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
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.
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
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!
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.
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.