Slashdot Mirror

I just bought a tool for $699 to De-SCO my windows 98 box. I'm not taking any chances.

I recommend you all buy the utility, the website is http://www.caldera.com/

Wow. Picture this face on top of a pig. It almost seems natural.

Try This

Bug Report Form

Tell them that the module mcbride has tainted the kernel and performed an illegal operation and will be shut down.

As a Linux user, I was demanded by SCO through mass media to pay for the Linux I use the license fee. Well, SCO claims that my Gentoo Linux I've build by myself from sources has a source code belonging to SCO. It seems to me that means that my Gentoo is not a SCO product, however the piece of SCO code in the kernel *IS* a SCO product. I want to see the code to decide - should I pay for it or should I remove it. That's why I went to product and license information pages at SCO site. And that's why I am so happy to see that email.

From now on I am going to send them email on a daily basis (is it too often)? and demand the information about the product they insist to sell to me. Every message will have a different text (but saying/asking actually the same) so their anti-spam filter won't work.

Now I am thinking about /. effect on poor web-sites. What if we, /.ers, will try our /. effect on their email servers? Can we force them to answer?

As a Linux user, I was demanded by SCO through mass media to pay for the Linux I use the license fee. Well, SCO claims that my Gentoo Linux I've build by myself from sources has a source code belonging to SCO. It seems to me that means that my Gentoo is not a SCO product, however the piece of SCO code in the kernel *IS* a SCO product. I want to see the code to decide - should I pay for it or should I remove it. That's why I went to product and license information pages at SCO site. And that's why I am so happy to see that email.

From now on I am going to send them email on a daily basis (is it too often)? and demand the information about the product they insist to sell to me. Every message will have a different text (but saying/asking actually the same) so their anti-spam filter won't work.

Now I am thinking about /. effect on poor web-sites. What if we, /.ers, will try our /. effect on their email servers? Can we force them to answer?

At ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/OpenLinux311 there is a message on the page. "NOTICE: SCO has suspended new sales and distribution of SCO Linux until the intellectual property issues surrounding Linux are resolved. SCO will, however, continue to support existing SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux customers consistent with existing contractual obligations. SCO offers at no extra charge to its existing Linux customers a SCO UNIX IP license for their use of prior SCO or Caldera distributions of Linux in binary format. The license also covers binary use of support updates distributed to them by SCO. This SCO license balances SCO's need to enforce its intellectual property rights against the practical needs of existing customers in the marketplace. The Linux rpms available on SCO's ftp site are offered for download to existing customers of SCO Linux, Caldera OpenLinux or SCO UnixWare with LKP, in order to honor SCO's support obligations to such customers." So if you choose SCO Linux it's free but any other that will be $699 please... Balders

I have to reiterate that IANAL, but SCO is trying to profit on the backs of the thousands of people that have made Linux what it is today because someone might have copied (no proof given yet) some code from one of their products into the Linux kernel. This seems to be exactly what copyright law is trying to prevent from happening. So far SCO has been seeking civil penalties from IBM and that's it. That's all fine and dandy, we'll let the courts figure that out. But now they are trying to license Linux for use for a fee, something in direct violation of the copyright of all the other Linux authors that released their code intentionally under the GPL. Not only that, they are charging licensing fees for single processor systems, ones that don't even take advantage of the enhanced functionality that their code purportedly helps Linux out with.

Before they were just warning companies not to use Linux. If their claims are true (I'm not 100% sure they aren't), this would be an acceptable course of action. In good faith of course they should make it known exactly what parts of the code are copyrighted by them so they could be removed. Of course the same would have to apply to their own customers as they are in violation of the GNU license. I believe that's reprehensible, but I could accept that as plausibly legal. However, they are now actively seeking licensing fees for a product they don't have the right to license. This is out and out copyright infringement. Even if they say "we are only licensing any code that belongs to us", the only feasible way it could be used is in an illegal system where it is compiled with code only released under the GPL. If nothing else they are aiding and abetting copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement is not limited to being litigated in civil courts. Copyright infringement is a federal crime with punishment of up to $250,000 AND five years in prison. SCO is knowingly violating the copyright of all other contributors to Linux by attempting to license it for profit.

Can someone point out the fault in this logic:

1. Copyright infringement is a Federal Crime with penalties up to $250,000 and 5 years in jail
2. The only way anyone can distribute code or binaries derived from code licensed only under the GPL is if the entire product and all modifications are licensed under the GPL.
3. SCO is still selling Linux with their source code linked in that is NOT licensed under the GPL (in violation of 2 above)
4. SCO is in violation of copyright law and the company and individuals who came up with this pirating scheme can be held accountable in civil and criminal courts.

IANALBIWLAO (i am not a lawyer but I watch law and order) - There was a case on Law and order where the family of the victim got a lawyer and filed to force the DA to prosecute the person they thought was guilty. Are there any lawyers out there reading Slashdot? Couldn't anyone that has contributed to the Linux kernel sue SCO? Could someone force the DA in Lindon, Utah to bring criminal copyright infringement charges against SCO? What is the jurisdiction, could suit be brought somewhere else? Is anyone interested in starting a fund to do this?

Personally I like:
It's a bit like the scene in Mad Max 2--The Road Warrior, where Mel Gibson and his clan of post-apocalyptic misfits finally get tired of being attacked and decide to turn the tables on The Humongous and his marauding leather-clad baddies.
odd .. Darl McBride does look a bit like the gimp - they had tied to the front of one of their cars .. just dye his hair blonde and put in him one of those skin tight leather S+M outfits

caldera linux faq doesn't seem an unreasonable claim. I've no idea if these libraries are in any distro that I've ever used (I don't think so, if so I didn't realise) but perhaps if they are then SCO have some argument, especially if there are people who actually need these to run some app or other. And yes, I know, this doesn't relate to IBM code but it might be a claim against end-users.

SLASHDOT SCO!

SCO needs a good old-fashoned slashdoting.

Launch an unspecified number of wget processes:

wget ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/OpenLinux3.1/SRPMS/xemac s-21.1.10-15.src.rpm

click here

SCO System V for Linux

Uh... I just ran into this while browsing SCO's site. It seems to contain more vague threats and accusations, to the tune of "everyone using Unix apps under Linux has pirated SCO's libraries."

Does anyone know what this is about?

hmmm, I'm not sure about this at all.

a Ray Noorda company buying Ximian? is this a good thing for the comunity, seeing what another Ray Noorda company is doing to the linux comunity these days?

IBM Lawyers: Mr. Darl McBride, if you'll please follow us to our conference room, we think we've found a solution which will prove beneficial to both parties.

[A few minutes later]
What? Oh, this is just our new office -- modern arco and such. Watch your head.

Yes, just strap yourself in nice and tight. Normal proceedure. We'll be right back, we've got to go fetch our documents.

*door locks*

ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/ Server/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/

It's not as recent as the 2.4.19 kernel they're distributing, but this one does have source code and GPL license included.

I'm horribly sorry if I'm the only one to see a resemblance:

Darl McBridge

Shooter McGavin

I dunno, seems pretty simple to me.
http://www.caldera.com/support/docs/openlinux/eula .html
See section 2c.

And note the date on the file, folks...05/09/2003, 05:51:00 PM. If my memory serves me right, this is from AFTER SCO started their FUD campaign against IBM and Linux.

It's still there.

For some reason I'd thought they named the RPM "kernel" like Red Hat does, so my search for ker* didn't bring up a "linux-2.4..." RPM.

He must be a complete technical incompetent by now. It fits his greasy, steroidal visage. Looks dumb, talks dumb, must be dumb!

Chances are, he saw the line from AIX to AIX PS/2 right next to Linux 0.95 and got confused. "Those evil bastards at IBM have been helping the penguinistas since 1992," he thought, "must destroy them." Oh yeah, he also ignored all the influx of Linux to SCO's junk.

He must be a complete technical incompetent by now. It fits his greasy, steroidal visage. Looks dumb, talks dumb, must be dumb!

Chances are, he saw the line from AIX to AIX PS/2 right next to Linux 0.95 and got confused. "Those evil bastards at IBM have been helping the penguinistas since 1992," he thought, "must destroy them." Oh yeah, he also ignored all the influx of Linux to SCO's junk.

Doesn't mean that those guys can't get into another unix(family)-company (with all the money earned by the increase of stock-value) and start the whole thing again. But maybe you are right, when they are fat and rich (/richer) they probably get something better to do.

Actually, Caldera was a company that knowingly and intentionally released it's code under the GPL. It hired people to work on code with the express intention that the code would be released under the GPL.

Here's one of those employees, Ronald Joe Record. According to his bio "...In 2001 he was purchased by Caldera Systems as part of Caldera's acquisition of the server software division of SCO. In 2002 Caldera changed its name back to SCO. He is currently an Open Source Architect for SCO" ... and ..." author of "Porting Open Source Software to SCO"." He's also a member in good standing of the Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Scientists(TM) .

Nothing wrong with either one of them--it's just a case of each side acting to reduce the risk from a potential adverse outcome. In any case, nothing to get real angry about here--if you're sure SCO's case is a crock, then get on with your life and don't buy the license.

Ok it's pretty ludicrous to think they ever might win this sort of case, against the users that is. But hey, if you want to hedge your bets, I've got a much cheaper way for you to do it. SCO will give you, today, all the code in the linux kernel which they claim title to, at the low cost of $0.00, subject only to the terms of the GNU GPL. Just click this link. It's been months since they claimed to have discovered violations of their IP in this, so there's no way they can claim they were duped and it was hidden from them. So just download it and store it someplace safe. If they ever bother you, you have an airtight license and there's nothing they can do.

This link is not slashdotted yet, what's the problem? I'm getting 40KB/S here!

I guess no one believes SCO after all. Anyone that's thinking about paying their extortion money 'just in case' come on and download the source directly from them, under GPL, and set your mind at ease much more cheaply!

Seriously. If they try to sue you, even if they had a case before they wouldn't anymore once you pointed out that you had received it directly from them, under GPL, long after they supposedly 'discovered' the violations of their IP.

This link is not slashdotted yet, what's the problem? I'm getting 40KB/S here!

I guess no one believes SCO after all. Anyone that's thinking about paying their extortion money 'just in case' come on and download the source directly from them, under GPL, and set your mind at ease much more cheaply!

Seriously. If they try to sue you, even if they had a case before they wouldn't anymore once you pointed out that you had received it directly from them, under GPL, long after they supposedly 'discovered' the violations of their IP.

Didn't find any sources, but there is at least a binary kernel here.

Why spend money on a primary injunction? While some predicted that this may have been a ruse to get bought out, others held to the premise that SCO is on a sinking ship and just wants money. Since the controversy started, their stock price has gone from $1.09 to upwards of $12 per share. Coincidence? Nope; controversy sells.

By spreading FUD and insisting everyone cease and desist without actually seeking an injunction, it seems that the dynamic duo of Sontag and McBride are hoping to make some money without doing any dirty work. However, as was noted before, we have seen the GPL stand up to the legal tests (remember Progress and MySQL fighting over Gemini?). I hope someone eventually nails these guys with a libel suit. They haven't proven anything and they talk about this magical "discovery" phase like the dirty laundry is about to be aired... but it hasn't. As of the time of this post, SCO still has GPL'd Linux up on their FTP: ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/upda tes/SRPMS/. If that's not donation, I don't know what is.

Here is the link. Go nuts.

Here's their current price list. I don't know if their "insurance policy" binary licenses will be priced the same. I suspect they'll be lower, because they're trying to get as many sux0rs to buy into their protection racket as possible.

As a manager, I'd be more likely to bet $200 (for, say, a single-page hold-harmless letter masquerading as a 0-user 0-CPU 0GB UW "license") than I would be to bet $2400 (the current cost of a 25-user dual-CPU 4GB UW7.1.3 license plus media).

"CEO == Business major attractive enough for TV interviews."

No rule without exceptions. McBride of Caldera, er, SCO, looks like a retarded gimp who has had his face smashed by an angry dwarf:

http://www.caldera.com/images/execs/dmcbride_reg.j pg

SCO dont have one yet, they got one in their

SCO Openserver has had multiprocessing for years and years. Are you ignorant, or just making stuff up (lying) to try to make Linux look better?

As a copyright holder, I belive that this criminal conspiracy is illegally distributing my intellectual property in violation of the license.

How do I report this matter to the FBI? What steps can I take to ensure that the software pirate enjoys an extended stay in Federal prison?

Though your analogy would normally be correct, in this case I believe you are mistaken. In this Letter to partners, SCO pretty much says that SCO Linux customers are indemnified, and that they can continue to use the product. How else could you explain this verbatim quote?

"SCO will continue to honor all contractual obligations with existing customers including product updates, service, and support."

Now, the GPL (under which SCO released SCO Linux - even after they announced that Linux supposedly contained their code) does not permit SCO to grant immunity to its customers while denying it to other users of that GPL'ed software. Ergo, it cannot sue Linux users (not that it could, having released the offending code under the GPL in the first place).

COAS
Caldera, a prominent Linux distribution and development company, is developing the Caldera Open Administration System (COAS), to provide a comprehensive and coherent framework for implementation of Linux system administration mechanisms. Among other things, COAS is designed to provide a plug-in framework for administrative-task modules which are written in Python or C++ (or both).

Damn you SCO! Defiler of technology! Damn you to hell!
(For those who don't understand, Caldera is a product of SCO. SCO is the recent bastardizer of Linux. EOF)

It's interesting that SCO is still distributing the linux source code right now.

This matrix is obviously a bit biased, but I do believe that linux will be able to legally continue to exist, no matter what. Even if we find out that someone broke into SCO's vaults and stole trade secret source code and pasted it verbatin into linux, it really should be easy to rewrite that code so that it's not infringing. We could start today if SCO told us what parts were infringing, but of course they don't want that...

One of those companies stole one of my widget subcomponents and without my knowledge incorporated it into their widget, which was subsequently retailed by my company.

How exactly is the retail of the dodgy widget an excuse for the thief?

Well I'd have a little more faith in that argument if they weren't STILL DISTRIBUTING IT!!!

I think the fact that SCO hasn't stopped distributing the code that they know is under the GPL means they've effectively GPL'ed it regardless. That still doesn't clear up the possible issue of IBM breaking their agreement but Linux should be in the clear.

No Java, no JSP man. Simply use PHP for web development.
Forget Java man and go to PHP!

PHP is 4 times faster than Java technology 'JSP' (Java server pages).
This tallies because compiled "C" program is 4 times faster than Java.

Moreover, PHP is getting the object oriented features of Java language.

The real usefulness of Java is 'Java applets' which run on client browsers but on the server side you simply use PHP.

PHP is a very lightening fast object oriented scripting language. PHP is 100% written in "C" and there is no virtual machine as in Java. Nothing can beat "C" language ("C" is a language which never dies!!)

(Java is just another language. The PHP project needs millions of Java programmers who can add the Java's language features like inner classes, static, private, protected and others to PHP. PHP already has some of java' features).
Java programmers will really "LOVE" PHP as PHP class is identical to Java's class keyword.

Read the benchmars of Java JSP and PHP. PHP tops in the speed!!

Read the doc here and mirrors at [1], [2], [3], [4].

try this

Its caldera's c++ portable regex lib.

In redistribution of "SCO Linux" & "OpenLinux," SCO is required to yield IP claims of the whole of their respective distributions, including all improvements upon & contributions to, under terms of the GPL (GPL, Section 2c germain). Specifically, every bit of code used to create their distributions ("SCO Linux" & "OpenLinux") was required to be released under the GPL in order for SCO to legally distribute those distributions. Additionally, if in fact the above software distributions do contain the same IP that they now contest in court as stolen, then SCO's case for contention was invalidated by their very release of said code to the public under terms of the GPL. SCO's provision to their Linux business partners has no bearing on this case. The mere fact that they already yielded IP rights of the code to the GPL when they redistibuted the Linux kernel makes their case a moot point. You can not sue someone for taking something which you already gave them for free.

The court's fact finding phase would reveal whether SCO's release of Linux distributions also contain the contested IP, and if so, mitigate their claims against the Linux community.

Karrick S. McDermott

In addition, new customer sales indicate that there is still no better option for rock-solid, dependable technology for their core businesses than our SCO UNIX solutions.

The source is still on the server, only its location is obfuscated a bit. It seems to me that the move to remove the kernel is just an issue of trying to appear that they've been irreparably damaged. I'd offer to diff from the mainstream kernel myself, but I'm on my laptop which has a tiny, tiny amount of storage space.

1. SCO confirms in this letter that SCO is selling Linux.
2. The GPL sections 6 and 7 seem to restrict use of the GPL if they are affected by (their own) restrictions on GPL-protected tools.
3. The IBM Public License terminates the license if patent litigation takes place.
4. Item #2 in the letter says SCO is suspending sales of Linux.

Well, what SCO Products might be affected by the GPL and IPL?

• SCO OpenServer 5.07 - there are some GNU tools there. (GNU coding standards!)
• Postfix Horde, IMP (SCO doc server down: IMP GPL), in SCOoffice Mail Server [Several SCO Documentation pages have bad LICENSE or COPYRIGHT links].
• (Can't check more products - the SCO documentation server stopped responding to me.)
• RPM is under the GPL.

1. SCO confirms in this letter that SCO is selling Linux.
2. The GPL sections 6 and 7 seem to restrict use of the GPL if they are affected by (their own) restrictions on GPL-protected tools.
3. The IBM Public License terminates the license if patent litigation takes place.
4. Item #2 in the letter says SCO is suspending sales of Linux.

Well, what SCO Products might be affected by the GPL and IPL?

• SCO OpenServer 5.07 - there are some GNU tools there. (GNU coding standards!)
• Postfix Horde, IMP (SCO doc server down: IMP GPL), in SCOoffice Mail Server [Several SCO Documentation pages have bad LICENSE or COPYRIGHT links].
• (Can't check more products - the SCO documentation server stopped responding to me.)
• RPM is under the GPL.

1. SCO confirms in this letter that SCO is selling Linux.
2. The GPL sections 6 and 7 seem to restrict use of the GPL if they are affected by (their own) restrictions on GPL-protected tools.
3. The IBM Public License terminates the license if patent litigation takes place.
4. Item #2 in the letter says SCO is suspending sales of Linux.

Well, what SCO Products might be affected by the GPL and IPL?

• SCO OpenServer 5.07 - there are some GNU tools there. (GNU coding standards!)
• Postfix Horde, IMP (SCO doc server down: IMP GPL), in SCOoffice Mail Server [Several SCO Documentation pages have bad LICENSE or COPYRIGHT links].
• (Can't check more products - the SCO documentation server stopped responding to me.)
• RPM is under the GPL.

1. SCO confirms in this letter that SCO is selling Linux.
2. The GPL sections 6 and 7 seem to restrict use of the GPL if they are affected by (their own) restrictions on GPL-protected tools.
3. The IBM Public License terminates the license if patent litigation takes place.
4. Item #2 in the letter says SCO is suspending sales of Linux.

Well, what SCO Products might be affected by the GPL and IPL?

• SCO OpenServer 5.07 - there are some GNU tools there. (GNU coding standards!)
• Postfix Horde, IMP (SCO doc server down: IMP GPL), in SCOoffice Mail Server [Several SCO Documentation pages have bad LICENSE or COPYRIGHT links].
• (Can't check more products - the SCO documentation server stopped responding to me.)
• RPM is under the GPL.

1. SCO confirms in this letter that SCO is selling Linux.
2. The GPL sections 6 and 7 seem to restrict use of the GPL if they are affected by (their own) restrictions on GPL-protected tools.
3. The IBM Public License terminates the license if patent litigation takes place.
4. Item #2 in the letter says SCO is suspending sales of Linux.

Well, what SCO Products might be affected by the GPL and IPL?

• SCO OpenServer 5.07 - there are some GNU tools there. (GNU coding standards!)
• Postfix Horde, IMP (SCO doc server down: IMP GPL), in SCOoffice Mail Server [Several SCO Documentation pages have bad LICENSE or COPYRIGHT links].
• (Can't check more products - the SCO documentation server stopped responding to me.)
• RPM is under the GPL.

1. SCO confirms in this letter that SCO is selling Linux.
2. The GPL sections 6 and 7 seem to restrict use of the GPL if they are affected by (their own) restrictions on GPL-protected tools.
3. The IBM Public License terminates the license if patent litigation takes place.
4. Item #2 in the letter says SCO is suspending sales of Linux.

Well, what SCO Products might be affected by the GPL and IPL?

• SCO OpenServer 5.07 - there are some GNU tools there. (GNU coding standards!)
• Postfix Horde, IMP (SCO doc server down: IMP GPL), in SCOoffice Mail Server [Several SCO Documentation pages have bad LICENSE or COPYRIGHT links].
• (Can't check more products - the SCO documentation server stopped responding to me.)
• RPM is under the GPL.

A quick browse of SCO's website reveals this page promoting "United Linux"

"United Linux is an enterprise-grade Linux with real-world power."

From another page on SCO's website: "The UnitedLinux initiative has full support from industry companies such as AMD, Borland Software Corporation, Computer Associates, Fujitsu Siemens, Fujitsu, Hewlett-Packard, IBM , Intel, NEC, Progress Software, and SAP".

Sounds to me like bashing Linux may be a little counterproductive. :0)

A quick browse of SCO's website reveals this page promoting "United Linux"

"United Linux is an enterprise-grade Linux with real-world power."

From another page on SCO's website: "The UnitedLinux initiative has full support from industry companies such as AMD, Borland Software Corporation, Computer Associates, Fujitsu Siemens, Fujitsu, Hewlett-Packard, IBM , Intel, NEC, Progress Software, and SAP".

Sounds to me like bashing Linux may be a little counterproductive. :0)

Ahh standard /. . You know very little yet you post anyway.

I admit I am not omniscient. Apologies for trying to improve my knowledge of the situation by asking for information rather than doing the noble thing and festering in my own ignorance. However, after having now discovered who Canopy are I don't see how it invalidates any of the points in my post.

SCO is not fighting Linux

Then why are they creating signs equating Linux with piracy/Nazism/Communism etc.? Why this page? Why the constant threats against Linux users? The whole mess is about alleged SCO IP in Linux code in case you weren't paying attention.