Slashdot Mirror
New Caldera Promised
An anonymous reader writes "SCO has announced their plans to release a new version of Caldera Linux by the end of the year. From the announcement: 'To provide extensive reliability and performance features, the Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase has been merged with recently developed additions to SCO's world leading UNIX core operating system. Already contained code owned by SCO is still included benefiting the stability and overall experience opposed to recent Linux kernel releases.' The question is, is anyone listening?"
The current linux kernel is version 2.6.x. IIRC, the 2.5 branch was a development branch. Why would anybody want to use a linux distro based on an old developers version of the kernel?
It states in the press release that they are anticipating winning their lawsuits so they are releasing this version of Linux because as soon as they win they will be the only legal provider of Linux solutions.
Obviously as others have already stated, if they are using linux 2.5 codebase, don't they have to GPL everything they added? If not, can't Linus et al sue the pants off of them?
Talk about backfiring, here's a scenario for you.. MS gives SCO a chunk of cash to go fight linux, SCO illegally uses Linux code, Linus Torvalds sues them and gets all of MSs money to further linux development...
I guess they could just release everything as is with the GPL intact, since the pressrelease claims the lawsuit is nearing the end and they probably know they will lose.
They could also, in theory, strip out disputed code.. but I doubt they will.
And the suicide option to close the code also exist i guess. The last option might not be that far fetched, since their entire buisiness has been located in the courtroom these last couple of years.
I really like their disclaimer where they, if they so choose, say it's all the communitys fault if they fail with their "new" endeavour.
Well, I'm not impressed by openlinux.com's parody skills. Using the SCO logo as well as statements that look like standard SEC disclaimers aren't a good idea. How different is this from someone trying to fake news in order to manipulate a stock price? The average user will not realize this is fake.
Sounds like someone at SCO is covering their arse...
I find it more likely that openlinux.org is a spoof site or it has been compromised.
TSG can't release a new version and avoid problems with IBM counterclaims.
Forward Looking Statements .... unenforceability of the GNU general public license; ......
The statements set forth above include forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. The Company wishes to advise readers that a number of important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements.
As I read it, they are saying they are going to be the only legitimate linux distro if and only if the GNU is unenforcable.
Is that the same as saying they dont think its legal or is it we dont care you cant stop us?
The rest of it seems to be saying the rest of the press release is us lying out of our arse, and this is the disclaimer.
Caldera nameservers and everything. So this is not a parody site. If this press release isn't real, it's only because SCO got hacked. Which is, y'know, a possibility. Weirdly enough, if you go to the IP address that openlinux.org currently points to (thus stripping away the openlinux.org site's virtual server), you get.. a page saying nothing but "FSI INF". "FSI INF"? WTF?
Meanwhile it is awfully suspicious that caldera.com says nothing about this that I can see. Is there any evidence this "press release" has been... you know... released to the press? Or is it just a page on a website?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Apparently hosted on a german university server.
////
;; ANSWER SECTION:
openlinux.org. 21600 IN A 131.188.40.90
////
;; ANSWER SECTION:
90.40.188.131.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR fsi-server.informatik.uni-erlangen.de.
I think they want a test of the GPL. It's bait. Someone is going to take their code and redistribute it "according to the GPL", if just to spite them. Then SCO can decide if, when and where they want to sue. They think they own Linux (via Unix), so they don't need to rely on the GPL to redistribute Linux. From that point of view refuting the GPL doesn't hurt them but it would shatter Open Source. It's a bet against all odds, but what have they got to lose?
There are no words for this. To announce that no only that they will succeed in ripping off the community, but that they will sell it back the very code they they lovingly made through hard work, snack eating and soda drinking all through the night at a mearly 300% markup. They even generously suggest that it would be helpful to supply oneself with lubricant before purchasing a lisence from them. Wow! Thanks SCO!
Finished soon eh? Might that not have something to do with Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells Granting IBM's Motion to Expedite despite SCO's endless attempts to stall the judgements day?
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
A whois gives SCO as the owner of the domain. And their DNS servers are from calderasystems.com.
I am not sure, but the wording make it sound like a joke, for something interesting, type the following in your browser and read:
http://www.openlinux.org/r
OTOH, why would SCO even do this? Any belief that it will give them some cash flow or some other position that benefits them is irrational.
Perhaps because more lawsuits allows Daryl to shovel more legals fees over to his brother. Like a money-laundering scheme.
You're right. I'll bet you that the University re-assigned the IP to another machine at some point without really being aware that it hosted openlinux.org once upon a time (while SCO completely forgot about it being in their DNS at all). And the new owner got funny HTTP access attempts to their Apache caused by old links. And one thing lead to another....
I tried this and got various different messages on each reload. It looks like the server is just calling fortune with the BOFH excuses file. Still unlikely to be a real press release though.
Causation can cause correlation
"conspiracy to commit copyright infringement"
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004586.php
They're there affecting their effect.
Yeah, it's a joke - pretty funny too when you start looking closely. Apart from the 2.5 kernel hint, here's a few gems.
What you say!! Somebody set us up the bomb!! The "only" provider? Yup, a realistic goal there, if you're a megalomaniac... Outbeating is good. Not grammatically of course, but still good.And of course the kicker is the uptime claim - Yankee Group actually claimed that it was Microsoft's Windows 2003 Server that had the 20% better uptime. Funny when you know many people think MS are behind SCO's litigation.
Laugh, people. It's a pisstake, and a pretty good one.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
...SCO owns the domain (Do a 'whois' next time before proclaiming "fakeness"...) and
the site IS on one of their servers. Not to mention that the site's main page happens
to be referring to the same thing, coming Early Q1 of 2006.
Just like SCO... Promise everything, have nothing in hand.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas