Slashdot Mirror

Self incriminating quotes?


quotes from sco's complaint.

Self incriminating quotes?


quotes from sco's complaint.

their quotes page just seems ridiculous. are these quotes meant to back up their case that linux is stealing from them?

Say what you want, the Unix trademark is owned by The Open Group.


The suit by SCO against IBM, if it involved Unix, then The Open Group has the final say.

It was unintentional until they discovered the code.

Today, Sunday May 4 2003, 2:23 am MDT, they know their code is in it, and they are still distributing it under the GPL. They'd have had a case if they'd pulled it, but they haven't. From this point forward, SCO, by knowingly distributing the code under the GPL, are knowingly licensing that code for use under the GPL.

This, by the way, also hurts their damage claims. "If this code is so valuable that its distribution under the GPL caused you harm, then why did you knowingly continue to distribute it under the GPL?"

Let's see how long until SCO picks up on this and stops distributing Linux with the disputed code in it. My bet: never.

What if they found the so-called stolen code after they released it under the GPL? Of course, the fact that they are still distributing it might have some bearing on that.

to what this whitepaper is talking about?

Kinda ironic that this is the same company that uses the phone number 1-888-GO-LINUX. It's right there on their feedback page.

Send a mail to executives of SCO
(I cannot find the direct e-mail adresses info@sco.com will have to do the service)

Darl C. McBride - President & CEO

Chris Sontag - Senior VP & General Manager, SCOsource Division

Robert K. Bench - CFO

Opinder Bawa - Senior VP, Engineering and Global Services

Sean Wilson - Senior VP, Corporate Development

May be after few days they will understand that they alianetad to many people.

For fun you can try to listen to the recording
of the public teleconference 'Earnings Release Call'.

Send a mail to executives of SCO
(I cannot find the direct e-mail adresses info@sco.com will have to do the service)

Darl C. McBride - President & CEO

Chris Sontag - Senior VP & General Manager, SCOsource Division

Robert K. Bench - CFO

Opinder Bawa - Senior VP, Engineering and Global Services

Sean Wilson - Senior VP, Corporate Development

May be after few days they will understand that they alianetad to many people.

For fun you can try to listen to the recording
of the public teleconference 'Earnings Release Call'.

Click either of the following two Netcraft-sponsored links to see if you've won! How to tell if you're a winner, all the green stuff in the graph must not be shown for the entire month of May 2003. Thankyou, and remember folks, check the following two URLS each and every 10 minutes or so to see if you've won!

Netcraft: www.sco.com

Netcraft: www.calder.com

This link gives me a 404 error. Are you sure it is the right one?

So, the DDoS is using 90% of their bandwidth? Just think, if only the article had included a link to SCO, maybe we could have taken out their remaining 10%. :)

Ok, the whole thing is childish and stupid and pointless -- I'm sure that IBM is more than capable of holding its own in court -- and two wrongs never make a right. Nevertheless, I find it hard to be too upset about this. It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys. :)

Since it's obvious that it was we militant 1337 Lun1x h4x0r5 who perpetrated this attack, we should apologise. Make sure you immediately rush to their website so you can get their email address so you can send in your apology. That's http://www.sco.com, by the way. http://www.sco.com. Make sure you visit http://www.sco.com to send in your messages of condolence. You may have to reload http://www.sco.com a few times since http://www.sco.com seems to be a bit iffy at the moment.

Since it's obvious that it was we militant 1337 Lun1x h4x0r5 who perpetrated this attack, we should apologise. Make sure you immediately rush to their website so you can get their email address so you can send in your apology. That's http://www.sco.com, by the way. http://www.sco.com. Make sure you visit http://www.sco.com to send in your messages of condolence. You may have to reload http://www.sco.com a few times since http://www.sco.com seems to be a bit iffy at the moment.

Since it's obvious that it was we militant 1337 Lun1x h4x0r5 who perpetrated this attack, we should apologise. Make sure you immediately rush to their website so you can get their email address so you can send in your apology. That's http://www.sco.com, by the way. http://www.sco.com. Make sure you visit http://www.sco.com to send in your messages of condolence. You may have to reload http://www.sco.com a few times since http://www.sco.com seems to be a bit iffy at the moment.

Since it's obvious that it was we militant 1337 Lun1x h4x0r5 who perpetrated this attack, we should apologise. Make sure you immediately rush to their website so you can get their email address so you can send in your apology. That's http://www.sco.com, by the way. http://www.sco.com. Make sure you visit http://www.sco.com to send in your messages of condolence. You may have to reload http://www.sco.com a few times since http://www.sco.com seems to be a bit iffy at the moment.

Since it's obvious that it was we militant 1337 Lun1x h4x0r5 who perpetrated this attack, we should apologise. Make sure you immediately rush to their website so you can get their email address so you can send in your apology. That's http://www.sco.com, by the way. http://www.sco.com. Make sure you visit http://www.sco.com to send in your messages of condolence. You may have to reload http://www.sco.com a few times since http://www.sco.com seems to be a bit iffy at the moment.

Since it's obvious that it was we militant 1337 Lun1x h4x0r5 who perpetrated this attack, we should apologise. Make sure you immediately rush to their website so you can get their email address so you can send in your apology. That's http://www.sco.com, by the way. http://www.sco.com. Make sure you visit http://www.sco.com to send in your messages of condolence. You may have to reload http://www.sco.com a few times since http://www.sco.com seems to be a bit iffy at the moment.

But I am almost (2 years of lawschool and counting), and I think he/she is right.

SCO has a linux distribution, PowerLinux, and any kernel in there, including alleged copyright infringing parts, have been released _by_SCO_ under the GPL.

Thus, it can always be argued that the claiming of copyright on these parts is against their own licence (the GPL) in this case. As the licence is considered a legally binding contract, any code they have in their distribution, is available to anyone under the GPL.

See http://news.com.com/2100-1002_3-999584.html".

Here is where he got his information:
SCO Linux Contributions

Dude! I didn't know that Daler Mehndi (Indian pop star) was a senior VP for SCO. Damn, my respect for Mehndi just went downhill.

Actually, no. I haven't seen one single reference to patents in this SCO vs. IBM thing yet. SCO is saying things like "this is about misappropriation of trade secrets and contractual violations", not mentioning patents. The claims I've seen are that Linux is derivative of Unix, not that patents are being violated.

Go ahead and read SCO's claims, here. The only mention of the word "patent" at all is from some random IBM guy. The SCO folks don't talk about patents at all. Patents are just a red herring in this.

You should call them to verify this:

Product and Sales Inquiries
1-888-GO-LINUX
1-888-465-4689

cf. SCO's own website

You know what to do:

Kill the mail server!

Make Tux proud......

If IBM was really threatened, whouldn't they just buy SCO? It is not like there stock is worth much.

I am not worried.

From their own site:

NEW YORK -- April 22, 2003 - UnitedLinux, the industry consortium comprised of Conectiva, The SCO Group, SuSE Linux and Turbolinux, today reaffirmed that UnitedLinux Version 1.0 supports AMD Opteron processor-based systems. Jeezz...

is support for more than 4GB of memory a first for 32-bit x86 operating systems?

As others have noted, Windows NT 5.0^H^H^H^H^H^H2000 also supports it.

Wait a minute... Things aren't right here. I thought the formula was fail miserably, give up, pout, and sue someone. Not(gasp)suck it up, improve your product so that even Her Pickiness, Eugenia likes it and keep giving back to the community. This makes no sense at all. Good job Mandrake.

SCO's complaint shows a handful of news accounts in which IBM officials claim the company will help improve Linux. However, this doesn't serve as proof that IBM violated its agreement to keep SCO's proprietary code secret.

Actually, if one bothers to read the complaint, IBM specifically stated a few things that are likely to prove extremely embarrassing if the case goes to court, and which go way beyond vague promises to improve Linux.

"We're willing to open source any part of AIX that the Linux community considers valuable."

Oops. IBM doesn't own the rights to do that. AIX is licensed to it by SCO. Big problem.

"We don't want to take the risk of being sued for a patent infringement. That is why we don't do distributions, and that's why we have distributors.Because distributors are not so much exposed as we are.So that's the basic deal as I understand it."

Yikes. That's a public statement that IBM was aware that Linux might contain infringements of intellectual property, and that rather than take steps to make sure it didn't, they shielded themselves from IP liability by hiding behind a third party. Any decent lawyer could do a lot with that.

"IBM will exploit its expertise in AIX to bring Linux up to par with UNIX."

Only problem: IBM's expertise in AIX involves familiarity with trade secrets that are the undisputed property of SCO.

Then there are the conditions of IBM's Linux development, which are hosted in the same building as its UNIX development, and in which many Linux developers (according to the complaint) have access to SCO's UNIX code. Perhaps this is a new methodology, "dirty room development". It's fishy at best.

It's not an open and shut case on either side, but the above quotes succeed in making IBM look very bad. The LinuxWorld article, on the other hand, completely ignores every single one of these critical points. It's not an honest treatment of the case, but an ideological one.

Tim

From THE COMPLAINT ITSELF:

Project Monterey

50. As SCO was poised and ready to expand its market and market share for UnixWare targeted to high-performance enterprise customers, IBM approached SCO to jointly develop a new 64-bit UNIX-based operating system for Intel-based processing platforms. This joint development effort was widely known as Project Monterey.

51. Prior to this time, IBM had not developed any expertise to run UNIX on an Intel chip and instead was confined to its Power PC chip.

52. In furtherance of Project Monterey, SCO expended substantial amounts of money and dedicated a significant portion of SCO's development team to completion of the project.

53. Specifically, plaintiff and plaintiff's predecessor provided IBM engineers with valuable information and trade secrets with respect to architecture, schematics, and design of UnixWare and the UNIX Software Code for Intel-based processors.

54. By about May 2001, all technical aspects of Project Monterey had been substantially completed. The only remaining tasks of Project Monterey involved marketing and branding tasks to be performed substantially by IBM.

55. On or about May 2001, IBM notified plaintiff that it refused to proceed with Project Monterey, and that IBM considered Project Monterey to be "dead." In fact, in violation of its obligations to SCO, IBM chose to use and appropriate for its own business the proprietary information obtained from SCO.

(Unfortunately the site seems to be slashdotted so I can't see what Linus actually said. Roll on Freenet.)

The SCO complaint is written in plain English; you don't need to be a lawyer to understand it.

Their heart of their complaint is in paragraph 85: "It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach UNIX performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of UNIX code, methods or concepts to achieve such performance, ..."

SCO consider themselves to have some kind of godlike power to write enterprise operating systems, that could never be matched by anybody else.

This is clearly incredibly silly. Linus is well qualified to demonstrate that the improvements in Linux have come about through independent work or public documentation, and from many contributors only a few of whom are at IBM. It's also clear that performance has been steadily improving over the last 12-odd years. There's no sudden dumping of SCO IP into Linux.

Things that have been borrowed from proprietary Unixes have been taken from public documentation or whitepapers. The slab allocator is a case in point.

In fact, you don't have to be Linus to work this out for yourself: just look at the lkml archives, and observe how many patches have been sent by non-IBM hackers. The development process by which Linux's performance was improved is largely a matter of public record.

1-888-465-4689
1-800-726-8649 (Support)
801-765-1313 (FAX)

Or submit an email on their webform HERE
Or if you perfer the personal touch you might want to BCC these people:

jant@sco.com, rr@sco.com, sco@schwartz-pr.com, andrewk@sco.com, anz_info@sco.com, rhondap@sco.com, bstowell@sco.com, skunkware@sco.com, jkj@sco.com, patrickm@sco.com, phatch@sco.com, polska@caldera.com, louisi@sco.com, murray@sco.com, maindesk@sco.com, rogerv@sco.com, alf@sco.com, asirotin@caldera.com, alee@sco.com, rickpo@sco.com, kathyp@sco.com, deanr@sco.com, evanh@caldera.com, jls@sco.com, dfp@caldera.com, carlsa@sco.com, kieramy@caldera.com, belal@caldera.com, rhondap@caldera.com, jlw@caldera.com, bobs@caldera.com, petrs@caldera.com, robertl@caldera.com, jgale@caldera.com, tim.rose@caldera.com, wynnw@caldera.com, tbird@caldera.com, andyb@caldera.com

We could ask SCO, "fine, you've got the source, show us the alleged Unix IP-infringing code".

It takes chutzpa for SCO to claim that it could do things with operating systems that IBM couldn't. I predict there will ultimately be a charred and smoking gash in the land where SCO now stands.

They don't have to convince judges that Linux is 'a derivative of' UNIX. At least not for patent infringement lawsuits. With patents, you are still infringing even if you independently come up with the same idea.

This has got nothing whatsoever to do with patents. Did you read the claim?

Tidbit

Tidbit

84. Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car.

SCO may well be that stupid.
Is SCO the only distributor to not have a patch for the sendmail thingee?
SCO Security
"We are aware of the CERT CA-2003-07 sendmail issue, and are currently working on fixes for our supported distributions. We will announce the fixes via our normal channels:"

We are aware of the CERT CA-2003-07 sendmail issue, and are currently working on fixes for our supported distributions. We will announce the fixes via our normal channels:

What!!!??? Incredible. I didn't believe you, so I checked and there it is.
SCO Security

I thought that thingee was coordinated so everybody could release the patches all at the same time, with nobody even breaking a sweat. (instead of the usual melee;)
Either SCO has no one semi-competent left, or they are already "out of the loop". (for a definition where OpenBSD and RedHat are in the same loop;). Incredible!

While reading up on this SCO article, I noticed the following diagram. Isn't this diagram derrived from another source? Does that mean they are doing something against copyright or some such matters?

I know there was an article about this history diagram some time back but can't find it at the moment...

I don't know if anyone posted this yet, but the official press release is here.

INAFE (I am not a financial expert) but there must be some differance between Trolltech and SCO/Caldera given the large differance in investment by Canopy.

Canopy owns only 5.8% of Trolltech. On the other hand they own 46.2% of SCO (plus 93% of the company owned by C?Os is owned by ex-Canopy managers - Ralph J. Yarro III & Darcy Mott)

You obviously haven't read SCO's complaint. It makes no sense. It lacks specifics and is full of vague handwaving. It even gets simple historical facts wrong. It's truly pathetic.

the complaint and some exhibits ( A B C D E can be found on SCO web site

the complaint and some exhibits ( A B C D E can be found on SCO web site

the complaint and some exhibits ( A B C D E can be found on SCO web site

the complaint and some exhibits ( A B C D E can be found on SCO web site

the complaint and some exhibits ( A B C D E can be found on SCO web site

the complaint and some exhibits ( A B C D E can be found on SCO web site