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.'"
I think the Open SCOurce developer community would greatly benefit of having full access to the code for the greatly-acclaimed UNIX operating system. It would enable academics all over the world (especially in cold Scandinavian countries) to release their low-cost operating systems that are similar to UNIX. Some kernel components such as memory management could be enhanced instead of using 30-year old algorithms that may be misinterpreted by certain corporations as being propriatery.
We must encourage the grass-roots developers to add to the global intellectual property by releasing great variants of UNIX-based operating systems so that we can topple the dichotomy that Microsoft presents to computer science progress.
Only when we liberate the high memory block in the Expanded memory pool can we launch the necessary TSRs for MSCDEX support.
Which is nice.
Wearing pants should always be optional.
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.
If SCO setup an entertainment program, I would be more than willing to chip in a few bucks.
I mean, you just can't make this stuff up.
Well, unless you are SCO, I mean.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Darl here, and I'm afraid this is one shortcoming we've got to own up to. The explanation for our warped perception is pretty straightforward, however -- You see, we here at SCO have started reading Slashdot.
On the contrary. For short term investors, SCO has been a good buy since they first filed the suit. Look at this SCO stock chart.
Now, I feel that this won't last for too long but, it will likely last for as long as they can keep their name in the news. Once it finally goes to court, probably in 2004, it will all be over. But, for the next three to six months, SCOX is still a good buy.
Look, SCO news is a must read. Why should you care? Simple: even if you are burned out on SCO you need to know enough to be able to defend against it.
K, so you just don't care about Linux. Do you care about Open Source in general? It's not just a Linux problem, it's an open source problem. Sure, Linux is the blame stick here, but Linux is just the tip of the iceberg. Linux is just a proxy for the whole Open Source way of doing things. Where do you think the next 'lines of code' will be found? Who owns the copyrights for main()? Old Bell labs? K&R? SCO?
Yeah, you think that's silly question.
What this whole SCO thing is about is modern day robber barons. CEO-theives who think they can create a high level of fear and uncertainty from suits; enough that they will listen, enough that they will wonder, enough that they will pay.
Unfortunately, this is not the scary thing; the scary thing, sad though it sounds, is that they are doing this with legal means. We can bitch and moan about how wrong they are, but you don't see them in 'cuffs do you? This is the exact same sort of tactic (RIAA, Microsoft, and a cast of thousands) that is used to circumvent freedoms of ideas, ideals, and individuality.
Care or not care, but understand what you are doing, understand the implications, and understand that you or someone/something you care about may be next.
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
Who buys the stocks that SCO "dump"?
Read the Friday August 29th page of Groklaw. There's a company called Integral Capital Management V that's bought enough recently that they had to file a 13G with the SEC. Curiously, shortly after they bought a big interest in Drugstore.com no long ago, a person by the name of Melinda French Gates was appointed to a seat on that company's board or directors. Hmmmm....
Seems to be the usual overload of people bitching about too many SCO stories. Here is a simple answer:
Don't read them. Some of us want a daily SCO update. It's ok that you don't want daily stories, but you can read the other stories instead of filling up the place with complains.
It's just unnecessary.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
When you see roadkill on the road, don't you feel tempted to poke it with a pointy stick? Well, it's the same with the SCO stories. It disgusts us, but we cannot help ourselves from jabbering about it.
Wearing pants should always be optional.
Mod parent down, and try reading the article.
The point of the article is that SCO asserts in their media appearances, press releases, and most importantly, their court filings, that (1) UNIX is a single operating system, (2) all based on the AT&T code, (3) SCO own the AT&T code
The artice demonstrates, that (1) and (2) are false, and SCO must know that.
(1) Is demonstrated to be false, by the very definition of UNIX,
(2) Is demonstrated to be false, by the existence of S/390 UNIX, and by the fact that Windows NT could become UNIX in future, etc.
The fact that SCO must know that is demonstrated by SCO's history with trademark licensing and attribution, UNIX certification of SCO products, etc.
This headlines are getting boring. I have some sugestions:
SCO to Sue God
Darl McBride Caught in Bizarre Love Triangle With Bill Gates, Penguin
Darl McBride to Rename Self Darth McBride, Builds Death Star
SCO Accidentally Sues Self For 10 Billion
Local Man Wonders What Is This SCO Shit
SCO Enters Partnership With Gorzo the Mighty (subtitle: New Corporate Motto: "Seize Him!")
Infinite Number of Monkeys Write UNIX, Sued by SCO
In this article "SCO's next target: SGI?"h tml), we find this gem:
(http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5072061.
In his August presentation, [SCO senior vice president Chris ] Sontag
said XFS in Linux includes 173 files and 119,130 lines of code that
infringe the company's intellectual property.
Oh reaaaaly?
Hm, how many lines are in Linux XFS?
[nobody@penguin xfs-kern-2.6.0]$ find . -name \*.[c,h] | xargs wc --lines
133482 total
Yay! SGI still owns 14,352 lines I guess.
Wait, but they said lines of code... strip comments & blank lines:
[nobody@penguin xfs-kern-2.6.0]$ find . -name \*.[c,h] | xargs stripcmt | grep -v ^$ | wc --lines
92618
So, they claim to own 26,512 more lines of code in Linux XFS than -actually exist- in the codebase.
Darl McBride
SCO GROUP INC
355 South 520 West, Suite 100
Lindon, UT 84042
My Dear Friend,
I hope this letter finds you in good health. This is the letter of the Unix past. It will bring you great fortune. All you have to do is pay the party mentioned above, a small sum ff $699. Then immediately send this letter to six other friends. If you do so, you will have great luck.
Mr. Scott McNealy of Santa Clara, CA immediately paid the above mentioned money and sent the letter to his friends. Great luck came to him. The sun will always shine in his little kingdom
William Gates of Redmond, WA paid the sum immediately. All his legal troubles melted away. He became extremely rich and powerful.
Samuel Palmisano of Armonk, NY ignored this letter. Great ill luck be fell him. His rights were aixed. The great plague of Boise swooped down on him. He lost everything.
So please don't ignore this letter. Immediately do as directed and have the Lady Luck of Unix smile upon you.
Desi Noise, Live!
I don't think that Red Hat, SuSE, or any of the other Linux vendors are going to give SCO a list of people who have purchased Linux so that SCO can turn around and send out invoices.
Sure, SCO can assume that some Fortune 500 companies are using Linux in some way and send out invoices to those, but, I don't see how SCO will have any solid proof that any of them is using, say, Red Hat Linux unless someone tells SCO first that such and such company is using Red Hat.
So company X gets an invoice from SCO and ignores it. What is SCO going to do? Send someone out from SCO, unannounced, that just shows up and expects to be able to do a thourough audit of the companie's computer networks to find any trace of Linux? Even though SCO may have said that they'd do audits like this, do you really think that SCO is going to have the manpower and money to audit literally thousands of companies?
If you think SCO can do that, I'll show up at your company Monday morning and demand an on-site audit so that I can do a complete network audit and look for any Linux machines that might be running any code that I have personally written. I expect full cooperation. I'll send my bill to you the day before I get there.
The bottom line is that while SCO may send out invoices to customers for using Linux, SCO doesn't have much of an idea which of those customers are using Linux, unless Linux vendors have shared their customer list with SCO in the first place. That, or SCO is doing some sort of Internet scanning looking for Linux systems. And don't think for a minute that most companies will put up with SCO coming to do a audit of all their computers.
Its time that SCO puts up or shuts up. I'm getting tired of reading the SCO posts on /. and in the media, even for their entertainment value.
SCO's case against IBM has nothing to do with copyright. SCO is intentionaly trying to confuse 2 different issues
1) a contract dispute with IBM
2) alledged copying of UNIX code into Linux
When SCO refers a million lines of code they are talking about code that is copyright by IBM and other unix licencees that SCO beleives should not have been added to Linux. SCO does NOT own the copyright to that code, and has admitted it publically. Even in IBM is found guilty of innappropriatly copying the code into Linux, SCO still will not own the copyright to that code.
By repeating there allegation regarding a million lines of code they are trying to strengthen thier argument for users to pay for licences. Nobody outside of SCO knows how much code they are claiming is copied from unix into linux.
So it is unlikley that the copied code issue will even be put before the jury.
Yes, yes, this is the conspiracy theorist in me sure, but read this and make up your own mind.
" We initiated the SCOsource effort to review the status of these licensing and sublicensing agreements and to identify others in the industry that may be currently using our intellectual property without obtaining the necessary licenses. This effort resulted in the execution of two license agreements during the April 30, 2003 quarter. The first of these licenses was with a long-time licensee of the UNIX source code which is a major participant in the UNIX industry and was a "clean-up" license to cover items that were outside the scope of the initial license. The second license was to Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") and covers Microsoft's UNIX compatibility products, subject to certain specified limitations. These license agreements are typical of those we expect to enter into with developers, manufacturers, and distributors of operating systems in that they are non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, paid up licenses to utilize the UNIX source code, including the right to sublicense that code.
The amount that we receive from any such licensee will generally depend on the license rights that the licensee previously held and the amount and level of our intellectual property the licensee desires to license. The two licensing agreements signed by us to date resulted in revenue of $8,250,000 during the quarter ended April 30, 2003, and provide for an aggregate of an additional $5,000,000 to be paid to us over the next three quarters. These contracts do not provide for any payments beyond 2003, except that Microsoft was granted the option to acquire expanded licensing rights, at its election, that would result in additional payments to us if exercised. In connection with the execution of the first license agreement, we granted a warrant to the licensee to purchase up to 210,000 shares of our common stock, for a period of five years, at a price of $1.83 per share. This warrant has been valued, using the Black-Scholes valuation method, at $500,000. Because the warrant was issued for no consideration, $500,000 of the license proceeds have been recorded as warrant outstanding and the license revenue associated with this arrangement has been reduced for the fair value of the warrant. "
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown