Today's SCO News 417
joebeone writes "Linus has commented on the SCO v. IBM suit saying "SCO is playing it like the Raelians" and that he will withhold his judgement until the code in question is shown in court. He has also recommended that former slashdot editor, Chris DiBona, be appointed to a panel offered by SCO to examine the evidence." Businessweek has an interview with SCO's CEO. The Open Group would like to remind everyone that SCO is only one of many in the Unix world.
Lawyers... (Score:5, Funny)
Why charge for one discussion when you can charge for two?
considered the father of Linux? (Score:5, Funny)
Who the hell else is under consideration? SCO's CEO?
Re:considered the father of Linux? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:considered the father of Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:considered the father of Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
What if Microsoft has, in the past or future, malicously or accidentally, injected proprietary code w/ copyright or patent entanglements, into core Windows systems? What are the implications for users who have no way of recognizing the code in violation?
There are no implications for the user, period. If someone uses code he is not allowed to, it's his problem and nobody else's. And this applies to all licenses and all development models equally.
Re:considered the father of Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:considered the father of Linux? (Score:3)
Re:considered the father of Linux? (Score:4, Informative)
Just one of those fun legal quirks.
Re:considered the father of Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
My favorite quote from SCO's CEO: "You need some comfort level other than 'We can warrant none of this...' "
That's odd, Darl. Ever read a fucking Microsoft EULA?
Re:considered the father of Linux? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:considered the father of Linux? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:considered the father of Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly.
but is that liability passed on to every user of the infringing derivative work?
No, it isn't.
No matter how much you or SCO's CEO wishes it to be, there is no liability passed to the end user, period.
Wouldn't make any sense or would it? Just because some vendor is guilty of a crime, suddently all users shall be guilty of that crime, too? What nonsense.
Can the paranoia and defensiveness (Score:2)
My question wasn't meant to be whether users would be criminally liable, but whether the product they were using would be considered illegal and subject to any kind of claim by the copyright owner. In property law, one who purchases a stolen item isn't entitled to keep it once it is found to be hot, eve
Re:Can the paranoia and defensiveness (Score:5, Insightful)
Then SCO has already achieved their goal.
My question wasn't meant to be whether users would be criminally liable, but whether the product they were using would be considered illegal and subject to any kind of claim by the copyright owner. In property law, one who purchases a stolen item isn't entitled to keep it once it is found to be hot, even if they bought it unaware.
Let's please realize the difference between theory and praxis.
Let's also realize that the chance Linux contains relevant SCO code is nil.
With that in mind - In theory you would have to upgrade to a newer version if some infringing code is found. However, in real life it won't matter because: 1) The courts are so slow that the infringing software would be out of date long before you would have to upgrade, 2) Nobody cares. 3) Nobody knows. Neither MS nor SCO have the registration information of SuSE, RedHat or Mandrake customers, many customers don't register and for those who use debian or Gentoo, such registration information doesn't even exist. They might force their own users to upgrade, but quite frankly they can't even prove that they haven't already jumped to another distribution.
Sorry for overreacting in my last post, but I feel very frustrated and sad that SCO is so successful with this pure FUD campaign.
Re:Can the paranoia and defensiveness (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmmm... say you own a legally purchased copy of the song 'My Sweet Lord' by George Harrison. This lawsuit comes up. [vwh.net] Are you now required to return your copy of 'My Sweet Lord' because it is now considered 'stolen property'?
The answer is 'no, of course not.' Because copyright violation and theft, despite what the BSA wants you to think, are not the treated the same under the law. Copyright violation is not theft per se because it is a 'theft' of an expression of an idea, not the theft of physical property -- basically it's plagiarism. The plagiarizer is the liable party in this case. Copyright violation is also (generally) a civil matter, rather than a criminal matter. It's (literally) an infringement upon somone else's exclusive right to copy. Basically the party that causes damages to the copyright holder is the liable party.
I hope this makes sense to you because I feel like I'm babbling.
Re:considered the father of Linux? (Score:3, Informative)
Not exactly. I can't speak to the issue of the end user of a single copy bought from Red Hat -- that'd be complicated. However, the liability would be inherited by anyone who made an infringing copy of the work in question. Thus, Red Hat, IBM, and VA Linux would unquestionably be liable. If you installed Red Hat on more than one computer, I think that a lawyer might well argue that you were liable fo
Gartner Group now warning against Linux (Score:3, Informative)
One of their recommendations is "Minimizing the use of Linux in 'complex, mission-critical systems' until the dust clears on how valid SCO's claims are." How long is that going to take?
Gartner to users: Don't take SCO suit lightly [infoworld.com]
Re:considered the father of Linux? (Score:2)
You mean like that time when a whole chunk of BSD code was stolen and added to Linux with the copyright statements removed? You remember - the time where it took ages before it was finally admitted that this had happened, and even then it was dismissed as unimportant?
Re:considered the father of Linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
That was never really proven.. the complaint was that the structures in the headders looked the same. Given the fact that both drivers were for the same hardware that was a given.
In that case they should have told the alleger to FOAD. If the headers were dictated by the hardware, it's actually not infringement even if they were copied. As it happens I have the case that decided this at my feet now (Computer Associates v Altai). The reason for this is that the required structure, abstracted from the code,
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:considered the father of Linux? (Score:2)
"In an e-mail response to CRN, Torvalds, widely considered the father of Linux"
From the reverence he gets, it seems some think of him as God.
Recalls four ill-chosen words Linus once said... (Score:3, Interesting)
(Yes, he was joking...but he was taken way too seriously at the time if my memory serves me right.)
Re:considered the father of Linux? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:considered the father of Linux? (Score:2)
Nope, Actually SCO's CEO's wife ran of with Linus and they produced Linux. Thats why he wants revenge
Re:considered the father of Linux? (Score:2, Funny)
Dear Mr. Gates (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Dropping of the anti-trust matter - done
Re: Slowing down Linux - done
I am eagerly awaiting your third wish.
Sincerely,
Satan
Re:Dear Mr. Gates (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Dear Satan (Score:4, Funny)
Err, make that
3. More Profit!!!
Sincerely,
Bill
Something Mismatches (Score:5, Interesting)
The May Issue [linuxforu.com] of Linux for You India [linuxforyou] has interview of SCO India Head in which that guy is pushing linux and says linux is the key focus of SCO with they wanting to contribute to the Linux Community by way of more software. Isnt that a bit odd!
Re:Something Mismatches (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is that magazines are put together quite a while before they actually are released, so the information in them can be out of date by the time people actually see it.
The May issue of a magazine usually comes out in April. It probably goes to the printers 6 weeks before being released, so that would put the magazine being created in each March,
Re:Something Mismatches (Score:5, Informative)
That's the June 2003 issue of Linux Journal, page 78. And I didn't think it was "pretty favorable". It was as neutral as possible. The part about the delays in the sendmail security patch was not at all favorable.
The May issue of a magazine usually comes out in April. It probably goes to the printers 6 weeks before being released, so that would put the magazine being created in each March, before the lawsuit.
The final draft was submitted to the magazine about a week after SCO announced its lawsuit, but most of the writing was before that.
I know this stuff because I wrote that article.
steveha
Linus for Panel Member (Score:5, Informative)
Even better, if SCO is willing to say what area of the code infringes, the maintainer for that section should be allowed to see the code. Along with Linus.
If SCO gets to pick all the "experts", they can seriously stack the deck. Linus and IBM together should be allowed to choose the same number of experts as SCO chooses.
Re:Linus for Panel Member (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Linus for Panel Member (Score:2)
So what they need is somebody who knows the kernel, but will never be able to contribute again. Someone that Linus and IBM can trust. Is Chris that man, then?
Re:Linus for Panel Member (Score:5, Funny)
hehehe he'd go in "unclean" and leave even more "unclean" ... eh eh eh
Suggestions for panel members (Score:3, Insightful)
People like the BSD team of Quarterman, McKusick, Karels, and Leffler would be good choices. People from the Bell Labs team, like Ken Thompson, or even Rob Pike would be good to have on the panel. I don't know who the exp
Re:Linus for Panel Member (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess I can't paint a woman not smiling, because DaVinci did it first.
Re:Linus for Panel Member (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not the problem most people think it is. Having knowledge of copyrighted or patented materials is not damaging. Using that knowledge without authorization is damaging.
If you consider patents in the U.S.A., all patented 'inventions' are open sourced! The specifications of every patented item, and a working model is available for the public to see. The reason for this is to promote competition.
If Cyrus McCormick invents and patents a reaper or a harvester, he has to file plans and a working model with the patent office. John Deere can also make and patent a harvester. But he better do his homework and examine good old Cyrus' filings with the patent office. If John doesn't check the prior art, he may inadvertantly re-implement a method already patented by Cyrus.
Patenting or copyrighting a mouse trap or an operating system does not exclude all other mouse traps or operating systems from being created.
It just gives you the right to your own work. If someone examines your work, and comes up with a better mouse trap, they can patent their own alternative.
Open source software follows this same pro-business, pro-competition model. The current business climate that threatens law suits for rival products is anti-free market, and leads to lethargic weak businesses, that are unable to compete on the basis of merit or cost.
When you read a Tom Clancy book, you actually get to read the copyrighted material. If you try to steal that material by changing the names of the characters and the places of the events, you risk legal punishment. Mr. Clancy and other works are protected by copyright. However you can write your own novel, full of espionage and intrigue. Just read a bunch of the other books out there to make sure you are not stealing any prior art. If books, music and movies were closed source, you would not be allowed to read them, listen to them, or view them. You would just be allowed to hear Roger Ebert or someone's review, and then have to pay full price!
If you are familiar with prior copyrighted software, and cannot create a 'better' alternative, don't! Check archives for an already existing alternative. Try to interest a better programmer in creating one for you ( with pay or with kudos ). If you can't find or create a solution, pay the original copyright holder for the rights to use theirs.
AT&T sued BSD for copyright infringement. I think there were only three or four snippets of code that were questionable. BSD replaced the code with alternatives, and the problem was solved.
It turned out that AT&T actually had more BSD code in its UNIX without giving proper credit to the original authors, than BSD had AT&T code! I wonder if the same would be true for SCO UNIXWARE with respect to Linux?
Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, the whole panel thing is just a ruse by SCO. They are not going to disclose anything outside of court and I am sure that they will make every effort to have this whole thing settled out of court. If the case is settled out of court, the supposed infringment evidence will never be revealed.
SCO's own goal (Score:5, Interesting)
For more information click here [smh.com.au].
Re:SCO's own goal (Score:3, Interesting)
There are scenarios under which a company might not be compelled to stop releasing GPL'd code as soon as it realizes a violation has occurred. Suppose IBM set SCO up by stealing Unix code and then including it in Linux. Because SCO distributes Linux, they would also be releasing the offending code under the GPL. However, because IBM's intent was malicious, you could argue that the GPL cannot apply.
As for the delay in stopping Linux sales, SCO could argue tha
Re:SCO's own goal (Score:3, Insightful)
There are really only two possible choices for SCO once they found out that Linux was contaminated.
a) They willfully violated the GPL.
b) They willfully released their own code as GPL.
Either way, they needed to stop distributing Linux IMMEDIATELY.
Re:SCO's own goal (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO has done nothing but act in contempt of the GPL and the rights of all other Linux contributors. They have failed to live up to the spirit or letter of the relevant licenses.
Most arguments that advocate SCO's loss of property rights center around the fact that it chose to ignore the implications of the
SCO's Ineffable Fallacy (Score:5, Interesting)
This is precicely why SCO does not divulge exactly what's in question: it would be too easy for IBM et al to say "Oh. So sorry. Many regretti." and recode it, thus deflating any hope they have for the Home Run.
All SCO can be after is money - QED.
Re:SCO's Ineffable Fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
There are only two reasons for them not to reveal the code:
1. There is no such code
2. The code is in some laughably insignificant or obsolete part of Linux, which would backfire on them because everybody would then say that SCO's code is obsolete and this proves that Linux has far surpassed them.
Some people say there is a conspiracy and Microsoft is paying SCO to cast fear and doubt on Linux, and that this doubt is more valuable to them than winning the case. But this still does not explain why they don't reveal any of the code. If there was any code of value, it would likely be in several pieces. They could reveal one piece so that everybody knows they are serious and they can prove they have a case, and say "there are several others that we will reveal later". This would be far more damaging to Linux than their current actions and would make Microsoft happy. Therefore I feel pretty confident now that they have no case whatsoever.
Re: SCO's Ineffable Fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
> Some people say there is a conspiracy and Microsoft is paying SCO to cast fear and doubt on Linux, and that this doubt is more valuable to them than winning the case. But this still does not explain why they don't reveal any of the code.
My take on that yesterday [slashdot.org]:
Thanks for the tip (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks for the tip.
--Bob, SCO IP lawyer
Re:SCO's Ineffable Fallacy (Score:2)
If so its a poor strategy, SCO will be forced to specify the exact code chunks in dispute during discovery.
Also the fact that the capabilities are not in dispute, only the code means that damages are likely to be small, if any should SCO win. The fact that
Linus was wrong, the Raelians had far m
Re:SCO's Ineffable Fallacy (Score:2)
They already got the money. (from MS) And they will get more.
Either from IBM (to shut the fuck up) or from MS (to continue to spread FUD)
They don't have any proof, but the damage they can do with their FUD is still incredible.
Does it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it, Microsoft has been spreading the FUD that GPL is THE big problem in enterprise environments not open source.
With all the bad publicity this is generating for linux, even if SCO were to loose its case in court, the Damage has already been done
Do managers really care whether linux code has or has not infringed upon copyright code? Do they ?
All they will see is that, GPLed code could potentially land them in problem.
This has a two fold implications on a IT manager thinking of deploying linux
- One:- As long as the case is not resolved, using Linux could mean risking being sued for copyright infringments. Also what's to gurantee that no other company could sue in future.
- Secondly mixing GPLed code, or even using the GPLed libraries with their own propritory code is now a NO-NO
This has been probably the most successful attack policy of Microsoft. Shoot from the shoulders of SCO and scare the IT managers.Remember programmers like you and me, don't matter as long as IT managers are scared to use linux in their enterprise.
This is the real concern (Score:5, Insightful)
This entire issue has nothing to do with the code. It doesn't matter when SCO release the "offending" code or if the code is really an IP infraction or not. Most people's understanding of this will simply be a headline here and there. The idea that you might get sued for using Linux will be all they remember. If the courts determine there is some basis to this, it will get even worse. Those things take a long time for the general population to forget.
Re:Does it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you think that? I seriously do not understand this. Linux is and always has been of the hackers, for the hackers, and by the hackers. Who cares if Linux is adopted by the "enterprise" or not? Sure, it's nice to have the boost in development that large companies can bring, but to say that IT managers are more important than active members of the community just boggles my mind.
Don't think of Linux as a business product. If we fall into that trap, they've won.
Linux *can* effectively die if we aren't careful (Score:3, Interesting)
Contrary to a popular hacker belief, Linux (for purposes of this post, Linux refers to the kernel, GNU, assorted tools and environments, etc) can effectively die if we, the community, aren't careful.
In order to stay "alive" Linux must continue to provide innovative and useful tools AND support for modern Internet standards and protocols on on modern hardware. Without support for new Internet standards/protocols and new hardware, fewer people will be inclined to try Linux, and some Linux users will be incl
Re:Does it... (Score:2)
What's wrong with that? Mixing GPL'd code with proprietary (that is, non-GPL) code is a no-no.
If they did not know that already, it's good to learn it.
Follow the Money (Score:3, Insightful)
heh (Score:3, Funny)
"...Linus Torvalds has suggested...former Slashdot editor Chris DiBona for membership on the panel of experts to which SCO executive Chris Sontag has offered to reveal evidence of copying code from SCO UnixWare to Linux."
And you just freakin' know what LT wanted to add was, "I would also recommend Slashdot editor CmdrTaco, but judging from his posts, he doesn't seem to know much about UNIX and is kinda stupid in general."
Talisman
a cunning ploy (Score:5, Funny)
IBM response to SCO : (Score:3, Funny)
(with the express permission from Madonna)
Re:IBM response to SCO : (Score:2)
Or use *BSD.
Re:IBM response to SCO : (Score:3, Insightful)
First because it would give at least the appearance that SCO was right. Even if they were wrong, there will always be someone that says IBM did contribute code they were not suppose to. This reason is a PR/Marketing move for IBM.
Second, every little crappy company will then start suing IBM (and possibly other companies) in the attempt to inflate their price for a buyout or settlement. This is a Financial/Legal reason for IBM.
Third, they just want to stick it to IBM because of the principle o
Re:IBM response to SCO : (Score:5, Funny)
Lawyers to the rescue! (Score:5, Funny)
Its nice to see that the two sides are moving closer together. It seems like only last week that they were only discussing the possibility of disscussing discussions regarding the discussion of case discussions.
Re:Lawyers to the rescue! (Score:3, Interesting)
Key quote. My question: how to remedy? (Score:5, Insightful)
"We have examples of code being lifted verbatim. If you look at the code we believe has been copied in, it's not just a line or two, it's an entire section -- and in some cases, an entire program. "
Now this may or may not be true or may be true in some mostly-irrelevant way. But that leads me to a question.
My question would be, if, theoretically, a coder knows in their conscience that they did violate copyright in this way, what would be their best recourse to fix the situation?
Should they patch the code themselves and submit a patch? Would such a patch withstand legal scrutiny?
And should they warn the person who they send the patch to about the urgency/motivation of the patch?
Alternatively, should they merely notify/tell someone else ASAP so that the violating code can
be removed and replaced by someone 'clean', and sooner rather than later?
It would seem one of these two would be wise. That way, the amount of time between when the violation is ruled to have occurred, and the time when it is 'made right' through a fix is minimized, and the effects of any judge-ruled injunctions to correct things are minimized. Or if the issue is fixed particularly before the case is ruled upon, perhaps the point can be ruled as 'moot' since the violation has since been fixed.
Either way, this raises some sub-questions:
A) who should they tell in the open source community about their indiscretion?
B) should they attempt to be anonymous in their communications? (to avoid legal liability)
C) does telling someone else then open the tell-ee to some sort of potential legal liability?
Clearly a swamp of legal issues that are better avoided entirely. Any answers though?
--LP
P.S. Of course Slashdot advice/commentary isn't legal advice/comment. But it's an interesting question and I figure *someone* on here has a more considered opinion than I.
Re:Key quote. My question: how to remedy? (Score:2, Interesting)
"If you look at the code we believe has been copied in, it's not just a line or two, it's an entire section -- and in some cases, an entire program."
one has to react to the program part. What is an 'program' doing in the linux-kernel?? What does that mean??
I remembered when I read that statement that I quit reading the rest, since it is obvious BS (to me that is).
Re:Key quote. My question: how to remedy? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why? (Score:5, Funny)
"He has also recommended that former slashdot editor, Chris DiBona, be appointed to a panel offered by SCO to examine the evidence."
Why's that? So that it can get sent to court three or four times?
<ducks>
Re:Why? (Score:2)
opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html (Score:5, Informative)
Even if SCO shows the code (Score:5, Interesting)
The dates and times of code inclusion into linux are pretty well documented, but how can you do that with closed source.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scaring OSS consumers (Score:3, Insightful)
Case in point... (Score:3, Insightful)
IIRC, Microsoft's customers are now facing the threat of legal action because Microsoft improperly included Timeline's intellectual property in their SQL server offerings. So even though Microsoft's customers bought licenses from Microsoft, they may still end up owing money to Timeline! And IIRC, Microsoft is also being sued by their customers for this practice. So much for the "safe" proprietar
Re:Scaring OSS consumers (Score:3, Interesting)
I can see that you might be able to use DRM "technology" to make verifiable timestamps on files. As such Microsoft giving SCO money makes perfect sense; If this trial leads to the conclusion that th
Playing it like the Raelians... (Score:5, Funny)
SCO is playing it much more like, say, Heaven's Gate or Jonestown. Drink the koolaid, take a trip on the passing comet.
Could this possibly happen (Score:2, Interesting)
How come... (Score:3, Interesting)
Violation, you scream. You must pay the consequences, no matter how the code got in there.
But, if it is the open source crowd that put the bad code in, then just remove it, it's all good.
More open source double-standards.
Re:How come... (Score:3, Interesting)
This shouldn't have been modded insightful.
There is a world of difference between the two. The Linux crowd is waiting to be shown the infringing code so it can be replaced. I expect it will be replaced within 24 hours of being found.
The OpenTV group have been told where their violation was over a year ago and have declined to repa
There's lots of BSD code in AT&T Unix (Score:5, Interesting)
[disclaimer: as stated above, this comment was written by an Anonymous Reader -- I'm just pasting; any positive moderation doesn't belong to me, except a "+1 informative" if you will]
"As people may recall from the original settlement of the BSD lawsuit, three files had to be removed from BSD that represented things in SysV source. What is often forgotten, though, is that AT&T itself was in a far greater bind because while there was some SysV code in BSD, there was a LOT of "borrowed" and misattributed BSD code found to be in AT&T SysV. BSD permits this, but the license at the time required the advertising clause, and AT&T fraudulently ignored this. The actual settlement said that AT&T would no longer sue the BSD people, and that the University of California would also agree to hold AT&T harmless for misappropriating BSD code. Hence, much of the code that SCO owns is actually misattributed BSD code for which UC permitted AT&T (and it's decendents) to use."
"Now much of Linux also shares code derived from ancestrial BSD sources or people who have worked in common on both, and I am sure many of the same ancestrial routines still found today at the core of SysV are in fact also BSD derived. Hence, where common code may exist, it's code that AT&T originally misappropriated, and that SCO is free to use and relicense from the AT&T/BSD settlement, but in point of law neither AT&T nor the current SysV owner has actual legal copyright over. Perhaps the regents of UC could hall these SCO scum back into court, as they are in fact in material breach of the AT&T/BSD settlement if SCO now claims copyright "ownership" of that originally misappropriated code since the settlement gave AT&T no such rights."
So lets see (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay. That bit makes sense. SCO then realise that some of their code is amisapprpriated. They contuinue to distribute it under the GPL even though they claim the GPL doesn't cover it. They also claim that some of SCO's code is in the Linux kernel, but fail to say what. All this time they continue to distibute their own code under a license which states that either they are not allowed to, or that they must allow others to do exactly what they're claiming everyone else shouldn't do.
SCO make some statement that says that it isn't being distributed under the GPL, and the GPL says so, disregarding the fact that says that if they distribute GPLed code they give a license to use all the code that's included.
This is where I sart getting a headache. I just can't make the facts of that last sentence sound coherent however hard I try.
You mean UNIX® (Score:2)
You really meant UNIX® [unix-systems.org], right
FSF's Bradley Kuhn comments on SCO case (Score:5, Interesting)
For several other interesting quotes, see the whole interview [smh.com.au].
Names dropped by SCO... (Score:3, Interesting)
Kernel developers and FSF file lawsuit against SCO (Score:4, Interesting)
The kernel developers have carefully crafted Linux over many years. It seems to me they would be willing to protect *their* image and *their* product from these kind of attacks.
Especially the people who developed the capabilities that SCO claims did not exist in Linux until IBMs intervention. The SCO action claims these developers are lying, that they never did the work!
If EFF files a lawsuit on behalf of named developers of the Linux kernel, I'd pledge $100 over paypal to such an effort.
Reason Online about SCO, Linux and Redmond (Score:3, Interesting)
why hasn't someone run a code compare program? (Score:3, Interesting)
"I use Linux, please sue me." (Score:3, Interesting)
I submitted this as a story to Slashdot, but it was rejected.
Re:SCO == Cloneaid? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:SCO == Cloneaid? (Score:3, Funny)
-1 Troll (Score:3, Informative)
[Querying whois.internic.net]
[Redirected to whois.dotster.com]
[Querying whois.dotster.com]
[whois.dotster.com]
The data contained in the WHOIS database, while
believed by the company to be reliable, is provided "as is",
with no guarantee or warranties regarding its accuracy. This
information is provided for the sole purpose of assisting you
in obtaining information about domain name registration records.
Any use of this data for any other purpose, including, but not
limited to, allowing or making
Re:show us the CODE! (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately in the U$ the end justifies the means and the executive options for SCO are now making them rich.,.
It is not important if they win as long as they can cash out before the outcome....
Re:show us the CODE! (Score:2, Informative)
Damn, but I wish I had followed through with my 'dumb' idea to remortgage and dump the cash into SCOX! 'Idle rich' is such good job title.
Re:Can we "short" SCO's stock? (Score:3, Informative)
SEC rules probably make this more complicated, but I think this is a pretty good simplification. Shorting stock is basically selling stock you don't have, with the intention of buying it back later (at a lower price). So you borrow stock from someone else and sell the stock. So how do you borrow stock? (Stockbrokers, please correct this as necessary...) When you do a "short", your stockbroker borrows shares from one of
Re:Can we "short" SCO's stock? (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Make BS claims that their IP was robbed.
2) Wait for stockholders to ramp up the cost of the stock.
3) Sell crap stock when it's worth 10 times more than it was a few months previous.
4) PROFIT!!!
'nuff said?
Re:show us the CODE! (Score:5, Interesting)
- it is added in the last 18 months
- it is added by IBM
- they added 'a whole program'
I think this narrows things down a bit, shouldn't it be possible to make a list of code added by IBM in the last 18 months?
Maybe we could all put a snippet of this code on our website, and the one who gets sued by SCO has the right part
Re:show us the CODE! (Score:3, Informative)
1. SCO OpenServer does not hold a Unix 98 cert, AIX does.
2. SCO OpenServer does not hold a Unix 98 cert, True64 does
3. SCO OpenServer does not hold a Unix 98 cert, Solaris does.
4. SCO OpenServer does not hold a Unix 95 cert, AIX does
ad naseum...
infty. SCO holds only a 95 cert for Unixware which it bought (and certified for the bought code, nothing later on) and for which the Open Group holds some of the trademarks anyway.
More in
Re:show us the CODE! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:show us the CODE! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:show us the CODE! (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO ship a bunch of Linux stuff with their "LKP", (Linux Kernel Personality) add-on for UnixWare, and according to The Inquirer [theinquirer.net] they've written to say:
So, within a few weeks we'll be able to compare the old "Linux RPM CD" with the new one and find out what SCO/Caldera think was stolen.Re:First Again (Score:2)