Further Selections From the Mixed-Up SCO Files 697
An anonymous reader writes "SCO have made much of how their claims about UNIX code being improperly copied into Linux were verified by 3 teams including 'MIT Mathematicians.' However, MIT can't seem to find the mathematicians concerned!"
(SCO's explanation is that the company is talking about a team made up of people who formerly worked at MIT, rather than a group still associated with the school, but "due to contractual obligations, we cannot specifically name the individuals.")
kuwan writes "SCO has responded to the massive debunking of their 'evidence' last week. Chris Sontag claims that the BPF code was 'not intended to be an example of stolen code, but rather a demonstration of how SCO was able to detect "obfuscated" code.' That, however is a flat-out lie. If you look at their Obfuscated Copying slide (#15), it clearly states 'Obfuscated System V Code Has Been Copied Into Linux Kernel Releases 2.4x and 2.5x,' and then the slide labels the BPF code on the left as 'System V Code.'
At this point I think they realized that their case has been severly weakened and they need to spin it any way they can. And in their case this means more lying."
Captain Beefheart writes "According to this story over at The Inquirer (crediting a special edition of Terry Shannon's Shannon Knows HPC newsletter), SCO has officially announced that HP is safe from their infringement lawsuit brigade ... This leads one to suspect that HP is the Fortune 500 company that SCO claimed recently had paid for a license."
Maybe HP just wants to avoid Microsoft/BSA-style hassles: FatRatBastard writes "According to an article on Commentwire.com SCO has started sending invoices to Linux users. If a company signs up for SCO's 'Intellectual Property License for Linux,' they allow the possibility of being audited at SCO's expense to ensure that the user has been truthful about the number of Linux installations it has. Should the audit reveal that the user has underpaid SCO by 5% or $5,000, whichever is highest, the user also agrees to pay the price for the audit."
Blacklantern writes "The SCO lawsuit has made it into "Halloween Documents" gallery. Eric Raymond takes on the contents of the lawsuit point-by-point. "
How'd they miss this??? (Score:5, Funny)
Over at Computerworld [computerworld.com], they have an article which outlines SCO's plans to revitalize their Unix offering, and market it as a competitor to Linux. The best part, of course, is Darl's insight:
Sure, a little paint and some nifty accents from Pottery Barn, and SCO will be swimming in cash, right??? Thanks again, Darl, for making my day just a little funnier...
Re:How'd they miss this??? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How'd they miss this??? (Score:5, Funny)
Trying...
Connected to www.permits.gov.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET
<PERMIT>
<H3>Because you are SCO, you have been granted a permit to do anything you want to.</H3>
<P>Signed,<BR>
The Government</P>
</PERMIT>
Connection closed by foreign host
Re:How'd they miss this??? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How'd they miss this??? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How'd they miss this??? (Score:5, Interesting)
This makes for an interesting approach to covering all the Linux IP that SCO has been stealing.
Re:How'd they miss this??? (Score:5, Funny)
Uh, perhaps they should do a title search on the old building first, and make sure they actually own it!
HP Completely Mischaracterized (Score:5, Interesting)
I just wish the slashdot editors would check the submitted blurbs against the content of the articles, even superficially.
HP Doesn't appear to claim or remotely imply they might have bought licenses from SCO, or that they recognize SCO's outrageous claims in any sense whatsoever. Indeed, this article [theinquirer.net] seems to indicate that they are ignoring SCO, as everyone else ought to as well (the trial will determine this, and the judgement, while virtually a foregone conclusion -- SCO loses, will determine what, if any, licensing fees anyone should pay.
HP LAST WEEK claimed that it doesn't infringe on the copyrights SCO claims it owns on Linux, according to a special edition of Terry Shannon's Shannon knows HPC newsletter.
The newsletter quoted Linux business strategist Mike Balma as saying at HP World that while HP didn't comment on law suits, HP "has found no infringement issues" using Linux.
The same newsletter claimed that HP has 3.2K Linux boxes installed throughout HP.
It seems rather clear that management at SCO talked to legal, who probably advised them that SCO's claims are frivolous and will not hold up in court, and not to pay. Ergo, HP claims it does not infringe on SCO's copyrights.
Or SCO looked at the Heise images, realized that they do not use the hardware platform the alleged infringing code is in, but rather Intel. (As an aside, since almost everyone uses Intel, Power PC, Alpha, or ARM architectures, that includes HP and 99.999% or more of all GNU/Linux deployments everywhere.)
HP certainly would have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by going along with SCO, so in light of this article it seems the blurb's innuendo is more than a little misplaced (hardly a first for slashdot, but still...). Indeed, quite the opposite is happening here: HP evaluated SCOs claims and likely filed their "invoice" right where it belonged, either under "pending litigation against litigious thugs trying to shake us down" or the more general Circular File.
Re:HP Completely Mischaracterized (Score:5, Interesting)
So HP certainly would have an issue with the IA-64 Linux code. Of course, that issue is moot since it came from a legal source.
-molo
Re:How'd they miss this??? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that you missed the really important quote in there:
It sounds as though SCO has done quite a thorough job of shooting itself in the foot on the issue. Even if they do somehow manage to improve their current UNIX line to the point that it can compete with Linux, they've pissed off the people they might have sold it to to the point that they're not going to be able to close the deal. Great going, Darl!
Re:How'd they miss this??? (Score:4, Insightful)
>> McBride said. "We're going to come back and spruce the place up."
> Sure, a little paint and some nifty accents from Pottery Barn,
> and SCO will be swimming in cash, right??? Thanks again,
> Darl, for making my day just a little funnier...
No, no, no. You misunderstand. SCO UnixWare Ng will be an
up to date, enteprise-worthy OS. They just need to wait for
Linux 2.6 to get final before they can create it by ripping out
all these misattributed copyright notices.
SCO knows what it owns.
Ok, -1 redundant (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ok, -1 redundant (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ok, -1 redundant (Score:5, Interesting)
IP block ir.sco.com
OrgName: Sequent Computer Systems, Incorporated
OrgID: SCS-65
Address: 1000 River Street
City: Essex Junction
StateProv: VT
PostalCode: 05452
Country: US
NetRange: 170.224.0.0 - 170.227.255.255
CIDR: 170.224.0.0/14
NetName: SEQUENT-B
NetHandle: NET-170-224-0-0-1
Parent: NET-170-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: NS1.RALEIGH.USF.IBM.COM
NameServer: NS2.RALEIGH.USF.IBM.COM
Comment:
RegDate: 1995-04-21
Updated: 2001-04-06
TechHandle: ZI22-ARIN
TechName: Role Account
TechPhone: +1-866-373-6714
TechEmail: noc@ibm.com
# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2003-08-26 19:15
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.
So the one SCO Server which still works and coincidentally is for Investor Relations is hosted on the IBM Global Network (I think), and the IP block is still registered for Sequent. The irony.
Poof! (Score:4, Funny)
Wow, corporate shaninigans run rampant (Score:5, Interesting)
invoicing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:invoicing (Score:5, Interesting)
Dunno, I've called 1-800-726-8649 twice, leaving my name and number saying they would "call me back". I havn't heard from them.
Being that I "owe" them about $100k to continue using the software that I've been using for the past 2 years, it seems as though they would be interested in talking to me.
I would suggest that _everyone_ here that runs linux call SCO 1-800-726-8649 and see if they give a call back. If these ppl are too lame to return a phonecall to collect $100k, then I doubt they will be around too much longer to be of concern to anyone.
Oh, regarding HP buying licenses. I doubt it. I just met with HP last week to buy another 40 CPUs worth of Itaniums, and I asked them about SCO. They seemed knowledgable of the case, and said something to the affect that "they are off thier rocker".
Re:invoicing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:invoicing (Score:5, Interesting)
This short note is to inform you that on Aug 18 2003, that I downloaded the rpm package for the openLinux kernal version 2.4.19 under the provisions of the Free Software Organization's General Public License, as you distributed through your ftp site.
If you have any questions reguarding your rights, duties and obligations as a distributer of GPL'ed software I'd advise you to got to the Free Software Foundation website for general information and of course seek competant legal advise regarding your specific sitsuation.
And again let me welcome you the comunity of comercial companies who have donated their copyrighted code for distribution via the GPL.
Charge them with mail fraud! (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides getting postal investigators in on the action, in the worst case scenario, i.e., SCO wins everything, companies can claim that they were waiting on the outcome of the mail fraud investigation and so shouldn't be liable for any extra damages due to failure to pay in a timely manner.
In summary, please publicise the suggestion that any company who receives an invoice for Linux from SCO file mail fraud charges!
I haven't been invoiced, but not for lack of (Score:4, Interesting)
SCO hasn't even given me the courtesy of a reply.
In my last attempt to contact them I offered to purchase a license if they could prove the necessity. But I also mentioned that this was my fifth attempt at it and that if I did not hear back in 72 hours then I would consider them not to be serious about the license issue and proceed with business as usual.
SCO still hasn't given me the courtesy of a reply.
Backdoor? (Score:4, Funny)
licensing fees (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't apply. SCO doesn't want you to stop using Linux, they just want you to pay a licensing fee. One would take for granted that SCO does not need to pay themselves a licensing fee to run their webserver.
Re:licensing fees (Score:5, Insightful)
One would be rolling in clover (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're reading this and you're a kernel developer, a letter to The SCO Group along these lines, CC'ed to a good many media outlets, should be quite entertaining.
Ahhh... (Score:4, Funny)
Why pay license fees now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why pay license fees now? (Score:5, Insightful)
After they would have proven it, though... They can milk that cow for all its worth until no one would buy or use linux. Then they get the multimillion dollar prize from Microsoft. Cash. To the execs.
Re:Why pay license fees now? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a gamble: Pay a little now or risk a chance of paying a lot later. Pointy-haired bosses don't like gambles. If they can pay a little now to make the problem go away (and incidentally add strength to SCO's claims), they'll do so.
Re:Why pay license fees now? (Score:5, Informative)
Groklaw has very extensive research on Kimball's history [weblogs.com], which is nicely summarized and easy to read. Every case has links to much more detail. The overall appearance is that Kimball will probably do the right thing.
Probably most important is the Jacobsen vs Hughes copyright case [deseretnews.com]. Apart from considering much of the material uncopyrightable historical facts, Judge Kimball was quite unimpressed by the plaintif's failure to act in a timely manner to mitigate damages. Quoting from that article:
Obviously this bodes quite well for IBM and all Linux users. SCO of course will claim they stopped distribution of linux, but this ruling at least shows that Judge Kimball isn't likely to be be charmed with the deplorable way SCO has conducted itself. Kimball's willingness to consider the writing a separate work, even though a part of it was loosely based on Jacobsen's also casts quite a shadow over SCO's chances (assuming the unlikely worst case scenario that SCO has an ace up its sleeve, rather than the bogus examples we've seen so far). It's certainly a good sign that Kimball is unlikely to buy SCO expansive theories about what constitutes a derivitive work.
The groklaw page has examples where Kimball has ruled against big business, where he's shown competence at handling software intellectual property disputes (eg, Altiris vs Symantec), and where he's handled very complex cases.
While nothing is 100% certain going into the courtroom, it is a fact that the Judge Kimball has been selected to hear this case. His history shows he's competent, fair, and at least in Jacobsen vs Hughes, he doesn't tollerate the sort of shenanigans SCO has been pulling!
(yes, -1 redundant... I posted this on the last SCO story.... but the "idiot judge" comments never seem to stop either!)
Re:Why pay license fees now? (Score:5, Interesting)
they mention
"During the quarter ended April 30, 2003, we recognized $8,250,000, or 39 percent of our quarterly revenue, from our intellectual property licensing initiative, SCOsource, launched in January 2003."
Obviously some people are stupid enough to license.
MS and SUn (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why pay license fees now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost all of it is from Microsoft, and for them it's a good investment if they can slow down Linux deployment by creating fear.
Re:Why pay license fees now? (Score:3, Insightful)
If Enron taught us anything, it's that dollar amounts are not necessarily based on anything real.
Re:Why pay license fees now? (Score:3, Funny)
Darl Infringes Apple Patent (Score:5, Funny)
Some wild speculation (Score:5, Interesting)
I just don't see how any person could act so completely ridiculously in a business setting. Then again, the boom of the '90's gave us such wonder-boys as the Enron exec's, so maybe it's not so far fetched that Darl really is a "moron."
Re:Some wild speculation (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you forgetting the fact that they've been making a killing on the stock market [yahoo.com]?
Re:Some wild speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
[TMB]
Re:Some wild speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
What's happening instead is a shuffling of stock to other Canopy Group shell companies, and it is dumped from there. Bruce Perens supplied a link in one of the commments around here someplace. So, the deal is probably like this:
While SCO has stock that is worth something more than toilet paper, they "buy" companies already owned by their parent company, The Canopy Group. The Canopy Group liquidates those stocks, and at the end, Darl and Friends get a nice hefty bonus, as SCO stock tanks.
It's a nice scam, if you can get it.
Re:Some wild speculation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Some wild speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
It quickly became clear that IBM didn't intend to buy SCO, but was (and is) willing to fight SCO forever in court. But perhaps by then they felt they were committed.
steveha
Lots of talk, little action (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lots of talk, little action (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO hasn't said anything to any Germans since.
Re:Lots of talk, little action (Score:5, Funny)
Like the old saying:
Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level, then beat you with experience.
Yeah, they "reviewed" that code... (Score:5, Funny)
Paul Hatch, a SCO spokesman, wrote in a statement to The Tech, "To clarify, the individuals reviewing the code had been involved with MIT labs in the past, but are not currently at MIT. Unfortunately, due to contractual obligations, we cannot specifically name the individuals."
I get the sudden impression of a trio who tried out for the role of the Lone Gunmen on the X-Files and failed miserably, crawling through MIT's underground tunnels.
"Quick, it's the campus cops! Run!"
"But we haven't finished copying UNIX code into /src/kernel!"
"That's okay, we'll just grep some BSD code and put it in Symbol font. They'll never know the difference!"
Why would anyone buy a license? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think buying a license, and then allowing it to be public knowlege that you did so would be corporate suicide. Unless you didn't want Linux (or to an extent, Unix) to succeed.
Vip
Re:Why would anyone buy a license? (Score:5, Insightful)
Examples and exhibits (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually that doesn't make it a "flat-out lie" - it could easily be interpreted as Sontag says. Think of it as a explanatory diagram rather than an example of alledged infringing code.
Doesn't matter whether you or I would interpret it that way, but whether a judge or jury can be made to. And that might even be what it really was - since they apparently don't want to release the code, they might have just picked something similar in style or lineage to illustrate their point without revealing the actual sources of their claim.
Well, this is what *I* think... (Score:5, Funny)
My mother would tap her foot impatiently, say, "She doesn't have your stuff, stop being so mean to your sister," and promptly ground him for being a dork.
So, using this logic, IBM should say, "Linux doesn't have your code, stop being so mean to the open source community," and promptly sue them for being dorks.
Holy Cow (Score:4, Funny)
So, do you like....stuff?
Re:Holy Cow (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps slashdot should have users enter their sex so you can have a +5 Female modifier.
BPF (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only one who believes there has got to be more to this claim? I know that all their actions seem to be designed and timed to boost their stock price every time it seems to be flagging a little from its already inflated position but surely BPF and similar code is not all they have?
Those AT&T contracts IBM signed were pretty damn restrictive and having read the responses from Perens and Raymond I can understand how someone "reasonable" with an understanding of the issues involved can see that this is not the same as a derivative work but we are talking about something coming from a legal point of view which doesn't always look at things reasonably especially when it comes to U.S. copyright law. Even though this is a contract dispute it still looks like it could become another copyright mess so I don't really understand the seemingly overwhelming confidence of the OSS community.
Re:BPF (Score:5, Funny)
Yes.
Re:BPF (Score:4, Insightful)
Disclaimer: The following is my opinion, so if you are easily offended by sweeping generalities, outright ignorance, bad grammar, or misspellings, do not read further. Thanks.
The lawsuit states that IBM used licensed code from the UNIX kernel source to create some functionality or other in AIX and linux, which they redistributed. And that's all it says.
SCO will not allow IBM to see what the supposed "infringing code" is, so they are trying to maximize any damages, instead of helping to remedy the situation.
The only mention of going after Linux, Linux users, or the Free Software community that has been made has been utterly without any legal or court filing, and only through press release. SCO realized that the AIX user community didn't give two shits about their claims, and by extension IBM wasn't about to be blackmailed into buying them out. So falling back to plan B, they spewed one press release after another to generate all the press they could, and behold, their stock price has jumped through the roof.
IBM amd RedHat, on the other hand, have filed court motions to out SCO's proof, and to penalize them for unethical behavior, slander, tort, and all sorts of other slimy shit. Not to mention IBM's patent portfolio.
There has been no mention of copyright, patent, or any other intellectual property violation on sco's part, except through press release that they are "preparing" to sue someone.
I can say I'm "preparing" to light my farts and fly to the moon, but until I actually do it, it's not going to get a lot of attention.
SCO's going to get pounded into the ground, and until there is a motion of actual litigation on their part against someone for infringing code in linux, there's not much to get riled up about. Until then, it's just a contract dispute between sco and IBM.
So lighten up and go write some code!
Re:BPF (Score:5, Insightful)
This was a Nazi propaganda tool, and it was very effective. I see a lot of similarities today in the SCO case.
Part of our responsibility as reasonable thinkers, is to remove any bias we might have, and evaluate assertions on their factual merits. By removing our bias, we seek to give each side of the argument equal footing.
Many people believe that, if they are unbiased, then they are thinking reasonably. What we fail to realize is how facts and evidence can prove the truth of any assertion beyond reasonable doubt. People have a hard time with facts because facts tend to restore bias in favor of the truth. Reasonable people are uncomfortable being biased, and are therefore more susceptible to the Big Lie.
There are two sides of the SCO issue. The SCO side is supported entirely with allegations, without a single shred of factual evidence that has been disclosed to the public.
The other side has a mountain of facts to refute every allegation that SCO has made.
I suggest that it is unfair to give SCO an unbiased benefit of the doubt when all of the facts clearly contradict everything they have said. That would be like presenting a Suicide Cult as a reasonable doctrine for society to consider.
We have no reason to not be confident in our position. SCO has no proof of their claims, not a single bit.
Re:BPF (Score:4, Informative)
The real usage of the term "Big Lie" by the Germans was mostly by Joseph Goebbels, the Propoganda minister. It was mostly in reference to the primary British argument for why Germany must be stopped. The British accused the Germans of plotting to take over the world, something you hear often today. It doesn't really matter this was never a stated goal of Germany, nor that they completely lacked the means and admitted as such. What matters is Great Britain already controlled 2/3 of the world in 1940. Not only was Britains lie without any basis in fact, it was incredibly hypocritical.
Here [calvin.edu] is a speech by Goebbels regarding this topic.
The proper analogy you should be making is SCO's claim that their rights are being infringed upon by Linux are as proposterous as Britain's claim that Germany wished and was able to control the world.
Re:BPF (Score:5, Insightful)
The stock scam is the only angle that fits all the facts.
Fact: SCO has filed a lawsuit against IBM concerning breach of contract.
Fact: though not in any way related to the breach of contract (which would be incumbent upon IBM to provide renumeration should SCO win the suit), SCO has sent out letters to large Linux users demanding money. (I don't mean big-boned Linux users, of course.)
Fact: SCO has stated they have evidence proving their claims, but refuse to present the evidence.
Fact: SCO has kept upping the ante, their statements growing wilder and wilder each week. Oddly, their stock goes *up* after many of these wild, unsubstantiated, sometimes incoherent claims.
Fact: SCO execs are dumping their stocks, and their parent, The Canopy Group, is shuffling holdings around, "selling" portions of some Canopy companies to SCO in exchange for inflated SCO stock.
As the old saying goes, follow the money. This is all about the money, both from stock and from any Linux user stupid enough to pay the shakedown. SCO has no established legal right to demand money; they won't until after it has been judged in a court of law that their IP was misappropriated.
I believe there are many levels to this whole deal. The first is the stock scam angle, which is undeniably part of their scheme, whether they think they are right or not. Secondly, they appear to be trying to make a nuisance of themselves to the point IBM or Red Hat finally gets them to shut up by buying them outright. And, in a Shoot The Moon sort of gamble, they may just win in court and become one of the richest Unix companies in existence.
This isn't conspiracy theory; this is simply trying to explain all the facts. Do you have an explaination that covers all the facts?
This is more than a pump-and-dump scam, else they're about the most pathetically inept corporate criminals in history.
Hardly. Their legal claims against IBM have not changed substantially, and it is the legal aspect that matters, not their absurd public statements about owning millions of lines of Linux code. But, it is the public statements that are pumping up the price of SCO stock.
It's doubtful the SEC will look twice at SCO. It would be nice, but since they've not even managed to nail those Enron bastards, I don't see when they'll get around to picking up someone as penny-ante as SCO.
Lets ignore the fact that there are countless politically motivated anti-corporate types in the linux "community", any one of which would not hesitate to dump corporate IP into the kernel. SCOs allegations are not as far fetched as
And your proof for this is....? No, "My nose goblins told me so!" does not count.
It doesn't matter what
And, as one of those "politically motivated anti-corporate types," I resent the statement that I do not respect the work of others. I would never claim another's work as my own; nor would I do anything with that work contrary to their wishes. Most other programmers I have met feel very strongly about this, as well, *especially* the Free Software crowd.
But, if you feel comfortable with your head in the sand and your fingers in your ears, please don't let me destroy your delusions.
BTW, IANAL, IDNPOOTV, ETC.
Apache 1.3.14 is not a multithreaded web server (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO's web site has been served by Apache on Linux. Your humble author suggests that SCO found themselves requiring a multithreaded web server, and as SCO UNIX is based on an ancient version of The UNIX spec it just couldn't cope
If SCO needed a multithreaded web server, why would they use Apache 1.3.14?
License to get sued??? (Score:5, Funny)
So, not only am I being extorted, but I'm agreeing to be extorted at a future date as well!?!
Please, SCO spare us the bandwidth. Shut Up!
-B
about time. (Score:3, Funny)
Invoices? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe I'm too old... (Score:5, Funny)
"Yes, we hired a team of crack mathematicians from MIT to scour the code...."
"Would you believe we hired an accountant who's heard of MIT to scour the code..."
"How about we cornered a kid coming out of his remedial math class and offered him free pizza if he could find two words that matched?"
Not to rewrite it too much... (Score:5, Funny)
"You might not realize this, IBM, but standing on the other side of that door is a team of MIT ninja mathematicians with top-of-the-line pattern-matching supercomputers!"
No one comes in the door. IBM stares blankly.
"Uh...wouldja believe a team of highly-paid CPAs with a beowulf cluster?"
No dice.
"How 'bout an advanced algebra class and 'diff'?"
Nope.
"Two monkeys and an abacus?"
W
Dear SCO (Score:5, Funny)
I have already paid for your Linux license, yet I have erroniously received another invoice.
After some investigation, I think I figured out the mix up. Due to contractual obligations, I had to send the payment secretly. It's in a white unmarked envelope with no return address. Due to the circumstances, I was forced to send cash against the advice of the US postal service. Still I trust that it arrived safely. If you have any doubts, my accountant, whose name I cannot reveal, will vouch for me. He used to teach at MIT so his credibility is obviously impeccable.
Now that we've straightened out this matter, I will discard this invoice.
Thank you,
Comedy possibilities endless! (Score:3, Funny)
Well, sure, if I was working for SCO, I wouldn't want me name known publicly either!
"We're the owners of the Unix (AT&T) System V code, and so we would know what it would look like,"
Yeah, sure, having recently purchased rights to the code, they would definately have a better idea what it looks like than, say, the guys that wrote the code!!
Story about how Canopy Group is cashing in on SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
The latest SCO acquisition is Vultus, which even sounds evil. The SCO stockholders are the eventual losers, but I find it difficult to develop sympathy for someone who buys into a shakedown racket.
Bruce
Re:Vultus runs Windows. SCO walked away from Unix (Score:4, Insightful)
They gave the stock to canopy in return for equity in Vultus.
Thus, Canopy reduced their stake in SCO slightly (while making SCO slightly more valuable equitywise), which is pretty much a null action, while selling shares to speculators at a very inflated price.
The money is coming from people who buy SCO stock in hopes of getting rich if SCO gets bought out or wins its lawsuit, and people looking to short SCO stock.
Though thinking about this, I am reminded of a great bit of imagery in Bujold's "Shards of Honor"
"'Put all the bad eggs in one basket,' she muttered. 'And--drop the basket?'"
Novell tells SCO to Shut Up (Score:4, Informative)
Anti-OSS bias in media? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless some IT manager also read sites such as
The whole thing is damning to Linux specifically, and open source as well. I cannot help but see a media bias against OSS. Anyone else notice this?
Re:Anti-OSS bias in media? (Score:4, Insightful)
Selected searches from SCO's website (Score:5, Funny)
Displaying documents 1-20 of total 2825 found.
1. SCO | Company | History of SCO
Plans for the next weekly Pot-Party [sco.com]
Displaying documents 1-20 of total 2951 found.
We think we rock big time [sco.com]
Displaying documents 1-20 of total 1116 found.
nya nya nya nya take that suckers [sco.com]
Displaying documents 1-20 of total 1586 found.
Why shit and waste it when you can burp and taste it.
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Xitami (which I admit I wrote huge chunks of) is one such beast.
SCO are stupider than I thought.
a more likely explanation: (Score:5, Funny)
Why, I remember when Caldera was trying to be a Linux company, and SCO was just a defunct Unix. Now all we have is Caldera/SCO trying hard to be a defunct company!
Boycott Canopy Group Companies (Score:5, Informative)
Some of these subsidiary companies, by the way, are Linux/Open source whatever companies. He'll get the message real fast and call of the dogs if we just turn up the fire on his flank side.
Re:Boycott Canopy Group Companies (Score:4, Insightful)
(ting ting ting!) QT by TrollTech. And you wondered why Stallman was worried about a non-free widget set becoming popuar in use in linux...
Re:Boycott Canopy Group Companies (Score:4, Informative)
Thanks for playing - SCO/Canopy own a little over 5% of TrollTech See here [trolltech.com]
Seraphim
SCO License against the law in Texas (Score:5, Interesting)
CHAPTER 17. DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
SUBCHAPTER E. DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
17.46. Deceptive Trade Practices Unlawful
Text of subd. (24), as amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 962, 1, effective Sept. 1, 2001.
(24) failing to disclose information concerning goods or services which was known at the time of the transaction if such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer into a transaction into which the consumer would not have entered had the information been disclosed;
It would seem by not divulging exactly what they are trying to license they are breaking the above law. If they said gimme $699 for GPL code would you buy it?
Get your facts straight (Score:5, Informative)
The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. dissolved several years ago, and no longer exists. The company that has been in the headlines recently is SCO Group, formerly Caldera, based out of Utah.
There's no such operating system as "SCO UNIX". There's OpenServer (which is based on an old non-threading version of the UNIX kernel...SVR3) and OpenUNIX, formerly UnixWare, which is about as modern as UNIXes get.
Of course, Caldera/SCO Group was originally a pure Linux company, so it's not surprising they use Linux to host their web server. However, thanks to the LKP (Linux Kernel Personality) feature in OpenUNIX, that "Linux" web server may actually have a UNIX SVR5 kernel inside it with a GNU+Apache filesystem on top, making it indistinguishable from Linux from the outside.
HP (Score:4, Informative)
By my reading of the story, HP has announced that HP doesn't beleive it infringes on SCO code... not SCO.
"no provisions for refunding IP license fees" (Score:5, Informative)
Is this legal? I mean, can they get away with this once the courts decide that they're full of shit? If a person buys an IP license fee and then the courts decide that no such IP license exists, wouldn't he or she be legally entitled to a refund?
FYI, SCO does have a multithreaded UNIX... (Score:4, Informative)
Well, there's a smiley so I know you're kidding.
But there are also some inaccurate facts and presuppositions buried in those comments.
First, your comment appears to ignore SCO's ability to use SCO UnixWare. SCO has two UNIX products, SCO UnixWare, and SCO OpenServer. SCO OpenServer is a Xenix descendent that is singlethreaded and probably as you suggest, couldn't cope. This is what most of SCO's installed base uses, and yeah it's old cruddy technology. SCO UnixWare uses pretty-sophisticated SVR5 technology that is really the core SVR kernel descended from AT&T & Novell days. It's pretty slick functionally (imho), is quite multithreaded running on 8-way (and NUMA I believe) systems, and conforms to UNIX 95 [opengroup.org] (although not UNIX 98 or the new UNIX 03 tweaks.) SCO is really suing over technology and rights allegedly derived from UnixWare/SVR4-5, not the older OpenServer technology you'd find in 90% of SCO installations.
Second, having a multithreaded webserver that can cope has little or nothing to do with whether one conforms to the latest UNIX specs from the Open Group. But I know you probably know that and are just trying to toss that in there, right?
--LP, not a UnixWare fan, just trying to reduce misinformation on the subject of SCO UNIXes
Class Action Time (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO's executives come along with what can only be described as a scheme to enrich themselves by inflating stock, and they run our reputations into the mud. As a result of SCO's executives' actions it is now more difficult for me to get a job.
I believe that a case can be made that the executives of SCO knew from the outset that their allegations didn't hold water. I believe that a case can be made that their actions were motivated by personal greed - the evidence for this is the pattern of press releases correlating with dips in stock prices and the sale of stock by those executives.
As a result, I believe that the SCO executives should be held personally responsible in a court a law. They made decisions that have cost me potential income, and I think they should be the made to defend those decisions in a class action suit.
Occasional insanity... (Score:4, Funny)
"The linux community is splitting hairs"
For the love of god, please, somebody give him a solid-gold 5-iron and point him towards a lightning-prone golf course.
What to do with a SCO Invoices ie Mail Fraud (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok this is mail fraud plain and simple.
So report any invoices you get from SCO to your Postmaster Inspectors at the U.S. Postal Inspection Service [usps.com].
Report it and get these guys in jail, 5 years per Invoice.
This will not cost you a dime and it is up to the postmaster to go after them. SCO must prove it to the postmaster.
The more people the better to quote the webpage:
Postal Inspectors base their investigations of mail fraud on the number, pattern and substance of complaints received from the public. The Postal Inspection Service is interested in your concerns and will carefully review the information you provide.
clarification (Score:4, Funny)
Translation: one of the individuals' brother in law was a part-time undergraduate at MIT before dropping out.
Unfortunately, due to contractual obligations, we cannot specifically name the individuals."
Translation: their expert said "as long as I don't have to defend this opinion in court or to the press and as long as you guarantee that you won't leak my name, sure, I'll take your consulting money and you can put out whatever you like in your press release".
Another SCO exec cashes in for 75K (Score:5, Informative)
2 sales, 2500 each, sale price 14.3 and 14.26 for a total of $71375. He only has 15,494 more shares to go.
Baghdad McBride: There are no Americans in Iraq. (Score:4, Informative)
It's a matter of simple accounting. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or an accountant, which I am not) to figure this out: Under accrual basis, the invoices you write go into "accounts receivable" which are considered an asset before you actually receive the currency. In English, that means that by sending out invoices, SCO makes itself look more successful, on its financial statements, than it really is.
CRIMINAL CHARGES were just filed against some of the Worldcom folks. I can't wait until the evening news announces that criminal charges are filed against Darl McBluff, alias Darl Helmet, alias Baghdad McBride, alias Bubba's Bitch.
Loads more SCO sites running Linux (Score:4, Informative)
1 internetworld.com 433 461 461 Linux Apache/1.3.11 (Unix) ApacheJServ/1.1.2 mod_perl/1.21 PHP/4.2.3
2 www.nft.com 427 462 461 Linux Apache/1.3.11 (Unix) ApacheJServ/1.1.2 mod_perl/1.21 PHP/4.2.3
3 www.canopy.com 422 462 461 Linux Apache/1.3.11 (Unix) ApacheJServ/1.1.2 mod_perl/1.21 PHP/4.2.3
4 www.in2m.com 408 453 453 Solaris 8 Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) mod_jk/1.2.0 mod_ssl/2.8.12 OpenSSL/0.9.6h PHP/4.2.2
5 www.caldera.com 235 490 283 Linux Apache
6 www.sco.de 235 490 283 Linux Apache
7 it.sco.com 234 283 283 Linux unknown
8 au.caldera.com 234 489 283 Linux Apache
9 www.sco.com 234 489 266 Linux Apache
10 sco.com 234 489 266 Linux Apache
11 www.caldera.de 233 489 283 Linux Apache
12 www.za.caldera.com 232 489 283 Linux Apache
13 caldera.com 231 490 283 Linux Apache
14 www.sco.at 231 283 283 Linux unknown
15 doc.sco.com 230 283 283 Linux unknown
16 uw7doc.sco.com 230 489 283 Linux Apache
17 osr5doc.sco.com 229 490 280 Linux Apache
18 uk.sco.com 227 279 280 Linux unknown
19 www.calderasystems.com 227 489 283 Linux Apache
20 www.emeia.sco.com 227 491 283 Linux Apache
21 www.sco.it 226 489 260 Linux Apache
22 au.sco.com 223 283 283 Linux unknown
23 www.smilereminder.com 178 180 180 Linux Apache-AdvancedExtranetServer/1.3.23 (Mandrake Linux/4mdk) mod_ssl/2.8.7 OpenSSL/0.9.6c
24 www.bushfam.com 89 129 129 Linux Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) (Red-Hat/Linux) mod_python/2.7.8 Python/1.5.2 mod_ssl/2.8.12 OpenSSL/0.9.6b DAV/1.0.2 PHP/4.1.2 mod_perl/1.26 mod_throttle/3.1.2
25 www.vultus.com 34 305 43 Linux Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) mod_jk/1.2.2 mod_gzip/1.3.19.1a mod_ssl/2.8.10 OpenSSL/0.9.6g
26 shop.sco.com 17 43 0 Linux unknown
27 canopy.com 15 287 1 Linux Apache-AdvancedExtranetServer/1.3.23 (Mandrake Linux/4.2mdk) mod_ssl/2.8.7 OpenSSL/0.9.6c PHP/4.1.2
28 www.centershift.com 4 27 12 Windows 2000 Microsoft-IIS/5.0
29 www.helius.com - 44 18 Linux Apache/1.3.27 (Unix)
30 www.homepipeline.com - 28 5 Windows 2000 Microsoft-IIS/5.0
31 wdb1.sco.com - 17 0 Linux Oracle9iAS/9.0.2 Oracle HTTP Server Oracle9iAS-Web-Cache/Oracl
32 wdb1.caldera.com - 17 0 Linux Oracle9iAS/9.0.2 Oracle HTTP Server Oracle9iAS-Web-Cache/Oracl
33 www.communitect.com - 174 174 Linux Apache-AdvancedExtranetServer/1.3.23 (Mandrake Linux/4.1mdk) mod_ssl/2.8.7 OpenSSL/0.9.6c
34 www.power-innovations.com - 133 134 Windows 2000 Microsoft-IIS/5.0
35 ruckus.clan-nua.com - 31 6 Windows 2000 Abyss/1.1.6 (Win32) AbyssLib/1.0.7
36 nft.com - 25 1 Linux Apache-AdvancedExtranetServer/1.3.23 (Mandrake Linux/4.2mdk) mod_ssl/2.8.7 OpenSSL/0.9.6c PHP/4.1.2
37 www2.skwire.net - 25 6 Windows 2000 Abyss/1.1.6 (Win32) AbyssLib/1.0.7
38 demo.vultus.com - 41 42 Linux Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) mod_jk/1.2.2 mod_gzip/1.3.19.1a mod_ssl/2.8.10 OpenSSL/0.9.6g
39 locutus3.calderasystems.com - 4 0 Linux Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 ApacheJServ/1.1 PHP/3.0.15
40 zeus.ut.sco.com - 17 0 Linux Oracle9iAS/9.0.2 Oracle HTTP Server Oracle9iAS-Web-Cache/Oracl
No way, FUD /. (Score:5, Interesting)
If not FUD maybe a *nix section, but I think FUD would be more interesting.
Re:Can /. do me a favour? (Score:5, Informative)
Go here [slashdot.org]. Click "Homepage".
Under topics, search for "Caldera". Check the box next to it.
While you are at it, search for "michael" on the left, under "authors". Check the box next to him
Scroll down. Click Save.
that filter won't help, much (Score:3, Informative)
Except that this article was filed under "the courts" and some other department links, but none of them are Caldera, either.
The filter only works if the editors properly tag the stories, but few of the recent SCO stories actually were filed under Caldera. The editors have a cavalier attitude to fact-checking, grammar, and spelling, so I doubt they'll suddenly start enforcing strict filing rules.
Re:How about (Score:4, Funny)
I didn't know they made a deodorant.
Re:Mathematicians? (Score:3, Funny)
Um, as a mathematician I can understand why I might be hired to sell
hotdogs, but to justify undefined claims?
Thank you! IANAM, but I was scratching my head over that claim. Were we supposed to think they were compiling it mentally? Sheesh, next we'll hear that the other teams were composed of Brain Surgeons and Rocket Scientists...
Re:Hey! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hey! (Score:5, Informative)
And now you know, the rest of the story.
Re:Their own excuse doesn't work... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:will linux users be able to sue SCO if ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:CANOPY:SCO, Not SCO.Call them by their name (Score:4, Informative)