Slashdot Mirror


Open Source Group Victoria v. SCO, Part II

Following up on last July's complaint, Elektroschock writes that "The Open Source Group Victoria (OSV) made a second complaint to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). In a similar case in Germany SCO Group received an injunction from the court, so SCO never sold Linux licenses in Germany (tarent vs. SCO, district court Munich). Competition police seems to be a strong weapon against SCO-like action."

69 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. Injunction? by beni1207 · · Score: 5, Funny

    SCO never sold licenses in Germany because of an injunction? Have they sold any licenses anywhere? Didn't think so....

    1. Re:Injunction? by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Informative

      They claim to have sold a handful to unnamed companies.

      I think Darl said something like "we solicited 14 companies and over 40% of them licensed it" So I guess that means about 5 companies.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Injunction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lyrical: "Injunction, junction, what's your function()...?"

      *sorry*

    3. Re:Injunction? by Talence · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Didn't Microsoft allegedly buy licenses from them?

      --
      I plan to plan / Dutch course in The Hague
    4. Re:Injunction? by Lord+of+Ironhand · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny but also insightful! They haven't sold any because they can go to prison for selling something they don't own. You won't get a license even if you beg for it.

    5. Re:Injunction? by stonebeat.org · · Score: 4, Funny

      there website has to be online before they sell anything ;)

    6. Re:Injunction? by Ieshan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think this might be a really interesting idea.

      Suppose we got a group of people together and bought a SCO Linux License. I mean, would we ever get anything for the 700 bucks we give them? It's illegal if we *don't*, I just wonder what exactly they'd give us if we asked for one of these things [as I can't imagine many people in their right minds have ever bought them].

      I think it'd be interesting to put all the material one gets for buying a license online. Not pirated stuff, I just mean photocopies of the documents, etc. It would bring new light to how ridiculous this situation really is.

    7. Re:Injunction? by wfbush · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Injunction junction, what's your function()...?"

      Puttin' together orders, and lawsuits, and judgements...

      Not that there's gonna be any judgements any time soon, SCO's just gonna keep dragging this out...

    8. Re:Injunction? by kfg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You cannot buy a license from SCO. People have tried. If you ask for one they will refuse to sell it to you.

      The only way to obtain a license is if you are a large company in collusion with them or threatened with suit by them.

      An interesting fact is that while we know of the licenses they have sold in collusion (Sun and Microsoft), and we know of companies that have refused SCO's advances (Lehman Brothers, et al), we do not know anything about those few companies SCO seems to claim have otherwise purchased a license.

      Interesting, no? Could one, perhaps, make a crude guess as to what one of the terms of the license agreement is?

      KFG

    9. Re:Injunction? by telekon · · Score: 5, Informative
      They licensed both the source code and UNIX patents from SCO... This article has the details.

      I was curious as to why they would do this. MS Services for UNIX is the likely reason, but my theory is that after working for over twenty years to come up with an operating system and only managing to come up with Windows XP, they wanted to see how an OS is supposed to work.

      Apple did the same thing... well, no, they bought a company that owned UNIX licenses and used an open-source kernel.

      --

      To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

    10. Re:Injunction? by Clockwurk · · Score: 5, Troll

      The company I work for bought SCO liscenses for our GNU/Linux workstations and servers. We didn't want to have any legal hassles irregardless of how the SCO suits turn out. They weren't that expensive compared to our other software liscenses and the peace of mind was well worth the cost (kinda like buying something from apple, you know there won't be any hassles, even if the initial cost is slightly higher).

      We didn't pay a liscense fee when we switched over to GNU/Linux, but even with the $699 fee, GNU/Linux was still the best deal for our company.

    11. Re:Injunction? by mrbuttle · · Score: 5, Informative

      We DO know who bought licenses from SCO. In Mark Heise's response to IBM's letter about missing discovery items, he says there are only three that he knows of, Computer Associates, Questar and Leggett & Platt. Links here or here.

    12. Re:Injunction? by thestarz · · Score: 4, Funny

      kinda like buying something from apple

      You just compared Apple with SCO and got modded +3, Informative. Nice one!

      --

      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    13. Re:Injunction? by toast0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You do know that microsoft put out Xenix, which was a very popular unix in the early 80's right? They probably still have the source code for that hanging around somewhere

    14. Re:Injunction? by RoLi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Darl sais a lot of things.

      Darl also said that SCO would sue a Linux user by now.

      Darl also said that millions of lines of code were their property.

    15. Re:Injunction? by kfg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Interesting. I missed that.

      It's also interesting that the reference is to a failure of SCO to produce license agreement documentation under the terms of discovery, to which SCO basically replies:

      "We'll get around to it. Honest."

      SCO is going to a fair amount of trouble to ensure that the general run of people do not see their licensing terms and documentation. Up to, and including, refusal to sell the license they are demanding as their right.

      KFG

    16. Re:Injunction? by Nurseman · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Funny but also insightful! They haven't sold any because they can go to prison for selling something they don't own. You won't get a license even if you beg for it.

      There was a post from someone on Groklaw A while back, sorry I can't find it. But the guy basically called 5-6 times, trying to buy a license, they said "Um, Uh, we'll get back to you on that". They never called. I agree, they are not selling them, because they are not sure they can.

      --
      Save a Life. Donate Blood. Please.
    17. Re:Injunction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      SCO has the source to Xenix, because Microsoft sold that operating system to SCO back in the 80s and it became SCO Unix.

    18. Re:Injunction? by utlemming · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If that was the case (where you could only buy a license if you were approached by them) that *is* extortion. And because they are only selling to people that they choose, they are either discriminating or extorting. If they are discriminating then people that have been charged a license should find out how many have been turned away and file a dicrimination law suit. If it is extortion then those that have been charged should file a law suit allegeing rackateering, conspiracy to commit extortion and extortion. You cannot go around and say that if you don't pay a license you will be sued and then refuse to sell to people that don't meet your profile. What I would like to see is someone that was refused a license sued because on reconsideration, SCO decided they needed one. That would be a great case in court. Then another legal front would be for people that have been turned away for a license should sue and ask the court for a permament injunction barring any legal action against them. Those that would be bring such a suit should only accept "indemification" if that word works, from SCO as the terms of the settlement. Just some legal idea. IANAL.

      --
      The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
    19. Re:Injunction? by ZeeTeeKiwi · · Score: 3, Informative
      You cannot buy a license from SCO. People have tried. If you ask for one they will refuse to sell it to you.

      Unfortunately that's not true. If you're really keen to give away your life savings and open yourself up to never ending litigation ("contracts are what you use against your customers" - Darl) you can buy one online here:

      http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/linuxlicense. html

    20. Re:Injunction? by dmaxwell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And will your legal department have the gumption to sue SCO for fraud when IBM, Novell, and RedHat finish whooping up on them? Your company just paid SCO for something they don't own.

      What is the address of your company's billing department? Since its all that easy to beat money out of them, I figure I can make some shit up and get them to pay me too.

    21. Re:Injunction? by kfg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Fascinating!

      Making it even more interesting that SCO claims all of 10 licensees in their IBM suit. I'd guess Slashdot is about to give them more traffic than these pages have ever had before.

      Of particular interest is the License FAQ page. Bits of it are a real hoot.

      Also of note is the fact that it only allows use of Linux in binary form, explicitly disallowing the possesion of source code. So the only Linux distros that would be in legal compliance would be those that do not distribute source with the binaries.

      So if you bought a SCO license and then downloaded a Mandrake .iso you would be in violation unless you also purchased a source license. And if you go to the source license page you find this:

      SCOsource is a SCO business division that manages its UNIX(R) System intellectual property. The charter of this division is to create new and innovative licensing programs to meet the changing demands of today's market and to protect its intellectual property asset.

      Followed by an ad for their binary only license.

      The plot grows thicker.

      KFG

    22. Re:Injunction? by jepaton · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not necessarily, they could sell a list of all the Trojan infected hosts flooding their network. Perhaps that might be a more viable business plan than suing IBM et al.

    23. Re:Injunction? by loftis · · Score: 3, Funny

      Open Source possess code of mass (us) destruction.

      We are sure of this. We know it. Believe us, it's there.

      IBM put it there.

      We must invade (AIX) IBM to show you, though.

      --
      Developing Retail Point-of-Sale Software
    24. Re:Injunction? by telekon · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Snideness was intended only regarding Microsoft, not Apple. OS X is very cool, and clearly a lot of innovation went into it.

      However, I do think the old Mac OS was crap. And it was a fusion of NeXT and *BSD unixes that created the core of OS X.

      I'll calmly ignore the Linux remark. But my roommate's seven year old daughter hasn't had any problems with my Debian box. And debian is solid, flexible, powerful... well, it was more solid before I upgraded to testing.

      The only upside I see to OS X is that Mac users aren't being subjected to frivolous litigation by a nervous company.

      --

      To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

    25. Re:Injunction? by AhBeeDoi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The whole Linux license fee is a ploy anyway. It's purpose is sowing FUD to existing and prospective Linux users to pressure IBM. License fees are chump change compared to getting IBM to buy them out to make the lawsuit go away.

      Just think about the facts of the lawsuit. SCO no longer claims line by line copying of millions of lines of Unix code into Linux, but that IBM's contribution of AIX and Dynix code developed in-house is a violation of SCO's IP, whose ownership is being contested by Novell. SCO's claim is the ultimate in chutzpah.

    26. Re:Injunction? by Ciggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They claim to have sold a handful to unnamed companies.

      In which case they have claimed to being in breech of the GPL and so have no licence to distribute the contributions of the other kernel hackers and so have claimed to have comitted copyright infringement - surely?

      --

      A rose by any other name would smell as sweet;
      A chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell
    27. Re:Injunction? by spacecowboy420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "They've made a Unix-based desktop operating system that is solid, flexible, and powerful enough for real Unix work, while still being pleasent to work with and easy enough for novices. That's far more that the Linux developers have done."

      You're probably right - I wouldn't know, I'm still stuck with my x86 system(s) - I'm having a hard time justifying the price tag to check the Apple stuff out [I have plenty of systems for a try out, just no apple stuff]. So I guess I am stuck with the inferior stuff the Linux Developers provide for you and me for free.

      --
      ymmv
    28. Re:Injunction? by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually they own Linux as much as Redhat does, the GPL doesn't proclude huge corperations fooling other stupid people into paying them money for it. They can just slap their own gui on it making the gui propreietary and you couldn't even distribute it for free or complain. That's one of the problems with GPL.

    29. Re:Injunction? by Xenographic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think he's talking about the $699 one, but I confess to having not explored that link very far.

      I do know that several people have reported calling up SCO and being unable to buy anything, however. I'm not sure if they tried the website too, or what.

      That said, I do wonder about the legal angle of it. SCO is rather two-faced, so if the kernel developers try to sue them, they'll probably just try to weasel out of it, and who knows what they'll claim. Whereas if you actually were to buy from them, I'm sure they'd make you indemnify them in all sorts of ways (e.g. various provisions about not being able to sue them even if they don't own what you just licensed, various clauses wherein you agree with their ... creative ... interpretations of various 'facts' ... etc.)

      It's not like they're above lying to judges here. Either that or they didn't mean what they said. Or something. All I know is that they constantly seem to contradict themselves publically and will spin the facts in their favor depending on which questions they are being asked...

    30. Re:Injunction? by Salsaman · · Score: 2, Interesting
      OS X may be cool, but what has Apple (TM) ever given back to the Open Source community ?

      Open sourcing quicktime ? - nope

      An Open Source client for iTunes ? - nope

      They take, but they give nothing back.

    31. Re:Injunction? by kesler · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do you think Saddam's press guy could take over Darl's job? The guy who said that the US wasn't past Tigris while the soldiers were in Iraq?

    32. Re:Injunction? by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Informative
      OS X may be cool, but what has Apple (TM) ever given back to the Open Source community ?

      Ask the KDE and GCC developers - they seem to be benefitting the most.

    33. Re:Injunction? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually Xenix still exists today!

      ITs called SCO Openserver. SCO even called it Xenix for awhile and changed the name to openserver when they decided to compile it to 32-bit and update it. They hoped that and a name change would fix its reputation after it lagged behind every Unix out there. Unfortunatly this was the last time they really updated it and again its ages behind and falling apart. They added eide support I think in 2000? I remember I receieved an error message when I attempted to install it in 98 saying that I needed a scsi hard drive.

      Talk about lack of support.

      Xenix was quite popular and so was Openserver before it became neglected and buggy. Then NT, Sun, and Linux came and stole its thunder.

      Ironic oddly since MS paid SCO to license their own code??

  2. I reek of SCO by segment · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Literally I puke it up nowadays It goes on to allege that SCO "made a false or misleading representation ... in that ... when [it] granted licences over Linux in the past it wrongly stated the scope of rights granted under the licence." All jokes aside it's this asinine, counterproductive stance that SCO has taken, which has led to even more asinine counterproductive gestapoish legislation. When will SCO and other corporations learn they hurt no one but themselves.

    And so ... I troll no more

    1. Re:I reek of SCO by XaXXon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When will SCO and other corporations learn they hurt no one but themselves.

      Probably when their stock stops going up. A year ago, their stock was worth a tad over a dollar ($1.11), now it's worth $13.84. It's one-year high is $22.29. Talk about making stock holders happy.

      I tell you when this will stop. When the people who do it start going to jail.

    2. Re:I reek of SCO by fanatic · · Score: 2, Insightful
      A year ago, their stock was worth a tad over a dollar ($1.11), now it's worth $13.84.

      But that's on microscopic volume, meaning the SCOundrels are just flipping it amongst themselves. If any real quantity of this crap ever hit the market at once, it would drop like a rock.

      --
      "that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
  3. Careful! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny


    Taking them to court may be a violation of their business method patent!

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Careful! by rholliday · · Score: 2, Funny

      "We at the SCO Group have observed several companies, namely one known as the 'RIAA' acting in blatant mimicry of our tried-and-true bullying tactics. We will be taking them to court immediately ..."

      Now there's a dream matchup. :)

      --
      Xbox reviews.. We think they're funny.
  4. Competition Police by robmoss2k · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's nice to see that the ACCC are doing their job. Does anyone know what the situation in the UK is with regards complaints to the relevant authorities? I would be very, very surprised indeed if the Trading Standards Authority, in their new guise and with things to prove, allow the sale of Linux licenses to UK residents and companies by SCO before a decision is reached in court with regards the allegations against the Linux kernel.

    1. Re:Competition Police by betelgeuse-4 · · Score: 2, Funny
      I was searching to find out if the UK authorities are doing anything about SCO and the following ad came up:

      Sco
      Brilliant offers on thousands
      of computing products.
      www.ebay.co.uk

      On clicking the link, I found a copy of SCO Unix for just 25GBP. What a bargain! Much cheaper than this $699.00 Linux stuff I've heard so much about.

    2. Re:Competition Police by betelgeuse-4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But they do do business in the UK, therefore there are sanctions the authorities can take. Also I think they are registered with Companies House, but I cannot confirm whether the The SCO Group Limited listed here is the same company.

    3. Re:Competition Police by jrumney · · Score: 2, Interesting
      SCO doesn't have an office in the UK

      What's this then?

      SCO Software (UK) Ltd
      Titan Court
      3 Bishop Square
      Hatfield
      Herts AL10 9NA

      Tel: +44 (0)1707 226014
      Fax: +44 (0)1707 226184
      E-mail: ukinfo@sco.com
  5. Injunction in Munich - no wonder by kompiluj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't know how it would be in Australia - Munich obviously was not interested in paying for Linux (they are currently migrating...)

    --
    You can defy gravity... for a short time
  6. What about the US? by Guspaz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why hasn't anybody done something like this yet in the US, where SCO is arguably the "strongest"? That'd REALLY put a damper on their FUD.

    And while they were at it, maybe they could get the court to order that SCO pay back any company they scared into paying for a licence.

    1. Re:What about the US? by terminal.dk · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is, that in the USA there is no marketing law protecting consumers.

      In Denmark, marketing must be true,and must be verifiable. And you can't refer to named competitors. So Burger King can't say it is better than McDonald.

      If SCO is saying that the competing product, Linux, is illegal, and trying to sell licenses, then their first action is to go to court to have this claim proved.

      Since they have not done so here in a timely manner (they waited until Linux became big, rather than following their obligation to liit damages), they have no case at all any more against Linux. At least not here. Here you must act, or you are lose your rights. Even if we had GIF patents here, the delay from the patent owner in filing cases would be enough for him to lose his rights.

      Laws are different between countries, and I think the basic principles are way better here. The golden rule is that we look at the interest of the community, and at keeping workplaces running. And the truth is over any technicality (i.e. it doesn't matter how the police found the evidence, as long as it is found. If he got it illegally, that is another case against the police).

    2. Re:What about the US? by Genghis+Troll · · Score: 5, Informative
    3. Re:What about the US? by catenos · · Score: 3, Insightful
      (i.e. it doesn't matter how the police found the evidence, as long as it is found
      Oh yeah, that's fuckin great. Do they torture confessions out of people, too?
      If so, so what? The suspect can argue in court that he just confessed, because he was intimidated.[1] And second, the officer who did this, will find himself in court[2] and even if he manages to avoid jail, probably won't stay in his position for much longer. Do you really think someone willing to take that risk and willing (for whatever reason) to turture someone else will be stopped by the question whether this will result in usable evidence?

      In other words, although they theoretically can do something illegal in order to get evidence (and may try to use it afterwards), practically it isn't known to happen.[3] Officers have better things to do than bringing legal (and disciplinary) action upon themselves.

      And in order to show that it may happen[4], there is currently a case in proceedings, where a suspect would confess to have abducted a 11-year old boy, but would lie about the whereabouts of the child. Believing that the child was still alive, the second highest ranked police officer instructed the officers to threaten the kidnapper to be hurt (by a martial artist) until he would tell. Finally, the suspect told, but the child was only found dead. Next thing, the high ranked officer reported his behaviour himself to the state attorney (he had written a protocol of what happened).

      Today, the kidnapper has already been found guilty (the corpse and so being valid evidence) and has to serve a lifelong sentence.

      In other words: Yes, the officer did something illegal and he will face the consequences. He did it hoping to find the child before it has to die. Most people sympathize with him, but think he will (and should) be sentenced anyhow, though as midly as law allows. Initially he was charged with a "forced confession"[2], but that was dropped (didn't read why yet), but several other charges still stand: coercion, abuse of authority, etc.

      And to come back to my point above: Do you think this officer had stopped and not tried to save the child, even if this would have meant the illegally retrieved evidence couldn't be used?

      Luckily, most times, two wrongs don't make a right here.

      [1] Unless, of course, they find further proof, like e.g. the corpse at the place where the criminal described.

      [2] To force a confession out of someone is a felony which has a minimum sentence of one year of jail.

      [3] And no, that doesn't mean it happens and just nobody talks about it. That may happen once or twice but not regularly. Somewhen somebody would talk.

      [4] Just to make that clear: that is the first case of that kind in the legal history of Germany (i.e. where an officer does this and then reports himself)
      --
      Keep an eye on which arguments are silently dropped in replies. Not always, but often times it's very telling.
  7. "Administrative detention up to six months" by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative
    The German injunction:
    • Respondent is, in order to avoid
      - an administrative fine from EUR 5 up to EUR 250.000,
      - and, in the case that this cannot be collected, administrative detention
      or
      - administrative detention of up to six months to be enforced in the person of the managing director

      in each case of contravention

      prohibited

      in business relations from claiming and distributing the assertions

      • 1. that the software "Linux" contains SCO's intellectual property that has been unlawfully obtained,
      • 2. that end users who apply Linux are liable for intellectual property infringements towards SCO, and /or
      • 3. that LINUX is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX,

      as far as such assertions are not proven to be true.

    That's clear enough. No more threats by SCO in Germany, or Darl goes to jail.

    SCO isn't fighting this. If they had a case, they would.

    1. Re:"Administrative detention up to six months" by cyfer2000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I heard that in Germany people use comma instead of period and period istead of comma in numbers.

      So the amount of fine could be up to EUR 250,000.

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    2. Re:"Administrative detention up to six months" by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Funny

      True.

      It's a bitch parsing CSV files produced in some european countries....

  8. Depends on country by alexborges · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Competition police seems to be a strong weapon against SCO-like action. ... IN countries that have applicable laws

    --
    NO SIG
  9. Brave new Internet World = RIP SCO by bstadil · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Head over here and read an interesting write-up on the changing dynamics of IP extortion a la SCO.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  10. SCO never sold any licenses at all by RoLi · · Score: 4, Funny
    so SCO never sold Linux licenses in Germany

    In fact quite some people tried to purchase licenses and SCO wouldn't sell them any (because then SCO could get sued for racketeering(sp?))

    1. Re:SCO never sold any licenses at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Try your luck: SCO is selling now (credit card required) at their online shop.

  11. People like you are helping fund SCO's campaign by linuxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is sad that there are businesses that will so easily pay the extortion money. This only encourages others to adopt similar extortion techniques where they make bogus claims and want you to pay up *before* any of their claims have been proven. Maybe if I was as corrupt as SCO management I would also make a claim against your Linux installations and you'd pay me too. Oh well.

    And please tell me that you at least got a T-shirt.

  12. SCO is saying you stole their lawn mower by linuxguy · · Score: 5, Funny

    It is like SCO is saying that you stole their lawn mower because they heard you have an automobile. As evidence they point to your neighbour's RV.

    Yes, it is that crazy.

    [Stolen from Yahoos Finance's SCOX Message Board]

  13. With Apologies to Mother Goose by mehaiku · · Score: 5, Funny

    There once was a man named McBride
    Who brought a great case to be tried
    His stock was a hit
    As Darl talked his shit
    But the code he continued to hide.

    To lawyers McBride was a debtor
    Who sought to sue users by letter
    He sued IBM
    With facts few and thin
    A five year old could have done better.

    Darl's *nix was the first in his deal
    The clones that came after he'd steal
    The clones were his perks
    Or derivative works
    Like prior art on the wheel.

    The press was the court Darl first chose
    Didio just brought it new lows
    One could not but wonder
    Whose sheets they were under
    Since both were just Microsoft hoes.

    Darl claimed stolen code when he sued
    With millions of lines he'd include
    He must have deceived
    Since no one believed
    He could count to twenty one when nude.

    To be purchased was Darl's major plan
    Then retire and keep up his tan
    IBM said, "Fuck off,
    You won't be playing golf
    But homeless, beside a trash can."

    McBride only wanted a fee
    For Linux , which always was free
    His whole case was hinging
    On Linux infringing
    On SCO's useless IP.

    Darl wanted these fees forever
    For hatching a plan he thought clever
    With news so infernal
    While hacking the kernel
    Linus said "what the fuck ever."

    Who understood Darl's attack?
    Surely he smoked the best crack
    We were mostly appalled
    Ninety-three called
    Wanting their UnixWare back.

    In Vegas Darl said it would be
    A display of infringing IP
    Boy Wonder McBride
    Pitched all truth aside
    What he showed was all BSD.

    Darl sued everyone that he could
    With contracts he misunderstood
    Not even a shrink
    Could teach him to think
    These lawsuits just made him sport wood.

    (post to be continued in following post due to Slashdot wordcount filter, sorry)

    1. Re:With Apologies to Mother Goose by mehaiku · · Score: 5, Funny

      (continued from previous post due to Slashdot word count filter)

      Europe thought Darl lost his mind
      He tried suits there of the same kind
      But Germany said
      Your scam is now dead
      Don't let the door hit your behind.

      Darl's case was completely absurd
      With years 'for a ruling occurred
      It was Darl that I cursed
      Asking which would come first
      The end of this case or the Hurd?

      Finally with the court's backing
      Which Groklaw was certainly tracking
      The discovery phase
      Began in a haze
      Since SCO's facts were so lacking.

      Just seventeen files we could see
      How much smaller could Darl's facts be?
      In court we were glad
      His case truly had
      Much bigger holes than goatse.

      Darl's game was just mostly extortion
      Without facts, why pay him a portion?
      We needed a basis
      To give to Darl's cases
      A retroactive abortion

      Novell finally opened some doors
      Telling Darl, "This code is not yours,
      Now don't have a fit,
      But you do not own shit"
      Me thinks Novell just karma whores.

      How foolish was Darl to be trying
      These cases with nothing but lying
      Within a short term
      Judge Wells will confirm
      That SCO is dying.

      I. Warranty - The above poem and/or limericks come with no warranty, express or implied, and hereinafter, shall be referred to as "the work," and is offered to the public under the terms of the General Chewbacca License.

      II. Waiver

      (a)The work may be copied and/or redistributed, provided all rights to sacrifice your first born child, in either Gatlinburg or Pidgenforge TN, to the great god Tyreeq, Bestower of Hyperbole to All, are waived.

      (b)Should you not waive that right, you may distribute the work to any computer, having no more than 35 processors, except on the last day of every other odd-numbered leap year, when the processor limit is 34, but only if such computer should be infected with at least one Microsoft Outlook Virus. Those fortunate enough to thank their lucky stars they have a *nix box, may run the required Microsoft Outlook Virus via Wine, but not Bochs, FreeDOS, or VMWare, thus infecting their fake_windows drive to meet the term of the license, set out in section II(b).

      III. Distributees - The work may be distributed to other distributees on the following conditions:

      (a) the distributee is still breathing
      (b) the distributee exhibits enough brain activity to accept the license
      (c) the distributee's first name is not a silly typo, like "Darl"

      VI. License Rejection - Should you not accept this license, you may still distribute the work, but only if you write on the back windshield of your personal vehicle, in bright yellow shoe polish, "FOR GOD'S SAKE! ONE LEGGED HAMSTERS RUN FASTER THAN UNIXWARE!" and then drive said vehicle in rush hour once a day for an hour, in the community in which you reside, for seven successive business days and only if the weather is precipitation-free, as in speech and/or beer.

      V. License Violations - Violations of the rights outlined in the General Chewbacca License will be vigorously pursued and all intellectual property rights will be vigorously defended, using the full extent of the law to insure such rights are protected, including, but not limited to, utilizing the services of Rent-A-Drop-Out Security Firm, Inc., to seek out license violations in the jurisdictions in which the violator or violators, may reside.

      VI. Special Exemptions - Perl programmers shall be exempt from all terms of the General Chewbacca License, except section II(a), provided they do not show the author, nor ask the author to review, the resulting hieroglyphics generated by their coding skills.

      VII. Mass Distribution - For those who accept the license to copy and redistribute the work, there shall be a limit of 1,000 copies for any given individual. To remove the limit and allow unlimited copies, you must agree to, and complete, the following terms:
      (a) You must acquire an employment applica

  14. SCO's not selling Linux licenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    From their web site:

    NOTICE: SCO has suspended new sales and distribution of SCO Linux until the intellectual property issues surrounding Linux are resolved. SCO will, however, continue to support existing SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux customers consistent with existing contractual obligations. SCO offers at no extra charge to its existing Linux customers a SCO UNIX IP license for their use of prior SCO or Caldera distributions of Linux in binary format. The license also covers binary use of support updates distributed to them by SCO. This SCO license balances SCO's need to enforce its intellectual property rights against the practical needs of existing customers in the marketplace.

    For further information on how to obtain RPMS/SRPMS for OpenLinux, eDesktop and eServer see:

    www.sco.com/support/linux_info.html

    For further information on how to obtain RPMS/SRPMS for SCO Linux 4.0 see:

    www.sco.com/support/scolinux_info.html or the SCO Linux 4.0 Update Download Page.

    From: www.thescogroup.com/support/download.html

  15. They are selling it! The fools! by molog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Taken directly from
    http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/eula.html

    You may not assign, sublicense, rent, lend, lease, pledge or otherwise transfer or encumber the SCO IP, this Agreement or Your rights or obligations hereunder

    The SCO group is now distrubuting the kernel with additional restrictions, and thus are violating the GPL. They are truely now in violation of all the kernel developer's copyright on the code.

    Molog

    --
    So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
    The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
  16. Intellectual Property Monopoly v. Antitrust Law by werdna · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Competition police seems to be a strong weapon against SCO-like action.

    The most salient observation I have seen for some time on Slashdot. You nailed the point.

    Intellectual Property, be it trademark, copyright, patent, trade secret, and the related non-IP causes of action such as anti-circumvention, create limitations and monopolies. Ideally, the monopolies are carefully limited against social needs to yield a net societal benefit, but as with all law, horrifying results can occur. IP is a core source these days of examples of unintended consequences.

    While IP and pseudo-IP create monopolies sponsored by the government, the government likewise has another body of law, a different kind of trade regulation, antitrust, to keep enterprises from abusing even fairly obtained competitive advantages to the detriment of society. Like IP, the application of these laws must be careful, because fear of antitrust liability can actually result in highly anticompettive consequences to the detriment of society.

    Combine that with the corpus of law governing unfair competition and deceptive trade practices more generally, and it is no surprise that when a company really goes out there, there are a kazillion conflicting policies and issues.

    That is why some uses of IP can be so "out there" as to rise to anticompetitive conduct, even though the monopoly given was government-blessed. And why some anticompetitive conduct can preclude a right to assert iP.

    Look for that whenever: (i) a company with significant market share throws IP weight around; (ii) a company with a fairly fought ownership of a marketplace governed by IP tries to extend their rights to non-controlled markets; and (iii) a company, though not a market leader or innovator, really stretches some IP rights they do have to control a market beyond any reasonable threshold.

  17. So what? by walterbyrd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When will the U.S. justice system get around to doing anything? 2006? Later? By then scox will be gone, and those who orchestrated the scam will be even wealthier.

    It doesn't matter if you're doing something blantantly illegal, as long as you do so in a country with a hopelessly inept justice system.

    Back in October, scox filed an absurd motion to dismiss the redhat case because scox cliam - in deference to overwhelming evidence - that scox would never threaten to sue linux users. The Delaware court has been sitting on the motion for all these months. See how easy it is to delay and get away with murder?

    1. Re:So what? by ZeeTeeKiwi · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Until one or more of the kernal hackers tells a lawyer to sue, nothing will happen.

      Both Redhat and IBM are kernel contributors, they are suing, and the US legal system still sees fit to allow SCO shareholders to make huge windfalls while we all suffer. I am getting quite expasperated at the incredible delays available in the US legal system, especially as demonstrated in the Redhat case.

      IMO, it appears the Redhat Judge has adopted a "let just wait and see how the IBM case turns out" attitude. If that was her mindset, she should have explicitly stated that the Redhat case should have been sent to Utah and joined to the IBM one. At least then Redhat would have been able to appeal that decision. As it is, Redhat loses all the way.

      Their customers are still suffering FUD, the pro-linux guys in the boardrooms are having to waste their time defending the "what if SCO wins its case" & "where there's smoke there's fire" type comments that I'm faced with regularly.

      Part of the Redhat petition was for an injunction to prevent SCO from publically stating claims which they weren't able to backup. That seems a fair proposition to me, but SCO has already won on this point - Justice delayed is justice denied!

  18. Same here... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 5, Interesting
    In a similar case in Germany SCO Group received an injunction from the court, so SCO never sold Linux licenses in Germany

    Remember that they're not actually *selling* the license here in the US, only claiming to. More than one person has documented the effort of attempting to buy a license, only to be ignored by SCO.

    They probably realize that they have the potential to get into serious trouble here if they do sell a fraudulent license. They can yell about it all they want, however, to keep the stock price buoyed, and the clueless journalists who write about it never seem to think to do a little more research into the process of buying one.

  19. Re:Confused... by lucifer_666 · · Score: 4, Informative
    The Australian Consumer & Competition Comission (ACCC) is a government oversight body which has federal powers. It can raid businesses, file charges, detain and question people, they have police like powers.

    The ACCC sticks up for the consumer, takes bad companies to court, stops undercutting to put small businesses out of business, tramples on monopolies, destroys unfair business and does so regularly.

    Most of the big corporates in Australia *hate* them. But I, as a consumer, love them :-)

  20. Re:Given Australia by lucifer_666 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Recent riots were hardly riots by American standards; I think Americans would refer to what happend as a "social gathering."

    Some people got upset that a friend of theirs died. They thought the police were chasing this kid who impaled himself on a fence somehow. But the police say it didn't happen.

    Either way, they threw some rocks at the very controlled and very restrained and very responsible police, who in Australia don't have the harsh attitude US police seem to have. Our cops pretty much let them throw their rocks, backed off, and left it a couple of days before even starting to arrest people.

    It was clear from the way the police behaved that they understood the situation, how bad it could have got, and took a non-racist approach to solving the problem

    Look, there may be some racism in Australia, but not where I live, not my friends, no people I know, not people I work with, not people down the street. We are a completly multicultural society, and it's a great thing.

    There's much more freedom in Australia than in the US. We don't have the level of "security" the US has, nor the harsh criminal penaltys for petty crimes. We don't have 2% of our population permanantly incarcerated.

    Racism is seriously frowned upon in this country. A white man will be ostricised and snubbed from socioty should he choose to be racist. As a white Australian, I don't want to know any racists. And if I ever meet one, they're going to hear a piece of my mind. I honestly believe the vast majority of Australians feel the same way.

  21. Re:Given Australia by drsmithy · · Score: 2
    Turn it up. That little disturbance at Redfern the other night hardly qualifies as a "race riot" compared to those that happen elsewhere. It's not like there were police indiscriminately beating the crap out of aboriginals, people getting shot willy-nilly and looting in the streets.

    Not to mention in the aftermath there's been few, carefully considered arrests and even in the (highly unlikely) worst case scenario that the kid was being pursued by the pliice, he died because of nothing more than a tragic accident (he wasn't shot in the back, or dragged of his bike and beaten to death).

    I would fear to live there being non-white.

    If you'd be scared to be living in Australia because you weren't white, then you're not going to have much luck finding anywhere in the western world you'd feel safe.

    Not to say our record on race relations is peerless, but you'd be a lot better off being poor and black in Australia than you would being poor and black in, say, America.

  22. Someone please.... by Karem+Lore · · Score: 2, Funny
    Can someone please claim binary code please please. That way we can demand license fees from every single program ever conceived and compiled.

    I have 2 things to say to you SCO:

    01000110010101010100001101001011001000000101100101 00111101010101

    and

    01011001010011110101010100100000010100110100100001 00111101010101010011000100010000100000010000100100 01010010000001000001010100110100100001000001010011 01010001010100010000100000010011110100011000100000 01011001010011110101010101010010010100110100010101 00110001000110

    --
    When all is said and done, nothing changes...