Linked by walterbyrd on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:07 UTC
SCO, Caldera, Unixware "We believe it is necessary for Linux customers to properly license SCO's IP if they are running Linux 2.4 kernel and later versions for commercial purposes. The license insures that customers can continue their use of binary deployments of Linux without violating SCO's intellectual property rights." SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003. UPDATE: SCO may countersue Red Hat, SuSE joins the fray. Read it at Slashdot.
Order by: Score:
one word
by jan de boier on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:11 UTC

I only have 1 word to say: LOL

it make my day
by ada on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:12 UTC

i think i'll also make one but in half price 349$ i'll break the market

Hahaha. Sigh.
by Kon on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:12 UTC

I'm sorry, I can't stop laughing. Now if I purchase a license, does this mean I can sue SCO for consumer fraud when they lose their case? Boy, do I have some beachfront property in South America to sell anyone who goes for this.

by sans serif on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:12 UTC

Can you alienate the Linux deveopment community any further, SCO?

by stainlessstealrat on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:14 UTC

SCO has come up with a whole new meaning for vaporware

Switch or replace
by patrick g on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:16 UTC

If SCO - thanks to their NDA noone knows anything specific - is right then there are a few choices left:

1. Replacing the SCO code part
2. Switching to a BSD (Open, Free, OS X)

Even Window$ is cheaper...

by Stevie on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:17 UTC

Are these guys smoking crack or something???

Important to note
by Kon on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:17 UTC

From SCO's site:
The license gives end users the right to use the SCO intellectual property contained in Linux, in binary format only.

So distribution of source is not covered, eh. They are trying their utmost to screw with the Linux licensing/distribution/opensource models.

Where Are They Getting That Price From?
by Justin on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:21 UTC

Let's suspend the belief question here for minute (as in: I believe/do not believe that there is tainted code in the linux kernel)-where is McBride getting this number from?

Like anyone is going to pay $700 for a single CPU install. If they were serious, they would undercut Red Hat, and make a play directly for the power users that breathe linux.

As for the enterprise, $700 doesn't seem like much, but when a basic web server from Microsoft costs a mere $300 more, and is a muti-seat license, Microsoft looks like a better deal.

In addition, FreeBSD is available for free unsupported, which is more advanced, and has a better reputation that any of SCO's products. If I'm trying to cut IT costs, my options certainly don't include SCO.

Time to SHORT SCO, HARD. McBride is clearly killing the company-bad business plan, bad pricing, bad code.

Good riddance.

Such a deal
by Anonymous on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:26 UTC

After October 15th the price jumps to $1399.00 per CPU?

And, suddenly, MS solution is cheaper than linux...
by om on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:28 UTC

Now, the "SCO's actions backed by redmond" doesn't look like a paranoid conspiracy theory anymore...

Who Are They Kidding?
by Randy on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:29 UTC

SCO has yet to prove to the public that their so-called IP is even in the Linux kernel. At least I have yet to see it in any public document on this subject.

More claims, zero proof. When you "show me the money", SCO, You'll (maybe) see mine. Until then, this is just more FUD, in my opinion, and you're not extorting a dime from me!

Pay or get sued?
by Stefan Johansson on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:32 UTC

So SCO says that code in the Linux kernel is illegal and wants the user of Linux to pay for it or get sued? How would that make it ok????? It just sounds like SCO is trying to blackmail people. If the code is there illegaly then it should be removed and if not then SCO should just shut up.

Paying for illegal code doesn't make it legal!!

Note that I don't belive that the code is illegal until I see proof of it.

by Mike on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:35 UTC


"At first, SCO seemed content to wage its contract war with IBM, although it did send a letter to some 1,350 companies that use Linux, warning them, "similar to analogous efforts underway in the music industry, we are prepared to take all actions necessary to stop the ongoing violation of our intellectual property or other rights." In other words, SCO alleges that running Linux is essentially the same as running pirated software."

OK, SCO I'll pay if you give me only *one* proof...
by scismodo on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:36 UTC

.. that Linux violates your IP.

Only one, small proof, that my Linux violates your IP. ONLY ONE!! Yes, then I swear I'll pay the $699.

No, just kidding, I'll switch to FreeBSD :-))

To be serious. $699??? What planet is SCO from?? Please IBM, buy SCO and give Darl McBride a job as a room cleaner!

What an arrogant (and dead!) company!

RE: Switch or replace
by Great Cthulhu on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:36 UTC

Even if there was offending code in the Linux kernel (which is still very much in doubt), there are two other things to consider.

a) The code could be replaced

b) SCO has distributed that very code under the GPL

In any case, they would be violating the GPL - and therefore copyright law - by adding a subsequent license on top of the GPL, no matter what they say on their web site.

This is just another attempt at pumping and dumping their stock!

by Nacs on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:38 UTC

^^ That's all I have to say.

re: And, suddenly, MS solution is cheaper than linux...
by hmmm on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:38 UTC

Even so, I bet Munich would have still chosen Linux.

There are some thing money just can't buy.

v Go SCO!!!
by Smackdown on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:39 UTC
by Mike on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:39 UTC

I'm probably wrong...and this may sound stupid, but weren't SCO's licensing complaints about stolen code pertaining to high scale, multi-CPU configurations (i.e. 8+ CPU servers)?

What right would they have to charge *ANYTHING* for *ANY* single CPU system? Clearly, a uniprocessor system wouldn't take advantage of this functionality. Yes/No?

(Again, I could totally be wrong... I've merely skimmed through SCO's posted complaints... but this just seems ghey.)

Bad luck
by Tima on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:41 UTC

I really wish the guys at SCO all the bad luck in the world!

Theese guys are evil, very evil and very stupid. The people at SCO makes G.W. Bush look smart, they even manage to make Win3.1 look smart!

by Jay on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:45 UTC


SCO .... hahahahahah ....

sorry ... I can't help it ....

v Re: Mike
by Smackdown on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:47 UTC
v RE: Go SCO!!!
by wing on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:47 UTC
v RE : Smackdown
by scismodo on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:48 UTC
v Re: wing
by Smackdown on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:48 UTC
v re: Go SCO!!!
by hmmm on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:48 UTC
by tech_user on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:49 UTC

seriously, i really really wish i was a fly on the wall in a few of their board meetings. joking aside... what is their strategy? confusion? bfuscation? a very very long april fool joke?
if they are spending so much time and effort - they must have a strategy and a plan? what is it? perhaps we could learn a lot by placing ourselves into their shoes for a moment? damn - its so hard...

v RE: Smackdown
by contrasutra on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:49 UTC
v Re: tech_user
by Smackdown on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:50 UTC
v RE: Smackdown
by Mark on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:52 UTC
v Smackdown
by contrasutra on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:52 UTC
Linux 2.3.x gets re-released as 2.6!
by Mike on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:53 UTC

Let's just re-release 2.3 as 2.6, and tell SCO to go away... problem solved.

I got yer license fee right here.....
by Anonymous on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:55 UTC

now come and let me "GIVE" it to you SCO.

by Bill on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:55 UTC

this is unbelieveable -SCO what a bunch of As*Ho**s

v Re: contrasutra
by Smackdown on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:56 UTC
v Smackdown
by my name on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:58 UTC
by DavidGentle on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:58 UTC

Do you kids not know when a troll is lurking?

v Re: tech_user
by scismodo on Tue 5th Aug 2003 21:59 UTC
v Re: Smackdown
by Bill Harrison on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:02 UTC
by the arbiter on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:03 UTC
A Few Things...
by Anonymous on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:04 UTC

Not that we don't already have a number of reasons to string McBride and CO up for, but:

1) From the first letter (never sent) to RH: "At the time of your letter, we had expected the possibility of a global resolution of SCO's intellectual property claims against all Linux-related companies that would have likely included Red Hat. This effort has apparently stalled, through no fault of SCO."

So SCO is admitting that they were hoping to be bought out!! They had already filed suit against IBM and the only means of resolving "globally" the issue would have been to have been bought outright by someone who would have then GPL'ed the code.

This effort didn't "stall" (through no fault of your own, of course, SCO--it was never going anywhere. This effort created the ensuing problems.

2) from the second letter to RH: "To my surprise, I just discovered that your company filed legal action against The SCO Group earlier today. You, of course, mentioned nothing of this during our telephone conversation. I am disappointed that you were not more forthcoming about your intentions. I am also disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than good faith discussions with SCO about the problems inherent in Linux."

You F'in, hypocritical sons-of-b!tches!! Didn't McBride, Boies, and others deny a pending lawsuit agaisnt IBM prior to the lawsuit. Didn't they claim they would take no legal action agaisnt Linux distributors (still haven't, but certainly are threatening)!! Couldn't SCO have spoken with the Linux community in "good faith" to have the code removed!

by legion on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:04 UTC
Forget the Troll
by linux_baby on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:04 UTC

Why are people paying attention to an obvious troll? Do not feed the troll, just let this stupid idiot talk to himself.

Frankly, I kinda like the way the SCO folks are handling this. I think their strategy is to be on the news as much and as long as possible. Obviously, the way to do this is to keep doing increasingly bizarre things, which is exactly what they've been doing. SCO is at the end of their life. They have nothing to loose at all. They've got no business, no prospects, not future at all. Except for the last quarter (when SUN and MS gave them money), SCO has not been profitable in the last 10 years.

by Cyboman on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:05 UTC


v @Smackdown
by Great Cthulhu on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:06 UTC
v Re: Re: contrasutra
by Michael Lauzon on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:07 UTC
SCO made my day
by jief on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:07 UTC

I have to say this, everyday i come here to for two major reasons:

1. To have a good laugh because SCO again made fools of themselves publicly.

2. To see other more relevant news about the OS world.

McBride is just killing me, that guy is such a clown. And we have yet to wait until 2005 for this BS to stop? hahah we'll have a nice time until then.

I wonder how that guy can sleep at night, being such an ass.

by tank on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:09 UTC

*ROFLMAO* SCO...what a pain in the ass! That Company
is so really pissed off, McBride can't rescue it, the whole
Online Community and OpenSource World HATES SCO Dipshit!

IP Licence...lolololololooool...


v Re: Great Cthulhu
by Smackdown on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:09 UTC
v mwahahaha
by zeb on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:09 UTC
v Re: zeb
by Smackdown on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:11 UTC
v Yes, don't feed the trolls
by Mike on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:11 UTC
v Re: Mike
by Smackdown on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:12 UTC
linux is meritocracy - and so is open source free software
by tech_user on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:13 UTC

on the contrary my dear chap, linux and most open source software is the epitome of meritocracy. quite the opposite to the ideals of communism. you work hard, you do better. you have talent, go for it.
ironically, its SCO and MS which could do with a bit more of the meritocracy which we espouse so much in the USA and UK.

aside from the technical merits, thats what draws people likeme to the open source and free software community. it is one of the most largest scale working examples of a meritocratic social and technical ecosystem. and its the "communists" up in SCO and MS who are scared by it.

you see, taking the argument to a possible wider scope than it perhaps should here, the problem we have in the west is that although we shout out loud about democracy, freedom and the meritocratic market and society - it really doesn't apply to the "top bunch", be it MS, or be it the political ruling classes. and it should. my country would be a better place for it.

and that's why linux is not communist - and if anything is, MS is.

v Before you get modded down...
by Great Cthulhu on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:15 UTC
by Great Cthulhu on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:16 UTC

We've got a live one here!

by zeb on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:18 UTC

Would it entitle the buyer of the SCO licence to know which part of the code is claimed to be SCO property ? Because SCO would have to say which code prevents, in his opinion, redistribution ? Is there a lawyer here ;) ?

v please help !
by zeb on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:19 UTC
Better than the comics
by Ronald Crain on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:20 UTC

Wow. I have not laughed so hard in a long time. If I thought that all of the wild statements labeling people were serious I would really worry about the mental state of our so-called techno savvy individuals.

Keep up the ridiculous statements. It is better than listening to standup comedians. Of course, it does ruin the porpose of an intelligent discussion of the topics.

v RE: Moderators
by contrasutra on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:21 UTC
They aren't selling anything!
by Kindaian on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:22 UTC

Very good plan...

1. Sue a company...
2. Get sponsorship from rival of company in 1.
3. demand money from everyone for something that nobody knows that is somewhere...

Another redefinition of a .COM after the .COM boom and crash ;)

by Alex on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:23 UTC
v @Contrasura
by Great Cthulhu on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:24 UTC
v Re: Great Cthulhu
by scismodo on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:26 UTC
v ...
by Anonymous on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:26 UTC
by zeb on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:26 UTC

And the addition of clichs he uses makes me think this guy is just a kid who wants to have fun. The best is to make it as transparent as the fart of a rabbit (sorry, an expression from my country, but you see what I mean ;) )

Red Hat Lawsuit = Higher Linux Price
by top speed on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:30 UTC

You thought it was great when Red Hat sued yesterday?

Well this is what you get in return.

Is the price outrageous? Yes, it's ridiculous. Too bad you don't have a say in it.

You should have thought about that when somebody offered you Linux for free, and promised you that you could make as many copies as you wanted, all for free too.

Some of us saw it as the scam it is from the very begining. Don't expect our sympathy now.

v Re: Smackdown
by jbett on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:33 UTC
by zeb on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:34 UTC

Don't expect our sympathy now.

We don't need it. We just want proofs, code. Something SCO has never shown, and neither has it demonstrated it has not been added as a GPL contribution.
But it is probably unnecessary to debate about it with you, since it won't make it change your mind. But there is something you can't oppose : the kernel developpers are innocent until the contrary is demonstrated. The SCO scam is not a justice decision or a law.

Ehrm... Open Source is not necessarily Free!
by Anonymous on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:35 UTC

Only if appropriate license is used, and GPL is definitely not the license chosen if freedom is what you wanna talk about. That's why the BSD and MIT license exists.

So don't come trolling about free software and Linux, that's just plain stupid

v pathetic
by jief on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:36 UTC
v Re: the christian
by Maynard on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:36 UTC
v Re: jief
by Smackdown on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:37 UTC
No scismodom, we don't all think like that.
by Mike on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:38 UTC

Unfortunately, under this administration the rights of many Americans have been stripped away and freedom of speech is not on the priority list. In fact somebdoy was arrested for buying a shirt saying "Give peace a chance" and in the same store he brought it he was arrested. These are dark times for human rights.

In addition, the government has the power to arrest and hol din joil anyone in America for as long as they want if they think that person is a threat and more so they can judge the person privately and even kill him without making the case or accusations public.

In my opinion the Bush administration has done nothing goood and I sincerely hope it will not continue in 2004. An unjustified unconstitutional war not supported by the UN costing billions and we haven't even got to reconstruction or psot war, a struggling economy, a lot of rigts ripped apart, lies, like this war and Africa, many rules broken, international policy nightmare, many of our men dead because of a poor guess, osama and sadam on the loose etc. I can't imagine a poorer choice of a president. Though I feel somewhat relieved that he was not the popular choice.

No, not all of us in America live a lie and he said that the country was founded on freedom of speech not that we realy have it now.

v Smackdown
by Aitvo on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:38 UTC
Go See For Yourself
by top speed on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:39 UTC

We want proof...Something SCO has never shown

They will be glad to show you, just stop by SCO offices anytime. The guy at Linux Journal did, and was left saddened by the whole ordeal, and came out with a whole laundry list of changes that need to be made within the 'community'.

But out of EVERYONE that has seen the code, their analysis all range from "formidable" to "inconclusive", but NO ONE that has seen it has been able to dismiss it as not at least possible. Maybe you could, so go see for yourself.

How does this affect TCO?
by Anonymous on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:40 UTC

Oh obviously as we all can see, that no matter what you reallty think of it, this proves more than well how Linux is not cost efficient choice for any company at all. Not because SCO wants money, but because you have to spend so much time worrying about legal issues and hazzle with it, it's just not worth it. Especially not when Sun offers really good stuff for no money at all, and if you want OSS software, you can just go BSD which is just plain better for 95% of the situations.

But, most of you people here probably never heard the word TCO anyway, that's why you still students running Linux

top speed
by Aitvo on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:43 UTC

You do realize that SCO themselves checked the majority of the code they are showing to people into the kernel in the first place. I'm glad that you are all gung ho pro sco, it's great. I suppose the mental midgets of the world have to find SOMETHING to amuse themselves with.

by zeb on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:43 UTC

They will be glad to show you

No they don't, since they ask for an NDA. I want a public announcement. And the journalist you mention was not convinced at all. They could not prove they had not put the code on purpose in a GPL project. Nobody says this code does not exists, but since SCO has participated to some parts of the kernel, they have to prove this code is not a GPLd one.

by Alex on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:44 UTC

SCO == Stupid Clowns Orbiting

My best bet is that some of the comments to this thread are from SCO...

How can SCO even waste time and money on something so stupid like this...guess they are being paid of by microsoft doesnt end up being the big fools SCO are gonna be!


v Well..
by Aitvo on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:45 UTC
by Michael Lauzon on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:46 UTC

Can't we all just get along..?!

by top speed on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:48 UTC

You do realize that SCO themselves checked the majority of the code they are showing to people into the kernel in the first place.

Well, if that turns out to be true, you probably have nothing to worry about then. But IMO, David Boies et al wouldn't be pushing out these claims against users @ $700 a pop if they weren't pretty sure they were going to be vindicated. They could easily wind up in jail (for a variety of reasons) if all this was false, which in effect gives much more credibility to their claims.

v Ridiculous
by top speed on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:50 UTC
Re: Aitvo
by Michael Lauzon on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:50 UTC

Well, if that turns out to be true, you probably have nothing to worry about then. But IMO, David Boies et al wouldn't be pushing out these claims against users @ $700 a pop if they weren't pretty sure they were going to be vindicated. They could easily wind up in jail (for a variety of reasons) if all this was false, which in effect gives much more credibility to their claims.

Yeah, but the Linux source has been open to the world since '91, SCO could have put what they wanted into the kernel within the last few months, just so that they could get back on their feet...!

jail ?
by zeb on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:51 UTC

This makes me laugh. Like the Enron or Worldcom directing board members ? How many won't go to jail ? You just need to have good lawyers and a lot of money, and you will escape the fate of the autoradio theft.
Anyway, this is not a proof, this is so indirect. The only thing that would give them credibility is to show the bloody code ! But they don't.

re: jail?
by top speed on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:53 UTC

Yes, try going into a US Federal Court and trying to peputuate fraud. You will quickly find yourself behind bars.

v Thanks Mike, this is good news
by scismodo on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:53 UTC
by Aitvo on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:54 UTC

"jump up and down and scream with every post filled with name calling and insults"

Oh, and you are innocent?

by cybrjackle on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:57 UTC

So if I use Linux that I downloaded for FREE. No registration, no nothing. How do they know that I'm using it to collect there rediculus money?

SCO needs to go away and there helping out by digging their own grave.


In a couple of ways! ;)

Just posting links
by top speed on Tue 5th Aug 2003 22:58 UTC
by Aitvo on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:03 UTC

From the article YOU linked to.

"Linux's lack of indemnification is an exception to standard industry practice. Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) indemnifies Windows users. Sun Microsystems (nasdaq: SUNW - news - people ) indemnifies Solaris users. IBM itself indemnifies users of other software products including AIX, z/OS, DB2, and even WebSphere, which includes an open-source technology called Apache.

Indemnification usually means that a) if your system crashes, the vendor might compensate you for your downtime; and b) in this case, IBM would held liable if the code you're using infringes on someone's intellectual property. "

From c:windowssystem32eula.txt:

following is without prejudice to any rights you may have at
law which cannot legally be excluded or restricted. You
acknowledge that no promise, representation, warranty or
undertaking has been made or given by Manufacturer and/or
Microsoft Corporation (or related company of either) to any
person or company on its behalf in relation to the
profitability of or any other consequences or benefits to be
obtained from the delivery or use of the SOFTWARE and any
accompanying Microsoft hardware, software, manuals or written
materials. You have relied upon your own skill and judgement
in deciding to acquire the SOFTWARE and any accompanying
hardware, manuals and written materials for use by you.
Except as and to the extent provided in this agreement,
neither Manufacturer and/or Microsoft Corporation (or related
company of either) will in any circumstances be liable for any
other damages whatsoever (including, without limitation,
damages for loss of business, business interruption, loss of
business information or other indirect or consequential loss)
arising out of the use or inability to use or supply or non
-supply of the SOFTWARE and any accompanying hardware and
written materials. Manufacturer's and/or Microsoft
Corporation (or related company of either) total liability
under any provision of this agreement is in any case limited
to the amount actually paid by you for the SOFTWARE and/or
Microsoft hardware."

There's some indemnification for you.

The $3 Billion Dollar Question
by top speed on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:08 UTC

From the link above (not sure how you missed this part):

"But there's one thing IBM (won't announce this week, and that is a promise to indemnify its Linux customers against possible SCO claims.

Some analysts are clamoring for IBM to make such a promise. But IBM refuses. Which makes some people wonder: If IBM's code is clean, why won't IBM shield its customers?"

by Aitvo on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:10 UTC

Why would they? They didn't build the linux distribution their customers use. I wouldn't either. Nor would HP, Dell, Walmart, or any other company that didn't design the OS. What you are expecting is the same as expecting them to indemnify their Windows customers against possible SCO claims. It's just not going to happen, because it shouldn't happen. Business 101.

by Coral Snake on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:13 UTC

Top speed is right about the slashdotters too. I think that a LOT of the price that SCO is charging for these licenses is the "revenge" tax for all the false accusations of criminality, fowl language and personal insults they had to endure from the "community". Indeed if I had a dollar for all the slashdot activity I have seen since I have come here I would be richer than Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer and COULD BUY OUT MICRO$OFT. Then I MIGHT have given you guys Win 9x and its related software under BSD or MIT licensing so that you would have some genuine AMERICAN code to play around with and keep Win XP closed for the real security through obscurity that governments and businesses REALLY NEED.

by I don't understand on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:16 UTC

I guess I don't understand. Maybe someone can tell me.

If there is a problem with the Linux kernel, why don't a few hundred thousand programers get together and slam out a new one?

Also, if the 2.4 Linux kernel is a in violation of SCO's IP, why couldn't another kernel be used -- let's say the one that comes with FreeBSD?

I don't know if that makes any sense, but I thought I'd ask.


communism between bad/good
by csome guy on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:17 UTC

Sorry for an communsim-related post but I would like to say some word to smackdows and all kind.

I line in Slovenia, a former communistic country(Yugoslavia). Before Tito died communism wa pretty well. Everybody got a job and the job payment was fairly divided. After Tito died the country got into crysis. After the death of Tito there were hard years(bad goverment). But when the democracy came, it seemd that all problems were solved and life would got better. But now, it's hard to get a job. The job payment is VERY unfair in the crime is very high.

So, the communsim idea itself is not such bad but it need the right leader.

For that other: yea, SCO sucks pretty much.

by Anonymous on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:20 UTC

The (S)cumbag (C)riminal (O)rganization is going to end up in prison where they belong. America is unstable, but there is some justice in America somewhere and when it comes out finally, it will be great again.

Exactly Right Snake
by top speed on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:21 UTC

I think that a LOT of the price that SCO is charging for these licenses is the "revenge" tax for all the false accusations of criminality, fowl language and personal insults they had to endure from the "community".

Who could blame them. Not one person from this "community" has been willing to step forward and say IF this is true, it shouldn't have happened and we will pay. Instead all SCO got was death threats.

I MIGHT have given you guys Win 9x and its related software under BSD or MIT licensing so that you would have some genuine AMERICAN code to play around with and keep Win XP closed for the real security through obscurity that governments and businesses REALLY NEED.

Coral Snake you are a true genius, and M$ may one day have to do this themselves. But what the OSS vs Proprietary battle will always result in: those that are willing to "pay" will always receive superior services. Those that must "beg" will always wonder what bone they might get thrown to them next.

top speed, didn't you notice Aitvo's point?
by Anonymous on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:24 UTC

MS doesn't imdemnify its customers from improper use of copyrighted material. Most software products don't provide this guarantee. So why should Linux?

The only reason Linux is more susceptible to such issues is because the copyright holders themselves can view the code. There is little chance that a copyright holder would be aware of such theft if it was done by a closed-source product.

If you can cite another claim against Linux similar to SCO's, then maybe I'd start believing some of your doom and gloom.

SCO's NDA is ABSOLUTELY NOT showing the proof. The NDA prevents the observer from pursuing any corrective actions, it happens on SCO's terms--which apparently hasn't sought to identify when and by whom it was committed.

Or maybe they have done this? They've already admitted that most "similar" code wasn't submitted by IBM. But then again they claimed IBM was the main source of the problem originally. Then again they claimed it wasn't the Linux kernel, it was Linux technologies. Oh, but now they claim the code is in the kernel too. They claim their code MUST be the source of enterprise-readiness in Linux, but everyone agrees System V is the least enterprise-capable NIX...

If you didn't get it, my last paragraph was to demonstrate that not only will SCO not show you the evidence--their claims to "evidence" changes on a daily basis. They are most certainly shooting blanks in the dark.

by Anonymous on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:24 UTC

I think that someone will do the right thing and put handcuffs on McBride and company. They should serve about ten or fifteen years in prison.

v Topspeed
by Aitvo on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:25 UTC
SCO's level of nuisance
by Mark on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:25 UTC

The above story mentioned on Slashdot has already received 1274 comments. Beside this, a poll on the outcome of this mess was answered by 6165 persons (unless some voted many times). I guess it stresses out the fact that SCO has reached an unprecedented "level of nuisance" (or whatever one may call it) in the mind of computer users.

v Noone cares.
by wing on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:25 UTC
by Anonymous on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:26 UTC

The SCO is not just a nuisance, they are criminals and they should be arrested.

Trolls to order, please...
by Great Cthulhu on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:27 UTC

SCO has released the code under the GPL. It cannot legally redistribute the code under another superceding license. That would result in gross copyright violation, and SCO could be sued by all of those who contributed to the kernel.

I know some naive, lying trolls such as TopSpeed and Coral Snake (who are probably the same person anyway) still pretend that SCO has a case, but more and more it is clear that this is just another pump'n'dump scheme. I mean, if they were so sure they had a case, why would SCO executives keep selling their stock?

P.S. Coral Snake: security through obscurity doesn't work. I mean, look a MS Windows' abysmal security record - and that's despite billions of dollars spent to make Windows secure!

v @Aitvo
by Great Cthulhu on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:29 UTC
by Anonymous on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:29 UTC

IBM shouldn't file a counter lawsuit but they should press that criminal charges be brought against the SCO.

This is a crime, it's not a bad business deal, it's actual crime and should not involve financial lawsuits but a criminal lawsuit.

v @wing
by Great Cthulhu on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:30 UTC
M$ does protect, so does Sun
by top speed on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:30 UTC

Microsoft has a new sales pitch for Linux users: Buy our software and stay out of court.

by Anonymous on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:32 UTC

Microsoft better stay out of it so that they don't get implicated in criminal activity, otherwise you might be seeing Bill Gates hauled off to prison.

This has nothing to do with money anymore, it's at an all new level.

by Great Cthulhu on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:32 UTC

Fudding, where's the proof?

Innocent until proven guilty. That's the law. I know you don't like it, but that's the way it is...

v "trolls" are on slashdot
by top speed on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:32 UTC
Everyone owes me money too!
by Anonymous on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:34 UTC

I'm not gonna say where...but somewhere in the Linux OS there is code which I wrote.

I have created a licensing scheme to protect you from me suing you.

I know this sounds a little Mafioso ("Pay me to protect you from me"), but I assure you I'm not lying.

A single CPU system license will run for $499.

Let the money roll in.

Jeez...pretending your SCO is even easier than I thought.

v As I recall...
by Great Cthulhu on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:36 UTC
The Sad thing...
by slash on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:39 UTC

The saddest part of this story is that if SCO had sued Linux about 2-3 years ago, they might have won. But now that IBM, HP, Cray, SGI, Fujitsu, NEC, Samsung, Intel, and hundreds of other companies have basically put their money on Linux, there is about a 0 percent chance that SCO will win. SCO is going to get raped and the CEO might even be put in jail for extortion. There is going to be a major investigation to see if there were any other players pushing this lawsuit. It is going to get ugly for anyone who is even associated with SCO. You know it is looking bad for SCO when even Uncle Sam wants Linux to win. On a side note, all this makes me respect BSD quite a lot since it won without all these players in it's camp and it was going against a real company, not SCO.

I know its disjointed...
by Best on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:53 UTC

But hey, what do you expect, after all I'm apparently a "Pot smoking pinko commie linux user".

I think that there has been a migration from slashdot. Its just that the trolls have learned that theres no moderation system here, so they can say whatever they want to piss people off.

If SCO wins this whole mess, I'll owe SCO $4200,for the old pentium system that I use for various tasks, and my old dual processor desktop system. Needless to say that I find this absolutely rediculous since the total cost of the hardware of these systems probably ammounts to only $200 today.

You have to wonder wether SCO will recoup the lawyers fees that they're spending right now just on people scared of a lawsuit running out and buying thier liscense.

I'm pretty sure that Slackware (and indeed any linux distribution, though slack does have the whole cult thing going for it.) offers indemnification against legal action since if anyone sues me for using linux, I'll just point to freedom of religion and laugh.

(4 posts for the price of one, because I don't have time to hang around all day)

by D3M0N on Tue 5th Aug 2003 23:55 UTC


conspiracy of barratry and monopolism
by Dekkard on Wed 6th Aug 2003 00:11 UTC

Now i have to say and some attorneys concur.. M$ is in fact also behind this. The timing of the Sco(extortion inc) lawsuit and the release of windserver2003 just happend to be a coincidence? I think not.Does it not seem that the pricing scheme that Sco has chosen is made to make windserver2003 look more attractive? come ON!! Of course it does. Because it IS!!
Liek the CIA says, if it walks like a duck , and talks like a duck.. its a duck. personally i will switch to a BSD if there is ever any court action pointed and linux users, but the truth is.. sco has no ip in linux.. the functions they claim that ibm attatched to linux from unix ip are in fact owned by ibm and are not owned works of SCO, i mean how could they be. Sco as is is today has no innovation, no advanced code, and no optimization on any platform. It is an old rotting piece of legacy code best left to history books. Want another joke? How about going to Sco Forum 2003??. Now that has to be one exciting trip Make your reservation Now!!!!

Can't you just shut up about all your anti-Linux? (I am polite now. I was tempted to use the f-word; but I did not, since I think we can solve this in an adult way.)

I am tired of you. Just because you think that Microsoft is heaven, and Linux is hell; doesn't mean everyone else should mean the same as you. And please stop saying people are things they arent. I am definitly not a communist; political I am on the quite opposite side ;)

We all have different "taste" when it comes to wich operating system we like. I like Linux and *BSD, but Windows XP is OK to (mainly because hardware support from most hardware procents, and same with software). But the thing is, I got 6 computers running in my business. I dont have the possibility to pay over $2500 just for operating system on all those computers. But I do want to use current operating system. Some of these computers can't run anything better than MS Windows 3.11, but all I want is to run for example a webserver on them...and for that Linux works perfectly! I still do have a MS Windows machine, due to the reasons I explained above.

Well... That was off the track. But can't you just stop your anti-OS-I-don't-like "campaign"?

To everyone else of you. If they don't stop just stop responding to theyre post. They will eventually go away. ;)

by Hard Cider on Wed 6th Aug 2003 00:20 UTC

Looks like Microsoft is in full control of the SCO puppet strings. They are the direct benefactors of the negative outcome of this sherade, and is going to give SCO as much money as necessary to thwart Linux.

Apple's OSX is looking sweeter every day; Can you say g5?

v Re: Smackdown
by Piers on Wed 6th Aug 2003 00:22 UTC
by Espen Ottersen on Wed 6th Aug 2003 00:24 UTC

A $699 per processor price is ridicolus (heck, I don't even know how to spell that must be the communist genes ;) ).

If you gave proof that you _do_ own IP in the whole community...I would pay you if I had to. But $699 is just unbelievable. I would pay up to $10 though, but I doubt you have enough code in the kernel (in %) to even justify a price tag like that.

Anyways... You are free to sue me for my 5 computers running Linux. 5CPUs... $1995 lost in licensing costs. You will find contact information on my webpage (click on my name).

Have a nice day! ;)

How do they expect to pull this bull
by brando on Wed 6th Aug 2003 00:32 UTC

Are they going to come knock on my door and ask for it because ill get out the gun and tell them to get off my lawn.

And how did they come up with that hugh number. That is the most expensive OS for the home computer I have ever hear of.

I think i'll pay, just so I can sue when IBM wins and I can cash in on their dumb asses. Then I can get myself a new MAC withough hurting my pocket, but ill get the new G5 anyways. Love Apple and what they give.

And i do feel MS might be behind this too, finding a new way to try and get people away from Linux. All i can say is anything is better than MS, that is Apple, BeOS, BSD and Linux.

v RE: Piers
by contrasutra on Wed 6th Aug 2003 00:36 UTC
Price Hike
by Ores on Wed 6th Aug 2003 00:43 UTC

They are trying to make people and companys behave irrationally.

SCO has not offered any proof, yet they expect people to fork over a stupid amount of money for somthing SCO hasn't developed to avoid paying an even worse sum.

It's just like the informercials with the "Buy in the next 10mins and you will recieve free...".

They think people are stupid.

Actually, Best
by top speed on Wed 6th Aug 2003 00:58 UTC

If SCO wins this whole mess, I'll owe SCO $4200,for the old pentium system that I use for various tasks, and my old dual processor desktop system....

Actually, you probably won't owe them anything. They are only now going after corporate users, who are running servers, like Google does.

You're probably not even on their hit list, at all. Since that is probably true, why can't you even listen to the possibility that these business are illegally using it?

v Re: Contrasutra
by Piers on Wed 6th Aug 2003 01:04 UTC
by Anonymous on Wed 6th Aug 2003 01:11 UTC

If there is illegal code, than show the code, and it will be removed, plain and simple. Instead the (S)cumbag (C)riminal (O)rganization is relying on extortion because they do not want any offending code removed (they probably put it there themselves), they want billions of dollars that are earned by successful businesses. And they want to claim ownership of public property.

The SCO have participated in CRIMINAL activity and there should be a criminal court trial.

by Captain Chris on Wed 6th Aug 2003 01:12 UTC

...this isn't a hot topic, is it? ;-)

v Trolls, nothing but trolls.
by converter on Wed 6th Aug 2003 01:12 UTC
RE: Trolls, nothing but trolls.
by contrasutra on Wed 6th Aug 2003 01:19 UTC

You never have to read the comments. I never read the comments at /. and im perfectly happy. Just come here for the great interviews,reviews, and links.

by Anonymous on Wed 6th Aug 2003 01:20 UTC

I think that top speed has the right to voice his opinion. Why is there such a desire for sensorship? Nobody learns anything from sensorship in fact is does irreperable harm.

The SCO is currently committing crimes regardless of whether or not there is Unix code in Linux. They are participating in extortion and everyone except the SCO wants any offending code removed from Linux. Yet for the SCO it is not about that, they are low down dirt bag criminals, the scum of the earth, and I feel confident that they will be found guilty in a criminal trial and sent to prison.

v @scismodo
by Captain Chris on Wed 6th Aug 2003 01:30 UTC
The elusive code...
by Best on Wed 6th Aug 2003 01:31 UTC

I'll acknowledge the possibility that SCO has code in the linux kernel that they own the copyright to and distributed without thier knowledge, just as I would acknowledge the possibility that there is a 8 foot tall gigantopithicus wandering around the pacific northwest of the united states. Both are possibilities, that I can accept rather easily. Unfortunately for SCO I demand something more concrete than a mere possibility.

I don't trust SCO to stop just at suing corporate users, the "I don't have to worry about what happens to this group because I'm not a member of it" mentality just doesn't seem to really hold out in reality, since after SCO is done suing corporate users, what are they going to turn to now that they're a 100% litigation organization.

v Getting Back On Eugenia
by linux_baby on Wed 6th Aug 2003 01:41 UTC
v ...
by Anonymous on Wed 6th Aug 2003 01:43 UTC
jajajaaa!!! SCO esta MUERTOOO !!
by Gustavo on Wed 6th Aug 2003 01:44 UTC

SCO YOU DIED !! NO LIVE !! jajajaa,nunca vi cosa mas estpida en mi vida,pretende cobrar por lo que es gratis!!!
SCO es una empresa en bancarrota,adquirida por M$ ,slo para jorobar a LInux,1ro)porque Windows a nivel empresarial MUERE,2do) porque es la porquera de siempre,no importa el nombre estpido de turno que le pongan ;"LOngHorn" jajaja""
le cambian el nombre,y venden la misma basura a los estpidos que creen en las promesas del "Nuevo y fantstico" Windows ,jajaja "LongHorn" ,jajaja!!"TIEMBLA MICROSOFT!! que te caes!!!

Hey, Michael Lauzon...
by Captain Chris on Wed 6th Aug 2003 01:45 UTC

I am seriouslyly getting fedup with the revisionist history America is trying to do, especially denying that a CANDIAN invented the telephone

Well, since everyone else is getting off topic, I will too. Alexandar Graham Bell, who held the patent for the telephone, was actually Scottish. At the age of 23 he moved to Canada, but after a year he moved to Boston, where he lived out most of the rest of his long life. Sure, he still spent some of his summers in Canada vacationing, but all his work was done in his laboratories in Boston. Naturally, he did not work in a vacuum, either...his American assistants helped design, build, and test his inventions. Who's the revisionist?

Top Speed: we want more entertainment!
by Dae on Wed 6th Aug 2003 01:52 UTC

Well, SCO is as usual on the top of things, never failing to make us all roll on the floor in gut-wrenching fits of uncontrollable laughter. Kudos to them for that. Free entertainment is always great.

On the other hand, it is sad to see Top Speed lose his touch. He's still parrotting the same mantras and the best thing he could come up with (at least in my opinion) was the whole ``Linux-using LARPs hiding in momma's basement'' thing. That was entertaining for a few hours, but then got old pretty quick. Sad, indeed sad.

I mean, come on, even his impersonators were much more creative! Lin-Qaeda? Terror-software? Amazing! Gotta give mad props to SmackDown as well.

And this thing with him and Coral Snake agreeing on everything is getting old as well. Why not have a flame war of Apocalyptic proportions between the two? Imagine how funny would that be. Two crazies verbally beating the living and breathing Belinux out of each other, the clash of titans eventually ending with both of them falling from the proverbial bridge into the abyss, the Balrog style... 'Cause this mutual patting on the back just seems so... I don't know... homoerotic, I guess?

Anyways, I'm off to robbing a local church. Gotta buy me that SCO license thingy. The squirrels made me do it.

by Anonymous on Wed 6th Aug 2003 01:55 UTC

Not only should the SCO face criminal charges and have their exectives server prison sentances, but I hope that all of their shareholders take it strait up the ass. I hope that they lose everything because we don't need those type of dirt bags in the world. The world would be better of if those dirt bags put a gun to their head and did justice.

Sue who?
by Jefro on Wed 6th Aug 2003 01:57 UTC

Where does SCO have to right to use the TRADE MARKED Linux name?

v ....
by Anonymous on Wed 6th Aug 2003 02:01 UTC
v my new theory...
by the arbiter on Wed 6th Aug 2003 02:02 UTC
v Dae
by top speed on Wed 6th Aug 2003 02:03 UTC
by top speed on Wed 6th Aug 2003 02:07 UTC
by top speed on Wed 6th Aug 2003 02:24 UTC

Enough with the personal attacks. If you want to defend Linux, please do. Otherwise, there is no need for your comments. If you want to talk about something, try reading this:

RE: Kernel
by Drill Sgt on Wed 6th Aug 2003 02:25 UTC

"If there is a problem with the Linux kernel, why don't a few hundred thousand programers get together and slam out a new one?"

Hard to do when SCO refuses to let anyone see the code in question. You can't fix something if no one will tell you what is broken.

You people are too amused.
by A.K.H. on Wed 6th Aug 2003 02:45 UTC

I don't think SCO has much of a case either, but you guys are pretty obnoxious with your confidence.

SCO has made a very subtle point about the GPL, that there is little control over what programmers put into a GPL program. While the high price is somewhat laughable, it would also be very laughable if SCO were to win their case.

Remember, it's a trial being held in the USA. The same country that has college kids being sued for sharing music, the government wanting to spy on EVERY piece of information they can see, and where the contrie's constitution is quickly being thrown out the window through laws like the DMCA and the PATRIOT acts.

There is a small chance that SCO could win, and such a bold move should at least make you guys pause to think about the situation a bit.

Removing the code
by John Blink on Wed 6th Aug 2003 03:36 UTC


Why doesn't SCO give kernel developers a kernel free of SCO code?

Because they can't because it is either not there, or we will then know what the code is.

by Victor G. on Wed 6th Aug 2003 03:49 UTC

This is not fair! Finally when I find the ONE OS THAT I LIKE, some shit company on the verge of declaring bankruptcy has to come by and for its own selfish reasons and try to destroy it. Will this ever happen? Are they stupid? I mean that would really kill society. Per CPU??!!! Do you guys know ham MANY COMPANIES USE LINUX AS SERVERS!!!!!?????????????

by Great Cthulhu on Wed 6th Aug 2003 04:06 UTC

There is more of a case for prosecuting kids who download music (even though I think the RIAA should rather try to give a plus-value to their product instead) than there is of prosecuting Linux users, or even to steal Linux with a supplementary license.

Kids are contravening to copyright laws. SCO has distributed Linux under the GPL. Distributing something under the GPL means accepting its terms, otherwise that would be a copyright violation. SCO alleged there was improper code in the kernel, said that it had identified that code, and was even ready to show it those who would select to a ridiculously restrictive NDA. And then, they continued to distribute the code under the GPL. Now, they can't pretend they didn't know the code was there. For all purposes, they have released that offending code under the GPL.

The GPL forbids the distribution of copyrighted material if the GPL and the rights it affords aren't distributed with it. Furthermore, these rights cannot be further restricted with a supplementary license...

Things get more complicated for SCO's lawyers when you consider that SCO (by its own admission) does not own the offending pieces of code it has named so far (NUMA, SMP, etc.), but that those are the property of IBM. Also, SCO employers have, with their employer's knowledge, contributed code to SCO (for which they retain the copyrights under the GPL - they're the copyright holders, but they can't relicense that code). Finally, some code might be identical in Linux and SCO's Unix because it both comes from BSD - and there is judicial precedent here that goes against SCO's case.

But even without all of these elements dramatically decreasing SCO's chances of winning, there is still the fact that SCO has distributed Linux under the GPL - and is in violation of the GPL by now distributing Linux but adding a new license on top of it.

This is a pump'n'dump scheme, nothing else.

re a.k.h
by Dekkard on Wed 6th Aug 2003 04:44 UTC

pardon me but as i see it you have it backwards. The sco suit isnt about the gpl. You have truly bought into the FUD that sco as spread about the gpl. The process is more rigorous than sco portrays it. What this is about is a company using litigation as its primary source of income. Sco makes much noice about protecting its ip. Sco's intention all along was to SUE to generate income from said ip. Remember DRDOS? They purchased it only to sue M$ over abuses that occurred 10 yrs before they owned it. No the Sco case isnt about the gpl.. its about the abuses of the legal system and the outright insanity of our copyright/ip management system in the usa.

You cannot copyright or patent an idea

RE: Dekkard
by contrasutra on Wed 6th Aug 2003 04:56 UTC

You cannot copyright or patent an idea

I think the whole point of a patent is copyrighting an idea.

JajA what a joke!
by Anonymous on Wed 6th Aug 2003 05:10 UTC

IBM need to buy SCO and finish with this ridiculous guys. SCO is supplicating for attention. hehe...

by Anonymous on Wed 6th Aug 2003 05:12 UTC

I think that the SCO represents America as a whole, and it doesn't look very good. Way too much corruption. I wouldn't call them a free country, more like a terrorist country.

re Dekkard
by mabhatter on Wed 6th Aug 2003 05:24 UTC

but it is about the GPL & about the community. Realize that Caldera (the Linux company) bought the "unix" rights from Novell several years ago with Linux generated cash! They knowingly cashed in on any "infringement" and are now trying to sue the users of the very products they helped build.

The GPL comes into play because they continued to sell a GPL based product long after they started laying the blame on thick. They are still attempting to profit from their linux sales...or worse denying their OWN CUSTOMERS support of products they paid Caldera for.

Lots of people charge for custom kernels. The RT linux is one of the more popular. If SCO had a business model about selling an OS they would protect that IP by removing reference to it publicaly.

The proper course of action would be to identify the offending code. Offending code is on people's computers and servers right now. They refuse to offer any option to remove the offending pieces. The whole NDA thing is B.S. the code is public--anyone can see it. The community is only asking for the specific sections which to remove, edit, replace, etc...not all users want or mean to infringe on any rights...and will gladly modify their programs if they only knew what SCO was claiming. If the code is copyrighted then there's no legal basis to withold is legally protected already. What SCO is doing is not due process by any definition. They are lieving damages [and theat of damages] without following any of the legally sanctioned mechanics for doing so. They have not filed a single DMCA letter calling for removal of their copyrighted information. They have not laid public claim to ANYTHING SPECIFIC that programmers can fix!

The next move should be the FSF going after SCO for monetary damages and undoing of all SCO distrobutions. They are still distributing code under GPL that is not fully cannot be distributed by anyone...including SCO. No version of Calera linux ever, could be considered legal because they can't pinpoint the violation--SCO/Caldera never had the right to distribute. Their entire history should be considered illegal fraud. [if they are taken at their own word] They should be sued for copyright violation and their customers should have the product forcably removed from their premises. That is the next and legal move for the linux community!

It's time for MAD tactics from the Linux community! The EFF and FSF should be looking for any possible in fringement in all BSD released code also. [then every OS maker would have liability] Push the big red button! This is the chance that RMS and Co have been waiting for to crash the screwed up copyright/patent system. Take it. Abuse it!

by Captain Chris on Wed 6th Aug 2003 05:31 UTC

You cannot copyright or patent an idea

Of course you can. While the specific laws vary, virtually every country in the world recognizes the concept of "intellectual property." In fact, an idea is technically copyrighted at its time of creation. If I write a novel or article incorporating my own ideas (which is what I do for a living), no one else can take it and use it without compensating me unless I allow them to use it for free. Similarly, software creations cannot be copied, altered, and/or redistributed for free unless proper permission is granted. Can you walk into a department store and simply take their items without compensating them? No. Same with someone's ideas.

v You misunderstood me! I am your fan!
by Dae on Wed 6th Aug 2003 05:45 UTC
@Captain Chris
by zeb on Wed 6th Aug 2003 06:12 UTC

Actually, no you cannot patent an idea. However, you may patent the <g>implementation</g> of this idea, i.e. the way to realize this idea. But if someone can find a different way than yours, it is perfectly ok. A patent needs to be practical.

v Fuck You SCO!
by Anonymous on Wed 6th Aug 2003 06:16 UTC
so bloody obvious!!!
by Alex on Wed 6th Aug 2003 06:38 UTC

SCO complains about has always complained about GPL...SCO goes to the court with the shit...just in time for the new 2003 microsoft offers guarantee for customer not to have to pay the fee linux users will have to pay...

...anyone not connecting these dots???

If anyone well informed could please start looking into this bloody mess it would all be sorted out and deal the greatest blow microsoft has ever received!!!

by Marcel on Wed 6th Aug 2003 06:42 UTC

So all SCO wants is more money. They are making a big mistake.
They should have settled this in a mature way. Like showing the code.

Microsoft is probably telling SCO what to do.
So Microsoft can tell costumers it's safer to use Windows.
Just what they needed, more arguments to convince costumers who are already running to Linux.

You know
by jared on Wed 6th Aug 2003 07:13 UTC

there is no reason to worry about anything. There is no stolen code in the linux kernel. Darl is just trying to make a dying company profitable again that's all. When it's all said and done the IBM execs will bend Darl and his minions over the table and have a 700 lb gorilla rape their asses.

Re: Removing the code
by Richard James on Wed 6th Aug 2003 07:30 UTC

Or they could say to the Linux Kernel developers, the exact details of one kernel version, which files and which line numbers in the files contain the SCO code. This way they are not giving away any of their Intellectual Property.

The fact that they haven't done this shows that there is no code.

Everyone complains about GPL
by Anonymous on Wed 6th Aug 2003 07:37 UTC

And you wanna know why???

Because GPL is not good for computer evolution! Several people has written about this and stupid zealots just won't listen. Many companies, including mine, have stricts policy of usage of GPL software, it's prohibited.

Why? Because we strive to see the computer industry build new innovative things and we realise someone has to pay for it. GPL software is not innovative, it's just geeks cloning other peoples stuff.

So thank you SCO for hopefully ending the GPL plague that has been in the software biz for quite some time now.

Contact SCO (no charge! haha)
by c64 on Wed 6th Aug 2003 07:47 UTC

I think it will be fun if we all visit this address and let them know how we feel :-)

No EULA with SCO.
by Stefan Johansson on Wed 6th Aug 2003 07:53 UTC

I use Debian GNU/Linux. I downloaded it from one of the official mirrors under the license provided by Debian. I have never accepted any license or EULA from SCO and therefore they can't force me to pay anything. If they have a problem with that they should talk to the people behind the distrubution and NOT the user.

If for instance Sony would make a device (dvd or whatever) that brakes som patent and I buy that device, should the patentholder be able to sue me??????


Совсем охуели!!!
by SCO killer on Wed 6th Aug 2003 08:57 UTC

Совсем охуели!!!

Re: so bloody obvious!!!
by mythought on Wed 6th Aug 2003 09:51 UTC

You're right.
If there's any justice on this world MicroSCOft will loose this battle. But hey, is there any justice at all?

RE: Anonymous (IP:
by mythought on Wed 6th Aug 2003 10:05 UTC

"GPL software is not innovative, it's just geeks cloning other peoples stuff."

So IBM, SUN, etc, etc are not innovative because they use GPL S/W? Who is then innovative? MS and SCO or MicroSCOft? Give me a brake, mate! Actually, I recall Steve Balmer encouraging a couple of hundrets MS People to steal and copy from their competitors (i saw about 6 years ago on TV). They also call Apple their Thinktank..... I think it says it all about your innovative MS and SCO or whatever.
Would it be up to them we'd still be crawling in and out of caves.....

Serious response
by Modab on Wed 6th Aug 2003 10:36 UTC

I work with Macs and PCs all day as a guy who fixes them in a student lab (about 40 macs, 100 PCs) so I hope my comments carry some validity.

First, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but whenever I hear someone claim that the old-generation macs (non-G5) are as fast as the latest pcs coming out, I just shake my head. If you play games, this is just not so, which made me madder when the reviewer talked about Quake 3 frame comparisons, as if that proved anything. This has already been talked about in above comments, nothing further to add there. As far as compute intensive apps go, the majority simply go faster on new PCs. Whether or not that really matters anymore is something I don't care to argue. It's pretty obvious that most GUI's run at the same speed, and if that's all you care about (majority of users) then speed is no big deal.

Second, the author talks about the great quality of Macs. I feel this is misleading, and most people don't realize just how misleading. Simply put: if you are buying towers, and powerbooks, (and perhaps I-books, haven't tested them) you are probably getting a quality machine. But I speak from experience when I say that I-Macs (of which our computer labs have a few varieties of) are the evillest things to work with. They all use cheap (=substandard) parts. They have all been in for hardware repair at some point in time, whether it was the CRT (on the older ones), hard-drive, motherboard... with an average failure rate over 5 times more than PCs which cost half their price. We have had 2 mac-specific techs in our lab who used to love Macs, and then left basically crying after a year, because of all the stress managing them brought.

Finally, I just want to say that I am not actually a Mac hater, I just enjoy disagreeing with people on principal. I LIKE OS X. Best *ix ever. I am optimistically looking forward to G5 computers, as they will probably make Macs the speed king once again, if only for a year. If you don't like computers in general, and are vaguely rich, I will always recommend a Mac.

P.S. To the guy who was talking about CISC vs. RISC, I will tell you flat out that optimizations in processor cores, compilers, and what have you, have made the differences between the two obsolete (for at least a few years). It's less of a difference than megahertz by an order of magnitude, and megahertz is already a "myth". read the articles at for the in-depth comparisons. And they like Macs easily as much as they like PCs, so it's not some we-hate-RISC site.

delete me
by Modab on Wed 6th Aug 2003 10:39 UTC

dammit, please delete above, wrong article, grumble...

by jasonlotito on Wed 6th Aug 2003 11:36 UTC

I have always said that the possibility exists that SCO has claims to some IP in Linux. However, this still does not excuse the fact that they were releasing this code under the GPL. I belive McBrides response was that "he didn't think the GPL covered the code if the person didn't know that the code being released wasn't supposed to be."

The GPL doesn't cover that. Essentially, the GPL just stipulates that the person who is allowed to release the code need release the code under the GPL. Despite that fact, SCO was still releasing the code under the GPL even after initial allegations. Hence, they knew about it.

If I own a store, and I am selling child porn, and I find out about it, and I continue selling it, am I still liable? Of course I am. The fact is, SCO was offering something under the GPL.

If they choose to sell a product, or offer a product, and distribute this product under a license, and make the claim they didn't even know what they were selling, they this leads to two conclusions.

1. They are not a good software company. Even Microsoft knows what they are selling. SCO obviously did not know what they were selling, and in good faith, I couldn't even do business with them if I wanted to. How could I explain that to my shareholders. "We need to buy software from SCO. Though, I don't know what software that is because SCO doesn't even know."

2. They are trying to unrelease GPL'ed code that they knew was in there. The code was released a while back, and they found that by claiming their code was included by a third party, they could go off an say "It wasn't us."

Having read top speed's posts, he does have a point (the same one I mentioned in the first sentence). However, he fails to speculate on the above issues. Simple facts remain simple facts.

SCO has yet to produce any proof of any kind showing where the infringment lies. Until they do, nothing is certain. Yes, they are a business, and not completely stupid. However, they simply have not produced ANY proof at all. Another simple fact.

scox doesn't expect anybody to pay
by walterbyrd on Wed 6th Aug 2003 12:02 UTC

That is not the idea. The idea is pump the stock price so canopy group can back out of a bad investment - at insane valuation.

"investors" are supposed to think: "wow! if even 1% of linux users pay, scox will millions!"

The scam is working like a charm. Scox up over 600% since this little scam started, insiders dumping their shares frantically. Canopy Group laughs all the way to the bank.

That is all there is to it.

ibm/rhat forced scox to target end user
by walterbyrd on Wed 6th Aug 2003 12:20 UTC

From the teleconference:

"Reality is IBM and RH painted a Linux liability target on the backs of their customers. And due to their actions we have no choice but to fight the battle against end users."

WOW! steep price
by mini-me on Wed 6th Aug 2003 12:23 UTC

I would never buy linux if it were commercial for that much money!

Never laughed so hard in my life!
by Chreo on Wed 6th Aug 2003 12:39 UTC

If SCO's clamins have any merits then I see Linux dying (ref: *BSD is dying) and development focus of OSS shifting towards BSD with a forking event.

Sun will be the big winner as corporate users used to favor Sun before Linux became overhyped.

Novell will be left standing without a clue as to what to do next and might in desperation even offer Sun or MS to buy everything as an act of desperation.

MS will celebrate the death of Linux while every Linux-fan will continue to blame MS for everything including the death of Linux and continue to fight MS as if the world didn't have bigger problems like starvation, poverty, pollution etc.

This is how I see everything pan out (honestly ;D) if SCO wins ... which I doubt. I have no facts whatsoever to back any claims or any evidence of SCOs claims or otherwise (but that I think you guessed already)

two words to SCO
by john on Wed 6th Aug 2003 12:49 UTC

bite me

Life from my eyes
by eightiesdude on Wed 6th Aug 2003 12:58 UTC

At the moment I am in love with Tux but it doesnt mean tux if for everyone. For people trying to take down tux They are just playing out what Gandhi said.

1. First they ignore you
2. Second they laugh at you
3. Then they fight you <--- those against tux are here
4. Then you win


It is to late no matter what they try to do it is to late. Just like it was when everyone started to download mp3s. Now it is to late to go back to paying $15 for a cd. Most wont do it especially for maybe one one or two good songs. Things have changed for better or worse.

Everything in life reaches its peak all empires fall sooner or later. For one reason or another. Things are a changing and that is just the natural progression of life. Nothing stays the same forever. Today it seems that Linux is the rising up. Who knows about tomorrow another os will appear and rise up as well to challenge whoever is dominate in the future.

The other thing that always bothers me is how people try to protect faceless companies all the time. They go around advertising and doing marketing for them without realizing it. Why would you want to support a company if you are not getting what most people think is the most important thing which is money. Also if it is a service you are paying for why wouldnt you want to max out your full potential and save your money. Try something else to help you get ahead and save money and time and learn something? But, hey thats ok if you dont

For me it seems people are just used to the idea of giving there hard earned money up. For no reason other than habit or just following the herd. It is your money and we work hard for it. Some have made this here into a cold war debate between poltical systems. For me it is simple if you choose to use any os regardless of price thats ok by me. But to think that things in the computer world especially would stay forever the same and not change is being a bit naive. Not to think that one day someone would create something better with what we use now Is not living in reality. For me everything is a choice there is a lot of different oses you can use now. The problem it seems that people that speak about the wonders of freedom of choice only want freedom of choice for others when people only agree with them it seems.

If you want to use _______ os sure go ahead be my guest if you don't like my choice thats ok too. I dont have a problem with it. But to hold on to this selfish idea that mine is better. Reminds me of when we all played in a sandbox as children. If you want to use whatever you want say an abacus thats ok by me.

Go on a journey if you truly love computers to any degree go and seek out the different os try them out figure out which ones you like or not. If you like what you have a feel good about thats wonderful too. Be happy with your choice. I wil be happy for you. No matter if you carry around an abacus or choose something different from me. Hey I like chocolate ice cream but I dont expect everyone else to like it.

Contravention of the GPL
by Maynard on Wed 6th Aug 2003 13:11 UTC

We ave to remember here that by SCO distributing Linux, they are accepting the GPL. By trying to license Linux, they run the risk of being in contravention of the GPL.

From the GPL v2

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

It is clear as day that this was thought of quickly. SCO knew these were the terms of the GPL license when they agreed to distribute under it. You cannot decide in the future that you do not like the provisions. SCO is playing on a tricky ground right now. However, they may have nothing to lose anymore, except for their pumped up stock, so they may fight bravely, yet stupidly.

by gentoo on Wed 6th Aug 2003 13:23 UTC

So the mad dog $CO began his biting...

re: captain chris and madhatter
by Dekkard on Wed 6th Aug 2003 13:27 UTC

Mad: yes i do agree with you in this. This WILL test the valididty of the gpl. And yes i do agree with this point. Caldera/sco did release and distribute software under the gpl for many many years. For D.McBribe to now say that they didnt know that caldera generated code was in linux holds about as much water as a strainer. RE chris: So that is how it is??? If i have the idea of an software that connects to the servers at NOAH and gives me my weather forcast in an applet that is intellectual property?? An copywritten idea? NO. the patentable /copywritable object in question isnt the idea. It is the implimentation. Therfore if 1000 joe blows also write them, but dont use my code(clean room) they havent infringed on my idea.To say that you can patent an idea is like saying you can patent someone breathing. All you can copywrite is the implimentation. (Try groklaw)

RE: SCO Announces Linux Licensing
by Joel Bradshaw on Wed 6th Aug 2003 13:37 UTC

F*ck Them!
or is that fsck 'em?
(and I'm only a linux newbie and I know this is bullsh*t)

its all about the love
by hy on Wed 6th Aug 2003 13:40 UTC

" If you truly love computers "

Companies are loving the money... dont give two hoots about computing....

I am sure millions will SCOFree

Its interesting how copyrighting has effected history...
MS released a product and wanted to give it away free this is how they build up the userbase... They do the same role play every time oops its slipped out into the wild *before the product is released* ppl will download and test to see if its usable...

If MS can only make a tiny dent into pirated copies of its os now etc how on earth do SCO think they will be able to make any impact on Linux... *if they dont go after the distro*

I have an idea for the next SCO press release "sue CHINA" just think you could claim that everyperson in china has been given a copy of linux from the government and ya want your rightfully earned money. ;) dare ya... ;)

will someone sue me for eatting legally purchased toast next...

anyone who doesn't think MS has a hand in this...
by Anonymous on Wed 6th Aug 2003 13:55 UTC

deserves my boot on their face.

-an mcse/mcp+i, typing this on xp.

Three questions
by Nonamenobdy on Wed 6th Aug 2003 14:01 UTC

I have three questions (I am asking them in the wrong place, so they probably won't be answered).

Will SCO Linux customers need to pay $700?

Will SCO refund licensees when the courts rule that there is no SCO IP in Linux, or will they just take your money and run/feed it to their lawyers?

Does anybody else think that it is interesting that SCO can sell licenses so that users can be 'SCO compliant' but they can't provide linux users/developers with a list of the code that 'needs' to be removed in order to achieve 'SCO compliance'?

Re: Will SCO Linux customers need to pay $700?
by Anonymous on Wed 6th Aug 2003 15:36 UTC

Ofcourse you have to pay 700$ or just drop your OS and switch to something else.

Why would anyone wanna use Linux anyway? It's not like it's cheaper or better than most other stuff on the market.

but in case you haven't heard, there are more options than Linux and Windows on the market.

I recommend you go and check

They're all different, but all of them surpasses Linux in their field, meaning there's really no point in using Linux at all.

Be happy =)

How about banning IP:s?
by Freddan303 on Wed 6th Aug 2003 16:11 UTC

This thread have contained some of the most braindead trolls I have seen in quite some while now. Eugenia, have you considered blocking ip:s or something? I mean, some of these peoples posts almost warrant blocking the entire last segment if need be.

I read the whole modded down comments and boy, oh boy, it reads like a bad comedy. The trolls need to be cleaned out...people who write things like "I witnessed 9/11 so don't talk about your communist Linux to me" (or something like that) really need to get a permanent ban from here. The atmosphere would improve significally if you'd only set up some proper blocking for OSNews. Have you considered it?

by Captain Chris on Wed 6th Aug 2003 17:35 UTC

Look back at the original post. He said "patent or copyright" (or the reverse order...I'm in too much of a hurry to look). You're right in that a patent is issued for a practical item or process; similarly, a copyright is issued for ideas (whether fictitious or not), such as in my example of the writer. The same goes for other "intellectual properties" as defined by law. (Not only do I do this for a living, but I used to teach it as well.)

RE: scox doesn't expect anybody to pay
by Captain Chris on Wed 6th Aug 2003 17:43 UTC

The idea is pump the stock price so canopy group can back out of a bad investment - at insane valuation.

Exactly, except I'm not so sure it's insane. It just might work out this way for them, though on a limited basis. I don't see too many companies falling for this, but all it takes is one or two scared legal departments in large corporations that use Linux on their servers, and the profits for SCO can be pretty high. That, of course, is the short term, as SCO is glaringly aware that they're going to crash and burn in the long run. This is a Kamikaze (sp?), last-ditch effort to recoup some cash (as you pointed out).

And, as many have observed above, please keep in mind that SCO is (for now) gunning for COMMERCIAL users, not home users. So not many people need to worry...they couldn't possibly come after all the home users. Cheers!

by Captain Chris on Wed 6th Aug 2003 17:53 UTC

You don't understand my posts, and you don't understand "copyright" and "patent." You use the terms interchangeably, but they are not the same. A patent applies to a practical implamentation, while a copyright applies to intellectual property. In the example you give above--which is the first example you give--the idea is not copyrightable. However, in MY examples, the idea IS copyrightable. When you buy a CD, the materials on it are copyrighted (not patented), as they are in essence ideas (more specifically, they are the etherial product of someone's immagination and/or intellect). When you buy a book or magazine, the ideas therein are can't legally redistribute them without compensation (unless, of course, you adhere to the "fair usage" concept used in determining if you've undermined the original copyright holder's worth).

You had made the blanket statement that an idea cannot be copyrighted, which is blatently false. Please be more clear in the future...broadly sweeping declarations are never helpful.

@Captain Chris
by Great Cthulhu on Wed 6th Aug 2003 18:06 UTC

Actually, you cannot copyright an idea, only the expression of an idea. And you can only patent processes, IIRC.

@Great Cthulhu
by Captain Chris on Wed 6th Aug 2003 20:03 UTC

Actually, you cannot copyright an idea, only the expression of an idea

Well, not really true. In one of my fields of research, theoretical linguistics (specifically syntax and morphology), an individual can come up with his or her own theory. Another writer may make as many references and modifications to that theory as they wish, as long as they use that theory's name and do not miscredit the creation/curation of the theory. (That, incidentally, is why there's a difference between patent and copyright--it's credit.) Sure, you could split hairs and say it's the physical expression they're forced to acknowledge, but that isn't why such copyright laws exist: to protect an individual or group's intellectual/creative property.

@Great Cthulhu, part deaux
by Captain Chris on Wed 6th Aug 2003 20:12 UTC

Actually, I just thought of a better example of copyright protecting an idea rather than the expression of one. A year or so ago, George Lucas legally forced a company to drop the name "light saber" from a laser scalpel. The company was not reproducing any images previously realized by Lucasfilm; rather, it was the idea of the light saber (and what it meant, both in the movies and for the franchise) that Lucas was protecting.

But a theory is an expression of an idea...
by Great Cthulhu on Wed 6th Aug 2003 20:18 UTC

...there are actually many examples of this. Let's say I have an idea for a film, with an archaeologist who goes on looking for the Ark of the Alliance, and he wears a hat.

Now, I write down this idea as a one-page synopsis. I get that copyrighted. Somebody else has the same idea (maybe they heard me talk about it, maybe they came up with it on their own - it happens). They have the same basic idea, but they actually go and write a script, much more detailed than my synospis, add lots of details, give the character a name, etc. Eventually the film gets made and makes a lot of money.

Now, can I sue the guy for copyright infringement? Probably not, unless we had a working relationship and I can prove that I explained my idea in great details, and so on. Even then, it's not clear that I would win. I could go on and develop my own idea, however.

As long as an idea remains a vague concept, with little material support to expand it, it is vulnerable. As I said, copyright protects the expression of an idea. Different expressions of the same idea are fine. To go back to the movie analogy, Thunderball and Never say never again can both coexist, even if they are both basically the same story (using the same character, no less).

Re: Light saber
by Great Cthulhu on Wed 6th Aug 2003 20:21 UTC

The company probably dropped the name just to avoid litigation. It's not clear that they would have actually lost a law suit over this.

This seems more like a trademark issue, though. But I could be wrong, IANAL.

RE: scox doesn't expect anybody to pay
by mythought on Thu 7th Aug 2003 01:44 UTC

"And, as many have observed above, please keep in mind that SCO is (for now) gunning for COMMERCIAL users, not home users. So not many people need to worry...they couldn't possibly come after all the home users. Cheers!"

It is the COMMERCIAL users who bring money into the likes of SUSE's or Red Hat's wallet, mate.
Once those users are scared away from Linux, most distros can close doors.... see Mandrake.

BTW, MS is planing a server version of Longhorn ......

A monopoly is like communism. Before the iron wall fell, in Eastern Germany there was ONE car manufacturer (Trabant), ONE shoe manufacturer, One Steel "comapany", ONE dicatator, ONE political party, .... no choice at all.

You can compare MS to communism. They want to contol the world and give no choice to users. MS hates competition and a free market. They want to force people to use their crap and pay top bucks for it; and when a competitor rises up, they try to screw him and force him out of business.

BTW, all you MS zealots, haven't you realized that since OSS has gained market shares, especially in the server market, MS is trying harder to improve their products?
So what are you complaining about? Competition is healthy, may friends. It keeps prices down and it forces companies to improve their products and services!

Fair Competition
by top speed on Thu 7th Aug 2003 02:01 UTC

BTW, all you MS zealots, haven't you realized that since OSS has gained market shares, especially in the server market, MS is trying harder to improve their products?
So what are you complaining about? Competition is healthy, may friends. It keeps prices down and it forces companies to improve their products and services!

I am all in favor of 'fair' competition, however I am not in favor of 'unfair competition'. Linux is 'unfair', because the cost is zero (yes, just like IE was). But especially if it is stolen, then zero cost meant you stole too.

@top speed
by jasonlotito on Thu 7th Aug 2003 02:29 UTC

Again, SCO has provided absolutely NO proof of it being stolen, and has distributed the alleged infringing code under the GPL knowingly.

How is this stealing?

@top speed regarding unfair competition
by jasonlotito on Thu 7th Aug 2003 02:33 UTC

Unfortunately, your "Linux is 'unfair', because the cost is zero" argument is null and void. Linux lives up on it's own merits, and the "being free" argument doesn't cut the cake anymore.

People have taken the Linux alternative even when it was more expensive then the MS option (take Munich for example).

Linux is fair competition
by Great Cthulhu on Thu 7th Aug 2003 02:33 UTC

After all, MS has offered substantial discounts to try to convince corporations + governments not to switch. Also, the MS advocates keep telling us that it is of superior quality. So it's ability to compete is still there. Except that this time, it has to compete on merit instead of using dirty tricks like it has in the past.

Also, since Linux is not stolen (innocent until proven guilty, that's the law) then this is totally irrelevant.

Quit trolling, please.

top speed: Fair Competition
by mythought on Thu 7th Aug 2003 02:33 UTC

"I am all in favor of 'fair' competition, however I am not in favor of 'unfair competition'."
Look at the history of MS, and tell me all about their fair trading practises.

"Linux is 'unfair', because the cost is zero (yes, just like IE was)."
If I want to give you a free gift, wouldn't you accept it?
BTW, IBM, SUN, SUSE or Red Hat do not give away their products and Services for free .... They use OSS, but as far as I know they support all their Suppliers ( KDE, GNOME, etc, etc)

"But especially if it is stolen, then zero cost meant you stole too."
SCO has still to prove this one. I do not want to point the finger at anybody before it is a 100% proven fact, but I wouldn't be surprised if SCO and MS have never stolen code or ideas.

re great cthulhu
by Dekkard on Thu 7th Aug 2003 04:42 UTC

thanks dood.. the clarification you did was much better than mine ;)

Lovecraft rocks.. in a sort of neosatanic, quasidark dimensional way

top speed: Fair Competition
by mythought on Thu 7th Aug 2003 04:47 UTC

A few months ago, before this SCO saga started, MS licensed SCO's IP. (That's what i think they did).

Prior to that MS was using SCO's IP illigally and all their customers who bought their OS to the license-date should be asked to properly license SCO's IP as all LINUX customers are requested to do.

Intellectual Property - some facts
by Eponymous on Thu 7th Aug 2003 05:55 UTC

"Intellectual Property" - let's break it down into it component parts:

"Patents" - these are short term monopolies that used to be granted on material improvements in manufacturing processes or end products such as vehicle components, semiconductor electronics, medical equipment, etc. The purpose of the short term monopoly is to allow the inventor to recover his investment by licensing said product to competitors.

"Copyrights" - these are short term monopolies on the expression of ideas in writing, music, and suchlike. Ideally they should be tied strictly to the lifetime of their creator, since they have no existence until said creator puts them down into print, or whatever. However, they do not forbid the expression of the same idea by a different author, musician, whatever. Copyright is based heavily on the idea of the uniqueness of individual creativity - which is one reason why the Communist States (so-called) never developed the idea.

"Trademarks" - these are specific expressions of ideas that are in some way tied into other products - a trademark cannot exist on its own. For example, if I have a guitar design, and I make the headstock a particular shape, and register it as my particular trademark - ie, I expect all guitarists seeing that to recognise instantly that that particular guitar is the product of my factory, and of no other, I can sue anyone using that self-same headstock, because they will be trading on my reputation. In the same way, I regard Microsoft as having a trademark on the word combination "MS Windows", because that is unique to Microsoft - but I regard it as little more than frauulent misconduct for Microsoft to claim "Windows" as its trademark, because "windowing systems" have been around since the mid-70s and in consequence there is no quality of uniqueness tying that one word to Microsoft.

"Trade secrets" - these are specific aspects of a product's creation or manufacture that are held secret, ie, not shared. AFAIK, they can be "licensed", but the law protecting that - contract law - is a totally different one to those protecting patents, copyrights and trademarks. And of course, if a company has through negligence or stupidity allowed its trade secret to become general knowledge, then it has no further claim to that knowledge as a trade secret.

Now we can get back to SCO - with UNIX being a trademark of the Open Group, SCO holding no worthwhile patents on Unix, its right to the Unix copyrights being dubious and ill-founded, and the Unix "trade secrets" having been dispersed by several decades of using Unix as the favourite Computer Science training tool. And now they are trying to claim the right to sell licenses for a product where the copyright concerned - the GPL - does not allow for such re-licensing without the permission of the original and subsequent authors.

SCO is for the high jump, or course - or the parachute jump without a parachute. I can't believe that Boies would be so stupid.

Ruminations on SCO
by Iconoclast on Thu 7th Aug 2003 07:06 UTC

I think SCO is just putting on an anti Linux campaign for Microsoft. My reason for thinking this is just prior to their announcing their lawsuit against IBM, according to several friends of mine who work there, SCO replaced most of their internal servers with Windows servers, replaced many desktops with Windows, and made MS Office the corporate standard for communication. In return, Microsoft "licenses" SCO code.

As for the SCO licensing, it'll be a cold day and I'll be long dead before SCO will pry any money out of my wallet. If IBM did indeed steal SCO code, why that should become my financial burden is beyond all logic. It's like saying if I unknowingly bought a car that turned out to be stolen that I'm liable to serve a prison term. It's ludicrous. In the car scenario, logic would dictate that I have to return the car, and hopefully get my money back. In this case, logic would dictate that Linux removes SCO's code and developers spend a week rewriting their own version or an adequate replacement.

SCO's just playing a game to stay in the news spotlight. If it turns out SCO's claims are groundless, I hope McBride ends up in prison for stock fraud and extortion. Not because I like Linux, but because I like truth and decency.

Linux is not zero cost
by Maynard on Thu 7th Aug 2003 09:33 UTC

Linux cost billions to make. Its a community effort. Its like a private park vs a public one. For one, you pay taxes, for the other, you pay an entrance fee.

IBM invested a billion in Linux. Redhat pays people to do it. Linux is like research. At the end of the day, research should be available for everyone to use. Can you say its unfair for people to mae their research public domain. How is it unfair for Linux to cost 'nothing' to download. If you want to charge for it, go ahead, just comply with the GPL.

SCO??? hahahahah
by Carlos Vendramini on Thu 7th Aug 2003 14:12 UTC

I can't believe...hahahhahaha

Those guys from SCO are totally out of the world...haahhaah

Who really believes in the SCO's arguments about IP of some minor Linux components?

Remember all that SCO's made, or still make, part of a Linux Consortium (United Linux). I supose that, starting of this point, it had knowledge and it accepted everything what now it wants to destroy with aid of the Microsoft among others companies.

SCO is dead... No more to say...:-)