Slashdot Mirror
Darl & SCO Overview
HAL9OOO writes "I found an article that as well as giving a good overview of "SCO - The Story So Far" also provides an interesting insight into the character of a certain Mr Darl McBride Esq."
It's a fairly lengthy article providing a lot of insight. Necessary reading to anyone new the SCO/Linux thing, and recommended to anyone who just wants some interesting details on SCOs position on the whole thing.
At first I wanted IBM to bury SCO in court, but now I wish they would just buy hem out to get this over with.
Hrm... even if she's right and it's not some strange conincidence, is there old BSD code in Linux? That should be checkable.
That should be free and clear copyright-wise, but System 5 could well have the same BSD code (quite possibly orignally stolen from BSD).
I almost posted that IBM should just give in and buy SCO in an earlier one of these threads, but then I thought about it a little more...
SCO is sending all these letters to corporate Linux users saying, "Stay away from Linux, because it violates our IP." If IBM buys SCO and open sources Unix it might prevent any further legal action, but it also might appear to lend some credibility to SCO's claims. Thus IBM is a hero to the average Linux geek, but the corporate world still sees the community as a bunch of thieves who got bailed out by the deep pockets of IBM.
Therefore, let this go to court and let IBM's lawyers prove that SCO is full of it to begin with. That way the Linux community is vindicated and the only people who look like they've done anything wrong are SCO.
If it's any AT&T day code it probably stems from BSD, in which case it's already been to court and freed.
If it's in newer code I'd suggest someone sue SCO for copyright violation as it's probably someone at SCO who's stolen it from Linux. Motive and opportunity... both point quite clearly at them, as they've been constantly left behind technically by Linux since the mid nineties, not to mention it's a lot easier for someone at SCO to obtain linux code than it is the other way around.
from here:
The University's suit claimed that USL had failed in their obligation to provide due credit to the University for the use of BSD code in System V as required by the license that they had signed with the University. If the claim were found to be valid, the University asked that USL be forced to reprint all their documentation with the appropriate due credit added, to notify all their licensees of their oversight, and to run full-page advertisements in major publications such as The Wall Street Journal and Fortune magazine notifying the business world of their inadvertent oversight. Soon after the filing in state court, USL was bought from AT&T by Novell. The CEO of Novell, Ray Noorda, stated publicly that he would rather compete in the marketplace than in court. By the summer of 1993, settlement talks had started. Unfortunately, the two sides had dug in so deep that the talks proceed slowly. With some further prodding by Ray Noorda on the USL side, many of the sticking points were removed and a settlement was finally reached in January 1994. The result was that three files were removed from the 18,000 that made up Networking Release 2, and a number of minor changes were made to other files. In addition, the University agreed to add USL copyrights to about 70 files, although those files continued to be freely redistributed.
Noorda isn't the CEO of Sco, but he founded Caldera, and I think he's involved in this little shananagan.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
BSD Lite code is allowed in Linux friedn under the terms of the previous case of System V..as that was the agreement to settle the case..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
To quote many over the top political leaders..."we cannot support this type of terrorism, we cannot agree to their demands"....
By purchasing SCO, no matter how easy it might make the end of this problem, it encourages others to try the same stunt.
SCO MUST be bankrupted as a result of this, no matter how much money it takes to do that in court!....Anything less encourages others to try the same style attack.
Destroy SCO, burn everything, leave nothing standing.....
You *can* steal something that is free. First you copy it into your codebase, then you claim that it is your, and then you sue the person you copied it from. If you are successful in getting them to remove it, you stole it.
... though I suspect these days if they were to adopt such a strategy, they would do so by proxy *cough* SCO *cough*.
Why on earth this was modded as "funny" is beyond me. Donning my tinfoil hat for a moment, I should point out that this is actually quite a serious possibility for a number of reasons:
1) SCO may well have violated the copyright on Linux code and placed it in their OS, violating the GPL, and now leveraging code they have copied in violation to accuse the free software community of their own crime.
2) An entity which dislikes free software, like an obscure Redmond company none of us have heard of, might seek to poison the well by having one of their agents deliberately release copyrighted code into a free codebase, then return a couple of years later with accusations of copyright violation.
3) It is quite possible that either of the above scenerios could be combined with an outcome by a relatively uninformed court that finds in favor of the litigant, leaving the original creator of the code in a situation where they are now forbidden from using their own code, while those who violated their copyright are granted ownership of it.
The fact that the very ill-considered Berne convention requires copyrights to be granted "automatically" with no registration means these sort of 'he said, she said' allegations can be manufactured at will, by anyone willing to violate copyright to achieve their ends.
And lest one think no large company would ever violate copyrights in order to achieve such neferious ends, I would remind everyone that one large company, Microsoft, was sued and found to have violated the copyright on, among other things, Stacker. It is not at all a stretch to think they could extend such a strategy further
But, as SCO has shown, it doesn't require anything remotely so neferious as planting bad code, violating copyright and then accusing the victim of one's crime of the same, or any of that. All it requires is that one lay claim to having written code "in secret" first (where "in secret" can include simply proprietary, unpublished code as in this case). Since copyrights aren't required to be registered, there is little defense against such accusations and the FUD and financial uncertainty and harm they can create (and their unwillingness to discose the alleged violations to allow any such issues to be resolved and fixed, ie. any such violating code to be removed and rewritten, belies their clear intent to cause harm to businesses and the community. Clearly they have no desire to reach a resolution, and equally clearly it is profoundly unlikely that they have anything even remotely resembling a legitimate claim).
Which means no software publisher is safe, now that pandora's box has been opened, from similiar disingenuous attacks.
It would behoove everyone if every copyright were required to be registerd no later than 1 year after the code/prose was written or the movie/music recorded (i.e. 1 year 'grace'). Unfortunately, the media and copyright cartels have tied all of our copyright law up in international agreements such as the Berne convention and treaties which have empowered the WTO and WIPO to such a degree that any kind of sensible reform is impossible without a nation withdrawing from a number of uncumbering and binding international accords.
So look for more of this sort of nonsense, directed not only against free software, but against all kinds of published works. Once pandora's box has been opened and the weapon used, one can only expect it to be used again. And again, empowering lawyers and decimating the productive capability of the software industry, be it free software or proprietary.
This may actually be the beginning of the final collapse of our
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Unfortunate choice of words, no? People raise all kinds of hell when "GNU/Linux" is mentioned.. Must say I prefer the latter ;)
668.5
Its taken more than a decade, millions of man hours and an international movement bent on software sovereignty to poise Linux as the fastest-growing player in information technology. Now, on the cusp of punching through proprietary softwares kung-fu grip on the market, a fuming little Utah County company threatens to stomp Linux dead in its tracks.
Ive been pounding the table here for a year or so saying theres no free lunch, and there is going to be a day of reckoning for every company that thinks they are going to try and sell a free model. Thats Darl McBride, president and CEO of the SCO Group, a perennial loser at selling UNIX and, until recently, Linux operating systems.
Filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission show that SCO posted hundreds of millions in losses from 1994 to 2002.
But ever since determining it owns the ark and the covenant to the enterprise software industry, says McBride, SCOs bad fortune is on the upswing.
Through a series of intellectual property transfers, SCO wound up with the rights to certain dated distributions of UNIX, the proprietary software platform that Linux was patterned after. SCO asserts that code from its UNIXes was copied into recent Linux releases. Now the company is demanding that commercial Linux users cough up licensing fees for the UNIX in their Linux, or prepare for a tussle with SCOs lawyers. And to show it means business, SCO has taken on computer giant IBM in a lawsuit that could reshape the balance of power among software makers. SCO insists Big Blue owes it billions for allegedly illegally contributing UNIX code to the Linux kernelthe core chunk of code underlying most distributions of the Linux operating system.
Should SCO prevail, besides reaping its own billions, software megalith Microsoft stands to win the war of enterprise operating systems. Linux has crept up on Microsoft, challenging its stranglehold on the server market by offering better prices, performance, security and reliability. And several Linux companies are positioning themselves to take a stab at Microsofts 94 percent hold on desktop operating systems. Its a sign that the open-source software development model is edging out Microsofts proprietary model.
People are tired of buying cars with their hoods welded shut. Thats what theyve had in the software industry for years, says Bruce Perens, a Linux cheerleader and open-source advocate.
With Linux software, source code is open for anyone to improve upon or add to, the premise being: the more heads you have working on each problem, the less likely something will be overlooked. Whereas proprietary software is locked up, accessible only to its owner, who isnt necessarily driven to make the best product, but rather the easiest buck. And, as opposed to selling the operating system as a product in itself, open-source proponents see it as the infrastructure upon which valuable applications can be added, and services rendered.
Leading the charge against Linux is McBride, the blustering executive every Linux dweeb has come to loathe. Hes no geek, says Benjamin Choate, a self-trained Linux user living in Logan. His tans too good.
Choate is among the Linux devotees calling SCOs claims ludicrous. Whats more, they say the company is embellishing its position to sow fear, uncertainty and doubtFUD for shortin the minds of Linux developers, vendors and users. SCO opponents say its a mudslinging strategy to scare Linux users into paying up, and to make the slingers product look more inviting than the slingees.
See, SCO isnt really even SCO. Its proprietary claims are for works it didnt create. The veracity of those claims, many critics believe, hasnt stood up to the most trivial scrutiny. And at every turn, those same critics say the company has revealed itself to be inconsistent and unforthcoming, leading them to conclude that SCO is merely extorting Linux users for unwarranted damages. A short history lesson is probably in order.
In June 2002, t
This story was previously linked as http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/22/17 24207&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=185&tid=187&tid= 88
Darl: Linux bad, they steal
Linux: No we don't - what did we steal
Darl: You know, now just fess up and tell anyone
Linux: Are you on crack?
Darl: I will get a court order to make you tell me what you stole from me - (I can't seem to find it)
Judge: Are you on Crack?
Novell: You ARE on Crack!
And the saga continues, tune in next week when darl says "Crack isn't good for my big bright smile".
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
"Filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission show that SCO posted hundreds of millions in losses from 1994 to 2002."
Only a company like AOL could do that and stay in business.
Mod "Overrated" instead of replying "I disagree with you," you coward.
From the text:
"Should SCO prevail, besides reaping its own billions, software megalith Microsoft stands to win the war of enterprise operating systems."
Exactly HOW did the author come to this idea?
Because if SCO were to somehow obtain a victory, the masses who use GNU/Linux would just move over to BSD. But such an obviouus conclusion would have made for a short article.
Microsoft is more likely to win via software patents than SCO's claims.
The article describes Darl as "one angry man."
Aren't they supposed to use "mad?"
Darl is working hard these days so that he too can be knighted by the Queen of England. But Bill didn't have to work *that* hard...
Not to be a troll or anything, but this is a really concise article, with both points of view. Face it people, most articles to date have been clearly biased pro/anti SCO, yes, even Forbes, the various hobbyist sites (even my own, check my sig and SCO Report). I'm not saying that's bad or anything, but the non-nerdy don't want to dive into specific details, they want a clear, concise view of things, and this article provides it. Perhaps it's done by SCO's hometown paper, but it still seems to be balanced reporting.
This is one repost I don't mind. If anyone asks you what this sco fiaSCO is about, you can direct them to this article.
Funny thing is, I was trying to explain the situation to someone over dinner last night. This article does an awesome job of nailing the key points.
McBride should note: (emphasis added)
"SCO wound up with the rights to certain dated distributions of UNIX, the proprietary software platform that Linux was patterned after..."
That's pretty much as accurate a statement as any about the whole situation.
It's also calling McBride an unsuccessdul salesman. And there's a juicy comment about "Bruce Perens", as "a Linux cheerleader". I'm sure Perens is happy with that sttement.
Overall, it really reasserts the lack of sense behind the whole thing. The only possible justification for SCO group's actions is the persuit of money for the sake of money....
Any chance of them changin their front page? I mean, they should get rid of all that betterment drival and just come clean. The fact that their making money hand over keyboard from selling *linux* licenses right now is absolutly, well... I'm not going to meniton it...
Pengiuns may be flightless, but they have thick skin and kick some serious ass on ski slopes.
-=fshalor
I guess fearing a lull in SCO news, or maybe providing adicts with their weekend fix, the editors are keeping the SCO-fires burning with these blatent duplicate articles.
There is zero insight in that article. Quotes from both sides. Darl says that something is in a contract in plain sight. Everyone else says it's not in that contract. Does the reporter bother to check? No. He just reports both quotes. Same think throughout the whole article. Both sides give easily verifiable contradictory information, and the reporter never bothers to look at primary sources, even if they are openly available on the web. It is lousy reporting.
Thank God so many of you are quite accomplished CS players. Duck-run-strafe-fire!
668.5
by NZheretic : Mon 09 Jun 03:30AM:
Yeah, it's a dupe, but I still find this one funny.
"I've been pounding the table here for a year or so saying there's no free lunch, and there is going to be a day of reckoning for every company that thinks they are going to try and sell a free model." That's Darl McBride, president and CEO of the SCO Group, a perennial loser at selling UNIX and, until recently, Linux operating systems."
Couldn't say it better myself.
Reading this article made me sick to my stomach. I get it (finally). Darl won't be stopped until he's either rich or passed on to the great closed source world in the sky.
Having dealt with these pump & dump attorneys in several ventures, the unfortunate realization one makes is that there is nothing - not a single thing - a good, legitimate enterprise or individual can do to stop these thieves. Try suing them to stop them from stealing assets? They'll stall your legal action out - make it take a couple years (by then, there's never anything left). Only tort reform can make an impact.
Darl and his kin are the modern equivelent to a roundworm. Their parasitism preys on the output of others. Parasitism's a natural occurance in the competitive dynamic of life, but at least in other systems, the host is allowed to attempt to rid itself of them. In the US, nearly all legal means of dealing with parasites are rendered ineffective by the diseased court system.
Legal parasites make bogus claims to the results of others work - Linux, patent claims of obvious items or with prior art and increasingly abuse two disasters in the US legal system (continually propped up by one of the political parties):
1. A distorted, manipulated intellectual property award system that allows parties that contibute payola and/or recognize and reinforce the system to be the beneficiaries of an award of others property. Hire attorney. Grease wheel. Pay off the party. Get patent award snuck through. Hire more attorneys. Sue the rightful owners of your "property" for infringement. Get rich. Pay party and attorneys again.
2. A judicial system filled with crooks and fools. More than two thirds of the justices are of the same system. On the rare occasion you get an idealist, they're quickly focused on inventing absurd laws (like throwing out constitutional guaranteed rights, or inventing absurd new rights) and kept out of the back room where the money flows. It's like Zaphod Beeblebrox of the Hitchhiker's Guide books, the fools are there to distract the attention from you while your wallet is being lifted.
U.S. citizens that look to crooked third world nations (e.g Cuba, Venezuela) should realize their legal system no better. The only difference is that the crooks that run the system in the US are richer than most elsewhere.
So open sourcers, until you're permitted to rid yourself of parasites (which unfortunately means both of your parties - and if you don't think your (D) or (R) friends are bought and paid for, then you know which category above you belong in!), understand that your great open source universe represents a dream host to these people. Darl's only uniqueness is that he's one of the first.
McBride and company are quick to tout the warranty advantages of proprietary software over public systems like Linux. Ever since taking on IBM, SCO has persistently goaded Linux distributors to protect their end users by offering indemnification--that is, agreeing to foot the bill if some company, say SCO, sues for intellectual property violations. As recently as October, SCO spokesman Blake Stowell reiterated the talking point. "If IBM is so confident that Linux is free and clear, why don't they indemnify their users against any lawsuit SCO could bring against them?" he asked.
That was then. Novell and Hewlett Packard (HP) have since announced that they will indemnify their Linux customers. However, McBride managed to spin the implications of those announcements 180 degrees to SCO's favor. "By announcing the programme they are acknowledging the problems with Linux. Through the restrictions and the limitations on the programme, they are showing their unwillingness to bet very much on their position," McBride told the online British technology magazine VNUnet.
My concern with all of this crap, is the fact that someone hasn't forced SCO to shut the hell up. It reminds me of the Bully in grade school. He would consistantly beat up on kids every day. Some even to the point of actual damage, and he was NEVER suspended. Never. Ever. I think that is what needs to be really focused on. Not so much as "When will all of this madness end?", but rather "How can we prevent this from ever getting this far, if history repeats itself?"
Also, from the article: "[Darl]I've been pounding the table here for a year or so saying there's no free lunch, and there is going to be a day of reckoning for every company that thinks they are going to try and sell a free model."
What is with this messianic attitude? Perhaps what Darl does not realize is that folks contribute to Linux and other open source projects through a variety of reasons. Notably, some contributions to open source have happened via tax-payer funded projects from a variety of nations throughout the world. Other contributions are made from the generous and charitable contributions of others who simply want to make a difference. Darl wants to exploit those contributions and leverage his band of merry lawyers to "liberate" Linux from the rest of us. Only his liberation is not for anything other than selfish desires (like any criminal who sees nothing wrong with theft) with no respect to the common good.
From the article:
But ever since determining it owns the "ark and the covenant to the enterprise software industry," says McBride, SCO's bad fortune is on the upswing.
Shouldn't that be "ark of the Covenant"? Maybe that explains their reluctance to actually open up the code and show what was "stolen." I, for one, would love to see Darl's head melt.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
Anybody who's been exposed to even a little television in the last 20-30 years should be able to pick up on this explanation.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
i cant help but wonder who these slashdot readers are that are "new to the SCO/Linux thing."
Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
Leading the charge against Linux is McBride, the blustering executive every Linux dweeb has come to loathe
We finally get to the point where it's ok, pehaps cool even, to be called a 'geek' or 'nerd', and so they start calling us dweebs. What's next? Linux Douchebags? Linux Shitstains?
They are random numbers representing computer error codes, which have been established as international standards.
If SCO can sue over this, then why can't Intel sue AMD for using the same interrupt vectors, instruction set, etc.
"How can we prevent this from ever getting this far, if history repeats itself?"
In a lot of respects, SCO's behavior is a lot like that of James Taggert in Atlas Shrugged - especially when James got involved behind the scenes in attempting to profit from Francisco d'Anconia's Mexican mine venture.
(For those who aren't familiar with the work, the book was author Ayn Rand's "comprehensive" embodiement of her objectivism philosophy into a novel form. While objectivism has its issues and is certainly incomplete in many areas, it provides a contract philosophy basis that is probably best represented by the emergence of the open source world. In a nutshell, the only legitimate way for two people to interact is on the basis of trade, where each is receiving what they perceive as a legitimate and appropriate value for the trade. Coercion, extortation, theft (taking without a consensual trade), intimidation, etc. are all inappropriate forms).
This behavior is trivialized by calling it "bullying" (though the previous poster's intent was dead on). Recognized for what it is, Darl's behavior is profound parasitism, and all parasitism (which steals life from its host) is nothing more than a polite form of murder.
So what if Darl steals Linux, taking the livelihood away from thousands of rightful creators? So what if they go unemployed, unable to work on their creation without Darl's consent? So what if they lose that health insurance policy and cannot afford the prescription their children need? So what if they die?
Out of the tens of thousands of Linux-involved persons, the probability of death being caused by the success of Darl's quest is certain. Even the fear he has induced into the Linux world has had an effect - halting a Linux project here or there and causing honest people to remain unemployed.
No, the best clue to understanding Darl is this quote from the article:
"And SCO executives have even taken to traveling with bodyguards, a necessary measure, they say, given numerous death threats."
Most certainly "perceived numerous death threats." The funniest thing about the James Taggerts of the world is that as righteous as they may sound at times (as they pursue their nihlistic path), deep down they know they're nothing more than a worthless being that preys upon others. They recognize that eventually they will encounter a host that refuses to be consumed, and this paranoia manifests visibly in the hiring of bodyguards, personal security, defamation lawsuits, etc.
The solution? A GPL with teeth, backed by an open source community that aggressively funds their own legal defense foundation in order to firmly deal with predators and parasites like Darl.
a question
Since according to the rulling on the org BSDI v UCB complaint UNix SsystemV edition 4 through 6 may be public domain..
exactly what parts of Unix ABi that SCO group uses is new past edition 7 of system5?
Also according to the same rulling only the IP stack was seen as continaing Unix system5 edition 4 trade secrets.. since no one uses that stack nayomre except for unix licenseees what other Unix IP is out there?
The copyright and public domain issue is probably why SCOX never made copyrights an issue in the org complaint against IBM..:)
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Enough already. We all get it. McBride is less than ethical and SCO so far has no apparent case as they have yet to produce any real evidence. How many more of these overview articles do we need to read? We all get it already. Until something new happens in the case it is overkill to report on it. Enough of daily SCO related stories with no real new tangible info.
It does, so does SCO have enough money to carry this out? I mean how long and how many appeals did the first Anti-Trust for MS take? Besides SCO vapor-evidance is still the big thing right now. I wish the media would tell Mr. Mc to STFU untill you produce the evidance on your own.
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
She should be in jail ... mkay. Cause insider trading is bad ... mkay. We gotta put that on TV ...mkay. Gotta get the message out ...mkay
Linux Communiy: Well, trashing a whole software movement to gain financially is not network worthy news?
Software is too technical ... mkay. Most folks don't understand why the little blond haired Linux boy is that important ...mkay. We need to get Martha mkay, she's bad ... mkay.
The whole thing is very frustrating!
"They say travel broadens the mind, so I went over the falls in a barrel." -Thomas Dolby
Linux is a kernel. GNU is an overall Unix replacement. GNU/HURD is a potential kernel replacement. BSD should be untainted by this and you've got three major and two minor varieties from which to choose, with FreeBSD being the easiest transition for Linux users.
The ecological niche here is *open* - even if Linux goes extinct over this, GNU+HURD or FreeBSD is going to slide right into that position, and if there is further trouble from the SCO camp I don't think *anyone* can impinge the likes of Plan9 or BeOS. Sure, it'll be a huge change, it might set us back another ten years, but Stallman opened Pandora's box a long time ago and no one is going to be able to close it now.
Not SCO with their frivolous lawsuit, not Microsoft with their billions in cash reserves, not silly US Patent law, not Digital Restrictions Management in BIOS; no one can stop it now - profit motive and customer demand are going to grind those things into the dust as surely as the automobile did to tack and harness shops.
The internet is global and the desktop is strategic. I mean military/industrial strategic - look at the Pacific rim and their government's backing of their own Linux distribution. Europe is more low key about it but they're equally pleased to have local boys making a more stable product and freeing them from possible NSA/CIA/FBI sanctioned intrusion.
GNU came into being when I was a highschool senior. I'm old enough now to have a child that is a highschool senior but I started reproducing later in life. I'm sure that by the time my son is a college freshman Microsoft's OS offerings will look as quaint as QEMM/386 or OS/2 looks today.
Drawing a blank on QEMM/386? Don't know who Quarterdeck is? Never actually seen OS/2? Both stories are instructive but OS/2 is probably the most relevant - what *IS* the fate of an overweight, closed OS when a more nimble competitor comes into the arena?
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Straight from the article:
:)
For months, SCO has encouraged users to take advantage of the promotional price, but there haven't been many takers.
"We haven't published the exact number yet," McBride said. "It's not in the dozens, but it's, you know, we've had some that have started to sign up."
This makes it sound like absolutely nobody has taken SCO up on their offer. Is there anyone here on Slashdot that will admit to it?
My blog
The hearing was delayed until Feb. 6. The reasons for the delay seem uncertain.
Why do you think so? When Caldera went public as a Linux company they raised $250M. They can piss away that amount, before they face a liquidity problem. As a matter of fact that is precisely what happened. They were running out of cash and the IBM suit was a last desperate Hail Mary act.
Sad the Linux community and IBM has to pay for it. To some extend it is good that Royal Bank of Canada stepped in (Behest of MS?)as there is a chance that case gets thrown out before their $50M infusing is gone.
This means IBM and RedHat can collect something, plus the corporate shiled to Canopy might just have been pierced meaing they can be held accountable as well as the offecers personally.
Help fight continental drift.
"We haven't published the exact number yet," McBride said. "It's not in the dozens, but it's, you know, we've had some that have started to sign up."
is that supposed to make sense?
Does one count as any?
Yes: "one" does couny as "any". Also, "some" counts as "any" -- although "some" is more that "one".
The part about "We haven't published the exact number yet" is particularly annoying. Surely McBride knows the exact number. And the word "yet" is supposed to clue us that SCO will publish the exact number. But I'm left with the impression that the exact number is an embarrassment to SCO. Indeed, the whole business of SCO litigation smells of embarrassment. I'm glad I'm not those guys -- humiliating myself in public for the sake of money.
-kgj
-kgj
Is it just me, or does Darl McBride share a striking resemblence to Biff from Back to the Future?
------- "I must create my own system, Or be enslaved by another man's" -William Blake
McBride says SCO has shown plenty. "They're disingenuous on that or they would be ripping out the million lines of code we've already pointed to," he said, adding that the violations are too far-reaching to simply rip out anyway. One million lines amounts to roughly 20 percent of the entire Linux kernel. McBride says SCO revealed the offending code last August at its Las Vegas SCOForum. "Truly, and then they just ignored it," he said.
If this isn't the most baldfaced lying I've ever seen in my life I don't know what is. I feel like a passerby overhearing a wacko prothelysizing absurdities whose obvious falseness is apparent to even the children laughing at him; then the loon complains that nobody takes him seriously.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
you should also note the wording of 'have started to sign up' which could mean _anything_.
like, 'they have received the empty threats' could count as that.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Yeah, but most of the death threats are from their lawyers, wanting something worth diddley, instead of SCOX Stock.
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
Your Servant, B. Baggins
There's a long chain of events required, and every step of it is highly unlikely:
- SCO manages to prove that IBM contributed code to Linux, and that doing so violated a agreement they had with SCO.
- SCO manages to convince the court that they own the 3-decades-old unix-code to begin with, and not only limited rigths to it as Novell claims.
- The Linux kernel-hackers does not manage to rewrite, replace or live without the contributions of IBM.
- SCO manages to proove that it owns BSD code that was released years before they acquired any rigths to any historic unix.
- SCO convinces the court that the fact that they themselves distributed, and contributed to Linux under the GPL does not mean they actually meant to give away their code under the GPL.
- SCO manages to convince the court that all of its mutually exclusive statements are true at the same time. That is, public on-the-record statements from Darl made *after* the current cases started should be disregarded. Statements like: "users have a choise - they can go back to using 2.2, we don't have a issue with that" conflict rather badly with current claims to own ABI's that have been in Linux since 0.01
- SCO manages to convince the court that public facts, publically known and used for decades are subject to copyrigths. (Normally copyrigth covers only the *expression* of an idea, not the idea itself) #define ENOACCESS 3 cannot normally come in under copyrigth-law.
- They manage to proove all of the above also in other countries, not only the US. (If not, Linux-development will thrive in the rest of the world, and at most the US will suffer a setback.)
IF, and only IF, they manage ALL of these, there migth be a problem. That is, assuming there aren't any obvious ones I missed.Ofcourse you don't need a law-degree to estimate the probability of this as pretty darn close to zero. Infact, my guess is that they will not manage to establish a single one of these points.