Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 21st Jul 2003 17:49 UTC, submitted by Joseph Childrose
SCO, Caldera, Unixware U.S. Copyright Office officially begins assignment of UNIX copyrights to SCO and the company is to provide UNIX License to commercial Linux end users. Press release, C|Net article. Here is also an inteview with McBride, SCO CEO at C|Net.
Order by: Score:
Meanwhile...
by Archiesteel on Mon 21st Jul 2003 17:59 UTC

...one can still download a Linux Kernel (in fact, a whole distribution) from SCO.

ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Server/current/RPMS/

So use Linux all you want - SCO has knowingly and willfully distributed the Linux kernel under the GPL. Once again, this proves that the suit is strictly between SCO and IBM, and that Linux users are safe.

GNU/Linux
by andy on Mon 21st Jul 2003 17:59 UTC

Now I'm pissed off... but what I find so funny is the name: GNU/Linux...
G = GNU's
N = Not
U = Unix

So even though they say it is... GNU/Linux says its not Unix in its name... something doesn't add up... anyone else find humor in that?

To paraphrase an old Lawyer joke...
by DoctorPepper on Mon 21st Jul 2003 17:59 UTC

Q: "What's the difference between Darl McBride and a catfish?"

A: "One's a bottom-dwelling scum-sucker and the other's a fish"

stuff it SCO
by debman on Mon 21st Jul 2003 18:23 UTC

this reminds me of a bad comedy. some guy is surounded by a bunch of large gentelmen all drinking their beer. the guy stands up on a table and says to all the other men, "ok...you all better pay me now or I will have to get rough"

the large men in the room all look at him and smirk, then go back to drinking their beer.

the guy in the room says it again...the men ignore him.

finaly, the guy trys to push one of the massive grizzled me....at that, the guy get pummled and thrown out of the bar.

SCO
by Kingston on Mon 21st Jul 2003 18:26 UTC

Yet another lame attempt by the Stop Coding Openly Group to extort money from honest people. I am sure that some people will fall for it, but in the long run, SCO will fail. Here's to the future, one free from SCO.

How do they expect to pull this bull
by brando on Mon 21st Jul 2003 18:30 UTC

How do they expect Linux to pay up already when they havn't won a court case against IBM yet. Jumping the gun, or just putting the gun to their own head.

what the world ... needs now ...
by Beryllium on Mon 21st Jul 2003 18:30 UTC

... is BSD, sweet BSD ...

(apologies to burt bacharach)

Why no countersuits?
by pete on Mon 21st Jul 2003 18:33 UTC

Why hasn't anyone sued SCO for extortion? That sure seems to be what this amounts to...

cart before the horse?
by walterbyrd on Mon 21st Jul 2003 18:34 UTC

Shouldn't scox *first* prove that scox has some special rights to all versions of Linux with kernel 2.4 or above?

Then, *if* and only *if* scox does have some special rights, *then* scox can demand that linux users somehow pay scox for the privildge of using linux.

Right now scox is only *saying* they have special rights to linux. Talk is cheap. I could *say* I own the Brooklyn Bridge. Does that mean I can put up my own toll-booth on the bridge? Just because I say so?

By the way, if I had contributed to a voluntary effort like efforts, only to see my efforts stolen by McBride, I would be pissed.

Re: what the world ... needs now ...
by DoctorPepper on Mon 21st Jul 2003 18:34 UTC

That's ok. BSD had it's day in court over (alleged) IP infringement. Now it's Linux's turn. No problem though. Once the floor gets mopped with SCO, it will be back to business as usual for the Linux folks. This time, maybe the Unix IP daemon (sorry, pun intended! ;-) will stay down for good!

re
by Anonymous on Mon 21st Jul 2003 18:38 UTC

if SCO sells linux licenses without a previous agreement with the rest of the copyright holders of the rest of the OS then they can be sued.

Proprietary software needs to go away
by Mark on Mon 21st Jul 2003 18:47 UTC

I hope open source cripples the closed software industry to such an extent that they become irrelevant so that this sort of thing never happends again. SCO wants to profit from the work of untold numbers of volunteers, and then sue _them_ for copyright infringment. The arrogance is amazing. I encourage all open source developers to code, code, code. Make your GPL'd program better than the commercial alternative, and watch the greedy commercial scum wither away, with their crappy software.

SCO, UNix, Linux
by Justin on Mon 21st Jul 2003 18:53 UTC

Man, I'm starting to think that running XP is far safer.

Re: SCO, UNix, Linux
by DoctorPepper on Mon 21st Jul 2003 18:56 UTC

Maybe, but if you remember, the SCO stooges also said that they believe EVERY OS infringes on their IP. They also said that Microsoft's blood money didn't cover the IP rights or something like that.

I think your best bet would be to dust-off your Commodore-64. I don't think THAT OS is covered by SCO's IP! ;-)

opengroup already owns the UNIX copyright: http://www.opengroup.org/comm/press/who-owns-unix.htm

Nope, they own the UNIX trademark. Big difference.

There probably is no valid copyright for UNIX
by Mark Wilson on Mon 21st Jul 2003 18:58 UTC

The following is from an opinion by the judge in the BSD lawsuit (from right before the settlement):

"Version 32V source code has now been distributed, without notice, to literally thousands of licensees. Consequently, [Unix System Laboratories, Inc.] can have no valid copyright on 32V . . . I find that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood that it can successfully defend its copyright in 32V."

RE: re and Re: SCO, UNix, Linux
by bogey on Mon 21st Jul 2003 19:10 UTC

if SCO sells linux licenses without a previous agreement with the rest of the copyright holders of the rest of the OS then they can be sued.

SCO will probably write up a vaguely worded license that pertains only to parts of the OS they claim to own. The license will not cover things they do not, such as GCC.

Man, I'm starting to think that running XP is far safer.

Nice troll. Too bad it would impossible and financially wasteful for SCO to track down home users. As for corporate users, there are too many big companies (IBM, Oracle, Redhat) backing the OS that can a) delay the case until SCO is completely bankrupt or b) just buy the company and end it.

-b

blah
by trey on Mon 21st Jul 2003 19:17 UTC

SCO is still distributing Linux (anyone care to do a diff on there kernel compared to the mainstream versions?). Novell ended the BSD court case because it was found that UNIX contained more BSD code then BSD contained UNIX code, I still think its the same exact code that is in question, but either way, SCO has distributed the code via GPL themselves, so no matter what, they can't claim copyrights on Linux, THEY distributed it to the community. Ignorance is not a valid excuse in a court of law, they gave there code to Linux, they need to stop whinning!

Not only that, prior to the management change at SCO, the prior owner (the dude that used to own Caldera) open sourced most all of the UNIX code. He released it to a mailing list, but he distributed under GPL. This, along with the BSD case should be pleanty to prove that Linux is free from UNIX IP.

I can't wait for this to go to court, then SCO can finally be proven wrong in almost every claim they have made, if not, all of them!!

UNIX Dead?
by Hank on Mon 21st Jul 2003 19:23 UTC

After all this hype, I wish UNIX would just die. I love the OS's and the software, but the wrangling of naming, copyrights, trademarks, patents and the other legalese b.s. over everything from the most inconsequential printf to a whole library of code is driving me crazy.

Kill OpenGroup
Kill SCO

Kill these mofo's who keep playing public perception into the hands of MS and get back to business!

RE: Mark
by Metic on Mon 21st Jul 2003 19:29 UTC

"I hope open source cripples the closed software industry to such an extent that they become irrelevant so that this sort of thing never happends again."

Closed source software is not going to die though its dominance may be over in several software fields.

A clear example: the computer game industry. How could you think that the game industry could open source their expensive development work - so, that others and their competitors could reproduce and distribute their work for free? No way, that's never going to happen.

But in some other software fields, like the general OS market, open source development model can compete effectively if not even outshine closed source development model. SCO and its supporters have finally noticed that too, and that's why they are trying to spread this FUD too.

Why should any Linux company pay SCO a single dime before SCO has first shown at least some proof for their claims...? As for Linux, it's all been just pure FUD from SCO so far.

source distribution
by martin on Mon 21st Jul 2003 19:32 UTC

Should SCO be filing for an injunction against kernel.org, et. al., to stop distributing the Linux kernel source?
Oh no, wait... that would mean they'd have to specify which portion is actually "theirs."

You know this thing had better go to court. Because if it doesn't, and is instead settled,
like the BSD case was, it will continue to loom in the face of Linux development.

Isn't that the idea?
by Hank on Mon 21st Jul 2003 19:39 UTC

You know this thing had better go to court. Because if it doesn't, and is instead settled, like the BSD case was, it will continue to loom in the face of Linux development.

I think that's the whole point.

Swine in America
by Jimmy on Mon 21st Jul 2003 19:42 UTC

The SCO folks belong in a great book I read once:

http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v3=1&ti=1,1&SEQ=200307...

Open vs. Closed vs. Copyright
by Ricky on Mon 21st Jul 2003 19:44 UTC

I'm confused. How can they be suing and claiming due payment if they are only now registering the copyright? Isn't that like admitting they don't own it? Did they payoff novell?

If the open group tells them they can't call Unix unix will that stop the lawsuit?

I'll be going to school in the Fall at UC Santa Cruz. I don't know if their headquarters are there. Maybe I'll apply for a job there and either try to convince them to drop the suit (and get fired) or try to find some environmentalist dirt on them (and get fire)

as an aside, I was thinking all sofware (even video games) could be freely distributed if it was supported by ads (but it would be annoying). TV and radio are almost all ad supported. When's the last time you went to a baseball game and didn't see corporate logos?

Why is no one doing anything?
by tony c on Mon 21st Jul 2003 19:51 UTC

I don't see any news about the defence of Linux.
Listen up people, if all open source users sit back and take a wait and see attitude, it may be to late.
SCO is like Nazi Germany was before WWII started, France and the Brits took the same approach and where caught with their pants down, and the tiger ate them, in this circumstance England was saved because it was a island.

I dont' think Linux is a island, get with it Stallman and other open source advocates or face the same fate.
SCO needs to be slapped down.
Also low and behold the only ones to do anything about it have been the Germans, we need to heed their example and get a restraining order against them until it is proven that they have rights to linux.

RE: Ricky
by kevin meier on Mon 21st Jul 2003 19:51 UTC

You do realise that a whole lot of those ads are for video games... opened video games is simply not a good idea...

???Swine in America????
by Ricky YAMAUCHI on Mon 21st Jul 2003 19:52 UTC

The link you posted is to a book on actually raising pigs. Don't forget that the Defendant, IBM, is also an American Company.

Let me say it once and for all from USA: We're sorry for the Indians, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and Iran/Contra. The Indians now have Casinos, we got rid of slavery, we got rid of the Nazis, we made great contributions to the Internet (not counting Al Gore), we rebuilt Japan, and well, maybe we haven't made up yet for Iran Contra, but can you give us a little break?

Linux is similar to America: You have freedom, but it's not perfect. Criticize if you must, but don't make unreasonable insults.

sco stock...
by andy on Mon 21st Jul 2003 19:52 UTC

i thought some of you guys might like this...
while sco's stock has been going up if you look at the big transactions of sco stock you'll see the big players are selling not buying... don't believe me...

its just a matter of time till this catches up to them...

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/insider/trans.asp?Symbo...

(sorry for the msn site...)

Open Video Games ooops....
by Ricky Yamauchi on Mon 21st Jul 2003 19:58 UTC

Well, I guess Video Games as open source are kind of a problem:
1. A lot have to do with Characters that are probably copyrighted. I guess you can't really open that.

2. Most companies lose money on hardware, so giving the software away wouldn't work.

3. A lot of the hardware isn't "Open" so it would be hard to compile.

There has to be someway. On the other hand, Linus did say that we shouldn't try to be "ideological" with Openesss. He does use bitkeeper.

I was speaking more in a hypothetical sense. I guess I just don't like admitting I was wrong. But here goes....ooops, my Internet connection appears to be getting unstable, won't be able to

Re: SCO Stock...
by Hank on Mon 21st Jul 2003 19:59 UTC

Heck the only major buyer is McBride himself!

Enough with the junk news from SCO
by wolf_fire on Mon 21st Jul 2003 20:05 UTC

I'm getting incredibly tired of all the crap comming out of SCO Group's PR people and McBride. There needs to be a class action suit against SCO to shut them up from all the half truths and outright falsehoods they have been printing about their competitors. NONE of their statements have been proven in court yet they are harrassing millions of people and artfully playing WallStreet on mere rumor and speculation. They have already been handed an injuction in Germany against all of this FUD they've been spewing against Linux and German citizens use thereof.

These tactics are unethical, horrible business tactics, and illegal in the US under not only FTC advertising rules, but perjury law and SEC rules.

I'm petitioning the FSF and IBM today to begin a class action suit to make SCO either put up or shutup all of this horrid behavior.

To Mr. McBride: you are doing Unix, SCO, and all developers a considerable disservice with your statements. Realize that Unix and it's children would be NOWHERE without the heart and souls of the developers that have placed their code in the open domain for the past 30 years. The very existance of Unix has been layed primarily at the feet of the very people you have stabbed in the back time and time again. Young students that wrote widgets for school projects. Research associates that created the BSD tcp/ip stack that YOUR OS DEPENDS ON! The CERN Libraries that allow particle physicists simulate collisions on computers. GTK and Gimp which have brought professional quality image processing to Unix.

Not only do you not own Unix itself, Mr. McBride, but you will find you own damn little of the code. It's already been proven that AT&T STOLE so much of it's code from Berkley that it's impossible to tell where one starts and the other continues. IBM doesn't even owe you a contract to use the source code according to the findings of that settlement. Why do you think Novell sold the contract rights in the first place? They KNEW they were practically worthless legally.

Now... The fun question... What if SCO is wrong?
by Dawnrider on Mon 21st Jul 2003 20:09 UTC

Well, in a 10 second list:

- Barratry
- Extortion
- Slander
- Anti-competitive practices
- Unlawful SEC filings (guaranteed by the CEO, no less)
- Misleading shareholders
- Insider trading
- Corporate and trade slander
- Fraud of many other sorts
- Violating the GPL: Copyright infringement OR gross negligence and deriliction of duty to customers

All of which the CEO and legal advisors are in line for, should this not pan out. Even if SCO were to win, a large number of these would still apply.

Personally, I'd be more cautious than Mr McBride with his press releases.

RE: SCO, UNix, Linux
by Wrawrat on Mon 21st Jul 2003 20:10 UTC

That's exactly their goal. They want to spread FUD so people avoid using Linux.

RE: tony
by Metic on Mon 21st Jul 2003 20:14 UTC

"the only ones to do anything about it have been the Germans"

I read that it is because of the different legislation in Germany and in the USA on the other hand. So the German kind of legal reaction against SCO is not possible in the USA. (I don't know about the other countries?)

Yeah, Linux is not an island. Like Jon ‘maddog’ Hall says (http://www.linuxworld.com/story/33841.htm): “Linux is an operating system of the world, and not necessarily subject to the laws of any one particular country."

Linux "The Hypocrites OS"
by Squid Man on Mon 21st Jul 2003 20:16 UTC

I remember, not too long ago, the Linux community accusing Microsoft of stealing software and I wondered how do they know that? Well, now I know that they were talking about themselves. As it turns out the "Great and Wonderful" Linux community is made up of a bunch of thieves and pirates who pillage and plunder other UNIX vendor's source (intellectual property). As I've always said, Linux is the most unsecure (and now illegal) OS out there. It is a hacker's OS. Hackers are the scum of the Earth. They are lower-than-low. They are the criminals of cyberspace. After all that's been said and done, it turns out that Linux is the bloated piece of crap that contains stolen code; not Windows. I hope the whole Linux community goes down in flames over this. I would like to see the end of Linux and the GPL as we know it.

Besides, there are better alternatives to Linux, such as FreeBSD, Mac OS X and, of course, Windows.

Stay legal, buy Microsoft!

Okay let the little Linux whinners complain... Come on let's hear it. Waaaaaa Waaaaa Waaaaaa, ahhhhh does somebody need a time-out?

Re: Sco, UNIX, Linux
by walterbyrd on Mon 21st Jul 2003 20:18 UTC

>>if SCO sells linux licenses without a previous agreement with the rest of the copyright holders of the rest of the OS then they can be sued. <<

SCO isn't selling Linux. SCO is selling protection. If you buy UnixWare, SCO won't sue you. That is the only way you can use Linux, according to SCO

EEEEyeh!
by Dekkard on Mon 21st Jul 2003 20:20 UTC

What about Darl MCBribes visit to japan to deter the new embedded linux consortium?? Why are we not hearing any fud or reaction to that media event? Is it because he cnacelled the trip, or because they said "get rost yankee scumsucker!!"? Personally, i will run bsd, mach , hurd or some other os before i ever give SCoX on single solitary cent. And i urge every one ,, yes i mean everyone to let sco know..that their actions will prompt the same action on a massive scale..So sco..go ahead, take yer bat and yer ball, and cry all the way home..cuz we aint playin.

Re: Linux "The Hypocrites OS"
by walterbyrd on Mon 21st Jul 2003 20:24 UTC

>>As it turns out the "Great and Wonderful" Linux community is made up of a bunch of thieves and pirates who pillage and plunder other UNIX vendor's source (intellectual property). <<

According to who? SCOX is not saying that. Not in their lawsuit. Even if SCOX was saying that, it would hardly prove anything. SCOX has told more lies than I can keep track of.

Re:
by jief on Mon 21st Jul 2003 20:26 UTC

SCO is attempting by any means to get back to business. they desperatly need money and the only way they found is to sue various other companies. i can't wait to see what's gonna happen in court.

tony c please choose...
by Anonymous on Mon 21st Jul 2003 20:30 UTC

A) I am a moron
b) I don't know much about the Nazi-era


It should concern everybody that you know so ***little*** about this era that it allows you to draw such non-existant parallels even to the least shit like this.

SCO is ripping of some bull here, but "Nazi" is not a placeholder for everything you dislike one way or the other. This is really annoying. Get your act together. If you asked somebody who had the tough luck to witness the era you wouldn't carry BS like this on your lips.

SCO's terms
by Jon Dough on Mon 21st Jul 2003 20:35 UTC

From the press release
(http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030721/lam075_1.html):

" [SCO] announced it will offer UnixWare® licenses tailored to support run-time, binary use of Linux for all commercial users of Linux based on kernel version 2.4.x and later. SCO will hold harmless commercial Linux customers that purchase a UnixWare license against any past copyright violations, and for any future use of Linux in a run-only, binary format."

Also from the press release:

"Since the year 2001 commercial Linux customers have been purchasing and receiving software that includes misappropriated UNIX software owned by SCO," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president and general manager, SCOsource intellectual property division, The SCO Group.

From this, it appears that SCO is saying that if you are A), a non-commercial user, B) using a kernel earlier than 2.4.x, and/or C) have been using Linux commercially since before 2001 and have not "upgraded" it, you are in the clear.

We must kill it!
by Jonathan on Mon 21st Jul 2003 20:41 UTC

It's like cancer, it is infecting our planet, we must destroy it now, we are the cure!

Kill the cancer aka SCO before it gets to you!

Squid Man
by Archiesteel on Mon 21st Jul 2003 20:47 UTC

So, in essence you're trying to short-circuit debate by implying that anyone who disagrees with your baseless accusations is a whining baby? In effect, what you're saying is "this is what I think and I don't care what you think I can't hear you blah blah blah blah..."

You've got some nerve calling other people immature after making such statements. In fact, you've proven yourself to be quite immature by suggesting that no one can possibly counter your arguments without being a "whiner." Such tactics, unfortunately, won't make your irrational, emotionally-charge assault on Linux and the GPL any more intellectually sound.

In fact, your obsessive trashing of Linux and open-source makes you seem quite unstable and is more damaging to your cause than to ours. You might consider making more thoughtful arguments (unless you're a crypto-penguin trying to make Windows users look bad by acting in such an irrational manner - which is still wrong, as we don't need to restort to such tricks to prove our OS of choice's superiority).

SCO
by Roberto J Dohnert on Mon 21st Jul 2003 20:53 UTC

First of all, anyone who purchases a license is wasting their money, In order for SCO to be able to charge a license fee or to be able to sue anyone for copyright infringement they must win their case against IBM, if SCO sells one license before then, hello SCO you have just been guilty of extortion.

...
by Anonymous on Mon 21st Jul 2003 21:06 UTC

Yeah the SCO are definately bottom feeders. They sure try to own Linux, but that's not a valid claim yet, and it will definately never be a valid claim.

Oh well. At least it has not slowed down development of the Linux platform. I'm inspired by Red Hat's new development approach. I hope that it allows more beginner developers and users to become empowered and be able to advance much more easily on the Linux platform than any other platform.

ip law
by tech_user on Mon 21st Jul 2003 21:09 UTC

surely if something has been published for public view - you cannot then ask for legal protection of it. SCO, by releasing linux source (in their own distro) have opned the source. under the GPL too. and they can no longer claim legal protection over whatever it is they are allegedly wanting back. thats the law in the UK at least.

eg - if i make a new magic thingy. and then leave copies of the blueprints about public p;laces like cafes and trainstations - then I can't then file for patent protection.

"fools."

squidman
by Anonymous on Mon 21st Jul 2003 21:14 UTC

you are a joke, dude.

(sniff sniff...man i laughed so hard, i'm still wiping the tears from my eyes)

SCO says...
by bagdad bob on Mon 21st Jul 2003 21:23 UTC

"ALL YOUR LINUX BASE ARE BELONG TO US"... now that they have copyrighted that, they will sue microsoft for saying it! :-)

...
by Anonymous on Mon 21st Jul 2003 21:23 UTC

I envy the free countries of the world like Germany and France. Unfortunately I live under the dictatorships in North America.

RE: (Hank) Isn't that the idea?
by martin on Mon 21st Jul 2003 21:34 UTC

It doesn't seem to be the idea held by most people responding
to this news. If SCO is bought out, or stripped, sterilized,
and destroyed, like all bottom-feeding corporate parasites
should be
, or if IBM settles w/SCO out of court, this
will remain an issue.

I'm just trying to make that clear.

Anon's bs
by Hank on Mon 21st Jul 2003 21:41 UTC

I envy the free countries of the world like Germany and France. Unfortunately I live under the dictatorships in North America.

That's the great thing about America...you're free to leave whenever you feel like. Unlike actual dictatorships, nothing is keeping you here besides a lack of ambition or will on your part.

To Squid Man:
by Dae on Mon 21st Jul 2003 21:41 UTC

As it turns out the "Great and Wonderful" Linux community is made up of a bunch of thieves and pirates who pillage and plunder other UNIX vendor's source (intellectual property).

Proof? Oh, wait, you have none. You just enjoy squealing and attracting attention to yourself.

As I've always said, Linux is the most unsecure (and now illegal) OS out there. It is a hacker's OS. Hackers are the scum of the Earth. They are lower-than-low. They are the criminals of cyberspace.

Please, learn what the word ``hacker'' actually means before using it. Didn't mommy and daddy tell you not to speak of things you do not understand?

Okay let the little Linux whinners complain... Come on let's hear it. Waaaaaa Waaaaa Waaaaaa, ahhhhh does somebody need a time-out?

Yes; you.

RE: sco stock
by martin on Mon 21st Jul 2003 21:47 UTC

Actually, that's not interesting. Remember, the US economy has been in a slump lately. It's called a bear market, which means it is marked by prevalent selling. Look up the stats for any major IT company... RHAT, IBM, SUNW, HPQ, MSFT... They all look basically the same.

trolls
by stunji on Mon 21st Jul 2003 21:47 UTC

Wow, way to turn a decent conversation into a flaming troll war.

I'm really surprised that Linus Torvalds hasn't said anything on this new licensing deal. I know that his line has always been "this is a matter between SCO and IBM," but you'd think, as the holder of the trademark "Linux," he'd at least be interested in bogus licenses being sold by some other party.

Speculating on SCO strategy
by AudleyG on Mon 21st Jul 2003 21:48 UTC

This is quite interesting,

We must admit one thing though, SCO is pretty cunning in their process of extorting money. I believe that their ultimate goal is to claim some ownership of Linux similar to their current ownership of UNIX. In other words, to sit back and collect money while the open-groups with their limited legal representation work for free.

See if this holds water... For now, they'll sell licenses to corporation who fear being sued. These businesses will pay because it's cheaper than fighting an expensive court battle. Five to ten years later SCO will strengthen this license by claiming they have industry recognition of their ownership (the millions of license sold) . The Open group will deny this, but will take no legal action as SCO themselves will not have taken any legal action to establish this ownership. They're just mentally convincing more companies they do have the right (their patent case with Novel and how they danced around the legalities comes to mind).

So in the end, as long as Linux does well, SCO will also do well, taking a free ride on the back of Linux like a leech; none will be the wiser. I mean, after a year home users won't care because the SCO license wont affect them, non-profit the same, but more companies will continue to pay for protection as it becomes the industry standard for corporations. This is all done w/o one in-court battle. Cute huh?

I think this needs to be fought now while it's still young. They need to be stopped from selling license for products they have no rights to. They need to be stopped from using the trade term “Linux” in any of their business strategies. Most importantly, lets NOT sleep on them by thinking they are fools. Lets not give them the chance to change strategy to an even more cunning approach.

Now, how to do this?

There is a lot of crying going on
by top speed on Mon 21st Jul 2003 21:54 UTC

Because it's finally starting to set in how deep the kimshe is.

SCO wouldn't be doing this if they didn't think they were on strong ground. Check IBM's filed legal 'answer' to the accusations, they don't even argue the code isn't identical, just that it didn't damage SCO. NO WONDER the damages tripled to $3 Billion!

Want to countersue SCO, for all these reasons we keep hearing? Go right ahead, so far IBM hasn't dared.

Yes, you should have known when someone handed you a cd and said "hey, this is yours, and you can make as many copies as you want, and never have to pay me a dime". Yes, you knew. So quit the crying. You knew you should have been paying for it all along.

Copyright
by Charles on Mon 21st Jul 2003 21:59 UTC

Perhaps I misunderstand; I'm not trying to troll, but maybe someone could clarify this for me:

<INQUIRY> I thought that even if an entity releases code under GPL, said entity still retains the copyright. I, however, do NOT believe that SCO holds any sort of right to claim such ownership over such a large part of code. If they PROVE that they own a couple hundred/thousand lines, fine, the fine free software developers will replace those, then (I believe that) Linux could no longer be considered a derivative work. However, I don't believe there will be ANY WAY IN HELL that SCO's claims will have teeth. SCO would have prepared their case before they made it public (assuming SCO is run by responsible people, and that these actions are not just a desperate [meaning unable to be put of any longer] swansong.) </INQUIRY>

If anyone can point out anywhere I may be wrong, please do, I'd be most appreciative. By the way, good job of shutting Squid Man down. On /. I would have seen arguements, and flames, and some pervert talking about semen, and somebody asking how many long it would take a Beowolf cluster of virtualized monkeys typing on virtual typewriters to print such idiocy as that which we see from Mr. McBride, but that doesn't matter because in soviet Russia, the virtual typewriters type on YOU. Keep OSNEWS.com at a rather high signal-to-noise ratio.

re: top speed
by Anonymous on Mon 21st Jul 2003 22:03 UTC

links mr. top speed.

post some links.

i still think your laughable little louse.

i think from now on, i'll refer to you as "top louse"

anyway.

post some links.

Crying? Nah! Readying for battle...
by Archiesteel on Mon 21st Jul 2003 22:08 UTC

So some trolls mistake the outrage on this board for crying...man, talk about wishful thinking!

What these trolls fail to understand is that it is SCO who are the real thieves. They want to profit from the labor of countless programmers who generously donated their work to the community.

But the fact is that someone can still download Linux from SCO's ftp servers, they are still covered by the GPL, and therefore SCO doesn't have a case (which is probably why SCO officials are selling their stock). I know, I dowloaded it today.

IBM won't countersue SCO, they're not the copyright holders. The copyrights holders of the software SCO wants to license in flagrant violation of copyright law will sue them. There won't be much left of SCO afterwards: the GPL is based on copyright law, it actually gives you special rights if you abide by certain conditions - SCO has chose not abide and still distribue the copyrighted work, so it will be found liable in court.

McBride and others may also be found liable of fraud by the SEC once it appears that they only did this so that they could sell their stock at a high price...let's all hope they rot in jail like the thieves they are.

And when SCO disappears into oblivion, what will the lying, ignorant trolls say? Will they finally accept that Linux cannot simply be wished away? Or will they retreat further into denial? That remains to be seen!

@Charles
by Archiesteel on Mon 21st Jul 2003 22:11 UTC

Yeah, but on Slashdot we could always mod these arrogant, flamebaiting troll into irrelevance. Here we have to suffer their polluting the boards and spend a lot of energy trying to counter their lies...

Some kind of moderation scheme would be appreciated, since Eugenia seems a bit swamped by the recent volume in comments.

Re: There is a lot of crying going on
by walterbyrd on Mon 21st Jul 2003 22:22 UTC

This must be the most idiotic post I have read:

>>SCO wouldn't be doing this if they didn't think they were on strong ground.<<

How do you figure? SCO was absolutely financially desperate. SCO had been *gushing* red ink for years. Never even one profitable quarter. SCO shares were way under $1 a share. SCO had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

>>Check IBM's filed legal 'answer' to the accusations, they don't even argue the code isn't identical, just that it didn't damage SCO. NO WONDER the damages tripled to $3 Billion!<<

Guess what? This case isn't about identical code. That was just a publicity stunt. IBM has made their position very clear. BTW: even if there was identical code that doesn't say anything about where it originated, or who put it there.

>>Want to countersue SCO, for all these reasons we keep hearing? Go right ahead, so far IBM hasn't dared. <<

SCO hasn't damaged IBM. IBM has nothing to sue about.

>>Yes, you should have known when someone handed you a cd and said "hey, this is yours, and you can make as many copies as you want, and never have to pay me a dime". Yes, you knew. So quit the crying. You knew you should have been paying for it all along.<<

Yes. Some very generous people *gave* it to me. I didn't steal it. And who the hell is scox to tell me that I have to pay scox for something scox had no part in creating?

Link:"IBM Response to SCO complaint is outrageous"
by top speed on Mon 21st Jul 2003 22:34 UTC

Sure, you need to see some of my other posts to appreciate how often I have corroboration, and how little others offer in response:

http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-12_Story01.html

Archie - don't you have other more pertinent issues today?
by top speed on Mon 21st Jul 2003 22:38 UTC

SEC Probes Video Game Industry

http://news.com.com/2100-1043_3-1064495.html

If you're not going to use your talents to open source some overpriced games for us, you need to at least market them fairly.

Today
by top speed on Mon 21st Jul 2003 23:04 UTC

How do you figure?

I'm talking about what happened today. SCO is going out on both a political and legal limb by offering these licenses.

They know they could be sued. But what they know and of the Torvalds worshipers don't is that Torvalds and Stallman aren't about to take up litigation against anyone. Not only because of their phony license, but because they don't have the money or understanding of the law, basically at all.

SCO could also be forced to pay this back one day if they lose (or suffer permanent bankruptcy, if not jail). So this actually gives their case more credibility, as they are not only willing to make the claim, they are willing to bet their lives on it.

Don't believe me? Check the stock market, SCO shot up another 15%, IBM fell. If SCO was the scam, and not Linux, those numbers would be going the other way.

Theft is Theft
by top speed on Mon 21st Jul 2003 23:19 UTC

I, however, do NOT believe that SCO holds any sort of right to claim such ownership over such a large part of code.

If Linux contains SCO code and it is proven in court, it is illegal, period, and will be up to judge to determine penalty.

But just becuase it is only a few lines that may have been stolen, those few lines could have major impact.

Consider this, an new alternative pro football league appears, and calls itself the MFL instead of the NFL (much like Linux relates to Unix).

Now, everything else they do is different from the NFL, except they decide they want to use the same names for their teams. Miami Dolphins, New York Giants, etc.

While the names of the teams is only a few text lines, less than 100 total words, they have tremendous overall effect to the copyright violation that is occuring. So just because supposedly only a few hundred lines are duplicated, you can in no way estimate the significance.

Re: top speed
by Bobo on Mon 21st Jul 2003 23:39 UTC

Sure, if there's stolen code it needs to be removed, and whoever put it there needs to pay damages to SCO. However, just because there is stolen code does not justify paying a license fee for the Linux kernel which contains code from thousands of contributors, who put their own time and effort into writing it for free. And why is the GPL a "phony license"? Last time I checked, the original developer of a piece of code has every right to choose whatever license they want for it. If you don't like the GPL's clause about releasing source code, then don't use GPL'd code in your projects!

RE: Theft is Theft
by Wrawrat on Mon 21st Jul 2003 23:41 UTC

They know they could be sued. But what they know and of the Torvalds worshipers don't is that Torvalds and Stallman aren't about to take up litigation against anyone. Not only because of their phony license, but because they don't have the money or understanding of the law, basically at all.

How can you claim that their licence is phony? In fact, it protects SCO if some of their code is found in a GPL'd program as they'll have to remove it ASAP (and even sooner). I'm sure they understand the law. At worst, they just don't understand the american law because they don't have the money.

SCO could also be forced to pay this back one day if they lose (or suffer permanent bankruptcy, if not jail). So this actually gives their case more credibility, as they are not only willing to make the claim, they are willing to bet their lives on it.

Of course it it gives more credibility, but it doesn't mean that the case is more real. People can do anything when they're in desesperation.

Don't believe me? Check the stock market, SCO shot up another 15%, IBM fell. If SCO was the scam, and not Linux, those numbers would be going the other way.

...and what if the market simply reacts to the FUD? They don't know more than you and me if SCO is right or not. That's a stupid argument.

these anti-linux zealots don't have a clue
by abraxas on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 00:32 UTC

First of all IBM did not deny that similar code is in both Unix and Linux because it is true. RCU is such code (the others being JFS and NUMA). RCU was created by an engineer at Sequent by the name Paul Mckenney. Sequent was then bought out by IBM and they then introduced the code to AIX and to Linux under the GPL. SCO is trying to claim the rights to RCU by way of "derivative works" which is completely idiotic since it is not a derivitave work, it is a seperate work introduced seperately to two different Operating Systems. We don't even have to get into JFS which was created by IBM themselves.

Secondly, SCO has introduced Linux code into Unix by way of LKP (Linux Kernel Personality) which allows Linux binaries to run natively on Unix. This quote is from SCO's website:

"LKP is not a Linux environment emulator. LKP incorporates both the kernel interfaces and a Linux application environment directly into the Open UNIX 8 system"
- http://www.caldera.com/products/openunix/lkp/faq.html

To the person that said Stallman has no understading of the law and so will not litigate...that cannot be further from the truth. Not only is he a very intelligent person but he had LAWYERS create the GPL. Those laywers must surely know something about the law. But back to the matter at hand, there is no GNU code involved so I don't think Stallman really has a reason or a care to litigate.

And finally, stock prices do not prove anything. Look at Enron and Worldcom and a myriad of others. Lying can easily overvalue stock. I don't think everyone who is buying the stock knows what the truth is when it comes to this matter.

Re: Theft is Theft
by chemicalscum on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 00:47 UTC

Yes and I look forward to seeing McBride and Sonntag being lead away in handcuffs and De Boies debarred.

Unfortunately though I don't think the paymasters of this cirminal conspiracy will be prosecuted though - it would be nice if Steve B and Bill G. were jailed too.

Re: Re: Theft is Theft
by Espen Ottersen on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 01:23 UTC

chemicalscum; I don't think its rightful of you to put Mr. Ballmer and Mr. Gates in the same "box" as Mr. McBride... ;) Sure... Microsoft is a big monopoly and all... but at least Microsoft has done things that gains the computer industry, McBride has not. And btw; I am no M$-troll... I am GNU/Linux all through ;)

Goes both ways
by top speed on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 01:26 UTC

Yes and I look forward to seeing McBride and Sonntag being lead away in handcuffs and De Boies debarred.

That is your right, and I will admit it is a possibility, and if it does happen I will freely admit I was wrong about my prediction. However it doesn't really personally affect me, because I don't use Linux at all nor do I plan to at any time in the near future.

On the other hand, many of you Linux guys have a vested interest in this case, because you and/or your companies are basically going to be on trial here yourselves. Most of your arguments already that desperate sound about them as well. Therefore, I doubt you've even considered the possibility that SCO is right, nor will you admit it if and when the court rules they are, either.

IBM Hypocrytes
by top speed on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 01:39 UTC

Unfortunately though I don't think the paymasters of this cirminal conspiracy will be prosecuted though - it would be nice if Steve B and Bill G. were jailed too.

Funny to watch the linux hounds poor mouth M$, but somehow have now conveniently forgotten that IBM is still the original Evil Empire, undergoing 30+ years of anti-trust trials. Some of us are old enough to remember that, whether you are or not.

But now IBM has a whole new set of modern day scandals, from not only this trial, but also now from an SEC investigation for fraud AND a class action suit by IBM employees themselves who have been cheated out of their retirement.

http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/legalissue...

http://www.ibmemployee.com/PDFs/PokJournal_IBM_pension_lawsuit.pdf

Times aren't good for IBM right now, the sooner you realize they have a lot more to worry about than saving your rears the better off you'll be.

RE: Goes both ways
by Wrawrat on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 01:47 UTC

SCO might be right. However, I doubt it'll affect Linux even if some of their code is in it. They shouldn't gain the entire ownership of the code even if there's some lines in it. Furthermore, I believe they would have to find/prove who put the code in it before seeking damages. I don't think a person buying stolen goods is liable for buying them unless he knew the goods were stolen.

I don't really want to speculate conspiracies theories, but the company with the closest access to the code is SCO itself, and they develop their own version of Linux... If a SCO employee put some code in Linux, then it's their problem, not ours. If an IBM employee put some code in Linux, then I don't believe it's IBM's problem unless they ordered the employee to do so.

What really pisses me is that SCO don't want to tell us what is the infriging code. We can't find who put it in there and produce an unencombered/untainted kernel that way. Yes, I know, they don't have too, but I wonder how they can claim that they wish Linux to be successful with a straight face.

IBM is not your friend
by top speed on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 01:59 UTC

They shouldn't gain the entire ownership of the code even if there's some lines in it.

They haven't asked for that. All they've ever asked for is for fair compensation for their stolen code. But instead of even considering the possiblity this may have happened, all the Linux zombies have done is run around like chickens with their heads cut off screaming "SCO IS EVIL, JUST LIKE MICROSOFT".

What really pisses me is that SCO don't want to tell us what is the infriging code. We can't find who put it in there and produce an unencombered/untainted kernel that way. Yes, I know, they don't have too, but I wonder how they can claim that they wish Linux to be successful with a straight face.

You're right they don't have to identify the code, since their #1 stated goal has always been the protection of their property. We always hear "our incredible community will re-write the code in a matter of mere seconds, if they would just identify it." Well if your coders are so fantastic, why did they steal the code in the first place? Also, if they're so incredibly fast and efficient, why don't you just rewrite the entire JFS etc, instead of whining that you don't know where some obscure portion of it is?

Truth is, if you could you would. But IBM is the only group capable of that, and keeping Linux free probably isn't the highest priority on their list. Especially if they suddenly get stuck with a $1 or $3 Billion dollar bill for it themselves.

RE: IBM Hypocrytes
by Wrawrat on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 02:03 UTC

Funny to watch the linux hounds poor mouth M$, but somehow have now conveniently forgotten that IBM is still the original Evil Empire, undergoing 30+ years of anti-trust trials. Some of us are old enough to remember that, whether you are or not.

It's not everybody in the penguin world that is thinking that way. I don't even want to imagine the computer world if IBM had won their case against PC cloners. If IBM violated their contract with SCO, it's their problem, not ours. However, SCO changed their claims so many times that they don't really look credible. Did you bothered to read what they've been claiming or are you just trolling around 'cause it's fun?

Gotta pay to play, that's the way the modern world works
by top speed on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 02:06 UTC

I believe they would have to find/prove who put the code in it before seeking damages. I don't think a person buying stolen goods is liable for buying them unless he knew the goods were stolen.

Why do you think they're suing IBM? Not because IBM is rich, but because IBM put the code it there.

Unfortunately if you buy stolen goods (which isn't how most Linux users got the software, BTW), you still have to turn them over to authorities.

Surely you understand if someone sells you a stolen car, and the authorities found out, you aren't allowed to keep driving it?

SCO notified these companies in writing of their possible liabilities. Those companies took that risk when they trusted the GPL and didn't receive ANY kind of warranty on their software they loaded. Their claims of this all somehow being unfair to them appears even more ridiculous sounding by the fact very few of them actually paid anything for it to begin with.

This is no fun
by top speed on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 02:11 UTC

Did you bothered to read what they've been claiming or are you just trolling around 'cause it's fun?

What I am doing is not fun. It's like bringing food to etheopia, so many of the linux hacks are so limited in their understanding of what is actually happening here.

The group speak that goes on at slashdot is amazing with all the completely incorrect assumptions that go on and on infinitely over there. The regular posters get brainwashed, then when someone comes along who actually knows what he's talking about they all attack him and mod him down, smug despite their own ignorance.

There are several articles out about this very mindset, check Dvorak's "Killing Linux" or Capellas article on C-Net where they talk about the 'engineer's mind' having a false sense of absolute correctness.

You're smarter than that Wrawrat
by top speed on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 02:21 UTC

If IBM violated their contract with SCO, it's their problem, not ours.

Surely you understand the actual implications of the court ruling in SCO's favor? Do you actually think IBM will just hand them $3 Billion and SCO will be satisfied?

No, they have made it clear they are going after more targets than just IBM, and those 1,500 letters to Fortune 500 companies should be all you need to see to make that point to you.

If you're a small home/office user, you're probably ok, no more of a threat to you than if you're now running more copies of Windows on your home network than you actually paid for. Just because you're not going to suffer damages doesn't mean it's right though, and the future of digital technology is going to make it harder to do that in the years to come, whether those of you doing it like it or not.

RE: IBM is not your friend
by Wrawrat on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 02:33 UTC

Well if your coders are so fantastic, why did they steal the code in the first place?

You assume that Linux programmers stole their code. SCO still have to prove that... and also prove that it's their code. Remember AT&T/Novell vs BSD, Inc & the University of California at Berkeley? They did found Unix code in BSD, but they've also found a lot of BSD code in Unix. That "woopsie" weakened the case of the plaintiffs so much that they've decided to settle the case instead of possibly losing it and get countersued.

Also, if they're so incredibly fast and efficient, why don't you just rewrite the entire JFS etc, instead of whining that you don't know where some obscure portion of it is?

Personally, I don't know anybody using JFS... and I don't know anybody that knows anybody using JFS. ;)

Why do you think they're suing IBM? Not because IBM is rich, but because IBM put the code it there.

Um, no. At the beginning, they sued them for violation of trade secrets. They claimed they helped Linux to become a luxury car and not a bike (their own analogy). They're now claiming that any code written by IBM (or any other licencee) is their property. That's why they're now claiming that IBM put Unix code in Linux.

Surely you understand if someone sells you a stolen car, and the authorities found out, you aren't allowed to keep driving it?

Of course. However, SCO seems to want to prosecute people because they used Linux with the infriging code. I might be wrong, but that's what I understand from what I've read.

What I am doing is not fun. It's like bringing food to etheopia, so many of the linux hacks are so limited in their understanding of what is actually happening here.

Okay, but do you know what's happening? You seem to be sure that SCO have a valid case. Problem is that you didn't really showed us why... and neither SCO.

The group speak that goes on at slashdot is amazing with all the completely incorrect assumptions that go on and on infinitely over there. The regular posters get brainwashed, then when someone comes along who actually knows what he's talking about they all attack him and mod him down, smug despite their own ignorance.

Well, that is to be expected. Try to walk in Harlem with a sign with "I HATE NIGGERS" written on it. I'm sure you won't walk for very long. ;)

There are several articles out about this very mindset, check Dvorak's "Killing Linux" or Capellas article on C-Net where they talk about the 'engineer's mind' having a false sense of absolute correctness.

I will, but I must admit that my reading can be biased as I don't believe in SCO's claims.

Surely you understand the actual implications of the court ruling in SCO's favor? Do you actually think IBM will just hand them $3 Billion and SCO will be satisfied?

No, they have made it clear they are going after more targets than just IBM, and those 1,500 letters to Fortune 500 companies should be all you need to see to make that point to you.


AFAIK, they're only complaining of the 2.4 kernel. They can always purge that kernel branch of the tainted code and/or switch to another OS if the kernel is almost uncleanable. IBM introducted enterprise-class functions in the kernel, and I doubt a majority are using them. That's why I believe it's almost an non-issue for the community.

Btw, sorry if I'm late, I'm not English-native so I write sloooowly.

Oblivion
by top speed on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 02:49 UTC

At the beginning, they sued them for violation of trade secrets. They claimed they helped Linux to become a luxury car and not a bike (their own analogy). They're now claiming that any code written by IBM (or any other licencee) is their property. That's why they're now claiming that IBM put Unix code in Linux.

I really see no distinguishing points in any of those arguments, sorry.

However, SCO seems to want to prosecute people because they used Linux with the infriging code. I might be wrong, but that's what I understand from what I've read.

Yes, that would incur damages. Try this article "Is Open Source in Deep Trouble?" on ZDNet:

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-1020296.html

Okay, but do you know what's happening?

I know many things posted on slashdot as fact are not. You have to be VERY careful about believing almost anything posted on that site, which unfortunately is the mainstay of linix users.

Well, that is to be expected. Try to walk in Harlem with a sign with "I HATE NIGGERS" written on it. I'm sure you won't walk for very long. ;)

That is true and I see your grin, but that is not a laughing matter, Wrawrat.

AFAIK, they're only complaining of the 2.4 kernel. They can always purge that kernel branch of the tainted code and/or switch to another OS if the kernel is almost uncleanable.

Sure they could, but they are in such lockstep with Torvalds who denies everything they really aren't doing anything but foolishly laughing among themselves.

They can laugh or feel they are being unfairly treated, but the absolute truth is they're 'getting raped on national tv', and haven't lifted one finger to do anything about it yet. It's obviously starting to appear that IBM has little defense to offer, and/or the Linux "community" isn't really capable of any. They are dying the death of 1,000 cuts right now, whether they win the actual trial or not. But if they are substaintially weakened before it even starts, they probably won't win it, either.

Top Speed is Full of It
by Mark Wilson on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 03:12 UTC

For the real story, check out

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

You can also take a look at this document on Dennis Ritchie's site (he wrote Unix):

http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/930303.ruling.txt

(note that BSD's license gave them the right to make derivative works and that the Judge was of the view that Unix 32V did not have copyright protection).

The upshot is -- SCO doesn't have anything. If, after perusing the above, you'd still like to send SCO some money, please send me some also.

That tripe is supposed to be objective?
by top speed on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 03:19 UTC

From the link you just provided us:

SCO/Caldera's complaint, in all its brazen mendacity, is the last gasp of proprietary Unix. We in the open-source community (and our allies) are more than competent to carry forward the Unix tradition we founded so many years ago. We pray that all assertions of exclusive corporate ownership over this tradition be given a swift and definitive end.

"We pray for Linux"??? LMAO.

RE: Oblivion
by Wrawrat on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 03:49 UTC

I really see no distinguishing points in any of those arguments, sorry.

Well, SCO claimed that IBM violated trade secrets. They sued because they said they put Unix concepts in Linux. Now they claim they stole code. Both are different.

Yes, that would incur damages. Try this article "Is Open Source in Deep Trouble?" on ZDNet:

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-1020296.html


Thanks, that was an interesting read. I have even less faith in the american justice system now, though. ;)

I know many things posted on slashdot as fact are not. You have to be VERY careful about believing almost anything posted on that site, which unfortunately is the mainstay of linix users.

I can't comment on this as I never posted on Slashdot.

Sure they could, but they are in such lockstep with Torvalds who denies everything they really aren't doing anything but foolishly laughing among themselves.

I understand them as SCO have yet to prove their claims.

They can laugh or feel they are being unfairly treated, but the absolute truth is they're 'getting raped on national tv', and haven't lifted one finger to do anything about it yet.

I don't watch american TV, so I can't comment this either.

It's obviously starting to appear that IBM has little defense to offer, and/or the Linux "community" isn't really capable of any.

I thought it was to SCO to prove that they are wrong, and not the opposite. Anyway, the case isn't even in court yet, so we don't really know how IBM will defend its case. As for the Linux community, they don't have any idea of the infringing code in question. What do you expect them to do? Write another kernel? I'm sure that some people in penguin land do care of the current situation, but they can't do anything without proof. Yes, they could view SCO's proofs, but the NDA is so draconian that viewers wouldn't even be able to write Linux code of their life.

They are dying the death of 1,000 cuts right now, whether they win the actual trial or not. But if they are substaintially weakened before it even starts, they probably won't win it, either.

I doubt IBM is dying...

tony c please choose...
by snorkel on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 03:51 UTC

How about C), you are the moron. For your information I have extensively studied history and in particular Military history, so don't tell me I don't know what happend at Dunkirk and all the crap Chamberlain pulled in trying to appease Hitler.

The key here is to learn from the past and never forget it.
It does not matter if it's Nazi Germany or SCO the principals are the same.

So far Linux users are pretty much like Chamberlain.

A) I am a moron
b) I don't know much about the Nazi-era


It should concern everybody that you know so ***little*** about this era that it allows you to draw such non-existant parallels even to the least shit like this.

SCO is ripping of some bull here, but "Nazi" is not a placeholder for everything you dislike one way or the other. This is really annoying. Get your act together. If you asked somebody who had the tough luck to witness the era you wouldn't carry BS like this on your lips.

RE:
by martin on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 03:53 UTC

They can laugh or feel they are being unfairly treated, but the absolute truth is they're 'getting raped on national tv', and haven't lifted one finger to do anything about it yet. It's obviously starting to appear that IBM has little defense to offer, and/or the Linux "community" isn't really capable of any. They are dying the death of 1,000 cuts right now, whether they win the actual trial or not. But if they are substaintially weakened before it even starts, they probably won't win it, either.

Top Speed, what is your beef? You give the impression you know more than everyone else, but I think you're just trying to rouse the rabble.

IBM cannot move the case any faster, nor can Linus Torvalds. The best move for everyone is to sit back until court time. I don't see that anyone's weakened in the eyes of the court by anything said here, on CNET, ZDNet, Slashdot, or any other news source.

As for corporate impressions, I happen to work for a very conservative company, when it comes to new technology, and this fiasco is not maliciously affecting our rollout of open source software. All it is doing is forcing us to address contingency plans, which should already exist anyway.

Economy, and National Security (don't faint, linix heads)
by top speed on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 04:01 UTC

Thanks, that was an interesting read. I have even less faith in the american justice system now, though. ;)

Fine, but you should now understand that the US Economy is the most important thing to most Americans when discussing issues like these, and will rule the day in the end. And Linux threatens the US software industry, the true "intellectual property" owners of the entire US economy.

But of possibly even higher concern (highest of all), Linux might possibly even threaten our national security.

If you want another extremely interesting read, check this:

http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall...



RE: tony c please choose...
by snorkel on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 04:03 UTC

Anonymous (IP: ---.dip.t-dialin.net)
I am sorry you don't like it, but that is just to bad....
Would you like some cheese with your wine?

A) I am a moron
b) I don't know much about the Nazi-era


It should concern everybody that you know so ***little*** about this era that it allows you to draw such non-existant parallels even to the least shit like this.

SCO is ripping of some bull here, but "Nazi" is not a placeholder for everything you dislike one way or the other. This is really annoying. Get your act together. If you asked somebody who had the tough luck to witness the era you wouldn't carry BS like this on your lips.

Sorry Wrawrat...
by top speed on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 04:05 UTC

I don't watch american TV, so I can't comment this either.

Yeah, I guess this being a US Federal Trial makes it pretty hard for you guys to keep up.

Top speed, I would send this to you via email, but since you won't post an email address...

I would have to agree w/you on the Slashdot thing. I stopped surfing that website years ago for all the inane comments people make on that site, not least of being "First post!!" But frankly, you are doing more than providing an objective point of view here today. You are intentionally trying to get a rise out of people.

And ok, so I'm contributing to the cause by writing this, but I just want you to know that you need to take a step back, and evaluate the equivalency between the voice writing your posts, and the thousands of uselessly provocative posts sent to Slashdot every day, which neither of us can stand.

BTW
by top speed on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 04:07 UTC

Anybody else noticed these new ads?


<img src="http://www.one2onematch.com/images/slideshow/sweetmissy.jpg">

RE: BTW
by martin on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 04:13 UTC

Clever.

You're Right, Thanks
by top speed on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 04:16 UTC

I would have to agree w/you on the Slashdot thing. I stopped surfing that website years ago for all the inane comments people make on that site...but I just want you to know that you need to take a step back, and evaluate the equivalency between the voice writing your posts, and the thousands of uselessly provocative posts sent to Slashdot every day, which neither of us can stand.

Thanks man, you're right, like I told Wrawrat I'm not enjoying this, and might have treating some of you like some of the brain dead folks on slashdot.

For that, I must apologize. I actually became attracted to OSNEWS.COM because I found the discourse more rational.

So, please forgive. I will take a short leave of absence, and return again sometime.

However, just because Martin correctly pointed out many of may arguments were possibly bloody in their execution, most were delivered with a scalpel like precision.

Take care friends, this case will be going on for some time.

The article about illegaly exporting Linux to other countries is not very intelligent. Linux was made by Linus Torvalds in Finland! Yes he does now reside in the US but Linux is all over the world and has been since before Linus left for the US.

On top of that the article talks about using cheap x86 computers. Now I understand you can build a beowulf cluster to make a supercomputer but you can't just throw a beowulf cluster together. Besides shouldn't we hold Intel and AMD responsible too then?

Topspeed buys Brooklyn Bridge, gets great deal
by hc on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 04:59 UTC

Topspeed, I find it difficult to believe that you are gullible enough to buy SCO's story without questioning it.

This story is NOT about people stealing code from SCO. It's about SCO trying to steal code written by other people, by claiming that SCO owns it.

Look at the RCU example. Sequent invented the idea, patented it, and wrote the code. Sequent, now IBM, owns the code. Period. Sequent allowed SCO to use Sequent's code without charging royalties. They also allowed Linux to use that code.

SCO is claiming that Sequent 'gave' them the code, so now SCO owns it, and can decide who gets to use it. Ungrateful SOB's aren't they?

Linus and other developers who chose to use the GPL understand copyright law. They understand that the author owns the copyright. They understand that Linux is not 'given' away; the right to distribute it is granted by the owners to others. The author retains the copyright, unless explicitely transfered to someone else.

So far, SCO has shown that there may be lines of code in common between SCO's products and Linux. They haven't shown who owns that code; they loudly assert that they own it, but refuse to identify the code, which would allow the provenance to be determined. Perhaps SCO wrote the code, and it was stolen. Fine, that code can be removed. Perhaps SCO wrote the code, gave it away, and now wishes that they hadn't. To bad, so sorry, learn to live with the results of your actions. Perhaps someone else wrote it, such as someone on the BSD project, and allowed both SCO and Linux to use it. There's plenty of BSD code in both, and that's perfectly legal, if documented. Perhaps SCO stole code from Linux. That's not legal.

I've been using Unix since it was 16 bit, and have used most varieties of it. I find the idea that anyone would steal code from SCO laughable. Why not steal from something decent? It makes as much sense as breaking into a jewelry store and stealing a can of soda, leaving the gold and silver alone.

AT&T used BSD code without proper credit. In fact, they tried to claim that they wrote it and owned it. They tried to steal it. And failed, when the courts shot them down. SCO bought that tainted code. How much of that code is truly owned by SCO is unknown. McBride has not served the SCO shareholders well by reopening that question. He could cost them the ownership of ANY Unix code.

What do we know?

We know that SCO now owns code from AT&T, code that was once tainted by stolen code.

We know that SCO claims code written by IBM.

We know that SCO found code that appears in both Linux and SCO.

What DON'T we know?

We don't know who wrote that common code, and who owns it. We also don't know why SCO is acting like they don't want us to find out who wrote that common code. If they wrote it, you would think that they would be eager to prove it to the entire world.

We don't know that SCO owns code written by IBM, or by any other party. I have trouble imagining an IBM contract that would transfer ownership of ANYTHING developed by IBM to anyone else. Allow the use of IBM property, yes, but give away IBM copyrights? Not a chance.

Trolls grasping thin air again...
by archie steel on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 05:01 UTC

If you're not going to use your talents to open source some overpriced games for us, you need to at least market them fairly.

It's not my fault if some trolls are too cheap to buy games. They should know that open-source games exist: in fact, Id software (arguably the leaders in 3D FPS technology) open-source their quake engine, IIRC. It's funny, though. Even though you explain to trolls that the market allows for 50$ console games, they somehow feel that the only thing people should pay for are Microsoft Products. Probably because some trolls are paid MS employees, and others are Paul Thurrott in disguise.

However, trolls should be advised to read the articles they post, not just their headlines when they attack verbal opponents by targeting their industry (not realizing that their verbal opponents are paid employee and do not necessarily get royalties).

This from an article linked to by a troll:

"The SEC has advised Activision that this request for information should not be construed as an indication from the SEC or its staff that any violation of the law has occurred, nor should it reflect negatively on any person, entity or security,"

Which is more than can generally be said of Microsoft and the way it has paid lip service to what was alreadly a slap on the wrist.

Trolls are notoriously bad at market economics...
by archie steel on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 05:06 UTC

Don't believe me? Check the stock market, SCO shot up another 15%, IBM fell. If SCO was the scam, and not Linux, those numbers would be going the other way.

Trolls should remember that markets are about perception, not reality. Investors are not in a better position than lawyers and the tech crowd to judge the merits of this case. For example, few realize that the GPL is not a normal license, but is actually built upon copyright law.

What happens if SCO is wrong...
by abraxas on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 05:17 UTC

...and all these companies that felt threatened actually paid license fees to SCO? If that happens it will surely be the end of SCO if they don't go bankrupt before that. This seems more and more like a last ditch effort by SCO. They haven't even proved their case to the public yet (despite what pro-SCO zealots want to believe) and they're trying to extort money out of companies for code they didn't write. As I noted in an earlier post, what they are trying to claim to own was written by other people and companies outside of SCO. So now they're trying to force people to pay money to them for code written by volunteers and other companies. Without bringing the law into this for one moment, isn't that at least a little disturbing?

To be honest I am almost hoping some companies fall for the ploy so SCO can be sued into oblivion if/when they are proven wrong. You live by the gun, you die by the gun.

As a side question to all those pro-SCO fanboys:

How do you justify your position without seeing any proof? The only information that has been released by SCO is concerning code they didn't write. So far SCO seems to be shooting themselves in the foot more than anything else. I guess it's just wishful thinking for Windows zealots.

In the end I don't think any Linux users have anything to worry about. If in fact we are wrong and SCO is right the code will simply be replaced. No license fees, no worries. If we are right then SCO will be no more. I don't really see a down side, except maybe some downtime in getting the new code injected into the kernel.

Re: Top Speed
by Roberto J Dohnert on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 05:17 UTC

< They haven't asked for that. All they've ever asked for is for fair compensation for their stolen code. But instead of even considering the possiblity this may have happened, all the Linux zombies have done is run around like chickens with their heads cut off screaming "SCO IS EVIL, JUST LIKE MICROSOFT". >

Their code was not stolen, what does SCO have, 80 lines of code, which they dont even know who wrote it or when it was incorporated into UNIX system V. SCO cannot license or recieve compensation for what they do not own. In order for SCO to be able to recieve compensation, they will have to be successful in suing someone for Copyright Infringement, then they will have the potential to recieve compensation. The IBM lawsuit is about contractual violations, not about copyright infringement.

< But instead of even considering the possiblity this may have happened >

Have you considered the possibility it did not happen ?

< You're right they don't have to identify the code, since their #1 stated goal has always been the protection of their property. We always hear "our incredible community will re-write the code in a matter of mere seconds, if they would just identify it." Well if your coders are so fantastic, why did they steal the code in the first place? Also, if they're so incredibly fast and efficient, why don't you just rewrite the entire JFS etc, instead of whining that you don't know where some obscure portion of it is? >

You wanna know the truth, this wont even go to court. Because if it does, all testimony, evidence, including portions of their UNIX IP will be introduced into Public Record viewable by anyone. It is the law. And the law offers no protection for Intellectual Property that is introduced as evidence. And since they have requested a Jury trial that is the way it works. No coder stole the code, it was introduced by IBM, IBM has copyrighted all their code and it is the property of IBM. IBM's contracts for UNIX state that they retain ownership of anything they develop, dont be surprised if IBM starts charging SCO royalties for IBM code when this whole thing is said and done. IBM does not need to rewrite JFS, besides the top journaling systems used by Linux customers are EXT3 and ReiserFS.


< all the Linux zombies have done is run around like chickens with their heads cut off screaming "SCO IS EVIL, JUST LIKE MICROSOFT". >

all the Microsoft zombies have done is run around like chickens with their heads cut off screaming "LINUX IS ILLEGAL, THE LINUX COMMUNITY CONSISTS OF THIEVES AND PIRATES ".








/me polishes linux
by Mystilleef on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 05:19 UTC

/me recompiles his kernel and prepares to reboot into linux and enjoy the bliss of a unique digital realm.

Kiss my ass SCO.

...yet keeps making asinine statements. I guess there is a reason for that. There is no point responding to me when you don't have an arguement. Anyway, you have stated the following:

"...keeping Linux free probably isn't the highest priority on their list. Especially if they suddenly get stuck with a $1 or $3 Billion dollar bill for it themselves."

How in the world did you come up with that? IBM has had plans in place for quite a while now to eventually replace AIX with Linux. They have a lot riding on Linux. Keeping it free with open source (and not closed binaries) is very important to them. It allows them have an OS for their servers that is enhanced through open source by people not only inside of IBM but outside of IBM also. There is nothing better than having a worldwide community develop software for you for free. IBM is not in the distro business. There really isn't anyone besides IBM that could use their version of Linux anyone because it is based on their chip. So basically it is a win-win situation for them.

Time for criminal investegation of SCO
by Anonymous on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 06:41 UTC

It is now time to look seriously into the "dumping" of SCO stock by its executives by any means available over the Internet for probable CRIMINAL INVESTEGATION of an Enron style "pump 'n' dump" scheme. They now appear to have committed TWO FELONY CRIMES, stock fraud and extortion against the Linux and Open Source Communities, their non lawyer and non executive employees and the people as a whole. JAIL is now the only acceptable outcome to this!!!

RE: Time for criminal investegation of SCO
by Coral Snake on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 07:56 UTC

It is now time to look seriously into the "dumping" of SCO stock by its executives by any means available over the Internet for probable CRIMINAL INVESTEGATION of an Enron style "pump 'n' dump" scheme. They now appear to have committed TWO FELONY CRIMES, stock fraud and extortion against the Linux and Open Source Communities, their non lawyer and non executive employees and the people as a whole. JAIL is now the only acceptable outcome to this!!!

P.S. Sorry for the double post but I forgot to add my "handle" to the original on the Opera Browser. Please moderate the original "Anonomous" version and keep this
one on?

A few comments
by Wesley Parish on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 08:49 UTC

Firstly, top speed and others are highly entertaining. "top speed" is, I suppose, chosen in respect of your mouth?

Secondly, IBM does have a very good defense, judging from:
IBM's Affirmative Defenses: Take That!
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/07/17.html
Oldies but Goodies Ancient Unix Released
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/07/14.html

If top speed et alii could do us the favour of reading that, I'm sure the debate could continue more moderately.

Oh yes, I forgot
by Wesley Parish on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 09:06 UTC

Linus Torvalds had a copy of Bach's "The Design of the UNIX Operating System" - or access to it - which amounts to the same thing.

I've seen it, and any half-way capable programmer with it could easily, in their sleep write a Un*x clone the way Linus did. It's a f**king no-brainer!

So much for SCO's claim that they own the Un*x algorithms. Oh yes, I've also got "The Magic Garden Explained", blessed by no less than Novell during their period of ownership of the Un*x crown jewels, and blow me down if it's not the same sort of book.

SCO's management aren't drilling holes in their canoe so much as chewing holes with their teeth.

Some trolls need to learn a bit of computer history. Oh well, trolls are silicon life forms anyway, according to Terry Pratchett ;)

Micosoft and IP
by Sed on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 09:52 UTC

For those of you who look like cheerleaders saying that Micosoft respect others IP, they are facing a legal action in France...

sad but true..
by anonymous on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 09:53 UTC

In long run, this thing hurts badly commercial software (and only). I think, this is not good.
Big players (and MS too!) *MUST* stop this madness and *NOW*! Or they looks like bunch of clowns.. ;)

SCO is exactly like bolchevik criminals in 1917 (red terror etc)- they shoot for money saying 'peace, freedom bla bla' (remember Mars Attacs? 'we come with peace'...)

Whatabout the FSF anyway?
by Anonymous on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 10:02 UTC

I thought they were supposed to support Free Software... Linux hasn't got much to do with Free software.

I hope SCO finally can put the nail in the coffin and end this hAxx0000r whining stuff that we keep seeing from the crippled Penguin land...

what would we be paying for?
by Miron Brezuleanu on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 11:36 UTC

Suppose I want to pay for the SCO license. When I buy something, I know what I am buying. Or at least I think I do ;) Now, what am I paying for here? I can't see how they can sell something without telling the potential buyer what he/she is buying. They are selling a part of the Linux kernel, it seems (or rights to use a part of the kernel). Which part? Is it legal in the US to sell something while being unable to give a good answer when asked what is that something? Don't they have to reveal the code with problems if asked by a client?

SCO, what are you trying to sell?

FUD spreaders
by Metic on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 12:17 UTC

SCO has yet to prove any of its claims concerning Linux. They haven't yet shown any proof whatsoever, at least to the public, only big words and FUD spreading. Even if - like SCO says - some wrong code owned by SCO got included in Linux kernel 2.4, it would just be replaced as soon as possible. Period.

Yet some people commenting on these forums try to do their best to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt too. They hint that using anything that has to do with Linux is dangerous; that Linux developers like Torvalds had intentionally stolen code, when we all know that they wouldn't do it, and if some wrong code got included by a mistake, it would be replaced ASAP. Maybe most of the FUD spreaders are just personally against Linux and GPL, but I wonder if some of them could even be paid for their dirty work?

Now that the world knows that Linux is a stolen OS, we should begin to see it slowly bleed to death.

From eveything I've read SCO has a *VERY* strong case against IBM and the Linux kernel in general. However, it looks like only kernel version 2.4 and later are affected.

Based on all the posts I've read here, I'm just amazed at how easily the Linux Community becomes unstable in the face of criticism. They squeal like stuck pigs.

It looks like the penguin has finally been decapitated.

IBM's defense
by Robert on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 14:03 UTC


http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/07/17.html

"SCO originally filed in Utah state court. IBM got it moved to federal court in Utah, but they are still trying to get out of Utah, because although they are in federal court, Utah's laws will be applied, unless IBM can get that changed."

That's probably why IBM is so silence in their defense. First things first! After that, the firework can begin.

RE: A few comments
by fooMaster on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 14:50 UTC

By Wesley Parish

Excellent and informative article from a legal perspective.
Hate to say it, but mod parent up: +5 Informative

Squid Man...
by Dawnrider on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 15:01 UTC

I have a number of questions for you, issued in a calm manner, I might add.

- If SCO has a very strong case, what exactly is that case? This is a key issue, since there have been a number of changes in their statements, to the extent that the case they cite now is not in any way related to that which the filed against IBM in the first instance. That was a trade secret dispute, and that has nothing to do with licence, copyright or other issues.

- If SCO has published the code under the GPL, for sale, then to claim existing copies as illegal only works if they:
a) Declare they had no idea what they were selling (dereliction of duty, breach of contract, lack of due care/dilligence)
b) Declare that the GPL is invalid (opening themselves up to copyright response, since the GPL is the only thing shielding them from copyright law, and they will have sold other people's works many times for substantial profit).
Which might they choose?

- How can they require customers to pay for licences against threats of retaliation for using code they are refusing to reveal, and is legal unsubstantiated? That's what gangs do when they demand protection money from businesses. It's most definitely illegal to demand money for protection in that way.

- Moreover, do licencees not have a right to know exactly what they are buying?

- How can SCO claim damages for high-end features that:
a) Their own proprietory software (where they make their money) Unixware does not take advantage of, such as high performance MP.
b) If they do exist in the kernel and they are legitimately owned by SCO (unlikely), SCO have made no attempts to have removed from the kernel? Linus and others have offered, when presented with code to remove it immediately and then investigate (after which, should the code not be SCO's, it will be reintroduced). That will protect IP immediately, but SCO have not taken that offer up, and so are failing to protect their IP, and hence it is hard to claim damages against undefended IP.

- Ultimately, if the kernel does contain SCO code, then the kernel development has been carefully logged and if SCO showed the Kernel people the offending code, the person who entered it could be tracked down, and if they were from IBM, it would be perfect evidence for the court case. Why has this not been done?

- From what we have heard, there are roughly 80 lines of code (mostly comments) that SCO showed to people as being identical. If this is the case, how can maybe 40 lines of actual functional code alter the behaviour of an entire OS to damage SCO to the tune of $3b? I wish I could write code like that, and SCO should be worried if that little code can wreck their business.

- Without being able to see this code, how can we verify whether or not the code actually came from Unixware or the other way around?

- Without the code, how can we tell that if it went from Unixware to Linux and not the other way around, that it wasn't done by a SCO representative?

- Without seeing the code, how can we tell that it isn't a piece of code from a third source that got included into both Unixware and the Kernel because it was already open code?

In short, there are a great many unanswered questions (indeed, far more than I have listed!).

I would also be cautious in declaring Linux to be a stolen OS, in the face of Windows and Unixware (have quotes to the effect that Unixware has lots of other people's code in it).

In short, we have to wait and see, most especially to see the code, which is where we will start to find some answers. Sufficed to say, SCO are being overly cautious releasing the code, and bearing in mind the questions above, offering up the code could solidify their argument. Since they aren't, it only lends the indication that they have something to hide, and ultimately, it defeats their claims for damages.

Triumphant trolls...
by Archiesteel on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 15:06 UTC

...like TopSpeed and Squid Man, like to count their chickens before they're hatched. They take their wishes for reality, and will selectively read (and reprint) only media sources that support their view, ignore and/or ridiculing any other point of view.

However, when one has all the elements available, it's hard to see how Linux could be affected. SCO has released the allegedly offending code under the GPL, if there is any such code it can easily be replaced, and the evidence that such code exists is slim at best. In fact, there is better evidence that SCO put Linux code (in the Linux Kernel Personality) in UnixWare than the opposite.

Some trolls will be very sad when the truth comes out. What will they do then?

>>Now that the world knows that Linux is a stolen OS, we should begin to see it slowly bleed to death<<

Wrong on both counts. The world knows this is scox attempting fraud and extortion. Linux is doing great.

>>From eveything I've read SCO has a *VERY* strong case against IBM and the Linux kernel in general<<

Specifically, what have you read that leads you to that conclusion? Again: be specific.

I would like to say something here
by hmmm on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 15:12 UTC

something that I think has been forgotten by a lot of people.

WE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.


All you have to do is show us the proof in a court of law. Until then, you have no ground to stand on.

.!..

Re: what would we be paying for?
by walterbyrd on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 15:16 UTC

>>SCO, what are you trying to sell? <<

SCO is selling protection from this particular lawsuit. Buy UnixWare from SCO, and SCO won't sue you - this time.

If SCO manufactures another case, SCO could sue you for that, unless you want to buy some more protection.

But remember: scox likes to sue their customers first. IBM was a SCOX customer. SCOX even said they were going after IBM first because they have a contract with IBM. SCOX has also said that a contract is what you use against others.

This must stop!
by Jonathan on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 15:18 UTC

Seriously we must stop this now! Is there anything we "normal" people can do to bring SCO down for good? I mean I am getting seriously pissed of because of them and many more with me.

Can you sue someone because of stupidity? If then we should all sue SCO.

Re: I would like to say something here
by walterbyrd on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 15:19 UTC

>>WE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. <<

Guily or innocence has nothing to do with it. SCO wants you to buy lawsuit protection. This protection only applies to this particular case.

Buy UnixWare, and SCOX won't sue you this time.



Re: This must stop!
by walterbyrd on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 15:27 UTC

>>Can you sue someone because of stupidity? If then we should all sue SCO. <<

Are you joking? This is brillent!

Last December, before scox started this: scox had never had a profitable year, or even a profitable quarter. Scox was *gushing* red ink - losing between $25 milion and $125 million every year. And those loses were from a very small company - scox's total book value at the time was under $5 million! No wonder scox was selling for way less than $1 a share.

Now - WOW!! Thanks to fud money from msft and sunw. Sco had it's first profitable quarter. SCOX stock price is now about $13. Best of all - for insiders - SCOX execs gave themselves a buttload of options for $0.001 each. You better believe insiders are selling like mad. Scox insiders are making windfall profits.

Stupid? This is the smartest scam I have ever seen.


RE: Triumphant trolls...
by Squid Man on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 15:39 UTC

And I quote, "and will selectively read (and reprint) only media sources that support their view, ignore and/or ridiculing any other point of view."

Isn't that what the Linux community has been doing to Microsoft for, oh let's say, the last 10 years?!?!

I quote, "In fact, there is better evidence that SCO put Linux code (in the Linux Kernel Personality) in UnixWare than the opposite."

What evidence? Be specific!

walterbyrd, you said "Specifically, what have you read that leads you to that conclusion?"

The same as you! SCO revoked IBM's license to sell AIX. Has any judge blocked it or overturned it? No. In my opinion, the reason SCO hasn't published the offending code snippets is the same reason the Modesto police didn't tell the media they found Laci's body on the beach. They don't what to lay all their cards on the table and ruin their case.

The fact, that SCO increased their lawsuit to 3 billion tells my they have a pretty good hand. It look like the Linux community gambled and lost.

Penguin in Dream Dictionary
by Squid Man on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 15:48 UTC

All you Linux zealots need to stop crying, wipe off your face, adjust your pocket protectors and sure up the tape on your glasses. There are alternatives to Linux. Windows, in fact, is a wonderful alternative. Let's not forget FreeBSD and Mac OSX too!


Definition of Pengiun in Dream Dictionary:

"Seeing a penguin in your dream means that your problems are not as serious as you may think. It serves as a reminder for you to keep you cool and remain level-headed. Alternatively, a penguin seen in your dream suggests that you are being weighed down by your emotions or by a negative situation. You need to find some balance and inner harmony. "

I think this says it all!

@Squid
by Archiesteel on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 16:35 UTC

Isn't that what the Linux community has been doing to Microsoft for, oh let's say, the last 10 years?!?

Well, if it's wrong for somebody else to do it, it should be wrong for you as well. I personally don't think that Linux has been doing "selectively reading (and reprinting) only media sources that support their view, ignore and/or ridiculing any other point of view"...that doesn't even make sense. Perhaps you would like to rephrase your criticism so that it actually makes sense?

In any case, since you feel that the Linux community has been guilty of...something...and then you say that this is the same as what you've been doing as justification. Isn't that an admission of wrongdoing?

Well, as long as you admit that you're indeed selecting only sources that support your point of view, at least we can't say that you're dishonest about it...

I quote, "In fact, there is better evidence that SCO put Linux code (in the Linux Kernel Personality) in UnixWare than the opposite."

What evidence? Be specific!


Well, since there is no evidence yet on the part of SCO, any evidence is better evidence, even circumstancial evidence, as is the case with the Linux Kernel Personality. See this link for more info:

http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3668,a=43186,00.asp

The fact, that SCO increased their lawsuit to 3 billion tells my they have a pretty good hand.

That's pretty idiotic, even for a Windows troll. The amount of money involved does not validate either side in a legal dispute. I mean, if I was to take a $10 billion lawsuit against you, that wouldn't increase my chances of winning - otherwise, all IBM would have to do would be to countersue SCO for an even greater amount, and so on. It doesn't make any sense.

In fact, it's just more posturing so that SCO's stock value can increase (stock prices being driven chiefly by perception, not reality) so that Darl and his friend can sell their shares. Some of them have already started to do so:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/insider/trans.asp?Symbo...

Now the question is: why would they sell their shares if they were so sure of winning?

It look like the Linux community gambled and lost.

It looks like you don't know much about law and/or economics, that you're taking allegations as facts, and that you jump to conclusions much too quickly. Can I interest you in a nice bridge for sale, near a major East Coast city? It's a great investment!

BTW, I checked what Squid means in a Dream Dictionary (since we're down to this new level of stupidity). I think the results are quite telling...

"To see a squid in your dream, suggests that unconsciously you are feeling threatened. Your judgment may also be clouded - perhaps you are not seeing things too clearly at the moment. If you dream about a giant squid, this may symbolize your greed. You are thinking too much about what you want, instead of considering other people's needs and feelings."

to sum it up...
by bagdad bob on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 16:36 UTC

sco has been emboldened by the successfully outrageous behavior of the RIAA, and aided by microsoft.

their behaviour, if they truly believed in their cause, is misguided. however, evidence thus far has shown that they do not believe their case, but are willing to pursue it none-the-less, and therefore, are acting in bad faith.

at every turn it has been shown that their case is composed of slander, inneundos, empty accusations and threats. Lets be clear as to what is happening:
- they cannot legally break the contract with ibm (as per terms of the contract),
- they do not own the unix trademark (opengroup does),
- they have published the "secret" code themselves (nullifying trade secrets and intellectual property),
- they have copied code from the linux kernel into System V code (in breach of gpl),
- they have developed and donted parts of the linux kernel in question,
- they are trying to copyright the System V code post-mortem in order to claim that the linux kernel is in violation of copyright,
- they are trying to extort the linux community to fund their charade (some has seen too many sopranos reruns)

it appears that the microsoft spin doctors are attempting to goad linux users into unacceptible behaviour in order to show that they are unbalanced and call them zealots. they are attempting to turn the public into linux-phobes using FUD.

one has to wonder in light of this atmosphere of extremely ill-behaved corporate behavior (sco, microsoft, ...), why ibm allows itself to remain compliantly shackled to its anti-trust sentence. beware if ibm follows suit, throws off the shackles and simply destroys them.

Squid tactics vs. facts
by Metic on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 17:15 UTC

Squid Man is just trying to distract the discussion here so that people start playing with him in his way instead of focusing on the real issues & facts. Just take a look at his awfully low standards comments and you understand that they are not even worth replying at all, they just try to stay above the level of not getting moderated down.

So, the facts? Most of what is known so far about SCO vs. IBM case and everything related to it can be found here: http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/
There are lots of pages, links, & information seems to be updated & added all the time. The opinion of the maintaner is clearly against SCO claims, but the facts speak for themselves.

RE: Triumphant trolls...
by walterbyrd on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 17:31 UTC

>>SCO revoked IBM's license to sell AIX<<

Wrong. SCO did not do any such thing. You don't know what you are posting about. If I sit around my house in my underware, and say I am the king of England, does that mean that I am in fact the king of England? SCO can say whatever they want. Until a court of law says the IBM's license to AIX is revoked, then IBM's license is as good as gold. SCO could have gone to court and filed for an immediate tempory injunction. But SCO will *never* go to court room. That is why SCO closed down in Germany.

>>Has any judge blocked it or overturned it? No.<<

Again. You don't know what you are posting about. There is nothing to overturn. There was no injunction filed. SCO took no action other than to tell the media that IBM's AIX license was revoked.

>>They don't what to lay all their cards on the table and ruin their case. <<

Why would this ruin their case? When SCO (then Caldera) had a bona-fide case against msft, they were all too happy to present evidence. Besides, it's not as if scox has been quite about this matter. SCOX has been screaming accusations like mad. But when scox is asked to present evidence to back up their claims, scox becomes very quite.

>>The fact, that SCO increased their lawsuit to 3 billion tells my they have a pretty good hand. It look like the Linux community gambled and lost.<<

Tells me just the opposite. The amount is not reasonable. Why not sue for a buhzillion trillion - Dr Evil?

Re: Wesley Parish
by Roberto J Dohnert on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 17:31 UTC

< Linus Torvalds had a copy of Bach's "The Design of the UNIX Operating System" - or access to it - which amounts to the same thing.

I've seen it, and any half-way capable programmer with it could easily, in their sleep write a Un*x clone the way Linus did. It's a f**king no-brainer!

So much for SCO's claim that they own the Un*x algorithms. Oh yes, I've also got "The Magic Garden Explained", blessed by no less than Novell during their period of ownership of the Un*x crown jewels, and blow me down if it's not the same sort of book. >

You want history Wesley, I will give you history. During the early 90's, during my first tour as a college student, I was a Computer Science major. During my sophmore year, during my Survey of Operationg Systems class. we had a guest from USL, who came to the school to talk to us about the Unix OS, the guest was an engineer and he went through and explained the Unix OS in great detail, even went as far as to show us source code and explain concepts such as driver structure, filesystem structure, memory management, etc. real down and dirty kernel functions without signing an NDA. Now with that kind of exposure how do they protect trade secrecy. The point is, they did that for us, what other colleges and universities did they visit and do the same thing. The Unix OS is no longer a closely guarded secret, in my opinion with that kind of exposure you do not have any right to claim proprietership or trade secrecy. They have a huge problem but SCO did not create the problem, they inherited it.

David Boies in trouble?
by Archiesteel on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 18:07 UTC

Found this link on PCLinuxOnline:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/auto/epaper/editions...

Seems David Boies is accused of ethics violations...this could have him suspended for an indefinite period of time.

Sco is full of it and so are it's supporters.
by Anonymous on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 21:52 UTC

Just to let everyone know, Sco was taken to task in Germany. They were asked to prove their claim in court or shut-up ! Apparently in Germany you cannot make such claims unless you have actual real evidence to present in court. Well the Linux LUG groups who are very pro-active ( more so then here in the States ) in Germany got togetheir and filed a complaint in court about Sco making un-founded acqusations. So when Sco was brought to court they did not present any evidence and more so they had to sign a legal document stating that they would not make any more claims like they are making here in the U.S. Not only that but they had to take down their German site and remove all references to Linux. Oh yeah just to let you know Germany is Sco's second biggest market. So this goes to show that Sco indeed has nothing to present in court. All they are doing is trying to raise the value of their stock price and maybe garner some dumbarse investor.

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/10792_2217231

The funniest thing...
by Maynard on Tue 22nd Jul 2003 21:57 UTC

...Is that SCO is allowed to make claims like our IP is in Linux, and start putting together programs and announcing them in the press about Licensing Linux, a free GPL product, without having their day in court. Where is FSF right now. Why do they not come out and pursue an injunction against SCO to stop saying that to the media. SCO must put up. If there is code in Linux which belongs to them, they must say so, and the 'offending code' will be removed. This will not lessen the liability of whoever stole the code in the first place. Although the BSD case was settled, all BSD was asked to do was to remove 7 files. Get it, 7 only. SCO should identify the files one by one, line by line, and they should be shocked at how fast these lines will be replaced by even better engineering.

Until then, any business pursued by SCO can, if they are able, just tell SCO to try get a court order to force them to pay. But being USA, they might just get it. Its a shame.

sco
by Espen Ottersen on Wed 23rd Jul 2003 01:53 UTC

First of all... SCO really has no case; since they actually do offer theyre OpenLinux kernel on the net still the GPL license says its allready free code. (FTP server mentioned in an earlier post). If they discontinued theyre Linux kernel availbility on that FTP they would have a case.

But, when it comes to see the code, anyone who wants to can go to the SCO hq in Utah or wherever and set up a meeting to see the code. However you will be bound to strict regulations on how you are supposed to tell stuff away out of what you get to know.

What really bugs me tho is the parts this is about...is it something that an average user actually use? I mean...maybe this is just some really really weird thing that only is used by "a few mobos". Thats just an example of what I mean it can be...I am not very much into kernel stuff! An article I read (dont remember where) gave me the impression of that. It was by someone who had seen the code and he got the impression it was only code that didnt have any impact on the user level.

So untill they actually can prove there is code in kernel that I use, and that it actually is theyre code I wont pay a dime!

RE: The funniest thing...
by Wrawrat on Wed 23rd Jul 2003 06:50 UTC

Where is FSF right now. Why do they not come out and pursue an injunction against SCO to stop saying that to the media.

I guess the FSF don't have the funds for that. They don't have to defend Linux, anyway. It's not their kernel, after all.

SCO must put up. If there is code in Linux which belongs to them, they must say so, and the 'offending code' will be removed. This will not lessen the liability of whoever stole the code in the first place.

Yeah, but the current issue is not only about code. Removing the code might not help.

Although the BSD case was settled, all BSD was asked to do was to remove 7 files. Get it, 7 only.

No, 3 files. That's 57% less. ;)

SCO should identify the files one by one, line by line, and they should be shocked at how fast these lines will be replaced by even better engineering.

Sadly, it doesn't work that way. If you steal something from someone and you give it back later, you're still a thief. The AT&T/USL/Novell vs BSD Inc case was settled that way because the plaintiffs had a very weak case against the defandants. I doubt the current case could be settled that way.

Re: Wrawrat
by Maynard on Wed 23rd Jul 2003 10:09 UTC

Sadly, it doesn't work that way. If you steal something from someone and you give it back later, you're still a thief. The AT&T/USL/Novell vs BSD Inc case was settled that way because the plaintiffs had a very weak case against the defandants. I doubt the current case could be settled that way.

That is immaterial for the people they are threatening to sue. They can still take IBM to task, provided they did steal the code. The action against the thief who stole the code can go on, for all I care. If I recieve stolen property in good faith, i.e., I walk into a store and buy a radio which was stolen, and I have taken reasonable measures to ensure the radio was not stolen, all I have to do is return the radio, because I cannot keep it. It was not the store owners to sell in the first place. I can then claim my money back under unjustified enrichment from the store owner. But the caveat is the radio must be proven to have been stolen. One cannot come and claim it is theirs without any conclusive evidence (serial number, hidden identification tags). And even then, they do not know me. The law affords protetion to the innocent parties. Buying stolen property is not a crime, unless you buy it knowing it to have been stolen. And then there are remedies prescribed which are in keeping with the innocence of those involved.

At least this is true in South Africa, maybe USA does tings differently.

fallback
by Drazen Gemic on Wed 23rd Jul 2003 11:30 UTC

This is a fallback tatctics for SCO. They know that they do
not stand much chance in court, so thay a going after small
companies and individuals that do not have money to
spend on lawyers.

SCO was once a respectable company run by civilized Californian people, and I liked their UNIX.

Caldera is completely oposite to that. They are run by
people whom Novell probably didn't want to have in their ranks.
DG