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

Greg 'groggy' Lehey Greg.Lehey at auug.org.au
Mon May 26 18:08:02 EST 2003

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?

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>

More information about the Talk mailing list