Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Madness Reigns Supreme

Posted by timothy on from the world's-funniest-joke dept.

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.'"

6 of 607 comments (clear)

  1. Noorda's revenge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    One crazy thought that keeps popping into my mind is that the entire SCO mess might be Ray Noorda's final revenge on Microsoft.

    Consider that Noorda has been around the tech industry a LONG time, that he has been involved in a lot of companys, he presumably knows who the A-team and B-team players are, and that he appears to dislike Microsoft a little bit.

    So - he takes one of the organizations under his control. He fills it with C-team players. He fills (or prompts someone to fill) the C-team with truthful but misleading information about SCO's purported "intellectual property". He advises them to go after the biggest target first.

    Then he sits back and watches while SCO leads a hopeless charge against IBM. This has the dual effect of (a) laying down case law _supporting_ the GPL that Microsoft will have a very hard time overturning (b) smoking out various linkages and anti-competitive behaviour on Microsoft's part.

    Crazy, but I have a hard time seeing why else SCO is being so incompetent.

  2. I repeat again - and i called it in advance... by gsfprez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    i used to say...

    SCO has every reason in the world to see the GPL killed. That reason is that they have (most likely) been using GPL'd code in their proprietary code. They want to see the GPL nulled and voided so that when "they win their case", they can, at a later date, keep right on using Linux code in their shitty products.

    now, it looks like i need to amend it slightly...

    SCO has every reason in the world to see all GPL software made public domain. That reason is that they have (most likely) been using GPL'd code in their proprietary code. They want to see the GPL nulled and voided so that when "they win their case", they can, at a later date, keep right on using Linux code in their shitty products, as well as to prevent being sued into oblivion by a horde of GPL contibutors.

    it sucks being right.

    I'm telling you - we need to see SCO's "closed source" product code - for there, you will see that they have been going what they have accuesed everyone else of doing.

    There is NO other reason for wanting all GPL code made "public domain".

    --
    guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
  3. Re:(e)stop the madness by devphaeton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By now, hasn't SCO contradicted themselves so many times on so many issues they're estoppeled from any course of action whatsoever?

    In a way, i kinda hope not. I would really like to see this go to court. Not only for the satisfaction of seeing SCO get smashed by an elephant, but also to see how the GPL will shake out in the courts. It's only a matter of time before the GPL gets called into court, and down the road there may be other opportunities, but it would really be advantageous to those supporting the GPL (of whom are habitually broke) to have this happen now, with the muscle (and finances) of IBM in our court.

    At any other time, the "attrition strategy" of prolonging the court process until the other side is bankrupted might get turned against us.

    We all know that even if the GPL is completely rock solid, it can still lose in court depending upon its presentation. And if it *does* lose in court, that could potentially start a firestorm of FUD and abandonment, if not a poor perception of Open Source products (even BSD-license ones.. consider how a PHB thinks). Next thing you know, we'll all be replacing linux/bsd servers with Windows Server 2003 or SUNW at our workplace.

    I would hate to see the party crashed just as it was getting started, you know?

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
  4. Hanlon's Razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Never attribute to malice that which can be sufficiently explained by stupidity."

  5. America's loss if they ban the GPL by adrianbaugh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    America is not the world. (Reminded about my earlier gaffe about Canadians, perhaps I should say "the USA is not the world.)
    If the GPL is ruled unconstitutional in the USA then the rest of the world simply goes for a dual license. With apologies to all the sane people in the USA, I go for something along the lines of: "GPL applicable outside the USA. No licensing terms available within the USA." We move repositories of GPL stuff out of the USA and the rest of the world gets on with business as usual, apart from possibly a few years setback having to replace key developers. The USA, meanwhile, carries on smoking its crack pipe.

    --
    "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
    - JRR Tolkien.
  6. I see a pattern emerging here... by Java+Pimp · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. IBM, we sue you for leaking a few lines of our code into Linux.
    2. IBM, we sue you because you leaked thousands of lines of our code into Linux.
    3. IBM, we sue you because we own Unix and you developed software for Linux.
    4. Linux was based on Unix and Unix has 2,000,000+ lines of code. Linux contains all our code!
    4. IBM, we sue you... not quite sure why now... We own Linux. Everyone give use $699 or else.
    5. All software written under the GPL in the last 3 years is free because the GPL is stupid and it just should be ours anyway.
    6. All software ever written is ours.
    7. ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!

    --
    Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
    Kull: She told me she was 19!