SCO Madness Reigns Supreme

Sri Lumpa writes "It will come as little surprise for those of you that followed the SCO stories and read their latest filing that an IP attorney, Douglas Steele, Esq., thinks that 'SCO is trying to get the judge to declare all works released under the GPL for the last 3 years put into the public domain.' Meanwhile, more lawyers give their opinions, with Eben Moglen saying 'It's just rubbish,' while another says of SCO's defense: 'From the outside, it appears so bizarre and so ridiculous that I fear their argument is being misstated,' while Blake Stowell of SCO believes Congress has drawn a boundary between proprietary and open source and still insists that IBM should indemnify its Linux users while refusing to indemnify SCO's Samba users against a potential MS lawsuit. More links to related news stories continue to appear in the comment section of the first link, thanks to the Groklaw readers." Read on for another handful of updates in SCO vs. The World.

Roblimo knows good, honest Constitutional argumentation when he sees it, and over on NewsForge amplifies SCO's claims that the GPL is unconstitutional.

Dopey Panda writes "Looks like SCO has become just a bit worried about their liabilities for distributing the Linux kernel. Starting November 1 you will have to be a registered SCO customer to be able to access their FTP site. So that leaves just a couple days for you to download your own genuine SCO-approved GPL code!"

And perhaps today's most interesting SCO submission: 1HandClapping writes "In alwayson-network.com, Mark F. Radcliffe (HIAL) writes about a little-reported aspect of the SCO vs IBM case: 'Novell, as part of its sale of the UNIX licenses to SCO, retained the right to require SCO to "amend, supplement, modify or waive any right" under the license agreements (and if SCO did not comply, Novell could exercise those rights itself on SCO's behalf). At IBM's request, Novell employed this right and demanded that SCO waive IBM's purported violations. When SCO did not do so, Novell exercised its right to waive the violations on SCO's behalf. Basically, this defense destroys the core of the SCO case: IBM's violation of its UNIX license with SCO.'"

Comments

Everything that is there to be said has been said

[Brahmastra]

Why would there be anymore original or insightful comments on this topic? Everyone has already commented a million times about SCO and all the comments usually follow the same pattern. Yes I agree that SCO is a useless gold-digging, thieving corporation. But, all SCO stories need to be modded redundant. Or, post a story and link it to the comments in the old story.

Are we going to hear about this shit forever

[Anonymous Coward]

I am so fucking sick of linux-vs-sco-fanboy articles that I am going to scream!

This is getting so fucking stale..

[titzandkunt]

I musta read this about a dozen times you tedious fucking whore.

T&K.

Re:DEBIAN FUCKING SUCKS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Whats the point?
Is this an official GNAA policy regarding Debian?
Does the GNAA approve of FreeBSD?

Why the #$%# . . .

[Fjord Prefect]

. . . can't I log on to slashdot just ONCE without hearing about this? If something important happened, say, oh, I don't know, a COURT RULING, then I wouldn't be upset, but let's just rehash everything and watch Darl McBride's every nuance to see what is going on. Ugh. Get a life, people.

Where is Richard Stallman?

[NDPTAL85]

Seriously where is the hairy dirty bastard?

He tried to convince the world that his precious invention, the General Public License could stand up to crap like this. Well looky here, it isn't standing up too well!

So I ask you, all of you, where is RMS!? Why is he so silent on the SCO issue? Why can he rant and rave for endless hours about most subjects but on this most precious subject of them all is he silent?