Floyds Void
Message ID: 45231
Posted By: freecode_99
Posted On: 2003-09-24 11:16:00
Subject: Floyds Void
Recs: 0
"As far as I know, all this stuff is perfectly legal. Either the customer uses their existing libraries to populate the /linux tree, or SCO could provide the binaries themselves, as long as they also provide the source.
Look, I want SCO to fall, and fall hard. I even work for IBM. But I don't see anything here that's a smoking gun. In fact, theoretically I could use these ideas to make s390/linux executables run on my proprietary z/os system. "
What would an IBM employee be doing posting here? No IBM employee would do that. If you are an IBM eployee, you should not be posting here, and I imagine that IBM Legal would not look too kindly on that.
I suspect though, that you aren't employed by IBM, because they typically have much better sense than to post here, especially during litigation between the two companies. They have a legal team that has no doubt advised against any employee of theirs doing such a thing, so I suspect that you may not work for IBM.
I must ask you then, are you a poser? If not, you really should not be posting here. I suspect this is yet another Darl FUD announcement in the making.
The SCO Information Minister comes out to say "See, IBM is behind it because they are posting on our stock board!" (Get your tin hats out folks).
Well, I don't work for IBM, I am a p*ssed-off GNU/Linux user who finds this BS untenable, un platable and indefensible. I am a bulldog, a gila monster, a wolverine and a piranha rolled into one. I have no love for the tactics being used by the SCO Group in their scam, nor the people who are running it. They know they are wrong and they will lose.
Watch the FUD spew now. The more desparate they become, the more FUD they spew.
------------------------------------------------------------
The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for
copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "freecode_99"
under the following license:
License: CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0
------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: freecode_99
Posted On: 2003-09-24 11:16:00
Subject: Floyds Void
Recs: 0
"As far as I know, all this stuff is perfectly legal. Either the customer uses their existing libraries to populate the /linux tree, or SCO could provide the binaries themselves, as long as they also provide the source.
Look, I want SCO to fall, and fall hard. I even work for IBM. But I don't see anything here that's a smoking gun. In fact, theoretically I could use these ideas to make s390/linux executables run on my proprietary z/os system. "
What would an IBM employee be doing posting here? No IBM employee would do that. If you are an IBM eployee, you should not be posting here, and I imagine that IBM Legal would not look too kindly on that.
I suspect though, that you aren't employed by IBM, because they typically have much better sense than to post here, especially during litigation between the two companies. They have a legal team that has no doubt advised against any employee of theirs doing such a thing, so I suspect that you may not work for IBM.
I must ask you then, are you a poser? If not, you really should not be posting here. I suspect this is yet another Darl FUD announcement in the making.
The SCO Information Minister comes out to say "See, IBM is behind it because they are posting on our stock board!" (Get your tin hats out folks).
Well, I don't work for IBM, I am a p*ssed-off GNU/Linux user who finds this BS untenable, un platable and indefensible. I am a bulldog, a gila monster, a wolverine and a piranha rolled into one. I have no love for the tactics being used by the SCO Group in their scam, nor the people who are running it. They know they are wrong and they will lose.
Watch the FUD spew now. The more desparate they become, the more FUD they spew.
------------------------------------------------------------
The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for
copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "freecode_99"
under the following license:
License: CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0
------------------------------------------------------------