Linux is not unix - BSD

This is a discussion on Linux is not unix - BSD ; On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:31:14 +0100 Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Liam Slider wrote: > > > > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:12:43 +0000, anon wrote: > > > > > if it were it there would be ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 41

Thread: Linux is not unix

  1. Re: Linux is not unix

    On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:31:14 +0100
    Alexander Terekhov wrote:

    >
    > Liam Slider wrote:
    > >
    > > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:12:43 +0000, anon wrote:
    > >
    > > > if it were it there would be
    > > > comp.unix.linux
    > > > so why keep pretending

    > >
    > > Who's pretending Linux is Unix?

    >
    > Well, prolific and learned Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook:
    >
    > http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...6-2454_008.pdf
    >
    > -------
    > One prominent example of free, open-source software
    > is the Linux operating system, a derivative of the Unix
    > operating system written by AT&T in the 1960s and now


    Splurt - now that is about as wrong as can be managed. Linux is a
    rewrite from scratch and is not derived from anything written by AT&T.

    --
    C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
    The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
    You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
    | http://www.sohara.org/

  2. Re: Linux is not unix

    Steve O'Hara-Smith writes:

    > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:31:14 +0100
    > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Liam Slider wrote:
    >> >
    >> > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:12:43 +0000, anon wrote:
    >> >
    >> > > if it were it there would be
    >> > > comp.unix.linux
    >> > > so why keep pretending
    >> >
    >> > Who's pretending Linux is Unix?

    >>
    >> Well, prolific and learned Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook:
    >>
    >> http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...6-2454_008.pdf
    >>
    >> -------
    >> One prominent example of free, open-source software
    >> is the Linux operating system, a derivative of the Unix
    >> operating system written by AT&T in the 1960s and now

    >
    > Splurt - now that is about as wrong as can be managed. Linux is a
    > rewrite from scratch and is not derived from anything written by AT&T.


    What are the odds of all the systm APIs being the same eh? LOL.

  3. Re: Linux is not unix

    Hadron Quark wrote:

    > Steve O'Hara-Smith writes:
    >
    >> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:31:14 +0100
    >> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Liam Slider wrote:
    >>> >
    >>> > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:12:43 +0000, anon wrote:
    >>> >
    >>> > > if it were it there would be
    >>> > > comp.unix.linux
    >>> > > so why keep pretending
    >>> >
    >>> > Who's pretending Linux is Unix?
    >>>
    >>> Well, prolific and learned Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook:
    >>>
    >>>

    http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...6-2454_008.pdf
    >>>
    >>> -------
    >>> One prominent example of free, open-source software
    >>> is the Linux operating system, a derivative of the Unix
    >>> operating system written by AT&T in the 1960s and now

    >>
    >> Splurt - now that is about as wrong as can be managed. Linux is a
    >> rewrite from scratch and is not derived from anything written by AT&T.

    >
    > What are the odds of all the systm APIs being the same eh? LOL.


    "kernel hacker" Hadron Quark has never heard of "reverse engineering"

    Additionally, not *all* the system APIs are "the same"
    --
    I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.


  4. Re: Linux is not unix

    On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:41:11 +0100, Hadron Quark wrote:

    > Steve O'Hara-Smith writes:
    >
    >> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:31:14 +0100
    >> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Liam Slider wrote:
    >>> >
    >>> > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:12:43 +0000, anon wrote:
    >>> >
    >>> > > if it were it there would be
    >>> > > comp.unix.linux
    >>> > > so why keep pretending
    >>> >
    >>> > Who's pretending Linux is Unix?
    >>>
    >>> Well, prolific and learned Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...6-2454_008.pdf
    >>>
    >>> -------
    >>> One prominent example of free, open-source software is the Linux
    >>> operating system, a derivative of the Unix operating system written by
    >>> AT&T in the 1960s and now

    >>
    >> Splurt - now that is about as wrong as can be managed. Linux is a
    >> rewrite from scratch and is not derived from anything written by AT&T.

    >
    > What are the odds of all the systm APIs being the same eh? LOL.


    It's called POSIX, it's a standard... but then you probably don't know
    what a standard is.

  5. Re: Linux is not unix

    Ivan Marsh writes:

    > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:41:11 +0100, Hadron Quark wrote:
    >
    >> Steve O'Hara-Smith writes:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:31:14 +0100
    >>> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Liam Slider wrote:
    >>>> >
    >>>> > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:12:43 +0000, anon wrote:
    >>>> >
    >>>> > > if it were it there would be
    >>>> > > comp.unix.linux
    >>>> > > so why keep pretending
    >>>> >
    >>>> > Who's pretending Linux is Unix?
    >>>>
    >>>> Well, prolific and learned Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...6-2454_008.pdf
    >>>>
    >>>> -------
    >>>> One prominent example of free, open-source software is the Linux
    >>>> operating system, a derivative of the Unix operating system written by
    >>>> AT&T in the 1960s and now
    >>>
    >>> Splurt - now that is about as wrong as can be managed. Linux is a
    >>> rewrite from scratch and is not derived from anything written by AT&T.

    >>
    >> What are the odds of all the systm APIs being the same eh? LOL.

    >
    > It's called POSIX, it's a standard... but then you probably don't know
    > what a standard is.


    My attempt at humour clearly failed. I'll do two LOLs next time

  6. Re: Linux is not unix

    In article <20061130180813.fba39478.steveo@eircom.net>,
    Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:

    >> One prominent example of free, open-source software
    >> is the Linux operating system, a derivative of the Unix
    >> operating system written by AT&T in the 1960s and now


    > Splurt - now that is about as wrong as can be managed. Linux is a
    >rewrite from scratch and is not derived from anything written by AT&T.


    That depends how narrowly you interpret "derivative". It's clearly
    not a derivative work *in the sense of copyright*, but in the wider
    sense of the word it's obviously derived from AT&T's unix: it's a
    re-implementation of it. No-one would have written Linux unless they
    were trying to reproduce unix.

    Would anyone deny that C++ is derived from C? Or that "West Side
    Story" is derived from "Romeo and Juliet"? Linux is likewise derived
    from unix, and (at least one might argue) more specifically from
    System V.

    -- Richard
    --
    "Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
    in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

  7. Re: Linux is not unix


    Richard Tobin wrote:
    [...]
    > *in the sense of copyright*, but in the wider


    Prolific and learned Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook: "Copyright and
    patent laws give authors *a right* to charge more, so that they can
    recover their fixed costs (and thus promote innovation), but they do
    *not require* authors to charge more." You hear that, Williams? (Did
    Easterbrook meant Wallace or Gates?) You are not required to charge
    more once a piece of your intellectual property exists.

    And so it is perfectly okay for copyleft ("free as in freedom") to
    suppress *a right* given by copyright law and *require* to charge
    zero to cover costs of creating a piece of intellectual property to
    exist.

    Impeccable logic.

    regards,
    alexander.

  8. Re: Linux is not unix

    Steve O'Hara-Smith writes:

    >On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:31:14 +0100
    >Alexander Terekhov wrote:


    >>
    >> Liam Slider wrote:
    >> >
    >> > On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:12:43 +0000, anon wrote:
    >> >
    >> > > if it were it there would be
    >> > > comp.unix.linux
    >> > > so why keep pretending
    >> >
    >> > Who's pretending Linux is Unix?

    >>
    >> Well, prolific and learned Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook:
    >>
    >> http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...6-2454_008.pdf
    >>
    >> -------
    >> One prominent example of free, open-source software
    >> is the Linux operating system, a derivative of the Unix
    >> operating system written by AT&T in the 1960s and now


    While what you say is true of the kernel, Linux is more than the kernel. It
    is also many of the apps and tools, which are strongly Unix inspired/based.
    awk, grep, cp, ls, ps,...... are come from Unix. And they are a part of
    Linux just as much as the kernel is. You know the mantra that it should
    really be called GNU Linux, and despite the fact that GnuAintUnix, the
    tools developed by the gnu people were very strongly unix based ( and in
    some cases directly taken from say BSD which was Unix as well)


    > Splurt - now that is about as wrong as can be managed. Linux is a
    >rewrite from scratch and is not derived from anything written by AT&T.


    >--
    >C:>WIN | Directable Mirror Arrays
    >The computer obeys and wins. | A better way to focus the sun
    >You lose and Bill collects. | licences available see
    > | http://www.sohara.org/


  9. Re: Linux is not unix

    In article ,
    Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
    >Please do not feed the troll.
    >
    >--
    >* Harald Hanche-Olsen
    >- It is undesirable to believe a proposition
    > when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.
    > -- Bertrand Russell


    Linsucks advocates ARE trolls!!
    --
    Member - Liberal International
    This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
    God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
    Happy Christmas 2006 and Merry New Year 2007.

  10. Re: Linux is not unix

    In article , chris gareau wrote:
    >
    >
    >The Doctor wrote:
    >> In article ,
    >> Rob Hughes wrote:
    >>> anon wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Yes, linux stands for linux is not unix. Very good. Want a cookie?
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> "This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is
    >>> not God who kills the children. Not Fate that butchers them or Destiny
    >>> that feeds them to dogs. It's us. Only us." - Rorschach, Watchmen

    >>
    >> It should be known as Linsucks the M$ of unixes.

    >no doc you have it all wrong, that is micro$uck$, linux rules


    Linux is not Unix, BSD, SunOS, AIX are !!
    --
    Member - Liberal International
    This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
    God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
    Happy Christmas 2006 and Merry New Year 2007.

  11. Re: Linux is not unix

    In article <87hcwh9cnl.fsf@kobe.laptop>,
    Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
    >On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:09:46 +0000 (UTC),
    >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
    >>In article ,
    >>Rob Hughes wrote:
    >>>anon wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Yes, linux stands for linux is not unix. Very good. Want a cookie?

    >>
    >> It should be known as Linsucks the M$ of unixes.

    >
    >That was totally uncalled for and it doesn't make the BSD
    >operating systems look better. It only makes us, their users,
    >look like immature, name-calling children.
    >
    >I'm sure we can find more productive ways to let the world know
    >that BSD is better for such and such work, Linux works better in
    >such and such cases, etc.
    >


    Linux is trying to steal the Unix agenda. Note Wind River.
    --
    Member - Liberal International
    This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
    God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
    Happy Christmas 2006 and Merry New Year 2007.

  12. Re: Linux is not unix

    Alexander Terekhov writes:


    >Richard Tobin wrote:
    >[...]
    >> *in the sense of copyright*, but in the wider


    >Prolific and learned Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook: "Copyright and
    >patent laws give authors *a right* to charge more, so that they can
    >recover their fixed costs (and thus promote innovation), but they do
    >*not require* authors to charge more." You hear that, Williams? (Did
    >Easterbrook meant Wallace or Gates?) You are not required to charge
    >more once a piece of your intellectual property exists.


    >And so it is perfectly okay for copyleft ("free as in freedom") to
    >suppress *a right* given by copyright law and *require* to charge
    >zero to cover costs of creating a piece of intellectual property to
    >exist.


    But the GPL does not require anything of the sort. Furtehrmore it does not
    suppress copyright, but rather derives its force through copyright law.
    You may charge anything you want for your GPL program, or anyone elses.
    However you must allow the recipient to give it away for free if he so
    desires, and must give source code (or no more than the cost of the medium
    it is spplied on) if he requests it.
    Ie, you must allow your purchaser to go into competition with you without
    any constraints except that he must also allow copying of the work.



    >Impeccable logic.


    >regards,
    >alexander.


  13. Re: Linux is not unix


    Unruh wrote:
    [...]
    > But the GPL does not require anything of the sort.


    Yeah, except that

    "65. Among the "further restrictions" that the GPL and LGPL do not
    permit are royalties or licensing fees (Ex.27 ¶¶ 2, 3; Ex. 26 ¶¶ 2, 4)
    (although fees can be collected for "the physical act of transferring
    a copy" of the code or for warranty protection). (Ex. 27 ¶ 1; Ex. 26
    ¶ 1.) If modified works or machine-readable versions of GPL- or LGPL-
    licensed software are distributed, they must be licensed "at no charge
    to all third parties under the terms of this License." (Ex. 27 ¶ 2
    (emphasis added); Ex. 26 ¶ 2; see also Ex. 27 ¶ 3; Ex. 26 ¶ 4.)"
    REDACTED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF IBM'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
    JUDGMENT in SCO v. IBM (see Groklaw).

    > Furtehrmore it does not suppress copyright,


    IBM disagrees. IBM reported to prolific and learned Chief Judge
    Frank Easterbrook that [IBM Brief at 15, ¶1] “The ownership
    interests contributors to software licensed under the GPL might
    have in their modifications are seriously limited, given that any
    distribution of those modifications must be done under the terms
    of the GPL”.

    Wallace replied: "This statement constitutes a mea culpa with respect
    to the extension of “intellectual property rights beyond those
    conferred by Congress” [see IBM Brief at 15, ¶2]." And elaborated that
    "The contractual extension of control to the copyrights of all third
    parties who accept the GPL offer is an egregious misuse of copyright
    that may rise to the level of an antitrust violation. (“[W]e left open
    the question whether copyright misuse, unless it rises to the level of
    an antitrust violation. . .”) (Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC v.
    Wiredata. Inc., 350 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2003)). The GPL purports to
    extend it’s intellectual property control to all third parties’
    software patents as well as copyrights. (“Finally, any free program
    is threatened constantly by software patents. . . To prevent this,
    we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's
    free use or not licensed at all.”) [Ex A (GPL) at 1]."

    Then prolific and learned Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook called Wallace
    Williams and told Williams that "copyright and patent laws give authors
    *a right* to charge more... [to promote innovation]" affirming dismissal
    on the merits from procedural judgment regarding standing. Prolific and
    learned Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook noted: "Although antitrust law
    serves the interests of consumers rather than producers, the Supreme
    Court has permitted producers to initiate predatory-pricing litigation.
    [citations ommited] This does not assist Williams, however, because his
    legal theory is faulty substantively."

    I've been told that Wallace almost died from laughing reading
    Easterbrook's verdict.

    regards,
    alexander.

  14. Re: Linux is not unix

    The Doctor wrote:
    > In article ,
    > Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
    >> Please do not feed the troll.
    >>
    >> --
    >> * Harald Hanche-Olsen
    >> - It is undesirable to believe a proposition
    >> when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.
    >> -- Bertrand Russell

    >
    > Linsucks advocates ARE trolls!!


    Wow,talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

  15. Re: Linux is not unix

    On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:29:30 +0000 (UTC),
    doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
    >> I'm sure we can find more productive ways to let the world know that
    >> BSD is better for such and such work, Linux works better in such and
    >> such cases, etc.

    >
    > Linux is trying to steal the Unix agenda. Note Wind River.


    What makes you think there is a "Unix agenda" at all?


  16. Re: Linux is not unix

    Alexander Terekhov writes:


    >Unruh wrote:
    >[...]
    >> But the GPL does not require anything of the sort.


    >Yeah, except that


    >"65. Among the "further restrictions" that the GPL and LGPL do not
    >permit are royalties or licensing fees (Ex.27 ¶¶ 2, 3; Ex. 26 ¶¶ 2, 4)
    >(although fees can be collected for "the physical act of transferring
    >a copy" of the code or for warranty protection). (Ex. 27 ¶ 1; Ex. 26
    >¶ 1.) If modified works or machine-readable versions of GPL- or LGPL-
    >licensed software are distributed, they must be licensed "at no charge
    >to all third parties under the terms of this License." (Ex. 27 ¶ 2
    >(emphasis added); Ex. 26 ¶ 2; see also Ex. 27 ¶ 3; Ex. 26 ¶ 4.)"
    >REDACTED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF IBM'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
    >JUDGMENT in SCO v. IBM (see Groklaw).


    I have no idea what you are quoting. The GPL - V2 requires nothing of the
    sort.

    From the preamble: " For example, if you distribute copies of such a program,
    whether gratis or for a fee, ..."



    >> Furtehrmore it does not suppress copyright,


    >IBM disagrees. IBM reported to prolific and learned Chief Judge
    >Frank Easterbrook that [IBM Brief at 15, ¶1] “The ownership
    >interests contributors to software licensed under the GPL might
    >have in their modifications are seriously limited, given that any
    >distribution of those modifications must be done under the terms
    >of the GPL”.


    Yes, it is restrictive in that sense. But then again you have absolutely no
    requirement to use the other person's work. This requirement is on you IF
    you use the other person's work.



    >Wallace replied: "This statement constitutes a mea culpa with respect
    >to the extension of “intellectual property rights beyond those
    >conferred by Congress” [see IBM Brief at 15, ¶2]." And elaborated that
    >"The contractual extension of control to the copyrights of all third
    >parties who accept the GPL offer is an egregious misuse of copyright
    >that may rise to the level of an antitrust violation. (“[W]e left open
    >the question whether copyright misuse, unless it rises to the level of
    >an antitrust violation. . .”) (Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC v.
    >Wiredata. Inc., 350 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2003)). The GPL purports to
    >extend it’s intellectual property control to all third parties’
    >software patents as well as copyrights. (“Finally, any free program
    >is threatened constantly by software patents. . . To prevent this,
    >we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's
    >free use or not licensed at all.”) [Ex A (GPL) at 1]."


    No idea what this argument is supposed to mean. Te restriction is on use of
    the other person's copyright material, not on what you do with your
    material.

    >Then prolific and learned Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook called Wallace
    >Williams and told Williams that "copyright and patent laws give authors
    >*a right* to charge more... [to promote innovation]" affirming dismissal
    >on the merits from procedural judgment regarding standing. Prolific and
    >learned Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook noted: "Although antitrust law
    >serves the interests of consumers rather than producers, the Supreme
    >Court has permitted producers to initiate predatory-pricing litigation.
    >[citations ommited] This does not assist Williams, however, because his
    >legal theory is faulty substantively."


    >I've been told that Wallace almost died from laughing reading
    >Easterbrook's verdict.


    Since I have no idea what William's theory is I cannot comment.


    >regards,
    >alexander.


  17. Re: Linux is not unix


    Unruh wrote:
    >
    > Alexander Terekhov writes:
    >
    > >Unruh wrote:
    > >[...]
    > >> But the GPL does not require anything of the sort.

    >
    > >Yeah, except that

    >
    > >"65. Among the "further restrictions" that the GPL and LGPL do not
    > >permit are royalties or licensing fees (Ex.27 ¶¶ 2, 3; Ex. 26 ¶¶ 2, 4)
    > >(although fees can be collected for "the physical act of transferring
    > >a copy" of the code or for warranty protection). (Ex. 27 ¶ 1; Ex. 26
    > >¶ 1.) If modified works or machine-readable versions of GPL- or LGPL-
    > >licensed software are distributed, they must be licensed "at no charge
    > >to all third parties under the terms of this License." (Ex. 27 ¶ 2
    > >(emphasis added); Ex. 26 ¶ 2; see also Ex. 27 ¶ 3; Ex. 26 ¶ 4.)"
    > >REDACTED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF IBM'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
    > >JUDGMENT in SCO v. IBM (see Groklaw).

    >
    > I have no idea what you are quoting.


    http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....40820115307246

    > The GPL - V2 requires nothing of the sort.


    Let IBM know about that.

    http://www.ibm.com/contact/us/

    regards,
    alexander.

  18. Re: Linux is not unix

    Giorgos Keramidas writes:

    >On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:29:30 +0000 (UTC),
    >doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
    >>> I'm sure we can find more productive ways to let the world know that
    >>> BSD is better for such and such work, Linux works better in such and
    >>> such cases, etc.

    >>
    >> Linux is trying to steal the Unix agenda. Note Wind River.


    >What makes you think there is a "Unix agenda" at all?

    And if there is, what is it? And what is "Wind River"? Do you mean the Wind
    River Indian Reservation in Wyoming?




  19. Re: Linux is not unix

    Alexander Terekhov writes:


    >Unruh wrote:
    >>
    >> Alexander Terekhov writes:
    >>
    >> >Unruh wrote:
    >> >[...]
    >> >> But the GPL does not require anything of the sort.

    >>
    >> >Yeah, except that

    >>
    >> >"65. Among the "further restrictions" that the GPL and LGPL do not
    >> >permit are royalties or licensing fees (Ex.27 ¶¶ 2, 3; Ex. 26 ¶¶ 2, 4)
    >> >(although fees can be collected for "the physical act of transferring
    >> >a copy" of the code or for warranty protection). (Ex. 27 ¶ 1; Ex. 26
    >> >¶ 1.) If modified works or machine-readable versions of GPL- or LGPL-
    >> >licensed software are distributed, they must be licensed "at no charge
    >> >to all third parties under the terms of this License." (Ex. 27 ¶ 2
    >> >(emphasis added); Ex. 26 ¶ 2; see also Ex. 27 ¶ 3; Ex. 26 ¶ 4.)"
    >> >REDACTED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF IBM'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
    >> >JUDGMENT in SCO v. IBM (see Groklaw).

    >>
    >> I have no idea what you are quoting.


    >http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....40820115307246


    >> The GPL - V2 requires nothing of the sort.


    >Let IBM know about that.


    >http://www.ibm.com/contact/us/


    >regards,
    >alexander.


    I am sure they can read as well. What the GPL does require is that you
    cannot restrict what the people you distribute the code to can do with that
    code re passing it on. Ie, you could very well require me to pay you for
    the code, but you could not thereafter stop me from giving it away to
    anyone else. Ie, your license could not stop me from doing what I want with
    the code, except me restricting distribution on people I give it to.

    SCO wants to say that if they sell their stuff to you, they cannot prevent
    you from giving it away.


  20. Re: Linux is not unix

    (followups set)
    On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:12:43 -0000, anon wrote:
    : if it were it there would be
    : comp.unix.linux
    : so why keep pretending


    Congratulations on a fine troll.


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast