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.
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://216.239.37.104/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
Why host the page on your own site when google already HAS THE CACHE
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.
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.
Yeah, I know I will get modded down for just suggesting that SCO's action might have some effect, but well...
...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.
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
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.
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?> 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.
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 ?
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
Maybe it's not difficult: Linus' wife, Tove, *is* a martial arts expert (Finland's karate champion, IIRC).
Faith can move mountains. I prefer dynamite.
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.
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
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!!!!
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.
I guess Linus could be Morpheus. Or maybe the kid with the spoon. Calmly sitting on the floor and saying, "there is no copyright violation".
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.
Actually, it's more like this:
IBM, Red Hat, and SuSE are bikers hanging out at a seedy bar in Southern California, by the shore. Their harleys are parked out front, all choppers, gleaming and evil looking. Currently, IBM and Red Hat are playing a traditional game: each holds a lit cigar to his forearm while SuSE counts the seconds, with two twenty dollar bills at stake. A few feet away, the BSD brothers are playing cards at an outside table, a quart of Mexican tequila and a bunch of shotglasses next to the deck. Periodically, they throw back a shot. Their rusty Jeep Renegade sits nearby. Suddenly, there's a little lawnmower sound. A go-kart with a broken muffler pulls up, bumping into the Harleys and knocking them down. IBM, Red Hat, and Suse ferociously stride over and bellow.
"HEY, MAN! THOSE ARE OUR BIKES!"
A fat little kid wearing a shirt with wide horizontal stripes and a pair of bermuda shorts held up by orange suspenders jumps out of the go-kart and saunters over to the bikes. He's got freckles, bright red hair, and triple-thick glasses. He's obviously not "all there".
Fat kid: "Hi. I'm SCO. Motorbikes suck; I drive a go-kart." (kicks the nearest bike, breaking the headlight). If it wasn't for my Go-Kart technology, you wouldn't even HAVE these bikes. You should buy me some beers in appreciation."
IBM: (seething). "That was my bike. Kid, you really shouldn't have done that." Red Hat: (shakes head). SuSE: (muttering) "Gott in Himmel" (laughs)
IBM walks over, grabs the kid by the suspenders, and lifts him clear off the ground, bouncing him up and down while looking him over. Then, he tosses the kid way up in the air, catching him on the way down by his underwear waistband and yanking upwards with both hands. With a great stretching sound, the drawers pull all the way over the kid's head. IBM lets go, and they snap into place.
Everyone: MUHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Red Hat: "Hey, IBM, do that shit again!" SuSE: "Funny!" The BSD brothers: "huh huh huh huh -- HE said SHIT!"
SCO (through his underwear): "You buncha creeps! My grandfather used to own this land. I'll tear down this bar and make you take your alky bullshit somewhere else! And, what's up with that biker gay-chic thing?"
IBM: "Oh, my lawd, he went there." Red Hat: "Oh, you didn't..." SuSE: "Uh oh..." BSD Brother number 1: "Oh, boy, here we go."
IBM leans over, grabs the kid by the ankles, and heads to the outhouse. He kicks the door open, goes in, and the door slams.
(from inside)
SCO: Noooooooooo!
(SPLASH, SPLASH, SPLASH).
IBM comes walking back out, without SCO. He takes a long pull from the tequila bottle.
IBM: "Damn." BSD Brothers, in unison: "What, what happened, man?" IBM: "Damn..." Red Hat: "Hey, where'd the brat go?" SuSE: "Yeah, you gave him the swirly, right?" IBM: "Yep." Red Hat: "So... ?" IBM: "He's a slippery little bastard when he gets wet. Popped right out of my hands and went down into the latrine!"
Everyone: "NO WAY!"
IBM: "Yeah... Poor little bastard. Ah, well. What can you do? Maybe he'll swim back up outta it."
(about a minute later)
SCO flops out of the toilet seat, landing on the ground in front of the toilet, covered in green goo.
SCO: "URH! URG! CTHULU FLAGNTH!" Red Hat: "Hey, boys, somethin' ain't right about that kid, man. It looks like he's growin' fins."
Everyone looks. SCO has turned into a weirdo fish-man.
SCO: "CTHULU FLAGNTH!" IBM: "Well, whaddaya know?"
SCO runs across the parking lot, and leaps off the cliff into the sea.
SCO: "CTHULU FLAAAAAAAAAAAGNTH!" (SPLASH)
IBM, looking over the edge. "Well, I guess that's about that." Red Hat: "You don't see THAT every day." SuSE: "Pass me that there tequila bottle, ok?"
(fade to black)
You all thought I was going to get into the Microsoft/Cthulu thing, didn'tcha? Ha! Fooled ya!
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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".
PHB tells you "Flip burgers." No hesitation.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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
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
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 ----