Slashdot Mirror
More Criticism of SCO's Claims To UNIX
inc_x writes "GROKLAW has a
compelling analysis that shows that SCO's claims that it owns the UNIX operating system are not very truthful. The Open Group confirms this position: "Statements that SCO "owns the UNIX operating system" or has "licensed UNIX to XYZ", are clearly inaccurate and misleading." It seems that SCO finds it increasingly difficult to distinguish facts from fiction. Last week SCO claimed 'This IP battle is only one part of SCO's business and is an add-on component. The core of SCO's business is profitable,' not bothered by the fact that they had claimed the opposite in their SEC filing: 'If we do not receive SCOsource licensing revenue in future quarters and our revenue from the sale of our operating system platform products and services continues to decline, we will need to further reduce operating expenses in order to maintain profitability or generate positive cash flow.'"
it's already there, just select not to see "Caldera" stories from your preferences page, plain and simple.
The IT section color scheme sucks.
Since at least August, SCO have been floating the idea of sending invoices to Linux users. It's even been reported, seemingly incorrectly, back in August, that SCO was beginning to send invoices. The invoice story has been taken up with a vengence in the last few days, for example, here, here and here.
SCO Australia says the invoicing plan doesn't "ring true" and contradicts very recent strategy discussions. Unfortunately, SCO USA's Blake Stowell, doesn't seem to have yet responded to SCO Australia's request for clarification. SCO Australia also says that they're unsure about the question of invoices being sent in the US even though there are reports on the web [examples: here, here and here] about just such a thing being planned.
Yes, that SEC filing was pretty interesting. Here is a quote:
"Due to a lack of historical experience and the uncertainties related to SCOsource licensing revenue, we are unable to estimate the amount and timing of future licensing revenue, if any. If we do receive revenue from this source, it may be sporadic and fluctuate from quarter to quarter. SCOsource licensing revenue is unlikely to produce stable, predictable revenue for the foreseeable future. "
Can be found here:
Lamlaw.com
The guy keeps an ongoing watch for the news articles and makes legal commentary wrt what's happening. He tends to be very insightful and makes good points.
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
is it useful? See, the lawsuit is about a contract breach, i.e. whether it's legal for IBM (and possibly SGI?) to put UNIX Sys V code in Linux, not the name. It would be more useful to discuss the facts such as: the code was written by Sequent - now part of IBM; UNIX Sys V source came with a retarded license; etc. Exactly who owns the name "UNIX" is completely irrelevant.
"The core of SCO's business is profitable,' not bothered by the fact that they had claimed the opposite in their SEC filing: 'If we do not receive SCOsource licensing revenue in future quarters and our revenue from the sale of our operating system platform products and services continues to decline, we will need to further reduce operating expenses in order to maintain profitability or generate positive cash flow.'"
This is not an incorrect statement by SCO. They are saying IF they do not receive SCOsource licensing revenue in FUTURE (not now or past) quarters and their revenue CONTINUES TO DECLINE [in the future, not now or past quarters] then they will be unprofitable. There is nothing in that statement that says that the core business is unprofitable now or previously.
See kids? Thats why education (university) and reading comprehension is important in life.
SCO is a member of Open Group, so that's not all that likely. Besides, I'd prefer to keep the ability to use "UNIX" purely a function of the operating system's virtues, not of politics.
Really?
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
...their second quarter 10Q reported a $4.5 million profit on the basis of $6.1 million in net licensing revenue. Pull out the net licensing revenue, and SCO had a $1.6 million loss for the quarter.
What the SCOspeak in the filing cited in the article means is that if licensing revenues don't increase, then the mounting losses from their core business are going to drag the company's bottom line into the red.
And, yes, that means their core business is currently unprofitable and, as their Q2 financial shows, has been in the past. In fact, the only profitable quarters in the company's history have been the last two quarters of the current fiscal year. The profits for both of those quarters are exclusively attributable to "licensing revenues".
In short, SCO's "core business" -- whatever that is or was -- has always been unprofitable.
See, kids? That's why knowing how to read a financial statement is more important than anything you learn in school.
The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected. -- Will Rogers
Huh? The copied code issue *IS* the issue. Absolutely it will be put before the jury.
Get it straight. The lawsuit is a contract dispute. Basically whether IBM is allowed to contribute IBM derived code to the Linux kernel, not Unix System V code.
The SCO PR engine is trying to convince people that Unix System V code has been contributed to the Linux kernel and therefore SCO owns Linux.
Your confusion is understandable, SCO is trying their best to obfuscate the two issues.
Angel Investors is, in turn, very closedly associated with LDS.
Closely associated in what way?
Even if the Church itself is invested in Angel Investors (which is unlikely), it's very unlikely that the Church leadership has any knowledge whatsoever of this whole fiasco. And there certainly is no obvious reason why the Church would be interested in killing Linux.
Heck, the Church *uses* Linux. Not widely; until a couple of years ago their I/T department was a totally Microsoft shop, but they've become unhappy with sending all that cash to Redmond, when it could obviously be used for much worthier purposes. A couple of years back, however, they decided to try a different approach, hiring a new team of experienced developers for a new project and allowing them to pick their own tools. They picked Linux as an OS, use open source tools where applicable and write their own stuff in Java, using XP methodology (including pair programming).
Like any organization that is extremely cost-sensitive (and churches are far more cost-sensitive than even the most tightly-run business), the LDS church sees significant value in a free as in... er... punch and cookies operating system. They have traditionally employed very cheap I/T staff, so they aren't well-equipped to see the value of software that is free as in freedom, but eventually that'll become obvious as well, I'm sure.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.