I see your point, but I visualize it this way. Darl McBride has stated that millions of lines have been copied verbatim. Well, we just run the Compare-O-matic and see what happens.
Two likely outcomes are
1) Significantly less than a "million" lines of code will match
2) We can examine the parts that do match and show that they are not of System V origin.
For SCO to prove their point, the above points cannot happen.
I think this is a good way to "Smoke out" the Smoking Crack Organization.
I asked a Mr. Clinton Pownall about so-called Linux Licenses last week. He failed to answer any questions about the licenses. He did say Linux users needed to be "made whole" without being about to explain the meaning behind that empty but legal-sounding phase.
He did add that he knew "the base of Linux is Unix" without offering any proof besides SCO' original March 6 statement that started this debacle.
Next he added an anecdotal story about his daughter burning copies of music CD and commented "$210.00 isn't worth loosing your integrity over."
I emailed him back and asked him if "Is SCO stock and/or paychecks worth YOUR integrity?"
His email address is clinton@computerbusiness.com
He answered an email I sent to sco@scosales.com.
He should know about the products SCO sells.
I ask that all Slashdot readers email him and POLITELY but FIRMLY ask him by what right does SCO even offer such licenses.
"At a minimum, IP sources should be checked to assure that copyright contributors have the authority to transfer copyrights in the code contributed to Open Source"
This from a CEO of a company that has refused for 6 months to show the alleged infringing code! He expects everyone to be open with SCO, but SCO can hide behind cowardly NDAs to hide that fact they have no case.
Also, given that Darl plays fast and loose with facts when discussing Bruce Perens, I would suspect that Mr. Perens may now be contemplating a libel case against Darl "The Untruth" McBride.
Linus Torvalds has a copyright for "Linux" The Open Group has a trademark for "Unix"
yet SCO can offer a "Linux License" for their "Unix"
How?
Owning the source code to one version of Unix does not mean they own ALL Unix. Al least that what the Open Group says on their webpage:
"As the owner of the UNIX trademark, The Open Group has separated the UNIX trademark from any actual code stream itself, thus allowing multiple implementations. Since the introduction of the Single UNIX Specification, there has been a single, open, consensus specification that defines the requirements for a conformant UNIX system."
I am just trying to visualize the thought process here.
SCO is just making another "Let's pump up the jam" stock announcement.
The SCOX discussion board on MSN (hey I wanted to ask questions there) is now "not active." I think M$ got tired of embarrassing questions being asked on a stock board. Just another way for SCO/MS to control the flow of misinformation
Isn't it funny that no one is able to even throw money at SCO for a "Linux License?" I emailed scoinfo@scosales.com and asked about these magical mystery linux licenses and got no answer but an offer to buy "SCO Unix" and threat to be billed for asking so many questions.
NO ONE has actually been sent an actual invoice; SCO has merely made threats in the press to do so. I do not think they have any intention to actually send any real "invoices"; that would be fraud. They just want to make headlines and grab fast cash.
With the The Open Group, who even Darth McBribe ackowledges hold the trademrak to "UNIX", I do not know what wild claim is left for SCO to make. They will probably claim next that their IP claims to Unix trumps the Open Group's Unix trademark. Because of course, SCO claims always trump all other claims.
I am a former Microsoft guy who is in the process of converting to Open Source, and I will enjoy watching SCO die a horrible death at the hands of the Open Source/Free Software community.
Isn't it strange that SCO constantly threatens to issue their bogus "invoices" yet no one who contacts SCO can get a straight answer about obtaining said license.
I contacted scoinfo@scosales.com asking (nicely) about the licenses and proof of infringement. All I got was a link to SCO's lie-ridden March 6 press release and a threat to be BILLED for asking so many questions. They also wanted to know if I wanted to buy SCO Unix. They answered NO questions about Linux licenses.
I just got a reponse to my email asking about SCO liceneses.
First the email:
Subject: Linux License information request
I am running Red Hat Linux 9.0 on my computer at home. I am a technical
trainer, so I also need the commputer for work also.
I am asking how is SCO's license to run Linux on a single processor
(Athlon)
machine.
I would also like a description of why I have to have a license from SCO to run Linux on my computer.
Here is the repsonse:
Subject: RE: Linux License information request
I am not sure why you are asking us this question, however I contacted
SCO on your behalf and this was their reply:
"According to copyright laws, SCO may choose to seek remedies from
end-users who are using Linux that contains our source code. By
purchasing a license from SCO, users are "made whole" and don't have to
worry about infringing on SCO's copyrights."
In a nutshell, SCO source code exists in the Linux operating system and
SCO has the right to be paid for their source code.
If you need additional information please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Clinton A. Pownall
Computer Business Consultants, Inc
www.computerbusiness.com
I sent a nice , polite email to scoinfo@scosales.com last week but have recieved no reply as of yet.
I informed them that I was running Red Hat 9.0, and I asked about licenses, and asked why I would need one. I was hoping to give them some rope to hang themselves with.
I just it might interesting to post a pro-SCO (not me) person's view on ther matter. This from an MSN stock board. I posted some info there I thought SCO investors might find interesting. Here a response I got that reveals a lot about the minds of SCO investors:
-----
You play the same fag lame game everyone plays that is at the losing end of a argument, you resort to trying to get the other person to give up or you make the debat personal to get emotions involved. either way it's nothing a spinning heel kick to your head would not solve. That may be a little crude but appropriate for the stupid comments you just made that have nothing to do with SCO. You do not know me or at this point ever hope to meet me, so when you discuss something with someone keep to the points, facts and relevant opinions. If you had depth to your knowledge you would not have to resort to such tactics. PS You started this shit so let it drop here if YOU had charecter.
PS This is a stock board, that is why we are here, to discuss the stock, which I have made over 43% gain on so I'm laughing all the way to the bank while most Lunix companies are looking a bankruptcy if SCO prevails. Linux will not win big contracts if people have to pay for it. It's only good point is people think it's cheaper cuase it's free. I sense you fear this scenerio which is why your intellect is dirgessing to insults, fear is taking over, I feel you trembling...
Also you will have the last word cuase I'm over wasting time talking to a linux zealot, not a linux advocat. You put the religion in an other wise common thing. It's just lines of code, which at the end of the day all this is about, MS or Unix, it's all just lines of code.
So fuck you nice day
--------
A real classy guy.
Given that MS has "bought" into SCO's interpretation of derivative works, couldn't IBM just "terminate" MS's "DOS" license, and demand a license fee from every Windows user?
I don't agree with this logic, just a thought.
Slashdot Mirror
I see the globe as a big Mickey Mouse ear too.
It's like he's peeking around the corner....wierd
We really need a better SCO/Caldera icon.
Sir, you have a dizzying intellect....
I have to agree here. I cannot believe that Perens did not mention McBride's libel in the reposne letter.
I see your point, but I visualize it this way. Darl McBride has stated that millions of lines have been copied verbatim. Well, we just run the Compare-O-matic and see what happens.
Two likely outcomes are
1) Significantly less than a "million" lines of code will match
2) We can examine the parts that do match and show that they are not of System V origin.
For SCO to prove their point, the above points cannot happen.
I think this is a good way to "Smoke out" the Smoking Crack Organization.
MSN shut down its SCOX board after I asked if SCO business model was comprised only of threats of litigation against customers.
I asked a Mr. Clinton Pownall about so-called Linux Licenses last week. He failed to answer any questions about the licenses. He did say Linux users needed to be "made whole" without being about to explain the meaning behind that empty but legal-sounding phase.
.02 dollars
He did add that he knew "the base of Linux is Unix" without offering any proof besides SCO' original March 6 statement that started this debacle.
Next he added an anecdotal story about his daughter burning copies of music CD and commented "$210.00 isn't worth loosing your integrity over."
I emailed him back and asked him if "Is SCO stock and/or paychecks worth YOUR integrity?"
His email address is clinton@computerbusiness.com
He answered an email I sent to sco@scosales.com.
He should know about the products SCO sells.
I ask that all Slashdot readers email him and POLITELY but FIRMLY ask him by what right does SCO even offer such licenses.
Just my
Listen to Darl "The Untruth" Mcbride:
.02 US dollars
"At a minimum, IP sources should be checked to assure that copyright contributors have the authority to transfer copyrights in the code contributed to Open Source"
This from a CEO of a company that has refused for 6 months to show the alleged infringing code! He expects everyone to be open with SCO, but SCO can hide behind cowardly NDAs to hide that fact they have no case.
Also, given that Darl plays fast and loose with facts when discussing Bruce Perens, I would suspect that Mr. Perens may now be contemplating a libel case against Darl "The Untruth" McBride.
Just my
Let me see if I've got this right....
Linus Torvalds has a copyright for "Linux"
The Open Group has a trademark for "Unix"
yet SCO can offer a "Linux License" for their "Unix"
How?
Owning the source code to one version of Unix does not mean they own ALL Unix. Al least that what the Open Group says on their webpage:
"As the owner of the UNIX trademark, The Open Group has separated the UNIX trademark from any actual code stream itself, thus allowing multiple implementations. Since the introduction of the Single UNIX Specification, there has been a single, open, consensus specification that defines the requirements for a conformant UNIX system."
I am just trying to visualize the thought process here.
SCO is just making another "Let's pump up the jam" stock announcement.
How about Darlth Vader :)
The SCOX discussion board on MSN (hey I wanted to ask questions there) is now "not active."
I think M$ got tired of embarrassing questions being asked on a stock board.
Just another way for SCO/MS to control the flow of misinformation
Isn't it funny that no one is able to even throw money at SCO for a "Linux License?" I emailed scoinfo@scosales.com and asked about these magical mystery linux licenses and got no answer but an offer to buy "SCO Unix" and threat to be billed for asking so many questions.
NO ONE has actually been sent an actual invoice; SCO has merely made threats in the press to do so.
I do not think they have any intention to actually send any real "invoices"; that would be fraud. They just want to make headlines and grab fast cash.
With the The Open Group, who even Darth McBribe ackowledges hold the trademrak to "UNIX", I do not know what wild claim is left for SCO to make. They will probably claim next that their IP claims to Unix trumps the Open Group's Unix trademark. Because of course, SCO claims always trump all other claims.
I am a former Microsoft guy who is in the process of converting to Open Source, and I will enjoy watching SCO die a horrible death at the hands of the Open Source/Free Software community.
Isn't it strange that SCO constantly threatens to issue their bogus "invoices" yet no one who contacts SCO can get a straight answer about obtaining said license.
I contacted scoinfo@scosales.com asking (nicely) about the licenses and proof of infringement. All I got was a link to SCO's lie-ridden March 6 press release and a threat to be BILLED for asking so many questions. They also wanted to know if I wanted to buy SCO Unix. They answered NO questions about Linux licenses.
First the email:
Subject: Linux License information request
I am running Red Hat Linux 9.0 on my computer at home. I am a technical trainer, so I also need the commputer for work also.
I am asking how is SCO's license to run Linux on a single processor (Athlon) machine.
I would also like a description of why I have to have a license from SCO to run Linux on my computer.
Here is the repsonse:
Subject: RE: Linux License information request
I am not sure why you are asking us this question, however I contacted SCO on your behalf and this was their reply:
"According to copyright laws, SCO may choose to seek remedies from end-users who are using Linux that contains our source code. By purchasing a license from SCO, users are "made whole" and don't have to worry about infringing on SCO's copyrights."
In a nutshell, SCO source code exists in the Linux operating system and SCO has the right to be paid for their source code.
If you need additional information please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Clinton A. Pownall Computer Business Consultants, Inc www.computerbusiness.com
I informed them that I was running Red Hat 9.0, and I asked about licenses, and asked why I would need one. I was hoping to give them some rope to hang themselves with.
http://www.sco.com/soss/info/gpl.html
The GNU Public License! I thought they didn't like it ...
Are you referring to this interview given by Chris Sontag? http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622 054/0616_marshall.html
I just it might interesting to post a pro-SCO (not me) person's view on ther matter. This from an MSN stock board. I posted some info there I thought SCO investors might find interesting. Here a response I got that reveals a lot about the minds of SCO investors: ----- You play the same fag lame game everyone plays that is at the losing end of a argument, you resort to trying to get the other person to give up or you make the debat personal to get emotions involved. either way it's nothing a spinning heel kick to your head would not solve. That may be a little crude but appropriate for the stupid comments you just made that have nothing to do with SCO. You do not know me or at this point ever hope to meet me, so when you discuss something with someone keep to the points, facts and relevant opinions. If you had depth to your knowledge you would not have to resort to such tactics. PS You started this shit so let it drop here if YOU had charecter. PS This is a stock board, that is why we are here, to discuss the stock, which I have made over 43% gain on so I'm laughing all the way to the bank while most Lunix companies are looking a bankruptcy if SCO prevails. Linux will not win big contracts if people have to pay for it. It's only good point is people think it's cheaper cuase it's free. I sense you fear this scenerio which is why your intellect is dirgessing to insults, fear is taking over, I feel you trembling... Also you will have the last word cuase I'm over wasting time talking to a linux zealot, not a linux advocat. You put the religion in an other wise common thing. It's just lines of code, which at the end of the day all this is about, MS or Unix, it's all just lines of code. So fuck you nice day -------- A real classy guy.
Given that MS has "bought" into SCO's interpretation of derivative works, couldn't IBM just "terminate" MS's "DOS" license, and demand a license fee from every Windows user? I don't agree with this logic, just a thought.