Slashdot Mirror
SCO Calls IBM Countersuit "Unsubstantiated Allegations"
dacarr writes "Yahoo currently hosts a press release from SCO that basically calls for IBM to "move away from the GPL"." Lycoris tries to dodge the flood of idiocy from Utah. Another non-programmer has seen SCO's presentation, and without attempting to verify the facts through his own research, reported on it. One reader buys a SCO license. SCO justifies their continuing illegal distribution of the Linux kernel.
Not content with already having issued IBM with a lawsuit, SCO is to
sue Novell for illegally placing UNIX code in Novell Netware.
According to SCO CEO Darl McBride , Novell never owned UNIX's patents
or copyrights in the first place.
In the release McBride said, "Novell continues to say that it owns the
UNIX System V patents, yet it must know that it does not. A simple
review of U.S. Patent Office records reveals that SCO owns those
patents." Further, "We believe it unlikely that Novell can demonstrate
that it has any ownership interest whatsoever in those copyrights
because we purchased these rights in August 1995 directly from IBM"
Also this morning, in SCO's 2nd quarter earning call, Jack Messman SCO
CEO said that there's no mention of copyright and patents in the
Novell law suit and that contract issues are really what the IBM law
suit is about. At the same time, though, he admitted that SCO had been
talking with IBM over UNIX IP issues and that Novell's 1990 purchase
agreement of UNIX from IBM was 'confused' on the issue of UNIX's
patents and copyrights.
Bruce Perens, director of Software in the Public Interest, a
non-profit, Open Source development organization, says, "SCO's brief
reply to Novell explicitly acknowledges that SCO owns the UNIX
copyright."
McBride said that SCO believes that the company owns the UNIX
copyrights and that all four of the people who signed the
contract-none of whom are still with Novell or SCO-thought at the time
that the intent was to transfer copyright. So, "SCO has the absolute
right to UNIX's copyright" and we're confident on how a judge will
come down."
Gary Schuster, Novell's senior VP of communications responded to this
claim by saying, "SCO will find out in court the the true force of our
vengeance - we shall wreak havoc."
"If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license."
More evidence that Mirco$oft is the real engine here. They are attacking the GPL directly and via proxy.
You missed such an important statement!
.. the same thing you are ranting about in your response and that no one has the balls to take on. Its not our fault that an un-warrented, unprotected software is kicking your ass.
.. wtf. Are my servers suppose to give me hugs and kisses daily? I feal dam comfortable running it. I dont have to put up with licensing BS. I dont have to put up with reporting a problem and waiting 4 fricken months for some fat developer to put down the donnuts and change 2 lines of code.
.. you are violating my intellectual property by having to read such drivel and to put up with your Sheeeeooot!
IBM urges its customers to use non-warranted, unprotected software. This software violates SCO's intellectual property rights in UNIX, and fails to give comfort to customers going forward in use of Linux.
This lets the cat out of the bag. SCO states "non-warranted, unprotected software"
Unprotected my little white ass. Its called the GPL ass wipes
And the ONLY reason it would need protection in the first place is because of Scum sucking worthless POS companies like you SCO.
And comfort
SCO
IBM is going to bury your punk ass in 4 seperate patent suits which I hope you choke on.
I swear, the Iraqi Information Minister has got to be working for SCO!
Just the other $0.98
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
These are the issues.
Whether the code exists in both places is not. It does. And it existed in SysV first.
How it got into linux is the real issue. If there was a real record of who submitted what and when, it would be an open and shut case. Oh, IBMs linux guy submitted it - ok. Or, perhaps, hey Caldera submitted it. Browsing through changelogs didnt answer this for me.
My point is, as much of a bunch of assholes SCO are being, it's not just completely fabricated bullshit out of thin air, though they are making a mountain out of a molehill. The code I saw, even if it was straight up stolen, was not 3 billion dollars from IBM and 700 bucks per CPU caliber stuff.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I am just curious on grounds you base your assertion.
I'm just thinking how it plays out in court.
This, IMO, is what the judge and jury have to go on:
Code was in SysV first. Now its in Linux. Noone in the linux community can prove where or who it came from, it just sort of miraculously appeared and noone took credit for it.
Remember, this is civil court, the burden is "a preponderance of the evidence".
Eg; My bike shows up in your garage. I say you stole it, you say you found it.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Darl C. McBride
1799 Vintage Oak Ln
Salt Lake City, UT 84121
(801) 424 - 2006
or sign him up for catalogues;
maildos
Do you think the other way (Unix and Linux borrowed from SCO) is possible? Maybe, sure looks that way to me. There are NO CONTROLS in place to prevent this from happening. Heresy!!!!
BTW, the COMMENTS were the same. The code was IDENTICAL. It was copy and paste, not just similar implementations.