Slashdot Mirror
SCO Targets US Government, TiVo
An anonymous reader writes "According to SCO, if you have a TiVo set-top box, or those models of Sharp Zaurus which use Linux, someone now owes them $32, since the company wants money 'for each embedded system using Linux.' SCO also says government agencies must pay up to $699 for each copy of Linux that they use."
SCO is demanding 5$ from everyone who has talked about Linux in the past year, and 75 cents from people who have walked by Linux displays in retail stores.
-------------------------------------------------
Trying to piss EVERYONE off, are we, SCO?
Putting the romance back into necromancer.
In further news, the US Government replied that, "SCO owes us $2,000 per day of liberty, retroactively to 1789. Failure to pay will result in 'legal action' from our tactical nuclear warhead supply."
I'm sure Linksys/Cisco will really love the idea of having to pay SCO some money to be able to ship some of its more recent wireless routers. SCO is going to be crushed by a big company like Cisco; it's only a matter of time (and how much we let them whine).
*toggles off Caldera news*
Wow imagine a beowulf cluster of these claims! :(
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
I think this is all just a way to make us run out of SCO jokes before the trial. McBride is such a clever bastard.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Everybody should call SCO now and demand:
1) WHAT you get by paying them
2) WHAT part of linux infringes
3) TO SEE PROOF of infringement
When they don't provide it then it's time for lawsuits out the wazoo!
Call me an idiot, but I can't imagine that they'd go down this path if they knew they were only bluffing. Who would honestly be stupid enough to take on the US government on a money issue like this, just when the electioneering is getting started for '04, without thinking they could win?
Maybe SCO, maybe not.
Given the history of SCO in this matter so far did you really think that they were going to stick to only attempting to extort those running Linux for commercial purposes? Everyone knows a software company wants those nice government contracts, so why wouldnt SCO try to claim they already have them and just havent been paid.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Personally I find SCO's management style refreshing.
No wishy-washyness. It's damn the torpedoes, and full speed ahead. Never a moment of doubt that they may be making a huge mistake. No second guessing themselves. We know what we want, and we know where we're going. And we'll be damned if ANYTHING is going to dissuade us. Full court press, lads.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
[... snip out boring stuff...]
Sources close to the controversy report hearing SCO CEO Darl McBride screaming and then loud thumps, before noting a non-descript black van leaving the SCO compound.
Administration Spokesperson Dill Franken had this to say, "While we cannot reveal the identity of the individuals for reasons of National Security, we can safely say that we have thwarted a terrorist network in their attempts to threaten the government, and our way of life."
He then went on to check his watch and remarked, "they should be arriving at Camp X-ray, right... about... now!" He then took some questions and concluded the press conference.
Black and grey are both shades of white.
...it's stupid enough pissing on big blue's shoes, but when you start trying to bully the US government, you get called a terrorist, and we all know what happens then.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
1) Maybe if SCO actually made something linux-based for the mass market worth purchasing they would reap some of those "lost profits" they moan about
2) Linux code should be de-SCOed to prevent this sort of problem from continuing to flair up
3) Would someone please investigate the RIAA to see if they're using any Linux systems? Personally I'd love to see the RIAA and SCO duke it out in court instead of on consumers who have to settle on their terms...
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
I wrote to the SEC the other day. This lawsuit is frivolous. Basically this is a pump and dump scheme. SCO's executives are hyping up this lawsuit and their company while in the backroom apparently they are selling their own stock.
Well this sucks. Has anyone hacked the Tivo yet to run Windows?
$699 per license seems rather pricey considering SCO can at best only claim responsibility for a fraction of the code.
Anyone want to crunch the numbers line-by-line to discover how much a boxed linux version should set you back if SCO's per-line cost is translated across the entire code?
Read the article. They're demanding $32 a copy from the OEM; in this case, the TiVo company themselves. Individual users are NOT liable for this, they cannot demand this and they won't get it. If TiVo ships code it shouldn't have, then they are liable, not their customers.
A company truly serious about a genuine claim would't be behaving this way, IMO. SCO wouldn't be trying to shake down users in advance of a judgment; rather, they'd get a judgment, and then, armed with that, their shakedown would have MUCH more teeth.
Surely there must be some criminal charges that can be laid against SCO in some jurisdiction.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
sco.slashdot.org
so much sco stuff has been happening lately and there's no sign of it going away anytime soon. The big shocking ones can make the main page, but I'm willing to bet there's so much sco stuff that you guys are turning away some of it.
You've recently done this with apple and games. I think a sco option would be useful.
Thanks!!!
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
They used to use a 2.1.24 (plus mods) kernel, so they should fall outside SCO's demands. I don't know if the latest TiVos are using 2.4-based kernels, but I'd be surprised if they are.
SCO wants $13 from anyone who has a shirt or sticker with the word Linux on it.... film at 11:00..
I'd say it's time for the esteemed Attourney General John Ashcroft to prosecute SCO and its executives for Racketeering. In the 20s, they used guns. In this century, they use unsubstantiated IP claims. But either way, they're demanding 'protection money' they aren't entitled to. Maybe we can re-open Alcatraz and put Darl there as a tourist attraction.
For charges related to purchasing alcohol based screen wipes due to excessive coffee stains splattered on computer monitor.
SCO is about to burn out....IMHO. The move on the part of RedHat really spurred them into action. I don't know why they see this as such a threat, but the fact that they are consistently throwing out press releases really seems indicative of something more then damage control.
It's like they have a deathwish. They have gone beyond ordinary corporate scum, beyond pump-and-dump parasites and have painted a great big bullseye on their own ass with this one.
This is not selfish. It is not stupid. It is downright crazy. They must be laying the groundwork for an insanity defense for when the SEC picks them up.
Here's some things from their IP FAQ:
Does the SCO IP License for Linux include a media kit?
No. Nothing needs to be installed on the server or embedded device.
Excellent. I just purchased $700 of nothing. That'll be easy to justify to the boss
I have Linux servers deployed in my organization. What options do I have besides purchasing a SCO IP license?
There are 3 options for you to evaluate:
You have the option to do nothing, adopt a "wait and see" attitude, and hope that SCO is not serious about enforcing its intellectual property rights in the end user community.
You can replace all servers, desktop and embedded uses of Linux.
You can obtain a license from SCO to use SCO IP in binary form in Linux distributions
Cover your ass, install Windows, or pay up, bitch!
How are the licenses activated?
Licenses are activated by registering the license with SCO and identifying the system covered by the license. The identification of the system can follow whatever identification conventions you use internally. (i.e., by name, by location, etc.)
See your wallet becoming lighter? Good! Now you are compliant! Get on your knees!
I have a weird uncle who is always going on about how he's going to sue the government about some dumb thing from back in the deep past. Now, SCO is turning into my weird uncle. Maybe I can get my weird uncle in touch with Darl McBride, and they can hang out. I'll have to send along enough medication for both of them.
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
Isn't 1789 the French Revolution? 1776 is USA independance.
:-)
March 4th, 1989 was the day set forth that the government would start operating under the Constitution prior to that the government as we know it didn't exist and therefore cannot charge for freedom prior to that date.
Datardly
Is this significant?
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html
Yet another stock pump and dump. They're not hoping for a buy out anymore - this is suicide.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
This link in LWN provides the text of SCO's "Linux license".
Enjoy.
One of the LWN posters raise a very interesting question:
> > SCO WARRANTS THAT IT IS EMPOWERED TO GRANT THE
> > RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN.
>
> Does this mean that SCO is definitely claiming
> to own some rights over the a GNU/Linux system,
> and that anyone who buys this license can sue
> them when they turn out not to have any such
> "intellectual property"?
Very interesting, indeed.
http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/index.html visit their webpage and tell them were they can stick their license fees.
Obama = Socialism.
Then, one day, one of the villagers announced that certain pieces of the pipeline were his, and had been used without his permission. Because of that, he said, the pipeline belonged to him, and anybody who wanted to get water from it had to pay him ten dollars for each bucket of water they took from the pipeline. The villagers offered to replace his stolen pipe sections with their own spare sections, and return the stolen ones to him, but the villager didn't want that -- in fact, he refused to even tell the other villagers which sections were the stolen ones. "Just pay me the money you owe me", he said, "and I'll let you use my pipeline."
The villagers gathered together again, to determine what to do about this new problem. After several minutes of debate, a plan was devised. That night, they went to the villager's house with torches and pitchforks, burned it to the ground, and fed the villager to the stray dogs.
And they all lived happily ever after.
The End.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I own a TiVo ... and fuck SCO!
on a regular basis?
I hope you didn't catch anything, god knows who SCO has been sleeping with.
~foooo
Just trying to push up the stock prices. The SCO executives will be selling off all their stocks soon enough.
Did SCO get bought by the guy who bought Pabst, closed all the breweries and leased the Pabst name? Charles Hurwitz, the same guy who bought the logging companies in Northern California, upped the logging, sold his stocks high, and then the logging companies went under when they logged out everything. Maybe it's 2 guys and I'm just thinking (hoping) it's just one evil guy.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
1989? really? wow, I didn't think Papa Bush did anything good during his tenure, but I guess I was wrong.
This whole thing reminds me of elementary school. I was pretty little, but I was a smart-ass and I liked to piss people off. So I would go an taunt the big kids and they would chase me around and then all beat the snot out of me. SCO seems to have taken this (somewhat stupid) idea from me. I should sue, that idea is my intellectual property.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
While we're all waiting for plague to descend on good 'ol Darl and his league of flying monkeys (read legal department), what about creating a "clean" kernel that they don't have claims against?
Since 2.2 apparently doesn't infringe, why not create a super 2.2 kernel and swap it in for the (allegedly) infringing newer kernels on as many systems as possible?
Here's what I'm thinking/wondering:
1. How many Linux users actually need/use the components that IBM contributed?
2. How much non-infringing post-2.2 stuff can be back-ported to the 2.2 kernel?
3. If you managed to back-port as much as possible and polish-up a 2.2 kernel as much as it can be polished, will it meet the needs of most users?
A couple of SCO reps knocked on my door this morning demanding I pay them. I just whipped out a Mentos and we all smiled.
"Derp de derp."
So where do I send my check for donations for the Red Hat/Debian/IBM/Anybody elses' lawsuit against SCO? $32 Dollars? WTF? I gladly give 10x times that to put SCO out of business.
The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes, little bits of data.
Even if those pig-fuckers had an airtight case, Debian-Hurd and Debian-BSD are an easy mkfs away. Do you think for one second that the kernel you're running makes a huge difference versus the software on top of it? And I'd go back to fucking CPM much more readily than I'd consider paying SCO's extortion money.
(Yes, I said pig-fuckers. I think they get up on pigs and they fuck them. Squeeeeee! Anyone wanna disagree?)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I would like to see how SCO can charge for code that are not in the binary image. Embedded system like Tivo have very little probability to compile NUMA or RCU code. This have no sense. Remember that SCO licence is for binary use (to be compilant with the GPL, as there say...).
SCO is crasy if there expect to charge for somthing that don't even exists!
Is anyone else waiting for the televised press conference where the CEO or spokesperson or whoever starts banging on the podium with a shoe and screams "WE WILL BURY YOU!!!"? Is it just me?
"Understand you're having a little Jimmy Page trouble."
You know, dude in wife-beater t-shirt and cutoffs starts a loud confrontation, barricades and arms himself, gets armed representatives of The Authorities (tm) sucked in, and then threatens said representatives with his weapon. SWAT dude has to pull the trigger, and then it's goodbye cruel world.
Damn near foolproof way to off yourself once the hardcore tactical team is on scene, and it's technically not suicide!
So, We've got SCO (bad mullet, tank-top, and raggy jeans) waving his 9mm around at everyone, including some folks that just finished getting heavy-handed on some folks between the Euphrates and Tigris. Like I said, suicide-by-cop.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
A couple of interesting tidbits from the story:
IOW, the Linux community shouldn't be allowed to correct the infringement, but should instead be forced to pay royalties to SCO until the end of time.
Also, it says that the suit against IBM isn't going to trial until April 2005.
The Salt Lake Tribune takes a more pro-community stance in this story. It quotes Bruce Perens as saying, "Let me make it clear how dangerous the SCO license is to customers. If you buy it, you can be sued by each and every copyright holder of GPL software in a Linux system for infringing upon their copyright and violating the terms of their license. That's tens of thousands of potential plaintiffs."
Oh, and Laura DiDio compares Linux developers to a 60's hippie commune. It's a fun read. Could someone please remind me why this woman is qualified to have an opinion on anything?
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
This is one for the MS-SCO conspiracy people. SCO suing the US federal gov is a great for Microsoft, they can now point at this and say "I told you so".
Even if (well more like when) SCO lose, Microsoft can now bring up this case when it comes to any kind of OSS competition with regards to government contracts they will just say:
"Hey remember that whole SCO thing? How do you know it won't happen again but next time with a valid claim?"
Two words: Emminent Domain.
When someone's property is needed by the governement for the public good, the government can appropriate it for pretty much whatever they deem it's worth. (Courts rarely prevent this, no matter how egregious an abuse by a governmental entity.)
Linux is used in National Security situations and powers a good deal of the Internet. Having Linux remain free is of serious national interest. Claim emminent domain over SCO's intellectual property. If they fork over the disputed code, just take that and put it in the public domain. If they resist, raid them and take all of Unixware.
I'll leave it to the bean counters to determine the appropriate worth of a dying piece of software from a dying company.
The theatrics and plain, blatant, obvious abuse of the "little man" by anyone with a fair amount of money is stunning. I compare a number of things:
Today on slashdot, there was an article on the 20 year old left wing loudmouth who gets a year in jail for linking to a website with bombmaking instructions while the despotic bastard CEO of SCO can make claims and threats about a computer operating system while offering no evidence whatsoever and not only get away with it, but also make a fair amount of money at the same time.
Compare the above to an article in the Washington Post about gangland killings in Washington DC, where gang members, who are all armed and are all involved in criminal activities are hardly prosecuted and the case of Germany, where a legal injunction forced SCO to withdraw it's claims in that country, completely.
I personally think that whatever happens to Linux in the USA in terms of SCO being able to legally enforce payment of licences, those will have no effect outside the USA and I will personally piss in my pants laughing when SCO attempts to do some enforcing in the EU.
agreed, before when sco was trying to make their worthless company worthsomething by threatening people so they would buy them out i wasnt annoyed. but now they are fucking with tivo and that just will not stand.
i think its time for all the zombies to rise
members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
Don't try to charge someone more than it'll cost to have you killed.
Sorry, I forget the exact quote or where I heard it.
i imagine each idea would start like this:
(...bong-water bubble sounds...)
(...pause...)
(...exhale...)
"Heeheehee... dude, check this one out, you are gonna freak:..."
(...stifled chortling...)
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
If you're running MAME, you owe me $32. Pay up! MAME includes some code I wrote, in violation of the GPL license on my code. Unlike SCO, I'm actually willing to publicly identify which lines of code are at issue.
I'm joking about the $32, although they really did violate my license. However, I'm NOT going to sue them. In fact, I think I'll grant the MAME project a license to use the code under the MAME license instead.
So much for my chances of making billions of dollars on it! :-)
While the lawsuits being defended by IBM and filed by Red Hat are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.
If we all work together, we can put the executives of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.
If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.
It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech, was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC. Many of my best friends used to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time. I used to dance to the music of SCO's company band Deth Specula at parties around the town.
Before I ever installed my first Linux distro - remember Yggdrasil Plug-n-Play? - I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.
You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.
Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.
It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.
I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".
My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.
Even if SCO's claims are true, it is not a violation of their copyright for me to possess a copy of their code. Instead, any copyright infringement was committed by the vendors who supplied me with the Linux distributions I use.
SCO's license is actually no license at all - if it really is found that the Linux kernel contains any infringing code, the GPL forbids everyone who possesses a copy from using it at all. No one would be allowed to con
Request your free CD of my piano music.
SCO announced that they would be attempting to shut down all network servers allowing users to download Linux patches and updates free of charge. They also mentioned that they would be offering a subscription service where users could download updates for $1 per file, and that they would also be resorting to legal action in order to make university network administrators disclose the names of students running illegal Linux systems on campus.
" Just trying to push up the stock prices. The SCO executives will be selling off all their stocks soon enough."
You know I thought it was as simple as this, up until yesterday. Yesterday mention was made that McBride had started mentioning targeting Stallman as one of those responsible for infringing on SCO IP. Stallman is certainly well known to most of us here, however to the stock broker and day trader monkeys he and his ideas are way too esoteric (for better or worse) to have any meaning at all in an attempt to manipulate stock price. Indeed Stallman has gone to great lengths to distance himself from the linux kernel (the only part of the GNU/linux package currently under contention by SCO), and is deeply involved in developing the independent HURD kernel - in these ways he is a completely incorrect target for the stock manipulation purpose.
I'm starting to think (with credit to others who have ruminated on the idea as well) there's something more insidious to all this than just a stock manipulation scheme. We've heard it before a dozen times - we'll just switch to a BSD, or we'll just remove the offending lines of code, or we'll just drop in HURD for the kernel instead of linux - our linux "problems" from SCO's perspective are seemingly easily solved, and in the short run you'd probably be right. But the scope of the SCO attack is too broad based (and seemingly getting more broad daily) to be simply focused on corrupting the linux kernel now - that is too easily thwarted - and if we can see it I'm sure someone at SCO sees it too. (Sorry chums we're not the only +5 insightful people on the planet)
I think that this is more about someone (and it has been suggested before on these boards by others, but bears repeating) is trying very hard to cut the legs out from under the entire OSS movement here and now. I think interested parties have come to realize that the time is near when it will no longer to be possible to perpetuate the proprietary program for rent business model of software development due to OSS having gained far too much momentum and widespread adoption. Even despite things like the SCO suits, we get more reports of more and larger businesses, governments and institutions committing firmly to integrating OSS and OSS products into their infrastructures on an almost daily basis. If those who wish to stop this are going to do so, they must do so now. I think this isn't only a last desperate gasp by SCO for some money, I think its a desperate gambit by proprietary software interests to kill OSS before it kills them. The stock manipulation thing is too transparent to be the only goal of the SCO attacks.
Or maybe I'm just giving too much credit and being too conspiracy theory. What the heck, it's interesting to consider.
As an aside, how bitter is the cup of vindication Stallman must be sipping from right now? And those who thought he was a bit too evangelical in his stance must at least be taking a moment to reflect that what he has been warning and working against is now beginning to happen right in front of us. Additionally, had people been more willing to acquiesce to the idea of using GNU/Linux as the name of the package used, it may have been more readily appearant to even laymen that even were SCO's claims valid their "contributions" still represent a ridiculously small amount of the overall package and thus their claim would have been more obviously worthless. I'll leave that for others to debate.
SCOX net earings 2003 -4 million
SCOX net earings 2002 -25 million
SCOX net earings 2001 -131 million
SCOX net earings 2000 -27 million
SCOX net earings 1999 -9 million
Right there that's 196 million dollars of debt that SCO has accumulted in the past 5 years. So when you realize that your business model just ain't working, hey, why not just sue everyone.
SEC reports from SCO
... read on.
The insider purchases and sales are "Form 4". Insiders have to file these within 48-72 hours or something like that.
If you wanna learn a little bit about being a stock geek
First, how to find the stuff. Start at www.sec.gov. Look in the second section, "Filings and Forms". You can read the "Quick Edgar Tutorial" if you want, or go straight into "Search for Company Filings".
Click on "Companies & Other Filers" and type in "SCO".
Choose "Sco Group Inc".
Click on all the filings and start reading financialese. Hell, if you know any programming languages or scripting languages, financialese is not that hard to figure out.
Form 4 is "insider sales and purchases".
Form 10-Q is "quarterly report".
Form 10-K is "annual report".
Form PRE 14A and Form DEF 14A are the "proxy statement".
The proxy statement is where you find out how many shares and options the executives and directors get.
The form 4 is where you see many SCO execs selling mucho stock.
An executive can be fined or serve jail time if they lie in these reports, or if they fail to provide required information, so the quality of the information is better than other stuff they say which is NOT under penalty of perjury.
Watch out for the "risk factors". The way that companies get around the "must tell truth" and "must tell whole truth" requirements is to swamp their risk factors with extraneous crap. Like, for instance, the risk factors might say: "1. Martians might invade and disrupt our market. 2. Microsoft sells a product just like ours. 3. Airplanes might fly into our headquarters in Duluth. 4. Our top executives might catch Ebola." Only #2 is a real risk factor but they swamp it.
About 80% of the financial information available on the web is derivative of these reports, so if you read them on sec.gov, you get better info and cut out a lot of crap. Anything news-related takes a good long time to get into an SEC-report so you still have to read the news, but you can dig a lot of information out of the forms.
Have fun!
SCO is not trying to make money from the licences, if they were, the fee would be more like $10 per cpu.
For some reason they are trying to kill linux. The point isn't to ransom money, but to keep users from using Linux. The government is not going to ante up $699 per copy of linux until there is proof that it MUST. HOWEVER, no government purchaser watching this linux/SCO soap opera should approve new linux boxes to be bought (and for that manner, any big business IT department). This happening at a time when linux was just starting to get on a roll and look to be a real force.
The exorbinate fee sure seems to make that agreement with Microsoft seem even more sleezy...
I am living proof of the Peter Principle
It seems strange that TiVo would've gone with 2.1 instead of 2.2, but that's what they did...
bash-2.02# cat /proc/version
Linux version 2.1.24-TiVo-2.5 (build@buildmaster12) (gcc version 2.8.1) #8 Wed May 8 15:38:27 PDT 2002
bash-2.02#
According to this page, TiVo switched to 2.4 for Series 2. They most likely did this for the USB support (plug a USB Ethernet dongle into a Series 2 and it'll "phone home" over your broadband connection).
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
You just admitted to Slahsdot, a crowd of largely single male geeks that:
;)
1) You are female.
2) You are a geek.
3) Your boyfriend is NOT a geek.
Better hope your home address isn't easy to find you'll find him dangling from the roof tied up in Cat-5 cable and a line of geeks wating to woo you.
I said that I did not feel that $699 was fair with respect to the level of infringement that they allege in the kernel given that they have not yet proven their claims and that I don't even use an SMP kernel. I decided to negotiate, and I offered them "the finger".
In the event that they can show that their SMP code is indeed in the Linux kernel, I offered to remove said code -- since I don't use it anyway -- and I offered "the finger" again, since I have two hands.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
I must say that after playing with stocks for a little over 2 years now I have found the SEC reports (especially 10Q's) to be very informative.
If you're even thinking of investing in a company, read a recent 10Q first. This will clue you in on the state of the company, you'll find out if there are any external forces that may jeopardize the business and -- best of all -- it will point you in the direction of their competition.
Look at the competetors. Weed out the weak companies and get the one that is most likely to succeed in a sector (not necessarily the one that your "gut" tells you to go with).
Eric Sarjeant
eric[@]sarjeant.com
I think they hold the license to /usr/bin/finger!
...but since it will likely be rejected (the gods of karma are always against me), here ya go:
An Austrian Free Software group by the name of FFS has been talking to SCO Austria and SCO Germany, who have assured them SCO's European branches have "nothing to do" with SCO's claims, and there will be no Linux licences available from SCO in Europe. What's perhaps more interesting is that a SCO lawyer has admitted that SCO's copyright claims have little substance. The article is in German, unfortunately. Here's a very rough translation of the title and the first paragraph:
SCO Plays Dead: No License Fees in Europe
As reported by Pro-Linux, representatives of the FFS have been in touch with legal representatives of the Austrian and German branches of SCO, which has in the past few months accused Linux developers and users of intellectual property violations. These accusations, which remain as yet completely unsubstantiated, have recently culminated in SCO demanding license fees for Linux. This would amount to a misappropriation of Linux by the company, which would thus itself be exposed to accusations of software piracy. The FFS has now obtained a letter from SCO's legal counsel literally affirming that SCO's local branch has "nothing to do" with the claims. SCO's counsel, who has also admitted in a phone conversation with the FFS that SCO's copyright claims have little substance, goes on to protest that the company is doing everything to comply with the court decisions barring it from doing further damage to the reputation of Linux or its users.
[The rest of the article then goes into a rant on software patents etc.]
Comments on the linguistic side of my translation are also welcome, but bear in mind this was just a quickie.
And yes, I am karma whoring. But then, isn't everyone?
I find this quite interesting since my TiVos are running Linux 2.1.24. I thought SCO only had a problem with 2.4+?
# uname -a
Linux (none) 2.1.24-TiVo-2.5 #8 Wed May 8 15:38:27 PDT 2002 ppc unknown
So how does SCO know that the TiVo's code infringes on their IP? Can't we sick the DMCA on them for reverse-engineering the TiVo?
SCO is doing the IP-law equivalent of going on a rampage shooting people to steal their wallets because you think the "world owes you"
Repeal the DMCA!
I'm sorry, I can't divulge the location of the $32 at this time. I am willing to provide a set of scavenger hunt clues to selected, disinterested parties who are willing to sign an NDA, though...
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Sort of, but not really.
IBM declines to indemnify. That reveals uncertainty.
There are two factors to uncertainty: the risk that the event will happen times the cost of the event. The risk is low, especially as SCO is acting like a PR firm (and gets paid like one -- check out where their revenues come from). But the cost is huge. So (low risk) * (high cost) == wildly uncertain outcome. Nobody wants to step into that.
Underneath that, though, there is a real issue. Take the FSF's products for instance. With a few months of time, and cooperation from the FSF and its contributors, a small group of engineers could identify the origin of 99.9% of the source code in gcc and correlate it back to copyright assignments with physical signatures and indemnity clauses. RMS and Moglen knew what the fuck they were doing when they set up that system. I am not an expert on copyright protection, but I think it would be feasible for a company to do this and sell indemnified copies of gcc, if there were customer demand to pay for such a thing.
I've heard that IBM provides indemnification for Websphere, which includes Apache.
It helps that the kernel is under source control now. I hope that Torvalds is thinking about how to defend against this sort of attack in the future.
Now all SCO needs to do, to really annoy and irritate everybody, is find some beer and pretzel companies who use Linux, and demand license fees.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
I am a professor at BYU in the Information Systems department. I've kept a watchful eye on SCO's attempt to receive license fees for the use of Linux.
I respectfully ask that your company please stop with the nonsense. It is making our valley look bad. It is making Utah look bad. I am embarassed for you as a neighbor.
If your IP has been injected into the Linux kernel, all you have to do is tell the maintainers what the offending code is and they'll remove it immediately. I don't understand why you insist on receiving revenue when everyone is willing to correct the code *immediately*.
Again, please stop with the nonsense. It is hurting the future of Linux and embarassing all of us.
Respectfully,
Dr. Conan Albrecht
But their actual phone number is 1-800-726-8649, which equates to 1-800-RAM-UNIX (and 1-800-SCO-UNIX but we'll ignore that)
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
email:
abuse@microsoft.com (fitting, I thought)
message:
With regards to the recent issues with infringing code in the linux kernel:
There's an object of mine in your house. I'm not telling you what it is, or where it is, but it's there, I promise.
I'm not going to identify the object, but I am going to request that you pay me $700 for the continued use of your house.
You may, if you wish, sign an NDA to find out the identification of the object, but under the terms of the agreement, you'll never be allowed inside another house again for the rest of your life.
Alternately, you can agree to waive the licensing fees for the Linux kernel and we can call it even, ok?
"Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
SCO Risk Factors
Jesus. Read some of this stuff, it basically outlines exactly what they've been trying. It was Filed on the 13th of June.
Risk Factors
We do not have a history of profitable operations.
The April 30, 2003, quarter was our first quarter of profitability. If we do not receive SCOsource licensing revenue in future quarters and our revenue from the sale of our operating system platform products and services continues to decline, we will need to further reduce operating expenses in order to maintain profitability or generate positive cash flow. If we are unable to generate positive cash flow from operations, we will not be able to implement our business plan without additional funding, which may not be available to us.
Our future SCOsource licensing revenue is uncertain.
We initiated the SCOsource licensing effort in January 2003 to review the status of UNIX licensing and sublicensing agreements and to identify others in the industry that may be currently using our intellectual property without obtaining the necessary licenses. This effort resulted in the execution of two license agreements during the April 30, 2003 quarter. These two license agreements will be typical of those we expect to enter into with developers, manufacturers, and distributors of operating systems in that they are non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, paid up licenses to utilize the UNIX source code, including the right to sublicense that code. Due to a lack of historical experience and the uncertainties related to SCOsource licensing revenue, we are unable to estimate the amount and timing of future licensing revenue, if any. If we do receive revenue from this source, it may be sporadic and fluctuate from quarter to quarter. SCOsource licensing revenue is unlikely to produce stable, predictable revenue for the foreseeable future.
There's so much more...
Pursuit of the litigation against IBM and, potentially, others will be costly, and we expect our costs for legal fees could be substantial. In addition, we may experience a decrease in revenue as a result of the loss of sales of Linux products and initiatives previously undertaken jointly with IBM and others affiliated with IBM. We anticipate that participants in the Linux industry will seek to influence participants in the markets in which we sell our products to reduce or eliminate the amount of our products and services that they purchase. There is also a risk that the assertion of our intellectual property rights will be negatively viewed by participants in our marketplace and we may lose support from such participants. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our position in the marketplace and our results of operations.
Go read. Now. Jesus christ. They have like 3 pages of this stuff.
I just cut and pasted the linux kernel sources into their feedback form. I was going to give them back just the infringing parts but since I couldn't find them I figured the whole source tree would be best.
I wonder how big their feedback database can grow.
Does anyone know if SCO is successfully collecting on this? Is money being made?
Lets assume that they are. And lets assume they loose the lawsuit, and are proven not to own any Linux code.
What then? Do those people get their money back?
Well...no. It's a pretty safe guess that SCO isn't dumb. They'll be setting you up with a license (note: one may want to be fucking careful signing into licensing agreements with SCO, considering IBM's situation) that says that they won't press charges against you for any claims they have on Linux, or something along those lines. You aren't *buying* anything.
What happens to the SCO execs?
My guess was that originally, they'd just walk way from this, as a pump-n-dump. If so, it's going to happen soon. You don't go after the US government and expect them to just sit there and not examine the legal issues. They'll probably be dumping within a month.
They may have taken this too far, though. They're in so many newspapers that they may get hung out to dry for fraud. Kinda like Enron. You can only screw N people with M media attention before you start getting into hot water.
May we never see th
In a less well-publicized part of the company's licensing terms, announced Tuesday (August 5), SCO said it will charge OEMs $32 per unit for each embedded Linux device they own.
The $32 fee applies to any embedded system regardless of whether it is a Tivo set-top box which uses embedded Linux or some models of the Sharp Zaurus which also use that kernel.
My conclusion: SCO want's to get OEMs for embedded devices to pay $32. It was the EE Times that made up the example of Tivo as an embedded Linux device. I don't see any evidence that SCO is either going to target Tivo specifically, or chase end-users rather than manufacturers.
...because I said I'd pay their extortion demand the day Hell froze over, or a goatse.cx link was modded +5, whichever came first!