Slashdot Mirror
IBM Doesn't Comply With SCO's Deadline
prostoalex writes "IBM refused to settle with SCO and comply with their deadline, expiring Friday the 13th. "We've got a strong defense case, and we're going to fight it", IBM representative is quoted."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I hate to say this, but who actually thought IBM would give in to this undersized bully?
Someone hates these cans.
Third round!! 50 bucks on IBM!!!
On Friday the 13th a black cat was found dead at SCO underneath a broken mirror.
SCO: I bet "Friday the 13th"
IBM: I call.
SCO: Umm..*looks at cards*
IBM: *smiles*
to be continued...
When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
... was later heard to comment, "Ha ha ha, they are SOOOO dead".
So, this is really the dead line for SCO..
SCO managed to dig its own grave...
I'm sick of the money grubbing BS that's hovering around this case. It's clear that SCO is using the "open" in open source to try and challenge an IP issue because they know the court's never seen anything like this before. Also, the fact that M$ injects money into SCO is really suspect and deserves and out right investigation, because EVERYONE knows they [SCO] wouldn't be paying lawyer's for this FUD if they didn't have the cash.
Everyone here knows that Linux is kicking the shit out of Microsoft on the server, and they [M$]know it's not long before it starts cutting into their desktop margins.
This stuff is making me sick. It's a joke, it's friggin' "high-tech ambulance chasing".
I can't wait until they lose and I hope IBM find's something suspect in the case so that they can reveal the true evil behind all this...
I'm a bit confused here... do we want SCO to win, or do we want SCO to lose?
Ok, SCO is a bunch of scumbags, so obviously we don't want them to win.
On the other hand, if SCO loses, it will send a strong message to the world: "Stay away from anything GPL, or you'll find your proprietary code taken away from you."
I'm really not sure which outcome would be worse.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Who needs drama/soaps on tv when you have a show right here..
SCO and IBM's marriage isnt going well.
SCO says IBM is cheating with another OS.
SCO files for divorce.
SCO takes IBM's keys to the house away
IBM fights for the house.
Oh how I will tune in next week to see what happens.
It seems the Friday deadline looked good to traders, the stock price jumped... Yahoo has an article, written on Friday, about the jump.
Any bets on what happens to the stock price on Monday?...
IBM Chooses Caldera's OpenLinux eServer as First Linux Pre-load On Netfinity Servers
eServer Pre-load Saves Customers Time and Money
OREM, Utah--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 24, 2000--Caldera Systems Inc., (NASDAQ: CALD - news), the ``Linux for eBusiness'' leader, today announced that IBM (NYSE: IBM - news) will pre-load Caldera's OpenLinux eServer on its IBM Netfinity servers.
The Netfinity servers may be purchased either pre-installed or bundled with OpenLinux eServer through IBM Direct. This is IBM's first Linux pre-load on Netfinity servers.
IBM believes that Linux will help drive the long-term growth of the Internet by providing an open application platform that can harness leading-edge technologies and simplify customer choice. The common application platform will help ensure software interoperability across heterogeneous servers.
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
Since I don't have the money to defend myself in court like IBM, I'd really like to comply with SCO's claims that not just linux, but a lot of other software infringes on SCO's claimed copyright. I'm just a bit puzzled as to how I might go about this.
.tgz files and post the URL here, I can download it and take care of it myself.
...
For example, I'm looking at a line of code in one of my GPL'd programs:
i += j - n;
Does this infringe on any code claimed by SCO? How would I know?
The only way I can think of is that SCO should send me a copy of their code. I can easily write a little perl script that will compare every line of my code with every line of theirs, and I can rewrite anything that seems to be infringing.
Can anyone think of another way?
Since my code is GPL'd and on my web site, SCO could do it themselves. But they are probably pretty busy, so I'd rather do it myself. Anyway, recent history shows that when they find infringing code, they don't send the programmer a nice message so the code can be changed. SCO just sues them for big bucks. I'd much rather avoid this threat, and save them time, by eliminating any infringements myself.
SCO doesn't need to send me their code. If someone at SCO would just package it up in a few
Eagerly awaiting the URL
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Linux software companies could also become SCO targets. "Do we have potential issues with Red Hat, SuSE and other commercial Linux distributors--yes, we might," Sontag said, adding that chances for negotiating with such companies appear to be slim.
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
Of a case involving MCA Universal, Nintendo and Donkey Kong.
It ends up Universal didn't actually OWN the rights to Donkey Kong, but bullied several companies, and sued Nintendo anyway... and ended up paying 1.8 million for the trouble.
Ryan Fenton
...of something strongly in doubt.
First off, SCO has to prove that the code in question is in fact "theirs". Considering the rather incestuous family tree that is UNIX that is not so cut and dry.
Additionally, there are allegations that SCO has been helping themselves to GPL'd code without credit or redistribution.
No, the thing we're learning here is that if you really have an IP case against Linux or another GPL project than just be right out in the open. Document the code and PROVE your case. Don't hide behind lawyers, NDA's, horribly out of context quotes and vaguely threatening letters.
And, oh yeah, it helps if you can at least stick to one story for greater than a week.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
SCO can't compete with Linux. Its UnixWare OS, while a fine middle level server OS, doesn't have the the scalability, hardware support or applications that Linux has. They know it. SCO couldn't make money selling its own Linux.
So, it does what M$ could only dream of: launch a self destructive lawsuit in a last, desperate gasp of trying to save its business and destroy Linux, unleashing the greatest FUD attack witnessed yet. People are scared. M$, with its "license" pulls the strings, and watches with glee. "I told you so!" M$ will say. "You can't trust open source!"
SCO needs to be destroyed. No bought or settled with, but crushed, utterly and completely. What they have done is unethical, immoral and (hopefully) completely without legal base.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
When is the class-action countersuit going to begin?
You mean like Beowulf clusters? (Who were those copied from?)
Puh-leeze. Any Operting System has to have certain features and capabilities. Of course there's going to seem to be some copying involved because everyone's working to the same goals.
There is NO advantage to SCO successfully prosecuting this case. First off, the "IP" that they're claiming and trying to protect so jealously is something that they bought fourth hand. They didn't even create it themselves.
Second, they've been gladly trying to make a business from others' IP and when that didn't work out they suddenly decide that they need to pursue licensing?
Licensing IP advances nothing. It's just making everyone pay over and over again for the same damn thing. To make matters worse they're pursuing this with all the class and aplomb of any eight-year-old shouting "I'll just take my bat and ball and go home!"
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Directly from the article:
" The dispute between SCO and I.B.M. has not yet slowed the advance of Linux in the marketplace, according to industry executives. But the prospect that the suit may linger indefinitely can only add to the anxiety of corporate technology buyers.
"They're really concerned," noted George Weiss, an analyst at Gartner. "The significance of this case is unclear, but there's no question it has gotten the attention of people." "
SCO & MS are injecting some good ol' fashion Uncertainty & Doubt into the minds of corporate IT people considering a Linux project with IBM. Both SCO & MS have nothing to lose by bringing this case.
Win: They get some $$ and stop IBM's new Linux business strategy
Lose: They spread enough UD around to make buyers hesitate, thus still stopping IBM's Linux business.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT Call 1-800-555-CARL
> Modern OSS lack original ideas.
No it doesn't. Look at GNU Radio. You can use it to decode HDTV signals. Try finding non-free software that does the same thing. The linux kernel has VFS (Virtual Filesystem Switch) which acts as an abstraction layer allowing you to mount and use many different file systems in the same way. That's pretty original. Look at OpenBSD. It has encrypted swap space and random pids. What other OS has that? Look at apache. Before apache you couldn't have more than one website per box. Look at Gnutella, it was the first distributed p2p software ever. And the list goes on....
Correct me if im wrong but didnt SCO aquire Xenix from microsoft some time in the eighties, Xenix then becoming SCO OpenServer. I wonder if this is a reason microsoft and SCO seem to be such good chum's. Also wouldnt it be embarasing if code from what was Xenix turned up in Linux!
If IBM illegally copied code that rightfully belonged to SCO,and is large enough to warrant real copyright protections, and it made it's way into linux, then we want SCO to win against IBM, and we want SCO to do the right thing, which is let us know which code it is so the linux world at large can work to remove that code from future versions.
Furthermore, realize that we aren't obligated to remove it immediately; even if IBM copied it into, say, OS2, their customers would not be obligated to uninstall their software. SCO can claim damages, but claiming control over all of linux sure isn't going to happen.
On the other hand, if scos claims are really baseless, we want them to die, because they suck.
To date, SCO has signed new licensing deals with two companies. One is Microsoft; the other has not been identified.
Could the other one also be Microsoft? Just thinking.
The dogcow says "Moof!"
Friends, I have seen the future.
The SCO Group has three core businesses now. One is OpenServer and UnixWare, which as we all know, suck to high heaven and have never had more than 2% market share in the Unix market. They also hav-- er, had their UnitedLinux offering, but now that we have discovered just how much Darl McBride hates Linux, it's safe to say that SCO OpenLinux is history.
That leaves us with SCO's newest business: SCOsource, their gambit in the lawsuit industry. Now, every time I think about SCO and the lawsuit and the questions being raised, I am reminded of a certain Texas energy trading company that is no longer among the living. SCO can't even confirm how much Unix IP they actually own. Novell says they have the patents as a certainty and some of the copyrights as well, and SCO won't say what they actually own. Meanwhile, SCO says that SCOsource is a key business unit, allowing them to record their extortion fees as regular income, suddenly making them a "profitable" company.
Consider Enron. They inflated their revenues by trading energy that didn't exist and raping their customers for doing so. Now look at SCO. They're suing their customers, claiming infringement of IP that may not exist (they certainly won't confirm or deny the existence of it!).
You'd think investors would have learned from the Enron incident, but nope. SCOX is over $10 for the first time in its history, and McBride and his FUD-spewing lawyer-demons are just waiting for the perfect opportunity to cash out. I just pray that justice is done and that this fscked-up company will be wiped off the face of the planet.
"I am root. Bow before me." To this I say, "You are root, and you bear the sins of the world upon your shoulders."
How the hell did this teenage troll get modded up? In case anyone actually believes he has a valid point (even though he can spell neither 'hobbyist' nor 'bogus'), here is a little rebuttal.
First, OpenBSD is probably one of the LEAST innovative software projects. It has to be -- innovative means untested, which usually means insecure. Hardly appropriate for a system which strives for the ultimate in security.
Second, SCO's claims have nothing to do with originality of ideas. They have everything to do with alleged code theft. You will have that problem in any open-source project, period. If it's actually innovative, you may also run into patents, which are much more of a problem.
Third, nobody wants "innovative" software, if innovative simply means "different". This is the fundamental difference between a computer science research project and enterprise-class software (which is what Linux is quickly becoming). Rejecting compatibility, adding "cutting-edge" features, and creating a brand-new untested design are all symptoms of amateurism and are OK for college students, but not for serious use. Rejectng backwards compatibility and/or a proven design is just like saying "let's tear down New York City and rebuild it with wider streets in order to solve traffic problems." It's a rather childish suggestion.
Ok, let's play what if.
Suppose there was a meeting. There were no notes taken of this meeting. No emails or memos were ever written that it even took place.
The meeting was between Microsoft and SCO.
Microsoft promises to keep SCO afloat...doling out money to them over the next 10 to 15 years. In small chunks. First up is to buy a license from SCO...totally out in the open. Saying that they just want to be on the up and up with any code they may write in the future.
But in exchange for Microsofts funding, SCO must openly attack Linux...the only thing that Microsoft truly fears. They must attack Linux, and all the big companies that support it. They must stir up a huge shit-storm around Linux and spout off FUD like there is no tomorrow. This will put doubt in the eyes of future Linux adopters, investors and users while Microsoft gains an even larger foothold.
But remember, there are no documents ever written to this effect. No emails that can be found or memos to be brought forward. No one even knows what is going on except the people at the top. No one has actually said "Linux must die". But this is the ultimate goal.
Just a thought.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
How can you say this?
Although Linux originally started as a unix clone, it was derived from Minix which in turn was based on the unix methodology. But Linux has changed, grown, if it hadn't why would people now be using it?
Open source is different for exactly the reason that its open source, anyone can look it and they are free to change it. This means that the software is continually evolving - sometimes using multiple paths, with each contributing to the overall future of the software. Who knows what Linux will look like in another 10 years? but at least it can adapt, new hardware vendors can view the source and optimise their hardware/drivers ready for Linux and if needed the kernel itself can be changed to help accomodate them.
As other people have said any software can become tainted with other proprietry code, especially when you have source licenses from many
vendors used on one of your products.
Take for example the MSQL/Timeline patent issue.
How many people would be willing to start from scratch now? look how long the hurd has taken to emerge, and even now it uses code from Linux to help it take off.
Some would say that Gnome and KDE are just Windows wannabes, but for how long? again they will evolve over time as people demand new ideas and concepts.
So it's important that open source comes out of this mess as clean as possible because if it doesn't then important contributors may be scared off and thus reduce the speed at which the current open source movement is expanding.
This is purely a knee-jerk reaction by SCO^h^h^h Caldera to take as much as possible from our community when they realised that their business model had failed.
IANAL, but it was always my impression you couldn't claim trade secret protection and copyright protection. Copyright protection pertains to works that are explicitly meant to be published and trade secret for works whose publication would destroy their inherent value. Note most companies claim copyright on the object code not the source.
It was a big legal brouhaha in the 70's and 80's on whether object code was copyrightable as it wasn't a human readable entity (yes it does depend on the human).
My question is really does anyone know what tools are being used to build SCO unix products ? And, are there decompilers that could reasonably show that SCO stole GPL CODE.
Lets face it the reason that SCO is being so secretive is they are the thieves hoping to pull a fast one on the world. Its pretty much obvious that SCO isnt protecting anything new or revolutionary. My guess is SCO had programmers that were either pressed to meet deadlines or got involved in a little intracorporate one upsmanship , and appropriated GPL code, thinking how could anyone notice.
The SCO source is the big mystery here. If it can be shown that significant parts came from GPL or the open source community (i.e. berkely unattributed). Well there goes SCO down the toilet where they belong.
Ah! I understand now. If I simply remove all the comments from my code, I won't have to worry about infringing SCO's copyrights.
/. can get it into a web page, especially if I use the Preview button. In fact, I'd bet that a lot of they have typed in just such a program as soon as they read the parent comment.
I can do that. All it takes is a little perl program. I can probably do it as a one-liner. And I'll be sure not to comment it.
One thing that puzzles me, though. There is an old theory about the lack of comments in the original Bell Labs unix: Before sending it out to universities, the folks at Bell Labs ran it through a filter that deleted comments. This was later verified (by Ken, IIRC) as not a rumor at all; they had such a program.
This would imply that if you actually use the AT&T code, all you have to do is add comments, and your code would be different enough to avoid an infringement charge.
This is apparently what SCO did, since they are charging people with stealing their comments. So making any infringing linux code should be especially easy. Just strip out all the comments.
I'd post a URL for a comment stripper, but I'd bet that any perl, tcl or python hacker here can type the program faster than
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
For a company that seems to hate Linux so much it is funny to see via Netcraft that Sco's site SCO.COM is running Linux. Seemed they used to use SCO UNIX but switched to Linux according to the graphs. Yet IBM, that pushes Linux runs on AIX.
Not only are there lines of SCO's code in Linux, but also derivative products based on SCO intellectual property have been created, Sontag said. Getting all of the protected bits out, assuming SCO's claims are valid, would be a huge chore.
"Our biggest issues are with the derivative code," he said. "It would be almost impossible to separate it out."
This is the first time that SCO has essentially admitted in the open what some have been saying all along: SCO does not believe that Linux coders can ever "clean" Linux up; simply replacing "infringing" lines of code with new code is not enough becasue they are trying to claim that Linux itself is now a derivative product of SCO Unix.
The chances of this going away before SCO is utterly dead are zero. SCO has no intention of easily revealing the "matching" lines of code because they believe that they are irrelevant... as far as SCO is concerned, every line of code in Linux is infringing and it is essentially beyond repair. Since it is open-source, Linux can't license proprietary code from SCO. Ergo, the courts should essentially put an end to Linux in much the same way that they did with DeCSS code. At least, this seems to be how SCO sees it.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
The entire SCO/IBM saga seems like it was written by an amateur scriptwriter. Was SCO's whole idea to cast this as "Open Source vs. The Big Boys"?
After reading a lot of the source material from /. and other sites, it just made me start wondering if someone at SCO thought the Open Source community would jump on their bandwagon in some way, but things went terribly wrong (i.e. Open Source advocates saw them as more threat than friend).
I'm not so naive to think IBM a steadfast friend of Open Source - they and all for-profit companies are out to make money, and they believe Linux can help them do that. It just strikes me as ironic that a former OS-directed company cast themselves in the role of villain, and the corporate giant would be seen by many as the hero in this case.
Ah, sweet irony, "...like goldy and bronzy..."
- Jack
In a surprise announcement, today, SCO head Darl McBride, announced that his company had hired former Iraqi front man Tariq Aziz to handle media inquiries about SCO's legal battle with IBM. SCO's president and chief executive officer seemed very upbeat at the announcement, stating that Mr. had oodles of related experience.
Specious evidence, extravagant claims, hidden proofs, enormous odds.. Mr. Aziz has seen (or used) it all. He understands how it works, and he's shown himself able to handle even the most hostile media attention. We believe that he'll provide an excellent source of of knowledge and leadership.
When asked about the questionable morals of Mr. Aziz's former employer, Mr McBride blustered.
"This is about business -- not morals." said McBride. "Our job is to make as much money for our stockholders as possible within the bounds of the law. Mr. Aziz obeyed the decr... laws of his former country and we expect him to do the same here."
Questions about Mr. Aziz's immigration and legal status were brushed off as "a telecommuting issue". When asked about the former Iraqi functionary's whereabouts, Mr McBride only mumbled something about being "one with the source code".
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
SCO/STAN Holy sh*t, dude. They're calling our bluff!
M$/CARTMAN YOU are soooo wasted. Screw you guys, I'm goin' home.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
When not anonymous, I work for IBM.
The lawyers there are PICKY.
When dealing with IP, before a project goes out the door, the lawyers go over the thing with a fine-tooth and make sure:
a) We have legal rights to what we're about to put on the market.
b) Everything we have legal right to, we've properly and appropriately protected. (Such as patented, if appropriate - it's not always.)
When buying software from 'outside', the lawyers go through the license terms to make sure it's 'appropriate', and sometimes it's a pain in the neck. Sometimes it seems it takes so long to buy a new, never-before-bought piece of software that by the time you can get it, the need is gone.
Before you can use Linux inside IBM, you need to take the online "Open Source Legal Course" (title probably abridged) and sign off that you have. The mini-course discusses the legal implications of the GPL, etc.
None of these cases is exactly like the SCO case. But the legal folks are so darned diligent about IP that I can't see anything like what SCO alledges happening inside IBM. The place just doesn't work that way.
because Nintendo actually showed that King Kong was public domain!
The article you linked to also says that not only did Nintendo prove it, but years earlier, universal fought to prove that King Kong was in the public domain. "Yes it is!" "No it's not".
Kudos on the link btw.
Even if SCO are right, revoking the licencse is the wrong thing to do. The correct thing for SCO to do is to sue IBM. If SCO ask for an injuction to stop IBM selling AIX, it will most certainly be denied because they have offered no proof. Revoking the license is wrong, because (unless the contract explicily states that SCO can do this) it will violate SCO's contract with IBM. In IBM's suit, IBM shows the contract and SCO revokation letter to the judge and jury and SCO loses.
Two wrongs do not make a right, so SCO has to be careful to follow a clear and rational path to redress their alleged grievances. Their public statments already put them on shaky ground and can be used in any suit that IBM would want to bring. IBM are playing it cool and are not saying anything except denying SCO's changing allegations.
Linux is *NOT* derived from Minix. The two OS's are very different creatures, Minix uses a Mach microkernel for crying out loud.
Linus was running Minix (with GNU toolchain) when he started writing Linux, and Linux used the MinixFS until it got its own filesystem (ext). Thats it.
it's just too easy to point a finger at MS each time linux is attacked in some shape or form. Sun is actually getting hit alot harder by linux's popularity than MS. Second undisclosed company licensing SCO's "technology"?? hmmm Sun Micro?
Remember, Linux is not the target, it's the means.
SCO want to make money from licensing Unix, but the really major sellers of Unix based systems all bought perpetual licenses and have since enhanced their version of Unix in many ways. None of this makes any money for SCO. In fact because they have neither the ability nor the resources to duplicate the enhancements, SCO's sources are now almost worthless.
But, if SCO could win in court, not only would they get damages, they could also ask for and probably get access to the code that IBM wrote which would be folded back into SCO unix. If IBM loses, SUN and HP would be next to be accused. The grand plan is to bring control of Unix back to and only to SCO with all existing licensing cancelled by the courts.
Fortunately, SCOs case is weak, IBM can keep them in court from now to doomsday. As this will be heard in _civil_ court, damages can and will be adjusted depending on the actions of SCO. So far they have made _no_ attempt to minimize the damage to their IP. Very bad move and the judge will no doubt make a point of mentioning it...
IBM is closely involved in many businesses with all kinds of trade secrets. To settle, even for a penny, is to say "yes, we were careless with SCO's trade secrets". What would happen to IBM's lucrative services business if they settled? How many businesses would start worrying about what IBM might leak to a competitor or appropriate for their own benefit?
They have to be like Caesar's wife: absolutely above suspicion.
It will be very interesting to see what the infantile SCO tries to pull against the widely backed IBM.
Look at SCO's P/E ratios. SCO does not have a P/E ratio, because it is NOT making any earnings. The stock is thus, no matter how low it is priced, over-valued. Would you pay 50 dollars for a dollar bill just because millions of fuckwits were also paying 50 dollars for a dollar bill?
If you want to invest in a company, SCO is not the one to invest in. Never invest in a company with a P/E ratio that's larger than the average in it's industry, and larger than it's P/E:G ratio (price/earnings to growth...it's ok if the stock has a high P/E as long as it's growing rapidly enough to accomodate that P/E).
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Yea, ONLY IF you are smart enough to time the market and get out of SCO's stocks before disaster strikes, which is inevitable. This lawsuite is bogus, they have no earnings (P/E ratio is N/A, which means they have no earnings). Their stock is enormously over-valued.
Would any of the men who've made themselves multi-millionares or billionares by investing in the stock-market think SCO's a good investment? Do you think Warren Buffet or Peter Lynch would even consider investing in SCO? Nope.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I think you've been too confused by the idiotic "They GPL'd their code when they sold linux", which is probably not true.
Only because they probably don't have any code inserted into Linux. But if they did, it would be under the GPL.
SCO clams that someone from inside IBM inserted their code into Linux
No, they are most definitely NOT claiming this.
They are claiming two things - first that "someone" put their code into Linux.
Second, they are claiming that IBM used "knowledge" of their OS to make Linux better.
The two issues are completely separate.
There are no allegations of code theft against IBM. Their sole complaint is "Linux hackers suck, so the only way that Linux could compete against us is if IBM helped them."
Now, if there really is SCO-owned code in Linux, SCO distributed that code knowingly. They know it's there, they know that the kernel is covered under the GPL, and they are still distributing it.
SCO is implicitly licensing their code under the GPL because they continue to distribute Linux. They must have agreed with the GPL, because nothing else grants them the right to continue distributing it.
even if they had never touched the GPL they still would have had code leakage
True, and thier actions state exactly how much any alleged code is worth to them.
The doctrine of laches says that if an injured party wants to claim damages, they must minimize the damages. Since SCO won't allow anyone to remove the alleged code (they refuse to say what the alleged code is, or where it is), then they are unable to claim injury.
By refusing to tell anyone what the alleged code is, they are effectively saying that any code that might be in the kernel is worthless to them.
From the article:
Excuse me?
Software development was originally and traditionally open source. The first software came from academic researchers who had no need to sell software, and from computer equipment manufacturers who initially only viewed the market for selling hardware. There was no concept of proprietary software when the computer industry started. Eventually that was brought into the scheme of things as competitors came along, such as RCA when it first tried to clone the IBM mainframes. But all along, most academically developed software was free and open source. That tradition just became more noticed by businesses once critical mass (e.g. Linux) was reached that attracted everyone to it.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
On Dec 16 of last year, VP Michael Olson purchased 30,000 shares at the rather low price of, um, one-tenth of a cent per share (must be nice to be an executive, eh?), and then turned around 6 months later and sold 6000 shares for about $52,000.
So he made about $51,994 profit on a $6 investment, in 6 months. That's like a 433,000% profit, and we haven't even annualized it yet.
Where do I sign up?
Would I really have to sell my soul to get this deal?
---------------------------------------------
SERENITY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It seems as if SCO has a couple of more problems. First, it seems that they showed someone their evidence without an NDA. Second, they have been given notice by a Linux Kernel Hacker. Its one thing to sue IBM, but it is another to have to defend yourself from claims by hundreds of kernel hackers. Heck, the legal footwork alone will be expensive.
The dogcow says "Moof!"
SCO's big problem may be with their UNIX itself. It's my understanding that the original Bell labs Unix was riddled with code from BSD. If that be the case, how does SCO know whether they even have legal ownership of the code they claim that IBM is infringing upon? In other words, if I steal something from you and then Joe steals it from me, does my (illegal) possession of it mean that I have an action against Joe? Frankly, I doubt it. This is a hot potato that could drag on in court for years...and cast a pall over Linux the whole time. ....which explains why Microsoft has put their nose into the muck here.
IBM needs to be decisive and crush SCO like the insect it is...a cockroach that put into the wrong place can really 'gum up' the works.
In fact IBM is inherently no safer than any other stock. If you want safety, buy treasuries. The government can just print up more money if they need to pay you.
My understanding is that Sun already has a perpetual license. So no need to pay new money.
... that they did so was a transparent move to help finance the SCO FUD campaign (and with the aforementioned options scam in place, to make it all back by ripping off SCO's investors).
... Sun is one company that really could stand to benefit from this ... and their business practices to date show that they really did not "get" the free software/open source paradigm, and that many of their top leadership still don't.
... reducing, even decimating the wealth of the world (in this case the millions of man hours of volunteer programmers that is the GPLed GNU/Linux system ... and whose to say they won't move on to FreeBSD next ... nothing in the previous AT&T v. FreeBSD addresses many of the ever-changing allegations of SCO) to achieve a better position for oneself. Whoever the players are should be destroyed, by whatever means ... they and their mentality represent a threat to every person, every economic system, and every business they come into contact with. That Sun Microsystems might be one of these players is an intriguing thought ... their past conduct certainly makes them out to have been a Microsoft wannabe in the past.
Exactly his point. Microsoft could have gotten any code it needed from FreeBSD, free and clear. They didn't need to license a single line of code from the dinasaur product that is SCO
Sun Microsystems could be the silent second party to this, financing it by buying a license they don't need just as Microsoft did. They may well be hoping to score a home run and sweep up all of the GNU/Linux refugess in the unlikely event a clueless judge or brainwashed jury react in SCO's favor, but unwilling to publicly alienate the Linux community should the gambit fail (and they they have to finally get on the Linux bandwagen all the way).
It is an interesting thought
This is about capitalist oligarchs seeking to destroy a cooperative economy of abundance in order to maintain their own dominance of a capitalist economy of scarcity. It is the ultimate in negative-sum policy
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Article here: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10018 "Linux Coder puts SCO on notice". In short, the coder is annoyed they are distributing his code apparently out of compliance with GPL. My thoughts: This guy needs to get a lawyer and do this properly - i.e. a proper cease and desist, not an email. If we knew who it was, we could contribute to a legal fund to get him going.
From SCO's own site - I am not a lawyer - but it seems to clearly say - IBM appears to own any derivative works they create: http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitC.qxd.pdf
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10018
SCO has been sent a Cease and Desist by one of the kernel hackers. The hacker is demanding FTP logs and other records so he can determine the degree of infringement against his copyright. He is promising that he will sue unless SCO ceases their claims against other parts of the kernel.
Every contributor to the kernel can do this. I hope those scumbags get hammered for every penny they have.
> They are claiming two things - first that "someone" put their code into Linux.
Yep. And if the code is in Linux, it's very possible that it was planted there by someone working for Microsoft or SCO.
Susceptibility to planted evidence is not unique to Open Source. I could just as easily pay a Microsoft employee to plant some stolen code in Windows.
It would, however, be harder to show the authorities that Windows contained the stolen code, due to Windows being closed source.
That's not an argument in favor of Windows. Quite the contrary, it is a good reason to use Open Source software. With Windows, for example, you never know what code you are running, or when it might come back to bite you -- see the Stacker case.
The only real danger to Linux is the same danger that faces every major Microsoft competitor, namely, that Microsoft is a criminal organization, that has been caught commiting sabotage and fraud (as shown by the evidence in the Java, DR-DOS and DOJ cases), yet the law keeps looking the other way.
> By refusing to tell anyone what the alleged code is, they are effectively saying that any code that might be in the kernel is worthless to them.
That's a good point, and I would go further.
By claiming that Linux contains stolen code, then refusing to say where it is, SCO is intentionally damaging Linux businesses. I liken SCO's behaviour to someone who calls in a bomb threat.
Even if they played no part in planting the code, by refusing to say where the "bomb" is located, SCO is making themselves an accomplice after the fact. SCO is taking part in a criminal act against Linux companies, the severity of which depends on whether the threat is real.
It seems to me that SCO is opening themselves up to a large countersuit.
They are claiming two things - first that "someone" put their code into Linux.
Second, they are claiming that IBM used "knowledge" of their OS to make Linux better.
I am not a lawyer, but the SCO-IBM contract, published on SCO's site appears to grant IBM the right to create derivative works, and use the knowledge any way they likely. It more or less says that explicitly. The only thing forbidden is cut and paste of code. Go to this link, and look at the top of page 2 especially http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitC.qxd.pdf
... but the URL really is mis-spelt.
I fail to see where MS would come out ahead with that quote going around the IT circles. In fact, it just makes linux more powerful in the court room.
Exactly where MS want's Linux to look strong, (anti-trust cases against Microsoft). The iminent SCO-death will also be used extensively by Microsoft as a warning to corporations about what happends to code that gets in bed with GPL software.
I.e. "Don't develop or use open-source code, it can kill your company". That example will be worth to Microsoft whatever they paid SCO, many times over.
Of course *we* will know that's BS, but the average top-level manager in a company generally has only some vague information about "some case SCO brought against Linux".
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
I say to show our support for IBM we wear our suits to work . . . wadda ya all think?
I think you're at the wrong web site. Suits, indeed. :)
From IBM and The Holocaust by Edwin Black:
pages 9-10 page 10. page 20.First read this: OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint. Whether or not you like esr, Eric has the facts straight. SCaldera has made many outright lies in their 'complaint' against IBM.
MozillaQuest has been covering this from the very beginning. The timeline you request can be easily determined from their articles.
-- hgc
Linux: There is no infringing code.
The article claims that the traditional kind of programming produces proprietary software. This seems wrong to me. Wasn't software in the beginning just an addition to very expensive hardware and only became later a product of it's own?