Ben Rosenberg wrote:

* Mark Gray (markgray-list-1050230496@iago.nac.net) [030513 00:23]: -> ->Given that they have not done so already, I would guess there is a ->real ugly legal reason for not doing so.

My theory is that SuSE's CEO is a former high up in IBM and that IBM asked them to just keep quiet and let them handle it. Kinda like big brother protecting little brother. That would make sense to me. But what do I know. ;)

A great deal, I hope. :) One can't help but be more than just concerned about what we RIGHTFULLY see as MickySoft being behind this. Fred -- Fred A. Miller Systems Administrator Cornell Univ. Press Services fm@cupserv.org, www.cupserv.org

Sorry, See: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=B12 For the 2002 elections cycle Microsoft gave 59% to Republicans and 41% to Democrats. They are the biggest contributor in the Computer Industry. In 2000, they gave 53% Republican and 46% Democrat, so in the last two years, they've shifted more towards the Republicans. But that's nothing like in 1998 when they gave 65% Republican and 34% Democrat! You have to go back to 1996 to find a time when they gave more to Democrats, and back then they were hardly giving at all. Peter B Van Campen wrote:

M$ gave more money to the Democrats

On Tuesday 13 May 2003 02:21, Mark Gray wrote:

...

"Berge, Harry ten" writes:

...

This is an interview with Chris Sontag from SCO.

http://www.vnunet.com/Analysis/1140828

I hope (and suggest) SuSE drops SCO from the UnitedLinux group, because their intentions are really really BAD...

Given that they have not done so already, I would guess there is a real ugly legal reason for not doing so. (Especially given that SCO appears to want to make their money with their shyster lawyers rather than anything resembling software development.) I recall Bruce Perens saying when the lawsuit first hit the fan that the people pushing it were actually the venture capitalist group who have been keeping SCO solvent -- and I may be mistaken -- but I seem to recall noticing that one of the big wallets behind the group was one of the Mico$oft founders. It would make for an especially evil revenge for Mico$oft to use the same lawyer that humiliated Bill Gates to make it illegal to use Linux in the U.S. now that the crook they helped put in the Whitehouse has repaid their compaign contributions by throwing the anti-trust case against them.

(But that is only my cynical opinion of the absurd situation.)