Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Groklaw Outlines More SCO Linux Contributions

Posted by timothy on from the fuel-meets-fire dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Groklaw today reported that they have discovered another SCO programmer, Tigran Aivazian, who has committed code to the Linux kernel. According to the latest story Mr. Aivazian contributed a microcode update feature, a testing program, and made contributions to SMP and vmalloc. This new story adds weight to earlier stories about Caldera coder Chris Hellwig's additions to XFS, SMP and JFS. " Also on the SCO front, an anonymous reader writes "SCO's last Open Letter has drawn two new responses, one from Red Hat cofounder Bob Young, and the other from Jon 'maddog' Hall. 'maddog' makes a carefully reasoned rebuttal that defends the GPL and includes observations like 'How could the founding fathers or the early legislators have foreseen the Web, or even computers?' Young curtly offers McBride the following advice: 'Be less vocal' - making him the King Canute of Linux, perhaps, because it ain't gonna happen anytime soon."

40 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. Oh come on... by TopShelf · · Score: 5, Funny

    How "carefully reasoned" can a piece be by a guy called maddog???

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    1. Re:Oh come on... by Xtifr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Be careful how you speak of Linus' daughter's godfather.

  2. question... by Clever+Pun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    (note: this is NOT an intentional troll. i'm just trying to understand this issue as best i can. thanks for not kicking me in the teeth :)

    as far as i can tell, the SCO is upset with linux because several of its programmers contributed to the linux kernel, and so SCO feels that it deserves some sort of monetary kickback, right?

    but, if you contribute to something that you KNOW is open-source, don't you, like, forfeit any ability to request monetary compensation for your effort? or am i missing something big here?

  3. Whew! by TWX · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now that the Denial of Service stuff is over with, we can get back to the regular SCO articles...

    Though it would be fun for everyone who reads Slashdot to send SCO a letter in complaint of their business practices, especially if they were all sent within the same week. Would they try to call receiving a million pieces of mail in six days an 'attack' too?

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  4. Totally wrong by Salsaman · · Score: 5, Informative
    SCO sued IBM for allegedly adding code from AIX into Linux. Since SCO and IBM had a license agreement that forbade IBM from using AIX code in anything else, SCO sued IBM.

    This article is interesting because it shows that some of the code allegedly added by IBM was in fact added by SCO itself.

    1. Re:Totally wrong by molnarcs · · Score: 4, Informative
      What everyone seems to forget is that the code Mr. Aivazian submitted might have nothing to do with SCO's source. Most of the comments I have read so far speak of A's contributions as being SCO's contributions: "This article is interesting because it shows that some of the code allegedly added by IBM was in fact added by SCO itself."

      From the article:
      "For example in the case of BFS filesystem the matter was as follows. I did NOT use any of the UnixWare (or other) proprietary code for the implementation, of course. However, despite this fact, I still (for courtesy and generally being cautious) requested permission from Wendy (Development director) before the release under GPL and she confirmed that SCO has no claims to this work whatsoever and has no objections to its release under GPL, because it is not connected to UnixWare source code in any way."


      The same goes for microcode, in fact, he mentions SCO's implementation as an example for a different implementation from the one we find in linux.

      I'm not sure about SMP - the article doesn't say whether it derived from SCO's implementation, or it is an entirely separate work...
    2. Re:Totally wrong by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > What everyone seems to forget is that the code Mr.
      > Aivazian submitted might have nothing to do with
      > SCO's source.

      No one is forgetting that. The point is that work that SCO contends could only have been done by IBM was in fact done by SCO employees with SCO's knowledge and approval.

      > Most of the comments I have read so far speak of
      > A's contributions as being SCO's contributions:
      > "This article is interesting because it shows
      > that some of the code allegedly added by IBM was
      > in fact added by SCO itself."

      Correct, if A was acting in his capacity as an SCO employee when he wrote the code.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  5. Mad Dog by Eberlin · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Hello! Hello, McBride!!! Anybody home?"

    Well, it's more Biff Tannen, but it's a descendant of Mad Dog.

    Other Mad Dog quotes:

    "We have ourselves a new court house, high time we had a hanging!"

    "What's wrong dude, you yellow?"

    And perhaps the most appropriate:
    "I hate manure!"

  6. Groklaw? by grub · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Seriously, this is not a troll:

    Being as /. links to so many groklaw stories, should they help out with groklaw's bandwidth costs? It's getting to the point where /. is becoming merely a hyperlink index of groklaw stories.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Groklaw? by div_2n · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've always thought /. should mirror all stories and put those up instead of links. It seems to me that when you have the kind of readership that /. has, you have a responsibility to not legally DoS someone (which is what happens when a story gets linked).

    2. Re:Groklaw? by BootSpooge · · Score: 5, Informative
      Being as /. links to so many groklaw stories, should they help out with groklaw's bandwidth costs?

      Groklaw has a paypal donation button. Give them a few bucks for all the good work.

    3. Re:Groklaw? by MathFox · · Score: 5, Informative
      Yes, I am the webmaster of GrokLaw and I've taken some measures to serve the Slashdot crowd. We gracefully (Pamela more gracefull than me) accept donations. The bandwidth and servers are provided by Ibiblio, many thanks for that.

      Please come to the site; we should be able to handle the Slashdot crowd.

      --
      extern warranty;
      main()
      {
      (void)warranty;
      }
  7. Slashdot.org: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The site to read when you want to see whatever was on Groklaw 48 hours ago.

    1. Re:Slashdot.org: by Jesrad · · Score: 4, Funny

      You don't read WHAT was on Groklaw, you read what others have to say about what was on Groklaw, actually.

      About time Slashdot mirrored Groklaw's articles linked to.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
  8. Conspiracy Theory by Thunderstruck · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Does anyone wonder...

    1. The technological world moves fast, this is its nature. To slow any portion of it down is to kill it. If you force a technology to wait on slower social systems like justice the world moves on without it.

    2. We saw this with Netscape. Sure they won the case, Mircrosoft was held to be in violation of the law, but by the time the issue was resolved the browser wars were old news.

    3. Is this what we're seeing with SCO? Freeze up the linux community just long enough and the world will pass them by. Are the same actors involved? Does SCO get money from Microsoft? Bill's a smart man, why not loose a battle to win the war?

    ** Insert popular political comment here.**

    --
    Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
    1. Re:Conspiracy Theory by segment · · Score: 4, Interesting
      What we saw happen with Netscape, Sun, and MS, was sort of a digital cold war. Netscape and Sun focused too much on the enemy instead of themselves which caused them to collapse. Sort of like Russian and the US during the cold war. Sure Microsoft was found in violation and it meant nothing to them then, and little to them now. Considering all the moronic actions society, and law allows MS to heap on them, kudos to MS for laughing all the way to the bank.

      Now I know it's trollish to root for MS in any case, and I truly don't but think about it... In any other society this wouldn't have happened. Look at what Russia did to their Yukos oil tycoon when he got too big for his own good... Not to say it's a good thing, but how can those in law turn a blind eye to MS' actions... Paying for the FAT system? Shit I thought the cost would have been included on purchase... Thats like buying a car now to have the dealer come back later and say "Oh by the way we will now charge you for using the engine in your car."

      --
      MoFscker
    2. Re:Conspiracy Theory by gyratedotorg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Freeze up the linux community just long enough and the world will pass them by.

      has anyone else noticed even the smallest slowdown in open source development? i haven't. it certainly hasnt been frozen.

      --
      Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
    3. Re:Conspiracy Theory by Malcontent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "'Now I know it's trollish to root for MS in any case,"

      Especially here where the MS fanboys and astro turfers will mod you up like crazy.

      It does take a special kind of troll to suggest that MS actions and sleazeball tactics had zero effect on the demise of netscape though. Congratulations.

      Go teach your children that crime does pay. Teach them that it's ok to break the law, to throw all their moral and ethical lessons out the windows and do anything they want to as long as they "win" and "laugh all the way to the bank".

      No wonder kids flip out in school. The cognitive dissonance must be too much to bear. Their parents tell them to be nice and share, their churches tell them to be moral and ethical but the law and society tells them that it's OK lie, cheat and steal as long as you make lots of money.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  9. Bob Young by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I've got to hand it to Bob Young, as he is a really stand up guy. It's a shame he no longer works at RedHat, but at least he's still working on something admirable, and it's nice to see him still taking interest in his former company.

    If only more execs were like him, we would have a much better business atmosphere here in the U.S. of A.

    Thanks Mr. Young, I've always had the utmost respect for you.

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    1. Re:Bob Young by baywulf · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not to by cynical but if I had millions of dollars and didn't have to work I could stand to be more vocal about how I really felt about things too.

  10. We see the flaw is SCO's defense by pbug · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But when push comes to shove the courts system is going to have the final say so. I hope with all my heart that whatever judge oversees this case will make the correct decision and squash SCO like the bug they are.

    --

    Get Movie Posters
  11. SCO programmer adding code means?? by cluge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Groklaw today reported that they have discovered another SCO programmer, Tigran Aivazian, who has committed code to the Linux kernel."

    My take is that if a SCO programmer contributed code, then of course SCO wanted the code contributed and it then falls under the GPL. This seems reasonable. The idea that worries me is that SCO may claim that the programmer(s) was/were rogue and made the contributions against their "corporate policy". Then what do you do? The genie is out of the bottle, you can't take it back and who does SCO go after - the programer or the Linux community?

    AngryPeopleRule

    --
    "Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
    1. Re:SCO programmer adding code means?? by fermion · · Score: 5, Insightful
      IANAL, but I think this question, and maybe the article, kind of misses the point. One good point has already been made, the the programmers are not rogue.

      The second point is that this is not a case where copyrighted material has escaped, been used by a competing company, and the competing company is claiming that because the copyrighted material is now in public view, it is no longer under copyright protection.

      This is a case where the accused party is perfectly willing to discuss specific instances of copyright violation, and, if proved valid, remove the code.

      The things that complicate this is whether IBM was under the standard or modified UNIX agreement, and whether anyone who ever worked in UNIX can be considered to have stolen IP from UNIX.

      And this is why most of the discussion on this topic is irrelevant. The suite against IBM is probably a valid question, and maybe even justifiable due to the previous action of IBM. If the laws are followed, it will only affect IBM, at least until another battle is fought to prove the code in Linux is substantially similar. At which point the code will simply be removed and life will go on.

      This is why they are trying to attack on the second front, essentially saying that Linux stole everything from Unix. There is no reason to show specific code, because all the code in effect breaks copyright because it was all done by people who saw Unix code. Saying that a programmer here and there legally contributed little pieces of code does not mean that overall product is does not break Unix copyright. Many would say this is a silly argument. But this is not something that will be won in courts. This will be won in the marketplace. And even thought the OSS software has no more risk than closed software, people may begin to believe that it does. And by fight SCO on the battlefield it selects, with articles such as this, we play into their strategy.

      There are only two things that matter. First, the real battle is between IBM and SCO. That is the lawsuit that is filed. That is the only battle SCO needs to actively defend. If SCO wins, Linux will adjust the code. I think everyone has said this. Until a judgment is handed down, nothing needs to be done.

      The second is the assumption that Linux breaks copyrights from Unix. SCO is not putting anything substantial into this fight. It is merely a distraction to make the OS community waste time. The only reasonable response is to sumarily state that there is no legal basis to find that Linux is derived from Unix and no known copyright infringement exists. If any are found, they will be corrected, as in the past. If asked why this is true, all one needs to do is ask why SCO has not filed suit to defend their point. At this point it is all words.

      OSS can and should define the battlefield, and not just respond to SCO. I am sure that people will correct me or mod me down if they disagree.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    2. Re:SCO programmer adding code means?? by cluge · · Score: 4, Insightful
      One good point has already been made, the the programmers are not rogue.


      That doesn't mean that SCO won't claim otherwise, or claim that the person that authorized such contributions didn't have the authority to do so. Lets face it, it's not like telling a falsehood is a problem for SCO. That is my point from the first post albeit not well made. I assumed everyone had read the article and would infer that I was impying that SCO would lie about the companies past contributions :) - I posted too quickly -


      While your analysis is interesting, I think there is enough legal history in the BSD case to make it hard for SCO to pursue that "all of linux is in violation".

      AngryPeopleRule

      --
      "Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
  12. One question. by AmoebafromSweden · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, since they have been ordered to show the code in the court in january I think we will se the end of this. One question I Do have is:

    I do not live in America, but shouldnt there be a lot of people reporting SCO to the appropriate governmental Body that oversees frauds in the stockmarket? (SEC)

    How is that going, do they have any official stance on that or?

    Are they waiting until the hammer falls (most likely) in heavy disfavor to Sco?

    Care to enlighten a foreigner?

    1. Re:One question. by ChrisBrown1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, SCO does NOT have to show the code "in court" in January. They have to provide it to IBM. There are protective orders in place such that SCO's "secret" code need not be directly disclosed in public. Though, I've yet to figure out why SCO needs such privacy on code they claim most any of us supposedly already have in plain text in /usr/src/linux.

    2. Re:One question. by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think that SCO has to lose in court before it will be considered. Unless someone can bring extremely convincing facts to the SEC that SCO intentionally misled investors, then there is little that the SEC can do.

      One would basically have to prove that Darl & Co. knew they had no case. Ignorance and stupidity are quite excusable in the US, even if the results are the same as if one wielded malice instead. The SCO guys have been doing their idiot dance for the media for almost a year now. They would most certainly plead stupidity -- and win.

      I don't think it's likely they will be pursued by the SEC. However, if IBM finds any "Linux Lottery" documents at SCO during discovery, all bets are off.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
  13. If you'll read the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You'll notice that the entire point is that Groklaw has now established these contributors had policy/supervisor approval.

    We always knew that Mr. Aivazian contributed to Linux; the new thing that Groklaw has unveiled here is that he can be proven to have been acting as an authorized agent of SCO.

    -- Super Ugly Ultraman

  14. irony? by molnarcs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is devastating news for SCO, for they can no longer claim to have protected they 'trade secrets' appropriately, thus they might loose rights to whatever they did on jfs in the courts.

    On the other hand, they failed to cough up any sensible evidence so far, and my guess is that they are clueless about the affairs at 'old' SCO. This relevation might point them to the right direction - they can pinpoint precisely where code exchange between unixware and linux took place. They can either submit this as new evidence (deadline: jan 8?) and loose, or disregard it and ... loose. Good.

    1. Re:irony? by Penguinshit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What this further demonstrates is that SCO obviously did not, based on their original lawsuit and all arguments after, perform adequate pre-acquisition due diligence to protect the Intellectual Property they are claiming is infringed.

      SCO investors should be extremely interested in this point when the courts rule against SCO. This opens up the possibility of investor lawsuits against Darl and his E-staff personally (regardless of any governmental actions contemplated by the SEC and/or FTC)

      .

      Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of fuckwits.

      --

      I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...

  15. Read The FAQ! by T-Ranger · · Score: 4, Insightful
    /. Faq

    Its been thought of. And more or less refuted in general. And while I cant find the link, I remember a groklaw admin specificly stating that being slashdotted wasent an issue; they could handle it.

  16. News on SCO's web site. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well since the alleged flood on SCO's web site, I was curious enough to go visit it. Interesting are the news items there.

    SCO Ranked 75 In Deloitte Technology Fast 500

    The SCO(R) Group (SCO) (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of business software solutions, today announced its ranking-number 75-on the 2003 Deloitte Technology Fast 500, a ranking of the 500 fastest growing technology companies in North America.

    Darl McBride Ranked in Top 25 IT Executives for 2003

    Darl McBride, president and CEO of The SCO Group, was ranked among the top 25 executives in the IT industry, according to CRN. The ranking represents McBride's fight to raise industry awareness of the importance of protecting intellectual property in a digital age"

    and then this little troll from SCO in the NEWS

    Zealots: The Three Faces of Linux

    It's sad to see how people are so misguided.

  17. Re:maddog in the fog by s20451 · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's why the US government is now the oldest in existence

    I don't mean to nitpick, but the last "regime change" in Britain occurred during the 1640-1660 civil wars. The British Parliament is one of the oldest institutions in Europe, dating from the 1200s. True, the nature of the government has changed over time, but fundamentally it is still a monarchy which governs through a parliament.

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
  18. King Canute by infolib · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The story about King Canute goes in two versions. The first version is the one referred to in the submission:

    King Canute had very high thoughts of himself. Once he had his throne placed at the shoreline, and ordered the waves to stop. Of course they washed over his toes, humiliating him.

    I like the second version better. From the linked Wikipedia article:

    King Canute grew tired of flattery from his courtiers. When one such flatterer gushed that the king could even command the obedience of the sea, Canute proved him wrong by practical demonstration, his point being that even a king's powers have limits.

    DISCLAIMER: I'm danish, so of course i prefer the more favourable version. Anyway, the English owe us nearly 900 years of danegeld. (If you pay up now we might even give you a discount for the very handy assistance in WWII!)
    --
    Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
  19. Well-meaning response marred by incorrect summary. by jbn-o · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In an otherwise thoughtful and well-meaning letter, Bob Young incorrectly states opinions that are widely published elsewhere and fails to take Darl McBride's view of theft (versus copyright infringement) to task. Instead, Young reaffirms McBride's conflation of theft and copyright infringement and seriously mistakenly summarizes RMS' ideas.

    Consider this part from Young's letter:

    Secondly, no one is arguing against copyright. Everyone agrees intellectual property, from trademark law to copyrights and patents, is a good thing.

    Ok, so maybe Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, the inventor of the GPL license, thinks it is not a good idea to copyright software. But even Richard thinks copyright has its place to enable authors to earn a living. Free markets are not so fragile that a new idea like the GPL can threaten them. The only thing that can threaten free markets in a democracy is fear. Fear can cause well-meaning governments to enact flawed legislation. The kind of legislation the DMCA represents. The DMCA is the equivalent of trying to stop break-and-entry of homes by making screwdrivers illegal. Breaking and entering should be illegal. Allowing honest citizens to own innocent tools that evildoers might use to break and enter must remain perfectly legal. It is the crook who should be sent to jail, not the tool nor the owner of the tool.

    Everyone does not agree that "intellectual property" is a good thing. RMS, for instance, has said that he has no opinions on "intellectual property" except to point out the misleading consequences one arrives at from using the term and how it prejudices one's thinking to treat disparate areas of law like property. RMS has opinions on patents, separate opinions on copyright, and separate opinions on trademark law. RMS does not mix up his ideas into one jumbled whole called "intellectual property".

    Furthermore, I have never heard nor read RMS say "it is not a good idea to copyright software" nor does young provide a source for this summary. RMS is against patenting algorithms used in the creation of computer software and most software programmers I've met are in agreement with him because so-called 'software patents' do such a profound disservice to their work. As RMS points out in his critique of the term "intellectual property", copyright and patents are not the same, in fact they differ more than they are alike. Copyrights and patents aren't acquired in the same way, they don't last for the same length of time, they don't cover the same things, policy concerning these two disparate sets of laws aren't governed by the same office, and defending against copyright infringement is not at all the same as defending against patent infringement. But you can see how someone who believes "[e]veryone agrees intellectual property, from trademark law to copyrights and patents, is a good thing" would arrive at such a mistaken conclusion about RMS' ideas and whether these laws are well received.

    With respect to the term of copyright, Young notes that "[t]he Supreme Court case that you [McBride] misrepresent in your latest open letter demonstrates the Justices think too much of a good thing may no longer be so good" but doesn't understand how he is (in the FSF's words) "making an appeal to authority...and misrepresenting what the authority says" by talking about copyright infringement as theft.

    If we accept the idea that property and ideas and expression are all one and the same, we allow ourselves to deny that new ideas are built on old ideas (or more generally, the future is built on the past). The limits of copyright law look very wrong and we champion the same goals as the Bonos and we buy into the hypocrisy exhibited by the Disney corporation. Then we lose the argument we are struggling to make with legislators.

    --
    Digital Citizen
  20. Announcing... by herrvinny · · Score: 4, Funny

    Announcing... (drumroll)

    SCO Countdown

    Countind Down To The End Of This fiaSCO!

  21. MadDog mistates... by Seth+Cohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hall writes: ".. GPL does not allow a company to take the software created by the sweat and work of another person, add a few lines of code to it and then sell it to make a huge profit."

    In fact, the GPL _does_ allow this. There is no restriction in taking a GPLed piece of code, adding lines of code (or not) and then selling it to someone for $X dollars. (1 Jillion Dollars! finger to corner of mouth). In fact, it's completely allowed so long as the buyer recieves the _same_ GPL rights (and source on demand). Why someone would purchase a GPLed product (sans support or other value added) for such an amount is another question, but in fact, a number of people out there do just such a thing, including with code that the original author has changed license terms on and no longer provides GPLed code themselves. Once a GPLed copy is out there, it's out there. Which is a good thing. Despite SCO's claims.

    [Major market players such as Mandrake began by 'adding lines of code' to existing products such as Red Hat.]

    --
    Help achieve Liberty in your lifetime - join the Free State Project - http://www.freestateproject.org
  22. Why did SCO let employees contribute to Linux? by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Linux directly threatens SCO's core business, and that should have been obvious to SCO a long time ago.

    So...why the heck did SCO allow employees to contribute to Linux? That seems massively stupid.

  23. SCOX looking for new director by Anonym0us+Cow+Herd · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I saw this on Groklaw earlier today, and nobody has mentioned it here.

    SCO now has the following job openings available...
    • Director of Investor Relations (posted 21 Nov)
    • Executive-Assistant, Investor Relations (27 Oct)
    • Internal Auditor (21 Nov)
    • Director of Financial Reporting (8 Dec)

    Now pay attention to the date on that last job opening. That is Monday following SCOX's 5-Dec lame oral arguments.

    Why suddenly is this position vacant? Some theories...

    • Are they looking for a more compliant director who will report to the SEC what they want reported? Maybe not, the new position says that the person must be familiar with the Serbanes-Oxley act of 2002 (passed after Enron) which makes the CEO have to sign SEC statements and be criminally liable for misstatements. (So was the last Director of Financial Reporting unaware of this?)
    • Does this have anything to do with SCO moving their financial results from Dec 8 back to Dec 3 to be before the lame Dec 5 oral arguments, and then suddenly delaying the results to Dec 22 due to "internal audit problems"? I thought one of the investors said that they need an external auditor?
    • Is Darl trying to book the recent $50 Million investment as "revenue" so that he can get his 4th and 5th profitable quarter? (Background: Darl gets a big golden parachute if he pulls off four profitable quarters, and he needs a fifth in which to dump his stock before the house of cards collapses.) It seems like SCO's recent "revenue guidance" suggests something in the 22 to 25 million range for this and next quarter. (Am I mistaken here?) For the benefit of those slashdotters who cannot add, this and next sounds to me like they add up to about the $50 million.
    • finally, another theory would be connected to rats and sinking ships
    • Maybe looking for a fall guy?

    So, if you're out of work and qualified, a great career opportunity would be to work at SCO!



    Director of Financial Reporting and SEC/GAAP Compliance Requisition# 40238


    http://www.sco.com/company/jobs/
    Type: Exempt
    Posted 08 December, 2003

    Location: Lindon, UT

    Department:

    Reports To: Controller
    Apply Now

    Job Description:
    Responsible for the financial reporting of quarterly and annual results in accordance with SEC rules and regulations. Responsible for the filing of registration statements and other periodic filings as required. Duties will include the drafting and review of quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, annual reports on Form 10-K, periodic reports on Form 8-K, as well as assist in the preparation of registration and proxy statements and any other filings. Other responsibilities will include the monitoring of the Company's compliance with current SEC, FASB and other regulatory literature that pertains to accounting and financial reporting. This position will also lead the Company's effort on maintaining an effective system of internal control, and ensuring the internal control structure is in compliance with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Additional special projects will be given on an "as occurring" basis.

    Job Responsibilities:

    Financial reporting of quarterly and annual results in accordance with SEC rules and regulations Filing of registration statements and other periodic filings as required Drafting and review of quarterly and annual reports Assist in the preparation of registration and proxy statements and any other filings Monitoring of the Company's compliance with current SEC, FASB and other regulatory literature that pertains to accounting and financial reporting Additional special projects will be given on an "as occurring" basis.

    Job Requirements:

    Masters degree in accounting and experience as a manager with a public accounting firm and a minimum of 8 years accounting experience. Extensive financial reporting experience

    --
    The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
  24. Finally ... some important insight by Tacoguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Relevant SCO info seems to be coming from Groklaw. Even technical info that seems more suited to be coming from readers of /.

    Some very interesting aspects of timing of efforts by Mr. Aivazian that include the following:

    "It seems everything Mr. Aivazian does works together. If SMP or vmalloc.c doesn't work, the microcode update feature might fail, so he works on SMP and vmalloc.c. If either SMP or microcode update is crashing, he needs to know why, so he works on the debugger."

    First of all I am damn impressed that anyone can over-ride a processor microcode !

    The debugger is equally impressive. If you can't find why it breaks, ya can't fix it.

    This is very credible and just might sink SCO's claims altogether.

    TG