Slashdot Mirror
SCO "Disappointed" by Red Hat Lawsuit
schmidt349 writes "SCO has issued a preliminary response to Red Hat's lawsuit, in which President and CEO Darl McBride advises that SCO will prepare a "legal response" to Red Hat's requests for injunctive relief. In addition, he promises that the countersuit that SCO will file may include "counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy." His final statement-- that Red Hat's "decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux--" is chilling in light of the business strategy that SCO has adopted in its sales of UnixWare licenses to actual and potential users of the Linux kernel."
"I am also disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than good faith discussions with SCO about the problems inherent in Linux."
I don't seem to remember SCO giving IBM much of a chance for "good faith discussions"
Hi Darl, you fascist, I run Linux on a dozen boxes. Please send me a bill that I will be happy to wipe my ass with and send back to you.
What an arrogant little prick.
I'm glad that Redhat finally brought their suit. This will assure linux users that they are not being left out to be attacked by SCO. Even if their claims are unfounded, you must agree that they seem to have a quite large legal team (if that isn't all that they have), and could really cause some damage if they started to attack companies. The companies may have to settle to just avoid a suit. Also, this'll nicely divide the SCO legal team into two suits.
"Men lie."
"Yeah, about sleeping with other women, but never about bioluminescent plankton."
-Dan Brown
Conspiracy? Wow, that's a really strong word to throw into the FUD campaign. It will certainly have people looking at Linux with even more doubt. Hopefully, the judicial system will work in this case and force SCO to actually prove their side of the issue.
- Darl McBride, CEO, SCO Group
Again, end users are not at risk, if anyone is, but rather the distributors of the Linux kernel in question. Secondly, the code was released by SCO under the GPL, negating the claim. Third, by not asking the "infringers" (who would be IBM primarily and companies like Red Hat secondly) to remove the suspect the code and instead attack the customers of the "infringers", SCO has made no attempt to keep their trade secret a secret at all, which renders it's claim to secrecy invalid in legal terms.
SCO has buried itself. I can't believe that anyone is still buying their stock, all they are doing is making McBride richer.
"In any such meeting, we will provide example after example of infringement of our intellectual property found in Linux. Of course, any such demonstration must be pursuant to an acceptable confidentiality agreement and must be intended to further good faith discussions about resolving the differences between us.........If you seek information for the purpose of informal discovery intended to benefit IBM in the pending litigation, or for the purpose of devising your own litigation plans against SCO related to Linux, we must respectfully decline your request."
- Robert Bench, CFO, SCO Group
In other words, they still refuse to take action in defending their trade secrets and rectifying the problem. No moral judge is going to cut them any slack with this kind of behaviour.
"Of course, we will prepare our legal response as required by your complaint. Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy."
- Darl McBride, CEO, SCO Group
It is amazing that this crook has the audacity to suppose that Red Hat is engaged in some kind of a conspiracy, considering the disgusting actions of his company. This is truly laughable.
1st anti-sco lawsuit, many more will come.
SCO's using lawsuits as a business threat? "this may include copyright violation charges!" It feels oddly like mccarthyism, or the salem witch trials, where any skeptics was accused of the crime themselves.
$8.95/mo web hosting
Will they continue to remain 'disappointed' if others follow the line of Red Hat and sue SCO? I'm sure there will a lot more anger floating around their offices than mere disappointment.
Mattb90
Editor, allaboutgames.co.uk
"I am also disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than good faith discussions with SCO about the problems inherent in Linux." - Darl McBride
This guy oughtta write for Letterman!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
No wonder Novell quit saying they sold rights to SCO.
This whole situation is becoming a legal teergrube. Wonder what YEAR it will be resolved?
Andways, what happened to a law-suit that puts SCO as the code stealer? I figure that Linux is open sourced, and SCO's isn't. What happened to claim that SCO did it backwards?
I would say this is the pot calling the kettle black...but that just doesn't come close...
Today RedHat is
a) Good
b) Bad
c) CowboyNeal
We have been showing a portion of this code since early June.
Um...no you haven't. Nobody has seen this comparison but Darl McBride and his evil twin brother.
its amazing the FUD that this clown CEO spreads. Its time to go to court, to shut this clown, and his clown conspirators up.
Redhat is doing a bit of justice for linux in general....
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
So, they're disappointed that other people are choosing litigation, which is exactly what they did. No surprise to me, though; I'm surprised that SCO is surprised.
Can't we all just get along? Whimper, whimper...
Dear Darl,
I am speechless. I have so many thoughts wizzing through my head that I want to express, that my brain just locked up.
-Spack
I'm not saying that Red Hat made the wrong decision - they were injured and are suing - but I think the more Linux players SCO can get involved with litigation, the happier they will be - if they can drag out the proceedings. Imagine the boost to the "Linux has IP problems" line if all the major Linux players are tied up in litigation over IP issues.
The best that can happen is that they lose quickly. But I bet they'll drag it out as long as they can.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
SCO has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users. We have been educating end users on the risks of running an
/.).
operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX. Linux includes source code that is a verbatim copy of UNIX and carries with it no warranty or indemnification. SCO's claims are true and we look forward to proving them in court.
First off, don't use FUD in a press-release, that's just stupid.
Second, you might have been showing this section of code but the people you have shown it to have no fucking idea what it is, most people are speculating that it's bullshit anyway, and what's the fucking point? You are STILL fucking spreading GPL'd kernel code (in its entirety as we have been shown 1000x before on
Third, *everyone* looks forward to you showing this in court because you haven't proven anything anywhere else except that you can play God with your stock prices.
SCO's "Disappointed"? Awe poor SCO.
Well SCO, I'm very disappointed in YOU!
Now go to your room and don't come out until you've thought about what you've done.
See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
I don't understand what they mean by "leveraging information property through adequate means"? The SCO folks are so enigmatic.
Darl is such a punk ass. I'll bet he was the school bully in middle school. There are ways of dealing with bullies like him.
Right or wrong, RH was in their list of eventual suits..
This only pushes up the timetable.. Bad thing is RH is a more logical target the IBM..
They have a much better chance of squishing RH due to their size. This would set a legal precident that none of us want to see. And it would make it easier to go after the big guys. ( i stil dont know why they didnt try that to begin with.. )
Unlike IBM who can fight and destroy SCO due to their sheer mass..
.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
SCO just rekindled the fire by selling 6 shares to redhat for the price of $8 each. I dont know how this would make any difference.
So SCO is saying that it is dissapointed in Red Hat for figureing out their smear campaign and trying to extort money out of linux users? And we're supposed to feel sorry for them(SCO)? Anyone else getting a sour taste in their mouth?
"For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
I'm sure that Darl gets a nice Gates pat on the back every once and awhile...good job, keep that uncertainty and doubt coming...Windows Server 2003 is selling like hotcakes. I won't be intimidated by some CEO's threats.
"How dare you counter our frivolous claims with an honest-to-goodness lawsuit based on real facts!?!?!"
We at the SCO are disappointed you did not roll over and die when we used the word lawyers.
We are awaiting further instruction from out legal team, however this may be delayed as our current course of action provided by our lawyers lists only the phrase "2. ???" for our next step. We are awaiting clarification from them before continuing.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
Red Hat's decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of SCO.
No, I don't want a free iPod
If they all just got on with building software instead of legal wranglings, everyone would be better off. It just seems that almost anyone can kick up a fuss half expecting to be bought off, just because it's easier and cheaper than lititgation.
Vacancy for signature. Apply within.
Dear SCO,
Get used to disappointment. There's a lot more on the way.
I liked Red Hat's letter to SCO. So much that it leaves me wondering what would happen if every Linux user coordinated sending a copy with their demands to SCO on the same day. We could all demand responses.
Instead of supporting their FUD campaign with license fees, we could create cost by forcing them to deal with a mountain of letters. Make sure you send it registered/certified so that someone has to sign for it.
Just picture the tractor trailer backing up full of letters...
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
However, all this lawsuit and counter lawsuit, and counter counter lawsuit sh*t is starting to get annoying and unnerving. Is *bsd safe from the never ending SCO FUD? It might be time to start freshening up on the ole *BSD's.
No more Micro$oft bashing from me. Its like bashing at the special olympics.
Whatever. If SCO proves their claims, then it won't be long before the Linux community re-writes those parts that IBM contributed and makes the Linux kernel "UNIX-free."
You'll pardon me if I'm not frightened.
Finding God in a Dog
SLASHDOT SCO!
c s-21.1.10-15.src.rpm
SCO needs a good old-fashoned slashdoting.
Launch an unspecified number of wget processes:
wget ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/OpenLinux3.1/SRPMS/xema
click here
Red Hat's "decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux--" is chilling in light of the business strategy that SCO has adopted in its sales of UnixWare licenses to actual and potential users of the Linux kernel.
I wouldn't say "chilling", I would say "ironic", or perhaps "stupid".
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
SCO still has not formally charged someone with copyright violation... Their only (related) suit on record is a "contract breach" with IBM. That makes great grounds for libel and fraud, considering they continue to distribute Linux code over FTP months after proclaiming this a crime against themselves!
Give me a break!
What a load of nonsense doublespeak.
They are ready to sue IBM and everyone else they can get their hands off but they chide another company for taking legal action against them first?
Typical. This will not hasten the demise of linux but in actuality will only hasten the departure of SCO from the scene.
Kudos for RedHat for having the balls to call these scumbags bluff.
ACK
Dear SCO,
Please have a nice cup of STFU. Until you show some evidence, in court, I will continue to ignore any and all claims that they make.
And no, I will not take your word for it that some of your supposed code is in the kernel, and no, I won't sign any NDAs to see the evidence.
It was my understanding that the Microsoft EULA is the "use" license for Word--Linux customers have made no such agreement with SCO.
In addition, Stowell admits that IBM holds the copyrights to the code in question (emphasis mine):
Someone please ask SCO this:
Since IBM has the copyrights to the code in question, what recourse can SCO possibly have against end-users?
If the contracts forbid these "derivative works" from being contributed to open source, what recourse do you have against end-users now that they have been? You don't own the copyrights for such code, and end users are not party to your contract with IBM.
Or do you realize that you have no claim against end-users, and as such are inventing a new kind of intellectual property called "control rights"?
I wonder if anyone is working on a class action with claims similar to RedHat's on behalf of linux integrators & resellers.
The libel and FUD impacts the little guys as well.
Saddam Hussein "Disappointed" by U.S. liberation of Iraq....news at 11!
SCO today announced that RedHat's lawsuit infringes upon their recent patent of sueing businesses as a business model.
On a related note, Amazon claims they had the lawsuit as a business model patent first. Legal action forthcoming.
I was going to post the text of the article, but then I decided against it ... I would prefer to just let them get slashdotted ;-)
"...SCO has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users. We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX."
- Darth McBride, Corporate Extortion Officer, S.tupid C.orporate O.gre
This guy is a piece of work! He can lie out of both sides of his mouth at the same time! What an ability!
SCO back as early as January 2003 (maybe a bit more) started making spurious IP mutterings.
They file suit against IBM in March 2003, telling IBM to "comply with our licensing demands or suffer the consequences".
Then, when that does get SCO purchased by IBM, they directly target Linux users with their threatening letter.
Darth and other officers at SCO make numerous statements, at times contradicting the other officers, then their own individual statements when trying to "correct" or "clarify" what they said.
So now Darth is "surprised" that someone finally told them, through RedHat's suit to "shut your gosh darn mouth, you lying piece of worm ridden filth! Put up or shut up!"
Good bye, SCO, I will not send my condolences when your company ceased to exist.
Regards,
Fredrick
Now SCO will be forced to show the "infringing code", publicly and without any NDA attached, and the community will at last be able to rewrite the few functions and go ahead.
SCO is dead
AC
Statements RedHat could make would include "It's time for SCO to put up or shut up." Would love to hear some other suggestions.
Irrespective of the legal merits of the case (SCO is the kind of company you never want to sign a contract with.), Redhat needs to go for a more aggressive stance in their public statements. SCO has been off the wall with theirs, and Redhat needs to call them on it (the idea that running linux now before anything has been show open one to liability just on the sayso of a company out for bucks is rediculous for example).
With a group like SCO they probably need to have the mindset of "go for the jugular". They need to hire an aggressive set of lawyers, get a pool of folks together to front serious money (get things to $5 million or so) and then sit back and prepare to grind it out.
The problem nowadays is if you make wild enough statements repeatedly enough, they are given more credit then they deserve.
Want to hear more details on the conspiracy and long term viability of Linux? Check out their conference call today:
Where: Toll Free within North America: 1-800-238-9007
International: 719-457-2622
Password to enter call: 274040
When: Tuesday, Aug. 5, 2003
2:00 p.m. EDT, 11:00 a.m. PDT
slatted to lose 35% today after 8% losss yesterday..
burn sco group shares!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
IBM: well, your stupid!!! and and and your company is stupid. :P
:P
SCO: well, OS\2 was stupid too
hey guys, grow up and just sue each other, oops too late.
Linux: Helping nerds look smarter since the late 90s.
Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy. "
- Darl McBride, CEO, SCO Group
You would get paranoid too if everybody was against you. 8-)
What SCO said, and what they really meant
SCO has consistently stated that our UNIX System V source code and derivative UNIX code have been misappropriated into Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels
We just want to scare you into paying us money. Thats easier than actually producing a product that anyone wants.
We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX.
We have been trying to extort money from you.
SCO's claims are true and we look forward to proving them in court.
If we can get you to give us money, then we don't really have to prove anything. Our lawyers told us that.
Recent correspondence from SCO to Red Hat further explains SCO's position
Holy SH*T someone is calling our bluff, what? They have lawyers? Suing WHO? I can't belive it, threatenting to sue is the way to do business, can't we grease your palm with some of our liscence fee to make this go away?
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Being the biz world's poster child for linux, they basicly have to counter suit to maintain the validity of the kernel.
Though I often trash talk redhat for not quite being what I want in a distro, I have to give them a pat on the back for this. kudos to ibm as well, though I'm not happy about them sending so many developer jobs over seas.
-makoffee
SCO Sues you!
No wait, we did that already
Is NIL. SCO does not have a legal team. For some time now the company HAS become a law practicing firm. So the RedHat suit comes just like getting a new client.
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
After all ... They're not accurately defining the word "insane".
It's a term that really should be entirely reserved for describing SCO's recent actions.
Toll Free within North America: 1-800-238-9007
International: 719-457-2622
Password to enter call: 274040
More info at: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030805/latu080_1.html
for i in $(seq 1 100); do wget "ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/OpenLinux3.1/SRPMS/xema cs-21.1.10-15.src.rpm" -O /dev/null; done
I hope more and more companies do this. Imagine the cost to SCO if every large company with a siginificant investment in Linux were to do this. How much cash do SCO have to pay their lawyers? 10 Lawsuits? 20? Of course, I'd like to see SCO die a quick death, but I'll admit I'd rather see them thrash around in agony for a while first.
Six words:
Me cago en tu madre, cabron!
Yeah, that should do it!
What would happen if the next version of the kernel simply rewrote the disputed parts of the code? Or, at least if there were some parts that were more in question than others, just these?
In addition, I'm wondering about the rest of the world, like China, Japan, countries in South America, all of which are repidly adopting Linux. They don't need to worry about the U.S. copyright laws so what happens then? Everyone is already pissed at the U.S. so does Linux become a world standard and MS an American one, like NTSC and PAL?
that one (or more) of these things are going on.
a) the news isn't telling us what SCO is smoking.
b) the news isn't understanding what SCO is saying.
c) SCO's legal department isn't understanding what SCO is saying.
d) the news isn't understanding what SCO's legal is saying.
it just seems so wierd that what the news says they say is so different from article to article. sueing over copyrights, killing linux, saving linux, its not about copyrights, its about IPs, its not our IPs but that doesn't matter because its about copyrights... etc
The whole point behind open source is that it is open. If there is code that is questionable, it can be removed, and replaced. Redhat may go. Debian and Mandrake may bite the dust. But the source is out there, and available. Linux will not die because of this SCO fiasco.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
SCO has consistently stated that our UNIX System V source code and derivative UNIX code have been misappropriated into Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels. We have been showing a portion of this code since early June. SCO has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users. We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX. Linux includes source code that is a verbatim copy of UNIX and carries with it no warranty or indemnification. SCO's claims are true and we look forward to proving them in court.
... [and Red Hat's] lack of access to unpublished software patent applications, copyright registrations which fail to adequately disclose source code, and numerous issued software patents that are of dubious validity ... Claims of infringement could require us to seek to obtain
Recent correspondence from SCO to Red Hat further explains SCO's position.
The first letter is from Bob Bench, CFO of The SCO Group, Inc., to Mark Webbink, Sr. Vice President and General Counsel of Red Hat, Inc., that SCO intended to send to Red Hat. After a conversation between Matthew Szulik and Darl McBride, Red Hat determined that SCO did not need to send this letter.
The second letter is one that was sent to Matthew Szulik today from Darl McBride after Red Hat's lawsuit was filed.
July 31, 2003
Mark Webbink, Esq.
Sr. Vice President and General Counsel
RED HAT, INC.
1801 Varsity Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
VIA FACSIMILE: (919) 754-3700
Dear Mr. Webbink:
This letter is in response to yours of July 18, 2003 to Darl McBride President and CEO of The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO").
Before responding to your request, it is important to place your letter in context. Your letter follows on the heels of Red Hat's S-3 filing of July 7, 2003, in which your company revised its risk disclosure statement.[1] In addition, SCO is currently engaged in litigation with International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") regarding its role in the development of the Linux operating system. At the time of your letter, we had expected the possibility of a global resolution of SCO's intellectual property claims against all Linux-related companies that would have likely included Red Hat. This effort has apparently stalled, through no fault of SCO.
Based on the posture of our litigation and your revised risk disclosures, it is unclear to us the purpose of your July 18, 2003 letter. If you desire to enter good faith discussions to address SCO's intellectual property claims against Linux, either on behalf of a wider consortium of Linux companies or solely on behalf of Red Hat, we are willing to meet with you for that purpose. In any such meeting, we will provide example after example of infringement of our intellectual property found in Linux. Of course, any such demonstration must be pursuant to an acceptable confidentiality agreement and must be intended to further good faith discussions about resolving the differences between us.
If you seek information for the purpose of informal discovery intended to benefit IBM in the pending litigation, or for the purpose of devising
your own litigation plans against SCO related to Linux, we must respectfully decline your request. Therefore, please clarify in writing the purpose for your request. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robert Bench
Chief Financial Officer
The SCO Group, Inc.
[1] Red Hat states in the revised disclosure that it is "vulnerable to claims that [its] products infringe third-party intellectual property rights particularly because [its] products are comprised of distinct software components many of which are developed by independent parties." The revised risk disclosure continues: "[M]uch of the code in [Red Hat's] products is developed by independent parties over whom we exercise no supervision or control
Reporters might want to consider this list of questions for the conference call today:
Note: Brazenly ripped off from a post on the SCOX Yahoo discussion board:
1. When you said there are thousands of files of "your" (ie SCO's) Intellectual Property in Linux, were you referring to IBM's copyrighted and patented code?
2. Isn't that a very liberal and deceptive use of the word "your"?
3. Were you intentionally trying to mislead investors, Linux users, and the general public by referring to it as "your" IP before your case with IBM even goes to trial?
4. Are you concerned that your deceptive use of the words "your" and "our(s)" will lead to class action lawsuits by investors?
5. Don't the clauses in ammendment X saying that IBM owns all work produced by IBM and that those works are not subject to the other restrictions in Ammendment X mean that IBM can donate its patented, copyrighted code to Linux?
6. If you and other SCO execs feel you have such a strong case, why have there been no executives cashing in options and holding them?
7. Assuming for the moment that IBM has violated your trade secrets, accourding to established IP law, wouldn't that simply mean that IBM was liable to you for damages, but that the 'secrets' are now out of the bag and there is no legal way to encumber Linux because of that?
8. Given the filing date on your copyright, isn't SCO enjoined from seeking statutory damages or fees and limited only to the much harder to prove actual damages in any copyright legal action against Linux?
9. How does SCO, a Unix company, expect to make use of Vultus, a web services company whose product works only in Internet Explorer for deployment on IIS servers as a slower than Java replacement for Java?
10. Sontag has publicly stated that JFS, RCU, and NUMA are copyrighted by IBM but that SCO has "control rights" over that code. Is that type of contract legal? Has the validity of such a contract ever been tested in court?
Compliments of martin_lvnv -
11. When was the last time you checked on the number of resellers and developers? Don't you think it might be time to update those figures?
I just hope Novell does the same thing, now that they are planning on making a new Linux distribution. I hope noone buys SCO. I hope SCO will be crushed by IBM, Red Hat, Novell and other. I hope SCO disapears. I hope that the next generation of Linux users dont even know what SCO is.
Call on God, but row away from the rocks.
Instructions:
1. Wear your best black Ninja gear
2. Creep into office of someone who signed the NDA (if you can find them)
3. Take a copy of the documents showing the so called 'stolen' code.
4. Post them on your anon website.
5. Get Slashdotted.
Go on, someone, be a hero and show us the code, we're all meant to be using illegally. There's turnips in it for you!
All SCO is doing with this is playing the PR game. The Press Release is a simple move that tries to paint Redhat as a greedy sue-happy corporation (What? your suing us? I can't believe it).
/. previously. SCO is trying to spread FUD they are, other then IBM, thretening shops that may not have the legal muscle to fight SCO. This sounds like many other patent cases where a company will build a "war chest" to build thier on hand capitol by suing small companies that will settle rather then fight, so that later they will be able to sue the larger companies for much larger capital.
This goes back to the many previous articles and opinions that have been posted on
Yes, I know you are not a lawyer...but this is /. so I don't care.
What would happen if a variety of companies all filed suits similar to RedHat's? Can SCO ask for a delay in the proceedings since they would be tied up in other cases. Is it possible to basically do a DOS-like attack with lawsuits?
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
long int infinity = 32768;
/
for (i=0,i<=inifinity,++i){
Sue();
GetCountersued();
CountersueCountersuer();
}
Profit!
I leave it to you to work out all the bugs for SCO and upload the source via CVS to the following ftp server: ftp://ftp.scogroup.com/evilbits/code/profitengine
Thanks!
It has come to my attention that you claim that you 'own' the SMP parts of the Linux kernel. I have looked on your website and determined that amount of money you plan on charging me for the right to use what I could have downloaded for free off of you a year ago.
Here is a check to the amount that I 'owe' you. You will notice how your name is not at the top of it however. This money is going to the Red Hat lawsuit fund to put you and your crooked company out of bussiness.
GFY
Hope /. saves the discussions especially the pointers to SCO's ftp 'giveaway'. It would surely be included in the legal battle as proofs and /. would be immortal in judicial precedents. Up yours SCOe
A few things that stood out for me:
.
SCO has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users.
I love the way this is phrased. It sounds like it's the first they've heard of the term FUD. They're literally adressing every word of the acronym.
We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX.
The risk is that SCO will sue you, of course.
Linux includes source code that is a verbatim copy of UNIX and carries with it no warranty or indemnification. SCO's claims are true and we look forward to proving them in court.
"Yep, the claims are true. Really true. See how true they are. And we'll show this truth at a later date. If we need to."
And no warranty and indemnification . .
In any such meeting, we will provide example after example of infringement of our intellectual property found in Linux. Of course, any such demonstration must be pursuant to an acceptable confidentiality agreement and must be intended to further good faith discussions about resolving the differences between us.
"So, we'll provide a ton of examples, then control how you can discuss them. Trust us. You have to sign the agreement of course before we provide them"
If you seek information for the purpose of informal discovery intended to benefit IBM in the pending litigation, or for the purpose of devising your own litigation plans against SCO related to Linux, we must respectfully decline your request.
This makes me wonder what kind of NDA would be required to see the code anyway. It sounds like "we can show you this stuff if it never gets involved in a lawsuit, but we can sue the bejesus out of you anytime."
To my surprise, I just discovered that your company filed legal action against The SCO Group earlier today.
A Linux company suing SCO. Will surprises never cease.
Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy.
"We're going to try and turn this lawsuit into a new revenue stream for us."
I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux.
Pure threat. Red Hat isn't the only Linux out there. This sounds like A) A general threat and B) more of a "bring it on" attitude towards Linux in general - posturing.
I don't think much has changed. This is the usual mix of threat and PR work.
My two cents.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Chilling my arse!
SCO had no intention of letting linux survive in the first place (and if they did, their masters in Redmond certainly did not). So I hardly see why this latest sample of McBride bombast should furnish any additional cause for concern.
SCO are spreading FUD people - lets not do their work for them!
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
"decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux--" *phone rings* ...
*click*
"Hello?"
"Hi, Kettle?"
"Yes?"
"This is pot"
And now you know the rest of the story
You wanna talk about conspiracies, Mr. McBride? Who bought massiave amounts of SCO stock a few months ago that has a fuming rivalry with Linux. Yes, let's talk about conspiracies...
Join Tor today!
Here's a suggestion that I am proposing for Darl McBride, which he is free to use without paying royalties to myself:
I would pay good money for that!Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
IANAL, but damn! How hard can this be to prove/resolve one way or another? The code is either in there, or it's not. There may be some intent issues to deal with if SCO's claim is found to be correct, but it seems to me they haven't even proven their claims yet. For the love of all that is compiled, somebody force these bastards into full disclosure so that meaningful questions can actually be answered. I'm fucking sick of all the finger pointing.
The enemies of freedom were at it again last night. On Kudlow and Kramer on CNBC some analyst hack mentioned Linux's "IP problems" in a Microsoft story. I am afraid that the SCO suit is having its intended affect by negatively influencing public opinion and support by business and analysts. By proxy with SCO, Microsoft is accomplishing what it could not do alone in creating Linux FUD.
By the way the /. crowd has ridiculed Stallman in the past about making contributors sign legal disclosure forms for FSF programs. What do you say now, fools? Had Linus and his open source buddies been half as vigilant about the source of code contibutions, this issue would not exist.
an ill wind that blows no good
Mod me flamebait all you want.
I still want to know what everyone is going to do if it turns out SCO is right.
And its a definate possibility, considering the linux community has no respect for IP laws in general, and IBM has no respect for fair business practices.
So far all the linux community can defend itself with is name-calling.
Let the good times roll.
Or, how about this scenario? IBM settles out of court, admitting guilt. They license - and now own for all intents and purposes - linux.
Eventually, one way or another, linux will be declared some corporations property. It's guaranteed. The more valuable it becomes, the harder people will fight and the more tricks they will use to make sure it does not remain free.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Man, you got to echo the company line: linux is good, linux isn't derivative, sco is evil, lawyers are evil unless they are red shats, etc. etc.
Red Hat's countersuit is only beneficial to Linux. Even Chris Stone, who is moving Novell ahead with it's own desktop Linux distro, seems to think so.
Of course Red Hat is going to countersue. The Linux kernel has a lot of code that THEY developed and spent money on.
My journal has hot
SCO's stocks have almost recovered, though. See here.
It's sad so many people are buying into this kind of crap.
Its almost as if Darl McBride is reading slashdot. He's the little kid on the playground that keeps poking at you until you chase him. Then he runs and hides. Posts like this parent are just what he is looking for. He wants to see how many linux users he can piss off before SCO falls.
Once this is all over and done with, and IBM's lawyers are peeling the remnants of SCO from the heels of their shoes, I think the Linux users who actually DID purchase licences from SCO should sue to get their money back. Surely there's some legal basis for it...
- DRFSR
"Linux geeks howled a bit, but then wrote off SCO as a bunch of sleazebags and went back to playing live-action roleplaying (LARP) games in their mothers' basements, or whatever it is they do when they're not writing device drivers and complaining about clueless end users."
SCO continued to sell their Linux distribution AFTER they filed the lawsuit. They distributions are still available on their FTP site. Post suit, this indicates that they are releasing the code that they are identifying as infringing under the GPL.
This is Microsoft FUD if I've ever heard it. Microsoft's most common argument has always been "Linux isn't going to be around, we are". Interestingly SCO is now parroting that sentiment.
Join Tor today!
But Redhat is trying to win an Injunction, which doesn't cost much and doesn't take long.
If Redhat loses in its attempt, THEN you are talking about a longer lawsuit and then you are also more likely to see, as IIRC Bruce Perens was recently quoted as stating, the cases betwixt SCO, IBM and Redhat settling.
This prediction of settlement I thought was one of this week's weirdest twists, and it hasn't been much commented upon. Are the issues so murky that Bruce thinks obtaining an injunction v. SCO is unlikely, and so like in the majority of cases which result in long, drawn-out court battles, all sides would then be more likely to settle and end the bleeding?
Would be nice to see who so funding SCO legal team.
Microsoft?? Cause you know its not SCO!!
Has SCO actually initiated any court action as of yet? I mean, they've certainly made a lot of threats but have they actually done anything? I suspect that once this does happen, all of their "evidence" becomes discoverable and perhaps that is what is holding them up. Smells like bullshit to me.
...like I said, smells like bullshit to me.
This latest affair reminds me of a schoolyard fight were one person gets tired of listening to all the "I'm a badass" blustering and just gives him a quick jab in the nose followed up by, "now fight me or go the f@@k home!". Once again, SCO responds with more blustering.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
This portion of the correspondence (where Red Hat explains it's intentions) is the cusp of the thing:
"Claims of infringement could require us to seek to obtain licenses from third parties in order to continue offering our products, to reengineer our products, or to discontinue the sale of our products in the event reengineering could not be accomplished on a timely basis."
So Red Hat requested to know what parts are infringement. The purpose is to either pay a fee to use, rewrite the stuff to eliminate infringement, or stop selling the stuff if they can't get it fixed quickly. They gave SCO 30 days to provide them with the kernel code, then decided to sue them since they were dragging their heels. This is smart. Red Hat depends on Linux (duh). They want to get this resolved. By stating clearly that they will simply rewrite the code in question, SCO balked and delayed. Red Hat's managers seem to have a good grip on how a business is run, and SCO just realized that once Red Hat makes a compliant kernel, the rest of the community will follow, and SCO will have no suit. This is the real reason they are hiding the code till trial. They won't have a case if it comes out sooner.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
counter-counter-lawsuit... Reminds me of the that Mark Wahlberg movie...
D. McBride: Gah! RH is on to us! They must be using a scam-buster. No worry. We'll just bring out the ol' scam-buster-buster and hope to hell they don't have a scam-buster-buster-buster. Maybe we should get our lawyers working on a scam-buster-buster-buster-buster just in case.
Hmmm.. Sounds like this preemptive strike was necessary. Does anyone seriously doubt that SCO would stop at IBM?
Even if they lost the IBM lawsuit, they have plenty of other annoyance lawsuits to file against smaller Linux companies. Once a victory is claimed, they'll be more than an annoyance.
Better to take them out first than to stand around waiting for the big boom.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Has anyone thought about maybe diffing the recent Linux sources against legacy UNIX sources (like SCO used to license)? It seems like such a simple and logical thing to do. They found the alleged infrigements, why can't we?
If I had the appropriate UNIX sources, I'd do it myself. Somebody out there must have a copy of the UNIX in question.
The FUD will evaporate in the cold light of day.
Ask your doctor if getting up off your ass is right for you! -- Bill Maher
How many lines of code are in question? Can't those parts of the system be rewritten to avoid any possible SCO infringement claim? This is copyright infringement not a patent infringement. Of course this assumes that SCO discloses which parts they consider as infringing.
I wish they'd just yelled and grounded me. Their being disappointed just makes me feel so much sorrier...
...after all, in light of recent Slashdot stories, SCO is most likely an organization powered by blood!
*cue maniacal laughter*
I nominate SCO for official addition to the net.kook hall of fame.
There I was happily reading the SCO letters on their pages, when a DHTML menu thingie called my attentition on the left. A nice triangle arrow indicating the link over witch the mouse is hovering.
And I carelessly allowed me to think "how cute - I could make something like this on the site I am working on."
Too good I came to my senses before that. It would be a _bad_ thing to have SCO suing me with 200 grand in lawyers to get possession of every HTML page I ever wrote.
-><- no
It is time all Linux distros with any serious muscle to turn on SCO...
the penguin kicks ass
First, I'm glad someone finally posted a story about SCO, there's been way too few of these recently, and it was difficult to find a forum whre I could ask....
OK, bad attampts at sarcasm aside:
SCO's current angle of attack seems to be, that even though IBM wrote and has the copyrights to things such as JFS and FCU, by releasing them into AIX, it became a derivative work of UNIX and SYSV. Can we follow this "logic" to say that since device drivers are many times placed in the kernel (trying not to slit hairs on kernel modules here) that the drivers become derivative works of SYSV and therefore any hardware manufacturer that makes a driver for both UNIX and Linux may also be brought into the lawsuit?
Until April 2005, as I recall. From my own limited experiences with the legal system, (My father involved in a complex dispute over the family farm, and a drawn out divorce) these things move at a speed akin to continental drift. The whole thing will unfold in slow motion, and like an aging wine cannot be hurried. No matter who wins the 2005 hearing, there are bound to be further rounds of settlement talks. (in the unlikely event SCO gains a partial victory) Legal action involving other Linux distributors and SCO will play out over an even longer timeframe, if there is anything left of the carcass, assuming IBM wins.
This will be both a cash drain and an unfortunate distraction for Red Hat, but it has the positive effect of casting a longer shadow over SCO, since they are now fighting a second front. If other Linux distributors follow suit, (or perhaps band together into a class action?) and sue SCO then it will put even greater pressure on them.
My rights don't need management.
"Hey David, how's it going?"
"Oh, hi Mark! Just wiping off my huge, gigantic balls for this afternoons board meeting."
"Is that what those are? Your nuts? I always thought you were handicapped, and that was some sort of designer wheelchair or something!"
"No, they're my balls. The casters welded to the bottom are just for mobility"
"Did you say welded? To your balls?"
"Well, of course? They're made of adamantium steel you know."
OK, this guys evil and all, but you gotta admit...
SCO distributed the linux kernel to me under the terms of the GPL just last week (it is still on their ftp servers). I'm quite willing to license the kernel to Redhat under the GPL as is my right. SCO can't claim copyright infringement or anything as they did not take down the kernel even after I emailed them last week pointing this out.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
This is the case in the US too.
You can learn this watching Judge Judy or any other TV small claims court.
A person can be held responsible for the damage they cause, if you don't take reasonable means to protect yourself, or reduce it, it isn't their fault, it is yours.
The moment they state the file or day, can't you just go look up the good ol' CVS for that day, and see who put it in there?.. I could think of nothing funnier in court than:
....
Monday:
Judge: Please state the files, lines, etc that are in question.
Sco: File xyz.c lines abc.c
Judge: This could be incrimenating, yes.
Tuesday:
Judge: Linux Distro X, do you have anything to say before we proceed?
Penguin: Only that we clean-roomed the files in question and rebuilt the kernel last night while you were sleeping. Any code SCO might lay claim to is no longer an issue.. We had offered to remove the offending material, but SCO never told us where it was... it is now gone. At the courts disgression, we can also remove the source logs of the offending files
meh
check out this press release, SCO are apparently one of the leading business software companies and have a new contract!
l
... y'all could complain in person to Darl :)
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030804/lam082_1.htm
(Yahoo financial news)
by the way, SCO forum, Las Vegas 17-19th August. Linux people should be there
Maybe IBM is the real benficiary here. Letting RH and SCO duke it out softens up the combatants while IBM sits in the corner able to deliver a coup-de-grace at the appointed time. Viewing RH as a competitor, IBM can benefit by the lawsuit's financially weakening effect on RH. Or IBM can buy RH and bring in the cavalry if that proves to be a better business decision.
1) threat IBM about IP theft in Linux
2) make FUD about Linux
3) threat Linux users
5) get sued
6) cry ("I am disappointed")
7) ???
8) die
RedHat could slam them around in court a bit to drive down their stock price, then pick them up for spare change.
"Daryl McBride, I'm sick of him
Look at him, walkin around grabbin his you-know-what
Flippin the you-know-who," "Yeah, but he's so cute though!"
Yeah, I probably got a couple of screws up in my head loose
But no worse, than what's goin on in your parents' bedrooms
Sometimes, I wanna get on TV and just let loose, but can't
but it's cool for the RIAA to hump college kids.
"My hand is on your bank, my hand is on your bank"
And if I'm lucky, you might just give it a little kiss
And that's the message that we deliver to little kids
And expect them not to know what a lawsuit is
Of course they gonna know what corporate bullshit is
By the time they hit fourth grade
They got the Bloomberg TV don't they?
(parody of Eminem's 'The Real Slim Shady')
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
What is the big deal? There may be some code in the 2.4 kernel which the courts may decide belongs to SCO, but it is highly likely that the courts will rule that SCO, by their own deliberate action, allowed that code to enter the Linux kernel and be released under the GPL; and, having done that, they can't change their minds. But there are too many variables. Remember the old saying ..... if "if"s and "and"s were kettles and pans, there'd be no work for tinkers!
The most likely outcome is that SCO's claim on the intellectual property is nullified - and SCO had better hope that nobody who has paid them licence fees decides to sue for their money back with interest.
At any rate, Linux users have a cast-iron defence: ignorance of the fact. {Ignorance of the law is a different matter. Ignorance of the law is only a defence if you are a copper, and your victim didn't know that the law didn't allow you to rough them up.} Until SCO tells us exactly which bits of the kernel are in violation of their rights - which they will need to do in order to prove anyone guilty - then we all benefit from internationally-mandated presumption of innocence.
In the absolute worst case, the 3.0 kernel will have to be re-developed from 2.2. Nobody loses anything.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I think /. should put together an interview with Mr McBride. Seriously, I want to hear this guy reason and rationalize this stuff. Maybe he can come up with a good reason. Or maybe his head will spin off like a fist full of Chinese fireworks.
How would you translate that to text? *fffffffwwwwwwwwppppp!!!*
What is music when you despise all sound?
In today's day and age, it's best to just tell your legal firm "Countersue ^ 5".
SCO has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users.
That's called denial
Other examples
If i'd been there I would have blown your fucking brains, you lying bitch. I never robbed you in that store.
how long until
Somebody needs to call up RIAA and convince them of the following:
1) All their copyright infringers are using Linux
2) Linux is apparently the same as SCO
3) Thus, the root of all their problems is SCO.
Lock RIAA and SCO up in the same room and let them fight each other. Now that would be a reality show worth watching.
What the hell is SCO doing?? Did anyone see the press release about Microsoft buying the SCO Group?? There pulling Microsoft bullsh$t by wanting everyone who runs linux Kernel Version 2.4 and higher to buy a license. Well here is a thought, run 2.2. Maybe that would shut them the h3ll up.
"The whole sorry saga began last March, when SCO sued IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people ), claiming that Big Blue had ripped off SCO's Unix code and put it into Linux.
Linux geeks howled a bit, but then wrote off SCO as a bunch of sleazebags and went back to playing live-action roleplaying (LARP) games in their mothers' basements, or whatever it is they do when they're not writing device drivers and complaining about clueless end users."
I'm actually tired of this fud. Now what if each of us filed a lawsuit against SCO individually?
Whenever I read of SCO saying ANYTHING, I imagine Jim Carrey in one of his movies beating the crap out of himself.
They don't seem to realize that they are just digging a deeper and deeper PR hole with every ridiculous thing they say.
Still, the mental picture is kinda fun.
"Sig free in '03!"
They're "Disappointed"
Wait while I go get my violin
-- Robert Bench, Chief Financial Officer, The SCO Group, Inc.
Take notice, all you that still believe that this is just a simple contract dispute between SCO and IBM. SCO's CFO is clearly stating that they have IP claims against the Linux kernel!
There should be no doubt of their intents after this...
But Redhat has no contract with SCO.
SCO is suing IBM over breach of contract. IBM allegedly released SCO's trade secrets that they were contractually obligated to protect.
Redhat has no such contract with SCO and had no access to the SCO code - so they could only sue Redhat over copyright infringement. Big difference since RH didn't willfully release their code (neither did IBM, I'm sure, but that's the basis of the suit)
Textbooks and Open Educational Resources
... for some message to pop up somewhere, with some guy going
... I dunno. Is this guy more or less priceless than al-Sahaf? ...
"OH GOD! YES! I DID IT! I COPIED V5 SOURCE CODE INTO THE LINUX KERNEL.
I'M SO SORRY! THE PRESSURE! I COULDN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE! AAAARGH! *sob*"
Whereupon we can all go "you know - you're a dick" and buy him a beer. Then everyone cleans up after him.
As to Dee McBride
Dude - *you're* disappointed? Well let me tell you how *we* feel
yes, we have no bananas
in the interim until this SCO thing gets sorted out. Flame me if you will, but I would rather use an inferior OS that is plagued with bugs and security issues than an OS owned by mormons.
BUT...A DMCA letter being a instant shutdown of their operation would require SCO to go to a court and validate the need for such a shutdown of Red Hat's business....No sane judge would allow a SCO to shut another down and refuse in court to tell why the offender is liable and refuse to allow the company C&D'd to become compliant. A DMCA C&D would be horrible, but it's something tangible that Red Hat can fight against rather than the "will be open to.." or "We may sue..." that SCO has been spewing lately.
it's extraordinary to see today's business practices. Just Check out sco's stock value anywhere (Nasdaq: SCOX if you missed it from all related press releases*). It's gone from around 1.2 in january when they starting hinting about pressing IP claims, to the current 12! They've increased their value by an order of magnitude! At the same time they put themselves in a situation where it would be convenient for IBM to just buy them to make'em shut up.
:)
And in the whole affair, Linux gets bad publicity for the guys who hold the Big Money strings. These guys don't care about effectiveness, they don't want to be hit by a lawsuite, which would be MUCH costlier than reducing purchase/licensing costs.
So while Linux keeps making steps forward in our geeky view (yay! just about as easy as winxp! yay! it got an excellent common cirteria certification), SCO is batting it back to the prehistoric age.
Remember, winning such a lawsuite isn't all about "being right". Lawyers know everything of loopholes around "being right", and given enough money will explain by 1+1=2 that Bad is Good. This is going to be long and bloody because it's SCO's last-ditch policy, and we're talking cornered-rat tactics by people with money and getting media attention.
The only thing we can do about it is, if ever your Boss mentions the name SCO, calmly explain how they have absolutely no chance of winning, and any money given to them is straight to the trash, and money refused to Red Hat and other OSS-based companies in light of the fight will seriously hamper lots of excellent quality projects.
*btw aren't there criteria which would quickly kick SCO out of Nasdaq? that would be fun
Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
seems they all loved the Free Market until p2p made it a free market
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
What do you know? It's one day later, the "apocalyptic statement" has been made, and SCO's stock price is up 5% for the day! Good call!
I think maybe Verner Vinge was on an incorrect track in his futurism. The Singularity will occur when every person in the world is directly involved in servicing one lawsuit or another. It will be called the Singulegem.
--- Ban humanity.
Take a real hard look at http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030804/lam110_1.html
...
Of course, we will prepare our legal response as required by your
complaint. Be advised that our response will likely include
counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy.
There appear to be some inconsistencies in the August 4 letter:
At the start he says
Attached is the letter I discussed with you during our July 31, 2003 telephone conversation. Instead of actually sending the letter, I thought it was best to telephone you and speak in person to see if we could resolve the issues between our companies short of litigation
Later he says
To my surprise, I just discovered that your company filed legal action against The SCO Group earlier today. You, of course, mentioned nothing of this during our telephone conversation. I am disappointed that you were not more forthcoming about your intentions.
Comments:
- If he had a telephone conversation (July 31) to discuss avoiding litigation, why was he surprised that litigation followed.
- How could he have had a telephone conversation to discuss avoiding litigation, if Red Hat had mentioned nothing of the possibility?
Next ook at that paragraph again
Attached is the letter I discussed with you during our July 31, 2003 telephone conversation. Instead of actually sending the letter,
Comments:
- How could they have discussed that letter, if he hadn't sent it?
Read this:
I just discovered that your company filed legal action against The SCO Group earlier today.
Comments: - He "just discovered", therefore presumably hasn't read and prepared a response. Yet he's already decided what his counterclaims would include!
Going back to July 31st letter
Based on the posture of our litigation and your revised risk disclosures, it is unclear to us the purpose of your July 18, 2003 letter. If you desire to enter good faith discussions to address SCO's intellectual property claims against Linux, either on behalf of a wider consortium of Linux companies or solely on behalf of Red Hat, we are willing to meet with you for that purpose. In any such meeting, we will provide example after example of infringement of our intellectual property found in Linux. Of course, any such demonstration must be pursuant to an acceptable confidentiality agreement and must be intended to further good faith discussions about resolving the differences between us.
If you seek information for the purpose of informal discovery intended to benefit IBM in the pending litigation, or for the purpose of devising your own litigation plans against SCO related to Linux, we must respectfully decline your request. Therefore, please clarify in writing the purpose for your request. Thank you. Even though it wasn't sent (by SCO's own admission)
Comments:
- Doesn't it sound like SCO required Red Hat to basically accept SCO's claims: "discussions to address SCO's intellectual property claims against Linux, either on behalf of a wider consortium of Linux companies or solely on behalf of Red Hat, we are willing to meet with you for that purpose."
Next:
Of course, any such demonstration must be pursuant to an acceptable confidentiality agreement and must be intended to further good faith discussions about resolving the differences between us.
If you seek information for the purpose of informal discovery intended to benefit IBM in the pending litigation, or for the purpose of devising your own litigation plans against SCO related to Linux, we must respectfully decline your request."
Comments:
Doesn't it also sound like SCO required Red Hat to waive any claim against SCO before disclosing their "evidence".
"Fair enough IP has to be protected"
No, it doesn't.
First of all, there is no such thing as IP; IP is a lazy way of grouping copyright and patents into a single thing that benefits no one but lawyers.
But more importantly, innovation in the software industry was greater before you could patent software (which is relatively recent).
This whole mess is an *indictment* of so-called "IP", and anyone who claims otherwise is closing their eyes, covering their ears and singing "la la la la la la".
If this does go to court, I can see where quite a few people would be willing to contribute money to the RH side. I know I'd pony up some cabbage to help scuttle the sinking SCO ship. Think they'll set up a donate link at some point?
As disgusting as it may sound, I will deliver it for you (as long as it's packaged well).
I work across the street and would be happy to deliver your "payment."
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
If you look carefully at stock market data on SCOX, you'll eventually find an interesting stat on "Short Interest" which Nasdaq defines as...
SCOX short interest in April was ~40k shares, May was ~30k shares, June was ~280k shares, July was ~390k shares. About mid-May was when SCOX stock price jumped from ~$4 to ~$10.
Based on this, i'd opinion that many brokers don't believe the SCO FUD either. Many are positioning themselves for a hefty profit when SCOX claims are proven in court (which i believe to be inevetable) to be null & void.
Personally, I very nearly exited a BAD stock position, thus taking a significant $ hit on my portfolio, in order to short SCOX at $15 near the end of July. I may regret not doing so for a long time.
As to makeing McBride richer, according to the SEC, he hasn't cashed out on any of his stock yet. 5 of his employees, however, (2 Sr Vice Presidents, 2 Vice Presidents, and their CFO) have cashed out a total of ~75k shares for a grand total of ~$884k. Combined, the 5 of them have at LEAST 395k more shares which can be sold
Those are the facts as near as I can gather with my meager resources.
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte
So SCO wants to make a counter suite to Redhat's counter suite to SCOs suing of all Linux users? Maybe we can get some kind of recursive counter suing going on so all known lawyers get tied up into one case. Then life in the US can go back to normal.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Why are Dell and HP so silent on this? HP 'fully supports' Linux according to recent articles yet they're keeping their lips tighter than any of them. Not even a peep.
Last time I looked at a changelog there were several @hp.com addresses that were adding stuff to the kernal.
What's up with that?
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
This will make an interesting situation. SCO will soon have to take care of their own suit against IBM and the one RH filed yesterday. Boies will be busy for sure, and his legal fees altogether will cost SCO more than McBride originally expected.
If other Linux distributors and server vendors kick their gears into offensive mode, there will be a dozen of legal cases SCO will have to take care of. McBride by now should understand that he threw sh*t at not one, but a number of companies.
Sure, SCO can survive for a while by dumping more shares to keep afloat and pay legal fees, but how long they can survive will be a question. If SuSE, Lindoze and other Linux distros with decent financial status (MDK...Doh!) decide to bring McBride to the court, SCO's stock price will soon be in decline. In a sense, Linux distributors can use litigation to undermine SCO in the same way SCO has been doing to Linux and possibly stop this professional extortioner from making any more noises against Linux. Goes around comes around. Yup, they deserve it.
Mod me flamebait all you want.
I have moderator points, but there is no "un-informed" or "grossly incorrect" comment label, so I am commenting instead.
And its a definate possibility, considering the linux community has no respect for IP laws in general, and IBM has no respect for fair business practices.
The Linux community does not believe in IP laws, but that does not make them code thiefs. They belive in a licience that does not allow any one person or organization to own any code they write.
So far all the linux community can defend itself with is name-calling.
When the names are applicable and correct, it is'nt name calling, it's FUD busting.
When SCO won't even disclose the nature or specifics of the accused infringments, the community has very little to defend itself from.
Or, how about this scenario? IBM settles out of court, admitting guilt. They license - and now own for all intents and purposes - linux.
You obviously have no idea how sofware liciencing works. If IBM settled, all that would happen is that SCO would get an ammount of cash for each copy that IBM sold. This would give them permission to use the code and Linux would remain unchanged. In the worst case, the code would be removed from all commercial distributions, but the GPL would still apply to the remainder of the code.
Eventually, one way or another, linux will be declared some corporations property. It's guaranteed. The more valuable it becomes, the harder people will fight and the more tricks they will use to make sure it does not remain free.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Linux is explicitly licienced to be Open, Free and without ownership. It will never become the property of any one organization.
the redhat lawsuit was win-win all the way. sorry to say this, but just as SCO wants money from M$, redhat wants money from ibm.
In other news, SCO hires Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf (AKA "Comical Ali") as VP of Public Relations.
Seems to me that SCO is practicing the ancient art of "nuisance lawsuits" where IBM, RedHat and the like will eventually pay them off to make them go away.
I'm not an attorney (standard disclaimer) but I've sued several people in small claims court and I've learned two things:
1. It costs large companies thousands of dollars just to show up for such things.
2. If they don't show up, they lose no matter how ridiculous your claim is.
Why don't we all sue SCO Group in our local area and force them to defend themselves? Imagine 100, 500 or 10,000 lawsuits for $1,000 each against them in every municipality in the country? They'd either spend millions responding to each of them or risk having literally millions of dollars in default judgements against them which they'd have to disclose on their SEC filings and to shareholders. You might even collect the money!
It will cost each of us approximately $50 to file such a lawsuit. Consider that a contribution to the open source movement that you might even get back 20-fold. I think someone should create a Step-By-Step "How to sue SCO in your local area" document. I'm busy.
I'm a big tall mofo.
This gives RedHat an opportunity to force SCO to show its hand. You can bet that one of RedHat's goals here is to draw SCO's claims out into full light so they can be fully refuted.
With SCO on the offensive, they have control of the game. With RedHat initiating its own offensive, you can expect more progress more quickly.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
"Mr. McBride, on my worst day, I am smarter than you on your best day. Innovation fades, dumb is forever. Roll over and die already! Case dismissed!" -- Judge Judy(tm)
Brought to you by the German American Linux Users' Group - Judge Judy(tm) Fan SIG
ROTFLMAO...... whew. That Mcbride sure is a nit-wit. He needs to stop talking to his brother Darl and other brother Darl. Ok Darl whatsamater? Don't like it when someone dares you to cough up proof? Cry baby.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
The linux community will defend itself with more than name calling. If SCO is right, someone will re-implement the encumbered code from scratch, and release that under the GPL. Unless they can prove that all (or at least major portions) of the kernel is a derivative work, then the most they'll get is some subsystems. The copyright to the genuiunely oringinal work which comprises most of the kernel belongs to the authors, all of whom have chosen to release it under the GPL. Even in the unlikely event that they prove large sections of the kernel to be encumbered, the worst they can do is set kernel development back, not stop it entirely.
Nothing can change that under current copyright law. If you write it, you own it, unless it's a work for hire. That's why they don't want to release the supposedly infringing code. If the community doesn't know what needs to be re-implemented, the community can't re-implement it.
FWIW, the OpenBSD project has, for a number of years now, been strictly removing from their distribution any code encumbered by any license more restrictive than the BSD license (including GPL'ed code). While OpenBSD's approach has led to some hard feelings, it proves that it can be done, and done effectively.
-Brendan
You think MS can't find a few more bucks under their well-padded mattress to throw at SCO to fund the lawsuit? Hell, MS could *buy* SCO and pursue the suit themselves. Certainly the Feds won't stop them from doing that!
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" --Salvor Hardin
Ya know, I was gonna do a full parody based on that joker, but I just didn't have time before work. *sigh*
It's too bad SCO has already distributed Linux 2.4.x under the GPL. Thanks, SCO, for delegitimizing your own claims.
They even specifically mention SMP improvements. Isn't their claim to copyright infringement against Linux 2.4's SMP code? So they can jump on the Linux bandwagon, say, "Hey, we've got improved SMP scalability, and we're distributing it under the GPL (because we have to)!", then jump off when their business fails and sue everybody for code they themselves distributed under the GPL?
I browsed through their RPM archives on their FTP. They've removed all the kernel RPMs and SRPMs. Oh well.
Fuck SCO. I hope they crash and burn.
-=/\- Jizzbug -/\=-
While the majority of the arguments are based on SCO still selling a GPL'd Linux kernel after they "knew" their code was in it, the GPL argument overall and in part stems in part from the suspicion that Caldera released some of that infringing code. If Caldera did this willingly and knowingly (which we can be pretty sure they did), the code is legitimately GPL'd and cannot be retracted. So while SCO may not have been a willing contributor, Caldera was, and the "infringing & plagiarized" code SCO bought from Caldera was simply a (deep) misunderstanding between what SCO thought it was buying and what Caldera was selling. That SCO bought that code from Caldera, thinking it was proprietary and confidential information, and would now like it to NOT be out there is irrelevant... and does not in any way negate Caldera's contribution [and to be honest, many others] of the code to the GPL. Which means SCO is up the GPL creek without a lawsuit.
copyright infringement and conspiracy
In SCO terms: We've pissed off an awful lot of people, and now they're all starting to fight back. Obviously such an unprovoked attack from several parties must be a conspiracy.
In the real world: Now that both IBM and RedHat, etc have started showing more backbone, I'd expect even more groups/organizations to join in. Sometimes it takes a few single efforts to lead a battle.
seem to be acquiring everything, by hook or by crook. Pretty soon the boys on bikes will be selling SCO software subscriptions and Ximian desktops in addition to soul saving.
This isn't the first time for him, or the team of players involved in the IBM suit.
x .h tml
http://www.forbes.com/2003/06/18/cz_dl_0618linu
I just visited the German SCO Server (online again, *sig*). Their Newsletter 01/2003 brags about SCO-Linux being ready for enterprise level applications. They state that SCO Linux (distributed under GPL AFAIK) includes code of the "Open Source Community" and the "UnitedLinux LLC, which included and integrated the functionalities critical for professional enterprise deployment" (bad translation by me ;-)).
... back to see if they still have something about this whole mess on their German server. That would cost them a lot of money now.
Then they go on talking about what great stuff there is in this release (see page 2 of the newsletter):
* Kernel 2.4.19, KDE 3 etc
* Improvements in the memory manager for scalability and performance
etc.
I don't believe they did not know what they were distributing if they advertise with this stuff.
OK
Anyone planning on blogging this somewhere? I may not be able to call in and I'd be interested in seeing the transcript in either a sparse or blog-commented upon form.
Gee, I wonder if the SCO issue will be discussed tonight on www.thelinuxshow.com?
Darth SCOver: "Commander, I find your lawsuit... disturbing."
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
sco sure is good at figuring out the most annoying
way to answer any question or respond to anything.
Not me. I hope they kick their asses swiftly and without mercy. It is more decisive that way. Let SCO wallow in the appeals process. The longer this is in the courts, the worse it is for Linux in general.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Whenever someone starts bandying about that "there is a conspiracy against them" is is usually a proof-positive sign that they are suffering from from mental illness... that is unless everyone else really *is* out to get them. Oh wait... :-)
Imagine the boost to the "Linux has IP problems" line if all the major Linux players are tied up in litigation over IP issues
If they were being tied up in litigation with several sources, perhaps. However, if all the major Linux players are tied up in countersuits with SCO... I think that looks worse for SCO.
E.G. If all the various product dealers except for brand X were stuck in lawsuits, brand X looks better. If they are all involved in sueing brand X for a smear campaign... brand X looks not so good.
Seriously, it's like SCO has been shooting at packs of wolves with a pellet gun. Yes, the wolves might back off more a moment because the BB's sting, but eventually they will surround and then attack their tormentor...
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/updates/ SRPMS/
Scroll down to the k's... there are updates specifically for SMP kernels.
Sometimes I wish this would just get to litigation now, because I believe things like this will screw SCO. But then again, IBM has the money to destroy SCO in negotiations... either way works for me.
I am happy to see RedHat sending a message to SCO (pretty clear one at that), put up or shut up.
I'll have to remember to make contribution to RedHat legal fund.
Here. Sorry if this was already posted. *gets beaten up*
___
*insert sig here*
Maybe the real contest is between IBM and Microsoft.
Since neither can sue a competitor without risking an antitrust action, they may be funding their proxies, Redhat and SCO, to duke it out.
Gotta love this mindless trash talk. Considering their position they are probably going to want to make all sorts of loud noises. Otherwise if every Linux company with any real money comming in gets into the action, SCO is toast.
Dear Mr. "CmdrTaco" Malda and other Slashdot editors:
I appreciated the link in the story to the SCO. It is always best to get the story straight from the horse's mouth. Or, in the case of SCO, the other end of the horse. However, would it be too much trouble to put a "goatse.cx" disclaimer on further links to SCO's website? They are clearly too closely related for my comfort.
On another issue, I understand that there has been conversation regarding changing the SCO icon from it's current Mickey Mouse looking thing to something resembling the goatse.cx picture. I, for one, cast a whole-hearted "no" vote on that potential change. I think that the current Mickey Mouse looking icon accurately reflects the nature of SCO's enterprise and that the proposed alteration might be traumatic for the younger readers of this "family" website.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
guacamolefoo
Lots of petrified grits
I now present the following bits of source code that SCO has on display...
;
}
}
;
}
This sig no verb.
I think SCO is the one guilty of conspiracy, not Red Hat!
Only $699 ...
/PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), the owner and licensor of the core UNIX(R) operating system source code, today announced the availability of the SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux(R). The run-time license permits the use of SCO's intellectual property, in binary form only, as contained in Linux distributions. By purchasing a SCO Intellectual Property License, customers avoid infringement of SCO's intellectual property rights in Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.5 kernels. Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only, customers also comply with the General Public License, under which Linux is distributed.O GO )
.
m l
LINDON, Utah, Aug. 5
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990421/SCOL
SCO announced in July that it had registered the copyrights to its software releases of UNIX System V and UnixWare(R) with the U.S. Copyright office and that it would offer licenses to cure the SCO IP infringement issues for Linux operating systems. Beginning this week, SCO will start meeting with commercial Linux customers to present the details of this right to use SCO intellectual property binary licensing program.
"We have identified numerous files of unlicensed UNIX System V code and UNIX System V derivative code in the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president and general manager of SCOsource, the intellectual property licensing division of SCO. "We believe it is necessary for Linux customers to properly license SCO's IP if they are running Linux 2.4 kernel and later versions for commercial purposes. The license insures that customers can continue their use of binary deployments of Linux without violating SCO's intellectual property rights."
Pricing and Availability
SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003. Pricing for multiple CPU systems, single CPU add-ons, desktop systems and embedded systems will also be available. Linux users who are interested in additional information or purchasing an IP License for Linux should contact their local SCO sales representative or call SCO at 1-800-726-8649 or visit our web site at http://www.sco.com/scosource
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030805/latu094_1.ht
Go snap one up for only $699. Oh, and that is run-time binary license only, not source.
.
Pricing and Availability
SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003. Pricing for multiple CPU systems, single CPU add-ons, desktop systems and embedded systems will also be available. Linux users who are interested in additional information or purchasing an IP License for Linux should contact their local SCO sales representative or call SCO at 1-800-726-8649 or visit our web site at http://www.sco.com/scosource
Although you have a point...
What do you suggest is the motive for knowingly stealing your code and then donating it back to you in an opensource project where you could easily find the infringing code if you looked?
If you have exercised negligence in protecting your code by not checking what you distribute to be sure that it does not contain what you want to keep secret, should the user who receives the package be liable?
If you take nude pictures of yourself and don't care to check that they are not among the pictures you are sending to the tabloid newspaper. Who do you blame if you find a newspaper with your *ss on the front page? Do you blame the publisher, the user, your girlfriend who caused the mixup out of ignorance, or yourself?
Now this is all common sense, the GPL does not come into it yet. But when it does, it says if you cannot satisfy its conditions, then don't distribute. You must accept it to distribute, which means you must be sure of what you distributing to do so. You can't claim later that you did not know because that is negligence and no judge will smile with you on that.
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
I am also disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than good faith discussions..
l
This from a company who's only possible sources of income are related to suing, or threatening to sue everybody.
I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux
This from the company that has been bashing Linux non-stop for months now, and who plans to eliminate Linux as it now known.
Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy
Gosh, I thought Darl hated all that nasty litigation. Conspiracy? Sort of like Microsoft and Sun secretly funding Scox's anti-linux FUD campaign? Or Sco's actions being dictated by Canopy Group?
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030804/lam110_1.htm
SCO has also mentioned SGI and Apple as potential infringers.
Perhaps a number of *nix vendors will sue SCO. Ever seen a group of ravens picking away at roadkill?
The sooner SCO stops twitching and dies, the sooner the world of *nix users can take a group piss on their tombstone and say "Good Riddance!"
Die, SCO, Die.
Besides, It's mostly Suse's implementation that SCO is distributing RIGHT NOW. They're best to remain quiet and stick by the terms of their current contract. Should SCO try to weasle out..then SuSe will have lots of ammo!
Although it would be horrible if Linux's "survivability" were to suffer due to SCO's barbarian business tactics, there is always the HURD project that could continue the GNU tradition. It is such a great idea from everything I've read: for example, the multi-leveled security model, and hopefully the QNX-like stability (another microkernel where one part of the kernel failure due to crashing or even a hard drive dying does not bring down the system). So the question is, if linux was killed, where would the developers go? I hope a few would go HURD... although the BSDs will survive (and are great, I use FreeBSD for my servers) they're not GNU.
However, does anyone know if the HURD's code has any SCO "IP"?? That would suck.
But its well known Red Hat has ~300million dollars. Their partnership with IBM and others will help them a bit, to say the least.
Fuck you and the source you rode in on,
Attached is the letter I discussed with you during our July 31, 2003 telephone conversation.
I am attaching a letter for your review.
Instead of actually sending the letter, I thought it was best to telephone you and speak in person
We didn't have enough in the petty cash drawer to buy a stamp, but I got this really good deal on long-distance calls, so...
to see if we could resolve the issues between our companies short of litigation.
PLEASE DON'T HURT US!
We left the conversation with a preliminary agreement to meet and continue our discussions further.
You're buying this round, I'm broke.
To my surprise, I just discovered that your company filed legal action against The SCO Group earlier today.
Et tu, Matthew?
You, of course, mentioned nothing of this during our telephone conversation.
You're a sneaky bastard and I'm proud of you, son.
I am disappointed that you were not more forthcoming about your intentions.
*sniffle*
I am also disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than good faith discussions with SCO about the problems inherent in Linux.
You talking to me?
Of course, we will prepare our legal response as required by your complaint.
/me is opening a can of legal whupass. Oops, it's way past the expiry date...
Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy.
We're gonna get medeival on your ass.
I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux.
insert boilerplate_empty_threat.c
Yours truly
Fuck off
Darl C. McBride
Darl "My sandbox was full of cement" McBribe
President & CEO
Chief Entertainment Officer, The Up the Creek Correctional Facility LLC
Money for nothing, pix for free
Why?
Since none of the functions in your code actually RETURN anything it defeats the point of carrying out the functions in the first place.
Thus "PROFIT!" will never be attained.....
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
Stock up 4% as of 1:13pm ET:
/PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. (SCOX, Trade), the owner and licensor of the core UNIX(R) operating system source code, today announced the availability of the SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux(R). The run-time license permits the use of SCO's intellectual property, in binary form only, as contained in Linux distributions. By purchasing a SCO Intellectual Property License, customers avoid infringement of SCO's intellectual property rights in Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.5 kernels. Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only, customers also comply with the General Public License, under which Linux is distributed.
O GO )
.
.
/Photo: NewsCom: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990421/SCOLO GO
SCO Announces Intellectual Property License for Linux
August 05, 2003 12:43:00 (ET)
LINDON, Utah, Aug 5, 2003
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990421/SCOL
SCO announced in July that it had registered the copyrights to its software releases of UNIX System V and UnixWare(R) with the U.S. Copyright office and that it would offer licenses to cure the SCO IP infringement issues for Linux operating systems. Beginning this week, SCO will start meeting with commercial Linux customers to present the details of this right to use SCO intellectual property binary licensing program.
"We have identified numerous files of unlicensed UNIX System V code and UNIX System V derivative code in the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president and general manager of SCOsource, the intellectual property licensing division of SCO. "We believe it is necessary for Linux customers to properly license SCO's IP if they are running Linux 2.4 kernel and later versions for commercial purposes. The license insures that customers can continue their use of binary deployments of Linux without violating SCO's intellectual property rights."
Pricing and Availability
SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003. Pricing for multiple CPU systems, single CPU add-ons, desktop systems and embedded systems will also be available. Linux users who are interested in additional information or purchasing an IP License for Linux should contact their local SCO sales representative or call SCO at 1-800-726-8649 or visit our web site at http://www.sco.com/scosource
About The SCO Group
The SCO Group (SCOX, Trade) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses with UNIX business solutions. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to all partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services visit http://www.sco.com
SCO and the associated SCO logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of The SCO Group, Inc., in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX and UnixWare are registered trademarks of The Open Group in the United States and other countries. All other brand or product names are or may be trademarks of, and are used to identify products or services of, their respective owners.
SOURCE The SCO Group
Blake Stowell of The SCO Group, +1-801-932-5703,
bstowell@sco.com ; or Dave Close, Avi Dines, or Brian Willinsky, all of
Schwartz Communications, +1-781-684-0770, sco@schwartz-pr.com , for The SCO
Group
AP Archive: http://photoarchive.ap.org
PRN Photo Desk, +1-888-776-6555 or +1-212-782-2840
http://www.sco.com/scosource
"You have liberated me from thought."
Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy.
Conspiracy? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but surely conspiracy is a concept in criminal law, not civil law. That is to say, you can be prosecuted for conspiracy, but you can't be sued for conspiracy. So what gives?
Did Darl fire off this letter without running it by an attorney first? What exactly is going on at SCO anyway?
Can't someone simply get the "pretended offending" code from SCO by whatever means, then linux hackers would just wipe it out and we would be at the end of this FUD war. This FUD will stay as long as the litigated code is shown, wheter litigation is true or not. I know getting the (true of false) evidence of offending code would probably put the one who did it in bad place against the law. But there are people who can do it. Letting everybody look at the code whose can only be seen by signing a NDA would put an end on this neverending debate.
I gave up with the idea of an useful sig...
Why don't the Linux developers make a patch to replace the code?
If SCO is wrong, replacing the code will ease the mind of Linux Business users.
If SCO is right, then it means there will be a smaller royalty payout.
I suppose now is a good time to plug my own letter to SCO. Yes, I'm self plugging, but why not have a bit of fun?
This sig no verb.
Some wingnut might drive a big rental lorry up, park it and walk away.
Or they may lose control of a speeding tanker full of liquide propane.
There is always a nutter out there to worry about.
But seriously if this fool were to have an heart attack and drop dead I doubt many would mourn for him.
They managed to make few new friends of late.
Anyone think the news today about BG selling 1,000,000 shares of MS stock for about $26 dollars apiece has signficance?
Daryl: OMG! Bill, RedHat is suing us! All our plans are fucked!
Bill: I've grasped that, Daryl. All I'm doin' is contemplating the "ifs."
Daryl: I don't wanna hear about no motherfuckin' ifs. All I wanna hear from yo' ass is, "You ain't got no problem, Daryl. I'm on the motherfucker. Go back in there, chill them niggers out and wait for the calvary which should be coming directly."
Bill: You ain't got no problem Daryl. I'm on the motherfucker. Go back in there, chill them niggers out and wait for the Wolf who should be coming directly.
But I have a better one. How about I give you the finger...
...and you give me my law suit.
[finger]
You can't scare me with this gestapo crap. I know my rights.
Mr. Szulik, you disappoint me.
But tell me. What good is a law suit if you're unable to... speak?
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
I just saw this press release from SCO. Pricing starts at $699 per CPU until October 15th, 2003!
Unbelievable!
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
OK, I missed something. I was gone for a day, and RedHat sues SCO? I'm confused.
SCO should be dead by now.. but.. oh well.
Anyway, where did I Miss this?
Those letters although professional in their words sound like SCO is just throwing a playground style hissy fit "I can't believe you just sued us! We're going to hit you back!".. blah blah blah
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
When I have money, and I use a distribution for a long time, I make a purchase to help out.
I have just started using unix, and I like warez.
Redhat has always dissatisfied me so I have never given them any money.
Some guy on EFnet told me Red Hat sucked, so...
I bought an OpenBSD CD (2.8 I think) and Tee Shirt (The wireframe daemon head) in order to support Theo.
I'm an elitist asshole, and I only support other elitist assholes.
But redhat can blow me. Consider this an official invitation.
I'm also 17 years old and sexually frustrated.
If I'm going to support any flavor of linux, it's going to be gentoo.
See, I told you I'm an elitist asshole.
I think Forbes just wrote my new e-mail signature file......
A goal is a dream with a deadline
"Not me. I hope they kick their asses swiftly and without mercy. It is more decisive that way. Let SCO wallow in the appeals process. The longer this is in the courts, the worse it is for Linux in general."
The more suits, the faster this ends. For one thing, someone will get to discovery quicker than the federal court will. Secondly, it drains money from SCO. Contingency lawyers largely work for PLANTIFFS, not defendants...
The sooner SCO's money pot is drained, the faster this ends. They will either be: Defeated, because someone got to to disprove the "evidence", forced to capitulate, or lose their case(s) by default because they won't be able to afford to continue to fight.
Sadly, that is the truth of the US legal system. It just so happens that in this case we can use it to the advantage of the "good guys".
Corporatism != Free Market
Change the GPL to read
"...all, but except SCO."
SCO can kiss my shiny metal ass.
"RedHat, I'm disappointed in ya. What are yaz do'in on my turf? If you're not careful, I'll have da boys ruff ya up."
Of course, he can threaten RedHat like this because the two 'gangs' are roughly the same size... But IBM is standing over in the shadows behind RedHat.
Darl needs psychiatric help and someone should should get his HBO shut off to help him come out of his fantasy world.
SCO just announced their pricing for Linux licenses. Now that that is out of the way, are their GPL violoation lawsuits coming in addition to Red Hat style anti-FUD lawsuits?
"SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003."
So are you pointing out the obvious, or are you just too nerdy to get the jokes contained within my post? Either way, you must be new here...
and
I don't get it. NDAs (or confidentiality agreements) are meant to keep "trade secrets". Regardless of the legal status of the code in question, it is openly viewable in the GNU/Linux source code. They are not keep the code secret, they are keeping secret which sections of code are in copyright violation. If not for FUD (which they deny), what possible purpose could they have for the NDAs? Has anybody ever seen them explain why? I can't think of any legitimate reason for it. I'm not saying they don't have one, but I'd like to hear it.
"I'm disappointed in your lack of faith Commander..." --dw (hey, _i_ think i'm funny {probably nobody else does though})
I think this holds true unless M$ leaps in with another handfull of $$$.
Yes, this is the worrying one. I can see SCO going down the tubes and someone inimical to FOSS buying them solely with the idea of clobbering Linux and other Open Source software.
MS is the likeliest candidate, but it probably wouldn't be the only one. There are other software companies whose breakfast is being eaten by FOSS.
We need to find a way to get their heads examined. Their whole ruse is just wasting my time!
SCO's issue seems to be with code that IBM completely and honestly believe they own, wrote and have the rights to. IBM would probably have signed such a disclosure form.
The FSF's disclosure/assignment policy protects them against individuals whose employers might sue. Not corporations giving source code.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030805/latu094_1.html
...SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003. Pricing for multiple CPU systems, single CPU add-ons, desktop systems and embedded systems will also be available.....
Pricing and Availability
Let the FUD continue. These guys are going to end up in prison if they keep this shit up!
Oh YEAH? Well, I'm going to counter-counter-COUNTER sue them!
Would you stop posting these idiotic stories about the big evil SCO and how we should all be scared and blah blah blah?
They're just one more pissant that's going to get smashed by the juggernaut of open source. Don't give them any more attention, it just encourages their tantrums.
SCO has just announced pricing for its Linux licensing scheme.
SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003.
and
Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only, customers also comply with the General Public License, under which Linux is distributed.
Another question I'd like to see asked is for a clearer explanation of that last sentence. I just can't think of any way that could make any sense.
Peer Review: (to be confidential inside SCO under standard NDA)
This business plan has several problems:
- The function sue() cannot be proven to ever return (see ACM literature re. "Halting Problem"), meaning any suit could effectively last forever.
- The function sue() is self-recursive, meaning it could consume all resources available to the machine.
- The counterSue() signal handler is poorly implemented and introduces a vulnerability whereby a countersuit DoS attack may be initiated upon Business Plan v2.0; countersuits launched while Business Plan v2.0 is launching a response to another countersuit may go unnoticed, and as such the countersuing vendor would win due to lack of action by the software.
- The main() function targets all vendors without attempting to verify if the overhead of calling sue() is justified, nor attempting to execute lawsuits in an optimal order.
- No attempt is made to limit the resources consumed (threads spawned) during the counterSue() signal handler; as such, a large number of long-lasting countersuits (again, none of which can be proven to terminate due to the Halting Problem) may use up sufficient resources to prevent the lawsuit loop in main() from initiating new suits, or indeed crash the application program.
- The algorithm chosen for sue() has proven only to work once in a specific case (caldera, microsoft); the general case has been proven neither experimentally nor formally. Furthermore, sue(caledera, microsoft) was selected as the test case for this algorithm because it was a trivial example, and the consultCEO() subroutine was significantly more optimized at the time.
(pardon the formatting, I don't think it's *possible* to nicely indent code onDo daemons dream of electric sleep()?
I wonder if IBM tried this civilized and rational approach with McBride when SCO first filed? And what was SCO's answer - HELL NO! So the same should be RH's answer.
Take note - the SCO business model is the shape of things to come unless we get tort reform in a major way.
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
Let 'im know how you feel:
:)
Blake Stowell of The SCO Group, +1-801-932-5703,
bstowell@sco.com
Be nice, now!
/.: why the hell am I here?
... or dead. Yeah, dead is better.
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
Either way, you're obviously a troll in training.....read more Troll FAQs dopey!
Are you kidding me??
Darl will need at least that much for the EMT bill to get my steel toed boot removed from his ass...
Try again, asshat.. You get $0.00
And what's better, I ramp up my Linux crusade to convert people. The more shit you talk the hard we wave the Linux flag. Keep it up you stupid ass, people are taking notice of Linux now and they are getting it for FREE.
Your days are numbered. SCO is history. You'll never sell another product. You are a low life bunch of parasites looking to profit on the sweat of others and everyone knows it.
Bye bye asslick..
With negative statements about the "long-term survivability of Linux", McBride has declared war on our community.
I called Blake Stowell of the SCO Group to complain let him know how I felt about what SCO is doing. (1-801-932-5703). I think we need to organize a phone drive to have about five million Linux users call SCO daily. Call their 1-800 number from payphones (50 cents a pop). Call any person at SCO we can get a phone number for. Tie up their lines so they can't conduct business and the press can't contact them.
It is time for war! SCO has no idea how tough the Linux community is. It is time for them to find out.
SCO now offers binary licensing for Linux that is incompatible with the license under which Linux is distributed by developers and vendors. Either the SCO license is completely unnecessary, or Linux cannot be distributed legally with SCO's license without violating its author's copyrights. Is SCO advocating copyright infringement of Linux developers' work, or does SCO contend Linux authors copyrights on their work belong to SCO?
I think this could be classified as bio-terrorism.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
"Eventually, one way or another, linux will be declared some corporations property. It's guaranteed. The more valuable it becomes, the harder people will fight and the more tricks they will use to make sure it does not remain free."
THAT is exactly what SCO is trying to accomplish here.
And it's why they aren't making copyright claims IN COURT, as they'd eventually have to identify WHAT it is they own the copyright on that Linux is infringing on.
Which they don't want to do.
This attack is an end run on the GPL, something no doubt Ransome Love (who HATED the GPL) helped cook up, whereby the code remains "free" but to use it free of FEAR, you have to buy SCO's license...
Corporatism != Free Market
SCO: I sue you, I sue you ALL.
Redhat: COUNTERSUE!
SCO: BLOCKED!
Redhat: Doubleblocked!
What will SCO do? Check your nearest kindergarten for some analysis.
IIRC, SCO released a statement regarding the whole GPL issue (SCO distributed the kernel with the copyrighted code under GPL, therefore it must bless the distribution of said code) saying that they are not held to the GPL because they weren't aware at the time that the infringing code was in the kernel.
Couldn't Red Hat or any other distributor use a similar argument? If they used the kernel in good faith, unaware of the alleged infringement, aren't they just as 'innocent' as SCO when it comes to the distribution of a tainted kernel?
Red Hat sort of shot themselves in the foot, I think, by launching a counter-suit before making an official offer to remove code that SCO claimed was infringing. When they end up in court, it would have looked much better for Red Hat to have offered to fix the infringement and have SCO deny that offer than to have just flat out refused SCO's claim and instead launch the injunction.
Every Linux company should sue SCO, not just RedHat. If SCO wants to be dirty then everyone should individually countersue and overwhelm them in litigation and lawsuit. SCO is destroying the name and reputation of Linux, something thats taken years to develop and were finally respectably making it in Enterprise. SCO is a blight on the software industry as a whole.
... But I don't give a rat's ass what Daryl Mac Bridal thinks about Red Hat's suit, especially since he seems to not give a rat's ass what Red Hat thinks about SCO's lawsuit.
I look forward to watching SCO's executives being hoisted with their own petard.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003..
Belief is the currency of delusion.
SCO is attempting to place all of linux under a different license and by doing so the company is stealing the code of every person that has contributed code. I think more companies and individuals that have contributed code to linux should seek out relief (sue SCO into the ground) for violating section 4 of the GPL. Because SCO is violating the GPL that license is void for the company and standard copyright laws are in effect. The best part of this is that they need to get permission from every single programmer that has contributed code...
I would go on but how to complete the train of thought.
help?!? in search of sig
Got this off the CSO linux license faq...wich along with other CSO faqs is a funny thing to read in it's own right :-)
If SCO doesn't offer a license that would permit the distribution of an in house customized Linux OS to internal data centers, what is the value of correcting the infringement on the part of my end users when my company as a whole is still infringing SCO's intellectual property? What should I do?
Consider migrating from an in house customized version of Linux to a shrink wrap, off the shelf version of Linux or to an alternative operating system. If you are unable to migrate, consider outsourcing the development of the customized Linux distribution. SCO understands that these options are very constraining and is investigating alternative that both protect its intellectual property and are less burdensome for end users.
So in other words, if you bought, or got a redistributed version of linux then you're already in the clear...even though the faq states quite clearly that EVERY LINUX USER need their license....
I mean am I reading this wrong or can't these guys get their faqs straight?
What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the HP-UX or AIX ports run on OpenUnix? I do see there there is a RedHat and SuSE release for cold fusion however (supported: HP-UX, IBM-AIX, Linux, Windows, Solaris, Apple OS X, even win98/ME; Just not you know who's OS >:-p ). Gee, I wonder what Macromedia's opinion is on this subject...
It's no wonder they would want to litigate for their money now. They don't even seem to trust their own products to maintain their, own PR or so it appears.
This request is sort of like a Family Law restraining order. Those have higher priority because their intent is to stop additional damage.
Get rid of everything Micro and Soft: Buy Viagra and/or Linux
Welcome to capitalism...
Oh... this isn't just the computer industry... it is the case EVERYWHERE... companies sueing each other... people suing each other for the slightest thing... governments suing themselves (different departments)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
If the law won't protect us against the immoral deeds of this group, who will?
A single processor server license will jump to $1,399 after Oct. 15, Stowell said. Pure humor. WTF is going on here? I mean, it's just PR to pump stock we all get that, but doesn't requesting outlandish sums of money put SCO at risk with regards to "extortion"?
Belief is the currency of delusion.
This business plan has several problems:
Uhh... Let's not refer to them as "problems" but rather "opportunities."
The main() function targets all vendors without attempting to verify if the overhead of calling sue() is justified, nor attempting to execute lawsuits in an optimal order.
Again, let's consider this an opportunity, as we are assuming this opportunity will be transparent to the end-user (our benefactor and supreme leader, Microsoft).
No attempt is made to limit the resources consumed (threads spawned) during the counterSue() signal handler; as such, a large number of long-lasting countersuits (again, none of which can be proven to terminate due to the Halting Problem) may use up sufficient resources to prevent the lawsuit loop in main() from initiating new suits, or indeed crash the application program.
Reboot the Matrix, simple as that!
Believe me, what would you think if you heard SCO say, "we are very.. disappointed.. in you".
Waiting for the armies of lawyers with frickin' laser beams...
The article mentions a legal defense fund to which Red Hat has contributed $1,000,000. Who can contribute to this fund? I'd be willing to contribute (not a million bucks)if I know the money will go into a warchest against SCO and to protect independent developers.
/* @(#)COPYRIGHT 8.2 (Berkeley) 3/21/94
.Lic ense.Change and is
All of the documentation and software included in the 4.4BSD and 4.4BSD-Lite
Releases is copyrighted by The Regents of the University of California.
Copyright 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by the University of
California, Berkeley and its contributors.
4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGE.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and the American
National Standards Committee X3, on Information Processing Systems have
given us permission to reprint portions of their documentation.
In the following statement, the phrase ``this text'' refers to portions
of the system documentation.
Portions of this text are reprinted and reproduced in electronic form in
the second BSD Networking Software Release, from IEEE Std 1003.1-1988, IEEE
Standard Portable Operating System Interface for Computer Environments
(POSIX), copyright C 1988 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc. In the event of any discrepancy between these versions
and the original IEEE Standard, the original IEEE Standard is the referee
document.
In the following statement, the phrase ``This material'' refers to portions
of the system documentation.
This material is reproduced with permission from American National
Standards Committee X3, on Information Processing Systems. Computer and
Business Equipment Manufacturers Association (CBEMA), 311 First St., NW,
Suite 500, Washington, DC 20001-2178. The developmental work of
Programming Language C was completed by the X3J11 Technical Committee.
The views and conclusions contained in the software and documentation are
those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing official
policies, either expressed or implied, of the Regents of the University
of California.
NOTE: The copyright of UC Berkeley's Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD")
source has been updated. The copyright addendum may be found at
ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt
included below.
July 22, 1999
To All Licensees, Distributors of Any Version of BSD:
As you know, certain of the Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD") source
code files requir
Until this whole legal fiasco is resolved, I see no reason to risk my liability running what COULD very well be an unauthorized derivative, just as SCO claims.
Microsoft's offerings may not always be the BEST solution, but their products are not likely to land me in court either.
I'd rather take my chances with a service pack over a sopena any day.
First, I hope that this is a total flop for SCO,
second, I think every Linux user for 500 miles around should crash this party and give these bastards HELL.
Here's how to do it properly.
Dress like everyone else. Blend in.
Seperate. Don't go in in pairs or teams.
Don't acknowledge one another. Don't tip off security to your compatriots.
Don't carry signs that they can spot, if you must, hide it until you deploy it.
Don't all jump up and harrass the speakers at the same time. Just disrupt the speakers with very brief, abrupt events, like lots of loud coughing, snippy comments, whatever. But S-P-R-E-A-D it out so as to disrupt the entire event to the point of it being a waste of their time and money. Make the event a non event for SCO..
Bottom line, fuck SCO...
http://www.sco.com/2003forum/
For Your Eyes Only
The glitz and glamor of fabulous Las Vegas is your destination for a mission briefing of this year's product and revenue strategies: SCOForum 2003.
A hard-hitting technology summit showcasing the technology and business solutions of The SCO Group and its Strategic Business Partners. Live and Let Die, but don't forget August 17 - 19, 2003 in Las Vegas, NV.
This year's SCOForum 2003, is an unparalleled demonstration of SCO?s support and commitment to our reseller partners, developers and enterprise customers worldwide.
New products, new emphasis, new players, new revenue opportunities -- only at SCOForum 2003.
You might not see a View to a Kill, but you're certain to see live demonstrations and roadmaps of SCO's exciting technology developments.
As an added mission objective, SCOForum is an opportunity for our most important ISVs, OEMs, and Strategic Business Partners to provide information and education in a Thunderball of excitement.
Register Today!
Tomorrow Never Dies, but registration is limited. So register for this informative event now. Click HERE to register today!
The World Is Not Enough
A Special Mission for Partners: Present your solution to the world! SCOForum 2003 provides and excellent opportunity to showcase your solutions to resellers from around the world. For more information click HERE NOW!
*The James Bond theme is used by permission of MGM.
Of course it also makes me suspect that the editor responsible probably owns both SCO and Microsoft stock.
How can SCO go to court and say, "look, our code is in the linux kernel"?
I mean, how does the judge and the world know that SCO didn't scarf the code out of the kernel in the first place? After all, SCO's code is not available except under license.
Does SCO go to a licensee and ask them for their code, and documentation about the day it was received as proof?
One of the things I am uncertain if people are thinking about is the long term effects of a victory, which makes a fight of this nature worth it to SCO. This would be that the imbedded devices, such as PVR's, Sat Recievers, Palms, and other devices that use, or make use of any derivitive of a linux kernel will be fair game for them in the future under DMCA. It is my belief that they will take advantage of this (if victorious) and be able to not only go after end users of the OS, but other companies and end users that are making use of GPL technologies. They are setting themselves up with a sense of "ownership" which is believeable in civil lawsuits, and are planning down the road to use the overt powers granted under DMCA to screw us all... (just a rant/theory)
Excuse me, but what about Apple? Unless you meant "only competition on x86 hardware", Apple has (arguably) a significantly bigger piece of the pie than *nix, at least on the desktop. While I agree with the point behind what you are saying (that it would be monopolistic for M$ to do this themselves), it seriously bugs me when people don't even think about Apple as a factor in the OS market.
;-) ), but Apple's desktop offering is considerably better aimed at Userland than Linux's is, and is, and will continue to be a serious player.
I know I'm going to get people saying "But Apple's dying", "Apple's not Free/Open", "Apple's just as evil", and whatever (assuming anyone even reads this
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
What I'm really curious about is Lindows. They apparently have the right to distribute Linux, but SCO's FUD is likely to be hurting them as well even though SCO seems to have indicated that Lindows is safe. If SCO were to win, I think Lindows would be driven out of existence in short order. I wonder if Lindows will file as well.
If SCO wanted to take on Lindows, they would also, indirectly, be taking on Wal-Mart. Not exactly a prudent move, from a PR or a cash-flow basis, I would think.
699 for single cpu linux lic.
lmao april 11 2005 for ibm case
Collecting data is only the first step toward wisdom. But sharing data is the first step toward community
Perhaps it's now time for an enterprising law firm to file a class action suit on the part of all Linux users on the same lines as the RedHat suit. GNU/FSF or EFF might be good sponsors of such litigation.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Personally I like: ..
Darl McBride does look a bit like the gimp - they had tied to the front of one of their cars .. just dye his hair blonde and put in him one of those skin tight leather S+M outfits
It's a bit like the scene in Mad Max 2--The Road Warrior, where Mel Gibson and his clan of post-apocalyptic misfits finally get tired of being attacked and decide to turn the tables on The Humongous and his marauding leather-clad baddies.
odd
Annoying as SCO is, you can understand where they're coming from.
Back in the day, Caldera used to put out a DOS variant. Microsoft pulled the same nasty stunts (deliberately preventing their apps from running on DR-DOS) that they have with Netcape and others. Most of us can sympathize a bit. The problem is that Caldera would up winning a lawsuit, ten years down the line. Suing Microsoft is probably the single most successful move Caldera has ever made.
Not surprisingly, Caldera took to the idea of running a business by suing people over IP like a duck to water. SCO bought em, just so that there's a nice big crowd of IP-related folks with little decent product around, and something like this really had to happen sooner or later.
Now, are SCO's claims ridiculous? Sure. Actually, I'm kind of surprised that they keep McBride talking, as he's doing a terrible job of handling PR. But you can certainly see why they did this.
I was talking with someone from Norway, and they were telling me that companies in the United States are far, far more litigous than companies in Norway. The reason why is not that it's easier to win lawsuits -- it's that United States cases have *insane*, *huge*, *huge* punative rewards granted -- the legal system allows it, and lawyers are free to make emotional appeals. It's the same thing that led to warnings of hot liquid on cup tops and all sorts of other stupid, pointless warnings all over. So it's a pretty good bet to run around suing folks.
The right thing to do, to avoid SCO-like situations coming up, is to make two changes. First, have a more European-style regulation of business. Be very quick to slap business down for anticompetitive actions. If Microsoft had gotten slapped down back in DR-DOS days when they started, they wouldn't have been able to get the whole thing out of control and the huge lawsuit would never have been able to form years down the road. SCO would never have become a nasty IP-wielding monster. Second, reduce punitive damages. A single person does not need a $10M punitive award because a Ford truck broke their leg in a crash to discourage Ford from making unsafe trucks.
Actually, a third good move, unrelated to this whole mess, would be to cap lawyer's fees on class action lawsuits. Otherwise, you simply get scads of class action lawsuits against big companies where the "victim" gets about a dollar, the company wastes lots of money defending itself and then loses a bunch of money, and only the lawyers do well for themselves.
May we never see th
I can no longer say: "Is that in lira? I think I have 2 cents around here somewhere."
Italy's currency WAS good for something.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
- pricing for multiple CPU's etc. will be higher;
- other licence details on SCO web site;
- licence is ONLY for a run-time distribution of Linux, NOT source code (leave you to figure out how you will recompile your kernel);
- about 2.5 million servers affected and will need a licence;
- "...yes, we have the ability to go down to the users with law suits if we want to...";
- "others are taking the stance of coming after us...";
- "IBM and Red Hat placed a legal liability target on the backs of their users...";
- "...legal liabilty for Linux truly rests on the end user...";
All in all, it sounded very sad...
-Ocelot Wreak
"I figure you're here 'cause you need some whacko who's willing to stick his finger in the fan. So who are we helping?
If SCO's future is as bleak as everyone here seems to believe, then its stock is currently ridiculously over-valued. (It's up > 1000% over the last year.) Sounds like a prime candidate for a short sell to me. The latest numbers on Short interest (available here) indicate that short sales have spiked over the previous month, but are still at a relatively low ratio to the daily float. In other words, the players haven't yet jumped on this one in a big way. It would be particularly satisfying to turn a tidy profit as the stock of these bastards goes to zero.
do some research before you throw insults around.
wikipedia
Reclaim Democracy
The supreme court decision
Conspiracy? What the hell? I thought it was the kernel that is tainted, not Red Hat trying to undermine SCO???
Free speech is getting expensive...
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -SCO
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
From the teleconference:
"Reality is IBM and RH painted a Linux liability target on the backs of their customers. And due to their actions we have no choice but to fight the battle against end users."
According to the same site (yahoo finance) Red Hat (market cap $1.14B) has about $80.0 M in cash. Breaking the bank to buy an unprofitable dog of a company seems like a bad proposition to me. You could buy a lot of lawyers with that money.
Don't drop the soap, Tommy!
The House Microsoft, and House IBM are wanting to just mount up a few thousand knights and kick the snot out of eachother.
The problem with this plan is that, The King's minions would object strenuously. House Washington would be forced to at least give the impression mighty bitchslaps were incoming for all involved. This would be bad for business.
The minor houses of SCO and Redhat are mobilized. The former is nothing more than a puppet house of the Microsofts. The latter, a young house to be sure, is hungry for new lands.
The Free Peoples(cl) and their outriders have heard the rumors. House SCO has been instructed to collect a new tax! Pay or die!
If the loosley knit tribes of free riders were to band together they might be a factor. If they were to pool their resources and hire some particularly
litigious mercenaries, who knows what might happen. Some might even call this a class y action.
-- "It was as if the paint factories had decided to deal direct with the art galleries." - Thursday Next
The Linux community does not believe in IP laws, but that does not make them code thiefs. They belive in a licience that does not allow any one person or organization to own any code they write.
Speak for yourself, please. Just because I use and work on code licensed under GPL doesn't mean that I don't respect the intellectual property licensing predilections of others.
The whole point of the Free Software/Open Source movement, to my way of thinking, is to create a corpus of intellectual property that is and remains extremely free. As you say, it is not about ripping off other people's copyrights.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
SCO isn't afraid of IBM or Red Hat. They expect to win in court. Why they haven't shown evidence openly is very clear from the letters. Red hat obviously intends to take whatever evidence they get and use it against SCO. So why should SCO help them or any other Linux advocate. Claiming that SCO has no case because they haven't shown evidence publicly is foolish, and Red Hat may well get burned.
the boardroom giggling like little 10 year olds thinking up this shit. HeHe He then we say that....
My apologise to little 10 year olds everywhere.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
*sigh*
Here's how it really happened:
1 Samuel 17:49 - "Then David thrust his hand into his bag and took a stone and slung it, so that he struck the Philistine in his forehead, and he went falling upon the earth"
1 Samuel 17:51 - "And Devid continued running and got to stand over the Philistine. Then he took his sword and pulled it out of it's sheath and definately put him to death when he cut off his head with it."
Ergo: The original poster was correct. David indeed used Goliath's own sword to kill him. The stone in the forehead merely knocked Goliath out, possibly even putting him a coma, but the Bible does not say for sure. David using his enemy's own weapon against him perhaps had a major psycological effect on the Philistine at that time, but again, we cannot say that with absolute certainty. All we know is that the enemy army fled after David cut off Goliath's head.
Any questions?
I think that the reason SCO is not making their allegations public is to not expose them to the glare of publicity that can prove them groundless.
The original SCO v. IBM claim was one of trade-secret disclosure, which really has little to do with copyright. Under that theory, if SCO disclosed publically and broadly the offending code; it would, by definition, no longer be secret and this would weaken their case. Even though SCO has now made additional charges; they must still cling to this original proposition. That's the way of civil suits, and even criminal cases: throw as many charges in as possible in the hope that one will stick and then do everything possible to enable the prosecution of those claims/charges. Call it a scattergun approach?
Of course, the strategy may seem ridiculous in light of the logic and currently exposed facts? If the claimed code matches line-by-line that which is in Linux 2.4 and 2.5 and pre-existed before IBM's involvement; the code wasn't very secret was it? And worse yet, if the code can be documented as having been added by SCO; their trade secret claim similarly weakens, as they've already disclosed the secret without the seal of NDA. So, assume the code exists? SCO must be now trying to create the appearance of a trade secret for the IBM case. That's the only logical reason why they only disclose under NDA and in controlled conditions: to give the appearance that this is the only method and manner by which such code has ever been viewed. A smokescreen? Damned straight, but an effective one if IBM can't show that the regime was not always thus.
SCO's latest "threats" to RedHat and Linux are nothing more than the continuation of unsupported, undocumented, unproven FUD.
Time for them to get off the pot and present the evidence, and face the inevitable stock-manipulation and insider-trading charges.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Actually SCO's IP seem to be as real as Saddam Hussein's WMD.
Maybe they are able to show us their IP within 45 Minutes, too?
Anyhow, we need a department of IP-security, now!
k2r
I am sure you meant DDO$ right? (distrubuted denial of dollars)
There have been many unsubstantiated and inflamatory statements made recently in an attempt, we believe, primarily to slow the inevitable acceptance of Linux. Linux is a disruptive technology, troubling to many, puzzling to some, potentially freeing to all. With every disruptive technology, there will be those who fight to maintain the status quo, fight to hold on to a losing proposition.
a se s/archive03/sco_redhat.html
SCO has already been halted in Germany and we applaud Red Hat's actions to help end their activities in the US -- and beyond.
We applaud their efforts to restrict the rhetoric of the SCO group -- and the FUD they are trying to instill -- and will determine quickly what actions SuSE can take to support Red Hat in their efforts.
We call on SCO to stop the fear, uncertainty and doubt and join with the rest of the IT community in building Linux into the next quantum advance in technology.
http://www.suse.com/us/company/press/press_rele
> Anyhow, we need a department of IP-security
:)
Yeah, but who would want to work for the DIPS?
And just think of the domain: dips.gov - rather an oxymoron.
Why hasn't anyone organized a consumer-level class action suit against SCO already?
Here's how it really happened...Any questions?
Yeah, I got a few questions. How are you of the circumstances of an event that happened TWO THOUSAND YEARS before you were born? Which version of the hundreds-of-times-translated and rewritten bible are you using? Do you have any EVIDENCE to support your claim
I believe what you meant to say was "Here's how I think it really happened, or "Here's how the version of the bible I read says it happened. In reality there is no way that you could know how it happened, but you could have a belief or have heard how it happened.
This is one of my pet peeves, just because you believe in a religion, or a sect of a religion, or a sect of a sect of a religion, doesn't mean that you are in any way shape or form correct, and you shouldn't speak of it that way.
So, this is how I think it happened: someone needed a story to express the concept that a little guy could triumph over the big guy, so he told someone else tha story of David and Goliath, maybe he had seen a similar fight, maybe he made it up, we'll never know. A few thousand years and a few hundred translations later, the basis of the story is that it is possible form the "underdog" to take on and win vs. an overly-capable competitor, despite varying versions of the story. Really, we don't know whether this actually occured or not, or why the enemy army fled, or if there was even an army at all, what we do know is that the story has a moral, and that said moral seems to hold true today.
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
Does this suggest to somebody other than me that SCO is likely smoking something? Just an idea, considering that SCOX has been less than on top of it all, considering they're claiming the lawsuit against IBM is an IP discussion, where the appropriate term would be "Horse-whipping deliver--erm, I mean "breach of contract lawsuit"
IMO, SCOX has a lot of work to do if they want to win. It would be easier to just be bought out by IBM, who would release Unix code into the public domain, thus ending the copyright dispute.
This is not the sig you're looking for.
>>And its a definate possibility, considering the
>>linux community has no respect for IP laws in
>>general, and IBM has no respect for fair business
>>practices.
>The Linux community does not believe in IP laws,
>but that does not make them code thiefs. They
>belive in a licience that does not allow any one
>person or organization to own any code they write.
This is not quite right. What the Linux community might be against (if it makes sense to talk about the Linux community this way) is the use of IP laws to restrict user's rights to inspect and modify code, and to distribute derived works. They use IP laws to acheive the exact opposite of what commercial software providers use it for: the GPL is a license after all.
If one were to infer a position for a "community", it would make more sense to attribute this position to the BSD "community". However, it's probably not wiseto characterize any group of users/developers as large as the Linux or BSD "communities" in such a simple, overarching manner.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Summary part 1
Summary part 2
I particularly had a laugh when he starts comparing SCO to the music business, although on review it looks like SCO is planning on attacking end users.
{ - Generic Guy - }
by: tossoffus 08/05/03 02:37 pm
Msg: 23814 of 23897
I had interruptions during the intro. Here is a very quick job with the Q and A. (I am a slow typist).
Q: (Lee Gomez, Wall St. Journal) Can you explain why you don't release the examples
A: What we've been doing is these sessions. There are two types of infringements. Derivatives work code can be open NUMA, RCU from IBM into Open Source kernel is direct violation
Q Specific examples?
Absolutely
Q: Have you been making it public to anyone?
Absolutely
We have shown this to over 100 people so far under NDA.
Q: Can you make availble a list of the poeple we've shown it to?
Some of them may not want to ....
We have gone through.
This past week met with a Linux developer. He walked away and said OK, now what do you want me to do.
100% hit rate of people saying yeah there is a problem..
Q: (David Becker) What are the terms and how would you go about acquiring that.
A: Pricing for single cpw $699 good to Oct 15, after higher. intro pricing to allow people to more readliy purchase it and continue with business unaffected. Contact your SCO rep.
Q: (Larry Greenmeier, Information Week) About an email. Possibility of a global resolution. What else can you say, what went into this before the letter.
A: We had discussions, can't go into details. At points it seemed like they were going somewhere. Categorize as had some discussions. Now time to march forward with clims.
Q: (Michael Singer, Jupiter Media) To clarify, will you countersue Red Hat?
A: We have a number of options. We have questions whether RH even states a claim. May ask to dismiss, file counterclaim. Go to trial in 2005. IBM court date April 11, 2005. RH behind it a few months.
(MAureen Ogerra, Client Server News) Will you back date these and go after older. Later pricing? More cpus?
A: Price after Oct 15 is $1399. Addl cpu price on web site.
---
Summary of Q and A 2
by: tossoffus 08/05/03 02:38 pm
Msg: 23819 of 23902
(Reed Stevenson, Reuters) One time license or yearly? Given timing, LinuxWorld, are you trying to say something?
A: One time. Re LinuxWorld, we are reponding to RH suit. Don't know their timing. Talked amicably with Matthew on Thu. Thought we were on track. We volunteered to show the code. Called team after call on Thu said I thin getting positive tracks. Then Monday we were served. Don't know their timing. We've now launche pricing.
Q (GAry Ridlin, Launhc magazine) Are you worried even if you are right you will lose as you willl lose support.
A We think it's the other way around. We think IP rights and the legal system do matter. Step back and look at Open Source business model with no inherent protections.
Linux developers talk about their need to have their own busniess protected. How do I make money on top of this Linux that's out there. This will be the impetus for adjusting the open source model so that people have a better ability to0 make a profit off of their hard work.
Q: Chris Gather with Boston Globe. Estimate of how many users this applies to? Will sue individual users?
A: Absolute number is hard because of the way Linux has been distributed. Roughly 2.5 mio servers since 2.4 kernel shipped. We do have ability to go down to end user with lawsuits if we have to. IBM came out saying they are not indemnifying their users. There's a shell game going on here with Linux legal liability. When it moves from RH to IBM, they admit they have shifted liability to the end use customer and have taunted us to sue them. We're left with that hard to play with.
Big part of licensing program was to avoid these lawsuits. That all chan
{ - Generic Guy - }
Saddam Hussein "Disappointed" by U.S. claims of liberation of Iraq. The Republican Guard fought off the American invaders.
--Iraqi Ministry of Information
Does anybody know if SCO and RIAA are sharing the same law firm? I mean, both companies said, "Let's take on the world." And they are both suprised about the response. Perhaps the real solution wouild be to try the laywers advising both RIAA and SCO for malpractice....
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
Wow, talk about being thrown into the lion's den! (Or should I say, "Talk about 'supposedly' being thrown into the lion's den!". ;-)
;-) )
First, I will humbly concede that you were right when you said "Here's how the (version of the) bible I read says it happened. I didn't make myself clear on that point, and you were right in correcting me.
I use the NWT translation of the Bible, which uses the oldest possible Biblical texts as a foundation for its translation, so as to weed out as many grammatical inconsistencies as possible, athough most translations of the Bible render this account similarly. Does yours translate it significantly differently? And which, may I ask, translation of the Bible are you using?
However, that event occured, according to Bible scholars, closer to 3,000 years before either us were born. Two thousand years ago puts us to shortly before the birth of Jesus.
I am safe to say that you have done the proper archeological research to come to your conclusion? You have actually spent time in and around the Middle East to arrive at your conclusion? Have you all the works of various Bible scholars and critics, and came to your own conclusion? If so, then I must commend you, as I have not been able to do so myself, as there is quite a vast work on the subject of Biblical authenticity.
I can understand where you are coming from, though, with regards to proof. To prove 100% authenticity with archeological evidence is a difficult task. Here's something to chew on, though. According to "The Romance of the Last Crusade, 1923, Major Vivian Gilbert", pages 183-6, a World War I officer used the Biblical record of an attack on the Philistine army to attack and rout the Turks. It does not prove 100% that the Philistine army existed, but it is very interesting indeed. I implore you to do further research if you truly are interested in the Bible's validity through archeology. You will be amazed at how much work has been done in this regard. Don't take my word for it. (Not that you would, anyway.
The Bible is not a scientific book, nor does it claim to be, and it should not be treated as one. I invite you to read and study the Bible, and without a doubt you will see what a great collection of books it is. Unfortunately, most religions that claim to have the Bible as thier main Holy book, have done a less than stellar job of encouraging people to do this. It's too bad, really.
Anyway, thank you for taking the time to reply to my original post and for read this one. May you have peace.
Hey, wait a minute--one malpractice suit comin' up!!
Never mind, have a go once you get to work!
The quote marks belong around the word liberation, not disappointed.
. . . if they don't in 20 days, Red Hat will be entitled to a default judgment. Filing a response to a complaint isn't news, although missing their deadline -- THAT would be news.
I have to reiterate that IANAL, but SCO is trying to profit on the backs of the thousands of people that have made Linux what it is today because someone might have copied (no proof given yet) some code from one of their products into the Linux kernel. This seems to be exactly what copyright law is trying to prevent from happening. So far SCO has been seeking civil penalties from IBM and that's it. That's all fine and dandy, we'll let the courts figure that out. But now they are trying to license Linux for use for a fee, something in direct violation of the copyright of all the other Linux authors that released their code intentionally under the GPL. Not only that, they are charging licensing fees for single processor systems, ones that don't even take advantage of the enhanced functionality that their code purportedly helps Linux out with.
Before they were just warning companies not to use Linux. If their claims are true (I'm not 100% sure they aren't), this would be an acceptable course of action. In good faith of course they should make it known exactly what parts of the code are copyrighted by them so they could be removed. Of course the same would have to apply to their own customers as they are in violation of the GNU license. I believe that's reprehensible, but I could accept that as plausibly legal. However, they are now actively seeking licensing fees for a product they don't have the right to license. This is out and out copyright infringement. Even if they say "we are only licensing any code that belongs to us", the only feasible way it could be used is in an illegal system where it is compiled with code only released under the GPL. If nothing else they are aiding and abetting copyright infringement.
Copyright infringement is not limited to being litigated in civil courts. Copyright infringement is a federal crime with punishment of up to $250,000 AND five years in prison. SCO is knowingly violating the copyright of all other contributors to Linux by attempting to license it for profit.
Can someone point out the fault in this logic:
IANALBIWLAO (i am not a lawyer but I watch law and order) - There was a case on Law and order where the family of the victim got a lawyer and filed to force the DA to prosecute the person they thought was guilty. Are there any lawyers out there reading Slashdot? Couldn't anyone that has contributed to the Linux kernel sue SCO? Could someone force the DA in Lindon, Utah to bring criminal copyright infringement charges against SCO? What is the jurisdiction, could suit be brought somewhere else? Is anyone interested in starting a fund to do this?
"Suing Companies Obsessively"
Emphasis is mine. How do I get M$ to pay be for all the downtime when my system has crashed?
And in another article, What SCO Wants, SCO Gets is about how SCO and its buddies have played games like before.
The closing sentence to the article was another jab at the Linux community: "These guys in Utah are no dummies. The crunchies in the Linux community should be paying more attention."
I wonder how many people at Forbes have investments in SCO or The Canopy Group?
It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. - Epictetus
If I ever met Daryl McBride in person, I'd tell him to "get bent." Then again, maybe I wouldn't, because I'd no doubt get sued for defamation of character. Oh how I detest those who live, breathe, and reproduce by litigation. SCO is going to hell and they know it. I'll be the one on the sidelines, dancing as they are marched through the fire. I think it's great that other studies have shown that big companies just don't care about pathetic SCO. Their grandstanding is nothing more than an excuse to jack up their stock prices, and it's hurting Linux. SCO needs to face reality. It is an unsubstantial insect in the world of technology. I hope IBM smashes them. And while they are twitching, smashes them again. And again. That's what should happen to bugs who abuse the legal system and the stock market for selfish, personal gain.
In the face of SCO's continuing FUD without providing any substance, Red Hat had no choice whatsoever in this matter. They either file suit to either force SCO to disclose the relevant information, or they go quietly into the night.
It's satisfying to see that their claims are basically the ones I said (2, 3 ) could be brought against SCO
The only license that pertains to the majority of the kernel source is the Gnu Public License (GPL). You cannot charge to license your IP that is part of Linux without releasing it under the GPL as well. They could force everyone to stop using Linux kernels that contain their source code and hope they switch to SCO Unixware (lol), but there is no way they can charge for a license to use Linux. They are commiting a federal crime (out-in-the-open software piracy) and the persons in charge should be fined and go to jail.
BTW - I think all owners of Caldera OpenLinux should return their boxes to SCO and expect a full refund as the product was not licensed.
As I recall there were some early reports that Suse has already sought summary judgement against SCO to cease making unsubstantiated claims in Germany. I don't know the current status of this litigation. However, if such judgement is soon resolved in Germany, it may prove difficult for SCO to keep up the charade. They would likely have to formally make known the "offending code" in order to defend against such summary judgement. My guess is once this happens, it won't be long for alternate code to be written. German courts aren't nearly so convenient for lawyer's and companies to manipulate for profit as they are in the US. So those long or short on SCO keep your eye on the next copy of der Zeit.
You have got to be kidding right?
The Bush SEC is the same bunch that told a Senate panel interested in what they were doing that they were best able to investigate themselves and there was no need for an independent investigation. Surprisingly, they found there was no reason to continue the investigation.
This is the same SEC that has so far successfully managed to laundered rumors that they don't even have enough evidence to even indict either the CEO or CFO of Enron. These guys aren't going to prosecute anyone unless, like Martha Stewart, they are Democrats who might be in a position to contribute to someone other than the Dubya.
Asking the SEC for justice is sort of like looking to John Ashcroft to protect your constitutional rights.
You better go back to sleep.
Aren't these the same guys I saw at a recent Episcopalian marriage ceremony?
There is some chance that Redhat might win quickly because all they really need to win is to know where the offending code is exactly, decide it's it really offending, and if so, clean the kernel (by back patching to a previous non-offending module, most likely). It's likely SCO could be made to show their hand to Redhat within a few months and if they refuse, then Redhat might indeed win because the judge in that case might grant Redhat's desire to have their product declared legally free of SCO's IP claims as in this case SCO would not have provided any evidence to the contrary.
Either way Redhat gets quick resolution... they don't really need monetary damages, they have a problem here and now that is already hanging over them. Also Redhat will be mentioned more in SCO stories, which cements Redhat=Linux to a world growing more and more interested in linux.
-pyrrho
that is an excellent point about Redhat customers feeling served by this... it says that Redhat is willing to fight for itself and thereby the customer. It addresses the "indemnification" problem.
-pyrrho
but in this case they would be allowed to clean their kernel of this information. Therefore it will be trivial to find out where the nec. changes are. Unless SCO is -totally- bluffing, in which case Redhat would get it's declaration.
-pyrrho
Don't forget the Vultus acquisition. This was a Canopy group 'sibling' of SCO that they bought using their pumped up stock price. Quite a neat way to transfer funds from SCO to their Canopy Group masters without triggering as many 'insider selling' alarms.
Regards
Luke
#include witty_one_liner.h
Seems to be it's going to be worth a lot of
money soon.
I really really really don't want them to lose because they are out of money. That is pure big-business tactics, and always sticks in my craw. Just because someone doesn't have the funds to fight doesn't mean that they should be defeated. That is the MS way.
I want them to have their asses handed to them fair and square. No backroom deals, no settlements.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Your comment is similar to saying we can't read Tolkien to find out what happened to Frodo because how do we know Tolkien really knew what happened?
philcrissman.com.