Slashdot Mirror
SCO Says IBM is Beating Up on Them
SCO's McBride claims that IBM is stage-managing all the attacks and bad press, which would probably explain why I cleared this article with IBM World Headquarters before running it (not!). The publisher of Linux Journal invites SCO to sue. One of SCO's lawyers has this barely coherent interview where he spouts legal rubbish for a gullible reporter. There's an interview in German (machine translation) with SCO's execs. And finally, SCO is still hoping for a settlement with IBM. Update: 08/22 18:26 GMT by M : ESR responds.
Boo fucking hoo.
They'll beat you up and steal your $699 in lunch money.
Hi, I've got a bridge for sale.
Call me,
Darl
Its like the class bully that suddenly goes crying to teacher when a kid from high school kicks them in the balls. You reap what you sow.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
They haven't seen *anything* yet...
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
did you guys get your checks from IBM today? My hourly on posting anti-SCO stuff has gone through the roof!
Yet another sco article...
The SCO execs and shareholders must have been first in line on free labotomy day at Dr Nick Riviera's...
Gibble: Descriptive of an emotional state in which one's mind is scrabbling for some purchase on reality
Remember, it's not paranoia if they really are all out to get them.
And we are.
"You don't have any...*objections* to signing that, do you...my son?"
Fuck Slashdot
Whoh! 24 hours without an SCO story!
I wasn't sure if I would make it!
-B
but I haven't seen my check from IBM yet...
So this is why Darl claimed that the "silent majority" supports SCO - he mis-counted all the opposers as one voice since he thought it couldn't be anything other than IBM heading up a consiparcy. F.U.Darl.
I can't decide which is funnier - the point about IBM orchestrating all the outrage, or the point that SCO is somehow more "relevant" to the tech community because they've filed a bunch of press releases!
Thanks, Darl - it's good to kick off the weekend with a good laugh...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1143155
"As far as I'm concerned it's an issue between SCO and IBM, and I expect that IBM's resources will win the day,"
http://www.welton.it/davidw/
Of course they want a settlement. Their case has NO merit. Here's to hoping IBM castrates these fools.
IBM paid me $699 to criticise SCO ;););)
I'm going to get modded to hell and back with this.
That "barely coherent interview" was anything but.
I'm tired of this hear-no-evil see-no-evil attitude, especially from the editors here.
For those of you who could care less about the article and want your daily SCO bashing, here's the thing:
It was a pretty good angle that the lawyer was making, and the interviewer was asking tough questions, the same ones
we all have. The main thrust is that he's betting on the fact that Copyright law trumps whatever provisions are in the
GPL, so IBM's GPL defense doesn't hold water; and also that just because Caldera released kernel source under that license does
not mean that the whole codebase (not just what was republished) should also be GPL'd.
These are important things to think about, and you have to worry about how they can muddle a jury, and whether IBM (Linux users)
have a clear defense against these new angles.
Of course, he hasn't addressed (and the interviewer didn't mention) that a lot of that code in question seems to derive from earlier
public domain sources.
He also tries to put some spin on the case later, but I think we all expected that, especially the parallels to Napster.
Whatever. The interviewer was still concerned about SCO's litigous stance, which is a good sign that McBride's "silent majority"
are just a figment of his imagination (otherwise the interviewer could have tried to address these thoughts for the readership).
The funny part is towards the end, the lawyer defends that by saying the RIAA is worse, and that maybe they need to change,
as he makes SCO out to be, like innovative.
(SCO doesn't want to sue you, they just want your money, like settling without serving you papers). ^_^
Please people, read the articles and THINK before you open your mouth. Things are not as rosy as they seem, and we should be prepared for a rough time,
which we can all laugh about later. Now is not the time to be smart-assed or smug, because we could eat our words if we are not careful.
Are you listening to me slashdot? Editors? Bruuuuce? Back me up here...
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
SCO sucks donkey balls! This post sponsored by IBM.
... didnt ask any questions about the BSD involvement. almost like she didnt know about bruce peren's findings. yet, the day before (8/20) she published an article with peren's assertions. question becomes: when did this interview take place?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
The RIAA is going after users for "illegal" music on their computers. SCO is trying to go after Linux users for illegal use of their code. I've heard quite a few people say that once IBM settles this thing ... if for some ungodly reason they should loose SCO cannot target Linux users because the damage has already been done. Can't this apply to the RIAA? They already shutdown Napster ... how can they still continue to claim damages after having been paid for them already?
~ryan
just my .02 cents ... yes thats .02 cents ... its not worth much but its all I have
SCO, technologically relevant?
McBride proudly dumped two phone-book-sized binders of press clippings on the stage during his SCO Forum keynote on Monday as proof that his company had become more relevant in the high technology industry. SCO has issued 46 press releases since filing suit against IBM on March 7. Last year it issued only 29 press releases between March and August.
What is the sound of one hand slapping?
More precisely, what is the sound of an 800 lb. gorilla's one hand slapping?
Or, to be even more exact, what is the sound of an 800 lb. gorilla's one hand slapping an annoying monkey silly?
My friends, it is the sound of delicious justice.
And that other noise? That's the sound of a house of cards beginning to collapse.
Thomas Galvin
Check this Story, SCO claims it owns so many lines on Linux Kernel that if they are removed, it will COLLAPSE!!!
I've talked to him via e-mail. He's very pragmatic and tends to be a racehorse with blinders on.
I personally feel a great deal of mental anguish, and the need to collect some compensation...
Now where's a rabid lawyer when you really need one?
SCO: You are infringing on our IP give us money NOW!!! ::thwaks them upside the head:: No. ::tear at the corner of their eye::
IBM:
SCO: OWWW!!!! You hurt us! Can you buy us out now?
At some point SCO will understand the meaning of the term "community"...
(can't talk now, Alyssa Milano naked on TV)
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
http://welovethescoinformationminister.org/
Yes, the domain is active, but the web/email redirection might not be active for another day or two, so any fanmail/flames will go to nul until then, and you'll have to use the mirror at
http://www.anerispress.com/wltsim/.
(More mirrors encouraged to offset the dread Slashdot Effect.)
First thing I do in the morning is hit userfriendly, gpf-comics, dilbert, sluggy, pvponline, sinfest, reallifecomics, and then slashdot for my morning SCO fix. Personally I think that the SCO articles are really starting to establish themselves as fantasically funny, even amidst the other talented humourists I read every day.
"We have absolute direct knowledge of this..."
:)
Yup, and all this proof is, of course, documented with the 'illegal' source code. To see it you'll need to sign an NDA.
Seriously, I don't think Linus' comment that "they are smoking crack" really covered it. McBride obviously seems to believe that the Open Source community isn't capable of refuting their bullshit without the backing of a large company.
Here's a newsflash for you, Darl: IBM doesn't -need- to coordinate an attack on SCO. The way I see it, an attack on one member of the Open Source community is an attack on all of us. And I know it's been said before, but why not: put up or shut up, SCO.
--Kylus
Idiot-proof something, and Life will build a better Idiot.
I for one welcome SCO's new IBM overlords ... in fact, I like 'em so much I wish for a GRID of them!
Infuriate left and right
And finally, SCO is still hoping for a settlement with IBM.
I bet they are;)
"As a writer / novelist you might want to spellcheck your sig.
A. Because all this SCO fud is being backed by a big corporation (M$).
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
I have started printing out SCOs press releases so I can save them and spread them on my garden for next year. Normally I would have to pay top dollar for bullshit that rich and strong.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Darl, we love you, i want to have your babies.
--Mods giveth, Mods taketh away--
This has to be one of the most badly handled situations in business history. SCO started this fire and they have only themselves to blame for the heat.
You know, after the dot-com bust, I wondered where all those "visionaries" went. You know, the ones who could charm millions of American Dollars from venture capitalists and day-trading shareholders with nothing more than a bottle of snake oil and a press release.
I guess I found them:
McBride proudly dumped two phone-book-sized binders of press clippings on the stage during his SCO Forum keynote on Monday as proof that his company had become more relevant in the high technology industry. SCO has issued 46 press releases since filing suit against IBM on March 7. Last year it issued only 29 press releases between March and August.
Here I was, worried about unemployment among the "visionary entrepreneur" community. They're working for SCO! And just look at those results -- they've had a 58% increase in press release generation in just one year! I'm so glad to see that they've landed on their feet.
Too bad the rug's about to get yanked out from under them again.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Kickin' it old school, bringing not back. Party on dude!
Hmm, the SCO morning post came almost at dinner time today. Must be running towards the weekend...
-- Cheers!
> 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]... Every month we keep finding more and more [Linux code that violates our Unix System contract]. We'd want a settlement and royalty [on Linux] going forward.
"People who speak in metaphors can shampoo my crotch" --Jack Nicholson
Darl McBride: I claim all of Linux for SCO
Linux Programmers: Excuse me?
Darl McBride: For the glory of SCO . . .
Linux Programmers: You can't claim Linux. We wrote it.
Darl McBride: Do you have a copyright?
Linux Programmers: We don't need a copyright. We wrote it and we have the GPL.
Darl McBride: No copyright. No ownership. These are the rules that I just made up. And I'm backing it up with these lawsuits given to me by the law firm of Boies, etc.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
IBM spokeswoman Trink Guarino declined to comment on McBride's allegations other than to say, "the open community is completely capable of reacting on its own to SCO's allegations." ... taking down their servers, streams of contempt and vitriol on every message board known to man.... Yup.
in the odd position of rooting for IBM. Never thought I'd be on Big Blue's side...in what strange times we live.
Anyone else want to punch this Darl McBride guy right in the FACE?
The obvious observation as to why this is the most fucking ironic thing ever is that, well, the negative press against SCO is coming from an absolutely huge variety of different sources, and being driven by every single person that SCO has attacked and every single person driven to moral outrage by witnessing SCO's attacked (the entire open source/UNIX community and roughly the entire "computer-saavy" community, respectively).
The positive press for SCO is coming from one cause and one cause only: namely, when news outlets report on press releases SCO puts out. It is being driven by SCO alone. The ONLY other impetus for a pro-SCO story that we've seen in eight months was that time that Microsoft put out a press release stating they'd bought a SCOsource license.
Are you all familiar with the psychological and propaganda phenomenon of "projection"?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
People who like to think they know what they're talking about saying how dumb the SCO executives are.
And utterly failing to realise that the SCO executives are rich. And will get much richer as a result of this, completely regardless of the outcome. And there you'll be at the end of this, crowing about how right you were, and how dumb they were, while they move into bigger mansions, or buy that third yacht. Hence why they're rich, and you're languishing as a second-rate programmer.
Score:-1, Funny
It's the world's tiniest violin, playing a sad, sad funeral dirge for SCO.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
If the Linux kernel is truly infringing on SCO's UNIX copyrights, why doesn't SCO ask a judge to issue an injunction against kernel.org/mirrors to stop them from distributing it.
If they did this, however, they would have to show a *minimal* amount of compelling evidence. Enough so that it is justified, but not necessarily the amount it would take to prove the case in a court trial.
My bet is they know they don't have this much evidence. They are simply trying to extort license money from gullible companies. If they saught an injunction, and were denied, all their posturing would immediately be disregarded.
Anyway, just something I was thinking about. Mabey they did seek one already. I admit I've become lazy in my SCO-story-reading duties.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
People in Open Source/Free Software attack SCO because of their own beliefs in OS/FS. Not because IBM says too. There is no Star Chamber secret masonic gathering conspiring to put SCO down. Its people who code and contribute to OS/FS projects that are just plain mad they are accused of stealing.
So they can't figure out where the source code for their product or the ground swell annomosity is coming from. Better blame IBM and sue.
Looks like the bully is a little intimidated by the thought of ending up at the bottom of an outraged open-source dogpile. You reap what you SCO.
Up is truly now down, black is white and cats and dogs will now be living together in harmony.
No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
Wayne Campbell called and wants his lingo back.
What, you didn't get a Valentine's card from IBM?
Boo-Hoo.
Frankly, I think they misdirrected their frustration - I think the OSS community has piled on worse than IBM at this point. Bruce Perins blew the crap out of their Vegas presentation. Linus says the "smoke crack". Grocklaw rips them a new one every day.
IBM is the storm cloud on the horrizon. SCO hasn't even begun to feel what they have in store.
Oh, I like this line:
Davis noted that McBride had only mentioned about 100 lines of code being identical in Linux and Unix System V. And while other code may look similar, he said that there are "only so many ways of writing 2+2=4".
SCO Group's end is near..
:)
Are we throwing a party?
I donate one keg
Don't Tread on OpenSource
I can see Darl and Co feeling all smug and sassy about their doings, but expecting people to whack off thinking about them is asking for too much.
Bunch of selfsatisifed turdds..baah
IBM spokeswoman Trink Guarino declined to comment on McBride's allegations other than to say, "the open community is completely capable of reacting on its own to SCO's allegations."
In a related story, Darl's vegetable garden was eaten. McBride suspects IBM rabbits were the culprit.
Ok, let's put down the flamethrowers for a moment, and try to understand what SCO's lawyers are saying.
When they say "the GPL is pre-empted by copyright law", they don't mean that the GPL is invalid. What they mean is this: You can't GPL something you don't own. In other words, the fact that the code in dispute was distribute "under the GPL license" is irrelevant -- the company which did that (IBM) didn't own the code, so the fact that they "licensed" the code under the GPL is irrelevant.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Mark Heise: "Why show the code? Why show the contracts? Why show anything? Because SCO is committed to educating people about their rights to ownership"
Well, Mr. Heise, I am committed to educating you about your phenomenal lack of intelligence, morals and decency.
AWWWWW, wittle babys can't handle the big bwue:-(
;-)
Anyone want to bet that the ONE company that actually paid SCO for a Linux license is Microsoft????
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
At what point can we sue SCO for damaging our livelihood by spewing FUD about Linux? It's hard enough to get a job without having to worry that some employer is going to think "whoa, I better not hire him, he might surreptitiously set up a Linux box somewhere and get us all sued."
And now that I think about it, why can't we sue the SCO executives personally - not just SCO itself. I know that being a corporation normally shields the execs from such lawsuits, but in this case it seems clear that the execs are driving the company into the ground for only one purpose, to enrich themselves. They are driving the company into the ground and they are dragging our reputation down with it. It a dump truck driver takes a shortcut through your yard, you can take the driver to court. Right? So, maybe the same logic would apply to SCO. The executives are driving the company and making reckless decisions with depraved indifference. I think they should be sued.
as a company? Do they have any products?
That's why it's so important to make sure you've got GOD on your side before you start slingin' stones, dumbasses.
Gotta admit, tho, even I am getting sick of the constant SCO-a-thon on
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Who wants to be a Darl Mc Bride?
- Question 1 -
Your best friend kindly lent you his new Toyota, but you have literally destroyed it in a accident you were entirely responsible.
What do you do?
[ ] a) You apologize.
[ ] b) You buy him a new car.
[ ] c) You sue him.
[ ] d) You sue him AND General Motors.
Answer
If you choose D, congratulations! You could be SCO's CEO!
Regarding the interview with the lawyer, I got the impression he was largely spouting the party line for his client. It did feel rather incoherent and he honestly didn't seem to believe what he was saying.
Meanwhile back at SCO, apparently they're not buying crazy because they've got a stock of it. Claiming IBM is orchestrating some conspiracy to attack them is just another one of the bizarre psychological acrobatic displays we've seen from SCO, admittedly one of the more impressively stupid ones since this started.
Looking at the articles, I'm feeling SCO is stuck in a "ratchet it up until they give in" mentality, where they'll keep making attacks and outrageous claims until someone gives in and buys them or gives them lots of money. However, they have to count on people backing down - which isn't really happening. Since they have no other options, I think they're going to keep at it.
I actually do wonder just how in touch with reality some of the SCO execs are. Now that they've committed to a business path based on lawsuits and dubious legal claims, they can't really back out, so it seems they're becoming wrapped up in the worlds they created to justify their claims.
Expect it to get even more insane.
Get your popcorn out.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
This is a classical Darwinism trait. Survival of the fittess. And SCO Group, Inc. sure aren't looking very fit at the moment.
SCO needs to just roll over so I can cash in on my short orders at the NASDAQ.
Does this remind anyone of the shite spat out by 'Baghdad Bob'? We have decimated the infidels! Those are not Iraqi soldiers running for freedom, they are merely actors in a Hollywood studio! The Americans are NOT here!!!
eh, just my thoughts...
Smac
this story is really from the IBM-public-relations dept.
You know these editors... they're always screwing something up.
Darl McBride accuses IBM of being aliens from another galaxy trying to take over the earth. More at 11.
c't: In addition, her lawyer, David Boies, is no IP specialist.
Sontag: Is correct, but its special field is treaty right and that the crucial weapon will be.
c't: They did not select it really because of its public-effective role during the Microsoft process?
Sontag: We, the aspect say us at least will not harm.
So, Sontag and SCO have a "special field"? Is this because once upon a time they were "special kids"? This would answer much. But for some real fun with Babelfish, type in the American Pledge of Allegiance, translate it into Spanish and back, and then into Korean and back. You'll never look at the speed of light again quite the same.
--Chag
Say what you want about scox insiders being insane or stupid. Scox share price went up another 20% yesterday. This immediately after strongly negitive news about scox's "code showing."
US justice system asleep at the wheel. Canopy/scox insiders laughing all the way to the bank.
As this case is now just pure entertainment, I suggest SCO begin talking very seriously about their rights as performers and comedians.
The PRS (Performing rights society), MCPS (Mechanical Copyrights) handle this in the UK. They could be earning on their public appearances and any reproductions of their hilarious statements.
I know a good agent, and would be happy to get in contact.
SCO Says IBM is Beating Up on Them.
Tech industry says: GO IBM!
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
What code came from the public domain?
All of the code examples I've seen have come from BSD-licensed code. This code can be freely reused, but is no more in the public domain than is GPL code.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Darl: "they (IBM) have Eric Raymond on their payroll.":
No, Eric is attacking SCO because he wants crush them. He wants to see them driven before him, and to hear the lamentations of their women.
Groklaw has very extensive research on Kimball's history, which is nicely summarized and easy to read. Every case has links to much more detail. The overall appearance is that Kimball will probably do the right thing.
Probably most important is the Jacobsen vs Hughes copyright case. Apart from considering much of the material uncopyrightable historical facts, Judge Kimball was quite unimpressed by the plaintif's failure to act in a timely manner to mitigate damages. Quoting from that article:
Obviously this bodes quite well for IBM and all Linux users. SCO of course will claim they stopped distribution of linux, but this ruling at least shows that Judge Kimball isn't likely to be be charmed with the deplorable way SCO has conducted itself. Kimball's willingness to consider the writing a separate work, even though a part of it was loosely based on Jacobsen's also casts quite a shadow over SCO's chances (assuming the unlikely worst case scenario that SCO has an ace up its sleeve, rather than the bogus examples we've seen so far). It's certainly a good sign that Kimball is unlikely to buy SCO expansive theories about what constitutes a derivitive work.
The groklaw page has examples where Kimball has ruled against big business, where he's shown competence at handling software intellectual property disputes (eg, Altiris vs Symantec), and where he's handled very complex cases.
While nothing is 100% certain going into the courtroom, it is a fact that the Judge Kimball has been selected to hear this case. His history shows he's competent, fair, and at least in Jacobsen vs Hughes, he doesn't tollerate the sort of shenanigans SCO has been pulling!
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
That interview was full of softball questions. What are the questions I would ask?
The Open Source community has shown pretty definitively that the source code you displayed was not stolen. Was that your best shot and if not, show me your best shot now, not under NDA.
Your theory of a derivative work is really stretching. Would you please tell me why you think that JFS is a derivative work of Unix? Under a theory that makes JFS a derivative work, aren't you saying that all Unix device drivers are also derivative works? What are the limits to your theory of derivative works?
SCO insiders have been dumping a lot of stock lately. Why aren't your execs holding onto what should become a vastly more valuable commodity?
I'm sure others can add a bunch more hard hitting questions. The interview was a fluff piece at best.
SCO says "We have absolute direct knowledge of this. If you go behind the scenes, the attacks that we get that don't have IBM's name on them, underneath the covers, are sponsored by IBM" WE say that! "We have absolute direct knowledge of this. If you go behind the scenes, the attacks that we get that don't have MSFT's name on them, underneath the covers, are sponsored by MSFT,"
For all of you who were wondering why IBM wasn't more vocal throughout all of this, McBride has given you the reason. IBM has been very careful about what/when they say anything about this case. Had they been more aggressive, Darl's latest attempt for public sympathy may have fallen on more than deaf ears. But because IBM's only real action has been to counter-sue, it seems odd that SCO would suddenly start complaining about being 'beat up' by IBM now.
Then again, SCO seems to be forming a pattern of crying belated woes...
Given that SCO insiders recently sold stock for the first time in ages, why isn't the SEC investigating to see if the only purpose of SCO's lawsuit was to manipulate the stock price?
Well I was going to write to complain about the lack of an SCO post today, but I dont think i'll bother.
:)
The interesting thing about this article is that SCO, who started this ball rolling have now started crying becuase IBM arent taking this rubbish. Now they are saying that IBM are orchestrating the the whole open source community response to the case. Which is of course nonsense, and hardly something that we as a community would advocate.
SCO however neglect to say how back stage funding and encouragement from Microsoft is driving the SCO campaign of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (downnright lies)
some of us have music to help us through the dark times
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Explain my cluelessness please. ~ryan
This might get us closer to the heart of the problem. :-)
With each article, I am more and more convinced that Darl was watching Iraqi's information minister spouting off his stuff and thinking to himself "You know, that guy's really on to something..." Perhaps Darly boy will end up in the same place too.
Are the voices in my head bothering you?
I'd have to say that they have opened up Pandora's Box without knowing what would come out. Now that the box is opening, there is NO getting it closed again as much as I am sure they'd love to get it shut.
Let SCO reap what they have sown
What ever happened to the idea that once a case was under way it was sub judice, and if either party discussed it outside the courtroom it was highly prejudicial to their interests?
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
To quote Darl "We have absolute direct knowledge of this. If you go behind the scenes, the attacks that we get that don't have IBM's name on them, underneath the covers, are sponsored by IBM," McBride said.
I wonder how many Bothans died to get them this information.
The lawyer makes this quote: Let's say you have a hundred files, and you put one of your hundred files under the GPL. That doesn't mean you've lost the rights to your other 99 files.
But from what I can tell, SCO argues if one of THEIR files (or some of their files) touches Linux, then Linux is essentially theirs, especially because Linux apparently benefitted from the code they "own."
Maybe its just me, but there appears to be some hypocracy here (OK, it's SCO, expecting hypocracy is a default setting). Maybe it relates to their twisted take on GPL and Copyright, but I think the lawyer's statement really makes them look worse.
Thoughts on this?
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Poor Darl is just misunderstood that's all. I think what he meant to say is:
"We have absolute direct knowledge of this. If you go behind the scenes, the attacks that we get that don't have IBM's name on them, underneath the covers, are coming from intelligent people who *really* understand the issues"
"Oh, and regarding that leaked Powerpoint presentation showing proof of our intellectual property being illegally incorporated into Linux? Well, we've thought about the IBM lawsuit a bit more and would just like to say, um.... nevermind."
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
I for one welcome SCO's new IBM overlords ... in fact, I like 'em so much I wish for a GRID of them!
Wow, imagine a beowulf cluster of those press clippings!!!
-B
Not that there haven't been many signs already that SCO has lost touch with reality, but adding in the "it's all a conspiracy by IBM" really indicates that the paranoia has gone into high gear.
[It's akin to Hillary's claims of a "vast right wing conspiracy" out to get Bill. There certainly was (and is) a "vast right wing" that delighted in hating Bill Clinton; but that doesn't make it a "conspiracy".]
"Provided by the management for your protection."
- completely at odds with what the law actually states;
- not even applicable in the current context, which is not about "making a legal backup of licensed software that doesn't otherwise permit copying"
- contrary to the entire body of contract law
- full of lame meanderings, circumlocutions, and just plain bad sentence constructs/grammar
Besides, he still sounds like he's smoking more crack than the worstIt's incoherent in part because it matches everything else SCO has been doing lately.
Linux Users Say SCO is Beating Up on Them
THE MAGIC WORDS ARE SQUEAMISH OSSIFRAGE
http://pyrll.ibm.com/rewardprograms/scobounty/reba teform.html is where I applied. I think they're paying quite generously for posts on message boards and even more if you have access to an authoritative-looking website. Now's your chance to use those 31337 h0x0ring sk1lz for big bux!
--
Send us your Linux Sysadmin articles.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
which would probably explain why I cleared this article with IBM World Headquarters before running it (not!).
1995 called, they want their catch phrase back.
"Anyway, long story short... is a phrase whose origins are complicated and rambling...." - Abraham Simpson
And finally, SCO is still hoping for a settlement with IBM.
I think that was their plan from the begining and now it has backfired and made them look stupid. I believe they thought that IBM would buy them out rather than bother with a fight and now they have to try and justify their stupidity.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
You know, I just have to log on to Slashdot (SCOdot?) just to keep updated on the SCO silliness, but it's getting stranger than fiction now.
SCO: Part entertainment, part pit bull
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
I find this quote from the "barely coherent" interview:
If this case were just about 80 lines of code--first of all, there wouldn't be a lawsuit--people could sit down and try to fix it.
Compare with This article:
SCO, of Lindon, Utah, has found 80 lines of contributed code in the Linux kernel that it said directly infringe the System V copyright.
~OK~ ... Why haven't I gotten at least a nice thank-you note from IBM for the "Boycott SCO" icon on my website?
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
Has anyone else noticed that the Babelfish translation of Sontag and McBride somtimes makes more sense than the crap they spew out in pure English? :)
--Kylus
Idiot-proof something, and Life will build a better Idiot.
From the first article (not that it matters):
..."
"McBride declined to reveal the sources of his allegations,
Anyone have a guess as to who these McBride sources are? My hunch is Miss Cleo.
Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
"Even though IBM looks like they're not really involved in it, they're very involved,"
For some reason when I read this, It made me think of Kelso off of "That 70's Show"
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
" If you go behind the scenes, the attacks that we get that don't have IBM's name on them, underneath the covers, are sponsored by IBM"
I want my mutha fuckin IBM check! Come Silent Bob... Where going to.... White Plains, New York??
ok, ok, old joke, but I just couldn't resist how he's so proud of his 40+ releases.
AC comments get piped to
They'll be lucky if their "settlement" doesn't end with a double-tap to the head.
From the article: "And the recording industry has struggled with this with Napster. I'm impressed that these people were able to come up with free file-sharing. How somebody was able to figure out how to do that, I'll never understand."
Right; so he clearly doesn't understand technology much at all, if file sharing is so mystical and magical, and the idea of fricken connecting to another machine and downloading something is so amazing.
While understanding technology has little to do with understanding "this text/code is a direct copy and that's illegal", it does make one wonder how competent these lawyers are for such a technological case.
(IANAL and all that) wouldn't it be possible for Redhat or any concerned participant in these legal issues to ask for a gag order in this case? It seems to me that if sco couldn't give out threatening press releases than there would be much less FUD. Is there any legal process to stop them from asking for license$$$ until this is settled in court? Couldn't Torvalds (or someone suitable) file a suit claiming that sco does not own the rights to ask for license fees on their IP and make SCO prove their case b4 mugging end users?
Hypocracy isn't a word, despite it seemingly meaning "rule by hippos" or "rule by hypodermic needles". I think you mean hypocrisy, and you shouldn't use big words you can't even spell correctly.
"Hundreds of customers like and use SCO's Unix products."
I think that is a pretty good example of have "relevant" SCO is... This is like the director (?producer, someone else) of Gigli getting quoted as saying "I've seen worse movies [than Gigli]"
When is the REAL heise going to send SCO a cease-and-desist letter telling them to stop using their name as the supposed name of a "lawyer" representing SCO?
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
it looks like the whole world is coming against SCO
Ya think, Darl? No, IBM is able to bend the will of the "whole world" and you are justifiedly indignant.
This guy is starting to exhibit symtoms of paranoid delusions, no?
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
McBride: "Hundreds of customers like and use SCO's Unix products."
However later on he confirms that they have 11,000 resellers, wow, they sure seem to be selling a lot now don't they?
Quote:
Uhhhmmm... It isn't fair to make fun of people with learning difficulties, I know; but -- they pay this guy to work as a lawyer? He can't even construct a sentence!
And then further down he says:
Well, no you're not, but only because the SCO Group is just a new name for Caldera. You'd forgotten these ones, had you, Mark?
Documentation/networking/tlan.txt:(C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
drivers/net/tlan.c: * (C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
drivers/net/tlan.h: * (C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
net/ipx/af_ipx.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc. <greg@caldera.com>
net/ipx/af_ipx.c: KERN_INFO "IPX Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc.\n" \
You know what would be really interesting (editors, bloggers, are you listening)? It would be really interesting to hear what Marcus Meissner <Marcus.Meissner@caldera.de> and Greg Page <greg@caldera.com> think about all this.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
... But he won't sign an NDA.
Any Linux developer would be INSANE to sign anything like SCO's NDA, as it would end their Linux career then and there. OF COURSE Linus won't go near it...
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
There's something fishy about that Internet Week article. The editor has filled in or covered up a lot of key sentences in the article. In a 20 paragraph interview they used the square brackets 15 times. That seems like a lot for a interview. What was really said?
I was a bit surprised to see the "interview with a gullible reporter" link take me to one I read yesterday--and was impressed by.
The reporter asked some straight questions. She didn't crucify OR enthuse over SCO, but rather revealed some facts, and let the opinions speak for themselves.
Amazing how professionalism is so rare (and CNet is normally a perfect example of just how rare it is!) that when it appears, some people call it gullability.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
I can pass a Drug test, Lie detector test, and a CAT scan.
btw, my name is elmer j fud, millionare. i own a mansion and a yact. and the sun will rise in the west.
Ahhhhhh, AHhhhh
I read the headline for this article, and now everyone in the office is looking at me cause I was laughing so hard.
My stomach hurts...
(From Yahoo Financial Profile of SCOX)
Short Interest
As of 8-July-2003
Shares Short
391.0K
Percent of Float
5.5%
Shares Short
(Prior Month)
277.0K
Short Ratio
1.92
Daily Volume
204.0K
By now, the short sellers must be up to 10%
"We will short no swine before their time"
Considering there is 12.6Mu shares outstanding and 40% directly owned by Canopy and 20% indirectly, yesterdays volume is 8% or so of "normal" outstanding tradebable shares.
So question arrises WHO IS BUYING especilly after the code snippet flap earlier in the week.
Consensus, most likely MS' investment arm.
It's the quid pro quo for SCO committing legal suicide.
Help fight continental drift.
poor sco. They brought it all on themselves.
McBride: That's like if someone comes into your house while you're sleeping, takes your jewels, and as you start chasing them down...
I'm no expert, but having dreams about about somebody cutting your balls off and running off with them doesn't sound good to me!
"There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
Yeah, sure Darl, IBM sicked Linus on you. He wasn't going to speak up for his life's work, but now that IBM has "put him on the stage" he is going to attack you, just because IBM told him to. Actually Darl, it goes back farther than that. You see, quite a few years ago, IBM special agents built their latest robot. It was called the Liuns 10000, and was much better and faster than the HAL 9000. They planted this robot in Finland and and gave it the fake last name of Torvalds. I mean, common, "Torvalds", that's not a real last name. Not very many people in the world have that last name, so it must be a conspiracy. They implanted code into its memory circuit from some old ass Unix and set it to write its own OS at some time in the future, around the early 90's so that this robot, and its code, could single handedly destroy SCO. Most of the people in the world would believe that this OS was written to make computers run better and some would even believe that it was written to compete with the inferior Windows OS, but in actuality, it was written to destroy the one true enemy of the free world, SCO. Its a conspiracy I tell you.
with the biggest, badest guy i could find, and all i got was this black eye! weep for me! pitty me! the bully!
Guess who is using SCO to attack OSS? It's the old IBM vs. Microsoft battle, using whatever weapons are currently available (IP, licenses, contracts, GPL software, etc.)
SCO is just the current front-end for what looks more like an M$ intiative. I predict that once SCO is chewed up and spit out by IBM, some other marginal company will acquire SCO (and the UNIX "IP") and M$ will indirectly fund the next round of the battle.
SCO actually has to say something funny in order to get a story posted on /.
Maybe SCO doesn't really exist and this is all a plot by Linus and the Slashdot Editor to get more attention to Linux.
Hear my word, in two weeks UA Linux will announce a new, 'clean', (SCO Free) version of Linux.
or I could be talking out of my a$$.
-B
I am no expert here, but I would imagine SCO has placed a copy of their code someplace independant.
Just strikes me that with Linux source out in the open, SCO have had a looooong time to change their records.
Of course they would not dream of doing this, various external parties have access to the source base, but to point at a section of code and say it is the same. Where is this code stored, is it in an independant, safe, tamper proof location out of the reach of SCO and anybody else for that matter?
Brings me to an interesting point, any companioes you work for, especially the small ones, who actually place copies of their code in an independant location incase copyright becomes an issue? I always thought you needed to go through some specific proceedures to 'proove' your version is the original.
The more I read of SCO's garbage, the more I think that SCO Really Does Not Get It.
:)
I think that McBride and Cronys really do believe in their heart of hearts that people are not capable of organizing, co-ordinating, and for that matter, producing functional code, without the direct support of some company as a mastermind.
When you think about it, the forces and processes behind Linux and other Open Source/Free Software are so contrary to what are taught at business schools that it must threaten to make your average MBA's head explode.
In many ways, the whole Free Software movement is a direct refutation of the core principles of the MBA curriculem* I can't wait to see how Alan Cox does on his MBA.
When one reads an SCO press release, one cannot help but imagine a group of dinosaurs confronted by an ice age - and mammals.
DG
* One may interpret through this that I think Free Software in inheritly Communist - and I don't agree. One of the central principles of Communism is Central Planning, and that's NOT how Linux etc development is done - it's more like a free market of ideas. Where the MBA-brainfuck comes in is that this "free market" has absolutely nothing to do with MONEY. There's no PRODUCT here - instead, it's a "free market" designed to provide something for the common good.
So we have a quasi-Capitalist process - with no capital, per sae - in the service of a quasi-Communist ideal. This is, I think, something new and scary, and this fear colours everything coming out of SCO.
Ah, brave new world!
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Proud of it? Of course you are Mr. McBride
There are two kinds of egotists: 1) Those who admit it 2) The rest of us
The lawyer wasn't making any good statements. He was giving useless analogies and ignoring huge festering holes in SCO's case.
Example:
What if, during the course of discovery or another time, you find that the code was originally under the GPL?
Using that hypothetical, if Caldera (International) put something into the GPL, with copyright attribution, the whole nine yards, they can't make the claim about what that thing is that they put in there. But that doesn't mean that--well, let's use an example. Let's say you have a hundred files, and you put one of your hundred files under the GPL. That doesn't mean you've lost the rights to your other 99 files. So I don't think it's going to have an impact.
First he tries to lamely categorize this as "hypothetical" then he puts forth the well maybe it's only 1 out of 100 files defense. This completely ignored the question being placed to him and also refuses to acknowlege the fact that what SCO was claiming as "evidence of copied code" in a public forum was shown to be anything but.
Plus we can look at their whole Chewbacca^WCopyright defense:
The Free Software Foundation apparently disagrees. If you look at the terms of the GPL and the terms of copyright law, copyright law governs. It is the exclusive authority regarding the use, distribution, etc., of copyrighted material. In the GPL, (there is a section that) specifically says it applies only to the use and distribution. In other words, the exact same topics that are covered exclusively by the Copyright Act are covered by the GPL. Section 301 of the Copyright Act says the Copyright Act pre-empts any claims that are governed regarding use, distribution and copying. We believe that although the GPL is being tossed into the fray, it is pre-empted by federal copyright law.
This is completely illogical. Copyright exists to restrict ALL rights to a creative work. LICENSES are what allow people to distribute copyrighted works. The GPL is a license, nothing more, nothing less. If SCO's theory were to hold true than ANY site-wide license would be invalid.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
I'll bet Darl drives a big flashy car as well. Vroom, vroom.
Of course, sadly, there probably are a number of PHBs and "industry analysts" who ARE impressed by the size of the clippings book.
McBride [or insert your favourite SCO official] declined to reveal the sources of his allegations, but he claimed ...
Well now we believe IBM made up Linux Troval, and that he dose not really exist. Therefor, we are raising our lawsuit to 5Billion dollars. Also we also believe that some marketing drowns in AOL helped add code to Linux, which we have Proof of, but hey again we an't showing.
They are claiming they are the copyright owners and that as such only they have the right to put the code under GPL and that if IBM (or anyone else) put that code out under GPL it is meaningless because they never had the right to do so.
The question of whether SCO distributing Linux has made the code available under GPL only comes into play if IBM don't own copyright in that code.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Because this paranoid "they're all against us" attitude is a typical cultist trait. Has to do with martydom and every cultists wet dream; to become one, just like their Jesus-figure. The next step he'll be saying that the Government is against him and his company, but that might come after defeat in court.
Being a psychopath probably doesn't help either.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
We. We are out to get them.
...fiaSCO!!!!
I can't see the point of getting pissed off and arguing over the lies SCO is spouting. At some point, you just stop listening.. you know?
I'd like to see more focus on what they're actually doing.
What has actually happened?
Sued IBM, their case is crap.
Got countersued, IBM:s counterclaims seem like an accurate description of reality.
Got sued by RedHat, whose claims seem reasonable too.
Sent letters to 1500 linux users asking for money, didn't get any.
VPs sell stock.
Shows off some code, none of which is infringing.
Not much to get upset about, now is there?
Heise, a SCO lawyer, claimed that GPL was "pre-empted by federal copyright law", to which Eben Moglen, FSF General Counsel, replied. Heise repeats his argument in the CNET interview.
But in the same CNET interview Heise also says:
So - according to Heise - GPL is valid after all!
The only way to make any sense of this is that Heise's real argument - at least today - is that "GPL is pre-empted by federal copyright law" if something is released under GPL without right owners consent... This is of course trivial: if you release someone else's program under GPL without her permission then the GPL is obviously not valid (in that particular instance). But if you release your own or somebody else's code with her permission under GPL then GPL is valid and enforceable.
SCO in the ropes already? This article sounds like Custer's Last Stand for them.
You say I'm hatin'? Hell naw, I'm just tellin' tha deal
and since I hate you, I don't give a fuck how you feel.
-Twiztid, Mirror Mirror
Hmmmm - let's see:
- SCO ammends lawsuit to claim damages done by IBM's 'interference' with their business.
- SCO announces new 'secure' initiative (don't they all)
- Darl McBride claims that the original BSD/AT&T lawsuit is invalid and therefore not relevant to SCO, i.e. 'All Code Are Belong To Us'
- SCO accuses the GPL as promoting communism in China, socialism in Europe, and drug use in California.
- David Boies will never make another appearance unless SCO 're-rents' him for another day.
- SCO will continue to reap the benefits of open source projects like GCC and SAMBA and yet slam the GPL for being too 'restrictive' on IP.
Far Future Prediction:
SCO's execs will be living in luxury on some tropical island while their customers, users, resellers, and programmers get totally screwed.
"That's just the way it is. Some things will never change." - Bruce Hornsby
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Well, at least Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf has a job now...
But then I realized that the investors who is inevitably lose their ass' on SCO stock will get what they deserve.
It isn't the government or the legal system that is allowing SCO's plan to succeed. It is the gullability of uneducated investors.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Q: Why are SCO suing everyone?
A: SCO is run by a bunch of vicious, lying, cowardly, greedy, sociopathic lawyers.
Q: Why is IBM being so slow to respond?
A: IBM is still coming to terms with the fact that a company such as SCO would be so entirely suicidal and stupid. They are not used to dealing with complete and utter morons.
Q: Do SCO's actions present a danger to the Linux and OSS community?
A: Yes, a sociopathic killer who hates you can present a danger. He might just get lucky with that ax he is waving.
Q: Are SCO doing this for the money, for the shares?
A: SCO's executives will end up in prison getting midnight visits from large violent criminals. But that kind of logic never stopped a sociopath before.
Q: How can I defend myself from SCO?
A: This would be a good time to move to Texas and get a larger gun.
Q: Does SCO have any valid arguments at all?
A: Strictly speaking, all arguments have equal merit when digested by stupid and possibly corrupt members of the press, as government ministries of disinformation have shown over the centuries. SCO remain, however, a stinkin' bunch of evil mutant fiends, and everthing they say should be taken to be concentrated pranoid drivel.
Q: Who stands to gain from this circus?
A: Entertainment is good for everyone, and it has been a slow summer, so SCO is actually contributing to the mental well-being of many people with their daily antics. For this we should be grateful. If you mean financial gain, the only party who stands to gain is Microsoft, who enjoy watching people attack the GPL and Free Software, because these represent a way of life that is entirely incompatible with its own.
Q: Could Microsoft actually be behind SCO?
A: Is George Bush the President of the US? OK, poor comparison. Yes, of course they are. Even evil, corrupt, whore-mongering, cocaine-sniffing running dogs like SCO's executives have a sense of self-interest and only leap into dark holes when they know they will be paid well for it.
Q: How is Microsoft paying SCO, then?
A: It only has to pay the executives. SCO is a publicly traded company. I presume MS is offering the SCO legal eagles direct and indirect financial support, promises of future comfort, what have you. There are so many ways...
Q: Should I be buying SCO shares?
A: YES, and if you do, I also have some very nice shares in a brand-new satellite network called Iridium that might interest you. They are sure to do amazing things!!
Ceci n'est pas une signature
The number of SCO stories on slashdot in itself shows the real intent of SCO. Attention!
And theyre getting good press coverage. Slashdot is really helping them in that sense. But then again the allegations are colossal and in theory undermines the Linux kernel's use. Of course in real, the allegations arent even spelled out, and it has seemed they're busy looking for BSD code in Linux as they prepare their case.
Most companies out there dont take the time to understand this case, and some big ones do try to play it safe and fork out money, which can create a domino effect among scared companies. Microsoft would just encourage this and ask its affiliated well-connected consulting companies to tilt their views towards SCO, no matter how difficult it is for knowledgeable consultants to take SCO seriously.
Of course SCO will eventually go down and the allegations will be proven false. So who really benefits here? SCO by now knows IBM is too big to give in and they're really not making enough off SCO-Linux licenses. Its Microsoft that has been considering Linux as its No. 1 enemy and would benefit in instilling fear about Linux among companies.
So what does that tell you? SCO is an extremely dumb company that killed itself for no benefit, or is Microsoft trying to pull a good one? They've declared war.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
bwah ha ha ha ha eh.. eh.. BWAAAH HA HA HA HAA A AAAA uh.... uh... gasp gasp
Come on guys. Stop it. I'm gunna pee my pants.
haa ahaa haaa a
gasp wheeze sniffle
Oh. Wait. They're serious.
BWAAA HAA HAAAA HAAA
And who got money from Microsoft?
All together now...
"Aw, poor SCO!"
The only thing responsible for SCO's bad press in SCO acting like a corporate idiot. They keep making statements and arguments that are contrary to both logic and law. Any wonder why even the inept computer press is beating up on them?
They hardly need IBM's help in making them look bad. They do a great job all by themselves. IBM's best strategy so far has been to keep quiet, and watch SCO implode on their own FUD.
Yaz.
I guess it's not fun to troll "SCO is DYING" because it's true, huh?
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Fuck off, McBride. You've got an entire community of angry developers and end-users that are pissed because you refuse to cooperate in resolving this issue. Instead of giving us proof to back up your ludicrous claims, you just sit back and say "Give us money!". Do you really think that we are all that stupid? Nobody is going to give you shit (except, perhaps, for Micrsoft) until you produce some solid evidence... We're ALL going to be after your ass, in some form or another. If the courts find that you have no solid proof, after all, then I'll personally be among the first to jump into a class-action lawsuit against you and your cronies.
IBM hasn't wired shit for relationships. You're just too goddamn stupid to admit that you're digging your own grave. Better bail out while the stocks are high, bucko.
The bottom line. You're going to crash and burn. You're pissed because your company was unable to adapt and your products were bested by FREE alternatives. There's nothing left for you to do except blow smoke up everyone's asses.
You're going to ultimately have every Linux company in the world after you... Doesn't that feel great?
"Hundreds of customers like and use SCO's Unix products." Hundreds? Wow, that would give them THOUSANDS of dollars of revenue. I can see what he means about them being a significant player in the tech scene.
I won't be going back there in a hurry. Anyone know a good email address for Infoworld's advertising dept I can use to let them know what I think of their latest idea?
I applaud Phil Hughes for taking a stand in the face of that idiot organization known as SCO. I have always enjoyed Linux Journal and SSC's way of doing business and it makes me really glad that there are good people like Hughes out there.
In other news... SCO today announced that it will be suing itself. That's right... SCO is suing SCO for violation of its own copyrights. Here is a snippet from an interview with SCO CEO Darl McBride:
SCO stock climbed another 9% after that announcement. Oh yeah... and there was some rumor that SCO is going to sue the devil next.Darl is a baby! Darl is a baby! Nanny nanny boo boo!
Grow up. Your questions are completely loaded so you would never get the interview. They are not "hard hitting" as you would like to believe. They are immature and counter-productive to dialogue.
Laws are for people with no friends.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
In addition the copy is to go back substantially further as its rights at Unix. Besides they are by AT&T under BSD license to have been spread, thus have been freely available and can from there in Linux to have been received.
Word to your most direct female ancestor!
My Ass hurts.
SCO should have paid attention to Godfather 2 when Senator Geary decided to try and put the squeeze on the Corleone family. They might find, as the senator did, that the reaction to the group being squeezed is not what they expected
my head hurts from trying to follow the logic presented. in all fairness, i gave up in the middle of the second to last paragraph, so there might have been a reasonable conclusion. but i wasn't willing to bet any more of my sanity on it.
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
This could be true. M$ is very desperate. As our corporate networks collapse under yet another M$ security lapse, Linux is looking better and better all the time. I don't allow Windows at home so I can only laugh at other's misery. M$ has an enormous war chest of money to throw at destroying Linux so expect this "war" to go on for many more years.
Here is the best example from the cited interview:
If SCO were to prevail, do you think it would poke holes in the GPL?
The difference between SCO and other companies that have put their copyrighted material into the GPL is SCO didn't do it. SCO is not the one that put in these derivative works, which, as SCO has maintained, these companies were not allowed to do pursuant to their license. SCO is not the one that put its copyrighted System 5 source code into the GPL. It was another Unix licensee that violated the terms of their licensing agreement. So the difference is that SCO didn't say, "Here is my copyrighted material, and I'm knowingly and willingly giving it to you under the GPL. Here's my copyrighted work."
Now ask yourself whether Heise gave an answer to the asked question. To me it seems to be just a circumventitive lawyer reply and only the beginning as it went on further. That is an example of why the article was incoherent, but if you look at the answer more closely it raises some interesting points.
Heise seems to be stating that SCO did not put the offending code under the GPL. We all know that SCO had a version of Linux it released under the GPL, but Heise seems to be claiming here that SCO did not notice at the time that other companies (I wish he was specific here, IBM, SGI, which licensee) had included code that SCO feels is its property in Linux. If this is true then that is bad.
The problem is that from the evidence we know about so far, it does not seem to be the case that the offending code is property of SCO in any real sense. What Heise is doing here is a typical lawyer/debate tactic. He is avoiding the question and raising aother not completely related one. This is meant to confuse the issue.
The same is true of the GPL vs. Copy Right Act issue. It is really there to confuse. It can be debated vigorously whether the GPL is in violation of the Copy Right Act or not, but here that is not the issue at stake. What really matters is whether others copied code that was property of SCO into Linux.
It does not look good if SCO points to code that it released under a BSD license as evidence of that claim of course.
Must be walking around with a big cheesy grin on their faces at the moment. For years they've been the bad guys or even the Big Bad Wolf in most computing cases (e.g antitrust and patent cases) and now suddenly they're the heroes.
Looks like that investment in Linux is starting to pay off big time in goodwill.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
is that the same 100 lines or so that we just saw analyzed yesterday which turned out to be public domain and BSD licensed code?
i'm anxiously waiting for the stock to once again bottom out to a buck or two.
Oh wait, they'll never agree to that.
All I'm saying is that was probably the most level-headed, least-spun-out interview between the press and SCO's reps I've seen so far. Maybe that's not saying much...
I imagined myself reading that for the first time knowing little or nothing about the case or the GPL and realizing that the lawyer sounded quite reasonable from that point of view.
Now imagine you're an unbiased jury member (drawn from that same pool), and you here the same line of Q&A. Do you see where i'm going with this?
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I rather enjoy reading these SCO stories now. It is analogous to watching Baghdad Bob's press briefings during the war. These buffoons are out there like Pluto. I think they are realizing they mistook a hornets nest for a Pinata, and are looking for a face saving way out of the mess they are in.
My rights don't need management.
I posted this thought as an Ask Slashdot submission, but it was rejected, so I'll state it here.
Perhaps it's time for Linux developers to consider suing SCO for slander. After all, SCO is accusing them of theft and therefore damaging their reputations, which not only hurts Linux, but could hurt the developers' ability to advance their careers. Would you hire a programmer accused of stealing code to put into his software? And note that SCO won't precisely define what they allege is stolen or who stole it, but it is crystal clear that they're accusing Linux developers of illegal acts.
Suing SCO will have at least two consequences. First, it'll make SCO clearly define and prove their allegations. Second, any lawyer worth his salt will ask a judge to slap a temporary restraining order on SCO to stop their constant threats and accusations.
Any developers out there who want to consider this?
Milking the press, it does a body good.
Slashdot should change its SCO logo to a smaller copy of SCO's logo that is about to get squished by a steamroller.
That's bile.
McBride proudly dumped two phone-book-sized binders of press clippings on the stage during his SCO Forum keynote on Monday as proof that his company had become more relevant in the high technology industry. SCO has issued 46 press releases since filing suit against IBM on March 7. Last year it issued only 29 press releases between March and August.
Holy fuck this guy has shit for brains. I wonder if Charles Manson used the same technique while he was on trial?
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
Darl probably doesn't realize that he just handed IBM an actual good idea. They could build quite a position and reputation by offering themselves as a flag to rally under. Darl needs a PR handler badly.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
In essence, it seems as though they're saying, "If we see the same code in our System V and some other operating system, we own System V and, therefore, by derivative work, we own that code."
/. terminology: "All your code are belong to us."
In more typical
Sorry, SCO, but if that's your "legal" position, prepare to get laughed at by almost whatever judge you get.
As for McBride, I think the Linux advocates have finally driven him officially insane. He's now babbling even more incoherently about some conspiracy. Or is that just an accidental Freudian slip that points to a conspiracy in his corner... Microsoft, perhaps... hmmm?
Dang, this whole SCO thing is like a cyber-soap-opera for nerds. I almost feel guilty for following it this closely.
-Jellisky
Perhaps this is in response to Bruce Perens' analysis of the "stolen" code that SCO had obfusticated.
"Oh no they got though our Greek Font encryption! IBM HAS to be behind it!!"
-R
In Soviet Russia, beowulf clusters you!
Er.. I know it ain't right. So SCO me.
just because it trashes your argument.
SCO's got a case.
How else do we explain Darl's paranoid theory about all these free thinkers suddenly being part of a Big Blue conspiracy?
Please, will someone start a fund to send Darl to the Betty Ford clinic?
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
dude, 24 hours is, like, so ridiculously long that it doesn't even make a good joke. it's actually been 17 hours since the previos SCO story. that's 7 hours less, or nearly 30% sooner than 24!
sheesh, i suggest that you get your facts straight here. i mean come on, with the constant flow of SCO stories, we have no time to make jokes! in fact, i'd better get some work done right now so that i'll have time to read all about today's afternoon SCO story (and tomorrow morning's as well).
Mommy mommy the big boys are hurting me!
Slashdotters: "The attacks look like they're coming from SCO, but they're being controlled by Microsoft." McBride: "The attacks look like they're coming from RedHat, but they're being controlled by IBM."
IMO, IBM is just waiting until McB & co dump their stock. They wouldn't want their hostile buyout to benefit McB and the boys. Once the execs have dumped, SCO gets eaten.
for affecting you in such a harsh manner. I mean for me to mistype on word is unacceptable. I mean when you spell Jesus christ like that it makes me wonder who the Goddamn retard is. For somebody who makes it clear they know how to spell and also that they know the Bible so well it amazes me you spelled it incorrectly. You'd think a loooooser like your self would know how to spell Jesus Christ. You make me laugh
Good to hear it!
Two intresting quotes:
McBride: The Canopy Group [of Utah] is an investment company. Those are just ignorant statements about SCO's business. Hundreds of customers like and use SCO's Unix products.
then
CRN: CRN noticed that SCO recently changed its number of resellers from 16,000 to 11,000. Can you explain?
So, thay have hundreds of customers, using 11,000 resellers. Dong some simple math (100/11000) it shows that they need around 100 resellers per sale.
Since they want about $1300 for their Linux license, which I assume is about the price of their SCO Unix, we get ($1300/100) $13 profit on average per reseller.
Boy! Can I get on this gravy train and start selling this fantastically profitable product! Look out AmWay, you've got competition!
But wait! You also get...
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
SCO's kicking up a fuss because IBM aren't happy with their attempted bully boy tactics to extort money for using what is essentially an open OS? What did they expect would happen? Did they really think every Tom, Dick and Harry ltd would pony up the cash without resistance? If SCO cry foul at so easily I don't know how they've stayed in business this long.
Ink is flying over the lawsuit, countering claims that Canopy Group is a front for a barratry racket. This is how much McBride has to say about SCO's actual business:
We're building out business for solution providers and will be pushing them to sell SCO solutions in hosted mode.
Mmmmm. I am Jack's SCO reseller brimful of confidence.
illegitimii non ingravare
Here was me thinking we were all a scattered world-wide community. I guess I'm the only one here that isn't employed by IBM.
"When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind." -- Bill Moyers
So far SCO's claims have proven irrelevant and completely unfounded. It's very likely they'll not only lose, but end up under some serious investigations for their activity. What little value they had will have been totally destroyed by SCO's "management".
As it was clearly done with his approval, the CEO's only hope of avoiding jail time for such abhorrantly greedy, manipulative behavior is an insanity plea. This "paranoia" just lays the groundwork for his defense...
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I don't.
I should study up a little more before babbling like that. But sometimes babbling nonsens makes you a little smarter ... not all the time though
~ryan
Ms. Bowman:
Yes, copyright law governs, but Mark Heise's interpretation of copyright law is one that would not pass muster in a beginning journalism copyright course, and would get well-buttered dinner rolls hurled at him if he presented it in an after-dinner speech in front of any professional writers' organization.
USC 17 106 Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4-6 deleted because they only deal with visual arts)
If the owner of the copyrighted code wants to authorize, via the Gnu Public Licence or the Lesser Gnu Public Licence, or a license of the owner's own devising, unlimited reproduction and distribution and modification into derivative works, they can do it. USC 17 106 says they have the EXCLUSIVE rights to do so. And when licensing one's work, one can place restrictions in the license if one wishes. The GPL has a "poison pill" restriction in it: if you violate the GPL, the GPL ceases to apply, and your permission to copy and distribute and modify also ceases, making you immediately in violation of USC 17 106, and immediately infringing upon the copyright of the author or authors of the work.
As for the USC 17 301 that Heise cites, claiming that it pre-empts the GPL, I sincerely hope he did not say what your article said he said: The section he cited has nothing at all to do with the author's absolute right to authorize use of the author's work:
301 Preemption with respect to other laws
(a) On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State.
... that does not affect the GPL at all. It does prevent the states from writing their own copyright laws, and nullifies any such laws they might have had before January 1, 1978. Heise fails to grasp that the GPL is not a law, it is a "license" in the legal sense of the word, and it does not conflict with USC 17 in any way. It is merely a widely used way to grant rights which a copyright holder is authorized to grant by USC 17 106.
We really do all hate you.
..hear "Whaaaaa Whaaaaa" in their heads when reading SCO articles, or am I alone?
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
That's for a judge to decide, not you.
Are you a lawyer?
He COULD be right about the non-extension provision (Section 300... I think) of the code nullifying the GPL, what, then, of IBM's counterpropsal?
But, you raise a good point about this never getting to court. I think it's a smart idea to call bullshit now, and force SCO to take a chance and show their cards, or fold.
But don't underestimate the creativity of their legal team if it ever came to that.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I haven't heard such an embarassing display of public paranoia since Ross Perot dropped out of the Presidential race because the Republicans were going to ruin his daughter's wedding.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
nt
-Reid
Just by spouting trash all this time will make you more relevant?
No, but it will give SCO grounds for it's next round of lawsuits, against the news media. Those press releases are SCO's intellectual property, you know!
Of course, the media's lawyers may bleat that the press releases came from SCO attached to terms that allowed redistribution, but that's just as stupid as the people who have copies of the Linux kernel from ftp.sco.com; just because you receive a license for SCO's IP directly from SCO doesn't mean they can't sue you for using it, you know!
the LuvSan virus... microsoft goes help help..save me penguin! thus aklamini (spelling) saved Microsoft. 10k penguins were sent to rescue microsoft. Speaking of microsoft, what should their mascot be? MSN is the butterfly... Microsoft is?
hmmm a good slashdot question.
Beat on the brat Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat with a baseball bat
Oh yeah, oh yeah, uh-oh
Beat on the brat Beat on the brat
Beat on the brat with a baseball bat
Oh yeah, oh yeah, uh-oh Oh yeah, oh yeah, uh-oh
What can you do? What can you do?
With a brat like that always on your back
What can you (lose?)
What can you do? What can you do?
With a brat like that always on your back
What can you (lose?) lose?
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
I fear that once SCO is dead and buried, /. nerds will fall in the biggest black hole ever found.
Depression will be their part, afterall what to discuss/flame/hate/ridicule now?
SCO, please don't go down. We need you for our daily laughter.
The interview was indeed "barely coherent" in that you can't tell what he meant.
If he meant that the GPL is in conflict with copyright law (as he claimed previously) then he's been smoking what Linus says SCO've been smoking.
If he meant that SCO can't be held to an agreement (the GPL) that they were "tricked" into making by receiving kernel code that, unbeknownst to them, IBM had slipped SCO-owned code into, then (IANAL) he has a point, but one that doesn't cover the fact that SCO is still distributing the kernel (to its customers), or the fact that no genuinely SCO-owned code that wasn't deliberately released under free licenses has yet been revealed.
I believe it is deliberate that what his meaning is unclear, as that allows him the most flexibility for the future.
As far as publicity goes, I would refer everyone to msn's press releases page, which neatly flows from "Linux is great and will kick ass in the enterprise" to "Linux is a rip-off of SCO's 30-year-old code."
My first IBM check for a billion dollars just cleared! IBM told me that if I post this message to as many sites as possible, I will get derivitives (pun intended) from all those people below me on the pyramid. IBM has promised that if I sign just five people, I can be receiving a weekly check for a gazillion dollars for the rest of my life.
It seems that if IBM has access to both the UNIX source code and the Linux source code, they should be analyzing the two to determine if any code was improperly copied into Linux. They could then either use their resources to fix the problem or identify questionable code to the community for rewrite. It would be interesting if IBM starts submitting a bunch of patches changing code, but not functionality.
I would love to see a SCO Blacklist with the names of all the criminals who are working on this. The idea being that once they lose their cases they wont be able to work for any respectable company.
They lost that right.
Thats what it is.. SCO is reckons if it makes enough of a fuss, screaming and stamping it's feet like a spoilt toddler that eventually, and against their better judgement, IBM will say 'sod it', and give Dull McBribe a $300million lollipop just to shut him up.
I don't think that's likely to happen. IBM can already tell that Dull has been screaming and screaming for long enough that he's starting to get tired and sulky and running out of things to accuse them of. Soon SCO will just run out of those little green bit's of paper that have been keeping him going and suddenly all will be quiet.
This just goes to show: you shouldn't supply the immature with crack.
or I could be talking out of my a$$.
So that means you dropped the $699?
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
Caldera *is* SCO. SCO are claiming that somebody else released their code under the GPL. That could be IBM, or it could be somebody else.
$HighSchoolGirl_1 : Tony said that in 3rd period Kelly saw Suzy and Sharon talking about Darl McBride passing notes in English class to Mark Heise!!!1!1!!
$HighSchoolGirl_2 : Yeah, I know! The teacher caught them and read the note out loud before the class.
$HSG_1 : Like, what'd it say?!?!!11!
$HSG_2 : Well, I wasn't there, but Marcy said her friend was there, and Darl was like, "Hey Mark, we ro0l, and IBM sux0rs," and Mark was like, "Yeah, we should kick IBM's ass and take all their IP," and Mark was like "Those dirty linux-using geeks are messing up our plan, too," and Mark was like, "Yeah, I hate those damn hippies," and Darl was like, "We need to start our own web page so we can out IBM to everyone," and Mark was like "Yeah!!11! I can put it up on my 486DX at home! My parents got dialup, but it's 56k and shit. I've got this k-rad script that auto redials!"
$HSG_1 : No. They didn't really say that, did they?!1!one!?
$HSG_2 : YES. They. DID!!1! I think IBM and a few of their friends are going to meet up with Darl and Mark out in the parking lot after school...
-- I'd say your post was about 3 monkeys, 18 minutes.
Here's my theory, SCO doesn't even have a copy of the code they claim infringes. Think about it, the million lines bullshit is from them adding up all contributions to Linux from any UNIX vendor (IBM, Silicon Graphics, etc.). My guess is all they're doing is looking for contributions or copyrights in code that contain a UNIX vendor. If a certain section of Code was touched by a UNIX vendor then it becomes infringing and under the control of SCO.
Does SCO really have access to the complete source of AIX? My guess is that IBM wouldn't want that and that they probably don't. It's possible that they do, but I would think that IBM wouldn't want to give up the crown jewels to SCO or anyone else.
This is why they've been requiring an NDA to view the code and have only shown small code snippets. I bet that what they have shown is similar to what was already debunked, that is, code available through BSD or so old that it's been published and studied for 30 years. They haven't shown any of IBM's infringing code because they don't have it! Think about it.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of this, but that makes me no different from SCO on the matter.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
hey now! I take my moderating seriusly! I therefore consume COPIOUS amounts of crack before moderation.
The NERVE of some posters!
Sorry if I haven't noticed another post on the same topic in this thread.
How come SCO's share price has rocketed in the past 24 hours? Who on earth is trading their shares at $12.67 today? Any ideas?
Here's an interesting quandry. When (not if) SCO's stock bottoms out at $1 or so, how many of us will be buying up shares in order to force a change at SCO?
How many shares are out there?
d a v e
"Hmmm...upgrades."
I wish Slashdot would run a Slashdot semi-interview with sCO. Everybody submit questions as usual, we mod them as usual, we send them to Darl McBride as usual.
I don't expect SCO to respond. If they do, fine, we get to see answers to our questions.
But even if they don't respond, I do expect that Slashdot can generate some usable questions for real journalists. If our top ten questions are on the Slashdot front page, there is a chance that someone else can pick up on them.
My questions:
You announced that you are shipping Samba 3.0, which is GPL licensed software. Do you accept the GPL as a valid license for Samba?
Do you write your own implementation of Java, or do you obtain it from another supplier? Who is your supplier of Java code?
Do you plan to continue supporting gcc and gdb for UnixWare?
Did you have a contract with IBM for the joint development work that you did with IBM for Project Monterey? If you did have a contract, are you going to file that contract as an exhibit to your lawsuit?
What really stands out is that SCO has no legal reason to sue Linux users. The only reason SCO could sue is if Linux users were breaking the law. Not only are Linux users NOT breaking the law (the Napster arguement applies to a different set of circumstances), SCO are not making any claims that Linux users are breaking any laws. SCO is simply claiming that that Linux users MAY be infringing on their Intellectual Property and they should pay up now to avoid being sued later (aka - extortion).
Another thing that stands out is that even if SCO wins it's suit with IBM, SCO cannot go after IBM's customers or any other Linuux user. That would be getting awarded damages for the same thing twice.
Another thing that has been mentioned before, SCO's lawsuit with IBM is over a contract. It has nothing to do with copyrights. Yet SCO is claiming the Linux users may be infringing on their IP (copyrights). SCO has yet to provide any evidence that their IP is being infringed upon or even prove they they have sole ownership of what's being infringed upon (which they refuse to show anyone). Even if SCO turns out to be right (highly doubtful), SCO will lose anyways because they have refused to mitigate the damages that they are claiming to be surffering from.
Army of One!
This just cracks me up:
McBride proudly dumped two phone-book-sized binders of press clippings on the stage during his SCO Forum keynote on Monday as proof that his company had become more relevant in the high technology industry. SCO has issued 46 press releases since filing suit against IBM on March 7. Last year it issued only 29 press releases between March and August.
When did you start to see Enron in the press? Right.
On a simpler note...
IBM spokeswoman Trink Guarino...
This guy's (I hope it's a guy) name keeps cracking me up too....
if they are accusing IBM of bad press
Wee, bonnie McBride said in one of the interviews (CRN):
Now, I'm a big proponent of not just blindly listening to what people say. Legal cases are generally public record, are they not? That means we should be able to find out who's really delaying things, and how? Unfortunately, not having much experience with the US legal system, I wouldn't have the faintest clue how to go about this. Does anybody else? Who's really dreading the courtroom?
--Somebody infect me with a
That headline made my lunch break.
"Mommy, make Big Blue stop picking on me!"
Hee hee.
Why spoil it by RTFA?
Mmm, nummy sammich.
-Carolyn
Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
Copyright must come first, if IBM isn't the copyright holder than the fact they put GPL licence text on a file means nothing.
They are not arguing that the GPL is invalid. A following paragraph even discusses what happens if SCO (or antecendant) really did put a file under GPL.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Euh? Is it just me, or there is something familiar about this McBride guy. Maybe I've seen him on CNN. Wasn't his name Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf or something?
The SCO lawsuit, then, is a conspiracy by Microsoft against Open Source.
Baahh! You say! Here's the Evidence:
There you have it. Microsoft is SCO. Have you indulged in your favorite conspiracy theory today?
Cheers!
-Mybrid
to put his tinfoil hat back on.
Hey Darl - Its no IBM thats waging the attacks in the press, its Slashdot your fscking moron.
Hm. Maybe IBM can add the business version of 'defamation of character' to their lawsuit?
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
from the article: In May, Novell Inc. claimed that it, and not IBM, had the rights to the Unix source code -- a claim it later retracted.
Novell retracted their claim? i never heard that. why did slashdot not tell me?
...that it's quiet possible you've just said to a 12 year old geek kid that he's somehow "immature", right????;o)))
SCO recently changed its number of resellers from 16,000 to 11,000.
Should I stand up for SCO because I'm one of their resellers? I became a Caldera Authorized Reseller when they first started, when it looked like they might have a future. Their future never quite came, so I've always led clients to other versions of Linux. But I'm still in SCO's system as a reseller, and still get all of the mailings inviting attendance at various of their meetings, and trumpting the brilliance of their present strategy.
And then it occurs to me: There may be more SCO resellers here on Slashdot (according to the resellers list as SCO has maintained it) than there are people with any business relationship with IBM.
For the record, aside from turning down a job offer from them at about the same time I signed up to resell Caldera - IBM wanted someone to administer a Solaris Webserver - I have had no relations with that company - except for whatever enhancements they've added to the kernels I run. As an SCO partisan I have to insist that SCO has contributed more!
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I have here one dollar. This dollar is mine.
Now obviously yours are mine as well.
Now stop bullying me and give me your money.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
Does anyone else think that this /. story maybe has the first non-idiotic editorial comment from michael?
http://welovethescoinformationminister.org/
(Mirrors encouraged, to offset the dread Slashdot Effect.)
This probably isn't true. Buying out SCO would be tantamount to an admission of guilt, and would also saddle IBM with SCOs crappy software and crappy services. Who would want to aquire that worthless pile of junk? Anybody here used Unixware? Blech. I'd rather not ever use a computer again than run that junk.
I also found Drool's comment that there are 100s of Unixware users out there humorous. 100s. hehe. I've written software with 100s of users. Big deal, that's not many. Moron. McBride would make an excellent neo-con, he has a total disregard for reality and honor.
The heat from below can burn your eyes out
CRN: Some respected industry observers--including Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT's) Sloan School of Management professor, consultant and author Michael Cusumano--say SCO and the former Caldera are basically holding companies for filing lawsuits and that's about it.
McBride: The Canopy Group [of Utah] is an investment company. Those are just ignorant statements about SCO's business. Hundreds of customers like and use SCO's Unix products.
Hundreds, as opposed to Linux's hundreds of thousands.. hm..
CRN: CRN noticed that SCO recently changed its number of resellers from 16,000 to 11,000. Can you explain?
McBride: We cleaned up the list. We had 16,000 names in our database, but about 5,000 names were marketing fluff that we sent materials to. This is the real number.
So, it takes 11,000 resellers to convince a few hundred naive people to buy an inferior product, huh? I wonder if their stock includes fecal matter, because I smell bullshit.
They came, they saw, they left, disguisted.
From the last link in the topic:
"
CRN: Why do you say that? What's happening behind the scenes? Might this case be resolved quietly, rather than become the intellectual property 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 our Unix System contract]. We'd want a settlement and royalty [on Linux] going forward.
"
Uhm, no dumbass. IBM is waiting patiently for you to dig up some code that doesn't belong to someone else to prove your claims.
That, and they're watching patiently as your company digs its own grave.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
The scene, Dredrick Tatum, world heavyweight boxing champion is lecturering the class on staying in school, when nelson muntz becomes chemically attracted to Tatum as a bullying target after Lisa swabs tatum with sweat...
Nelson: I can't help myself. [punches Tatum]
Tatum: Young man, I insist that you desist.
Nelson: Sorry. [continues punching] I'm so sorry. [near tears, he runs behind Tatum and gives him a wedgie] Please don't hurt me.
Tatum: [rolling up his sleeve] You leave me little recourse.
Source: http://www.snpp.com/episodes/CABF11
I think there's a lesson in this for all of us.
MOMMY, MOMMY IBM wants me to play nice. WAA WAAA WAAA why cant I kick all the other little boys steal the english language tell the it is mine, because grandma came up with the word Ya'll that started the whole american version of linux so every new word is a derivative work. WAA WAA why does everybody hate me
Sco says that federal copyright law says you can only make _one_ copy of a piece of software and federal copyright law trumps the GPL in this case
I have never read this one backup rule in the law, but many people here believe it, so it must be true. But the copyright law does mention licensing and distribution, and they seem OK. It seems to work with publishers and retailers just fine. Your welcome to read all about it here.
The code released by SCO in their Linux packages is _probably_ GPLed. In order for it _not_ to be GPLed they have to argue that they didn't even look at what they're distributing. On the one hand they're saying that the violation is so extensive that it can't be undone. OTOH, they say that they didn't notice it was happening at first. It's not impossible, but it seems like they need to explain why this happened.
There is no reason for any of SCO's contribution to be GPLed. Look at Nvidia's and many other commercial offerings that are available to linux.
The big thing here is that they are attacking the GPL here. And, under the copyright law, they have to agree to the GPL in order to redistribute all of the GNU software that they have available at ftp://ftp.sco.com/ and most of their commercial offerings.
Interesting that they avoid the distribution issue alltogether, and are focusing on the IP. If you read their "Linux License", it does not cover distribution (SCO will not even give you a kernel for your $$), nor does it cover the source code at all. It is only a "runtime" license in binary form, its a "license to use".
In the unlikely event that SCO were to win its case regarding the GPL as being invalid, then they must either 1) write a lot of thier own code real quick or 2) fold the business because a most of thier products depend on GPL software.
Firstly three cheers to heise.de for asking pointed critical questions that shitrags like CNet don't have the fucking moral stamina to do.
A Quote:
c't:Mr. Sontag, the code that showed in the Forum has been analysed by experts. The result: the code was introduced by SGI into Linux, not IBM.
Chris Sontag: That's correct. This example is not from IBM., but from another of our licencees. I can't comment about who that is at the moment.
c't: The copy (of the code in SCO's presenttation) seems to reach far further back than your rights to Unix. On top of this, they seem to have already been distributed by AT&T under the BSD licence i.e. they're freely available, could have gotten into Linux from there.
Sontag: This is completely untrue. We own all the files of this code with the complete development tree all the way back to the original 1969 version. We have researched all the tapes and all versions of the code. The code in question comes the exact version of the Unix System V code that we licenced in our contract to SGI. This version was available to SGI and was never in BSD or other releases. And the to-the-letter copy of this code is in Linux. We are raising awareness about such flagrant violations.
c't: But you can't use this as evidence in your claim against IBM?
Sontag: Correct.
c't: Why are you then showing exactly these pieces of code? Your suit is against IBM..
Sontag: We've found many kinds of copyright and contract breaches. The copying of code word for word was the most obvious kind and we wanted to demonstrate this. This is why we showed this in public and why we also show it under NDA. In the case of IBM we have not yet such cases of direct copying, but we haven't researched all the code yet. In IBM's case, it is mainly about another kind of breach of contract, namely the inclusion of derived code in large amounts. The contract states that all changes in the code and derivations thereof remain part of the origionally licenced code.
c't: Your interpretation of copyright law -- relating both to directly copied code as well as derived works-- is described by Professor of Law, Egen Moglen, as being both snesless and as invalid in court
Sontag: Moglen is not exactly known as an IP expert. I've spoken to IP experts and they state that Moglen's interpretation senseless.
c't: Your lawyer, David Boies, is also no IP specialist.
Sontag: True but his special area is contract law and that will be the deciding factor.
c't: You didn't perhaps hire him because of his role in the Microsoft case?
Sontag: Let's say that that aspect will at least not hurt us.
c't:Are you going to sue this other licencee now?
Sontag: I can't say anything about that now, but we're holding all our options open
The rest is an interview with McBride about who has more resources SCO or IBM. Darl thinks he's got enough. The only interesting question is Darl's opinion of the GPL:
c't: You're acting in a very agressive manner in the Forum. You're declared war against Open Source, because it's destructive for the Software branch. Does the whole movement have to die so that a couple of software companies can survive?
McBride: I really meant the GPL there. There's a lot of valuables work in Open Source. Only the extreme claim that nothing that one has developed belongs to oneself anymore can not go carry on any more. Something must change in the GPL or it won't survive. I've discussed this with many representatives of the Open Source movement.
I wonder if their answers consisted of the words "FUCK" and "YOU"?
which means he decided it was worth 2
it wasn't and so it beame overrated
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
SCO have made exactly two legal filings to go with all this PR dross they were boasting about.
First, they filed a suit against IBM (not on copyright grounds).
Second, they amended the suit to remove some of the more blatant lies from it.
That's the lot. None of the many contradictory allegations they've made against other Linux distributors or users have been backed by any legal action whatsoever. They didn't even bother to contest the application to get an injunction against them in Germany to stop them spreading this FUD. The injunction stands (in Germany).
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
and this is my second. sry to reply to myself
The unfortunate thing is that the execs are still making a profit from SCOX stock. Look at that 25% jump from Wednesday to Friday. It's like a day-trader's wet dream.
-- I'd say your post was about 3 monkeys, 18 minutes.
"Hundreds of customers like and use SCO's Unix products."
That's sure a lot of satisfied customers (cough).
I have always been afraid that the GPL would be taken as a arbitrary statement, and nothing more. When someone writes up a new way of doing business, and makes it a contract, and does not have government intervention or approval (ie. not a law), they have left themselves open to attack. This is where the linux community finds itself right now. SCO says the GPL is meaningless cruft because it is not Federal Law. Federal Law is created by the government, the GPL wasn't created by the government. The idealogy behind SCO's attack might be legally sound, but the basis that they are using (stolen copyrighted code) appears to be extremely weak, maybe even unfounded. The GPL is a contract, and every contract ever written has some sort of a hole in it.
SCO is trying to make out like IBM is the only enemy?? Does this play into their "silent majority" theory? I keep wondering when they'll be through deluding themselves and I keep being suprised by them.
It's amazing. It's also amazingly funny..
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
"I've been sending Linus emails describing my paranoid delusions, but he doesn't believe me. He's obviously an idiot."
Heh. I wonder if the Flat Earth Society is in need of a new CEO. I think that Darl's SCO gig is going to end Real Soon Now.
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
First there is a potentially legimate claim that one of SCO's UNIX licensee's (i.e. IBM) contributed original SysV code into Linux illegally and therefore that code is subject to the terms of the GPL since it was done without the holders permission.
Second, SCO's laywers are now going one step further declaring that the GPL is completely invalid. I don't know where that puts the rest of the "non-infrininging" code in terms of copyrigt. Does SCO owe the original authors royalties?
I admit that I haven't followed all the postings to all the SCO stories very closely, but I really expected to see a dozen jokes linking SCO with Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf modded +5, funny, by now...
Let's see, you're suing IBM for billions on the grounds of what boils down to violation of somebody else's copyright, and you have the nards to go and complain that IBM is beating the shit out of you with a clue-by-four? You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, so take your lumps like the fucking wannabe-billionaire man you are, pal!
This sig no verb.
IBM is allowed at least as many ridiculous publicity stunts as SCO.
isn't SCO admittedly controlling all of the PRO-SCO stuff?
Someone should tell SCO that if they are going to fight dirty then they should expect more of the same. I really don't care if IBM is paying people to say all this bad stuff about SCO, though the fact remains, they aren't.
Speak for yourself.
I'd have dropped them an invoice for all the work I've been doing telling people SCO are shit over the last few months.
If they are paying people there must be a paper trail somewhere and if there ain't, surely all involved can sue SCO for the accusation which is libelous at best. An open source advocate's reputation surely includes their openness and independence. To suggest otherwise counts as an attack on there character. Maybe they add this to the IP infringements SCO are guilty of running their GPL'd software.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Don't know if this is good old Karma whoring, but I don't like the fishy fish tranlations, and since I speak german...
SCO: We keep our options open for further law suits
The dispute on whether parts of code from Unix development have possibly entered into Linux, and therefore whether rights held by SCO have been violated, has gained momentum again. At the SCOForum in Las Vegas, the SCO group has for the first time publicly presented parts of code and comments, which are supposed to prove the allegation of the company against IBM and the Linux community. Pictures of the code, which were published on Heise online, led to a first analysis by open source developers. Further investigations led to the assumption that the code shown in greek letters in SCOs evidence for code theft may point towards a transfer. Greg Lehey, for one, thinks so. Bruce Perens, however, merely concludes that none of the evidence brought forward by SCO would be sufficient to prove SCO Group's rights in court. SCO, in turn, argues that the code is protected by a licence with SGI.
c't spoke to Chris Sontag, Vice President Intellectual Property SCO, and Darl McBride, head of SCO, about the origins of the purported stolen code, the further directions of the legal dispute and the situation of SCO as a company.
c't: Mr. Sontag, the code sequences shown by you on the forum have been analyzed by experts. Result: Silicon graphics inserted them into Linux, not IBM
Chris Sontag: That is right. This example is not from IBM, but another of our licensees. At the moment, I cannot comment on who it is.
c't: The copy is supposed to go much further back than your rights on Unix. Moreover, it is said to have already been distributed by AT&T under the BSD licence, therefore freely accessible, and could have entered into Linux that way.
Sontag: That's completely wrong. We posess all files of this code with the complete source tree (lit: pedigree) in all version, up to the origin in 1969. We have looked through all tapes and all versions of the code. The code in question dates from exactly the version of Unix System V which we have delivered to SGI and licenced with a signed contract. This version was at the disposal of the licensee, and it was never in BSD or other releases. And the letter-by-letter copy of this version is found in Linux. We want to point out such flagrant breaches.
c't: But this evidence is useless in the dispute with IBM?
Sontag: Correct.
c't: Why then are you demonstrating exactly this code publicly as evidence? You are sueing IBM.
Sontag: We found several kinds of breaches of copyright and of contracts. Literal copying of code was the most obvious kind, and we wanted to prove this as well. Therefore, we have shown it in the public talk, and demonstrate the example also unter terms of an NDA. In the case of IBM, we have not yet found such cases of verbatim copying, but we have not examined everything yet. With IBM, this is above all about a different kind of breach of contract, namely the transfer of derived results on a very large scale. The licensing agreement provides that all changes and derived products remain within the originally licensed body of work.
c't: Your interpretation of copyright law -- concerning direct copies, as well as derived works -- was said to make no sense and not to be admissible at court by Egen Moglen, Professor of Law at Columbia University.
Sontag: Moglen is not exactly known as an expert for intellectual property (IP) law. I spoke with IP experts - and they think Moglen's interpretation makes no sense.
c't: Your lawyer David Boies is no IP specialist either.
Sontag: Correct, but his expertise is in contract law, and that will be the decisive weapon.
c't: You really didn't chose him for his highly publicised role in the Microsoft case?
Sontag: Let's say that aspect won't harm us at least.
c't: Will you sue this other licensee, as well?
Sontag: I can't comment
Managing the response of the free and open source software communities would be like herding cats.
The evidence is too much against their position. IBM will have an easy day in court.
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Someone has to "stage manage" the response to SCO's FUD machine, press releases, and outrageous claims, and IBM seems like they are in a good position to do it. After all, McBride and SCO is single-handedly "stage managing" an unwarranted and unfounded attack on open source, Linux, and the GPL. And unlike IBM's response, SCO's claims are pure theater (of the comedy variety), with no legal substance.
Unfortunately, in real life, I suspect the response of the open source community is not actually all that well coordinated, by IBM or anybody, which is why SCO has been able to get away with this nonsense for even this long.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-1024633.html
-Dave
Quick note: for a good laugh, read through SCO's press releases.
0 /updates/ SRPMS/
Its funny that they are still distributing open source code, including the linux kernel.
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.
--collect information, distribute information--
This is from Judge Kimball's info page:
Tips for practitioners appearing before Judge Kimball include:
# At oral argument, know the cases that you cited in your briefs.
# Behave responsibly and civilly to witnesses, the court, and opposing counsel.
# Don't try to stretch your position. If you have weakness, admit to the weakness, and try to persuade the Judge that you should win anyway.
# Brevity is appreciated and highly effective as a tool of advocacy. This applies both in briefs and oral arguments.
# If you have a bad argument, leave it out of your brief and your oral argument. Making bad arguments hurts your credibility with the Court.
The betting line on this case is 23 counts of contempt of court, before the case gets summarily dismissed and the plantiffs ejected with significant velocity.
Come on, Darl, you go out and yank on the dragon's tail and you didn't expect the dragon to turn around and smoke your sorry ass? I swear, McBride & Co. must be either incredibly stupid, categorically insane, taking heavy psycotropic drugs or all three. Hell, I'm surprise the major TV networks haven't made this into a new reality TV series; it's a lot more interesting, funnier, and the only thing missing is the sex.
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
"We have absolute direct knowledge of this. If you go behind the scenes, the attacks that we get that don't have IBM's name on them, underneath the covers, are sponsored by IBM," McBride said.
What a pin-head.
(Okay IBM. Same bank account.)
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I think we finally have the proof that SCO stands for "Smoking Crack Operation".. They come up with more outrageous conspiracy theories than any Slashdotter has come up with regarding "SCO-MS"!
if IBM wins SCO will go after linux, that is what i am trying to say.
IBM v SCO dosent matter SCO is targeting Linux and its users.
Internet Week: 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.
No, more like someone is _alleged_ to have taken your jewels and you try to extort money from the orphanage that got the money from the Pawn shop.
Those questions are too loaded to be used in an interview ? Have you ever heard of Jeremey Paxman ? If you want to get proper answers from people like Mr McBride you have to ask these kind of questions.
I hear Comical Ali is looking for a job. I'm sure he'd be more believable than Dickhead McBride.
I'd sooner believe that "Their are no Americans in Bagdad" than that "Their are millions of lines of stolen SystemV code in Linux"
As I wrote in my Journal, he has slipped away from reality into a paranoid delusional state.
It will only get worse.
Company execs choose their publicity photographs according to the image they want to portray. You get autistic-nerdy Bill Gates, stylish and iconoclastic Jobs, etc. SCO is apparently going for the clean-cut MBA ex-jock appearance, about as far removed from technological competence or engineering as is possible. SCO not only fails to be about technology in practice, they don't even want to appear to be a technology company.
Getting beat up by a bully isn't fun. But, if you antagonize a bully, you should expect to get your butt kicked.
I get 2 cents for every comment trashing SCO or praising IBM on slashdot.
Go Blue!
At this rate, I should be able to pay for my Linux license in a few more days.
SCO's McBride claims that IBM is stage-managing all the attacks and bad press
The dribble that comes out of his mouth? He is a whiney baby who cannot take it. McBride is starting to feel the pressure of losing this FUD war!
I've never seen a company make such hilarious claims in all my life. Ugh. What a bunch of idiots the SCO is. I very much doubt that IBM is managing attacks against the SCO, but even if they are, good for them. The SCO is simply making itself the ridicule of the geek world.
SCO: Choice of STFU and STFD (shut the F up and sit the F down) or be blasted into tiny shards.
IBM: Will continue with business as normal.
"And finally, SCO is still hoping for a settlement with IBM."
In the news today, there has been a settlement between SCO and IBM. Apparently SCO has agreed to hand over McBrides nut sack in return for IBM dropping its couter suit...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Here's the table:
Price and Volume for SCOX
I don't know why the volume was so high yesterday, either. But it doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It could just be an ordinary dotcom-style crescendo, or an ordinary short squeeze.
BTW, in addition to the Microsoft bashing, can we do a little Sun bashing, too? Sun is also funding SCO via the "SCO Source" program, and Sun even got cheap options ($1.83 per share) on SCOX stock in exchange for doing so.
* Their actual filings in court don't have provable claims and thus are subject to summary dismissal.
No, we don't hate those people. And we certainly don't want to mash the SCO executives into a bloody pulp, either. Nor would we want to keep their body parts in our freezers. No. Hate is such a strong word.
Let us put aside any negative feelings we might have toward them and simply put flame to some feces on their doorsteps.
SCO is counting on the general populace (the press) buying into the Big Lie. If enough people fall for their bluff, they might be able to scrape a settlement out of the deal and never be forced to own up to it.
I think they already suspect that IBM has seen their cards, though. They'd prolly take it all back, now, if they could, but their only survival strategy is to keep up the show and hope for an act of god.
You are totally blocking my view of the wall. - Dogbert
Ray Noorda, SCO board members and execs escape prosecution after Darl enters the Betty Ford Treatment Center. An unnamed exec at SCO tells the press: "We should have seen it sooner."
1000 SlashDot sigs
IBM will pay SCO the sum of 699,000,000,000 Monopoly dollars.
The large bill will be printed on toilet paper.
IBM has a right to do this. Besides which of us is gullible enough to not *know* that micro$shaft isn't stage managing and probably funding legal battles for SCO?
Bill Gates and the CEO just sold off millions (I mean MILLIONS) of dollars in microsoft stock.
Coincidence, I think not. I would love to see that paper trail, if it were possible to follow it.
l8,
AC
After asking Linux users to pay them between $200 and $600 a seat, SCO thinks that IBM has to pay us to rant and rave?
No, they got that one for free.
(So how do I go about sending IBM their bill, now?)
Wow, hundreds of customers--McBride admits then that their UNIX business is nearly non-existent then. No wonder lawsuits are the only option they have left for making any money from their SysV code.
Yes, eventually GPL code will become public domain.
This will happen whenever the copyright runs out, which is a long time.
The code will likely be considered trivial or obselete by then anyway.
Bulls**t! Each of them has been kicked, and each is exerting his own form of retribution. It is insane to imagine that IBM is coordinating these attacks on SCO. SCO, you brought it on yourself.
The thing that amazes me about this is that SCO, a corporation, is using 'conspiracy theory' tactics - in public! That's the kind of tactic reserved for people who live in little shacks in Montana. Does SCO not realize that they are weakening their own public image (which is, it appears, where they hoave chosen to fight this fight) by using such fringe-of-society tactics? I just don't get it...
Part of the forum was devoted to announcing their internet related services that uses some GPLed software.
I think this is just a sly move one their part to make it seem like they actully have a real business, while at the same time they do not. The business consist of them dishing out the PR crap and pumping their stock, with most of the money going to their legal battle.
But I also see them being serious about this because in their delusional minds they can win and will be the only legal place to get a Unix based OS. They are currently relying on businesses to be scared and worried of legal actions to use Linux, for said businesses to buy their licence and Unix, and if they manage to win they could have it made.
The impression I get is that they are running a and counting on their pump and dump, but they will stick along just in the case because they belive they can win since and the payoff will be worth the trouble. As soon as very clear they are going to lose, the "smarter" ones will jump ship.
Correlation. SCO makes claims that may sound true, but when looked into are actually just half truths, not the whole story, or just plain out lies.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Better quotes:
-----
Martin Armitage, senior vice president at Unilever's global information organisation, suggested that SCO is focused more on the court case than on developing its software.
"[SCO] keeps the GPL licence on its website which anyone can access and has not taken steps to keep its code confidential. So how can it claim breach of confidentiality?" asked Armitage.
-----
Wow, a Senior VP that gets this. Our efforts to spread the word about the lunacy of SCO's claims is working!
I have not ever worked for IBM in the past. I do not presently work for IBM. I will never work for IBM in the future (barring some radical change in my or IBM's fortunes). IBM has absolutely no influence on my opinion and no sway over what I might or might not say. Hell, at this point, I don't even know anyone who works for IBM.
Fuck you and your entire circus side-show of a company, Darl McBride!
... my measure of success in life is not mansions or yachts.
But I agree with you 100% that SCO executives are SMART. Canopy Group has done this successfully TWICE now, against Microsoft ($150 million) and Computer Associates ($40 million).
First we ignore SCO. Then we laugh at SCO. Now we are fighting SCO. I sure hope that SCO doesn't get to the fourth stage of that Gahndi quote!
Hi, I'm Earl Shive and I'll slander any company, with any point of view, for $199.00.
wbs.
Huh?
c't: Mr. Sontag, the code snippets shown by you at the forum have been analyzed by experts. Result: They were contributed to Linux by Silicon Graphics, not IBM.
Chris Sontag: That is correct, this example is not from IBM, but one of our other licensees. I can not comment right now on who it is.
c't: This copy is also said to be far older than your rights to UNIX. Additionally, these snippets have apparently already been distributed under the BSD license by AT&T, that is, freely available, and they could have made their way into Linux from there.
Sontag: That is completely wrong. We own all files of this code with the complete version tree back to its origin in 1969. We have checked all tapes and all versions of the code. The code in question comes from the same version of UNIX System V that we have licensed and delivered to SGI under a signed contract. This version has been available to the licensee, and has never been in BSD or other releases. And the verbatim copy of the code from that file can be found in Linux. We want to point out such flagrant violation.
c't: But in the suit against IBM, these proofs will not help you?
Sontag: Correct.
c't: Then why do you show just that code publicly as a proof? You are suing IBM, after all.
Sontag: We have found many kinds of copyright infringement and breach of contract. The verbatim copying of code was the most obvious kind and we wanted to prove that. Therefore we showed it in our public statement, and we demonstrate that example under an NDA. In the case of IBM, we have not yet found such cases of verbatim copying, but we have not investigated everything just yet. IBM's case is mainly concerned with another kind of breach of contract, namely the distribution of derivative works to a great extent. The licensing contract says that all changes in the program and derivative works have to remain within the originally licensed work.
c't: Your interpretation of copyright law -- with respect to direct copies as well as derivative works -- is claimed to be nonsense and not allowed in court by Columbia University law professor Egen Moglen.
Sontag: Moglen is not exactly known as an expert for Intellectual Property (IP) law. I have talked to IP experts -- and they call Moglen's interpretation nonsense.
c't: But your lawyer, David Boies, is not an IP expert either.
Sontag: True, but his strength is contract law, and that will be the crucial weapon.
c't: You are sure you have not chosen him for his publicity in the Microsoft process?
Sontag: Let's say that aspect won't hurt us.
c't: Will you now go ahead and sue that other licensee?
Sontag: I can not comment on that right now, but we will be considering that option.
c't: The code examples shown by you have apparently been contributed to Linux by SGI, not IBM.
Darl McBride: Correct. These were examples of verbatim copying from UNIX to Linux that happened at SGI.
c't: Does SGI have to expect a billion-dollar suit as well now?
McBride: Possibly. At least they can not consider themselves safe. But right now we fully concentrate on the IBM case, as that takes us enough energy and ressources already.
c't: How does your company plan to earn the money to fight its way through such a process against IBM?
McBride: Our cash flow suffices for that. We have been profitable since two quarters, having tripled our cash assets to 13 million Dollars. Per quarter, the suit costs us about one million.
c't: Could it be that your leading share holder, Canopy Group, is going to
But what the teacher don't know is that I still got your lunch money. :)
From Zero to Hero... Starbuck Zero
McBride proudly dumped two phone-book-sized binders of press clippings on the stage during his SCO Forum keynote on Monday as proof that his company had become more relevant in the high technology industry. SCO has issued 46 press releases since filing suit against IBM on March 7. Last year it issued only 29 press releases between March and August.
:(
Release more press releases. This means your more relevant.
Of course they don't say what phone books. Houston phone books are broken in 2 to 3 3" ring binder sizes. While other area phone books are like 1/2" to 1" binders, but only half a regular page of paper.
Releasing press releases hardly makes you more relevant. It just makes you more noisy. Although, in a time where TV shows can make you an "american idol", perhaps making noise is all it takes now, after all, everywhere we look it seems noise or appearance is replacing substance and quality.
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
*this is way off topic, and I have donned my flamesuit*
This SCO allegation reminds me of something... what was it...?
Oh! It reminds me of H. Clinton's claim that the whole Lewinski scandal was a Conservative-orchestrated media effort to smear her loving husband...
*cruel chuckle*
So next, should we expect SCO to debate the meaning of _is_?
.sigs are for post^Hers.
Poor, poor SCO! Imagine that! Everyone isn't just bending over backwards and capitulating to them. Oh, this is so, sooooo very sad. Cry me a river.
Quick! Someone call the waaaaambulance!
I mean... when you see the bogeyman around every corner, help is just a pill away.
I think he's full of sh*t. I guess that means IBM is paying me. Damn, gotta go pick up my paycheck!
OS2 rocked, is and was one of the most solid dependable OS's ever...It was one of the BIGGEST marketing coups in the history of MARKETING that we are not using OS/2 on Alpha chips...Both were UNDENIABLY superior to the competition at the time. That is Bill Gates TRUE skill, marketing and advertising, he's a poor coder, and an even worse industry icon.
:) sorry didn't see that.
"I am not even sure what to make of the IBM PC " ?!?!? err just because you lack depth of knowledge does not mean you have to show off the problem to others...
"Oh wait, you are on of those low digit trolls who turns everything into anti-Microsoft. Sorry. Didn't see that."
LMAO -
Oh wait your one of those 12 year olds who think computers started with Nintendo
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Anybody notice that this is projection?
It isn't IBM that is coordinating the OSS community,
No it is Microsoft that is coordinating SCO.
What is the best way to feed millions to the SCO flailing tantrum machine? Why a "License" fee to SCO thats how!
SCO is simply projecting their being coordinated onto IBM.
Microsoft has to know that SCO will flail until dead, but the ensuing flailing tantrum machine will spew a lot of FUD.
The Original NarrowLog SCO Skit
From the second series of "NarrowLog"
Scene: A website. One thread is occupied by a group of slashdotters with horned helmets on. A man and his wife enter.
Man: You sit here, dear. ...SCO SCO SCO IBM and SCO; SCO SCO SCO SCO SCO SCO BSD alloc() SCO SCO SCO... ...or Free as in Freedom Softwarre with Open Sauce served in a Provencale manner with Debian GNU/Linux and gcc garnished with GNOME Desktop, brandy and with a UnixWare on top and SCO.
Wife: All right.
Man: Morning!
Waitress: Morning!
Man: Well, what've you got?
Waitress: Well, there's IBM and SCO; SCO SUN and MS; MS and SCO; IBM Linux and SCO; IBM Linux Unix and SCO; SCO GPL systemV and SCO; SCO Linus SCO SCO IBM and SCO; SCO bacon IBM SCO SCO RMS SCO Redhat and SCO;
Slashdot posters (starting to chant): SCO SCO SCO SCO...
Waitress:
Slashdot posters (singing): SCO! Incompetent SCO! Horrible SCO!
Waitress:
Wife: Have you got anything without SCO?
Waitress: Well, there's SCO IBM sausage and SCO, that's not got much SCO in it.
Wife: I don't want any SCO!
Man: Why can't she have IBM bacon SCO and RedHat?
Wife: That's got SCO in it!
Man: Hasn't got as much SCO in it as SCO IBM sausage and SCO, has it?
Slashdot posters: SCO SCO SCO SCO (crescendo through next few lines)
Wife: Could you do the IBM Redhat SCO and Linux without the SCO then?
Waitress: Eewwww!
Wife: What do you mean 'Eewwww'? I don't like SCO!
Slashdot posters: Stupid SCO! Horrible SCO!
Waitress: Shut up!
Slashdot posters: Stupid SCO! Ignorant SCO!
Waitress: Shut up! (Slashdot posters don't stop) Bloody Slashdotters! You can't
have IBM Redhat SCO and Linux without the SCO.
Wife (shrieks): I don't like SCO!
Man: Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll pay your SCO license. I love it. I'm having SCO SCO SCO SCO SCO SCO SCO SystemV-unixware SCO SCO SCO and SCO!
Slashdot posters (singing): SCO SCO SCO SCO. Stupid SCO! Ignorant SCO!
Waitress: Shut up!! SytemV is obsolete.
Man: Well could I have her SCO instead of the SystemV then?
Waitress: You mean SCO SCO SCO SCO SCO SCO... (but it is too late and the Slashdotters drown her words)
Slashdot posters (singing elaborately): SCO SCO SCO SCO. Stpuid SCO! Incompetent SCO! SCO sc-o-o-o-o-o-o SCO sc-o-o-o-o-o-o SCO. Stupid SCO! Stuid SCO! Ignorant SCO! Stupid SCO! Horrible SCO! SCO SCO SCO SCO!
SCO has caused so much damage to businesses that depends on Linux that any company that buys them would be liable, perhaps in the billions, for their misdeeds.
If I was IBM, I would stay far away from any buy out ideas.
We could even call is "The SCO Strategy".
Considering the inevitable consequences of the strategy, I'd rather refer to it as "SCOicide".
"SCO's McBride claims that IBM is stage-managing all the attacks and bad press, which would probably explain why I cleared this article with IBM World Headquarters before running it (not!)."
Michael thinks he's a journalist because he links to lame biased stories?
don't know how that works, some experienced investor could help here. but
/.'ers short sell sco shares
/. ... but i digress
can't we follow this route:
1. SCO PR's to pump their stocks
2. it becomes obvious that they are going to screwed
3.
4. ??? ---- investor help needed
5. PROFIT
if only we knew hot to go the extra 2 steps, we wouldn't hv been hanging out at
This means that when IBM rakes SCO over the coals, gets SCO ripped to shreds for frivolous lawsuits, and drives them into the wilderness, I'm going to be owed a cut of the profits!
Oh. SCO doesn't have any money, and their stock isn't worth a damn. Bummer. There goes my dreams of fame and fortune.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I will sue the electric company until I own rights to the lightbulb. 8D
Is ity witty bitty SCO feeling like they are being beaten up by big bad evil IBM???
Suck it up you little shit - you started it in the first place.
Mark Heise keeps brining up 'derivative works' and has mentioned obfuscated code a few times. How can anyone claim rights to derivitave works? Who decides if an idea is derivitave or original, and how can that be proven by looking at code? And unless they can de-obfuscate the obfuscated code, claiming stake to that should not hold up either. SCO is swarming with lawyers suddenly, they have publicly announced that litigation will be their primary source of income (cause SCO Unix is garbage and everyone knows it). Really, they should just become a law firm themselves. What we are missing these days is a death squad that hunts for swarms of overambitious lawyers and massacres the lot of them before they start breeding or litigating. I'll volunteer my services, any one else?
TallGreen CMS hosting
No, not like mine. I'm talking like postcards. Just think, each of us sends one per day, and it says something ridiculous like "all your base are belong to us" or something. Why not email? Because email can be deleted. The snail mail will tie up their mailroom.
This sig no verb.
"The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX) helps millions of customers..." but "Hundreds of customers like and use SCO's Unix products." Why the discrepancy?
If you take the set H (helped by the SCO Group), the set U (use SCO's Unix products), and the set L (like SCO's Unix products), you will likely find that there is a fairly strong correlation between sets H and U. This is not to imply that H is either a superset of U or a subset of U, merely that there is a presumably significant intersection. On the other hand, the set L is by all accounts much smaller than either set H or set U.
Although a case could be made that there are members of set L who are there for the very reason that they are not themselves members of set U, it is logical and seemingly quite likely that all or virtually all members of set L are also members of set U. If we assume that set L is, in fact, a subset of set U then the statement that the intersection of sets L and U contains hundreds of members can be simplified and restated as "The set L contains hundreds of members."
In other words, although *millions* of customers are helped by the SCO Group, only hundreds of customers like them. Yep. Makes perfect sense now, eh?
Actually yes. The complaint is specifically that other entities, such as Red Hat, Novell and the FSF are acting as (paid) proxies for IBM, and that, "they have Eric Raymond on their payroll."
SCO is still trying to smear IBM in the Court of Public Opinion, to try and pressure them into settling outside of a real court, where they know they will be out-gunned, out-financed and backed up by flimsy arguments and scant facts.
I agree with you that IBM is probably pulling some strings, especially in the media, but as Eric said, "Those attacks have been happening because our community is outraged. IBM didn't have to talk to us or suborn us or bribe us or anything else."
Your Servant, B. Baggins
It's unbelievable but it's still freaking working... they're up 8% to 13$.......
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
I don't think SCO is champing at the bit to sue every customer. I don't think the recording industry is champing at the bit to sue every customer.
I can't decide whether I don't think you're paying attention or whether I don't think you're using the same reality we are. Maybe both.
Someone you trust is one of us.
But I think the term "wackaloon" firmly applies to Darl McBride and his associates. So far, they've come forth with nothing, they've criticized the GPL and said it is invalid and now they accuse IBM of conspiring with the OSS community to get them to attack SCO? Does he realize how insane he looks to people who are deeply involved in OSS?
;P I'll leave it up to you folks to battle that one out.
Just thinking about his statement that OSS isn't about free software but it's about taking away value from "intellectual property". And putting it side by side with what the CEO of Ernie Ball said yesterday, I can only come to one conclusion: The proprietary non-free software community is afraid. They are worried that we're winning. We used to be a gnat buzzing around their heads, but now that more people are starting to take notice they are running scared.
Even more amusing is that they make all sorts of crazy statements and claims in order to make it look like OSS and Linux aren't really doing very well, but then they step back and say that we are "de-valuing" their "IP"? How can these two statements co-exist logically? Either OSS is total crap with no real value over non-free/proprietary stuff (as they claim loudly), or it's better than their stuff and therefore makes their products less relevant. They can't have it both ways. To be honest, I think this is the true situation:
OSS IS beating proprietary non-free software (de-valuing their IP). Which means it's not total crap. Because if it is total crap, then what does that say about their software if OSS usage is devaluing their IP?
Un-news
You mean `neo-com', not `neo-con'
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman
Answer from attorney: "...well, let's use an example. Let's say you have a hundred files, and you put one of your hundred files under the GPL. That doesn't mean you've lost the rights to your other 99 files. So I don't think it's going to have an impact."
So, I guess that means that if lines of 'their' code is used in, say, 20 files used in Linux - where Linux has thousands of files, that this gives SCO the right to ALL OF LINUX?!!
The babbling of this lawyer is comical. You can tell he's trying to defend an issue on some pretty thin claims.
Here is his "Lawyer Profile" from the Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP:
Mark J. Heise is a partner in the Miami, Florida office. His main practice areas are complex commercial litigation and class actions.
Since joining Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Mr. Heise has represented The SCO Group in its significant intellectual property claims involving the licensing of the UNIX source code. A case that has become increasingly dificult to pursue ever since he broke the lead on his pencil. Mr. Heise is also involved in numerous class actions, including as lead counsel in a case against the City of Miami on behalf of persons who paid an unconstitutional parking tax.
A lawyer that is fighting the world on the use of 'unlicenced Linux' products while simultaneously fighting parking tickets. Sounds like a winner to me!
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
and it's doing a damn good job.
... until IBM *really* starts beating the crap out of them. Right now, they're complaining that the big kid is telling the little kids to slap SCO around and they're waiting for a big punch from the big kid.
What they don't realize is that strait-laced IBM may look all nice and respectable on the outside, but their legal department is fully capable of acting like Leatherface on a bad day. I don't know whether this will ever reach a point where IBM unleashes the dogs (and it most certainly will if they see actual signs of this SCO noise impacting their business), but it's isn't a slap or tap that IBM is going to deliver - they're going to nail SCO down to the ground, then get "medieval on their asses".
I originally felt that McBride was opportunistic. But when you see self-defeating quotes like they ones he's giving now, and see them bragging about "all the important press they've gotten", I realize that you guys were right all along - he's just an asswipe.
Did he print out one Slashdot article with all posts or two? Those are partly sponsored by Microsoft, har har. Perhaps he printed out 1/1,000,000 th of the World's outraged Blog comments. Unlike McBitch, wholy bought by Microsoft and the rape of Caldera, most people don't need to be paid by Microsoft, IBM or anyone else to hold or express an opinion.
That phone book trick is funny. He's like a kid in potty training that brings you a big steaming turd. Nice work McBitch, the whole world hates your theiving guts! Now go to jail where you belong.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Where can I invest in the Utah crack industry? It must be going through the roof there!
I honestly believe that any reasonable doctor of psychology would be forced to diagnose him as insane, and should be committed to a mental health facility.
He has delusions of grandeur.
He cannot tell reality from fiction.
He is having paranoid delusions.
He is clearly not competition to look out for he own well being.
He is obviously psychotic, possibly schizophrenic.
kick their monkey asses
Ok, here is what I got:
1. Buy SCO sell options so you gain $200 for every point their stock goes down.
2. Buy SCO stock so you lose $100 for every point their stock is down.
3. ??? (Something involving IBM, I suspect)
4. PROFIT!!!
5. Sue SCO execs for loss incurred due to point 2.
6. FUN!!!
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
We hope those bigger mansions will be prisons.
I can't believe I can't get these on ThinkGeek yet. Come on now, how hard can it be to find 52 enemies of open source?
:-)
Critical questions:
1) Is Darl McBride the Ace of Spades or is it Bill Gates? Or is it CowboyBob?
2) Is rms *in* the deck or not?
Next up, "Heroes of Linux" embossed foil trading cards. Followed by "The Women of cvs".
OK, sounds like I better shut up now.
Darl: Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?
...makes more sense than some of the cruft coming out of Lindon these days
Pinky: I think so, Darl, but what if the Heise won't wear the beach thong?
Q: Why is IBM being so slow to respond?
A: IBM hasn't managed to pick itself off the floor and stop laughing yet.
I am NaN
Yeah, those whores at MSNBC will say anything for money.
Repeat after me: Slashdot is NOT the media.
What's the missing ingredient that will make Slashdot Media for you?
Go away, captian_craptacurlar. Whoever's paying you to post your bullshit is getting a bad deal, regardless of how little you make.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Excelent point!
Personally, I can see the Sun's involvement even deeper. I think that Microsoft is getting ready to buy BOTH Sun and SCO. Well, Microsoft doesn't need really SCO, only Unix rights - all SCO stuff will be on the street same aquisition day. But Sun, "the dot in every com" ... That would be a really heavy mortar to attack both IBM and Apple by Microsoft, having them buy Sun. No need to mention it would worth to by Sun just to kill Java and clean the damanged road for C#/.Net
Although, the real game can be much more complicated. Who knows, are there any plans of HP of being involved? The company has own Unix (even two of them: HP and DEC), which is in danger by Linux expansion. Can it be just a conspiracy from Sun (and HP?) to support SCO anti-Linux attack to protect the Unix market? And what Steve Jobs is thinking, who is enimy of Nill Gates (I guess) because of MacOS vs Windows, but who is the enimy of Linus as well because of MacOS vs Linux?
Big games, big secrets...
Less is more !
The way I see it, an attack on one member of the Open Source community is an attack on all of us.
Why don't you start small then. Go over to the BSD section here on slashdot and respond to the BSD is dying troll and ask for them to stop. Seems most of the 'linux' backers won't bother to to also support BSD to the same extent.
but why not: put up or shut up
Good advice. You can work to re-educatge people to expand the awareness of Open Source beyond 'Linux' or you can take the Bruce Perens approach 'its not my job' (as paraphrased from a post on Technocrat by Bruce Perens)
My family is rife with musicians and, when I was younger, I played the fiddle (or tried to anyways, damned difficult instrument to master). Anyway, my uncle, who was single at the time, was trying to date a violin instructor so he wanted to borrow my violin so he could take her class. At the time, my violin had a cracked bridge so he offered to have it fixed in exchange for being able for borrow it for a while. I agreed.
Fast-forward a couple of months down the road. He was unsuccessful in dating the violin instructor and is now claiming that the violin is rightfully half his because he paid to have it fixed. Of course, this is bullshit as he actually saved money since he did not have to rent/buy an instrument so he could take her class. Nonetheless, this argument went on for several years (that violin now resides with me BTW).
From where I'm sitting, this whole SCO nonsense has some striking similarities. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I would agree with other post that it would be foolish to assume victory is assured.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
"I would like you to know that I am sitting here in the smallest room in the house.
I have your latest press release in front of me.
Soon it will be behind me."
(Shamelessly ripped off from either Max Reger or George Bernard Shaw, depending on who you ask.)
Someone you trust is one of us.
Sco pees on the world
The world gets angry with Sco and starts to beat them
IBM is to blame for everything...
What a logic, the Sco execs are in a serious need for a brain overhaul.
And what is your opinion of the other interview linked to on the story from internetwk? Not trolling or bashing your opinion, I'm genuinely interested in how it compared to the CNET interview.
The internetwk article was a lot more hardball than the CNET piece. The interviewer even asked the one question point-blank that I've been waiting for someone to ask, which was about declaring exactly what files and line numbers are infringing and why. McBride then answers with some dumb analogy about breaking into your home and then evades the whole question by claiming he needs to read ESR's response first.
I have to agree with your statement that the first interview was not barely coherent. If there was anything that deserves that description, it was McBride's responses to the internetwk article.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
I realize this is a bit off topic but, Eric Raymond does a thoughtful analysis of the "smoking gun SCO Code. It is well worth the read.
IBM: O.K., here's the deal....
SCO: (cringes) Yes? (trembles with fear, eyes find something interesting on the grown to look at.)
IBM:
1. You shut the hell up now.
2. We pay you a dollar and buy your entire company.
3. We remove the Board and fire all the executeives, every single one.
4. We turn over all the evidence of fraud, crinimal insider trading, etc. to the SEC and other interested government agencies.
5. All former SCO execus, employees and board members sign and abide by a non-compete agreement that prevent you from ever working in, starting or managing a software or hardware business for a period of 20 years.
6. If you do all this, we agree not to piss on your corpse in public. Deal?
SCO: Agreed... now, can you take that big elephant foot off my neck?
Regards,
Fredrick
When the evidence SCO showed at their developer conference turned out to be bogus. The price of the SCO stock rose significantly, and now when the SCO CEO makes statements that sounds like if they orginated directly from the funny farm, ths price is going up even more.
To any normal invester this would be signs to sell SCO, not buy. What is going on? Could it be and we are seing a hostile takeover in working?
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
McBride: The Canopy Group [of Utah] is an investment company. Those are just ignorant statements about SCO's business. Hundreds of customers like and use SCO's Unix products.
I don't know about hundreds but I'll give 'em 100 -- in binary.
"I don't think Linus' comment that "they are smoking crack" really covered it"
Here's how I could see that party going down:
Partying SCO guy #1: Dude, slow down! I can't even believe you are still standing after washing down all those methamphetamines with that that Jack Daniels
Darl McBride: Oh come on! I can handle my hard liquor... and my uppers... and the shrooms! Hey, is that a crack pipe over there?
Partying SCO guy #2: No, seriously, you're either going to die or do something seriously stupid if you keep it up...
Darl McBride: Naw! I'll be okay. Light me up!
***several moments later***
Darl McBride: Hey, I got an idea, let's sue IBM! We can make up some outrageous shit about them stealing UNIX code!
Partying SCO guy #1: Yeah, we could get like... like... a hundred thousand dollars or something!!!11!
***fade out***
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
i'm now picturing mcbride at a televised press conference but in black & white, holding a phone book-sized prop...
"i am holding in my hand a list of SCO-haters, with e-mails and memos proving their anti-SCO activities and proving that IBM is orchestrating a media smear campaign..."
ed
Check your history! Sometime around 1990, Apple sued Microsoft for producing software with the same "look and feel" as Apple software.
..."
FSF boycotted Apple.
We didn't exactly cheer Microsoft, but we definitely saw them as an injured party, defending the freedom to program.
"We are at war with Microsft. We have always been at war with Microsoft
But, this has already been discussed-- SCO only has 49 or so percent of its stock publicly available which prevents ./ers (or any other outside group) from buying it up to enact a take-over.
The other implication of this case, BTW, is that if SCO (by some unholy act of Satan himself) managed to pull this crap off, then they'd go after all the other Unices as well - and probably try for the BSDs, too. They're already claiming they own all the Unix code back to 1969 (in direct contravention of the AT&T - BSD court decision). So, SCO wants to be the only player in the Unix game. This spreads to Apple, of course (OSX), and I think even Windoze is based in part on various Unix techs (their network stack in some versions was ripped out of BSD I know). In short, SCO wants to own the fscking world.
And we thought Billg was bad...
Scientology alert! Scientology alert! Apparently, the schizo-paranoid thinking of Ron Hubbard has perpetuated itself within SCO. Apparently, they think, the whole world is allied in a great conspiracy against them and their plans.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Who the fuck is this "SCO" anyway? Aren't they the ones who came up with Netware? Oooh, wait, errrr... no. Um...I know! They ... oh, no that was someone else.... Jeez I remember these guys from a history book I read a while back.
Wow, I guess we know what the lawsuit is *really* about now.
SCO should die. They should go down with all engines on fire and a wing missing, and slam straight into the ground.
No last minute attempts to fix them, or buy them out, or gain control of them.
Their assets will be sold at auction after they fold, anyway. That's all anyone could possibly want from them.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Well, there is a copyright claim under their old name. In my kernel source v2.4.20, the files drivers/net/tlan.c and net/ipx/af_ipx.c both claim all or part copyright by Caldera!
I tend to agree with Linus. They're smoking crack.
main(O){10<putchar((O--,102-((O&4)*16| (31&60>>5*(O&3)))))&&main(2+ O);}
LN2 is cool!
In their "racheting up" of their defense (and they do have to defend themselves because they have made enemies of everybody who owns boxen,) they will eventually claim copyright on the design of the very basis of computing.
Why are they not suing everybody?
Because they know they will be laughed out of court, fined for filing nuisance suits and the company will disappear like Jimmy Hoffa.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I just saw the most excellent documentary "Bowling for Columbine" last night, and in it MM proposes a reality show about Corporate Criminals.
Well, Mr. Moore, here's your show! Confront SCO in their lobby (a la Kmart). Ask the tough questions. Make Darl squirm in his chair like Charlton fscking Heston.
Then go to Microsoft and interview Mr. Gates, and watch as he tries to distance himself from SCO (because he's smart enough to be embarassed by their actions)
Moore would have a field day with SCO.
...is that most comments attached to slashdot stories about SCO are now modded to +5 funny rather than +5 interesting and/or insightful as they were a few months ago.
I am NaN
I don't work for IBM or any other linux affiliate, I am a customer. Some of the fud picked up by the PR people did come from me and it was a genuine pleasure to participate. When SCO decided to deny developers the opportunity correct or even look at the disputed code, SCO incensed millions. From a stock holders perspective SCO likely lost any type of reconciliation... unless, perhaps, maybe, some genuine effort is put forward by SCO and they provide something useful to the open source environment. A letter of apology (in 250 word or less, explaining/admitting their motivation) aimed at the developers might also be nice also.
I didn't buy SCO unix or SCO linux, I bought Redhat because I like the OS and the company, being the little fish in the big pond means Redhat works harder and earn every dollar given to them. For a large business they give alot of attention to their customers and I've never seen such a responsive company except maybe when buying a new car. The way capitalism is suppose to work!!!
The biggest problem with corporate america (entertainment to maxi pads) is it's cookie cutter approach to everything and it's belief in punishing dissent. Linux makes the counter model economicly feasible and profitable. A really big positive is I don't have to see my asshole on a 100 foot billboard. There's a professionalism among many open source projects that has vanished from corporate america ([tinfoil]I think it has something to do with the old RIAA advertising scheme entering politics and campaigner attempting to take advantage of that conditioning[/tinfoil hat]).
However, I might strike through one or two clauses and add some of my own. They might not accept it, but it would be fun anyway.
I imagined myself reading that for the first time knowing little or nothing about the case or the GPL and realizing that the lawyer sounded quite reasonable from that point of view.
The last time I check, that is exactly what lawyer are paid to do; sound reasonable and make a solid case. However, if the facts aren't there to support their argument, it won't matter how reasonable they sound.
The journey is better then the end.
...not everyone would sit down, register and post. What if the readership of slashdot is only represented by 20 - 30% of the registered?
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Before they can win a case "against the GPL" they have to friggin well file a law suit against someone regarding it. They aren't doing this and it's obvious why. They have no legs to stand on.
I will continue to repeat this until I'm blue in the face. There are two different issues that SCO would like to obfuscate. There's the IBM "contract" dispute and there's every other piece of disinformation about supposed copyright infringement that they have been spouting.
Until such time that they bring suit against someone than everything else is meaningless.
Sure information wants to be free, but how much are you willing to pay for the packaging?
Darl, you are threatening the livelihoods of the vast majority of tech industry workers. You've blatently attempted to extort money from every company running Linux on any desktop or server, on every company selling a product based on embedded Linux, and even from the Federal government itself... and now you can't understand why nobody seems to like you anymore?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
IANAL (thank God), but wouldn't "slander" require them to say, "Mr Smith steals our product"? And wouldn't Mr Smith then be required to demonstrate that he was, in fact, not a criminal? And that would shift the burden of proof to the wrong person, wouldn't it?
What SCO is doing now is saying, "A group of people are stealing our code." No specific accusation, no slander, just a generic prejudicial statement. Safe & sound.
I say, it's time for SCO to put up or shut up. But now that they've locked horns with Big Blue -- which presumably has more lawyers on staff than SCO has employees -- SCO isn't about to call the hand.
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
ESR wrote a interseting open letter: An Open Letter to Darl McBride
I've done some thinking on the whole SCO thing, and I may have hit on the endgame strategy for SCO. As a corporate entity, SCO has been going downhill for some time. They've got to do something to save the company. One way to do this is to gain a sponsor, in a more powerful corporation. They'd be in a much better position as a subsidiary of IBM than as a competitor.
By suing IBM, and laying out lots of accusations which have little or no basis in fact, SCO places themselves at great risk of countersuit. Said countersuit stands much greater chances of success than SCO does in its own lawsuit.
So, SCO loses its lawsuit. IBM countersues and beats the pants off of SCO. SCO must raise cash to pay the bill, but the damage their accusations have done is worth more than SCO is. Therefore, in order to pay the bill, SCO stock would be handed over to IBM in payment. SCO ends up being a subsidiary of IBM.
If they pull it off right, the higher-ups get to keep some stock, maybe keep their jobs, and eventually increase their available cash. Either way, the lawyers get paid.
Sure, it's a wacked-out theory, but it's no less so than SCO's lawsuit claims.
Visit Lockjaw's Lair. He won't bite.
SCO is going to say that they inadvertantly released their code into the Linux kernel.
And that I, the end user, am responsible for it. That I am committing reprehensible acts of piracy because of it. That I am starving their poor famine-ridden children by using the code and denying them their just lucre.
For something they did?
Why, I wonder, does SCO not sue itself for this tragedy? After all, they did it to themselves.
To my mind, their assertations are becoming more ridiculous by the minute. Next, I suppose, they will claim to have invented binary numbering, and that any computer using "1" and "0" in it's basal operations violates their copyright.
Who do they think they are fooling -- besides themselves?
experimental audiovideo minimalism: Rebuild All Your Ruins
I think SCO should hire the Iraqi Information Minister to spread propaganda. A portfolio of the Minister's work is available here
Here are some sample answers he could be giving in an interview:
Question: What do you think are your chances of winning a lawsuit against an industry giant like IBM?
"We are not afraid of [IBM]. Allah has condemned them. They are stupid. They are stupid" (dramatic pause) "and they are condemned."
"I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have started to commit suicide under the walls of [the courts]. We will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly."
"My feelings - as usual - we will slaughter them all"
Question: Could you elaborate on the perceived media attacks being launched against SCO?
"I blame Al-Jazeera - they are marketing for [IBM]!"
"Lying is forbidden in [SCO]. President [McBride] will tolerate nothing but truthfulness as he is a man of great honor and integrity. Everyone is encouraged to speak freely of the truths evidenced in their eyes and hearts."
Question: What do you think will be a result of your lawsuit against Linux users?
"Our estimates are that none of them will come out alive unless they surrender to us quickly."
"We will welcome them with [lawsuits] and shoes."
"Let the [Linux] infidels bask in their illusion"
"There is no spoon." - The Matrix
Prozac makes the voices in my head say nice things to me.
SCO is pointing out a serious flaw in our legal system, that our IP laws give assholes too much ability to be disruptive, and thus do not promote the common good. He's doing us a favor, in much the same way the Caligula appointing his horse as a member of the Roman Senate demonstrated that investing too much power in an Emperor was a bad idea. Hmm, Caligula... now there's an apt analogy for explaining Darl McBride!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Poor little SCO - boo hoo!
Come on SCO, get a clue! If Darl & the boys hadn't acted like such idiots for the last six months this wouldn't have happened. Now the truth is out there and it's clear that SCO's claims are totally bogus. Now it's payback time! What did they expect was going to happen?
Let's see:
SCO: There's millions of lines of our code copied into Linux and we won't show it to you because there's too much and they would just fix it and we want to be compensated and we've been harmed and the GPL is bogus and invalid and.....
Open Source Community (SCO's expectation): Oh, SCO, we're so sorry. We'll just roll over now and pay your license fees. We're erasing Linux from our servers and loading up SCO! Yes, were so very excited about SCO!
NOT!
If they can't take the heat they should get out of the kitchen (and file for bankruptcy while they're at it.)
What I'm specifically talking about is this idea that IBM is covertly directing Redhat, Novell, etc. to go after SCO. The clincher for me was when McBride said that ESR was on IBM's payroll, that sounded like something that Heber Jentzsch might have said.
So, does the S in SCO stand for Scienology or are Mormons and Clams even more similar then I already believed?
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
What if every slashdot reader shorted a hundered bucks of SCO stock (symbol: sucks cocks SCOX)? Think about it for a little while.
Hiese makes a reasonable point, if SCO did not knowingly place code that was their IP under the GPL then they have a legitimate case to take to court. Hiese does not seem to be attacking the GPL when it is used knowingly, which is a much more moderate position that much of the coverage is making out. Hiese says that if SCO or Caldera deliberately released code under the GPL then the GPL would apply. This is a reasonable position and I don't think we should ask anything more. Now, I am sure I am going to be flamed, but let me also add that if there is infringing code the responsible position for SCO is to document that infringing code so that the sections can be replaced. I think SCO is deliberately concealing the code because they know it would be quickly replaced. Nonetheless they do have a legal right to assert rights to code they believe was released under the GPL without their knowledge. Obviously if they also release a distribution with the code under the GPL it greatly weakens their case, but they should still be able to make an argument in court.
It's a vast IBM conspiracy.
The law doesn't say that you have the right to make one backup copy, it says 'a copy' is valid if it is for backup only. Here, read it, bold mine:
117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- 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.
In short, if you own a copy of a computer program, you can make another copy for archival purposes. Then you can make another copy for archival purposes. Then you can make another copy for archival purposes...
And when you cease owning the program legally, you have to destroy them all.
There's absolutely nothing in there that allows you to only do it once.
If you're still doubting, check out (1), which also says a copy...yet no one claims you can only install a program to a computer...and that's your 'one copy' to use it, you don't get to copy it into memory, because you already copied it to the hard drive. That's absurd.
Nope, you get to copy a computer program as many times as required for it to run on your computer, and you get to copy a computer program as many times as you want to archive it. As long as you destroy all copies when you cease owning it, of course.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Your forgetting teeth, the last line of a defense of a good soldier. When fighting for you life everything is game (except maybe hiding behind little children).
A normal person in his position would jump from a 10 stories building out of utter shame.
Quoth SCO:
"Bwaaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaaaaa, waaaa haaaa haaaa haaa haaa (sniff sniff, cry cry). Ooooooooooooowaaaaa hahahaha haaaa, waaaaa haaaaaaaaaa (tremendous sound of blowing nose, sniff, sniff, sob)."
Ok, its not a "direct" quote, but its close enough.
God help 'ya SCO. Maybe one day, your guys will grow up, who knows...
INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
So you're saying "that's not true" - that Darl McBride is fit to sleep with a pig?
I'm like, WTF d00d? Where did you get such a grudge against pigs?
2. Slashdot is too specifically focused to be "the media". Only techies tend to read it - even technical magazines have a much wider audience than slashdot.
#2 is certainly debatable; I could be wrong - but really, when you consider #1, how can you call Slashdot "the media"?
Most papers are like that. They grab their stories from the wire. News organizations like UPS API and Kight Ridder write storries. Newspapers and broadcasters simply publish them. Slashdot has take the place of monthly journals and newspapers for me. They provide impartial publication of various sources and some original content of their own.
Slashdot is the future of media. Focused, knowlegable, open to cluefull commentary, and self moderating. I get better "news" from Slashdot than I do from MSNBC and other organizations that are living with the restrictions of pulp and 1900 radio transmision.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
thank god. i thought i wasn't going to see any wacky SCO news today. it's like crack. don't know how i'm going to deal w/ withdrawal.
"i'm like, 'pass the hookah please!'"
My officemate and I are sitting here laughing about this. As far as we know, IBM isn't manipulating anything (not that we're in a position to know) but if they are... SO WHAT? All these companies are opposed to SCO, it only makes sense that they'd (we'd) work together. I don't get what the problem with that would be.
And oh yeah, SCO? IBM makes a few more press releases than you... I guess we're somehow more relevant just because of that. I'm not sure that 2098347 press releases about you suing IBM counts as making you somehow more relevant though.
Talk about delusional...
SCO has given sufficient reason to be disliked that it should have expected bullets from every direction..
Heck, I'm tempted to attack them myself, and I certainly have no affiliation with IBM! ;-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Title^
You can attack an aircraft carrier with a rubber raft, you might even make yourself a nuisance by doing so, but in the end there is really only one outcome. SCO has attacked not just an aircraft carrier, but an entire fleet (IBM, Redhat, THE ENTIRE LINUX COMMUNITY!) It has done wonders for SCO's stock price though, giving the boys with the golden parachutes ample chance to bail out - something they have been doing at quite a rate with the sale of at least several hundred thousand shares of stock in the last few months. Rubber rafts float pretty well, but when they get hit, they go down FAST!
I think many bystanders of this suit are being a bit zealous in their support and attacks of either side. I do find that many of the Linux supporters are bashing SCO and they have limited knowledge of the code or the suit. But due to their aversion to anything "non-linux" they attack other's view of a potentially viable intellectual property infringement. I sincerely doubt many of the supporters can even understand the code which is at the crux of the suit. They are merely opinions from 'fans' of Linux and have louder mouths than anything.
I am a Linux fan myself and think perhaps this suit may be bogus too. But I'll let the legal system do it's thing. That's how it works. But Some peoples vehement support for anything Linux clouds their objective reasoning. Read and analyze the data before spouting off on the merits of the suit.
Fud does seem to play a big part though.
I thought Heise must have been misunderstood by the media. Nope. His actual words are:
"Section 301 of the Copyright Act says the Copyright Act pre-empts any claims that are governed regarding use, distribution and copying. We believe that although the GPL is being tossed into the fray, it is pre-empted by federal copyright law."
The actual words of 17 USC 301 are:
". . . all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright . . . are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State."
This section pre-empts STATE LAW. It doesn't even address licenses created UNDER the copyright law (as numerous posters have pointed out).
If I were in Haise's position I wouldn't dare make that argument in court; it's frivolous.
(I am not a copyright expert, and any lawyer who is one is welcome to tell me I'm full of natural fertilizer.)
Is anyone able to give an estimate for when SCO is likely to lose this battle? After all, if SCO stock is still riding high after 3 months or so, then shorting the stock short term is likely to be a bust.
So what timeframe are we looking at for some decisions to adversly affect SCO and the stock to head south?
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
If you feel all of this publicity by SCO is simply grandstanding to inflate their stock so they can dump and run, file a complaint with the SEC. Here's the url http://www.sec.gov/complaint/selectconduct.shtml . I think something of this nature might fall under "Manipulation of security price or volume" but maybe there's a more relevant complaint. Since McBride has made it clear that the only thing that's important to SCO is revenue and obtaining it, instead of the advance of technology for the good of everyone. Also, if you feel that SCO's Linux licensing program is a form of extortion and are threatened, file a complaint with the FTC at https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_C ODE=PU01
Anyone else have Ideas how we can put our government agencies to work?
The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.
Is there a way to find out companies that are buying SCO stocks? Back in march, I commented that this was going to be stock manipulations. The more that I have watched it, the more that I suspect that several companies are manipulating the stock. Even though SCO showed stolen code, it was only after the Linux community showed that it was actually not their code, that stock prices went up. This implies that there are other actions going on. I am guessing that if we can find out which companies b/s then we will find some interesting connections; Personally, I would suspect Canopy (no surprise), MS, and Sun.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Perhaps the Centers for Disease Control could step in at this point and test the water coming out of SCO's water coolers for heavy metals and whatnot. This whole shenanigan might be shut down by making them drink bottled water instead.
SCO: Why is IBM so mean bawawawawa!
I have no sympathies for you Mcbride. NONE! What the hell do you expect by fudding IBM, customers, and then suing IBM itself!
Sorry SCO but you are a baby who lacks maturity. Your actions are completely inappropriate for a corporation.Actually they are illegal and I feel sorry for IBM for not going on you hard enough!
May you rest in peace soon.
http://saveie6.com/
Hey, lets sue IBM for pantent infringment for linux!
See judge?, lookie, there's all this code but we can't and won't show it to you, but we do ask you make Ibm give us 1 billion.
Oh no! We're getting all this bad publicity. It's IBM's fault, those big bullies!
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Did anyone else [notice] something strange about that [article] from Internet Week? Something just seemed [weird] about it.
Why doesn't one of the hundreds of copyright holders of Linux (Linus himself would be good) just send SCO a notice of copyright infringement and a Cease and Desist letter for their continued distribution of Linux? SCO is not obeying the terms of the GPL because they are claiming proprietary/closed ownership of part of the code and claiming that people need a separate SCO license to run it. That does violate the GPL doesn't it? The GPL only grants you permission to distribute if you agree to the terms, and if you do not agree to the terms it expressly does NOT give you permission. If you don't agree to the terms of the GPL, then you can only distribute Linux if you negotiate other terms with ALL the copyright holders, right? So aren't they distributing copyrighted work without permission? Isn't it CRIMINAL to knowingly violate copyright? Wouldn't a C&D force SCO to either drop their demands for money from Linux users, or stop distributing all their Linux products?
If anyone out there can explain the flaw in my logic, I would appreciate it.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
You've got all of these guys and it looks like the whole world is coming against SCO.
That's my favorite part. This is actually the truth. When you pick a fight with the world (of software), then it will certainly look like the whole world is coming after you. It'll look even worse when they line you up on the wall.
The next part of this however is even more enlightening.
It's really IBM that has wired in all of these relationships," he said. "That's why it looks like they're sitting back and not doing anything. It's us fighting a whole bunch of people that they put on the stage."
From Merriam-Webster: Main Entry: para*noia
1 : a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
Paranoia involves an overinflate value of self worth. Does that sound like McBride and his public announcements? So maybe it isn't a pump and dump scheme after all, maybe we're looking at a group of insane individuals in charge of a company.
Paranoia can result from smoking too much crack.
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
that positive and negative reinforcement and you end up with alot of dead women....Interesting
Wrong or right the statement seems true.
Only a true geek would actually write Mwahahahaha in a letter to a CEO. Open or not.
:)
Then the other references, "expect you to die" just cap it off. You can only wish to be half the ubergeek ESR is
Funny and serious stuff at the same time. Good times.
-- taking over the world, we are.
I believe the argument people are tryng to make is as follows. Assume that IBM did not have the right to put certain code in Linux, but nonetheless did so. Thereafter Caldera (now SCO Group) distributed Linux containing said code. People are arguing that Caldera thereby licensed the code under the GPL. That is, while IBM may have (wrongfully) inserted the code into Linux (and that, by itself, was not sufficient to license the code under the GPL), Caldera thereafter did license the code under the GPL by distributing Linux containing that code (in effect ratifying IBM's conduct).
I believe SCO Group's counter-argument is (or should be) that it did not knowningly license the code under the GPL; that they did not intend to enter into any form of license agreement with respect to the code, much less the GPL. I think SCO will argue that when the first distributed Linux containing the code at issue, they didn't know the code was contained in Linux. They will probably also argue that they couldn't reasonably be expected to know that their code had wrongfully been inserted into Linux. That is, that they couldn't reasonably be expected to inspect all of the source code for every kernal for material copyrighted by SCO (or Caldera), but wrongfully inserted into the Linux kernal by another.
Now, the counter-counter-argument is simply that SCO Group continued to distribute Linux containing the (allegedly) copyrighted code even after they knew the code had wrongfully been inserted into Linux. Thus, this argument goes, SCO Group then knowingly licensed the code under the GPL by knowingly distributing Linux containing the code.
Now, what SCO Group's counter-counter-counter-argument will be, I don't know. Perhaps, that knowingly distributing Linux with the allegedly Caldera copyrighted code is not by itself sufficient to license the code under the GPL.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
Look at it this way:
- The enemies of linux "invest" in SCO.
- SCO loses dismally, and suffers.
- By extension so do the enemies of linux.
- Rejoicing ensues as the bad-guys are slapped down en masse.
For years we have been inundated with stories of the secret power of blackhat hackers by the "unbiased" media. A lot of these uber-powerful computer hackers were rumored to be Linux zealots. Now McBride has the Linux community pissed at him.
How come he hasn't had?
I'll tell you why, those stories about black hat hackers were myths, and I submit this as evidence.
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
Excellent prose, Eric, and gorgeous outrage. Your letter is a gem of righteous indignation.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
" " The difference between SCO and other companies that have put their copyrighted material into the GPL is SCO didn't do it. "
Uhhhmmm... It isn't fair to make fun of people with learning difficulties, I know; but -- they pay this guy to work as a lawyer? He can't even construct a sentence!"
- - - - - - -
The difference (clause) is SCO didn't do it.
SUBJECT ADJECTIVE CLAUSE VERB OBJECT
"between SCO and other companies" MODIFIES "difference".
"that have put their copyrighted material into the GPL" MODIFIES "companies".
- - - - -
It is perfect English. Some legal documents are perfect run on English sentences pages long.
Boises and McBride are making more than enough mistakes. We do not have to point out how they are failing.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Legal cases are generally public record, are they not?
Yes, they are. US federal courts offer electronic access through the PACER system, Public Access to Court Electronic Records.
PACER
First you have to register, which is free. Then PACER sends you an account login and password via snail mail.
The registration instructions say that if you are outside of the USA then you need to use the Fax registration form.
After you get a login and password (takes about a week), then you can login. Login and go to the appropriate court. You want District Court of Utah.
Search for party -- SCO. Then start clicking and reading!
Pacer costs $0.07 per page, but if you use less than $10.00 per calendar year, then the charges are waived.
Also the documents themselves often come in TIFF format which is a pain in the ass.
It would be worthwhile for someone to hit Pacer, download all the documents, convert them to gif or jpeg or pdf, and then offer them on a website.
In this particular case, SCO provides their own copies of the documents. They may not offer ALL the documents (especially damaging documents that IBM files) and you can't quite trust that the documents they display are actually the documents that they filed with the court (although if someone catches them cheating on this it would be a great news story). But you can start getting some instant gratification by reading here:
SCO Documents on IBM Lawsuit
I love that guy. Nobody makes press releases quite the same.
Wah!
If you kick a tiger in the ass, you had better be prepared to deal with its teeth!
What you are saying is that SCO had an original copyright on the code and that it could not be put under GPL ( a form of copyright) due to the preceding copyright. Cool. np.
Except that almost all of the code in question was either originally copyrighted by IBM or SGI (jfs, xfs, RCU, etc). So if you logic applies to the copyright that SCO holds, then by same logic, SCO has no case.
Quite probably the 2 cases that SCO showed are the only 2 cases which even had ambiguity on where it came from. But esr et. al showed where they came from and the history. SCO loses.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I would assume it would be prudent for any upcoming litigation to have our friend(s) from SCO placed under a gag order from some relevant court to prevent this on-going media circus which may "damage credibility with less technically inclined persons who may make any potential juror pool" ...
we could even bring such an action on as a class action suit (perhaps? IANAL)
but it'd sure calm down a lot of this puffing up and chest beating.
Your Friend,
D
Controlling the Open Source Community and getting people in it to come forward with attacks on SCO when IBM wants+ them is about as easy as herding a large number of cats. In heat.
Forget reality folks, let's make a boogeyman and blame him him. They are beginning to sound like the South Park Undewear Gnomes...
SCO's 3 phase South Park business strategy:
Phase1: Collect underwear
Phase2: ?
Phase3: World Domination!
Today IBM, tomorrow...they will write a check to Hillary Clinton and Gray Davis to join the victims of the Vast Republican Conspiracy Club.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
I remember the Caldera-Microsoft trial,
and I know a bit of the history of DR-DOS.
(bystander only...)
The big difference between Caldera-Microsoft and
SCO-IBM/Linux/sane people everywhere/ is
that Microsoft really was clearly and demonstrably guilty.
It's a pity that Caldera was the company that inherited DR-DOS, since Digital
Research was long since history, but Microsoft did deserve to go down.
This is most definitely not the case now.
Caldera was not clearly evil then, Microsoft was. SCO is clearly evil now, IBM is not clearly evil (not right at this moment, IMO) and most (if not all) Open Source/Free Software authors and enthusiasts are innocent victims.
Similarly, I've seen posts about Boies that suggest how dangerous he is, based on the way he exposed Microsoft execs as being "not credible".
The shoe is on the other foot now - I doubt he'll find a shameless pack of liars in the Open Source community *or* in the IBM witnesses, should this
miraculously come to trial.
Microsoft was a slam-dunk compared to this.
Let me start by saying that I respect Mr. Raymond's acumen, accomplishments, and writing. His work is seminal and important. Thoughful people have leveled many criticisms at his works, but no matter what criticism is merited, "The Cathedral and the Bazzar" started a technological, economic, and philisophical discussion that continues to this day. His is the argument that frames the debate.
So, with all due respect, may I just say how abominably arrogant ESR is to refer the community of Free Software developers and users as "his people?"
My one and only criticism of ESR is the ever so slight note of messianic tendencies that seems to weave in and out of his writings. He is the Saint Paul to RMS's Saint Peter. Now, I may be misinterpreting the remark. He may merely have meant to include himself in the way one does when one says something like "I want to go home to be with my people." Or, "I'll send over some of my people to help with your project." But the tone to me always seems to be "beware the wrath of My People should you oppose me!" A different kettle of fish.
So... numa, JFS, RCU etc.. are all *derivitive* works of UNIX(tm).
So does that mean anything that does use any part of SCO's copyright'd code in their UNIX(tm) also a derivitive work?
Does that mean the SCO's VARS own programs, that are writting to comply to SCO UNIX (tm) are also derivitive works? and should we inform them taht they also need to pay darl more?
???
According to his arguements.. they are infringing on SCO's work even if they do pay a development license..??!?
SCO wins, Linux is destroyed
.
Why ? At the worst kooky scenario, linux will just turn illegal
in the US
Linux will not be destroyed by this, but the US industries may suffer somewhat.
Working for necessity's mother.
McBride's statement makes complete sense to me now. I was wondering why their building was surrounded by wild mushrooms.
If it's published, it's media. It may not be relevant or broadly distributed media, but it's media. Just because Slashdot does not typically write articles does not disallow it from being considered "the media". Reader's Digest, Harper's, Utne Reader -- there are many examples of periodicals which republish text found elsewhere, while doing little more than providing commentary on that text -- if even that. For better or for worse, Slashdot does affect some public opinion.
Now, you may say that it only reaches a targetted segment of the general audience, but that's okay. What is the threshold for reaching a large enough audience to be considered "the media"? Everything from Psychology Today to the New Criterion to the Paris Review to People Magazine to the New York Times all service some subset of the entire general audience, but I think you would be hard pressed to claim than any of those could not be called "the media". Of course, you may be defining "the media" as CNN, ABC, the New York Times, and a few other very major sources. I still question what the threshold is to be considered "the media".
Russell
I take back a lot of what I said. That's pretty funny.
^_^;;;
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Not quite SCO, but still:
Then again, who cares, SCO laywers are the real trolls hereThis sig is intentionally left blank
man...SCO's like a n00b playing poker with a maverick who calls the n00b's bluff and the n00b cries foul.
I nominate SCO for the dumbass of the Universe in addition to the Douche of the Universe and Douche Bag awards.
Hu! Www.sco.com doesn't respont. Www.sco.de neither.
well said. :)
it's like campaign brainstorming..."find out everything we are doing wrong and accuse the opposition of it."
this is loaner...my sig is in the shop
It's just as SCO said.
.
/. finally SCO got off the Linux Topic
Without them Linux community wouldn't have valid OS, and without IBM Linux community wouldn't have brains to react.
. . . ??? . .
mwaaaaaahahaaahaahaa *cough* hahahaaaaaaaa
SCO is getting funnier every day.
By the way kudos to
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Damn, you beat me to it.
It is official; Netcraft confirms: SCO is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered SCO community when pundits, lawyers, and rational people everywhere confirmed that SCO's credibility has dropped yet again, now down to an infintesimal amount, if not actually zero. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that SCO has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along: SCO is collapsing in complete disarray under the weight of its threats, lies, and false accusations.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict SCO's future. The hand writing is on the wall: SCO faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for SCO because they are going to be sued into the stone age by IBM, Redhat, and irate Linux users. Things are looking very bad for SCO. As many of us are already aware, SCO continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
Unixware is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Unixware developers only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: SCO is dying. Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers. SCO has filed a 3 billion dollar lawsuit against IBM. The chance of success is zero. Zero times 3 billion is zero. Their company headquarters is about to become a giant crater.
All major surveys show that Darl McBride has steadily declined in sanity. His constant ranting and ravings are degenerating into farce as his company's long term survival prospects dim. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, SCO is dead.
Fact: SCO is dying
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
It shouldn't be a Caldera logo anymore anyway. I think a picture of someone shooting themself in the foot is much more apropos :-)
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
http://slashdot.org/search.pl?topic=88
I'd ask if you'd found the right sort of isolated wasteland for your citadel of dread yet, but that would be a silly question; you're in Utah, after all.
I suggest that Utah and Alabama start a Secession movememnt led by Moore of 10 Silly proverbs on a stone Fame.
I will divert some of my Redhat OSS Fund donations (Anyone know how to send the money?) to the effort.
Help fight continental drift.
Some of these answers are still skipping the information given elsewhere: SCO CEO speaks against the GPL, although SCO uses this stuff. You mention this as irrelevant. Sorry, but (although not legally) this is certainly relevant to their marketing.
But, focusing on the case (me playing the IBM role):
One cannot determine from downloads how many people use Linux. Also, this is intertwined with SCO's own downloadable release. Can a company sue for damages for a product it gave away for free? Was SCO unaware that the four kernel modules were in the distro, or that it resembled their code licensed to IBM?
If this IP was part of (1) a GPL-like agreement between BSD and Caldera or (2) made public domain by ubiquitous usage in academia: it wouldn't matter WHO put it in there. The "property" no longer has value to differentiate it from common industry knowledge.
IF a developer at IBM found that the SCO implementation of a common algorithm was sufficient, why couldn't they use it? At what point would a "rewrite" have to appear different (a quite detailed C syntax question perhaps)?
SCO must show that:
That the algorithm was not in the public domain at the time of the alledged introduction to Linux code tree. What if similar code appears in the BSD code tree prior to this? What if the solution was published in textbooks?
That IBM didn't have the right to use this code for distribution in the Linux. This contractual issue is probably mute. I doubt they had permission, reading SCO's typical EULA.
That this code was not given to Linux freely by SCO itself. Since this reverts back to the version tree of the Linux Kernel, an exhaustive search will need to be performed by this, and a lookup about each contributor's parent company. This means each and every suspected SCO source code block needs to be traced back to the contributor. If, say, neither IBM nor SCO copied the code, but some other UNIX-source-code-aware person did, IBM is not the target alone.
That their assessment of damages is realistic. I would counter that SCO's lost customers, not Linux downloaders, are the damages. And lost to Linux replacing their installation. Possibly, Linux installs using the 4 modules in question that SCO alledgely owns could be considered lost revenue.
This is fun, keep playing
This is the same strategy the same people used when they sued Microsoft over DRDOS as Caldera. That time it worked. A whole bunch of people all saw little, tiny Caldera taking on big, bad M$ and winning and thought it was "a good thing."
Now the same people are once again posturing as a "poor little upstart company" taking on the big, bad established company. And to make matters worse, that big, bad company isn't fighting fairly and is manipulating the world into joining in their attack of gallant little SCO. This is the same tactic as when a sleaze-ball lawyer has their fake injury client show up in court wearing a neck brace that they put on in the car and take off as soon as the jury is out of sight. Get to the jury on sympathy when your facts don't support your case. Of course, SCO management is made up of a bunch of sleaze-ball lawyers so why should we expect any better?
To some extent, the same thing can be said about their attacks on OSS. Only with Open Source the claim is that we're a bunch of communists out to destroy capitalism. They want to manipulate this into them being the "good guys" and everyone they're attacking (IBM, Open Source community, Linux users) are the "bad guys."
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Darl McBride and the Iraqi Information Minister?
:)
*You* be the judge.
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
This seems to be possibly the most useful assertion SCO has made. I think there is general agreement that if a person introduces code into the GPL, but does not hold the copyright on that code, that that code is not actually covered by the GPL. Instead, it is covered by copyright law.
Strictly speaking, the included code would still be covered by the BSD license. However, the BSD license is explicitly designed to allow so licensed code to be included in works with more restrictive licenses. More to the point, if someone wanted to go to the trouble he could excerpt out all of the BSD code in Linux and distribute it in BSD compliant ways that are not GPL compliant.
However, the BSD license would not infect the GPL code anymore than the GPL can infect other code. The GPLed work as a whole can still be distributed legally and the GPL can be enforced on the work as a whole.
This what is meant by the phrase "GPL compatibility". Basically, the GPL can function as a container for code with less restrictive licenses as long as the terms of those licenses are obeyed. In the case of the SGI code, some hapless coder failed to include the original copyright notices. It is SGI who was sloppy not the kernel maintainers as a whole although it should be removed or properly attributed in the 2.4 tree asap.
Did you notice that most of the advertising on the so called news sites seems to be IBM. All of the sudden IBM is everywhere, reminding the internet news outlets who pays the checks. I think the news slant may shift a wee bit because of this.
Yeah folks, it sucks, but lets not forget history here. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it's mistakes.
It's really too bad, they used to be a decent group of companies (Lineo, et al.). They seemed to change tracks as they were bought, and sold off the embedded side, which was the only side that made measurable revenue.
If you look at SCO's parent company's history, you will find that this is typical behavior for them. Sue for nebulous IP Rights, act shocked, hurt and singled out when you get the predictable mono-digit response.
It's really too bad, because the original group of companies used to be decent (Lineo et al.). It would be more productive to spend their legal budget on R&D and production, but this won't happen. Why?
Those who can, do
Those who can't, sue.
Pray for a judge with a big-ass clue-by-four who isn't afraid to use it.
The Ninth Circuit (which this case is not in, but Ninth Circuit rules on a lot of technology cases) wrote a lot about contributory infringement and vicarious infringement recently. Here is a summary:
EFF P2P Executive Summary
And the actual words of the court:
A&M Records v Napster
Here's my analysis. Unlike the authors in the links above, IANAL, so this may have errors in it.
Direct infringement: is when I take your copyrighted material and make more copies without permission (either statutory permission, like making a backup, or express permission, like following the terms of your license).
Contributory infringement: is when someone sends me a bunch of copyrighted material illegally, and then I knowingly make lots of copies and give them to other people.
Vicarious infringement: is when I run a system where a lot of direct infringement happens.
The line between contributory and vicarious infringement is blurry to me.
In this case, direct infringement would be if Linus sat down and personally copied foo/bar/super-sco-source.c into the kernel. Nobody is alleging that he did that.
Contributory infringement would be if SGI copied foo/bar/super-sco-source.c, sent it to Linus, and Linus knew that it was SCO's source code, and Linus published it anyways. One element of contributory infringement is knowledge. The Ninth Circuit said that before a plaintiff can sue for contributory infringement, they have to provide specific notice to the defendant of the infringing material. SCO has not done that -- in fact, SCO has publicly and willfully refused to do that. McBride said at a press conference "if we identified the infringing material, Red Hat would just take it out". In my amateur opinion, those facts defeat any SCO claims of contributory infringement.
My take on "contributory infringement" is similar to the populist view here. I believe that nobody is liable for contributory infringement until the offended party identifies specific files. No files and no line numbers mean that there is no contributory infringement.
Vicarious infringement is more troublesome. To be liable for vicarious infringement, one just has to operate a service where direct infringement takes place, with any degree of control over the users. There's no requirement that the vicarious infringer have actual knowledge that infringing material is available through the service.
SCO claims, in its amended lawsuit against IBM, that Linus Torvalds "cannot or will not" identify the IP owners of the code that is sent to him. SCO is lining up their ducks for a vicarious infringement claim against Torvalds!
Note that the FSF is safe here. Before the FSF accepts copyrighted code from other people, they require a signed contract where the contributor states that they own the copyright on the code that they are contributing, and that they will indemnify the FSF if they actually contribute someone else's code. That is a strong pro-active policy to prevent direct infringement, so I think the FSF is safe against claims of vicarious infringement.
I don't know how far a court will go with vicarious infringement. I think, though, that any open source author who accepts contributions from other people needs to have SOME process in place to filter out illegal contributions and disconnect anybody who submits them.
IBM and AT&T added a side agreement (I think of several hundred clauses) which overrode the standard AT&T contract, and which specifically kept IBM code owned by IBM.
Infuriate left and right
isnt McBride a member of the skull and crossbones society?
Nitpick: SCOX does not trade on NYSE. It trades on NASDAQ.
Why don't you post transcripts of your calls to the SEC and DOJ, to help others do the same? Some people have posted their calls to the FTC and that information has helped other callers.
I do agree that this matter warrants a lot of action, and that posting on Slashdot is not enough.
I don't like to re-post my ideas, but I think this applies. IBM has taken out major adds on just about every internet news source running this story, paying them $$$. These starved companies will probably try not to bite the hand that feeds them. The next time you see a SCO story, either pro or con, I bet you see an IBM add, except on the M$ whore sites. This is the slick way for IBM to get what they want. These stupid journailists often don't know anything about these topics as they seem to print verbatim the SCO line without checking the other side. But if their biggest advertiser is IBM, they will think twice and print both sides, and check carefully, so as to not say stupid things to cause IBM to yank adds. A week ago almost all stories ran with the unchecked SCO 'facts' as the lead, with the death of Linux as the conclusion. Now the SCO scam leads, with the bogus evidence. Even a cursory glance of the IBM position reveals that it is the obvious winner. And since IBM is paying them $$$ they had better tell their side. So now the headline reads "SCO CLAIMS INFLATED/BOGUS/INCOPETANT", instead of "DAVID VS. GOLIATH - IBM steals IP".
It is "his people" in the sense of "my classmates" or "my fellow Americans"
Help fight continental drift.
Instead of using a win xp (of Kazaa for $199) I can download an illegal version of Linux (according to SCO) worth $699.
Wait a minute, this could be the a reason why linux could experience a push on the desktops soon.
They think we can't think for ourselves?
Cmon. Admit it. You thought about doing this but decided to be mature. I can't believe I got this name.
As a puppet for SCO's marketing department, Mark Heise isn't the best choice, but I'll give hime one thing, he's a canny lawyer, and Lisa Bowman is an appalling journalist.
The real meat of the CNet article can be found at the bottom, and I'm shocked that it slipped under slashdot's collective radar.
Bowman: Are we going to see people come out and support the company in statements or legal filings?
Heise: [...] There haven't been any amicus briefs yet. It certainly wouldn't surprise me because a lot of issues in this case have applications outside of this narrow area.
Next question Heise answers, he's not talking about IT anymore, it's about Copyrights, and the Motion Picture Industry.
Heise: We're talking about copyright and how, in the Internet age, people are able to take protected material and have free access to it and make it accessible to millions of people at the flick of a switch. That's something that was unheard of in the past.
Does that argument sound familiar? It should do, because it's the party line that the MPAA and the RIAA have been offering as a defence of their anti-consumer actions for the past few years.
There are going to be entertainment industry executives following this case closely, because it already rings bells with their perceived struggle against 'intellectual property theft'.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the RIAA and MPAA filing anicus curae briefs on behalf of SCO, and I think Heise's interview is nothing more than a fishing trip to garner heavyweight support.
PRO-SCO
Sounds nasty. Is there a cure for it yet?
I hope it's not contagious!
IBM has nothing to loose. Unlike SCO, IBM execs don't all collectively cream their pants when the company's stock jumps 25 cents for 1 day. IBM is so diverse, they don't need SCO's approval for anything.
It's back up to 13.xx, what kind of idiots are responsible for such purchases? This once again reaffirms my belief that the market is nothing more than gambling.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
Okay, my temper is getting a little frazzled ...
Follow the frickin money! Go to www.sec.gov, get into Edgar, look up SCO, and see where their revenue actually comes from!
40% of SCO's revenue, and *all* of SCO's profit, come from SCO Source licenses to Microsoft and Sun.
That is 15 million dollars, cold cash, in the last six months, with more on the way.
SCO isn't counting on winning the lawsuit, although Canopy Group, their major shareholder, received $150 million from Microsoft and $40 million from Computer Associates to settle previous suits. SCO isn't counting on anything.
You don't need wild theories about how SCO is going to make money from this. SCO already got paid for their actions to date. The checks have already cleared. And $15 million is actually more money than the entire SCO company was worth last year, before SCO went down this path.
Given the fact that Microsoft is one of the few, if not the only, company to pay SCO ... it makes one wonder if M$ isn't behind the SCO effort!
BobThePig
Cry SCO, cry me a river. then we'll clean it up, after we clean you up in the courtrooms. Your ploy failed! Give it up!
"Sorry Im not more user-friendly."
...and I think you'll have it right.
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
I'd ask if you'd found the right sort of isolated wasteland for your citadel of dread yet, but that would be a silly question; you're in Utah, after all.
Now, I've been to Utah years ago, and I think it's one of the most beautiful states of the union - especially the Northern parts...I think the "Hundreds of Customers" he speaks of have just been alienated by his remark. That must be the total amount of customers loyal to the SCO product line - but do they all live in Utah?
Here is the complete open letter from ESR as the one to linux.com didn't work, but their homepage directed me to the newsforge page...
db
Cig:
ôô
there is a word for people like you and it begins with the letter "p"
yeah it's call 'Perceptive'
FUCK SCO dawg...
Mother Fuck them...
Visions of Samir , Peter and Michael Bolton Laying a gangsta beat down on an office printer with SCO spray painted on it.
How dare they whine like bitches after tried to act like supa ganstas with their laywers..I mean shit wtf did they think IBM and other companies that have been investing in linux were gonna do?
Play dead and let sco have all the bones...
Fuck Sco
When a company is gasping it's last breath it's stock fluctuates greatly before bottoming out. I'd say it's just standard daytrading at work. If I had funds I'd probably throw some at it.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Just the THOUGHT of that act is enough to give me nightmares...
If IBM wins, SCO cannot go after GNU/Linux. They can't make the argument of infringement twice.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
And happy about it ! I kept on trying a distrib after another but yesterday the latest Mandrake (9.1) convinced me there's no need to use M$ Windows on the desktop. And the repeated SCO's MS-like crap pushed it too...
The install was as smooth as a "dumb" Windows install can be, all my peripherals were recognised including my only-sold-in-Japan USB printer, my USB CF card showed up as a new icon on the desktop, as well as my Win2K NTFS partitions.
After the install was done I could watch my Divx movies by just clicking on them, no need to install extra software, burning CDs worked fine too (K3b works really well).
All the tools I need are here, I will keep my Windows partition for a while but I'm pretty I will delete it soon.
"Naughty, naughty, naughty, you filthy old soomka !"
Linux has a pretty damn good paper trail, recording who contributed what and when. Just because SCO is too lazy or stupid to ask a simple question on the linux kernel mailing list, that certainly doesn't make it Linus's fault.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The value of Linux to large companies is that it is a viable system that is FREE to use, and cheap to modify. Companies like IBM and Redhat can tweak it to get whatever they want out of it for low cost. I have heard that to develop a full modern OS from scratch would cost $5-10 billion. That cost has been shared among dozens of companies, that in the past bore it alone, only to see products go obsolete. By sharing the cost burden, and eliminating re-duplication efforts, we now have a quality OS with fantastic support from organizations and governments around the world. In addition we have and extremely skilled and rabidly loyal fan base that rivals and even surpasses the extreme behavior of Mac fans. Linux fans are loyal because they are a part of what they use, it is more of a community than a product. The catch is companies don't own the proprietary rights to the OS, they share them with everyone else, including their fans, friends, supporters, rivals and enemies. It is like the air, everyone can breath it without being charged.
The value to IBM is in the service and the hardware, they can make money there. The OS software has been a losing battle for them in the past. The value to customers is in the quality of the product, the service, and the strategic upgrade path, timed to suit their needs, and they have multiple sources to bid their work out to, giving them fair cost comparisons or to develop special custom application. Programmers like it because it is constantly being customized and they then have a job. You actually have a non-monolpoly, functioning market with Linux, that shares the wealth, and a market that can NEVER be monopolized. The playing field is always level becuase the way the system works is completely exposed and free.
This is also a strategic move against M$. In addition to a 90% markup, they place their product at the front end of the customer relationship, forcing all others into a commodity, diposable and easily replaced position. In that universe IBM, and others, have an extremely limited profit potential, and would probably be terminated as a going concern at some point. And looking even further down the road, this makes piracy irrelevant, since Linux can't be pirated in a traditional way since it is legal to copy for free.
This is not about idealism, this is about rival business models and survival moving into the broadband era. The Linux model replaces difficult to maintain and protect IP and software sales with service and hardware sales, things which are much easier to protect and market. It places nuts and bolts above the virtual values of IP. It has superior affordability because IP burdens are shared, and a vast economy of scale is acheived. It is a powerful competitive advantage.
This is not communism. If it was companies would avoid it like the plague and Linus would be another minor academic, who wrote an obsolete OS that never went anywhere. This is about freedom, and being in control of your own destiny.
You'll know when IBM starts the orchestrated campaign to beat up SCO. It'll be when they bring Dennis Leary back for another round of TV ads.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
...kick him in the nuts!
What's the difference between a hedgehog and a limo full of SCO execs?
On the hedgehog, the pricks are on the outside
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
It kinda pises me off coz Peace through Superior Firepower is much better sounding than the one I have now.
Oh well...
Dawn of the Dead
even funnier... he could have at least said THOUSANDS i mean if your going to lie at least make it worth something... hundreds of people still run amigas! and watch goat porn!
Finally, another SCO story... I was thinking that /. had forgotten all about it... /. (And hey, /., if you get a subpoena for my name, get my user info to SCO as fast as possible.)
Seriously, who the hell does SCO think they are? Hey, SCO, I own 2 servers running Red Hat Linux, and I'm thinking about putting Linux on my laptop to dual boot with Win XP. So come and sue me, you big losers. I'd love to get an threat from you. And if you need my name, subpoena
Mr. McBride:
... and that's coming from JAH (Jeffrey Alan Hunt), which has not recieved one cent from IBM!
You're full of it, and so are your claims that Linux contains your proprietary code.
"It was hell!" recalls former child.
...and I can assure you that getting to talk to anyone at IBM about this lawsuit is about as easy as knitting cats. Aside from the stock, press-released statements, it is nigh on impossible to get local staff to comment on or off the record about this. At least three of us at my company are following the story, and none of us are being stage managed by IBM. On the other hand, getting to talk to a SCO exec is easy peasy.
"We have absolute direct knowledge of this. If you go behind the scenes, the attacks that we get that don't have IBM's name on them, underneath the covers, are sponsored by IBM," McBride said.
If you ask me, they're now so desparate that they are hoping to fragment the open source community's stand against them with ridiculous accusations like this. They're trying to appeal to the small subset of the open source community who dislikes collaboration with Big Corporations by saying that IBM is controlling us, and although I doubt it would have worked anyway, it'd have a better chance if SCO hadn't flushed ALL of their credibility down the toilet and if they too, weren't a Big Corporation.
Oh well, let's just sit back and watch them flail.
Don't read more into this than there really is. This latest dustup can be summed up as follows:
SCO: Mommy! Mommy! Make him stoooop!!
IBM: [Waving hands in SCO's face] I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!
Meanwhile, ESR and crew are sneaking up from behind to give SCO a major wedgie.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
Isn't that all in the repository where you check out code and check in code? If they want to see who owns the code, looking at the copyright notices in the source code files would be a good place to start.
mmm, yeah. Sounds like SCO is thinking along the same lines of winning the trial. Now if only we could get say someone from the opposition to also have a change to conduct something like an interview during the trial. Nah, that is will never happen.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Now imagine you're an unbiased jury member (drawn from that same pool), and you here the same line of Q&A. Do you see where i'm going with this?
Taking into account of course that 90% of the jury will be Windows users.
Michael Sims accusing somebody ELSE of incoherency?! Gotta love it....!
I just made my $20 IBM promised me if I bash SCO on Slashdot.
Oooops I wasn't supposed to post that. No beer for me tonight =(
Now put on your tin foil hat and go live in a bunker,please.
Meep.
1) I'm not saying I agreed with his point of view, just that should be aware that bring up serious issues...
2) It had nothing to do with 1 copy vs. multiple copies. It had to do with a (supposed) provision that prevents extending rights on top of Copyright. He may be talking out of his ass, but at least he cited a source. (and YOU get modded +5 insightful... my GOD)
3) So you go and put me on your foes list? Christ. I hate SCO more than the next guy but I can't sit back and let people let them pull a fast one on us. I wanted to start some serious discussion.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
It's all a part of this vast right-wing conspiracy. And it's vast. It's so vast you can't even imagine. I'll even bet the goat sex boy is involved.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
How much will SCO pay IBM to settle?
Eric, while you're at it don't forget some other forms of non-monetary motivation: peer recognition, reputation (resume) enhancement, benevolence, ego (there's one Mr. McBride should recognize!). It is far too common a belief that the Econ 101 "utility function" has units of $. They're easy to see and count, and the MBAs tend to focus on them because it's easily measured. But that does not tell the entire story of human motivation, which is what economics really is all about.
the dot-com bubble burst? With "entraunapeurs" like this I think we are lucky there is even a tech industry left!!!
...what do you expect will happen!
And then you have to consider that most
people think you are wrong too, so there
is that working against you.
Nice job, SCO! You shot yourself in the foot!
I finally figured it all out. IBM really is behind everything. You see, they created SCO back in the day and now they're having SCO sue them. SCO's president is actually a robot IBM created. Thanks to the Styx we know IBM's had that technology for years (Mr. Roboto: "My heart is human, my blood is boiling, my brain IBM"). This is all just a huge publicity stunt to get the open source community to love IBM.
Man, I'm smart.
Linux has a pretty damn good paper trail, recording who contributed what and when.
... that certainly doesn't make it Linus's fault.
You missed the point. The problem is not keeping track of who contributed what when. The problem is verifying that each contributor has the legal right to make the contribution that they are making.
Suppose that Party A writes copyrighted source code and declines to license it under the GPL. Suppose that Party B has a licensed ocpy of this work, on non-GPL terms. Suppose that Party B unlawfully sends a copy to Party L for publication in the Linux kernel. And suppose that Party L publishes this contribution without asking Party B "do you have the right to do this?"
Party B would be guilty of direct infringement. Party L would be guilty of vicarious infringement.
Please point to the mechanism that Linus Torvalds uses for screening contributions so that he is not in the position of Party L here.
I've already pointed to the mechanism that the FSF uses to prevent this problem. The FSF made me sign a contract stating that I wouldn't contribute other people's copyrighted code, and that I would idemnify the FSF if I did. The FSF requires every contributor to sign a similar contract.
Nope. That sounds like a statement from someone who didn't read Ninth Circuit, A&M versus Napster, before commenting.
The Ninth Circuit says that constitutes vicarious infringement. Actual knowledge is not an element of vicarious infringement. If someone runs a service, and they derive financial benefit from it (under a very broad test), and they exercise control over the users of the service (another broad test), they are open to vicarious liability, whether they actually know what their users are doing or not.
I don't know where the line in the law is about how much screening publishers have to do. I'm really interested in that. I suspect that the line is not well established in case law yet, and I'm worried that SCO is going to attack on this front.
I'm pointing to a legal weakness in the Linux development process. But my intent is not to attack Linux, it's to point out where SCO is going to attack Linux. I really think that SCO is going to attack on vicarious liability grounds.
...page, I can unequivocably say I've had more direct support and contact from Caldera/SCO (whose actions I vigorously oppose) than I have had from IBM. Hell, I can't get IBM or Red Hat to talk to me officially, and frankly don't want them to other than providing publicly available materials. While Blake Stowell and his office have sent several audio files of Caldera/SCO's press conferences in personal email.
http://sco.iwethey.org/ is a fully self-funded and volunteer effort. We've had no external funding or support (not that we'd mind, you know).
As Eric Raymond says, there's a lot of contact and communication between those who oppose Caldera/SCO in this case. This is motivated largely by self interest, not external funding or manipulation. I certainly haven't talked to anyone who'se owned up to this. Journalists, hackers, and companies legitimately concerned and outraged? Absolutely. Vast, right-minded conspiracy? Hardly.
We might be far better advised to ask who is backing Caldera/SCO in its efforts. There are people and companies who have been suspicously involved in pimping and making direct payments to Caldera/SCO. Some very close analysis of involvment and motive is called for.
More Caldera/SCO lies....
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
"Pot? I'd like to introduce you to Kettle, but you can just call him Black."
JoAnn
At a big company I have a relationship with, after the executives recieved the original warning letter SCO sent out to 100's of top companies, projects around the company involving linux were forced on hold or cancelled.
Hundreds of man hours of labour have been wasted.
This must be the case at other big corporations, and if so, wouldn't some sort of class action suit be in order?
Can you imagine how quickly SCO would crumble if many of the Fortune 500 companies and lots of other big institutions got involved?
I'm laughing so hard my liver is bruising! Say it for us Darl, please with the fingers: "I am not a crook". Come on, you know you have been practicing!
Oh, and, we dont mind if you hate us back!
This is great. My favorite SCO quote of the week. =)
2 2/33NNscoc ode_1.html
It's from the bottom of this article:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/08/
There is a perception that SCO has not been forthcoming about its allegations, SCO CEO Darl McBride admitted. But it was a false perception, he argued. "Are we trying to conceal things? No, it's actually the other way around. We're trying to be extremely open."
Hey, that is one neat sig quote. Mind if I use it ?
The pot calling the kettle black.
... from day 1.
SCO doesn't give a rat's ass about IBM. They only sued IBM hoping for a quick, yet precedent-setting settlement in which IBM would acknowledge SCO's "ownership" of Linux, of course failing to specify which parts of Linux SCO "owned". SCO would then use that to claim "ownership" of all Linux and try to put RedHat, SuSe, and all of the others out of business, leaving them as the sole Linux distributor on the planet, and immediately making Linux closed source.
Of course, SCO was also banking on IBM not giving a shit about OSS or the developers, or about their supposedly small linux server business.
Ummm... WRONG. Now SCO is up the shit creek without a paddle. Instead of getting slapped with a little of IBM's chump change, they got slapped with a death warrant.
Nice going. I can't wait until the stock crashes, although I can't fathom how it went up 33% this week.. but you know what they say, there's a sucker born every minute.
Blake Stowell, SCO's PR Director, told the Linux Journal that the 2002 licensing of 'Ancient Unix' code was for non-commercial use only. And only for 16-bit. The folks at Linux Journal were quick to point out that the 2002 announcement letter said no such thing:
"The text of the letter, sent January 23, 2002 by Bill Broderick, Director of Licensing Services for Caldera, in fact makes no mention of "non-commercial use" restrictions, does not include the words "non-commercial use" anywhere and specifically mentions "32-bit 32V Unix" as well as the 16-bit versions. "
When confronted with the facts, how dows Mr. Stowell respond? "That is what I was told by Chris Sontag." Impressive. Boy I would love to hear him say that in court!
Y'know, I'm wondering if we aren't doing SCO a favor by pointing out the glaring errors in SCO's wackier-by-the-minute assertions. People are very concerned about countering the lies being ground out by SCO. I know I am. But what if this is more than just PR fluff? What if they are really so detached from reality, and so incompetent in knowing their own history, that they really believe what they're saying? Then just let them spout off. Don't correct them. Let them hang themselves the moment they step into court. If they tried this argument in front of a judge I think the entire suit would be summarily dismissed (IANAL).
Wanted: One witty yet thought provoking
Because ESR is a bigot... The entire letter is nothing but childish taunts. Torvalds just says what's on his mind and moves on. ESR goes on...and on...and on...and on... I can't think of any major contribution he's made...ummm, ncurses..............I think that's it. I really don't think anybody likes him much anymore...too self centered and puts himself on a pedestal with Torvalds and Stallman(His personal profile)...anyone who disagrees, go ahead and flame me, I'd like to see if he still has many supporters.
They broke my crack monkey detector...
Q.
Insert Signature Here
Troll?! Here I sit with moderator points and try to use them wisely. I think I recognize most of the humor around here, but it dosen't seem that everyone with mod points even has a sense of humor or could even recognize one.
To the humor impaired moderator, please watch some Monty Python ( BBC shows are great) or maybe even read the Hitchhickers Guide to the Galaxy and watch Airplane. You will then be better prepared for your next encounter with this humor thing you've been hearing about...
Now I'm off to spend my points by elevating the good posts and ignoring the trolls.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
Personally, I think it's the whole trying to 'charge for linux' that's getting you all the bad press.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Simple enough. IBM buys SCO Group. IBM officially posts System V source and GPLs that. IBM announces Unixware will cease to exist and offers liberal terms to migrate to IBM AIX. IBM shuts down SCO Unixware and shifts its programmers to supporting the switch from SCO users to AIX. Or Linux if Unixware users wish to go that route. Then the books on this bizarre episode come out.
I imagined myself reading that for the first time knowing little or nothing about the case or the GPL and realizing that the lawyer sounded quite reasonable from that point of view.
Now imagine you're an unbiased jury member (drawn from that same pool), and you here the same line of Q&A. Do you see where i'm going with this?
True, But this is just one side of the story. The jury gets to hear both sides. IBM's lawyers will be even more convincing, with more facts on their side.
One of the things that I've discovered in my adult life is that every word is a promise. As soon as you have to defend your honesty, you've already lost the trust.
If you ever yell at your kids "I mean it", you've already demonstrated that you don't. If you catch yourself saying "I mean it" or "I'm serious" that's a pretty good clue that you need to re-evaluate your actions, because somewhere you are shooting yourself in the foot.
With that in mind, read the following quote:
(We) just don't want the rest of the world to believe that it's not (there), that this is some sort of smoke and mirrors. It's not.
I read this as "I mean it this time!". 'Nuff said.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
you just wanted to see if your server could survive a mini-slashdotting after you got modded to +5 funny, didn't you? ;o)
I am NaN
1) You're right, I didn't read what was cited. I was at work.
I just thought it warranted a look-see. Judging from the response my post got (and the number of moderations), it looks like I did my good deed for the day.
2) Don't start with the LOGC 301-isms. It makes you look arrogant.
3) At what point did I ever say I believed SCO in the slightest? I am well aware of the knee-deep bullshit that SCO mires itself in. I have heard all of the arguments, refutations, declarations and exclaimations. You're preaching to the choir.
My point has nothing to do with whether or not the point of view was valid, but that it was new, and particularly ballsy when compared with previous baseless potshots and accusations.
You just want someone to be mad at, I think. You want an enemy in Slashdot's midsts to rally against; a representative of the SCO side of things that you can vent at.
I am insulted that you would take that out on me. Go look at my posting history. OK?
Truce?
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Were are on the wrong train, again. Last week was the GPL, and now they choose to focus on IBM control. Until SCO can show proof on their (wild) claim, they should close their mouth.
On the other hand, SCO's press releases are a dependable source of laughter. Enough laughter to heal every sorrow. I will miss them after this is over.
Woah...so just because I tell the public a bunch of stuff means that I'm an important company? Hmmm....
1) Create crappy product
2) Attempt to sell crappy product
3) Fail miserably at #2
4) Tell world a bunch of BS
5) ??????
6) Profit!!!
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
It's us fighting a whole bunch of people that they put on the stage.
:-)
That shouldn't be surprising because he's ATTACKING THE STAGE!!!! Okay he blasts the Linux development process, tries to blackmail Linux users into paying him, starts suing left and right, and then claims that it's all IBM's doing!?!?!? Sounds like he doesn't realize just how many people would strangle him if they could do so legally. I wonder if ESR could sue for libel (he claimed OTR that ESR was on IBM's payroll). In the end, I find this to be some nice amusement at midnight
do you ever get that desire to just mod SCO down to troll? i mean, they might as well be a user here!
"Other bands play, but Manowar KILLS"
But there is another issue, the issue of
SCO 's real source of revenue. ( For those
who don't know, SCO's current source of revenue
is Microsoft funding their anti-Linux campaing.)
SCO is glad to keep their source of revenue
flowing from their biggest customer, Microsoft.
But how can SCO continue their main assignement , their fud campaing,
if the media decides not to continue with the soap opera
when SCO is incoherent with the press releases and
is laughted at in public when they show as "proofs"
like those we received this week? SCO managed to look
ridiculous even to Microsoft! This does not
bode well for them: they lack critical skills.
And besides, maybe SCO even lied to Microsoft
and might have problems coming their way.
( You should be in deep sleep if you still think SCO is in
the litication business. The are in the fuding
business. THe lawsuit is just a prop to keep
their fud campain on public view. They are not
after 3 Billion dollars with such opium-dreaming
claims. And since they spend most of their time funding,
they are probably in the fuding business.)
And I thought Linus was just being figurative...
Furry cows moo and decompress.
First I want to make it clear that I'm not some card carrying ESR zealot. I think ESR is a really smart guy, but sometimes he's nuts. In this case, however, I think he was spot on. Specifically, he had a really cool line:
"To a manipulator, all behaviors are manipulation. To a conspirator, all opposition is conspiracy."
I think Gandalf said something similar regarding Saruman somewhere around the Voice of Saruman chapter. No big deal, just great art and reality reflecting in each other.
Some of ESR's other comments about Mr. McBride remind me that Mr. McBride should go here and pick up some cool gadgets for the enevitable last reel where a bunch of military types bust in on him.
Furry cows moo and decompress.
Did you cum?
Hahaha... settlement!!! As if IBM is going to get them what they want? I hope IBM burns SCO down to their last penny!
I've been running Linux longer than you have, so I want first dibs! (-:
The chutzpah of The SCO Group never ceases to amaze me: here are the extortioners beating up on thousands-to-millions of Linux users, and they complain the IBM wants to lean on them! Feh! Lean, IBM, lean, squash 'em and do it legally, fairly and completely above board. When D'ohl and co get their ticket to a third-world no-extradition-treaty refuge, make sure it's one-way for life!
I don't get it: their core evidence is shown to be hopeless, opening them to all manner of countersuits, and their stock goes... back up by 40%? Wha...? Are their shareholders suicidal, or what?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...and it's so simple, but most people get it backwards. When you recieved a GPLed program, you do not lose rights. The rights granted to you by the GPL are the only rights granting you access to that software.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
SCO is a bully that picked on a bully and now it is time to pay the price. I hope IBM takes SCO out of existance.
SCO has demonstraighted that many busines types in the tech industry believe in making money from extertion, stock manipulation and produce nothing else should be profitable.
SCO is like the kid who stole candy, and is complaining because no one is giving in to their whine and smoke.
Perhaps you should learn to spell.
--Mods giveth, Mods taketh away--
Ref: the historical Linus - Tannenbaum thread
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
The big mean IBM is beating up on them. I feel so sorry for poor little SCO. SCO is so nice, and would never, never beat up on anyone smaller than they are.
"Everything works if you let it" - The Flying Mouse
-- I avoid spam by accepting only OpenPGP encrypted or signed email at this address. Clear-signed, RFC2015, heck, even
Excuse me - getting old and forgetful, but didn't Microsoft give a large chunk of change (change for Bill anyway) to SCO for their legal fight with IBM? And now SCO is complaining that somebody might be paying the other side? Let's see - GPL not valid but SCO using it for Samba, getting paid to bash Linux is OK but if you fight back.... I think I'm going to go off the wagon! This is giving me a headache anyway.
So far, according to Darl McIdiot, we:
1) can't code without copying and
2) aren't smart enough to organize ourselves without help from a big corporation.
This guy just keeps the suprises coming, doesn't he? He must really be the old-school, everything-is-done-by-companies-and-for-a-buck type.
What a bunch of idiots you are, SCO.
The truth is NO ONE could hold back the community from reacting to you the way it has. This is how the community has chewed up and spat out ever other challenge to GNU/Linux in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Take heed. You and your execs will be facing jail time once we're done with you.
Sincerely, GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Sun bought themselves free of the Unix license program a decade ago, so I have no idea how they should fund SCO/Caldera today. Could you please provide a reference to what you are talking about?
where have you been all this time? Welcome back, we've missed you for too long :-)
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]