From: "Robert Comer" 

With the latest Microsoft announcement, they can no longer be separated on
this issue.

- Bob Comer


"Peter Sawatzki"  wrote in message
news:MPG.1934518c7534b6d998968b{at}news.barkto.com...
> I was talking about SCO/Linux and not Microsoft behaviour. You seem to
> be a little focused on Microsoft for every situation you discuss.
>
> Peter
>
> In article ,
> warthawg{at}austin.rr.com says...
> >
> > SCOs absurd, insane claims to the contrary, Microsoft is much more
> > likely to have stolen SCO code than IBM.  They have a long history of
> > doing exactly that, from STAC to Kerberos.
> >
> > I will give them credit for clever FUD, but Microsoft will continue to
> > lose market share to free/open source software for a few more years yet.
> >
> > MS signed a license.  Big deal.  It is meaningless.  They will continue
to
> > steal code whenever it is convenient.
> >
> > On Tue, 20 May 2003 00:21:33 +0200, Peter Sawatzki wrote:
> >
> > > So what ? IBM had the license, but it didn't have a license to give
the
> > > stuff away for free (at least that's what SCO claims).
> > >
> > > Peter
> > > In article ,
> > > warthawg{at}austin.rr.com says...
> > >>
> > >> IBM has had the license all along.  What's the big deal?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, 19 May 2003 22:41:29 +0200, Peter Sawatzki wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > The interesting thing here is that SCO could use
this as evidence
in a
> > >> > trial AND now has certainly some money at hand for the trial.
> > >> >
> > >> > Peter
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4