Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Jun 2007 10:29 UTC, submitted by binarycrusader
Oracle and SUN Simon Phipps of Sun has responded to the recent criticism of Sun's openness, pointing out that even releasing information that they may already have costs a lot of money. "Jonathan asked me to look into this, to ensure we're pursuing an open path across all of Sun, not simply the software group. We take all input seriously, and we can't solve all problems for all parties, but we're committed to doing our best to faithfully engage with all the communities we serve, in the same spirit as the existing Open Source Ombudsman Scheme. With the support of my team and others in the community I'll try to build a new scheme that is fair and transparent."
Permalink for comment 249371
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
[OT]: Strategies in a post-SCO world
by robilad on Wed 20th Jun 2007 20:17 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Come clean about SCO"
Member since:

Whoever ends up owning SCO's dead corpse after the litigation, will have an interest in recouping their legal costs. A way to do that may be to go after anyone who was behind SCO's deal.

It's a lot more likely that was Microsoft (and they'd present a very attractive litigation target) than Sun.

In particular, even if Sun actually was complicit in that game, it would make more sense to split the defense, and let Sun sell out Microsoft to the court, *once the litigation starts*, since if there was indeed a conspiracy against Linux that Sun was part of, then they'd have some great things to use against Microsoft in court.

So, I'd suggest patience as the best strategy: if Sun wasn't part of the SCO game plan, giving them the benefit of doubt is a good thing, and if they were part of the game, it would be strategically stupid to make it attractive for Sun's new leadership to have to defend themselves along with Microsoft, so giving them the benefit of doubt does not hurt.

Either way, we'll find out in a year or two. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1