Skip to content

No means No, or at least that's what I thought...

I was always taught that no meant no. Now, I supposed there may be circumstances where people are fooling around that is not the case. I just never thought one of those cases would involve a jury. However, it seems that SCO has decided that the jury may have meant something else when they said no. Now, considering the shape SCO is in. It makes sense to through the Hail Mary. You never know. The judge may throw them a bone and give them another chance to get the unix copyrights back from Novell. It is still unlikely they'll ever win any money but you never know how long they could drag this out or how much money they can spend on it.


No Trackbacks


Display comments as Linear | Threaded

No comments

The author does not allow comments to this entry

Add Comment

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.

Form options