Slashdot Mirror

That the GPL is illegal, SCO said so!
That Linus guy is probably a terrorist or something ;)

While the front page article looks like some one just felt the need to show the caldera icon once more there seem to be interesting things happening at SCO, apparently some of the investors are not that happy with the current state of events:

SCO Finalizes Agreements With Investors and Law Firms

and...

Santa Claus Operation

A new look for SCO - not supreme but funny enough to take a look.
sco_christmas

How to crack a (user) account with a 386SX machine in 5 minutes... :-)

Mail to: cluelessstudent@uni.edu
From (spoofed): sysadmin@uni.edu
Reply-to: (some obscure e-mail address - preferably not hotmail or yahoo, because of possible limitations on the degree of cluelessness of the target student)

Text: "Your account has been compromised. Ugly gruesome child porn trading, nuclear weapon smuggling, MP3 downloading, Al Qaeda financed Elbonian hackers have exploited the nfs system to remotely mount the storage device containing the shadow password file(BOFH DRONE MODE ON for a few lines). Please change your password to "12345678" AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Failure to do so may result in widespread damage to the computers, exclusion from university, seven-digits fines, lifelong emprisonment and various kind of gory sexual diseases."

Plus details about how to change their password.

Obviously the problem with this attack is that it can not be used as a root exploit (well except maybe in some specific organizations...)

Technologies come and go. Social engineering remains. Never underestimate the power of Mighty Cluelessness.

So how does this affect hardware developers? I mean come on, are they subject to the same constraints as typical kernel developers? The main proble, as I believe Linux was trying to outline in the article, is that using any sort of licensing scheme will result in some unexpected difficulties. if you go here you will find just the sort of licensing predicament we can expect from now on.

Perhaps we can all post links like Fraud similar to the Miserable Failure project.

Checking SCO site, I couldn't find anything regarding the new 2.6 kernel, so I guess no additional fees are charged over the 2.4 kernel, you can upgrade guys with no worries.

So you take Newsforge as the true text of the letter, while Darl has his own version of his own letter. Who do we believe? Is it Darl's propaganda...or (gasp!) Newsforge's? And how can we prove it? This is why I hate the Internet sometimes; an astronomical amount of storage space, yet a very weak memory.

• NUMA - Non-Uniform Memory Access
• RCU--Read Copy Update
• JFS--The Journal File System

for the life of me, I can't remember -when- these items became apart of the Unix Canon

a few weeks ago, they had listed a claim that using shared libraries to emulated Unix functionality depended on technology for which they held a license. I don't recall if the BSD implementation used shared libraries, or if was developed as part of SYSV. SCO can't claim any of the tcp/ip code as an infringment, as that code was written by the BSD people independent of the standard AT&T Unix source base

I particularly like this part of their site: (UnitedLinux FAQ), question 9. Apparently, at least part of SCO approves of how the Linux copyleft system works, since they are part of UnitedLinux and claim to be willing to release the sources for free download.

But you are right, on SCO's site the "open source advocates" do not apear.

Ladies and gentlemen, I hereby moderate this truly brilliant open letter as Score:5, Troll. Bravo, Mr. McBride. You won. We all HBT. HAND.

How can global warming have stopped when McBride is still spouting so much hot air?

--
I'll go back to sleep now, or maybe work someone choose for me

...but there's always DarlCam.

In their FAQ about buying a license, question 45 recognizes the AT&T-Berkeley settlement:

I am running BSD. Am I required to purchase a license?
No, you do not need to purchase a SCO IP license to run BSD.

The transcript got the URL wrong http://www.sco.com/scosource/

http://www.sco.com/scosource/

Spell it correctly and it works.
http://www.sco.com/scosource/

Add a trailing slash and it works
http://www.sco.com/scoscource/

I've got a Honda Civic I am willing to trade for 10 SCO licenses. The car runs fine, economic, 1989, 4 wheel drive, windshield is missing, no front left tire.

Forgive me for plagiarizing you, but that just got pasted into scox's feedback form and sent about 100 times...

Not that I would encourage others to do the same, nor would I encourage anybody to do it with a subject line like "Mormons are FAGS!!!" or "Darl McBride is a Gay Nigger!!"

Go check out the picture of McBride on SCO's main page. How can you take a CEO seriously when he wears a suit jacket over a t-shirt?

We were talking about ordinary businesses, not the Mafia.


Wait, there's a difference?

Daniel

In Search of Stupidity

Your search is over.

No news here if you've been keeping up the story on /.

Well, actually if you've been following the case only by keeping up with /., you would think SCO was at risk simply because they were the Evil Empire, and everyone knows that the rebels blow up their death star in the end

This analysis points out that SCO might be at risk for the much more realistic reason: by the numbers, a law firm will now dictate its business agenda.

But what I can't figure out is why they think SCO is a software company . . .

Uh, maybe because they sell software?

After reading the article I wondered if they had any software job openings posted on their website, take a look at the one Software Engineer job they have open.

hear (and see) the monkey speak

Hear (and see) the monkey talk

The are hinting at a lawsuit against BSD...but say that BSD is clear on the linux ip license faq.
Just look at the last question.

Yes. Conform! Consume! Obey!

*sigh* life on /. is tough as a newbie who cant type..

We rely on our indirect sales channel for distribution of our products, and any disruption of our channel at any level could adversely affect the sales of our products.

We have to get a list of SCO's customers first. But we can start with McDonald's

Novell sold rights to SCO. SCO teamed up with SuSE through United Linux to bring Linux to the masses. Novell buys SCO's United Linux Partner so they can bring Linux to even more of the masses and therefore must be sued for competing with SCO. How can you be a competitor when you're in a partnership?

Sound familiar?

Ever since the trademark was assigned to Linus in the aftermath of that event, he has not withheld use of the trademarked name Linux from anyone referring to the Open Source OS. However, it is within his rights to do so.

Even SCO's legal disclaimers page acknowledges Linus as the owner the Linux trademark.

I think legal harassment of Open Source volunteers is a valid criteria to revoke permissions to use the Linux trademark.

SCO may have genuine IP claims on code which has found its way into Linux. Does no one think that they are at least entitled to have their side of the argument heard?

I think some of the strongest arguments that IBM has are (1) the existance of the side memo that lets them off the hook, if that memo exists (big companies misplace legal documents -- it's entirely possible that SCO could have bought the contract and never been given a copy of such a side agreement),

SCO gets no help here. The side letter was given by SCO as an Exhibit C to their original complaint against IBM. Ammendment X was given as Exhibit D. SCO clearly knew about the modifications to their licensing agreement with IBM since they launched the suit. They are, contrary to all reason, trying to repudiate those modifications to the agreement, but they certainly can't claim lack of knowledge or fabrication on the part of IBM.

I think some of the strongest arguments that IBM has are (1) the existance of the side memo that lets them off the hook, if that memo exists (big companies misplace legal documents -- it's entirely possible that SCO could have bought the contract and never been given a copy of such a side agreement),

SCO gets no help here. The side letter was given by SCO as an Exhibit C to their original complaint against IBM. Ammendment X was given as Exhibit D. SCO clearly knew about the modifications to their licensing agreement with IBM since they launched the suit. They are, contrary to all reason, trying to repudiate those modifications to the agreement, but they certainly can't claim lack of knowledge or fabrication on the part of IBM.

Robot Name: Darl McBride
Robot Link: Darl McBride

Reason:Darl McBride should be considered for induction to the Robot Hall of Fame for his wonderful example of autonomous operation in the face of outstanding obstacles. If placed in the same position, any lesser robot would seg fault and dump core, but not Darl. He fearlessly plugs away at his thankless job, pressing the PR button. Hopefully, the twillight of solid-state death will not come to this robot too soon, and when it does, may it come suddenly, like a fast-burning fuse popping. Until such time, let's raise our soldiering irons to this icon -nay, this paragon of robotic execution that is Darl Mc Bride and immortalize him in the Robot Hall of Fame.

Thank you.

Now that is a very interesting number indeed!
And I think it sends a very powerful message to all those businesses out there that are succumbing to the SCO FUD (hey can we shorten that to SCUD!). IBM are basically putting their money where they're mouth is to show their confidence in the future of Linux. Nice one.

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.

And again, and again..
Nothing illegal about that..

THAT is a violation of the GPL

Hilarious. Here's a link to the largest file in the directory, I suggest everyone download it once or twice for off-site archival purposes. And I do mean everyone. http://linuxupdate.sco.com/scolinux/SRPMS/ldp-2001 0328-4.src.rpm

Substring search, baby.

Sebastian

Err, are we meant to be able to download from their 'password restricted download site' ?

If you just dont enter a username or password you can get at everything. whats going on there?

Serving up html is one thing do a full phrase seach is another

Mirror Here!
Er, is this a bad place to start karma whoring?

It's not online. You have to get it from a sales rep or call their number to get it

(from: http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicense.html)

1) I can download Caldera OpenLinux ISO images from here.
2) The SCO "register to access downloads" feature is a bunch of crap. Wander on over to Caldera's FTP site and download the source RPMs at will, the legal notice notwithstanding.

So, what happens if I install OpenLinux 3.1.1 workstation on my box at home (it is free and I have a spare machine I'm not using) and SCO closes the Caldera website down? If I go to SCO and say I need the sources, they ask "Are you a Caldera customer, I say, 'No, I am using a free downloaded version of OpenLinux 3.1.1' and they reply "You need to buy a SCO Linux License.", I think I have the grounds at that point to sue them for violation of the GPL's terms of distribution since they cannot deny me the sources on a product they distributed just because I didn't buy it.

Also, here is a fun page on SCO's own website OpenLinux Supplemental Open Source Software. Hmm, does IBM need some more ammunition provided by SCO themselves?

28. SCO accepted the terms of the GPL by modifying and distributing Linux products. By distributing Linux products under the GPL, SCO agreed, among other things, not to assert -- indeed, it is prohibited from asserting -- certain proprietary rights over any programs distributed by SCO under the terms of the GPL. SCO also agreed not to restrict further distribution of any programs distributed by SCO under the terms of the GPL.

The response from SCO's lawyers in their answer to IBM's counterclaim:

28. Denies the allegations of [paragraph] 28.

Link to http://www.sco.com/products/linux/ from their homepage, returns a 403:

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /products/linux/ on this server.

Well feh.