Slashdot Mirror
SCO Run-Time Licenses: Get 'em While They're Hot!
ddtstudio writes "Well, if you've been holding off your payments to SCO for your Linux usage, eWeek reports that you need wait no longer. SCO has now made available for your IP pleasure their run-time licenses -- that is, if you can get one. Seems there are some problems getting even sales people at SCO to answer the phone. Is this any way to run a business?"
what to point darlmcbride.com to next...?
answers on a postcard..
I, for one, welcome our new Unix overlords.
Seems like an appropriate title.. Thieving bastards...
-B
It must be like using the gtk file dialog, except with acid in your eyes!
$699 for a single CPU license? Jeez... I bet (even if SCO had a valid case, and they won the lawsuit[s]), almost everyone would go to a non-System V OS rather than use UnixWare... What makes them think they can get that amount of money from anyone, even if they win the case[s]?
When is the business world gonna wake up and *SMACK* SCO so I can cover my short positions? Frickin' knew I shoulda bought at $10, instead I placed my faith in justice and shorted them... Oh well, at least I can add my name to the list of those screwed by SCO ;-)
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
Maybe you can't get a salesman on the phone becuase they didn't actually expect anyone to call and want to buy one?
Or it's just a cheap screening tactic to try and weed out the 2 real buyers from the 800 anti-SCO people who just want to argue with them?
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Me neither, so why are you waiting to move on to a real OS like Linux (I also got fed up with the Mickey Mouse software offerings from MS).
/. you should be downloading some ISO's and move on to better things (I'm so glad I have!)
Instead of whining on your post to
What if you called SCO and told them that you have X copies of linux (non SCO) and asked them to send you an invoice. If they then actually invoiced you for a product you never bought from them could you then charge them with fraud?
Is it legal for company A to send you an invoice for a product you got from company B?
War is necrophilia.
The reason you can't get through to the sales staff is because they're too busy operating their huge laser on the SCO death star.
The point is: drive our stock up, up, up! Then sell... and screw the little guy! Yeah, that's the ticket...
Web Design & Software Development
are the MS bashing ones.
You may be able to get it, but those of us with slow connections have real problems - please do not screw over people without connections as fast as yours - we need to have the text here.
Thank you!
And I was just beginning to worry about not being in SCOmpliance....
:)(smile)
"I have called SCO three times, and each time, an operator took my contact info and said I would get a fat cock up the ass soon. But I have had nothing.
hey mod, how about reading it before modding up the trolls?
As a businessman with a lot at stake for the various companies I have responibility for, I'll be carefully considering whether I should buy one of these licences. I know that won't be a popular position here, but I have to be practical about this.
Of course, I haven't dicussed any of this with anyone at SCO so far, so I don't know yet how good a case they have.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
Is this any way to run a business?
Therein lies the key. Since when did it become a business? I thought the consensus had pretty much realized by now this was a Pump-And-Dump scheme?
"PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
1.claim owning Linux.
2.hold a suitcase against IBM.
3.
4.
5.Profit!
"SCO also wants customers to be aware that the license is a binary, run-time-only license"
I'm sorry but having to search the web for vb300.dll or whatever was so 1990's.
No, this is what they are saying. RTFA!
SCO got more than 900 calls the first week after announcing the licensing program, Stowell said. Of those, 300 were serious inquiries
:)
That means 2/3 of the callers told SCO to go fsck themselves.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
SCO is on the run now, that's why its called Run-Time
New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
I find it quite disturbing that the EWeek article comes across as if linux does have SCO's IP in it, while this has still yet to be proved. It does state in the end of the article that the FSF and other org's say that nobody should buy a licence, but the impression of the article is just wrong. It is generally accepted that SCO's claims are nothing but fluff, and there is mounting evidence against their claims, but SCO seems to be hell bent on causing anarchy and getting brought out by IBM. But the slant of the article is sending the wrong sort of message.
Nero-burning ROM for Linux!
IBM, Sony, etc. etc. don't matter huh? Who else is there? (MS doesn't count, they're not a company as much as snake oil merchants).
/.ers screwin' with 'em).
It's actually proof that no one is taking them seriously (I wonder how many of the 900 calls were from
BTW, you need to work on your trolling skillz -- this is a pretty lame attempt.
Actually, the companies that matter are the small businesses. Who do you think the Fortune 500-size companies do business with?
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
I think I'll wait until the next minor release of the license once it's more stable.
This is SCO's idea of the travelling salesman problem?
Quoth the article:
...and the other 600 were /. users DDoSing the phone network in Utah. Great job guys!
SCO got more than 900 calls the first week after announcing the licensing program, Stowell said. Of those, 300 were serious inquiries that could immediately be followed up on...
SCO isn't interested in a piddly amount of small payoffs. They want the big billion dollar plus pay day from IBM.
My Weblog
I offer to pay with a 1024x768, 24-bit image of my middle finger.
a run-time license that lets buyers use the company's intellectual property that is contained in Linux distributions
In other words, a zero-length file...
Oh wait, my mistake; there are millions of lines of SCO code in Linux. Entire programs, even.
seriously guys, SCO has a legiitimate claim to the UNIX code, right? *looks around* hm.. no one here!
Game Overdrive - Gaming News
The problem is with the magic-8-ball they use to make decisions and decide on business models. Right now it's "try again later" function is in an endless loop. Don't worry, someone will come along and reboot it soon (shake shake shake) and it will be back to "no", "maybe", and "file a lawsuit."
I thought the code in question was for SMP versions. Isnt a single cpu license a bit of a non sequitur.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Is there a toll free 800 number that I can call to talk to a salesman about getting a license? I would certainly like to. I would suggest that maybe the next SCO story de jour be posted early in the business day and include an an SCO 800 number that we can all call and get more information on this wonderful SCO offering.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
As long as your giving money to people who never bothered to prove that they own what they're selling you, I'm going to go ahead and claim that I own something in the Linux kernel too. Like SCO, I won't tell you what I claim to own, but I'll only charge you $400/CPU for it.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
There are some real first ammendment issues here folks.
- Sony Vaio running stock Red Hat 6.x (slightly dead at the moment)
- Dell Optiplex running almost latest Gentoo install with one CPU
- Custom dual Xeon 2 GHz with hyperthreading enabled running Red Hat 9
So how many CPUs can I license? 1? 2? 3? 5? 6?Times $700? Time to get a job at KFC to pay for my licenses...
What is your Slash Rating?
If they can state exactly what it is that I'm licensing, and prove to me they have the rights to charge license fees for it, then I'd love to see it.
Failing that, they're racketeering vaporware.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
I dont know about you guys, but I already moved to running the GNU Hurd months ago.
Chris Sontag - Senior Vice President and General Manager, SCOsource
But what do their employees think?
And by that I mean the coders (if they have any left)?
Sure, the sales people are just doing their job, but what about the coders at the company? Surely they can't believe the drivel thats coming from above?
Is there actually anyone left in that company that has more than 2 ethical brain cells?
Remember, this company was once Caldera, who produced a linux distro, so is there anyone left from those days?
I use to have a funny sig, but slash cut it off, and I forgot what the punchline was.
See the following new letter (dated Sept 9th!):
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/34007.htm
Crisco, too.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
SCO Director Blake Stowell said the company is willing to negotiate pricing
Here in America we don't negotiate with terrorists.
Someone you trust is one of us.
How's that working out for you? I've been thinking about trying it. Does it have an installer yet? I don't mind text-based installers, but I'm too lazy to build from scratch.
Does anyone have this? I want to call and negotiate the prices for licensing my 500+ CPUs running Linux. ASAP please. I'll let you know how it all turns out.
My offer is this: nothing. Not even the $699 for the linux license, which I would appreciate if you would put up personally.
We will give you a license to run this code we fail to identify. It's not a license to all unix code but only the code we claim is in linux kernels 2.4 and 2.5, and it's a binary only license but we don't actually compile it, someone else does. We won't actually tell you what you are paying for, and what you may not modify or contribute to. You are just going to have to trust us.
Well... I think it's only approperate to respond in binary... Enclosed is a hex represnation so in order to bypass the lameness filter
46 55 43 4B 20 5A 4F 55 21 21 21
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
The article starts with...
The SCO Group has been threatening corporate Linux users with legal action unless they obtain a license for its intellectual property, but until now, businesses have been unable to buy that license.
Now I may not be kept up to date on the current SCO status but I thought last week SCO said they have no plans to sue linux users - no?
So if they are not going to sue, what motivation would anyone have to but a licence?
And how the heck can they demand payment before clearing establishing their IP?
The little guy isn't buying that stock. All the stock that is being dumped by the execs is being bought up by a company with Bill Gate's wife on it's board.
Ah yes. Thanks so much, Eric Raymond, for your BS unsubstantiated statements that are now being touted by SCO and the media alike. Your desire to remain in the spotlight and take credit for all you can has hurt the free software community far more than any DDOS, even if the DDOS turns out to be real and not some fanciful allegation spun into yet another "open source hippies are hackers with no respect for the law or the property of others" story. For more on possible non-DDOS scenarios, wade through Groklaw comments and Yahoo Finance's SCOX board.
> As a businessman with a lot at stake for the various companies I have responibility for, I'll be carefully considering whether I should buy
> one of these licences. I know that won't be a popular position here, but I have to be practical about this.
> Of course, I haven't dicussed any of this with anyone at SCO so far, so I don't know yet how good a case they have.
Let them take the first step. If you haven't received one of their infamous letters, you can safely ignore the whole business. It's not your job to follow their press releases. If you have, your legal advisors should demand detailed clarification first. I can't imagine it would be difficult for a lawyer to stall them until there are actual court rulings from either the Redhat or the IBM case.
Okay, here's something that should gum up the works for SCO. EVERYBODY CALL THEM requesting a license, and disconnect just before the point to where any money changes hands. Should tie up their phone lines real good if all the jillions of Linux users do this.
- David
Seems there are some problems getting even sales people at SCO to answer the phone
What does a litigation company need with sales people?
"I have called SCO three times, and each time, an operator took my contact info and said I would get a fat cock up the ass soon.
Dear Sco...
I think you for your interest in providing the valuable service of a cock up my ass for such a low fee, however, having a cock in my ass is just not my cup of tea. I'd like to inquire whether your service would offer an alternative, like a bearded taco on my face. While I'm sure some members of the open source community might very well enjoy a cock in the ass, this is a personal choice and is not accepted by everyone as being an enjoyable experience.
Those of us who enjoy bearded tacos in the face would greatly applicate it if market research took on the responsibility of evaluating whether or not your product is preferred to be taken anally or orally. An anal only solution is just considered to be acceptable by some.
You sound like you will be interested in buying a license from me: I've done some work that was illegally included into MS products -- I'll be taking them to court soon, as I now own all of MS software offerings (since they stole my IP).
If you act now I'll charge you less, if you wait until I can claim my IP stake in court, the fees will go up.
I will be suing for 5 billion dollars, and if any of your customers are running any MS software they're not in compliance!
Since you sound like the type of person that wants to have all bases covered, I'm sure you'll be glad to know that I am only charging $100 for use of MS Office, and $50 for use of the OS.
I'll follow up with a bank account where you can send your license fees -- it's, as you imply, better to be safe than sorry!
PS
you'll be comforted to know that not a single fortune 500 company has yet bought my licenses, but I've had plenty of phone calls inquiring about my ownership of all MS software -- just so you know that I'm legitimate.
Sadly I was unable to register my Linux installs on sco.com. You see, after entering my information, except for SCO Linux, there is not realy an option that describes my personal Linux solutions, so I was unable to register my Linux with SCO. Ohwell.. I don't think they can send mail to fake@real.com anywho.
I have many times thought about imaging all the CDs and P2P-ing them for this annoyance.....
I propose a ban be placed on usage this particular Ob Simpson's quote. Its being over-used and thus the vale of it has been depreciated completely.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
I just don't understand this. Caldera OpenLinux was released with the Linux 2.4 kernel. This was obviously released under the GPL which would state that Caldera then gave away all of its rights it had to the users. I find it interesting that SCO is completely ignoring this fact. Essentially, anyone who has ever used Caldera OpenLinux could just as easily demand that SCO pay them money for the licenses, since they possess the same rights to the code in the 2.4 kernel as SCO does. Drives me crazy.
This sounded like the same sort of crap Microsoft was spouting regarding Open Source and it's "viral licensing" a couple of years ago. If "Software Assurance" ain't viral licensing, I don't know what is.
I love the out-of-context "quotes" from Bruce Perens. Say, Love, the reason the code "didn't belong in Linux" is because the particular platform for which it was written was never used by more than ten people, and even they aren't using it anymore.
I gave up after page 1. I wanted to keep my burrito down.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
As a businessman with a lot at stake for the various companies I have responibility for, I'll be carefully considering whether I should buy one of your licences. I know that won't be a popular position here, but I have to be practical about this.
Of course, I haven't dicussed any of this with you so far, so I don't know yet how good a case you have.
And this is why.
This sig no verb.
...was also a shitty company! Having a linux distro means nothing.
-pyrrho
Blech... licenses.
Why hasn't Disney ever sued SCO for having used a portion of Mickey's head in the Caldera logo for so long?
Kevin
Intresting, I tried to call and could not get though. Wonder if it's going to be like this in court:
"Well, we offered licensing. Publicized that we offered it but no one took us up on the offer your honor. What more could we do?"
Then they go about laying out lawsuits like the RIAA. Kinda scary when you think about it that way.
Actually, GNU/Debian is suspending Hurd development for a while, owing to expanding license concerns tied to the SCO case. This is already in the slashdot submission queue.
ERS did not (and presumably)still doesn't know the identity of the alleged hack.
Did Perens, in fact, say that? I don't remember reading it. SCOX can say all day that it owns System V and it doesn't mean anything, of course, but I don't remember reading that "quote" by Perens.
WWW
You can't spell "Unix" without "UN".
(It's all part of the New World Order plot. Join us while you still can.)
In Soviet Russia, SCO sues... oh wait, that doesn't fit the joke.
Hrm, how about:
In Soviet Russia, SCO licenses you!
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
I use 2.2.x you insensitive clod!
well just for the hell of it I called SCO (Or S.C.O. according to their switchboard) do the usual, press here for product or purchasing info, press there for a representative....
Well when I got the guy, I basically inquired about the 'sco/linux' licenses that I keep hearing about on the news.
him: "What do you need to know?"
him: "Have you read the press release?"
him: "Have you seen the lawsuit information?"
Me: "I don't have internet access, I just wanted to know what I need to buy so I don't get in trouble. Can you please mail(snail) me the license agreement, some product information, and purchasing information so I can send you a cheque?"
Him: "...?"
EOF
He didn't know what to say. Apparently a sales rep will call me back, but all I want is something on paper that says what this license _is_.
How come if you called anyone else and said "I want to purchase a license for this software" They would jump on it and get your CC# when all SCO is doing is going on and on about lawsuits? This has to be a joke.
Ok. end rant.
HURD - Hurd's Under Research & Development
Since you have responsibilities, then don't be irresponsible (actually dumb in this case). From the article...
Los Alamos Computers' Sandine said that given the lack of information available, it would be "irresponsible of any business owner to send $699 per CPU to SCO."
I suspect your are trolling but what are you risking by not buying licence? After several years of court cases and if you happen to find yourself in the odd multiverse that SCO won then at that time you would be legally responsible for a licence at the going rate of $699. Just think of the interest you will have saved.
... it's cluless to think purges solve cultural problems. nope. Yeah I know it was a joke! An ironic one!
-pyrrho
I think the SCO Information Minister should try holding his breath until Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory buys a mountain of licences for the 2,304 processors in the MCR Cluster...
The SCO guy (who's nervously flicking his Bic) believes that he can smell some burning wires in my store. For $699/CPU he will insure me against fire hazards.
Is that about right?
... literally and figuratively
Say Ralphie, shouldn't you be talking to your lawyers about IBM's supena, rather than spending time on slashdot trolling?
Don't argue against demagogy.
SCO got more than 900 calls the first week after announcing the licensing program, Stowell said. Of those, 300 were serious inquiries that could immediately be followed up on
Man, I'd *love* to hear recordings of those other 600 calls!
2003-07-01 03:36:56 Is this SCO? Yeah, hi. I think I have SCO intellectual property up in my ass. Do you want me to send you the toilet paper tomorrow after I wipe for verification, or should I just go ahead and buy the license? Is that per cheek or can we cover both with one? Hello?
2003-07-24 09:45:22 Can I talk to Darl McBride? My name is Darryl Smith and I'm pretty sure that Darl is an unauthorized derivative work on my name which I own the copyright on. Sure I do! Yeah, I need to talk to him right now he owes me a license? What? Okay I'll call back every five minutes until he comes in.
2003-07-25 10:25:02 Hello, SCO? This is Bill. Crazy busy right now but I wanted to let you know, you guys are doing great! Keep up the good work. I'll be sending some suggestions and money next week.
(It's ESR - Eric S. Raymond)
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1997/Nov9 7/scopr.asp
REDMOND, Wash.-November 24, 1997 - Microsoft Corporation today applauded the decision of the European Commission to close the file and take no further action on a dispute between Microsoft and Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) involving a 1987 contract. The Commission's decision follows progress by Microsoft and SCO to resolve a number of commercial issues related to the contract, and upholds Microsoft's right to receive royalty payments from SCO if software code developed by Microsoft is used in SCO's UNIX products.
Wrote to SCO, and after a couple of weeks received an answer: If we run a 2.4 kernel on our server, we don't need licenses on 1000+ client machines running 2.2 kernels where said clients simply run their processes on the 2.4 kernel equipped server, and *display* them locally using the power of the X-windows system. Have it writing from them that in this scenario, only one (1) license would be required. This may help others, it may not, but it is an alternative our lawyers suggested.
Powered by FreeBSD! The Ultimate Windows XP Service Patch.
In a new article, SCO's Blake Stowell is quoted as saying, "As of Tuesday [Sept. 2], we actually began making the license available. Selling it and mailing it to someone is not something we've actually done as yet, but as of today we are able to do that".
l t.asp?detect=1&symbol=SCOX&close_date=8%2F11%2F03& x=48&y=18
o n=l&mid=&board=1600684464&sid=1600684464&tid=cald& start=26210
0 110254203000049/xslF345X02/edgardoc.xml
0 110254203000049/xslF345X02/edgardoc.xml s tomer_1.html 1 817&e=2&u=/zd/20030905/tc_zd/59210&sid=9612075 1
Excuse me for being shocked, but didn't SCO announce on August 11th in a press release, that they'd sold the first license? And didn't SCO then go on to tell us that SCO had signed up at least one additional customer since it sold its first IP License for Linux on Aug. 11?
Wait there's more...
There is an interesting coincidence about the timing of 1st license announcement.
According to marketwatch.com on 11 August:
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/historical/defau
Stock opened at $10.45
Heavy trading (965,500 shares)
Fell to a low of $8.27. From Yahoo message board (see below) this low appears to be part of a sharp decline around late lunch time.
Stock closed at $9.289
Go look around here for what was being said on the yahoo board around 1.30 to 2pm this time: http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&acti
The press release when SCO announced their first license was at 2.03pm ET according to the time stamp on it:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030811/lam083_1.html
No doubt the timing is all coincidence.
Another coincidence is that Michael Olson, had a 10b5-1 sell on that day:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/00
No doubt, another coincidence.
So here's the quick summary:
1. SCO issued a press release, August 11, saying they sold their first Linux IP license: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030811/lam083_1.html
2. The press release, luckily for SCO, appeared immediately after the stock crashed to a low of $8.27
3. A SCO insider had a pre-arranged plan to sell stock (and did so) on that day , 11 August: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/00
4. In September, SCO later said they had sold at least one other Linux IP license: http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/03/HNscocu
5. In September, SCO later said they hadn't sold any Linux IP licenses: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=
6. I am not sure of the order of articles 4 and 5 in date, but article 4 appears to have been published before 5.
Also on special: licenses to breath in California. $5.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I will happily pay SCO $699 for a copy of the list of THOSE 300 customers! Seems like a good investment ;-)
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
goatse.cx ?
Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
Beat the rush! Get yours now while there are still some left!
Just tear off as much as you need, sign it (in brown), then mail it to SCO using the appropriate recepticle..
(You'll know what to do!)
He wasn't that specific. He said "SCO/Caldera's site is being hit by a massive denial-of-service attack today. The timing, the scuttlebutt on Slashdot and elsewhere, and the contents of my mailbox all suggest strongly that the DOS attack was triggered by Darl McBride's slanderous interview[2] accusing the community of being IBM's sock puppets, and my response[3] to it."
No, not at all. The code is clearly not protected by SysV copyright, it goes back much further, to an ancient public domain version of Unix. He did say it shouldn't have been there to begin with, which is true of course, that file was a hack in the negative sense of the word and had been removed from the tree for being 'too ugly to live' long before anyone knew that this was one of SCOs examples. You can read the full analysis if you want the details.
Darl crossed the line between deceptive and manipulative misuse of quotes to flat out verifiable lying there.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Dated september 9th you say? ... So it IS fiction!
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/34007.htm
From the above link, this quote:
The second development was an admission by Open Source leader Bruce Perens that UNIX System V code (owned by SCO) is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn't be there. Mr Perens stated that there is "an error in the Linux developer's process" which allowed Unix System V code that "didn't belong in Linux" to end up in the Linux kernel (source: ComputerWire, August 25, 2003). Mr Perens continued with a string of arguments to justify the "error in the Linux developer's process." However, nothing can change the fact that a Linux developer on the payroll of Silicon Graphics stripped copyright attributions from copyrighted System V code that was licensed to Silicon Graphics under strict conditions of use, and then contributed that source code to Linux as though it was clean code owned and controlled by SGI. This is a clear violation of SGI's contract and copyright obligations to SCO. We are currently working to try and resolve these issues with SGI.
This appears to be the ComputerWire article referred to
http://au.news.yahoo.com/030826/20/lfff.html
The paragraph in which the "error" quote reads:
The other SCO code snippet Perens walks through had to do with memory allocation functions in Unix System V and Linux. He says there was, in fact, "an error in the Linux developer's process," specifically a programmer at SGI, and he says while the Linux community had the legal right to this code, it didn't belong in Linux and was therefore removed.
I looked what Perens said in the original (referred to be ComputerWire)
Slides 10 through 14 show memory allocation functions from Unix System V, and their correspondence to very similar material in Linux. Some of this material was deliberately obfuscated by SCO, by the use of a Greek font. I've switched that text back to a normal font.
In this case, there was an error in the Linux developer's process (at SGI), and we lucked out that it wasn't worse. It turns out that we have a legal right to use the code in question, but it doesn't belong in Linux and has been removed.
These slides have several C syntax errors and would never compile. So, they don't quite represent any source code in Linux. But we've found the code they refer to. It is included in code copyrighed by AT&T and released as Open Source under the BSD license by Caldera, the company that now calls itself SCO. The Linux developers have a legal right to make use of the code under that license. No violation of SCO's copyright or trade secrets is taking place.
In this case, there was an error in the Linux developer's process (at SGI), and we lucked out that it wasn't worse. It turns out that we have a legal right to use the code in question, but it doesn't belong in Linux and has been removed.
maybe i should get a license. when SCO goes outta biznez (i.e. all the execs sell their stocks), i can sell on ebay for atleast $1400...... ;)
there is a bright side to every problem
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
Say Ralphie, shouldn't you be talking to your lawyers about IBM's supena, rather than spending time on slashdot trolling?
Good point, Nonny, but I do find it reassuring that you're the first one of those who responded who connects me with the case at all.
Which is quite right as I am completely uninvolved and in no way pulling strings from behind the scenes. Everyone focus on McBride, please. That's what he's for.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
You know how anagrams have a way of unknowingly telling you what fate is in store - mother-in-law = woman hitler etc. etc, well...
;o)
SCO Darl McBride = IBM-scarred clod
You all might want to take a look at this:
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/34007.htm
Probably because even Darl doen't expect anyone to be buying...
And staffing phone banks with sales types increases the burn rate of those MS/Sun funds needed to keep the laywers paid up and happy...
Corporatism != Free Market
Actually, the companies that matter are the small businesses. Who do you think the Fortune 500-size companies do business with?
;-)
From what I've seen of your country:
Mainly SENATORS and CONGRESSMEN.
http://jesus.everdense.com/
would make them more money?
SCO has now made available for your IP pleasure their run-time licenses [...]
And you're a fool if you buy one.
SCO is not suing IBM for misappropriation of their IP. What SCO IS suing IBM for is VIOLATING THE TERMS OF THEIR LICENSE.
Right now you probably don't HAVE a SCO license - shrink-wrap style language and all. This makes you nearly immune to suits from SCO.
But if you buy a license - even one - you are not just out the money. You have also paid them by entering into a contract, with contractual obligations. And if you buy one NOW, after all the publicity over their claims to own UNIX and evertying related to it, you can't claim ignorance of their claims.
If you use linux on one machine, and you pay them a sale price of a couple hundred bux, what are you going to tell the judge when he asks you:
- Why aren't you paying them whatever their latest asking price is for another license for your next two hundred machines.
- Why did you distribute this open-source software that SCO says contains their IP, in violation of your contract with SCO.
After all, if you signed the contract and paid the money. Didn't you just admit that this IP was theirs?
IMHO, anyone who buys a SCO license has just signed away, forever, his right to work on open-source code. As an individual you can't EVER release your work. As a company you can't EVER release your employees' work. (And good luck hiring any new employees with open-source experience.)
No open-source drivers for your products. No folding your fixes back into the mainstream, so you don't have to make them again on every new release of whatever open-source tool you fixed or improved for your critical business process.
So if you're contemplating buying a SCO license, ask yourself: "Is that REALLY what I intended to to?"
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
What'll happen to my favourite.... Nabisco?
There'll be a WORLD SHORTAGE OF COOKIES!
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
I must say, I love these letters where these huge corporate bosses talk about Open Source as if they were heading the revolution. "Open source movement needs to do this, and this and this..."
It seems to me that the whole idea of open source is to completely sidestep the stupid options of proprietary business methods -- case in point, intellectual property. It's only *now* when open source operating systems and applications are starting to steal the market share -- of their own merit -- do these companies freak out and attack their methods.
The question isn't so much "Is open source ready for enterprise level systems," but rather "was that even the developer's goal?"
Just look at the GPL -- "Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software."
No warranty doesn't exactly sound like a great business strategy to me.
10 acres of that premium land in Queensland for $200 an acre and a first class seat on the Scientologists spaceship.
After the spaceship arrives...
To know that you know what you know, and that you do not know what you do not know, that is true wisdom. --Scooby Doo
Clever redirect. Got me looking.
Bitch.
Just a few flaws:
1) Darl implies that because one person allegedly associated with the open source community has launched a DDoS attack against SCO and, again allegedly, ESR didn't turn this person in, the whole open source community is suspect. I don't think so.
2) Allegedly (again) some SCO proprietary code made its way through SGI into the Linux source tree with the SCO copyright notices removed at some point along the way. Darl claims that this means that all Linux code is therefore suspect. Again, I don't think so.
3) Continuing from 2, this conveniently ignores copyrighted BSD (Berkely Packet Filter) code that was presented as an example of Linux code that infringes on SCO copyrights. It seems that somehow the original BSD copyright notice got removed at some point and now SCO calls the code their own. For Darl, SCO employees removing someone else's copyright is not a problem.
4) Darl seems to be really concerned about warranties and indemnifications not provided by open source software and Linux but he must not have ever read a software EULA. They always claim to limit the liability of the licensor to the cost of the product. As an aside, this concept doesn't work with open source software since the customer has the source code and is freely permitted to change it as they see fit. No one can warrant a product when the end user can make changes, not that the warranties provided by closed source software vendors are anything to make you sleep well.
5) Darl (talking about profitable business models) apparently wants to return to the time when software companies thought they could make big bucks by selling software licenses. All it takes is a quick look at the TCO and ROI arguments for Windoze vs. Linux to see that these times are long gone and that isn't just because of pricing pressure from Linux. Software buyers are more concerned now about support, service, stability, maintainability, etc. The initial cost of the software license is a small component at what buyers look at when selecting an operating platform for a business. A litiguous vendor such as SCO is not someone I would consider even if there weren't technical arguments against choosing them. Also, I haven't exactly heard of SCO as being a paragon of customer support which is supposed to be the argument for selecting a closed source vendor.
Its time for dinner so I'll stop at this point.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Yeah, yeah. Besides them.
Suppose I purchase the license now, just to play it "safe."
Then, when IBM wins this thing and shows everyone what clowns SCO really is, what are my odds of getting a refund?
Will that require a seperate legal action? Or will the judge in the IBM case be able to demand that SCO return their ill-gotten gain? (makes me sick just thinking about it).
And will/should the refund include interest?
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
possible reasons:
1.there is no code
2.there is code but its not enabled by default in most kernels
3.there is code but its for features that most people arent using and that (once we know what they are) can be removed from our kernels (thus meaning that we no longer have any code that is copyright SCO or that is derived from that)
4.there is code that was taken from UNIX and put into Linux but its not (C) SCO
or 5.there is code that was taken from UNIX and put into Linux but that code was released by SCO under a licence that makes it ok to use (like when they released all those old historic UNIX versions a while back)
Darl has written us an open letter: .
My only comment is that Eric Raymond's attribution of the DoS attacks to "a member of the open source community" is hearsay, even if "the open source community" were well-defined enough to have members.
What a great job you moderators are doing!
OK guys - what crime did I just commit? Fraud? Extortion? Attempting to obtain money under false pretenses? I'm damn sure that'd be illegal behaviour. It would if I did it anyway. Maybe if I was publically traded it'd be another matter.
Point is, I rather suspect that it'd be just as illegal for SCO to do it - especially since their claim to Linux is only marginally stronger than my claim to Feet(tm). But as long as they only talk about it there's no evidence for anyone to base a case around. So there'll be no sales.
It's just more FUD. And possibly, as someone else pointed out, a ploy to get future victims to identify themselves. But mainly FUD I think.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
The only thing you can really expect with more consistency on Slashdot than joke-bedraggling memesters is people who complain about joke-bedraggling memesters.
May you be trampled by 1000 AC's discussing how in Soviet Russia, YOU annoy slashdotters, all carrying ghetto blasters blaring Invasion of the Gabber Robots.
Karma: Non-Heinous
Take a look at this and look at the bottom, the second to last link in the 'See Also' section, and then look at the 'last updated' date.
;)
Interesting, isn't it?
Signatures are supposed to be funny?
Remember the dude that tried to copyright the name "Linux" without even having a real product to attach it to ? Wonder if ol' boy works for SCO now.
So let's see if I get this right: people are willing to buy a license without actually being able to read it ?? I mean, isn't this the root of the entire problem in the first place: a mis-understanding or blatant ignorance of licensing rules?
Yikes!
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
SCO claims anything that touches OS code they once sold licenses to is now owned by them; Microsoft claims that anything that touches OS code GPL licensed is now owned by the GPL. Note Microsoft's concocted nightmare of viral ownership is the same thing SCO's trying to pull off - not the GPL reality but Microsoft's cracked mirror of it.
The danger here is that SCO is not trying to make a claim contrary to the GPL model, but is trying to present a claim that is arguably isomorphic with part of the GPL's own claim, so that SCO either wins (not at all likely) or loses in a way that potentially weakens part of the GPL structure, providing that future courts look back on this case and see it as a precident against licensing giving an ownership right to derivative works.
Which would be exactly why Microsoft has put them up to this; and why it's far more than a pump-and-dump.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Good one, although I check the mouse over, most of the brain dead slashbots will fall for it!
I call bullshit. You need to go RTFWebsite
ESR has already stated how he feels about being the guidon holder for open source.
1. Take my job, please.
2. Understand my job, please.
Further, if you can find someone who will do all of that, and perhaps more, you need to send him an e-mail, because he wants to know about it. Why not use this as a starting point when you're looking.
As for what ESR has done for the Open Source Community-at-large, ponder this, batman: You need the idealists, the pragmatists, and yes, even the more wild. Why? Because the community they're speaking in the name of, and the communities they're speaking to are just as diverse. It will be these men, and the relevant foundations that write the amici curiae in support of Linux, the GPL, or Open Source in general, when the time is necessary.
When was the last time you said thanks?
-- I'd say your post was about 3 monkeys, 18 minutes.
How many are just modding this poster up because of their account name?
Can't say I am surprised a troll thought of this and is using this to their advantage. Glad I am not as easily fooled as some people here.
they're straight from hell?
^^
Can they even?
I mean it's based upon (a) claim(s) launched before this "product" (eg. the SCO linux license whatever that may hold) was even put onto the market. Is it legit to sell a product of which the value (price) is based totally upon an agressive claim/lawsuit of which the validity is to be proved in court in the first place? Thought up/put in effect *after* the suit was filed.
Any (almost) IAAL can comment?
Dear RIAA,
It has come to our attention that D McBride is using this SCO product to build file sharing technolgy at a mega level. He has secretly assembled a complete catalog of some 472,000 songs that he will offer via his web site.
Dear SCO,
It has come to our attention that Capitol Records is using 4500 copies of Linux to run their offices with.
This is my sig.
you say Tomato, I say Tomato..........
:D
You say DDoS attack, I say thourogh slashdotting!!!
liqbase
Effectively Zero
If IBM wins, SCO may not be around. In which case, you're unlikely to get a refund, you're just another creditor (even if you show in court you're entitled to a refund).
If IBM wins, and SCO somehow is around, you won't get a refund without a court battle. SCO said they aren't planning on giving refunds even if IBM wins.
I'll end this post before I use up all my hyphens, but before I do, may I please entreat you to continue this bit of performance art at least until it is only as socially relevant as MTV?
I believe I'm getting a glimpse at what SCO's bigger picture is. I believe their next step will be to announce some kind of SCO-sponsored Linux development process. Notice that their UnixWare license is "binary, run-time-only" license. This leaves the question of what to do for Linux development. SCO has repeatedly stated, and does so in the LinuxWorld article, that the Open Source development model is flawed because there is no one to ensure the validity of contributed code.
I bet the SCO's next move (or one of their next moves) will be to try and create a "valid" Open Source development model. It will be something that they control, you'll probably have to pay a fee to become a member. They don't want just a $3 Billion settlement from IBM, or $699 from everyone who runs Linux, they want it all. They want to control all of Linux, sales, the community, the development process, everything! It's like when Neo first runs into Smith in Reloaded:
Neo: "What do you want Smith?"
Smith: "You haven't figured that out? Still using all the muscles except the one that matters. I want exactly what you want--I want everything."
SCO's already lost their operating systems. UnixWare and SCO OpenServer are already dead. What they're doing now is trying to take control of a new operating system without having to buy it or develop it.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
san francisco
i guess sco owns a piece of cali now too
oh well no loss
Well done my young apprentice ;-)
Spot on.
They can't come in until you invite them, right?
Ooooh!!! Me too! Me too!
:-(
Mine's, um...it's $299.
Make checks payable to:
Anony^H^H^H^H^H Damnit to hell...
Never mind.
Last Trade: 16.379
Trade Time: 3:59PM ET
Change: Up 0.339 (2.11%)
Yeah, but at $699 (or even the "promotional" $199) per desktop, even MS would get my business.
He finally confessed because Europe was demanding open source Windows and he'd already paid Darl for the SCO license for the Linux code, so he was safe anyway, wasn't he?
Insider Tearsheet for the week ending September 06, 2003
Even the insiders don't have faith in this crap. They are selling, not buying.
> Of course, I haven't dicussed any of this with you so far, so I don't know yet how good a case you have.
If you're willing to sign an NDA that forbids you working in IT for the rest of your life, I'd be willing to show you some BSD code that looks similar to some code in the Linux kernel first.
If you don't like that arrangement, I can pay Laura DiDio or someone else who's never looked at a program in their life to say that two programs have identical comments.
However you want to do it, but if I don't get the check by midnight, I'm going to double the fee. Don't worry, I have no intention to sue you. The bill is in the mail and unless you pay, I will sue you.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Granted, the longer they take to crash, the lower your return per time is, but I'd bet you're still sitting on some valuable shorts. (Unless you're forced to buy them because your broker needs them to close long positions. Do any experienced investors here know how likely that is and under what scenarios it happens?)
If my broker had shares to lend me, I'd short them. Does anyone know where you can still do this?
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
Pleasure their what?!?!
Dawn of the Dead
What part of ;-) didn't you understand?
Just read this:
This improper contribution of Unix code by SGI into Linux is one small example that reveals fundamental structural flaws in the Linux development process.
What would have been different if this was a SGI contribution to e.g. Windows 2003? Nothing. But he blames it on the open source process.
Another Gem: "Fair use" applies to educational, public service and related applications and does not justify commercial misappropriation. Books and Internet sites intended and authorized for the purpose of teaching and other non-commercial use cannot be copied for commercial use
So what exactly is the sense of lerning something I can not use (in commertial code)?
Transfer of copyright ownership without express written authority of all proper parties is null and void.
So that's the road they are going to take? No written contract, so GPL is void? But what gives them the right to use Samba etc.?
I guess we need the next halloween document to deal with this.
They now admit that SGI was responsible for one example of "stolen" code they have been touting, but forget to mention that was removed from the kernel and was only compiled into intanium kernels.
"To date, we claim that more than one million lines of Unix System V protected code have been contributed to Linux through this model."
This is much stronger than the "derivative code" claim, because they are saying one million actual specific lines of code were taken, not just ideas and algorithms, and that they are from SysV code. IBM/Sequent AIX stuff is not System V code. They are going to get in trouble for telling such a blatant lie.
They are specifically claiming that SysV code was legally put into books and posted on public web sites but for non-commercial use only, and that Linux programmers illegally copied this code. This is new. And weakens their claims by making the chain from SysV code to my Redhat CD one link longer. It also sounds like they are claiming that any ancient Unix code that is still in their SysV codebase is SysV code.
"Some have claimed that, because SCO software code was present in software distributed under the GPL, SCO has forfeited its rights to this code. Not so - SCO never gave permission, or granted rights, for this to happen."
Once again a big lie: No one says the code is GPL because it was distributed under the GPL, they say that is GPL because SCO distributed it under the GPL. They can't claim they never gave permission to distribute the kernel under the GPL with their code in it, when they themselves knowingly did it. It's the distribution that's key, as they admit here. Doesn't matter who fired up emacs and typed the code in.
"Transfer of copyright ownership without express written authority of all proper parties is null and void."
A true, but irrelevent statement, as GPLed code does not generally involve the "transfer" of copyrights. Sounds good, though, doesn't it? Also ignoring that they don't own copyright to code written by IBM. Think about it. Does SCO own the copyrights to AIX? If they do, then they can sell it themselves without giving a penny to IBM. They can't sell AIX themselves? Then they don't own the copyright to the code.
Blah blah. More of the same legalistic, but not legally specific, mumbo jumbo about liability of Linux users and SCO's "IP". But the comment about programmers popping in code that is publically available but not public domain is new, and I expect to hear a lot more about it from them.
Remember, it's not paranoia if they really are all out to get them. Now that I've seen those words, my time at Slashdot is done. I can move on. Darl's head must be spinning so fast that he doesn't know which way is up any more. I nearly blew Mountain Dew through my nose on that one. Quick, bust out vi and change all the variable names! By development methods, do they mean "use of the vi editor"?
This Comment was generated with the Comment-O-Matic for SCO Stories.
StickMan
www.rageagainst.net
Nope, it's true. SCO built a time machine. You can build one too; they'll sell you the instructions for only $699.
Since the courts have yet to make any determination in any of the cases, the validity of the licenses remains up in the air. So, why would any company, entity or person buy a license for something they may not need a license for? Better yet, why doesn't the Gartner Group or the media every point out this simple fact clearly?
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
That reminds me of Jeb Bush preparing to declare marshall law on Sep 7th, 2001. We're coming up fast on the anniversary of that day all those people died in vein. Forgot what it was called tho.
...a team of IBM's elite patent lawyers just landed near the shield generator...
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
As a businessman with a lot at stake for the various companies I have responibility for, I'll be carefully considering whether I should buy one of these licences. I know that won't be a popular position here, but I have to be practical about this.
Of course, I haven't dicussed any of this with anyone at SCO so far, so I don't know yet how good a case they have.
You know, I 'm going to let you in on a little secret here. See, when I was a kid growing up in the 60's my mother had a typewriter that I would mess around with now and then.
Well one day while I was randomly poking at the keys the following sequence printed out:
main(){}
Now of course those weren't the only characters that appeared and I can't show you the others because somebody else might find a use for them, but it should be obvious from this that I and I alone own the copyright to the C language and all its derivatives.
So if you want to be really safe you may want to consider paying a license fee to me. I've set up an account in a Nigerian bank for just this purpose.
Not too many the comment is currently at 1.
...If the Open Source community wants its products to be accepted by enterprise companies...
-Daryl McBride
Maybe that is indeed the PROBLEM... I seem to remember that Linus used to say something to the effect that 'the main thing to remember is to Have Fun'. 'We' (the community) may have lost sight of our own goals. If Enterprise wants to use the commons it is free to do so, but is it wise for the Community to change its emphasis for the benefit of Enterprise, which may -or may not- be a member of the community, but which is at best only one part of the community?
It would allow us, if we choose, to set our preferences to ignore these stories
At Linux Expo (2000?) in San Jose, CA (it was the 1st one with all the big companies exhibiting), SCO, the SCO prior to Caldera, was giving out CDs for free. I still have my set. Let's see: UnixWare 7 server and development kit, "Faximum," and Skunkware 7 (GNU stuff). Oh! but now I see that I had 60 days to get a license (free for non-commercial, educational or personal use); otherwise, the installation would expire in sixty days. The only thing I ever tried to do with it was check whether Solaris (i386) would run their binaries -- nope. Maybe one of the BSDs will -- maybe Slackware will. In 2000 their compiler and libs were ahead of GNU -- don't know if that's still the case.
If Mr. McBride is concerned with potential intellectual property infringements in software created by the open source community, I believe that he has no choice but to remove the potentially-infringing material from all SCO products. Otherwise he is willfully engaging in theft of intellectual property, not to mention hypocrisy. Consequently, I believe that SCO should issue an immediate worldwide recall of all their products containing Apache, Perl, PHP, SAMBA, Python, gcc and all other GNU software, Mozilla, PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc. SCO should then refrain from the use and distribution of these software products or any other products which may conceivably contain traces of contaminated code until all such code can be proven beyond question to be 100% clean.
That will be a winning software platform.
I could only manage the first few lines but some brave soul might be able to read the whole drivel.
Help fight continental drift.
If I only have one foot, am I exempt, since I am not using your SMP code???
sale of tinfoil hats went up 11% after the above was posted to slashdot.
There's already a very simple way to ignore these SCO stories.
Don't click the $%#@! link!
Dyslexics Untie!
Calling SCO and asking for a license is nothing more than calling SCO and saying "Hey SCO, I'm using Linux. Put me down on your list of known people using Linux, and while you are at it, add me to the list of people/companies you will audit to determine whether or not I'm being truthful about how many Linux licenses I need.".
If you don't fess up to SCO, its unlikely that SCO knows about your Linux machine(s), and likely that they will never know, unless someone says something. Don't let that someone be you!
I know of people who work for companies who have Linux machines on internal networks with no access to the outside world. In order for SCO to know they exist they would have to physically go to the companies in question and force someone to log into every machine, on console, to ensure that every machine has been checked. I don't see that happening in my lifetime. Or maybe the disgruntled employee will spill the beans...
Christ on a crutch! Will someone just fucking firebomb their offices and finally get it over with!
Whew, that did me good. The images of McBride, Sonntag and Company running around screaming while they are consumed by fire is somehow satisfying.
Note that I don't advocate the use of fire or bombs in dealing with SCO. Sending Darl and Chris off to Iraq to act as cannon fodder and target drones is a pleasant alternative.
Perhaps, if I believed SCO's legal argument had merit, I might consider your suggestion as a logical way to get away with something inappropriate or illegal.
That's certainly not the case here. I have no qualms letting SCO know that I use Linux, and, given that lack of reluctance, I didn't hesitate to file a complaint with the FTC and the Washington State Attorney General regarding my view that their offer of a license at this point, when the legal question is still unanswered, amounts to false advertising. Part of the complaint process, at least for the WA AG, is to submit a copy of the complaint to the company concerned.
I haven't heard back on either complaint, but I'm certainly not going to "hide" the fact that I use Linux.
No Laughing Allowed!
> First, it should be clear by now that you should not take investment advice from /. just as you shouldn't take medical
/. a question like the following: ``I just had my day in court, & the judge gave me 3-5 in a minimum security jail. (Never mind the reason why, it's not computer related.) I mean, I have excellent karma, know the difference between a bubble sort and a quick sort, & can get Windows NT running on an Itanium computer. And I had to help him operate the cheap laptop he had on before him. Do I really have to listen to this bozo & go to prison?"
> or juridical advice.
You mean some guy asked the folks on
I can only shudder at the kind of advice he might get.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
I don't understand what this is a license for.
I'm not trolling, I'm not trying to be cute, I just don't understand what the license gives me the right to do, or not to do.
Can someone (obviously smarter than me), let me know what this does?
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
SCO ceased to be a company when this whole mess began. It's only purpose in life is to act as a litigation engine. Nobody would buy their products unless under threat of extortion anyway.
People who call other people "Immature" are either under 20, or have emotional problems of their own.
Normal adults never say anyone is "immature".
As to the rest of your post, its utter rubbish; its seems mostly an apology for the nonsense that is emminating from SCO.
Frankly, you seem like somebody who works for SCO. You pretty much sum up why SCO sucks as a company. And I don't mean that in a particularly nice way.
http://myword.bounceme.net/scoatse/says/myword.jpg
There is only a very small amount of SCOX availiable on the open market. Many posters suggest buying their stock out and scuttling them. Its a bad idea on a number of levels but it is nothing more than intellectual wanking. The vast majority of SCO is held by insiders, some collaborating investment firms (see the Melinda Gates/Drugstore.com connection at Greplaw), and a few chunks are held by companies like Sun.
The fact that they hold the majority of the stock means they just can't just dump it. If they did, the price would quickly crash..probably all the way back to penny stock levels. Like VA at the height of the bubble, they're only worth a pile of money on paper. They have to know this.
Instead, they have to quietly sell off small chunks over a long period of time. They need to drag this debacle out as long as possible so they can sell as much of the stock at the current inflated levels as possible. Actually, I doubt they're very interested in getting rid of the stock as such. MS and Sun can work through cut-outs to buy the stock and keep the price up. In this way, they can fund the FUD war and the legal battles without seeming to be directly involved.
It may be a good idea to concentrate less on SCOs frothing at the mouth and look more into who buys their stock. Follow the money and we'll see who's really hoping to profit from this.
SCO got more than 900 calls the first week after announcing the licensing program, Stowell said. Of those, 300 were serious inquiries
I suppose 2/3 of them were pissed off slashdot trolls, and the other 1/3 of them were slashdotters trying to act serious about it, I talked to an operator a long time about it acting serious and asking exactly what I was buying, I hope alot of other slashdotters do too
Sig: I stole this sig.
I've worked with our (Celestica) corporate procurement folks on a number of software licenses and if our company is in any way representative, SCO will wish it just let this go business as usual and never thought they saw an opportunity to make some bucks from Linux users.
Before Celestica would agree that licenses are appropriate, SCO would have to prove that they own the right to give them out. This will be interesting and while it is going on, the question will be asked are there any distributions that do not have the offending code and, from Celestica's perspective, could we wait for a distribution that SCO has no possible claim of ownership on?
Next a costing agreement would have to reached in which Celestica, which builds systems is licensed for the systems used in house, built, tested but not shipped using Linux as well as built, tested and shipped with Linux installed would have to be presented with a bill that reflects the different uses within the corporation. As part of this, a monitoring agreement would have to be put into place. Oh, did I mention that we built systems in every continent except Africa and Antartica?
Before any cheques would be written, a service agreement would have to negotiated. This is great news for somebody like me - we will not buy software licenses without any terms of support that goes with it.
Finally, an MOU regarding confidentiality would have to be in place between Celestica and SCO so that before new and unannounced systems are introduced to our manufacturing lines there is a process to set up a three way CITR between SCO, Celestica and the OEM to allow development and installation of manufacturing software. As part of this MOU, all existing relationships between SCO and their customers would have to be disclosed along with details so that we can make this process as painless as possible.
Creating a software license of this scope will take us 9 months or more and will include a hefty legal bill for both parties. Our procurement people are pretty sharp and SCO will have a tough time negotiating a price that is more than a fraction of what the street price single processor Linux license will be despite the additional legal costs and support infrastructure investments that will have to be made as part of the agreement.
"I pity the fools!"
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
... to his own ends, and this is precisely what has happened here in the LinuxWorld article.
I will not go into the details of the misquotations from ESR and Mr. Perens, or his abuse of the DDoS attack, as several other astute /. posters have already done so above (below? not sure where the post will appear in the thread). I will instead turn to the interesting tidbit that Mr. McBride mentions near the end, after all the talk about the flaws in the Open Source development process:
It is easier for some in the Open Source community to fire off a "rant" than to sit across a negotiation tableAnd to this I can only respond: Mr. McBride, how the FUCK can we negociate with you or work together with you when you WON'T REVEAL A SINGLE GODDAMN LINE OF INFRINGING CODE?
Mr. McBride is playing an interesting game here. He is acting as the master manipulator of the public mindset. Whether this was his intent from the beginning or simply a means to cover up a huge blunder is irrelevant at this point. While it is true that many of his statements are contradictory to the rational person, his intended audience is NOT the rational, but the business world and the media. He knows all the buzzwords that make business/media sit up and pant like lapdogs. What makes this an uphill battle for the OSS community is the very fact that we eschew these buzzwords and prefer to rely on fact. Unfortunately, fact is apparantly not what business/media wants to hear. I am sure that in the next few days we will see reports from the media that Mr. McBride is presenting the proverbial olive branch to the community. I can almost guarantee that the very term "olive branch" will be used.
It will be interesting to see if this is successful in affecting the tide of opinion. I sincerely hope not. But then again, the vitriol and self-contradictory, specious, racist bullshit spewed by Adolf Hitler was enough to sway the masses.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
There is nothing new here. The "open letter" described in an ealier post simply twists some facts and re-states the same old story we've been hearing from SCO from the start.
Poor Darl didn't get his way. GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Scum filled Cunts with nO hope
Flogging a rickty old wooden door for uPVC double glazing prices
The last coff of some has been tramp, begging with a stanley knife for his last tin of special brew
I'll hav d lot of yers yer hear me?
Cum on if yer thinks yer rich enuff
I'll take yer all down wid me
Nah, cum on m8 I woz only kidding, nah I would'nt 'arm yer
Now giz yer fucking wallet fer I twats yer, die yer bastard!
Quick Gaz, the peeler's iz 'ere wun!
Dear SCO:
I use Linux daily, regularly modifying the source code to meet my needs as permitted by the GNU license. I wish to remain 100% legal in my Linux usage. That may mean I need to purchase a SCO binary license.
Since I modify the source code and recomple the linux kernel in my day-to-day work, how will this affect my binary license from SCO, which I believe does NOT permit me to change or alter any code to which SCO has intellectual property rights to.
Therefor, I respectfully request that you please identify exactly which Linux kernel source code files contain SCO intellectual property, and further identify which source code lines in those files contain SCO intellectual property. Once you do, I will make sure that I do not alter or change those lines of code, so that my kernel compilations for my use will not violate the binary license you send me.
If you refuse to identify exactly which lines of kernel code contain SCO intellectual property, then I can only conclude that SCO is acting in bad faith and attempting to extort money from honest Linux users like myself. It would also mean that SCO is effectively denying my current source of income doing custom Linux development work, because without knowing exactly where the SCO intellectual property is in the Linux source code, I cannot continue to do Linux devopment for internal use, or for clients for fear of further infringing on SCO intellectual property.
I sincerely wish to NOT infringe on others intellectual property, but I also must respectfully require anyone who claims intellectual property rights on code that is on public display to clearly identify exactly what intellectual property is infringed, how it is infringing, and what parts of the code on display infringe. If you cannot be specific, then any logical human being can only conclude that the person or organization making the claim is incompetent, or deliberately acting in bad faith.
Please let me know if SCO is an honest company with legitimate intellectual property claims A.S.A.P. If SCO is honest, and identifies the portions of linux code that specifically infringe on SCO intellectual property (by source code file name and line numbers), then I will gladly do what it takes to NOT infringe on SCO property.
Thank you.
Next, I imagine that SCO will be after our kids to pay for licensing to watch Sesame Street ("Brought to you by the letter S", no less), since they have been using the letters S, C and O (among others) for years now...
Will Linux Luminary 'Shred' SCO's Unix Claims?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
For example:
Notice the slick mis-quote of a core anti-SCO argument. It is infuriatingly obvious to "community members" that our complaint isn't that this (claimed but unverifiable) million lines of code was distributed under the GPL. It's the fact that this code was distributed under the GPL specifically and actively by SCO, and that by doing so they appear to have specifically given the "written authority" of which they speak.
The core of the argument has clearly been ignored. It has been replaced by a strawman with a few of the same keywords. But this strawman makes it the equivelent of someone buying a boxed copy of Microsoft Office, slapping a GPL sticker on it, selling it on eBay and then claiming Microsofts ownership of Office has been magically removed.
In court, both sides will claim they have acted in good faith. This is SCO pitifully pretending to meet that requirement. Here's hoping it fails with those whom it's aimmed at.
Not necessarily: if you have the money to spare the existence of a handful of such licenses in the right hands could complicate future attempts to try SCO-like tactics in the future, in the unlikely case that SCO gets an outcome to its suit that is less than totally humiliating for it.
IIRC, the IP infringment began around 2.4.15. I think the latest release available from SCO is 2.4.14.
It's not *all* 2.4 kernels, only the later ones.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
McBride is what you get when DNA goes bad.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
See here.
SCO can have any licenses they want - the code is the code. Please, show me any code ( any IP ) anywhere that was stolen ( whatever that means - cut and paste excluded ). All these talks about support for this or that - please, people, study a little of computer history, published ideas and documents. When I started at end of 60's I was educated ( what SCO now says they own ) of multiprocessors and shared memory, virtual memory, tasking ( more than any Unix today has ), pipelines. etc. So - that's the way I was coding ( stealing SCO property in 70's?? ), so, again, show me something new. Just as an example IBM VM, both hardware and sofware support - have you ever seen that, you know how old it is ? Or maybe how Univac did EXEC8 - actually Burroughs and Honeywell were't too bad either - of course you remember the Algol based operating system in Burroughs, pure (almost) object oriented - what's new, definitely not the ideas. You should, might give some (new) ideas. have a nice day.
I have got a license in some Linux software I downloaded from SCOs site that stats that I AM FREE TO USE THE SOFTWARE. And it even says that uner certain conditions I can myself redistribute the software.
-><- no
Something I came across that may be of interest in this discussion. I considered submitting a story on this, but rather than risk it getting rejected, I'll just mention it here.
ESR may have something up his sleeve. Check out this article on eWeek. ESR has apparantly come up with some program that can compare source trees at a phenominal rate. He's keeping mum on what he exactly intends to do with it, but he's wearing a mighty big grin.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
do you think mcbride masturbates to pictures of himself or bill gates?
a linux license. SCO says it is a Unix license, but they later imply
(and everyone else understand) the license is about Linux.
Here are two relevant some quotes from the article, with only the first as direct quote
1. Stowell says "we were giving them a Unix license with
2. SCO also wants customers to be aware that the license is a
binary, run-time-only license to the Unix code found in Linux.
Looks like SCO is not selling a linux license at all! Perhaps they are selling Unix svr4.
By the way, I own the brooklyn bridge. For a modest price, I'll sell you the right to cross it 24-7!
=)
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
Wow, aren't you intelligent.
Take a look at your preferences some time. You'll see that Slashdot has this nice feature where you can exclude a variety of topics from your home page. All I'm suggesting is that they extend that already long list by a single item.
So screw you, man.
There is this discussion in his "open letter" of following the law and proper business practices.. I was led to believe that:
(a) it is not proper to comment and propagandize (continuously) about ongoing corporate litigation.
(b) if company A stole code from company B, they first get an injunction to stop the sale of product, require the code to be removed from product, THEN sue for damages as seen fit by a court of law. When exactly did SCO do any of this in regards to linux?
So don't write to the Open Source community anymore, you're not exactly a contributor. (Nor do you follow your own advice)
Finally, it is clear that the Open Source community needs a business model that is sustainable, if it is to grow beyond a part-time avocation into an enterprise-trusted development model. Free Open Source software primarily benefits large vendors, which sell hardware and expensive services that support Linux, but not Linux itself. By providing Open Source software without a warranty, these largest vendors avoid significant costs while increasing their services revenue. Today, that's the viable Open Source business model. Other Linux companies have already failed and many more are struggling to survive. Few are consistently profitable. It's time for everyone else in the industry, individuals and small corporations, to under this and to implement our own business model - something that keeps us alive and profitable. In the long term, the financial stability of software vendors and the legality of their software products are more important to enterprise customers than free software. Rather than fight for the right for free software, it's far more valuable to design a new business model that enhances the stability and trustworthiness of the Open Source community in the eyes of enterprise customers.
So basically he's admitting that SCO has failed at making money with their previous business model, so they've switched to a far more profitable one - litigation. But for the life of me, I can't figure out where the litigation buisness model enhances the stability and trustworthiness of the Open Source community. If he's thinking enterprise customers will be eager to partner themselves with SCO because of their "stability and trustworthiness".... well, I guess Linus was right about the crack.
.. and still their stock price is climbing higher than ever before.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
has violated the GPL; thus, they are not
allowed to distribute Linux at all (for free,
or otherwise).
From the GPL:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance."
At this point, there is no reason to ask
them to prove their claims since SCO
is a well-known illegal distributor.
You'll note that every one of these SCO stories has 'Caldera' as a topic, disable Caldera, and no more SCO.
Or that they would be much excited by doing businees by choice with a company is sue happy.
King Henry, VI part II act IV
"The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers."
It's a joke about lawyers sure it is. There are to many lawyers. Do your part.
AC replies happily ignored.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
Hey, now THAT is the helpful advice I was looking for. Thank you very much.
You see how it works, smillie?
It also sounds like they are claiming that any ancient Unix code that is still in their SysV codebase is SysV code.
Which is obviously baloney, since if you could re-copyright something just by declaration, then Disney wouldn't need to keep buying legislation for Mickey.
"Transfer of copyright ownership without express written authority of all proper parties is null and void."
What they are trying to say is that you cannot unwittingly or unknowingly license your code under the GPL; you must do so intentionally. And they are quite correct. Any of their own code in Linux cannot be GPLed without their consent. The only problem is that in asserting this claim, they are guilty of massive copyright infringement because of their previous and continuing actions.
But they're not even that, though; going to court will destroy them, they're a pump-and-dump company using the threat of lawsuits to inflate the stock price. Once IBM lays the smackdown in the courtroom, we'll never hear the word name "SCO" ever again.
If you were publicly traded, someone else could buy your own feet right out from under you!
try this handy script in case they actually answer the phone ;)
SCO Slave: "Hello, Thank you for calling SCO, owner of %110 of Linux sources, how may I own^H^H^Hhelp you today?"
You: "Yes, I was considering going for a walk, and I was curious if you own my legs."
SCO Slave: "Why yes we do, we own your right leg. You're required to sign up for our $50,000 right-leg usage license."
You: "Alright, so, after I pay for my leg, I'll be able to do what?"
SCO Slave: "oh, you'll be able to go for a walk, and continue using your legs like you used to."
You: "Legs? I thought you said my right leg."
SCO Slave: "Of course not, we own both your legs, and as I said before, the license fee is $70,000."
You: "But I grew these legs myself!"
SCO Slave: "Our research has determined that your legs contain parts stolen from our leg product"
You: "What?"
SCO Slave: "Your legs contain our patented 10-Toe module, as well as the version 3 rotating ankle."
You: "Alright, so if I pay $70,000 for the use of my legs, you'll leave me alone."
SCO Slave: "That's right, $100,000 for the use of your legs and torso."
To find out how the story ends, call them yourself, and share you results!
Klowner
Would be simply to ignore SCO and all their empty threats, as well as their lack of evidence. You're taking this as though SCO actually HAS a case. If you would look at any of the stuff behind this shit, you would easily come upon the conclusion that SCO has no case, and simply wants to extort money from people.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
I've got an old copy of "SCO Open Systems(hahahahahahhahha..ahem)Unix. (on 1/4 inch Tape) with manuals and everything, oh and a 16 user license. I got it used fer $20 at Salvation Army (*snicker*). I called SCO to see about updating the license (non-transferable, etc). They will get back to me. 6-Mo. later, after getting no responce, I sent an E-mail. Nada. No wonder they are liquidating their stock!!!
0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
Serious professionals don't pull punches with their opinions, and stand behind their statements.
Faced by a "case" that is comprised largely of barratry, fraudulent accusations, and public grandstanding such as SCO is delivering, I see no reason anyone should "watch what you say".
SCO is going to lose, of that I have no doubt. Darl is going to plead insanity because there is no other way he can hope to avoid jail time in such a massive case of fraud. Those stuck with the stock with cry that the government owes them payback for allowing the fraudulent case to continue, and if it's in the hands of investment corps, they'll turn around and recover their losses on the backs of the consumers.
This case serves one purpose and one purpose only -- to highlight the utter insanity of the current US legal system with respect to IP law and it's enforcement.
Or have you not noticed that IP law is the only case where one is guilty until proven innocent, with no way to recover the costs of defending against the barratry? The fact that SCO is being allowed to demand license fees and threaten charges against those who don't pay for their unproven claims is the worst abuse of US law I've seen to date.
Calling McBride and SCO "asshats" is being extremely polite in the face of their behavior.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
SCO might try to sue the city they're in (Lindon, Utah) for use of part of the name Linux? Maybe they should change the name to Scodon just to piss 'em off.
well, SCO germany still hasn't contacted me about it *shrug*
If you like old cars that is. The Growth strategy consist of 5 photos of different cars.
Thought I should die laughing whan I saw it. Do they really show grown- ups this shit?
Help fight continental drift.
Someone at my work was trying to call the SCO Group last week but couldn't get through any of the numbers. She must have tried 4 or 5 of them. All disconnected. I didn't bother to ask why she needed to call them, but I'm certain it had nothing to do with licenses, and she said she never heard of them before.
1. If I fail to purchase a SCO License will SCO sue me
Push the point until the sales rep says yes they will sue you if you don't buy a license. This is a threat
2. Ask them what code in Linux infringes their IP, and where you can find details so that you can remove it
Give them the chance to substanciate their claim of stolen code in Linux so that their threat to sue is not extortion. They will of course refuse
3. Ask them if the SCO IP License allows you to redistribute the Linux source code that contains their IP under GPL
They have made it quite clear in the press release that they will not.This contravenes the GPL license of Linux
4. Explain that their 'binary only license' is in direct contravention of GPL and ask them to indemnify you against being sued for non compliance with the source provision requirement of GPL
They obviously will not do this because their license mutually exclusive with the GPL.
I think it would be interesting to post replies to these questions, Perhaps I may even make an international phone call just to see what they have to say.
Answers to these questions may be useful in any future legal cases against SCO so if you can record the call and identify the rep you spoke to it will help the case against them for extortion, or perhaps not in the strange legal system of the USA
Hans Bayer: hansba@sco.com
I've written a lengthy letter that starts like this. E-mail me for full text:
Thank you for your reply. I shall fill in my details and will expect you to fill in yours.
My in-use Linux distributions are:
Caldera OpenLinux 2.4, running a straight file- and printserver. I was given the installation CD at a conference with no restrictions on use or requirements for license fees, and being published under the GNU GPL, I assume that no additional license fees apply. I am considering changing this, since you seem not to be upgrading this product further - which means that support for USB and other new technologies is spotty at best.
RedHat 8.0.94, running kernel 2.6-test4, AMD Athlon workstation. This is a public beta downloaded from the Internet, and updated with the latest kernel from www.kernel.org. It is a kernel build without SMP, thus RCU is not in use. NUMA does not apply to the i386 platform. It does use the Ext3 journaling file system, but since this has been developed as an extension of the legacy Ext2 FS, and independently of the JFS from IBM, there is presumably no SCO IP involved here. The heritage of IBM's JFS is being discussed on the Internet, no need to go into details here.
The first piece of code you presented at the recent SCO conference has been removed earlier by the Linux kernel programming team, as it was shown to be of too poor quality for a modern OS. The second piece was developed independently from published specs by a person never exposed to the Unix source code - it must be a mistake that your chose this, thus I'll give it no further consideration.
Summing up, I assume that you have no code in this kernel, and thus that no licensing fees will apply. If you differ on this, please let me know the details (modules / file names) and I'll look into not compiling it in, or having it replaced by new code.
SuSE 7.0 Personal, boxed, running on a Pentium-based laptop. Since you have a joint project with SuSE to develop UnitedLinux, SuSE customers should (according to SuSE) be free from any additional licensing. This is currently running kernel 2.5.70, and I offer you to remove any SCO IP from the kernel. All I need to know is which elements of the kernel are in question.
Furthermore, I'm planning to set up a web/ftp server, based on Pentium (possibly dual CPU). At this time, I'm undetermined which Linux distribution/kernel version to use, and I am curious about which ones can be used without violating any IP problems. Therefore, I kindly ask your advice on the subject. Please be specific, however, any claims without sufficient details to investigate the matter will be disregarded. We intend to use only code that has been legally licensed and is free to use.
Since the pricing of your SCO IP Licenses is set quite high, I am mainly interested in removing any and all SCO IP from our computers, which should resolve the matter completely. Therefore, I ask you in good faith and well in advance of any court decision to provide me with details on how to do so. Please also note that all code in the Linux kernel has been licensed to me under the GNU GPL by the copyright holders. I consider my licenses to be complete and covering - if you have an IP issue, I think you should contact the individual copyright holders first, to clear out any problems. Since IBM has taken the SCO Group to court for breach of the GPL, any licensing issues will of course be pending the courts opinion on the matter.
I'm in a Unix state of mind.
Hot indeed....with all the torching, it's gotta be hot.
MoFoQ grabs some more pitchforks and flaming torches from a local Pitchforks and Things.
With out you gettng all worked up and insulting I still don't understand why you can't just not click on the link and not read it?
King Henry, VI part II act IV
"The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers."
It's a joke about lawyers sure it is. There are to many lawyers. Do your part.
I don't reply to ACs
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
- that they can't even figure out how to sell a license.
Their only function at this time is to conduct nuisance lawsuits. For that they just need lawyers, not sales people or even receptionists. Okay, they need PR flacks, too, since they have no hope of winning in court, they can only hope to win in the media.
These guys really need to move to Asia, where this sort of business dealing (i.e., fraud and criminal negligence) is normal.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Every time we run a SCO story their stock rises another buck and a quarter.
You're just making Darl richer when he finally dumps and skips the country, you know.
It's like paying attention to the 'tarded kid at the back of the class who steals every else's pencils and screams "Mine! Mine! Mine! WEEEEeeeeeeeeargh! Mine!". Just take the pencils off of him firmly but gently and then ignore him and he'll learn eventually.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Has it ocurred to anyone that Mr Darl McBride may in reality be a very sick person? I would be very interested in a psychiatric viewpoint on what is being said.
See my journal, I write things there
Try crosshurd. It's a debian package that sets up a bootable Hurd partition on your hard disk. I haven't tried it but I was reading up on the Hurd recently and I noticed it.
Having dealt with Celestica from the vendors side of the fence, I will admit their lawyers are a wordy lot that like to fuss and moan for months at a time. Every couple days the fax wars would ensue with single word alterations to a contract passed back and forth, back and forth..
That said, they always ended up signing basically the standard agreement. After all the bizzare word choice bickering was done, it always boiled down to "Give em a mid-dollar termination option, appear to concede on some taxes, and then crank the total cost a bit to offset the difference.".
The first contact purchasing people were always pleasant and flexible tho. $10K here, two weeks there, they didn't see any big deal. Suggest something bigger and more expensive cuz you had one left over on the shop floor, or suggest something that had more than they needed in it because you're trying to blow out the last of the option kits you overbought? I'd say they bit twice as much as they should of.
SCO says Solaris is safe because of the terms Sun negotiated. That has no bearing on any BSD heritage at all, but on the non-standard licensing terms Sun paid for.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Did it ever occur to anyone Reading the article that the reason they won't return sales calls is because they know that if they ever actually sold a license, they would be committing a blatant and egregious violation of the law? It is against the law to sell something that you cannot prove that you own, either through reasonable assumption or by legal title.
If I'm having a yard sale, a buyer has reasonable assumption that I own the things that I'm selling. If I'm selling a car, I must show that I have legal title to that property.
"Intellectual Property" as it is called is the same way. SCO cannot claim reasonable assumption and they know it because both a copyright and a license are sort of legal title. They've been tempted to try, but I think their lawyers know that if they do, they will be in a very bad position (as if they aren't already).
Everything about the code in question says that it is freely available. What they're doing would be like someone flying over to my house from Utah and claiming he/she owned 90% of the crap I was selling on my front lawn. While 1 out of 100 buyers present may be frightened into giving him the money instead of me, the other 99 would be able to reasonably assume based upon the "plain-view" evidence that the visitor from Utah was full of shit.
I am guessing this is why they waited so long to sell the licenses..
If they did that, they would certainly have a better case than they have now. Intellectual Property covers (in the fuzzy buzzword sense) trademarks, it doesn't cover code which doesn't exist.
How can anyone get an IP for code? I mean, if this was true, we all should pay IP for writing single linked lists :)
Or even better i could patent some basic data structures (linked lists, trees, etc) and get everyone pay me for using them :)
sounds cool ...
How to Destroy Angels II
Spot it. Linus Durden: [to Darl McBride] Hi. You're going to call off your nefarious lawsuit. You're going to publically state that there is no copyright infringement. Or... [gesturing to IBM assault lawyers] these guys are going to take your balls. And send one to Slashdot, one to the LA Times press release staff. Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We code your kernels, we debug your applications. We beef up your security, we guard you while you sleep. Do not... fuck with us!
Has anyone considered the possibility of acquiring sufficient stock to gain a voting majority of SCO stock?
SCO's current market capitalisation is $201.5m mostly because their stock price is at a $16.5 a 52 week high the low point is $0.72 which would equate to a market capitalisation of $8.8m. To gain a voting majority only just over half of the would be required.
If SCO's stock price were to remain at ~$16 then this would be a tall order but the multiplier of many people comes to the rescue at current stock price 10,000 people would each have to acquire about $10,000 of stock but if the price were to drop to the 52 week low then 10,000 would have to buy $440 of stock you will note this is cheaper then the per CPU license SCO is offering. Obviously the more people who participate then the lower these numbers become.
Now ordinarily buying stock forces the stock price up. But if there were a well stated and published aim amongst a group of people to gain a voting majority of SCO stock and once that was achieved force the company to sell the System V IP to one of the open source bodies for a nominal sum and then wind the company up. This might have a reverse effect on SCO's stock price as soon institutional investors believe that there is a serious risk of their investment becoming worthless and start dumping SCO stock. Any SCO takeover protection measures would worthless as they are geared around preventing a single investor from acquiring too much stock.
The easiest way is to make it possible for as many people as possible to buy low numbers of stock and register the fact that they have bought them with a website so that everyone can see what proportion of SCO stock has been acquired.
An Open Response to Darl McBride's Open Letter to the Open Source Community
(First Draft)
Dear Mr. McBride,
First, let me introduce myself. My name is John Gabriel. I have been working in the technical field for 15 years, as a Network Administrator, Applications Manager, Network Manager, Sr. Networking Engineer, and now, Freelance Consultant. And, yes, I'm an MCSE.
My first experiences with Unix occurred in the late 1970's, during school field trips to local colleges. I also did Unix technical support for students while taking a class in Pascal in the late 1980's. My first experience with Linux dates to 1994, when I downloaded whatever Linux kernel was available at that time.
While I did install it successfully, on a Compaq Deskpro 386/25, I quickly abandoned it as the system didn't have enough memory to support X Windows. Several years later, in 1998, I became a Caldera customer, with a purchase of Caldera OpenLinux Base ver. 1.22, with Linux kernel 2.0.33. I ran into similar problems again.
About a year ago, I became interested again Linux, and now run Linux on my home workstation in a dual-boot configuration with Windows XP.
About 4-5 months ago, I began following the SCO v. IBM story. I was at first inclined to be open-minded towards SCO's claims. It wouldn't be the first time a small company has had its copyrights violated by a larger vendor, though the violator is usually, in my experience, Microsoft, as exemplified by Caldera's history with DR-DOS.
However, the more I researched the story and SCO's claims, the more convinced I became that SCO's claims were, well, baseless. Being the type that usually likes to "root for the underdog", I was surprised by my conclusions.
Anyway, that's enough introduction. What follows is an Open Response to your Open Letter to the Open Source Community. I grant everyone, including you, permission to re-publish it, or quote from it, without restriction, except that my comments be properly attributed to myself. Consider it under a "BSD-style" license if you like.
1) The most controversial issue in the information technology industry today is the ongoing battle over software copyrights and intellectual property. This battle is being fought largely between vendors who create and sell proprietary software, and the Open Source community. My company, the SCO Group, became a focus of this controversy when we filed a lawsuit against IBM alleging that SCO's proprietary Unix code has been illegally copied into the free Linux operating system. In doing this we angered some in the Open Source community by pointing out obvious intellectual property problems that exist in the current Linux software development model.
Mr. McBride,
Response to Paragraph 1 of your "Open Letter":
This is very difficult to respond to, because your analysis of the issues and of the reasons for the Open Source community's anger is, in the words of the great physicist Wolfgang Pauli, "so bad it's not even wrong."
For instance, your own lawsuit against IBM does not allege that "SCO's proprietary Unix code has been illegally copied into Linux" -- it alleges that code *owned* by IBM but under contractual "control" rights to SCO has been copied into Linux. Surely, you don't dispute that IBM owns the relevant copyrights and patents to NUMA, JFS, and RCU?
Or do you dispute Section 2 of Exhibit C on your web site, the ATT-IBM sideletter agreement, which states in part, "we (ATT) agree that modifications and derivative works prepared by or for you (IBM) are owned by you"?
The truth is there are many reasons the Open source community is angered with you and the actions of The SCO Group and The Canopy Group, none of which have too do with "intellectual property problems that exist in the current Linux software development model." We don't believe such problems exist. We do believe that The SCO Groups legal theories of what constitutes "derivative works" have no basis in copyright, patent, or tradem
I recommend _everyone_ who has the chance, to call the SCO "sales" department. Ask a ton of questions and order what can be ordered which is free, information regarding licensing etc. You do _not_ have a internet connection.. of course, so you therefore _have_ to receive this through the postal system. Could be a interesting situation if done by a large number of people.
That looks to me like SCO don't want to take any money yet because if the court case comes against them they will have screwed themselves over and be open to accusations of extortion
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
Will you please stop putting your huge bloody sig monster in each and every post? Put a sig in your fucking sig as you're supposed to.
Hex, sure, but that's not the whole story. Coding matters. You made an unconscious assumption that ASCII is a universal representation instead of EBCDIC or some such, and we all read string dumps left to right. C you later.
I'd like to propose a new SCO icon
Q.
Insert Signature Here
If I was to call SCO and offer to purchase use of SCO software code and its associated license for X copies (one which contains the code in dispute), and they either did not provide me code and accepted my payment or did not offer to sell me the SCO software, is it considered Fraud?
Let's say I buy a bag of assorted candies for $5 from a grocery store. Someone then comes up to me and claims there is a piece in my bag that belongs to him, which someone has stolen from him and put it in there deliberately. I ask him politely to tell me which one it is so I can give it back to him, but he refuses to let me know and instead says I owe him $100. He says if I don't pay him he will put me in jail.
Now please tell me, how can something like this be allowed to happen in any civilized society?
"The operator said there were legal concerns that have held up the release of the licenses," Sandine said. "I was told that as soon as the concerns are resolved and the licenses are released for purchase, the sales staff will begin returning calls."
I wonder if these legal concerns would have anything to do with the fact that SCO owns neither Linux nor UNIX?!?
www.wavefront-av.com
When is thing going to trial? I'm getting sick of discussing it.
I think you hit it on the head. Thank goodness too. It's about time we close the chapter on Linux and move on in the computing world to fixing what is wrong with the dominate and proper OS out of redmond. The faster we put Linux back in the geek basements where it belongs, the sooner developers like me can get back to the real business of developing apps and not worrying about chickenshit operating systems. SCO is doing us all a favor... thanks SCO.
Hmmmm. While SCO was Caldera, they never could
make anything the 'Lizard loader' did hold up
in ordinary use. The Caldera distro was junk and
never would live past the first power failure
or disk problem. Having failed to deliver a
usable product while taking their customers money
for it, they now have moved up to the next level
of the perfect fraud. That is: "Lets legally
defraud the entire Linux community by using the
laws of a totalitarian state with an unelected
president as a club!".
Lets now legally force them to buy our 'product'. Only this time we won't even have to give them any software at all, just a piece of
paper saying that SCO legally stole all the Linux in the world. And you are backing up that outrageous claim by paying SCO/Caldera for the privilege of having been legally raped.
And old Lenin said that people would supply the rope for their own hanging!!!
All the more tongue in
cheek seeing that the politicians that created
those laws were bribed by the industry in order
to give rise to the present happy state of affairs.
All the time those republicans were using the
mass media that they owned in order to divert the
public's attention to the indescretions of President Clinton and 'Monica', they were at the same time
time screwing the heck out of the country with
unconstitutional trash like the DaMCA.
What really ought to happen is that SCO and its
present and former directors should be investigated for insider stock trading and
market manipulation. One of SCO/Caldera's insiders used to be and maybe still is is a
Paul Allen, a major stockholder in Microsoft.
Caldera stock went down almost 99 percent after
its IPO. During the downfall the executives
used insider trading to make money the whole time.
But they do not want you to know that!
If it were really BillG he probably would have said "developers such as We".... Then again maybe he just slipped and that is where the "me" came from.
Mod parent as troll!
If I only have one foot, am I exempt, since I am not using your SMP code???
I believe that would be SMF code. Symmetric Multi Footed.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
nice pic of Darl
Can someone explain to me *how* BPF is part of SysV UNIX, anyway? SysV UNIX network stack is based on the STREAMS architecture - originally developed by D.Ritchie. A BSD network stack (adopted by linux) is a totally different animal. In order to create a packet filter in STREAMS, you'll need to simply write a STREAMS module that plops in between the data link layer and network layer. The BPF doesn't even fit in with the STREAMS architecture, unless one were to somehow write wrapper code around it so that it conforms to the DLPI and NPI interfaces...and I think this would be highly inefficient. Admittedly, I have not looked at the BPF code, but I imagine that it would need to be highly modified / re-written to get it to work with STREAMS.
Original STREAMS Paper
I think our focus should not be on what SCO is up to, they are on their last legs anyways. We just end up increasing the hype and prolonging their slow and just death as a viable business.
Instead we should be focusing on a method to prevent additional occurences of others IP ending up in Linux or other OSS projects.
he was not adopted, he crawled out of the bucket...
no-one in their right mind would adopt such a "creature". no offense intended?
Smiley,
:)
Since you asked more nicely, I'll respond more nicely
Of course I can just choose not to click on the link. In fact, I didn't even scroll through the responses to this topic when I first posted my reply. In fact I have yet to do so---thanks to Slashdot's notification system I can read only the replies to my own posts.
But Slashdot has a system already in place that allows you to customize the http://www.slashdot.com page, so that you can exclude topics that do not interest you, and include certain sidebars that do. Sure, perhaps very few people use these features. But some do! And wow, there are a ton of topics on that exclude list, but I didn't see SCO.
So I'm not asking them to write any new code, or implement a new feature; I'm asking them to support a feature that they apparently already felt was useful enough to provide.
Fortunately, as someone else has kindly posted out, all SCO postings include the "Caldera" topic. So I can indeed choose to exclude all SCO postings from my Slashdot homepage without the need for the Slashdot site maintainers to add another topic. That's good news for me, and for anyone else who uses this particular feature of the Slash system.
Why are you not more explicit so we can join the fun?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The article didn't mention if you received a license for one cpu along with the immunity from the standard baby killing. I pictured an IBM semi-trailer rumbling down the highway, with an SCO chicken (looked like Darl with feathers) standing at the other end of a straight, squaking furiously at the oncoming behemoth. The chicken doesn't stand a chance. Dennis got into the act after Linus called his code ugly: damn, them be fightin' words! Anyone have a guess as to who these McBride sources are? My hunch is Miss Cleo. Darl: so, um. Ya. So we didn't try googling our code before we showed it in las vegas? This Comment was generated with the Comment-O-Matic for SCO Stories.
Just follow the day, and reach fo
I think when you submit a work to someone, for the purposed of incorporating it into their work you are implying that you have a right or permission to do so.
Not Quite.
The code in question was in the kernel due to an error way back then. However, we could have used the code anyway since Caldera - Now SCO, released it under a public licence. Go figure.
Mr McBride should really check his facts before making such open and accusatory statements. Also he took Bruce Perens completely out of context on that quote.
Not if you merely cut off your other foot to become compliant.
McBride is not interested in telling `the truth' ... he's interested in convincing people that SCO is right and everybody else is wrong -- probably with the intent of pumping up the stock price. This sort of doublespeak isn't likely to hold up in court, but it may have some weight in the court of public opinion.
Listen close. IP law exists. You don't want it to, but it does. Probably because you don't have any that could make you millions of dollars if you had it.
You want the system to change, awesome - start making change happen. But don't ignore the systems that exist today, because only through those systems can change take place. Having fantasies about a complete overhaul in IP law are great, but the reality of today is what we live in. Deal with it, or move to Mars, or shut up.
Mcbride is totally correct in stating that Linux (and all open source projects) needs to overhaul the way in which code is accepted.
Its not hard to change the process in order to completely avoid this in the future. In fact, its trivial. But the blatant refusal of the community to even consider this is dissapointing and reflects a lack of professionalism and due diligence which every engineer should have inherent in their soul. I will happily donate my time, energy, and money into helping to change the development process to make this work.
We don't want "stolen" or "borrowed" code in Linux. First of all, its probably not as good as we could make it anyways. Second of all, it opens up a door for money hungry, nearing bankruptcy companies to start sueing people.
Shut the door forever, and poor ten feet of reinforced concrete over it, or be prepared to fight this battle. Linus, ESR, I hope you're paying attention here. Because it is very clear that SCO will not be the last company to do this; and if IP protection is not considered, and implemented as part of the standard development process, we'll be fighting this battle until it is. And unfortunately, we might not win. Or we might win, and just loose all our credibility and positive momentum in the process (meaning we lose).
You think I'm wrong? Great. The first stage in change is denial, then resistance. The open source community must accept the reality of IP law of today, or we will fade into obscurity. This means we must change, and change quickly and efficiently. I'm tired of waiting for people to realize that if Linux wants to be in the game, it must play by the rules. Not the rules that it wants, but the rules that it must follow.
And stop complaining, flaming, and wasting each others time. The world is good! Linux is good! Taking a few brain cycles to stop this shit from happening forever is well worth the investment.
I am sure that most people would agree with this statement. But my point is that they are not honestly making their case about this, they are throwing out true but irrelevent legalistic statements to make their argument appear more convincing to the uncareful reader. They know that transfer of copyright has nothing to do with putting code under the GPL. They want people to think, "Hmm, SCO never signed anything transfering their copyrights, so their code can't be under the GPL," despite the lack of legal or logical connection between these two statements.
This is why we hate them. Well, this is one reason why we hate them.
A post in the middle of /. is not the best place for this. It needs form part of a collective response from the Open Source and Free Software communities, that will not stop being read after the /. story is approx. 48 hours old.
It would be nice if this were to be published on the same LinuxWorld website as a counterpoint, after being looked over and agreed to by a few more of the big names in the Open Source community. Alternatively stick it somewhere reasonably permanent on the web and stick a comment onto the LinuxWorld website pointing to it.
John_Chalisque
You know the execs at SCO are only init for the stock options, isn't it obvious.
You sez:
" . . . if you don't belive I."
If I remember correctly, believe or believe, or am I wrong ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !