Slashdot Mirror
More on Recent SCOings On
An anonymous reader writes "Blake Stowell, SCO's director of communications, acknowledged that the leaked memo is real." However, Stowell went on to say that the memo was misunderstood, and that Microsoft has not been funding SCO, as was previously alleged.
In addition, Computer Associates is now vehemently denying they ever licensed Linux from SCO. AlabamaMike writes "Being employed by Computer Associates myself, I had to admit I was terribly dismayed by the news that the company I work for had licensed SCO's dubious Linux IP. I sent some mail around to those I thought would have some info about what was going on with this very odd move, and the response that came back truly should be posted for the /. community. Basically this is a very creative spin on a settlement CA did with Canopy Group regarding a breach of contract settlement totally unrelated to Linux. Associated with that settlement was a set of UnixWare licenses to which SCO has taken the liberty of attaching these 'Linux IP' licenses."
It's hard to see how they can continue to maintain that they were just "licensing" IP from SCO. As the memo appears to be genuine, it seems to me that Redmond has a lot of explaining to do. Especially to the Justice Department; I mean, if this isn't predatory behavior then I don't know what is.
not only are SCO's IP ambitions doomed, but its Unix interests are a "trailing negative" on the road to dropping from 10% of the market to 3%-5% in a few years and then "SCO will be irrelevant," he said.
Assuming this court case is settled in Linux' favour, SCO will be irrelevant the next day. No company will want to deal with a firm that sues its own customers.
Trolling is a art,
It annoys me that a copy that never even authored the stuff can buy the copyright off someone and then sue them for copyright infringement. SCO have done nothing to help linux grow into a useable operating system.. They're just milking money out of crazy IP laws.
Simon.
The Linux faithful have been hammering Computer Associates as a heretic since the British publication Computer Weekly quoting the SCO Group's CFO Bob Bench identified CA Thursday as one of SCO's rare Linux licensees.
CA senior VP of product development Mark Barrenechea says that Bench's claim is nonsense. CA has not paid SCO any Linux taxes, he said.
Drawing up short of calling SCO a liar, Barrenechea claims that SCO has twisted a $40 million breach-of-contract settlement that CA paid last summer to the Canopy Group, SCO's biggest stockholder, and Center 7, another Canopy company, and has turned it into a purported Linux license.
As a "small part" of that settlement, Barrenechea said, CA got a bunch of UnixWare licenses that it needed to support its UnixWare customers. SCO, he said, had just attached a transparent Linux indemnification to all UnixWare licenses and that is how SCO comes off calling CA a Linux licensee.
But when CA agreed to that settlement, Barrenechea said, "It was not CA's intention to become a Linux licensee. It has nothing to do with CA's product direction or strategic direction," he said.
CA has absolutely no sympathy for what SCO is doing, Barrenechea said, and in fact, he said, reading from a formal statement, it stands in "stark disagreement with SCO's tactics and threats."
Barrenechea and CA's Linux chief Sam Greenblatt are worried that CA will be tarred with the SCO brush and that CA's considerable Linux ambitions will be damaged by a disaffected, if not hostile, open source community when in reality CA has "nothing to do with SCO's strategy and tactics," they said.
CA was the mystery company SCO was thinking of when it announced last August that an unidentified Fortune 500 company had supposedly become a Linux license. SCO privately described the deal as "significant."
CA couldn't disassociate itself from the rumors that identified it as that licensee because of an NDA that the Canopy side had insisted on hedging in the $40 million settlement with, Barrenechea and Greenblatt said.
Barrenechea said that SCO now regards that NDA as being off because of the legal discovery that's been going on in SCO's $5 billion suit against IBM.
See, SCO lawyer Mark Heisse in a letter dated February 4 to IBM lawyer David Marriott at Cravath Swain identified CA, Questar and Leggett & Platt as Linux taxpayers.
According to that letter, which is up on the Groklaw site, Heisse owed IBM a copy of the CA agreement on CD.
Barrenechea said that SCO was dropping CA's name to associate itself with the "third-largest software company in the world" and build support for its "lost cause."
But according to Barrenechea, not only are SCO's IP ambitions doomed, but its Unix interests are a "trailing negative" on the road to dropping from 10% of the market to 3%-5% in a few years and then "SCO will be irrelevant," he said.
By the way, CA doesn't have enough UnixWare licenses to cover all its Linux servers, Greenblatt said.
In answer to CA's contentions, SCO said its lawyers think that CA has a Linux license.
Meanwhile, Bench also told Computer Weekly, whose story was picked up by sister paper InfoWorld and maybe other properties in the IDG stable, that SCO had signed between 10 and 50 Linux licenses.
The new URL is: http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/archives/001770.hPimpin' all the Karma Hoes!
It smells pretty desperate when you won't let your "best" customers comment on what they've bought from you.
Lasers Controlled Games!
It'd be nice if CA put out a press release pointing this out..... but somehow I think they won't... oh well :(
MS should have some explaining to do to the judge who's watching the antitrust settlement.
Developers, developers, develo..., ups
Subpoenas, subpoenas, subpoenas
LA Times (free crappy reg) story
Here's the highlights (emphasis added):
SCO Confronting Its Creation
Company's CEO is taking precautions as the head of the 'most despised' tech firm
From Bloomberg News
Darl McBride, chief executive of SCO Group Inc., says he sometimes carries a gun because his enemies are out to kill him. He checks into hotels under assumed names. An armed bodyguard protected him when he gave a speech last month at Harvard Law School.
Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux operating system, calls SCO "the most despised company in technology."
McBride and SCO are more hated than Microsoft, the world's largest software maker, and its Chairman Bill Gates, according to some Linux backers. That's because SCO, once a backer of Linux, has turned around and attacked the essence of the system: its free source code.
"SCO are just complete hypocrites," said Jeremy Allison, co-author of Samba, an open source software that runs a file and print service that SCO sells.
"The real reason why people don't like SCO, and Darl McBride in particular, is that he is so dishonest," Torvalds, 34, said in an e-mail.
So on one hand the leaked memo was just 'misunderstood' or a piece of creative spin, yet on the other hand the same could be applied to the CA Linux 'licenses'....
Hmmm, this is just more proof that these guys really do have their heads jammed up their own asses.
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
under no circumstances eat carrots.
Translation: every new lawsuit that SCO initiates costs SCO money in legal fees (and you know Boies doesn't work cheap) and other costs.
The whole article is here.
This simply adds more hard core evidence that SCO is operated by liars. One would imagine these idiots would try a little harder to cover up their stupidity.
Well, if SCO says Microsoft isn't funding them, we should undoubtely put that truth in proper context with all the other truths SCO has been claiming.
All along, I've been wondering if enough lies are floating around at SCO that they actually believe their horse crap.
It looks like this proves that's the case. They've lost any grip on reality now.
See, SCO lawyer Mark Heisse in a letter dated February 4 to IBM lawyer David Marriott at Cravath Swain identified CA, Questar and Leggett & Platt as Linux taxpayers.
"Taxpayers", huh? I never knew... Must be so difficult, to pay a tax on a product that COSTS NOTHING..
Where do they get all that money for that damn tax?And where does it go? I bet Darl wants us to believe it's that secret Linux shadow government that causes all the problems in... Woops.. Sorry. Wrong case...
No. 1 is EV1Servers.net who announced SCO lied about how much they were paid (Microsoft is a fan of EV1)
(little did the CEO know when he made the deal that SCO planned to 'worth' him out of seven figures)
No. 2 is CompterAssociates who announced SCO lied about "linux licenses" which are really from an unrelated settlement
No. 3 is Leggett and Platt say SCO lies and they don't have a license and "would not have an interest in doing so"
No. 4 is Questar Gas said they just wanted to get things over with and also runs Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) on Windows 2000
Make sure *you* are Legally Unencumbered(tm) by getting a SCOsores license
and don't forget to head over and sign your Clean Slate contract with the RIAA
This article is more interesting:n efd_top
http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5170181.html?tag=
Since they decided they really can't get a whole lot of people to buy their linux licenses, SCO have to give them to companies without their knowledge, and then call them "Linux IP licensees" and issue a statement as such just to try to weasel a few more bucks from other "uninformed" companies who then decide to buy the "licenses" after all. It's time for CA to lay the smack-down and discredit these punks.
30 posts so far, not one from anyone saying "I was wrong about the comments I made about Microsoft in the previous thread".
And I'm not expecting any.
Read reviews of shopping cart software
One can only hope.
I mean, who could have thought of a worse, more stupid way to piss off the whole tech sector and drive yourself into bankruptcy. The more I think about it, the more this strange idea develops that SCO (Caldera) is actually doing all this rubbish to help the Linux community. OK, it is way out there, but in some perverted way, it makes sense.
First of all, you have a Linux company (Caldera) who, despite their best efforts, has trouble staying afloat. At this time, there is no corporate support for Linux, the big vendors are running away from it, and the "GPL has never been tested in court" is touted as an argument all over the place. Big UNIX vendors only see Linux as a way to get people into their more proprietary solutions.
So, Caldera buys out a UNIX vendor and does the most ridiculous thing imaginable: sues everybody, proclaims that Linux is communist and all that bullshit. Fast forward to the current situation: IBM, HP, Novell and other big players are squarely behind Linux and protecting it. Microsoft is exposed as a greedy monopolist who uses underhand tactics (yet again). GPL gets tested in court and it is under such circumstances that guarantee a strong precedent in GPL's favour. The UNIX heritage is cleared once and for all. Linux wins, in a BSD fashion, and is free from corporate FUD. And who pays the bill? Greedy investors.
This could turn out the be the best thing for the corporate image of Linux ever.
I find this zdnet news article to be velly intellesting.
-- SKYKING, SKYKING, DO NOT ANSWER.
Hypo-crisco-y. Hmmm.
I got it! It means a slick/greasy hypocrite.
Actually that fits. Good one, T-Kir.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
All this posted anonymously because my employer is continually having cash sucked out of it by CA as they suck all useful life out of its products.
So why on earth are the suing Autozone if they have
a license to run the binary form in Linux. Isn't that the meat of their argument.
A little quote from Blake reguarding the CA vapor
license deal.
"UnixWare licences allow SCO customers to run UnixWare and the SCO Intellectual Property Licence allows Linux end users to run our Unix intellectual property in binary form in Linux. Today, CA has a licence in place to run our Unix IP in binary form in Linux without fear that they may be infringing on our intellectual property."
Got Code?
Then it's a good thing that this article was posted on slashdot. I'd highly suggest reading through this one.
I'd say calling the OS community hostile is a pretty good look on things --- considering the fact that it faces extinction. Come on now, why would somebody support the death of their well being.
Steal This Sig
They buy companies and immediately layoff 20%. They ask the managers and rank everyone, and the bottom 20% get chopped off immediately.
Then, they basically mothball all new development in these acquired companies, and after Indians have been trained on how to maintain the software, they fire everyone in North America/Europe.
This is their business strategy. They don't care about their employees and their customers.
Sorry, but I don't give one shit about CA. They could go belly up for all I care, and it would only be good for the software industry.
Memo misunderstood? Is SCO now implying to the world at large that all of us had failed our english comprehension?
:P
:P
Can everyone sue for personal attacks?
Not only they don't know how to count...(million lines of code)... they have problems with their english language too! I am sure Darl's teachers won't be pleased
Since the site is horribly slow and I haven't seen the news about Leggett & Platt anywhere else, here's the text:
05 March 2004
Two of four SCO licensees deny their purchase Linux licence? What Linux licence?
By Robert McMillan, IDG News Service and Kieren McCarthy, Techworld
Two of the four companies that SCO has publicly named as having bought a licence from it to use Linux, have denied doing anything of the sort.
Both Computer Associates and Leggett & Platt have been held up by SCO as purchasing a $699 (384) licence to cover the alleged SCO copyrights in the open-source operating system. But both have publicly stated that they have done no such thing.
The chief architect of CA's Linux Technology Group, Sam Greenblatt, admitted the company had struck a deal with an investor in SCO over UnixWare licences and said that for each UnixWare licence bought, it was indemnified against a Linux box but he denied outright that the company had bought a licence specifically dealing with Linux.
Leggett & Platt was even clearer. "I have now talked to our people who handle our Linux systems and, at least at a corporate level, we have not bought such a licence from SCO Group," said the company's VP of human resources, John Hale. "To their knowledge they would not have an interest in doing so."
The denials come the same day that SCO was forced to admit an email appearing to demonstrate that Microsoft had helped fund the group to the tune of $86 million was real. But, the company claims, the email does not show what people claim it does.
This same misunderstanding approach was used by SCO to explain CA's statement. SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said that CA had indeed obtained an IP licence for Linux in an email. "UnixWare licences allow SCO customers to run UnixWare and the SCO Intellectual Property Licence allows Linux end users to run our Unix intellectual property in binary form in Linux. Today, CA has a licence in place to run our Unix IP in binary form in Linux without fear that they may be infringing on our intellectual property."
This hazy distinction angered CA's Greenblatt, who strongly objected to the portrayal of CA as a IP licensee for Linux. "To represent us as having supported the SCO thing is totally wrong," he said, before accusing the company's tactics as "intended to intimidate and threaten customers". "We totally disagree with [Darl McBride's, SCO CEO] approach, his tactics and the way he's going about this," Greenblatt added.
SCO claims to have copyrighted material within the Linux open-source operating system and has embarked on a dramatic legal battle to enforce them. Earlier this week, it expanded its lawsuits to include one of its own customers and a company using the Linux software and warned that it "will take and continue to take" legal action against Linux end users. The company sees itself as educating people about its rights in the same way that the RIAA - the US music industry body - has sued individuals in an attempt to prevent the free trade in copyrighted music.
However, one financial analyst said that the conditions surrounding the CA licence did not cast a favorable light on SCO. "I think it just speaks to the weakness of their case. Why could CA have not been convinced to take a licence without legal action," said Dion Cornett, managing director with Decatur Jones Equity Partners.
The other two companies that have been named as IP Licence for Linux customers are EV1 Servers.Net and Salt Questar. Both have confirmed that they did purchase SCO's licence.
and their $86M payment to SCO is just to cover the $699/each licensing fee.
a) SCO gets a court order banning Linux or
b) SCO gets bankrupted by IBM
I really don't care about anything else
c) SCO's website is back up.
The probable scenario for the CA claims: One little department inside a big company buys 2 licenses because the secretaries cousin's son told her they could get sued and now "CA is licensed"
SCO: (sKO) verb
"Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
"By the way, CA doesn't have enough UnixWare licenses to cover all its Linux servers, Greenblatt said."
Shame eh?
Imagine the fun things they'll find!
I mean, SCO is such a beacon of truth, why not just take them at their word?
Or better yet, why don't we ask M$ directly if they gave up the dough?
Most industry analyists knew that Microsoft was concerned about Linux.
But I for one never quite realized that Microsoft was in a panic.
I heard all the rumors - "maybe Microsoft is behind the SCO lawsuit"... but I didn't think Microsoft would actually be funding this entire effort. I mean, isn't Microsoft focusing on the Next Generation Great Thing that will put Linux to bed once and for all? Obviously, the answer we now have is "no".
I read the news yesterday, and it seemed pretty clear that the memo was a fabrication. I mean how could such a blatent memo be true? And with all the grammar and spelling errors? It just didn't add up. Mircosoft is smart, right? They hire smart people, right? They may be a monopoly, and they may make try to lock their customers into their products, but they're doing it to make globs of $. That's smart, right?
Well obviously I was mistaken. Microsoft was more-or-less caught trying to fuck up the entire Linux industry by buying what is looking more and more like secretly misusing the courts. On top of that, Microsoft is looking like it's releasing blatent lies about the Linux industry under the guise of Microsoft fabricated or controlled companies.
Microsoft, it's time to come clean. Don't you think it's time that you admit that you're funding these lawsuits?
Or is Microsoft so scared about Linux and the Law that it'll continue to shelter itself behind a quickly diminishing cloud of deception and covert control of companies like SCO?
read the memo and the article. If I interpret it correctly, MS has been helpful referring SCO to potential investors. Since MS knows these firms, they do have some influence on them. It doesn't appear MS is directly funding it, but I'm sure they are indirectly funding/influencing companies like Baystar. Is this illegal? Nope! It is underhanded and sneaky. But did anyone really expect MS not to try? Grow up people, it's called business.
SCO seem to want to be bought at the moment, which made me think if everyone on /. had a single share in sco, we could bring forward proposals at their agm and get voting rights on how the company was run.
...
Just a thought
charlie harvey's website
David Boise and company get 20 percent off of the top of all SCO IP Licences sold. When this is all over just watch these fucking rats pointing the finger at one another.
SCO: Well our legal representatives said we had a case !!
Boise: We don't know anything about C Programming, we relying on the technical expertise of SCO, they said we had a case !!
You just wait and see.
I used to not care about this SCO business but its been going on for long enough for me to at least be interested and might as well get the facts straight, so if anyone can help get me straight on this...
SCO (Formerly called Caldera) owns the rights to UNIX. SCO is now threatening to sue businesses that run Linux because they didn't buy their license, even if they aren't using their UNIX? For example, I could install Red Hat and be sued for copyright infringement because I don't have a license to UNIX? Sounds like racketeering to me...
I blame business too eager to plead guilty and settle, them saving money is costing the rest of us (the Linux-running business community) lots of precedents we'll need to fight later. But if all this is true, SCO is making lots of enemies, at least Microsoft made Windows for people to use to get to the top, SCO just sues to pay the bills.
Seriously, the 15 updates per day about what SCO is doing and what Darl had for breakfast is really enough already. All you're doing is making it look like they might have a valid case since you're so intent on discrediting them all the freaking time...just shut up and let them discredit themselves.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
WHAT?! SCO not telling the whole truth?! unheard of!
Not for long. I'll get right on it.
"I am sure Darl's teachers won't be pleased"
I need some clarification. By Darl's teachers, did you mean Stalin, or Lenin?
In the stead of proclaiming that SCO is run by lying corporate scum bent on world domination,
I believe that discussion should focus on what can be done to destroy SCO.
A question for the more legally-knowledgeable among us: The gov't can do this, but is it possible
for a private citizen or public group to initiate proceedings for the revocation of a corporate charter?
A civil case resulting in the dissolution of SCOX would be a landmark in the demonstration of power-of-the-people.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
That sounds like pretty good ammo for a fraud suit if you ask me. It's not in itself enough, but it certainly shows SCO in a lie that's so obvious and deceitful that it just can't be ignored or chalked up to misunderstanding, and it's not too technical for a *moron(ie. a U.S. judge) to understand.
* no, I don't really think all U.S. judges are morons, but sometimes you gotta wonder...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
... there's still FreeBSD. In the worst case scenario where SCO actually wins its legal battles making it difficult for people to use Linux any longer, FreeBSD could help lessen the sting. FreeBSD already has Linux binary compatibility and Debian is working on porting its tools for use with a FreeBSD kernel.
It's hardly desirable that SCO does succeed, but at least there are open source alternatives (and AT&T already resolved the issue of proprietary UNIX code in BSD with University of California years ago).
My operat~1 system unders~1 long filena~1 , does yours?
Interestingly enough, no one was or is jumping on said bandwagon. I have found it very interesting to read some of the ways that AC has been used to distract this discussion away from Microsoft/SCO.
I don't think the question here is CA or IBM (another AC posted on how CA is almost as bad as IBM at FUD, which is interesting when the discussion is really on Microsoft and SCO.) but it is certainly good to spread the mud around to make things less clear. I also saw the statement that this was no different than media saying that linux advocates were behind MYDOOM, and that none of the Halloween papers had every been objectively proven as real, despite the fact that both this latest one and many early ones WERE confirmed by Microsoft (and in this case SCO).
Just a warning to everyone, it seems like there is alot of counterattacks on Slashdot. This particular post might be legitimately from someone who has some grudge against CA and isn't really a press representative sent to sow some discord and confusion into a discussiont hat is already hard enough to follow.
(Dammit, and I previewed the post twice!)
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
Apart from the numerous typos and incoherent thoughts, reading through this I found blatantly simple misspellings!
"The next deal we
should be able to get from $16-20, but it will be brutial as it is for
go to makerket work and some licences."
For those of you that don't see my point, brutial is not a word, makerket is not a ward, and licences is a misspelled word.
This is just one sentence from the memo. I understand that typos are inherent in any memo, but Jesus, misspelling the word "licenses" or "brutal"?
I'm not one to yell at someone for their grammar or spelling, but it was hard to find exactly what he was saying!
You'd think that they could find some opensource spellchecker for sendmail to pretend that they wrote!
"However, Stowell went on to say that the memo was misunderstood, and that Microsoft has not been funding SCO,"
oooh yes, itchy beard, we beleive you. Just like we believe that there is infringing code in the linux kernel.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
If you havent gotten it by now, it would be the right time to shout "SELL!"
Every problem has a better solution when you start thinking it differently than the normal way.[Steve Wozniak]
"and if I was an admin"
Wow... What a revelation in that little quote alone.
Now hush up and let the adults talk. Get me my coffee refill quick.
Don't forget SCO phrases:
"Don't pull a 'SCO' on me"
-To suddenly forget a promise, fail to meet an agreement, or just be obstructive
"You're SCO'd"
i.e. screwed
"He's been SCOing from the start"
i.e. lying
SCO could sponsor the duel and put it on pay-per-view. They could rent a boat and do it out at sea since, as I've learned from The Simpsons, "Anything is legal in international waters."
Lasers Controlled Games!
Yes, I do have a grudge against CA. At the same time, it's a good thing that CA isn't squarely on SCO's side. CA has a lot of experience in bulldozering not only the competition, but also its own customers away, and coming out smelling like roses. SCO is coming out smelling like shit, and that's a Good Thing.
I assumed the spelling mistakes were due to OCR scanning of a printed page. If the party who sent it to ESR was rushed, s/he may have quickly printed the email and then scanned it later to send off. ESR would print it exactly how it was received, with OCR errors intact.
If you read the groklaw articles, you'll see that the initial posting of court documents are full of the same types of errors since they're scanned from the official court documents (usually in pdf format). The readers then proof it and PJ corrects them as they're pointed out.
Barrenechea and CA's Linux chief Sam Greenblatt are worried that CA will be tarred with the SCO brush and that CA's considerable Linux ambitions will be damaged by a disaffected, if not hostile, open source community when in reality CA has "nothing to do with SCO's strategy and tactics," they said.
Advice to CA:
Document,
Document,
Document,
Litigate.
Burn SCO alive.
INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
I think you'll find that 'licence' is the correct way of spelling the word, unlike the corrupted, colonial version you might be more familiar with, old bean. ;-)
The Halloween 3 document ( http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween3.php ), first posted by Eric on Nov 5. 1998, contains an interesting quote:
...snip... }
"Unless Linux violates IP rights, it will fail to deliver innovation over the long run."
The comment by Eric is even more interesting:
{ This final remark is worthy of an essay all by itself. It is the least logical -- and at the same time, most damning -- assertion in Ms. van den Berg's entire statement.
As propaganda, it has a superficial cleverness. It plants the idea that any MIS manager so foolish as to use Linux will find his operating system yanked out from under him by a future patent lawsuit -- perhaps one initiated by (whisper it) Microsoft itself. It's a perfect FUD tactic.
More clear sighted theory there than anyone would have thought, 5 years ago.
SCO are totally dishonest and they will repeat the "Linux is ours" routine until someone stops them.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
of the iraqi minister of communications while reading this?
*que some sco guy getting a check from bill gates and a pat on the back*
"No! that isnt what you think it is! microsoft isnt giving us $86 million dollars and encouragement to take out IBM and linux.. so it isnt! no! we are the true owners of linux! linus is running a huge corporation that is taking over 95% of the desktop mark...er... what?"
I'm sure that their's no evidence now of any goings on after the story broke and someone went barreling for the shredder.
...CA suing SCO for PR damage.
There you are, staring at me again.
Right?
The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness.
CA couldn't disassociate itself from the rumors that identified it as that licensee because of an NDA that the Canopy side had insisted on hedging in the $40 million settlement
Wow. Proof that not only is Canopy behind all this, but they're pre-meditating the lies they're feeding to the public.
These events happened yesterday, and this is the stock market we are talking about. It was more than 15 min ago, and the traders saw a shiny thing between now and then, it will have no bearing on today's trading.
-Charlie
> Memo misunderstood? Is SCO now implying to the world at large that all of us had failed our english comprehension?
Was that memo in English???
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Isn't this right out of the MS playbook? When MS agreed to settle with the Justice department, part of the original settlement proposed millions of dollars of vouchers for schools redeemable only for MS software. Later when it's competitors complained that this just extended their monopoly, it was changed to any software or hardware.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
[I advise ye not to ruin me Pirate comment with yer gibber of mp3 booty]
Look for his quote about repeating a lie too many times.
Tonto.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And unlike linux BSD doesn't have any large backers. Who is going to pay your lawyers? No BSD better hope that linux wins this battle. If it looses all the other free software projects are next. SCO would be rich and have precedent.
That settlement would mean nothing to SCO. Truth doesn't. Why should a deal they never signed do?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
All the time i thought that this was an indication that SCO-stock was massively sold short and that those sellers needed 2.4 million shares (as of Feb. 13) to cover their sales.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
> I need some clarification. By Darl's teachers, did you mean Stalin, or Lenin?
;P
Both were friendly people in comparison, they just happened to have had actual power
You have read some of IBM's arguments, no? A lot of it looks like it came right off Slashdot, just presented more professionally.
Maybe you want people to shut up so SCO has a better chance? Do you own SCO shares?
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Any other possible motives for a planned leak?
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." Stephen Hawking
First SCO is being made fools of, now Ashcroft is hospitalized.. One day, software might just be free at last.
Unless of course they funded SCO.
In which case SCO is just a pathetic crack-whore, robbing people to pay the pimp.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), C|Net has ties to Microsoft, so its no surprise that they took SCO's side of the story.
Also, did you notice at the bottom of the story the "white papers" claiming savings in running MS servers rather than Linux servers? These same "white papers" have been linked from other SCO stories on C|Net.
So who is pulling the strings on all this???
Machiavelli.
No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
Yes, the "unwise investment" defense could be given a workout. But do not forget that MS is an adjudged monopolist (upheld on appeal) and thus it's and BG's behaviour is held to a different standard.
Since SCO is in the "computer field", any transactions between it and MS/large shareholders is subject to anti-trust scrutiny.
Because part of going bankrupt is to divest all assets, including Intellectual Property. Someone (like Microsoft) would probably leverage their power to buy all Intellectual Property interests left by the demise of SCO and continue these lawsuits on their own.
Point is, the problem won't simply "go away" if SCO does. Someone else, like Canopy, Baystar, M$, or even IBM, could pick up the ball and run with it.. .
OSDL or Linus should start to sue SCO. Linus wrote the code and he should sue SCO for theft! OSDL got a 10 million for legel defense. OSDL shouldn't worry about money. I am sure IBM will more than happy to pipe more money to OSDL. To crash out SCO's cash reserve, we should start more legal actions against SCO. Until they stop bugging Linux users. Even a small suit, they will have to pay a lawyer to handle it.
I had a class in high school called "Global Issues" ... I hated it. It made me aware of things I didn't want to know about, like female circumcision, Waco, Ruby Ridge, anti-abortion violence and domestic terrorism. And we watched "Arlington Road" (which really disturbed me.)
And the teacher seemed to me to be an obsessive conspiracy theorist.
But when I have kids, I'll make sure they take that class. It opened my eyes to a lot of stuff that I used to change the channel on.
This was at Grandville High School, if anyone cares. Call your local school district and tell them you want them to adopt a class like it.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
the "free-market Stalinist" as Christopher Hitchens put it. Of course, D.M. seems to have the same misunderstanding of his position in the world and in the results of his ambition as his role model. He probably hopes that SCO's run doesn't end like Ceaucescu's, which would explain the gun...
Mother, mother
There's to many of you crying
Brother, brother, brother
There's far too many of you dying
You know we've got to find a way
To bring some lovin' here today - Yah
Father, father
We don't need to escalate
You see, war is not the answer
For only love can conquer hate
You know we've got to find a way
To bring some lovin' here today
Picket lines and picket signs
Don't punish me with brutality
Talk to me
So you can see
Oh, what's SCOing on
What's SCOing
Ya, what's SCOing on
Ah, what's SCOing on
In the mean time
Right on, baby
Right on
Right on
Father, father, everybody thinks we're wrong
Oh, but who are they to judge us
Simply because our hair is long
Oh, you know we've got to find a way
To bring some understanding here today
Oh
Picket lines and picket signs
Don't punish me with brutality
Talk to me,
So you can see
Oh, what's SCOing on
What's SCOing on
I?ll tell you Ya, what's SCOing on - Uh
Ah, what's SCOing on
Right on baby
Right on baby
CA sees, knows where the future is headed, and calls it like it is, "stopping just short of calling SCO a liar".
While EV1 mumbles some half-hearted SCO PR in order to justify it's "license" purchase, one I believe it made purely for the publicity aspect just prior to launching a new data center.
I'll continue to buy from and otherwise support CA.
Fsck EV1, they can rot with SCO in hell.
I have no dealings with CA and they may or may not be evil bastards but there are suddenly a lot of anonymous posts in this story proclaiming the evils of CA.
smells fishy, like astroturf.
This article talks more about Questar and confirms our worst fears! It's pretty clear to me that thanks to RIAA, people can sued into submission. I think there will be many other smaller companies who just pay a few $thousand to make it all go away.
"Questar whom reports quote as claiming their use of Linux to be so light that the trifling cost of paying off SCO was the better option to the likelihood of meeting the ever-more litigious SCO in court."
"You got Sc0'd"
lets see some photoshopping
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Someone at CA is worried about ethics?
Woohoo, that's a good one.
IANAL: SCO can and has subpoenaed IBM's email records. Microsoft can't because it isn't their lawsuit or counterlawsuit. They'd just be a potential witness.
"but nothing they've ever done rises to the level of what SCO has been attempting."
What's worse? SCO who is attacking linux at its core in a very public way in the courts with made up facts that won't pan out in the end. Or Microsoft who every time a company or government thinks about using Linux they send some executive to cut out a deal where they give away Microsoft products for basically Free? Even worse than SCO's court case is they way Microsoft gets to those in power. Microsoft has successfully gotten to high level government officials and even slowed Linux adoption on an international level by getting US officially to petition against Linux use on a global level.
If your a true believer in FOSS you'll hate Microsoft as well. You may have to support Windows in your job or at home, you may have to treat Windows users with respect online, and you may have to admit that XP or Win2k3 are pretty good OS's. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't hate Microsoft's goal of destroying Linux or their constantly unethical behavior.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Court Using Linux Hears Lawsuit Claiming Linux Infringes Copyright wtf is this..? http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/002243. html
i hear SCO want to style themselves on the RIAA..
this sort of thing is a good start..
SCO's misrepresentations have tarnished CA's reputation. CA has a case for libel. Even if CA did not ultimately prevail, suing SCO would be a great PR boost for CA in the open software world.
When I worked for Tandy back in the good old days, Microsoft supplied us with the Xenix OS for the 68000-based systems (Model 16s & 6000s). At some point in the early 80's, Microsoft sold off the Xenix system (then based on Unix v7, if I recall) to Santa Cruz Operation. My understanding was that M$ owned 25% or so of SCO as part of that deal.
Did this change or am I senile?
otherwise worthy of +5 funny.
For the only reasonably stated intelligent reply. Your argument is persuasive. :)
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
Blake Stowell, knowing that we will never beleive a word he says, claims the memo is real to convince us that it was faked!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Well, with IBM abandoning M$, I could by M$ funding a slush fund to attack Linux.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
Sadly, I didn't make any comments in the previous thread, but if I had, I'm sure they would have been wrong. Ok, nothing to see here, move along.
Little Brother, watching the watchers
No, no, no.
I'm sick of you people constantly misquoting reputable news sources and press releases from large companies, already. It wasn't a payment of seven figures at all...it was seven fingers, as made famous in the Neo/Agent Smith scene in the original Matrix film. As in "How about I give you the finger...and you give me my phone call."
It's just that EV1 had each of seven highly-placed executives give Darl the finger, resulting in a payment of seven fingers.
I do so hate having to correct you people.
"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix"- Kieren O'Shaughnessy
They'd just be a potential witness.
The United States Constitution guarantees that litigants will "have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor" (Amendment VI). While Amendment VI is construed strictly towards criminal trials, the right to have a compulsory process to obtain witnesses has been construed to also apply to criminal trials.
A subpoena is the classic tool used to compel witnesses to testify. MS has no protection from subpoena just because it isn't a direct party to the lawsuit(s).
So this particular hellhound isn't restricted to biting, if there's a politician around it can lick as well.
Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
If SCO actually added something (Linux IP paragraphs) to an already issued and accepted license for something else, would that be fraud? There is just something that sounds blatantly wrong about modifying an existing agreement without both parties approval.
Any legal types know the answer?
Isn't it a conflict of interest to elect lawyers to Congress where thry write laws in souch convoluted language as to guarantee perpetual employment to themselves and their peers?
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
You got all the good stuff but here's the whole thing.
I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
I need some clarification. By Darl's teachers, did you mean Stalin, or Lenin?
Come on dude, why bash the Beatles?
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
Nice ploy, but it's not working.
Say, McBride, is MS still funneling money to you via third parties, aka Baystar? How does it feel to be Bill Gate's Lawn Jockey?
Whilst logging into a 7 year old SCO UnixWare box:
UnixWare 2.1.3 (Bradley) (pts/2)
login: etr
Password:
UX:in.login: INFO: Your password will expire in 5 days
UnixWare 2.1.3
Bradley
Copyright 1996 The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 1984-1995 Novell, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corp. All Rights Reserved.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,349,642
Last login: Fri Mar 5 10:26:10 2004 on pts001
You have mail
Display Desktop (y/n)? n
$
Hmmmm. Copyright 1984-1995 Novell, Inc. All Rights Reserved.??? Whats this???
INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
Please do not equate what Darl is doing to communism. What Darl is doing is exploiting the loopholes of Capitalistic setup for money
Moreover, Lenin and Stalin are entirely different. Lenin is to Stalin what Nepolean was to Hitler. Lenin was not really responsible for mass murder of civilians (though the formation of USSR out of neighbours might not be very good thing to do in retrospect). Similarly Napolean never sent Jews to the gas chambers either though he,like hitler, attaccked all his neighbours.
According to the US Patent office, patent # U.S. Pat. No. 5,349,642 states:
" 5,349,642, Re. S.N. 08/778,151, June 13, 1997, Cl. 380/25, METHOD AND
APPARATUS FOR AUTHENTICATION OF CLIENT SERVER COMMUNICATION, Kevin
Kingdon, Owner of Record: Novell, Inc., Provo, Utah, Attorney or Agent:
James D. Liles, Ex. Gp.: 2202"
This may not be extremely significant, but hold that Novell DOES have some IP claims it holds.
Food for thought.
INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
I am the original poster of the above parent, and I didn't see the other post on CA.
But it's clear that many people hate CA for just about the same reason. You seem to love defending CA for some bizarre reason.
The simple fact is that no one should give a fuck about CA because they are destroying our industry. Their business practices are simply horrifying and they don't give a fuck about their employees or customers... just about giving their board of directors millions of dollars.
It's kind of like seeing white-supremists geting sued for breaching the DMCA. Yeah, I really hate the DMCA, but I'm not going to rally behind those white supremists because of my hate for the DMCA, or look to them as a savior of some sort.
In a similar vein, yeah, I hate SCO, but I'm not going to rally behind CA to fight back against SCO. And you shouldn't either. I'll wait for a more worthy ally.
Oh, the irony!
I wonder how Sue Unger (CIO of DCX) feels about being sued (by proxy) by Microsoft?
A copy of that letter should be dropped on her desk ASAP....
Attacking public targets to cause fear in the marketplace, as a strategy to control the people in the marketplace through fear, is terrorism. SCO is a stock market terrorist group. Where's John Ashcroft when he might actually do something to fix the economy and protect us from terror? Oh, right, down on his knees somewhere, while SCO hunkers down in the Mormon Kush run by Christaliban Orrin Hatch (R-UT).
--
make install -not war
Is it me or is this whole SCO thing looking like the presidential race? Or vice versa.
int main(){
int MS = Bush;
int Linux = Kerry;
int SCO = Nader
int total_domination = 100;
int winner = 0;
int i = 1;
while(total_domination > i){
if(MS){
i++;
winner = MS;
}
if(Linux)
i--;
if(SCO){
i = i + 2;
winner = MS;
}
if(i == 0){
total_domination = 100;
winner = Linux;
}
return winner;
}
}//End Race
A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
It is like a twisted variation on the "do not explain by conspiracy what may be adequately explained by incompetence" -- which in the SCO worldview has become "do not explain by competence what may be adequately explained by conspiracy"
It is a sorry state of affairs if whenever someone does something efficiently, that by itself raises suspicions? That's close to libelous, even. It does however seem to be something to look for in the other actions as well.
SIGBUS @ NO-07.308
Losers try the courts to win in the marketplace. They are joining such luminaries as Lotus (123), Sun, and many others. Netscape?
I don't think the government will do much, or be able to do much. IBM may be a little pissed off however. Who would win with a full, all out legal war between IBM and MS?
I wouldn't be at all surprised if all of a sudden Baystar and others pull their investments, leaving SCO and Darl dangling, all as a result of some very interesting conversations between Armonk and Redmond.
Derek
What happened was that, back in the 80's, standard ATT UNIX was put on the PC; first by Microport, and then others hopped onto the bandwagon, reselling stock ATT UNIX from Intel.
BellTech, Everex, and I forget who else.
The key point here is that NONE of these companies were paying their royalties to ATT. Not even SCO was paying theirs at the time (and their royalties actually went to Microsoft, for Xenix, who in turn paid ATT).
ATT finally woke up to this fact, and demanded that the royalties be paid. This out a damper on the Intel UNIX biz there for a while.
Within a short period of time, Microport went Chapter 11, Intel "bought" BellTech (I.e. aquired, in exchange for the royalties due). And SCO gave Microsoft a 20% share of their stock in exchange for the due royalties.
These actions were kept pretty hush-hush from the Press, as it was quite embarassing for all involved. So this article is just spin.
Here.
1) When all is said and done, I don't think that SCO will have really done much damage to Linux (or by extension, the GPL). When all this started, the more far-sighted among us said this would be a great test case for the GPL. As SCO's smoke and mirrors have been pierced and as the various cases have developed, however, this has not been about the GPL. It's all been FUD. Most of us have known this for a while, but now EVERYONE knows it. If anything, Linux has gained strength, if this is the best that it's enemies can do.
2) This potentially hugely damaging to MS. If the allegations are true (I'd put money on it), they're in breach of the settlements. Kollar-Kotelly, the judge of the punishment phase, will certainly want to take another look at the case. The various state Attorney Generals will want to reopen the case. There might also be new criminal charges filed, not to mention civil cases. At the very least, we should see some investigations. And I haven't even mentioned how this might play out internationally.
3) Regardless of how this plays out in the courts, MS is going to lose big in the court of public opinion. The MS defenders will not have a leg to stand on. (I never imagined Enderle with any legs. Instead, I've always imagined him as a giant farting ass, with no other body parts attached.) The FUD campaign has not only fallen apart, it has backfired.
4) Having failed to really slow Linux adoption or development, MS will continue to lose ground. Longhorn is two or more years out, folks are already suspicious about "XP Reloaded" (why name a product after a really bad sequel?), and Linux clearly has huge momentum.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Funny, my guess was Satan...
Besides, McBride doesn't seem to like Communism much. At least, that's what I gather from the folks at SCO who put out the false "we support communism" picket signs when SCO was picketed...
until schools start teaching "Propaganda 101" as a basic curriculum requirement, Western States are going to continue to be little more than Sheep Factories.
/. which is a distributed legal attack, stalling SCO with 1000's of separate lawsuits in every state in the Union. My second favorite defense is a very strong, well funded and powerful Linux trade group.
Propoganda? I don't think it is helpful to attack the average American for holding a different point of view that we may disagree with. Most Linux users are just as biased as anyone, if not more so. That bias can blind intelligent and reasonable people (this happens all the time in business). Personally, I try to listen and understand why people hold the views they do. I also try to be self critical, even handed and open minded. It is hard some times, and I fail 90% of the time. But only by doing that, and not resorting to counter propoganda, can we learn our strengths and weaknesses. We need to honestly accept criticism in order to overcome our weaknesses. Right now, SCO is clearly and blatantly pointing to a weakness in the Linux model. If Linux doesn't have a weakness, how is it that a tiny company like SCO can cause such huge problems? I am not saying SCO is right, but we have a lot of work to do to make sure that Linux continues to offer freedom to users.
We need to realize the difference between strategy and tactics. Propoganda is a short lived persuading tool and can only achieve limited success. SCO is achieving some limited success with their propoganda, but their 'strategy' is to use the divided and decentralized structure of the Opens Source community against us, by winning small victories as leverage to divide and conquer and make us believe we are losing. The more success SCO has, the more dangerous SCO becomes. Because of our weakness SCO has the potential to make spectacular long term gains against us, we are only lightly defended and weak to a relentless predator. Realizing and fixing our underlying weakness, and designing a defense/attack mechanism in the Linux business model would be a good strategy to counter SCO. My favorite defense is one I have heard many times on
Why would SCO admit that the e-mail was authentic?
Insightful ? Lenin had many thousand of people shot and millions of others died of famine.
I hereby rename all of this SCO stuff to: SCOgate . Let's refer to it as thus from now on ... I just like the sound of it.
Apologizes to anyone who may have already named it the same.
With MS funding someone else covertly to do the dirty work. See how well that worked for the CIA. Had any good cigars lately?
Not saying MS==CIA. Or that Linux==Castroism/Socialism. No no.
I was just wondering.....where are all the people that loudly proclaimed the memo to be ``bullshit'', and that it was a ``fraud''. They seem to be very quiet today, I wonder why?
I'm too lazy to go through yesterday's comments to dig up their names, but I'm wondering - don't you feel stupid today?
I won't comment on the comparison, but I do suggest you check your historical sources. Lenin did not *personally* condemn anyone to death. He left that to Trotski (who created the first concetrnation and execution camp in a revamped monastery), and Dzerzhinski, who organized the initial purges. This is when anyone who could read, write, or wore glasses was summarily executed along with their families.
So...Lenin did not personally pull the trigger....true. But he is the one who set policy and appointed the executioners (read that in whichever way you like).
Again, before posting, check your sources.
CA didn't _intentionally_ sign on as a SCO licensee for Linux IP, but they did become one - however marginally - as part of their Unixware deal. As someone who is forced to deal with CA on much too frequent a basis, I can tell you that CA is just as sneaky at burying T's & C's into their contracts and I'm literally laughing out loud that _they_ got burned by the same tactics they use to shaft _their_ customers. They have incredible depth in their contracts review support, and somebody seriously dropped the ball here. Somebody is, or soon will be, joining the ranks of the many job-seekers. I shed no tears for either company, they are both scum, and I'm enjoying watching the fur fly between the two.
"The bigger the lie, the more they believe." - Det. Bunk
Oh my God! What a paranoid freak that Darl McBride is! Oh, wait, he's not...
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Now I'm having visions of David Gerrold's Gobal Ethics courses from "A Matter for Men".
IANALBIPOOGL (I am not a Lawyer, but I play one on GrokLaw.)
Can CA sue SCO for Libel?
This sig no verb.
Please mod parent up: +5, Funny!
How about this - whenever SCO sues a company, all the open source advocates purchase something from that company (I'm thinking $20). This may not always be practical (for example, I'm not buying a car). But in the case of Auto Zone, that's easy.
The message to the business world would be that it pays in more ways than one to use Linux...like a reverse boycott.
cheers.
Fair competition does NOT mean that everyone has the same starting point. It just means they have the same field to play on.
Exactly! And there is only *one* company that can control access to the field. I find Microsoft's "We don't want government regulation in the computer indunstry!" rhetoric disingenuous; MS itself regulates the industry much more efficiently and ruthlessly than the government ever could.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Here's a URL for Glaser rounds.
From the site,
The price for 6 pistol type Glaser round is between 10 and 12 dollars, and hardball is widely variable but maybe 10% of that amount.
I've seen post mortem pics of people shot with Glaser rounds and it's scary. Several of them looked like they had just a small cut, the entrance wound, but x-rays showed massive damage. Another photo showed 2 inch wide cone of flesh blasted out of the mark's neck, but article said that somebody standing behind them would have been just pissed off, not dead. Truly amazing. I personally don't know about that, but it makes sense.
As far as getting rounds that don't bounce around in one's hose, I think the key is to draw, then fire.
BTW... If you want to get to know the most anal-retentive, cheap geeks around, start hanging out with reloaders. Their attention to detail is amazing. And there's nothing like going out and blasting the hell out of old cars & cans.
Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
Because people who are actually BUYING their product aren't getting sued.
"Sufferin' succotash."
.. Linux Fund SCO to prove Linux belongs to them. Then have them hand linux over so that it can be branded as the much awaited next genration MS platform :)
Ashcroft got a little queasy upon hearing about the Halloween X document and what it might mean for the future of his pet anti-trust trial.
"look down on with disdain"
Just a thought here, perhaps this would show the kind of positive, forward thinking and dedicated group we really are!
The Matrix is real... but I'm only visiting!
Microsoft has learned alot from their first anti-trust trial and have made changes to their strategy. First they poured a ton of money into their DC Lobbist force. Before the trial they hardly spent a time lobbying in DC. Since the trial they've poured a ton of MS cash into the pockets of politicians. For their second trick they decided to use a chump company to assault the linux lifeforce.
The Flatlander
Blake Stowell, SCO Information Minister -- even his initials are BS!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
So one of the possible outcomes of all this SCO-crap that I would not be happy with is some other company, particularly like MS, end up owning SCO's Unix rights. In reading this infamous Halloween memo, I was worried about this sequence:
Difficult to decipher, with all the typos and what not, but what does ".. we could exit and Unix components... potentially back to Microsoft" mean ? Is part of the understanding that after the SCO dust settles, that MS might end up with Unix ? ugh...
God I love the mentality on Slashdot. An article comes out with a relatively redundant memo re: Microsoft's involvement with SCO, and CA laying the retorical bitch-slap on SCO, and what does the mob here fixate on? Hmmm... lesse, could it be, Microsoft? For #@$ sake people, there could be a comet streaking towards the earth, about to destroy humanity, and somehow the majority of the tin-foil-hat-wearing-we-hate-Microsoft crowd would find a way to blame them.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of Microsoft or any other software company for that matter. It's just funny to see the pavlov-like response here when that one word is thrown out.
"Microsoft"
Hmmm... just testing.
"...The mice will see you now..."
So ye old Sco open unix, which was in a previous live ye old xenix created by ye old microsoft, woudst return to whense it came.
If there was a moderation catagory for annoying, I think this post earns it. funny, how I can write something like that and a commentary about it in the same post, instead of changing it while I could. Eh, such is the Bill.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Keep in mind, by SCO's own admission both Sun and Microsoft are paying for "Unix IP licenses". While those two companies may not be behind the $50 mil, you can sure as shit bet their quarterly payments to SCO are viewed as "investment dollars" to assist in the demise of Linux.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Feb. 22, 1989, the music industry stunned nearly the entire world when they handed Jethro Tull the grammy for best Heavy Metal over Metallica.
Clearly, MTV and the rest of those yahoo's had no clue what the general population listened too. Its easily argueable they still don't, when was the last time you watched MTV? Better, when was the last time you saw a video?
"Noone runs Linux, Microsoft owns 99% of the desktop market!"
Companies scared of SCO's ramblings, figure that there's no harm in a little prospective legal protection... afterall, who's going to complain? "Everyone runs Microsoft Windows."
Are those suitable for board room politics so out
of touch of the consumers' wishes that they honestly have no idea how many desktops are running Linux? Are they so gullible to figure that such an act can go unnoticed? That, as far as public backlash goes, there's no consequences due to the lack of users?
To corporate America, Microsoft and SCO. My GRANDMOTHER is aware of Linux, and not becuase I told her. She asked ME about it! Games are being developed natively for Linux, the pengiun icon is showing up on merchandise ranging from network cards to video cards, from CD-RW drives to packs of diskettes.
Now, some corporations, where their executives have yet to venture to a local computer store, corner store or at the least mingle with the general public, are now realizing that reality is far from what their so-called-educated marketing team tells them in facy presentations and graphs.
EV1, felt the heat, heat great enough for them to post publicly an explanation (excuse rather) for their actions supporting SCO's claim.
No doubt, Computer Associates did infact pay SCO, only to later regret it and "vehemently" try to catch up with public sentiment.
Corporations try so hard to control the market, they don't even realize when they no longer have control. By the time they catch up, it's too late. (I still don't respect Music Award ceremonies becuase of the foul foolishness of 1989).
"As a "small part" of that settlement, Barrenechea said, CA got a bunch of UnixWare licenses that it needed to support its UnixWare customers. SCO, he said, had just attached a transparent Linux indemnification to all UnixWare licenses and that is how SCO comes off calling CA a Linux licensee.
But when CA agreed to that settlement, Barrenechea said, "It was not CA's intention to become a Linux licensee. It has nothing to do with CA's product direction or strategic direction," he said.
CA has absolutely no sympathy for what SCO is doing, Barrenechea said, and in fact, he said, reading from a formal statement, it stands in "stark disagreement with SCO's tactics and threats."
Barrenechea and CA's Linux chief Sam Greenblatt are worried that CA will be tarred with the SCO brush and that CA's considerable Linux ambitions will be damaged by a disaffected, if not hostile, open source community when in reality CA has "nothing to do with SCO's strategy and tactics," they said."
So the truth comes out... SCO's "Significant" Linux license taker didn't pay a dime for the Linux licenses but rather had them slipped in uninvited so that SCO could make a misleading claim! Typical of SCO...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Hmm, destroying an entire sector of industry and attempting to extort money as well as appropriating the work of others as his own in the persuit of short term profits...I'd guess Milton Friedman or Robert Novak myself.
Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
I am extremely stupid. ;)
I have to learn never to try correcting people ever again.
Did Gates have one of his famous fits of temper upon learning of this latest development...?
Is this a rhetorical question...?
I don't know... or do I...?
I see this idea way to often, and it's nonsense. You act as if SCO wants to go back to being a tiny software vendor. If they win, in the big sense, they will leverage their position to acquire more intellectual property and contract rights. They may acquire these as part of settlements. Then they can attack more companies with more claims.
SCO's Unix business was dead anyway. How can you possibly think that after winning five billion dollars they would go back to their old Unix business?
More importantly, I get irritated by this implication that businesses would buy or not buy based on the "niceness" of the vendor. Way more important than niceness is the legal shotgun said vendor is aiming at your midriff. SCO with 5 billion and hundreds of small acquisitions giving them patents and contracts would wield a big scary shotgun. They would certainly not be irrelevant.
I see SCO has a Price to Earnings ratio of 48.46... is that a bad thing, in the eyes of stock analysts? Wouldn't most companies with that high a P/E be considered seriously overvalued?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Okay, AC, I suggest YOU check your sources. I just checked some of mine, and I found nothing about Trotsky starting the first concentration camps in a revamped monestary. Lenin started the first concentration camps. Trotsky was a true revolutionary, and much more of an anarchist than a communist. That is one reason why the capitalist propaganda machine heaped so much hate and scorn on him. Communism was supposed to lead to anarchism, which is pretty much what Libertarians are about, i.e. government by direct agreement of the people, no State. Communists just thought there needed to be some intermediate State. Of course, communism wasn't really practiced for more than a few years in Russia. Power hungry ruthless bastards rose to the top in the chaos and violence of armed revolution and crushed the people's dreams of freedom. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Trotsky was IMHO at about the same level of moral and ethical development as our American founding fathers, i.e. not perfect people but decent, forward thinking individuals who care about humanity. Someone like Ghandi would be a step above them, while people like Lenin or Dzerzhinsky (who founded the KGB) would be many steps below. So again, I say check YOUR sources before you malign Trotsky. Check different sides of the story, get a feel for his life as a whole, then tell me he is as evil as Lenin or Dzerzhinsky.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"it is clear that SCO is a front for M$ from which no profits for shareholders are to be had."
So how will the M$ shareholders feel about such an investment? Class action ahoy? Or at least an explanation of why they did it which would bring the whole M$-SCO can of worms out in the open.
This could blow up spectacularly in Microsoft's collective face. And if Microsoft has to abandon support for SCO, who's going to keep them going?
David Boies was not an employee of the Justice Department the way a federal prosecutor is, when he led the lawsuit against Microsoft, there was a fee-for-services contract between him/his law firm and the DoJ. It's not a matter of betrayal at all, it's just a matter of getting a very fat fee for services rendered, in both cases.
It sounds like what SCO is doing is illegal.
Issuing a license to Linux under any terms other than GPL is a violation of the GPL, and therefore violates the copyrights on Linux.
from the i-like-big-rebuttals-and-i-can-not-lie dept.
haha, that's hilarious! I love you, CowyboyNeal.
[grammer nazi] For the LAST time, Microsoft IS, sheesh..[/grammer nazi]
That would be "grammar".
The problem with the Corvair was little to do with aerodynamics. GM deleted a $5 strut in the rear suspension late in development to save money, which unfortunately allowed excessive camber changes during cornering (wheel leaning over wrt tarmac).
This lead to tail-happy handling, and under some circumstances the wheel rim could dig into the ground and flip the car.
It was a huge shame that such an innovative approach was killed because of, essentially, a detail of implementation.
This further proves that Microsoft is the Dr. Evil of the Software world.
I wonder if Sco is going to sue for a Billion Dollars.
*puts on Dr. Evil Laugh*
Mwuhahahahaha
$>man woman
$>Segmentation fault (core dumped)
http://www.ecosyn.us/SCO_v_IBM_copyright_issues.ht ml
SCO v IBM: SELECTED WEBPAGES CITATIONS OF COPYRIGHT LAW HISTORY RELEVENT TO UNIX SYSTEM V COPYRIGHT CLAIMS STATUS
* NO copyrights for computer programs, source code or machine readable binary were copyrightable in the US before 1980.
* Before 1976, mandatory notices were required on all copyrighted materials in standardized mandatory forms -- failure to adhere to the law regarding mandatory notices on published works forfeited what copyright protection was available.
* Before 1976 copyright was not automatically conferred upon creating a fixed tangible form -- copyright was limited to those works which complied with the provisions of the prior law "The Copyright Act of 1909". Unix was developed and distributed for seven years under this law.
* Distributing works, making one or more copies for sale, lease or loan, constituted publication during the first seven years of Unix development.
* Since 1976, mandatory requirements for copyrighted works have required deposit of copies with the Library of Congress within 3 months of first publication. Unless Unix source code is in the Library of Congress it is not copyrighted. Unless Unix System V is in the Library of Congress, it is in violation of the 1976 revisions. Before 1976 "promptly" depositing copies was mandatory, defined in caselaw as within one year of first publication.
* Unix System V is a collection of modules, mostly public domain through copyright forfeiture between 1969 and 1976.
* It is defined as fraud under the 1909 Copyright Act [ 105] "shall insert or impress any notice of copyright required by this title, or words of the same purport, in or upon any uncopyrighted article" to post-fix copyright notices upon works not qualifying for copyright.
* None of the 1976, 1980, or 1989 adjustments to Copyright laws and the Berne Treaty permitted retroactive copyrights to previously forfeiting or public domain works.
* Unix System V is basically public domain in the catagory of a compilation or anthology. Only new material added after 1976, or after 1980 (when computer programs first became copyrightable) could possibly qualify for copyright status, and only those collections which complied with mandatory deposit with the Library of Congress. Everything else is not in compliance with copyright laws and treaties.