Slashdot Mirror
SCO Gives Friday Deadline To IBM
bcisys writes "Reuters is reporting that SCO is planning to revoke IBM's license to Unix this Friday unless IBM settles SCO's claim that parts of its Unix code are being used in Linux. 'If we don't have a resolution by midnight on Friday the 13th, the AIX world will be a different place', SCO President and Chief Executive Darl McBride told Reuters News. 'We've basically mapped out what we will do. People will be running AIX without a valid license.'"
...Or I'll say Stop again!
I mean it this time too, pal.
This whole thing seems more and more like a bad movie.
Feh.
SCO is sounding more and more like the meglomaniacal villian from an 80's movie.
At least that'll make everyone elses' lisences invalid just like mine.
So they either have to remove code they don't know about, or pay up ... not much of a choice SCO leaves them.
Friday the 13th?! Is this a really bad movie, or what?
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Perhaps April 1st would be a better deadline.
Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling
They are just trying to make a buck and do it all in one foul swoop. Hopefully this won't last long because I can't stand seeing the letters S,C,O in any more articles.
___ Shout Central - Crushes your nuts!
Think they could've picked a better date for this to end on?
i mean, SCO hasn't even gotten IBM into a courtroom yet.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
damn. i still wish they were making seinfield episodes. i think i'll go read a non-fiction book right now and expand my horizons. bye
Jason yeilds his toothless chainsaw...
I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!
The whole plot of the SCO vs. IBM saga.
if you bought the rights to use AIX, is it legal to have it revoked?
We be the pirates of SCO! we tell you to pay up or face the consequences! Of us putting our blade threw the gully of Unix license. Arr you cant threaton us with the fact that you are 100 times larger then me, wont spare our bearly leagal clames to owning Unix! For we are pirates and arr above the law! now fork over your treasure!
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It's pretty clear that SCO is trying to get IBM customers to pressure IBM to settle this. However, it frankly seems pretty absurd. The bottom line is that, as a customer, I am not responsible for IBM's alleged failure to maintain a proper license for UNIX. IBM's license is a license to *copy* UNIX software, and copying is the only activity that could possibly be prophibited. Given that IBM's customers already HAVE copies of AIX, unless IBM's license from SCO has some very odd language in it it seems extremely improbable that customers could lose the license they already have.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
What does this really change though?
This seems like nothing more than a sneaky attempt by SCO to force IBM to settle.... Did SCO not check into IBM's operating profits before this announcement? This isn't a David and Goliath situation, this is a David VS. 4 Goliaths with Lasers.
And I want Goliath to win too.
Stupid SCO.
yes, this is sco's new business strategy, sue EVERYONE.
Anyone else get the feeling that going after other UNIX and UNIX-like operating systems via what appear to be tenuous legal arguments is SCO's new business model?
I guess SCO thinks that calling in the lawyers beats actually trying to compete on the merits of its products and services.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I've never exactly been a fan of anything relating to SCO or Caldera, and now it's just getting to the point that I hate them with the same amount of passion with which I hate Microsoft. Monopolistic practices and being an asshole by making outlandish claims and having a NDA that makes it a guarantee that no one will want to look at the code are not much different to me...That factored with the allegations that SCO copied Linux code into their own...
Well, I guess that's just more reason for me to run a mostly-Linux setup (damn winscanners).
My list of fears that may strike me down...
Plague, famine, war, draught, ex-friends, guns, China, W Bushâ¦
And the new addition...
SCO revoking my license
Now I must be off to my âpanic roomâ(TM) to cower in fear!
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
If I live the rest of my life and never hear the name of SCO again, that will be fine by me.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
"People will be running AIX without a valid license"
That is complete FUD. All NEW users of AIX, but you can't take it back.
Friday the 13th?! Is this a really bad movie, or what? How long after this do you think we will be seeing the made-for-TV movie?
Slipping Away...
I was just about to switch to AIX too.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Great. So everyone using AIX will be doing it illegally!
Now i wont feel so bad about 100% of the nonfree software on my computer being pirated.
It's viral: parts of SCO code in AIX make the whole AIX a subject of SCO whims.
If the license of a subcomponent is revoked the whole thing may be in trouble. What if one of M$ subcontractor get in dispute with M$? Windows user is suddenly in license violations.
IBM will guarantee its customers protection from any indemnity, and they'll keep on running AIX. Come Friday, everybody will be happily running unlicensed copies of AIX in the knowledge that IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.
Sorry, SCO, you lose.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
After Friday, we'll have a pretty good idea what IBM really thinks about SCO's suit. If they make no attempt to settle, it will be clear they really don't think SCO can prevail.
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there" - Will Rogers
IBM should just sue SCO for causing damage to the consumer. With this type of move, obviously SCO is hoping that IBM would sense possible damage to its consumers and back off like a good mommy. However, I just think that IBM will sue SCO ;). Everyone hates SCO more than Microsoft now, you'd think they'd get the hint. SCO will not be a company in a few months.
this is rather unethical and smacks of blackmail (I know, surprising coming from SCO). If SCO goes through with it it will seriously lessen their credibility in the eyes of a judge.
The legal system appreciates efforts to resolve things out of court. SCO is saying they want everything their way and is not willing to negotiate.
My guess is that IBM will seek an injunction preventing this.
An SCO koan.
And the apprentice asked of the Master, "But the end user is not the infringing party. Why are they to be invalidated?"
The Master replied, "Are the children at fault if their father steals a loaf of bread to feed them?"
"No."
"Yet the baker sees the children eating, the produce of his ingredients" says the master.
The apprentice points out "The father owns the bakery. The baker stole the recipes, which were developed by the father's kin. Who owns the bread now?"
The Master became enlightened.
What enduser group cares? This is ultimately IBM's fight... clients don't care where their solutions come from, only that they work.
||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.
(emphasis added by me)
Though I appreciate that SCO's tactics may be foul, the phrase you're looking for is one fell swoop, as used by Shakespeare. And while you may feel that the use of "foul" may be an appropriate exchange in this case, I assure you that fell is much more so. Observe:
The interesting thing is that SCO is now punishing people for buying Unix/AIX (TM) not Linux. The media spin has been that Linux is under a haze of doubt but for now at least Red Hat customers seem to be in a better position than AIX customers even though IBM has paid for a Unix license and Red Hat has not. Weird.
We dont need no steenking license!!!
So they're gutting the profitable part of their business by getting rid of all ties with IBM involving Unix. Their genius never fails to astound me! IBM will be hurt slightly by this but SCO will be crippled, as I understand it. First they won't release the contraversial code and now this? They've basically killed their business even if they win.
read my blog
musings on politics and technol
All I can say is that I did not license my AIX boxes through SCO. I licensed them through IBM and the only person that can revoke that is IBM!! The courts my not see it that way but I have no contract with SCO so how does SCO think that everyone running AIX will be illegal?
Mike
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
You can't handle the truth!
WHERE'S THE BEEF!!!
...make me point at the sign...
I think that this one will be quite ineffective. I seriously doubt that any of IBM's customers will worry in the least that they will not be protected from this. I would bet that all of those CTO/CIOs are sleeping just fine, because they have faith that big blue will take care of them. I guess it's possible that IBM and its customers could be harmed by this, but I wouldn't put much money on it.
Though, the people who might truly be worried are SCO's customers. It's a much more likely possibility that SCO destroys itself than it destroys IBM.
yeilds?
assuming you meant to spell it correctly, one does not yield a chainsaw. you can, however, wield a chainsaw. that is more likely what you meant to say.
If I have to tell you just 17 more times then your for it....maybe.
I'm going to assume you meant "yields" when you wrote "yeilds". However, I don't think you meant to imply that Jason gives over possession of or surrenders his chainsaw, especially since you called it toothless. Instead, Jason handles [his toothless chainsaw] with skill and ease. That the chainsaw is toothless is the point; while he may be skilled at wielding his chainsaw, it's completely ineffective.
That's hilarious! You just can't make up stuff like that.
... I knew it! That's when McBride's car payment is due!
(I envision him on his kness.. Please... Please... PLEASE IBM!)
FLR
How many companies are going to in turn sue SCO for terminating their license? A large company could have a few thousand AIX licenses. That alone could easily be worth at least a million dollars. I think once their lawyers do some background work on this they will realize that IBM is not the one that is being unreasonable.
Spreading FUD about Linux is one thing -- you have a real chance of scaring away some potential Linux users that way. But AIX? It's old-school, like prehistoric. It's firmly entrenched into the legacy systems of some of the biggest corporations in the world, and they not only don't want to get rid of it, they are in fact be completely unable to do so without hugely expensive redevelopment and massive disruption. It is far cheaper for the AIX users of the world to pour money into the defence of UNIX than attempt to abandon the platform. SCO is just waving a red flag in front of one hell of a bull, and they are going to get seriously trampled.
Two questions:
1. Who sold IBM their Unix license for AIX? I know it wasn't SCO/Caldera because this predates that at least 10 years. And I don't think it was SCO either, because they didn't own the Unix licenses back then (again this predates 1995 Novell transfer... or 96?)
2. Where, if at any point, did this license control transfer to SCO? Was it really at the point of the Novell deal? This is not something I understood they gained when I read the details of the deal recently.
Please be nice... I'm not a lawyer.
because I'm generally not a big fan of huge companies. Plus, I got stuck with a couple of IBM's infamously defective, crappy Deskstar hard drives in my computers.. but....
I'm really rooting for IBM on this one. I sincerely hope they tear SCO a new one. Go Big Blue!
why do slashdot editors feel the need to echo SCO's press releases?
hmmm...somebody(SCO) is shouting threats at someone else(IBM) that may be, as they see it, harmful to their security. Does this ring a bell to anyone else? I think Dub'ya is on the board of directors for SCO. Let's see, US talking smack to Iraq and (a bunch of other countries on the side) and what happens after the deadline is set?
Invasion!
IBM should start locking down their corporate headquarters and raise their current threat color a level or two. SCO's coming in!
Bet their "shock and awe" phase will be a let down.
-my other sig is your mom
friday the 13th deadline? gimme a break. this is a trashy horror flic right?
... is that it doesn't matter if IBM renews its license with SCO or not. Assuming you purchased AIX, you already have a valid license from SCO, purchased through IBM. Unless the license terms state that your license from SCO needs to be renewed and/or can be revoked at any time, SCO choosing to withdraw their licensing arrangement with IBM has no effect whatsoever on the legality of your copy of AIX. Naturally, if you purchase AIX *after* SCO revokes the license, then it will be an illegal copy.
Anyone here a lawyer? This could fall into several categories, namely extortion/racketeering, and potentially breach of contract. I can't see IBM agreeing to a clause in the contract which states that SCO is able to revoke the license upon 1 week's notice. That's just absurd.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
IBM will simply get an injunction and then wait until SCO runs out of money.
Could someone explain me please the relations between SCO and The Open Group vs. Unix please ? If TOG owns the trademark, what does SCO really owns ?
Of course most of these posts are going to be -1, Redundant, this entire story is -1, Redundant.
NO MORE SCO, please. SCO is -1, Redundant.
Wonder how many hours of Linux/AIX user time has been wasted worrying about this. Wonder what the dollar amount of that time is worth. Perhaps that's the strategy. :-)
Is it just me, or does the SCO latest new story gain a new icon every other story... I mean, pretty soon when you go to look at the story you'll see 3 pages worth of category icons on the right side of the story ;).
This space for rent, inquire within.
for being such an asshole. Then I read the comments and it seems like SCO has no credibility whatsoever, because everyone jokes about it now :-) :)
Are you happy famous SCO ou SCLOWN ?
Hey editors and who ever submits these stories:
Can we do this OJ style? For example:
Trial of the Millenia: Day 47
It is now day 47 in the trial that rocked the geek world as SCO prepares to offer 5 more lines of evidence. Opinions have been mixed, has SCO now is suing IBM for mental anguish while Linus Torvalds has responded "[Expletive Deleted] SCO and their [Expletive Deleted] code". Defending lawyers are believed to try and have the case thrown out on the grounds of insanity on SCOs part. Stay tuned for more minute by minute coverage after these commercials.
Something like that? Come on lets add some day time television drama to this.
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
Either Halloween or April First.
Hell, even Thanksgiving, given what turkeys SCO are!
is to let this license be revoked, use GNU, Linux, BSD, whatever instead of SCO's code, and finally end this whole farse.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
>> Though, the people who might truly be worried are SCO's customers
Yep, I'll bet both of them are worried!
Maybe Novak and McBride were separated at birth?
t ml ?tid=123&tid=153&tid=99
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/06/08/1848257.sh
This world is really getting confusing. Anybody ABSOLUTELY sure pigs can't fly? Anybody?
Apparently, midnight on Friday is "show-and-tell time" for Darl McBride.
Pervert!
Number One, I order you to take a Number Two!
Or 100% flamebait; take your pick!
RAR! I invented fire and every Chef is using it without my consent ... Therefore unless they all agree to my terms by Friday, no-one is aloud to eat anything anymore ... unless you microwave it ... Doh!
- Prometheus.
isnt it obvious that microsoft is behind this? Why else would SCO be STUPID enough to do what they are doing? Can anyone do a little dumpster digging to find out their part - i mean who do you think is benefiting from this right now?
Wham, come Saturday June 14 thousands of boxes with AIX all over the world would suddenly shut down.
Now tell me why DRM is a good idea and explain how it will never be misused or abused.
And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
HTH, HAND
SCO Gives Friday Deadline To IBM
-snip-
Apple: Apple Sued Over Unix Trademark
-snip-
So, SCO is going to bring IBM "to its knees" over UNIX, and Apple is being sued over UNIX.
This is getting silly.
I tihnk we need to develop a totally swanky GUI on top of VMS....errrr...oh...right...that's Windows...ummmmm....
I think we need to develop a totally swanky GUI on top of CP/M! There we go! Now, who owns CP/M?
Help me somebody - dogs and cats are LIVING TOGETHER!!!
RR
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
In recent months, some corporations have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private monies urging a settlement to leave with SCO, so that licensince can proceed peacefully. IBM has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. IBM and it's board of directors must leave IBM headquarters within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign workers -- including contractors and temporary employees -- should leave IBM immediately.
/tongue planted firmly in cheek
Many IBM employees can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your company and not against you. As our lawyers take away their power, we will deliver the employment and medical benefits you need. We will tear down the apparatus of AIX and we will help you to build a new IBM that is prosperous and free. In a free IBM, there will be no more wars of aggression against UNIX, no more antiquated mainframes, no more skipped lunches, no more broken copier machines and TPS reports. The board of directors will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.
Hammer of Truth
nuff said...
and the only ppl making money are the lawyers.....
Someone has to end the carnage soon, otherwise MS will be the one coming out on top over all of this.
I wonder which and how many of the 30,000 patents IBM owns SCO will get accused of violating. Usually it doesn't pay to wake a sleeping giant...
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I. It seems to me that SCO would have kept this under wraps or at least quieter until they were in court. a)SCO must have known that the Linux community would react like this(Although their behavior makes me second guess this opinion). b)If I(SCO) were were to sue a giant like IBM, I'd try to at least get the element of surprise before being going up against them in court. c)If SCO thinks they are tipping their cards by showing 80 lines of code to people with no credentials, they don't know they still look like their bluffing. Thereby they're just begging IBM to go to court. II. Darl knows he's pissing off the community and he knows that IBM and virtually everyone is going to call his bluff. Two reasons... a)If Darl is crazy, then fuck him, let him try to get anything he can. b)It's too late for him to embrace opensource, and now he's successfully currying favor with Microsoft. III. If IBM is guilty of putting SCO owned stuff into Linux... a)SCO's fscked...It'll be years before anybody gets coin (except lawyers). I trust IBM's legal team over David Boiese or whoever that scumbag is. b)The code will change so fast that they'll never be able to prove what kernels major companies were using before the kernels come out in court (proper sysadmins should know to hide this...). IV. If IBM isn't guilty a) SCO's fscked....There'll be enough suits against them for violating GPL and everything else that they can be sued for. I imagine they'll never be able to operate internationally again. b) SCO's double fscked, I hope IBM would sue for their money back. I would also hope Sun and anybody else would try and sue to get something back (let alone shareholders). I just had to be part of the herd and rant about sco with everyone else...Thanks.
" What enduser group cares? This is ultimately IBM's fight... clients don't care where their solutions come from, only that they work."
This also is the answer to the question "Who do you sue?" that we've seen used in the past against Linux.
What are the penalties for fraud if you are a CEO in corporate America? Oh, wait. Nevermind.
I guess SCO President and Chief Executive Darl McBride's passport must be up-to-date, along with a leave-anytime ticket to a country outside the United States' jurisdiction. He must be forgetting about the "International" part of the IBM acronym. Silly boy.
Better Link
sorry 'bout that.
A recent auction at the former soviet union insiders mentioned that several representatives of Internation Business Machines (IBM) were present and buying lots of hardware.
They were questioned about the use? possibly for research for their military contracts with the US government?"
the reply was not what was expected....
"No, we are gearing up for negotiations with a rival company that has been knocking on our door with insane claims for a while. the CEO last night in a fit of rage mentioned that he would love to see SCO just dissappear... so we decided to follow his orders... we figure these 75,000 pounds of conventional bombs will do the job, and suprisingly enough the US govt said that they would be glad to "drop ship" them for us."
we figure that the whole thing will settle within a few days...
No further comments were made, but one of the IBM representatives was overhead asking if it was going to be really loud, and can they swing by Redmond Washington if they have any leftovers...
Richard Head, UPN News...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Yes, come Friday, sans license, AIX will still run as well as it ever did.
Guess what Mr. CTO, you DO NOT need software with a "legally enforcible license" to keep your servers up and running.
Now, there's no point getting sued by the guys in Redmond, but software with lax licenses is now a really viable alternative.
It used to be that "Whom do you sue if things fail" was a convincing argument. Now "Who will sue you out of spite" proves to be the other side of the coin.
There is ONE safe bet that covers both contingencies. You know the one. It doesn't work for peanuts, but for herring, hell yeah!
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
, which is to run like a bunch of transvestite hookers from their pimp on a rainy night! Run ho, run!!
Doesn't anyone else feel wierd to be rooting for IBM? It's just strange, 15 years ago everyone hated them, now them seem almost benevolent. If this keeps up we'll all be rooting for microsoft in 2020, and won't that be strange?
Yo, SCO! You don't matter. Your desperate attempts to scare up some royalties are falling on deaf ears. The parrot is dead and no, you don't get a refund.
.... please continue to hold ..... please continue to hold .... You owe FIFTEEN-THOUSAND FOUR-HUND-RED SIXTYSEVEN dollars and TWE-LVE cents. Press 1 to pay by check, press 2 to pay by credit card. *click*
SCO phone tree:
"Welcom to SCO, the leaders in leveraging mature intellectual property on de facto standards that we claim to own.
Press 1 if you need to pay your Linux royalties,
press 2 if you want to be a target of a shakedown,
press 3 if you are a cash cow that needs milking,
press 4 for if you use any of the following: hair-dryer, phone, toliet paper, keys; if unsure press 5.
*Beep* [5]. You may owe us money, please wait while we check your medical records, credit card receipts, and hard drive for mp3s, pr0n and dvd rips.
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
It points out why SCO has no real claim that they can support. It's a lengthy but well worth reading.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
This reminds me of the lawsuits against microsoft by stacker and caldera. The difference is when IBM is in the courtroom it wins.
Is it just me or are companies suing everybody for anything?
If you paid for a valid AIX license to IBM, how can SCO make your licsense invalid. Can they just do that? The bottom line is that, once again, the end users gets screwed.
Com on people! Get serious. I know there is a slowdown in the IT world, but stop trying to make money by suing people for stupid claims!
Yes. I will tell "hime" SCO execs tried to kill his father.
Or to paraphrase Apu,
"Hey, hey! I have asked you rudely not to mangle my copyrights. You leave me no choice but to ask you rudely again."
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
Just find every instance in the CVS of Unix and replace it with 'Not Unix'!
...this is just a sh*tty side-effect of something positive... The *nix (or UNIX, or Unix, or [auUl]{Li}?nux/*BSD) market is heating up.
-bch
Really, I could understand the issue as long as they were talking of suing distributions, Linux users, Linus himself. But IBM's contract relations and IBM's customers?
If IBM thought SCO had a case, they'd slam them with a countersuit of a kazillion patents SCO violates and offer to settle. End of story. The fact that IBM is letting SCO buzz around like they do tells me that SCO has no case.
And I sure as hell don't think that IBM's lawyers were so stupid that the revocation of the licence from SCO would create any problem with current AIX licences (maybe with issuing new, but that's another story). My conclusion: More FUD, but let IBM debunk this and get back to something more nerdish.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030606/laf017a_1.html
it appears they do own the rights to UNIX
SCO also won a license from Microsoft, which agreed to pay SCO to ensure that it would not violate intellectual property rights when developing software that works with Unix. But Microsoft's move was widely seen as an attempt to lend weight to SCO's attack on Linux, which Microsoft views as a threat to its Windows franchise.
If Microsoft wants to buy influence that will actually do something to Linux they might want to consider an alliance with a company who will not be experiencing a severe ripening of karma as SCO.
SCO is gonna be one hell of a stock to short once they start that downhill slide. Tell your favorite message board.....
Too fucking lazy to write your own comments? Saw a high rated comment from which you could steal some thunder?
Yours looks suspiciously much like this one, by Fished.
IANAL.
It's pretty clear that SCO is trying to get IBM customers to pressure IBM to settle this. However, it frankly seems pretty absurd. The bottom line is that, as a customer, I am not responsible for IBM's alleged failure to maintain a proper license for UNIX. IBM's license is a license to *copy* UNIX software, and copying is the only activity that could possibly be prophibited. Given that IBM's customers already HAVE copies of AIX, unless IBM's license from SCO has some very odd language in it it seems extremely improbable that customers could lose the license they already have.
"It is not as a child that I believe and confess Christ Jesus. My Hosanna is born in a furnace of doubt." - Dostoevsky
One thing that seems a little odd here is that yes SCO did show that there is code in unixware that is also in linux. But they have not proven where the code originated from, and who put it in there.... And on top of that SCO picked Friday the 13th as the ultimatum date!
Later,
Phil
In other news, IBM spokesperson John Ashton responded to SCO's reported Friday dealine by simply saying, "Blow me."
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I'm a bit slow, but I just worked out what had been freaking me out.
Usually, if someone is breaching a license, you would go to them, point it out and ask for a chunk of money. It's not just to help them protect their good name. It's also to protect your own good name as a trusted partner to do business with.
If SCO's business is really about trying to license Unix, then they should pay attention to this. Imagine what their other customers are thinking. "These guys are feral. We should look for a way out of this". And prospective customers would be thinking "Err, no. That's not the type of supplier I want to do business with".Well, unless you are Microsoft. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions on that.
Clearly this is a sad death spiral.
So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?
Great! Now IBM can re-write AIX and call it Anix instead.
Then when SCO come back with more whiny bullshit to try and trick someone into buying them, IBM can say 'Kiss my Anix'.
Why does this story remind me of Gordy's tale from the movie "Stand By Me" about Lardass and how he got his revenge for being picked on by vomiting all over the pie eating contest?
Edith Keeler Must Die
http://www.deviantart.com/view/2082832
think for yourself. question authority.
Copy of another post.
I'm not sure about IBM, but most large corporations tend to structure their businesses to insulate risk. I wouldn't be suprised to find that the part of IBM that licensed AIX and the part of IBM that sells Linux and the part that develops Linux are all insulated from each other.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
...its the only right thing to do.
SCO's already claiming that their software is being run without being properly licensed. It's 6 one way, half a dozen the other.
:)
P.S. I was tempted to entitle this post "SCO" what?, but I decided that would probably only get me shot
I think the invisible hand of the market is going to sucker punch SCO no matter what happens. Would you do business with these turkeys? Anyone who treats lawyers as anything other than a last resort deserves no respect at all.
After IBM wins the main case brought against them and countersues SCO?
...and I don't mean IBM. SCO just rattled the cages of everybody that uses AIX. I work at a .gov that shall remain nameless, and without bragging, we have at least one of everything - and we run AIX in all kinds of funky places. Tell me I can't run AIX? Come and get me. But make sure the SCO flunky you send is expendable, they WILL shoot you nowadays.
But forget about the guard force using SCO interns for target practice, you just threatened almost every Fortune 500 company with a datacenter to speak of. THEIR lawyers using your ass for target practice is much more scary. Telling folks with THAT kind of power to turn off their line-of-business systems will get SCO slapped around like a red-headed stepchild.
IBM has done something about that already...
We always talk about SCO, SCO, SCO but I realized I have no clue about what IBM's response is...
Anyone ?
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Missing only overnight stays in the White House and illegal campaign contributions from Indonesian businessmen with connections to Chinese Communists.
SCO
SCO Sucks
--Murray Barton
How low can you sink for some lousy mod points? :P
Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
I think this is a good point. It would be interesting if part of every license agreement companies demanded they get to put in a revoke code into the system. Any debate and then "boom," eveyone's systems shut down. Granted, is should be horrible PR, but given the 90's predilection for sacrifice of users for the almighty dollar..
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
Ok, so do they need the license and the trademark from 2 different sources?
Aparently you ceritfy your OS and buy the rights for the trademark from the OpenGroup and then you also need a license from SCO...am I following this right?
But SCO doesn't seem to be up in arms over unlicensed releases that are legitimatley derived from the unix source base (OS X).
I just don't see how anyone has any legs to stand on when ther are at least 3 legitimate owners of unix property of some sort (Open Group, SCO, and Novell), plus all of Universities that received early licenses....
Seems like it's time to public domain some stuff....
Need I say more?
Cream pie in the face.
Oh that I'm on the far side of the world!
Can someone puleeze, one for McBride and one for the lawyer?
Darl McBride during the press conference made repeated invectives against IBM, culminating with his announcement with, "And we will revoke their license if IBM does not pay us... one... MILLION... dollars!" He then put his pinky near his mouth and ran off clutching a big fluffy cat, screaming somthing about the 'SCO Death Star.'
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
Close examination of the giant black wave that was observed breaking over SCO headquarters Friday revealed that it was made up of billions of lawyers.
There has been talk about SCO trying to use their code in Linux as a means of getting royalties from Linux users. That and the fact that by pointing out the offending code/comments they would be annoucing what part is their IP.
However, whould not doing so place them in violation of the GPL by way of their previous distribution of the kernel and OS package (distro)? [by the linking/ inclusion of copyright and copyleft code]
Just how many organistations are involved and how ?
SCO/Caldera
IBM
Novell (...replacing your Corel?)
AT&T
Linux & Linus Torvalds
SCO
BSD
The Open Group
Microsoft (In any way you take it, they are involved)
And others that have been threatened, but yet to be involved in any other action:
SuSE
Red Hat
I'd have to agree. I also think that while SCO was under Caldera and the former owner / pres, the code from Linux made its way into SCO. IBM probably knows this and it is figuring out the best way to tell SCO to f*** off and die. In legal terms I think it would, "Make like a dot-com and bust, SCO!"
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
A big bwuhahahahaha to SCO yet again. Firstly, what world of AIX?
Secondly, users can rightfully claim the right to use anything they paid for. SCO's welcomed to deny that user's can't use what they paid for -- but that destroys the entire hypocritical basis of copyright.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I can see either Rickman from Robin Hood yelling this. I can also see Gary Oldman doing this like he played his role in The Fifth Element. Hmmm...
Its times like this I wish I had enough money to blow some on little things like an AIX license real quick from IBM, just so I could tell SCO to go piss up a rope.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
..yes I do,. IBMs response has been thusly:
"say whut? whut you talking bout, willis?"
then it got to:
"neener, neener"
then:
"you want some of this? Let's rock!"
to now it's:
"``````"
This just in: Jason, best known for his roles in the Friday The 13th Series of movies, is said to be warming up his chainsaw and polishing his face mask in preparation for the deadline...
IBM is mine *buwahahahahahahah* said Jason when asked how he felt about the entire affair...
Stay tuned for more information as the 'plot' thickens...
The Open Group is the owner of the UNIX trademark which it holds on behalf of the industry. This truth has not been entirely visible in the media...
Isn't that visibility exactly what is required to maintain trademark ownership?
Did they attempt to quietly extort money from IBM before trying to do so publically? If you were being ordered by a mugger to hand over your valuables, his being polite about it wouldn't appreciably change your feelings about the situation.
So, I see your point, but really who cares? Maybe they did and IBM told them to go fuck themselves; maybe they thought, "IBM's going to kill us - they own so much intellectual property you probably can't swing a dead cat without violating one of their patents. Let's not give them warning and maybe they won't destroy us before our story goes public."
Either way, IBM's gonna wreck them. They can pull patents out of their ass, they can't really have done anything themselves like copying code into Linux, and SCO themselves continued to distrbute Linux AFTER filing the lawsuit. That last point alone, the unclean hands (nasty), will ensure that if they win (big IF), they can't recoup any damages. And that's gonna be a phyrric for them, probably leaving the company as little more than a cheap novelty puchase for someone.
Personally, I hope one of the terms of the ruling is for the current executive staff and board of SCO to spend 23 hours a day for the rest of their lives, buried up to their necks in raw sewage. They get an hour to hose off and take a walk; don't want to be cruel about it.
I'm getting tired of that damn mickey mouse SCO disney logo.
Dah dah DAH...
SCO also won a license from Microsoft, which agreed to pay SCO to ensure that it would not violate intellectual property rights when developing software that works with Unix. But Microsoft's move was widely seen as an attempt to lend weight to SCO's attack on Linux, which Microsoft views as a threat to its Windows franchise.
This rather strong anti-Microsoft comment is coming off Reuters. Not Slashdot. This tells me that, despite what the Windows apologists may say, the public view of Microsoft closely mirrors some of the more cynical posts here. Such widely-held disdain spells doom for a corporation. Cash reserves and ruthless schemes will only go so far against it....
-----------
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Everybody knows AIX aIn't uniX
Why would anyone want to use a text editor that is not vi?
"Linux, unlike proprietary versions of Unix and Microsoft Corp.'s MSFT.O Windows programs, is a version of Unix that can be copied and modified freely."
Hahhaa..Okay, you're a CIO. Pick your response:
"Wow, okay, looks like we'll have to migrate our entire enterprise away from AIX as soon as possible!!"
-or-
"Bahahahahaha, OMG SCO is so fucking gay."
Bowie J. Poag
The Open Source and Free Software folks could all say "You have our code, you can see that it has no DRM in it. You don't need to worry about your system being disabled remotely."
That's great PR for us.
frob
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Why hasn't anyone talked about the current SCO license some of us have? This whole mess makes me want to rid myself of every SCO license my employer has. (Yes that is my call.) What is going to stop SCO from coming after some of its older customers and forcing them to upgrade? Once a bully is successfull they get worse and worse. Goodbye SCO, I hope your stock goes to a 52 week low of $0 as a result of this attempt.
Photons have mass!!?? I didn't even know they were Catholic...
SCO dosn't own a trademark on the name UNIX. SCO dosn't own patents on POSIX or any of the other standards. What exactly does this license allow? What will IBM need to stop doing?
Even if SCO could legaly stop IBM from selling AIX (which I doubt) people who had already purchaced AIX licenses would not be affected
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
At 11:30PM on Friday the CEO of IBM should fax SCO a Xerox of his butt. That seems an appropriate response.
Confuse the meaning of the word 'Unix'. Everything I have read on this topic - the OSI position paper, extracts of the original SCO suit, and all the SCO PR makes it sound like SCO are claiming that anything unix derives ultimately from their IP. Would there be any validity to that? I doubt it, personally.
This will obviously come and bite them in the backside before too long
IBM?
You know you're a geek if you've ever replied to a tagline.
Actually I think the whole thing was done
to beef up the shares so they can make
a huge profit and then either sell off or
file for bankrupty after draining most of the
money out of the company before the shares
start going down the toilet.
If it were April 1st, Slashdot would post the article, like, 8 times or so. Not that such a thing wouldn't happen under normal circumstances anyway.
Its called Extortion. If they do this, they're going to screw themselves in the ass in the long term. They've already filed suit against IBM, they can't start making demands like this ahead of the suit. They can't just revoke the contract for no reason either, and even if they claim it's because they violated the contract, they've yet to offer proof!
I don't know who they think they are, but they're an ant to IBM. If they pissed off IBM enough, IBM is gonna squash them. Hey, maybe that what will happen.
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
This seems a little like that kid in school that was always getting picked on and finally lashed out and did something really stupid then got his ass beat.
Hopefully, IBM will realize that SCO can't do anything but sit and fire off more lawsuits and will let SCO dig itself into so much legal debt that IBM will end up buying the UNIX IP (on the cheap) and letting SCO rot into nothing.
It is rather interesting that, of all days, SCO has chosen Friday (the 13th). Are they hoping someone at IBM actually cares? No, they are trying to get our attention. They're doing a good job of that, that and making an ass of themselves in the process.
Is it me or are they begging for a buy out? A billion dollar lawsuit or a billion dollars for an out of steam company? United Linux: SuSE, Conectiva, Turbolinux and.... IBM?
a big "fuck you" to SCO on behalf of those people in the open source community that hereby vow to boycott you as long as you are a company.
SCOby-doo Be afraid. Be kind of afread!
IIRC, Winshit (allegedly?) uses a network stack copied from BSD. BSD is an often-theorized alternative source for the "stolen" code, and this could make M$ just as liable.
Then again, I susped M$ has resulted to just plain stealing much of the code in windows.
If I request the windows source code, does the NDA prohibit me from ratting out such stolen code? Can an NDA legally prevent you from calling attention to illegal actions of another?
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
If I worked at SCO, I'd be scared for my
own personal safety at this point!!
1. It is not SCO that is going to determine the pace of this case. Upon trying to unilateraly cancel IBM's license a judge will step in and maintain the "status quo" until the dispute is settled.
2. If you bought AIX prior to SCO's accusations, then you still have a valid license. SCO cannot retroactivly cancell prior licenses on it's own whim. Can you imagine the havok that would cause in the business world as a whole if it were so? Can you imagine Novell announcing tomorrow that they are cancelling whatever agreement they had with SCO?
3. The mere fact that SCO is dragging IBM customers into this tells me that this is more a political manuever then a valid legal manuever. They are trying to get IBM customers to pressure IBM to resolve this fast, and fast means caving to SCO.
4. SCO has yet to prove harm. 80 lines of code copied exactly word for word, punctuation for punctuation means nothing without harm. The actual code has to do something particular that is germain to SCO and that the loss (or unlawfull distribution) has harmed SCO.
5. So not only does SCO have to reveal the offending code, it has to say when it discovered it and when it notified IBM and prove what type of harm was done. I find that hard to believe that 80 lines of code out of a code base of a million plus lines is going to fly just on its own.
6. There is no doubt that IBM is insured for all errors and ommissions on their part, that will protect their customers. As long as everybody was acting in good faith ... IBM believed they were in compliance, the Customers believed they were in compliance, the only damages that SCO will be entitled to are actual damages.
7. Actual damages will be a whole 'nother lawsuit and court proceedings. Probably take years to sort this out. But then, who doubts this is SCO's intent. To hold LINUX hostage for years.
8. If it turns out that SCO discovered this a while ago, and didn't immediately notify IBM, they themselves may have given up alot of rights in the remedy. I.E You just can't discover it and hold back a few years, then come forward and try and correct or remedy it.
Predictions ... When IBM makes its legal move, watch how fast SCO shuts up (gag order, restraining order. If IBM sees no need to capitulate, they will slap SCO silly with gag orders and restraining orders enjoining them from frightening IBM's customers.
I have a feeling it's not going to be pretty for SCO
I guess we now know what happend to him.
...and gals he's previously worked with. Go and read some of the AC posts from employees of the companies that D'ohl has previously tra^H^H^Hmanaged. Sobering stuff.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
They're already assholes.
WHERE'S THE BEEF
Where's the DEADBEEF (see http://www.deadbeef.com/ for more details...)
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
...and his parents evidently knew what they were doing when they named him. Either that, or he took offence at it and has been working out his anger on the world ever since.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
What does Mr. Boiles have to say about any of this stupid stuff? All I've seen is moronic comments from McBitch and friends. They are paying Boils for advice, no?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Top Secret, where the Nazi dude picks up the big stamp which reads "Find them and kill them."
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
McBitch: Gulp.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
...they are trying to scare their users! Only from that angle can they exert any pressure on IBM.
Not a lawyer, but I don't understand why people simply don't ask SCO if they are at risk of litigation by making new purchases of whatever.
1. If SCO replies you are at no risk, then presumably you are in the clear (at least can use their reply in court if SCO later turn round and do sue you).
2. If SCO doesn't reply, then presumably this will help limit any damage claims if they do sue you. You did the due diligence (especially if you send a couple of follow-ups and still don't get replies - keep good records!) - and it's at least partially their fault they didn't advise you.
3. If SCO reply yes they might sue you, then of course you want to talk to all vendors [and presumably their lawyers] affected - which includes hardware/database/applications/etc that you couldn't purchase, because of "uncertainty" about the OS platform. You might get indemnified by the vendor, and/or the vendor(s) may even take legal action against SCO especially if they see a lot of customers concerned about these issues.
Would a letter like this do?
Dear SCO,
Our company is considering purchasing a number of Dell/IBM/Other-Vendor computer systems with RedHat-Linux/Suse-Linux/AIX/Other-OS. We also expect to purchase application software to run on these platforms such as Oracle/SAP/Peoplesoft/DB2/Other-Product.
In view of the amount of press coverage regarding SCO's IP claims on UNIX and Linux, we would be interested in hearing whether, by proceeding with such purchases, we would be potentially risking litigation by SCO.
Y'know, this whole story reminds me of a quote in somebody's sig over on K5. IIRC, it was attributed to thurler, and goes something like this: "It seems to me that you're willfully entering into an arse-kicking contest against a monstrous entity with sixteen legs and no arse." Perhaps SCO should be told...
A SCOan. Jeez, I gotta do all the thinking for everyone.
Except that licenses prior to this threatened expiration are still valid. SCO is really telling a bald-faced lie when it claims that it can de-license people who already have licenses.
Get off my launchpad!
This was supposed to happen back in October, but Microsoft missed their deadline again. The ultimatum was supposed to be, "You have until the 31st or all your Unix are belong to US."
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Why did SCO choose to state the threat now? IBM has been touting Linux for years. What's changed to make SCO suddenly accuse IBM of wrongdoing?
Is there anyone else who wants this trial to be available on Court TV? Heck, I'd even settle for PPView (Beer, chips, party at my place and you're all invited). We could Tivo it and replay the exact moment where the s##t hits the fan for SCO, over and over and over.
On another note, I would hate to be a lowlie techie working for SCO right now. Imagine all of your peers making fun of you, and not being able to tell people where you work (without being spat at). I'd probably just up and quit. It isn't like SCO actually makes anything anymore.
Thank you for your time,
Frank Russo
If Darl did that now he probably wouldn't be able to afford one crappy Taco Bell taco for a last meal.
Anyone who'd use language like that shouldn't be trusted within a cubic micrometer of a computer. He must tell time by his VCR. What does he mean "midnight on Friday?" Reminds me of the old song, "When It's Midnight in Itely, It's Tuesday Over Here."
I hope that the criminal stupidity of SCO management doesn't result in out of work SCO employees, but I strongly suspect that sooner or later the pigeons will come to roost, and guess who will get shit on?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
SCO also won a license from Microsoft, which agreed to pay SCO to ensure that it would not violate intellectual property rights when developing software that works with Unix.
Wow, I'm really glad Microsoft paid appropriate royalties to a company to prevent themselves from *gasp* violating IP rights. God forbid they should do anything illegal!
"Microsoft - because we care about other businesses."
Nice to see the "system" in action with Due Process...
Don't think you have a good case?
Then propose to your corporate enemies:
1) Pay up a settlement
or
2) Go to trial and we'll revoke all licenses we gave you, so that even if we lose the case, you'll have already lost in the marketplace.
Make sure you give a deadline that doesn't allow your corporate enemy any time to mount a legal defense, or get any court action, so that they are forced to do what you want.
-- If it ain't broke - overclock it more.
What a lame-o way of looking at things. THEY HAVE A WHOLE FREAKING COMPANY! They can do anything they want with the talent they have.
Here's one small example. Remember Caldera Linux + Word Perfect? With the stupid license tricks Microsoft has been playing, that has fantastic potential. There are hoards of Word Perfect faithful out there suffering under M$. It would be so easy to sell them an OS "approved" by the folks at Word Perfect.
The revolt is on, and they could be riding it. Instead, they are contend with a few licensing fee scraps from M$ and what little they will gain off sales of their personal shares. All their people will suffer as the company fails. It's a criminal waste of resources.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If anyone can make a good assesment of the situation without compromising any IP, its Richard M. Stallman. He should be allowed, paid even, to view all the documents and given time to make a critical assesment.
'nuff said...
Other then that they don't comment on litigation.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
The only person who could shut down AIX would be the person who orgionaly signed it. So SCO would have to actualy win the suit before they could do anything.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Hmm. Suppose I'm Joe Corporate Bigwig and my company runs its critical products on AIX platforms. I hear SCO claims my license won't be valid after some deadline. IBM says otherwise. Do I
a) Rush to tear down my AIX platforms and switch to some other unencumbered product?
b) Approach SCO and offer to pay them for a bunch of licenses?
c) Call the legal department, have a good laugh with them, and otherwise do nothing while I wait for IBM to grind SCO to paste?
If I'm Sony, I pick b, because I'm dumb enough to pay millions for a license to a patent on RLE encoding. Otherwise, it's pretty clearly c.
from The Book of Mozilla, 3:30
(Red Letter Edition)
Patent: from Latin patere, to be open
You could bother actually reading about Trusted Computing* and DRM and realize that the above probably wouldn't even be possible. If it _was_, almost no one would buy it - what company would trust that? What government would ever buy that hardware/software? And so on. That kind of feature doesn't help business any, especially in the gov't market, where it would _NEVER_ be purchased.
:P Likewise, TCPA would be a cool feature to have in AIX, Solaris, and so on as well. The OS determines if its used for DRM - my OS (any that I would use) would only use TCPA for security.
*Note I'm talking Trusted Computing, not Palladium - Palladium is Microsoft's version of TCPA that will run on Windows - it's a moot point for things like AIX and Linux and such, since it's a Windows technology. TCPA on the other hand is platform neutral. Palladium may well have the "external control of systems" feature, but I don't know - Palladium isn't my problem, since I don't run MS systems. ~,^ On the other hand, I _look forward to_ TCPA, since it actually does offer the ability to increase security, and doesn't have any features to make me worry, especially not on an Open Source platform.
Ace of clubs -- Darl C. McBride
King of clubs -- Chris Sontag
Queen of clubs -- Robert K. Bench
Jack of clubs -- Opinder Bawa
10 of clubs -- Sean Wilson
9 of clubs -- Reg Broughton
8 of clubs -- Jeff Hunsaker
7 of clubs -- Larry Gasparro
Ace of spades -- Bill Gates
King of spades -- Steve Balmer
Queen of spades -- Craig Mundie
Joker -- United Linux
Joker -- Ransom Love
1.) All Reuters said was the simple fact that Microsoft paid SCO and that it was seen as an attack on Linux, because logically they view Linux as a threat to Windows.
2.) In an attempt to post anything against Microsoft in a Slashdot article on SCO, you for some reason deem it as a "rather strong anti-Microsoft comment" when it is not.
3.) Next, you tell yourself that now the public view of Microsoft mirrors the cynical anti-Microsoft posts of Slashdot. As if the general public knows anything about SCO or even cares.
4.) Having convinced yourself of the view of the entire public, suddenly there is now "widely-held disdain" for Microsoft which "spells doom," though you have no reason to believe any of this except for the series of conclusions you have drawn from a simple Reuters line.
5.) You tie it all together by vaguely referencing "cash reserves and ruthless schemes".
Summary: From a simple Reuters line describing Microsoft as paying SCO and that it was viewed as against Linux, you have somehow extrapolated the entire public view toward Microsoft. To top it off, you claim it mirrors the cynicism of Slashdot, and gain favor among Slashbot moderators by ending your post with the vague, anti-corporate mantra of "cash reserves" and "ruthless schemes."
And someone decided it was all "Insightful."
"Sufferin' succotash."
If you think IBM isn't going to close any more AIX deals after Friday because of this, you are mistaken. They will continue doing business as usual, and wait for SCO to try and present something in court, where they will be laughed out of the room.
CUUG, our local UNIX group, had a lawyer talking about this a couple of weeks ago. One thing that was very interresting was the fact that there is a good reason why Software is not sold to you, but licensed. If it were sold to you, it would become your property, and then a lot of laws would apply to it, giving you way to many rights, like re-selling it, reverse engineer it, etc... because it would be YOURS.
That is why the software industry has decided license software to you, because legally, when you license something to somebody, you can set whatever you want in the license, like "you shalt not reverse engineer this software", etc...
So, one would have to look at the license between SCO and IBM to be able to say if they can revoke it or not.
I don't see anybody posted this link yet:
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1016020.html
Best Quote: "What SCO is arguing seems instead to be that it didn't know what it was packaging."
Doesn't it seem like SCO has become the North Korea of the software world?
I bet it's gonna be a blast to see the star of the event, Dale McBride. I thought they usually did the Burning Man thing in the desert but I guess it's a first this year...
from The Book of Mozilla, 3:30
(Red Letter Edition)
Patent: from Latin patere, to be open
SCO you dufus sit down and keep quiet
Go back to Bill Gates and suck her
IBM buys SCO for 1.2 billion. When reached for comment, SCO's legal team says that since IBM own's then then they are dropping the suit! ;)
Gorkman
How is revoking IBM's license on friday going to mean that every running AIX will be doing so with invalid licenses. I don't believe you can pull the rug out from under people like that.
the world would be better off if they just upped and left the planet (voluntarily or by force, not picky)
In "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe", the planet of Golgafrincham sent the most useless third of its citizens off the planet on the "B Ark".
We just tell SCO the earth is headed for a tremendous disaster, but there's another planet waiting to be colonized. Of course, before everyone else gets there, there needs to be a Unix-based computer infrastructure set up.
"And they made sure they sent you lot off first, did they?" inquired Arthur.
"Oh yes," said that Captain, "well everyone said, very nicely I thought, that it was very important for morale to feel that they would be arriving on a planet where they could be sure of a good operating system and where the filesystems were clean."
IBM would not have the same suit as SCO. You don't sue to prove a negative.
IBM is very evil and so is SCO. They will kill each other and we will survive !
this just sounds like extortion to me...is SCO actually doing anything these days besides crying about IP?
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
"You're a looney."
One of the best exchanges in the history of Western Civilization. BTW, this was the Black Knight and Arthur, King of the Britons, in MPatHG, not SCO and IBM.
Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
According to eWEEK's confidential source, SCO's coders "basically re-implemented the Linux kernel with functions available in the Unix kernel to build what is now known as the Linux Kernel Personality (LKP) in SCO Unix."
The evidence for this seems to be sections of exact identical code right down to the variable names and comments. Gee, where have we heard claims like this, recently?
and
IBM likely recoils from the thought of buying out SCO because -- aside from refusing to reward such flimsy blackmail -- it might want to avoid "owning" Unix. It's almost like an Egyptian mummy's curse, it seems.
Kevin
"It's not the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in" O. Nash
Twitter takes down his Open Linux 2.3 box and reads the side again. The bottom of the box has a bix C, Caldera systems. The top of the box promisses, "Thre CDs Include: .... Office Productivity Applixware 4.4.2, StarOffice 5.1, WordPerfect8, Daily scheduler/organizer, calender, calculator"
Sometimes the truth is this and that.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This is probably redundant, but if IBM knows they are going to win, can't they just put some large sum of money in escrow, and then get it all back when they trounce SCO in court?
Is it even legal for SCO to pull their liscense without any ruling?
It seems silly to me that SCO can just yank the liscense as blackmail without proof (A court ruling) that IBM is in violation
IANAL
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
That's still not quite the full picture.
The Canopy Group is the majority stockholder in Caldera Corp, dba (that's "doing business as") "The SCO Group".
What Caldera bought was not "SCO" (the company formerly known as The Santa Cruz Operation), but that company's "Unix Business". While I haven't seen the documents, there's basically a bundle of rights, contracts, and licenses (the 30,000 contracts, though most are quite historical, we've heard so much about). The original SCO continues as a going concern under the name Tarentella. Rather quietly, I might add.
Though Caldera voted at its stockholder's meeting this past May to officially change its name to "The SCO Group", the name change has not yet taken legal effect.
Oh, and Caldera is the company which co-developed the RPM packaging format with Red Hat, distributed GNU/Linux (under the GNU GPL) for nine years, and which, for the past three years, has distributed the very 2.4 Linux Kernel (downloaded my own copy last week). Um. Under the GPL, last I checked.
I'd recommend The OSI's Position Paper and a compilation site I've had some involvment with, SCOvsIBM.
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
Their whole corp website was unavailable in the recent past...
<amused sarcasm> And of course, it helps to with the amount of slashdot publicity to SCO, with probably large numbers of geeks either visiting/poking/etc the SCO webservers. </amused sarcasm>
I think that until SCO manages to clean up their act, we should make linking to their corp website mandatory on all related articles... make their bandwidth spike for weeks on end and perhaps we'll drive them into slashdotting-induced bankruptcy
And of course, my question is: without linux, how long would they have lasted anyways? I mean, how much crossed from linux back to unix. What about the apache project, etc? I'm just a linux geek myself, I've always avoided the unix end of things (justly so it seems) - so I really don't know much about it except for recent actions.
Gee, this sounds reminiscent of Shrub's 48-hour ultimatim to Saddam.
This town ain't big enough for the both us. Clear outta dodge in the next 48 hours, or I'll start my pre-emptive strike.
- passion
All,
Several thoughts have come to my mind concerning this issue.
Please keep in mind that IBM:
1) backs Linux on a large number of it servers
2) believes that it's license with SCO is perpetual.
3) has spent billions hyping Linux.
IBM will likely take action on Friday or perhaps sooner in a pro-Linux fashion, given the above facts.
Suppose it is shown that in the completion of LKP (Linux Kernel Personality) that SCO did incorporate GPL'd code into it's kernel (as suggested by an article on linuxtoday.com) and it is shown that, according to Eben Moglen, that "SCO gave up rights to the code when the released their version of Linux".
If SCO licensed any of this code to third parties for inclusion in their products, it is possible that *all* of those products will be *required* to be released as Free Software under the terms of the GPL.
This is perhaps why SCO is being so loud about this. Is this the fact that they want to hide under all of this legal rangling? Also, don't forget that Microsoft made a public showing of buying a license from SCO, which according to the recent news from Novell, ONLY covers the copyrights which, if the above is shown, would be subject to the GPL.
The implication here is very clear. Many companies which have incorporated the disputed code would need to release their code under the GPL.
Could the GPL set the industry on it's head?
I, for one, hope so. I am not a lawyer, just an engineer.
Later, GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
I wonder how valid this is:
eWeek
"SCO insider says SCO used Linux code in V"
this isn't even a blip on the corporate radar.
In order to gain access to IP you have to justify a need to know which has to be signed off by a heirarchy of managers. Then, you *have* to take a class pounding you with what you can do with the IP you may get access to.
The IBM contributions for linux 2.4 are for the most part (if not exclusively) getting linux to run on the z900 mainframe. Contributions above & beyond involve linux 2.5 which you're not going to find anytime soon.
IBM has business to run on a daily basis. It
is not like SCO who make a living from litigation
(either Mr. DOS, or SCO) , while watching TV and
conducting press conferess (to English majors, that
is journalist) while waiting for the court day.
There is a difference betweeen real companies,
and companies where you eat pop-corn all day.
Let SCO revoke the license, then keep on marketing. Then if SCO wants IBM to stop, they'll have to be the plaintiffs.
Could someone just nuke SCO so we don't have to read about it anymore?
Not that I expect my question to be answered (500+ posts already), but I'll ask anyway.
This seems an awful lot like extortion of one form or another to me. The Linux issue doesn't seem to pertain to IBM's AIX sales. SCO's beef seems to be with IBM's linux offering. I've heard it's illegal to make somebody buy one production in order to purchase something else, and this seems simular.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The guys over at SCO are real big jerks!
-makoffee
On friday the thirteenth the unimaginable will happen! All of the AIX machines in the world will become Illegal, oh the humanity. Hundreds of previously upstanding companys will be running illeagal warz!
seriously would be interesting if IBM filed counter-suits, and as part of the discovery process requested the complete UNIX SVR4 source code and pedigries; with 10K patents in the basement I'm sure the lawyers at IBM could find a few infringements of their own.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
"You're making me angry, You won't like me when I'm angry"
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
But yet, if you walk into CompUSA and say "Will you sell me Windows XP(tm) for $299?", the clerk will say "Yes". The signage hanging on the shelves and walls reinforces the idea that selling will occur. More importantly, the reciept says "Sold".
Either the vendors of computer software are committing fraud on a gargantuan scale, or you are being sold software.
(Software publishers wish to change this- why they include those EULA that are legally nonbinding, and why they've pushed US states to create laws making EULAs effective. Virginia, so far, has agreed)
However, the reason normal EULAs are meaningless is because no contract terms were presented before money and product were exchanged. So, they have no similarity with the agreement between SCO and IBM. It was presumably conducted with lawyers, signatures, and even handshakes.
I've been watching this whole fiasco unfold and I've been fascinated. The reason is because I was a Caldera employee up until just over a year ago. I worked in IT, and IT at SCO is still made up of some of my best friends. So, I have the unique opportunity of getting the inside scoop on their feelings of what's going on, and the feelings of the company in general. I also have an interesting internal battle with where exactly I stand on the issue. Being that I learned about the things that matter most there (Linux), I can tell you that the early days of Caldera (right when it went public) were EXTREMELY exciting! We were all going to make money doing stuff that was cool and fun, PLAYING WITH LINUX!
/. community rejected Caldera. "You can't make money with Linux, you leeching bastards!" was pretty much the common attitude from /. users. We tried, we really did. But not only did no-one think they had to PAY for anything, they bashed and made fun of Caldera. Keep in mind that most of us WERE LINUX GEEKS and we LOVED LINUX. Our job was more than money, we wanted to be part of the OS community. People made fun of the logo, the company, the products, and it hurt. I wondered many times what we possibly did to deserve the scorn that was thrown at us CONSTANTLY.
/. persecution since the lawsuit: "Well, there's deffinately no love lost between SCO and the OS community. Things are no different now than they were before the lawsuit."
Something happened though. The
I was laid off about a year ago, and I've since moved on to much better things. Ransom was replaced, and the name was changed back to SCO because OBVIOUSLY there was no value left in the Caldera name after you guys were finished with it.
I've been using Red Hat ever since I was laid off, as Caldera's Linux distro pretty much fell by the wayside. I look back on those days with fondness and wish it could have turned out differently. I am horrified by SCO's actions as of late, at the same time I can't help but think that you guys kinda created this fiasco in the first place. You guys have been poking this dog into a corner for the last several years and now, when it turns around and starts fighting for its life, you seem to be amazed at how angry and irritated and frusterated SCO is. "Will they stop at nothing?!" you all ask in amazement? Of course not, cause they are going the ONLY ROUTE THEY HAVE LEFT. You all seem to be proud of yourselves for boycotting their products... sheesh, that's a rediculous notion since you had all boycotted them WAY before the lawsuit ever happened. I'll quote my friend who still works there when I asked him about how he felt about
I'm rooting for IBM. I think SCO are going way too far. It makes me angry that they have become such a mindlessly self-centered company. SCO is not at all what Caldera used to stand for.
But when you think about it, they really don't have anything to lose and a whole possible pile of cash and revenge to gain if this thing pans out for them.
And the ironic thing is that you are all, to some degree, the ones that helped cause this. You can bet that if they do prevail, they are going to make you suffer as MUCH AS THEY CAN with no remorse, since you all have had no remorse for them in the past.
This is not meant to be a troll. I only wanted to present a unique viewpoint of the whole situation.
OK, so that was 1960's not 80's, but still it has the right flavor of complete unreality, surrealism and camp silliness that SCO has been foisting upon us.
SCO IS the Black Knight!
I'm not dead yet....really I'm not dead.
You can't kill me...I'm invincible...
(Youâ(TM)re a loony)
Hack-Hack-Thump...
Alright we'll call it a draw.
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
All these allegations that SCO has been making really sounds like McCarthyism. If I recall correctly from history, nothing conclusive was found from the McCarthy hearings and I trust nothing will be from these hearings.
It is not legal, or rather legally sound, what SCO is doing to IBM, because they didn't prove anything in court, not even that they own UNIX. But they have the guts to go with it anyway. Why? "IBM believes that our contract with regard to AIX is irrevocable and perpetual and there is nothing further to discuss," said IBM spokeswoman Trink Guarino. Well, if that's the case then why IBM is not taking any preemptive action against SCO? Is that because they have nothing to worry about? IBM may win the case but what SCO is trying to do is to undermine IBMâ(TM)s business with AIX/Linux, therefore thereâ(TM)s something to worry about.
These kind of things donâ(TM)t go unnoticed by IBMâ(TM)s clients. Theyâ(TM)ll worry about it and also if they use SCOâ(TM)s software at the same time thereâ(TM)s more to worry about it. A friend, who works for IBM said âoeour lawyers will take care of thatâ, they may, but until then IBMâ(TM)s business will suffer especially if combined with other issues like their accounting and profit reporting probed by SEC. The next stop for IBMâ(TM)s stock is around $76, down from $90 in the beginning of May this year.
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
the reason normal EULAs are meaningless is because no contract terms were presented before money and product were exchanged.
Very good point, I hadn't thought of it... Now does that mean that it is legal to reverse engineer software etc... (since you own it) ? And I mean, DMCA not-with-standing.
Come to think of it, SCO reminds me of my ice hockey team in high school. Once upon a time we were just OK, then in subsequent seasons we didn't win a single game. So what do losing hockey players do in the end of the 3rd period? Earn a little respect by playing dirty and getting some penalties before hitting the showers and going home.
What I'm getting at is that SCO has essentially no products, is going to tank within a few months, and this is a last resort attempt to gain a little cash for the shareholders. I truly doubt that this action against IBM or subsequent ones against Sun, MS, Apple, *BSD, or Linux distro X will ever come to fruition.
when microsoft did use the bsd stack, they were perfectly within the permissions granted by the license. they stopped using that bsd stack some time ago. pre-nt4 iirc.
http://slashdot.org/bsd/01/09/24/1432223.shtml
i got modded down as flamebait for that in another story. mods are on crack. it's real. just because it's linux, i get modded down.
vodka, straight up, thank you!
The other quote that I can't get out of my head is from Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon, where the Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto explains his reservations about attacking Pearl Harbor as ordered by the military junta: ...it was hard to tell them that their plan was full of shit and that the Americans were just going to get really pissed off and annihilate them. Substitute "IBM" for "Americans", and you have my feelings exactly.
God, I love that book.
as I watch, it leans back on its bloody stumps and with a belch, prepares to pick the toenails out of its teeth.
No, it means that it's ok for you to buy any program (for instance: a game), try to install it, read the EULA and return it because you don't agree with the EULA.
therefore, it's not stealing.
the bsd licence, in a nutshell, allows free copying and use provided the regents of the university of california are acknowledged as the donors. and if you read your m$ docs carefully, you'll find it all there, word for word.
so, m$ have complied with the bsd license, and therefore there's no problem.
the end.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Of what? Scorn that their business model failed? It's not like SCO's alone in that regard - after I get off /. I'm gonna visit go fuckedcompany.com.
Sorry, SCO's management are not dogs and need to be held to a higher standard.
Why does your comment remind me of a scene in Monty Python's Holy Grail where King Arthur chops of the arms and legs of his adversary, and the adversary just sits there uttering threats and calling King Arthur a coward.
Come on, you must have seen it.
Kinda like SCO really. "Come back here IBM! I'll head butt your kneecaps!"
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
FiaSCO!
FiaSCO!
FiaSCO!
FiaSCO!
FiaSCO!
ahem.
FiaSCOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Wonder how much of the company he own... now that the share prices are around $9, anyone who bought shares before March would make a killing.
Have a look:
1 yr share price
Look at the volume traded per day, it's gone from the hundreds before March, into the millions the past two months.
1. FUD
2. SUE
3. FUD^2
4. PROFIT
has been hired by SCO as their new media relations manager.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
....Lou Gerstner and Linus Torvalds rushing into Ransom Love's office, ripping off his mask, revealing Bill Gates? I can picture it right now. "I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for your damn giant corporation, and your stupid penguin too!" ...sorry I'm just real tired of hearing SCO barking when they clearly need dentures before they can even try to bite. ;)
There was a
This whole SCO scenario reminds me of Dallas. Think of IBM as JR Ewing and SCO as Cliff Barnes. In a typical season the viewer watches over several episodes Cliff Barnes' latest scheme to "ruin Ewing Oil" and at times it looks like he might actually pull it off. Then of course to the audience's delight, JR bounces back and Cliff is humiliated and ruined while JR smiles and laughs. I for one can't wait for the end of the season to see SCO fall on it's face while IBM smiles and laughs.
It's funny reading the comments here. Just goes to show that IBM's Linux strategy is really paying off. If this were any other pair of similarly sized companies, slashdot would be fully on the site of David, not Goliath.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm pro-IBM in this case, and think SCO is somewhere between moronic and suicidal. But it's definitely funny to see this level of grass-roots support for such a huge corporation.
Either we're open minded folk who can see right and wrong without prejudice, or we're so defensive about Linux that we'll side with anyone when Linux is attacked.
Cheers
-b
Are you talking about the executives or the board of trustees?
Or the legal department?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Let's make some lame lawsuit against one of the biggest companies around for a ridiculous amount of money like $1 billion - now watch our stock rise 1400% while the speculators jump on our bandwagon hoping that IBM will either buy us out (profit $$) or settle the suit (easy big $$). Either way the stock will rise and anyone who bought in when stock was low is going to make a killing.
So the question is who is selling SCO stock on Friday cause I expect that the bottom will drop out real quick.
I read with great interest many of the comments posted after articles about SCO on slashdot. The one thing that sticks out about all the responses is the sense that the posters think that what SCO is just madness from a dying company.
My problem with this is in recent court decisions which make me wonder about the ability of our courts to rightly throw rubbish like this out the window. Instead, I read (on slashdot even) case after case about judges who somehow, despite all logic, find in favor of the asshole party. Whether it be the RIAA, MPAA, or even SCO, I have no doubt that there is a judge somewhere just sitting and waiting to declare in SCO's favor. It is all about jurisdiction these days. And it seems like whatever is right, just no longer works out in the tech world (minus a few notable exceptions).
I will be surprised if SCO loses! I know the facts well enough to understand SCO is ethically wrong (and even pretty much technically "wrong"), but I remember the lessons of 2600 and the DMCA and all the evils of the American court system. Trademarks, patents, copyright, blah blah, it seems technicalities are a way of life in this country. Intellectual Property somehow causes even the most reasonable of judges to inexplicably render the most retarded verdicts.
The real madness of all this is that SCO very well may win its case, and then we will really be in uncharted territory as SCO goes after Linux and its users like the RIAA does P2P and college students...
But you've never really tried to return an opened piece of software, right?
Dont try to hack the SCO website as a revenge. Do something thar realy hurts instead. Like loss of development support. Stop porting applications to sco-unix and sco will die a paifull death. Does Apache, Bind, GCC, Mysql or Perl run om sco-unix today? Does the next verson have to? Who want to by a system without programs?
You know, all through this soap opera, has anyone stopped to think about one of the biggest firms that would be positively affected by any change in the linux status? SUN? If SCO were to win, it hypothetically would mean that sun can take the high end server market, because SCO's product simply sucks. And how can a company on the downspiral take on IBM? Maybe SUN is financing this whole operation because they feel as threatened by linux as M$.
I don't know if anybody noticed, but isn't SCO using Linux? or am I telling old news. http://www.netcraft.com/whats?site=www.sco.com How da hell they want CREDIBILITY when they use the competitor OS? The matter of injuction? Ok the sue is against IBM, but in the end the problem is related to linux isn't? We know that SCO sucks, and theirs products are crap, but c'mon at least try to eat your onw dog food, even Microsoft does it, ( except for hotmail, that still runs Solaris and FreeBSD hidden in the back :-0 hehe, STILL TODAY )
Yes your honor, we suck and use Linux, but we'll sue their asses, cause there is no other way for us, as we are dying please let us grab somebody to make the fall less hard.
Has anyone stopped to consider, just for a second that they could be telling the truth?
I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.
- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, upon learning of the success of the attack on Pearl Harbor
Case #1:
>
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#inc lude<math.h>
#include<limits.h>
#include<time.h
More cases of flagrant copyright infrigement of System V source code by Linux kernal hackers is to come!
Only if the Management of SCO is still alive.
>Now does that mean that it is legal to reverse engineer software etc... (since you own it) ?
Yes, it was. Under pure copyright laws this was done quite often in the US until software publishers bought laws forbidding it.
I hear IBM has the patent on deficating.
IBM is going to sue Darl for every shit he has ever taken and get an injunction against him ever shitting again. Darl will slowly die of his own fecal matter in pain and alone.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
I was thinking about the whole buyout theory today.
And it occurred to me that if SCO is looking for a buyout, IBM is the wrong place to be looking. IBM was split up in the 80's (internally) because of anti-trust hearings. If IBM were to buyout SCO, it would be percieved as an attempt to gain a monopoly on the proprietary UNIX market (something Sun wouldn't be too happy with).
What seems more likely to happen is that IBM will begin to move its customers away from AIX... It would certainly be good for the current job market if IBM were to begin focusing all of its attention on AIX customers porting their internal apps to Linux....not to mention the overnight increase in Linux support from hardware and software developers. If it were to play out this way, then it may very well be the driving force that brings the IT sector back on its feet.
The senior management of SCO should be criminally prosecuted for extortion and fraud. Too bad the US legal system has no effective penalties to discourage fraudulent lawsuits and baseless litiguous coercion ... because if it did, that would mean less work for lawyers, and we can't allow that to happen now, can we?
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
The beginning of a horror story for SCO maybe?
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
April 1, 2004: Today The SCO Group(formerly known as SCO/Caldera) sued 27 of its Linux customers for breaching SCO's IP rights on UNIX (tm).
... weed prices are going through the roof man ... and we're like, you know in UTAH for god's sake ..."
... this is Chewbacca ..."
Darl McBride, SCO's CEO has made the following statement:
"This move was made in the light of the fact that, like, you know, our case with IBM was thrown out of court on account that we were misleading the court in our complaint and like, you know, were trying to confuse the court on the issues of trade secrets and copyrights and like, you know, we didn't do anything to minimize our losses until we were waaaay down the drain."
Also, SCO's CEO declared that the company was strapped for cash, depriving the board of certain commodities: "Lately, there seems to be a crackdown of some kind
SCO's lawers declared that the grounds for the lawsuits are rock solid: "Well, it's obvious they stole it from us. Yes, we sold it to them, but we didn't know it was stolen from us. And even when we knew, we kept selling it for a couple of month, but look
Good luck, SCO, you're gonna need it.
Who cares if Linux is forced into death ? The Hurd will be ready any day now...
...nothing will happen. Those running AIX systems are not going to switch them off. The courts won't tell IBM to stop selling AIX unless and until the contract questions are settled.
SCO plays lousy poker.
In the case SCO win (if it si possible)
At various discount bookstores around town there are copies of Caldera linux distros (old) at fairly cheap prices. If I buy one and then any linux distro I like, I am protected from SCO because I am a customer. There are some in a remainder bin I think.
I don't like giving in to obvious stupidity and I don't like breaking the law, but running Win98 is not good for my physical or mental wellbeing.
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant
When I first started using SCO XENIX back in the 1980s, I always thought that "The Santa Cruz Operation" sounded like a wing of the mafia.
Now with these extortion tactics I seem to have been proved correct all along!
Doesn't IBM have the UNIX license from the Open Group?
When I first read that, I read it as International Business Marines.
I immediately thought, "Man, I knew IBM had some badass attorneys, but this is boss. Where's their recruiting office?"
i've got a deadline for sco, but i'm not telling them
what it is about or when it is up. things are really
gonna be different in sco land when my deadline is up.
if they don't settle with me by my deadline, i've got
another deadline. they're really gonna get it when they
find out what it's about. i'm not even gonna tell them
who i am, but they better settle by my deadline.
SCO told a lot of lies, they even took some quotes out of context and quoted open-source advocates (RMS, Bruce Perens) on their website. Now thay're claiming IBM customers will lose their AIX licenses. I guess anyone can sue them for libel now. But what good will it do? They're already ancient history.
... no... I've changed my mind. One Billion!
-(+1 Informative) AC
Slashdot Journal on Monopoly News
Only on /. can you get modded "+1 funny" for explaining someone else's joke. :)
"Are you being weird, or sarcastic?" said Emma. I said I didn't know because I get the two feelings mixed up.
will you be f*cked when they go bankrupt or will you be rich beyond your dreams of avarice?
SCO seems to be playing up-the-shares, why shouldn't you play along and bank on the end result of that game?
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
So far it's working pretty well, "SCO's shares have skyrocketed in the past year to $8.65, its latest close on Wednesday from a 52-week low of 60 cents."
So let's also assume that on friday, the top SCO guys are just going to dump their stock and disappear or something. Is this really legal?
I am not a lawyer (see notes 1 & 2), so please tell me someone. This must be dodgy dealing, or tacky trading, or impossibly inflating indexes, or some other illegal thing. Or can they just get off scot free.
Well, at least until the 1500 hundred companies and a certain company who inspired the name HAL come down on them like a ton of bricks for harming the industry).
Note 1 - "I am not a lawyer" means IANAL, for those of you who were wondering.
Skiing? Check out The Independant Skiers Portal
I'm expecting IBM to walk into court Friday or first thing Monday with a request for a TRO to be in effect until the conclusion of the suit, based on the unliklihood of SCO being able to prevail in their case against IBM.
Wipe them out. All of them.
What were the American going to do? Come and beat us? Ha ha ha! Pass the sake and bring me another comfort girl!
SCO: Noobody expects the SCO inquisition, our chief weapons are ...
....A ruthless devotion to Bill Gates
ONE fear
TWO surprise
THREE
There is no third thing. Um lets start again.
Noobody expects the SCO inquistion, our chief weapons are
ONE fear
TWO surprise
THREE
Cardinal Biggles Poke them with the SOFT CUSHIONS...
CONFESS, CONFESS......LINUX......CONFESS.
CARDINAL BIGGLES: Doesn't seem to be hurting him lord.
SCO: He must be made of tougher stuff.
This pretty much sums it up for me
Ruby on Rails Screencast
I don't know, maybe he was named "Darlene" before the SC Operation?
:-D
Hmmm, conspiracy theory time?
SCOSource == Somebody Copied Our Source?!?
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
If you sell someone the right to use a peice of software, you are essentially selling them intellectual "property" (gee, thus the term.) Unless the contract specifies otherwise, the grant is perpetual ...
The term everyone is looking for is called estoppel, which basically means that they can't retroactively change the terms of your license. IANAL. SCO can deny further use of the UNIX license to IBM for AIX, but that doesn't mean the copies of AIX that I am using now will in any way become "invalid".
SCO seems to be out on a limb here. 6/13 deadline or not, this won't have an immediate impact on current AIX users.
-jh
The article claims SCO developed the first Unix for Intel chips. IIRC AT&T sold an intel based pc that ran System V Unix way back in 1986 (I sold a few of those back then).
Kind of makes me doubt the other facts in the story.....
. there used to be a sig here.....
It may be that IBM want SCO to be declared "owners" of the linux codebase, and only then will they step in and buy SCO.
Currently, Linux is "owned" by developers themselves. Almost all big businesses would much rather those developers were wage-slave chattels of their executive overlords, and that the code the devlopers produce "belong" to them rather than to a loose-knit collection of individuals (GPL is not public domain...)
Essentially, the whole SCO vs. IBM suit might be an elaborate pantomime, a way for "executives" and other such neofeudalist scum
to have Linux declared "owned" by a single, easily tracked, legal entity.
Microsoft, I would imagine, would much rather IBM "owned" Linux than a swarm of independent developers that aren't necessarily even motivated by money.
(I have quoted ownership terms because I personally think the idea of owning a pattern of information is kinda absurd, but that doesn't change the above argument.)
as per the episode "Fear, Itself"
//Smoosh!//
Buffy: This is SCO?
Xander: Big overture. Leetle show.
SCO (in a tiny, high-pitched voice): I am the dark lord of nightmares. The bringer of terror! Tremble before me. Fear me!
Willow: He... he's so cute!
SCO: Tremble!
Xander: Who's the little fear demon? Come on, who's the little fear demon?
Giles: Don't taunt the fear demon.
Xander: Why, can he hurt me?
Giles: No. It's just... tacky.
SCO: They're all going to abandon you, you know.
Buffy: Yeah, yeah.
Gachnar: Wait, wai--
Wow, those 4 people will be really bummed, and on Friday the 13th too!
SCO's scheme for proving Linux violation:
"Have you seen the grail?"
"We already got one!"
"The HOLY grail?"
"Yes, yes, it's ah very nice. Go away stupid English Kniggits!"
"People will be running AIX without a valid license."
/suspect/ you of swapping my copyrighted material online because you use a p2p system, thus I revoke all your rights to the copyrighted material in question." Isn't the onus of desolving a contract (license) on the party attempting to desolve it? And don't they have to do so through the legal system by suing IBM?
Can someone with a better legal understanding than mine tell me how you can revoke a license like this? Wouldn't they FIRST have to PROVE in a court of law that IBM violated the license contract, and thus was in default of it? I can't just say "*I*
Also, how can you give someone a license to resell, later revoke the lincense from the reseller, THEN accuse the end users of license violation. If you could, then hot dog, you could make a mint like this. Next SCO will be filing a lawsuit against all Fortune 500 companies for violating a revoked license that DOESN'T EVEN HAVE THEIR NAME ON IT, when they purchased the software while it was still good.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
With friggin' lasers attached to their heads?
Sort of, we couldn't afford the deadly, steel welding lasers, but the laser pointers we took from the conference room look real menancing taped to their heads.
I can't afford a sig!
killkillkillkill
in which, they will announce that they consider IBM's UNIX license to be revoked.
IBM will continue doing business as usual.
And that will be the end of it.
Unfrotunately, SCO claims has much bigger effect then you might think... on Linux.
IBM does not care, but we are forgetting that this whole case is actually against Linux, not IBM. SCO can't possible harm IBM but they can (and already did) significantly harm Linux.
I'm working for a very large company that recently started using Linux and I can tell you that all this scandal around Linux had very significant negative effect on Linux, at least in my company.
I suggest we stop caring about IBM (IBM will survive no matter what) and start caring about Linux, especially about Linux reputation in corporate market. It was harmed very badly by SCO.
SCO's market cap is only $110 million, and they want to settle for a billion? IBM could eat them for lunch, save 89%, and GPL the Unix source so it could never happen again. I'm not sweating one bit over this.
"It remains to be seen if the human brain is powerful enough to solve the problems it has created." Dr. Richard Wallace
This sounds like the end of days for SCO.
IBM is a much bigger animal. More money = better
lawyers.
Nowadays, IBM seems to look like a good guy versus the evil Microsoft.
I wish we didn't have this habit of empowering new evil dictators that are even worse than the previous ones
Solution: OPEN SOURCE
Wake up you development sheep.
Stop blindly following the herd.
Take control of your destiny and make a difference.
hyundai automobiles in the late 80s and early 90s sucked. they were the joke of the car industry for a while. they retreated and when they came back... well just look at the cars around you in a traffic jam, a lot of them are hyundais. who knows they may still suck, but consumers seem to be motivated to buy them.
lindows is a relatively young distrobution, but they have sales channels through tiger direct, walmart, kmart etc. their mission was to provide the average consumer with a linux operating system. they are succeeding more than failing.
these are two companies who a) had a bad reputation and managed to turn it around to become successful or b) a linux company which decided to focus on the consumer desktop market and is somewhat successful.
i can't really comment about caldera and the OS community being against it, but taking the two examples i have just given, it is clear to see that the problem caldera had was not just the OS community.
Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.
I wish SCO will shutup and die quickly like the the little company that has never been! IBM should squash them like a bug. What are they waiting for?
SCO giving IBM a dead line of tomorrow? Haha.. they must be having delusions of grandeur their last moments.
You mean before the Sex Change Operation? . . . S . C . O . .
whoa
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I'm setting my box to ping www.sco.com tomorrow all day long, not much, if I stay alone, so who's with me?!?
The problem is Mr. McBride was mis-quoted. The quote:
'If we don't have a resolution by midnight on Friday the 13th, the AIX world will be a different place'
should have read:
'If we don't *get bought* by midnight on Friday the 13th, *we* will be in a different place'
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
Now, It's Official [theinformationminister.com]
What, you want to miss the Santa Cruz Out-a-business sale? I suppose so, you did not care to read SCO's latest rantings, a 48 hour warning to AIX users. Well, you cared enough to read deep into the comments and spam them with your stupid, "Slashdot Editors Suck" post. Let's look at your other posts. Yep that's what I thought, pure troll without a single tech post demonstrating ownereship or care of anything.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
SCO is nowhere. AIX is everywhere.
No, it means you can disregard the EULA entirely. If I buy a house, and then when I get there there is a sign on the door saying "by entering this house you agree to the following conditions..." I can freely rip that sign off the house because I have already bought it. They CAN'T add additional qualifications.
Now, that does not invalidate their copyright - their copyright exists even without the EULA. However, any term of the EULA that goes above normal copyright law can be simply ignored.
Engineering and the Ultimate
What should be written to deface the site? How about:
Sorry, our license has been revoked. SCO is no longer able to service your needs.
We willingly and legally paid IBM for an AIX license. I doubt that this license (and all others) will be void for the following reason:
When we bought this software (and license), we agreed to buy a product that was legal at that time. Both companies faithfully engaged in a mutual contract and although there is appearance of a fault now, I believe it shouldn't invalidate this contract. I see that IBM might have to pay a damage fee, but I doubt any judge will invalidate all previous licenses.
One thing for sure is that saturday the 14th, my machines will be up and running AIX whether or not we're "legit".
Offtopic remark: I always thought that SCO sucked but this is beyond me.
-- Leeeter than leet
You aren't buying the software as you suspect; instead you are paying for the media, the manuals, and the pretty box. What you do with the contents of that media (be it CDs, DVDs, etc.) is still governed by what the license that comes with it states.
IMHO, SCO has been an irrelevant sideline player in UNIX for my entire computing career. I do not expect that to change now that their business model has evolved to litigation rather than programming.
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte
Be sure to FLOOD PING, not regular.
The pertient response from IBM should be something along these lines...
Ohhh noooo! Weeee'ree sooooo scared! *snicker*
IBM's stock is at $84. Compared to the rest of the players in this drama I do not think that they have anything to worry about. IBM's stock has followed the trends of the DJIA almost exactly for the last 8 years (DJIA up, IBM up etc.) Stock prices depend on more factors than this one little incident. Even SCOX has bounced back to $8.
I'll bet he won't even NEED to use the Chewbacca defense on this one!
Eat at Joe's.
Don't buy into the "software isn't sold, it's licenced" mentality just because the big corps claim that is the way it works. The reality is that courts are divided on the issue and it has never been settled definitively. It is precicely for this reason that UCITA was persued so agressively, but remember that only two states passed it and some even passed UCITA non-enforcement laws.
I believe that eventually the law will conclude that you need a licence in order to make a copy, but that once made, that copy is sold normally through the transactions that move it through retail distribution. The recent case Adobe vs Softman adopted this view (to the minimal extent needed to decide the case).
Isn't this the same Caldera that bought DRDos from Novell for $1 to create openDos, to stick it to MS? Are they not the same ones, who made a great little linux distribution, that was perfect to give friends who couldn't make it through Red Hat's install process. What happened to them?
Cryptonomicon is a great book. Along the same lines as your book analogy IBM probably has the intelligence to know what is going on behind the scenes at SCO.
This intelligence would be much like American cryptanalysts who had the scoop on the Japanese navy but managed to keep a lid on it until they could take maximum advantage of it.
It's not bad english, it's a glitch in the Matrix. It happens when they
reeks of barratry. They've sued, and are now unwilling to wait for a trial _they_started_? They're trying to force IBM to settle, when their only legal recourse is an injunction or trial? Huh?
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Is it true that Baghdad Bob has joined the SCO legal team?
If so, it suddenly all makes sense.
i could be wrong; but its starting to look like there are more horses asses at SCO, than horses.
If SCO wants bought out and wants to be jerks about it, then IBM should buy them and layoff everybody immediately upon close of the deal.
Can they force microsoft to revel the source to windows to make sure they have not used any unixware code?
AyePee: June 11, 2003.
IBM released their landmark settlement to the SCO Unix patent infringement case today, delivering a surprising but pleasing outcome.
For the first time in the computer industry, IBM has decided to just eliminate the SCO Group from the face of the Earth using a team of highly paid professional killers. Headed by John Carmack, the inspiration for the Doom and Quake series, the team is being paid half of the proposed settlement fee of $1Billion to put a halt to SCO's inflammatory and pathetic attempts to bilk money out of supergiant corporation IBM.
A top IBM executive was quoted as saying: "Just deal with em', John. We expect nothing to be left. (evil laughter)."
Stockholders participating in the SCO Group are reported to be dumping their stocks at a record pace, and are shredding all records of any affiliations with the company.
A key player in the Group was able to tell us this amid his conversation with his stockbroker, "Despite the CEO's insistance that hiring a counter-team from Sierra will take care of this, I just don't think anything good is going to come of it. I mean, John Carmack? They say his Armidillo Aerospace Division has developed some sort of space-based weapon system. How do you deal with that on such a limited budget? No, I said sell, damnit!!! Sell."
We were unable to reach Mr. Carmack for comment due to his extensive preparations, but a representative stated that we would be able to watch their company's official position on the SCO Group in the new Doom video game. And that it would be bloody. Very bloody.
More updates and pictures of the destruction of SCO Group headquarters will be available sometime next week.
DISCLAIMER: Everything said here is the copyright of everybody you think it is, and hopefully none of this is true. Please don't sue me!
Yeah, c'mon dumb-dumb, do somethin' unintelligent there- Moe Syzlak
put the what in the where?
Use the little exit road from the services which takes you onto a minor road in Frankley near the Brothel on the Hill instead of carrying on to the A38 junction like a good little boy?
:)
Well, do you?
Naughty Naughty
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
It still won't revoke the fact that the vast majority of code was contributed fairly to the GPL, including some of it by IBM themself. The worst case scenario is that they go back to a pre-IBM kernel and very quickly reproduce all the work done since then (second time is always easier). It may not be the 3 day patch peopele are talking about, but I doubt it would take longer then 6 months. And may even turn out a better product.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
SCO has absolutely no claim whatsoever to do anything at all to any Linux users. The amount of code talked about is so little it would pass under fair use quoting, it would be have been done in good faith if it has been done, they'd have to prove it's their code in linux and not linux code in SCO (I personally think SCO's the one who's been doing any cut'n'paste here), they'd have to get out of the problem that they themselves have been distributing the code as part of their linux distribution and as such released it under GPL and even if they did 'win' they'd just get an order to remove the code in question which could be done in days.
Since they basically cant get shit out of flinging around Linux lawsuits they'll have to go against IBM on the claim that IBM did something nasty during the Monterey project. Hang the blame for their collapsing market onto IBM's alleged leakage and claim damages for it (god forbid anyone should realize their market is collapsing because their products completely, totally and utterly suck compared to pretty much anything written in the last decade).
They're gonna get smacked around so bad they dont know what hit them.
But what you're buying is the right to use Windows or any other software.
Although it's clear that shrinkwrap EULAs are legally meaningless (anything included in the box, either on paper, or click-thru in the installer), online EULAs may be more enforcable.
An EULA that came with the original distribution media is only an obstacle to installation, and installation is something you've already bought the right to do. There's no exchange of consideration, and there's no communication between the parties of the contract.
However, if you download additional materials, like the requisite security updates for Microsoft(tm) Windows(r), there may be an additional EULA to click through.
The publisher would have a stronger case to enforce that contract, because you recieved additional goods in exchange for clicking on it. The patches were not promised with the original purchase, so "consideration is exchanged". The claim is even stronger if the click-thru agreement is required before the download occurs.
Of course, if this argument succeeds, and is cemented in precedent, Microsoft(tm) would have innovative ways to boost revenue, if they ever hit a surprise cash-crunch in the far future. They could randomly apply different EULAs to individual patching customers. Most would be normal, but 1% might include promises to pay an additional $299 for the enhancements. The bill will arrive 30 days after the download.
(That scenario sounds crazy- but if EULAs are binding, there's nothing to stop it)
This is of course contrary to the spirit of just about every consumer protection law that exists.
Suppose after buying a car and turning on the ignition the car announced that by driving the car you agree to hold the manufactuer harmless if it just randomly blows up and kills everyone inside. These kinds of disclaimers are generally accepted at ski resorts where everyone recognizes that you are trading safety for entertainment. However, these sorts of disclaimers would be found illegal in a court if applied to a car. Suppose the reason the car blew up was traced to bad software in the engine control system. Would the fact that it is software make it possible to avoid blame for making a dangerous product? Of course not.
Every vendor in existance would like to have no liability for anything they make. Laws exist to prevent this. Now, I can see some point in limiting liability for use beyond the basic design. If you use your word processor VB script to control the space shuttle obviously you are going beyond the intentions of the designer. On the other hand, if a VB bug wipes out a quarterly report and incurs a financial loss for the user, the vendor who made the faulty software should be liable. The difference is that word processors are not designed to control space shuttles, but they are designed to prepare business documents. A programming error in the user-designed script would not be grounds for suit, but if the Msgbox statement in VB formatted the HD, that would be a different story...
Their stock price has been going up throught this whole thing, they took a few hits, but they've recovered.
SCO is making a LOT of money on this, and no amount of complaining on slashdot will change that.
Check out the three month view here
Notice how the stock price keeps going up.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
As far as I can tell, nobody has yet mentioned that when IBM introduced AIX and for years and years afterwards, it neither contained Unix code nor bore the Unix logo. AIX gained a sizeable chunk of the "Unix" market share without actually being Unix at all, at least not in any technical sense.
This was well-known among systems administrators who grew up with SunOS or other versions of Unix and who were forced to work with AIX in their day jobs. AIX does everything differently, which leads to frustration of the system administrator when nothing he knows works. ("Why can't they just use /etc/fstab like everyone
else instead of this hundred-line-long /etc/filesystems thing?!?" and "Why
why WHY did they have to invent ODM?"
were both common cries.) Anyway, the
point is that after each frustrating
experience, every Unix-guy-but-forced-to-do-AIX
systems admin would repeat the mantra
"Well, Unix is supposed to do it that way,
but of course AIX isn't Unix."
One of the common jokes of the day (besides "smit happens") was this: "What does AIX stand for? AIX Isn't UniX!"
In case you're wondering, my point is this: IBM was able to successfully sell hundreds of thousands of RS/6000 machines and AIX licenses before it got the opportunity to call it "Unix" (which happened when the Unix trademark began to denote a spec instead of a codebase). If AIX wants to do that again, it can. IBM may have included some System V code since then, but it can fix that and keep selling the machines and the operating system.
Caldera was arguably the most technically advanced distribution in several phases of the history of Linux. Caldera's distribution was the first with a graphical installer ("Lizard?"), Caldera's kernel contributions are voluminous, etc.
While problems at Red Hat continue and multiply even to this day, every single binary in the distribution comes with source and has since the removal of Netscape Navigator.
You at Caldera were only too happy to base your installer on the closed QT, and we owe nothing to you for the GPL QT. Like your friends at SUSE et al, you commingle closed-source applications in your distribution.
If you as Caldera, or Tarantella/SCO, or SUSE had insisted upon open code from the beginning, you would be in Red Hat's position now, since Red Hat was technically inferior.
You did not insist upon open code. Tough break.
However, when I wanted to customize the GPL'ed installer, the Caldera sources were broken and it seemed as if they didn't want to allow customization, even though the sources were under the GPL. It was as if Caldera was doing the minimal to fulfill the GPL, but not really wanting to be part of the community. Mind you, nothing required them to make their installer GPL'ed, and nothing required cooperation with the community, but I believe the attitude that Caldera first exhibited, led to the disdain that the community felt for them, even before this fiasco.
Perhaps it was also a matter of unclear licensing policy. Since nothing requires an entire distribution to be under open source licenses, a distributor could certainly claim the right to limit distribution of the entire collection of software as a unit. However, it should be clearly spelled out, in that case, that the customer still has the right to freely distribute the open portions of the software. Which portions are distributable and which are not should also be clearly spelled out. Perhaps Caldera had not completely figured this out at the time. As other distributions have also had to work out the issues, it has become more clear what they are. Open source fans can then be reassured that the software they created won't be restricted, and proprietary companies satisfied that they will still be able to make a profit (economy permitting).
Life's a lot like money-- you spend it, then it's gone. Spend wisely.
Golly, I guess it's our fault that Microsoft is such a bad company too, then. I wonder what bad things slashdot is going to make them do as well.
Hrm. Suing IBM is pretty mundane for a company as big as Microsoft. My guess is that they'll sue everybody on the planet, for a million zillion bajillion dollars.
Come on. I've tried to purchase Caldera products before for our school. They don't give an educational discount (which I can understand), their mail and messaging server is more expensive than exchange (for crying out loud!). Caldera basically did everything in their power to prevent me from doing business with them. If they treated all of their customers like I got treated, they deserve what they're about to get -- a steel-toed boot kick to the head.
You can bet that if they do prevail, they are going to make you suffer as MUCH AS THEY CAN with no remorse, since you all have had no remorse for them in the past.
What a marvelously enlightened moral philosophy that is.
//#define // thank god for open source development // lets try something better
#include
Or perhaps just:
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
They sold me something dangerous. They fix it free.
Anyone noticed the recent selling going by SCO insiders? Are they trying to cash in now while the getting is good? Michael Olson VP 6000 shares @ 8.60 Robert K Bench CFO 7000 shares @ $9.30 Jeff F Hunsaker VP 5000 shares @ 8.90 Opinder Bawa VP 7916 shares @ 6.60
SCO needs a way to make sure that its Unix programs aren't being pirated. The only way to do that is to make sure that the appropriate libraries arent being copied, stolen, etc.. from unix to linux. Apparently they think they can license the libraries and make $. The linux API's do not allow unix programs to run without the libraries. SCO naturally wants their applications to work on linux cause they make $ that way. They accuse IBM and Redhat, and Suse of giving the knowledge of how to incorporate unis libraries into linux. It wont fly, because in there white paper (linked above) they state that the native linux API is open source and therfore i take it "clean". I hope someone out there reads this and lets me know if what im reading is correct. So in essense they want us to buy a 140$ system v license in order to run unix programs that we do not even need. See? The linux libraries are NOT infringing on system v code if they are left native. The problem is when corp. xyz decides to migrate from unix to linux and keep their nifty system v programs. Please read scos white paper below. http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:9oosxEZ-zpoJ: www.caldera.com.br/scosource/download/ssvl_white_p aper.pdf+system+v+in+linux&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:9oosxEZ-zpoJ: www.caldera.com.br/scosource/download/ssvl_white_p aper.pdf+system+v+in+linux&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Uh, nice off-the-cuff reasoning there, but no, you are not purchasing the software--you're just licensing it. Regardless of whether or not the applicability of shinkwrap agreements or EULAs is controversial, the concept of licensing intellectual property is not. What you are buying is a box, some paper and a disk.
Just like when you buy a book, you don't gain the right to print your own copies and sell them. That is, you are not buying the underlying protected work, and that's just the protection afforded by copyright law.
Another way to look at it is that regardless of the fact that not everything in a EULA is legally enforceable, those things don't invalidate the parts of the EULA that are legally enforceable, including the part where you are agreeing to license the software when you open the shrinkwrap. It's not the shrinkwrap that makes parts of the EULA unenforceable, it is their claims.
IANAL, by the way. A handy acronym when posting opinions on legal matters, don't you agree?
-Robert
This is scary. Everybody is rooting for the mighty anti-competitive giant of the 80's. What is going on?
Will we be all rooting for Microsoft in 20 years' time?
Off topic but, I wonder if SCO sent themselves a threating letter, since they are using apache/linux for their website. Surely they did since they're so honest. I wonder if they're listening to it. I wonder if Bois will represent both sides if they decide to take themselves to court.
SCO go sue yourself!Show your support for SCO and register for SCOForum 2003. Visit this link:
https://vrs.verite.com/sco/index.cfm?action=regisand you too can register and feel the warmth and goodness of your support. I know I did and I feel sooo good! Imagine the happy faces at SCO as they wade through all the registrations...
Have a Slashdot kinda' day!When did you go from "We were all going to make money doing stuff that was cool and fun, PLAYING WITH LINUX!" to "We were all going to make money doing stuff that was sleazy and assinine, like VIOLATING THE GPL and FILING LAWSUITS OVER ANCIENT IP!" -- please answer with precise times. After all, Caldera was playing fast and loose with the GPL ever since they first got on the scene, which is what originally earned them the attention and scorn of some people in the /. community.
/. community says "Caldera doesn't care about us or the GPL", then PROVE THEM WRONG. Build credibility, don't burn bridges. No, the fact of the matter is, Caldera had its chance; several chances, actually. And it has shown itslef to be completely untrustworthy, and in fact utterly, utterly vile. And nothing they have done in the past few years has served to significantly change that opinion for the better.
I appreciated what they were doing with OpenDOS, and if they kept on with that, they might have managed to change my opinion. So what did they do? They closed it back up again, and just used it as a stick to extort money from Microsoft. Now, I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but the DR-DOS lawsuit--coming from CALDERA--was an incredibly sleazy and reprehensible tactic.
And you know what? It worked for them. So what do they do? They continue to buy up old IP, change their name (because they've already burned any credibility they might EVER have had), and try to sue ANOTHER big company. And now you're wondering how it all ended up like that. Hmmmm. I wonder.
In the future, maybe you and your buddies should think about the CONSEQENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS. Like, if the
Got it?
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
If you weren't Anonymous, then I'd have some expectation you'd read a reply, and thus I'd have some motivation to reply at length. I could point out specific 20th century Supreme Court cases where shrinkwrap licensing was specificially prohibited.
I could mention that in a software store, you neither "purchase software" nor "license software"- you "buy a copy of software", which has a specific legal meaning, identical to buying music or a book.
including the part where you are agreeing to license the software when you open the shrinkwrap.
I could also demolish that claim, but won't waste my time on something you won't read. Similar answers to mine are easy to find on the WWW, if you care. Some even WBAL.
.....or i shall taunt you a second time!
stop all that knees bent running about, you tiny brained stealers of other peoples' source code!
Yes they could modify every major GPLed application to fuction correctly under SCO Unix and mirror those changes on SCOs website.
This means SCO users won't have access to the latest changes untell SCO fixes it. SCO users will have to go to SCO for all future support of the software and not the free software community. SCO will have to spend money recoding free software to work for them.
Lastly SCO users can't use anything SCO hasn't fixed. The vast majority of free software. Unless they fix it themselfs. Added work JUST to continue using SCO.
I don't actually exist.
Seams like SCO would rather force IBM to admit guilt than risk being disproven in cort.
Sence SCO plans to cancle IBMs liccens couldn't IBM get a new liccens from Novel?
And hay while we are at it Novel can cancle SCOs liccens to Unix. Now wouldn't that just suck for SCO?
I don't actually exist.