SCO gets $50 million investment
Bill Burns
SCO gets $50 million investment
By Stephen Shankland
CNET News.com
October 16, 2003, 6:05 PM PT
SCO Group, the company embroiled in legal action around Linux and Unix,
announced a $50 million investment by BayStar Capital on Thursday,
marking a reversal of plans it discussed in May.
SCO will use the funding primarily to boost its software development
efforts and secondarily to help pay legal and licensing costs,
spokesman Blake Stowell said. SCO sells the Unix operating system and
licenses it to others, but more controversially, it has sued IBM over
Big Blue's treatment of Unix and argues that companies should pay SCO
to use Linux.
--
Bill Burns, Long Island, NY, USA
mailto:bi...@ftldesign.com
History of Technology Websites:
http://ftldesign.com
Joe Dunning
>http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5092702.html
>
>SCO gets $50 million investment
>
>By Stephen Shankland
>CNET News.com
>October 16, 2003, 6:05 PM PT
>
>SCO Group, the company embroiled in legal action around Linux and Unix,
>announced a $50 million investment by BayStar Capital on Thursday,
>marking a reversal of plans it discussed in May.
"Reversal", or did they lie about their plans?
>
>SCO will use the funding primarily to boost its software development
>efforts and secondarily to help pay legal and licensing costs,
Now wy would SCO have to pay "licensing costs"? Surely they RECEIVE
licensing fees? Or are they thinking about what SCO will have to pay to
IBM and others for copyright and patent infringement?
>spokesman Blake Stowell said. SCO sells the Unix operating system and
More BS from BS. SCO sells ONE VERSION of Unix. System/390, NT
and other OSes were also accreditied as "Unix".
>
to...@aplawrence.com
>Now wy would SCO have to pay "licensing costs"? Surely they RECEIVE
>licensing fees? Or are they thinking about what SCO will have to pay to
>IBM and others for copyright and patent infringement?
Now you are being clueless. Do you think SCO develops everything
in house? Try typing "copyrights" at any old SCO box you see
lying around.
--
to...@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html
Bill Vermillion
>Joe Dunning <j...@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>>Now wy would SCO have to pay "licensing costs"? Surely they RECEIVE
>>licensing fees? Or are they thinking about what SCO will have to pay to
>>IBM and others for copyright and patent infringement?
>Now you are being clueless. Do you think SCO develops everything
>in house? Try typing "copyrights" at any old SCO box you see
>lying around.
I remember the old days when the copyrights always showed during
bootup - until they got far too large.
I've been using opensource for the 'net servers that I almost
forgot how big SCO copyright page [or any commerical Unix for that
matter] was. Since my OSR5 is not booted at the moment
whats the current linecount on copyrights - if you are so
inclined. [The Sun with Solaris is at another location but it
may be joining my herd again before long - as soon as I clear out
two really ancient machines - both of which are spoken for]
Copyrights on this machine reference ANSI, IEEE, CBEMA and
the the X3J11 Committee, along with UCB.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Bill Campbell
>Joe Dunning <j...@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Now wy would SCO have to pay "licensing costs"? Surely they RECEIVE
>>licensing fees? Or are they thinking about what SCO will have to pay to
>>IBM and others for copyright and patent infringement?
>
>Now you are being clueless. Do you think SCO develops everything
>in house? Try typing "copyrights" at any old SCO box you see
>lying around.
SCO never was a major Unix developer, but more of an integrator of other
people's packages into boring, but commercially stable systems. They
probably did more original work than Microsoft (name one thing M$ wrote
from scratch that was successful -- Bob?). Xenix was originally a
Microsoft port. SCO Unix was quite a bit behind various other Unix
flavours, and didn't even have long file names or symbolic links until
3.2v4 came out in 1992 (it did have some ``interesting'' security features
that could render a system unusable even by root :-).
SCO has certainly worked on some interesting projects such as the Universal
Driver Interface (hi Robert if you're listening), and participated in some
industry standards work including the one that produced iBCS which they're
now suing people for using.
SCO paid royalties to Microsoft for many years for things relating to
Xenix, and SCO's development system was largely built around Microsoft C
compilers until SCO acquired the New Jersey departments that had at one
time been with Bell Labs. I may be mistaken, but I think most of the
really interesting Development System work was done by the group SCO bought
in Toronto.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/
``It's not what you pay a man but what he costs you that counts.''
Will Rogers
Bill Vermillion
Bill Campbell <bi...@celestial.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 17, 2003, to...@aplawrence.com wrote:
>>Joe Dunning <j...@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>>>Now wy would SCO have to pay "licensing costs"? Surely they
>>>RECEIVE licensing fees? Or are they thinking about what SCO
>>>will have to pay to IBM and others for copyright and patent
>>>infringement?
>>Now you are being clueless. Do you think SCO develops everything
>>in house? Try typing "copyrights" at any old SCO box you see
>>lying around.
>SCO never was a major Unix developer, but more of an integrator of other
>people's packages into boring, but commercially stable systems. They
>probably did more original work than Microsoft (name one thing M$ wrote
>from scratch that was successful -- Bob?).
MS Basic? Or did they rip that off. I had it on an old CP/M
machine of about 1977 vintage. But they weren't Mircrosoft at
that time. They were Micro-Soft - in Alberquerque NM.
> Xenix was originally a Microsoft port.
And all Unix derivations had to have their own name unless you
compiled the distribution unchanged on a Vax as I recall.
That's why the "names of Unix" thread was popular in the '80s.
I recall a list that had aleast 80 variants in it.
>SCO Unix was quite a bit behind various other Unix flavours,
>and didn't even have long file names or symbolic links until
>3.2v4 came out in 1992 (it did have some ``interesting''
>security features that could render a system unusable even by
>root :-).
They were about the last vendor on SysV.2 to move to V3.
I'm sure many recall here the DellEvangelist Larry Snyder touting
the Dell Unix V.3 [he moved from that after a few months to
something else - but that was Larry "The Grass Is Always Greener"
Synder for you.
He was almost as bad as some of the *n*x advocates in his
diatribes. He accused SCO of being not exactly honest in
their nameing of their V2 release prior to the V3 release
to confuse people.
Last email I had from Larry was about 2 years ago after retiring
from the IT environment at a chemical firm.
>SCO has certainly worked on some interesting projects such as
>the Universal Driver Interface (hi Robert if you're listening),
>and participated in some industry standards work including the
>one that produced iBCS which they're now suing people for using.
And how about CGI. Computer Graphics Interface. Is ee an
old circa 1985 Xenix volume high on the shelf with that label.
No relationship to the procedures of the same name
>SCO paid royalties to Microsoft for many years for things
>relating to Xenix,
And they were required by contract to keep Xenix compatibility and
pay license fees in perpetuity. It was not until the challenge
be the EU which made them drop that requirement for European
licenses/licensees that there was any hope. It was about 6 months
after that the SCO no long had to keep Xenix compatibility
in all their OSes. That seems to be a little known and largely
forgotten part of MS licensing schemes as more has been focused on
Windows, IE, cetera.
Bill Campbell
>In article <20031017170...@alexis.mi.celestial.com>,
>Bill Campbell <bi...@celestial.com> wrote:
>>SCO never was a major Unix developer, but more of an integrator of other
>>people's packages into boring, but commercially stable systems. They
>>probably did more original work than Microsoft (name one thing M$ wrote
>>from scratch that was successful -- Bob?).
>
>MS Basic? Or did they rip that off. I had it on an old CP/M
>machine of about 1977 vintage. But they weren't Mircrosoft at
>that time. They were Micro-Soft - in Alberquerque NM.
IHMO, MS BASIC was a fairly limited port of Dartmouth BASIC, leaving out
the only useful thing in BASIC, matrix operations. I always figured the
BillyG left those out because he couldn't understand the math.
....
>>SCO Unix was quite a bit behind various other Unix flavours,
>>and didn't even have long file names or symbolic links until
>>3.2v4 came out in 1992 (it did have some ``interesting''
>>security features that could render a system unusable even by
>>root :-).
>
>They were about the last vendor on SysV.2 to move to V3.
>I'm sure many recall here the DellEvangelist Larry Snyder touting
>the Dell Unix V.3 [he moved from that after a few months to
>something else - but that was Larry "The Grass Is Always Greener"
>Synder for you.
Now that's a name from the past! I never thought SCO was leading edge, but
used it because I wanted a stable, if boring, platform for commercial
applications. We didn't move off of Xenix to SCO Unix until February 1992
when 3.2v4.x first came out. This was the first SCO Unix that had real
advantages over Xenix, not overshadowed by their original attempts at
``C2'' security.
...
>>SCO has certainly worked on some interesting projects such as
>>the Universal Driver Interface (hi Robert if you're listening),
>>and participated in some industry standards work including the
>>one that produced iBCS which they're now suing people for using.
>
>And how about CGI. Computer Graphics Interface. Is ee an
>old circa 1985 Xenix volume high on the shelf with that label.
>No relationship to the procedures of the same name
I never tried working with that. The fanciest graphics I ever did was
curses on character applications. I told you, I've always been into boring
applications that just run businesses.
Bill Vermillion
Campbell <bi...@celestial.com> wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 17, 2003, Bill Vermillion wrote:
>
>>In article <20031017170...@alexis.mi.celestial.com>,
>>Bill Campbell <bi...@celestial.com> wrote:
>
>....
>>>SCO never was a major Unix developer, but more of an
>>>integrator of other people's packages into boring, but
>>>commercially stable systems. They probably did more original
>>>work than Microsoft (name one thing M$ wrote from scratch that
>>>was successful -- Bob?).
>>MS Basic? Or did they rip that off. I had it on an old CP/M
>>machine of about 1977 vintage. But they weren't Mircrosoft at
>>that time. They were Micro-Soft - in Alberquerque NM.
>IHMO, MS BASIC was a fairly limited port of Dartmouth BASIC,
>leaving out the only useful thing in BASIC, matrix operations.
>I always figured the BillyG left those out because he couldn't
>understand the math.
Back when people were complaining about the inaccuracries of MS
Basic on the PC because they tried to use the math function and got
bitten by the rounding there was a decente BASIC that did true
decimal math. I see it still on the bookshelf over there --->
I grab the box and it says "Microsoft BASIC Interpreter"
I open it up and there are three 5.25" disks labeled
"For Xenix (r) Personal Computers"
The inside front pages was " for the XENIX(r) 286 Operating System"
Forgot I had that and the install notes are generic.
The closest reference is that it is for the IBM(r) AT(tm)
computers. And the Altos weren't AT style. The only other
Xenix I recall for the '286 was IBM's Xenix 1.0 - which was
sold as unsuported, and 2.0 - the first supported version.
I had the displeasure of using that and it was so broken in places
it was more like an alpha release than even a beta release.
>....
>>>SCO Unix was quite a bit behind various other Unix flavours,
>>>and didn't even have long file names or symbolic links until
>>>3.2v4 came out in 1992 (it did have some ``interesting''
>>>security features that could render a system unusable even by
>>>root :-).
>>They were about the last vendor on SysV.2 to move to V3.
>>I'm sure many recall here the DellEvangelist Larry Snyder touting
>>the Dell Unix V.3 [he moved from that after a few months to
>>something else - but that was Larry "The Grass Is Always Greener"
>>Synder for you.
>Now that's a name from the past! I never thought SCO was leading
>edge, but used it because I wanted a stable, if boring, platform
>for commercial applications. We didn't move off of Xenix to SCO
>Unix until February 1992 when 3.2v4.x first came out. This was
>the first SCO Unix that had real advantages over Xenix, not
>overshadowed by their original attempts at ``C2'' security.
I remeber Larry going from ?? to Dell to ?? - as he was the head
tech at a local startup ISP. I actually went to Esic V.3 was there
were some features I needed and SCO took almost a year more to get
theirs ready for production.
Finally getting past the 14 character name limit was good and also
symlinks - two of the best features for most users - IMO.
>...
>>>SCO has certainly worked on some interesting projects such as
>>>the Universal Driver Interface (hi Robert if you're listening),
>>>and participated in some industry standards work including the
>>>one that produced iBCS which they're now suing people for using.
>>And how about CGI. Computer Graphics Interface. Is ee an
>>old circa 1985 Xenix volume high on the shelf with that label.
>>No relationship to the procedures of the same name
>I never tried working with that. The fanciest graphics I ever
>did was curses on character applications. I told you, I've
>always been into boring applications that just run businesses.
I don't know of anyone who did but it shipped as part of the
standard development system. It sipped in a two volume box
with the other volume being the Text Processing System. Having to
buy that to get troff/nroff ect, always struck me as strange as it
was standard on everything else. The first Unix I had that
had EVERTHING in it was the Microport Sys V2 and had four volumes
of manual that were stuffed into four binders in boxes. It really
should have had more as there were really far too many pages
to fit in the binders.
Bill [the right coast one]
ubw
wrote:
I remember seeing a demonstraton of AutoCAD running under Xenix
sometime in the late 80s. It was much faster in initial program load
than the DOS version. I'm not sure if it was ever released to the
public, the reseller I worked for never sold it.
UBW
John DuBois
ubw <ubw...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>I remember seeing a demonstraton of AutoCAD running under Xenix
>sometime in the late 80s. It was much faster in initial program load
>than the DOS version. I'm not sure if it was ever released to the
>public, the reseller I worked for never sold it.
I believe that it was released. They sent us a copy so we'd have some idea of
what customers who were using it were talking about. I played with it a bit,
but not having a mouse rather limited its utility...
John
--
John DuBois spc...@armory.com KC6QKZ/AE http://www.armory.com/~spcecdt/
Bill Campbell
>In article <u2c8pvkmd7tliuf6l...@4ax.com>,
>ubw <ubw...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>I remember seeing a demonstraton of AutoCAD running under Xenix
>>sometime in the late 80s. It was much faster in initial program load
>>than the DOS version. I'm not sure if it was ever released to the
>>public, the reseller I worked for never sold it.
>
>I believe that it was released. They sent us a copy so we'd have some idea of
>what customers who were using it were talking about. I played with it a bit,
>but not having a mouse rather limited its utility...
Once upon a time, in a galaxy far away, the primary platform for AutoCad
was SunOS, and perhaps some other Unix workstations. The early Windows
versions were seriously limited compared to their Unix counterparts.
In the last two or three years, most of the high-end circuit design
software has been ported to Linux, and is making serious inroads in the PC
board business. The articles I read several years ago in the electronics
trade rags were praising the Linux versions of the software because of its
stability and performance.
Linux is making a serious dent in the animation and video production
industry (which may be why SGI is making such a serious effort in
supporting Linux). On the other hand, the new Apple G5 running Panther
seems to be blowing the doors off everybody here.
I've never understood why AutoCad hasn't been maintained in a Unix
environment, particularly given the reliability and performance of Linux on
commodity hardware.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/
A child can go only so far in life without potty training. It is not
mere coincidence that six of the last seven presidents were potty
trained, not to mention nearly half of the nation's state legislators.
-- Dave Barry
Jeff Liebermann
>I remember seeing a demonstraton of AutoCAD running under Xenix
>sometime in the late 80s. It was much faster in initial program load
>than the DOS version. I'm not sure if it was ever released to the
>public, the reseller I worked for never sold it.
>UBW
It was sold as I had several customers using Xenix. Methinks the
Xenix version was Release 10. I still have copies somewhere in the
office. I also have Release 11 that ran on ODT (3.2v4.x).
--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us je...@cruzio.com
Brian K. White
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:02:52 GMT, ubw <ubw...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> >I remember seeing a demonstraton of AutoCAD running under Xenix
> >sometime in the late 80s. It was much faster in initial program load
> >than the DOS version. I'm not sure if it was ever released to the
> >public, the reseller I worked for never sold it.
> >UBW
>
> It was sold as I had several customers using Xenix. Methinks the
> Xenix version was Release 10. I still have copies somewhere in the
> office. I also have Release 11 that ran on ODT (3.2v4.x).
The Xenix version installs and works on at least 5.0.4 and 5.0.5
I haven't tried on 5.0.6 or 5.0.7 yet but I bet it works since 5.0.5 did.
Ken Benson
Copyright (C) 1995 Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.
Copyright (C) 1991-1996 Morning Star Technologies.
Copyright (C) 1989 Carnegie Mellon University.
Copyright (C) 1989 Regents of the University of California.
Copyright (C) 1990 RSA Data Security, Inc.
Copyright (C) 1988-95 Stac Electronics, Carlsbad, California.
Copyright (c) 1994, 1995, 1996. Netscape Communications Corporation.
Copyright (C) 1995, Thomas G. Lane
Copyright (C) 1990 RSA Data Security, Inc.
Copyright 1993 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Copyright (C) 1986, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 Free Software Foundation,
Inc.
Copyright (c) 1991 - 1994 Microsoft Corporation
Copyright (c) 1986-1995 Frame Technology Corporation.
Copyright 1989, 1990 The Monotype Corporation Plc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright (c) 1990, 1991 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All Rights Reserved
Copyright 1987-1994, Larry Wall
Copyright 1994 Mosaic Communications Corporation. All rights reserved.
This SCO software is commercial computer software and, together
with any related documentation, is subject to the restrictions
on US Government use as set forth below.
If this procurement is for a DOD agency, this DFAR Restricted
Rights Legend applies:
RESTRICTED RIGHTS LEGEND: Use, duplication, or disclosure
by the Government is subject to restrictions as set forth in
subparagraph (c)(1)(ii) of Rights in Technical Data and Computer
Software Clause at DFARS 252.227-7013. Contractor/Manufacturer
is The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc., 400 Encinal Street,
Santa Cruz, CA 95060.
If this procurement is for a civilian government agency, this
FAR Restricted Rights Legend applies:
RESTRICTED RIGHTS LEGEND: This computer software is submitted
with restricted rights under Government Contract No. _________
(and Subcontract No. ________, if appropriate). It may not be
used, reproduced, or disclosed by the Government except as provided
in paragraph (g)(3)(i) of FAR Clause 52.227-14 alt III or as
otherwise expressly stated in the contract. Contractor/Manufacturer
is The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc., 400 Encinal Street, Santa Cruz,
CA 95060.
This copyrighted software is licensed only for use in strict accordance
with the Software License Agreement, which should be read carefully
before commencing use of the software.
This SCO software includes software that is protected by these copyrights:
(C) 1976-1998 The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
(C) 1989-1994 Acer Incorporated
(C) 1989-1994 Acer America Corporation
(C) 1990-1998 Adaptec, Inc.
(C) 1993-1998 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
(C) 1990 Altos Computer Systems
(C) 1992-1994 American Power Conversion, Inc.
(C) 1988 Archive Corporation
(C) 1990-1998 ATI Technologies, Inc.
(C) 1976-1992 AT&T
(C) 1992-1994 AT&T Global Information Solutions Company
(C) 1993 Berkeley Network Software Consortium
(C) 1985-1986 Bigelow & Holmes
(C) 1988-1991 Carnegie Mellon University
(C) 1989-1990 Cipher Data Products, Inc.
(C) 1985-1998 Compaq Computer Corporation
(C) 1986-1987 Convergent Technologies, Inc.
(C) 1990-1993 Cornell University
(C) 1985-1997 Corollary, Inc.
(C) 1994 Dell Computer Corporation
(C) 1988-1998 Digital Equipment Corporation
(C) 1990-1997 Distributed Processing Technology
(C) 1991 D.L.S. Associates
(C) 1990 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
(C) 1989-1991 Future Domain Corporation
(C) 1994 Gradient Technologies, Inc.
(C) 1991-1998 Hewlett-Packard Company
(C) 1993-1998 IBM Corporation
(C) 1990-1998 Intel Corporation
(C) 1998 Internet Software Consortium
(C) 1989 Irwin Magnetic Systems, Inc.
(C) 1988-1997 IXI Limited
(C) 1988-1991 JSB Computer Systems Ltd.
(C) 1989-1998 Dirk Koeppen EDV-Beratungs-GmbH
(C) 1987-1994 Legent Corporation
(C) 1988-1994 Locus Computing Corporation
(C) 1989-1991 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(C) 1985-1992 Metagraphics Software Corporation
(C) 1980-1994 Microsoft Corporation
(C) 1984-1989 Mouse Systems Corporation
(C) 1989 Multi-Tech Systems, Inc.
(C) 1995-1998 Mylex Corporation
(C) 1991-1995 National Semiconductor Corporation
(C) 1990 NEC Technologies, Inc.
(C) 1989-1998 Novell, Inc.
(C) 1989 Ing. C. Olivetti & C. SpA
(C) 1989-1994 Open Software Foundation, Inc.
(C) 1993-1998 Programmed Logic Corporation
(C) 1989-1998 Racal InterLan, Inc.
(C) 1990-1992 RSA Data Security, Inc.
(C) 1988-1997 Seagate Technology, Inc.
(C) 1987-1994 Secureware, Inc.
(C) 1990 Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme AG
(C) 1991-1992 Silicon Graphics, Inc.
(C) 1987-1991 SMNP Research, Inc.
(C) 1987-1998 Standard Microsystems Corporation
(C) 1984-1994 Sun Microsystems, Inc.
(C) 1995-1998 Symbios Logic
(C) 1995-1998 SysKonnect
(C) 1987 Tandy Corporation
(C) 1992-1998 3COM Corporation
(C) 1987 United States Army
(C) 1979-1993 Regents of the University of California
(C) 1993 Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
(C) 1989-1991 University of Maryland
(C) 1986 University of Toronto
(C) 1988 Wyse Technology
(C) 1994 X Consortium
(C) 1992-1994 Xware
(C) 1983-1997 Eric P. Allman
(C) 1987-1989 Jeffery D. Case and Kenneth W. Key
(C) 1985 Andrew Cherenson
(C) 1989 Mark H. Colburn
(C) 1993 Michael A. Cooper
(C) 1982 Pavel Curtis
(C) 1987 Owen DeLong
(C) 1989-1993 Frank Kardel
(C) 1993 Carlos Leandro and Rui Salgueiro
(C) 1986-1988 Larry McVoy
(C) 1992 David L. Mills
(C) 1992 Ranier Pruy
(C) 1986-1988 Larry Wall
(C) 1992 Q. Frank Xia.
All rights reserved.
SCO NFS was developed by Legent Corporation based on Lachman
System V NFS. SCO TCP/IP was developed by Legent Corporation
and is derived from Lachman System V STREAMS TCP, a joint
development of Lachman Associates, Inc. (predecessor of Legent
Corporation) and Convergent Technologies, Inc.
SCO, the SCO logo, The Santa Cruz Operation, Open Desktop, ODT,
Panner, SCO Global Access, SCO OK, SCO OpenServer, SCO MultiView,
SCO Visual Tcl, Skunkware, and VP/ix are trademarks or registered
trademarks of The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. in the USA and other
countries. UNIX is a registered trademark in the USA and other
countries, licensed exclusively through X/Open Company Limited.
All other brand and product names are or may be trademarks of,
and are used to identify products or services of, their
respective owners.
kb # copyrights |wc
152 888 6277
"Bill Vermillion" <b...@wjv.comREMOVE> wrote in message
news:HMwsG...@wjv.com...
Joe Dunning
<bkenbenso...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Copyright (C) 1994-1995 Netscape Communications Corporation.
>Copyright (C) 1995 Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.
>Copyright (C) 1991-1996 Morning Star Technologies.
>Copyright (C) 1989 Carnegie Mellon University.
Rest snipped.
Well, clearly SCO does pay license fees. But if they need equity
financing to pay those license fees, they don't have a sustainable
business model, do they?
Of course, it might be that SCO needs to buy a one-off irrevokable
license, but probably not, since according to BS, such licenses don't
exist!
Jeff Liebermann
<bkenbenso...@comcast.net> wrote:
>(C) 1987-1991 SMNP Research, Inc.
Sigh. Should be SNMP Research, Inc.
Add a few trademarks:
http://osr5doc.ca.caldera.com:457/HANDBOOK/COPYRIGHT.html
http://www.sco.com/company/legal/#2
Bill Vermillion
Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 03:56:50 GMT, "Ken Benson"
><bkenbenso...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>(C) 1987-1991 SMNP Research, Inc.
>
>Sigh. Should be SNMP Research, Inc.
So does that change it from a copyright to a copywrong.
That's a bad place to make a typo.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
Acronym Letter Transposition Syndrome (SALT) is an all too common
disease among tech types. It's a side effect of Acronym Infestation
Disease (AIDS) and is aggravated by the current lack of business
climate. My favorite is the MCSE (Microsloth Certified Systems
Engineer) which tends to get dyslexified into MSCE. Searching Google
for MSCE:
http://www.google.com/search?q=msce+microsoft
Ugh. 24,400 hits. It was about 6000 about a year ago.
Bill Vermillion
Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:43:50 GMT, b...@wjv.comREMOVE (Bill Vermillion)
>wrote:
>>In article <sfpipv0642j255jub...@4ax.com>,
>>Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 03:56:50 GMT, "Ken Benson"
>>><bkenbenso...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>(C) 1987-1991 SMNP Research, Inc.
>>>
>>>Sigh. Should be SNMP Research, Inc.
>>So does that change it from a copyright to a copywrong.
>>That's a bad place to make a typo.
>Acronym Letter Transposition Syndrome (SALT) is an all too common
>disease among tech types.
Similar to the reading dirorder dylsexia ?