Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
Caldera Software Linux

SCO: FSF Reply To GPL Claims, Conference Sponsors Back Off? 580

Posted by simoniker
from the more-acronyms-please dept.
bkuhn writes "Last week's Wall Street Journal (and other news outlets) carried statements by SCO's Mark Heise challenging the "legality" of FSF's GPL. FSF has issued a response to this baseless claim." Also, mcgroarty points out that Intel and HP seem to be backing swiftly away from their sponsorship of SCO's in-progress Las Vegas conference (a EWeek article suggests that "Intel Corp. was recently billed as one of the lead sponsors of SCO's Forum 2003 conference here this week, but then suddenly disappeared from all marketing and press material for the forum. It appears that Hewlett-Packard Co. also got cold feet. As late as last week, SCO was telling attendees that HP would be giving a partner keynote at the forum on Tuesday morning. But on Sunday the schedule of events given to attendees when they registered makes no mention of an HP keynote...") M adds: Now we've got a few stories from the conference: News.com.com and Eweek. Despite some bad headline writing at News.com, SCO simply continues to employ the Chewbacca defense, showing no code to back up their claims. Amusingly, Darl McBride started his rant about copyright infringement by copying some footage from a James Bond movie. Bravo!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO: FSF Reply To GPL Claims, Conference Sponsors Back Off?

Comments Filter:
  • by FFFish (7567) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:16PM (#6727648) Homepage
    While I'm really enjoying watching this circus, I think it really is time to put Darl out of his misery. He's obviously suffering some sort of beri-beri brain-eating disease. Let's be humane and compassionate. He has suffered enough.
    • by nocomment (239368) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:25PM (#6727742) Homepage Journal
      I agree. It's been fun to watch so far but it's time for everyone to collectively turn their back on SCO and just let them yell until they are blue in the face. It's like SCO is holding a handgrenade and people are slowly moving away from the madman so as not to make him blow you up to. As an aside, I wonder if slashdot could get an interview from the original SCO owners and get their take on the whole thing.
      • by Watts Martin (3616) <layotl@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Monday August 18, 2003 @08:12PM (#6728146) Homepage

        I've been more interested in what the original Caldera folks, Ransom Love and particularly Bryan Sparks, make of this. SCO was always an uninteresting company (to me, at least), but Caldera wasn't. Even though they got less interesting even before their transformation into total dweebitude, they started out pursuing "pipe dreams" of Linux credibility in the enterprise and a viable desktop Linux before anyone else did. The "Linux will take over the world" mentality has its antecedents in the work Sparks and Love were doing back at Novell circa 1993-94 on the Corvair/Expose project. (And as I've noted before, it's ironic to see the anti-SCO crowd dragging Ray Noorda's name through the mud so frequently, given that he was a lunatic anti-Microsoft crusader--Corvair was, at least according to Infoworld reports of the day, an attempt to use a Linux kernel with DR-DOS to make a 32-bit Windows-compatible OS before Windows 95 was out.)

        Love is largely out of the computer scene these days, I think, but Sparks isn't--he's running DeviceLogics and owns DR-DOS (again). Anyone tried to interview him?

      • by Dalcius (587481) <chrism3413+slashdot@NOsPaM.gmail.com> on Monday August 18, 2003 @09:10PM (#6728514)
        Ah, yes, but other companies won't take heed if SCO isn't replaced with a stinking hole in the ground where even the heartiest weed won't grow.

        SCO must be crushed, the open source community and its allies (namely, those who enjoy free development from some really smart folks) must make an example out of this little maggot so that other companies are afraid to follow in SCO's footsteps in the near future.

        SCO is a blessing: they're an easy example.

        "Fire at will, commander."
        • by bwt (68845) on Monday August 18, 2003 @09:49PM (#6728790) Homepage
          Have you read the IBM reply and counterclaims. Four separate patent claims nicely covering all of SCO's products, trademark, copyright, breach of contract, deceptive trade practices, and a few others I've never heard of.

          Don't worry, SCO is dead.

          I honestly have no idea how such lunatics could get to run a company. "Don't get involved in a land war in Asia" probably is 2nd to "Don't get involved in litigation with IBM".

          The only possible rational I can think of for what SCO is doing is that MS subversively decided to send them running into the machine guns to "slow down Linux".
          • by TitaniumFox (467977) on Monday August 18, 2003 @11:01PM (#6729327) Journal
            SCO: So, it is down to you, and it is down to me...if you wish Linux dead, by all means keep moving forward.
            IBM: Let me explain...
            SCO: There's nothing to explain. You're trying to kidnap what I have rightfully stolen.
            IBM: Perhaps an arrangement can be reached?
            SCO: There will be no arrangements...and you're killing Linux.
            IBM: But if there can be no arrangement, then we are at an impasse.
            SCO: I'm afraid so. I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.
            IBM: You're that smart?
            SCO: Let me put it this way: Have you ever heard or Kernighan, Ritchie, Torvalds?
            IBM: Yes.
            SCO: Morons!
            IBM: Really! In that case, I challenge you to a battle of wits.
            SCO: For the kernel? To the death? I accept!
            IBM: Good, then untar the source code. [SCO# tar -xvfz code] Inhale this but do not touch.
            SCO: [taking a vial from IBM] I smell nothing.
            IBM: What you do not smell is our patent portfolio. It is odorless, tasteless, and dissolves instantly in source code and is among the more deadly portfolios known to man.
            SCO: [shrugs with laughter] Hmmm.
            IBM: [turning his back, and adding the patents to one of the code trees] Alright, where are the patents? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both compile - and find out who is right, and who is dead.
            SCO: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine it from what I know of you. Are you the sort of company who would put the patents into his own source code or his enemies? Now, a clever man would put the patents into his own goblet because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool so I can clearly not choose the code in front of you...But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the code in front of me.
            IBM: You've made your decision then?
            SCO: [happily] Not remotely! Because Linux's SMP code originally came from England(1). As everyone knows, England is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So, I can clearly not choose the code in front of you.
            IBM: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
            SCO: Wait 'till I get going!! ...where was I?
            IBM: England.
            SCO: Yes! AH! And you must have suspected I would have known the source code's origin,so I can clearly not choose the code in front of me.
            IBM: You're just stalling now.
            SCO: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you! You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong...so you could have put the patents in your own code trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the code in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied...and in studying you must have learned that Man is mortal so you would have put the patents as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the code in front of me!
            IBM: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
            SCO: It has worked! You've given everything away! I know where the patents are!
            IBM: Then make your choice.
            SCO: I will, and I choose...[pointing behind IBM] What in the world can that be?
            IBM: [turning around, while SCO switches goblets] What?! Where?! I don't see anything.
            SCO: Oh, well, I...I could have sworn I saw something. No matter. [SCO laughs]
            IBM: What's so funny?
            SCO: I...I'll tell you in a minute. First, lets compile, me from my code and you from yours. [They both compile]
            IBM: You guessed wrong.
            SCO: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched branches when your back was turned! Ha ha, you fool!!
      • by c (8461) <beauregardcp@gmail.com> on Monday August 18, 2003 @10:00PM (#6728865)
        "It's like SCO is holding a handgrenade and people are slowly moving away from the madman..."

        Picture McBride behind the wheel of a minivan, flying down a drag strip as fast as 6 cylinders can take it on a collision course with a main battle tank. The SCO van has lights flashing, sirens blaring, mimes doing handstands on the roof, and maybe a little T&A out the sunroof. Oh, and it's full of lawyers.

        The tank isn't doing much of anything, really.

        Now, what we're all wondering... Is Darl McBride just some crazy lunatic powering his shitbox down the road and maybe planning on turning at the last minute, or does he really have something in that minivan that can take out a tank. And if he does, when is he gonna whip it out? Will the tank bring around the main gun and blast him, or will it just use the machine gun? How many lawyers are killed? Mimes? Will the minivan turn into a DeLorean at the very last second and blast a trail through time?!?

        I don't know about you, but the suspense is killing me.

        c.
    • by sharkey (16670) on Monday August 18, 2003 @10:18PM (#6728954)
      They also beat dead ones, or so I'm told.


      Hey, let's all go to Subway!
  • The Bond Clips (Score:5, Informative)

    by NecroPuppy (222648) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:16PM (#6727657) Homepage
    Actually, if you read all the articles, you'll notice that the Bond clips were provided by MGM (who owns the hotel SCO is at) for SCO's use.

    Thus, no piracy.

    I dislike SCO's tactics as much as the next guy (unless the next guy is Gates or Ballmer), but a touch of fairness isn't going to hurt our cause.
    • Re:The Bond Clips (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bninja_penguin (613992) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:30PM (#6727793)
      Actually, if you read all the articles, you'll notice that the Bond clips were provided by MGM (who owns the hotel SCO is at) for SCO's use. Thus, no piracy.

      Ahhhh, but the esteemed counsel that SCO has sought out stated previously, that copyright law allows for one and only one copy to be made, for backup purposes only, so MGM better make damn sure they were using the original footage, with their fingers on the fast forward/rewind buttons, or even they are not in compliance with the SCO version of law.
      • Re:The Bond Clips (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jeffasselin (566598) <cormacolinde@gma i l .com> on Monday August 18, 2003 @11:08PM (#6729379) Journal
        Ahhhh, but the esteemed counsel that SCO has sought out stated previously, that copyright law allows for one and only one copy to be made, for backup purposes only, so MGM better make damn sure they were using the original footage, with their fingers on the fast forward/rewind buttons, or even they are not in compliance with the SCO version of law.

        Actually, according to SCO any work derived or made for an original is owned by the first inventor/holder. I hope they paid Ian Fleming in full for writing James Bond at first. Or whomever first wrote a spy novel. Or Boccaccio who wrote the first novel. And the Lumiere brothers for making movies possible. And...

        I guess you get the idea. If any and all derivative works are considered the property of the original inventor/creator, there would be no inventions, because everything comes from something else...

        Hey, we could probably find a sumerian mummy and bring it in court to file a suit against SCO for use of the written language.

        Actually, at this point, I'm expecting SCO to sue God or something like that, since his "creation" incorporates works derivative of Unix.

        • by Reziac (43301)
          Actually, at this point, I'm expecting SCO to sue God or something like that, since his "creation" incorporates works derivative of Unix.

          Nah... God will just countersue, because in making UNIX, SCO incorporates works derivative of "creation". ;)

  • Groklaw (Score:5, Informative)

    by NetFusion (86828) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:17PM (#6727660)
    PJ at Groklaw [weblogs.com] is doing a wonderful job at cutting through the SCO fud. I suggest you check out if you havent recently. The article's comments are quite good too.
  • by mcgroarty (633843) <brian.mcgroarty@ ... m minus caffeine> on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:18PM (#6727672) Homepage
    I'm mentioned in the story writeup.

    Actually while I had mentioned that Intel had backed out, when I submitted an article last week, HP was still listed as a premier sponsor of SCO's event. I urged Slashdot readers to write Carly Fiorina [hp.com] and let her know how you felt about HP supporting SCO. The point is moot now as the event has already started and HP has already retreated their support somewhat. Still, you might still write and express how you feel about HP having pulled out: a visible reaction from the Linux community this time around might well shape how they deal with SCO in the future.

    • by register_ax (695577) on Monday August 18, 2003 @08:44PM (#6728360) Journal
      I just checked and it looks like they pulled the sponser document as demonstrated at http://www.caldera.com/2003forum/sponsors.html [caldera.com]. However, the google cache [216.239.53.104] is out there. This is golden as you can see other sponserships (gone south?) and potential candidates you can contact.

      As sites may be removed [216.239.53.104] from [google.com] google's cache, here's a listing of the companies that were listed

      Premier Sponsor
      HP [hp.com]

      Gold Sponsor
      CRN [crn.com]

      Silver and Bronze Sponsors
      Microlite Corporation
      Rasmussen Software Inc.
      Equinox Systems
      Century
      Digi International
      TeleVideo
      Multi-Tech Systems
      InoStor
      TelSoft Solutions
      Open Systems
      Lone Star Software [cactus.com]
      DTR Business Systems
      Maxspeed Corporation
      Tarantella
      Basis International
      Vultus Inc.
      SDSI
      fp Technologies
      TAKgroup
      NextAxiom

      Now all those sites reference a site [caldera.com], but that has been taken down too...OR HAS IT [216.239.53.104]!!! mwaHAHAHAHA!!

      But, yeah, that [216.239.53.104] page is much more informative. Also for those interested on what the diff sponsorships mean [caldera.com][pdf]...

  • by Tim Macinta (1052) <twm@alum.mit.edu> on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:18PM (#6727681) Homepage
    It's very ironic that SCO claims to be fighting for intellectual property rights when they are seeking to destroy the right of authors to control how their work is distributed. There is no reason that they should be attacking the legitimacy of open source licenses like this when their dispute with IBM is supposedly contractual. McBride actually admitted today that their attack is about destroying free software [eweek.com] which is just disgusting considering that one of the core principals of IP law is that the author should be able to disseminate his work as he wishes - SCO apparently wants to destroy this choice.

    I was disturbed enough by Darl McBride's statement last Friday (which he repeated again today in Vegas) that the "silent majority" of companies in the IT industry support SCO's recent actions that I had my company release a public statement of opposition to SCO [pensamos.com]. It would seem that the latest thing SCO is trying to claim ownership of is the opinion of companies that have been silent on the issue, so I am calling on companies to break the silence. If you have control over such things in your company, please get them to either copy the statement of opposition to SCO [pensamos.com] that I wrote to your company's website or write and post your own statement of opposition. Let the world know that SCO is strongly opposed within the industry and that they are truly fighting to destroy the intellectual property rights that they claim to be championing.

    • by matthewg (6374) <matthewg@zevils.com> on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:37PM (#6727858) Homepage
      SCO is saying that the lurkers support them in email. [nyu.edu]
    • by jefu (53450) on Monday August 18, 2003 @11:00PM (#6729323) Homepage Journal
      McBride actually admitted today that their attack is about destroying free software which is just disgusting considering that one of the core principals of IP law is that the author should be able to disseminate his work as he wishes - SCO apparently wants to destroy this choice.

      But this is completely in keeping with the way American capitalism works. For instance the Department of the Interior sells leases to ranchers to put cattle on (often overgrazed land). But groups like the Sierra Club have been refused those leases, even though high bidder, because they planned on leaving the land fallow.

      The rule seems to be "you must profit by your rights or your rights don't count".

      The US isn't alone. How about this story [colbycosh.com] about a Canadian city that won't give a place a liquor license unless they server liquor (they want it so patrons can smoke tobacco).

      Ain't humanity wonderfully silly?

    • by hdparm (575302) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:39AM (#6729892) Homepage
      DEAR SIR/MADAM:

      I AM MR. DARL MCBRIDE CURRENTLY SERVING AS THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE SCO GROUP, FORMERLY KNOWN AS CALDERA SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, IN LINDON, UTAH, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I KNOW THIS LETTER MIGHT SURPRISE YOUR BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD NO PREVIOUS COMMUNICATIONS OR BUSINESS DEALINGS BEFORE NOW.

      MY ASSOCIATES HAVE RECENTLY MADE CLAIM TO COMPUTER SOFTWARES WORTH AN ESTIMATED $1 BILLION U.S. DOLLARS. I AM WRITING TO YOU IN CONFIDENCE BECAUSE WE URGENTLY REQUIRE YOUR ASSISTANCE TO OBTAIN THESE FUNDS.

      IN THE EARLY 1970S THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CORPORATION DEVELOPED AT GREAT EXPENSE THE COMPUTER OPERATING SYSTEM SOFTWARE KNOWN AS UNIX. UNFORTUNATELY THE LAWS OF MY COUNTRY PROHIBITED THEM FROM SELLING THESE SOFTWARES AND SO THEIR VALUABLE SOURCE CODES REMAINED PRIVATELY HELD. UNDER A SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT SOME PROGRAMMERS FROM THE CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY OF BERKELEY DID ADD MORE CODES TO THIS OPERATING SYSTEM, INCREASING ITS VALUE, BUT NOT IN ANY WAY TO DILUTE OR DISPARAGE OUR FULL AND RIGHTFUL OWNERSHIP OF THESE CODES, DESPITE ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH AND THE CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY OF BERKELEY, WHICH AGREEMENT WE DENY AND DISAVOW.

      IN THE YEAR 1984 A CHANGE OF REGIME IN MY COUNTRY ALLOWED THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CORPORATION TO MAKE PROFITS FROM THESE SOFTWARES. IN THE YEAR 1990 OWNERSHIP OF THESE SOFTWARES WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE CORPORATION UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES. IN THE YEAR 1993 THIS CORPORATION WAS SOLD TO THE CORPORATION NOVELL. IN THE YEAR 1994 SOME EMPLOYEES OF NOVELL FORMED THE CORPORATION CALDERA SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, WHICH BEGAN TO DISTRIBUTE AN UPSTART OPERATING SYSTEM KNOWN AS LINUX. IN THE YEAR 1995 NOVELL SOLD THE UNIX SOFTWARE CODES TO SCO. IN THE YEAR 2001 OCCURRED A SEPARATION OF SCO, AND THE SCO BRAND NAME AND UNIX CODES WERE ACQUIRED BY THE CALDERA SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, AND IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR THE CALDERA SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL WAS RENAMED SCO GROUP, OF WHICH I CURRENTLY SERVE AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

      MY ASSOCIATES AND I OF THE SCO GROUP ARE THEREFORE THE FULL AND RIGHTFUL OWNERS OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM SOFTWARES KNOWN AS UNIX. OUR ENGINEERS HAVE DISCOVERED THAT NO FEWER THAN SEVENTY (70) LINES OF OUR VALUABLE AND PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODES HAVE APPEARED IN THE UPSTART OPERATING SYSTEM LINUX. AS YOU CAN PLAINLY SEE, THIS GIVES US A CLAIM ON THE MILLIONS OF LINES OF VALUABLE SOFTWARE CODES WHICH COMPRISE THIS LINUX AND WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD AT GREAT PROFIT TO VERY MANY BUSINESS ENTERPRISES. OUR LEGAL EXPERTS HAVE ADVISED US THAT OUR CONTRIBUTION TO THESE CODES IS WORTH AN ESTIMATED ONE (1) BILLION U.S. DOLLARS.

      UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY EXTRACTING OUR FUNDS FROM THESE COMPUTER SOFTWARES. TO THIS EFFECT I HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE MANDATE BY MY COLLEAGUES TO CONTACT YOU AND ASK FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE. WE ARE PREPARED TO SELL YOU A SHARE IN THIS ENTERPRISE, WHICH WILL SOON BE VERY PROFITABLE, THAT WILL GRANT YOU THE RIGHTS TO USE THESE VALUABLE SOFTWARES IN YOUR BUSINESS ENTERPRISE. UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE NOT ABLE AT THIS TIME TO SET A PRICE ON THESE RIGHTS. THEREFORE IT IS OUR RESPECTFUL SUGGESTION, THAT YOU MAY BE IMMEDIATELY A PARTY TO THIS ENTERPRISE, BEFORE OTHERS ACCEPT THESE LUCRATIVE TERMS, THAT YOU SEND US THE NUMBER OF A BANKING ACCOUNT WHERE WE CAN WITHDRAW FUNDS OF A SUITABLE AMOUNT TO GUARANTEE YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS ENTERPRISE. AS AN ALTERNATIVE YOU MAY SEND US THE NUMBER AND EXPIRATION DATE OF YOUR MAJOR CREDIT CARD, OR YOU MAY SEND TO US A SIGNED CHECK FROM YOUR BANKING ACCOUNT PAYABLE TO "SCO GROUP" AND WITH THE AMOUNT LEFT BLANK FOR US TO CONVENIENTLY SUPPLY.

      KINDLY TREAT THIS REQUEST AS VERY IMPORTANT AND STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. I HONESTLY ASSURE YOU THAT THIS TRANSACTION IS 100% LEGAL AND RISK-FREE.

  • Picket? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:18PM (#6727684)
    Aren't there some slashbots in Las Vegas who would like to run a picket line in front of the MGM Grand?
    • Re:Picket? (Score:3, Funny)

      by pi_rules (123171)
      Aren't there some slashbots in Las Vegas who would like to run a picket line in front of the MGM Grand?


      'Cmon now -- slashdotters in Vegas? Good luck keeping them out of the brothels.
  • SCOfinger (Score:5, Funny)

    by pyros (61399) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:18PM (#6727685) Journal
    scene: SCO is strapped to a table in IBM's hideout, with a laser creeping ever closer.

    SCO: Do you expect me to show the code?

    IBM: No Mr. SCO, I expect you to die!

    (I know this has the rolls reversed, but it's funnier this way)
  • by nyet (19118) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:19PM (#6727687) Homepage
    from here [yahoo.com]

    >"The company's arguments seemed to hold weight with the SCO faithful. "I think (they've) got a strong case," said SCO reseller John Moore, the president of Moore Computer Consultants, based in Pembroke Pines, Florida."

    >Is this company the same as www.mcci.com ? Where at this link [mcci.com] it mentions the president of the company is called "Terry Moore" ?? And it seems to be very much a Microsoft shop?!?

    Good catch

    I got some even better ones for you:

    Here is www.mcci.com searched by google for the term "Windows"

    tinyurl.com/kf24

    Here is www.mcci.com searched by google for "Unix"

    tinyurl.com/kf2a

    Want something REALLY revealing? Try this: this is www.mcci.com searched by google for "SCO"

    tinyurl.com/kf2l

    Judge for yourself if they are a Microsoft shop or a Unix shop. I wonder what they were even doing there at SCO Forum? SCO isn't even mentioned on their website ANYWHERE. I don't think they are a reseller of SCO's Unix, with no mention of SCO anywhere on their webpage - how could they be?
  • "Monday, CEO Darl McBride outlined the company's legal strategy and tried to convince SCO partners and customers that it is fighting the good fight.

    ``We're fighting for the right in the industry to be able to make a living selling software, McBride told the audience. The fight was for the ability ``to send your children to college and ``to buy a second home, he added." -- story [businessweek.com]

    He's clearly delusional.

  • An Infoworld [infoworld.com] article claims that:

    "Sontag and Heise also presented some short snippets of source code that they claimed had been directly copied from SCO's Unix to Linux."

    Can anyone identify the snippets of code shown?
    • by Charm (313273) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:32PM (#6727810)
      presented some short snippets of source code

      But read more and you will see

      Much of the Unix code in the slides was obscured, because the company wants to keep its intellectual property under wraps, but SCO is allowing people who want to see a more extensive side-by-side comparison during the conference to do so if they sign a nondisclosure agreement.

      So basically they show nothing again

      • Everyone's saying this but I don't buy it. There was code-like context... I bet someone around /. could pull something useful out of this... everyone reads these articles to the letter. Showing obfuscated code is still more information than showing a black slide.
    • Seems a key point (Score:3, Insightful)

      by martissimo (515886)
      The whole time this has been ongoing the people have been saying "show us the code", now they are starting to do just that. As I recall there was a very similar correlation between Unix and BSD a long while back, the end result was some offending code being removed and the case being over with no other real repercussions.

      Forget the zealotry of we are right and they are wrong, why not look at the code they now show to be infringing and just get rid of (or change) it?

      Legal precedent is on the side of this a
      • by kevinz (591587) <kevin@mailsoap.com> on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:54PM (#6728014) Homepage
        That is the whole problem from SCO's point of view. If the whole thing goes away they can't continue to sell the stock and enrich the board. IIRC, they've even said as much. To paraphrase: "We'd show you the code, but then teams of open source would remove the code and replace it with their own versions, and then where would we be?" If nothing else, this seems to prove the old adage "There is no such thing as *bad* publicity." I don't know if they've gotten any non-M$ revenue from this, but the stock is up, and they are back in every trade magazine in the country. Who was talking about SCO before the lawsuit? How many people even knew SCO existed back then? Of course that begs the whole exit strategy issue. Press release: "The SCO Group announced today that in the interest of good will they have agreed to abanden their lawsuit against IBM. IBM has also agreed to impelemnt processes and procedures to protect the intellectual capital of all independant software vendors to better protect the livelyhood of programmers everywhere. Finally, in an effort to help prompte open source software the SCO Group has established a multi-million dollar fund to be used to promote and develop open source solutions."
  • Best quote (Score:5, Funny)

    by LauraW (662560) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:21PM (#6727712)
    Referring to the "one backup copy" nonsense, the article says:
    This argument is frivolous, by which I mean that it would be a violation of professional obligation for Mr Heise or any other lawyer to submit it to a court.
    I love it when the lawyers start insulting each other. :-)
  • Bravo, indeed... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Empiric (675968) * on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:21PM (#6727714)
    Seeing Intel and HP walk out does my heart glad.

    Hopefully these companies are seeing SCO's actions for what they are; an outright attempt to hijack the work of thousands of developers by fallacious statements, spin, and, at best, a tiny toehold on the body of work Linux constitutes.

    Despite SCO's spin to the contrary, this isn't about the GPL model versus the proprietary software model; it's about unethical versus ethical business practices, and SCO is on the wrong side of the fence.

    Would any reputable company now risk involvement with SCO on any level? Look at it this way. SCO made, in essence, a business deal. They distributed their software under the GPL, in an attempt to receive the benefits that the GPL approach can offer, much like Red Hat did. Now, they want to renege on the deal because they think they've got something more profitable. For them to now claim that they somehow didn't understand, or were somehow unaware of, their own business decisions is just completely disingenuous. What company would now sign any kind of business deal with them, knowing that given their history, they're likely to try to cry "do-over!" at some point and redefine their contract, making all sorts of legal threats and spurious statements in the process, and perhaps just decide that your IP is theirs by whatever stretch of the contract wording they can muster?

    This is what's bad for business, not the GPL.

    On a related note, I'd like to suggest that any companies out there contemplating paying SCO's extortion fees, even if the price is not a concern to them, refuse to pay it on principle. One good argument for not paying the Mafia, is that if you do, they are going to get bigger, and "lean" on you even more. And... I really must apologize to the Mafia for the analogy, as most of their profits derive from "consensual-crime" activity, rather than outright attempts to steal the property of individuals, in direct violation of the spirit and letter of the law. The Mafia has a higher percentage of legitimate business activites than SCO does.
    SCO's activities are to the benefit of no one, except themselves. HP and Intel, by contrast, benefit themselves largely through developing products and services to benefit their customers, something SCO has apparently lost the capacity to do. Even the companies which have products in direct competition to Linux would have a hollow victory if SCO's legal challenge to the GPL resulted in an invalidation of the fundamental notion of copyright upon which the GPL rests, and the discretion it gives to the work's creator, for-profit, for-humanity, or both. The sooner this is recognized by everyone, as these two companies are taking the lead toward, the better.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:21PM (#6727716)
    Since the FSF website tends to get slashdotted easily, here is the text of the article.

    SCO Scuttles Sense, Claiming GPL Invalidity
    Eben Moglen

    Tuesday 19 August 2003

    Now that the tide has turned, and SCO is facing the dissolution of its legal position, claiming to "enforce its intellectual property rights" while actually massively infringing the rights of others, the company and its lawyers have jettisoned even the appearance of legal responsibility. Last week's Wall Street Journal carried statements by Mark Heise, outside counsel for SCO, challenging the "legality" of the Free Software Foundation's GNU General Public License (GPL). The GPL both protects against the baseless claims made by SCO for license fees to be paid by users of free software, and also prohibits SCO from its ongoing distribution of the Linux kernel, a distribution which infringes the copyrights of thousands of contributors to the kernel throughout the world. As IBM's recently-filed counterclaim for copyright infringement and violation of the GPL shows, the GPL is the bulwark of the community's legal defense against SCO's misbehavior. So naturally, one would expect SCO to bring forward the best possible arguments against the GPL and its application to the current situation. But there aren't any best arguments; there aren't even any good arguments, and what SCO's lawyer actually said was arrant, unprofessional nonsense.

    According to the Journal, Mr Heise announced that SCO would challenge the GPL's "legality" on the ground that the GPL permits licensees to make unlimited copies of programs it covers, while copyright law only allows a single copy to be made. The GPL, the Journal quoted Mr Heise as saying, "is preempted by federal copyright law."

    This argument is frivolous, by which I mean that it would be a violation of professional obligation for Mr Heise or any other lawyer to submit it to a court. If it were true, no copyright license could permit the licensee to make multiple copies of the licensed program. That would make not just the GPL "illegal." Mr Heise's supposed theory would also invalidate the BSD, Apache, AFL, OSL, LSL, MIT/X11, and all other free software licenses. It would invalidate the Microsoft Shared Source license. It would also eliminate Microsoft's method for the distribution of the Windows operating system, which is pre-loaded by hard drive manufacturers onto disk drives they deliver by the hundreds of thousands to PC manufacturers. The licenses under which the disk drive and PC manufacturers make multiple copies of Microsoft's OS would also, according to Mr Heise, violate the law. Redmond will be surprised.

    Of course, Mr Heise's statement is nothing but moonshine, based on an intentional misreading of the Copyright Act that would fail on any law school copyright examination. Mr Heise is referring to section 149 of the US Copyright Act, which is entitled "Limitation on exclusive rights: computer programs," and which provides that:

    (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

    (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

    (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

    As the language makes absolutely clear, section 149 says that although the Act generally prohibits making any copy of a copyrighted work without license, in the case of computer programs one can both make and even alter the work for certain purposes without any license at all. The claim that this provision sets a limit on what copyright owners may permit through licensing their exclusive right is utterly bo
    • What Mr. Heise failed to read was section 106 of the copyright act ... The OWNER of the copyright has the EXCLUSIVE right to AUTHORIZE the following ... pretty damned near anything they want to ...

      106 Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
      Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

      (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

      (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted

  • by SHEENmaster (581283) <travis@@@utk...edu> on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:21PM (#6727717) Homepage Journal
    If SCO "owns" a small fraction of a widely distributed whole, that whole in its entirety is SCO's property.

    If SCO doesn't own any part of a whole that it distributed in violation of copyright law, then copyright law is not applicable, for no specific reason.

    If you violate their property, you deserve to go to hell. If they violate much more of your property, tough luck. If they violate it again, tough luck.

    These guys have made the situation clear, why can't we just agree that they aren't affected by copyright law?
    • I think the real problem here is that McBride and his cronies have decided to apply the Toddler Law of Ownership to software. If SCO used some code in the past, the code belongs to SCO. If some code resembles something SCO already owns, the code belongs to SCO. If somebody else is using some code on their own computer, the code belongs to SCO. If SCO's freind (not that they have many) has some code, the code belongs to SCO. If Darl walks into a room and sees some code, the code belongs to SCO. If som
  • Chewbacca Defense (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:22PM (#6727721)
    South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone are huge Star Wars fans. There have been several Chewbacca references on the show.
    In the "Chef Aid" episode, Chef is accused of trying to steal the song "Stinky Britches," which he really wrote many years ago. The record company takes Chef to court, and they hire Johnny Cochran to prosecute Chef. The whole town is wondering if he will use his famous "Chewbacca Defense," which he used during the O.J. Simpson trial. Here's a transcript:

    Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: (pulling down a diagram of Chewie) this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! (jury looks shocked)
    Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!
    But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case? (calmly) Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!
    Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
    And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.
    If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
    Later in that same episode, Cochran has a change of heart and defends Chef when Chef sues the record company. Again, he uses the Chewbacca Defense, although with some minor changes:
    Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, you must now decided whether to reverse the decision for my client Chef. I know he seems guilty, but ladies and gentlemen... (pulling down a diagram of Chewbacca) This is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one moment -- that does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a man's life is on the line? Why? I'll tell you why: I don't know.
    It does not make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense, you must acquit!
    (pulling a monkey out of his pocket) Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey! (one of the juror's heads explodes)
    Eventually, Chef wins the case and all is well.
  • by Spudley (171066) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:24PM (#6727733) Homepage Journal
    On SCO being deserted by Intel and HP:

    Hmm... why do the words "rats" and "sinking ship" spring the mind here?
  • by Gherald (682277) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:24PM (#6727735) Journal
    >We have tripled our cash position over the past four months.

    We have made multiple spurrious legal claims over the last four months, dramatically raising our stock prices after a steady decline.

    >SCO is actually going into business, not out of it

    We've hired more lawyers.

    > and we have turned the company around.

    We think with and speak through our asses now.

    > We are proud of that, and the future going forward is bright.

    Shhh! I think we are getting a way with this, the SEC hasn't noticed yet...

    > We have no long-term debt, cash balances are improved and we have reduced costs

    It's cheaper to litigate than actually produce a product
    • We are proud of that, and the future going forward is bright.

      Shhh! I think we are getting a way with this, the SEC hasn't noticed yet...


      That light? It's at the end of the tunnel. From an oncoming train. Named IBM.
  • by Carl (12719) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:28PM (#6727771) Homepage
    Check it out:
    http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarch ives.asp?ArticleID=43982
    (Soon there will not be any original code left!)

    While it was difficult to ascertain the exact code being shown on screen, attorneys pointed to exact copying of some code from Unix to Linux and claimed that IBM improperly donated almost a million lines of Unix System V code to the Linux 2.4x and Linux 2.5x kernel that infringe on its Unix System V contract with SCO -- and SCO's intellectual property.

    SCO claimed that much of the core code of Linux including Non-Uniform Memory Access, the Read Copy Update for high-end database scalability, Journaling File System, XFS, Schedulers, Linux PPC 32 and 64-bit support and enterprise volume management is covered by SCO's Unix System V contracts and copyrights.

    For example, 110,000 lines of Unix System V code for read copy update, 55,000 lines of NUMA code and more than 750,000 lines of symmetric multi-processing code from Unix System V has made its way into Linux, attorneys and SCO executives claimed.

    • by Arker (91948) on Monday August 18, 2003 @08:41PM (#6728343) Homepage

      55,000 lines of NUMA code [...] has made its way into Linux, attorneys and SCO executives claimed.

      That would be a nice trick, since SysV didn't have NUMA.

      SCO is so full of shit it's not even funny.

    • by mewyn (663989) on Monday August 18, 2003 @10:37PM (#6729098) Homepage
      I just did some checks on my current kernel, 2.6.0-test3.

      There is about 5.4 million lines in all of the .c, .S, and .h files. Seperating that out, taking the most likely parts of the kernel that would have any of these parts in question: arch, fs, include, kernel, and mm, they only have 2.1 million lines in the files. Seperating even further, taking out the files that SCO has not a chance having any IP in, it brings it down around 900k lines. Now, I know that SCO does not have ALL of the IA32, IA64, PPC, Kernel, and MM code. Also, I counted out any files that have to do with NUMA, and the lines from those total less than 2,500.

      Have we yet proven SCO is full of it?

      mewyn dy'ner
    • For example, 110,000 lines of Unix System V code for read copy update, 55,000 lines of NUMA code and more than 750,000 lines of symmetric multi-processing code from Unix System V has made its way into Linux, attorneys and SCO executives claimed.

      Hrm, those figures are suspicious. Look at this:

      aaf22607:linux-2.6.0-test2# grep -irlE '_smp|smp_' . | xargs -n 10000 -s 100000 wc -l | grep total
      1130736 total
      aaf22607:linux-2.6.0-test2# grep -irlE '_rcu|rcu_' . | xargs wc -l | grep total
      88110 total
      a

  • by Experiment 626 (698257) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:30PM (#6727787)
    Linux is a copyrighted work. Copyright law allows you to make a single copy of something for backup purposes, unless you have the permission of the copyright holder, in which case you can make all the copies you want.

    The GPL just spells out under what circumstances the copyright holder is willing to give you that permission.

    SCO's argument rests on the fact that since one of these cases outlines how to lawfully make one copy of something, and the other deals with how to make unlimited copies of it, they must somehow be mutually exclusive. This is completely illogical. It is like saying that because it is possible to get a one ride ticket for the bus, it must therefore be illegal to buy an all day pass. Sorry SCO, your reasoning seems just a little bit flawed...

  • by The Lynxpro (657990) <lynxpro@nospam.gmail.com> on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:32PM (#6727808)
    Does McBride even live anywhere in Northern California? There are plenty of wage-slaves out here (myself included) that cannot even afford to buy a FIRST HOME, let alone even begin to lust after further real estate like Tom Vu on an infomercial... I guess you could craft an analogy to SCO's profit motives from the following rental unit tale: Mr. McBride is hired by a landlord to squeeze out more profit from an inherited starter-home. The former owners bought the modest home and began making repairs and other improvements to the property. They then were successfully able to find tenants who leased the property. The owners/landlords then mysteriously vanished, presumed deceased. The tenants became the most popular people on the block because they threw great parties, but never rocked-the-boat with the other neighbors. The new owner (who inherited the property) found out from another neighbor the previous owners put in a lot of improvements in the property which caused the tenants so much fanfare in the neighborhood. The owner became jealous because nobody wanted to come over to his own houseparties down the street. The owner found a napkin in another neighbor's trashbin indicating some of the property's improvements, written down based upon observation at the last fondu (sic) party. The notes on the discarded napkin matched some informal notes the deceased owners wrote down on a legal pad. The jealous owner became livid and saw an ad in the Pennysaver from a Mr. McBride claiming he could sell refridgerators to the Inuit and he could bring his expertise to anyone for a nice slice of the pie and a $5 downpayment. Mr. McBride came to town and listened to the whole story. Mr. McBride, a FOB (Friend of Bill) then hires a skilled attorney to figure out a crafty legal strategy out of claiming monies from the tenants based upon the *unjust* enrichment they received from the goodwill of the deceased owners prior to signing their lease agreement. Because the lease agreement was written using a revolutionary new form of compact (ie contract) favored by new-agers, McBride and Company claim it is null and void. The property in question is at the intersection of Caldera Drive and Torvalds Way...
  • by Iphtashu Fitz (263795) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:33PM (#6727816)
    The last paragraph of the Rumor Central [eweek.com] column of eWeek this week claims that a couple of big unnamed linux shops are considering racketeering charges against SCO because of their recent actions. The clip states that at least four more companies would have to come forward.

    One a similar note eWeek is also reporting that members of the open source community have approached SCO [eweek.com] with a proposal for viewing the supposed offending code.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:33PM (#6727817)
    Well, at least according to their executives [businessweek.com], which I have my doubts. The PHBs could have just show them the whole linux source code, and I doubt most people in the audience would have a clue.

    I do wonder if the investors didn't have to sign NDAs and if someone was able to take note of those "stolen" lines of code.

    Best quotes from the article:
    McBride said pattern-recognition experts SCO hired have ferreted out a slew of infringing code in Linux.
    Yeah sure, who are these pattern-recognition experts and are they your executives?

    "They have found already a mountain of code," McBride said. "The DNA of Linux is coming from Unix."
    Only thing I can say about this is it sure sounds like a good PR FUD line to use to increase investor confidence.
  • by posternutbaguk (637765) <sparky@nosPAM.epenguin.zzn.com> on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:36PM (#6727846) Homepage
    From one of the (many) articles:

    "[SCO] said, for example, that more than 829,000 lines of SMP code had been duplicated in Linux."

    829,000 lines for symmetrical multiprocessing code in Linux? I don't have the stats to hand but I seriously doubt that.
  • by Wesley Everest (446824) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:37PM (#6727853)
    So I was thinking -- SCO is using these alleged copied lines of source code to spread their FUD. And they are having some success because their claim is currently unverifiable, so some people are unsure -- maybe there is a violation...

    Now, if we could get a hold of their evidence we could either expose it as a fraud or, in the unlikely event that there is some truth to their claims, clean up Linux source to be legal. But since they require an NDA to see the evidence, you'd have to break the law to show that Linux isn't breaking any laws.

    If only we could see their evidence legally without signing an NDA...

    So then I got to thinking. If we knew what compiler and compiler options SCO used when they built their version of unix, we could build linux with that compiler and compiler options and have some pattern matching utility search for potentially duplicate machine code.

    Then, we could look at the Linux source for the code in question, and follow the electronic paper trail to find when it was first submitted. If we could have proof that the Linux submitter was the original author, then we have proof that at least some of SCO's alleged pirated code was, in fact, pirated from Linux by SCO. If the code was of questionable origin, then we could clean-room reverse-engineer a replacement.

    Anyone know how one might identify the compiler SCO used on a particular release of unix?

    • It's RCU, it's NUMA, it's SMP, it's a whole bunch of code that SCO didn't write, didn't buy, and doesn't own, but that they believe they have total control over because of their interpretation of a contract that supposedly reassigns to them any code that ever gets linked with a line of System V.

      If you want to see their evidence, you'll need to start reading their contracts, not their source code. Any attempt to compare binaries will be hampered by the fact that SCO thinks they own code that they've never
  • by epicurius (693593) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:37PM (#6727857)
    I dont get this. SCO owns copyrights to Sys V Unix. Claims violation of confidentiality provisions in IBM contract, sues IBM for the same. So far, it has some amount of believability. Even their Caldera Linux distro is not necessarily fatal to their case, they are arguing ignorance anyway. So why this totally redundant campaign against the GPL? And how does a tiny company like SCO manage to get this much press attention? The guys who sued MS and won a court judgement certainly got nowhere near this much press. Sure the activism of Linux advocates explains some of it but still.. Could there be more to this than meets the eye?
  • by gstaines (607930) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:44PM (#6727916) Homepage
    Its obvious that hurling abuse at SCO, while uplifting, is not going to change the way they are behaving. Far from it, it seems that we are in effect playing into there hands drumming up publicity for these cretins.

    I think that it would be more effective to lobby (and by that i dont mean output from the insult generator) any vendors that still have some sort of relationship with SCO.

    The easiest would be any company that also has an Open source/ Linux relationship. Make them know how we feel. And how their relationship with SCO may sour the relationship with the linux community

    Gordon Staines

  • by whoever57 (658626) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:47PM (#6727966) Journal
    One of the keynote speakers is Maggie Alexander, "VP Marketing Operations and Planning The Progress Company". AKA Progress Software

    Try googling on mysql "progress software" gpl or click this link [tinyurl.com]
  • by linuxislandsucks (461335) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:54PM (#6728017) Homepage Journal
    I heard through the grape vine that Monday's slide talk by McBride showed codde that supiciously matches code donate by Caldera employees to Linux..ie SCO Group..

    Can anyone get copies of the slides to verify this?
    • by NZheretic (23872) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:04AM (#6729750) Homepage Journal
      Both Caldera and old SCO employees were heavily involved in the development of Linux as a enterprise scale platform. ( As if you haven't read about the Trillian Project which ported Linux to Intel's IA-64 processors...
      http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/Trill ianProject [iwethey.org])

      Dr. Stefan Hildemann claims to have had a chance to see SCO's code show without having to sign the NDA; he has posted his impressions (in German).
      http://forum.golem.de/phorum/read.php?f=44&i=1774& t=1716 [golem.de]
      Thanks to Robert Taylor this English translation of the posting

      ... The crunch, however, is a function of the scheduler, which is, over a length of about 60 lines, indeed identical except for slight differences. In this section, there is also a whole lot of corresponding comments...
      Well, one of the core SCO developer responsible for the development of the SCO Groups current Unix Intel port, also contributed to the Linux kernel. Compare this post of Jun's including the comments
      http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/5312/2001/1/0 /5052740/ [geocrawler.com]
      To this actual part of the Linux 2.4 kernel
      http://lxr.linux.no/source/kernel/sched.c?v=2.4.18 ;a=ia64#L229 [linux.no]
      and consider the comment of Dr.Stefan Hildemann.

      This raises more interesting questions. Since the SMP scheduler in question was specifically written directly for Linux kernel, and both Caldera/SCO employees only added patches, does it not seem more likely that if there is common source and comment then it is likely that the source in question was copied from GPL'ed Linux source to The SCO Groups own Unix?

  • by dbc001 (541033) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:55PM (#6728026)
    To: All Linux Users
    Re: Proprietary Code being used in Linux

    I have recently discovered that some of my personal code has found it's way into the most common Linux distributions. I will begin legal preparations immediately, but for the time being, if you are using Linux you are probably using some of my intellectual property.

    I am offering a "good will" software license to those who wish to stay within the law: those users who contact me within the next 72 hours can purchase a license to use my code for $299 US (significantly less than some others are asking for access to their code!). I will take legal action against all Linux users who do not contact me within the next 72 hours. I have recieved a number of queries as to which code belongs to me, and unfortunately I cannot reveal this for obvious legal reasons.

    I have also found that some of my intellectual property is being used in most automobiles, and my lawyers are preparing lawsuits against some of the larger auto manufacturers. Again, I cannot reveal which parts of the cars I have IP rights to, for obvious legal reasons.

    If you are using Linux and do not contact me immediately, I WILL SEE YOU IN COURT!!
  • by Jeremi (14640) on Monday August 18, 2003 @07:58PM (#6728054) Homepage
    From the article:


    Sontag said these include NUMA (non uniform memory access), Read Copyright Update (RCU), Journal File System and schedulers.


    Is "Read Copyright Update" SCO's new business model then?

  • HP (Score:5, Interesting)

    by El (94934) on Monday August 18, 2003 @08:06PM (#6728114)
    HP distributes thosands of copies of Linux every day embedded in HP devices. SCO has now put HP on notice that it owes them $32 for every copy of embedded Linux it distributes. Gee, I can't think of any reason HP would be unhappy with SCO... can you?
  • SCO's Profits (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bruha (412869) on Monday August 18, 2003 @08:12PM (#6728149) Homepage Journal
    Sadly maybe the world would be different had the Nasdaq delisted them.

    In a report card update on the company over the past year since he joined, McBride said he had acheived his first mission, which was to increase company value. A year ago the stock was trading around $.66 and the company was capitalized at some $8 million. Days after McBride took the helm at SCO, the Nasdaq sent a delisting notice informing SCO that it needed to get its stock price above $1 again to avoid being delisted. This raised customer concerns about the financial security of the firm and its viability. SCO now has a market capitalization of more than $130 million, McBride said. A year ago the company was sitting on just two quarters of cash and was about "to go out," but a belt tightening effort and aggressive sales campaign had changed that. "We have tripled our cash position over the past four months. SCO is actually going into business, not out of it, and we have turned the company around. We are proud of that, and the future going forward is bright. We have no long-term debt, cash balances are improved and we have reduced costs," he said.

    As you can see from the above more proof that the FUD attacks against Linux has only served to increase their bottom line. McBride admits this publicly at a confrence. While at the same time he's dumping the same stock he claims to have turned around. So it seems to me that he does not have much faith in the company. Another sad fact is the silence from the SEC about all this. Clearly this is stock manipulation in the worst light. A small company on the verge of going out of business begins to spread rumors that other companies owe them big bucks and suddenly people jump on the bandwagon becuase they know the stock will shoot up if such a case won in court. In fact the stock has gone up over 1000% in the last 4 months and people have made a profit at the expense of Linux and frankly I dont see how the damage can be reversed at all. Yes more people know aobut Linux but now they're just saying "There's that OS. Looks nice but I'm not going to buy it and have to pay a fee to SCO" Seriously I heard that the other day at a CompUSA when someone was considering a copy of RedHat Pro for 99.00 which I sorely missed by one day cause I misread the label *cry* but back to the topic here. Linux is damaged, the SEC is doing nothing, and McBride and his cronies are raking in the cash. I'm sure the Jailed company Exec's are screaming from their cells to get the SCO crew to join them also. Must be torture to watch someone commit the same crimes you're imprisioned for but nobody's doing anything.

    Life will be fun if the court decides that SCO is in error. But if such a decision comes about the stock will be worth .02 cents and of course SCO will appeal and drag it through the courts. Even then if it is still proved wrong those who paid the license fees will not be able to get a refund becuase by then SCO will have declared bankruptcy.
  • by mewyn (663989) on Monday August 18, 2003 @08:14PM (#6728158) Homepage
    I've been doing a lot of Google News trolling for SCO lately. Sometimes for a good laugh, sometimes to get my blood up to a good boil. Found this article at CRN about SCO bashing IBM and RedHat's counterclaims.

    SCO Blasts IBM, RedHat Counterclaims [crn.com]

    Best part about it:

    "We're fighting for a right in the industry to make a living selling software," McBride said. "The whole notion that software should be free is something SCO doesn't stand for. We have drawn the line. We're supposed to be excited about that and we're not."

    Now, if I'm not mistaken, SCO uses the GCC compiler, and Samba (and is using Samba 3 as a big part of their new OS plans) which are both free software. I'm also sure they are using Apache and many other free software packages. It seems free software is just fine and dandy in SCO's eyes as long as it's not infringing on their marketshare.

    mewyn dy'ner
  • by bstadil (7110) on Monday August 18, 2003 @08:47PM (#6728380) Homepage
    CRN sponsored SCOForum despite emails asking them not to. If you get a free CRN subscription, do as I, go ahead and cancel here [customerservicecrn.com]

    Businesses needs to learn that if they support SCO they wil be treated like pariahs.

  • Chutzpa (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Snorpus (566772) on Monday August 18, 2003 @09:02PM (#6728467)
    You gotta admire Darl and Mark and Chris. No, really, think about this...

    Without presenting any evidence, or even quasi-evidence, just claims and lawsuits and a magical waving of the arms, they have managed to bring SCO from the verge of being de-listed by NASDAQ (share price under $1.00) to becoming a Wall Street darling, because the share price is now over $10.00.

    I'll bet the actual IP of RCU, etc. has already been covered in Operating Systems Courses at dozens of Universities.
  • by bstadil (7110) on Monday August 18, 2003 @09:28PM (#6728630) Homepage
    Interview today. I have posted the interview here rather than make a link [idocuments...ivesasphtm]to CRN as they are sponsoring SCOForum and do not deserve the Hits.

    SCO CEO Darl McBride met Monday with CRN senior editor Paula Rooney to talk about the company's Unix crusade and product plans. The interview took place at the SCO Forum 2003 in Las Vegas. CRN is a sponsor of the conference.

    CRN: SCO attorneys say if there is no settlement, a trial would begin in April 2005 and last roughly five weeks. Following that, there could be appeals. Is there any chance SCO can expedite this case to free up customers, partners and vendors so that the Linux industry doesn't get hurt?

    McBride: We tried to move this along, but IBM kept asking for delays. Now with the counterclaim and patent infringement, it could go even longer. IBM can put this on a slow track [with additional legal moves]. But IBM might be throwing hard balls to [get ready] for the soft pitch [to settle].

    CRN: Why do you say that? What's happening behind the scenes? Might this case be resolved quietly, rather than become the intellectual property [IP] case of the century?

    McBride: They're putting this on a [slow, legal] path. But customers have been putting pressure on IBM to get this resolved. This is not a case IBM can get knocked out on -they'd be filing motions to dismiss the case [if they thought they could win]. Our case is up to $3 billion- they'd have to come up from a few hundred million dollars to settle. Every month, we keep finding more and more [Linux code that violates out Unix System contract]. We'd want a settlement and royalty [on Linux] going forward.

    CRN: Have you met with Linus Torvalds yet, especially since he has become an OSDL fellow? What is your assessment of the open source community activities?

    McBride: I've talked to him via e-mail. He's very pragmatic and tends to be a racehorse with blinders on ..he doesn't want to know about IP or [commercial issues] He readily admits that IBM has put a lot of code in Linux and says if you want to pursue it ]legally], go ahead. But I said to him, 'I appreciate you didn't create the problem, but you have inherited it. But he won't sign an NDA. There's a lot of discussion going on at the OSDL, IBM and open source community they're working though.

    CRN: Many in the open source community are upset about the impact of this case on the Linux industry. Open source guru Eric Raymond-among many others - say they are respectful about IP issues but they are challenging SCO to specify exactly which code it believes to be infringing, by file and by line number, and on what ground it is infringing.

    Raymund says the open source community is not willing to sit idly by while SCO asserts proprietary control, and the right to collect license fees, over the entirety of Linux. What do you say to that? Why doesn't SCO just leave Linux customers, partners and developers alone and out of its dispute with IBM?

    McBride: That's like if someone comes into your house while you're sleeping, takes your jewels, and as you start chasing them down [to retrieve your property], and now they want to say you're the one doing the bad thing. I have to read [Eric Raymond's letter] and am meeting with [The Linux Show's]Jeff Gerhardt on it later.

    CRN: SCO shares, as you mentioned during your keynote, have soared from less than a $1 to over $10 since you took the reigns and since the case began. There have been some reports of SCO executives recently trading shares. This casts some doubt in the minds of some about the integrity of SCO's allegations against IBM.

    McBride: I personally haven't sold any shares. [laughter]Look, Red Hat executives have sold over 500,000 shares just since January. [Other SCO execs sold shares to offset tax losses but does not know more than that.

  • by glenebob (414078) on Monday August 18, 2003 @09:30PM (#6728655)
    "Amusingly, Darl McBride started his rant about copyright infringement by copying some footage from a James Bond movie."

    Actually, Darl had a dream about some footage just like that, back in 1962. Therefore, the entire Bond series is one big derivitive work based on that one dream, which makes SCO the rightful owner of all Bond IP.

    As soon as this Linux thing blows over, they'll be charging anyone who ever watched any Bond movies $500 to be in compliance. Next year, the price goes up to $1500 per viewing, per retina.

    And tomorrow, I'm going to load up on SCO stock so I'll be ready for the phat profits!

  • by adrianbaugh (696007) on Monday August 18, 2003 @10:37PM (#6729101) Homepage Journal
    The entire linux kernel has been constructed from SCO's IP, by judicious copying and pasting of the individual ASCII symbols that form SCO UNIX' source.
    In related news, SCO will also be suing Logitech, Cherry and Microsoft under the DMCA: the keyboards made by these leading manufacturers, among others, are in fact blatant copy-prevention mechanism circumvention devices designed to allow 'programmers', or pirates as we like to call them, to re-use SCO's valuable ASCII IP one character at a time. "It's just so easy," said McBride. "You just press the buttons, and tiny fragments of the SCO UNIX source appear. People making devices like this are worse than baby-murderers."
    SCO refused to comment on speculation that they may ask for a retroactive injunction against distribution of the Bible, which can also be represented in ASCII.

  • I was just there (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Billly Gates (198444) on Monday August 18, 2003 @10:45PM (#6729191) Journal
    I live in Las Vegas and attended part of the forum today at the Mirage.

    McBride showed 60-100 lines of code. They were precise including the comments. However its possible that the duplicate code was from RCU from sequent so the verdict is still out. I am not a coder and McBride did not say which file it was.

    Anyway he showed more examples in the linux kernel including the SysV initialization code. THe Unixware version was similiar accept it had break/switch statements while the linux version did not. McBride went on saying that 829,000 lines of code were way too similiar and I could view them if I sign a NDA. I refused.

    For more info look here [com.com].

    IBM may have including code from sequent and the courts have to find out which license IBM was bound by. I personally think its evil that SCO can claim ownership of something they do not even own because of a piece of paper 15 years ago. Its rediculous.

  • by Thurn und Taxis (411165) on Monday August 18, 2003 @10:55PM (#6729287) Homepage
    Darl "The Man Who Couldn't Spell Daryl" McBride was quoted as saying "The very DNA of Linux is coming from Unix" [eweek.com]. Later that day Tler McBride, the father of Darl, moved for an injunction in federal court to prevent Darl from living. "His DNA is unfairly derived from mine," Tler said, "and unless he's willing to pony up $699 per cell for a license I just can't allow him to continue stealing from me like this."

    Darl replied with a lawsuit of his own. "Copyright law specifies that you're allowed to make one, and only one, copy of your DNA, for archival purposes only. We've convinced people who have signed our NDA, and we will prove in court that Tler McBride created billions of copies of his DNA over the course of several years, and distributed those copies to the public using the GPL (Governmental Public Lavatories) as a cover." McBride added, "Free as in beer may have brought him and my mother together, and may have brought Bill and I together, but if you pinko commies think you can stop us from exploiting the marketplace for personal gain, you've got another thing cumming! Except for the DNA, of course, which is constitutionally protected."
  • by wytcld (179112) on Monday August 18, 2003 @11:28PM (#6729522) Homepage
    The ethics of criminal defense are clear: Everyone accused of a crime deserves good representation. So there's nothing wrong with a lawyer willing to defend those accused of the worst crimes; indeed, something to commend.

    But the ethics of civil offense are quite different: There is no inherent right to abuse our legal system and attack the innocent through it on false charges. Judges can - and we hope they will in this case - sanction the lawyers who enable such actions. But even beyond that, the lawyers working with SCO deserve complete sanction by civil society, and particularly by the tech industry they are trying to carve a niche out for themselves in. We must make it very clear that any company which hires them in the future will be subject to boycott. Any news organization which hires them for commentary - on anything - will be subject to boycott. Anyone who invites them to attend their party or join their club will be subject to boycott. We must learn to see them as tainted by their association with SCO in a way which in which a criminal defense attorney should not be seen as tainted. We must treat them as the moral equals of child abusers and meth manufacturers, and give them the same cold welcome in our neighborhoods.

"What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite." -- Bertrand Russell, _Sceptical_Essays_, 1928

Working...