Slashdot Mirror
SCO Says It Has No Plan To Sue Linux Companies
cadfael writes "SCO is reported in the Age as saying they 'Have no plans to sue Linux companies...' This seems to contradict the earlier statements of Chris Sontag. This story also points out how Canopy owns stakes in several other Linux companies, including Linux Networx wheich supplied the supercomputer for Lawrence Livermore Nat Lab. One begins to wonder if the reality of their situation has become clear to them?" Maybe, just maybe, this is the beginning of the end of this mess.
I'd like to see a timeline of events in this whole SCO debacle. Should make for some interesting reading. Skimming back through a billion SlashDot stories would be a pain.
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
We're poor and don't have the money to sue very many people, it's just a threat. Please buy us.
The Age is the only place i could find this story, and it contradicts everything that SCO has said so far. The only somewhat related story I could find is this one. Oh well, maybe I'm just paranoid, but I trust SCO about as much as a nigerian spammer on peyote, so I think they're up to something.
StickMan
www.rageagainst.net
...they sent letters to USERS, not COMPANIES.
They sue the users who can't afford legal costs and will settle just for the sake of avoiding legal hell, and SCO gets a nice precedent running and their stock improves yet further.
Maybe I'm too cynical?
well crap. i was just about to send them my money. guess i'll hang onto it now to see how this all turns out.
Or they could be refering to Australia only. since an Austrailian user group filed a "put up or shut up suit".
Not how you think though... There whole plan was to sabotage open source all along. Not through suing companies, but by keeping all the developers commenting on SCO stories all day.
;)
Think about it. How many articles have there been and how many comments per article? Boy, when the juicy ones came out the number of responses jumped up into the hundreds even nearing a thousand sometimes. Now, imagine if this never happened and all those people got together to work towards one goal. I think with the hours that have been wasted on this story so far, we could've designed and build a mars mission already
I'd like to see a class action suit from shareholders of Linux companies against the SCO executives, for fraudulent stock manipulation.
They went after Martha Stewart for a hell of a lot less than this.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Sounds like the insiders have already sold their shares and they're leaving everyone else holding the bag. Afterall, if they're not gonna go after the Linux folks, I guess their pumping scheme is coming to an end. I knew that lawsuit was a bunch of bunk. You know what comes after pumping? Dumping! Management is now chillin' with a smooth 700% return this year. I guess it's time for the stock to tank now. Just my opinion.
They don't seem to actually have a single consistant position on anything.
Is SCO actually being run by a Perl script that periodically checks their stock price to see if it needs to emit some random statement?
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
They also said they wouldn't sue Linux end users, then changed their tune later.
See, if you say one thing then say the other instead of just saying what you mean first, that means you get to release two press releases and boost your stock twice!
NO CARRIER
Exactly who really tripped out about this shit anyway? It's always been a "You infringe! We have proof! Nobody can see our proof!" (non)shitstorm. I think if SCO had actually had a case we'd be taking a much more serious approach to the situation instead of the rampant SCO jokes. I mean, really, a few PHBs (that didn't want Linux anyway) pretended like this helped their case and the rest of the world kept putting those Slackware/Debian/Redhat/SuSE disks in the drive.
It's not a lie, you mischaracterizing clod. It's just an unlikely version of a truth.
They don't have plans to sue anyone. Their plan is for everyone to spontaniously acquiesce and begin showering them with money. And then they plan to romp through the magical faerie garden on their "red-gold and diamond" Segways where the monkeys poop french vanilla ice cream and Bronson Pinchot gives everyone cocaine boosted hummers.
And while it's only slightly less likely than the proverbial monkeys flying out of my butt, it's not *exactly* a complete fabrication.
I think the lawsuit by Red Hat is what brought this news out. SCO was supposed to respond today (Thursday) but was granted a time extension. In other words - it was put up or shut up time. I think SCO plans on going ahead with it's pump and dump scheme, but is probably trying to get RH to drop the suit. This way they avoid having to show any real evidence. Notice that they did _not_ say their case was wrong. Only that they had no 'concrete plans to sue Linux companies'. I expect more shenanigans. SCO - Stupidity Causes Ossification.
Linux software companies could also become SCO targets. "Do we have potential issues with Red Hat, SuSE and other commercial Linux distributors--yes, we might," Sontag said, adding that chances for negotiating with such companies appear to be slim.
Chris Sontag, senior vice president and general manager of the company's SCOsource business, added: "There is no warranty for infringement of intellectual property [in the GPL], so all of the liability ends up with end users."
Mark Heise, of law firm Boies Schiller and Flexner, representing SCO against IBM, believes SCO is entitled to pursue users based on its claims. "End users are improperly using this copyrighted material, and under copyright law SCO is entitled to damages and injunctive relief," he said.
Chris Sontag, senior vice-president and general manager of SCOsource, which is trying to derive more income from the company's intellectual property, said today: "SCO is taking this important step because there are intellectual property issues with Linux.
"When SCO's own UNIX software code is being illegally copied into Linux, we believe we have an obligation to educate commercial users of the potential liability that could rest with them for using such software to run their business. We feel so strongly about this issue that we are suspending sales and distribution of SCO Linux until these issues are resolved."
asked whether SCO would sue the laboratory, the company spokesperson said: "No. SCO has never made concrete plans to sue anyone."
You can't handle the truth.
These guys have to be smoking SOMETHING to explain the cognitive dissonance in their statements. I mean, "We're not talking about the kernel." "We're talking about the kernel." "We're not going to go after end users." "We're going to go after end users." "Well, we're only going to go after companies but not hobbiests." "We changed our minds again, we never intended to go after anybody."
If only I had the spare ten hours I could go over the last years' press releases and make some "found poetry." Blank verse in this case, of course.
Version 1.12 - Note: Features/bugs listed may not apply to some SCO products/versions
/* SCO OpenServer */ darlsux() ;
/* UnixWare gcc */ darlsux() ;
/* Gemini I cc (SCO UnixWare 7 and UDK) */ darlsux() ;
/* SCO UnixWare cc */ darlsux() ;
/* ODT 3 or earlier */
/* Other platform */
NOTE: This report hereby placed in public domain, use it as you wish, at your own risk!
Additional suggestions, detailed specific recommendations, comments, requested.
Obviously it is a concern to GPL software authors that they maintain compatibility with the SCO platforms, while SCO publicly abuses them, tries to get the GPL declared invalid, and while SCO profits from selling their software and integrating it into future releases of the SCO product line.
Software authors will be aware that breaking SCO compatibility may cause problems for SCO users - (although strictly speaking that is SCO's problem, not the software author(s)', unless the author(s) have some contractual relationship with SCO or SCO customers).
SCO needs support revenue (and new sales revenue) that may depend on GPL products, to fund their PR and litigation. Thus, software authors, who not obligated to support SCO, presumably might want to.
Therefore here is a list of things NOT to do, if you don't want to break SCO compatibility.
1. Don't refactor your code, rearrange files, move functions between files, and rename files more logically in the same release as one which contains accidentally contains one or more SCO incompatible changes.
If you do this, it would make it harder for SCO or their partners to re-introduce any "lost" code that was necessary to support the SCO's platforms. Obviously you wouldn't want that.
2. Don't accidentally remove SCO support in a series of stages, which overlap in time with a bunch of critical security or bug fixes, without making it clear at which stages you accidentally removed SCO support.
3. Don't accidentally remove any special fixes or work rounds for SCO platforms.
4. Don't depend on functions, which are not implemented or perform differently on SCO platforms. Especially don't depend on those functions in lots of different places in your product.
In particular avoid these functions:
(please help with this list - "list 4")
Known bugs in SCO products:
Unixware: accept() does not set the sa_family value correctly for the AF_UNIX family. See http://mail.python.org/pipermail/patches/2001-Augu st/005630.html
Unixware: atan2() does returns pi instead of zero for atan2(0, x). See http://mail.python.org/pipermail/patches/2001-Augu st/005630.html
5. Don't depend on compiler features that might not be available on SCO platforms. This is especially true if, as has been suggested may occur, new versions of GCC don't support SCO platforms.
In particular don't depend on these compiler features:
(please help with this list if and when GCC loses SCO support)
6. Don't put in messages that display only on SCO's platforms.
Avoid putting in code like (and especially not commenting):
#if defined(_SCO_DS)
#elif defined(__UNIXWARE__)
#elif defined(__USLC__)
#if defined( __STDC_VERSION__ ) && __STDC_VERSION__ == 199409
#else
#endif
#elif defined(M_UNIX)
#else
#endif
7. Don't remove support in your makefile for building the application on SCO's platforms.
8. Don't rename your functions and variables with names that conflict with SCO-spe
How could they NOT sue the distributors of the infamous IP infringing products, while they ARE more than willing to sue users of the same IP infringing products? It is like allowing pirate CD vendors on the street to do their job and going after those who bought pirate CDs from that vendor(s). Is it reasonable? At least RIAA is mean ass to everyone, not only to buyers.
Hey McB, so you are now endorsing distribution of illegal product while you demand money from those who bought it? Give me a fsckin break, would you?
in other words they expected everyone would just pay them given the threat of legal action.
"concrete plans"
In other words they don't currently have the financial resources to take on more then one court case.
They did not say anywhere "will not" or "has no intention of".