Slashdot Mirror
OSCON Panel: SCO Lawsuit About the Money
viewstyle writes "Just when you had heard enough, the ongoing controversy about SCO vs. Linux has popped up over at the O'Reilly Open Source Convention (OSCON). According to Eweek's story, the panelists agreed that SCO is targeting companies like IBM in an attempt to raise cash. Most importantly: "if a company is not after money, suing is not the way to go.""
It's all about money? I thought it was about the cool evening wear of the mascot.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
If I were a CIO or CTO debating the TCO of *nix vs. Win2K3 to a CEO, would IBM vs. SCO be the TKO that stops the CEO from approving A/P to pay my PO for RH's LGX?
FWIW, even if OSS is FAIB, if the DOJ considers *nix IP with a TM, then it basically become's SCO's LIC, meaning our OSS becomes a CSS OS, which would RSTBO.
AIBO going w/ an ASP that manages our OS? BTA, we might end up w/ a BOFH giving us ZA, which WWAD PMS.
AFAIK, INMP if SCO wants to be ITM by enforcing its supposed IPR - *nix IP should be PD or GNU, like BSD just on GP, IYKWIM. I keep asking myself in this situation - WWLD?
Oh, BTW - IITYWIMWYBMAD?
wasn't that pretty obvious from day 1???
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
In other news, it was discovered that the Earth is round and fire is hot. Film at 11.
There are only two reasons you sue-- for injunctive relief of some kind, or to receive damages.
And there is one reason for profit corporations exist-- to make money. This is a surprise why?
Spike Lee suing Viacom over the Spike TV name, and, gosh, he happened to settle when he got a TV deal from Viacom owned network Showtime.
If SCO wasn't in it for the money then they'd be gripin to Linus to have their name added to the Linux (R) contributors list, or a request to have the elusive code removed from the linux kernel.
Still don't understand why a whole panel was required.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
I'd have to put this under the heading .... Obvious.
Funny how they should side against the SCO seeing what their name is spelt backwards.
I know the secrets of the video game champs
You mean Chris Sontag isn't serious about wanting Linux to grow and prosper? That greedy son of a bitch!
Trolling is a art,
When an animal dies its sphincter loosens up and a smelly mess is created. Ditto SCO.
*News Anchor* ....
In todays news, a Law Suit was actually about money. Tune in at 11 for more info on the controvesy. But first, for a word from our sponsors.
*TV Personality Voice*
the news is brought to you today by the words "No Shit"
or how bout, "Thank you Captain Obvious!"
YOU SUCK BALLS!
I would never have imagined that suing IBM was to squeeze money out of them.. And that bigger companies have more money to collect then small fish..
Thanks for the information..
geesh what a waste of an article.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
And to think I thought SCO was suing IBM for strictly altruistic reasons. Or for entertainment purposes (it certainly is amusing). To think that they're just in it for the money leaves me feeling hollow inside and disillusioned.
who thinks the point of the lawsuit is to bleed money
out of Caldera/SCO. Create a pointless lawsuit, and have the company
pay a ton of money in legal bills to a lawfirm that the
CEO is a part of. A nice way to bleed a company dry.
When all done, McBride will move onto the next company
with too much money and suck that one dry also.
Corporate lawsuits often are--although in this case I would say there's a large, genuine streak of pseudo-evil vindictiveness behind the suit as well, just judging from all the public comments SCO has made thus far. They certainly have a bee in their bonnet about something, and god's death, they may even sincerely believe they're right (even if their claims are based on the wind).
The coolest voice ever.
Oh dear! I just thought it was righteous outrage at teft of SCO's GPL'ed IP.
When are people going to realize that first, parties with a vested interest in the matter, such as OSCON, will hold this or a biased opinion. Secondly, the only opinion that matters is that of a judge or a jury. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks. Finally, a judge or jury is unlikely to render an opinion on the matter for another two to three years so, the constant rehashing of some OSS member's take is completely pointless.
Give it a rest. People need to focus on the positive aspects of Open Source and stop dwelling on this lawsuit. Regardless of the outcome, having this "news" constantly at the forefront is only going to damage Linux and Open Source due to the FUD factor.
if a company is not after money, suing is not the way to go
/or illegal drugs? It would clear out the courts of senceless lawsuits like this one. Who the heck is going to sue for crack? Yep, let em fight it out on the streets I say. Or maybe their street girls could fight it out for them. Hey, it worked in dope wars.
Why exactly would a company want money anyways? Couldn't they pursue a few less evil goods, such as prostitues and
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
DUH!
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
but it's used to pay for Stephen Hawking's cover charge
Tell me something I dont know . You sue people for money . SCO is suing to get money ! ...
On a less than sco wants money note , the article mentions that all open source users need to know where the source code came from . THank you very much but I dont feel like trying to read the linux kernel today and check and see if it violates any patents , I would rather take linuses approach , its not an issue unless I get sued ; even then
And there is one reason for profit corporations exist-- to make money. This is a surprise why?
The real quote would be: And there is one reason for Courts to exist-- to help corporations make money. This is a surprise why?
...but that's a moronic quote. ALL companies are after money. That's why people start a business, they want to make money from it. They don't start one because they want to go out of business and be broke.
How is suing not a good way of making money? If they're successful (I doubt they will be, but that's beside the point), they'll make all sorts of money. There's a whole bunch of people, companies and presidents out there that have found great financial success through lawsuits.
That just sounds vaguely nasty.
Remember kids, don't share unprotected source with Microsoft, or you risk litigiously tramsmitted diseases.
According to the article's suggestion, they claim suing is: not the way to go?
Hello, the reason people comply with laws is because of some sort of Commercial Liability, or in my case, Heavenly Liability.
May I suggest, from my church (that's my spirit);
"Render to caezer what is caezar's. Render to God what is God's."
Does IBM have any of caezar's (SCO) code? If so, give it back to them, preferably printed on toilette paper. Otherwise, IBM is at liability to be in possesion of patented material, of which both SCO and IBM are corporations that agreed to honor copyright laws upon their corporate (roman) founding.
I, myself, do not honor copyright laws because it is my belief that everything is God's property. Although, God's property has shepards in possesion of it. It so happense, people don't mimick eachother; they have liberty to create as they please. A copy is not the same as a duplicate, their essence is different.
And all along I had thought it was more complicated than that.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Could SCO lawsuit possibly be about the money? I mean the money is all it is about? By which I am asking if they really want to get the money and nothing more? I am shocked! I would have never thought about it! How have they figured it out? Was there some internal memo leakage? Industrial espionage? Sabotage?
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
I got a diagonal Buzzword-Bingo on CTO, TCO, BSD and ASP. What did I win?
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
Name me one company that's not about the money.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
n/t
In the light of the SCO lawsuit Apples engagement for FreeBSD as a basis for their new system come into a totally different view point.
We all know that Jobs is a Unix expert mainly due to this economic adventures with Next.
So why did he decide to choose FreeBSD ?
The GPL is not the real problem. Apple has released the Darwin source anyway and it's interface framework is not touched by the GPL. And FreeBSD is today neither more stable nor faster than Linux. In fact with a bigger userbase Apple might have caught much more customers for their new systems when choosing Linux.
So, it seems that there must be a very different point which spoke against Linux.
Indeed FreeBSD is freed and therefore immune to such lawsuits due to the power of the AT&T vs. Berkeley ruling. This doesn't hold for Linux.
The main question is:How the fuck did Jobs know this ages before the SCO suit ?
The only explanation would be that Apple knowing both codebases saw similarities they didn't like and therefore ditched Linux. Note that it is not surprising that didn't make any fuzz about it: they might oblidged by NDA etc. to keep silent and they couldn't provide the code to back such stuff up anyways.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
News at 5 next.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
No Shit, Sherlock!
SCO have created the patent parasite company. It won't be long before SCO employs more lawyers than programmers.
Well of course its obvious but you have to wondered how long it took them to think it up? Surely that must of taken some time. I can just imagine the meeting now
Boss: Right we are out of money. What can we do?
Staff: Improve our product, market it and try to attract new business?
Staff: Lay off people?
Boss: Nah we will just sue big companies who will either give us cash or buy us out. Anyone for a quick trip to Barbados?
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
LOL! I get many of these, but probably less than half. Can anyone translate (expand?) the whole thing?
-Lux
Duh
Do you see the sig? Do you have it in your sights? Why yes, Miss Moneypenny...
duh!
Gee, a bunch of people get together at a "conference", talk to each other, and come up with an earth-shattering observation that...
Wait....
Get ready for it...
People sue other people in order to get some money!!!!!
Wow!!!! I would never be able to figure that one out myself!! Who said that Slashdot isn't an education web site? Thank gawd for all those smart'em folks, who go to 'em fancy conferences!
And I always thought that folks just liked pissing away money at lawyers, for some reason, or they liked seeing their names on thick bundles of double-spaced paper, in a butt-ugly fixed-width font. Or, I guessed that they get a hard-on climbing the concrete steps to the courthouse.
Well, I think I'll run this by my drinking buddies, over at the pub tonight. They sure to be impressed...
the same panel of experts determined Britney Spears is indeed no longer a virgin.
Can't imagine what our life would be without the panels of experts.
sean
"I knew I should have shown him Electric Gonorea, the noisy killer."
YOU SUCK BALLS!
Our friends Charles Broughton (Sr VP Int'l Sales), Robert Bench (CFO) and Jeff Hunsaker (VP, Worldwide Marketing) are selling, selling and.. wait for it... selling.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
From the article:
"[Microsoft's recent Unix license deal with SCO] proves that Microsoft and proprietary software vendors have a great deal to fear from intellectual property held by others. Maybe Microsoft felt it had something in its software to fear, and perhaps that's maybe why it took out that license."
Or perhaps, maybe, dare I suggest, that Microsoft's public endorsement of SCO's products are meant to reward its loyalty in dealing OSS in general such a blow.
MS leaked an internal memo a while ago that reported on some consumer focus groups they'd conducted to find which arguments against Linux were most effective. People largely ignored philosophical appeals about the nature of OSS, and they didn't really care about the so-called "viral nature of the GPL." The only thing that really worked was MS's suggestion that they could be legally liable for using OSS if -- unbeknownst to them -- it had been tainted by copyright infringement. That result was documented, and MS is well aware that legally-inspired terror is their best weapon against OSS.
Lo and behold, a puppet dances onto the stage and engages in an outrageously publicized lawsuit against a company backing Linux. Maybe I'm crazy, maybe there's no connection, maybe SCO really is just in it for the money. Nevertheless, I think I'm catching glimpses of a four-color butterfly pulling SCO's strings.
-1, Redundant. Any action by a corporation is going to be "about the money." Sometimes it's just a question of how immediate the pay out is going to be.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
we settle these disputes with a bottle of vodka and a game of our special "Roulette."
Sorry, it had to be done!
Five Dolla Moddy-Moddy?
I thought it was mostly because the licensing terms of the BSD license were more liberal, allowing commercial use of the FreeBSD code with hardly any restrictions. Whereas the GPL contains more restrictions on the user that are intended to keep the code free no matter what.
Maybe this is what you just said, but I think what I am saying is a different reason. I think Apple went with FreeBSD because it was easier to use for commercial purposes than Linux, rather than because it was immune to lawsuits.
I also do not think that Apple could possibly be familiar with all the code bases of the commercial Unixes out there, of which SCO is one. That is where the lawsuit is coming from, a commercial Unix vendor, not the Linux community!
Incidentally, Apple approached Linus about working with them, but he refused because he thought MacOS 9 was a 'piece of crap' (direct quote).
Dean G.
And here I thought it was so that they would be able to choose what code they wanted to release, when and if they wanted to release it, and make proprietary any significant improvements to the OS by locking down the source.
Here is another story on SCO, from CNET, focusing on their recent licensing deals and the impact on its earnings.
Also, in this story our "favorite" CEO claimed he was in Japan not to invade the Consumer Electronics Linux Forum but instead "just" to get more Japanese firms to license code from SCO.
By the way, when is that code you always talk about going to show up in court? I'm still waiting to see something, anything... yeah...
A computer is a valuable tool, so use it and stop whining.
... who read the first sentence of the post and thought SCO was suing OSCON because they were using 'SCO' in the name of their conference?
The bad thing is, I believed SCO was actually capable of stooping that low! (For a few seconds, at least. LOL.)
The SCO group, and both Old SCO and Caldera before it, directly acknowledged and assisted IBM with the scalablity of Linux
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 IA-64
A mp3 capture of the following transcribed portion
I am not a lawyer, but even I can see that The SCO Group has put itself into an intractable situation, any judge will listen to evidence from the above and laugh the SCO group out of court.It's about time to reexamine the recent claims of The SCO group and call in the lawyers and maybe the authorities
Actually you misquoted him. When Linus was asked about _Mac OS X_ he said that is was a 'piece of crap'.
Why on Earth would you think that those two possibilities were mutually exclusive?
Enron used child labor? Those bastards!
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
Those are the classical two reasons to sue. SCO has developed an innovative third reason.
Look at SCO's revenue and income for the past quarter. They recorded $13 million from sales of products and services and $8 million from SCO Source. SCO Source has two customers: one is Microsoft, and the other is an unnamed large Unix company (I think it's likely to be Sun).
On the income side, SCO lost money on products and services, but made up for it by making money from SCO Source.
SCO has found a way to monetize anti-Linux FUD. This is not just a sideline. It's the only profitable activity The SCO Group has ever had in its corporate existence.
SCO doesn't need to win the lawsuit. They just need throw enough FUD so that Microsoft keeps cutting them checks. I think it's important that open source people understand this business model.
"Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion." - Democritus
Although some people now advocate using function points instead, but that is another discussion entirely. Anyway, in GNUtopia your capacity to buy goods is proportional to number of lines of code you authored and "deposited" in Savanah. There is also a requirement that the software you contributed for is actually being used by someone outside your family. Under this system, would you be poor or rich?
According to this they not only are the 2nd licensee from SCO but they also received a warrent to buy 210,000 shares of SCOX at 1.83 per share!
g =f d_top
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1024633.html?ta
Bastards.
He used the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field. (This is news? :)
Huh?
Another win for Captain Obvious!
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
http://labs.google.com/glossary
You can look up common acronyms here.
How much money did this "panel" get for restating the obvious?
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Darn! The replies to this article burned out my Sarcasm Meter.
You should warn a fella before posting something like this...
Step 1. Run company into ground ...
Step 2. File frivolous lawsuits that enrage the entire computing community (even mac users).
Step 3.
Step 4. Profit!
Sorry, OT but I just had to post this...
:
;)
Your sig reads
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
Shame that your superior intellect didn't allow for spelling errors when you wrote that
Mac OS X has been based on BSD for the following reason: OS X is actually a very new version of NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP/etc. The original *STEP versions ran on a Mach microkernel with a 4.4BSD personality. So Jobs chose BSD because the old NEXT stuff ran on BSD, so to speak. This has, well, absolutely nothing to do with the SCO suit.
This quotation from the article:
got me to thinking. Has anybody considered a poison pill scenario?
Bad Company wants to slow down Linux, the GPL, open source software, etc. Bad Company uses Bad Agent to take secret, closed-source code owned by Bad Company and "contribute" it to Linux. Bad Company then waits six months, a year, two years....
Bad Agent vanishes (with his $ millions....)
Bad Company then asserts its copyright claims. "OMG! It seems our former employee, (Bad) Agent, contributed some of our copyrighted, closed-source (and for that matter, trade secret) code to Linux two years ago, and we didn't know about it! Everybody has to rip out the code... and pay us....
While I understand Raymond's concerns, I think Kuhn is right. I'm not sure he goes far enough.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
TSI.
Nice exit strategy. Stocks ten times their value of 6 months ago.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
They're just following established practices, just like they did with their crappy OS. There are several companies that consist only of lawyers, created with the express purpose of defending IP and making it difficult for the rest of the non-scumsucking (productive) world.
Screw 'em, I hope they die.
I find myself saying that a lot lately.
I always though that you sued to settle some conflict... seems like the tools of 'justice' have evolved a little.
I take it that SCO wasn't at OSCON to defend themselves? It would be more effective to call SCO out sometime when they are actually there to make fools of themselves in public.
you dont have to be oreilly to figure that sco wants to make $$$...............
Here's another suggestion for SCO's motivation.
If they actually win against IBM they could revoke IBM's license to its code therefore hobbling AIX.
They could then give IBM an ultimatum: stop developing linux or give up AIX.
This wouldn't stop linux, but it would eliminate a major force behind its adoption in the enterprise. Or it could blow-up in their face as IBM goes full-bore into linux development.
Now you're in for it! Apple's lawyers are going to sue you for not putting the (R) after the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field(R). Because as we all know, Reality Distortion Field(R) is a registered trademark of Steve Jobs and Apple Computer, Inc.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
I read slashdot all the time, and I have no idea what this is about. I wish they could provide some context with these articles.
Or maybe she's just from GB? Have you ever stop to think about it, smartass?
if a company is not after money, suing is not the way to go.
I'm not sure how many people out there are versed in logic but essentially:
IF HYPOTHESIS THEN CONCLUSION is logically equivalent to IF NOT CONCLUSION THEN NOT HYPOTHESIS. (you're examining the contrapostive of the original statement)
Anyways, if you apply this transformation to the original statement (if a company is not after money then suing is not the way to go) you get:
Suing is the way to go if a company is after money
Food for thought ;)
ID-10-T is a way of life
stock fraud. Since Martha Stewart is being prosecuted right now not for insider trading but for giving interviews in which she declared her innnocence, and since the legal logic behind her prosecution is that these pronouncements were attempts to keep up the price of her stock, filing lawsuits and giving lots of inflammatory interviews as a pump and dump scheme might also be seen as worth prosecuting.
I think that this story is a horribly atrocious rendering about what happened at the panel. 99% of the time, the panel was focused on why SCO isn't a real, credible threat to Linux itself and also on the need for clear copyright inheritence for open source projects. There was also general discussion on the burden of proofs in various lawsuits.
There was also a BOF in the evening that was a very fun session later on that discussed the roles and needs of copyrights and patents.
Some people take their .sig way too seriously
"panelists agreed that SCO is targeting companies like IBM in an attempt to raise cash." ... in stark contrast to every other corporation in the world that is in existence to better humanity.
"Derp de derp."
I think the biggest point of the lawsuits is to try to gain something, anything, from a company that is as technically irrelevant as a 5 ¼ floppy disk manufacturer. Whether they get a multi-billion dollar cash injection, or just get free advertising on /. everyday for several months, they have succeeded on some level; Geeks are talking about SCO, and I haven't said anything about SCO (sans "I hate @#%^ing UNIXWARE" as I stumble through their arcane product) in years.
I guess what I am saying is that the old adage is true, there is no such thing as bad publicity. However much animosity they generate, everyone "in the know" now knows that SCO owns UNIX (somewhat) and is now elevated to a major player in the game. If they get a cash settlement it could be used to develop a viable product, if they just piss people off they get better name recognition and possibly a more expensive company to sell.
Just my $0.02...
In my experience, these things are usually handled by the offending company offering some IP of their own in exchange.
When SCO comes out with guns-a-blazing, the only purpose is to attempt to poison the well to aid weight to their argument. Hoping, in the end, that IBM will either pay them to go away, or make them go away by buying them.
IMHO - IBM has played this hand very well thus far. I think SCO is very much afraid.
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
This is a valid and on topic analogy! Why the fuck to the slashdot moderators seem to have a below 100 IQ?
I'm shocked.... I thought SCO was a champion of IP rights! My faith in corporate America has been shaken to its core!!!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
First of all, you are assuming that given a choice with no other constraints, a knowledgeable person should choose Linux over FreeBSD, which is a rather biased perspective.
For one thing, MacOS X hasn't attracted a FreeBSD crowd because of its incorporation of parts of FreeBSD - it still is far from FreeBSD. Had it been based on Linux, it still wouldn't have been what people usually consider Linux, and I can't see how it would've attracted more users (unless Apple relied on "Linux" as a buzzword; but some of their existing customer base might have been frightened off by that).
Also remember that MacOS X is based on NeXTSTEP, which used a combined Mach + 4.3 BSD kernel and much of a 4.3 BSD userland. So they basically upgraded the BSD part of the code using the FreeBSD code base.
While it would certainly be possible to glue Linux subsystems into the Mach kernel, it would probably be a bigger job and diverge more from the original code base (making it more difficult to keep in sync with new developments). Even ignoring the historical connections, Linux is not very cleanly layered internally and its components are highly dependent on the lower-level parts...which have a very x86-oriented history.
doesn't help either. It's helpful to talk about this kind of stuff so continginsies (sp?) can be planned. The final decision about guilt or innocence is in the judges hand, yes. Planning ahead is up to the FOSS community.
IBM did license code from SCO, that of which is in the AIX operating system. Thus, IBM is not allowed to use SCO's code on current releases of its AIX operating system. Why is SCO claiming SCO's code is being used by AIX when it is not being allowed in the current release of IBM's AIX? Is SCO claiming that the offending code is in the past AIX operating systems? Meaning, SCO has intentionaly revoked licensing ab initio? That is a verry tricky situation; IBM would need to dis-own its previous AIX products, but it looks like SCO doesn't want that to happen. SCO wants to take IBM to the bank?
Whoa...
Why is slashdot running all these SCO stories? pageviews = banner ads = money.
Score -1
1. changing your underwear
2. walking/washing Cowboyneal once a day
3. determining that the SCO lawsuit is all about the money
The way I see it, Unix is like a bicycle, while Linux is more like a luxury car. Bicycles were invented before we had the technology to make luxury cars like Linux. Now that we have Linux we really don't need Unix anymore. Linux is open.. lots of people can get inside Linux and it's comfortable. Unix only has one occupant, and he's not very comfortable. IBM is like a huge truck. If a huge truck like IBM runs over a little bike like Unix then people become more careful about who they piss off in the future.
My Blog
"Most importantly: "if a company is not after money, suing is not the way to go.""
Anyone else not not gagging on the non not use of double negatives?
Give it a rest. People need to focus on the positive aspects of Open Source and stop dwelling on this lawsuit.
So, when did Linux become the words "Open Source"?
reward its loyalty in dealing OSS in general such a blow
Errr, when did Apache, MySQL, GCC, PostgreSQL, FreeBSD, sendmail and thousands of other 'in general' OSS become trivial such that ONE project (Linux) gets 'attacked' it is 'a blow'?
vs
The Free Software Foundation has never sued anyone who was in beach of the GNU General Public License (GPL) as it simply wants them to come into compliance with the license.
(I also add that I belive the FSF has had 100% success with this approach)
The FSF has a lot of power (ie. to sue violators for potentially large amounts of money), but it doesn't use it GNU/God is Benelovent and Wise; unlike the OSI Chief Warmongerer who is petty and cruel, and seeks only to profit from other people's misguided actions.
Really? What tipped you off? The fact that's what they're asking for?
4 monbths left until full SCO bankruptcy..
tick tock tick tock..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
The panelists agreed that SCO is targeting companies like IBM in an attempt to raise cash. Most importantly: "if a company is not after money, suing is not the way to go."
They're just sore losers. If only there was a marketplace "poor sportsmanship" penalty. (oh wait.. there is.. it's called bad PR. nevermind.) (:
Alright, I have some concerns, and I haven't seen them being given too much attention. I've tried to follow the numerous posts on Slashdot about SCO, but there aren't enough hours in the day, and anyway it's all scattered about the place. So here, if you like, is a small list of things that could go into a decision matrix that doesn't sweep everything under the GPL carpet.
First point: No one seemed to pick up on it, but in an earlier post a few days ago, someone pointed out that SCO used the 2.4 kernel while many are on 2.5. I haven't checked up on this, but if it's true, it's possible there's infringing code in the later version that hasn't been GPLed by SCO. In the article they say that if it turns out there's infringing code in Linux, then they can just revert to the SCO version of Linux since that's been GPLed.
That's quite cute, and presumably everyone would just build on from there, though it's a bit of a setback in terms of having to drop back. But what are the extent of the damages SCO might be able to claim under this scenario? I mean, how many are going to get sued and what's the impact? Even if it's just the distributors, surely that's pretty nasty, but SCO seem to have it in mind to go even further. It seems like a nightmare to me, and I don't think we can just say it's as simple as just excising the dodgy code and moving on.
However, even dropping back to the SCO version it doesn't completely solve the legal problem, because aren't SCO claiming that the GPL is no defence because they didn't know their code was in it? If the judge goes for this, then even SCO Linux might be no use if their proprietary code IS in there.
This is quite apart from the damages that SCO might be able to receive if this turned out to be the case. Has anyone got an analysis on this? It's all very well to just expunge the bad bits, but what ARE the liabilities here? Don't forget that we may not just be talking about code directly lifted from SCO. SCO are claiming the right to more than just that, suggesting that their contract with IBM gives them rights perhaps to even original code as a "derivative work". How much of that is in Linux? I find it hard to believe IBM have just contributed a handful of lines of code.
But why stop here? Because the GPL has never been properly tested, and everyone assumes that if it turns out to be ruled invalid, then standard copyrights would apply. People say this as if it were nothing more stressful than chipping a nail. I mean, if the GPL doesn't apply, we have much more to worry about than just SCO, and what if the judge rules that in fact GPL software is public domain, or draws some other baffling conclusion?
And all this before we start scratching our heads about how to stop it in future. I have to say that I'm amazed there hasn't been more criticism of IBM for allowing this situation to occur. Admittedly, the allegations are still vague, but companies generally guard against this by setting up clean room environments and not signing contracts that give others rights to "derivative works". How did we allow this to happen, and how do we stop it in future? I know people moan about RMS, but in times like these it seems like he just hasn't been nearly pedantic enough.
Finally - though I'm sure there's more - many have pointed out that MS has had its fair share of IP-related lawsuits. This doesn't seem to have affected them the way it's affecting Linux, and I'm guessing this is because the offended parties sued MS, not their customers. SCO seems to be vaguely pointing the finger at everyone. Is there anyone who hasn't been portrayed as potentially liable? Seems to me that companies suing MS in future might take a leaf out of the SCO playbook, and go after their customers too...
So, to summarise: what happens if there's infringing code in a common version of Linux that hasn't been GPLed by SCO? What's the extent of the damage? What happens if SCO manage to make it stick that the GPL doesn't cover code of theirs they unknowingly distributed?
Now all we need is a BIG Hollywood production of this that can be passed around on P2P networks.
Linux is only stable on pc hardware. Put smp in the mix and heavy loads and its quite unstable and a mess. Even Windows2k is more stable.
FreeBSD is the only real free os that is server ready. Its just plain better.
http://saveie6.com/
1. Jobs is already very familiar with BSD from his work on NeXT.
2. Although their current use of BSD would not violate the Linux GPL, they may want to reserve the ability to modify the kernel and keep their modifications secret.
3. Linux's main advantage is in drivers. Since Apple is doing all their own hardware this may have eliminated this advantage.
Actually you misquoted him. When Linus was asked about _Mac OS X_ he said that is was a 'piece of crap'.
He was commenting on Mach-- the microkernel that NextStep/MacOSX runs on. I wonder what he though of mkLinux.
source
incorporating is not the way to go.
Spare me "all the stakeholders matters" bullshit - the only important stakeholders are the shareholders. In this day and age of fraud and accounting mishaps, we're lucky if even the shareholder interests are properly protected, nevermind consumers and society and whatnot.
So I say let the profit motive be. If they can wring money out of IBM, so be it. If IBM beats the fuck out of SCO, kick back and enjoy the show.
Its not that hard to find it on there now . Doesn't the fact that they continue to distribute the kernel sources completely negate their claim that they didn't know their code was in there before?
well when reading that article it just struck me.. shared source is not for people to see the source code and feel secure its probably so m$ can try and pull this same you have my code trick off in a little while themselves... they are hoping that someone will try and put some m$ code in linux...maybe im wrong... but its something to think about
They've established a useful precedent of claiming to have evidence, but declining to release it for scrutiny. It's unreasonable to criticise Mr McBride simply for following the example of such great leaders.
You forgot your TPS cover sheet on that report
From my original post (emphasis added): Since Martha Stewart is being prosecuted right now not for insider trading ...