Solve real business challenges on Google Cloud and run workloads for free. For Slashdot users: Get $300 in free credits to fully explore Google Cloud. Get started for free today.
Ptraci writes "Over at Groklaw they have been doing some digging and have found evidence that old SCO and Caldera did in fact contribute those files that they now want to charge us for."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Saturday January 31, 2004 @12:43PM (#8144041)
Actually, it would suffice to say that Groklaw is more interested in finding information that would benefit SCO.
In fact, the entire Linux community is more concerned with finding facts that could help SCO.
Well, alteast they WERE. The simple fact is, SCO has lied and been caught soooo many times over the last few months... all we can do now is wait for them to lie again so we can disprove it.
It's simple, SCO has lied and it's a known fact. They've lied a LOT, made a LOT of false allegations, etc al..
If you bite into a terd, it's going to taste like shit. No amount of suger and spice is going to make it otherwise.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Saturday January 31, 2004 @12:47PM (#8144072)
This guy brings up a great point. I'm an IT manager at a Fortune 500, and we are considering the ramifications of this case everyday at work.
Techies - if you want to convince your manager that SCO has no case, stop being so emotional about it. We in management have a hard time trusting your opinion when you seem to have so much invested in this emotionally.
This is not some battle of good v. evil - you aren't Bilbo fighting that evil eye at the top of the tower (forgot his name, evil wizard guy).
This is OT but Netcraft has an amusing article [netcraft.com] about what options SCO, the litigious bastards [caldera.com], are not using to avoid being DOSed by Mydoom tomarrow.
To what end? The GPL is just the permission slip Linus gives you to use and copy Linux, not ownership of Linux (for example - this applies to all GPL'd code). If the GPL is ruled invalid by a court, all that means is that the license you hold for Linux is invalid. It doesn't invalidate Linus' copyright on the Linux code. Linus would remain free to re-license his code as he sees fit -- this would not grant Microsoft or anyone else the right to use Linus' code without his permission.
SCO claims that if they distributed Linux with their own proprietary code included inadvertently and without their knowledge, then they are not culpable for that inclusion because they never agreed to the license.
I guess a simple analogy would be someone buying a container in a grocery store but before getting to the checkout, stuffs in a box of cookies. If the clerk sells the person that box without knowing there were cookies inside, then it is still theft. If the clerk then happens to notice the box post-sale and says, "Hey, I didn't sell you those cookies!" then the thief cannot rightfully say that they were sold to him.
I should add in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS that I do not necessarily buy SCO's argument as being legitimate, but only that the theory the claim rests upon seems rational.
This is only vaguely on-topic, but SCO seems to have changed their webserver to openbsd or netbsd. At least, Netcraft [netcraft.com] says so. Although, that could mean more than one thing (such as they stuck another box in front to take the blunt of the impending attack).
Or wait, does that mean they really plan on going after the *BSDs now?
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Saturday January 31, 2004 @01:15PM (#8144248)
Note that the "SGI Code" was discovered independently by someone here on slashdot. It was then reported to the linux-kernel guys who quickly found technical reasons to remove the infringing code.
Which reinforces the point that people really did want to "help SCO" by identifying and remedying any violations as quickly as possible.
It's more like someone (SCO) takes a box of stuff to the Goodwill. (Goodwill is a charitable organization that sells donated stuff) Then they wait 6 months and say "Goodwill stole our stuff and we want a cut from everything Goodwill has sold from the time we made our donation for all eternity."
Once the truth comes out they did they did indeed make a donation they backpedal and say "well we didn't mean to donate all that stuff but we're not going to tell you which items we want back and we still want a cut of Goodwill's sales for all time."
It would mean SCO is stupid enough to launch the virus from their machines and in such a clear way that the FBI could find it in a few days. I doubt it. Some joker typed up something that sounded official enough that this site (which looks legit) posted the article without checking anything.
There are also rumors that the virus "doesn't work" in that it never calls the DDOS code. This sounds like it is trivial to confirm or disprove, so does anybody know what's up with that?
Maybe that's why Darl's campaigning so hard to get the GPL declared unconstitutional...
Speaking of SCO, they recently filed their 10-K Report. [yahoo.com] Maybe that's why their stock prices is depressed. Go and read for the sweet, sweet death throes.
It gives further credibility to the perception that the "GPL is viral, contaminating everything it touches". Although this view is moot when one realizes that they shouldn't be copying and distributing other people's copyrighted works in the first place without permission (which in the case of the GPL is fairly easy to obtain), it's pretty much a given that SCO's own rendering of this code as GPL was inadvertent will be brought up as grounds for why the GPL should be considered legally invalid.
IMO, of course, a company inadvertently putting its own proprietary code into a GPL'd work is pretty much the same as if a company had inadvertently divulged its own trade secrets, which in every case is the company's own damn fault for being careless.
This could, however, dissuade companies that perceive they may have something to lose from participating in open source projects in the future for fear of accidentially letting something out they didn't want.
There's the IBM vs. SCO countersuit, the Redhat vs. SCO suit, and the SCO vs. Novell suit, for starters. After SCO turns into a smoking caldera there's still Microsoft, and there will probably be other interesting cases to cover. Groklaw will never be short for material.
What I wonder is what will happen when Groklaw starts to follow a case where the issues don't appear to be as overwhelmingly in favor of one side as this one. That could get very interesting.
There would be quite a few lawyers ready to fill out a class action suit against MS on contingency. At some point, having lots of money makes you as much a tempting target as a fearsome opponent.
Case in point: Disney. Who would think that anyone with an ounce of sense would sue Disney? Well, the holders of the copyright on Winnie the Pooh are doing just that. With Johnny Cochran getting a big fat contingency payment if things work out.
Similarly, why would some pissant company like SCO sue IBM? Contingency. Sure, the payout to Boies, et al. isn't exactly a contingency, but the payment (SCO stock, IIRC) is worth just about zero if they don't win.
You come from one of the biggest fishing countries in the world
I do. Along with the rest of Europe, we are driving many fish to extinction out of sheer greed. To quote from a recent report [eu.int] by the EU on the new fisheries policy (which is a half-baked measure and will do little to solve the problem):
The reason [for the introduction of a new fisheries policy was] that far too many fish had been taken from the sea by fishing, leaving too few adult fish to reproduce and rebuild the stocks. Today, several important fish stocks, such as cod, are on the verge of collapse
It's not like they are anywhere close to exstinction
On the contrary, whale populations have been decimated in the last 150 years. That's why the IWC moratorium on whaling came into force in the 1980s.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Saturday January 31, 2004 @02:34PM (#8144830)
Groklaw actually breaks news, PJ reports faster and more accurately then most major news outlets, and, unlike the Slashdot editors she doesn't publicize and push her own political agenda.
It really does not look like there was very much insider trading and I doubt you will see McBride cash out. If he does, he is going to pound-me-in-the-ass prison and he knows it. He will go down with the ship.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Saturday January 31, 2004 @03:02PM (#8145030)
I find it very interesting to see that now that the Open source movement is finally being taken to court that they are able to muster the same kind of distributed support en masse as they have in the creation of Linux and other projects. While closed source proprietary porjects can only muster lawyers that they hire, IBM has free legal aid in the form of Groklaw and the support of many thousands of people trying hard to prove SCO wrong to the best of their ability. Here's to a smashing SCO defeat.
Don't forget that IBM is suing SCO for patent infringement on SCOs entire product line. If Microsoft were to purchase SCO, and IBM were to prevail in their patent suit, Microsoft would be facing millions of dollars in potential damages.
I've always enjoyed the material Groklaw provides. It may really help though if they put a press/business friendly bullet point summary of the article. The open source position is very easy to understand:
* SCO claims Linux infringes on their UNIX copyrights.
* Linux was written by thousands of programmers all over the world led by Linus Torvalds.
* SCO has not disclosed all of the parts of UNIX that they beleive are being infringed.
* SCO has disclosed some of the alleged infringements. In each of these cases, it was found that the parts in question were already in the public domain or had been released to the public as free GPL software.
Care should be taken to avoid terms like "code" "ABI" and "header files" they are too technical. This is a Brooklyn Bridge scam. Call it that.
It seems like the most damning evidence and contradictions [caldera.com] about SCO comes from their own website. Perhaps this is why they want to appear to be DOS'd.
Groklaw is biased against SCO already (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, the entire Linux community is more concerned with finding facts that could help SCO.
Well, alteast they WERE. The simple fact is, SCO has lied and been caught soooo many times over the last few months... all we can do now is wait for them to lie again so we can disprove it.
It's simple, SCO has lied and it's a known fact. They've lied a LOT, made a LOT of false allegations, etc al..
If you bite into a terd, it's going to taste like shit. No amount of suger and spice is going to make it otherwise.
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already (Score:5, Interesting)
Techies - if you want to convince your manager that SCO has no case, stop being so emotional about it. We in management have a hard time trusting your opinion when you seem to have so much invested in this emotionally.
This is not some battle of good v. evil - you aren't Bilbo fighting that evil eye at the top of the tower (forgot his name, evil wizard guy).
Re:Their contribution... (Score:3, Interesting)
netcraft article (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Their contribution... (Score:5, Interesting)
Code and Cookies (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess a simple analogy would be someone buying a container in a grocery store but before getting to the checkout, stuffs in a box of cookies. If the clerk sells the person that box without knowing there were cookies inside, then it is still theft. If the clerk then happens to notice the box post-sale and says, "Hey, I didn't sell you those cookies!" then the thief cannot rightfully say that they were sold to him.
I should add in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS that I do not necessarily buy SCO's argument as being legitimate, but only that the theory the claim rests upon seems rational.
Simple Question (Score:4, Interesting)
So why have they not simply bought SCO and used it to their advantage?
sco changes to netbsd/openbsd? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is only vaguely on-topic, but SCO seems to have changed their webserver to openbsd or netbsd. At least, Netcraft [netcraft.com] says so. Although, that could mean more than one thing (such as they stuck another box in front to take the blunt of the impending attack).
Or wait, does that mean they really plan on going after the *BSDs now?
Re:Groklaw is biased against SCO already (Score:1, Interesting)
Which reinforces the point that people really did want to "help SCO" by identifying and remedying any violations as quickly as possible.
Re:Code and Cookies (Score:3, Interesting)
It's more like someone (SCO) takes a box of stuff to the Goodwill. (Goodwill is a charitable organization that sells donated stuff) Then they wait 6 months and say "Goodwill stole our stuff and we want a cut from everything Goodwill has sold from the time we made our donation for all eternity."
Once the truth comes out they did they did indeed make a donation they backpedal and say "well we didn't mean to donate all that stuff but we're not going to tell you which items we want back and we still want a cut of Goodwill's sales for all time."
Seems pretty unlikely to me (Score:3, Interesting)
There are also rumors that the virus "doesn't work" in that it never calls the DDOS code. This sounds like it is trivial to confirm or disprove, so does anybody know what's up with that?
Re:Their contribution... (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking of SCO, they recently filed their 10-K Report. [yahoo.com] Maybe that's why their stock prices is depressed. Go and read for the sweet, sweet death throes.
Re:Technology is Politics (Score:3, Interesting)
They are probably also in big trouble if their public statements get brought into court, but that's another story.
Uhm... this could be a bad thing. (Score:2, Interesting)
IMO, of course, a company inadvertently putting its own proprietary code into a GPL'd work is pretty much the same as if a company had inadvertently divulged its own trade secrets, which in every case is the company's own damn fault for being careless.
This could, however, dissuade companies that perceive they may have something to lose from participating in open source projects in the future for fear of accidentially letting something out they didn't want.
Re:Where will Groklaw head... (Score:4, Interesting)
What I wonder is what will happen when Groklaw starts to follow a case where the issues don't appear to be as overwhelmingly in favor of one side as this one. That could get very interesting.
Re:The Emperor Has No Clothes! (Score:1, Interesting)
Just because you wait an hour after a slashdotting, and don't even bother to check the mirrors doesn't mean noone else did.
Re:Their contribution... (Score:2, Interesting)
Case in point: Disney. Who would think that anyone with an ounce of sense would sue Disney? Well, the holders of the copyright on Winnie the Pooh are doing just that. With Johnny Cochran getting a big fat contingency payment if things work out.
Similarly, why would some pissant company like SCO sue IBM? Contingency. Sure, the payout to Boies, et al. isn't exactly a contingency, but the payment (SCO stock, IIRC) is worth just about zero if they don't win.
Re:OT: you never been to iceland? (Score:2, Interesting)
I do. Along with the rest of Europe, we are driving many fish to extinction out of sheer greed. To quote from a recent report [eu.int] by the EU on the new fisheries policy (which is a half-baked measure and will do little to solve the problem):
It's not like they are anywhere close to exstinctionOn the contrary, whale populations have been decimated in the last 150 years. That's why the IWC moratorium on whaling came into force in the 1980s.
Slashdot should just redirect to Groklaw re SCO (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:How to make money off of a failing company (Score:1, Interesting)
Open Source vs. Closed in the legal Arena (Score:2, Interesting)
If Microsoft bought SCO (Score:2, Interesting)
Or is there something is U.S. law that prohibits this, similar to the UKs Monopolies & Mergers Commision?
Re:Simple Question (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't forget that IBM is suing SCO for patent infringement on SCOs entire product line. If Microsoft were to purchase SCO, and IBM were to prevail in their patent suit, Microsoft would be facing millions of dollars in potential damages.
Outstanding Work (Score:4, Interesting)
* SCO claims Linux infringes on their UNIX copyrights.
* Linux was written by thousands of programmers all over the world led by Linus Torvalds.
* SCO has not disclosed all of the parts of UNIX that they beleive are being infringed.
* SCO has disclosed some of the alleged infringements. In each of these cases, it was found that the parts in question were already in the public domain or had been released to the public as free GPL software.
Care should be taken to avoid terms like "code" "ABI" and "header files" they are too technical. This is a Brooklyn Bridge scam. Call it that.
Their own worst enemies (Score:4, Interesting)