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."
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.
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...
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
It's actually up to SCO to put out substantiating evidence. Nothing has come so far except FUD and wild, far-reaching claims.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
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.
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.
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!!"
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.
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.
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.
This.
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
Then that would be admitting that SCO has rights to the code.
Link here
Alison
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein
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
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...
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!!!
(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!
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.
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.
sPh
Usually money works as a decent incentive. :)
It's a publicly traded company, it's not hard to find stock for sale.
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.
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.
In other news, as of 15:07EST, this thread is one of the top stories on Google news.
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."
People keep saying this, but the people who say it aren't reading what SCO is saying.
/. posters say "So what if SCO doesn't believe it's clean, if we remove the offending code, it will be clean and then they'll have no claim."
SCO has said publicly that it no specific section of Linux can be removed or re-written to make it "clean". Their argument is that once SCO's IP was copied into the Linux kernel, later versions of Linux-- all of it-- became a "derivative work" and thus the entire kernel is now "SCO IP".
The only way they feel you could "clean" Linux is to revert to kernel 2.2 and restart development from there, but none of the existing developers or even Linux users could work on development because they've already been tainted-- all current Linux users have already seen the secret SCO IP in Linux kernels they're using. Any code created by current Linux developers or users would therefore be written with knowledge of SCO's super-duper technology, so SCO says that any code written by current Linux developers or users would therefore be "SCO IP" from the day it is born because it is a derivative work. And so they would still have to sue you for licensing fees over it, even though you just wrote it five minutes ago.
So, SCO says, we're letting you all off the hook. Since the only way to "clean" Linux development would eventually kill it completely (since no existing Linux developers or Linux users could work on a clean version), we'll be generous and let Linux live, and just charge license fees instead.
Now I've seen other
But they don't have any claim now; by most peoples' standards, they're making fraudulent claims to manipulate their stock price.Why does everyone think that if we remove some code from Linux and send a nice card to SCO saying that's what we've done, SCO will sit down and say "Okay, you're clean now. Thanks, Linux people!" and then withdraw their case?
And in fact, they've said they won't.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
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
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...
"Your can't-do attitude is probably also the reason you're a 35 year old virgin living in your parents' basement."
It's not a 'cant-do' attitude, it's a "Don't throw your energy into something futile" attitude. What he's really saying is "find a better solution."
"Derp de derp."
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.
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!
One of the executives here were I work hold quite abit of SCO stock. Not because he supports SCO, but because their stock prices are rising. He said that he is keeping a watchful eye, and that he knows SCO can't win. He just notes that it's money and he wants a cut of it. He is a business man. Business is about money, and that justifies his actions in his mind.
Printed onto a toilet paper roll. Just the thing any self respecting geek would want in their bathroom!
My rights don't need management.
I will take the code, though I do not know the way...
In a way, it is good that they would say this, because it is obviously overbroad. It is another statement that fails the smell test. How could someone who has never read the kernel code know their IP?
It also shows again how they are twisting the law to generate FUD. Their supposed rights to any derivative code are based on their contract with IBM. Which Linus did not sign.
Under what legal philosophy can they be talking about "tainted" code? It could only be trade secrets. Can't be copyrights. Authors read books written by other people, just as programmers see copyrighted code all the time. If you read a copyrighted implementation of a hash table, that doesn't mean you can never write your own hash table. Not patents, because then it wouldn't matter where the code came from.
Even if they can claim some ownership over e.g. the code written by IBM, that does not necessarily make that code a trade secret owned by SCO. They would need to argue its status as "secret" on top of justifying their ownership claims.
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."
Ahh, but the problem there is that the whole 'ownership of derivative work' thing only works when there is a contract in place. If I copy a chapter of a book and put it in my book, that's copyright infringement, but it doesn't make my book now owned by the plagarized author. Same with trade secrets and any other form of IP "protection".
There is no contract between SCO and "Linux", so the derivative work angle will not work. It also wouldn't work even if IBM did do something wrong, since they don't own the rights to the rest of Linux either so nothing they could have done could change the ownership of any of that copyright or any other IP besides that which they added.
IBM stated their license is perpetual and irrevocable. SCO says they have already revoked IBM's UNIX license.
I didn't fill out a form because someone told me to, but I can recognize a good suggestion when I see it, and that doesn't mean that I'm patting myself on the back either. I realize it is something of small value, but it is also of minimal cost, so why not?
The only reasonable criticisms have been that it may cause more harm, but I find that highly dubious. For example, if my congressman gets 500,000 letters from constituents, I do not think that he discounts them because some are written poorly.
BTW, I'm sorry I attacked you personally, but it irks me when people who want to contribute democratically, even in small ways, are called 'stupid'.
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.
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.
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.
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'
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
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!
No one will forget "The SCO Group" for a *long* time. Like they say "bad publicity is better than no publicity"...
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