what if there is significant truth to what they claim? They seem like they are not going to just let this on go either. Think IBM and others could have added SysV code with the assumption that Caldera wouldn't do anything about it? Another thought: anyone care to guess what is still stopping linux from becoming "UNIX" besides the liscensing costs to use the name, I wonder if there are any other reasons still? On Thu, 15 May 2003, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > At 21:38 5/14/2003 -0400, you wrote: > > >Is there anyone on this list whose employer got a letter from SCO? > > > >The article at news.com says that letters were sent to about 1,500 of the > >world's largest corporations warning them that they could be liable. This > >could make CEOs very nervous. > >http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1001609.html?tag=fd_top > > The only cure for misinformation is credible, objective, factual, accurate, > calmly-delivered truth. Simply make sure that you, your friends, your > associates, and those with whom you come into contact know the truth, and > you shall have done everything that can possibly be expected of you. > > SCO's position, IMHO, is simply ludicrous. There are so many holes in it > that I don't know where to begin. But yes, it could be very disruptive, and > we all need to ensure that it does not become a "holy war" since that will > only get us all branded fanatics and discredited immediately. Let them be > the villain, make sure Linux is seen to be a victim and a scapegoat of a > company essentially blackmailing its associates, former friends, and > competitors. > > I'm not sure whether this is as bad as Microsoft, or whether it's even > worse. These people are not only jackasses, but are nearly bankrupt > jackasses with no real commercial successes to boot. > > >
