Talk:USL v. BSDi settlement agreement unsealed

Fine to go- short, but is fine otherwise. Lyellin 04:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Accuracy: The details of the settlement may have ramifications with respect to the SCO v. IBM case with SCO believing it is the successor in interest to USL. Neutrality: Legality: Scope/comprehensiveness: Style and writing:
 * I checked the following facts.
 * The 1994 settlement agreement between UNIX Systems Laboratories (USL) and BSDi (USL v. BSDi) was unsealed in November 2004 under the California Public Records Act (California Code § 6250-6270).
 * sources:
 * http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=135515&liArticleTypeID=1&liCategoryID=2&liChannelID=28&liFlavourID=1&sSearch=&nPage=1
 * http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=2728
 * http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=10311&Page=1&pagePos=4
 * http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/gov/6250-6270.html
 * http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041126130302760
 * I think BSDi may be replaced as University of California, since that seems to be the party to the lawsuit/settlement. Other than that, no problem.
 * Seems okay to me.
 * Seems okay to me.
 * Though short, it is publishable, I think.
 * I think sources should be there.

I will make those changes, and I would find no problem publishing it.Tomos 21:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Additional comments:

After I made the changes, I came to think that we do not have to have sources that I added. After all, the article was written before those news reports. And it cited the primary source, Groklaw. I used secondary sources only to verify the articles' contents. So perhaps those sources can go out. Tomos 21:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)