begin risky.vbs
<4rn334-osl.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Sinister Midget <phydeaux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 2006-11-18, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted something concerning:
>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 10:58:22 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| What I would like to say to Steve is echoing Pamela Jones's
>>>| sentiments. Tell us where it is, Steve--this infringement you
>>>| speak of. I'm sure lots of people will be willing to pick up a
>>>| metaphorical scalpel and dig out the offending bit of code. I
>>>| wouldn?t want to OWE you, Steve.
>>> `----
>>
>> Wow, this is so wrong on so many levels.
>
> <snip a load of Funkencrap>
>
> Tell Steve to let people know where the problems are and provide
> supporting evidence of MS rights so people can fix them or pay
> licensing. Otherwise it's all a bunch of maybes and couldas.
Ain't Erik so pathetic and so predictable? It would not surprise me if
there is code in OSS somewhere that would be covered by some absurd
patent owned by MS. I would lay odds on prior art being found if MS
should ever attempt to sue. The repercussions of the suit by the likes
of IBM sue-ing MS are a threat too daunting in my opinion. Hence the
FUD from MS and Erik. It will only be FUD and as with SCO will ignored
by most.
SuSE Linux has been fatally damaged by Novells agreement /
collaboration with MS I believe.
--
Security is one of those funny things. You can talk about being "more"
secure, but there's no such thing. A vulnerability is a vulnerability, and
even one makes you just as insecure as anyone else. Security is a binary
condition, either you are or you aren't. - Funkenbusch 1 Oct 2006
|
|
