Verily I say unto thee, that Rodney Quaye spake thusly:

> in this case between SCO and Novell.

Well since you seem to have a problem with conservative views, here's my
decidedly non-conservative and non-partisan opinion ... may both SCO
*and* Novell rot in Hell.

As for judicial procedures and precedents ... if you think the system is
broken (and I'm inclined to agree that it is), then lobby congress for
change. I'm sure that there are indeed all kinds of legal pedantry that
makes technical cases for both parties, and that real justice may never
actually be served due to judges and lawyers hypnagogically plodding
along through familiar territory, but from the perspective of the
innocent bystanders, frankly I really don't care about those
technicalities, any more than the law cares about justice.

McBride formulated a business plan with the sole purpose of attacking
Linux - a wholly altruistic project - for no better reason than greed,
fronted by a company whose only real "product" was litigation. He then
proceeded to gloat and sneer through years of anti-Linux postulation,
damaging its reputation and adoption in the process. Such malice is not
worthy of anyone's sympathy, regardless of technical points of law. His
true motive was, and still is, clear, as was that of those who secretly
funded his little crusade.

The law may not care about justice, but I do, and so too do the majority
of contributors to Growklaw, which may be why they are apparently so
disinterested in your pendant points. It isn't that you're wrong ...
it's just that in the grand scheme of things, nobody cares. SCO spat in
our faces, and now we're spitting back.

> As ever Pamela Jones, with love and respect.

I don't think she reads COLA.


| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian.

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel
15:39:23 up 138 days, 12:15, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00