Slashdot Mirror
Linux vs. SCO: The Decision Matrix
hexidec writes "Haven't seen this here yet, though I may have missed it. Anyway... A group of Australian techies have put together an analysis matrix of the likelyhood of each SCO Unix claim being true, and what outcome would most likely result if so. Puts a lot of the various recent suppositions in one handy place."
Ahhh... I feel the slashdot effect. Since this doc has tables, I put a mirror up. http://mirrors.tatay.org/lnxsco.html Cheers y'all!
Accentuate the positive, don't waste your mod points on the negative.
We'll cast Hugo Weaving as SCO, Keanu Reeves as Tux, and Laurence Fishburne as IBM. Carrie-Anne Moss would make an excellent IBM, since IBM's products are fairly sleek and sexy right now, and I'd really like to get into IBM...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
but let's just cut to the chase: Linux wins. SCO might give IBM a bloody nose, but they're not gonna knock that giant down.
--------
Free your mind.
It looks like the site is already slashdotted. I have mirrored the page at http://www.sais.nl/linux_vs_sco_matrix.html
-- Cliff Albert
It's good that the FUD is being fought, but there could still be an effect which is not accounted for here.
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:mkRx2aiBJC0J: www.cybersource.com.au/users/conz/linux_vs_sco_mat rix.html+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Hi,
Site seems down already. Read it at google:
Looks like it was slashdotted already. It basically says we all knew along. SCO is full of S*** and going to be laughed out of court.
SCO's reality fits in quite well with the whole notion of the Matrix. Replace Agent Smith and friends with a bunch of rabid lawyers. Though I can't really picture Torvalds doing Martial Arts.
thanks subscribers! You fucked it for the rest of us!
the site is slashdotted and there aren't even any posts. doesn't anybody post BEFORE reading the article anymore??
=)
http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:FOhL0ah_AIQJ: www.cyber.com.au/users/conz/linux_vs_sco_matrix.ht ml+Linux+vs.+SCO:+The+Decision+Matrix&hl=en&ie=UTF -8
Slashdot. The fastest crasher on the web.
Is there a site listing a matrix of the possible links that could survive a slashdotting?
Those ratings at the top indicating the likelihood of these allegations (or whatever you want to call them) don't really mean anything. They're just speculation and opinion, much like the 17,000 /. comments dealing with this whole deal. It reads nice and legal-sounding, but to me it looks like a table formatted thread straight off this site.
...all the linux is unaffected conclusions, while probably right, make is seem a little like the following line of analysis:
...
1) Something here
2)
3) Profit!
I don't know, just seemed like kinda a cheesy chart to me, although a lot of the points he made were decent enough, the analysis seemed cheesy.
"But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" - Dennis Miller
http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:mkRx2aiBJC0J:w ww.cybersource.com.au/users/conz/linux_vs_sco_matr ix.html+SCO+linux+matrix+site:cybersource.com.au&h l=en&ie=UTF-8
(thats all one line)
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:mkRx2aiBJC0J: www.cybersource.com.au/users/conz/linux_vs_sco_mat rix.html+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Why host the page on your own site when google already HAS THE CACHE
This guy heading up SCO is like a 1 year old who just keeps packing his diaper, over and over. However, no one changes him. He just gets stinkier and stinkier and pretty soon he's got poop shooting up his back and down both legs.
Classic SLashdot!
Morpheus: SCO is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your operating system. Or when you boot your AIX box. You can feel it when you surf the web. When you compile your kernel. When you mount your filesystems. It is the lawsuit that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
The seemed to missed the 'Proven' one of 'This debate has been going on so long, we just want the damn thing to be over!
I, seriously, just got the biggest headache ever. SCO must be desperate for something to do as of late.
There is no SCO.
----------
Something cleverThe argument contained within this table leans heavily on the "continued distribution of GPL code after realization of the consequences thereof". I believe they will try the "it took us time to remove it" argument, but that's pretty weak when you consider that the time elapsed isn't just the time from the public lawsuit, but that there must have been internal discussion as well...
Sig under construction since 1998.
On a scale of one to SCO'ed I say that this webserver is done for.
"Freedom of speech has always been the abstract red-headed stepchild of the Constitution"
-Suck
So this is a supposition repository? A suppository?
Yeah, I know I will get modded down for just suggesting that SCO's action might have some effect, but well...
SCO will claim that all UnixWare code is original and belongs to SCO
... " Ah. never mind.
"ALL YOUR UNIXWARE CODE ARE BELONG
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
it would be the best possible thing for SCO to .. linux on the desktop is a
.. but not .. for years i've tried to make .. and all windows needs is a decent .. hell, .. that would
bury linux (even tho the whole deal is SCO vs
IBM, not linux)
massive failure. why?
o - every monkey out there has their own take
on how things should work
o - few monkeys are being paid
the end result being dozens of nearly identical
projects with completely different code bases,
different data formats and developers that abandon
the project due to lack of recompensation
linux for Servers - linux wins there
for the desktop
linux a useful desktop environment, and it is so
long as i don't want to do anything remotely
interesting - putty and goscreen lets me use my
win box as effectively as a linux desktop without
depriving me of the more well fleshed windows
applications
shell environment to be just as useful
m$ should open the source to windows
ensure their dominance completely, as their profit
centers should be the applications
-1 flamebait
-1 offtopic
-1 troll
-11 Truth
They released it in their distro after they found it was there. Therefore, they have opened up the code.
Am I wrong?
...but they forgot a row in the table:
Effect on SCO:
Everyone hates them
Everyone hates them
Everyone hates them
Everyone hates them
Everyone hates them
Everyone hates them
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
It looked like they were pursuaded to pay more for the Redhat enterprise option rather than go with a cheaper SCO upgrade. The gist is that SCO was mired in rebranding, and not doing anything innovative or otherwise improving the product.
They had already determined that the crucial app would run well on either platform and the migration pain was not significant enough to mention.
I am distressed that most of the anti-SCO argument seems to be based on the fact that SCO continued to publish Linux after claiming infringement.
David Boies is a smart man, and surely he or his legal team would have thought of this. They must have some sort of legitimate defense up their sleeve. Maybe a direct attack on the legitimacy of the GPL?
I think it will run something like this: Linux is important to SCO's business. Even though they discovered violations in linux, they had to continue to release linux or suffer grave damage to their business. They should not be made to suffer for the malicious actions of IBM, and they did not voluntarily release their own source code, so the GPL should not apply to their proprietary code that somehow found its way into linux.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
What makes me upset about this whole situation is the fact that once the true nature of SCO's allegations against Linux become apparent, the company will not be able to sustain itself financially long enough to recieve the retribution.
This is your last chance.
You tale the Blue pill, and you decline the NDA. You come to your senses and walk away.
You take the Red pill and you stay in wonderland, and SCO will show you just how deep the Rabbit hole goes. Oh, and you can't tell anyone what you saw.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Matrix my this and matrix my that.
:-)
I always thought a matrix was a mathematical object - the two-dimensional equivalent of a vector (or however one chose to look at it).
If a science fiction movie has to name a computer program which simulates every part of life, its called "The Matrix".
If something doesnt work in Enterprise it is because "The matrix" is not aligned.
And now, if someone presents something in a table, it is also a matrix?!?
maybe i'm just in a pedantic mood today
If SCO is right and there is infringing code, then the fact that they willfully released any such code within their own Linux kernel distribution, even after they knew that there was supposed code infringement, released that code into the GPL forever, absolving it from any further claims by SCO.
This isn't necessarily the case. SCO has quite a lot of leeway based on the fact they can claim their GPL rerelease of code taken from the linux community was a mistake, having not realized their own code was in there. The fact that they'd make a statement like that and not point out it's a dodgy argument casts doubt on this entire document.
I like this. All the uninformed and irrelevant speculation by armchair lawyers put into one slashdotted source. A great timesaver.
That said, we all know that in the long run Linux has to be unaffected. If they prove infringement a great deal of effort will go into producing non-infringing code. In the long run, it will be just fine. This is mainly about a dying company trying to get some money to pay the receiver.
1. Steal Linux
2. ???
3. Profits!
ok... now that we have a matrix drawn up, let's place those bets...
This message brought to you by Jack Schitt's Previously Shat Shit
Already slashdotted... can anyone get the matrix reloaded?
For instance:
- If SCO doesn't own the copyrights that it claims --> Lawsuit fails
- If there isn't any infringing code in Linux --> Lawsuit fails
- If SCO can't prove that IBM put the code there --> Lawsuit fails
- If SCO can't convince a court that they were duped into distributing the infringing code under the GPL in their own Linux distribution --> Lawsuit fails
- If SCO can't convince a court that there should be monitary damages --> Lawsuit fails
So what if there is infringing SCO code in Linux and SCO manages to play the duped victim with their own distribution under GPL?I guess SCO has got enough news coverage from this issue and possibly some customers too. They sure are playing with fire.
Their persistance makes me hesitate in writing them off, wonder whats up their sleeve.
There are two kinds of egotists: 1) Those who admit it 2) The rest of us
> SCO made initial IP claims against IBM in March 6th 20032, and only removed the source code to its Linux distribution in May 14th 20033 Thus SCO have gifted this code to the Linux community.
The author of this piece seems pretty sure Linux will be unaffected by the outcome of this case. What about this:
SCO realizes there is infringing code in Linux, but continue to release their distribution anyway. Perhaps they felt since their code was already infringed upon, why should they be punished in lost sales by pulling their product which was developed unknowingly with stolen code? Could it not be argued that once an invalid license always an invalid license? Since the infringing code was included without their permission, its license under the GPL was never valid.
To illustrate my point: Let's say Pepsi owns Nutrisweet and have patents on the artificial sweetener. Let's say they also resell Dr. Pepper products in their soda machines. Let's also say that Dr. Pepper developed their own artificial sweetener for Diet Dr. Pepper that infringes on some of Pepsi's IP. Once Pepsi finds out about it, are they required to pull all Diet Dr. Pepper from their machines, thus hurting sales and requiring extra man hours?
Obviously, this isn't a perfect example because you don't license a can of soda to a consumer. However, couldn't a good lawyer argue that the crime was done and the time period where SCO was releasing their code under the GPL was to give them time to "tie up loose ends" with that product line while minimizing the negative impact on their bottom line? It seems like a "victim" of such "theft" should be entitled to pick up the pieces within a reasonable time frame.
Just a thought. I just don't think we should be celebrating until the court case is over.
Here is a mirror link for Freenet users:
http://127.0.0.1:8888/CHK@Jct8ig~B7MHAPwJR7ujiaw RJCrEPAwI,teuZ6buZbWFlqH5QRmItsQ
Other then providing anonymity, Freenet's distributed structure makes it immune to the slashdot effect!
For dossiers on government officials Government Information Awareness
Cheers,
W00t
What is the matrix?
This whole thing reads like an exercise in assuming the outcome is "Linux is unaffected".
What if:
1: A court rules that SCO code has been put into Linux by someone other than SCO.
2: A court rules that the GPL is non binding upon source code previously released by SCO.
3: A court rules that any party using such source is and has been in violation of SCO's patents, and is open game for damages.
No matter what me, or you, or the author of this "matrix" thinks the GPL says, the only thing that matters is what a court decides it says.
Who needs a decision matrix when you can have a Jump to Conclusions Board ?
A Matrix is any multidimensional array which contains data.
Therefore, the information on the linked page is a matrix. It is a two-dimensional table containing data. The fact that the data is english text rather than a "proper" mathematical object does not change that.
Within the sci-fi movie, "The Matrix" was a *nickname* for a large software package. The implication seems to be that the reason for this is that the software package is based around a data model where all global state information is stored in a single large matrix-- or, possibly a more complex data model which happens to be designed in such a way that any particular "viewpoint" within the data model can be presented as a simple matrix. This seems fairly reasonable, given nicknames by nature do not necessarily have to describe the thing they describe totally accurately.
It is a well-known fact that Star Trek is stupid.
First, he claims that Linux is fine becuase SCO indemnified users. No, only customers of SCO linux. There's a big difference there.
Then, he claims that Linux is OK because it only affects IBM from a breach-of-contract standpoint. Yeah, except for it establishing a finding of fact that can be used in later suits against linux users/distros.
Finally, he makes the old, tired argument that the GPL saves us. That's all well and good except that the GPL, being a bit of a non-standard contract, has never been tested in court.
A great deal of what they wrote is either false or misinterpreted. Like the article in Forbes (I think) last month said, the linux community is NOT served by sticking its collective head in the sand and expecting IBM and the GPL to come riding in on their respective white horses to save us. There are real risks here - granted, some of them are farfetched, but stranger things have happened.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
hey sco ... STFU
Nothing new, just more opinions. Using the corporate "formatting means expertise" method is not especially helpful, but it is clear and well-done.
SCO hires Johnny Cochrane
Likelihood: Very likely
Evidence: While SCO has not yet hired Johnny Cochrane on their legal team, most pundits (John Dvorak included) are predicting it.
What if SCO does: Chewbacca is a Wooky from the planet Kishic, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would a Wooky, an eight-foot-tall Wooky, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense. But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case.
Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case.
It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer working for a major software company and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I'm am not making any sense. None of this makes sense. And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this deposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must convict. The prosecution rests.
Final Outcome: Linus Torvalds wakes up in his bed and says, "Mom? I just dreamt that me and IBM and SCO were trapped in a court case that made no sense and we were talking about everything that happened to us except that it was all wrong, and ended with us eating ice cream."
I think I know where my bet is.
ITYM 'choir'...
We won't have a decision in a year. Think about how long the Microsoft case dragged out. IBM is going make sure to drag this out and make it as expensive for SCO as possible. By the time any decisions will have been rendered by a judge, it will likely be irrelevant.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
We can argue over the outcome of a lawsuit forever, but the damage has long been done. It's not about a lawsuit, it's about reputation. And Linux' reputation will be tainted for a very long time to come.
/., revolves around MONEY, and any way they can make it is acceptable.
Any company with an axe to grind towards Linux wants this story dragging on forever. For all we know, even IBM may be involved, as it gets a lot of media coverage over an issue that's not about their core business... You may have noticed this is all dragging on between large corporations. Their world, the world outside
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
may be that they continued to release a version of Linux for two months after they notified IBM that they felt some code was infringing.
It will be up to a Judge to determine if SCO acted in a timely manner but I don't think that they did.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Don't you think we should all switch over to GNU/Hurd anyway, just in case?
I think this logic is a simplification of the legal situation, and is being used as an ace-in-the-hole by author. The author is making the assumption that the court will agree with this catch all and so none of the other aspects of the case matter.
He should write another matrix with the assumption that the "donated to the GPL" argument has failed. That would be more interesting.
I don't think the SCO has a case, but I can at least imagine a scenario in which Linux would be affected.
Lasers Controlled Games!
First of all SCO has to proove that copyrights were actually infringed. Then after they proove that, which won't be easy, they will have to proove that their release of the code under the GPL was an accident. Neither one of these is easy to proove, and proving both would be an amazing feat.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Looks like we just slashdotted The Matrix! The machines no longer have control over us!!!!
While good in concept, there's too much tilt on this analysis. The case could hinge simply on the judge's possible dislike for Penguins, or that he plays golf with Orrin Hatch and his son, or that SCO spins the "open source leaders'" comments so far out of whack
O.J. is running free, whodathunkit? It seemed like an open and shut case. But after all, if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit! .....right?
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
...cause SCO is going up in flames.
Ok, GIMP wizards! Now's youre chance to shine. Bring us Matrix Reloaded screen captures with Linus' face oover Reeves', and Darl's over Smith's in the Big Brawl..."
Wow, normally I'd have to pay for that kind of entertainment!
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
I was feeling lonely and sad, because lately I haven't seen hide
nore hare of a SCO post. But now slashdot has once again turned
my frown upside down. Darl McBride can speak japanese so now
he is a bi-lingual con artiest. this reminds me when my parents
divorced, my mother wanted money from my fathers new wife because she stole him away. SCO just needs to get over it.
until they produce a decent product it doesn't matter how much
they bully around opposing UNIX like OS's no one is
going to buy their product.
Perhaps someone could release a "spin-free" version of this document and then let readers draw their own conclusions. I imagine that a few of the conclusions would correlate with this matrix.
This matrix seems like a shot at SCO's attempt to win this case in public as opposed to in court. We all know that this is going to take quite some time to muddle through the court system. We also all know that the courts will have the final decision in this matter.
Freenet links are only immune to the Slashdot effect to the extent that, due to the nature of the system, *every* Freenet link feels Slashdotted, no matter how popular it is.
-- Help Digitise the Public Domain at DP.
Several times in the matrix, they make this claim: "Further, SCO have also indemnified all users of Linux against any prosecution7"
However, SCO simply *assured* Linux users that they wouldnt be sued. Since when is that an indemnity?! SCO is under no legal obligation to stick to what they wrote in a letter in which they merely seek to "assure" people.
IANAL, so I stand to be corrected on this.
Ok, let's say, for the point being, that SCO is totally correct in every accusation they make (holy shit!) and that there's some of their copyrighted code that accidentally made it into Linux. They removed the code from their own distribution, and asked that everyone else follow suit. But the claim is that once you go GPL it's GPLed for ever, yet I've had conversations with people on here (slashdot) that claim the opposite. And they're self-styled "experts" on OSS and GPLed code. So... if it was a mistake (by whomever, and it really doesn't matter who fucked that up) then SCO is well within their rights and legally acting and their code can be, and must be, un-GPLed...but it can't be because, like the dead once you're buried it matters not how you died.
Should not intent become part of the equation? If SCO made a mistake (or IBM or martians with satelite dishes...whoever) then the code has to go back to propietary. Especially if the persons responsible did not have the authority to donate such code. Right? If the GPL doesn't allow for such, then GPL is fux0red beyond redemption.
Based on the way SCO is spending money, I'm fairly sure that the intention is mainly to cause MS to spend money. Yesterday, e.g., I received a "Presorted STD" publication from SCO. I have no idea why, and called them up to ask to be removed from their mailing list (will they? ??).
FWIW, SCO can be reached at:
1-800-726-8649
The editor of the ad was at ptaylor@sco.com
He invites comments. (No particular note on what kind of comment was desired.)
Another mailing address is info@sco.com, but they don't particularlly ask that comments be sent there.
Of note is that they claim that Java 1.3.1 and the Java runtime are Open Source tools. (I suppose that Sun may have changed the license, but the last time I looked the binaries were definitely NOT open source, much less Open Source, though parts of it might have reasonably been called that.)
But sending out a mass mailing to people who aren't even vaguely interested in your product doesn't sound to me like a company interested in conserving it's financial resources.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Hesse Ruderman has a bookmaklet to transpose tables (which would rotate table pi/2 radians, making it tall & narrow & readable), works in mozilla, opera, ie.
g edata.ht ml
look there:
http://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/pa
Meeting:
Tech guy 1: Lets implement Linux, its free and robust.
Tech guy 2: Lets go with Windows, it costs more but there is that lawsuit which if SCO wins we might have to pay some undefined charges.
Boss: What lawsuit?
Tech guy 1: <goes on about how its fruitless and how SCO is the devil and blah blah blah repeating every Insightful post he's read on slashdot>
Boss: So Linux might or might not be infringing on someones code and we might be opening the company to legal action?
Tech guy 1: Yes but its just games that SCO...
Boss: Which version of Windows should we get?
So the longer this lawsuit goes on, the more decisions like this will have to be made.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
We already do: Bill Gates as the Borg.
Is it possible to slashdot The Matrix?? I thought so...
*twitch*
Hmm... Decision Matrix... Matrix. I can already see the relevance in regards to the code that has supposedly been copied by Linux...
:-)
"Unfortunaly, no one can be told what the source code is. You have to see it for yourself. After signing our huge NDA, of course!
Linux user? Just follow the agen... er gentleman in the dark suit"
Somehow I think that SCO took the wrong pill, they're still a bit out-of-touch with reality
It's interesting that SCO is still distributing the linux source code right now.
This matrix is obviously a bit biased, but I do believe that linux will be able to legally continue to exist, no matter what. Even if we find out that someone broke into SCO's vaults and stole trade secret source code and pasted it verbatin into linux, it really should be easy to rewrite that code so that it's not infringing. We could start today if SCO told us what parts were infringing, but of course they don't want that...
Judge Gates - SCO wins the Lawsuit, the Linux Users are sentanced to 40 years Using Windows ME, with Microsoft Bob preinstalled.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
In the MySQL infringement case that the GPL was the contractual basis for the suit and the standard for behavior of both parties was not even a question. The license was part of the case and the judge was ready to enforce it.
Anyone who doubts that the GPL is enforcable has a fool for a lawyer. Now it may not be completely enforcable in the way that GNU zealots claim, but as an IP license, it is on very strong footing in a court of law.
The lack of legal challanges to the validity of the GPL should be viewed as a tacit admission of its validity.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
I think there is a typo in this matrix. The bottom line should read:
Final Score: FATALITY!
My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M
"SCO claims that they were duped into releasing the source code initially, that they didn't realise that the Linux kernel had their source code. There has also been much discussion about legal precedent on this, relating to the selling of pregnant cows."
For some reason, pregnant cow selling laws sound very funny to me. I googled a bit but couldn't come up with anything. Can somebody clarify what what "legal precedent" relating to pregnant cows they're refering to?
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/innovation.sh tml#bob Let's see if it come out right now.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Farmer A has a cow for sale. Farmer B wants to buy the cow. They agree on a price. Farmer B forks over the cash and takes his new cow home. Sometime later, the cow gives birth.
Farmer A is pissed because if he had known the cow was pregnant, he would have doubled the price. Farmer B is a happy camper cuz he got a freebie.
--Insert catchy
select operating_systems.name, derived_table_1.SCO_Property,d ers, derived_table_1.whine,
derived_table_1.or
str_replace(legal.action, "settle", "litigate")
from operating_systems,
(select
str_replace(source_code, "Linus Torvalds", "SCO Unix")
as "SCO_Property",
case money.company
when "Microsoft"
then "Do as master orders"
when "Gates Foundation"
then "Do as master orders"
when "IBM"
then "Revoke Unix license"
when "Sun"
then "Pretend Sun is master but do what real master orders"
else
"Blame Linux stole Unix source code"
end as "Orders",
case
when patindex("%IBM%", developer) > 0
then "IBM Stole it from us"
when patindex("%Torvalds%", developer) > 0
then "IBM Stole it from us"
when char_length(developer) > 0
then "IBM Stole it from us"
else
"IBM Stole it from us"
end as "whine"
from money, linux_source
where money.time_period > "Jan 1, 1900 00:00:01" or money.company = "IBM") derived_table_1, legal, revenue where patindex("%SCO%", operating_systems.name) = 0 OR patindex("%Microsoft%", operating_systems.name) = 0 AND revenue.incoming revenue.revenue_microsoft
No one has seen what you have seen, and until that happens, we're all going to think that you're nuts. - Jack O'Neil
..is when (partially relating to your statement) SCO realized that GPL restrictions held them to indemnify Linux users/vendors, and the internal comment from Chris Sontag had something to do with not pursuing lawsuits against Linux vendor because they "do not want to destroy Linux".
--- What
There is very exacting language in the GPL that states if any section/code is tainted then the whole license is invalid.
So, either the license is valid and thus all is GPL'd or SCO was illegally selling unlicensed work. (Either way they're in trouble.) You see, if they prevail on their case then they lost all rights to the rest of the code being distributed. Additionally, they continued to distribute the code (both clean and "tainted") in source code form with the GPL stamped on each file for two months beyond the time they made a formal legal challenge.
Your example fails unless you add in the following: in order to sell Dr. Pepper, Pepsi agrees that all contained ingredients are fully licensed and immune to any claims that they (Pepsi) might have against Dr. Pepper. You see this is the real crux of the matter.
By releasing the code, SCO obstensibly agreed to the terms of the GPL. It's kind of late to try and say "I didn't mean it" now.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
IBM is going make sure to drag this out and make it as expensive for SCO as possible. By the time any decisions will have been rendered by a judge, it will likely be irrelevant.
Here, here.
In all likelyhood, IBM will drag it out until SCO is dead. It's the only sensible response.
If SCO wanted to save face, and perhaps live on, they'd do better to turn 180 degrees and contribute to Linux. They could actually make a market for an SCO Linux distro and port their proprietary applications to run on their Linux distro and keep licensing the apps the way they always have.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
Like most /. readers I've read a whole lot about this SCO thing. And like most /. readers I don't think that SCO has much chance of success and there probably won't be any long term impact to Linux.
/. readers, I'm pretty tired of reading about it.
But, like most
So I ask you, when is this going to be resolved?
Let's assume that SCO doesn't drop their claims and IBM doesn't buy them out. I don't know much about the US legal system when it comes to these kinds of cases, so I don't know how these types of cases usually last or what the procedures are.
Is this going to be resolved in, say, August? Or is this going to be like the MS trial and we'll still be reading about it two years from now?!
Nevermind the IBM copyrights, they are the result of laboratory contamination.
For SCO to prevail it will have to establish that it owned the code, and that it was included in Linux distributions with malice and/or a callous disregard for the property rights of the code's true owners, but that SCO's "accidental" release of the same code under the GPL was not deliberate and shouldn't be held against it.
It seems to me that SCO was in a far better position to recognize that the code being distributed as part of Caldera was in fact part of SCO's property than it was for other Linux distributors who did not have access to that confidential code.
To: All SCO Employees
Re: Pills
All employees are reminded to take the BLUE pill every morning, not the RED pill. The BLUE pill is for good; the RED pill is evil. Employees will be given a BLUE pill every morning when they report in for work. All RED pills are to be turned into security for proper disposal. Any employee who reports an unauthorized RED pill to security will be given an extra SCO stock share as a bonus.
Signed,
Darl C. McBride
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
Honestly, you think this is mathematically sound? It's got linux bias.
Please note that only code introduced by *IBM* into *UNIX first* is effected by SCO's claims.
None of the code seems to be included in the kernel. Many distributions do not, and never *have,* included IBM's code.
Thus Linux itself and distros that do not include such code will remain entirely unaffected even if 100% of SCO's claims are found by a judge to be true.
At some point in the process SCO will have to take the possibly awkward step of *identifying* the specific bits of code they claim infringe.
Why do you think they have refused to so so far?
Because Linux could cleanse itself overnight and cease to infringe. i.e, Linux would be unaffected, and they know it.
They're actually trying to *force* infringment by denying Linux distros the *right* to not infringe.
This alone should indicate what slimey bastards they really are and lay doubt well at their doorstep.
KFG
As other posters have said, it is quite possible that a judge will in fact decide that Linux does infringe on SCO patents or copyrights or trade secrets or what-have-you. The mere fact that something doesn't make sense in no way means that the U.S. court system wouldn't decide that in that manner.
Look at Bush telling little lies about WMD. Nobody seems to care that he lied to get his way.
Linux is important to SCO's business nonsense - SCO does not have a business.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
>> if SCO sues IBM and loses, I don't believe they have the right to sue someone else on the same terms.
And you'd be wrong. This isn't a criminal trial. There is no such thing as "double-jeopardy" in civil trials.
You've never had to admin WebSphere, I take it?
Sure, v.5 might be sleek and sexy, but just as with Carrie-Anne Moss, I won't know for sure until I get my hands on it - though it certainly looks it in the promo.
However, a few years ago they both looked sleek and sexy, and believe you me, WebSphere was none of those things. The WS of yore was less like Carrie-Anne Moss, and more like Roseanne Barr - bloated, offensive, unstable and just plain tedious after the novelty wore off in the first 10 minutes of interaction.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
You're right, but that's not quite where I'm going with it. I'm just saying that the GPL isn't a savior in this case, I don't believe, despite that people want it to be.
What this means practically speaking is that if SCO violated the GPL, and the GPL is declared invalid, then SCO has instead violated standard copyright law. The statutory damages are $150,000 per incident. Everytime someone downloads the Linux kernel source from their website, ka-ching. Every sale that they've made, ka-ching. Pissing off Richard Stallman suddenly sounds like the better way off, eh?
Well, they're betting the company anyway, so if they lose then Stallman can get his $150,000 after all the other creditors have picked over the carcass. In other words, heads they win, tails don't matter anyway.
The bottom line is that SCO continues to distribute the Linux source code. As such, they're either agreeing to distribute it under the terms of the GNU GPL (which don't allow extra burdens to be placed on the code) or they are directly violating copyrights. They are far better off if they get off with a simple GPL violation
Potentially, although I still don't think that this situation gets all linux users/distros out of the woods. In other words, SCO might be on the hook to Linus (who owns copyright on the kernel), but Red Hat et al might be on the hook for distributing SCO's code - and they don't have any copyrights to fight back with (well, none that matter here). And I don't know how that will shake out - I don't know for sure that they cancel. Basically we have a Mexican standoff, but Red Hat doesn't have a gun. The question might be how far Linus would go to protect them.
Bottom line is you are completely correct, but I'm not sure that it matters, because standard copyright doesn't ultimately protect Linux users and redistributors - only the GPL would do that by effectively open-sourcing SCO's stuff.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
They've already passed the point of no return. They've alientated and threatened their potential and actual customers to the point where huge civil litigation (or a buyout) is the only thing that can give them the capital they need to survive for more than a few months. For that matter, even the full $3 billion they're asking won't save them for very long if their income slows to a trickle. It would seem logical that SCO is looking for a buyout, but if they are, they're going about it very poorly.
[ed. note: no it isn't]
In August 2000, just days after Caldera purchased the Old SCO server division, the then CEO of Caldera, Ransom Love, made a keynote speech at LinuxWorld 2000. A RealPlayer video stream of the event can be found at DrDobbs Journal's Technetcast
In the question and answer session at the end of the keynote, Love was asked about the possible conflict over Monterey and Linux AI-64
A mp3 capture of the following transcribed portion
SCO has NO effective case against either IBM, HP or anyone else.
SCO claims to own ALL derived works of System V Unix: Unlikely
(boldface emphasis added)
We don't even know for certain whether or not they're claiming this? Come on, SCO, get your act together!
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
Side note: Suppose that dark day comes and certain kernel versions are deemed illegal to use. imagine the bandwidth spectacle that would follow as Linux users worldwide upgrade to "vmlinuz-2.6.x-clean".
Look at the evidence that caused the US to go to war. By comparison, slashdot's angst filled 15 year olds are pretty rational and level headed.
just try setting your system clock to March 6th 20032,
Invalid time specification, which is about when the Sco case might finally come to court!
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Is there any validity in Linux users and advocates creating a class action suit against SCO to either retract their charges or at least publicly retract those portions that claim damages from Linux? IBM can defend themselves, but the Linux community must stand for itself. It's easy to show in speculative terms how this lawsuit and the FUD surrounding it have hurt Linux adoption. It seems that Linux (and those that defend it) should be allowed to sue for damages.
---------- Hot Rats!
you don't really enjoy making money, do you?
From what I understand, it seems very unlikely for SCO to hurt Linux. Even if "stolen" portions of code could be found, they could be removed and rewritten in days - okay, I am not a lawyer. This said, isn't all this mess just pushing IBM to abandon AIX and completely convert to Linux ?
PHB tells you "Flip burgers." No hesitation.
Will I retire or break 10K?
What with all the FUD out there surrounding this case, a little pro-Linux stuff on the web - what the heck? One should take with a grain of salt pretty much anything written about this case, whether pro-SCO or not. Right now it's media jousting, nothing is settled in the courts, but it probably is a good idea for the Linux side to downplay this in the media in various ways, being careful not to give any ideas away to SCO.
Forbes is rather M$ biased - you know -"Capitalist Tool" - don't give it too much credence. Used to be a good mag. They had a big article awhile back about how M$ was working so hard in China, all about security, sharing the source etc. Somehow they had avoided the whole reason *why* they had to work so hard, which was namely Linux. So either they knew it but didn't mention it, or totally missed the real reason. That's part of the danger for M$ right now, in that if they are so anti-Linux, they end up making managers take notice of Linux, such that they say "what's all this stuff about Linux Ballmer keeps yelling about? We need to get one of those!"
That's all well and good except that the GPL, being a bit of a non-standard contract, has never been tested in court. What doesn't kill us makes us stronger.
Interesting analysis, but almost everything positive for Linux is predicated on the fact that the GPL is bulletproof and will hold up as valid in court. As I understand it, the GPL has never really been tested in a case like this. There's no guarantee that it provides the protection that folks seem to be hoping for. Look at the way the DMCA is being tested in courts now... to the point that it's validity is being called into question. I wonder if the basic premise of the GPL will hold up under that kind of scrutiny. Especially when direct financial support for the legal expenses are lacking.
Question: SCO has declared itself a victim of breach of contract by IBM, specifically WRT AIX. Why, then, is it attacking Linux so specifically and directly?
Answer: the goal of this exercise is to attack Linux, nothing else.
Question: why is IBM saying nothing?
Answer: they believe SCO might win, and are willing to sacrifice Linux if necessary.
Question: why is Microsoft saying nothing?
Answer: everyone knows they hate Linux, so no-one believes their propaganda any longer. They need a fresh mouthpiece. SCO is that mouthpiece.
Question: why is Microsoft so intent on harming Linux?
Answer: the goals of Linux and all OSS are nothing less than the total anhilation of Microsoft. War is not a nice thing. This is not a metaphor: we are talking about the lives of people you know.
Question: if it is war, how do we win?
Answer: this is a good question, and timely. You win wars by avoiding the battles you cannot win and by winning those you can.
Question: what is the ultimate goal of Microsoft?
Answer: the closure of the "development gap", in which the right to create code still lies in the hands of the individual. Ultimately, this power must be restricted to licensed programmers only. Nothing less than that makes sense. If your think this is exageration, look at other professions, then think about the public's perception of hackers, Linux kernel hackers, and virus writers.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
I am not a lawyer, but --insert long lawyerly opinion here justifying your deepest wishes for Linux--.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
I thought the basis of SCOs claim was that IBM
had revealed trade secrets. In that case, SCO
has a strong obligation to take care that the secrets are not revealed, as would IBM. But once the secrets become public knowledge, they are freely available to anyone - SCOs only recourse is against IBM for damages. The fact that SCO published the secrets themselves would be a difficult problem for them to overcome if they sought to prevent a third party from using the material. Perhaps they could appeal to copyright law to protect the former secrets, but they would have to reveal just what they thought had been copied, even under DMCA.
Sounds more like a company that is grasping at straws on the side of the river bank as they are drowning. The 'license fee' that MS recently paid them amounts to throwing them a string that will only be helpful if someone else decides to tie a rope onto the string. My guess is that their only hope is for a judge to make IBM tie on that rope.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
"obviously Linux owes its heritage to UNIX, but not its code. We would not, nor will not, make such a claim."
3
-- Darl McBride, CEO, The SCO Group. August 2002
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=629
Check out the 8th paragraph.
----
BTW: scox stock price has surged over the few sessions, and insiders are selling like mad. I think insiders just filed to sell 300K shares after the market closed.
You should have told your boss that there is another alternative that has all the benefits of using linux with none of this legal nonsense called BSD.
Note that I am not saying BSD is better than linux, or that it is "not dead" or is "dead" or whatever. I'm just that perhaps pitching BSD might go over a little better with those who make decisions right now.
100% Crunchier
SCO can bite me :)
http://sign-SCO-upfor-gayporn.biz
By the sounds of it the people backing SCO now are purely intersted in leveraging SCO's intellectual property rights, not actually making a product. My guess is that once this case is over, whichever way it goes, SCO will disappear.
Go out and get sailing!
It is the most relevant and insightful material I have seen to date and I highly recommend reading it.
Beware blue cats moving at
Tech2 INAL so why should a PHB take his advice about SCO's lawsuit? Rather than make the case yourself, point out that lawyers for IBM, Sony, Hitachi, Phillips, Oracle, HP, Dell and many other large humorless firms remain unimpressed with SCO's case.
Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
If SCO wanted to save face, and perhaps live on, they'd do better to turn 180 degrees and contribute to Linux. They could actually make a market for an SCO Linux distro . . .
SCO is dead (not just dying like BSD :) to the Linux community. After the SCO's employees little anti-Linux demonstration, I have no remorse about watching that company swirl down the toilet like a departed gerbil (rest in peace). I don't believe there is anything they could do that would allow them to make a viable Linux distribution again. Their only hope for survival is to convince some addlepated judge that they have sole license to all operating systems that somewhat resemble UNIX(R)(C)(TM)(Pat. Pend.).
People need to realize that they really could have a case here.. its pointless to embark on this stunt if they didn't feel they had a chance.. just beacuse we have not seen the evidence doesnt mean its real.
If they win, we are all screwed. Even if they dont, the damage being done to public opinion about the OSS movement will take years to repair.
Remember too, its not what *WE* believe, or what we feel is right or wrong, its what a judge decides.. and he wont give a damn about public opinion ( if has a decent judge ), but instead what the facts and arguments from both sides add up too..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Learn spellin' people!
No license can be: the only way any SCO-owned code is going under the GPL is if SCO employees with the authority to do so specifically release it under that license. It'll be up to a court to decide whether leaving it on their webserver for months with the license attached "counts".
Now, granted, placing their code under the GPL may be the only way of keeping themselves in compiliance with the GPL for the code they sold and redistributed, and therefore the only way of protecting themselves from being sued for hundreds of thousands of counts of copyright infringement by each of hundreds of kernel developers, but for all we know they'll prefer the lawsuits.
Actually, there has been - an analyst leaked that the Read Copy Update code in the Linux kernel source is identical to that of Unix and there's a fairly good chance this is actually the case. GIYF.
i just conquered your sister's fat ass, and BOY OH BOY do I feel great too! gee thanks gizzmo!
Otherwise, Big Blue will steal his Pretty Girl, his Stockin's amd Shoes, and Darl will turn into a Skinny Jim and suffer a Nervous Breakdown.
C'mon, Everybody!
Damn - wrong Cochran(e).
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
The data they (Boies et al) used was from elections where the all the candidates they selected were in the same column - dumb fuck didn't even bother to look at the ballots used to try to "prove" voting error.
Boies's attempt to lawyer Gore into the Presidency was a piss-poor piece of lawyering that destroyed any chance Gore ever had.
Way to go SCO - get a guy who's most famous for his failures.
-1 off topic... if you hadnt been an AC this would have been a +5 hillarious
The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
Potentially, although I still don't think that this situation gets all linux users/distros out of the woods. In other words, SCO might be on the hook to Linus (who owns copyright on the kernel), but Red Hat et al might be on the hook for distributing SCO's code - and they don't have any copyrights to fight back with (well, none that matter here).
Bzzzzzzzzzt! Nice try! Thank you for calling!
RedHat has made considerable contributions to the kernel over the years. They employ Alan Cox and a number of other kernel hackers to directly contribute to the Linux kernel. That means Red Hat does have "copyrights that matter". Can SCO potentially bash RedHat for their IP? Yes, but RedHat can kick them right back for violating their IP. Oh! And some of that has a patent on it. And after they get through playing rowshambay with RedHat, they can play it with the other Linux companies.
All of this assumes that they have the stomach to get multiple ball kicks after IBM's legal team sodomizes them in court.
... will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
He's overreacting.
I just saw "Linux is unaffected" many times in a row. Must be a glitch in the matrix.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
It is strange if M$ did not buy out SCO if the claim is true.
Ah, not surprising. A document with no legal grounds that states Linux will be unaffected and Slashdot eats it up.
Guess what, because Linus says something doesn't make it true and because you don't like SCO it doesn't make them wrong, legally. Grow up, then learn to face them on "grown up" grounds, with actual legal precedent.
for putting any piece of factually-void garbage that bashes SCO on the front page and call it news. Great to see how objective you are. Even the NYTimes would laugh you out of their building if you put /. on your resume, and they have writers that make up stories.
McBride makes atrip to Japan.
News media states SCO plans to make an announcment after the trip.
The anouncement will be that everyone owes them money and they will sue you if you don't pay up.
That sounds pretty stupid.
I also noted that it was mentioned that some of the people they intended to visit were currently SCO customers. They will be told to do it their way or face a lawsuit.
A non-agression pact with SCO is a bad idea.
here is the funny thing, IBM is playing it close to the vest, there just letting SCO talk. Here is an Idea, they could be using the lawsit to force their customers over to linux. In reality the legal conundrum that SCO is in right now only works against IBM and they have admitted that under the GPL they cannot sue linux companies. Also they do not own any of the IP that they are claiming was infringed.(Follow the patents.) If IBM is forced to abandon AIX then they could tell all there customers to go to Linux.
Or even better this is the exchange in court.
SCO: Here is the code we claim is infringing.
(hands a stack of paper to the Judge)
Judge: IBM what say you?
IBM: Does any of the code contian a for loop?
SCO: Yes.
Judge: I fail to see the relevence?
IBM: We own a patent for that particullar coding mechanism.
(IBM hands Judge incredebly old patent that is still valid.)
Judge: So you do, Case dismissed.
-Just food for thought. I think that any damage done to linux will most likely be superficial as the OSDL will be unaffected and IBM will still have a vested intrest in linux.
Did Glenn Beck rape and kill a girl in 1990? gb1990.com
People, as someone who has worked in the court system, I can tell you, if Boies shops around for the right judge, he can get that judge (contrary to all reason) to declare that all of Linux is infringing, or some similar nonsense. Even if the judge KNOWS he's gonna be reversed, there are judges out there that are used to routinely getting reversed, and it would be enough to deal such a body blow to IBM(specifically) and Linux (generally) that may not be easily recovered from. While an appeal from a boneheaded decision drags on, companies and developers abandon Linux and Open Source in droves, and who's to guarantee that even IBM wouldn't throw in the towel and decide it's just not worth it. Sure, it could buy out SCO, but by then the damage will be done.... We need to keep in mind that in the court system worse things have happened...
Its obvious how unbiased everyone here is. I guess we are lucky that patent law is so easy that we can pick it up in our spare time. I think the time has come to replace our courts with slashdot. Just post each court case let everyone post comments, and which ever post gets modded the highest wins. If its funny,rather than interesting then its a tie.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Here is the response I received.
"One does not need to be an IP lawyer to understand the issues involved."
PLEASE save us from these EXPERTS ... ROFLMAO!!!
Where an old business parter (SCO) of Scrooge McDuck (Linux) claims all of Scrooge's riches are his because he invested originally in their business a single silver pocketwatch and never was repaid. The partner was presumed dead when his ship wrecked, and Scrooge became rich in time. Its later resolved by exposing the partner as some sort of crook, which fits SCO exactly (=
"People need to realize that they [SCO] really could have a case here...", that's the assumption their case is based on, but that's a subjective notion on their part, whatever that means for them, in court they will have to show what that really is and so far the prospect for that is far from certain, or even less than on sound grounds, shaky, some would say. Therefore, I'm not going to lose my sleep over their PR in news media, because those claims are just that: not worth the paper it is printed on.
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
I think that the linux community should use more "Aggressive Negotiations" with SCO. Some progress has been made with the german libel lawsuit. Since most of the technology they claim is stolen is owned by others, from JFS to SysV (http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/05/ pr03033.html) it seems that some of their more personal accusations could be libelous. Since the IBM lawsuit does not involve copyright violations, forcing a lawsuit on this issue could force them to put or shut up much earlier.
Also since the LVM code chosen was not IBM's, it is rather surprising that it is "copied" from SCO. Proving that it was SCO that pirated the code could be useful from a PR point of view. We should not merely sighing when SCO claims that Linux is like napster. We should note that the only reason that SCO got away with it for so long was because like napster that closed their source.
The best case senario is not SCO going away after giving Linux a beating in the press, it is people associating piracy with the Bolshevik like secrecy of closed source software.
"Windows XP? Isn't that like that SCO, and Napster? Sorry, Windows Paper Clip Server 2000 seems just right for the job but we just can't take the risk that they are hiding IP violations under their NDAs."
"Linux needed millions of developers world wide to reach enterprise level. Windows 2050 could not have reached enterprise without the code that IBM stole from linux. Yer honour, IBM has clearly terminiated the GPL, and has lost the right to distribute GPL-AIX. Thus windows licenses are now invalid, and all customers must switch to linux. The customers knew they were using closed source that had not be subject to peer review for IP violations, so they not innocent parties."
Mwahahaha! Attack is the best defense! Mwahahaha!
/s/Unix/Aix
RCU is IBM's code.
Yer right.
The same way you would compile MS's kernel if you could manage to find a working version of Windows, of course.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
SCO claims not to have known that their code was in linux while they were distributing it... (Lets ignore that they continued to distribute it after they knew) Whatever happened to "Ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the the law" ? If they win does it mean that I can kill someone, then claim in a court of law that I did not know that it was illegal and therefore get away with it ?? I think not !! Furthermore what about "Caveat Emptor" (let the buyer beware) in this instance SCO "bought into" linux (as a marketable product) and therefore it was their resposibility to perform "due dilligence" to protect themselves. It seems that they (either knowingly or otherwise) ignored one of the basic business rules - "cover your own ass first". There has been enough "fud" circulated about the "viral" nature of the GPL that they cannot have been completely unaware of the ramifications of releasing their own linux distrobution. Just my tuppence worth.
Incidentally, was anyone else here geeky enough that when they first started seeing those Armani Exchange ("A|X") tee shirts they started wondering why all these attractive people were into AIX?
Behold the riant ape! Beware, his crooked thumbs!
"preaching to the quire" and "preaching to the choir" are both correct. please, do /. a favor and ROFL somewhere else.
Note to all wanna-be spelling nazis:
spelling proficiency is a rechoirment.
OR
acchoir a dictionary AND learn how to use it.
Why host the page on your own site when google already HAS THE CACHE
Because, if the page changes, the google cache will also eventually change.
Don't you think we want to see the version this article is talking about, rather than a later spin-controlled version?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way