Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 28th Jul 2004 05:50 UTC
SCO, Caldera, Unixware They call him Microsoft's sock puppet, the most hated man in high tech. SCO's Darl McBride is fighting a war for the future of free software. And he wants to make you pay.
Order by: Score:
retread?
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Jul 2004 06:13 UTC

I don't remember where, but I've read this article before. Word for word ect.

Long but worth reading
by Bud on Wed 28th Jul 2004 06:14 UTC

Pretty long article but it worth reading.

v When will the insanity end?
by Chris Dunphy on Wed 28th Jul 2004 06:17 UTC
Old article?
by Jason on Wed 28th Jul 2004 06:19 UTC

WTF? I remember reading this article a few months ago. Am I the only one who thinks this?

Re: Old article?
by bsdrocks on Wed 28th Jul 2004 06:32 UTC

Uh? Did you ever bother to click on this link and check the date?

Re: Old article?
by Jim on Wed 28th Jul 2004 06:40 UTC

I google'd for "What has the son of a farmer, a devout Mormon" and found the following link.

http://www.vanramblings.com/000500tech_tuesday_techs_most_h.shtml

The date on that page is June 29, 2004

I think the article was out of the July version of Wired but written earlier (June).

Huge Troll...
by J.F. on Wed 28th Jul 2004 06:51 UTC

It's nothing but FUD from SCO/Microsoft. Most of it's slanted grossly in SCO's favor. There's no mention of any REAL info, like SCO has failed to produce ANY evidence of SCO IP in Linux, despite being ORDERED to TWICE by the court. No mention of their losses in the courts. No mention that most of their legal papers appear to have been written by high-school drop-outs.

Don't bother reading this tripe. go to Groklaw instead of get some FACTS. Read all the court papers and contracts yourself and make up your own mind on where the truth lies.

http://www.groklaw.net/

Hmmmm
by Bud on Wed 28th Jul 2004 06:57 UTC

Then why the judges don't take a decision yet?I mean , to dismiss SCO's case?Why it takes so long?

@bsdrocks
by Jason on Wed 28th Jul 2004 07:16 UTC

Uh? What's that got to do with anything?

a) I said **I** REMEMBER reading it months ago (okay as Jim said 29th June, but a month can seem like many when you've got a high pressure job! :-)), so it has nothing to do with the date which is displayed as July, 2004.

b) If I said I remember reading it, that pretty much implies that I read it, doesn't it?

Score 0 for your powers of deduction.

@Bud
by jsg on Wed 28th Jul 2004 07:32 UTC

In legalese, they call it due process ;)

v .
by pbpg on Wed 28th Jul 2004 08:23 UTC
@bud
by Peragrin on Wed 28th Jul 2004 10:22 UTC

SCO is being given the strands to make the rope to tie the knot to attach to a frame to hang themselves with, and SCO is dutiful doing that very job for us.

Everybody gets their day in court, SCO got their but forgot to bring the evedience.

the bottom line.....
by raver31 on Wed 28th Jul 2004 10:26 UTC

Well, duh," says Goldfarb. "I knew Microsoft's motivation, but if I can make a dollar where I wouldn't otherwise, why should I be concerned?"


the ceo and all the senior management of sco need to face a court and be charged with extortion. after all, thats what it is.

AND...
by raver31 on Wed 28th Jul 2004 10:28 UTC

if it does go to court, then it will be a major test of the gpl. if the sco case fails, then I would expect a major take up of linux from companies who at this moment in time are unsure if the gpl is any good for business

Re: AND...
by Kick The Donkey on Wed 28th Jul 2004 10:50 UTC

Good point. Its espically true of large companies. I work for a telcom in the SouthEastern US and, while we use Linux 'under the table', we're not allowed to use it for production facing systems. One of the reasons: current uncertainty of the status of Linux.

parasite companies
by dmd on Wed 28th Jul 2004 11:07 UTC

Companies like Rambus and SCO are growing in number. It's not a new business form, but it's the first time companies are being taken over specifically for their IP. Let's not forget that Sun have been doing the same thing. As soon as a company begins to look doomed, they batton down the hatches and pick a victim to sue like crazy.

Of course, it's not ethical, but the way a corporation is set up gives it just one drive: to make as much profit as possible in the short run. Even if SCO wins this court case (which I don't believe they will--wasn't there an announcement this week which basically eliminated their chances of winning?), where will their company be? It'll simply be a royalty farm--a parasite--which will slowly be cut out by the software community, leading it again towards its inevitable doom. There is really no point to this court case, except to make McBride and SCO as much money as possible in the short run. After they win the court case, they'll almost certainly take the money and run, ready to form the next parasite.

Finally, I would like to say a big "fuck you" to the idiots that have allowed software patents to exist in their current form. Buy a computer and use it a bit, then you'll know why everyone hates them so much!

The line between other criminals is thin
by dpi on Wed 28th Jul 2004 11:11 UTC

Well, duh," says Warezkiddie. "I knew BSA/MPAA/RIAA's motivation, but if I can make a dollar where I wouldn't otherwise, why should I be concerned?"

Same for drugbarons, etc. He basically says: "I don't give a damn about ethics."

----

"if it does go to court, then it will be a major test of the gpl. if the sco case fails, then I would expect a major take up of linux from companies who at this moment in time are unsure if the gpl is any good for business"

The GPL has been found legal in the German court recently. Therefore, anyone who clames the GPL is untested, is stating bull.

But, more important, is that in all its years the GPL existed while it has threatened the existence and business of other competitors and while it forced companies to change, GPL software was never sued because of its license. That's because it is valid ;)

Yeah, it is sued. By a bunch of monkeys who can't put proof where their mouth is. Sadly, messages like the one from Kick the Donkey proof the FUD is working but from another point of view the more smarter corporations already raised their profits not scared off by FUD like this. IOW its really the problem of their competitors.

Good article
by Uno Engborg on Wed 28th Jul 2004 11:24 UTC

A bit unfair to compare Bill Gates to Darl MacBride. Mr Gates is someone we can respect for being a good businessman that managed to sell a braindead OS to the extent that it now reached a state of monopoly in the desktop market.

Darl MacBride on the other hand is a total failure, first tried to give away a reasonably good OS for free, and get his money on support. That failed miserably as Red Hat and others ate his lunch.

He then buys the right to act as an agent for Novell in selling Unix. When that too fails he resorts to IP extortion and hopes for IBM to buy him out instead of taking the case to court. That fails too and he goes for smaller targets.

As almost none pay his extortion fee, he decideds to show some muscle and decides to sue. As he would have very little chance of winning against any random selected Linux user, he selects some of his own customers where he at least have some written agreements where he might get some victory over one technicality or another. If he just could get one such victory he could tell the world that he was right (silently, omitting the fact that the case was not on copyrights in the first place) This fails too.






v Re: Good article
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Jul 2004 12:20 UTC
Intellectual property rights gone wild
by ryan on Wed 28th Jul 2004 12:27 UTC

i've read that before as well but its still relevant.

SCO has made the US legal system look like a joke. Their ability to use that lawsuit to hold users and linux developers hostage in fear is sad because they've yet to demonstrate evidence of wrong doing by anyone. Why have been able to drag this out so long with such a weak evidence deficient case, some would argue without a case at all.

And this is the problem with the US legal system. Its become a system run by the lowest common demominator. SCO is just part of it. over the last 10 years the new game has been Patents on everything including a lot of things which deserve no patents and which are pretty much common knowledge.

Rather than protecting rights and promoting a healthy free market, IPR rights in general are now protecting the powerful and inhibiting a free market. SCO is just part of the problem.

re: parasite companies
by walterbyrd on Wed 28th Jul 2004 12:28 UTC

>>Finally, I would like to say a big "fuck you" to the idiots that have allowed software patents to exist in their current form. Buy a computer and use it a bit, then you'll know why everyone hates them so much!<<

But scox's case against ibm has nothing to do with patents. Maybe, parasite companies can do just as well without software patents?

That
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Jul 2004 12:37 UTC

Darl McBride is Microsost friend and Microsoft is paying money to Darl McBride!!!!

v quit whining about linux
by gary on Wed 28th Jul 2004 12:51 UTC
@Anonymous (IP: 213.80.61.---)
by A nun, he moos on Wed 28th Jul 2004 12:54 UTC

Ah, come on! You can disagree with some of Stallman's position, but to call him a "nutjob" and "evil"?

Personally, I'm very grateful for his invention of the GPL and his contribution to the GNU tools, without which we probably wouldn't have Linux today.

Also, I have met the man and though he is quite opinionated (which is his constitutionally-guaranteed right) he was also very nice, not to mention brillant in his interventions. I do not agree with him on everything, but he's a compelling speaker, and worthy of respect. If you've got an agenda against the man, I suggest you set up a "hate" site where you'll be able to say what you want.

Meanwhile, McBride wants to destroy the work of thousands of people in order to make a quick buck and serve the bidding of his master in Redmond. He does not deserve any respect at all.

RE : Disgraceful!
by Al on Wed 28th Jul 2004 13:05 UTC

<italic>It was just another indignity for the chief executive of the widely unpopular SCO Group. McBride has also received death threats, a challenge to a fistfight, and a flood of denial-of-service attacks targeting his company's email servers and his home phone. He's started carrying a gun for protection. Friends tease him that in two short years, he has displaced Bill Gates as the most hated man in high tech.</italic>

All this is done by people hoisting the banner of <bold>Freedom</bold> of course. sheesh....

SCOX lost the Diamler-Chrysler lawsuit
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Jul 2004 13:17 UTC

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040721122325926

their stock has tanked to $4 and they're going to lose by summary judgement to ibm next month.

darl is a fat loud stupid imbecile whose importance lies purely in his own mind. the only thing he's accomplished is defrauding all scox stock holders for the benefit of the canopy group. the mouse that roared and got stepped on.

RE: Huge Troll...
by torn asunder on Wed 28th Jul 2004 13:30 UTC

Yes, yourpost was a huge troll.

What are you talking about?
Did you even read the article?

It was mostly about what McBride has done so far and
I don't really get how you can say it's biased, it's
not painting a pretty picture of McBride or SCO at all,
quite the opposite in fact.
This article doesn't mention much about the current
legal battles, but it's not supposed to, it's a bio of
McBride more than anything.

Read the article before posting.

Unfounded attacks against Darl
by Daren on Wed 28th Jul 2004 13:42 UTC

Al,

How can you infer that these attacks against Daryl are coming from the Linux community? Darl seems like the kind of person who might draw these kinds of attacks from neighbors, former workers, family etc. These threats could have come from anyone who's had former contact with Daryl. The article even claims that his psycho friend Anderer is angry at Darl.

Doesn't that seem more likely than an attack coming from somebody like me who doesn't even know Darl or care about where he lives, etc?

Track Record
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Jul 2004 14:26 UTC

"SCO brought out the heavy artillery: Early last year, McBride hired famed litigator David Boies, who led the federal government's antitrust case against Microsoft and represented Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election recount."

The case against MS ultimately did nothing, and Al Gore lost. SCO's likely to lose. Not the best resume highlights, I think...

Re: quit whining about linux
by ryan on Wed 28th Jul 2004 14:45 UTC

"Use FreeBSD or OpenBSD and don't worry about any of this nonsense. Linux is not the saviour of the OS world."

And what you think that BSD is immune to litigation? Let me introduce you to the real america. In america those with money and influence use both to restrict competition by bringing real, semi-real, or completely bogus lawsuits against existing or potential competitors.

In many cases, the issue is not who is right or wrong but rather who has the money to drag out the case. Judges as a whole loathe ruling one way or another because rulings can be overturned so many cases which should be thrown out are not or they are forced into bogus settlements, since settlements can not be appealed.

That is the real america so BSD is far from safe. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.

Wow, now I dislike him on a personal level
by Chris on Wed 28th Jul 2004 15:00 UTC

Before I disliked McBride's legal policies, now I dislike him for his personal history and his worker history. He sued his former employer after they fired him.... Scumbag rich CEO's always stealing from the employees. Except that nice BB CEO who is supposedly giving 38 millionish to the employees instead of taking a bonus (but this could be a rumor, can someone confirm).

@gary
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Jul 2004 15:55 UTC

Amen, the mighty penguin finally gets what was coming for it. At least BSD learned this lesson long ago.

And these are "the days of our lives"
by Nicholas James on Wed 28th Jul 2004 16:42 UTC

This is just like a soap, they are draging this stupid meaningless crap out as long as they can.

nope
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Jul 2004 16:58 UTC

Amen, the mighty penguin finally gets what was coming for it. At least BSD learned this lesson long ago
-----

nope. it didnt. sco claims elf format is its and bsd is using just that like linux. so dont claim you learned something

Darl
by dpi on Wed 28th Jul 2004 17:08 UTC

even threatened BSD with some vague claim when he was claiming.. a lot.

@ ryan
by Kady Mae on Wed 28th Jul 2004 17:11 UTC

And what you think that BSD is immune to litigation?>>

Dood, somebody already tried. And guess what, the judge told them they had NO CASE.


http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/bsdisuit.html will give you the whole history.

The Judge's final ruling is at: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/930303.ruling.txt

The really juicy parts are:

"The three statutory escape provisions are listed in section 405(a). These provisions relieve a copyright owner from
the harsh consequences of noticeless publication if the owner
(i) omitted the notice from a "relatively small number of copies;"
(ii) registers the work within five years of publication, and thenmakes a "reasonable effort" to add notices to the noticeless copiesalready distributed; or
(iii) proves that a third party omitted,notice in violation of an express agreement in writing 17 U.S.C  405(a)(1)-(3).

Plaintiff cannot avail itself of any of these provisions.Notice was omitted from thousands of copies of 32V; no contractual agreements require the licensees to affix notice; Plaintiff failed to copyright 32V until 1992, well over five years after 32V was published; and Plaintiff has not yet made reasonable efforts to add notices to the many noticeless publications of 32V. Consequently, Plaintiff must try to fit within the common-law doctrine of limited publication."

And (regarding the doctrine of limited publication):

"The copyright laws in effect prior to 1989 do not allow
such expansive protection against the consequences of noticeless publication. As quoted above, publication includes distributing copies by "renting, leasing, or lending." 17 U.S.C.  101. Under Plaintiff's construction of the doctrine of limited publication, "renting, leasing, or lending" would not constitute publication whenever the owner of the copyright screened out irresponsible
customers. It seems unlikely that Congress drafted this section with this purpose in mind.

Consequently, I find that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood that it can successfully defend its copyright in 32V. Plaintiff's claims of copyright violations are not a basis for injunctive relief."

---
Emphasis mine.

SCO can't touch BSD. They can't demonstrate/defend a copyright to the code BSD is based on.

(If any proprietary code was illegally added to a BSD distro post 1992, they can move to have that stripped out, but that's about it.)


they can
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Jul 2004 17:45 UTC


SCO can't touch BSD. They can't demonstrate/defend a copyright to the code BSD is based on.

(If any proprietary code was illegally added to a BSD distro post 1992, they can move to have that stripped out, but that's about it.)

----------------

under the american law anybody can sue anybody for anything. so yes they can litigate. they can claim exactly what you have added they there is proprietary code in bsd and that they own the elf format or whatever without showing any evidence or code which is what the ibm vs sco case is all about. nobody is safe from that. understand that this stupid case shouldnt be used to promote bsd as a safe option but to understand the market effect and what litigation can mean to every business

@Uno Engborg
by rain on Wed 28th Jul 2004 17:54 UTC

Mr Gates is someone we can respect for being a good businessman that managed to sell a braindead OS to the extent that it now reached a state of monopoly in the desktop market.


Business isn't hard if you ignore all kinds of ethics and try to bypass every possible law. However, does such a person deserve respect as a successful businessman? Not in my world.
Now if someone does the same thing by playing fair, then he might deserve my respect(as a businessman), but then again, that's practically impossible.

I'm just so tired of the fact that practically everyone in the west world thinks anything is forgiven if it's for the sake of business.
"Well, that's how business works"

Then there's people in the world who get the hand chopped off for stealing a piece of bread to fill his empty stomach. Perhaps he should have started a business, perhaps then he would have gotten away with it.

SOSDD
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Jul 2004 18:04 UTC

Again OSNEWS gets the tile wrong. Daryl McBribe "Linux Killer"? Hardly. More like Linux Roadkill.

Fistfight
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Jul 2004 18:15 UTC

Oh I'll fistfight that jerk McBride. I'd better get my licks in fast, though, because he's about to get _tore_ the ____ up in court. ;)

What *can* SCO do? You mean any company or indidivual.
by dpi on Wed 28th Jul 2004 19:27 UTC

"SCO can't touch BSD. They can't demonstrate/defend a copyright to the code BSD is based on."

So SCO (or whoever) doesn't make copyright claims based on what you said, but on something similar or totally else. How about patents?

Also, SCO hasn't been able to demonstrate/attack a copyright infringement in regards of Linux.

(Defending is the wrong word when you decide to sue. Although strong counterclaims may make it look like that ;) all kidding aside, i see the cose more like "IBM vs SCO and some vague people behind it" than "SCO vs IBM" as it originally was. This is, i think, mostly because of SCO's claims have been debunked where it turned out they didn't had credibility.)

Oh and as one put it: in the Western world (not only the USA) one can sue another. But settlements tend to me more a USA culture than a European one. In many European countries, he who loses pays the court costs which lowers the barrier for the righteous. The court costs of the IPTables versus Sitecom case in Germany were for example *huge* but the IPTables people don't have to pay anything besides time, luckily. Point is though, one being sued doesn't say _anything_ on wether the suing person is right. Because that's proven in court. This is one of those faulty assumptions rooted deep down in our society.

Muhamed Sacirbey for example has been released from prison a while ago. He has been accused for fraud. He is however not yet found guilty yet. Now, he claims the UN betrayed Sarajevo. The reaction of an "analyst" here was: ''he is a criminal'' with which he tried to discredit Sacirbey. Unf*ckingbelievable! He hasn't even had a trial yet! And even if he were and even if he were guilty, that doesn't mean he isn't speaking the truth. Where does the world go when people are found guilty without having had a fair trial? Then what does the legal system even mean besides some cult status?

(Au contraire, guilty criminals walk free around, laughing their ass off.)

Linux Killer?
by Richard Steven Hack on Wed 28th Jul 2004 19:38 UTC

He's gonna be more like a Linux VICTIM!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Okay, to clarify re: BSD
by Kady Mae on Wed 28th Jul 2004 20:45 UTC

1)32V is the Unix that BSD evolved/derived from.

2) Yes, SCO could decide to sue the UC Berkeley regents. (Who, despite California's budget problems, probably have deeper pockets than SCO.)

3) If SCO trys to claim that they own BSD, that claim will be thrown out because BSD derives from 32V Unix, which SCO will not be able to demonstrate a copyright to.

4) If SCO claims that code has been illegally added, to win, it will have to produce the code and show when it was illegally added. Similarity or even identical lines of code, the judge ruled, do not equal copyright violation or a disclosure of trade secrets.


"Overlap in items such as variable, file, and function names is functionally irrelevant to the program insofar as the program is wholly self-referential. [*10] That is, a programmer could name a variable or function anything at all without disabling the program, as long as the program did not interface with other programs. n2 But once a program interfaces with another program, the file, function, or variable names can become significant. The two programs may have certain files, functions, or variables in common, and these must have the same names in order for the programs to interface. Programs written to run with a UNIX-like operating system have now become so common that industry standards govern the requirements of UNIX interfaces."

And

"In summary, I find that I am unable to ascertain whether any aspect of Net2 or BSD/386, be it an individual line of code or the overall system organization, deserves protection as Plaintiff's trade secret. Since Plaintiff has failed to provide enough evidence to establish a "reasonable probability" that Net2 or BSD/386 contain trade [*53] secrets, I find that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its claim for misappropriation of trade secrets."
---

SCO could file a lawsuit, but unless they have a smoking gun, it will be swiftly dismissed.

Seriously, I urge anyone with an interest in *nix and SCO to read the documents I linked in my last post. They provide a fascinating insight into the legal system, and spell out very clearly why SCO would have a hard time taking on a BSD distro.







@torn asunder
by J.F. on Wed 28th Jul 2004 20:58 UTC

YOU need to read the story. It was an obvious troll extolling the virtues of the man suing Linux. It portrayed him as beset by Evil Open Source Revolutionaries who threaten good decent businessmen like Darl. It did everything but kiss his butt when the reality is that Darl is just a common con artist. He's lied to the press, he's lied to businesses, and he's lied to the courts. I would even say he's lying about the threats against him... he'll say ANYTHING to get stock prices up via a little free press. I'm waiting for him to try to make a run for a foreign country when it all hits the fan - and you need to quick trolling on behalf of criminals.

Oh, and one last thing
by KadyMae on Wed 28th Jul 2004 21:04 UTC

Somebody mentioned the possiblity of SCO suing for patent infringment.

This will not happen.

Software is Copyrighted, not patented.

ScoAssHat
by SCO Diss'er on Wed 28th Jul 2004 21:25 UTC

All this thing sounds old to me ;)

http://www.heypod.co.uk/Content/funnyshit/scoasshat.html

To the tune of "You're So Vain" by Carly Simon

You walked into the board room
Like a Pirate onto his ship
You lawsuit was strategically placed
To put Linux in the shit
You had one eye on the share price
As the FUD began to roll
And all the while you hoped Big Blue would buy you
Big Blue would buy you, and

You're insane
You'll probably sue this song all about you
Your insane
You'll probably sue this song all about you
Won't you won't you

Your company died many years ago
They just haven't stopped moving yet
You even tried that Linux thing
But the hard work just made you sweat
You gave away what you didn't have
Under the GPL
You had a dream there was code in the kernel
Code in the kernel, and

You're so lame
You probably don't know you're an asshat
You're so lame
You probably don't know you're an asshat
Do you do you

You had a scheme there was code in the kernel
Code in the kernel, and

You're insane
You'll probably sue this song about you
You're insane
You'll probably sue this song all about you
Won't you won't you

Well I hear you went to the Japanese
And they laughed your ass back to the 'states
Then you fuelled your Lear Jet up to Salt Lake City
You're the only slug in the place
Now your trying to rob Joe Six-pack
But no one will pony up
Cos you won't show them the proof that-cha don't have
Proof that-cha don't have, and

You're so screwed
You probably should move to Aruba
You're so screwed
You probably should move to Aruba

patents
by Anonymous on Wed 28th Jul 2004 21:37 UTC

Software is Copyrighted, not patented.
------

completely wrong. there exists innumerous software patents. so it can be BOTH copyrighted as well as patended. so yes sco can claim patents in bsd code too. it already has said it owns the unix standard interface and elf format both which is being used by *bsd systems right now. so dont use this as a excuse to promote *bsd. we sure have other reasons. we dont need to support sco for this

Since when
by AC on Wed 28th Jul 2004 21:37 UTC

Has been being a leech a viable business solution.
There names in former times for people like that, they were called highway robbers. This business model sounds reasonable from a crook like perspective, but it always was just a matter of time until it became illegal.
All it takes is too many of those highway robbers.

@ Kady Mae
by dpi on Wed 28th Jul 2004 21:49 UTC

Somebody mentioned the possiblity of SCO suing for patent infringment.

This will not happen.

Software is Copyrighted, not patented.


You failed to comprehend the problem. If you thought the BSDs never have problems regarding NDAs and patents, you're plain wrong.

Moreover, the lawsuit you quote is only remotely related to this discussion and it doesn't have anything to do with the patent system or copyright threats. It isn't as if "We won one copyright lawsuit, so we are invincible to all copyright lawsuits."

To make the point more clear:

1) Software was developed and included in the BSDs _after_ the lawsuit. _Theoretically_ one or more of the BSDs could be including proprietary software just as the Linux kernel could have.
2) Software _implementations_ can be patented. Both BSDs and Linux could _theoretically_ include a patented software implementation.

This besides the issue of bogus claims (on either copyright, patent, or something else) of neither Linux nor the BSDs are protected against. As put out above, nobody or nothing is protected from this although i do not know regarding governments. Neither the BSDs nor Linux have been found guilty of copyright infringement or patent infringement though.

Disclaimer for the clueless reader: theoretically does not say anything about likeliness.

RE: Okay, to clarify re: BSD
by someone247356 on Wed 28th Jul 2004 22:08 UTC

Kady Mae;

While I'm sure most people here are well awarKady Mae;

While I appreciate your attempt at clarifying the BSD situation, I have to unfortunately say, it doesn't matter. Replace BSD with Linux and for the most part you have the TSG (The SCO Group) vs IBM case.

1) Linux isn't derived from ANY Unix. (BSD comes from 32V) It is Unix like, and with the blessing of the BSD license incorporates some BSD code. The Linux kernel was coded by Linus and his band of merry code warriors, most of the rest of what people consider the basis of Linux came from GNU (you can thank Richard Stallman and "his" merry band of idealistic coders for that). Linux is even further away from Unix than BSD, it didn't stop TSG from suing.

2) IBM probably "has" deeper pockets than The UC Berkley regents. Perhaps that's why they started there.

3) Let's try some substitution with this one;
If TSG trys to claim that they own Linux, that claim will be thrown out because Linux doesn't derive from any Unix, so TSG will not be able to demonstrate a copyright to. Nope, that didn't stop them from suing IBM. What makes you think it'll stop them from trying to sue anyone who makes/distributes/uses BSD.

4)This one fits Linux and TSG vs IBM as "IS".
If SCO claims that code has been illegally added, to win, it will have to produce the code and show when it was illegally added. Similarity or even identical lines of code, the judge ruled, do not equal copyright violation or a disclosure of trade secrets.

You summarized with;
"SCO could file a lawsuit, but unless they have a smoking gun, it will be swiftly dismissed."

Let's see, numerous court orders, a pending request for Partial Summery Judgment against them by IBM and they have yet to show "in court" a smoking gun. Hence the motion on the Partial Summery Judgment. Heck, there isn't even a stone cold, rusting in the corner, hasn't been used since the last revolution gun. TSG whining that if they could only get a little more discovery, then maybe they'ld find some evidence. Right now the discovery table looks so clean the judge can see his reflection.

Was the case "swiftly dismissed"? Nope, in fact I think the last thing filed in TSG vs IBM was a stipulated "delay".

Nothing that you've said about BSD would even give TSG a moments pause. They have no case, no evidence, that Linux is anything but pure as the driven snow. They should know, they sold Linux as Caldera. Did that stop them from suing IBM, AutoZone, etc.? What would keep them from doing the same to a BSD distro?

The one thing that's been driven home by TSG's actions is that anyone can sue anyone else over anything. Having a case, evidence, a clue is not required. Sometimes like the Dalmer Chrysler case the judge quickly throws most of it out, other times like the IBM case, it goes on and on and on.

BSD, due to the previous settlement, should be safer from this sort of thing. When you have a company as addled as TSG, no one is safe.

Just my $0.02 (Canadian, before taxes)

e

community response
by A.K.H. on Wed 28th Jul 2004 23:01 UTC

You know, I don't like SCO's actions any more than anyone else. But the response of the 'Linux community' is such that I don't want to be associated with it either.

There is absolutely no need to invent childish names like SCOX, claim Darl is 'Microsoft's sock puppet', claim this case is as good as closed, or give similar bold and immature statements.

This is Darl's doing. Microsoft may have given them money, but is by no means behind this. Just consider Darl's history before calling him a puppet.

Given that bills such as INDUCE are being strongly considered, there is a real danger that the courts could somehow side with SCO in some way. Yes, it would be stupid, but so is the Microsoft anti-trust case results. The Linux community here at osnews is coming accross as a bunch of snotty nosed little 10 year olds pointing fingers and heckling an adult who is trying to figure out how to fire a trigger locked chain gun.

Please, can we cut out the lame heckling?

Re: community response
by juzio1313 on Wed 28th Jul 2004 23:25 UTC

SCOX is not a childish name and was not invented by Linux community. It is a symbol used by SCO in the stock exchange ( just like Walmart is WMT and Microsoft is MSFT).

@ akh
by dopey on Wed 28th Jul 2004 23:43 UTC

nice one juzio1313..


This is Darl's doing. Microsoft may have given them money, but is by no means behind this. Just consider Darl's history before calling him a puppet.


Right, do you honestly believe Microsoft just gave him the money to do whatever the hell he liked with it ?
Either he approached Microsoft or Microsoft approached him about this. I would reckon that Microsoft approached him..

He was microsofts little dog to control.. Things stopped working out and microsoft stepped away. Attacking by proxy.

I cant be bothered to go into it anymore.. but they are as bad as each other as guilty as each other.. and Mcbride will walk off a very rich man at the end of this win or lose.

forgot to add
by dopey on Wed 28th Jul 2004 23:46 UTC

and microsoft would have once again been able to muddy the waters..

Everything so far that microsoft has chatted has been BULL.. all of their FUD has made no sense.. Microsoft definately isnt an innocent party in all of this.


@ dopey
by dpi on Thu 29th Jul 2004 00:10 UTC

Yeah there is a proven, vague Microsoft connection which involves BayStar, but there aren't many interesting _facts_ on that connection. Microsoft directly bought a license from SCO, but so did SUN. Futhermore, Microsoft advised BayStar to invest in SCO, but that itself creates so much questions which are unanswered that it is impossible to make fair, objective judgements upon the facts alone. Either pieces of the puzzle are missing or the puzzles are not factual.

The facts regarding BayStar - SCO connection and the license Microsoft bought have been food for thought, but no futher proof has arised. Because of this, i suggest we do not make claims on theories, but on the facts instead. Sure, it may be likely there are other hidden facts, but stating judgements based on conspiracy theories is like deranging yourself in a muddy place which could "have a grain of salt" but it just ain't found. Research ok, don't make it look like facts. Rationally speaking, you don't build upon doubtful conspiracy theories either to get a rational outcome. Because it is all extremely subjective not based on facts all kind of weird discussions pop up. Sure, Groklaw may hold some interesting theories, but for those who wish to stay on 2 legs it ain't worth considering to base conclusions on (i mean the various theories posted there; my statement doesn't count for everything at Groklaw).

As for the AKH individual i suggest to just ignore it. It has been a troll in the past ranting in SCO and anti-Linux threads. It simply ain't worth any time giving attention to, IMNSHO. (The points Kady May has brought up are more interesting for food for thought than this troll -- IMO.)

SCO has a smoking gun,
by Welsey Parish on Thu 29th Jul 2004 03:12 UTC

only problem is, it's stuck in their mouth along with their foot. Where their brain is, I wouldn't like to guess.

Just read groklaw.net for the details.

@dpi an others
by A.K.H. on Thu 29th Jul 2004 15:20 UTC

@juzio1313

I stand corrected on SCOX.

@dpi

Thank you for proving my point on the whole MS connection. You demonstrated much better than I why these blanket 'puppet' statements are silly. It's also so nice of you to call me a troll at the same time. And btw, I am not an 'it'. Thank you.

@A.K.H.
by A nun, he moos on Thu 29th Jul 2004 16:05 UTC

However, just because MS's involvment is a conspiracy theory, doesn't mean it's not true. One thing we can safely say, in any case, is that Microsoft has profited from SCO's actions. We can also be pretty sure that if Microsoft is involved, it is indirectly and there wouldn't be any direct proof of it (it would have been stupid of them to do otherwise).

So, why one can't say for sure that Microsoft is involved, one can argue that the probability for it are high. They have both the motive and the capability.