SCO has said that, yes, but not consitently. SCO said in their SCO Forum that there was line by line copying. They also mention copyright violation in their Amended Complaint.
But really my point is that it doesn't matter what SCO says to the press. They need to say say this in court...
In court, IBM can make sure they choose one story and stick with it.;)
As I read that, they seemed to be saying that JFS was just one example of infringement among many. They seemed to be saying that IBM should know all the places thta they have infringed without being told because it was so obvious. For example says SCO, look how obvious it is that they infringed on JFS.
IBM obviously can't go forward until SCO specifies all the points that SCO claims infringes. Even the debate that IBM can't release JFS is not specific enough. SCO needs to specify whether IBM can't release it because it has 10 lines that look a little bit like Sys V code or whether IBM can't release it because it was ported to AIX at one point.
I have no problem with slashdot tracking slashdot readers through the use of a "slashdot id". My problem is with forbes.com tracking individuals through a world wide "person id" system.
It is utterly offensive to me how they use their "person id" system to target outer space death laser beams on people who don't share their marxist world view.
Yup. Two anonymous licensees. The first was an anonymous fortune 500 company that paid $2000. The other was a smaller company which paid an secret amount.
Only the lyrics to "Happy Birthday to You" are copyright. The tune is ancient so if you changed the words to something else like, "Good morning to you" you wouldn't have to pay any cash. The side benifit that a lot of people don't realise is that you could sing it every day instead of just once per year.
It seems that this is a more complete version of the filing:
Here is the relevant text: "Several entities in Germany have obtained temporary restraining orders in Germany precluding SCO GmbH, the Company's German subsidiary, in substance, from making statements in Germany that disparage Linux, or entities involved in the Linux business, or implicate Linux as infringing the Company's intellectual property rights. SCO GmbH has received an administrative fine of 10,000 Euro for a technical violation of one of the temporary restraining orders. The Company is currently negotiating with the various claimants in Germany over the temporary restraining orders and is evaluating whether it will appeal the administrative fine. Informal letter complaints similar to those raised in Germany have been received from companies in Austria and Poland. The Company has responded to those letters. It is not known if those complainants will take future action."
It mentions the 10,000 fine but it doesn't mention that they had to pay 50,000 EU in lawyer fees because they didn't bother to show up for the preliminary hearing...
The rumour is that Computer Associates bought a license for $1,200 as part of their $40,000,000 settlement with the Canopy Group.
I know Computer Associates has more than 2 systems that run Linux. Also I don't think that the text of the Linux License has been finallized. Plus TSG lies all the time anyways... So who knows what to believe?
Google for "french military victories" and hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button.
There used to be a company which was also called SCO where the letters stood for "Santa Cruz Operation". That company is now called Tarantella. The letters in the new SCO don't stand for anything, they're just the name of the company.
Certainly they should be thinking about leaving anyway. SCO is committing suicide.
Having SCO on your resume is like having Enron. I have more sympathy for the Enron employees because how could they know what the management was doing? But still, it doesn't look very good even for Enron employees.
On the other hand, I do agree that what Chrisd is doing is childish. Also he got the name of the company wrong.
That's not a list for SCO, that's a list for the Canopy Group. IBM doesn't have to have a subpoena to get this same information from SCO but they do for the Canopy Group. Up to this point, the Canopy Group has not been directly involved with the lawsuit but it looks like that may change.;)
It's a testament to SCO's PR that people think they have sued anyone besides IBM.
They've made all kinds of random threats and press releases but only for the purpose of driving up the stock price. They don't intend to actually go to court.
Heck, they don't intend to even win their one lawsuit against IBM.
They first started by saying the Linux code was all original. Then "hundreds of lines" infringed. Then 83 lines infringed. Then "hundreds of files" infringed. Then hundreds of thousands of lines. Then millions of lines.
Then they said, "That slide was mis labeled, we actually knew it was BSD code all along, and we certainly didn't copy it in UnixWare without attribution."
SCO hasn't filed any complaints about copyright violations. (Their lawsuit against IBM is over trade secrets).
Also didn't register the entire source. I heard it was just 28 pages of stuff they had added. (28 pages is basically nothing).
SCO has limitted the damages that they could claim from infringers by setting the price for their "license." They can't really ask for more than $1000 per CPU because that's the price they claimed it was worth initially.
Of course, SCO doesn't really have any case so they have limitted the amount of damages they can claim in that way as well.:P
I am curious what the exact definition of large is...
Somewhere I read that the disclosure would happen if a company bought 5% of the outstanding shares. So if Microsoft stay under the 8 million dollar mark it wouldn't need to be disclosed.
The truth is that I don't know too much about how the stock market works so I'm not sure if that is accurate.
IBM has four patent claims to cover SCO's four most important products. IBM chose the four patents out of hundreds of possible patents that SCO infringes on. The patents they chose are meant to serve as a warning.
IBM has patent on a compression technique that SCI uses everywhere and so it will take months and months to remove.
IBM patented a tiny feature in an email program from an operating system that is distributed with hundreds of programs. All the programs probably infringe on IBM patents.
IBM has the patent for the start menu... And everything else as well.
IBM owns the patent for the whole idea behind SCO's clusterring software, and legally they can shut SCO down.
The idea is it only takes four patent to shut SCO down and IBM can find more if it has to.
That could terminate their rights, but if they distribute source for Samba or point users to samba.org to download source, would that keep them legal under the GPL?
First of all, SCO is not a non profit and so pointing users to samba.org is not sufficient to comply with the license.
Samba can sue for any reason they please, but that doesn't mean they will win. Let's imagine they sue SCO for distributing code without a license. They would use Darl interviews as evidence.
SCO has a couple options: 1) Claim the GPL is invalid. Lose the right to distribute Samba. Pay damages. 2) Claim they were distributing the code under the GPL and that their actions are proof. 3) Claim to the press that IBM copied derivative trade secrets into samba and that they own samba. Watch their stock go through the roof. Make millions selling their inflated stock.
I think we all know which option SCO would choose.
Slashdot Mirror
SCO has said that, yes, but not consitently. SCO said in their SCO Forum that there was line by line copying. They also mention copyright violation in their Amended Complaint.
;)
But really my point is that it doesn't matter what SCO says to the press. They need to say say this in court...
In court, IBM can make sure they choose one story and stick with it.
As I read that, they seemed to be saying that JFS was just one example of infringement among many. They seemed to be saying that IBM should know all the places thta they have infringed without being told because it was so obvious. For example says SCO, look how obvious it is that they infringed on JFS.
IBM obviously can't go forward until SCO specifies all the points that SCO claims infringes. Even the debate that IBM can't release JFS is not specific enough. SCO needs to specify whether IBM can't release it because it has 10 lines that look a little bit like Sys V code or whether IBM can't release it because it was ported to AIX at one point.
Microsoft could have purchased SCO a couple times over for the money it has pumped through them.
You have to be pretty niave to not wonder what Microsoft is getting for that cash.
I have no problem with slashdot tracking slashdot readers through the use of a "slashdot id". My problem is with forbes.com tracking individuals through a world wide "person id" system.
It is utterly offensive to me how they use their "person id" system to target outer space death laser beams on people who don't share their marxist world view.
O(1) shouldn't have much effect on the desktop...
There were a number of scheduler improvements that make a difference. Con Kolivas did a lot of hard work balancing interactive vs batch jobs.
Yup. Two anonymous licensees. The first was an anonymous fortune 500 company that paid $2000. The other was a smaller company which paid an secret amount.
They're raking it in with those fake envoices.
The original response to SCO included 10 defenses and 10 counter claims.
Adding another counter claim screws up the symmetry completely.
HP was a sponsor but they pulled out of speaking at the end.
"ethernet can get it's dhcp lease again (if it's dhcp) and so on."
/etc/init.d/ type scripts that handle sleeping and waking.
Of course, dhcp is not handled at the driver level (You knew that). You have to have
Only the lyrics to "Happy Birthday to You" are copyright. The tune is ancient so if you changed the words to something else like, "Good morning to you" you wouldn't have to pay any cash. The side benifit that a lot of people don't realise is that you could sing it every day instead of just once per year.
Other than that, your post is spot on.
It seems that this is a more complete version of the filing:
Here is the relevant text:
"Several entities in Germany have obtained temporary restraining orders in Germany precluding SCO GmbH, the Company's German subsidiary, in substance, from making statements in Germany that disparage Linux, or entities involved in the Linux business, or implicate Linux as infringing the Company's intellectual property rights. SCO GmbH has received an administrative fine of 10,000 Euro for a technical violation of one of the temporary restraining orders. The Company is currently negotiating with the various claimants in Germany over the temporary restraining orders and is evaluating whether it will appeal the administrative fine. Informal letter complaints similar to those raised in Germany have been received from companies in Austria and Poland. The Company has responded to those letters. It is not known if those complainants will take future action."
It mentions the 10,000 fine but it doesn't mention that they had to pay 50,000 EU in lawyer fees because they didn't bother to show up for the preliminary hearing...
The rumour is that Computer Associates bought a license for $1,200 as part of their $40,000,000 settlement with the Canopy Group.
I know Computer Associates has more than 2 systems that run Linux. Also I don't think that the text of the Linux License has been finallized. Plus TSG lies all the time anyways... So who knows what to believe?
Heh heh. I got a better one than that.
Google for "french military victories" and hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button.
There used to be a company which was also called SCO where the letters stood for "Santa Cruz Operation". That company is now called Tarantella. The letters in the new SCO don't stand for anything, they're just the name of the company.
Certainly they should be thinking about leaving anyway. SCO is committing suicide.
Having SCO on your resume is like having Enron. I have more sympathy for the Enron employees because how could they know what the management was doing? But still, it doesn't look very good even for Enron employees.
On the other hand, I do agree that what Chrisd is doing is childish. Also he got the name of the company wrong.
Actually SCO didn't registered their copyright in SysV. That was a mischaracterization on the part of SCO executives.
If I recall correctly they actually registered around 18 pages of changes they had made more recently.
That's not a list for SCO, that's a list for the Canopy Group. IBM doesn't have to have a subpoena to get this same information from SCO but they do for the Canopy Group. Up to this point, the Canopy Group has not been directly involved with the lawsuit but it looks like that may change. ;)
The *defense* of 2600.com said that it was and I also say that it is. I think history will prove us both right on this.
It's a testament to SCO's PR that people think they have sued anyone besides IBM.
They've made all kinds of random threats and press releases but only for the purpose of driving up the stock price. They don't intend to actually go to court.
Heck, they don't intend to even win their one lawsuit against IBM.
On the web, sites are required by law to warn users before they can enter an adult site. Those that don't comply can be thrown in jail and/or fined.
I don't think that's true in the US.
The DMCA is unconsitutional. The DMCA was used to forbid the hacker magazine 2600.com from linking to sites that host DeCSS.
I think everyone can agree that DeCSS is controversial, but controversial speech is exactly the kind of thing the constitution is supposed to protect.
Except it's the other way around...
They first started by saying the Linux code was all original. Then "hundreds of lines" infringed. Then 83 lines infringed. Then "hundreds of files" infringed. Then hundreds of thousands of lines. Then millions of lines.
Then they said, "That slide was mis labeled, we actually knew it was BSD code all along, and we certainly didn't copy it in UnixWare without attribution."
SCO hasn't filed any complaints about copyright violations. (Their lawsuit against IBM is over trade secrets).
:P
Also didn't register the entire source. I heard it was just 28 pages of stuff they had added. (28 pages is basically nothing).
SCO has limitted the damages that they could claim from infringers by setting the price for their "license." They can't really ask for more than $1000 per CPU because that's the price they claimed it was worth initially.
Of course, SCO doesn't really have any case so they have limitted the amount of damages they can claim in that way as well.
I am curious what the exact definition of large is...
Somewhere I read that the disclosure would happen if a company bought 5% of the outstanding shares. So if Microsoft stay under the 8 million dollar mark it wouldn't need to be disclosed.
The truth is that I don't know too much about how the stock market works so I'm not sure if that is accurate.
The idea is it only takes four patent to shut SCO down and IBM can find more if it has to.
That could terminate their rights, but if they distribute source for Samba or point users to samba.org to download source, would that keep them legal under the GPL?
First of all, SCO is not a non profit and so pointing users to samba.org is not sufficient to comply with the license.
Samba can sue for any reason they please, but that doesn't mean they will win. Let's imagine they sue SCO for distributing code without a license. They would use Darl interviews as evidence.
SCO has a couple options:
1) Claim the GPL is invalid. Lose the right to distribute Samba. Pay damages.
2) Claim they were distributing the code under the GPL and that their actions are proof.
3) Claim to the press that IBM copied derivative trade secrets into samba and that they own samba. Watch their stock go through the roof. Make millions selling their inflated stock.
I think we all know which option SCO would choose.