[TUHS] sco v. ibm

[Kenneth Stailey]

--- Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog at lemis.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 23 May 2003 at 11:00:51 -0400, T.M. Sommers wrote:
> > Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thursday, 22 May 2003 at  7:54:03 -0400, Norman Wilson wrote:
> >>> I haven't come up to speed yet on SCOIBM Wars (pronounce it as you
> >>> like, but perhaps not in polite company), but even so I know enough
> >>> to ask a question: is anyone in possession of a signed, original,
> >>> genuine, non-electronic copy of the Bill Broderick letter of 23 Jan 2002
> >>> that granted a mostly free license (as long as credit given and Caldera's
> >>> name not used in vain) for 32V, V7, and predecessors?
> >>
> >> This is a question I've been asking for some time.  Sadly, nobody has
> >> answered "yes".  See also the message I sent yesterday: SCO have also
> >> maid claims which suggest they don't recognize the statement.
> >
> > If he was their agent, then it doesn't matter what they claim to
> > recognize now; they are bound by his statement.
> 
> Yes, of course.  The issue here is whether we can prove that the
> statement was made.
> 
> Greg

The fact that they are not threatened by TUHS the way they are by Linux will
probably make them ignore TUHS but you never know.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com