Slashdot Mirror
McBride Speaks, In Person And In Print
Phil Windley writes "Darl McBride gave the keynote at CDXPO this evening and held a press conference afterwards. I've posted my summary of his talk and the press conference on my weblog. In his talk, Darl seemed to be saying "Don't hate me. I'm only doing what I had to do."" On the other hand, in this interesting interview with CRN, McBride comes one whisker from likening Linux users to drug users, renews threats to sue end users, and says "all the big guys" are out to get SCO.
McBride Speaks, Listeners laugh!
"The GPL is in violent collision with the DMCA. That's why Linux guys are opposed to the DMCA."
What's he mean by that?
(No, not the remade piece of shit, the original version)
Is this the beginning of the Corporate Wars?
YOU FAIL IT!
You guessed it... Frank Stallone
Nuts. Or Psycho, if you prefer.
It seems he seriously believes he's doing this "For the good of all".
God Help Us.
and says "all the big guys" are out to get SCO.
Right. But apart from paranoia, SCO also seem to suffer from Multiple Personalities Disorder (once they were a Linux vendor, now they hate the GPL), therefore they'll be fine because they outnumbers their ennemies 2 to 1.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I've always wondered about people like Darl McBride. Obviously, they are paid a great deal of money to put a certain spin on things, and they try very hard to do it. What I've never understood about the psychology of it is this: do they actually believe themselves? Do they start out knowing they are lying, then convince themselves about it along the way? Or does the notion of truth not even cross their minds, as they are busy trying to define the reality they want?
CRN: How can you win suing customers and what happens if you go after HP customer?
McBride: The interesting scenario is, do you go after an HP customer or an IBM customer? That's what David is the master of. That's his final decision
So, if I am understanding this, the lawer is in charge.
Anybody else shocked?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I hope McBride comes to columbus ohio - there hasn't been a deent stand up comic here in *years*
Hmm... self-contradiction, baseless claims, conspiracy theories, projection, delusions of grandeur... aren't these primary symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia?
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
1. Attack everybody you know .. . .. p p p .rrr. . .
.. ..... PRISON!!!!!
2. Claim you're doing what you got to do (voices?)
3. P
3. .
3.
we all hate you. kill yourself now.
Very few create.
Any asshole can litigate.
Usually, when individuals start bandying about phrases such as "the big guys are all out to get us" one begins to think that maybe treatment for paranoia or some other delusional condition might be in order.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
and I quote:
McBride: Our goal is not to blow up Linux. People ask why we don't go after the distributors...'If you have such a strong case, why not shut down Red Hat?' Our belief is that SCO has great opportunity in the future to let Linux keep going, not to put it on its back but for us to get a transaction fee every time it's sold. That's really our goal.
"all the big guys" are out to get SCO.
Geez, I wonder why.
It's not like they started it or anything.
poor SCO
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
okIn case anyone thinks Darl McBride is more clever than he actually is, the "drug users and computer users" joke is pretty old.
Click the MS ad for UNIX services for WINDOWS at the top of the page. Here's the url
Make MS pay for these anti-sco pro-linux stories.
David comes on, he's now a shareholder, he's rowing with us, and let's face it, he's added significant value to our company since February. Our stock was around a buck, now it's $14.
And what are the end-products your company makes?
bash$
YOU FAIL IT! what a total douche you are.
From the blog, copied and pasted.
"Carl McBride: Linux Won't Remain Free
The evening keynote at CDXPO is by Darl McBride. On the way in they handed out a pamphlet from WIPO entitled "Intellectual Property: A Power Tool for Economic Growth." I'm not sure who decided to hand it out, but I think its a little silly.
Darl starts out with a history of SCO. He says "SCO = UNIX." (Note: in the interest of my fingers, I'm going to stop typing "he says" and just type the essence of his speech. If I add commentary of my own, I'll note that.) A year ago, the answer to the question "who owns UNIX?" would have gotten a variety of responses. While there are many branches of UNIX, they all tie into the same tree trunk. AIX, HPUX, and others are licensed products of SCO. There are more than 6000 licensees with access to UNIX source code. Now he world knows that SCO owns those licenses.
When Darl joined SCO, its market cap had gone from a billion dollars to 6 million and had about 6 months of operating funds in the bank. When he looked at the assets, he saw $60 million in revenue, a channel of resellers, and intellectual property. He didn't think the company was getting the most from its IP assets and saw IP infringements from "the upstart Linux."
He was told when he examined this space that going after Linux infringements would bring down the wrath of the Linux community on the company. He didn't see the Linux community as one of his assets. His constituents are his shareholders and customers.
SCO set up a licensing program to put UNIX libraries on Linux. IBM threatened that they would not support SCO on their products if they didn't retract their licensing program. 20% of SCO's operating systems ship on IBM hardware. IBM thought the program would imply licensing issues with Linux. IBM was talking about taking major parts of AIX and moving it into Linux. Since IBM makes a large portion of its revenue from its IP, SCO thought this was unfair.
SCO got to the point where they had one option left: litigation. That set in place a chain of events that led to the last six months. What is not in dispute:
SCO owns all UNIX System V source code
SCO owns agreements to all UNIX vendors
SCO owns all UNIX System V copyrights
SCO owns all claims for violation of UNIX licenses.
SCO controls UNIX System V derivative works.
SCO doesn't own the derivative, but they have rights to confidentiality that are the same as for the original work.
The Linux infringements include literal copying, obfuscated copying, derivative works, and non-literal transfers.
Darl takes on what he calls urban myths surrounding SCO.
I am not a Penguin Slayer or a Suit-Happy Cowboy.
SCO does not want to destroy open source or Linux. With the appropriate checks and balances, open source has merit.
End users are not safe in taking a wait and see position. SCO is contacting customers and asking them to take a license of litigate position.
Linux infringements cannot be fixed by simply removing or changing it.
The GPL is at risk, but IBM put it on the table, not SCO as part of the litigation.
Some other points:
There's no free lunch or free Linux. The value proposition of Linux is UNIX for free. Free models such as free music, free Internet, free bandwidth, and free love haven't worked.
Giving away a UNIX-like OS for free isn't a problem. What is a problem is giving away UNIX or pieces of it when you don't own it.
Free software removes the incentive for innovation. There will lost jobs and lack of competition. SCO is in a tug-of-war between those who want software to be free and those who support proprietary software. SCO is a bellwether for this giant tug-of-war.
This country was built on the notion of property ownership and being about to protect one's property. What's left in this company are concepts and ideas. If you take away the ability to protect that, we're reduced out ability to compete as a country (cue the break out the flag, someone).
Predi
> We're on the side of the silent majority
...
So that would be the majority consisting of a few hundred SCO employees and Microsoft, but excluding IBM, RedHat, all Linux users, the OSS community in general,
Attendee: Critics have said SCO previously participated in open source. Did SCO give its own code away?
McBride: From a legal standpoint, this is not an issue, but its a PR issue.
Nice dodge, we'll see if it works as well in court.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
I don't know. I hope something very personal and very scary happens to people like McBride.
The law is obviously going to take a long time to work, and his army of lawyers working on huge sums of borrowed money will just keep leeching from the Linux camp. This might be something you and I can brush off, but the PHBs out there are REALLY not going to take on OSS software so long as shit like this keeps happening.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
McBride is practicing an age old bit of wisdom...
If ya can't dazzle 'em with intelligence, baffle 'em with bullshit.
And he's obviously an expert at shoveling.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
At last, a CEO not afraid to break the silence about Linux. I was a linux user, so I know the kinds of pressures that you succumb to. You wind up using crack to check the security of your system. And to detect intrusions, you snort.... It only gets worse from there. Listen to this man, before it's too late.
You fucked up step 3!!! Step 3 is always "???". Idiot!!
I hope I am not alone on this, but I am so god damned sick of Darl, SCO and this bullshit that he calls legitimate claims to Linux. I am also sick of the unending rants that Darl (hereafter referred to as "the devil") makes against open source, the free software model and everything that Linux and many of it's users stand for in general. If I could add the Devil to my lists of Anti-Christs, he would be at the top, followed maybe by the RIAA. The audacity of the devil and his company is astounding. His ability to file unfounded lawsuits to save his diminishing markets is also astounding. The so-called fair licensing that they have for Linux is absurd. This whole thing is absurd, and I for one am sick of Darl, SCO and their shit.
When reading the most inciteful blog I know, I ran accross this great link explaining why our prayers aren't answered.
Have you forgotten the Bill Gates' quote of 640 kB being more than enough memory for PC user? Well, dump that old chestnut, and try this one on for size:
20% of the Linux kernel. I have wet myself. America, we have a new "Dunderhead Asshat"! Welcome your new overlords, and don't forget the compulsory $699 'tithe'. The more Darl opens his mouth, the more I'd like to shut it for him
Is this Moore's Law for FUD? IIRC, there were 80 lines of code infringing at the beginning of this ordeal; now, it's up to Roughly one million lines of code? Please, someone crush this $#!+ soon
is it that bad seein a hot chick again? if i see a hot chick walkin down the hall i dont say "repost"
I'm posting anonymously from a coffee shop so I don't end up getting a subpoena. A looong time ago, I used to work for SCO. When I started, I didn't think it was a bad company, but my opinion changed gradually. It's hard to put my finger on any one thing, but it seemed like the corporate culture was a little...strange. I had never worked at a tech company before, but I found it odd that upper management would get defensive when they read a bad review on SCO Unix. It seemed to me that they should have been taking the criticism to be constructive, so they could improve their product. But they took a "we know what's best for you, because we're smarter than you" kind of attitude. Not everyone agreed with them, as I found out at many an exit interview. It makes me wonder if this attitude blossomed and overtook the company.
And then he says:
Where the hell does Herr McBride get these numbers? Does he really think people will swallow that? 2.5M linux servers, and 2.0M+ OpenServer servers? Get real! (wait, never mind... forgot who I was talking to)
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
McBride comes one whisker from likening Linux users to drug users
Ah, I think he's the one smokin somethin.
So, it is not important that all the big guys are out to get SCO. In any business sector all the big guys are always out to get all the other competitors. The problem is that SCO has said that there can be only one *nix distributor, and the authority of all other *nixes must come from it. While this benefits certain firms, and those firms have provided as much help as they can, it does not benefit most of the sector, and actually threatens their survival. Which is just common sense. It is one thing to compete against the big guys. It is another thing to publicly call for their death. Such a thing tends to turn the fight into a death match. And no one feels sorry for the guy who starts it.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
David comes on, he's now a shareholder, he's rowing with us, and let's face it, he's added significant value to our company since February. Our stock was around a buck, now it's $14. That's some of the best money we've spent, not even money, some of the best stock we've issued. Pump-and-fucking-dump. There you have it, folks. I can just see Darl slumped back in a easy chair sipping a T&T while saying this..
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
Our belief is that SCO has great opportunity in the future to let Linux keep going, not to put it on its back but for us to get a transaction fee every time it's sold. That's really our goal.
I can see that happening in a hurry. Hell I bet nobody would be interested in reverting to an older kernel and then working back to where we are today with new source. And nobody would look at alternative kernels (eg. the BSDs). And nobody would just throw in the towel and run Windows. No way, we'll just pony up a butt load of money to McBride and Co. to use the kernel they're trying to steal from us. Cock smoking bitches.
Now wash your hands.
Well, first off, Darl McBride shows that he *completely* misses the distinction of free-as-in-speech Free Software and reduces the GPL to Free Beer. Sad. Granted, it is kinda hard to sell GPL software, but he doesn't seem to understand that a lot of what people love about Linux has less to do with price and more to do with freedom. The ability to get access to the source code at no additional charge. The ability to create 'derivative works' from GPL software as you please (well except that it too has to be GPL'ed of course), and the ability to distribute those changes. To fork projects when necessary.
And, most importantly, not having one central company or organization claiming total control over the OS. One of the things I love about Free Software, especially for the Operating System is that I think it is *crucial* for there to be a viable, widely used Free-as-in-speech OS Platform for everyone in the world to be able to use without it being leveraged to one company's or government's or whatever advantage. A true 'level playing field.'
So, SCO doesn't get it. Darl wants everyone to stop 'crucifying' him and SCO for doing what they "have to" in order to survive and leverage the investment they made in Unix. Everyone is picking on him, especially IBM who are big bullies (note this isn't my opinion - I'm just summarizing McBride). Oh, also SCO likes Open Source and Linux - we aren't out to destroy Linux and Open Source - we just want $700 dollars for every CPU that runs Linux commercially. Don't hate us, we want to co-exist peacefully with Open Source.
Oh, and the best part - the GPL is dead - Open Source isn't dead, just the GPL because it isn't friendly enough to business according to Darl. And, Free (as in beer) linux is dead (nevermind Debian and other non-commercial distros).
Lastly, in the world of Darl McBride, the BSD's don't exist. He didn't mention them ONCE in the presentation. And there were a couple times (Unix History discussion, as well as a few other places) where it would have probably been quite appropriate to mention them. Along those lines, SCO == UNIX, and we own the copyright to ALL UNIX (again what about the BSD's?).
Oh he did clarify that AIX, HP/UX, et al are 'owned' by the respective companies, but that SCO 'controls' all of them as the root of the unix tree.
I dunno. I really at this point just wish SCO would put up or shut up. Show definitely that there is wide-spread infringement instead of just throwing out "We have STRONG IP claims" (Take our word for it). Basically, this issue needs to go to court and be resolved.
Speaking of which, here's the SCO lawsuit scheme: IBM is not a copyright infringment case - it's breach of contract. But if people who use Linux don't buy Unix Licenses, we will sue them for copyright infringement. (Which is basically what they've been saying all along - no surprise there).
So what I hear, when I hear McBride make that statement is IBM probably has the resources and expertise to discredit our copyright infringment claims - so we are going to go after small fish who (we hope) can't reasonably defend against the infringement claims, and gradually build precedent one case at a time and then go after the big companies when we have a few cases behind us that gave us favorable findings.
You are not paranoid if everybody REALLY is against you!
what FUD.
Darl, come out from behind your pussy lawyers so I can kick your pansy ass.
"...You don't have to be a programmer at all to see copying had occurred. It wasn't just ten lines of code, that example was over 80 to 100 lines of code. Later some of the Linux people said that code shouldn't have been there, Bruce Perens said it was development problem and 'we've taken it out.' My analogy is [that's] like a bank robber with posse in pursuit swinging back by the bank and throwing the money back in...
In that one example, copyrighted code had been misappropriated and there's substantial benefit out there that has still not been rectified. There are other literal copyright infringements that we have not publicly provided, we'll save those for court. "
Linus has always stated that we'll rip everything out if the code was shown. McBride has even mentioned that in interviews and said something like "Hey, that's great! We want that to happen, too."
Bank robbers? Substantial benefit? The truth is that they would rather keep the IP in there and keep the linux kernel, charging us for each CPU.
The only problem is this: What would keep anyone from forking the kernel at the point where all "infringing code" had been ripped out. Sure, the tree would be on fire, but I doubt it would take TOO long for some seriously pissed off coders to re-write the missing items.
I can't wait to watch the flamage in court.
-- I'd say your post was about 3 monkeys, 18 minutes.
When you've pissed off all your friends, spent all your money and still can't get enough of your drug, "everyone is out to get you."
It's true Daryl, EVERYONE'S OUT TO GET YOU MOTHER FUCKER!
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
His constituents are his shareholders and customers.
Which at this point probably resolves down to his own company, their satellites and the law firm they've retained to fight their last ditch effort.
SCO does not want to destroy open source or Linux. With the appropriate checks and balances, open source has merit.
I think he means, if people pay with the appropriate checks, he'll consider the effort worthy of merit.
End users are not safe in taking a wait and see position. SCO is contacting customers and asking them to take a license of litigate position.
IOW, please pay us now so we can show some revenue long enough for the remaining shareholders to cash out before this whole thing implodes. Otherwise, the FBI will bust in your door and cart you off to Guantanamo.
There's no free lunch or free Linux. The value proposition of Linux is UNIX for free. Free models such as free music, free Internet, free bandwidth, and free love haven't worked.
On the other hand, the free mushrooms the guys in the legal department put in my tea this morning do seem to be working.
This country was built on the notion of property ownership and being about to protect one's property. What's left in this company are concepts and ideas. If you take away the ability to protect that, we're reduced our ability to compete as a country
If you don't support our desire to scare the crap out of the public in order to extort money for intellectual property my company had absolutely no hand in creating, then you're some sort of unpatriotic, filthy commie scum.
By the way there is no truth to the rumors that I am violating any patents previously held by the Rumsfeld-Cheney group. I am operating with a legitimate license from the holder of the scare-the-crap-out-of-america patent.
GPL will not survive. Open source will survive, but the GPL will have to be reworked in a way that is more pro-business.
By pro business I mean pro-big-mega-corporations that deserve to profit from the innovation of others who have the audacity to claim such work that we can exploit be donated to the public domain.
SCO will prevail in its legal battle. SCO is now worth $200 million and has $60 million in the bank. SCO is committed to seeing this through.
Bill's check cleared! Bill's check cleared!
We are also introducing an exciting new product in cooperation with Kool-Aid and the government of Columbia. Look for it soon.
Linux will not be free.
But a woman who is willing to trade "love" may be able to get a discount on the enterprise edition. I.M. my AOL handle, "sexy14yoGRRL" for more details.
All the "big guys" are out to get SCO? What a shame!
Or could it be that "all the big guys" understand that pissing people off is a bad business model and would prefer to defend them and gain their good will?
God, I am tired of these whackjobs at SCO spouting off.
This is retarded somebody needs to investigate SCO and this shit.
.. KNOWINGLY. .. everybody knows this is a big fat pump & dump scheme. Also, they are hoping they'd get lucky. Whatever the outcome (SCO lose or win), the SCO execs are going to get away clean. We won't even get an apology!!
How can they get away with flinging all this false accusations
This stuff is easily a crime. Why havent any DA's or the FBI taken a look at this stuff??
What he means is:
Don't hate me because I'm doing what i have to do. Hate me because I fucked Paris Hilton and all you got was the 30 minute tape. Oh... yeah. AND I'm going to steal your kernel.
As DARL MCBRIDE being an employee of SCO, would we come to know that someone in their corporate capacity at SCO would need to Act as an employee of SCO?
I think yes. If I was employed by Jesus Christ, and not that God believes in creations of man (idols) known as corporations, anyways wouldn't a follower of Jesus Christ be known by their actions if not by their banner?
If DARL MCBRIDE, a Personage created by SCO, was to act without the Darl Mcbride we know eats hotdogs and watches television and does all the things we do on our days off... Would People hate someone for being employed to act in capacity of their employer, including sending letters of C&D and Patent violation, to people who are intended to enjoy the fruits of a labor (OpenUnix).
What if DARL MCBRIDE is demanded performance by one SCO, or risks lawsuits from shareholders for non-performance?
These questions have obvious answers: one reason to not Go Public and as a Corporation.
Secured Party, Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207: Creditor
That the company that is now SCO used to be a 'valued' part of the "Linux community".
What a wonderful "Community"...lawsuits of other "community" members - even a suit of a primary author - Linus T.
Wonder why the Microsoft hype machine hasn't made more of the SCO past?
"IBM is the master of creating an illusion that they're being attacked by this big brutal bully SCO when they're the ones attacking us. They're the ones doing all the behind-the-scenes work."
Yea. That's it. SCO isn't the one suing everyone causing problems and making shit up. It's IBM. Yea, That's the ticket!
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
From SCO. I start next week guys. Wish me luck they said it was going to be lots of open source development and the like so we'll see.
is here.
You aren't the real Perens.
.Bruce Perens
You're
The real Perens is #3872.
-- I'd say your post was about 3 monkeys, 18 minutes.
"Samba isn't your IP. What gives you the right to sell the copyrighted work of others?"
What can SCO possibly answer, while maintaining that the GPL is illegitimate?
"I'll get you!" "Don't hate me."
Irrational expectations of others feelings regarding his behavior. Schizoid.
"The little guys are all out to get me." Paranoid.
Paranoid schizophrenia. I've said so before.
A corporation is a legal entity and should be held responsible for its actions to the same extent as persons. The more society is overrun with these virtual entities, the more important it becomes to mark their behavior acceptable or unacceptable to society. This is clinical sociology.
As for McBride's major part in things, there's nothing a little corrective phrenology wouldn't fix.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
the guy who starts the fight is the one that gets the biggest punishment. Did you ever hear of the guy that did not pick the fight getting expelled. Nope, just the guy that started it, no matter how right or wrong he was. So if SCO expects to go with out a blow, they need to look back at the years when the SCO execs were getting pounded in the school yard -- because it is goign to blow up again.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
So when SCO loses this case.. what happens to the $699 they unjustly claimed??
If I fork over $699 now, can I sue their pants off later once they lose??
What SCO is essentially doing is filibustering of the business world--they are holding out on numerous lawsuits with many companies that they can't really win against, all for their own sick gain.
Darl McBride is ridiculous.
This is an old, but very good, article that helps point out SCO's stupidity very well.
SCO will just end up being another failed company.
I leave reality distortion fields to steve.
I thought Darl was asinine before, but this is just ridiculous.
Linux people are not the only people against the DMCA Darl! The reason people oppose it is because it infringes upon our rights and every Tom-Dick-and Jackass Corporation in America is trying to invoke the DMCA for things that it shouldn't be invoked for. It's akin to people filing for patents on such things as "one click shopping", etc.
"If I'm Merrill Lynch and have a trading application proprietary to Merrill Lynch and deploy it across all my trading desks, if that deployment occurred where the Linux OS and app are distributed togetherm[sic] there are arguments that Merrill would have to provide their proprietary trading application in source form to everyone."
Can anyone tell me what part of the GPL this is from, or is Darl reading a different supersecret proprietary copy that he will licence to us for $1000 a peek?
Darl and friends
now the legal that the legal firm owns a descent amount of stock we as a large comunity should figure ways to influence the public stock owners of SCO to dump.
(think flash crowds in front of wall st.)
We don't. We hate you because you're a conceited bastard.
...as you want to cut balogna so thin you can read through it:
I said absolutely nothing about him being a troll.
I said absolutely nothing about the content of his post.
I said absolutely nothing about high ID = bad content.
I will point out that he's posing as *someone* important enough to have an inbox stuffed with Darl McBride's e-mail, though.
If that's a lie, it's still a lie.
is lies. Damned dirty lies. He says:
... but what if hte court agrees with SCO? what if money is passed under the table? this is a case of -very- high stakes, for both sides. If SCO is found in contept ,or anything like that, SCO loses big time, as does MS, as now most people see them as being in bed with SCO (at least in the tech field). The other way, linux wins, big time. Talk about a stacked deck - now it depends on how it's cut.
If I'm Merrill Lynch and have a trading application proprietary to Merrill Lynch and deploy it across all my trading desks, if that deployment occurred where the Linux OS and app are distributed togetherm there are arguments that Merrill would have to provide their proprietary trading application in source form to everyone. That's a problem.
Go read the GPL. Nowhere is that said. This is purely a lie to get people to not invest in linux, or to use it; the only other alternatives, of course, being SCO... and MS. SCO is likely to benefit little - their technology isn't capable of doing what most people use linux for. So MS gets the customers. Combine that with the SCO discount for converting to MS, and everything else...
I'ts pretty damned obvious to those that know even the most basic things about the GPL and IP law that SCO has no case. McBride makes inference after inference, and all of which are lies. Add them up, and to most people, it's a convincing case. Now to get this thing into court and smack him in the mouth.
Given MS's history of buying politicians....
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
we have been more sure about Koreas nuclear capability for many years, but there N Korea sits, not invaded.
well, let's see what happens if they find an oil deposit under the SCO parking lot, I guess
When you obfuscate the law and have the source to Linux, which is rightfully yours, returned, and there is SCOLinux on the shelf at Wal-mart; if I take it home and install it, will I have to go through some wacky "product activation" scheme?
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
All the big guys are out to get you Darl.
After all, the best (legal) defense is a good offense.
They're the same 2.5 million. For him Linux servers are running his code so he conveniently counts them in his SCO statistics.
"We are funded by Microsoft, Samba implements Microsoft intellectual property, therefore we have the right to use it, and are infact in the process of drafting a law suit against the Samba team" --- something like that?
Wasn't Darl the name of the insane barn-burner in Faulkner's *As I Lay Dying*? Coincidence? I think not.
"It's not a bear, it's a hamster. A really, really large hamster."
This seems eerily similar to statements that might be made about the lawyers, accountants, and bankers that cooked the Enron books. They are worth every penny because they raise stock prices. They are now shareholders so they have a great incentive to make the stock price stay high using every trick in the book, legal or illegal. I suspect that even if Boies loses his license over this, and pays a fee, he will still be a wealthy man. It might even be worth a couple years in a country club jail.
That's the great untold story no one even asks about. We have over two million servers actively running today. Customers continue to come to us. We have laid out a growth map that will be significant for our customers. In the next year expect Legend, which will take OpenServer and update it. Longer term, expect SVR 6, which will be 64-bit Unix on Intel. That is a few years out.
as compared to
We are informed that participants in the Linux industry have attempted to influence participants in the markets in which we sell our products to reduce or eliminate the amount of our products and services that they purchase. They have been somewhat successful in those efforts and similar efforts and success will likely continue. There is also a risk that the assertion of our intellectual property rights will be negatively viewed by participants in our marketplace and we may lose support from such participants. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our position in the marketplace and our results of operations.
These type of cases seem to years in the making, and i am sure there will be point when Boise will stop accepting stock and want a greater portion of cash. I suspect there is also a point at which new investors might stop pouring money into SCO, and two or three license agreement only generate so much cash. Not to mention the burn of normal operating costs. Can anyone expect them to survive the 'few year' to 'SVR 6'. And if they win and actually get a couple billion from IBM, will there be any reason to develop for a 64 bit platform. It will be MS model all over again. We own your desktop. We have all the cash. We will tell you what you need.
The second dial is the 2.5 million Linux servers out there today that are paired with our intellectual property in them. We have a licensed product $699, $1,399. Chris [Sontag] is driving that and that's another multi-billion-dollar revenue oppotunity
The third bucket has to do with the IBM settlement. We filed that at $3 billion. Every day they don't resolve this, the AIX meter is still ticking....
I seem to remember an interesting ruling several years ago. It basically said you cannot advertise certain things about certain products at certain prices unless a significant amount or product had been sold at that price. Although that ruling applied to the retail chain, I would think that publicly saying that revenue is going to be generated from a product that you do not even own and have no reasonable exception of owning with the constraints of normal sense would be really close to lying. The funny thing is he separates the ruling in the IBM from expected income from Linux users. The two are in fact connected. The later would tend to negate the former, though the later will not guarantee the former. One really wonders if the clock it winding down faster on AIX or SCO.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Come on, asshole. Sue me. I have Linux running on two machines here at home. I bet you're too much of a pantie-waste to figure out my home address. It actually isn't that hard. All the information you need is right here.
Yes, this is flamebait, but it's directed at SCO.
-- Will program for bandwidth
What Darl wants, and I will fight to the end of my days to prevent, is a return to the hugely inefficient days when every Tom, Dick and Harry company could build their own unique, incompatible-with-the-universe, expensive custom OSes. Only in the rarest of cases were those systems worth anywhere near their costs. Digital, Data General, IBM, AT&T, Sun, Apollo, (reaching back in history here) Interdata, Xerox, Burroughs, Sperry, RCA, all spent *huge* numbers of their customers' dollars funding their slick research OSes. It was interesting for some, but terrifically expensive for the majority of businesses. On the other hand, the openness implicit in GPLed (and to a lesser extent BSD licensed) code provides an excellent mechanism for encouraging the boad adoption of open standards. These standards lead to portability, interoperability, and the dissemination of the knowledge needed for full participation in information-intensive societies.
<repeating a prior comment>I dropped a fully-paid UNIXware license, converting to Linux in 1996 due to UINXware's inadequate support of then-current hardware. It has only fallen further behind since then. If you want to compete with the big boys, then be prepared to perform up to their standards.</repeat>
And your blah blah blah is related to the parent post how?
First Linux, then "BSD next year". Can Windows be far behind? I'm curious what the BSD people think of being targeted next.
Aww shucks! This thread was just getting started and already someone has to mention Hitler!
a w.html
http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_L
TT
I orginally posted this on the "IBM Puts Pressure On SCO" article. However I posted it very late. So I will post here again. If you don't like what SCO is doing complain about it. Here is a link to help you contact the people to complain to. http://www.understudy.net/weblog/archives/00000014 .html
It's the cost of "playing the game" of business...sitting around board tables, jet setting to last-minute meetings--it's a drug of "power".
Guys like him start out "at the bottom" in the old boys network. They typically go from newbie to boss in a short time...he's probably never actually researched ANYTHING to do with copyright or patent on his OWN...delegating doesn't count. Guys like him deal in what they WANT...not what's REAL. I find executives as a class get a surprising amount of info from word-of-mouth, Forbes [& such], and CNN...far more often than say..googling for a copy of the LAW, or court cases/common practice to support their claims.
I find they're like the kids in school that don't know the game really well, but can argue the rules 'till everyone is bored and gives up.
From the article:
Could somebody explain to me the actual unix/sco connection? Do they actually own it or have steak in it? If so, how did this happen? Didn't AT&T develop it?
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
McBride: Our goal is not to blow up Linux. People ask why we don't go after the distributors...'If you have such a strong case, why not shut down Red Hat?' Our belief is that SCO has great opportunity in the future to let Linux keep going, not to put it on its back but for us to get a transaction fee every time it's sold. That's really our goal.
...
Being so reliant on future litigation revenues, its starting to look to me as thought there might possibly be a connection between Red Hat's recent announcement to stop distributing a free linux in favor of enterprise server distro and the SCO intent to get a fee for each linux install.
McBride seems to be playing it very gently with Red Hat
while sco {
wget -O
}
On the one hand, this all seems so ridiculous, . You've got this two bit outfit suing IBM, which has more lawyers on its payroll than most companies have employees. Same than ups the ante, wants to sue the world and his cousin. All this while claiming as its own the hard work of hundreds aroundt the world.
On the other hand, I can't help but remember that the fate of Linux and the GPL are about to be handed over to the same legal system that got OJ acquitted and awarded millions to some idiot who couldn't figure out that driving a car with hot coffee between her laps was a bad idea.
The way this McBride talks (IBM, Red Hat, HP, now Novell, next *BSD, then you and me?), it looks like lawsuits will be flying around for a long, long time. Add to this the fact that (yeah, yeah, IANAL) that stupid laws like the DMCA seem give his company at least some grounds for his lawsuits (and besides, who knows if IBM et al. didn't do some really stupid things?).
Who wins in the end? You already know of course: Bill.
Prove me wrong, please!
I mean, seriously... what if the guy routinely posted in SCO discussions trying to keep up all whipped up in anger about him, personally? Some disturbing ego trip...
From dictionary.com:
Armageddon ( P ) Pronunciation Key (arm-gdn)
n.
1. Bible. The scene of a final battle between the forces of good and evil, prophesied to occur at the end of the world.
2. A decisive or catastrophic conflic
Before you mod this "off topic" or rant about another SCO article, think about what the this really means for IT in general, and open source in particular. This is THE final, decisive battle between the forces of good and evil.
MS may have a hundred billion dollars in the bank, but they have passed their zenith, and are now slowly, but surely sliding backwards. Country by country, city by city, company by company they are finally starting to lose. Like a fist full of sand, the harder they sqeeze, the more it slips through their fingers.
I don't think the problem is guys like Darl doesn't get it. He does get it, and it probably keeps him awake at night.
My rights don't need management.
SCO owns all UNIX System V source code
SCO owns agreements to all UNIX vendors
SCO owns all UNIX System V copyrights
SCO owns all claims for violation of UNIX licenses.
SCO controls UNIX System V derivative works.
I suspect that Novell might just have a few things to say about that!
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
McBride: It's a range. Those who are directly selling SCO Unix products, are cheering us on ...
Stop the presses, someone sold SCO Unix last year?!
McBride: .... Those who have drifted over to the Linux camp are confused.
Indeed, I can't figure out what those idiots at SCO are up to.
McBride: My first reaction was we needed to create a counterbalance [to the vocal open sourcers]. We're on the side of the silent majority...
Eh? Let's see, for ages we've all had to listen to and counter his company's Microsoft funded bullshit, press releases and amazing old media broadsides. He's been saying all sorts of stuff designed to stirr doubt deep in the hearts of PHB and it's been reported by every WinTel rag on earth, but he reagards himself as "silent". Somehow people who have to reassure their bosses not to give in to SCO's extortion of end users is somehow "vocal"? The free software's statements are all reactions to this turkey. If some people get angry, it's because of the volume of ignorant and wrong nonsense this man has been able to generate - you need to buy a $700 license for every Linux box you own because IBM put "secret" SCO code into the kernel that SCO published openly under the GPL but refuses to specify. It's madening and hardly "right".
More McBitch: This is about our IP! ... IBM is the master of creating an illusion that they're being attacked by this big brutal bully SCO when they're the ones attacking us. They're the ones doing all the behind-the-scenes work.
Oh sure, Dayrl, and I'm Steve Barkto. IBM must be running the Free Software Society. Tell me all about it. The whole world of knowledgable computing says you are full of it. What do you produce? Some poor woman who's BA was in French who had to sign a massively restrictive NDA to look at publically published and GPL'd code next to snippets of your ancient Unix? Give me a break. Put up or shut up and quit threatening the world and maybe, just maybe people will think your extortion and stock fraud days are behind you.
We early on looked at GPL-related issues and felt it was an Achilles heel for IBM but we didn't open them up initially. We didn't want to confuse a clear-cut contract issue [with IBM] with the untested GPL and other issues. But when IBM dragged GPL onto the table, our lawyers started sharpening their steak knives. 'Ok, if that's what you want to talk about , we'll talk about it.'
Oh yeah, you were forced to call the GPL a cancer, but you hated it all along. Bzzzt! Your case of trade secret violation got blown out of the water because your company published said traid secrets openly and under the GPL. You can't fall back to copyright violations, because you can't really find any infringing code. So, you are left with this crack house attack on the GPL.
If you take IBM out of the equation, Linux would not be growing up, it would not be SMP-enabled, it would not be multi processing, scaling up to hundreds of servers. It is IBM that is enabling that.
There he goes again, taking credit for stuff that his crappy Unix can't do.
VARBusiness: Are customers changing their Linux purchasing pattern since SCO sent out warning letters?
McBride: A research report came out saying 80 percent of users had not slowed down. Our take on that is 20 percent have. So one out of five.
Thanks Dayrl, that will come in handy when you get sued for the damages all your BS has done. I'd love to see Red Hat pin the end of their retail distro on you and strip off some of those $20,000,000 Microsoft has funded you with.
If you look at the GPL, it couldn't be more clear, they either have to pull [the offending code] or shut down the distribution. The things we're laying claim to are things you can't pull out very easily....it's very difficult to yank this stuff out.
Right. Everyone is begging for the proof and the code they can shut this idiot up by rewriting that supposed code. It's not there.
OK, I hate everything this idiot says -5 flamebait article.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
until they liken us to the Nazis!
Well, this is the best FUD SCO has pulled so far. I mean, this guy is articulate and now hes playing the victim angle. He is also cynic enough to explain to us what this is all about.
The worst part, is that he is such a good communicator one can even end believing in him. And im a blindfolded linux junkie (i live of linux and GPL software, thank you very much).
Now, the interesting part of this, is that lets say yeah, linux infringes by court of law and etc. etc. etc.
It will take the community a year to either fork to a clean base or move to a bsd based kernel. Hey this may even force a scenario where BSD copyright holders my want to release BSD GPL just to not see a GNU pure system die. Anyhow, lets say it takes a year or two to get back on track, by then (2007 since trial is late 2004-2005), i dont think it will matter so much really. Brasil (LA major economie), China (Asia major econimie, probably by 2007 will be second to none), europe...etc. Will be swarming with FLOSS, both at the state and at the private enterprises. Darl has gotta stop them NOW (and he aint succeding), not in 2005.
If he doesnt, darl is gonna have to do much more than this to stop that size of projects (bush would have to invade a couple of pretty large, socialist oriented nuclear, or developing nuclear enabled powers to enforce this).
By 2007, all your OS is belong to us, and maybe you can fuck up redhat and charge them for each sale, but u aint gonna kill debian (a good chunk of it is developed in europe). So there, i aint going nowhere. Gimme my GPL and ip infinging Linux and thank you very much.
NO SIG
You are totally correct, of course, but unfortunately that view is WIDELY believed by a great many people who are not already up to date.
I have sat down in person with people, to explain why this is not true, including going over the GPL in detail with them, line by line.. and they still don't buy it.. the FUD machine has them believing you CANNOT write proprietary software for linux.
What other host could it possibly feed on? They have decided to devolve into the most efficient of life forms, the parasite.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Nope. You have to have both sets of source code. Now suppose you find identical code. How do you tell which direction the copying was done?
The law does go lenient on criminals that turn themselves in. And in most cases it is very lenient when it is an obvious case of a mistake (not that a bank robbery would be, which is where Darl's analogy breaks down). In cases of intellectual property, where it can be shown the infringement was unintentional, courts very often are lenient, letting the "perpetrator" off easy, usually with just actual economic damages and legal costs (these things can vary depending on how well the defendant cooperates).
So let's suppose IBM did contribute SCO intellectual property to Linux, as alleged. The case is against IBM directly, so IBM could be liable for at least the economic losses and legal costs, and maybe more if it can be show there were things like intent.
But what about the rest of the Linux Community? In a normal case, specific infringments would be identified. Linus will most certainly tear that part of the code out and new original development will take place lightning fast, and a new version of the 2.4 kernel (maybe even the 2.2 kernel) will be out in a few weeks. The 2.6 kernel will end up being squeaky clean.
All SCO will get is past infringement losses, possibly limited to not more than would have been earned for that piece of crap they dare call Unix. What they would never get ... will never get ... is revenue for anything in the future. They would make some money, but they would not have solid future revenues which is what actually drives up equity values. It's future earnings (on everyone else's real work) that they are trying to lock in for themselves (which they can't do if Linus tears out any questionable code, which he is sure to do once it becomes known as such).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
hell at that price why doesn't IBM, HP, or someone else buy SCO and give away there proprietary code just to get rid of this headache what is bad for linux is bad for IBM, HP, and Dell who have business plans based on linux. Hell at $200,000,000 1 million linux users and open source people could fork over $200 and make SCO disappear, it is that simple. If we had known about this months ago I know individual people with enough captial to have bought SCO.
You watch, SCO is getting ready to sue itself. Soon we'll see McBride putting his pinky to his mouth and say "100 billion press releases!" Thanks, Darl - it's good to kick off the week with a good laugh... Does Darl know you've found his stash?
I quote McBride: My first reaction was we needed to create a counterbalance [to the vocal open sourcers]. We're on the side of the silent majority...but at the end of the day it's around who's right. We're rock solid on our claims... and we're not sitting here day in day out trying to counter the stones being thrown at us. We have a business to run. Our employees are reenergized around the movement back to Unix, reenergized around the role SCO is playing... . Our roots in the Unix business are strong and won't be blown over by a little bit of Linux wind.
This guy is full of more BS than Slashdot. In fact, I would classify him as dellusional. Rock Solid claims? Show us ONE! Just one of your thousands of ROCK SOLID CLAIMS.
As for the Linux wind, the only wind blowing is coming from McBrides mouth.
McBride: They said within 90 days [this morning] but I would qualify that and say I'll be surprised if we get beyond 60 days.
This is in response to suing end users. I can't even get one of SCO's re-energized employees to answer the phone and explain licensing. If SCO follows through on a single threat I'll be amazed. Hey McBride, isn't IBM still violating your big bad "cease and desist" and shipping AIX? Didn't you pull IBM's license? Isn't IBM clearly in violation of your agreement? Are you a total loser? Yes, you are a total loser!
I can't wait until this is over... however, I fear it will never be over until Gates controls the world.
...and says "all the big guys" are out to get SCO.
Naw, don't be so pessimistic, Mr. McBride! I'm sure that Microsoft loves you.
http://mediagoblin.org/
After reading the comments I see no one has taken a pro-SCO viewpoint. I guess I'll have to give it a go:
First, consider the allegation. Copyrighted code is part of the Linux kernel. What if it's true? Shouldn't the copyright holder get its day in court?
And consider the lawyer...David Boies. In case you've forgotten what what he's done, check out this Time article. He's no dummy and he's certainly not motivated by money. Hell, he should be a superhero around here - he fought for Gore in the last election (in that little Florida thing), he worked on behalf of Napster (the original one), and he led the charge for the government against Microsoft. Certainly he knows the facts in this case. He doesn't need the money (he's about the hottest lawyer around), he doesn't need fame (he's got that too)...why take on IBM et al just to lose? That would be a sour way to end a distinguished career. Clearly he thinks he can win.
Look at SCO's stock performance over the last year. Do you think the diligent researchers on Wall Street are confused by McBride's proclamations? No, they do research. The upturn in the stock price (from $1 to $14) is a loud vote of confidence for SCO's actions.
Sure, this is an emotional issue here at Slashdot, but control yourselves and consider the facts. I think that when the dust settles you'll see that SCO had some valid points and perhaps the good souls that gave you Linux didn't always behave as ethically as they should.
Ok, my work is done for the day...time for bed. I'll sweep up my crushed karma in the morning.
Mod that bitch...this is a good overview of the situation...
Last I checked that's what the MS end user license agreement says:
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. The Limited Warranty referenced below is the only express warranty made to you and is provided in lieu of any other express warranties (if any) created by any documentation or packaging. Except for the Limited Warranty and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Product and support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, either express, implied, or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to the Product, and the provision of or failure to provide support services. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE PRODUCT.
I love doing a beat-down on guys like this... I know the type, he probably plays basketball and is all "tough guy" about it, and sits around with his buddies afterwards smoking cigars.
Probably is about 50 pounds overweight, but deep down thinks it makes him stronger and tougher.
Meanwhile, he makes sure he plays with guys (and companies) smaller than him, and occaisionally he'll take a poke at a bigger guy.
The only thing an idiot like this understands is a good beat down, and he'll cry like a little bitch afterwards about how it wasn't fair.
He is a prime reason why late term abortions aren't necessarily a bad thing.
I've never purchased a mainstream commercial distribution. Other than dabbling with demonstrative releases of RedHat and SuSE for about a total of six months, I've used Slackware or Debian since I started using Linux back in 1996. I think that once I ordered a Cheapbytes CD of Slackware for 8.0 or something like that, but it was less than the cost of a large coke at a fast food restaurant.
So, Darl, faced with a product that is very often free to hobbyists or companies willing to support themselves internally is going to gain revenue from this how? If I never touch anything to do with Caldera Systems, the only way that they're going to even know that I have my copies of Linux would be to stage a BSA-style raid on my home or business, count the machines, audit the software, and the like.
This does scare me. Not in the sense that I think that Darl and his other brother Darl will win, but that if they were to somehow squeak by with a court victory, establish precedent, and continue winning court victories that somehow gave them rights to that which they shouldn't otherwise, what's to stop them from being even more asinine?
I have no love for the company whose operating system has the most market share, but at various times, when working for computer companies that sold product, if something were amiss, an actually friendly representative would come in and identify himself as a rep, tell us how the product distribution for the product (usually the OS) worked (like, minimum pricing put into the wholesale distribution), cite our ad if the price were lower than the initial wholesale price, and if something were amiss, he'd inspect the product. A couple of times we had forged copies, which was noticeable on the booklets on further inspection, and he traded us all of the faulty software for good copies, all that he wanted to know was where we got them. No fuss, no muss, no lawyers talking, even for software that would be fairly easy to prove as illegitimate if it came down to it.
Compare this to Caldera in their approach. They're huffing and puffing about $600+ licencing fees for the OS. Everone who bends and pays encourages them to seek out everyone else that has "product", regardless of origin. They'll be querying webservers, looking at NAT and Masquerade data that they find, and making a big pain out of themselves. They'll call the FBI to attempt to root out the "piracy" of what they "own" in BSA-style raids. They'll make a mockery of the criminal justice system the same as they have the civil system.
Yes, I'm being extremely paranoid, but a little paranoia now is better than a terrible situation later, especially if ways to combat this can be found.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
ba dom pish!
...and why on earth would they ask this clown to do their keynote speech?
I guess I just answered my own question. CDXPO must be some ragtag Comdex wannabe.
They probably would've rather asked Scott Peterson or the DC Snipers to do the keynote, but they were tied up in court.
The GPL *DEPENDS* on copyright law for enforceability. A copyright holder has the rights to say how his own works are copied/distributed, and since derivative works would still tend to include some or all of the original code, derivative works still need to be released under the terms that the copyright holder insists on.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
McBride: Right now, we're talking about the Linux base. We're a little company we have to choose our battles. Our goal is to take the Linux thing and get that tightened down and then swing back around on AIX. We're sort of fine to let the AIX thing tick, because the longer it goes, when we actually end up in courtroom, we can go back to June 13, 2003, and add damages. We're sort of fine to let that one run. I don't sense they've stopped shipping AIX and both sides right now are kind of on the Linux battlefront.
It always comes back to raising the value of STOCKS for the shareholder.
If your a CEO and fire half the employees at your company and offshore the rest the jobs(sprint) and your stock price goes up because you cut cost then your considered a genius by Forbes,Fortune and CNBC(kudlow&cramer), the non-caring-zero social values capitalist types.
Darl is doing what all Wall Street companies do play mind games with shareholders and media and raise those STOCK PRICES up.
69. Keep a set of books listing those activities of the Evil Overlord that would be a credit to Gandhi. Show these records to anyone who cares to see them.
70. Keep a second set of books that lists the activities in the first set of books, plus those activities that look fishy at a cursory glance, but on closer examination are perfectly within the letter of the law, or maybe just bend it a little. Show these books to auditors who aren't fooled by the first set of books, and then only when the Evil Overlord has no choice but to allow examination. Keep them a bit untidy so that anyone looking at them will think you were caught with your pants down.
71. Keep a third set of books, listing everything the Evil Overlord is up to. Show these books to the Evil Overlord when he wants to see them. Show them to nobody else. Store them in thermite-packed cabinets so that they can be destroyed with extreme speed.
72. Keep a fourth set of books, listing the locations and passwords for the bulk of the Evil Overlord's loot, including the Plundered Crown Jewels. Use this information to bargain for your miserable cowardly life when the Hero defeats the Evil Overlord.
73. Keep a fifth set of books, listing the locations and passwords for a small portion of the Evil Overlord's loot, in the form of unmarked and untraceable cash. Use this information to set yourself up for retirement after the Evil Overlord is overthrown.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Linux is composed of 1's and 0's, but SCO seems to be full of #2.
SCO has great opportunity in the future to let Linux keep going, not to put it on its back but for us to get a transaction fee every time it's sold. That's really our goal.
;)
Every time I hear about the SCO case and how they defend it, I think about this satire article published in Toms Hardware on the 1 of April 2003 a couple of month before SCO made their move. I think Maybe McBride probably got the idea from there!
Now, maybe Tom should think of suing SCO for making a bad rip-off of is joke?
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
Darl, if you didn't want to be hated, you should not have been born.
1) Threaten legal action against the entire market.
2) ???
3) Profit!
Perhaps the underwear gnomes have taken control of SCO.
It's kind of hollow words that we are not showing code, because we have shown examples and if we keep showing it, [Linux leaders will] just take that out and say 'no harm no foul.'
Sontag admits that SCO is not releasing the information required to rectify the situation and, if SCO shows which code might be misappropriated, Linux leaders will remove the offending code.
But there are over one million lines of code that we have identified that are derivative works by IBM and Sequent that have been contributed into Linux that we have identified and there's been no effort by Linux leaders to start acting and rectify that situation.
But Sontag also claims Linux leaders aren't trying to rectify the situation... Sigh.
Well, let see.... 87Million to sue a slob linux user. ROFL. So SCOX, I dare you to sue me! ROFL. First, and last, what code am I using that you have anything, even the barest of claims to have rights to, that I'm infringing on in any respect what so ever? Where where where? Yeap.. I know, this is redudent.. but so are SCO's arguments. What's new is 87Mill to sue some poor end user linux dude. That's going to suck. Lol.
So let me get this straight... you're going to sue for the damages caused by our refusal to remove your code but you don't want us to remove it because then you can't sue us.
It gets back to this. If there is infringing code in Linux that belongs to SCO please show us Mr McBride. You said you would back in the spring.
We are still waiting. Another reason to place no trust in you or your company.
Now I read this thread and see astro turfing for SCO. God Save us and mod the loosers -5 waste of human skin please.
It's clear that McBride is doing everthing he can to get his 4 quarters of profit in so he can get paid above the table for once. Someone get me a bucket I am goning to be sick.
Darl; as Rosie O'Donel said "...people who lie get cancer" you better hope it ain't true or your totaly eaten up with it already.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
A looong time ago, I used to work for SCO.
Unless it was a pretty short "looong time", you didn't work for the same company. The company you worked for, The Santa Cruz Operation, is now called "Tarantella", and they're out of the OS business. The company that's suing IBM is the company formerly named "Caldera", now The SCO Group (no "Santa Cruz" in the name any more). They purchased some assets (name and SYSV source licenses) from the old SCO, but they're a completely separate company.
I saw BSD mentioned a number of times in the BLOG. If SCO is also going to be attacking BSD, won't they by extension end up attacking Apple?
So now you've got that sub-plot of the Grasshopper and Master thing That's great Darl, I love the story about the Grasshopper and the Master. It's my favourite kung fu story. Keep them coming Darl
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
--
ann coulter troll
"(and besides, who knows if IBM et al. didn't do some really stupid things?)"
Or some really smart things...
The Linux community needs to face some facts here. IBM makes money from software. Novell makes money from software.
The GPL in the long term, threatens their business models. Perhaps IBM did something really smart: poisoned the Linux kernel. IBM doesn't think "today today today", nor does it merely look to tomorrow, it plans it's actions at least a decade out, if not longer. This, according to an IBM representative who spoke to my company some years back.
Big software businesses can not conceivably have a big software business long term future, if more and more software is written and released under the GPL. Eventually(although really, it's already begun to happen), GPL software will begin to bite in to their bottom lines.
I think IBM poisoned Linux intentionally. All the "peace, love, and linux" money it tossed around is peanuts compared to the business it stands to lose long term to GPL software.
I know, someone will say something about their hardware business. I know they make money on hardware, but would that really stop them from doing everything in their power to keep their software business healthy?
I don't know. IANAL, nor do I know much about IBMs finanical breakdown. I do know that they make good money from their software side, and the GPL is a long term threat to all software business models. It is like a cancer in the eyes of these businesses... It grows and grows and eventually, there will be no room left to compete, except in the most niche of markets.
I think this is a concerted effort on the part of big business to do what they could not do on a level playing field, stop the proliferation of free software.
But yeah, I'm missing tons of important tidbits that should help to "disprove" this. We'll see. I can't believe IBM would ignorantly release other peoples IP. If they have been found to have done this, I think it was done intentionally.
What a better conspiracy? Look like the good guy, win the nerds hearts, trounce your long term threat, and come out smelling like roses in the process. Paranoid? You bet. I live in the land where capitalism is the rule and exploiting others for profits and trouncing their dreams to make a buck is considered not only moral, but patriotic.
heh, I guess whishful thinking, no?
twitter (104583): wrote...
you need to buy a $700 license for every Linux box you own because IBM put "secret" SCO code into the kernel that SCO published openly under the GPL but refuses to specify. It's madening and hardly "right".
"It's funny when I talked to IBM earlier this year, before we did anything, it wasn't even clear where the IP problems were. We just said we were going to start investigating IP issues, and IBM said, 'You're just giving Bill Gates an early Christmas present.' Bill Gates? This is about our IP! What are you talking about? This was the immediate reaction at IBM and the open source guys. Unfortunately for them, it's just not reality."
It is reality. You aren't just 'investigating your IP', you are telling everyone about this as if Linux is guilty before proven innocent. If it was innocent, then infringments would be proven and facts would be set straight. Asshole.
"One transportation company said, 'We don't want to be on the wrong side of you guys on this. What do we do to get clean?'"
Again, innocent before proven guilty. The transportation company would hypothetically end up paying for another version of Unix or licensing Linux if SCO somehow proves infringment, right?
Assholes.
.. now someone please post Darl McBrides details. We want his physical address, home phone number, cellphone number, aerial photographs, and whatever. Lets see if we can have fun with postal mail lists, phonecalls in the early hours, personal visits, etc, etc.
What happens when the ultra-annoying kid allies with the big bully and both pick on the little nice kid who just wants to go to school and learn? Little nice kids big cousin from the high school nearby comes over to lay down the smack...
I wish Darl would shut the fuck up and get a real job. Years from now people will still be talking about how that idiot and his has-been company dominated tech media or months with their baseless lawsuit.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
The CEO must not break the law or the company's charter in acting for their best interests. He also can't act in his own interest when it puts the company or shareholders at risk.
And driving SCO into the ground with legal fees to see no income from it is not acting in the best interest of the shareholders. At least not most shareholders. Yes, pumping a stock makes it go up but only temporarily. When it comes down it will come down hard and people who have too much of their money in the stock will lose everything.
Aggressive actions are not always smart actions.
"The things we're laying claim to are things you can't pull out very easily....it's very difficult to yank this stuff out."
Rule #1 - if you stand to gain from this claim, it's going to have to be verified by a neutral third party and proper research, because we don't trust you.
"Our belief is that SCO has great opportunity in the future to let Linux keep going, not to put it on its back but for us to get a transaction fee every time it's sold. That's really our goal."
There it is, in black and white. War.
"Basically the GPL is countering U.S. Copyright law. Is IBM on the side of free software while they are one of the largest IP and IT firms in the world trying to protect their own patents and copy rights? It's just the most bizarre juxtaposition... . They're supporting something that's very unfriendly to copyrights."
What??? Has this guy even READ the GPL? The GPL rests entirely on copyright law! It's just doing something that isn't normally done by commercial types. RTFLicense. This guy sounds like he needs to pry apart copyright and profit in his brain.
"Underneath all this is hard-core capitalism."
Welcome to the powerful world of volunteers. Kernal aside, a lot of the end user work in Linux is not by companies. If a company or an industry gets messed up enough, they just might find themselves competing with volunteers. Welcome to your nightmare - night of the undead competition.
"We just said we were going to start investigating IP issues, and IBM said, 'You're just giving Bill Gates an early Christmas present.' Bill Gates? This is about our IP! What are you talking about? This was the immediate reaction at IBM and the open source guys. Unfortunately for them, it's just not reality."
If this guy is this clueless he has no business being a CEO in the software industry. Whatever their intent, the net result is indeed early Christmas in Redmond.
"To the extent that we have to take [Linux] down and put it on its back, we're fully prepared and willing to do that."
Indeed. I don't SCO is ready to face what that would mean - the rise of GNU Hurd. Whatever we may think about Richard Stallman, if SCO somehow puts this through there's going to be a retreat to the hard line FSF position on a lot of fronts, and GNU Hurd in full bloom on L4 might be more than any of the unix guys are ready for. SCO might find itself utterly irrelevant, on Linux IP or SCO Unix. Hardware wasn't ready for microkernels a decade ago, and microkernels weren't ready for prime time. But if we have to start fresh, to avoid any possible "IP" contamination, they're gonna find themselves wishing they had never said anything at all. Most operating system research hasn't been implimented practically over the last few decades. Wanna find out what the future is like, today?
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
It's always fun to watch Darl and his loud and continued misunderstandings of what exactly a copyright is. I found this quote very entertaining.
:)
"What's left in this company are concepts and ideas. If you take away the ability to protect that, we're reduced out ability to compete as a country (cue the break out the flag, someone)."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't copyright the protection of literary works? I know they've changed copyrights a bit recently, but as far as I know, it's still impossible to copyright an idea. If that were possible, entire literary genres would be in jeopardy. Imagine what would happen if you had to pay Geffen Records every time you wanted to write a love song?
Another technical point: (quoting from the article)
Q: What percentage of Linux is infringing?
A: Roughly one million lines of code. 20% of the Linux kernel. BSD is in a clear legal environment. There are dozens of protected BSD files that have made there way into Linux.
Which is interesting. This guy says there are 30,000,000 (thirty million) lines of code in Linux. I've heard it elsewhere as well, mostly here.That would mean that there would need to be at least 6,000,000 lines of code in order to constitute a 20% infringement.Yet, McBride says there are only a million lines of infringing code.And that includes their extremely broad definition of derivative works.
I could be pissing up the wrong tree, but it looks like he's full of it. But we knew that.Let's just hope their legal team shows the same level of ineptitude that McBride has.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
hydraulic jack
lamp
big lamp
ironing board
McBride went on to predict major changes in open-source software, with market forces favoring those who innovate for profit. "We are in a tug-of-war between those who believe software should be free and those who think proprietary licensing is OK," he said. "When you look at what drives an economy, it's capitalist principles
You are absolutely right, Darl.
This is precisely what the masses need to raise against. To prevent people like Darl from taking the freedoms of the working class...
-Drache Kubisuro
In the article SCO makes the claim that they "own" Unix. However, this is just the old AT&T codebase. Isn't this like claiming you "own" DOS 1.2? And therefore you want everyone who buys a copy of Windows XP to give you a big cut? He also makes a big deal about intellectual property and fails to make the differentiation that it's someone elses property he's trying to make a buck off. No one in there right mind would just buy Sys 5 anymore.
fuckin bastards who posted before me!!! dieeeeeee
"The legal stone is clearly coming from David. He used to be with Cravath. It is an epic battle. The guy at Cravath supporting IBM used to work for David. [He's] Evan Chessler. So now you've got that sub-plot of the Grasshopper and Master thing."
as being enacted out by Darl with little whooosh sounds and toy figurines?
We haven't had a new product in our OpenServer base in years and years.
What a concept! New products lead to new sales! Make him a professor at Harvard business school!
SCO sees it's dying but knows it has IP rights in some of its stuff. Because the kernel code is open source, it invests the time and resources of an unscrupulous individual or two to inject infringing code into the kernel. A year later, it announces the travesty of justice it has just discovered, and sues.
Now imagine a company desperate to get rid of Linux and with plenty of time, deep pockets, and a history of low dealing gets a similar idea. We'll call them, for fun, Microsoft.
I know it would be fraudulent and criminal and I'm not suggesting it's about to happen or even that MS would do that, just that the open source model makes it easier for someone to pull a stunt like that.
ps: I know you can't just submit code and magically it's there in the kernel. I'm talking about either deliberate long term malfeasance or a rogue employee who gets a 'bright' idea and hatches a longish term plan.
pps: I know this could easily happen (and has happened) with proprietary source companies as well .. my point is it would be easier w/ open source, that's all.
ppps: I don't think it's a particularly brilliant insight .. just throwing it out there...
SCO's code is not like a big bag of cash from a bank. It's more like a stinky bag of dirty clothes.
SCO is basically saying:
You have a bag of my valuable clothes in your car. You thief. What? You say they aren't mine. Are too. I can prove it. Well, no, I don't feel like proving it right now. Stop! You can't throw those in the street. You stole them and you can't return them. You have to keep them. They are much too valuable for you to be able to return. I'd rather you just pay me to have them. In fact, I insist. Oh sure, right, you didn't want them in the first place. Now stop whining and give me your money.
Samba was developed in Australia, where the law specifically allows for reverse engineering to allow compatibility with other products. There is no Microsoft IP in the Samba code.
The original copyright point raised by CoughDropAddict holds. The GPL is a set of rules that the author of a copyrighted work applies to other people who wish to use that work. If SCO doesn't agree to those rules, standard copyright laws apply - meaning SCO can NOT legally sell the product. It's not their IP.
They can sell Samba. They can diss the GPL. They can't do both.
Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
The good news is we have the U.S. Copyright Office on our side to fight with.
Darl, I don't think they're going to take SCO stock and a Million bucks, do you? They just say that to get you off the phone.
"...You don't have to be a programmer at all to see copying had occurred. It wasn't just ten lines of code, that example was over 80 to 100 lines of code. Later some of the Linux people said that code shouldn't have been there, Bruce Perens said it was development problem and 'we've taken it out.' My analogy is [that's] like a bank robber with posse in pursuit swinging back by the bank and throwing the money back in... - oh, this is just precious. This guy, who presents himself to the media and to other companies as a David fighting Golliath with a copyright stone is still using this specific remark out of context. Shouldn't there be a law that if you obviously lie during a lawsuit that you freaking started, you just automatically lose everything, including the right to procreate?
I would love to see this guy hanged. If I ever see him on the street, he better watch out.
You can't handle the truth.
See, here's the thing - it doesn't matter.
The GPL is based on copyright law. It's solid. A lot of very smart people spent a lot of time working on it, and it has been around in the wild for a long time as well. Nothing SCO can do will overturn that.
And even - if we play devil's advocate for a second - if SCO managed to somehow overturn the GPL, then the copyrights revert to the original authors and they STILL cannot steal it. And in the meantime, Stallman and the FSF will go to work on GPL Next Generation that patches whatever hole managed to get punched in it.
The Code Is Out There. It cannot be made to go away, and more importantly, the culture of Free Software/Open Source is established and entrenched. If necessary, Linux could be re-written from scratch and the project would carry on.
It's not going to come to that... but even in the worst possible case for us, SCO cannot stop us. At best, it can only slow things down.
What you are seeing and hearing are the first of the death throes of the former Big Players. Microsoft's death will likely be even more messy... but it doesn't matter in the end. The horse carriage makers and sailing shipbuilders died hard too.
We really are invincible - that's what has these people so scared. The only question is "when?" and... well, who cares? If you're reaping the benefits of Linux, then YOU have already won. So it takes a little while longer to make it to everone. *shrug* Big deal. When victory is inevitable, don't complain that it doesn't arrive fast enough.
Personally, I'm thanking my lucky stars that the first big opponent in the battle between Big Business Proprietary Software and Free Software - the case that is likely to set all kinds of precidents - is against an opponent so painfully and obviously in the wrong. They're centered around a *stock scam* fer crissakes, and they're abusing the judges. Read Groklaw for a taste of just how poorly this battle is being fought by the "other side" and how well by "our side".
We could have wound up fighting somebody much, much smarter with a better case, purer, and uncontaminated with by market foolishness. Instead, we got SCO. That's cause for celebration in my book.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
From the Article, Quote by Chris Sontag: (about 4/5th down the page):
Later some of the Linux people said that code shouldn't have been there, Bruce Perens said it was development problem and 'we've taken it out.' My analogy is [that's] like a bank robber with posse in pursuit swinging back by the bank and throwing the money back in...
From Bruce Perens website:
of the two examples, one isn't SCO's property at all, and the other is used in Linux under a valid license. If this is the best SCO has to offer, they will lose.
Where did Bruce Perens say "we've taken it out"? On the contrary, he points out that SCO didn't own one block of code and the other is under a valid license.
So is Chris Sontag lying, or am I in error?
Ruby on Rails Screencast
From the article:
The SCO-IBM case is slated to hit a Utah courtroom in 18 months
18 months?! Wow, just enough time to confuse the masses long enough from investing in Linux to hail the arrival of...the arrival of...
Gee...what's supposed to ship sometime around mid-2006?
Ruby on Rails Screencast
And that's why no one on Wall Street ever loses money in a stock transaction.
The lady in question only brought the lawsuit after finding out that McDonalds had known about the problems their coffee temp had been causing for over 10 years. The 80 year old woman was a passenger in the car and spilled it while taking the lid off to add cream and sugar. In the strange universe that SCO lives within, they would argue that the cream and sugar were responsible for her injuries...
But she sued for medical expenses for her third degree burns and Mickey Ds didn't settle like they had for the more than 700 coffee related injury reports they had received before this lady was burned. Read the story and see if it seems that McDonalds and SCO have some of the same assholes at the helm.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=5y&l=on&z=m &q=l&c=
Company slowly falling in value as it's products become more and more irrelevant in the market, until it suddenly announces that it owns the up-and-coming player and starts pumping the press.
Sure, you could've made quite a bit of money off SCO. You also run the risk of them being forced into honest and complete discovery while holding shares, whereupon you're unlikely to be left holding much.
...but when I first glanced at the headline it looked like "McBride Speaks, In Prison And In Print" one can hope.
If he reasons like that, then he can't reason at all.
In the same article, he virtually admits in so many words that the company has no value or merit of its own, and that its stock is built on the FUD put out by David Boies. An overt admission that your company is a house of cards isn't what I would call a great business plan.
As the parent requested and the title says....
So the next targets would be the embedded linux platforms. That's a growing and profitable host to leech from.
Speaking of leeches, has IBM tried just putting a flame on SCO? They'd let go without leaving a scar or taking out a chunk.
Darl McBride is a common villain, a vulgar cur. He is below my station, or I would challenge him to a duel. I believe the gentleman's code of conduct would allow for caning him publicly, however.
The full speech by McBride is on the SCO's site. Direct link here. It's windows media only though....
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
Bringing DCMA talk to the picture (?recognizable word?) which has nothing to do between IBM and SCO seems like another act of desperation.
./ is more of a cross section of everybody and the distaste expressed easily and by far is not limited to here or even the internet. Sadly commercial entities take criticism lightly when being told what they want to hear in the other ear. Truth is people in general feel like they're being taken advantage of and there is no alternative, some/many are walking away and simply found other things to do.
Artists and producers have a right to protect their content. We have (or at least had) a right to listen to it the way we wish(ed). I am not going to buy five copies of the same song so that I can listen to it in the car, my walkman, or on my computer. DCMA like features take away this 'right'. The sentiment expressed on
What darl wants to do is suspend the rights of property by it's creators of hundreds of thousands of contributors. His desire could set precident in what I may create and remove/alter my wishes in how this creation should be used. His actions also lead to derive value from existing content in such a way which he will become sole benifactor. Somebody please explain to me how this is respectful to my property? Whether or not I wish to give something away, contribute to something of great derive great value from or generate a monitary gain from it I thought was my choice. I don't give a damn about darl or his money, what he's trying to make up for (due to his incompetence as a manager none the less) offends me to no end.
What's next, getting sued by AAA for pushing little old ladies out of the snowbank, or have the 'rights' of a collaborative grade 7 project acquired, suspended or taken away.
First, SCO arguably does NOT own all of System 5. There are two reasons. (1) System 5 is not an independent product; it is a modification of previous system 5 releases, which were modifications of previous system 3 releases, which were modifications of Unix V32, Unix V7, Unix/PWB, Unix V6, etc. All versions of Unix prior to and including Unix V32 have been made public. Looking at the source base in total (commands & kernel), there's probably >50% or 60% commonality between the public versions of Unix, and system 5.
(2) As shown in the previous UCB vs ATT trial, ATT freely copied from other people without asking permission, giving attribution, etc.
SCO can't even say they control the definition of "what is Unix"; that is owned by the Open Group committee.
And their apparent definition of a "derived work" that they're trying to force down people's throats is different from the generally accepted definition of that term, at least with the parts of the computer industry that I've been involved with for over 25 years.
Sigh...
Think of Boise as the technical specialist in the field of lawsuits. Boise's job is to analyze the pros and cons of the various possible targets. Assuming SCO is legitimately attempting to defend their IP and this isn't all a bunch of PR spin to pump up the stock, factors are things like how strong is the case, what if any precedent is established, how strong is the defense, will they fight or settle, what will be the PR fall-out, etc. Think of it the same as deciding which programming language you'll use on your next project. Hopefully your PHB won't decide this but will let someone with some technical expertise in the subject matter distill the various factors down to the point that it becomes a management decision (cost, schedule, risk, life-cycle factors, etc.). The final decision will be made by McBribe and the SCO management team but, as a guess, Boise will make a case for who he thinks the victim should be and McBride and Co. will probably go along with Boise's choice.
Actually, I'm not really all that shocked about Darl's choice of words. He isn't exactly known for his ability to keep his foot out of his mouth when it comes to discussing litigation.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
I know I speak for many Slashdot viewers when I say that Darl McBride will be missed. Not only did he run SCO, he also wrote Linux, a wonderful extension of the original Slashcode that powers www.slashdot.org itself.
Words can't express the grieving in the geek community over this senseless loss. Such sorrow hasn't been since since Buffy the Vampire Slayer stopped being syndicated.
Free music from Jack Merlot.
Another question:
How can they claim that Novell, by buying SuSE, is participating in practices which, contrary to the agreement between SCO and Novell, are in direct competition with SCO, when they *no longer sell linux*??
~Will
sig?
I see we have a wonderful little threat going on here... needless to say, Darl's not just wanting to spear penguins, he's going devil-hunting next.
In other words... "All your UNIX are belong to us. You are on the way to destruction, make your time."
The Penguin Producer
Unix on Intel, probably.
This shows a complete lack of any moral value whatsoever. Completely gone. Guess what - if that many people get mad, you're not doing the right thing! It doesn't matter how much money you can make, you still shouldn't do it. (To put it another way, "Last I checked, it wasn't my job to sit around the table carving the roast beef for the Whos down in Whoville.")
And my favorite, hopefully prophetic, quote which McBride attributes to IBM's lawyers:
Litigious bastards
Darl McBride talks to himself.
Bill Gates? This is about our IP! What are you talking about?
Classic!
Pixels keep you awake!
All the big guys are out to get SCO? Too right, mate.
I'm over 6 foot and I'm out to get them. Get them up against a wall and sort them out good and proper.
The unpredictable aspects of the legal system are definitely there, though I wouldn't be so paranoid about it as all that.
Either way -- I think I'm going to skip these SCO articles from now on. CRN's interview with McBride was just so frustrating to read -- that guy is such a snake and such a master of spin, it pisses me off to no end, and there's not a thing I can do about it. If this case were going to be resolved anytime soon, I'd stick around to cheer, but as it is, I have no desire to sit around interminably stewing in bile.
What's the practical approach to this?
What can a regular, IANAL geek do?
Donate to the FSF, since the GPL's getting involved? Somehow I don't think IBM needs my donation to its legal fund. Write letters to editors?
There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.
"all the big guys" are out to get SCO"
FYI, Darl, the big guys aren't out to get you anymore than I am out to get a mosquito that keeps buzzing around my head. You keep pissing them off and eventually they will want to swat you
Now the little guys, all of us linux users and many slashdotters alike whom you are pissing off a great deal: we'd definately like to see you suffer a painful and humiliating spiral down the corporate toilet. But the big guys have a bigger flyswatter, so you probably notice it coming a lot sooner...
Thank you, drive through.
This guys company gave me Linux for free. The licence doesn't say that they now have the right to bill me for it...
realkiwi
Now it all becomes clear. The Iraqi Information Minister has moved to the U.S. and disguised himself as Darl McBride.
I think this has lots of similarities with "Buffy the vampires slayer". Darl going up to "save the world" from opensource harming the innocent IP. Although I seriously doubt he has any superpowers...
This guy McBride is a fucking moron. He's got nothing, absolutely nothing. All of it is a bluff and nothing more. I cannot even believe that I'm wasting my time writing about something so absurd. This folks utilize GPL. They are making use of the very same thing that they say has not value in the Corporate world. How can you defend that? You can't. That's one of the reasons it's all a bluff. They gave away most, if not all, of the Unix code that they are claiming right about. Again, they cannot hide from that fact. They sold for years a Linux distro, which is based on GPL, before and after the SCO acquisition. Again, you cannot hide that either. Now they have tried, on purpose, to intimidate other companies' clients for their own gain. This guy McBride and his dumb stooges might even be legally charged for this. This is complete harassment for $$$ gains. On top of all this, they have not provided any real, substantiated evidence of any code, and this has been on purpose. I'm sorry, but if you sue someone you have to substantiate the allegation, Law 101.
Could this piece of news be connected with SCO? FBI Sting Nets 48 Wall Street Arrests
Moderating 101
I'm writing this from third world country. Grown up with thoughts that America is land of freedom and justice. I've admire America's development, progress and freespirit but this SCO case is scarying me!
The legal system is taken to its extreme and the in hands of greedy unethical corporations it gives scope for creating a dark dictatorship.
Ironically the very legal system that has helped shape America will ruin its freedom.
Take the SCO case, isn't it a simple case (if at all there is one)especially with a willing community (thats has hardly profited from the creation) that's open to protect SCO IP if there is any infringement
With passing time SCO is twisting and turning the case and thus clouding a simple issues.
Hope Linus ice cool head keeps community from reacting insanly to SCO disgusting tactics.
It took me a while to realise, but Joy of Tech has a cartoon of Darl himself! (see cartoon 506).
That's where the biggest risk for Linux and OSS lies in the SCO case: Don't Underestimate Your Opponent, Ever. Darl McBride demonstrates in this article and interview a fantastic mastery at FUD'ing and outright distorting facts and testimonies to support his warped view of reality. We should NOT attempt to fight him on that ground. He really knows Lying-Fu.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
You could either add them in the future, or use plaintext formatting (selectable from the drop down menu beside the preview button...another handy tool)
In a sense, you have to kind of be glad this is happening. Sooner or later, for better or worse, GPL was going to be legally put to the test -- that is inevitable. The way it stands now, as the antagonist we have SCO, a company whose claims are getting more and more ludcrious and desperate as time goes on, and the primary defender of GPL (only because it was outright sued by SCO) is IBM, a company now with a deep commitment to Linux, and which is known for its absolutely excellent legal team, deep pockets, and total lack of fear when it comes to defending itself against lawsuits.
In a sense, you really could not ask for better conditions under which to have GPL tested. SCO will no longer continue to exist as a separate, viable company in a few years.
Which part is so hard to understand? Coffee is made by boiling ground coffee beans in (surprise!) boiling water. Whether you boil it yourself the old fashioned way, or get it from the office's coffee machine, it _will_ be hot. Even kids know that.
So if anyone is retarded enough to put a paper-cup containing hot water between his/her thighs and squeeze it, they're officially too stupid to breathe. And awarding ludicrious sums of money to such f**ktards is a sad mockery of the whole justice system. Oh yeah, let's reward them for being complete morons.
20% her fault? Gee wizz... How about 100% her fault? And how about the old fashioned idea of "take responsibility for your mistakes"? Oh, wait, I forget that the new way is to blame (and sue) someone else instead. Personal responsibility went out of fashion a long time ago.
And I forget that it happened in a society where being a moron is cool, and being called "einstein" is an insult. Well, no wonder that she got a jurry of fellow cretins, eh?
You know what I'd really want to see? I'd want to see a system where these cretins and leeches are actually _fined_ for bringing up such idiotic claims to a court. Not even something as ridiculous as $200,000 or anything. Slap her with a $2000 fine. Just enough to make other morons think twice before thinking, "hey, cool, who can we sue for money today?"
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Our belief is that SCO has great opportunity in the future to let Linux keep going, not to put it on its back but for us to get a transaction fee every time it's sold. That's really our goal.
And is specifically forbidden by the GPL. If you can not distribute it without a transaction fee, it can not be distributed at all (see GPL paragraph 7). And without the GPL, standard copyright law applies. Is it something wrong with me, or did the CEO of SCO just publicly announce that their goal is to break the law?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Anyone who disputes this please state which of the following facts you object to:
- Copyright law grants copyright holders the right to decide, for a limited time, who should and who should not copy their work.
- Without explicit permission from the copyright holder or their authorised agent, it would be an offence to make and distribute copies - whether verbatim or modidied - of a copyrighted work.
- Section 1 of the GPL gives users explicit permission to distribute verbatim copies as per (2) above provided that certain conditions are met.
- Sections 2 and 3 of the GPL give users explicit permission to make and distribute modified copies and derivative works as per (2) above provided that certain conditions are met.
You may already have certain fair dealing rights in relation to software licenced under the GPL, but such rights vary from one jurisdiction to another. Many copyright holders don't give out permission so freely, but the law doesn't stop you letting other people copy your work if you want them to. All that could ever possibly happen from the GPL coming to court would be vindication for the GPL. Contrast that with certain EULAs being tested in court. The MS EULA, for instance, would almost certainly be laughed out of UK or German courts. That would hurt the GPL's credibility, but it wouldn't do Microsoft any favours either.If IBM, or anyone, has knowingly placed source code in the Linux kernel {and therefore subjected it to the GPL} without having the right to, then they have violated copyright law. This will have to be debated in court, and then the disputed code will have to come to light, otherwise the case will be summarily dismissed. The Kernel Developers - who can show that they have acted in good faith and exercised due diligence at every stage - will then be able to remove any infringing code. In the unlikely event that the kernel developers are ordered to pay damages, they will have the right to sue whoever committed the original infringement. However, such damages are likely to be for a nominal sum {$1?} on account of SCO's refusal to show the code in question sooner.
And if the unthinkable happens - if, and it could only ever happen by some massive brain-fart, the GPL is ruled invalid, the disputed source code is not shown and Linux is declared illegal in all versions - then there is always FreeBSD, already proven not to be SCO's property.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
No, she _is_ a total clueless idiot, even if she didn't get millions.
1. Coffee is prepared with boiling water, and some people actually like it hot. Even kids are supposed to know that.
2. So 700 out of _hundreds_ _of_ _millions_ served are total cretins. What does this tell you? Maybe that one has to be in the "0.1% most retarded" part of the bell curve to have trouble with it? Well, now you know where that old lady fits.
3. This is precisely what makes her a cretin. If you put a paper-cup between your thighs, and _squeeze_ it to hold it in place as you wrestle the lid off... what do you expect to happen? You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that you'll push the water out, all over yourself. Anyone who's not completely brain-dead should be able to figure that out.
4. Yes, and McDonald has all my respect for refusing to give in to that kind of extortion. If they paid $20,000 to every single leech that asks for it, they'd get a million such requests a day.
5. The fact that she made _any_ money as reward for being a complete cretin, is already a mockery of the justice system. It doesn't have to be millions. Even if they awarded her the cost of the coffee, it would still be too much. IMHO such leeches should be fined, not encouraged to abuse the legal system some more.
6. Which doesn't mean they had been doing anything wrong. It just means that in a society where the "american dream" is to sue someone for undeserved money, McDonald covered their asses against other leeches. If not, every single bum would have read about the lawsuit, then went and poured coffee on themselves to get some money.
7. See point 1, since you're essentially rehashing the exact same point.
I.e., basically I don't think that McDonald was guilty or anything, and didn't break any law. And forget about the old lady. The jury of cretins who awarded those damages are the saddest part.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Apparently SCO has had to hire bodyguards for its execs.
Job satisfaction, anyone?
BSD kernels are unencumbered by System V legacy code, copyright and control - which is basically why Apple's OS X isn't a licensee of SCO's UNIX copyright.
I love the fact that when mentioning free UNIX only Linux gets a mention. This is despite the fact that a huge swathe of ISPs run some sort of *BSD for hosting, security, firewalls, etc.
Not only are they free in both senses of the word but there is no viral GNU license which obliges derivative works from adhering to the license.
If GNU is challenge and Linux destroyed then it will only delay the pervasiveness of "free" Unicies - IBM et al will simply adopt a BSD kernel. BSD kernels were created for the specific tasks of removing the old AT&T/System V licensed code!
___FutureShoks___
Even if SCO managed to overturn the GPL it is still only a distribution mechanism. The copyright for code included by other kernel programmers will remain with those who contributed it.
If these people desired, they could withdraw the right to use their code from SCO and that would be it - SCO screwed - permanently unless of course they can rewrite the millions of lines of code that have nothing whatsoever to do with them.
Interest of the shareholders? My arse
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Well, after all, both unix and LSD originates from Berkeley ... (Unix Haters Handbook), so it's not such a far fetched comparison ...
What Darl wants, and I will fight to the end of my days to prevent, is a return to the hugely inefficient days when every Tom, Dick and Harry company could build their own unique, incompatible-with-the-universe, expensive custom OSes.
As long as said companies implemented standard interfaces fully and correctly, why not? The Unix world managed to converge towards a common set of standards and interfaces, and this is very good. I wouldn't mind (much) if my favorite application compiles on Linux, BSD, Solaris, etc... The OS implementation itself is not important, as long as the interface is respected.
BTW, having multiple Unix implementations is beneficial to portability and code quality of the applications too! If you are forced, as a developer, to avoid specific idiosyncracies of a specific OS implementation, you will likely generate better code; code that is maintained more easily.
Having a Linux-only monoculture in the Unix world would not be good either. Everyone who has already tried to port newer apps from Linux to, say, BSD, will have noticed, that developers are often careless, or lazy, about true portability. Fortunately, and thanks to the open source model, a small patch to the developers is generally cheerfully accepted, and takes care of sloppy coding techniques.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
What did they expect? There are people out there that will hurt them give the chance. That is what being a zealot will do to some people and SCO started this mess. Some people never learned to play nice. Darl and Chris should have figured there assholery would generate some blowback. Stupid pricks.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
... standards lead to portability, interoperability, and the dissemination of the knowledge needed for full participation in information-intensive societies.
Precisely. There you have it in a nutshell. That is the reason why SCO must not win here. The world does not need any more sheet-anchors on the advancement of knowledge and freedom. McBride admits that his goal is to extract a tax on all users of Linux. What has his company done to earn the right to that? Nothing at all.
For most people, now and in the future, computers, information technology, and all the stuff that Slashdotters hold dear, is nothing more than a means to an end. It is not an end in itself. As such it is right an proper that it should become commoditized. Companies like SCO, Microsoft, and yes, IBM, if it doesn't continue to reinvent itself, may go down in the process. That is the way of the world. Let's not lose sight of that.
You are missing the point.
SCO's beef with the GPL is the same as Microsoft's. It is its so-called "viral" nature. That is, if your software incorporates any code which is GPLed, your software must also be released under a GPL-compatible license.
SCO's argument, as I understand it, is that US copyright law states that you cannot lose control of your work by accident. The GPL states that you cannot revoke the rights it grants: any code which has ever been released under the GPL must always be available under the GPL. SCO are suing IBM for GPLing code SCO claim is theirs, but SCO have also distributed Linux, implicitly accepting the GPL license on the kernel, and therefore implicitly GPLing their code. So if the GPL stands, they have lost the case already. You must have read that argument a thousand times on Slashdot and Groklaw.
So they say: we did not knowingly GPL our IP, so, under US copyright law, it cannot be subject to the GPL, which requires us to relinquish rights we have not agreed to relinquish. Since US copyright law disagrees with the GPL, the GPL violates the law.
Is this true or false? IANAL, so I can't answer that one. But it certainly isn't as cut and dried as you make it sound.
It pretty well risen up. There is nothing anyone can do if SCO will not disclose the supposed infringing code. The ball is in the justice courts and Red Hat and IBM are leading the way.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
I'm assuming that the temperatures are given in the archaic Fahrenheit scale. Converting 180 degrees Fahrenheit (***** FOR FUCK'S SAKE SLASHDOT JANITORS, FIX HTML ENTITIES *****) to Centigrade gives 82C - not an unreasonable temperature for black coffee. Unless you like drinking your coffee lukewarm in the US, of course.
Drug-based enemy demonizing is so 20th century. Doesn't he know terrorist is the smear du jour?
Darl McBride has featured in the Top 25 Executives list. Article here.
I don't think I have read this much pro-SCO junk in one place. They are trying to make it appear that the Linux community have something to hide and he just wants to calmly sort this out. They are trying to make it appear that SCO is the victim in the case.
What if SCO somehow wins this suit? Would the open source community likely start over from scratch or is there another viable kernel? How long would this take to recover from?
First laugh-out-loud funny post I've read all day.
"That's some of the best money we've spent, not even money, some of the best stock we've issued."
Not even money....just SCO stock.
McBride knows as well as anyone how little true value their stock has..
"Our goal is not to blow up Linux [.....]Our belief is that SCO has great opportunity in the future to let Linux keep going, not to put it on its back but for us to get a transaction fee every time it's sold. That's really our goal."
compare and contrast with this little gem..
"we have an issue with open source being hijacked for the use of certain companies or individuals".
and this "yes we'll probably now be taking action against the GPL"
Sounds like someone can't keep his ideas straight..
Then again, speaking of IBM, McShite says "They have more attorneys than we have employees".
Hang on Darl, YOU have more attorneys than you have employees. And more employees than customers. He he he.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and the words of Mr Darl McBride.
I do not think that SCO will be able to come up with enough "evidence" to win their lawsuit but one thing is for sure: I will never ever pay a cent to criminals like SCO and I predict that we all will find ways to maintain and exchange our beloved Linux source code without supporting such an extortion attempt.
Let's all stick together and come up with clever ways to deal with the situation.
He also makes it sound like SCO is a contributor to Samba. Does anybody know if SCO has any contributions to the Samba code? And if so, is it going to be left in?
He means here that it doesn't solve the problem for SCO and his personal golden parachute. IANAL, but I beleive that according to copyright case law, it DOES solve the problem. If they can show monetary harm from the infringement, it goes back to the contract with IBM and Sequent (Sequent being "some IBM folks and some of our folks", so maybe they did it to themselves).Maybe his argument is going to be that since they suffered some monetary damages, but the Linux kernel is free, that they should automatically OWN the code!! (like that would fly).
I guess he's still got some hope that IBM will offer a buy-out. Good luck, Darl.So in spite of all the posturing and this "grand vision" that he is trying to portray, this still looks more like an ambitious pump-and-dump scheme, and Darl is obviously very good at it.
But I don't think he really believes what he is saying.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Looks like Daryl and friends are really afraid of you. http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Nov/11192003/business/1 12207.asp
- I decide to boil water and pour it on my lap.
I go to court, suing the maker of the teapot: I would get laughed out of the court.
- You come to my house, boil water and _you_ pour it on my lap, I would sue you and get damages.
- You come to my house, boil water, and _I_ pour it on my lap.
I go to court, suing you for boiling that water: I would get laughed out of court.
Change of scenario...
Instead of me (a man), assume I am an elderly woman.
Instead of my house, assume this takes place in a car.
You (still) work at McDonalds.
You boil water, I pour it on my lap.
???
Profit
Penguin Wars at his funiiest way.
What's in a sig?
Hi. My boyfriend is out of town, and my dick is hard. I am worried my asshole will tighten back up. I already tried a broom handle and the toilet plunger, but it's just not enough. Naturally, I thought of Slashdot as a great place to ask for suggestions of stuff to shove of my ass. What do you recommend?
Dear teh ghey. You are teh ghey. I would recommend a greased up yoda doll as prime ass shoving ass-shoving material. I'm surprised you didn't think of it yourself, since you are so teh ghey. Now go ask mommy if she can byU yu0 a yoda doll since your anus is so lonely.
Considering that SuSE is a German company, and that SCO already had trouble with convincing the German courts about its case (since they refused to show evidence for their claims...), we may end up with a nothingness here, i.e. SCO has no case, again.
All trolls bow down. McBride is your king.
Darl sayeth:
What percentage of Linux is infringing? Roughly one million lines of code. 20% of the Linux kernel. BSD is in a clear legal environment. There are dozens of protected BSD files that have made there way into Linux.
What the hell does he mean by a 'protected BSD file'? Is he under the impression that there is some law that would prevent the incorporation of BSD code into Linux?
I've contributed code. I'll make sure SCO doesn't earn one cent from my code. Maybe karma will get him
and he'll come down with a terminal disease.
Darl McBride = Rat bastard.
Actually, they can. The mere act of redistribution shows that they accept the GPL. Whoops, wait... ;-)
According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Darl McBride reports that, having receive personal threats, he has employed bodyguards for SCO execs.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
"The facts of this case have been so misrepresented it's become an urban myth. "
Mostly by shills like you.
Take my advice and put a cork in it. The lady was stupid, she deserved to be burned. And you deserve worse.
Just fucking die and stop trying to screw up our country just because you're trying protect your illegitimate way of doing business.
Just fucking die.
"This 79 year old woman made a mistake"
Exactly, and she is responsible for her mistake.
No one else.
No one.
Stop trying to gain sympathy by saying she's old. You get *smarter* as you get older, not *stupider*.
McBride proudly sais that SCO is valued to $200M. Now everybody knows that the lawsuit against IBM is at $1B. Do the market think SCO will win? I dont think so :)
Hi. My boyfriend is out of town, and my dick is hard.
Shut up, Taco!
I had a sweet moment when I misread the headline as "McBride speaks in prison..."
I guess, we will not need to wait for to long though...
...remember good 'ol times when IP used to mean Internet Protocol....
First Horseman of the Apocalypse: SCO wins lawswuit against IBM.
Second Horseman of the Apocalypse: The GPL is declared invalid, and all GPL'ed software is placed in the puplic domain.
Third Horseman of the Apocalypse: The Cubs win the World Series.
Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse: Linus Torvalds goes to work for Microsoft.
Suffice it to say that I'm not worried about the world ending anytime soon.
Darl is lying every time he makes a public utterance.
I was thinking about this.. Darl is supposed to be a religious man - are there any mormons out there who can talk to his Bishop about his public conduct?
We have proof that he's lying (not to mention attempting to steal the work of thousands of other people), and bringing bad press for the church - perhaps if we could get him ex-communicated, he'd finally get the idea that what he's doing is wrong.
He said that without IBM, Linux still wouldn't have SMP support. HAH!
Maybe he should look at a timeline of Linux. SMP support has been around since years before IBM ever muttered the phrase "open source".
I could be wrong in that it is entirely possible that talent from IBM contributed to SMP on their own time, but I don't believe IBM had any official role in this development...
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
i am so fucking sick of this goddam /. myth, it needs dispelling immediately, goddammit
SCO hires bodyguards for execs
By Bob Mims
The Salt Lake Tribune
LAS VEGAS -- The debate over SCO Group's claims on the Unix and Linux operating systems has never been polite.
But now, it has grown deadly serious. Literally.
Following telephone and e-mail threats to the Lindon software company and Darl McBride, SCO's president and chief executive; senior vice president Chris Sontag, and others, an unspecified number of bodyguards has been assigned to protect SCO's leadership.
"It's crazy," McBride said during an interview Tuesday at a Las Vegas hotel, where he is not listed on the guest register and visitors must be escorted to his room by security.
"This started off as a contract dispute with IBM, then we discovered [alleged SCO-owned Unix code] within Linux," McBride said. "Now we have a firestorm of controversy and anger from many in the Linux community."
The Linux operating system, seen as a challenger to the predominant Microsoft Windows OS, is the darling of the so-called "open source" community -- a global network of programmers dedicated to freely distributed software.
In March, SCO sued IBM in federal court over alleged contract violations stemming from purported incorporation of the Utah company's Unix OS into the latest versions of Linux. SCO seeks up to $50 billion in damages.
SCO also has sent out 1,500 letters to corporate Linux users warning them that by using the allegedly tainted versions of the OS, they are violating SCO's intellectual property rights. SCO has offered to license such users for varying fees.
Earlier Tuesday, SCO underscored its determination to continue its litigation. In a teleconference, the company announced expansion of its contract with the law firm of Bois, Schiller & Flexner, saying it will pay the firm and others $1 million cash and 400,000 stock shares.
In addition to the IBM litigation for which it was originally retained, the firm will represent SCO in upcoming copyright lawsuits against Linux end-users.
SCO's Sontag emphasized those suits, which could begin within 90 days, will target only "the larger commercial users of Linux. We have already said that for noncommercial use of Linux we will not be taking any action."
The reaction throughout the controversy has largely been one of defiance. IBM has countersued, directly challenging SCO's Unix-Linux claims; leading Linux distributor RedHat Inc. also has filed what it calls a preemptive suit, also challenging SCO's attempts to license Linux.
McBride claims others in the open-source community have chosen to express their displeasure outside the law. Since SCO filed its suit, there have been at least three major "Denial of Service" attacks -- cyber raids that overwhelmed SCO Web sites, effectively crashing them.
In the past few weeks, though, the tenor has become more direct, and more serious, SCO alleges.
"With the personal threats to our lives we have had to rachet up security both for our company and for certain individuals," McBride said.
Sontag stressed that most in the open-source community, while understandably upset with SCO's Linux claims, are reasonable in their conduct.
"However, there are some elements who have an almost religious zealousness about Linux," he added. "In some ways, that can be scary for anyone opposing their positions."
Reaction Tuesday from the open-source community to SCO's security concerns was a mixture of disbelief and scorn.
"I just don't buy it," said Bruce Perens, a Berkeley, Calif.-based Linux developer and open source advocate. " This is just an effort to discredit the open-source community.
"If there were real threats, the police would be there instead of husky fellows with radio tubes in their heads," he said.
Perens and other open-source advocates long have speculated SCO's lawsuits may be an attempt to attract buyers -- perhaps even IBM, if the litigation proved enough of an annoyance.
Both McBri
I seem to recall that the alleged offending code was present only in the IA-64 kernel. Even if SCO wins on all points (which seems unlikely) wouldn't it be a pretty narrow win? I can't see IA-32 or AMD Opteron 64 users getting hosed with SCO fees over this. Do I have my facts wrong or is SCO just criminally insane?
Coffee's made with boiling water. No one routinely makes sure it's never served above 135. Sometimes that take it right out of the drip into your cup without hitting the pot at all. How hot is that? Everyone knows you'll get burned if you spill it so I think she was pretty stupid. Maybe McD can start selling cold and hot coffee on their menu for stupid people.
I also seriously doubt she actually received 3rd degree burns. Did she spill the entire cup at once? How stupid is that!
Ok. I'll admit it. I'm a user. It started back in the early 90's when I discovered an old, version .96 or .97, of Slackware's series A disks on a local BBS. I needed more. As a technology junky, I just *had* to have the series N disks to hook up to the internet. There, I discovered crack. Soon, I was making deals with SATAN to keep my addiction going. And where would a true addict be if he didn't snort? But, in the past 10 or so years, I can honestly say, I didn't inhale any of it :P
--
www.nitemarecafe.com
Fuck SCO. 99.99% of us only want only one thing: to see Darl locked up in a cement box for a long time for fraud (cell mates with a sexual predator would be nice though). The only reason for these insane acts is to set up an insanity plea when the Feds come for him. Of course this is Amerika with George II at the helm ...
In closing: Fuck SCO.
I get so violently irritated every time I read yet another Darl McBride piece that I have the impulsive feeling to go up and smack him him in the face, my fist between his astonished eyes, when I see the slime bag standing in front of an audience in a suit that is two sizes to big for him (canal rats are not used to the daylight it seems). I gather that many other feel the same way as I do or else Darl McFuck would not now have bodyguards to save his arse when he opens that sewage pipe he calls his mouth.
After reading his waffling and calming myself down a bit, I realise some things, which follow:
1.Every time a question is posed about SCO's products he comes out with very obvious marketing speak and hubris about how exited SCO resellers are and about the supposed 2 million servers (do cash registers count as servers?) running SCO warez. This should be blindly obvious. It would be marketing suicide and almost unheard of for any CEO to admit that the SEC filings were in any way truthful about the true state of the company. Why hasn't anyone thought to ask him about the SEC filings his own company made????
2.SCO's case, as far as I can tell from the respective IBM and SCO court filings, is on weak ground at best. SCO has yet to answer IBM's request on a line for line clarification of exactly which files are infringing SysV R4 copyright. They have claimed in their answer to IBM that some 531 files are infringing, with some 30'000 lines. This is not anywhere near the "half a million lines" that he talks about in public. But he hasn't specified any lines directly. Why???????????
3.SCO distributed Linux for a long time after they had started their legal proceedings, and I'm damn sure this is going to have an effect on the case. Why isn't this point raised in press interviews???
4.SCO's public accusations and threats are almost certainly going to be taken into account in the case. One must note that McBride has not once talked specifically about any company that he will threaten with the $699/$1399 charge. This is obviously because once he does that, he faces being sued by that company for extortion. Almost all of SCO's public speech is stock value influencing bluff. And no one thought to ask him about a specific company???
5. McFuck finally mentioned that BSD is in the clear, but in the same sentence mentions that BSD code is in Linux without the copyright information, yet makes no mention about SCO products using the same code. And no one thought to ask????
6. McBrat says that Samba is not infringing anything, so SCO can use it. Nice of him isn't it? It fits in with his strategy of trying to weaken the GPL by appealing to marketing greed that is so fucking rampant on Wall Street. He wants it "friendlier" to business. It should be obvious that he wants to save his arse for distributing stuff under the GPL for so long, and the fact that he faces copyright infringement of his own even if the GPL is invalid.
I realise that many prominent GPL contributors don't want to frighten off businesses by suing SCO for copyright infringement or breach of contract, including Linus. Yet everyone who has been accused publicly of something by SCO has gotten involved whether they wanted it or not. And this irritates me. Why do Linus and Co not defend themselves? Why do they not start legal action against SCO? Why is it that almost no one from the OSS crowd ever tries to speak to standard industry rags and make decent legal points about SCO? I get so fricking mad when Linus does his dumb hippy free love act in the press interviews until he finally gets subpoenaed by SCO's team of legal drug dealers. Why the fuck does no one stand up in public for fuck sake?
Sorry for the rant, but this whole SCO thing is so publicly damaging for the GPL and Linux, and the fact way the media and the stock markets work is that one is automatically guilty when one makes no good comment.
Umm.. Excuse me, they've announced they plan to sue Novell and a corporate Linux user. For what? Using their IP? That hasn't been proven in the case with IBM yet... until it's proven in the case against IBM it's a moot point.
Here's a thought.
Get a list of SCO's investors, with that list come up with a list of the companies they own and services they provide to the public. Boycott those companies and their services if at all possible.
Get a list of SCO's customers, do the same thing.
We need someone (a lawyer) to prepare a nice letter for us to write (transcribe it in your handwriting so it will actually get read) to their Attorney General and Congressmen detailing the need for SCO to be investigated for the allegations they have made.
Also, it is legal for a lawyer to be paid in Stock Options?
I predict that they will choose Google as the recipient of the first suit. Once they have crushed them then Microsoft will step in and pick up the pieces of Google which they were after in the first place.
The coffee you make at home in your Mr. Coffee is NEVER at 180 degrees F.
You are correct. The coffee I make at home is not 180F. It is 190F. I have a hot water dispenser, which heats the water to 190F.
And while Yes, some money is being made by share holders right now, realistically how much money will they be making in a year from now? How much do you think that Darl expects them to make? If he's delusional, then he think's they'll be rich, and maybe he'll be the next bill gates. If he's realistic, he knows that a lot of people will be screwed because of him, while some already rich people will be slightly richer and give him a pat on the head, and maybe pay a politician or two to keep him out of jail.
hope you arent a KDE user as QT is from a Canopy Group company
the history of the world
Short story: some guy surfs for hardcore porn at work, tallying a grand total of over 10,000$ in bandwidth costs. (With bandwidth costs these days, that's one helluva lot of porn.)
So he gets fired for it.
And now he sues his employer. He doesn't even say he wasn't surfing for porn. Yep, he did. Lots. But he thinks his employer should have paid to send him to therapy, instead of firing his lazy butt.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
*giggle*
Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see by infra-red, How I hate the night.
"What's left in this company are concepts and ideas" (meaning SCO).
He is right. SCO is doing a good job of losing vendors, customers, market share etc.
I allways woundered what it would be like to blow 1 Billion dollars, I wonder how Darl feels.
TruePunk | Games
"I tell you what, I'll give you the Linux community getting mad at us vs. shareholder value. That was the trade off. They were absolutely right, the Linux community got mad and we were right, shareholder value went up."
The problem with good ol Darl is that he confuses stock price with VALUE. SCO isn't any better off today VALUE-wise than it was two years ago. The price of their stock has inflated from $1 to $14 a share not because their IP suddenly became value-able (or because investors suddenly realized their IP was valuable as a result of their claims). SCO is selling lottery tickets now, hoping that if they can win over IBM (or even just hit an enormous settlement), the judgement or settlement will BRING value to SCO. But whether or not SCO can BRING value to itself as a result of this litigation depends on the strength of their legal claims, which from what I've seen are miserable. David Boies would be better off dumping their junk stock and going back to contesting "hanging chads." The theory that you can't assign or license copyrights (a la GPL) because the copyright law does not explicitly provide for it is one of the worst legal theories I've ever heard. I would love to see some state attorney generals start pursuing SCO for consumer fraud, based on its trumped up allegations that it "owns" Linux and users should pay them money for the privilege of using it. It's past time that the Department of Justice steps in and protects consumers from SCO's deceptive trade practices.
Darl's predictable reply: "Now the U.S. government is conspiring against us, because IBM is using mind control over the President. I've seen the satellites....you have to wear my special aluminum foil hat, but you too can see them (SCO official aluminum hats retail price: $799.00 per user). IBM bombed Iraq, and all those doped-up Linux users are selling crack to schoolchildren. Where are my shoes?"
Read it here
:D
Unbelievable. Nobody probably threatened them. They simply ran outta lies to tell and had a press deadline
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
Since this thread has turned more attention to Stella and less to SCO, I thought you might find this link interesting (if you haven't seen it already): The Stella Awards
"The Stella Awards were inspired by Stella Liebeck. In 1992, Stella, then 79, spilled a cup of McDonald's coffee onto her lap, burning herself. A New Mexico jury awarded her $2.9 million in damages, but that's not the whole story. Ever since, the name "Stella Award" has been applied to any wild, outrageous, or ridiculous lawsuits -- including bogus cases! We search for true cases, and you can subscribe by e-mail for free to get the case reports as they're issued."
So the Cowboys says that Linux would be nothing if it wasn't for IBM. But, in his interview with CRN he notes that "Longer term, expect SVR 6, which will be 64-bit Unix on Intel. That is a few years out." I think they should have "counted" on IBM also, as Linux allready suuports 64-bit.
They have to know that going directly against end users is a lose-lose situation. On the one hand they are going against companies who most likely paid for their versions of Linux. In this case, the end user is only "using" not developing or distributing the software. So they are not liable. On the other hand they are not creating much "goodwill" for their company, as many would not bother to even contact SCO for a proposal on any software project, based on the litigious activities of SCO.
And the US legal system is also on trial here. If the broad interpretation given by SCO that they own everything everyone else has done if accepted by the courts, public opinion will demand many changes in our system. How can a company pretend to exist only by suing others? (not counting lawyers, of course).
Anyway, I do hope this matter gets resolved in a timely matter. And, most important, that SCO is ordered to "put up or shut up".
Nikki: Hello?
Mysterious Voice: Mindcrime...
Nikki: <gasp>
<later>
Dr. X: Kill him, that's all you have to do.
Nikki: Kill Darl???
Dr. X: He's a risk. And get the lawyers as well.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
When you serve Tea or Coffee at 180 degrees out of the tap, it cools off too fast. You have to keep microwaving the thing to enjoy it.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
...You're just confused about who the cretins are:
Very few coffeemakers are designed to bring any significant portion of the water to 212 degrees F at a time. Those that do all have some means provided by which the temperature is far below that for serving. That's the way people like it.
Some people like it hot, but not that hot. Most restaurants serve it around 135 degrees, which most people consider quite hot. Smart waitresses will sometimes keep their "freshener" pot at 150 or so, knowing that they will be putting it in cups with coffee that has already cooled, averaging out to a much lower temperature while keeping those that prefer it hot satisfied. But nobody likes it at a temperature which causes third-degree burns to their tongue and second-degree burns to their esophagus.
The ad-hominem attacks begin: a sign of someone whose biases are not backed up by facts.
Yes, kids are supposed to know that. And this lady knew it. She was probably planning on blowing on it and sipping carefully. What she didn't know was that this particular coffee was far hotter than her previous experiences with "too hot" coffee had prepared her for.
Your willingness to make blanket judgments about large numbers of people is very interesting. Perhaps you might notice a correllation between the number of times each day you are wrong and the number of times you do this. Of course, neither you nor I know the intellectual capacity of these people. Nor their wisdom. I'm willing to bet that they exceed anyone who would call them "cretins" on both scores.
It must be nice to be able to extrapolate large numbers of facts (that just happen to support your preconceived notions) from such small amounts of data. It must give you a great deal of satisfaction. But it's not much use for those of us who live in the real world. In that real world, I suspect that those "hundreds of millions" probably included a great many who thought the coffee was way too hot. Some of them probably never came back. Some probably developed the habit of waiting to drink it. Some probably threw in an ice cube. Some probably complained verbally. Most probably just couldn't be bothered with writing a letter to complain.
But 700 did. You have performed your estimate of who they were and how they broke down. Allow me to perform mine: I think 697 of them were caring, concerned people who genuinely worried that McDonalds had a problem they weren't aware of; I think 3 of them were lawyers trying to set up just such a lawsuit as this one. Now my guess is just as likely to be wrong as yours was, but I'm willing to bet that it comes closer to reality than your 100% retards estimate. McDonalds were cretins for ignoring all these nice people. And you, sir, are a cretin for calling them "cretins." But I would like to concentrate on the three lawyers: While McDonalds was impolite to ignore the 397 nice people, they were pure fools to ignore the three lawyers.
Now she's an "old lady." Ever notice how easily these made-up facts come to your lips? Everybody you know does.
Who said she squeezed? Who said sh
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
...I apologize. She was an old woman. But the rest of Moraelin's stuff was made-up nonsense.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
I may not be an open source person or a Linux user, but I have been following this case for some time now. You see, as a writer, IP is a cornerstone of what I do. If I can't protect the rights to my writing, it makes it very easy for people to rip me off.
That's one reason that McBride's comments just leave me shuddering. It's not so much what will happen in court, or to SCO for that matter. SCO seems to have reorganized itself in such a way that it cannot possibly do business.
Will the court case actually succeed? I very much doubt it. IBM has a much better legal team, and SCO has demonstrated again and again that it is blowing hot hair.
Will SCO survive? Again, I very much doubt it. McBride has to answer to his stockholders and Board of Directors, but they are not what makes the company run. It's the customers who make the company run. Without customers, there is no income, and without income, the company flounders. SCO has probably already generated enough ill will to drive away most of its customer base - what is left will vanish the moment he launches a lawsuit against one of them.
No, what worries me is public image. SCO is presenting a very innaccurate version of copyright law to the public, and the problem is that as a large company, SCO would appear to be a credible source to the uninformed. This just encourages the already considerable number of people who would tread on creator's rights.
(I am also sometimes worried about that retroactive billing idiocy, but I doubt that will stand the light of day. Nobody in their right mind would let somebody bill them that way.)
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
> So now you've got that sub-plot of the Grasshopper and Master thing.
Please, MAKE IT STOP! (bang head on wall)
CRN: Can suing customers, as you've said you will, be good for any vendor?
McBride: First it's not our customers. I would say we're suing end users.
Regardless of whether or not there is SCO code in Linux, this whole nonchalant attitude of suing the end users reallys worries me either way. So if I buy a product from a company, and that company did something illegal in order to produce that product, this means that I am going to get sued for using the product? So lets say Viewsonic steals a chip design from Sony's trinitron design--this would mean that Sony can now sue all people who bought the monitor with that stolen chip. Very ludicrous imho, of course, the whole SCO ploy is ludicrous.
Hitler, Stalin... McBride, they all have something in common.
SCO wants a transaction fee for every time Linux is sold. Ok. Ignoring the merits (because they believe they are rock-solid, and who am I to disagree with unsupported statements), what is the best way to achieve that goal?
A rational person would then go after those people who distribute and sell Linux and try to collect the fees from them. For the cost of one lawsuit, you get several licence fees, and any future sales through that distributor will include your fees (presumably).
But someone who drinks from SCO's kool-aid feels that the best way to collect a fee from every Linux sale is to track down each and every individual end user and initiate separate legal action, while leaving the distributors free to continue spreading infringement of your precious IP to new customers which you then must take the time and trouble to track down and wring the fees out of.
Now, call me a tinfoil-hat-wearing communistic Linux zealot, but I would like to humbly suggest that a possible reason for going after end users, is because SCO dosen't have a "rock-solid" case or anything close to it. End users are not likely to be as informed of the facts and not as willing to engage in litigation as say, a company with a vested interest in Linux.
Daryl, you truly are the comedic genius of our time, but if your company really has been wronged, why not just stop running from Red Hat and confront them in court? End it once and for all, after all, I believe that Red Hat just *might* be a Linux end-user themselves.
One can dream...
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
What the bleedin hell is wrong with him, they are after him because he is SUEING them. Thats like slapping a bear on the ar$e and being amazed when it maules you.
-troy
Its a matter of personal responsibility. If you are not aware of your environment then you are not a victim you are a fool. If someone hands me hot coffee I put it in a cupholder and wait until I am not in motion to pick it up. If I have no cup holder I dont buy coffee. Why because COMMON SENSE tells me that A: it is dangerous to me and others to drive with hot coffee in my hand and B: I would NEVER consider putting it near my boys because they are too valuable to me to risk near ANY hot liquid.
Its just a sign of the times where being a victim instead of having personal responsibility and common sense is the defacto standard today. SCO mismanaged thier source. Now they want to appear the victim instead of the corporate blunder it is. Well if they win in our warped courts, I can take some solace that other countries can tell them to screw off and continue to push linux and open source OS's forward.
You are constantly surrounded by objects that could, through accident, cause you bodily harm. In the vast majority of such cases being harmed by such an object -- eg a file cabinet can fall on you, or hot coffee could spill on you -- would be your own fault and any lawsuit claiming otherwise would be, indeed, frivolous. We all make reasonable assesments of the amount of danger a particular item represents -- the amount of harm it can cause, and the probability of it doing so -- and act accordingly. Obviously we sometimes screw up and aren't careful enough, and this is our own fault.
However when an object grossly exceeds either the probability of causing harm -- eg a file cabinet with in-built balast in the top so the slightest push sends it toppling over -- or the degree of harm -- eg coffee served so hot that it causes third degree burns -- then it is the maker of that product that is responsible for the flaw in their product that created that extra danger.
Think of it this way: If, due to the special top-secret blend of coffee McD's uses, at the moment the coffee was freed from its styrofoam containment unit it exploded killing her and her grandson, would you not say that McDonalds was at least partially at fault for serving coffee that explodes when spilt? Is there any possible way the old lady could have expected the coffee to explode? So is it unreasonable that she didn't treat the coffee as though it could explode?
Okay, now that we have some common ground, let me expand it for you: Just like coffee should not explode, coffee should not cause 3rd degree burns. Do you have any idea of how bad a 3rd Degree burn is? Ever had a really bad burn, like from touching the end of a soldering iron, with big, puss-oozing blisters and pain that lasts for weeks, probably requiring medical attention? That's second degree. 3rd degree is complete destruction of the skin through all layers down through the underlying tissue, and in many cases can only be healed through skin grafts, which are themselves a wonderful world of suffering.
I really don't think most people criticising this case understand what 3rd degree burns means. I have never known anyone who treated coffee as if it were capable of causing that degree of damage. Would you put a plugged-in iron on your dashboard? Of course not, that'd be insane! But we put coffee there all the time -- because it isn't that dangerous. Have you ever spilled coffee on yourself? I have! I treat it carefully, but not like a ticking time bomb, and thus sometimes slip up. Well, that gave me a 1st degree burn. Why? Because the coffee was at a reasonable temperature, and thus caused the amount of pain and harm I expected. If that spilt coffee had burned my arm down to a blackened, dead stump you can bet your ass I would have sued whoever gave it to me.
Just because the word "hot" can be used to describe normal, potentially scalding coffee and the lethal 180 degree concoction served at McDonalds doesn't mean they are the same thing or represent the same amount of danger.
You want to talk about responsibility? How about taking responsibility for serving someone a product that, when used correctly would kill you. Do you have an conception of what would have happened if she had actually drank any of that coffee?
I don't care how clumsy you think she was. There is no way a product capable of harming you in that way should be served in a flimsy styrofoam cup. "Warning: Contents Hot" doesn't cut it, because normal coffee is "hot". "Warning: May cause 3rd Degree Burns that cause permanent scaring!" along with this photo on the side of the cup, might begin to cover it.
I repeat: There is no way most people expect coffee to be able to do that kind of damage to them, because otherwise they wouldn't allow it to be served in stupid paper cups.
None of which is meant to say it was
The enemies of Democracy are
"IBM is the master of creating an illusion that they're being attacked by this big brutal bully SCO when they're the ones attacking us. They're the ones doing all the behind-the-scenes work."
If they are attacking sco why are they the DEFENDANT? I dont see this as the little guy being attacked by the giant SCO, I see this as a tiny insignificant little intestinal worm leeching off of a real buissness to disguise the fact that they have no actual revinue streams.
Linux isn't sold, it is distributed, they can't charge a fee unless they violate the GPL, if they violate the GPL no one has any rights to distribute Linux under DMCA jusrisdiction. This is a scorched earth solution but it will stop SCO from charging perpetual fees.
But this assumes SCO has rights. They haven't shown a damn thing to anyone and are claiming the moon. IANAL but if tainted code was included, SCO MUST SPECIFY THAT CODE. SCO must also specify how they own that code, and what rights they have to that code. They must also show that they are not trying to charge for things which are in the public domain. If they refuse to allow Linux users to mitigate damages, they give up certain rights, like the right to collect damages beyond a minimized amount. They also can't sue IBM for including infringing code, collect damages, and then turn around and sue the end user for the same code and collect again. They also cannot collect in perpetuity. They can get a large cash payout and an injunction barring use of his code, they cannot get an injunction giving them rights to Linux.
Lets get down to the real point of what Darl is doing. He is mistaking a mountain (Linux) for a molehill (SCO UNIX) and then suing anyone who looks at the mountain. Any reasonable judge would bar SCO from pursuing further claims until this one is settled, because it answers all of the big issues that SCO is claiming. If SCO wins, they would be free to go ape shit on Linux, but in the mean time Linux should be able to do business.
Why dont you guys go after Linux Distributors? "McBride: Our goal is not to blow up Linux. People ask why we don't go after the distributors...'If you have such a strong case, why not shut down Red Hat?' Our belief is that SCO has great opportunity in the future to let Linux keep going, not to put it on its back but for us to get a transaction fee every time it's sold. That's really our goal. " "Sontag: SCO had been avoiding testing the GPL. That' why we didn't take action against the distributors." So, the CEO says they're being nice to linux, but the VP says they were afraid attacking the GPL (what they'd have to do to get at distributors) would blow up on them. These guys arent out for justice. They're out for money- and thats BS.
"Sorry Im not more user-friendly."
It's *hot*. Like 212 degrees hot.
I think the main line of reasoning of the anti-McD-judgement people is simply this:
Accidents happen. Especially if you do something silly like hold a flimsy sytrofoam cup between your legs and mess around with it. Why is it taken for granted that, whenever you suffer an injury, the nearest deep pocket has to pay and pay large?
At least that's me.
The solution is KILL BILL
They make good fertilizer. After all the surfing for SCO happenings, my plants are blooming like mad.
If ML develops the software from scratch, and just provides a binary release along with Linux, then NO SOURCE NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED.
But, IF ML uses code under GPL in order to REALIZE their software, then the derived work falls under GPL.
So: if you distribute it WITH Linux, WITHOUT using GPL code in it, you NEED NOT PROVIDE the source.
If you use GPL source code, as in take parts, or link with, THEN you need to provide the source for the end-product.
Managers: if you do not understand this argument, please ask one of your technical staff to explain it to you.
Read the GPL. www.gnu.org.
The salient piece of evidence in the famed McDonalds case is that they were able to show in court that while McDonalds offers free coffee refills they knowingly and purposefully overheated the coffee to cut down on the refills since you not take your first sip for 15 minutes or so.
Who said she squeezed? Who said she "wrestled it off"? Oh, you did. I forgot for a moment your propensity for making up facts.
Ever paid attention to the physics classes in school? Obviously not.
If you pull at something upwards, and its own weight was not enough to get the lid off (or it would have come off with just one hand), what do you need? Right. Some additional downward force to hold down the cup. Where can that force come from, when holding it between the thighs? Well, blimey, the only available force is friction. What does physics tell you? Right. The force is equal to the friction coefficient, times the pressure applied to the surface.
I.e., and this time please pay attention: without squeezing, the cup doesn't stay down. It's as simple as that, newbie.
Of course, in a society where having D grades is cool, and being called "einstein" is an insult... that kind of lack of knowledge doesn't surprise me.
Now she's an "old lady." Ever notice how easily these made-up facts come to your lips? Everybody you know does.
If you bothered actually reading even only the links posted in this thread alone, e.g.:
http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.ht m ("a jury here awarded $2.9 million to an 81-year-old woman scalded by McDonald's coffee")
http://ballinlaw.com/mcdonald.htm ("Stella Liebeck, who is now approximately 81 years old")
... you'd at least have a fscking clue that she _is_ an old lady. (Or if by your standards 81 years old is young, you are... what? An elf?;) But you really have no clue what you're talking about, do you? You never actually RTFA before launching on your "corporations are evil and must pay" crusade, eh? Nah, don't let facts get in the way of your bias.
And all of us (even the rocket scientists) have spilled coffee on ourselves at one time or another. Even if Moraelin has some highly superior degree of manual dexterity which has somehow prevented this from ever happening personally, I'm sure he's noticed not everyone else is as graceful.
Ah, a jolly good straw man argument. Either that, or you just can't understand written text. Where did I write that it's about dexterity? It's about having the mental skills to figure out that if you squeeze a flimsy cup between your thighs, you _will_ spill the liquid out. Did you (even the rocket scientists) get burnt by squeezing a cup with your thighs?
That should tell you that their goal is not to prevent frivolous lawsuits, but to use the spectre of frivolous lawsuits to protect their clients (those guilty of negligence).[...]Why do these lobbyists continue to seek limits of damages in non-frivolous lawsuits? Because reducing the number of frivolous lawsuits is not their goal.
Ah, another straw man, eh? Where was I lobbying for lower damages on NONfrivolous lawsuits? Nowhere. What does it have to do with believing that this suit _is_ frivolous? Nothing.
And so on, and so forth.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
A computer/software services industry would thrive under Open Source in a way that has been all but impossible under Closed.
Under Non-Free Software, your support options are limited to the vendor (who may or may not care about your problem), or at best, a narrow range of large companies. The Closed Source system lends itself to monopolies because of this natural vendor lock-in.
If the computer/software economy and industry had a bed of Open Source software beneath it, free enterprise reigns supreme. Almost anyone could start a support organization and start making money. Anyone with enough programming background could start their own development-for-hire company. 75-85% of software jobs are for in-house, undistributed development & maintenance. That field can survive wonderfully under OSS.
All the while, the GPL protects the IP of those who worked on software, and still allows global cooperation and (incoming buzzword) innovation.
I believe hat it does make a difference whether the industry is dominated by open or closed software (maybe not a huge difference to IBM, but a world of difference to the rest of us). I also believe that OSS is best for the economy. I also believe IBM when they say the adoption of Open Source is inevitable. Read the news. It's happening almost everywhere. Asia alone makes things look VERY grim for Microsoft.
SCO's lawsuit is meaningless. Microsoft is irrelevant. Closed source software is a relic, an outdated get-rich-quick scheme that only benefited the software firms that were lucky, good at marketing, or both.
I guess to him it is a good thing: (mock quote)"We had a huge market share when we bought the thing, then it dropped to almost nothing, and we are still managing to sell a few hundred copies each month, rather than just writing it off entirely as a bad investment."
I have to wonder what kind of warped mind he has.
frob
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Some of the first writings I read by RMS about the GPL and GNU made exactly this point, which I paraphrase: It seems like every time you move to a different company, or even a different computer, you have to relearn everything about system utilities, text editors, compilers, and so on, or worse, have to rewrite them from scratch yourself. What a complete waste of time for people who could instead be getting something useful accomplished! If we had e.g. a smashingly good free editor that anyone can use anywhere, then you can save yourself a world of pain by learning it once and always using it. Wouldn't that be nice?
End of paraphrasing. So nowadays, the computer needs of a lot of people can be satisfied by buying an intel box and slapping GNU/Linux on it. You can have everything from firewalls to desktops to servers to number crunching beasts all running the same system. Linux may not be the best solution for every problem, but think of the advantage of having to know just one distro of GNU/Linux instead of Solaris and Tru64 and MSWindows 2k and Mac OS 10 and... This is all consistent with RMS's early visions of the power of GNU.
Seriously!
This isn't a race. We don't get any bonus points if MS is gone from the planet by 2010, 2100, or indeed, ever.
MS could very well do an IBM and become a Linux services company that sold support for their "legacy" OS on the side. Who cares what they do? IT DOESN'T MATTER.
What _does_ matter is the days of the proprietary, closed-source software company are over. The asteroid has already struck. They may not be finished dying yet (indeed, they've only just started) but them dinosaurs are doomed just the same.
No matter how hard they fight, no matter what dirty tricks they pull, no matter how skilled the litigators, ultimate victory is assured so long as there are compilers, hackers, and Internet connections. So relax! Enjoy the show! Ride the glacier!
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
"Like a fist full of sand, the harder they sqeeze, the more it slips through their fingers."
But I prefer Like dust in the wind
Ok. If I'm to be likened to a drug user, then it seems only fair to liken software developers to drug pushers.
In UNIX, SCO is the pusher. They charge us real money for their software. You could even go so far as to say that SCO, in offering their own distribution of Linux, and subsequently suing customers over it makes them the ultimate pusher.
Linux, then, would also be a pusher. But, the Linux pusher is different. First, they don't CHARGE for their product. Second, the principle behind the model that develops the software is one focused on "people, not software".
So, who's the worse? The pusher that charges and consumes for their own personal gain, or the pusher that doesn't charge, and wants to people like ME to be able to do what I do best...
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
I'm not talking about courts, or the validity of SCOs claims.
I'm saying people should not be surprised when they encounter this view in the wild... a view that sets linux back, way back... a lot of otherwise smart technically people are convinced that, for legal reasons, it's not worth investigating.
Bill has been playing WarCraft 3 lately either that or he has the Art of War made from human skin and written in the blood of unborn children in a safe where he keeps his Jerry Lewis Pr0n...
Ultimately Bill knows Darl will fail, Linus and the entire community knows he'll fail, only Darl doesn't know he'll fail.
However Bill is prodding him and supporting him because this is an indirect attack AND is preventing Linux from overrunning the desktop and middle-server market. (As we know that none of MS products could cluster themselves out of a wet paper bag with any reliability...).
Darl is the mean little bully taking orders from geeky accountant that steals/borrows and never returns and scams everyone. The day does come however for both of them to have the entire school gang up on them though... I can't wait for that day.
Can't understand the boyguards though. All is fair in Love, War and Business eh?
Now, everyone who has purchased the offending product is entitled to a copy of the source under the GPL, and their "Trade Secret" protection goes POOF!
Unless they invalidate the GPL first.
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
Hear (and see) the monkey talk
And the thing is is that Texas, where Dubya was governor, was one of the original states to file the lawsuit against MS.
Should there be a Law?
That settlement was also reduced.
Should there be a Law?
It won't take long before businesses don't have to worry about lawsuits, various industries are pushing bigtime for "Tort Reform" and all too often getting their way.
Should there be a Law?
Findlaw has this article on the case:
Justice Did Prevail in McDonald's Coffee Case
Salvi, Schostok & Pritchard P.C.
By Michael P. Schostok
Possibly the most misrepresented case in the entire tort reform debate involves the compensatory and punitive damage award in 1994 to Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, who spilled scalding McDonald's coffee on her lap in 1992.
The majority of Americans, when informed that $2.9 million was awarded to a woman for spilling coffee on her lap, immediately felt that this was just another example of runaway verdicts that must be controlled legislatively. Sadly, these popular opinions were based upon incomplete knowledge of the McDonald''s coffee case. Did you know...
When the jury heard and considered the above and additional evidence during the eight-day trial, they determined that McDonald''s should face a punitive damage award for their callous disregard for the safety of their patrons. The jury awarded $2.9 million (the worth of two days of McDonald''s coffee sales) to the permanently injured Stella Liebeck.
After the verdict, McDonald''s (and many others) criticized the jury''s decision categorizing the result as an example of how our civil justice system had perpetuated "frivolous" lawsuits with "unjust" results. The jury''s decision, along with the facts behind this lawsuit, clearly showed McDonald''s supporters the error of their thinking.
http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/0052 1/000428/title/Subject/topic/Injury%20%20Tort%20La w_Products%20Liability/filename/injurytortlaw_3_29
Or try this smaller link: http://tinyurl.com/vsdaShould there be a Law?
It also eliminates fair use.
Should there be a Law?