Slashdot Mirror
SCO Claims Linux Sales After Suit Irrelevant
molarmass192 writes "Here's the first reaction I've seen from SCO regarding the public's stance that the code they distributed under the GPL negates their claims on code in the Linux kernel. They claim that the lack of copyright notices "placed by the copyright holder" means that the GPL does not protect the unmentioned code in question. "
A couple of thousand times.
Ñ'
Bow down and worship the goddess of BSD!
You Linux-using fags cannot possibly comprehend the beauty of the one true goddess!
See how a true believer honors her. Take another look at the proper way to show your devotion to the divine babe of BSD!
There is truly no hope for Linux as long as the lovely Ceren smiles upon us!
Linux claims SCO irrelevant after suit.
www.eFax.com are spammers
let's go buy some code from Microsoft, and slip a windows disc in the binder before they hand it to us. THEN IT'LL BE OURS!
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
>Sheesh, it's amazing how much the SCO PR department has in
>common with M$ PR department. They both must read slashdot and
>then formulate their responses accordingly.
They MS is where they got their "legal advice"
Be careful - what if they accept your resume and hire you?
Then you get to watch them pass the Schwarzschild Radius from the INSIDE!
www.eFax.com are spammers
Even if all 3 of them return their copies.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
It is under US law, too (IANAL, but I'm pretty sure about that one).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they're arguing that they didn't put *their* copyright notices on the Linux code that contained "their" "stolen" code, so they didn't invoke the GPL on that code, even though that code was contained within GPLed code, and that they didn't do so because they didn't realize that "their" code was in there, because "they" didn't add it, "someone else" did. Am I paraphrasing their argument accurately? Because if I am, I suspect they are in legal lalaland.
But IANAL
Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream is suing Baskin Robbins for copyright infringement, due to BR's use of the "vanilla" labelled product sold in all of its stores today.
B&J sells their own Vanilla using plainly listed ingredients and readily available flavoring. During a brief joint-venture between the two companies, Ben and Jerry's and Baskin Robbins formulated a suite of flavors. During this time, B&J claims Baskin Robbins stole the Vanilla formula and process from their internal patented process files. No mention on if Baskin Robbins actually simply read the label on the product to mimic this flavor.
Vanilla, or "plain" ice cream has been around for quite some time. The original copyright owner is itself under question, since the ingredients and process to form a similar flavor to the B&J private version are deceptively simple. The knowledge for creating such a product predates B&J and is well known in academic cooking circles.
A spokesman for B&J's Ice Cream commented Thursday: "We own Vanilla. Any use of the process were without our permission to create an exact product. Nobody could create vanilla without knowing our process. We demand compensation for any other vanilla product which has diluted our market share."
And now for something completely different...
GPL Public License
My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M
Lets every single one of us send them a resume a day for the next couple of months.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Have fun with your government and don't cry foul - after all: you get what you vote for.
Not in the United States, you don't.
Quote from Duck Soup:
Chicolini: Now I aska you one. What has a trunk, but no key, weighs 2,000 pounds and lives in a circus?
Prosecutor: That's irrelevant.
Chicolini: Irrelephant? Hey, that'sa that answer! There's a whole lot of irrelephants in the circus.
Here is the SCO businesses model...
Step 1. Caldera buys SCO.
Step 2. Flush SCO down the toilet, Linux and OpenUNIX rules!
Step 3. Caldera Linux and OpenUNIX sales aren't so good.
Step 4. Rebrand as SCO and embrace Linux (if embrace = SuSe's distro ~s/SuSe/SCO/)
Step 5. SCO Linux sales aren't to good, but we still own UNIX IP.
Step 6. Sue IBM, get them to buy us out for our UNIX IP.
Step 7. Read GPL.
Step 8. Woops, we GPL'd our way out of a case.
Step 9. Strip ourselves of Linux so M$ will give us money.
Step 10. Start a FUD war funded by M$.
Step 11. ???
Step 12. Profit?
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
Judges are familiar with 'closing the door after the horse bolted'.
SCO has no case.
Executives pay selves huge severance packages as company goes under.
I can see it now...
;)
"In his new position at Unix vendor SCO, former Iraqi information minister Mohammed Saeed Al-Sahaf wasted no time in denying the claims that SCO had given away intellectual property within its own Linux distribution.."
--- Commission free trading & free stock up to $500 - use http://share.robinhood.com/kelvinp6
You forgot his participation in the most dramatic legal defeat of our time: Bush v Gore.
You are too far from reality!
My rights don't need management.
As we can clearly see from SCO's assorted statements (sordid statements?). Then again, their lawyers have to put the best public face on whatever rotten hand their client and the facts have dealt them, so maybe they KNOW that they have no case and are banking on the fact that judges can be idiots as well. It makes me have a moment's sympathy for lawyers with idiot clients. ... Whew, thank goodness that passed quickly!
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Raelians:
Small cult following space aliens
SCO:
Small company following space cadets
Raelians:
Believe genetics will keep them immortal.
SCO:
Believe SYS5 never died.
Raelians:
Announced a nonexistent clone for some rich suit, hid the evidence.
SCO:
Announced an expensive suit over a nonexistent clone, hid the evidence.
Raelians:
From France, prefer outer space.
SCO:
From outer space, prefer Utah.
Raelians:
Hideous pseudo-human spokesperson
SCO:
Ray Noorda
Raelians:
Pull stunts for public attention, hoping we'll buy their crap.
SCO:
Ditto, but hope IBM will buy their crappy company.
Clippy: "It looks like you're trying to write a lawsuit. Would you like to:"
Embrace
Extend
Extinguish
Crapflood
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
I would create a program called "Prepare for the Future" This program would provide migration to SCO customers who wish to migrate from SCO Unix to IBM Linux. Then I would give the service away for free to the first 1000 customers who sign up.
OK. I guess we have to cover this territory once again. Here is SCO's legal argument:
"Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, SCO's detractors would certainly want you to believe my client was issuing confusing EULAs, confounding their critics and confusing the multitudes, and they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself. But Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk who carried a gun and ran from the mob. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense.
But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case. Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer representing a major software company and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must not acquit.
I know he seems innocent. But ladies and gentlemen this is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when billions of dollars of recurring license revenue are on the line? Why? I'll tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense you must not acquit. Here look at the monkey , look at the silly monkey.
The plaintiff rests."
It's more likely that SCO people cut and paste things from your resume into their own. There are many reasons for this, all true.
I disagree.
If you put a copyright notice in your resume, they would have to sue themselves for violation of copyright because that's illegal.
I'm thinking about offering them to license my resume...
--
this->value = 0;
You misspelled "capitalism".
The Iraqi Information Minister.
He now works for SCO.