Slashdot Mirror
Skeptical Reactions To SCO From Around The Globe
IpsissimusMarr writes "The Inquirer reports that 'The biggest computer manufacturers in Japan that build systems running Linux will hold out against blustering by SCO to extract license fees based upon unsubstantiated infringement claims, it has emerged.' Its nice to see more support from the business world denouncing SCO's tactics."
janda writes "ComputerWorld is reporting that several companies, including Coastal Transportation, Burlington Coat Factory, and Boscov's Department Store are taking a wait-and-see attitude towards SCO and their new 'Linux license' arrangement.
Best quote from the article:
'I don't remember signing anything with SCO saying I owe them any kind of licensing fees.' (Tom Pratt, Coastal Transportation)
I find it refreshing that companies are starting to stand up to SCO's blackmail attempts."
An anonymous reader points to this story at Mozillaquest according to which IBM says that SCO does not have a viable claim to JFS, NUMA, RCU, etc., writing "IBM says it owns the AIX code it contributed to the Linux kernel despite SCO claims that it has registered its Unix System V copyrights. A big problem for IBM and the GNU/Linux community might be the inclusion of JFS, NUMA software, RCU, etc into the Linux kernel. SCO claims it owns them. However, IBM, SuSE, and kernel.org's Richard Gooch reject SCO-Caldera and Darl McBride's claims that GNU/Linux contains SCO-owned or SCO-copyrighted code. ... The Linux kernel code is copyrighted under the GNU GPL. IBM owns its AIX additions and copyrights to Unix System V code and its development of JFS, RCU, and NUMA software code."
arilian writes "According to this article from ARNnet, SCO's new license may leave them open to litigation by other contributers to the Linux kernel." Bruce Perens and intellectual property lawyer Jim LaBarre are quoted in this one.
Finally, Joe Barr writes "I just filed a complaint against The SCO Group with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It was easy. I used their online complaint form at:
www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm.
The basis for my complaint is that SCO is using false and unsubstantiated claims of IP rights to UNIX and Linux in order to manipulate its stock price and force consumers to purchase SCO licenses.
Maybe someone else would like to do the same."
Yeah! Just had to do this at least once in my life!
This whole situation is really a gauge of the 'apathy' factor. How many peopel will be outraged and yet do nothing? I am not a LINUX or UNIX user, my company does not use LINUX or UNIX... and I see through this scam like double pane window. We should act by complaining now....or else we will get what we deserve! I also used the online complaint form at: www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm.
I don't believe it. People being skeptical? Never!
The Linux kernel code is copyrighted under the GNU GPL. IBM owns its AIX additions and copyrights to Unix System V code and its development of JFS, RCU, and NUMA software code
Well it's about time. Now put up some substantiating evidence.
One word: Insane.
www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm. The basis for my complaint is that SCO is using false and unsubstantiated claims of IP rights to UNIX and Linux in order to manipulate its stock price and force consumers to purchase SCO licenses.
I hope they don't just ignore the barrage of complaints they start receiving at 12:17PM, PST...
it has been a while since I read anything on slashdot about sco! I think it's time for a
sco section.
<BillMurrayVoice>... dogs and cats, living together... </BillMurrayVoice>
"I just filed a complaint against The SCO Group with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It was easy. I used their online complaint form... ...
Maybe someone else would like to do the same."
If a lot of people file complaints, perhaps that will cause the SEC, or the government in general, to take some serious notice of this serious problem.
no thanks
"Damnit, we keep threatening to sue these people, and the fuckers still won't buy our products."
Seriously though, I'm waiting for Big Blue to bitchslap SCO, and jar them something fierce. It's like National Geographic right before the shark devours the minnow: You know what's going to happen, you are just waiting for it.
Personally, I'd like to see SCO get bought out by the Linux community, who then votes to oust the CEOs without a golden parachute.
You can find the online complaint form here.
To fill out the form, here is SCO's information:
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
801-765-4999 phone
801-765-1313 fax
Anyone who uses Linux is threatened by SCO and should file a complaint. I just filed mine, you should file yours too!
/.: why the hell am I here?
How valid is it to complain (via the online form mentioned) when one is not an affected or threatened party in this matter?
http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
But after reading the zillionth manifesto, harebrained legal opinion and statement of noisy defiance from the Linux world, I have to confess my first reaction to learning there really is illegally-copied SCO code in Linux will be to laugh my ass off.
Geez, Joe Barr. Maybe the MPlayer guys will issue a rebuttal.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Korporat Amerika actually standing up and yelling 'foul' against another Korporation?
Good lord. I thought they *all* learned to be conniving, deceiving, self-serving crooks at the same school? I guess there *may* be a kind streak in them?
Naaaaaaah. It's all about the benjamins, baby. Don't even for a second think these korporations are trying to help the OSS folks. They're just trying to protect their wallets.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
You can complain about all the SCO articles, but really, people have to realize that this has a HUGE impact on software in general, not just *nix. The decision here will set a precedent to possibly be used for decades, if not a century
But, here's my gripe, which you can skip by not reading further. I would like to see more home-jobby builds, not necessarily case mods (though, i would like to get a layout of how to build an ATX wood case. heh). We like to see the simplest webservers, the cheapest way to do things on a college shoestring budget. I'd like to have an automatic CD-burner. I want to see what random Linux distros and programs can do for me, though i may never use them. More of the fodder! That is all. /rant
It has hardly been updated in a decade! We're talking X11R5, no support for pthreads without installing extensions, etc.
In this world, your OS can't be "just as good as" Windows to survive. Linux, Solaris, AIX, and Mac OS X are each doing well because they are substantially better at what they do than the competition.
On the upside, they are allowing free use of Unix Version 7. Well, sorta free. apt-get install simh and boot the sucker up if you want to see the somewhat humble beginnings of UNIX.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Why don't we just create an SCO topic, or even better, sco.slashdot.org. That way, those of us who don't like the bi-hourly updates don't have to see them.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
If you have used the FCC form, I assume you've done the research as to information they request, specifically all the contact info for SCO, etc. Could you be so kind as to post that info here so we don't all have to duplicate effort searching these people down?
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
SCO should just drop their case, otherwise their revenue will disappear completely (Ha, like they had any to begin with).
I've been wondering about this for a while and I haven't seen a discussion (there's probably one on some of the earliest SCO v. IBM stories). Think about if SCO were to win in court, forcing their little BS licenses. What if they were then purchased by, say, the only company who would be able to afford them after that...that one over in Redmond. That could then wipe all *nix OSes off the planet along with virtually all remaining OS compition. Now there's an ugly thought. Of course, if it even makes it to court, it'll be a decade before anything is finally decided, maybe SCO will just run out of money by that point and will be forced to drop it. ;o)
but such is the state of current IP and IP laws
Otherwise, you're just going to piss the SEC off, and open yourself up for a lible suit.
OK?
Nody fuckin gives a shit!!!
Why don't you put my nuts back in your mouth?
Faggot.
A recent posting on the Groklaw blog (see "SCO Can't Go After Statutory Damages or Atty's Fees" heading in the 7/22/03 section) states the US Copyright Office claims that SCO cannot go after statutory damages or attorney fees for any copyright infringement based on the most recent filing. They can only go after actual damages, which are very hard to prove in court.
What are SCO's actual damages from someone using Linux who would never have bought any SCO product in the first place? I mean, if I downloaded my ISO and burned it myself to install on 5 machines, it seems hard to argue that had Linux not included SCO IP, I would have purchased 5 copies of SCO UnixWare. No, if there had been no Linux, I'd have gone for one of the *BSD's. So even if SCO is correct, what are the actual damanges.
Doing some more copyright law searching.
Found these points at Bromberg and Sunstein LLP
Benefits of Federal Copyright Registration
Required for Infringement Suit. Generally speaking, unless the copyrighted work has been registered (or the Copyright Office has refused registration although the required deposit, application and fee were properly filed), a court action for infringement of the copyright will be dismissed.
Required for Statutory Damages. If registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work or prior to infringement, certain damages and attorneys' fees provided by law will be available, in addition to actual damages and lost profits.
Now, you can go to the Library of Congress Copyright site (www.copyright.gov) and search for the newly awarded SCO copyright: TX-5-705-356.
Notice that the SCO copyright lists publication date as 27Jun91, but registration date of 30Jun03. Combine that with "If registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work or prior to infringement, certain damages and attorneys' fees provided by law will be available, in addition to actual damages and lost profits." from above and it does seem like SCO will have a tough case to make in any litigation relating to copyright.
Presumption of Validity. In any judicial proceeding, a certificate of registration issued within five years of the first publication of the work confers a legal presumption that the copyright is valid and that all facts stated in the copyright registration certificate are true.
Also note that the 5 year presumption of validity time limit has expired.
Protection Against Importation of Infringing Copies. A copyright owner can record the registration with the U.S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing works.
Wonder how much of the alleged infringing work was done overseas? Wasn't some of it supposed to have been done by a German Caldera employee? Wonder if SCO has taken this step yet?
Also worth adding.. Red Hat offered a response to this just a few days ago, and that can be found here - quite short, but an interesting read, and a good effort at making their customers feel a little more relaxed.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Wow. Check out the industry heavy hitters quoted in ComputerWorld. If the brains behind Burlington Coat Factory are taking a wait-and-see stance, I guess we all should!
It is good to see, that people are realizing that this is mostly smoke and bluster. In the end, however, it doesn't matter. What matters, the only thing that will really matter, is when the US government either says "You're right, here's your blank check" or "You're wrong, now shut the hell up." And compensation for all the trouble they've caused would be nice, too.
It amazes me that a company can do as much dammage as SCO, even if it is at the time being only damage to a reputation, without having to offer some sort of proof. The government is supposed to hold people blameless until they can prove otherwise, but corporations can throw accusations around all they please. We can learn a lot from Germany and australia in this regard.
Thomas Galvin
Although SCO has been shut down in Germany, their Benelux offices in Amsterdam still seem open for business,
which probably means one can file complaints against them under Dutch law as well.
Although I'm no expert on the dutch system, they presumably have the same level of consumer-protection as the rest of Europe, meaning that action against them here would probably be fruitful.
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?
Its been stated over and over that the "code" is from the 2.4+ kernels. So if you are hesitant till the outcome, just switch to a 2.2.x kernel and move on with your life.
Granted, some hardware needs a 2.4+ kernel, but the vast majority of systems will run just great on a 2.2.x kernel.
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,
Who would we elect as our representative? Me, I'd think it wildly ironic if the linux community buys out 51% of SCO, then all elect Eric Raymond as their representative.
Can't you imagine it?
ESR walks in, points to the CEOs, and goes, "Fired, Fired, Fired, Fired, and doubly Fired."
Then he files for chapter 11 so he doesn't have to pay the asshats their pension, sells it to Red Hat for a dollar, yanks the code, and walks out whistling.
If it is "true" that Linux has copyrighted material from SCO, could they remove that material or rewrite it so that 2.6.x wouldn't be affected by the licensing system SCO is imposing? Of course, that would mean that every infringed linux would need an down/up grade and maybe some payments, but couldn't that be a temporary workaround so companies using linux stop being the battleground and that we start talking about the real topic of this case: copyright? For now, all I see is that SCO claims something over A, SCO wants money from B C and D, B C and D don't want to pay, A claims that SCO is wrong. Just remove the B, C and D part and now we can work on the real meat... Isn't it a good proposition?
Of Code And Men
That's why. You could patent my work, and if I never challenge it, then you can say it's yours all you want.
SCO is stating that any code which IBM develops becomes property of SCO, due to a licensing agreement. So looking up patents is a moot point.
Aside from stating that IBM's license for AIX is perpetual and irrevocable, they have stayed quiet. If they were to come out and say "We own RCU. We own NUMA. This is why...", IBM could kill a lot of the FUD flying around in one swat.
Of course, to IBM, this would be tipping their hand too early.
If a lot of people file complaints, perhaps that will cause the SEC, or the government in general, to take some serious notice of this serious problem.
If you do decide to file, don't forget to mention the recent Vultus purchase. Vultus is owned by The Canopy Group, the same people who own a large portion of SCO. Both SCO and Vultus are in the same Lindon, Utah building owned by The Canopy Group. Seems to me that an argument could be made for an Enron like shuffling of companies.
Make specious claims about SCO IP. Run up the stock price. Sell some of that and use the funds to purchase other companies in the portfolio. Book the profit.
There are no less than 3 articles concerning SCO there right now. How many does it take before it gets its own topic?
I guess it's about time I asked: How do you pronounce "SCO?" Is it "skow" (rhymes with "blow") or is it "ess sea oh?" Dumb question, I know, but I've never heard anyone say it; I've only read the name online.
The "Caldera" topic.
Are you a vegan?
/me does a few pelvic thrusts
Here's a little something just for you:
ohh ohh nader, ohhhh nader mmm yeah
I believe the former as opposed to the latter...
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
IpsissimusMarr writes "The Inquirer reports that 'The biggest computer manufacturers in Japan that build systems running Linux will hold out against blustering by SCO to extract license fees based upon unsubstantiated infringement claims, it has emerged.' Its nice to see more support from the business world denouncing SCO's tactics."
... The Linux kernel code is copyrighted under the GNU GPL. IBM owns its AIX additions and copyrights to Unix System V code and its development of JFS, RCU, and NUMA software code."
janda writes "ComputerWorld is reporting that several companies, including Coastal Transportation, Burlington Coat Factory, and Boscov's Department Store are taking a wait-and-see attitude towards SCO and their new 'Linux license' arrangement.
Best quote from the article:
'I don't remember signing anything with SCO saying I owe them any kind of licensing fees.' (Tom Pratt, Coastal Transportation)
I find it refreshing that companies are starting to stand up to SCO's blackmail attempts."
An anonymous reader points to this story at Mozillaquest according to which IBM says that SCO does not have a viable claim to JFS, NUMA, RCU, etc., writing "IBM says it owns the AIX code it contributed to the Linux kernel despite SCO claims that it has registered its Unix System V copyrights. A big problem for IBM and the GNU/Linux community might be the inclusion of JFS, NUMA software, RCU, etc into the Linux kernel. SCO claims it owns them. However, IBM, SuSE, and kernel.org's Richard Gooch reject SCO-Caldera and Darl McBride's claims that GNU/Linux contains SCO-owned or SCO-copyrighted code.
arilian writes "According to this article from ARNnet, SCO's new license may leave them open to litigation by other contributers to the Linux kernel." Bruce Perens and intellectual property lawyer Jim LaBarre are quoted in this one.
Finally, Joe Barr writes "I just filed a complaint against The SCO Group with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It was easy. I used their online complaint form at:
www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm.
The basis for my complaint is that SCO is using false and unsubstantiated claims of IP rights to UNIX and Linux in order to manipulate its stock price and force consumers to purchase SCO licenses.
Maybe someone else would like to do the same."
.. is this under the 'the pig-in-a-poke dept.' and not under 'Duh'?
Is anyone actually taking SCO seriously, aside from Sun and Microsoft?
Is it not so obvious that all SCO is trying to do is keep themselves afloat by leeching $ from everyone/anyone that's even uttered the words 'Linux' or 'Unix' in order to keep themselves from ending up in jobs that will only be out-sourced to India or stolen by H1B visa holders?
And MS says open source OS's won't last!
This.
Let's slashdott them...
http://www.sco.com/company/execs/dmcbride.html
The more they have to spend on trash removal, the quicker the M$ money runs out.
If it comes to court the lines of code in question must be revealed.
Either those lines are included in the kernel source SCO already distributed under the GPL, in which case there is no worry, Torvalds can just take the kernel source off of a boxed set CD (which I have and am happy give him) and re-apply all patches since, OR
We re-write those lines of code.
Probably both will be done. RedHat will likely rewrite the code in question, since they have the programmers on staff; so will IBM; other people like Debian will re-apply patches starting from the SCO source. Eventually it all will settle out.
This is all presuming the worst, very improbable case, that SCO has any evidence at all.
If you've ever actually used some of SCO's products, you'd understand why nobody will buy them, even under threat of lawsuit.
The prices they charge for the crap they peddle are revolting, basically. It's UNIX all right - right out of '92.
Craig Ringer
Hmmm... I've always read this as "Ess See Oh", not "SKOH".
:D
I think you're totally wrong. Its my way or the highway, bich!
I think "Bass Tard Sse" would do just fine. ;-)
EvilCON - Made Famous by
No, I have as well. It used to be the only thing under 3000 dollars to run Oracle so it had its place aroun 1995. It has no place now.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
I pronounce it: "asshat"
Let's see, looking at the list of topics, we have BEos and OS9 -- they don't seem to be hot topics either, but they're still there. Caldera is there too - what would be the difficulty in renaming that to SCO?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Just try it. Joe was right. The mplayer guys should be shot along with whoever thought making Gnucash not installable on a machine without a soundcard was a good idea.
Uh oh... we just got this in the mail, apparently from SCO. Anyone else receive one of these?
FROM: CHRIS SONTAG
Do not be surprised at receiving this important mail. An influential top government functionaire gave me your name and assured me of your transparancy. The trama, humiliation and deprivation which I and my family have suffered since the death of Novell has kept me in focus on searching out the possibilities of safe guarding the colosal sums of money Ray Noorda left behind.
Presently my elder business partner Darl McBride cannot be reached because he is under the detention by the ruthless Secret Order of the Penguin, a devious band of open source terrorists. At the moment, I have thirty three million US dollars ($33,000,000) currently deposited in a friendly Utah Senator's personal account. I will be sending somebody there for both of you to work together in due course. With the present disposition of this Senator, all monies kept by Mr. Noorda are attempted to be recovered by the current administration. On this note I desire your urgent attention to assist me secure the aformentioned sum in any bank account you may furnish me with.
We would avail ourselves of a total loss of the whole sum depending upon the promptness to furnish me with this required information which will permit me to facilitate instructions and signal the Senator for expedient transfer of this funds for your account.
For you providing me with this account and well partaking in this transaction I will oblige you what ever SCO UNIX license ever you desire on request or to be more specific I will oblige you unlimited personal license and one compiler license for server edition.
The urgency of this matter desires shall be treated with all promptness as any day that passes poses a bigger threat. You must understeand that this transaction should be treated with all secrecy. Under no means should you use a Linux computer to communicate with me as the Penguin Order is watching vigilently. Please contact me through email csontag@sco.com as soon as you receive this letter on your preparedness to assist me.
Regards,
C. Sontag
What makes you think the shareholders will sell you their stock?!
Maybe there is someone out there that can answer this.. It seems that there should be something here for the Federal Trade Commission http://ftc.gov too. Is it, anticompetitive/antitrust behavior by SCO, or possibly fraud? What is the complaint that we should make to the FTC?
I'm definately porting my application to Linux now. This is a desparation tactic by SCO and when this storm passes Linux will stand untouched and unchallengable.
I downloaded RedHat last night and now I'll have to do is figure out the best way to resize my NTFS partition so there is room.
Now... time to read up on mmap vs CreateFileMapping!
Besides, Linux users are probably more hip to newer technologies anyway. I guess being able to live without wizards opens up minds a bit.
This is my sig.
I'm sure many others agree with me when I say that I Don't Care! I don't care about SCO or whatever frivolous lawsuits they bring against "the community". Quite frankly, this is not "news for nerds"... rather its "news for people who obsess about the Linux kernel". Linux isn't going away. SCO won't affect Linux or Linux kernel development, and the topic deserves perhaps 1 or 2 posts, if that. For the love of God post something more interesting, so when I have downtime I have something to Read!!!
I can't imagine that with all these big hitter companies that use Linux and other*nix products are going to take this whole thing lying down. IBM will be a big enough obstacle let alone all the Wall Street big wigs.
Sounds to me like SCO, instead of prolonging their death, sped it up considerably.
Now we'll all be branded as terrorists for launching a DDOS attack on a government web site.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
And one about legos, and BSD, and hot grits, and... And even better, some way to filter out stupid posts modded "+5 Funny"
./ and am interested in seeing every aspect available.
Look fucktard, this is one of the most relevant stories regarding the future of Linux. This is the main reason I am currently coming to
You don't like it? Skip past it...
I thought the point of the NDA was that you weren't going to share the code you see with anybody. E-mailing it, or passing it on to someone else is a violation of this agreement.
I guess you could be liable to receive a suit against you, much like IBM is facing today.
Or you could just use the 2.4.x kernel source provided on SCO's site, which is obviously provided because of the GPL. And SCO already said they won't hold their *own* customers accountable -- or at least before they were trying to extort licenses.
It just doesn't matter if we win or we lose.
Even if God in heaven above pointed His hand at our side of the courtroom!
Even if every man and woman Linux user on the planet joined servers together in the greatest Beowulf cluster in history!!!
It just doesn't matter 'cause all the *really* good looking girls will still go out with the guys from SCO 'cause they got all the money!!"
It Just Doesn't Matter!
It Just Doesn't Matter!
It Just Doesn't Matter!
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
What if SCO runs out of money and then allows itself to be acquired by Microsoft. Microsoft buys all of SCO's assets and continues the legal battle with Microsot's huge reserve of money and full-time lawyers.....
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
Maybe the word "slugfest" should have been attached to this story and not the other.
(As if that were the case.) ...there needs to be some serious thought about what to say. You cannot just send complaints to the SEC or the FTC without hard, substantiated facts. In fact, the FTC doesn't want you to send complaints unless you have been directly affected. If you have been directly affected, you probably know what to do, so that leaves us with the SEC complaint form.
I am not exactly sure just how the SEC should be approached with these issues. I am a Linux user, but SCO has not yet attempted to extort money from me. So I cannot issue a complaint on that basis.
However, we are all aware of SCO's activities, and we find them ethically wrong and quite likely illegal. So what I am asking is does anybody have a generic, factual complaint summary that can be submitted the SEC?
Most of us do not have time to pour over all of the material in this situation. Even if we could, most of us are not lawyers. Could someone who has an measure of authority on the subject volunteer some time advise the rest of us on how best to alert the SEC (or not to) without sounding like a bunch of Slashbots?
I imagine a lot of people here are going to get themselves in trouble with the SEC by making silly accusations and libelous statements. A good write up would be appreciated or good reasons not to complain unless you've been approached by SCO to ensure that doesn't happen
Join Tor today!
Umm... I do.
here.
God love the stinkin' gub'mint.
illegitimii non ingravare
Sorry, you did this yourself.
You want to use old tools, but a new distribution, why did you upgrade half your stuff?
You could still run apache 1.x if you wanted.
You can continue to use your old version of Redhat, or you could use another distribution.
Nobody is forcing you to do this, you are chosing to.
While this looks like a troll, I'll bite and remind folks that Burlington Coat Factory is one of a very few companies that actually implemented a large scale roll-out of Linux on the desktop. And they did it back in 1999.
Not a day goes by that I don't hear some pundit exclaiming that Linux is "still not ready for the desktop", but Burlington has already proven that it most definitely is.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
wish their community met the AT&T lawsuit with the same skepticism that the Linux community is meeting the SCO lawsuit with.
Maybe people didn't use BSD because they are all retarted, and only BSD users are of average intelligence?
Kill them. Kill them a lot. Kill them slowly and painfully with a death by 1000 lawyers. Drain their monetary life's blood a dollar at a time in such a way that they see it going and know they can't get it back.
Publicly humiliate every SCO executive who had anything to do with this. Make them such social piriahs within the community that they won't even be able to get jobs working a tech support desk. Turn the shareholders into a pack of sharks hungry to feed on their flesh, perhaps by suing them each personally for their losses.
Do not do anything that could be construed as setting a precedent for the viability of SCO's tactics.
Millions for defence. Not one damned cent for tribute.
Then when they are dead, with a silver bullet and a stake in their miserable little whatever it is that passes for a heart in them, pick the corpse for UNIX rights. . . and give them away to the community.
KFG
What are SCO's actual damages
Since SCO refuses to disclose which parts of the kernel contain "their" code (even when asked by Linus), and that they continue to make Linux freely available via their FTP site, the actual damages are zero.
I remember back in the early to mid 90's, the *BSD people had some problems with lawsuits and such, and Linux was able to pull right out in front of them. Could SCO going after Linux make more people move over to *BSD?
Its not what it is, its something else.
...that's pretty damn funny
I find myself hoping that someone would start a campaign to get SCO Linux, Unixware users and ISVs to switch (a la Apple) to something else, e.g. FreeBSD if a non-SCO Linux distribution seems like a legal risk. Just in the unlikely event that there is something left of SCO after IBM is finished with them, it would be good to put them out of any residual business. I cannot do much myself, since the I've never used SCO /Caldera or Unixware, or even know anyone who does. The only SCO product I've seen was a cardboard box of SCO Unix (i386), years after the servers it was used on had been replaced with Linux.
I come here for the chance to meet young gay Linux users who are interested in experiencing an older gentleman.
Q: What do you think SCO really stands for?
sPh
Trust me, the SEC knows. At least part of it does: I run a bunch of their systems, and the SCO BS has been lunchtime discussion amongst the techies for the last few weeks. . .
In order to see the disputed code, SCO makes one sign a NDA. Fine. What's to prevent him from passing the data to someone else who then posts it?
Umm, the NDA?
If you think it can't hurt you, why don't you sign it?
And if you still think it's a good idea, read this.
I used to go the the SCO Forums they held every year. The I heard customers saying it both ways, but "Sko" seemed to be more prevalent. However, the SCO people always pronounced their company "Ess See Oh." During a meeting with our account representative, she flinched every time we said "Sko."
I had just thought it was moronic until I read the "warning to linux shops" ( http://sco.com/scosource/gartner_warning.html ) and afterwards have since filed every complaint form I can find about that company..
.gif thing, they are just shooting themselves in the stomach to slowly bleed to death..
yea, they are all bluster and think they *have* something.. but look what happened with the
I will *never* allow this company or any others I work for to have any dealings with them now, and further I will urge any customer of mine to drop any dealings with them. That is power of Linux users I bet they never thought they would see..
I have purchasing power and you SCO will never see it. (I hope your stockholders read this)
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
do a netcraft query on www.caldera.com
SCO Group is still using Linux while claiming that Linux infringed on theri copyright..
Its time to indict McBride and SCO Group for Fraud, racketering, and etc via the RICO statutes!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Well, for starters, disclosing it to you would be violating the Non Disclosure part of the Non Disclosure Agreement. Having never seen the agreement, I don't know what the legal penalties one agrees to for violating this are when you sign the contract (that's what it is).
Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!
> [...] lots of others are choosing to make affirmative statements denying [...]
Don't try to diagram that sentence at home, kids.
The problem with this is that SCO's story keeps changing. First it was just a contract beef with IBM. Then SCO owned by proxy every modern operating system. Then it was a small amount of code in the Linux kernel: less than 80 lines. Then it was hundreds of thousands of lines and hundreds of files. Then SCO starting making noises that the BSD's weren't safe either.
The bottom line is that nothing SCO says can be trusted. They are a lawsuit company now and will use any pretext to harass developers and users and pump their stock price. I fully expect that if everyone did revert to 2.2 kernels that SCO would find something to extort with there as well.
Darl pronounces SCO much the same way I'd prounce scam.
Leonid S. Knyshov
Find me on Quora
Your can't-do attitude is probably also the reason you're a 35 year old virgin living in your parents' basement.
Mass activism like this does have an affect and just as it will likely annoy someone, it will also promote some action. Having been a participant in some online activism, I can say that it can indeed work, and it is very satisfying to watch it work.
In other news, as of 15:07EST, this thread is one of the top stories on Google news.
So what? They presumably allowed to use a kernel which may or may not use their code. Hell, that's part of the point -- Linux is for everyone, not just the nice guys.
can i sue them when my linux box screws up?
four-oh-four
Sorry, SCO already purchused a Unixware license making their use of Linux legal. :)
With the assets come the liabilities.
IBM countersues MS, damages are now limited by the value of MS not SCO.
SCO can afford to start basless as it would go bankrupt otherwise anyway, they have nothing to lose.
Microsoft has billions of dolars, markets and IP to lose.
Kamil
Enough talk about it. Every one of us /.ers should buy 5-10 shares today. Critical mass is only 51%. We reach that and vote as a block and this is all over with. Put Taco in charge as CEO and liquidate the slimy thing before it precreates. Sell the assets, release the code, and set up a virtual boardroom here at /. to discuss strategy.
It seems like a crazy idea till you realize that it might actually work. If nothing else, it certainly will make the press...
"Website users buy out clueless company to out it out of it's misery"
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
Do both.
So is the SEC.
Considering the usage of Linux within the US Government, particularly in the intelligence area (see NSA SELinux), I wouldn't be half surprised if the government wasn't already up to something regarding SCO. With a good volume of slashdotters filing complaints with the SEC and FTC, something powerful could indeed be drawn from the woodwork.
"I am root. Bow before me." To this I say, "You are root, and you bear the sins of the world upon your shoulders."
You'd hear the antitrust bitchslap all the way to Redmond. The best Microsoft can hope for is a little offsides pot stirring.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Not a troll, just a rookie mistake. Rest assured that my attempts at humor will be more informed when I make my 3rd post to this community.
Right now, thier shares are at 14.71USD a piece. Assuming thier stock prices rise as we buy, lets project a 15.5 avg price per share. The question is, and I can't find this offhand, is how many shares of stock we'd need to buy?
I know I'd chip in for 6 shares, and if 100,000 linux users/slashdot readers all bought an avg of two shares, we're looking at 2.5 million shares purchased... Which gets us what % of the company, exactly?
Ok, after digging on finance.yahoo I've found that there are 13.1 million shares outstanding. that means we need to buy 6.56 million shares.
We need 101.68 million dollars.
Ouch. That really throws my numbers out of whack.
Ok then, we need 6.56 million linux users to buy a share a piece, or 1 million users to buy just over 6 shares a piece.
Thats a big organizational challenge... Anyone at FSF or GNU ready to take this on? (the buy-shares forms/donations system and handing over rights for voting with said stock to said org. Realisticly, it might be easier for people to donate cash towards buying stock, not buying it direct, thatway FSF or whomever gets full control of whats bought)
Also: I don't think selling the operation to redhat for a dollar would be the right solution though - thats too politically (in linux circles) charged (to let one distro get thier stuff) - I think thier assests should be liquified, and the results split 50-50 with the fsf getting half to fund dev projects, and 50% going back to the stockholders. Of course, there wouldn't be much left once you consider that many customers with support contracts (and yes, some people have paid sco for support, even pre lawsuit) would want refunds.
Also Also: Yes, I know many people would be against this on moral grounds - 'its the principle of the thing!' - but how many hours and how much money will we waste trying to promote linux against this FUD-crap from SCO? And, what sort of message would a SCO buyout send the world... It'd tell M$ and everyone else that f-ing with Linux is a dangerous proposition, because the community will unite and topple all who oppose us...
just my 3.14 cents...
man is machine
I'm sure that the SEC/judges etc are watching the news, BUT, once this goes to court and I think it will, whatever is said in the media is irrelevant. It'll be..."just the facts". Judging by IBM's silence, do you think it's possible that IBM is just letting SCO dig their own grave by shooting off their mouths? Food for thought..........
I had the pleasure of working with SCO Unix back in 1998 which was bought by the company because they needed Unix but didn't want to pay big bucks for a Sun Server.
Set up by Windows people it didn't really work that well, so I was hired, I just hated it from day one. This thing does everything different from any other Unix I had ever worked with (heck, recompiling the kernel everytime you make a change?).
So out it went after a month and we installed Solaris 7 for Intel, not great, but better, then finally I convinced them to buy some Sparc Clones and we got Solaris 7 rolled out on them.
The only other times I had to deal with SCO was in Telco Enviroments, Nortel PBXs uses SCO in some of their extensions, but I haven't worked in a Unix shop in a long time that used Sco, if they ran Unix like operating system on X86 it was Linux or FreeBSD.
M.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
who then votes to oust the CEOs without a golden parachute.
Hmm.. maybe with a lead one we could make an interesting home video..
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
This form allows you to send your comments to the SEC without having to fill in all the boring details:
http://www.vodkatea.com/sec.html
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
It is disturbing that SCO's stock value is shooting up because of these insane claims. That SCO can even bring in $1 from these IP claims is pure, and at this point doubtful, speculation. This doesn't increase my confidence in the stock market...
How do you pronounce "SCO?"
I've heard both /skoh/ and /ess-cee-oh/, the former by older sysadmins, the latter by relative newbies. /skoh/ sounds pretty jarring when you're not used to it, though, so I imagine it's on the decline.
In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"
Havn't they established themselves as being a pseudonews source yet?
check out thye parody at mozillaquestquest.com for a little humour in that direction. I guess most people forget with time.
Photos.
Someone just pointed this news release out on a SCO stock board. So, maybe they didn't buy it? Or maybe someone thought about the Enronesque overtones and decided to kill the deal.
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html
Sr VP Michael Wilson just made about 120k exercising sub-$1 options and selling for $10+.
It makes sense because
1) Vultus was funded by Canopy, who are major shareholders in SCO
2) It makes SCO look like less of a one string guitar to investors who might be interested in buying SCOX - after all, a company that buys a web service company must have a future.
We can only speculate how/if SCO has paid Canopy for the company.
From the chart at Yahoo, 800,000 shares changed hands today - thats 600,000 more than an average day (the past few weeks has been 250K/day) so someone bought & sold a big block of shares today - theres a big spike on the volume graph. I guess we'll find out if it was insiders when the form 4 gets through the SEC in the next week or so.
Note also that Vultus is in the same building in UTAH as SCO.
Use Linux. If the lawsuit fails and pigs start to airlift the SCO logo over the statue of liberty, you can downgrade to the 2.2 kernel.
If that's not an option, use BSD or a good commercial UNIX such as Solaris or AIX. You can also use two OSes on something simple such as a webserver. Put the website on a partition that both OSes can access, and mount it to the www directory on each. Then configure each server, and boot Linux. If SCO price is inflated enough for them to buy IBM, you can reboot to Solaris/Darwin/BSD/AIX.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
You've got to read about Vultus to understand the acquisition. Vultus is/was part of the Canopy Group keiretsu - the same Canopy Group that effectively owns SCO. Canopy starts these companies, sees if they do well on their own, then determines if they're going to standalone, or be melded into other operations.
SCO-Caldera has announced it will be merging with RIAA to better hassle the general public.
Amusing quote directly from UNIX v7 man page for find command:
BUGS
The syntax is painful.
I agree, it sucks. In fact, It almost made me cry.
I'm curious... could a group of Linux developers who contributed to the Linux Kernel file a class action libel suit against SCO? Perhaps in Britain...
Shit man, we can't handle that much cool information in one post. Now we're going to have to up the mod cap to six, just for you. All hell is going to break loose. If I were you, I'd start looking for falling frogs right about now.
(Score: -1, Stupid)
I'm not sure if SCO used that exact wording... However... if they did, and claimed that the AIX license is "perpetual and irrevocable"... since they claim to have revoked it... where does that leave them legally and isn't that kind of a win for IBM? Just thought I'd say something, if you have answers, I'd be interested in hearing them.
(BTW -- I haven't done this yet, and I can't do it at work, but maybe someone should check this SRPM for GPL notices and compare it against the "vanilla" kernel. If the notices are present, then SCO released the source under GPL. If the notices are not present, then SCO has committed a GPL violation. I think. I am not a lawyer etc.)
Finding God in a Dog
The minority share holders can sue if they feel the interests of the majority do not benefit the company or the shareholders in general. (This is called a minority shareholder proxy fight, IIRC)
Basically, as a share holder and a company, the shit SCO is doing (brain-dead, evil and pathetic as it is) is GOOD for the company. It's getting them press, increasing the stock price, and potentially generating revenue.
If you come in and put kibosh on all that, you're not acting in the company's best interest. And a court might actually stop you from doing what is probably the right (moral) thing.
Yes, that's right. Money != Morality. Might makes right. Welcome to the adult world. Don't get me wrong, I think the SCO executive team should be put in the stockade for being a public nuisance. But the only way to stop them is going to be through fiscal, legislative, regulatory or legal means.
I've read alot and people always saying SCO holds no valid claim, but most of what was said I found one sided, and could easily be disputed in court no matter how well said person believed it.
I read this on one of the links
On the other hand, JFS, NUMA software, RCU, and other such code might not meet the definition of derived works under the U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 101, et. seq.). And they might not come under the purview of IBM's Unix Licenses.
If JFS, NUMA, RCU, and other such code in the Linux kernel does not meet the definition of derived works under the U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 101, et. seq.), that means that SCO might not have any copyright infringement claims against Linux kernel and GNU/Linux operating system developers, Linux distribution providers, Linux users, and so forth -- at least insofar as JFS, NUMA, RCU, and the like are involved.
Here is the definition of "derivative work" from U.S. Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 101, et. seq.) or http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101
A ?derivative work? is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ?derivative work?.
I believe this (the bold portion) should shed light on it. JFS, RCU, nor SMP reflect Unix System V as a whole.
SCO is properly pronounced "scum."
I noticed a comment a few moments ago that hasn't yet been moderated above the default threshold. Please go take a look. Would anyone who knows better please care to comment on whether or not this complaint is reasonable, valid, and safe to submit without aggrivating the SEC?
Join Tor today!
Scince Sc(um)o(f the earth) is now a lawsuit
company, maybe it's time for it to die a
horrable, painful death?
thats right darl (as he likes to be called) ate salad today for lunch. then a few hours later
he had a healty geen BM. mean while back at the
ranch sontag thinks about wearing a green tie
or a red tie, these decisions leave him tired
and emancipated. up next darls dog needs to be
let out and chris sontags wife buys more stuff
on ebay.....
Damn skippy! Only Microsoft has a license to blackmail.
Printed onto a toilet paper roll. Just the thing any self respecting geek would want in their bathroom!
My rights don't need management.
"Damnit, we keep threatening to sue these people, and the fuckers still won't buy our products."
You know SCO's desperate when they start trying to copy the RIAA's marketing strategies.........
This is exactly what IBM is saying.
Please read the article for IBM's denial of SCO's claims. Near the top of page three for this link:
Trink Guarino, Director of IBM Media Relations told MozillaQuest Magazine yesterday:
"SCO has not shown us any code contributed to Linux by IBM that violates SCO copyrights. SCO needs to openly show the Linux community any copyrighted Unix Code, which they claim is in Linux. SCO seems to be asking customers to pay for a license based on allegations, not facts."
"IBM owns the copyrights for the work we've done in AIX, JFS, RCU and the code that takes advantage of NUMA hardware. AIX is the fastest growing UNIX operating system in the industry, and we intend to continue and accelerate that growth."
That settles it, then. It's "Sko".
Great, now we're going to have to put an audio file on all our Linux CDs of Darl McBride saying "I'm Darl, and I pronounce SCO as SCO."
--Joe
IBM stated their license is perpetual and irrevocable. SCO says they have already revoked IBM's UNIX license.
SCO's UNIX? Which one? There is no "SCO UNIX"...
Are you talking about SCO OpenServer or SCO UnixWare? Based on your comments, you must be talking about OpenServer.
Have you used UnixWare? Which is the OS the case is actually based on.
If you're going to bash a company, at least get your terms right!
Securities fraud is a crime. Reporting it is like reporting any other crime. The state is responsible for enforcement once notified.
end of line
The executives of a public company have certain fiduciary duties to their shareholders.
If the company is a heavy user of Linux, the costs of the SCO licenses could be extremely expensive.
If the executives of the company purchase the SCO license, they could possibly be opening themselves up to shareholder lawsuits accusing them of not performing their fiduciary duties to their stockholders.
For exmaple, if a company only has one or two Linux systems, the executives might find it worthwhile to go ahead and purchase the license. However, if the license fee is $700 per CPU and they have 5,000 CPUS, that would be $3,500,000 dollars in license fees -- easily enough to draw the wrath of their shareholders.
In other words, if a company has very many Linux systems, it might be a very good idea to discuss the issues with their lawyers before agreeing to pay SCO a penny.
Hmm. I wonder if SCO has contacted them(SEC) about a Unixware license. If not, somebody should inform SCO that the government is violating "SCO IP".
Today on Slashdot, a second cousin of a slashdot user looks at the SCO case, stating how SCO is doing the suit all for the money and that MS FUD is abundant in the case. Slashdotters rejoice with the spamming of "LINUX ROCKS!" statements all over the comments system.
Karma whorin' since 1999
I just went to the ATM, so I have $200 in my pocket. That should be enough to cover the whole company, right?
(SEC Goons: it's a joke)
Gee that sure sounds as though the SCO license is MORE viral than the GPL.
From what I've understood of this case and the case of AT&T against Berkeley University about UNIX(R) is that there are a lot of similarities. Or could be if you like.
At one point SCO has to come forward and show the world the beef. The hackers at Berkeley removed all remaining AT&T code and thus made their code completely free of any copyrights. Wouldn't people just work their ass off to clean any code out that might come from the System V codebase? And thus clear Linux once and for all from any of these silly actions?
I mean, at some point SCO has to substantiate their claim don't they?
Then why hold back on telling which bits of code infringe?
The need for an NDA would be removed as the case would be so watertight that there would be no point in witholding code that's already in the public domain via kernel.org
The whole thing stinks of delaying any definite info being released to cause maximum confusion regardless of the facts of the case and if SCO go down I suspect McBride will end up high up in some other litigous software giant at some point as they will be the only ones who've benefited.
Shutting SCO's offices in Germany is probably not that great a loss to them and was a sacrifice to keep the FUD going. SuSE will fill the gap when the case is over.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
So you think SCO's stock is horribly overpriced and they don't stand a snowball's chance in court?
Don't buy the company, short it! Shouldn't you be enjoying the financial benefits of their ruin? Of course you should, what could be more fun.
we know why they're doing it. we know people are dumb enough to believe the hype/b.s. and buy their stock... and their stock has gone up. i bought at $3.47. sold today at $14.62. thanks suckers!
I may be all wrong, but I thought the beef was that, although developements by IBM were IBMs IP, anything else, under the AT&T licensing wording, belongs to the owners of the Unix IP - currently SCO.
IBM had a special dispensation to keep their developement as their own IP, something that was not afforded to other Unix licensees.
But the special exclusion given to IBM did/does not extend to developements made by other companies that were eventually bought by IBM, and SCO seems to be claiming that IBM gave away IP (from companies they bought???) when that IP (according to SCO) did not belong to them. If I am reading the claims correctly, they might have some validity, although I really think there is more to this than just that.
Based on SCOs inability to state plainly 'These are our claims, here are our reasons, and here is our evidence', I think they are blowing smoke, but there may be a shred of truth to their FUD. I just wish someone would discover what it is so it could be addressed...
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
"Pseudo-news-source filled to overflowing with factual errors, conceptual errors, and baldfaced lies, made up mostly of copy-and-paste 'articles' which are often plainly retreads of old articles" was more how I'd put it.
I mean, I love the "Fuck SCO" mentality, but with friends like Mozillaquest...
I think you're confusing the Santa Cruz Operation (Ess See Oh) with Caldera (Sko).
IBM is saying their License is "perpetual and irrevocable" as well as paid up. SCO is saying IBM has broken the terms of the contract, has not remedied the situation, and now has no legal standing to continue to license AIX to their customers.
In the parent post, "they" refers to IBM staying quiet, not SCO.
In your post, the first 'they' should be 'IBM', the second should be 'SCO'.
Gotta watch those pronouns, they can be slippery creatures...
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
Details About the Transaction(S): Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) is using unsubstantiated claims of their IP rights to the Unix and Linux kernel (The core of their respective operating systems and distrobutions) source code to raise it's stock prices and force consumers to purchase SCO licenses.
Any Additional Information: I understand you will be getting a number of simmilar comlpaints from others as the result from the posting of this online complaint form on a popular technical website, slashdot.org. Let me speak for others and for myself in saying that this is a very serious issue and the thousands of contributors to Linux and the rest of the world-wide Open Source community are outraged at the slanderous and unethical business practices SCO has demonstrated in the past months. It is not only a harm to those who are heavily involved in Open Source development, but anyone who distributes Linux or Linux-related software. I have a small business in Northern California, in which I am currently focusing on providing Open Source solutions to other small and midsize businesses in order to save money spent on software licensing and related costs. I undoubtedly claim that the unethical practices SCO is taking will affect, either indirectly or directly, my success in providing other small and midsize businesses with Open Source solutions. SCO must be silenced in their allegations and blatant FUD (Fear, Uncertanty and Doubt) to the public until they provide substantial evidence to the public otherwise.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
It seems like this whole SCO story is just to test the power of open source community. SCO was like dead the last 10 years. And now suddenly it sues IBM and everybody sends complains to McBribe and every senator/janitor Bob. We must first laugh at them, then ignore them, then fight them and then lose.
In Soviet Russia:
1. Profit
2. ??
3. Sue SCO
4. Write device drivers.
Linux's JFS support doesn't come from AIX -- it comes from OS/2, to which SCO holds no copyright nor any other IP rights.
The OS/2 implementation of JFS was a ground-up rewrite, based on the JFS specification, which is owned completely by IBM. SCO might claim that they have copyrights to the original AIX JFS sources (a dubious claim), but they can't claim they own the JFS _specification_. That's owned by IBM.
As mentioned above, the OS/2 implementation was a ground-up rewrite based on this spec. The OS/2 version of the code was then ported and integrated into Linux by IBM.
Thus I can't see how SCO could have any sort of claim on JFS in Linux. SCO has no contracts with IBM pertaining to OS/2 technologies.
Score one for the good guys...
Yaz.
I think it's out of copyright, and it may be considered an inappropriate reference to sowewhere so close to Finland; but the attached is a reasonable analysis of the situation to my mind Danegeld
Really... I'm curious here. What *can* they do to someone who could even file for personal bankruptcy with no serious disruption to their life?
The only thing I can think of is that SCO probably wouldn't let them sign the NDA in the first place.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"And don't you forget it!"
Can you guess who I'd install as the new CEO at SCO?
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Why doesn't red hat just make a RPM that goes in and replaces all files or parts of files that have that code in it?
If I don't need the code, just take it out, how many people actually use this code anyway?
What does it take for a few nerds on slashdot to get together and re-write it anyway?
I would run the patch RPM just to piss SCO off.
Have it generate a letter to SCO saying I took it out, and let SCO try to handle all the mail.
Also, Linux use is ongoing, including large chunks of code that are derivative works, meaning that infringement is ongoing.
That's SCO's argument. T
A fact that has been overlooked by the media and most commentators is that few linux users actually use RCU, JFS, NUMA. Most linux users are running uniprocessor machines, and if a journaling FS is being used it is likely ext3. So, it seems that SCO *is* misrepresenting the need for licensing, as most linux users (and probably a lot of companies) are not actually using *any* SCO copyrighted technology.
Time to put up or shut up. If the -public- (not just SCO shareholders) can't request the SEC look into the truthfulness and legality of a company's executive officers activities (which by there very nature effect the stock price, and therefore the stock market, and thereofore interest rates, and therefore the economy, tax revune, the Federal budget, military pay, etc.) then what good is the law or the government? Does being politicaly "Conservative" (capital C) mean simply, following the "golden rule (who has the gold makes the rules?) or is the law taken seriously and accounting hijinks treated as the crime against the market, and society, they are? The market only works when criminals are kept from hijacking the efforts of innovators - theft is hardly very original.
- Misleading Advertising
- Improper Selling Practices
- Non-delivery of Goods or Services
- Misrepresentation
- Unhonored Guarantees or Waranty
- Unsatisfactory Service
- Credit/billing Problems
- Unfulfilled Contracts
I am not sure which of these apply, but I know Misleading Advertising, Improper Selling Practices, and Misrepresentation and what I would file under.The Santa Cruz Operation was founded by some friends of mine. I don't think that they have been involved with it for a very very long time. One of them still has my copy of The Feynman Lectures, which he hasn't returned. If he's still connected to SCO, I'll be sure to sue him.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
July 22, 2003 (Reuters)
SCO today announced the aquisition of Vultus, Inc.
With this purchase, SCO also announced that it now owned all IP rights and copyrights over all HTML, XML, and JavaScript technologies and any derivative work. When asked if this meant that SCO owned the Internet, CEO Darl McBride answered, "No, no, of course not. This simply means that we own all content available over the Internet, not the Internet itself. Vultus encapsulates within it several technologies, including but not limited to HTML, that enable creation of web sites. We are simply enforcing our IP rights."
"We are aware," added McBride, "that many corporations and individuals use this technology to publish content over the web. Our new licensing for these technologies will simply enable them to come out from the cold, and be legal and square without a threat of lawsuit for illegaly using this free and unwarranted software. I mean, how can someone use HTML with a warranty; this is unprecedented for any software product."
Many people have expressed doubts. Sun's Scott McNealy, when apprised of SCO's claims regarding JavaScript, asked, "After all the money I gave those fucking bastards? How could they?"
SCO's German web sites have been shut down by the government. When asked for comment, German Chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder responded, "Entschildigung, Ich verstahe nicht English. Sprachen sie Deutsche?"
Australian rioters hung an "I'm Darl McBride, Kick Me!" sign around the neck of a jackass then set loose upon it a horde of rabid kangaroos. Much of Sydney was destroyed, but there were few fatalities.
When asked for IBM's response to SCO assertion, spokesperson Trink Guarino simply replied, "Fuck that noise. Out response will be on our web site."
Microsoft's Bill Gates, however, was unperturbed. "Frankly, we don't see how this affects us," he said. "Content is overrated. We've been doing without it for years."
But the NSA can slap "TOP SECERT" onto any code and SCO be Damned if they can view it with out a level 4 security clearance.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Let us not forget that they are currently prosecuting Martha Stewart for stock price manipulation on the basis that she publicly proclaimed she was not guilty of insider trading and the stock price of Martha Stewart Living / Omnimedia jumped afterward. Without proving her guilty of insider trading or proving she knowingly made a false statement, they intend to prosecute her for stock price manipulation.
Now if they're willing to make that HUGE a leap/stretch, they are morally and ethically obligated to prosecute Darl and Co. for stock price manipulation. If they don't, Martha's lawyers use it to prove bias. Then, since the government never lets itself be embarrassed into dropping a case, they'll go after SCO just to prove that they're being evenhanded in going after Martha.
It's win-win.
Start a happiness pandemic
"SCO maintains that IBM has offered code from AIX, which included SCO's intellectual property, to the Linux open-source community to build Linux into an enterprise OS, and effectively killed SCO's Unix market for Intel."
this is from: http://sco.com/scosource/gartner_warning.html
since when did SCO have market share for an outdated operating system?
I personally have never seen this operating system around.
SCO is blowing smoke up everyones ass. I wouldnt pay attention to any of this fud.
this smells microsoft. it really does.
Everyone buy ONE, thats right one stock. Wait for the next shareholder meating(this will work because the lawsuit is going to drag on forever anyway) then force the arses on the board to drop the lawsuit and or off the board of directors.
hey it might work
Ahh.. The mind what a wonderful trap!
Maybe he just needs a chance to prove himself to all of us. We could give him a MacGyver Test. Kick him out the door of a Cesna at 3000 feet with a cloth diaper, a trash bag and a ball of yarn and see how he does..
Trink Guarino, Director of IBM Media Relations
Trink Guarino? They gotta be pulling our legs. What is he, Alotta Fagina's husband?
No one will forget "The SCO Group" for a *long* time. Like they say "bad publicity is better than no publicity"...
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Umm... who, IBM or SCO? Or both?
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Wonder if Joe's latest 'effort' is like his past 'effort'?
From: Joe Barr [joe@pjprimer.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 8:02 AM
To: sales@mindcraft.com
Subject: Industry Scum
Hey, Mindcraft
I am writing an article about asslicking whores in the industry.
You know the sort, they bend over for folks like Bill Gates by
producing totally false "benchmarks" based on liess, mistests,
biased hardware and software, and scores of other unethical,
deceiptful, dishonest, duplicitous means.
Like your reviews of NT vs Novell and Linux. Classic cases of
professional prostitution.
Cock sucking the geeks in Redmond.
The question for you maggots, whores, whatever you prefer to be
called, is: how much does it cost to buy one of your benchmarks?
tHANKS,
Joe Barr The Dweebspeak Primer
Forget SCO's B.S. IP claims, I have my own. I actually wrote every line of all *nix code in my head and then these psychic guys at AT&T, SCO, IBM, and Sweden stole it from my mind. If you don't pay me a license fee for MEnix and you're running Linux you'll be getting a call from my lawyer soon. No really... you will. And if you send SCO a dime, I'll sue you twice.
Why hasn't any Linux company -- or Torvalds himself -- sued SCO for a) tortious interference with a contractual relationship, b) trademark infringement, or c) fraud? If I tried to sue J.K. Rowling for stealing a sentence from me and started sending letters to buyers in an attempt to claim royalties for the all Harry Potter books sold, you could be sure she'd countersue my ass into oblivion.
So what's up, Linus?
filmcritic.com - Movie reviews on Internet time
I'm impressed that was modded as troll. Take THAT netgear!
"Derp de derp."
Check out the picture of the Vultus building. FYI, The Canopy Group is the parent company of both SCO and Vultus and apparently the owner of the building as well.
Can't wait to see the SEC filings on exactly what this purchase consisted of.
*Make* yourself affected. Buy 1 share. When the price drops because of McBride's idoicy, sell it. You have suffered dollar damages due to a stock pump-and-dump. That puts you, dear harmed and misled investor, right in the middle of the SEC radar, albiet a small blip because of only owning 1 share. However, and this is a big however, you are now a "represtative plaintiff", or whatever they call it, for a class action suit.
apparently nobody sees "the code". everybody who signs the NDA sees a few snippets, and i bet no two NDA signers see the same snippets. that would let them trace the leak. you wouldn't do whoever passes the information to you any favour
So now what do you do?, getting desperate are you?, the biggest joke is, now you've pissed of almost everyone, where do you run to when the jigs up?, like it's going to court, your bound to be in big trouble, but is there anywhere on earth left that you haven't pissed of?
Good luck finding asylum Mr McBride. (ha ha ha Ha HA ....)
ps: Mr McBride, Enjoy prison you ass wipe.
in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that
Francis Smit
Oh my!!!
Ray Noorda, top dog at the Canopy Group, former head of Novell and Bill Gates hate each other.
Yet, Microsoft gives $10 million to SCO to fund this insane legal action.
Sure, Linux gets a black eye from all this but I think there's a hidden MS agenda.
When this is over, I think a number of SCO people will be going to prison under RICO. Ray Noorda will be one of those. Don't fuck with Bill.
1000 SlashDot sigs
Show me the proof of shut up!
"I think thier assests should be liquified, and the results split 50-50 with the fsf getting half to fund dev projects"
The last time my asset got liquified I almost used a whole roll of tp!
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Now my Atari-based Linux terminal is no longer safe.
Thank you very much!
Just a little bit lower down and I think you've got exactly what they're doing!
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
Its not often that i find myself backing the behemoth corporations. But for once it looks like IBM is on the right side, and is standing up for it's rights. I for one would like to see IBM flex it's not inconsiderable legal might and slap SCO in the face with a malicous legal action suit/slander suit.
Personally, i find SCO's actions repugnant.
If they buy a license from SCO they're also in breach of license with the rest of the code in the kernel - by acknowledging there is non-redistributable code in the kernel they simply invalidate their own right to use the rest of the kernel with is under the GPL.
I don't think most companies would be that stupid... the best thing to do is to wait for the court case and carry on under the assumption that there's no change, until SCO prove (or not) their case.
Is I think slightly greater than the harmonisation of State laws in the US.
Dont complain about stock manipulation
to the FTC its not their job.
SCO's actions possibly involve both stock
and dubious trade practices.
Yes it must be a way to launder some money from the artificially inflated scox share price without it showing up as insider trading. I hope the SEC follows this up.
Hi folks, I'm seeking a bit of advice on the following regarding the effect SCVO's action is having on Linux techies.
Anyone considering suing SCO UK on the following point needs the answers listed below:
1) SCO refuse to release the details of their claim to the wider world which has led to Linux being pushed into a state of Limbo where analysts i.e. Gartner are recommending a freeze on Linux deployment and the consideration of proprietry UNIX and Windows instead of Linux.
Over a significant period of time many people have spent more hours than is healthy learning Linux and associated software and have spent money on Linux courses etc. the value of which is significantly degraded by SCOs actions. As yet, SCO have not provided any actual evidence of their claims and from my understanding so far the evidence shown under their NDA is far from conclusive.
Any claim would circle around the fact that the carrers of such people and their earning potential is being damaged not by SCOs claim, which is their business, but by their unreasonable behaviour in witholding evidence that if displayed to market analysts and lawyers could dismiss their case as irrelevant before it even reaches court.
As I understand it, under criminal law you cannot be arrested without the details of the accusations against you being revealed. What about Civil law? Is it right and reasonable under UK civil law that SCO (who have a UK office) should be able to damage the careers of Linux techies by witholding the evidence in their court case.
Would SCO UK also be pushed into releasing details of the claims as part of the action as in Germany and if SCO-Germany employees are being paid a retainer by SCO following the closure of the German office does this constitute a SCO presence in Germany and hence still leave them open to legal action?
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Their was a young man called McBride
"Our companies collapsing" he sighed
Maybe we ought To take someone to court
and piss people off far and wide
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
While not an attorney, I DO know that coprights ONLY protect the EXPRESSION of an idea, not the idea itself. Hence SCO can whine, bitch and moan ad nauseum about their copyright, but unless someone has copied LARGE amounts of code verbatim from the code that SCO holds a copyright on there is NOTHING that SCO can do with a copy right.
A patent on the other had protects the idea and any derivative implementations.
BTW, the UNIX SYSV code/BSD thing was disputed and determined years ago, unless again, some SCO code that SCO claims got copied verbatim into the BSD tree, which is very unlikely as the BSDs are much more rigidly controlled.
As to IBM & JFS/NUMA/etc, I highly doubt that IBM would have bothered with it if they did not know that they owned the code, and further they have patented it which trumps copyright.
In the same vein, SCO's programmers who have looked at the Linux kernel code and "determined" infringement are now "polluted" and should not be allowed to contribute code to SCO's own product. Who will ensure that it is the case?
You and I had better hope that this "something powerful" isn't a huge license fee paid to SCO for every copy of Linux being used by the government!
Do anyone know anything about filing injunctions against SCO, like LinuxTAG in Germany and Tarent (also in Germany) did?
Specifically, I would like to know if there are any (economic) risks or legal fees involved, since my budget as a CS student is quite limited. I live in Sweden, and will try to find out how to do it here, but it could be interesting to hear about other coutries too.
I'll hope for jailtime for Darl McBride.
http://forever-hacking.net/fucksco.png
(Please save it to your server, as apposed to linking it)
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
BSD beat sco on every conceivable parameter.
.92
Hell, even Coherent did (there's a name from the past for people)
and so did linux, even at kernel level
Check the story on ZDNet UK. SCO execs are taking profits on the stock while its inflated and before the fist falls in court. BUT the SEC is aware of the stock unloading, so they must be aware of the possibility of stock manipulation. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020 390,39115337,00.htm