Slashdot Mirror
Did SCO Actually Buy What it Thought?
Int27h quotes The Age saying "Just before Christmas last year, Novell announced publicly that SCO had known for some time that it did not receive all rights and ownership to UNIX technologies, despite public statements to the contrary. Novell has made public correspondence between lawyers representing both Novell and SCO." Lots of links and commentary on what continues to be one of the strangest stories in the history of Linux.
I'd like to believe that SCO didn't exactly know what they were buying.
This would still leave me with some faith in major software corporations, whereas the view of SCO knowing what they were buying and subsequently stirring up all this crap makes me want to wince.
Then again, on second thought, why would I want to have faith in a company that can't read the fine writing? They try to get my to sign my life away each EULA I click by hiding things in the fine writing.
It's like trying to barrack for a winner between Carrot Top and Rosanne Barr. Oh the humanity!
Maybe you should be?
If they bring up real data, you could be in for some trouble. I'd not be too cocky until I knew for sure that the kernel is clean of any SCO data.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Effectively, SCO is maintaining it's stance that it is on firm ground, with assets well in hand, for the alternative is disaster. Deny reality as long as possible, hope stock price rises as gullible investers throw away money and sell (which SCO execs did) before reality asserts itself. Nice ploy, when you got nothing else.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I don't really see how an acquisiton or merger would make any difference. Care to elaborate?
120chars for a sig is teh suck
I just can't help but picture Darl, locked in his office, giggling his ass off while watching the stock ticker on SCO go up everytime he released some FUD.
Naw, diversity is good. I don't really want a Linux, Inc. composed of all folks involved with Linux. Linux is too big for that.
May we never see th
2. They must then prove that it is data that they own, and have not authorized other companies to include in placed like Linux.
3. They must then show that it is not code that they, themselves, did not release into Linux, by revealing all of the contributions that they made.
Even then, they only have a case against whoever released it without autorization, and they can file a cease and desist to anybody who keeps distribuiting it after it is shown to be theirs.
Of course, this does not help them, because once it is known which lines of code in the Linux kernel came from SCO, it's fairly trivial to re-write those sections. Since their case depends entirely on these lines being identified and cited, I'm sure most distro companies will even be able to put out a "de-SCO" application that will bring old versions into compliance.
> SCO has gone to far now to simply back off, or admit they were wrong. They have invested their whole business in this, and have no option but to go forward and proceed with litigation. If they back of now they loose face and the business will probably crash.
Like they care. We're not really dealing with SCO, we're dealing with The Canopy Group, which chased the ambulance, bought the wounded body, and threw it into passing traffic in hopes of suing on the body's behalf.
SCO is nothing more than Canopy Group's dirty bomb, deployed to extort money under the threat of wanton destruction. CG isn't going to shed any tears over the fate of the bomb.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
... and in the DRM, bind them.
The world thinks you're wackos, yes, but not for the reason you think. It's not because you don't back down -- that's an admirable trait -- but because you do things for three reasons only: Cash, Moolah and Dough.
What's right and wrong doesn't enter into the equation at all -- except for the ultra-Americans who define "right" as "profitable".
And yes, you're wackos if you think acquiring wealth takes presedence over honour.
They can't drop it. If they drop it, their business will most certainly implode from the bad-will generated, false advertising, and probably a shareholder lawsuit. If they keep going, they might wear down somebody enough to make for a settlement or a partial court victory or something other than imploding.
Gentoo Sucks
SCO Countdown.
Darl wrote the contract.
Well, not directly. But he was working for Novell when he managed this licensing arrangement. Later, he became CEO of SCO Group 'n' started shenanigans.
My bet is that he knows *exactly* what they put in which licensing agreements.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
I'd give up on trying to measure market reaction via SCOX's price. Many companies have investors who dont know what they're pouring money into. Case in point: the dot-com days when all an investor looked for was ".com" But more recently, this hilarious story.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
If you take a close look at Darl McBride you will understand why this makes sense to him. He is a Jackass. He always makes blustering, larger than life statements, he lives big and talks even bigger. Combine that with a devout Mormonis, where he is bound to believe that he is a good person and therefore all of his actions must also be for 'good'. In other words, he doesn't listen to other people, talks really loud and is unshakably convinced of his moral position. I imagine he is something of a tyrant too, the way everyone who stands up to him ends up leaving the company. All in all it leads to a situation where the pig headed leader brings the entire endeavor to ruin because of his shortcomings.
try the phrase "dont count your chickens until they've hatched" next time.
Really, is anyone satisfied that the legal future of Linux rests in the hands of SCO, IBM, Novell and the US legal system? We've all been waxing rhapsodic over IBM, and it looks like this news is going to make us do the same for Novell. But really, hasn't IBM wielded the big stick of IP enough to at least make us a little nervous? What about Novell, they signed an agreement which opened the door to this particular nightmare, not a glowing review of their due diligence, after all, one should at least contingency plan for this kind of suit when making such deals...
Nor are their motives quite the same as the grass roots. I wouldn't even try to defend the thesis that IBM and Novell are not in it for their own best interests. I also don't see any reason to believe that their best interests are necesarilly Linux's.
It's nice to see these guys in the white (or maybe just real light gray) hats, but it is trivial to change your hat. The enemy of my enemy != my friend, ally - perhaps, confederate - okay, but friend, I don't think so.
The problem is none of the players have a mandated interest in promoting and protecting Linux, both are in it for financial motivations, when the wind starts blowing profits another way, both will jump ship as quick as they are able.
What to do? I confess I don't know. It'd be nice for Linux/FOSS to maybe have an associated legal entity tasked with promoting Linux/FOSS in the market and protecting Linux/FOSS in the law. Ideally, a not-for profit organization. (A honest to goodness charity would be better, at least your legal defense contributions would be a tax deduction...)
Ultimately, the nature of Linux/FOSS to not be beholden to anything/one has been one of the greatest strengths. It is part and parcel of the success we have seen since Linus released our obsession on the world. However, this lack has now come full circle as we are essentially forced to watch the legal fate of Linux/FOSS be placed in the hands of one company who wishes to smash it, two which seek to exploit it, and the US legal system.
Joseph Stalin once said, "How many divisions does the pope have?" I can easily see Darl Mcbride saying, "How many lawyers does Linus have?" way back before this mess all started.
Okay, I admit it, I've just been waiting for a reason to compare Joseph Stalin and Darl McBride.
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
We should have all bought SCO stock at 1 dollar, then sold when it hit 16. We would all be rich, and SCO stock would crash. We'd all be rich, Linux would be one enemy less, everybody wins!
Hallelujah, at last, someone is chasing the money. Good ol' Groklaw has just started some digging into the murky deapths of Deutsche Bank...almost begin to feel sorry for DB once PJ gets going after them.
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
Ahh, but that is how SCO's plan is brilliant. It is a logical impossiblity to prove a negative. Thus, there will never be concrete proof that there are no violations of SCO's copyright in Linux.
Furthermore, you appear to have fallen for the other common trap, which is that there is SCO "data" in Linux. SCO put it there themselves. The real issue is the mythical existence of code that is somehow in violation of SCO's "IP rights".
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Under this definition, today's militia are overwhemingly the children of the poor, black, hispanic and working class. Dude, if you're posting on slashdot, the probability you're the militia is about 2.34%
b.
ON!!
:)
Even if you're right, d00d, no one will listen. It's just too wacky sounding.
Also, a few points:
-To say that we are 'no longer living in a Democratic Republic' is nonsense. Am I worried about Ashcroft et al infringing on our Constitutional freedoms? Yes. Do I think that corporations have way too much influence in our society overall? Yes. But our court system and system of laws still works, more or less.
-"How are you going to live...When a gallon of gas costs 4 bucks? 5 bucks?" It already does in most of Europe, if not more. They seem to be living ok.
-"We burned 80 billion barrels of oil this year but discovered less than 10 billion." When we run out of oil, we'll find an alternative. We, as humans, are very clever and creative. It may be a (very) troublesome and painful transition, but we'll make it.
-"I certainly have noticed an undercurrent, a sub-text if you will, of this administration to gain more effective control of the Internet and OSS." While the Internet began here in the US, and a large percentage of it still is controlled here, it is truly a worldwide system now. If the US starts over-stepping their bounds with regards to control of the Internet, the rest of the world will route around us. That's the way it was designed in the first place. Again, the US can cause a great deal of difficulty and pain, but they can't control the internet.
And to say that the US is going to gain 'control' of OSS in general is absolutely ludicrous. If the US were to pass some nefarious legislation 'outlawing' OSS (which would never, ever happen, it's legally impossible and IBM, HP, etc. have too many lobbyists to allow it to happen), the rest of the world would, again, 'route around us'.
Just a little kidding here, d00d, but did you go off your meds?
/.: why the hell am I here?
No it's like claiming the drivers were negligent and hit you, so now you need the right to jump in front of their car.
It's hard to infringe somebody's copyright if they aquired the copyright AFTER you supposedly infringed it.
Not to take anything away from your very interesting points on the connection between the Bush Administration and oil, but I think you forgot that your whole post was supposed to provide a link between the Bush Administration and the Internet/OSS. Not a single fact that you bring up even alludes to this. Try to make your opening statements a little more accurate next time.
10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
As much as I'd like Novell to be right, it really isn't clear-cut at all who owns the Unix copyrights.
The original Asset purchase agreement does not give SCO any copyrights, but amendment 2 to the deal raises questions. SCO says this gives them copyrights, Novell disagrees.
What does the amendment say?
The section on assets excluded from the deal is:
All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies.
So, skipping the double-negation and some of the blaha, the deal includes:
[Novell] copyrights and trademarks [..] required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX
So it really hinges on what is meant by "required with respect to the acquisition".
SCO says this means everything.
Novells interpretation is that SCO must demonstrate a requirement of these copyrights for them to be transferred. Patent rights, which SCO have made claims to (in court documents!) were definetly not transferred. That is explicit in the deal (and the amendments don't change that)
Given, reading the documents, the intent of the deal does not to appear to be to give SCO all rights to UNIX. But it's difficult to say.
Since this is a matter of interpretation, and SCOs whole case against IBM is built on this ownership, it's unlikely that they'll ever accept Novells ownership of copyright. It's also unlikely that they'll sue Novell, they're busy enough litigating as it is. (even if they seem to want more)
I think we all know Novell will have to bring suit to resolve this. The question is if they will, seing that it's not a clear-cut win, and they really don't have much to win on it either. (If Unix had had value as a product, we wouldn't have had this mess to begin with)
On the other hand, Darl's dedication to making a buck for himself is well-documented.
Breakfast served all day!
In fact inevitable.
However to really complete the picture Boies and company will probably file a counter-suit (and they may even have a point) claiming they were misled on extent of SCO ownership of the Unix IP.
Can they get a delay on this at all, or try and appeal to a senior court, or are they now going to have to show their hand?
No. Here's why. If the reason ceases to exist, then the right goes away. The first amendment provides an absolute right of freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and right to petition congress.
The Second amendment can be read (and I believe, should be read) to provide a conditional right to keep and bear arms. That condition is, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." If that condition ceases to exist, then the right is no longer relevant.
It can be argued that a "well regulated militia," far from being "necessary to the security of a free state" is at best irrelevant - no militia is going to have much to say in a real global throw down in this day and age. At worst, a militia is a threat to national security - as in militia members blowing up federal buildings, like Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City.
Boy if that wasnt the worst generalization of momonisim ive ever seen. Juste because someone is a member of a chuch does not in any way mean that thier actions are necessarily good, or that they believe everything the do is good. _Any_ christian can commit murder, lie, cheat, or steal. just becasue they once made the attempt to better themselfs does _NOT_ make them perfect.
Do we know that McBride is a Mormon?
I hope not. If he is, he is a disgrace to everything that we Mormons stand for.
Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
What crap! First, there is a blatant typo in the most crucial provision of the asset agreement (saying "Section 1.1(a)" where they meant "Schedule 1.1(a)"). Then, in Schedule 1.1(b) (where the exceptions are listed), they flatly EXCLUDE ALL COPYRIGHTS from the asset transfer! Wow! SCO was represented by Brobeck, it seems - what were THEY thinking? And the schedules themselves are unbelievably vague, listing things like "some APIs" (honest to God!).
Then they did an amendment to fix this all up, supposedly. What did SCO get then? Not much, arguably. Basically it seems to be a circular grant - all copyrights SCO needed in order for SCO to exercise the rights it acquired. But WTF did they acquire in the first place?
Sheer incompetence on someone's part, it would seem.
Since some court is going to have to give SOME meaning to this pile of turd, I would venture to say that what SCO got was in effect an agreement that Novell wouldn't assert against them any copyright (or trademark) that would prevent them from exercising commercial rights in UNIX. Maybe some judge will cut them a break and read this more generously, but I just don't see in this obfuscated verbiage an omnibus written transfer of all copyrights. I've got to believe this is (still) a HUGE cloud on SCO's title.
No, they have a few macros. The funny thing is that two of those macros have a very minor bug in that they aren't threadsafe (using static instead of automatic temporary variables.) So if SCO claims they own those... then who the hell owns the threadsafe SysV header file macros that predate Linus' files?
This has to do with physcology.
Mcbride would live the dream and have the "ring which binds them all", if you could own all OS's besides windows and make billions! We all would like to be moral and help Linux but many of us would go crazy at the thought of owning all this money and power. Mcbride himself feels he does not want to destroy Linux. He just wants a cut if its used in business.
I am poor right now and I would admitedly be tempted. I might even make a compromise like what Mcbride did and allow linux free for non commercial users. Yes, I would be a jerk and might not go through with it, but a fast talking salesmen/laywer might make a difference.
Remember the lawyers get paid only if this goes through. They do not give a shit about Unixware, Linux or SCO. They care about green dollars.
People tend to believe what they want to believe.
My guess is Bois sold Mcbride like a salesman and Mcbride thought something on the line of "shit! If Bios is right, I have a lottery ticket!". The thought would be tempted. When the 70 lines of BSD code were found, he went hysterical saying "AHA, I win!".
Part of his makeup could of been influenced from the MS case of licensing doublespace disk compression for DOS. Caldera, now SCO group won 40 billion! After a win like that, it probably went to his head.
http://saveie6.com/
Assume if p then q.
Given ~q (Not q),
you can conclude ~p.
Modus Tolens (I might have that mispelled). Anyway, it is indeed possible to logically prove a negative. You may have meant that it is impossible to prove the non-existance of something, which I don't buy either.
Don't confuse what SCO is saying outside the court with what they are saying inside the court. Outside statements can't help them inside, but supply potential ammunition for the opposition. That's why IBM and RedHat have had so little to say.
Inside the court, there has been no talk by SCO of "millions of lines" or "literal copying". They seem to be following the line that IBM's contributions to Linux, if based directly or indirectly on AIX, were improper. And that until IBM details what those contributions were, SCO cannot specify the offending code. That's a very different case than the one they are talking up in the press. It appears SCO's entire case rests on the interpretation of existing contracts between IBM and ATT. They are using their interpretation to assert ownership of code (AIX) that they did not write and have never seen. As you might imagine, that's a bit of a stretch.
Even if they were somehow to prevail in this argument, the liability of Linux creators and users would still be zero. SCO has explicitly avoided mitigating their damages. As a result, no liability would occur until SCO prevailed in court. And because there would have been ample opportunity to fix the offending code in the meantime but for SCO's intransegence, its unlikely any court would award damages until after a reasonable amount of time had passed to fix the offending code. They've painted themselves into a corner.
Now, we've got the Novell angle, which means SCO has a two-front war. Before they collect a penny from anyone, they need to beat both IBM and Novell. They have to prove its their code, that it was improperly contributed and that their subsequent distribution of the code under the GPL doesn't wipe the slate clean anyway. That's three very difficult wins. Especially the last as they have embarked on the almost impossible course of arguing the GPL is illegal and unconstitutional. And if they did prove these things, they have the lack of mitigation to deal with before they can collect any money from anyone but IBM.
IANAL, but it looks to me like the issue of SCO "data" in the kernel is almost 100% irrelevant at this point.