiar with. I
    don't suspect collaboration (even unintentional) with SCO FUD so much as
    he didn't have a good previous understanding of the subject so that his
    result was half-baked.

    I think the same thing about Tom Yager's sidebar in InfoWorld a few weeks
    ago in the issue "What If SCO Wins?" Inadequate knowledge coupled with
    time pressure and inaccurate facts. Yager's sidebar wasn't as bad as
    Murphy's article, but it was still kinda raw around the edges, IMHO.


    ================================================== =====================
    I'm Mike--James' Dad, hence "JamesDad". I use this nym in memory of my
    son James Webb (1992-2000) who died fighting leukemia. He was a greater
    man at 8 than some ever become. May his life, battle and story never be
    forgotten! More info at <http://www.themiraclekids.com/mem-james.htm>.
    JamesDad Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: A simple opinion of SCO vs. IBM


    "John Collins" <xisl.com> wrote in message
    news:news.uk.psi.net... [/ref]

    Well, until Novell gave away the trademark, there was only one UNIX and it
    came from the AT&T source code. To say that AT&T didn't develop UNIX is to
    insult the developers at AT&T who spent 25 years developing UNIX.
     
    got 

    It is about how the code got there. AT&T/USL/Univel/Novell/SCO/Caldera all
    licensed the UNIX source code to IBM under certain contractual arrangements.
    One of those arrangements was that IBM would keep the source code a secret.
    SCO is claiming that IBM has broken that contractual agreement and made the
    source code public. It actually doesn't matter what the code is or where it
    is. IF, in some way, IBM (or a representative of IBM, like a software
    developer) released to the public SCO's IP, then IBM's violated the contract
    that exists between the two parties. That's what the lawsuit is about.

    The threat to require software licenses from SCO for users of the Linux
    kernel is about the code. But that's not the lawsuit.

    Now, before all the zealots start screaming that I've got it wrong, read
    what I've said and what the lawsuit says. I don't necessarily think that
    the current incarnation of SCO (and they're not the SCO I worked for) have
    done the right things. I also think, based on what I know, that IBM
    probably released code to Linux that they believe was not covered under
    their UNIX contractual license (and that SCO now believes is covered). It
    may have been intentional, it may have been accidental, but if it happened,
    then IBM has to face the consequences.

    flames >/dev/null

    --
    Jim Sullivan
    Don't plant your bad days, they turn into bad weeks,
    then bad months and before you know it, you've had a bad year. 


    Jim Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: A simple opinion of SCO vs. IBM

    On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:19:39 -0800, "Jim Sullivan"
    <net> wrote:
     

    And to help the zealots keep perspective so they don't go after your head:

    1) IMHO, that's a darn big IF, based on the history of this thing. Would
    you agree?

    2) "it" (as in "IF it happened"), as I understand, would refer to the
    release of code that SCO really DOES have legal rights to control. Which
    is why IBM's now proceeding with motions to compel discovery and issuing
    subpoenas to people outside SCO; to find out specifically what "it" SCO is
    alleging to have happened--by program, by file, by function/procedure, by
    lines of code. No more of this vague monkey business. If nobody can or
    will cough up any specifics, IBM is claiming the right (and rightly so) to
    move for dismissal of the lawsuit.

    3) Likewise, if "it" only exists in the imagination of Darl McBride (who
    is not a programmer) and half-baked legal fictions of Mr. Boies (who is
    not an Intellectual Property attorney), SCO will have to face their own
    consequences. IMHO, this scenario is the more likely one.

    ================================================== =====================
    I'm Mike--James' Dad, hence "JamesDad". I use this nym in memory of my
    son James Webb (1992-2000) who died fighting leukemia. He was a greater
    man at 8 than some ever become. May his life, battle and story never be
    forgotten! More info at <http://www.themiraclekids.com/mem-james.htm>.
    JamesDad Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: A simple opinion of SCO vs. IBM

    On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:19:39 -0800, Jim Sullivan
    <net> wrote:
     [/ref]
    >
    >Well, until Novell gave away the trademark, there was only one UNIX and it
    >came from the AT&T source code. To say that AT&T didn't develop UNIX is to
    >insult the developers at AT&T who spent 25 years developing UNIX.[/ref]

    My original point was not to say that AT&T did not develop the original
    flavor of Unix, but to say the UNDER THE CURRENT DEFINTION OF UNIX,
    there are many versions, thus AT&T cannot be THE [single] developer of
    Unix, as there are now many versions, some of which were independently
    developed.

    Hence IBM were correct in their denial of the statement and the reporter
    was wrong to show it as an example of some wrongdoing by IBM.
     
    >got 
    >
    >It is about how the code got there. AT&T/USL/Univel/Novell/SCO/Caldera all
    >licensed the UNIX source code to IBM under certain contractual arrangements.
    >One of those arrangements was that IBM would keep the source code a secret.
    >SCO is claiming that IBM has broken that contractual agreement and made the
    >source code public. It actually doesn't matter what the code is or where it
    >is. IF, in some way, IBM (or a representative of IBM, like a software
    >developer) released to the public SCO's IP, then IBM's violated the contract
    >that exists between the two parties. That's what the lawsuit is about.[/ref]

    Actually, based on what what I have read, SCO is not alleging this. SCO
    is alleging that IBM improperly donated code that IBM WROTE and IBM OWNS
    and SCO HAS NOT SEEN. SCO's responses seem to imply that SCO has zero
    claims that any code writeen by SCO or its predecessors in the SVRx code
    were put into Linux.

    Basically SCO is saying that IBM has violated its contract by donating
    code that is owned by IBM.
     

    That's what gets many people angry. With zero proof that SCOs code is
    improperly incorporated in Linux, SCO still claims that people need a
    license from SCO to use Linux.

    Note that even if SCO's claims against IBM were true, this would still
    not give SCO a right to license payments for use of Linux.
     

    Well, the whole issue is predicated on interpretation of the contracts
    and side letters.

    Joe Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: A simple opinion of SCO vs. IBM

    On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:43:08 GMT, JamesDad
    <com> wrote:
     

    If the author had included a disclaimer indicating that his article
    was poorly researched, I would not have a problem. However, the
    author built a rather elaborate house of cards atop a rather creative
    foundation of misinterpretations. There's no excuse for inscribing
    manure. If the author recognizes his mistakes (for whatever the
    source), let him make a suitable correction or retraction.
     

    Well, *I'm* confused with the FUD from both sides. Very few people
    have the time to read all the stuff on Groklaw or the assorted
    newsgroups, blogs, and mailing lists. Much of the "facts" from both
    sides are questionable. I can see why the author had problems.
    However, I read articles like his in order to get objective summaries
    and possibly logical conclusions because I don't have time to debunk
    every single "factual" posting. We may be able to invoke the FUD
    excuse, but not the author. He knows his responsibilities.
     

    Yeah, I know. It's hard to be objective.


    --
    Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
    (831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
    santa-cruz.ca.us com
    Jeff Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: A simple opinion of SCO vs. IBM

    Jeff Liebermann wrote: 
    >
    > If the author had included a disclaimer indicating that his article
    > was poorly researched, I would not have a problem. However, the
    > author built a rather elaborate house of cards atop a rather creative
    > foundation of misinterpretations. There's no excuse for inscribing
    > manure. If the author recognizes his mistakes (for whatever the
    > source), let him make a suitable correction or retraction.

    >
    > Well, *I'm* confused with the FUD from both sides. Very few people
    > have the time to read all the stuff on Groklaw or the assorted
    > newsgroups, blogs, and mailing lists. Much of the "facts" from both
    > sides are questionable. I can see why the author had problems.
    > However, I read articles like his in order to get objective summaries
    > and possibly logical conclusions because I don't have time to debunk
    > every single "factual" posting. We may be able to invoke the FUD
    > excuse, but not the author. He knows his responsibilities.

    >
    > Yeah, I know. It's hard to be objective.
    >
    > --
    > Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
    > (831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
    > http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
    > santa-cruz.ca.us com[/ref]

    The post was interesting I think more for its style than the correctness
    of its content. I am seeing so much misinformation in print over this
    case that I think that angle should get its own coverage.

    It really seems that many people quickly form some opinion on the case,
    then search around for some corroborating "facts" on the web. Next they
    post an article and the trend now continues with more "facts".

    I did attend Forum, have spoken with Darl and Chris, had a nice discussion
    with the lawyer representing the case, and have read all of the posted
    material from SCO and IBM. Most of the media coverage and postings
    I read don't leave me with a sense that the person has done the same.

    My opinion is that down the road this case will likely strongly benefit
    the Linux community, and in the sort term I don't think it will hurt
    them. Most people are just ignoring SCO at this point, and Linux sales
    continue. For those companies that just must have no liability issues
    they can go out and take SCO's license offer, its still cheaper than
    Microsoft or having to change a hardware platform. Disruption and
    uncertainty is the killer problems for big business, not a one time
    licensing cost. If they care at all.

    They court case has many possible outcomes,

    1) SCO proves that IBM broke a contract by releasing code to the open
    source community. IBM pays SCO, and both companies go on. SCO then
    decides to leave the code in Linux, they got their damages from IBM.
    Or, SCO identifies the code and the Linux community rewrites it, or
    some kind of license fee is set up for its use in enterprise level
    releases.

    2) SCO does not prove its case against IBM, all the existing code in
    Linux is deemed clear of IP issues, and IBM donates whatever it wants.

    3) IBM comes to a out of court settlement, the donated code stays in
    Linux, and SCO walks away with some money for damages.

    ..... and likely many more.

    Mike


    --
    Michael Brown

    The Kingsway Group
    Mike Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: A simple opinion of SCO vs. IBM

    On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:32:52 GMT, Mike Brown <ca> wrote: 
    >
    >My opinion is that down the road this case will likely strongly benefit
    >the Linux community, and in the sort term I don't think it will hurt
    >them. Most people are just ignoring SCO at this point, and Linux sales
    >continue.[/ref]

    While Linux sales are continuing, I doubt that it has had zero effect on
    uptake of Linux. Measuring this is very difficult or impossible.

     

    Can they?
    1. Many installations want to build their own kernel. In my
    organization, almost no machines have a standard kernel, because we add
    patches for:
    a) 3.5GB memory per process (default is 3GB)
    b) Dead gateway detection/static routes (used with multiple Internet
    connections)
    c) IPSEC VPNs.

    There are many other reasons to patch the kernel.

    2. What else does the License require of a buyer? The NDA was
    unacceptable to most people. I'm guessing that the Linux License would
    also have clauses that would be unacceptable to most.
     

    Based on SCO's filing so far, even if SCO won its case, there would be
    no need to re-write, since Linux did nothing improper in including the
    code. That's the problem with trade secrets: once they are no longer
    secret, anyone can use them.

    If SCO had alleged copyright violations, it would be different.

    Joe Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: sco-list: Re: A simple opinion of SCO vs. IBM

    On Thu, Nov 13, 2003, Mike Brown wrote:
    ..... 

    You left out the ones where SCO is found to have filed a frivolous suit
    since their lawyers should have know that SCO themselves (a) sold and
    distributed Linux, presumably knowing what is in the kernel, and (b) under
    the Ashwander Doctrine they can't try to make money by participating in
    something then sue when they fail.

    One of the largest law firms in Seattle just got handed a $400,000 fine by
    a judge for filing frivolous charges in a business dispute. There was an
    article on this within the last week which is probably available on the
    seattletimes.com web pile.

    Bill
    --
    INTERNET: COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
    UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
    FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
    URL: http://www.celestial.com/

    ``When dealing with any spammer, one must always keep in mind that you
    are dealing with someone who makes their living through forgery, fraud,
    theft, subterfuge and obfuscation. Stated simply, spammers lie.''
    David Ritz <com>

    Bill Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: A simple opinion of SCO vs. IBM

    Joe Dunning wrote: 

    - snip -

     
    >
    > Based on SCO's filing so far, even if SCO won its case, there would be
    > no need to re-write, since Linux did nothing improper in including the
    > code. That's the problem with trade secrets: once they are no longer
    > secret, anyone can use them.
    >
    > If SCO had alleged copyright violations, it would be different.[/ref]

    Exactly.

    The real question is does this lawsuit help or hurt Linux?

    Mike

    --
    Michael Brown

    The Kingsway Group
    Mike Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: A simple opinion of SCO vs. IBM

    On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:08:51 GMT, invalid (Joe Dunning)
    wrote: 
    >>Well, until Novell gave away the trademark, there was only one UNIX and it
    >>came from the AT&T source code. To say that AT&T didn't develop UNIX is to
    >>insult the developers at AT&T who spent 25 years developing UNIX.[/ref]
    >
    >My original point was not to say that AT&T did not develop the original
    >flavor of Unix, but to say the UNDER THE CURRENT DEFINTION OF UNIX,
    >there are many versions, thus AT&T cannot be THE [single] developer of
    >Unix, as there are now many versions, some of which were independently
    >developed.[/ref]

    IMHO, IBM denied the statement to clip SCO's monolithic claims about Unix
    at the root. Seems SCO sees the lineage leading to Unix System V as the
    be-all and end-all of Unix, which as you pointed out, is not the case.
     

    Which is part of their bizarre theory that anything developed for and/or
    distributed with Unix is a "derivative work" that they have control over,
    even if no proprietary Unix code was involved.
     
    >
    >That's what gets many people angry. With zero proof that SCOs code is
    >improperly incorporated in Linux, SCO still claims that people need a
    >license from SCO to use Linux.
    >
    >Note that even if SCO's claims against IBM were true, this would still
    >not give SCO a right to license payments for use of Linux.[/ref]

    But it IS a separate issue from the lawsuit, which is the point. SCO's
    throwing out so much garbage that it's easy to mix apples with oranges. My
    opinion is that separate (even related) issues need to be kept separate,
    while keeping the picture clear that there's an overarching problem with
    the activities of SCO--that the whole is more than the sum of the parts.

    ================================================== =====================
    I'm Mike--James' Dad, hence "JamesDad". I use this nym in memory of my
    son James Webb (1992-2000) who died fighting leukemia. He was a greater
    man at 8 than some ever become. May his life, battle and story never be
    forgotten! More info at <http://www.themiraclekids.com/mem-james.htm>.
    JamesDad Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: A simple opinion of SCO vs. IBM

    On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:32:52 GMT, Mike Brown <ca> wrote: 

    I tend to agree. SCO's house of cards is beginning to collapse, and I
    think that the bottom line in the end will be the establishment that Linux
    is a truly independent work, overseen by responsible people.

    The only thing I wish (I don't think this has been done) is that IBM or
    somebody else suing SCO would specifically seek to have SCO's rights to
    the UNIX System V code transferred to them. And after that, following
    appropriate due diligence, they would open source every line of code that
    they legally can. I recall reading that Caldera wanted to do that and was
    thwarted by Intel and others who didn't want their code open sourced. But
    as I see it, Caldera was out to open source ALL of UNIX System V. If
    someone were to obtain the rights to UNIX System V and open source all
    they legally could, leaving comments in the released code such as

    "Procedure 'A' which performs 'B' functionality is under copyright by
    Intel (or whoever). To obtain a license to obtain and use this portion of
    code, contact Intel at (giving contact information). Alternatively, you
    may wish to adapt an open source counterpart of this code, called 'C',
    included in file 'D' of OpenBSD (or whatever) version 'E'. Specifications
    for a 'clean-room' development and implementation of this functionality
    can be found in book 'F', pages 'G-H'."

    where the unreleased code would otherwise be located, And that would be
    that.

    BTW, I or a coder, so don't bother tearing apart the wording of my
    proposed substitution. It's just an example of the concept. If such a
    thing were to happen, I'm sure a decent IP lawyer would write it much
    better.

    ================================================== =====================
    I'm Mike--James' Dad, hence "JamesDad". I use this nym in memory of my
    son James Webb (1992-2000) who died fighting leukemia. He was a greater
    man at 8 than some ever become. May his life, battle and story never be
    forgotten! More info at <http://www.themiraclekids.com/mem-james.htm>.
    JamesDad Guest

  20. #20

    Default RE: A simple opinion of SCO vs. IBM

    JamesDad wrote: 

    I've read af few license agreements from "decent IP lawyers" that were
    just about as clear and useful as the above. Let's go with it! :)

    Bill
    Bill Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Opinion
    By bspann in forum ASP.NET Data Grid Control
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 5th, 11:52 AM
  2. Need your opinion
    By chamoru in forum Macromedia Flash Sitedesign
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 18th, 05:25 AM
  3. Opinion which to get?
    By Rick Blythin in forum Mac Portable
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 24th, 04:40 PM
  4. your opinion
    By oliverkelso webforumsuser@macromedia.com in forum Macromedia Dreamweaver
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 19th, 07:15 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139