From: Peter Sawatzki 

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