Slashdot Mirror

And apparently easy to attend. 64 seats, less than 20 attendees. Considering that when I applied I went to a waiting list, I was expecting a higher turnout ... it may be worth putting yourself on the list for future stops of the show ...

Grandest cheese at the presentation was VP of Marketing, Jeff Hunsaker. He started out with an hour the company's report card & backgrounder. Here's the view of SCO painted: 330 employees, 2+ million deployed units (no mention of OS breakdown - would be interesting to see what % of that is Caldera Linux), target market is small-ish business. Reference accounts seem to be franchised fast food & drug oriented. Think Pizza Hut & Wallgreens (Arnold Clarke & Argos were UK references, Shoppers Drug thrown in for us Canuks). Nothing IT-intensive. Avaya & Lucent were mentioned on the laundry list, however no detail was given, and I cannot imagine descendants of AT&T paying too much to some guys in Utah for hideous product (searches on their sites for SCO only brings mention of their "Special Customer Operations" group).

Oddly enough, market cap & stock price were mentioned extensively (who'd have thought?). Reference was made to using their capitalization as a means of acquisition; however no details were given (assuming there were any details to give). The fabled '2 quarters of profitability' was also mentioned. The name Caldera was dragged through the dirt, as they were never profitable. From the slides you'd think SCO had roots much, much deeper than the MS Xenix junk they spawned from. In fact, the analogy they whip out is that of Harley-Davidson (HD was purchased by AMF, went to hell, then arose re-branded as the mega-label you know today). I refrained from pointing out that pre/post-AMF Harley produced respected product, and did not send threatening letters to Yamaha owners ...

Mention of the legal battle? Nothing technical. Representatives were up-front about their lack of legal knowledge, and inability to comment. It never got past the mud-slinging stage. Same old, same old. Their interest is in protecting their IP. This is about a breach of contract. Linux 2.4 code review shows Monterrey-esqe code relating to memory-access that must have come from AIX 5L. Caldera Linux customers are indemnified against legal action. Blah blah blah.

Interesting bits?

Their definition of IP (I've never seen a formal definition, and so some of the things on the list amused mildly): Copyright, Contracts, Methods, Trade Secrets, and Know-how (Know-how? How about "stuff we have" - can that be a IP subject too?). Their mention of McBride making some soon-to-be-published "top 5 influential executives list" (that'll be a keeper of an article). And heavy mention of HP's support. Reference was made to their web site removing their logo, however they emphatically associate SCOs current operations and HP's approval. Nothing to substantiate, however.

Really interesting bits?

The crowd. I was expecting Linux zealots. It was mostly a room full of SCO resellers. And they were not too big on having a love in. Nothing hostile, however not one positive comment for the morning's session. During the "we be so profitable" section of the spiel, one reseller in the crowd aske

Why is SGI trying to comply with SCO if these supposed code segments are "trivial" and why is SCO trying not to cooperate with SGI? Maybe SCO doesn't care about the code while SGI (knowing SCO would deny this good gesture ahead of time) is trying to add more evidence to a pump-n-dump case.

Meanwhile, hundreds of miles away, no one comes out of SCO HQ to greet Monninkhof. So I started wondering, is this a matter of mistreating their business partner or not enough employees to come outside? I suspect that there's less than the 339 employees they claim. Laying off a dozen or so could probably pay off the legal fees and spins for the press since july. And who honestly keeps a counter of their employment on a web page? I'm having visions of those counters on the bottom of ebay auctions: "Free Employment counters and Services from Andale." Looking at their site: "There are currently no job openings at SCO," and the history of SCO stops at 2002. Hmm...Their site also doesn't list any new beta software and no announcements that there will be, so are they even still developing? And on what?

But, there's still 25 days to the end of the "SCO year" and their "SCO IP license for Linux" offer ends in 9 days. I'm feeling pretty lucky, so I'm going to predict at least 12 SCO stories to hit slashdot headlines by Oct.31. Place your bets.

Why is SGI trying to comply with SCO if these supposed code segments are "trivial" and why is SCO trying not to cooperate with SGI? Maybe SCO doesn't care about the code while SGI (knowing SCO would deny this good gesture ahead of time) is trying to add more evidence to a pump-n-dump case.

Meanwhile, hundreds of miles away, no one comes out of SCO HQ to greet Monninkhof. So I started wondering, is this a matter of mistreating their business partner or not enough employees to come outside? I suspect that there's less than the 339 employees they claim. Laying off a dozen or so could probably pay off the legal fees and spins for the press since july. And who honestly keeps a counter of their employment on a web page? I'm having visions of those counters on the bottom of ebay auctions: "Free Employment counters and Services from Andale." Looking at their site: "There are currently no job openings at SCO," and the history of SCO stops at 2002. Hmm...Their site also doesn't list any new beta software and no announcements that there will be, so are they even still developing? And on what?

But, there's still 25 days to the end of the "SCO year" and their "SCO IP license for Linux" offer ends in 9 days. I'm feeling pretty lucky, so I'm going to predict at least 12 SCO stories to hit slashdot headlines by Oct.31. Place your bets.

I need glasses...

That means that we're going to have a bigger, badder SiteFinder pretty soon, right?


We could find: "www.gnu.org"
There is a Web site at this address.

Are you sure? (*) No ( ) Yes [SUMBIT]

Did You Mean ?
We did find these similar Web addresses.

www.sun.com
www.microsoft.com
www.sco.com

"And in the battle of public opinion, you can't beat the 500 pound elephant willing to lie."

You mean this elephant?

Don't worry this elephant will take care of that.

SCO is entitled to $699 for every 16 CPU's and 4 modules of ram machine running the linux operating system. If you type 'hostid' at the prompt, it will serialize your computer machine. Copy the output, along with your name, address, phone number, social security number, and email address, and email it to sales@sco.com.

SCO is entitled to $699 for every 16 CPU's and 4 modules of ram machine running the linux operating system. If you type 'hostid' at the prompt, it will serialize your computer machine. Copy the output, along with your name, address, phone number, social security number, and email address, and email it to sales@sco.com.

I visited the SCO Roadshow page but could not see any reference to HP on there. It refers to Microlite as sponsors.
I also found the place where you can email HP CEO Carly Fiorino, but decided to confirm HP's involvement with SCO in general but the Roadshow in particular before letting rip at HP.

So, can anyone put HP together with SCO Roadshow?

Note the HP logo has wanished since /. posted this

Let's all register for free, and take those limited seats.

The SCO page says its sponsered by Microlite, which appears to be backup solutions for SCO products (and Linux).

Doesn't everyone remember that HP was the main sponser of the SCO 2003 forum in Las Vegas, but they backed out because of the SCO linux licensing. You can read about it here.

A post further down says the page about the roadshow on the SCO site no longer mentions HP. Instead, it says the sponsor is a company called Microlite, whom I'd never heard of before today. From a cursory glance around their site, it appears they do backup systems for UNIX and Linux. I'd suggest letting them know how you feel about their sponsorship of these events, but they mention some SCO products by name, so presumably, they already have some idea of the kind of people they're dealing with...

Why, Darl McBride of course!

Or here too.

Grocklaw has Two different articles on the IBM countersuit. The first one has a pointer to the counterclaim pdf (apparently on the SCO site). The second describes what they've done differently.

IBM is definitely seeking (an) injunction(s) against SCO. Reading the new counterclaim, I don't see any signs that they're seeking a preliminary injunction. I don't know that this necessarily precludes their filing for a preliminary injunction. The motion for a preliminary injunction would be a separate act.

But it's posted here so it'll show up in your comments page as a reply.

The document you are looking for is here. [pdf link]

The new complaint allegedly asks for declaratory judgment, which I presume would cover the whole she-bang, in which case the GPL would not get to go to court, no?.

The funny thing is that SCO actually did it themselves this time. It's here at their IBM lawsuit web page (which they had't updated since June).

Enjoy!

The funny thing is that SCO actually did it themselves this time. It's here at their IBM lawsuit web page (which they had't updated since June).

Enjoy!

Yeah, it sure would stink if they somehow got slashdotted.

Yeah, it sure would stink if they somehow got slashdotted.

Yeah, it sure would stink if they somehow got slashdotted.

Yeah, it sure would stink if they somehow got slashdotted.

Yeah, it sure would stink if they somehow got slashdotted.

Yeah, it sure would stink if they somehow got slashdotted.

Yeah, it sure would stink if they somehow got slashdotted.

Yeah, it sure would stink if they somehow got slashdotted.

Yeah, it sure would stink if they somehow got slashdotted.

Yeah, it sure would stink if they somehow got slashdotted.

I understand that SCO claims that these trees are actually branches of their UNIX tree and anyone that grows one of these will have to pay a $699 fee, except in Australia...

Is it just me, or does SCO's logic in interpreting this pedigree (unixhistory01.html) imply that BSD's shared heritage with OpenServer have significance? Does SCO mean to suggest that they own BSD as well?

Original UNIX history chart created by Eric Levenez. Copyright (C) 1996-2003, Eric Levenez. January 2, 2003. Used with permission.

SCO's graph asserts that the Linux codebase evolved out of Minix. That's where the dotted green line becomes a solid green line.

Unfortunately for SCO, that's not correct. Linus used Minix as his operating system during some of the early work on Linux and he even used some of their file structures, but none of the Minix codebase was incorporated into Linux.

The UNIX History graph that's based on does not show a strict flow of property nor even a comprehensive flow of ideas. It merely shows the general direction that the development of unix-related systems took.

Sorry if someone already posted this... I didn't see it in my skimming. It took me a while to find the exact press release, but here it is: http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1157 25

SCO Media Statement Re IBM Counterclaims
LINDON, Utah, Aug 07, 2003 -- We view IBM's counterclaim filing today as an effort to distract attention from its flawed Linux business model. It repeats the same unsubstantiated allegations made in Red Hat's filing earlier this week. If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license. As the stakes continue to rise in the Linux battles, it becomes increasingly clear that the core issue is bigger than SCO (Nasdaq: SCOX), Red Hat, or even IBM. The core issue is about the value of intellectual property in an Internet age. In a strange alliance, IBM and the Free Software Foundation have lined up on the same side of this argument in support of the GPL. IBM urges its customers to use non- warranted, unprotected software. This software violates SCO's intellectual property rights in UNIX, and fails to give comfort to customers going forward in use of Linux. If IBM wants customers to accept the GPL risk, it should indemnify them against that risk. The continuing refusal to provide customer indemnification is IBM's truest measure of belief in its recently filed claims.
Regarding Patent Accusations
SCO has shipped these products for many years, in some cases for nearly two decades, and this is the first time that IBM has ever raised an issue about patent infringement in these products.
Furthermore, these claims were not raised in IBM's original answer.
SCO reiterates its position that it intends to defend its intellectual property rights. SCO will remain on course to require customers to license infringing Linux implementations as a condition of further use. This is the best and clearest course for customers to minimize Linux problems.

Still... more stock... to unload...

Amazing how they can try to put a good spin on this based on what HP actually said in the article.

SCO is going on a tour to various US cities. How could you NOT register and attend this event, and ask them to explain their position in person?

http://www.sco.com/partners/city_to_city/oct2003/

spamthistohelpusout@someresearchcompany.com

Bah. 'Tis nothing. I can show you a company, a government and a religion all powered by nutjobs. Just for starters.

The only IP that SCO has is 216.250.128.12.

Informative, yet not particularly helpful.

I can't speak for the folks in the .mil area, though I know quite a few that have went into companies like Mitre after leaving the service. I got picked up right out of college into .gov,--- things were definitely behind the times. AOS/VS on the servers and MS-DOS at the desktop. I worked as a sysadmin through SCO Unix, Win3.11, NT4.0 and Exchange 5.5. Over the first six years I saw around 40+ states of the US, as well as Guam, Saipan and Japan - a good road trip all on the taxpayers dime. At the same time, the pay was good at the end but looooow for the first couple years. The last two have been the best as we are all Windows 2000/ XP on Dell desktops and a mix of Netware, Wintel, Solaris and yes, some Red Hat on the server side. Some of the stuff about .gov IT is true, laziness, lack of security, blah, blah, blah. I am in my mid 30s (the youngest on an IT staff of seven) but trying to improve the situation for my end users and they see that. Compared to the sysadmin that left that was in his 50s and read the newspaper all day- I am the man. You won't get rich doing .gov IT, but it is stable and can be rewarding.

.

Didn't they claim to have already sold some Linux Licenses not to long ago to a comapny who couldn't be named due to confidentiality provisions? (Fortune 500 Licensee Acquires SCO UNIX License for Concurrent Run-Time Use of Linux)

In this report they claim that the only Licenses they sold were to MS and Sun... and they weren't for Linux.

Either (a) they were signed up between Aug 1 and Aug 11 or (b) they didn't pay that much ;).

Who is the biggest bitch?

If they win that suit [against IBM], there are no consequences for anybody but IBM.

And how do you explain the need to license your kernel ?

Phreidom,

My apologies, I thought I was discussing the issue with someone who had already done the research.

The Sequent contracts are available at SCO's website as Exhibits F & G. the URLS are

http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit/exhibitf.pdf

and

http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit/exhibitg.pdf

"...the details of Sequent's contract are not known publicly, yet"

Well, they are actually, as referenced above. At the least they are known as far as the courts know them and these are the documents SCO intends to rest its case on.

They are basically identical to the first two licenses that IBM signed with ATT, Exhibits A & B, at the same site. Sequent did not have an additional license such as IBM's sideletter agreement, but as part of a clarification request from Berkely, ATT sent out letters to all the System V licensees, in the mid-late 80's I believe, granting them all "ownership of derivative works created by or for them". Essentially the same wording as section 2 of IBM's sideletter agreement.

Sequent signed it's license with ATT in '85 and would have been one of the recipients of this letter, which SCO interestingly enough, has not included amongst its submitted evidentiary exhibits.

So, Sequent had the same rights to its own derivative work as IBM, despite not having a sideletter agreement.

"Until you know what that contract says, you would be foolish to dismiss this issue as moot."

Well, seeing as SCO has submitted two contracts with Sequent to the courts, and that I've read them, I think that the conditions you've set for me being foolish to regard the issue as moot have been over-ridden. You may argue that we don't know yet whether SCO has other contracts to refute these points, and my response would be that neither do the courts, since they evidently haven't been submitted as exhibits.

"So are you saying that rights Sequent did not have were transferred to IBM when Sequent was purchased?"

Ah. Now I get it: you're a troll. That's a really twisted way of interpreting my argument. What I am saying is that even if Sequent hadn't already rec'd those rights from ATT, Sequent would have inherited the IBM's rights when it was incorporated int IBM's corporate structure.

Please don't bother us again with you're "insights" until you've actually read the contracts.

Phreidom,

My apologies, I thought I was discussing the issue with someone who had already done the research.

The Sequent contracts are available at SCO's website as Exhibits F & G. the URLS are

http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit/exhibitf.pdf

and

http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit/exhibitg.pdf

"...the details of Sequent's contract are not known publicly, yet"

Well, they are actually, as referenced above. At the least they are known as far as the courts know them and these are the documents SCO intends to rest its case on.

They are basically identical to the first two licenses that IBM signed with ATT, Exhibits A & B, at the same site. Sequent did not have an additional license such as IBM's sideletter agreement, but as part of a clarification request from Berkely, ATT sent out letters to all the System V licensees, in the mid-late 80's I believe, granting them all "ownership of derivative works created by or for them". Essentially the same wording as section 2 of IBM's sideletter agreement.

Sequent signed it's license with ATT in '85 and would have been one of the recipients of this letter, which SCO interestingly enough, has not included amongst its submitted evidentiary exhibits.

So, Sequent had the same rights to its own derivative work as IBM, despite not having a sideletter agreement.

"Until you know what that contract says, you would be foolish to dismiss this issue as moot."

Well, seeing as SCO has submitted two contracts with Sequent to the courts, and that I've read them, I think that the conditions you've set for me being foolish to regard the issue as moot have been over-ridden. You may argue that we don't know yet whether SCO has other contracts to refute these points, and my response would be that neither do the courts, since they evidently haven't been submitted as exhibits.

"So are you saying that rights Sequent did not have were transferred to IBM when Sequent was purchased?"

Ah. Now I get it: you're a troll. That's a really twisted way of interpreting my argument. What I am saying is that even if Sequent hadn't already rec'd those rights from ATT, Sequent would have inherited the IBM's rights when it was incorporated int IBM's corporate structure.

Please don't bother us again with you're "insights" until you've actually read the contracts.

SCO in their home page is displaying the UNIX System Development Timeline with is a very pretty Linux historic tree
Here
What I found is that there is not Line derivated from SCO OS code to Linux 2.4 as they are affirming in their own FAQ. But what is more interesting is that there is a Line from Linux code to Unixware just before the inscription \"Linux 2.4.0 Test 12\". If their own page is showing proofs that they are lying, what McBribe is doing is Fraud. And the stock owner of fiaSCO must put him and accomplices at jail.

That some clueless noob at SCO was tasked with finding way to sploit their copy rights, discovered the OpenLinux SRPMS on their ftp server, decided that must mean that SCO owns all that source, and then declared the same source in the linux kernel as being infringing? 'Cause, you know, some clueless noob at IBM must have put it there, or something.

It sounds crazy, but it makes more sense than starting from the assumption that SCO really aren't disclosing the source simply so that we can't "launder" the kernel before SCO can get it to court.