This is nonsense. The GPL is deemed to be invalid and therefore the code distributed under it is essentially distrubted without a license at all. However, the SCO IP that is contained in the kernel is still SCO IP and is NOT distributed under the GPL but licensed under SCOsource. SCO has made this claim in their findings of fact.
Who is going to bring these "copyright infringement" cases to court? No one is stepping forward, since there is no infringement. Only Sun, Microsoft and the other licensees are making a commitment to license our IP. There are no injunctions pending. We are currently involved in discussions with commercial vendors (Redhat, et al) on how the licensing terms will work out. I expect it to be resolved amicably, and the SCOsource licensing to be considered fair and reasonable by our partners.
#3 is the closest to being correct, however the SCO IP is not public domain. The law is not as black and white as that. The courts will recognize that the SCO IP is owned by SCO and is not part of the public domain. It is possible that other companies and individuals may reclaim their IP from the kernel as well, so be prepared for that.
Our intention is to redistribute the kernel code under a new license (SCO license). Our IP (which is in the kernel) is still our IP and is not distributed under the GPL. Any redistribution of our IP that is not issued onder this new license will be in violation.
Our stance is that since the GPL is invalid, the code license is essentially reverts to the public domain. This doesn't restrict our distribution of any of the software.
He is still on board as a consultant but is going to pursue other opportunities in the space. His sale of his equity is normal given that he is leaving the company. There is a new VP (actually two more), he is a well known figure in the business. That announcement will be made soon via normal channels.
As for other comments regarding executive selling: this is normal, and is triggered automatically by brokers. Since the stock is up 800% you can be assured that some liquidation will occur to balance out portfolios.
Very correct, except for the part about the profitability. The company has been profitable lately, and the stock is up over 800% this year which makes me VERY happy. The primary business is to license IP, of which Linux contains a considerable amount.
Everyone here knows the risks since we reside in a "at will" state, but are confident in the new direction the company is taking. Even in these tough economic times we have shown a profit lately.
This is also incorrect data. The company has a long and complex history that I will not go into now. Suffice to say, we are well on our way to profitability whether SCOsource proves fruitful or not. So far customers realize the value of the program and we hope it will continue.
Prior to 1997 we were profitable. Of couse the core business (OS and IP licensing) has been taking a hit from competition by free alternatives like Linux since that timeframe. Even without us collecting licensing fees for our IP in Linux, we will still be profitable due to our other revenue streams. Our SCOsource licensing will speed up the process however.
To say it more explicitly: the reason that SCO didn't report a profit for those quarters is independent of SCOsource licensing. Indeed the fact that losses were cut from $131 to $25 million in one year without the SCOsource program is evidence of this. SCO was on the track to profitability before the new licensing program.
"The only profits SCO/Caldera have ever generated are the result of Linux shakedown cash."
This is patent nonsense. SCO/Caldera have generated considerable revenue even before the current situation.
Of course there was no SCOsource Licensing revenue in previous quarters, the program did not exist then. However, there was other licensing revenue from other sources.
Really, read those reports again. SCO had revenue of $62 million last year, up from $40 million the year before, a 55% jump. This increase in revenue was not due to the current SCO licensing extortion behavior, since it occured before the current situation. To say that they are only alive by the licensing revenue provided my MS is misguided.
Educated people don't blindy trust others, they can correctly derive conclusions from data. This is what I have done here.
No, this is not correct. They have other IP licensing revenue streams as well. This is obvious from the fact that the new Sun+MS licenses are relatively recent, while SCO has had IP license revenue for years.
Ummm, I was responding to the incorrect interpretation of the SCO statement, not validating the truth of the statement. It seems you may need to go back to school as well.
Futhermore, you are assuming their entire licensing revenue of $6.1 million was based entirely on their current practice extortion of licensing fees for Linux users. This is also incorrect. This figure represents other licensing that SCO does of their IP. Obviously they haven't been extorting the Linux user base for two quarters. This $6.1 million is their "core business", which is currently profitable.
"The core of SCO's business is profitable,' not bothered by the fact that they had claimed the opposite in their SEC filing: 'If we do not receive SCOsource licensing revenue in future quarters and our revenue from the sale of our operating system platform products and services continues to decline, we will need to further reduce operating expenses in order to maintain profitability or generate positive cash flow.'"
This is not an incorrect statement by SCO. They are saying IF they do not receive SCOsource licensing revenue in FUTURE (not now or past) quarters and their revenue CONTINUES TO DECLINE [in the future, not now or past quarters] then they will be unprofitable. There is nothing in that statement that says that the core business is unprofitable now or previously.
See kids? Thats why education (university) and reading comprehension is important in life.
This is totally offtopic. This guy is trying to drum up interest in some project he is involved in that no one cares about apparently.
BTW, "Win CE" powers millions of devices in all languages around the world, from cell phones to industrial automation devices. How many devices does "B-Free" (not TRON) power again?
Re:Lies, statistics, and analysts
on
Java vs .NET
·
· Score: 1
"User wants more than textboxes and buttons? Forget it."
Huh? What are you guys talking about, you can use any Windows GUI elements and custom ones in.NET.
I am suspecting that almost everyone here has never had a real development job.
Slashdot Mirror
The code base in question is not an original work. It has been based off of SCO IP, therefore it cannot by copyrighted by anyone else except for SCO.
This is nonsense. The GPL is deemed to be invalid and therefore the code distributed under it is essentially distrubted without a license at all. However, the SCO IP that is contained in the kernel is still SCO IP and is NOT distributed under the GPL but licensed under SCOsource. SCO has made this claim in their findings of fact.
Who is going to bring these "copyright infringement" cases to court? No one is stepping forward, since there is no infringement. Only Sun, Microsoft and the other licensees are making a commitment to license our IP. There are no injunctions pending. We are currently involved in discussions with commercial vendors (Redhat, et al) on how the licensing terms will work out. I expect it to be resolved amicably, and the SCOsource licensing to be considered fair and reasonable by our partners.
Those routines are not "creative commons". The code fragment is COPIED EXACTLY COMMENTS AND ALL from SCO IP (emphasis mine).
#3 is the closest to being correct, however the SCO IP is not public domain. The law is not as black and white as that. The courts will recognize that the SCO IP is owned by SCO and is not part of the public domain. It is possible that other companies and individuals may reclaim their IP from the kernel as well, so be prepared for that.
Our intention is to redistribute the kernel code under a new license (SCO license). Our IP (which is in the kernel) is still our IP and is not distributed under the GPL. Any redistribution of our IP that is not issued onder this new license will be in violation.
A 51st state? You wierdo. Everyone knows that those regions should form their own country!!! The rest of the country just doesn't understand them....
Why do you think these tiles are even interesting? Its just a product from some guy with too much time on his hands, much like this post.
I personally ignore crap that is supposed to pique my interest. To me, this is nothing more than graffiti for old white guys.
Our stance is that since the GPL is invalid, the code license is essentially reverts to the public domain. This doesn't restrict our distribution of any of the software.
This will all be worked out in due course.
We believe the GPL to be invalid and unenforceable.
He is still on board as a consultant but is going to pursue other opportunities in the space. His sale of his equity is normal given that he is leaving the company. There is a new VP (actually two more), he is a well known figure in the business. That announcement will be made soon via normal channels.
As for other comments regarding executive selling: this is normal, and is triggered automatically by brokers. Since the stock is up 800% you can be assured that some liquidation will occur to balance out portfolios.
Very correct, except for the part about the profitability. The company has been profitable lately, and the stock is up over 800% this year which makes me VERY happy. The primary business is to license IP, of which Linux contains a considerable amount.
Everyone here knows the risks since we reside in a "at will" state, but are confident in the new direction the company is taking. Even in these tough economic times we have shown a profit lately.
Do you have such confidence in YOUR company?
This is also incorrect data. The company has a long and complex history that I will not go into now. Suffice to say, we are well on our way to profitability whether SCOsource proves fruitful or not. So far customers realize the value of the program and we hope it will continue.
Prior to 1997 we were profitable. Of couse the core business (OS and IP licensing) has been taking a hit from competition by free alternatives like Linux since that timeframe. Even without us collecting licensing fees for our IP in Linux, we will still be profitable due to our other revenue streams. Our SCOsource licensing will speed up the process however.
Yes, it is true. We only had two customers for SCOsource licensing. However, we have had lots of other licensing revenue from our other products.
Our core business has been profitable in the past.
Touche!!! I did commit a grammar error. Not being a native English speaker causes me a lot of pain.
I never went to university though. I wish I had!
To say it more explicitly: the reason that SCO didn't report a profit for those quarters is independent of SCOsource licensing. Indeed the fact that losses were cut from $131 to $25 million in one year without the SCOsource program is evidence of this. SCO was on the track to profitability before the new licensing program.
Sorry for the confusion.
"The only profits SCO/Caldera have ever generated are the result of Linux shakedown cash."
This is patent nonsense. SCO/Caldera have generated considerable revenue even before the current situation.
Of course there was no SCOsource Licensing revenue in previous quarters, the program did not exist then. However, there was other licensing revenue from other sources.
Really, read those reports again. SCO had revenue of $62 million last year, up from $40 million the year before, a 55% jump. This increase in revenue was not due to the current SCO licensing extortion behavior, since it occured before the current situation. To say that they are only alive by the licensing revenue provided my MS is misguided.
Educated people don't blindy trust others, they can correctly derive conclusions from data. This is what I have done here.
No, this is not correct. They have other IP licensing revenue streams as well. This is obvious from the fact that the new Sun+MS licenses are relatively recent, while SCO has had IP license revenue for years.
Ummm, I was responding to the incorrect interpretation of the SCO statement, not validating the truth of the statement. It seems you may need to go back to school as well.
Futhermore, you are assuming their entire licensing revenue of $6.1 million was based entirely on their current practice extortion of licensing fees for Linux users. This is also incorrect. This figure represents other licensing that SCO does of their IP. Obviously they haven't been extorting the Linux user base for two quarters. This $6.1 million is their "core business", which is currently profitable.
"The core of SCO's business is profitable,' not bothered by the fact that they had claimed the opposite in their SEC filing: 'If we do not receive SCOsource licensing revenue in future quarters and our revenue from the sale of our operating system platform products and services continues to decline, we will need to further reduce operating expenses in order to maintain profitability or generate positive cash flow.'"
This is not an incorrect statement by SCO. They are saying IF they do not receive SCOsource licensing revenue in FUTURE (not now or past) quarters and their revenue CONTINUES TO DECLINE [in the future, not now or past quarters] then they will be unprofitable. There is nothing in that statement that says that the core business is unprofitable now or previously.
See kids? Thats why education (university) and reading comprehension is important in life.
This is totally offtopic. This guy is trying to drum up interest in some project he is involved in that no one cares about apparently.
BTW, "Win CE" powers millions of devices in all languages around the world, from cell phones to industrial automation devices. How many devices does "B-Free" (not TRON) power again?
"User wants more than textboxes and buttons? Forget it."
.NET.
Huh? What are you guys talking about, you can use any Windows GUI elements and custom ones in
I am suspecting that almost everyone here has never had a real development job.
Why would browsing nescessitate a hierarchial storage system? You can browse a db if you would like.