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."
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,
As much as I hate to say this again, the justice system isn't going to do a thing against MS as long as they don't commit massive frauds or something similiar.
To the government MS is simply a healthy company bringing in a boatload of cash, who cares if they don't play by the rules [of capitalism].
The path I walk alone is endlessly long.
30 minutes by bike, 15 by bus.
It smells pretty desperate when you won't let your "best" customers comment on what they've bought from you.
Lasers Controlled Games!
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.
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.
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.
The really unfortunate part is that in the elder days, Caldera used to be one of the better Linux distros out there. They had a good system installer, lisa, for example. Shame, really, what mr. McBride's done with the company.
One can only hope.
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
Darl McBride, chief executive of SCO Group Inc., says he sometimes carries a gun because his enemies are out to kill him.
If this isn't proof-positive that this guy is a few meg short of a gig, I don't know what is.
Nobody wants to kill McBride. He's doing a pretty good job of destroying himself.
SCO is like an infinte loop. We're just waiting for their resources to get eaten at which point we'll all roast marshmellows over their core dump.
McBride and SCO are more hated than Microsoft
Ok, let's not get carried away here. SCO's antics, while reprehensible and immoral, are nowhere near as threatening to the future of open source as Microsoft's. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not getting bombarded on a daily basis from worm-infected SCO machines. Microsoft has that dubious distinction and therefore deserves top honors.
The "government" is not a monolithic entity. To the court system, MS is a monopolist. To the executive branch, what's good for General Motors is good for America.
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.
Ok, let's not get carried away here. SCO's antics, while reprehensible and immoral, are nowhere near as threatening to the future of open source as Microsoft's. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not getting bombarded on a daily basis from worm-infected SCO machines. Microsoft has that dubious distinction and therefore deserves top honors.
Being the most hated doesn't make them the most feared. You're correct that MS is the biggest threat to Open Source. That isn't a reason to hate them, but to be wary of them. Granted, they have used some despicable tactics in the past and are masters of FUD, but nothing they've ever done rises to the level of what SCO has been attempting.
I think the assessment of SCO being the most hated is true. Your milage may vary.
What really confuses me about MS licensing Unix from SCO is that they didn't need to. Windows for Unix systems, is at version 3.5. That means MS was illegally using Unix source for versions up to 3. Or they were using something that didn't need a License, and why didn't they continue to use that software, why buy a license for something when you don't need to, unless you are funneling money.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
... 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?
I think we all know that Linux and open source advocates can get quite overheated in their advocacy, especially in email, so that it tends to damage the reputation of the whole community. It's quite common in Slashdot nowadays to see us reminding one another to keep cool and rational when we publicly criticize SCO and the other bad guys of the IT world.
But SCO has been trying to exploit this bad habit rather heavy-handedly lately, evidently to discredit their opponents and gain some sympathy. And now it's gotten to the point that SCO is unfairly exaggerating the tone of the criticism
Is there really any credible evidence of serious threats of violence against Darl McBride? To be sure, he's probably been suggested to more verbal abuse than even he deserves, but I think it's highly unlikely that there's been a threat of physical harm that should be taken seriously. It's awfully easy to blow your stack in email, but that's a long way away from actually doing something in the Real Universe. At any rate, Darl's levelling a very serious accusation that should not be made or taken lightly.
I suspect that Darl doesn't really think he needs a gun or an armed bodyguard. I think he thinks it's useful if other people think he needs a gun or an armed bodyguard.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
Efforts to license Linux cost SCO $3.4 million in the first quarter. That's right, one-third of total revenue was wiped out. The payback? Twenty thousand dollars.
Some things about all of this are very clear to me.
SCO was a relatively big company before, which they are now knowingly destroying. They are are following legal actions that don't make sense and are unlikely to return as much money as they cost. Why? That doesn't make sense.
The common Slashdot response is it is because they are stupid. I don't think so. If they are not stupid, then what could explain these apparently nonsensical actions? Well, if it was in someone else's interest that Linux had legal difficulties...
Never forget that Microsoft has been deemed by the US courts to have a monopoly and as such to be subject to anti-trust laws. Microsoft cannot simply act as any small business would and hence could be breaking the law by doing things perfectly legal for others to do!
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Not to mention to make yourself the most unemployable person in the tech industry (that means you, McBride!)
Franky - unless he is sued personally over this matter, I don't think it will matter much.
Once anybody has a couple of million in the bank, they can simply sit back and coast on investments. They can afford insurance against anything imaginable, and work truly becomes fun since you can walk out any time you get bored or annoyed with your boss.
Sure, McBride won't get any invitations to programmer parties, but he's probably got enough money to not worry much about having another job...
"The common Slashdot response is it is because they are stupid. I don't think so. If they are not stupid, then what could explain these apparently nonsensical actions? Well, if it was in someone else's interest that Linux had legal difficulties..."
It's obvious what they are getting out of it.
The board members and other execs are getting dollar stock options then dumping them at 10 times (or more) what they paid for them. The FUD does their funders (Microsoft) wants, AND pumps up the stock price so they can cash in as well.
NOT ONE of their insiders has excercised an option then stayed long... They have all dumped IMMEDIATELY. That says alot for what they think of the long term viability of Scaldera.
SCaldera ceased to be a company and became a scam when McBribe came in.
Corporatism != Free Market
Oh just shut the hell up and turn off the SCO/Caldera related stories in your FUCKING PREFERENCES PAGE.
How many more people have to moan about this!!!
time for the Chewbacca defense!
liqbase
I mostly agree with you, since SCO is the one that is most visible in doing the attacks. But if Microsoft is secretly funding SCO, shouldn't we hate them more. It would be like hating those that committed 9/11 more than Osama bin Laden, although the hate may be the same.
I agree that what SCO is doing is just straight out horrible. MS is only evil on a business point of view. I really hate paraphrasing a line from the end of the first Survivor series (here goes my Karma!), but it really does fit. There are only rats and snakes here in business. MS is a snake, and SCO is a rat. But it may be that MS is manipulating SCO to do its dirty work for them. Another bonus for MS is that it even takes the hatred from them and points it elsewhere. So you may have people saying, "MS is bad, but at least they aren't as bad as SCO".
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
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.
Perhaps... This is the evidence that shows that SCO is just Microsoft's "SCOpegoat" to aid them in their attempt to destroy something that they can't own. It must be frightening, actually, to be a company that's become so wealthy in a market in which you nearly have a monopoly, only to have someone's pet project turn in to a world-class operating system that gets better and better every day. What do you do when your traditional "embrace and extend" tactics don't work? It must be frightening to know that something is sneaking up on your market share, stealing a small bit of it every day... And you can't own it. Scare tactics are the only option. I know which companies and groups I would trust after all of this... And it certainly isn't Microsoft or SCO.
Good job, guys. You've only made things worse for yourselves. I guess it doesn't really matter if the justice system does anything about these questionable transactions, because these companies are ruining their reputations and business relationships without any help.
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
It would be nice if that seperation were as clean as you suggest. Unfortunately, the exectutive branch appoints the guy who's in charge of deciding which cases to prosecute, as well as the judges who will preside over them. Congress can block the judicial appointments, but thats only of limited effectiveness.
Moral correctness? They're trying to build a Linux business and they don't want to be seen as one of the bad guys to the community. They found a good legal excuse to get them out of the NDA, weighed the risks vs rewards and decided it was worth the possible law suit. I don't see any evidence of moral courage here.
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.
Best darn quote in the article!
Fellowship 9/11
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.. .
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.
But they didn't say anything about RBC and RBC won't say who the big investor was. If MS funneled the money through RBC they could still claim not having any relationship with Baystar was the truth.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Besides it's far from clear whether bringing frivolous law suits via a proxy company is legal
Well people and companies file BS law suits all the time right. Hopefully most of them get dismissed. In an ideal world, businesses would behave ethically, but the behavior of companies the last 4 years paint a different picture.
Not to flame, but this needs to be stated.
I know there seems to be an inordinate amount of interest with SCO, but you must realize that there are a LOT of developers who are putting Linux into commerical products, all legal within the GPL. I am involved in such a project. In addition, there are many major companies that are using Linux as enterprise server iron. Companies like RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, etc, are built upon selling a distribution of Linux.
As to my project, for me to have to flush Linux, and use embedded BSD, or VxWorks would be throwing away a year of development. Seeing the Linux distro companies die would be a tragedy.
The concept of free (as in freedom) software has brought rich rewards to all who embrace the concept, use, and contribute to it. The only viable threats to the Redmond monopoly is Apple, BSD, and what we call Linux.
Yes, I agree there is a lot of FUD and idle speculation running around. Much of it belongs in the "tin-foil hat" paranoid category. Ignore it, or laugh about it. But keep the interest going!
But the crucial point is this: If SCO were to pull this off it would cripple many corporations in an already weak, recovering economy. Products, such as TiVo, Linux-based PDA's, Linksys routers, just to name a few, would come under the fire of SCO's legal department, crippling many, and entirely flushing others. And dont think that BSD would escape unscathed. Even if SCO were unsuccessful against trying to challenge BSD, (and remember that Apple's OSX has BSD parts within it -- they could be dragged into the middle of it) more damage would be done.
In the end we would end up with essentially a monopoly in computer operating systems. No choice, just pay, pay, pay.
I know what I have said has been already been posted in various forms, and I'll probably get modded as redundant, but serious interest is warranted.
Think of it this way. A cockroach, like SCO, hates bright lights and avoids being seen. Keep the lights on and polish your magnifying glass, because the SCO headquarters needs a good dose of insecticide.
-dh
In my opinion, the SCO lawsuit is one of the best things that could happen to Linux.
Why?
A lawsuit hitting Linux was inevitable - to quote Linus himself, any business larger than a lemonade stand is going to get sued.
Good fortune then that the current lawsuit, upon which future attacks on Linux will be judged, is weak and has been made into such a freakish spectacle.
The echo will linger for a long time after the SCO claims implode with a massive sucking noise.
Now is the winter of our disco tent
I think Businesses really want Linux to save money, and gain freedom in product selection. Many of the ears that hear SCO's FUD will be listening with dismay and may be delaying. The significant thing is that they want it to work, and IMO freedom has a way of happening. People try very hard to work around legal and national boundaries to get freedom or a better deal.
I know one person who has believed SCOs FUD and been happy to hear it. A couple of people said about the case, and I pointed them at various sites and they were happy to see that it was just garbage.
Even if SCO win their case, what's the absolute and total worst case for Linux? Some guys have to remove the code and rewrite it. Maybe some companies hold fire. Maybe even, some Linux using companies go bust because of it (I'm into the lunatic fringe worst case here). So what? Linux will just bounce back. A new generation of people will come along. The movement and the idea are there now, and it's unstoppable.
The best Microsoft can hope for with these cases is a stay of execution.
> So basically your saying that the government [is] in on this
I don't think he's saying they are "in on it" as much as he is saying they are simply "looking the other way."
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.
SCO is just Microsoft's "SCOpegoat"
Let's assume that this is truly the case -- that SCO is just a pawn in Microsoft's chess game. If so, why would the likes of Darl McBride and his cronies commit, what I believe, career-suicide? Come on, let's be honest, once Darl loses, what company would even want to touch him with a ten-foot pole? He'll always be referred to as "that guy" who started a ridiculous claim that never came to fruition. The only thing that I can think of, to make it worthwhile for Darl to do such a thing is if Microsoft said to him "don't worry about your career, we'll take care of you" and paid him off big-time. The legalities of this payoff is questionable -- but then again, the legalities of what SCO is currently doing is highly questionable.
Linux at home
> Then every vendor has the same starting point (GPL Linux)
> If that is not the best description of fair [competition?]
> They can join the linux world or die
If you meant "compensation" when you said "compention," sorry, I misunderstood. I assumed "competition" was what you mistyped.
So you are saying the best way to compete fairly is for everyone to use Linux? What you appear to be proposing is the exact OPPOSITE of competition. Locking them into another system, just one that isn't theirs?
Fair competition does NOT mean that everyone has the same starting point. It just means they have the same field to play on. Sure, MS has broken rules of the game, but Linux has redefined the rules of the game. (not that this makes MS any better or Linux any worse, I'm just stating my view)
IANAL, but understand enough about law to know when you have to qualify arguments with "pretty close," you would be better off not showing up in court to try and prove your point.
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
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.
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)
Well, I hope. It sounds a little weird to me that this is their last card to play. We'll see, but they might have some more cards hidden.
This potentially hugely damaging to MS
Why? Because people will start realizing that "MS is bad"? Didn't they already know about it?
Having failed to really slow Linux adoption or development
As I said, just don't sell the idea before it's there. Nothing is out yet. There is still plenty of FUD going on and the Linux adoption has already been slowed down - altough not to a large extent. But this is very difficult to measure: How do you know how many people/companies were slowed down because of all the FUD?
Write boring code, not shiny code!
What wouldn't you do if you could be Microsoft's bitch? If the latest memo is correct, they've already gotten about $100 million from Redmond. What would SCO stock be worth now if not for that?
Microsoft needs third parties to say and do the stuff that they can't say and do themselves for liability and antitrust reasons. They won't have any trouble recruiting them.
The Flatlander
This is just silly. There will continue to be a place for Windows, and it will continue to compete alongside Linux distributions that are no longer free themselves because of support and add-ons (and "greedy software companies"). Microsoft will have to make some concessions to hold on, though, and this process has already begun. They will simply do what they have to do, much of it even legal. Committed Windows-users can already thank Linux and the Open Source movement for making Microsoft a much easier beast to deal with than they otherwise would be.
What would you do if you had $500 million? Never work again? Why would you care whether or not you were committing "career suicide" if somebody gave you enough money that never finding another job wouldn't be a problem? Let's see now, I can continue working another 25 years, and earn maybe a total of $1 million over that time, and pay half that in taxes... or I can take $10 million right now and retire... which would you do?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
So what? It's not like the DOJ would punish them or anything. Legality only matters if the court system is willing to go after you when you break laws. The DOJ has shown no willingness to hold MS accountable.
The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
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...
"We believe the e-mail was simply a misunderstanding of the facts by an outside consultant who was working on a specific unrelated project to the BayStar transaction, and he was told at the time of his misunderstanding," Stowell said, reading from a statement. "Contrary to the speculation of Eric Raymond, Microsoft did not orchestrate or participate in the BayStar transaction."
My question is, how are they SUPPOSED to answer this? I mean, MS employs some 80,000 people. How could they possibly know if someone who is in their employ may have played any kind of role in that? Even if what they say is true, there's no way to answer the statement other than to decline comment.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
"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!
You have a pretty good point on 1). I'm probably being overly optimistic. It's still very unclear if MS doesn't have ammunition to use against Linux on the patent front.
It's not just a matter of people considering MS bad, but of how bad, or in what ways they are bad with specificity. Within IT departments with internal struggles between the MS camps and the Linux camps, this will (hopefully) give the Linux guys a little more juice.
I don't know how many companies have slowed Linux adoption, but by most accounts there hasn't been a meaningful slowdown. However, as you say, there hasn't been a definitive study. If you want to accuse me of mindlessly repeating Linux Happy Talk, I'd have to plead Guilty As Charged.
Anyway, thanks for the reminder not to get too smug. There are more battles ahead, to be sure.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.