Pity it's not illegal to be a dork. We wouldn't even be having this discussion, because Darl and Sontag would be in jail just on the basis of their hair.
Come to think of it, we'd have a different president too.
"How many of you would do business with a company who would buy a license from SCO?"
Anyone going to McDonald's.
Maybe all LUG's should organize "No SCO" rallies in front of varios Mickey D's in there area. If it's all planned for the same day it might even make the news. How long would it be before McDonald's dropped SCO and switched to Linux?
McDonald's is SCO's biggest customer. At least that the impression SCO gives in its press releases. SCO event brags about it when they sell McD's an upgrade.
I can just see it now. Once McDonald's is gone, SCO next press release will be, "Bob's Big Boy Burger Chain Becomes Latest Victory In Open Source License War; '37 New Licensees!' Crows CEO Darl McBride."
Actually, SUSE didn't file in Germany, but they did assist LinuxTag with it's filing. LinuxTag is the grouopd that actually shut SCO up in Germany. I think there were some filings by other groups in different provinces as well.
"1) Don't ask for legal advice on/. We're not lawyers."
I suppose that's correct. Frankly, though, I don't see why anyone should need to consult a lawyer before telling an extortionist to piss off.
However, I feel no one should be given the advice to consult a lwayer in regard to SCO, without also being told that if they are planning on migrating to Windows, they had better consult a lawyer before clicking on any MS EULA.
Finally, not accepting any license from SCO should be a no-brainer at this point. Why pay hundreds of dollars for a contract worded in such a fashion as to make you liable for someone else's quote "IP" unquote infringements, and gives further rights to sue you to a company that has been historically litigious? Remember, according to SCO's CEO, "Contracts are what you use against those you have relationships with."
In fact, forget the lawyer. If you get an invoice, just scrawl the words "Piss off, Darl!!!" across the front of it, photocopy it for your records, and send it off to Darl McBride, c/o The SCO Group.
Since this advice is free, I disclaim all warranty and indemnification.
All true. I think this also indicates that Judge Kimball may disregard IBM's patent claims as well. Of course, the rest of IBM's counter-claims should hold up.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think you're analysis is wrong. The GPL pretty much grants the end-user the right to do whatever they want with the code, without restriction, except distribute it. If they distribute the code or modifications of the code, then they have to abide by the GPL's terms.
So a Linux end-user could purchase the SCO license without violating the letter of the GPL. The fact that purchasing said license undermines the primary reasons for using GPL software violates, I would say, the *spirit* of the license, but not its terms.
SCO, of course, is clearly violating the GPL with its "IP License".
No, it doesn't prove it. However, even the initial post didn't claim to *prove* it. It's just very likely that they are on the same network, given that they all resolve to center7.com, use the same naming scheme for the boxes, and route through Denver.
Yeah, I got that wrong. Misread that one digit. Stupid mistake. It was pointed out earlier in the thread yesterday, and I ate crow for it then.
However, pinging the sites by IP address with the -a switch still shows that the sites are all on the same network, if not the same Class C segment. Those sites are all maintained on Center 7's network, in Denver. So the conclusions still stand, even though part of the analysis was off.
"...everyone started giving it to everyone else on whatever terms they wanted to, but the people who got it didn't pay too much attention to the terms anyway, since everyone had it..."
This is pretty much a classic example of how "public domain" happens.
The code may very well be considered "public domain", due to its appearance as sample code in the Kernigan & Ritchie book. Material is often put into the public domain not by people who contributed it that way, but by courts deciding that usage and common knowledge of the material has taken it out of protection.
Since the code in question was certainly presented in educational environments since at least the late '70's, we can probably assume that it is considered public domain at this point in time.
The SGI malloc code is very likely to prove to be public domain, so the issue of what type BSD license Caldera distributed it under is moot. Much of it was written by Dennis Ritchie or Ken Thompson, and published as example code in The C Programming Language Handbook, by Ritchie & Kernigan.
It's also no longer in the current revs. of the kernel, which also makes it moot.
The BPF code is basically clean-room code, implemented by Jay Schulist from a spec. published by Los Alamos (I think). That implementation was originally released under the GPL, and never under any other license.
People, let's not get into arguments over whether code was improperly incorporated into Linux from BSD code that didn't have its license updated. I'm sure that in such a case, the developer of the code would be more than willing to re-release under the latest, GPL-compatible, rev. of the BSD license. Especially if the alternative is giving SCO any kind of legal ground for its claims.
True. Let, just for a moment, give SCO the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume that some of their IP is illegitimately in the Linux kernel, that it is good functional code, and that they should be recompensed for it. Let's further stipulate that Linux is worth the same price as Unixware. That's undervaluing it, of course.
Now, if SCO had a legitimate beef, then they would probbably seek a fair licensing price. What would that be? $79 per license? $39? $129?
In any case, they would certainly need to provide a license price that allows the distributors: to continue to make a profit, price Linux competively, and represents a portion of the cost consistent with the portion of the code they claim is theirs.
However, the compensation they are requesting is outrageous. Therefore, SCO is not interested in receiving a fair portion of their contributions, they are just interested in killing the market for Linux.
Ya know, I know the goatse guy's face is not the first thing anyone notices, and the photo is really so disturbing and disgusting that we all probably clicked away from it before getting that far, but if you actually ignore the right hand side of the picture and just check out his face well: he actually looks a li'l like good ole Darl McBride.
No way they'll make it public domain. GPL is the most likely, because that way they can continue to use it as a legal tool defensively.
Sam Palmisano: Bill, we understand that you're using some Unix code that we've GPL'd without distributing the source. Are you sure you want to a) pursue a case with us and b) charge us that much for Windows?
Bill Gates: I hate the GPL.
Sam: Well, Bill, you drop that little patent suit you were planning against Red Hat, and uh, we'll forget that you've got *OUR* Gpl'd Unix code in your operating system...
Slashdot Mirror
And with a P/E of 121.59. This is just ridiculous. At a P/E of 20, which is still too high, SCO's stock would be worth about $2.45.
What am I saying? The market is *never* wrong.
Sheesh.
You mean, they're not offering indemnification?
Well, how about that?
"I wonder how far Sontag can fit his foot in his mouth."
Darl: Chris?
Chris: Yeah?
Darl: Um, is that a... well, is that a shoe sticking out of your ass?
Pity it's not illegal to be a dork. We wouldn't even be having this discussion, because Darl and Sontag would be in jail just on the basis of their hair.
Come to think of it, we'd have a different president too.
"How many of you would do business with a company who would buy a license from SCO?"
Anyone going to McDonald's.
Maybe all LUG's should organize "No SCO" rallies in front of varios Mickey D's in there area. If it's all planned for the same day it might even make the news. How long would it be before McDonald's dropped SCO and switched to Linux?
McDonald's is SCO's biggest customer. At least that the impression SCO gives in its press releases. SCO event brags about it when they sell McD's an upgrade.
I can just see it now. Once McDonald's is gone, SCO next press release will be, "Bob's Big Boy Burger Chain Becomes Latest Victory In Open Source License War; '37 New Licensees!' Crows CEO Darl McBride."
Actually, SUSE didn't file in Germany, but they did assist LinuxTag with it's filing. LinuxTag is the grouopd that actually shut SCO up in Germany. I think there were some filings by other groups in different provinces as well.
"1) Don't ask for legal advice on /. We're not lawyers."
I suppose that's correct. Frankly, though, I don't see why anyone should need to consult a lawyer before telling an extortionist to piss off.
However, I feel no one should be given the advice to consult a lwayer in regard to SCO, without also being told that if they are planning on migrating to Windows, they had better consult a lawyer before clicking on any MS EULA.
Finally, not accepting any license from SCO should be a no-brainer at this point. Why pay hundreds of dollars for a contract worded in such a fashion as to make you liable for someone else's quote "IP" unquote infringements, and gives further rights to sue you to a company that has been historically litigious? Remember, according to SCO's CEO, "Contracts are what you use against those you have relationships with."
In fact, forget the lawyer. If you get an invoice, just scrawl the words "Piss off, Darl!!!" across the front of it, photocopy it for your records, and send it off to Darl McBride, c/o The SCO Group.
Since this advice is free, I disclaim all warranty and indemnification.
All true. I think this also indicates that Judge Kimball may disregard IBM's patent claims as well. Of course, the rest of IBM's counter-claims should hold up.
[x] Litigious fucking assholes
I'm not a lawyer, but I think you're analysis is wrong. The GPL pretty much grants the end-user the right to do whatever they want with the code, without restriction, except distribute it. If they distribute the code or modifications of the code, then they have to abide by the GPL's terms.
So a Linux end-user could purchase the SCO license without violating the letter of the GPL. The fact that purchasing said license undermines the primary reasons for using GPL software violates, I would say, the *spirit* of the license, but not its terms.
SCO, of course, is clearly violating the GPL with its "IP License".
I thought the most recent kernel on SCO's FTP site was 2.4.13. If they have 2.4.19 there, could you post a link?
I tried to look for it myself, but guess what? They've taken their web site down again, and the ftp site isn't accepting logins.
Hmm... I wonder what they're up to now?
"I use SCO products daily"
I didn't know they made a deodorant.
Cool. Thanks for the heads up.
I think you've confused the words "perception" and "deception".
... and fall within the same /22 netmask.
No, it doesn't prove it. However, even the initial post didn't claim to *prove* it. It's just very likely that they are on the same network, given that they all resolve to center7.com, use the same naming scheme for the boxes, and route through Denver.
Yeah, I got that wrong. Misread that one digit. Stupid mistake. It was pointed out earlier in the thread yesterday, and I ate crow for it then.
However, pinging the sites by IP address with the -a switch still shows that the sites are all on the same network, if not the same Class C segment. Those sites are all maintained on Center 7's network, in Denver. So the conclusions still stand, even though part of the analysis was off.
Parent is right. Mod my original post(grandparent?) down. My comment about Canopy's IP address being between the two is wrong.
(Hangs head in shame for making stupid mistake).
"...everyone started giving it to everyone else on whatever terms they wanted to, but the people who got it didn't pay too much attention to the terms anyway, since everyone had it..."
This is pretty much a classic example of how "public domain" happens.
Everything is going to be ok.
The code may very well be considered "public domain", due to its appearance as sample code in the Kernigan & Ritchie book. Material is often put into the public domain not by people who contributed it that way, but by courts deciding that usage and common knowledge of the material has taken it out of protection.
Since the code in question was certainly presented in educational environments since at least the late '70's, we can probably assume that it is considered public domain at this point in time.
The SGI malloc code is very likely to prove to be public domain, so the issue of what type BSD license Caldera distributed it under is moot. Much of it was written by Dennis Ritchie or Ken Thompson, and published as example code in The C Programming Language Handbook, by Ritchie & Kernigan.
It's also no longer in the current revs. of the kernel, which also makes it moot.
The BPF code is basically clean-room code, implemented by Jay Schulist from a spec. published by Los Alamos (I think). That implementation was originally released under the GPL, and never under any other license.
People, let's not get into arguments over whether code was improperly incorporated into Linux from BSD code that didn't have its license updated. I'm sure that in such a case, the developer of the code would be more than willing to re-release under the latest, GPL-compatible, rev. of the BSD license. Especially if the alternative is giving SCO any kind of legal ground for its claims.
True. Let, just for a moment, give SCO the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume that some of their IP is illegitimately in the Linux kernel, that it is good functional code, and that they should be recompensed for it. Let's further stipulate that Linux is worth the same price as Unixware. That's undervaluing it, of course.
Now, if SCO had a legitimate beef, then they would probbably seek a fair licensing price. What would that be? $79 per license? $39? $129?
In any case, they would certainly need to provide a license price that allows the distributors: to continue to make a profit, price Linux competively, and represents a portion of the cost consistent with the portion of the code they claim is theirs.
However, the compensation they are requesting is outrageous. Therefore, SCO is not interested in receiving a fair portion of their contributions, they are just interested in killing the market for Linux.
Dude, sorry to crash your joke, but an echo *box* adds echo; an echo filter actually, uh, filters it.
AFAIK. I could be wrong, and often am
Ya know, I know the goatse guy's face is not the first thing anyone notices, and the photo is really so disturbing and disgusting that we all probably clicked away from it before getting that far, but if you actually ignore the right hand side of the picture and just check out his face well: he actually looks a li'l like good ole Darl McBride.
Makes you wonder, haina?
No way they'll make it public domain. GPL is the most likely, because that way they can continue to use it as a legal tool defensively.
Sam Palmisano: Bill, we understand that you're using some Unix code that we've GPL'd without distributing the source. Are you sure you want to a) pursue a case with us and b) charge us that much for Windows?
Bill Gates: I hate the GPL.
Sam: Well, Bill, you drop that little patent suit you were planning against Red Hat, and uh, we'll forget that you've got *OUR* Gpl'd Unix code in your operating system...
Bill: (seething) Dammit. Foiled again.