Message ID: 230754
Posted By: atul666
Posted On: 2005-01-31 21:08:00
Subject: New ignorant Wells FUD

Yet *another* article that completely misunderstands the recent Wells ruling. The author(s) had the good sense/cowardice not to put their names on this article, and are listed only as "Computer Weekly reporters"

Here's the offending part:

Roger Bickerstaff, a partner in IT law at Bird & Bird, said if SCO found any disputed code, it could renew its claim for licence fees from Linux suppliers and users.

Bickerstaff said if SCO was successful in claiming parts of its code had been used in Linux, there would be the question of how intrinsic it was to Linux.
<< ypeID=1&liCategoryID=6&liChannelID=9&liFlavourID=1&sSearch=&nPage=1

What do we have to do to get the trade press to do a little basic research? Haven't they ever heard of Google, even? And while we're at it, why does the trade press continue to hate us so much? What did we ever do to them?

There's no feedback area (of course), but if you like you can have a word with the editors directly: code handover could mean OS rewrite

Message ID: 230775
Posted By: br3nsc
Posted On: 2005-01-31 21:41:00
Subject: Re: New ignorant Wells FUD

that is one pitiful excuse for an article.
there are absolutely no facts there.

The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board users "atul666", "br3nsc" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.

Copyright 2005 Yahoo! SCOX. Messages are owned by the individual posters.