SCO is like a rabid animal, cornered and about to be caught by animal control personnel.
They are saying and doing anything to try to put off being "caught" for a little while longer.
Nerds and geeks will be dancing in the streets (ouch, sorry for the visual there) once SCO has been buried by Big Blue.
Nothing to really worry about in regards to the GPL. IBM is the copyright holder of the items they contributed to Linux. GPL or not, doesn't really matter. Of course, this is all my opinion.:)
Its almost like SCO is a giant train wreck that is still in the process of "wrecking", and a bunch of people are standing around watching until its over, and if any "friendly" casualties, get those fixed up.
As long as more and better free and open source software is being developed during this time and after, more people will benefit in the long run, no matter the outcome of SCO vs. IBM, IBM vs. SCO and Red Hat vs. SCO.
Call me optimistic, but I do not see real damage SCO could do to the GPM, free or open source software, etc.
SCO is just blubbering about the GPL, because they have no case at all. They do not really even have a counter-case to IBM's counter-suit.
They are like a crazed hyped-up on crank teenager, cornered by the police, doing and saying anything to try to keep from being arrested. (Just an analogy). They are spewing anything (still, I might add) to try to obfuscate the fact that they have no case, trying to drag this out as long a possible so Canopy and their preferred stock holders (senior execs, etc.) can get their stock sold before their house of cards comes crumbling down on their heads.
IMHO, there is nothing to see here, move along, move along.
Our schools stopped "schooling" and became social/government control factories starting over fifty years ago.
This is just another step in that direction.
I hope this is challenged by some of the more intelligent parents and the practice ended. The ACLU should be very very interested in and helping to handle this gross invasion of privacy, no matter the thin candy coating of "safety of the children" excuse.
If the code is actually copyrighted by SCO, which, if my recall is correct, they only have one "registered" Unix related copyright, and that registration happened mid this year.
Maybe someone should smack SCO with a "reverse copyright infringement" case? Similar to Red Hat.
SCO just put their foot in their mouth again, by stating "Fortune 1000" companies. If any one of those companies that uses Linux, decides to call SCO's bluff, we could have another Red Hat type suit. Fortune 1000 company says "I do not use any of your intellectual property, I use Linux. If you persist, you will be hearing from our lawyers". That would probably end SCO's attempt to sell a "license" to that particular company.
However, if SCO "persists", another Red Hat type, but not exactly the same, suit would follow, I am certain.
I expect there will be a number of instances of both above scenarios before the "SCO Show" is over.
I remember seeing numbers at the bottom of all of SCO's press releases circa June 2003, where they stated they had a worldwide network of more than 16,000 resellers and 6,000 developers. I know the first number (16,000) is correct, but the last one was either 6,000 or 8,000.
In the press release today regarding BayStar Capital's $50 M investment, the data on SCO states "...SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers".
So by my calculations, they have lost over 31 percent of their resellers and between 33 to 50 percent of their developers.
Either their figures on their press releases in June 2003 were very out-of-date (or grossly inflated) or they have, in actual fact, an extermely serious business situation that investors and others are not fully aware of.
And, for me, if it is a matter of the figures being out-of-date or grossly inflated, it would still make SCO one of the last companies I would ever do business with, as they seem to be slip-shod at best with their record keeping, easily proved false statements in their press releases, etc.
answered that "We were so scared of SCO and its claims, that we stopped doing our jobs, and were promptly fired. We are all filing a class action suit vs. SCO for mental anguish and punitive damages.";-)
Linus is a pretty ordinary guy, in my opinion, from reading the article. An "O.K. Joe" so to speak.
Individuals with a goal, dream, vision, or what have you, whether earth shattering or not, are what makes things happen, give it the "spark" so to speak.
History is packed with some well known, some not so well known individuals that were the "spark" for new things.
I am certain that Linus will be ranked among those that are better known, in the history books in years to come. Not because of his "giant intellect" or his "high lofty goals", but just because he gave a "spark" that others then fanned, poured fuel on, etc. so that it now benefits millions.
Yeah, some inaccuracies in the article and some wording that might cause some gripes. But overall, I enjoyed it.
Hats off to Linus and every one of you that has contributed to Linux, GNU and other free and open source projects.
Their "public relations" have been flushed down the toilet, heading for the sewage processing plant.
SCO has given themselves absolutely no future current (or recently current) customers. No one will want to deal with these sleeze bag bunch of liars, cheats and two-faced sons-o-b__ches in the future.
Firebird became my browser of choice over Opera about four weeks ago.
I like it because relatively small, in the resources used department, fast, and great features.
I used Opera 5 and 6 for about a year or so, but stopped as I wanted to separate my e-mail client and browser. Hence, Firebird (browser) and now my new e-mail client Thunderbird.:)
I like Opera, but just wanted to have something a bit leaner and meaner, plus separation of browser/e-mail functions.
I have studied many of the documents available regarding SCO's suit vs. IBM, SCO's ramblings, etc.
Your catch here regarding SCO's SEC filings I am certain will calm some of the people contributing to and supporting the GPL that have been a small bit shaken by all this. Hence, moded this post up as extra insightful.
Most, I am certain, with a little searching, were already decided that SCO's case (including rantings) were just a bunch of hot air.
Yep, SCO is trying to ride their pump and dump scheme, no doubt about it.
However, as it stands right now, any possible buyout offer for SCO will be pennies on the dollar, once their house of cards starts falling around their ears. They have nothing that is worth much, and once some of the discovery evidence start getting put out, SCO's "worth" will be even less.
It would be poetic justice to see IBM somehow, as a result of this, own System V Unix and GPL the whole lot. I brought this up as a possibility early on, and still think that this has a very good chance of happening, based on SCO's complete incompetence regarding this whole matter.
Yeah, got a 3.02 GHZ Pentium, 1 GB RAM and a GeForce4 box at the moment.
Might do one more hardware upgrade within the next year.
However, got my Debian ISOs downloaded, gonna burn CDs today, then turn my current 1.2 GHZ 500 MB RAM system (currently running Win98 SE) and slap Debian on it.
I have used SuSE and Mandrake a little bit, about 1.5 years ago, however, this will be my first full, learn as I go, configure, etc. install of Linux. (The SuSE and Mandrake systems were setup by a friend).
I am also a novice C programmer, so I am looking forward to checking out the development tools on my Linux box soon! Weeeeeeee!
They are liable, should SCO ever get around to filing a copyright infringement case, and SCO prevails in such a case.
However, SGI has removed the code, so any damages that might be awarded and the amount of code in question, would make the possible damages relatively minor, IMHO and IANAL.
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is my own view and opinion only.) SCO is claiming, only in their shrill press releases and interviews, that their IP has been infringed (worded slightly differently in almost every case).
Frankly, they can claim all they want, but they have not filed a copyright infringement claim, patent violation claim against any one, not even in their suit vs. IBM.
If they had, it is common practice for them to inform and do everything they could to help mitigate the damages as a result of the infringement. SCO has not done so, and has flatly refused, in a number of their statements, to not do so.
If they ever try to sue anyone for copyright infringement now and still refuse to show the code in question, a court would take a very very dim view of this, to the point where SCO could possibly get no damages as a result of their claim.
And, given their accusations in their press releases and other statements, and open refusal to help correct the situation, that could be entered into evidence which would make things even worse for SCO in a copyright infringement case.
This is all my opinion based on the study of the applicable laws, the original and amended suit of SCO vs. IBM and other related documents. Google is a wonderful thing.:)
Actually, it makes more sense now, than ever before.
Novell licensed Unix to SCO for selling Unix, right?
So, IBM buys Novell, pulls the carpet out from under SCO, and tells them "We own Unix now, you we are terminating your license/agreement/contract with regards to selling/distributing and supporting System V Unix".
Then take the code that IBM now owns (from Novell) and GPL the whole lot!
Maybe a little far fetched, but could happen. I am not holding my breath over it, as it would just be too sweet a deal, if it should happen.
Yeah, I just came to the same conclusion myself, took me a little bit.
It seemed very odd to me that SCO has called for "user" indemnification from IBM (and others) for some time.
But makes sense, it is just part of a strategy to try to "maximize" possible litigation extort... er... income.
Joe Linux-user has practically empty pockets, IBM has very large money filled pockets. If Joe Linux-user has indemnity from IBM, we can sue him, tying up some IBM money and resources, and possibly gain a nice settlement as a result.
We sue enough of em, and that would give us leverage to force IBM's hand to buy us out to shut us up and remove us as a thorn in their side. Bwahahahaha, ain't SCO brilliant?
Unfortunately, IBM is basically saying "Hey, SCO. Homey don't play dat."
It has been mentioned a time or two in the press, Mr. McBride's religion, that is.
I read the entire book of Mormon in Highschool, but am not a Mormon. I read it because I did not know anything about the religion.
I known or met a number of Mormon's over the years, and those particular ones were pretty honest and decent, IMHO.
It appears to me, that Mr. McBride's statements and actions are not in line with his religious beliefs.
I already thought he was a hypocrite and extremely dis-honest without taking his religion into consideration.
So, it makes not difference to me what religion he is, he is a hypocrite and extremely dis-honest. Even if he was an athiest, I would have an extremely low opinion of him without regard to that particular philosophy.
Slashdot Mirror
SCO is like a rabid animal, cornered and about to be caught by animal control personnel.
They are saying and doing anything to try to put off being "caught" for a little while longer.
Nerds and geeks will be dancing in the streets (ouch, sorry for the visual there) once SCO has been buried by Big Blue.
Nothing to really worry about in regards to the GPL. IBM is the copyright holder of the items they contributed to Linux. GPL or not, doesn't really matter. Of course, this is all my opinion. :)
Its almost like SCO is a giant train wreck that is still in the process of "wrecking", and a bunch of people are standing around watching until its over, and if any "friendly" casualties, get those fixed up.
As long as more and better free and open source software is being developed during this time and after, more people will benefit in the long run, no matter the outcome of SCO vs. IBM, IBM vs. SCO and Red Hat vs. SCO.
Call me optimistic, but I do not see real damage SCO could do to the GPM, free or open source software, etc.
Regards,
Fredrick
Well, I guess, in a round about way, you could call a victim of SCO's extortion a "customer".
From SCO's point of view, anyway.
Regards,
Fredrick
"Redmond, we have a problem." reported Darl McBride.
Regards,
Fredrick
SCO is just blubbering about the GPL, because they have no case at all. They do not really even have a counter-case to IBM's counter-suit.
They are like a crazed hyped-up on crank teenager, cornered by the police, doing and saying anything to try to keep from being arrested. (Just an analogy). They are spewing anything (still, I might add) to try to obfuscate the fact that they have no case, trying to drag this out as long a possible so Canopy and their preferred stock holders (senior execs, etc.) can get their stock sold before their house of cards comes crumbling down on their heads.
IMHO, there is nothing to see here, move along, move along.
Regards,
Fredrick
... congress. ;-)
Our schools stopped "schooling" and became social/government control factories starting over fifty years ago.
This is just another step in that direction.
I hope this is challenged by some of the more intelligent parents and the practice ended. The ACLU should be very very interested in and helping to handle this gross invasion of privacy, no matter the thin candy coating of "safety of the children" excuse.
Ignore that sig behind the curtain.
If the code is actually copyrighted by SCO, which, if my recall is correct, they only have one "registered" Unix related copyright, and that registration happened mid this year.
Maybe someone should smack SCO with a "reverse copyright infringement" case? Similar to Red Hat.
SCO just put their foot in their mouth again, by stating "Fortune 1000" companies. If any one of those companies that uses Linux, decides to call SCO's bluff, we could have another Red Hat type suit. Fortune 1000 company says "I do not use any of your intellectual property, I use Linux. If you persist, you will be hearing from our lawyers". That would probably end SCO's attempt to sell a "license" to that particular company.
However, if SCO "persists", another Red Hat type, but not exactly the same, suit would follow, I am certain.
I expect there will be a number of instances of both above scenarios before the "SCO Show" is over.
Regards,
Fredrick
I remember seeing numbers at the bottom of all of SCO's press releases circa June 2003, where they stated they had a worldwide network of more than 16,000 resellers and 6,000 developers. I know the first number (16,000) is correct, but the last one was either 6,000 or 8,000.
In the press release today regarding BayStar Capital's $50 M investment, the data on SCO states "...SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers".
So by my calculations, they have lost over 31 percent of their resellers and between 33 to 50 percent of their developers.
Either their figures on their press releases in June 2003 were very out-of-date (or grossly inflated) or they have, in actual fact, an extermely serious business situation that investors and others are not fully aware of.
And, for me, if it is a matter of the figures being out-of-date or grossly inflated, it would still make SCO one of the last companies I would ever do business with, as they seem to be slip-shod at best with their record keeping, easily proved false statements in their press releases, etc.
Regards,
Fredrick
answered that "We were so scared of SCO and its claims, that we stopped doing our jobs, and were promptly fired. We are all filing a class action suit vs. SCO for mental anguish and punitive damages." ;-)
Regards,
Fredrick
Loved the article.
Linus is a pretty ordinary guy, in my opinion, from reading the article. An "O.K. Joe" so to speak.
Individuals with a goal, dream, vision, or what have you, whether earth shattering or not, are what makes things happen, give it the "spark" so to speak.
History is packed with some well known, some not so well known individuals that were the "spark" for new things.
I am certain that Linus will be ranked among those that are better known, in the history books in years to come. Not because of his "giant intellect" or his "high lofty goals", but just because he gave a "spark" that others then fanned, poured fuel on, etc. so that it now benefits millions.
Yeah, some inaccuracies in the article and some wording that might cause some gripes. But overall, I enjoyed it.
Hats off to Linus and every one of you that has contributed to Linux, GNU and other free and open source projects.
Regards,
Very newbie Linux user
They have one.
But he is doing a piss-poor job of it.
Their "public relations" have been flushed down the toilet, heading for the sewage processing plant.
SCO has given themselves absolutely no future current (or recently current) customers. No one will want to deal with these sleeze bag bunch of liars, cheats and two-faced sons-o-b__ches in the future.
Regards,
Fredrick
Firebird became my browser of choice over Opera about four weeks ago.
I like it because relatively small, in the resources used department, fast, and great features.
I used Opera 5 and 6 for about a year or so, but stopped as I wanted to separate my e-mail client and browser. Hence, Firebird (browser) and now my new e-mail client Thunderbird. :)
I like Opera, but just wanted to have something a bit leaner and meaner, plus separation of browser/e-mail functions.
Regards,
Fredrick
Great catch on the SEC filings.
I have studied many of the documents available regarding SCO's suit vs. IBM, SCO's ramblings, etc.
Your catch here regarding SCO's SEC filings I am certain will calm some of the people contributing to and supporting the GPL that have been a small bit shaken by all this. Hence, moded this post up as extra insightful.
Most, I am certain, with a little searching, were already decided that SCO's case (including rantings) were just a bunch of hot air.
Yep, SCO is trying to ride their pump and dump scheme, no doubt about it.
However, as it stands right now, any possible buyout offer for SCO will be pennies on the dollar, once their house of cards starts falling around their ears. They have nothing that is worth much, and once some of the discovery evidence start getting put out, SCO's "worth" will be even less.
It would be poetic justice to see IBM somehow, as a result of this, own System V Unix and GPL the whole lot. I brought this up as a possibility early on, and still think that this has a very good chance of happening, based on SCO's complete incompetence regarding this whole matter.
Regards,
Fredrick
SCO == Schizoprenic Corporate Orge
Regards,
Fredrick
Yeah, got a 3.02 GHZ Pentium, 1 GB RAM and a GeForce4 box at the moment.
Might do one more hardware upgrade within the next year.
However, got my Debian ISOs downloaded, gonna burn CDs today, then turn my current 1.2 GHZ 500 MB RAM system (currently running Win98 SE) and slap Debian on it.
I have used SuSE and Mandrake a little bit, about 1.5 years ago, however, this will be my first full, learn as I go, configure, etc. install of Linux. (The SuSE and Mandrake systems were setup by a friend).
I am also a novice C programmer, so I am looking forward to checking out the development tools on my Linux box soon! Weeeeeeee!
Regards,
Fredrick
Wake up.
Regards,
Fredrick
They are liable, should SCO ever get around to filing a copyright infringement case, and SCO prevails in such a case.
However, SGI has removed the code, so any damages that might be awarded and the amount of code in question, would make the possible damages relatively minor, IMHO and IANAL.
Regards,
Fredrick
You are incorrect, there, partially.
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is my own view and opinion only.) SCO is claiming, only in their shrill press releases and interviews, that their IP has been infringed (worded slightly differently in almost every case).
Frankly, they can claim all they want, but they have not filed a copyright infringement claim, patent violation claim against any one, not even in their suit vs. IBM.
If they had, it is common practice for them to inform and do everything they could to help mitigate the damages as a result of the infringement. SCO has not done so, and has flatly refused, in a number of their statements, to not do so.
If they ever try to sue anyone for copyright infringement now and still refuse to show the code in question, a court would take a very very dim view of this, to the point where SCO could possibly get no damages as a result of their claim.
And, given their accusations in their press releases and other statements, and open refusal to help correct the situation, that could be entered into evidence which would make things even worse for SCO in a copyright infringement case.
This is all my opinion based on the study of the applicable laws, the original and amended suit of SCO vs. IBM and other related documents. Google is a wonderful thing. :)
Regards,
Fredrick
I think IBM is preparing a very big nasty stick that will do the job nicely. ;)
Regards,
Fredrick
Actually, it makes more sense now, than ever before.
Novell licensed Unix to SCO for selling Unix, right?
So, IBM buys Novell, pulls the carpet out from under SCO, and tells them "We own Unix now, you we are terminating your license/agreement/contract with regards to selling/distributing and supporting System V Unix".
Then take the code that IBM now owns (from Novell) and GPL the whole lot!
Maybe a little far fetched, but could happen. I am not holding my breath over it, as it would just be too sweet a deal, if it should happen.
Regards,
Fredrick
You are giving SCO way too much credit. :-)
Regards,
Fredrick
Yeah, I just came to the same conclusion myself, took me a little bit.
It seemed very odd to me that SCO has called for "user" indemnification from IBM (and others) for some time.
But makes sense, it is just part of a strategy to try to "maximize" possible litigation extort... er ... income.
Joe Linux-user has practically empty pockets, IBM has very large money filled pockets. If Joe Linux-user has indemnity from IBM, we can sue him, tying up some IBM money and resources, and possibly gain a nice settlement as a result.
We sue enough of em, and that would give us leverage to force IBM's hand to buy us out to shut us up and remove us as a thorn in their side. Bwahahahaha, ain't SCO brilliant?
Unfortunately, IBM is basically saying "Hey, SCO. Homey don't play dat."
Regards,
Fredrick
The "recovery" fee is a tax.
Isn't the internet already run on telecom lines, with the exception of direct satellite and cable?
I use DSL at home, and pay taxes on lines.
Isn't this like taxing twice for the same thing?
Regards,
Fredrick
He spoke up, maybe made a mistake in using his company's name related to his name as co-author.
However, the company then firing him as a result, would for me, anyway, be a sure sign that I would not want to work at that company.
So, IMHO, maybe for him it is a blessing in disguise.
Regards,
Fredrick
It has been mentioned a time or two in the press, Mr. McBride's religion, that is.
I read the entire book of Mormon in Highschool, but am not a Mormon. I read it because I did not know anything about the religion.
I known or met a number of Mormon's over the years, and those particular ones were pretty honest and decent, IMHO.
It appears to me, that Mr. McBride's statements and actions are not in line with his religious beliefs.
I already thought he was a hypocrite and extremely dis-honest without taking his religion into consideration.
So, it makes not difference to me what religion he is, he is a hypocrite and extremely dis-honest. Even if he was an athiest, I would have an extremely low opinion of him without regard to that particular philosophy.
Regards,
Fredrick