Re: SCO after BSD settlement

[Gary Thorpe <gathorpe79@xxxxxxxxx>]

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:

> :
> :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  Clause #3 (advertising) was rescinded, yes, but isn't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?
> :
> :-Chris
>  
>     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.
>
> 					-Matt
> 					Matthew Dillon 
> 					<dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


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.