Slashdot Mirror
Novell Releases SCO Letters
cyxs writes "Here is Novell's page with letters that have been sent back and forth between Novell and SCO. Very interesting read."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Hurray!
As the Stomach Turns, so do the days of our SCO life!
do() || do_not();
Darl claims that Novell released the letters to them, and sues Novell for copyright violation.
Wasn't SCO supposed to reveal their cards a couple days ago? Haven't seen a lick of news about that... maybe they missed the deadline cuz all the executives have fled to tropical islands without extradition treaties.
I don't have time to read them now because I'm working, but now I have something extra to look forward to when I get home.
Novell, the enemy of the enemy of my enemy who is the enemy of my greater enemy, is my friend, I think.
I know it isn't usually kosher to mirror, but 23MB of pdfs is huge vs the 100k of txt that is actually there... or even converted to jpg or tiff.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
It's alright, the story's been up two minutes - we aren't able to read them either way ;-)
SCO Purchases Specific Novell Assets
Wish they were so quick with pointing out what contract/copyright/trade secrets, if any, are actually violated by anybody they accuse of doing so...
When are the Red Hat and IBM cases scheduled for resolution anyway? This whole thing is going on for far to long. Why does it take so long to resolve these issues through the courts...
As is usually the case with SCO related news, Groklaw is picking the information apart. For now most of it is transcriptions of the pdf's, but also some first blush analysis.
The pdf files would be okay if they'd compressed them a bit better when saving them. There's no need for a two-page letter to take up 1Mb.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
(b) Buyer shall not, and shall not have the authority to, amend, modify or waive any right under or assign any SVRX License without the prior written consent of Seller. In addition, at Seller's sole discretion and direction, Buyer shall amend, supplement, modify or waive any rights under, or shall assign any rights to, any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect by Seller. In the event that Buyer shall fail to take any such action concerning the SVRX Licenses as required herein, Seller shall be authorized, and hereby is granted, the rights to take any action on Buyer's own behalf. Buyer shall not, and shall have no right to, enter into future licenses or amendments of the SVRX Licenses, except as may be incidentally involved through its rights to sell and license the Assets or the Merged Product (as such term is defined in the proposed Operating Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit 5.1(c)) or future versions thereof of the Merged Product.
(from section 4.16 of the Asset Purchase Agreement). Novell was doing a license audit in 2Q 2003.
C|N>K
Maybe it's just me, but isn't it interesting that SCO is apparently attempting to circumvent the purchase agreements by including language in the licensing agreements giving them rights they previously may not have had? I for one would love for someone to post a copy of or link to the SVRX license agreement.
Dear SCO,
Fuck you, your wives, and your bastard kids.
-------------end archive---------------
After the slashdotting novell receives today, they will know for sure that they have slashdot behind them 100% in the drawing, hanging and quartering of SCO.
Sue Goodwill does anybody else find that a funny name given the circumstances?
Groklaw already has been translating the PDF's into text as well as providing some good commentary.
From the looks of it, it appears that Novell is about to hit SCOX with a breach of contract suit. Additionally, the letters point out that the MS and SUN contracts should pay 95% of the amount to Novell.
With that in mind, it appears that SCO has lied on their latest earnings statement (fraud) as well as withheld information from Bay Star, etc...
SCO is in a lot of touble.
I don't drink because I have to, I drink to stop the voices in my head!
We can Slashdot them instead... :-)
Mike
It would be useful to have a copy of the asset purchase agreement in front of you, since these letters mostly refer to it in their arguments. Luckily, it looks like it's been OCRed and put up on Groklaw at here. The letters in isolation don't really make much sense, hard to figure out who's blowing smoke and who's not.
Grin. The following summary from groklaw seems to sum it up nicely.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2004011 30 20257821
May 12, 2003, SCO: We own UNIX. Those Linux thieves stole it. Now we are going to make them pay!
May 28, 2003, Novell: Your letter annoyed us. You don't own UNIX, we do.
June 6, 2003, Novell: Stick to the facts and stop threathening us.
June 6, 2003, SCO: We do own UNIX, stop telling everybody you own it. You did that on purpose on the same day as our earning annoucement. We also want to know what IBM told you and what you told IBM.
June 9, 2003, Novell: You can't just terminate IBM's license, so stop claiming you will. We do have the right to tell you what to do, you know.
June 11, 2003, SCO: We do own UNIX and we can do what we want. Stop telling everybody we can't, or else...
June 12, 2003, Novell: Come on, you can't be serious. When we signed the contracts we promised IBM you could not terminate the license. We at Novell keep our promises.
June 12, 2003, SCO: Okay, now you've done it. You didn't listen, so now we are giving IBM permission to keep using AIX. You may not like it, but it the way it is. The license will not be terminated!
June 18, 2003, Novell: Our press release about the copyrights coinciding with your earnings annouchment was purely coincidental. We do not want to hurt you, we are just protecting our interests.
June 24, 2003, Novell : You signed contracts with Microsoft and somebody else. You can't just do that without telling us first. What's up with that? So, we demand to get copies and demand that you do not do this again. Once we have the copies we will determine if you have to give their money to us instead.
June 26, 2003, Novell: You keep telling you own the patents and copyrights of UNIX. We do acknowledge you had the right to acquire 'some' of the copyrights and we are still looking into it how much exactly you are entitled to. In any case, you do NOT own the patents.
July 8, 2003, Novell: Please stop bothering our former executives.
July 11, 2003, Novell: You haven't paid us in 6 months, cough up the money! Also, we are definitely going to audit your ass.
July 17, 2003, Novell: We don't like you. You tell people lies. You thought you couldn't do that, so we didn't pay. Luckily for you we determined you could do that, so we will pay. Also, regarding the audit; we're busy, please come back later.
August 4, 2003, Novell: We noticed you registered the UNIX copyrights. We do not agree with that. You had to demonstrate you needed the copyrights and you didn't do that. Tough luck, the copyrights are still ours!
August 7, 2003, Novell: You withheld our money! No mather what your reasons are, you can't do that. We want assurances that this will never happen again. Compy!
August 20, 2003, Novell: You know what, we have a technology license agreement. We want copies of the source and binary code for all versions of UNIX and UnixWare. We tried to call, but you never called back. We want the code and we want to know when we can have it.
September 10, 2003, SCO: We don't agree with your interpretation of our contracts. You are conspiring with IBM to destroy us. SCO is not going to let this happen.
October 7, 2003, Novell: You seem to think that AIX modifications made by IBM are subject to restrictions. Sorry, but that is simply not true. IBM owns their own code and can do with it what they like. Stop bothering IBM.
October 7, 2003, Novell: You seem to think that IRIX modifications made by SGI are subject to restrictions. Sorry, but that is simply not true. SGI owns their own code and can do with it what they like. Even if SGI did contribute UNIX code to Linux, it was very small amount of code and it was removed very quickly. This simply does not warrant terminating SGI's license, so stop threathening that you will.
October 7, 2003, Novell: We heard you are going to send invoices to Linux u
Novell waives SCO's rights on SCO's behalf... :) These are pretty funny to read...
When I started downloading (before it was posted) it was slowish - 19.7KB/s. It's currently downloading at 17.3KB/s, so not that much difference...
Sorry, no room to mirror 23M of pdfs. blast! In $ news, http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=5d
Type 1: We now do Linux. This is one I like, since it's something I've hoped for some time: take Novell's kick ass administration tools (granted, last time was Netware 4.1-5, so maybe the new Java/web interface sucks, but I loved the old NWadmin tool and plugins), and mix it with Linux (powerful, free as in freedom, and has more configuration text files than most junior admins know what to do with).
I also like how they aren't going to "change" SuSE (at least, not yet). Their best bet would be to use SuSE as a development crew - moving things ahead, keeping a separate product (rather than wrecking it the way WordPerfect pretty much was), and incorporating it's advances into Netware [insert whatever number here] as an "added value Enterprise product" - much like Fedora versus Red Hat Enterprise.
Type 2: We will indemnify you. This doesn't bother me too much - after all, SCO is playing "Big Bad" to Linux out there: "Use Linux, and we will sue you." Novell is providing some legal peace of mind. Granted, you have to buy their "new" product, but my feelings are horribly hurt by that - after all, they have to pay for the scum sucking evil hearted - I mean, laywers after all.
Type 3: We actually own the UNIX copyright. This ties into Type 2 in a certain respect, only without lawyers. This is to give current SuSE and other Linux customers less fear. Basically, it boils down to this:
"We know that SCO says they own the UNIX copyright and because of that they think they can get money from you for anything Linux.
"Bullshit. The fact is, Novell still owns the important copyrights, and we won't sue you. See? We're nice.
"Please buy our products."
Type 3 doesn't bother me that much either, since it at least appears to be "We're nice people - honest!" Granted, they are still an amoral corporation which pretty much means they're not doing it out of the charity of their hearts but because they want to make a buck - but you have to admit *right now* they're at least showing more class than SCO.
Either way, I'm not concerned. I figure about 12-24 months from now, this will all go away when the lawsuits finally fail and SCO and such run out of money to pay the heartless gutter snipes - I mean lawyers, President Richard Simmons will be in office with the War on Fat, iTunes Music Store will enjoy brief market domination before being the aliens arrive from Zardon VI and eradicate the earth when they learn we've evolved lawyers.
Or - something like that. Just my opinion.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
I'm sure, having actually managed to be the one to get his slashdot story submission accepted, he had a thorough read through of the letters and hence the "interesting read" part is an informed comment.
Pete
I'm confused? Why are we still talking about that. Wasn't SCO suppose to show evidence last week? Did they? Or has the judge bitch-slapped them? Does anyone have the status on that ruling and SCO's actions to fufill it?
None of the Novell letters to Darl start with "Dear Mush-For-Brains;".
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Why don't editors put in the groklaw links to keep these useless karma whores down?
Beats me. I think every SCO related article here should also link to Groklaw's analysis of the story. As for karma or mods, whatever.
Of course, Novell is also riding the journalist gravy train - SCO's stock price is up mainly because investors are buying "lottery tickets" - the more they are in the news, the more some investors think they'll make the "big bucks" if SCO wins a court case.
So as long as SCO is in the news, Novell probably figures to ride on their coat tails and get practically free advertising.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
the parent post is a mirror of sco.com.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
The real news is that SCO had a deadline to disclose to IBM, "with specificity", exactly what the claimed infringements are. That was yesterday. Neither IBM nor SCO has announced anything.
On January 23rd, there will be a hearing on whether IBM is satisfied with what SCO disclosed. Then we'll know quite a bit more.
Especially since the zip of all the pdf's is 44.6 MB. Anyone wanna post text of the interesting ones, or perhaps a summary?
Basically, Novell says that it's owed 95% of the revenue from the Microsoft and Sun licensees (hmm, SCO already gave a good chunk to the lawyers, oops), and that SCO has failed to make expected payments on revenue from other Unix source licensees (double oops). They want their money, which basically would cut SCO off at the balls.
SCO says that they have the right to enter into new kinds of agreements and that the Microsoft and Sun licenses are not revised versions of the previous unix source licensing arrangements, so Novell can go pound salt.
Novell asks SCO to stop harassing Novell's customers (all existing Unix source licensees) and trying to ammend contracts they have no rights to ammend, threatening to terminate liceneses for IBM and SGI that only Novell has the right to do so, being a general pain in the a**, and that generally SCO are a bunch of lying cheats (yes, it's all in there, fun reading).
SCO doesnt say anything about being lying cheats, but claims Novell's Unix source licensees are their licensees, even though Novell has a 95% revenue interest, and SCO receives 5% "commission".
In short, this correspondence provides a foundation for Novell to say SCO is in violation of the original Unix purchase agreement, and could form the basis for Novell to have SCO's rights to Unix terminated. Since SCO knowingly failed to list money potentially owed to Novell on either their earning statements and their official SEC filings, or the potential risk to loosing most of their recent income, SCO is probably in deep sh*t SEC-wise, which probably explains the mysterious exit of that SCO employee in charge of doing the SEC filings right before their last earning report was do. Naturally he would not wish to be the one to sign a false earnings statements.
I guess looking at this, Bubba will soon have a new "Mc"-bride at club fed.
Ya know, I'll bet Novel has enough server power to take it, the're not running this off some box on a DSL line...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I was a bit too quick when I originally posted this summary on Groklaw. I really should have proofread... There are also some really awful spelling mistakes in there.
From the letter dated 12 June 2003, from Novell and IBM:
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchace Agreement, Novell, on behalf of The SCO Group, hereby waives any purported right SCO may claim to terminate IBM's SVRX Licenses enumerated in Amendment X or to revoke any rights thereunder, including any purported rights to terminate asserted in SCO's letter of March 6, 2003 to IBM.
This, in a nutshell, is Novell withdrawning SCO's right to terminate IBM's license, which was reported last year on Slashdot. What I really want to see, however, is the ubiquitous Asset Purchase Agreement, which appears in both this letter and most of the other ones; the whole dispute (at least, between SCO and IBM) appears to hinge on this agreement. Unfortunately, the agreement will probably never see the light of day, for reasons of corporate confidentiality.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Dumbass.
Bit Torrent link, please?
I'd setup a tracker once I get'm down, but I'm behind a NAT box.
I managed to get 61 bytes down before it started timing out...
"Similar to analogous efforts underway in the music industry, we are prepared to take all actions necessary to stop the ongoing voilation of our intellectual property or other rights."
And in response to the specific piece Jack Messman says in his response:
"In your letter, you analogize SCO's campaign against the Linux community to that of the record industry against major corporations whose servers contained downloaded music files. There are crucial differences between the two campaigns. The record industry has provided specific information to back up its allegation, while SCO steadfastly refuses to do so. In its allegation letter, the record industry provides evidence of allegedly infringing activity that is specific to the targeted company. This offers the company real notice of the activity, sufficient information to evaluate the allegation, and an opportunity to stop the activity if it determines the allegation is true. If SCO wants to compare its actions to that of the record industry, it should follow the example set by that industry and present specific evidence of the alleged infringement."
At the very least, read this entire response from Novell to SCO regarding it's letter to Linux customers. Jack has pretty much voiced *all* the concerns that the Slashdot community has come up with in a direct letter to Daryll.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Comic book guy says "Shortest Story Ever"
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
About 8 hours ago I was downloading the files at over 80 KB/s, then the story appeared on Groklaw and it dropped to about 4 KB/s. Despite several attempts I stil haven't been able to download the zip of the copyright registrations... Finally the speed was getting a bit better and then the site receives a proper /.ing... Thank you very much :)
IT managers and and other executive decision makers who have been nervous about all the warning shots fired between the battleships in this war of words can finally feast their eyes on tangible evidence demonstrating the untennable position of Darl McBride.
In particular I point to the letter dated 12 Jun 2003 from Novell to SCO regarding the Asset Purchase Agreement between the Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. and Novell, Inc., September 19, 1995.
In this letter, Jack Messman pretty clearly identifies the absurdity of Darl's claims be referring to very specific portions of the Asset Purchase Agreement, which give IBM "irrevocable" rights, and states that Novell also retains certain rights, over which SCO has no say.
Now, I ask you, does this not sound like a man who is sure of his position and the position of his company? It seems to me that Linux users (corporate, individual, or those who've ascended to the next plane of existence) should be well in the clear from the majority of any claims SCO might possibly level. This evidence combined with the confidence exhibited by multi-million dollar legal defense funds set up to help those who might be the target of SCO legal action will go a long way to reassuring executives.
Now, if only the judges in this case would hurry up and slap SCO back into the last century, where they should have stayed...
------- "One of the joys of travel is visiting new towns and meeting new people." -- G. KHAN
Or convert them to text and gzip them...
PDF is WAY over used and should be band from text-only use. Leave PDFs for flyers/presentations/manuals
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
Have to agree with the parent, what's wrong with them releasing the documents as pdf? You can get pdf readers for every platform and people are more likely to have a pdf reader available than OOo.
Next someones going to insist they won't read the documents unless they're encoded as Ogg.
Although _we_ all want SCO to DIE, but what are your thoughts on the the realistic future of SCO? My thoughts: - continues to sue household names trying to stir the public - stocks start to fall - Darl, begins RIAA tatics, suing little Sue, trying to scare the public to loose... - 6 months till they go belly up.
[blue] - The Ministry of Information approved this message...
----------begin-----------
Already did. You're next, penguin boy.
Love, Darl
-----------end------------
Then Microsoft has won. Anything that slows Linux helps Microsoft.
Can't do something because you are behind a NAT box. Indeed. More proof that NAT is the scourge of the Earth, a bandage fix for a networking protocol that was broken by design.
IPv4: Slower, Worse, Costlier. Pick any two.
Of course, I'm not reading this in the full context, but here's an interesting tidbit:
2.1 Section J of Ammendment No 1 prohibits SCO from entering "into new SVRX Licneses" except "as may be incidentally involved through [SCO's] rights to sell and license UnixWare software or the Merged Product."
2.2 With this prohibition in mind, Novell has noted SCO's recent introduction of its "SCO Intellectual Propety License for Linux," in which SCO attempst to enter into new SVRX Licenses with Linux end users.
It's mine! NO IT'S NOT - IT'S MINE! Mine, mine, mine, mine, mine, mine... infinity! Take that, Darl! (What kinda of a name is Darl, anyway?!?!?) Kenny P. Visualize Whirled P.'s
Some might not argee with me, but I think this lawsuit by SCO was inevitable for the Linux community. I have believed that Linux couldn't be considered a completely viable choice for many companies until something like this happened. Why? Because it hadn't been tested.
Linux is based on a new concept that many people don't understand. The right to freely use and change and redistribute doesn't make the Cooperate heads comfortable. Add that to the fact that most, if not all, distributions claimed not to take legal responsibility for their products. I believe that after SCO loses their lawsuit that companies will start providing legal immunity to their customers. In fact this is already starting to happen. Novell with their move into the Linux world has started to do this, IBM I believe is starting in some form or another and there could be others that I am not aware of.
Linux is going through its growing pains and afterwards it will be better for it. Once Linux moves through this, it will be well into it's young adult life. There will still be a lot of growth and "pain" involved but it will move on. While I know many will say, "But Linux has been around for many, many years," I say to them that yes, but it hasn't been tested legally. This will give it the legal ground to move forward and grow.
I remember several years ago during my early years in college one of my professors saying some time soon somebody would try to profit off of Linux's growth, they would take legal action and try to undermine the base that Linux is founded on. He also said that Linux wouldn't, and in reality, couldn't be a heavy weight contender in the marketplace until something like this has happened.
I believe that when all is said and done with the lawsuit Linux will be a better off and will show to all the skeptical CEO's and anybody else that is listening that Linux is a great foundation to build their network on and more.
Art by Mindy Herman, my wife.
Let me break this down into bite size chunks. Any competent unzipping program for *NIX/*BSD/Mac OS will have the ability to open .zip files. How many Windows unzipping programs play nice with .tar.gz files? I know there are many (Winrar, winace, etc), but for most people, they don't know how to use things that are not a part of the core OS. So they want the most amount of people to be able to read the file. Let us say that 99% of people have cars that only take unleaded gas, but the other 1% have a car that can take leaded and unleaded, do you think they will sell only leaded gasoline? No, because they want to be able to sell their fuel to the greatest amount of people.
I hate sigs.
sPh
Wow. That's just, wow. Publishing the correspondence like that is tantamount to saying, "Screw you. We have nothing more to say outside of court."
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
NAT is a peice of shit, yes. It's not totally evil for home use, with the ability to set up port forwarding. Although it WOULD be much nicer if my cheapie little NAT router would let me set static IP's to go with the port forwarding rules... kind of a PITA to get a different DHCP IP and have to fix the forwarding.
Darl: Linux stole our stuff!
Novell: Where's your proof?
Darl: They did it, I saw 'em!
Novell: Where, show me...
Darl: It's over there!
[Novell turns around while Darl bolts out of the room]
Zip files are much better for Internet distribution. Some of the advantages are:
.TGZ)
:-P
1. CRC checking
2. A single extension that won't be screwed up by browsers (granted, you can always use
3. Better cross-platform support
4. Ability to extract individual files quickly
TAR.GZ is much better for archives than Internet distribution. Besides, REAL MEN use TAR.BZ!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Can't do something because you are behind a NAT box. Indeed. More proof that NAT is the scourge of the Earth, a bandage fix for a networking protocol that was broken by design.
Couldn't agree more. I could tunnel through the router, but then I'd lose my job if the boss found out. NAT is his firewall.
So... You think IPv6 will do better (if it's ever mainstreamed)?
kudos to all the karma whores leaching off interesting comments from groklaw. everything posted here is pretty much -1 redundant and available on groklaw when it comes to SCO news these days.
WTF? .. Novell posting something to back up what they are saying? I don't get it... why? ... ;-P //fatal
Hasn't SCO showed everyone how to say stupid shit and get all the investors attention without any proof?
In general, I agree with you. (The problem is made even worse by the fact that Acrobat Reader takes two or three minutes just to load.)
/. reader may not care at all, and it would be nice to have a text-only repository (check Groklaw within a day or so; they posted the story earlier and were downloading them for review and evaluation) but for legal purposes, it's important to show the original document and not just the text.
However, these are not just the text. They are scans of the original documents. The average
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Probably not, since my experience with Netware has mainly been in academia. I'm willing to concede that, like most systems, Novell can be useful if properly configured and maintained. But then, where's the humor in that?
I've done this for ages and I see little wrong with it. The heart of ./ is the comments, not the article anyway.
...Novell should publicly revoke SCO's licene to Unix.
Holy shit, that would be interesting... and funny.
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
Much of the copyrighted work is not Novells for Unix 386. The copyright is invalid. I have source code to prove it.
From 12_29_03_n-sco.pdf:
----------
Dear Mr. Bench:
On November 21st, 2003, Novell requested additional information and
documentation necessary to complete the aformentioned audit. Novell has
not received a response to these requests.
The purpose of this letter is to repeat Novell's request stated in the letter you
received November 21st, 2003 and ask SCO to return a full response no later than January 12th, 2004.
Sincerely,
[Signature]
Mike Bready
Director, Contact Management
[---END---]
litigious bastards
suck it sco!
This isn't required, and it isn't groundbreaking.
The 'established' industry didn't change in this way, why would this new method act as described.
(Edited to make a point)
Some might not argee with me.
I have believed that couldn't be considered a completely viable choice for many companies until something like this happened. Why? Because it hadn't been tested.
Take no right to inspect, review repair or modify the product. Add that to the fact that most, if not all, distributions claimed not to take legal responsibility for their products. I believe that after (Pick a software company) loses their lawsuit that companies will start providing legal immunity to their customers. (Name one closed source company that does)
I see your point, but AT&T tried essentially the same case with FreeBSD a while back, and that hindered BSD development and take-up very much. The situation is a bit different now, with a lot more people having commercial interests in Linux than in FreeBSD, and Linux just has a lot more momentum than FreeBSD did at the time (it essentially was just a research project for most folks). Linux himself has written essentially that he never would have written Linux, he just would have used FreeBSD (Net/1 anyway) if it wasn't for the shadow of the lawsuit over it.
"Hell IBM could produce a 5year old child that could write header file..."
And his name is Linux?
Did you really register just to write that?
If the second half of that quote rolls off your tongue that easily, then I think you've been in IT management longer than engineering.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I'd like to know how SCO can possibly claim others have infringed on their intellectual property when they've clearly shown that they have absolutely no intellect.
>How many Windows unzipping programs play nice with .tar.gz files?
You list some obscure products but then fail to mention WinZip - the daddy of them all, that plays very nice with tar.gz!
Sheesh!
Naturally he would not wish to be the one to sign a false earnings statements.
Who was the poor sap that they found to sign those statments?
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
This is completely irrelevant, not to mention childish...
You ignorant asshole!
Groklaw has a bunch of them transcribed into text in the comments to their story on this.
"When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
This is really interesting.
1. A newbie comes from nowhere, posts an SCO press release and gets a +2 moderation.
2. Somebody points out that it's the 1st post ever by EZEZ and gets moderated down right away.
3. My prediction is that this one will also be moderated down.
Here's the files and there descriptions!
The "copyright registrations" is downloaded and availible online. I'm working on the "correspondence with the SCO Group", which is downloading as I write this (with 80% left).
You know what they should do is make a Unix Like operation system without using any of the Unix code and just freely release it under the GNU then we shouldnt have these problems any more... Oh Wait... Never mind.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
And that's why SCO's claims are so damn convincing they have to keep everything super-secret.
And that's why they used a team of MIT mathemeticians to perform a spectral analysis of Linux source code to find "their" IP.
Whatever happened to SCO's team from MIT, anyway?
I was going to mod you up, but I decided to respond instead. Notice how everything in this SCO press release refers to previous SCO and Novell press releases. They don't mention a single contract, or anything else that would hold water in court. SCO knows press releases do _NOT_ mean anything in court. Hurray for everyone's favorite pump & dump scheme.
It would be wiser for McBride to perpetuate the release of Open Source operating system vis-a-vis in order to accentuate the capability contained within them.
Heh. Business lingo aside, it very much wouldn't have been wiser for the owners of SCO's OpenServer UNIX to have done so. Linux has completely eaten SCO's lunch with the exception of fields where necessary products for the operation of a business are available only (or cheapest) on SCO's OS line. Real, cheap(er) *NIX for mass market hardware instead of highly marked-up "big iron" was SCO's market before Linux came along and did everything SCO did better for free. SCO's OS line is dying, and there's pretty much nothing that they could've done to save it as a sellable products.
Instead, SCO acted in what an Ayn Rand-ite would've called its own "rational self-interest." SCO knows that its major source of revenue is going to be useless soon, so it's attempting to get another one. Building essentially a completely new software product line in a new market niche is far too high-risk and too low of a payoff compared to attempting to exploit the IP that they think they own. The current spate of lawsuits is a high-risk gamble too, but it's one with a much, much larger potential payoff.
Also, there's the whole principal-agent problem caused by the fact that the future of the executives of the board is not strongly yoked to the company going down in flames. Together, you have a recipe for callous, self-interested behavior by people who are committed to the idea that money is the best measure of success.
Instead we have been deploying Solaris and Mac OS X for the satellite locations.
Congratulations, you have played into SCO's hands. You have not adopted the platform that has killed theirs, and you have given money to Sun, a company that has decided to pay SCO a license for the product you purchased. This is exactly what SCO was hoping for.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Last time I checked WinZip could handle tar'd and gzip'd files with the exception that they didn't handle links. Since there is no need for links in something like this, I don't see where MS Windows systems would have any problems at all.
I don't know much about older Macs, but the OSX crowd shouldn't have any problems either.
I personally use tar all the time because it is such an old beast that many different programs can handle it. It is an ugly format, but it was made for tapes, so some amount of cruft is to be expected.
- doug
If you're feeling brave -
1) Go to you acrobat reader directory, something like C:\Program Files\Adobe\Acrobat 5.0\Reader -
2) make a new directory called plug_ins_disabled
3) move everything from plug_ins to plug_ins_disabled apart from EWH32.api, hls.api, weblink.api, wha.api
4) Watch with amazement as Acrobat reader now starts up in 3 seconds.
OR
4) Curse that dimwit on slashdot who broke your computer....
Obviously don't blame me if it breaks anything on your compuiter.
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
You guys sure are a bunch of litigious bastards! Darl, please calm down! You can make more money and a better name for yourself if you do something useful.
Join Tor today!
You are sheilded from loosing basic assets
What if you are walking past and some of these loosed assets fly toward you. I imagine a flying fridge could take your eye out!
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
ALL my wives your honour,
Sorry but that's why I missed the deadline....
while sco {
wget -O
}
The movement to link litigious bastards to http://www.sco.com/ would be more interesting if we all let SCO know exactly how you feel. Make sure your link says http://www.sco.com/?sco=litigious%20bastards. (The query parameter will naturally appear in their server logs.)
Join Tor today!
How can they claim complete ownership of something that they are paying another company royalties on??? I'm no lawyer, but that implies Novell owns the copyrights.
I'm no lawyer, but I am an author and my publishers have to pay me royalties BECAUSE I OWN THE COPYRIGHTS TO MY WORKS. The same would apply here. So SCO doesn't even hold the copyrights, what a twisted web Dark weaves.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
This one was registered in Oct of 2003: http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/unix sysv_release42mpcopyrightreg.pdf
A side note about pdf's...
Any time I load one using Firebird, it loads fine, but when I try to leave the pdf file, Firebird freezes. I have to kill the reader, then restart Firebird. It seems to have started this when I upgraded Acrobat Reader to 6.0.
Does anyone else have this issue? I'm running Windows XP Pro, Firebird 0.7, and Acrobat Reader 6.0.
The real question herein is not 'how long before SCO is a smoking crater?' but 'how long until the Canopy Group is a smoking crater?'.
Whatever Daryl may do, it seems that Canopy Group benefits from this. IBM's discovery has gone after all the documents regarding SCO's plans to launch the lawsuit, specifically including any collaborations with Canopy.
Given the apparent grounds for fraud and financial chicanery charges, we will likely see Daryl cooling his heels at club Fed. But if, as seems likely, Canopy Group had any part in this, Daryl's puppet masters may join him there.
It would be good to see the old adage "crime doesn't pay" play out. The mills of the justice system grind slow, but they will probably grind exceedingly fine with IBM pushing and oiling the wheels.
Although the grandparent is informative, if we're looking at both sides we need to question the source, which this, and other posts have done.
Novell may be on the right side in this particular fight, but since NetWare is the scourge of the Earth, I don't know that we should go nuts here and say we "like" them.
/."
Translation: "I once had to use a Netware server and I found it strange. Any technology outside the familiar scares me. In fact, I don't know why I'm even visiting
Tricksey penguinses . . . we told you they were false. They stole it from us . . . They stole it and we wants it back. Gollum, gollum.
-B
Only during testing did they find that thermonuclear hand grenade's blast radius was further than anyone could throw it.
May I suggest a trebuchet.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
But, having seen the first file, I really do wonder if McFraud believes CEOs of companies such as Novell really need to be told, in words of one syllable, what Linux is and why its development model differs from proprietary software. It seems to me that he is the one who fails to grasp the situation. He really seems to be unable to grasp that huge teams of programmers are not the way to develop good software (as the Convicted Monopolist has proved time and again...) he does not seem to comprehend that anyone with a brain, a PC and a compiler is able to develop good code, if they want to. Many of course would not bother with the learning curve, they would rather do other things, which is OK of course, but they probably could, if they wanted to. The clever people will certainly create bigger programs of better quality quicker, as we all know. But none of this involves the race of supermen, with super facilities, which McFraud seems to suggest are necessary. Mere mortals, with slowish PCs, simply take a bit longer, but because there are lots of them, each doing their own little bit, and putting the bits together occasionally, it still happens at a respectable pace.
I think that like another nasty piece of work we like to revile on /. (the one who missed the Internet for several years, despite prodding from his employees, who now calls himself the Chief Software Architect), he simply is too stupid to understands what it is all really about.
Unix as a money-spinner has had its day (and thanks to stupid commercial and legal issues it never did spin as much money as it could have), in fact the OS as such has had its day. Wise companies like IBM, Sun, Oracle, Novell realise that now, and know that the future for them is in building hardware (if they are in that business) and/or providing middleware and support. McFraud is simply living in the past. BTW, the next thing to expire as a money-spinner will be the "Office" suite, they are almost two-a-penny now (strictly, two for zero pennies for the pedantic), a far cry from the $400 spreadsheet or WP originally. The fact is that like commodity hardware, commodity software is starting to get very much cheaper. In fact hardware costs are the driving force. It once may have seemed reasonable to put a $400 Lotus 1-2-3 on a $4000 PC/AT (guessing at prices, from the vague recesses of my fading memory, they might not be quite right), but to put a $400 Office suite on a $300 PC is sheer folly. The economies of scale apply to software far more than to hardware, likely marginal cost of an Office suite about $1 for the box and CD, but the Monopolist, the Fraudster and such like have tried to conceal that fact from the gullible public.
I look forward to reading more of McFrauds rantings when the load on the servers subsides.
Netware!? Blasfemy!
Surely the market has already decided that NT 4.0 + Exchange is a superior product!
Exchange ownz the SMB market, and the MCSE training I had, had this specific question: Exchange is right up there with Notes, and Groupwise!
Also, my NCA exams, did NOT contain a question bout what software is regarded a groupware product, so the MS exam MUST be right!
And all types of MS machines are fileservers, after all they invented network sharing, so "netware" can only be a cheap ripoff of MS IP.
-Sigh-, does anyone here even _remember_ LAN manager? Oh those good ole days, where OS'ses where like, compatibel.
"/Dread"
Damn! That rocks.
.api. I'll have to play with it a bit.
I use 6.0 rather than 5.0, and wha.api doesn't exist. If I include weblink.api, I get an error that it failed to load. Perhaps it depends on something that was in wha.api that got moved to a different
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
It would be wiser for McBride to perpetuate the release of Open Source operating system vis-a-vis in order to accentuate the capability contained within them.
Huh?
We would have deployed several Linux server had it not been for the imminent threat of a potential SCO lawsuit for our consulting firm.
That might be true, might be a troll, or might be a plant to link to from a finance message board to push up the stock price. We'll never know since you post as AC.
HAHAHAHAHAHA dumbass
I'm running XP, Firebird 0.7 and the full version of Acrobat 6.0. Acrobat Reader 5 works just fine.
The owls are not what they seem
Check the past year's performance of SCOX. The last five days (as posted and linked above) has indeed seen a big drop, but nothing like the rise of the last 12 months. Fairly telling.
May 12, 2003, SCO (with Gollum voice):
The thieves! Those Linux thieves stole it from us!
That's interesting, do you have a source/url at hand for the quote? (Not questioning you -- only this piqued my curiosity, and the words seem too generic to google.)
That licence... ... I don't think it means what you think it means.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
The second to last referenced letter contains the phone number of the SCO lawyer. 8-).
I also think he's in IT Management...he isn't the least upset that his assignment is moving much needed jobs from the US to another country...the dreaded 'outsourcing' monster doesn't seem to attach management positions...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
mirror
See subj.
Good point about having them as original scans, I change my argument to being a choice.
Give us text only AND the PDFs =)
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
Jesus Fucking Christ on Crutches but you fuckers
can't spell correctly.
Is it just me, or does it seem like every time we saw back-peddaling or inaction from SCO on some assinine demand it's because Novell beat the slop out of them with "Section 4.16(b)" of thier software agreement on UNIX licensing?
They even cracked SCO upside the head on behalf of IBM once or twice about SVRX licensing.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Not posting AC, so this may actually get read:
People, please realize that EZEZ is just shilling for SCO.
This is really interesting.
1. A newbie, EZEZ, comes from nowhere, posts an SCO press release and gets a +2 moderation.
2. Somebody points out that it's the 1st post ever by EZEZ and gets moderated down for pointing out the suspiciousness of EZEZ's posting history (none) and posting content (an SCO press release).
Chill out, this was an obvious troll, designed to get exactly this reaction. (Cf. ending in "Which is nice".)
Since I started telling the truth to myself
:)
and those around me..... I don't fucking
trust ANYONE.
90% of the people I meet will lie to you about
stupid shit for the most obscure reasons.
Absolutely amazing to watch it from my point of view
now. I'm sure I was exactly the same way.
BTW..... depending on how deeply you've dug your hole,
your life will most likely get WORSE when you start
telling the truth.(A lot of people will be pissed at you for sure)
Hang in there, keep moving ahead
and telling the truth and I promise, In a few years you WILL
be overjoyed you did.
The difference is like night and day.
And such a lawsuit would breach a huge hole in any SCO vs Linux end-user lawsuit. Such a suit would almost certainly gain a quick, long-term stay pending the outcome of Novell vs SCO battle for the Unix copyrights. (aw geesh your honor, I didn't really know who owned the copyrights, I don't know who to pay, there's a battle going on in court for it right now, etc). And that litigation would probably take years. Meanwhile IBM and Red Hat vs SCO would continue....
I am glad to see SCO being struck down, but I am not happy to see Unix copyrights and contracts being used to do it. Remember this it does NOT MATTER who owns Unix, because SCO's claim that Linux is an unauthorized derivative work of Unix is B.S.
Novell may be the friend of the GNU/Linux community now, but remember, SCO was a friend of Linux once too, before they changed hands and fell under the control of scumbags. What will Novel be like 10 years from now? What will IBM be like 10 years from now? Remember that Unix ownership is NOT Linux ownership.
Instead, SCO acted in what an Ayn Rand-ite would've called its own "rational self-interest"...
If you're going to use a concept from a philosophy from which you disagree, you should at least define your terms correctly.
Rational? By what standard?
There's nothing wrong with self-interest. Selfishness is a virtue after all. The problem is with your horrid abuse of the term rational. Is it rational to make claims that are not based on fact, which if validated by the courts will invalidate the legal system, thus leaving your company open to the whims of whatever lawsuit du jour someone happens to come up with?
SCO will lose, and it will lose because its claims are not rational. And because its claims are not rational, they are not in its self-interest...because when a corporation loses on this scale, it goes "pop!".
[blink] 2 or 3 minutes??
.. 70mb or whatever the total of Novell's files comes to, is WAY too rich for my dialup. Even text with disclaimers that "these are not originals and should not be treated as legal documents", if that's an issue.
For comparison, I have Acrobat 5 *full* version (not just the reader) on this lowly P3-550, and it takes about [times it] 6 or 7 seconds from click-shortcut to fully loaded, even for a rather complex 2mb PDF.
Tho I agree, I would have rather had text
Has anyone repacked 'em as text? Groklaw is kindof a pain to wade through.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
However I have this strange ability to read.
c e_QandA .html
>
Read more:
http://www.sco.com/scosource/Final_SCOsour
The GPL, for those that truely understand.
Waaaay off-topic (spawned?)
;)
Sigh...I agree
I say re-compile the Slashcode and stick a Spellchecker in there!
Mind you I'm to blame many times too...
There/Their/They're
Loose/Lose
It's/Its
I'm losing my mind (and a piece of my soul) every time I see the apostrophe-s in weird places. It used to be that in Journalism class (in 1995 no less!) we would get 1/10th of a letter grade for every spelling or grammatical error found in a printed piece (Journal, Newspaper, etc...online would eventually count where newpapers of CNN-types are concerned).
I had to try hard as hell to get five or six errors...in Arkansas no less.
Nowadays even the Globe and Mail here has numerous errors and I'd have gotten 30 or 40 my first week alone.
This is an online forum so let's be a little easy of people...lest you be stabbed in the heart from being too freaking hard on people.
Just let your soul whither my friend...it's only gonna get worse anyway
Much like how you can't be bothered with "editting" your own post for spelling errors?
Ladies and gentlemen, today I would like to show you exactly what I mean. For Exhibit A, I would like to show the contents of /etc/hosts where you will clearly see our IP:
Exhibit B, the output of traceroute, where you clearly see that this 127.0.0.1 is SCO's IP, ZERO hops from our main...There is a degree of compatability in Netware. Versions 6+ will speak CIFS, NFS, and Appletalk in addition to Novells NCP. A MS, Unix or Apple box (server or desktop) can talk natively to a NW server. You can even make a NW box a member of a MS domain.
"Would you, could you, with a goat?" Dr Seuss
You people here have no pop-culture sense at all!
I think we can bump Kevin up from 6 to about 3 for everyone since he did that turning-invisible scene where we got to see his kibbles and bits without the skin.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
SCO looks like it's trying to make a final hurrah to ensure it has a legacy with which it will be remembered.
Why are they doing this? Are they aware of their company crumbling from the inside *before* this Linux attack started?
Well, assuming we all ditched NAT and used IPv6, you could poke a few holes in the firewall just for yourself, while leaving everyone else (boss included) protected from the badguys.
I also like Novell's New logo at the bottom of their page. "Indemity Available"m nity.gif
http://www.novell.com/img/novell_inde
Just go read the documents. It clearly says: All rights _with_the_exceptions_listed_. Uh, oh, small omission, right? go to the exceptions list and you will see that nearly ALL Trademarks, Copyrights and Patents are excepted.
Apparently all the Intellectual Property that was transferred in the original Purchase Agreement were the trademarks UNIX and UnixWare. The open group now owns the UNIX trademark so all the Intellectual property left is the trademark to UnixWare. Now you know why you haven't seen a lawsuit for "intellectual property" from SCOX.
Amendment 2 indicates that additional rights may be transferred. Correspondence indicates that this transfer has not taken place (even A2 validity seems to be still "unverified")
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
If you actually read this press release you'd see it was mentions content at: http://www.sco.com/novell I thought this was worrying for all you arm chair technology legal experts that want to boo-hoo my original response.
I use Gentoo at home, with no problems. At work I'm stuck with XP.
Most of the corporate workers can't "reboot into Knoppix" because of security rules.
on words referring to a male's genitalia.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Firebird 0.61, Acrobat 5.0, Debian. Works fine.
Linux becoming a teenager. Yup, I'm scared.
OMG!!1!!1!WTF!!!11!1!!!LOLOLOLOL!1!!!!1!!1
.wait.
> SCO == XENIX == MICROSOFT.
>
>"The one thing I could never stand about SCO...
>all the goddamned living-undead bloodsuckers!!!"
>>
>> looooooooooooolz, WTF!!1! LOL LAMERZ
>>>
>>>HAHA Micro$soft suxx0r!!!
>>>
>>>ha. .
>>>
>>>I mean SCO IS TEH SuXX0R HAHAHAHA LOL
... they STOLE the precious... he LIES... nasty tricksey Linux developers... but they're his friends... but they keeps the precious for themselves... but they love Linus... but they stole the precious....
I found that quite interesting, mainly that this appears to directly contradict SCO's claim that they own all AIX code as it is derived from "their IP"
If you're interested in this letter, it's the Novell to SCO letter
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
A Windows 2000 Server is also compatable with NDS. In fact, with "Netware Gateway Services for Windows" the 2K box will only use 1 client access license for any number of clients accessing the Netware server through the 2K server. Most of the admin stuff will still have to be done natively through ConsoleOne or NWadmin however.
Yeah, and if you really did read "both sides of the story", actually, three or more sides in this one, you would probably come to the conclusion, that SCO has rice meal for brains.
No offense intended to all the fine upstanding rice meal out there.
"I guess looking at this, Bubba will soon have a new "Mc"-bride at club fed."
who will be the first to offend all the righteous readers?
SCO must be the only company in the world who intentionally likened themselves to the RIAA. Great job there guys. Whaddya gonna do next, SCO, sue an 11-year-old girl for contributing headers to the kernel?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Yes (although the freeze only seems temporary for me), but I always find it annoying anyway when PDFs are loaded in browser windows/tabs. What's the point? Much better to have it load in Acrobat Reader separately as all menus are then available. Set under Tools -> Options -> Downloads -> Plugins (disable PDF plugin). Then, when you click on a PDF link the next time it will ask you what to do, and you can simply choose to always automatically open PDF files with Acrobat Reader.
Some browsers automatically unzip zips containing a single file, but still save them with the .zip extension. IIRC I've had problems with IE doing this in the past.
Anyone seen the relationship between motorola and the canopy group?e .cfm?PageID=1625
http://mcg.motorola.com/cfm/templates/Pressreleas
Show me packet captures and log entires, or it never happened.
SCO is being so Childish. Reminds people of Kindergarten.
SimonTek
You forgot to ask for money.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Out of curosity, have you ever worked with a well-designed, well-engineered, and competently operated Netware network
in this context you could replace the word "Netware" with anything and it would be a joy to work with.They key phrases are "well-designed" "well-engineered" and "copentently operated"
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
> Just let your soul whither my friend :)
In a post about spelling errors that was pretty funny.
Did anyone else notice the 1/4/04 letter includes the phone number of Ryan E. Tibbitts, SCO General Counsel?
Will the real EZEZ, please stand up ?
Just want to know if you are a SCO-in-sheeps clothing !!!
From the parents link, there appears the following line:
http://www.sco.com/novell/apap4.pdf
Page 15 begins the section listing "Excluded Assets" as in, what is not being transferred from Novell to SCO. On Page 16, we have:
V. Intellectual Property:
A. All Copyrights and Trademarks, except for the trademarks Unix and UnixWare
B. All Patents.
Well, I'm pretty sure that if the transference agreement that SCO is using states that "All Copyrights and Trademarks, except for the trademarks Unix and UnixWare" are Excluded from the property transference, then SCO is SOL.
Karma: Not Particularly Funny.
January 23rd is also the beginning of World Rally Championship season with the Rallye Automobile Monte Carlo
If the world would keep scheduling things on the same day, mmm that would be a big help yesss. I ran over my Palm with my wife's SUV. Even a bumper won't protect it from that.
sco is unix... linux is almost unix, therefore sco owns linux.
sco: "133t! all your base are belong to us!"
linux: "umm... sco, go away."
SCO seems to be the business world analogy to the woman who sued her neighbors because they grew a tree with branches that grew over the property line. Methinks they were looking for a quick buck by exploiting and grossly misinterpreting what Novell means when they say "we own the copyrights to UNIX"
Stop your bickering! All of you! You're giving crack a bad name!!!
It turns out that SCO have indeeed complied with discovery and turned over 60 pages. So much for the million lines of code. Read more as usual over at Groklaw
Help fight continental drift.
She gave them two options. Count 'em. Two (2).
- Put up (show your evidence)
- Swear before the court why you cannot do number 1.
To "shut up" was specifically NOT one of the options.If they take option 2, they cannot just say "The dog ate my evidence". They have to swear to it. If whatever excuse they make can be shown to be wrong, then have committed perjury.
Even if they take option 1, it may likely be so flimsy that IBM will move for dismissal with prejudice. (Which means that SCO can never bring this case again ever.)
Meanwhile, IBM will press their counterclaims. The best ones are patent infringement. IBM can sue SCO for patent infringement damages for 20 some years past. IBM has patents that cover anything that anyone has, can or ever will do. IBM can bring patent infringement suits against Darl and gang, and their descendents down to the 10th generation.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Novell: Do you hear that sound, SCO? That is the sound of inevitability, the sound of your death, SCO. Goodbye.
SCO: OHHHH, SHHHH*@%$% (sound of bound crushing and body parts splattering; the screaming of executives being dragged to federal prison is heard in the near background).
No lawsuit was _necessary_. The GPL is _untested_ in court because it is a simple copyright license. How many other copyright licenses have been _tested_ in court? More often than not, when an infringement charge is made, the infringer agrees to comply. It is not rocket science.
As far as Open Source being a new concept, since the begining of time man has cooperated to pool resources and accomplish a task. The Enlightenment saw the modern implementation of this as scientists the world over, through mutual defiance of the established church and new reliable transportation methods, corresponded to enlarge mans knowledge of the physical and theoretical world.
I note that the SCO homepage title is "SCO | SCO Grows Your Business" - shouldn't that read "SCO | SCO Sues Your Business", or even "SCO | SCO Sues Your Community"?
SCO Grows Your Business!
Ever wish your business were larger? Do you feel inadequate when you try to do business? Does your business leave you feeling unsatisfied? Do your business partners seem unsatisfied with your business? Is your stock price too small?
You need to let SCO help to Grow Your Business!
Yes, using SCO's new proven secret formula, you too can Enlarge the size of your business!
GUARANTEED SUCCESS !!!!
Just send us $1 Million bucks and we'll tell you about our secret forumla that can help you boost your stock price to new heights. Results guaranteed! No prior experience necessary. No pain. It's so easy any idiot could do it! And we can back that up!
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
To fix the eb_link error you also need the EScript.api file in the plug_ins directory.
-- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." - R.A.H.
check out the rebuttal at groklaw.
Seems SCO took Novell's quote "appears to support SCO's claim" out of context...
There is a grenade in the US arsenal (one of the white phosophorous ones) that has a thrown range of 35 yards and an effective casualty radius of 45 yards.
There also was at one point a nuclear mortar. The training video for that is hilarious.
All's true that is mistrusted
I forgot where I read this, some interview somewhere. Linux interviews are now so common I probably can find one where he guesses who'll win at Oscar night.
I looked at the great Tannenbaum debate. He does have a lot of "I wrote Linux because it does what I need, and nothing else does" arguments where he mentions BSD a few times, but this isn't a "I wrote it because of the lawsuit" smoking-gun type statement.
Maybe someone can write Mr. Torvalds himself and ask. =)
Am I the only one to notice that they didn't bother blurring out Darl's address in those letters?
This is a great opportunity to send 1 billion AOL CD's to Darl's office.
Just surf to www.AOL.com and click "Request AOL CD", then type in Darl's Address:
Mr. Darl McBride
President and CEO
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, UT 84042
We can also sign him up for credit card offers, ass-rammings, pornographic magazines, brutal rapes... whatever you feel is appropriate.
... and in the DRM, bind them.
SCO's stock is down a couple of dollars over the past few days. Mayhaps it is time for Darl to make Yet Another Press Release saying how they really own Linux, and their evidence is the number of lawsuits they've filed?
This sig no verb.
The only Music Industry / UNIX Industry analogy I can see here is Darl = Michael Jackson / Linux Users = Little Boys.
Chris
Offtopic? It's a post about SCO!
Very useful information from the documents posted, lets harrass the hell out of them. Mr. Darl McBride President and CEO The SCO Group 355 South 520 West Suite 100 Lindon, UT 84042 Phone: (801) 765-4999 Fax: (801) 765-1313
... and in the DRM, bind them.
oh look, pair-a-fuck splats again. hahahaha, that was very funny. please keep it up, hopefully you'll lose all your karma. thx.
Uhh. That would be the problem with most things. They:
:)
A) Arent well designed (cause no one put thought into them)
B) Arent well engineered (cause they have idiot engineers)
C) Arent competently operated (cause they have monkey-brain users or admins with a "Cert")
I have discovered NetWare is brilliant. Although, I have to admit that my school accidently screws up the rights from time to time and students get access to admin areas...
From the letter of 28 May 2003 from Novell:
SCO continues to say that it owns the UNIX System V patents, yet it must know that it does not. A simple review of the U.S. Patent Office records reveals that Novell owns those patents. Importantly, and contrary to SCO's assertions, SCO is not the owner of the UNIX copyrights. Not only would a quick check of the U.S. Copyright Office records reveal this fact, but a review of the asset transfer agreement between Novell and SCO confirms it. ... Apparently, you share this view, since over the last few months you have repeatedly asked Novell to transfer the copyrights to SCO, requests that Novell has rejected."
Doesn't this imply that SCO's case is DOA? (I.e. wouldn't a judge simply dismiss any lawsuit due to a lack of standing on SCO's part?) To my untrained eye, this appears to be an open-and-shut case. Could a lawyer explain why these facts don't just put an end to this mess?
Thanks. My impression is that if such a stament exists it would be quoted here, whereas we only get this:
If you still don't get it. Watch some tv.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I think Novell is trying to ride the "Linux Wave", just like IBM is, and frankly, I think they have a good chance at being successful at it. Honestly, if you look at Red Hat, they have finally started to turn a real profit selling services on top of Linux, but it's not easy, and it is going to be touch-n-go for a long time for them. SuSE is the same way. Great product, but a hard time making money off it.
Novell used to excel at their NOS, and built a successful tool chain on top of it. Unfortunately, they fell behind the times on the NOS itself, and have been definitely out-classed by the Linux kernel. OK, so they recognize their winners and losers, and decide to drop the NOS, and substitute Linux. It takes a little work to port their tool-chain to Linux, and to convince people once again that they are able to sell an integrated solution, but that's still cheaper than trying to completely overhaul the NOS, and then compete against a "free" alternative.
Novell has made enough mis-steps in the past that this is not a guaranteed win, but I think there are a lot of people who had formerly written off Novell as a lost cause, who are now looking at them as real players in the market!
(IBM is playing the flip side of the same game. They want to sell hardware. They really don't care what you run on it. However, they can tweak Linux in ways not possible with Windows, so they can offer a really slick combination. It doesn't matter if they don't make any money off the kernel, as long as they can sell you Iron.)
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Not really a hand grenade anymore, then, is it.
They did have to disclose to IBM. But IBM now have to plough through whats been disclosed..
Well, according to the litigous bastards themselves, they've handed over "60 pages" to IBM.
That seems to imply that 60 pages 70 of info, and given that the court ordered them to specify files, lines of code, ownership and a LOT of other information.. I'd be suprized to see much in there.
It's hardly "millions of lines of code" by any stretch of the imagination. Or at least not "with specificity" (as the court ordered)
Fascinatingly, SCO reports that the discovery materials exceed "more that 60 pages", i.e., presumably less than 70. This is to cover 11 interrogatories that they have not answered with the necessary specificity, according to the courts.
Those interrogatories compel SCO to identify, in particular and among other things:Those two interrogatories alone would require more than 60 pages to answer, especially considering SCO's claims of "millions of infringing lines in Linux". I mean, seriously, how did they identify all those lines, *and* answer the rest of the interrogatories, in less than 70 pages? Really, really small fonts?
(Pictures of the protest at SCO headquarters last June)
Your Servant, B. Baggins
See, your detective work is better than mine. I remember reading that statement too, which is probably where i got the impression. Thanks.
Crush them out of existance. You will save money in the long run, make a friend with IBM which could open new customers, and would form great PR among us geeks who recommend your products to our bosses.
Hell, I would switch to SuSE in a second if they did this. How could I not love them.
http://saveie6.com/
That June 12 "SCO" message makes no sense.
Politas
My guess is that they must be chained up in the basement of their London Utah office. They are fed dinner nightly by Darls hunch-back 1/2 brother with a mutilated face named James, that can do nothing but mutter incoherant sounds and say Darls-wifes pet name, Chunk.
Except that the basis of this court case is not really the GPL, but rather on a peculiar definition of "derived works".
SCO are saying that code IBM wrote and included with AIX cannot be used outside AIX without SCO's permission, even when all the AT&T code is excised. They are claiming their copyright to be even more "viral" than the GPL!
Politas
Real Men use uuencode/uudecode.
SCO hires PR people to scream from the top of the highest mountain (or from the top of SCO's stack of lawyer-related documents, which is probably the same thing) whenever someone actually responds to its vacuous public statements, whenever it needs a boost in stock price, or whenever it has some more "facts" to reveal to its audience of bad stock analysts and PR people.
Now, they've supplied whatever they know about the nature of IBM's contract violations and the resultant "IP" violations, and SCO requests that the information be kept secret? If they had some significant claims, wouldn't they be screaming from the highest mountain; while some companies (IBM, MS) can best act rather than talk, SCO has predicated its ability to make money in the future on forcing Linux users to pay licensing fees or on suing people it has purchased "IP" from/ sold "IP" to, rather than actually selling a product that someone wants to buy. Being silent doesn't intimidate potential customers into giving SCO money or scare potential Linux adopters into going elsewhere on behalf of its pimp^H^H^Hartner MS. There doesn't seem to be a benefit to them in keeping silent unless their claims aren't strong or are easily refutable. Neither option seems to hold much hope for SCO's continued survival or the ability of its executives to avoid unwanted "friendships" with large men in orange jumpsuits. Or is there something I'm missing here?
Dumbass.
Hey, you seem to be lost. I think you need some advice here:
1. Regardless of the factuality of what you have posted, you cannot simply post the text to an article without some good posting history; that is karma-whoring.
2. You cannot attempt to prove a point with such a shallow reason as "their docs look equally factual"; that is trolling.
3. You cannot possibly make us believe Darl McBride, et al., over Linus, Groklaw, Red Hat, IBM, Novell, etc...; for just as SCO has a vested interest in its side of the case, so do most of us in Linux's side; attempting to prove their case here (except in the face of absolutely "overwhelming" evidence, such as actual lines of code) is just plain futility, and stupidity.
I guess that means that nobody who ever worked on UNIX should be allowed to write anything talking about their work. That also means that everyone who uses the word "algorithm" is infringing on SCO's copyrights. Ditto for anyone who uses binary numbers or text editors like Emacs or vi. And since language is a concept neccessary for successful programming, any written word or spoken phrase infringes on SCO's copyrights.
And don't get me started on books written about computers, or the tables and desks that computers sit on, or the chairs that GNU/Linux programmers sit in...
Yes, I've had the same experience on one of my home machines. More specifically, "leaving the pdf" in my case meant closing the window or tab. I had better luck opening pdf's in the current window/tab and then backing out. Setup was XP (so shoot me), Firebird 0.6, and Acrobat Reader 6.0.
For that box I'm now on XP, Firebird 0.7, and (though I can't remember exactly why), Acrobat Reader 5.0. I don't have any issues with this setup.
Likewise, I haven't had any issues with a somewhat current build of Lycoris, Firebird 0.7 and Acrobat Reader 6.0 on another box.
- If we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made out of meat? - Steven Wright
Additionally, the letters point out that the MS and SUN contracts should pay 95% of the amount to Novell.
It appears to me that the MS & Sun contracts may be invalid because the agreement between Novell & SCO requires Novell's written consent for changes to existing licenses or new licenses.
An idiot compelling people to harrass another idiot.
Can you spell "illegal"?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You fail to understand the principal-agent problem. It's rational for the executives of SCO because the probability of dire consequences to the destruction of their company is very low. They are already quite wealthy, and the loss of a company is often considered a learning experience in the business community. They don't have to worry about new jobs.
The principals -- the shareholders -- will lose out, but most of SCO's shareholders at this point are either unsophisticated or realize that this is a big gamble. The agents -- the executives -- will either win big gains that they could've gotten no other way or lose little that they wouldn't have lost anyway. SCO is dead. Caldera is dead. All that's left is to make a gamble on dominating the UNIX market based on some IP that they think they have.
This is fully rational. You take an inevitable loss and try to turn it into a success, even if the chances of that success are low.
However, the term "rational self-interest" has little to do with the rationality of one's methods so much as Ayn Rand's belief that following one's own self-interest was itself inherently rational. The term "rational" is meant to highlight the idea that acting for others instead of yourself is irrational. The Principal-Agent problem is one of those problems in the business world that is inherently caused by such thinking.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Troll.