Novell Quotes AT&T on Derivative Works

grendelkhan writes "Novell has released their latest correspondance with the litigous bastards ordering them to stop the lawsuit by noon tomorrow, and clarify what the SVRX licensing agreements with AT&T meant regarding derivative works. The letter quotes AT&T from the April '85 issue of $echo as stating that they 'claim no ownership interest in any portion of such a modification or derivative work.' So much for the ladder rung analogy." And reader highwaytohell links to today's CRN article in which Eben Moglen suggests that the SCO/Linux lawsuit cannot move ahead "until SCO resolves its dispute with Novell. And regardless of which company prevails in court, he said, customers won't have to pay any company for a license fee since both claimants--SCO and Novell--have distributed the Linux code under the GPL. Once again, SCO have no comment."

Comments

Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[ackthpt]

Assuming that this letter kicks the stool right out from under SCO (and Canopy) while they attempt to raid the cookie jar, we now return to "copyrights, Copyrights, Who Owns the Copyrights?"

IIRC SCO claims the copyrights and Novell claims "NOT!" the battle, what's left of it shifts to SCO having to defend themselves from Novell before they could proceed on anything else.

Looks pretty awful. I wonder when they'll exhibit some sense and give up, granted some heads would roll at SCO, but it's been a long time coming.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Anonymous Coward]

the only copyrights SCO claims are to sysV unix (and some older unices that don't matter). They also have contractual rights to *derivative works* made from sysV. IBM's AIX is such a derivative work, and IBM cannot release it without SCO approval - for sure they can't turn AIX into GPL code.

BUT, IBM has independently produced a lot of software that is part of AIX but is not sysV code. This material from NOVELL makes it even clearer (if anything can be clearer than perfectly transparent) that IBM owns this independently developed code and can do whatever it wants with it -- notably, they can contribute it to linux under the GPL. SCO is toast.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[diersing]

Do the SCO lawyers think the judge is an idiot? As I was reading it, I kept getting anoyed with his damn analogies.

For unknown reasons, I want to climb a ladder and see what rungs 16 and 17 are all about.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[MisanthropicProggram]

I was hoping it would kick the stool right into them!

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Xenographic]

Well, they purport to have contractual rights to the derivative works. According to some of the posters on Groklaw, anyone who relied on the statements made in AT&T's $echo publication could say that SCO is barred as AT&T's successor in interest from asserting rights over the derivative works.

Moreover, according to the case law I've seen presented on Groklaw, it looks like SCO's theory of derivative works is unreasonable, to say the least.

Mind you, I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice, etc. but this new evidence from Novell is pretty well nailing down any last avenues of escape SCO might have hoped to have.

Honestly, SCO is totally screwed with respect to the lawsuits right now... I'm just wondering if they still have anything else up their sleeves? It's been rather apparent that they were screwed or going to be screwed for some time now, so they might have made contingency plans which may or may not need to be delt with... (e.g. what happens if they suddenly assign all their rights to another company or something?)

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Zocalo]

OK, let's wax lyrical and assume that SCO's cupboard is finally bare and it's all over for SCO's case freeing up IBM to go for damages, and maybe Novell, Red Hat and others as well. Once the lawyers are paid off, there is not going to be much left in the piggy back except for SCO's various Unix licences and copyrights, which will probably get transferred to IBM or Novell. The big question then is, what will *they* do with them?

First and foremost, IBM is a hardware and services company; they don't *really* care about software beyond the fact that it helps them shift hardware and services. If they can get revenue from the software, great, but it's a drop in the ocean as far as their turnover is concerned. Novell is primarily a software company, although they do appear to be trying to reinvent themselves as a Linux networking services company to me.

So, what do either of them have to lose by simply releasing all of their newly acquired copyrights and licenses into the public domain? Perhaps not a lot. What they have to *gain* though, is phenomonal; for a start the OSS community is going to see them as the heroes that set UNIX free which brings its own rewards. Best of all for IBM and Novell though, it's going to be a big kick in the teeth for Microsoft and will probably have a serious impact on Solaris sales as well.

It could well be that 2004 is *the* year that OSS really hits the big time that has been inevitable for so long. But who would have dreamed a few years ago that it might be IBM, Novell that made it happen after SCO/Caldera inadvertantly provided the catalyst?

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Bull999999]

Maybe IBM will use the licences to create GNU/UNIX to spite RMS.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[MrLint]

I expect SCO will try and claim they own the though processes that go into making anything that behaves in any way like unix. So multitasking, like talking to your wife and thinking about your mistress, would be one or making wild claims in the press while at the same time not fulfilling a court order to show evidence, that would be one too. I suppose pumping and dumping stock might also be. I mean just examples.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Citizen of Earth]

Moreover, according to the case law I've seen presented on Groklaw, it looks like SCO's theory of derivative works is unreasonable, to say the least.

The question in my mind is whether the judge might make a ruling w.r.t. the definition of "derivative works" that will be used in the case. Her job is only to get the discovery process back on track, but the case hinges on this definition to determine whether IBM needs to show its AIX code to SCO. The judge herself said that it's unusual to take a decision in a discovery proceeding under advisement. If she comes back with a decision on this matter, then the thin remaining threads of SCO's case completely disappear.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[spacecowboy420]

C'mon, that's funny mods.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Tewara]

Your statement "First and foremost, IBM is a hardware and services company; they don't *really* care about software beyond the fact that it helps them shift hardware and services. If they can get revenue from the software, great, but it's a drop in the ocean as far as their turnover is concerned" is somewhat off the mark. You might wish to check the IBM quarterly report about their revenue distribution, and a few web pages about their future "direction". A Tewaran of Tewar

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Shichinintai]

UNIX? They're probably not even circumcised! Savages!

Are not savages more likely to indulge in genital mutilation than civilized cultures? Or is this supposed to be irony?

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Anonymous Coward]

> First and foremost, IBM is a hardware and services company; they don't *really* care about software beyond the fact that it helps them shift hardware and services. If they can get revenue from the software, great, but it's a drop in the ocean as far as their turnover is concerned.

Full disclosure: I work for the IBM Software Group, which gives me some authority to state that our software sales aren't "a drop in the ocean". Our 2003 annual report isn't quite ready yet but look at the 2002 figures:
Total sales - $81.186 billion
Software sales - $13.074 billion
http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2002/fr_c fs.htm

Not exactly trivial, is it? If I remember correctly, counted as a software company we'd be like the 2nd or 3rd largest in the world. Only MS and maybe Oracle/SAP play in that arena.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[SphericalCrusher]

SCO is going down one way or another. Attacking Linux and Novell is just a cover up for their ignorance... SCO needs to just give it up. I think I speak for the open-source world when I say that. Anti-SCO.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[gidds]

Well, they certainly seem to have been leaving the door open for future claims and arguments. Or at least, that's how I interpret their continuing refusal, in court, to detail all of their claims -- a few allegations here, a few lines of code there, but not even the judge can get out of them exactly what they're claiming.

Maybe they're still checking the details themselves, maybe they're trying to give IBM as little time as possible to respond, maybe they have something really clever up their sleeves. But personally, I think they know they have nothing, and are either hoping something will turn up (maybe from all the discovery they want from IBM), or that by adding new claims at long intervals, they'll be able to spin it out until everyone gets fed up.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Gherald]

Its a joke... some old cultures (notably the Hebrews aka Jews/Israelites/Yahwehites/etc) used to regard uncircumcised people as savages.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Anonymous Coward]

Full disclosure: I work for the IBM Software Group, which gives me some authority to state that our software sales aren't EVEN "a drop in the ocean".

Dude! wake up and smell the consulting. We all take pride in our work, but that doesn't give me the delusion that IBM as a whole gives a rat's ass about the products that I work on (other than that they make great fodder for HW and consulting plays)

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[TheOtherKiwi]

IBM are a SERVICES company - duh...where do these "experts" come from?...

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[rm -rf $( find . -mt]

Will AT&T ever have a word to say on this?

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Dumbush]

"what happens if they suddenly assign all their rights to another company or something"

1. sue IBM
2. get in deep shit
3. sell rights not belong to them
4. _____
5. profit

Mr. McBride, please fill in the blank

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[MuParadigm]

And maybe not even Oracle plays in that arena anymore. Peoplesoft and SAP are both bigger than Oracle now.

And you forgot CA, which is still a huge software vendor, despite the lousy quality of most of their products, at least the ones I've dealt with. Presumably they make their money in the mainframe and mini-computer markets, rather than PC's.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Shichinintai]

You trivialize the issue. Male circumcision was originally promoted in the West as a deterrant to the "sin" of masturbastion. In such a Puritan society, it was an easy association to cleanliness. Muslims also promote female circumcision for much the same reasons. Neither case respects the humans rights of the victim. If saner minds prevailed, this were dangerous surgery would never be inflicted upon a newborn infant.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[MuParadigm]

AC: "the only copyrights SCO claims are to sysV unix (and some older unices that don't matter). They also have contractual rights to *derivative works* made from sysV. IBM's AIX is such a derivative work, and IBM cannot release it without SCO approval - for sure they can't turn AIX into GPL code."

This is actually not correct, though you're at least in the right ballpark. SCO claims all copyrights for all UNIX and UNIXWARE. Including, in SCO's opinion System V. This language does come from the APA.

Unfortuantely, for SCO, there are a *lot* of clauses in the Novell-OldSCO Purchasing Agreement that *exclude* most rights in System V. About the only right SCO has in Sys V, as far as I can read into the APA, is the right to collect Sys V licensing fees for Novell, send dunning letters for unpaid bills, and to be at the table for discussions over Sys V license buyouts. And even the latter is questionable.

Whether or not AIX is a "derivative work" is debatable, and largely turns on the semantics by which you define "derivative". What isn't debatable is that those portions of AIX that *include* Sys V code are "derivative", as that meets the minimal, least general, definition of "derivative". SCO has so far failed to identify *any* Sys V code in AIX (or Dynix) that has been contributed to Linux. They have only claimed to identify original AIX & Dynix code that have been contributed to Linux, which isn't covered by the contract according to ATT's old statements.

So, we probably shouldn't say that AIX is a "derivative work" of Sys V, although some *portions* of it may be.

It's like saying Linux is a derivative work of BSD, which we all know it isn't, even though we also all know that some files in Linux are derived from BSD.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Shichinintai]

And some old cultures (notabley the Greeks) would not accept circumcised males into thier games. (because the unsheathed glans offended them)

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Anonymous Coward]

Once the lawyers are paid off, there is not going to be much left in the piggy back except for SCO's various Unix licences and copyrights, which will probably get transferred to IBM or Novell.

That can't happen. A court cannot pass down a judgement which would bankrupt a company, no matter how culpable it is. I think the reasoning is that innocent people who are making an honest living working for a dishonest company should not be punished for what they did not control. I learned that during the tobacco settlement hearings. But the law has helped telemarketing scammers too.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[jjoyce]

I'm just wondering if they still have anything else up their sleeves?

Darl is going to enter the courtroom wearing a neck brace.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[sloanster]

So, what do either of them have to lose by simply releasing all of their newly acquired copyrights and licenses into the public domain? Perhaps not a lot. What they have to *gain* though, is phenomonal; for a start the OSS community is going to see them as the heroes that set UNIX free

um, no - if they abandon it to the public domain they would not considered idiots, not heroes -

The public domain dumping ground is the absolute _worst_ place for anything of value, since it's then open season. Some crappy monopolist could just grab the whole thing, put a few incompatibilities into it, call it "new technology", get it patented, and lobby to have laws passed which would make it a crime to attempt to interoperate or reverse engineer the protocols.

Better, much better, if it were all placed under the protection of the GPL. Then they might be considered heroes, and rightly so.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[SEE]

So multitasking, like talking to your wife and thinking about your mistress

That's dangerous; human brains don't have memory protection.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[TekGoNos]

Well, IBM did cite a ruling (Litchfield vs. Spielberg), that someone on groklaw decrypted as : "the derivated work must contain parts of the orginal."
Applyed to this case : Just because AIX is derivated from SysV and Linux contains code that is also in AIX does not mean that Linux is a derivate of SysV. To be a derivate of SysV, Linux has to include SysV code.

On the other hand, SCO claims now that this case is not about SysV code in Linux, but AIX/Sequel code in Linux. So if the judge accepts the definition of the Spielberg ruling, SCO has no case left. (IANAL)

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[technos]

Darl:
"Yes, your honor.. I was beaten up by hooligans, no doubt in the employ of IBM, seeking to damage me physically as well as in the press. I was helping an old woman cross the street this morning.... How do I know they were IBM hooligans? Well, they were well dressed, and attacked me without the slightest provocation once they realized who I was."

IBM Attorney:
"I submit the videotape from camera 3, on the northwest corner of the 7-11 at 202nd Ave and Mormon Way. Here, at 3:12:08, we see Darl exiting the store with a burrito. At 3:12:30, Here we see Darl speaking to an elderly woman carrying a stuffed penguin. At 3:12:57, we see him attempting to take the woman's stuffed toy. By 3:13:09 we see he's given up on trying to steal the penguin, and instead is reaching for the womans purse. At 3:13:26, we see two well dressed gentlemen attempting to stop a robbery. At 3:14:40 the store clerk joins the two gentlemen in suits and the elderly woman, with a baseball bat. Conclusive proof that this man not only lies in front of the court, he tried to steal a penguin and when he couldn't get away with it, tries to steal this poor woman's purse!"

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[LittleBigLui]

Maybe SCOs lawyers invent the plaintiff's equivalent of the chewbacca defense?

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Anonymous Coward]

"the derivated work must contain parts of the orginal."

I wouldn't put it past SCO to claim including a kernel header causes the code to "contain[s] parts of the original"

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[platypus]

Do the SCO lawyers think the judge is an idiot?

No, but they know if the judge isn't an idiot, they're toast anyway. So they follow the working hypothesis that the judge is an idiot, because it's their only hope.

Perfectly logical, and you can't say that often about SCO.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Eggplant62]

Well, they certainly seem to have been leaving the door open for future claims and arguments. Or at least, that's how I interpret their continuing refusal, in court, to detail all of their claims -- a few allegations here, a few lines of code there, but not even the judge can get out of them exactly what they're claiming.

Maybe they're still checking the details themselves, maybe they're trying to give IBM as little time as possible to respond, maybe they have something really clever up their sleeves. But personally, I think they know they have nothing, and are either hoping something will turn up (maybe from all the discovery they want from IBM), or that by adding new claims at long intervals, they'll be able to spin it out until everyone gets fed up.

From everything I've read in the case, especially the transcript, Mark Heise, counsel for SCO, practically requested that the judge allow him a fishing license so they could go through the IBM/Sequent codebases on an expedition to find something, anything to substantiate their code. The requests to see AIX/Dynix are nothing more than SCO saying, "We think we have a case, however, without being able to compare the current code bases, which we do not have, to our own code base and to Linux, we cannot substantiate our claims any better."

In other words, they don't have a case, they know they don't have a case, and they're praying that they can get enough leeway outta the judge that she'll allow discovery on the two code bases in question so they can come up with a case. IBM has known all along that SCO et al are completely full of shit, has anticipated that SCO has no proof of anything and will do anything they can to keep SCO from getting the code they need for their fishing expedition.

The judge can see right through all of the SCO shenanigans. I'd have loved to have been in judges chambers on the 6th to have heard the exchange that went on. I'm betting Heise got a very stern talking to over what's happened so far, and ordered Heise, et al, to do several things:

1. Produce the discovery items that IBM has requested per the order to compel.

2. Indicated that SCO's side of discovery will continue to be stayed until SCO coughs up *everything*.

3. Put a muzzle on McBride, Sontag and the rest of the idiot windbags at SCO as it appears that anytime any one of them opens their mouth, it's been quite damaging to their own case.

Notice how since the last hearing, SCO has become *very quiet*. They issued a very short press release, and didn't hold the press conference that had been promised for after the hearing. McBride hasn't had anything to say since the Harvard thing. This is a good thing. Their attempts to spread FUD have completely backfired, and I'd believe that they finally have figured out the first rule any attorney tells a client: Don't say anything to anyone about ongoing litigation. Shut the fuck up!

IBM and their attorneys appear very confident that they have all the loose ends and every possible defense lined up in case of anything that SCO tosses at them. Notice how much the case has morphed since it's been filed, worse than any chameleon with a bad case of the jitters. I could tell that Heise, with all his whining about what a burden discovery has been for his client so far, hasn't scored *any* points with the judge.

In the end, I believe the judge is going to come back and issue an order stating that SCO is to produce what's been asked of them, *everything* requested by IBM, within 30-45 days. Until then, discovery in the other direction will remain on hold. If SCO again fails to meet what's required of them, I believe that the judge will end up tossing the case as it's already quite weak in substantial claims.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see it placed under the BSD license sinc... er. Oh. Nevermind.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Nurseman]

Notice how since the last hearing, SCO has become *very quiet*. They issued a very short press release, and didn't hold the press conference that had been promised for after the hearing. McBride hasn't had anything to say since the Harvard thing.

The one thing that most impressed me about this case is the differance between the three companies. SCO makes these outrageous claims in the media "millions of lines of code, Thousands of files..etc" And then goes to court and says "we can't show you until you show us".

IBM and Novell are quietly behind the scenes, very professionally making their case. It is like a masterful game of chess, you see piece after piece being moved into place, for a final checkmate. Really a pleasure to watch.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Anonymous Coward]

Darl is going to enter the courtroom wearing a neck brace.

I am sorry I posted twice in this thread, and have no mod points, THAT was funny

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Anonymous Coward]

Any serious roleplaying geek does. Ask a LARPer sometime.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[tomhudson]

Courts can pass down judgments that bankrupt companies. What usually happens, though, is that the company goes bankrupt rather than make a full payout. Just do a google for asbestos settlements

Here's just one example

Sixty companies have filed bankruptcy as a result of asbestos liability. Bankruptcy courts have allowed firms to establish trusts to take responsibility for their pending and future asbestos liability. Bankruptcy judges often allow companies to pay less than the full value of claims against them. In recent years, several corporations have had their asbestos-related subsidiaries file bankruptcy while the parent corporation remained solvent and outside the reach of the bankruptcy court.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[mikeee]

Yeah, he summarized it in court:

(using X->Y for Y derived from X)

If A->B->C, it does not follow that A->C unless you can show that A->C without reference to B; it is possible by implication for A->B->C without A->C.

Or, for math geeks, apparently there is a legal precident that derivation is not transitive. :)

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[AnyNoMouse]

IBM and Novell are quietly behind the scenes, very professionally making their case. It is like a masterful game of chess, you see piece after piece being moved into place, for a final checkmate. Really a pleasure to watch.

Yeah, if you like watching Kasparov playing chess against a 3-year old who doesn't know what the pieces are for.

Then again, the kid is a cheaky brat that's been trash talking everyone... maybe that would be enjoyable :-)

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe sco (since they were payed by microsoft anyway) are trying to get to see AIX's source, so they can report back.

it wouldn't be the first time microsoft stole something, and ive been suspicious about them being involved from the start.

Correct me if im wrong, but microsoft payed SCO just slightly more than SCO payed their lawyers. I cant remember what they bought off them.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and like the Brady Bunch episode, Linus (as Mike Brady) will get Darl to turn his head by dropping a briefcase (filled with Linux dev notes), leading the judge to realize the whole thing is a scam...

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[HiThere]

"Significant" parts?

Well, they might claim it, but I have a hard time imagining that ANY judge would accept it. Once you accept that I think you would lose all respect and support from your peers, so even if a judge were corrupt, something that blatant would be avoided.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[HiThere]

I personally favor the GPL, but it would be quite reasonable to place all Unix code under a BSD license.

That said, now that this case is done (well, it seems a cinch, and we aren't directly involved) perhaps it's time to look forwards.

This what seems a reasonable next step (see the end for why). There was a joke application around that was called the depenguinator. I think it needs to be improved until it can actually install a decent BSD system on the basis of a currently working Linux install (or report an error and stop harmlessly if it can't).

And there needs to be a similar application, call it wholy_water, that will convert a BSD installation into a working Linux application.

And as soon as feasible, there needs to be another four for going back and forth between the Hurd and both BSD and Linux.

The reason for all this is to defuse future attacks. If it can be seen that it wouldn't do any good to attack a particular OS with patents, then it is much less likely to happen. Having the ability to switch between three OSs means that it's more difficult to come up with an attack that would be successful. (This is similar to one of my reasons for supporting BOTH Gnome and KDE.) Note that patents can be used for sneak attacks, and have already been mentioned as a potential venue for attacks. If a patent case is lost it can be quite important to be able to render it insignificant quickly. (Consider why jpegs were created...and why that meant that gifs continued to be useable.)

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Lacutis]

I found this on SCO's "5 reasons to choose unix instead of Linux" page:

SCO is the owner of the UNIX(R) Operating System Intellectual Property that dates all the way back to 1969, when the UNIX(R) System was created at Bell Laboratories. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, SCO has acquired ownership of the copyrights and core technology associated with the UNIX(R) System. The SCO source division will continue to offer traditional UNIX(R) System licenses to preserve, protect, and enhance shareholder value.

As early as May 2003, SCO warned Linux(R) users that enterprise use of the Linux(R) operating system was in violation of its intellectual property rights in UNIX(R) technology. Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces ("ABI Code") have been copied verbatim from SCO's copyrighted UNIX(R) code base and contributed to Linux(R) for distribution under the General Public License ("GPL") without proper authorization and without copyright attribution. These facts support SCO's position that the use of the Linux(R) operating system in a commercial setting violates our rights under the United States Copyright Act, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

While some application programming interfaces ("API Code") have been made available over the years through POSIX and other open standards, the UNIX(R) ABI Code has only been made available under copyright restrictions. AT&T made these binary interfaces available in order to support application development to UNIX(R) operating systems and to assist UNIX(R) licensees in the development process. The UNIX(R) ABIs were never authorized for unrestricted use or distribution under the GPL in Linux(R). As the copyright holder, SCO has never granted such permission. Nevertheless, many of the ABIs contained in Linux(R), and improperly distributed under the GPL, are direct copies of our UNIX(R) copyrighted software code.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[bhtooefr]

(OT) on your sig...

Did you notice that you successfully googlewhacked, while you were at it? A spam site, but it still counts!

BTW, the link found 15 items, all of which either had software or bugs in their titles.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[tigga]

And maybe not even Oracle plays in that arena anymore. Peoplesoft and SAP are both bigger than Oracle now.

Dude, look up numbers:
Company Market Cap (mil)
Oracle 71,617.94
PeopleSoft 7,873.70
SAP 54,914.42

Together Peoplesoft and SAP are smaller than Oracle...

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[SirTreveyan]

its gonna be more like this...

1. sue IBM

2. get in deep shit

3. find sucker...

4. sell rights that do not belong to them

5. profit

6. go to step 3 and repeat

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[MuParadigm]

Hmph. Just goes to show I shouldn't believe what I read in the New York Times.

Maybe they were just talking about the ERP Market.

Oh, well, you're right. My bad. I should have checked the Market Caps first.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Craig]

Male minds don't have memory protection. Female minds not only have memory protection, they are shapely multiprocessing and have NUMA -- e.g. they remember that last year you neglected Valentine's Day, and they remember the phone number of their best friend in college although they haven't talked to her in years, but they only remember to have the oil in the SUV changed about once a decade.

Craig

-- Men are from DOS, women are from Be....

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[Losat]

Actually, Novell's license agreements with UNIX licensees probably would prevent Novell from releasing the source to the public domain or even the GPL or BSD-type licenses. I haven't reviewed the agreements in detail and I'm no lawyer, but to give away what your clients paid good money for seems to damage the clients. Still, the licenses are non-exclusive; so perhaps Novell or its other successors in interest would be free to re-price the source code all the way down to free without the previous licensees having any say.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

[platypus]

Wow, that's really funny, thanks for the info ;).

But, when I first choose this link, it showed _no_ search results and maybe around 10 sponsored links. I think I should try to find another search.

I wonder how this spam site got to the phrase I used, I doubt it's coincidence.

latest correspondance ???

[srinivas_rc]

Is this the new official name ;)

Re:latest correspondance ???

[ackthpt]

Is this the new official name ;)

No, I think SCO will become "SCO Donut Company" because that's what'll be on their bottom line, a donut.

Re:latest correspondance ???

[MntlChaos]

No, I think SCO will become "SCO Donut Company" because that's what'll be on their bottom line, a donut.

Wait a minute, that'll be their top line (revenues). Their bottom line will be a REALLY BIG negative number.

Re:latest correspondance ???

[Shichinintai]

Rusty's Brown Ring Donuts, no less.

Re:latest correspondance ???

[aweraw]

I like it.. it has a ring to it that definatly evokes the emotions I feel when thinking about SCO...

The SCO-DO-CO: when you really need to punch a donut ;-)

Re:latest correspondance ???

[Th0th]

They could merge with a Japanese Telco and call themselves Sco-Do-Co-Mo!

I've got some sad news

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has apparently noticed, and now neither litigious bastards or just plain bastards comes up with SCO. (This may not yet be true on all Google mirrors.)

Re:I've got some sad news

[liquidsin]

Yeah, but www.litigiousbastards.com is the first hit (which is a site about SCO) and the entirety of the first page of returns, besides that site, are blogs supporting the googlebombing effort. So even though the litigious bastards don't show up in person, there are more than enough others there that anyone searching google for "litigious bastards" will get returns about SCO, which is still pretty fucking funny :)

Re:I've got some sad news

[Colonel Cholling]

Considering the fact that sco.com is apparently still down, it may be that the page simply no longer comes up in search results at all. Searching for just SCO also failed to turn up the company's webpage.

Re:I've got some sad news

[robogun]

Interestingly, SCO.com came up instantly when typed directly into another browser (Netscape if it makes a difference). Clicking the link in the submission produces an error -- probably sco is blocking access based on the referrer.

Re:I've got some sad news

[shadowbearer]

Nope. Typing it directly into a fresh lynx browser here came up with a "alert: unable to connect to remote host" error.

Hmm. :)

SB

Re:I've got some sad news

[chgros]

www.sco.com is down (out of DNS)
sco.com is up

Re:I've got some sad news

[Anonymous Coward]

Googlebombing is still cool?

Or has this become an All Your Base-type thing that everyone and their little brother has to take turns doing before it goes away?

Re:I've got some sad news

[mrbuttle]

I tried searching for litigious bastards at SCO but I get an error code of -12281, which was unexpected. I wonder what that means?

Re:I've got some sad news

[TheOtherKiwi]

Why does googling for litigous bastards show

http://216.250.128.21/

for sco.com?

Re:I've got some sad news

[ralf1]

Its were they moved the server after mydoom killed them. I suspect (but do not know) the virus may be targeting a dns name rather than an IP address, consequently if they don't register the dns name to the IP, it can't beat up that web server. It also makes it damn difficult for the average user to find sco.com, but I guess thats the price you pay...

Re:I've got some sad news

[HogynCymraeg]

In that case let's start a new one: Lying Bastards

Re:I've got some sad news

[zz99]

Google has apparently noticed, and now neither litigious bastards or just plain bastards comes up with SCO. (This may not yet be true on all Google mirrors.)

Here is a sad update: It's not working any more
You can check out the screen shot though:

From litigiousbastards.com:
"Update: Unfortunately, it looks like Google wised up and removed SCO from the results list for a litigious bastards search. Here's a screenshot of the results of a "litigious bastards" search on January 27, 2004, when SCO was still the first result."

Re:I've got some sad news

[squiggleslash]

I'm guessing that's because of a DDoS attack that's currently being executed against them (I believe it goes on until the 15th.) Something about a worm called MyDoom, it was in all the papers.

Both Caldera.com and SCO.com are not currently resolving in an effort to prevent either server being flooded. Google was pointing at Caldera.com - I'm guessing the reason why Google no longer resolves the LB search to Caldera or SCO is because neither site exists.

Re: I've got some sad news

[knuth]

YMMV, but currently SCO is #11 on a list of litigious bastards. This uses an IP number in the Canopy Group netblock rather than domain name.

Up2date

[swordboy]

For those that like to follow this stuff, I have found Google News to be an amazing service. I can only wonder what might come along and top these guys.

Re:Up2date

[evilmango]

I can only wonder what might come along and top these guys.

SCO actually getting their $699 license fee?

Re:Up2date

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still getting sco as the first result.....Does anyone know when the next google dance is?

litigous bastards?

[MooKore 2004]

I know that everyone and their dog here at Slashdot hates SCO, but is it really necesscary to call them names? It just makes us look like Mad Zealots. Youd think after the what the BBC published you would try and take this case more calmly?

Re:litigous bastards?

[GQuon]

Google has apparently noticed, and now neither litigious bastards or just plain bastards comes up with SCO

Could be wise if they want to avoid a lawsuit.

Wow. That means that either

• Google is more afraid of SCO than they are of the president*.
• Bastards complained that they were wrongfully associated with Darl McBride and co.
• Google has pity on the Caldera employees.

* Michael Moore is now the top miserable failure. How long before they drop him off the list like they did SCO?

Re:litigous bastards?

[Pharmboy]

aActually, I would disagree. I wrote the BBC and received a reply today. Ironically, they did not seem to address the actual issues I brought up. I do give them credit for at least replying, however, the text of their email is as follows:

Thanks for your e-mail.

I have noted the points you made - as well as the vigorous debate on Slashdot.org about this article.

Well, Stephen Evan's weekly "stateside" column is not a news story, but an analytical look at major events and business trends in the United States.

It is, of course, debatable whether MyDoom/Novarg/Shimgapi was written just to bring down the SCO website, or whether the installation of spamming tools on numerous computers was an additional - or even the main - motive.

That was not the point of Stephen's article.

In his piece he wanted to draw the attention of BBC News Online's audience - many of whom are unlikely to know the ins and outs of the Open Source debate - to the rapid spread of Linux as a commercial application, SCO's attempts to cash in on this fact, and the deep anger that SCO has caused within the Linux community through its legal actions.

Stephen is not the first to draw the link between MyDoom and SCO's actions over Linux - plenty of others have done that before, including virus experts.

Regards,

Tim Weber
Business Editor
BBC News Interactive - www.bbc.co.uk/businessnews

Now, I would disagree with the point of the article, which the BBC won't even claim is an article. They seemed to be more intent on defending themselves than addressing issues. They even brought up Slashdot in my reply, although I didn't tell them I read about it at slashdot. My original letter is as follows:

After reading the story titled "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty" by Stephen Evans, I have to question the research that went into the article. While the author tries to remain objective, there are many assumptions in the article that simply do not hold water.

To put the blame, without any evidence, on a group of Linux users is certainly easy, and at first glance it may seem appropriate. However, a small amount of research would demonstrate the author of the virus would have to be an expert Windows programmer. Generally speaking, programmers who excel on one platform are not experts on another. The differences between Windows and Linux are broad enough to make specializing in both rather impractical. This is demonstrated by the difficulty in porting Windows applications over to the Linux platform, and the fact that Linux runs on many different CPUs by design, whereas Windows runs on the x86 platform only.

A more plausible theory, and one more backed by the facts, is an individual or group who writes a virus that can DDOS (Distributed Denial of Service) any website, and chooses SCO because they know that Linux zealots will be blamed. Its the "perfect crime" in that many will blindly blame someone other than you.

If the author of the article had done any significant research, he would have discovered that all of the well known programmers in the Linux community are quite confident that SCO will not prevail in its court case, and have publicly, loudly, and often told fellow Linux users that it is important to NOT attack, verbally or digitally, SCO. The courts will do their job. The fact is, this attack makes the Linux community look bad, and it is likely that any member of this community would know this, and would be less inclined to participate in these actions.

I can't say with any certainty who created this virus, but in spite of your articles claims, it is NOT obviously a Linux zealot.

By the way, I'm a happy Windows user who dabbles in Linux because it is a fun operating system. I am concerned about the SCO lawsuit, and more concerned about the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) that is being spewed by both sides. I am quite disappointed when an ins

Re:litigous bastards?

[pla]

Youd think after the what the BBC published you would try and take this case more calmly?

Some of us really don't give a damn about politics. We do, however, appreciate a good joke, and we do enjoy seeing justice done when the legal system fails in its role.

Having Google's top link to "Litigious bastards" point to SCO doesn't hurt anyone, and made for a good laugh when I first saw that. You could call the MyDoom worm a bit less harmless, but y'know, despite Bruce P begging us all to behave, I really don't give a shit. I egged on the worm, and felt quite pleased when SCO had to change the URL of their web site. Sadly, it appears in hindsight that the worm's author used the SCO attack as a ruse, but the end result remains overall positive. SCO deserves it, and much worse, for their current business model."Litigious bastards" doesn't "call them names", it makes a statement of fact.

Call it vigilanteism if you want, but when a company can get away with obviously "wrong" activities simply because they haven't broken any existing laws, I for one consider it "justice" that they have a fed-up mob come after them to burn them at the stake.

So, behave? Hey, I won't start it. But when a pedophile priest "mysteriously" suicides in a crowded jail cell, we all know what happened, and we all cheer it on. When a father hunts down and brutally disembowels his daughter's rapist, who got off on a techinicality, no one cries for the dead scum. And when a worm targets SCO, well, sometimes two wrongs does make a right.


But, hey... Just my opinion. Feel free to defend SCO's raping of our legal system. And remember, even if they lose, they still got what they wanted (time to sell their shares at a massively inflated rate compared to their actual value). Justice? No. We can at best hope to annoy them, since they've already "gotten away" with the actual offense.

Re:litigous bastards?

[red floyd]

It's a form letter. According to the Groklaw-ites, several people who wrote to complain got the identical letter.

Re:litigous bastards?

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see why anger is so frowned upon, or why I should try to sound less so. I have a right to be angry, I am angry, and I will likely remain angry.

Re:litigous bastards?

[shadowbearer]

If SCO can't take the heat, they should never have entered the kitchen and lit the stove. Wah.

I have no friccin sympathy for them, at all. They've been attempting to screw/rip off a lot of people under some shady pretext they call "law".
Why shouldn't I be angry?

Side note: www.sco.com doesn't resolve at all for me, now, and hasn't all day. Did they pull their dns info? WTF?

SB

Re:litigous bastards?

[LearnToSpell]

Or sco.com is down, and Google doesn't link to downed sites. Not much of a conspiracy here, I'm afraid.

Re:litigous bastards?

[Pharmboy]

It's a form letter. According to the Groklaw-ites, several people who wrote to complain got the identical letter.

I don't doubt that, ironic that they would assume Slashdot for every letter and send the reference to everyone. And be defensive to everyone.

As a side note, I tend to NOT make slashdot the http_referrer when I know I'm going to write someone, so I don't think they grepped it from the logs ;) Its kinda like taking the porno tape out of the VCR BEFORE you take it to the shop...

Re:litigous bastards?

[dalutong]

I got the same reply when I wrote my letter. I replied to the reply and didn't get anything.

Re:litigous bastards?

[Anonymous Coward]

but is it really necesscary to call them names?
Nope, none at all.

It just makes us look like Mad Zealots.
And then you link to a Linux distro, thank you for destroying your own argument with a name calling.

Re:litigous bastards?

[PaulK]

It just makes us look like Mad Zealots.

Sorry, wrong room. The mad zealots are down the hall by the coke machine, waiting for KDE 3.2 to compile.

/ot
At some point, names are appropriate. They are engaged in a three front, billion dollar legal war, with their chosen weapon being PR. They have demonstrated a disdain for the truth, and have stated that this goal was established before a method to achieve it was found. They wanted Linux, and tried to steal it. They have been dishonest in their SEC filings. That dishonesty alone is probably worth jail time to someone, due to the manipulative impact it has had on their stock value.

I can think of a lot worse names than "litigious bastards".

Re:litigous bastards?

[MuParadigm]

MooKore 2004: "I know that everyone and their dog here at Slashdot hates SCO, but is it really necesscary to call them names?"

I'm not sure it's really name calling if someone calls SCO, for instance, "fucking pricks". That just an accurate description.

But hey, what do I know? I was the one who told Darl he'd be a "complete idiot" (way back in September, in response to his first Open Letter) to tell the judge that he didn't know he was releasing his own code under the GPL for three fucking years.

Re:litigous bastards?

[platipusrc]

Since KDE 3.2 already finished compiling on two of my machines (haven't upgraded this one yet), does that make me less of a Mad Zealot?

Re:litigous bastards?

[PaulK]

Since KDE 3.2 already finished compiling on two of my machines (haven't upgraded this one yet), does that make me less of a Mad Zealot?

Why yes, I believe it does, unless you're a necrophiliac, in which case all bets are off. Personally, I'm and entirely different kind of Mad Zealot.

Re:litigous bastards?

[I confirm I'm not a]

Then escalate your complaint. You could write direct to the Governors, or, for added fun, write to your MP (if you're UK-based) and ask them to raise the matter with the BBC Board *and* the relevant minister. MPs are obliged to forward correspondence to ministers if requested to by constituents.

FWIW, I'd *start* with just the governors. The BBC have enough trouble with the government at the moment, and I'd rather keep New Labour out of *this* debate as long as possible.

Re:litigous bastards?

[Platinum Dragon]

Yep, it's a form letter. I got one the day after the Slashdot article went up, which inspired me to fire off a few thoughts in Auntie Beeb's direction.

Talk about dodging the issue--the Beeb's stateside and home business staff could be Bush press officials. We call Evans on his blanket accusation, and it gets justified by "analysis! analysis!". I've seen better "analysis" pieces on Indymedia sites, places not known for their objectivity or editorial oversight of the open wire.[0]

[0] I contribute on occasion, so I know firsthand.:-)

I wonder..

[E_elven]

..if there's a spot for a free-lance commenter at SCO. They seem to be awfully quiet nowadays. Although they might just be busy developing new software, or something, too.

Re:I wonder..

[Anonymous Coward]

While I kinda wish they had gagged Darl, I suspect that either his lawyers clued him in, he's going overboard on the next press release, or they're working on new lawsuits...

Re:I wonder..

[robbedbit]

I was driving past the SCO building this last Saturday...I had a burger in my hand. The partialy eaten tomato was begging me to sling it on to the shiny glass. I guess I blew my chance.

Re:I wonder..

[MuParadigm]

Just a waste of a tomato if you didn't know which specific window was Darl's.

Re:I wonder..

[molarmass192]

Well they'd better hurry up and sell something because that IBM patent infringement lawsuit is looming large on the horizon. I'm not a big fan of patents but in this case I'll turn a blind eye.

Re:I wonder..

[Tony Hoyle]

Next time steer the car and jump out just before it hits the building. With luck you'll destroy it... (well it works in the movies.. cars *always* explode when they hit things, or fall of cliffs, or when it's convenient).

You really blew it

[eclectro]

The google bomb is not going to work when you misspell litigious bastards.

Think of how many links you could have generated if you had of spent some time with the dictionary.

*sigh*

Re:You really blew it

[grendelkhan]

DAMMIT! DAMMIT! DAMMIT!

I need a spellchecker plugin for Firefox.

Re:You really blew it

[emily_the_dragonet]

the plug-in actually works. http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=5083 6 This thread helped me get the spell checker to work in firefox. Make sure you have all the right parts downloaded, and in the right folders. ie: not the firebird folders.

Re:You really blew it

[Colonel Cholling]

Think of how many links you could have generated if you had of spent some time with the dictionary.

"Had of"? Would you like some grammar with your dictionary?

Re:You really blew it

[eclectro]

google doesn't care about grammar.

Re:You really blew it

[RPoet]

But it could of cared if more people would of used correct grammar.

Re:You really blew it

[cozziewozzie]

Dude, that's the funniest sig I've seen on Slashdot :)

Re:You really blew it

[eclectro]

Don't make me come over there and slap you.

How soon we forget.

[NanoGator]

"Novell has released their latest correspondance with the litigous bastards..."

And some of you accused the BBC of making an unfounded claim when they said this:

"If anyone's anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source). So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus and its variants are internet vandals with a specific grudge."

If you guys don't like having the finger pointed at you, then don't say things like that to attract attention to yourselves.

Re:How soon we forget.

[Xenographic]

Don't get me wrong, linking them to that term so that they show up on certain Google searches is rather immature.

However, it represents only a 1st Ammendment protected oppinion, and poses no harm nor threat to SCO in any way.

In short, yes, it looks bad and should probably be avoided simply because of the impression certain people in the media try to give of us [1], but it is still a valid form of protest.

We can't all picket SCO's offices [2].

[1] Especially Daniel Lyons of Forbes, who I have recently chastized here for quoting random trolls and jokes as sources for his "story" ... see my posting history. I strongly suggest you not turn to Forbes for financial advice if this is the extent of their "research" ...

[2] Incidentally, as you can read from some rather old Groklaw.com stories, SCO made false signs to mingle with those of the protesters and to malign them, saying something to the effect of 'we support communism'. So any further actions by them would not be the first time they had used an agent provacateur to malign their opponents...

Re:How soon we forget.

[roman_mir]

I disagree. Linux zealots or not, Sco are litigous bastards. BBC linking Linux users and coders to MyDoom trojan without looking at any other points of view, now that is some 'fair' news delivery.

Re:How soon we forget.

[KarmaMB84]

It is your opinion that they are ligitous bastards. And defamation is not protected =) Do you have proof that SCO's executives, lawyers and other employees were born out of wedlock and are fatherless? :P

Re:How soon we forget.

[NanoGator]

"BBC linking Linux users and coders to MyDoom trojan without looking at any other points of view, now that is some 'fair' news delivery."

They very clearly said "It seems likely...". So no, they did not report that as fact. Secondly, who has any real motive besides the Linux users that stand to lose the most? BBC did nothing wrong by pointing the spotlight at the people most likely to have done it.

I don't remember anybody around here using this argument in Michael Jackson's defense with the latest round of accusations.

Re:How soon we forget.

[Surazal]

I worry about arguments like yours because it implies I am guilty of the crime *by default*, which is not the case here.

I don't recall sending out any orders to Russian terrorists to infiltrate our internet with a misleading computer worm.

Re:How soon we forget.

[NanoGator]

"I worry about arguments like yours because it implies I am guilty of the crime *by default*, which is not the case here."

I never said you were guilty. I said motive, and it's fair to report that. You guys did a good job of earning that reputation, don't whine to me about it.

Re:How soon we forget.

[SLot]

I don't remember Michael Jackson being mentioned in /. headlines.

Re:How soon we forget.

[TheLinuxSRC]

Secondly, who has any real motive besides the Linux users that stand to lose the most?

That would be the spammers who only used the DDOS attack on SCO as a distraction to cover up the backdoor they were installing. It could also stand as a threat to those that oppose them -- "Look at how quickly we can take down a corporation's web site.... be thankful yours is not next."

Re:How soon we forget.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah you really defeated his point there. Jackass.

Re:How soon we forget.

[NanoGator]

"That would be the spammers who only used the DDOS attack on SCO as a distraction to cover up the backdoor they were installing."

DDOS'ing spammers? They're sending out mass mailings to people who've lost their connection? Heh. Okay. I'll run with it.

So ... these spammers are attacking SCO. They chose SCO because it would be a 'distraction', to throw the scent off them. For this to work, that would mean that the overly zealous Open Source Community would have to be the #1 suspect in an attack against SCO, correct? Okay, so tell me again why the BBC cannot report that, keeping in mind that they used the word 'likely' very strongly?

Also, who here really really thinks the community was framed? Take a good hard look at the attitudes around here and tell me that you don't think it was some regular Slashdotter that wanted to be 'cool' for a day. If you can't, then how come you guys aren't more open minded in general? How come you're extremely perceptive to the idea that it wasn't a Linux or Open Source zealot that attacked SCO, but a lot of you are very adamant that there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? (Sorry for invoking a variant of Godwin's law there, so I'll bring up a couple of more points.) Why is Episode III a bad movie even though it's still in the making? Why is any move that Microsoft makes, and I do mean any move automatically some part of a more sinister plot to rule the world? Now if you're hitting the reply button, just stop right there. You have your reasons. You've come to that conclusion, and even though you have no facts to back it up, you have still reached that conclusion. You still feel, that in all likelihood, you believe that there are no WMD/Episode III will be a bad movie/Microsoft is trying to rule the world. BBC reported this just like they reported that the Columbia disaster was caused by a piece of foam insulation striking the wing of the shuttle long before the investigation was over.

So spare me the bs that the BBC was in the wrong. They were not. The right thing to do was to take a more objective and professional attitude towards SCO. The wrong thing to do was to have a story published that referred to SCO as litigious bastards. Why is it the wrong thing? I appreciate that you want to express your views. I encourage that. But the cost of that is it looks like you're blindly defending one of your own. It doesn't help your case, and it closes doors on anybody who is listening to you.

I'm done with this topic. You can read what I said and try to take away something useful from it, or you can reply with some half-baked argument to try to prove me wrong. Consider the value of the first option, and the time you'd waste with the second.

Re:How soon we forget.

[NanoGator]

I just wanted you to know that I read and appreciated your insightful post. I don't have any real response to offer you as I just need to sit and ponder it. Felt you'd like to know.

Re:How soon we forget.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

You had me right up until the Microsoft thing. It just so happens that everything they do is a sinister plot to rule the world. The rest is quite debatable though.

Re:How soon we forget.

[Mistshadow2k4]

Bad comparison - not all of us call SCO names in public, but the BBC presented all of us as OSS zealots who attacked SCO's site.

Re:How soon we forget.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Bad comparison - not all of us call SCO names in public, but the BBC presented all of us as OSS zealots who attacked SCO's site."

Actually they said they were the likely culprit.

Re:How soon we forget.

[ekuns]

They very clearly said "It seems likely...". So no, they did not report that as fact. Secondly, who has any real motive besides the Linux users that stand to lose the most? BBC did nothing wrong by pointing the spotlight at the people most likely to have done it.

Who has any real motive? How about the folks who have been putting out virus after virus after virus for the past year, where these viruses are really a backdoor to spread their ability to send SPAM? Someone doing that has a motive to hide their real motive. A DOS attack against someone is a perfect extra to hide the motive.

Now, maybe there is some Linux crank out there who is also a Windows expert who was able to do this. And maybe that person is also allied with the folks producing the SPAMbots, because this virus includes one.

But to suggest that whoever created the virus is a MAINSTREAM Linux person is just silly. That doesn't fit any of the facts. In addition, it would be monstrously stupid. However, anyone who wanted Linux users to have a black eye would be able to accomplish that by attacking SCO.

Now, if there's someone out there who hates Linux and who knows Windows internals in great detail, enough detail to create a sophisticated virus, then that person can accomplish many goals by taking their SPAMbot virus and attacking a site that will divert blame from them.

Mainstream Linux users are not people who advocate this sort of malevolent virus or attack.

Re:How soon we forget.

[j_w_d]

Secondly, who has any real motive besides the Linux users that stand to lose the most? BBC did nothing wrong by pointing the spotlight at the people most likely to have done it.

That opinion is so thick the author undoubtedly lives under a bridge. People with motives - hmm, let's see. How about spammers and computer extortionist and anyone else with a strong economic interest in seeing that the insecurities inherent in Windows remain available to them. Heck, you could even suggest that Symantec has a motive, since there is little economic viability in antivirus software for linux or unix. When you consider that 75% of the MyDoom infections DID NOT carry a payload addressing SCO, then it is quite easily as reasonable to suspect that the SCO thing was just misdirection.

Re:How soon we forget.

[Anonymous Coward]

> People with motives - hmm, let's see. How about spammers and computer extortionist and anyone else with a strong economic interest in seeing that the insecurities inherent in Windows remain available to them.

Yeah, there are so many more of those than people who thirst for SCO's blood.

Re:How soon we forget.

[MuParadigm]

Would "litigious pricks" be better?

Less libellous?

There doesn't seem to be a woman anywhere in their upper management, board of directors, or amongst their lawyers.

I think we can beat the defamation claim by henceforth referring to them as "litigious pricks".

C'mon, you Google-Bombers. Get on it!

Re:How soon we forget.

[Malcontent]

"They very clearly said "It seems likely..."."

Reporters do this very frequently. They use weazel words like "it seems likely", "may have", "could possibly" and such. For example take this.

"the police raided a residence on the north side and took away bags that "may have" contained marijuana. You see how that works? The slobs watching Tee Vee are convinced that the bags contain dope and if the bags contained laundry instead the reporter wasn't lying.

Lying is an art and reporters are very good at it. The same tricks are used by politicans and pundits too. The public is profoundly stupid so they take each "may have" as being god's honest truth.

Re:How soon we forget.

[Disevidence]

I know your not going to reply to this, but for the record.

It is highly debatable whether the BBC were wrong or not. However, the clear lack of forethought into reasons for the virus, as well as a seemingly quick link-up (likely or not) to it being Linux fundamentalists seemed to put a lot of people's noses out of joint, pro-Linux or not.

As for referring the SCO as litigious bastards, when that happens, its mainly when people are preacing to the Choir. Slashdot has always had a pro-Linux slant, and its not surprising that they(SCO) are referred to as Litigious Bastards.

Also, you should temper your arrogance with a little humbleness. Just because you believe you are correct, factually or not, doesn't mean you ARE correct.

(I have many times almost added you to my foes/ignore list, mainly due to complete arrogance on your part. Please tone down your unctuousness.)

Re:How soon we forget.

[NanoGator]

Sorry bud, it's still not a lie. You can reword it, you can change the context, and you can spin it like it's a story about Microsoft, but it's still not a lie. They said "likely", and there's no confusing that for "it's a known fact". Sorry.

Re:How soon we forget.

[Malcontent]

" Sorry bud, it's still not a lie."

It's no a lie strictly speaking. Strictly speaking it conveys no actual information. Saying "the bags may have contained drugs" is the exact same thing as saying "monkeys may have flown out of my butt". Both sentenses are "true" because neither sentense conveys any information.

It's not a lie but it's a sentense carefully worded in order to mislead people. The intent of the reporter was to make people think that some linux zealot wrote the virus. In order to do that he carefully chose his weasel words to convey that information.

In the end even though it's not a lie it's a willfull attempt to deceive people. There is no getting around that.

Re:How soon we forget.

[Evil Pete]

The BBC replied to my complaint stating that essentially since it was an opinion piece it was not factually incorrect. This is splitting hairs, and wont win the BBC friends when it needs them most. The story was shallow and uninformed. It makes little sense that a Linux user would go to the trouble to write a sophisticated Windows application and risk detection just to do something to SCO that they can easily sidestep and probably give them brownie points in the eyes of the press.

The virus did 3 things (apart from spreading itself): it installed a back door (a very serious breach of security), it installed a key logger (even worse), and it setup a DDOS of SCO (serious but easily sidestepped if given some warning). The DDOS was the least important part of it. Also the virus was cleverly social engineered to fool even moderately savvy users into clicking the attachment. It reeks of something more than a pissed of linux coder hitting back at SCO.

Now MyDoom.C is distributing the source code through the back doors to confuse the trail of those trying to find the author. Also version C doesn't have an expiry date. This was well planned, the DDOS is just camouflage for the real payload.

Re:How soon we forget.

[Catiline]

It's not a lie strictly speaking. Strictly speaking it conveys no actual information.

It may be that most people expect a string words to mean something. It may be that the job title "reporter" might imply certain responsibilities, one of which very well might be "presenting facts rather than speculation"; another could be "reduce or remove personal bias". I would expect most people, most of the time, carry these assumptions whenever they watch, read or otherwise grok news.

Containing weasel words does not magically render a sentence meaningless. Instead, consider it a presentation of opinion; for that alone, I object-- after all, the BBC says they hire news reporters not news speculators.

Re:How soon we forget.

[ncr53c8xx]

And some of you accused the BBC of making an unfounded claim when they said this:

Look at this website to see how the BBC operates. They have their own private force which they use to collect money from people by force, sending threatening letters and ransacking homes. I think they would fall under the RICO act in the US.

Re:How soon we forget.

[roman_mir]

If it was a fair news delivery they also would have noted that it is possible that someone else spread this trojan around, like spammers or even an antivirus company or maybe some corporation that has something to gain if SCO went down. All I heard from them was: it's those evil Linux guys.

So back off, you are in the wrong.

Re:How soon we forget.

[NanoGator]

" like spammers or even an antivirus company or maybe some corporation that has something to gain if SCO went down."

They wouldn't report that because it's utter and total bullshit. The people with the prime motive are Linux zealots. That's it. The biggest motive, right there. What isn't 'fair' about it is the reputation you guys earned for yourself. That's why you're arguing with me about this.

"So back off, you are in the wrong."

Sorry, I'm not. You guys had an opportunity to seperate yourselves from those who did it, and instead you all referred to them as litigous bastards. There were even jokes about how to get the word bastard to link to SCO on Google.

I'm in the wrong? Okay. So far, I'm not the one out for SCO's blood, I'm not the one calling them names and acting childish, I'm not the one pointing the finger at anybody but the prime suspect, and I'm not the one trying to smack down anybody who's pointing out how childish you all are being. I won't have any trouble sleeping tonight.

Re:How soon we forget.

[HiThere]

What damage did My.Doom do to SCO?
None? Then why do you attribute it to their enemies? At least consider that it might have been someone with totally different goals in mind. And then look at the evidence again with a mind less than totally shuttered.

Re:How soon we forget.

[roman_mir]

You are clearly not listenning to logic, here is a link to an article on MSNBC btw. and they do say that it is possible that Linux coders are behind this, but they also note that it is possible that sco attack is a smokescreen, as reported by many antivirus companies for something else, like say breaking into computers for whatever, maybe spam. So while you are all shouting on top of your lungs - "you Linux zealots are to blame", I personally want some balanced journalism, and BBC is not it. I did not say Linux coders did not do it, I said: report everyting, let the people know there is more to it than just one side, the side that is most convenient for your line of thinking.

So you are either in the wrong that BBC reporting was balanced or you are in denial for your own reasons.

Re:How soon we forget.

[cduffy]

You guys had an opportunity to seperate yourselves from those who did it, and instead you all referred to them as litigous bastards.

Eh?

It's one thing to express an opinion that someone is a litigious bastard, and another thing to set off a bomb in their front yard (and damage the innocent neighbors as well). Just because we're, as a group, willing and happy to make a public statement to the effect that we dislike SCO isn't to say that we're willing to, as a group, support some illegal and destructive action against them -- particularly one with collateral damage on the scale that MyDoom has caused, and most particularly one which distributes a payload helpful towards spammers and crackers (whom, as a rule, we hate).

If the only thing in question here were a DOS of SCO, then sure, you'd be reasonable to say in public that there's reason to believe that one of our members is most likely at fault (though not that the community necessarily supports such an action; indeed, in all the prior DOS attacks, the general impression was that much more harm than good was done via giving Darl and company more to talk about). As for the impression that the only thing in question is a DOS, though -- that's not the case, and pretending that it is is simply irresponsible.

Re:How soon we forget.

[Malcontent]

"Containing weasel words does not magically render a sentence meaningless."

Yes it does. Using words weasel words literally renders a sentense meaningless. The sentense "the bags may have contained dope" conveys no actual information. Did it or did it not? You don't know. That's why weasel words are poweful. You can imply things without conveying actual information.

It's a great way to mislead people.

Re:How soon we forget.

[NanoGator]

"So you are either in the wrong that BBC reporting was balanced or you are in denial for your own reasons."

Niether. The point I'm trying to make here is that the reputation was well earned. It is not the BBC's fault that you all earned it. You're not complaining about the BBC's reporting methods, you are complaining that the BBC printed something that's not in your favor. Gee whiz, maybe you all should think twice before modding up that comment about what a rotten person Darl McBride is? Oh now, we can't have that. Instead, let's just bash the BBC.

I'm sorry but this "no everything should be balanced and fair" attitude is just a little too convenient. It is so wrong for the BBC to point the finger at the prime suspect and not say "well it could be 6 billion other people too", but Slashdot goes on merrily posting anti-MS stories that don't even match what the article said.

Develop a little more objectivity and open-mindedness here on Slashdot and I'll not only back down, I'll apologize. Until that happens, just face the facts that what you really want is for the media to not shed your community in a negative light. Ditch the "It's only unfair if it's against me" attitude. You're wasting your time by living in denial.

Re:How soon we forget.

[Catiline]

I am sorry, but even the crack smoking moderators will disagree. Weasel words do not destroy all meaning; their meaning might be to convey an opinion dressed as fact, or be phrased in a way that most people misunderstand them, but they are not without a meaning. If nothing else, they at least express a opinion.

Re:How soon we forget.

[roman_mir]

You're wasting your time by living in denial. - actually I believe that you are wasting my time, I think I Have Been Trolled. Good work.

Re:How soon we forget.

[NanoGator]

That's a slimey way to weasel out of it.

Re:How soon we forget.

[Malcontent]

I disagree. Weasel word phrases don't carry information. The bags may have contained dope or they may not have contained dope, or they may have contained laundry. There is no information there, no facts.

Re:How soon we forget.

[roman_mir]

Well there is no normal way to talk to you, you ever think about yourself as of a well balanced person? Why am I saying this? Simple - I disagree that Linux community as a whole is as disgusting as the spammers and it is the Linux community who are victims in the SCO case and you are still insisting on blaming the victims. Excellent. How is that not trolling?

Re:How soon we forget.

[NanoGator]

"Well there is no normal way to talk to you, you ever think about yourself as of a well balanced person? "

Give me a little credit, will ya? Go have a peek at some of my posts. Do I really look like somebody whose out to be a shithead?

" I disagree that Linux community as a whole is as disgusting as the spammers and it is the Linux community who are victims in the SCO case and you are still insisting on blaming the victims."

You're not disagreeing with me as that's not what I think. (I guess I've haven't been makin myself so clear, I'm sorry about that.) I was talking about the impression that places like Slashdot leave with regards to SCO. Do I personally think that the guy who says "Maybe I should let the virus infect my computer" did it? Nah. Would somebody else, particularly one not terribly in tune wiht Slashdot read it and think that? Yes. That's my point.

I'm not blaming the victims for doing it. I'm blaming the 'victims' for having a less-than-professional attitude and earning themselves a not-so-positive spot in the limelight. Even after they know the attention is on them, they ratchet up the child-like behaviour. This has nothing to do with my personal views. It has to do with how the community comes across.

"How is that not trolling?"

We have to understand each other before it's trolling, k?

Re:How soon we forget.

[roman_mir]

/. however is not the entire Linux community, it is visited probably by less than 10% of the entire Linux user/coder base. There are lunatics in everything, why are a lunatic's actions a reflection of the entire community? In fact the most prominent figures in the 'Linux community' are calling for a levelheaded behaviour and are not supporting violence. What else is necessary, to restrain everybody's speech on /.? This is a discussion group not a general news source.

BBC is not reporting the news fairly, they are pointing at a minority of a community and are presenting their view as almost a fact since they do not provide any other points of view.

In my view BBC is a troll.

Re:How soon we forget.

[Catiline]

Just because there are no facts does not mean they carry zero information.

The information they do carry is opinion. (That you and I place no value on opinion, when compared to facts, is irrelevant.) I have said this in each of my prior comments: weasel words may remove all facts rom the sentence, but the speaker's bias (and thus opinion) still remains! "I think", "I feel", "In my opinion", "It seems to me" -- all weasel word phrases (albeit clearer than most weasels speak them), and they very clearly change whatever would follow them from fact to opinion.

Opinions are information. They may be useless to your point of view, but they still are informative nonetheless.

Re:How soon we forget.

[j_w_d]

Actually, I don't think he was suggesting that SCO enemies were at fault. Quite the contrary, he simply pointed out that there are many more with the interests I suggested than who have an anti-SCO agenda. So really, we all agreed.

Another thing I didn't mention before. Remember this bug evidently came out of Russia. While this might be stereotyping, remember that chess is the national pass-time there. One key tactic in chess is to have your oponent looking where you WANT them to look, rather than where you intend to really direct your force.

Re:How soon we forget.

[Tassach]

I think the point the grandparent is trying to make is that weasel words carry no FACTS. Information != Facts. Weasel words allow opinion to be easily mistaken as facts. Introducing opinion into a factual discussion with the purpose of misleading the listener is intellectually dishonest. "He was arrested while carrying a bag" is intellectually honest. Idle speculation that the bag might have contained dope or a bomb contributes no factual content and actively leads the listener to make a conclusion on supposition.

Hate the PDF?

[W32.Klez.A]

For those of you who don't have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed, here's a handy link to read the pdf online.

Re:Hate the PDF?

[gomadtroll]

For Linux users, XPDF is a good option, you don't need Adobe.

SCO.com down (kinda)

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that www.sco.com is down now, for some reason. So if you want to link to that slimy company, you should just link to sco.com.

Even so, I wonder if they won't block slashdot referrers soon... Oh well.

Incidentally, Google may be blocking the "Google bomb" ... Perhaps we should start linking to caldera.com?

Or you can just click here to h4x0r SCO ... (j/k! but click it just for fun...)

Re:SCO.com down (kinda)

[wtansill]

" It seems that www.sco.com is down now, for some reason."

Well, yes. They changed the site name to www.thescogroup.com to hide from mydoom

Re:SCO.com down (kinda)

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look on their "2003 forum" page they're using a James Bond motif, just to complete their delusions of granduer

http://www.thescogroup.com/2003forum/
(*The James Bond theme is used by permission of MGM)

the thing that makes me the most mad

[drp]

is that freaking e-trade doesn't have SCOX on its list of shortable securities.

Re:the thing that makes me the most mad

[starm_]

whats a shortable security???

Re:the thing that makes me the most mad

[Anonymous Coward]

Sell shares you don't yet own.

Re:the thing that makes me the most mad

[starm_]

Ok I answered my question. The problem was that when I search on google for "shortable security" I got no hit but I guess this term is only used in its plural form "shortable securities" . Then I got the info I wanted.

It referes to short selling or delling more stocks than you own in the hope that the price is going to drop and you can buy back you "virtual" stocks at a loer price.

so what criteria does the stock need to have so that e-trade consideres it shortable???

Re:the thing that makes me the most mad

[Anonymous Coward]

I've shorted it BIG TIME via ameritrade. The amount you're going to be shorting is pretty small, so any shorting you do on an equity will be borowed from the pool your broker company (etrade, ameritrade) owns... It's called EASY $$$

Re:the thing that makes me the most mad

[starm_]

maybe you should try SCOttrade

Re:the thing that makes me the most mad

[Elwood P Dowd]

It's because e-trade is trying to help you avoid a short stock squeeze and losing your house.

Sure, in the long run the value of their company is 0, but that's not going to matter for you if it first doubles, and you are forced to sell. If you don't believe it could give you a squeeze, you aren't paying attention. Sure, the 1 year chart's looks like a lobbed softball throw, and it's coming down, but every so often it has a jaggy in it that could wreck a ho. Don't be that ho.

Re:the thing that makes me the most mad

[ykardia]

I called E-trade to see whether they would allow shorting of SCO:

E-trade only wants to short stocks for you if they are reasonably liquid, i. e. it is easy to find a seller whenever you want to buy (buyer when you want to sell).

If the company is too small and there aren't many shares being traded, and the stock is illiquid, prices that you might get might be a little weird. Also it is easy for people to manipulate the market in that stock. You are particularly vulnerable to the market being manipulated if you are short (see e. g. Short Squeeze).

E-trade is reluctant to short SCO on your behalf, as it is a relatively small company, and the stock is relatively illiquid. With a market capitalization of around 180M it is borderline, really.

Re:the thing that makes me the most mad

[awarlaw]

this is because all of the stock available for short sale has been shorted on the market. so either the stock drops and the shorts win or we will see the biggest short squeeze of the decade.

There won't be anymore shares to short until somebody buys more shares on margin. Thus allowing the BD (Broker/Dealer) to borrow the shares for short sale.

And if you listen very carefully...

[Howard Roark]

...you can hear the sound of a coffin being nailed shut!

Re:And if you listen very carefully...

[WankersRevenge]

About your sig ... Just read the fountainhead .. absolutely loved it. Although, I don't subscribe to Rand's view of capitalism (my personal belief, everything that's wrong in the world is clearly outlined in Atlas Shrugged as being a "good thing"). Still - great book. Nice to someone on Slashdot actually opens a book which doesn't describe variables or women doing the cha cha with chickens.

Re:And if you listen very carefully...

[TheLinuxSRC]

And where would one find this "women doing the cha cha with chickens" book. Theoretically. It would be for a friend.

license agreements useless

[potpie]

If SCO actually started selling binary only (or whatever they are) licenses, wouldn't they be violating the GPL for every bit of code that wasn't theirs (assuming they had some in there at all)? Correct me if I'm wrong (no really, I think I might be wrong), but isn't it inevitable that if they have any code in the kernel, it'll be removed not because they have to point out what's theirs but because they have to point out what's not theirs?

Re:license agreements useless

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but that would seem to violate any reading of the GPL I can imagine.

Of course, SCO claims that the GPL is not applicable in any way, so...

I refer you to Eben Moglen's recent position paper concerning that if you want a more lawyerly oppinion of just why SCO is wrong.

Re:license agreements useless

[dacarr]

Well, yes, it would, but according to Mickey-B, the GPL is unconstitutional.

Re:license agreements useless

[Pharmboy]

IANAL, but that would seem to violate any reading of the GPL I can imagine.

Totally correct. The GPL is misquoted on Slashdot all the time, usually by well meaning but uninformed people.

Everyone who hasn't done it yet, please go to GNU's License Page and just bookmark it now. Read it later, fine, but go and read it. The GPL is actually interesting reading (for a legal document, that is). But the GPL is not a license to do what you want. It is actually quite restrictive. For the rest of you, this is my impressions of the licenses, which will no doubt be picked to pieces by people who claim to be more of an expert. Your milage may vary.

PD=Public Domain, Do anything you want, call it your own, sell it, change it, secret it away, whatever. There are NO copyrights on the code. PDing code means giving up all ownership.

BSD =2 kinds, basically do almost anything you want, but give proper credit. Code is copyrighted but distribution is not restricted.

GPL= Do what you want, but you MUST share the code if you distribute the binaries. If you don't distribute the binaries, you can die with all your secret code and its legal. If you accidently distribute binaries, but don't want to distrubute source, you have to recall all the binaries. Code is copyrighted, and much is donated to the FSF, consolidating enforcement.

If you write code, you can release it under two or more different licenses (but not PD and any other). Mysql does this, releases main code GPL and also issues private licenses so companies willing to pay can modify it without releasing their changes if they distribute it. This is a legitimate way an open source company can make money and we all benefit from the Free code.

You can never "unGPL" code. If version 1.0 was ever GPL, it will always be GPL. If you want to make 1.1 proprietary, you can, but I can take 1.0 and fork the code into a new project and you can never take that away once it is granted. If I make changes to GPL code and rerelease it, it has to be released as GPL licensed.

You can not restrict anyone's use of GPL programs. If I want to use it to run a nuclear plant, guide chemical filled missles, run a day care center, or run the seti@home client, no one, including the copyright holder, can limit me. This would include for profit and non profit uses.

If I use GPL code to make my program, I can never take away your right to have the source if I give/sell you the binaries. If you want to take my 1.1 code, and fork it and call it something else and release it as version 2.0, or 1.0, I can't stop you.

If I make a GPL program or derivitive, and the only person I ever distributed it to is Taco, then I am only obligated to distribute the source code or make it available to Taco. I don't have to put the source on the CD, I just have to make the source reasonably accessible to anyone I distribute the binaries to. (email, ftp site, web site, buy the cd for $5 media charge).

If I want to sell your GPL software as a package with or without support, I may. I may charge any fee I wish without paying any royalies. If I sell Taco a copy of "GNU/FooTastiC 2.0" for $1 million dollars, he can give it away to anyone for free, including the source, and I can't restrict his ability to do so. Nor can the copyright holder.

The GPL (and LGPL for libraries) are good licenses for most projects. It protects individual users more than the author/copyright holder in many ways, but guarantees that the author can not take away your right to use the software for any reason. I also think there is a place for proprietary software, including proprietary applicationss on top of a GPL operating system.

This concludes our GPL primer ;)

Re:license agreements useless

[mark-t]

They'd be violating the GPL, but that isn't easily sustainable in court, since the GPL has never been tested in a court of law.

What *IS* sustainable is that they'd be violating copyright law. And once such a case actually goes the distance and the infringer legally forced to concede to the copyright owner's demands with respect to a work that happens to be GPL'd, _THAT_ will a clear victory for the GPL in court that can be used a precedent for any cases that may follow (although I doubt many will).

Re:license agreements useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, you are a jackoff.

Re:license agreements useless

[hburch]

IANAL. This is opinion only.

The GPL is a license for distribution. Assuming SCO was not distributing nor had distributed the code, then there would be no need for GPL to agree to the license in order to sell their own license. Thus, no infringement.

The problem is, of course, that SCO has distributed and continues to distributed the code in question. This is either a license violation (section 7 of the GPL) or a copyright violation, depending on whether or not they purport to be using the GPL as the basis for their distribution.

Section 5 of the GPL basically says the same thing. You are not required to accept the license, but "nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works".

www.sco.com

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm, this looks familiar.

Re:www.sco.com

[BiggerIsBetter]

Yup. sco.com (no www) is still resolving though.

www.sco.com

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't know about the rest of your crazy louts, but www.sco.com gives me a host name not found error.

www.sco.com is a WMD

[stonebeat.org]

www.sco.com is a weapon of mass destruction.
Do read the last Solution (#5)

Everyone together now!

[ckedge]

and a 1
and a 2 ...
"Na na naa naaa..., na na naa naaaa..., heyyy eyy eyy, GOODBYE!!!!!

Re:Everyone together now!

[theridersofrohan]

and a 1
and a 2 ...
"Na na naa naaa..., na na naa naaaa..., heyyy eyy eyy, GOODBYE!!!!!

Is that an Alice Cooper ("Hey Stupid") reference?? :-)

Plaintext version of PDF

[soullessbastard]

Mr. Ryan E. Tibbitts
General Counsel
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Lindon, UT 84042

Re: Sequent Computer Systems

Dear Mr. Tibbitts:

On May 29, 2003, SCO sent a letter to Sequent Computer Systems providing notice that it would terminate Sequent's SVRX license agreement as of September 2, 2003 if Sequent did not remedy certain alleged breaches of the license agreement. On August 11, 2003, SCO sent another letter to Sequent purporting to terminate Sequent's SVRX license agreement. IBM, on behalf of Sequent, responded to these letters by letter of August 14, 2003.

As it has with IBM and other SVRX licensees, SCO appears to be taking the position that code developed by Sequent, or licensed by Sequent form a third party, which Sequent incorporated in its UNIX variant but which itself does not contain proprietary UNIX code supplied by AT&T under the license agreement betwee AT&T and Sequent (Sequent Code), must nevertheless be maintained as confidental and may not be contributed to Linux. As we have said before, SCO's position defies both logic and the terms of the SVRX license agreement.

SCO cites, as support for its position, section 2.01 of Sequent agreement, which, like other SVRX licenses, provides as follows:

Such right to use includes the right to modify such SOFTWARE PRODUCT and to prepare derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided the resulting materials are treated hereunder as part of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT.

As we have said, however, this provision merely confirms that AT&T retained ownership of its code even if it was incorporated in a derivative work, and does not purport to impose confidentiality or use restrictions on Sequent Code.

In fact, SCO's interpretation of 2.01 is plainly contrary to the position taken by AT&T, as author of and party to the SVRX licenses. AT&T clarified the meaning of section 2.01 in its $ echo publication, which AT&T described as its own newsletter to reach all UNIX System V licensees through one defined medium and keeps them abreast of any product announcements, policy changes, company business and pricing structures.

Specifically, in an edition of $ echo dated April 1985 (the same month that the Sequent license agreement was signed), AT&T announced that changes would be made to hte SVRX license agreement to clarify ownership of modifications or derivative works prepared by a licensee. AT&T said this and other announced changes were in response to direct feedback from AT&T licensees and [were] intended to make the contracts more responsive to the needs of licensees. AT&T then followed up by adding to section 2.01 a sentence clarifying that AT&T claims no ownership interest in any portion of such a modification or derivative work that is not part of a SOFTWARE PRODUCT. Even more clearly, the August 1985 edition of $ echo explained that this sentence was added to assure licensees that AT&T will claim no ownership in the software that they developed - only the portion of the software developed by AT&T. Copies of the April and August 1985 editions of $ echo are enclosed for your convenience.

For these reasons, and the reasons stated in our October 7, 2003 letter to you about IBM-developed code, SCO's position on Sequent Code is unsupportable.

Under Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Novell retains the right at Novell's sole discretion and direction, to require SCO to amend, supplement, modify, or waive any rights under, or...assign any rights to, any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect by [Novell]. That section further provides that to the extent SCO shall fail to take any such action concerning the SVRX Licenses as directed by Novell, Novell shall be authorized, and hereby is granted, the rights to take any action on [SCO's] own behalf.

Accordingly, pursuant to Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchas

Re:Plaintext version of PDF

[shadowbearer]

The sound you just heard is the sound of a cluestick (TM) hitting a SCO(ull).

SB

just can't hear the comment

[geekd]

Once again, SCO have no comment.

They may well be trying to comment, but it's hard to hear what they are saying, since they have thier heads so far up thier asses....

Re:just can't hear the comment

[Giggerotta]

Yep.. I can just hear it now...
mmmmm mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmm. mmmmmmmmmm
I'd say maybe someone should hand them a big long shoehorn to remove their heads from their asses, but then we'd really have to listen to them rather than hearing muffled ass-speak.

I wouldn't go kicking any stools around SCO...

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll get your shoes all dirty and stinky.

They bought the "Linux license" from SCO

[brett_sinclair]

According to one of SCO's lawyers, in a letter published on Groklaw, SCO only managed to sell three "Linux licenses".

Yes. Three (3).

He says: "At this juncture, I am only aware of a license with Computer Associates, Questar and Leggett & Platt."

I'm betting you can get a good price on a used Linux license from them by now...

Re:They bought the "Linux license" from SCO

[pato perez]

Why did these three companies but a SCO license? One could easily conjecture why Computer Associates would want to support SCO. Questar is a Utah company, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were some incestuous link between them and SCO/Canopy. Reason for Legget & Platt? They're based in Carthage,MO--perhaps there's an LDS link? In any case, these companies most likely bought licenses to support SCO--not because they felt SCO's claims have any merit. They aren't likely to sell, even if they could.

Re:They bought the "Linux license" from SCO

[Bull999999]

I'd figure it would've been Microsoft, MSN, and the newly created MikeRoweSoft who bought those three Linux licenses.

Re:They bought the "Linux license" from SCO

[starman97]

Maybe they think they will have value as collector's items after SCO blows up and goes away.

After all, Confederate dollars are worth more than face value today, a mere 150 years later.. :)

Auctioneer in 2050
"For your consideration, we have 1 of the 3 SCO Linux licenses ever sold"

Re:They bought the "Linux license" from SCO

[dj245]

...And the number of the Linux Licenses shall be three. Four shall the number of the linux licenses not be, neither shall the number of Linux Licenses be two, without immediately selling/giving away exactly one more license, for a total of three. Five is right out. And when the number three, being the third number of Licenses having been given away, be reached, I shall reach out with my holiest of lawsuits, and the Litigating Bastards shall be smited....

Re:They bought the "Linux license" from SCO

[briansz]

I managed a crew of workers some years back at a mid-sized store fixture company that was later acquired by Leggett and Platt.

While I left before the acquisition by L&P was final, if the two companies are anything alike, this is not only poetic, but hardly surprising.

The corporate culture there was comprised of a bunch of new-agey, good-feeling, responsibility-shirking, issue-clouding, completely spineless Yes-Men spewing first class BULLSHIT.

I've decided today after reading that Leggett and Platt bought a SCO 'license' that there is such a thing as Karma. And it's delightful to observe it in action firsthand.

Re:They bought the "Linux license" from SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does Leggett & Platt even know what linux is??? They are well known for the generic metal bed frame that they produce. Pretty cool though. hrmph

Re:They bought the "Linux license" from SCO

[mrbuttle]

In the case of Computer Associates, they did agree to pay the Canopy Group and Center 7 40 million dollars to settle a lawsuit. Perhaps terms of the settlement required them to buy a "linux license" also. What is strange though is CA is a member of OSDL.

Re:They bought the "Linux license" from SCO

[Our Man In Redmond]

A link to between SCO and Legget & Platt was pointed out on Groklaw:

http://216.211.138.77/company/mangmnt.htm

Michael O'Brien, CEO and Founder of goahead software presented at a SCO
conference.
From 1993 until 1999, Douglas W. Brown(now president of goahead software) was
president of a Seattle area manufacturing company that was acquired by Leggett
& Platt,

Make of it what you will.

By the way, the Carthage that figures prominently in LDS history is in Illinois, not Missouri.

Re:They bought the "Linux license" from SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw an article somewhere that one of the conditions of the settlement was that CA purchase a linux license from SCO. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I saw it, and I can't find it with a couple of minutes searching on google.

The actual lawsuit and settlement are easy to find though: just google "canopy computer associates settlement".

Re:They bought the "Linux license" from SCO

[cranos]

Some how I think this Monty quote is more appropriate:

Bring out your dead!
CUSTOMER:
Here's one.
CART MASTER:
Ninepence.
DEAD PERSON:
I'm not dead!
CART MASTER:
What?
CUSTOMER:
Nothing. Here's your ninepence.
DEAD PERSON:
I'm not dead!
CART MASTER:
'Ere. He says he's not dead!
CUSTOMER:
Yes, he is.
DEAD PERSON:
I'm not!
CART MASTER:
He isn't?
CUSTOMER:
Well, he will be soon. He's very ill.
DEAD PERSON:
I'm getting better!
CUSTOMER:
No, you're not. You'll be stone dead in a moment.
CART MASTER:
Oh, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
DEAD PERSON:
I don't want to go on the cart!
CUSTOMER:
Oh, don't be such a baby.
CART MASTER:
I can't take him.
DEAD PERSON:
I feel fine!
CUSTOMER:
Well, do us a favour.
CART MASTER:
I can't.
CUSTOMER:
Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
CART MASTER:
No, I've got to go to the Robinsons'. They've lost nine today.
CUSTOMER:
Well, when's your next round?
CART MASTER:
Thursday.
DEAD PERSON:
I think I'll go for a walk.
CUSTOMER:
You're not fooling anyone, you know. Look. Isn't there something you can do?
DEAD PERSON: [singing]
I feel happy. I feel happy.
[whop]
CUSTOMER:
Ah, thanks very much.
CART MASTER:
Not at all. See you on Thursday.

Replace each character with whoever you think appropriate

Re:They bought the "Linux license" from SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

Since SCO has now formally admitted in Court documents (in Discovery of SCO v.IBM) that they sold binary licenses for Linux, are they now open to a class-action lawsuit by all code contributors to Linux?

C'Mon guys... there's got to be a Lawyer who reads Slashdot who would take this on contingency :)

Re:They bought the "Linux license" from SCO

[sik0fewl]

Cast (in order of appearance):

CUSTOMER - Played by IBM CART MASTER - Played bo Novell DEAD PERSON - Played by SCO

Under SCO's 5 reasons to use SCO instead of Linux

[wobedraggled]

SCO is the owner of the UNIX(R) Operating System Intellectual Property that dates all the way back to 1969, when the UNIX(R) System was created at Bell Laboratories. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, SCO has acquired ownership of the copyrights and core technology associated with the UNIX(R) System. The SCO source division will continue to offer traditional UNIX(R) System licenses to preserve, protect, and enhance shareholder value.

As early as May 2003, SCO warned Linux(R) users that enterprise use of the Linux(R) operating system was in violation of its intellectual property rights in UNIX(R) technology. Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces ("ABI Code") have been copied verbatim from SCO's copyrighted UNIX(R) code base and contributed to Linux(R) for distribution under the General Public License ("GPL") without proper authorization and without copyright attribution. These facts support SCO's position that the use of the Linux(R) operating system in a commercial setting violates our rights under the United States Copyright Act, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

While some application programming interfaces ("API Code") have been made available over the years through POSIX and other open standards, the UNIX(R) ABI Code has only been made available under copyright restrictions. AT&T made these binary interfaces available in order to support application development to UNIX(R) operating systems and to assist UNIX(R) licensees in the development process. The UNIX(R) ABIs were never authorized for unrestricted use or distribution under the GPL in Linux(R). As the copyright holder, SCO has never granted such permission. Nevertheless, many of the ABIs contained in Linux(R), and improperly distributed under the GPL, are direct copies of our UNIX(R) copyrighted software code.

Bwhahahahaha!!!

RBC, TICC, SCO

[b00y4]

I was reading through the message boards on Yahoo! Finance for SCO, and there were several messages about RBC, TICC, and SCO, with the implication being that perhaps there was some illegal activity going on in the financing of SCO. I have not read anything about that on groklaw or /. and was wondering if anyone here knows anything about it.

And here some more help!

[Anonymous Coward]

litigious bastards Lameness filter help

litigious bastardsMore help

litigious bastards

litigious bastards

This has been fixed.

[Edward Teach]

http://www.litigiousbastards.com/

SCO/Linux

[mdpye]

Darl begins a campaign to have kernel renamed SCO/Linux, after all it is a combination of SCO and Linux contributer IP, no? ;)

MP

Re:SCO/Linux

[Wateshay]

To which RMS immediately replies that that should be GNU/SCO/Linux.

Huh?

[unsigned integer]

SCO have no comment

Who writes this stuff? Yoda?

watch the truncat...

[xixax]

Interestingly, the Google news page truncates the CRN headline to:

"Expert Claims SCO-Novell Copyright Dispute Will Halt Linux..."

the truncated bit is "customer lawsuit".

Xix.

Re:Huh?

[CdnYoda]

careful, you should be! Naturally, I am always monitoring the Dark (Darl?) Side... Whether it be the Death Star in Redmond, or the pitiful Tie Fighters in SCO - vigilant, I am!..soon, balance will be restored to the Force, my young padwan =)...patience, patience...

Benefits of SCO UNIX?

[sean1121]

As seen here one of the benefits is "These security features guard against business interruption, denial of service attacks and protect against identity or corporate information theft." (emphasis mine) It makes one wonder why they don't run their web server on it instead of linux?

OT: Your .sig

[BugZRevengE]

your .sig is the funniest thing i have seen in a long time... love the new browser... but you are right

Novell quotes $echo as a legal reference???

[compactable]

... I mean, I loathe SCO as much as anyone, but cmon. This is a small step above pie charts done in crayon.

I'm proud of them finding this, and I'm glad its been brought to SCO's attention, but geez. And publicly announcing this to the world instead of dealing with it in a professional manner - what is is with Utah companies? They're like the morons I work with that reply-all on company-wide emails.

Decorum, children, decorum...

Re:Novell quotes $echo as a legal reference???

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking the same thing until I read a comment on Groklaw. Which said that in cases where the terms are not clear or in dispute other material may be used to clarify the intent of the contract.

Re:Novell quotes $echo as a legal reference???

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but as I understand it, since $ echo was written by the authors of the agreement, any translations of the agreement within $ echo legally override any view SCOG has about the agreement.

Think of it as bright red, indelible crayon writing on top of all of SCOG's legal documents.

Re:Novell quotes $echo as a legal reference???

[fferreres]

Haven't even read the letter, and if you did, then worst yet, because you didn't get the important part.

Novell is telling the World that public company by the name IBM has been given green light to use their own code (JFS, EVMS, ETC), because the assets transfer to SCO allows Novel to Waive any right SCO may claim to their licensees.

Basically, they are overruling SCOs licence, making it clear they have the right to do so, and ordering SCO to cease the trial, because the are claming a right that has been clarified they do not have and never ever had.

So basically the _hole point_ of the Novell letter, is letting ANY investor all over the world, that IBM has already won the trial, and that there is no posibility they may lose $5000 billion, not even a 0.000001% chance.

So calling them unprofessional makes you look silly at best.

SCO has no comment?

[OpenSourcerer]

I think their comment is right here.

Re:SCO has no comment?

[killthiskid]

Damn. I got motivated. Based upon what you posted, I did a summary of the stocks sold:

BENCH, ROBERT K. $2,779,184.00
BROUGHTON, REGINALD CHARLES $14,402,226.00
CANOPY GROUP INC $1,405,180.00
GASPARRO, LARRY $5,637,633.00
HUNSAKER, JEFF F. $3,055,608.00
OLSON, MICHAEL P $9,051,745.00
RAIMONDI, THOMAS P. $223,450.00
RAIMONDI, THOMAS P., JR. $2,101,901.00
THOMPSON, DUFF R. $1,916,861.00
WILSON, MICHAEL L. $1,297,924.00
YARRO, RALPH J. $1,405,180.00

Grand total: $43,276,892.00

Re:SCO has no comment?

[HiThere]

If I'm reading this right insider shares sold exactly equal insider shares bought. The only reason I can think this would be true is stock manipulation, though I suppose speculation could also do it.

Anything to make this mess go away.

[Linus Sixpack]

It will be nice to see newSCO go down in flames and the legal basis for Linux reaffirmed.

Mostly it will be nice to see the puffery and mugging for stock prices end!

ls

Re:Huh?

[red floyd]

The Brits tend to refer to companies in the plural.

again with the spellchecking...

[JVert]

Now I understand that slashdot is known to be spellcheck impared, but when your trying to googlebomb someone there isn't much of an excuse to screwing that up.

Re:again with the spellchecking...

[Anonymous Coward]

When will people learn not to criticise? Without fail, every criticism of spelling has some sort of mistake in it.

Let us review:

"... but when your trying to ..."

I assume that you meant "you are" or in this case "you're".

I do not wonder why our jobs are going to India.

Re:again with the spellchecking...

[jakoz]

"Impaired" has an "i" in it. And you misspelt it twice. Nice going.

Re:again with the spellchecking...

[Version6]

but when your trying

While your is spelled correctly, the correct word to use is you're.

Try it with a dash

[Anonymous Coward]

Google Search: litigious-bastards
and you get a link to a working SCO Server

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO is a group of litigious bastards, hence the plural form.

That's priceless...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope it makes the Zeitgeist.

Am I the only one...

[evanbd]

who skipped not only the article but the summary, to directly see what the latest round of SCO jokes was?

Re:Am I the only one...

[Anonymous Coward]

Been doing exactly that for quite some time now

Not seeing a problem

[HangingChad]

I know that everyone and their dog here at Slashdot hates SCO, but is it really necesscary to call them names?

Necessary is a matter of opinion. But it certainly is fun.

IANAL, but it seems that novell...

[capsteve]

...has delt a deathblow in to the sails of SCO's lawsuit...

legalese is not a plain language, but it seems pretty clear in this recent letter (read thru the eyes of a layman) that AT&T clearly sez that aside from the original source code, it lays no claim on any other work, i.e. "we made the foundation, and it is un-equivcocably ours, but what you build on top of our foundation is all yours."

looks like SCO is gonna have to take novell's instruction as to how thay can apply the license for unix...

DAD: I said "NO!"
DARL: but...
DAD: "NO!" means no! no "if", "ands" or "buts"!
DARL: but..
DAD: that's it. Go to your room until i tell you to come out.
DARL:... i was just...
DAD: sorry son. this is going to hurt me more that you.

Novell isnt a Utah company

[dmnic]

at least not anymore.
they are a Massachusetts company

Re:Novell isnt a Utah company

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it is. Or at least they are both true, in different senses.

Novell is a Utah company because that is their primary base of operation, or headquarters (Provo). In a legal sense, they are a Massachusetts company because they filed the legal papers there to form the company.

What do you mean no comment?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

What do you mean they have no comment? They have been trying to beat us over the head for months about matching comments in the Linux and Unix source code files!

Sigh.

[cperciva]

Why can't people learn to read?

1. Such right to use includes the right to modify such SOFTWARE PRODUCT and to prepare derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided the resulting materials are treated hereunder as part of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT.

To translate: Derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT can only be licensed to people who have licenses to the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT.

2. the August 1985 edition of $ echo explained that this sentence was added to assure licensees that AT&T will claim no ownership in the software that they developed

To translate: AT&T doesn't own those derivative works -- they're simply restricting licensees' ability to distribute derivative works.

Slashdot is supposed to be News for Nerds, not Propaganda for Nerds. There are three sides to this story: SCO's side, the anti-SCO side, and the truth. Only one side is appearing anywhere on slashdot, and it isn't the truth.

Wake up guys: Blind cheerleading isn't going to get Linux anywhere. The only way Linux can improve is if people are willing to accept that there might, just possibly, be something wrong with it.

Re:Sigh.

[soullessbastard]

Slashdot is supposed to be News for Nerds, not Propaganda for Nerds. There are three sides to this story: SCO's side, the anti-SCO side, and the truth. Only one side is appearing anywhere on slashdot, and it isn't the truth.

IANAL, but I do wonder if this propoganda is actually incredibly relevant to the case. It seems like the core issues aren't really copyright law or IP law, but rather based in contract law. The various sides are essentially arguing different interpretations of contract language, both of the sale of Unix to Caldera and of the initial license contracts between AT&T and other Unix developers. So...assuming a judge/jury would find the language unclear...what would a judge/jury use to choose one meaning over the other?

I'd have to think that this propoganda that purports to show the 'original intention' of the language would be used as evidence to back up one side's specific interpretation of the text. It'd probably be even more persuasive to a jury of people who don't possess contract grammar parsers. If it's already being used so dramatically in the court of public opinion, what's to prevent it from being used in court itself?

ed

Re:Sigh.

[cperciva]

Nice try. No court is going to interpret a contract based on what a very obviously biased community *wants* it to say.

Re:Sigh.

[soullessbastard]

Nice try. No court is going to interpret a contract based on what a very obviously biased community *wants* it to say.

I was also thinking about the other side's propoganda too. IIRC SCO made public claims last year that they have statements from former Novell executives at the time of the sale of Unix that indicated Novell intended to transfer all copyrights to SCO. I'm sure SCO has more of the same to back up their claims. What makes that type of argument different from Novell using $ echo? Neither are actually in the contract itself, but are rather supporting evidence for trying to interpret it "in context". I'm just curious to know if that style of defense actually counts in contract disputes.

ed

Re:Sigh.

[salesgeek]

To translate: AT&T doesn't own those derivative works -- they're simply restricting licensees' ability to distribute derivative works.

I don't read it the same way you do. I read it that derivitive works become part of the original product. The word "distribute" does not appear at all and none of the language has anything at all to do with who you can recieve a derivative product. The ammendment made in $echo very clearly fixes this in the agreement. It very elegantly prevents me from making a derivitave of the original product while clearly exempting additions and proprietary/add on components like JFS that are derivitave, but were not part of the product as supplied by AT&T.

Also the intent as described in @echo is key. It's clear that AT&T wanted it's customers to be able to add value to SYSV and protect their property rights, too.

Re:Sigh.

[cperciva]

Maybe I misunderstood you. Bringing in $ echo is perfectly valid.

The point I was trying to make is that the constant raving on slashdot about how SCO are litig[b]i[/b]ous bastards, and the rose-tinted goggles through which people view any statement from Novell/IBM/RedHat/Linus/etc. serve no purpose.

Re:Sigh.

[cperciva]

The word "distribute" appears elsewhere in the standard AT&T license.

Remember the BSD case? Berkeley had been distributing BSD code for a long time, and AT&T had no complaint because the people using it had UNIX licenses. As soon as CSRG started distributing BSD as a complete OS available to people who didn't pay for a UNIX license, AT&T filed suit.

Re:Sigh.

[soullessbastard]

the rose-tinted goggles through which people view any statement from Novell/IBM/RedHat/Linus/etc. serve no purpose

Yeah, I was more referring to the propoganda that's been effluving out of all of these companies in the form of press releases citing more evidence. The /. press spin rantings would probably be nearly as effective as calling a Magic 8-ball to the witness stand.

ed

Re:Sigh.

[cranos]

And then they lost the case.

Re:Sigh.

[salesgeek]

As soon as CSRG started distributing BSD as a complete OS available to people who didn't pay for a UNIX license, AT&T filed suit.

AT&T lost their case. SCO is trying to say:

You bought a barn from us. You raise chickens in the barn. All your chickens, horses and pigs are belong to us - and we also own the chicken coop out back and the furniture you bolted to the wall and BTW - that tractor over there - that's ours too.

Once you toss SCO's claim they own JFS... The only claim it appears SCO's got is a few header files and possibly 10 lines of code here and 10 lines of code there.

Re:Sigh.

[cperciva]

And then they lost the case.

No, they didn't. The BSD case was settled out of court, because AT&T had stolen BSD code.

Re:Sigh.

[TekPolitik]

To translate: AT&T doesn't own those derivative works -- they're simply restricting licensees' ability to distribute derivative works.

However, to be a derivative work for the purposes of copyright law, the work must contain a "substantial part" (in terms of substance, not quantity) of the prior work. SCO doesn't even pretend that the parts they are disputing with IBM would meet this description - they're trying to claim that if you developed it to attach to the UNIX kernel, it's a derivative work. The law simply doesn't work that way - SCO's position is laughably untenable.

Not necessarily

[Anonymous Coward]

As I have said before (and I know I post a lot on this site) SCO may not be violating the GPL by selling binary only runtime licenses. SCO are not distributing the kernel to recipients of the license. The license is for permission to use SCO IP that you are already running and have received from someone else.
(Assume the licensee did not receive the kernel from SCO.)

If you think carefully about this, it is not obvious that SCO can be regarded as violating the GPL in this scenario (again, assuming they did not distribute the kernel to the licensee).

What you say? SCO has distributed the kernel in the past? Well, they have a theory that they unknowingly were distributing their IP.

Just for an experiment, imagine that SCO never distributed their IP in the kernel (which would be the net result if their theory about unintentional distribution holds water). Or forget SCO, imagine Widget, Inc. company that has never had anything to do with Linux has their copyrighted code incorporated into a GPL product without their permission. How can this company be violating the GPL by accepting payment from someone else to use that code? Even if they attach some restrictions to the use of that code, restrictions that are incompatible with the GPL? Are you sure the Widget company is violating the GPL, and therefore infringing the copyrights of other people who voluntarily contributed their code to this product? It is not obvious to me.

ding! ding!

[GQuon]

Or sco.com is down, and Google doesn't link to downed sites. Not much of a conspiracy here, I'm afraid.

ding! ding!

Of course! Why didn't I think of that?
I sort of answered my own question, but I didn't understand it before you pointed it out to me. It seems so self-evident now.
(I'm not being sarcastic either. I guess I was to tired to think of it.)

Advice Mr. McBride.

[tetrahedrassface]

You would think by now people would learn. There are just some things one should never do.
1.) Never get involved in an Asian Land War.
2.) Never *assume the Acid is legit, without knowing who made it.
3.) Never, ever believe that Republicans or Dems are very different in philosophy or levels of corruption.
4.) Never ever fuck with Big Blue, unless you like the feeling of your anus getting stretched.
5.) Never bite the hand that feeds you unless you want to have your teeth kicked in.
This is just some advice Darl. I hope what life you will have before you after you get out of federal prison is enjoyable. See ya in 20!

Re:Advice Mr. McBride.

[0x0d0a]

4.) Never ever fuck with Big Blue, unless you like the feeling of your anus getting stretched.

Microsoft has fucked with IBM for years.

Re:Advice Mr. McBride.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but IBM may yet have the last laugh...

Re:Advice Mr. McBride.

[Queuetue]

Yup. And in the end, IBM will give that little punk a kick in the rear on the way out the door.

Re:Advice Mr. McBride.

[Anonymous Coward]

Land war in Asia worked for some people... I recall Alexander the Great conquered his way from Greece to India, and once even Muscovy was a small principality in Northwest Asia that grew by a number of wars into the Russian Empire. But the foremost example of successful land war in Asia was of course set by a certain guy who conquered most of the whole fucking continent in a lifetime, only to be let down by his sons and grandsons who soon became soft and lost their mettle. You just have to ask yourself: What is best in life?

What concerns me is...

[Malek the Damned]

the fact that SCO have nothing to say. After month and months of painting themselves fluro orange, attaching a halogen lamp to their foreheads and screaming at the top of their lungs in order to get everyone's attention, the last few things that have come out they've remained tight-lipped over.

I'd like to think they're either running out of things to say, or they've realised how much damage they were doing by spouting so much drivel.

But part of me just can't shake the feeling that something's up...

Note the date....

[ptbarnett]

Novell's letter is dated Friday, 2/6/2004.

It was sent via certified mail and FAX. So, Novell can probably demonstrate that SCO received the letter on 2/6/2004.

That was the day of the last court hearing, in which SCO continued to make unreasonable claims of ownership, despite clear evidence to the contrary from Novell. But, do you suppose the letter was received (and acknowledged) before the court hearing?

If and when the judge reads this letter and puts together the time line, what do you think she will do?

my 2 cents

[linuxwebadmin]

go get em novell!!!

Holy rumour mongering...

[Anonymous Coward]

Batman!

I was reading through the message boards on Yahoo! Finance for SCO, and there were several messages about RBC, TICC, and SCO, with the implication being that perhaps there was some illegal activity going on in the financing of SCO. I have not read anything about that on groklaw or /. and was wondering if anyone here knows anything about it.

Re:Holy rumour mongering...

[fferreres]

That's true. You can probe it easily. Their stock, instead of being higly volatile, and despite the strong indication that they not only can win the case, but that they don't even have the RIGHT to those claims, and despite the fact they have been lawfully revoked any right regarding those claims, based on the very same contract that granted them the (restricted) ownership of a SVRX, their stock has been maintained all day at a fixed value. A present value.

Somebody, for some reason, I forcing the stock not to fall. Once that "someone" is identified, and it's verified they operate in Bahamas o Caiman, then we'll know it was something very much illegal.

What you will never know is who ordered that SCOX should not go below certain threshold...unless Mr McBride talks in order to avoid jail.

Re:Holy rumour mongering...

[BigFire]

I cannot speak for the previous period. But recently, SCOX restructured their PIPE finance/loan from Baystar/Royal Canadian Bank to have a floor price of conversion for the $50 Million invested. Thus, Baystar would be guarentee of their initial investment. Should the stock price falls below the floor price, SCOX have to pay the difference.

Since the trade volume is so light, it doesn't take much effort of trading amounst friends to maintain the price.

12:00 MDT != noon (nitpick)

[McFly777]

Isn't MDT the abbreviation for Mountain Daylight-savings Time? As it is currently the winter half of the year I think they probably meant MST (Mountain Standard Time).

12:00 MDT = 11:00 MST

Therefore, per Novell's letter, SCO has until 11:00 tomorrow.

I know, I know... what does it really matter...

I run litigiousbastards.com

[herrvinny]

Yeah, I run litigiousbastards.com, as well as scolawsuit.com, scoreport.com, ibmlawsuit.com, scocountdown.com, etc. Just wanted to note that I am extremely happy with the Google Bomb. even though sco is not the first hit, the point still gets across.

Re:I run litigiousbastards.com

[br0ck]

Well done! One thought that occurs to me is that you could consider running a reverse google-bomb as well as in The SCO Group (or variations) giving The SCO Group. Right now the people that find your site are the typing 'litigious bastards' which means they already know about the efforts to affect rankings, however, someone just looking for information about SCO will not currently find your site.

Wait...Wait...Wait.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they saying that SCO could actually be LYING about this case?

No..... not SCO...

Correction

[GQuon]

Sorry for remembering incorrectly.
The clue to your theory * was not in the post you replied to, but this post of mine from earlier.

With that sorted, I have to lie down for a while.

*: sco not being in the list for bastards because they were down at the time bastards was indexed by google

Re:Huh?

[Pharmboy]

SCO have no comment

Who writes this stuff? Yoda?

No, that would be:

SCO, comment have they not.

Get It Right!

[Anonymous Coward]

1) You misspelled litigious bastards.

2)The SCO website has moved from http://www.sco.com/ to http://sco.com/

3) Here's the correct way to do it: litigious bastards

4) Just in case you missed the last one: litigious bastards

5) One more time for the dummies: litigious bastards

6) Wheee this is fun! litigious bastards

7) Pant!Pant! litigious bastards

8) Hmm, I seem to have had an orgasm... litigious bastards ...

Re:Get It Right!

[Alsee]

9) ???

10) NO PROFIT!

-

Reading is one thing...

[Indigenous Cowbird]

... understanding "derivative work" is another. If I correct the spelling and grammar in your post, I've created a derivative work. I can't repost it without your permission. If I add my own insight to the corrected version of your post, I've created a derivative work. I can't repost it without your permission. If I extract my own insight from that derivative version, such that none of your own words are left, it's no longer a derivative work. It's mine, all mine, and I can do what I bloody well please with it. Sometimes, there *is* truth to be found on /.

Re:Reading is one thing...

[cperciva]

If I extract my own insight from that derivative version, such that none of your own words are left, it's no longer a derivative work. It's mine, all mine, and I can do what I bloody well please with it.

Absolutely. However, you haven't signed a contract with me which requires that any derivative works you produce must be treated as if I wrote them. If you had -- as SCO is alleging that IBM &c. did -- then your two derivative works would have to be treated as they were mine, which means that your extracted insight -- a derivative work of your earlier derivative work -- would have to be treated as a derivative work of something I produced, even thought it wasn't.

Re:Reading is one thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

If we stick at bad analogies:

If you have written a book, and I write a back cover for it, When I publish your book with my back cover, we have a derived work.

However, If I distribute the back cover without the book, It is fully written by me and my property, not a derived work of the book.

So even if you and I have an agreement that I treat derived works as you write them, it does not apply to the derived work.

The law defines that to be classifed as a derivate work, SIGNIFICANT parts of the orginal work must be part of it.

Ofcourse it is possible that the contracts have an more viral definition of derivate works, I havent read the contracts and I believe my head would hurt If I would..

Penguin Blood Fiasco

[buford_tannen]

This has been posted before. But it's getting more relevant with every SCO story lately:

http://www.ubergeek.tv/fiasco/index.php?size=big

Enjoy!

Re:Penguin Blood Fiasco

[ShawnX]

HAHAHAHA That is cool, that just brightened my loooong day :-)

regarding your sig...

[Anonymous Coward]

swastika characters are part of the unicode standard. Check these suckers out: \u534d, \u5350

Re:Huh?

[eviltypeguy]

Yoda is British? Whoa.

Re: Whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the latest virus trying to take control of of that machine.

$ echo: weak, 4.16(b) strong, but too late?

[peterw]

I agree the $ echo citation is really weak, and seems to add nothing to the IBM/Novell argument. (I think your interpretation is actually pretty generous to Sequent: I don't see even $ echo giving Sequent the rights to release its derivatives to other Unix licensees.)

Section 4.16(b), as cited by Novell ("Under Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Novell retains the right at Novell's sole discretion and direction, to require SCO to amend, supplement, modify, or waive any rights under, or...assign any rights to, any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect by [Novell]. ") looks much more interesting.

But here's the big question: even if we do assume this section of the APA allows Novell to force SCO to accept changes to a licensee's contract, is it too late to change Sequent's license? Even if we assume that Novell's language ("Novell hereby directs SCO to waive any purported right SCO may claim to require Sequent (or IBM as its successor) to treat Sequent Code as subject to the confidentiality obligations or use restrictions of Sequent's SVRX license") suffices to allow Sequent to contribute its software to the GPL'ed Linux project, might that grant by Novell only apply to future contributions by Sequent?

This seems like a fairly simple contract law issue (as many have pointed out, the cases clearly seem to revolve around contract law) -- let's assume that SCO is correct in maintaining that Sequent's license forbade Sequent from contributing Unix-contaminated code to Linux. Let's assume that SCO is correct in asserting that it suffered damages from Sequent/IBM's contributions to Linux. Even if Sequent is allowed to freely contribute code starting on Feb 11, is SCO not entitled to some "relief" for damages it claims to have suffered before Novell granted such rights to Sequent?

Re:$ echo: weak, 4.16(b) strong, but too late?

[cperciva]

Section 4.16(b), as cited by Novell ("Under Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Novell retains the right at Novell's sole discretion and direction, to require SCO to amend, supplement, modify, or waive any rights under, or...assign any rights to, any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect by [Novell]. ") looks much more interesting.

IANAL, and I haven't read the contract... but I'm skeptical about any argument which says "yeah, remember that contract we signed? Well, we're going to unilaterally change the terms."

I know this is common practice with EULAs, but I doubt SCO would have signed anything which was really that one-sided.

Re:$ echo: weak, 4.16(b) strong, but too late?

[fferreres]

You always waive AFTER THE FACT, so yes, Novell is telling SCO two things: first, how the license should be interpreted, and has always been. Second, that they "forgive" Sequent of any misintepration the contract they signed may have caused, basically telling SCO that Sequent code, and IBM code, are not under confidentialy agrement, and that they are free to do with it as they please.

Re:$ echo: weak, 4.16(b) strong, but too late?

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't asking SCO to change the contract. The issue is the SVRX License. They are allowed to ask SCO to change the license according to the contract. There are two seportate legal documents here. They aren't really asking to change the license either, just asking SCO follow the origional intent, not something Darl and friends cooked up years later.

If you're going to try...

[11223]

While I appreciate the effort to attempt to make SCO show up on the #1 search for a negative term like that, it doesn't help when you spell it wrong. It's "litigious", not "litigous".

Re:If you're going to try...

[petabyte]

You know what's going to be worse? When people type it into google and it goes: 'Did you mean "litigous bastard"?'

Ah well ...

Re:If you're going to try...

[Anonymous Coward]

While I appreciate the effort to attempt to make SCO show up on the #1 search for a negative term like that, it doesn't help when you spell it wrong. It's "litigious", not "litigous".

Wait, this is SlashDot, home of the devil-may-care attitude about spelling by the Linux fanboyz... you expect them to care about one stinking little "i"?

Of course, there's an "i" in Intellectual Property...

Re:If you're going to try...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, misspelling it probably had more of an effect, due to all the people that posted corrected links.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank God we don't act just like the Brits or we would all have bad teeth, smelly BO and disgusting food.

Yup, plus...

[Anonymous Coward]

My company competes with IBM on the software side (not going to say what area exactly, since it would narrow the possibilities to about 3 companies) and our licensing AND services revenue together are a drop in the ocean for the overall behemoth that is IBM.

As your sometime competitor I can guarantee to the other /.-izens that IBM wants to make money on software. If this were not the case the IBM sales folks would walk into competative sales situations against our sales guys and tell the prospective customers "This stuff is good and it is free to boot. Welcome aboard." At that point our sales guys would shit their pants and walk out defeated.

Unless the software is crap, free beats not most of the time.

Since this is not what happens, it is obvious that IBM charges for their software just like we do. IBM wins some sales, we win a few more (its the only thing we do, and not IBM's sole focus) and the world goes 'round.

sigh........let's start over

[gavri]

litigious bastards

Here's hoping for a long slow death...

[Anonymous Cowabunga]

At first I was hoping that SCO would be quickly wiped from the face of the earth, but now I'm beginning to enjoy watching them slowly hang themselves. Otherwise, what would we have to read on Slashdot and Groklaw? Cheers, SCO, here's wishing you a long slow decline (much like your stock price), as your attorneys suck the money out of your coffers, and the shareholder lawsuits pile up...a quick death is too good for you guys.

duh.

[cperciva]

I meant litigious bastards, of course. Too long on web boards...

Re:Huh?

[7-Vodka]

Damn it neo, I said for you to take the BLUE PILL!

Re:Huh?

[zsau]

In some parts of the world (i.e. Britain, Australia), groups (companies etc.) take plural verbs and pronouns. Thus it seemed perfectly fine to me. English is not, and has never been, a standardised language.

Re:Huh?

[warkda rrior]

Short, green, and wrinkly... hmmm, sounds about right.

Incorrect or Unexpected Message from SCO

[n2rjt]

Okay, so I went to the sco.com website, and typed "litigious bastards" into the search line, and it came back with a popup:
sco.com has sent an incorrect or unexpected message. Error code -12281

Questar...

[ddavis539]

Is a natural gas utility company operating in Utah. I can't believe they would waste money on linux licenses. I would love to know how much they wasted on licensing fees.

Maybe it's just a coincidence, but they recently raised everyones rates substantially. For example my bill for January was almost $300, which is triple what a normal winter gas bill would be. They claim it has to do with high demand for natural gas, but I wonder if they are attempting to recoup their linux license fees to SCO as well.

The public utility commission is going to get an earful from me tomorrow!

GPL

[gd2shoe]

While were on the subject, does anyone know how much SCO charges for a Unixware license? That could be interesting, for example:

Suppose they charged $699 for both the Linux license and Unixware, but only claimed 20% of a given distribution (I don't know what the percent would be, probably much lower). That would constitute putting a price on their IP. Meaning that they were charging .2 * 699 for their IP and .8 * 699 for someone else's code.

Any other thoughts?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's valid grammar in Europe. If they're referring to a group that has more than one person, they treat it as referring to multiple people instead of a singular organization. So "SCO have" would be the same as "they have" instead of our approach of "it has." Dunno if that makes sense.

The Wookie Offense

[MuParadigm]

Would we call that "The Wookie Offense"?

Re:The Wookie Offense

[LittleBigLui]

"The Wookie Offense"... hmm... that does not make sense.

seems like the perfect name :)

Re:The Wookie Offense

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't it the Wookie Defense.. Oh... You're probably right. SCO probably thinks it works for the attack as well. Nevermind..

Where to file this...

[Kippesoep]

Reading the Groklaw transcripts, I can't help but wonder how much trouble the legal clerks will have in filing this. Does it go under "Courtroom drama" (dramatic is what it will be for SCO), under "Courtroom comedy" or "Poetic justice, the making of..."? We all should send Darl McBride a nickel in an envelope. Not only will we get the satisfaction of slashdotting by snail mail, but he'll need all the charity he can get once IBM and Novell have waltzed over him.

Please don't Googlebomb

[Quantum Jim]

Sigh. Am I the only person who thinks that Googlebombing is childish? It's basically the same technique spammers use to pervert their popularity on the search engine. Worse, it prevents surfers from getting undisturpted, unbaised information about a topic. For instance, how can Bush be both a miserable failure and a great president! These PageRanks make no logical sence when taken together, but googlebombing disrupted the normal weights for Bush on these topics. I don't care what the intentions are, purposely trying to change Google's PageRank is wrong.

Re:Please don't Googlebomb

[FurryFeet]

Yeah. Because there are a lot of people legitimately searching for "litigious bastards".
It's a bit of harmless fun. Get over it.

Re:Please don't Googlebomb

[magnanimous cowherd]

Doh! George W Bush isn't a miserable failure. Currently the big winner for being a miserable failure is Michael Moore.

Re:Please don't Googlebomb

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't followed the link and read the letter now did you?

Re:Please don't Googlebomb

[magnanimous cowherd]

Actually I have, and the link was the top of miserable failure before the leter was there.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was a student in Edinburgh some years ago we used to play a game when sitting outside the cafe's and bars in the summer, especially around festival time.

"Spot the American"

Point were awarded for distance from target when identified and difficulty of identification - so for example wearing tartan trousers was a major points hit as the only people who ever did that were americans.

Passers-by were fair target from the point at which they came into view until they were near enough you could hear the accent - when points were awarded.

After a few months we got so good at this we could invariably spot any american at a hundred metres with a % success rate well into the upper 90's. It then took us quite some time to figure why we were so good at it - what was it we were subconciously spotting that flagged up 'AMERICAN'?

Eventually we figured it, subcutanious fat. Americans invariably seem to be so stuffed full of an unhealthy 'go-large' diet from gradle that there's a sort of smooth unblemished look to them. Something not quite natural. Anyway once you catch on they're quite easy to tell from real people.

The medics among us tried to develop a theory that this explained their obnoxious behaviour too, something about too much saturated fat in their neurotransmitters changing brain pathways, but the rest of us grew tired of the sport and moved on to the far greater challenge of distinguishing australians from kiwis

Please come back

[EachLennyAPenny]

when you made up your mind about what we poor non-English native speakers should learn.

Damn Skippy! 'Yeeeeaaaaaahhh!'

[Chordonblue]

It's not as if the mainstream press seems to pay any attention to Slashdot anyway. If they did, we'd undoubtedly see more 'on-target' and useful articles (or at least a few repeated ones :) from the mainstream.

This site isn't there for them anyway. And it's no secret that Slashdot has a pro-Linux bias generally. Big fscking deal. Call it like you see it. It part of what won over this previously Microsoft-supporting user. Passion, when honest, isn't necessarily wrong. In fact, in today's mediocre world, where a single 'Yeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaahhh' speech can lose you a campaign, it's quite refreshing.

If having a SCO update every other day (hell, sometimes TWICE a day) isn't enough to prove this readership's general sense of injustice, then what is?

Most fellow geeks respect Asimov's quote from the Foundation series - you know, the one from Hardin that goes, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Nonetheless, I haven't seen so many tech people this pissed since the old C= days.

Litigous Bastards? Damn right, and then some.

The GPL and IBM's Counterclaim

[Chordonblue]

There's nothing wrong with selling the code in binary form - just as long as you can produce the GPL source code you used (as per the license).

Now IBM on the other hand is arguing an interesting point in their counterclaim. They are saying that SCO are not living up to their agreements because of the lawsuits. According to the GPL, SCO are not allowed to claim ownership on GPL'd code or sue to assert any sort of rights to it. IBM has therefore 'pulled' their right to use any code GPL'd by IBM (and there's a lot of it).

Now, 'pulled' is in quotes because obviously SCO is still distributing (or we can assume they are), some of IBM's GPL-based contributions. This is similar to the way SCO 'pulled' IBM's right to distribute AIX. IBM disputes that right due to wording of the license. SCO disputes the right of IBM's assertion by saying the GPL itself is invalid.

If the trial ever gets to the point of validating the GPL, it will be interesting to hear SCO's side of this one. To quote 'Airplane':

'They bought their tickets, they KNEW what they were getting into... I say, LET 'EM CRASH!'

SCO (previously Caldera) played by the same rules as everyone else when they willingly and actively contributed to the GPL. To all of a sudden claim that the GPL is invalid after YEARS of contribution to it is ridiculous! If SCO makes it through the lawsuit without losing their business it will be a miracle.

It's kind of a shame too because this has nothing to do with the programmers, dealers, users, and other stakeholders. This is about lawyers and corporate exec scumbags enjoying their retirement on some tropical paradise.

That's not trolling

[NaveWeiss]

it's just a joke on your expense.

SCO office looks awfully like the Nmovell office

[natd]

I just popped by their homepage, and decided to read the "5 reasons to use UNIX over LINUX" and noticed that they have the exact same photo of staff in an office as Novell have on support.novell.com

So, a stock photo? The same web developer or....ah! It's Utah, they just LOOK like the same people ;)

We're All Switching TO SCO Unix Now !

[Anonymous Coward]

http://sco.com/5reasons/#2

How do you accuarately describe SCO?

[jotaeleemeese]

For the life of mine, I can't come with a different sentence.

Are they litigious? Well, I think I don't need to answer that one.

Are they bastards? Lets see:
- fraudulent; having a misleading appearance
- A person, especially one who is held to be mean or disagreeable

So what is exactly your point?

THE BBC claims are still unsubstantiated, no matter how much we may rant on this site.

Re:Insta-Consensus

[Queuetue]

Are you cold or something?

Bullshit.

[jotaeleemeese]

You are calling for the law of the jungle, everybody able to be judge, jury, executor and even accusing part.

I don't want part of such world, even evil people have a right to be protected and respected. Those gurantees for the worst in our societies will ensure that we live with freedom and without fear of unfair prosecutions and retribution.

Re:Bullshit.

[(void*)]

You seem to have missed this paragraph:

Call it vigilanteism if you want, but when a company can get away with obviously "wrong" activities simply because they haven't broken any existing laws, I for one consider it "justice" that they have a fed-up mob come after them to burn them at the stake.

Basically, he is not calling for the law of the jungle. He is saying that when laws fail, then the mob rules - which is the truth. If anything - this understanding shows WHY we need laws, and also WHY it not good to respect only the law and nothing else.

Re:Bullshit.

[HiThere]

What he's saying is that it's proper to resist tyranny with force. Or possibly "Sic semper tyrannis!"

Now one must be aware of the dangers inherrent in this approach. But one of the only things holding the tyrants, and would be tyrants, in check is that some people will go to irrational lengths to avenge a wrong. (Look it up in recent studies on evolutionary biology of behavior...I got my summary from either New Scientist, Science News, or both, but if you feel like it they referred to more scholarly journals.)

P.S.: "Sic semper tyrannis!", as I remember, was the call that lead to the assination of Julius Caesar, and the total collapse of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. (It might have survived J.C., as it had survived prior one-reign dictatorships. We'll never know.) So it's definitely not an approach without it's dangers.

Re:Huh?

[thempstead]

no, that'd be:

SCO: No comment we have

t

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Spot the American"

Right, that does it: FLAME ON:

Not much to do in the dole queue, eh?

Yeah, Americans are well-fed. That could have something to do with having an economy that isn't strangled by git after marxist git getting elected to parliament and giving you lazy bastards your student grants to get you ready for you life of slavery to the government teat.

Every Scot who's worth a damn emigrates to Australia or the USA like my family did. The rest of you just sit around bitching about the Sassenach and singing songs about Charlie fucking Stuart and socialism and the highland clearances.

You'd do better to quit finding ways to have a titter over how clever you think you are, and start thinking about why America's on top. It's because America is made up of the people who had the initiative to get here. We've gotten wave after wave of the best people from every nation on earth for the last four centuries.

BTW, congratulations on getting your own parliament again. When you have an economy, maybe someone will take you seriously.

Transcript

[BenjyD]

Man that transcript is funny. The SCO lawyers behave like kids caught not paying attention in class - the judge says his bit, the IBM lawyer gives his part of the case, then the SCO lawyer suddenly notices everyone is looking at him and it's his turn, panics, leaps up and says "Show us the AIX code", sits down and drifts off again.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohhhh, hark at her with her inferiority complex.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Even more amusing with his/her comments.
Marxist government? Guffaw!

The last "left wing" or "socialist" government in the UK was back in 1979! Probably not even old enough to have seen that year, let alone comment on it.

Student grants? Ha! OK, scots get a little more in that area than the rest of the UK, where there ARE no grants, only loans loans and more loans (unless your family's on the poverty line)

Class Action

[jjp5421]

There should be a class action lawsuit for anyone that bought a UNIXWARE linux license.

Re:Class Action

[Ernest]

why ? they are getting screwed worse than anybody else.

Exact Assement...

[navak]

And some of you accused the BBC of making an unfounded claim when they said this:
"If anyone's anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source). So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus and its variants are internet vandals with a specific grudge."

Except that in this case, it is not vandalism, because it is a extremely precise and accurate assessment. Vandalism != exact truth.

• 1) Are they litigious? Definitly. SCO expects 10-15 millions revenue per quarter, and to spend 4-5 millions per quarter on legal expenses. 33 to 50% of their revenue is spent on legal expenses by their own expectations (reality can be worse).
• 2) Are they bastards? Definitly. First SCO was initiated as Caldera, trying to earn money on hard work of others (who were ok for that), and then suddenly, it has the nerve to tell the world those Linux contributors are a bunch of thieves acting contrary to US constitution, and that they, SCO, are entitled payment on each Linux installation. Not only that, but they engaged a PR campaign, producing lie after lie, slander after slander, in which they dragged in the mud at each single turn the very Linux contributors on the work of which they had capitalized and still plan to capitalize. Not to mention that obviously they knew they were telling lies all the way (no code thief produced as evidence at the trial, SCO contracts with IBM, SCO dispute with Novell). And that they still tried to pressure the random Joe Linux user by threats. Their actions earn them a well deserved title of "bastards" (following the definition of Worldnet: bastard, [...] n 1: insulting terms of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous [syn: asshole, cocksucker, dickhead, shit, mother fucker, motherfucker, prick, whoreson, son of a bitch, SOB]

In conclusion, I would say that calling SCO litigious bastards is not only an exact truth, but also if one unsuspecting person wanted to find an example of litigious bastards in the IT industry, it would only be fair that Google would return them in first position.

SCO guy's book on Unix internals

[character sequence]

Wow, talk about a bad time to publish your book on the internals of SCO Unix! You've got to feel sorry for the guys that actually used to write and support the code at SCO - apparently the author (Steve D. Pate) is a senior engineer there. See http://www.aplawrence.com/Books/scounixint.html

Just to point out...

[iceT]

It says that it will halt the CUSTOMER LAWSUITS. Not the IBM LAWSUIT.

SCO's claim to charge customers for copyright infringement has been 'iffy' at best. IANAL, but, if an author is plagiarized in another authors book, the original author cannot sue people who BOUGHT the book. They really can only pursue the author and/or the publish company that actually COMMITTED the plagiarism, because thats where the crime is (allegedly).

Litigous?

[tommck]

No such word. Perhaps you meant LitigIous?

H'mmm... I've been saying from the beginning...

[Simon Brooke]

I've been saying from the beginning that the reason SCO can't produce the code of 'theirs' which they claim has been copied into Linux is because they've never actually seen it. Now they confirm exactly that:

MR. HEISE: ... We have given the technology based upon the information we have. The answers to interrogatories that they are complaining say, yes, but for those given technologies you have not identified the specific lines. What we have said in our answers to interrogatories is we can't identify those specific lines because it comes from your confidential code which we don't have access to yet.

[Grocklaw's emphasis]

Rumor has it...

[Anonymous Coward]

After month and months of painting themselves fluro orange, attaching a halogen lamp to their foreheads and screaming at the top of their lungs in order to get everyone's attention, the last few things that have come out they've remained tight-lipped over.

Rumor has it that the judge gave them a severe dressing-down in that closed-door meeting.

My guess is that they were either told "STFU", or the judge told them that their public actions were undermining their case, and that their lawyers finally convinced the SCOundrels that talking to the press about ongoing litigation was a really, really, really, really, really stupid thing to be doing.

Re:Huh?

[BigBadBri]

What is this 'British' of which you speak?

Re:Huh?

[happyfrogcow]

explain his bad teeth that does, yes?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

English is not, and has never been, a standardised language.

It's been standardised many times by many people in many countries. :-)

Re:derivative code: diff b/w IBM/Sequent contracts

[peterw]

I never bookmarked it, but there was a piece (on Groklaw, I believe) that highlighted the difference between the SCO/Unix contracts entered into by IBM and Sequent. The gist of the difference is that IBM's contract included language that seemed to clearly, explicitly give them the rights to do what they wanted to with any Unix-related code that IBM created. It does not appear that Sequent license had such language. There seemed to be an implication that Sequent had a fairly standard contract, and IBM's had been altered with regards to rights IBM retained over its "derivative works". Was IBM's language modification a clarification of the intent of the standard contract (as Novell would like to suggest), or an alteration designed to give IBM rights that other Unix licensees did not have (as SCO would suggest)?

It seems important to note that the "derivative works" section can be read as a restriction in rights of use and redistribution -- not, as SCO would actually prefer, as transfering ownership of code. This makes good sense. The GPL allows you to take my source code & modify it however you'd like, as long as it's for your own use. The GPL does not say that I will own any of your derivative code. But it does say that you cannot distribute your derivative works except under the terms of the GPL.

That's all SCO's claiming with its SysV license: that licensees can do what they want with the code, but cannot redistribute their source with some arbitrary license.

The difference between SCO claiming that the "derivative works" clause gives them ownership of derivatives and the IMO reasonable interpretation that the "derivative works" clause prohibits re-distribution (among other possibilities) as GPL'ed code is this: the "ownership" interpretation gives SCO a copyright claim (it's their code!) while the "redistribution" interpretation leaves SCO with a contract law case (they own the code, but they're not allowed to do *that* with it!).

OpenUNIX

[Craig]

So, what do either of them have to lose by simply releasing all of their newly acquired copyrights and licenses into the public domain?

In fact, when there was a real Caldera, Ransom Love (then CEO) did release the source to many of the "classic" versions of UNIX publicly under a BSD-style license. If I recall correctly, he was asked about releasing the most recent versions (the various SysVs) and replied to the effect that he would have liked to, but there was so much third-party IP in it that it would have taken a couple of lawyer-years to make it releasable.

In retrospect, much of that third-party IP might have been Novell's, since they were/are still collecting royalties based on their purchase of the AT&T/USL copyrights. Hmmmm.....

Craig

Re:Huh?

[maja33]

>SCO have no comment
>
>Who writes this stuff? Yoda?

Sorry, wrong movie.

"SCO have no comment, SCO needs no comment."

Forgive me PJ!

Based on earlier successful legal defense -

[undef]

If the (silly SCO) suit doesn't fit, you must acquit.

Re:Huh?

[CdnYoda]

Confused, you are! Obviously, there are several Yoda throughout the universe. The Canadian one, I be! :-) Perhaps there will be some little yodas to come! ;-) Ah, these young padwans today...not like it was 500 years ago...so impatient, they are!

Re:Huh?

[CdnYoda]

...sigh...

ah...these young, new padwans, we have. Understand, they do not...

SCO: comment, they have not!

English, my second language, it is! My language, would you like to try?! ;-)