Slashdot Mirror

• http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

Stockholders in any of the affected companies - either SCO or its competitors - may wish to avail themselves of the Security and Exchange Commission's Investor Complaint Form to ask that something be done about this. You may not even be aware that you have standing to complain: if you invest in any mutual funds that hold shares in SCO, IBM, Red Hat or any other company that offers Linux products or services, then you have a right to ask the SEC to investigate. Check with your mutual fund to fund out which securities are in its portfolio.

Thanks for your help.

• http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

Stockholders in any of the affected companies - either SCO or its competitors - may wish to avail themselves of the Security and Exchange Commission's Investor Complaint Form to ask that something be done about this. You may not even be aware that you have standing to complain: if you invest in any mutual funds that hold shares in SCO, IBM, Red Hat or any other company that offers Linux products or services, then you have a right to ask the SEC to investigate. Check with your mutual fund to fund out which securities are in its portfolio.

Thanks for your help.

Let's start with the windowing environment, since that is the first thing users will notice. While both KDE and GNOME are mature, stable, and accepted as IEEE standards, Apple has elected to use neither. In fact, they don't even use X at all! Their display system is a proprietary, closed-source system called Quartz Extreme. In addition to the moral issues involved with closed software, this precludes the user from running X apps. There is an untested and alpha-quality X11 emulation layer available for download, but it is emulation, so programs will be slow. Does this sound like a standards-based system to you?

Looking under the hood, it gets worse. While all other *nixes use standard ELF binaries, Darwin (Apple's name for their proprietary "Unix" kernel) does not. It uses Mach-O, an unproven format that is proprietary to Apple. The moribund FreeBSD, off which OS X is based, uses ELF, so clearly Apple went to the extra effort of "switching" (heh) simply to break compatibility. With ELF, users would be able to run most of their Lunix apps; with Mach-O this is impossible. Additionally, Apple has moved most configuration info fromhuman readable text files into a proprietary database called "NetInfo", which is much like the Windows registry we all loathe. Why? These are only a few of the ways that Apple has deliberately broken compatibility with other systems, presumably in order to lock users in to expensive Mac hardware.

When we factor in the threat to users' civil liberties that is posed by the DRM included to support the iTunes Music Store (do you really think it will end there?) it is obvious that real *nix gurus should give OS X a wide berth. Caveat emptor.

Let's start with the windowing environment, since that is the first thing users will notice. While both KDE and GNOME are mature, stable, and accepted as IEEE standards, Apple has elected to use neither. In fact, they don't even use X at all! Their display system is a proprietary, closed-source system called Quartz Extreme. In addition to the moral issues involved with closed software, this precludes the user from running X apps. There is an untested and alpha-quality X11 emulation layer available for download, but it is emulation, so programs will be slow. Does this sound like a standards-based system to you?

Looking under the hood, it gets worse. While all other *nixes use standard ELF binaries, Darwin (Apple's name for their proprietary "Unix" kernel) does not. It uses Mach-O, an unproven format that is proprietary to Apple. The moribund FreeBSD, off which OS X is based, uses ELF, so clearly Apple went to the extra effort of "switching" (heh) simply to break compatibility. With ELF, users would be able to run most of their Lunix apps; with Mach-O this is impossible. Additionally, Apple has moved most configuration info fromhuman readable text files into a proprietary database called "NetInfo", which is much like the Windows registry we all loathe. Why? These are only a few of the ways that Apple has deliberately broken compatibility with other systems, presumably in order to lock users in to expensive Mac hardware.

When we factor in the threat to users' civil liberties that is posed by the DRM included to support the iTunes Music Store (do you really think it will end there?) it is obvious that real *nix gurus should give OS X a wide berth. Caveat emptor.

Order your penis enlargement pills now at SCO ! They're only 699$. If you bought pills from other companies, you still have to pay because your penis contains SCO patented technology.

Let's start with the windowing environment, since that is the first thing users will notice. While both KDE and GNOME are mature, stable, and accepted as IEEE standards, Apple has elected to use neither. In fact, they don't even use X at all! Their display system is a proprietary, closed-source system called Quartz Extreme. In addition to the moral issues involved with closed software, this precludes the user from running X apps. There is an untested and alpha-quality X11 emulation layer available for download, but it is emulation, so programs will be slow. Does this sound like a standards-based system to you?

Looking under the hood, it gets worse. While all other *nixes use standard ELF binaries, Darwin (Apple's name for their proprietary "Unix" kernel) does not. It uses Mach-O, an unproven format that is proprietary to Apple. The moribund FreeBSD, off which OS X is based, uses ELF, so clearly Apple went to the extra effort of "switching" (heh) simply to break compatibility. With ELF, users would be able to run most of their Lunix apps; with Mach-O this is impossible. Additionally, Apple has moved most configuration info fromhuman readable text files into a proprietary database called "NetInfo", which is much like the Windows registry we all loathe. Why? These are only a few of the ways that Apple has deliberately broken compatibility with other systems, presumably in order to lock users in to expensive Mac hardware.

When we factor in the threat to users' civil liberties that is posed by the DRM included to support the iTunes Music Store (do you really think it will end there?) it is obvious that real *nix gurus should give OS X a wide berth. Caveat emptor.

Let's start with the windowing environment, since that is the first thing users will notice. While both KDE and GNOME are mature, stable, and accepted as IEEE standards, Apple has elected to use neither. In fact, they don't even use X at all! Their display system is a proprietary, closed-source system called Quartz Extreme. In addition to the moral issues involved with closed software, this precludes the user from running X apps. There is an untested and alpha-quality X11 emulation layer available for download, but it is emulation, so programs will be slow. Does this sound like a standards-based system to you?

Looking under the hood, it gets worse. While all other *nixes use standard ELF binaries, Darwin (Apple's name for their proprietary "Unix" kernel) does not. It uses Mach-O, an unproven format that is proprietary to Apple. The moribund FreeBSD, off which OS X is based, uses ELF, so clearly Apple went to the extra effort of "switching" (heh) simply to break compatibility. With ELF, users would be able to run most of their Lunix apps; with Mach-O this is impossible. Additionally, Apple has moved most configuration info fromhuman readable text files into a proprietary database called "NetInfo", which is much like the Windows registry we all loathe. Why? These are only a few of the ways that Apple has deliberately broken compatibility with other systems, presumably in order to lock users in to expensive Mac hardware.

When we factor in the threat to users' civil liberties that is posed by the DRM included to support the iTunes Music Store (do you really think it will end there?) it is obvious that real *nix gurus should give OS X a wide berth. Caveat emptor.

• http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

Thanks for your help.

• http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

Thanks for your help.

• http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

Thanks for your help.

1) RTFM
2) STFW
3) Learn gnu/english
4) Suck Havoc penningtons "HIG"
5) Recompile your Kernel
6> type cowsay I am leet and post output to slashdot.
7) Install potato
8) ???
9) GNU/PROFIT!

ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/scolinux/Legal_Notice contains:

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.

The fact that they continue to distribute GPL'ed code containing their own changes means they must have agreed to the GPL according to clause 5. Therefore they must license their own changes at no charge under the GPL according to clause 2b. Therefore the $699 licensing fee is optional.

• http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

• http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

• http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

I think we're missing a bigger issue here:

SCO knows about so-called 'infringing' code in there, yet they continue to distribute it, meaning they have effectively GPLed whatever code is in there...

As perverse as it may be to one who follows the GPL to see that the "company currently known as SCO" has continued to use Linux in its various practices, it appears we're missing the primary issue: SCO believes it ownes Linux (and the IBM suit is somewhat of a red herring which SCO believes will destroy GPL in a court test, resulting in SCO's ownership of all that is Unix, Linux included). Remember, the more litigation and the more chaos from various IBM, Redhat, etc. lawsuits, the more evidence that supports SCO's claims that GPL simply doesn't work and traditional government assignment of property rights must be applied by the courts. Consider this sequence:

1. CalderaSCO has used GPL, IBM's used it, Red Hat, Linus, GNU and others have all used it. Ownership has become increasingly vague and traditional technology licensing means as constructed by the government have been circumvented.

2. GPL has caused an amazing mess where copyrights, patents and trademarks have been thrown in and this GPL not only hasn't prevented that contamination, but it arrogantly claims to supercede governmental authority to determine the assignment and licensing of ownership. Don't forget, Microsoft has warned us that GPL was a virus.

3. Things that supercede the government tend to irritate the government and will be thrown out. We all know about Microsoft's penalty for superceding authority; GPL's crimes are worse.

4. All the GPL code is stripped of its ownership and must revert back to claimants who have registration as issued by governmental authority. Chunks of GPL code are arbitrarily assigned by the USPTO based upon previous registrations (e.g. by patent holders, etc.). Imagine one big sourcecode clearinghouse created to distribute and maintain code rights, as well as serving as a central authority for code registration (sort of a software Star Chamber). For the paranoid, toss in the anti-strong encryption nuts and RIAA/ABA/film/anti-software piracy lobby who'd quickly throw support behind a government entity that required all code be licensed and inspected. Proposed anti-terrorism provisions could serve as a springboard for this move and see considerable industry and governmental support. Licensing is required for programmers (after all, this would stop people from writing computer viruses, trojans and other rogue code, right?)

5. SCO presents Unix copyright claims and ends up with some to most of the GPL base.

Certainly it's a stretch, but it seems to be a pragmatic one for an otherwise worthless entity with a Unix copyright claim. Furthermore, the timing of the move is well situated to capture current lobby momentum.

From that respect, it makes sense that SCO has distributed Linux and continues to claim that its very foundation was based on Linux solutions, as stated on its company profile page.

*scoove*

As described on their site:

The charter of the new division is to create new and innovative licensing programs to meet the changing demands of today's market and to protect its intellectual property asset.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is true innovation.

--sanx--

Which end is up?
More evidence that this remains unknown in the alternate universe known as SCO.

On their website, SCO's display of "unity" with other Linux companies is beyond ironic,
and fits nicely with the continuing public FTP of the Linux code SCO is attacking!

SCO is so cah-loo-less that their "United Linux" web page still has a link to SuSE:
http://www.sco.com/unitedlinux

After clicking on the SuSE logo, you can read SuSE's opinion of the actions of their "partner":
http://www.suse.com/us/company/press/press_release s/archive03/sco_redhat.html

Besides greed and belligerence, the general state of consciousness seems to be sub-comatose at SCO.
(Of course, that's not news.)

(Twice, actually, first time with "test@test.com", second time with "webmasters@fsf.org". ;-)

I suppose that this means we'll also have the obligatory conference call tomorrow, or soon after, where Darl will blow some more hot air out of that ass that sits on his neck.

Taking a cue from the RIAA, the only thing left to due is send out hundreds of lawsuits to invidual "small time" users across the country. Tracking their IP address view IRC #linuxhelp chat, thousands of newbies will suddenly find themselves forced to pay the full $1399 for single CPU licenses. That will send the message that they really mean business. Then go after CD makers because the other half of blank CD's must be used for burning Linux.

BTW, I don't know if this guy is for real or not but according the this page
one of SCO's board of directors is "Steve Cakebread". Sounds like a bad guy from The Tic.

Buy It Now

http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1157 25

funny how their response to IBM's IP claims is that IBM has let them be for two decades; they make it sound as if they think they're entitled to IP infringement.

...with what can only be described as a rant. Really, the language is ... well, it's just plain whiny. Here, take a look: http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1157 25

that should have been kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-152.nosrc.rpm

Evidence from SCO's own website:

from the license faq:
I have Linux servers deployed in my organization. What options do I have besides purchasing a SCO IP license?
There are 3 options for you to evaluate:
You have the option to do nothing, adopt a "wait and see" attitude, and hope that SCO is not serious about enforcing its intellectual property rights in the end user community.
You can replace all servers, desktop and embedded uses of Linux.
You can obtain a license from SCO to use SCO IP in binary form in Linux distributions

SCO is committed to protect and defend their intellectual property and believes that the most cost effective remedy is to purchase the necessary SCO UNIX IP license. However, the action you take should be based on the recommendation of your own legal counsel.

Let's see, you can either hope we don't sic Boies on you, interrupt your business, or pay us. Oh, and by the way, we are serious about suing you.

from the license itself:

2.1 Provided Company complies fully with this Grant of Rights and
Obligations, SCO will not consider such use of the SCO Product licensed
by Company under this Agreement to be in violation of SCO's intellectual
property ownership or rights.

This is the only thing they're offering in exchange for the license fee. The IP in quesion is disputed, which they state as factual.

Extortion and Fraud. It's a classic protection racket, plain and simple.

Why the fuck are they still still distributing perfectly good 2.4 kernels on their own FTP site???

I think I've read at least 20 comments on /. in the past week with links to ftp.sco.com kernels or distros. Has nobody at SCO noticed that they are still distributing 2.4 kernels?

By permitting themselves to distribute Linux, are they now violating their own licensing terms for their "intellectual property in the Linux Kernel"? More importantly, could I sue them for it :-)

Why the fuck are they still still distributing perfectly good 2.4 kernels on their own FTP site???

I think I've read at least 20 comments on /. in the past week with links to ftp.sco.com kernels or distros. Has nobody at SCO noticed that they are still distributing 2.4 kernels?

By permitting themselves to distribute Linux, are they now violating their own licensing terms for their "intellectual property in the Linux Kernel"? More importantly, could I sue them for it :-)

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech, was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC. Many of my best friends used to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time. I used to dance to the music of SCO's company band Deth Specula at parties around the town.

Before I ever installed my first Linux distro - remember Yggdrasil Plug-n-Play? - I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.

You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.

Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.

It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.

I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".

My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.

Even if SCO's claims are true, it is not a violation of their copyright for me to possess a copy of their code. Instead, any copyright infringement was committed by the vendors who supplied me with the Linux distributions I use.

SCO's license is actually no license at all - if it really is found that the Linux kernel contains any infringing code, the GPL forbids everyone who possesses a copy from using it at all. No one would be allowed to con

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech, was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC. Many of my best friends used to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time. I used to dance to the music of SCO's company band Deth Specula at parties around the town.

Before I ever installed my first Linux distro - remember Yggdrasil Plug-n-Play? - I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.

You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.

Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.

It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.

I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".

My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.

Even if SCO's claims are true, it is not a violation of their copyright for me to possess a copy of their code. Instead, any copyright infringement was committed by the vendors who supplied me with the Linux distributions I use.

SCO's license is actually no license at all - if it really is found that the Linux kernel contains any infringing code, the GPL forbids everyone who possesses a copy from using it at all. No one would be allowed to con

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech, was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC. Many of my best friends used to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time. I used to dance to the music of SCO's company band Deth Specula at parties around the town.

Before I ever installed my first Linux distro - remember Yggdrasil Plug-n-Play? - I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.

You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.

Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.

It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.

I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".

My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.

Even if SCO's claims are true, it is not a violation of their copyright for me to possess a copy of their code. Instead, any copyright infringement was committed by the vendors who supplied me with the Linux distributions I use.

SCO's license is actually no license at all - if it really is found that the Linux kernel contains any infringing code, the GPL forbids everyone who possesses a copy from using it at all. No one would be allowed to con

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech, was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC. Many of my best friends used to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time. I used to dance to the music of SCO's company band Deth Specula at parties around the town.

Before I ever installed my first Linux distro - remember Yggdrasil Plug-n-Play? - I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.

You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.

Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.

It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.

I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".

My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.

Even if SCO's claims are true, it is not a violation of their copyright for me to possess a copy of their code. Instead, any copyright infringement was committed by the vendors who supplied me with the Linux distributions I use.

SCO's license is actually no license at all - if it really is found that the Linux kernel contains any infringing code, the GPL forbids everyone who possesses a copy from using it at all. No one would be allowed to con

Not technically true. But the essence of it is true. According to SCO's own page on the lawsuit, IBM has filed several documents, one to move the case from state court to federal court, an extension of time, an answer, and an amended answer. The site doesn't have IBM's latest answer, which was only filed yesterday.

What do the mice do when it's one elephant and one weasel dancing?

-Mark

What is the SCO Intellectual Property (IP) License for Linux?
Many customers are concerned about using Linux since they have become aware of the allegations that Linux is an unauthorized derivative work of the UNIX(R) operating system. These customers unknowingly received unauthorized copies of SCO intellectual property and many are running critical business applications on Linux. Customers have come to SCO asking what they can do to respect and help protect the rights of the SCO intellectual property in Linux. SCO has created the Intellectual Property License for Linux in response to these customer needs. Customers who are running Linux distributions on a client, a server or an embedded system can obtain a license from SCO to use the SCO IP in binary form. This license is sufficient for the end user to continue to run its operation uninterrupted.

Does everyone who uses Linux need a SCO UNIX IP License for Linux?
End users running Linux 2.4 or later versions for commercial purposes need a SCO IP license.

and my personal fav:

I have Linux servers deployed in my organization. What options do I have besides purchasing a SCO IP license?
There are 3 options for you to evaluate:

You have the option to do nothing, adopt a "wait and see" attitude, and hope that SCO is not serious about enforcing its intellectual property rights in the end user community.

You can replace all servers, desktop and embedded uses of Linux.

You can obtain a license from SCO to use SCO IP in binary form in Linux distributions

ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Serv er/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/linux-2.4.13-21S.src.rpm.

A glance @ SCO's site shows that their SCO Forum is coming up soon in Las Vegas. I think that everyone in the area who is a /.er or Linux user should descend on SCO in Las Vegas and hold a massive protest. I bet that would really generate some headlines, and show that we Linux users are just geeks that SCO can push over because they're "important corporate types"!

A hard-hitting technology summit showcasing the technology and business solutions of The SCO Group and its Strategic Business Partners. August 17 - 19, 2003 in Las Vegas, NV. (MGM Grand Hotel)

--

I'm located in europe, so i will not be able to PROTEST in las vegas, but i ask every american geek to go to las vegas and PROTEST during their 'SCOForum'. Do it, please!

Geeks unite and let your voice be heard! Make this the biggest geek-protest-march ever, unlike the small protest at the SCO offices last month, complaining on /. does _not_ help.

Somebody get a boatload of Knoppix, Debian, etc... cd's over there and hand them out to everybody and there dog! screw their lawsuit, screw sco during their 'forum' with the one thing they're fighting against.

Enough already with this daily ongoing IP-FUD. Time to fight back!

regb@sco.com may still work. How many spammer databases d'you think you can get it into in the next two hours? (-:

Another thought crossed my mind, but I don't know how effective it would be:

while true; do lynx -dump '$ABOVE_URL' >/dev/null; sleep 1; done

A few score of those going for the next few days might give them something to think about. It might also be interesting to work down a list of sensitive email addresses (e.g. SCO's own internal addresses) and see what eventuated.

abuse@sco.com plus a page-pummeling bot sounds like a good deal to me. (-:

If you are mad at SCO then tell them personally by clicking here and filling out their feed back form.

How about an even easier link?

http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/thanks.html?lo cation=206&category=8&Email=bill%40microsoft.com&s ubject=Money%20well%40spent%41&message=Thanks%20fo r%20all%20the%20great%20Linux%20FUD%41

You fought for me?!! You manipulated me! Into where I am now - staring at the Brown & Williamson building, it's all dark except for the tenth floor. That's the legal department, that's where they fuck with my life!

Does anyone else find the 'theme' of the 2003 SCO forum (top right of their page) interesting? Silhouette of threatening guy with automatic pistol.

Phone or email your local SCO office: http://www.sco.com/worldwide/

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech, was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC. Many of my best friends used to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time. I used to dance to the music of SCO's company band Deth Specula at parties around the town.

Before I ever installed my first Linux distro - remember Yggdrasil Plug-n-Play? - I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.

You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.

Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.

It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.

I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".

My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.

Even if SCO's claims are true, it is not a violation of their copyright for me to possess a copy of their code. Instead, any copyright infringement was committed by the vendors who supplied me with the Linux distributions I use.

SCO's license is actually no license at all - if it really is found that the Linux kernel contains any infringing code, the GPL forbids everyone who possesses a copy from using it at all. No one would be allowed to con

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech, was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC. Many of my best friends used to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time. I used to dance to the music of SCO's company band Deth Specula at parties around the town.

Before I ever installed my first Linux distro - remember Yggdrasil Plug-n-Play? - I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.

You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.

Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.

It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.

I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".

My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.

Even if SCO's claims are true, it is not a violation of their copyright for me to possess a copy of their code. Instead, any copyright infringement was committed by the vendors who supplied me with the Linux distributions I use.

SCO's license is actually no license at all - if it really is found that the Linux kernel contains any infringing code, the GPL forbids everyone who possesses a copy from using it at all. No one would be allowed to con

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech, was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC. Many of my best friends used to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time. I used to dance to the music of SCO's company band Deth Specula at parties around the town.

Before I ever installed my first Linux distro - remember Yggdrasil Plug-n-Play? - I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.

You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.

Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.

It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.

I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".

My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.

Even if SCO's claims are true, it is not a violation of their copyright for me to possess a copy of their code. Instead, any copyright infringement was committed by the vendors who supplied me with the Linux distributions I use.

SCO's license is actually no license at all - if it really is found that the Linux kernel contains any infringing code, the GPL forbids everyone who possesses a copy from using it at all. No one would be allowed to con