Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 29th May 2003 19:19 UTC, submitted by Sharon Machlis
SCO, Caldera, Unixware In an interview with Computerworld reporter Patrick Thibodeau, SCO's Chris Sontag, a senior vice president and general manager of SCOsource Division, the group within SCO in charge of enforcing the company's intellectual property, discussed the company's position. It is discussed the Linux kernel issue, Novell's reasons and why Microsoft licensed the Unix IP. Update: More SCO news.
Order by: Score:
2 Weeks....
by Anonymous on Thu 29th May 2003 19:33 UTC

Oh just give us 2 weeks and we'll show the code under NDA... B.S. This is just more time for them to get publicity and inject FUD in the community.

reason for closed code
by rspickles on Thu 29th May 2003 19:56 UTC

Mr Sontag says that there is no way to for us to insure that no proprietary code is included in a GPL - Yes there is! Just show us this code and prove that it is yours and it will be replaced before you can say well um yes it is. As an old time Pick Systems user I have a lot of experience with open proprietary code. Once published no one can say ďhow could we have known that it was your code?Ē I have long held that closing any code is to hide where you have used stolen code from others. If indeed they were ever to open the code to other we would file great blocks of system V code that others have though was theirs and not SCO's.

GPL code is open so all can read it... that is in effect the very best defense against the use of stolen code. Al SCP has to do to end this problems is publish the code and the proof of ownership. No legal actions required.

if ibm won't buy sco why don't we....
by Anonymous on Thu 29th May 2003 20:12 UTC

i have an idea... if enough linux users out there get as sick of this as i am... and if sco's stock keeps dropping in price... why don't we all just buy a whole bunch of sco stock... it would be the first hostile take over of a company by a loosely knit community of computer hackers.... anyone else game for this?

RE: if ibm won't buy sco why don't we....
by taranis on Thu 29th May 2003 20:31 UTC

Eh... do you *really* want to say that you own a piece of SCO?

RE: if ibm won't buy sco why don't we....
by Anonymous Coward on Thu 29th May 2003 20:45 UTC

"i have an idea... if enough linux users out there get as sick of this as i am... and if sco's stock keeps dropping in price... why don't we all just buy a whole bunch of sco stock... it would be the first hostile take over of a company by a loosely knit community of computer hackers.... anyone else game for this?"

Yeah, that will teach to be dishonest. We'll just make them rich off of our hard earned money! That will be one lesson they will never forget! *rolls eyes*

And what would you do with the useless company after you have it? You might as well buy toilet paper to sling on their headquarters. Less waste of money.

If you really want to do something production...start a class action suit for $1 billion dollars. That's only a couple bucks for each Linux user.

As I understand it...
by Robert Adkins on Thu 29th May 2003 20:48 UTC

A takeover, even a hostile one requires that the shareholders...

A) Be willing to sell enough shares to allow it to happen.

B) Agree to the takeover action.

Both of which are doubtful to occur. The thing that would cause is an increase in the value of the shares. Which would provide the heads of the company, which likely own many shares, to be able to sell those off at a profit, if that is in their plans.

Although, I do agree that it would be a most excellent turn of events and would do much to boost the power of the open source community.

What would work nicely, would be an organization, non-profit or otherwise that was built by the community to purchase outright the intellectual property concerning the development of software and operating systems. This company/organization could be a benevolent force, providing training and education in using the IP that it owns as well as provide support for a variety of Information Technology products in order to increase its own coffers. Part of its charter would have to stipulate that no major or minor coporation involved in any industry could own more then a small portion of shares (if publicly traded) as well as collude with other corporations which could provide over riding voting rights of this corporation/organization.

The company would need to be nuetral in all things IT for the betterment of the world, not the betterment of corporate bottomlines. It would have to be fair and just, with honest judgements that would bring no harm to anyone, whether they be Joe Open Source Programmer, Novell, SCO or even Microsoft.

Of course, that is about as likely to happen as Microsoft opening up all of its source code and proclaiming that they were wrong in pushing for a closed source world.

Please have a look at this:

http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html

It says:

"SCO/Caldera neglects to mention that those rights had been substantially impaired before its acquisition of the ancestral Bell Labs source code. There was a legal action in 1992-1993, in which Unix Systems Laboratories and Novell (SCO/Caldera's predecessors in interest) sued various parties including the University of California at Berkeley and Berkeley Systems Design, Inc. for alleged copyright infringement, trade secret disclosures, and trademark violations with regard to the release of substantial portions of the 4.4BSD operating system[36].

The suit was settled after AT&T's request for an injunction blocking distribution of BSD was denied in terms that made it clear the judge thought BSD likely to win its defense. The University of California then threatened to countersue over license violations by AT&T and USL. It seems that from as far back as before System V Release 4 in 1985, the historical Bell Labs codebase had been incorporating large amounts of software from the BSD sources. The University's cause of action lay in the fact that AT&T, USL and Novell had routinely violated the terms of the BSD license by removing license attributions and copyrights.

The exact terms of final settlement, and much of the judicial record, were sealed at Novell's insistence. The key provisions are, however, described in Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix: From AT&T-Owned to Freely Redistributable, [McKusick99]. Only three files out of eighteen thousand in the distribution were found to be the licit property of Novell (and removed). The rest were ruled to be freely redistributable, and continue to form the basis of the open-source BSD distributions today."

Not a smart move
by Darius on Thu 29th May 2003 20:55 UTC

What does SCO have to gain by going after companies using Linux? Sure, sue IBM for a billion but ...
What are they hoping for, to force companies not to use Linux, who I'm sure then after being put through this will rush out and buy whatever crap SCO has to sell them?

Ankles, the lot of'em
by AndrewB on Thu 29th May 2003 21:00 UTC

Next, I suspect we will see and end-user license program spring up such that any one using Linux will be able to pay a per seat fee to SCO for a license to any SCO code that might/might not be present in Linux - doing so would then remove you from the list of possible defendants in any future law suits filed by SCO. Hmmm, perhaps I should move to protect my intellectual property right to this idea. Any one know the number of a SCO attorney?

Leaky Canopy?
by BR on Thu 29th May 2003 21:01 UTC

The thing with all this is that the canopy group will most likely still be in business. Free to make mischief in the future.

This is stupid
by elver on Thu 29th May 2003 21:03 UTC

Reminds me of the time I was looking at the OpenBeOS source tree. Found 5 lines of tab-handling code which I could have sworn, I had seen somewhere before. So I spent a few hours looking through the sources of various OSes and found that it was an exact copy of the tab-handling function in Minix ;)

Then again, you have to ask yourself: how many ways are there of doing something? This whole thing is as stupid as GPLing printf("hello world"); and then claiming that any code that uses printf() is yours.

SCO, grow up!

Actually, SCO may have a point
by Aki Kolehmainen on Thu 29th May 2003 21:07 UTC

Since the SCO Unix codebase already contains a lot of open source code that has been stolen and modified over the last 20 years from various sources, SCO may really have found lines of code in Linux that they think is theirs since it exists in the SCO Unix as well.

Perhaps they have not realized that this code is stolen from open source, not the other way around. ;-)

photo of sontag grinning
by mystic_meg on Thu 29th May 2003 21:16 UTC

looking at that picture of Sontag (in the article) - i must say he looks like he's trying to prevent himself bursting into laughter!

Various allegations about Linux code base have been made the psat years. And there has been uncertainty at the CIO/CEO level in many compapnies. I think a big court case is very good for Linux. The matter will now be solved once and for all. After that its march will really be relentless.

RE: Sontag photo
by Bobthearch on Thu 29th May 2003 21:50 UTC

RE: Photo of Sontag grinning

Looked to me like another cookie-cutter yuppie. Right haircut, right costume - err I mean clothes, and he had nothing of substance to say.

Funny thing is that SCO statements actaully seem coherent, until you compare two or three different releases.

He ~should~ have said, "It was a big mistake for us to make public claims and charges without providing evidence. At the least we should ahve devised a more thought-out and consistent p.r. plan."
"Additionally, if we had met with I.B.M. and together researched the true origin and ownership of the code in question, this all could have been worked out in private. In hindsight that would have left us in a better light, saved time and money, and avoided the media circus we have caused, as well as avoided hard feelings among users and 1500 of the world's largest companies."


comments
by sam on Thu 29th May 2003 21:57 UTC

>>>>Mr Sontag says that there is no way to for us to insure that no proprietary code is included in a GPL - Yes there is! Just show us this code and prove that it is yours and it will be replaced before you can say well um yes it is.

That's not what he said. What he said was that "there is no mechanism in Linux to ensure [the legality of] that intellectual property of the source code being contributed by various people." You CAN'T tell if other people's (besides SCO's) IP are hidden somewhere deep inside Linux.

IBM lawyers reached the same conclusion a long time ago --- read IBM's Dr. Strassemeyer's remarks.

http://www.sslug.dk/patent/strassemeyer/transr-del.shtml

Dr. Karl-Heinz Strassemeyer said ...
(1)IBM does not sell their own linux distribution.
(2)IBM does not ship Open Source software with patents.
(3)IBM only submits patches to the Linux kernel after they are cleared for any patents.
(4)IBM does not do distributions because the risk of infringing a patent that way is too high.
(5)IBM does not use Linux in embedded systems because the kernel could contain hidden patents.

what a weasel
by april_fool on Thu 29th May 2003 22:03 UTC

He starts out with an ad hominem attack on the Linux development community (in response to a question about his own company's credibility) and goes downhill from there.

SCO mailed a threatening letter about using Linux to 1500 large corporations without providing any evidence. In other words, "don't use this product or you may be sued for IP damages, but we're not going to tell you where or how it infringes." He's banking on the fact that corporate in-house counsel tend to be cautious and often recommend approaches least likely to result in litigation. Then perhaps Linux sales will fall and pressure will build on IBM to buy out or settle with SCO.

But he says that the evidence will be provided real soon now, to a small group of analysts hand-picked by SCO (I bet Bill Claybrook from the Aberdeen Group will be one). Not necessarily folks who know anything about the Unix or Linux and the history of cross-fertilized code and semi-open standards. It will be under an NDA, he says, to protect the confidentiality of SCO's source. Putting aside for a moment the matter that it seems to be Novell's source, why is there a need to protect confidentiality of LOC that were directly copied into Linux? He could just refer to the files and lines in the Linux codebase, so they could be discussed by everyone concerned.

He disputes Novell's interpretation of the 1995 contract. But the press release SCO issued yesterday in response pointedly did not deny Novell's claim, but said that the lawsuit wasn't about copyrights and patents after all.

Imagine, some evil corporation puts trusted man, formally independent, to contribute piece of its code into some OpenSource tree. Intentionally. Trojan horse case.
End of game.
But. As long as those corporations haven't legally trusted and aproved mechanism to put all his code as deposite in some legally approved and signed by authorities place, e.g. in form of daily backups in banks or government agencies, they haven't any versatile way to prove violation.
Because any date on CLOSED-SOURCE software archives may be falsificated

This could be very bad...
by The Lone OSer on Thu 29th May 2003 23:05 UTC

People have to stop thinking as computer users/geeks and start thinking like companies with legal teams, governments etc.
I'm no lawyer or have any legal training but a few things to me seem obvious..
ANY challenge to legal issues with Linux is very bad and raises a number of issues... IF SCO is right, and NO ONE can say they are NOT at this time because we have NO FACTS (so people jumping up and down are showing they really know nothing) then Linux is a legal liability for ALL users from the home, to the company to world governments.
I can see now that alot of possible migration from companies TO Linux could now be halted, or atleast put on hold while this is resolved, but it also brings up the fact that to a legal department, because this has been declared once, even if it IS defeated in court, Linux could be known as a "possible" legal lability and thus shelved. Even when people rush out and say "Oh, the source can be changed, no matter", I'm not sure that would be enough for a legal team to decide that Linux would be worth the risk of deploying on their networks.
This case also issues the question of Linux legal liabilities in itself.. Just who IS responsible for Linux legal issues? SCO believes Linus is obviously, and I don't think that would make many legal teams happy either.
So, it matters not if SCO wins or not, damage HAS been done, and SCO wins one way or another (along with other anti-Linux competing companies).. This whole issue could be VERY VERY BAD for ALL open sourced projects.

RE:sam (IP: ---.sympatico.ca)
by BR on Thu 29th May 2003 23:10 UTC

"Dr. Karl-Heinz Strassemeyer said ...
(1)IBM does not sell their own linux distribution.
(2)IBM does not ship Open Source software with patents.
(3)IBM only submits patches to the Linux kernel after they are cleared for any patents.
(4)IBM does not do distributions because the risk of infringing a patent that way is too high.
(5)IBM does not use Linux in embedded systems because the kernel could contain hidden patents."

Two things here. One the only way something remains "hidden" in Linux is if someone doesn't look. Two with the mess that the patent system is, everyone (including IBM) runs the risk of stepping on a patent. I can just imagine the amount of money and effort that goes into dealing with that mess.

RE:The Lone OSer (
by BR on Thu 29th May 2003 23:27 UTC

"I'm no lawyer or have any legal training but a few things to me seem obvious.. ANY challenge to legal issues with Linux is very bad and raises a number of issues... IF SCO is right, and NO ONE can say they are NOT at this time because we have NO FACTS (so people jumping up and down are showing they really know nothing) then Linux is a legal liability for ALL users from the home, to the company to world governments."

Well no one can say either way, but if SCO actually had something of substance they could save some money and time by dumping the "dog and pony" show and go straight for the jugular.

"I can see now that alot of possible migration from companies TO Linux could now be halted, or atleast put on hold while this is resolved, but it also brings up the fact that to a legal department, because this has been declared once, even if it IS defeated in court, Linux could be known as a "possible" legal lability and thus shelved. Even when people rush out and say "Oh, the source can be changed, no matter", I'm not sure that would be enough for a legal team to decide that Linux would be worth the risk of deploying on their networks."

You do realize that this cuts both ways. If FUD is the power you think it is then one could as easily halt SCO deployments by using the same tactics. Oh no! The accusations against SCO have been defeated in a court of law BUT! who will be brave enough to take the risk of deploying SCO ever again?

"This case also issues the question of Linux legal liabilities in itself.. Just who IS responsible for Linux legal issues? SCO believes Linus is obviously, and I don't think that would make many legal teams happy either. "

That's the funny thing about the OSS model (much to manys dismay). It both empowers and places responsabilty on the one's who use it. If a company has a question about legalities they can either do it themselves, or pay someone to assume that responsability. The only losers here are those who believe in passing the buck.

"So, it matters not if SCO wins or not, damage HAS been done, and SCO wins one way or another (along with other anti-Linux competing companies).. This whole issue could be VERY VERY BAD for ALL open sourced projects. "

There may indeed be damage. Damage to SCO's reputation. Damage to a faulty patent system. Damage to those who believe that FUD is an effective weapon.

RE:RE:The LoneOSer.
by BR on Thu 29th May 2003 23:33 UTC

""This case also issues the question of Linux legal liabilities in itself.. Just who IS responsible for Linux legal issues? SCO believes Linus is obviously, and I don't think that would make many legal teams happy either. " "


I also forgot to ask the question of who's going to assume the legal responsabilities for closed proprietary code? EULAs may have not been tested firmly in court, but the majority do absolve the company of legal responsability. The LoneOSer might want to go read a couple.

Microsoft and SCO
by Josh on Thu 29th May 2003 23:42 UTC

I seem to remember somewhere hearing that Microsoft was thinking about acquiring SCO. Is this right? If it is, it would completely explain what SCO is doing.

comments
by sam on Thu 29th May 2003 23:55 UTC

>>>One the only way something remains "hidden" in Linux is if someone doesn't look.

Who is going to spend the time and money to audit the entire Linux source code with millions and millions of lines of code?

>>>Well no one can say either way, but if SCO actually had something of substance they could save some money and time by dumping the "dog and pony" show and go straight for the jugular.
>>>You do realize that this cuts both ways. If FUD is the power you think it is then one could as easily halt SCO deployments by using the same tactics. Oh no! The accusations against SCO have been defeated in a court of law BUT! who will be brave enough to take the risk of deploying SCO ever again?

IBM has crafted such a smart linux strategy (as listed from the Strassemeyer interview) that SCO can only sue them on a contractual breach of trade secrets. IBM has successfully shifted every ounce of potential legal liability to the redhat's and SuSE's.

Paragraph 101 of the SCO lawsuit actually quoted Strassemeyer's article. IBM has been so smart about their Linux strategy that all SCO can do is arguing that IBM encourage the likes of RedHat's and SuSE's (the actual linux distributors) to break the law. SCO should sue Wall Street instead of IBM --- it was the IPO bubble that encouraged these startups.

>>>>IBMís Coordination of Linux Development Efforts

>>>>101. On information and belief, IBM has knowingly induced, encouraged, and enabled others to distribute proprietary information in an attempt to conceal its own legal liability for such distributions:

>>>>ďWhat is wrong about this [Linux] distribution, is basically the millions of lines of code that we never have seen. We donít know if there are any patent infringements [in this code] with somebody we donít know. We donít want to take the risk of being sued for a patent infringement. That is why we donít do distributions, and thatís why we have distributors. Because distributors are not so much exposed as we are. So thatís the basic deal as I understand it.Ē

>>>>Karl-Heinz Strassemeyer, IBM The Register, 11/19/2002, www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/28183.html

Even if SCO loses this lawsuit, it doesn't mean that linux companies are off the hook. That's because IBM shifted every ounce of legal liabilities to these linux companies. Linux distributors are much more exposed to legal risks. All IBM sold was plain hardware.

sco code? ya, right.
by JGraham on Fri 30th May 2003 00:10 UTC

has anyone thought that the matching code that sco is talking about might just be the code stolen by AT&T from BSD, or it could be Linux code stolen from US and put into unixware?

argh.
jgraham

Translating the Doublespeak
by chemicalscum on Fri 30th May 2003 00:16 UTC

Sontag:
What do you see as a company's options in the face of your warning? I would suspend any new Linux-related activities until this is all sorted out. But first get that opinion of your legal counsel. If they say there is no problem and no issue, then you probably have nothing to worry about. But I doubt there is any attorney worth his salt that is going to say there is no potential of an issue here. There is a big issue.

Translation:
We have been paid by M$ to spread FUD and to try to discourage as many gullible CEOs and CIOs from deploying Linux so that they spend more money on Windows instead. I fully expect to be offered a senior executive position when SCO no longer exists after our rampage.

The answer:
Munich

It's all about new style
by s_d on Fri 30th May 2003 00:18 UTC

"Yes, we cannot find any chemical weapon, but sure, you aree guilty"
"Yes, we cannot say to public which code was stolen, but sure, you are guilty"

This is really a Microsoft Lawsuit
by yodafett on Fri 30th May 2003 01:40 UTC


It's so plainfully obvious that Gates and Ballmer are funding David "I couldn't get Al Gore into the White White, but I still charge lots of money" Boies to go after the Linux community, wasn't it just convenient to have MSFT license the UNIX source recently.

SCO is just a company that has no future, and is in the lawsuit business because it's profitable and it's their last gasp of life as they've lost all credibility and respect.

Makes them a perfect lap dog for MSFT.

comments
by sam on Fri 30th May 2003 02:01 UTC

>>>It's so plainfully obvious that Gates and Ballmer are funding David "I couldn't get Al Gore into the White White, but I still charge lots of money" Boies to go after the Linux community, wasn't it just convenient to have MSFT license the UNIX source recently.

First of all, Boies' law firm is doing the lawsuit on a contingent fee basis. So, Microsoft ain't funding the lawsuit.

Second of all, SCO did NOT revised their revenue target after the Microsoft licensing announcement. This means that the licensing fee is probably under 1 million dollars.

two words
by ryan on Fri 30th May 2003 02:12 UTC

tort reform

This is a joke. They keep guns out of peoples hands and it seems quite obvious that they should keep lawyers out of the employ of others. Lawyers and idiots the marriage made in hell that is ruining America.

comments
by sam on Fri 30th May 2003 02:28 UTC

>>>This is a joke. They keep guns out of peoples hands and it seems quite obvious that they should keep lawyers out of the employ of others. Lawyers and idiots the marriage made in hell that is ruining America.

I completely disagree. The SCO lawsuit is just the tip of the iceberg.

The fact is that IBM lawyers have made a very smart Linux strategy of shifting 99.99% of the legal risks to (1) the linux distributors like RedHat and SuSE and (2) the end-users. That's why sco HAD to sue on the basis of a trade secret violation --- because IBM protected itself against easier IP lawsuits like patent infringement or copyright violations.

Linux distributors and end-users are MORE exposed to legal risks than IBM itself. The fact is that most of the linux distributors are 1 financial quarter away from chapter 11 means that IBM is the only company SCO can sue for money.

IBM listened to their lawyers before they made their linux strategy --- they are protected. Linux startups who got caught up by the IPO bubble --- were willing to risk it (despite their own lawyers probably reaching the same conclusion as the one reached by IBM lawyers) --- are now more legally exposed than IBM. End-users who got caught up by the hype without asking their own company lawyers for advise --- got a SCO warning letter.

SCOX
by Anonymous on Fri 30th May 2003 03:09 UTC

Everyone should file a complaint with the SEC for possible fraud by SCO.

who will sco sue next ?
by Anonymous on Fri 30th May 2003 04:13 UTC

I guess XBOX,..... haha ...


what do SCO have to lose ?

Re: Sam
by Roberto J Dohnert on Fri 30th May 2003 04:34 UTC

{ The fact is that IBM lawyers have made a very smart Linux strategy of shifting 99.99% of the legal risks to (1) the linux distributors like RedHat and SuSE and (2) the end-users. That's why sco HAD to sue on the basis of a trade secret violation --- because IBM protected itself against easier IP lawsuits like patent infringement or copyright violations. }

No SCO is suing for breach of contract now, do you not read the news. I dont think SCO even knows what it is suing for anymore. Red Hat and SuSE are not in any legal risk because SCO owns no patents. There has been much research done in Novells claims and Novell is absolutely right, The SCO group holds no patents. Just look at SCO's SEC filings it describes much of its UNIX stake as being administrative. SCO cannot sue for IP if it has none.

{ Linux distributors and end-users are MORE exposed to legal risks than IBM itself. The fact is that most of the linux distributors are 1 financial quarter away from chapter 11 means that IBM is the only company SCO can sue for money. }

Linux distributors and end-users have 0 risks. In the worse case scenario, if SCO wins, which Satan has a better chance of getting into heaven than SCO has of winning its case, the most that will be done is that Linux will have to cater to its will and take out some code that SCO can prove is theirs. Even if that happens it will be replaced rather quickly. This lawsuit will never see the inside of a courtroom, and if it does SCO will be extremely embarrassed which will not happen. Buyout or shutdown is in SCO's future, SCO is not long for this world.

{ IBM listened to their lawyers before they made their linux strategy --- they are protected. Linux startups who got caught up by the IPO bubble --- were willing to risk it (despite their own lawyers probably reaching the same conclusion as the one reached by IBM lawyers) --- are now more legally exposed than IBM. End-users who got caught up by the hype without asking their own company lawyers for advise --- got a SCO warning letter. }

Thats not true. If it is proved that IBM did in fact release any code to the Linux community, IBM is responsible. Not the distributors, not the end users, not the distributors, you must be trolling because I doubt anyone would make comments as stupid as this willingly. Yes my company got a letter we turned it over to our law department and we had plenty of lawyers looking at this case and in regards to the letter I like my own attorneys response to it..Junk Mail. Saying that end users are responsible for anything in Linux is like saying all Ford Car owners are responsible if someone buys a Ford Car, gets drunk, drives and kills someone.

RE: A court case for Linux code base might be very good
by Good Grief on Fri 30th May 2003 05:55 UTC

Berend de Boer:

Various allegations about Linux code base have been made the psat years. And there has been uncertainty at the CIO/CEO level in many compapnies. I think a big court case is very good for Linux. The matter will now be solved once and for all. After that its march will really be relentless.

That's an interesting way to put it, and it makes sense. Good show! And it would also settle the only valid retort that MS has against Linux, as per their "Hallowe'en Documents".

Anyways, the very absolute mostest worst case scenario for the SCO suit, from a Linux perspective, is that Linux adoption slows a little throughout the court proceedings, pauses while the "offending code" (heh) gets replaced, and resumes after a few months of propagation and OSS-style "marketing".

As it stands, I'm not really sure -what- is going to happen. I was of the belief that SCO was going to go to court eventually, lose BIG time, and go bankrupt. But with Novell and Perens coming in with that wicked 1-2 combo right before the SCO conference call, things are looking quite interesting indeed.

Not trolling, for once,
GG

comments
by sam on Fri 30th May 2003 06:07 UTC

>>>No SCO is suing for breach of contract now, do you not read the news.

You are mis-interpreting the issues ---- SCO is suing for breach of contract because they claimed that IBM was misappropriating SCO's Unix trade secrets (where IBM could only learned such trade secrets because IBM signed a licensing contract with Novell/Caldera/SCO).

The only way that this could not be a contractual lawsuit would be that IBM hired a bunch of ninjas and sneaked into SCO's headquarter to steal the trade secrets.

>>>Linux distributors and end-users have 0 risks.

I am not talking about this particular lawsuit per se. I am talking about general legal risks. IBM has a very smart linux strategy.

Quote from the Strassemeyer interview:

>>>When we put source code into the Open Source community, the code we are putting in there, we have clearly patent clearence for in the sense we know what we put out in the Open Source community so we don't claim own patents on anyway. Our patents clearence process makes sure we are not infringing the patents of anybody else. We are doing it with our proprietary code, so we are fine.
>>>What is wrong about this distribution, is basically the millions of lines of code that we never have seen. We don't know if there are any patent infringments [in this code] with somebody we don't know. We don't want to take the risk of being sued for a patent infringement. That is why we don't do distributions, and that's why we have distributors. Because distributors are not so much exposed [to being sued] as we are. So that's the basic deal as I understand it.
>>>Most recently we wanted to make good use of Linux, because we wanted to ship some hardware where we said we would put a little operating system kernel into the hardware. This should enable us to do the initial program load specifically of Linux on top it of the small kernel. Flexible from different targets - CD-ROM, network or whatever. The first idea to take Linux was abendend. We didn't want to do a distribution, because we didn't want a patent infringement being detected. If somebody would have taken us to court we might have had to stop shipping our product.

So the big picture is that:

(1) IBM protected their own IP assets by having a bunch of their own lawyers checked every single line of source code that IBM release to the linux community.
(2) IBM protected themselves from copyright and patent infringement lawsuits by having a bunch of their lawyers checked every single line of source code that IBM release to the linux community.
(3) IBM lawyers CAN'T guarantee that the other 99% of the linux source code (that AREN'T released by IBM themselves) are free of copyright/patent/ip rights problems. Therefore IBM doesn't make their own linux distribution.
(4) Linux distributors like RedHat and SuSE assume those legal risks that IBM weren't willing to take.
(5) IBM makes money from linux by selling hardware, websphere/java tools and linux consulting fees.
(6) SCO's letter to 1500 linux end-uers basically stated that these companies are using linux that contains SCO's IP without SCO's authorziation. It doesn't matter whether SCO owns those alleged IP (as refuted by Novell) --- because as IBM stated in #3, you can't guarantee those 99% of the source code are not violating somebody's IP rights.
(7) Embedded linux is dead --- IBM won't even put linux into their own commercial product (don't give me the linux watch example because that doesn't have a commercial value at all) because of a distribution might take place. If you have a problem later on with GPL/patents/IP infringements with your embedded products --- that's your problem --- IBM already made their profits by selling you the powerpc chipsets and websphere tools.

Paragraph 101 of the SCO lawsuit --- quote:

>>>101. On information and belief, IBM has knowingly induced, encouraged, and enabled others to distribute proprietary information in an attempt to conceal its own legal liability for such distributions.

That's all SCO can claim --- that IBM encourages other people to break the law (because IBM protected itself). That IBM encourages i.e. Redhat and SuSE to distribute linux with questionable IP ownership origin. That IBM encourages the end-users to deploy linux with questionable IP ownership origin. That IBM encourages their customers to embed linux into PowerPC chipsets while internally IBM wouldn't embed linux at all on their own commercial products.

No one else has protected themselves better than IBM. Even end-users are MORE exposed to lawsuits because end-users actually maybe using linux that have questionable IP ownership origin. IBM didn't sell you that copy of linux --- they encourage the linux hype --- that's all.

Good News for OpenSource .....
by mythought on Fri 30th May 2003 09:08 UTC

.....Despite all the mess SCO has created around Linux,
Munich goes with Open Source Software

read: www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS3199247984.html for more Info

Linux funds terror!
by SCO Supporter on Fri 30th May 2003 09:10 UTC

I am one of many devoted SCO supporters, and i find it outrageous that this Linux FanBoy page post all this FUD about a great company, SCO is providing excellent products at a fair cost, and everybody knows that linux is based on theft, deceit and manipulation of the work of REAL and HONEST programmers.

Using opensource programs make sure that less taxes go to our magnificent government, to fight the War on Terror (tm.)
ergo every time you download and install a linux distro instead of buying it from an honest godfearing American company you divert money to the pockets of Al Qaeda.

How does it feel to be supporting terror, know that the next time you download your "free" distro, you help kill american citizens ! !

Support SCO in its honest fight to protect what it rightfully owns!

Linux funds terror!
by mythought on Fri 30th May 2003 10:08 UTC

couldn't agree w/- u more, mate ....

Re: Linux funds terror!
by Wesley Parish on Fri 30th May 2003 10:55 UTC

Obviously! I'm terrified right where I'm shitting now!

Ever thought of taking a job as a MicroSCOft PROff? You'd be wonderful!

Re: Linux Funds Terror
by Silbernagl, Jack on Fri 30th May 2003 11:30 UTC

Well what can i say, finally some sanity must be brought to this mudpile called Free Software.

Let me tell you something about free, we are americans, our proud and glorious nation was not built on giving things away, it is built on making the best goods, software, research and then selling it.

My father was a marine and he fought the Commies in Nam, against people who thought that things should be free and you should not take care of yourself.

When he came home i was just a little scrub, but i remember the day we got new neighbour, this liberal, whiny peacenik, who believed in giving.

One day he made his kids stand out front with a lemonade stand and GIVE lemonade away to the rest of the neighbourhood, for FREE.

My father, Colonel Silbernagl heard about it, took his morning whisky and then wnet and got his trusted gun, wlaked out and pointed it at the liberal scumbags and told them something about how America works, they moved out two weeks after and that they i learned that no real man gives something away for free.

I hope SCO prevails, that this insane liberal faggot attitude of making free software is eradicated once and for all.

God bless us, and God bless America!

I have...
by CooCooCaChoo on Fri 30th May 2003 11:31 UTC

no issues with a company enforcing their copyright, but when you have a company 1-2 months before releasing the so-called "damning evidence", start sending out threatening letters and make waves in the opensource community, things start to to get a little worrying.

What is worse is the conflicting stories we have, first they blame Linus, the accuse IBM, the blame someone else, the come back to Linus and say that they're not going to hold him liable. Please, can SCO get some direction just as they require in their company.

Anyone tried to contact them? I was interested a while back purchasing UnixWare for a server. I sent and email, and no reply, sent another email, again, no reply. If this is the way they treat customers, no wonder they haven't made a profit in 7years of business.

Re: Silbernagl, Jack
by freeman on Fri 30th May 2003 11:51 UTC

"i learned that no real man gives something away for free.
......God bless us, and God bless America!"

1) Jesus is 100% man and 100% God ... agreed?
2) Eternal Live is a free Gift from Jesus .... agreed?

ergo, in your Jesus was no real man .... nor can he be real God?
Why then, do you ask God to bless you and America?

Re : Freeman
by Silbernagl, Jack on Fri 30th May 2003 13:09 UTC

See this is the kind of sh*t thrown up by commieloving liberals, who would do anything to destroy our great nation!

Jesus was a divine creation, and yes i agree that god gave us life, that is why i am pro-life, but let me tell you son, that is the only thing one gets for free, the rest is up to you!

Now lets get back on topic, i suggest you do what my company did (Patriot Publishing Inc.) and BUY an OS, we have bought products from SCO for our servers, and from Microsoft for our workstations, they now work excellent, i feel proud to have paid for it, and again done my part for the privilege of living in the greatest country in the world!

I hope that by this time next year Linux will be no more, they will be crushed by SCO and you kids have to pay for your software like the rest of us upstanding citizens.

And freeman, if you will just give up your decadent, mooching lifestyle you can be saved, and live for eternity!

Re: Linux funds Terror
by Dr. Gluttonius on Fri 30th May 2003 14:13 UTC

Does Al-Qaeda use Linux?

It might actually be a funny gag, a photo-op with Linus Torvalds and Osama Bin-Laden, imagine the publicity, i hope i dont put any evil ideas into SCOs mind now :-)

Re: Linux funds Terror
by Josh on Fri 30th May 2003 14:52 UTC

Linux isn't about stealing, it's about cooperation. I have no idea why you guys are bringing everything from the war on terror to abortion into this issue, but really, it comes down to one thing to me. People work on linux, there work on Open Source code knowing that the code is open source and the profit probably isn't going to be as much as closed source, but they do it anyway because it's a community effort. That doesn't mean we're commies or liberal gay whatever you guys are claiming, it means that when someone contributes to the code everyone can tweak it and help so that it is as good as it can be. SCO is merely doing poorly, and so doing what any red-blooded republican NRA member would do: suing for something hoping for a quick settlement. It's people like you who make everyone think republicans are retarded, and I don't appreciate it.

Re: Sam
by Roberto J Dohnert on Fri 30th May 2003 15:14 UTC

{ You are mis-interpreting the issues ---- SCO is suing for breach of contract because they claimed that IBM was misappropriating SCO's Unix trade secrets (where IBM could only learned such trade secrets because IBM signed a licensing contract with Novell/Caldera/SCO). }


You are the one misinterpreting the issues --- SCO has no case, that is how come their story changes from week to week to week, they said 2 weeks ago that they would show the offending code in 2 weeks now that 2 weeks has come by now they extend it another 2 weeks and in 2 weeks they will extend it again or they will show it to consultants and analysts who have no idea about Linux, UNIX or code. that is how things work. Anyone can file a lawsuit, all you need is $45.00 and a lawyer. I could sue you for violating my IP, can drag it on for 2 or 3 yrs and then drop it and say " never mind " and there is nothing you could do about it. Just because someone files a lawsuit does not mean their is merit in their case.

{ No one else has protected themselves better than IBM. Even end-users are MORE exposed to lawsuits because end-users actually maybe using linux that have questionable IP ownership origin. IBM didn't sell you that copy of linux --- they encourage the linux hype --- that's all.}

First of all O, Zero, Cero end users are exposed to lawsuits. If SCO tried to sue an end user it would be thrown out and Im sure David Boies knows this. It is more hype and SCO beating its chest trying to spread fear.

{ (6) SCO's letter to 1500 linux end-uers basically stated that these companies are using linux that contains SCO's IP without SCO's authorziation. It doesn't matter whether SCO owns those alleged IP (as refuted by Novell) --- because as IBM stated in #3, you can't guarantee those 99% of the source code are not violating somebody's IP rights. }

No SCO's letter to 1500 end users was an attempt to slow adoption and to cause a lot of FUD, and of course an attempt to extort money from said end users, but it didnt work. It didnt work people are still adopting Linux and people are still deploying it. I had a couple of my clients call SCO to get clarification and they told me the communications were more like a sales call than anything else. And from what I understand from many other consultants I have spoke to have said they heard the same thing. There is alot in play here that you dont know about.

{ (7) Embedded linux is dead --- IBM won't even put linux into their own commercial product (don't give me the linux watch example because that doesn't have a commercial value at all) because of a distribution might take place. If you have a problem later on with GPL/patents/IP infringements with your embedded products --- that's your problem --- IBM already made their profits by selling you the powerpc chipsets and websphere tools. }

Embedded Linux is not dead. There are plenty of products out there with embedded Linux. There will be no problem with IP, Patent or GPL because they are non issues. IBM fully supports linux and my iews I get from IBM engineers is that IBM fully intends to squash this issue. SCO thinks IBM will perform a buyout and that they will settle, IBM is fully prepared to go to court, from my understanding a settlement is not even an option.

{ >>>101. On information and belief, IBM has knowingly induced, encouraged, and enabled others to distribute proprietary information in an attempt to conceal its own legal liability for such distributions. }

IBM has fully stated that it respect and honors patents, Intellectual Property and copyrights. IBM released their own IP into the community which is their right but it didnt distribute anybody elses and they do not encourage theft.





Re: Linux funds Terror
by Dr. Gluttonius on Fri 30th May 2003 16:42 UTC

I think these people are not really Republicans, they seem to belong to some extreme fringe group, mind you since i am not american, a self-confessed liberal and an avid supporter of free software i may not qualify to judge the mindset of these posters.

Maybe if my father also threatened the neighbours with ahandgun for doing something for free i would have a different view :-)

I look forward to see the republican version of OsNews ;) )

Lindows to the rescue???
by stupidnoobie on Fri 30th May 2003 16:45 UTC
comments
by sam on Fri 30th May 2003 17:15 UTC

>>>>You are the one misinterpreting the issues --- SCO has no case, that is how come their story changes from week to week to week...

You are missing the big point. It DOESN'T matter whether SCO actually owns any unix patents or any unix copyright at all (as refuted by Novell) --- because IBM has very strong internal checks and balances to protect themselves EVEN IF sco has a stronger case.

The big point is that IBM (from day 1) has a very smart linux strategy. Just reading the Strassemeyer interview, you can tell that IBM have strong internal checks and balances ----- i.e. chinese wall between their AIX developers and Linux developers; and centralized patent/copyright clearance system to make sure that everything IBM released to the linux community are (a) 100% proprietary IBM codes, (b) that if IBM release said codes, they would not (i) give away their own patent rights or (ii) violate other people's patent/copyright.

>>>>No SCO's letter to 1500 end users was an attempt to slow adoption and to cause a lot of FUD, and of course an attempt to extort money from said end users, but it didnt work. It didnt work people are still adopting Linux and people are still deploying it. I had a couple of my clients call SCO to get clarification and they told me the communications were more like a sales call than anything else.
>>>There is alot in play here that you dont know about.

Of course I know it's a sales call from SCO. No, you are the one who don't know about the all the other stuff in play. As I said repeatedly, this is NOT just about THIS particular SCO lawsuit. They WILL be other linux IP/copyright/patent lawsuits in the future brought by others who will have much firmer legal/evidentiary grounds than SCO. I am talking about POTENTIAL legal risks for linux distributors and linux end-users.

>>>Embedded Linux is not dead. IBM fully supports linux and my iews I get from IBM engineers is that IBM fully intends to squash this issue. SCO thinks IBM will perform a buyout and that they will settle, IBM is fully prepared to go to court, from my understanding a settlement is not even an option.

What's good for the goose, ISN'T necessary good for the gander.

IBM fully supports embedded linux as a CPU/chipset and toolkit manufacturer --- they have different agendas than companies who embed linux into their products. And YOU (as a linux consultant) have a different agenda than your client who actually deploys linux.

Of course, your own IP lawyer said that you have nothing to worry about --- because all SCO can do is suing you are encouraging your client to break the law (paragraph 101) --- you have less potential legal risk than your client who actually may break the law.

It doesn't matter whether the linux community can take out offending codes and replace them in 24 hours. What if your client, Amazon.com, has to shut down their website for 24 hours --- how many millions of dollars in lost revenue. That's your client's legal risk --- and that's different than yours.

How long will SCO drack this bs out!!??
by Nicohlas James on Fri 30th May 2003 17:27 UTC

In two weeks, The SCO Group Inc. intends to begin showing analysts where the Unix code it owns has been illegally copied into the Linux kernel.

In 2 weeks!! How about now?

Insane, frothing-at-the-mouth bigots (slightly off-topic)
by Good Grief on Fri 30th May 2003 17:44 UTC

Silbernagl, Jack:

Let me tell you something about free, we are americans

Let me tell you something about Linux. If it has a nationality at all (which it no longer does), it's Finnish. And let me tell you another thing about "we". We stomped on rabid idiots like you[1] in the Battle of Queenston Heights in 1812 for the right to remain Canadians.

My father was a marine and he fought the Commies in Nam

No, he was a Marine. He fought the Viet Cong, and he fought them in Vietnam.

Unless he was a desk jockey.

The White House and the CIA were fighting "the Commies".

My father, Colonel Silbernagl heard about it, took his morning whisky and then wnet and got his trusted gun

Rumour has it that was how Einstein started his day when he discovered "e=mc^2". Your father sounds sane, wise and good.

this insane liberal faggot attitude of making free software

Um.. I'm a sane, liberal heterosexual -- so am I safe from your drunken, delusional ire then?

god gave us life, that is why i am pro-life, but let me tell you son, that is the only thing one gets for free

From earlier:

no real man gives something away for free.

Let us know when your goalposts have selected a final location. Thanks you in advance for your co-operation.

we have bought products from SCO for our servers, and from Microsoft for our workstations, they now work excellent, i feel proud to have paid for it

There's nothing wrong with buying software, being proud of it, or suggesting (politely!) that other people do so. I sure hope you didn't have to shake hands with a dirty homosexual or an employed woman in the process!

By the way, MicroSoft got their TCP/IP stack from FreeBSD. For free. SCO got samba from samba.org. For free.

Food for thought.

I hope that by this time next year Linux will be no more, they will be crushed by SCO and you kids have to pay for your software like the rest of us upstanding citizens.

Umm.... who are "Linux"? And are you paying for the use of this website? I'm sure the sysops would be very interested in that, one way or another.

Good grief,
GG
--------------------------------
[1] ...as opposed to decent, respectable Americans I've met in the past.

"See this is the kind of sh*t thrown up by commieloving liberals, who would do anything to destroy our great nation!"

Now, let's see: No, 1, a sensible, quiet argument about the nature of Jesus, followed by the above quote from No. 2.

I think if I were a judge, placed in the same room with the same 2 people, I'd probably give a lot more credence to No.1.

Which is why I'm deeply distressed about SCO corporation management's behavior. It's really no more than tantrum-throwning, as in the ahove quote, which is a response to a logical conclusion.

Now, I ask you; how successful do you think research and development would be, under a person who throws tantrums every time somebody wins a logical argument?

Ergo; I hope the quiet, sensible aspect wins in America, vs. the quasi-profane, tantrum-throwing aspect. Otherwise, Americ will get smaller and smaller, until it's just the little radio tube squeaking on the Bugs Bunny cartoon....

RE: sam (IP: ---.sympatico.ca)
by BR on Fri 30th May 2003 20:34 UTC

"Of course I know it's a sales call from SCO. No, you are the one who don't know about the all the other stuff in play. As I said repeatedly, this is NOT just about THIS particular SCO lawsuit. They WILL be other linux IP/copyright/patent lawsuits in the future brought by others who will have much firmer legal/evidentiary grounds than SCO. I am talking about POTENTIAL legal risks for linux distributors and linux end-users. "


You keep bringing up this "end users are potentially liable" thing time and again. Would you care to show us the relevent laws that show this "liability". Roberto says no, you say yes. Note as well two things. One the gentlemen you're referencing isn't a lawyer. Two you might want to think about what "pass through" liability means for the entire business community.

comments
by sam on Fri 30th May 2003 21:43 UTC

>>>One the gentlemen you're referencing isn't a lawyer.

Dr. Strassemeyer has a PhD in physics and is an elected member of the IBM Academy of Technology ---- this basically means that he is one of the top 300 scientists at IBM (which includes numerous Nobel prize winners in physics and chemistry).

Just because he is not a lawyer and he can't articulate well enough what the lawyers told him in a informal linux forum interview --- it doesn't mean that he is a quack who doesn't know what hs is talking about or that the reasoning behind their position is flaw. Although Dr. Strassemeyer isn't a lawyer by training, he is sufficiently high in the IBM corporate ladder to get lots of briefings from IBM lawyers and VP's --- and in the process the scientists, the lawyers and the corporate VP's formulated the IBM's linux strategy.

>>>You keep bringing up this "end users are potentially liable" thing time and again. Would you care to show us the relevent laws that show this "liability".

It is not the presence of relevent laws that creates this liability. Most of the time, it is the ABSENCE of clear and precise judicial case law with respect to a few words in the GPL license, a few phrases in existing case laws and a few subsections in existing statutes.

He talked about the absence of a clear definition of the word "distribution" in the GPL license. One little word --- and IBM would not let him embed linux on a commercial product. The "end-user" could be a company who embedded linux on their products, i.e. Tivo.

Uncertainty itself IS a legal risk. Sometimes uncertainty is more important than actually getting sued.

>>>Two you might want to think about what "pass through" liability means for the entire business community.

There is nothing wrong with this "pass through" liability to the entire business community. Some company like IBM who has a lot of money and a lot of IP assets will not be willing to take the legal risks. But smaller startups with no money, no IP assets and who are fishing for venture capital funding or fishing for an IPO --- they may be more willing to take the legal risks. It's THEIR choice to take any level of legal risks. (The whole business of buying and selling sports teams is based upon if there is a bigger sucker willing to pay an even crazier amount of money to you for your sports team.)

My whole point is that look at what IBM actually did, as opposed to what IBM advertised in press releases. It was a carefully crafted linux strategy. What's good for IBM (which is a IT consulting company first and foremost based on the annual revenue), isn't necessary good for you. What's good for Trolltech and MySQL (who wrote 100% of their source codes so that they can dual source their codes), isn't necessary good for another company who based their open source products from existing GPL projects. What's good for Intel/Motorola/IBM selling you CPU's and dev. kits, isn't necessary good for a company who wants to embedded linux on their end-products.

comments
by sam on Fri 30th May 2003 22:12 UTC

>>>Embedded Linux is not dead. There are plenty of products out there with embedded Linux. There will be no problem with IP, Patent or GPL because they are non issues.

That's too simplistic for the real world. Take a look at Sony VP's comments at LinuxWorld Japan when he showed off Sony's embedded Linux home appliance prototypes.

http://neasia.nikkeibp.com/wcs/leaf?CID=onair/asabt/news/249603

Quote:

"Tokoro pointed out two main issues in using embedded Linux to control digital home appliances. The first is an issue of patents and intellectual property. Namely, the chances are high that the manufacturer would be held legally responsible if a third party were to sue for patent infringement even if the Linux source code was provided to the maker by a software vendor on the GNU General Public License (GPL) basis. This is because in principle no guarantees are provided when supplying GPL-based source code."

That's the REAL world. Sony knows that there is a legal risk and that they MAY be willing to take it (I used the word "may" because these are still prototypes so we don't really know if this is just for PR purposes). IBM knows that there is a legal risk in deploying embedded linux in their own commercial products and they are NOT willing to take the risk.

It's too simplistic to just say that there is zero risk in embedded linux. Or that there is zero risk being a linux distributor (take a look at RedHat's SEC filings and you will see the fine print that says that there is a legal risk of getting sued). Or that there is zero risk deploying linux in 24/7 mission critical business servers (research firm Gartner just issued the report telling their clients to be careful in deploying linux in 24/4 mission critical servers.) Tell me that Amazon.com ain't looking for back-up plans right now.

RE:sam (IP: ---.sympatico.ca)
by BR on Sat 31st May 2003 03:59 UTC

Actually getting back to the original comment "That's not what he said. What he said was that "there is no mechanism in Linux to ensure [the legality of] that intellectual property of the source code being contributed by various people." You CAN'T tell if other people's (besides SCO's) IP are hidden somewhere deep inside Linux." The openness of the source code is the mechanism. To use the word "can't" it being disingenuous. ANYONE who wishes to have a claim can review the code, in the past, present, and future. You say "Who is going to spend the time and money to audit the entire Linux source code with millions and millions of lines of code?" well apparently SCO can, if their claims of "infringement" is truthful. There's a lot of companies out there with bigger resources who could do so. They can even pool resources and share results, so your onerous burden argument is rather weak. There is also the flip side to proprietary code. Who audits them? The company that created it? A bit self-serving dont you think? "Who is going to spend the time and money to audit the entire Linux source code with millions and millions of lines of code? " change that to proprietary binary code, and see if people desire the job even more.

comments
by sam on Sat 31st May 2003 05:08 UTC

>>>The openness of the source code is the mechanism. To use the word "can't" it being disingenuous. ANYONE who wishes to have a claim can review the code, in the past, present, and future.

The whole point is that IBM set up the most stringent internal checks to make sure NOTHING that IBM released are harming their own IP assets or that they are violating other people's IP rights. That's all they can say for sure. So that's 1% of the source code secured.

In the past couple of days, Linus commented that it's almost impossible for UNIX codes to sneak into the kernel because lkml commits are very centralized by linus and cox. So that's another a couple %age of the source code secured.

>>>There's a lot of companies out there with bigger resources who could do so. They can even pool resources and share results, so your onerous burden argument is rather weak.

You are completely missing the point. The point is from the end-user's perspective --- should I spend this kind of money on a product with a questionable time bomb and will my bank loan me the money. Or from an investor's perspective --- should I invest in a linux distributor's stock when there is a tiny bit of fine print buried in their SEC filings telling you that a big questionable time bomb could exist inside our main product.

The average linux distributor (i.e. excluding RedHat) has less money in the bank that your local burger king --- fly-by-night operations with enough cash for 1 more financial quarter. Even assuming that your linux distributor isn't belly-up in 6 month, the fact is that you have more money than your linux distributor, so you are the one getting sued.

An analogy is that you are thinking about buying a house that is rumoured to be on a former illegal chemical dump. The seller of the house is a fly-by-night operator. The seller ASSURES you that the house is not sitting on nasty chemicals, but the seller CAN'T/WON'T put the guarantee in writing. Will my bank lend me the money to buy the house? What if there are chemicals and I can't resell my house until I spend 1/2 million dollars cleaning it up? I can't sue the seller because they are long gone.

Re:Re : Freeman ( Silbernagl, Jack )
by freeman on Sat 31st May 2003 06:07 UTC

"And freeman, if you will just give up your decadent, mooching lifestyle you can be saved, and live for eternity!"
How do you know my lifestile? You don't know who I am nor where I live.

"i suggest you ...BUY an OS ....
I paid for my SUSE and WIN2K ... thank you very much. BTW, I agree w/- you that too many Linux - Zealots expect everything for free ... but that doesn't mean that Linux should be wiped out.

"Jesus was a divine creation ..."
Yes, it's off topic, but it seems to me that you don't know scripture.....