Slashdot Mirror
SCO: FSF Reply To GPL Claims, Conference Sponsors Back Off?
bkuhn writes "Last week's Wall Street Journal (and other news outlets) carried statements by SCO's Mark Heise challenging the "legality" of FSF's GPL.
FSF has
issued a response to this baseless claim." Also, mcgroarty points out that Intel and HP seem to be backing swiftly away from their sponsorship of SCO's in-progress Las Vegas conference (a EWeek article suggests that "Intel Corp. was recently billed as one of the lead sponsors of SCO's Forum 2003 conference here this week, but then suddenly disappeared from all marketing and press material for the forum. It appears that Hewlett-Packard Co. also got cold feet. As late as last week, SCO was telling attendees that HP would be giving a partner keynote at the forum on Tuesday morning. But on Sunday the schedule of events given to attendees when they registered makes no mention of an HP keynote...") M adds: Now we've got a few stories from the conference: News.com.com and Eweek. Despite some bad headline writing at News.com, SCO simply continues to employ the Chewbacca defense, showing no code to back up their claims. Amusingly, Darl McBride started his rant about copyright infringement by copying some footage from a James Bond movie. Bravo!
While I'm really enjoying watching this circus, I think it really is time to put Darl out of his misery. He's obviously suffering some sort of beri-beri brain-eating disease. Let's be humane and compassionate. He has suffered enough.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Actually, if you read all the articles, you'll notice that the Bond clips were provided by MGM (who owns the hotel SCO is at) for SCO's use.
Thus, no piracy.
I dislike SCO's tactics as much as the next guy (unless the next guy is Gates or Ballmer), but a touch of fairness isn't going to hurt our cause.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
PJ at Groklaw is doing a wonderful job at cutting through the SCO fud. I suggest you check out if you havent recently. The article's comments are quite good too.
Actually while I had mentioned that Intel had backed out, when I submitted an article last week, HP was still listed as a premier sponsor of SCO's event. I urged Slashdot readers to write Carly Fiorina and let her know how you felt about HP supporting SCO. The point is moot now as the event has already started and HP has already retreated their support somewhat. Still, you might still write and express how you feel about HP having pulled out: a visible reaction from the Linux community this time around might well shape how they deal with SCO in the future.
I was disturbed enough by Darl McBride's statement last Friday (which he repeated again today in Vegas) that the "silent majority" of companies in the IT industry support SCO's recent actions that I had my company release a public statement of opposition to SCO. It would seem that the latest thing SCO is trying to claim ownership of is the opinion of companies that have been silent on the issue, so I am calling on companies to break the silence. If you have control over such things in your company, please get them to either copy the statement of opposition to SCO that I wrote to your company's website or write and post your own statement of opposition. Let the world know that SCO is strongly opposed within the industry and that they are truly fighting to destroy the intellectual property rights that they claim to be championing.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
Aren't there some slashbots in Las Vegas who would like to run a picket line in front of the MGM Grand?
scene: SCO is strapped to a table in IBM's hideout, with a laser creeping ever closer.
SCO: Do you expect me to show the code?
IBM: No Mr. SCO, I expect you to die!
(I know this has the rolls reversed, but it's funnier this way)
from here
>"The company's arguments seemed to hold weight with the SCO faithful. "I think (they've) got a strong case," said SCO reseller John Moore, the president of Moore Computer Consultants, based in Pembroke Pines, Florida."
>Is this company the same as www.mcci.com ? Where at this link it mentions the president of the company is called "Terry Moore" ?? And it seems to be very much a Microsoft shop?!?
Good catch
I got some even better ones for you:
Here is www.mcci.com searched by google for the term "Windows"
tinyurl.com/kf24
Here is www.mcci.com searched by google for "Unix"
tinyurl.com/kf2a
Want something REALLY revealing? Try this: this is www.mcci.com searched by google for "SCO"
tinyurl.com/kf2l
Judge for yourself if they are a Microsoft shop or a Unix shop. I wonder what they were even doing there at SCO Forum? SCO isn't even mentioned on their website ANYWHERE. I don't think they are a reseller of SCO's Unix, with no mention of SCO anywhere on their webpage - how could they be?
"Sontag and Heise also presented some short snippets of source code that they claimed had been directly copied from SCO's Unix to Linux."
Can anyone identify the snippets of code shown?Seeing Intel and HP walk out does my heart glad.
Hopefully these companies are seeing SCO's actions for what they are; an outright attempt to hijack the work of thousands of developers by fallacious statements, spin, and, at best, a tiny toehold on the body of work Linux constitutes.
Despite SCO's spin to the contrary, this isn't about the GPL model versus the proprietary software model; it's about unethical versus ethical business practices, and SCO is on the wrong side of the fence.
Would any reputable company now risk involvement with SCO on any level? Look at it this way. SCO made, in essence, a business deal. They distributed their software under the GPL, in an attempt to receive the benefits that the GPL approach can offer, much like Red Hat did. Now, they want to renege on the deal because they think they've got something more profitable. For them to now claim that they somehow didn't understand, or were somehow unaware of, their own business decisions is just completely disingenuous. What company would now sign any kind of business deal with them, knowing that given their history, they're likely to try to cry "do-over!" at some point and redefine their contract, making all sorts of legal threats and spurious statements in the process, and perhaps just decide that your IP is theirs by whatever stretch of the contract wording they can muster?
This is what's bad for business, not the GPL.
On a related note, I'd like to suggest that any companies out there contemplating paying SCO's extortion fees, even if the price is not a concern to them, refuse to pay it on principle. One good argument for not paying the Mafia, is that if you do, they are going to get bigger, and "lean" on you even more. And... I really must apologize to the Mafia for the analogy, as most of their profits derive from "consensual-crime" activity, rather than outright attempts to steal the property of individuals, in direct violation of the spirit and letter of the law. The Mafia has a higher percentage of legitimate business activites than SCO does.
SCO's activities are to the benefit of no one, except themselves. HP and Intel, by contrast, benefit themselves largely through developing products and services to benefit their customers, something SCO has apparently lost the capacity to do. Even the companies which have products in direct competition to Linux would have a hollow victory if SCO's legal challenge to the GPL resulted in an invalidation of the fundamental notion of copyright upon which the GPL rests, and the discretion it gives to the work's creator, for-profit, for-humanity, or both. The sooner this is recognized by everyone, as these two companies are taking the lead toward, the better.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Since the FSF website tends to get slashdotted easily, here is the text of the article.
SCO Scuttles Sense, Claiming GPL Invalidity
Eben Moglen
Tuesday 19 August 2003
Now that the tide has turned, and SCO is facing the dissolution of its legal position, claiming to "enforce its intellectual property rights" while actually massively infringing the rights of others, the company and its lawyers have jettisoned even the appearance of legal responsibility. Last week's Wall Street Journal carried statements by Mark Heise, outside counsel for SCO, challenging the "legality" of the Free Software Foundation's GNU General Public License (GPL). The GPL both protects against the baseless claims made by SCO for license fees to be paid by users of free software, and also prohibits SCO from its ongoing distribution of the Linux kernel, a distribution which infringes the copyrights of thousands of contributors to the kernel throughout the world. As IBM's recently-filed counterclaim for copyright infringement and violation of the GPL shows, the GPL is the bulwark of the community's legal defense against SCO's misbehavior. So naturally, one would expect SCO to bring forward the best possible arguments against the GPL and its application to the current situation. But there aren't any best arguments; there aren't even any good arguments, and what SCO's lawyer actually said was arrant, unprofessional nonsense.
According to the Journal, Mr Heise announced that SCO would challenge the GPL's "legality" on the ground that the GPL permits licensees to make unlimited copies of programs it covers, while copyright law only allows a single copy to be made. The GPL, the Journal quoted Mr Heise as saying, "is preempted by federal copyright law."
This argument is frivolous, by which I mean that it would be a violation of professional obligation for Mr Heise or any other lawyer to submit it to a court. If it were true, no copyright license could permit the licensee to make multiple copies of the licensed program. That would make not just the GPL "illegal." Mr Heise's supposed theory would also invalidate the BSD, Apache, AFL, OSL, LSL, MIT/X11, and all other free software licenses. It would invalidate the Microsoft Shared Source license. It would also eliminate Microsoft's method for the distribution of the Windows operating system, which is pre-loaded by hard drive manufacturers onto disk drives they deliver by the hundreds of thousands to PC manufacturers. The licenses under which the disk drive and PC manufacturers make multiple copies of Microsoft's OS would also, according to Mr Heise, violate the law. Redmond will be surprised.
Of course, Mr Heise's statement is nothing but moonshine, based on an intentional misreading of the Copyright Act that would fail on any law school copyright examination. Mr Heise is referring to section 149 of the US Copyright Act, which is entitled "Limitation on exclusive rights: computer programs," and which provides that:
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
As the language makes absolutely clear, section 149 says that although the Act generally prohibits making any copy of a copyrighted work without license, in the case of computer programs one can both make and even alter the work for certain purposes without any license at all. The claim that this provision sets a limit on what copyright owners may permit through licensing their exclusive right is utterly bo
If SCO "owns" a small fraction of a widely distributed whole, that whole in its entirety is SCO's property.
If SCO doesn't own any part of a whole that it distributed in violation of copyright law, then copyright law is not applicable, for no specific reason.
If you violate their property, you deserve to go to hell. If they violate much more of your property, tough luck. If they violate it again, tough luck.
These guys have made the situation clear, why can't we just agree that they aren't affected by copyright law?
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone are huge Star Wars fans. There have been several Chewbacca references on the show.
In the "Chef Aid" episode, Chef is accused of trying to steal the song "Stinky Britches," which he really wrote many years ago. The record company takes Chef to court, and they hire Johnny Cochran to prosecute Chef. The whole town is wondering if he will use his famous "Chewbacca Defense," which he used during the O.J. Simpson trial. Here's a transcript:
Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: (pulling down a diagram of Chewie) this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! (jury looks shocked)
Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!
But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case? (calmly) Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!
Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
Later in that same episode, Cochran has a change of heart and defends Chef when Chef sues the record company. Again, he uses the Chewbacca Defense, although with some minor changes:
Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, you must now decided whether to reverse the decision for my client Chef. I know he seems guilty, but ladies and gentlemen... (pulling down a diagram of Chewbacca) This is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one moment -- that does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a man's life is on the line? Why? I'll tell you why: I don't know.
It does not make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense, you must acquit!
(pulling a monkey out of his pocket) Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey! (one of the juror's heads explodes)
Eventually, Chef wins the case and all is well.
On SCO being deserted by Intel and HP:
Hmm... why do the words "rats" and "sinking ship" spring the mind here?
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
>We have tripled our cash position over the past four months.
We have made multiple spurrious legal claims over the last four months, dramatically raising our stock prices after a steady decline.
>SCO is actually going into business, not out of it
We've hired more lawyers.
> and we have turned the company around.
We think with and speak through our asses now.
> We are proud of that, and the future going forward is bright.
Shhh! I think we are getting a way with this, the SEC hasn't noticed yet...
> We have no long-term debt, cash balances are improved and we have reduced costs
It's cheaper to litigate than actually produce a product
The unofficial
http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarc
(Soon there will not be any original code left!)
While it was difficult to ascertain the exact code being shown on screen, attorneys pointed to exact copying of some code from Unix to Linux and claimed that IBM improperly donated almost a million lines of Unix System V code to the Linux 2.4x and Linux 2.5x kernel that infringe on its Unix System V contract with SCO -- and SCO's intellectual property.
SCO claimed that much of the core code of Linux including Non-Uniform Memory Access, the Read Copy Update for high-end database scalability, Journaling File System, XFS, Schedulers, Linux PPC 32 and 64-bit support and enterprise volume management is covered by SCO's Unix System V contracts and copyrights.
For example, 110,000 lines of Unix System V code for read copy update, 55,000 lines of NUMA code and more than 750,000 lines of symmetric multi-processing code from Unix System V has made its way into Linux, attorneys and SCO executives claimed.
The GPL just spells out under what circumstances the copyright holder is willing to give you that permission.
SCO's argument rests on the fact that since one of these cases outlines how to lawfully make one copy of something, and the other deals with how to make unlimited copies of it, they must somehow be mutually exclusive. This is completely illogical. It is like saying that because it is possible to get a one ride ticket for the bus, it must therefore be illegal to buy an all day pass. Sorry SCO, your reasoning seems just a little bit flawed...
Try here
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
What gives? First they blast the GPL, then proudly exclaim that they're using GPL'd software to extend their capabilities. They blast GPL programmers as being stupid, then get applause when advertising GPL'd software. This is shit. Samba, pull your head out of your ass and revoke their right to use/distribute your software. They're attacking the GPL and can't be trusted to abide by any of the GPL's provisions. Sheesh.
Does McBride even live anywhere in Northern California? There are plenty of wage-slaves out here (myself included) that cannot even afford to buy a FIRST HOME, let alone even begin to lust after further real estate like Tom Vu on an infomercial... I guess you could craft an analogy to SCO's profit motives from the following rental unit tale: Mr. McBride is hired by a landlord to squeeze out more profit from an inherited starter-home. The former owners bought the modest home and began making repairs and other improvements to the property. They then were successfully able to find tenants who leased the property. The owners/landlords then mysteriously vanished, presumed deceased. The tenants became the most popular people on the block because they threw great parties, but never rocked-the-boat with the other neighbors. The new owner (who inherited the property) found out from another neighbor the previous owners put in a lot of improvements in the property which caused the tenants so much fanfare in the neighborhood. The owner became jealous because nobody wanted to come over to his own houseparties down the street. The owner found a napkin in another neighbor's trashbin indicating some of the property's improvements, written down based upon observation at the last fondu (sic) party. The notes on the discarded napkin matched some informal notes the deceased owners wrote down on a legal pad. The jealous owner became livid and saw an ad in the Pennysaver from a Mr. McBride claiming he could sell refridgerators to the Inuit and he could bring his expertise to anyone for a nice slice of the pie and a $5 downpayment. Mr. McBride came to town and listened to the whole story. Mr. McBride, a FOB (Friend of Bill) then hires a skilled attorney to figure out a crafty legal strategy out of claiming monies from the tenants based upon the *unjust* enrichment they received from the goodwill of the deceased owners prior to signing their lease agreement. Because the lease agreement was written using a revolutionary new form of compact (ie contract) favored by new-agers, McBride and Company claim it is null and void. The property in question is at the intersection of Caldera Drive and Torvalds Way...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
The last paragraph of the Rumor Central column of eWeek this week claims that a couple of big unnamed linux shops are considering racketeering charges against SCO because of their recent actions. The clip states that at least four more companies would have to come forward.
One a similar note eWeek is also reporting that members of the open source community have approached SCO with a proposal for viewing the supposed offending code.
Well, at least according to their executives, which I have my doubts. The PHBs could have just show them the whole linux source code, and I doubt most people in the audience would have a clue.
I do wonder if the investors didn't have to sign NDAs and if someone was able to take note of those "stolen" lines of code.
Best quotes from the article:
McBride said pattern-recognition experts SCO hired have ferreted out a slew of infringing code in Linux.
Yeah sure, who are these pattern-recognition experts and are they your executives?
"They have found already a mountain of code," McBride said. "The DNA of Linux is coming from Unix."
Only thing I can say about this is it sure sounds like a good PR FUD line to use to increase investor confidence.
From one of the (many) articles:
"[SCO] said, for example, that more than 829,000 lines of SMP code had been duplicated in Linux."
829,000 lines for symmetrical multiprocessing code in Linux? I don't have the stats to hand but I seriously doubt that.
Most of the world has been, uh, "boycotting"(not buying) SCO products for years. Hence the publicity/money/attention grab :-)
Please help metamoderate.
Now, if we could get a hold of their evidence we could either expose it as a fraud or, in the unlikely event that there is some truth to their claims, clean up Linux source to be legal. But since they require an NDA to see the evidence, you'd have to break the law to show that Linux isn't breaking any laws.
If only we could see their evidence legally without signing an NDA...
So then I got to thinking. If we knew what compiler and compiler options SCO used when they built their version of unix, we could build linux with that compiler and compiler options and have some pattern matching utility search for potentially duplicate machine code.
Then, we could look at the Linux source for the code in question, and follow the electronic paper trail to find when it was first submitted. If we could have proof that the Linux submitter was the original author, then we have proof that at least some of SCO's alleged pirated code was, in fact, pirated from Linux by SCO. If the code was of questionable origin, then we could clean-room reverse-engineer a replacement.
Anyone know how one might identify the compiler SCO used on a particular release of unix?
The whole time this has been ongoing the people have been saying "show us the code", now they are starting to do just that. As I recall there was a very similar correlation between Unix and BSD a long while back, the end result was some offending code being removed and the case being over with no other real repercussions.
Forget the zealotry of we are right and they are wrong, why not look at the code they now show to be infringing and just get rid of (or change) it?
Legal precedent is on the side of this action being the correct one (from my somewhat foggy memories)
I dont get this. SCO owns copyrights to Sys V Unix. Claims violation of confidentiality provisions in IBM contract, sues IBM for the same. So far, it has some amount of believability. Even their Caldera Linux distro is not necessarily fatal to their case, they are arguing ignorance anyway. So why this totally redundant campaign against the GPL? And how does a tiny company like SCO manage to get this much press attention? The guys who sued MS and won a court judgement certainly got nowhere near this much press. Sure the activism of Linux advocates explains some of it but still.. Could there be more to this than meets the eye?
SCO is saying that the lurkers support them in email.
It's not stupidity, it's a great way to make some quick money. I mean, it's underhanded, and ultimately futile, but you can't deny that the execs and shareholders are making a quick buck.
In the end, what SCO is doing isn't illegal, and it won't get any of them in hotwater unless somebody can proove that they filed the suit only to get the stock up, knowing full well it was a baseless lawsuit. Their claims hold just enough water to keep them safe even if they won't stand up in court.
This is a great demonstration of what is wrong with the focus on creating short term profits in corporate america. The SCO execs are not only sniking the future of their company, but potentially the future of other companies. They are doing so, blindly, for the quick buck.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I like the idea, but I'm not sure it would do any good. The current incarnation of SCO doesn't seen to care very much about selling any products. Their present business model revolves entirely around litigation, extorting money from Linux users, and spreading FUD to artificially inflate their stock price. While you might boycott them by not buying into their protection racket license, and removing any legacy SCO Unix you might be running, I'm afraid it wouldn't affect their bottom line nearly as much as with a traditional sales-driven corporation.
I think that it would be more effective to lobby (and by that i dont mean output from the insult generator) any vendors that still have some sort of relationship with SCO.
The easiest would be any company that also has an Open source/ Linux relationship. Make them know how we feel. And how their relationship with SCO may sour the relationship with the linux community
Gordon Staines
I dunno, it'd be kinda cool if the win. Since they seem to be claiming that the GPL is trumped by federal copyright law, which only allows one copy, and this somehow means that the GPL is not only invalid, but the rest of the code is freely distributable, then it'd mean that pirating any software that comes with a distribution license is now legal.
One of the keynote speakers is Maggie Alexander, "VP Marketing Operations and Planning The Progress Company". AKA Progress Software
Try googling on mysql "progress software" gpl or click this link
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
It's things like this that make me believe that the only proper way for this to shake out is for the FSF to sue SCO for GPL infringement and seek a permanent injunction barring them from distributing any code distributed under the GNU General Public License. That should really kick them in the nuts, because they'd have to build their own stuff (compiler, SMB server, among others) for a change.
I heard through the grape vine that Monday's slide talk by McBride showed codde that supiciously matches code donate by Caldera employees to Linux..ie SCO Group..
Can anyone get copies of the slides to verify this?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
658, Comrade
To: All Linux Users
Re: Proprietary Code being used in Linux
I have recently discovered that some of my personal code has found it's way into the most common Linux distributions. I will begin legal preparations immediately, but for the time being, if you are using Linux you are probably using some of my intellectual property.
I am offering a "good will" software license to those who wish to stay within the law: those users who contact me within the next 72 hours can purchase a license to use my code for $299 US (significantly less than some others are asking for access to their code!). I will take legal action against all Linux users who do not contact me within the next 72 hours. I have recieved a number of queries as to which code belongs to me, and unfortunately I cannot reveal this for obvious legal reasons.
I have also found that some of my intellectual property is being used in most automobiles, and my lawyers are preparing lawsuits against some of the larger auto manufacturers. Again, I cannot reveal which parts of the cars I have IP rights to, for obvious legal reasons.
If you are using Linux and do not contact me immediately, I WILL SEE YOU IN COURT!!
Man, he does look like he was a fucking jock earlier in life, whose career path is of course bullshiting his way into management, who's never related to or respected the nerd culture. just one major asshole. "The DNA of Linux is SCO code."? Fuck you man!
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
Sontag said these include NUMA (non uniform memory access), Read Copyright Update (RCU), Journal File System and schedulers.
Is "Read Copyright Update" SCO's new business model then?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
HP distributes thosands of copies of Linux every day embedded in HP devices. SCO has now put HP on notice that it owes them $32 for every copy of embedded Linux it distributes. Gee, I can't think of any reason HP would be unhappy with SCO... can you?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Sadly maybe the world would be different had the Nasdaq delisted them.
.02 cents and of course SCO will appeal and drag it through the courts. Even then if it is still proved wrong those who paid the license fees will not be able to get a refund becuase by then SCO will have declared bankruptcy.
In a report card update on the company over the past year since he joined, McBride said he had acheived his first mission, which was to increase company value. A year ago the stock was trading around $.66 and the company was capitalized at some $8 million. Days after McBride took the helm at SCO, the Nasdaq sent a delisting notice informing SCO that it needed to get its stock price above $1 again to avoid being delisted. This raised customer concerns about the financial security of the firm and its viability. SCO now has a market capitalization of more than $130 million, McBride said. A year ago the company was sitting on just two quarters of cash and was about "to go out," but a belt tightening effort and aggressive sales campaign had changed that. "We have tripled our cash position over the past four months. SCO is actually going into business, not out of it, and we have turned the company around. We are proud of that, and the future going forward is bright. We have no long-term debt, cash balances are improved and we have reduced costs," he said.
As you can see from the above more proof that the FUD attacks against Linux has only served to increase their bottom line. McBride admits this publicly at a confrence. While at the same time he's dumping the same stock he claims to have turned around. So it seems to me that he does not have much faith in the company. Another sad fact is the silence from the SEC about all this. Clearly this is stock manipulation in the worst light. A small company on the verge of going out of business begins to spread rumors that other companies owe them big bucks and suddenly people jump on the bandwagon becuase they know the stock will shoot up if such a case won in court. In fact the stock has gone up over 1000% in the last 4 months and people have made a profit at the expense of Linux and frankly I dont see how the damage can be reversed at all. Yes more people know aobut Linux but now they're just saying "There's that OS. Looks nice but I'm not going to buy it and have to pay a fee to SCO" Seriously I heard that the other day at a CompUSA when someone was considering a copy of RedHat Pro for 99.00 which I sorely missed by one day cause I misread the label *cry* but back to the topic here. Linux is damaged, the SEC is doing nothing, and McBride and his cronies are raking in the cash. I'm sure the Jailed company Exec's are screaming from their cells to get the SCO crew to join them also. Must be torture to watch someone commit the same crimes you're imprisioned for but nobody's doing anything.
Life will be fun if the court decides that SCO is in error. But if such a decision comes about the stock will be worth
I've been doing a lot of Google News trolling for SCO lately. Sometimes for a good laugh, sometimes to get my blood up to a good boil. Found this article at CRN about SCO bashing IBM and RedHat's counterclaims.
SCO Blasts IBM, RedHat Counterclaims
Best part about it:
"We're fighting for a right in the industry to make a living selling software," McBride said. "The whole notion that software should be free is something SCO doesn't stand for. We have drawn the line. We're supposed to be excited about that and we're not."
Now, if I'm not mistaken, SCO uses the GCC compiler, and Samba (and is using Samba 3 as a big part of their new OS plans) which are both free software. I'm also sure they are using Apache and many other free software packages. It seems free software is just fine and dandy in SCO's eyes as long as it's not infringing on their marketshare.
mewyn dy'ner
His own last name should suffice.
"Don't pull a McBride."
or
"I really did a McBride-job on that test."
or
"That movie was so McBride."
What do they have to sell? Aside from Linux licenses, what is there to not buy?
Every time I go to Barnes & Noble, I find the (three) SCO-related books and hide them.
I do my part to help.
It's RCU, it's NUMA, it's SMP, it's a whole bunch of code that SCO didn't write, didn't buy, and doesn't own, but that they believe they have total control over because of their interpretation of a contract that supposedly reassigns to them any code that ever gets linked with a line of System V.
If you want to see their evidence, you'll need to start reading their contracts, not their source code. Any attempt to compare binaries will be hampered by the fact that SCO thinks they own code that they've never even seen, much less compiled.
Businesses needs to learn that if they support SCO they wil be treated like pariahs.
Help fight continental drift.
You gotta admire Darl and Mark and Chris. No, really, think about this...
Without presenting any evidence, or even quasi-evidence, just claims and lawsuits and a magical waving of the arms, they have managed to bring SCO from the verge of being de-listed by NASDAQ (share price under $1.00) to becoming a Wall Street darling, because the share price is now over $10.00.
I'll bet the actual IP of RCU, etc. has already been covered in Operating Systems Courses at dozens of Universities.
The logical inference would be that any BSD code Microsoft ship is illegal (since the agument against the GPL holds for BSDL), and that most of Microsoft's enterprise licenses are potentially illegal (since they involve more than the 1+1 scheme SCO are asserting).
Darl McBride: "Our friends at the Nasdaq told us that with the recent blackout in the North East[ern United States], SCO's servers had "popped right back up," he said.
Guess that's in contrast to all the other servers that needed electricity, eh?
Then move to India, buy cheap products, start forming unions, make the standard of living rise, make salaries and prices go up until it's on par with the G7, then move home. Contrary to what dubya tells you, you have no God-given right to make more money, buy more stuff, etc. than the rest of the world. When the WORLD'S minimum wage problem is sorted out, then you can start whining about fair.
And don't give me any of that America innovates bullshit. The lionshre of America's innovation is coming from all the foreign grad students it hasn't labeled terrorists, who then start businesses, etc.
I think this would be a great time for the Samba team to serve SCO a C&D. I'm sure someone will be willing to step up and handle the legal fees? IBM? Redhat? Anyone else?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
SCO CEO Darl McBride met Monday with CRN senior editor Paula Rooney to talk about the company's Unix crusade and product plans. The interview took place at the SCO Forum 2003 in Las Vegas. CRN is a sponsor of the conference.
CRN: SCO attorneys say if there is no settlement, a trial would begin in April 2005 and last roughly five weeks. Following that, there could be appeals. Is there any chance SCO can expedite this case to free up customers, partners and vendors so that the Linux industry doesn't get hurt?
McBride: We tried to move this along, but IBM kept asking for delays. Now with the counterclaim and patent infringement, it could go even longer. IBM can put this on a slow track [with additional legal moves]. But IBM might be throwing hard balls to [get ready] for the soft pitch [to settle].
CRN: Why do you say that? What's happening behind the scenes? Might this case be resolved quietly, rather than become the intellectual property [IP] case of the century?
McBride: They're putting this on a [slow, legal] path. But customers have been putting pressure on IBM to get this resolved. This is not a case IBM can get knocked out on -they'd be filing motions to dismiss the case [if they thought they could win]. Our case is up to $3 billion- they'd have to come up from a few hundred million dollars to settle. Every month, we keep finding more and more [Linux code that violates out Unix System contract]. We'd want a settlement and royalty [on Linux] going forward.
CRN: Have you met with Linus Torvalds yet, especially since he has become an OSDL fellow? What is your assessment of the open source community activities?
McBride: I've talked to him via e-mail. He's very pragmatic and tends to be a racehorse with blinders on ..he doesn't want to know about IP or
[commercial issues] He readily admits that IBM has put a lot of code in
Linux and says if you want to pursue it ]legally], go ahead. But I said
to him, 'I appreciate you didn't create the problem, but you have
inherited it. But he won't sign an NDA. There's a lot of discussion
going on at the OSDL, IBM and open source community they're working
though.
CRN: Many in the open source community are upset about the impact of this case on the Linux industry. Open source guru Eric Raymond-among many others - say they are respectful about IP issues but they are challenging SCO to specify exactly which code it believes to be infringing, by file and by line number, and on what ground it is infringing.
Raymund says the open source community is not willing to sit idly by while SCO asserts proprietary control, and the right to collect license fees, over the entirety of Linux. What do you say to that? Why doesn't SCO just leave Linux customers, partners and developers alone and out of its dispute with IBM?
McBride: That's like if someone comes into your house while you're sleeping, takes your jewels, and as you start chasing them down [to retrieve your property], and now they want to say you're the one doing the bad thing. I have to read [Eric Raymond's letter] and am meeting with [The Linux Show's]Jeff Gerhardt on it later.
CRN: SCO shares, as you mentioned during your keynote, have soared from less than a $1 to over $10 since you took the reigns and since the case began. There have been some reports of SCO executives recently trading shares. This casts some doubt in the minds of some about the integrity of SCO's allegations against IBM.
McBride: I personally haven't sold any shares. [laughter]Look, Red Hat executives have sold over 500,000 shares just since January. [Other SCO execs sold shares to offset tax losses but does not know more than that.
Help fight continental drift.
They can't keep SCO from distributing a GPL'd Samba unless the Samba folks can show that SCO has violated Samba's copyright terms (ie, the GPL as it applies to Samba).
However, it seems to me that Linus and other Linux copyright holders CAN and should demand that SCO stop "licensing" Linux. SCO can't license "their" part of Linux and still distribute the whole kernel as GPL. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too with respect to the GPL - and that's giving them the benefit of the doubt about their supposed IP rights in the kernel.
Actually, Darl had a dream about some footage just like that, back in 1962. Therefore, the entire Bond series is one big derivitive work based on that one dream, which makes SCO the rightful owner of all Bond IP.
As soon as this Linux thing blows over, they'll be charging anyone who ever watched any Bond movies $500 to be in compliance. Next year, the price goes up to $1500 per viewing, per retina.
And tomorrow, I'm going to load up on SCO stock so I'll be ready for the phat profits!
"believe they have total control over because of their interpretation of a contract that supposedly reassigns to them any code that ever gets linked with a line of System V"
Funny, the GPL is the same dam way...
The GPL, whether you agree to it or not, does not reassign any copyrights on any code you link to GPLed code or remove your right to do anything you wish with code you wrote.
Also, despite popular Slashdot urban legend, the GPL does not automatically turn your code into GPLed code if you release it linked to GPLed code. It offers you that option (as well as the option of releasing your code under any other GPL-compatible license) as one way to allow you to redistribute works derived from GPLed code without having to negotiate a new license with the author or violate copyright law. If you ignore these options and release an amalgam of your own code and GPLed code, it means that you're violating copyright law, not that you've accidentally relicensed your code or relinquished your copyright to it.
And the fact that you don't relinquish rights to anything you write is the most important distinction between the GPL license and the contracts that SCO claim to have with Sequent and IBM: code that you write and link to GPL'ed code is still your code. If you want to legally distribute this code linked with the GPL'ed code, then you have to distribute it under a GPL-compatible license, but while that license does grant additional rights to others it does not remove any rights from you. If, say, you write a new feature for Emacs, you cannot legally redistribute your modified Emacs except under a mixed GPL+compatible license, but you can then take your new code and tack it on to your own text editor which you may distribute under any license you want.
According to SCO's claims, as soon as someone linked NUMA code with System V code, somehow SCO gained the right not just to use that NUMA code themselves, but to prevent the original authors from using the code how they wish! Under that theory SCO could have sued IBM for distributing "their" code in AIX even if IBM had never touched Linux. It's of course theoretically possible that Sequent or IBM signed such a contract, or even that at some point IBM signed a contract which transfers ownership of the whole damn company to SCO, but I wouldn't take SCO's lawyers' (much less their executives') word for it after reading about their ludicrous ideas about copyright law "invalidating" the GPL.
That picture is from way back. Or at least after a glamour remake. The true Darl has bed head, fake smile, 5-day sloppy goatee, 29% body fat, and sports rumpled colorless business fashions.
You can't fool me Darl. You only look like an OSS developer.
The entire linux kernel has been constructed from SCO's IP, by judicious copying and pasting of the individual ASCII symbols that form SCO UNIX' source.
In related news, SCO will also be suing Logitech, Cherry and Microsoft under the DMCA: the keyboards made by these leading manufacturers, among others, are in fact blatant copy-prevention mechanism circumvention devices designed to allow 'programmers', or pirates as we like to call them, to re-use SCO's valuable ASCII IP one character at a time. "It's just so easy," said McBride. "You just press the buttons, and tiny fragments of the SCO UNIX source appear. People making devices like this are worse than baby-murderers."
SCO refused to comment on speculation that they may ask for a retroactive injunction against distribution of the Bible, which can also be represented in ASCII.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
McBride showed 60-100 lines of code. They were precise including the comments. However its possible that the duplicate code was from RCU from sequent so the verdict is still out. I am not a coder and McBride did not say which file it was.
Anyway he showed more examples in the linux kernel including the SysV initialization code. THe Unixware version was similiar accept it had break/switch statements while the linux version did not. McBride went on saying that 829,000 lines of code were way too similiar and I could view them if I sign a NDA. I refused.
For more info look here.
IBM may have including code from sequent and the courts have to find out which license IBM was bound by. I personally think its evil that SCO can claim ownership of something they do not even own because of a piece of paper 15 years ago. Its rediculous.
http://saveie6.com/
Darl "The Man Who Couldn't Spell Daryl" McBride was quoted as saying "The very DNA of Linux is coming from Unix". Later that day Tler McBride, the father of Darl, moved for an injunction in federal court to prevent Darl from living. "His DNA is unfairly derived from mine," Tler said, "and unless he's willing to pony up $699 per cell for a license I just can't allow him to continue stealing from me like this."
Darl replied with a lawsuit of his own. "Copyright law specifies that you're allowed to make one, and only one, copy of your DNA, for archival purposes only. We've convinced people who have signed our NDA, and we will prove in court that Tler McBride created billions of copies of his DNA over the course of several years, and distributed those copies to the public using the GPL (Governmental Public Lavatories) as a cover." McBride added, "Free as in beer may have brought him and my mother together, and may have brought Bill and I together, but if you pinko commies think you can stop us from exploiting the marketplace for personal gain, you've got another thing cumming! Except for the DNA, of course, which is constitutionally protected."
On stereophonic equipment, the monaural sound obtained through multiple channels will enhance your listening pleasure.
SCO: So, it is down to you, and it is down to me...if you wish Linux dead, by all means keep moving forward. ...where was I?
IBM: Let me explain...
SCO: There's nothing to explain. You're trying to kidnap what I have rightfully stolen.
IBM: Perhaps an arrangement can be reached?
SCO: There will be no arrangements...and you're killing Linux.
IBM: But if there can be no arrangement, then we are at an impasse.
SCO: I'm afraid so. I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.
IBM: You're that smart?
SCO: Let me put it this way: Have you ever heard or Kernighan, Ritchie, Torvalds?
IBM: Yes.
SCO: Morons!
IBM: Really! In that case, I challenge you to a battle of wits.
SCO: For the kernel? To the death? I accept!
IBM: Good, then untar the source code. [SCO# tar -xvfz code] Inhale this but do not touch.
SCO: [taking a vial from IBM] I smell nothing.
IBM: What you do not smell is our patent portfolio. It is odorless, tasteless, and dissolves instantly in source code and is among the more deadly portfolios known to man.
SCO: [shrugs with laughter] Hmmm.
IBM: [turning his back, and adding the patents to one of the code trees] Alright, where are the patents? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both compile - and find out who is right, and who is dead.
SCO: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine it from what I know of you. Are you the sort of company who would put the patents into his own source code or his enemies? Now, a clever man would put the patents into his own goblet because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool so I can clearly not choose the code in front of you...But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the code in front of me.
IBM: You've made your decision then?
SCO: [happily] Not remotely! Because Linux's SMP code originally came from England(1). As everyone knows, England is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So, I can clearly not choose the code in front of you.
IBM: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
SCO: Wait 'till I get going!!
IBM: England.
SCO: Yes! AH! And you must have suspected I would have known the source code's origin,so I can clearly not choose the code in front of me.
IBM: You're just stalling now.
SCO: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you! You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong...so you could have put the patents in your own code trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the code in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied...and in studying you must have learned that Man is mortal so you would have put the patents as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the code in front of me!
IBM: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
SCO: It has worked! You've given everything away! I know where the patents are!
IBM: Then make your choice.
SCO: I will, and I choose...[pointing behind IBM] What in the world can that be?
IBM: [turning around, while SCO switches goblets] What?! Where?! I don't see anything.
SCO: Oh, well, I...I could have sworn I saw something. No matter. [SCO laughs]
IBM: What's so funny?
SCO: I...I'll tell you in a minute. First, lets compile, me from my code and you from yours. [They both compile]
IBM: You guessed wrong.
SCO: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched branches when your back was turned! Ha ha, you fool!!
-- I'd say your post was about 3 monkeys, 18 minutes.
The ethics of criminal defense are clear: Everyone accused of a crime deserves good representation. So there's nothing wrong with a lawyer willing to defend those accused of the worst crimes; indeed, something to commend.
But the ethics of civil offense are quite different: There is no inherent right to abuse our legal system and attack the innocent through it on false charges. Judges can - and we hope they will in this case - sanction the lawyers who enable such actions. But even beyond that, the lawyers working with SCO deserve complete sanction by civil society, and particularly by the tech industry they are trying to carve a niche out for themselves in. We must make it very clear that any company which hires them in the future will be subject to boycott. Any news organization which hires them for commentary - on anything - will be subject to boycott. Anyone who invites them to attend their party or join their club will be subject to boycott. We must learn to see them as tainted by their association with SCO in a way which in which a criminal defense attorney should not be seen as tainted. We must treat them as the moral equals of child abusers and meth manufacturers, and give them the same cold welcome in our neighborhoods.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/Tril
Dr. Stefan Hildemann claims to have had a chance to see SCO's code show without having to sign the NDA; he has posted his impressions (in German).& t=1716
Well, one of the core SCO developer responsible for the development of the SCO Groups current Unix Intel port, also contributed to the Linux kernel. Compare this post of Jun's including the commentshttp://forum.golem.de/phorum/read.php?f=44&i=1774
Thanks to Robert Taylor this English translation of the posting
http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/5312/2001/1/
To this actual part of the Linux 2.4 kernel
http://lxr.linux.no/source/kernel/sched.c?v=2.4.1
and consider the comment of Dr.Stefan Hildemann.
This raises more interesting questions. Since the SMP scheduler in question was specifically written directly for Linux kernel, and both Caldera/SCO employees only added patches, does it not seem more likely that if there is common source and comment then it is likely that the source in question was copied from GPL'ed Linux source to The SCO Groups own Unix?
I AM MR. DARL MCBRIDE CURRENTLY SERVING AS THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE SCO GROUP, FORMERLY KNOWN AS CALDERA SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, IN LINDON, UTAH, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I KNOW THIS LETTER MIGHT SURPRISE YOUR BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD NO PREVIOUS COMMUNICATIONS OR BUSINESS DEALINGS BEFORE NOW.
MY ASSOCIATES HAVE RECENTLY MADE CLAIM TO COMPUTER SOFTWARES WORTH AN ESTIMATED $1 BILLION U.S. DOLLARS. I AM WRITING TO YOU IN CONFIDENCE BECAUSE WE URGENTLY REQUIRE YOUR ASSISTANCE TO OBTAIN THESE FUNDS.
IN THE EARLY 1970S THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CORPORATION DEVELOPED AT GREAT EXPENSE THE COMPUTER OPERATING SYSTEM SOFTWARE KNOWN AS UNIX. UNFORTUNATELY THE LAWS OF MY COUNTRY PROHIBITED THEM FROM SELLING THESE SOFTWARES AND SO THEIR VALUABLE SOURCE CODES REMAINED PRIVATELY HELD. UNDER A SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT SOME PROGRAMMERS FROM THE CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY OF BERKELEY DID ADD MORE CODES TO THIS OPERATING SYSTEM, INCREASING ITS VALUE, BUT NOT IN ANY WAY TO DILUTE OR DISPARAGE OUR FULL AND RIGHTFUL OWNERSHIP OF THESE CODES, DESPITE ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH AND THE CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY OF BERKELEY, WHICH AGREEMENT WE DENY AND DISAVOW.
IN THE YEAR 1984 A CHANGE OF REGIME IN MY COUNTRY ALLOWED THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CORPORATION TO MAKE PROFITS FROM THESE SOFTWARES. IN THE YEAR 1990 OWNERSHIP OF THESE SOFTWARES WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE CORPORATION UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES. IN THE YEAR 1993 THIS CORPORATION WAS SOLD TO THE CORPORATION NOVELL. IN THE YEAR 1994 SOME EMPLOYEES OF NOVELL FORMED THE CORPORATION CALDERA SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, WHICH BEGAN TO DISTRIBUTE AN UPSTART OPERATING SYSTEM KNOWN AS LINUX. IN THE YEAR 1995 NOVELL SOLD THE UNIX SOFTWARE CODES TO SCO. IN THE YEAR 2001 OCCURRED A SEPARATION OF SCO, AND THE SCO BRAND NAME AND UNIX CODES WERE ACQUIRED BY THE CALDERA SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, AND IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR THE CALDERA SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL WAS RENAMED SCO GROUP, OF WHICH I CURRENTLY SERVE AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
MY ASSOCIATES AND I OF THE SCO GROUP ARE THEREFORE THE FULL AND RIGHTFUL OWNERS OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM SOFTWARES KNOWN AS UNIX. OUR ENGINEERS HAVE DISCOVERED THAT NO FEWER THAN SEVENTY (70) LINES OF OUR VALUABLE AND PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODES HAVE APPEARED IN THE UPSTART OPERATING SYSTEM LINUX. AS YOU CAN PLAINLY SEE, THIS GIVES US A CLAIM ON THE MILLIONS OF LINES OF VALUABLE SOFTWARE CODES WHICH COMPRISE THIS LINUX AND WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD AT GREAT PROFIT TO VERY MANY BUSINESS ENTERPRISES. OUR LEGAL EXPERTS HAVE ADVISED US THAT OUR CONTRIBUTION TO THESE CODES IS WORTH AN ESTIMATED ONE (1) BILLION U.S. DOLLARS.
UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY EXTRACTING OUR FUNDS FROM THESE COMPUTER SOFTWARES. TO THIS EFFECT I HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE MANDATE BY MY COLLEAGUES TO CONTACT YOU AND ASK FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE. WE ARE PREPARED TO SELL YOU A SHARE IN THIS ENTERPRISE, WHICH WILL SOON BE VERY PROFITABLE, THAT WILL GRANT YOU THE RIGHTS TO USE THESE VALUABLE SOFTWARES IN YOUR BUSINESS ENTERPRISE. UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE NOT ABLE AT THIS TIME TO SET A PRICE ON THESE RIGHTS. THEREFORE IT IS OUR RESPECTFUL SUGGESTION, THAT YOU MAY BE IMMEDIATELY A PARTY TO THIS ENTERPRISE, BEFORE OTHERS ACCEPT THESE LUCRATIVE TERMS, THAT YOU SEND US THE NUMBER OF A BANKING ACCOUNT WHERE WE CAN WITHDRAW FUNDS OF A SUITABLE AMOUNT TO GUARANTEE YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS ENTERPRISE. AS AN ALTERNATIVE YOU MAY SEND US THE NUMBER AND EXPIRATION DATE OF YOUR MAJOR CREDIT CARD, OR YOU MAY SEND TO US A SIGNED CHECK FROM YOUR BANKING ACCOUNT PAYABLE TO "SCO GROUP" AND WITH THE AMOUNT LEFT BLANK FOR US TO CONVENIENTLY SUPPLY.
KINDLY TREAT THIS REQUEST AS VERY IMPORTANT AND STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. I HONESTLY ASSURE YOU THAT THIS TRANSACTION IS 100% LEGAL AND RISK-FREE.
Man someone should doctor up this photo so that Slashdot would have two borg icons... we could replace caldera with the SCO-mcbride-borg adaptation... if only I was an artist.
Nah... God will just countersue, because in making UNIX, SCO incorporates works derivative of "creation". ;)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I know I'm going to sound like RMS here but the fact is, Free software really is free for EVERYONE - even those we happen to hate today.
You know, there was a time, not too long ago many of us disliked IBM and their tactics. In fact, that may one day happen again. If we set a precident now where you can revoke a GPL'd license just because you don't like someone, where does it stop?
Free software is FREE. SCO is hanging themselves by it and here's why:
Let them use GCC. Let them use Samba. LET THEM! ANY market acceptance of these free products is good PR for these projects on ANY platform - free or otherwise. This is because any platform in competition can then say, "Our version of Linux running Samba 3.x offers the same benefits as SCO's Openserver, except ours costs half the price."
I know we're all in agreement here about how we feel about Darl(ing) McBride and his band of merry lawyers. But they will get what is coming to them if we stick to the GPL. It's worked so far and this long because there's no fighting it when the playfield is even. SCO can't say they didn't agree to the terms of the GPL when they, to this day, continue to release code under it. Sometimes the best offense is a good defense.
And RMS, if you're listening out there, you can tell all your detractors for me to STFU. At least there's still someone alive that sticks to their principles and I respect that.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
"McBride said pattern-recognition experts SCO hired have ferreted out a slew of infringing code in Linux."
Hey, they've got one's and zero's all through their code just like ours. They must have copied it! $$$
To know that you know what you know, and that you do not know what you do not know, that is true wisdom. --Scooby Doo
http://www.sco.com/2003forum/sponsors.html
It seems that SCO has really big problems with sponsors. The sponsor page is done.
Introspection is the key to understanding
Ok, and when you use Google to search for the code on the 1st screenshot, you will get this a one of the results:/ usr/src/sy s/sys/malloc.c.html
" 32V was a port of Seventh Edition UNIX to the new VAX platform, which had been released by DEC in 1979. "
t ml?read =1&msg_id=4021407&forum_id=46245
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/32VKern
Explantion to source is here:
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/32VKern/
But SCO says this code is stolen from them...
This message is not my effort. I found it here:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/foren/go.sh
Actually, it is going to be relatively easy for IBM to put the big slap-down on SCO. The Lanham Act specifically goes towards finding against companies that make knowingly false statements that injure another company.
In IBM's case you have SCO's press release claiming that they pulled the AIX license when in fact Novell contractually forbade SCO from doing any such thing.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
...would have been better.
Anyone have the script to the "To The Pain" section? That sounds more like what IBM is going to be doing to SCO.
I can see it now...
IBM: First, I'll drive down the value of your stock. Then, I'll raid your entire patent portfolio...
SCO: Yes, then you'll drive us into bankruptcy...
IBM: No, your company I shall leave intact so that every business who worked with you can stare upon your hideousness and say, "My god, what a hideous company"...
Or something like that.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Man someone should doctor up this photo so that Slashdot would have two borg icons... we could replace caldera with the SCO-mcbride-borg adaptation...
Nah, not the Borg. Either the Ferengi or the Pakleds ("you are smart...we look for things that make us go...")
Darryl L. Pierce "What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"