Slashdot Mirror
SCO's Real Motive... A Buyout?
psykocrime writes "Acccording to this article in ComputerWorld, CEO Darl McBride of SCO has finally discussed the possibility of a buyout by IBM in public. Among other things, McBride says:
"I'm not trying to screw up the Linux business," he said. "I'm trying to take care of the shareholders, employees and people who have been having their rights trampled on." and
"If there's a way of resolving this that is positive, then we can get back out to business and everybody is good to go, then I'm fine with that," McBride said today in an interview with Computerworld. "If that's one of the outcomes of this, then so be it."
Also, yet another computerworld article indicates that most of the press and analysts who have been invited to take part in SCO's "public review of the infringing code" have declined... apparently due primarily to concerns over the terms of the non-disclosure agreement SCO is asking them to agree to. Linus in particular has said "no way" to signing their NDA to look at the code."
If SCO has to give 95% of UNIX royalties to Novel, and SCO wins a suit (right after a bunch of pigs fly overhead) based on that IP, doesn't that mean that SCO would have to give 95% of the winnings to Novel?
Beep beep.
Haha, wait. Linus has to sign a non-disclosure agreement to look at the code for the operating system he created? You are richer than rich, SCO.
In the future don't forget to send money to SCO lest they yank your license to run linux.
Without publicity, they'll wither and die more quickly, so why don't we choke off their oxygen feed by ignoring them?
Get your own free personal location tracker
Any chance IBM's legal team could string together SCO's actions of the last couple of weeks and make a case that SCO was trying to blackmail IBM? Maybe there's a RICO case here. Ha.
cheap web hosting dragon action figures
... try getting money other ways, I guess. SCO Unix sucks the butt. If it didnt, and if it were actually a market contender, I can't imagine they'd be grasping at these straws. The buy-out seems like a sensible motive, and sure as heck doesn't consume me with dread the way that a "sco unix is the only unix" world does.
Another damned comic
+++ NO CARRIER
Screwed Corporation's plan to get Out rich.
Of course they want a buyout. IBM is one of the biggest companies in the world. The execs line their pockets with money, and everone else gets laid offor quits. And if they take down linux, more money flows from the backdoor that, if you folow it, leads to Microsoft.
cheap web hosting dragon action figures australia
thats what people want. thats what sells. thats what share holders want.........
i have a cat named george. RAWR!
IBM should flip SCO off buy buying Novell and releasing Unix under the GPL. SCOs legal case (or bluff) would instantly disolve.
Given that Caldera (SCO) previously gave away the source code for System V, and that early code was given away in a book that Caldera eventually approved, and the SCO licensed Unix to Lindows.com, which distributes it under GPL, the only code that could be in question is very new code - basically the Monterrey project. Given that McBride has stated that they are main interested in Linux Kernel 2.4 it should be easy to track down all IBM additions/suggestions for additions and remove them/modify them.
However, since Lindows has a license and they are distributing Linux Kernal 2.4 under GPL,it seems that SCO has already lost the battle due to their own actions. So it may not even be necessary to remove the code, since even SCO distributed it under GPL!
Investors should have known better than to back an obvious loser so if you've got SCO shares at this point you've got to be pretty daft.
Ideally, this time next year, SCO is just a bad memory.
SCO unilaterally rejected Novell's claim to hold the UNIX IP that Linux allegedly infringes against at their press conference on Friday. But I remember that Perens and others pointed out the ownership information associated with the copyrights and patents was clearly attributed to Novell.
Can someone please point out which patents and trademarks were in question, and how to verify that these artifacts actually *do* show Novell's ownership?
(IP Lawyer question:) Is that information normally changed when IP changes hands through an agreement such as the one between Santa Cruz Op. and Novell? (i.e. whould the data in the patent office or LOC be an up-to-date represenation of current ownership?)
booo scosucks.com is taken =(
I think they dropped a word out of the middle of the Linus quote.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
will have to deal with the fact that no one in the *nix community will ever want to do business with what is the current company.
If IBM buys SCO, and I hope they don't, they should gut SCO for their customers base, engineers, and products, and can everyone else working there.
Even if this results in a massive win for SCO, I see them getting no new business in the future due to the trouble they have caused. Linux code will be rewritten in a week or so, and SCO will be left with perpetually declining sales.
I always said that Red Hat should have bought SCO with inflated stock shortly after Red Hat's IPO several years ago. We could have had all of SCO's customers on Open Source by now and there would be no IP disputes.
A positive outcome of this would be the complete and utter bankrupt of SCO. It would be shame if that kind of shitty behavior is rewarded.
If I belived in hell I would wish them there... On the other hand, they would probably be thrown a "welcome back" party.
Is not an operating system I would recommend to any of my customers to buy and run on their servers.
..
..
I have worked with this piece of **** OS and I can say one thing. Datacorruption.
Real case:
SCO UnixWare with veritas filesystem runs Oracle.
Box crashes --> Oracle data corruption.
These boxes crashed a lot (several times a week)
We called SCO support who blamed Oracle
Oracle desperatly tried to find the problem. It was a known bug, in guess what? SCO UnixWare.
SCO did not allow Oracle Server to open the files with directIO, that is circumvent the filecache in the OS. By design it should but in this case it did not, it was a bug in the Operating System.
SCO did not even bother to check their bug database and blamed Oracle who, thank god, found the problem.
I guess that SCO is desperate to make money. Wait who has the money? IBM is rich let's sue em
I really HAD another userid
omigod this is sooo much f'ing sleeeze. he's going to talk his way outta this one... ooooh!
He's going to walk away clean with a big fat smile on his face.
Terrorizing the linux community. What's the PATRIOT Act sitting around for? Throw that bastard in jail already dammit, or at least scare the shit out of him!
Sure IBM has a past history of being very supportive of the Linux community. But who do you want attempting to legally guide the future of Linux? SCO or IBM?
Its not supposed to matter how big you are in court - unfortunately it does matter.
http://windows.scares.us
Expect IBM to make an offer for SCO, to publically announce that it has now "bought the rights to Linux", and it will start to assert control over it.
Sleep with an elephant at your own risk.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Baseless suits are worth just as much whether you sue for a million or a billion!
Among other things, McBride says: "I'm not trying to screw up the Linux business,"
Oh really? Then could Mr. McBride please explain why I hear things like, "SCO to Linux Users: Cease and Desist" and "SCO delivers a warning"?
Sounds to me like Mr. McBride is trying to make up for the self-hurt caused by his company's own arrogance. What better way to ruin your competitor than by scaring the shit out of their users?
Sounds good. To prove that, why don't you go steal some MS source code, submit it as blabla.c, and see if it gets into the kernel. You might find that Linus absolutely does not just "let anybody's code in" the kernel.
They (IBM, of course) are complete and utter morons. Which I see no evidence of.
Expect IBM to make an offer for SCO, to publically announce that it has now "bought the rights to Linux", and it will start to assert control over it.
Yeah, right, FUD themselves in the foot, they will.
Working for necessity's mother.
Any by association possibly owns all rights to OSS?
IBM could come out of this smelling like a rose. If they either stomp sco like a roach in court or buy the assholes off, then put the whole damn sco ip package under the GPL, hackers will love them forever.
If they make this gift to the community, then be careful in the future to not piss us off, IBM could make billions more than they already make.
"IBM, Savior of Linux", wow. That may be enough to get RMS to take a bath.
I for one (like probably everyone here) hope they don't get bought out.
I hope they get ridiculed and made an example of... let this be a lesson to other companies that it's unacceptable to behave this way.
This is just all so laughable.
That's one of the reasons I believe this is all about, falling revenues.
If they win and the code is removed from the kernel that's fine, but the current userbase which is running the code will be in violation. SCO will probably propose that such people pay them a license fee.
most of the press and analysts who have been invited to take part in SCO's "public review of the infringing code" have declined
reminded me of the title of that movie with Tony Curtis and Brian Keith suppose they gave a war and nobody came?
I just think that is funny. They invited everyone to come look at the "evidence", but they made the conditions such that nobody will play.
"Well, we provided an opportunity for the community to come and see -- they chose to stand us up."
Wasn't there some "11 o'clock" meeting that they held up where they invited Novell to come and talk this over and nobody showed up? Seems pretty transparent to me.
Is anybody buying this? Apparently not, given the drop in their stock, eh?
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Then why did SOC send threatening letters to 1500 corporations telling them their were IP issues in Linux when:
- SCO doesn't own the IP and
- The lawsuit is a contract issue that can ONLY apply to IBM, especially once the offending code (if any actually exists) is revealed and written out of Linux.
The letter was nothing short of blackmail - give us money or we'll keep throwing turds into the punchbowl."that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Joe Barr reads the future of GNU/Linux and the SCO lawsuit is explained in easy to undsertand pictures. WARNING this link contains a link to Photo's from the Dukes of Hazard
I know at least two people who bought Caldera stock around IPO time because it was a Linux company. They believed in Linux as a product, wanted to support Linux development, and thought there might be some future profit in it.
I've heard a lot from them over the last week. With Caldera/SCO's current action, they've ended up as pawns in a game to attack Linux -- not at all the reason they invested their dollars in the beginning. They have decided to sell out as a result of the SCO action, and have lost significant money in the process on Caldera/SCO shares alone. But they also realize that the dollars they had invested this company have supported action which may eventually reduce the value of their larger holdings in other Linux companies. I can understand the frustration that they must feel.
I'd venture to say a lot of Caldera investors may be in the same position. So what's this about "rights" of the shareholders?
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Assuming that SCO isn't bought out... and they go to court and lose (as seems likely) and somehow stay in business... how on Earth could they ever repair their reputation now?
They've become notorious lately. So much so, in fact, that I'd bet even if they won a court case and were proven correct, that they still wouldn't be able to recover from pissing the world off. How many people avoid Microsoft because of what they stand for and not just because they believe other software is superior? Uh-huh. See?
mkbankaccount.chapter11 http://www.sco.com
McBride says: "I'm not trying to screw up the Linux business,"
Well, I'd say you're doing a pretty piss-poor job already.
Accusations without facts to back it up.
Sueing over something you *DON'T OWN*.
Cease and Desist (equivalent) letters to businesses.
IMO, this guy's ability to lie and misinform is dwarfed only by the Iraqi Information Minister.
(and my own dig: SCO = Still Can't Operate)
.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
because of it [the legal system], things are no fun anymore. you can't call anyone's bluff anymore, you can't just pull out a six-shooter after you walk out of a saloon and settle everything like men, and you can't ride away into the sunset on your horse to another town and forget about it. nowadays, everyone is afraid of being sued, so no-one is truly willing to step up and call SCO's bluff. there really should be a way to prevent such a blatent buyout from ocurring.
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
Bluster, claim to have nuclear weapons, then get food aid. I can't be the only one seeing the parallels.
I see today on CNN that the South Korean Navy fired on 'intruders'. Wouldn't ESR look good in one of those cute little navy uniforms?
IBM should do the math - purchase them, or crush them? I hope the choice is crush, given the behavior SCO has put out over this attempted 'sale'.
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
"But Giga Information Group Inc. analyst Stacey Quandt said she has discussed SCO's offer with her legal counsel, and if she signs an NDA, it may hinder her ability to write about it. She could get subpoenaed as well. Quandt called the offer a PR stunt."
"I could tell you, but then I would have to kill you!" -Colonel Flagg from "Mash"
With changes to support current SCO news
Lisa: Hey, Slashdot! Are you suffering from the heartbreak of... SCO-itis? Then take a tip from Mr. Paul Anka!
[Paul waves, begins playing a small synthesizer and singing]
To stop SCO's Lawsuit, one-two-three, Here's a fresh new way that's trouble-free. It's got Paul Anka's guarantee...[winks]
Lisa: [singing] Guarantee void in Tennessee.
Together: [singing] Just don't look. Just don't look.
[people turn away; the monsters turn to look]
Just don't look. Just don't look.
[more people turn away]
Just don't look. Just don't look.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
sPh
Uh no, being required to pay a licensing fee violates section 7 of the GPL. It would then be illegal for anyone to distribute the program at all.
Some things are more important than an animated rat
If you are concerned over the treat of lawsuits over intellectual property then you are actually in a better legal position using GPL'ed Linux than using Microsoft's products.
While SCO has yet to provide any publicly available substantial evidence in their case against IBM and Linux, Timeline Inc has already won a US Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft in another contract dispute.
Unlike companies like Oracle Corporation and others, Microsoft chose a cheaper option when licensing Timeline Inc's Data base technology. That license puts developers and users of Microsoft SQL Server,Office and other Microsoft product at risk of being sued by Timeline Inc for violation of Timeline Inc patents.
Microsoft's products do not provide users and developers an absolute safe haven from the threat from lawsuits based on violations of intellectual property. Microsoft's EULA provide the developer and end user with no protection against threat from current or future intellectual property lawsuits.
However, since the SCO Group has knowingly sold and distributed the GPL licensed Linux kernel and other components, it must by the terms of the GPL license, provide all those who receive the code from them an implicit license to use any intellectual property, patents or trade secrets which SCO owns and is used by the GPL'ed source code. That implicit license to that SCO intellectual property is also granted to anybody who subsequently receives the GPL source.
The GPL only grants the right, for reasons of intellectual property infringement or contractual obligations, to stop distributing the GPL'e binaries and source code if the conditions are imposed upon you by a third party. Since SCO claims ownership the intellectual property in question, it must grant all subsequent recipients of the GPL licensed source code SCO has distributed and any GPL'ed derivative, the same implicit licence and right to SCO's intellectual property the code imposes upon.
SCO has acknowledged deals with Suse and Lindows to distribute SCO's intellectual property in GPL'ed Linux, but the GPL license does not grant anyone or any organization the right to append extra terms and conditions upon the recipients of the GPL licensed source code.
It is very easy to effectively fold the current development branches of the Linux kernel and any other GPL'ed code back into SCO's distributed GPL'ed sources. This would grant the same implicit license for the infringed SCO intellectual property to the all the current development.
You are in a better legal position using the GPL'ed Linux platform and other GPL'ed software, than you are using Microsoft's or any other closed source software.
I agree with the prevailing thought, it doesn't mean a damn thing until a judge sees it. If you happen to be coding and see this code under an NDA you could open yourself up for suit as well. Best to just leave it be and let the companies fight it out. Another thought is they haven't disclosed the terms of the NDA to anyone. They could read something like "If you view this code, all articles written about the comparison to Linux must be positive to SCO's claims." Or "You may make no comment in regards to the code you have seen." In both of these cases it doesn't make a lot of sense from a reporters view and from a coder's view they could always come back on you...so don't even bother. Their is no constituency that it actually makes sense to look at this code, even if in the most improbably, screwed-up dimensional state where SCO has a remote chance of actually winning this case...they will just be bought out to shut them up.
Such is this most dangerous game being played.
"take care of the shareholders", God kills a Domokun.
Blarf.
socialization, collective guilt, peer pressure...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&g t;
Yeah, that about covers it. Be thankful that you're only having to deal with some jokes about white trash, rather than still dealing with the after-effects of hundreds of years of social injustice. Same thing goes for those "women have it easy, those poor men!" morons as well.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
No, as others have pointed out, if IBM makes an offer, Microsoft might make one as well. Don't you think MS would love to own something that brings all of linux into question in the minds of CEOs and CIOs?
At first sight I thought his name was McBribe :)
SCO gave away the source to Release 7, not System V.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Where is the class action suit by users and distributors of Linux against SCO for libel and FUD? Why are we not seeing "shit or get off the pot" legal action by any major US players?
Darl baby's comments that, "...allowing Linux to steamroller H^H^H^our property makes zero sense" in a response to the question about why SCO is only doing this now (well after IBM joined in the Linux party) and SCO's revenues have gone from $200 million to $60 million in 3 years, sort of makes it very clear what's going on:
It is simply a bluff, nothing more. Darl baby almost wetting himself with joy at the prospect that SCO get bought out because, "I'm looking after the sharholders".
His NDA making it impossible to actually comment on what is in the code, and analysts refusing to take the bait, must make him worry very very much.
This is what is going to happen: IBM and the rest of the Linux world will simply call his bluff and wait until the court discovery phase roll's around, where Darl and co will not be able to hinder anyone takng a look at the code. He is probably crapping himself at the thought of this scenario, because I don't think it will be at all possible for him to prove ONE SINGLE INFRINGEMENT.
The result will be that the case will get thrown out of court and SCO will have to file for chapter 11 almost immediately, and Darl will have to join the ranks of the unemployed...
That is, unless he takes MS up on that job offer to work in MS marketing.
On behalf of anaerobic bacteria everywhere, I must ask you to stop your libelous assertion that lawyers are a form a anaerobic bacteria.
They would threaten to sue, but that would be too low for them.
www.eFax.com are spammers
SCO (which is to say, McBride) should learn to shut up before they ingest their entire leg.
Asked why SCO has suddenly started looking at these issues now, after years of declining revenues at his company and the increasing popularity of Linux, McBride said SCO had few options in the late 1990s as Linux began surfacing in the business computing world. "Even if you potentially had a problem [with concerns about Unix code in Linux back then], what are you going to do?" McBride asked. "Sue Linus Torvalds? And get what?"
You would get the infringing code, which SCO has previously claimed is what enabled Linux to succeed in the market, out of Linux. SCO, of course, according to its previous statements, would then succeed because it contained all the *cough* enterprise characteristics that were required to succeed.
So which is it, McBride? If Linux would have been unable to succeed without the alleged SCO IP, then action in 1999 would have allowed SCO to succeed on its *cough* merits. If Linux was able to succeed without the alleged SCO IP, then you have just contradicted the statements in your court filing (not that that was a very accurate document, now was it?)
If I was a shareholder, I'd be mightily concerned about the total inability of SCO management to stick to a single, credible story.
The REAL story
It would just transfer the IP to IBM.. who could, at a later date, pull a similar stunt as SCO and sue us all, remember they hold 2/3 of the IT patents in the world..
Not that they WILL, but they COULD....
---- Booth was a patriot ----
McBride said his company will open samples of its contested code to interested parties next week under nondisclosure agreements so SCO can prove its points. The open-source community, however, won't be be given an opportunity to remove any offending code and replace it with new material, he said. Instead, damages will continue to be sought.
So in other words, he's going to let people examine their "evidence", and allow them to come to their "own conclusions", but prevent them from disclosing any proof to the public of the validity of their conclusions. In other words, we're back at square one -- a whole lot of unsubstantiated allegations, no proof. Btw, even if there are "hundreds of lines" of shared code, that does not prove that they were copied into Linux from SCO. It's much more likely to be the other way around.
Btw, can't Linux just sign the NDA and then -- if he finds anything -- remove it from Linux?
It's sort of like somebody stealing your car, and you hunt them down and you find them, and they say you can have your car back, but there's no penalty for that
Except Linux (nor GNU/Linux) has stolen nothing, nor has IBM, from SCO. Even if that allegation were true, the fault would lie with IBM, not the FOSS community.
Giga Information Group Inc. analyst Stacey Quandt said she has discussed SCO's offer with her legal counsel, and if she signs an NDA, it may hinder her ability to write about it.
In other words, SCO has stacked the deck. People can review their code under these terms, but can't write in any convincing manner to the public about their findings.
[Giga Information's Stacey Quandt] has advised clients of Cambridge, Mass.-based Giga to continue with their Linux adoption.
In other words, SCO's absurd allegations aren't driving people away from GNU/Linux.
They don't want to tell; they want to sue. -- Linux
That just about sums it up. Except that IF their claims are valid, they gain nothing by with-holding the evidence. They cannot claim before a court of law that they should get continued damages when they could have allowed the FOSS community to remedy the situation.
[Stamford's George Weiss] said SCO is making its case based on "vague inferences" and is asking analysts to do the same
It appears the experts agree with me.
[Framingham's Dan Kusnetzky said, "I'm not sure that showing us the code would prove anything to me, because I don't know where it came from"
As I said before, it will be difficult if not impossible for SCO to prove where their code came from, the dates on it, etc; whereas proving those things will be easy for FOSS.
Even if there is similar code, that doesn't mean there is infringement, especially under copyright law "fair use" provisions, said Overly. "If I take a piece of code that someone has written, take it verbatim but expand on it and use it for a completely different work, that may or not be copyright infringement"
Another problem for SCO's absurd case.
a review of the code by anyone other than a judge "means absolutely, positively nothing" in determining the merit of SCO's claims.
A review by people other than lawyers will give you the real truth on the matter. Though a judge can give a legal ruling, it will invariably be false, as judges understand about as much about computer code as I understand hieroglyphics.
legal experts said Linux users have to pay attention to the fight. "The fact that you ignored it could potentially cause your damages to increase substantially"
Actually, GNU/Linux users can ignore this all-together. The user faces no liability what-so-ever. Nor, in fact, can anyone be said to be liable other than IBM, for they are the only ones who were in a position to know what was and was not proprietary SCO code. No-one else, not the FOSS community, not GNU/Linux users, nor GNU/Linux companies, were in any position to have any possibility of knowing that (because SCO's code is closed).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Sufficently advanced political correctness is indestinguishable from irony.
What words am I permitted to use oh enlightened ones?
If I use your safe words but utter them with absolite unconditional malice will you leave me alone?
How would calling a smack baby 'genetically dependant' right any social injustice?
Whatever allows you to deal with YOUR guilt-complex I guess.......
Well, look at the poster's subject line. They can't tell the difference between on and one, so, why are you surprised?
Now would be the perfect time, btw, to buy stocks from IBM, RedHat, and any other GNU/Linux company, who's stock's may have taken a price-dip. P/E is likely very low for these companies, and the stock is likely undervalued by irrational pessimism on Wall Street.
But, hey, don't trust me. Check out the stock prices on IBM and RedHat and other GNU/Linux companies, and read Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor and Security Analysis.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
If there's no-one's code in the kernel where the heck does it come from?
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
From the first article:
after years of declining revenues at his company and the increasing popularity of Linux, McBride said SCO had few options in the late 1990s as Linux began surfacing in the business computing world. "Even if you potentially had a problem [with concerns about Unix code in Linux back then], what are you going to do?" McBride asked.
Fucking sell the software????
To be honest, I dont get it! I am not living in US, so the whole biz with the racism thing is strange to me. What I do know is that the "white" is generally not seen as something negative, "white" in this context is describing people who has been seen (by them self) to be superior. Yeah take that! Flame away, "white" people has not been the victim of a racist society (in general..), so saying "white"[negative noun] is basically {equalling}(my invention...) the scores. So here I go: "WHITE SCUM"!! He, this is as far as I can go in trashing my karma, nevermind, I'll quit posting here anyway..Gods be.
I don't know if you have considered this. AT&T bought NCR in 1991 and sold it again in 1997. It's on NCR's history page: http://www.ncr.com/history/history.htm
As far as I can gather, NCR started production of the 3000 series from Sep 1990 using 80386/80486 chips:
Model [#CPUs] Manufactured from
NCR3320 [1] Sep 1990
NCR3450 [1-4] Sep 1990
NCR3550 [2-8 ] Sep 1990
NCR3600 [8-288] May 1991
Later Pentium-based servers were released as this news release shows: http://www.att.com/news/0593/930517.ncd.html
All these systems run System V.4 in what NCR calls Massive Parallel configuration. So evidently AT&T had the knowledge of how to build multiprocessor systems back in 1991. However, some proprietary hardware was used to to keep the processors in sync. The question is how much of this was made available to SCO in 1995. If they had full access to this information, they would not have been able to use it, as they don't produce hardware, but maybe they now think they can tweak it to run on modern Pentium chips and seize the highend of SMP solutions.
It could also explain how SCO can assert they have experience in 8+ CPU multiprocessing even though this capability doesn't show up in SCO's products.
Waaaahhh...pay attention to me!!! I'm a player too, you know! You'll see! Or I'll fsck you all up! Waaahhhh!
McBride and Boise
two people who will never work in IT again...
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Geez, when this nonsense first broke, who _DIDN'T_ think it was a buyout ploy?
Strange courtship ritual though.. I'm sure McBride has a hefty golden parachute setup, since there's NO WAY any of the 'responsible' leadership would survive a buyout..
I can understand some people being bent out of shape over what they perceive to be a double standard (i.e., anyone can make fun of whites and it's ok), because (usually) they only know their side of the story. As someone else has said, it's to be expected that the members of the least oppressed group - that has done the most oppressing in the last few centuries, btw - are going to get treated this way by those groups that were (or perceive themselves to have been) oppressed by them. That's just human nature, I think.
I do find it interesting that someone on slashdot was able to read an article about someone trying to crush Linux, that said article contained a quote by Linus, and the thing they choose to comment on is his use of the phrase "white trash."
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
A thought just occurred to me: What if SCO appropriated Linux code? If their aim is to present a position to IBM for buy-out, why not copy a bit of Linux code that has been introduced in the last year into SCO, go back to the back ups, alter a few time stamps and insert the code into SCO Unix? Then, *poof*! Instant infringment! The very fact that they want to keep things under wraps until trial is because they are going to petition the court to keep the code secret--we will *never* get to see the infringing code. I suspect that they very much want to keep what has been "stolen" under wraps so that only lawyers will get to decide whether it was stolen or not and not someone with a technological clue.
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
For once Microsoft was right. For a long time, M$ has claimed that Linux is a bigger threat to proprietary Unix than it is to Windows. While the threat to Windows is far more than M$ originally expected, the proprietry Unix variants are getting clobbered by Linux.
I find it intersting that companies with more to sell than just an OS (Apple,HP,IBM,Sun) are working on peaceful coexistance with Linux, while the pure software players (SCO,M$) are at DEFCON-1.
As soon as tried my first Linux install (remember SLS?) I knew SCO was in trouble. The fact that it took this long for SCO to deploy an exit strategy is a monument to their executive leadership. The fact that they have the stock flying on vapor is interesting, but it would have been a whole lot smarter to do all of this back in 2000 when their stock was >$80/share and the handwriting was on the wall.
Linus, and anyone else, who wants to compare the SCO code (Copywritten, possibly but unlikely full of SCO's "secrets") to linux (which anyone and his dog can see anytime with no hassle) need to sign an NDA. Why?
The same reason that sco hasn't told us what code is infringing. If we put aside the fact that SCO's unix products are all the worst crap I've ever had to use, and that it's extremely doubtful they had any secrets, and just assume they DID have some secret method in there that had some value...
They can't just say "They stole our scheduler code!, on lines 12345 to 12500 of the 2.4.15 kernel!" Because... then everyone would KNOW The secret, and it would not be a secret anymore.
Maybe this is stupid, I don't know. But... SCO basically allege that the scalability of today's Linux is the key issue. I have little doubt that their claims are pretty trashy, but IANAL and all that.
So why not just rewrite that multi-processor code for 2.6 anyway? Probably with a new team of developers to emphasise the clean room nature of it, I admit. Might set back the release date by 6 - 8 months, but it would nix SCO (hell, they might even collapse once it was clear that even if they won the court case it would have no impact on their rivals).
So, how stupid is this?
In this respect SCO is not unique. Many an ok company has been destroyed over the past few years by greed and a belief that money can be made from nothing. However, most of those companies are no longer a threat. The question is, why is SCO still out there? Why is it that no one want to come up with 100 million to buy them out. It seems like if they have the IP they claim to have someone would have done so already?
Furthermore, if SCO wanted to be sold, why not do it last year when the company was worth something. Did they try, but during due diligence, did the suitor decide that there was nothing there to be bought? Or is SCO really run by punk rock band members who believe insulting their suppliers and customers is the best way to boost shareholder value?
I honestly do not believe IBM thinks SCO has anything it wants. I honestly believe SCO is being bankrolled by a third party. That third party is likely to be MS or the secret second licensee holder. The stakes are high. In the next few years customers will decide if closed source, open source, or a combination is the best software value. Open source software can coexist and thrive with closed source software. It is clear from the reaction of some closed source software vendors that they do not believe they can survive in such an environment. We know who is afraid, and we know what people do when they are afraid.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
What a surprise, they were doing so well in their sector. I *never* thought that this whole thing was to drive a buyout.
Rate = Weasels
Why don't they load a database for an installation of this software with code that is indisputably "clean" like the BSD code, code that is clean because it was released in the GPL'd Caldrea releases, the Lindows code they used with SCO's blessings, etc. Put in all the legitimate sources Linux developers could have used as inspiration, then load the current distro OS source, run a comparison and see how much came from "legitimate" origins. The remainder is original work OR possibly bastard code stolen from a illegitimate source.
Do the same with SCO's code, rev by rev, and see if there is any overlap. If there is stolen code, there will be identical text. If something is the same in Linux and SCO's UNIX ... check the dates to see who wrote it first.
With this method, NO ONE has to see the source code but the people running the software that does the analysis, and even they just load it into the database. They need not be programmers because they just do a "pedigree" check on the code. In fact they should not be programmers ... anyone can ifentify a string of matching ASCII text. They would not be hindered by an NDA, and would be EXPECTED to testify about the results.
its gonna pay LOTS of money, I wonder even if its worth it. IBM already spent lots of money on Linux investments, and i dont think its gonna pay a lot more. The question is how mych are they willing to give, and how much are SCO willing to take (they started the bid @ 1 Billion, which is quite an exageration infact).
The lunatic is in my head
Well, it's not that simple either...
There are several ways this can go.
IF this comes down to patents, which is unlikely, then every copy of linux using the patented method would be in violation, and SCO could force everyone to stop using that method (in theory, anyway). This is highly unlikely, and they haven't mentioned patents yet. Furthermore, if it was about patents, there would be no reason to keep it secret before trial.. as their methods would be protected no matter what.
If it comes down to Copyright, IBM would pay damages, but the rest of the world would not be guilty of anything; pretend for a minute it's not Linux, but some version of OS/2. Would everyone who IBM sold OS/2 to have to stop using it or face legal action? Hardly. OF course, linux being free, it's a bit different.. but fundamentally, it's the same. And I'm sure the community would happily re-write the offending section, or find some code that pre-dates it and work from that, to be fair.
What is most likely, and what SCO seems to be saying, is this is trade-secret stuff. The thing about trade secret is, it only applies to secrets. That's what the NDAs and other contracts are for... so if IBM leaked proprietary methods (NOT patents... just thigns where two parties agree to keep it a secret) into the linux kernel, then they violated a contract... and they will pay damages. However, again, the rest of the community faces no threat. Trade secret laws are NOT patent laws, they don't afford you protection of something indefinately.. they only let you keep somethign a secret. If it's in the linux kernel, it's just not a secret anymore. If you leak a trade secret, say the formula for Coca-Cola, to usenet, you are gonna be in deep shit, trade secret laws will down on you, but coke has no way to stop the world from knowing about their formula now, and can't prevent someone from using it.. that's why they KEEP IT A SECRET... made in parts by separate companies, mixed at the factory, with the forumla only known to a couple people, and the files locked in some super secret vault guarded by alligators.
I've always wonder, we the people who are the affected if SCO wins, can't look at the evidence.
WE CANNOT DEFEND OURSELVES
WTF?
Perhaps Novell knew the diminished value of their UNIX rights, and figured selling licensing rights to Caldera (SCO) would make more sense? All they did was retain their own copyrights, so they can ultimately still license it to someone else, and work on unix stuff on their own without fear.
As for those rights.. if IBM suddently held those rights, by acquiring them from Novell, they would still be in court, as this is about a contract violation.
Thank you for the clueful insight. Apparently so clue'full' that you didn't have enough left to avoid exposing your true intelligence level.
When people start discribing the Linux community as a business you know what they are about.
Linux isn't a business. IBM is a business, RedHat is a business, Slackware and Debian have a business aspect. But Linux is a code.
This dosen't mean anything malicous in itself. I've just noticed often people will say "The company that makes Linux" or "The Linux industry".
There is in fact a Linux industry but that industry dosen't reflect the whole of Linux. There isn't a "company that makes Linux" there are companys involved in the creation of Linux but there has never been a single company responsable for the whole ball of wax.
Not Like Microsoft for Windows, Apple for MacOs or AT&T for Unix.
What it means is that the person is thinking only in terms of business as if everyone has a proffit motive for anything they say or do.
I submit (and I'm going to say this is sand not cement that I have for the foundation of my clame..) that SCO is looking at Linux as a compeditor and simply desided that there is stolen code in Linux.
SCO need not so much "prove it" to us but the least they could do is tell us what code is stolen. We could replace it quickly enough and it'd be over.
And he said it right... SCO is out to protect it's shareholders. Not SCO's intelectual property.
They have NOT proven anything yet they keep seeking payment from Linux users.
I don't think SCO knows it's clames are bogus. I think they actually believe thies clames are valid. But they don't know what code is stolen and if they'd check I think deep down they know they won't find any stolen code.
SCO has presented us with an argument that is simply "Linux now has features found in SCO Unix. The only way this could happen is if Linux got code from us."
That's not true.
SCO expects us to accept that alone as proof. But it's not any more proof than to say:
A Zigu Di rock fan steals donuts from a 7-11
Jack Du is a Zigu Di fan... he must be the crook.
There is more than one way to solve a given problem and more than one person who can find a solution.
SCO won't put it's money where it's mouth is.
They won't point out the offending code.
What's to stop SCO from pointing at some random code and saying "Thats it.. thats ours"?
Easy...
SCO: "See this thats ours..."
Linus: "Ummm no I wrote that myself."
SCO: "Oh right.. well that's ours"
ESR: "Thats BSD code..."
SCO: "Oh sorry... THAT..."
RedHat: "Is covered in RedHat patent xxxxxxxx. We liccesned it for open source use only. Your using it you said so your villating our IP fork it over...."
SCO: "I mean this..."
IBM: "We wrote that in 1933 to solve a defect in 'Mega 1+1=2 delux' it was taking more than an hour to add 1+1..."
SCO: "Umm this?"
Ghost of Lovelace: "Sorry thats MY code.."
SCO: "Well THIS is deffinetly ours."
CmdrTaco: "I wrote that."
SCO clames the code came from IBM. But if they finger code randomly they'll likely find code that IBM never touched.
SCO is seeking to discredit Linux and boost sales for it's failing product.
If I were forced I'd switch to BSD.. not SCO.
Or if a commertal Unix I'd use Solarus.
I don't actually exist.
How exactly do you check the origin of proprietary code to begin with? Isn't that the point?
If SCO 'knows' there is Unix code in Linux, doesn't that mean they could have had their engineers (or someone else who has access to the Unix code) study the code to benefit their own? I doubt a point like this would ever come up in court because it's pretty loaded and would be hard to prove but it is something to think about... And it may not even be illegal assuming they didn't copy and paste.
'nuff said.
The good - someone like IBM buys them out and M$ can (snicker) "license" all they want from IBM. Or they fade away because of the clout of the Linux (GNU/OSS/FSF) community.
The bad - everything stays as is right now and we all ride the FUDtrain (or at least the ones who believe it.)
The ugly - M$ does some silly stupid crap to keep this thing going.
FLR
Sounds like the damn Rambus people must be working at SCO now.
Rambus joined a working group to impliment a new DRAM standard, then left, and then sued everyone for infringing on their patents that happen to be submitted after they were working with the working group.
Any similarity?
Most of the SCO stock is 'closely held', meaning the owners will not part with it except for a LOT of MOOLAH.
A putative market cap of 100Mil means nothing if the marority holder won't part with his stock for less than $50 or $100.
Remember that the current price is set at the margin, and acquiring all of the stock has NOTHING to do with the margin.
When it comes to corporate shenanigans in IT I usually bet on whoever's the biggest and most evil to win. In this case, IBM is the biggest but SCO is the most evil. Does big and evil cancel each other out leaving the outcome a tossup?
SCO: "We will show you the lines of code misappropriated by the GNU/Linux OS. For example:
void main {
That alone appears thousands of times in the Linux source code! The bastards stole that! They are trampling on our intellectual property rights with such infringement! "
On a more serious note, IBM would be fools to buy SCO since every unscrupulous creton on the planet will come out form under their rocks to try and work the same deal.
SCO was crushed by the market - a better deal came along in the form of Linux and many of us took it. Their product is largely irrelevant, outdated and inadequate. The market is a cruel but unbiased place - and it has delivered SCO's death warrant. This is just a gang-plank appeal to try and forstall the inevitable.
The Linux source code is pretty well kept and well documented. If they "lift" code, we'll be able to determine where it came from, who submitted it, etc. So in this case, SCO will have to find the person who submitted the code and 1) somehow determine they have no records of the development and 2) somehow prove they had access to the SCO source code.
What if the so-called thief has some e-mail to his buddy that shares the code (e.g. "Hey dude, can you review this for errors before I submit it to the kernel maintainers?"). What if some obscure archive of a mailing list shows that portions of the code were discussed. Everyone in SCO stands to face MAJOR criminal lawsuits if that's the case.
It's much more likely they are simply lying or that they are picking on common short functions that are more logical than anything else.
Let a few rumour slip to the press that the $10M is the price they estimate the court case will cost and thet they think they will be unable to collect the expected Damages against SCO they court will impose.
That would make their stock price crash to around $2 for a Capitalization of around $15M, then have a RedHat led consortium offer $20M or so, that will likely be accepted.
IBM can then buy some of the SCO contracts from RH and a later date.
That way there will be no impression left that IBM gave in to Blackmail.
Help fight continental drift.
The problem with "white trash" is that it carries an implication that the "white" people in question are assuming qualities that "should be" associated with "blacks".
So when a white person calls another white person "white trash", what he is actually saying is, "black people are trash, and you are like them, when you should not -- you should be like a white person."
"White trash" has a strong implication of inferiority of non-whites.
Wow... could that write up have been any snottier? How many gold records did that wanna-be lawyer have?
"I am not living in US, so the whole biz with the racism thing is strange to me."
I don't know where you live, but, racism is certainly not specific to the US. Either you live somewhere that has a single predominate race, or you live in an enlightened society.
SCO is trying to get bought out by IBM pissing off IBM. Ok, so maybe IBM will buy them, but it'll be for a pittance and then everyone will get fired.
So, SCO is looking out for stock holders by turning into a penny stock over night?
So, what happens if you sell short and the value goes to zero?
Not really. I think white trash refers to the very distinct poor white population, and its attendant stereotype. Personally, all racial groups have people that they're a little embarrased about (as a Muslim, I'm more than embarrased by some of the people who claim to be doing certain things in the name of our religious culture!) and I don't really see the harm in being aware of that.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
MS could buy SCO who they sold Xenix too a couple decades ago. Then MS would own (some parts) of the original Unix. That could create some even more interesting court battles.
McBride et al are so full of bullshit they should think about selling fertilizer instead of an operating system.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I'm not sure they are actually looking for a buyout.
If you are trying to get bought out, you want to make your stock price attractive, perhaps *lower*; however, SCO seems to be doing just the opposite. Everything that's been going on with SCO could be seen as an attempt to pump up their stock price in the near term:
Now, why would they do this? I think we'd have the answer to this if we knew how much of McBride's compensation was in the form of SCOX stock options.
All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself. - Johann Sebastian Bach
> enlightened society
Not sure if these two words can coexist.
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
Having worked at Cambridge Tech Partners (which was where Messman was CEO before merging with Novell and making him CEO there) it became apparent to many of us that Messman didn't understand technology (he's old industry- Union Pacific, I think). He finished running that company the rest of the way down. If you're putting too much belief into what he says, prepare to be disappointed. This is not to say that I like SCO either or believe them. I just don't think Messman always knows what he's talking about.
Get a team together of Linux kernel hackers and ask Novell for a small team to healp search the linux source for plagarism. I'm pretty sure there are some decent plagerism detection apps floating around
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
"I'm trying to take care of the shareholders, employees and people who have been having their rights trampled on."
The only ones who have had their rights trampled on are SCO's clients, who have bought one of their systems, only to have SCO fall behind the rest of the world.
SCO lost their rights after they stopped viewing their clients as customers and started viewing them as an entitlement.
I've seen companies switch their viewpoint from one to the other and have seen every one of those that did lose customers right and left.
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
As pointed out earlier (Here,Hereby a few people you can't do that. PERIOD.
You have a DUTY to mitigate damages. Failing that you will collect ZIP.
Help fight continental drift.
These SCO people are beginning to look like total Nixonian assholes. Waiting for the next "15 minute gap".
So this is only an issue if you have a contract with SCO, as IBM does. IBM/Caldera/Novell/SCO may indeed have contract issues to work out, but that's their problem. It doesn't affect anybody else. Copyright, patent, and trademark claims can reach out to third parties. But a contract claim can only reach as far as the parties to the contract.
SCO may have backed off on making copyright claims after their lawyers realized that making false copyright claims is illegal.
I hate SCO as much as anyone. But let's be disciplined in our thinking: what SCO is doing is a sort of "business terrorism", and much as we don't like to admit it, terrorism is pretty effective. Again, think about it cooly and objectively. If IBM were to buy SCO, this would get this intellectual property issue done once and for all, and Linux's growth could continue unabated. The only downside would be having some smug, rich former SCO executives congratulating themselves after the buyout. Revolting, but let's get over it. Think of the long term, and IBM, do what has to be done to get this issue over and forgotten.
Sure, we could all sign an NDA and then look at the SCO code, but most of us are not interested in what the SCO code is. We simply want to know what code in LINUX has been, apparently, copied, from SCO, without permission. For this no NDA is needed, since that code is clearly already available to the public. SCO does not appear to be willing to do this, since it knows that a public discussion, on what is available to be seen,would likely kill its case. Until SCO stops throwing FUD around, I like many others are going to have a hard time taking them seriously. The only thing we can do is wait for SCO and IBM to hash it out in the courts, as SCO appears unwilling to provide any evidence to the press and the public in general.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
In my view, the only likely answer is the Microsoft connection. From the beginning, many suspected such a thing. The 'unrelated' licensing of Unix code by MS rose an alarm on this issue, and it's worth noting that the amount of money transferred between the parties is 'undisclosed'. Could mean 'lots'.
I'm pretty confident SCO is being puppeteered by smarter (read: Redmond) guys, and that they'll be squashed like flies no matter the outcome of the whole mess.
Luckily, the defense looks strong. Just the Linus quote on the difficulty on getting any SCO code into the kernel speaks volumes...
I'm in a Unix state of mind.
Let's see if we can pool a bunch of $ togther and buy them ourselves. Then, we can release the SRV code to the public. It's not such a crazy idea, it's happend in the past wth other products.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
SCO claimed at first they owned... Then, when put in their place by Novell they changed it to we own the rights... It's entirely possible they own (via licensing) exclusive rights to something that is actually owned by another entity.
Hmm, that's interesting.. and certainly sheds some light on other things said by SCO..
Assume for a moment that there really is code copied from SystemV Unix into Linux. Doesn't matter who did it, just that it's there. This code is owned by Novell.
We'll also assume that the distribution license between SCO and Novell says that SCO has exclusive rights for the whole planet, and that it applies to the code in whole or in part.
Now, look at your previous statement - SCO is the only "legal" distributor of said code. This explains how they believe that they're not bound by the GPL
I think SCO's motives here are pretty sneaky - they think they have found a way to "own" Linux.. and on the surface they appear right.. Since the code wasn't GPL'ed by the copyright owner (and legally, can't be - because only SCO is allowed to distribute it,) SCO believes thay can now prevent anyone else from distributing the kernel.
Redhat, for example, wants to distribute Linux - but they don't hold the distribution rights to the Novell code.. the code isn't covered under the GPL, because it wasn't included with permission of the copyright holder.
On the surface, it appears to be quite a pickle.
Now, there are two possible outcomes:
1. The SCO/Novell contract allows SCO to grant license to other parties to distribute the code. If this is true, it could be argued that since SCO is distributing the code in a GPL'ed product, that they are doing so under the terms of the GPL, and thus the code is now covered by the GPL. If the contract says that the sub-license can't be compatible with the GPL, then Novell needs to sue SCO for breach of contract.
2. The SCO/Novell contract doesn't allow SCO to grant distribution sub-rights to others. In which case everybody else sues SCO for violating the GPL.
You can't buy a company that's suing you. Conflict of interest problems.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
If SCO gets blacklisted by customers, then they won't last long enough to get to trial in 2 years.
To be honest, I dont get it!
Most percieved "racism" isn't about race, it's about culture, and discrimination against other cultures is universal on this planet. Look at the Serbs and Croats. Look at the Kurds. Look at the Jews. (Judaism is a religion and a culture, NOT a race, although a lot of people seem to miss that fact.) When no obvious differences exist between two cultures, this just causes more and more subtle differences to be seized on by one side or the other to "prove" superiority.
You didn't say where you live, but I can state with certainty that there is behavior among your peers, neighbors, and relatives against "competing" cultures that would be called racism but for the mere fact that no differences in skin tone exist.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
I say that we buy Caldera out by offering them 1 million linux licenses.
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
Not necessarily. I'm sure IBM has enough money to order a hit or two.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
Wouldn't the worst result for the Linux community be one that never convincingly and impartially determines what's in the code?
This isn't a matter of trust and faith in the people who wrote that code. It's a matter of perception in the eyes of those who, in the absence of evidence one way or the other, will always wonder if SCO was right.
Sad to say, the damage SCO has already done may be worse than any fallout from proof they're right.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I would ask , " who gains by the discrediting of
Linux?".
There may be many answers , but at the top of any
list has got to be Microsoft.
This looks a lot like a very effective FUD
campaign on the the part of MSFT with SCO as
a front.
"who gains?"
Judaism is a religion and a culture, NOT a race
Just for the record: biological speaking there is only one human race. We can all produce kids that can produce kids, so we're all in the same boat.
This means there can be no racism. Stupidty is another story, there is a lot of stupidity in this world.
The site where: "I'm right, as long as you ignore the things that prove me wrong", became a valid method of debate.
IBM won't buy SCO because that is not how billion dollar corporations deal with IP terrorism. You don't appease small terrorists.
Why is SCO's action "IP terrorism"? Because its fundamental purpose is to destroy the remarkable social capital that the GNU license and Linux have created--the trust and co-operation of a global collaboration.
The fact SCO claims economic motives rather than ideological ones or corporate bloodlust or something doesn't matter. They are *trying* to make people suspicisous of sharing source. (AOL is doing the same thing with Nullsoft).
We will see increasing attempts to make people suspicious of "counterfeit GPLs" because terrorism pays right now.
In the long run, the social capital and trust our community has invested in Linux and GNU will have to be divided up in order to survive this sort of attack. Information may want to be free, but having a critical amount of it invested in one place invites attack. Like Napster.
The correct communal resopnse on *our* part (not to this particular attack, which is bogus, but to the swarm of them we will now get) is a more defensive posture in which the "web of trust" established.
Think of Linux and the GPL as the "gold standard" of the free software community (the thing everyone trusts). SCO and AOL are trying to panic us into thinking it is counterfeit, and engineer a corporate "bank panic" so they can mop up. They won't succeed, but they *will* decrease peoples trust in gold and drive its price down a little bit.
One response--the wrong one--would be to create a central repository of "valid GNU software" with a central agency, which would indemnify users of free software. This is the wrong approach because it makes free software quasi-proprietary--takes out the viral component of the model.
Another wrong solution is to try to make code use traceable by requiring the developer to publish deltas, not just source. This is wrong because it creates a high transaction cost (not viral, because it is not free).
The right response is to create numerous, smaller, "webs of trust" so that the whole interlocking structure is harder to attack. This is what modular kernels like the GNU/Hurd or Flux project do. Distributions will have many components, mixed and matched, pulling from the same communal pool. By spreading the IP over many projects and users, we can create the same P2P defence that is being used for the same problem in the music arena. There is no central server or even large server (Linus, IBM) to attack.
One way to solve the problem of counterfeit money is to eliminate the central authority. If everyone prints money (it's all counterfeit), then there is no one to attack. In the long run, the answer to terrorism is diversity (along with a solid defence of the "big" communal targets like Linux and the GPL).
This pushes the question of how you can trust money (software licenses) into the P2P area. You build small webs of trust that leverage the "gold standard" but in the long run do not depend on it at all. Probably, we will go through a "Bretton-Woods" stage of managed trust, before going for the free-for-all.
But. We *must* get to the free-for-all stage, or in the long run we will be hostages.
This sort of buyout search via legality was the first thing that came to mind. Even more ironic is that I figured IBM would be the target.
Brilliant.
The marketplace is already doing that--look at revenues.
In any event, if attacking the worldwide community of developers, users, plus their own customers *and* big corporations can't do it, I don't know what will.
Trust me. They're going down. Only problem right now is that trapped, dying animals are dangerous. They can and will do some damage.
Well, Windows is programmed in C++, so there's no way any of that would be getting into the kernel, no matter who submitted it. But we get your point.
Obviously the word "race" has multiple connotations, depending on context, and you are attacking a meaning that clearly wasn't intended by those using the word this way. It is not the case that "race" is strictly equivalent to "species", for example.
'McBride said: "We're not going to show two lines of code. We're going to show hundreds of lines of code" that allegedly violate SCO's intellectual property...' - hundreds of lines of code, is that enough to prove the SCO's claim? According to some sources, SCO would have to have not hundreds but thousands lines of code to show as violation of their UNIX rights (5-10% of the total would be the minimum). Since Linux's kernel contains several millions of lines of code, say it is 3mil, then 1% would be a whooping 300,000 lines of code. In addition, there would have to be a coherent and not haphazard way stolen code was implemented into Linux. So, SCO is nowhere near of proving their case even if hundreds of their lines of code might have gotten into Linux.
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
Even stranger than that, is UnitedLinux, which people seem to be forgetting about. If SCO knew that there were IP violations in Linux while they were working on and promoting UnitedLinux, something isn't lining up right.
Also, this was almost certainly an exit stragegy. If you look at there stock price before and after their filing the complaint, its very obvious they wanted to use this to bump up the cost of the company long enough to get bought by IBM to make them go away. Unfortunatly for them, companies started coming out the woodwork to actually fight them.
1: IBM execs make quiet offer to SCO execs over a game of golf
2: SCO drops lawsuit
3: IBM makes public offer to buy SCO
4: ???
5: PROFIT! (for SCO execs, everyone else is left with a few pennies and a vague uneasy feeling)
0 1 - just my two bits
http://www.arie.org/doh/ Take it away Daisy!
Hmm exploring the notion that SCO adopted Linux code not the other way around.
As I understand it SCO clames the code in question has given Linux some high end features.
I also understand those features were in Linux BEFORE they were in SCO Unix AND Linuxes version is supereor to SCO Unix.
(I don't know if this is true or rummor mill)
Now SCO clames that Linux and SCO Unix use the same code for the same features.
If this is true it is more likely SCO took the code from Linux and not the other way around.
The code in question would only work well on the kernel it was originally writen for.
The theaf would get infereor results from the same code.
Also the original code would first appear in the kernel it was writen for and from that kernel stolen and show up later in the theafs operating system.
With SCO showing up late and limping it's more likely SCO is using GPLed code that dosen't match SCO's kernel.
I don't actually exist.
Now, I still own the copyright. It's my movie: all Miramax bought were the US distribution rights. Does that mean I can't sell those rights to someone in Mexico? Maybe - maybe not; depends on the contract. But if they bought exclusive US rights then one thing is sure: I can't sell those exclusive rights to any other US distributor. And if Sony decides to stick it on DVDs and they haven't cleared it with Miramax, those will be the entities going to court; so long as I didn't break my end of the deal (by trying to sell the same rights twice) then it ain't my battle - it's up to Miramax and Sony.
Actually, a better example would be that they ripped off scenes from your movie and used it for another movie - only that movie had some other great features too and was a really big hitter. Suddenly I find it a lot less likely that the distributor would file a suit, rather I would imagine that would normally be you as the movie creator and copyright holder, in this case being Novell.
Anyway, I'm tired of this case. IBM can fight well on their own, and no matter what SCO will never have the rights to distribute any GPL/SCO code hybrid. By not removing it from SCO Linux, they are either grantign a licence under the GPL, in violation of the GPL or there is no SCO code in there.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
SCOX/Caldera has got to still have a few Linux developers/enthusiasts emloyed there. How about an insider's view? It's not hard to post anonymously..
What do employees think of this stuff? Do they feel there is some basis for the claims? Are they fighting against this internally?
"It's sort of like somebody stealing your car, and you hunt them down and you find them, and they say you can have your car back, but there's no penalty for that," McBride said. "If there's no penalty for stealing property, then where are we?"
Yeah, it's exactly like someone stealing your car. Except that you still have your car, so nobody actually stole anything from you except revolutionary ideas such as including tires, windows, doors, and a bumper. It's actually much more like me building a car in my garage using GM parts, that GM was currently offering for free, then suing me becuase I made a better Sunfire than they could, after they're technicians donated the tools and parts I built mine with.
I guess that depends on whether you use the dictionary definition of race, or redefine it to suit your own agenda.
Agreed. He's confusing me: is he or is't he suing Linus?
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Microsoft has learned, the hardway from AOL, that you can fight your opponents simply by buying up a company that has litigation potential.
If Microsoft was to buy SCO they would litigate against every Linux company for years AND at the same time ensure that all current SCO UNIX customers have a "safe" migration path to Windows servers.
I think I'll try this route.
Good point. Much has been made about SCO's apparent release under GPL of Linux code allegedly contaminated by Unix code. The argument is often made that SCO thereby GPL'd that code, making their suit pointless.
Well, maybe. Consider: The GPL, like others, is just a bunch of words associated with some software. Like other licenses, the GPL attempts to control the behavior of those in possession of an instance of that software.
Suppose a court decides that any release by SCO of Unix cpde under the GPL doesn't alter SCO's rights regarding that code; in effect, saying the GPL cannot be enforced. What then for the GPL?
Slashdot is replete with posts arguing the shrinkwrap licenses and EULAS are "just words" that aren't binding. If they aren't binding, why is the GPL?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
because we don't KNOW what code they are talking about, and we don't know whether or not it's actually for sure in the unix code that is out there... we don't know if they worked on somethign internally with IBM as part of the project and IBM leaked it, or what.
That will all come out, in time.
Obviously... but that doesn't change the fact that IBM may be liable for leaking the secret in the first place.
If you leak some company's secret, you can be in shit, even if the company can no longer control that information once it's out.. YOU are still responsible for the leak, and will pay.
Darl's next job could very well be working for M$.
That could be the Deal. Run SCO into the ground spreading as much FUD as can be had with this and when it's over he and a select few at SCO are heading for Redmond or to some M$ owned company near by in Utah.
His picture shows a fat larpo with odd skin coloring. Is he a pod person? The living dead?
He hasn't been missing any meals.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
The other company responded with a lawsuit against SCO violating 10 patents in various parts of its OS. The Judge looked at the list:
1. Part of SCO's IP subsystem violates patent no 23134/123312A532.123 "How to implement a linked list with processor registers"
Judge: ahhhh. We must study this evidence. What do we need?
Secretary General: We need a kiddy to reverse engineer the program. This is very hard to be done and companies spend a lot of money on it. Not to mention it's not legal.
Judge: We are the department of justice. People rely on us. I will reserve engineer this program even if it's the last thing I do.
Judge: So what do we do now?
Kiddy: See all those numbers here paps? All these are machine instructions. There are 100000 of them and we must convert them to assembly instructions and then look for the offending code. I like the 100MBit net connection tho...
Judge: Keep up the work. We are the department of justice people rely on us.
Judge: Hey wife! I learned a new thing today. It's called reserve engineering. You must look in 100000 numbers to find the evidence. We are spending $10M and 10K manhours, but it's worth it. People rely on us you know.
Wife: How exciting! The Simpsons are coming tonigh for lunch. Mr Simpson was telling us the other day about the new thing he learned from the on-line help. Hmmmm. How to include pictures in his emails or something. Now you will have something to tell him too.
Judge: Yeah.. We have some pretty impressive computers with big screens in the office now.
No wonder the department of justice likes computers.
Boards of Directors act in defiance of share holders everyday. It is SOP in the US to do so.
It's been in the news quite a bit. Even with all the notice it's getting Boards of Directors keep doing it. Don't count on any Directors to do whats corret. They won't
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
"I'm trying to take care of the shareholders, employees and people who have been having their rights trampled on." and "If there's a way of resolving this that is positive, then we can get back out to business and everybody is good to go, then I'm fine with that,"
What a load of crap. Nobody's "rights" are being "trampled on". SCO is a failed business about to die and that's all there is to it. If anyone buys them, they'll just be handing out golden parachutes to the unethical scum lawyers and management that have incited this fiasco. Here's to hoping IBM rips them to shreds instead.
that's why
UNIX code was re-written and released under the BSD license already. Sorry.
Oh, if if it WAS released under the GPL, why do YOU want to cause problems for the BSDers? Why are you wanting to force the BSD's to re-engineer?
No you can't buy them off forever but you can give them anti-freeze to drink. A big enough investement might be enough to do that.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
If 100 lines of code is 'stolen' from copyright holder X, that's ok, because its 100 lines of code.
What about from other [a-z][A-W][Y,Z] places? The 100 lines here, 100 there...each individual theft is no big deal, right?
You either tolerate theft or your don't. As you do tolerate theft in small amounts, how about if I take $10 from you. Its a small amount, you won't miss it.
If SCO has a case, great. Glad they stood up for themselfes. It would be nice if they picked a different way of growing a backbone, but at least they have one...no matter how deformed it is.
The right response is to create numerous, smaller, "webs of trust" so that the whole interlocking structure is harder to attack. This is what modular kernels like the GNU/Hurd or Flux project do. Distributions will have many components, mixed and matched, pulling from the same communal pool. By spreading the IP over many projects and users, we can create the same P2P defence that is being used for the same problem in the music arena. There is no central server or even large server (Linus, IBM) to attack.
Abolutely!
cheers- raga
The Windows kernel is programmed in C, not C++. They didn't want the runtime overhead in there.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
I can just see the closed-doors conference now.
IBM Guy: Well, Mr. McBride. You claimed that you had an offer to make, of a way to settle this amicably.
Darl McBride: That's true, and that's what I've wanted from the beginning. I've always hoped that we could find a way to resolve this peacefully and positively.
IBM Guy: Which is why your first attempt to 'resolve' this matter was to make loud, splashy public allegations.
Darl: What? Oh. Well, yeah, I suppose that maybe this meeting might have gone smoother if I hadn't done that. I'm sorry, it was a heat-of-the-moment sort of thing --
IBM: And why you further upped the ante by mailing those same allegations to our corporate customers, telling them that they could be sued if they continued to use a product which, at that time, you were still selling yourself.
Darl: Um... Well, yes. ... the heat of several moments? No. Ah, well, you see, it was just that I was mad that no one was taking me seriously, after all the time and care I put into manufact-- er, documenting the grievous wrongs done to my company.
IBM: Which company? The one that sold goods and services or the one that exists to extort money through allegations that your 'intellectual property' has been violated?
Darl: Ah... that would be the latter.
IBM: Yes. I've read your "documented" complaints. Very intriguing, I must say.
Darl: Why, thank you, I --
IBM: I especially like the part where you lied.
Darl: Excuse me?
IBM: Where you claimed that Linux could only have gotten so good if IBM took secrets that we learned from you and illegally shared them with the Linux developers. For instance, the secret of making the operating system run on 32 processors at a time.
Darl: Oh, well. That.
IBM: When in fact Linux was doing that back before you were working with us on Project Monterey, and before we began supporting Linux.
Darl: Um. Well, yes, but that's not exactly a lie, you see. Cause, um... well, our low opinion of the ability of anyone who isn't employed by SCO is just positive proof that anything good must have been ripped off from us!
IBM: Like 32-way scaling?
Darl: Yes! Like that!
IBM: Even though your own products don't have that?
Darl: ... Um.
IBM: But nevertheless, you're pressing ahead with the court case.
Darl: Well, not unless we have to; you know we've always wanted to settle this amicably --
IBM: Insults on the competence of Linux developers and the ethics of IBM?
Darl: Well, not "amicably", maybe, more like "peacefully" --
IBM: Not to mention that it's also an insult to IBM's practicality. We are still one of the biggest and oldest computer companies in the world. We have a huge intellectual property portfolio ourselves, and millions in yearly revenue. We can afford to hire the best people to create whatever intellectual property we need to stay competitive, but you instead claim we lowered ourselves -- and endangered ourselves -- by stealing from you. It's like accusing a millionaire of stealing a wooden nickel from a beggar.
Darl: Hey! Are you comparing SCO's intellectual property to a wooden nickel?
IBM: Yes.
Darl: Oh. ... well, that's not very nice.
IBM: Is it inaccurate?
Darl: Well, making it a wooden nickel implies ... I dunno, some sort of doubt that our claims are genuine.
IBM: Which is why you refused to clarify them, claiming that if you identified which code it was that was stolen from you, the Linux community could "launder" away the evidence?
Darl: Well, they could!
IBM: The evidence is available to anyone with an Internet connection from a few hundred different commercial vendors and academic institutions and non-profit foundations. Th
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
For whatever reason, the german SCO page seems to have no content.
3 -0 03/
Maybe this articlke (in german, google is your friend) is the reason?
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hps-31.05.0
"It's sort of like somebody stealing your car, and you hunt them down and you find them, and they say you can have your car back, but there's no penalty for that. If there's no penalty for stealing property, then where are we?"
The problem with this analogy is that commercial Linux distributors and customers *have not* stolen your intellectual property. They did not know when they adopted Linux that it (allegedly) infringed on your IP. They have made no agreement with you. Your desire to extract payments from these commercial Linux distributors and customers is extortion, pure and simple.
What's more, your obstinate refusal to make the allegedly copied code public makes it impossible for new Linux customers--those who have not already "stolen your car", so to speak--to adopt a platform that excludes those portions of the kernel that you claim as your own. I believe this is by design. Since "hundreds of lines" in the 3-million-line Linux kernel may infringe on your intellectual property, you wish to throw out the other 2.999 million lines so you may unfairly eliminate your competitors.
(A more correct car analogy is this one: Suppose Ford Motor Company stole some trade secrets from SCO Motors, Inc., and used them to build a superior automobile. Then SCO Motors sues Ford AND everybody who drives a Ford. Would this be just?)
You also claim that the open-source software model is inherently flawed because there is no "traffic cop" to ensure that submitted code is unencumbered. This is a ridiculous argument. As the Microsoft-Timeline case shows, traditional closed-source software companies are not immune from misappropriation of code. The only "problem" with open-source software is that anybody can review it, looking for their own code, as SCO has done. Linux users do not have the same luxury--they cannot, for example, examine SCO's source code to see if it contains any GPL code.
Furthermore, how would it be possible for any company, open-source or otherwise, to ensure that newly submitted source code is not plagiarized? Suppose a former Microsoft employee gets a programming job at Cisco, and "writes" new code that he actually stole from his former employer. He removes all of Microsoft's copyright notices, of course. How can Cisco know that the code was stolen from Microsoft? It can't--it does not have access to Microsoft's code to compare.
Similarly, the maintainers of the Linux kernel *could not have known* when your alleged SVR5 code was submitted into the source tree. The best you can hope for is for them to remove it once they discovered it was plagiarized--but you won't accept that. Instead, you'll jump to the conclusion that the entire open source software model is flawed and that everyone should just use proprietary SCO software instead.
You have indicated that you're only "trying to take care of the shareholders, employees and people who have been having their rights trampled on." What about the rights of everybody except SCO? The vast majority of LDPs and Linux users have done you no wrong. You are within your right to pursue damages against IBM for breach of contract, but you have no business trying to use this opportunity to unfairly destroy your biggest competitor.
Chapter 11
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
Here's a creative way of removing or changing any potential SCO code in Linux:
1) A Linux kernel-savvy hacker signs SCO NDA
2) Hacker looks at SCO "evidence".
3) Hacker emails kernel list saying: "I can't tell you what the SCO code looks like, but this code in the kernel needs to be removed or changed right now."
4) Some kernel code get changed - new release. Problem solved.
Hello, there's a point that I trully don't understand in all that story.
It seems that SCO was distributing a version of Linux called SCO Linux. (Is that right?)
If they were distributing a version of Linux with the "infamous-code" in their SCO Linux, it was under the GNU/GPL license?
So, SCO had licensed the "infamous-code" under GPL. (I hope you're following me).
So, is the code now GPL since those who own the rights (SCO) distributed it in a GPL-licensed software (SCO Linux)?
Please help me!
(Sorry for the poor English, but it's not my first language)
>>Not necessarily. I'm sure IBM has enough money
>>to order a hit or two.
D.McB: Contracts are what you use against those you have business with.
Not an exact quote, but close.
1000 SlashDot sigs
They might pay this lip service, but they do not want to be purchased.
Their deal with Bill & Co. is to FUD Linux as long as possible to slow its adoption in the enterprise.
This is an extremely dangerous time for MS since the economy is so bad and companies have to cut IT costs. Linux is *free* (and stable, fast & secure -- but that doesn't matter here). Support always costs money, so who cares about that part. MS must remove Linux from the market.
SCO's mission is to drag this out as long as possible. I'm talking about 10 years with appeals and motions, etc.
...(and I emphasize "if") SCO really owns the rights to the UNIX code, and if IBM buys them (which might as well be less than the actual value of the lawsuit -- not sure about that), wouldn't this enable IBM to use all of the good parts of UNIX and incorporate them in Linux under GPL license, hence making Linux the absolute superior form of UNIX OS (not that it is not already close to being that anyhow ;-)...
SCO licensed Unix to Lindows.com, which distributes it under GPL
We have no idea what was licensed, nor what rights Lindows was given.
No! Really...?
Personally, I think the typoe in "Stupidty" was taking the demo a step too far. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
That you'd have to pry maintainership of Linux from his cold dead hands ;-)
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Mod Parent Up insightfull and informative
IANAL, but I see a major legal risk in buying out SCO. While it won't be as significant as SCO winning in court, what a buyout could result in is other parties playing the same game.
Apparently, SCO does not own the actual copyright tp Unix. Instead, the own rights to license the original code, granted to them from Novell. They licensed those rights to IBM. But SCO, by not being the original copyright owner, cannot grant to IBM the right to give away the code. So even if IBM pays SCO a settlement, or buys those rights entirely from SCO, or just buys the whole company (which it could easily do), it does not begin to address the issue with regard to the original copyright holder. If IBM did give away or otherwise leak the code, the settlement may indemnify IBM, but SCO doesn't have any rights to waive liabilities for any other party it didn't specifically license things to. In the end, only Novell would have the final rights, and that could have a value 19 times that of what the SCO settlement ends up being.
SCO apparently doesn't even have the right to release the code to the public themselves. So short of a court order to openly release all the code (and a court could, and would more readily, keep everything under seal), the whole issue of whether there really is any original Unix code in Linux would remain unresolved.
So, IMHO, IBM should not buy out SCO whatsoever, nor even agree to settlement. SCO cannot themselves completely clear the issue, and a settlement would only further strengthen anyone else's claims, leaving much lingering FUD. The only way to resolve this is in court. And hopefully the court will be wise enough to determine that because of SCO's refusal to allow Linux to have the offending code removed, it loses all rights to any claims after the date the first request to show the code was made (shortly after it made these claims).
If there is code in Linux which is someone else's intellectual property, then certainly they have legal rights to make the claims and recover losses and royalties. But I know of no copyright or trademark law which allows the owner of the intellectual property to deny someone the right to not use their property.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
This makes it doubly silly... all right, triply silly... in addition to the base silliness of the case, they appear to be suing IBM for code leaks (which they haven't even identified to us, let alone proven they own) which occurred before IBM got involved. Here, D'ohl is implying that they knew about the alleged contractual problem years ago and did nothing about it because there was nobody involved at the time who was a plump enough lawsuit target; this is tacit agreement with the violations. If I were IBM, I'd be asking my lawyers to go for summary dismissal with prejudice. If I were the judge I'd do SCO for contempt of court.
Then (as IBM) I'd delegate a couple of bright kids to go through our own IP, looking for stuff SCO might have violated, and while they were busy among the files, go and have a quiet chat with Novell about the rights to Unix. Then publicise the results and watch SCO's stock flatline.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Novell should sue SCO simply to ensure that should SCO prevail, or accept a settlement, that Novell will be assured they get their 95% of the proceeds under the terms of the contract between Novell and SCO that gives SCO the right to license Unix and keep 5% of what they get for it. The reason I believe this is important is because I believe SCO intends to take any final proceeds, distribute them to shareholders and executives who have options, and dissolve the company, leaving Novell in a position to have to pursue "lifting the veil" to recover their 95%, which won't be so easy for all shareholders.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Dollars to doughnuts something like that's the case with every single one of their 10-to-15-line "violations".
It's like in biology everyone got excited when Stanley Miller made some racemised amino acids from crude chemicals plus electricity in a cunningly arranged apparatus. He got amino acids because that's the way chemistry works. You won't get proteins the same way because that's not how chemistry works.
Through a similar process, I would expect to see many dozen-line chunks of near identical code in any two large code bases addressing the same problem. Or even addressing different problems.
There's also a lesson to take home from statistics. One common trick pulled by statistics tutors is to split a class into two, and get half the class to toss a coin 100 times and write down the results, and the other half to "toss coins" in their heads and write out the results. The tutor can pick out the fake coin tosses because they are too even, there are no runs of five or six of the same side.
The complete absence of similarities would be strong evidence that someone had seen both SCO and Linux code and deliberately removed the similarities. The brain-breaker for the judge would be: does this negative evidence of awareness of SCO's code constitute misappropriation of trade secrets or abuse of contract? (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Can anyone point me to *any* response byIBM?
Sure.
SCO page on SCO versus IBM
See, in particular, IBM's Amended Answer to the Complaint.
The juiciest information is in the exhibits, which are the actual contracts. I particularly recommend Exhibit C.
Disclosure: I am short SCOX.
One, they don't take Linux seriously. They're saying the same things in their brainless complaint that they said in early 1999. They just don't get it.
Two, they're stupid enough to expect IBM to cave in on a bluff. And if IBM aply the wrong lawyers to the case (things aren't looking so crash-hot on that front judging by their last filing), SCO's stupidity may actually pay off. Even so, it would have been an unjustifiable gamble if SCO hadn't already been doomed anyway.
I think SCO's desperate and technically baseless actions are a reasonably clear indicator that they do know that they're doomed if this doesn't work.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Given the Christian Right's rise to power, it seems reasonably obvious that the reverse is true. Vatican City in many ways owns the US Gummint. As prophesied.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Ah, that would explain why D'ohl is threatening to sue RedHat, SuSE, Linus and Novell.
</sarcasm>
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
SCO also can't sue people who don't know that the code or principles in question are their secrets. Which makes their refusal to identify the offending parts of Linux all the more suspicious.
In trying to taint all of Linux without identifying the purportedly copied code sections, they are carrying out a blackmail and restraining trade, and deserve to have their asses sued off.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
SCO's trade secret cannot take over the Linux kernel. Nowhere in SCO's licence does it say anything like "if you integrate our code into something else, we own that other thing." The GPL, on the other hand, says exactly that. In a way, it has its own legal penalty built right into the licence.
In continuing to knowingly publish the offending code in their own Linux distribution under the GPL and without qualification for two months after making complaint, SCO have implicitly agreed to the GPLing of that code. The question that remains is: is there any GPLed code in SCO's software. If so, I look forward to fetching my copy of the Unixware sources. Not because I want to use Unixware (it sucks) but as a trophy. I'm going to install a mantlepiece so I can stuff and mount the Unixware code over it.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I wonder how those lawyers are feeling right now about the misinformation SCO fed them for the complaint? If lawyers can sue for being shafted by their clients, they'd better get in now - ahead of the pack.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...on whether Linus was speaking to a journo or not. Even in private he's politer than average, but I think this might have annoyed him enough that politeness went by the board - in private. He's obviously been burned before, he plans ahead and thinks twice before saying anything in an interview.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
7 is game over.
Help fight continental drift.
The infidels have stolen our code. We have evidence that this is true. Pay no attention to changing stories as we believe this is propaganda distributed by the infidels to mislead you. Pay no attention to the buyout in the corner...
Yes, I know, but I can dream... (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Rather than selling the stock outright, a better move is to *short* the stock. In this situation, what you would be doing is promising to sell the stock at some low price ($.01, just like the CEO pays would be good) in the future. This reduces the current stock price, because people who might consider buying the stock buy the option from you instead.
In the meantime, you would still maintain your ownership position and could assert your rights as a stockholder.
Btw, you don't have to own SCO stock to short it. If you don't mind the liability (if the option is called, you have to buy enough shares to cover it), you can short stock with no ownership--just a cash deposit.
If I had any money, that is what I would be doing.
the trade secret is out anyway
there are only two possibilities:
1. they want the code removed. in that case it should be done as soon as possible. old copies of the code won't go away, so their evidence won't go either. whatever might have been the secret can easily be discovered by diffing the cleaned up version against the old version. by refusing to reveal which parts they find objectionable they wilfully increase the alleged damage
2. they are so concerned about their secret that they want to keep it a secret (after all, who can go through millions of lines and figure out which couple of hundreds of them are their "intellectual property"?). but in that case they agree to this code being released under the GPL.
3. ianal, but i would be surprised if they can collect license fees when they refuse the infringement to be rectified
hs
I can't wait for the exchanges to open again. "They do not so much fly as plummet [...and why not stop it?] Because of the enormous commercial possibilities if 'e succeeds". (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Everyone uses Roberts Rules of Order .... which are great - simply move something that requires a vote "I move a motion of no confidence in the chair under the 1906 senility act" or "I move that there be no smoking in the room" - then have a bunch of others disagree - force a vote - demand written ballots - if they insist on a voice vote demand a vote on that .... and demand written ballots .... if they don't agree keep recursing on votes on written ballots - otherwise on to step 2 - challenge the scruiteneers for the written ballot - demand a vote (even put up 2 competing planks) - demand a written ballot on scruiteneers, recurse for ever ...
We did this once in an AGM managed to have a motion of no confidence in the chair illegally squashed which ment that the companies books were not legally adopted and they were in position where a shareholders suit could have stopped them trading dead.
These meetings were so much fun - old guys in suits who were used to having an AGM once a year where 2 other guys would show up and ask why the dividend wasnt as high as last year, then they'd all retire for a sherry. They were faced with 100 really pissed shareholder with a game plan ... faced with this the chairman turned so red in the face and got so angry I swear I thought he was going to explode ....
Now if only the US had the same small shareholder protection laws that NZ does we could all power on down to SCO and have some fun ....
So far, the industry "experts" who declined are not experts. They are journalists
and English majors (aka. computer correspondents) who write articles on magazines
whose audience are CEO and non-technical users. It is the case of the blind leading
the blind.
I understand why these English majors have declined to review the code. No kidding...
...of SCO shareholders who don't want the company to go kamikaze? And of those SCO shareholders and employees who also own stock elsewhere and don't want to see it trashed by D'ohl's ranting?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
No, but I asked SCO about it. Let's see what happens.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I don't think a "buy out" is what SCO is aiming for here. The more you look at it, the more it seems that everything is aimed at making it more difficult for companies and individuals to adopt Linux (and other free Unix clones) as the operating system of choice.
I think here's what Mi^HSCO is trying to do:
Scare all the smaller Linux companies and potential users by suing Big Blue
The IBM lawsuit, along with other lawsuits they are filing against other companies (and winning settlements) will serve as a precedent for more Unix/Linux related lawsuits from other companies.
Companies (and countries) wanting to adopt Linux and its brethren as their operating system of choice will think twice, thrice, and eventually get tired of thinking about it and all the legal issues that might be involved and not bother to adopt free operating systems in the end.
Prove to everyone that using the GPL causes companies to lose their IP
Whether SCO wins or loses, this will make other companies, especially computer hardware manufacturers, think twice about putting their IP under the GPL, hence prevent them from putting code for device drivers and such under the GPL. The effect of which is to cut off the platforms on which Linux and friends can run on.
As a side effect of hardware manufacturers not putting device driver code, Linux users will be stuck with binary only drivers that are either buggy, or force you to use the kernel for which the driver was compiled. I had a recently bitter experience with the latter when I tried to upgrade the Linux kernel on one machine with a Promise Fasttrak device. The driver for that came as a binary only module (ft.o) and it won't work with other kernel versions (and yes I am aware of the existence of the pdcraid.o module but management is reluctant to allow me to use that for various reasons).
To summarize: cause widespread FUD about the use of Linux and Free/Open Source Software in general, and invalidate the use of GPL.
In the end, all of this SCO crap will benefit one and only one company and it won't be SCO or IBM.
...how long ago was that? Which group of lawyers representing which part(s) of IBM did he work with and are they at all congruent with the group being brought on line now?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Is Judge Rehnquist, in a Supreme Court brief, declaring that, "Creedence Clearwater Revival...has been recognized as one of the greatest American rock and roll groups of all time".
Almost as good as the old Onion article, "Supreme Court Rules Supreme Court Rules".
This would solve all there problems and they can drop the the stupid lawsuit
If there were such a law, the many complaints made against Microsoft (Borland and Corel are two that come to mind) would not have ended in sealed settlements that included Microsoft investment in the plaintiffs to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
..of SCO's claims, they *should* know that this *looks* like an attempt to scuttle the FOSS community (specifically the Linux community).
From a PR standpoint, this is a disaster for SCO. Even if they win this case, they're a dead company. I can't see anyone in the FOSS community trusting them again.
God! Don't these suits *think* at *all*? With AOL snugly in bed with MS again, the last thing we need is SCO going for the Linux jugular.
Nitewing '98
Everything works...in theory.
It's written in a weird bastardized version of C (not unlike Objective C) that is used internally by the OS and compiler groups.
Wolfram Research took a similar approach when creating Mathematica.
Anyway, you didn't hear this from me.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Nevermind that C++ practically didn't exist outside of AT&T and a few universities in 1988.
...or your choice of BROK, DEAD, TROL, LAME, LUSR, TRKY, EVIL, SUKR, CHP7, GONE, LATE, many others. MSFT is already taken.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...of getting your friend or any of his workmates to post here as an AC? Get him to use your or someone else's ISP account if he's worried about being traced.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
how can a judges preside over cases where they have no clue of the subject matter? first of all it's a waste of time since things probably have to be constantly explained to them. secondly how can they be expected to rule fairly if they have no deeper understanding of the underlying issues?
judges should either have to have a technical degree to go along with their law degree or at the very least be required to take some sort of course (and pass it ).
justice can be blind, but does it have to be ignorant as well?
That only after a couple of years in the USA Linus can make Jerry Springer metaphors?
Come on people, use a spellchecker for God's sake!
It's sure starting to look like Syria is queued up for the next liberation.
s/liberation/colonization/
Either it's deliberate, or they don't read their own website very often.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
If you want to solve something you need to get to the root of the cause. IBM just buying SCO doesn't work, because now Novell has already stated there is some confusion about what SCO actually own.
The claims that segments of Linux code might have been copied
from System V code may not all be due to the BSD code that ATT
copied into its code base. Significant amounts may be due to
the mode of comparison and the Birthday Paradox.
Consider that the comparison is supposed to be able to detect
code that is "the same but obscured". That means that indicators
of orignial creation like variable name, declaration order,
punctuation, comments and probably more are ignored. Then we
are faced with comparing two rather large code bases in the
same language (due to fashion, not copying) and with the same
functional uses, because the desire was to be able to run the
same code under them.
The number of design choices that may exist in tight code can be
very small, so that finding duplicate sections is very like finding
duplicate birthdays in a crowd. It happens much oftener than
those unfamiliar with statistics would expect.
Take a simple example. If I want to rewrite strncpy, caring
nothing about someone else's version, I may use an explicit
loop with one of maybe 3 variants, but most likely would
just use a for() loop. Given that I will generate a set of
error cases that need to be the same as everyone else's,
there is an excellent chance the result will look like a
copy. Unless evidence like variable names and declaration
order are included, there is just not that much room for
variation.
Alternatively, if I need to program a sort function, there are,
what, half a dozen basic algorithms to pick from. Might be
hundreds of lines of code and comments in the end, but still
the number of basic algorithms can be tiny. Another might
happen to choose the same algorithm without copying. If
details like names are omitted, they might still look identical,
purely by chance.
Run "code comparison" with most of this individuating detail
removed, over hundreds of such cases, and it would be amazing
if many duplicates were not found. Granted, changing these
details is one way one obscures a copy, but it is also the way
one shows originality where algorithm choices are few.
A statistically convincing proof of copying needs to be aware
of the birthday paradox and its implications, and for a large
code base needs to show a large number of duplications. The
number expected statistically to exist as a result of chance
may be something like the square root of the size of the code
base. Considering the constraints of function, it probably
should be higher still.
I would not even attempt to compare things like strncpy in real
life for such a case, but would restrict comparison to only
long and complex modules, but even there must remember the statistics involved and adjust my claims accordingly.
Given the known theft of code by ATT and this consideration,
I don't see how code comparison alone can show copying. Some
evidence of actual code history would have to be added in
to eliminate the known duplications, and anallysis of the
algorithms to find how many variations are even possible would
be required to get the statistics right. If SCO produces what
they have claimed, they will not have met this statistical
analysis burden and may only be claiming to be surprised that
the birthday paradox works in code as well as in crowds.
Glenn Everhart
Hmm.
Coherence really is overrated.
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
> You can't sit back and hope they make it profitable, then sue for damages.
You can sit back, but you will (usually) have to live on without getting awards from the court for the past activities. Typically, the court will simply enjoin the breacher from continuing, and move on.
For example, you can sit on a patent until the market adopts it en-mass. Then, sue to assert your rights. Your target will not likely have to pay damages for the past actions, but will have to agree to your terms moving forward.
Each of the IP types have slightly different rules. But it is very rare that any damages (real, or otherwise) can be recovered if you failed to pursue the problem at the soonest.
Once the holder asserts their rights, "moving forward", the they proceed on a civil basis. That means they must find and notify each violator. Until each violator has legal reason to believe in the merits of the holder's claim (usually through a formal notification), they have no special obligation to seek out and pay the holder.
Just because Unisys held a patent on GIF, doesn't mean you had to send them a check just because they said so. If they found you and sent you a letter, only then do you have to deal with the situation as they see fit. They can only sue for damages if you ignore them, or don't comply with their terms.
Patent and copyrights. Damages rare if the problem is not properly mitigated. A simple notice of a claim of infringement is usually not enough, without some documentation. Damages also rare if the infringement was accidental, or otherwise without malice. Holder continues to own the IP, and may assert their rights over anyone that wants to use the IP.
Trade secrets. Vanish if they are not *aggressively* protected. Damages must be mitigated. Any leak by the "owner", like releasing under GPL (even by accident), ends the game. A secret that is no longer has no value and is usually lessened as consideration in a contract sense) so the first to break a NDA usually ends everyone elses agreement too. Leaks by others are a breach of contract, usually (but not always) "kill" the secret, and the first party to breach is typically responsible for the damages.
Trademarks. Must be protected, or lost forever. Damages usually only in cases of malice.
Yes, here it is.
The agreement as written is extremely generous to SCO, potentially including as Confidential Information items that are already public knowledge.
Sometimes companies propose overbroad NDAs as ambit claims just to see if you'll sign. If you really wanted to see their stinking source you might by able persuade them to strike some of the more onerous clauses. Or perhaps not.
I would be *extremely* leery of signing an NDA with a desparate and litigious company that has shown so much willingness to screw its previous friends.
If I really wanted to do this, I would get rock-solid legal advice (and possibly a second legal opinion) beforehand.
You really have to ask yourself, though, what are you going to gain from examining it? The community panel is not legally binding, and SCO has the freedom to show only part of the evidence. At best it will be inconclusive, which allows SCO to keep spreading FUD. At worst, you get sued as well.
SCO have made very serious accusations against the developer community. The onus is on them to substantiate those claims with more than a few vague sentences.
If SCO want to try this in the court of public opinion then they need to produce some evidence. If they want to hold onto the evidence until discovery in court then they should shut up and wait for the trial.