No you are wrong. DC did not do anything about bringing it's software licenses up to date or recertifying any SCOG software. They stated SCOG software has/had not been used in 7 years (IIRC).
SCOG's bone of contention was the length of time DC took to answer their request. Of course, SCOG ignored the fact they mailed the request to the wrong address for example. Additionaly SCOG was asking for information that went well beyond what DC needed to provide. For example, how many CPUs they had running Linux. Totally inmaterial.
In any case I get the impression you are suggesting DC still uses SCOG software, they do not.
No, you look it up. Groklaw would be a good place to start.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:SCO v. DaimlerChrysler case
Posted by: Stumbles on August 08, 2004 12:13 AMSCOG's bone of contention was the length of time DC took to answer their request. Of course, SCOG ignored the fact they mailed the request to the wrong address for example. Additionaly SCOG was asking for information that went well beyond what DC needed to provide. For example, how many CPUs they had running Linux. Totally inmaterial.
In any case I get the impression you are suggesting DC still uses SCOG software, they do not.
No, you look it up. Groklaw would be a good place to start.
#