Slashdot Mirror


Embarrassing Dispatches From The SCO Front

An anonymous reader writes "Dennis Ritchie has acknowledged he with Ken Thompson wrote the code cited as 'proof' by SCO. This seems to fit perfectly with Bruce Perens' Analysis of SCO's Las Vegas Slide Show, and undermine Blake Stowell's claim 'At this point it's going to be his word against ours." Andreas Spengler writes "In the ongoing battle between SCO and the Linux community, German publisher Heise has shown that not only was the Linux implementation of the Berkeley Packet filter written outside of Caldera (now SCO), but that it was common practice there and at other companies to remove the BSD copyright notices from the internally used source code. In effect, SCO has proven publicly that they violated the BSD license." (Warning, article is in German.) Finally, a semi-anonymous reader writes "Learn all about how IBM's stomach will be roasted on a pyre of CDs at WeLovetheSCOInformationMinister."

6 of 715 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds like it's time... by TWX · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...for some software developers whose code was misappropriated by a certain publicly traded company to start filing cease-and-desists against that company for violation of copyright. I wonder how much of SCO's products would be unsellable under such conditions.

    This isn't to say that everyone else is perfect, but then again, everyone else hasn't tried to benefit from open source licenses only to turn around and bash the concept while still using the technology that they gained from such licensing.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  2. Re:SCO's Website Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just a wild conspiracy theory.

    Someone who holds a copyright to some part of the linux kernel has invoked the DMCA with SCO's upstream provider. Since SCO has been distributing the linux kernel in voilation of the GPL, thus violating this person's copyright.

    Doesn't the DMCA give the power to turn off access to the Internet and ask questions later?

  3. Re:SCO's Website Down by mm0mm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What's more intriguing to me is a surge of their stock for the last two days. How could this be possible, after they revealed their own stupidity by showing BSD-lisenced code as smoking guns for IBM/IP case? Who'd buy a pile of shit?

    Maybe hundreds of millions of retarded private investors are visiting SCO.com and that's causing their servers down. hehe

  4. Re:SCO's Website Down by invckb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I believe it was a short squeeze.

    When a stock is borrowed to short, it has to be returned upon demand. The short seller will have to buy replacement shares at the current price. More sellers are willing to sell at this price, which causes more shorted shares to be called for return. This becomes a cycle that can rapidly bump up the price for a day or two.

    Shorting a stock is definitely a short term gamble. It would be better to use options, but they are not offered on SCOX.

  5. Re:SCO's Website Down by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "Doesn't the DMCA give the power to turn off access to the Internet and ask questions later?"

    Yes ... but the person you got shut down merely has to file a "put up or shut up" reply with the ISP, and the person who made the DMCA complaint MUST proceed to filing a formal infringement court case within 10 days or shut up for all time. It's not something you should do lightly.

    Some eBay users were being hassled by a fabric manufacturer, because they mentioned their name and showed the fabric made into various objects, or were reselling vintage fabric. The manufactuer accused them of violating their design copyrights by showing the pictures. It was VERY easy to get them to back off, just by firing back a "sez who?" and teelling them that they had 10 days to file something sreoius. The harassment stopped.

  6. Re:Not so fast by stwrtpj · · Score: 5, Interesting
    DMR worked for AT&T on the code is now owned by SCO. So SCO does have legal ownership of that code and is allowed to control how it is released.

    Caldera later released UNIX System 3 (which contains the same code) into the public domain. This happened after the release under a BSD license, thus this action trumps the first. They can't claim they didn't know what they were doing, as that is no excuse for releasing code that you did not intend.

    --
    Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)