SCO May Countersue Red Hat, SuSE Joins The Fray

uninet writes "The SCO Group, Inc. today released a statement concerning the lawsuit filed against it yesterday by Red Hat, Inc. The release quotes Darl McBride, SCO's President and CEO, as being 'disappointed' with Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik for not being 'forthcoming' about Red Hat's intentions in a previous discussion." Reader psykocrime adds "According to this SuSE press release, SuSE has publically announced their support for RedHat's actions against SCO. Quoting from the press release: '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.'" Read on for a few more links.

Vladimir writes "What no one has really touched upon is that the SCO vs. IBM court date is in April 2005, which could mean that the resolution of this case could be somewhere in 2006-2007, by which time Linux or any other OS may be irrelevant. People please keep your wallets in your pocket. Also, this lawyer has a long analysis of SCO extortion attempts and debunks a lot of their FUD."

Besides which, Omega writes "VNUnet has a story on how the economic analysis firm The Butler Group predicts that even if SCO can demonstrate there is offending code in the Linux kernel, it could easily be replaced."

Comments

They always countersue

[PoochieReds]

It's standard business practice to countersue when someone sues your company. The merits of the case have very little to do with it.

Nothing to see here, move along...

Re:They always countersue

[Anonymous Coward]

Its also common practice to counter*(see below)sue someone for libal and slander. Not to mention trying to extort your customer with vage threats of possible lawsuits and other reprocussions in the future.

Especially WITH NO PROOF WHAT-SO-EVER.

What if Ford motor company went to all the people who bought GM products and said to them, "Chevy, Pontiac and freinds stole technology from us, I am not going to tell you what they stole and how they stole it, but you should know that many of the people who designed for GM have also worked for other companies who make cars, including Ford. If you don't pay us 3000 dollars for every GM car you own within 3 months then I may have the government put you in jail, or mske you pay a big fine on top of what you owe us for using GM products."

I doubt that would go on long with out some serious reprocussions.

*And don't forget that SCO hasn't SUED REDHAT AT ALL. This is not a counter-suit. SCO has sued IBM, which sells Redhat products along with some of it's servers, but that doesn't have much bearing on the lawsuite at all. SCO allegesthat IBM put some code from AIX into Linux, during IBM's development of it's contribution to Linux's code base; thus "devalueing Unix".

The rest is a bunch a propaganda BS that SCO is using in a attempt to frighten unwitting people into giving them free money. SCO's version of UNIX is inferiorer in pretty much everyway, not only to Linux, but NetBSD, FreeBSD, and in some aspects to OpenBSD, PLUS ALL the commercial versions on Unix such as AIX or Solaras.

SCO is screwed even if they win the lawsuit. It's a company with no future and open source deployment and support was their best bet for survival, however limited, and they flushed that down the f*king drain.

This lawsuit is just a chance for them to get the company recognized as a unix provider so that their stock market "value" goes up and give the to p execs a chance to unload their stocks with as little as a loss as possible before their investors realise that they are banking on a loser and pull out, which I would think would be around... ahhh sometime between 2005 and 2006?

I am just happy to see a lawsuit that is not frivolus comming out of the american justice system.

Re:They always countersue

[perdelucena]

Nope, this is recursive! there must be a stop condition.

--
Sco Sucks

Re:They always countersue

[perdelucena]

I meant Sco sucks

Re:They always countersue

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you also have to realise, suing people has become second nature to Americans. If someone cuts you off in traffic, sue. If someone makes more money than you, sue. If someone looks at you cross-eyed, sue. If someone complains about you and the way you behave, sue. America would be a much nicer country to live in if the courts threw out all the frivolous suits (including SCO's) and made the petitioners pay all the bills incurred. People might think twice about filing a lawsuit after that. Alas, it's never going to happen.

Re:They always countersue

[brocheck]

There is.

while (myCompany.capital() > 1)
{
willsue = TRUE;
}
willsue = FALSE;

return myCompany.chaptereleven();

Re:They always countersue

[GreyWolf3000]

Suse joining in is much more intersting to me...after all, SuSE and SCO were partners in {UnitedLinux} crime!

Re:They always countersue

[Anonymous Coward]

I am the person who posted this and I am a idiot. Next time I need to actually READ the fucking article before posting

Re:They always countersue

[SmoothCriminal]

I agree after watching divorce court for the last 10 years without missing an episode

Re:They always countersue

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehe, I was going to mod you as funny... but then I thought... "Wait, he's been watching divorce court for the last 10 years?!?!? And there is not a 'Pathetic' moderation option!!".

So instead of modding you as offtopic, I made this witty reply.

Re:They always countersue

[nyseal]

It's ironic that you mention that. Back in my college days (business law, to be exact) the professor stated up front that you sue the people with the deep pockets; that's almost a direct quote. It's no wonder why we now have warning labels on cups of coffee and toaster ovens. Sheesh.

Re:They always countersue

[Anonymous Coward]

Never countersue. I always just quote the 2nd amendment, mention that my friend need to pave a parking lot and would they like to go fishing. Accidents sometimes happen.

Re:They always countersue

[magores]

Can anyone show the recursion in brainf*ck?

Seems like it would fit the SCO thought process right now.

Re:They always countersue

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah,dont bother its not the /. way!!

Re:They always countersue

[Anonymous Coward]

while (myCompany.capital() > 1)

actually it is

while (myCompany.capital() > hisCompany.capital())

It's like SNK versus Capcom!

[JanusFury]

Red Hat tags out and SuSE jumps into the fray, and then they both do a combo on SCO!

SCO is down to its last bit of health, it looks like the end!

Oh wait, SCO just tagged out! Here comes Microsoft!

Re:It's like SNK versus Capcom!

[TopShelf]

Meanwhile, IBM is waiting and watching, like Andre the Giant ready to squash the whole bunch of them...

Re:It's like SNK versus Capcom!

[Zoop]

Ahem.

Would they use the SuSEplex move on SCO?

Re:It's like SNK versus Capcom!

[Attack0Llama]

Microsoft pulls a hadoken! Oh man, SuSE is looking bad... whats this? Microsoft has wall hacks?!

Re:It's like SNK versus Capcom!

[Sri Lumpa]

"Would they use the SuSEplex move on SCO?"

Yes, a german SuSEplex, of course.

See the code

[tsa]

What I don't understand is why SCO is so unwilling to show the code this is all about. If it's in the kernel everyone can already see it so why the secrecy and complicated NDA stuff?

Re:See the code

[Tsali]

"Because it's devastating to my case!"
- Jim Carey, Liar, Liar

Re:See the code

[Ktulu_03]

The reason is, if they post what the code is, Linus and co. would replace it in a matter of hours probably, days at most. Then SCO would have no lawsuit. They have to keep it secret until this thing gets to trial.

Speaking of trial, are there any future court dates set already? I haven't heard of any.

Re:See the code

[isorox]

Cynics view: Code doesnt exist, or they are frightened of someone pointing out that the code went to Linux and SCO from a *BSD tree.

Probable view: If they show the code, it would be out of the kernel in 4 hours, and re-written in a day, their case would collapse.

Re:See the code

[benjiboo]

Probable view: If they show the code, it would be out of the kernel in 4 hours, and re-written in a day, their case would collapse.

But the binaries of the kernels in question are still out there on thousands of machines. Removing the code would of course cancel out any claim they had to licensing revenues for further kernel builds, which I guess is not a hand they would willingly give up...

Re:See the code

[freeinformation]

This is very simple. If they would show the code, it would be replaced in a few days, and they would not be able to make any money from that.

So it's clear that they are only doing this for the money, and who knows what conspiracy they are involved with? I think of our big evil brother :) who will do everything to discredit Open Source Software, in particular Linux.

Re:See the code

[Karamchand]

Read the fucking story.
HTH! :-)

Re:See the code

[Sique]

Because the original case is not about the code itself, but about IBM allegedly infringing on the licensing conditions for AIX. SCO states that with IBM releasing code to the Linux kernel which was written for AIX and thus covered by the Unix license, IBM infringed on the contract.

SCO states that IBM had to protect not only the licensed source code but also the code IBM wrote to make a derivative work from the source code.

Re:See the code

[Kai_MH]

Probably because the code is so small, businesses would start laughing their asses off at them. It's probably something like Metallica suing that band because Metallica 'owns' that chord. Yeah fucking right.

Whatever.

Re:See the code

[Anonymous Coward]

it's easy and it already has been answered:
SCO fears that it would have no case, as
the infringing code would simply be replaced.
That's all there is to it

Re:See the code

[cdrudge]

Yes that was the original case. But SCO changes its story so often. If it's related to Linux, Unix, IBM, or any other company that might someday appear as a blip on SCO's radar, they have accused them of something. You don't send out 1500 letters to people who have done no dealings with IBM saying that they are infringing on SCOs IP due to a contract dispute.

Re:See the code

[affenmann]

> What I don't understand is why SCO is so unwilling to show the code this is all about.
> If it's in the kernel everyone can already see
> it so why the secrecy and complicated NDA stuff?

Maybe they're afraid. I bet that only days after they show us the source there will be a clean version of the Linux kernel, perhaps with a few features disabled. In any case, it'll only take a short time to get a clean kernel. And then they can't force anyone into paying them...
Isn't open source great ? :-)

Re:See the code

[jkrise]

'Cos SCO is interested in extortion, not reasoning.
'Cos the justice system is such that anyone can throw shit and ask others to clean up the mess.
'Cos firms are no longer interested in delivering products and services, but in making money and enriching a few directors.
'Cos, maybe there isn't much truth in what SCO's trying to have us believe.

-

Re:See the code

[krislyn]

What I don't understand is why SCO is so unwilling to show the code this is all about.

Perhaps they'd rather collect license fees than provide free help to a competitor?

Re:See the code

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Where you deliberately using 'Cos as an anagram for SCO?

Re:See the code

[MindStalker]

BTW metallica didn't sue a band, it was a bad attempt at satire by some news site. And it got out of hand.

Re:See the code

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, let us think for a minute:

Assuming SCO is right, and Linux is contaminated with IP violations, rewriting the code, and installing it on violating systems, would not somehow magically undo the past violations. Yes, there would no longer be future violations; however, damages must be paid on the past violations.

Of course, things are never that clean-cut, but that's the basic idea. SCO cannot legally force other businesses customers to buy licenses from them, it would have to be the business that buys the licenses and, well, it can get downright murky.

But, all that this means is that their case would NOT collapse. In fact, it would strengthen their case against IBM. But, since they have not, and, unless forced to by a judge, will not release the code, this leads many (including lamlaw.com) to beleive that SCO is simply trying to extort money. Not only that, but SCO has NO business going after other companies customers. Because, it's the company who is in violation that is responcible.

My prediction though, is that once SCO stocks tank they'll come out and do a PR tapdance, appologize for the whole mess, then McBride, Sontag and the Board of Directors will go on to scam another unsuspecting industry.

OT: Actually, if you watch McBride Inc's carear closley, you'll learn exactly what never to do as a business. It may become standard reading one day in Business 100 classes ;)

Re:See the code

[superid]

"Probable view: If they show the code, it would be out of the kernel in 4 hours, and re-written in a day, their case would collapse"

Is there a legal basis for this? I do not doubt for a minute that any infringing code could be rewritten quickly, but why would an otherwise legitamite SCO case collapse? As an analogy, my neighbor breaks into my house and infringes upon (steals) my tv, I sue him and he says "ok I'll put it back". It seems to me that he is still guilty of a crime.

Re:See the code

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I thought it was great satire and SCO's claims are probably something like it even if it wasn't true. Sorry, depth thinking this early in the morning.

--
me

Re:See the code

[ArtDent]

Quite the pretty pickle, since refusing to show the code would of course also cancel out any claim they had (or, at least, thought they had) to licensing revenues for further kernel builds.

The bottom line: if someone is doing something bad to you, and they want to stop, you can't force them to keep doing it so that you can collect.

Re:See the code

[nut]

Very simple. As soon as SCO tells the world exactly what pieces of code in the linux kernel they are claiming ownership of, they will be removed and re-written by an army of open of open source developers. SCO immediately loses ownership as soon as it tells people what it claims to own.
It's a bit like Schrodinger's cat, except that even if it's alive when it comes out of the box, we immediately kill it anyway.

Re:See the code

[B'Trey]

They don't have any legal claim for licensing revenues now. As has been repeatedly pointed out, a customer is not liable. If the NY Times prints a chapter from Harry Potter and gets sued for doing so, the people who have subscriptions to the NYT can't also be sued and forced to pay for the book. It doesn't work that way.

Re:See the code

[B'Trey]

If it was only the original case, Red Hat wouldn't be bringing suit. SCO is also contacting customers of Red Hat (as well as other Linux versions), warning them that they're liable for copyright infringement or violation of trade secrets, and offering to sell them a license. That's why Red Hat is suing.

Re:See the code

[Dashing Leech]

Nope, that can't be it. If so, SCO would have to have as flawed an understanding of the law as you do. You can't undo a violation. If the code was replaced today, the violation would still exist up to today. You can't rob a bank, then give back the money and get off from being charged. Once it's done, it's done.

There's only two reasons that seem plausible

• To continue to create FUD, thus pumping up their stock value.
• To extort money from companies and individuals using GNU/Linux. If the code is replaced, they can't ask companies to pay them $699 (or $1399 later) for each license.

Neither reason is a legitimate business argument, and both are probably illegal and certainly unethical. The first must violate some stock market laws (insiders pumping up stock prices with FUD, then probably dumping the stocks and making a load of cash). The second is effectively extortion, though might not completely meet the legal definition. It should though.

Re:See the code

[unborn]

Well, wouldn't it be the case, that the violator would still know what the violating code has been and still inform Linus to remove it? Unless this violator is an infiltrator. Conspiracies to incriminate are illegal however.

Re:See the code

[Dashing Leech]

Sorry, there is a third plausible reason. There is simply no violation and they know it. This seems less likely because they have been showing some companies (via non-disclosure agreements) the "violating" code. There must be something they at least think is in violation.

Re:See the code

[isorox]

IANAL et. al.

But no, its IMHO, more like someone sells you a TV, you watch it, then find out its stolen, so give it back and buy a new TV from a store. I doubt you'd be convicted, however the guy that sold you the TV and had knowlege of it being stolen (IBM, allegedly), could be.

Re:See the code

[zipsonic]

Well I've been thinking alot about this, and I think it's funny that they give a blanket statement about it being in the 2.4 - 2.5 (now 2.6). If its in every 2.4 kernel, then it would had to have shown up in the 2.3 development cycle. Parts of the kernel dont magically appear at the beginning of a new production/stable cycle.
But telling us the exact release number would infringe on their IP, and we couldnt have that.

Darl, you need to put up, and then shut up when we've removed it from the kernel.

Re:See the code

[alienw]

That's an improper analogy. If the code can be replaced in 4 hours, then the court will see that the code was not valuable or important and was most likely included by accident. Then, SCO won't be eligible for punitive damages. Remember: intent is very important here.

Here's a closer analogy. You borrow a pen from a co-worker. You forget to return said pen. Co-worker accuses you of theft, but refuses to say what you have stolen. I don't think the case would get very far, given that a pen hardly costs anything, the theft wasn't intentional, and you would likely return the pen had he asked.

Re:See the code

[BlackHawk-666]

1 word: up2date. RedHat puts out the new binaries on up2date and we're all patched up and tucked into bed in time for the evening news.

Re:See the code

[thomas.galvin]

They don't have any legal claim for licensing revenues now. As has been repeatedly pointed out, a customer is not liable. If the NY Times prints a chapter from Harry Potter and gets sued for doing so, the people who have subscriptions to the NYT can't also be sued and forced to pay for the book. It doesn't work that way.

So if Joe Blow posts Windows Server 2000 (or whatever) on Kazaa, and I download it, am I free to use it in a production environment?

Re:See the code

[kmonsen]

The reason is they didn't know they were stealing code. If this was a know thing than SCO was willingly realising it as GPL. The only people that can have commited a crime (is it a crime?) are the ones who copied the code and didn't tell anyone.

Re:See the code

[zerocool^]

Cynics view: Code doesnt exist, or they are frightened of someone pointing out that the code went to Linux and SCO from a *BSD tree.

We'll see:

PinkFairies.org - Home of the SCO code bounty hunt.

Hopefully we'll sweat it out of 'em. Got code? Claim your prize!

~Will

Re:See the code

[olympus_coder]

Well, there are a couple possible reasons:

1) It doesn't exist (most likely).

2) By law you have to allow the offending party a chance to fixt the problem. A reasonable amount of time to rewrite parts of a kernel is 6 months (in my opinion). SCO knows that if they release the offenses, the linux community will act in good faith, and within a very short period of time (6 days?) their IP will be expunged from the main kernel tree. SCO's buisness model relys on the community NOT opperating in good faith. They are trying to make it look that way to the clueless justice system in this country.

3) This is all just a MS ploy to weeken linux. SCO is irrelivant and all that matters is the FUD they create. If the DOJ, or anyone else kills them, it doesn't matter. They hurt linux which is what the powers at be wanted.

Re:See the code

[swillden]

So if Joe Blow posts Windows Server 2000 (or whatever) on Kazaa, and I download it, am I free to use it in a production environment?

IANAL, and I don't know, but I think I can see what the issues are:

First, did you make a copy? Joe Blow did, but did you? Assuming your act of copying the bits off the wire and onto your hard drive is "receiving", not "copying" (I don't think any court has ruled on this), and assuming you don't further copy the image to a CD, but just install directly from the image, and assuming that the installation doesn't constitute "copying" (also not clear; copyright law specifies that copies of software made in the process of using the software aren't infringing, though, so I don't think it would be), then you didn't copy the software and didn't infringe.

This isn't an issue in the case of the newspaper. The readers clearly don't make any copies.

Second, there might be some legal questions around whether or not you know, or should know, that the copy you received was illegal. The readers of the newspaper have every reason to expect that the content of the paper is legal, because newspapers don't generally infringe on copyrights. In your case you know very well that the copy you obtained is not legal, and that may also restrict your freedom to use it, even without making further copies.

Re:See the code

[poot_rootbeer]

Probable view: If they show the code, it would be out of the kernel in 4 hours, and re-written in a day, their case would collapse.

SCO doesn't need to prove that the kernel CURRENTLY contains infringing code, they just need to prove that the kernel DID contain infringing code at one time. I'd bet with 100% certainty SCO's lawyers had a few copies of the kernel code grabbed out of CVS for posterity before filing suit...

Re:See the code

[mrtrumbe]

IANAL, but this guy is. Did you even read the material linked to from the original story??

From the previously mentioned lawyer's analysis:

If SCO wanted to have any infringement removed from Linux, they could help do that. But, SCO is refusing despite direct requests from many parties including RedHat, IBM and Novell. They just insist upon a purely illegal activity and little else. It is important to note that disclosing the so-called areas of infringement would not lessen their claims against IBM for contract violations nor violations of trade secret. Those claims against IBM stand on their own without the withholding of key information. The same is true should SCO want to charge RedHat or any other party with copyright infringement. Fixing Linux now does not eliminate any claims or charges that rights have been infringed in the past.

The only "case" that releasing the infringing code would damage is SCO's threatened lawsuits against Linux customers. It would not hurt their case against IBM (the only suit they've actually filed to date).

So would it hurt their case against Linux customers?? Nope. Because they have no case against the majority of Linux cutomers, private or corporate.

Again, from the analysis:

The threat to Linux customers is totally without a legal foundation. And, SCO has deliberately misrepresented those laws in order to extort money from Linux customers. There is no question of that. That is a fools move. It is a fools move because it imposes upon SCO significant legal liability for harm caused to the Linux market. The RedHat law suit refers directly to this problem in its discussion about the tortuous and willful interference with business relationships between RedHat and its customers. SCO (and without any reasonable legal basis) contacted Redhat (and IBM) customers and threatened legal action if they did not pay money. It does not matter what the money is ostensibly for. Linux customers do not need a copy of Unix from SCO to run their computers. In fact, the statement from SCO clearly suggests that Linux would continue to be used. The only benefit to the customer would be not being sued by SCO. Well. For money, anyone can make that offer. And, if you have a legal basis for filing a law suit, that would be business. But, if the legal basis is missing, it becomes extortion.

The point is that by persuing Linux customers SCO has opened the door to litigation against itself. Those acts are widely viewed as illegal if no basis for a lawsuit exists. And most people outside of SCO believe potential suits against Linux customers to be baseless (like suing the NYTimes for releasing a chapter of Harry Potter--they made the IP public, but that doesn't implicate NYTimes readers in the crime). The infringing code never comes into play in the case of SCO vs. Linux customers.

And the case infringing code does effect--the SCO vs. IBM case for IP violations--wouldn't be damaged by exposing the infringing code. That case is about the release of trade secrets and intellectual property into the public domain, an issue that can be proven independant of corrections made to Linux code after the infringing code is divulged.

Please read before you post.

Taft

Re:See the code

[VdG]

My understanding (IANAL, and I'm not an English lawyer at that) is that in copyright infringement cases, the plaintif should first be seeking rectification. i.e. To stop the infringement from taking place. In order to do so, SCO need to identify the infringement.

The fact that they have not done so is surely an indication that they do not want the infringement stopped. Really, I can't quite understand why it hasn't been thrown out already and I can't see the case lasting long once it does reach court.

Re:See the code

[anthonyrcalgary]

An interesting point.

Is it possible in this case to destroy the box? ie: Rewrite all the code that it might be based on SCO's statements to date. If the court date is in 2005, it might be easier to just make the case moot before it gets there.

Re:See the code

[ReelOddeeo]

What I don't understand is why SCO is so unwilling to show the code this is all about. If it's in the kernel everyone can already see it so why the secrecy and complicated NDA stuff?

Because SCO wants the infringement to continue. (Assuming that they actually is any infringement.)

If SCO shows the source, it will get fixed very quickly. The infringement will stop. And then SCO can't charge each Linux user an introductory price of $666 for a license. (Ooops, got those last two nines the wrong way, I meant $699.)

Re:See the code

[HolyCoitus]

So if Joe Blow posts Windows Server 2000 (or whatever) on Kazaa, and I download it, am I free to use it in a production environment?

Standard IANAL applies, but if you don't install it, most likely you would be in a lot less trouble. The difference being, that there is an agreement you have to click to use Windows 2000. It's different from unknowingly using a piece of something from someone else. You are knowingly agreeing to your rights involving that software.

Anyhow, it's comparing parts to a whole... If something is free or cheap, and someone demands an outrageous amount of money from the users because small portions could be something they created... How does that make sense compared to stealing an entire operating system? The issue at hand is more closely related to Joe Blow distributing Windows with a sprinking of some Solaris code, and then Solaris demanding that you pay for their entire operating system.

Re:See the code

[arkanes]

Actually, sure. It's the act of downloading it that's the violation, not the act of using it. And while you WOULD be liable for damages, any customers you were hosting on that machine wouldn't be.

Re:See the code

[QuackQuack]

Because then the Linux community can remove the code and depending on which conspiracy you believe:

1) There goes SCO's future revenue stream
2) There goes MS's plan to destroy Linux
3) There was no infringing code (well maybe
main() { or something, nothing that can hold
up in court.)

Re:See the code

[esarjeant]

Point #2 is significant in this case; any IP infringement I have seen in the past has been prefixed with a cease and desist letter. No evidence has been presented, this is a clear-cut case of FUD on the part of SCO.

More info here:

Linux Dispute Keeps Escalating

Don't forget, SCO is also under SEC investigation for financial misdoings. "The consolidated complaint alleges certain improprieties regarding the circumstances surrounding the underwriters' conduct during the Company's [SCO's] initial public offering and the failure to disclose such conduct in the registration statement in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended." This is not a company on the up & up, it's not impossible to imagine a shady dealing with MS to ensure uncertainty in the Linux camp.

With the current SCO pricing strategy the TCO argument for Linux goes out the window. Technically speaking it's more expensive to run a Linux shop than an NT/W2K shop. MS now wins the cost argument handsdown; interesting how that happened. Also note that the MS deal gives $5M to SCO for the next 3 quarters. With the cost of payroll at around $5M this is enough to keep the company afloat. The additional $8M initial amount can be used to mitigate deferred revenues and other long term expenses. This deal is fishy, I expect someone is going to get hurt real bad and it might just be Microsoft.

Re:See the code

[Anonymous Coward]

NO, The act of downloading it is NOT the crime. I'm pretty sure M$ could care less how the code gets onto the machine. All they care about is that you bought a license to run it. You would be perfectly within your rights to download install and run it off Kazaa as long as you went to M$ and bought a license for it first. The media used to install it is irrelevant

Re:See the code

[dubious9]

No. You know that it was pirated and it's against the law. But if Joe Blow is selling Windows Server in violation of the law/license agreement and you don't know this, you would not be held accountable.

Re:See the code

[Surak]

So if Joe Blow posts Windows Server 2000 (or whatever) on Kazaa, and I download it, am I free to use it in a production environment?

No, but not for the reason you're probably thinking. It is not illegal to use unlicensed software per se. The copyright holder has the exclusive right to copy and distribute the software. You violated the law when you downloaded the copy, because *you* made a copy in violation of the copyright holders' rights (as did Joe Blow on Kazaa)

However, if you didn't actually make the copy, then you are not breaking any laws by using the unlicensed software. Example:

You buy a computer from an OEM, XYZ Computers. XYZ Computers installed Windows 2000 Server on the computer, and it is unlicensed. You actually haven't broken any laws and aren't liable for direct copyright infringement, XYZ Computers is. Whether you are responsible for *contributory* infringement depends on whether or not you knew about and/or authorized XYZ Computers to install the unlicensed copy of Windows 2000 Server.

Another, clearer example: you are using a computer at your place of employment, one that is assigned to you and is placed in your cube/office. The company you work for has an unlicensed copy of Windows XP installed on the computer. You are using the unlicensed OS, sure, but you aren't responsible for copyright infringement, your employer is, because they made the illegal copy.

See what I mean?

Re:See the code

[debrain]

It seems to me that he is still guilty of a crime.

The potential case by SCO against Linux is not a criminal one; this is a civil tort based on copyright legislation. As such, the burden of proof rests upon SCO to satisfy their claims in return for reparation.

However, the interesting bit of this situation is that it is the threat of legislation that SCO is pronouncing is intended to provide extrajudicial remuneration, potentially (and probably) worth more than any civil claim would find.

Irregardless of whether or not it has been proven that Linux has infringed upon SCO copyrights, SCO is seeking remuneration. So no law has yet been seen to be broken. It would be quite a different thing, and much closer to your analogy with theft, if the FBI were to enforce criminal plagarism.

So the situation procured by SCO would indeed collapse, if infringing code were to dissappear, as it would take with it the valuable threat of legislation.

Re:See the code

[tlk nnr]

What I don't understand is why SCO is so unwilling to show the code this is all about. If it's in the kernel everyone can already see it so why the secrecy and complicated NDA stuff?

Because it's not SCO's code: SCO Unix doesn't contain any interesting advanced features.

I'd bet that the code fragments available under NDA actually compare Linux and AIX, or Linux and IBM written code fragments in Montery.

SCO doesn't have the right to show code written by IBM to the public, thus they can't show it to anyone without an NDA.

Re:See the code

[hankaholic]

That is a damned good point, and I'm surprised you're not highly modded for it. New features didn't just sprout in 2.4, they were tested during 2.3, which then would be similarly encumbered.

Then again, this is Slashdot, and someone spouting the same old "SCO it doing this to pump their stocks then sell them off!" line story after story gets +5, Insightful on a regular basis.

Re:See the code

[|<amikaze]

Let's take this a step further. What if you work at XYZ Computers, and your boss tells you to install Windows 2000 Server on a machine and gives you a burned CD and a serial number for it. What position are you in if you go ahead and install it?

Re:See the code

[HiThere]

That'll happen automatically. The kernel is working at 2.6, but by then it'll be up to 3.6 (probably). At least by the time SCO gets around to telling what it's suing over.

Re:See the code

[Anonymous Coward]

New features didn't just sprout in 2.4, they were tested during 2.3

You apparently don't remember ripping out the old VM system and replacing it with another one in the middle of 2.4. Also, ReiserFS support was added in 2.4.1, I believe. Prior to that it was not available in the official tree, though it had been well tested before that as a patch. We also frequently see features backported from the new development version into the old stable version if they are considered sufficiently harmless. Such as (decent) USB support from 2.3 to later releases of 2.2 . I don't know of this happening from 2.5 to 2.4, though.

Re:See the code

[zipsonic]

You apparently don't remember ripping out the old VM system and replacing it with another one in the middle of 2.4. Also, ReiserFS support was added in 2.4.1, I believe.

My point exactly. If it was in Release 2.4.0, then it would have been in 2.3.x development. They wouldnt have a blanket statement for ALL OF 2.4... It had to sprout in a specific revision, so if it wasnt in the 2.3 tree, it started in 2.4.5 or something like that... If we had a specific revision number we'd know exactly what was inserted, and we could go about removing it.

Re:See the code

[gl4ss]

**Then again, this is Slashdot, and someone spouting the same old "SCO it doing this to pump their stocks then sell them off!" line story after story gets +5, Insightful on a regular basis.
**

well, because this is the conclusion of the stated fact(that thing X is strange about their claims).

1. sco states something
2. ???
3. "they're pumping up the stockyahoo stock link"
4. ???
5. KARMA!

yeah there's two ?? in it but i'm confident that if i had more spare time i would succeed in making the first(?) karma whoring bot of slashdot that is actually succesful.

Re:See the code

[geekee]

"But no, its IMHO, more like someone sells you a TV, you watch it, then find out its stolen, so give it back and buy a new TV from a store. I doubt you'd be convicted, however the guy that sold you the TV and had knowlege of it being stolen (IBM, allegedly), could be."

Yes, but what if your business depends on this code and you're unwilling to give it back. That's what SCO is banking on. They want to license the doce to businesses in this predicament. So, by not telling you what code is infringing, there is no way to create a replacement that is devoid of SCO IP, and therefore it is not in SCO's interest to tell anyone which code is theirs.

Re:See the code

[mark-t]

Probable view: If they show the code, it would be out of the kernel in 4 hours, and re-written in a day, their case would collapse.

I agree that this is probably the most probable scenario, but if they ever had a legitimate claim to loss of trade secret status on stuff they owned in the first place, having it replaced in the newest kernel would not release the person(s) that originally contributed the infringing code from liability for originally releasing it into the public, nor would it limit liability any more than it already has been by SCO's refusal to permit the open source community to voluntarily remove the code immediately by telling us where the infringing code is.

The bottom line is that about the only way not saying where the infringing code is can be beneficial is if SCO had no legal grounds for this lawsuit against IBM in the first place. Somebody working for or very closely affiliated with SCO is bound to be profiting from this sham, and will almost certainly jump ship shortly before the court date, at which time SCO will probably cease to exist. I feel sad for any people who have been suckered into buying "insurance" from SCO when it wouldn't even be necessary by the court date.

Re:See the code

[Anonymous Coward]

Cos the justice system is such that anyone can throw shit and ask others to clean up the mess.

You don't have a justice system. You have a legal system.

Re:See the code

[Raul Acevedo]

So if Joe Blow posts Windows Server 2000 (or whatever) on Kazaa, and I download it, am I free to use it in a production environment?

The difference is that copying Windows Server 2000 doesn't give you the license which you need to legally run it. If NYT posts a chapter from Harry Potter, you can read it because you don't need a license to read a book.

Re:See the code

[Anonymous Coward]

And according to a post here yesterday, SCO was also spreading FUD to RedHat's institutional investors...

So it's not just customers of Linux they're trying to threaten; they're trying to choke the financial lifeline of commercial Linux.

Re:See the code

[$0.02]

They did. They showed it to Ray Charles.

Re:See the code

[Darth]

what microsoft chooses or does not choose to exercise with respect to their copyright rights is irrelevent to what rights they have.

Re:See the code

[hankaholic]

Yes, I was one of the ones pissed off about the exclusion of ReiserFS at the time.

However, I specifically decided not to mention it in my comment, as SCO has declared all 2.4 kernels to be in violation of, er, something.

If 2.4.0 infringes as much as everything added afterwards, then nothing added afterwards can be relevant, thus excluding those examples which you chose to cite (and I chose not to, since they're irrelevant if 2.4.0 is in violation).

If 2.4.0 is in violation of whatever SCO alleges, then one of two things can be true:

1) The violation was introduced in the patch between the final 2.3 kernel and 2.4.0, in which case the changed code could be rewritten in short order.

2) Whatever property SCO refers to when discussing violation exists in (at least some) 2.3-series kernels as well.

Neither one has either jack or shit to do with anything released after 2.4.0, since 2.4.0 allegedly has the violation-property as much as any kernel succeeding it.

In short, add something relevant, or go pound sand up your ass. If you're going to argue with me, do try to have a point next time, hmm?

Re:See the code

[Surak]

Pretty good actually. Many IT departments don't do installs from original CDs, but from burned copies. This is perfectly legimitate, because you are allowed to make copies of your software for archival purposes, at least in the U.S., pursuant to the Software Act of 1980. So you have no way of knowing whether the software is legimitate or not.

If anybody's breaking the law here, it's XYZ Computers. You *could* be found liable for breaking the law, too, if you knew that the burned CD was not a legit archival copy. But chances are they're not going to go after you. Chances are if the place *did* get busted for infringement, they're more likely to ask you to be a *witness* against XYZ Computers then they are to bust you for infringement.

Note that I am not a lawyer and that this does NOT constitute legal advice.

Write the Utah State Attorney General's Office!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

And ask for an investigation. This behavior is at least unethical, and possibly criminal. If enough people (Utahans (?) this means you especially) make enough noise they may do something.

Please be rational and polite when you do it,

Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel!

[n3rd]

In typical Slashdot fashion the story has been exaggerated:

We will prepare our legal response as required by your complaint

As anyone with the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader can tell, this does not say or even implies anything about counter-suing.

Re:Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel!

[Skye16]

According to a letter to Szulik that was attached to the announcement, SCO "will prepare our legal response as required by your complaint." McBride continued by suggesting that his company's response "will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy."

kthxbye.

Re:Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel!

[n3rd]

My bad.

In typical Slashdot fashion I didn't read the whole article.

Re:Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel!

[Zigg]

As anyone with the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader can tell, this does not say or even implies anything about counter-suing.

That's because you took the quote out of context. Add these lines:

Yours truly
Darl C. McBride

Now it becomes very obvious. :-)

Re:Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel!

[Anonymous Coward]

What does "my bad" mean? I can probably guess, but wonder where this expression came from....

Re:Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel!

[p00ya]

I like the way that just because someone is a pro-linux lawyer, this automatically makes them authoritative on slashdot. From reading Mettler's site, he doesn't really come across as the most intellectually advanced person I know:

"In other words, the a**h**** want to screw you"
"The jerkheads at SCO"
"If SCO can sell a pig in a poke"
"If you need someone to help "put it together" let me know,"
I'll make sure I consider him next time I take apart a jigsaw.

His heart's in the right place, but something is seriously lacking here.

Re:Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel!

[f0rt0r]

At least you have the intelligence not to say the words "SCO" and "Intellectual" in the same sentence. I mean, the reason they are fighting so hard to protect their Intellectual Property in their code is they they don't have any between their ears.

Re:Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel!

[Tackhead]

> McBride continued by suggesting that his company's response "will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy."

Conspiracy? What the flying-a-747-through-a-Krispy-Kreme fuck?

If they cross the line from bizarre and groundless civil claims into even more bizarre and groundless criminal claims, then all bets are off. I got yer conspiracy right here, and it has to do with issuing press releases in order to manipulate the price of securities.

Several have pointed out that the insider sales are "scheduled" and therefore legal. Correct.

But if you know the trades are going to happen between Day X and Day Y, it can still be insider trading if you manipulate the price of your stock by means of press releases.

This is a rare case - most scheduled selling is unrelated to the stock's day-to-day trading activity. For instance, consider an insider who knows earnings for the quarter are gonna suck.

An insider selling XYZ (unscheduled) the day before it reports earnings - legal.
An insider selling XYZ (scheduled) on the first of the month, every month - legal.
An insider selling XYZ (scheduled), knowing the quarter's gonna suck, and knowing his (legal) insider sale is likely to take place on the first of the month, browbeating the board to release earnings a week ahead of schedule - very interesting.

Assuming they were smart enough not to discuss this in email, it would be very difficult to prove whether any particular group of individuals set out to schedule their (legal) insider sales in advance of a series of (questionable) lawsuits... or if they scheduled the lawsuits, and in full (insider, nonpublic, material) knowledge of what the lawsuits were likely to do to the stock price, scheduled their sales. Some might even call that a conspiracy.

Re:Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel!

[Ashtead]

So this is how it will play out; SCO says, I see your extorsion charge and raise a conspiracy. Like, who is conspiring here anyways?

And copyright infringement? Where exactly is Red Hat infringing, and why has SCO not produced anything that even suggests, far the less proves, any such infringement? Remember it is SCO who has to come up with this, everyone can do a find /usr/src -exec grep -i sco {} \; and be none the wiser...

Sounds like there is a need for some kind of "put up or shut up" here

Re:Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel!

[dipipanone]

he doesn't really come across as the most intellectually advanced person I know

And yet the reasons you cite for this have nothing to do with failings of fact or logic, but rather a tendency to use the vernacular. None of the intellectually advanced people that I know would see that as relevant here -- as they tend to be able to seperate form from content and focus on the important part -- the content.

Personally, I thought his assessment was one of the smartest, most insightful pieces that I've read on the whole issue so far -- but hey, perhaps I'm not that intellectually advanced either?

Re:Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel!

[Svartalf]

And McBride just set himself up for infringement suits himself- and from RedHat even.

If there's IP that they deem to not have been licensed under the GPL, they're guilty of over seven months worth of IP infringement. Each and every contributor, Red Hat included, can now sue the crap out of them for infringement of the code they distributed from off of their FTP site- and in each country that they reside in since the FTP server provides it worldwide.

You know, I don't think that the code got in there without permission. I don't think someone did anything to cause this mess. I now think that SCO thinks it can retroactively pull the GPL licensing on the code that Caldera previously contributed. It's the only thing that could explain "thousands" of lines of code that is "theirs" and in the kernel.

Re:Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel!

[BigBadBri]

Perhaps he was just talking down to a level appropriate for SCO board members.

Re:Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel!

[SillySlashdotName]

but hey, perhaps I'm not that intellectually advanced either?

Could be... :-)

At the top of the web page, be sure to note the "Submit your article for publication" link.

Means ANY YING/YANG HEADED YAHOO can post on this lawyers site - presumably with, possibly without the concurrence of the lawyer as to the opinions presented.

I did read the posting on the site, and nowhere does it say that that is the opinion of anyone in the legal profession. In fact, the "Welcome" link page states " everyone is welcome to prepare their own articles and submit them for publication. No article will be refused on the basis of the position taken nor views expressed. " (my emphasis).

Using vernacular is not wrong or bad, but it does tend, when used in intellectually advanced papers, to cause people to question the writers intellect, knowledge, and in this case, their age. Personally I don't think a lawyer wrote the piece. Lawyers make a living on distinguishing nuances between similar words. I don't think a professional with that kind of knowledge of language would use vernacular in this instance.

I could be wrong, it happened once... :-)

Buying the SCO-licence in Germany not possible

[OMG]

I contacted SCO Germany and tried to get an offer for a desktop licence. On the phone a SCO employee said I should stop "babbling" (yes, she used that word). I should sent an email instead. Others have tried that weeks ago and got no reaction up to now. The company doing the press releases for SCO Germany informed me that they are not allowed to comment on the licence in any way, too.

It looks like there is absolutly no chance to buy the SCO licence for Linux in Germany at the moment.

Re:Buying the SCO-licence in Germany not possible

[msgmonkey]

Well if you cant buy one it's probably because they cant sell you one due to legal reasons not because they dont want to. Since when have companies refused to take customers money, especially for what in essence is just piece of paper?

Re:Buying the SCO-licence in Germany not possible

[Anonymous Coward]

I contacted SCO Germany and tried to get an offer for a desktop licence. On the phone a SCO employee said I should stop "babbling" (yes, she used that word).

I didn't know "babbling" was a German word :). Another shining example of customer service. Man SCO are great!

Re:Buying the SCO-licence in Germany not possible

[jkrise]

I guess the penalty in Germany for selling a binary-only license far exceeds $700. SCO can't afford the bad press that's likely to follow a successful purchase of the new license. Methinks the $700 amount is designed to ensure nobody ever buys the license!

OTOH, it appears a fraction of a desktop Linux distro is worth $700 whereas a full-fledged Win2K3 server costs just $500. Goes to show how much superior Linux is, compared to Windoze.

-

Re:Buying the SCO-licence in Germany not possible

[doctormetal]

I contacted SCO Germany and tried to get an offer for a desktop licence. On the phone a SCO employee said I should stop "babbling" (yes, she used that word). I should sent an email instead. Others have tried that weeks ago and got no reaction up to now.

That's probably because they cannot legaly sell licenses if it is not proven that they own the stuff. At least that's what european legislation tells you.

Re:Buying the SCO-licence in Germany not possible

[twistedcubic]

OTOH, it appears a fraction of a desktop Linux distro is worth $700 whereas a full-fledged Win2K3 server costs just $500. Goes to show how much superior Linux is, compared to Windoze.

Glad somebody finally said this...

Re:Buying the SCO-licence in Germany not possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they don't sell their licenses in Germany. They have a C&D order here. They are not allowed to claim any ownership on linux code. Selling a license would be such a claim. That's also why they don't comment on the license in any way. Anything pro-license is prohibited by the C&D order, and saying anything different is prohibited by Darl.

Re:Buying the SCO-licence in Germany not possible

[Anonymous Coward]

Methinks the $700 amount is designed to ensure nobody ever buys the license!

I would say you are correct, sir. If it were $100, they unfortunately would have quite a few customers. (Cheap price to pay if you are running Oracle or something.)

Re:Buying the SCO-licence in Germany not possible

[Anonymous Coward]

you should tell her what a stupid cunt she is and how her place is in the home, not the office.

women want to be treated like men, but they also want doors held open for them, dinner paid for, and they want to get knocked up and have their job waiting for them when they get back.

so you should have told her she was a stupid cunt and that she belongs out on the street or in some cheap hotel with her legs up in the air.

Re:Buying the SCO-licence in Germany not possible

[Anonymous Coward]

According to what I read in Slashdot Japan, you can't get a licence in Japan. A SCO Japan employee essentially said, "No, we don't plan to sell any licences. If you want one really bad, we'll talk to SCO, but We'd like to make it clear that we (SCO Japan) aren't making any claims related to that IP infringement whatever junk. All we're doing is informing people about SCO's press releases."

Actually, this isn't a very accurate translation, but you get their drift, don't ya?

Forthcoming about their intentions?

[Rogerborg]

What, just like SCO were when they decided to distribute a Linux distro, including code that said "Please use me", and then get all of their revenue by suing people for doing so?

Remind me, what SEC filing that that plan appear on? Because it seems to me like "Abandon development and marketing of obselete product, make all of our money from barratry" would be the sort of thing that investors would like to know about beforehand.

Re:Forthcoming about their intentions?

[dave at hostwerks]

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):

Barratry \Bar"ra*try\, n. [Cf. F. baraterie, LL. barataria. See
Barrator, and cf. Bartery.]
1. (Law) The practice of exciting and encouraging lawsuits
and quarrels. [Also spelt barretry.] --Coke. Blackstone.

Re:Forthcoming about their intentions?

[buford_tannen]

You raise an important point... where is the SEC in all of this?

Don't tell me they are too intimidated to take on SCO...

Re:Forthcoming about their intentions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that the GPL REALLY DOES represent a threat to the established software oligopoly, since it empowers developers and users at the expense of parasitic businessmen used to being declared owners of the "works for hire" serf-developers make under the present system of Information Feudalism, despite the fact most of those businessmen couldn't code if their life depended on it.

SCO have attacked the GPL repeatedly - they may have very powerful friends that the SEC might defer to (Microsoft and the Church of the Latter Day Saints spring to mind.)

Re:Forthcoming about their intentions?

[jkrise]

Well, atlast SCO gave advance warnings a long time before they started the farce. Quite unlike Microsoft- 3 years on, I don't know what .Net is, and I doubt anybody does, that includes MS.

SCO seems much better than MS in comparison.

-

Re:Forthcoming about their intentions?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Some would argue that SCO's distrubuting Linux under the GPL invalidates all of their claims.

But as we all know, history, logic, and legal precident have no place in a court of law.

Now look for the others as well

[deadmantalking]

I assume Mandrake, Connectiva etc. will also announce support for Red Hats actions. But this could be a cool idea. Why dont all the vendors individually sue SCO? SCO will run out of money before it can address any of them. Of course then MS may buy it out and then we could have a REAL problem on our hands...
What i am interested in finding out is if any of the companies will put their money where their mouth is... donate to the Open Source Now! fund.

Re:Now look for the others as well

[arivanov]

REAL problem on our hands. Nope it will not. Then it will be an unfair competition matter. Whatever you may call MSFT they ain't stupid.

Re:Now look for the others as well

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

"Why dont all the vendors individually sue SCO?"

Probably because a lot of vendors aren't in the US so it is either (more) extremely expensive to sue them or legally problematical.

Re:Now look for the others as well

[azzy]

Yeah, come on, MS are smart. They'll bring out a linux distro and join in on suing SCO! :)

Re:Now look for the others as well

[saden1]

As much as M$ would love to buy i it can't...her is why:

1. It would be a public relations nightmare.
2. The department of justice (maybe not these bastards) and state attorney generals would look at M$'s tactics.
3. You can't stop Linux, you can only hope to contain it..and that is a futile effort. Any infringing code will have to come to light and will be replaced. Then what? Linux is once again clean, and MS is left with lots of pissed of governments and corporate customers.

Re:Now look for the others as well

[borgdows]

Why should we sue SCO ?
Outside the US we don't care a bit about SCO shit and al.

If they dare to do something in Europe or most other countries they'll be shot before they have finished their sentence (see SCO Germany for instance).

This is another proof the US Legal System is not working anymore.

Re:Now look for the others as well

[lpontiac]

Why dont all the vendors individually sue SCO? SCO will run out of money before it can address any of them.

IANAL, but I believe that if, say, the Debian project sue shortly after Red Hat does, the judge can and will delay a trial until Red Hat vs SCO is resolved. Idea being to protect SCO from barratry, and to not waste the court's time by debating essentially the same case twice.

Re:Now look for the others as well

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, SCO have already got a big new European outpost in Ireland, by schmoozing with the impossibly corrupt government over here. An example of the extent of the corruption: The current government's election campaing turned out to be based on fraudulent published financial figures here. Have they been removed from office? Have they been penalised in any way? No. A few outraged articles in the more highbrow newspapers, and people just carried on.

The Irish government are essentially corporate yes-men, e.g. they have lobbied strongly for european software patents on the corps' behalf.

Guess what? Ireland will hold the EU presidency very soon now. Do not underestimate the scope of the Beast of Redmond's plans. Ireland is terribly misguided on intellectual property issues - that they hold the presidency when Microsoft's european antitrust trial and SCO's absurd actions will take place is probably a factor the Beast took into account.

Re:Now look for the others as well

[Anonymous Coward]

This is another proof the US Legal System is not working anymore.

Please explain, considering none of this has seen the inside of a courtroom yet.

Re:Now look for the others as well

[Bigby]

I assume Mandrake ...

I wouldn't expect the French to step up and defend anything.

Re:Now look for the others as well

[praedor]

Thus, have the other linux distros sue in their respective countries, not in the US. The damage being done by SCO is international, not restricted to the US.

Sure, SCO is down in Germany but they are STILL hurting SUSE nonetheless with their broadside attack on linux itself. SUSE should sue in Germany, Mandrake in France, and RedFlag in China(?). Get SCO scrambling to simultaneously defend themselves in independent courts around the world.

Re:Now look for the others as well

[mhesseltine]

Sure, SCO is down in Germany but they are STILL hurting SUSE nonetheless with their broadside attack on linux itself. SUSE should sue in Germany, Mandrake in France, and RedFlag in China(?). Get SCO scrambling to simultaneously defend themselves in independent courts around the world.

Except for the fact that SuSE is part of United Linux, along with Connectiva, TurboLinux, and SCO. Therefore, I doubt that SuSE would sue one of its partners, and as a courtesy, SuSE users probably will get off without being attacked by SCO.

Re:Now look for the others as well

[zericm]

Bigby wrote:

> > I assume Mandrake ...

I wouldn't expect the French to step up and defend anything.

That's funny. I like how you tie a company to its home country. Let's try this one for SCO:

SCO's actions have no legal basis and little worldwide support; they are destructive and are ruining a once great reputation; and in the long rn, they are doomed to failure.

thx,
eric

Re:Now look for the others as well

[BennyTheBall]

MS may buy it out and then we could have a REAL problem on our hands... shiver....

Re:Now look for the others as well

[Svartalf]

I believe, per some of the antitrust settlements in the past, they agreed to not go back into the Unix arena- buying SCO would do that and would likely be barred by the FTC or the DOJ.

Re:Now look for the others as well

[ealar dlanvuli]

Thats the point.

Analysis - More than Linux hinges on this

[Badgerman]

I'm hoping that Red Hat and those supporting them beat the utter legal tar out of SCO. It's not just a Linux thing, either.

If SCO comes out ahead, there will be imitators. If "Extortion Liscenses" work once, people will try it again. How many claims for "IP violations" will there be by hucksters offering to sell "insurance."

I don't think SCO's imitatable yet since all they've done so far is inflate their stock price and annoy people. There are plenty of ways to inflate your stock price.

I don't expect SCO to win. But it is something that struck me as important.

Re:Analysis - More than Linux hinges on this

[Anonymous Coward]

> If SCO comes out ahead, there will be imitators. If "Extortion Liscenses" work once, people will try it again.

Not to talk about the danger of setting such a precedent in a court. That's the very first reason why SCO must lose that battle at any cost.

Re:Analysis - More than Linux hinges on this

[Badgerman]

> Not to talk about the danger of setting such a precedent in a court. That's the very first reason why SCO must lose that battle at any cost.

I think this is why they need to be taken to court. I think they're just trying to bluff their way into money, higher stock prices, and being acquired. Take them to court and it'll all fall apart for them.

Hmmmm, wonder if CourtTV would pick that up . . . probably not.

Re:Analysis - More than Linux hinges on this

[arvindn]

I'm hoping that Red Hat and those supporting them beat the utter legal tar out of SCO. It's not just a Linux thing, either.

You're right, tar is not just a linux thing. Like most GNU programs, it is very portable. ;^)

Re:Analysis - More than Linux hinges on this

[jkrise]

ssshhhh... SCO might claim tar is System V code that's been copied into Linux. Let's try bitumen or asphalt or pitch - AFAIK there aren't Unix or Linux commands like that.

-

Re:Analysis - More than Linux hinges on this

[Kanon]

Judge Judy should hear the case. Her quick no-nonsense approach will fast-track this mess to a sensible conclusion.

And she'll get really pissed when SCO lie to her :)

Lawyerspeak

[Nogami_Saeko]

Also, this lawyer has a long analysis of SCO extortion attempts and debunks a lot of their FUD.

And from the page:

"The jerkheads at SCO refuse to disclose what their IP is choosing instead to only make general and ambiguous public and inflammatory claims about others. Without proof, of course. Even without substance."

I don't know when the last time I've heard a lawyer use "jerkheads" was, but it was probably a long time ago, if ever ;)

N.

Re:Lawyerspeak

[SmallFurryCreature]

Yeah, I know lawyer speak can be confusing but it is like youre brain surgeon speaking with a southern accent. I just rather not.

A good lawyer, for that matter anyone with a brain would never use swear words (no matter how mild) in a document. Not even on the internet.

I wouldn't put to much trust in this "lawyer" words, if he speaks the same way in a courtroom he will be on charges of contempt before the charges have been read.

Re:Lawyerspeak

[praedor]

So true. They normally make heavy use of the time-venerated "stupidhead" descriptor, and somewhat less frequently, the softer "poo-head".

Re:Lawyerspeak

[davebo]

A good lawyer, for that matter anyone with a brain would never use swear words (no matter how mild) in a document.

I'd have to say that depends very much on the case in question.

Re:Lawyerspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's a technical term. If you break it down : Jer khe ads
jer - one (similar to Polish)
khe - falsely (might be arabic based on spelling)
ads - advertises (well duh!)

so basicaly he is saying they have no claim.

Re:Lawyerspeak

[iwaku]

When SCO keeps telling all that bullshit and nonsense, I start to think it's OK for a lawyer to use "jerkheads".

Re:Lawyerspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like something Bill O'Reilly would say.

Re:Lawyerspeak

[dipipanone]

I'd have to say that depends very much on the case in question.

Someone should mod this fucker up.

Re:Lawyerspeak

[red floyd]

Lewis Mettler tended to have a cult {fan|foe} following over at ZDNet during the MS trial...

Boring is one thing he isn't.

Re:Lawyerspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

What's funnier is that you stopped watching after hearing them say "wackjob."

Re:Lawyerspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

Or my personal favorite, "fucktard."

Re:Lawyerspeak

[BigBadBri]

Priceless.

Thanks for the funniest read I have had in ages.

Re:Lawyerspeak

[SillySlashdotName]

The WEB SITE is for a law firm/lawyer, but the article probably isn't. See the "Submit your article for publication" link in the top pane...

ANYONE can submit an article an dget it published on this web site.

I don't know when the last time I've heard a lawyer use "jerkheads" was, but it was probably a long time ago, if ever

You still haven't.

Re:Lawyerspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

The softer "poo-head"? Now there's an image I don't need!

Re:Lawyerspeak

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you do.

Maffia

[olderchurch]

The way it is described at lawlaw.com, sounds like racketering....

Yes, but...

[turgid]

...it's a good bit of entertaining sport. :-)

Re:Yes, but...

[Urkki]

...as long as you aren't the one paying for it.

Oh, wait, you are! Either directly if you buy Red Hat (or Suse now too) products, or indirectly if you just like to use OS software, since that "lawyer money" could have been better spent on software development.

Re:Yes, but...

[turgid]

So use Debian or Slackware or.... whatever.

Re:Yes, but...

[Urkki]

It's all part of the same OS community, working under GPL. Any (GPL) code developed by Red Hat is available to Debian and Slackware users / developers as well. I mean, that's (part of) the idea behind OS software. For example, I believe Debian package format was developed after RPM. I bet having first version of RPM to look at and seeing how it worked in practice made developing new package formats much easier, and made them better.

In closed source, a competitor not developing software often helps you. In open source it usually hurts you too.

So, to re-iterate, any OS development money spent on lawsuits hurts OS movement. Of course there are cases where the results or just the publicity of the lawsuit can help more (or hurt less) than not going to court, but that's beside the point.

Re:Yes, but...

[walt-sjc]

I think you missed the point. RedHat spends a lot of money on things like kernel development. If they are spending more money on lawyers, that money can't be spent on kernel development. That hurts debian and slackware too.

While I hate to see ANYONE having to spend money on lawyers to defend Linux, I think that it's money well spent in this case. Hopefully it results in a financial penalty in damages as well as just stops SCO's behavior. After all, RedHat loses money when people are scared off Linux.

This suit will hopefully force SCO to put up or shut up.

Re:Yes, but...

[walt-sjc]

Note: the original article I replied to stated: "So use Debian or Slackware or.... whatever."

Someone modded his statement as a troll, and that's unfair. He may not have fully understood the issue, but it doesn't make him a troll...

Re:Yes, but...

[ePhil_One]

So, to re-iterate, any OS development money spent on lawsuits hurts OS movement. Of course there are cases where the results or just the publicity of the lawsuit can help more (or hurt less) than not going to court, but that's beside the point.

I'm not sure. Imagine RedHat succeeds and wins the case. They are awarded triple damages, putting a hurting on SCO in a big way, SCO can't pay up (no huge cash reserves, and all the lawyers fees are adding up). RedHat and the Linux community graciously accept the right to the "Unix" name and all original source code as compensation.

Suddenly, Linux *IS* Unix.

Ok, it really wouldn't be, and Linus has no real desire to make it so. But think of the chaos!

Re:Yes, but...

[HiThere]

Are you suggesting that Linux stands for
Linux Is Not UniX?

Re:Yes, but...

[eyegone]

SCO doesn't own the Unix name (trademark). The Open Group does.

SCO owns the copyright to the Unix System V source code and the license agreements that AT&T, USL, SCO (#1), and Novell negotiated with Unix vendors such as IBM, Sun, HP, Sequent, DEC, Pyramid, Stratus, SGI, etc.

SCOre One For Ignorant Quotes

[tds67]

The release quotes Darl McBride, SCO's President and CEO, as being "disappointed" with Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik for not being "forthcoming" about Red Hat's intentions in a previous discussion.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Has SCO been forthcoming about their ever-changing intentions? Is SCO the only one allowed to operate in stealth-mode?

Darl, there's enough "disappointment" to go around--most of it pointed in your direction.

Re:SCOre One For Ignorant Quotes

[zr-rifle]

The exact quote states:

"Matt, you insensitive clod..."

Re:SCOre One For Ignorant Quotes

[msgmonkey]

No one goes to court believing they are not the injured party especially from a lawyers point of view.

Come any trial I fully expect Darl McBride to put on the water works and explain how "disappointed" he is with all this and how it's taking him away from the charitable work he does with disabled children/homeless people/random good cause.

Lamentations: How Long?

[4of12]

It's becoming clear that SCO is a rather deliberate-placed fly in the soothing low cost ointment of growing Linux deployments.

It's also clear that certain companies stand to benefit from slowing the rate of Linux adoption. It's in their interest to keep the question raised by SCO open for as long as possible because it will retard the growth rate of Linux. (I doubt the number of Linux deployments will decrease, or even level off, but the growth rate will probably slow.)

So how long will it take for the SCO issue to be closed?

Most current Linux users have dismissed SCO's claims as frivolous, but potential new users are probably more easily dissuaded by these kinds of questions.

What kind of legal event and how long will it take before SCO claims are no longer a question?

Re:Lamentations: How Long?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont know about a legal event, but one event I would pay money to see is Mr McBride getting slapped around with are rather large and wet fish.

Re:Lamentations: How Long?

[sploxx]

Yes, and I hope that linux new installatations will skyrocket after that :)

Re:Lamentations: How Long?

[NetMagi]

the old addage, if it doesn't kill you it just makes you stronger could give a nice boost to linux when this IS all over. .

I can tell you who will be laughing then, and it won't be the MS and CO FUD dept.

We need an injuction

[Anonymous Coward]

saying that since SCO has threatened RedHat's customers, it must release all infringing code to RedHat so it can remove it to prevent further damage against SCO, and that they are effectivly trapping users, forcing them to infringe and then making threats.

The most important line for your PHB:

[Badgerman]

"The very last company you want to enter into a contract with is SCO. You can see now how they operate."

Definitely good ammo if someone gets cold feet towards Linux.

Re:The most important line for your PHB:

[jkrise]

Yes... I see now:

SCO: The last word in Unix IP...
SCO: We have the last laugh in Unix
SCO: Before you sign a contract with us, laugh!


-

Re:The most important line for your PHB:

[Bored Huge Krill]

indeed. If I remember correctly, and I think I do, the line from Darl (talking about the IBM suit) was :

"...contracts are things you use against people that you have relationships with..."

and you're thinking about signing a contract with these guys, Mr. PHB?

Krill

Re:The most important line for your PHB:

[Galvatron]

I don't think many PHBs want to sign a contract with SCO. I think most of them just want to switch away from Linux. So your argument isn't much help.

Ultimate profit!

[Anonymous Coward]

1) License an old version of DOS
2) Sue every m$ windows owner for $700
3) PROFIT!!!!!!

what sun thinks

[t123]

according to this eweek story, sun believes it SCO can screw off:

In the early 1990's, Schwartz said, Sun chief executive Scott McNealy agreed to spend several million dollars to take a broad license with AT&T, essentially granting Sun legal rights equivalent to ownership of Unix code.

"As a result of that decision in 1993, we can do whatever we want (to the code)," Schwartz said. "We can drive forward and indemnify our customers too," a basic responsibility of any intellectual property provider, he said.

Re:what sun thinks

[ralphclark]

Now that's very interesting. In the light of their recent announcement about tying up with SuSE as a Linux reseller I mean. No doubt they are expecting IBM's Linux business to be hampered by all the FUD, and with this promise to provide a safe harbour to their own Linux users, they obviously expect to be able to take up some of the slack.

Either way, it looks like Linux adoption by large corporates (which is really the main thing under threat from all the FUD) will be fully protected. After all big companies don't tend to buy their Linux from CheapBytes, they get it from their main supplier which is usually going to be Sun or IBM or somebody like that. If they don't now, then they are probably soon going to want to.

Many of the smaller companies who don't want to pay the extra bucks that such blue-chip support entails, will probably be prepared to take a risk and keep on with what they are doing. After all if they can;eeasily afford to pay the premium for protection by IBM or Sun, then they won't want to pay these extortionate licence fees to (or indeed start *any* kind of business relationship with) a clearly hostile and desperate company like SCO, either.

SCO's only oppportunity to make money out of this therefore lies in this introductory special offer period where a single CPU licence is "only" $699. More cautious SMEs may view this as an opportunity to take out insurance.

If my logic is correct then the best way to derail SCO's plan must be to do everything in our power to discourage wavering SME's CFOs from signing up to the SCO Licence during the special offer period. By the time the price has gone up to $1399 or whatever, any incentive to do so will very likely have disappeared entirely. By then competition between Sun, IBM and the rest of the commercial Linux providers should have pushed down the real TCO of indemnified licences to a few hundred dollars. And SCO will be *fucked*.

--

"Proper fucked?"
"Yeah, proper fucked."

Re:what sun thinks

[noldrin]

And interestingly enough SUN also released Linux under the GPL...

Re:what sun thinks

[shadow099]

If they have a license to do that, why dont they sell these licenses for 1$ plus the cost of shipping the pretty little piece of paper out to the customer. That way all of the business fools out there can feel safe they they are paying for Linux :) And SCO and go Sc**w themselves!

Re:SCO

[isorox]

Dear Mr. COWARD,

We note that you are using the word "money" in your post. This is flagrant misuse of our intellectual property, and as such we will require you to license the word. Please contact our sales department (1-800-SUEMYSHORTS) to discuss volume licensing from $900 per instance.

Yours Sincerly

Mr I.S.Orox

Not necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no offending code.

There is nothing there.

SCO are a bunch of liars.

Darl Shake-n-Bake McBride is headed for a long fall. He's going to catch a horrible disease, his wife will leave him, and his daughter will get knocked up.

Re:Not necessary

[Trigun]

I'm working on the third one right now. Maybe tomorrow I'll work on the second.

Is Gonorreah a horrible disease, because after I'm done tomorrow, the plans will be in place for number one.

Re:Not necessary

[Trigun]

Yeah, but suits usually have ultra-boneable trophy wives that are just staying around long enough to win a divorce settlement. Tag'em both!

Hey, it's a lady!

it burns when I pee

A call for unity

[Compact Dick]

These are testing times for Linux and its myriad distributions. As ludicrous as SCO's allegations are, the cynic in me wouldn't be all that surprised if events turned in their favour. Even more so if Microsoft turns out to be the Master behind the SCO Puppet. But I digress...

This is the time to cast aside our petty squabbles about how distro A beats distro B, or how Distro C sucks balls. Forget the small things.

Band up, my fellow mates and face this challenge strong, and as one. Our very future depends on it.

Re:A call for unity

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the time to cast aside our petty squabbles about how distro A beats distro B, or how Distro C sucks balls.

I have no balls to suck, you insensitive clod!

Re:A call for unity

[flacco]

This is the time to cast aside our petty squabbles about how distro A beats distro B, or how Distro C sucks balls.

Oooh! Where can I get Distro C?

Re:SCO

[ninthwave]

Yes you do on the same grounds SCO are saying you may be breaking the law with a linux kernel that has their ip, you now have a binary only license that contains non SCO ip protected by the GPL so you effectively bought a license that knowingly infringes on other people's ip and they can sue SCO for distributing it. As if you are liable or not you shouldn't have been liable for SCO's ip in the linux distribution you used so you never needed the license. You did not violate SCO's ip if it is in the linux kernel the perosn or persons whom supposedly placed the code there did, hence the suit against IBM and not against any Linux distribution and certainly not against any Linux users. You just wasted some money for something that was not your liability.

But neither here nor there now you are proof that SCO has taken money to license a product that they do not own I believe all kernel contributors can sue them for distribution of their IP against the terms of the GPL which protected their IP.

I repeat SCO does not have a right to license a binary only linux kernel if their IP is in it or not because they do not own the IP of the whole kernel only by their own admission part of it. Without supplying you the full source code upon request.

At least that is my take on it.
Any GPL advocates or kernel contributors want to enlighten the debate further for this is a key issue I would like to see more clarification and discussion on.

Re:Write the Utah State Attorney General's Office!

[Anonymous Coward]

That would mean finding enough Utahans that could write.

Highly doubtful.

Distros of the World unite... boring

[Anonymous Coward]

This story is running out of mileage. SuSE are predictable and just want some press.. This is going nowhere fast... As in previous posts when / if SCO show the code it will be binned from all major distros (assuming it even exists) quicker the time it takes to download an M$ service pack

Bold statements

[godot42a]

...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.

Hm...am I the only one to think these remarks are a little over the top?
Don't get me wrong -- Linux is a good system, and through its intimate connection with the concept of open source, it has merits beyond its technological quality. But they could spend their time better than issuing such bold claims (maybe they've got a politics student as intern in the press dept.? ;) )

SCO has already been halted in Germany and we applaud Red Hat's actions to help end their activities in the US -- and beyond.

Well, the case has been suspended in Germany, but only for at most six months. It's not over yet...

Speaking of licenses

[xyote]

Has anyone actually seen one of these beasties? Do the licenses make specific claims to IP or they the usual vague claims of extortion attempts, pay us and we won't hurt you.

Ha! I can just see Darl "Pirana" McBride's next bright idea, SCOO, the Santa Cruz Other Operation.

Re:Speaking of licenses

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Well, they couldn't afford a horse's head, so I got a Gerbil's. They also can't afford a Godfather, Daryl is the Nephew. The hitman is armed with a waterpistol filled with lemon juice.

Re:Speaking of licenses

[hackstraw]

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

Re:Speaking of licenses

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha! I can just see Darl "Pirana" McBride's next bright idea, SCOO, the Santa Cruz Other Operation.

Yeah, but wouldn't that be -DimsDarl-?

He's gonna be seeing Spiney-Norman around every corner real soon now, won't he!

DIMSDARL!

Ha! And what's more, he knows how to treat a lawyer-impersonator!

Death To SCO! Long Live Linux!

[buford_tannen]

70 versions to anyone who can bring me the head of Darl McBride!

let's go!!

[bryam]

Go Turbolinux, Conectiva, Lindows, IBM, Oracle, SGI, HP, NEC, Fujitsu, members of OSDL, members of CELinuxForum!! Go!

Join to this RedHat action.

Re:let's go!!

[sinserve]

GO bryam 449040 of, um, http://linuxkernel.foundries.sourceforge.net Inc. (NASDQ BRYM)

Re:SCO

[benjiboo]

It is not THAT much money, and I don't have to worry about being sued or breaking the law. I'm not sure if this comment is tongue in cheek, but a large company (for whom Linux only represents a small percentage of their install base), might consider paying up to remove any potential or perceived liability. Dirty tactics by SCO, but i'd guess in most situations, it's easier to pay the $700 rather than taking on an unlimited liability in terms of future costs.

I just want to know which one of the big

[torpor]

... guys enters the fray first.

IBM, or Microsoft?

Anyone want to start taking bids?

Instead of just taking SCO to courrt..

[bigmattana]

Redhat and SuSE should use some of SCO's tactics. Since SCO's version of Linux probably contains some code that was generated by these companies or their employees, they can "sell" licenses to use their code before they sue SCO for violating the GPL. That way, the end user won't be held "liable". :) No more SCO linux users.

It doesn't have to be a valid threat to scare management into submission. I think more tech companies need to put insurance agents into upper management positions. Nothing intimidates those guys!

Re:SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news:
SCO revenue for the quarter ending August 31 2003 estimated at $690.

Time to phone sco UK

[Loosewire]

Ask about how much a license is, say i cant pay and ask if i should stop using linux. Then when they say i should stop, laugh in their faces

Re:Time to phone sco UK

[iapetus]

If you do try this, don't forget to let us all know how it goes. I'd be interested in hearing how SCO UK are responding to the whole thing - it might, after all, just be the US side of things that's going lawsuit crazy. I know I'd feel kind of embarassed if I were a foreign arm of SCO. :)

Also, might be interesting to check up on the relevant laws in the UK and see if SCO are even more open to being taken down for fraud/extortion over here.

Re:Time to phone sco UK

[multipartmixed]

Better yet, stop using Linux, lay low 'till they lose in court, and then sue for the cost of not running Linux!

Re:Time to phone sco UK

[Loosewire]

Or just carry on using linux in secret and *say* you stopped....

Not about intellectual property rights

[ljavelin]

Clearly SCO is not hopeful that it will win the lawsuit against IBM - if it were, it wouldn't care about how many "SCO Linux licensees" are out there, and it wouldn't be trying to collect hundreds or thousands of dollars from them.

Just think: If SCO thought it could win the IBM suit, SCO would be very successful financially. SCO could then take that financial success and license their technology in terms that are legally clear to their customers.

Instead, they're trying to force organizations to be their customers by threatening them with potential lawsuits. And unclear lawsuits at that.

SCO is merely looking for extremely high visibility in the short term - negative visibility which can damage it's ability to be a product OR IP property. Basically, they're pissing off potential customers of their technology (no matter WHO they license it to).

SCO is looking for some short term cash with this deal, likely because all other forms of cashflow have stopped or in the process of stopping. Again, they can only bite the hand that COULD feed it, as at this point they have no product of any value except the threat of lawsuits (which isn't really considered a product).

Re:Not about intellectual property rights

[msgmonkey]

Did Caldera ever make any large amount of money from their Linux distro? Or are they still around because of the settlement from MS with regards to the DR-DOS case. If this is the case then why bother developing a product when you can make money by just sueing people?

Linux TCO

[LiquidCoooled]

All this FUD and bull crap floating around makes me remember a certain Study done saying operating Linux cost more than windows.
It looked a bit strange back then, but now with hindsight I see how it happened.
I wonder where they got their time machine from? ? ?

Re:Replacing the Code

[Anonymous Coward]

Bite my shiny metal collection of pirated ogg vorbis files.

I have a 4 year old Caldera Linux license

[GeorgeTheNorge]

Should I sell it on eBay?

Re:I have a 4 year old Caldera Linux license

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but does it have kernel 2.4?

Slashdot spreads FUD!

[Anonymous Coward]

And makes me buy SCOX!

Re:Slashdot spreads FUD!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you're trolling but I can't ignore the little sad truth in your statement. Spreading the SCO FUD in a popular place like slashdot might have worse consequences for Linux' acceptance than SCO's own actions combined.

Slashdot was the first place here I've heard about "SCO" and SCOX rises with every further slashdot article. :(

Sorry, everyone.

Is this a repeat of the Rambus wars...

[SmackCrackandPot]

Looking back at recent history, I found this list compiled from various technology news reports...

January 2000 Rambus files patent infringement lawsuit against Hitachi
June 2000 Rambus settles lawsuit against Hitachi
August 2000 Rambus files patent infringement lawsuit against Infineon
August 2000 Micron files patent infringement lawsuit against Rambus
August 2000 Hyundai files patent infringement lawsuit against Rambus
Sept. 2000 Rambus files patent infringement lawsuit against Micron and Hyundai (Hynix)
May 2001 Rambus lawsuit against Infineon dismissed, fined US $3.5 million
August 2001 Rambus faces class-action lawsuit for fraud

Re:Is this a repeat of the Rambus wars...

[the lurking man]

Let's hope not, because you forgot an important part of the Rambus saga.

January 2003 Rambus wins appeal; court throws out fraud claims, interprets patents favorably to Rambus, and remands for new trial.

But the damage is done...

[radbrad]

Noi matter how much nice companies like Red Hat and SuSe help the effort, the damage to Linux's (considered in some circles) bad reputation, has been done.

Joe "Unix? Wha?" Average already is wearing his microsoft distributed OSS protected sun glasses, and will only see the bad PR from SCO.

It just sucks that now for every bad vibe that SCO has sent out regarding linux, it means we have to send out ten good vibes. So grab your friendly joe Avergae and explain to them what SCO really repreasents, just try not be too fanatical, people get wierded out by that.

Re:But the damage is done...

[Dan Ost]

If SCO's loses (read: no settlement), then Linux will emerge from this
stronger than if this had never happened.

Linux IP had always been a legal grey area. After this, legal precedent will
be set and everyone will point to this case as a reference for future IP
questions.

Also, because of this suit, Linux is closer to being a household name than
ever before. The public must first be aware of Linux before it can accept it.

Finally, this suit causes the Linux community (and perhaps the larger OSS
community) to put aside some of their differences and become less fragmented.
This can only be a good thing.

Can someone explain what 'shorting' is?

[bigberk]

I hope you don't consider this too off-topic ;)

Can someone explain to me, or provide some good links, so I can learn properly what 'shorting' is in respect to stocks? No particular reason...

Re:Can someone explain what 'shorting' is?

[veddermatic]

Normally one buys stock in hopes that it will go up. "Shorting" a stock is agreeing to purchase stock at a future date in hopes it will go down.

In a nutshell, it's the reverse of a "normal" stock trade... you actually SELL first, THEN buy later.

ex: I believe SCO is going to tank, so I 'sell' 100 shares today at $3 each. In one months, which is how long I bought my short for, I then buy the stock for $1 and (minus commissions, minus the fees for the 3rd party who has to cover the month where I didn't have the stock I sold) I make money.

Re:Can someone explain what 'shorting' is?

[Eric Destiny]

This is Slashdot. Pictures of gaping anuses aren't off-topic.

Re:Can someone explain what 'shorting' is?

[stephanruby]

ex: I believe SCO is going to tank, so I 'sell' 100 shares today at $3 each. In one months, which is how long I bought my short for, I then buy the stock for $1 and (minus commissions, minus the fees for the 3rd party who has to cover the month where I didn't have the stock I sold) I make money.

You have to believe SCO is going to tank before a certain date. If for some reason, SCO can keep its FUD believable by the time you have to buy your shares, then you may actually lose money.

Wallpaper of the Penguin smashing the SCO Logo ?

[Sector_001]

We need some logo and/or wallpaper that we can use to express our displeasure with SCO.

It needs to be something tasteful and non-libelous that can be placed, for example, as wallpaper on a corporate desktop.

Anybody got anything that they would like to contribute ? (The kind of thing that I am thinking of is the Penguin smashing the SCO Logo with a sledgehammer)

and in other news

[Darth_brooks]

Mike Tyson has announced he will sue all of his former opponents, as they were not 'forthcoming' about their intentions to hit back.

McBride ended his letter somewhat vaguely by suggesting that Red Hat's "decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux."

Yeah, Defending your company's business practices is a horrible way to stay in business. You should attack other people's practices.

Re:and in other news

[tds67]

Mike Tyson has announced he will sue all of his former opponents, as they were not 'forthcoming' about their intentions to hit back.

Mike wouldn't do that, because he would be biting off more than he could chew.

(Boo. Hiss.)

Re:and in other news

[Goner]

He has also announced a suit against the tatoo artist who gave him a tatoo on the side of his face.

Paranoia and conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

This has probably been posted before, so apologies if I'm repeating someone else.

My paranoid train of thought goes something like this:

- US govt looking at huge tax revenues from M$
- M$ worried about Linux takeover on the desktop
- USG ponders disappearing M$ tax dollars, as Linux can't be taxed.
- USG finds some company with history of Unix development, prompts and prods it to become defacto 'owner' of Linux, and start charging license fees, which are taxable.
- SCO starts legal claims to place it in effective ownership of Linux
- SCO and M$ start being friendly, despite history of rivalry and no common interests

Call me a paranoid conspiracy nutcase, but the real winner in all this is the US Govt, who also control the courts who will be deciding the case...

Hmmm...

[CFBMoo1]

I have visions of an Episode 1 type battle. Where drone/driods of Microsoft and SCO are on one end of the battlefield and on the other I see hordes of Linux users riding giant Suse mascots and flying red fedora's. Go Gunga's!

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus. What have you been smoking?

Re:Hmmm...

[CFBMoo1]

Amazing what you can dream up with a pile of code to work on and no caffeine in the morning.

Question

[borgdows]

Does SCO licence apply to PS2 Linux too?

I'd love to see Sony sue SCO... and everyvendor of Linux devices (Sharp, Matsushita, and other big boys)

SCO is like a mouse surrounded by dozens of 800lbs gorillas

AHAAHAHAHAH

Re:Question

[bryam]

Yes. Apply to the Linux kernel 2.4.* and 2.5.* series.

Re:Question

[iapetus]

AIUI, the PS2 Linux is based around kernel 2.2, and as a result isn't included.

Re:Question

[ShadeARG]

PS2 Linux is based on the 2.2.1 kernel, so my guess is that it wouldn't apply to them.

hey what did you buy?

[linuxislandsucks]

Since no user of any copyrighted software can be charged for damages of copyright infringment even windows users, what di you buy?

and how did you make the case to buy this thin air with your company's CFO?

Copyright infringment looks for damage by the infringer..did you put code in linux?

Re:hey what did you buy?

[falcon5768]

thank you,

honestly anyone who pays a cent to SCO is a fool and should have talked to their legal department first..

Read Carefully

YOU CANT GET SUED BY SCO SINCE YOU NEVER BOUGHT SHIT FROM SCO.

Likewise a class action lawsuit should be filed by anyone who uses linux charging SCO with extortion, they are using scare tactics to get your money, nothing of any legal merit.

If there really is any offending code in the kernal (which I doubt) then SCO has to show it, and then, its only IBM's concern, not us. IBM would have to pay SCO NOT the end user.

PLEASE would someone start up a class action lawsuit already!!!!!

Re:hey what did you buy?

[BlackHawk-666]

Maybe we should start a class action alleging that McBride touched us all when we were children. We could sue for one^H^H^Hthree billion dollars and smear his reputation in the same way he is doing to Linux. Dirty pool old boy, dirty pool.

I'll sell my own "insurance"

[tigre]

Now for only $20 a processor, I will fully indemnify you for any damages you may be liable for to SCO as a result of their IP claims. Better hurry up, though, 'cause once the case goes to trial and they start showing the evidence, the price goes to $5000.

a long period of uncertainty

[non]

does the timing of all of this strike anyone else as intentional? that just when microsoft was starting to lose server interest share to linux at an ever-increasing rate a plague descends upon linux. does it further seem coincidental that microsoft has announced a number of open source/linux initiatives recently?

i think there are several things going on here, but they all originate from strategic, and not tactical, decisions by redmond. let me start with a comment i heard from a coworker (he's in technical sales), "if anyone can figure out how to make money out of linux, its microsoft."

one: microsoft has recently started to be perceived in the marketplace as stodgy. no, i don't have any business case studies to back it up; i feel it. so they're attempting to tell the world that they can change with the times like the best of them. how? by announcing open source initiatives, etc.

two: despite microsofts continued rants about TCO, business' experience probably show that linux TCO, especially in the area of server administration, and down-time associated with virii, patches and other security issues, is in fact lower. ergo microsoft's focus on security and providing 'enhanced' command-line tools for server administration.

three: they (redmond) know just how long it takes a suit to be completed. this whole series of events figures into some long-range plan. what, i don't know. remember though, this court date for the start of the suit is after the release of longhorn. my bet is that there will be a slew of patches and other enforced upgrades between now and then to change the balance. not in the home, where microsoft is feeling threatened, but in the corporate world, where they are quite seriously running scared.

Re:a long period of uncertainty

[bubbha]

I find it interesting that folks have issues with OSS because they can not figure out how to make money under that model. Since when is it OUR problem to figure out how some company is supposed to make money? I started life 20 years ago as a Pascal and C programmer. Today, I would not go by those job descriptions - though I still do lots of programming - because so much has changed in the industry. SQL, HTML, Object-oriented programming UML.....on and on....and at no time during my career can I remember anyone asking me if the changes they were about to make to their tool/system/etc... would be a problem because it makes it difficult for some software developers to continue to work and make money.

Re:a long period of uncertainty

[Anonymous Coward]

-1, Unreadable

Open letter to McBride

[Anonymous Coward]

My open letter to Darl McBride
Dear Mr McBride,

If I understand SCO's position correctly, it is:

1. Linux 2.4 consists of copyrighted work licensed under the GPL by various authors, as well as some form of SCO's IP which has never been legitimately licensed under the GPL.

2. SCO believes in protecting IP holders' right is important.

While I will leave the merits of your claim of SCO's IP being in Linux to another day, I would like to ask you about the rights of other Linux copyright holders and whether SCO's actions are consistent with your stated position on the importance of protecting IP holders' rights.

As you are aware, the GPL forbids distribution of a combined work contains both GPLed and non-GPLed code.

I believe you are aware of this, and agree with this interpretation of the GPL, because it says so on your company's web site:

Quoting from http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicensefaq.html it says:

"Why doesn't SCO offer an IP License for Linux to the Linux distribution companies so that they can bundle SCO IP with their Linux distribution? " "The SCO compliance program is an end-user program for the right to use SCO IP in binary format. The IP License for Linux does not grant distribution rights, nor does it grant any rights associated with source code. SCO doesn't offer a license to cure the infringement on the part of the Linux distributor because SCO's source license agreement directly conflicts with the GPL. "

Furthermore, you reiterated this position in your August 5 conference call, referring to Red Hat's Linux distribution:

"But if infringing code is found, RH is required under the GPL to stop shipments of Linux."

It would therefore seem that distributing Linux would not be appropriate, in your view. As any such distribution, by anybody, would in fact infringe the copyrighted IP and GPL license, of the various Linux coders, for the portions of the code that does not form part of the alleged infringing code in Linux.

So I have to ask, by what right do SCO continue distribute GPL software (SCO Linux) from your official FTP site ftp.sco.com ?

I am not aware of any special provision in the GPL that grants SCO more rights to distribute Linux than Red Hat. So if Red Hat have no right to distribute Linux, why do you think SCO have that right?

I am aware you now (added today) state on your web site that your distribution is only for existing SCO Linux customers, but again I would do seem any provision in the GPL nor am aware of any special provision for SCO or anybody else, that says you may ignore the GPL if distributing to existing customers. So can you please explain why you think SCO is legally entitled to distribute GPL licensed Linux software, and especially the non-contested portions, at all?

Finally referring once again to your license FAQ at http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicensefaq.html

"If SCO doesn't offer a license that would permit the distribution of an in house customized Linux OS to internal data centers, what is the value of correcting the infringement on the part of my end users when my company as a whole is still infringing SCO's intellectual property? What should I do?" "Consider migrating from an in house customized version of Linux to a shrink wrap, off the shelf version of Linux or to an alternative operating system. If you are unable to migrate, consider outsourcing the development of the customized Linux distribution. SCO understands that these options are very constraining and is investigating alternative that both protect its intellectual property and are less burdensome for end users."

Specifically I would like to ask about these two sentences:

"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."

If as you

Re:Open letter to McBride

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, I hope you proofread that and corrected your grammar before you sent it!

Re:Replacing the Code

[Anonymous Coward]

I the offending code *now* is not sufficient to relieve you of all damages up until now

That is not the point. The point is that Linux would survive simply by rewriting the offending lines. The damages up until now, realistically (even assuming SCO's claim is true), is probably just a few $1000s - whatever it takes to write 50 lines of code. I wrote about that much this morning as it happens.

The court date.

[eddy]

We most certainly have "touched upon" and known about the late date for some time. I myself noted and knew of the date from an eweek article that I cited almost three weeks ago.

No big mystery there. What we're all wondering is how the SCO-shell game is supposed to survive for so long. I expect a couple of more hysteric announcements; MS licensing linux for their labs and updated prices when kernel 2.6.0 is released first and foremost.

But after that, what crack induced pronouncements can we expect from crackhead Darl?

I hope their next earnings are bad, even with them minting new shares to lower the apparent loss/share, which I'm sure is a fact they'll spin, spin, spin.

Re:The court date.

[Ian.Waring]

I seem to remember Bob Palmer at Digital going legal with Intel, and threatening to with Microsoft, with IP related issues. However, he seemed to come out with a high value sale of a lot of semiconductor capacity to Intel, and various concessions to do an Alpha version of NT at the time. This guy McBride seems to be following the same sort of strategy as North Korea... don't invite the UN in to do inspections, just ask the good old US of A to come in with offers of money. Somehow this guy at SCO has failed to replicate the same success as Palmer without making it look like a protection racket. Was his real plan to get IBM to buy the company?

In other news

[revividus]

...the Mafia is sueing SCO for violating it's Racketeering(TM) IP. The Mafia intends to settle out of court, however, and has already sent representatives Vinnie and Guido to visit McBride....

Re:In other news

[Joey Vegetables]

Back in my prime, I'd have been perfectly qualified to pay Mr. McBride a visit myself (see my user info). :)

SCO is hiring!

[borgdows]

http://sco.com/company/jobs/

They're seeking a Senior Sales Account Manager... oh wait they should have called the job Senior Stupid Cow Milker!

Re:SCO is hiring!

[Anthony Boyd]

They're seeking a Senior Sales Account Manager...

Someone should infiltrate. Either get the job so you can try to work within their system and convince your coworkers to behave ethically, or get in there and see how long you can keep the job while you royally undermine the company's business.

Re:SCO is hiring!

[Bigby]

For a second there I thought they would be hiring a programmer...

Re:SCO is hiring!

[mdielmann]

...or get in there and see how long you can keep the job while you royally undermine the company's business.

From what I've seen, the only thing required to undermine SCO's business would be to collect your paycheck and wait. Everything that can be done on that front is already being attempted by those much more experienced than us...

Re:SCO is hiring!

[cliveholloway]

Even better. Why don't we all send them our resumes? By law they have to keep them on file :)

.02

cLive ;-)

Re:SCO is hiring!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweeet.... /. them with our email!

Re:Replacing the Code

[AKnightCowboy]

Once again I have to remind the slashdot crowd that replacing the offending code *now* is not sufficient to relieve you of all damages up until now.

Hey, a SCO employee found his way to Slashdot. Aren't you a little worried the entire future of your company relies on suing people? If you're a programmer it pretty much makes your job irrelevent to the long term profitability of the company. They'll dump you guys first so they can feed the legal machine.

Re:Replacing the Code

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree, are you at fault for a crime you didn't commit? I mean, it wasn't a crime until now. You have to knowingly commit embezelment, as theres no possible way to do it without knowing. This is diffrent though, you can do this without knowing.

Tune in next week!

[Darth_brooks]

It's SCO RAW!

Announcer 1: Welcome back to the staples center where we're in the middle of the SCO-redhat cage match for the undisputed heavyweight rights to Unix! SCO Goes for the ankle lock, but Redhat counters. Redhat's climbing to the top rope (crown moans) Oh and a cheap shot by SCO to the groin! SCO is going for the reverse boston crab, things are not looking good for Redhat...

Announcer 2: OHMYGOD! Look at this!

Announcer 1: It's SuSE! SuSE is coming to the ring to make the save!

Announcer 2: Look out, he's got a folding chair....

So early

[autopr0n]

Have the markets even opened yet? or is SCO just getting sloppy?

Re:SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said anything about a 'binary only' license. They are licensing the IP, which everyone knows is imaginary. They are not licensing the source code (or anyone elses) or the kernel binary, but the right to use the "technology" that they claim are theirs. So technically, they are not really breaking the GPL.

Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir win our Stating-the-obvious-Post-of-the-Day prize for today!

Congrats!

Please contact Our Leadership for to collect your winnings, which is either a halving of your karma or a swift spanking, whichever you prefer.

Re:Duh.

[EvilTwinSkippy]

And when you are done spanking Zoot, you must spank me too. And after that ... the Oral Sex!

Re:Replacing the Code

[Dunark]

I think you're full of it. SCO's refusal to identify the alleged offending code is what is preventing any corrective action. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure this will prevent them from making any claims based on the duration of the infringement.

Re:Replacing the Code

[aug24]

...except that the end users didn't steal anything, so have no need for a SCO licence.

To improve (slightly) your piss-poor analogy, it would be like someone stealing a car from a taxi firm and giving lifts to people. When the thief is caught, those lucky enough to have got a lift wouldn't then get charged retrospective taxi fares - especially not at the extortionate rate this taxi firm feels like!

Any successful action by SCO would be against IBM. If that occurs, they will get damages from IBM, and anyone using Linux can then be required to stop using the offending code, or licence it, but not until.

J.
IANAL, natch, but clearly neither is the author of the parent.

But that implies...

[halivar]

But that implies that SCO's reason for not publically releasing the offending lines of code is bogus.

I call bluff. Nothing was stolen.

Debian stable users don't need to worry

[Anonymous Coward]

because they're still on kernel 2.2.22 :)

Re:Debian stable users don't need to worry

[borgdows]

you're so outdated...

I am running the latest bleeding edge 2.2.23 kernel from Debian CVS :)

Re:Debian stable users don't need to worry

[Anonymous Coward]

> you're so outdated...

> I am running the latest bleeding edge 2.2.23 kernel from Debian CVS :)

*sigh* When ARE they going to upgrade to 2.2.25...

Re:Debian stable users don't need to worry

[Anonymous Coward]

Debian stable offers 2.2.20 OR 2.4.18 (bf24) from the first cd. So yes, Debian stable users that have downloaded the first cd do need to worry.

Bickering Children

[asciimonster]

I beleive the SCO case is just like two bickering children. ("You stole my code! What code? That code! I did not! Yes you did! Wel prove it! I'm telling mommy! Well I'll tell daddy!") I think we are now in the running to mommy and daddy stage. It's the time that the stakes are risen and neighter party can emerge victorious. What is left is the question of who looses the least. Damned shame.

I as an interested outsider can do two things: laugh my ass off or argyly ignore all post concerning SCO. Since I am finding it more and more difficult to do the first I will shut up now and have me mod -1 now...

Re:Bickering Children

[wagemonkey]

That's unfair to IBM. They're behaving impeccably.
It reminds of an adult and a whiny child - the child is screaming and swinging wildly and missing, whilst the adult holds off the tantrum-throwing tot with a hand on the childs head and a puzzled expression - and the other hand reaching for the rolled up newspaper.

Or AD&D analogy:
SCO==kobold with a feather duster,
IBM==Ancient Gold Dragon with a puzzled expression thinking "Are you sure you want to do this?"

Two Words

[panda]

Class Action.

Anybody and everybody associated with GNU/Linux and other free software operating systems should jump on board.

Re:Two Words

[John Meacham]

no. A class action lawsuit would be GOOD for SCO. it means they only have to win once then no-one has the right to sue or complain again. lots of little suits would be better. no one wants to do a class action lawsuit, they are forced into doing one when a company consolodates the lawsuits against it.

No class action. sue SCO independently.

Yeah, but...

[comet_11]

I bet Debian can band together and face the challenge better than Gentoo can!

Re:Replacing the Code

[Zan Zu from Eridu]

You are not all square... you have to pay for the IP you stole. End of story.

So why is SCO treatening to sue me? I didn't steal anything, I bought a product from a distributor and at the time I did not have a probable indication of parts of the product being stolen. How am I liable for this supposed theft?

Yeah... Right.

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO and SUN are in bed together. Don't be fooled by Scott "Pass The Pipe, Bride" McNealy. He's trying to play both sides, but in his heart he's cheering for SCO because SUN really hates linux for eating into their Solaris market.

Re:Instead of just taking SCO to courrt..

[AgTiger]

> Redhat and SuSE should use some of SCO's tactics.

Absolutely not. The actions of the SCO executive are unethical, unconscionable, and at least in Germany, illegal.

Were RedHat or SuSE GMBH to comport themselves in this manner, I would be forced to take a similar dim view of them, and would no longer buy their distributions.

A very large message needs to be sent to companies everywhere: Act reasonable while providing quality products, and customers will stay with you and be loyal. Act like McBride, and go down, hard.

There should be no other outcome.

Re:Replacing the Code

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again I have to remind the slashdot crowd that replacing the offending code *now* is not sufficient to relieve you of all damages up until now.

Except, of course, that I/we/us didn't intentionally cause damage to SCO. In fact, the offer to SCO is "show us the code so that it can be removed and no further damage can be done". Is SCO going to sue itself because it distributed a 2.4 kernel? and if I received the kernel from them, am I still liable or am I protected by clause 7 of the GPL?

Removing the code in question doesn't provide SCO a revenue stream via licensing fees. Nor does it get them bought out. And it seems that a significant chunck of the code in question belongs to IBM, not SCO.

Showing the code would only yank the house of cards down on SCO's little pump-n-dump stock scheme.

Anti-SCO wallpaper

[dmaxwell]

Picture this: A Mortal-Kombat fight ring with a bloodied slack postured Daryl McBride wearing a SCO themed "gi". His opponent is the RedHat "Shadow Dude" wearing an ultra stylish Humphrey Bogart looking trench coat and mirror shined shoes. "Shadow Dude" will be depicted administering a mean looking uppercut and of course the screen will have the "Finish Him!" banner on it.

Re:Replacing the Code

[Laur]

Once again I have to remind the slashdot crowd that replacing the offending code *now* is not sufficient to relieve you of all damages up until now.

While you are correct, it is up to the courts to decide what damages to award, if any. SCO estimates the damages at 3 billion, but I'm sure a court would not agree. You see, a company must show that it tried to mitigate the damages as much as possible. Apparently, the alleged code in Linux is so damaging to SCO that they don't want it removed! Also, up until a few months ago SCO was selling Linux for money. Hard to say that Linux damaged SCO's business when they were making money off it. They also continue to distribute the code themselves to this day. Based on this utter lack of failure to mitigate any supposed damages, the damages could just be an order to remove the code. Besides, since when will Linux users have to pay damages? If anyone pays, it will be those who inserted the code, not those who used it in good faith.

Here's the price - according to VNUnet

[Anonymous Coward]

Here it is...

http://www.vnunet.com/News/1142826

Yeah give sco a call.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I called SCO enquiring about the linuxware license and was promptly told to "return to my basement" and stop wasting Mr. Snow's time for enquiring about whether or not i can send SCO a bill for Kernel code that they are distributing that i have written.

Here is the number....this is the second supervisor up the chain of command.

1.801.765.4999
Ask for Mr. Snow

Please feel free to give him a call and ask him whatever is on your mind.

Re:Wallpaper of the Penguin smashing the SCO Logo

[AKnightCowboy]

We need some logo and/or wallpaper that we can use to express our displeasure with SCO.

Nothing says fsck you to SCO better than this.

Huh? Must be much higher than that.

[eddy]

Do you mean the Microsoft "Lab" only runs a single machine?!

Ah.. I get it.. the rest is 2.2-kernels, just to make sure that no "accidents" happen during benchmark[et]ing.

Re:Replacing the Code

[unoengborg]

A little strange comparison. It's more like your boss have a strange mental disorder tha forces him to put money in other peoples pockets with a smile on his face telling them that its a gift. In all other respects he acts normally and you have no reason to believe there is something wrong with him.

After a while he gets a new wife that thinks that he is clearly sick, and his new bride accuses you of embessselment. You agree to not wearing cloths with pockets so that he can put money in. But as you had no way of knowing he was ill, you will not have to repay his money.

Re:Yes but...

[botzi]

...as long as SCO claims that IBM has introduced the code in the Linux Kernelm all claims for damages will be forwarded against Big Blue. I really think IBM know how to respond. The only problem that SCO presents for the moment is that they refuse to reveal the code and if they manage to keep the FUD going to 2005, believe me, they've won.
Once the code comes in the open, it'll be replaced fast as hell, that's clear.
The sad thing about this story for the moment is that A LOT OF PEOPLE who don't know Linux's story, or just tend to believe that there're no self-destructing companies are buying in not all ,say, half of the FUD, or at least feel disturbed. So, let's facec it. For the moment, SCO wins. And if the community(and I mean everybody having enough money to do something), does not work for a fast resolution of the problem, I won't bet on Linux continnuing it's expansion.

The *KEY* Legal Argument!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL means you have to disclose all of your code that you statically link right?

I doubt SCO's code would work with modern stuff if they didn't statically link to something in the GPL....!!!

If they used *ANY* GPL in the kernel, or in any library near the code they say is stolen, then their code is, by virtue of GPL license, in the public domain and they have to disclose it don't they???

Re:Wallpaper of the Penguin smashing the SCO Logo

[EvilTwinSkippy]

How about a new corporate logo for SCO: the Scodo. A big, clumsy, and rather extinct bird that tries to dress itself up like a penguin.

An insult on the US justice system...

[jkrise]

The fact that RedHat has to wait for months to get a possible injunction, while SCO & Co keep pumping their stocks and FUD - well.. this is a direct indictment on the way the justice system works(?) in the US.

It took all of 7 days fot LinuxTAG to shut up SCO in Germany, likewise in Poland and Australia. If SCO is yet to prove it's case, why is it possible for it to keep yelling everyday? The US justice system is too free, maybe

-

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Anonymous Coward]

> The US justice system is too free, maybe

Yep, and unfortunately that's the one that's feeding the craze.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[jd]

Bear in mind that after Red Hat's announcement, SCO's stock dropped 20%, in a matter of minutes. Methinks investers are starting to think SCO doesn't have much of a [case|brain] (delete as appropriate), either.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[_|()|\|]

The fact that RedHat has to wait for months to get a possible injunction ... is a direct indictment on the way the justice system works(?) in the US.

Red Hat could have filed for a preliminary injunction, but that would have been riskier.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[cesarcardoso]

The fact that RedHat has to wait for months to get a possible injunction, while SCO & Co keep pumping their stocks and FUD - well.. this is a direct indictment on the way the justice system works(?) in the US.

The worst part (for American citizens, that is) of all the senility of US justice system is that, on the long run, who wants to innovate, or even work? Become a professional suer and you'll be well-done for the rest of your life. Be a Canopy Group-like and you'll be rewarded on the casinos known as NYSE and NASDAQ.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[kilgortrout]

SCO was enjoined in Germany in 7 days because they refused to defend the action; basically they just rolled over. What kind of justice system do you want? One where anyone can get an injunction based on mere allegations in a complaint without the necessity of coming forward with proof and the opportunity for the otherside to offer proof in their defense?

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Anonymous Custard]

The fact that RedHat has to wait for months to get a possible injunction, while SCO & Co keep pumping their stocks and FUD - well.. this is a direct indictment on the way the justice system works(?) in the US.

Well, the Securities and Exchange Commission needs to get involved. An SEC investigation would cast a little FUD right back at SCO, though it would be much more truthful than the crap SCO's spreading around.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[DollyTheSheep]

Hmm,

Or it could be something more akin to the fact that the economy and hence corporate legal load in the US is 10 fold what there is in Poland...

seems illogical to me why isn't the U.S. legal system not 5 or 10 times powerful as well?

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[naChoZ]

I'm curious, how did they shut SCO up in Germany and the other countries? What argument did they use? Is there any worthy online reading?

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Hezaurus]

Let's face it - the US legal system is a money making machine for the lawyers and big companies. You know it and I know it, the whole world knows it.

The patent system (which you are now successfully trying to shove down to the european throat) protects big companies.

See: in europe the competition is regulated by government which most of the US citizens see as a communist way.
In the US competition is regulated by the big companies with 10k+ patents in their briefcases.
Disclaimer: I'm not living in America.. and I'm not sorry.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[gotan]

So what? SCO spread some new FUD and stock price is where it was before.

And investors don't think. The dot.com bubble proved that quite well. They just look at stock prices and read some analyst info to make their decisions, but apparently nobody of em noticed that all SCO has done recently was producing hot air and using their inflated stock prices to shift some money to the canopy group by buying some heavily indebted corporation with the same postal address as SCO.

Aparenntly it's impossible in the US to make someone personally responsible for the statements he issues or to make a corporation responsible for the statements their management issues.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Anonymous Coward]

It took all of 7 days fot LinuxTAG to shut up SCO in Germany, likewise in Poland and Australia. If SCO is yet to prove it's case, why is it possible for it to keep yelling everyday?

The LinuxTAG case was basically a putup-or-shutup complaint and SCO folded immediately. The RedHat case is much more complicated containing 7 individual complaints and SCO won't have the option of just folding.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[nEoN nOoDlE]

The US justice system is too free, maybe

Yeah, you're right... what the US needs is a good dictator.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[oni]

It took all of 7 days fot LinuxTAG to shut up SCO in Germany, likewise in Poland and Australia.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe SCO did not defend itself in Europe or Australia so the courts there issued summary judgement.

Why didn't SCO defend itself? Because in thier estimate of the situation, the concluded that the outcome wasn't going to affect thier stock price back in the US. Had they defended themselves, it would have taken months to get an injunction in Germany just like it's taking months in the US.

So, this is not "an insult on the US justice system" so much as it is an insite into the strategy of SCO. This is just more evidence that they are doing a pump and dump.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Anonymous Coward]

The SEC will wait for the case to be maximally "worthwhile". They won't act until they can "recover" the most money out of SCO.

Unfortunately, the legal recovery for the Feds. roughly amounts to the "ill gotten gains" of SCO. So, SCO's first got to steal the most it can, then the Government will step in to "punish" them by taking the money -- and, as always, keeping it for itself.

Remember children, The US Federal Government is NOT your friend. Don't make that mistake.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Malcontent]

No they need a better one then they have now.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[poot_rootbeer]

If SCO is yet to prove it's case, why is it possible for it to keep yelling everyday?

The First Amendment, obviously.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[alexborges]

Yeah, you're right... what the US needs is a good dictator.


She already has one.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Silvertre]

Yeah, you're right... what the US needs is a good dictator.

Perhaps we could get Sadam, I heard he is looking for a new country.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Calibax]

Yeah, you're right... what the US needs is a good dictator.

Ummm, what's wrong with the ones we have? Dick Chaney (operating a presidential puppet successfully since 2000), John Ashcroft, et al.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Anonymous Coward]

Got one, he came to power just after the overthrow of the old regime and the end of democracy in 2000. Remember when president Gore was deposed?

Just need a better one, that's all.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[benploni]

Shut the fuck up, you ignoramus. The First Amendment does not cover commercial speech. The least you could have done was preface it with IANAL.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[canajin56]

Aparenntly it's impossible in the US to make someone personally responsible for the statements he issues or to make a corporation responsible for the statements their management issues.

The people can't be charged with anything since the corporation did it, not the person. I mean the person actually DID say it, but that's just pedantics, according to law.

The corporation, on the other hand, CAN be, but those laws have been challanged as unconstitutional, since they gag the corporation (Who is a person), which violates its right to free speech.

What COULD happen, though, is that AFTER the stock price collapses, the shareholders can sue the execs, IF they can prove that they KNEW they were BSing, and that their actions were not in the best interest of the corporation's profits.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[zakkie]

As opposed to the bad dictator they have currently? ;-)

Ciao

Zak

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[podperson]

Yeah, you're right... what the US needs is a good dictator.

I don't seem to recall "the right to sue MacDonalds because they serve hot coffee" being enshrined in the bill of rights. Somehow Australia seems pretty free and yet its -- glacially slow -- legal system seems a little nimbler than the US system on this.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[JimFromJersey]

No, RedHat wanted to make sure that it had all of their ducks in a row. Now I realize that all the SlashLawyers knew instantly and absolutely that SCO had no legal grounds; however, in the real world you make sure you have a solid as possible case before you make your first move. My guess is that there were (in)formal meetigns between the legal teams of IBM and RedHat (and possibly others) to form a loose strategy. Not that IBM would share all that they know, I have little doubt that their legal team keeps an ace or two up their sleeve as standard practice.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Hentai]

It's ok to lie if it's about war.

As opposed to, say, getting a blowjob?

Think about it this way: What's easier to get on prime-time television, a scene of a woman getting punched or a scene of a woman bearing her breasts? A scene of full-penetration sex or a scene where someone dies violently?

Which is our culture more afraid of - sex or violence? Feeling good or making others feel bad?

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you're right... what the US needs is a good dictator.

Yeah, then the French would like us. They haven't met a dictator they didn't like!

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[trashme]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe SCO did not defend itself in Europe or Australia so the courts there issued summary judgement.

Why didn't SCO defend itself? Because in thier estimate of the situation, the concluded that the outcome wasn't going to affect thier stock price back in the US

Plus, they knew they could still spout FUD in the US, which could be translated/read by people in Germany and Australia.

You are right. Stopping the FUD really hurts them here, so they are going to fight it.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[iabervon]

I suspect that most SCO investors are short-term investors. They don't care if SCO has a case or not, because their goal is to hold SCO stock while it goes up. Chances are that SCO stock will drop a lot when SCO is about to need to prove something. Until then, the market is betting that SCO will release good FUD soon, enabling people to profit off the fluctuations.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. A freely elected president who will either win his last 4 year term or be voted out of office isn't much of a dictator.

Of course we could have had a real dictator a couple of years ago. There were more than a few people on the left who wanted President Clinton to nullify the election and remain in office. (Even FDR's support was limited to being reelected, albeit 4 times.) Oddly it doesn't occur to them what that would mean for our Constitutional form of government, odd though it may be at times. (For example, the Electoral College)

President for life William Jefferson Clinton.

Oh, my aching constitution.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[paule9984673]

For Germany it was "unfair business practices". Trying to gain business advantages by badmouthing your competitor falls under this. SCO Germany could have easily defended themselves by providing proof to their claims, which they chose not to do.

The system isn't flawless, though. In Germany often non-commercial web sites are hit by those injunctions because of minimal failures in complying with regulations concerning identification of the web site's publisher (There are endless detailed laws describing what you have to provide for publisher identification in Germany. This includes among tons of stuff email address and phone number as well as tax-number).

In Germany lawyers can make a living issueing "warnings" about these non-compliances to web masters and charging their expenses to those warned. These "expenses" typically include "several hours" of research at typical lawyers rates.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[JourneymanMereel]

But if SCO's statements turn out to be false, then couldn't all (or at least most) of their current statements be considered slanderous? I'm pretty sure slander is against the law and not cosidered protected under free speach as the slanderer is violating the rights of the slanderee.

I think.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[JourneymanMereel]

+5 Insightful? Please. Funny, maybe, but I think not (completely overdone and not that funny to begin with). Certainly not insightful.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had mod points you would get +1.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Big Smirk]

Its O.K. to lie under oath as well, Remember Clintion got off.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Lobo93]

"Pain looks great on other people
That's what they're for"
-Sisters of Mercy "I was wrong"

"Sweet dreams are made of this
Who am I to disagree?
Travel the world and the seven seas
Everybody's looking for something
Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused"
-Eurythmics "Sweet Dreams"

'Nuff said...

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Anonymous Coward]

Too sold out is more like it.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Anonymous Coward]

We have one, G.W. Bush and the USA PATRIOT Act.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Anonymous Coward]

like they don't already have one?

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[Malcontent]

"As opposed to, say, getting a blowjob?"

Yes. Basically if you lie about where you stuck your cock you get impeached. If you lie about taking the nation to war then It's cool.

Re:An insult on the US justice system...

[dossen]

If you are a corporation with the resources that SCO has (I'm not saying that they are big, but they are not without resources) it seems IMHO to be a reasonable minimum requirement to actually try to defend one self, in order to not have a ruling against you. How does it work in the US if you don't defend yourself? If that tactic works, maybe the fileswappers should try it ;-)

SCO

[Kris2k]

I feel soo bad, considering that I just ordered about 2K of licensing upgrades from a SCO distributor for a client yesterday. :(

If it wasn't for a proprietary set of apps, Linux + SCO bin emu was looking very good. I even had a chance to test this scenario, but encountered some serious issues.

This just proves that, like any other commercial OS, if a company adopts a commercial OS, and their production apps are taylored to that environment, the companies are just locked-in, wether they like it or not.

WWF!

[Noryungi]

Is it me, or is this SCO thing looking more and more like a bad parody of a wrestling match??!!

"And, in the left corner, Red Hat is entering the ring, with his trademarked legal fund spandex and red fedora! SuSE is standing by, ready to lend a helping hand to his wrestling partner, while SCO's partner-in-crime, Microsoft is screaming 'HURT HIM!, HURT HIM!' to Darl McBride... But wait! Oh my Gosh! Red Hat has started a double-nuclear-powered screwdriver on both Darl McBride legs!! Wait!! Microsoft is trying to bite Red Hat butt while being severely pounded by 'Mein licenz ist GPL' SuSE!! It's a four way fight, people!"

Aaaaah... Saturday night wrestling... (lick lips in anticipation)...

Let's just hope that the good guys win! 10 to 1 on the little guy with the red hat! ;-)

Lionel Hutz. maybe?

[zonix]

I don't know when the last time I've heard a lawyer use "jerkheads" was, but it was probably a long time ago, if ever ;)

I bet Lionel Hutz must have said that once before. :-)

z

Re:Replacing the Code

[JCCyC]

The kernel developers inserted the (alleged) offending code in good faith, not knowing it was somebody else's. You don't embezzle from your company in good faith. Now be honest and tell your bosses at SCO your FUD didn't work.

And they'll all be missing the big picture...

[Anonymous Coward]

A few months from now, while people are cheering the Red Hat win, SCO executives will be quietly slipping out the backdoor with a pocket full of short sells.

A few years from now, they'll be studying this facade in the Pump-n-Dump section of Stocks 101.

A few decades from now, the executives will be on the beach sipping martinis.

Re:SCO

[bersl2]

What happened to the last $9?

SCO US-biased ?

[lovebyte]

After having been told to shut up in Germany, I wonder if SCO is concentrating all its lawyers/money in a US-battle.
Has anyone in Europe heard anything from SCO?

Re:SCO US-biased ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a peep. None of the European websites of SCO even mentions the case against IBM, let alone the Linux license scam.

Probably because they have gotten and will get their ass sued and kicked in the European justice system(s).

In other news: EU gives 'last chance' to Microsoft

Re:SCO

[ninthwave]

SCO Announces Intellectual Property License for Linux
Tuesday August 5, 12:43 pm ET
SCO Provides Commercial Linux Users With Run-Time, Binary License to Run SCO's Intellectual Property in Linux

# LINDON, Utah, Aug. 5 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), the owner and licensor of the core UNIX(R) operating system source code, today announced the availability of the SCO Intellectual Property License for Linux(R). The run-time license permits the use of SCO's intellectual property, in binary form only, as contained in Linux distributions. By purchasing a SCO Intellectual Property License, customers avoid infringement of SCO's intellectual property rights in Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.5 kernels. Because the SCO license authorizes run-time use only, customers also comply with the General Public License, under which Linux is distributed.(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990421/SCOLO GO )

from Yahoo biz release

Now the article continue that it is a run time only license to comply with the GPL which is why I requested for comments on is this stretching the GPL asking to use the kernel in binary form only and not giving the option to remove offending code. Basically hijacking the kernel.

Any ideas what for?

[eddy]

I mean.. what's there for SCO to counter-sue for? Remember, the do not want to have to display code in court, so they can't very well turn around and sue for the very thing RedHat disputing, namely infringement.

Or maybe they could, but to a layman that doesn't make any sense. Maybe good for one final pump of the stock though, so I guess there's some logic to that line of thought... yeah, we'll probably see a counter-suit in order for the insiders to pump the stock for another round of sell, sell, sell.

I can't see any registered sales for a while now. I wonder if maybe they know the earnings report is so very depressing that no insider dares to sell this close to it. Might look suspicious to sell just before announcing ten figure income and large overall losses... nah, they don't care -- The SEC is toothless.

Re:Any ideas what for?

[Cipster]

Well when you are in the "Sue the hell out of everyone" mode SCO finds itself in, solid reasons for litigious behavior are irrelevant.

By the way...

[tsa]

I would not want to be represented by a lawyer who uses terms like 'jerkheads' or 'a**h****' without first stating the facts. This guy is VERY unprofessional.

Re:By the way...

[iapetus]

Clue: read from the bottom up (ie. in the order things were posted). Seems to me he does a pretty good job of stating the facts before springing out terms like 'jerkheads'.

Re:By the way...

[tsa]

He had those terms on his website in the intro to the article. It put me off reading the rest of it. Did you click the link I provided?

Re:By the way...

[iapetus]

No, I read through it in detail before even looking at the comments, so I saw little things you might have missed. Like the fact that the 'intro' was posted at 4:30PM, and the meaty analysis of the merits and flaws of the RedHat case was posted at 9:30AM. Hence my suggestion that you read from the bottom up, in the order that the information was posted.

Re:By the way...

[tsa]

Ah, now I understand! I thought it was just one article on his website. Thanks for enlightening me! I'm going to read the rest now.

Re:By the way...

[SillySlashdotName]

Redunancy alert!

I have posted this before, posting it again!

I the top frame, besure to note the "Submit Your Article for Publication" link!

The articles WERE NOT NECESSARILY WRITTEN BY A LAWYER, even though they are posted on his site. There is nothing I saw in the article that stated it WAS written by a legal expert (or even a lawyer :> ) and the vernacular used suggests it was NOT written by a lawyer.

My version of a clue-by-four...

Linus

[rhadamanthus]

What I want to know is: "Why has Linus neither revoked SCO's ability to use the Linux trademark or told everyone what code has the possibility of being "corrupt"?

--rhad

Re:Linus

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Linus strongly believes in remaining neutral. Once he starts playing games with revoking trademarks, he will find himself in the middle of everyone's legal battle. He is taking the higher ground of ignoring injury in the name of peace. You never know when an ally will be an enemy in the future, or an enemy an ally.

As far as the corrupt code, you would first have to accept that any exists at all. The Linux community has no motivation to steal SCO's property. Code is continually maintained and revised, so either the code has been in there for so long it's unrecognizable, or so new that the window between it actually making it into the kernel and the start of the lawsuit is small.

And SCO has thusfar failed to mitigate damages by revealing what the infringing code is. Anyone that is subject to this lawsuit can, and will, argue that any damages since the start of SCO's suit are on SCO.

So you can cease to worry about damages after the start of the suit. You can also cease to worry about damages BEFORE the start of the suit. Up until a few months ago, SCO was actively selling Linux, and in accordance with the GPL, granting an unrestricted license to all patents and copyrights.

Re:Linus

[gl4ss]

just a remark, they still offer various kernel srpm's on their ftp site..

scrap! scrap! scrap!

[freedommatters]

look out, here comes the teacher

Re:Replacing the Code

[theLOUDroom]

Once again I have to remind the slashdot crowd that replacing the offending code *now* is not sufficient to relieve you of all damages up until now. That would be like me embezelling money from my company every day, and when they catch me, I can just say "okay I will stop doing it now, so we are all square".

How exactly is this insightful?

His analogy is way off base. He compares knowingly comitting theft, to unknowingly using code that was distributed in breach of contract.

You are not all square... you have to pay for the IP you stole. End of story.

Doesn't this line along give away the post as a troll? There's no end of story. Even if SCO wins the case against IBM, there's nothing saying the will be able to collect damages from anyone else, especially since they have refused to disclose the infringing code. (They were knowingly adding to the damages through their own actions.) Heck, despite what SCO says, it seems the only suit they have filed is about their contract with IBM. Even if IBM did break this contract, it doesn't mean CO owns the copyright to the code.

Re:Replacing the Code

[xyote]

IANAL, but I beleive the damages don't start until specific notification of infringment is made, and that hasn't been done. SCO can't start the meter running on damages until it explicitly identifies what code it believes is infringing on its IP. Since there is no benefit to SCO to not identify the code in question right away, it calls into serious question the validity of their claims.

What did SCO do to mitigate their damages!?

[Idou]

"you have to pay for the IP you stole"

Uh, oKAY . . . WHAT IP!? I'm sorry, I don't know where you are coming from or who is paying for you to post this tripe, but SCO has not even made it clear what IP they are talking about (and when they did, they later admitted that it wasn't theirs).

And how was SCO's IP "stolen." They were releasing it THEMSELVES as GPL code. And folks, the GPL does NOT address the "contribution of code" but the "distribution of code." If it addressed the former it would be called "contributetype" not "copyright."

Looks like SCO has been passing around whatever it is they have been smoking. . .

Friends get a discount.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is an old friend of SCO, special price for them you see.

SCO might have to license Unix from IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is an interesting quote from an attorney quote from an attorney that could mean trouble for SCO. "If IBM owns patents that cover the functions served by the disputed code, then IBM is in the driver's seat. It is relatively easy to code around copyrighted software. Patent protection is much more of a challenge. In that case, SCO might have a hard time selling UNIX without a license from IBM."

Re:SCO might have to license Unix from IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

This lawyer interview explains a lot of legal questions. I like this one about how there is a side letter where AT&T says that IBM owns all the code that it wrote. Suck on that McBride! You can't steal code you did not write!!!! Is that lawyer Brent Hatch they talk to at the end of the article where they have that court docket thing any relation to Senator Orin Hatch?

Any relation to Darlene McBride

[bodland]

That famous country music star....

Re:Any relation to Darlene McBride

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Martina McBride?

Re:Replacing the Code

[hacker]

Once again I have to remind the slashdot crowd that replacing the offending code *now* is not sufficient to relieve you of all damages up until now.

Except that SCO themselves claims that they knew back in 2001 that their IP was allegedly in the Linux source tree. Why did they wait 2 more years? So more people could use, buy, adopt, and adapt "their" code, which means more people to extort this bogus licensing from. Sorry, that sword cuts both ways.

That would be like me embezelling money from my company every day, and when they catch me, I can just say "okay I will stop doing it now, so we are all square".

No, that would be like the law letting a rapist rape 20 women, instead of 1, so they can nail him on 20 counts of rape, instead of 1.

You are not all square... you have to pay for the IP you stole. End of story.

End of your story, yes, however, reality goes on. The real story is that the GPL is not a EULA. If there was infringing code or IP in the code I was given, which was transferred with the GPL, and no other exclusions or contracts that CLEARLY state that there is IP in the code I've received, I am not guilty of copyright infringement. Got that? Repeat it slowly.

Also, if IBM writes code on their own, which works with the SysV source tree that they bought a license to from SCO, IBM owns the copyright to that code that IBM created, NOT SCO. You can't claim copyright on someone else's copyrighted code. That's not how the law works.

In any case, I do not owe SCO anything for my dozens of Linux boxes, nor does any other Linux user, company, or business using, deploying, distributing, modifying, or selling Linux. Period.

..or should I say, "End of story."

Re:SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone have a copy of an SCO OpenServer evaluatoin?

We need to check that thing thoroughly for compliance with the GPL. If they ship binary only, do binary comparisons with binary only releases of typical kernels.

All we need to do is show they have GPL'ed code in their kernel in they have to release their kernel.

Turn the tables on the greed mongering Microsoft funded pigs at SCO and BURY THEM!!

This is SLEAZE business beyond anything I've seen in years.

NO MORE MR. NICE GUY GANG! TEAR THEM TO PIECES!

Re:Replacing the Code

[darkov]

You are not all square... you have to pay for the IP you stole. End of story.

Fuck, it's Darl McBride, posting on Slashdot!

Petition to SEC, DOJ, FTC, state AG's

[Worf0]

This might not be allowed so I might get flamed to hell and back but oh well. I started a petition aimed at the SEC, FTC, DOJ, and state AG's to hopefully prompt investigations into SCOX and the Canopy Group. Its at petitiononline.com, newly posted so not searcheable yet but direct link is www.petitiononline.com/notwosco/petition.html

I apologize if linking is frowned upon, I dont get time to read slashdot very often.

Re:Petition to SEC, DOJ, FTC, state AG's

[cranos]

NOt only is linking not frowned upon it is actually viewed as a kind of blood sport. The aim is to find the most obsucre web site, running off the crappiest hardware around and then link to it from /.

Then you just sit back and watch it turn into slag.

Slashdot category...

[Urkki]

"What no one has really touched upon is that the SCO vs. IBM court date is in April 2005, which could mean that the resolution of this case could be somewhere in 2006-2007"

This thing is here to stay. We really do need a separate slashdot category for SCO stuff...

Re:Slashdot category...

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Though at the rate they are burning cash on lawyers, one has to wonder if SCO the company is going to last that long.

Re:Slashdot category...

[geeklawyer]

"...Though at the rate they are burning cash on lawyers, one has to wonder if SCO the company is going to last that long..."
They have enough money for a few lawsuits. In any event if they run out of cash they will offer sell more licences to Microsoft who will buy as many licences as needed to finance the actions.

Re:Slashdot category...

[Ashtead]

Some of these latest emissions from the SCO begs the question of whether they have any lawyers there at all. If so, they do not appear to be very effective, or they would have been able to stop the latest racketeering attempts.

Re:Replacing the Code

[Anonymous Coward]

...utter lack of failure to mitigate...

Aaaahh!! Triple-negative! Does not compute!

Echoes of movie "The Three Amigos"

[ansak]

In the SCO press release:

In the release, SCO insists that it is not trying to spread "fear, uncertainty and doubt" (commonly known in the industry as FUD) to users. Instead, the company asserts, "we have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX."

Why is it I hear echoes of:

"You will die like dogs!"
"No! But we will fight like lions!"

Mr. McBride even bears a striking resemblance to Chevy Chase. Oh, indeed, truth is much stranger than fiction.

Re:Replacing the Code

[joepa]

The embezzling of money is simply disanalogous. If there is SCO IP in the Linux kernel, does that automatically mean that SCO's Unix business was hurt as a result (did they lose any money)? There is no way to prove this, unless, of course, there was no IP theft. IMHO, however, the main point behind the replacing of code is, Linux can stand-up on its own, regardless. With sufficient motivation, kernel hackers could easily implement the offending sections of code (if there are, in fact, offenses), and all involved parties (IBM, SCO, RH, SuSe, etc.) could go on with their businesses. This is simply an attempt by SCO to save a sinking ship, that being their "flawed business model" (to use McBride's words), by full-out attacking a "business model" that is the antithesis -- and far superior -- to their own.

All we need now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is a government regulator to get involved. Then we can watch the multijursdictional mees sort itself out. Personally, I hope the SEC begins an investigation of SCO's CEOs.

I hope someone is going to write a book about this. I know that it will make some interesting reading.

Re:All we need now...

[borgdows]

yup

I already see the cover : "The SCO fiasco behind the scene" co-written by two prisonners named Bill Gates and DarlMac Bride !

Quick trial possibilities

[lemmen]

I was wondering if there would be a way to stop SCO with spreading any news for now? Fact is that all this news mighr freighten big companies and some might even pay...

In Holland you can go to to the court for a quick trial (in Dutch Kort geding) to prevent actions by companies on short notice.

If anyone knows a way to stop SCO (or slow down), please post it here. 'Linux users, unite'.

You noticed the 'may'??

[jkrise]

The article only says SCO may countersue, and that's enuff for Slashdot to give them attention! It's an insult to the justice system when a firm can file a suit and talk any nonsense it chooses - the only recourse to stop the fallout on aggrieved parties is for them to countersue!

Why can't SCO be made to shut up until after their IBM case is decided?? Looks like a classic case of Emperor's New Clothes, and 'Who Will Bell the Cat?'

-

Re:Replacing the Code

[Laur]

D'oh!

Re:Wow

[jkrise]

Why don't they just call this site

Slashdot: News about SCO and Microsoft

They can't. 'Cos this isn't news, it's just conjecture. SCO's only saying they 'may' sue RedHat, and that's passed of as news! Well, I may takeover SCO . Let's see if this gets reported at Slashdot :^)

-

Re:Replacing the Code

[deblau]

Dear Mr. Anonymous Coward:
You stole my software. You know, when you got that all-in-one utilities disk for Windows free from that guy on the corner. No, I'm not going to tell you which app I wrote. Pay me $699 for each copy of Windows you own.

Love,
Non-anonymous, non-coward

P.S. Baseless accusations of IP infringement remain baseless until someone comes forward with proof, one way or the other. When the accuser is unwilling to do so, they deserve all the attention they get, which should be precisely zero. If and when SCO start naming files and line numbers, then let's discuss damages.

Come on, McBride...

[ThyTurkeyIsDone]

... get an account like everyone else. Sheesh.

I'm starting to feel like I'm part of all this...

[Osrin]

... I have a strong desire to sue SCO, SuSE, Red Hat and anybody else for wasting my precious /. reading time with endless pointless stories.

What about UnitedLinux?

[motown]

What I don't understand is why SuSe and TurboLinux haven't kicked SCO out of the UnitedLinux consortium right now.

SCO has been continuously intimidating, threatening and insulting them, as well as Linux in general.

What's the point in keeping SCO a member of something Linux-related? Why do SuSe and TurboLinux continue associating themselves with those scumbags?

Re:What about UnitedLinux?

[AKnightCowboy]

What I don't understand is why SuSe and TurboLinux haven't kicked SCO out of the UnitedLinux consortium right now.

Probably because they forgot it existed. Does anyone actually use United Linux's distribution?

Re:What about UnitedLinux?

[motown]

The popularity of UnitedLinux is not an issue.

It's a joint initiative of several companies, and as such, these companies associate themselves with one another through this alliance. Given SCO's practices over the last few months, they should sever all ties with this company, period.

Re:What about UnitedLinux?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Just say no to zionism"

Why would anyone pay attention you your pro islamic terrorist ass with a sig like that. Oh I forgot it's cool to be a jew hater if you are a Liberal now. Democrats and liberals love terrorist baby killers with nail bombs straped to their bodies.
You fucking puke I wish I knew where you lived so I could bring you a NAZI flag to fly over your house. Liberals love baby killing islamist terrorists.

Oops

[motown]

I forgot Conectiva, of course. But surely they too must be fed up with SCO's actions and behaviour by now?

Kick SCO out, already!

Re:Oops

[Anonymous Coward]

"Just say no to zionism"

Mod this islamic terrorist loving ahole down.

my bad luck for being wrong

[DrSkwid]

nt

Wrong

[leonbrooks]

The reason is that The SCO Group want to extort money from people and also drive up their share price. Note that a lot of the upper crust in there have been dumping their shares already, so at least they think the farce is nearly over. The share price has stopped rising for now, and even took a big hit on Monday ($13 -> $11 in two hours).

Linus replacing the code would not have any impact on TSG's damages claim, even if they had one.

Let's make a stupid presumption and say that TSG's code claims are all 100% straight-up correct. Because they have not showed the code, the people they are threatening to sue cannot determine whether they are using it or not. The law requires them to be able to. This has axed any and all damages claims that TSG may have had. TSG is able to claim zero dollars in damages right now because they've massively contributed to the damage by their own acts.

It would also take a very unreasonable judge to disallow you time to bring your systems into compliance, and as you said, Linus and his troops would replace it so fast that TSG wouldn't even have time to print out the legal documents requiring them to stop using UnixWare-derived code, let alone serve those papers. Some of the bits would head out over the wire only half-compressed.

A Pyrric victory indeed for TSG. So instead they try extortion - and I think the wheels are about to come off that caper as well.

Re:Wrong

[lazytiger]

I keep thinking about the fact that this trial doesn't even start until April 2005... what are the chances that the offending code won't already have been leaked and fixed by then? What ramifications will that have in the trial?

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you click on the insider link. The v.p. has been selling shares pretty consistently lately. Probably will be all cahsed out at the end of the month. Wonder how confidence he is about the stock price.

Non-existent effort from SCO to minimize damage

[Anonymous Froward]

As far as you're using the word "you" as a synonym for IBM, you're right. However, we have to remember that SCO has done nothing to minimize the damage.

If you say "hey, you're doing something nasty and that's causing me 5000$ damage per hour", my guess is that your best interest is first in stopping me and then in recovering damage (by suing me or whatever). You should be willing to tell me what's the offending action of mine so that I can stop that easily (whatever it is) to minimize the damage. After that, you can still sue me to collect the damage.

Instead, SCO is just sitting there, watching the damage to increase automatically, while on the other hand threatening people with pay-or-sue kind of words. I guess that's the tactics of SCO to make that gazillion USD number seem a bit more credible in court.

If there's some real damage, they have to at least try to minimize it. It's not that they have never had any opportunity!

Re:Non-existent effort from SCO to minimize damage

[DavidTC]

Instead, SCO is just sitting there, watching the damage to increase automatically, while on the other hand threatening people with pay-or-sue kind of words.

You are mostly correct, but not here. The damages do not increase in any way until people have actually been notified of the infringment, and even given a chance to fix it.

So, basically, if what SCO was claiming is true was true, they are acting completely incompetently. If it was true that Linux infringed, and couldn't be easily fixed, it's in their best interests to notify everyone of the actual infringing code, and then take them to court if they didn't fix it.

The court absolutely will not allow a company to 'rack up' damages by refusing to stop someone else from harming it, period. Until SCO produces the code, absolutely no one can possible be liable for their failure to stop using the code.

And even after that, they get a reasonable amount of time to fix it. Distros would have to stop selling the code, or distributing it, and then issue an offical recall to replace the code as soon as they rewrite it.

Note that's all seperate from damages SCO would theortically be due because of you using the code in the first place...but everyone's already (in theory) liable for that, and there's nothing anyone can do to fix it.

Interesting thing..

[epiphani]

Who has the most to gain from SCO winning this lawsuit? Certainly not SCO, because they arent going to get money from Linux development. Not microsoft, because linux will not die.

Sure, SCO will get the money from the lawsuit itself, but nothing beyond that.

Sun.

Think about it. If major corporations are forced to switch away from linux, Solaris is the next viable product. SCO is not only a bad product, but they've sucessfully put the last nail in their own coffin with this lawsuit. They pissed off the majority of the industry.

Microsoft wouldnt take the market, because all the applications and development are designed around linux/unix environments.

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of what Sun is doing, but they're probably waiting with baited breath to see the outcome of this.

Re:Interesting thing..

[ryanvm]

If major corporations are forced to switch away from linux, Solaris is the next viable product.

I don't think so. Solaris is a little more expensive than what most Linux users are used to paying. You really can't think of any other free, UNIX-like operating systems with a proven technical track record? I'll give you a hint - their names end in BSD.

Sure Sun may be the most viable commercial product, but I think you'd see the *BSDs picking up a lot more users than Solaris would.

Of course, the truth is that most Linux users would probably just continue to do so. So they have to download it from offshore - big deal. It's not like the BSA could touch them (no filthy EULA to empower them). They'd have to be tracked down and prosecuted by regular law enforcement for copyright violation. Good luck with that one, SCO.

Re:Interesting thing..

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of what Sun is doing, but they're probably waiting with baited breath to see the outcome of this.

do you like smelling people's breath? the idea of smelling nasty lung air is nausiating me.

Re:Interesting thing..

[Darth Yoshi]

Sure, SCO will get the money from the lawsuit itself, but nothing beyond that.

Sun.

My opinion is (and, hey, I post on Slashdot so I've gotta have an opinion) it isn't about SCO or Unix at all. It's about some opportunist executives sucking the last life out of a dying company.

I think the original plan was to sue IBM, have IBM buy SCO, exercise their stock options, open their golden parachutes and bail out.

When that plan failed, their backup plan was to pump-up their stock prices using exaggerated claims about the value of their Unix intellectual property rights while quietly exercising their stock options and selling off their stock in the background (I hope the SEC is looking into this).

I think that as soon as they've sold off all of their personally held stock, the executives will open their golden parachutes together and bail out and SCO (and their lawsuit) will die shortly thereafter.

I hope Boies was smart enough to get paid in advance.

Re:Interesting thing..

[aastanna]

Sure, SCO will get the money from the lawsuit itself, but nothing beyond that.

Well, they're trying to charge $699 per processor, maybe somone will bite.

[long rant]
What really blows my mind is that if SCO won everything, and suddenly Linux and BSD were liable for copyright infringement, otherwise free software would now cost $1399 dollars per processor, or whatever arbitrarily high number they dream up, all for the use of RCU and whatever else IBM invented and put in AIX.

Now, what would happen then? Certainly they wouldn't be able to charge that much for other people's work on an ongoing basis, simply because they couldn't distribute a copyright infringing linux for $1399 without violating the GPL. In the end, even if everything goes their way, they end up with a bunch of cash but no possibilities for income. Charging that much for Linux seems to be a misappropriation of countless man-hours of work on the part of the free software community.

I suppose the real worst case would be SCO wins and the GPL is declared invalid...and frankly that's they only way I see any long term viability for SCO. I have to admit, it would be entertaining seeing geeks rioting in the streets all across the world...I can think some people in linux user groups who probably would.

It's strange that with the political clout I'm sure IBM has, that they couldn't have arranged to rush this thing to court, or that the government hasn't pressed charges what sounds more and more every day like extortion and blackmail....heh, maybe the longer they wait the more stupid things SCO will say, better case against them.
[/long rant]

Re:Interesting thing..

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude.

This has been obvious for a long time: if Bill Gates is Hitler, Scott McNealy is Stalin.

Either that, or he's Charlie Chaplin as Hitler. Sun thru Scott McNealy badmouths open-source while benefiting from it. At least Microsoft is consistent...

Re:Interesting thing..

[poot_rootbeer]

Think about it. If major corporations are forced to switch away from linux, Solaris is the next viable product.

What about *BSD?

Oh, that's right, I think I heard something somewhere about it being dead...

Re:Interesting thing..

[http]

Hoping nice things upon lawyers?? Have you read the RFC?

Re:Interesting thing..

[debrain]

I hope Boies was smart enough to get paid in advance.

Boies is working pro bono, meaning he isn't getting paid for his legal services, only for his expenses.

I can't say I understand this, short of his firm not understanding, or being deceived about, the merit of their case, or being substantially coerced from another party. (ie. kickbacks or guarantees for another case)

Re:Interesting thing..

[s390]

No way David Boies is doing this pro bono. It's a commercial dispute (or a set of related commercial disputes), and lawyers - especially well-known trial lawyers - don't take those on for fun and good publicity.

We don't know what Boies law firm is charging SCO, as that's between them. I'd doubt they're working on full contingency, but they might have cut their rates in exchange for a percentage of any future recovery from IBM.

But Boies is out of his field here. He's an antitrust lawyer (he defended IBM for 10 years, then prosecuted US vs Microsoft). It's possible SCO hired him because he knows IBM's lawyers, and SCO might have thought he could smooth a buyout by IBM. Well, that obviously didn't work out, but now Boies is stuck with his sleazy client, SCO.

But he's not an intellectual property lawyer, so he's at some risk of focusing on irrelevancies and paying insufficient attention to what's really important. Just for example... business correspondence (including email), statements in business meetings, and patterns of conduct are important in antitrust law, because they show intent and acts to further anticompetitive practices. But such factors mean little in intellectual property cases, where the emphasis is on concrete facts. So Boies might screw up here, if he has to actually go to trial. He could be as badly mismatched to the contest as a swordsman at a gunfight.

Re:Interesting thing..

[anantherous coward]

Your are no doubt correct about Linux users migrating to a *BSD instead of Sun, but Sun is still the beneficiary in the SCO case.

Why?

It is a defensive move. With its widening support and growing popularity, Linux is an attractive alternative to commercial unices -- more so than the *BSDs. Sun in particular is vulnerable. Anything that slows the spread of Linux will help Sun retain its current customer base.

Re:Interesting thing..

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL can't be declared invalid without having signifigant repurcussions for the rest of copyright law.

The GPL simply grants extra rights beyond copyright, in exchange for conforming to it's requirements.

If that's invalid, then EULAs (which restrict far beyond what copyright restricts) are out the window as well.

Few people have an interest in that.

Re:Interesting thing..

[Anonymous Coward]

That's 'bated' breath, not 'baited' breath.

Perhaps their systems are running on UnixWare?

[leonbrooks]

Er, is that the rattle and hum of SEC servers mainlining OpenBSD packages I hear...? (-:

I wanna pay to SCO

[Delifisek]

Where is my good old AK-47

I hate SCO

[vesamies]

The SCO people are so evil. The should tell where that verbatim stuff is so it can be removed. I guess this happens when corporations are making money...

Re:I hate SCO

[digitalhermit]

I guess this happens when corporations are making money...

Nope, it happens when someone's not making money in the marketplace. So they go to the courts to legislate some money making.

A nit pick:

[Anonymous Coward]

The real "SCO" no longer exists. They became the Tarantella Group.

What is currently called "SCO" is really the Canopy Group.

This deserves attention as these people deserve to be exposed, and not hide behind a familiar name. Canopy has tried what they are attempting with Linux before.

(And to any bozos who still insist on raking Ransom Love over the coals...he is long gone, and has nothing to do with the current SCO.)

Re:Replacing the Code

[Anonymous Coward]

oh, course! this is "The Real Bit" from the zdnet forums posting as Anonymous Coward. Come on Bittie, admit it! It's you isn't it?

Re:Replacing the Code

[grog]

Once again I have to remind the slashdot crowd that replacing the offending code *now* is not sufficient to relieve you of all damages up until now.

I agree with what you say to some degree. Removing code now does not relieve someone from damages in the past. However, because this is true, there is no reason for SCO not to release details about the infringement. In fact, if they were really concerned about removing the IP infringement that they claim exists, they should be happy to provide details so that they are no longer being harmed.

They obviously do not want to do this since they can claim they are still being harmed. This increases the amount of damage they can claim in lawsuits as well as giving them an excuse to sell licenses.

Kiss Microsoft goodbye!

[leonbrooks]

you have to pay for the IP you stole

No wonder D'ohl wouldn't write out Microsoft as a future target of litigation. If Microsoft had to pay for all of the IP they stole, they'd implode. But first, they'd need wider cheque-books to handle the extra zeros.

The flaws in the AC's reasoning are (1) we don't steal, only share our own work between ourselves; and (2) The SCO Group have released the code under the GPL (and if not, then by their own reasoning no Linux users are liable for TSG's claimed IP); and (3) Caldera contributed code to the Linux kernel in the contested areas; and (4) Ransom Love publicly stated on several occasions that Caldera would be contributing code to Linux; and (5) TSG have contributed to their own damage, annhilating the value in any claims.

In short, if your comment gets a positive moderation it should be for humour.

Linux is Dead

[nt2UNIX]

Keep those headlines coming SCO. I'm on a roll.

Long live BSD!!!!!!!

hedging one's bets

[DdJ]

So, let's see. The case may not ultimately be decided until 2006 or later.

The case applies to kernel version 2.4 or later. If you're using 2.2, you're okay. Right?

In order to hedge one's bets, maybe a distinct fork of 2.2 is called for? If we want to be utterly over-the-top paranoid, we need to make sure that if we're called upon to roll back to 2.2, we can do that, even four years from now. Which means we need to make sure device drivers written for new hardware up until then can be made to work with the 2.2-series kernel architecture.

It'd also be good if distributions continued to give the option to use a 2.2-series kernel up until this is resolved. The current stable Debian distribution does; I hope the next two or three do as well.

Re:Replacing the Code

[erat]

And once again I have to remind YOU that end users are not the ones who would be adding "offending code" to Linux. For that matter, nobody has determined in a court of law or anywhere else that there even IS "offending code" in Linux.

There's a difference between what you're talking about and what pretty much everyone else is talking about: you're saying everyone who has ever touched Linux is a criminal and needs to pay for their crimes, while I say that there's no way in hell that hundreds of thousands (or even millions?) of Linux users could have leaked SCO's alleged "offending code" into Linux.

How is that logistically possible? It's not, of course. I have been using Linux since 1991 and I haven't contributed so much as a single line of code ever, much less SCO code (which I have never seen, nor care to see at this point). I would venture to guess that most of the rest of Linux's user base has not contributed code either. So what have I stolen? Not a damn thing as far as I'm concerned.

Here's the real truth about SCO's refusal to show the code IMHO: if the code is removed, there is no ongoing revenue stream because there will be nothing for SCO to license at $1,400/CPU. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

This just in...

[ZoneGray]

I dunno... Imagine this... Tandy determines that Seattle Computer's DOS was a derivative of TRS-DOS (a much stronger claim than SCO's). As we all know, bits of that old code still exist in modern versions of Windows. So Tandy writes to all Windows users offering to sell them a license.

The scary part is, Tandy already has everybody's address.

Re:SCO

[BlackHawk-666]

HAHAHAHAHA. All I can say is: if you really did that then you suck arse and I'd like a cheque for 1 billion dollars for misuse of my IP. I'll reveal what IP I'm accusing you of misusing in the year 2009, but I definitely need the cheque by friday at the latest since my rent is due ;-)

NDA

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet the terms of the license are covered by a NDA:-)

Re:Instead of just taking SCO to courrt..

[syntap]

And in doing so would violate the GPL and the only things this whole process gains are unearned money to SCO and a greatly weakened or destroyed GPL.

SCO, NDAs and nobodies

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't someone, a 'nobody' (someone who doesn't represent any of the major players in this fiaSCO, pun intended) sign the NDA, view the code in question, then report what they saw? Sure SCO might sue them, but if what every /.er, GNU/Linux representative etc is saying is true and the code in question doesn't belong to SCO, what is the problem?

Anyone also notice that SCO have now removed their GPL distribution from their ftp site?

Re:SCO

[BlackHawk-666]

I heard they were planning on licensing the goats.cx image for their latest campaign but talks fell through at the last moment because SCO claimed to own the arsehole in the photo. Oh well.

Yet.

[leonbrooks]

TSG have explicitly refused to rule out "contamination" of the 2.2 kernels.

Free Software on SCO

[naken]

Not that any of my software is important, but to help alienate SCO I've changed all my licenses so that my software cannot be installed on SCO operating systems:

http://ringtonetools.mikekohn.net/license.php
h ttp://nakenchat.naken.cc/license.php
http://asp2p hp.naken.cc/license.php

for example.

Maybe other free software developers will do the same? /mike

1 2 1 2 The Naken Crew

Re:Free Software on SCO

[Kevin DeGraaf]

I've changed all my licenses so that my software cannot be installed on SCO operating systems:

Maybe other free software developers will do the same?

Please explain to me how adding unreasonable restrictions is compatible with free software. Retard.

Re:Free Software on SCO

[naken]

Just because software isn't open source doesn't mean it's not free to use..

RETARD!

Re:Free Software on SCO

[Kevin DeGraaf]

Just because software isn't open source doesn't mean it's not free to use..

Your definition of "free", namely "without price", is shortsighted. The proper definition of "free" is "without undue restriction", which is what the GPL provides.

Arbitrarily stipulating that someone may not run software which he otherwise could because of political OS-choice reasons is retarded. Kinda like you.

The SCOpranos

[tekrat]

A new HBO series about a guy who beats up other people and takes their money in an organized crime kind of way, but hey, it's a legitmate business, right?

"Youse guys pays your protection money, or louie here sues you... or breaks yours fingers dere..."

Following soon: Darl McBride stars in "6 feet under"

MS would certainly go after this market

[nedwidek]

All of the infighting only weakens the players in the unix arena. Microsoft is already trying to the server market or haven't you noticed the "we saved a nickel" ad they play each night.

Re:MS would certainly go after this market

[Dave2 Wickham]

Yup, I've noticed it - over here in England. I wonder how many "nickels" (WTF they are... is it 10c or something?) they saved by not doing localised adverts...
</rant type="offtopic">

Re:MS would certainly go after this market

[Jaysyn]

1 cent American = Penny (Pence?)
5 cents American = Nickle
10 cents American = Dime
25 cents American = Quarter (Dollar)

Jaysyn

Open Source argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Posted as an AC and not ment as a troll but a genuine question...

What is left of the Open Source argument "If you want to change anything, you can because you've got the source".

Why isn't there a team who scans ALL the source code up on what COULD be the source code which SCO refers to?

Isn't this the perfect opportunity for -let's say- M$ to spread FUD like "See, they cannot even find the code". Boy I can hear the anti-Linux crowd allready make statements like that!

I need some counterpoints for arguments, also with people like PHB's. They were blind for Linux for a long time, but the news about SCO is something they will remember.

Please enlighten me!

Re:Replacing the Code

[Badanov]

SCO still has to prove that the stolen code originated with them. They also have to show that if it did originate with them, that they were deceived (or there was some sort of active deception) which caused that code to be released under the GPL without their knowledge. To do this they must show that they at least had an active vetting program which looked at the code that was released and allowed SCO to sign off on that release.

SCO bears a good deal of the burden in this case and if they cannot show they went to the proper means to ensure the code that was included in the kernal(sp) was the code they wanted, and conversely, they did take measures to protect the code they did not want to be included in the kernal; they may well be laughed out of court.

In order for theft to be apparent there has to be a victim (supposedly SCO) and a perpetrator (IBM), and there has to be an active element (intent to steal) IBM may be a 800 pound gorilla, but they are not stupid. It seems to me that extra caution was exercized to ensure that code IBM didn't want in was kept out, and donated code was placed in the kernal how they wanted it placed. I would think that donated code would be fully vetted by lawyers and by God before being released.

The source code for Linux is there to see. It is unthinkable that someone stole code and placed it in the code base It's fine to use analogies that someone walked into someone's home to steal, but when they get caught they offer to put it back.

It's more like SCO brings a TV into YOUR home, then walks out and reports you to the cops that you stole his TV.

Well, fuck that! Here's your TV back, SCO.

SCO is like North Korea

[gethane]

"pay attention to me! I'll hurt someone! I will! really!"

Re:Instead of just taking SCO to courrt..

[Nonillion]

SCO Linux Server 4 IS SuSE 8.1

Are SCO M$ in disguise?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hmmmmmm.....we at M$ need to destroy Linux. but our attempts are failing. We need a re-think."

"Hey! Why not get Linux to destroy itself from within? We could buy one of the companies and set it off against the others in a tirade of I suits and God knows what!"

"By the Lord Harry you're right. Set forth our forces of darkness into the stock market to buy SCO shares on the hush hush and we shall further our evil causes!"

(Bill 'Satan' Gates rubs his hands gleefully as sulphur smoke creeps across the obsidian landscape of stalagmites, the scenery punctured only by the occasional impaled open source devotee or screaming Mac user as their entrails are torn from their still shrieking frames and used as Cat-5 cabling in a bizarre tech-bio x-over...)

Cheery bye tata

S.

How hard is it to analyze the code?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not expert, but couldn't someone at a minimum provide a diff of all the kernel source for the 2.4 release against 2.2...this would narrow down the code SCO claims is their own.

It would also likely be very trivial to remove all the code that isn't obviously pertinent, like device drivers and platform specific code that isn't x86.

After doing a review of all submissions could the community quickly prove the source of every line as being original?

The worrying aspect

[The Evil Muppet]

Regardless of what each person thinks, there are a few worrying aspects here that few people seem to have looked at. I am a big Linux fan. I have migrated several SCO installations to Linux and I, along with my clients, have never been hapier. SCO have decided, against all common sense, to take on IBM. IBM is one of the "big three" when it comes to enterprise UNIX (along with HP and Sun). I like IRIX as well, not to mention the unforunately dying Tru64. Then there's VMS and QNX.....

This is where it gets interesting, and I implore the ./ crowd to point out any referencing material to help me out here, but why on earth would IBM team up with SCO for Project Monterey? IBM have experience in developing UNIX (and other enterprise class Operating Systems) operating systems for 64-bit architectures, as well as the supporting tools to go along with such a beast.

What exactly did SCO bring to the table? Considering that the answer to the last question above is quite possibly "Nothing", one must ask why it was that SCO claims that enterprise-strength features are the bulk of the misappropriated property here? Most of the products SCO are claiming ownership of don't exist in any SCO product line except OpenLinux (if you can call that a product). SCO don't have any experience in developing for anything other than x86, and no one would call that an advantage when developing code for the Itanium. It seems that the only thing SCO have that gives them reason to go on in this game is their legal team - people who know about how IBM works.

Looking at the Novell situation, it is terribly convenient that SCO happened to "find" a document detailing their ownership of various copyrights after Novell had made a public statement. As Novell were quite methodical and timed in their release of their press statement, one could very well assume two things:

1. SCO knew that Novell would have something to say
2. SCO knew that Novell would not have the "first ammendment" on hand

The factualness of the second point above can be further asserted by the fact that Novell basically went quiet soon after SCO responding. To paraphrase saint McBride, SCO's legal "team" have been going over the Linux codebase for over 12 months now. Yet, in that time:

• Caldera/SCO got into United Linux in a big way
• Caldera/SCO continued to push their own Linux
• Caldera/SCO continued to make open source tools and their inclusion major features of new releases of UnixWare and OpenServer

Regardless, SCO has told the nice blokes at SuSE that they'll be on SCO's list of potential victims at some point, they continue to refine LKP for UnixWare and exclaim on the excellence of OpenLinux as the ideal conduit for migration from commercial UNIXes (they also say that UnixWare is the best commercial UNIX though...) Looking at the above, you could be led to beleive that SCO has planned all of these events. This is not a conspiracy of any sort - simply a possible example of excellent planning, with very questionable overtones in each of the three major cases above.

In reality, could a closed-source kernel (such as UnixWare or OpenServer) contain code that was suitable for copying straight into Linux? Everyone seems to forget here that Linux departs majorly from the way that most UNIXes do things. Linux doesn't use working sets for memory management as one prime example. It has two memory allocation mechanisms as another case in point. With the resources that SCO has, one would seriously doubt their ability to make changes to their codebase that depart massively from the "traditional" way of doing things while still maintaining a supportable product with the release cycle they're committed to. Seriously though, OpenServer doesn't even seem to have anything looking like kernel-space threads (no offence to any open source OSes that like their user-space thread implementations. In your case, your threads are that way because they serve you

good vs evil

[lostinchicago]

this sounds like a good vs evil plot. people trying to charge for somthing that has in the past been free and the rebel forces not wanting to pay

Re:Replacing the Code

[mdielmann]

To improve (slightly) your piss-poor analogy, it would be like someone stealing a car from a taxi firm and giving lifts to people. When the thief is caught, those lucky enough to have got a lift wouldn't then get charged retrospective taxi fares - especially not at the extortionate rate this taxi firm feels like!

Pfft!! Whatever. You guys can't have it both ways - "It's not physical, we're not taking anything", "It's like someone stole a car and gave me rides in it." It's more like, a guy stole a car, magically made copies of it (which some laws just happen to cover), gave me one, and I kept using it after hearing it was stolen. Something tells me I won't be in the clear...

In the physical world, if you purchase a stolen item, it can be taken from you with no remuneration by the police (and given back to the rightful owner. Since we're not in the physical world, other laws come into play. We get patent and copyright infringement instead, and those who knowingly use it will have to cough up something to the company that can afford to protect those rights. Of course, no one really knows what (or if) their software is infringing, which may mitigate any penalties that may be handed down. Also, once the offending code is removed, there won't be any need for penalties after that point. But none of that fully protects those who may be infringing on those mysterious points right now. Hence, "for a small fee, we can take the mabye's out of your future," and people actually saying "yeah, better than getting shafted more later."

Maybe, ultimately, SCO will help us!

[Theovon]

Something that we need more of in the Free Software community is cohesion. We need to work together and support each other if we're going to improve technology for everyone and beat down predators like Microsoft. SCO is getting Red Hat and SuSE to work together, despite the fact that they are competitors. Everyone is rallying together against SCO. The common enemy makes us united. If that feeling of unity continues past the point where we have beaten SCO, the world will be better.

Special SCO introductory license prices!

[ReelOddeeo]

To extort money from companies and individuals using GNU/Linux. If the code is replaced, they can't ask companies to pay them $699 (or $1399 later) for each license.

In an effort to show that they are not trying to extort money from Linux users, SCO announced that they would lower the introductory price of licenses from $699 to a new lower price of $666.

Re:Replacing the Code

[Anonymous Coward]

Good.

So, now that we've cleared that up, why isn't SCO showing us the allegedly-stolen code?

SCO and the code

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always wondered isn't it possible SCO stole the code from linux? I mean this is a perfectly reasonable explaination...

Re:Wallpaper of the Penguin smashing the SCO Logo

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this express the displeasure you seek?
http://sillyputty.greatnow.com/TuxSco.jpg

Too Late... The Needle and the Damage Done

[nathanh]

It doesn't matter now whether SCO is right or wrong because Linux has been permanently harmed by the allegations SCO has made. I count at least 3 ways.

First, SCO has opened the flood gates for similar litigation. You think claims that UNIX is in Linux are bad? Wait until every trumped up failure of a company starts claiming IP ownership of everything open source. Not just Linux but all of userspace, applications, libraries, the lot. It's going to be a gold rush with Linux as the grand prize.

Second, the media attention over "indemnity". The closed source vendors are gleefully telling any journalist who will listen: "when you buy closed source we will indemnify you against litigation, when you use open source there is no indemnity". That's a significant blow against open source. I can already see every PHB in the whole damn world reconsidering their plans to deploy Linux because of the fear of lawsuits. If I was a conspiracy nut, I'd say that this was the real reason behind SCOs actions; somebody wanted a noisy and public demonstration that Linux is "risky".

Third, this is the beginning of the end for all corporate support. The growth of open source really exploded once companies took an interest. Not just the kernel but also userspace (OO.org, Mozilla) and infrastructure (GNOME, KDE) and harder concepts like marketting and packaging and sales. Linux went from "that hobbyist thing" to something much more because PHBs figured that if IBM/SGI/HP/Sun are treating it seriously then maybe there was something worth looking at. But can you imagine the CEOs approving Linux development now? Certainly not when Linux development leads to lawsuits from trumped up nothings like SCO. Large companies are slow to react but I predict within 18 months there will be a huge drop in corporate Linux support.

Linux is hurt by these actions. Right or wrong. True or false. None of that matters. I've seen the needle. The damage is done.

Re:Too Late... The Needle and the Damage Done

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone please mod this troll shite down.

The arguments presented make no sense.

Re:Too Late... The Needle and the Damage Done

[Anonymous Coward]

Modding down an unfavorable slashdot post is not going to change the 'corporate' perception that the Linux IP situation is a potential mess.

It's not exactly a secret that "Copyleft" and thousands of random and often anonymous copyright holders is not the ideal situation for an "enterprise product".

Re:Too Late... The Needle and the Damage Done

[AnotherBlackHat]

You think claims that UNIX is in Linux are bad? Wait until every trumped up failure of a company starts claiming IP ownership of everything open source.

Why do that? It seems much easier to me to claim IP ownership of closed source code.

After all, if Microsoft didn't have anything to hide in IIS,
then why are they keeping the source code a secret?

-- this is not a .sig

Re:Too Late... The Needle and the Damage Done

[Anonymous Coward]

> It doesn't matter now whether SCO is right or
> wrong...

Of course it matters. SCO will go to court and
if only half of what they are claiming is correct
they will win the suit. In the United States
you can't misappropriate other peoples
intellectual property. You may not like the
concept of IP but here it is and the law is very
clear about it. End of story. From where I'm
sitting it looks like a slam-dunk for SCO. IBM
got caught and now they're going to pay for it
and all this ridculous ranting here on Slashdot
isn't going to change it.

Re:Too Late... The Needle and the Damage Done

[Anonymous Coward]

>I can already see every PHB in the __whole damn
>world__ reconsidering their plans to deploy
>Linux because of the fear of lawsuits.

Only US courts put up with such bullshit, maybe the USA is not ready for Linux.

T.

A few are taking adv. of SCO's inflated Stock

[Stone316]

I was curious to see if any stock holders were cashing in on SCO's inflated stock price. Check out the following link which details the last month. Not alot of huge transactions, maybe their really think their cashcow vision will come true? Yahoo Insider Trades

the problem with press releases

[Adler]

why do companies release needless papers stating their position on stupid things such as this, for once i wanna see a company release a press statment to a company pulling crap like SCO that says "Get fucked." what more do you need to say? seriously i'm not trying to start a flame war here, think about it, whats the most simple way to deal with SCO right now? sometimes you need a simple message for simple minded people.

Re:Wallpaper of the Penguin smashing the SCO Logo

[flacco]

It needs to be something tasteful and non-libelous that can be placed, for example, as wallpaper on a corporate desktop.

How about wallpaper that says "Darl McBride is a fucking douchebag" along with his home address and phone?

Improper analogy

[burgburgburg]

As has been pointed out, this is a copyright issue, not one about theft/piracy which is clearly the case in your analogy.

Re:Improper analogy

[trashme]

Huh? There is no theft in his analogy. His analogy is:

* Copying part of Harry Potter, publishing it in the NYT.
* Customers subscribe to NYT and read part of the book.

Where is there theft involved? The NYT didn't steal anything, it copied something it was not supposed to. Nor did the subscribers steal anything. It's copyright infringement.

Re:Improper analogy

[TC (WC)]

Wow... how do you define copyright?

Some people, without being given the right to do so, copy a bunch of text and distribute it. Nope, that's definitely not copyright infringement.

Re:Improper analogy

[TC (WC)]

Dashit, stupid threading and reading at 3+.

Ah weel, it's still a copyright issue. The comparison is flawed, but not because it isn't a copyright issue, but because the situations don't match up. In one case, the person in question is maliciously and knowingly violating copyright, while in the other case, the person is violating copyright law in a situation where they are not aware that they are doing so and where they can not reasonably be assumed to know that they are doing so. Intent is a rather large part of both criminal and civil law.

it's the ideas, not the pengiun, that are God

[cyphunk]

It is worth noting and even if linux were to die as result (which after reading different reviews online I suspect this will not happene considerin that SCO has found it hard to spread its lies in the EU and elsewhere) that the power of linux is not it's code, it is the people and the idea that it is built on. Even if the penguin got cold and died the people behind it would unite in a different cause.

The only thing that has happened by SCO's actions to affectivly give it a black name throughout the IT world. People are going to see this as petty of them and very unprofessional, (regardless even if the courts were to say otherwise, by the fact that they have pissed off so many and gotten ahead of themselves so quickly with demands before showing proof).... SCO has signed their death warrent in the IT community. And that, my love, is sweet revenge..

Want recent SCO Linux release

[darkonc]

Does anybody have a copy of SCO Linux from after Feb 2003 (that they haven't already burned)? an install ISO would be best. I'd like to have a copy of SCO Linux running on one of my boxes before I call them to talk about their new license scheme.

Sources would be good too (I guess I could always load an update kernel binary and source from their website)

More than that...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they disclosed the code (assuming it exists) and it could be rewritten within a few days, it would mean that the code was pretty trivial so they couldn't demand any real damages for it.

Feed your daily SCO loathing demands with this :)

[Anonymous Coward]

http://sillyputty.greatnow.com/TuxSco.html

Trial preparation

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe SCO want to copy-paste some code from the Linux Kernel before the trial and point it as their "own", I mean they are trying to claim copyright on what is not there... they could very well do this...

Re:Replacing the Code

[Anonymous Coward]

Replacing the Code will not solve the problem
SCO is also talking about Unix as a set of
methods and concepts so if you implement
something without System V code SCO will sue you

Examples of SCO code in the kernel

[Anonymous Coward]

sol:/usr/src/linux # egrep -ri '(@sco|@corel)' * 2>/dev/null
arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c: * 1.0 16 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>
arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c: * 1.01 18 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>
arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c: * 1.02 21 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>
arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c: * 1.03 29 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>
drivers/net/tlan.c: * Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>: TLan_PciProbe() now uses
drivers/sound/waveartist.c: * and Pat Beirne (patb@corel.ca)
fs/smbfs/ChangeLog:2000-06-24: Matt Maynard <matthewm@corel.com>

I'm sure there are more, but this only took two seconds to find out.

carl a t learningshophull dot co d o t u k

Re:Examples of SCO code in the kernel

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, I meant Caldera... part 1/2 due to Slashdot Lame(ness) filter :

sol:/usr/src/linux # egrep -ri '(@caldera)' * 2>/dev/null
drivers/net/slip.c Jim Freeman jfree@caldera.com
drivers/char/drm/drm_context.h Torsten Duwe duwe@caldera.de
drivers/scsi/ips.c Christoph Hellwig hch@caldera.de
drivers/scsi/advansys.c Erik Ratcliffe erik@caldera.com
drivers/sound/esssolo1.c Marcus Meissner mm@caldera.de
drivers/sound/esssolo1.c Marcus Meissner mm@caldera.de
drivers/sound/maestro.c Marcus Meissner mm@caldera.de

Viral Software

[Moe Taxes]

According to SCO The GPL is benign compared the virus of their proprietary software. As near as I can tell they claim that any program written by IBM to run on AIX is derivative and now under the control of their license.

SCO ~= Rambus ??

[nortcele]

Is it just me, or are others beginning to equate these two companies? Seems that their business model is based on litigation and nefarious methods. Only difference I have seen is that Rambus at least had some analysts pumping their stock.

SCO has a better chance of finding Saddam in their backyard than surviving this mess...

Duh! Two days of non-news in a row.

[werdna]

Yesterday, we had posted as news that SCO is likely to prepare a "formal legal response" to the complaint, which seeks among other things a Declaratory Judgment of noninfringement.

I noted then that this cannot possibly be news -- if they fail to respond, then Red Hat would be entitled to a default judgment. What would have been news would be if they missed their deadline and default was taken.

Today, we had posted as news that SCO is likely to include counterclaims in their formal legal response to the complaint, which seeks among other things a Declaratory Judgment of noninfringement.

Duh. Think about it. Red Hat is entitled to judgment unless SCO can disprove noninfringment. That would mean, therefore, that the only way they can prevail as DJ defendants would be to prove Red Hat was infrfinging. It would be lunacy, plain and simple, if they didn't file a counterclaim.

Two days in a row, non-event press releases were treated as major developments. Neither was even interesting.

One BIG FAT Mama

[metalmaniac1759]

Cool, this SCO lawsuit could make all the Linux vendors come together and unite into one big mean fat mama which would kick SCO's as and then probably M$'s ass

Maybe - just maybe :)

Nandz.

Re:One BIG FAT Mama

[cranos]

Yeah they'ld get along like a house on fire. Ever seen a burning house?

Unbelievable business opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello dear friend and greetings from sunny Nigeria.
Please forgive me this intrusion, but your name was forwarded to me as a person I can trust. My name is Dr. Mombutu and I am the CEO of SCO for Nigeria. As you are probably aware SCO is now involved in a lawsuit which will undoubtedly result in a multi million dollar settlement as every user of devil spawn Linux will be ordered to pay money that is being owned to SCO as a result of copyright infringement. According to careful estimates this would result in a sum of $47.8 million US Dollars being deposited in SCO's accounts over the period of next 2 (two) years. I would like to offer you 10% (ten percent) of the entire $47.8 million if you help us in the legal fight against Linux. Your contribution will only have to amount to US$ 699 if you have a uniprocessor machine running Linux, US$1149 for a dual processor machine US$2499 for quad and US$4999 for a eight cCPU machine. Each additional single CPU will be $749, while a promotional licence fee for embedded devices is $32 per device. I personally guarantee that 10% of the entire $47.8 million will be deposited into the account of your choice as soon as the lawsuit is completed. Please send cash, certified cheque or money order to

Dr. Mombutu
Box. 2301
1 Aguiyi Ironsi Street
Maitama Abuja, Nigeria NG

Re:Unbelievable business opportunity

[telstar]

"Hello dear friend and greetings from sunny Nigeria."

• Junis? Is that you?

Re:Unbelievable business opportunity

[Enigma2175]

I almost believed you, but then I remembered that if you really were from Nigeria, you would have typed your message in ALL CAPS. Shame on you! I am too smart to fall for your scam. I will wait for a REAL nigerian to split his FORTY SEVEN POINT EIGHT MILLION AMERICAN DOLLARS with me.

See the Copyright code!

[werdna]

Actually, that isn't entirely true. Any subsequent distribution (free or for profit) or copying from the unauthorized books would be an independent act of infringement.

Cosa Nostra

[bonoboy]

The only real difference is that this "organization" is not threatening the law suit on shaky if not absurd grounds. Rather is it like an insurance company of sorts.

Yeah, and exactly like SCO, it's also known as a "protection racket."

Re:Examples of SCO code in the kernel [part 2]

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, I meant Caldera... part 2/2 due to Slashdot Lame(ness) filter :

drivers/sound/rme96xx.c Marcus Meissner Marcus.Meissner@caldera.de
drivers/sound/nm256_au dio.c Marcus Meissner mm@caldera.de
drivers/sound/sonicvibes.c Marcus Meissner mm@caldera.de
fs/freevxfs/vxfs_olt.c hch@caldera.de
net/ipx/af_ipx.c Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc.
net/ipx/af_spx.c Jim Freeman

Time to cost SCO some money - here's how.

[Anonymous Coward]

1-800-726-8649

Get your war-dialers ready!!!!

Let's see... at .25 a pop, how long would it take to reach $1MM by Slashdot readers....

Is this guy really a lawyer?

[AveryT]

Also, this lawyer has a long analysis of SCO extortion attempts and debunks a lot of their FUD."

I'm just not sure a real lawyer would use the word "jerkhead" quite so often.

No, you can't.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, or should have known, you were downloading an infringing copy of Windows 2000. That makes you guilty of infringment and the author can come at you directly, end-user or not.

Same deal with buying "backup" DVD's and CD-Rs, or downloading popular music you know isn't Free.

Copyright defaults to "no copying", so basically you need to have reasonable expectation that the copy you are getting is legit. If any form of "shady dealings" are involved, you aren't legit and subject to copyright infringment.

If you secured you copy in "good faith", then, and only then, does the copyright holder have no rightful claim against you.

Now, there's just NO shadyness when it comes to Linux. The code is published under GPL, some care is taken in its collection, infringments are immediately available to the public (and any infringed owners) view, and the change control process suggests a high likelyhood any infringer would be quickly identified.

Now, if SCO demonstrates they have an infringment in Linux, you must immediately stop distributing it. Section 7 of the GPL says so too. Copies made after that would be infringing, and SCO could rightfully come after you.

Re:Replacing the Code

[BlackFingolfin]

His analogy is way off base. He compares knowingly comitting theft, to unknowingly using code that was distributed in breach of contract.

I have to disagree with your reasoning here. In Germany we have a proverb: "Unwissenheit schuetzt vor Strafe nicht", roughly translated "Not knowing doesn't protect you from punishment". This is actually a rule of most modern law system, including that of the US. The fact that you didn't know you were involved in a crime doesn't protect you from the consequences.

That said, don't get me wrong, I am no SCO friend, and I don't believe they have any realistic chance to effectively sue anybody for anything. And as other here have stated, they can not sue customers for (hypothetical) license infringments of some vendor(s). But that doesn't make your reasoning any better :-)

I love this argument.

[Anonymous Coward]

SCOX is up 2000% since the lawsuit started, but everytime it droops 10-15%, all of the slashbots are sure that wall street is on their side.

Re:Wallpaper of the Penguin smashing the SCO Logo

[Cheap Imitation]

Better yet, can I get a sticker of Tux pissing on the SCO logo for the back window of my pickup truck?

That ought to play havoc with a few stereotypes!

Morpheus Said:

[Anonymous Coward]

"We are not afraid, because we are LINUX, and WE'RE STILL HERE!!!"

I've just spoken to Larry at SCO

[bensonandhedges]

I called their UK office first who basically told me to call the US, I got put through to a guy called Larry, he sounded like he was not just a phone jockey, he had me on speaker and I could hear his voice echo around his large office.

I acted dumb (not hard for me ;-) and asked what I had to do to stay legal, and in his short reply he made three interestig points....

1) They are only "attacking" the US market.

2) They are only going after corporate users.

3) This position will stay the same for a least a couple of months.

Is any of this new stuff?

Re:I've just spoken to Larry at SCO

[dazk]

I tried something similar. I called the German branch and I planned to act dumb but besides vaious efforts they told me again and again to mail them so I did. Of course in that mail I asked them what I would be paying for and asked not to send me the default answer (SCO's IP) but what exactly. Let's see if they will ever reply. Another fellow in a German news board managed to get through to a German SCO employee and he told him to write a mail as well and that he couldn't give any details because of an injunction (right word?) that disallows SCO or it's representatives any statements claiming that there is illegal code in Linux until they actually produce evidence.

Explanation of 'shorting'

[nedwidek]

Basically you borrow shares of stock X from your broker which are sold at price Y. Later after the stock price has fallen to Z you buy the same number of shares you borrowed and return them to your broker. Your gain is Y-Z. Your gain is limited since a stock can't fall below 0, but your risk is limitless since theoretically a stock price can keep going up (which is why brokerages have short stop prices). The benefit is that you can create a gain without an initial investment

Example:
You short 100 shares of SCOX at $13 ($1300 sale price) and when the price is $10 you buy the 100 shares to return ($1000 purchase price). Your gain is $300.
If it goes to $15 and you have a stop placed there you loose $200.

Re:Wallpaper of the Penguin smashing the SCO Logo

[Ath]

How about a big poster that says:

"SCO is a bunch of donkey raping shit eaters. I have pictures proving it."

Of course, I will just make everyone sign an NDA and promise to show the pictures of Daryl McBride raping a donkey.

Libelous? I hope so, but I don't think it meets the requirements.

Replacing the code in Linux won't shut SCO up...

[rufey]

because SCO will then claim that whatever code is written to replace the offending code is a derivative work.

At least one of the FUD statements that SCO has made in the past couple of months is that they own the control over derivative works. They have said as much when clarifying the IBM suite by conceeding that they don't own the copyright to the IBM-written code, but they should have control over it becuase it is a derived work.

Anyone who looks at the offending code and then proceedes to write their own code to replace the offending code has been tainted, and their work could be considered a derivative.

Here are some examples of SCO work in the kernel

[str8-and-sober]

sol:/usr/src/linux # egrep -ri '(@sco\.|@caldera)' * 2>/dev/null
CREDITS:E: sp@caldera.de
arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c: * 1.0 16 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>
arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c: * 1.01 18 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>
arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c: * 1.02 21 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>
arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c: * 1.03 29 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>
drivers/net/slip.c: * from Jim Freeman's <jfree@caldera.com>
drivers/net/tlan.c: * Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>: TLan_PciProbe() now uses
drivers/char/drm/drm_context.h: * 2001-11-16 Torsten Duwe <duwe@caldera.de>
drivers/scsi/ips.c:/* 4.00.06a - Port to 2.4 (trivial) -- Christoph Hellwig <hch@caldera.de> */
drivers/scsi/advansys.c: Erik Ratcliffe <erik@caldera.com> has done testing of the
drivers/sound/esssolo1.c: * up. Marcus Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
drivers/sound/esssolo1.c: * Marcus Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
drivers/sound/maestro.c: * v0.15 - May 21 2001 - Marcus Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
drivers/sound/rme96xx.c: Marcus Meissner <Marcus.Meissner@caldera.de>
drivers/sound/nm256_ audio.c: * 19-04-2001 Marcus Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
drivers/sound/sonicvibes.c: * Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
fs/freevxfs/vxfs_olt.c:&nbs p; printk(KERN_NOTICE "vxfs: please notify hch@caldera.de\n");
net/ipx/af_ipx.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc. <greg@caldera.com>
net/ipx/af_spx.c: * Jim Freeman <jfree@caldera.com>

Everybody sing the New SCO Coorporate Anthem!

[BrynM]

(to the tune of 'All you need is Love' by the Beatles)

Our bottom line was looking glum
Our products were lame, and we were bummed
Then Darl thought of a scheme to bring even Big Blue down to it's knees

It's easy...

There's no one you can sue that can't be hung
Inflating our stock price can be fun
The judgements are a long way away, but end-users can pay up today

It's easy...

All you need is FUD
(la da, da da da)
All you need is FUD
(la da, da da da)
All you need is FUD, Darl
FUD is all you need...

Re:Everybody sing the New SCO Coorporate Anthem!

[iapetus]

Really? I thought SCO's corporate anthem was the Doom Song from Invader Zim...

Sun offers Linux customers indemnification

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun have said that they will indemnify. How about others, like RedHat, Suse stepping up to the plate.

Could other distros base their distro on Sun's? Would the indemnification trickle down?

See this eweek story:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1210910,00. as p

SCO is dying

[gumpish]

It is official; Slashdot now confirms: SCO is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered SCO Group when SuSE confirmed that SCO is full of shit. Coming on the heels of a recent RedHat lawsuit which plainly states that SCO has been spreading lies, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. SCO is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in karma rankings on Slashdot.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO because SCO is dying. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO executives continues to dump their shares. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

SCO is sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If SCO is to survive at all it will be among Slashdot trolls. SCO continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.

Fact: SCO is dying

You'll love this, then.

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO is suing for billions of dollars.

Their market capitalization is about $160 million.

I'd say Wall Street is rather heavily discounting that potential multi-billion dollar revenue stream SCO is after, wouldn't you?

Re:Replacing the Code

[theLOUDroom]

My reasoning was just fine.

His analogy was way off base. His comparison was way too extreme. That's what I was pointing out. The comparison was deliberatly extreme to make it appear likely that one could have to pay damages if SCO wins.

A better analogy would be:
IBM steals the rims off SCO's jag. IBM sells them to me through their well known, well respected custom shop.

This is the type of situation where your proverb doesn't apply. IBM stole the wheels, not you, and you had no way to know that they were stolen (nor were you obligated to check).

As I said in my post, even if SCO wins, it doesn't necessarly mean they own the rights to the code in question. Next, even if it turns out they own the copyright, chances are they can only go after the people who distributed (copied) the code. That's why it's called copyright instead of useright. Even if they can find a way around this, there are still other issues: their distribution of the code under the GPL, their deliberate refusal to lessen the amount of "damage" being caused, etc.

The chances of an end user needing to pay SCO anything are VERY tiny.

Buying the SCO-report from the Netherlands

[MathFox]

Well, I did make a phonecall to SCO.nl (around 09:00 MEST, 07:00 UTC) and got a connection to one of their salespeople, not that he was very helpfull... It was clear anyway that he had been briefed about the situation and that some procedures were in place to handle licencing inquiries.

They couldn't offer me a quote for the price in Euro's in the Netherlands; the only thing the salesman had to say was that "prices would be in line with the US prices". It could be that they ment they would just bill the dollar amount, anyway the exact price didn't have my priority.

On the question of whether or why I would need a license the only thing SCO had to offer was FUD. I should ask legal advice and check whether the licenses we currently had were good enough. They didn't confirm or deny that they distributed Linux kernels under the GPL. They refused to confirm that I needed a SCO licence. And then the "seek legal advice" came up again.

yoda's take

[hornal]

Begun, the Clone War has.

Ulterior Motives

[afreniere]

It is clear now that while SCO is putting up a pretty good show of being indignant and violated. Their FUD campaign is being brilliantly executed, but their legal strategy is suicidal. It looks like a strategy which is optimized to cause the most damage to Linux's reputation at the ultimate cost to SCO - their existence. Why would a company do this? Perhaps we need to examine the incentives that prevail currently for the management of SCO. Could Darl & Co. come out of this unscathed or even quite rich? Is it possible to "pierce the corporate veil" here and find the upper management guilty of conspiracy? Especially, what is the nature of the business relationship between Microsoft and SCO? The brilliance of the FUD campaign and the utter hopelessness of SCO's legal case strongly indicates an "ulterior motive." Has anyone examined this seriously, or am I just missing something?

-Ansel.

Re:Ulterior Motives

[dazk]

Did your read the complaint RedHat's lawyers wrote? One paragraph talks about a holding behind SCO that's collecting the Money due to higher stock prices. If that is true, it seems they want to secure as much money as possible and then let SCO die or be bought by someone, (maybe MSFT after all?).

Re:Replacing the Code

[aug24]

We get patent and copyright infringement instead,

My point, if you had read and understood my whole post instead of just the first two paras, was /not/ that nothing had been stolen, but that the end users aren't responsible in law.

As I pointed out in the bit you don't seem to have read, SCO must first prove IBM is at fault, then get damages to-date from them, *then* and only then can they license use of the IP they claim for *future* use from that date. End users aren't liable till SCO proves ownership.

J.

You're using the WRONG analogy...

[Svartalf]

Copyright does not create a thing, per se, like a television. When you copy and distribute something without the Copyright holder's permission, you're not commiting an act of theft, but one of infringement- you're taking away the right of the holder to control production and distribution of the IP in question. It's the way the law is worded and there's a good reason for it as IP isn't really property- when you infringe, you don't take away the idea; when you steal, you take away the object and it's use from the owner.

Now, having made this distinction, I'll make a further observation that makes your analogy invalid. The Linux kernel people as a whole didn't take the IP in the first place. The closest analogy to this if you WERE to try to apply a "theft" model on the whole thing would be this:

Party A steals a TV set from Party B's house. He doesn't get immediately caught and sells the TV at a garage sale or at a flea market for what would be a fair price (so as to not tip people off that it's hot) to Party C. Party A is actually caught up with and is punished. Party C is not guilty of anything because he bought in good faith- but he may be required to relinquish the stolen property if Party A wants it back.

In this case, the party (or parties) that is actually guilty of the act of infringement is the only one that will face fines and damages- the rest of the people distributing Linux will be ordered to remove the offending IP (which is the very thing we've been TRYING to do anyway...) or license it accordingly and will be given a reasonable amount of time to decide and act on the order.

You should have asked for Moe.

[Sans_A_Cause]

He's widely acknowledged as the smart one. Oh, well...at least you didn't get Curley

Debian GNU/BSD

[alexborges]

The medium term scenario is this:

Lawsuits extend long enough to hurt linux badly

Debian/BSD is propperly finished

Debian GNU/BSD is started and we end up with the exact same debian with a bsd kernel (not the same as the one above). It would be good to get berkeley relicense it GPL if possible (ya right).

We port all the linux drivers and relevant coolstuff(TM) to the BSD kernel.

We still have a full FLOSS OS with a killer ultra-scalable kernel.

If HURD is done before that (dont grin), then kill BSD and use plain HURD.

Re:Debian GNU/BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Just what the world needs Debian/BSD and Debian/HURD fanboys. No I don't think so.
Cutting and running from Linux is a pussy act.
It's something I would expect from the typical Debain fanboy though.

Understand this fanboys. Linux dosen't infringe anyones patents/copyrights. It's all bullshit. I guess the fanboyism keeps you from reading all the articles so you are not up to speed. But I see here again we have a Debian user encouraging Linux users to jump ship. It's not the first time. If these fanboys want to do something constructive sue SCO. You are going to be waiting a LONG time for HURD everyone else has been.
The issue is Linux. Not the HURD or any BSD Linux.

SCO CEO Address & Phone #

[Anonymous Coward]

Darl C. McBride
1799 Vintage Oak Ln
Salt Lake City, UT 84121
(801) 424 - 2006

Alternative viewpoint

[mormop]

Several questions formed in my head reading this lot.

1) Could the features provided by SCO's alleged code have been included without using SCO's claimed code i.e. was there any way of implementing them with different lines of code that would not have have infringed ?

2) Did any Linux users users implement Linux because SCO's alleged code was included?

3) At which point did SCO become aware that their alleged IP was in the Linux kernel?

Well the answer to 1 is definitely yes, the answer to 2 is not unless they had diffed SCO's source and the Linux kernel source or were magically made aware of the fact by divine intervention and the answer to 3 is apparently 2001 by SCO's own admission.

looking at the lists at kernel.org shows that kernel 2.4 was released in 2001 so SCO were therefore aware of the alleged breach at the time of it's release and chose to take no action. To me it seems fairly logical that any damage caused by the widespread use of the alleged code that exists today is self inflicted and could easily have been cured at the time of release by SCO informing the kernel developers of the breach allowing them to remedy it immeadiately.

The implications of question 2 is that no one chose to use Linux over SCO UNIX because of their code. Had the disputed features been included using different code from SCO's, people would still have chosen Linux over SCO Unix because at the end of the day SCO UNIX is an outdated and more or less dead product that been on the decline anyway whereas Linux is an up to date rapidly advancing OS with a large application base and expanding, base of users.

The sum total of this is "how much has SCO been damaged by the alleged breach of code"? Well bugger all really if the disputed code that no-one other than SCO knew about could have been implemented by another mechanism while they failed to complain of its presence regardless of the fact they knew about it from the day it was released.

So - Up yours McBride. All I can say is that there's a special layer of hell for greedy bastards who try to profit from the free work of others and there's a demon with a toasting fork the size of the Empire State building waiting an arse to insert it in.

Pick the soap up Mc Bride......

If they knew that it was there since 2001...

[Svartalf]

...this ups the ante a little bit. This means that they were KNOWINGLY distributing and selling a GPLed system with IP that they were unwilling to license under the GPL. The moment that this occurs, they're without a license, per the terms of the GPL, to distribute or make derivative works. This means they're guilty of some 18+ months of IP infringement on everyone else that has contributed substantive portions of the Kernel, Red Hat and SuSE included. There is no way in HELL that a court is going to give SCO any damages or even hear an IP infringement case from SCO if this is actually the case. Worse, if they realy ARE stupid enough to file suit against Red Hat over infringement and conspiracy to infringe, it opens up the floodgates- because it will be an open statement of that willful 18+ months of infringement and their unwillingness to work out the infringement they did- and since they SOLD the stuff, there WILL be actual infringement damages involved.

Re:If they knew that it was there since 2001...

[mormop]

This is true. But I'm think that SCO are suing for loss of income or whatever from their IP being included in Linux. If they knew that their IP was in kernel 2.4 and allowed it to spread without telling anybody then any damage to SCO's business was self inflicted and any losses made on there own products were down to poor marketing or design on their part.

If this is the case and it is open and shut against them then their attempts to charge licence fees are tantamount to obtaining funds by deception, or to put it more bluntly, FRAUD.

we need a class action lawsuit in the US..

[josepha48]

.. I wish Redhat and SuSE would file a class action lawsuit and let the Linux community join in.

SCO's Secret Formula

[Psyx]

From what I could gather (the standard not a lawyer disclaimer goes here), they don't want to show the code because they think it's a trade secret. From the press release yesterday, SCO seems to be claiming that their trade secrets trump the rights of the supposed copyright violator to know the details of the accusation.

I've been drawing an analogy in my mind. Something akin to Coca-Cola's (SCO - nothing against Coke) having a secret (trade secret) ingredient that they claim Pepsi (Linux) is using. But the claim they can't tell what that ingredient is or the secret is out. So instead they ask Pepsi to pay royalties or stop producing the formula.

Pepsi says no, just tell us what it is and we'll remove it from our formula, but in Coke's mind, that could reveal the formula to all of the non-Pepsi world, a fate possibly worse in Coke's eyes since no longer does just one competitor know their trade secret but all of them know it.

Remember before you flame that I'm just trying to see things from SCO's point of view. And I don't believe for a second that they have a tenable position.

It seems to me if Coke had released their entire formula at one point (including the trade secret part), they forfeit claims to that trade secret.

Also if claims of trade secrecy can trump the right of a defendant to know the accusation, then "trade-secrecy" claims could be abused way to easily. (Again, the not-a-lawyer-disclaimer goes here.)

I'd love to get comments from well educated lawyers about what parts of the above are bad assumptions/incorrect and what is accurate, just to help my understanding if not others.

Re:SCO's Secret Formula

[DavidTC]

Trade secrets don't work that way. Pepsi is perfectly free to use Coke's recipe all it wants.

However, it's forbidden from breaking the law, or various contracts, to gain it. It can't pay some guy under an NDA at Coke to spill the formula. It can't pay a cat burgler to break in and steal it.

However, it can reverse engineer the formula, it can read it out of a book Coke accidently left it in, (Which, BTW, has basically happened...at least the formula they were using in the fifties...they left it in a book.), they can pose as tourists and take the tour with super high-power cameras photographing everything, etc. As long as they do not violate criminal or contract law, Coke would have no grounds for anything.

Likewise, if someone else broke into Coke, and stole the formula, and posted it on Usenet, Pepsi is perfectly free to use it.

You can't 're-secret' a trade secret...if a single person stole it and used it, without telling anyone, part of the damages they agree to, when caught, might be to sign an NDA, so it might remain a trade secret. But once the cat is out of the bag, it's out of the bag. Coke could get massive damages from the person who stole it and posted it to Usenet, but that's it.

In fact, 'trade secrets' are just a logical extension of the law...they let you get damages from someone who broke the law (or your contracts) and, although they didn't 'steal' anything, still has made off with a significant advantage of yours. And that's the only person you can go after...someone who broke the law or your contracts.

Meanwhile, anyone who didn't commit the crime but ended up with the 'secrets' is perfectly free to do whatever they want.

If there were any trade secrets put in Linux, they are no longer trade secrets and are freely usably by anyone on the planet however they want.

Microsoft to buy SCO?

[slewfo0t]

The next step is Microsoft buying SCO. What an interesting turn that would be! I wouldn't doubt that that has been the plan all along, but who knows...

Sign the petition to end this nonsense here.

- Slew -

Re:Microsoft to buy SCO?

[Wolfplayer]

This whole thing could be a slick way of defining the legal gray area before Microsoft puts windows on top of Unix, like Apple did with BSD.

Dirty Sanchez

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, heh, heh, he said "pump and dump," hehe

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

How many idiots here are buying those $699 licenses, and therefore contributing to the rise of SCO stock? Traitors.

Re:Wallpaper of the Penguin smashing the SCO Logo

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you need to make an index.html with a link to the picture. Direct links to pictures on greatnow.com don't work.

WW3

[Anonymous Coward]

Beginning to look like World War III.

SuSE doesn't 'enter the fray'

[Anonymous Coward]

Red Hat does the work, foots the cash, and SuSE simply sits back, and says 'go Red Hat!' That's not entering the fray. If SCO were to file their own suits, possibly in some of the non-German countries where they have a legal presence, that would be entering the fray.

Personally, I think if thousands of individual Linux consultants, users, etc. were to file suits in small-claims court, that would kill SCO.

Re:SuSE doesn't 'enter the fray'

[ninthwave]

I still think each kernel contributor should file in their local county, state, country etc. on SCO's breaking of the GPL and force SCO to fight IP cases all over the world. And the individual lug's could start similiar suits. Even if the suits get thrown out SCO will have to spend time and $ to get to that point and I believe most kernel contributors will have a strong case against SCO because their license is against the GPL and incorporates other people's ip though they say as a runtime binary license it does not I would like to see some debate on that or some resources where that is considered.

Safe heaven? Sun Linux out soon

[bstadil]

Sun will launch their Open Source desktop in September

Since Sun is covered according to SCO/ Sun why license from Sun and recomplie the kernel for your servers from the Sun source if your PHB is worried about SCO's FUD?

You might even make a case for OpenOffice/ StarOffice internally while you are at it.

Re:Safe heaven? Sun Linux out soon

[frkiii]

Sorry, but Sun having paid SCO money earlier, seriously taints Sun in my book.

This is a personal thing for me only, but I am sure others feel the same.

I like java (program in it a little bit), but would not use their OS or Linux from them either.

Dunno what else to say. I hope Sun realizes its mistake, once the dust settles, then tries to re-coup the license money they paid to SCO. That would rock, likely not to happen though.

Calling on Linux hackers/admins to fight back...

[L1ttl3p1gg3]

We (the linux community) can either sit back and cross our fingers that all this FUD will blow over soon and in the mean time not damage things to much. SCO has broght some serious law suits to the table and is using strong arm tactics (a lot like another corp that we all love to hate) to scare and bully OUR innocent end users into paying them for something the we did. For obvious reasons we can't really stand up to them and fight the normal fight - it will take a lot of money (for attorney fees and such) and a long time. SCO obviously isnt in this alone, McBride I dont believe is all that bright and because of such he wouldnt be able to figure out how to carry something like this for the years and years it is going to take to finilize.
Essentially, we are in for a fight. The corporations "for" linux are going to fight the battles on the front lines (in court), but as we all know that is going to take forever - we as a community needs to start supporting ourselves because this is not going to go away and is just going to get worse.
SCO (as the front man) is strong arming and scaring innocent linux users into paying them a lot of money. They expect you to pay if you use the 2.4 kernel and later - there are two sets of people; those listening to the FUD from SCO and those flipping them off. We dont nedcisarily need to worry about those flipping them off, its the ones listening to them. We need to focus on those that are worried about it, this is linux afterall and we can twist her into a pretzel and she will still sing and dance - its time to do so for those that are worried about this...

Solution: For those that are concerned, install the 2.2 kernel or if worse comes to worse an experimental 2.3 kernel that is stable for there setup. There are patches and everything else out there to make the 2.2 kernel work with what is neccesary like the ext3 journaling fs. And all the apps will still work just fine (most atleast). The fancy desktops will have issues, but the people worried about this wont be using linux in that way. We may have to do some serious patching to the 2.2 kernel - but it is very possible and it needs to be done.

This isn't going to stop - we have another 2 years before anything will begin to happen in our favor. In the mean time SCO (and there backers) are going to push this very hard and litterally scare users away from linux. From the way the letters sounded with regards to the case with RH adn SCO - this is just the tip of the ice berg. If we dont figure out a way to get around the scare tactics, they are going to win. We cant fight this battle on the front lines - and we dont need to...

SuSE is a SCO/United Linux business partner

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it amusing that SCO is threatening action against Linux users. This includes customers of their own business partners.

And now SuSE bites SCO?

Moreover, the legally observant will notice that SCO continues to link to SuSE (and, therefore, to "infringing code".) Does that not make them contributors to their own IP infringement, at the very least?

It certainly would be a problem if the RIAA had (intentional) links to copyrighted MP3's, right?

Check out SCO's United Linux Page

If this is true...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what some major government involvement such as an investigation into SCO's pump & dump scheme by the FTC will do to it.

So now that stock has dropped by that much I wonder what FUD SCO has in store to bring it back up. This pattern is becoming apparent, as soon as things don't look to good they release some FUD filled PR to keep the "investors" pumping money into them.

Considering how quickly they came up with their charging Linux users threat, I wouldn't be surprised if they have hundreds of dirty FUD tricks planed in advance to pull out and use in at least an hours after something threatens them.

Let's sue again

[oohp]

Come on everybody now, clap your hands
I'm gonna sing my song and you won't take long
We gotta sue SCO and it goes like this:
Let's sue again like we did last summer,
Yea, let's sue again like we did last year.
Don't you remember when intelectual property was really hummin'
Yea, let's sue again, suin' time is here
Yeah round 'n around 'n up 'n to court we go again
Oh baby make me know you sue SCO an' then
Come on let's sue again like we did last summer
Girl, let's sue again like we did last year.
Let's sue again like we did last summer...

Re:Replacing the Code

[BlackFingolfin]

First off: we agree, even if SCO wins the law suite against IBM, it means little, since it is about SCOs claim that IBM broke a contract with them, not about copyright for code in the kernel. The only 'bad' scenario would be if SCO could prove that the Linux kernel contains code violating their rights

You are of course right that the person buying the stolen wheels from IBM can't be punished for the wrong they did (I am not saying IBM did anything wrong, I am just following your example :-).

However, once you learn that the goods you acquired were stolen, you still have to return them to the rightful owner. You can try to get reimbursement from the guy who sold you the stolen goods, but the original owner doesn't owe you anything, even if you are already using the wheels on your car, and removing them means for you that you can't use your car anymore.

Translated this means that from a legal point of view, you would have to stop using any kernel using code which violates SCOs rights, even if it's not your fault that the code is in there. If you want to keep using the code anyway, then you have to settle it with SCO, which could mean paying for license, if they request it (as they did).

Re:Here are some examples of SCO work in the kerne

[oohp]

Irrelevant. These contributions were released under the GPL.

Herring on their breath?

[steveg]

Yuck.

All your code are belong to us...

[emuman_de]

SCO=FUD

SCO and the RIAA

[telstar]

So let me get this straight ... Intellectual Property Misappropriation is worth $650 and Copyright Infringement is worth $150,000? That's balance...

60,000 Lawsuits can be wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it be reasonable for individual Linux users (the target of SCO's new Unixware license campaign) to sue SCO? I mean, if 60,000 Linux users sued and asked the courts to clarify if the GPL license for their Linux distribution is valid, SCO would have a hard time just responding to the lawsuits let alone defending them. Is this strategy even worthile to think about?

best defence of them all for linux!

[mabhatter654]

Suse & co have a fine line to walk with United Linux. Generally, to create such a product there are "cease-fire" and cross-license aggrements put into place at the start. Being as the "linux" that SCO sells was directly derived from Suse code [and file system layouts, UI, and other SuSe trade secrets..all that you can have in Linux], Suse would have some pretty good protection for it's version of Linux to be cleared by SCO...they don't really want to mess that up.

also, the agreement provides another establishment that SCO had [or should have had] due dilegence in the knowladge of the contents of the linux kernel and other supporting code...They engaged actively and willingly in cross-licensing the technology from/to other Linux distros! McBride has already hinted that SCO will try to get out of that contract or that it's worthless to the lawsuits...Suse will beg to differ.

Re:SCO

[BigBadBri]

And there was I, thinking it was just Darl preparing to insert his head prior to another SCO board meeting.

Sheesh!

Re:Replacing the Code

[Crispy Critters]

"...except that the end users didn't steal anything, so have no need for a SCO licence."

The only possible situation in which Linux users could need a license is if the kernel infringed on patents owned by SCO. You need permission to use something covered by a patent regardless of how you got it. This is why Unisys could demand money for making gifs using patented LZW compression. However, patents are the one form of IP that so far don't seem to be involved here.

Linux distributors should offer IP insurance

[kneels_bore]

Red Hat, Suse and other Linux distributors need to understand that some businesses will require a form of indemnity insurance if they are to adopt Linux. The very nature of the OS model leaves it wide open to SCO style abuse. Distributors could easily set up a scheme whereby for an additional premium they indemnify their clients against IP claims. A large insurance company could take on the risk analysis and reinsurance companies would spread the risk. Companies who felt the need would pony up the insurance premium. What these distributors and most commentators have failed to understand is that this flaw in the OS model cannot be fixed by recoding, it needs a modification of the commercial package on offer to business.

court date

[NetMagi]

The fact that the court date is in 2005 is to their advantage. They know the code could probably be replaced in 10 minutes if shown to the right people.

I wouldn't be surprised if their plan is to sue end users for their use of the software between now and 2005 when they really show us the code. . And hey it might work. . bastards. .

WHEN they prove this ownership in court

[morven2]

and not before. You do NOT have to pay a cent until it's proven, and as an end user you have ZERO liability up to that point. Yes, if SCO wins in court they MAY be able to claim rights to some things currently in the Linux kernel. AT THAT POINT (and not before), you should cease running code you now KNOW is stolen. If you do that, you have absolutely no liability whatsoever.

Re:What about UnitedLinux? part 2

[mabhatter654]

I was also considering that under the United Linux agreements there would have to be a remedy for this situation..How could SCO hold other members distros liable...more than that, how could they refuse to give other members the info about the liability to allow them to be compliant per the agreement.

This could be the backdoor Linux needs. If SCO lawyers visit a UL shop and demand $$ then the partners have a contractual complaint against SCO. Suse could demand remedy [under NDA of the current agreement of course!] and make the neccessary changes to their kernel. BUT...that kernel would be under GPL and of course redistributable. We would have our patch. SCO would have IP protection. GPL would be saved.

Don't expect any common sense to come from really expensive lawyers though...sorry.

does SCO have pay-per-click ad?

[cliffmeece]

I wonder if they have any pay per click ads out there? We could slashdot that add and cause them an increase in the ad budget...

ideally it would be a google-type sponsored link so you could could search for a few words and guarantee their link at the top of the results.

nope, that's an infinite loop...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the recursion:

int sue_company(Company& myCompany, Company& otherCompany)
{
if ((myCompany.capital > 0.0) && (otherCompany.capital > 0.0))
{
myCompany.capital -= prosecution_lawyer_fees + court_fees;
otherCompany.capital -= defense_lawyer_fees;
sue_company(otherCompany, myCompany);
} else if (myCompany.capital > 0.0)
{
return otherCompany.chaptereleven();
} else
{
return myCompany.chaptereleven();
}
}

Solaris Is Going Away

[DerFeuervogel]

It's just a matter of time before McNealy sees the inevitability of this. He was the final arbiter in the Death if SunOS and he will have to pull the plug on Solaris.
The only reason he hasn't pulled it yet i he doesn't want to loose face. Frankly he should just stand up like a man admit he dropped the ball on SunOS kill Solaris and move on.

Re:Solaris Is Going Away

[Prof.Phreak]

I doubt you realize how much engineering effort Solaris represents. It's internals are actually *thought out* fairly well. The kernel is much more robust in terms of high load and availability than the Linux one (try it, see for yourself).

Dumping it would be 'bad' by any measure. The best thing that I'd personally like to see happen is them merging Solaris and Linux.

Linux has a lot of quick & dirty hacks, it supports a ton of consumer hardware, etc., solaris is more of a stable-well-thought-out OS, that lacks some of that 'agility' that Linux has.

Re:Solaris Is Going Away

[grigori]

What a silly comment from DerFeurvogel. SunOS wasnt killed to make Solaris; Solaris is the name SunOS goes by now (actually the innards are still called SunOS). Do a uname -a on any Sun box.

The other replier is right - lots of nifty engineering in Solaris.

Re:Solaris Is Going Away

[nutznboltz]

Explain this webpage then.

Re:Solaris Is Going Away

[Axynter]

LOL! Trolling should be done with SOME style! Still though, your post is rather funny...

Re:Solaris Is Going Away

[eniu!uine]

The best thing that I'd personally like to see happen is them merging Solaris and Linux.

Who knows.. there might be some Solaris code in Linux already.

Re:Solaris Is Going Away

[DerFeuervogel]

Actually it was. Larry McVoy tried to get SUN to open up their OS a _while_ ago, but instead Sun dropped the BSD version of their OS for the AT&T version (UnixWare). Allot of the history of this is available in "rebel code" - Glyn Moody
(c) 2001, ISBN 0-7382-0333-5

Re:Solaris Is Going Away

[DerFeuervogel]

I doubt you realize how much engineering effort Solaris represents

Actually I have a fair idea. I've used both SunOS and Solaris extensively and can attest to the fact that SUN SW engineers know that they are doing, especially at the enterprise level.

But the point remains, SUN cannot continue to maintain Solaris _and_ offer systems that meat the price/performance of the Linux distros. At some point Linux will encroach on the enterprise level and then SUN will be a house divided.

It's IMHO better for them to bite the bullet now and make Linux more enterprise ready by truly contributing to it. Solaris is going away. It's not _if_ but _when_.
-DF

Re:Solaris Is Going Away

[grigori]

Easy: the web page you point to is from 1994 (12/10/94 to be exact) when Solaris was brand new and buggy, and people still wanted the old flavor of ice cream. Duh.

Re:Solaris Is Going Away

[grigori]

No no no - we're not going to bring up anal BSD vs. SysV wars any more now, are we? Bring that up right next to vi vs. emacs willya?

Re:Solaris Is Going Away

[nutznboltz]

Your explaination does not answer the question that I was posing to the person who I posted my response to. Namely: "if he is correct about SunOS and Solaris being the same thing, then why would there be such a fuss about installing one or the other?"

Re:Solaris Is Going Away

[grigori]

Because it was a big deal 10 years ago.
Just like it was a big deal when people on mainframes converted from OS/360 to MVS. But it's ancient history now.

Re:Solaris Is Going Away

[grigori]

I suppose I should talk about the differences too: Solaris dropped the free C compiler and people were really pissed off about it. gcc takes care of 'free', and the Sun compilers got a lot better over time because there was $ to pay for programmers. The other reason was that 1st cuts of Solaris were shaky, as a lot of code got changed. Finally, there was the whole SysV vs. BSD 4.x Unix dialect war stuff, as that changed going SunOS to Solaris. Thats all a LOOOONG time ago now.

Re:Wallpaper of the Penguin smashing the SCO Logo

[Anonymous Coward]

Done and done:

http://sillyputty.greatnow.com/TuxSco.html

Re:Replacing the Code

[mdielmann]

Yes, but if copyright infringement is the issue, all users would be held responsible. The law holds that ignorance is not a defence, so we can't be excused if we don't know, although it might mitigate the punishment. Of course, once you do know, you are fully liable, possibly from the point of the issue being raised, and not when it is proven. I don't see how it would be any different there than it would be if I got an mp3 from my friend, thinking it was from his collection (thus fair use), and later learned that he didn't have a legal copy to exercise fair use on. If I keep it and RIAA comes knocking, where's my defence?

Now, granted, IP laws doubtless vary, and if they only attack (or decide to keep their attack) on that front, other issues apply, and it might very well be that it's just a slap on the wrist and an order to remove the offending code...which is hopefully as bad as it gets.

Sorry to get all technical on you, but it was a really bad analogy ;)

hurd in your spare time

[guest12]

now. nuff said

Heh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cursed be your name SCO, for the abomination you have visited upon the software industry. You shall have no stock value, nor dividends, nor assets. You shall not be permitted to come up from the depths.

Disappointment...

[Doctor Hu]

... The release quotes Darl McBride, SCO's President and CEO, as being 'disappointed' with Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik for not being 'forthcoming' about Red Hat's intentions in a previous discussion. ...

Well, I'm disappointed that Nicole Kidman didn't drop by yesterday to offer me a blowjob. Shucks, life is hard[1]. Fortunately, I have recently acquired the original version of Napoleon's last will and testament (excerts available for inspection if you sign my NDA). Yes, that's right: I am now the owner of la France, and I am truely, vraiment horrified and shocke at what later imposeurs have done. The country, she is tainted. But I can help you. Just send me 10 Euros in used notes, and tell me your name, your address, your inside leg measurement, and the numbers of your bank accounts, and I will give you a promise that I will never visit your own lovely little house and pee on your front door! C'est formidable, n'est ce pas? En plus, I will put you on my naughty little mailing list for my next offerts speciales. How can you resist?

[1]Or not, as the case may be.

[2]More to the point, how is it that when Luigi and his 'family' make a living selling 'insurance' that your business doesn't get torched, everyone understands that the rule of law has broken down in the district, but when parasitic growths like SCO launder their threats through the US legal system itself, everything is OK and they can continue their shakedown attempts for months, possibly years on end?

Re:SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

But neither here nor there now you are proof that SCO has taken money to license a product that they do not own I believe all kernel contributors can sue them for distribution of their IP against the terms of the GPL which protected their IP.

Actually, they're trying to side-step that by not actually selling a license for Linux. They're selling you a license for their Unix, which they are saying will protect you (a la standard extortion protection racket) from being sued by them for your use of Linux. (Making it effectively a Linux license, so I think your point will hold up, but will need to be tested in court).

SCO is the next RIAA

[tgraupmann]

SCO is using the tactics of the RIAA to get massive amounts of income from a dying market, while reaping the benefits from companies that use Linux to save money.

Re:SCO is the next RIAA

[miscGeek]

Nah, they are a RIAA wanabe. Their problem is they are only pissing people off or people are ignoring them or both. You're right on one point their tactics are very similar....,hmmm.. maybe the RIAA will sue them for copying their business tactics :)

Mod up...

[EvanED]

THE funniest court document ever read. "Literally millions of Fucking records have been sold..."

it hits the fan

[kaycee77025]

The big fun comes when SCO sues a user! It will give IBM, Redhat and others a goal to defend.

SCOO?

[HiggsBison]

Ha! I can just see Darl "Pirana" McBride's next bright idea, SCOO, the Santa Cruz Other Operation.

Perhaps you're thinking of the Other Santa Cruz Operation.
They got sued into oblivion by Jewel/OSCO.

Re:Replacing the Code

[theLOUDroom]

Exactly.

Once the actually proved in court that the code was distributed illegally, you would have to stop using it. If you didn't stop, you could be held liable (just like you couldn't keep the stolen wheels).

The cool thing about Linux in this situation, is that the day the offending code is revealed, it will probably be removed from the kernel. By the time a verdict is reached, it should be a simple matter of running apt-get, emerge, up2date, or whatever else your distro uses.


Here's a question though.....What about embedded Linux?

Re:Instead of just taking SCO to courrt..

[dinog]

#include

No. They should say that SCO's interpretation of derivative product makes UnixWare with the LKP a an illegally distributed (GPL related issues here) derivative of Linux. Therefore, according to SCO's own line of reasoning, every Linux contributor has the rights to demand license fees from UnixWare end users.

Also, because this is SCO's interpretation, they clearly knew this is the case and the same Linux contributors can sue SCO for damages as well as a punative award.

Of course there is no need to show any actual infringing code in the LKP, as demonstrated by SCO in their suit.

Dean G.

Typo. My bad. Sorry.

[HiggsBison]

What, just like SCO were when they decided to distribute a Linux distro, including code that said "Please use me", and then get all of their revenue by suing people for doing so?

Yes, well, when I included their code, unfortunately, I had it in there as "Please sue me".

D'oh!

In that light, I think their position is perfectly understandable.

Re:Replacing the Code

[utlemming]

Actually, for a good laugh, check out the SCO website. Even if you bought SCO Linux or Caldera Linux, quess what? YOU HAVE TO BUY AN IP LICENSE. Now isn't that nice? So for those that bought an SCO Linux, your going to get raped again. Looks like SCO took licensing lessons from Microsoft. Go figure.

Words are cheap

[Anonymous Coward]

It's one thing to put out a press release saying SuSE supports RedHat. It's another entirely to contribute some money to pay the lawyers in RedHat's lawsuit. Will SuSE put even a little of its money where its mouth is?

Re:Replacing the Code

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that you are confused. The damage to SCO is already done if it in fact exists. Rewriting Linux won't really help things. If it was that simple, what infringer wouldn't simply rewrite their code and avoid blame?

SCO Customer Service

[Anonymous Coward]

The Register has an article on SCO's response to Red Hat's lawsuit:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/32187.ht ml

They give the customer service number that can be called to register a Linux server and pay them $699.

The number is 1-800-726-8649.

It would be a shame if nobody could get through to do business with SCO because thousands of modems were repeatedly dialing that number... ;-)

And just for kicks...

[Theatetus]

12.5 cents American = 1 bit
Which I guess makes 1 US Dollar a byte.

Go figure

Re:Replacing the Code

[Anonymous Coward]

if I got an mp3 from my friend, thinking it was from his collection (thus fair use), and later learned that he didn't have a legal copy to exercise fair use on. If I keep it and RIAA comes knocking, where's my defence?

THAT'S when you're in trouble. However, in this case, the RIAA still hasn't proven that your friend didn't have the right to loan you that MP3. All they've done is wave their hands and make claims without any proof, and refuse to show proof because if they did, you might delete the MP3 (complying with the law, and denying them the ability to sue you for bonus damages). Do you see the difference YET?

United linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Now this is the kind of "united linux" I support!

All the major linux vendors should unite to destroy a common enemy :D

lat3ralis

Why can't we all sue SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasn't it been reported that SCO has placed GPL code from the Linux kernel into their non-GPL product? If so, why can't we sue SCO?

Also, for all we know, the code SCO claims Linux stole from them could have been stolen from Linux and placed into SCO's code. In fact, this would be much easier since there is no outside review of SCO's code, whereas any code that goes into the Linux kernel is reviewed.

six of one, half dozen of the other

[EZCheese]

In the release, SCO insists that it is not trying to spread "fear, uncertainty and doubt" (commonly known in the industry as FUD) to users. Instead, the company asserts, we have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX."

You say potato,
And I say po-tah-to...

Re:Instead of just taking SCO to courrt..

[Anonymous Coward]

> The actions of the SCO executive are unethical,
> unconscionable, and at least in Germany,
> illegal.

Please explain to us how using legal avenues
to keep a company from stealing your property
is unethical, and unconscionable, and illegal.

SCO name

[booch]

The real "SCO" no longer exists. They became the Tarantella Group. What is currently called "SCO" is really the Canopy Group.

Sorry, but Caldera bought a portion of SCO and the rights to the SCO name. They also recently filed an official change of name. I realize that you don't like the new SCO reflecting poorly on the old company, but legally they are SCO.

Re:SCO name

[dvNull]

I kinda think the name change was a prelude to lawsuits anywayz cause imagine them trying to sue for Linux IP violations AS Caldera

dvnull

And at your next interview after that...

[soft_guy]

Interviewer: "Tell me about your last position at SCO, Mr. Jones."

Jones: "They were trying to sue Linux out of existance, remember? Well, I got the idea that it would be cool to fight back from the inside by infiltrating the company and then working to destroy it. It worked. After I was there just three weeks, SCO tanked!"

Interviewer: "And what makes you think you'd be a good fit here at Microsoft?"

Re:And at your next interview after that...

[Anthony Boyd]

OMG that is funny!

Show your support by showing off a 'SCO SUCKS' btn

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO SUCKS

Anti-SCO T-Shirts countersue this

[saspengiun]

Tell SCO it suck it buy buying a t shirt, all proceeds go to the open source now legal fund SCO Shirt

One possibility I'm wondering about

[wrinkledshirt]

Assuming that SCO really does have some specific code in mind that they're saying has been lifted from them and put into Linux, and assuming all the relevent Linux parties are sure that their code is clean and this hasn't happened, maybe it's possible that SCO's got it backwards, and that THEY have code that's been lifted from Linux, and by subsequently releasing binaries without the code, they're in violation of the GPL...?

Has this possibility been brought up and addressed elsewhere yet? Sorry, but these SCO threads have been so traffic-heavy maybe I missed it.

United Linux

[CrkHead]

I think it is very nice of SCO to leave this page up.
http://www.caldera.com/unitedlinux/

Re:SCO CEO Address & Phone # MOD PARENT UP!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

excellent work. No go find sontags details as well.

More anti Sun bullshit.

[jotaeleemeese]

1.- Solaris is free for one processor machines (most x86 on which Linux runs as a server).

2.- Sun is promoting, although shyly, Linux machines on x86 architecture. They would also lose time and money with their Linux offerings in the completely unlikely case in which Linux becomes unvaiable.

Surely Sun's jump at the opportunity to bash AIX was comnpletely despicable, a lot of the goodwill I have for them was severely dented by that attitude, but that is a far cry from bashing them as the main conspirators in this sorry matter.

Merging Solaris and Linux

[jotaeleemeese]

This is up to a degree already happening.

I am posting this from Mozilla running in a Gnome desktop in Soalris 2.8. Mozilla just became officially supported and I am sure will be Solaris' browser in future realeases. I don't know the exact situation of Gnome but I guess it is similar.

I routinely use Perl, I have a little Apache server to keep a couple of small Web apps.

Sun has been offering for some time now a set of GNU tools fro Solaris.

So baring the kernel (that as has been said before on this thread) which is substantially better in Solaris, you can just feel at home in Solaris if you are a Linux user, most of the tools you normally use are already included or are easily obtainable directly from Sun.

You are joking, trolling or both.

[jotaeleemeese]

Linux is not remotely capable (yet, but maybe never) of the amount of escalation provided by Solaris. On top of that the close cupling of hardware and software by the same company provides many advantages that Linux can't provide.

At least for the forseable future in the medium and high end of the server market there is no chance that the UNIXes around will be dropped.

Er, no.

[jotaeleemeese]

Mention one company sued by SCO for using Linux.

But Sun is evil!

[jotaeleemeese]

Haven't you been long here sonny?

Re:But Sun is evil!

[bstadil]

Haven't you been long here sonny?

Take a look at my ID number 7110 vs your uncool 303437.

Second look who filed the Initial SCO vs IBM post. Beat That, Sonny.

Learn to Read

[nathanh]

Mention one company sued by SCO for using Linux.

Why should I? I didn't make any comment about SCO suing companies that use Linux.

UnitedLinux may not be so "United" after all

[MZoom]

Reader psykocrime adds "According to this SuSE press release, SuSE has publically announced their support for RedHat's actions against SCO. Quoting from the press release: '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.'"

It appears that UnitedLinux may not be so "United" after all.

I wonder how Connectiva and TurboLinux feel about this?

Scott

for

[strike2867]

Anyone else think that when 2005 comes we find out that SCO is suing IBM for the use of the FOR ... ENDFOR statement, which it apparently copyrighted by paying some idiot off.

not good

[midgley]

understandable, but better avoided.

Can't compete? Litigate!

[MMHere]

Looks like we're running out of sand here in the U.S.

As in, "What do you need if you have 100 lawyers buried up to their necks in sand?"

"More sand."

Schrodinger's Cat

[Anonymous Coward]

It's EXACTLY like Schrodinger's cat.
The deal with that is, if you want to determine if the cat is alive or dead, the act of observation kills the cat (the quantum uncertainty is destroyed).
Similarly, once we determine if SCO's claim is alive or dead, the act of them releasing the claim kills it.

Re:Instead of just taking SCO to courrt..

[AgTiger]

> Please explain to us how using legal avenues
> to keep a company from stealing your property
> is unethical, and unconscionable, and illegal.

Except that the avenues are not legal. Germany already pressed that issue, and SCO shut down their website in Germany rather than tangling with that beast.

They may well be facing prosecution for extortion and racketeering under the RICO Act in the United States if they keep this nonsense up.

If you sue me for financial damages, you do NOT get to collect from me (or 1,500 others) in advance of a verdict in your favor.