SCO Wants $699 for Linux Systems

Too much crack! by thrillbert · 2003-08-05 06:08 · Score: 5, Funny

Well, it's finally happened.. they have smoked so much crack that now they've really started hallucinating...

Right to use SCO IP in a Linux distribution
Promotional License Fee
with 1 CPU $699
with 2 CPUs $1,149
with 4 CPUs $2,499
with 8 CPUs $4,999
Additional single CPU $749

So this puts Lawrence Livermore National Labs at around $190,751 for a 256CPU system.. of which, they have a few.. heh..

<sarcasm> Let me run out and buy some of that SCO stock!!! </sarcasm>

---
Stupidity is the great constant in this universe.

Re:Too much crack! by Osrin · 2003-08-05 06:10 · Score: 5, Funny

if you had have bought SCO stock at the start of all this you would be around 500% better of now.

Don't under estimate the power and strength of capitalism.
Re:Too much crack! by FortKnox · 2003-08-05 06:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Bill Gates is laughing maniacly right now. Think about it. XP for 1 CPU license? $199

Guess SCO doesn't believe in linux for the desktop...

--
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Re:Too much crack! by ejaw5 · 2003-08-05 06:14 · Score: 4, Funny

Hope they send the bill with a "postage paid by addressee" envelope. Let them have their $699 in pennies.

--

$cat /dev/random > Sig
Re:Too much crack! by magsymp · 2003-08-05 06:16 · Score: 1

When penguis fly! Then again.. the can already race, so who knows?!
Re:Too much crack! by Zigg · 2003-08-05 06:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Far more than $199 if it's a server, which is the typical Linux config today.

As for desktop use -- Windows desktops also require client access licenses to the Windows server, do they not?
Re:Too much crack! by Quietust · 2003-08-05 06:18 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually, I believe XP Professional will support up to 2 CPUs.

--
* Q
P.S. If you don't get this note, let me know and I'll write you another.
Re:Too much crack! by micromoog · 2003-08-05 06:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't under estimate the power and strength of capitalism.
I think you mean "don't underestimate the power of the abuse of capitalism".
Re:Too much crack! by frane · 2003-08-05 06:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

1 CPU $699...Additional single CPU $749

This cost structure doesn't make much sense. A single CPU license (the first one) costs $699. Any more cost $749. Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't additional 'licenses' be sold at a discount to the first?
Re:Too much crack! by O_Chaos · 2003-08-05 06:20 · Score: 1

lol... Lets see who the next company is that decides to lisence this for 1 large.. Nothing like selling freeware!

--
Into MMORPG's? Check it out!
Re:Too much crack! by kannibal_klown · 2003-08-05 06:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sorta wrong comparison...

They are claiming for all commercial uses. Since Linux is mostly used commercially for servers, this would be comparing Linux 699 for Microsoft's Windows Server (ver 2003 is currently 600 for full server). So the difference is rather small.

However, SOME businesses do use Linux commercially, as desktops and workstations. In which case they'd also have to shell out that obscene amt of money.

Man, I though Microsoft was evil. Compared to these guys, Billy-G is a playground bully.
Re:Too much crack! by cvbear0 · 2003-08-05 06:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

Let me run out and buy some of that SCO stock!!!

If you purchased $699 of SCO stock on March 7th (day SCO vs. IBM on /.), you could cash out with about $3,000 today. (enough for the 4 CPU license)!
Re:Too much crack! by fubar1971 · 2003-08-05 06:25 · Score: 1

To hell with that, just swith to Free BSD :)
Re:Too much crack! by Vindicator9000 · 2003-08-05 06:25 · Score: 5, Funny

From the article:
"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 ."
I plan to make several anonymous calls to SCO, asking them exactly which of Mr. McBride's orfices he would like his money in. I plan to pay in small bills, all folded until they're nothing but sharp little corners. Who's with me?!
Re:Too much crack! by FathomIT · 2003-08-05 06:29 · Score: 1

Almost time to short sell SCO.
Re:Too much crack! by mark_lybarger · 2003-08-05 06:33 · Score: 1

i'd really hate to do the math for google.com. but they're probably not using smp, are they?
Re:Too much crack! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 06:34 · Score: 1, Interesting

This is why some people consider stocks educated guess gambling.

If you think you can pick and choose stock so well, you wouldn't be saying "If...". You would have bought it and be saying how you made loads of money off the SCO scheme. Maybe even some comments are what a visionary or fortuitous you are.

What you're doing now is selectively going back and looking at stock increases. "Gee, I should have bought yahoo stock when it came out." Easy to say -after- the fact.
Re:Too much crack! by gantrep · 2003-08-05 06:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

It doesn't matter. How many do you really think they're going to sell, after all?
Re:Too much crack! by innocent_white_lamb · 2003-08-05 06:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

A single CPU license (the first one) costs $699. Any more cost $749. Isn't that backwards?

Doesn't SCO claim that its properties include only SMP and related technologies? If that's the case, then a single CPU license would not be required at all because SCO's technologies apply only to multiple-CPU boxes.

Mind you, their story has changed so often it's hard to know what they actually claim now. Today's claims are probably different than yesterdays. Oh, it's after noon? Then the claims are different than they were this morning.

--
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Re:Too much crack! by Quietust · 2003-08-05 06:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Since Linux is mostly used commercially for servers, this would be comparing Linux 699 for Microsoft's Windows Server (ver 2003 is currently 600 for full server). So the difference is rather small.
Yes, except for the fact that the Windows server you mentioned has support for up to FOUR processors, while the Linux 699 is for ONE processor - for 4 processors, SCO wants $2,499.

--
* Q
P.S. If you don't get this note, let me know and I'll write you another.
Re:Too much crack! by Aanallein · 2003-08-05 06:40 · Score: 3, Funny

Bill Gates is laughing maniacly right now. Think about it. XP for 1 CPU license? $199

Guess SCO doesn't believe in linux for the desktop...
Are you kidding? SCO is showing a tremendous belief in Linux for the desktop, evaluating it as worth over three times as much as Windows!
Re:Too much crack! by DJStealth · 2003-08-05 06:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

I baught CALDera stock at their IPO for $27/share.

Since then, it has gone down to $0.20/share and did a 4x reverse split. Then merged with SCOX

Now at $12.80/share (divide by 4 = $3.20); I've lost..

Good thing I didn't buy too many.
Re:Too much crack! by Your+Anus · 2003-08-05 06:44 · Score: 1

I think it's more like the saying, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

--

In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
Re:Too much crack! by ackermann · 2003-08-05 06:45 · Score: 1

I would like to buy some of the stuff Darl has been
smoking; I am planning to start licensing Euler's work.

They're all my intellectual property since I told
Euler all of the stuff he published.
Of course Euler and I did sign a secret contract.
Re:Too much crack! by RevAaron · 2003-08-05 06:46 · Score: 1

As for desktop use -- Windows desktops also require client access licenses to the Windows server, do they not?

In a way, yes and no. The server supports N-licenses, and you pay for those when you pay for the server software. So, if you buy a 50-client version of Windows 2k Server, you're licensed for 50 client machines to connect and do whatever. But, you don't buy some additional licenses for the clients themselves. That server's 50 clients can be made up of any 50 machines; and when one disconnects, another machine can connect to take its place without having some seperate licensed purchased for it. The licenses are attached to the server, not the desktop clients.

--

Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Re:Too much crack! by tarquin_fim_bim · 2003-08-05 06:46 · Score: 1

"Don't under estimate the power and strength of capitalism."

Didn't Al Capone say that?
Re:Too much crack! by ccp · 2003-08-05 06:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

I know, you're trolling, but anyway:

This is not capitalism. This is corporate war, using an outdated legal system as a weapon.
This is MS trying to use the courts (hiding behind its lapdog SCOum) in order to stop OSS.
Linux is killing them in the server market, so they'll try the law (and their bought lawmakers).
This is just the beginning.

This is the OPPOSITE of capitalism.
Re:Too much crack! by richie2000 · 2003-08-05 06:47 · Score: 4, Funny

Right to use SCO IP in a Linux distribution with 1 CPU: $699
Legal fund to put Darl's ass in jail: $1,000,000
Sending Darl an extra slippery soap: Priceless.

--
Money for nothing, pix for free
Re:Too much crack! by mustangsal66 · 2003-08-05 06:48 · Score: 1

Dept of Justice, come on, you should be able to nail SCO under the RICO laws for this...

--
Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
Sig changed for readability by G.W.
Re:Too much crack! by Monkelectric · 2003-08-05 06:49 · Score: 1

no!! Those ass pennies will give him the upper hand (UCB Reference).

--
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Re:Too much crack! by cheeseSource · 2003-08-05 06:52 · Score: 5, Funny

SCO Rep: "And how would you like to pay for your SCO IP license?"

Linux Customer: "I would, very much, like to pay in buckets of poop."

SCO Rep: "Buckets of what?"

Linux Customer: "Buckets of poop, Sir. I would be delighted to top off your 'full of Shit' meter. It will, of course, be the poop of the highest standard. Eat it with a silver spoon, you can."

fin

--
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
Re:Too much crack! by Tackhead · 2003-08-05 06:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

> If you had have bought SCO stock at the start of all this you would be around 500% better of now.
And if you buy the correct series of put options on SCO, you can be 500% better off when the judge tells SCO to go fuck itself sideways with a wire brush.
> Don't under estimate the power and strength of capitalism.
Amen to that. But it takes two (a buyer and a seller) to make a market.
Speaking of which, I hope the SEC is investigating the trades made by insiders in SCOX, particularly with regard to whether the lawsuits in question have any basis in fact whatsoever.
If something untwoward is happening at SCOX, it wuldn't be the first time in the securities industry that individuals of questionable ethical standards have done something to artifically inflate their company's stock price in order to sell at the top. But the word for that is fraud, not capitalism.
Re:Too much crack! by AndyFewt · 2003-08-05 06:53 · Score: 2, Funny

I've always wanted toilet paper worth $699!
Re:Too much crack! by WEFUNK · 2003-08-05 06:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't think this has anything to do with their lack of belief in Linux on the desktop. I think it's just further evidence that they have no interest in carrying on as a business entity and are entirely focused on litigation.

This certainly isn't a business decision - if it was they would continue to encourage the price advantage of Linux and offer much more reasonable fees, say $10 per seat, and maybe offer some support packages. Enough large businesses that already have Linux deployments would probably consider such a fee relatively incidental as an effective insurance policy. It might even encourage adoption at some companies who don't believe you can get anything for free. At anywhere between $5 and $50 per seat I bet they could do very well for themselves.

At $699 they very obviously don't expect anyone to pay (except maybe some allies like Microsoft who will very publicly purchase some token seats). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if you called their bluff and tried to purchase a seat that they're not even set up to sell them. This is only being done for legal reasons so they can easily quantify the damages they are seeking in court. I think they'll use these numbers (along with some comparable MSRP's for Windows and Unix seats) when trying to establish their "lost revenues" due to Linux.

Possibly they've hired the same "scienticians" as the RIAA. Hopefully the judge will see right through this ploy and nail them for flagrant abuse of the legal the system.

--
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
Re:Too much crack! by ratamacue · 2003-08-05 06:55 · Score: 5, Informative

This is NOT capitalism in action. Capitalism, or free market economics, is based on (and defined by) voluntary association. Nobody is forced to produce, and nobody is forced to consume -- people are free to produce and consume on their own terms, as long as they do so voluntarily. Capitalism is the absence of force.

Most people don't realize that IP does NOT fit into this model. IP -- the notion that ideas can be property -- is a concept invented and implemented entirely by government. IP requires an initiation of force, because it would never come about voluntarily, as capitalism does. Because IP introduces force into the market, IP is NOT a product of (or aid to) capitalism.

SCO intends to use force to accomplish their goals, not voluntary association. This is not capitalism at work; this is simply another exploit of an overly complex, ambiguous system of law.
Re:Too much crack! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 06:55 · Score: 1

No one makes you do ANYTHING except government, companies can, at most, take you to court.

You idiot, who do you think OWNS the government? Who do you think your representatives in Congress are really working for? Your statement seems to imply that there is a line separating "companies" and "government".

Yeah. Riiiiiiight.

I don't know if you're being stupid on purpose or if you're just totally fucking clueless. It's sad either way.
Re:Too much crack! by guacamolefoo · 2003-08-05 06:56 · Score: 1

Just call them and ask for information to be mailed to you. Don't give them your business address, of course. I suspect that people that call about licenses but who don't order them may end up as targets of RIAA-style lawsuits.

GF.

--
Lots of petrified grits
Re:Too much crack! by JAgostoni · 2003-08-05 06:57 · Score: 1

What's really sad is that fact that some companies will probably pay up just because: a) The cost of defending themselves is more b) Microsost has already broken them. They are used to coughing up the doe.

--

-----
Web Hosting @ HostForADollar.com
Re:Too much crack! by morgajel · 2003-08-05 06:57 · Score: 1

I've seen this scheme before, and I was just curious....
when you reassign a machine to a different job, say, from fileserver at a small company to webserver at a small company, what happens when more than 50 people connect in the case of a slashdotting?

do you have to go and buy a new license to license it "by processor" or what?

--
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
Re:Too much crack! by Cramer · 2003-08-05 06:59 · Score: 1

That money would be better spent on ammo, or contracting with a "terrorist" organization.
Re:Too much crack! by luzrek · 2003-08-05 07:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

This isn't even capitalism. I think that Copyright law, and anything else from the government that prevents anyone for selling anything they want for whatever they can get for it is Socialism. When the government is also the only distributor, it is called Communism.
What SCO is doing is called extortion/blackmail.

--
Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.
Re:Too much crack! by h0mer · 2003-08-05 07:02 · Score: 1

Not true. I convinced my grandma to buy some SCO stock way back when they were Caldera, and she would've made quite a bit of money at this point, but there's been at least 1 reverse split, 4 to 1. So instead of 100 shares, she now has 25. :\

--

I'm on top of my game like I'm standin' on Xbox.
Re:Too much crack! by ajs · 2003-08-05 07:05 · Score: 1

with 1 CPU $699

Yeah, I don't like that licensing scheme. I like their other one much better. You see, it's this new thing called the GPL. I know you're all skeptical, but it's really a cool license, and the price is much better. SCO may try to hold you to those terms and make you give out modifications that you make to anyone that you give binaries to, though so be careful! ;-)
Re:Too much crack! by Thing+1 · 2003-08-05 07:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

And if you buy the correct series of put options on SCO, you can be 500% better off when the judge tells SCO to go fuck itself sideways with a wire brush.

As far as I've been able to research (see CBOE) there are no options of any type for SCO.
This is too bad, because although puts have a time limit, they're much more profitable than selling short (max gain is 200%, if you use all of your margin ability which is of course very dangerous). With the right puts (I'd buy one year out), you could easily make 500%.

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:Too much crack! by dmaxwell · 2003-08-05 07:09 · Score: 1

To hell with that, just swith to Free BSD :)

What are you going to do once SCO finishes up with Linux and starts making outrageous claims about the BSDs?
Re:Too much crack! by bigberk · 2003-08-05 07:12 · Score: 2, Informative

if you had have bought SCO stock at the start of all this you would be around 500% better of now.
And if you buy now, you will probably lose your investment once SCO is hauled to court and forced to put its money where its mouth is.
Re:Too much crack! by kwiqsilver · 2003-08-05 07:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

I prefer:
Capitalism is the uneven distribution of wealth. Communism is the even distribution of poverty.
Re:Too much crack! by Moe+Taxes · 2003-08-05 07:15 · Score: 1

Ooh yes, every one should mail SCO at least a handful of pennys.

--
It took a real world war to end the airplane's patent wars. - Fâché Rouge -
Re:Too much crack! by mce · 2003-08-05 07:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you had have bought SCO stock at the start of all this you would be around 500% better of now.
And you would mindlessly have done exactly what SCO wanted you to do: inflate their stock.

--
Linux user since early January 1992.
Re:Too much crack! by AntiOrganic · 2003-08-05 07:16 · Score: 1

Yes, and 2 physical processors; don't worry about your dual-Xeon system with HyperThreading needing to run Windows Server 2003.
Re:Too much crack! by Trolling4Dollars · 2003-08-05 07:19 · Score: 1, Troll

Nobody is forced to produce, and nobody is forced to consume.

Nice. Isn't it interesting that today's "capitalism" is going directly counter to that? We are forced to produce because you can't live in the US without a job. We are forced to consume because if you don't you can't live a "normal" American life. I'm glad I've found ways to skirt around the system and still be a productive member of society. Thank god for the non-profits.

--
Un-news
Re:Too much crack! by booch · 2003-08-05 07:19 · Score: 4, Informative

Think about it. XP for 1 CPU license? $199 Guess SCO doesn't believe in linux for the desktop...
Actually, SCO is charging $199 for desktop Linux clients. See their FAQ, near the bottom.

--
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Re:Too much crack! by bahamat · 2003-08-05 07:19 · Score: 5, Funny

The really funny thing about this, is that SCO claims the infringing code is for SMP, NUMA, and RCU, which are all multi-proccessor technologies.

I think instead I'll just send SCO 1 copy of a picture of my middle finger for every processor I have that Linux is running on and call it even.
Re:Too much crack! by AntiOrganic · 2003-08-05 07:21 · Score: 1

You know the ultimate hilarity of this is? Not a damn person's going to give SCO money.

The people who do take SCO's claims seriously might stop using Linux. But you know what? They're not going to start using SCO UnixWare. They're going to switch to another server OS, one that starts with "W".

Of course, then technically they still make money -- since Microsoft just licensed interoperability services for Unix from SCO, and everything. $700 or $0.19? I don't think they really care.
Re:Too much crack! by Thu+Anon+Coward · 2003-08-05 07:23 · Score: 3, Funny

(hiding behind its lapdog SCOum)

I think you mean SCrOtum :)

--

I'm good with numbers - .45, 7.62, 9.....
Re:Too much crack! by Nogami_Saeko · 2003-08-05 07:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

SCO intends to use force to accomplish their goals, not voluntary association.

Well, I rather expect that rather than SCO as a whole, it's more their board of directors/president.

Regardless if they are eventually successful or not, the sudden stock leap after they started down the litigation path probably made all of the higher-ups in the company a big boatload of money. And they're gonna keep filling that boat as long as possible.

As soon as things starts to turn south, losing lawsuits, frustrated "customers" etc. - I'd imagine that most of the higher-ups in the company will cut the ropes and resign and the boat-o-cash will sail-off into the sunset.

Of course, this would leave the employees and investors of the company high and dry while the CEOs enjoy their money in the bahamas...

But that's how business is supposed to work these days, right?

N.

--
"Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
Re:Too much crack! by hesiod · 2003-08-05 07:27 · Score: 1

> what happens when more than 50 people connect in the case of a slashdotting?
> do you have to go and buy a new license

Technically, yes, you have to buy as many licenses (plus some, to be safe) as you have people connecting to the server at one time, in any way (I believe this includes web hits, file/print sharing, FTP logins, etc).

Although, at least with NT, it will go over the "allowed" licenses with little more than a dialog box suggesting you buy more licenses.
Re:Too much crack! by dslbrian · 2003-08-05 07:29 · Score: 1

Can someone elaborate on exactly what IP they are licensing? I read somewhere before about it being the NUMA code, wouldn't that only be for multi-cpu setups? What are they licensing under single CPU?

Further, I'm assuming that they are not asking this license of the people who bought SCO's linux distro. If its possible to only license parts of code to certain parts of the linux population, couldn't the other linux IP (copyright, patent, etc) holders require license fees ONLY from SCO linux users? (actually does such selective licensing fall under some type of unfair trade law?)
Re:Too much crack! by Darth+Yoshi · 2003-08-05 07:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

At $699 they very obviously don't expect anyone to pay (except maybe some allies like Microsoft who will very publicly purchase some token seats).

Well, Microsoft uses Linux in their test lab. I wonder how many licenses they'll be purchasing.

--
// TODO: fix sig
Re:Too much crack! by hesiod · 2003-08-05 07:33 · Score: 1

> At $699 they very obviously don't expect anyone to pay

But, sadly, you know there are more than one PHB's out there cussing up a storm and writing SCO a check right now.

> I wouldn't be surprised that if you called their bluff and tried to purchase a seat that they're not even set up to sell them

I doubt this very much. If I posted my dog's chew-toy on eBay, as a joke, for a hundred bucks and someone bids, I'm sure as hell not gonna say "oh, that's a joke, don't send me money."

Plus, what sort of system would they really have to set up to take care of this? Some guy who doesn't write code any more, or some accountant wh was tired of recounting the money they weren't making... A computer they already have, and a printer for some cheesy-ass "License certificate" they made in EZ-Card Creator.
Re:Too much crack! by ChrisMaple · 2003-08-05 07:36 · Score: 1

Noone can live anywhere without someone producing. This is not "force" in the political-ethical sense, it is a law of nature.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Too much crack! by hesiod · 2003-08-05 07:37 · Score: 2, Funny

> coughing up the doe.

Oh, man that's painful. But how did you get a deer down there to begin with?
Re:Too much crack! by Psiren · 2003-08-05 07:37 · Score: 1

Ah, I can see it now....

Say boy! Look mighty cute in dem Jeans!
Re:Too much crack! by Ibanez · 2003-08-05 07:42 · Score: 1

Or $699 worth of lead...

Blake
Re:Too much crack! by dnoyeb · 2003-08-05 07:45 · Score: 1

Yes. Can't you sell a put? I don't think you can sell your short position, only cash it in. but its not marketable so to speak.

THis is the perfet time for all this slashdot knowledge and all my tech website readings to turn into some real cash. I definitely need to be selling SCO short. no way they will win. its like that fool that patented the hyperlink.

But still I have a hard time wagering money I do NOT have...

a short sell can have unpredictable losses can't it!?
Re:Too much crack! by Megaslow · 2003-08-05 07:45 · Score: 1

And, according to their version of the Unix Timeline, SCO has code in there since Linux 0.01!

Maybe Linus has always been a secret agent for SCO!

The site www.sco.com is running Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.3.2-RC on Linux
Re:Too much crack! by Joe+U · 2003-08-05 07:45 · Score: 2, Informative

The client access licenses (CAL) are only for users authenticating and using the operating system directly. Web hits, either anonymous or authenticated by an external database are excluded. Anonymous FTP is excluded. Printer sharing needs a CAL. Authenticated FTP needs a CAL. Basically, if it has an account in the windows user manager, it needs a CAL.
Re:Too much crack! by ceesco · 2003-08-05 07:47 · Score: 1

Actually, IIS runs as "TSInternet User" or somesuch, which only requires one client license. You don't need licenses for every single person that might possibly connect.

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig
Re:Too much crack! by zerocool^ · 2003-08-05 07:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

The amount required to purchase a licence (at the discount rate) for every linux 2.4 machine on Netmar's (my employer) network would set us back about 18% of our yearly gross. At that rate, we'd end up going through and compiling 2.2 kernels for everyone.

But, think about it large scale - think about people who have many many servers, a. la. RackShack.

RackShack claims 14,000 servers online. Do the math.

It would cost RackShack 9.8 Million Dollars ($9,800,000) to come into compliance w/ SCO.

SCO, go fuck yourself.

Sincerely
~Will

--
sig?
Re:Too much crack! by mrBoB · 2003-08-05 07:50 · Score: 1

I hope you mean ass-pennies... Cause then you have the upper hand.
-Bob
Re:Too much crack! by caseih · 2003-08-05 07:50 · Score: 1

What about hyper-threading? Has SCO decided how to license linux on a Pentium 4 that looks like 2 processers?
Re:Too much crack! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 07:50 · Score: 1, Insightful

Capitalism is the absence of force.

This is factually incorrect, and a common misconception of those who profess to the false ideology of libertarianism.

Capitalism can only exist by the threat of force. For example, you claim to own the things you sell, but in reality you don't. Lets take your car (literally)! The only reason I cannot drive away with your car without paying you for it is that you (or someone who is on your side), will use force to keep it from me. This force can take the form of simply gun-play to a social agreement whereby members of society agree to adhere to certain "laws" that define the concept of "property". In other words, GOVERNMENT. Capitalism, like communism and every other false ideology, relies on the use of force for its very existence. The concept of money is simply an abstraction of force that we developed in order to lessen the bloodiness of everyday life.
Re:Too much crack! by SpaceLifeForm · 2003-08-05 07:51 · Score: 1

This is MS trying to use the courts (hiding behind its lapdog SCOum) in order to stop OSS.
Fine, then MS can pay the license fees for me since MS put me out of work!
Seriously, I couldn't it afford it even if I wanted to pay, which I don't, and never will. They can pry my last euro out of my cold dead hands.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Re:Too much crack! by Blimey85 · 2003-08-05 07:51 · Score: 1

But what if SCO is right? What if there really is some of their code in the kernel and the court rules in their favor? Then what?
I feel the same way as most... that they are a bunch of fools just trying to cause trouble but it will surely be a sad for Linux and for all of us who have been bashing SCO if their claims are in any way based in fact.

--
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
Re:Too much crack! by NateDavis · 2003-08-05 07:52 · Score: 1

Copied right from their Site....

Why is SCO charging so much for the right to use SCO IP in Linux when most of the code in the Linux distribution is not SCO IP?
SCO has invested hundreds of millions in the development of UNIX and is therefore entitled to a reasonable return on its investment. SCO believes that major portions of the 2.4 and later versions of the Linux kernel are unauthorized derivative works of SCO UNIX IP.

I think this is all just a bunch of crap. I have no clue what they are thinking....
Re:Too much crack! by StarOwl · 2003-08-05 07:54 · Score: 1

Well, since linux is at least 100 times better than 'doze, and since retail prices for 'doze run (say) $200, this sounds like a bargain. SCO could charge a lot more, and we'd still get our money's worth.

Seriously, are these guys delusional, or have they just been hired by Bill Gates, under-the-table-like?
Re:Too much crack! by Tackhead · 2003-08-05 07:54 · Score: 1

> As far as I've been able to research (see CBOE) there are no options of any type for SCO.
Bummer. Makes sense, though. Up until the lawsuit, SCOX was a penny stock with very little trading volume. No point in having listed options on it.
> This is too bad, because although puts have a time limit, they're much more profitable than selling short (max gain is 200%, if you use all of your margin ability which is of course very dangerous). With the right puts (I'd buy one year out), you could easily make 500%.
And unlike a short scale, if SCOX manages to convince a judge its claims are true, you can only lose your entire investment. With a short sale, your losses are unlimited.
If SCOX were listed/traded, I'd buy puts a year out, and sell the August or September puts against them, creating a calendar spread, because while I believe the lawsuit probably won't be resolved this month, I can make a pretty good guess as to how it'll be resolved in a year.
Oh well, nothing to do but say "Fuck SCO and the slimy rock they slid out from under" - except that I have too much respect for slimy rocks.
Re:Too much crack! by SpaceLifeForm · 2003-08-05 07:54 · Score: 1

That would be a waste of good lead.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Re:Too much crack! by MoonBuggy · 2003-08-05 07:54 · Score: 1

I think I speak for us all when I say, in the most technical and legally binding manner possible, FUCK THAT.
Re:Too much crack! by Demodian · 2003-08-05 07:54 · Score: 1

Wait until October 15th and it will be twice as absorbent (on your wallet)!
Re:Too much crack! by O_Chaos · 2003-08-05 07:55 · Score: 1

This is just not right!! 25,000 for a 4 processor OS! Come on SCO, what are you thinking?

--
Into MMORPG's? Check it out!
Re:Too much crack! by Dylan+Zimmerman · 2003-08-05 07:56 · Score: 1

More like 1592% as of today. The 52-week low was 0.780 and the current price is 12.420.
Re:Too much crack! by ShinmaWa · 2003-08-05 08:01 · Score: 1

Noone can live anywhere without someone producing. This is not "force" in the political-ethical sense, it is a law of nature.

Futhermore, no one can live without consuming. period.

--
The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.
Re:Too much crack! by Tongo · 2003-08-05 08:06 · Score: 1

Then why don't you go move to the wonderfull socialist state of Cuba, or China maybe? It may not work great, but our form of goverment (which is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy) is still the best game in town.
Re:Too much crack! by An.+(Coward) · 2003-08-05 08:10 · Score: 1

I plan to make several anonymous calls to SCO, asking them exactly which of Mr. McBride's orfices he would like his money in. I plan to pay in small bills, all folded until they're nothing but sharp little corners. Who's with me?!

Nah...I say you should go the old Upright Citizens Brigade ass pennies route. I don't know if it's possible to shove 69,900 pennies up his ass, but I'd be willing to find out.
Re:Too much crack! by jbr439 · 2003-08-05 08:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

Yes, but by my read of said FAQ, the mere act of running a SSH service on your desktop Linux magically transforms it into a $699 Linux server.
From the FAQ:
What is the definition of a client vs a server system? How do I know which license to purchase?
A Linux (Client) Desktop system is a single user computer workstation running Linux. It may provide personal productivity applications, web browsers and other client interfaces (e.g., mail, calendering, instant messaging, etc). It may not host services for clients on other systems.
Re:Too much crack! by nobody69 · 2003-08-05 08:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Luzrek -

You may want to be a little more careful with your use of the words 'anything' and 'anyone'. From a strict interpretation of your post, if I can't sell your CD collection on the street for $50, we're living in a socialist society. (How'd I get your CDs? I bought them from this guy whose name and description I have suddenly forgotten.) That would mean that capitalism is actually a kleptocracy, which is probably not what you had in mind.

nobody69

--
"Bugger this, I want a better world." - Jenny Sparks
Re:Too much crack! by samantha · 2003-08-05 08:21 · Score: 1

Yes, there is such a thing as right or wrong, so you are wrong about that. If you were right then you would still be wrong.
Re:Too much crack! by JWSmythe · 2003-08-05 08:22 · Score: 1

The problem with that is, pennies are legal American currency. Lead isn't.

If we could legally pay in anything at it's fair market value, I'd like to send them say 14 1988 Yugo GV's. Junk yards make the fair market value of any car at least $50 as scrap. Hopefully they wouldn't send me my change as a Pinto .

I believe you could send them as some obscure legal currency, and they'd almost to take it. But, if you show up at their offices and offer South African Krugerrands, you may have more problems than you wanted.

As far as the legal currency thing goes, have you ever tried to pay for a tank of gas with pennies? Sometimes (like, when I was making part time mininum wage when I was a kid), that was the only way I could pay.. I had an attendant refuse $10 in mixed change. There was a cop there when it happened. I gave her the $10 (mostly pennies), and she tried to get the cop to arrest me for not paying, simply because she was refusing my money. He told her that it's legal tender in America, and that she couldn't refuse it. If she wanted to refuse it, she'd have to get the gas out of my car. :) I left with the gas, and without the $10 in change.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:Too much crack! by bobjohnson · 2003-08-05 08:22 · Score: 1

Has anyone considered the posibility that M$ is the one whom has posted the offending code to the tree in the first place? I mean, really, that would have been the perfect tool to drive away the consumers from this supposed "free" os?!? The motive is there, and the ability, hmm, I wonder? What do you think?
Re:Too much crack! by psm321 · 2003-08-05 08:25 · Score: 1

The point that SCO is generally bashed for is not necessarily whether or not their claims are false. The problem is that SCO refuses to make clear what those claims are, and at the same time is spreading FUD before their claims are proven, or even revealed.
Re:Too much crack! by cshark · 2003-08-05 08:34 · Score: 1

You know, this is all fine and good, but maybe the reason Mcbride is so uppity about unix is because he has no... shal we say, assets? Missing the family jewels perhaps Darl? Hmmmm?

--
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Re:Too much crack! by psm321 · 2003-08-05 08:35 · Score: 1

What's your point? Just because it doesn't say legal tender on it doesn't mean it isn't legal tender.
Re:Too much crack! by segvio · 2003-08-05 08:38 · Score: 2, Funny

Thanks for destroying my LCD with hot beverages though my nose! Made my day ;)
Re:Too much crack! by EvilAlien · 2003-08-05 08:41 · Score: 1

Whether or not they are "right", they can FOAD any time now as far as I am concerned. They will see no money for a license for the use of GPLed code that they distributed from me, thats for damn sure.

--
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Re:Too much crack! by Dr.+Zowie · 2003-08-05 08:43 · Score: 1

Right to use SCO IP in a Linux distribution:
with 1 CPU $699
with 2 CPUs $1,149
with 4 CPUs $2,499
with 8 CPUs $4,999

Paying Darl McBride with the equivalent weight in horseshit: Priceless.
Re:Too much crack! by hesiod · 2003-08-05 08:43 · Score: 1

> eb hits, either anonymous or authenticated by an external database are excluded. Anonymous FTP is excluded

Please excuse my ignorance, I had been misinformed in the past.
Re:Too much crack! by MarkGriz · 2003-08-05 08:49 · Score: 1

Better yet, pay them with crack. At the rate they are smoking it, they must be out by now.

--
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
Re:Too much crack! by SmackCrackandPot · 2003-08-05 08:51 · Score: 1

Some definitions: A. Capitalist - Somebody who is rich, when everyone around them is poor B. Socialist - Somebody who is poor, when everyone around them is rich C. Communist - Somebody who is poor, when everyone around them is poor
Re:Too much crack! by jo42 · 2003-08-05 08:54 · Score: 1

Hah! I actually made about $400 US on Caldera's IPO.
Someone I know made 5-figures on the RedHat IPO... :-p
Re:Too much crack! by luzrek · 2003-08-05 09:01 · Score: 1

Actually, the last step does sound like pure capitalism. The first part is theft, which doesn't involve selling anything.
Since we're picking knits, a kleptocracy is actually any government which is characterized by rampant corruption. Now for the other definitions (provided by dictionary.com.
)socialism == Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
communism == A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
capitalism == An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

--
Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.
Re:Too much crack! by Chemicalscum · 2003-08-05 09:05 · Score: 1

You can imagine how these creeps are demanding from Google !
Re:Too much crack! by gwaihir09 · 2003-08-05 09:07 · Score: 1

please, everyone with a linux server please go to the following address: http://www.caldera.com/licensing/piracy.html where sco collects information on software piracy and send a message something like the following: "SCO is pirating my copy of Linux by trying to force me to license this software, and threatening to sue me if I don't do it. Linux's GNU license agreement doesn't allow SCO to license a piece of the operating system "in binary form only." This means that by licensing the software SCO is obligated to give the software (and source code) away for free. By not giving the software to me for free SCO is stealing from me. What is more, by threatening suit on my server, SCO is participating in blackmail. I will withhold a suit if these illegal practices stop immediately. Thank you, XXXYOUR NAME HERE"
Re:Too much crack! by eric76 · 2003-08-05 09:10 · Score: 1

If there actually was code in Linux that was an infringements of SCO's copyrights, then the thing to do is to remove it once it is identified.

Since SCO refuses to identify the so-called infringing code, it is quite possible that a judge could rule for SCO in a lawsuit against a Linux user for license fees but award no damages at all. Or maybe $1 in damages.

Of course, once the infringing code, if any, is identified, it will be quickly replaced with noninfringing code.

One that that registering the copyright is supposed to do is to make it easy to identify infringements.

I wonder if anyone has actually checked with the Library of Congress to see exactly what SCO registered.

My understanding is that when registering code is that the Library of Congress, you don't actually have to give them a copy that people could use to check for infringements. This is, I feel, a major error that, if true, should now be very apparent. If so, maybe we should all contact our Congressmen and Senators and demand a change in the law.

What we really need is that no copyright infringement damages occur at all until the copyrighted material is registered with sufficient detail to precisely determine infringements and in a manner that allows potential infringers to check.

I suspect that for code, they would need an on-line repository with free or low-priced access to anyone who needs to use it to check code.

If the code is registered in such a way that it can be checked, what do you bet that Red Hat, IBM, and others have people there checking it?
Re:Too much crack! by ryanvm · 2003-08-05 09:11 · Score: 1

So this puts Lawrence Livermore National Labs at around $190,751 for a 256CPU system.

Pfft - Lawrence Livermore is chump change, but I'll bet Google has them drooling. Let's see - with over 10,000 Linux servers at $699 each, that puts Google's tab at a cool 6.9 million dollars.

Good luck collecting on that one, SCO. I've never seen such bizarre corporate delirium.
Re:Too much crack! by AndyFewt · 2003-08-05 09:15 · Score: 1

Don't you just feel like you're getting value for money... that must be some good toilet paper!
Re:Too much crack! by SlashDread · 2003-08-05 09:23 · Score: 1

"people are free to produce and consume on their own terms, as long as they do so voluntarily."

Your describing Anarchy, not capitalism. /Dread
Re:Too much crack! by roman_mir · 2003-08-05 09:30 · Score: 1

Looks on the faces of a SCO managers who will have to deal with thousands of pissed off linux users and admins and IBM lawyers... priceless

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Too much crack! by JAgostoni · 2003-08-05 09:37 · Score: 1

It isn't easy but the trick is to start with a nice small goat.

--

-----
Web Hosting @ HostForADollar.com
Re:Too much crack! by Ryan+Amos · 2003-08-05 09:38 · Score: 1

I honestly doubt MS has much, if anything to do with this. This is a case of SCO seeing they had no cash and would fold within a year and trying to scare people into paying for these licenses. Anyone with half an iota of common sense (and a decent understanding of the issues here) knows that you can't claim ownership of work someone else did and paid for. SCO is claiming that they own code IBM wrote for AIX, which was developed using UNIX code, which SCO may or may not own. But the disputed code was never part of SCO's UNIX code, as it was written by IBM for AIX and subsequently GPLed and added to the Linux kernel by IBM themselves. MS knows this lawsuit has absolutely no chance of succeeding, though SCO is spreading FUD about Linux and that's one of MS' favorite pastimes so it's easy to see the similarities. Ever notice how freaked out corporate America is about this? No? Didn't think so. :)
Re:Too much crack! by hng_rval · 2003-08-05 09:47 · Score: 1

Actually, you can get margin on terms of 5%, or even 3%. If you have 5% margin then you can make MUCH more than 200% by selling short.

Of course, you can also screw up royally and lose all your money in a day.

--
Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!
Re:Too much crack! by lostinchicago · 2003-08-05 09:47 · Score: 1

Let me run out and buy some of that SCO stock!!! nice!
Re:Too much crack! by juan2074 · 2003-08-05 09:48 · Score: 1

A monarchy is still the best game in town.
Things are good when you have a benevolent ruler.
If the ruler becomes corrupt or tyrannical, only one person needs to be deposed.
Re:Too much crack! by Barrakketh · 2003-08-05 09:56 · Score: 1

I believe that the Home edition only supports one.
Re:Too much crack! by TheFrood · 2003-08-05 10:04 · Score: 2, Funny

I plan to make several anonymous calls to SCO, asking them exactly which of Mr. McBride's orfices he would like his money in. I plan to pay in small bills, all folded until they're nothing but sharp little corners. Who's with me?!

All I know is that Mike Hunt and Hugh G. Rection are about to get themselves Linux licenses.

TheFrood

--
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
Re:Too much crack! by 3dr · 2003-08-05 10:06 · Score: 1

For Average Joes running a single-CPU linux box at home, how much of SCO's alleged property is being used? Not SMD. Probably not journaling FS (not that widespread yet). What about RCU?
And I believe (correct me if wrong) that kernels older than 2.4 aren't affected.

I owe SCO nothing.
Re:Too much crack! by Alkaiser · 2003-08-05 10:09 · Score: 1

If you pay in pesos...well, that's just even more of a challenge. :)

--
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
Re:Too much crack! by Famatra · 2003-08-05 10:10 · Score: 1

" or call SCO at 1-800-726-8649 or visit our web site at http://www.sco.com/scosource " Call them up, they pay the toll. Also, if your on the line blabbing hopefully they maybe losing a sale to a retard who would otherwise pay this blackmail fee. Have it auto-dial the number, and let it sit there.
Re:Too much crack! by ccp · 2003-08-05 10:18 · Score: 1

Well, this move was announced in the first Halloween Document, so I'm not giving them the benefit of doubt.

I think OSS people, being mostly good guys, don't even realize how dirty MS will fight.

Cheers,
Re:Too much crack! by Talinom · 2003-08-05 10:26 · Score: 1

Yes, they probably need to be drug tested. After all, I don't think that you should piss off Wal Mart who is selling linux pcs.

--
"Giving money and power to governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke
Re:Too much crack! by Malcontent · 2003-08-05 10:36 · Score: 1

Those were all scheduled sales.

It's not illegal to rip off the shareholders if you planned it ahead of time.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:Too much crack! by myov · 2003-08-05 10:38 · Score: 1

Possibly they've hired the same "scienticians" as the RIAA.

P4's are "high speed" computers, and are the equavalent of 14 "regular" computers. You must buy the appropriate number of licenses.

--
I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
Re:Too much crack! by cmacb · 2003-08-05 10:53 · Score: 1

Mod parent up to (Score:6, right on target!)

This is exactly the same double-speak that allows some people to equate open source with communism.

In any system of government that did not include at least some element of capitalism, open source would not be allowed to exist. There would be one operating system deemed best for everyone.

Don't make the mistake of confusing the system we have in America with pure capitalism. We aren't even close any more.
Re:Too much crack! by Kobold+Curry+Chef · 2003-08-05 11:07 · Score: 1

If they actually sue everyone who is running Linux, they might have to raise their "license fees" even more to pay all the lawyers.

They haven't even asked for a single injunction yet, have they? How can anyone in the markets take them seriously if they make no move to actually back up their bluster?
Re:Too much crack! by HeX86 · 2003-08-05 11:11 · Score: 1

In soviet russia, crack smokes you.
Re:Too much crack! by aled · 2003-08-05 11:17 · Score: 1

And if you don't sell your SCO stock before the end of this you would be around 500% worst.

--

"I think this line is mostly filler"
Re:Too much crack! by jgoemat · 2003-08-05 11:30 · Score: 1

First, let me say that IANALibertairan, but I have read about it. Libertarianism isn't perfect, but you should try to understand it if you want to criticize it. You try to equate Libertarianism (an ideology) with Capitalism (an economic system).
Libertarians believe that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are our rights. You also have the right to what you own. Contrary to what you say, people DO own things. Even in a communist society, people own things, they are just distributed by the government (ostensibly on the basis of need instead of who produced the goods). I own my car. I have the title and the bill of sale to prove it. The dealership used to own my car, they have paperwork showing how they got it from the factory. The factory produced the car, they have paperwork showing how they paid for the parts. The companies that made the parts purchased the raw materials from somewhere (let's say a mining company). The mining company has the deed to the land. There's a chain of ownership for every piece of my car.
If you steal my car, that is taking something from me against my will, or the initiation of force. This is because one has a right to their own property. If I use force to try and stop you, that is a reaction to your force and not an initiation. In Libertarianism, the goal is to maximize the rights for everyone. There's no way you can claim a right to my car. If you did, we would have a dispute and I would have to drag the title to court and you would have to bring whatever evidence you have that you should own the car.
Re:Too much crack! by thisgooroo · 2003-08-05 11:43 · Score: 1

Capitalism, or free market economics, is based on (and defined by) voluntary association.
a tad confused, aren't we? capitalism is an ownership model, and as such has nothing to do with a free or unfree market. and the voluntary association is more a hallmark of anarchism/libertarianism than capitalism
Most people don't realize that IP does NOT fit into this model. IP -- the notion that ideas can be property -- is a concept invented and implemented entirely by government.
actually, IP is a necessary consequence of an ownership system that relies on continuous growth: once you run out of things that offer sufficient growth potential, you have to extend ownership rights just to maintain the growth
Re:Too much crack! by quasimodal · 2003-08-05 11:44 · Score: 1

You can't buy options on an exchange like CBOE for trash like SCO because you actually have to have a real company with real products. And lawsuits are NOT a product. CBOE doesn't want speculative companies (essentially like betting on a dead horse) on their exchange.
And I can't think of anyone that would be insane enough to sell you some puts.
I knew a guy that did a 625% gain on some Westinghouse options. They started at 1/32... and he ended up with $625,000

--
Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/
Re:Too much crack! by thisgooroo · 2003-08-05 11:46 · Score: 1

I think that Copyright law, and anything else from the government that prevents anyone for selling anything they want for whatever they can get for it is Socialism.
thanks for the education. who would have thunk that it is the socialists that protect ownership rights.
sibce we are both diehard capitalists, i assume you won't mind if i sell your house (i want to sell it)
Re:Too much crack! by Unregistered · 2003-08-05 12:08 · Score: 1

and costs $299
Re:Too much crack! by Thu+Anon+Coward · 2003-08-05 12:09 · Score: 1

so, you're saying they're carrying around an empty sack of nothing?

(nudge nudge wink wink)

thank you! thank you very much! you're too kind.

--

I'm good with numbers - .45, 7.62, 9.....
Re:Too much crack! by ehiris · 2003-08-05 12:10 · Score: 1

Creating offer after demand is communist and not capitalist.

SCO waited for the demand and then they created the offer.
Re:Too much crack! by DoraLives · 2003-08-05 12:14 · Score: 1

Don't under estimate the power and strength of capitalism.
Hmm. I'm getting the impression that it's the Robber Baron Variant.
I'm also getting the impression that Bill Gates secretely owns SCO.

--
Is it fascism yet?
Re:Too much crack! by InfiniteWisdom · 2003-08-05 12:15 · Score: 1

I think people who lose the big picture and choose to attack Copyright law as a whole are completely naive.

Creating qulity music, writing good books, creating good software all take effort. Without some kind of copyright protection most of that would cease to exist. Even the so-called "Copyleft" really has meaning only because of Copyright law. Without that Microsoft would be able to take your code an use it as their own.

The problem lies with unreasonably long copyright terms, and more pertinent to the SCO case... legal loopholes that allow SCO to go on a defamation rampage without declaring the facts. European laws don't allow this, which is why they folded very quickly in response to the LinuxTag C&D. If they were to continue their smear campaign in Germany they would have to make the infringing code public.
Re:Too much crack! by Thing+1 · 2003-08-05 12:23 · Score: 1

I once made more in 3 weeks than most people make in a year using options. The worst part is that I made money, because then I continued to do risky option trading and lost more than I gained -- a lot more.
Man, the 90s were great when money grew on trees.
I had bought 3 Yahoo options for a total of about $5,700, and after 3 weeks they were worth $36,000 -- a 631% gain, in line with your friend. (What options was he trading? It'd be funny if it was the same trade; this was from December 1998 to January 1999.)

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:Too much crack! by WindBourne · 2003-08-05 12:32 · Score: 1

All in all, the only people who have made money with this group is Ray Norda && associates.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Too much crack! by Demodian · 2003-08-05 12:36 · Score: 1

Yes, such good value... Let's hope it's quilted!
Re:Too much crack! by Pharmboy · 2003-08-05 12:45 · Score: 1

But what if SCO is right? What if there really is some of their code in the kernel and the court rules in their favor? Then what?
I feel the same way as most... that they are a bunch of fools just trying to cause trouble but it will surely be a sad for Linux and for all of us who have been bashing SCO if their claims are in any way based in fact.

It just means we go back to kernel 2.2 for a bit, while we rewrite the potentially infringing code in kernel 2.4

As to the 'if', from what I have seen, the people here are not pissed that SCO is claiming they own the IP in the kernel, its the way they go about it. They begin with a lawsuit. They send extorting letters to Redhat customers saying they must PAY for a license, when a court of law has NOT established this fact. The methods they are using are offensive. If the court find there is SCO IP, then fine, if you use kernel 2.4 you can either rewrite the offending parts, downgrade to kernel 2.2 or pay a license to use the tainted 2.4

BUT A COURT HAS NOT FOUND THIS TO BE THE CASE. That is the big deal. SCO is acting in a way that indicates that even they do not think they will win, and is instead trying to cash in quickly. They have not indicated with much detail the actual IP that they supposedly own. They have insured that no 3rd party can verify their claims. Whether they really do own any IP in the kernel or not, they have acted in a way that most of us consider irresponsible and destructive to the industry.

In a nutshell: We aren't bashing them because they potentially own some IP in the kernel. We are bashing them because they are acting like total asshole in the way that they are dealing with the potential infringement.

Even if they were 100% correct, I would never consider purchasing any products from them because they are assholes, plain and simple.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:Too much crack! by Thornkin · 2003-08-05 13:15 · Score: 1

Great quote! It really sums things up well. Did you come up with it or does it have some other attribution?
Re:Too much crack! by Thornkin · 2003-08-05 13:18 · Score: 1

Obviously MS stands to gain from this endeavor of SCO's but then so does Sun. Other than reflexive anti-Microsoft bias, do you have any evidence to substantiate your claim? MS, as near as I can tell, has nothing to do with this. In case your memory is no better than your logic, please recall that their "lapdog" SCO sued them recently over DRDOS. They aren't exactly friends.
Re:Too much crack! by appleLaserWriter · 2003-08-05 13:37 · Score: 1

As far as I've been able to research (see CBOE) there are no options of any type for SCO

That you can't find anyone to take the long side of an option contract is a good indication of the market's opinion of the company.
Re:Too much crack! by tundog · 2003-08-05 13:55 · Score: 1

Is it still a flash mob if it takes place over the phone?

--
All your base are belong to us!
Re:Too much crack! by Grizzlysmit · 2003-08-05 13:57 · Score: 1

And if you buy the correct series of put options on SCO, you can be 500% better off when the judge tells SCO to go fuck itself sideways with a wire brush.
Hmmm I hope they televise the decision then, I would love to hear/see the Judge say that to SCO, heck I'd love to here him say it to any one, lol :-)

--
in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that :-D
Francis Smit
Re:Too much crack! by WCMI92 · 2003-08-05 14:32 · Score: 1

SCO is going to have a problem getting significant damages even IF there is infringing code.

Why? They have done NOTHING to mitigate the damage. They won't tell ANYONE what is theirs, which means they aren't offering ANY opportunity to remove the infringement.

It's clear that SCO wants the infringement to continue, so they can collect license fees for the 99.9% of the noninfringing code they don't own.

--
Corporatism != Free Market
Re:Too much crack! by feed_me_cereal · 2003-08-05 14:49 · Score: 1

Linux 2.4 license with 1 cpu : $699
Linux 2.4 license with 2 cpu's: $1,149
Linux 2.4 license with 3 cpu's: $2,499
Charging money for a product you didn't create without offering any evidence as to why you own it: priceless

There are some things that hard work and honesty can buy. For everything else, there's threat of litigation.

--
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
Re:Too much crack! by SoSueMe · 2003-08-05 14:53 · Score: 1

Wouldn't Microsoft's bundle of cash to SCO have bought them already?
Re:Too much crack! by WCMI92 · 2003-08-05 15:05 · Score: 1

"P4's are "high speed" computers, and are the equavalent of 14 "regular" computers. You must buy the appropriate number of licenses."

So what would that make my AMD Athlon XP's?

Not to mention (shudder) the Athlon 64 I plan to buy later this year...

--
Corporatism != Free Market
Re:Too much crack! by NotQuiteReal · 2003-08-05 15:25 · Score: 1

Yeah, and if I had bought Microsoft instead of my first computer (4.77Mhz dual floppy w/ DOS and CPM!) I'd be a millionaire (if I sold at the peak).

--
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Re:Too much crack! by Darth+Yoshi · 2003-08-05 15:47 · Score: 1

Wouldn't Microsoft's bundle of cash to SCO have bought them already?

Good question. I thought I read that Microsoft only licensed the Unix API from SCO. I assumed for POSIX compatibility mode in NT, et al, but I'm not certain. This license would be would be a per cpu fee for running Linux in their test labs.

--
// TODO: fix sig
Re:Too much crack! by PolR · 2003-08-05 16:23 · Score: 1

I don't understand. IANAL but I can't help to ask if this is legal according to criminal law. If someone seriously tries to sell you the Eiffel Tower, won't you call the FBI? Isn't the first condition to be able to sell anything is to have a title of ownership on what you sell? Or at least to be authorised by the owner to sell on his behalf?
I know I know, SCO claims to have ownership of Linux. But if someone comes up with a legal theory to claim ownership of Eiffel Tower, isn't he required to have his title of ownership legally cleared before he is allowed to sell? Why would copyright titles be different? SCO doenn't own any title to Linux but an unsubstantiated allegation that is disputed in courts. They can't sell any rights based to allegations. What if the courts rule against them? They have to demonstrate actual ownership.
Examine the copyright notices. None of the Linux code is currently copyrighted by Caldera except the portions that they willfully GPLed when they were still contributing to Linux. They still have to demonstrate in court that Linux infringes on their rights. Until there is a judgement, they have no rights.
I may be talking through my rear end but this smells fishy. I believe Linus, the FSF, Red Hat, IBM and other parties should ask their lawyers to look at the possibility of a criminal investigation here. Someone is selling THEIR property without authorisation.
Re:Too much crack! by HuffMeister · 2003-08-05 16:57 · Score: 1

I made this comment a while back, but nobody really saw it. It seems to me that you should just be able to not compile in the SMP/JFS/NUMA stuff and run along your merry way, until SCO makes another claim about what the "real" infringing code is...
Re:Too much crack! by noldrin · 2003-08-05 17:45 · Score: 1

No, communism is the lack of any government where all the people are equal partners in all the business. When the government is the only distributor, then that is a socialism. What we have in america is much closer to a plutocracy.
Re:Too much crack! by seither · 2003-08-05 18:03 · Score: 1

After perusing insider trades, it appears that many in management positions as SCO feel like $13 per share is time to sell. They must not believe their own story.
Re:Too much crack! by slummerx86 · 2003-08-05 19:38 · Score: 1

The way to cover yourself on a short is to place a market order to buy the stock at a level where the losses start to become unacceptable. So if you short at $50 and you don't want to lose more than $10 you set up a buy to trigger at $60. So even if it goes up to $100, you were on board for $40 of that so you still only lose $10. This is called hedging and is a very common practice in financial (and other) markets.
Re:Too much crack! by ccp · 2003-08-05 21:56 · Score: 1

Dear Thornkin:

Don't be an ass. Obviously, I'm not a detective, so I don't have any hard evidence, and neither do you.
I have a pretty decent logic, and a truly great memory, thank you.

The point is, the DRDOS lawsuit was what I had in mind. I think that then was when MS thought: "We can use these bastards. Let's settle with them and make a little bussines proposal. They sure have chutzpah!".
They let the dust settle, and waited for their moment. Then, SCOum pounced. That's where we are now.

There will be a lot of these little surprises down the road.

Cheers,
Re:Too much crack! by jogdial · 2003-08-05 23:07 · Score: 1

hmmm, they've given us a toll free number... and I've got DSL and almost no use whatsoever for that modem sitting in the closet... how bout everyone gets their modems back out and we set them up to dial every 1 minute on disconnection ... where can we get this started now? Who's up for it?
Re:Too much crack! by Phemur · 2003-08-06 01:04 · Score: 1

Your argument that SCO is acting against capitalism is incorrect.
You state:
Nobody is forced to produce, and nobody is forced to consume -- people are free to produce and consume on their own terms, as long as they do so voluntarily.
This is true. But as part of the "freedom to produce and freedom to consume", you've left out the part where people produce and consume one their own terms.
Microsoft chooses to sell its products, while the Open Source community chooses to distribute them for free. That's freedom of production. Consumers then decide if the conditions (price, requirements to distribute or not, value, etc) for each products suite their needs, and choose which product to buy. That's freedom of consumption.
In this case, SCO believes that some of their non-distributable code was illegally released as part of the Linux kernel. If this is the case, then someone somewhere has taken a product from a producer, and has broken the agreement. It may have been inadvertant, but the trade rule was still broken, and restitution is required.
Capitalism is the absence of force.
Wrong. Force is an absolute necessity in any fair system. Without force, there's no way to enforce rules and fairness. How could Microsoft have been sued for anti-trust if there was no way to enforce the anti-trust laws?
The inverse is also true. How could the OpenSource community enforce open and redistributable code if there's no way to stop individuals or companies from releasing binaries only and making a mint from awesome OSS projects?
Phemur
Re:Too much crack! by Progoth · 2003-08-06 07:46 · Score: 1

Right to use SCO IP in a Linux distribution
Promotional License Fee
with 1 CPU $699

let's think about this....they claim that they own IP in the linux kernel...FOR SMP....what does that have to do with 1 cpu systems??

this makes my head hurt
Re:Too much crack! by myov · 2003-08-06 17:15 · Score: 1

So what would that make my AMD Athlon XP's?

Furnaces :-)

(I know, I know. In all fairness, my current dev box is an Athlon)

--
I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
Re:Too much crack! by eventhorizon5 · 2003-08-12 09:48 · Score: 1

That's almost correct.

Basically it goes like this:

1. Capitalism - equal and free exchange of goods (capital); does not always have to do with money. The money and capital in this stage comes from the customer 100%.

2. Interventionism - when corporations start monopolizing, and exploiting the public, interventionism sets in. This is when the companies prioritize the government, courts, and other powerful things above the average customer. The US is currently at the Radical Interventionist stage, and barely contains any normal capitalism left. This category is where SCO is. Income in this stage comes from customers, exploitations, legal battles, governments (taxes), etc.

3. Fascism - after interventionism, where companies prioritize government, the government eventually takes over and nationalizes the industries. In this stage companies can still be somewhat independent, but are primarily owned and dominated by a central government. This is the model Nazi Germany, modern Sweden, modern China, etc all use. Income in this stage comes mostly from the government (taxes), and a little from customers.

4. Socialism - In this stage the government takes complete control over all business and industry, and begins to distribute resources centrally. Companies no longer are independent, but are government branches. This is done by a progressive taxation on the public, usually ending up around 60-90% of total personal income. This was the economic model of the former USSR (and they collapsed because of it), and was also the former model of China (China has now moved to fascism to prevent collapse).

-Communism, Marxism, etc are political models that utilize socialism.

Some charts are here:
http://ministries.tliquest.net/politics/spe ctrum.j pg
http://ministries.tliquest.net/politics/econom ic_s pectrum.jpg

--
#Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"

Investors ... by Arthaed · 2003-08-05 06:08 · Score: 5, Informative

What is absolutely unbelievable to me is that investors are accepting and banking on SCO's FUD tactic. Check out SCO's stock. And now with this announcement if the trend continues, investors may lean even more towards SCO (although, I am not sure why). Unbelievably insane.

--
Unique signatures are rare.

Re:Investors ... by tgd · 2003-08-05 06:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Keep in mind that while some people will get rich betting on SCO, most people will lose their shirts doing it -- and those people will result in class action lawsuits, and perhaps criminal charges when the fit hits the shan.
Re:Investors ... by aussersterne · 2003-08-05 06:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

These people aren't SCO investors, they're simple race-trackers who are betting on the horse with the longest odds. There are people who are idle enough and rich enough to do such things, and unfortunately, they sometimes win.

--
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Re:Investors ... by dubbayu_d_40 · 2003-08-05 06:12 · Score: 4, Funny

Know how to short a stock?
Re:Investors ... by greechneb · 2003-08-05 06:14 · Score: 1

Hey, if I had money, I'd be buying it right before each of their teleconferences. Think about it. If I had bought a thousand dollars at a couple cents a piece, and sell at current prices, I'd be doing pretty good.

Not all investors are stupid. A lot of them are playing chess, and waiting until that king is a move away from being exposed before jumping off. I just wish I had cash to join the game at the beginning. It would be a nice move if you know what is going to happen *cough*SCO Execs*cough*
Re:Investors ... by IFF123 · 2003-08-05 06:15 · Score: 1

I agree. This is mainly done to jack up SCO's stock prices. Therefore, I assume there will be a large dump of stock (after it will rise 5-10%) by SCO's CEO and other high end officials.
This is another example of why stock trading should be done only by intelligent people. Bying into hype (think dot.com) is not a healty way of making money.
PS: SCO is going down, and everybody know it (including SCO). The question is: will they drag Linux too....

--
Who took my tinfoil hat?
Re:Investors ... by Doesn't_Comment_Code · 2003-08-05 06:15 · Score: 1

This has always been SCO's strategy, to talk themselves up whenever something bad happens, in an effort to rescue/inflate their stock. This is just one more case. Many people have pointed out that you can look at the stock graph and a history of their PR releases and see a direct corrolation.
SCO stock falls.
SCO makes up some facts/allegations.
SCO stock prices come back up.

How can they fall for that? I sincerely hope no company even dreams of paying that bill. And I hope the company lawyers all know how bullshit this is. If someone were trying to charge me that much or sue, I'd take the chance, because the license cost is just as bad as the lawsuit damages!

--

Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Re:Investors ... by jmays · 2003-08-05 06:17 · Score: 3, Informative

For those who don't know how to 'short a stock', read this.

--
KARMA TAG! You're it.
Re:Investors ... by jpsst34 · 2003-08-05 06:19 · Score: 1

beaucoup

--
How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?
Re:Investors ... by Sycraft-fu · 2003-08-05 06:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sure, just call a stock broker. However shorting is something you do have to be careful with since there is no limit to how much you can loose. With normal, not-on-margin, stock trading you can loose nothing more than what you put in. If you buy $5000 of stock, you can never loose more than that $5000, even if the stock becomes totally worthless. However, when you short a stock, the more it goes up the more you owe. Since there is no real limit to how much a stock can go up, you can really loose a shitload of money.

Now I'll admit, SCO stock going up in the long run is about as likely as peace in the Middle East, but it COULD happen. You do have to be wary when shorting stocks.
Re:Investors ... by Slashdolt · 2003-08-05 06:20 · Score: 5, Informative

...And the SCO execs are selling their stock as fast as they can, though trying to make it appear that they are simply "getting a good deal".

http://www.quicken.com/investments/insider/?p=SC OX &tag=1

Certainly, their counter-argument is always something like, "Well, we've been planning to sell for quite some time now..." But geesh! Options aside, it appears that some of these execs (V.P.'s) are dumping what they already have.

In that sense, it makes perfect sense. Get your stock price up as high as you can, and then sell as much as you can before everyone else catches on. Claim that you own all the IP in the world, and as long as there are others dumb enough to believe you, they'll keep your stock price high. Do some fancy accounting to make it appear as though you're making money, when all you're really doing is shifting income. By the time it all shakes out, you'll have sold half of your stock anyway, and you'll be rich even though the company eventually goes into bankruptcy.

As you said, however, WTF is going through the minds of the people that are buying long-term? Eventual IBM buyout? Maybe.

--
Slashdolt
Re:Investors ... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 06:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Keep in mind that if you short the stock, you end up driving up the stock price and making the company's CEOs, CTOs, etc (both past and present) fucking rich. In short, shorting a stock just makes the rich richer and you can see exactly how that corporate greed is destroying the United States economy right now.
Re:Investors ... by GoofyBoy · 2003-08-05 06:21 · Score: 1

The other problem is timing.

You buy a stock you can hold on forever. When you short a stock you are selling now, buying later. Eventually, you will have to buy.

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:Investors ... by hross · 2003-08-05 06:22 · Score: 1

Well, some of us might have seen the 'unbelievably insane' rise in SCO's stock and decided to short it instead. ;-)
Re:Investors ... by nelsonal · 2003-08-05 06:24 · Score: 1

It's pretty easy, you would need a few thousand dollars in a brokerage account and decent credit. In SCO's case, the difficult part is finding people who are willing to loan their shares for short sellers. Most of the stock is owned by insiders who are pretty unlikely to loan their shares. Institutions, who are very likely to loan shares, only own a few percent of the stock. If there is a line to short the stock, then you would have to be an important enough client of your broker's company that they would allocate some to you (Think important enough to get IPO stock in 1999/2000). It might have picked up enough that options are now traded on SCO, puts would be another way to get that same short exposure, at the risk of losing your premium (investment) if your guess on timing is not right.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Re:Investors ... by sisukapalli1 · 2003-08-05 06:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

The SCO stock is so much shorted that is has become diffcult to borrow the stock to short. Datek (Ameritrade now) did not let me short SCO for a long time (it doesn't let me even now, but I stopped trying).

Very funny coincedence -- when NOVL said they own the IP for UNIX, I sold SUN and tried to short SCO. Now, after the shit SUN pulled with SCO, I put that money yesterday into RHAT (small amount of money, so it is more like a fun story)

S
Re:Investors ... by u-235-sentinel · 2003-08-05 06:24 · Score: 2, Funny

Actually SCO's stock has been steadily going up not to mention their volume has sharply increased.

Look at their chart Shows a definite increase since they started talking trash in March. I've already complained to the SEC regarding their pump and dump tactics. I only wish I owned their stock so I could join a stock holders lawsuit against them.

Oh and btw, I'm offering to any SCO VP, Director and board member a license for a mere $2250 per license. What's it for? You must sign my NDA to find out.

Sorry but the offer only available to SCO employees.

--
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
Re:Investors ... by u-235-sentinel · 2003-08-05 06:27 · Score: 1

Hmmm... not a bad idea actually. I know how to short a stock. Done it before. I think I'll look into it. I doubt their stock will go much higher in the short term (maybe topping around $15 is my guess).

Let the shorting beging :D

--
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
Re:Investors ... by rsheridan6 · 2003-08-05 06:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

At MSN money, SCOX gets a "D" for ownership, meaning that the insiders at SCO are selling their own stock. I'm sure they know things we don't know, and this would seem to indicate that they know they're full of shit (OK, so maybe we all knew that). I'm not exactly Warren Buffet, but this seems like a case of some sleazes hyping their worthless stock, finding some fools to buy it at an inflated price, and counting their money while those same fools find themselves with worthless stock.. A fool and his money are soon parted. BTW the stock is up about %1100 since this thing started so it's working admirably.

--
Don't drop the soap, Tommy!
Re:Investors ... by TopShelf · 2003-08-05 06:30 · Score: 1

In general that's true, but if the company goes bankrupt, the stock usually gets cancelled and the shorts laugh all the way to the bank (see KMart, Conseco, etc.).

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Re: Investors ... by Black+Parrot · 2003-08-05 06:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

> PS: SCO is going down, and everybody know it (including SCO). The question is: will they drag Linux too....

It's a kamakazi attack. Remember that these people don't have any interest in SCO as a software firm. They're ambulance chasers, jackals who bought a moribund enterprise in hopes of squeezing some cash out of it and discarding the husk. If they can get the most cash by hurling it at other companies as a bomb, then that's exactly what they'll do with it.

And it appears that that is the course they decided on.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Investors ... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 06:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

This was predicted yesterday...
by dmaxwell (43234) on Monday August 04, @03:29PM (#6608641) As seen on Yahoo Finance. Time to buy? :) I know you're joking but from a strictly speculator point of view, it might not be a bad idea. I've been watching the SCOX price for a few months and have noticed a tendency of SCO's PR. Whenever the price drops or plateau's, you can count on yet another outrageous PR release from SCO to pump it back up. Before the week is out, expect SCO to make some sort of apocalyptic statement in regard to RedHat
I think this is right on.....this is likely a response to sagging stock prices after RedHat's decision to sue. What I want to know is: Is manipulating stock prices like this legal?
Re:Investors ... by TopShelf · 2003-08-05 06:35 · Score: 1

Are you approved for a margin account? That might be why they're not letting you short. As of July 8, only 5.5% of SCOX's float was shorted, which shouldn't cause any constraints like that.

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Re:Investors ... by wfbush · 2003-08-05 06:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

What is absolutely unbelievable to me is that investors are accepting and banking on SCO's FUD tactic.

It is insane, but I guess given the media coverage SCO's getting, it's not completely unbelievable.

It's the media coverage that I find unbelievably insane.

What I find amazing is the whole tone of the coverage of each side of the issue: SCO's position comes across as quite reasonable, and you hardly ever see the words "alleged copyright violations." OTOH, there doesn't seem to be a coherent "Linux" side showing up in the media... there are lots of individual points being made, but they don't get reported consistently.

What's really needed is for someone (I'm not sure who, maybe IBM, maybe RedHat, maybe Linux, ??) to consistenly comment on every single event with the same points: the violation is only alleged (with very sketchy real data at this point), the issue would be with distributers, not end users, etc.
Re:Investors ... by AugustMoon · 2003-08-05 06:41 · Score: 1

Of course, being rich in Jail is no bargain. Lying to your stock holders can get you arrested.
Re:Investors ... by Stephen+Samuel · 2003-08-05 06:42 · Score: 1

What is absolutely unbelievable to me is that investors are accepting and banking on SCO's FUD tactic. Check out SCO's stock. That jump at the end of Monday just looks a bit suspicious, in the absense of any good news.
yeah, I did look, and now I'm wondering if someone is manipulating their stock.... That jump at the end of Monday in the absence of any good news doesn't make any sense.

--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Re: Investors ... by 198348726583297634 · 2003-08-05 06:47 · Score: 2, Funny

You make investing sound like so much fun.. where can I sign up? I already have the body-armor and a can of that expanding insulation-spray-foam..
Re:Investors ... by drinkypoo · 2003-08-05 06:49 · Score: 1

Simply enough, if SCO continues to make these jabs then sheep will buy SCO stock, and wolves can buy it too - the difference between a wolf and a sheep is that the wolf sells in time.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Investors ... by mandrakeroot · 2003-08-05 06:55 · Score: 1

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=c&c=sco&k=c1&t=5d&s=r hat&a=v&p=s&l=on&z=m&q=l It looks like Redhat's Stock has gotten higher than sco's in the last five days but both stocks now seem to be increasing and decreasing in a similar ratio.
Re:Investors ... by wo1verin3 · 2003-08-05 06:57 · Score: 1

>> you are getting close to insider trading

Insider trading is buying/selling stock based on information you have that is not publically available.
Re:Investors ... by DogIsMyCoprocessor · 2003-08-05 06:59 · Score: 2, Funny

What does Sunoco (NYSE:SUN) have to do with this?

--
"And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."
Re:Investors ... by wo1verin3 · 2003-08-05 07:02 · Score: 1

>> These guys are starting to sound like the RIAA.

Don't think they won't start suing companies who use Linux and don't license...
Re:Investors ... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 07:05 · Score: 2, Funny

Actually.. getting a sco license might be a good investment after all. Frame it, and in a couple of months you'll be able to sell it at triple value on ebay. I mean, who wouldn't want the best joke _EVER_ in his posession? :)
Re:Investors ... by MoronBob · 2003-08-05 07:10 · Score: 1

What we may be observing is IBM quietly buying up SCO stock to gain control of the company. Would this be illegal or impossible to do?

--
Telecommuting! What about socialization?
Re:Investors ... by IIH · 2003-08-05 07:12 · Score: 1, Informative

Keep in mind that if you short the stock, you end up driving up the stock price and making the company's CEOs, CTOs, etc (both past and present) fucking rich.
If you short stock, you start off by selling it, which would tend to drive down the price. Of course, when you close out the trade you buy the stock, pushing back up a bit, but I fail to see why selling then buying, drives the stock up any more than buying then selling. If anything, buying stock would make the CxO's richs, as it balances their stocking dumping, keeping the price up. However, if you are selling, you are in competition with them, which makes them poorer.
In short, shorting a stock just makes the rich richer and you can see exactly how that corporate greed is destroying the United States economy right now.
Rubbish! All shorting is basically doing is doing a buy low/sell high in reverse. Granted, it's more risky, as the losses are unlimited, but regardless of whether go long or short, once you close out that sale, you have bought and sold the same amount of stock, and have no net effect on price, except for for the time while the trade is open, (and if you are short, you have a net contibution to market sellers, and there is now more stock on the market, so this drives the price down anyway)

--
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
Re:Investors ... by nbahi15 · 2003-08-05 07:16 · Score: 1

Investors are bullish on bad news. Fairly common, and doesn't mean anything.
Re:Investors ... by sisukapalli1 · 2003-08-05 07:18 · Score: 3, Informative

I have the margin account -- the broker said that there were no shares to borrow.

S
Re:Investors ... by the_2nd_coming · 2003-08-05 07:19 · Score: 1

if you have lost money on a stock, you might as well short it. at the very least you can get something from the crap heap.

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Re:Investors ... by Lazy+Bastard · 2003-08-05 07:20 · Score: 1

It would be illegal to do this without the appropriate filings (which would be public). Quiet acquisition is a myth.
Re:Investors ... by sensate_mass · 2003-08-05 07:21 · Score: 1

Exactly. If they believed in their lawsuit, wouldn't they be buying the stock?

Safest short in the universe.

--
--- Submission is feudal.
Re:Investors ... by hesiod · 2003-08-05 07:41 · Score: 1

> Oh and btw, I'm offering to any SCO VP, Director and board member a license for a mere $2250 per license.
> Sorry but the offer only available to SCO employees.

What??? Come on man, it's one thing to want to screw SCO suits, but if someone else wants to give me $2250, I'd accept it, regardless of where they work.
Re:Investors ... by nelsonal · 2003-08-05 07:42 · Score: 1

The only possible way I can see how shorting a stock could enrich corporate leaders who are long would be a massive short squeeze, wouldn't that be rich. We purchased this bankrupt company, engineered this lawsuit just so that in the end we could create a short squeeze on all the people who shorted our stock after the first run up in price. I don't think the owners are quite smart enough to think that one up.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Re:Investors ... by Sri+Lumpa · 2003-08-05 07:48 · Score: 1

"and perhaps criminal charges when the fit hits the shan"

You seem to suffer from xydlesia.

--
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Re:Investors ... by nelsonal · 2003-08-05 07:49 · Score: 2, Informative

He's correct, while the short ratio is very low, the stock is mostly owned by insiders (42% or so) who are not going to loan their shares to shorts. Institutions only own about 2% or 3% of the stock. Most retail investors don't even know how to allow their shares to be loaned. For those that do it can be a nice little kicker, if their broker pays them to do it. IIRC the online brokers loan the shares and keep the proceeds, as a cost cutting measure.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Re:Investors ... by nazh · 2003-08-05 07:54 · Score: 1

I assume there will be a large dump of stock (after it will rise 5-10%) by SCO's CEO and other high end officials.

they have alreay sold of much http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html
Re:Investors ... by Sri+Lumpa · 2003-08-05 07:56 · Score: 1

Because if you buy a license the joke is at your expense.

--
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Re:Investors ... by anthonyrcalgary · 2003-08-05 07:59 · Score: 1

If I had money to invest, I'd be putting it into Linux companies. This lawsuit will never make it, and all the Linux companies will got up significantly when it's over.

--
When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
Re:Investors ... by driftingwalrus · 2003-08-05 08:03 · Score: 1

Yes, but isn't that illegal?

--
Paul Anderson
"I drank WHAT?!" -- Socrates
Re:Investors ... by Blimey85 · 2003-08-05 08:07 · Score: 1

You stole my idea! Only I'm trying this with Enron stock... I thought Enron stock was the best joke _EVER_!?!?!?!?!
Damn it... someone always steals my 'great' ideas.
I'm surprised that SCO isn't targeting the Evil Empire (MS)... everyone knows that nobody at MS has ever had an original thought. They must have copied something that belongs to SCO along the way... we know they've copied everything else.

--
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
Re:Investors ... by iabervon · 2003-08-05 08:19 · Score: 1

I'm sure they know things we don't know

I'm sure they know things the market doesn't know. What we know is sufficient to explain their behavior...

Of course, a substantial portion of the market probably knows, too, and is just betting that they'll be able to get out in time. In fact, it's pretty likely that the stock won't go down much until their court date.
Re:Investors ... by Greenisus · 2003-08-05 08:41 · Score: 1

Before you think about shorting anything, read this.
Re:Investors ... by HTH+NE1 · 2003-08-05 08:42 · Score: 1

Arrgh! It's lose, not loose! Losers!

At least someone's been reading my signature.

--
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Re:Investors ... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 09:10 · Score: 1, Funny

Three letters
Re:Investors ... by Herkum01 · 2003-08-05 09:12 · Score: 1

Qoute from Warren Buffet,

We have never made a good deal with a bad person."
Re:Investors ... by t482 · 2003-08-05 09:35 · Score: 1

I like the profile of SCO.
The SCO Group, Inc. develops and markets software based onthe Linux operating system and provides related services that enable the development, deployment and management of Internet access devices and specialized servers. For the six months ended 4/30/03, revenues rose 5% to $34.9 million. Net income totalled $3.8 million vs. a loss of $17.6 million....
It only mentions Linux - nothing about unix at all.
Re:Investors ... by rsheridan6 · 2003-08-05 09:37 · Score: 1

Of course, a substantial portion of the market probably knows, too, and is just betting that they'll be able to get out in time.
I'm sure you're right. The problem is that some poor son of a bitch has to be stuck with the stock when the price plummets.
It'll serve them right for investing in SCO.

--
Don't drop the soap, Tommy!
Re:Investors ... by Grishnakh · 2003-08-05 12:53 · Score: 1

Isn't this called "fraud"? Something that's illegal?

How do these insiders expect to get away with this, unless they're planning on sneaking out of the country with their cash and moving to a country without an extradition treaty?
Re:Investors ... by Mr.123 · 2003-08-05 14:36 · Score: 1

Insider & restricted shareholder transactions reported over the last two years http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html They're getting off the boat before it sinks.
Re:Investors ... by ddimas · 2003-08-05 15:42 · Score: 1

No.
Re:Investors ... by spitzak · 2003-08-05 16:48 · Score: 1

I don't think all the investors are stupid. What nobody has mentioned is that not only Linux fanatics believe that Microsoft is funding SCO. Investors may be predicting that there will be a continuing series of "sales" of "product" to Microsoft and that SCO will actually make income that way.

Some of SCO's actions seem even designed to help investors believe this. Most of the press releases clearly claim "Linux is crap" which is pretty foolish if you actually want people to pay you for it rather than go with something else.
Re:Investors ... by carbonates · 2003-08-06 04:36 · Score: 1

Consider that since SCO has an entire market capitalization of roughly $160 million, and total assets of under $40 million, the cost to buy them outright would be significantly cheaper than settling, or even litigating the lawsuit. Creating a ridiulous price for licenses IMO is only preparation for the lawsuit, where they will have to show some logic behind the dollar value of their 'losses.' I don't think even SCO really expects anyone to pay them, but either way they win from their point of view. I'm convinced that a buyout by Big Blue or someone who wants to get rid of this pesky gnat is what the market, and SCO, is betting on.

One word by billstr78 · 2003-08-05 06:08 · Score: 1, Funny

HA!

Re:One word by Obliquitous+Cowherd · 2003-08-05 06:11 · Score: 2, Funny

You took one of the words right out of my mouth...the other being, of course, "HA!"

Not only no... by grahamkg · 2003-08-05 06:10 · Score: 1

...but Hell No!

--
Graham
Linux - Fast Pane Relief

SCO: ***Read Carefully*** by tomstdenis · 2003-08-05 06:10 · Score: 4, Funny

Go fuck yourselves!

--
Someday, I'll have a real sig.

Ha! by waldoj · 2003-08-05 06:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Haaaahhhaaaaah haha ha ha ha!

*snort*

HAAAAAhaahahahahaaa!

*tear*

Aahhh...

*wipes eyes*

Gosh, that's funny.

No, seriously, how much do they want?

-Waldo Jaquith

Re:Ha! by NaugaHunter · 2003-08-05 06:16 · Score: 4, Funny

Haaaahhhaaaaah haha ha ha ha!

*snort*

At first I thought this was a description of what SCO was doing when they started this.

--
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
Re:Ha! by Doesn't_Comment_Code · 2003-08-05 06:18 · Score: 5, Funny

Yeah, some guy called me out of the blue yesterday. He said the muffler on my car came from his minivan. He said I can keep it on my car if I want, but I owe him $699.00.

--

Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Re:Ha! by meta-monkey · 2003-08-05 06:19 · Score: 1

Apparently, seriously, $699. Well, I run a small business, and my one server runs Linux. Guess I better go break out that checkbook...

HA!! Oh, man, hell no, SCO can suck it.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:Ha! by VistaBoy · 2003-08-05 06:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's a pretty close analogy of going on, except the guy would tell you that there is a part on your car that is his, and that he won't tell you what it is because then you'll replace it. They first said it was a screw, then it was a muffler, and now it's the whole engine block.
Re:Ha! by twitter · 2003-08-05 06:49 · Score: 1

I'd tell them the same if all they were asking for was a penny or a signature. SCO has never done anything for me, they never will, I don't owe them a cent and I never will.
SCO, fuck off.

--
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Re:Ha! by Thurn+und+Taxis · 2003-08-05 10:58 · Score: 1

And then he tells you that there's no actual part on the car that is his - but he bought a rickety old Model T from somebody and claims that windshield wipers were originally designed as an add-on part for that car, so if you want to drive a car that has windshield wipers you'd better pay him a LOT of cash.

--
On stereophonic equipment, the monaural sound obtained through multiple channels will enhance your listening pleasure.
Re:Ha! by MoobY · 2003-08-05 11:35 · Score: 1

Excellent, too bad I can't use my moderator points to put you on +6.

--
--- Sigmentation Fault - Comments Dumped
Re:Ha! by mckniglj · 2003-08-05 13:23 · Score: 1

I think that's one of the funniest comments I've ever read on slashdot.

Seriously, though, I have to stop reading these SCO threads at work. I laughed so hard at a couple of them, I started getting weird looks.

Keep it SCO, you're making slashdot funnier every day!

v2.6 is safe! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 06:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Well, luckily for me I am running Kernel v2.6 so I am free from the chains of SCO! What I plan to do instead is start charging everyone the fee of $6.99/license so that you can all run Linux v2.6 (binary only so that you can be in compliance with the GPL!)

I have 2 lines of code which are completely indentical to 2 lines of code in 2.6. I showed it to a few people and they see that what I am saying is true! Just because they are reporters and not programmers is irrelevant.

I would love to have the ability to show these in court but I am too busy with watching the stock tickers.

If you have any questions, feel free to send a check or money order to the P.O. box below (located in a UPS Store).

Remember, complete use of Linux for only $6.99, and no, I will not cover you if SCO sues you.

Re:v2.6 is safe! by louferd · 2003-08-05 06:15 · Score: 3, Funny

I'll share the two I have which are identical to lines in both Linux and in SCO:
Line one:
}
Line two:
};
I think I'll ask $500/infringement.
Re:v2.6 is safe! by Fammy2000 · 2003-08-05 06:31 · Score: 1

Your two lines of code:

return;
}

Man, we are all in trouble.

--
If I had something intelligent to say, I would have said it.
Re:v2.6 is safe! by ncc74656 · 2003-08-05 06:31 · Score: 1

I've found the following code snippet in Linux that shows up in a number of my programs:
int main (void)
I think a fair reimbursement for infringement of my IP would be...<voice style="dr-evil"> one MILLION dollars!!! </voice> per installation.
(Hey, if $CO can make outrageous claims, why can't I?)

--
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Re:v2.6 is safe! by ncc74656 · 2003-08-05 07:50 · Score: 1

Linux doesn't have a main().

Take a look at fs/udf/crc.c or net/khttpd/make_times_h.c, to name just two files where int main (void) appears. There are even more files in the Linux source tree where main() is declared with parameters, but naming those is an exercise left for the reader.
(They're most likely diagnostic functions used for exercising bits and pieces of the kernel...looking at the aforementioned crc.c, for instance, main() gets built only if TEST is defined.)

--
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Re:v2.6 is safe! by vt0asta · 2003-08-05 07:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, luckily for me I am running Kernel v2.6 so I am free from the chains of SCO! What I plan to do instead is start charging everyone the fee of $6.99/license so that you can all run Linux v2.6 (binary only so that you can be in compliance with the GPL!)

You bring up an interesting point that isn't being well addressed. SCO has stated in the conference call that their intentions are to release a binary only run time license. Since the code is covered under the GPL, they are then required to provide you the source code free of charge except for reasonable media expenses. If they fail to do so, they are in violation and their license can be revoked, and if I remember correctly, this would mean they are infringing on all of the linux kernel developers copyright.

Once they cross the threshold of denying you the source and your ability to freely modify and distribute the source normal developers can turn on the hot water. I think what is needed is a Linux Legal "Offense" fund, to help developers go after companies that violate the GPL.

SCO needs to be reminded of which end is up. Distributing binaries, without releasing the code under the GPL is in direct violation of the GPL. Apparently they are going to directly test the very thing that needs to be tested in the courts with regards to the GPL.

Stallman wasn't awarded the title of Genius for creating the GPL for nothing. Stallman designed it so that if the GPL ends up not holding water, then basic Copyright laws take effect (which includes the often feared DMCA). Red Hat and others are not actually selling you a license, they are just charging you for the cost of putting the source code onto the media, documentation, and a nice pretty box if you would like.

SCO intends to take the work of others (which is currently protected by copyright) and sell it. At that point, at the very least they are infringing on copyright of linux developers, and they will have to reap the whirlwind of _all_ of the IP they are violating.

I believe there is more than enough kernel developers over the course of linux, to warrant a class action lawsuit against SCO for copyright infringement.

If SCO collects one penny for any binary distribution sans offering GPL'd source code, they are in direct violation and damages and other remedies can be sought under copyright law and the DMCA.

--
No.
Re:v2.6 is safe! by bheerssen · 2003-08-05 09:32 · Score: 1

But line 1 clearly does not contain a trailing semicolon, as line 2 does. You sir, are trying to extort me, your claims are baseless, and I will not pay you.

Now kindly fsck off.

--
(Score: -1, Stupid)
Re:v2.6 is safe! by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2003-08-05 10:54 · Score: 1

Yeah, these sorts of jokes never get old.

Cue the next "HERE IS THE INFRINGING CODE: /* comments */" post.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."
Re:v2.6 is safe! by B.D.Mills · 2003-08-05 11:43 · Score: 1

I have 2 lines of code which are completely indentical to 2 lines of code in 2.6.

Oh yes ... I have also written lots of lines of code that are identical to lines of code in the Linux kernel.

Here's one:
}
Here's another:
{
Here's another: ... and Bingo! I think I'll charge everyone US$9,999/CPU for Linux licenses, with a 100% discount if you don't work for Microsoft and your Linux deployment is not in premises owned by Microsoft. Yeah.

--

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Re:v2.6 is safe! by alain1234 · 2003-08-05 11:47 · Score: 2, Funny

I know what is the code Linux and SCO Unix have in common:

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Preamble

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your ...
Re:v2.6 is safe! by VertigoAce · 2003-08-05 17:32 · Score: 1

Strangely enough, SCO has a link right to the GPL on their SCO source page. How could anyone get through the Preamble and not be convinced SCO's license is bogus?

This is great by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 06:10 · Score: 1, Funny

Considering that right now, Linux can barly give away their product for free, and Microsoft has no trouble selling theirs for hundreds of dollars, I don't think this is good news for Linux business.

At least now we know what their business model is by kalidasa · 2003-08-05 06:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

Are they only talking about Linux 2.4? If so, is there a reason for that?

Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by JohnGrahamCumming · 2003-08-05 06:10 · Score: 4, Funny

And asked for

$666

which would have made everything so clear? I mean it's only $33 difference. I hope when you buy these licenses you get a free T-Shirt with "Sucker!" in large letters on the front.

SCO needs to put up or shut up. If they think they have IP in Linux then show us. Dammit if the code is already in Linux it's already public so point to the code.

John.

Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by dook43 · 2003-08-05 06:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

Easy answer.

If they showed where the alleged code was, then it would take approximately 30 minutes for the contributor(s) to remove the affected code, re-release kernel version(s), etc.

How, then, would SCO be able to charge $699 for a license?

--
This comment was randomly generated by a school of piranhas chewing on the PCB of a Microsoft Natural Keyboard.
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by VistaBoy · 2003-08-05 06:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

and what about once they show their evidence in court? It will be public then, and all that kernel hackers are going to do is get rid of it then. The REAL reason they aren't showing code is either they don't have any solid proof, or they want to wait as long as possible to spread a bunch of FUD. Or both. That's why I salute Red Hat for slapping SCO in the face. Their "put up or shut up" campaign will work, and either SCO has proof (we delete it) or they have absolutely nothing and lose a shiatload of money.
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by ldspartan · 2003-08-05 06:31 · Score: 1

It won't necessarily be public. A court can order a gag order on a criminal case, it wouldn't be surprising if they had a gag order on a case to protect the intellectual property involved.

One can only hope it would be leaked.
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by realdpk · 2003-08-05 06:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

How can SCO get away with charging $699 for a license to code that they claim is on your computer, when they have offered no proof that it is on your computer?

Then again, if you paid the fee, they'd have to give you their part of the Linux kernel, outlining what you're paying for right? Like on the receipt or something.
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by meta-monkey · 2003-08-05 06:46 · Score: 1

I hope when you buy these licenses you get a free T-Shirt with "Sucker!" in large letters on the front.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder if anybody actually has bought a license? Any canceled checks out there? Will anybody? I wonder if there'll be a /. story in a few days "X Corp Buys First Linux License from SCO."

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by toganet · 2003-08-05 06:46 · Score: 4, Funny

Actually, the T-shirt should say:

"I bought a license from SCO and all I got was this lousy T-shirt"
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by SpikyTux · 2003-08-05 07:00 · Score: 1

Actually, the reason it's not $666 is because they're thinking of 3some.... 69 and another 9...
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by Dr+Caleb · 2003-08-05 07:01 · Score: 1

you get a free T-Shirt with "Sucker!" in large letters on the front.
"Yes, could you send me that T-shirt in XXXstupid please.."...

--
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by jmauro · 2003-08-05 07:12 · Score: 1

Yea, except this is a straight civil case between IBM and SCO with another case between SCO and Redhat. SCO will have to tell someone in court what code infringes. I doubt IBM/Redhat would then agree to let that matter to be sealled.
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by Java+Pimp · 2003-08-05 07:21 · Score: 1

The REAL reason they aren't showing code is either they don't have any solid proof, or they want to wait as long as possible to spread a bunch of FUD.

Actually, they are not showing because they do not want the IP removed. They know no one wants to buy their crap, that's why they are resorting to extortion. They know once it is identified (if it even exists) it will be removed and there will be nothing for them to license.

Fortunately, they have to prove the kernel contains their IP. If someone actually buys a license without a shred of proof this IP exists then come see me! I can give you a great deal on this bridge I have!

Even with an NDA, someone heavily involved with the kernel development will need to verify their claims and the code will still be removed. This is the biggest flaw in their plan.

--
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by hackstraw · 2003-08-05 07:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

How can SCO get away with charging $699 for a license to code that they claim is on your computer, when they have offered no proof that it is on your computer?

Call them up. 1-800-726-8649 I've left a message and they are supposed to call me back.

slashdot that phone!
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by The+Lynxpro · 2003-08-05 07:32 · Score: 1

$666.66 was the MSRP on the Apple I computer...just thought I'd throw that bit of trivia into the ether...

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by tkg · 2003-08-05 07:42 · Score: 1

It'll probably be Microsoft. After all, SCO need cash to answer RedHat's suit.
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by nege · 2003-08-05 07:53 · Score: 1

That makes perfect sense - is it legal for them to hold an entire community hostage over that much code? Because like people were saying in the redhat post earlier today, if we knew where the code was, the OSS community would just rip it out and replace it with honest-to-goodness GPL code. There was no malicious intent here by anyone (other than SCO), and the community wants to make it right (like WE want proprietary code in the kernel - shaw!!), but SCO won't let anyone! That has GOT to be illegal. And how in the world could they put a pricetag on those few lines of code that would have been replaced if ANYONE knew about it!! A sensible judge would see through all the BS here.
Why do I get the feeling we are all about to get a communal shaft though.
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by anthonyrcalgary · 2003-08-05 08:09 · Score: 1

IBM is going to do this anyway when the court case gets rolling. As I understand it, some of it is pretty critical so it won't be quite that easy to do it, but IBM has vast resources. I'm sure SCO will get a court order that prevents anyone from publishing the information, but IBM doesn't have to publish it to replace it.

--
When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by anthonyrcalgary · 2003-08-05 08:13 · Score: 1

A new 2.4 kernel would be released. As for the old kernels lying around, I would imagine all the vendors will release a new kernel and treat it as a critical security update. If SCO goes after anyone that's running an old kernel, that party can update pretty easily.

--
When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by steve_l · 2003-08-05 09:34 · Score: 1

I have a related question, which is : "If I have an OS for that system, an OS whose vendor has licensed SCO source, does that license apply to my system when it runs linux"

I ask as I have a copy of win2K3 server in one vmware window, and could install Solaris x86 in another. Solaris is definitely SYSV legit, and Windows? well, MS have paid for the rights, my box came with windows preinstalled, so I still have those rights, no?
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by Azureflare · 2003-08-05 13:31 · Score: 1

So, basically what you're saying is, even though we can see the code that is property of SCO, they can charge us for it as long as we don't know which part of the code it is? This seems like one of those ridiculus mindgames. My head hurts now...
I don't get it. If SCO's code is freely available to everyone, how can they possibly say they own it, and expect people to pay to use it? It's kind of a moot point now. It can't be proprietary because everyone has seen it.
This whole SCO debacle is like getting pecked to death by chickens. Someone needs to make a comic or something about this, I for one would find it highly amusing.
Yeah. Pecked to death by chickens.
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by will_sd · 2003-08-05 21:23 · Score: 1

How can (the US govt) get away with (a war) for (WMD) that they claim are (in your country), when they have no proof that they are (in your country)?

Weel, you see, nowadays everything is possible...
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by BrynM · 2003-08-05 22:55 · Score: 1

MS doesn't make any product with the SCO license involved, so you can't buy it from them. I wanted to say "yet", but they'll probably never use it in a product anyway.

--
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Re:Why couldn't they have done us all a favor? by realdpk · 2003-08-06 04:36 · Score: 1

Ah, well, that's a different matter. You see, the US government has really big guns (read: WMD), so they get to do whatever they want (right or wrong).

Get Ready by Skevin · 2003-08-05 06:10 · Score: 3, Funny

I'm sure glad my girlfriend made me stock up on extra KY....

Solomon

--
"Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang

Re:Get Ready by Spunk · 2003-08-05 07:24 · Score: 3, Funny

Everyone here, please raise your hand if you needed to know that.

That's what I thought.
Re:Get Ready by _randy_64 · 2003-08-05 07:41 · Score: 1

Wait, you have a girlfriend? You don't really belong here, do you? This is Slashdot.

--
I mod down all the "free iPod"-sig losers.
Re:Get Ready by mcglothi · 2003-08-05 08:43 · Score: 1

She made *you* stock up on KY? What does she do to you?!

SCO vs the World: Next at bat GNU by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 06:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

We had Red Hat enter the game yesterday. With SCO requiring money for a Linux license, I think it is time for GNU to enter the game and sue SCO for violating terms of the GPL.

Re:SCO vs the World: Next at bat GNU by downix · 2003-08-05 06:27 · Score: 1

But would GNU have enough money to pull it off?

--
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Re:SCO vs the World: Next at bat GNU by harryk · 2003-08-05 06:31 · Score: 1

SCO is able to charge for the binary as this is allowed through the GPL. Much the same way that nVidia Plus the call is finishing up... did not get a chance to ask my question which is simply: What can Linux developers do to remove the infringing code, and develop a similar function but from a rewrite. Bastards

--
think before you write, it'll save me moderator points.
Re:SCO vs the World: Next at bat GNU by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 06:39 · Score: 1, Informative

GNU is an operating system. Are you thinking of the Free Software Foundation? They'll only sue if their copyrights are being infringed upon, as far as I know, they don't have any code in the kernel.
Re:SCO vs the World: Next at bat GNU by arcanumas · 2003-08-05 07:07 · Score: 1

I doubt they would have the resources for such an undertaking.
Mr RMS seems to restrict his statements around how Linux is Really GNU/Linux and how we can all use FreeBSD and the HURD if Linus is hit by SCO.
Even though i consider this man an important figure worthy of deep admiration, the truth is that i have not read a statement from Mr Stallman that was not about the GNUness of things.

--
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
Re:SCO vs the World: Next at bat GNU by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 07:36 · Score: 1, Funny

RMS: ... It's GNU/Linux ...
SCO: ... we are going to sue ...
RMS: ... It's GNU/Hurd, what's Linux ? ...
Re:SCO vs the World: Next at bat GNU by tkg · 2003-08-05 07:49 · Score: 1

Even though i consider this man an important figure worthy of deep admiration, the truth is that i have not read a statement from Mr Stallman that was not about the GNUness of things.

At first glance I read that as Guinness and thought: RMS ain't such a bad guy after all.
Re:SCO vs the World: Next at bat GNU by Znork · 2003-08-05 08:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

The FSF definitely has the resources and the legal counsel, in Eben Moglen, itching to wipe the courtroom with a GPL violator.

However, depending on wether any developers have or have not signed over their copyrights the FSF may or may not be able to file a lawsuit.

However, again, the severity of SCO's violation falls well within the range of criminal copyright violation which means our good friends the feds will have the privilidge of dragging Dear Darl in chains to prison where he gets to be some nice big guys McBride. Civil lawsuits for damages would be easier to file after criminal charges have gone through.
Re:SCO vs the World: Next at bat GNU by steveg · 2003-08-05 09:19 · Score: 1

And the difference is?

--
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
Re:SCO vs the World: Next at bat GNU by chgros · 2003-08-05 09:24 · Score: 1

SCO is able to charge for the binary as this is allowed through the GPL
True, but if you buy it, then you may do anything with it, including redistributing it freely under the terms of the GPL (e.g. putting it on www.kernel.org)
Re:SCO vs the World: Next at bat GNU by X · 2003-08-05 12:20 · Score: 1
The problem is a little more complex than that. If SCO is correct in their claim that they own the copyright in the Linux kernel, and that they haven't released it under the GPL.
1. If this is true, then the non-SCO code in the kernel is in violation of the GPL, as it's dependant on non-GPL'd code.
2. In order for SCO to license their copyright in a way that still allows one to use the rest of the GPL'd in the Linux kernel, they'd have to allow users the right to distribute the copyrighted material under the terms of the GPL. This means if one person pays the licensing fee, they can distribute the code and the problem goes away.
So in words this thing really is a money grab, because if they are wrong about their copyright ownership, there is no reason to pay, and if they are right, there is no reason to pay. The whole idea of the GPL is to prevent someone from somehow contributing to a GPL'd project and then somehow restricting distribution of the whole project.
--
sigs are a waste of space
Re:SCO vs the World: Next at bat GNU by WCMI92 · 2003-08-05 14:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

"So in words this thing really is a money grab, because if they are wrong about their copyright ownership, there is no reason to pay, and if they are right, there is no reason to pay. The whole idea of the GPL is to prevent someone from somehow contributing to a GPL'd project and then somehow restricting distribution of the whole project."

Seems to me the GPL was designed to prevent exactly what SCO is attempting.

Clearly, Caldera was aware of what was in the kernel. They contributed to it. They CONTINUED to release Linux distros after acquiring SCO. They even continued to sell a Linux distro AFTER making their claims and suing IBM! And they STILL make the kernel available for download, with GPL license attatched.

SCaldera is basically attempting to TAKE BACK what they contributed, and oh by the way, grab ownership of the 99.9% they don't have any claim to at all...

--
Corporatism != Free Market
Re:SCO vs the World: Next at bat GNU by PeterPanic · 2003-08-06 01:10 · Score: 1

Yeah.

It seems I can download a lovely Linux kernel incl. GPL from SCO itself:

ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Wo rk station/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/linux-2.4.13-21D.src .rpm

Did they or didn't they agree to the GPL now?!

Tell you what SCO. by MongooseCN · 2003-08-05 06:11 · Score: 5, Funny

I'll give you the finger and you can give me my Linux Kernel.

--

Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl

Re:Tell you what SCO. by 1s44c · 2003-08-05 06:13 · Score: 4, Funny

Tell me Mr Mongoose, What use is a Linux Kernel if you cannot code?
Re:Tell you what SCO. by gearheadsmp · 2003-08-05 06:28 · Score: 1, Insightful

Tell me Mr Mongoose, What use is a Linux Kernel if you cannot code?

Good start, but I think a better way of wording it would be:

"Tell me Mr Mongoose, What use is a Linux Kernel if you cannot type?"
Re:Tell you what SCO. by Enonu · 2003-08-05 06:31 · Score: 1

Seriously!

For the love of Linux, give me a kernel without the SCO filth. I don't care even it's mission critical section of code. I'll redo it myself!

The magnitude of their gall, to even suggest $699, is absolutely apalling. Even if their claim is legit, this has removed any respect for SCO that I once had.

SCO is now that old-man who doesn't bathe, drinks whiskey all day, and constantly complains for all his problems. There's nothing left to respect, and you only hope that the end comes sooner rather than later.
Re:Tell you what SCO. by BRock97 · 2003-08-05 06:45 · Score: 4, Funny

Your quote was close:

SCO--We're willing to wipe the slate clean, give you a fresh start. All that we're asking in return is your cooperation in bringing a known IP rights violator to justice.

Linux Users--Yeah. Well, that sounds like a pretty good deal. But I think I may have a better one. How about I give you the finger [gives SCO the finger] and you give me my kernel.

Shamelessly ripped from the Matrix. Thank you.

--

Bryan R.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
Re:Tell you what SCO. by eluusive · 2003-08-05 06:47 · Score: 1

Cue scene with fingers webbing together.
Re:Tell you what SCO. by krysith · 2003-08-05 06:49 · Score: 1

Too bad the original post wasn't by Mr. andersen! ;)
Re:Tell you what SCO. by GreySeal2k01 · 2003-08-05 07:33 · Score: 1

Careful man, you might have to pay IP fees
Re:Tell you what SCO. by tiny69 · 2003-08-05 15:55 · Score: 1

SCO - You disappoint me Linux Users.
Linux Users - You don't scare me with this Gestapo shit.
SCO - Tell me, what good is a kernel if you have to pay for it?

--
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
Re:Tell you what SCO. by B.D.Mills · 2003-08-05 16:58 · Score: 1

Don't forget what happened next in the Matrix.

The bad guys intentionally put a bug in, the good guys had to remove the bug, then the good guys removed the whole thing....

--

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

I've already paid... by Broadcatch · 2003-08-05 06:11 · Score: 5, Funny

...by time spent reading all the /. articles about this frivolous suit by SCO

--

The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
-- Molly Ivins

Re:I've already paid... by imadork · 2003-08-05 06:45 · Score: 4, Funny

...by time spent reading all the /. articles about this frivolous suit by SCO
For that matter, my company has already paid by my reading all the /. articles about this frivolous suit by SCO on company time...
Re:I've already paid... by Reziac · 2003-08-05 10:56 · Score: 2, Funny

Hell, I've gotten at least $699 worth of entertainment value from this whole fiasco. What a bargain!

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?

SCO needs to die in a fire by Gruuue · 2003-08-05 06:11 · Score: 1

That is all . . .

--Chris

Re:SCO needs to die in a fire by B3ryllium · 2003-08-05 06:20 · Score: 1, Redundant

Somebody took my stapler.

Outlandish. by eddy · 2003-08-05 06:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

I ante your offer, and raise you... by mopslik · 2003-08-05 06:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003.

Linux users world-wide will be offering ass-kickings to SCO officials free of charge, for a non-determined length of time.

Oh man, if this works by cheezus · 2003-08-05 06:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

I need claim that MS stole my IP and put it in windows and then spam spam spam asking for my $700. If even a fraction of a fraction of a percent gave me money, i'd me a millionare

--
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh

Re:Oh man, if this works by kasperd · 2003-08-05 07:05 · Score: 1

I need claim that MS stole my IP and put it in windows

That is my idea. I already patended it. So you have to pay me 50% of the money you make.

--

Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Re:Oh man, if this works by hackstraw · 2003-08-05 07:31 · Score: 1

I need claim that MS stole my IP and put it in windows and then spam spam spam asking for my $700. If even a fraction of a fraction of a percent gave me money, i'd me a millionare

Already a work in progress

yeah by Datasage · 2003-08-05 06:11 · Score: 1

All your pengin are belong to us.

Is anyone actually taking SCO seriously anymore?

--
In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.

Re:yeah by kasperd · 2003-08-05 07:22 · Score: 1

Is anyone actually taking SCO seriously anymore?

Maybe Chris Sontag?

--

Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?

Proof of ownership by Platinum+Dragon · 2003-08-05 06:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

SCO wants money. I want code, and I want proof that they can legally do this. No code? No proof? No money.

It's that simple.

I strongly suspect some major holders of Linux copyrights are about to jump in with Red Hat, demanding that SCO prove it can do this.

--

Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.

Re:Proof of ownership by RealisticWeb.com · 2003-08-05 06:25 · Score: 1

That is a great point.
It is obvious that they are not going to own up to the code until they are forced to in court. Right now we are just hearing all kinds of stupid accusations.
When are we going to see this stuff argued in a courtroom?

--
Sigs are out of style, so I'm not going to use one...oh wait..
Re:Proof of ownership by Platinum+Dragon · 2003-08-05 06:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Either the next three months when the Red Hat injunction is decided upon, or April 5, 2005, the date for the SCO-IBM contract dispute lawsuit.

Or, possibly sooner--I'm seeing rumblings on the Yahoo SCOX message board about lawsuits against Darl's crew being prepared from many quarters.

--

Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Re:Proof of ownership by ShadeARG · 2003-08-05 06:33 · Score: 1

If SCO is successful with this little manuever without any proof, can a class action suit for extortion be filed against them? IANAL, but this is completely rediculous and has to be illegal.
Re:Proof of ownership by heh2k · 2003-08-05 06:34 · Score: 1

i'd like to know if users will get refunds from sco, when sco gets clobbered by ibm. if not, i expect to see a class action against sco, after ibm defeats them.
Re:Proof of ownership by Thud457 · 2003-08-05 06:41 · Score: 1

"It is obvious that they are not going to own up to the code until they are forced to in court."
Then why can't someone (like RedHat) apply for an injunction to prevent SCO from behaving like an asshat until their claims are proven in court?
Once the kernel hackers see the proof, it'll probably take less than a day for them to excise the offending code -- if any.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Re:Proof of ownership by TheRaven64 · 2003-08-05 06:59 · Score: 1

SCO wants money. I want code,
Nah, I'm with SCO on this one. Money please. Cash would be fine.
Oh, do I need a reason for people to give me money now? That's not fair! (Points at SCO) They haven't got one!

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Proof of ownership by Zathrus · 2003-08-05 07:22 · Score: 1

I want proof that they can legally do this

Sure they can legally do this. Can they ethically do this is another question.

You know what? I'll sell you a license for you to continue using Linux without being sued by me. Only $5.

What? What's my basis for this? Well, without it, I just might sue you!

Sure, I have absolutely no code in the kernel or any other basis to sue you, but that doesn't prevent me from selling licenses to fools.

And, right now, the only people who would buy this license are fools. SCO has absolutely zero proof that there's anything they could prosecute over. They have claims, but any damn fool can make claims. Until they show some substantive evidence that they have a case there is absolutely no reason to pay their extortion.
Re:Proof of ownership by LordBodak · 2003-08-05 07:36 · Score: 1

Sounds to me like every kernel developer needs to call a lawyer and file a lawsuit right now. SCO is basically saying you have no rights to distribute the Linux kernel in source form.
From the SCOSource page: "The license does not grant any rights to use SCO IP in source format, nor does it grant any distribution rights. It is therefore inadequate to cure infringements for distributors, or any entity that uses, modifies or distributes Linux source code."
So, kernel developers, according to SCO anyone who uses, modifies, or distributes Linux source code (code YOU wrote) is infringing, according to them. How can they do that? The most they should be able to get away with is saying that distributing the source code for "SCO IP" is infringing, yet they are including the entire kernel. In the entire kernel is an awful lot of code written from scratch and released under the GPL, which we cannot distribute according to SCO.

--
LordBodak's journal.
Re:Proof of ownership by NoCoward · 2003-08-05 08:18 · Score: 1

If SCO is right, then the GPL licensing of the kernel is invalid, because those that licensed it did not have the right to do so since the code contained SCO IP.

Its actually a very interesting case. I know the SlashBots find it hard to believe, but it is entirely possible that SCO IP WAS USED and IS USED in the kernel.
Re:Proof of ownership by LordBodak · 2003-08-05 08:34 · Score: 1

It seems to me that only the GPL licensing of SCO's code in the kernel would be invalid. If I wrote a kernel function, licensed it under the GPL, and gave it to the kernel, the code is still mine and the GPL still applies. Just b/c it might be in the same project as code that wasn't legally GPLed doesn't mean other code in the project isn't GPLed.

--
LordBodak's journal.
Re:Proof of ownership by NoCoward · 2003-08-06 11:32 · Score: 1

This I would agree. However, the GPL is "all or nothing", you can't have parts GPLed and other parts not GPLed. I suspect that the GPL is not valid in reality.
Re:Proof of ownership by LordBodak · 2003-08-06 15:53 · Score: 1

I don't think the GPL can be "all or nothing" because no one individual owns all the code. If I write function foo() for the kernel, and place it under the GPL, and give it to the kernel, it's still my code, it's still GPLed, and it can still be distributed freely per the terms of the GPL. The kernel developers own the code they personally wrote and no one but them can change the licensing attached to it.

--
LordBodak's journal.

Windows! by nherc · 2003-08-05 06:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

Wow, that makes a Windows 2003 Server cluster look cheap! Windows 2003 Web Edition is only like $400. The standard edition is around $600.

--
'He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.' - Douglas Adams

Re:Windows! by ONOIML8 · 2003-08-05 06:26 · Score: 1

Yeah and SCO didn't have to write a damn thing. Maybe.....maybe they wrote a couple lines of code (they have yet to prove that) but they intend to charge for ALL of it. All the work that everyone else has done for free, all that effort that has been put into Linux that nobody else is charging for and SCO thinks.......

Holy shit! I want to live in SCO's fantasy world.

Get freakin real!

--
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Re:Windows! by Lord_Dweomer · 2003-08-05 07:25 · Score: 1

" Wow, that makes a Windows 2003 Server cluster look cheap! Windows 2003 Web Edition is only like $400. The standard edition is around $600."
Ahh, Bill Gates' plan finally begins to take shape.

--
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Re:Windows! by Captain+BooBoo · 2003-08-05 10:26 · Score: 1

OMG that is so funny! I loaded up /. and there was a banner ad up top for micrsoft .NET and right under it this SCO scandle. happenstance? I think not. Its all a ploy by microsoft to derail the Linux train. I swear I saw Bill Gates sitting on a grassy gnoll eating an Apple while wearing a redhat.

The next Microsoft by ender1598 · 2003-08-05 06:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

This seems to be costing even more than Windows! Will this outrageous cost include all the support similar to Microsoft?

--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those that understand binary and those that do not.

Do these SCO folks remind anyone else of KimJongIl by Mothra+the+III · 2003-08-05 06:11 · Score: 1

Everything they say sounds crazier than the last. What is their problem?

--
Worst. Sig. Ever.

Truly amusing by Badgerman · 2003-08-05 06:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've seen Linux running on boxes that cost less than the liscence they want to sell.

I think this proves that A) either SCO is not serious and is just jacking around their stock or B) They're really, truly, clueless. Or possibly both.

How interesting this comes out during Linuxworld and right after the Red Hat announcement . . .

--
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu

Re:Truly amusing by A55M0NKEY · 2003-08-05 06:28 · Score: 1

If there are suckers out there that pay this then SCO gets $700 for each one. It'll probably ammount to $1400 from the two dumbest people in the world.

But SCO doesn't want the end users to pay. It would cost SCO way to much to legally harass every end user into paying for one or two licenses on one of their production boxen, and anyone with a much larger number of boxen would fight them in court.

SCO may have to offer licenses to end users for some legal reason who knows, but more to the point, they picked a number that was way too high to be worth it so that the threat is high. If they were really interested in licensing code to end users as a source of revenue, they would massively overcharge for their supposed ten lines of stolen code and sell the licenses for $5.00. They would rather have $0.25 for every copy of linux than $5.00, from a bunch of suckers that payed for a license or even $699 each from the two stupidest people on earth.

--
Eat at Joe's.
Re:Truly amusing by freeweed · 2003-08-05 06:38 · Score: 1

I've seen Linux running on boxes that cost less than the liscence they want to sell.

Odd, I've seen the same thing with Windows/Office boxes!

--
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Re:Truly amusing by tkg · 2003-08-05 08:10 · Score: 1

SCO is actually listed as an exhibitor. I pity the booth babes, although the waterballons should wash off some of the paintball splatter.
Re:Truly amusing by Physics+Dude · 2003-08-05 19:20 · Score: 1

How interesting this comes out during Linuxworld and right after the Red Hat announcement . . .
Or _because_ of the Red Hat announcement, they're saying "Oops, game over. Time to reel in the suckers as fast as we can before we get thrown out of court."

*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. by Ummagumma · 2003-08-05 06:12 · Score: 4, Informative

I was talking to my boss about putting a linux file server in here, and was making decent headway recently. Now, somehow he heard of this SCO BS, and hes got cold(er) feet. My angle was the cost savings, but now thats gone, so no linux here for a while...

--
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson

Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. by 1s44c · 2003-08-05 06:17 · Score: 5, Informative

There is always FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD.
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. by greechneb · 2003-08-05 06:17 · Score: 2, Funny

Funny, my boss doesn't care - must be the ruleset I have to block any website with SCO in it. Just hope he doesn't notice that he can't get quotes for his ciSCO stock anymore. Plus it also blocks slashdot almost every day, so he can't see how anti-productive I am.
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 06:21 · Score: 1, Informative

Not as too much of a troll, but you could suggest, e.g. NetBSD. It won't feel all that different to the end user and they've already settled their lawsuits w/ USL/Novel/ATT/SCO and are thus in the clear legally (as far as your boss is concerned.)
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. by Cee · 2003-08-05 06:21 · Score: 1

Install *BSD instead. Then silently replace it with Linux (or just keep *BSD) when everything is settled in court. But that could of course take a while..
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. by wolf- · 2003-08-05 06:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

As a contractor and an consultant, I'm documenting all lost sales and damages. Should SCO lose, and it be shown in court that this was truly BS/FUD, I'll have legal recourse.

The SCO folks are making such GENERAL statements against Linux, Linux Users, and Linux consultants, that it should NOT be hard to prove their negligence/libel/slander in court.

But by the end of the SCO/IBM lawsuit, the SCO bigwhigs will have unloaded all their stock anyway, and there won't be much to collect on.

--
----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. by DavidinAla · 2003-08-05 06:34 · Score: 5, Informative

Assuming that SCO loses this battle, I doubt there will be much left of the company to go after. Of course, it might be interesting for you to file suit NOW, even if you don't expect to win any substantial monetary damages. (And if you were to win, your subsequent damages could continue to be added to the total later.) The PR for your company would be worth something all by itself, because the news coverage in your local area could let companies see you as something as a leader among Linux consultants.
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. by bwt · 2003-08-05 06:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Your post makes me sick. But not at SCO. SCO is achieving what it set out to achieve. I'm disgusted by the lack of fight on the pro-Linux side. We have plenty of whining, but what is needed here is aggressive counter litigation. Several weeks ago I posted that unless kernel contributors (companies and/or individuals) sue SCO for violating their copyrights (which they are in about as blatent a way as possible), unfair competition, patent infringement, and anything and everything else that they can, that Linux would suffer serious damage.

Finally, at least Red Hat has taken action. Better late than never. Still, other stakeholders must take actions. SCO does not have the bandwidth to fight even the existing lawsuits (they've already non-responded in Germany).

At the end of this, SCO is going to get bitch-slapped by the courts. However, it's likely that MS and/or Sun (or other parties) are using SCO to slow down Linux and are happy to sacrifice the company to that end.

It is critical that this be recognized for what it is. We are hard core into step 3.
1. First they ignore you
2. Then they laugh at you
3. Then they fight you
4. Then you win.
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. by BigRedFish · 2003-08-05 06:55 · Score: 1

When, after the dust settles, it is plainly obvious that everyone in power at SCO knew darn well that this entire tack was fraudulent.... well, perhaps we could pierce the corporate veil and serve the class-action against the officers personally? I don't want to bankrupt SCO (that's happening on its own), I want to see Darl McBride living in a trailer in Kansas, paying 1/3 of his income in settlement for the rest of his life...
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. by ratfynk · 2003-08-05 07:30 · Score: 1

You would be suing a vapour co. USA. Should SCO loose they will not exist. You will need to start proceedings against the individuals who like all smart CEOs etc have themselves well removed from the gun sights. Look at how alot of the primary individuals have been dumping, the SEC might be the only way to get any action and stop this shit, a halt on SCO stock could do the trick.
You definately cannot expect to sue for damages after the fact, because the shell that will be left of SCO will be completely chapter 11 status or just evaporated.

--
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. by zericm · 2003-08-05 07:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

I was talking to my boss about putting a linux file server in here, and was making decent headway recently. Now, somehow he heard of this SCO BS, and hes got cold(er) feet. My angle was the cost savings, but now thats gone, so no linux here for a while...

Tell your boss to watch the Fortune 500 companies that have already commited to Linux. These are companies that have full time legal staff who have -- I'm sure -- been watching these events unfold with a very careful eye.

Until the big boys flinch, I see nothing to worry about here.

thx,
eric

--
The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants. - Albert Camus
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. by IANAAC · 2003-08-05 07:34 · Score: 1

My guess is your boss really didn't want it in the first place. But, you can always continue to try and convince him. Do you have any spare boxes at work? You can still set something up for you and/or your department. Put all your files there. Let your boss actually get under the hood (assuming he's a hands-on manager). Set up a small web server just for your department. Put postgres on it and make a small database of whatever... inventory, trouble tickets. I can almost guaurantee that if your boss has a half-way open mind about open source software, he'll let you continue to use it. If you're the sort that doesn't have the wherewithal to put any of that together yourself, you can easily find ready-made packages out there that will do all this, courtesy of the OSS community. And when the time comes that you do want to learn more about it, you'll have a decent enough foundation from which to learn, since you have the source code.
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. by earthforce_1 · 2003-08-05 08:02 · Score: 1

Talk to your lawyer:

Is it not possible to directly sue the current SCO directors? Methinks they could be held liable just like the Enron execs if this turns out to be a pump and dump scam.

--
My rights don't need management.
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. by Reziac · 2003-08-05 11:00 · Score: 1

I'm very much hoping you and anyone in a similar position do indeed get a chance to sue SCO's smoking remains. I'm looking forward to reading the dailies. :)

Actually, it could become a very good lesson to other dying companies who think they can get away with the same thing, especially if you can prove and collect on personal liability against SCO's officers.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. by Malcontent · 2003-08-05 11:33 · Score: 1

People at SCO love brainless idiots like your boss.

Tell me what your company is and the name of this idiot. I bet I can sell him a useless product for a lot of money. Maybe I'll sell him a "superduper operating system" for $600.00 per processsor and install freebsd. I might even sell him "Homongo web server" for ten thousand dollars. All I have to tell him is that it's the "most popular web server in the world!" and he will fork over the money in a jiffy.

Please tell me his name, he sounds like a sucker just waiting to get plucked.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. by fishbowl · 2003-08-05 13:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why does it seem to always be the less-empowered employee suggesting linux, and the "Boss" resisting or rejecting it?

To me this is a symptom of something else: People who pursue technical careers do not gain positions of authority in corporations.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. by bwt · 2003-08-05 14:35 · Score: 1

Torvalds can't sue SCO until SCO actually *distributes* linux under something more restrictive than the GPL.

Which they've already done. They have filed suit claiming to hold trade secret rights to part of Linux. And I guess you've been sleeping, since they are asking for a sub-licence for their IP. Both actions, as well as their "Section 0" disavowel crap violate the GPL.
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. by Max+Threshold · 2003-08-05 16:36 · Score: 1

We have plenty of whining, but what is needed here is aggressive counter litigation.
What?! You can't be serious.
Maybe that's what you'd do if all you were concerned about was how this situation might affect your business. But if you are an ideological supporter of Linux and/or opponent of this kind of fraudulent litigation, you'd never stoop to that level.
No, I'm just going to keep using Linux like nothing's happening. If someone comes to my door and tells me to give it up, they're simply going to discover in rude fashion the statistical overlap between computer geeks and gun nuts.
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. by DaBj · 2003-08-05 18:02 · Score: 1

It is critical that this be recognized for what it is. We are hard core into step 3.
1. First they ignore you
2. Then they laugh at you
3. Then they fight you
4. Then you win.

Too bad SCO never seems to get past step 2 themselves.

--
"GNU's not Unix....it's Linux" / Kami "kokamomi" Petersen
Re:*sigh* SCO killing Linux in my co. by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2003-08-06 00:43 · Score: 1

So, SCO are making a legal threat, for which no evidence has been produced, in which they have constantly changed the statement of the case (80 lines/thousands of lines/infringement of contract/copyright).
What you are looking at putting up is a Linux file server. What's the very worst that could happen? SCO send you a cease and desist letter, you rush out and get either Free BSD or Windows XP and copy the files on to that instead.
And bear this in mind... if there's any code copied (and I'm aching to see SCO produce the 'thousands' of lines of code), you can bet there will be people willing to rewrite the infringed code, in such a controlled manner that SCO won't be able to touch it. Probably take a couple of weeks from the offending functions being known.
Someone will take the function in question, and reverse engineer it into a specification, and delete the code for the function. They will then give the source without the offending code to a programmer who has never seen the Linux source code, who will then write the procedure based on the spec provided. IIRC that's how IBMs PC market was killed - by someone reverse engineering the BIOS.
BTW Can I have your boss' email address? I have some emails to send him from some guys in Nigeria.

Domain names still available by sheddd · 2003-08-05 06:12 · Score: 5, Funny

bitemedarl.com

darlmcbridesucks.com

I haven't got enough time but I'll be happy to paypal someone $50 to set up a nice site with a messageboard... c'mon.

Re:Domain names still available by blinder · 2003-08-05 06:26 · Score: 4, Funny

I got darlmcbridesucks.com :)

I'll have a forum set up on it later tonight or tomorrow.

I got it for a year, hopefully in a year's time this will all be ancient history :)

--
sad robot making broken music
Re:Domain names still available by Just+Some+Guy · 2003-08-05 06:30 · Score: 1

Send me an email if interested. I can have it ready before the root nameservers' next reload.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Domain names still available by cavemanf16 · 2003-08-05 06:31 · Score: 1

No one has the kind of time to continually reboot the server that keeps getting DDoS'd 'cause it's running a MESSAGE BOARD for the domain name: darlmcbridesucks.com!!
Re:Domain names still available by Kevin+DeGraaf · 2003-08-05 06:42 · Score: 1

Send me an email if interested. I can have it ready before the root nameservers' next reload.

Or me -- I can do the same, and I won't charge you $50, either. $15 (to cover domain reg) will be fine.

--
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked.
Re:Domain names still available by gonar · 2003-08-05 06:49 · Score: 1

according to NSI:
scosucks.org is available.
scosucks.biz is available.
scosucks.info is available.
scosucks.us is available.
scosucks.cc is available.
scosucks.bz is available.
scosux.com is available.
scosux.net is available.
scosux.org is available.
scosux.biz is available.
scosux.info is available.
scosux.us is available.
scosux.cc is available.
scosux.bz is available.

--
The difference between Theory and Practice is greater in Practice than in Theory.
Re:Domain names still available by mcgroarty · 2003-08-05 06:57 · Score: 1

Let those bastards try to explain to their kids why people around town hate them enough to put those on their cars.
You've got 3 seconds or 7 words, whichever comes first. That's all you get when trying to explain an issue like this to the average American. Good luck trying to make a difference this way. :/
Re:Domain names still available by guybarr · 2003-08-05 06:59 · Score: 1

bitemedarl.com

You're voluntarily offering him an artery ? darwinawards will go off the scale ...

--
Working for necessity's mother.
Re:Domain names still available by ag0ny · 2003-08-05 17:04 · Score: 1

I'll give you free space and bandwidth in one of my servers to host it. In Japan, just in case there's some stupid law they could use to stop you from setting up your forum. :)

--
My site
Re:Domain names still available by blinder · 2003-08-06 01:01 · Score: 1

I'll give you free space and bandwidth in one of my servers to host it
Heh, thanks for the offer. I do have a dedicated server and 450gig/month bandwidth, I do think it might be a good idea to keep this option open in case SCO gets wind of it.

I find this a remote possibility.

We'll see :)

Again, thanks for the offer. If you could, drop me a line: minusone at yahoo dot com

--
sad robot making broken music

I have a deal for you too by Hangtime · 2003-08-05 06:12 · Score: 5, Funny

I own some IP inside the Linux Kernel, but won't disclose what it is either. I am lot more generous then SCO though and will only charge you $500 for a enterprise wide license for Linux. See that wasn't so hard now was it. Please forward your payments to Hangtime.

Re:I have a deal for you too by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2003-08-05 06:20 · Score: 2, Funny

No, no, no.

I own a copyright on some of the boilerplate included in the SCO Linux IP License. Feel free to use Linux, but if you buy the SCO License, then you're infringing on my copyright.

I'll license you the ability to use SCO's Linux IP License for the small, one time fee of $15,000. Per user.

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:I have a deal for you too by mhore · 2003-08-05 08:52 · Score: 1

No! I will beat *ALL* of you and disclose my code, but I demand $450 per license.

If you look in kernel/exit.c on line 157:

int retval;

Similarly, in many of my programs I have used that same line in functions to store return values. They took my IP!

Pay up!

--
Mmmm......sacrelicious.

Well, OK, but... by mhotas · 2003-08-05 06:12 · Score: 4, Funny

That's the last straw.

Dear SCO. by Civil_Disobedient · 2003-08-05 06:12 · Score: 5, Funny

Dear SCO,

Thank you for the good laugh this afternoon. Our network administrator actually wet his pants, while the rest of us were in such hysterics and tears that work became all but unmanageable. I don't get all the bad press about you guys... I think you've got a great sense of humor.

Sincerely,
LinuxCorp.

Re:Dear SCO. by mcgroarty · 2003-08-05 06:54 · Score: 1

Our network administrator actually wet his pants
Well, that's what you get for hiring an MCSE...
Re:Dear SCO. by zerocool^ · 2003-08-05 08:36 · Score: 1

Dear LinuxCorp.

Don't act so suprised.

You weren't on any mercy mission this time. Several lines of code were beamed to this ship by Rebel spies. I want to know what happened to the code they sent you.

You are part of the Rebel Software Revolution, and a traitor!

Sincerely,
SCO.

--
sig?

I can only smile and by Lolaine · 2003-08-05 06:12 · Score: 1

*laugh* *laugh* $600 *laugh* *laugh*

--
------- The last Sig. got fired.

phew! by gimpimp · 2003-08-05 06:12 · Score: 1

i've just paid for all my systems running linux...thanks sco!
once i've got rid of my 2.4gig Kazaa/FastTrack partition,i'll no longer feel like a theif. ;)

--
i wish i was but oh well

Ok by nebaz · 2003-08-05 06:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

extort (v) - to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power

--
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story

We Need Money! by Foofoobar · 2003-08-05 06:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

In other words:

'Please help us bankroll our lawsuit against you'.

--
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.

Re:We Need Money! by WCMI92 · 2003-08-05 06:40 · Score: 1

"n other words:

'Please help us bankroll our lawsuit against you'"

Yep. Because Redhat's suit opens the floodgates. I expect DOZENS of additional suits, in several countries, in several states to hit them soon.

And they can't get a lawyer to work on a contingency fee bais as a DEFENDANT. Redhat is now draining the MS/Sun cash pile...

--
Corporatism != Free Market

...and chicks for free. by Srass · 2003-08-05 06:13 · Score: 1

Millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute.

Re:Only $699??? by RGRistroph · 2003-08-05 06:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

I wonder if Microsoft is going to pony up for all the linux machines they have in that lab and elsewhere ?

They likely will, to increase the FUD and fund SCO. But as a side benefit, we will find out about a lot more linux use in Microsoft than we now know of.

And I'll be offering.... by iamwoodyjones · 2003-08-05 06:13 · Score: 1

my middle finger. From everyone here at slashdot up yours SCO.

oh man by Tumbleweed · 2003-08-05 06:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

And just think, that's the special 'introductory' price!

Linux may be free if my time is worth nothing, but my time sure ain't worth *that* much! :)

Three letters: by unorthod0x · 2003-08-05 06:13 · Score: 1

LOL

Business Tactics by Dr.+Transparent · 2003-08-05 06:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is clearly just another attempt to strong-arm everyone into submission. By charging $600 they make it seem like "stealing" linux is a really serious offense.

Now someone just needs to add return of the money to everyone who purchases a copy to the end of a lawsuit.

Re:Business Tactics by katsushiro · 2003-08-05 07:00 · Score: 1

Now someone just needs to add return of the money to everyone who purchases a copy to the end of a lawsuit.

Screw that, man. The way I see it, if you or your company was dumb enough to fall for SCO's FUD and pony up the cash for one of their 'licenses', you *deserve* to lose that money. Have that money be donated to starving coders or something. I'll give you my Paypal details so you can forward some of that over this way. ;)

--
"Two things are infinite: the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the first one." - Albert Einstein
Re:Business Tactics by schon · 2003-08-05 07:18 · Score: 1

By charging $600 they make it seem like "stealing" linux is a really serious offense.

The thing is, how can they possibly claim this, when they're giving it away for free?!?!

I think Darl needs to improve the quality of the crack he's smoking.

I just noticed... by MyPantsAreOnFire! · 2003-08-05 06:13 · Score: 1

that the stock symbol for SCO has "COX" in it.

--
--My other sig is a ferrari.

Re:I just noticed... by pair-a-noyd · 2003-08-05 07:23 · Score: 1

Yes, it refers to the COX that they SUCK..

switch by mattgarnsey · 2003-08-05 06:13 · Score: 1

suddenly i'm considering changing all of my freebsd boxes over to linux...

Re:switch by Flower · 2003-08-05 06:22 · Score: 1

Don't worry. Given time they'll come after you too. Or did you not notice that one quip outta SCO insinuating that the BSDs haven't been living up to the settlement agreement?

--
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie

That's easy to avoid... by pointwood · 2003-08-05 06:13 · Score: 1

Just deploy source only! :p

No Linux Trademark recognition? by afniv · 2003-08-05 06:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

I notice how they list the trademarks at the bottom of the press release, except for Linux.

--
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs

Re:No Linux Trademark recognition? by Some+Dumbass... · 2003-08-05 06:21 · Score: 1

I notice how they list the trademarks at the bottom of the press release, except for Linux.

I believe that "Linux" is already a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. Besides, SCO isn't claiming to _own_ Linux in general (except perhaps in the online FPS gaming sense), just some code in the Linux kernel.
Re:No Linux Trademark recognition? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 06:36 · Score: 1, Informative

"Linux" would probably be ruled lost by a court, because Linus Torvalds, the holder of the mark, has not enforced any rights he may have had to the mark. I am a lawyer.
Re:No Linux Trademark recognition? by fatboy · 2003-08-05 07:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

"Linux" would probably be ruled lost by a court, because Linus Torvalds, the holder of the mark, has not enforced any rights he may have had to the mark. I am a lawyer.

Think again.

--
--fatboy
Re:No Linux Trademark recognition? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 14:16 · Score: 1, Funny

Linus: Umm, SCO you failed to recognize my trademark... I will need you to pay a nominal fee to use it in your literature.

SCO: Umm OK how much...

Linus: $1 Billion U.S. Dollars... BWA HAHAHAHAHA

Re:At least now we know what their business model by garcia · 2003-08-05 06:14 · Score: 2, Informative

RTFA. First of all, they specifically mention 2.4 and 2.5. They consider Linux a direct descendant of their UNIX IP so whatever the kernel version is it's all irrelevant to them.

Can we just go back? by vasqzr · 2003-08-05 06:14 · Score: 1

can we go back to 2.2 or something before 2.4...and just re-write the kernel from there?

RedHat's 'Legal Fund' can pay for the clean room+developers.

Re:Can we just go back? by ihummel · 2003-08-06 01:37 · Score: 1

That wouldn't work. If SCO is never forced to reveal where the allegedly offending code is in a way that would allow the Linux community to remove it from the kernel, then SCO could just make the same claim for the alternate Linux 2.4 kernel that came down the pike. Hell, they could even have some of their employees try to sneak SCO code into the alternate 2.4 kernel.

Should go down well in Redmond by Graabein · 2003-08-05 06:14 · Score: 1

Bill Gates must be giggling uncontrollably by now...

--
And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.

Re:Should go down well in Redmond by Sloppy · 2003-08-05 06:32 · Score: 1

Maybe he has licensed SCO's customer list. Can you think of anything more valuable? I would love a list of people who are willing to pay money for nothing.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Re:Should go down well in Redmond by nolife · 2003-08-05 06:43 · Score: 1

As much as I can't stand MS, I really doubt MS will play this out. I think it would be fairly obvious to anyone in the computing field that these fees and licences are not going to fly. You can not charge someone for something and not tell them what it is. They can play this out all they want but all it will take is one company or person to say "Show me the code, and I'll remove it". Problem is SCO will never let a situation get that far because that will be thier death. Instead they will just let it stay in there and charge for it. Very odd situation.

--
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.

from the article by Tirel · 2003-08-05 06:14 · Score: 1

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.

huh, we'll all be running 2.6 by then anyway ;x

Re:from the article by mendepie · 2003-08-05 06:52 · Score: 1

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.
huh, we'll all be running 2.6 by then anyway ;x

Don't you see that your $699 ONLY covers 2.4 and 2.5 ... You will have to upgrade your license to run 2.6.

--
Are you paranoid if you know that they just want to know everything you say and do?

To SCO by Eezy+Bordone · 2003-08-05 06:14 · Score: 1

FUCK YOU!

Not the most articulate of responses but appropriate for the moment.

--

-EB

Do you ever walk alone like a drifter in the dark?

Re:At least now we know what their business model by mackman · 2003-08-05 06:15 · Score: 4, Informative

Because their supposed intellectual property was added during the 2.4 development cycle. I suspect they will also apply this to 2.6 when there's enough deployment to make it worth money.

WTF by SuperHighImpact · 2003-08-05 06:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

an someone explain the logic behind this quote from the article?

Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only, customers also comply with the General Public License, under which Linux is distributed.

--
sHi

Re:WTF by squiggleslash · 2003-08-05 06:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

Don't know. Let's hope SCO also plan to comply with the GPL, which they agreed to when they redistributed Linux.
Their compliance, of course, would mean that they can't enforce this $699 thing. If they ever tried, and succeeded, well, that'd put them in violation, and each and every contributor to the Linux kernel (well, technically, each and every copyright holder on the Linux kernel) would be able to sue. Presumably, the number of violations would end up being the number of licences SCO had sold until then.
So, this might even be a positive thing. It'll take a while, but the contributors to Linux might finally get paid for the valuable work they've done - money that'll come from idiots who sign up for licences they don't need, and from the Canopy Group's shareholders.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:WTF by s20451 · 2003-08-05 07:32 · Score: 2, Informative

Their compliance, of course, would mean that they can't enforce this $699 thing.

I suspect you may have meant this anyway, but just to be clear: the GPL does not preclude you from charging for a distribution. However, you must release your distribution and its source code under the GPL, so someone else is perfectly well within their rights to release it for free.

Typically, distributors burn GPL programs on CD collections and charge a fee to recover media and distribution costs, for those who either don't have a T1 line at home or can't be bothered to download code. This activity is perfectly proper under the GPL.

--
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Re:WTF by squiggleslash · 2003-08-05 14:43 · Score: 1

When SCO distributed Linux, it can only have done so after agreeing to the GPL. The GPL forbids a distributor from imposing additional restrictions on people who further redistribute the GPL'd work.
SCO cannot force anyone to pay anything without breaking the terms of the GPL. If it breaks those terms, it was distributing Linux without the permission of the copyright holders, and it's liable as such.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

If SCO loses, can you ask for a refund? by rdewald · 2003-08-05 06:15 · Score: 1

Now that we're all waiting for our day in small claims court to get a refund from hardware vendors for the Windows license. maybe we will be back in court at a later date asking for a refund on our SCO binary licenses.

I wonder, if you are using multiple kernels, say, one from 2.2 and one from 2.4, and you can boot with either, how could anyone (sans console access) really determine that you are using the 2.4 kernel?

--
The best way to do is to be.

Re:If SCO loses, can you ask for a refund? by rootofevil · 2003-08-05 06:20 · Score: 1

subpeona, thats how.

dont think they wont say "look its linux, lets sue and assume its 2.4"

SCO is plenty litigious as it is.

also, fat chance with that refund. the check is in the mail. we swear. no really, it is.

--
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
Re:If SCO loses, can you ask for a refund? by robogun · 2003-08-05 06:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

*After* SCO loses, the licensees (if any) will not only be due refunds, but the stockholders will also be able to press cases with the SEC for this obvious and illegal stock price manipulation.
Re:If SCO loses, can you ask for a refund? by rdewald · 2003-08-05 06:24 · Score: 1

Yeah, after I posted the comment I realized it would all be in the system logs.

I wonder what would happen if you required a custom compile of your kernel and bought the license. Are they on the hook for doing the recompile? If so, I wish I had the money to throw away, you could drive them nuts with hardware changes.

--
The best way to do is to be.
Re:If SCO loses, can you ask for a refund? by pmz · 2003-08-05 07:26 · Score: 1

maybe we will be back in court at a later date asking for a refund on our SCO binary licenses.

No one will show up to ask for a refund from SCO, because they will be so embarrassed for having paid in the first place.

SCO deserves money from no one. Period.

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin

Give em a call! by SoCalChris · 2003-08-05 06:15 · Score: 4, Informative

From the press release...

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

Re:Give em a call! by capnjack41 · 2003-08-05 06:39 · Score: 1

I am SO tempted to use option 5 to talk to a live representative, and have them explain exactly why I should have to pay $699. Maybe we should call several times and compare each of their stories.
(Or perhaps just to run up their phone bill)
Re: Give em a call! by Cognitive+Dissident · 2003-08-05 06:40 · Score: 1

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

Yes, call and say that you're going to join a class-action fraud suit against SCO for trying to claim that it owns Linux. A few hundred calls to this effect just might rattle them enough to make them publicly disclose what they think they own in the kernel. Then... it can be replaced in short order.
Re:Give em a call! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 06:46 · Score: 1, Funny

Poor Phone Reps, they are prob outsourced and not even internal SCO reps. I mean you would have to live under a rock to actually apply to work there and then after that you have to deal with Linux Zi0ts telling you the very horrific places where you send them their OpenWare Licenses
Re:Give em a call! by scharkalvin · 2003-08-05 06:57 · Score: 1

some how I think that phone number is going to be
forever busy.....
Re:Give em a call! by mkone · 2003-08-05 07:42 · Score: 1

Lets get out our DDos Equipment and pay them a visit. Wait, I didn't say that did I.
Re:Give em a call! by chrisatslashdot · 2003-08-05 09:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

I did. When I asked if it was true that I had to pay SCO $699 to run RedHat Linux the operator chuckeled and said 'Yes, sorry about that sir.' It was not a sarcastic laugh, she actually found the situation funny.

--

Simple people talk of people, better people talk of events, great people talk of ideas.

Re: SCO Wants $699 for Linux Systems by croddy · 2003-08-05 06:15 · Score: 1

Mod parent up!! +5 Funny!

"Free" system? by twoallbeefpatties · 2003-08-05 06:15 · Score: 2, Offtopic

Um... How much does one license of Windows cost now? I think I'm converting.

...Heh. Just kidding. ...I'm giving up on the PC completely and buying a Mac. ^__^

--
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.

Re:"Free" system? by AugustMoon · 2003-08-05 07:22 · Score: 1

Mac OS X could be in SCO's crosshairs as well. Sounds like SCO will eventually try to pull anything that looks like Unix under their umbrella.
Re:"Free" system? by hesiod · 2003-08-05 07:35 · Score: 1

> Are they wanting $699 for any linux install, no matter what distribution your using?

yes, no matter what distribution you are using, but ONLY if it is used in a commercial way (ie, where you work, or if you use it in your own business).

Pay? ha. by compange · 2003-08-05 06:15 · Score: 1

Those of us using Linux will pay, why? I laugh at thee SCO! Ha! Paying for software is so, 90's.

Profit margin by Jonah+Hex · 2003-08-05 06:15 · Score: 2

Hmmm $666 with an additional 5% profit margin = 699.3

Jonah Hex

--
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes

Darl by MonkeyDluffy · 2003-08-05 06:15 · Score: 1

The only thing I want to hear Darl McBride say is

"Would you like fries with that?"

-MDL

--
Happy meals fund terrorism

While you're at it.... by Metroid72 · 2003-08-05 06:15 · Score: 1

Linux User: There you go SCO, $699
SCO Rep: Cheching!!! $$$
**SCO REP Drops a bar of soap**
SCO Rep: BTW, while you're at it, would you mind dropping your pants and pass me that bar of soap...
Linux User: Sure, no pro....F%&*$... No Vaseline!!!

if a tree falls... by kenl999 · 2003-08-05 06:16 · Score: 2, Funny

oh, so that's the noise 1 million eyeballs make as they roll back...

SCO FUCK OFF!!! by NoSuchGuy · 2003-08-05 06:16 · Score: 1, Insightful

Dear SCO
Fuck OFF and don't waste my time anymore!

--
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/

Re:SCO FUCK OFF!!! by MrPink2U · 2003-08-05 06:18 · Score: 1

^^^ What he said!

SCO will get by Kazymyr · 2003-08-05 06:16 · Score: 1

699 kicks in the meaty parts from me.

And thus I've joined the trollfest. :)

--
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem

SCO PR by linuxislandsucks · 2003-08-05 06:16 · Score: 1

..convicts MCbrid ein court of libel and false claims August 29th.. Red Hat wins their law suit with $100 million in damages..

I hope McBride keeps making false statements be real easy to put SCo Group out of legal harrasment business for good..

--
Don't Tread on OpenSource

SCO Business Case by sbowles · 2003-08-05 06:16 · Score: 1

1. Sue everbody
2. Charge $699 for free OS
3. ???
4. Profit?

Gates would be proud!

--
You sly dog: you got me monologuing! - Syndrome

Intimidation tactics. by Reservoir+Penguin · 2003-08-05 06:16 · Score: 1

Anyone intelligent enough to install and maintain a Linux system knows that asking to pay before getting an actual court ruling is nothing but extortion.

--
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil

I have your protest uniform right here. by teamhasnoi · 2003-08-05 06:16 · Score: 1

Okay. It's pretty quick and dirty, but at least I'm not charging $699 for it...

Michael Corleone by cyc · 2003-08-05 06:16 · Score: 5, Funny

"My offer to you is this. Nothing."

Re:Michael Corleone by TopShelf · 2003-08-05 06:39 · Score: 4, Funny

Does this mean Darl McBride's going to wake up with a penguin head in his bed???

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Re:Michael Corleone by Cutriss · 2003-08-05 07:43 · Score: 1

Does this mean Darl McBride's going to wake up with a penguin head in his bed???

Thus prompting Bill Gates to ask "What's this thing doing in my spot?"

--
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
Re:Michael Corleone by BorgCopyeditor · 2003-08-05 07:45 · Score: 2, Funny

"My offer [...] is this. Nothing."

Excellent quote, but you've got to give the next line:
Not even the fee for the [...] license, which I would appreciate if you would put up personally. (emphasis added)

--
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
Re:Michael Corleone by Zoop · 2003-08-05 08:50 · Score: 2, Funny

Does this mean Darl McBride's going to wake up with a penguin head in his bed???

Nah, why kill your own? Better use Clippy.
Re:Michael Corleone by gmhowell · 2003-08-05 11:07 · Score: 1

*sigh* You beat me to it.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Michael Corleone by B1ackDragon · 2003-08-05 12:01 · Score: 1

Dammit! That's the SECOND time I've clicked your .sig link thinking it would be something interesting. This dratted memory...

--
The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings

The farther they take this by stratjakt · 2003-08-05 06:17 · Score: 1

The less convinced I am that they're just blowing smoke.

I really want to know what people plan to do if they prove themselves right.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!

Re:The farther they take this by tomcio.s · 2003-08-05 06:22 · Score: 1

Simple. Migrate to BSD.
Case solved.
Tools are all the same.

No biggie.

Let them blow smoke out their collective.. Well use your imagination here.
Re:The farther they take this by 42forty-two42 · 2003-08-05 08:11 · Score: 1

Personally, if they do, I'll probably switch to *BSD. But I have 10 copies of SCO Linux SRPMS, licenced under the GPL, so I'm safe. Also, if this is proven, it'll be out of the kernel in minutes. So, either way, we're fine.

This is irrelevant, period! by Lysol · 2003-08-05 06:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Unless there is proof, there is no need to pony up to SCO and fork out the dough.

And let's be reminded, that there is NO PROOF whatsoever. Only accusations, NDAs, press releases.

Honestly, I'm not worried one bit and all my half a dozen servers are Linux. If you are worried about this for your business, then by all means, switch. But you've not been served any papers stating you're breaking some law, so screw it.

Go live and do business stuff instead of worrying about all this bs.

Re:This is irrelevant, period! by venom600 · 2003-08-05 06:33 · Score: 1

Go live and do business stuff instead of worrying about all this bs.

Business stuff??......Oh....you mean surfing Slashdot, UserFriendly and StrongBad all day. No problem! :0)
Re:This is irrelevant, period! by MatthewB79 · 2003-08-05 06:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

And let's be reminded, that there is NO PROOF whatsoever.
That hasn't stopped them so far. I think the strategy they are using is forcing news reporters and investors to use thier language in regards to any questions they may have. If you try to ask them a question outside of thier realm, such as the first question of the conference call by the gentleman from the Wall Street Journal "Why don't you show the infringing code to the general public?". McBride answers "We have, we have made the code available to anyone who wants to see it". Totally ignoring the NDA. What reporters need to learn is the need to be VERY specific when asking McBride questions since he's obviously brushed up on his weasel-wording skills. I'd like to hear his answer if someone asked "Is the reason you have not made the code available for public viewing without a NDA or other restriction, that you do not wish to allow Red Hat or the general linux community the chance to remove the code?"
If there was really a 100% airtight case for infringing code then it could not possibly hurt them to show the code. Even if it did risk the code being removed from a future kernel. The only reason to not publish the code is to make sure it stays in there to secure future extortion and FUD efforts by SCO.
Re:This is irrelevant, period! by worldcitizen · 2003-08-05 07:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

> Unless there is proof, there is no need to pony up to SCO and fork out the dough

Actually, even if there is proof, this "license" is still worthless. If SCOX is finally found to have some proprietary IP (doubtful, but let's examine the possibility for the sake of the analysis) the GPL would forbid distribution of the combined result so your license would basically enable you to use only SCOX's pieces but it would effectively prevent you from legally using the rest of the kernel. You just paid for something that in the end has no use.

Companies buying this license are throwing away their money. If your company is thinking about purchasing one, it is your duty to warn the decision makers that the purchased item is unuseable.
Re:This is irrelevant, period! by ralphclark · 2003-08-05 12:56 · Score: 1

If your company is thinking about purchasing one, it is your duty to warn the decision makers that the purchased item is unuseable.
Wishful thinking on your part. If your company is thinking about purchasing one, then your company is likely the sort of company whose thinking is done by accountants and MBAs, people who rarely value the opinions of those they see as socially inadequate propellor heads.
Also you will have a hard time convincing them that there is any significant risk of being sued for violating the GPL part of combined licence that is self-incompatible. In fact, by the time you get through explaining the GPL to them they may very well recoil in horror and recommend abandoning Linux etc. altogether.
Darl McBride knows this very well and that is why he believes his FUD will work. If he had thought that the tech community were sufficiently empowered to call his bluff and make themselves heard at board level then he would never have started this. But he also knows that after the dot com crash, the bean counters seized the opportunity to thrust the techies back into the server room - and tech concerns (and tech knowledge) are no longer represented at board level in any meaningful way, in most companies.
Re:This is irrelevant, period! by spitzak · 2003-08-05 16:54 · Score: 1

Just want to mention again: showing the code and having it removed from the kernel will help their case, not hurt it. They can then point at the fact that it was removed as proof that the Linux hackers belived the code was stolen, and their lawsuit against the actual copyright infringer would be easy.

The fact that they will not reveal any of the code proves that they have no case and their purpose is to generate FUD about Linux.
Re:This is irrelevant, period! by worldcitizen · 2003-08-06 07:35 · Score: 1

You're right that putting much effort into a detailed description of the GPL to a PHB is not worth the fight.

It can be very simple: "Well, FYI, that SCO license is not really protecting you from lawsuits because exercising it will actually enable the other copyright holders to sue you. Of course, it is your decision to decide what you prefer..."

Competing with Microsoft by CodeZombie · 2003-08-05 06:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Anyone wonder why the price just happens to be so close to that of a Windows Server?

Re:Competing with Microsoft by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2003-08-05 06:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Actually, another article linked states that the later fee will be $1,399 which is more in-line with their UnixWare licenses, which makes sense since they've been talking about "indemnifying us poor miscreants" with UnixWare licensing. The $699 is just a 50% off type deal.

An interesting link in the other SCO/Caldera article today (i wish I could find the link) stated something along the lines of "whenever anything threatens their stock price, the SCO/Caldera execs release some more bit of news to pump it up." After being hit slightly by the RedHat announcement, well, here you go. Some traders probably will see the number, make a back of the envelope calculation "well, there are millions of Linux boxes, they're gonna get $699 or $1399 for every one, I want a piece of that" and pump up their stock. The more McBride pulls stuff out of his ass like this, the more obvious that it's just a stock ploy becomes.

I'd be interested to know what the percentage of machines out there running Linux are less than the $1400 price point. Granted, SCO/Caldera is (currently) only talking about commercial licenses so it's likely the machines are better than the overall average box, but still likely to be cheaper than the license. If this is the cost of a UnixWare license, no wonder they went into the toilet.

BTW: I call it SCO/Caldera because McBride's company is really just SCO in name and IP rights only. The real SCO people are at Tarantella, where they are soldiering on, doing real work.

Uh.. "Baha". by doppleganger871 · 2003-08-05 06:17 · Score: 1

ROFLMAOPMPHAHA.

Back in the BBS days we'd just make up additions to the ROFLMAO ack.

That story shoulda been posted under "Comedy".

--
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.

PUT A SHOE IN IT ! by curtisk · 2003-08-05 06:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

From their Linux license FAQ website:

Does everyone who uses Linux need a SCO UNIX IP License for Linux?
End users running Linux 2.4 or later versions for commercial purposes need a SCO IP license.

How in the hell can they say and do this when there hasn't been a case/judgement/ruling? They are truly pulling this right out of their asses, which brings me back to the Subject line of this post. :)

And they appear to only be attacking the commercial users so far.....

--

Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!

umm.... by phaetonic · 2003-08-05 06:17 · Score: 1

how could SCO charge someone $699 when the law hasn't declared SCO the IP rights?

SCO by yoder · 2003-08-05 06:17 · Score: 1

They are just creating a splash, trying to stay in the headlines. As soon as the media gets bored their stock will drop like a rock.

--
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)

What a scam! by dcavanaugh · 2003-08-05 06:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

To me, it looks more like SCO is trying to convince investors that there is viable revenue stream in their "SCOsource" initiative. Nobody in their right mind is going to buy this "license", but people might buy SCO stock if the fantasy of licensing Linux can be maintained for a while. If this isn't a "pump and dump" scheme, I don't know what is. SEC take notice.

Question.. by AnswerIs42 · 2003-08-05 06:17 · Score: 1

I'll admit I haven't followed all of this that closely..

But do we even know WHAT SCO IP's they are wanting Linux users to License? Last I remember anything on that, they were keeping the IPs quiet till the case comes to trial.

Wouldn't this be counted as vaporware sales if that's the case?

bwahahahaha by wo1verin3 · 2003-08-05 06:18 · Score: 1

This isn't a troll, I was on the phone with a customer and I loaded /. and I began laughing out loud. They're fuxing insane.

Finally, proof ... by JonyEpsilon · 2003-08-05 06:18 · Score: 1

... that linux is, in fact, 3.51256x more valuable than WinXP Pro.

It's what I'd suspected all along.

Re:Finally, proof ... by lewscroo · 2003-08-05 07:16 · Score: 1

actually, linux is technically worth more than 3.51256x winxp because sco is basically charging that much since some of their code is used in linux, and im sure theres so much more to linux than what sco allegedly has contained in linux. so its really much more than 3.51256 times more valuable.

$1399 after October by isn't+my+name · 2003-08-05 06:18 · Score: 1

"For those users, SCO is offering an additional incentive. A single processor server license will jump to $1,399 after Oct. 15, Stowell said."

http://www.itworld.com/Man/2685/030805scolicensing /

Source code as sound? SCO is a sample. by ezrec · 2003-08-05 06:18 · Score: 1

Worst case scenario (unlikely), is that SCO has a legitimate claim. What are we to do?

Distribute kernel tarballs as .wav files!

It's a sample now, in the noisiest song ever heard.

Plenty of existing legislation permitting samples....

And this is the 'introductory' offer... by Dr+Rick · 2003-08-05 06:18 · Score: 1

Hmmm... Windows cheaper than Linux? Certainly on the desktop and I wonder how server pricing will eventually work out? Looks like I made the smart choice by running Windows XP at work and at home :) I'd better remove my copy of RedHat from my other work box... Now how many users will actually pay?...

--

Dr. Rick
- "It's such a fine line between clever and stupid" (Nigel Tufnel)
- Zort! (Pinky)

Better than the Comedy Channel by muffdoc · 2003-08-05 06:19 · Score: 1

Ok lets see here. Pay for a Free License, and erase from the earth P2P, and the Universe will right itself.

Sure, My check is in the mail!

I don't have to pay.... by Fapestniegd · 2003-08-05 06:19 · Score: 5, Funny

Because I commented the infringing lines out, and recompiled.
"Exactly which lines did I comment out?" you ask. That's *my* trade secret.
But I did manage to get all of the infringing lines SCO disclosed."

Re:I don't have to pay.... by pmz · 2003-08-05 07:41 · Score: 1

Because I commented the infringing lines out, and recompiled.

Why don't you, then, redistribute the un-infringing source under the GPL. You wouldn't be directly advertising the infringing lines, because _they_wouldn't_be_there_!

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:I don't have to pay.... by FeeDBaCK · 2003-08-06 01:42 · Score: 1

I just removed all the comments from the kernel sources. Now my kernel sources are free of SCO IP, too!

--
wolf31o2 Developer, Gentoo Linux Games Team

Thank you /.! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 06:19 · Score: 1, Interesting

Not only that this article is not worth to read/know about... with daily spreading this SCO FUD you're doing no good to linux either.

There is no way this can be legal. by C_Kode · 2003-08-05 06:19 · Score: 1

This cannot be legal. How can they claim ownership over IP that they have yet to validate and even go as far to nullify a licensing agreement already in use? What if they fail in court and all these *licensees* want a refund (plus interest)

This must fall under extortion law. This isn't just a civil case anymore.

They *must* have thought of this beforehand. Why would their lawyers allow them to do such? I just can't figure out their angle.

Practical Advice? by GoofyBoy · 2003-08-05 06:19 · Score: 1

I'm sure that there are lots of people who are or will be soon in the same boat, especially now thats there is a solid dollar amount.

Is there any good, practical advice for people who want to implement Linux and need to address SCO issues?

And rants about SCO being the devil and how its a groundless lawsuit (in the opinion of non-lawyers) might work here but just looks unprofessional in the real world.

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.

Re:SCO: Looking Good by Glock27 · 2003-08-05 06:19 · Score: 3, Funny

The stock market is ALWAYS right - by definition.

Geez, Anonymous, I've seen you make some damn silly posts but this one tops 'em all.

The stock market is always right?!? Sure, like when it sent Enron stock over $80/share? What's it worth now?

Right. Now crawl back under your rock.

--
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait

Speech Software+SCO Group's OFFer by linuxislandsucks · 2003-08-05 06:20 · Score: 1

Speech Software+SCO Group's offer+

free way to make our complaints heard 24/7 by calling this number with real automated real complaints:

1-800-726-8649

Is it illegal to call this number with automated software compaining about SCO Group..have no idea.. but why not try? :)

--
Don't Tread on OpenSource

No proof - no payment by rjamestaylor · 2003-08-05 06:20 · Score: 1

I don't pay for VaporWare and I won't pay for a VaporCaper.

--
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello

A well chosen number by LilMikey · 2003-08-05 06:20 · Score: 1

They chose a number with 69 in it just so you know how much you're getting screwed by them.

--
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto

Now wait a second by regnull · 2003-08-05 06:20 · Score: 1

What happens if they lose the law suite? Are they offering a refund?

And from SCO I want... by GeckoFood · 2003-08-05 06:20 · Score: 1

...$999.95 every time the letters 'S', 'C', and 'O' appear on my screen, in that order and without other letters immediately adjacent to them, as reading about their dumbass lawsuit has cost me valuable time and has annoyed me, damaging my well being and quality of life. They can buy an unlimited license for displaying their name on my PC for a mere $24,900, giving them unlimited displays and no further aggravation.

Let's get started. I have those letters in sequence in the subject of my message. Cough up the cash, or be in violation of my license agreement.

--
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!

Prediction came true by Monkey-Man2000 · 2003-08-05 06:20 · Score: 1

As dmaxwell indicated yesterday, another outrageous statement from SCO to pump the stock. I hope Red Hat and IBM nail them for this.

--
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).

Re:SCO: Looking Good by GoneGaryT · 2003-08-05 06:21 · Score: 1

What, like the informed and intelligent analysts that handled the dot.com boom? Right.

Cool! by KillerHamster · 2003-08-05 06:21 · Score: 1

I'll take ten...oh wait, I have to pay them???

George Soros and PAM... by MosesJones · 2003-08-05 06:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

George Soros (top investment guy who once made a billion in a day) has said that the markets represent wishes rather than reality. This is also why that "buy terrorist stock" thing from the DoD was complete rubbish.

Look at SCO, if they were Antartica in PAM the DoD would be saying "BIG terrorist threat at the south pole"

Markets != reality. Lets face it this is a place where analysts say Sun is in trouble and they have $5.5bn in the bank, I wish I was in that much trouble!

--
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi

Re:George Soros and PAM... by nelsonal · 2003-08-05 07:56 · Score: 1

Sun is only in trouble in the sense that their business is valued at about 2 times their $5.5 billion horde and for the past year or two their business has not indicated that it should be worth the extra $5 billion. I don't think anyone has been saying they will be bankrupt anytime soon. Think of it as a friendly warning that people might be overpaying for that older Lexus, the car will probably run really well for the better part of a decade, but it's not worth $20,000.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Re:George Soros and PAM... by amightywind · 2003-08-05 07:58 · Score: 1

George Soros (top investment guy who once made a billion in a day) has said that the markets represent wishes rather than reality. This is also why that "buy terrorist stock" thing from the DoD was complete rubbish.
The terrorist stock thing is not rubbish. The idea is that it is a way to attach financial risk and reward to being able to predict future events. It is well known that the commodity markets do a better job of predicting future weather patterns than pointy head weathermen who have nothing at stake. One might contend running such a market is not the DoD's role, and that it should run in the private sector.

--
an ill wind that blows no good
Re:George Soros and PAM... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 10:35 · Score: 1, Informative

Markets != reality. Lets face it this is a place where analysts say Sun is in trouble and they have $5.5bn in the bank, I wish I was in that much trouble!

According to conventional economic theory, a firm is values as its (discounted) future stream of cash flows. If you believe Sun will provide enough future cash flow for the shareholder you should buy the share, if not, you shouldn't.
Re:George Soros and PAM... by Malcontent · 2003-08-05 11:24 · Score: 1

"It is well known that the commodity markets do a better job of predicting future weather patterns than pointy head weathermen who have nothing at stake. "

I find this astonishing. Do you have a link to a rational person with some real data discussing this.

The idea that random people with money invested can predict whether without any access to atmospheric data better then people who have studies the atmosphere for practically their whole lives just does not make any sense.

I wonder if information markets could cure cancer better then doctors. I wonder if ivnestors could perform brain surgery better then doctors. I wonder it investors could come up better theories in physics and actual pysicists.

The possibilities are endless!.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:George Soros and PAM... by amightywind · 2003-08-08 06:37 · Score: 1

I wonder if information markets could cure cancer better then doctors. I wonder if ivnestors could perform brain surgery better then doctors. I wonder it investors could come up better theories in physics and actual pysicists.
This is a very interesting comment which only bolsters my argument. In the book The Emperor's New Mind, mathematician/physicist Roger Penrose surveys a range of physical theories judging their usefulness, durability, and influence in the world. Among those he lists as "superb" are Newtonian Mechanics, General Relativity, and Quantum Electodynamics. Others like Quantum Chromodynamics (the Standard Model) are "provisional". Still others like string theory, m-brane theory... he considers "tentative". There is no shortage of brilliant advocates for these tentative theories. If all of the tentative theories can't be right, how do we decide which one are worth pursuing? Scientific communities are like any other communities with politics, fashions, and fads which can slow the acceptance of the best ideas. I would argue that if informed physicists had the opportunity to register their advocacy for ideas via a financial market rather than through physics political structure, meritorious ideas would rise to the forefront faster. A smart physicist should do better than dumb businessmen in such a market. The same argument can be made for new medical proceedures or, even better, new drugs.

--
an ill wind that blows no good

Re:SCO: ***Read Carefully*** by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 06:21 · Score: 2, Funny

I normally would say that you should make a good case.. but in that ridicoulus case you have the only valid point.

One Hundred BILLION DOLLARS by per+unit+analyzer · 2003-08-05 06:22 · Score: 2, Funny

SCO in their best Dr. Evil voice:

"That's a number. Okay then. We hold the world ransom for.....One hundred..BILLION DOLLARS!!"

Hmm Hmm Ha Ha Ha!!!

--
In Soviet Russia, the Beowulf cluster imagines you!

$ffffffff would do as well. by eddy · 2003-08-05 06:22 · Score: 1

Yes, now we see the real reason that info about MS running linux in their labs to "compare" the cost with their own offering "leaked". Soon we'll see the resulting whitepaper, with "SCO Licenses" prominently written across the checklist for "Linux Costs"

--
Belief is the currency of delusion.

Re:$ffffffff would do as well. by Drakon86 · 2003-08-05 09:37 · Score: 1

Hey! I would like to get $1 from SCO (with a signature of Darl McBride, to fine-tune my dart skills), assuming their brains are 32-bit wide. That would be quite an idealistic assumption however.

Actually a smart move by augustz · 2003-08-05 06:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

What they are doing is setting up an enviroment where things look like a done deal. Folks shouldn't underestimate this.

Given the fact that IBM has been relatively silent if a judge looks at a future SCO case they have 600 people licensing software from them, that judge is simply going to have a harder time "giving it away for free" to the linux guys.

Now I hope to GOD people read these licenses with a very fine tooth comb. Their is an adge that you NEVER want to sign a contract with a company like SCO, because a contract gives them real power to make your life miserable. Realize that they initially went after their OWN licensees (AIX etc) and it was because those folks had signed contracts. Be careful!

Re:Actually a smart move by small_dick · 2003-08-05 06:43 · Score: 1

It's true...people are underestimating SCO's tactics.

Here is the most informative article about the players in the SCO suit, who they are, their history, and how they make money:

"The Players"

All the major *nix players need to get together and kill SCO. IBM, HP, RedHat, SGI, Apple, Mandrake, Debian, FSF...all have been threatened, all need to pull together and end this.

Something like what the "Liberty Alliance" did to Microsoft's passport/hailstorm scheme...there needs to be a group effort to end this nonsense.

It's a shame that the United Linux vendors are hiding behind their alliance and basically rubber stamping SCO's activities. Suse and Sun Microsystems are in bed with some serious scumbags and that strategy could really turn around and bite them.

--

Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Re:Actually a smart move by nolife · 2003-08-05 07:12 · Score: 1

Big picture but IANAL...

How can they justify taking thousands of peoples code and put a price tag on it. Assuming there is SCO code that some how it is not considered GPL from thier own distribution of it, everyone in the world has the right to have that code indentified and removed if they do not even need that functionality or so it can be rewritten without it and move on, they can not hold all of the previous work hostage. I may be biased because I am a fan of Linux but any judge, jury, and lawyer should be able to see this as painfully obvious what they are trying to do here. In all of my years working with technology, I have never seen or heard of anything as crazy as what they are trying here.

--
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Re:Actually a smart move by Bob(TM) · 2003-08-05 07:26 · Score: 1

IANAL, YMMV, IMHO, YADA YADA YADA ...

The fact the 600 have preemptively licensed the product should have no bearing whatsoever on the decision for or against IBM. What is in the contract they signed and how that is legally interpretted will.

It is a misdirection - something you use to fool the gullible or those too busy to care. I can charge you a toll to cross the Golden Gate bridge and you can pay it, whether or not I have any right to do so.

Successfully conning one or 600 adds no legal validity to a scam.

That being said, your admonition to those who would license now is prudent. They would be entering into a binding agreement that may have validity even after the oil slick from the SCO Linux licensing ship has sunk. Wait for the proof.

--

The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
Re:Actually a smart move by Strudelkugel · 2003-08-05 07:29 · Score: 1

Interesting point. Another thought, especially for all of those in favor of all things !M$, is that IBM may find it to their advantage to work out a deal with SCO. I'm sure Linux is just great from IBM's perspective - as long as they dominate it. I have to believe IBM's lawyers and bus. dev. people are discussing this. I suspect IBM's silence so far may reflect this thinking.
I saw Rick Sherlund (tech analyst at Goldman) on TV last night discussing tech stocks and the SCO lawsuit. His view: Linux is a challenge for M$, but Linux will be continually plagued with IP problems. Big $$$ have a way of shaping utopian ideals.

--
Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
Re:Actually a smart move by Namaseit · 2003-08-05 07:36 · Score: 1

Acrually Suse pulled out of United Linux when this all first started.

--
75% of all statistics are made up!
Re:Actually a smart move by MobileC · 2003-08-05 07:48 · Score: 1

"Realize that they initially went after their OWN licensees (AIX etc) and it was because those folks had signed contracts."

No.
They went after IBM and IBM's licensees of IBM's AIX.

--
Fran
:):):)
1st 1st Poster of the new Millennium!
Re:Actually a smart move by augustz · 2003-08-05 08:19 · Score: 1

We agree their claims appear groundless. If they actually wanted to stop the "theft" of their secrets they'd simply disclose the code at issue and it would be gone in a week, AT THE MOST.

No, they are playing a game of legal extortion, and trying to lay a record in paper (no matter how much nonsense there is) that will help them. For example, keep an eye out for endless discussions of "good faith". This has no legal bearing per se, but folks are human and a judge or clueless jury looking at the record (with the help of David Boise) may read about all the "good faith" discussions SCO has tried to have and come to the wrong result.
Re: Actually a smart move by PetoskeyGuy · 2003-08-05 08:23 · Score: 1

"What they are doing is setting up an enviroment where things look like a done deal. Folks shouldn't underestimate this"

Worked for George W. Bush
Re:Actually a smart move by augustz · 2003-08-05 08:27 · Score: 1

We agree, it should have no legal impact.

But SCO are masters at the reality distortion field effect. If you say it must be true enough times sometimes it becomes true (dot com bubble comes to mind).

Recognize this is not a perfect world or system. A jury is reviewing the case and sees that lots of people are willing to pay SCO for their "property" but RedHat and friends don't seem to want to. SCO has tried to enter into "good faith" negotiations repeatedly (watch the paper trail they are creating). Even if NONE of this matches reality, guided by David Boise there is no doubt this could confuse the issue.

It's called framing the debate. They're trying to move past the "did we infringe" to the "what is the cost, solutions, global settlement". You'd be surprised how easy it is to move folks who are not that informed along by simply acting as if everything is going your way (even if nothing has been shown / deceided).

The issue with the legal agreements is that you give SCO a stick to beat you with (ie, you upgrade to 2.6 without a new higher priced license).
Re:Actually a smart move by augustz · 2003-08-05 08:30 · Score: 1

Spot on, I think sometimes folks are a bit idealistic about our system, including our legal one. Big $$$ are PROVEN to shape criminal court outcomes. They have an influence. Period.

I'm hoping IBM is laying low to prepare for their all out assult on SCO should they deceide they aren't going to get what they need the usual way. Big companies tend to be risk averse however, they have too much to lose if things go badly.
Re:Actually a smart move by small_dick · 2003-08-05 13:46 · Score: 1

Actually go take a look at the United Linux developer archives.

Developer's can't get access to service packs needed to get Oracle 9i working unless they pay SUSE a hefty sum.

These are posts and responses as of 7/21/2003.

--

Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.

Is this for real? by ProppaT · 2003-08-05 06:22 · Score: 1

I wonder if these guys are getting paid by Microsoft under the table. They're the only corporation in the world that makes them look GOOD....and cheap....

--
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."

*blink* by McCow · 2003-08-05 06:22 · Score: 1

I just had an epiphany. I knew I had seen/heard all this before. It's during a Simpsons episode when Bart goes to Mad magazine headquarters and looks through the door.

I can imagine the exact scene happening at SCO.

At some point there is going to be a press release saying either "Surprise! We fooled you" or "SCO executives under investigation for fraud" //Paul

Don't Poke the Penguin by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 06:23 · Score: 2, Funny

Don't Poke the Penguin, SCO

SCOX vs. RHAT by MrRudeDude · 2003-08-05 06:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

SCO vs. RHAT

Ok, a note here before you loons all get too excited; if you take any two stocks, bring up the comparision chart, and start moving around the start date, you can pretty much make it look like what you want. In statistics this called "optional stopping" (or "optional starting" would be more appropriate here). There is a reason I picked a 5 day chart.

Remember this next time someone throws a bunch of graphs at you and tells you to invest in something.

Re:SCOX vs. RHAT by HTH+NE1 · 2003-08-05 08:51 · Score: 1

Ok, a note here before you loons all get too excited; if you take any two stocks, bring up the comparision chart, and start moving around the start date, you can pretty much make it look like what you want.

Simplified version for those who still don't know what they're looking at:

"Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continue... A-y-y-y!" -- Disco Stu

--
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Re:SCOX vs. RHAT by MrWa · 2003-08-05 12:58 · Score: 1

There is a reason I picked a 5 day chart.
Because it is the only one in which RHAT is the better performer? I don't think that is what you were trying to prove.
Re:SCOX vs. RHAT by MrRudeDude · 2003-08-05 15:46 · Score: 1

The only thing I was trying to prove was that you can prove anything with stock charts; so, don't put too much weight in the fact that SCOX went up today.

They are moving quickly, next comes DMCA by klondikekid · 2003-08-05 06:24 · Score: 1

Next will come the DMCA subpoena's to major corporations known to be using linux, as well as ISP's and other such people who are using the "Pirated Code"... where did our freedom go?

errr... by cpuenvy · 2003-08-05 06:24 · Score: 1

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

...falls out of chair whilst laughing hysterically...

--
DISCLAIMER:

I don't believe what I write, and neither should you.

Show's You how much Linux is worth by Hamfist · 2003-08-05 06:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

Just goes to show you how much Linux is worth. SCO seems to have it valued about right. Of course, Linux is GPL and FREE! Were one to charge for Linux, based on it's high end features, the price is close.

Let me check this.... by downix · 2003-08-05 06:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Does this apply to all Linux 2.4 kernels or just specific ones? Don't forget, the PPC version was forked from the main tree awhile ago, as have the microkernel versions and some other forks. Which, specific, 2.4 trees are SCO discussing here?

--
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.

Re:Let me check this.... by mcp33p4n75 · 2003-08-05 06:59 · Score: 1

According to their Linux IP FAQ, it affects all architectures.
Re:Let me check this.... by downix · 2003-08-06 03:29 · Score: 1

What about the Linux kernels for embedded machines, which lack the code for MP support entirely?

--
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.

Anybody going the distance? by vaderhelmet · 2003-08-05 06:24 · Score: 1

I've not heard good, or bad from this about people's luck with this. Being that we're all M$ here, there's no chance we'll ever get Linux... so Linux didn't lose and SCO didn't win... So how about you guys? What's happening in your companies about all the SCO business... Is your commpany throwing in the towel and signing up for the SCO licenses? dumping Linux systems? or fighting the good fight and adding/expanding their Linux systems and dumping SCO systems?

Re:Anybody going the distance? by linuxchimp · 2003-08-05 06:56 · Score: 1

They can take my linux servers out of my data center when they can pry the console cable from my COLD DEAD HANDS.

Linux Fund by ianfs · 2003-08-05 06:24 · Score: 1

Can the fund I'll have to set up to pay for all of the 2.4 licenses out there be claimed as a tax shelter?

p.s. if someone does this, make sure they're not sitting on the board of some company, sco, if you know what i mean!

--
"Terminate?"
"Terminate... with extreme prejudice"

"...in binary form only..." by Slashdolt · 2003-08-05 06:24 · Score: 1

So if you have the Linux sources (which everyone would likely have), then you're still not safe?

I suppose that had to be added, otherwise, they'd be giving you a license to their source, which is much, much more expensive. But what that amounts to is that if you "have" Linux, you could spend $699 would still be at risk for possessing their source, for which you don't have a license.

--
Slashdolt

My Experiences... by The+Slashdolt · 2003-08-05 06:24 · Score: 4, Informative

CTO: We would like to remove all linux machines from our corporate network, please do this now.
Me: But SCO has shown no proof that any code exists within the linux kernel
CTO: After talking to the CEO, we would like you to put up any money that may be required if SCO were to win the case and name us in a lawsuit, are you willing to do this?
Me: um, no...
CTO: OK then, when you find someone willing to defend us legally for our technical decisions, remove linux from all corporate machines.

at least they didn't decide to just purchase an SCO license. Which is better?

--
mp3's are only for those with bad memories

Re:My Experiences... by tuffy · 2003-08-05 06:50 · Score: 1

CTO: OK then, when you find someone willing to defend us legally for our technical decisions, remove linux from all corporate machines.

I hear Red Hat has set up a defense fund for such a purpose. And Red Hat is much larger than SCO is by a considerable margin. But if your company wants to dink around and waste time and money changing OSes without the slightest shred of evidence, you have my sympathies.

--
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Re:My Experiences... by aliens · 2003-08-05 06:56 · Score: 1

Well, let's go about calculating the cost of the time and energy of removing LInux, installing whatever else and getting that to work.

IMHO just install FreeBSD for the time being.

--
-- taking over the world, we are.
Re:My Experiences... by fearlessrogue · 2003-08-05 07:12 · Score: 1

Solution... BSD

--

Everything Zen;
Everything Zen;
I don't think so!!!
Re:My Experiences... by faedle · 2003-08-05 07:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'd probably just shrug my shoulders and walk away. Do nothing. Three weeks later, your CTO is likely to not even remember this was an issue.

If you're really concerned for your job, install Free/Net/OpenBSD.
Re:My Experiences... by Fratz · 2003-08-05 08:54 · Score: 1

Just replace the hard drives. SCO is saying they require a per-CPU license. If the distribution is just sitting on a disk, there's no CPU, therefore you pay the 0-CPU fee of $0.

Then hook them back up again when SCO goes the way of the dodo.

--
-- Fratz, human
Re:My Experiences... by yoshi_mon · 2003-08-05 11:10 · Score: 1

Agreed. And it sounds like to me, no offence to the original poster, that if your CTO can issue such a statement your investment in Linux must be rather small.

If I had to reinstall my home network to remove Linux it would be a pretty good sized hassle reinstalling and moving all the things I have fine tuned over time to get it back to where it was. On a larger level the issues can only grow.

But since your CEO and CTO are obviously falling prey to SCO's FUD then they must not have a real good understanding of Linux and OSS anyway so I again doubt that you have much Linux there anyway. (If I am wrong, please, feel free to enlighten us as to the actual size of your Linux install and what it is/was doing. And how you mitigated all the systems over to...? [Another detail you left out.])

--

Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Re:My Experiences... by Malcontent · 2003-08-05 11:37 · Score: 1

Really people if you are going to tell the entire world how much of an idiot your CTO is the least you could do is tell us his name.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:My Experiences... by steveha · 2003-08-05 12:47 · Score: 1

Can't you just put a 2.2 kernel on your servers? SCO hasn't (yet) claimed they own anything in 2.2.

steveha

--
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Re:My Experiences... by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2003-08-05 12:50 · Score: 2, Funny

Can I have your CEO's name?
I have a huge amount of money sitting in my Nigerian bank account which needs to be taken out of the country. Only $699 in fees for the paperwork.
Re:My Experiences... by ftobin · 2003-08-05 15:29 · Score: 1

As your CEO if he is willing to put up the money to install a proprietary OS + applications on all the machines that are currently running Linux.
Re:My Experiences... by earthforce_1 · 2003-08-05 15:36 · Score: 1

Just tell the CEO how much it will cost to replace the linux machines. Be sure to include Windows 2003 licences, downtime, retraining, etc. And remind him that the chance of his firm being successfully sued by SCO are similar to those of being hit by a soviet satellite.

Nobody where I work is the least fazed by SCO....

--
My rights don't need management.
Re:My Experiences... by downix · 2003-08-05 16:28 · Score: 2, Informative

There is, of course, a simple fix that will not require changing your software in most likelihood:

Replace Linux with Hurd.

Linux remains *just* the kernel, the OS remains GNU.

--
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.

IBM by utmecheng · 2003-08-05 06:25 · Score: 1

On a serious note, assume for a second that SCO wins their case and they do try and charge that much? Its that threat that leads to the obvious conclusion that IBM (or RedHat) would just take SCO over (hostily if needs be) rather than pay out any fees. SCO will continue to pull these stunts but in the end no matter what somebody will just eat them and then fire darl and his litigious staff.

Should kill Windows too.... by MosesJones · 2003-08-05 06:25 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Microsoft are being sued and its passed the kick out phase and is now well into court. Sony and Philips have paid several hundred million for licenses, and of course this represents the legal slush fund for Intertrust.

Why no focus on something that could stop the shipping of ALL microsoft products ?

--
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi

Re:Should kill Windows too.... by EzInKy · 2003-08-05 12:33 · Score: 1

Why no focus on something that could stop the shipping of ALL microsoft products ?

Because nobody would care if it did. Anyway, that story was covered last week.

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.

Pigs can Fly by Biomechanoid · 2003-08-05 06:25 · Score: 1

SCO Wants $699 for Linux Systems

Yeah right ..and pigs can fly.
Whats next, Disney going to help run Photoshop in Linux??

I got my license for free by yamla · 2003-08-05 06:25 · Score: 4, Informative

SCO licensed me all their IPs for free. Sure, they are willing to license them to you for $699 but why not just accept their free offer? Go here and download the linux kernel and rest easy. It's not like SCO is unaware they are still willing to license the kernel under the GPL, I told them a couple of weeks back.

--

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Re:I got my license for free by fredtheflyingfrog · 2003-08-05 06:46 · Score: 1

It appears that they finally realized that they were distributing two conflicting licenses - log in and they welcome you -
Welcome to SCO's FTP Site!
- and then immediately close the connection.
It's not very nice of them. But I suppose that I don't deserve them being nice to me - I'm infringing their IP...
"All distributions of Linux 2.4 and later versions of the kernel contain major infringments, regardless of whether Linux is being used in a commercial or non-commercial environment." - Their FAQ
It's funny to read the "Excerpts from Complaint." Apparently, IBM working to make Linux better - whether contributing "illegal" IP or not - is part of their suit. It makes me sick.
Re:I got my license for free by MURL · 2003-08-05 06:57 · Score: 1

It's working fine now. I just downloaded the linux kernel 2.4.13-21S src rpm.

--
--- Have you seen MURL?
Re:I got my license for free by scharkalvin · 2003-08-05 07:00 · Score: 1

Thats a fairly OLD version of the kernel, and IIRC a VERY buggy version at that, one that will cause file corruption. If that's the ONLY version of the 2.4 kernel they are still listing, maybe they are trying to tell us something......
Re:I got my license for free by fredtheflyingfrog · 2003-08-05 07:18 · Score: 1

Well, never mind. It's apparently my place of work blocking me - if I ssh out to somewhere else, I can connect. It's quite interesting - I can log into other FTP sites, but SCO keeps disconnecting me. Perhaps my employers have decided to keep us out of such horrible things as SCO.
Re:I got my license for free by linuxtelephony · 2003-08-05 07:18 · Score: 1

I didn't get it for free, I think I paid $28. I bought a Caldera Linux with a 2.4 based kernel when Caldera was still a Linux company. I don't use it, I just got it to check it out, but I still bought it and they made it available for sale, and I accept the license agreement they sold it to me under -- the GPL.

--
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
Re:I got my license for free by Ibanez · 2003-08-05 08:00 · Score: 1

I didn't read, cause I'm lazy. I assume this goes in effect immediately, which means your post brings up a good point.

Requiring a user to pay $699 for software they will allow you to download for free?

Oh!!! I get it! They're catching the shareware revival trend...

Blake

This is a great opportunity to SHORT the stock. by reporter · 2003-08-05 06:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

People who actually understand how operating-system code works should be able to earn a ton of money by shorting the stock of SCO. At some point, we just ask a group of Ph.D. students in computer science at Carnegie Mellon University to write a clean-room version of the disputed code. Problem solved. SCO stock collapses.

Many of the Wall Street analysts hyping up the SCO stock to their clients have no idea about the ease with which the disputed code can be re-written by capable graduate students of computer science. The analysts are fools, and so are their clients.

Let us keep this secret to ourselves, the Slashdotters. We will make a bundle of money. Some of us need downpayments on a new house.

Re:This is a great opportunity to SHORT the stock. by B3ryllium · 2003-08-05 06:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

... there are two problems with that:

1) The disputed code is under NDA, and SCO are being tightwads and not letting it escape. They know that the instant the disputed code escapes, it will be re-coded and re-integrated in a way that removes this aspect of their case.

2) SCO also claims that it has process-patents, which I think means that no matter how you rewrite the code, it still DOES the same thing, which makes it a violation of their IP.

In summary, I think that what SCO should really do is bottle up whatever drugs they're smoking, and start selling them for these licensing prices. At least there would be a demand for the drugs, they seem rather potent.
Re:This is a great opportunity to SHORT the stock. by steveg · 2003-08-05 08:46 · Score: 1

Process patents?

This is the first I've heard that they claim any sort of patents at all. I was under the impression that while Novell might have let them have copyrights, they held on to any applicable patents. Has there been new information that I missed?

--
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
Re:This is a great opportunity to SHORT the stock. by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2003-08-05 12:05 · Score: 1

Many of the Wall Street analysts hyping up the SCO stock to their clients have no idea about the ease with which the disputed code can be re-written by capable graduate students of computer science. The analysts are fools, and so are their clients.
The bottom line is that if you can create a fools' gold market, you are fine - you buy because the market is going to go up - is self-perpetuating. Eventually, it has to fall and some people get hurt.
People who bought into .com companies often didn't believe they had the fundamentals to support their share price. They just believed that other people believed it, and so the price would rise.

Lemme check the wallet... by bersl2 · 2003-08-05 06:25 · Score: 1

driver's license
student IDs going back 6 years

'Cause we seem to be on the theme of Disney lately... From an old trip to Florida:

a pass where Minnie seriously looks like she's orgasming
a pass to StarTours (it was OK... sorta...)
hey! a meal voucher! and it's still valid through October!

Moving right along...

Barnes & Noble gift card
Receipt to Burger King
$50 in cash
and $40 in 3-year-old traveler's checks.

Sorry SCO, no spare $699. But I think my soul's up for rent.

I demand client licenses! by wfberg · 2003-08-05 06:25 · Score: 1

I demand to pay at least $99 per user to keep SCO from sueing them for contributory copyright infringement!
Also, I want to be extra sure SCO will not sue me for infringing any of their IP that is related to simultaneously walking and chewing bubblegum, or to wearing socks!

If any of you want to buy a license from me that guarantees you won't be sued by me for infringing any intellectual property pertaining to using wheels, please e-mail me, I can fix you up with a license for non-commercial use for only $599(hubcaps: add $39 per hubcap).

Does SCO has any bridges on offer, too? I'm interested!

--
SCO employee? Check out the bounty

Thanks for Your Support by JoeCommodore · 2003-08-05 06:26 · Score: 1

and the confirmation letter reads in part...

"... every license paid is another 15 minutes of legal fees to sue the heck out of your competitors. Thanks for your support."

Later in the message...

"...we have taken to liberty to include your name and address in our 'preferred customer' list for special offers and exclusive deals from our companion agencies in Nigeria and small non-governed islands off the coast of third world countries."

--
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield

We need more protest! by FSK · 2003-08-05 06:26 · Score: 1

Has anyone been organizing protest for the SCO forum 2003?

--
When punk rock is outlawed, only outlaws will have punk rock.

New Slogan by gers0667 · 2003-08-05 06:26 · Score: 2, Funny

Linux! Free as in $699!

From the conference call by Jsprat23 · 2003-08-05 06:27 · Score: 3, Informative

Darl just claimed the court date for the IBM suit is April 2005. He also surmised that the Red Hat suit would follow several months later.

He also claimed that for the time being their license will be a one time license.

Even though no one will know the truth about their code until 2005, selling licenses will begin immediately. Darl apparently wants us all to bend over and take it because the price will increase after their October deadline.

Can anyone say their business model is extortion?

Re:From the conference call by frkiii · 2003-08-05 06:32 · Score: 1

O.K., you twisted my arm.

"SCO's business model is extortion."

There, it has been uttered. :)

Regards,

Fredrick
Re:From the conference call by klondikekid · 2003-08-05 06:37 · Score: 1

SCO, the next RIAA and MPAA...
Re:From the conference call by listen · 2003-08-05 07:30 · Score: 1

I'm having a hard time believing you.

The case might end around then, but it won't take that long to start.

And the Red Hat case will almost certainly go to court before the IBM one, as its for a declaratory judgement.

I know, IBHT.
Re:From the conference call by pmz · 2003-08-05 07:34 · Score: 1

Even though no one will know the truth about their code until 2005, selling licenses will begin immediately.

That has to be illegal somehow. Having customers pay for something that very well could be nothing, but no one will know for sure for two years?!?

Isn't that like selling something that hasn't even been invented yet? I could charge everyone $5 for each bottle of "Super Brand X Snake Oil" that I "plan" to manufacture in two years. If I conveniently decide to never manufacture it, oh well, that's just more money for me.

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:From the conference call by Jsprat23 · 2003-08-05 07:53 · Score: 1

I listened to the conference call and that's what Darl said. Disclaimer: I did not check court documents to corroborate this.

Outrageous...... Someone needs to hurt McBride by Proudrooster · 2003-08-05 06:27 · Score: 1

So let me get this straight. SCO says that there is stolen SCO code in Linux but, SCO won't give any specifics on the allegations and we should just believe them and hand them piles of cash. R i i i i g g g h t t t. I think it's time for someone to post on FAQ on the legal system and let every Linux user drag SCO into court. If someone showed me how to challenge them I would do it.

This is absolutely outrageous. Somebody has got to put the smack-down on these idiots.

I wish they would just post the code so it can be re-written and we can all move on with life.

Come and F$**%G get it by l0ungeb0y · 2003-08-05 06:27 · Score: 1

C'mon Darl,
I've personally got 2 Linux servers and 3 Linux workstations/playtoys.

By your reasoning, that's worth a cool $3495.00 US.
Gee, that's a FELONY.

Think I give a rats ass?
Come and get it Dickweed, send over them DMCA hounds!

Ohhh wait... your claims have yet to be substantiated, have no proven basis in fact and your allegedly stolen IP has yet to be disclosed as to what muchless when/where/why/how it was allegedly stolen.

Errrrmmm...
Wait a minute, isn't this blackmail or at least extortion?
And how many users of Linux is there?

I think now is the time the EFF stood up and layed some smack down. This last round of actions by SCO is just screaming for a class action on behalf of all users of Linux.

How to become the most hated man on the Net by oh2 · 2003-08-05 06:27 · Score: 1

Agree with SCO...

--

Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see by infra-red, How I hate the night.

Lawsuits by Anchanar · 2003-08-05 06:27 · Score: 1

ok, so now it's time to file your lawsuit.

IANAL so I don't know if this would work or not.

Since they are sudgesting that you need to license the SCO IP in order to run Linux which you either purchased or downloaded.... I think they need to prove their claims. They are saying that they will likely sue if you do not. So, file your lawsuit, and subpoena the infringing code to make them prove their license requirement...

If everyone did this, or at least one in each state.. someone is likely to win through the system.

again IANAL, so I have no idea if this will work or not.

After October 15, the price will climb... by csamuel · 2003-08-05 06:27 · Score: 1, Interesting

In the conference call today, SCO declared that the $699 price for a single CPU system will climb to $1399 after October 15!

Where do I sign up???

Sure I'll pay by MAXOMENOS · 2003-08-05 06:27 · Score: 1

I've got your $699 right here

--
Finding God in a Dog

Fuck an a', by brsmith4 · 2003-08-05 06:27 · Score: 1

Show me where this supposed "code" is in the kernel, and I will delete it. If i need it, i will grab the equivalent code from the 2.2 tree. This is BS. You can have the $700 hundred dollars for my license ... when you pull the wallet off my cold dead body.

What if they lose? by PhuCknuT · 2003-08-05 06:28 · Score: 1

Do they have to refund everyone who paid for a license before the trial?

Wow! by Misch · 2003-08-05 06:28 · Score: 1

They're pricing Microsoft right into competition!

--

--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs

Other SCO numbers by Black+Parrot · 2003-08-05 06:28 · Score: 2, Funny

> 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

I call them "455-4013".

I think "347-5417" might be relevant as well.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:At least now we know what their business model by harryk · 2003-08-05 06:28 · Score: 1

atleast for it's only the 2.4 and 2.5 kernel. However, it seems that it would continue through the kernel series until the 'alleged' infringing code. Will verify in one moment, I'll ask.

--
think before you write, it'll save me moderator points.

Forbes.com's Background Description for SCO by paradizelost · 2003-08-05 06:28 · Score: 1

And I quote "The SCO Group, Inc. develops and markets software based onthe Linux operating system and provides related services that enable the development, deployment and management of Internet access devices and specialized servers." http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/compinf o/CompanyTearsheet.jhtml?tkr=SCOX This Lawsuit is just a bunch of horse$hit

--
"In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?"

refunds by lauterm · 2003-08-05 06:28 · Score: 1

So if you were to buy one of these licenses... when SCO loses...do you get your money back?

Question on the amount by Chewster · 2003-08-05 06:28 · Score: 1

I'm curious on how they came up with that amount. It's substantially higher than a WinXP and MacOS license. Sun gives theirs away when you buy their hardware, and I assume IBM does the same with AIX and HP with HP-UX. Now I'm thinking of this as a home user. For the corporate side of things, it might not be as bad. But I thought the mysterious code SCO was referring to was enterprise-type stuff (I could be wrong).

Too bad the *BSDs couldn't ramp up some advertising during the SCO debate. It'd be great if *something* good could arise from this Linux / SCO mess.

--
---- Meh.

ehm, yes terribly sorry by Bromrrrrr · 2003-08-05 06:28 · Score: 1

Shamelesly reposting the same thing to another thread, but this is what their linux license faq states:

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 have 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?

Re:ehm, yes terribly sorry by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 07:22 · Score: 1, Interesting

What they are saying is that they are essentially making linux closed source. You can't compile your own kernels, and especially not hack the code and then compile them, because then you would be using SCO source code (not that they'll tell you which source code) and they are only selling the license to the BINARY.

This is where they violate the GPL. If they want to sell licenses to code integrated into the linux kernel, those licenses can not be more restrictive than the GPL.

So they are telling you to only use pre-compiled versions of the linux kernel, that you bought from a vendor. Otherwise they claim you are violating their rights by using the SOURCE to which they don't sell a license.

The whole thing is a bit disingenious, of course. Outsource the compilation to where ? To which outsourcers have to sold a source license to, Darl ? Is SCO, by suggesting I buy a shrink wrapped box set, implying that RedHat has a source license from SCO ?

It's clear this hasn't been thought through very far; or if it has, they are unwilling to reveal the final extent of their planned control. I think it is most likely it is poorly thought through, there is no real infringing code, and this is all a scam to dump SCOX stock.
Re:ehm, yes terribly sorry by Bromrrrrr · 2003-08-05 07:40 · Score: 1

I think you're missing the point here. SCO, in the same faq, keeps hammering on the point that end users are liable and that they need a proper license (from CSO ofcourse) but then they go on to state that if you cannot get a license (because you are distributing a kernel yourself) that maybe you should outsource or buy a shrink wrap, off the shelf version of Linux.

So exactly why should end users buy a SCO license then? Evidently SCO thinks you're in the clear if you licensed from someone else.....

Why would anybody pay their outrageous prices after reading their faq?

--

What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?

Help me understand by MURDOCK1 · 2003-08-05 06:29 · Score: 1

I have been following this whole SCO thing from the beginning, as we all have. The question that I have is this:

If there is SCO code in the kernel, then why doesn't someone remove it and replace it with non-SCO code?

It seems to me that if the contested code were removed, then SCO would have nothing to stand on. With the speed of the open source community, it would seem that this could be done fairly quickly and painlessly.

But then there is the millions of servers and workstations out there that would need to be patched.

--
Eagles soar, but Weasels aren't sucked into jet engines.

Re:Help me understand by yeremein · 2003-08-05 06:39 · Score: 1

If there is SCO code in the kernel, then why doesn't someone remove it and replace it with non-SCO code?

Because SCO won't say what the disputed code is. RedHat alleges in its suit against SCO that there is no disputed code, and SCO is just raising allegations in order to FUD Linux and extort money from Linux users.

We're ok... by VivianC · 2003-08-05 06:29 · Score: 1

I think we are ok until we see SCO's name on this list!

--
Viv

Gmail invites for ip

So why ? by matth · 2003-08-05 06:29 · Score: 1

Does this not include AIX? I understand SCO is saying that Linux has their code, but are they saying that the AIX/FreeBSD kernel does NOT have any infringed code then?

I don't know what to say... by RCAMVideogames · 2003-08-05 06:29 · Score: 1

It's now a hate-hate relationship with SCO. I think it's an utter outrage to charge for the Linux kernel. Will companies like Redhat and Mandrake actully take notice? If SCO is somehow able to enforce this it could definitly put a large dent in the growth of the community. Find out next time on Slashdot!

Re:Do these SCO folks remind anyone else of KimJon by Quasar1999 · 2003-08-05 06:29 · Score: 1

Political humor can be very funny if done properly... or it can be like a car accident... so horrible, yet you just can't help but try and figure out what could have caused it.

Where did you connect SCO and North Korea? Linux and Nuclear war? A bunch of crazed executives looking at a get rich quick scheme, and a brutal dictator trying to elbow himself (and his country) some much need aid and respect from the international community?

Heck, unless SCO is trying to keep it's competitors from a take over, I don't see the parallel, nor the joke. (for those of you who don't see it... North Korea is simply trying to force the US into a non-aggression pact, so they won't suffer from a 'regime change'...)

The real punchline would have been, "Do these SCO folks remind anyone else of Microsoft?"... See it's slashdot, and a joke at Microsoft's expense is worth a +5 funny automagically... ;)

--

---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.

Two words: by redheaded_stepchild · 2003-08-05 06:29 · Score: 1

BITE ME. I wouldn't pay that for the whole machine.

--
Don't use the Troll mod just because you disagree with me.

What is capitalism? by Phat_Tony · 2003-08-05 06:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't think this sort of badgery and legal abuse falls under "Capitalism."

There a many different definitions and conceptions of capitalism, but they usually involve things like investment in capital, competion, and freedom. Unless you consider investing in lawyers "capital," this is a pretty anti-capitalist, anti-free-market sort of manuever on SCO's part.

Using the courts (read: government) to try to extract money from people, rather than providing goods or services to be purchased on a voluntary basis, is not the ideal profit model for comapnies if you want to maintain a healthy capitalist system.

--
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?

Re:What is capitalism? by GenSolo · 2003-08-05 06:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Nobody was trying to extract money from Microsoft. Microsoft was attacked because they abused their monopoly status in an anti-capitalistic manner.
Re:What is capitalism? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 06:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not everybody. I was opposed to the antitrust lawsuit against MS (Internet Explorer is only the dominant browser because it was included with Windows? Bull! Netscape was a vastly inferior product, something even their own freaking developers admit).

But remember, this is Slashdot-- we're pro-capitalism when it suits us, we're anti-capitalism when it suits us.

Microsoft is evil, Linux is God, and BSD is dying. Freedom is slavery, war is peace, and ignorance is strength.
Re:What is capitalism? by eryk · 2003-08-05 06:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Because if someone (i.e. Microsoft) acts illegaly it is a job for the goverment to punish him.

And the SCO case is about a dying company which tries to abuse the law to get some profit.

Can't you really see the difference?
Re:What is capitalism? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 06:48 · Score: 1, Funny

and ignorance is strength.

Soooo... Whaddoya bench?
Re:What is capitalism? by Osrin · 2003-08-05 06:54 · Score: 1

until we're through a court case the difference is not clear, regardless of what you would like to believe.
Re:What is capitalism? by cluckshot · 2003-08-05 07:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yeah what is capitalism? From what I understand a simplified definition of capitalism would be a system where investors put money in and expect a return on investment. Skipping a few details this is about it. Funny how today every Government Hallucination is called Capitalism. NOT LIKELY to be Capitalism just called capitalism.

We see a lot of devices like the SCO team and many others today calling themselves "Capitalism" but bluntly they are thieft by device, the definition of fraud.

I sincerely doubt that the stock holders of SCO or whatever will even participate in the "benefits" if there are any. As such the company should be charged with violation of the "Blue Sky Laws" where they are selling the Blue sky and not any factual thing when they sell stock. They are inducing investors with the intend of never paying them their just return. Does anyone take note that Microsoft might just fit this category too?!

--
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
Re:What is capitalism? by tarius8105 · 2003-08-05 07:44 · Score: 1

BSD is not dying. Geez, talk about uneducated trolls.
Re:What is capitalism? by ADRA · 2003-08-05 08:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

This system is capitalism with baggage. In true capticalism, SCO would never sue anyone because there would be no laws copyrights, IP, etc.. for them to use. That is where the free market idea comes in. You can do whatever you like even if it monopolizes the markets. You would have a very few very powerful corporations, much like G8 countries of today. These countries control the world economic system to the extent that it maintains their perpetual leadership in the market.

--
Bye!
Re:What is capitalism? by TobiasSodergren · 2003-08-05 08:16 · Score: 1

Hahaha yeah.. He's so off.. It's Apple that's dying!

Oh, blast
Re:What is capitalism? by Kaa · 2003-08-05 08:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yeah what is capitalism? From what I understand a simplified definition of capitalism would be a system where investors put money in and expect a return on investment.

Basically, capitalism is a system where individuals are personally free (as opposed to feudalism) and can own means of productions, e.g. factories (as opposed to socialism/communism).

Investors were putting money into ventures and expecting a return long time before capitalism.

--

Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Re:What is capitalism? by mt_nixnut · 2003-08-05 09:07 · Score: 3, Funny

and ignorance is strength
It was a very strong individual indeed that modded this insightful.
Re:What is capitalism? by Dunkelzahn · 2003-08-05 09:11 · Score: 1

That sig was a reference to 1984 by George Orwell.

--
.
Re:What is capitalism? by SlashDread · 2003-08-05 09:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Capitalism means what the speaker intended to mean when he utters the word. Nothing more nothing less. I dont want to go into a semantics discussion if it wasnt crusial.
Its like socialsm: Europens have a vastly different view on what socialism is than Americans. Americans predominantly see Socialsm as a central governement thing (where all is arranged in favour of some social belief), but Europeans belief it just means governing with a social face, and in fact the "less regulation" wing is the more dominant right now. So simply put Americans think "Ethics first" then money == Capitalism, whereas Europeans think "Money first" then maybe some law (but not ethics) == Capitalism.

Well from my European POV it seems anyway... /Dread
Re:What is capitalism? by hng_rval · 2003-08-05 09:49 · Score: 3, Informative

Microsoft certainly does NOT fit this category. They have provided substantial returns to investors for years. They make $8 billion dollars in PROFIT every year.

SCO, on the other hand, doesn't produce anything substantial, and thus is a better fit for your Blue Sky Law.

--
Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!
Re:What is capitalism? by einhverfr · 2003-08-05 09:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Because if someone (i.e. Microsoft) acts illegaly it is a job for the goverment to punish him.

And the SCO case is about a dying company which tries to abuse the law to get some profit.

Can't you really see the difference?

Yes, there is a difference, but there is also a similarity. In the Microsoft case, we use laws in a way which is fundamentally anti-Capitalist in the purest sense of the term in order to protect the foundation of our capitalism (the free market).

The difference is one of right and wrong. Caldera was right to sue Microsoft based on my research and much third-party documentation, but they were wrong to buy DR DOS for little other reason than to sue Microsoft. It should have been left to someone who wanted to do something with the product. Or at least have it contributed to the FreeDOS project, etc.

The real problem is that Caldera saw a legal opportunity and took it (suing Microsoft) and as a result they were too distracted to see that their business model (selling Linux as if it was proprietary software) was becoming irrelevant. So even now they are holding to it and trying to extort money from all Linux users.

I expect SCO to lose because they have no third-party backing (except perhaps Microsoft, but they can't say too much or they could be sued for the same things that RedHat is suing SCO for). Furthermore, in pursuing this, SCO is trying to break their own contracts witht heir customers (the GPL) which they knowingly entered into even AFTER they sued IBM. Even if they win some counts of the IBM suit, they will I think, lose to RedHat.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Re:What is capitalism? by ideut · 2003-08-05 09:58 · Score: 1, Funny

There are those who would disagree with you, some of whom present hard evidence to back up their claims right here on slashdot.
For example, there was one particularly interesting post I saw recently which used a variety of statistical methods to estimate the market share of the various BSDs. One of their sources was the latest netcraft report. Another was comparing the number of usenet posts pertaining to each OS, and so on.
The conclusion of the piece was that BSD assuredly is dying, not just according to Kreskin, but according to many others too.
If someone is able to locate a copy of that comment and repost it here, we might just see tarius8105 having to retract his "Geez" statement of a few minutes ago.

--
--
Re:What is capitalism? by cmacb · 2003-08-05 10:38 · Score: 1

"This system is capitalism with baggage. In true capticalism, SCO would never sue anyone because there would be no laws copyrights, IP, etc.. for them to use."

"Capticalism"??? Maybe you have hit on something here... there needs to be a new word for the type of capitalism that SCO is practicing I would vote for "crapitalism", which would be indicative of what the SCO board of directors is full of.
Re:What is capitalism? by PetWolverine · 2003-08-05 10:43 · Score: 1

It wasn't his .sig, but yes, it was a literary allusion that the parent poster obviously didn't get.

--
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
Re:What is capitalism? by PetWolverine · 2003-08-05 10:46 · Score: 1

Well, if you count Mac OS X as a variant of BSD, then BSD is definitely not dying. I understand that's somewhat controversial, though--which makes the whole issue of whether or not BSD is dying controversial till that's settled (assuming BSD would be dying without Mac OS X, a subject on which I am not competent to comment).

--
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
Re:What is capitalism? by PetWolverine · 2003-08-05 10:50 · Score: 1

And not a very well-read one that replied.

1984, by George Orwell. It's standard geek fare; you really shouldn't post around here without reading it. For that matter, it's a standard part of modern English-speaking culture, and you're a hypocrite to call someone ignorant without reading it.

--
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
Re:What is capitalism? by Khyeron · 2003-08-05 10:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

Capitalism has NOTHING to do with FREEDOM. Capitalism deals with making money and that is that.
Same goes with democracy, do recall a famous quote
"The greatest tyranny of all is that of the ignorant majority."-Author Unknown

-Khyeron
Re:What is capitalism? by tarius8105 · 2003-08-05 11:04 · Score: 1

For example, there was one particularly interesting post I saw recently which used a variety of statistical methods to estimate the market share of the various BSDs. One of their sources was the latest netcraft report. Another was comparing the number of usenet posts pertaining to each OS, and so on.

You mean this *BSD is dying troll post.

But then again that was posted onto a article that stated by a troll, as netcraft reported Nearly 2 Million Active Sites running FreeBSD

Now all you are really left with that might be arguable is the 93% core developers leaving, the psychic predicting bsd dying, and the usenet posts.

Lets start with usenet posts. First off, usenet is not everyone, hell I dont use usenet. So I guess by the BSD troll definition I dont use FreeBSD since thats what my servers run but I dont post on usenet. Now for the psychic, if you believe a psychic then you obviously deserve to buy a UnixWare license for being so gullible.

As for core developers, people move on and have lives, not everyone can sit infront of a computer and do something for 20 years or more. Hell I cant work on something longer then 5 years before I move on.

Oh yeah and I forgot the link the sysadmin magazine article that was comparing Operating systems. Yeah funny thing was in one of the tests BSD beat down Linux hands down. Truth is that article is a few years old since one of the versions of OpenBSD they used was 2.8. Hell on another note, a different troll posting posts information about BSD that is like 10 years old.

So I dont think I'll be doing a retract anytime soon.
Re:What is capitalism? by Pharmboy · 2003-08-05 12:29 · Score: 1

,em>It was a very strong individual indeed that modded this insightful.

or maybe the moderator has read Orwell's 1984...

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:What is capitalism? by jgoemat · 2003-08-05 12:54 · Score: 1
Actually, the judge is part of the government. If you're talking about separating the three branches of government:
1. Legislative - Make the laws
2. Executive - Enforce the laws (arrest, bring to trial)
3. Judicial - Interpret the laws (make sure the law was broken, determine the extent of the crime)
Re:What is capitalism? by Spellbinder · 2003-08-05 13:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

i as European think US == money first then everything else

--

stop supporting microsoft with pirating their software!!!!!
Re:What is capitalism? by Luigi30 · 2003-08-05 14:28 · Score: 1

One word: Doubleplusungood.

--
503 Sig Unavailable

The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
Re:What is capitalism? by cluckshot · 2003-08-05 14:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sorry but Microsoft including their recent "Dividend" still fits this category probably better than any other company in history. They have "Made the most money" and paid literally NOTHING until this year in dividends. The largest company in America pays a dividend of 0.25% return on investment. Come on! Wake up this is stock fraud to the limit.

So they make 8 Billion in profit but they don't pay it to their stockholders do they? This is prima facia evidence of what I am talking about but as usual people are not looking closely. They are just ignorantly going about squalking with all the intelligence of three rocks and one large brick.

There is practically no company in America of any size which in any way resembles capitalism. At this time, most big companies are sucking down massive tax exemptions. Their facilities as with MS are paid for and built by the Taxpayers who they intend to defy at every turn. They will refuse any request that they pay this back. Just to set you streight, what I am talking about is called "Jobs" by your Congress critters and is called "Industrial Development" by your city or town or state and is nothing of the sort. It is Faschism or National Socialism Pure and simple. Doubt me? Try financing an operation with real investment money with you at risk. The bank will say NO!

In the Case of MS everyone forgets a company set in business essentially by the US Department of Defense with massive help and "Deep Black" support who now ships all this tech off to our sworn enemy China in return for our generous support and assistance. China is openly planning Nuclear War with the USA and this is not an accusation, it is their word.

No MS is the worst of the lot. They took the most and have paid back such a small amount that it is a bad joke. The fraud at MS is MILES DEEP. But the "Capitalists" at the stock market are all believers who are awaiting even bigger suckers to follow their bad investment with more money.

In the case of MS those who chose "Appreciation" over Dividends will find that the "Profits" of $8 Billion are easy to report but when they have to be shelled out in cash, they will evaporate like Verga. It will never hit the ground. This is why Linux is a threat to MS. The top heavy structure is hollow to the core riddled with mechanisms where the big guys can take it all leaving the stockholders in the shorts. The organization is like a great oak fully hollowed out by termintes. When the wind blows it falls to splinters. It is already happening just watch.

If MS is your idea of capitalism, hold tight it is going to be a bumpy night. (Just a Hint: I am a true capitalist who has run businesses for may years with my own money until they were essentially crushed by these "Tax Advantaged" companies given advantages under Industrial Development Boards)

--
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
Re:What is capitalism? by nathanh · 2003-08-05 15:21 · Score: 1

Not everybody. I was opposed to the antitrust lawsuit against MS (Internet Explorer is only the dominant browser because it was included with Windows? Bull! Netscape was a vastly inferior product, something even their own freaking developers admit).

Isn't it amazing how revisionists can rewrite history so quickly. The court case had nothing to do with the relative technical merits of MSIE or Navigator. It had everything to do with threats that Microsoft made against OEM vendors (including Compaq) that wanted to ship Navigator on a Windows desktop. Microsoft threatened these vendors with revocation of their Windows license; death for an OEM. This was all explained in EXCRUCIATING detail during and after the court case. How the hell can you continue to get it wrong?
Re:What is capitalism? by WCMI92 · 2003-08-05 15:37 · Score: 1

As a result of MS's monopoly abuse, IE is now the dominant browser, with nearly 90% of the web.

And IE is arguably the WORST browser produced, with it's ActiveX vulnerabilities, complete lack of popup blocking, poor cookie management, etc.

Only because it's supported by a MONOPOLY, who can "lock people in" by their proprietary media player plugins, FrontPage extensions, etc, not to mention the fact that the whole OS uses it for a desktop shell, can IE beat out Netscape, Mozilla, and Opera...

--
Corporatism != Free Market
Re:What is capitalism? by majorflaw · 2003-08-05 17:50 · Score: 1

(make sure the law was broken, determine the extent of the crime)

Actually, the factual determination as to whether someone broke the law and comitted a crime is decided by a jury, not a Judge. One of our oldest Constitutional rights is the right to be judged by a jury of our peers. Now if someone would just remind Bishop Ashcroft.
Re:What is capitalism? by d34thm0nk3y · 2003-08-05 17:56 · Score: 1

China is openly planning Nuclear War with the USA and this is not an accusation, it is their word.

Do I even need to say anything about this statement????
Re:What is capitalism? by Mipsalawishus · 2003-08-06 01:35 · Score: 1

Netscape was, and still is a superior "product" or whatever the hell you want to call software. It had some of the brightest minds working on it. ANY project the size of the Netscape browser will have developers complaining about parts that need improvement. At least Netscape was open enough in their operations to let developers cite it's shortcomings, and then focus on those problems to fix them. m$ on the other hand does not let their developers openly express their opinions on IE. The Netscape team faced an uphill battle to get it to where they did on the windows platform. Netscape on Unix or Mac runs like a top. Why? because those platforms weren't owned by a bunch of shitheads hellbent on owning the world. Microsoft deliberately set out to sabotage Netscape's efforts when bill gates caught wind of what he had missed out on. I personally would have loved nothing more than to see the assholes in redmond split up. Tomorrow morning while sipping on your coffee, reading your morning paper, and waiting on your daily IE updates to download, just remember that the assheads in redmond really do care about your computing experience and online safety. You have been weighed and measure, and found wanting. You troll.
Re:What is capitalism? by japhmi · 2003-08-06 04:26 · Score: 1

And not a very well-read one that replied.

Or someone just saying that what that person posted was, in fact, stupid. Not the attempt-to-be-witty bottom, but the bulk of the article.

--
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
Re:What is capitalism? by jasonditz · 2003-08-06 06:47 · Score: 1

*cough* Sun Micro *cough*
Re:What is capitalism? by eventhorizon5 · 2003-08-12 09:29 · Score: 1

>Using the courts (read: government) to try to >extract money from people, rather than >providing goods or services to be purchased on >a voluntary basis, is not the ideal profit >model for comapnies if you want to maintain a >healthy capitalist system.

That would be called Radical Interventionism, where companies not only prioritize the government (and courts, etc) over customers, but use it to extract money from people. The current US economy is basically interventionist. Also, capitalism is basically the equal exchange of goods (capital), which is what open source falls under.

--
#Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"

Oh, sure, hang on just a second... by dominion · 2003-08-05 06:29 · Score: 1

Let me pull that money right out of my ass...

I work for less than a living wage, and now they expect me to pay a month's salary for my right to use something that was collectively developed by tens of thousands?

That's ridiculous. Even, in the worst case scenario, whereby they gain control of Linux, crack down on it's development, destroy it's leaders (and convert them to Christianity), people still won't abide by this. We'll pirate it, we'll continue to develop it however we'd like, and our best and brightest will move over to GNU/Herd or FreeBSD.

But let's not let it get to that point. The EFF isn't enough, we can't, as a community, sit back and allow the lawyers to fight it out in a lopsided court system.

We have to realize that what's going on here is nothing new, it's just new to us. Just like what's happening with MP3's and the RIAA, this is manifest destiny extended to the digital world.

The purpose is, as always, to get us to pay for things we used to get for free.

Land used to be free and farmed communally. Music used to be something that was shared by all. Software used to be something that was developed for the common good.

The Linux community is not so different from the Landless Peasants Movement (MST) of Brazil after all.

Dominion
Anarchism FAQ

Re:Oh, sure, hang on just a second... by dominion · 2003-08-05 06:35 · Score: 1

I should have put this in the first one, but just FYI, here's a link to SCO's contact information:

http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/index.html

Let's call them, fax them, email them, etc, and demand that they call off their lawsuit immediately. If anything, let's demand that they tell us the exact line numbers and the exact kernel version where we can find the disputed code. Tell them you're Emiliano Zapata, a Linux developer from Mexico City if you need to.

This is always a good beginning tactic for pressuring corporations that behave badly. It's perfectly legal, and totally within our rights to lobby corporations just as much as they lobby the government.

Dominion

Darl the Angry Drunk by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 06:29 · Score: 2, Funny

Maybe it's just me, but whenever I see a picture of Darl I get this image of a drunk in a bar swinging a broken bottle accusing everyone that they slept with his girlfriend; which everyone knows he doesn't have.

So what is the deal? by sllim · 2003-08-05 06:30 · Score: 1

I know NOTHING about Linux. Except that it is free (as in beer).

From my perspective it doesn't look so free anymore....

Okay I know a little bit more then that. Like how it is user supported and such. My first question is, is there a movement to get the SCO code out of Linux?
Would it be proper to guess that maybe a 3.0 kernal in the future will be free of this code?

My other observation (please correct me if I got something wrong, I am begging) is that ****ahem**** the Microsoft solution is cheaper then $700 a CPU.

Any thoughts?

Re:So what is the deal? by mcp33p4n75 · 2003-08-05 06:53 · Score: 1

#1 There has been no SCO code proven to be in the linux kernel, and there's reason to believe there isn't, or it wouldn't matter anyway.
#2 If there is SCO code in the kernel, the OSS community will rewrite it faster than you can say "Darl McBride"
#3 Sure, MS is cheaper than $700, now.

Bottomline, don't worry about this, and just laugh at SCO.
Re:So what is the deal? by Cyno · 2003-08-05 07:00 · Score: 1

By golly, you're right. Microsoft is cheaper when you look at it that way. And probably better for you, too.
Re:So what is the deal? by zenyu · 2003-08-05 07:37 · Score: 1

I know NOTHING about Linux. Except that it is free (as in beer).
Okay I know a little bit more then that. Like how it is user supported and such.
Only "free (as in beer)" versions of Linux are user supported various vendors produce their own versions with various support levels.

My first question is, is there a movement to get the SCO code out of Linux?

As far as anyone knows there is no SCO code in Linux. SCO has hinted that they think own anything derived from UNIX ideas, which might include any program written in C, C++, Java and C# under their expansive interpretation of derivative rights. This includes practically all software not written in COBOL, even Lisp interpreters are written in C. But no one thinks that this is how any sane judge would ever think of defining copyright derivation this way, especially as it goes against every precident known to man.

There is another unsubstanciated allegation that SCO has thrown out that there are outright copies of code, this is possible, but 99.999999999% chance that the copy was from Linux into a SCO product, meaning the SCO product is in violation of someone's copyright. In anycase there is no movement to remove such code since no one knows what it might be, everyone knows their own code is clean, perhaps someone dead did something not kosher? No way to know unless SCO substanciates their slander.

Another idea SCO has suggested is that JFS the OS/2 filesystem, now supported in Linux, is a derivative due to the details of how the port to Linux was done. No one really believes derivative rights are a strong enough concept for this to fly. Essentially they are saying because AIX has a SystemV compatibility layer that IBM bought a perpetual license to from a former holder of the SystemV copyright and they ported the OS/2 filesystem to POSIX (A standard not owned by SCO) and may have made some modifications to the interface that were specific to SystemV that survived to Linux, which is a POSIX compatible system with few SystemV lineages outside of the ones in POSIX. Because of all those conditionals SCO owns the Linux implementation of the OS/2 filesystem. But still this has a much better chance of being found tenable than the "all bases belong to us" arguement. And if they should win, JFS can be removed in 10 minutes time since it's an also-ran fs that seems to have lost out to XFS and ext3 in Linux. Of course should this arguement win in court it will cause a lot of troubles world wide, expect shreaders to be bought in bulk and very tough document retention policies to become the norm, and computer books to be banned from the workplace.

SCO may have a case against IBM seperate from all these unfounded and unlikely crackpot theories they have made up. IBM vehemently denies it, but if not for SCO's looney statements and behaviour IBM's credibility wouldn't be so much greater than SCO's. But this relationship is governed by secret contracts none of us are privy to. Perhaps they will settle and JFS will be removed, I wouldn't bet on it, but anything is possible in a common law country. From all appearances SCO has performed this hara-kari to get bought out, the "we may be a 2 bit company but we can cause you billions in damages by blowing ourselves up - why don't you give us $100 million to go quietly into the night" strategy. IBM didn't bite any neither did any of the smaller players. Even Mandrake buying these suckers would have been more than nothing. So they proceed with the suicide to prove a point and make it easier for future extortionists to ply their trade. (Of course, there seems to be some insider trading going on, so the strategy may be to abscond in some western nation that doesn't extradite non-violent financial criminals.)

And I want $500 from each of you... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 06:30 · Score: 1, Funny

For breathing. You have been getting away with it for years, but to prevent me suing you, I need you to license the copyrighted technique "breathing". This infringes my IP, though a fully-paid up 'breathing' license will allow you to continue breathing without legal ramifications.

However, due to an ongoing lawsuit I am going to lose, I can't show you exactly what bits of the 'breathing' technique I have rights to, so you should all consider yourselves liable.

SuSe by prgrmr · 2003-08-05 06:30 · Score: 1

Given that SuSe got SCO to back off, got with that distro instead.

Re:SuSe by eddy · 2003-08-05 07:19 · Score: 1

Contrary to what I first thought, SuSe might get deeper into the game after all. I thought that they'd almost certainly would stay out since they've already shut SCO up in Germany, their primary arena of business I'd presume.

"We applaud their (RedHat -- eddy anm.) 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. " -- SuSe Press-release

--
Belief is the currency of delusion.

Re:A license to use Linux kernel binaries? by stratjakt · 2003-08-05 06:31 · Score: 1

GPL is about distribution, this is a license to use the binary in a commercial environment. The two don't conflict.

Basically, you can look at the sourcecode all you want, but you can't legally run it unless you've paid SCO.

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!

The desktop license is $199 by voss · 2003-08-05 06:31 · Score: 1

http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicensefaq.html

The problem is with their licensing terms
there is no settlement possible. We must now win our case...or Open source Linux dies.

Their license doesnt allow distribution. Its
an end user CYA license only.

Their licensing terms indicate that their desire
is to kill linux for all practical purposes.

Oh fuck no. by BoneFlower · 2003-08-05 06:31 · Score: 1

That costs more than my laptop.

SCO is digging their own grave. What drugs are they on? did they raid the stashes of every raver in California? Even that isn't enough drugs...

The SCO stockholders will probably have grounds for a lawsuit when the company collapses. SCO is gone. They are shooting themselves in the head. Corporate suicide at its finest. Even if their breach of contract suit against IBM has firm ground, the fud machine they are operating will kill them.

Not a big deal... by TheShadow · 2003-08-05 06:31 · Score: 1

Even if SCO really does have IP rights to code in the Linux kernel, the disputed code just needs to be rewritten, and new kernels distributed.

Done... end of story.

--

--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."

Re:Not a big deal... by WebMasterJoe · 2003-08-05 07:09 · Score: 1

That's why SCO needs to tell the Linux community where that code is (something more specific than "in the kernel").

Clearly SCO doesn't want the secret code removed from the kernel, it wants people to use the code and pay SCO for it.

--
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.

Binary Only; Souce code is even more! by wayn3 · 2003-08-05 06:31 · Score: 1

The $699 cost is only for binary releases of Linux. If you want to 'properly' license the source code (and most distributions carry the source code) then the cost is even more.

From the IP License for Linux FAQ:

"This license only applies to the use of SCO IP in these compiled and linked object code versions of Linux. The license does not grant any rights to SCO IP in source code form either separately or as a component of a Linux source code distribution."

Re:Binary Only; Souce code is even more! by bmj · 2003-08-05 06:55 · Score: 1

IANAL, but...

doesn't this violate the GPL? Even _if_ SCO could claim IP rights to linux, aren't they still obligated by the GPL to provide the source with the binaries? Can you charge extra for the source? I wouldn't think so.

--
Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. --Ludwig Wittgenstein

Called the 800#, and asked the nice lady... by mikelieman · 2003-08-05 06:31 · Score: 1

If they had copies of the stuff that's licensed so I can check it against my linux. She said that she didn't have it anything for me. Sounded really sad that she couldn't have helped.

--
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org

Just Like the RIAA by rk2z · 2003-08-05 06:31 · Score: 1

What are they going to do take a page from the RIAA's playbook and sue every single individual user for non-compliance? Good look. I hope they have a lot more legal resources than the RIAA. Not to mention the fact that they don't have handy IP address to catch people with.

--
This is a sig, there are many like it, but this is mine.

Please Do Not Feed The Troll by Horzagobchul · 2003-08-05 06:31 · Score: 1

No, I don't mean any of the previous posters. I mean that big ol' troll in the article, the one with SCO on its forehead. Every time we pay the slightest bit of attention to him, he wins, and he gets a boost to his share price rather than his ego.

Seriously people isn't it obvious? The board of SCO is stuffed with people who've learnt and live by the mantra "There's a sucker born every minute", and have applied it to law suits and stock prices.

1. Launch a big, complicated contract lawsuit against a major player.
2. Spread FUD about a vaguely related tech subject that will make techies scream.
3. Profit!

Of course its a little more complicated than that. They have to string this out in the courts for the next few years (easy), while they make a few million each selling ridiculously over-valued shares. Then they have to find some patsies to take the fall (cf Enron) once they've sold out and the law suit finally falls apart.

They don't care in the slightest about Linux, Unix IP or what anyone thinks of them. They just want publicity, which boosts their share price, which makes them money. This is going to go on for years, and I'm already sick of seeing us fall for their every ridiculous announcement.

I know I'm urinating into the prevailing direction of air particle movement but Quit Posting SCO Stories.

Let's Linux buy SCO by rapiere · 2003-08-05 06:31 · Score: 1

Instead of throwing such money through windows, why not federating every buyers in a common fund and buy this company and definitely close the case.

Linux would finally be a true Unix having bought the license's owner.

That's $699 Before October 15th by slewfo0t · 2003-08-05 06:32 · Score: 1

After October 15th, the price will be $1399. You can visit SCO's website if you want a full price disclosure. - Slew -

To Daryl McBride by WCMI92 · 2003-08-05 06:32 · Score: 1

In response to your "offer", I decline.

IF you win your lawsuits with IBM, Redhat, and the rest of the free world, get back to me.

Until then, you can chill out, and have a nice cup of shut the fuck up.

--
Corporatism != Free Market

I use this really good Free OS for business by wembley · 2003-08-05 06:32 · Score: 1

It's called FreeBSD. Perhaps you've heard of it?

Maybe you people who are having trouble getting managers to buy into Linux should try FreeBSD. Almost all the same apps, more stable. Only downside is you have to pick your hardware a little more carefully.

Sure, it doesn't run Quake at 100fps, but does your manager care?

--

Share and Enjoy!

Wrong logo for the SCO story. by red_gnom · 2003-08-05 06:32 · Score: 1

Slashdot editors placed wrong logos with the story. I can see the "Caldera", "Linux", "Software", "Businesses", "The Almighty Buck", and "News", but the most important one is missing the "It's funny. Laugh." logo. This is the one that should be at the top.

Now more expensive than windows! by SaucyWrong777 · 2003-08-05 06:33 · Score: 1

My theory...
So SCO wants to charge $699 for Linux, thus making it more epxensive than Microsoft Windows.

In a related story, Bill Gates was recently appointed to join SCO's board of directors effective yesterday.

I mean, that HAS to be the explanation. That, or SCO has gone completely fucking BONKERS.

So what... by TheShadow · 2003-08-05 06:34 · Score: 1

Now we'll just have illegal copies of Linux to go with our illegal copies of Windows.

--

--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."

Sounds familiar by mkro · 2003-08-05 06:34 · Score: 1

Dr. Evil: Here's the plan: We get the warhead, and we hold the world ransomed for... One MILLION DOLLARS!
Nr. 2: Ahem...well, don't you think we should maybe ask for *more* than a million dollars? I mean, a million dollars isn't exactly a lot of money these days. Virtucon alone makes over nine billion dollars a year!
Dr. Evil: Really?
Nr. 2: Mm-hmm.
Dr. Evil: That's a number. Okay then. We hold the world ransom for... One hundred .. BILLION DOLLARS!

--
I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.

SCO - Brand X by Seldon_21 · 2003-08-05 06:34 · Score: 1

Hello, I run a small but struggling company that really has no employees but we do believe in flare and TPS reports. I understand that you are thinking what is the point of the cover sheet but I tell you it was our idea first! If you want to use a cover sheet for your TPS reports then please adhere to the following licensing model.

TPS report w/cover sheet 1 - 10 licenses($99.95)
TPS report wo/cover sheet 1 - 10 licenses($199.00)
TPS report w/cover sheet and our pirated company logo 1 - 10 licenses ($599.00)

An old copy of Novell 2.0 (Free, but you have to sign your name in blood).

It was almost cool... by donmiguel42 · 2003-08-05 06:34 · Score: 1

The headline suggested to me that SCO is going to sell Linux boxes for $699. That might be cool if they (the boxes) weren't coming from them.

Then I read the article, which suggested to me that SCO has irrevocably lost touch with reality. The realm outside of reality that they've gone to must have some really nice intoxicating/hallucinogenic properties, though.

GCC to remove SCO UNIX support? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 06:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

SCO employee is given the brush off in GCC list by RedHat employee

GCC list: SCO systems and 'Target Deprecation'

Re:GCC to remove SCO UNIX support? by PurpleWizard · 2003-08-05 06:50 · Score: 1

Is the guy sort of claiming that he is just following orders?
Don't think that excuse gets accepted much anymore. Plus, with the exception of Homer, it's perilous to be a henchman for the bad guys even if you only do a routine job like perhaps cleaner!
Re:GCC to remove SCO UNIX support? by lamename · 2003-08-05 07:25 · Score: 1

Check out the reply given by the SCO employee. Is it just me, or does the fact that somebody from SCO complains about professionalism, but can't even spell the word correctly seem hilarious.
Re:GCC to remove SCO UNIX support? by mwfolsom · 2003-08-05 08:49 · Score: 1

How about doing the same for apache, perl, samba, X, and anything else we can think of -
Re:GCC to remove SCO UNIX support? by mec · 2003-08-05 08:53 · Score: 1

More posts from Kean Johnston of SCO:

#1
#2
#3

Check out #2 in particular. I believe that SCO would suffer a bit if the FSF dropped support for gcc and gdb. At the very least, it would send a message to SCO users that their platform is going to have a lot less software in the near future.
Re:GCC to remove SCO UNIX support? by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2003-08-05 12:56 · Score: 1

Is there any way to have a modified GPL to prevent source code from being compiled or used on a SCO box?
How would you write it?
Re:GCC to remove SCO UNIX support? by mec · 2003-08-06 16:02 · Score: 1

Did you read post #2?

Kean Johnston said that SCO's current working version of gcc is gcc 2. That is more than two years old now. SCO have not upgraded their customers to gcc 3 yet and Kean is aiming for gcc 3.4 to do that.

Which means their is a window of opportunity where disengaging from SCO starts hurting them right now.

It will be relatively easy to maintain ...

I disagree with your assessment about how easy "relatively easy" will be.

Well shit .. by SuperDuG · 2003-08-05 06:35 · Score: 1

.. guess it's a "good thing" that 2.6 is out then eh?

and also, I'm outraged that after Oct 15th they're going to be charging TWICE AS MUCH! 1398.00 seems a whole lot more fair than 699.00.

And lastly, I would like to pay that in yen, if my calculations are correct 699 yen is roughly $6. :-)

--
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed

wow, talk about inflation! by dmnic · 2003-08-05 06:35 · Score: 1

just yesterday afternoon, they were asking for only $150 for cpu/install.

--
the history of the world

Selling short by Cato+the+Elder · 2003-08-05 06:35 · Score: 2, Informative

There are ways to limit your losses when shorting a stock. One is to buy call options on it. For instance, say SCO is $30 now, and you've short-sold 1,000 shared at $20. If you buy call options at $70 for the same date, the most you can lose is $50,000. If SCO drops to $10, you don't excercise the options and make $10,000 minus the option price (which should be prety low).

Re:Selling short by Thing+1 · 2003-08-05 07:15 · Score: 1

I posted this in response to another poster who was saying "buy puts and make a killing":
As far as I've been able to research (see CBOE) [cboe.com] there are no options of any type for SCO.
This is too bad, because although puts have a time limit, they're much more profitable than selling short (max gain is 200%, if you use all of your margin ability which is of course very dangerous). With the right puts (I'd buy one year out), you could easily make 500%.

So shorting SCO cannot be made less risky, as there are no options available. I wish there were... (If you can find them, please respond!)

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:Selling short by jbr439 · 2003-08-05 08:21 · Score: 1

Wouldn't buying puts result in the same effect in a less complex manner?
Re:Selling short by Cato+the+Elder · 2003-08-05 10:33 · Score: 1

Well, it's a little different. Using the numbers above, say I instead bought a put for 1,000 shares at $20. If SCO drops to $10, I buy 1,000 shared, excersise the put, and make $10,000 less option price. If SCO rises above $20 at all, I don't excercise and just lose the option price.

Buying a put option has less risk then the scenario I described, but the option price will therefore be higher. Also, while I'm a bit surprised (see post above parent) that there aren't any call options available, I'm not at all surprised no one is writing puts.

For $699, here's what I expect to see them reveal by zoomba · 2003-08-05 06:35 · Score: 1

When they eventually are forced to reveal their IP in Linux... I expect them to show a print out of the entire damn kernel, claiming they wrote it themselves, because that's the ONLY way they could justify charging even half of that amount.

For a single-seat license, Windows costs less than that, and you're paying for everything from the main OS, to the GUI, to Spider Solitare. You are paying for a complete system, not just a few lines of code burried deep down in the system.

Since they plan on upping the price to $1400 in a few months, my guess is they're using this as a scare tactic to get people to license now in case the courts find in favor of SCO. If SCO loses, they still have all the money from those suckers who paid before. If they win, they then get a LOT more money from everyone else who is forced to pay up. While it's dirty business, SCO is guaranteed to at least get some money out of us before it's all over.

-Z

This is good. It demonstrates value for money by CrosbieFitch · 2003-08-05 06:36 · Score: 1

SCO have now simply underlined the fact that GNU/Linux is worth more than Windows.

MS Surely wouldn't want anyone to suggest that Windows was a product of lesser value? So MS can't possibly be in favour of SCO's action - if they were, they'd persuade SCO to set the price at a derisory $100.

So, GNU/Linux is at one and the same time, not only more valuable than Windows, but it is free.

Sounds like a good deal to me.

But what if... by WCMI92 · 2003-08-05 06:36 · Score: 1

The 2.4 kernel I use is the one I donloaded from ftp.sco.com? ;)

--
Corporatism != Free Market

Re:If I bought one of these licenses by frane · 2003-08-05 06:37 · Score: 1

You can always sue, whether you have a leg to stand on or not. But this may not be a good tactic. If you spend $699 now, and later SCO is determined to be wrong, then SCO probably will declare bankruptcy and nobody will be seeing a $699 (or any other amount) refund.

At last!!! by Pieroxy · 2003-08-05 06:37 · Score: 1

I've been waiting for this moment for a long time.
Now everyone selling and using Linux has a good reason and some kind of urgency to sue SCO.

Amazing to see how SCO is underestimating the Linux community. I hope that'll slap their face hard. In no time we'll all laugh at the little - what's their name again ? hmmm.... ah! I remember! SCO !! Ah ahhahahhhah ahah aha ha ha!!!!

The end is near my friends, just wait and see.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!

SCO forgot to say one thing: by Sebby · 2003-08-05 06:37 · Score: 1

that all the other kernel developers can also get a share of every licence they sell, since, after all, they've each got their own IP in there too... :)

--

AC comments get piped to /dev/null

Ok, NOW it's funny... by Anita+Coney · 2003-08-05 06:37 · Score: 1

I have to admit that I was annoyed by this whole SCO thing, but this last move is hilarious!!! Without offering even one bit of proof they expect companies and indivduals to just turn over a boat load of money.

--
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.

but by jefu · 2003-08-05 06:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

It looks to me like SCO is really claiming that they own the idea of Unix somehow (their phrase "an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX") and that they may then go after the BSD branch next.

Legally this may be untenable, I don't know - but it would probably pump up SCO stock prices and I think this is all they care about.

Re:but by 1s44c · 2003-08-05 06:43 · Score: 1

If they want to go after all unix they will have to go though IBM and HP as well. That will never happen. ( I hope )
Re:but by squiggleslash · 2003-08-05 06:44 · Score: 1

The BSDs have some concrete defenses in the original BSD-AT&T settlement, which IIRC was settled to UCB's advantage when BSD code was found, unattributed (and hence illegally), in AT&T's code. If SCO did go after BSD, the BSDs could resurrect that case.
I suspect that if SCO really believed it could get anywhere with suing the BSDs without exposing itself to immediate, catastrophic, risk, it would have filed suit against Apple by now. Apple has a ridiculous amount of money in the bank, it's the second best thing to suing IBM... if you think you have a case, and have the stomach for it.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:but by Znork · 2003-08-05 08:40 · Score: 1

SCO already has made comments that it may very well go after the BSDs. They're just taking things one step at a time.

They dont really have to have a stomach for anything, the people running SCO are completely insane and on drugs. If they really believe anything they're saying I would expect them to have a padded cell as board room, and an executive dresscode involving straightjackets.

daylight by rodentia · 2003-08-05 06:38 · Score: 1

It means they have their heads so far up their asses they have to loosen their ties to see daylight.

--
illegitimii non ingravare

+6 Insigtful by cybercuzco · 2003-08-05 06:38 · Score: 1

This has to be the most insigtful comment ive ever seen on slashdot. If you could moderate to +6, it would be. This person is responding to a comment that now is the time to buy SCO (jokingly) because red hat announced they were Suing SCO. The text:

I know you're joking but from a strictly speculator point of view, it might not be a bad idea. I've been watching the SCOX price for a few months and have noticed a tendency of SCO's PR. Whenever the price drops or plateau's, you can count on yet another outrageous PR release from SCO to pump it back up. Before the week is out, expect SCO to make some sort of apocalyptic statement in regard to RedHat.

This was posted on August 4, less than a day later SCO comes out with a new press release.

--

What about revenue sharing? by dhwang · 2003-08-05 06:38 · Score: 1

I'm confused. I didn't see any mention of sharing their licensing revenues with copyright holders of the rest of the kernel. Are they just licensing the use of their copyrighted code, or are they licensing the entire kernel on behalf of everyone? Or does all the code base are belong to SCO, so they get to keep all the revenue?

Linux is finaly warez!!! by mike_scheck · 2003-08-05 06:38 · Score: 2, Funny

Now instead of fighting my way though ftp/cvs mirrors to download the latest distro of linux, I can just download it from a friendly neighborhood warez site! Its a win win situation really :)

There is no license, only zuul. by AgTiger · 2003-08-05 06:39 · Score: 1

I believe the following (adapted) moment out of Ghostbusters sums up my opinion:

Linux community: "Are you a God?"

McBride, "Uh, no?"

Linux community: "Then DIE!!"

(Hopefully we'll fare better than the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man.)

:D by archonon · 2003-08-05 06:39 · Score: 1

What was the color of mushrooms what they ate this time? Must be something to do with hallucinogens. :)

--

http://archonon.sytes.net/

Palm... by TheShadow · 2003-08-05 06:39 · Score: 1

Maybe Palm will bring back BeOS after SCO kills Linux.

--

--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."

Re:At least now we know what their business model by pmz · 2003-08-05 06:39 · Score: 1

Because their supposed intellectual property was added during the 2.4 development cycle.

How long ago was 2.2, again? Red Hat 5.0-era? For most users, porting modern things like GNOME 2, etc. to work with an older kernel might be a viable escape route.

What about forking 2.2, taking all the non-SCO stuff from 2.4 and 2.5, and shoe-horning it back into the new fork. Isn't that one beautiful thing about the GPL, that each time you try to squash it, the code pops up in three other places ready to go?

I could be talking out my rear, here, but for most users of Linux, are there any must-have features in SCO's "portfolio"? It just seems that it is impossible to kill Linux, no matter what.

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin

Gotta have a price to have damages... by LostCluster · 2003-08-05 06:41 · Score: 2, Informative

I sure hope nobody takes this seriously. If people do actually "buy the right to use Linux" at that price, then SCO can claim that their price is the market value usage of "their property" and begin the overvalued copyright violation suits. Somebody should send them an offer to pay $1 for a license and see what they say to that...

We must form an alliance to take out SCO by tekrat · 2003-08-05 06:41 · Score: 1

If this doesn't convince all linux users that we need to band together to class action suit SCO to death in a hurry, nothing will.

I ursge every one of you to either contribute to the Red Hat legal fund or to start banding together and hiring your own lawyers and start spending that $699 for a better cause -- to wipe SCO off the face of the planet by any and all possible means.

Yes, I'm pissed.

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.

So now it's time to sue. by Jaywalk · 2003-08-05 06:41 · Score: 1

Any developer who released code under the GPL can now sue SCO for selling that code in violation of the terms under which it was released. There were no grounds for a lawsuit until SCO started charging.

--
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====

Pump-n-Dump by siskbc · 2003-08-05 06:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

In that sense, it makes perfect sense. Get your stock price up as high as you can, and then sell as much as you can before everyone else catches on. Claim that you own all the IP in the world, and as long as there are others dumb enough to believe you, they'll keep your stock price high.

Is there any doubt that this was the plan all along? Come on, this is just a large-scale Pump-n-Dump scheme. Let's see - an organization that owns a few companies (let's call it Canopy) buys a down-on-it's-luck company (let's call it Caldera) that has some worthless IP. They decide, wisely, to pay their executives (coincidently, themselves) in options.

Then, they make obscene claims and sue a big-name target (let's call it IBM) for a ton of cash. Then, instead of filing court documents in a timely fashion to win their suit with minimum expenditure, they FUD like crazy. They get interviews wherever they can, especially in the mass media like CNBC, which moron daytraders watch to get "stock tips." This drives up share price, making their options worth a ton of cash. Then, they sell out, literally and figuratively.

This is where we are now. The interesting part is, though, that after they sell out they may not even care about the result of the suit all that much.

Bottom line is this needs to be investigated as the pump-n-dump scheme that it is. Why is it illegal for some morons on a chat board to do it, but perfectly legal for a management team to do it? It's a scheme/scam either way.

--

-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

Re:Pump-n-Dump by Darth+Yoshi · 2003-08-05 07:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is there any doubt that this was the plan all along? Come on, this is just a large-scale Pump-n-Dump scheme.

Quibble. I think the original plan was to sue IBM, have IBM buy them out, and then exercise their stock options. This pump-n-dump scheme is probably Plan B.

--
// TODO: fix sig
Re:Pump-n-Dump by siskbc · 2003-08-05 08:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

Quibble. I think the original plan was to sue IBM, have IBM buy them out, and then exercise their stock options. This pump-n-dump scheme is probably Plan B.
No quibble at all. You say that they wanted IBM to buy them out - yes, and how do buyouts work? On a per-share basis. So the more they pump this stock, the more the IBM buyout would have been worth. Didn't matter if they sell the stock (or, indeed, all the stock) to IBM or the world at large, except that they would have gotten a slightly higher price from IBM and sold it all at once. Either way, the share price is critical, and had to be driven up.
So the pump part of the pump-n-dump would have been critical from the outset.

--
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Re:Pump-n-Dump by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2003-08-05 12:01 · Score: 1

Whenever I've bought shares, I've always done it on the fundamentals. Can I see what the company does? Do they look like they are doing the right things in their shops? Is the market right for buying into (such as property after a long slump)?
I never bought because of balance sheets.
Re:Pump-n-Dump by siskbc · 2003-08-05 12:09 · Score: 1

Whenever I've bought shares, I've always done it on the fundamentals. Can I see what the company does? Do they look like they are doing the right things in their shops? Is the market right for buying into (such as property after a long slump)?I never bought because of balance sheets.
Well, that isn't happening here - this is straight hype that isn't even showing up on the balance sheet, let alone in fundamentals. Fundamentally there aren't any fundamentals in the business known as SCO.
For what it's worth, though, if you're actually researching companies you aren't listening to CNBC for stock "tips" (ie, hype) anyway.

--
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Re:Pump-n-Dump by Darth+Yoshi · 2003-08-05 12:22 · Score: 1

Well, in my own mind I differentiate between what I consider SCO's Plan A; sue IBM, get bought-out by IBM, exercise their stock options, and bailout using their Golden Parachutes. Immoral, true, but probably legal.

I differentiate that with what I consider SCO's Plan B; a more traditional pump-n-dump stock scheme. Make highly exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims about your company's future prospects while quietly exercising your stock options and selling your stock in the background. Immoral and illegal.

I haven't decided yet, but there might even be a Plan C here. Make unsubstantiated threats against your competitors customer base in order to force them to buy licenses for unspecified intellectual property rights to avoid hypothetical future lawsuits. But that doesn't profit the executive officers directly, only finances their FUD campaign.

--
// TODO: fix sig
Re:Pump-n-Dump by Kyouryuu · 2003-08-05 13:18 · Score: 1

You are so right, my friend. Perhaps the Feds will haul McBride's butt to jail and seize his assets. Yeah... I'd like to see that.

No, five words! by Tackhead · 2003-08-05 06:41 · Score: 3, Funny

> BITE ME.

(No, five words!)

BITE MY SHINY METAL ASS!

(Three, Sir!)

TONGUE MY LOINS!

lala land by BuilderBob · 2003-08-05 06:41 · Score: 1

Are there two different SCO's out there that decide what to do every other day, maybe the board are actually sliders, one day it's we want all your money day, the next it's let get our collective asses kicked in court...

repeat ad nasuem..

This is Great! by alernon · 2003-08-05 06:41 · Score: 4, Funny

I finally get to go over to the linux guys where I work and talk about how affordable my dual processor mac actually is!!!

Dual 2ghz g5, $2999 w/ OS X

A dual ghz machine will cost the linux guys $2800 in the OS alone after October 15th!

*cackles manically* Ahhh revenge for the Mac community!

p.s. -- Yes this is a joke... don't flame me. ;)

Wrong website. by greygent · 2003-08-05 06:41 · Score: 1

Doesn't this story belong on The Onion, instead?

So what would it cost? by Kid+Charlemagne · 2003-08-05 06:42 · Score: 1

...for SCO to go f*ck there hats.

Sorry, just feeling a little disturbed today.

Conspiracy Theory by liji · 2003-08-05 06:42 · Score: 1

Do you all think Microsoft has something to do with all this, in order to disrupt the momentum of Linux!?!

Re:Conspiracy Theory by tekrat · 2003-08-05 06:56 · Score: 1

Duh! Of Course!

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.

How about 4.6 "SCO Edition"? :) by saikou · 2003-08-05 06:43 · Score: 1

Now what if kernel 4.6 SCO Edition gets released. Will they whail about offering a license too? And then 4.7 SCO Edition and 4.8 SCO Edition, until overloaded PR and Lawyers give up updating "buy license for these versions" press releases. Nothing beats automated build scripts :)

--
Hyperom.com

I wonder about Disney... by tomzyk · 2003-08-05 06:43 · Score: 1

...and how they're going to take this little piece of news; especially after this news.

--
Karma: NaN

What does 'binary form only' mean anyways? by Sebby · 2003-08-05 06:43 · Score: 1

I keep reading that, and don't understand what it means (I admit I haven't looked into it though :).

Do they simply mean that they (still) won't release the source of 'their IP' even if you buy a licence, or that if you only have the source that you don't need their licence?

--

AC comments get piped to /dev/null

OSS under attack, not linux by guacamolefoo · 2003-08-05 06:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ok. Let's all go back to RH 6.2 and rewrite. Guh.

The problem here is that this is the model for attacked OSS now. Refuse to disclose the "stolen" IP , and claim that IP has been stolen. Wait years for the case to be cleared up in the courts, and by then, the next batch of proprietary software will have FUDded the OSS alternative into oblivion.

People are saying "hey -- just go to BSD". Guess what? That will come under attack, too, as it is developed. A different process for controlling what code goes into OSS and where it comes from may be needed, but that is what SCO and the proprietary software business wants -- they want it to be more difficult to develop software outside of the traditional code it and hide methods.

This suit has nothing to do with the linux kernel. It has everything to do with the entire OSS model. McBride as much as said that community developed software is the target here, referring to RMS in the same breath as the "OSS wants don't ask, don't tell when it comes to the source of code". Again, this is about OSS, not linux.

GF.

--
Lots of petrified grits

Re:OSS under attack, not linux by guacamolefoo · 2003-08-05 08:12 · Score: 1

There are legal principles known as res judicata and joinder of claims. If SCO has new objections to FreeBSD, it should have raised them in the early 1990s in the original lawsuit.

You missed my point entirely. My point is not about the status of IP in current versions of OSS. My point is that any time a feature is added to an OSS project or any time a new OSS project is created, there will be questions about the heritage of IP added to it by OSS coders.

Openoffice? Maybe MS will cry that somehow some code related to its file formats was leaked into OOO. Some new kernel hardening code? Maybe a security vendor will claim that someone dumped that in from the vendor's codebase.

The "BSD is safe because of the ATT lawsuit" argument totally misses the point about modifications to OSS software. Something that was once safe at a moment in time is not necessarily safe going forward. Kernel 2.2 was fine. Kernel 2.4 is not. The difference is in what was added. Same with BSD. It changes over time, and each time there is a change, there is an opportunity for an enemy of OSS to claim that stolen IP was added into the OSS project.

Ignore the tree and look at the forest. This is the textbook example of how OSS will be attacked now and forever. OSS needs a better way to deal with this sort of attack to force opponents into showing their hands to prevent FUD from killing or impairing OSS projects.

GF.

--
Lots of petrified grits
Re:OSS under attack, not linux by tkg · 2003-08-05 09:12 · Score: 1

This is also turning out to be an attack on the GPL. If kernel contributors don't act to defend this rape of their code it could invalidate the GPL entirely. What is needed is a class action suit forcing SCO to honor the GPL for those portions of the kernel source not identified by them as contaminated by their IP. Of course they'll be unwilling since it would reveal which source files are in question, allowing them to be rewritten and replaced. Nevertheless, a suit may be necessary in order to defend both OSS and the GPL.

FSF are you listening?
Re:OSS under attack, not linux by guacamolefoo · 2003-08-05 10:01 · Score: 1

Same with BSD. It changes over time, and each time there is a change, there is an opportunity for an enemy of OSS to claim that stolen IP was added into the OSS project.

You really have no idea what you're talking about with FreeBSD, do you? Changes over time? FreeBSD is not linux, where the code base flips over every few months.

You are missing the point. This is not a religious war over OS.

The current 4.x fbsd code base does not differ from the 2.x and 3.x trees (at least with respect to issues that SCO is claiming ownership over.).

But it changes over time. Which was my point. Any change to any OSS software is susceptible to the type of attack SCO is making.

Unless SCO is going to claim ownership of user-land tools or ports, the architecture of freebsd (vis-a-vis any SCO IP claim) is the same: completely non-infringing new code that we wrote when settling the lawsuit.

SCO may not be the BSD problem. Do you know for sure that not one iota of BSD code came from somewhere else? How can you be sure?

You're in a whole heapa trouble, linux boy.

Like I said before: this type of attack is something that all OSS could be confronted with in the future. SCO probably won't be the entity to go after BSD, but the model it has established could very well be used to threaten any OSS. As I mentioned before here it is:

1. OSS project develops nifty software
2. Competing commercial software checks OSS regularly to see if any proprietary code has been lifted into OSS project.
3. OSS distributors/contributors get sued for infringement.
4. Suit takes years to resolve.
5. FUD destroys willingness of risk-averse major companies from adopting/using OSS or contributing to its development (or associating with it in any way).

That is what is at stake here. Not whether BSD may be subject, today, to attack from SCO. This is not a linux issue. This is an OSS issue.

GF.

--
Lots of petrified grits
Re:OSS under attack, not linux by roman_mir · 2003-08-05 10:03 · Score: 1

You are wrong. It is not about OSS, it is about Free Software. There is a difference, RMS got it long time ago and advocated it to the rest but the rest were just laughing at him. Just like any other genius he will not be understood during his life-time. Now it is clear what must be done. Only when RMS is gone* will his work be understood and his ideas accepted.

*RMS, I am so very sorry!

--
You can't handle the truth.

SCO increasing fees by Alsee · 2003-08-05 06:43 · Score: 5, Funny

$699 for a single CPU system through October 15th
After October 15, SCO says they'll want $1399.
After October 20, SCO says they'll want $49999.
After October 25, SCO says they'll want three billion.
SCO will release October and November prices after they contract a mathematician to construct new super exponential and trans-finite numbering systems.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Re:SCO increasing fees by GreySeal2k01 · 2003-08-05 07:38 · Score: 1

Which they will undoubtably compute on a beowulf linux cluster
Re:SCO increasing fees by Alton_Brown · 2003-08-05 07:45 · Score: 1

Actually after October 25 I think they're going to be looking for Eleventy Billion
(Hey, this SCO crap is almost as funny as celebrity Jeoporady!)

AB
Re:SCO increasing fees by JFMulder · 2003-08-05 08:18 · Score: 1

Doctor Evil : and after that, I'll want 1 million dollars for each CPUs, (puts little finger to the mouth) MOUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Scott Evil : A million is less than a billion, retard...
Re:SCO increasing fees by desitter · 2003-08-05 21:29 · Score: 1

hey this is easy! October price: the leviathan number!

SCO can kiss my arse by RouterSlayer · 2003-08-05 06:44 · Score: 1

its been said before but - they can come pry Linux from my cold dead hands...

on the other hand, I *do* own an enterprise license for SCO, with a 10 cpu license. it's about 6 years old, and I never used it (won it at a computer show), was never quite sure what to do with it (toilet paper? hrm....) but I suppose that assumes I'm safe if some moronic judge allows this silliness through (hey, I've seen a lot of silliness in the courts lately)... ugh dont get me started!

but seriously, SCO should shut the hell up now...

Securities Fraud??? by wayward_son · 2003-08-05 06:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Am I the only one who notices that SCO times their press releases at about the same time their stock starts tanking?

IANAL, but I wonder if the SEC should start looking into this?

Re:Securities Fraud??? by jbr439 · 2003-08-05 09:08 · Score: 1

Classic pump and dump.

SCO will not show the code because... by KRL · 2003-08-05 06:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

... if they do, they know it will be replaced in a heartbeat with GPL'd code.

If it gets replaced, SCO has no revenue stream because they would have no IP in the kernel.

They will keep the code secret as long as possible for this simple reason.

To me, what they are doing sounds like extortion. Plain and simple. They give them no recourse (other than paying them) to use the linux kernel.

"We'll license you this technology for the low low price of $XXX. If you license it from us we promise not to sue you! :-)

This can't be legal . . . can it? by pete-classic · 2003-08-05 06:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

Could I claim I hold copyrights to code in, say, Photoshop or Windows, refuse to substantiate those claims, then extort money from users of those programs? People I don't even have a business relationship with? People who aren't even infringing on my (supposed) copyrights, but are merely using the software under license from a third party.

That has to qualify as racketeering. It just has to.

-Peter

Re:This can't be legal . . . can it? by geekoid · 2003-08-05 08:14 · Score: 2, Funny

"That has to qualify as racketeering. It just has to."

no, the mob wouldn't stoop so low.

So be carefull, Insulting a mob boss has never been, shall we say, a long term endeavor.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Lies Lies Lies by OMG · 2003-08-05 06:45 · Score: 1

From the press statement:

"The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX - News) 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. "

I think sco.de is more accurate:

"Hauptsitz: Lindon, Utah, USA
Handlernetz: uber 11.000 Reseller in 82 Landern
Mitarbeiter weltweit: 350"

So they squeezed 4,000 developers into 350 employees ?

Ah, did you know you can comment on SCOX stock in the resigned Yahoo stock quote page ?

caldera by ianfs · 2003-08-05 06:45 · Score: 2, Funny

And to think I only paid $148.94 for Caldera last week!

http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.asp?EDC =4 94073

--
"Terminate?"
"Terminate... with extreme prejudice"

Re: Linux 2.4 by booch · 2003-08-05 06:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think the reason they say 2.4 is that that's when IBM submitted the code from AIX. While IBM owns the copyrights on that code, IBM's agreement with SCO (nee AT&T) says that the code they add to UNIX becomes "a part of" UNIX. What that means is unclear. But even if IBM violated that contract, they still owned the code and the right to publish it elsewhere. For one thing, because they already had published it in OS/2.

You'll note that SCO still doesn't say that you need to buy the license for copyright reasons. They just say that they have procured the copyright registration, and let you make (an invalid) assumption that the "intellectual property rights" they are asserting mean copyright. "Intellectual Property" is a vague term with no legal meaning.

SCO is being coy with their language, because they know that they do not have a valid copyright infringement case.

It's also possible that they are trying not to piss people off *too* much, because this would only apply to future commercial distros, not current Linux distros. (Although their FAQ says that SCO/Caldera Linux users require a license, and I don't think they distribute 2.4.)

--
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.

excellent by andih8u · 2003-08-05 06:47 · Score: 2, Funny

I was gonna go ahead and get this and the optional Brooklyn Bridge package they're selling.

--

slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots

SCO shares are way up!!! by Dutchmaan · 2003-08-05 06:47 · Score: 1

Sometimes I'm really glad you can short a stock!

SCO Germany by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 06:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is what SCO Germany is saying:

"...die urheberrechtlichen Anspruche, die SCO geltend macht, hatten kaum Substanz..."

The copyright issues SCO is claiming don't have much substance.

In Europe SCO don't have the Right to force money (by several court decisions).

So, it's an american problem only.
Bring them to court! Everyone. Now!

Re:I already bought a licence... by bafraid2b1 · 2003-08-05 06:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Considering you have until October 15th to get the license at the "discounted" price, it would be much smarter to wait until around that time to see how this all plays out. Besides if SCO is just being a bully, and a court of law decides that the Linux kernel has none of SCO's code in it, do you get your money back? It would be a good thing to look into.

HAHAHA! by Maimun · 2003-08-05 06:47 · Score: 1

redundand, I know :)

Going to by the license right now... by wizardmax · 2003-08-05 06:48 · Score: 1

...Nah, changed my mind :P NO WAY will I ever give ANY money to the SCO scam!

--

Free speech is getting expensive...

My license fee by BigGar' · 2003-08-05 06:48 · Score: 1

I am anoucning a licensing program for the IP that I have had stolen from me and illeagally included in the Linux Kernel. If you wish to keep using my software you may send me $666 and there will be an annual maitenance fee of also $666. If you do not wish to continue using my software you may feel free to switch another software platform as there is no way for my code to be removed as all code that is around it has now been tainted and is a derivitive of my code, thus it's all mine. I will not show any evidence that the code in question is in fact mine or that any code was in fact illeaglly used or that anything that I have ever done or will do has been used at this or any other time in history or future was coded my me and included in the linux kernal/subsystems/programs/drivers/documentation.

Despite all that, to sleep well at night you should:

Please send your licensing fee to:
Imadumbass
1 dipshitway
Blow, ME 66666

Thank you.

--

Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.

Refund? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 06:48 · Score: 1, Funny

So, if buy a license, what are the chances of also getting a written statement promising I'll get full refund if their claims don't hold up in court?

I'll be rich! by pmz · 2003-08-05 06:49 · Score: 1

From here on, I demand that every person pay me $50 for each post they make to Slashdot. For people that refuse, why I'll call you names and point right at you! Point, I say!

Oh boy, this is even better, every person in the world will pay me $50 for each time they flush their toilet! Dissenters, beware, my name calling is very harsh! Harsh, I say!

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin

Re:I'll be rich! by gordie · 2003-08-05 07:13 · Score: 3, Funny

The RIAA has copyrighted the sound of a flushing toilet, so now you will have to pay 87% of your $50.00 in royalties to them!
Re:I'll be rich! by pmz · 2003-08-05 07:49 · Score: 1

The RIAA has copyrighted the sound of a flushing toilet, so now you will have to pay 87% of your $50.00 in royalties to them!

No, I believe the RIAA taxes are already included in the water utility bills. Look below the "water" entry...yeah, that's it, the "sewer" fees go to the RIAA. Now give me $50!

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin

SCO's still a prick by iceT · 2003-08-05 06:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

I would be willing to wager money that almost anyone working on the kernel from the 'net honestly doesn't want to infringe on code from anyone else. I know I would want a project I work on to be 100% my teams work.

There have been NUMEROUS cases of license violations against the GPL by other groups/companies, and the Linux communities approach is typcially "remove it and we're cool".

This SCO CRAP not at all about protecting their business, it's not about them having a strong product, and someone else threating the uniqueness of some product.

Instead, it's about SCO blackmailing, bulling, and threatening innocent bystanders and keeping them innocent bystanders by not allowing a code violation to be corrected. Instead they are attempting to profit from that 'mistake'.

The one thing this does tell me is that, if there was EVER a justification for the philosophies behind the FSF and the GPL, this is the perfect one.

Companies treat code as if it's the holy-grail of their business, when, in reality, it's the people who came UP with that IDEA, and implemented that are actually the real 'asset'.

At the pace of this industry, as soon as code is released, it's almost obsolete. But the ability to generate the ideas, or further develop them is what's important. If you're 'looking over your shoulder' all the time, then you've already behind.

--
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.

Re:SCO's still a prick by SpacePunk · 2003-08-05 14:43 · Score: 1

It's all about market share. They want ALL the 'unix' market, and it's evident that they'll lie, cheat, and steal to get it. And, to think, we all were worried about Microsoft.

--
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Re:SCO's still a prick by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2003-08-06 00:52 · Score: 1

At the pace of this industry, as soon as code is released, it's almost obsolete. But the ability to generate the ideas, or further develop them is what's important. If you're 'looking over your shoulder' all the time, then you've already behind.
I think that Tom Peters said the same thing - that companies who think they can sit back and rely on defending copyrights and patents will shorten their existence.
Re:SCO's still a prick by iceT · 2003-08-06 05:55 · Score: 1

I would agree that it's all about market share, if this would actually INCREASE sales of the REAL UNIXWARE software, or even help IMPROVE the real UNIXWARE software. Unfortunately, it won't, and SCO knows it. They know that if they EVER actually divulge the allegedly infringed code, that that code will be remove, and they will lose the ability to bully people into buying a 'UNIXWARE license".

It's almost like it's a strange case of blackmail, where they're trying to blackmail linux but they can't, so they're getting the end user to pay.

And they wonder why everyone hates SCO so much.. basically, it's a hostage/terrorist situation where innocents are 'attacked' because of a belief of some other injustice.

--
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.

thoughts on SCOX for the day by invalid_address · 2003-08-05 06:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

i just got off the conference call with the CEO and some other chodes from SCO Group. darl mcbride used vague references and subtle threatening words, but what's new.

-> he made use of the RIAA reference and the 'billions of dollars' in losses to the companies and artists. and how illegal copyright theft of internet music declined 30% once the RIAA layed the smack down on end users with individual lawsuits.

-> SCO is prepared to head down that path, but would prefer to remedy the situation without this. yadda yadda lip service. expect your subpoena soon

please send your 'special compliance synergy introductory value-added tiered schedule pricing' check to lindon, utah ASAP. failure to comply will result in you being hit by a meteor or slapped with a 6-7 figure lawsuit for 'hurting a faceless entity's feelings'.

SCOX - +0.78 so far today. this is disappointing.

please wsj, reuters, and other major news organizations make these evil men and women look like the corporate terrorists they are. but oh wait, darl mcbride is a CEO, he's SOMEONE!!! he's SPECIAL!!! don't hurt his or SCO's feelings, give them 700$ to go away...

for now.

Is Linus by KillerHamster · 2003-08-05 06:49 · Score: 1

still just ignoring the whole thing? Because this is getting serious; this nonsense could conceivably kill Linux regardless of the validity of $CO's claims. Anyone who owns IP in the Linux kernel needs to fight back. Everyone else who cares about the survival of OSS should contribute to the Open Source Now Fund.

Next on the agenda by true_tavish · 2003-08-05 06:49 · Score: 1

Citizens of Wisconsin,
It has recently come to our attention that you have been in violating the trademark laws. We find ourselves forced to defend our rights and will be bringing legal action against your state. In order for you to not be in violation of our trademark we suggest you vacate the area immediately.
We are offering a 'get out of jail' free card for a introductory rate of $699 per household member. This allows you to continue to use the trademarked SCO name in any future letters or email, but not conversations or tourist pamphlets.

very believeable, actually. by hndrcks · 2003-08-05 06:50 · Score: 1

The chance of SCO winning this contest and making stockholders rich is many orders of magnitude greater than the chance of hitting the PowerBall... and millions are 'invested' in PowerBall every week.

The masses aren't very rational - but they are somewhat predictable.

--
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.

Did I miss something by jbaltz · 2003-08-05 06:50 · Score: 2, Funny

I haven't been following as carefully as I could have, but did SCO already win, or have I been transported to Bizarroworld (again)?

//jbaltz

--
I am the Lorvax, I speak for the machines.

Re:Dear SCO. (FOR REAL) by BadElf · 2003-08-05 06:51 · Score: 1

This is what I just sent SCO (FOR REAL)...

Subject: Would like to buy a Linux license...

Sirs,

I would be more than happy to buy a license to run Linux on my webservers and desktops, IF you can provide me with the following:

1. Proof that Linux actually infringes on your intellectual property (at this point, I only have your company's word for it, and frankly that's not worth very much to me)

2. Proof that you will pay (and are paying) the other developers who have contributed code to Linux their fair share of your proceeds from selling Linux licenses. (Otherwise, I would imagine they could level the same charges you're making, but against SCO and anyone who buys a license to use Linux from SCO)

3. Convince me that your sales and support team will provide better service than RedHat.

My checkbook is waiting. It's not a big one, mind you, but IF you can handle my three requests, I would be happy to open it up.

Sincerely,

Sean Fulkerson,

Owner & Lead Developer,

Fulkerson Interactive

I'll be sure to share any response I get from them here...

Re:FEATURES NOT COMPILED by Drakon86 · 2003-08-05 06:51 · Score: 1

The fun part is that there are almost NO ADVANCED features in the SCO UNIX -- no NUMA, only some SMP -- and that is hardly an 'advanced feature' by today's standards. They just want the f**king money. Ignore them -- they can't do anything to you until the court, and they'll be screwn in the court.

SCO: biggest refund in computing history? by psyconaut · 2003-08-05 06:51 · Score: 1

This is getting very interesting....I mean, if a judge eventually finds that SCO have unfairly scared Linux users into licensing something, surely the ramifacations are huge? Not only being able to see your original license fee, but also probable damages....

Also, why isn't SCO purely chasing the vendors, letting the courts decide, and if they *did* decide in their favour...then going after users for licenses too?

Also, I note that it mentions kernel 2.4 "and above"....if we were to identify the "offending parts" and write them out, what then?

-psy

The new mastercard ad by AndyFewt · 2003-08-05 06:51 · Score: 1

Lawsuit costs: $5 million
Stock sale value: $500,000
FUD damage value to linux: $10 million
Right to use SCO IP in a Linux distribution: $699

Having IBM and RedHat's lawyers wipe SCO out in court: PRICELESS

Bad move by bluegreenone · 2003-08-05 06:51 · Score: 1

If anything, SCO is hurting their credibility with these prices. If they had announced $50 per CPU it would have caused a lot more concern because it sounds plausible. But at $700 per CPU even if their outrageous claims were true only the biggest of the big shops could pay even if they wanted to. Almost everyone would just jump ship, to Windows even (a comparative steal at $200)!

This is a laughable figure. Are they planning of selling a lot of licenses at this price? I guess Zauruses are going to be around $1100 now.

Derivative Work? by Imagix · 2003-08-05 06:52 · Score: 1

Since the alleged SCO code is linked directly into the kernel, wouldn't that make it a 'derivative' work according the GPL? As a result, they can't distribute it unless it is also GPLed?

Re:Derivative Work? by Wyzard · 2003-08-05 07:09 · Score: 1

That would certainly be true if they intended to put it there. The issue is that someone (supposedly) took SCO-owned code and put it in the kernel without permission. If this person didn't have the right to distribute the code under the GPL in the first place, a court might nullify the GPL terms on it; in that case, that person would have violated the GPL by putting non-GPL code into Linux.

(Hopefully that makes some sense.)
Re:Derivative Work? by Imagix · 2003-08-05 07:55 · Score: 1

OK, but wouldn't "licencing" the code be implicit consent for it to be there? (on top of the argument that they are distributing the kernel _knowingly_)
Re:Derivative Work? by Wyzard · 2003-08-05 14:26 · Score: 1

Not necessarily, if they weren't aware that the package they were distributing (Linux as a whole) contained their proprietary code.

However, from what I've read, apparently there was a bit of a time delay between when somone in the company realized there might be a problem, and when they stopped distributing Linux.

Summaries of todays Q and A session by OMG · 2003-08-05 06:52 · Score: 1

Summaries can be found here and here.

Micro$oft by bmj · 2003-08-05 06:52 · Score: 1

I can't believe I haven't seen a M$ bash yet...this "licensing" scheme doesn't help SCO as much as it helps M$. Suddenly, PHBs see the "cost" of owning a linux system, and Windows looks much more attractive. When October rolls around, the SCO license will cost just about as much as a Windows 2000 Server license.

Coincidence?

--
Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent. --Ludwig Wittgenstein

Re:Micro$oft by inode_buddha · 2003-08-05 11:37 · Score: 1

True, and come to think of it, Haloween is also in October. This is gonna be interesting.

--
C|N>K

Notes from the conference call by mec · 2003-08-05 06:52 · Score: 2, Informative

Hey, could someone cut-and-paste this into a comment so that I don't get slashdotted too badly?

http://www.shout.net/~mec/sco/call-2003-08-05.txt

These are raw notes. I'll put my analysis in a comment.

Re:Notes from the conference call by kmac06 · 2003-08-05 08:08 · Score: 5, Informative

Haha, way to mod him up rather than respond...thus /.ing him exactly as he didn't ask. Here is the text:

Notes on SCO Conference Call, 2003-08-05
Michael Elizabeth Chastain

Copyright 2003, Michael Elizabeth Chastain.
Permission granted to copy and reproduce in any medium.

2003-08-05T14:01:59-0400

800-238-9007 / 274040 / The SCO Group
Called in. There is a queue to get to an operator.

2003-08-05T14:06:16-0400

Opening remarks, Blake Stowell.
Stowell: Today, McBride and Sontag.

2003-08-05T14:06:56-0400

McBride:
Yesterday, SCO filed a legal action against the SCO Group ...
Purpose of this call is to comment on these actions.
Red Hat's lawsuit confirms what we have been saying all along:
Linux developers are unable/unwilling to screen code.
Red Hat is selling Linux that contains verbatim / obfuscated code
from System 5.
Red Hat is selling Linux that contains derivative code ...
Some of those companies (IBM / Sequent) have had their licenses terminated.

Red Hat claims we have not shown examples of infringing code.
This claim is simply not true ... viewing center in Linden, Utah.
Red Hat is apparently trying to pretend that no problem exists.

Red Hat claims that SCO is at fault for its loss of recent Linux business.
We suggest that Red Hat has adopted a faulty business model. ... new risk factor disclosure in SEC statement ...
Quotes from GPL Section 7, distributors may need to stop distributing.
It has no control to prevent infringing code from going into Linux.
If infringing code goes in, then Red Hat must stop shipping.
This is the problem with Red Hat's business model.

Red Hat has established $1 million fund.
SCO is not suing developers, just their employers.
We suggest that Red Hat needs to increase the size of the fund.
Over 2.5 million servers running linux kernel 2.4.

Red Hat thinks that SCO should show them every line of infringing code.
Red Hat thinks that they can ... just remove the infringing code.

What is at issue is more than SCO and Red Hat.
What is at issue is intellectual property rights in the age of the Internet.
"don't ask, don't tell" policy. ... important debate ...
proprietary or communal property according to Richard Stallman's vision.

Rolling out licenses to run SCO IP in binary form only.
Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only,
customers also comply with the GPL.

2003-08-05T14:15:00-0400

Assemble roster for Q and A.

#1 Lee Gomez, Wall Street Journal

Q: Why don't you release the examples of infringement?
A: Actually, We have been releasing them.
Q: Are they on your web site?
A: NUMA, RCU, are direct violations.
Q: Do you have specific examples?
A: We've been showing?
Q: Publically available, to anyone?
A: Absolutely.
A: The minute we open it up, we can't restrict it in the future.
A: Over 100 people under NDA.
Q: Can you make available a list of people?
A: I have to go back to my PR team?
Q: Linux/open source advocates?
A: I don't remember his name
Chris: I don't remember his name but I can provide that to you.

#2 David Becker, CNET

Q: Terms of the new license?
A: Chris, comment on that?
Chris: single cpu, $699, October 15, after which it will climb to a higher price
Chris: contract their SCO representative

#3 M??? Greenmeyer, e-week

Q: Letter about possible global resolution.
What were you referring to?
A: We had those discussions ... now we're going to t
Re:Notes from the conference call by gl4ss · 2003-08-05 10:03 · Score: 1

I'd mod you up.. Anyways, it certainly looks sco is pushing the idea that gpl doesnt grant right to use(!) the software, i kinda wish some richer/backed up kernel developer(who _are_ users as well) would sue them for cashing on their work like this.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Notes from the conference call by x1pfister · 2003-08-06 01:59 · Score: 1

If this transcript is true, then their is hard evidence that they are a bunch of liars. They do not let anyone who wants to look at the infringing code! I have proof -- but what do I do with it?

--
Cat: The other white meat

License details? by TheConfusedOne · 2003-08-05 06:52 · Score: 1

Has anyone seen the actual "license" that SCO is offerring? It would be interesting to see if one could be purchased and then demand the exact details of the "IP" being licensed by SCO. We could then sue them for selling a fraudulent license AND violating the GPL.

--
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.

SCO's SEC Filings by Trolocsis · 2003-08-05 06:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

The scoop on who at the company is selling their stock can be found here in SCO's SEC filings. It appears that some of the chief people in charge are dumping thousands of shares of stock.

What is the proof either way? by bladeohlsson · 2003-08-05 06:53 · Score: 1

I am no expert here, and I have serious doubts about these claims made by SCO, but I just would like a little clarification on exactly why everyone KNOWS without a doubt ( at least it seems so ) that they don't have any sort of case?

Is there any sort of prood they are full of shit? Also any proof they aren't?

--
http://www.ohlssonvox.com

Re:What is the proof either way? by BigRedFish · 2003-08-05 08:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

What SCO is doing, in common terms, is this: Suppose I own an art store, and have paintings in the window for display. Some of these paintings are my own original work; most aren't. I claim that you have a painting in your store, purchased from your supplier, that is a copy of one of my originals. I won't say which painting it is, or even demonstrate that it was one of my originals and not a public-domain copy of a classical work, but I'm suing you for a grand for having the alleged copy all the same. I've offered to show art experts the painting in question, but they had to sign a document promising not to ID the painting in question. I believe that IDing the painting would reveal some kind of secret that would damage me if it became known, despite the fact that my paintings are mounted in a window on a public street for all to see, and hold that only by removing all paintings from your store and leaving the art business or else paying me for a license to sell my art (that I won't say what it is) can you protect yourself. I'm offering to let you settle right now for $500, and intend to use this offer as proof that you do indeed have a copy of whatever painting it is that I won't say.

And now, the art buying public is nervous, and don't want to buy art from you until this is settled, lest I sue them too, which I have already threatened to do. Of course you could pay the settlement, but remember: if you pay me the $500, you cede that I own the rights to potentially all the paintings in your store (I never said which one!), and that I have the right to unilaterally set and collect fees from you for the privelege of selling art. If you don't, you'll spend much more on lawyers and continue to lose income in the meantime.

Clear now?
Re:What is the proof either way? by manonthespoon · 2003-08-05 15:30 · Score: 1

This is the best explanation I've seen so far. Good Job.

If you are thinking of Deploying Linux Now by syntap · 2003-08-05 06:53 · Score: 1

...and you are worried about SCO, simply install a distribution running kernel 2.2.x. Do a feature check and see if you really need what is in 2.4.x, or if any tools you will be using require 2.4.x. If you are doing web, apache, php, mail crap, file sserving, etc, everything is still going to work.

Then when the SCO stuff blows over upgrade if you want.

On a related note by drinkypoo · 2003-08-05 06:53 · Score: 1

SCO, this is the pulse, and this is your finger, far from the pulse, jammed straight up your ass.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

FAQ by booch · 2003-08-05 06:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

SCO has a FAQ on their website. There are also several other pages on the Linux licensing.

There are a lot of weird answers in the FAQ. One is a statement about not offering the license to Linux distro vendors, because that would conflict with the GPL. Also of note is that Caldera/SCO Linux users need to register for a license. It doesn't say if it's free for them or not. Embedded devices can be registered for $32, but it never says what constitutes and embedded device.

--
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.

Re:FAQ by bobdotorg · 2003-08-05 07:44 · Score: 1

Embedded devices can be registered for $32, but it never says what constitutes and embedded device.

So I can save thousands if I embed my 32 CPU cluster up Darl McBride's ass?

--
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.

SCO HAHAHA by Eric(b0mb)Dennis · 2003-08-05 06:54 · Score: 1

I can't believe SCO is selling $700 linux systems now.

After all that BS they pulled, they go off and try to make a profit from something they didn't even try to help get off the ground.

All the lawsuits, et cetera certainly didn't help SCO get any farther with their stupid ways.

I think, if SCO really wants to redeem themselves, they should donate at least 5 million to the EFF, give away free linux laptops along with a Zaurus, and also give me a free back massage at a place of my choosing.

In closing, I'd just like to say that this entire post was a waste of time and that I don't think anyone will read it since it's close to #500

FIRST POST!!!

--
Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean

So how is this different... by Fratz · 2003-08-05 06:54 · Score: 1

If I sent letters to people who were under no obligation to me and told them that they had to pay me $5 or suffer the wrath of my lawyers, I'd be put away for mail fraud, clear and simple. SCO is doing similar things on a larger scale. Why aren't they all in jail?

--
-- Fratz, human

obligatory Warner Bros. Quote by perotbot · 2003-08-05 06:54 · Score: 1

Of course you know this means war!

--
~corporate tool, but employed~

Great idea, SCO! by Kaz+Riprock · 2003-08-05 06:54 · Score: 1

I would like $450.32 from every person who reads this message.

My brother would like $23.11 as well.

If you read this message after Oct 2, 2003; then you should send me $694.94 instead.

--
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon

Speaking for the Masses by Bob+McCown · 2003-08-05 06:54 · Score: 1

Right to use SCO IP in a Linux distribution
Promotional License Fee
with 1 CPU $699
with 2 CPUs $1,149
with 4 CPUs $2,499
with 8 CPUs $4,999
Additional single CPU $749

I think I speak for everyone here at Slashdot when I say:

BHHAHAHHAHHHHAHAHAHA

Thank you.

Open Letter to SCO geeks by marienf · 2003-08-05 06:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

Dear fellow geek,

Consider your future as laughing-stock at your next employer. The shame in working for SCO is fast approaching that of working for Microsoft.

Consider that you will need a job after SCO Enrons (hey, any noun can be verbed), and that I, for one, would be suspicious about taking you on, if I knew you had stayed throughout this outrage.

So for your own good, WALK OUT NOW and make it a public walk-out! Do it while your options are still worth money, at least. Hurry!

WKR,
A concerned fellow geek.

Re:Open Letter to SCO geeks by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 07:13 · Score: 1, Informative

This would make sense if SCO actually employed anyone but lawyers.
Re:Open Letter to SCO geeks by Tackhead · 2003-08-05 11:53 · Score: 1

> Consider your future as laughing-stock at your next employer. The shame in working for SCO is fast approaching that of working for Microsoft.
Fast approaching?
For the past few months, I've considered anyone working at what-is-now-called-SCO as ethically so far beyond the fucking pale they couldn't find the pale with very-long-baseline-interferometry!
(Fortunately, there were plenty of people who worked at what-was-SCO, who have no stain on their record, and there are very few people working at what-is-now-called-SCO, who are not worthy to lick the sweat from 'neath Steve Ballmer's armpits.)
Re:Open Letter to SCO geeks by bzImage8 · 2003-08-05 18:00 · Score: 1

I use to work at SCO before the caldera buyout, in fact when caldera came in, they fire me, and SCO was a good company, but now its a shame.

--
Unix its simple, but sometimes it takes a geniuos to understand the simplicity -- Dennis Ritchie

Bad things by hawkbug · 2003-08-05 06:55 · Score: 1

So, my question is this: who is going to be first to pay up? If nobody pays, then SCO is just out of luck. If people start paying, and Red Hat is victorious in Court, do the people who initially paid get their money back? Probably not. So, I don't see any reasonable company paying this. If they are really worried about it, roll back to 2.2.X, that would be the easiest solution until the court battle is done.

Double Jeapordy? by p_trekkie · 2003-08-05 06:55 · Score: 1

No person can be charged with the same crime twice.

So, is there some sort of law so that a company can't sue both another company and that company's customers at the same time for the same issue? Otherwise, SCO collects money twice for the same grievance, in the unlikely event that they win. (IBM lawsuit = $3 bn, license = $699x "2.5 million servers" = $1.5 bn (assuming single processor))

Re:Better yet.... by jbaltz · 2003-08-05 06:56 · Score: 1

How will you connect, when you have no protocol stack ?
//jbaltz

--
I am the Lorvax, I speak for the machines.

Re:A license to use Linux kernel binaries? by Wyzard · 2003-08-05 06:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

GPL is about distribution because copyright law is about distribution. Copyright law doesn't place any restrictions on use -- once you have a copy, you can do whatever you want with it, unless you've entered into some sort of agreement beforehand (such as a Microsoft EULA).

Suppose that there really is SCO code in the kernel, and suppose that the GPL is found to not apply to it because whoever put it there didn't have the right to GPL it. In that case, if you've distributed Linux -- made copies -- then you could concievably be found in violation for that, but in no case do you infringe anyone's copyright by running Linux.

The fact that they're trying to sell licenses granting the right to run Linux without violating their copyrights means that either their lawyers are a bunch of idiots who only passed the bar exam by cheating, or (more likely) they're not really serious and this is just a tactic to see how much they can get before everything comes crashing down.

(Note that this only applies to copyrights; if SCO has a patent on something in the kernel then you could indeed be held responsible for running it. SCO has not filed any patent claims AFAIK, but they use the general term "intellectual property" -- which covers both copyright and patent -- in talking about their license. I imagine the ambiguity is intentional, because if I can recognize what I've just pointed out, I'm sure a judge can too.)

IANAL, but I pay attention to the people here who say they are.

I don't have money to pay.... by iwaku · 2003-08-05 06:57 · Score: 1

Will you show me those lines under NDA?

I think I'm okay by Ken+Hall · 2003-08-05 06:57 · Score: 1

Long ago, when I became an SCO reseller (which was REAL easy and free at the time), they sent me a full set of UnixWare, complete with license. Does this mean I'm okay to run Linux even if they're right?

FSF should pony up for a license... by sleepingsquirrel · 2003-08-05 06:57 · Score: 1

Why doesn't the FSF pony up $699 for one license and end this mess? Under the terms of the GPL they would then have the right to redistribute, correct? And SCO can no longer claim ignorance of copyright violations, right? Seems like that would be a cheap and easy way to stick it to SCO.

Re:FSF should pony up for a license... by mattdm · 2003-08-05 07:20 · Score: 1

Everything else that's wrong with this idea aside, it would set a terrible precedent, and the next company wanting to extort money would ask for even more.
Re:FSF should pony up for a license... by hackstraw · 2003-08-05 08:31 · Score: 1

Having the right to redistribute does not mean that the redistributed code/binaries is properly licensed.

OK, this is where I'm confused. This is a binary only license and there is no source license.

So is SCO going to custom compile kernels for everyone? Also, if their is no source license and you compile your kernel yourself, how can SCO know that their code is #ifdef'ed out?

This whole thing makes no sense, maybe this will be more clear when they call me.
Re:FSF should pony up for a license... by chgros · 2003-08-05 09:22 · Score: 1

Having the right to redistribute does not mean that the redistributed code/binaries is properly licensed.
The point is, if you distribute something, part of which is GPL'd, then all of it is GPL'd. So either you "grant a proper license" our you just can't distribute at all.

what sucks is... by SkewlD00d · 2003-08-05 06:58 · Score: 1

that this stunt may actually save SCO whether it wins or loses. Some polly-ana companies are going to pay up, regardless, to ensure their own business models remain safe.

--
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.

Prove I'm Using Linux by Flavius+Stilicho · 2003-08-05 06:59 · Score: 1

How is SCO going to know who is running linux and who isn't??? I mean, how did you get YOUR copy? I know mine didn't come with a receipt. Even if they subpeona the sales records of CompUSA, RedHat, etc. What about those of us who downloaded our copies or purchased them with cash or didn't get them through a normal chain?

It seem to me that even if SCO wins, they'll have a hard time collecting.

I'll buy a license...I swear! by killmenow · 2003-08-05 06:59 · Score: 1

I'll just send the Monopoly money.

Hmm... how CAN one respond to something like that? by digital+photo · 2003-08-05 07:00 · Score: 1

$699 for a single cpu license and the price just keeps going up from there?

WTF!?

If I was a business using Linux and I got one an "offer" like that, my initial gut response would be to tell them to suck a fat one.

My second response would be to ask them what they were smoking and when they were thinking of packaging the goods for sale.

What are they thinking?

And what do they consider to be their "IP"?

SCO is screaming and hollering from a very very shakey ledge and when their message is finally heard, what will happen is that everything "SCO" will be removed from future distributions in the next "revision" and SCO will be left to suck hard vacuum. Hopefully from the same orafice they continually insist on "resting" their collective head in.

More ranting deleted to save space

Seriously, this is the make-it-or-break-it moment for SCO and I for one hope they get ground into dust and turned into one of those somewhat tasteful sculptures sold at old junk shops.

--

Winged Power Photography

No! by xant · 2003-08-05 07:00 · Score: 4, Funny

A live penguin.

And several fresh dead fish, right around his crotch region.

--
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.

Re:No! by H.G.+Pennypacker · 2003-08-05 10:15 · Score: 1

And several fresh dead fish, right around his crotch region.

This is more or less equivalent to just having his wife right there with him..

--
-- HG Pennypacker, wealthy industrialist and philanthropist
Re:No! by euxneks · 2003-08-05 12:33 · Score: 1, Insightful

Be careful, he might enjoy that!

--
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
Re:No! by Lucretian · 2003-08-05 18:52 · Score: 1

Who's crotch? The Penguin's or Darl's? Sounds messy either way.

I for one... by ScoLgo · 2003-08-05 07:01 · Score: 3, Funny

will be glad when SCO is no more. I really, really dislike sharing my initials with such a sleazy company. I long for the day when I can apply my initials to paperwork without the chorus of accompanying snickers, (I even got it from the financing person last time I re-financed my mortgage, ferchrissakes!)

I'm just glad I had the foresight, (blind luck), to have added the 'Lgo' to the end of my username. I don't think I could stand the slashdot backlash if I hadn't... ;-]

--
"Michael, I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing - and it was everything that I thought it could be."

Re:I for one... by tkittel · 2003-08-05 07:45 · Score: 1

> will be glad when SCO is no more. I really, really dislike sharing my
> initials with such a sleazy company

maybe you can sue SCO for infringing on your intellectual property :-)
Re:I for one... by killthiskid · 2003-08-05 08:28 · Score: 1

Your name is Sober Cranapple Object, too???! Sweet!

Their license is more than the cost of my box! by crovira · 2003-08-05 07:01 · Score: 1

I spent less than $500 on a 2.1GHz AMD box (1 GB RAM, MoBo, a pair of 15GB IDE drives, monitor card.)

And they want $600+ for the cost of their license. They are on crack.

But I just had a thought:

Hmm... How much is a Windows license? And SCO's spreading $ FUD so M$ looks good?

I smell more anti-trust with M$ and a Unix company that was in a death spiral long before this crap surfaced.

(And Gates can't even talk the DreamWorksSKG people out of using Linux!)

--
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.

NUMA, RTC, SMP etc. by mhesseltine · 2003-08-05 07:01 · Score: 1

These are what SCO claims that IBM "stole" and put into the 2.4 kernel code. My question is, if I'm not using NUMA, RTC, SMP, etc.; does SCO really have any business wanting money from me? After all, I'm not using their IP. Just because it's in the code base doesn't mean it's being used.

--
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation :: Anonymous Coward : Posting

Re:NUMA, RTC, SMP etc. by justinstreufert · 2003-08-05 07:26 · Score: 1

If I steal a blender from your house, and then let it collect dust in my basement...

If I have an illegal copy of Photoshop on my machine, but I haven't run it for a year, I'd still get my ass kicked in a court of law about it.

Justin

--
"Why would God give us a waist if we wasn't supposed to rest our pants on it?" - Rev. Roy McDaniels
Re:NUMA, RTC, SMP etc. by mhesseltine · 2003-08-05 07:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

On my system:
#find /lib/modules/`uname -r` | grep smp
#find /lib/modules/`uname -r` | grep numa
#find /lib/modules/`uname -r` | grep rtc
#grep NUMA /usr/src/linux/.config
#grep RTC /usr/src/linux/.config
CONFIG_RTC is not set
#grep SMP /usr/src/linux/.config
CONFIG_SMP=n

Nothing found. The software isn't on my system. I'm not paying SCO a dime.

As to your blender analogy, if you take my blender, I don't have access to it. If I have SCO's IP, they still have access to it.

As to the illegal copy of Photoshop, that's a little closer. However, since I'm not using it, I could just as easily delete it, and therefore not be out of compliance. If, however, I use the software, then yes, I owe Adobe the license fee for the use of the software. The point being, since I'm not using any of SCO's IP, I don't owe them anything.

--
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation :: Anonymous Coward : Posting
Re:NUMA, RTC, SMP etc. by swillden · 2003-08-05 10:50 · Score: 1

#find /lib/modules/`uname -r` | grep rtc
#grep RTC /usr/src/linux/.config
CONFIG_RTC is not set
Now SCO is claiming to own the Real Time Clock API?
That's just evil, man...

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

Dear SCO by Scott+Lockwood · 2003-08-05 07:02 · Score: 1

at vlad.geekizoid.com you will find we are running Linux kernel 2.6.0-test2. We have four words for you:

GO AHEAD AND SUE

--
But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!

Linus and FSF countersue SCO by RevMike · 2003-08-05 07:02 · Score: 1

I expect to see that headline soon.

Note very carefully that SCO targetted 2.4 based systems. IBM was not involved until many 2.4 kernels had already shipped. The alleged infringing code could not have been in all 2.4 kernels.

Thus SCO is attempting to license code that they themselves distributed under the GPL. This would invalidate the GPL, in which case SCO is guilty of copyright violation/software piracy for distributing Linus' and others' code.

Next step... by theskipper · 2003-08-05 07:02 · Score: 1

is for SCO to join the BSA.

How's that for a scary thought?

SCO will be talking to Linux customers by linuxtelephony · 2003-08-05 07:03 · Score: 1

From the article:

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.

OK, so let's say I'm one of these "commercial" Linux customers. So, SCO contacts me to sell me this "license" to use Linux. (This is hypothetical, notice the "let's say..."). I can imagine the contact something along the lines:

SCO: We're making you this offer for a limited time, $699 for a single CPU license. It's a great value.

Me: So, tell me again why I should take you seriously since I don't have any products from you, and if I am to believe the press, you don't even sell Linux any longer yourself?

SCO: Because we own what's inside Linux.

Me: You do? Can you prove that?

SCO: Yes we can, all you have to do is sign this NDA and we'll show you.

Me: What if I refuse to sign the NDA?

SCO: Then I can't show you the proof.

Me: So, now I'm supposed to give you almost $700 per single CPU just because you CLAIM you own what's inside, but you won't prove it unless I sign an NDA? And you expect me to take you seriously?

--

I'm sorry, but I've dealt with a large number of vendors for a variety of things ranging from a few dollars to a few million dollars. And, if a vendor came to me and said I should buy something from them, they'd have to SHOW ME why I should buy it. Even if it was a product demonstration. And you can rest assured I would NOT sign an NDA for a product demonstration, unless it was something I thought I really had to have and I had contacted the vendor myself.

And, if they "forced" me to sign the NDA in order to "proove" they owned Linux, it would seem that my signature would be under duress (sp?) since I would never willingly sign such a document, and my only reason for signing it would be to determine the real/valid risk my company was facing by purchasing or not purchasing their licenses. If it is under duress, might that make such an agreement unenforceable?

So, it will be interesting to see how this plays out, and how many legitimate customers take SCO seriously.

--
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley

where anarchy doesnt work by minus_273 · 2003-08-05 07:03 · Score: 1

SCO has a central leadership and direction. Thus they have the upperhand. Anarchy does nto win battles...

--
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace

Declaration of War by CleverFox · 2003-08-05 07:04 · Score: 1

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.

Dear SCO by whitelabrat · 2003-08-05 07:04 · Score: 1

SCO,

Up your butt
with a coconut.
Down your nose
with a rubber hose.

Shhesh what a bunch of pinheads.

the've got you by old-lady-whispering- · 2003-08-05 07:04 · Score: 1

$699 per single CPU That sounds pretty good. But I have a better Idea. First I give you the finger. Then I install my Linux distro. I know my rights this Gestapo crap doesn't scare me. this

--
The truth suffers more from convictions than from lies.

The Appropriate Response...in song by Kaz+Riprock · 2003-08-05 07:04 · Score: 1

I believe my thoughts are best described by the closing lyrics to the Rolling Stones' "You can't Always Get what you want":

I saw her today at the reception
In her glass was a bleeding man
She was practised at the art of deception,
I could tell by her blood-stained hands

And you can't always get what you want, honey
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want,
But if you try sometime, yeah,
You just might find you get what you need!

--
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon

Interesting analysis from Gartner... by demonbug · 2003-08-05 07:06 · Score: 1

I was just looking around, found this on the SCO website. Seems like kind of a strange document for them to put up, especially when you look at the second to last paragraph, where it says

"SCO has yet to provide Gartner with specific details of stolen or misappropriated intellectual property. In Gartner's opinion, SCO's claim that IBM misappropriated trade secrets from AIX will be difficult to prove, because an enterprise OS consists of many components, including high-availability features, diagnostics, security, kernel hardening, scheduling and queue management."

Though it does go on to say, "However, one thing is certain: The community process is fraught with risk to users. How well does the open-source community examine its code and weed out potentially misappropriated intellectual property?"

SCO Logo by Vampyre_Dark · 2003-08-05 07:06 · Score: 3, Funny

This is about the right time for SCO to change their logo to a little chihuahua humping Tux the penguin's leg.

Re:SCO Logo by mrkurt · 2003-08-05 09:44 · Score: 1

LMAO-- I would mod you funny if I had points.

--
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)

Linux Licensing? by slewfo0t · 2003-08-05 07:08 · Score: 2, Informative

What SCO is trying to do is forever change the way Linux is licensed. They basically stated this in their conference call. They claim that Linux developers want to have their work protected and that the GPL is not really the way to go anymore. (at least if your SCO) Then, to top that off, they want to make their few lines of code worth more than the punch card it was written on! It's no wonder Microsoft paid for a license... It's the same kinda philosophy Micro-Soft came out with in 1976 in Bill's Open Letter to Hobbyists. It was just as misguided then as it is now.

SCO even went on to say that they would eventually target end-users as well. I guess they are taking lessons form the RIAA now too.

- Slew -

I weep by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 07:08 · Score: 1

I weep for the US everytime I see a "geek", a subsection of the population that is generally accepted as more intelligent than their cro-magnon brethren, using "loose" as if it were "lose". What the fuck people? Get a fucking dictionary! Having been through the US public education system, I know it's not going to crank out Einsteins or Hawkings in every class. But damn, even my schools taught me better than that. I can forgive grammatical errors (hell, I make them all the time) and the occasional fat-fingering-mispelling of a word. But a repeated substitution of "loose" instead of "lose" makes me brace for the day my kids ask me to help them with their English homework and all they've written is: My favrit poem 4 my daad. My daad r0x0rs. He is teh pwn. TEH EDN.

*weep*

hell, I'll even post non-anon.

psxndc

ROTFLMAOPMP by Lispy · 2003-08-05 07:08 · Score: 1

Well...this was just too much. What s next?

If it only wasnt so serious these folks would really have made my day. I hope the judges have a sense of humor or SCO will fry in hell for worst FUDing ever!

Lispy

Just a warning by soppyfrog · 2003-08-05 07:08 · Score: 1

I thought about some linux stuff once, just thought I'd warn you that you are all infringing my IP rights. The pricing structure for you to licence my IP is currently undecided, but I will be sure to offer /. users a discount; just because I'm a nice guy

*cackles madly* by Kai_MH · 2003-08-05 07:08 · Score: 1

They really don't know what is going to happen to them if they don't shut their fucking mouths, do they?

They have lost their minds... by confused+one · 2003-08-05 07:09 · Score: 3, Informative

When you consider I could buy a Solarix x86, 4-cpu server license for $1500 ($375 per cpu) or a 2-cpu workgroup server license for $250 ($125 per cpu) direct from Sun.

Even if they have the right to force a license on commercial Linux users (which they don't), their pricing structure just doesn't make any sense -- it's not competitive. Hell, Windows 200x Server doesn't cost as much as their $1399/cpu price...

Re:SCO: ***Read Carefully*** by pb9494 · 2003-08-05 07:09 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, hating them isn't going help. On the contrary, that's probably what they want: to cause irritation by frustration thereby weakening the overall Linux enthusiasm and credibility. All this debating on SCO vs Linux is exactly what they want. IMHO, pro-Linux websites should never even post such news.

Re:At least now we know what their business model by jmauro · 2003-08-05 07:09 · Score: 1

What exactly is the "non-SCO" stuff. They haven't told anyone what stuff supposedly infringes, so backporting it all back to 2.2 would be very, very hard. Then they'd claim you screwed up and back ported their stuff anyway.

Re:At least now we know what their business model by Xzzy · 2003-08-05 07:10 · Score: 1

> What about forking 2.2, taking all the non-SCO
> stuff from 2.4 and 2.5, and shoe-horning it back
> into the new fork.

Haven't you been reading? We don't know what the "SCO stuff" is, so we can't either identify the "non-SCO" stuff to pull out of 2.4+. ;)

Depending on the phase of the moon, the "SCO stuff" is either the SMP code or thousands of lines of code all over the place.

I mean in theory it's a good idea.. but we have no earthly idea what is SCO's and what isn't because they won't tell us.

Someday, this is gonna get turned into a movie and it will probably end up as a comedy even though it's billed as a documentary.

You know, like spinal tap. Except for real. I mean, it really is a documentary. And it's still funny.

Here's what I've been wondering by mcc · 2003-08-05 07:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

Assuming that SCO loses this battle, I doubt there will be much left of the company to go after.

Once SCO has lost the battle, there will still be the Canopy Group and the SCO board members, McBride and the rest. I am willing to bet that once SCO dies miserably, Canopy Group will have made more than many times over enough money they extracted from the stock manipulations they put SCOX through to have made the whole exercise more than worthwhile.

Is there any way at all persons like Mr. Wolf- would have the ability to go after Canopy Group, as the majority shareholder and pretty clearly the one guiding SCOX through all this, for the damages he would be able to demand from SCOX had not Canopy Group and Mr. McBride driven SCOX into the ground?

Is there any way that, once the intellectual-property thing serves useless except as a stock scam, people who were originally shareholders of Caldera and wound up with their Caldera stock becoming worthless paper after Canopy Group drove SCOX into the ground with their new "strategy" (and absconded with the money) could sue Canopy Group?

I realize most of our corporate law seems to be designed to ensure stockholders are not responsible for the actions of the company. However, recently, in the wake of the Enron Witchhunt, CEOs and other corporates who engage in openly deceptive practices actually have been getting in trouble.

Surely there's some sort of laws on the books to prevent individuals like McBride and groups like Canopy from taking over a small company like Caldera and using it as a shell to perform illegal actions (like libel, and barratry, and deceptive trade practices) with no intent or purpose for the company except to allow themselves to perform illegal acts without being legally liable? Surely the fact that it will be possible to show the Canopy Group's sudden majority ownership coincided with the strategies that led to SCOX being wiped out in counterlawsuits from IBM and Redhat and people like Wolf-, and the fact it will be possible to show the Canopy Group benefited GREATLY from the stock actions they performed during these strategies, means that once SCOX has been wiped out Canopy Group will be in some way liable for whatever damages post-bankruptcy SCOX couldn't be made to pay?

Yes? No? Is there an investment lawyer in the house?

--
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts

Re:Here's what I've been wondering by DavidinAla · 2003-08-05 07:21 · Score: 1

I'm not an attorney, so my answer is just based on my understanding of the law and not on proper training, but I strongly suspect that there will not be recourse like what you speak of. The only way there could be recourse is if someone could PROVE that there was a conspiracy to commit fraud or stock manipulation or something of that nature. I'm speaking hypothetically, NOT in the sense of making the charge that this took place. The legal presumption would have to be that the company (SCO) went down the path it did because it believed that it was correct on the points of its charges. And I don't believe there's any way the board or the officers can be held responsible for the things you're mentioning without a litigant meeting a very high standard of proof.

I'd love to hear the opinion of a corporate attorney, though, because I might be mistaken.

Better Deal IFF they win: FreeBSD by msobkow · 2003-08-05 07:10 · Score: 4, Funny

In the unlikely chance that SCO wins before I win the lottery or am struck by lightning, I'll just be redeploying with a BSD instead of SCO.

And if they go after BSD, I'll shift to Plan9 or QNX rather than giving one thin dime to the leeches running SCO.

Should those get nailed, GNU should finally have a decent "Hurd" kernel running by then (15-20 years of lawsuits.)

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

Re:Better Deal IFF they win: FreeBSD by quigonn · 2003-08-05 08:00 · Score: 1

That's the wrongest thing you could do. It would show SCO that they are right in some way. That should not be.

Just go to Europe, where SCO's CEO would go to prison if he licensed Linux under another license than the GPL.

--
A monkey is doing the real work for me.
Re:Better Deal IFF they win: FreeBSD by cshark · 2003-08-05 08:29 · Score: 1

Don't worry.
As of the red hat suit, we are looking at the beginning of a tide of litigation that will surely crush SCO. They can say they will charge for anything.

I think their timing sucks though. Couldn't they have waited a week or two? Asking for money with a Red Hat calling them liars and parasites in the same week couldn't be good for this extortion racket.

I say, McBride should sue me because I am violating his copyright because I have system V code sitting in my head. Just being remembered.

--
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Re:Better Deal IFF they win: FreeBSD by EastCoastSurfer · 2003-08-05 08:57 · Score: 1

It would show SCO that they are right in some way.

IBM is already doing this in a way.

If this whole SCO thing is BS why won't they put their money where their mouth is? We all think it is BS, but until the big boys(RHAT made a good first move) start pushing SCO back linux is going to suffer.
Re:Better Deal IFF they win: FreeBSD by Hal-9001 · 2003-08-05 09:27 · Score: 1

IIRC, the BSD/System V issue has already been settled by the U.S. judicial system, so you shouldn't have to worry about buying a license from SCO if you switch to BSD.

--
"It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
Re:Better Deal IFF they win: FreeBSD by thisgooroo · 2003-08-05 11:18 · Score: 1

not necessarily. in the interview where he basically claimed that evey OS belongs to them, one of the SCO execs (mcbride?) made some noises about them going to take another look at the BSD situation
Re:Better Deal IFF they win: FreeBSD by EventHorizon · 2003-08-05 18:37 · Score: 1

HURD... Hardly Under Rapid Development

Kernel still on SCO's FTP by bazik · 2003-08-05 07:10 · Score: 1

So whats that?
Will RedHat sue them for using RPM? ;)

--

--
One by one the penguins steal my sanity...

war dialers??? by BigBir3d · 2003-08-05 07:10 · Score: 1

This new SCO license is a binary, right to use SCO Intellectual Property in a distribution of Linux. It is applies to commercial uses of a Linux operating system that contains a 2.4 or later version of the kernel, and cures the IP infringement issue for binary use only. Customers who purchase this license are held harmless by SCO for past infringements, as well as the on-going use of the infringing code.

There are 3 types of licenses to correspond to different uses of Linux.
? Client license ? A license is required for each desktop system that is using SCO IP in a commercial distribution of Linux. The client license grant is for a single user desktop system, irrespective of the number of CPUs on the desktop.
? Server license ? A license is required for each server that is running SCO IP in a distribution of Linux that is deployed for commercial use. The server license grant is per server, is based on the number of physical CPUs and is available bundles with either one, two, four or eight CPUs Additional CPUs are available for any configuration.
? Embedded license ? A license is required for each embedded system that is using SCO IP in a commercial distribution of Linux. The embedded license grant is for a single CPU, irrespective of the number of users of the embedded device.

The license is a perpetual, right to use license applies to the system (client, server or embedded device) running Linux in binary form. No additional license is necessary to apply Linux patches and updates to an existing system.

The license does not grant any rights to use SCO IP in source format, nor does it grant any distribution rights. It is therefore inadequate to cure infringements for distributors, or any entity that uses, modifies or distributes Linux source code.

Since the license pertains to SCO IP that the end user already received in the unauthorized Linux distribution, the SCO license doesn?t include a media kit.

Licenses must be registered at www.sco.com/support/registration/ in order to be activated.

SCO is offering introductory, promotion pricing until October 15, 2003. Customers who are interested in purchasing the SCO IP license for Linux should contact their SCO sales representative or call SCO at 1-800 726-8649 for further information.

The introductory, promotional pricing available until October 15, 2003 is as follows:

A client license for a single user desktop system is $199.
A single CPU, embedded device is $32.

Server Licenses
RTU SCO IP in a Linux Distribution
Promotional License Fee
With 1 CPU
$699
With 2 CPUs
$1,149
With 4 CPUs
$2,499
With 8 CPUs
$4,999
Each Additional CPU
$749

Do your worst!

;-)

congratulations! by hendrix69 · 2003-08-05 07:11 · Score: 2, Funny

Linux now costs more than Windows. Cool, perhaps now those shitheads upstairs that run my company will consider switching to it!

--
The power of Christ compiles you!

Best said by a famous robot from the 31st Century: by mr-winter · 2003-08-05 07:11 · Score: 1

SCO can bite my shiny metal ass.

Fine, I'll make my own POSIX-Compliant O/S! With Blackjack, and Hookers! In fact forget the O/S and the blackjack! Ah, screw the whole thing.

this is my first flamebait posting but... by sboss · 2003-08-05 07:11 · Score: 1

I hate flamebait postings but I have to say something.

SCO can kiss my A$$! I wont pay them jack sh!t for a UNIXWare license so I can run Linux. I run linux for a reason. I dont run UNIXWare for a reason. So there is no way in hell (on any level) that I am going to give those lawyer happpy suing the world since their products suck a$$ and dont want to get real jobs bloodsuckers...

I would say more but the l FCC/FBI/SS/etc would come and take me away for saying what I want to say about SCO.

to sum it up, sco can kiss my a$$!!
scott

--
Scott
janitor
sdn website family
email: scott at sboss dot net

False claims harming Linux business by linuxtelephony · 2003-08-05 07:11 · Score: 1

I believe there are usually pretty severe damages when you make false or misleading claims about a company, or its products, and then those claims harms the business of that company.

With more examples of this (without hiding behind AC), if this can be documented, it opens SCO up to all kinds of civil liability. Especially if SCO ever loses any of their claims in court, which civil suits can in turn point to as proof of their misleading or false claims.

And, if memory serves, there have been a few cases taken to court (don't know if they were settled or if they went to judgement) where the claims made against a product were not totally false or misleading, but still harmed the business of another company, and that company went after and I thought won damages. Of course, I don't know if it went to appeal and what the result was. And worse, I can't remember the names of the people/companies involved, so I may be totally mistaken.

Still, Red Hat, and others if they pick up the case, can point to this as proof of damage they are suffering as a result of SCOs actions and intent to damage Linux credibility in an effort to improve their own.

--
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley

Re:False claims harming Linux business by MeanMF · 2003-08-05 07:16 · Score: 1

With more examples of this (without hiding behind AC), if this can be documented, it opens SCO up to all kinds of civil liability. Especially if SCO ever loses any of their claims in court, which civil suits can in turn point to as proof of their misleading or false claims.

SCO doesn't have much cash, so that's really a moot point. The only thing they have of value is the System V code, and if they lose this lawsuit that's pretty much worthless anyway.
Re:False claims harming Linux business by linuxtelephony · 2003-08-05 15:53 · Score: 1

It's not about the cash they have. If you get a judgement against them that thay can not pay, then you may have the option of going after the board of directors or other officers in the company, depending on the type of corporation they are.

Once a major judgement is made, odds are they'll never pay it anyway. Either they'll get it reduced on appeal, file for bankruptcy, or do something else to keep from paying it.

--
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley

All According to Plan by FreeUser · 2003-08-05 07:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

Wow, that makes a Windows 2003 Server cluster look cheap! Windows 2003 Web Edition is only like $400. The standard edition is around $600.

That's the whole idea. Why do you think $CO priced their bogus (and illegal) licenses the way they did, so soon after Micro$oft purchased that expensive, utterly unnecessary license in order to prop them up (and $un added to their kitty as well)?

This is about FUD and misinformation, with Microsoft as the primary beneficiary and Sun as ugly and despicable opportunist. Both had better exploit it well, because it won't last, SCO will almost certainly not survive any legal activities that actually take place within the court room, and anyone found to be in collaboration on this may well end up in prison or in debt as well.

Which will be a delightful pleasure to watch, although if Enron is any indication, most of these rich fucks will walk away with their ill-gotten wealth, stepping over the corpses of those they defrauded on their way to the bank, laughing all the way.

So much for capitalism, or justice, in America.

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy

Gotta give them credit by spokes · 2003-08-05 07:12 · Score: 1

They actually believe this'll work.
The only advertised job opening from SCOX: Senior Sales Account Manager

I called by radon28 · 2003-08-05 07:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

And they refuse to provide any information until you give them your phone number and name. Yeah, I don't see them sending me any bills in the mail.

Re:I called by winse · 2003-08-05 07:38 · Score: 1

Perhaps we should all call. I had a thought that was longer than that, but i think you get the idea.

--
this sig is deprecated
Re:I called by Ian+Peon · 2003-08-05 07:42 · Score: 1

1 Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA

I've often joked that their address pretty much sums up what I don't like about them, but I digress...

--
Never never never smoke crack before geometry class!
Re:I called by pNutz · 2003-08-05 07:47 · Score: 1

I tried giving a phony name.

"Yeah, it's Captain Billy Joe McTankertootel. That's capital M - c - capital T - a - n - k - e - r - t - o - o - t - e - l."

She hung up before I could finish spelling my last name.

--
Death and danger are my various breads and various butters.
Re:I called by FeeDBaCK · 2003-08-06 01:30 · Score: 1

That's why you call from a pay phone... All the ones I know of accept dialing 800 numbers with no coin out of pocket.

--
wolf31o2 Developer, Gentoo Linux Games Team

Actually just $199... by demonbug · 2003-08-05 07:13 · Score: 1

For a single user desktop system, anyway. Not that that is really any better.
Information is here.

oy vey! by pimpinmonk · 2003-08-05 07:14 · Score: 1

this makes buying music cds seem like a bargain!

to quote Bender... by rootX · 2003-08-05 07:14 · Score: 1

They can bite my shiny metal ass!

--
-- sed s/liberty/profit/g US.Constitution

How to give SCO their money by dokhebi · 2003-08-05 07:15 · Score: 1

1) Buy shiney new system from Dell (or whom ever)
2) Transfer all software licenses to SCO (you will be using Linux and other freeware after all...)
3) Let SCO fight Microsoft for refund

Problem solved!

Lets assume its true.... by jjh37997 · 2003-08-05 07:16 · Score: 1

I really don't see how SCO can hope to win in the long run.

Lets assume that Linux does in fact have SCO owned code and that they somehow convinve the courts to keep which part of the code they own secret from the public. How long do they think that state of affairs will last? Eventually, it will be leaked and as soon as it is people will patch Linux like crazy to remove the offending code.

The only way SCO can keep this going is if the code DOES NOT exist. The fact that someone from the insided hasn't already leaked the supposedly tainted code is the biggest single fact in my mind that such code does not exist.

Re:Lets assume its true.... by pavera · 2003-08-05 07:36 · Score: 1

Assuming there are any programers left inside SCO, from the looks of things its all just a bunch of lawyers.

Turn in you neighbour for ca$h by hedley · 2003-08-05 07:17 · Score: 1

I have heard anecdotally that my neighbour @127.0.0.1 is running RH9 and his SCO license is not paid up!

Please don't report me! I want to remain anonymous!

Hedley

Notes from the conference call by mec · 2003-08-05 07:17 · Score: 1

Let's try this again ... man, the one time I forget to preview, I botch the link.

call-2003-08-05.txt

I'd appreciate it if someone would copy the whole text into a slashdot comment so that people can read it without slashdotting my poor suffering ISP.

SCO thinks their programs are worth $20 ? by DunbarTheInept · 2003-08-05 07:19 · Score: 1

I was curious about that huge pricetag of $699. So, I looked up the price of SCO's own Unix product, UnixWare. (Which took a while because SCO's website, like most sites for expensive products, hides the actual pricetag behind a lot of confusing clicks.) I found that the base system for UnixWare 7.whatever is $719. That's only $20 more than they are asking linux users to spend.

SCO's claim against Linux applies ONLY to the kernel itself, not to any of the userland programs. And even in their own imaginary world where they are correct in their claim, I assume they don't think that every single line of code for the linux kernel was lifted from them. Thus they (apparently) believe that the subset of the linux kernel which was allegedly copied from them is worth $699, and their entire base unix system is only worth $719, meaning all their userland code, and all their kernel code not copied into Linux, is only worth $20, by their own assesment.

Nice to know they value a few lines of linux kernel code as being 35 times more valuable than the remainder of all of UnixWare.

Or, perhaps, they are just making up the numbers for the sake of intimidation. Naaah, I'd have to be cynical to make a statement like that.

--

Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

Obvious things to do by kroyd · 2003-08-05 07:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Just off the top of my mind:

Make a proper worldwide list of SCO resellers, and have people from each contry conntact each reseller. Just a few press releases saying "we are no longer a SCO reseller" would be worth it. (The SCO / Caldera site is not surprisingly broken for finding official resellers.)
Check if The Canopy group is dumping SCO stock. The used to own 65% or so, if they're dumping stock it should be worth a FP on slashdot, if not news.com.. I'm not sure how you do this, you probably have to have a bit higher market access than most people.
Check if Unixware contains any obvious code stolen from Linux. Later versions have ext2 support and such, and there is the linux compability layer. Is all that _really_ written from scratch? If someone can show that "SCO stole thousands of lines of code from Linux and here is the proof" it would take a LOT of the wind out of their sales. And then there is device drivers.. In 10 years I doubt that they haven't copied anything from Linux.
What more? Oh.. Perhaps the people at www.thesmokinggun.com could dig something up on a SCO exec? Like this mugshot (not safe for work or anywhere).

Oh, and I got the partner page to work on sco.com: For where I live the first listed is a privat person, then there is a huge dairy (i.e. milk and cheese producer).. I wonder if they know they sell SCO products ;)

SCO icon? by ed.han · 2003-08-05 07:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

aren't we overdue for a new, less sympathetic SCO icon? i mean, if we borgify M$ surely something similar is way past warranted for these guys?

ed

Re:SCO icon? by zpok · 2003-08-05 13:54 · Score: 1

YES! I know, no 'me too' posts, but this is too good a suggestion to overlook.

--
I think, therefore I am...I think.

Re:Do these SCO folks remind anyone else of KimJon by bnenning · 2003-08-05 07:20 · Score: 1

Where did you connect SCO and North Korea?

Both are on the verge of collapse, and trying to survive by extorting cash from a vastly more powerful entity (IBM, USA). Both are making increasingly belligerent statements after being deliberately ignored. The world would be much better off if both were to spontaneously combust.

--
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.

Re:Only $699??? by Hellkitten · 2003-08-05 07:20 · Score: 1

What would be great was if every linux user out there gave $699 to the legal protection for Open Source fund (that RedHat started )instead. Or maybe not $699 but whatever they think the continued freedom of linux is worth, and indicate in their donation that it's a direct result of SCOs demands. I'm pretty sure that if the sums were added up the fund would get more money than SCO would

The day SCO can legally get my money if I use linux is the day I investigate other options, like BSD or the Hurd or OS X or something. Unless I give up computers and go to hell to be a figure skater.

--
- We are the slashdot. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be moderated -

Cheering for attacks on Microsoft by Phat_Tony · 2003-08-05 07:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're right, there was a lot of cheering for the Microsoft Anti-trust case around here and in general, and I disagreed with that too.

Don't get me wrong: I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy. I think their business practices are deplorable. But I don't think they had a Monopoly or qualified for anti-trust prosecution, even for their extremely obnoxious licensing agreements. Get linux. get a Mac. There were always alternatves, no one was ever forced against their will to support Microsoft. They had enough market share to leverage it in bad ways, but they never had a monopoly.

And I think the market was and is working towards sorting this out . Microsoft had huge market share and leveraged it in nasty ways to try to maintain it and to try to make people pay them more. They made a LOT of enemies in the process, and while many companies & individuals still grudginly paid Microsoft for their buggy products, I think that that huge reserve of ill-will they built up around the world is sooner or later going to come back to hurt them in a big way.

As alternatives to Microsoft become more viable, people won't just want to switch if the competiton is superior. There are hordes of people who are dying to switch as soon as the competiton appears usable to them. I think that as alternatives gain momentum and business decision makers don't feel the "nobody ever got fired fro buying IBM" pressure about Microsoft anymore, that Microsoft will lose market share very rapidly.

--
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?

Re:Cheering for attacks on Microsoft by Osrin · 2003-08-05 07:52 · Score: 1

Bingo! People always had a choice. Oddly many people chose not to recognize or exercise it.
Re:Cheering for attacks on Microsoft by nobody69 · 2003-08-05 07:57 · Score: 2, Offtopic

AIUI, you don't have to have 100% market saturation to be considered a monopoly. Also, you don't get nailed with anti-trust violations just by being a monopoly. If you are a dominant player in the market ("huge market share" in your words) and you abuse that power ("leveraged it in nasty ways to try to maintain it and to try to make people pay them more" in your wordsa)You May Be Violating Anti-Trust Laws. While abusing your monopoly on computer OS's isn't as big a deal as doing it on generating electricity or making antibiotics, I still think MS qualified for anti-trust protection.

--
"Bugger this, I want a better world." - Jenny Sparks
Re:Cheering for attacks on Microsoft by crow976 · 2003-08-05 08:09 · Score: 1

[...] she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99.9% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level.

bling bling..
Re:Cheering for attacks on Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 08:10 · Score: 1, Insightful

WTF, I would agree with this whole 'MS was just making money, don't hate them for being smart' line if it wasn't for the whole illegal strongarming thing.

You know, that thing where MS went to the OEM's and said 'You are nothing without our product. If you ship THAT, you don't get a deal on our product.' Now, if MS was not a monopoly, the OEM's would have laughed their asses off and said 'Fuck you, we'll just go with your competition!'

Except that this was the early 90's and there was no fucking competition in the clone market. I will say it again. NO alternatives. Linux was infant. BeOS was still on the PPC. Do not confuse other markets for competion. Apple exists in another market. The OEM's couldn't call up Apple and say 'hey can we license an OS from you?'. Apple was never a part of Microsoft's OS market. Hell, they sell software for Apple's platform.

Anyway, the whole 'bundling' issue that Slashdotters seem to get stuck on never bothered me. It's the coercion of businesses that did. Once you can tell me that coercion through monopoly status is fair in a healthy capitalist market, I'll drop my argument.
Re:Cheering for attacks on Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 09:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

No, we didn't always have a choice, and let me give you two examples.

Back when Netscape was sucking hard, and it was all we had for Linux, IE-only sites were fairly common. The problem with this is that Microsoft only ported to platforms that did not pose a threat to their monopoly. For example, did you know Microsoft already ported IE to Unix (IE 4 was it?)? You could run IE under Solaris and HPUX(WTF?!?!?), but they didn't recompile it for LInux. I would have gladly used it back in those days, and I wouldn't mind using it today because some goons still choose to ignore W3 standards and to test their sites against standards-compliant browsers. Anyway, the point is they could have easily ported to Linux to allow Linux users to view sites that were specifically written for IE (of which there were plenty), but Microsoft did not and would never do this because it hurts them. This is of course bad for society (at least society who wants to be able to choose an alternative to Windows on x86) and it shows that people don't really have a choice.

The fact that they could do this shows why their position is a dangerous one. They have the source to the browser that 95% of the world is expected to use, and they refuse to port to any up-and-comping x86 OS.

Another example: I want to remain 'compatible' with my company, who distributes forms in MS Word, I am screwed again. I can't buy Word for Linux, and we all know that Word is the (unfortunate) defacto standard for most companies. If my company chooses MS Office, and OpenOffice isn't able to support all the features MS Office uses (or if they haven't fully reverse-engineered MS's proprietary file formats), then I don't have a choice - I have to run Windows.

Our choice, if you want to call it one, has always been: "Choose free software or compatibility with the rest of the world who uses Microsoft (available for Windows only) products." This really isn't a choice since most people want to be compatible with the rest of the world.

This would all be a non-issue if Microsoft wasn't in the OS business while at the same time being in the application business.
Re:Cheering for attacks on Microsoft by Wavicle · 2003-08-05 11:22 · Score: 1

But I don't think they had a Monopoly or qualified for anti-trust prosecution, even for their extremely obnoxious licensing agreements.

I'm afraid the court disagreed with you. They were found guilty of illegally abusing their monopoly in court and on appeal that fact was upheld.

They simply managed to get the remedy for illegally using their monopoly down to a slap on the wrist.

--
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Re:Cheering for attacks on Microsoft by Pharmboy · 2003-08-05 12:36 · Score: 1

Don't get me wrong: I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy. I think their business practices are deplorable. But I don't think they had a Monopoly or qualified for anti-trust prosecution, even for their extremely obnoxious licensing agreements.

Microsoft DOES have a monopoly. Monopolies are NOT illegal in the US, in spite of the incorrect statements to the contrary. What IS illegal is to use a monopoly to further monopolize a market, or to use it to act against the common good (price fixing, elliminating competition, etc). I agree that the whole court case against Microsoft is unnecessary, as the market tends to self correct (albeit, slowly) in a capitalistic society. Big companies have a tendency to shoot themselves in the foot, or simply get too big to respond to market conditions quick enough.

But they do have a monopoly, and they did use it to their advantage in questionable ways. I just don't think the suit is what will knock them down to size. It will instead be their own customers who run servers in particular, and the fact that you can buy a working computer running Linux at walmart now for less money than a single copy of XP home at retail price.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:Cheering for attacks on Microsoft by WCMI92 · 2003-08-05 14:39 · Score: 1

MS backing SCO, or trying to buy them, could be construed as using their client monopoly to force a server monopoly. If MS could grab Linux's share of the server OS market, they'd have a number similar to their client OS share...

--
Corporatism != Free Market

Birthday by andymar · 2003-08-05 07:21 · Score: 1

It's always difficult to wish things for one's birthday. Every year my dad asks me "Anything besides money?", and I answer "No, money is fine". This year I can say "Dad, I want a Linux license for my birthday !". Thank you SCO.

$699 License... annual? by eskwayrd · 2003-08-05 07:21 · Score: 1

I know it's ludicrous, but it could be even more so:

Does anyone know the terms of the license? Is this an annual fee, one-time, or other time period? Any other conditions?

--
eskwayrd = m^2c^4

Re:At least now we know what their business model by pmz · 2003-08-05 07:22 · Score: 1

We don't know what the "SCO stuff" is...

Okay. I do think they eventually have to fess up to what it is. Otherwise...you know, you just reminded me that you owe me $5000 for that stuff you plagarized from my book that I haven't published...or written...but, still, you owe me...uh, $6,000...yeah, $6,500, that's it.

Someone should be able to sue SCO to force them to disclose their "property" to everyone that they want to collect money from. The NDA isn't sufficient.

You know, like spinal tap. Except for real. I mean, it really is a documentary. And it's still funny.

It depends on the outcome. If SCO and Microsoft manage to exploit loopholes in the law to the extent that Linux, the BSDs, and most commerial UNIX is destroyed leaving Mr. Gates, Mr. Ballmer, and Mr. McBride in a triumvirate of absolute industrial control, then the title of that documentary would be "The Day the Software Industry Died."

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin

I take my (blue) hat off to you by JimmytheGeek · 2003-08-05 07:22 · Score: 1

It's people like you what cause unrest!

Similar tactics by kwiqsilver · 2003-08-05 07:23 · Score: 1

Sound a lot like DirecTV's tactics.
When you can't make money competing with your product, it's time to extort money out of people.

It's way past April 1st by Nonillion · 2003-08-05 07:23 · Score: 1

Hey SCO, April 1st was months ago. So are you telling me you want $700 for something I can download off your site for free?

Pass me what you've been smoking, it must be pretty good shit!

--
"I bow to no man" - Riddick

Re:At least now we know what their business model by sjvn · 2003-08-05 07:23 · Score: 1

SCO claim that's the 'stolen' code is in 2.4 and above. SCO says what was swiped from Unix System V was NUMA and SMP and other enterprise level stuff.

Of course, this begs the question as to why they're also charging desktop and embedded Linux customers since they're are darn few desktop Linux setups with NUMA, SMP not to mention that the idea of an embedded SMP Linux system with NUMA is rather mind-boggling.

Steven

What no shrink wrapped box? by hedley · 2003-08-05 07:24 · Score: 1

For $699 I expect a box/CD's/Manual etc,
right now I don't even get the courtesy of a reach around :)

Careful they don't fingerprint your static IP's out there guys.

Hedley

SCO code in Linux or Linux code in SCO??? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 07:25 · Score: 1, Interesting

May be I didn't get it right, but from what I understand SCO "claim" that they have found bunch of their UNIX code in Linux 2.4. Even if they have show their source code to show that their claim that their code matched w/ Linux 2.4. But that doesn't mean the code have to come from SCO, it could have been the other way around. It could have been their programmers who steal Linux code. And please don't tell me the history of the UNIX is long before Linux, because I know that is true, but SCO have to prove that their code(which they claim to be inside Linux) exist before Linux 2.4 not just one of the updates they have after. And for what revision of Linux 2.4 do such changes occur. And specifically which part of the Linux that was matched w/ UNIX V code. Could it be a certain generic code for protocol, filesystem, and etc?

binary? by omega9 · 2003-08-05 07:26 · Score: 1

The license insures that customers can continue their use of binary deployments of Linux without violating SCO's intellectual property rights.

Does this mean deployment from a binary distribution (ie. Red Hat, Mandrake), or an eventualy binary deployment in house? What if the distro used is Gentoo, LFS, or some other source based distro? If source based distros are exempt, why would they be?

--
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.

Re:binary? by EzInKy · 2003-08-05 17:24 · Score: 1

According to SCO:

"The license gives end users the right to use the SCO intellectual property contained in Linux, in binary format only."

So, according to them, you can't use the kernel source at all.

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.

These guys are sick... by Frodo420024 · 2003-08-05 07:26 · Score: 1

And it's another indication that they're trying to attack Linux as such, rather than conduct normal business.

I hear sounds like puppets in the dark...

--
I'm in a Unix state of mind.

SCO: by Goody · 2003-08-05 07:26 · Score: 1

Please have a nice hot cup of shut the fsck up !

--
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .

Why? by MasTRE · 2003-08-05 07:27 · Score: 1

> "'We believe it is necessary for Linux customers to properly license SCO's IP if they are running Linux 2.4 kernel..."

That's OK SCO, I have my own IP address - I do not want to "license" yours.

--
Must-not-watch TV!

Where's my Monopoly money.... by nortcele · 2003-08-05 07:27 · Score: 5, Funny

As soon as I find my Parker Brothers Monopoly game, they will have their $699. And a shoe.

What they heck do they think they own... Boardwalk? That's just crazy.

Re:Where's my Monopoly money.... by red+floyd · 2003-08-05 09:13 · Score: 1

Well, Santa Cruz does have a Boardwalk...

<REALITY>
Of course SCOX is no longer based in Santa Cruz
</REALITY>

--
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Re:Where's my Monopoly money.... by shadowbearer · 2003-08-05 12:40 · Score: 1

and the Linux users fought back with shoes....

SB

--
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Re:Where's my Monopoly money.... by Scratch-O-Matic · 2003-08-05 14:31 · Score: 1

Wrong game. What you really want to give them is the lead pipe. In the library.

--

Evil is the money of root.
Re:Where's my Monopoly money.... by WCMI92 · 2003-08-05 15:41 · Score: 1

"Wrong game. What you really want to give them is the lead pipe. In the library."

Repeated pipe wrench to the head followed by use of the revolver in the study is how I'd do it.

--
Corporatism != Free Market

Where do I send a check... by gmac63 · 2003-08-05 07:27 · Score: 1

Right. Where do I send the check...

--

INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';

Re:Triple Agent Double Reverse. by Quill_28 · 2003-08-05 07:29 · Score: 1

You have alot of free time don't you?

Legal recourse by mackman · 2003-08-05 07:31 · Score: 1

Isn't there some sort of law that forbids a company from giving away software and years later requiring you to pay for it, know it's too late for you to stop using their software? Can't affected companies file a class action lawsuite?

to paraphrase the NRA... by _randy_64 · 2003-08-05 07:32 · Score: 1

They can have my Linux, when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.

--
I mod down all the "free iPod"-sig losers.

True value of Linux? by Frodo420024 · 2003-08-05 07:33 · Score: 1

Good someone finally realizes the true value of Linux :)

--
I'm in a Unix state of mind.

Mec's notes from the teleconference by nedwidek · 2003-08-05 07:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Notes on SCO Conference Call, 2003-08-05
Michael Elizabeth Chastain

Copyright 2003, Michael Elizabeth Chastain.
Permission granted to copy and reproduce in any medium.

2003-08-05T14:01:59-0400

800-238-9007 / 274040 / The SCO Group
Called in. There is a queue to get to an operator.

2003-08-05T14:06:16-0400

Opening remarks, Blake Stowell.
Stowell: Today, McBride and Sontag.

2003-08-05T14:06:56-0400

McBride:
Yesterday, SCO filed a legal action against the SCO Group ...
Purpose of this call is to comment on these actions.
Red Hat's lawsuit confirms what we have been saying all along:
Linux developers are unable/unwilling to screen code.
Red Hat is selling Linux that contains verbatim / obfuscated code
from System 5.
Red Hat is selling Linux that contains derivative code ...
Some of those companies (IBM / Sequent) have had their licenses terminated.

Red Hat claims we have not shown examples of infringing code.
This claim is simply not true ... viewing center in Linden, Utah.
Red Hat is apparently trying to pretend that no problem exists.

Red Hat claims that SCO is at fault for its loss of recent Linux business.
We suggest that Red Hat has adopted a faulty business model. ... new risk factor disclosure in SEC statement ...
Quotes from GPL Section 7, distributors may need to stop distributing.
It has no control to prevent infringing code from going into Linux.
If infringing code goes in, then Red Hat must stop shipping.
This is the problem with Red Hat's business model.

Red Hat has established $1 million fund.
SCO is not suing developers, just their employers.
We suggest that Red Hat needs to increase the size of the fund.
Over 2.5 million servers running linux kernel 2.4.

Red Hat thinks that SCO should show them every line of infringing code.
Red Hat thinks that they can ... just remove the infringing code.

What is at issue is more than SCO and Red Hat.
What is at issue is intellectual property rights in the age of the Internet.
"don't ask, don't tell" policy. ... important debate ...
proprietary or communal property according to Richard Stallman's vision.

Rolling out licenses to run SCO IP in binary form only.
Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only,
customers also comply with the GPL.

2003-08-05T14:15:00-0400

Assemble roster for Q and A.

#1 Lee Gomez, Wall Street Journal

Q: Why don't you release the examples of infringement?
A: Actually, We have been releasing them.
Q: Are they on your web site?
A: NUMA, RCU, are direct violations.
Q: Do you have specific examples?
A: We've been showing?
Q: Publically available, to anyone?
A: Absolutely.
A: The minute we open it up, we can't restrict it in the future.
A: Over 100 people under NDA.
Q: Can you make available a list of people?
A: I have to go back to my PR team?
Q: Linux/open source advocates?
A: I don't remember his name
Chris: I don't remember his name but I can provide that to you.

#2 David Becker, CNET

Q: Terms of the new license?
A: Chris, comment on that?
Chris: single cpu, $699, October 15, after which it will climb to a higher price
Chris: contract their SCO representative

#3 M??? Greenmeyer, e-week

Q: Letter about possible global resolution.
What were you referring to?
A: We had those discussions ... now we're going to take matters in our own hands.
A: It's time to start marching onward again.

#4 Michael Singer, Jupiter Media

--
Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!

Re:Mec's notes from the teleconference by dentar · 2003-08-05 07:58 · Score: 1

"The summary on the whole thing is: the reality is that IBM and Red Hat
have painted a Linux liability target on the backs of their customers.
We have had no choice ... we didn't want to go in this direction
but they've pushed us. Yesterday was another push in that direction."

I don't buy this for a minute. SCO pushed THEMSELVES into this corner. RedHat and IBM merely gave customers what they wanted, which is something SCO can't do.

--
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
Re:Mec's notes from the teleconference by PhilTR · 2003-08-05 09:46 · Score: 1

Q: Are you counter-suing Red Hat, or just considering it?
A: Delaware case coming to trial in 2005
A: IBM case has a court date of April 11, 2005

How can he possibly 'know' that the RedHat trial will be in 2005? The request for a hearing for a "permanant injunction" has not even been given a date. That hearing should come within a month or two. SCO may not make it out of that encounter.

Man-o-man! Talk about brinkmanship.

Folks, what you have here is the worst kind of pariah. If the community fails to quickly destroy it, the whole community runs the risk of becoming infested. The more jurisdictions SCO has to fight in the greater the probability it can be iradicated.

"terrorist market" actually a good idea by Brown+Line · 2003-08-05 07:35 · Score: 2, Informative

The so-called "terrorist market" was an information market, which is modelled after a futures market, not the stock market. The Iowa Electronic Markets, which are run by the University of Iowa, have proved themselves useful both in pooling information about possible future events (e.g., who will elected president) and in attracting ideas about possible outcomes. Information markets clearly are a good idea - though it makes sense for something like this to be run by a university rather than the Pentagon.

Regards ...

--
[this .sig for rent]

run time only license? by iplayfast · 2003-08-05 07:35 · Score: 1

Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only, customers also comply with the General Public License, under which Linux is distributed.
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990421/SCOLO GO )

This makes no sense to me at all. The whole idea behind the GNU license is freedom. SCO is claiming that because they are distributing a runtime only license with the kernel they aren't in conflict with the gnu license? I don't think so.

Indemnity by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 07:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is a serious issue. Even if RH has a defense fund, why has no organization offered indemnity?

An article like this at forbes I think is enough to scare a CTO. We can't keep looking at this like an absurd joke, IBM needs to setup to the plate.

good luck! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 07:35 · Score: 2, Funny

Why would I pay for linux when I don't even pay for Windows!

Re:good luck! by pair-a-noyd · 2003-08-05 08:14 · Score: 1

Why *would* anyone pay for Windows?
I thought it was shareware. What with it all over the Internet. Or is that the official Microsoft distribution model?

okay... what*ever* by laslo2 · 2003-08-05 07:35 · Score: 1

If SCO (whose software I have not touched in several years) has a problem with the 2.4 and 2.5 kernels, fine. I'll run 2.6.whatever, and keep up with version changes.

SCO Unix is not an issue for me... sheesh, the last place I was at that even ran SCO switched to Linux years ago.

Bleh.

(btw, yes I know hollifeldinstitute.org is empty. it's summer. deal.)

--
Karma only matters to me now and zen.

More interesting info... by demonbug · 2003-08-05 07:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

The complaint filed by SCO. Fairly interesting in a legal sort of way. An interesting segment from the complaint...

Limitations of Linux Before IBM's Involvement

82. Linux started as a hobby project of a 19-year old student. Linux has evolved through bits and pieces of various contributions by numerous software developers using single processor computers. Virtually none of these software developers and hobbyists had access to enterprise-scale equipment and testing facilities for Linux development. Without access to such equipment, facilities, sophisticated methods, concepts and coordinated know-how, it would be difficult or impossible for the Linux development community to create a grade of Linux adequate for enterprise use.

83. As long as the Linux development process remained uncoordinated and random, it posed little or no threat to SCO, or to other UNIX vendors, for at least two major reasons: (a) Linux quality was inadequate since it was not developed and tested in coordination for enterprise use and (b) enterprise customer acceptance was non-existent because Linux was viewed by enterprise customers as a "fringe" software product.

84. Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car. This re-design is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment.

85. For example, Linux is currently capable of coordinating the simultaneous performance of 4 computer processors. UNIX, on the other hand, commonly links 16 processors and can successfully link up to 32 processors for simultaneous operation. This difference in memory management performance is very significant to enterprise customers who need extremely high computing capabilities for complex tasks. The ability to accomplish this task successfully has taken AT&T, Novell and SCO at least 20 years, with access to expensive equipment for design and testing, well-trained UNIX engineers and a wealth of experience in UNIX methods and concepts.

86. It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach UNIX performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of UNIX code, methods or concepts to achieve such performance, and coordination by a larger developer, such as IBM.

Re:More interesting info... by Mybrid · 2003-08-05 19:31 · Score: 1

This re-design is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment.

Well, I guess somebody should tell that to Bill Joy when he rewrote Berkely UNIX from scratch in one summer in the early 1980's. The "UNIX Fast File System", TCP/IP and other Berkeley UNIX innovations didn't come from "well trained UNIX engineers". It came from professors and students at Berkeley and eventually every University in the country was doing research on UNIX and contributing to it. What about Ingres, the first relational database? Industry or research?
Let's see, RISC architecture and RAID storage came from: 1.) Industry or 2.) Dave Patterson and students at UC Berkeley.

Nobody I know of takes AIX seriously, do you?
Re:More interesting info... by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2003-08-06 01:17 · Score: 1

This is ridiculous. They are painting Linux developers as being incapable of doing clever things without SCO, and without expensive equipment.
In my experience, equipment is rarely an issue in developing code. It's generally down to a combination of smart people, co-ordination and will. I've seen people come up with really clever work in tiny companies, and seen huge companies run at snails pace. Big projects with a bad structure and bad architecture can get nailed by small projects with a good architecture.
You don't need any financial investment to start writing code. The only costs are: a basic PC (like a 486), electricity, lighting, and most importantly, your time. I built a data-driven website for a small organisation, and I think the fixed costs were probably less than $50.
In addition, people are often more motivated to do their own things, because they are doing them for fun.
You also don't need to employ people like Darl McBride when you are writing code for fun.

RMS has kernel envy. by Picass0 · 2003-08-05 07:36 · Score: 1

For all of the good things He has contributed to Free Software, I've always picked up a tone of envy in everything RMS writes concerning Linux. I think Stallman may quietly be hopeful that SCO is successful in driving people away from Linux (and in his mind) into the arm of the Hurd kernel.

There is no logic to it by brlewis · 2003-08-05 07:37 · Score: 1

If you own a legal copy of a program, you don't need a license to run or use it, according to US copyright law.

I am not a lawyer. If I were, I'd be able to tell you whether extortion or fraud was the right word for what SCO is doing.

this is illegal by azoidx · 2003-08-05 07:39 · Score: 1

sco has proved nothing in court. this is illegal.

Re:this is illegal by Garridan · 2003-08-05 07:48 · Score: 1

Are you a lawyer? Seems to me that I could sell you a license to use the Internet, for as much money as I want. The license would simply mean that I couldn't sue you for using the internet, so long as you didn't violate the terms of the license agreement. You'd be stupid to pay me, but I wouldn't be violating any laws.
Re:this is illegal by nagora · 2003-08-05 07:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Seems to me that I could sell you a license to use the Internet, for as much money as I want.
But if you tell me that I'm breaking the law by not buying your Internet licence, then that's fraud and that's illegal.
TWW

--
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Re:this is illegal by JoeCommodore · 2003-08-05 08:20 · Score: 1

Well.. We're not yet saying 'your breaking the law...' but we suggest you should consult a lawyer before you use the internet without our 'internet use license'.

--
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Re:this is illegal by pdbogen · 2003-08-05 08:31 · Score: 1

Eh, it's litigious extortion.
Re:this is illegal by Bored+Huge+Krill · 2003-08-05 08:38 · Score: 1

That is what they have asserted in letters. However, SCO has also made pubilc statements alleging that the Linux kernel (or wherever it is this week) infringes their IP, and noting intention to sue end users. Given that public statement of intent, I'd be surprised if they can disown it and point to the watered down version they actually sent people. IANAL, of course, but I think SCO has dug a huge hole for themselves by their lack of caution in making some of their more outrageous public statements. Shame. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people ;-)
Re:this is illegal by Bored+Huge+Krill · 2003-08-05 08:48 · Score: 1

ok, here's a couple of interesting bits from the press release:
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.
and:
"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."
That's pretty direct. If they cannot subsequently prove these claims in court, they're going to be in big trouble...
Can't wait
Krill

If the naughty code is for SMP... by The+Lord+of+Chaos · 2003-08-05 07:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

Then why are SCO charging for single processor licenses? Sure a SMP compiled kernel will use SMP code but a kernel compiled without SMP should be exempt since it doesn't use the SMP code that SCO allegedly owns.

Insurance, eh? by Doctor+Hu · 2003-08-05 07:40 · Score: 1

... The license insures that customers can continue their use of binary deployments of Linux without violating SCO's intellectual property rights. ...

Ah, the sort of insurance policy that Luigi and friends would sell their sainted grandmothers for....

Re:I got an idea, SCO by Tackhead · 2003-08-05 07:40 · Score: 1

> How about I get you a spoon, and you can eat my ass??

There is no spoon, Darl. Use your tongue.

SCO, the Mafia, and the Pilot's Union by jhylkema · 2003-08-05 07:41 · Score: 1

"It is this Court's view that a minor [IP] dispute has been transformed into nothing more than a shakedown. Even though it may indeed be more economical for [Linux users] to cave in and pay, in the long run, if you pay extortion today, you typically have to pay it tomorrow. When the pitch is 'pay us what we want or we will cost you more,' it is the type of negotiation one usually sees when doing business with one of the five families in New York."

(With apologies to US District Judge Elton Kendall in his ruling in American Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Ass'n, No. 7:99-CV-025, 1999 WL 66188 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 1999))

Hope this is ironic by joeykiller · 2003-08-05 07:41 · Score: 1

Michael wrote:

Update: 08/05 18:24 GMT by M: After October 15, SCO says they'll want $1399. Better buy now!

Let's hope Michael was ironic when he wrote this, or else this is one of the worst pieces of advice ever from a site which is built on open source. The obvious advice would be "don't buy this license no matter how cheap it gets".

(Of course, if the SCO case ends with SCO actually managing to prove that their claims are correct, Michael's advice's probably good)

Re:Hope this is ironic by Bored+Huge+Krill · 2003-08-05 08:33 · Score: 1

I'm sure he was indeed being ironic.
But actually, I don't think it would be good advice even if SCO does win. Just as soon as SCO presents their "evidence" to the court, irrespective of whether they are able to prove their claims of ownership, the game is up. The allegedly tainted source code files will be rewritten long before the case finishes, and customers won't need the license. I very much doubt that SCO would be able to sue anybody successfully for retrospective infringement, even if they won their case against Red Hat. And personally, I give them very little chance of that.
Bring on the damn lawsuit already. Let's get this shit over with.

Better buy now! by cyclist1200 · 2003-08-05 07:42 · Score: 1

Better buy now!

Yeah. I'll get right on that. Just watch how fast I go.

My analysis by mec · 2003-08-05 07:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

Read McBride's opening statement closely:

What is at issue is more than SCO and Red Hat.
What is at issue is intellectual property rights in the age of the Internet. ... important debate ... [about] proprietary or communal property according to Richard Stallman's vision.

He is calling out RMS by name. This is a lot worse than "hey your product infringes on our product". This is a declaration that proprietary source and open source cannot co-exist in the same world.

In his closing remarks, McBride likens SCO's actions against Linux end users to the RIAA's actions against P2P copyright infringers.

This is some lethal FUD here. There is a huge difference between music thieves and open source developers. Music thieves are in fact making using other people's work without their consent, whereas open source developers create their own independent content and distibute it on their own chosen terms. We are indies. We are not warez d00dz.

Back to SCO ... the key part here is that SCO has developed a new business model.

Classical company: make products and services, sell them to customers for money, profit.

F/OSS community: make products and services, give them away, self-generating funding, community rewards (but not much profit).

SCO: generate FUD, sell "ScoSource licenses" to Microsoft and Sun, profit.

Classical companies took some time to adjust to the radically different approach of the F/OSS Community. We don't breath the same oxygen that they do, so strategies that worked against, say, Netscape, do not work against, say, Apache.

Similarly, SCO has a radically different model. SCO throws shit like a mad monkey at the Bronx zoo. For a classical corporation, there is huge backlash to this, because customers tend to avoid the products and services of the shit-thrower. But SCO doesn't care, because they don't make their profit from selling products and services ... they make it by filing lawsuits (Caldera International versus Microsoft) and by selling their services as fudmongers!

How to fight something like this?

Well, Linuxtag did something effective. Red Hat's lawsuit may or may not be effective, but it sure is good for morale. I asked RMS to boycott SCO -- remove support for SCO operating systems from GNU products -- but he replied that he didn't think it would be effective (because SCO can just maintain their own branch). I disagree with that and I urge more developers to follow Fyodor's lead and remove OpenServer and UnixWare as configuration options in their software.

SCO makes money by throwing shit at Linux -- not indirectly by increasing sales of their products (which does not work very well), but directly, in the form of checks from Microsoft and Sun.

SCO has essentially two assets and is fighting on two levels. They have legal claims and are pursuing those in court. But they also have PR assets. It is deadly for us to reply to their PR attacks with legal defenses. We have to attack SCO's PR assets.

Some ideas for an attack:

. SCO claims they spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing and purchasing the rights to Unix. Well, actually, they probably spent a lot less than that. Check how much they raised in their IPO and how much revenue they've made since then and how much they've actually spent on engineering.

. SCO even bought their name! The SCO Group didn't build a reputation on that name. They used to be Caldera International, but when that didn't work, they bought the name from the Santa Cruz Operation.

. SCO isn't a product and service company. Their revenues are tiny and declining. Their VP of Engineering sold all his stock (and I've heard a rumor that he left the company, haven't tracked it down yet). It's not enough to point out that they are litigious. Point out that they have nil legitimate technology to bring to the table.

Sorry this rambles a bit, I should write an essay instead of just rambling in a comment box.

Re:My analysis by mandolin · 2003-08-05 14:29 · Score: 1

Their VP of Engineering sold all his stock (and I've heard a rumor that he left the company, haven't tracked it down yet)
Best info I see on that is here, or possibly here, which doesn't quite dispel the "rumor"-ness of it (sorry).
I bet he's gone. I almost feel a little sorry for him -- you can bet he will be in court for awhile. I wonder whose side he will testify for?

SCO can bite my shiny metal ass by lilbudda · 2003-08-05 07:43 · Score: 1

That's all I have to say.

I believe by dh003i · 2003-08-05 07:43 · Score: 1

that SCO ought to give all individuals who use the Linux kernel 669 dollars for wasting our time.

--
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen

F*ck that! by makoffee · 2003-08-05 07:45 · Score: 1

For what? The the hell are your offering me? Nothing! I work at a non-profit, THATS WHY WE USE LINUX IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT'S FREE! Shit microsoft only charges $350 and they actualy wrote most/all of their os.

I think I need to start employing this buiness model, I'll find a popular software project and start telling all the customers that they owe me money for doing nothing. Nice.

If anyone desirves any money for this it's linus, and his crack team of developers, not crappy old SCO.

--
-makoffee

Already called their 800 number by dacarr · 2003-08-05 07:45 · Score: 1

The customer support staff has no clue whatsoever as to what's going on. Hammer them now. 800-726-8649

--
This sig no verb.

Re:Too much crack! (Mac OS X) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 07:46 · Score: 1, Interesting

Let's see:

Mac OS X: $129
Mac OS X Server v10.2 (10-User Lic.) $499.00
Mac OS X Server v10.2 (Unlimited) $999.00

And SCO wants what for what?! $1399 for a SINGLE processor after October 15th?!

Pass the popcorn, this is getting amusing.

Jump on the waggen, its fun by VEGETA_GT · 2003-08-05 07:46 · Score: 1

Since these SCO dicks seam to be able to make cash on this maybe I can

I developed some Linux code some time in the past under a different name. But I well not tell you where the code is or when I entered it. Though I well give you a hint of what this code looks like

Contains the words "Hello World Eh". This is very different from the "Hello World" that others have used. But Now I need to pay off collage loans and such, so now I will ask to be paid for my hard work and time put into the linux code. But I am at least not as stupid as SCO (IE I have more then 2 brain cells, and yes one of there 2 is missing).

I in this basement bargain price well ask for a total of 6.99 per CPU. But Hurry now, Within 15 min's this price well go to 13.99$. Why the raise in the price, just because I feel like it, and realize I have a better chance of being hit by lightning, a meteor, and seeing flying pigs, while winning 4 different major lotteries at the same time then collecting on this requested cash.

Also I well be suing IBM for using code I did not write, or own, but that was used in linux. WHY, well seams SCO can do it, why can't I. and to represent me in this court case, I well bring in none other then my Dog Hearshey. I believe this dog has as much chance against IBM as SCO dose against IBM.

In conclusion, People get yourself a VERY BIG LART, and find the local SCO representative. Personally I like to use a 4x4x8 for my LART, as no matter how much KY you add to it, it is not going to feel good.

O and final comment
SCO BIT ME (P.S. I am running Linux on 3 boxes, so BITE ME to the power of 3)

mod article up by geekoid · 2003-08-05 07:47 · Score: 1

+1 funny!

well, anything that makes me spray coke onto my monitor has got to be funny, right?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Price SCO-nix out of the market. by nurb432 · 2003-08-05 07:48 · Score: 1

If they do win the suits and are actually able to demand this, that prices them out of the market.

Win2003 would be cheaper in single CPU servers ( perhaps multi-cpu too.. I don't have more prices with me ), and XP would be WAY cheaper.. ( not saying windows is better, just purely a cost statement here )

They are nuts....

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Huh? by autopr0n · 2003-08-05 07:48 · Score: 1

Isn't Sun Microsystem's actualy SUNW?

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Re:Huh? by sisukapalli1 · 2003-08-05 09:33 · Score: 1

Laziness to type the extra symbol, and keeping with the /. tradition, a typo :)

Once again, Billy Connolly said it best... by marsvin · 2003-08-05 07:49 · Score: 2, Funny

"Fuck off. Just... fuck off!"

BAAAHAHAHAHAHA by BigBoyTim · 2003-08-05 07:49 · Score: 1

I used to work on a contract for Franklin Covey when Darl McBride was still there... I sat in quite a few meetings with him throughout the course of the project. I thought he was a dankus back then; all this glue-sniffing has confirmed my suspicions. Tim

IP by jaavaaguru · 2003-08-05 07:50 · Score: 1

to properly license SCO's IP

I thought it was Al Gore who invented IP? ;-)

--
Follow me

Re:IP by aled · 2003-08-05 11:38 · Score: 1

That's a common misunderstanding. Al Gore actually invented the Matrix and doing so created everything we know as reality.

--

"I think this line is mostly filler"

Make up their mind... by jpellino · 2003-08-05 07:50 · Score: 1

"Many customers are concerned about using Linux since they have become aware of the allegations that Linux is an unauthorized derivative work of the UNIX(R) operating system. These customers unknowingly received illegal copies of SCO property and many are running critical business applications on Linux."

Well, what is it, son - alleged or illegal? Alleged is alleged - illegal demands proof. Wait - I've heard this before somewhere...

"Now, what's it gonna be young feller? You want I should freeze or get down on the ground? 'Cause if'n I freeze, I can't rightly drop. And if'n I drop, I'm gonna be in motion."

If I were Darl, I'd just phone up the Coen brothers and negotiate them the keys to the screenplay now. They stand to make more money that way.

--
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."

Sent my own message off... by dacarr · 2003-08-05 07:50 · Score: 1

So I sent them a message ending "How about I give you the finger, and you give me your evidence."

I clicked send.

The message that was on the response page was "You will be hearing from us soon.". That almost has an ominous tone.

Almost.

--
This sig no verb.

Separation from Government by Epeeist · 2003-08-05 07:51 · Score: 1

Using the courts (read: government)

I thought one of the benefits of the American constitution was the formal separation of executive and judiciary?

Re:Separation from Government by StenD · 2003-08-05 08:02 · Score: 1

A formal separation doesn't mean that they operate in isolation from each other. Judges need to remain on reasonable terms with the executive and legislative branches if they hope to be appointed to higher levels of the judiciary.
Re:Separation from Government by Phat_Tony · 2003-08-05 08:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

That is a benefit. Seperating the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, along with systems of checks and balaneces between them, helps to prevent any one branch of government form becoming too powerful. Or so every high-school American History textbook tells us.

But I'm not sure I see your point. They're all still government, and SCO's still trying to use government (or at least a vague threat of government action) to coerce their profits retroactively from users of Linux. Who cares which branch of government they're using?

If the Judicial branch does end up ruling in their favor on weak evidence, then maybe the legislative branch could get involved with reformed laws regarding copyright and patents on software. This should be done anyway (read: "one-click").

--
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
Re:Separation from Government by ideut · 2003-08-05 09:48 · Score: 1

Yes. And your point is?

--
--

Prompted by RedHat... by Jerk+City+Troll · 2003-08-05 07:51 · Score: 1

I think it's safe to say that RedHat's announcement yesterday was something of a catalyst for this announcemet.

Many people have argued on whether or not RedHat's move was good or bad. Now I think we can definitively state that it was a Good Thing, although perhaps not in the way RedHat expected.

We knew this was going to happen. For the longest time, SCO has been threatening about licensing fees and other nonsense. We've been holding our breath, wondering when. SCO has been happy to continue the FUD campaign because that would damage Linux the most.

Thanks to RedHat, their schedule has been moved up a bit. SCO must start trying to extort money immediately because the RedHat case is going to demonstrate SCO are full of nonsense. All in all, RedHat's announcement yesterday will help speed this process to its end. Of course, SCO is devious (because their support is devious), so there's no telling what is coming next.

I just really wish IBM would get off their asses and clobber SCO, especially since they just went through the hassle of attaining government security certification for Linux.

--
Join Tor today!

The QNX option by Animats · 2003-08-05 07:51 · Score: 1

One option to keep in mind, in case SCO actually wins, is moving to QNX. QNX is POSIX compliant and supports most GNU tools. From the command line, it looks like Linux. But it's not. Not even close.

Underneath is a completely different architecture, a true microkernel system, with all drivers, file systems, networking, etc. outside the kernel. So there's no way it can infringe anything from UNIX legacy code. It offers symmetrical multiprocessing and clustering, but again, the kernel-level approach is completely different than that of Linux/UNIX/BSD/etc.

But it's not open source. The QNX OS is free for individual use. Download here. But commercial use requires payment, and it's not cheap in small quantities. Nor are there enough desktop applications to make it usable in office environments. (There's Mozilla and ABIword; that's about it. If somebody ported Open Office to QNX, the desktop situation would look much better.)

The new version of the HURD kernel, based on L4, would have many of the same properties, but it's nowhere near ready for prime time. Based on the track record of the HURD crowd, completion of that project is many years away.

Don't Cave In by Exousia · 2003-08-05 07:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

If your boss won't go for Linux, don't cave in (if you can help it) and get M$ XP server. Use another Free OS. Resist SCO *and* M$ benefitting from this fiasco.

Rage against the Machine

--

--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.

Five words by bluepinstripe · 2003-08-05 07:53 · Score: 1

Tortious interference with contractual relations

If you have SCO stock at the end of this ... by burgburgburg · 2003-08-05 07:55 · Score: 1

it will be worth approximately 10% of the cost of the paper it is printed on. Of course Darl and his bunch will have cashed out by then but remember, caveat emptor translates in this case as "Screw you, buddy".

Never underestimate the power and strength of a bunch of folks running up a stock's price based on specious IP accusations while being covertly funded by a nefarious monopolist company.

Tainting SCO's IP? by GeekDork · 2003-08-05 07:55 · Score: 1

Would it be possible for someone, let's say the writer of the VM system or any other extremely important subsystem, to put his work under a pseudo non-free license that explicitly forbids re-licensing the code? That way, SCO would suddenly have someone with a strong case against them since, at the moment, they're giving out licenses for the whole kernel. Bonus points if all "non-0wnz0red" parts of the kernel migrated to that license.

--

Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.

Bill Gates... by Garridan · 2003-08-05 07:57 · Score: 1

Just fell over in his chair, laughing his ass off.
And his marketing nerds just tapped a keg. Its party time; Linux is more expensive than Windows!

This is the funniest shit in the world. SCO reminds me of the Black Knight in Monty Python. Without a leg to stand on, or an arm to swing... "I'll bite your balls off!!!"

SCO sounds like Lyle Langley from the Simpsons... by CaptCanuk · 2003-08-05 07:57 · Score: 1

I hope not too many companies buy into this "monorail".

What I find the worst in this whole scenario is their price jump in October, 2003. It's like you can buy now and avoid paying double, but oh, we may be proven wrong and incapable of protecting "our" IP so at that point, you just gave us free money and I'm off to Ogdenville. There's gotta be something legally wrong with that scenario. I find it akin to voluntarily giving yourself up to the police for a crime and getting a shorter sentence with the option that in reality there was no crime committed and you screwed yourself for no reason. BUT this is on a larger scale with lotsa companies.

--
---- The geek shall inherit the Earth.

I can't believe I'm about to do this.... by gillrock · 2003-08-05 07:58 · Score: 1

To qoute Mr. Spock from the big screen...

"...Go to hell."

Live long and prosper.

--
"...the shortest distance between two points may be straight line, but it is by no means the most interesting."

Behold the power of Slashdot! by Snarph · 2003-08-05 07:59 · Score: 1

a) SCOX stock trending up for the day.
b) 2:08 EST, Slashdot posts story about SCO's latest drug-induced exploit.
c) 2:25 EST, SCOX stock begins its plunge into oblivion (one would hope)
See? SCOX stock price.

Coincidence? I think not!

(okay, so maybe it is...the entire NAS is tanking too.)

Re:Do these SCO folks remind anyone else of KimJon by Geek+of+the+Week · 2003-08-05 08:01 · Score: 1

" a brutal dictator trying to elbow himself (and his country) some much need aid and respect from the international community?"

Well, at least you got the brutal dictator part right. Please leave the "they're just disrespected and frightened" crap at the door. Only someone lacking the first fscking clue about the DPRK would spew this fecal matter.

Whoa there bud, before you get up on your "only a racist pig would spew that crap" hobbyhorse I'll just point out that I'm KOREAN. No, that doesn't make me an expert, but it probably does make me more inclined to stay aware and more interested in the situation on the Korean peninsula.

Get your information from more places than the Utne Reader, then talk about Kim Jong Il. It's not about respect, or concern for the citizens of the North.

Save your pennies Darl... by packethead · 2003-08-05 08:01 · Score: 1

Save everything you're making off this scam buddy boy. I hear that buying protection in the pen is getting expensive these days....

--
.sig

so I'm supposed to trust closed source, right?... by rbird76 · 2003-08-05 08:03 · Score: 1

In SCO's opinion, "don't trust open source software". I'm supposed to trust that from a company who has complained about "illegal" code but won't reveal the source of the complaint because the code might get fixed? I'm supposed to trust closed source from SCO because I can get a vendor who claims specious IP rights that I can't verify unless I give them money (and sign an NDA) and has a model based on extortion and stock manipulation? Am I supposed to trust software more from SCO's model or RMS's? SCO keeps making arguments about closed source, just not the ones they intended.

It Occurs to me by geekoid · 2003-08-05 08:04 · Score: 1

Dick McBitch ^H^H^H^H^H Darl McBride is just the sort of person this administration should lock up.
Bush Needs to make CEOs pay for there disgressions to prove he is against corporate misconduct.

SCO and Darl are very small fish, going after them can make bush look good and not hurt his warchest.

If you feel there are impropreties going on at SCO, contact the SEC.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Isn't it fraud? by stm2 · 2003-08-05 08:04 · Score: 1

How can they sell something is not theirs?
So I could sell a parcel of eath on Satun.
Someone should write to SNOPES bout this hoax :)

--
DNA in your Linux: DNALinux

SCO unwilling to "put up." by Maul · 2003-08-05 08:05 · Score: 1

If SCO is going so far as to demand money from each and every Linux user, then they should at least be willing to take the steps to prove, in a court of law, that Linux has infringed on their IP.

SCO can't do that, of course. The only reason they've finally put up these lisencing fees is because Red Hat has forced them to do it. Red Hat's move has caused their stock price to take a beating, and they haven't got jack to counter the effect except for this.

I wouldn't be surprised if this action doesn't prompt a suit from every Linux distributor, however.

Didn't SCO's refusal to "put up" force them to simply abandon some of their European markets anyway? They've got jack, and they know it.

--

"You spoony bard!" -Tellah

Re:Too much crack! Yep! by OldHawk777 · 2003-08-05 08:05 · Score: 1

I agree, I think, you may be right. Get money from folks settling out of court. Drive the stock price up as best as possible. Then shut the doors and run for a long Burmuda vacation. Linux and all OSS belongs to the people.

OldHawk777

Reality is a self-induced hallucination.

--
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?

My preliminary reply... by Kythe · 2003-08-05 08:05 · Score: 1

Skipping the legalese, it boils down to "go to hell, SCO".

--

Kythe

Run off and buy put options instead! by nietsch · 2003-08-05 08:08 · Score: 1

Every sane person knows that this bubble will burst sooner or later. Buy stock put-options now and sell them when the bubble has burst.
Options offer bigger profits as the only cost a fraction of the underlying stock, but are valuated at the fluctuation in price. ofcourse this is matched with a high risk that the price may rise instead of fall leaving your put-options worthless, so make sure you buy them long term.

--
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you

The other shoe drops by PixelThis · 2003-08-05 08:09 · Score: 1

It always seemed to me that SCO was setting up this whole IP lawsuit deal as a way of ultimately forcing Linux users to pay them for the privilege. Seems like revenge for Linux cutting into a market that SCO folks thought they had all locked up and licen$ed to them.

Re:The other shoe drops by AndroidCat · 2003-08-05 09:34 · Score: 1

Seems like revenge for Linux cutting into a market that SCO folks thought they had all locked up and licen$ed to them.
I doubt it was revenge, they weren't around. The vulture capital guys who bought up Caldera/SCO did it, what, two years ago? They probably had this whole scheme in mind back then as a backup for selling out for the highest bidder. That's what those guys do: buy up cheap companies with IP, then turn them into litigation machines. Loot, pillage, burn, sell, then on to the next one.

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.

Keep in mind.. by jav1231 · 2003-08-05 08:09 · Score: 1

Quick! Get yours now before we go to court and we'll send you a ..uh...a paper license! This beautiful paper license bears the lovely SCO logo and entitles you to a single CPU license of Linux! But wait! You also get this rare invisible shield that protects you from litigation! This virtually miraculous cloak will keep attorney David Boies from naming you in any further litigation involving IP disputes! How much you ask? Act now, on this special Internet offer and this can all be yours for $699!! Hurry! This offer will not last for ever! Soon will we be plunged into litigation and possible bankruptcy! Get yours now!!! JAV

This is actually good for Red Hat by tadas · 2003-08-05 08:11 · Score: 1

IANAL

With that out of the way,

First, this strengthens Red Hat's procedural case for an injunction. By putting the October date on the price boost, they've strengthened Red Hat's case that immediate action needs to be taken by the court.

Second, damages to Red Hat will be easier to prove, and Red Hat is asking for the damage amount to be tripled.

--
This page accidentally left blank

A $699 upgrade for a 9 year old machine? by yourruinreverse · 2003-08-05 08:12 · Score: 1

So what would I need to pay for my Hewlett Packard Vectra XU 5/90, which I guess is eight or nine years old now, runs SuSE Linux 7.2 with a 2.4 kernel, and has TWO Pentium 54C's running at a meager 133MHz?

--
JeR

Linux is Dead by nt2UNIX · 2003-08-05 08:12 · Score: 2, Funny

Damn, just had to say it.

Long live BSD!!!!!!!

Good news by Paradise+Pete · 2003-08-05 08:14 · Score: 1

This is good news. The economy must be rebounding, because that's when silly announcements are all that's needed to boost stock prices.

699 per dammages. by jellomizer · 2003-08-05 08:15 · Score: 1

It seems like IBM is now going to add 699 per dammage of any of their customer who is going to pay for this. I guess SCO really want to go out with a bang.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

This little thing... by Smeagel · 2003-08-05 08:15 · Score: 1

called the law hehe.. In most cases (not all, but most) being a part of a corporation shields you from being held liable.

How about Gentoo and LFS? by axxackall · 2003-08-05 08:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

The license insures that customers can continue their use of binary deployments of Linux without violating SCO's intellectual property rights

I guess the keyword here is binary - those who compiled Linux from scratch may relax and safe money. Perhaps that's b/c the "secret IP" code of SCO is only in binary format. I wonder, do they petent x86 instruction code set? If so, how about Linux users on PPCs and SPARCs? If not then what makes the binary deployment to be so special comparing to the source-code based ones?

--

Less is more !

Re:How about Gentoo and LFS? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 09:15 · Score: 1, Insightful

No, what is going on here is that SCO is trying to make linux closed source.

They are claiming their code in the source, but they are not selling the source code license. As it vaguely says in their FAQ, you simply cannot compile and use your own kernel -- they tell you to outsource the compilation of the kernel or buy a "shrink wrapped boxed set" from somewhere, but they don't explain how those outsourcers or the sellers of the boxed set got a valid source license.

The truth is that they can't distribute binaries themselves, because then Torvalds can sue them under the GPL. So they can't distribute themselves, but they are going to try to "license" your use of it from other parties.

we have a winner! by samantha · 2003-08-05 08:17 · Score: 1

This company qualifies as the biggest and sickest joke of the year. It isn't funny any more. It is utterly disgusting. From here on out anyone who still is working for SCO is an absolute pariah. SCO may end up being more hated than even Micro$oft.

Email the SEC by Bruha · 2003-08-05 08:17 · Score: 1

Tell them that SCOX a company that had a stock price of less than 5 dollars before this mess started now has prices over 15 dollars and the owners are selling their own stock.

Ask them to stop the ImClone syndrome before it starts!

Re:I bought it by pair-a-noyd · 2003-08-05 08:17 · Score: 1

retard troll.........

begone, you stink the place up..

Re:SCO: Looking Good by geekoid · 2003-08-05 08:17 · Score: 1

your missing the point.

If the stock market says its worth 80 bucks a share, then at that time its worth 80 bucks a share.

Anything is only worth what you can get for it.

Now, just because it has a high price, by know means indicates it is a good long term investmate.

I am not the original poster, btw.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:SCO: ***Read Carefully*** by hesiod · 2003-08-05 08:17 · Score: 1

> pro-Linux websites should never even post such news.

The problem with that is, that makes Linux users "look guilty" by avoiding the subject.

Not bad (1000th post) by didjit · 2003-08-05 08:18 · Score: 1

$6.99 is pretty cheap guys. Most Linux distros in a box cost more than that. And these guys own Unix so their Linux must be the best. I'd trust it more than the kind that guy with the beard sells called Gnu/Linux. And how come he can't spell new right? Its N-E-W. And I still haven't got my free beer.

Initiate the attack! Now! by I4ko · 2003-08-05 08:18 · Score: 1

SCO can put their licenses in ther ass. I'm not livin' in america, and american laws don't rule here. I'm not paing for any ot their legal stuff. Anyone to know SCO offices in europe? That would be a good reason to use some skills again. There are two SCO partners im my country. Tomorrow they will receive hell.

wrong species by alizard · 2003-08-05 08:20 · Score: 1

The head of a pig would be far more appropriate. Though McBride would probably mistake the gift's intent.

"Hmmm... who likes me so much that they'd go to that much trouble to give me a sex toy?"

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

I know the code that infringes their IP... by kbroom · 2003-08-05 08:20 · Score: 1

...and for the modest amount of $698 (you save $1!!) you'll get a binary copy of the kernel with the code in dispute removed and replaced.
Unfortunately I cannot show you the removed code as per SCO's request. I can do it only after SCO reveals it to the public.
GET YOU SCO CHEAP BINARY KERNELS WHILE YOU CAN!!!

Madonna called the SCO conference call by LMCBoy · 2003-08-05 08:21 · Score: 1

Her question, of course, was:

"what the fsck do you think you are doing?"

The whole thing has become inconceivably(*) surreal.
(*: yes, Inigo, I know what that word means).

--
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.

Thanks, but no thanks. by Lonath · 2003-08-05 08:21 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure they won't go after the place where I get my linux code.

--
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!

Call them up! by mwfolsom · 2003-08-05 08:22 · Score: 1

Their number is 1-800-726-8649!

Let them know how you feel!

Address? by TheZax · 2003-08-05 08:23 · Score: 1

I was just about to write a check, but I didn't see an address in the article. How inconvenient, maybe I should hold off...

--

JWall: GUI client for IPTables

they're beyond crack!!! by in4mation · 2003-08-05 08:23 · Score: 1

Can someone explain to me how a couple of lines of code are worth $699? Its not like the whole Linux kernel code was ripped from SCO...right? Nobody in their right mind should pay that amount. If you have so much cash to throw away consider doing something more useful with it...like buying used underwear...i bet you that has more value than a couple of borrowed lines of code that should be flushed out and replaced with random characters typed in by a group of monkeys on a caffeine binge.

Re:they're beyond crack!!! by Flower · 2003-08-05 09:34 · Score: 1

They are stating hundreds, probably thousands of lines of code have been misappropriated - all of it critical in creating an enterprise capable linux kernel. So in essence, yes, they are claiming that the whole linux kernel, at least the part that means anything to a business, was ripped from their code base.

--
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie

Re:Now that's outrageous by smcavoy · 2003-08-05 08:24 · Score: 1

AFAIK, this about Copyright not patents. Two totally seperate things.

criminal action against SCO? by alizard · 2003-08-05 08:25 · Score: 1

Do we have anybody around here who's likely to be on the inside giving sentencing recommendations assuming the SCO suits don't get out of the US in time to escape criminal proceedings? (extortion and fraud occur to me as possible charges, but I'm sure there are many others... there's blood in the water)

I suggest that instead of sending the SCO directors and officers to the usual "country club" prison, that they get sent instead to the ordinary run of Federal prisons (Leavenworth still open) where they'll get to socially interact with lots of people with names like "Bubba".

The survivors will spread the word that abuse of the legal system doesn't pay.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

Put it in escrow! by gbulmash · 2003-08-05 08:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

How about this? Anyone who is truly wetting their pants over this should buy a license, but should put the $699 in an interest bearing escrow account with payment being conditional on SCO winning their cases on all counts and proving unequivocably that they own all the necessary rights to make the demands they've made.

It's actually a fairly well-used method of payment in cases of dispute.

If I live in California and dispute my phone bill, I can put the full payment on deposit with the Public Utilities Commission pending resolution of the dispute. This way my local telephone service provider can't file a negative credit report on me for not paying my bill, but they don't get any of my money until the dispute is resolved. Once it's resolved, the PUC gives the phone company the amount to which they're entitled, and if I've successfully argued my case, I get the disputed portion back.

If SCO is so sure of their claims, they should have no problem with this solution. Your only loss is getting passbook-style interest on the money rather than the interest you could get from more aggressive investments.

- Greg

--
Start a happiness pandemic

Re:Put it in escrow! by /dev/trash · 2003-08-05 10:11 · Score: 1

Yeah that's what I want to do do, give my money to the State to use interest free.

I just removed the violating code from my system. by OrangeTide · 2003-08-05 08:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

I just deleted the violating code from my kernel and recompiled it. Of course I can't show you [or SCO] what I've taken out. But that should be fine to SCO, because they use a similar argument, right? :)

We all should just "remove" the "offending code" and "recompile" our kernels...

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire

Kernel 2.4 or later, eh? by poofmeisterp · 2003-08-05 08:28 · Score: 1

In that case, downgrade to 2.2 and call it good ;)

Re:The Beast of Revelations by hesiod · 2003-08-05 08:28 · Score: 1

> 666 is the number of the infamous beast mentioned in the Revelations.

Wow, how about that. Thank you, Mr. FUCKING OBVIOUS.

Scrutum Separation by Baron+MoEbiOuS · 2003-08-05 08:28 · Score: 1

I think I'm not bringing any insight here, but hey, seriously, how can they charge for a fee about an issue that is still not resolved?
How can they talk about licenses while we still don't know if their claims are true... ??
It seems to me that they believe their own lies... they never learn.

Hmmm.... by Dr.+Evil · 2003-08-05 08:29 · Score: 1

That's an interesting tidbit... and here's part of section 7 the GPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html:

"... If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program...."

If you read the text like a conniving a$$hole, then maybe SCO has something here.

When the GPL talks very specifically about distribution, not usage. With the kind of stealthy patents which are out there, like Gif and MP3, this may be intentional to protect the author or distributor of original works from being trapped by the GPL between copyright violation and patent violations.

This may be how SCO is arguing that even though they are distributing Linux, they can still encumbur it with patents regarding its usage.

But to the best of my knowledge, SCO has been rattling on about copyright and trade secret, not patents.

SCO Employs Dr. Evil by poincare · 2003-08-05 08:34 · Score: 1

I don't understand why SCO doesn't just cut to the chase and ask for

One Million Dollars

Interesting comments from Linuxtoday by Markos · 2003-08-05 08:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

From the Linuxtoday article:

Thomas C. Carey, a partner at of the Boston IP and business law firm Bromberg & Sunstein and chairman of the firm's Business Practice Group, thinks Red Hat has a very good case. "Assuming for the moment that SCO is off-base in its allegations, this complaint is enough to rock SCO to its foundations." Still, "A lot will depend upon the vigor with which the matter is pursued. My presumption is that the suit is serious and will be pursued with full force."

But Carey warns, "SCO is in some danger even if its allegations are correct, simply because SCO has put everyone in an impossible position. What can they (a Linux distributor or end-user) do if they don't know which code is infringing? If, to that unfairness, you add a conclusion that SCO has its facts wrong, then SCO's liability to Red Hat and others could be very substantial. And if SCO knows (or should know) that its facts are wrong, then you can kiss the company good-bye."

Last, but far from least, Carey thinks that there's "a potential securities fraud action is buried within the pleadings. Red Hat speaks of Canopy Group (SCO's primary owner) having raked in millions in cash since the start of this affair. Red Hat notes that its own stock price has declined 20% in a month. This is the stuff of securities lawsuits. Red Hat could amend its claims to include a securities law claim, or another law firm could bring a class action lawsuit against SCO on behalf of selling Red Hat shareholders who have been harmed by the low price they get. Finally, it is conceivable that the SEC or the Justice Department could take an interest in this, viewing it as market manipulation."

PING: Darl McBribe by pair-a-noyd · 2003-08-05 08:36 · Score: 1

I have;

12 (twelve) computers in my home/shop running various versions of Linux (C) Linus Torvalds

2 (two) of them are servers

1 (one) of them is running SMP

12 (twelve) of them are using JFS

On occasion, 12 (twelve) of them use RCU and NUMA in a cluster configuration for my personal enjoyment.

I've lost count of the number of Linux machines that I've sold. I have also installed Linux on MANY of my friends computers and they enjoy the FREEDOM of a FREE operating system and FREE software that NO ONE owns.

If you want, come sue me. My email address is real, spammesilly@gt.rr.com and I'll talk to you about your idiotic claims and what you can do with them.

Really Darl, if you want some, come get some.
(You would be ill advised to take me on. I play a different game. I'll pay you in hot lead.)

Just give me a try, boy...

SuSE Supports RedHat by peteo · 2003-08-05 08:40 · Score: 1

SuSE Supports RedHat's Open Source Initiative 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. 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_release s/archive03/sco_redhat.html

Re:SuSE Supports RedHat by EzInKy · 2003-08-05 17:57 · Score: 1

Then can we assume they'll be throwing a million or two into the pot?

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.

Actually, that is factually correct. by Phat_Tony · 2003-08-05 08:40 · Score: 1

Yes, force is a method of defending self & property. Courts are another way of going about this. Either one is really pretty independent of capitalism. "Capitalism" doesn't dictate any particular method of enforcing law & order- it is a method of operating an economy, not all aspects of society, and as a method of operating an economy, it is one which is based on voluntary exchange, not the use of force.

Theft really falls outside the realm of capitalist theory- the very act of theft is an anit-capitalist action, and methods of preventing it aren't really capitalism, they are just things necessary to go along with it and prevent a state of barbarism.

Economics does shed some useful light onto what crime is likely to pay, and plenty of companies working in the capitalist system make products to prevent crime, but crime and anti-crime are not "capitalism." They are barbarism. Voluntary exchange is capitalism.

--
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?

Lets buy them out by JohnnyGTO · 2003-08-05 08:41 · Score: 1

every Linux use buys a share or two, assigns them to a proxy to vote, kicks the bums out with NO PARACHUTE and then releases once and for all Unix to the GPL.

--
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!

good model by yack0 · 2003-08-05 08:41 · Score: 1

1. allow employee to work on linux code from work and from home
2. deny that he had permission to do so or you didn't know he was
3. make up license scheme
4. profit!

Bah...

--
-- There is no sig line, only Zuul.

Which is the true ideology? by Guillermito · 2003-08-05 08:42 · Score: 1

You called libertarianism, capitalism and comunism "false ideologies".

I'm curious. What would you call a "true ideology"?

Let's send them some cheques! by multipartmixed · 2003-08-05 08:42 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm halfway tempted to print up some cheques with the goatse.cx picture on them, make out to the personal account of Darl McBride... and see if he cashes the bastards!

--

Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?

consequences of section 4 of the gpl by cel4145 · 2003-08-05 08:43 · Score: 1

if, as previously mentioned on slashdot, ibm holds the copyright to the contributions to linux in question, then wouldn't this be false licensing of gpl'd code, which, under section 4 of the gpl, would terminate sco's rights to distribute linux?

gnu gpl, section 4:

"You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."

Reporting SCO to the BBB by defwu · 2003-08-05 08:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

Maybe some of us should try complaining to someone who actually looksinto bad business practices?
http://complaints.bbb.org/Welcome.asp
I am going to file a complaint.
They do take these things seriously, and I firmly beleive that these announcements amount to nothing more than misleading business practices.

--
If at first you don't succeed, redefine 'success'

Mess with SCO by mstrcat · 2003-08-05 08:43 · Score: 1

SCO has an interesting website set up to further their scheme with the licensing. It's found at http://www.sco.com/support/registration/ and it lets you create accounts and other fun things to waste their time. I was also given an email address by their clueless phone staff: sas@sco.com I don't know if it's actually valid or not, but phone support claimed it belonged to the sales staff.

No problem. 2 reasons. by dmaxwell · 2003-08-05 08:44 · Score: 1

1.SCO also had a 2.4.19 kernel. Maybe that should be mirrored. In any case, I've downloaded my copy.

2. Those source RPMS contain the kernel.org sources plus SCO's patches. Extract the tarballs from the RPM, patch the 2.4.13 kernel.org source up to any kernel you like. That 2.4.13 kernel is GPLed from SCO themselves....with everything that implies. Patching it up current should be good cover.

It would be even better to patch up from the 2.4.19 but whatever you can get......

Let's all run this script by GnuVince · 2003-08-05 08:44 · Score: 1

Here's a python script I think we all should run ## import smtplib s = smtplib.SMTP("an.open.relay", 25) for i in xrange(699): s.sendmail("angry.slashdotter@slashdot.org", "sales@sco.com", "1$") s.close() ## So, let's all run this at the same time now, shall we? :)

UnitedLinux??? by ppolf · 2003-08-05 08:47 · Score: 1

So, if I get UnitedLinux source from Suse do I have to pay the 699 fee? What if I download it from SCO? This seems like a contradiction to their IP licensing scheme...

Sco is COOL... by cartman · 2003-08-05 08:47 · Score: 1

Right now they're charging $699 per processor for a license, but that rate is going to double (to $1399) after October 15. The implication is: you'd better get your license soon!

Bear in mind that the specific evidence of infractions may not even be released until after October 15 (this lawsuit could take more than a year). In short, they're saying: "Pay us $699 based on accusation alone. If you wait until you can see the evidence, the price will double. So buy now!"

The balls! I can't even believe it. Even your typical scummy lawyer would probably be shocked. I don't care what other people think, Sco is cool.

Now I want to be a lawyer. I had no idea you could even legally demand money while withholding any evidence of wrongdoing. Think of the implications for personal injury law! "My client was injured by you; we won't say how; pay before you see the evidence or we'll sue you for twice as much." A fortune could be made suing people for anything.

SCO german site back up. by eddy · 2003-08-05 08:47 · Score: 2, Informative

And on that note, the german SCO site is back. Let's hope they fuck up and post some anti-linux propaganda.

--
Belief is the currency of delusion.

Re:SCO german site back up. by 3247 · 2003-08-05 21:44 · Score: 1

They already have.

--
Claus

Unsupport SCO? by bryam · 2003-08-05 08:48 · Score: 1

Time for the Open Source Applications and Developers retire support to SCO UNIXes?

What if GCC, Apache, Sendmail, BIND, Perl, etc. "unsupport" SCO UNIXes?

Big Linux supporters join to the RedHat Open Source protection initiative!

What about 2.3. by fwr · 2003-08-05 08:52 · Score: 1

I think the solution is to run 2.3.99-pre9.

If they don't like that then jump back to maybe 2.3.51.

If they don't like that then continue on until they basically nail it down to one patch. With an average compressed patch size well below 1MB, it shouldn't take too long to re-write.

SCO at LinuxWorld San Francisco? by desertfish · 2003-08-05 08:52 · Score: 1

They had such a pleasant time at the last one. I wonder if I should walk down to Moscone and see if they have a little booth. Maybe get a phamphlet and a discount on their exciting new license. If there's anything left of them...

Multi processor kernel source code... by PrImED73 · 2003-08-05 08:52 · Score: 1

This has prolly been asked many many times, but im going to ask anyway.
If SCO is charging for licensing Linux under the conditions of the multiprocessor code in the kernel source allegedly belonging to them, wouldn't having those features not compiled into a newly configured kernel nullify their claim to licensing Linux? If it doesn't, would this be because there is "other" code in the source that allegedely belongs to them?

--
--Mods giveth, Mods taketh away--

Hello Mountian Home AFB? by LWATCDR · 2003-08-05 08:55 · Score: 5, Funny

NSA: NSA We don't exist. How my I direct your call.

SCO:We here you have been adding code to Linux and have even used it in house. We have a large bill for you that you have to pay or we will sue you.

NSA:That is very interesting we will give you our answer in about an hour. CLICK

Mountain Home AFB: Mountian Home Air Force Base how can I help you?

NSA: This is the NSA we have a terrorist take over in Utah.

Mountian Home AFB: Is it SCO?

NSA: Yes have you already heard?

Mountian Home AFB: Yea they have already called the Army to try and bill them. They even called some of the Oil Companies and that got the White House involved.

NSA: So you have already tasked a strike mission?

Mountian Home AFB: No need. They also sent a bill to Disney! They will never know what hit them. Have a nice day.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

What I am doing by jhml · 2003-08-05 08:55 · Score: 1

I am sending the following letter by registered mail to SCO:

****
Gentlemen:

A press report advises me that you seek a license fee for commercial use of Linux that has code in it that you claim the rights to.

I do not desire a license, nor do I desire to infringe on any rights that you have. Please advise me of the specific sections of code that you claim rights to so that I may remove them.

Regards,

******

I suspect that if they fail to respond, I will be adequately protected from an action.

Coming attraction: 2.6 kernel upgrade by special_agent · 2003-08-05 08:56 · Score: 1

"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...

I've been wanting to upgrade to the 2.6 Kernel anyway ;-)

--
"I now inform you that you are too far from reality."

Simple by booch · 2003-08-05 08:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

The GPL explicitly states that agreeing to the GPL license is not required to use the software. It is only required to modify or distribute the code (in binary or source). The SCO license only applies to running the software, not distributing or modifying it. So the 2 licenses are for completely separate things -- they can't conflict. From section 0 of the GPL:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.

Of course, there are a few problems with SCO's attempt to steer clear of a conflict with the GPL. Section 6 of the GPL states:

You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

and section 7 says:

If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.

The question is whether "The act of running the Program is not restricted" in section 0 is considered to be one of "the rights granted herein". Technically, it is not, since the right to use a software program is not one of the rights granted to a copyright holder. The GPL relies on the fact that the right to run a program is not restricted by Copyright law. But if somehow that turns out not to be the case, SCO may have found a loophole in the GPL.

SCO is not distributing any Linux code (source or binary) with this license. They are assuming you've already purchased "infringing" software. So they're not distributing anything. Of course, they've already modified and distributed the Linux code, so they've already agreed to the GPL on that code.

Since the right to use a software program is not specified as a restriction in the Copyright Act, there's really no reason you need to buy a license from SCO to use the Linux code in question. And I'd suspect that their license will put restrictions on your modification and distribution of Linux. Which of course would conflict with the GPL. And they'd probably turn around and sue you for breaching their license. Sounds more risky to accept their license offer than to risk being sued for violating their copyright, for which their case is very weak.

But there is some logic in what SCO is doing, trying to weave their way around the GPL.

--
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.

Re: teleconference - Where was Boies? by invckb · 2003-08-05 08:56 · Score: 1

Why wasn't Boies involved? The conference was to spin the Red Hat lawsuit and announce the new licensing scheme. If I hired a laywer based on his clout, I would drag him out at every opportunity.

Great quote but... by Phat_Tony · 2003-08-05 08:57 · Score: 5, Informative

Great quote, but doesn't anyone site sources anymore? Sheesh! Isn't that just plagiarism?

"Capitalism is the uneven distribution of wealth, and socialism the even distribution of poverty."

Winston S. Churchill

--
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?

Re:Great quote but... by Minna+Kirai · 2003-08-05 10:14 · Score: 1

GN:
"site": I think you meant "cite". Neither should be confused with "sight".

"plagiarism": No, plagiarism is an attempt to mislead about authorship, not merely an omission of attribution.
Re:Great quote but... by Phat_Tony · 2003-08-05 10:47 · Score: 1

Yes, thanks for correcting my mistake with the homophone.

I know what plagiarism means. In this case, I think a complete lack of citation and quotation marks makes this look like it's his own saying. It's unclear from the brief preface "I prefer" that the following will be a quote from someone else. With 5 seconds of Googling, he could get the exact quotation and the source.

Without making it clear this is a quote from someone else, I think it could qualify as plagiarism. I'm sure my school teachers would have viewed it that way.

You may have a case to make that his context implies that the statement in question is an uncited quotation. I noticed it because I'd heard the quote before, and I posted because I thought SmackCrackandPot's wording, at least inadvertently, made the quotation sound like his original idea, and I wanted to give the good Sir Winston some credit.

--
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
Re:Great quote but... by kwiqsilver · 2003-08-05 13:16 · Score: 1

Actually...I wasn't sure who said it (or of the exact wording), but I did search and didn't find anything on the first two pages.
Here is the search I ran. As you can see, Sir Winston did not show up on the first two pages, so I didn't source my misquote.
But thanks for giving him the credit he deserves.
And for it to be plagiarism, I think I would have had to have gotten the wording correct. ;-)

..."would have had to have gotten"...I love English. :)
Re:Great quote but... by BrynM · 2003-08-05 13:34 · Score: 1

Since Churchill was British, I'd like to add:
"Monarchy is the uneven distribution of Her property."
Of course the 'Her' (Queen) could just as easily be a 'Him' (king).

--
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Re:Great quote but... by Arkan · 2003-08-05 22:32 · Score: 1

"... and socialism is not distribution at all, 'cause everybody's on strike"

Me

--
Arkan
I'm french, yay, I know.

I suggest by mackman · 2003-08-05 08:58 · Score: 1

That we all start sending letters to Unixware customers and explain how this frivolous lawsuit will reuslt in SCO declaring bancruptcy, thus ending any ongoing support or maintence agreements. We should suggest that they begin migrating to Linux, which will continue to be supported by Red Hat and IBM at a significantly lower price.

Casino Entertaining by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 08:59 · Score: 1, Funny

Wouldn't the Joe Pesci scene at the end of "Casino" be even more entertaining?

Trying to purchase licenses from SCO by maxmo74 · 2003-08-05 09:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

We tried to purchase the licenses we need for our offices. In order to we looked in their site anything about the possibility to buy them (online or with other methods). We didn't succeed so we posted a couple of questions to SCO online (that was possible, even if their site seems to be a little slow).

One of the requests we made:

Hello,

We would like to purchase Linux licenses for our servers.
We couldn't find a link on your home page. Is online payment possible?
Can we keep using our RedHat linux installations in the meanwhile?

Thank you.

We are now waiting for a quick answer from them (their form said You will be hearing from us soon), and very very curious about their answer.

Behind the scenes... by retrosteve · 2003-08-05 09:01 · Score: 1

Hmmm.... It must take a lot of money to buy lawyers and PR firms to keep this FUD in the public eye and share the sh*t out of the corporations and governments.

I can't imagine what kind of company *cough* (icrosoft) *cough* could be putting up all that money.

Paying other companies to create FUD is hardly a new tactic for them. Recall certain "independent" findings from certain research groups....

If I'm right, you heard it here first.

Steve Rapaport

$699 for Linux and the antichrist by Biff+Surfer · 2003-08-05 09:03 · Score: 1

Hmm...I would think I know SCO's opinion of Linux just by flipping over the 2 nines at the end of the price. Introductory price indeed at biblical proportions.

My IP... by dfj225 · 2003-08-05 09:04 · Score: 1

Hi,
I own the intellectual property to the english language, so everyone here owes me a lot of money. Since I'm a nice guy, I'll let everyone slide and all the English speaking people in the world can just sent me $1. Is that so bad? One dollar and you can sleep soundly at night knowing that you speak English without violating anyones intellectual property.
Thanks

--
SIGFAULT

Can you say last ask of a desperate company? by Rasvar · 2003-08-05 09:08 · Score: 1

To use a scare tactic of such an insane liscense cost is a sign of desperation. The code went through so many different peoples hand before it got to SCO and then SCO's own handling of the code is going to be their downfall. I still want to see them explain away how one of their former business units distributed the code. It is not very easy to say "Opps, we didn't mean it" in legalese.

Does anyone outside of the US really care? by fredistheking · 2003-08-05 09:09 · Score: 1

Also, what do you think the implications would be for microsoft to license?

-

Re:"You will be hearing from us soon." by MrWorf · 2003-08-05 09:13 · Score: 1

Hehe, indeed. I also felt compelled to write them:

Hi! I'm just curious, does this mean that I will be able to put up a license for Linux and ask for money for no reason at all?
Until SCO proves that SCO infact has some IP inside the Linux kernel (no, just saying "yes we have" does not imply any "proof"), I cannot see any reason for buying a license. It would be similar to buying "protection" from the mafia.
I wish you the best of luck in this new business/rackett.
/MrWorf - Admin & owner of four linux systems

Guess that their email center is now:

Overflowing with complaints
ignoring most emails containing linux, sco and source
hiring more people

:)

email them in mass - daily by rossz · 2003-08-05 09:15 · Score: 1

Everyone should set up a daily cron job that send SCO a nice email of junk. Around 3am their time would be perfect. Once a day from each person here should do a nice job on their mail server. I have a nice little perl script that produces 3 to 5 paragraphs of random text and a random subject. That should work very nicely for getting past any filters.

Rossz

--
-- Will program for bandwidth

Extortion by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 09:15 · Score: 1, Informative

I just looked up my home state's definition of extortion on the google cache, and found this part to be interesting:

514.080 Theft by extortion.

(1) A person is guilty of theft by extortion when he intentionally obtains property of another by threatening to

(a) Inflict bodily injury on anyone or commit any other criminal offense; or
(b) Accuse anyone of a criminal offense; or
(c) Expose any secret tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to impair his credit or business repute; or
(d) Use wrongfully his position as a public officer or servant or employee by performing some act within or related to his official duties, either expressed orimplied, or by refusing or omitting to perform an official duty, either expressed or implied, in a manner affecting some person adversely; or
(e) Bring about or continue a strike, boycott, or other collective unofficial action, if the property is not demanded or received for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or
(f) Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense

(emphasis mine in section f).

Have they crossed the line with their arcane "sign-a-NDA-and-wreck-your-career-in-the-process" antics, yet? Because, if they have, then the penalty is:

Theft by extortion is a Class A misdemeanor unless the value of the property obtained is three hundred dollars ($300) or more, in which case it is a Class D felony.

Each and every $699 fee that they collect is a FELONY (in Kentucky), if they have stepped over this line . . . And there are definitely people here in this state that use Linux.

And, if some big company is behind this lawsuit and is using SCO to simply cast FUD upon Linux, then that third (hidden) party may run afoul of (e).

And would someone please explain me how... by Kjella · 2003-08-05 09:16 · Score: 1

...SCO has the right to licence a SCO/GPL hybrid work? Ever since SCO became aware that they were selling such a product, they have been in violation of the GPL or standard copyright law (since you don't have to accept the GPL).

It should be quite easy for any kernel contributer to prove that A) SCO is distributing (selling) his work and B) They have no valid licence, or if they try claiming the GPL gives them the right then C) Prove that they have violated the GPL (just show a bunch of SCO press releases, they'd be self-incriminating).

Someone in the US should make the Attorney General see if it falls under the definition of fraud, selling a licence they have no right to grant. I'm no lawyer but I'd say it's pretty damn close.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

what if ? by shankariyer · 2003-08-05 09:19 · Score: 1

Ok, outside of the press-release war, I've some fundemental questions. 1. What if SCO is correct ? What if the IP violation points to some developer, in some part of the world, who had copied a piece of code from System V. This raises the question : how're open source codes checked/enforced for IP violations... while the proprietary software/codes are 'expected' to not violate IP, atleast you've a contact, but taking the case of IBM/Red Hat, they take the kernel from somewhere, which has a piece of code, copied from S V, by some tom, dick or harry, reviewed by some tom, dick or harry and now IBM is sued. 2. Assuming IBM/Red Hat crushed this lawsuit and come out victorius, how liable can SCO be made for all the FUD, millions( if not billions ) of $ that all those CTO's are either not investing or diverting away or holding from Linux ? By that time, all those big rats of SCO would be dumped their stock at what so ever price and move on... Even if the SCO morons are arrested, will they be able to compensate the money that being put on hold due to this FUD ? I expect that both IBM and SCO should come out with evidence/claims or what ever it is and play with 'open' cards... Even if that lawsuit runs for decades, atleast CTO's will get some direction...

Re:what if ? by EzInKy · 2003-08-05 18:17 · Score: 1

they take the kernel from somewhere, which has a piece of code, copied from S V, by some tom, dick or harry, reviewed by some tom, dick or harry and now IBM is sued.

How do you know that some Tom, Dick, or Harry at Microsoft didn't violate somebody else's "IP"? You don't, and Microsoft has been recently accused of doing that very thing with DRM patents.

As for checking open source code for violations, there already exists a very easy system. You can read the source. If you find copyrighted code, just tell them where it is and it will be removed.

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.

Then just go to Kernel 2.2 until it blows over. by Ikeya · 2003-08-05 09:19 · Score: 1

Seems like a simple solution if you're really worried about this all. Drop back to Kernel 2.2 (or even 2.3) and they can't touch you. Problem solved. They won't win anyway, so I'm leaving all my boxen alone...

ikeya

--
---- Move SIG...For great justice!

http://ir.sco.com/stock.cfm by fredistheking · 2003-08-05 09:22 · Score: 1

How long before the execs realize their game is up and sell?

-

I am Iron Man by g_goblin · 2003-08-05 09:23 · Score: 1

If they wan't me to purchase a license, then don't they have to show me the code which impedes on their intelectual property or atleast make it public.

I'm going to stick with my penguin and keep the moat stocked full of other penguins.

I think SCO needs a good Dirty Sanchez

So this pricing scheme... by Quixadhal · 2003-08-05 09:24 · Score: 1, Funny

is based on $1 per in-house lawyer?

Two Class Actions Waiting to Happen by SoftwareJedi · 2003-08-05 09:25 · Score: 1

The First class action lawsuit here is for ALL developers who have ever had a patch accepted into the Kernel to sue SCO for not sharing the money with them when thier work makes up most of the Kernel.

The Second class action lawsuit is from ALL of the users who are being extorted by SCO through this licensing scheme.

I am ready to contribute funds to support these two counter suits.

Re:Two Class Actions Waiting to Happen by gstaines · 2003-08-05 13:21 · Score: 1

I too am also ready, this really sucks, they must be stopped.

Just one thought by mrkurt · 2003-08-05 09:26 · Score: 1

I see a lot of campers want to engage in "cyber-jihad" against SCO. I have just one thing to say to them:

SCO, GO STRAIGHT TO HELL
DO NOT PASS "GO"
DO NOT COLLECT $699

Actually, this would make a good body for some emails ;)

--
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)

SCO is upset... by DarkRecluse · 2003-08-05 09:27 · Score: 1

SCO: Why didn't you tell us earlier that you were going to sue. We could have shorted the stock much more quickly.

Now they have to sell licenses to make up the difference.

--
--"It's Bradford Company, slash your last name, dot your first name"

who infringes by chrismg2003 · 2003-08-05 09:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

those who purchased redhat were not the ones infringing on copyright laws, redhat was infringing on copyright laws, thus SCO is simply undermining its credibility when it chooses to go after the users rather than those who actualy violated copyright laws.

Also:: considering the fact that SCO wont actualy reveal what code in rh they own without a nondisclosure agreement I would say that they may not actualy have code and are simply trying to exploit those companies out there that are using rh and have the money to pay their fees.

my guess is that either SCO will be subpoena'd and unable to reveal the code or they will be taken to court on charges of extortion...and lose.

--

Red Hat is for people who hate Windows, FreeBSD is for people who love Unix.

www.putertech.net

Re:who infringes by swordgeek · 2003-08-05 10:43 · Score: 1

"...SCO is simply undermining its credibility..."

They have credibility??!!! Wow!

News to me. I've been defending them for a while, but I gave up three weeks ago. Now I'm gathering wood for the funeral pyre.

--

"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Re:who infringes by eric76 · 2003-08-05 12:05 · Score: 1

What would be nice is if we could download the code filed with for them to get their copyright.

Unfortunately, I don't think they are required to file all the code in question, just a few pages.

That needs to be fixed since the purpose of the filing should be to allow people to make sure they don't infringe. I don't see why someone should be liable for an infringement if there is no possible way to find out.

With a copy of the code, it should be relatively easy to identify the most probable sections they would claim to be infringing. Those sections could then be checked out very carefully.
Re:who infringes by eric76 · 2003-08-05 12:28 · Score: 1

I just checked. To file a computer program, you have to file the first 25 pages and the last 25 pages of the source code.

So there is no chance at all to check for infringement.

This really needs to be fixed.
Re:who infringes by D'Arque+Bishop · 2003-08-05 13:57 · Score: 1

Also:: considering the fact that SCO wont actualy reveal what code in rh they own without a nondisclosure agreement I would say that they may not actualy have code and are simply trying to exploit those companies out there that are using rh and have the money to pay their fees.

I look at this as a high-stakes game of five card stud, with Red Hat and IBM playing against the dealer (but not each other)... in this case, SCO.

SCO has three cards visible: the ten, jack, and queen of hearts. We can't see their hole cards, but really, what are the chances they're a king AND ace of hearts?

Let's say Red Hat has three sixes showing. It doesn't really matter what their hole cards are; right now the only strength SCO has over Red Hat is a perceived strength that could just as easily fall away once their hole cards are revealed.

I'm not really a gambler, but if it was me versus that hand, I'd be feeling a bit more confident... and about ready to call the dealer's bluff. Let's see who folds first.

Just my $.02...
Re:who infringes by chrismg2003 · 2003-08-05 14:08 · Score: 1

I concur. even if it turns out there is copyrighted code in rh SCO is taking part in extortion by threatening institutions without providing proof (notice that they have started asking for money before they even bothered to prove that what they say is true). SCO's tactics sound distinctly ms to me.

--
Red Hat is for people who hate Windows, FreeBSD is for people who love Unix.

www.putertech.net
Re:who infringes by swordgeek · 2003-08-05 14:18 · Score: 1

You're forgetting two points in your card game.

1) IBM already has the king of hearts and a pair of queens of spades on the table. Everyone can see that SCO is bluffing, unless they can pull triple tens or jacks.

2) SCO has bet everything they have. There's no getting out of it now. If they fold, they might as well just shoot themselves in the head at the table.

SCO has bluffed garbage, and nobody backed down from them. They're up shit creek with nowhere left to paddle.

--

"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Re:who infringes by D'Arque+Bishop · 2003-08-05 15:08 · Score: 1

1) IBM already has the king of hearts and a pair of queens of spades on the table. Everyone can see that SCO is bluffing, unless they can pull triple tens or jacks.

I was actually going to say that IBM had three kings face up, and a quiet knowing smile on his face that just TELLS you the king of hearts is one of his hole cards... in other words, he has the winning hand and knows it, but the final bets haven't been placed yet and he's biding his time.

Just my $.02...

Buy SCO by Knaldgas · 2003-08-05 09:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

LinuxCounter estimates approx 18 million Linux users (=linux machines?).
Whats the worth of SCO? $200 mill.?

Let's put in $20 for each Linux we have, then:

buy SCO
license all their IP/code to GNU
and if we are in a real evil mood: dissolve the company.

Let me see, I have 3 Linuxes running = $60
SCO wants $699 per Linux = $2097
I save $2037 and probably will get an even better Linux ;-)

Perhaps it's time for the world to meet Open Capitalism

Re:Buy SCO by Drakon86 · 2003-08-05 09:40 · Score: 1

I agree. :) If i were a moderator, I would mark this insightful :) I really hope SCO will be kicked/screwn/torn to pieces if they try to pursue their objective. Their actions make you think they are funded by M$
Re:Buy SCO by Bored+Huge+Krill · 2003-08-05 10:56 · Score: 1

Like I said earlier, *NFW*. Who do you think would walk off with that $200M? Err, Canopy group, Darl McBride & co. Want to hand them $200M as a reward for this racket? I don't.
Krill

so? by Wordsmith · 2003-08-05 09:34 · Score: 1, Funny

MS wants a few hundred for my copy of XP. Doesn't mean they're goign to get it ...

I'm joking. I swear. Really.

Don't do that... by Spleener12 · 2003-08-05 09:36 · Score: 1

It'll be hard to play monopoly if you're short whatever mix of bills you put together for that much. I'd just go to the dollar store or something and get some play money.

Personally, I'm going to follow the example of another poster and also throw in a picture of my middle finger.

Now we're in the ballpark... by It+doesn't+come+easy · 2003-08-05 09:37 · Score: 1

...but only if the entire world is part of the the field. Everyone's done the math but consider this...if SCO had a case and actually managed to sell all of the Linux licenses they claim would be required, they would make 20 times more money on Linux licensing than their annual revenue (assuming 2 million Linux servers x $700 = 1.4 billion or 20 years of revenue (not profit, mind you) at $70 million per year -- the recent estimate). That means that an astute business would quickly realize that they could buy SCO for double even their currently inflated value, then turn around and reap a windfall collecting on the new Linux license. Very bizarre. Looks like that Unix purchase was a real steal, don't ya think?

--
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.

Everyone has already said it but... by Chicane-UK · 2003-08-05 09:42 · Score: 1

SCO.. you can come and pry the Red Hat CD's from my cold dead fingers.

Kiss my ass you money grubbing, trouble causing, grabastic pieces of amphibian shite - you will never see a single cent from me, and I hope you get shot down in flames by either Red Hat (or ANY other Linux vendor to be honest), and IBM.

Thankyou and I hope SCO sleeps well on its lawsuits tonight whilst the entire of the Linux community (and most people with an IQ higher than 3) are laughing at you.

--
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"

Wow, we can license our Linux from SCO? by portnux · 2003-08-05 09:42 · Score: 1

This must be what Bill G. and M$ got for that cash they paid out to SCO recently. :P

Capitalism - the other face of communism. by sydb · 2003-08-05 09:43 · Score: 1, Redundant

The thing is, in a free market, the market would create laws, copyrights and other forms of IP, because it would be in the interests of those holding power at any moment in time.

This is the problem with libertarianism and anarchism. People are self organising. Destroy the current forms of organisation, and new forms will be created; those forms will suit whoever has the power to create them. I'd wager the new forms would not be so different from those forms we have now.

In other words, centraly controlled power and economics are historically inevitible. Marx was right. These social systems we have with centralised power are genetically programmed into the human species.

--
Yours Sincerely, Michael.

Re:Capitalism - the other face of communism. by LordFauntleroy · 2003-08-05 10:37 · Score: 1

Centrally controlled power and economics are not inevitable, nor are they genetically programmed into us as a species. They didn't appear until the first humans began living in sedentary, farm-based societies following the (accidental, most likely) discovery of domestication. When this happens, all of a sudden you have a mass of people living together that are not related, and therefore don't get along too well. From this rises a central power to police and control the people. Also, the redistribution of crops among others living in the city requires a centralized economy, which in the beginning was the same policing power, and was often 1 person. Centrally controlled power and economies were a result of evolution of the human species, not a genetic predisposition.
Re:Capitalism - the other face of communism. by Malcontent · 2003-08-05 11:01 · Score: 1

"They didn't appear until the first humans began living in sedentary, farm-based societies following the (accidental, most likely) discovery of domestication"

They had chiefs and shamans didn't they?

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:Capitalism - the other face of communism. by ehiris · 2003-08-05 12:06 · Score: 1

We are genetically programmed to have sex anywhere we can yet you don't see anybody having sex at noon in the middle of Times Square.

There is also an evolution of consciousness in addition to the evolution of genes.
Re:Capitalism - the other face of communism. by LordFauntleroy · 2003-08-05 12:10 · Score: 1

Why would a society need a chief or shaman? Conflict resolution. With a small (100 or less) band of humans, there's no need for this because they all know each other, and they need to work together to survive. However, to support a larger group of humans, you must have a society that relies largely on farms for a food supply, therefore forming a city around the farms. With this larger society comes more contact between strangers, which creates conflict, and thusly a need for a chief or shaman.
Re:Capitalism - the other face of communism. by linzeal · 2003-08-05 15:08 · Score: 1

Genetically programmed by whom and to what effect and why?
People are self-organizing, you are absolutely correct. When people in power abuse said power long enough, people hold little things called revolutions. I'll be damned if my children live less free than I.

--
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Re:Capitalism - the other face of communism. by canadian_right · 2003-08-05 15:11 · Score: 1

Only governments can create IP laws. Without a government to enforce IP laws there can't be any. How property and contracts would be handled is a very important issue for anarchists, but it is not an issue for libertarians as they do want a minimal goverment to handle those things. There is a huge difference between anarchists and libertarians, and in general it is a mistake to lump them together. It is a huge jump from a small government to no government.
I'm not sure that we are genetically hard wired to organise, but there sure are a lot of power seekers.

--
Anarchists never rule
Re:Capitalism - the other face of communism. by Malcontent · 2003-08-05 16:21 · Score: 1

" Why would a society need a chief or shaman? "

mainly because we are pack animals. It's in our genetic makeup and we can't escape it.

"With a small (100 or less) band of humans, there's no need for this because they all know each other, and they need to work together to survive."

Maybe that's your opinion but the reality is that all sizes of human organizations always choose to pick a leader. Whether it's a chess club or a tribe or a country. Put five people together and one of them will be the leader.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:Capitalism - the other face of communism. by StripedSnapper · 2003-08-06 04:35 · Score: 1

Do these discussions always have to degenerate into a post-hippy pinko Marxist love-in?
Re:Capitalism - the other face of communism. by sydb · 2003-08-06 21:34 · Score: 1

Yes, do you have a problem with that/

--
Yours Sincerely, Michael.

This will probably never get read, but... by Timex · 2003-08-05 09:49 · Score: 1

...I'll post it anyway.

SCO can try to get me to pay for a license. It will never happen. (For starters, I don't have that kind of money around, else I would have something better than a P2/400!)

I'll switch over to FreeBSD first. ...not that that would be a bad thing, but my preferences put Linux first, FreeBSD next...

--
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.

Girth by G3ckoG33k · 2003-08-05 09:50 · Score: 1

At times I wish I promote abuse; lengthier, girth, feel me, squeek, underneath me...

Feel my waist...
...belt.

SCO Internal Accounting by AndroidCat · 2003-08-05 09:50 · Score: 1

I wonder if they're going to do the internal book-keeping to pay for their Linux web servers? (No really, some companies are that anal.)

Hmm, Looks like they changed it. It was clearly Linux back when they started this. I wonder if they really changed it or just the string?

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 21:42:52 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1
OpenSSL/0.9.6 PHP/4.3.2-RC
X-Powered-By: PHP/4.3.2-RC
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.

Prorated pricing by Webmoth · 2003-08-05 09:50 · Score: 1

S / L * P = D

Where
S = # of lines of SCO proprietary code in the Linux kernel (which they won't tell us);
L = Total # of lines of code in the Linux kernel;
P = Price of a SCO Unix license
D = Amount they deserve.

You'll probably find that D is in the range of... a penny.

--
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.

I am confused by slashbot-101 · 2003-08-05 09:53 · Score: 1

This never really made any sense to me. To my knowledge there's never been any code in the linux kernel that sco pointed to and said "this is our IP". How can they charge money for something that other people developed without even defining what parts of the code they think they own? How is that even legal? Maybe I missed something.

Yes, they're saving it for later. by eddy · 2003-08-05 09:55 · Score: 1

There is one very obvious reason for them to not talk about linux 2.6 now, and that is... they want to save some powder for later.

If they talked about all linux kernels today, then there would be one less outlandish cracksmokin' PR-release to put out later. One less tool for them to manipulate their stock again.

Now watch those fuckers sell, sell, sell, and just wait. As soon as linux 2.6.0 is official, SCO will be there, press-release in hand.

--
Belief is the currency of delusion.

Now is a good time to short on SCO by BigFire · 2003-08-05 09:58 · Score: 1

Better make that short call period to 6 months. The price will have crashed by then.

Re:Do these SCO folks remind anyone else of KimJon by Quasar1999 · 2003-08-05 09:59 · Score: 1

whoa... slow down...

I left my comment too ambiguous... What I was trying to say is that *HE* wants much needed respect from the international community, so they don't make him into the next Sadam... not that he is owed respect, or that he has concern for his citizens (outside the fact he needs more money for to feed his citizens, well at least his army)... big difference... obviously you interpretted it differently than I intended... None the less, my original point wasn't so much about Kim Jong-Il, as it was about how it has very little to do with SCO, even if you are trying to draw some sort of humorous political parallel...

And as you helped prove my point... political commentary, even if meant jokingly can cause a whole lot of unintended ill will... ;)

--

---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.

Linux 2.2 by mcbridematt · 2003-08-05 10:00 · Score: 1

They said Linux 2.4 and later.

We could all just switch back to 2.2 right now! and avoid litigation.

whats the big idea by superfast-scooter · 2003-08-05 10:02 · Score: 1

hmm, first - employees at sco had to go thro all the code to find something like what they did?
secondly, is the difference a case of
for ( ; ; ) and,
while (1) ?

did they find some line that did a printf the way they did?
what did they find that rocked the sco managements socks off?

also, if the employees who found these lines in the linux kernel were given a bit more time, maybe they will find them in some other OS too? then sue them?

so, it all started with 2.4? till then, everything was ok? so, their developers are being paid to look for things that are general enuff so they can go sue instead of doin some more productive/creative? or maybe "work"?

so, is this a case of a last-ditch effort?

this is precisely wht happened with the dot-coms - have management and lawyers run the show in a tech area, and mess it all up for everyone. i guess that goes in every field - but especially this.

SCO's suit by mAineAc · 2003-08-05 10:05 · Score: 1, Insightful

From everything I have read, SCO is not claiming their own code is in Linux. It is code that IBM developed for The System V Unix and because of the contract with SCO any developments that were added to the Unix was essentially theirs. IBM is saying that anything they developed is theirs and they can do with it what they please. This isn't a simple case of copying SCO's handywork. In many businesses if you write some code while employed by the company it becomes the property of the company so this is not entirely unheard of. Instead of a company they are relating it to the parent code. So that any code that was added to the SCO owned code is SCO's. I personally hate SCO and would like to see them burn for what they are doing, but there is a chance they might be able to pull this off with this point of view though.

Re:SCO's suit by Bored+Huge+Krill · 2003-08-05 10:42 · Score: 1

that's one analysis, and a reasonable one, but it appears to contradict what SCO is saying elsewhere. In their NDA'd analyst briefings, they showed code that they claimed was copied line for line from System V. Not stuff developed by IBM, and then added to Linux (which SCO apparently claims to own as a derivative work) but stuff the originated in the SVR4 code base. It's not at all clear to me what their claims are. Bring on the lawsuit - let's find out.
Krill
"I allege that SCO is full of it" - Linus Torvalds
Re:SCO's suit by gvc · 2003-08-05 11:16 · Score: 1

The basis for SCO's claim was a dusty old contract that IBM signed with AT&T. It had no provision at all for IBM returning code to AT&T. You can read it at SCO's web site (as an attachment to their complaint).

AFAIK, IBM added nothing to SYSV. IBM added code to AIX, which is a derivative of SYSV. The legal fine point on which SCO rested their initial case was that any new features added to the derivative work became part of the derivative, and were therefore subject to non-disclosure agreements. At first SCO said this had 'nothing to do with copyright' but now they seem to think that copyright also applies to these peripherally added components.

This analysis applies to SMP, journalling, and the other big items that SCO like to parade in front of us.

But then there are the infamous 80 lines that are allegedly in SCO's SYSV code and also Linux. These apparently are independent of the 'derivative work'code. Only Laura Didio (who was trained as a reporter before she became a professional industry apologist and has no software expertise) finds this example convincing.
Re:SCO's suit by Tokerat · 2003-08-05 11:57 · Score: 1

But then there are the infamous 80 lines that are allegedly in SCO's SYSV code and also Linux. These apparently are independent of the 'derivative work'code.
...And I'll bet those 80 lines where ripped off from BSD before that whole fiasco with Berkeley and AT&T...

--
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
Re:SCO's suit by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2003-08-05 12:37 · Score: 1

But then there are the infamous 80 lines that are allegedly in SCO's SYSV code and also Linux.
I'm dying to see these 80 lines, along with SCO's Evidence that the code was written by them and not there beforehand.
Even if they are there, I'm sure we'll know where they are after the case. I personally would be glad to join the long queue of developers rewriting the code.

What does the law say? by HuskyDog · 2003-08-05 10:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, this had been going on for weeks and I have still to see the fundamental question addressed. Where, precisely, in the laws of the USA does it state that end users are liable for copyright infringement? Isn't copyright infringement the act of copying or distributing some copyrighted work owned by somebody else?

Perhaps I am being a bit slow, but surely, when you stand up in court at the start of a prosecution case you have to begin by identifying a law passed by Congress which you claim that the other side has broken. The fact that the other side did something which you didn't like isn't sufficient, is it? Surely Congress has to have agreed at some point that that action should be illegal. Having identified the law you then go on to try to prove that the defence broke it. Or am I missing something about US law here?

Re:What does the law say? by debest · 2003-08-05 16:02 · Score: 3, Informative
Where, precisely, in the laws of the USA does it state that end users are liable for copyright infringement?

You're absolutely right: it isn't in there anywhere. That's why they can't sue any end users for copyright infringment, and never will.

What they are doing is making loud noises about taking end users to task, but making no indication about how they plan to do so. Why? Because they can't and won't! They only want everyone to think they can.

As endless others have pointed out, SCO's (probable) reasons for their current actions are:
- pumping up the stock for the shareholders,
- making themselves so annoying that someone (IBM) will buy them,
- someone (Microsoft) is quietly pulling the strings, since litigation and FUD are the only weapons that have any effect on OSS's rate of growth.
Bottom line, end users have no risk of getting sued by SCO. Adoption of Linux may be hurt by all of this for a while, but even if it goes all the way to a 2005 court date, Linux will be vindicated.
--
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!

Drive SCO out of the GPL loop by Peachy · 2003-08-05 10:10 · Score: 1

Wonder what would happen if the GPL terms+conditions were modified so that anti-open-source companies like SCO were not permitted to distribute GPL-licensed programs as part of their own product?

C++ Code = Licence Agreement?? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 10:10 · Score: 1, Interesting

So, as I understand it....

1) Random Developer puts SCO code into Linux. Not me or anyone else I know who uses Linux. But a developer.

2) Companies distribute Linux not knowing about SCO code (well, I assume they didn't know...)

3) Members of the Public use Linux without a f*cking clue that they are using SCO's code. Not because they ignore licence agreements (a la many Win2K copies...), but because they don't know and can't read code.

4) SCO sues users because it's their fault they're using unlicenced software. Of course it is, everyone can read code and pick out the juicy copyrighted bits!

--- start stupidity here ---

Yeah, I'm really gonna check 000's of lines of C++ code just to find the line "/* Copyright of SCO. SCO ownz j00 */" every time I buy obtain a new OS.

Maybe Microsoft should learn from this and start embedding licence agreements in source code, after all no-one reads the damned things when they HAVE access to them :-)

--- end stupidity ---

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-08-05 10:11 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Theme by eddy · 2003-08-05 10:14 · Score: 1

NSA: How my I direct your call.

SCO: We know who you are! We hear you have been adding code to Linux and have even used it in house. We have a large bill for you that you have to pay or we will sue you.

NSA: Ah, yes. You do of course realize that this would force us to turn over to the courts our tapes of you and the whole SCO-leadership plotting and then implementing your pump'n'dump scheme? Just happened to overhear...

...

CLICK!

NSA: Hello? Mr McBride? Are you there?

--
Belief is the currency of delusion.

Unixware payment in escrow by bstadil · 2003-08-05 10:14 · Score: 1

Even better let me suggest that anyone that still uses Unixware (The three of you know who you are) put payment to SCO in escrow pending outcome of IBM suit.

There is equally good chance that GPL code found it's way into Unixware that the reverse.

We as a group can do nothing better to kill off SCO that to choke their cashflow.

--
Help fight continental drift.

FTC Investigation by spruce · 2003-08-05 10:16 · Score: 1

One thing I found interesting was that the Federal Trade Commission did an investigation and dropped the case, then the Justice Department picked it back up. There's an interesting Playboy interview with Bill Gates that gives some insight into how that guy thinks.

Is that a quote? by littleghoti · 2003-08-05 10:19 · Score: 1

If it is, I wouldn't worry too much- their lawyers are illiterate and can't even tell the difference between "ensure" and "insure"!

Tell ya what ... by ProfMoriarty · 2003-08-05 10:20 · Score: 1

I'll pay SCO as soon as they send me a bill ...

Er ... hold on, there's somebody at the door ...

--
Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.

Buy SCO! by RavenZ · 2003-08-05 10:20 · Score: 1

Are you going to spend 699 dollars for an SCO license? Well, I don't plan to do so.

Here's my solution: Spend that money on shares! We will get approx. 55 shares each. If 120'000 people do that too, we will have more than 50 % of SCO! Then we'll kick some ass, apologize, make Unix finally Open Source (tm), buy laptops for everyone and shut down the company!

I'm already logging into E*Trade ...

Re:Buy SCO! by Bored+Huge+Krill · 2003-08-05 10:38 · Score: 1

*NFW*. These scumbags aren't getting a penny of my money, buddy.
Krill

SCO: 1-800-726-8649 - Call it - often by Kevoco · 2003-08-05 10:23 · Score: 3, Funny

It's their phone bill :-)
Can anyone say Telephone Denial of Service attack?

Get others to help like this:
http://newyork.craigslist.org/cas/14497372.html

Paying the toll by pherris · 2003-08-05 10:27 · Score: 1

> Call them up, they pay the toll.

I wonder if they're accepting pay phone calls (since they incure an automatic $0.35 charge per call)?

--
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST

Yes, you are an idiot. by jotaeleemeese · 2003-08-05 10:28 · Score: 1

Unless you know something we don't. there is no proof so far thst such code exists.

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

Tactical error by SCO by unoengborg · 2003-08-05 10:35 · Score: 1

SCO would probably make more money if the charged less for their "license". Let's say below $100. At that price people might actually have payed to be on the safe side from SCO lawsuits. At the current prices most companies are probably waiting until they are taken to court or the outcome of the Red Hat counter suit.

--
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER

Re:Tactical error by SCO by WCMI92 · 2003-08-05 15:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

"SCO would probably make more money if the charged less for their "license". Let's say below $100. At that price people might actually have payed to be on the safe side from SCO lawsuits. At the current prices most companies are probably waiting until they are taken to court or the outcome of the Red Hat counter suit."

Being reasonable is not their goal. Sure, they could charge, say, $50 per CPU for their "license" and probably get tens of thousands of people who'd do it just to avoid the possibility of a suit.

But they don't want to do that. They want to OWN that which they don't own. And charge $1,000 for it.

For a company that is paranoid about losing their "trade secrets" and their intellectual property, they aren't acting like it. Their failure to disclose what is infringing means that the infringement isn't able to be ceased... Their charging of an exorbitant license fee makes it more likely that people will laugh at them, and snarl in defiance, rather than suck it up, and send in $50 to not worry about a lawsuit...

--
Corporatism != Free Market

up yours, SCO by aggieben · 2003-08-05 10:44 · Score: 1

SCO can kiss my fanny. Let them try to track down millions of unlicensed computers. Let them try to track my computers down. I dare them.

If they think they had financial trouble before, let them try to bring legal action against everyone who is "violating" their supposed IP rights. Then they'll see what financial trouble is.

It's extortion, plain and simple. I'm glad that IBM and RedHat are planning to stick it to them. I hope SCO dies a horrible death.

--
Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard

Capitalism by gacp · 2003-08-05 10:48 · Score: 1

>Capitalism, or free market economics

No, no, no. You got it all wrong. It's free market economy OR capitalism, which is non-free markets controlled

by capital. There is no economic freedom under capitalism, and laws are made by the capital for the capital.

--
``L'imagination au povoir.''

Show Your Code SCO! by gmac63 · 2003-08-05 10:48 · Score: 1

I'll pay you when you show your goddamn code. Hows that deal SCO.

--

INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';

This is extortion... by tuxlove · 2003-08-05 10:48 · Score: 1

...if not outright economic terrorism. SCO should be dealt with accordingly.

HP is an SCOForum sponser... by patmc · 2003-08-05 10:53 · Score: 1

Really, check it out at:

SCOForum 2003 Agenda

Re:HP is an SCOForum sponser... by ninthwave · 2003-08-05 11:18 · Score: 1

And Intel is also a partner maybe we should write to HP and Intel and ask them nicely to not attend. Or face getting SCO dirt on their reputations. Or more bluntly boycott HP and Intel if they continue to work with SCO.

--
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
Re:HP is an SCOForum sponser... by dentar · 2003-08-05 14:57 · Score: 1

That's funny. SCO used to get LOTS of different vendors to keynote for them, like CA and IBM. This year it looks like there are two companies: SCO and HP.

--
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
Re:HP is an SCOForum sponser... by WCMI92 · 2003-08-05 14:59 · Score: 1

"And Intel is also a partner maybe we should write to HP and Intel and ask them nicely to not attend. Or face getting SCO dirt on their reputations. Or more bluntly boycott HP and Intel if they continue to work with SCO."

I'm not real happy with HP since Queen Carly took absolute power when she overthrew the Hewletts in pushing the Compaq merger through...

They seem to have started adopting a Dell-like suck Intel and Microsoft's cocks strategy.

Privately, I bet Carly wishes Linux would go away so she could get huggy feely with Bill Gates.

Too bad, HP and Compaq BOTH were great companies before the merger.

One thing I like about IBM, is that they are a leader, not a follower. And when they decide to do something, they do it, and stick with it, even if the rest of the industry thinks they are silly.

But hey, isn't that how REAL money is made? And isn't that why Dell, a company completely devoid of innovation, that sells products that are the most conservative, the most cheap possible, will NEVER have revenues approaching the size of a boil on IBM's ass?

--
Corporatism != Free Market
Re:HP is an SCOForum sponser... by ninthwave · 2003-08-05 22:07 · Score: 1

IBM is a leader and has learned from a stagnation mistake in the past, I believe HP will learn either now or later that it needs to be flexible to keep such large architecture active in the market. I don't know what is the status of HP-Unix in the whole SCO thing????

--
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass! by cgori · 2003-08-05 10:54 · Score: 1

I need to put something in here to confound the lameness filter, so this will have to do.

Sorry, I really, really needed to vent.

End Of Linux Being Free ? by skybuck · 2003-08-05 10:58 · Score: 1

So is this the end of linux being free ? That would be funny.

Send them bogus checks by s1234d · 2003-08-05 11:05 · Score: 1

Lots of checks from non-existent bank accounts would be fun. They pay the checks in, and get hit with the dishonour fees. Hehe.

Send Monopoly Money! by aschlemm · 2003-08-05 11:07 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm sure a lot of people have old Monopoly games laying around unused. I good use of all that paper Monopoly money would be to send the appropriate amount to SCO for their licensing fee.

You mean this guy? by dmaxwell · 2003-08-05 11:12 · Score: 1

I'd love to see Daryl spend some quality time with this guy. McBitch indeed.

Ahem by HeX86 · 2003-08-05 11:21 · Score: 1

So say sco does release the binaries. They are required to release the source? Is that gonna happen? I'd be down with them modifying the code, but they're breaking the license agreement. They must release the source code and release it under the GPL as well. The GPL doesn't state anything about price, just freedom. Now in the case that IBM did leak the code, SCO should go after IBM, not Linus, not the end linux user. The only person at fault in this case is IBM. However, SCO has yet to prove jack shit. It's an obvious last breath to bloat their stocks before they go under. I guess that's what makes america so "great". We don't punish dumb people as much as we should. "Well if you don't like it, then suit me like a normal person!" -- Some movie quote I think

Re:SCO thinks their programs are worth $20 ? by aled · 2003-08-05 11:30 · Score: 1

It's a sad true but the fact is the 99,999% of the kernel not owned by SCO and the rest of gnu/linux is worth $20. They tried to not publicy this to not disappoint linux fans and prevent mass histeria. See what you have done!
BTW for some curious casuality Unixware is worth $20 plus some code copied from linux...

--

"I think this line is mostly filler"

Appropriate response... by DamienMcKenna · 2003-08-05 11:36 · Score: 1

Kiss my /dev/null!

Re:Appropriate response... by Tokerat · 2003-08-05 11:51 · Score: 1

Kiss my /dev/null!
Shouldn't that read:

Bite my shiny metal /dev/null ?

--
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?

Re:Dear SCO by LIOPE · 2003-08-05 11:42 · Score: 1

Vlad strained. He took a deep breath and held it as he pushed harder than he ever had in his life. The veins in his forehead bulged and throbbed; his gut clenched; his anus puckered. A pocket of gas escaped from his constricted rectum, signifying a loosening somewhere in his bowel. The sweat rolled off of Vlads face and stained his sleeveless, v-neck t-shirt. Vlad's body shook as a giant length of feces slowly emerged from his anus. The feces was wide and solid and the surfaces scraped against his rectum as it moved slowly along. It seemed the thing would never finally come all the way out but it did, eventually. Vlad exhaled and his body relaxed as the cool, urine-tainted water of the toilet splashed against his sweating buttocks.

Vlad felt such a sense of achievement, he decided he must preserve this wonder of Nature that he had just expelled from his voluminous body. He reached into the toilet and rescued the turd from its ultimate fate. Carefully, he dried it off with a wad of toilet paper. The turd was a foot long, at least, and a full 4 inches thick. He cradled it in his arms as he looked upon it with admiration. Vlad sighed and flushed the toilet. He wondered how he would get through the weekend, since Reza had sent Marticock to stay with his grandparents. Vlad was already feeling anxious after spending an hour on the toilet. He heard a loud ripping noise coming from the bedroom. It was Reza practicing her farting exercises.

Reza had been looking for ways to bring her closer to her beloved. Ever since little Marticock had come along, her sex-life had taken a nose-dive. Reza watched with jealousy every time Marticock would fart and Vlad would beam with pride, then become aroused as he realized where the fart had come from. She had decided that if she could fart as well as Marticock, Vlad would want to ravage her enormous body the way he used to. She squeezed her colon with determination, forcing out another small bubble of gas, followed by a plop of warm fluid, "oh! Vlad would like that," she thought.

Reza heard the toilet flush - what opportune timing! "Oh, Vladdie-Pop! Come here!"

Vlad sighed and rolled his eyes. Why wouldn't that disgusting cow leave him alone? He trodded into the bedroom, "what now, fat- ass?"

Reza, sitting on the bed naked, held up her panties, which were large enough to use as a blanket for most people, "look!"

Vlad could see the large spot of wetness where Reza's asshole had vomited into the garment. Vlad became aroused. He sleazed over to the bed and threw off his stained shirt. Reza laid back in the bed, with a satisfied smile on her face. Her body oozed out to drip over the sides of the bed.

Vlad shed his briefs and prepared to dive into the whale that lay waiting for him. He shivered. Thoughts of Marticock's tight little butt and skimpy diaper overwhelmed him. Vlad could not bring himself to touch a woman ever again. Even if that woman was a disgusting tub of sweating lard. Vlad had to do something, he had to think fast. Then... he remembered the trophy he had in his hand.

Vlad shoved the turd into Reza's sloppy wet vagina. He plunged it in and out with ever-increasing speed and force. Reza moaned with delight. It had been so long! She didn't remember Vlad's penis being so large, "oh Vlad, I have been waiting for this moment for eight months. God, you've gotten so big!"

Vlad farted with relief that he had found a way to deflect Reza's advances. He moved the turd around in her vagina like he was stirring up a batch of fat for breakfast. It didn't take long for Reza to explode in a massive orgasm, which sent chucks of shit flying all over Vlad's pale body.

Vlad's face grew red with rage, "You fat fucking hog! You killed my turd!" Vlad took what was left of the feces and smacked Reza in the face with it. The turd broke in two and Vlad became even more angry and started punching Reza in the gut, "I'll teach you, you fat whale! My turd! MY TURD! MY FUCKING TURD!"

That night, bruised, bloodied and covered with feces, Reza cried herself to sleep.

keeper ! thank you. by Thinkit3 · 2003-08-05 11:45 · Score: 1

Libertarian==anti-"intellectual property".

--
-Libertarian secular transhumanist

Hey, at that price . . . by werdna · 2003-08-05 11:50 · Score: 1

I'll just buy a new machine running MacOSX or Windoze, to which the OS comes free.

SCO apparently has no clue what it means to compete, either with free or proprietary products.

Re:Hey, at that price . . . by trouser · 2003-08-05 14:14 · Score: 1

The OS does not come free. The license fee is part of the purchase price of the system.

SCO is not trying to compete in the OS market. They are intefering with IBMs move from AIX, for which they pay substantial licensing fees to SCO for use of System V code, to Linux. If IBM ditches AIX for Linux that would put a big hole in SCOs revenue. Consequently SCO have dreamt up the curious notion that they can collect licensing fees for Linux.

It's a scam to enhance shareholder value and to a certain extent, for the time being, it's working.

--
Now wash your hands.

Re:I already bought a licence... by eric76 · 2003-08-05 11:55 · Score: 1

Just get a copy of SuSE Linux and replace the kernel of whatever you are using with the kernel from the SuSE Linux distribution on every computer in the place.

My experience calling SCO just now... by dstone · 2003-08-05 12:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

For those interested or those who couldn't get through on the phone today...

I just called their toll-free number 1-800-726-8649, hit option 5 to speak to a representative. I explained that I may be interested in purchasing license(s) but needed clarification on their policy. Note that I don't currently own or operate any Linux systems that their license would apply to, but that I'm calling for some clarification of their policy.

Anyways, they wanted my company name, my name, and a return phone number. A sales rep will call me back. When I asked how long it would take, I was told it probably would not be this week since they've been backlogged with so many calls. Their sales director wasn't prepared for this large of a response. So either sales are going to be great for SCO this quarter, or their staff is going to be talking to a lot of time-wasters, money-wasters, and tire-kickers.

Oh well... by frozenray · 2003-08-05 12:01 · Score: 1

Look at the bright side of things: maybe the stupid "Linux is only free if you time is free" trolls will have to come up with something else now.

Dear SCO, here's a heartfelt message to you. Mark my words:

The day you'll get even a single penny from me (and from the company I work for, as far as I have a say in it), will be the day Satan places an express order for 50'000 of these babies.

No, I'm not joking.

--
"There are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton

Check is in the mail!! by Arbogast_II · 2003-08-05 12:08 · Score: 1

A client license for a single user desktop system is $199. So, I reckon Bubba owes $995. I am straight with SCO I hope, I just mailed my check. LMAO!!!

--

HenryJamesFeltus.com

Temporary solution by grolschie · 2003-08-05 12:23 · Score: 1

Ok, I am not trying to start a flamewar here.... and sorry if this has already been said.....

Why not have a safe version/stream of Kernel 2.4 stripped of all disputed technologies for those who wish to use it until this all blows over. Ripping these options out (eg: remove __SMP__ entirely) would be do-able, and wouldn't involve reading through millions of lines of code.

I guess the majority of desktop users wouldn't use half the features/technology in dispute. Some even still use kernel 2.2.20. This would also take away much of the string in the SCO attack.

Re:Temporary solution by JVert · 2003-08-05 12:49 · Score: 1

Enclosed is an answer for each paragraph.

1.) Only about a BILLION TIMES on /. but i'm bored and want to contribute what will be the largest article around here.

2.) SCO refuses to disclose exactly where the infringment lies. They have mentioned SMP but they have also mentioned other areas as well. They are doing this so that removal is not possible, and will try to delay the disclosure for as long as possible. Also its important note that SCO is activly searching though linux source code for other snippets that they may own.

3.) Even the majority of servers dont use the features in dispute. SCO is even trying to license embedded linux (YOUR LINKSYS ROUTER IS NOW ILLEGAL!).
Re:Temporary solution by WCMI92 · 2003-08-05 14:27 · Score: 1

"Even the majority of servers dont use the features in dispute. SCO is even trying to license embedded linux (YOUR LINKSYS ROUTER IS NOW ILLEGAL"

EXCELLENT point... Linksys is owned by... Cisco. Not exactly a tiny company.

What does SCaldera do if Cisco sues their ass? And doesn't this illustrate the impossibility of their claims? SCO can be sued in all 50 states, and every country that has a Linux user, vendor, embedder, etc...

I doubt the whole Canopy Group has enough funds to pay THAT many lawyers...

--
Corporatism != Free Market
Re:Temporary solution by WCMI92 · 2003-08-05 14:44 · Score: 1

"I guess the majority of desktop users wouldn't use half the features/technology in dispute. Some even still use kernel 2.2.20. This would also take away much of the string in the SCO attack."

Retreat gives this travesty of legal system abuse LEGITIMACY.

I e-mailed SCO's sales department and told them to fuck off. I run Red Hat Linux on both my laptop and my PC here at home. I use both commercially (I am a network administrator).

--
Corporatism != Free Market

the sheer gall of it by Build6 · 2003-08-05 12:25 · Score: 1

and most of it not even being "their" work ultimately, even if the kernel itself WAS really SCO code.

*sigh*

What's the progress of the Hurd?

are we being taken for a ride? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 12:26 · Score: 1, Interesting

I can't shake this feeling that we are all being taken for a ride.

Consider what has happened up till this point:
- SCO is bought up by some investors
- SCO makes some nebulous claim regarding intellectual property in linux
- SCO opens up a lawsuit against IBM, a rather large and powerful company, demanding a ridiculous amount of money.
- Upen receiving challenges from the public to show the offending code, they offer it only under an incredibly restrictive NDA, and even those who agree to it don't see any relevant infringement.
- SCO begins hinting at licensing fees for linux users
- Redhat sues SCO
- SCO immediately countersues Redhat
- SCO unveils an incredibly high priced license scheme with a time limit.

From these events, a few things stand out:
First, IMB's non-response to SCO. SCO is obviously looking for a fight, and yet IBM is completely ignoring them. Why?
Second, SCO is playing hide-and-seek with the evidence, and playing NDA games which almost appear to be designed just to piss people off.
Third, their ridiculous countersuit against RedHat.

In my opinion, this countersuit was originally designed to be filed against IBM when they countersued SCO. IBM must have smelled a rat and so did not respond to their challenge. After their first volley failed, SCO then continued to heap on the insults to get SOMEBODY pissed off enough to sue them. In this case it happened to be Redhat.

It would seem that somebody in a position of influence wants to get as many legal actions involving SCO as possible.

We all know there's a scam afoot, but can you see past the sleight-of-hand?
The magician performs his trick by controlling the viewer's eye.

Tell SCO How Much You Love Them by InfiniteWisdom · 2003-08-05 12:27 · Score: 3, Funny

SCO Sales and product enquiries

1-800-726-8649

How many phone calls will it take to empty SCO's coffers?

Re:Tell SCO How Much You Love Them by WCMI92 · 2003-08-05 14:41 · Score: 1

"CO Sales and product enquiries
1-800-726-8649
How many phone calls will it take to empty SCO's coffers?"

How soon do they change that to a 1-900 number? ;)

--
Corporatism != Free Market

The SCO Group (Formerly known as Caldera) by stock · 2003-08-05 12:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

FYI:

Last year Caldera Inc. changed its Company name into a new Company name called "The SCO Group Inc." In 2000 Caldera Inc. publicly announced to donate their UNIX stuff into the Linux 2.4 kernel. That was just after Caldera Inc. had bought the orginal SCO Inc. company.

bottom line : "The SCO Group Inc." today has no rights whatsoever to charge $699,= for a Linux License

Robert

Re:The SCO Group (Formerly known as Caldera) by stock · 2003-08-07 06:37 · Score: 1

Some extra info from the Utah Business registration office :
search for caldera
Caldera's details
Search for SCO Group
SCO Group #1
SCO Group #2
I made a html page of the results just in case : sco_group.html
Robert

license what??? by two_tone · 2003-08-05 12:33 · Score: 2, Informative

i got two copies of SCO software 6 years ago through the free sco program. like sun's program at the same time, i only had to pay for shipping nad got two free licenses. SCO can go f*ck themselves. how does free go to $699?? i want to meet their accountants.

--
You see a problem, I see potential. - Vincent 'Vinnie' Antonelli

Single CPU Systems? by giantsfan89 · 2003-08-05 12:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

SCO will be offering an introductory license price of $699 for a single CPU system through October 15th, 2003

I thought SCO's beef was with infected SMP code? Therefore, if you do not use multiple processors, you don't use SMP code, therefore there is no need to license a run-time license. Right?

--
Don't ping my cheese with your bandwidth!

Re:If everyone understands it's Microsoft. by WindBourne · 2003-08-05 12:37 · Score: 1

actually, you can bet that little info is being spread via e-mail or IM. During the MS trial, MS went from using e-mail for communication to using the phone and group meetings. I would guess that all communications between Norda/McBride and Gates are being done via phone to avoid having info called up at a later time.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

must be utah by MoFoQ · 2003-08-05 12:37 · Score: 1

they should stop sniffing stuff they think is just "salt"

anyways....Here's my payment. (warning for those under 18...don't click it....though if someone says "don't", they'll most likely will do it).

one-time fee ever? by kardar · 2003-08-05 12:41 · Score: 1

This is interesting.. so they want you to pay them for anything past 2.4 -- usually, if I were to switch from Windows 98 to something newer, XP, for instance, there is still a $50 upgrade price?

So if I purchase one time from SCO a license for whatever they are trying to sell ( not Linux, they can't sell Linux unless it's under the GPL ) - so I license from them for 2.4 and above, so that means I only have to give them whatever they want and they will go away forever? So when I am using kernel 3.4 my license I bought now is still good?

If that is the case, it wouldn't be as problematic as if they kept coming out with a new thing you have to buy to not be sued by them, etc... so what kind of upgrade policy is going along with this "thing" that I am buying from SCO, whatever it is I am buying?

Once I hit 2.6 or 2.7, do I have to fork over another however many CPU's I have? I would not be surprised, and of course it may very well be likely.

So... the most economically feasible thing to do is to fight SCO now. Sure, it might be cheaper to pay them ( once ) a couple hundred thousand dollars than take the thing to court, but if you pay them this time, then the next time they will ask you for upgrade fees, or for some kind of continuation of this nonsense, it is much more likely that the least expensive route is letting the lawsuits go to court. That way, you can get it over with; at least you will have a chance to defend yourself and state your case. I bet that the last thing SCO wants it to have to take anyone to court - not because they have a heart - more like they don't have a case - I vaguely remember something being said along those lines. Think "upgrade fees" before you think "lawsuit costs" and getting sued by SCO will begin to look like the more desirable option.

If SCO is right, which they are not, but let's just PRETEND they were - it would still be best to find out ASAP, because then you could redeploy with some other OS. You're only opening yourself up to other lawsuits from Linux developers if you continue to use Linux while violating the GPL.

So from a financial standpoint, the long-term costs associatied with licensing fees being paid to SCO on a regular basis are greater than the one-time costs of letting the whole thing go to court, or perhaps settling out of court.

Re:one-time fee ever? by WCMI92 · 2003-08-05 14:36 · Score: 1

"If SCO is right, which they are not, but let's just PRETEND they were - it would still be best to find out ASAP, because then you could redeploy with some other OS. You're only opening yourself up to other lawsuits from Linux developers if you continue to use Linux while violating the GPL"

Or revert to 2.2 until 2.4 and 2.6 were fixed. It's not as if 2.2.x isn't good enough for 90% of all Linux users.

Which makes me wonder... SCO keeps claiming (hard to keep track of, because their goal posts move frequently) that the infringing code CANT be taken out. So I suspect they will make claims against 2.2 as well.

Either way, better to force the issue. Better to see SCO's money pot drained by countersuits, and get this case heard somewhere NOT of SCO's choosing.

Either Linux will be exonerated and SCO joins Enron/Woldcomm in the dustbin of corporate abuse turned bust, or Linux becomes an outlaw system.

What is on trial here is the whole open source/free as in freedom software movement. If a scumbag like SCO is allowed to pollute open code, then the law clearly won't protect us.

--
Corporatism != Free Market
Re:one-time fee ever? by kalidasa · 2003-08-06 02:45 · Score: 1

Which makes me wonder... SCO keeps claiming (hard to keep track of, because their goal posts move frequently) that the infringing code CANT be taken out. So I suspect they will make claims against 2.2 as well.

This is why I asked. If the infringing code came in in 2.4, then 2.2-based systems should be clean. If it came in before then, then when? By whom?

death to the bastards of sco by KB3JJY · 2003-08-05 12:44 · Score: 1

I shall avenge the penguin, my peers rise with me and strike the underbelly of this devil I say we destroy SCO for this anti linux sham. My brothers and sisters of the penguins do not stand for this horrible crime and rise to the revolution

--
Torvalds is god

9.8 mill for R-shack by MoFoQ · 2003-08-05 12:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

if that's the case, maybe these companies should donate 10% of their projected costs to comply with SCO's blackmailing to the Linux defense fund that Red Hat started. It'll also be tax deductible too.

You know....come to think of it...I would think there's like a statute of limitations for this kind of thing.

SCO own C++ as well?!? by Namarrgon · 2003-08-05 12:46 · Score: 1

Man, is there nothing they don't have their claws into?

Blake Stowell: C++ is one of the properties that SCO owns today and we frequently are approached by customers who wish to license C++ from us and we do charge for that.

http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-02_Story 03.html#C++_Issues

This isn't a new story, but I missed it amongst all the Linux reaction..

--
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?

Leave em some nice feedback by gstaines · 2003-08-05 12:47 · Score: 2, Informative

Let these cretins know what we think about them

http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/index.html

Gordon Staines

Re:Leave em some nice feedback by WCMI92 · 2003-08-05 14:30 · Score: 1

Sent ;)

I sent the worst flame I could come up with.

--
Corporatism != Free Market

TiVo Fee! by GoRK · 2003-08-05 12:50 · Score: 1

If you have a TiVo, you owe SCO $32. Don't forget to send them a check!

~GoRK

switch by scottking · 2003-08-05 12:54 · Score: 1

for that kinda coin, i'll just switch to windows.

--
scott king

My paranoid ravings by alfredo · 2003-08-05 12:56 · Score: 1

MS is bankrolling this suit. If SCO wins, MS will buy SCO then price UNIX/Linux out of the market

--
photosMy Photostream

probably not just media bias, though by wrinkledshirt · 2003-08-05 12:58 · Score: 1

While it wouldn't surprise me, if, given equal effort at making a case in the media, the open source option got the short end of the editorial bias stick, it's not like IBM and Red Hat have been properly playing the media on this issue. IBM's been basically playing the role of a company ignoring SCO. Red Hat's counter-suit is a good start, but it's going to take a lot more than that to get people to realize the full extent of SCO's laughability on the issue.

--

--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...

Did Microsoft pay this much ?? by sfm · 2003-08-05 12:59 · Score: 1

As I recall earlier in this SCO saga, Microsoft was one of the first to sign up for a license to run the "tainted" software. Now that the price is known by the public, I wonder how many licenses M$ has and what they paid for them. I would bet it wasn't $699 each.

Financial Times sez IBM reply is a few days by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 13:01 · Score: 2, Informative

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename= FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&cid=1059478724020

Re:Financial Times sez IBM reply is a few days by richg74 · 2003-08-05 16:16 · Score: 2, Informative

There is a serious error of fact in the FT article:
SCO's legal team has adopted an interesting legal strategy, choosing to claim contract violation instead of copyright or patent infringement, which would be governed by federal laws. Because it is a contract dispute, the case will probably be tried by a local court in Utah, where SCO is based, which could be friendlier to local companies.
This is just plain wrong. SCO v. IBM will be tried in the Federal District Court in Utah. Because of the amount in dispute (more than $75,000), and because IBM and SCO are incorporated in different states (IBM in New York, SCO in Delaware), IBM has the right to have the trial moved to Federal court. They filed the "Notice of Removal" on March 25.

Re:Um, fact check on "music thieves". by mec · 2003-08-05 13:10 · Score: 1

You are right, I ranted so much that I ran my verbs together ... "making using" ... sheesh.

Up until now, companies such as Sun have been fudding linux as "garage software". That hasn't worked too well. It's part of our industry that interesting things start in a garage. And it becomes harder and harder to say "garage" when the customer sees "IBM", "H-P", "Oracle" and "Dell".

Now, SCO characterizes Linux as "stolen software". They flat out assert that no free operating system can perform as well as their proprietary kernel unless it contains stolen property.

This might split the Linux defender camp. I shudder at the thought of fellow slashdotters saying "so what, there's nothing wrong with copying other people's (code|music|whatever) without a license". Well, the courts think there is. And the people with the decision-making power to choose between Linux, Solaris, and Windows also think there is. Even Linus Torvalds thinks there is -- his view on licenses is that the copyright owner has the right to choose the license for the work.

I agree with you about the effects of pulling SCO support. They could support their own forks, but it would cost them engineering resources and result in a worse product for their customers. If the programming tools lag badly enough, this will also impact their ISV's.

Plus, damn, SCO's business plan is to piss all over Linux and get paid for it by Microsoft and Sun. We need to react to this, or they will continue pissing for ever.

How long will this drag out? by Stalus · 2003-08-05 13:17 · Score: 1

According to Information Week the lawsuit against IBM will start in April of 2005!? Do we really have to put up with SCO claiming they can charge these rediculous rates for more than a year and a half? How much did Microsoft pay these guys?

Re:How long will this drag out? by borgheron · 2003-08-05 13:22 · Score: 1

This is why Red Hat filed it's lawsuit against SCO and asked for a preliminary injunction to stop them from spreading the FUD and a summary judgement on the copyright issue. By doing this Red Hat gets to choose the location of the trial and ALSO may get a fast resolution to this.

Later, GJC
Note: Not a lawyer, not legal advice, just know a little about the law.

--
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep

SCO Forum 2003 in Las Vegas - Protest / Rally by gstaines · 2003-08-05 13:18 · Score: 1

I live in Australia, so its a little hard for me to do anything from here, but Linux users are obviously very pissed off with SCO right now.

How about organising a protest / rally at this forum they are holding in Las Vegas?

We could also make it fun, like holding a compitition to find and urinate on McBrides car etc. (extra points if you get it in the air vents)

Gordon Staines

Why not... by Bob[Bob] · 2003-08-05 13:22 · Score: 1

...send them feedback here:
http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/index.html

CEO work for Micro$oft by Geek-I-Am · 2003-08-05 13:26 · Score: 1

So does the CEO of SCO actually work for M$ and this is the only way Gates can kill the Linux movement?!?!

This is not "death throes of a dinosaur" by mec · 2003-08-05 13:30 · Score: 2, Informative

Some people are talking about SCO's actions as if The SCO Group is a dying company that will try anything to stay alive. If that were the case, a good strategy would be to stay out of their way while they die.

However, the real organization making the decisions is the Canopy Group. The Canopy Group has done this before. They set up a company, Caldera International (sound familiar?). They purchased some copyrighted source code, DR-DOS. Then they filed suit against a huge corporation (Microsoft) for $1.5 billion. They settled the suite for an estimated $150 million to $200 million.

All this shit happened before!

The Canopy Group isn't dying. They are alive and healthy. They don't use their own name -- they set up front corporations to pursue these activities.

Treating the Canopy Group as a dying entity would be a mistake. Their current avatar, The SCO Group, might die. So what? They'll just respawn and do this again.

(How do I know that Canopy is calling the shots at SCO? Because Darl McBride admitted, in an interview with CNET around 2003-06-04 or so, that the Canopy Group was choosing SCO's lawyers and laying out their legal strategy. And that's the most important activity there is at SCO, which means that Canopy doesn't just own shares -- they are driving).

Yeah I'll buy.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 13:50 · Score: 1, Funny

With my big ass middle finger....SCO can go screw themselves!

Home addresses? by utlemming · 2003-08-05 13:56 · Score: 1

Anybody have the home address of a couple of SCO execs? We could publish that and then have Slashdot readers send them a letter of protest. Imagine the pain and agony as an SCO exec has to sort through thousands of pieces of mail just to find his mortage bill, his phone bill, his credit card bill.....

--
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.

Linux = bicycle? by RoboProg · 2003-08-05 14:05 · Score: 1

I thought MS-DOS was a bicycle, and Linux was a tank?!? Or was it a Hole-Hawg?

(In the Beginning Was the Command Line, by Neal Stephenson -- some funny analogies)

Anyway, they seem to just repeat "Linux can't be made to work on Voyager, er, Enterprise.... Cuz we said so! And, and, and, you will be assimilated, yah!"

Hmmm. So how does *BSD do SMP??? Were they given Unix(TM) brain transplants as well?
- - -

--
Yow! I'm supposed to have a plan?

Re:Corporate suicide by Maul · 2003-08-05 14:07 · Score: 1

Disappearance is result the execs of SCO want. Disappearance to some Carribean island after they bail their money out of SCO stock.

--

"You spoony bard!" -Tellah

My turn by davmoo · 2003-08-05 14:08 · Score: 2, Funny

For a limited time, for $29.99 I will offer all employees and officers of SCO a perpetual license to kiss my ass. After October, the price rises to $59.99. This license entitles said SCO employee the right to kiss my left butt cheek one time. For the rights to kiss multiple times, or for the use of both butt cheeks, please contact me for additional fees.

--
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.

Solution: SIMPLE! by dentar · 2003-08-05 14:49 · Score: 1

How many of us use:

NUMA
RCU
Journaled File System?

Why don't they just put a kernel up on kernel.org with those FEATURES TOTALLY REMOVED?

Those who don't need the "SCO" features can use those on the uniprocessor (vast majority, right?) machines while those with multi-cpu can pay SCO (or tell them to get bent.. )

Call the kernel linux-nosco-2.4.xx

Linus??

--
-- I am. Therefore, I think!

Re:Solution: SIMPLE! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-05 15:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

If you remove code without proof that it isn't Free, then every dying company and MS shill will line up to demand this or that or the other thing be removed.

Pay the danegeld once, and guess what happens ?

I'm not removing anything from MY kernel. You can delete what you want from your copy.
Re:Solution: SIMPLE! by mcp33p4n75 · 2003-08-05 19:01 · Score: 1

But then the terrorists have won!

Re:I already bought a licence... by WCMI92 · 2003-08-05 14:51 · Score: 1

"Just get a copy of SuSE Linux and replace the kernel of whatever you are using with the kernel from the SuSE Linux distribution on every computer in the place."

Or use the kernel SCO is still allowing anyone to download with the distro of your choice.

--
Corporatism != Free Market

Capitalism? by WebCowboy · 2003-08-05 14:55 · Score: 1

Doesn't look like that to mee...looks more like a litigous, greedy, ham-fisted attempt at extortion to me...

"Hand over the cash or I shoot the penguin"

To SCO.. by QueenOfSwords · 2003-08-05 15:06 · Score: 1

Bite Me.

Love, QOS.

--
-- INTX Grouch. http://www.midnightblue.net

Netcraft announces BSD is suddenly not dying! by intermodal · 2003-08-05 15:13 · Score: 1

a new article at Netcraft has announced that upon Sco's retarded announcement, BSD usage has risen a hundredfold! /end semi-troll

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!

Pay for WHAT, where's the deadbeef? by sixtysevenfordpu · 2003-08-05 15:33 · Score: 1

what exactly is in my RedHat Linux 9 that qualifies to be licensed from SCO?

Re:Pay for WHAT, where's the deadbeef? by XavierXeon · 2003-08-05 18:33 · Score: 1

They cannot tell you beacause if they do the appropriate sections of the code would just be rewritten.

Feel that ranting on isn't getting you anywhere? by vosbert · 2003-08-05 15:33 · Score: 1

You can rant directly to SCO by leaving a message on their toll free number provided on the faq. 800-726-8649. have fun! am i informative or what?

SCO can't ... by j_w_d · 2003-08-05 15:46 · Score: 1

go after BSD. One other thing they inherited with that code they bought was the constraint of the settlement that removed Novel and ATT from UC's gunsights.

--
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.

Here are the facts by screenrc · 2003-08-05 15:53 · Score: 1

If you think Microsoft is not behind SCO/Caldera, then
look at the facts:

1. Microsoft is financially supporting SCO
with millions of dollars. (Do a google to
find how many hundreds of millions.)

2. Miscroft is not a friend to Linux, it is foe.

3. IBM's sales manager said that the enemy is
not SCO, but rather the enemy is Miscroft and
it's satelites (like SCO).

Common sense dictates to presume that after Microsoft
received their 5-year immutity from procecution
(as punishment to their conviction!), they are
not free to roam about ant stub old enemies.

Common sense dictates to assume that Microsoft
is behind all this. Especially when they finance
SCO, and IBM says that Microsoft is the cause of
all this.

Re:Here are the facts by Ryan+Amos · 2003-08-07 06:25 · Score: 1

Right, but I think the difference here is that SCO isn't acting under the influence of Microsoft. Yes, Microsoft gave them money, because it's no secret they want to see Linux die a flaming death, but I think the whole situation is too sticky for MS to really get involved in. The most they could do to help was give SCO a huge hunk of cash under the pretense that they were licensing something.

Look at it this way: MS has lots of lawyers, who no doubt have looked at this, scoffed, but then the corporate guys realized that the longer they can extend SCO's lifespan, the more FUD they'll spread. Threatening to charge Linux users borders on fraud and extortion and MS already has enough legal problems. I'm not saying MS is the good guy here, but I honestly doubt they're pulling the strings. You've gotta pick your fights, and I don't think MS is interested in this particular one because SCO's chances of winning are almost nil. The head honchos at SCO are all lawyers who are evil enough in their own right. They're looking to scare people into licensing Linux and then trying to get a quick settlement with IBM. SCO is not trying to destroy Linux, they just want money.

IBM doesn't ... by j_w_d · 2003-08-05 16:08 · Score: 1

have to support its share value weekly by maintaining its visibility in the media with damned fool announcements that could not be enforced until their case has been settled. For that matter neither does Red Hat. Has there been any discussion of Red Hat buying SCO?

--
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.

OK. I'll be happy ... by j_w_d · 2003-08-05 16:12 · Score: 1

to replace it with Free BSD. I would appreciate it if you will first just learn something about the issues in this. Eric Raymond's article at Opensource.org is a good place to start.

--
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.

Read Adam Smith by lpret · 2003-08-05 16:13 · Score: 1

If you read some Adam Smith, he believed that for capitalism to work there had to be philanthropy in the system. That would pay for "public" hospitals, schools, etc. However, he underestimated the continuing greed of the uber-wealthy...

--
This is my digital signature. 10011011001

Re:SCO: Looking Good by John+Hurliman · 2003-08-05 16:30 · Score: 1

If you cheat to win a competition and noone finds out, you still "won" in the sense that you get awarded the trophy and everyone is under the belief that you won, until someone finds out you cheated. This is what happened with Enron. I think you are using a different definition of "right". The stock market reflects current going prices for shares, whether those prices were illegally inflated or not has nothing to do with the original poster's argument.

What a Coincidence ! by richg74 · 2003-08-05 16:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

After October 15, SCO says they'll want $1399. Better buy now!

So the price is going to go up in October. And it just so happens that the restrictions on the common stock that was given to the SCO directors expire on October 31. (Once the restrictions expire, they can sell it.) Here is the relevant paragraph from SCO's 10-Q filing with the SEC:

During the six months ended April 30, 2003, the Company issued 218,000 shares of restricted stock to certain key employees and 150,000 shares of restricted common stock to members of the Company's board of directors. The restricted common stock issued to the board of directors was in lieu of cash compensation for their services to the Company during the 2003 fiscal year and the restrictions lapse at October 31, 2003. The restrictions on the restricted stock awards granted to key employees lapse over a period of 24 months. The fair value of the restricted stock awards granted of $549,000 was recorded as a component of deferred compensation and is amortized to stock-based compensation as the restrictions lapse or as the services are performed.

Isn't it odd how these strange coincidences occur?

Re:What a Coincidence ! by frkiii · 2003-08-06 00:01 · Score: 1

Yeah, I spotted that also.

But, the suit from RedHat might put a damper on that, one can hope.

It is asking for an injunction, so it may actually get to a hearing before a judge soon, and, with all luck, an injunction to stop SCO from spreading their FUD will be issued before then.

If that is the case, then the common stock options, in my opinion, will be worthless. That is, if an injunction is issued before 31 October 2003. I am crossing my fingers.

Regards,

Fredrick

Rewrite it? by KMonk · 2003-08-05 17:25 · Score: 1

How much of the kernel does SCO claim rights to, I have never seen code but I was told it was sections of various modules, if it is open source, can't various people get together and rewrite these sections, and avoid this whole mess by updating everyone to a non-infringement kernel before anyway sicks the C-stapo on us?

I also am selling rights to kiss my buttcheeks... by skogs · 2003-08-05 17:46 · Score: 1

at the same competative rate quoted by my competitor above.

Also, do I have any volunteers to help me chop off and sell body parts to pay for the SCO license? I think I'll send them...yup...here it is right here...my favorite SCO body part....

My Middle Finger.

Take that SCO.

Then pay me for the right to kiss my butt cheeks...since I know you simply cannot live without it.

--
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!

Just in case you were insterested... by skogs · 2003-08-05 17:58 · Score: 1

SCO says to contact their legal department in case you have any questions...

any questions?

The SCO Group 355 South 520 West, Suite 100 Lindon, Utah 84042 USA. 801.765.4999 phone 801.765.1313 fax

--
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!

Let's Put SCO Behind Bars by MichaelCrawford · 2003-08-05 18:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.

If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.

If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.

It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech, was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC. Many of my best friends use to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time.

Before I ever used Linux, I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.

You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.

Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.

It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.

I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".

My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.

Rather than paying their fee, my response will be to write a letter to the Maine State Attorney General to ask that they prosecute SCO. I'm going to include substantive documentation, like a hardcopy of SCO's claim that I must pay them this fee, as well as IBM's and RedHat's responses to SCO.

I'm also going to write to the Federal Trade Commission to ask that SCO be investigated for illegal trade practices.

If you live in the United States, I ask you to write a similar letter to your state Attorney General, as well as to the Federal Trade Commission. If you live in a state where a Linux distro vendor is located, or a company that has a lot of Linux installations - doesn't Amazon use it? - write to your elected representatives to ask that they work with the state and fede

--
Request your free CD of my piano music.

Re:Let's Put SCO Behind Bars by danielsdk · 2003-08-05 18:54 · Score: 1

Great article!

We need more suits againt SCO to stop it. How about a open source suits(OSS) project against SCO? It will be fun.

SEC: Investor Complaint Form by Fiery · 2003-08-05 18:19 · Score: 1

Start a movement to fill out SEC complains, then, in order to counter-weigh the stock implosion that appears to be at hand. Perhaps they can be caught mid-crash, peered at, and held up as a BAD COMPANY. Anyone in the world can file a complaint through the SEC about SCO. Tell your friends.

Link: http://www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec7040.htm

Linksys routers are 2.4 kernels aren't they? by HarryLLee · 2003-08-05 18:22 · Score: 1

what's this going to do to the installed userbase of such stuff, let alone the future buyers?

Great! Let's sue SCO too! by danielsdk · 2003-08-05 18:30 · Score: 1

I have learned a great deal from its stories: a crap company can sue over nearly everything that doesn't belong to it. Why members of OSS community not sue it back for the real damage it caused? Whatever you were a investor of SCO or reseller, developer, system integrator or user of Linux, if SCO can win, you DO have chances to win!

And while you're at it... by Chordonblue · 2003-08-05 19:03 · Score: 1

How can SCO pull IBM's AIX license which is perpetual without a court order doing so? NOTHING they have done has any legal basis whatsoever. Nothing has actually come to a court of law. No proof of anything has been offered. All heresay and FUD.

--
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."

My old boss is sooo buying this. by JVert · 2003-08-05 19:16 · Score: 1

Here's how its going to pan out, SCO goes to all the linux distributers for money. Nobodys gonna pay and it all gets laid to rest in court either by SCO having to identify the code and having it removed. Or after months of litigation the judge jumps on his desk and yells to SCO "I CALL BULL ON THAT!".
Anyways if its a patch to "legalize linux" my old boss can make a presentation at his next weekly meeting how the $699 saved $4,000 in the time and effort it would take to patch and test the system.
Audience applaudes.

Home users no worry -- it's official! by Suslik · 2003-08-05 19:16 · Score: 1

I telephoned SCO in the UK (my local branch) yesterday. I wanted to know what I, as a personal Linux user, had to do to licence my OS or change it to avoid infringing. After a short delay I was forwarded to a lady who told me that they didn't have any information packs on infringement, but that as a personal user "I didn't have anything to worry about".

When pressed, she gave me the number of the SCO Utah office 1-801-765-4999 (as specified on the SCO web site for further information.

So everything is OK folks -- SCO can't possibly go after home Linux users without having this waved in their face. I'm quite happy to sign an affidavit about these events. I'd also suggest that any worried US/CA Linux users give SCO Utah a call and ask for information on how to avoid infringement. Better safe than sorry!

SCO: We're Not Just Evil, We're Not Even Good At Being Evil.

--
Adi: Inveterate mathmo, Christian, BOFHlet hubbie and Perl lover.

Possible ammendment to the GPL? by Chordonblue · 2003-08-05 19:17 · Score: 1

I'm wondering if there shouldn't be an amendment made to the GPL - something about 'hold no harm'. Maybe a line about full disclosure of disputed code.

As I see it, the main probelm we have with SCO is their reluctance to tell us what they have a problem with. We know why they won't, and they are currently under no obligation to cough it up outside of court.

But were the GPL to be ammended for this instance, this could not happen in the future. I'm not saying the GPL should determine whether donated code is legal, mind you. I'm saying that at least the OPTION to determine it's status should be granted to it's users when under legal intimidation.

--
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."

Re:Possible ammendment to the GPL? by booch · 2003-08-06 10:07 · Score: 1

But SCO is working under the assumption that their code was not added under the GPL. They did not agree to the GPL (so they claim) so they can't be required to follow its terms. Adding that clause doesn't help at all.

--
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.

Darl needs to be on /.! by mcp33p4n75 · 2003-08-05 19:18 · Score: 1

So how do I mod SCO +5 funny?

Well *BSD is safe by bsdguy · 2003-08-05 19:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

One thing that many folks that have come to Linux in the last 5 years may not be aware of is that AT&T about 10 years ago (around the time of the first releases of Linux) brought suit against the now defunct BSDI claiming that there was ATT code in BSD. BSDI spent lots of $$, on it and in the end it was found that AT&T had grabbed BSD code and stripped out the copyright notices. In the end the court said the BSD folks can't call their stuff Unix (thus we no longer talk about BSD Unix, only *BSD) and AT&T had to respect the BSD license and put the notices back in the code.

So what does this have to do with the price of ice in Alaska? Glad you asked..... BSD development got very slow and many good developers that I know went over to doing Linux development durring the years of the suit, thus giving Linux a much needed boost. These folks did this because they did not want to lose their code to AT&T if BSDI lost the case. Since then the BSD family has not had the popular or press following that Linux has, but it has still grown to become the robust system it is today and the great thing is that SCO/Caldera can not move against the BSDs because the court already ruled against them (they bought what AT&T had). So while the new owners of Unix, like many recent Linux converts, have not learned from history and are doomed to repeat it the BSD groups do not have to go through it all over again!

I sure hope that discovery in these trials shows that SCO is in violation of the GPL. Sure would love to see the FSF or some one get some damages on that one!

-bsdguy

--
DRM is theft! We are the stakeholders! - http://www.nyfairuse.org/

F@CK SCO... by Retarded_Ninja · 2003-08-05 19:25 · Score: 1

I "steal" (as the RIAA puts it) music, I "steal" (as Microsft puts it) software, SCO can go F@ck themselves if they think anyone, including myself, is going to pay $1 pr $699 to license the IP technology. HAHAHAHA...they are just trying to slow down LINUX, I wouldn't be suprised if GATES himself was a majority shareholder in SCO.

Does anyone actually care about SCO anymore ? by z80 · 2003-08-05 19:35 · Score: 1

They seem more and more desperate. I say screw 'em and lets focus on he stuff that matters instead.

--
-- http://z80.org - all opinions, all the time --

Bookkeeping shell game by SgtChaireBourne · 2003-08-05 19:50 · Score: 1

They have provided substantial returns to investors for years. They make $8 billion dollars in PROFIT every year.

Bullshit. It ran an $18 billion loss the very same year it tried to claim a $4.5 billion profit.

It's pathetic that so many equate captialism with fraud.

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.

Poor Kean... by Chordonblue · 2003-08-05 19:55 · Score: 1

The man's just doing his job. It's not like he's stuffing people into a gas chamber or anything.

OTOH, I can certainly understand the reaction of the RH guy, all things considered.

Kean's response about things being 'open' is ironic. If his company would be more open and simply disclose what part of Linux they feel has been compromised, this could all be academic. Instead, lawyers and crooks run SCO now.

How would it be to work for them? To know that your job will only last as long as the lawsuit continues. After SCO loses (and they will), these poor programmers will be out of a job and Unixware is already a dying concern whose end will certainly be hastened by this action.

The execs will bail out with their millions and the coders will be getting in line at the unemployment office. Where's the f*cking justice here?

And all that work. All that programming effort. For nothing.

--
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."

Mods on Crack? by theTerribleRobbo · 2003-08-05 21:11 · Score: 1

Insightful? INSIGHTFUL!?

I want some of what the mods have.

Re:Mods on Crack? by euxneks · 2003-08-07 10:15 · Score: 1

Yeah I'm kind of surprised about that too. Maybe they know something about the guy I don't..

--
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni

I think I have found a better title for the articl by Nova+Reticulis · 2003-08-05 21:22 · Score: 1

"SCO wants $699 for Linux Systems; world cares" HEH.

--

"I don't mean to insult you, but your mom posts on Slashdot"

My contribution to DDOS SCO by dezwart · 2003-08-05 21:57 · Score: 1

ping -fp 53434F69736D6F6B696E67637261636B sco.com

Darl C*** Mc Bride by mormop · 2003-08-05 22:05 · Score: 1

May your ear'oles turn to arseoles and the shit run down your shoulders

--
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.

Message on their FTP site by Private+Baldrick · 2003-08-05 22:22 · Score: 1

At ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/OpenLinux311 there is a message on the page. "NOTICE: SCO has suspended new sales and distribution of SCO Linux until the intellectual property issues surrounding Linux are resolved. SCO will, however, continue to support existing SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux customers consistent with existing contractual obligations. SCO offers at no extra charge to its existing Linux customers a SCO UNIX IP license for their use of prior SCO or Caldera distributions of Linux in binary format. The license also covers binary use of support updates distributed to them by SCO. This SCO license balances SCO's need to enforce its intellectual property rights against the practical needs of existing customers in the marketplace. The Linux rpms available on SCO's ftp site are offered for download to existing customers of SCO Linux, Caldera OpenLinux or SCO UnixWare with LKP, in order to honor SCO's support obligations to such customers." So if you choose SCO Linux it's free but any other that will be $699 please... Balders

--
I have a cunning plan...

1800 numbers cost money... by cute-boy · 2003-08-05 23:05 · Score: 1

Every 1800 number dialed within the USA to SCO costs them money. How about calling 1-800-726-8649 for a few minutes a few times a day if you live in the USA and listen to their on-hold music? Or set your modem to auto-dial every few minutes?

Please note the above is not a serious suggestion, Mr SCO Lawyer ;)

RG

Phone Bltiz! by farrellj · 2003-08-05 23:31 · Score: 1

SCO has 1-800 numbers...I suggest that everyone call SCO's 1-800 numbers and give them a piece of mind! Besides, it's their dollar for the phone call...hehehehehe.

ttyl
Farrell

--
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h

Barings Bank... by MosesJones · 2003-08-05 23:34 · Score: 1

Nick Leeson anyone ? Futures as a predictive technology ? Again its wishes v reality. Compare the 5 year old futures market with today... and gasp at how wrong they got it.

--
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi

They'we got the last two digits upside-down by the_olo · 2003-08-06 00:35 · Score: 1

The subject says it all.

SCO and McBride by gryffindor · 2003-08-06 01:13 · Score: 1

SCO needs to understand Prozac, crack and alcohol do not mix. Sco is getting more and more absurd by the day.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by nt2UNIX · 2003-08-06 01:47 · Score: 1

I find your lack of humor distrubing.

Looking for a recent copy of SCO Linux by Black+Copter+Control · 2003-08-06 02:17 · Score: 1

Does anybody have an ISO of SCO Linux from after Feb, 2003? I'd like to have a copy running on one of my boxes when I call them to find out about their licenses. The source RPMS would also be useful. (I guess I could always load an update source RPM from their website).

--
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.

How can it be legal to License binaries of a GPLd by stokkeland · 2003-08-06 02:48 · Score: 1

I am no lawyer but I would question the legality of licensing binary/parts of GNU-GPL'd software..
Even if SCO wins their battle and proves that some of the source is theirs, how can they say "Yeah its ok to use if you pay us" without allowing the GPL to let anyone resdistribute as the GPL grants.. Or in other words, can SCO legally put another license on top of GPL that restricts what the whole purpose of the GPL is?

--
-- Gates? Ballmer?

Has anyone noticed... by BigLinuxGuy · 2003-08-06 03:34 · Score: 1

that SCO is issuing these threats without having proven anything in court? I'm just wondering how quickly that this situation can be turned around as a class action suit for harassment (or worse, extortion) over unproven claims and allegations. I'm eagerly waiting for my pay up or die letter from SCO so I can turn it over to my attorney for his perusal. Those who live by the law suit, die by the law suit.

This situation is too reminiscent of the strategy "grab all the power that you can until you get slapped down by those who have the power". At this point, SCO really has nothing but unproven claims that their IP has been infringed (that's Intellectual Property Darl, although I'm waiting for you to claim ownership to Internet Protocol too).

Ergo sum, nobody should pay anything until the case is settled in court. In fact, SCO may be pursuing this strategy to build a large enough war chest to survive the coming legal battles as it doesn't have the deep pockets of IBM (and those attorneys want to be paid in full and on time or they'll quit working for you).

But perhaps I'm being harsh. Let's look at SCO's end of the argument. They are largely a company that has become irrelevant because nobody wants to pay their exorbitant licensing fees for a second-rate version of Unix. Market share is diminishing in favor of free versions of Unix (Linux, FreeBSD) or Windows. Some SCO developers stumble on code that looks like "their" kernel code in the Caldera Linux distro. Now who could have put that code there? Obviously the Linux kernel developers couldn't have independently come up with the code, so who would stand to gain from this nefarious deed? Hmm, who pays the largest licenses to SCO? Ha! IBM!!!! Those scallywags must have decided to "boost" the maturity of Linux by using "our" code just so they can escape paying our license fees!!!!! Let's sue them and threaten everyone else to gain back our "lost" revenues!!!

Yeah, seen in that light it makes a lot of sense.

Not.

How to beat SCO at its game by QuackQuack · 2003-08-06 03:53 · Score: 1

Distros should start shipping their Linux's with big yellow stickers that say "Certified 100% free of infringing SCO code, No SCO license required". SCO can't really dispute that without publically producing the offending code, at which point it can really be removed (if it truly exists).

--
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.

Reminds of of apple suing microsoft by synergz · 2003-08-06 04:14 · Score: 1

Remember when Apple sued MS about the fact that they stole the GUI interface from Xerox first. Now SCO is playing that game too. I so hope that all existing SCO users switch to linux, and wait to be sued. How do you spell vampire ? oh yeah "BLOODSUCKER".
This is an affront to open source, and to software decency.
My they are even making Bill Gates look mild mannered

$699 SCO Linux Licenses...... :( by axgrinderc · 2003-08-06 04:18 · Score: 1

How much is M$ paying SCO to extort we inocent users...?!

Its now microSCOft by synergz · 2003-08-06 04:25 · Score: 1

wonder how much stock Gates has of this new microSCOft

Darl McBride's Confession (JK) by frkiii · 2003-08-06 05:32 · Score: 1

Scene: Some Federal Prison
Time: Some point in the not too distant future

Interviewer: So, now that you have been in prison for fraud and insider trading for a few years, do you have any regrets?

Darl: Not in the least! I mean, I made a lot of money of the scam I was running, had a very good life until it all came crashing down. I also got to make a few corporate big wigs squirm a little when they were writing me checks. It was rich!

Interviewer: So, are you sure that isn't even one thing that you regret, now that you have had time to ponder your crimes?

Darl: Oh, wait, yes, there is one thing.

I regret the power and extent of the Internet.

I mean, without it, and some unfortunately mildly bright surfers, the evidence that our suit against IBM and all our cliams were completely bogus, would have never have come to light.

And, I also regret, that I can't get my hands around the scrawny necks of those bastards that brought forth that information.

You know, if I was on parole right now, I could probably promote and sell licenses to use that information (since it mentions my name and former company's name), and probably make a pile of cash suing those that don't hand over the money in a reasonable amount of time. Yeah, I could be back in business within a few days of my release! Yippee!

Interviewer: So, prision hasn't reformed you even remotely, Darl?

Darl: Nope, not in the least, because I know I am and have been right all along.

Interviewer: Uh, yeah, thanks for your time, Darl. ...

Re:How can it be legal to License binaries of a GP by frkiii · 2003-08-06 05:50 · Score: 1

The answer, no, SCO cannot legally put another license on top of the GPL, plain and simple.

They lose any rights to the software, including distributing it, at that point, if I am not mistaken.

They are well on their way to being properly cooked, sliced thin, and eaten by IBM, RedHat and others. And others will dance on remains of their burning corpse.

A state monument will be erected near the large black smoking crater that was SCO's headquarters.

(All of this figuratively speaking of course.)

Really?? by Khyeron · 2003-08-06 14:18 · Score: 1

Yes your point implies that just as the definition of communism was to "provide for all equally" yet in practice it was simply a government subsidized corporate culture, does a capitalism really give all freedom, or simply the freedom to survive? Instead of huge "PRIVATE" corporations holding power and capital... the governments and their anointed ones did.

The only difference between those societies and our own is that in ours you are fooled into thinking you have a choice. What you DON'T see is that CAPITALISM IS THE HOLDING AND RAISING OF CAPITAL BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS. It has NOTHING to do with free (unregulated/monopolized) markets or not so free regulated markets. If they then abuse their power and reduce the rest of us to worker drones clawing their way up the ladder nobody stops them as they can PAY their way through the easilly purchaseable justice system (hmmm where in the USA has this NOT happened yet??)

The only ones who can claim freedom as you do in capitalism would be those who hit the jackpot first. Despite claims by Amway, only those who got to wealth FIRST can have it, unless one of them has a fit of charity and gives his wealth to the people. (or others take it from him in typical legalese warmaking).

-Khye

Slashdot Mirror

SCO Wants $699 for Linux Systems

1,238 of 1,659 comments (clear)