SCO DOS'ed

Thomas Cort writes "BusinessWeek has an article about a DDoS attack against SCO. "At 10:45 a.m., the Unix and Linux seller was hit by a distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS) that hampered its Internet operations, said SCO spokesman Blake Stowell ... the Utah-based company has incurred the wrath of many Linux enthusiasts infuriated with its lawsuit against IBM ... SCO's Internet service provider, ViaWest, told SCO that about 100 high-speed T1 data-transmission lines of network capacity--about 90 percent of its total bandwidth--was being consumed in the attack.""

Comments

Good Point.

[robbyjo]

For those of you who's lazy to click, here's two paragraphs summary:

The upshot of this GPL paragraph is that by relicensing their own code under non-GPL terms, once having knowingly released said code under the GPL, they have forfeited their own rights to distribute Linux. Or, at least that's how I interpret it. Further, the same paragraph states that the rest of us still hold full GPL rights to the code SCO originally licensed to us via the GPL.

The bottom line to us would appear to be that, even if there is IBM-introduced, SCO-owned, infringing code in Linux, it is now officially released under the GPL by the copyright holder, SCO. And, of course, no sanitizing of the Linux kernel is necessary. This spat should have no effect on Linus, Red Hat, SuSE, or any other Linux developer or distributor.

Re:Gotta love the way...

[Geopoliticus]

The SCO guy didn't say that it was, "unprofessional for us linux boys to do this sort of thing."

What he said was, "It's one thing to have a complaint with SCO's lawsuit or with our position in terms of code being found in Linux. It's another thing to deal with that in an unprofessional way."

The article does paint a picture of an outraged linux community, but doesn't come out and say that it was them who did it.

Please read more carefully.