DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-11
Re: SCO after BSD settlement
So its okay to throw crap at some company because they claim IBM misused
it, but Microsoft can violate licenses and its all okay? Wierd world.
Matthew Dillon wrote:
The situation is different because I don't see SCO claiming they wrote
Linux or suing Linux's owner (Torvalds) or making any move against
Linux. IBM isn't Linux. SCO is in the position (or they claim to be in
the position) that whoever owns BSD now is in with respect to Microsoft:
someone is violating their license. The only difference is that they
have to bother because its their business i.e. money.
:I'm confused. Clause #3 (advertising) was rescinded, yes, but isn't
:Gary referring to clause #2 (original copyright message included with
:docs/materials, for binaries), which is still very much in the license?
This was brought up long ago. I am fairly sure that some people ran
'strings' on MS windows offerings and found Berkeley copyright messages
embedded in the binaries, and I believe someone found copyright
messages in certain pieces of documentation as well.
But even if MS did not follow the requirement to the letter there is
no point suing them... what kind of damages could UC extract from them
for using free software freely? Nothing, really. MS is basically using
the code the way we meant it to be used, and it would be silly to take
them to task for it.
The SCO situation is very different.