Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 28th May 2003 23:26 UTC, submitted by Owen Anderson
SCO, Caldera, Unixware In a statement today, SCO seems to have threatened to sue Linus Torvalds, the inventor of Linux, if more companies don't start licensing UNIX. (Note: Look at the very last paragraph.)
Order by: Score:
this is getting stupid...
by SteveB on Wed 28th May 2003 23:36 UTC

they should show what is wrong and not talk.

actions have more weight then words!

More and more...
by Nathan O. on Wed 28th May 2003 23:39 UTC

They're showing up in the news every day, more and more desperate, appearing to have wilder and wilder alligations. How can they even touch Linus?? All he does is maintain a kernel. He doesn't own it, he doesn't make direct contributions of code he doesn't have access to... if anything, someone else contributed the still-unmentioned code, and it's their fault. That'd be IBM, right? Stick to what's realistic.

v Windows forever
by Future Progression on Wed 28th May 2003 23:40 UTC
????
by Chris on Wed 28th May 2003 23:44 UTC

Sure Linux Torvalds? Is there something in the air at SCO HQ? They are xdesperate and shows. Forget it, SCO, your finished. You have been shown to liars and frauds.

v you must be retarded
by Future Progression is an idiot on Wed 28th May 2003 23:46 UTC
What's funny about this...
by KCardoza on Wed 28th May 2003 23:47 UTC

is that SCOX doesn't own the patents or copyrights on UNIX. Novell owns them. How can you sue someone for violating a patent you don't own?

riiight
by april_fool on Wed 28th May 2003 23:50 UTC

In response to Novell, SCO just issued a press release today saying that the IBM lawsuit has nothing to do with patents or copyrights. They're now claiming they own the "contracting rights" to Unix. So why is McBride still talking about suing over patents? And even if these "contracting rights" exist, what do they have to do with Linux? These guys are all hat and no cattle. All hired IP lawyers and no IP. Lawsuits-dot-com. The legal equivalent of vaporware.

SCO is full of it
by Nik on Wed 28th May 2003 23:52 UTC

HAHAHA your telling me free softwzre leads to terrorism? Thats by far the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time. I mean what you think al-qaeda cant get a pirate copy of windows?

SCO is full of it. I mean what is the purpose of suing torvalds....sigh oh well they will loose.

Lose their faces
by Quake on Wed 28th May 2003 23:57 UTC

Maybe They are doing those lawsuit because they already know that they won't be able to survive, so they want to die "as a combatant" and not to "lose their faces".

SCO is one confused puppy
by PeterO on Wed 28th May 2003 23:59 UTC

I know I shouldn't smile, but it's so much fun to watch SCO implode.

What a delight to hear that they may not own the copyrights that are the foundation of their case!

Now they seem to be considering holding Linus for ransom.

How much more bizarre could this posssibly get?

I'll bet IBM's lawyers are just licking their chops. They're going to make quite a feast out of poor SCO.

v RE: Windows forever
by Stephen Smith on Wed 28th May 2003 23:59 UTC
v RE: Future Progression
by Jonas on Thu 29th May 2003 00:00 UTC
Lose their faces
by Quake on Thu 29th May 2003 00:00 UTC

Maybe They are doing those lawsuit because they already know that they won't be able to survive, so they want to die "as a combatant" and not to "lose their faces".

v re:windows cheating
by toto on Thu 29th May 2003 00:01 UTC
SCO has p.r. diarhea
by Bobthearch on Thu 29th May 2003 00:02 UTC

That last paragraph is eye-catching, and sure to make lots of e-news. That's likely SCO's purpose for spouting that crap. But it's the first paragraph that's the most relevent, and really gets to the center of this farse:

"We believe it unlikely that SCO can demonstrate that it has any ownership whatsoever in those copyrights," said Jack Messman, Novell's chief executive...


Best Wishes,
Bob

SCO
by David Hunter on Thu 29th May 2003 00:09 UTC

Ok everyone:

SCO has a problem with Linux - I know a way to solve the problem - lets all return all our copies of Linux and related materials (such as books with CD's and soforth) to SCO and ask for our money back.

Linux out of distribution, SCO has all the code it wants, MS wins, what more could you ask for ?

I'd gladly send my RH 7.3, 8.0 + RH8 Book + RH9 to SCO just to see SCO's reaction. Then maybe they will drop the case. And Linus only has created the kernel, nothing more, the rest was done by mortals like you and I.

A day in the life of a SCO manager
by toto on Thu 29th May 2003 00:12 UTC


manager: So who do we threaten today boss.
shadowed Redmond person: Lets sue and threaten kids under 12 they dont if dont know what linux is .....
By the way send us the source code of Linux so we can put it our NeverThere os.

so sue me
by the arbiter on Thu 29th May 2003 00:17 UTC

I still have my copy of Red Hat 7.3. It enabled me to not buy a copy of UNIX. I demand that SCO sue me as well.

(I just want to be part of the party)

Ownership of Linux
by Brian on Thu 29th May 2003 00:18 UTC

Linus Torvalds does not own Linux - not in its entirety. What he does own is the trademark on Linux, and the copyrights on a fair chunk of the basic kernel. However, each submitter of a non-trivial amount of code retains the copyright!

Thus, it's highly unlikely that Linus owns the copyright on anything SCO could sue over. At most he distributed something containing SCO, er, Novell IP unknowingly - as did SCO themselves. Not much of an argument there ;-)

Why not?
by Anonymous on Thu 29th May 2003 00:21 UTC

If Linus deliberately used code he hadn't licensed, I think it is perfectly fine for SCO to collect what it feels necessary to protect its IP. It was only a matter of time before Linux and the people developing did something as stupid as this. Meanwhile, I continue using FreeBSD 5.0 and go on with my daily life.

smells like the days events left skid marks in their pants
by e-mos on Thu 29th May 2003 00:22 UTC

since when did Linus have personal access to sco source code?
when did Linus sign a contract with SCO?

after reading SCOs response(!?):
http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=110126
"SCO’s lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights. SCO’s complaint specifically alleges breach of contract, and SCO intends to protect and enforce all of the contracts that the company has with more than 6,000 licensees.
"

it is obvious that after shotting their own foot then reloading and successivly taking off therest of their toes, they no longer have a leg to stand on.

RE: this is getting stupid...
by Stu on Thu 29th May 2003 00:27 UTC

>> actions have more weight then words!

Yeah, but with Bill Gates hand in your pocket you might just think that lawyers have more weight than actions!

I can just imagine the kind of backlash on SCO the minute they even try to implicate Linus. Countersuits from "every" linux related company anyone?

RE: SCO is full of it
by Stu on Thu 29th May 2003 00:30 UTC

>> I mean what you think al-qaeda cant get a pirate copy of windows?

IIRC the news reports shortly after found that they used Win2k. I think it took about 3 days to crack the file encrption ;-)

News just in!
by Piers on Thu 29th May 2003 00:31 UTC

Directors at SCO been caught smoking Crack Pipes.

It has been proven that the Directors at SCO have been smoking Crack. This also makes some sense out of the recent claims that have been coming from SCO head office in relation to intellectual property rights infringments.

I see nothing different here in my ficticious headlines to that of the crap SCO has been sprouting. I hope someone takes these buggers to court for defamation.

p.s. The headlines and content of this message are just the personal oppinions of the author and are only meant as an example of how pathetic US Corporate Business Practices are. Nothing like being productive and contributing to society, why bother when you can steal others productivity/work through the Legal System. All total B.S. May their sail down the drain be very disturbing for them and them only.

v Ops...
by chicobaud on Thu 29th May 2003 00:32 UTC

>(Linus) All he does is maintain a kernel. He doesn't own it,

I think Mr. Linus Torvalds does own the Linux kernel rights.

That's why there is an "official" version of the Linux kernel and plenty of "patched" versions. This patched versions are made by developers and (today) by distribution and enterprises.

SCO can only take (legal) IP action against Mr. Linus if they *can* claim (and prove) that there is legacy Unix C code on the "official" version of the Linux kernel.

RE: Anonymous (IP: ---.ec.rr.com)
by BR on Thu 29th May 2003 00:45 UTC

"If Linus deliberately used code he hadn't licensed, I think it is perfectly fine for SCO to collect what it feels necessary to protect its IP. It was only a matter of time before Linux and the people developing did something as stupid as this. Meanwhile, I continue using FreeBSD 5.0 and go on with my daily life."


*rolls eyes*

If you're going to stir a pot, use both hands.
1-SCO at this point is all talk, no proof.
2-Last time I checked, there was nothing about the BSD development process that granted it more immunity from wild and unsubstantuated claims than the Linux process.

v stepchild of microsoft
by ryan on Thu 29th May 2003 00:47 UTC
RE: BR
by Anonymous on Thu 29th May 2003 00:56 UTC

"*rolls eyes*

If you're going to stir a pot, use both hands.
1-SCO at this point is all talk, no proof.
2-Last time I checked, there was nothing about the BSD development process that granted it more immunity from wild and unsubstantuated claims than the Linux process."

1. Yes, but it is only a matter of time before SCO does reveal the code in question. The issue is not whether the code is a problem, but how quickly linux distributions would adapt removing the code, and pretending that it was never a problem.
2. True, but the BSD crowd already experienced a brush like this in the past which gave linux the headstart it now has. It is not something they are going to foolishly do. Most of the BSD developers, I know, pride themselves in developing their own solutions, rather than simply using licensed code and pretending like the people that it came from weren't going to notice. The BSD folks have progressed a long way since this, and for that I applaud them. Apparently, the linux crowd was too busy bashing the BSD folks to learn from their mistakes, and now will likely have to be taught the lesson the hard way.

Precedents to this nonsense ?
by Mark on Thu 29th May 2003 01:08 UTC

SCO shoot blanks and when they realize the target is still alive, they aim in another direction, always using fake ammos. Their case against IBM has become so pathetic I wonder if this kind of silly tactics has ever been used before by a software manufacturer, or by any other corporation in the past.

> I think Mr. Linus Torvalds does own the Linux kernel rights.

> That's why there is an "official" version of the Linux kernel and plenty of "patched" versions. This patched versions are made by developers and (today) by distribution and enterprises.

AFAIK, Linus owns the trademark "Linux", not the kernel rights.
Anyone can make a kernel branch and call it the "official" version of anything they like, except "Linux".

That's basically why Linus gets the final say on what goes into the official Linux Kernel.

Re:Re:BR
by zank on Thu 29th May 2003 01:10 UTC

FreeBSD's coders may be competent good people.
It's users obviously aren't.

RE:Anonymous (IP: ---.ec.rr.com)
by BR on Thu 29th May 2003 01:10 UTC

"1. Yes, but it is only a matter of time before SCO does reveal the code in question. The issue is not whether the code is a problem, but how quickly linux distributions would adapt removing the code, and pretending that it was never a problem. "


Hide WHAT from WHOM? I (amoung many others) have the source code going all the way back to the early days. You can't hide from that.

"2. True, but the BSD crowd already experienced a brush like this in the past which gave linux the headstart it now has. It is not something they are going to foolishly do. Most of the BSD developers, I know, pride themselves in developing their own solutions, rather than simply using licensed code and pretending like the people that it came from weren't going to notice. The BSD folks have progressed a long way since this, and for that I applaud them. Apparently, the linux crowd was too busy bashing the BSD folks to learn from their mistakes, and now will likely have to be taught the lesson the hard way."

You do realize in front of God and everyone else that you have no more proof than SCO of improperly licensed code in the kernel. I do hope you realized that the only one "bashing" is you, and how much of a disservice your doing both to BSD and yourself?

RE:RE: BR
by e-mos on Thu 29th May 2003 01:14 UTC

if they had code it would have been shown.
this is a fud attempt to bully custumers into giving them money.

>>2. True, but the BSD crowd already experienced a brush like this in the past which gave linux the headstart it now has. It is not something they are going to foolishly do. Most of the BSD developers, I know, pride themselves in developing their own solutions, rather than simply using licensed code and pretending like the people that it came from weren't going to notice. The BSD folks have progressed a long way since this, and for that I applaud them. Apparently, the linux crowd was too busy bashing the BSD folks to learn from their mistakes, and now will likely have to be taught the lesson the hard way.

Funny thing I always here the Linux community speak well of BSD while the oposite ful the BSD crowd. so returning to what BR said "If you're going to stir a pot, use both hands. "

RE: Anonymous
by Bobthearch on Thu 29th May 2003 01:20 UTC

1) "Yes, but it is only a matter of time before SCO does reveal the code in question."...

I don't think they'll ever publicly name specific code. By doing that they risk revealing the true owners of the Unix code. By the time this gets to court they'll have backed down to complaining that Linux is doing something vaguely similar to Unix, like the words rhyme.

2) "...Apparently, the linux crowd was too busy bashing the BSD folks to learn from their mistakes, and now will likely have to be taught the lesson the hard way."

Some vague and fluid accusations made by an corporation don't mean anything. By the confidence in your post, it sounds like you have insight. Perhaps you could show us SCO copyrights that are relevent to the questionable Linux code?

So what?
by So what? on Thu 29th May 2003 01:28 UTC

What I find interesting is how people are wasting so much time on this issue.

USL settled with the BSD source tree.
SCO's rights come from the USL code.
SCO is going after GNU/Linux because they feel they can make money.
So, move to one of the BSDs and deprive SCO of the revenue they think they can get. If SCO wins some kind of $ per GNU/Linux install, how are they going to collect that from BSD users?

BSD History
by djcdplaya on Thu 29th May 2003 01:32 UTC

Thanks BR! This thread looks like it's about to fork into a BSD centered thread. I like the *BSDs AND Linux, so how's about a super quick history of BSD lesson:
<p>
Wanna know why BSD won't have the same problem? Answer> Because they had it already.
</p><p>
HOMEWORK
See the following:
http://daemonz.org/bugs/history.html
http://www.mckusick.com/history/
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/kirkmck.html
http://www.lemis.com/bsdpaper.html

scared
by eightiesdude on Thu 29th May 2003 01:34 UTC

Someone is scared of Tux. I wonder who....

Anyone can make a kernel branch and call it the "official" version of anything they like, except "Linux".

That's what I said by mention the official *Linux* kernel (versus the patched ones).

Re:Re:BR
by Anonymous on Thu 29th May 2003 01:47 UTC

FreeBSD's coders may be competent good people.
It's users obviously aren't.


Since we're just an entire operating system's users based on their posts here - please share what operating system you use so we can judge yours as well. That's its.

SCO is a LOOSE CANNON
by phillytim on Thu 29th May 2003 02:04 UTC

OK: SCO is a mad dog that needs to be SHOT!

This is obviously a company on it's last, desperate leg.

Whoever is at the head of SCO is gonna look mighty embarrased when SCO is put in it's place.

They should just take their losses and quit now; just as Bush should have done in Iraq before striking them.

RE:phillytim (IP: 170.115.249.---)
by BR on Thu 29th May 2003 02:10 UTC

"They should just take their losses and quit now; just as Bush should have done in Iraq before striking them."

**shakes head slowly**

A story about SCO threatening to sue Linux, has split into a BSD thread, and now it's a political thread. How about we split this into the merits of gumballs vs suckers? My vote is for gumballs because suckers "suck".

"Linux"
by Chris on Thu 29th May 2003 02:21 UTC

McBride added that unless more companies start licensing SCO's property, he may also sue Linus Torvalds, who is credited with inventing the Linux operating system, for patent infringement.


Linux is kernel, not an OS. Maybe RMS can send them a letter convincing them the change their statements to use GNU/Linux instead? :-)

CEO will cash out...
by Anonymous on Thu 29th May 2003 02:23 UTC

SCO's stock lost 99% of its value in the last 2 years and ever since this smoke screen lawsuit their stock shot up 500% CEO has struck gold. He will cash out soon enough.

No matter what. . .
by Sean on Thu 29th May 2003 02:41 UTC

No matter what you think of SCO's allogations, you have to admit that the Linux community is just as outrageous. They don't care at all about the intellectual property that might have been used without SCO's permission. They haven't done anything desperate or underhanded so far. No one presents evidence before a trial/hearing just to satisfy public curiosity.

There seems to be a double standard here. No one cried foul on DEC when they went after Intel over intellectual property and didn't present evidence before the trial. This is normal. Or does Linux warrant special consideration since it is free?

That said, SCO's claim may be completely and utterly bogus, but no one hear has any idea if that is true. It is just as likely, from the evicence thus presented - which happens to be nothing, that their claim is air tight. People WANT to believe that SCO's claim is just the desperate cry of a dying company, but it could just as easily be the cry of a victim.

Oh, you can't sell software to someone without selling the patents and copyrights that are associated with it. It isn't possible. Selling software without the copyrights and patents associated with it is called licencing and it's what Microsoft 'sells' to you when you buy Windows. UNIX transfered hands from Novell to SCO including all of the copyrights and patents associated with it. Novell is not an unbiased party here like many are tring to claim. Since their next product is going to be based around the Linux kernel, they have as much to loose here as anyone.

One thing can be sure, Novell doesn't own the copyrights to what they sold to SCO.

Another thing that is fairly sure is that Linus is not liable. Now, if he personally used the illegal code, knew that the submission of another was illegal or continued distributing the illegal code after it was deemed illegal (by a court, not SCO), then he would be liable.

The thing is that, most likely, this code can be taken out of Linux and replaced. Even if SCO wins, Linux is going to be fine. Almost no matter how extensive the violation is, that code could be replaced/adapted by/from FreeBSD or other code.

This isn't such a big deal. It may mean that old distributions will need to exit distribution until new, non-infringing versions come out, but not too much else. What will be the big deal is IBM's possible breach of contract and copyright law. SCO's alledges that they knowingly and willfully violated their copyrights and that means that they will be in real trouble. Companies like RedHat won't get penilties unless they continue to distribute the illegal code after it has been deemed illegal by the courts. They thought it was legal even if it wasn't and so they aren't at fault.

People assume that this is a life or death situation for Linux. It might be a financial disaster for IBM and a setback for Novell, but nothing that completely endangers free software.

Get a grip on yourselves people! Your acting like MICROSOFT!

SCO stock and the Microsoft connection
by Scott Lowe on Thu 29th May 2003 02:51 UTC

>> SCO's stock lost 99% of its value in the last 2 years and ever since this smoke screen lawsuit their stock shot up 500% CEO has struck gold. He will cash out soon enough. <<

If SCO's CEO actually pulls something like that and sells his stock now and it is determined that SCO brought a frivilous lawsuit, he will very likely go to jail for SEC violations when this is all over.

The Microsoft Connection
A lot of people have mentioned that this lawsuit is being underwritten by Microsoft or that MS has a hand in this. Honestly, I don't think MS is quite that stupid. They're still facing antitrust problems from two state AGs and don't need that kind of evidence to be their undoing. Instead, I think they jumped on the chance to try to prove some point to the Linux community by their actions regarding the SCO lawsuit. True -- it backfired and made them look pretty bad. Basically, they looked before the leaped.

Scott

This is so stupid.
by telix5000 on Thu 29th May 2003 02:56 UTC

Just read the damn Sco.com website. The lawsuit revolved around IBM closing it's Unix development dept for a Linux development dept and moving those employees onto Linux, which under the GPL was originally intended for non-commercial usage.

Seeing this is the case, and everyone want to sit there and get pissy with SCO, you have to understand the whole terms of the GPL are at stake here too. IBM is first on their long list I can see.

RE: No matter what. . .
by FuraXFox on Thu 29th May 2003 03:04 UTC

One point is that nobody cryed when the same SCO sued Microsoft over DR-DOS false bug (and they had specificaly bought the rights for the case). You are right Linux community is crying loud, but it is because SCO's action can legitimatly be taken as agressions.

But,
1) NOVELL may perfectly have sold a right of sublicensing UNIX to SCO without having given away its copyright.

2) NOVELL affirmations are supported by publicaly accessibles document (read their press release: http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/05/pr03033.html ).

3) SCO has changed 3 times (for my count) its position and has shown great incoherence in its words ("kernel is not concerned", "this is about copyright and patent", "this is not about copyright and patent but trade secret".... got more ?).

4) SCO has sent threatening letters in all direction, I've not heard of a company sending such mails *while preparing to defend its assumption in court*.

Being extremly spectical, I must admit tha many hypothesis are totaly bogus. But facts show SCO making much noice in many directions, being very agressive, sending ever changing threats to anybody that may want to pay some racket fee.

It reminds me North Korea : "I'm crazy and desperate but I can make big harm so you have to comply to my desires".

My two euros cents.

this is a joke, right... ?
by smiling_bhudda on Thu 29th May 2003 03:10 UTC

ha ha ha! just when i thought it couldn't get sillier - it did! threats against Linus! ho ho!

i lcan't wait to hear what those M$ puppets will do tomorrow!

blame al-qaeda for stealing the code, using mao-ist agents to transfer the disks? oh, and they've got real-estate rights to the moon to!

May madness
by Cesar Cardoso on Thu 29th May 2003 03:11 UTC

1) Hm. Those BSD lusers that made the bad name of all the *BSD found a great niche here on OSNews, where they can make their voodoo to kill Linux.

2) Hey! Will SCO try to sue AT&T? To reissue the USL-UCB case? Please Eugenia, make a poll about it!

3) Can I sue someone? Maybe I try to sue myself :-) Seriously, only joking...

RE: No matter what. . .
by FuraXFox on Thu 29th May 2003 03:16 UTC

PS:
+ I'm not asserting that no SCO code has been included in Linux kernel. It is still possible that IBM had broken some secrecy concerning some post-Novell era developpement (which I doubt having worked for IBM and knowing their level of attention to IP). But if SCO really sucks at defending its case and have probably invalided its eventual right by distributing Caldera Linux. If they are a victim, they seems really dedicated to convince everyone that their make a high profile agressor.

+ Sorry for the poor english, but its late, sent in the middle of debugging session and I did not proof read :-(


bye bye alternative OS friends
by mopar on Thu 29th May 2003 03:17 UTC

... SCO, you used to be cool for an alternative OS user(DR-DOS and OpenLinux), seeking something beter/different than ms. Now you are POS, trying to take that away from us. piss off...

RE: SCO is a LOOSE CANNON
by rajan r on Thu 29th May 2003 03:30 UTC

They should just take their losses and quit now; just as Bush should have done in Iraq before striking them.

I know I shouldn't get political, but please tell to the wandering widow in a nearby just-found mass grave that GWB should have just shut up and didn't attack.

The war on Iraq has no moral equalivency as SCO suing IBM and threating everyone else. SCO is in a last ditch lawsuit spree - if they loose this one, I doubt they can pass the next decade. America would be strong as ever if they didn't attack Iraq. That's one of the many.

Lotta non-lawyers talkin'...
by Jud on Thu 29th May 2003 03:34 UTC

Surprisingly enough, I*A*AL, and even though I've had experience in a copyright and a patent litigation, I'm definitely no expert.

Nevertheless, McBride's statements definitely sound a bit "out there" to my non-expert ears, particularly regarding ownership of Unix patents/copyrights. In this connection it should be noted that they have not sued IBM for any intellectual property violations. Seems odd that they wouldn't press that case against the folks who supposedly are directly responsible for putting their proprietary code in Linux, but would be so liberal about threatening to sue those who might have unknowingly used it.

Another interesting item has to do with SCO revealing the allegedly offending code. It is customary in patent or copyright cases to give someone notice of the allegedly infringing conduct that is specific enough to allow them to stop the infringement. SCO's stated reason for not doing this is to prevent the possibility of IBM hiding the infringement - "wiping the fingerprints off the gun," to use SCO's metaphor. Now if someone will just tell me how IBM can remove code from millions of folks' *open source* Linux distributions without being noticed, I'll believe that.

One last thought: David Boies, SCO's lawyer in the suit against IBM, is a fine attorney. He can't ethically (and I believe he won't) press a case he knows to be meritless. So I'm wondering whether this will ever reach the point where Boies withdraws from his representation of SCO. If he does, you'll be able to watch SCO's stock drop like a rocket to Russia.

err...
by Anonymous on Thu 29th May 2003 03:37 UTC

Pardon if it's been brought up, but this article implies that Novell sold the UNIX code to SCO, but never transferred the patents over.

Exactly what was purchased back in '95 by SCO from Novell... From what I've read here at OSNEWS recently it seems that SCO merely purchased the rights to liscense UNIX to companies, and perhaps (though I've not read it) use the UNIX code in their own products.

Pardon my laziness not to go out and find out for myself, I figured I'd ask here first to find out what you all might know on the subject, and have it fleshed out in open discussion in case someone not so vocal might also be curious...

RE: err...
by FuraXFox on Thu 29th May 2003 03:47 UTC

seems that NOVELL is claiming it has only licensed UNIX technology to SCO there :
http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/05/pr03033.html

this is also sustained by parts of this declaration :
http://ir.sco.com/EdgarDetail.cfm?CompanyID=CALD&CIK=1102542&FID=10...

The Register also has a bunch of articles on the subject there :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/30910.html

and the answer to SCO claims from ESR:

http://open5ource.net/opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html

RE-HACKERS
by panther on Thu 29th May 2003 03:55 UTC

If you hack and hate SCO. Don't talk. Get even. You know how!!!!

Sco sucks?
by Mostel on Thu 29th May 2003 03:55 UTC

SCO's claims are about as lame as George Bush's excuses for deserting the Vietnam War, and choosing cocaine instead. Maybe that's what SCO is smoking - cocaine!

SCO - Utah - and Republicans - All are idiots
by Nate on Thu 29th May 2003 04:03 UTC

Don't forget that SCO is in UTAH, home of conservative Republicans, and yes our dumbshite president is a former crackhead who couldn't pour enough booze down his stinking gullet.

What else should you expect from Republicans other than lawsuits? (Whatever happened with Whitewater... nothing there except a bunch of neocon lawyers at the trough.)

SCO will go down in history as one of the biggest business debacles of the 21st century.

Why?
by technodev on Thu 29th May 2003 04:07 UTC

I've read several posts here and earlier and probably on other sites too (but can't recall) about how I (A Linux user) should switch to BSD so that I don't have a problem. I'm not aware if BSD users are aware of this, but I don't have a problem. I have no problem using Linux now, and I probably won't for the rest of my life -- at the moment I'm using it to type this. And if in 2 weeks SCO does make some sort of Valid claim and there is code in the kernel, I can suspect there will be a patch out within days, possibly hours to replace the code with something our own community has cooked up. Although I think it's quite clear SCO doesn't have much going on... it's apparently not quite clear to BSD users that Linux users are suffering no major draw backs. It's also quite certain that if this whole endeavor turns out with SCO having NOTHING on it's side, that any losses suffered by corporations will be returned via a settlement after they fire counter-suits back at them.

All this seems apparent to everyone I've talked to, so why do BSD users still feel the need to tell me that I should switch from Linux to BSD on grounds that Linux is going down?

....
by Anonymous on Thu 29th May 2003 04:15 UTC

Now the Raelians are joining the SCO in the lawsuit against Linus Torvalds for copyright infringement that is going to take place in the distant future as proven by psychics - 2015.

RE: technodev (IP: ---.ne.client2.attbi.com)
by BR on Thu 29th May 2003 04:34 UTC

"it's also quite certain that if this whole endeavor turns out with SCO having NOTHING on it's side, that any losses suffered by corporations will be returned via a settlement after they fire counter-suits back at them."

Well I'm not so certain about that. SCO is playing a dangerous game. While talk is cheap, damages certainly aren't, and SCO isn't going to be worth much when this is over. I keep getting the feeling that someone didn't think this all the way through.

_
by slackware on Thu 29th May 2003 04:42 UTC

McBride added that unless more companies start licensing SCO's property, he may also sue Linus Torvalds

McBride or at least the way the reporter wrote the sentence emphasizes "unless". So they're not going to sue Linus if more SCO licences are bought? I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like blackmail to me.

Linus(x)
by marc on Thu 29th May 2003 04:43 UTC

Linus Torvalds maintains a kernel, that's all he does. He doesn't make any money of it, or any profit or even PR. There are also other people who maintain the kernel. They all do it for free.

<sarcasm>
Tomorrow I'll sue the guy who invented the wheel because it looks to much like my oval...
</end sarcasm>

re: Why not?
by Captain Chris on Thu 29th May 2003 04:47 UTC

I don't think you've been paying too much attention. SCO has released no proof as of yet. In fact, all their actions (the chest-thumping, etc) indicate that they're full of it; if they had a solid case, they'd just sue the guilty parties and get it over with, rather than trying to scare them in the press. Please stop your childish Linux-bashing-"my-OS-is-better-than-yours" crap.

this is getting stupid...

Couldn't have said it any better. What's next...are they going to sue me?

UNIX code in Linux?
by John Blink on Thu 29th May 2003 04:51 UTC

So are they saying Linux is in violation or GNU/LINUX ;)

All I see is them saying Linux, so I assume they believe the problem is with the kernel.

re: News just in!
by Captain Chris on Thu 29th May 2003 04:51 UTC

an example of how pathetic US Corporate Business Practices are

Knock it off, knucklehead. Do we need to bring up the likes of Rupert Murdoch? Not all US corporations behave like this...if they did, they'd be out of business awfully fast. (Is the suit helping SCO? Not a chance.) So grow up.

SCO is very stupid!
by haha on Thu 29th May 2003 05:00 UTC

Sue Linus? Why?
O come on guys! It really show you how stupid you are!

Re: ....
by Captain Chris on Thu 29th May 2003 05:02 UTC

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha!!:-)

ditto
by jsg on Thu 29th May 2003 05:21 UTC

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

just a recap of recent events
by mountainpenguin on Thu 29th May 2003 06:21 UTC

Let's recap what happened so far...

1. SCO can't come up with a viable business plan so they decided that it was easier to just sue IBM for $1 Billion accusing them of misappropriating SCO's intellectual property.

2. Rebuttle pours out from all over the place which makes SCO lawyers look like bunch of drunken monkies.

3. Bunch of crackers shut down SCO's website just because they can.

4. Microsoft pumps SCO full of cash just because they can.

5. Herd of penguin lovers demand proof from SCO but only hears the sound one hand clapping.

6. Novell exposes the fact that SCO never had any intellectual property to begin with.

7. SCO threatens to sue Linus because they believe that customers are more likely to buy a software from a company that threatens to sue the guy who created the product they are buying.

Did I miss anything?

A smart move by Novell
by Matthew Baulch on Thu 29th May 2003 06:24 UTC

Novell's bumpy landing into the linux world with the CEO calling linux 'immature' needed to be repaired. Having them back up the kernel by making these series of statement will only help their public perception. Well done Novell.

On and off and on topic again.
by Good Grief on Thu 29th May 2003 06:56 UTC

Anonymous:

Most of the BSD developers, I know, pride themselves in developing their own solutions, rather than simply using licensed code and pretending like the people that it came from weren't going to notice. The BSD folks have progressed a long way since this, and for that I applaud them. Apparently, the linux crowd was too busy bashing the BSD folks

Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees the irony in this little snippet.

djcdplaya:

Wanna know why BSD won't have the same problem? Answer> Because they had it already.

Yeah, I've been a fan of bill 87245366(a)[1] ever since I got sued for shirking my telephone payments.

rajan r:

I know I shouldn't get political, but please tell to the wandering widow in a nearby just-found mass grave that GWB should have just shut up and didn't attack.

Would that be one of the mass graves of Kurds gassed by American-supplied chemical weapons? Or would they be Iraqis massacred by Iranians with American M16s? Or maybe it's just a run-of-the-mill mass grave, one of many created throughout the decades that Iraq and the U.S.A. were buddy-buddy.

Captain Chris:

"an example of how pathetic US Corporate Business Practices are"

Knock it off, knucklehead. Do we need to bring up the likes of Rupert Murdoch?


Who?

Not all US corporations behave like this...

No, mostly just the big ones, and only then behind closed doors.

Is the suit helping SCO?

Seen their stock price lately?


GG

-------------
[1] Bill 87245366(a): Any person, organisation or entity, upon having been lawfully and legally served with a notice to appear in court, shall subsequently become immune to any future suits for the remaining portion of its existence in whole or in part.

RE: Matthew Baulch
by BR on Thu 29th May 2003 06:56 UTC

"Novell's bumpy landing into the linux world with the CEO calling linux 'immature' needed to be repaired. Having them back up the kernel by making these series of statement will only help their public perception. Well done Novell."

Well the bit of historical irony is that the canopy group was started by Ray Noorda.

http://www.canopy.com/

RE: Did I miss anything?
by Aki Kolehmainen on Thu 29th May 2003 07:28 UTC

You missed the "Nigerian letters" SCO is sending to companies asking for money for the products they use and not owned by SCO.

JUST IGNORE IT!!!
by emey on Thu 29th May 2003 07:39 UTC

SCO just cry foul everywhere, putting itself as a judge although there are still no judgement done by the court until now. However they already sending email, letter etc to many other about this thing (I think the are targeting the money actually)

I think it is still a good move for us to just ignore whatever SCO claim until the court give the verdict. If the verdict on the SCO's side, then we just can drop every area that involving SCO's patent inside Linux. If the verdict is not on the SCO's side, it is easier for us.

If the court verdict require Linux to be abandoned, we got many more alternative such as *BSD, OpenDarwin and many other open source OS. SCO will never win in any way it try.

...
by Anonymous on Thu 29th May 2003 07:50 UTC

It's not even going to make it to the courts.

Linus, come back in Europe
by Paolo on Thu 29th May 2003 08:27 UTC

Hey Linus, come back in Europe, here nobody would sue you over absurd allegations.

Strange
by Daan on Thu 29th May 2003 08:59 UTC

It is a strange case.
- In the letter in which SCO announced SCO-Source, they said they would not sue Linux vendors.
- Then they sued IBM.
- Then they said that Linus' kernel was clean, that the problem lied in things added to the kernel by others.
- So are it some kernel patches? Or is there a problem with /sbin/init or so? Is there copyright violation in SysVInit? Or something totally different?
- Then they sue Linus. (because he would have infringed Unix patents)
It is all very strange. There is only a little problem, I would love to buy a product from SCO, but then, they only have server operating systems? What would they suggest for the desktop (yes, they had Linux for this)? Should I use FreeBSD, which does not support my hardware? Should I use NetBSD which does not have the software I need? Do I need to buy a SparcStation then? Would SCO be happy if I brought Solaris instead of Linux? I guess that would only give Sun more profit.
But wait, there was Microsoft! Didn't they have a large share in SCO? Of course, the idea is to use SCO OpenServer or Unixware as server, with Microsoft Windows for all the workstations. But then, why not switch to Windows Servers too, for sake of integration and keeping TCO low? I think a system administrator would be cheaper if he only needs to know one operating system.

Business to plain english translation...
by CooCooCaChoo on Thu 29th May 2003 09:07 UTC

"We're really up shit creak in the money department and we can't get a government bail out so I demand that EVERYONE licenses our UNIX, whether you have used it, thought about using it or have stepped within 100,000km radius of the source code, YOU HAVE TO PURCHASE A LICENSE!".

Anyway, being serious, SCO is yet another company who can't win the product battle so they start innovating and came up with eXtreme litigation. The only people in the end who actually win are the slimmy lawyers who can't wait to charge their clients by the second.

RE: Anonymous (IP: ---.ec.rr.com)
by CooCooCaChoo on Thu 29th May 2003 09:12 UTC

How on earth can Linus personally use code when he has never been within a 100km radius of the original UNIX source code? at worst, there may be similarities because after all he IS implementing the UNIX specification according to the documenetation provided by the OpenGroup.

Re: Strange
by mountainpenguin on Thu 29th May 2003 09:24 UTC

I think a system administrator would be cheaper if he only needs to know one operating system.

Hmm... Like it would be cheaper to build a house if you hire contractors who only knew how to use one tool? Perhaps you mean houses will be cheaper if houses can be built with using only one tool? If everyone on the planet spoke one language, drive same car, listen to same music, ate same food and dressed alike it would be lot "cheaper"?. Is that the kind of world you would really like to live in?

Having variety creates competition. Having competition is very effective means of reducing cost. Monopoly breeds price fixing, stagnation in technology, etc...

What if ...
by pepe on Thu 29th May 2003 09:30 UTC

What if all current Linux users and potential future users will turn off from SCO?
Will they survive? Hm...?

For me SCO is finished. Game over guys...

READ ON
by FireBase on Thu 29th May 2003 09:35 UTC


"SCO holds the rights only to the operating system source code originally licensed by AT&T and does not own the UNIX trademark itself or definition of what a UNIX system is."

http://www.opengroup.org/comm/press/who-owns-unix.htm

slightly off topic...
by CooCooCaChoo on Thu 29th May 2003 10:03 UTC

There is also a mark, or brand, that is used to identify those products that have been certified as conforming to the Single UNIX Specification, initially UNIX 93, followed subsequently by UNIX 95, UNIX 98 and now UNIX 03. Both the specification and the UNIX trademark are managed and held in trust for the industry by The Open Group. SCO, along with all other vendors of UNIX systems (regardless of whether they are members of The Open Group or not), distribute a UNIX system that has been certified through the X/Open and The Open Group certification process.

Anyone seen the UNIX 03 specification yet? is there much of a difference between 98 and 2003?

what code?
by tech_user on Thu 29th May 2003 11:59 UTC

surely some kernel maintainer are familiar enough with the code to indicate which biyts are "stolen"?

Linus come back to Europe ;)
by Nicolás on Thu 29th May 2003 12:24 UTC

Linus, please come back here to Europe, where US software patents won't put you behind bars!!!

In Europe software patents are not legal (still...).

By the way, you could move to Munich...

RE: Linus come back to Europe ;)
by HailstormXP on Thu 29th May 2003 13:31 UTC

"In Europe software patents are not legal (still...)."

But copyright law is ;)

re: Linus come back to Europe ;)
by sujan on Thu 29th May 2003 13:44 UTC

Running away is NOT a solution.

Get up, stand up
Stand up for your right
Get up, stand up
Dont give up the fight


way to go bsd
by madmax on Thu 29th May 2003 13:45 UTC

Let me just say that I was downloading freebsd a few weeks ago but after reading some O their crud ie. almost like bye bye linux bring in bsd , type o shit ive decided to say bye bye bsd.

Bad move guys very bad move.

U obviously may not miss my presence in the community and thats well lucky for me i guess

Long live LINUX and LINUS

sco have had it
by paul on Thu 29th May 2003 14:20 UTC

who else they going to sue. and what drugs are these people on.

I know I know
by madmax on Thu 29th May 2003 14:25 UTC

Possibly ecstacy!!!!!!

I hear it can do great things for ya ...... right before it kills U

SCO...
by James Yedon on Thu 29th May 2003 14:54 UTC

SCO should really just give up, they suck, and will continue to suck if they keep their shit up. Hell, if you think you own something you don't, how the hell are u still in business. Thats like me saying I own Microsoft and I'm going to sue Mac for some gay ass law, jesus, its stupid. Maybe we should give SCO the slashdot effect ;)

RE: way to go bsd
by Anonymous on Thu 29th May 2003 15:26 UTC

but after reading some O their crud ie. almost like bye bye linux bring in bsd , type o shit ive decided to say bye bye bsd.

I think Linux needs more users like you. Can't get enough fairweather users anyway.

BSD is good...
by Chuck Bermingham on Thu 29th May 2003 15:41 UTC

"Funny thing I always hear [correction mine] the Linux community speak well of BSD while the oposite ful the BSD crowd."...

Wanted to put my vote in on this as well. I have a lot of respect for the BSD projects, and I would use them myself if I had more time to work on computers at that level. However, I don't run servers, really, and I want to use my computer for music composition and research.

I will never understand why BSD proponents insist on making bad blood between themselves and Linux. Linux supporters like their licensing terms; BSD supporters like theirs, and their objectives are somewhat different from eadh other, but so what?

FreeBSD and Linux are both fine operating systems. That's all.

Unix in General
by Tony B on Thu 29th May 2003 15:55 UTC

Here are a few of SCO's comments thus far:

When asked if McBride thought that it was possible for Linux to release a non infringing release of Linux he said: "I don't see how"

His mentioning that he's going to sue Linus.

From this one can deduce that it's quite likely that there aren't specific pieces of source code, or at least line-by-line code that SCO is considering to be infringing. It's the fact that Linux acts like UNIX that SCO considers to be the infringing factor.

In some ways acting as a SYS V system, I think SCO believes that in general, and not in specific points, Linux infringes on their IP. They see it as another IRIX, Solaris, and AIX, all of which license SYS V systems.

One wonders if they'd also go after BSD. BSD's history is quite a bit different, but it does stem as a "copy" of UNIX, meant to act like a UNIX OS. I don't think there's enough money or business acceptance of it for them to go after.

Re: Why not?
by Anonymous on Thu 29th May 2003 15:55 UTC

As a freebsd user, i have to flat out say that Anon @ ---.ec.rr.com is a complete idiot. With nothing of value to add to this thread. Let's disect this scumbag's post:

anon@--ec.rr.com's first comment:

"If Linus deliberately used code he hadn't licensed, I think it is perfectly fine for SCO"

So what you are saying is: 'If Linus is guilty, you think SCO is within it's rights to sue.' ...Can you do something besides reword the obvious? Here's an example of anon's incredible powers of deduction:

Topic - Scientist protest ozone problem against country of foo. And the insightful remark of anon@ec.rr.com would be: "If ozone is a problem, I think it is perfectly fine for scientist to protest against country of foo"

oh brother. what insight.

anon@--ec.rr.com's second comment:

"It was only a matter of time before Linux and the people developing did something as stupid as this."

Now you are claiming to know details of how this happened, and based on this factual detail (that no one else has, strangely enough), you have decided to characterize it as stupid.

anon@--ec.rr.com's third comment:

"Meanwhile, I continue using FreeBSD 5.0 and go on with my daily life."

Well, aren't YOU the enlightened one. You sure have a lot more facts then the rest of us. Your comments provide a level of insight and depth that I find truly remarkable.

You are a sad little troll, of the worst kind.

With no apparent forethought you hammered out some of the weakest bullshit i've ever seen: repeating the obvious, adding no new information, insulting, and to cap it off, a little snivelling hollier-than-though parting shot.

why don't you fsck off.

-a opensource software enthusiast

Boycot BSD?
by James Yedon on Thu 29th May 2003 15:59 UTC

A few of you people keep talking about being on BSD then this comes up and you say bye bye to BSD and go back onto linux. I'm not your mother and I can't tell you what to do, but I know myself, I wouldn't turn my FreeBSD machines and mind into more linux machines, it helps having a BSD machine around and jsut cause SCO can't figure out what they own and don't own, doesn't mean you should boycot BSD.

no no
by madmax on Thu 29th May 2003 16:03 UTC

Its not a question of being against BSd per say. It just pisses me off when I see comments by BSD folk that dis linux when something like this comes up.

I thought we were all supposed to be opensourcers. :> (

sheesh

Re: Why not?
by Just Me on Thu 29th May 2003 16:06 UTC

"If Linus deliberately used code he hadn't licensed, I think it is perfectly fine for SCO to collect what it feels necessary to protect its IP. It was only a matter of time before Linux and the people developing did something as stupid as this. Meanwhile, I continue using FreeBSD 5.0 and go on with my daily life."

Hey, we found another bitter BSD zealot!!
It is pretty pathetic how (some) BSD users are supporting SCO on this, just because they feel 'their OS' needs to get more attention.

get a grip
by nivenh on Thu 29th May 2003 16:10 UTC

Its got nothing to do with BSD. The linux zealots come out of the woodwork when the smell of a MS carcass is strong. the BSD zealots are just doing the same.

The point is, they are zealots.. (read: minority), unfortunately as with most things prone to zealotry (religion, os, programming languages) they are the most vocal, and cause the biggest stir. Giving them the satisfaction of getting into a flame war just eggs them on.

not only a zealot
by Anonymous on Thu 29th May 2003 16:13 UTC


not only are they zealots, but a dumb ones too. lol.

i appreciate a smart zealot's banter on occassion.

-a FreeBSD 4.8-STABLE user (as well as redhat, os x, and xp)

...
by Anonymous on Thu 29th May 2003 16:13 UTC

After Daryl McBride shaved his head and his ass, and than joined the Raelians, little did he know that this would lead him directly to Microsoft's door step. The software giant has been investing in eunichs for a long time. When McBride challenged IBM it symbolized the act of cutting off his nuts as far as the Linux community was concerned. Now McBride is seeking assistance from Linus Torvalds because of the weaknesses he contracted from touching the Microsoft platform.

A lot of us respect BSD even though we use Linux.
by Anonymous on Thu 29th May 2003 16:19 UTC

However, it should be noted that the BSD kernel folks could still be found liable here as well.

Even code that is created indepedently in good faith can still infringe on existing patents.

Unless the BSD folks have access to the SCO source and have already done a line-by-line code audit, they're potentially just as liable as the Linux kernel folks are of stepping on a Novel^H^H^H^H^HSCO patent.

BSD and lawsuits
by Al Dente on Thu 29th May 2003 16:24 UTC

Since FreeBSD already settled with USL years ago it seems to me that the current UNIX owner wouldn't have a very good case against them.

madmax...
by James Yedon on Thu 29th May 2003 16:27 UTC

I agree madmax, there seems to be so much hatred between some of the BSD and Linux users, the opensource people you would think would be abit nicer to each other

FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE, RedHat 8.0, RedHat 7.3, Knoppix 03-05-16 (Debian based) user, and still expanding ;)

BSD and Lawsuits
by Rich Steiner on Thu 29th May 2003 16:42 UTC

The settlement with USL was years ago, as you say, but unless FreeBSD code development has been frozen in time since then (which we both know is not true), the threat of patent violation (whether intended or unintended) still exists w.r.t. any new code added to the FreeBSD source tree in the meantime.

I think it's about as likely as such code being found in the mainstream Linux kernel tree, which is "not very", but the possibility is still there and shouldn't be lightly dismissed.

Great quote:
by Datschge on Thu 29th May 2003 16:54 UTC

Give SCO credit. Its every action seems calculated to attract maximum press play both inside and outside the Linux community. None of the actions reveal anything of substance about SCO's claims. There may be a good reason for that. Perhaps there is nothing of substance to reveal. All we know so far is that SCO seems to be just as confused as everyone else when it comes to figuring out what it is doing.

just went short SCOX
by walterbyrd on Thu 29th May 2003 17:12 UTC

Only 100 shares, just for fun.

SCOX looks like it was sucking wind anyway. After this, they may be bankrupt by the end of summer.

backlash worries? Nah.
by walterbyrd on Thu 29th May 2003 17:15 UTC

>>I can just imagine the kind of backlash on SCO the minute they even try to implicate Linus. Countersuits from "every" linux related company anyone? <<

SCOX going bankrupt anyway. They are not worried about a backlash. This is desperation. Sue everybody, why not? Throw enough sh!t at the wall, and hope something sticks.

I think this whole case is like a soap opera. Maybe it will be one of those made for TV movies, like enron or martha stewaret.

They are succeeding!
by Davamundo on Thu 29th May 2003 17:25 UTC

Win or lose, this M$ driven travesty is succeeding in sowing FUD worldwide. Obviously SCO is goung down in flames, but why would they broaden their ludicrus claims ? Because MICROSOFT is paying them to go Kamakaze on Linux ! All we can do is double our efforts to remind everyone we know what soul-sucking evil bastards M$ (and by extension SCO) are.
Promote Linux NOW or it's M$ forever !

re: They are succeeding!
by Anonymous on Thu 29th May 2003 17:29 UTC

I find that a plausible conspiracy theory.

SCO is going down any way.

MSFT pays SCO to sully the linux name on their way out.

I'd have to see a serious money trail for me to believe it, but it's not impossible.

There is no evidence
by Mark Wilson on Thu 29th May 2003 17:31 UTC

SCO has not produced any evidence to support their allegations. SCO's allegations have been contradictory and difficult to follow in their entirety. If one looks at all of the reports of SCO's statements, this should be obvious.

Based on facts that are known, there is reason to doubt the veracity of SCO's allegations. Novell's statement is a prime example and there are of course many others (check the links from the various OS News articles).

There is certainly no basis to suspect that Linus Torvalds, or anyone else, copied code in contravention of anyone's intellectual property rights. Any such allegation is irresponsible in light of the _total_ absence of evidence to support such an allegation.

Hopefully this matter will be resolved quickly.

A little to laugh at, a little fat to chew...
by Anonymous on Thu 29th May 2003 17:40 UTC

On the statement located at:

http://ir.sco.com/EdgarDetail.cfm?CompanyID=CALD&CIK=1102542&FID=10...

The royalties paid to Novell are explained as such:

" The Company has an arrangement with Novell, Inc. ("Novell") in which it acts as an administrative agent in the collection of royalties for customers who deploy SVRx technology. Under the agency agreement, the Company collects all customer payments and remits 95 percent of the collected funds to Novell and retains 5 percent as an administrative fee. The Company records the 5 percent administrative fee as revenue in its consolidated statements of operations. The accompanying October 31, 2002 and 2001 consolidated balance sheets reflect the amounts collected related to this agency agreement but not yet remitted to Novell of $1,428,000 and $1,894,000, respectively, as restricted cash and royalty payable to Novell. The October 31, 2001 balances were reclassified from cash and equivalents and other royalties payable to conform to the current year presentation. "

In other words SCO was just collecting the money for Novell from companies using SVRx - and for that reason alone.

Now for the funny bit. Note the date on that document, for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2002. When looking for information on SVRx (which dumb dumb me just found out is a version of UNIX apparently) I came across this short interview with Mr. McBride. There's really only one question, but one thing stated in the first response is a real laugh... Though if you read through it you might find yourself seething with disgust. This article was written 9 months ago exactly yesterday.

The URL is here:

http://techupdate.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t481-s2121437-p2,00.html

---

BSD Zealots
by Anonymous on Thu 29th May 2003 17:41 UTC

I enjoy using unix in general, wether it be Linux, BSD, or any other form of unix. Please do not allow either GNU/Linux zealots or BSD zealots sour you from using either OS/Kernel. In my eyes the majority of unix users are very helpful and friendly but as in many other communities there is that vocal minority which have no idea what they are talking about, and in turn tarnish the communities appearance.

OOOOOOOOER
by Anonymous on Thu 29th May 2003 17:42 UTC
OpenDarwin
by ME on Thu 29th May 2003 17:43 UTC

Isn't OpenDarwin/OSX Unix based? Does Apple have a license with SCO to use Unix? And if so, why are they giving OpenDarwin away?

RE: OpenDarwin
by Greg on Thu 29th May 2003 18:43 UTC

Uh, OpenDarwin is BSD based.

Q&A with Chris Sontag.
by BR on Thu 29th May 2003 18:52 UTC

http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,...

Maybe this should be titled "As the beat(ing) goes on"?

SCO stop being a baby
by Nicohlas James on Thu 29th May 2003 18:54 UTC

McBride added that unless more companies start licensing SCO's property, he may also sue Linus Torvalds, who is credited with inventing the Linux operating system, for patent infringement.

Someone give the tempermentdal little brat a sucker, god SCO, are you serious?

Dunno
by Dial_tone on Thu 29th May 2003 19:54 UTC

I prefer BSD over Linux, but this crap is bad for everyone. I agree that it has no merit. I think SCO is raking in some dough before they fold.

Think about it
by Maynard on Thu 29th May 2003 21:05 UTC

Maybe what could happen is that every other Linux distributor could gang up and sue SCO. There is absolutely no way they could know if SCO code was in Linux, if it was there in the first place, unless they had been authorised to view it. If SCO wanted to make sure none of its code, they should publish it, albeit in read only form, so that no one will have an excuse for copying it. Does anyone know of any book that is copyrighted, and is protected by a copyright even though it is unpublished. Or of patents that could be upheld without knowing what was being patented.

By not showing people their code, or providing it on 'read only' terms, Linus, and a host of other developers who have never seen UNIX code could walk free on that technicality, and so could all Linux companies. Until they start forcing people to make available their code if they want to protect it from copying, it remains impossible to know what is in anyone else's code, especially if you are not authorised to view the code.

RE: David Hunter: SCO
by Anonymous on Thu 29th May 2003 21:43 UTC

I will buy a cd writer and then will make 2 companies... one to print cdroms and sell them... another to buy them and deliver them to SCO and demand the refund...

That would work ;)

I use linux, so sue me.
by g0dzuki on Thu 29th May 2003 21:57 UTC

Sounds like SCO got bit by the Scott McNealy bug... business bad? Focus your efforts on suing your competitors.

Let's sue Torvalds
by AntiLinux on Fri 30th May 2003 09:29 UTC

Yes!!!! Torvalds should go to jail!

Linux = a second-rate operating system powered by kernel designed by amateur.

Why?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th May 2003 16:30 UTC

Why is everyone so quick to rule out the possibility that SCO may actually be telling the truth? To blindly think that Linux is innocent, without proof, is as stupid as to blindly think it is guilty. People really need to keep an open mind till the trial occurs, and the facts are set straight, because right now no one knows for sure whether there is any truth or fiction to this.

RE:Anonymous (IP: ---.ec.rr.com)
by BR on Fri 30th May 2003 20:18 UTC

"Why is everyone so quick to rule out the possibility that SCO may actually be telling the truth? To blindly think that Linux is innocent, without proof, is as stupid as to blindly think it is guilty. People really need to keep an open mind till the trial occurs, and the facts are set straight, because right now no one knows for sure whether there is any truth or fiction to this."

Physician, heal thyself.

M$/SCO
by labrat on Sat 31st May 2003 13:58 UTC

SCO worried about Linux? Yes, but not nearly as much as Microsoft is, and that's who's behind this. I hope the corrupt courts of America don't let M$/SCO win..