Slashdot Mirror
The Power Behind the SCO Nuisance
akahige writes "Forbes has a fairly detailed story about the sordid history of The Canopy Group and all the various companies they've sued -- Microsoft (who they beat) and CA (this case is still pending), among them. Before joining Caldera, Darl McBride sued IKON Office Solutions, for whom he worked -- and won. And it also seems that a bunch of Canopy power players also sit on SCO's board of directors. The short summary is, 'these guys are professional litigious bastards -- be exceptionally wary.'" A local user's group is planning a protest for tomorrow. Reader myst564 writes: "After reading all of this SCO press I remembered that SCO once offered up all of their 'Ancient UNIX' (their words, not mine) source to the world while retaining all copyrights (i.e, no OSS license). Interestingly enough it WAS located here but isn't any longer: SCO's Ancient Unix. What's more you can read about the original release here at: Linux Today. I downloaded the source myself way back then but never did anything but delete it! Anyway, check out this comment. It's interesting that this was predicted in 2000!"
You did not count on the Way Back machine Herr Doktor SCO?
Here's a working link..
Enjoy!
Itâ(TM)s a small fish that feeds on big fish. Not symbiotically either.
âBut it is very good at getting what it wants from other companies.â
Thatâ(TM)s because (law) practise makes perfect.
So then SCO isnâ(TM)t suing IBM because IBM is illegally interfering with implementing their business model, suing (IBM in this case) is their business model.
What then are they really contributing? Is SCO really a software company? What is it? Maybe it contributes within Canopy, but not for a wider good.
Esteem isn't a zero sum game
Ah, so this Bill Baxter character's responsible for giving SCO the idea. ;-)
Quote: "these guys are professional litigious bastards"
:)
Given the statement that's a fairly brave thing to say in a public forum
The short summary is, 'these guys are professional litigious bastards -- be exceptionally wary.
I guess this might make more than a few folks here leery of posting anything critical of these bastards eh?
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
The GPL has never been tested in court. SCO's claim that they own the Linux source code is clearly ridiculous--how can a person own an idea? So there's no doubt in my mind that Linux will emerge victorious in the end, which makes GPL, and therefore GPL/Linux, even stronger!
So bring it on, we welcome the test! Any thoughts?
Thanks for the libel, we were wondering who we were going to sue today. See you in court!
Sincerely,
The SCO Corporation
In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
All of the above.
Please... let's get the 'right' SCO pulicity in here please. Not alarmist Forbes articles.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Bill Baxter - Subject: Not Open Source, I'm afraid. ( Feb 23, 2000, 00:01:50 )
Note that these releases are not open source. SCO retain rights to the source code. Maybe they even hope that some of their code will wind up in linux, so that they can then sue, and render the Linux license terms invalid. Or would they be that spiteful? My guess == yes.
Really a good hunch, this one...
But, even if they retain the rights, the fact they had them published publicly make the source open knowledge, no ?
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Lets all invest our money in SCOs stock!! Then they are guaranteed to tank and go out of business in no time! It's time we made this tech bubble burst work FOR us.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
This is what Linux Today says:
Santa Cruz Operations often referred to as "SCO" but known internally as "S-C-O" has made a number of straight UNIX source codes available to the public. The source code for:
Mini UNIX
UNIX V6
PWB UNIX
UNIX V7 (which also covers Editions 1-5, and the 32V)
--------
Free your mind.
Courtesy of the wayback machine:
http://www.sco.com/offers/ancient_unix.html
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Yeah that's right, you can still download the code
Well IMHO...
SCO is going to have a harder time making a case because the Linux community is EXTREMELY tech savvy and we are past the beginning of the information age. Most people absorb info pertaining to topics of interest on a daily basis and geeks even more so.
Should the GPL or Linux be in danger, you have a couple million experts out there waiting to testify or share evidence AGAINST SCO. Though the may be litigious geniuses, they are fighting an uphill battle.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
I mean, come on, who's the genius that thought up [CTRL][ALT]{TROLL] to login in the first place?!!!
Bill Baxter - Subject: Not Open Source, I'm afraid. ( Feb 23, 2000, 00:01:50 )
Note that these releases are not open source. SCO retain rights to the source code. Maybe they even hope that some of their code will wind up in linux, so that they can then sue, and render the Linux license terms invalid. Or would they be that spiteful? My guess == yes.
There once was a time when anyone wanting to get rich quick could join the Bureau of Indian Affairs or start a railroad. I guess those times are gone and stepping on toes is becoming the order of the day.
I'm trying to remain positive and think that this is part of an evolution toward revolution. Maybe someday we as a society can shame these people away.
These guys in Utah are no dummies. The crunchies in the Linux community should be paying more attention.
,"That's not Fair!" while SCO continues to pound away. How many of us had the "Life-isnt-always-Fair" revelation?
I know which side I'm on, and I know everyone is pretty sure they know what side they are on, but I cant help getting the feeling that Linux side is relying way to much on the Fair principle and forgetting that it is quite difference from Justice in the legal systems.
What I am trying to say is that
Justice does not equal Fairness.
Ie It may not be Fair what SCO is trying to pull, but the legal courts are also concerned with what is Just and in this we are talking money and if the legal courts are about anything, they are about money. Making sure there are legal grounds to protect property (money).
Thus, What I see is the linux community simply yelling
Is the Linux community about to get the same?
Sigs are dangerous coy things
Let's not, eh? A weak test isn't a test. And I don't really think IBM gives that much of a shit about the GPL compared to beating the shit out of SCO. Also, as mentioned ad nauseam on here, allowing SCO to even make the braindead contention that the GPL screwed their IP could be nothing but bad for Linux in general. Look, if SCO's CEO says the GPL screwed them, other companies' CEO's might listen and prevent their CIO's from implementing linux. We'd just as soon avoid that, I expect.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
If you take a look on their homepage, you can spot TrollTech's Logo! What are the interests of these people in TrollTech and QT?
It would also be nice if we could get someone with a boom box pumping out "the Free Software song."
If I were them, I'd stay away from Sal's Pizzeria with that boom box.
Perhaps there was meant to be a NOT in there somewhere?
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
First time on Slashdot in a while? :)
> And it also seems that a bunch of Canopy power players also sit on SCO's board of directors. The short summary is, 'these guys are professional litigious bastards -- be exceptionally wary.'
I can't find the link, but someone posted to one of the (many) Slashdot SCO stories last week with a link showing that about half a dozen board members had bought large numbers of shares at greatly discounted prices just a few weeks before SCO gave IBM the original ultimatum. (When I say "discounted" I mean far below even the 60Â/share that SCOX was worth back then.)
Coincidence?
Someone please post that link again, if you have it.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Check out all the Canopy-funded company : only one is viable, and it's Center 7.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
SCO Ancient Unix
.
Software License Agreement
THE SANTA CRUZ OPERATION, INC. ("SCO") HEREBY GRANTS TO YOU THE SPECIAL SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT STATED BELOW ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES STATED IN THIS SPECIAL SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT. BY DOWNLOADING, INSTALLING, OR USING THE ANCIENT UNIX SOURCE CODE, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS SPECIAL SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT, UNDERSTAND IT, AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY IT.
THE SANTA CRUZ OPERATION, INC. SPECIAL SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR ANCIENT UNIX SOURCE CODE (AGREEMENT)
A. THE SANTA CRUZ OPERATION, INC., a California corporation (SCO), having an office at 400 Encinal Street, Santa Cruz, California 95061-1900 and you as LICENSEE, agree that, as of the Effective Date hereof, as defined in Section 7.1, the terms and conditions set forth in this AGREEMENT shall apply to use by LICENSEE of SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS subject to this AGREEMENT.
B. SCO makes certain licensing rights for SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS available under this AGREEMENT, including rights to make and use DERIVED BINARY PRODUCTS. Such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT is identified in Section 3 of this AGREEMENT
C. This AGREEMENT sets forth the entire agreement and understanding between the parties as to the subject matter hereof and merges all prior discussions between them, and neither of the parties shall be bound by any conditions, definitions, warranties, understandings or representations with respect to such subject matter other than as expressly provided herein or as duly set forth on or subsequent to the date of acceptance hereof in writing and signed by a proper and duly authorized representative of the party to be bound thereby. No provision appearing on any form originated by LICENSEE shall be applicable unless such provision is expressly accepted in writing by an authorized representative of SCO.
D. The AUTHORIZED COUNTRY for this AGREEMENT shall be any countries not excluded by Section 5.2
I. DEFINITIONS
1.1 AUTHORIZED COUNTRY means one or more countries specified above.
1.2 CPU means a computer having one or more processing units and a single global memory space.
1.3 COMPUTER PROGRAM means any instruction or instructions for controlling the operation of a CPU.
1.4 DERIVED BINARY PRODUCT means COMPUTER PROGRAMS in OBJECT CODE format based on a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT.
1.5 DESIGNATED CPU means all CPUs licensed as such for a specific SOURCE CODE PRODUCT.
1.6 OBJECT CODE means a COMPUTER PROGRAM in binary form, resulting from the compilation of SOURCE CODE by computer or compiler into machine executable code and which is in a form of computer programs not convenient to human understanding of the program logic, but which is appropriate for execution or interpretation by computer.
1.7 SOURCE CODE means COMPUTER PROGRAMS written in certain programming languages in electronic media form and in a form convenient for reading and review by a trained individual, such
as a printed or written listing of programs, containing specific algorithms, instructions, plans, routines and the like, for controlling the operation of a computer system, but which is not in a form that would be suitable for execution directly on computer hardware.
1.8 SOURCE CODE PRODUCT means a SCO software offering, primarily in SOURCE CODE form. Such offering may also include OBJECT CODE components.
1.9 SUCCESSOR OPERATING SYSTEM means a SCO software offering that is (i) specifically designed for a 16-Bit computer, or (ii) the 32V version, and (iii) specifically excludes UNIX System V and
successor operating systems.
2. GRANT OF RIGHTS
2.1 (a) SCO grants to LICENSEE a personal, nontransferable and nonexclusive right to use, in the AUTHORIZED COUNTRY, each SOURCE CODE PRODUCT identified in Section 3 of this AGREEMENT, solely for personal use (as restricted in Section 2.1(b)) and solely on or in conjunction with DESIGNATED CPUs, and/or Networks of CPUs, licensed by LICENSEE through this SPECIAL SOFTW
OS, Web Server and Hosting History for sco.com
OS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner
Linux Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.3.2-RC 17-Jun-2003 216.250.140.112 NFT
Linux Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.0.3pl1 28-Nov-2002 216.250.140.112 NFT
Linux Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.0.3pl1 12-Aug-2002 216.250.140.125 NFT
SCO UNIX Netscape-FastTrack/2.01 26-Mar-2002 132.147.210.109 Caldera, Inc.
SCO UNIX unknown 24-Mar-2002 132.147.210.109 Caldera, Inc.
SCO UNIX Netscape-FastTrack/2.01 10-Oct-2001 132.147.210.109 Caldera, Inc.
SCO UNIX Netscape-Enterprise/2.01 30-Mar-2001 209.1.8.14 Cable & Wireless
SCO UNIX unknown 29-Mar-2001 209.1.8.14 Cable & Wireless
SCO UNIX Netscape-Enterprise/2.01 23-Dec-2000 209.1.8.14 Cable & Wireless
SCO UNIX unknown 22-Dec-2000 209.1.8.14 Cable & Wireless
You can find the archived pages for SCO's Ancient Unix Source Code here.
Press any key to continue, any other key to quit.
Take a look at canopy.com and see if there are any other Canopy Group companies that are boycotable.
I may not be able to attend the protest/demonstration, but they have no full support, whether they use legal or illegal actions while doing so.
It has now become clear to me that SCO has a very good chance of winning every single one of their claims.
By observing the public statements made almost daily by SCO and their spokespeople, the secret of their strategy has emerged and I now clearly see it. There is a very real and serious danger here.
Really, I must hand it to SCO. A brilliant legal strategy.
I don't believe the open source community has previously contemplated this particular type of legal attack.
SCO's strategy is simply this: they will win all claims, because IBM's lawyers will be unable to present a good defense, because IBM's lawyers are unable to concentrate, due to their inability to stop laughing. This will be especially unfavorable if this laughing behavior carries over into the courtroom.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
After reading the instructions for obtaining a license, this piece caught my attention.
So let's say everyone who has worked on Linux obtained these licenses. Wouldn't this allow them to freely share the code with each other. Question is, can IBM's contributions to Linux be classified as non-commercial use?
Also, does this cover the "infringing code" that SCO claims IBM copied?
In C++, friends can touch each others private parts.
3) Licenses are more powerful than any other known force in existence in the whole wide world.
2) You don't exactly have to *sell* software to make money in software.
and the Number One thing SCO/Caldera learned from Linux....
WORLD DOMINATION!
Laugh. It's funny.
-JT
> The eye... it keeps STARING at me! I feel that it can see into the depths of my soul!
No, the 'O' in 'SCO' isn't an eye.
And it's you that's "staring into the depths"!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Turns out it's actually a firm that breeds goats in New Zeland. No, really!
"The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. P.O. Box 7745
San Francisco, CA 94120-7745
United States of America"
The current SCO is NOT the same as the former SCO. (Now the Tarantella Group.)
If you read the article, you'll see that the current SCO was formerly Caldera. Caldera bought the Unix rights from SCO, the old SCO became Tarantella (which was one of their products IIRC...), and then Caldera renamed to The SCO Group.
That source offer was made by people with no management connection to McBride...
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Never mind that stuff about decaffeinated coffee. What about weaning people onto deSCOffeinated Slashdot once this is all over? There'll be millions of geeks worldwide going "need..... SCO...... news......." and shaking.
The Linux @ Work section on Forbes seems to be authored by pro-MS people. To them, linux is something only fanatics use. Unfortunately, it appears that most of what they are currently suing over was done by them before their current lawsuit happy management was in charge. It's bad when you wish Ransom Love was back in charge of Caldera/SCO/whatever they want to be called.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
it is ironic that the OSS movement main goal is to avoid corporate lock down and give freedom for the end user. /. article the source code that found its way to the kernel was like 60 lines of code, so I'm suppose to believe that 60 lines of code is all what is needed to make an enterprise OS out of a toy OS?
...until Tux became the darling of IBM and that dragged us into a sleazy corprate war, i think the whole matter stinks especially when lawyers creep in.
Maybe its time to question the benefit of corporate support to Linux.
IIRC SCO said that whatever IBM put into the kernel magically turned Linux from a "toy bicycle" OS to an enterprise grade OS, and in another
yeah sure..
Does this strategy perhaps demonstrate the lack of any real basis to the case? Or is it that the case is vague enough so that there's the opportuninity for legal FUD to churn cash?
Inquiring minds want to know.
...tizzyd
So they're buying each other's stocks, raising the prices and then selling them to outsiders at a profit.
In this cozy company, SCO even leases its office space from Canopy--a fact disclosed in Securities and Exchange Commission filings, along with the fact that SCO's chief financial officer, Robert Bench, has a side job as a partner in a Utah consulting firm that last year billed SCO for $71,200.
So they're renting space from the parent company, at possibly below market rates, making their own profits look bigger OR at above market rates making the parent companies profits look bigger.
But I'm confused how the CFO, who has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders of SCO, can also be a partner of a company (hence having a fiduciary responsibility to his partners) that consults for SCO. He has cross-loyalties. Either the contracts with the firm are too generous, benefiting his partners at the expense of the shareholders OR the contracts are too strict screwing over his partners to the benefit fo the shareholders.
Forbes' account of Darl McBride's history of contributions to the world of technology has given me some perspective, and a lot more insight. I finally understand where McBride's coming from.
Who'da thunk that the man was a stickup artist?
When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
If you read the article you will see that TrollTech is indeed owned by the Canopy Group.
Why am I not surprised?
Given the TrollTechSCO/Caldera connection, KDE could be in for a world of hurt...
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
"SCO is basically owned and run by The Canopy Group, a Utah firm with investments in dozens of companies. Canopy's chief executive, Ralph J. Yarro III, is chairman of SCO's board of directors and engineered the suit against Microsoft in 1996. Darcy Mott, Canopy's chief financial officer, is another SCO director, along with Thomas Raimondi, chief executive of a Canopy company called MTI Technology (nasdaq: MTIC - news - people ). In this cozy company, SCO even leases its office space from Canopy--a fact disclosed in Securities and Exchange Commission filings, along with the fact that SCO's chief financial officer, Robert Bench, has a side job as a partner in a Utah consulting firm that last year billed SCO for $71,200."
Buy 'em a pair of concrete shoes, and make 'em sleep with the fishes. I don't think these guys have any idea who they are messing with. Some of the guys at IBM are not boy scouts. Capiche?
How ya like dat?
Short sell their stock. If its value goes down, you make money.
Its value has about quintupled since this whole thing began. You could stand to nearly double money you short sell into SCOX if you're right.
Pbbbbt. You can put your money where your mouth is.
I almost wish now that I had been using SCO's products all along -- Just so I could make a declaration about how "I will never use them again!"
But alas, some malevolent twist of fate has conspired to keep me from such bliss....
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
Before you know it, you receive an envelope from SCO on your doorstep, as you now have seen their sources, and you might be working on Linux..
Caveat emptor!
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
I would love to see SCO get some bad press. I think they are doing it to try suck money from anyone who has it. Hopefully it won't cause too much havoc to linux in their rampage. But I would like to see SCO fail miserably in their lawsuit.
I like PC *nix, am I a 'crunchie' ??
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
In other words, like many religious folk, the money-grubbing fsckwits in the sue-the-world movement are a) convinced of their own righteousness, and b) sure the whole world, including judges, will take their word for it.
Doh! I've been trolled by Forbes!
IANAL, but surely the fact that directors of the company were under investigation by the FTC for insider trading is irrelevant here?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Yes, it comes in frosted and honey nut.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
The Forbes article is unbearably basic and takes the view that SCO have a good chance because Caldera won a previous case against Microsoft.
No attempts to examine any facts are made, with the assumption being that Caldera won the DR-DOS case only because the judge agreed with them and not because Microsoft actually did anything wrong. Whilst the judge's decision does determine the outcome, if you want to analyse the situation before the end of the case then you must look at the facts yourself, i.e. they are not irrelevant!
- Brian.
The evidence is clear, right from the fresh 2.4.21 kernel (under bluetooth):
"Say Y here to compile SCO support into the kernel or say M to compile it as module (sco.o)."
Pretty strong evidence there, huh?
An interesting article that points out that the Canopy group as well as SCO have Mormon influences:
R TI CLE_ID=32872
BIZNETDAILY COMMENTARY
Big blue Mormon penguins
Updates on the Linux wars
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?A
From the article: Conspiracy theorists believe that Canopy is tightly tied into the Mormon church
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
Hey, I just saw that Jackie Chan flick last night!
$#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
See http://shop.sco.com/caldera/ancient.html to see the license on their own web server. But that's not really interesting because they've released all of this stuff except for System III under a BSD-style license (including advertising clause) in the meantime, as you can see at http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf. Another interesting link is http://unixtools.sourceforge.net/, pointing to some System V userland code released by Caldera in 2001.
The "ancient_unix_license" release isn't likely to help fight the suit; it doesn't cover the version they're suing about.
. com/offers/ancient_unix_license.txt
From: http://web.archive.org/web/20000115142514/www.sco
--
3. LICENSED SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS
The SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS to which SCO grants rights under this
Agreement are restricted to the following UNIX Operating Systems,
including SUCCESSOR OPERATING SYSTEMs, that operate on the 16-Bit
PDP-11 CPU and early versions of the 32-Bit UNIX Operating System
with specific exclusion of UNIX System V and successor operating
systems:
16-Bit UNIX Editions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
32-bit 32V
--
Every single SCO story on Slashdot gets a lot of comments - far higher than average. This means that these stories are very, very popular to the readers. Why, pray tell, should Slashdot stop posting popular stories? It doesn't make sense.
As for a new IBM vs. SCO topic - this thing is time limited. When IBM has utterly devastated SCO, there will be nothing more to report.
Please, stop the whining about the SCO stories. They are obviously very popular, so you are a tiny minority. And as the saying goes, if you don't like what's posted on Slashdot, go somewhere else. Simple.
Clever signature text goes here.
Your honor, I downloaded the file, but I did not decompress.
"These guys in Utah are no dummies. The crunchies in the Linux community should be paying more attention. "
I have a hard time taking seriously a writer who uses the word "crunchies".
From what I could gather from trying to translate the legalese in the archived version of the license agreement, SCO didn't release the source code for System V Unix.
/.) and discussed it with some people. While SCO's actions are dispicable (thank you Daffy Duck for improving my vocabulary) and seemingly unethical, they are _not_ illegal unless they are truly acting in a fraudulent manner. What's very disheartening is that the Justice Department will probably not even investigate the business practices of the canopy group, because as I've seen in the business world, what they are doing (basically trading stock between different entities, creating more capitol by having thier stock trades show up on the radar of Wall Street, thus "tricking" investors into putting outside investment capitol into the companies since thier is movement on thier charts), is what has become known in the common media as "accepted trade practices". Any of you corporate types (yes, there are corporate type geeks) look into your books. See how many entities exist within your corporate structure. How much money gets shuffled around between your companies? How often? For what purpose? I bet a lot of money changes hands between your different entities that seems to come and go out of nowhere. This is where Enron screwed up. They started spending some of that non-existent money. In reality, they had absolutely no cash to spend, and they went out and bought real shit with it, instead of trading out thier stock and making more money on the market that they could "really" use in thier operations. But that's just me talking out of my ass after observing the way American capitolism works. Maybe I can join thier club now and start making imaginary money start appearing as well and fool a few investors into paying for a lavish lifestyle of wheeling and dealing with OPM (Other Peoples Money). Wow. It's the 80's powerbroker shit all over again.
[quote]
3. LICENSED SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS
The SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS to which SCO grants rights under this
Agreement are restricted to the following UNIX Operating Systems,
including SUCCESSOR OPERATING SYSTEMs, that operate on the 16-Bit
PDP-11 CPU and early versions of the 32-Bit UNIX Operating System
with specific exclusion of UNIX System V and successor operating
systems:
16-Bit UNIX Editions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
32-bit 32V
[/quote]
Please not the line about "specific exclusion of UNIX System V and sucessor operating systems.
The source that was released was not the System V source, which is what they are licensing out now and what thier whole blah blah yackety noise is all about. Also, the UNIX that is archived on those sites (from a quick glance) does not include the source for UNIX System V. Remember kids, Solaris is a System V UNIX. AIX is a System V Unix. They are all based on the System V UNIX code base.
Any other version (System 32V, System 4, System 3, System 6 or 7), is a _different_ codebase, so if you see a source code tree out there on the web that's freely available, make sure you find out what code base it is before you go concluding that SCO's argument is wrong.
However, one funny thing. I wonder how much code repetition is in the System V, System 6, and System 7 codebases? I wonder if you dig into those source trees whether you'll find things in common with Linux code as well. Someone with more time on thier hands than me should probably look into that, just to start looking for possible clues as to the code that SCO might be ragging the Linux community about. I wonder if we can't find developer comments that match word for word in those codebases in the linux kernel source?
And on a final note, the Forbes article is rather sobering.
I read it yesterday (before it was posted on
Don't Ask Questions. I don't know the answers and even if I did I wouldn't tell you.
Canopy is an investment firm, they own a minority share of TT
... the Ancient UNIX source code? If we compared it against the Linux kernel source then we might get some hints of what areas SCO are claiming have been copied. We could then trace back to the original source of the copied code - SCO (= trouble for Linux), Linux (= trouble for SCO) or BSD (= trouble for SCO).
I kind of like the idea of screwing SCO using information they once put in the public domain.
Apparently, spending some time on a Cold Mountain
Mmmm.. I wonder if she has that Tatooine Suit on the Cold Mountain.
http://web.archive.org/web/20000229072409/www.sco. com/offers/ancient_unix_instructions.html
Let's start talking about tort reform! (Oh wait, that doesn't apply to rich people, does it?)
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
The fact that SCO has published their code has absolutely nothing to do with this case.
Their license is pretty clear that you can't use in a projects as the Linux kernel, BUT, this doesn't matter.
For the moment, there's no proof for ANY SCO PROPRIATARY code in the kernel, and I believe that it'd be really hard to proove this. So, looking at old stories is just shifting the attention from the main subject, and nothing more.
The thing that strikes from this article is that those guys just don't look the type that'll start FUD-ing, if the don't believe they've some chance to win... that's scary.
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
and more specifically:
What comes after this section is the definition of what can be considered to fall under the "Publication Doctrine". Essentially, the issue here is whether publication of the source code happened to 'selected groups' or it was published to a wider audience. If SCO actually published the source code on their website, there was no screening procedure - which is needed to make a convincing point. Even if they had a screening procedure, they would have to convince the judge that this screening procedure can be successfully applied to narrow down the audience selected for viewing the source code. Apparently, plaintiff was not successful at convincing the judge.
Note that we talked about Copyright infringement so far. What comes next is more similar to SCO's claims. You can see how SCO's doom is spelled out in this verdict:
The concept of preempted claims is quite difficult to
Today, it is not news that sells, it is controversy that sells. Here I think Forbes is just selling controversy.
I'm already getting bored with this. I'm waiting for IBM to knock them out, but IBM looks like they are playing the rope-a-dope strategy. which seems to be somewhat effective if you take into account how SCO's story changes as they try and fine tune their lawsuite.
I'm interested in whether there was some pre-lawsuite negotiations with IBM before this all became public and what exactly SCO was trying to get then, rather then in the lawsuite.
I disagree. I have YET to hear anyone on slashdot say anythign to the affect of "thats not fair." What people are saying is "Thats not right." People are pointing out lies and misrepresentations they believe SCO is making. Nobody is simply crying foul.
more than 1/2 the work of the lawyers will be research into the issue. The community has already produced mounds of information that lawyers can and WILL use in court. Look at what was found today about the Anchient UN*X code being shown, and the predicition of law suit.
I think the Linux community is not a bunch of kids but intelligent working professionals that know exactly what is going down here and is offering their help in the best way they each know how.
801.229.2223
Give these folks a call if you don't have anything else better to do. BTW, it's Canopy's number in Utah.
Um... wth is a "crunchie"? Is it a new tousle-your-hair, too-bad-you-don't-understand-the-realities-of-busi ness term for "techie"? The suit response to suit?
Tweet, tweet.
So what OS do you prefer? WeenieDOS? ;P
Un-news
But you know. . . My old plan is still a good plan.
The game is entirely rigged, and as such, those who play by the rules are chumps. Make up your own rules, make them good ones, and then follow them. That'd be "Chaotic Good" to those of you out there with little bags of dice. The only alignment worth living!
--With the exception of small producers with no corporate ties, (and the odd Lucasarts game when Lucas' brain was still made of grey matter), I've never payed for software in my life, much less an operating system, and I'm not about to start now. SCO can go blow.
--And you watch! If SCO wins their little scramble, it'll be amazing to see just how fast the free software community responds. Talk about a unified force! "Linux; The Revenge"
Sign me up for an advance copy of that!
Sociopaths are not human. Destroy them before they destroy you. Don't waste your good conscience on them, because they haven't got one.
-FL
It's only dangerous if it isn't true. Given the list of former cases........
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
So the author's point is that linux crunchies shouldn't discount SCO group's chances of winning in court. Why? What are the real repurcushions if they do win? IBM will have to pay them some ammount of money, as determined by the court. Maybe, MAYBE, some small piece of code will need to be clean-room re-written. IBM should care, definately. But we crunchies can watch from a distance and ignore it for the most part.
/. or on ESR's blog don't mean jack in a court of law. But in the end, so what?
The author does make a good point that all sorts of prattle thrown about on
But these articles don't have substance: that is, as far as I can tell, they are designed to play to the court of public opinion, and little else. After all, the fact that other minor players caved does not mean that IBM is going to cave. And the article did not look at one iota of the substance of the lawsuit.
So Forbes is definitely in on this too, and not so much for SCO, as against Linux. But that being the case, one must remember that Forbes has a ton of readers who play the stocks.
I think I begin to see why SCO's stock is climbing so high.
Now, someone please just tell me that Forbes didn't just get a $10 million M$ advertising contract, or isn't selling their own SCO stock, Merrill-Lynch style.
Forbes's Linux@office examples:
Linux=OS/2
A crashing company chooses Linux(Lisa Dicarlo)
Boies:Linux=risk(Victoria Murphy)
We're overhyping Linux(Lisa DiCarlo)
Neutral (but reminds us that a teacher told Torvaldas he'd get a low grade for his creation):
List of previous Linux articles(staff)
In favor of Linux:
Oracle supports Linux(Lisa Dicarlo)
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Do these people (canopy, SCO, whatever) actually produce anything, or is all their revenue generated through litigation? If this were a biological analogy, I would say that this is classic example of a parasite.
Many have commented that this is a suit about lawyers more than about technoogy or even law. That's true in a lot of cases, but this one is especially interesting for law-geeks becaue it pits David Boies (former superstar litigation partner at a New York uberfirm) against that very New York uberfirm, Cravath Swaine & Moore.
SCO has hired Boies, whom slashdotters will remember as lawyer who so skillfully and successfully led the Justice Department's antitrust case against Microsoft and less successfully defended Napster (as well, perhaps, as for his less successful outings in Florida representing then vice-president Gore). IBM has chosen Cravath, its longtime counsel for "bet the company" litigation. Interestingly, Boies made his career as a young lawyer at Cravath by his (successful) work defending IBM against a massive Justice Department antitrust suit in the late 1970s (and 80s, the suit went on for something like 17 years before IBM finally prevailed). There is certainly no love lost between Cravath and Boies and the fight promises to be a fascinating one for lawyers and law-watchers. In any event, SCO's choice of cousel is an extremely canny one, though Boies' typical roster of slashdot-friendly clients has now, one assumes, been somewhat besmirched.
"The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government." - George Washington
Since all this leads to is a page where you print off a license aggreement, send it with a check to SOC and wait fro response, it's just SO useful, right?
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
These guys are phenomenal hackers, they are just using the American legal system as their medium.
"SCO is basically owned and run by The Canopy Group, a Utah firm with investments in dozens of companies. Canopy's chief executive, Ralph J. Yarro III, is chairman of SCO's board of directors and engineered the suit against Microsoft in 1996. Darcy Mott, Canopy's chief financial officer, is another SCO director, along with Thomas Raimondi, chief executive of a Canopy company called MTI Technology (nasdaq: MTIC - news - people ). In this cozy company, SCO even leases its office space from Canopy--a fact disclosed in Securities and Exchange Commission filings, along with the fact that SCO's chief financial officer, Robert Bench, has a side job as a partner in a Utah consulting firm that last year billed SCO for $71,200."
If this isn't some strange form of inbreeding, I don't know what it.
The SCO family tree just goes in a big circle.
Mikey-San
Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
But, even if they retain the rights, the fact they had them published publicly make the source open knowledge, no ?
It certainly nukes any 'trade secrets' litigation that references that code, but with SCO's ever mutating rhetoric and accusations, it really amounts to just another stone in the pile which as become a mountain of evidence that SCO has no case, no legitimate claims whatsoever, and is merely grandstanding dramatically in a burnout that will amuse those watching, enrich their patrons (Microsoft and the other mystery party that I am becoming convinced may well be Sun Microsystems), and in the short term hurt, but in the long run vindicate with a vengeance, both GNU/Linux and the free software/open source paradigm.
We know their claims are nonsense. We know their complaint (while it must be taken seriously and fought) is groundless. We know that, were the government at all willing to enforce anti-trust law, Microsoft would not be daring to underwrite this, and we know that, were the justice department at all interested in enforcing corporate law in general (against, say, the likes of Enron and WorldCom), that most of the board of directors of this letigious group would be under serious investigation for stock market manipulation and insider trading, starting now and continuing through the end of the trial, when it will with near certainty be proven that (a) they never had a case, (b) they knew this and (c) they have violated the copyright of Linux and perhaps other projects consistently, over a long period of time, and continue to do so today (they are still distributing Linux today even while claiming their alleged code isn't under GPL).
With respect to the article itself, these people are certainly letigious thugs, and they should be taken seriously, but lets not forget the author's bias, where he frequently refers to free software developers and enthusiasts dismissively as "crunchies," so while it is interesting to know what sub-human filth comprises SCO and its umbrella group, this isn't really anything new, and the article's spin (which is an underscoring of FUD, really) contains a rather transparent and quite significant anti-free software bias.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
If the code has not changed much then someone could do some sort of search through the code for Linux and the code for one of these ancient Unix's and see if there is any matching code. With any hope the code that SCO has been alluding to, if it exists, is in one of these ancient Unix's and someone will find it and post it to the web somewhere. With all luck it is *BSD code and is available for use anyway. Well if anyone is up for the challange now is the time to start seaarching.
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect." Linus Torvalds
I wouldn't put it past them.
What the hell are "chrunchies"?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Anyone in the Utah area should try to give Mr. McBridge a visit. His address is here. According to MapQuest, the address appears to be in some really dense suburban area. Not what I had imagined some fancy lawyer. Though, according to Yahoo! Financials, a Mr. Darl C. McBride is also the president of SCO. I wonder what is his middle name? Any Linux Users that live on Vintage Oak Lane, or close to his house?
All of these facts about "Ancient Unix", predictions of SCO shenanigans, the wayback machine, etc. are obviously of some interest to IBM. Aside from commenting in Slashdot (and hoping that IBM is reading), is there a better way to share this useful research? I have nothing to offer besides a general disdain for SCO (as if there was a shortage of that), but others seem to be digging up some fine dirt.
The OSS people have collaborative efforts on so many development projects, I think this is an opportunity to "turn the aircraft carrier into the wind" and focus the OSS "mental firepower" to sink SCO. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine myself agreeing with IBM (on anything), but here we are. Yes, I actually want a Fortune 500 company to have its way with a [former] Linux distributor. It must be snowing in Hell.
Has anyone noticed that this generation has a screw everyone else attitude. Why build anything when you can sue others for fun and profit, especially when I can sue a large corporate entity? Take it to the man! This generation, who grew up in the free love period, is going to screw it up for those generations before and after. This is just an example.
The sad thing is that Forbes was the first business mag to put Linus Torvalds on its cover. They really appeared to "get it". Ad revenue wasn't so hard to come by in those blissful dot-com days, though.
Oh well.
Speaking of conspiracies: Is the mainstream IT media in Intel's pocket?
this happened for real as a practical joke, but its seem they still don't get it :)
Where are my moderation points when I need them.
-1 Troll.
Sorry, guys, but this DOES matter. Linux is the POSTERCHILD for OSS and the GPL. If LINUX DOES get dragged into this, and SCO IS sucessful, the general public will most likely view all OSS and GPL software as 'risky', and everyone will be afraid to use it because of that risk of litigation.
Does SCO have a viable position? IANAL, so I have NO idea. But I CAN see what possible outcomes would be, and what affect they could have on our post-dot-com industry.
I'm STILL hoping for a viable alternative to the crappy quality code MS puts out. MAC ain't gonna do it... they're too desktop focused. Linux is currently the strongest contendor. If SCO wins, this could DRAMATICALLY change the face of Linux.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
This contract dispute revolves around the ancient wording of the original AT&T contracts. All AT&T contracts contain wording about them owing the "derivative works". This caused some concern "back in the day" (I remember being concerned when I had to sign one...), however these concerns turned out groundless. The contract only covers true derivative works, i.e., works which included the original sources.
Most modifications to UNIX (V6, V7, etc.) were distributed as pure diffs, i.e., ed-diffs and did not include any of the surrounding context the way that diffs do now. That means that the modifications included only the original work, owned and copyrighted by the authors and not AT&T.
Now, the revisionist historians at SCO want to try to enforce a much stricter definition of what constitutes a derivative work. IBM clarified the contract with the famous "side-letter", explicitly claiming all of their modifications as their own property. SCO seeks to claim RCU as their property under the strict definition of derivative work interpretation of their contract with Sequent. IBM claims that when they bought Sequent, their contract clairification overrides the Sequent contract, so they own RCU now and can donate it.
Who wins in this contract dispute? IBM, since the long history of the AT&T contracts and the various USENIX tapes supports the idea that people who modify UNIX own their modifications, not AT&T. SCO cannot swoop in and change history to suit themselves, or the desires of the Camopy Group.
And on this linke http://web.archive.org/web/20000816145931/www.sco. com/linux/
you will find this... "A corporate sponsor of Linux International, SCO has always supported open standards, UNIX Systems and server-based technologies and solutions that benefit business computing. Our engineers have continuously participated in the Open Source movement, providing source code such as lxrun, and the OpenSAR kernel monitoring utility. We offer a free Open Source software supplement that includes many Open Source technologies as well as making our commercial UNIX products available free for non-commercial use. "
Not anymore. That just went bye-bye...
Hmmmmm.... I smell a conspiracy here...
Those guys are the worst type of scum. I would have thought something that happened before you bought the rights to something would be void. Same as buy a house that has unpaid bills on it by the previous owners. You don't have to pay them. If Linux does have the code it was implemented way before they bougth the rights. therefore it should be void becuase they should have known about it when they bought it. aarrrghgh me get angry
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
What I dont understand is, the most political(?) and idealistic of us all, RMS is keeping quiet. He hasnt opened his mouth since the whole drama started.
Wonder what he is thinking...speak now RMS.
McBride purchased 7003 shares at .001 dollars per share. That's right. He paid $7 for for stock worth around $70,000 at the current overvaluation.
The more interesting thing to note is section 15. It shows that after purchasing these 7003 shares, he owned 15003 shares. That implies that he only had 8000 shares before the purchase. However, if you look at some earlier forms 4 for him, you'll notice that in March of this year, he acquired 200,000 shares of stock.
This means that there must still be some forms 4 in the system that have not made it into EDGAR online yet. Unless, I'm reading this wrong, sometime between March and now, McBride dumped over 200K shares of stock. I'd love to see an SEC investigation of all of this.
Here's a link for SCO related SEC filings.
I'm not a learned counsel with respect to intellectural property. But, does anyone know whether is an analogous doctrine in intellectural property law of the notion of "squatter's rights?"
A squatter on land can earn legal title to the land upon which he squats if he squats for the statutory period of time. The legal term for sqatter's rights is title by adverse possession.
Otherwise, might SCO have lost its property rights by something like abandonment of the rights to the public domain?
Check the link, though. The latest code they offer is System III. SCO's suing over System V. So the link is interesting, but not as helpful as we would like (if at all).
SCO is going to end up *owning* Linux. IBM will be forced to settle their problems at great expense. I have confidential information about both parties that few in the public know about, and am busy right now hastily converting all my Linux systems to FreeBSD and OpenBSD which will remain immune to SCO's blackmail/extortion.
I try to keep an overview of the facts pertaining to this case and it seems as if the quote "professional litigious bastards" has more to it than first meets the eye. Consider the newer bits of info that become apparent in this article:
According to the article it seems very likely that the Canopy Group is involved in some kind of scheme in which the companies it owns buy one anothers stocks in order to push up interest in that stock which is then sold to outsiders at a profit, only to be later bought back, again at a profit, when the stock tanks once again. The sudden boost in SCO stock since this case has begun is indeed very reminiscent of what is described on the Forbes page.
Not only this, but it seems as if these groups of companies specifically look for cheap old products that they can buy and then use as ammunition in IP lawsuits. It also looks as if they specifically look for employees who have experience in litigation, such as Darl McBride, who has yet to show any knowledge of Unix or software whatsoever apart from the fact that it has lines.
Added to all this, it seems as if this company specifically teams up with whoever is willing to be a vested interest in order to sabotage some other companies market. The mention of Redmond Wa, Vista.com as well as the knowledge that Center 7 and SCO were trying to port Active Directory to Unix says a lot to me in terms of the word Microsoft and Microsoft's common tactics of sabotaging with underhand tactics anyone who gets in it's way.
I do start to see the MO of this suit: Go for as many points as possible, no matter how remotely removed they are from the actual suit itself, because this generates DOUBT amongst managers and shareholders, who routinely have no knowledge of computers whatsoever. No matter how long this actual suit carries on, SCO can make a profit on it's stock which it's managers are now unloading on outsiders, which they will then buy back when the stock inevitably tanks.
SCO, in fact the entire Canopy Group's main line of business is simply making money. This may sound obvious, but think about what it means. It means they have no interest in any real product and simply want to make money in any way they can. They might very well have released the "ancient Unix" code years ago for the sole purpose of trolling for some suckers to misuse their code. To me, usually when some American company starts sprouting BS in the form of "so that users can share experiences and code with developers, mafiosi etc" I know it's a lie.
I think that IBM is very right to take this case to court as was CA to continue their case. I think IBM is going to wait until enough evidence has been released in order for them to counter sue SCO and it's parent into the ground. The details of this case will be very interesting in that I expect SCO's indirect dealings with Microsoft to come to the for eventually.
The only thing that really worries me personally, as a MacOSX user, is that Apple has based it's browser on Trolltech's Qt toolkit. If Trolltech is indeed owned by Canopy (stupid fucks, how could they let that happen), then it could very well be yet another bait. KDE might have some huge potential problems comming up as well.
Or does SCO seem to be more and more like the black knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?
IBM: You fought well sir knight, but the battle is mine.
SCO: Tis but a scratch!
IBM: A scratch?! I just took your arm off!
SCO: It's just a flesh wound!
ETC ETC ETC.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
The SCO-IBM case is centered around two assumptions:
1. Unix Source went into Linux
2. This was because of a violation of an agreement SCO had with IBM
Now that it seems that the Unix sourcecode was in the open, how will they ever prove that IBM put it in Linux, breaching the agreement? Anybody could have done that, if the source code was copied from Unix to Linux at all.
the pun is mightier than the sword
Blah Blah Blah SCO Blah Blah Blah SCO Blah Blah Blah SCO Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah !!!!!! So ends the SCO rant!
We don't need no stinking sig!
And the author certainly seems enamored of SCO because they won a lawsuit over IP in the past. Heck, "they always get their way".
That arrogance is going to get SCO eviscerated. IBM takes no prisoners in the courtroom - expecially when it comes to IP. Without IP, IBM would be selling boat anchors.
It's probably going to take a while - maybe even years - but IBM will squash SCO and put McBride's head on a pike as an example for anyone else who wants to try a shakedown of Big Blue.
Why's IBM been quiet in the face of SCO's assault? Two reasons, IMO: making a counter noise would be unprofessional and undignified, and IBM never takes any lawsuit lightly.
Aren't any of you guys aware of the fact that SCO included Linux code, that is under GPL, in their LINUX compatibility layer? They did so after stripping the GPL copyrights out of the code. Can you imagine how many kernel contributors have the right to sue SCO for infringement? And, if you sue them first and SCO is found to be infringing then SCO looses the right to sue anyone else for infringement!
As of yesterday, SCO has already been put on notice by one Linux kernel contributor to stop distributing any variant of UNIX because of infringement.
So, lets get the legal ball rolling against SCO for stealing the Linux Kernel code!
Here's a bunch of LARGE ISO's that I thought I might download and look at labeled as Skunkware.
Any idea what the hell it is???
ftp://ftp.iso.caldera.com/pub/skunkware
It won't work. lawyers don't have a sense of humour. This is more likely their strategy.
C O Lawyer> Your honour, I accuse IBM of A, B, and C.
...usary is illegal.
-._=-._=-._=-._=-._=-._=-._=-._=-._=-._=-._=
S
IBM Lawyer> Your honour, that's proprosterous because....
SCO Lawyer> And I also accuse them of D, E, and F.
IBM Lawyer> Just a second, I haven't finished explaining about A.
SCO Lawyer> And I also accuse them of G, H, and I.
IBM Lawyer> Okay, getting back to A. That's clearly ridiculous because.
SCO Lawyer> And I also accuse them of J, K, and L.
IBM Lawyer>
SCO Lawyer> And I also accuse them of M, N, and O.
IBM Lawyer> Dam, I forgot the next point. Court Appointed Typist, would you read their next complaint.
SCO Lawyer> And I also accuse them of P, Q, and R.
Court Appointed Typist> Sorry, the SCO's Lawyer's mouth is moving faster than I can type. I'll give you want I have when I'm done.
SCO Lawyer> And I also accuse them of S, T, and U.
[....three years and twelve court appointed typists later....]
SCO Lawyer> And finally, I also accuse them of infinity, infinity+1, infinity+2. Now Mr IBM Lawyer, what do you have to say for yourself?
IBM Lawyer> Your honour, with this volume of charges, it'll take three lifetimes to answer them. That's longer than I have to live.
SCO Lawyer> So you admit that you can't answer the charges.
IBM Lawyer> No sane person would accept any of the changes.
SCO Lawyer> So you admit that you can't answer the charges.
IBM Lawyer> It's physically impossible to.
Court foreman> Your honour, I move to find the defendant guilty as changed.
IBM Lawyer> But we haven't finished presenting our case.
Court foreman> We can't wait here three lifetimes. My life has left me. My children no longer recognize me. My boss thinks I'm in jail. Any more of this case and I'll commit myself to the funny farm.
Judge> I sympathize Mr Court Foreman. I haven't seen the sun in 3 years and don't relish the thought of being inprisoned in this court room the rest of my life with an SCO lawyer either. The case goes to the SCO....Now where did I put my Aspirin and Prozac?
So you're like -- interested in all the countless other stories using the Caldera icon, but not the SCO vs IBM stories?
Turn off the Caldera stories in your user preferences, then hush and enjoy your peace while the rest of us keep an eye on the most important thing to happen to free software this century.
I'll bet you use Mandrake.
... don't you think it would be wise to NOT look at the "ancient UNIX source code"? I don't care if SCO used to give it away. They used to do lots of things differently. If it was safe to look at it would still be available through a sco.com machine.
For all the kudos folks are giving the guy who wrote the 2000 LinuxToday prophecy, it amazes me how few of you are heeding his warning.
Leave the sources alone. There's nothing you can find there that defendants of SCO's legal actions won't find themselves, and besides, reading code is boring. Go outside or something.
Quick!!! Someone find Bill Baxter! Then we can sue SCO for stealing his idea! :)
Preferences link at right, exclude stories section, Caldera check box. Every story thus far has had the Caldera topic, and every Caldera story is the whole SCO/IBM thing, so it would be safe to exclude it.
The beauty of this is that it can be applied to anything you don't like or are not interested in as well.
At worst, SCO would sue IBM for $3 Billion, and Linux running kernels post-2.5.x (From what I've read, that's where most of the IBM code is) will be rendered inoperable until the aforementioned code is taken out. Note: I didn't say replaced, as that code is a derivative work of SysV code, and anyone who worked with the old code would probably legally be considered "tainted", and any replacement work would be required to be redesigned from the ground up.
The Forbes writer missed one thing: it isn't the Linux companies SCO and Canopy are suing, and against the company they are suing they're relatively small fish. IBM is the defendant named in their lawsuit. Remember the IBM-DOJ antitrust suit? The one that IBM fought to a standstill for 20 years? The one that IBM effectively won?
The Linux people may or may not be right, but IBM's saying SCO is blowing smoke and IBM has the legal department and the paper trail and audit trail procedures in place to be certain they know what they're talking about. And this suit is a direct threat to their core business, they aren't going to take it laying down nor pull any punches in dealing with it.
Anyone remember SCO Xenix on the Altos?? :-(
I had a copy of that laying around a few years back but it got lost moving back around '88 or '89...
.
If you read the article, you'll see that the current SCO was formerly Caldera. Caldera bought the Unix rights from SCO, the old SCO became Tarantella (which was one of their products IIRC...), and then Caldera renamed to The SCO Group.
Which pill makes me small?
Seriously though, this is going to be part of what hurts NewSCO if this ever get's to the courts.
They are going to have a darned hard time showing what they really own, what they stole, and what was borrowed... long before they ever became NewSCO.
The wiggle room that they have built into thier complaint is they are not really using copyright, or patent as the basis for the suit, they are using contract law.
And they are alleging the transfer and or use of 'Unix Methods and proceedures'. This is a fuzzy area that may not even be answerable.
Part trade secret, part dogma. If you didn't know about how to do something, or that something could be done, you might never have developed it yourself, even without using the original Unix code, or seeing the affect.
Might be true, might not, but the contract kinda binds you up and makes you liable, even if you didn't peek under the covers.
These are the kind of arguments that RMS had for creating GNU in the first place.
Owning code is one thing, controlling ideas is another, and what SCO is attempting is not protection of code, but restriction of ideas.
The temptation is to throw out the phrase UnAmerican right about here, but that's not right. Corperations are not American, or Canadian, or Egyptian... they are just big money making machines that have more rights, fewer morals, than individuals and total disregard for anything but more profit/power.
via the BSD Lite AT&T case.. read the transcript..
The hacker sone that cae through setlement and will win this one as well..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
As has been stated ad nauseam, IBM has also a big legal team, backed by the biggest share of patents in the US.
SCO management appears to have bitten off a bit more than they can reasonably chew. At this point, if they had a bit more sense, they would have either approached IBM calmly with ideas towards making Linux better in their own long-term interests (unlikely, but anything's possible), or attempted to reach some form of settlement.
Saying as they have done that IBM rebuffed them, and even threatened to eat their business, is to my mind just a lot of huff.
I think the Forbes writer may have had a point on first glance, but further examination pretty negates it totally. My 2 cents, anyway.
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
Note that SCO has not made copyright or patent claims, but trade secret claims.
There are mutliple types of IP, some of which have legal protection and some which don't. Copyrights and patents have legal protection. Trade secrets, however, are protected only to the extent that the owner manages to keep a secret. This was a deliberate choice of the founding fathers. Protecting copyrights and patents (for a limited time) encourages innovators to publish their work, which is good for everyone. Trade secrets are, by definition, unpublished - which is bad for progress.
Trade-secrets are protected by various forms of non-disclosure agreements. However, if some party in contract to you disclose the trade-secret, the recourse is to sue for damages.
[I]f someone innocently receives trade secret rights, it will be very difficult to enjoin them from use or further disclosure of the trade secrets. Thus, IBM may need to pay SCO damages, but now that the secrets are widely known, SCO cannot attack Linux.
If SCO had a patent or copyright claim, Linux would be screwed. But SCO only has claims against those in "privity of contract" to not disclose.
Primer on trade secrets.
In the army, infantry are refered to as "crunchies" because of the sound they make while marching in formation. Crunch, crunch, crunch. So they're the crunchies.
In context, she was referring to the army of Linux developers, and specifically, the ones doing the dirty work.
Caldera offered up the "ancient" UNIX code under a BSD-style license. OpenBSD, in particular, took advantage of this opportunity and uses several of the tools to replace GPL-licensed tools.
Kirk McKusick was able to release his 4-CD BSD set after Caldera opened things up. You had to have an AT&T Ancient Unix source license to buy his 4-CD set which contained every BSD ever released. But then Caldera opened it up and Kirk was able to sell it to anyone. And the *BSDs started using a bit of the code in their own systems.
My understanding is that trade secrets protection is invalidated if the owner of the secrets publishes them.
So, when is this supposed to get in front of a judge? I need to know when to short SCO...
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
The fact that SCO has published their code has absolutely nothing to do with this case.
.
Actually, if the code involved in the IBM lawsuit has been published, specifically published by someone other than IBM, then it would be rather devastating to the current set of charges from SCO. SCO is suing IBM for violation of trade secrets. Trade secrets don't have patent or copyright protection in and of themselves. In fact, if they become public, they are no longer secret and thus the public availability of a trade secret is a defense against violating trade secrets.
However, this isn't the point being missed with this code. As other posters have pointed out. This code relates to older versions of Unix (specifically code for a PDP-11, I believe). This code does not contain the specific items that SCO has recently mentioned as being infringing: NUMA, RCU, . . .
I still think SCO is full of it, but this revelation probably doesn't have much to do with the case, which is what you were saying but just not quite for the reasons you mentioned.
SCO claims no ownership interest in any portion of such a modification or DERIVED BINARY PRODUCT that is not part of a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT.
If I'm reading this right, then even if IBM did manage to get themselves into a stupid "we have rights to any operating system code you write after looking at our SysV code" contract with AT&T, it should be superceded by the "any modified code you write that isn't part of our original code isn't ours" contract that SCO offered everyone later.
If you'll read my comments, I suggested that option.
I can imagine that IBM might care about the GPL. After all, it gives them:
(1) a free, very dedicated, and huge developer base for code that runs on their systems
(2) A ton of good will from said coder-base, thus sales into the future are much more likely
(3) It helps keep down that upstart competitor from the NorthWest.
At this point, there are just too many computer-savvy people to make "Only IBM" a reality. The code will be developed, one way or another. So IBM's best bet is "IBM at the head of the stack of everyone." Since IBM has invested in Linux, IBM does have reason to push development under Linux.
These reasons lead me to believe that yes, IBM does care about the GPL. Not for the sake of the GPL, but for the sake of their own business. So I'd say that their motivation is dual, and if given a choice between "let SCO destroy Linux, and we squash SCO" and "squash SCO before SCO destroys Linux", they'll likely choose the latter, even defending Linux in court.
When it's the masse rabble against the castle, it's usually a ton better to be the guy directing the rabble, than to be the guy in the castle. Especially if the guy directing the rabble also has access to a ton of munitions. I think IBM has already chosen their spot, and that's where they'll be. This one doesn't look to me like what America pulled on Iraqi Sikhs ("yeah, rise up, and we'll support you, probably").
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Um, you did check the replies to your last comment on this topic, right? Or are you just trolling? The story you link to has absolutely nothing at all to do with the "robbery" of Windows ideas.
Come to think of it, I own the patent on breathing and I'm going to sue everybody in the world.
Let's be realistic - even if they had a case, who would care? UNIX is out there and there is no way that the entire world is going to pay SCO loads of cash or stop using UNIX or something like that. If the 'law' says that we ought to, then that law will have to be changed to fit reality or something.
The way they go about it reminds me about the ravings of a manic; they seem to be losing contact with reality. A manic can be very persuasive at first, but as time wears on it becomes clear that he/she has lost grip on reality. I wouldn't be surprised if SCO soon either suddenly shut up (because somebody with a bit of sense takes over) or they start claiming 100s of billions in damages.
IBM should follow Jerry Jones's (owner of the Dallas Cowboys) lead.
NFL Properties, the league's business and marketing arm, filed a $300 million lawsuit in September 1995 that challenged licensing and sponsorship agreements involving Jones and Texas Stadium that included private contracts with Nike, AT&T, Dr Pepper, American Express and Pepsi. The suit contended those arrangements violated NFL Properties' centralized licensing and marketing role.
In response, the Cowboys filed a $700 million lawsuit in November 1995, charging that NFL Properties' centralized role violated antitrust laws. The suit also claims the Texas Stadium sponsorships don't involve Cowboys trademarks and are consistent with NFL Properties' rules.
The NFL backed off because they were going to get stomped. (They don't own Texas Stadium; The Cowboys lease it from Jerry Jones even though Jerry Jones own both the Cowboys and Texas Stadium)
The original post links a message mentioning SCO hoping some of the code winds up in Linux so they maybe can sue for copyright infringement.
Its not sue-ing for copyright infringement now. Even if not the same versions, its very likely those released versions share similar code. As well as SCO's own GPL Linux, Novel owning the patents and possibly the copyrights in part or whole - its still registered with them not SCO, not owning the trademark name, &ct.
The question is, can the people at SCO and the lawfirm representing them be held accountable for their personal assets, down to the last penny in their bank account, and brick in their driveway?
I'd love to see an SEC investigation of all of this.
There already is one underway... but you just won't be "seeing" it anytime soon.
You mean Legal versus Equitable? :-)
You Sir, are a fucking idiot.
The comment
...that someone made on an online discussion, oh, about a year ago. It cracked me up so I saved it:
Richard N. Turner - Subject: I'm Reminded of An Old Post... ( Feb 23, 2000, 15:39:02 )
``SCO should do the industry a favor and disband, pausing only to bulk-format all their drives so that none of the evil source code can inadvertently escape into the world. Their marketing people and their tech support people should be sent to camps to be retrained for professions more suited to their skills and their buildings should be torn down and burned.''
I think thats a bit prophetic.
Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
Not looking at their source code would simply perpetuate the idea that there is something magical about software copyright that isn't the same as literature copyright, music copyright, etc. If you're a writer, do you avoid reading any material written by someone else? If you're a musician, are you afraid to listen to anyone else's copyrighted song? Of course not. As a programmer you shouldn't have to be afraid of these things either.
Ironically, this idea is exactly what SCO would like to encourage: they don't just want to be able to sue anyone who copies what they've written, they want to sue anyone who writes an original implementation of the same solution, or even someone who writes a different solution to the same problem!
When are those SCOundrels going to stop abusing Mickey Mouse in the logo? Mickey Mouse is a trademark of the Walt Disney Company.
This entire story reminds me of the whole Rambus affair, where Rambus sued the ass off many IT firms (even Sega) on memory related patents. Then Rambus stopped appearing on major headlines after being found of "Judge shopping". And after they pissed off everyone and disappeared, nobody today is buying their inferior products anyway. Anyway, I don't understand why they haven't taken the appropriate steps to approach this situation, that is: - contact the kernel mantainers - demonstrate that the X, Y, Z, parts of the linux kernel are in violation of SCO's IP - ask the kernel mantainers to remove the infringing parts The only thing the Soviet Communist Organization is doing is smearing swine crap all over their corporate image. I wonder WHO in the IT market will ever want after this insane show of cluelessness to have something to do with them, if they already were known for shipping inferior products (and Sco Unix was considered a D.O.A product ever before Gnu/Linux hitted the 2.0 series...)... Anyway, I am really tempted about starting a long term "send postcards to the SCOmmierats" campaign.
"I am slashbot, hear me roar!"
OK, but if the GPL got weakened, how much of that would change? BSD does pretty well without it. And I imagine if some judge struck some aspect of the GPL as illegal, IBM's business plan would be scarcely altered.
So, don't be naive enough to think that IBM's going to be the guy on the white horse coming to defend the GPL in whatever hour of need it might experience. Not goint ot happen.
All of which negates the fact that we don't WANT the GPL to BE their defense because of the mindless spin, even if incorrect, that it affords SCO. If they lay a GPL-trap here it's basically to SCREW IBM by scaring off dipshit CEO's who hear of this "viral" GPL thing. I know it's not, don't bother telling me again, but everybody doesn't and it takes a lot of education to counter a little bit of FUD. Please, let's not go down that road, it isn't worth it.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Hasn't RMS being predicting this since dinosaurs ruled the Earth? Remember how we all thought "Gee, Richard, aren't you being just a little paranoid?"
He might be a slightly crazed filthy socialist hippy, but by golly, he nailed this one.
Next up: all those RedHat "defensive" linux patents, and their sort-of-promise to temporarily refrain from suing over them. Better hope that they never get bought out by someone a little less altruistic, eh?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
MickLinux here, responding A/C to A/C:
Yes, I read them, and I would still say they are negative. Direct interview with Boeies: can that be anything but negative? Limitations of Linux: again, can that be anything but negative? I'd say no, and no.
Do they have disclaimers, do they put in a few statements contrary to the overall emotion of the article? Yes. What you are saying is that Forbes doesn't work with hatchets; they have jeweler's knives. I'd agree.
After going back and looking again, though, I did notice Microsoft ads everywhere. Perhaps that answers my own question. When I wrote the question, I was not aware of that. It is well documented that there is often pressure on journals, accompanied by advertising money, to start reporting from a specific angle. Can you tell me [yes or no] whether that happened here?
If it did, then that would be interesting, because it would say that Microsoft is definitely sponsoring this lawsuit as a pattern of monopolistic behavior and as an attack on Linux, using the government and abuse of the government's laws to wipe out competition.
Buy SCO OpenServer 5
SysIntegrators sells & supports all SCO
Operating Systems. Click Here.
www.sysintegrators.com
Good advertising!
Let's look at this from another perspective. The proposed link between the LDS church and SCO is based on a weak speculation that the church sees Linux as a threat to the constitution? That's a sorry guess, especially when allowing a broader analysis of Mormon history than a single quote from 1863 whose context is questionable at best.
Yahoo Finance reports the book value of SCOX as $0.67 per share, or roughly $8 million dollars. (Note: yes, this is about 6% of their stock prices, and yes, I am really ticked that my stock market accounts don't let me sell short)
So how did they blow $270 million in three years? Did Microsoft bounce its settlement check or something?
Sounds like a larger version of the shake down the Trevor Law Group was pulling in L.A. before they got SMACKED by KFI radio. These guys were suing little businesses for small infractions in the "name of the people" or $X amount and we'll go away!
In ESRs essay, he was contrasting the rapid progress of Linux and the slower progress of RMS and the GNU project, not free vs. proprietary software per se.
One of SCO's major claims is that it owns NUMA and other IBM technologies belong to it by the AT&T "all derivative works are mine" license.
Fine. That may or may not be true legally (I hope such a license is as illegal as usary), but it has nothing to do with Linux. Since IBM is the original creator of the IBM code, they can license it however they like. That means that they can relicense their code so that it is GPL, BSD, or shared source. SCO has no say since IBM wasn't working under a "work for hire" license.
Contributing to Linux under these circumstances *cannot* be illegal.
I'm really surprised that non of the lawyers in the crowd haven't picked this up.
scox has $10 million in cashes and loses at least $25 million a year. These IP cases usually take at least three years, but it looks to me as if this one will take much longer.
It looks to me like there is only one way that scox to survive until the lawsuit is settled, and that is if scox gets more fud money from sunw and/or msft.
opinions?
btw: scox insiders are still selling.
not the Linux community.
These guys in Utah are no dummies. The crunchies in the Linux community should be paying more attention.
What the bleepin' hell does he think the Linux community's been doing all this time? Sitting down with our thumbs up our asses? He's been eating the FUD that SCO's feeding everyone and apparently enjoying it. So what if they won a judgement against MS for the DRDOS fiasco? That was a legit lawsuit and this one looks less viable everyday. Lyons doesn't give the Linux community it's due credit and obviously thinks of it as nothing more than a religiously fanatic cult.
If the judge who takes up this case is as stupid, gullible, and FUD-munching as Lyons then, yes, we do have a problem.
"...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
... MS settled. SCO didn't have to beat them. MS did this the day before the Novell revelations, no doubt the timing of Novell's announcement was influenced by the timing of MS's settlement.
l8,
AC
Wow, that's some confidence in the outcome of this mess he's got. I suspect he knows something we all suspect! No case, no future, no value, but McBitch thinks he's going to be rich. He can swap tips with Martha soon.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The analogy of Unix licensing with the GPL is a stretch. The GPL requires that if you link to GPL code and redistribute binaries, you must release your code under the GPL as well. You can also release the same code under any other license you want (without linking it to GPL code).
I'm not sure that any contract that prevents IBM from using their own code as they see fit would be enforcable.
So, once this infringing few lines (comments?) from the Linux source code is found, removed and the "F-OFF SCO!" kernel patch is released? How long can SCO live?
I hope they take a long walk off a short branch hanging over a cliff and disappear in to nothing. I for one expect my self continue to use, modify what I see fit, contribute what I could, and distribute everything freely long after SCO is gone and forgotten. I am sure I am not alone.
In other words, like many religious folk, the Linux-loving crunchies in the open-source movement are a) convinced of their own righteousness, and b) sure the whole world, including judges, will agree.
So what the hell is a crunchie? For sure they are no more self righteous that a journalist who are always right. If you doubt, just ask them.
6F 9E A9 1E 96 9F 74 27 ED B8 81 6D 0C 4E 1E 78
My other Sig is a 229.
That post to linuxtoday is prior art to this lawsuit. I demand that the USPO revoke SCO's patent on linux litigation!
that will depend on how long microsoft will continue bankrolling sco and for how much.
"...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
Canopy owns 5.8% of trolltech.
Not ownership.
Safari has an emulation layer to make signals and slots work with khtml. I wouldn't say it is based on Trolltech's Qt.
And even if Canopy goes nuts, there is the Trolltech/KDE agreement. Nobody can do anything about that.
All your code base are belong to us.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
A google search for
sco "ancient unix"
produces 339 hits, so there's probably a lot more out there.
Never, EVER, sell your rights - no matter how crappy and antiquated "it" might be...
And I wait w/excitement & bated breath to read more "expert" quotes from Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio... NOT!!! Aaaarrgghh, STUPID B(TCH. She drains all my life forces from me...I thought so...
The only thing that really worries me personally, as a MacOSX user, is that Apple has based it's browser on Trolltech's Qt toolkit.
Apple's browser (Safari) does not use Qt. It uses KDE's khtml renderer, but translated to its own native widgets. So you have nothing to worry about. However, even if Safari did use Qt, you'd still have nothing to worry about.
If Trolltech is indeed owned by Canopy...KDE might have some huge potential problems comming up as well.
Bah! Canopy owns 5.8% of TT's stock. TT's employees own 70%. Pray tell, how does that mean that TT is "owned" by Canopy?
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
I do not understand why all he other Unix companies are standing by and allowing SCO to sure over linux. SCO has stated that after they when this case they were going to go after other companies involved in the Linux and Unix. All the companies that have a stake in Linux and Unix like Oracle, HP, Dell, SAP etc. should file lawsuit against SCO for unfair trade practices or some orther law to force SCO to put up or stop harassing companies.
I think more OSS projects should follow nmap's lead and officially drop support for SCO. That means removing UnixWare-specific documentation and Makefile code, refusing to answer questions about problems on UnixWare, and so on. Then the techs who run UnixWare will have to pressure their bosses to switch to something--anything--else. Sure, SCO seems to have an end strategy now that involves lawsuits, insider trading, and fleeing to the Bahamas, but maybe the bad press will lower their share price sooner and not allow the executives to make so much money.
Yes, I know this hurts geeks who have to run UnixWare. But they're gonna be hurt anyway when SCO disappears, so what's the harm in forcing the issue a little early?
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
So has SCO/Caldera/whatever actually won any court cases? As far as I can tell from reading all the coverage, it appears that they have always "reached an agreement", i.e., settled out of court. It might be interesting to read of any cases that actually got a court decision.
It's possible that IBM's approach is based on the "professional litigious bastards" perception, and a decision that this time they are not going to let them get away with an out-of-court settlement.
So has SCO ever actual won or lost a court case? And if so, what happened on appeal?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
The only thing that really worries me personally, as a MacOSX user, is that Apple has based it's browser on Trolltech's Qt toolkit. If Trolltech is indeed owned by Canopy (stupid fucks, how could they let that happen), then it could very well be yet another bait. KDE might have some huge potential problems comming up as well.
Reread the article -- they got out of TrollTech and never had control of it anyway. Also, Safari is NOT based on Qt. It's based on Konquerer's HTML rendering engine and uses shim code for any Qt API calls. And the Vista.com deal is pretty irrelevant (I used to work there). SCO gets to resell Vista's web offering and Vista switches over to SCO Unix from RedHat and NT.
47% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
That's comparing apples to oranges.
The 200,000 shares were for Caldera, where the 7003 (giving 15003 shares total) were for SCO. You need to find out how Caldera stock was converted to SCO stock when Caldera was bought out.
Not sure about the $0.001 per share. Maybe it was his christmas bonus or something.
Proof here: http://www.levenez.com/unix/ -- the UNIX family tree. See page 12, check the arrows from Linux to UnixWare.
wtf is an open source crunchy?
p.s. fuck you slashdot by requiring me to wait 20 seconds! (this is the third goddamn time i wrote this post)
You can be an atheist and still not want to succumb to some weird cross-over sheep disease -- AC
Why don't we just put a few drops of blood in the water and have Bruce(IBM) finally devour SCO(Dorie).
I'm sure it is a drop in the bucket for IBM to buy SCO out compared to the lawyer fees they are going to incur in the coming months and maybe even years.
IBM should also think about the potential customers they may lose because AIX is currently "Illegal" right now. I know I wouldn't buy an OS if I knew it was in this state.
Mr Lyons does provide some interesting background, and while his warning to the 'religious' Linux users may be of value he's missing a couple of salient points.
Even though McBride has managed to get money out of MS does not mean he will get it out of IBM. Please recall that MS was found guilty of anti-trust violations, on the other hand, IBM managed to spend the DoJ into giving up their suit.
Also, again, this saga isn't over. SCO still has to show its evidence in court. And i have no doubt there will be a counter suit. In the discovery process SCO may need to put their code into the public record. Then we get to see if they have violated the GPL. Believe you me, the crapfest hasn't even started yet
I would open myself up to grave legal consequences if I divulged my info. After all I did say it was confidential.
Officially the company is still Caldera. The name has not yet changed officially. Caldera was never bought out. Caldera bought SCO's unix business. SCO is now called Tarantella, and Caldera has decided to change its name to The SCO Group.
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
In the March trade, notice section 2. The issuer is listed as Caldera, but notice the trading symbol is SCOX. That's the same trading symbol as the Friday filing in section 2, even though the Friday one lists the issuer as The SCO Group.
So, I'm comparing oranges and oranges. (Or maybe rotten apples to rotten apples.) Also, if you look at a 5 day intraday trading chart for SCOX, you'll notice that there were some really large volume trades on Friday and Monday. Some approaching 100K in a single transaction. This for a stock that normally averages around 200K/day total. I believe that last Friday's total was 2.4M changing hands. A lot of people unloaded a lot of SCOX stock on Friday and Monday.
As the article points out, "these guys in Utah are no dummies."
What they would be is criminals--not long ago, in an almost-forgotten time when "antitrust" and "regulation of business" weren't considered Works of he Devil" by the people running our government.
Apparently SCO hasn't seen The Untouchables:
Just like a wop to bring a knife to a gunfight.
Bill Baxter - Subject: Not Open Source, I'm afraid. ( Feb 23, 2000, 00:01:50 )
Who would have thunk.
... SCO will have the courts declare that *ALL* of the Linux kernel is now legally considered to be a "derivative work" of SCO's I.P. and therefore they will have successfully, and legally, hijacked the Linux code and I.P. in its entirely, and seize ownership of all copyrights and trademark of Linux. It's going to get much nastier very soon, and IBM is going to settle with a very bloody nose since they will discover that it's the cheapest way out for them, because they screwed up... the prospect of this SCO thing wasn't even on their radar scopes, they arrogantly assumed that Caldera/SCO's purchase of the formal Sys V UNIX I.P. meant that all I.P. issues wrt UNIX were dead and gone into the past.
This is really more like celebrity gossip than an actual case based around facts.
There has not been one thing that I've seen that suggests this case has a chance.
If there was any validity to SCO's case, IBM would have either bought them (their $8million book value means that buying them is cheap for IBM) or settled.
If there was any validity to this case, SCO would have publicized the information that proves that IBM misappropriated their code.
The OSI's position paper completely obliterates SCO's claims.
When this is all over, SCO will be facing some serious problems of its own. Like the fact that it defamed millions of FOSS developers, Linux Torvalds in particular, and IBM.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Anyone care to set up an smart mob at SCO's headquarters? (I'm not in San Francisco, so there's not much I can do.)
You are correct that the SCO vs. IBM breach of contract suit is not going to test the GPL. However the counter-suit that the hundreds of Linux copyright holders can file against SCO for willfull copyright violation (they continue to distribute copyrighted Linux while claiming closed ownership of some of the content) seems like a pretty strong demonstration of how the GPL protects Linux (and Linus) IANAL, but I think the courts take willfull copyright violation pretty seriously.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
What it would take is IBM making a motion for a gag order. After all, with MacBride & his ilk blabbing at every loose journalist about their case, it'll be hard for them to find an uninfluenced jury to hear the case when it finally comes to trial.
(What? IBM would be stupid to take this to a jury full of lusers? Well I'm sure they're aware of this in IBM legal, but they also know the benefits of keeping their options open.)
Unfortunately, SCO & IBM have yet to even settle on a jurisdiction, let alone have a judge assigned. So IBM is probably settling for the meoment with attrition on the SCO Group's -- & their master's --- bank accounts.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Look, the comments made that the Ancient Unix release may have been a trap are cute, but lets face it, what they actually released in 2000 IS COMPLETE AND UTTER REFUSE THAT'S NOT WORTH ANYTHING.
Go ahead and take a look: about 5M compressed worth of binaries and source for the only 32-bit release (32V), which only works on the VAX.
Linux probably reached that level of sophistication and functionality some time in 1998. So I think that anyone looking at the source wouldn't have found anything of merit to bring over that they couldn't already figure out from reading man pages.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
the ancient unix release is NOT SYSTEM V.
SCO claims Linux has parts of SYSV via IBM. These releases predate SYSV by a huge evolutionary gap.
So it has nothing to do with anything. Just a coincidence (well not really, but the situation is irrelevant to SCO's claims)
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
Whoops; I need to read more carefully.
We need some counter suits from a mutlitude of places to make them vanish. As long as they have a single target in IBM I think they can manage, once there is a risk of them loosing everything they might win from IBM to 3,000 Linux developers it's Game Over.
Help fight continental drift.
According to netcraft, they run their webservers on FreeBSD, apache on FreeBSD, I wonder what their Linux@Work writers would say to that...
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
http://bankrupt.com/CAR_Public/020924.mbx
CALDERA INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. New York
Four class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, certain of
its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering in the Unites States District Court for the
Southern District of New York by parties alleging violations of the
securities laws.
The complaints allege certain improprieties regarding the circumstances
surrounding the underwriters' conduct during the IPO and the failure to
disclose such conduct in the registration statement. The complaints
have recently been amended and consolidated into a single complaint.
Over 300 other issuers, and their underwriters and officers and
directors, have been sued in similar cases pending in the same court.
The Company is not aware of any improper conduct by the Company, its
officers and directors, or its underwriters, and the Company denies any
liability relating thereto. The Company has notified its underwriters
and insurance carriers of the existence of the claims and plans to
vigorously defend the action.
Caldera International, which plans to change its name to The SCO Group,
develops operating systems and network management software for PCs and
servers. In addition to its OpenLinux and OpenServer operating
systems, Caldera also sells its OpenUnix business software and
Volution, a Web and directory-based network management application.
Services such as consulting, custom development, technical support, and
training account for about 15% of sales, a Hoover.com dossier says.
Chairman Ralph Yarro and director Raymond Noorda share control of 47%
of the company through The Canopy Group (a venture capital firm) and
MTI Technology.
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
and don't give a shit who gets stomped on the way. Even if it cuts off billions in potential earnings for the rest of the world, they aren't altruists, they want their dough (all of it too,) and they want it NOW!
Same mind set as the xxAAs.
If the RIAA had had its way in 1800, the following wouldn't even have existed:
Player Pianos, Radio, Edison Cylinders, the telephone, 78s, LPs, stereo, DATs, CDs, photocopiers, public libraries, the internet, personal computers,,,, Get the idea?
Actually the MPAA wouldn't exist because movies have sound and that run counter to the RIAA's wishes.
These Teutonic Twits are Fascists and they'd kill their children if they could get away with it.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Some guy on the yahoo message board has been going through McBrides filings to the SEC. It will be interesting to see if he really has dumped his stock...
In all the discussion that has gone on regarding this case, there is no doubt in my mind that what SCO has done is grossly immoral.
At best, they have entrapped the Linux community. And, that's putting the very best possible light onto the situation.
And, even then, is that a fair assessment?
This is the official press release from the Provo Linux Users Group:
----
To whom it may concern:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Jason Hall
jason@plug.org
http://www.plug.org/
UTAH LINUX USERS DEMONSTRATE OPPOSITION TO SCO LAWSUIT
Provo, Utah (June 19, 2003) -- To voice their opposition to SCO's
lawsuit against IBM and their malignment of the Linux programmers
community, members of the Provo Linux Users Group (PLUG) and other
Utah-based Linux Users Groups will protest in front of SCO's Lindon,
UT office on Friday, June 20, 2003 from 3 to 5 pm.
SCO's lawsuit claims that IBM copied parts of SCO's UNIX computer
operating system into Linux, a freely-distributed operating system
written by an international community of computer programmers.
They have therefore revoked IBM's license to distribute AIX (IBM's
version of UNIX) and are seeking $3 billion in damages for theft of
intellectual property. Furthermore, they have sent letters to 1500
corporations warning them that Linux contains computer code belonging to
SCO and continued use of Linux may result in SCO taking legal action
against them.
With this suit, SCO has raised the ire of computing professionals
worldwide by overstating its contributions to UNIX operating systems
(which include Linux and AIX), claiming ownership of Linux and denying
past involvement in its development, and making inaccurate and derisive
comments about the Linux development community. Under the auspices of
the Provo Linux Users Group, Linux users and programmers from northern
Utah will meet on Friday in front of SCO's headquarters in Lindon, UT
to demonstrate the opposition to SCO's actions and to show their support
of IBM, the Linux development community, and any other companies against
which SCO takes legal action.
About the Provo Linux Users Group:
The Provo Linux Users Group (PLUG) is a non-profit, volunteer-run
organization dedicated to helping members to learn the Linux operating
system, offering volunteer technical support, and encouraging the use of
Open Source software. Membership is free, meetings are held
monthly, and the group mantains an active email list. For more
information about PLUG, go to
http://www.plug.org/
About other Utah-based Linux users groups:
PLUG is only one of a half-dozen Linux users groups in Utah, and one of
thousands of such groups worldwide. More information about Utah-based
Linux users groups can be found at
http://www.ssc.com:8080/glue/groups/us/utah
If I sue John in a court of law, I can't ask the court to award me Bill's house. That lawsuit has to be against Bill. And I *definitely* can't sue Mary for living in the house that she rented in good faith from Bill, especially before said lawsuit against Bill reaches a conclusion. well, I can think of a real world example when you could do that. if a contractor subcontracts work to someone else (roofing a house, etc) and doesn't pay the subcontractor, the unpaid worker can file for a lien on your house for the money- that's why you need a lien waver. How this relates to SCO, I'm not sure but I'm also not sure that your analogy applies.
you know, most companies web-facing computers and intranet computers are completely seperate beasts run by completely seperate entities.
No one in the office will ever play with the web-facing machines; they will see the internal windows boxes and exchange servers and IIS-based intranet portal and CMS.
So to use a netcraft survey to determine the OS-cluefulness of a company only servers to guage the sanity of the IT dept. only.
So the linux@work writers don't care. They probably all have Macs anyway.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
MAC ain't gonna do it... they're too desktop focused.
Guy About Had It With People Who Confuse "Apple," "Mac."
I own the patent on:
Distributing copyrighted source code, but not using an OSS license. Followed by waiting for hackers to encorporate said code. Followed by waiting for money-bags company to majorly adopt said technology. Followed by sueing for copyright infringment to profit from said infringement.
I wouldn't mind licensing this business method patent for a reasonable $100,000. But for using it unlicensed, I'll sue your ass to the tune of $3 billion dollars! Muh, Ah, Ahhh, Muh, Ah, Ahhh!
By the way. I've patented waiting for a patent violation before trying to collect too. Muh, Ah, Ahhhhhhh!
MAC ain't gonna do it... they're too desktop focused.
Guy About Had It With People Who Confuse "Apple," "Mac."
Also the SCO / IBM project was made before SCO was bought by Caldera. IBM was under NO commitment to Caldera after the purchase, so it was thier right to cancel and move to Linux. WHY NOT? The UNIX company they were 'partnered' with was now a Linux company that was proclaiming that UNIX was dead. (http://www.interex.org/hpworldnews/hpw010/02nt.ht ml)
I don't doubt that at this point the code bases have been mixed. I also think SCO, when it was under Caldera did the mixing. The real question is what to do now?
I propose a class action lawsuit against SCO by EVERY Linux user, vendor, and programmer, suing SCO for violation of the GPL. There IS Linux code in SCO. I'm sure of that!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Uhhhh -- ife nobody read further than the title...that would mean that nobody's reading your post.
Loser.
shit, i fucked up that link. now my joke sucks. see below.
Without commenting specifically on SCOX, McBride, etc., as I take no position on this.
If anybody has information about any securities law violations, by any person or company, and wishes to report them to the government (SEC). Go to www.sec.gov (click Enforcement Division) - and there is a form to report online.
quote:
Software licenses for "ancient" versions of the UNIX operating system are now available! Licenses are available for the following versions: the Mini UNIX operating system; the UNIX V6 operating system; the PWB UNIX operating system; and the UNIX V7 operating system, which also covers Editions 1-5, and the 32V.
Follow these instructions to obtain a source code license for "ancient" versions of UNIX.
These licenses permit hobbyists and enthusiasts to have access to the source code of these historic releases, for personal and non-commercial use, and to share experiences and code updates with other authorized individuals having corresponding licenses. SCO has received numerous favorable responses from UNIX enthusiasts around the world, including messages such as, "Future computer historians will greatly appreciate what you have achieved!" and "I've wanted access to this material for nearly 20 years! Well done!"
other archives
If every person who cares, bought one share of SCO - might that get us past the 50% mark? At that point management is demonstratably operating against shareholder wishes...
Is there any history or precedent for a class-action barratry lawsuit?
Seems to me that we should be as legally adept as the entertainment cartels; when threatened, counter-attack and when one target slips off the hook immediately move the crosshairs onto the next most likely candidate. (Financial considerations might be a barrier to entry for most of us, but what about IBM?)
Perhaps it's time to take a hard look at the law firms and lawyers who are willing to represent companies like SCO in actions like this. I don't mean to suggest that moronically litigous companies and people should be let off the hook, but I think it might be easier (in the short term) to discourage the tools of their trade. Of course, that theory is based on what is probably an over-optimistic assumption: that the supply of lawyers might dry up due to the fear of litigation against themselves.
Which leads to yet another pretty interesting question that I've been thinking about: Why are we hearing so much about doctors protesting the rising costs of malpractice insurance in the US and almost nothing from the lawyers who also "practice" their trade? (Not trolling, honestly curious.)
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
Taken from '/usr/src/linux/Documentation/CodingStyle':
"Chapter 1: Indentation
Tabs are 8 characters, and thus indentations are also 8 characters. There are heretic movements that try to make indentations 4 (or even 2!) characters deep, and that is akin to trying to define the value of PI to be 3.
Rationale: The whole idea behind indentation is to clearly define where a block of control starts and ends. Especially when you've been looking at your screen for 20 straight hours, you'll find it a lot easier to see how the indentation works if you have large indentations.
Now, some people will claim that having 8-character indentations makes the code move too far to the right, and makes it hard to read on a 80-character terminal screen. The answer to that is that if you need more than 3 levels of indentation, you're screwed anyway, and should fix your program.
In short, 8-char indents make things easier to read, and have the added benefit of warning you when you're nesting your functions too deep. Heed that warning."
Not that I personally agree, but that's what the Linux coding Standards says...
rm -rf / is the evil of all root
Unfrozen caveman lawyer has filed a lawsuit against General Motors, Ford, and other giant car manufacturers. Here are his comments: "I'm just a caveman, I'm scared by the sound of cars, but the only thing I know is that the cars use wheels, wheels that I invented some centuries ago and have full IP on derivatives of the wheel, be it of stone, wood, iron.
You can not just buy a company for their market cap.
That is just the latest transaction price of a share trade times outstanding shares.
It reflects the lowest value a current holder thinks their portion is worth.
Everyone who holds shares today thinks they are worth more then the listed share price (or they would have sold)
The upside for Trolltech is that when SCO looses this one, they will have to sell their Trolltech shares at a discount to pay for the legal expenses and the countersuit from IBM.
IBM really needs to countersue these bastards (Canopy) into oblivion.
Why, pray tell, should Slashdot stop posting popular stories? It doesn't make sense.
And if it doesn't make sense then you must acquit.
So SCO says IBM can't distribute code that IBM owns because it was first used on derivative workds of System V.
As someone pointed out yesterday, the letter of understanding that is Exhibit C in SCO's complaint explicitly agrees that IBM owns their derivative works. They may just not be allowed to distribute them.
Assume for the moment that the modifications themselves are derivative works. (I don't think this is likely from the definition of derivative work from Title 17 of the U.S. Code.)
But even if is a derivative work, IBM still owns that code. The code is not stolen or misappropriated, merely released in a manner that might possibly be a contract violation. While SCO might possibly be able to demand that everyone stop using it or maybe remove it from future versions, it doesn't necessarily follow that everyone would owe SCO any damages or licensing payments at all.
Noone is in possession of stolen property or SCO's intellectual property.
The whole matter then becomes nothing more than a contract dispute over whether or not IBM has the right to distribute code they own.
I think that the whole matter then boils down to whether or not the modifications themselves are considered a derivative work.
If the judge and jury agrees with SCO that the modifications are a derivative work of System V when there is no System V code in it, then IBM might owe something in the way of damages. It might be possible that they could just be ordered to retrieve the code (unrelease it) and owe no damages at all.
But it's hard to see how anyone who does not have a contract with SCO would owe them anything at all on this matter.
By the men who moil for gold; Whoops, never mind...
I would love to have been a fly on the wall when the Caldera Board of Directors hired Darl McBride. I wonder if it went something like this:
Chairman: Your record certain is very impressive Mr. McBride. In closing, do you feel that there is anything else about yourself that we should know to help us with our choice? .. I sued my former employer for many millions while I was working for them and won. .. You're hired! You're our kind of guy!
McBride: Well, I did, uh, that is
BoD: [Many looks around the table and private whispers]
Chairman: Mr. McBride
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Caldera no longer exists. It has been offically changed to The SCO Group since the end of May. Before, it was Caldera d/b/a The SCO Group.
1-800-726-8649
if everyone calls this number this will cause the company to have a huge phone bill.
http://planetmirror.com/pub/ancient-unix/ancient/
if geeks every where call this number and hold on as long as possible untill this issue is resovled.
we can cause a big dent in sco already small revenue.
This is a question, not a plan.
Why does the OSS community not simply try and take business from SCO and ALL the other Canopy group companies [they all seem to be in each other's pockets anyway]? Is there any reason why this is not feasible or legal?
By this, I mean:
1. Write free clean-room work-a-like but better versions of all their stuff (as well as applications than run on their OS and drive their OS sales). Make sure the switching cost is low (same APIs, same data formats, migration tools, etc.).
2. Make sure your stuff does not work on their platform, integrate with their code easily etc. I didn't see OSS authors are any obligation to make their stuff with SCO or other Canopy software.
3. If you have a legitimate reason to sue them, do it. If you are in a position to help others (e.g. you work for some mega corp with a Linux interest), help others who have a legit reason to sue them.
So again: Is there any reason why this is not feasible or legal?
go to http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml and file a complaint... however it would help if you are a U.S. Taxpayer... -CMK
Bad spellers of the world untie!
Oh, sweet irony. Perfect Catch-22. The only basis they'd have for suing would be - not suing!
Cheers,
-- RLJ
I said it before, and I'll say it again. The current SCO is a completely different body than the old Caldera. Management is completely different. Philosophies are completely different. The old management would have NEVER done anything like this. I should know... I worked there.
Someone could set-up a "site of SCO factoids" where all intesting links are collected in one place for reference to the volunteers researchers. As more factoids are discovered, they are added to the site. With a little chance, this will lead to a more effective research.
Having all the evidence at one place would also help counter SCO's FUD, especially if the page becomes known to industry analysts and press. If the site shows for instance how SCO's claim change overtime, their FUD campaign will become much more apparent to CIOs and CEOs that are considuring using Linux. Some essay explaining basic concepts such as trade-secrets, copyrights, patents and derivative work would help debunking many misconceptions.
If geeks makes a habit of immediatelyposting new SCO claims on the factoid site and immediately explaining what the claims are, then it will become harder for SCO to increase the FUD pressure by confusing issues.
All OSS homepages should link to the SCO factoid site home page. This will increase the likelihood this site turns up as a result on a Google search for SCO.
IBM has acces to both Linux an System V code. They can compare to find all potentially litigious code and then call upon geeks to determine to origin of "code of interest". If they want stay on a legally safe ground, they may even include with such requests some code that doen't match System V. This could help avoid giving ground to claims they indirectly disclose SCO's alleged trade-secret.
If IBM dare identify publicly the Linux code that matches System V code, the list could be posted on the site of SCO's factoids. The result of research on the code origin could be posted as well. The general public would then be able to watch SCO's claims deflate day after day. If some code is found to be of dubious origin, the the public will be able to see how fast the Linux community can correct the issue. Tracking dates when information is posted on the page will be extremely useful.
Linux could also be compared with the ancient Unixes for matching code. This portion of Linux will then be cleared from any trade-secret claims. Again the result of this search could be posted on the SCO factoids page.
The source is available at the sites listed at:
http://www.tuhs.org/archive_sites.html
The path is:
PDP-11/Distributions/usdl/SysIII
The stench will only grow worse.
Hmmm... This article suggests a good counter strike. Caldera is dominated by Canopy. Canopy has a number of other investments. If we were to launch a massive attack/boycott on Canopy's other companies, until the suit was dropped, we could probably make it quite unprofitable for them....
Has anyone considered the possibility that the "similar code" within both SysV UNIX and Linux that SCO claimed could be written by the same person? It's obvious that in the world of UNIX, there has been a lot of shifting around (both programmers and code), and could it be possible that one of those programmers got to work on the Linux kernel?
That would explain the similar comments next to different code(if they were not fabrications on SCO's part), as many programmers tend to write similar code/comments. I actually know a person who used the same 4 stupid jokes in 6 of his programs, and his programming style was very similar (huge classes/functions, unorganized, not very expandable, etc., probably cause he used to be a basic programmer).
Although there are many reasons why SCO's "evidence" of similar source code is weak and does not merit a billion dollar reward, this is yet another possibility. Who knows, it could be possible that they copied the Linux kernel. That may be why they refuse to reveal the code without a NDP, and for those who do view the source code, they leave out important details like the file name, the function name, even the line numbers.
Sounds to me like SCO stole Linux code. Read this (from the SCO FAQ):
Does LKP emulate a Linux application environment, much like lxrun?
No, LKP is not a Linux environment emulator. LKP incorporates both the kernel interfaces and a Linux application environment directly into the Open UNIX 8 system.
Lxrun emulates the system calls through SEGV signals that are generated by int80 instructions. This emulated Linux kernel function calls.
The Open UNIX 8 kernel now understands int80 instructions and implements Linux system calls directly through that mechanism. There is no ``emulation layer''. The new LKP facility also provides the Linux application environment - libraries, configuration files, and other tools. This means, from the application's perspective, the system calls and facilities of the UNIX kernel will work just like a Linux kernel for Linux applications.
Can we get someone to write this up and submit it as an opinion peice to the Economist, Forbes, or the New York Times?
I think that would do more so shut them up and make people pay attention, rather then give a knee jerk reation.
SCO may be proving their ignorance but this case might get a judge equally (or even more) ignorant.
This is no light/laughing matter. These are serious allegations, that carry serious weight, and can cause serious damage. The future of the OSS community is currently in IBM's hands. Step up to the plate FSF, we need you now more than ever.
I click on SCO stories just to read and sympathize with the comments complaining this SCO frenzy.
"...You can pay by VISA, MasterCard, or American Express credit card if you choose. Quote your credit card details in the cover note, if you are paying by this method, and authorize SCO to withdraw US$100 from your card..."
"... Wait for a response. SCO will try to respond within 3 weeks. If you have any questions about the license or its status, contact..."
Pay one hundred bucks and wait three weeks...
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
You guys really want to return the favor to SCO / Canopy Group. If so lets really drop their stock price.
Lets invalidate as many of their patents as possible . Prior art, etc. That's about the only thing they will feel. IBM even has that patent search on their site. F*ck McBride and F*ck software patents. We need to get the practice of "One-Click Shopping" patents, Business Method patents and software patents stopped NOW!!!
Heck, I'd be willing to kick over $100 or $200 to EFF or FSF if they'd start a prior art hunt against SCO / Canopy Group. Instead of sitting here and yelling about SCO, let's help doing something about the real problems, not just it's symptoms.
I remember dialing uphill, in the snow, to my local BBS. I also remember when people thought Caldera was a good group of lawyers because they were suing Microsoft over DR-DOS. Funny how perspectives can change.
Shouldn't the name "TrollTech" have been a clue? ;-)
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
What exactly is the point your trying to make Lyons? That the only way to create a personal fortune in this country is to create an umbrella
company, play musical chairs with the stocks and pretend like one is a 'big player' in the process?
Lets take a step back for a second, you seem to think that umbrella companies are what makes this country tick. I'll give you one example out of many as to why I think that umbrella companies are the ruin (both financially and intellectually) of this country.
Enron. A bunch of Texas houlligans with MBA degrees who saw that the only way to make a buck was not through innovation but through raiding.
How SCO is behaving itself is an example of a company that has lost its ability to innovate. Instead it has now decided to focus on litigation
with questionable origins.
How is it possible that this country if full of poeple like yourself? People who see personal and individual innovation as something to suck
a person into a corporate lifestyle instead of individuals expressing this intellectualism and the ability to earn a personal income not
based on the whims of some dirtbag MBA's whose purpose in life is to control the lives of other people?
It should be you who needs to wake up and realize that Linux is a modern day expression of what this country was founded upon.
Individuals working together, with a common voice but not collectively loud enough that it drowns out each individual. Inspite of what some
faceless corporations would have a person become.
What you should do is start looking at how Linux will breath life back into the software industry instead of sucking it out like SCO and MicroSoft would rather do.
Competition and innovation is what made this country great. Endless idiotic litigation is what is giving this country a bad reputation.
I didnt add the following to the letter:
I think Open Sourcerers should take a lesson from this. Rethink how we view ourselves in this world. This may not be news for alot of readers but, people and companies who have invested themselves in owning IP see Open Source as a threat. A loss of control. But what is going on is a transfer of control, back into the hands of the many instead of the few.
American corporate law makes clear that a corporation is an individual, a living entity. Its time that corporations start behaving in such a manner that reflects well on the society it resides.
Signed,
Anonymous but not too much of a cowar
And you don't even get the source itself...
"When your license is approved, SCO will return a copy to you, and will notify the PDP Unix Preservation society. They are licensees of the source code, and their society will help you obtain a copy of the source code."
You're paying $100 for a license with no warranty, no instructions, no media, not even a guaranty that you can even get ahold of the product! You have to rely on a third-party to give you access to the product.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
I'm not familiar with Safari internals, but that doesn't make any sense. Konquerer is based on KHTML, and like the rest of KDE it's based on Qt. I'd assume that KHTML uses signals and sockets itself, or at least has a trivial interface. Unless you mean that Safaris emulation layer translates signals/slots into whatever event/message mechanism Mac applications use.
"4. DELIVERY
SCO makes no guarantees or commitments that any SOURCE CODE PRODUCT is available from SCO. If available, SCO will, within a reasonable time after SCO receives the fee specified in this Agreement for a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT, furnish to LICENSEE one (1) copy of such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT."
So it seems like they're saying, "Yeah, we'll take a hundred buck from ya, but we're not guaranteeing that you'll get anything in return. Maybe we'll send you something, if it's available..."
They were a bunch of pricks back then, too..
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
Okay, the license text is available at The Archive, and it includes the following text (section 2.1, paragraph a:)
"SCO claims no ownership interest in any portion of such
a modification or DERIVED BINARY PRODUCT that is not part of a
SOURCE CODE PRODUCT."
So, their giving you FULL OWNERSHIP of any derivative binaries. That means that if you compile the source, you become an owner of that binary, not a licensee. As long as you are not trying to claim ownership of the source code. However, decompiling reproduces source to something you fully own. That means that you know own the decompiled source.
So SCO has completely given away the System V source in this manner. They can no longer claim full ownership because they offered this license.
(Of course, IANAL, so this is all based on a semi-educated layman's interpretation.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
I wonder why these two projects haven't shown up yet:
Single System Image Clusters for Linux and Cluster Infrastrucure for Linux. The following sentence just caught my eye on CI for Linux overview: "This project is developing a common infrastructure for Linux clustering by extending the Cluster Membership and Internode Communication Subsystems from HP's NonStop Clusters for Unixware code base." A similar sentence can be found of SSI Cluster page. It's about time for HP and IBM to team up and do what's necessary in order to shut up SCO.
Mod Parent up as insightful.
A SCO/Mormon conspiracy is ridiculous.
Why? Because the common thing that all these entities in the article have is that they are located in Utah. If you ever lived in Utah, it should come as no surprise that a BYU graduate would work at a company 15 minutes down the road (both SCO and Novell).
Another good reason? The LDS (aka 'Mormon') church IT department just started an Open Source Mailing list, in hopes to migrate its existing software to Open Source alternates. I'm a member of it.
Another good reason? The BYU (largest LDS university) Unix Users Group *strongly* advocates Open Source Unices and is one of the biggest clubs on campus.
People love to conjure up conspiracies about the Mormons. I guess I can understand, as an avid Linux user I love to entertain conspiracies about Microsoft.
But get real: there's no connection.
> They might very well have released the "ancient Unix" code years ago for the sole purpose of trolling for some suckers to misuse their code.
I doubt it - that was under the previous management and their linux-centric business plan. I don't blame them for what the current version of the company is doing.
My undergrad programming used this tool to catch cheaters. It does work pretty well!!
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~aiken/moss.html
Does anyone own Linux? Here's an article that suggests that SCO's claims are deficient:http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/a rticle.asp?liArticleID=122636&liFlavourID=1&sp =1
Sorry, guys, but this DOES matter. Linux is the POSTERCHILD for OSS
"Linux" is the 'posterchild' because people are to damn lazy to seperate Apache/PostgreSQL and other Open Source applications from "Linux".
I've head these statements from actual people:
"Our webserver is Linux"
"Don't use Oracle, use Linux for your database"
(Hint: The webserver was Apache and the database was PostgreSQL.)
If SCO wins, this could DRAMATICALLY change the face of Linux.
If SCO wins, the masses will move to FreeBSD, GNU/FreeBSD, GNU/HURD, NetBSD, OpenBSD etc la. Why will the masses move? Because moving will take less effort then fighting. "Linux" will just become "FreeBSD". If you want to use GNU/Linux, you might have to pay a licencing fee to SCO. But "Linux" the 'posterchild' for Open Source will become "FreeBSD" the 'posterchild' for Open Source .
It's a sorry guess, especially when allowing a broader analysis of Mormon history than a single quote from 1863 whose context is questionable at best.
Sorry guess, I will agree. But regarding the Mormons and the Constitution and their plan to save America, I will stand behind that. I spent many years as an active member of the John Birch Society, of which a large percentage of its membership, especially in its leadership, is Mormons (with Catholic membership coming in a strong second). I have kind of lost contact with a lot of people, but I have first hand experience with the Mormons political views.
Why would anyone think Open Source is an attack on the U.S.? That's a pretty bogus thought in and of itself, but moreso in this case since YOU are the one who thought it up - there's nothing to even suggest that Mormons even think that.
Ask SCO that question. They are attacking Linus, Linux, and have made snide comments about pulling out of Linux because they believe in protecting IP, as if Linux was theft of IP!
The topic was the power behind the Canopy Group and SCO, both of which have Mormon connections, at least to the degree that other people noticed it enough to write an article about it. I for one don't see anything wrong with a discussion on it.
And as far as Open Source being an attack on the US, that is exactly how M$ is playing it, too. SCO seems to be making an ethics case against Open Source, as if it is all stolen.
It may be a leap, but I can see the Mormons taking a stand on what is obviously being played as an ethical situation (even though it isn't because people GPLed their work, which makes it 100% ethical).
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
Anyone notice that the Fortune article details exactly who the key players are? Perhaps we should slip this list to Tony Soprano with a stack of greenbacks, and have him take care of the problem...
Wow, how interesting. Here is a priceless quote from their quarterly report:
Pursuit of the litigation against IBM and, potentially, others will be costly, and we expect our costs for legal fees could be substantial. In addition, we may experience a decrease in revenue as a result of the loss of sales of Linux products and initiatives previously undertaken jointly with IBM and others affiliated with IBM. We anticipate that participants in the Linux industry will seek to influence participants in the markets in which we sell our products to reduce or eliminate the amount of our products and services that they purchase. There is also a risk that the assertion of our intellectual property rights will be negatively viewed by participants in our marketplace and we may lose support from such participants. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our position in the marketplace and our results of operations.
Hmm, ya think?
Anyone else hear "Canopy group" and instantly think about the evil Umbrella Corporation from the Resident Evil games? I mean, jeez, if you're going to run an evil empire, shouldn't you try picking a name that's just a little less conspicuous?
Dunno if it's relevant, or useful, but if it is (our could be), there's a claim that Caldera was willing to "release 32/V under an open source license." The Unix Heritage Society is also cited as being partly responsible for that.
Anyone know how to follow up on/verify the claim?
Internet Explorer was unable to link to the Web page you requested. The page might use standard HTML or CSS.
The article describes a company that operates a lot like Enron, although on a much smaller scale, shuffling funds from one company to another as needed to prop up their FTC reports.
But then the article concludes that this is a company to be recconed with!!
Sounds more like a house of cards too me. Now we know that the lunacy going on at SCO is inherited from "The Canopy Group". I bet we get to see them on TV in handcuffs before too long.
The most usefull thing about the article though is that it gives the names of about 5 more people, and several more companies that you should never do business with if you want to walk away with your wallet. I'll add them to my list.
I also signed up for alerts for when these crooks, errr "businessmen" engage in other noteworthy activities.
"You have successfully signed up for the following News Alerts: Canopy Group, Linux, Darl McBride, Ralph J. Yarro III! "
It may well be that the current legal matters in question are between SCO and IBM, but here is a thought... I work for a large corporation as a software engineer. I have promoited, evangelised and even managed to garner some acceptance of Linux in particular and Open Source software in general within my corporation to my superiors (from my immediate management all the way up to the VP level). I am not alone and though the base of developers who contribute to the kernal development effort is large, suppose you add to that sys admins, networking forlks, IT managers and the like who understand the open source concepts and also support, evangelize, recommend Linux and Open Source software for use withing thier companies and organizations. This entire FUD campaign and the irresponsable casting of aspersions upon the integrity of open source developers and open source products by SCO is damaging the reputations and I'm sure in some cases perhaps even causing monetary problems (folks not being given a rasie based on their support of this now viewed as, legally shakey, OS operating system). It IS and will continue to affect many people who may not necessarily be connected directly to open source development. I am no attorney, as I said I am a software Engineer, BUT is there an attorney out there who might wish to comment on the possible success of a class action suit, brought against SCO on the basis of their 1500 letters to major corporations and the slander and aaspersions being cast, without a shred of proof by them, on the entire open source software industry in their scontinued press releases and public comments? Just a thought. If dsomeone wants to start such a class action suit, I would certainly sign up! Not expoect any monetary return mind you but rather to get the attention of SCO and let them know that perhaps, the UNITED community of open source advocates (again not just developers) may well become a more powerful threat to them than even IBM!
The Matrix is real... but I'm only visiting!
Yes, the LDS church believes very strongly in the constitution, and the rights it provides. They believe strongly that *everybody* should have these rights.
Yes, there are LDS people who own part of sco/canopy. Like was stated before, they are in Utah, which has a higher LDS population than anywhere else in the US. It goes to figure that yes, some of the owners would happen to also be LDS. That does not mean the church is trying to influence this case at all. The church itself doesn't own sco, and makes sure to keep it's hands clear of things like that. There is an actual church policy forbidding church leads (called general authorities) from sitting on corporate boards, specifically to keep things like that from happening.
By the same token, the local linux users are protesting in front of sco tomorrow. Guess, what, most of us are also LDS. The church isn't saying anything about any side.
If you want to know the churchs actual opinion, you should probably ask the church. I can tell you they are running quite a bit of linux now, and are moving more and more stuff towards open-sourced solutions every day.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean.
I'd be curious to know what impacts the behavior of people like McBride and others has on U.S. international business relations, existing or potential.
From the looks of it, SCO is not and has not been an exceptional company in terms of ingenuity or revenue. Their talent seems to be in their legal skills rather than technical prowess. It also looks as if they dangled a carrot in front of the nose of some programmers with the intention of creating the current situation (and I'm not saying that there is one). I'm not a business/financial person, but if I was in Europe or the UK, or anywhere in the world for that matter, I would be hesitant to engage in business transactions with people who are so obviously out of control. "Let's sue Linus!" "Make it another billion! No, wait, make it another TWO billion! Yeah!" These numbers are obviously not tied to any real assets. The transparency of the aggression by the owners of SCO, as well as recent transgressions by other CEOs in other companies, would not seem to bode well for U.S. international business relations. I sure as hell wouldn't want to interact with someone who might turn around and take my company away. I feel like my country is rotting.
The Death Penalty: Killing people to show others that killing people is wrong.
they're not trying to wake a sleeping giant they're trying to light matches between it's toes while throwing ice cubes at it's head.. and when IBM gets around to it there will be some serious godzilla style trampling...
having been involved in lots of lawsuits (and not losing your shirt) doesn't make you a professional litigious bastard it makes you lucky one
yes, thank you for mentioning SUNW... they actually think this can help them.
What they need is to return to good engineering... making the fastest, more efficient thing. Hmmm, does that sound like "reform your company around a slow language you cannot profit from"?
-pyrrho
> But regarding the Mormons and the Constitution and their plan to save America, I will stand behind that.
We have no plan to 'save America.' I speak as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints, as a Utahn (presently), and an avid Linux user and developer. We do try to be involved in a positive way within communities, which I believe explains why the Unix Users Group is one of the largest clubs on BYU's campus.
Although the church has no apparent plans to 'save America,' official or otherwise, there have been quite a lot of statements from church leaders against the very sort of thing SCO is doing. (See Brigham Young quote in a sister message) Litigation as a pathway to fortune is, IMHO, hardly a moral activity and I'm sure our church doesn't stand alone in that opinion.
Give us some credit, or at least the benefit of the doubt.
It's still the case. You have to think of what Forbes is and represents. For them to mention linux is notable. They are saying "consider linux", even if they say, "not yet" or "never"... the control of public opinion is not in the answers you put below the headline (which is why often the content in an article has no facts), it's in the questions you choose to raise.
This is part of the theory of Manufacturing Consent in the book of the same name.
-pyrrho
Ummmm, Enron started down its path and did most of its misdeeds under the watchfull eyes of the Clinton administration. They are being prosecuted by the Bush administration.
.
.
.
"Ummmm" yourself, smart-ass. I don't subscribe to the Tweedle-Dum & Tweedle-Dee system of politics, so you can take back your imagined slight. Anyway, I hope that while BushCo is vigorously 'prosecuting' all those guilty in the Enron scandal that they don't overlook the members of their own administration.
You've got it backwards again. Where recently have you read of day after day of discovering yet another mass grave? Could it be... Iraq? And which administration just deposed the rulers responsible for those mass graves? Isn't it Cart^H^H^H^H Clint^H^H^H^H^H, er, Bush?
What on earth are you talking about here? I don't have anything backwards. I wasn't making any allusions to mass-graves in Iraq. I was talking about dealing with psychopaths; indeed, when writing the sentence, I considered using the terms, "burn" "kill" "String up" "Run out of town", but settled in the end on "Bury" because it seemed the least awkward and violent of the lot. (In truth, I don't really know what you'd do with a psychopath. Instituting any system which legally kills is a bad idea simply because it can be mis-used. But psychopaths and sociopaths are really tough to deal with. Jail is expensive and ineffective since they don't actually have the brain-wiring to reform. They're almost worse than nuclear waste! But that's not the point. .
Though it is unrelated, I can't help but want to respond to the rest of your dumb argument. .
I suspect that if most people looked at the situation in Iraq, they could figure out who filled many many mass graves of up to 15,000 people each, and who removed the psychopath who was responsible for creating those mass graves. And, although it was unfortunate that anyone had to die, the total number killed in the war which freed the Iraqi people from Saddam killed far fewer people than are found in many of the mass graves that Saddam filled. A one time cost for a long term benefit.
1. Iraq's problem was an internal affair. They didn't ask for help.
2. The war had nothing to do with 'liberation'. Only the really, really, really dense among us still believe that BushCo's intentions were anything but greed and power-related.
3. One-time cost? *Cough* Excuse me?! Are you one of those guys who watches CNN instead of the real news? Even the casual observer with half a brain will note that Iraq is quickly becoming the next Viet Nam in terms of on-going disorganization and a rapidly mounting death toll. On both sides.
Saddam was nuts. But so is Bush. The difference is that Bush has power behind him, and more than enough brainwashed idiots eager to follow him straight into armageddon!
Hey great! A guy who plays by his own made up rules that are uniquely advantageous to him. Ummmm, how is it again that you are determining what is good? (And apparently good just for you?)
No. Absolutely not! Good for the world. I long ago decided that I would strive at all times to be of service where and how I am best able to help the world and the people around me. --But it doesn't surprise me that you would assume that I am only looking out for myself. That particular kind of mistake is called, 'projection.' Among other things, it indicates a fairly limited imagination. --No wonder you haven't figured out yet that you are being duped by your own government!
And what pray tell will the free software community do? "Unified force!"? "Revenge" you say? Is that part of your "chaotic good"? Does anyone get hurt of lose their job in this? Or are they buried?
I'm having trouble understanding what the heck are you talking about, but I'll try to answer you. .
The software community is made up of people with com
SCO is in the same boat, win a against IBM and they've violated the GPL and get sued by a thousand developers for copyright infringement i.e. distributing Linux and become the only entity in the entire universe that can't distribute Linux.
or loss the suit and get counter-sued by IBM!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I told you so. Fair enough - I was wrong about the individuals involved. But I knew The Canopy Group was behind it.
The Canopy Group are run by the kind of scum you typically find at the top of the ruling elite in each country. The problem for us is that reality seldom affects a court's decision, since there is so much 'incentive' coming through the back door. These 'investors' have such an astronomically large amount of money that it won't matter who did what.
Consider also the outcome from our 'win' against Microsoft. Hopefully we don't have the same kind of win against The Canopy Group...
Because I like the way you think, write, and respond to assholes. Cheers!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Hey!
Quit giving out info that SCO could use in a court case against IBM/Linux
A Real Anonymous Coward
Preferences -> Homepage -> Exclude -> Topics -> Caldera
Very interesting:
/ of fers/ancient_unix.html
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.sco.com
for a new reality show called American Justice where lawyers compete in trials and people pay money to call in and decide which team of lawyers is hottest (and therefore wins) and just like the people's court the decisions could be made binding by having the corporations/guest litigants sign contracts (which could themselves be spun off when they inevitably end in litigation themselves) deffering (sp?) to the judgement of this travesty...
we'll both be rich; somehow
am i the only one who is cynical, morose, and somber simultaneously today?
how can anyone own an idea?!???? and you call yourself a genius
go sit in the corner
see the thing is, (and i still have die bags although mine has a pipe in it ;)) that whether you follow the rules or not you are always a criminal in the eyes of the gov't because that is the only way they can exercise absolute control over you, in the name of protecting everyone else from your "terrorism"... the fact is even speed limits are set so that you will break them..
as for your last line:
"Sociopaths are not human. Destroy them before they destroy you. Don't waste your good conscience on them, because they haven't got one."
after a rant about "BushCo" i'm utterly suprised by this, was not the entire iraqi fiasco designed as a strike-first ask questions later kind of deal? (WMD OBL and Saddam?? but who remembers them right)
if you were to act on your own advice you would become them, just another zealot trying to kill someone else because they "are not human" based on them not being in line with your world view =)
i'll assume you put that because you were angry an sometimes passion outweighs reason (and if you look through my posts you will definitely see that)
That would be Chaotic. Whether or not it is good depends on the rules as to whether or not it is good, evil or neutral.
"Sociopaths are not human. Destroy them before they destroy you. Don't waste your good conscience on them, because they haven't got one."
based on that, you would be Chaotic Evil.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That's sure going to help innocent people who are using SCO products, want to chose open source in the future.
I read on PUPS, 24 January 2002 ?, Caldera released the Ancient Code under a BSD like license (with an advertising clause), read here:
p df
http://www.tribug.org/pub/tuhs/Caldera-license.
http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf
So is Canopy kind of like that Umbrella Corporation from the Resident Evil series?
I've had a gutsful of the Licensing shenanigans that's been going on in the Unix world. I love Linux and indeed Unix, but I've had enough of this crap.
I'm installing BeOS on my desktop and car, and putting GNU/HURD on my servers. Fuck SCO, and fuck the Unix world in general for letting it get this far. Can someone with some money please just sue SCO for pissing everyone off?
It's only lunchtime, and I'm angry already...
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
The article in question focused on Linux as a desktop platform and all but ignored Linux as a server platform. Of course, it didn't quite occur to them that there is little reason to run Moron Antivirus on a Linux workstation, much less a Linux server.
I dunno, but the way to really hurt these guys is to demolish their stock price. That can only be done with information being sent to the market, and most investors don't give a toss about us geeks. IBM on the other hand, now they could do some PR damage...
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
MODERATE THIS UP!!!
http://securityportal.com.ar
I don't believe there is any connection between the LDS church and SCO either.
I would hope that the LDS church issues a strong condemnation of SCO and their tactics, if for no other reason, based on the BY quote by the grandparent post. They should, if they really believe in what he said.
A strong public statement of that kind would go a long way towards mitigating SCO FUD.
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Not sure about the US, but here in Australia you can ask a court to rule an entity (person or organisation) as a vexatious litigant. This basically means the entity has to petition the court before they commence any legal proceeding and show that they're not just being annoying bastards...
I have found a few meathods of dealing with those people. --The ones who are primarily draining to associate with, are always in need of help, who always make their selfish demands upon you when you can least afford it, and above all, never, never grow or learn from their own mistakes
1. Always be aware. Look for the signs. Quite simply, about half the people out there are on paths seeking their higher selves, and half are actively deteriorating and will absolutely seek to take down anybody around them they can get their fingers into.
2. Not all of them are psychos, but then psychos are just the models which are damaged. The other type are much more difficult to detect except over long durations of observation.
3. Be ruthless in cutting these sorts of people out of your life. Don't worry about hurting their feelings, because they clearly do not worry about hurting yours. Guilt trips are one of their prime methods of control. It's okay to be ruthless! --I have to keep telling myself this, because I'm currently dealing with a particularly difficult case, (the skill level seems to always go up as one progresses through life), and I do find myself guilted into shit I should know better to avoid. In the end, allowing these sorts a piece of your time and energy only hinders your efforts to be your best and most useful self, and in the end it helps nobody, becuase any efforts are entirely wasted on the selfish. It's a drain, and in these final few months and years we have left, having enough energy and internal strength is going to be of paramount importance.
-FL
It's inconcievable that with such dizzying intellects, they could refuse such a challenge!
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
You're making it worse! (slaps illumin8, makes his hardhat spin)
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The legal system is not meant to allow something that is fair to succeed over something that is not fair. The legal system is in place to reduce the body count. If we did not have a legal way of resolving issues then lawyers and businessmen that acted unfairly would start to turn up with holes in various critical parts of their anatomy.
Legality is all about how to resolve issues without resorting to bloodshed. If you live in california you may have missed this little bit of information. It is still true though.
Justic will always prevail, it is just less messy with a legal system, IMHO.
dzimmerm
Jumping to correct solutions slowly is better than jumping to incorrect solutions quickly.
So let me tell you, you are a burro.
I don't know from where you get the idea that OSS is trying to avoid corporate lock down of software.
The aims are simple but far reaching: I write something, you can't use it without contributing.
That applies to you, mom & pop, me, Homer Simpson and the big corps. It levels the playing field for eberybody that wants to play.
To have corporate players in the OSS side provides invaluable resources that perhaps losely organized individuals can't provide. One is marketing and mindshare. In the past it was a pain to get hardware manufacturers to provide information or contribute drivers for OSS projects. Now, thanks to companies like SuSE, Read Hat, IBM, Oracle and even Sun (which for some inextricable reason so many here hate) Linux has a recognized and respected name, if users or developpers request Linux support for their hardware or software, they are no longer laughed at by IT providers.
If you distrust corporate contribution feel free to launch your distro (how are you going to call it, Leninux? Marxus? Commieux?) and state that you don't welcome corporate contributors. Funnily enough corps would still be free to modify and distribute your stuff if you GPL it.
That is the beauty of OSS, that for those willing to stop whining there is always a way out to find what they think would be the best form a technical and even moral and political point of view.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I am not a US taxpayer(Oh shit, I actually am!) I hold some share from some US companies and certainly I would like to see transparency in the US markets.
People should really point IBM and SEC in the direction of this shady dealings (and perhaps email SCO executives, so perhaps they stop their nonsense from their own accord....). We believe they may be already on this, but one never knows, they may miss it and that would be a real injustice.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You really can't tar them all with the same brush.
Sure, you can. Every corporation on Earth is a means to the same end: profits for the capital owners. It's a pretty straightforward, quantifiable objective. The side effects of those objects in a market economy are various, but well understood.
Sure, corporations have probably contributed some benefit to the social good... but as their existence in the production of "social good" isn't required (there are numerous examples of humanity getting on -- with "progress" and all -- without them), the overall effect has been an increasingly unnecessary amount of human suffering.
The "best" corporation, by definition, is the most greedy and ruthless. We're lucky that corporations exist that don't cause any significant human suffering. But those corporations exist in spite of themselves--the impact of the capitalist enterprise, the market system, and, really, our system of governance, encourages behaviour that most people would consider abhorrent, yet many condone as "just the facts of business."
It's not as if there aren't alternatives: co-operative and participatory economies do exist... most earnest economists would no longer deny that functional economies based on equity, diversity, self-management, and labour efficiency are possible.
The rules of the system are contrived--the idea that we as a race require cutthroat competition over concerted co-operation is, well, cynical, yes, but more importantly unfounded.
So, what you call "anti-corporate sludge" isn't about painting corporations as if they were people (who have myriad motivations and reasons for being). It's about recognition of the fact that the conditions that not only created but are also sustained by corporations are unnecessary and harmful to the well-being of both individuals and society.
bacchusrx.
Life after capitalism? The participatory economics project
If you want CIOs and press to take it seriously, then scosucks.org is not appropriate. .info FQDN.
Also, perhaps it could be under the
scofacts.info
antifud.info
Perhaps even faqsco.info would be enough tongue in cheek to be acceptable.
The whole POINT of that article was to sign an NDA get access ot the source, and be able to post results of a comparison without violating the NDA. Since we have a link above where you can just go downlooad the source without any NDA (what point is an NDA when the code is freely downloadable from SCO anyways?), the article is pointless.
While SCO is changing the scope of their lawsuits, and yes in court, lawyers may legaly lie, they may not do so outside of court. I hope FSF is keeping origional copies of all articles, and sue their pants off either after or during the trial!
Hey all. If Microsoft wants to use SCo as its proxy to fight Linux and SCO wants to be that person. How about everyone make plans, if you are using SCO Unix, to use anything else. Put the hurt on SCO in its pocket. Stop using SCO for anything.
To further elaborate your true correction, Sikhism is the majority religion in the province of Punjab in India. The religion started in this buffer area between Muslim dominant and Hindu dominant areas. Sikhism encorporates aspects of both religions and started with the intent of curbing violence between Muslims and Hindus. Instead of curbing violence, the religion became a target of both Muslims and Hindus, resulting in Sikhs becoming excellent militants and fighters to defend their beliefs. I'm sure you're probably aware of this information, I just thought other readers may find it interesting although very off topic.
Beware blue cats moving at
Count them:
George Washington
George Herbert Bush
George Washington Bush
I, II, III.
He's George the third.
According to netcraft
The site www.canopy.com is running Apache/1.3.11 (Unix) ApacheJServ/1.1.2 mod_perl/1.21 PHP/4.0.4pl1 on Linux.
I second the motion to mod parent up. Corporate share dynamics clarified. Needs more info, but good enough that it should be noticed.
And also, I thought the main issue has to do with contract law and nothing to do with trade secrets or "true" ownership of intellectual property.