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!

Comments

They shoot horses, don't they?

[FFFish]

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.

Re:They shoot horses, don't they?

[nocomment]

I agree. It's been fun to watch so far but it's time for everyone to collectively turn their back on SCO and just let them yell until they are blue in the face. It's like SCO is holding a handgrenade and people are slowly moving away from the madman so as not to make him blow you up to. As an aside, I wonder if slashdot could get an interview from the original SCO owners and get their take on the whole thing.

Re:They shoot horses, don't they?

[antiMStroll]

Back in the Red Hat 5.1 days, one of the Que how-to books came with a bonus copy of Caldera 1.3 (IIR). It blew Red Hat away, worked like gangbusters, dead solid and fast (for it's P133 time). It really is a shame to see what the company has become.

Re:They shoot horses, don't they?

[c]

"It's like SCO is holding a handgrenade and people are slowly moving away from the madman..."

Picture McBride behind the wheel of a minivan, flying down a drag strip as fast as 6 cylinders can take it on a collision course with a main battle tank. The SCO van has lights flashing, sirens blaring, mimes doing handstands on the roof, and maybe a little T&A out the sunroof. Oh, and it's full of lawyers.

The tank isn't doing much of anything, really.

Now, what we're all wondering... Is Darl McBride just some crazy lunatic powering his shitbox down the road and maybe planning on turning at the last minute, or does he really have something in that minivan that can take out a tank. And if he does, when is he gonna whip it out? Will the tank bring around the main gun and blast him, or will it just use the machine gun? How many lawyers are killed? Mimes? Will the minivan turn into a DeLorean at the very last second and blast a trail through time?!?

I don't know about you, but the suspense is killing me.

c.

The Bond Clips

[NecroPuppy]

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.

Re:The Bond Clips

[jeffasselin]

Ahhhh, but the esteemed counsel that SCO has sought out stated previously, that copyright law allows for one and only one copy to be made, for backup purposes only, so MGM better make damn sure they were using the original footage, with their fingers on the fast forward/rewind buttons, or even they are not in compliance with the SCO version of law.

Actually, according to SCO any work derived or made for an original is owned by the first inventor/holder. I hope they paid Ian Fleming in full for writing James Bond at first. Or whomever first wrote a spy novel. Or Boccaccio who wrote the first novel. And the Lumiere brothers for making movies possible. And...

I guess you get the idea. If any and all derivative works are considered the property of the original inventor/creator, there would be no inventions, because everything comes from something else...

Hey, we could probably find a sumerian mummy and bring it in court to file a suit against SCO for use of the written language.

Actually, at this point, I'm expecting SCO to sue God or something like that, since his "creation" incorporates works derivative of Unix.

Groklaw

[NetFusion]

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.

Irony - please contact your employer

[Tim Macinta]

It's very ironic that SCO claims to be fighting for intellectual property rights when they are seeking to destroy the right of authors to control how their work is distributed. There is no reason that they should be attacking the legitimacy of open source licenses like this when their dispute with IBM is supposedly contractual. McBride actually admitted today that their attack is about destroying free software which is just disgusting considering that one of the core principals of IP law is that the author should be able to disseminate his work as he wishes - SCO apparently wants to destroy this choice.

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.

Re:Irony - please contact your employer

[jefu]

McBride actually admitted today that their attack is about destroying free software which is just disgusting considering that one of the core principals of IP law is that the author should be able to disseminate his work as he wishes - SCO apparently wants to destroy this choice.

But this is completely in keeping with the way American capitalism works. For instance the Department of the Interior sells leases to ranchers to put cattle on (often overgrazed land). But groups like the Sierra Club have been refused those leases, even though high bidder, because they planned on leaving the land fallow.

The rule seems to be "you must profit by your rights or your rights don't count".

The US isn't alone. How about this story about a Canadian city that won't give a place a liquor license unless they server liquor (they want it so patrons can smoke tobacco).

Ain't humanity wonderfully silly?

Picket?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't there some slashbots in Las Vegas who would like to run a picket line in front of the MGM Grand?

SCOfinger

[pyros]

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)

Who is John Moore? (from Yahoo SCOX board)

[nyet]

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?

Best quote

[LauraW]

Referring to the "one backup copy" nonsense, the article says:

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.

I love it when the lawyers start insulting each other. :-)

Bravo, indeed...

[Empiric]

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.

Chewbacca Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

SCO translator-o-matic

[Gherald]

>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

SCO's grasp at straws

[Experiment 626]

Linux is a copyrighted work. Copyright law allows you to make a single copy of something for backup purposes, unless you have the permission of the copyright holder, in which case you can make all the copies you want.

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...

Re:SCO to sell Samba product...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

SCO to face racketeering charges?

[Iphtashu Fitz]

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.

Why challenge the GPL?

[epicurius]

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?

Re:Boycott SCO?

[Experiment 626]

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.

Re:Seems a key point

[kevinz]

That is the whole problem from SCO's point of view. If the whole thing goes away they can't continue to sell the stock and enrich the board. IIRC, they've even said as much. To paraphrase: "We'd show you the code, but then teams of open source would remove the code and replace it with their own versions, and then where would we be?" If nothing else, this seems to prove the old adage "There is no such thing as *bad* publicity." I don't know if they've gotten any non-M$ revenue from this, but the stock is up, and they are back in every trade magazine in the country. Who was talking about SCO before the lawsuit? How many people even knew SCO existed back then? Of course that begs the whole exit strategy issue. Press release: "The SCO Group announced today that in the interest of good will they have agreed to abanden their lawsuit against IBM. IBM has also agreed to impelemnt processes and procedures to protect the intellectual capital of all independant software vendors to better protect the livelyhood of programmers everywhere. Finally, in an effort to help prompte open source software the SCO Group has established a multi-million dollar fund to be used to promote and develop open source solutions."

"Read Copyright Update"?

[Jeremi]

From the article:

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?

Another tidbit about SCO

[mewyn]

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

Re:We are up to a million lines of code!

[Arker]

55,000 lines of NUMA code [...] has made its way into Linux, attorneys and SCO executives claimed.

That would be a nice trick, since SysV didn't have NUMA.

SCO is so full of shit it's not even funny.

Re:Not quite what I wrote

[register_ax]

I just checked and it looks like they pulled the sponser document as demonstrated at http://www.caldera.com/2003forum/sponsors.html. However, the google cache is out there. This is golden as you can see other sponserships (gone south?) and potential candidates you can contact.

As sites may be removed from google's cache, here's a listing of the companies that were listed

Premier Sponsor
HP

Gold Sponsor
CRN

Silver and Bronze Sponsors
Microlite Corporation
Rasmussen Software Inc.
Equinox Systems
Century
Digi International
TeleVideo
Multi-Tech Systems
InoStor
TelSoft Solutions
Open Systems
Lone Star Software
DTR Business Systems
Maxspeed Corporation
Tarantella
Basis International
Vultus Inc.
SDSI
fp Technologies
TAKgroup
NextAxiom

Now all those sites reference a site, but that has been taken down too...OR HAS IT!!! mwaHAHAHAHA!!

But, yeah, that page is much more informative. Also for those interested on what the diff sponsorships mean[pdf]...

Interview with Darl, not for faint of heart

[bstadil]

Interview today. I have posted the interview here rather than make a link to CRN as they are sponsoring SCOForum and do not deserve the Hits.

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.

Re:We are up to a million lines of code!

[mewyn]

I just did some checks on my current kernel, 2.6.0-test3.

There is about 5.4 million lines in all of the .c, .S, and .h files. Seperating that out, taking the most likely parts of the kernel that would have any of these parts in question: arch, fs, include, kernel, and mm, they only have 2.1 million lines in the files. Seperating even further, taking out the files that SCO has not a chance having any IP in, it brings it down around 900k lines. Now, I know that SCO does not have ALL of the IA32, IA64, PPC, Kernel, and MM code. Also, I counted out any files that have to do with NUMA, and the lines from those total less than 2,500.

Have we yet proven SCO is full of it?

mewyn dy'ner

OT: (You forgot the best part....)

[TitaniumFox]

SCO: So, it is down to you, and it is down to me...if you wish Linux dead, by all means keep moving forward.
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!! ...where was I?
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!!

Re:OT: (You forgot the best part....)

[Ibix]

5 * (c) 1998-99, 2000 Ingo Molnar

"My name is Ingo Molnar. You steal my source code! Prepare to die!" Sorry...