OSDL Releases Q&A on SCO Legal Actions

craigoda writes "OSDL released a Q&A today written by Lawrence Rosen, noted expert on technology and intellectual property law. The Q&A points to serious flaws in SCO's claims that end-users have to pay for Linux licenses." The press release is a little more diplomatic, saying that the document only helps one determine whether or not one should buy a license from SCO.

Comments

What if I do not use SCO code?

[ryan76]

What if I run Linux but I do not use any of the features that invoke SCO code? (Provided they were indentified) Would I still owe them $$?

Re:What if I do not use SCO code?

[Fareq]

Yes, because by copying then to your hard drive you have made a copy. If SCO actually does own a piece of the code in Linux, AND it is decided that the GPL is meaningless, (or only applies when big companies feel like it) THEN simply copying the code (in source or binary form) to your system constitutes "use"

Thus, if SCO were right in all of their claims (highly unlikely the way I read it), you would be allowed to use Linux only if you did not have any copies of the SCO code anywhere on your system (or if you bought a license to use them)

So, yes. If you simply disabled those features, you'd still potentially be liable -- if you physically uninstalled them? you should be fine.

Re:What if I do not use SCO code?

[Frymaster]

however, sco is unlikely to sue you since a court case is likely to force them to identify the code in question, and they don't want to do that since, once the code is identified, linus and co. will start working on linux lite (to steal a phrase from bsd). they'll probably only tip their hat in a high stakes suit.

Re:What if I do not use SCO code?

[Bun]

You wouldn't owe them any money anyway. They are suing IBM for damanges caused by the alleged contract infringement. Demanding $ from Linux users for the use of the code is a form of double indemnity and is generally not allowed by courts.

Re:What if I do not use SCO code?

[plugger]

I just went to their piracy reporting form. I thought they would be interested to hear about a company which is distributing GPL code combined with code which said company claim to be proprietry, in violation of the GPL. I hope they take this as seriously as any other 'piracy' that is brought to their attention.

Re:What if I do not use SCO code?

[Fareq]

But of course they are little shits.

No disagreements here, but that wasn't the point I was making. I was just helping to define "use" of IP according to US copyright law. That is not to say that, in this particular case, I think it will come out that way.

Just read SCO's outlandishly absurd reasoning why the GPL is invalid. It went something like: 'Copyright law gives right X, no contract that can be construed as granting any rights beyond X are valid'

Woah!!! but... what if I buy 5000 licenses to SCO's bullshitware. Those licenses would also be invalid by the same logic: after all, they grant me the right to make 5000 copies. 5000 is more than one, thus: not valid

Oh, and about not being liable because IBM is?
Assume, for the moment, that SCO owned IP that IBM gave to Linux. I know, it could never happen, but... just pretend for a minute.

Also lets assume that you are using Linux.

In this case, SCO can sue IBM for trade-secrets violations for giving code to Linux that is wasn't allowed to give away.

Additionally, however, you are using SCO IP without permission. Since IBM (or your distro) chose not to indemnify you against IP claims, you COULD (not necessarily, but quite possibly) be liable for damages. If you are a public library or educational institution and had a valid reason to believe that you had the right to use the IP (like you acquired a license that said you could from a provider without the authority to make that claim) then you would be allowed to remove the IP and avoid paying damages.

Otherwise its up to the judge.

Oh. I missed one other essential assumption: SCO never released a copy of its IP under a license that allows limitless copying (such as, say, Caldera under the GPL) Because, you see, if I am offered a license (a contract granting me certain rights, and forbidding me others in exchange for some (possibly monetary) value) to duplicate the software, and the organization granting the license had the right to do so, then I can do whatever the license says I can do. After all, thats what we agreed to. Contracts are binding like that. If you sign on the dotted line you are stuck. Especially if you wrote the contract (or offered the boiler-plate contract)

In short: because SCO released a copy of Linux under the GPL (assuming it survives a court test), and especially because it can be easily proven hat they know they did so (I'm sure it had a copy of the license on it) they are SOL.

Re:What if I do not use SCO code?

[ninthwave]

Yes but Unix code in general has been used as examples in operating system programming. One of the big problems SCO has is Unix has been around so long that core features of it have been used in many other places than Unix.

So here are some links with some history and the battle SCO has is to prove that the code they see in Linux didn't come from these sources instead of IBM because if it came from these sources there is nothing SCO gets.

Public Money, Private Code

Quote from above: In 1992, Berkeley released its version of Unix and TCP/IP to the public as open-source code, and the combination quickly became the backbone of a network so vast that people started to call it, simply, "the Internet"

Why Caldera Decided to Release Unix

From that article note that Caldera did release Unix source code on some version and again SCO has to defend against the chance that code came from this source. And though it appears in protected System V it was also present in the release V7 and V32.

Introducing the Caldera OpenLinux Workstation

From thie quote on the above:OpenLinux is Caldera's self-hosted source code Linux distribution that conforms to commercial software release procedures. OpenLinux is based on the most current stable open source technologies, but subjected to rigorous testing procedures similar to those used for proprietary operating systems. How can SCO clain they did not see infected code go into Linux if they had standards that if up to proprietary operating systems would include a check as such.

Berkley Lab Notes
My question here is if you follow the links on this page and understand the history of Unix and how it became freely released can anyone tell me what if anything was left propietary in Unix?????
And maybe that is a question SCO should be answering.

And really this needs to be explored in detail because what does System V have that BSD does not and how does the BSDi vs USL case affect the Unix propietary code.

I know this is redundant it has all been said before but the Q&A is right. Without SCO showing the code in question and that code be compared to so much of the Unix system that legally leaked into the world they have no case.

Document summary

[mhesseltine]

Q: Should I buy a license from SCO?

A: No

Re:Document summary

[killthiskid]

The thing I don't get is this...

SCO claims that IBM took SCO's confidential information about Unix and the AIX operating system and improperly contributed it to Linux. The Linux operating system, they assert, was infected with SCO's confidential information and, because Linux is open source, that confidential information has been disclosed to the world. Now that Linux is replacing Unix in the operating system marketplace, SCO has lost business. It claims over $1 billion in damages.

So this is the thing: what does this have to do with SCO declaring the GPL invalid? What the HELL does it have to do with their lawsuit against IBM. I do not understand.

Re:Document summary

[mhesseltine]

But what if I were trying to protect my monopoly on x86 operating systems?

Well then, Mr. Gates, go ahead and purchase as many licenses as you see fit.

Re:Document summary

[TheFrood]

Q: Should I buy a license from SCO?

A: No.

Q: But what if...

A: No.

Q: Okay, but suppose...

A: Even then, no.

TheFrood

Re:Document summary

[rainmanjag]

Quite simple.

The secondary element to this whole clusterfuck is that SCO is threatening to sue individual businesses and individual distributors of Linux unless they pay SCO licensing fees. If Linux is covered under the GPL, then SCO cannot legally force anybody to pay them license fees. It's against the GPL.

However, if the GPL is a legally invalid license, then SCO is released from that restraint. They can go to whomever and invalidate a potential license-purchaser's argument of protection under the GPL and have a stronger legal threat to extort^H^H^H^H^H^Hcollect license fees.

Of course, Rosen is absolutely correct that the courts would be exceptionally unlikely to allow SCO to claim damages from individual users of Linux *and* from IBM.

Disclaimer: IANAL

-jag

Re:Document summary

[DaveAtFraud]

Step 1: SCO sues IBM over supposedly contributing confidential, proprietary SCO information to Linux and thus disclosing it. IBM tells SCO to shove it.

Step 2: SCO starts FUD campaign to scare people into not using Linux. Part of their FUD is to sell a license for their intellectual property that has been included in Linux which they have also distributed. Selling this license violates the GPL.

Step 3: SCO now finds itself in the position of having made probably unproveable claims about copyright infringement against IBM and Linux and having committed very public and thus proveable violations of the GPL. The only way SCO can continue their FUD campaign and charge people to use Linux is if they can now also get the GPL declared invalid.

The original lawsuit between SCO and IBM had absolutely nothing to do with the GPL. SCO brought the GPL into the mess by asserting they could sell licenses to Linux users for the portion of Linux that was based on their IP. This violates the GPL becuase they had distributed Linux with the offending code which makes it subject to the GPL.

If the issue had been strictly about copyright violations, it would have burried on the back page of some legal journal. SCO and their behind the scenes backers (think about who benefits from Linux and open source being discredited) have turned it into a public attack on Linux and free/open source software.

Re:Document summary

[RickHunter]

The real problem is that, if the GPL is not invalid, SCO is in some serious legal problems. Because not only did they distribute their code under the GPL unknowingly, but they continued to do so after they were informed of the fact. And they still continue to do so, because otherwise they'd loose what few customers they have left. (The distribution in question is them providing Linux binaries, patches, and possibly source from their FTP site) If the GPL's valid, they have no right to do this unless they license the code/IP in question under the GPL, which makes their case (and stock price) collapse.

Unfortunately, they're equally screwed if the GPL is invalid. Just because Linux was "infected" with "confidential information" doesn't give them ownership over all the other IP in there. And if the GPL's invalid, that falls back to the default of US copyright law. Which means that SCO has no right to distribute it or modify it. So if it is invalid, they're equally screwed.

That's why they're now (IIRC) trying to not only claim that its invalid, but that anything formerly under the GPL is now public domain. Why? Because this is Chewbacca. No, wait, that's wrong. Because the author allowed unlimited copies.

Yeah, everyone else is just as puzzled.

Re:Document summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, so many wrong answers. It's not a Chewbacca defense.

In addition to licensing their code to IBM under whatever license they used, but they ALSO licensed the entire Linux 2.4 kernel, including things they claim to have IP rights over, to their customers under the GPL.

Any of SCO's customers, under the GPL, has the absolute right to commit those updates into the main Linux kernel tree. So in a way it's irrelevant if SCO has any rights to the code in question at all--even if they did, they gave it away.

Thus the GPL challenge. If the GPL is declared invalid, *nobody* would have any rights to use Linux except the copyright holders of the original code. Luckily, most things in Linux have their copyrights ascribed to the Free Software Foundation. If, however, SCO proves that it owns the copyright on this code, AND they invalidate the GPL, that would be the only way to successfully remove the code from Linux (legally speaking).

Just because it's a dumb-ass defense doesn't make it a Chewbacca defense.

Re:Document summary

[Anonymous Coward]

The original lawsuit between SCO and IBM had absolutely nothing to do with the GPL. SCO brought the GPL into the mess by asserting they could sell licenses to Linux users for the portion of Linux that was based on their IP. This violates the GPL becuase they had distributed Linux with the offending code which makes it subject to the GPL.

I won't respond to your general view of things legal/editorial comments about the progess of the SCO vs. IBM lawsuit, but what you say here is factually incorrect (and I'm no fan of SCO). I've read all the publicly available court filings. The GPL was brought into the lawsuit in IBM's counter-claim against SCO. Yes, SCO blew a ton of public hot air about the GPL, but SCO did not formally introduce the GPL into the suit. If a claim is not formally before the court, the court has no power to settle it. And IBM was the party that filed the formal papers bringing the GPL before the court, and thus into legal scrutiny.

Re:Document summary

[darkonc]

Thus the GPL challenge. If the GPL is declared invalid, *nobody* would have any rights to use Linux except the copyright holders of the original code.

Right. But if their argument stopped here, all of the owners of original Linux code would have the right to sue SCO into the ground for violating their copyright anyways -- except that we'd have the right to sue them starting with their first distribution of Linux code.

The only way around that would be to say that anything put under the GPL was actually put into the public domain. Once it's in the public domain, SCO would be able to do anything that they want with the code -- including asking for further license fees.

On the other hand, this would also mean that -- since their code was distributed by them (with their knowledge) under the GPL license, IT would be public domain as well... and they wouldn't have any legal force behind a request for more money..

In other words, the worst case of this argument would be that all of Linux (including the SCO code) is public domain, and nobody has to pay anybody for any of it. (but SCO would be free to relicense it in the future).

SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO, wow, I haven't heard about them for a long time! I was starting to wonder what happened to them.

Good Job Slashdot!

They didn't answer the real questions

[rf0]

How far up is SCO's head up their own ass?

- Normal service is now resumed -

Rus

Re:They didn't answer the real questions

[Anonymous Coward]

How far up is SCO's head up their own ass?

Far enough to recieve legal advice from yesterday's dinner.

So...

[grasshoppa]

..they are saying what we already knew: "SCO is full of shit".

Wouldn't that be great if a big time lawer for IBM called a huge press conference to say just that?

"Thank you all for coming today. We would like to say, in response to SCO's most recent *finger quotes* allegations, that SCO is full of shit. Thank you all for coming."

Re:So...

[Shivetya]

I still prefered the summarized version of the 46 page counter suit.... (someone posted on that thread)

ARMONK, NY - Aug. 8, 2003 -- "Dodge this."

Paranoia

[Faust7]

a Q&A paper written by noted technology law and intellectual property expert Lawrence Rosen

Boy, that gave me a nasty start.

Re:Paranoia

[be-fan]

Who is Lawrence Rosen? The love-child of Lawrence Lessig and Hillary Rosen.

That sound you just heard was the heads of every single slashdotter simultaniously exploding...

Q&A in Html

[ebacon]

Here:

Same old Same old

[Crashmarik]

Sco's stock price drops below 11 and their claims grow louder and more rediculous. My only question is how do they think they will avoid the inevitable insider trading and fraud investigations.

Re:Same old Same old

[wfberg]

Obviously, the employees at SCO read slashdot. With so much, perhaps unfounded, speculation going on at slashdot about insider trading, perhaps it's a good time to point out to our SCO readership the Insider Trading Bounty program. If there are any transactions going on by insiders that isn't listed here or here, the SEC, and slashdot, would like to know!

Re:Same old Same old

[Thumb-One]

Of course, were I a SCO insider that also read Slashdot, when the inevitable investigations came, I would have a response ready:

"It wasn't insider trading! I sold because it was common knowledge that we were fscked; hell, I read it on Slashdot fuhchrissakes."

why would a user pay for the seller's crimes?

[sirshannon]

if I bought a copy of Red Hat and it contained illegal code, there is no way I would even begin to consider paying SCO for the illegal code. Either Red Hat would pay SCO or Red Hat would refund my money and I would stop using the product.

PDF v.s. HTML

[thenextpresident]

Let's see, they offer a PDF version and an HTML version. Hrm? I know! This is Slashdot, and we have to try and bring them down. Rather than link to the HTML version, let's link to the PDF version. I mean seriously, HTML is so not the prefered format for reading things on web sites.

SCO?

[Biomechanoid]

SCO? Whats a SCO? Is that Danish? I noticed a couple of other people talk about a SCO also on slashdot.

Call to linux developers

[ciroknight]

I know this is a difficult request.. but could someone PLEASE start a project to replace what ever code SCO claims to have copyright over? And start NOW instead of after SCO wins or loses? This way half way through the case, SCO will lose plainly because they couldn't even claim they had hold in the kernel at all....

This is made difficult by the fact that SCO refuses to tell anyone what code actually is "theirs" in the kernel, other than it has to deal with computers with more than one processor.. I'm just getting sick and tired of hearing SCO's lawyers and execs and everyone else flaming because they can't figure out who really owns the code.... It's disgusting really. Please help :-)

Re:Call to linux developers

[plierhead]

could someone PLEASE start a project to replace what ever code SCO claims to have copyright over ?

Actually I claim ownership over the whole of linux myself - I wrote most of it in my spare time using notepad on the computer here in my cube at Walmart's admin offices. Oh yeah, and some of it I wrote on my palm pilot on the bus on the way to work..

Why are you panicking? Life is full of people who act like bullies. Usually they get whats coming to them. The key here is to draw SCO so far into this that they overstretch themselves, go belly up and take their shareholders down with them.

SCO

[cluge]

I have used SCO in the past to develop IBM mainframe software on. SCO was the base OS, and an emulator allowed us to emulate OS390 ran on top of it. Now with most big Iron able to run linux Vm's we can program directly for Linux. Where am I going with this? We are suggesting to writer of that software that it needs to be ported to Linux - we no longer run SCO on any machine.

If you are anyone that you know runs SCO, find out why, and have the software that runs on SCO ported to Linux. It's usually quite easy, and it makes your skin feel better knowing that your SCO free. Somone (wink wink nudge nudge) should put up a web site that counts the number of SCO de-installs since the law suit was filed. I bet such a web site wouldn't make SCO stock holders feel so good. I've de-installed SCO from the 2 machines - any one else?

cluge

Outstanding achievement

[Timesprout]

He points out that SCO has a long long shaft up its ass

Finally legalese I can understand

The Current SCO Situation...via the medium of song

[Gourou]

The Current SCO Situation...via the medium of song

Please mirror and spread if you agree with the sentiment (if not the singing :-)

The Asshat Song [2.73MB MP3]

To the tune of You're So Vain by Carly Simon ;-)

Troll Alert

[Lochin Rabbar]

The original link, second paragraph, states:

He points out that SCO has a long way to go before it can assert broad intellectual property claims against an operating system that was written by thousands of open source programmers worldwide.

In the so called repost this changes to:

He points out that SCO has a long long shaft up its ass before it can assert broad intellectual property claims against an operating system that was written by thousands of open source programmers worldwide.

Come on folks! Stop modding up these trolls.

Not written for us

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the Q&A and it doesn't seem like it's written for us, the poeple that understand what is truely going on.

But, it is written for all the bosses out there that are scared with what is going on. My boss is worried about this whole thing because of a major prodoct that we are releasing that will run on a Linux server. He is concerned that if SCO wins, can we still use Linux.

I for one am going to be sending him this Q&A.

Like I said, we all understand that SCO is full of crap, but our bosses don't.

An Allegory: The SCO Poker Game

[Gourou]

It's a saloon in the wild west.
There's a poker game on. Texas Hold 'Em.
There's five cards on the table.
The first player is from Utah.

He says "I got Ace High. I win the hand."
The second player. They call him the Finn.
He's got lots of friends, says "Show me your cards then."
Utah says "No, just hand over your cash. You don't need to see my cards."

Then the third player, Bluebeard pipes up: "Well I got a flush. So I beat ya anyway."
Utah says "Show me *your* cards then."
Bluebeard replies "Nope. I'm gonna wait to see your lame ass ace."
Utah smiles nervously "Did I say ace high? I meant four aces. Yeah. Four aces."

Now the silent fourth player, Berkeley pipes up
"Well I got a Royal Flush and I've had it since the flop."
But Utah has turned to Joe at the bar and says
"Well, you owe me $32 for this game."
Joe looks puzzled "But I ain't even playing the game."

Utah gets a mean look now and starts sweating.
He pulls his guns and shouts "Look, just give me your money now. No questions. I MEAN IT!"
Suddenly Utah is surround by a whole boatload of guns.

There's Joe Public, he has no guns, but good fists,
Linus the Finn and his friends have guns, but they rarely use them,
they're rumoured to be really quick on the draw.
Berkeley is calmest of all, he's won a gunfight just like this one already.

Finally Utah turns to Bluebeard. He has a shotgun.
Bluebeard smiles, and pulls the trigger.
And that's the legend of how old SCO died.

SCO's bulletproof action plan:

[rice_burners_suck]

For immediate release:

Scam Con & Overcharge (NAZDAC: SCO) today announced a barrage of new lawsuits against users of pornography processing software called Linux. A proprietary IBM product, Linux allegedly violates SCO intellectual property. This new development comes on the heels of another SCO lawsuit against God for denying immortality to SCO CEO Darl McBurglary.

"Women and young children are viewing cartoon images of NAKED penguins!" shouted McBurglary, throwing his coffee mug across the room during an interview. "It's disgusting! And besides, it contains OUR intellectual property! It's a conspiracy! And everybody's in on it!!!"

When asked which SCO intellectual property was found in Linux, McBurglary commented, "IBM invented, developed, trademarked, copyrighted and patented certain technologies. Therefore, they are infringing on OUR intellectual property rights!"

SCO spokespersons refused to specify what constitutes the allegedly infringing properties. McBurglary had to be escorted back to his home at the looney bin by two big black guys in pinstriped suits. "Die, fucker, die!!" he yelled at some child walking down the street with a stuffed penguin doll. (I know we're only joking, but with SCO, it could happen!)

Re:Boycott Canopy Group

[walterbyrd]

Scox isn't selling anything anyway. All scox earnings are fud money from msft and sunw. You need to boycott scox's controlling company: Canopy Group. I urge you to email these companies and explain that you will not do any business with them. I have included the letter that I sent to these companies as a sample.

---
salesinfo@altiris.com
help@customercare.av enueme.com
support@culturegrams.com
sales@center 7.com
sales@cerberian.com
sales@cogitoinc.com
s ales@communitect.com
yslew@datacrystal.com
info@ devicelogics.com
info@directpointe.com
info@fatp ipeinc.com
info@geolux.com
sales@helius.com
inf o@homepipeline.com
sales@iArchives.com
sales@ind ustrialtrainingzone.com
brutledge@linuxnetworx.co m
tyler@luxul.net,
sales@maxstream.net,
jclary@ mi-corporation.com,
info@mti.com,
pr@myfamilyinc .com,
info@perimeterdata.com,
ProTools@SaberToot hTools.com,
ronastarns@aztecenterprises.com,
sal es@caldera.com,
info@trolltech.com
info@tuglet.c om
sales@viawest.net
Sales@wrenchead.com
---
B oycotting all companies affiliated with SCO/Canopy

I have worked in IT for 25 years, and have been involved in several major purchasing decisions.

I am infuriated at SCO/Canopy's attempts at fraud and extortion. As well as SCO's FUD campaign against Linux.

As such, I will no longer purchase, or recommend the purchase, of any products or services from any company that is even partially owned by SCO/Canopy. I intend to encourage my colleges to do the same.

OSDL Attorney Declares SCO Invalid

[cnb]

... would have made a nice headline coming
right after "SCO attorney declares GPL invalid"

What Is A Shame...

[vigilology]

...is that when this is all over, all we will remember is that 'SCO were a bunch of scumbags'. Nobody'll say, 'Misters Such And Such formerly from SCO are a bunch of scumbags'. They'd virtually get off scott free as far as their reputation with the general (Slashdot) goes. They could set up a new company that does something that gets a headline and we're all full of praise, without even knowing it's the same people.

Conectiva Linux Position

[yajacuk]

I just read on the conectiva linux site, their position on the SCO X IBM court case.

"There is no evidence that any piece of the Linux Kernel, from version 2.4 up, is of SCO intellectual property."

I just wonder if there is anyone out there that supports SCO in its claims.

I hereby nominate

[pair-a-noyd]

the goatse "person" to replace the /. SCO logo. Tubgirl is first runnerup.

CEO of RIAAA

[gibodean]

Answering my own post after a google search.

Her name is Hilary Rosen (one "l" in Hilary)

She is the president and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, which is the long arm of the law for major record labels.

If you get a SCO invoice: Claim Mailfraud

[bstadil]

There is a strong rumour that SCO is preparing invoices to be send to "selected" Linux users.

IRA McGee over at LinuxToday had a brilliant suggestion, if you get one.

Call your local USPS or FBI and claim MailFraud

the objective of mail fraud is to accomplish a desired result by deception, trickery, concealment, and/or dishonesty, albeit through the use of the United States Mail Service or other private/commercial interstate carriers

This is taken serious and hopefully will result in Darl getting his behind serviced on a regular basis.

Doesn't completely answer indemnity problems...

[mjh]

This guy doesn't completely answer the indemnity problems that arise from the SCO lawsuit. Yes, it doesn't look like users are going to be in trouble from SCO, even if SCO wins this thing. But that doesn't totally answer the question.

If you're a big company, say Citibank, and you're considering whether or not to use Linux, or ANY open source or free software for that matter, (including sendmail, bind, etc), you have to consider what the risk is that someone has slipped code into the software that is under intellectual property restrictions. Take, for example, a patent. Suppose someone puts a challenge response antispam system into sendmail. Right or wrong, mailblocks claims to own the patent on that type of system. Mailblocks is not a party to the agreement between sendmail.org and Citibank, and they see that Citibank is infringing on their patent without a license. Mailblocks can sue Citibank for patent infringement, and Citibank doesn't have anyone to go to in order to complain because there is no indemnification provided by the license to use sendmail.

The indemnification problem is NOT specific to the SCO case. But looking at the case points out that there is a general problem. It means that anyone who uses free/open-source software has to consider the additional risk of potentially getting sued into oblivion by some unknown 3rd party with a patent portfolio.

And before you think I'm making this up, read this.

I don't have an answer for this, short getting rid of software patents. Some please tell me there's another way to see this.

Re:Doesn't completely answer indemnity problems...

[hotair]

So how is this different from a typical commercial software license? I notice that the License that SCO recently published excludes indemnification against the incidental inclusion of IP they don't own, even in the code that they claim is all theirs. I don't think this is unusual. Nor is it unusual for the software to come with a statement that it isn't warranted to do *anything* at all useful and a warning that it may do something harmful. The only obvious risk to the vendor is that you might stop buying.

SCO-Linux EZ registration kit!

[pair-a-noyd]

Due to all the confusion about licensing and registration of your Linux package,
we good folks at Blackbag Opz have completed work on an all new registration kit for the confused.

Just run *this* easy to use SCO Registration Kit,
fill in the blanks, check "Number of Cycles, Infinite" and press the SEND button.

Sit back and wait while your SCO-Linux EZ registration kit does the hard work for you!

And sleep well tonight knowing that SCO got your message!

Intel Skips SCO Forum Only HP left

[bstadil]

Intel skips SCOForum sponsorship

Let me suggest you all email HP

Because they have not proof

[screenrc]

Simple. They every few days they have to
issue a press release to keep the soap opera
going. It is quite typical of them to outdo
their previous nonsense with even greater nonsense.
And if this shift the talk away from the main
issue, which is PROOF, then it is a good strategy.

These people have to show us proof before they
are allowed to open their mouth again.