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!
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.
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.
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!
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.