[Talk] Re: [Linux-aus] SCO position - Pia's thread

[Greg 'groggy' Lehey]

On Monday, 26 May 2003 at  9:27:17 +0800, Leon Brooks wrote:
> On Mon, 26 May 2003 06:54, Pia Smith wrote:
>> I think that a coordinated effort from LA and AUUG is a great idea,
>> but we should certainly snip the Microsoft talk, as there is no
>> proof. While that is not definite, focusing on them makes it seem
>> that we are avoiding the claims made.
>
> Good idea. But would it defuse (or diffuse) our efforts at all if I
> carefully crafted a me-only corporate statement which looks askance
> at Microsoft's response and released it either before or after a
> group response?

I don't know.  I think we should coordinate our efforts, anyway.

> I'd like to make my own separate statement along the lines of "it's
> next to impossible to be sure, but it looks to our corporate cynical
> eyes as if..." because me losing global karma points isn't going to
> be the problem it would be for LA/AUUG/SLPWA/etc. I do want to make
> points which our groups want to keep clean hands on, but don't want
> it to detract from any group statement.

This is a very different aspect from what we've been talking about.
I'm not saying "don't do it", but it makes it clearer how we should
proceed.  Each of us has a different perspective of the problem.

>> Maybe a statement quoting some comments made by some of our people,
>> and then supporting them and extrapolating slightly is better
>
> Certainly! Care to make a quotable statement? (-:
>
> Actually, one sound-ish bite each from you, Jeremy and Grog (Presidents
> all) would be a good foundation for a release.

At the AUUG board meeting on Saturday, we discussed the matter and
came to the conclusion that AUUG and Linux Australia should make a
press statement about the matter.  We discussed whether this should be
a joint statement or separate statements and came to the conclusion
that we probably wouldn't be able to agree on the wording of a joint
statement quickly enough, so we'd probably have to issue separate
statements.  I expressed the opinion that I would like the statements
to be as similar as possible, but the others are probably correct when
they say that this would be very difficult.  I intend to put our
statement past the LA board before publishing, however, and I hope
they do the same.

Can anybody recall where SCO defended their refusal to say where the
stolen code was, and how exactly they defended it?

Greg
--
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.auug.org.au/pipermail/talk/attachments/20030526/929c0d7b/attachment.pgp>