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."
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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
When the offending code is removed from linux, what do SCO expect will happen? It will simply be rewritten by the community and improved as a result.
That's why you can't see the code without a draconian NDA and why they will not show you all of the code. They want the code to STAY IN LINUX so they can license their Unix IP to Linux users.
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.
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.
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
I make a movie with my buds. We spend $100K of money hyped from friends and family and shoot a cool low budget western. Miramax sees it and likes it, they want to sign it. So, they contract a deal with me and my buds giving them exclusive license to our low budget western for the next twenty years.
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.
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.
That's the entire point of copyright and patent protection: to allow you to hold an exclusive property that can be traded and sold through contract. SCO may or may not have a case, but it's not a stretch to believe they (at least) honestly believe they own exclusive rights to a property owned by Novell.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is absolutely correct, and in turn opens up SCO for lawsuits from the other UnitedLinux partners.