|
|
| SCO Hints at a Short List and Licenses Go on Sale in Australia |
 |
|
Monday, January 19 2004 @ 11:18 PM EST
|
More menacing hints from SCO. It seems they are making their list smaller and smaller, and it's down to about a dozen or so. Didn't they already say it was a definite? But they now say they "may" sue. Here are some on the short list, according to Darl: "BP, Siemens and Fujitsu are among a large number of big companies whose use of the operating system has come under scrutiny, said Darl McBride, chief executive of SCO, the small US company that has mounted the challenge. He said the company had not yet decided whether to sue. But he added: 'That clearly is an option we are looking into very closely.'
"The prospect of legal action depends on the precise use each company makes of Linux, said Mr McBride. Commenting on the use of the software by BP, he said: 'There are clearly some concerns with those guys.' But he added that SCO is 'trying to work through these things without going to court'. . . .
The SCO chief would not confirm Google was on the list but he did little to dispel the prospect of legal action that could hamper the search engine company's listing plans. 'Google is using a lot of Linux; they've benefited from that,' said Mr McBride.
"Extending the legal challenge overseas would open a new front in the battle. Mr McBride said SCO 'started a dialogue' with a number of international companies last month over the use of Linux and planned to decide on action by the end of January.
"It is using an unusual breach-of-contract claim to try to draw the international companies into the fray." "Unusual" is a very polite word for it.
From Australia, comes this report that SCO has put out a press release saying they have started selling licenses in Australia. Of course, it probably is more accurate to say they are offering to sell them, but this is SCOspeak: "The SCO Group has started selling its intellectual property licence in Australia and New Zealand, according to a company media release.
"The licence costs $A999 per server processor and $A285 per desktop processor. . . .
"'By purchasing the license, customers are properly compensating SCO for the UNIX source code, derivative UNIX code and other UNIX-related intellectual property and copyrights owned by SCO as it is currently found in Linux,' the release says." Well, that's a new list of offenses, isn't it? It is certainly hard to keep up. And if it isn't asking for too much specificity, and I recognize SCO is allergic to specificity, what exactly would "other UNIX-related intellectual property" be, after you've already listed source code and derivative code and copyrights and you don't have a relevant patent? Of course, making us all guess what their vague menacing words mean is ....oh, hey, wait a sec. Does the US stock market open again for trading in the morning, by any chance?
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: sef on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 11:23 PM EST |
Hrm, isn't Australia one of the countries that could consider SCO's
attempts
to sell a license without proof to be a crime?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 11:26 PM EST |
While SCO's vagueness has helped in the past, with the following article it is
beginning to backfire in the press (from Yahoo! CALD board):
Computerwire has authored an article that will greet investors the next time
they check SCOX news ahead of the open tomorrow. The article is entitled
"SCO's Evidence Begins to Unravel." The article is carried by
knobias:
http://tinyurl.com/37ncb
A key excerpt:
"While the company's 60-page response is subject to a protective order,
Tibbitts' declaration - which outlines where SCO has been unable to meet the
court's requests to detail its claims - is not, and it is this document that
reveals that SCO may have been over-confident in its previous claim to have
identified code."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 11:27 PM EST |
this is why I hate the term "intellectual property". If it was up to
me, the phrase would be expunged from the English language.
It's typical use is by either:
1. people trying to confuse the issue by not saying what they're really talking
about, in order to hide the fact that it would be plainly bunk if they said what
they mean. Typical method is to confuse whether you're talking about patent,
copyright, trade secret or trademarks in order to apply law that applies to one
to another, without anybody noticing. Or just plain making it sound menacing.
This missive from TSG is an excellent example of the genere.
2. people who want to make it sound bad that copyrights or patents expire. This
tactic is used frequently by the entertainment industry when petitioning for
ludicrous extensions to copyright terms. If you call it "property"
instead of acknowledging that it was always understood to be a temporary
monopoly in the first place, it makes it sound that expiration of copyright is
like taking something away from you.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 11:27 PM EST |
I asked this (towards the end) of the last discussion, and got no response. I'm
not sure if that's because nobody wanted/knew an answer, or if my post was too
late and everybody was waiting for the next story.
My question is where are Boies and Heise (Boies firm)?
Are they still on the case?
Is it possible for them to remove themselves from the case, if they wanted to
for some reason? (I don't know that they do want to, I'm just asking if they
did want to)
Would we know, or how could we know if they are still involved?
Obviously we have not seen all the papers, letters, etc., but the reason I'm
asking, is I don't think that I've seen anything with their name on since at
least early December. Prior to that they were doing presentations at SCO forum,
deeply involved in the discovery production (all those letters which are
exhibits signed by Mark Heise) --- and now in contrast, everything we see seems
to be Kevin McBride or Ryan Tibbitts:
Repost of what I said before follows:
The reason I ask, is it seems rather a long time since we last hard from them,
and all the recent filings and appearances seem to involve others associated
with SCO.
5 Dec 2003: Kevin McBride turns up to oral arguments (and this is the first we
discover that Darl's brother was involved, although he had apparently been
involved since at least February-ish).
What's more - nobody from the firm SCO is paying millions too (Boies firm) even
attends!
18 Dec 2003: Ryan Tibbitts, SCO's general counsel signs the Linux ABI and
certification letter
12 Jan 2004: Ryan Tibbitts, signs the affidavit and certificate of compliance.
Hasn't every previous filing by SCO, in SCO v IBM, been signed by Heise (?? -
I'm not sure)
9 Feb 2004 (future): Ryan Tibbitts will accompany Chris Sontag and Darl McBride
to do their dog and pony show at Harvard [whereas at SCOforum, we had Mark
Heise, in substitute for Boies who was the original listed poster].
I don't put too much significance into any one event, but collectively, I'm
thinking, perhaps that I'm starting to see a pattern.
What's happened to Boies, and Heise recently?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SkArcher on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 11:32 PM EST |
*gasp*
Does the US stock market open again for trading in the
morning, by any chance?
PJ, I'm shocked, surely you don't
mean to imply that SCO would do anything so base as to manipulate their Stock
value to provide baseless support to their equally baseless claims do you?
No-one of any integrity and honesty would do such a thing, and I'm sure Mr.
McBride is a perfectly unstanding Utahn gentleman...
Where did I put that
end sarcasm tag...?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alex on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 11:37 PM EST |
And I thought it was $999 per process server...
Alex
---
Hey Darl!! Did Ross Perot draw your chart?"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 11:39 PM EST |
Why would anyone listen to Daryl after all the hype he has drowned himself in.
I think Daryl is just waiting to see what happens with IBM and make decisions
from that. If IBM fails then he will just throw in the towel. He won't admit
it, but he know all the lawsuits will be from the sucess of the IBM suit. Many
companies said they were waiting to see the outcome of the IBM case and so is
SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kanegs on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 11:41 PM EST |
between SCO selling Linux licenses and me selling toll rights to the Brooklyn
Bridge or--in keeping with the AUS flavor of current news--to the Sydney Harbor
Bridge?
Surely it must be illegal to sell something which I don't own?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 11:51 PM EST |
A little offtopic, but has anyone heard anything new about the RedHat v. SCO
case lately?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- RedHat lawsuit? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 01:16 AM EST
- RedHat lawsuit? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 01:56 AM EST
- RedHat lawsuit? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 03:13 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: toolboxnz on Monday, January 19 2004 @ 11:51 PM EST |
Darl says "Google is using a lot of Linux; they've benefited from
that".
Well this quote from Darl is bang on. He's quite right; Google have benefited
from using Linux. Note that he makes no claims that Google has benefited from
**SCO's IP** that is supposedly in Liunux though. You really have to read
closely between the lines to see what he is (or in this case, isn't) saying.
Unfortunately though it's easy for people to misread what he's saying here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Captain on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:03 AM EST |
....oh, hey, wait a sec. Does the US stock market open again for trading
in the morning, by any chance?
Exactly what I was thinking. Yesterday
confused me because I was expecting to wake up to new SCO claims, as on any
monday for the past months, but then I found out the market was closed due to
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. This all makes perfect sense.
The sad part
is that SCO stock probably will rise again because of this. Oh well, if people
are dumb enough to take Darls claims seriously, it's their own fault. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:09 AM EST |
Hinting is all SCO ever does.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RealProgrammer on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:10 AM EST |
The prospect of legal action depends on the precise use each
company makes of Linux, said Mr McBride. Commenting on the use of the software
by BP, he said: "There are clearly some concerns with those guys." But he added
that SCO is "trying to work through these things without going to
court".
Why does it matter how the company is using Linux?
Are web servers all right but mail servers not all right? How arrogant is
that?!?
He must mean how many machines they have running Linux and how
likely are they to pay.
I wonder how the management of these companies
on the "short list" like being publicly threatened? ---
(I'm not a
lawyer, but I know right from wrong) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: McDeavitt on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:16 AM EST |
My question is this... Did SCO "time" their "corrected"
financial risks intentionally just prior to a long weekend
to assist fickle investors in memory lapse. Only to issue
more ridiculous Darl-isms, in an effort to ?pump up the
vol.. , er, stock.? hmmm, naw! Darl would never do
anything as incredulous as this.
PS Sorry about the sig. I borrowed it, 'cause it IS
pertinent in these times.
--
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a
little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor
Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:17 AM EST |
Remember way back when the Super Califragilstic Organization issued
"communiques"? The SCO really consists of two guys in a hotel
room.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:19 AM EST |
In a press release late Monday evening, SCO announced that it will be offering a
new license for "SCOXygen".
What is SCOXygen? "See, there's all this space-like material between
subatomic particles like quarks and stuff.", said SCO CEO Darl McBride.
"Our rocket scientists from MIT have been analyzing this stuff, which we
call 'SCOXygen', for months and we've filed for all the patents associated
with it. Our new mottos going forward are 'There's SCOXygen in Your
Everything.' and 'All Your SCOXygen Are Belong To Us.' and we're going to
push this exciting new program very aggressively in the coming months."
According to McBride, the Universe contains a near infinite amount of SCOXygen
and it exists in everything from a simple toaster to human flesh to the cars
driven by IBM executives to the very air we breathe.
"We're going to clean house." says Senior VP Chris Sontag.
"With our new initiative, everyone on Earth and beyond is going to have to
pay us for a license or risk being sued for using our SCOXygen without a
license. We're already in low-level talks with Area 51 authorities on bringing
this new program to space-faring cultures they may or may not be contact
with."
Details for the new licensing program and associated costs are expected to be
announced April 1st.
/humor
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shaun on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:21 AM EST |
Ending tag: "Linux Is Everywhere, The Future Is Open"
Way coll and yes they are running the child and I have a feeling they will have
something for the Superbowl.
--Shaun
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:29 AM EST |
Oh yeah, putting British Petroleum on your "short" list of
potential
defendants is a real good decision.
But Darl is aiming
too low, in my opinion. I think he
needs to take on Iran, Zimbabwe, and
North Korea. I
think he needs to show those governments that stealing
from an American company is serious business.
Yep, I'd start
with Zimbabwe. Make an appointment with
the Prime Minister, and advise him
of your shakedown. If
they offer to give you a tour of the lion's cage at
the
zoo, don't turn it down. The feeding time is something
not to
miss. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:37 AM EST |
We've joked about how Darl has lost touch with reality, but I really would be
curious to see what a genuine psychiatric examination would turn up.
This is Monty Python.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:37 AM EST |
How can SCO assert rights to code in Linux, THREATEN Linux's users, and charge
fee's -- all without any proof or TRUE rights of ownership?
If this is
legal, we have a SERIOUS problem (gasp!) with the legal system here in the US.
I've been following this SCO trash since day 1 -- and I've been amazed, with
each press release, as to just how flagrant and unjustified SCO's allegations
are.
Quite literally, this means ANY company could make allegations
against ANY software vendor - ruin that company and their products - and do so
without providing even a smidge of evidence.
Seriously, this is way out
of hand. I, for one, am SERIOUSLY displeased with our government agencies - I
can understand they're all a little slow - but this is rediculous. If what SCO
is doing is not illegal, it should be. And through it all, I fail to beleive
that Microsoft is not influencing anything here.
After all, Microsoft
knows they can't fight Linux. They've been researching and running PR campaigns
against it for years.
What better way to destroy linux then to get a
small company like SCO to find a way to gain control of Linux - while pulling
the strings of that small company. Or even out-right buying it. Not to mention
Microsoft's earlier release stating they have rights to Unix that allow them to
integrate Unix software into their system. Perhaps all Microsoft wants is to be
able to close the Linux sourcecode so they can steal it and integrate it - while
at the same time destroying it.
Regardless, SOMETHING illegal is
happening here. EVERYONE involved KNOWS it -- I fail to see why no one is
forcing proof. SCO employees belong in jail, and nothing would please me more
then to see ties to a Microsoft involvement.
After all, it is WITHOUT
QUESTION that the company who will benefit from this whole ordeal the most -- is
in fact Microsoft.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:51 AM EST |
| Are SCO licenses going to be as available in Australia as they are in America ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Cambo on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:54 AM EST |
I think that what Darl is doing is trying to find someone with lots a cash, and
no apetite for a court case.
Obviously, IBM are not going to give them anything. It's going to be difficult
for SCOX to tap M$ or Sun for any more money. They're losing money hand over
fist. They need a big cash injection.
By targetting someone outside of the Tech sector, maybe SCOX thinks that they
can baffle with bullsh*t. Unfortunately, of course, any large company with a
significant IT budget will also have a large number of Techies. They will soon
but their bosses straight on the merits of SCOX's claims!
I also think that Baystar/RBC will be very much against any further litigation,
so I suspect that Darl is on his own - he's got to talk someone into giving him
money. If he threatens to sue, the target company will probably just tell him to
go ahead.
Imagine if, for example, BP issued a Press Release saying that, due to them
refusing to buy a SCOX License, SCOX are now going to sue them. Then nothing
happens, because Baystar/RBC refuse to let SCOX sue! That'll be a difficult one
to spin! ;-)
Cambo
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:57 AM EST |
"Yes, we're thinking of suing <insert company name>, and we might
do so REAL SOON NOW."
Sheesh. Every company on the receiving end of Darl's pointing, wagging finger
should file for declarative judgement. There's simply no denying controversy
(Darl still has not learned his lesson by now).
Perhaps one of the opensource legal funds could cover these actions. It's just
unbelievable to me that SCO can merrily sling mud all over the playground
without getting reprimanded.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: davcefai on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 01:14 AM EST |
| "By purchasing the license, customers are properly compensating SCO for the
UNIX source code, derivative UNIX code and other UNIX-related intellectual
property and copyrights owned by SCO as it is currently found in Linux," the
release says.
This looks more like a shareware readme than a "pay up or
we'll sue" message [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 01:16 AM EST |
I believe Darryl McBride has made a tempting target of himself with bloated
claims, vengeful statements, and a calculated plan to pump and dump SCO\Caldera
stock.
I don't believe the SCO case has merit, largely because I'm convinced of the
integrity of Open Source Software and the people who direct it. Eveyone should
remember the example we are trying to set in this.
Let the name calling, mis-statements, and deception be theirs. Freedom to write
software is about creativity. Making source available really helps consumers
because it is a more generous, more flexible and more professional.
Please don't launch personal attacks on anyone involved in this -- it doesn't
help. Tear apart facts by presenting your own.
If we stick to the high road we can each leave footprints for change heading the
right direction.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 01:19 AM EST |
Of the same ilk as "No-one got fired for buying IBM", how
about
"I got fired for believing SCO...."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 01:28 AM EST |
Another Australia story:
http://www.itnews.com.au/storycontent.asp?ID=3&Art_ID=17967
SCO's regional general manager, Australia and New Zealand, Kieran
O'Shaughnessy, said he would begin briefing the company's local distributors
this week regarding the SCO IP License's introduction.
O'Shaughnessy claimed the SCO IP License would help organisations in Australia
and New Zealand to “protect and leverage the investments they have
made in Linux” and allow them to “continue day-to-day
business without interruption".
P.S.
Shouldn't we be doing something more useful, like prominently posting a list of
SCO's public statements that IBM could use on Friday (yeh I know, they are
probably overwhelmingly ready already, but hey, we might just come up with
something to help them).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Peter Smith on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 01:31 AM EST |
I wonder if there is any significance to the fact the companies mentioned are
all foreign?
How dare these foreigners plunder our intellectual *property*
(aside - an earlier poster correctly pointed out we have debased the meaning of
the word *property*).
Perhaps he has calculated that sueing foreign companies will go down well with
American investors?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 01:55 AM EST |
is that, if SCO sues a "Linux user" it will be one that has copied
the SCO libraries onto a Linux system. That's why they keep saying that it will
be a user of both Unix and Linux -- only when they talk about Unix, they may
really be talking about OpenServer or UnixWare.
So, although they will be suing a "Linux user", the suit will have
nothing to do with any mythical copyright violations in Linux, but they will
spin it to sound like it is regarding "Linux".
---
-----
For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at
http://scosource.com/index.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 02:00 AM EST |
Siemens is a German company, so I don't think they will sue them. I thought
they didn't offer the license yet in Germany.
h@ns[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Siemens - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 04:42 AM EST
- Siemens - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 04:52 AM EST
- Siemens - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 04:53 AM EST
- Siemens - Authored by: ekj on Wednesday, January 21 2004 @ 04:16 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 02:04 AM EST |
| Aren't they based in Germany? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jason Berg on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 02:06 AM EST |
They're never going to actually sue anybody! That's bad business (like
they're practicing good business to begin with). At this point, they still have
the chance of people buying into their FUD and buying their licenses. If they
sue and loose (which, from what I know, is the only possible result), then they
loose those things that they want...fear, uncertainty, and doubt.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 02:08 AM EST |
SCO claims in its most recent conference call on Dec 23 that they had sent DMCA
notices to several companies, complaining about their use of their copyrighted
code in Linux.
If they actually have done this, then they are likely in serious trouble --
because to assert the DMCA you have to claim, under penalty of perjury, that the
information you seek to have taken down is, in fact, your property.
Now, it's certainly possible that SCO was lying when they said that they sent
out the DMCA notices. But if they did, they've gone beyond bellicose
threatening and very likely into perjury.
Thad Beier[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 02:08 AM EST |
What's got me stumped is why there has been no case brought against SCO by
kernel developers, Samba developers, etc for GPL violations (distributing binary
only etc).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Captain on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 02:13 AM EST |
Interview with Eben
Moglen[linuxworld.com]
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 02:23 AM EST |
Local interest in SCO 'licences'
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8445422%255E15306,00.html
SCO says it has received a dozen queries, including some from large companies,
after announcing Australian pricing for its controversial "Linux
licences".
Note to O'Shaugnessy: Are you sure they interesting in buying and not enquiring
with intent to contact ACCC or sue?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 02:29 AM EST |
You be the jury - why has SCO's PR gone international
1. This is the natural next step in protecting their IP rights?
or
2. They think by doing this outside of the USA, there are no consequences (e.g.
Lanham Act suits in the US)
or
3. O'Shaughnessy is following Darl's instructions to spread the word.
or
4. They've run out of steam in the USA
or
?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 02:40 AM EST |
1) There is case history to suggest that header files -- which
contain macro, data structure, and function prototype definitions,
but not source code -- are not subject to copyright protection.
References --
http://www.winehq.org/hypermail/wine-devel/2001/02/0179.html.
http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/sega_v_accolade_977f2d1510_decision.html
2) The bulk of the header files listed by SCO originated in the early
research editions of Unix released by AT&T in the 1970's. These
is significant reason to believe that these files are not subject
to copyright protection due to AT&T publishing the source code
without proper copyright notices. The research editions of Unix
include the 32V version for the 32-bit VAX computer, and the 1st throught
7th Editions for the 16-bit PDP-11 computer. In the USL vs. BSDI
lawsuit, Judge Dickinson Devevoise concluded,
"Consequently, I find that Plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate a likelihood that it can successfully defend its
copyright in 32V."
Reference - http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/930303.ruling.txt
3) Further, SCO itself released the early research editions of
UNIX under an Open Source license in 2002.
Reference -
http://mirror.cc.vt.edu/pub/projects/Ancient_Unix/Caldera-license.pdf
4) SCO (as Caldera) has long (since 1995) included these files in their
Linux distributions which were released under the GPL license. SCO
claims that the distribution of these files was "accidental".
However,
SCO was an active participant in the Linux Standards Base (LSB) project.
In particular, SCO employees Doug Beattie and Ralf Flaxa had substantial
responsibilities in the group. As the group is repsonsible for defining
Linux ABI's, they would have most certainly be aware of Linux's
compatibility
with various UNIX ABI's.
References -
http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/book/LSB-generic/LSB-generic/libc-ddefs.html
http://www.linuxbase.org/talks/scoforum082001/img0.htm
5) Novell is disputing SCO's copyright claims over the UNIX System V
codebase.
Reference - http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/legal.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 02:57 AM EST |
Main URL
http://au.sco.com/
I get page not found errors when I try to navigate around
Can anybody find the press release?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 03:24 AM EST |
DiDio sings
SCO songs for her supper again...
Yankee Group, 18 Aug
2003
In addition, Laura DiDio, senior analyst with the Yankee Group, reports
that "identity management and the prevention of unauthorized access is a crucial
issue for global IT departments." A recent joint Yankee Group/Sunbelt Software,
Inc. survey of 400 IT administrators indicated the following:
• 11% of
companies indicated they were victimized by unauthorized use or modification of
company data.
• Another 2% of the respondents said hackers stole their
customers' data.
• The 11% figure does not seem significant until it is
compared to 2001 statistics in which only 3% of organizations recorded
unauthorized network access.
DiDio also reported: "There's a growing need
for authentication software. And [VAS] easily integrates UNIX users into
Microsoft Active Directory, thus eliminating key security vulnerability,
minimizing risk and lowering administration costs."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 03:29 AM EST |
Btw, I did contact the FSF asking for legal representation regarding SCO's
violation my copyright in certain Linux kernel parts. I didn't even get a
response. Unfortunately, just like SCO, the FSF is lots of talk and little
action. On the other hand, we have the strongest kid on the block (IBM) already
beating up SCO. All we need to do at this point is to have some patience.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Captain on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 03:35 AM EST |
Red Hat offers
software warranty
In response to SCO Group's legal action against
Linux, Red Hat is offering new legal protection that guarantees the company will
replace any code found to infringe copyrights.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 04:19 AM EST |
It would be interesting to see what MicroSoft advertising operations are
occuring Down-UNder at this time.
Are any coinciding with the SCO announcment, especially for servers for the SMEs
and MMEs.
Anyone there can tell us?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bruzie on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 04:23 AM EST |
I'm not too sure where would a good place to put this is but here
goes...
I bought Caldera OpenLinux for Dummies back in '98. It was my
first experience with Linux and I wanted to have 'hand-holding' documentation to
help me along. At the time there were several other Linux 'Dummies' books,
including TurboLinux, but I chose OpenLinux because I'd read online it was one
of the better distros (out of the Dummies ones).
I went through the book
and had a working system which I played with for a bit. I tried other distros
over the years like RedHat, Mandrake, Debian and Slackware, but I never really
got into it because none of them did what I wanted, or set up the way I would
like. I wanted more control.
Last year, I came across the Linux From
Scratch [www.linuxfromscratch.org]
project and it was everything I wanted. Now I have a file/web/db server, a main
box, and I'm currently building another box for a dedicated music server, all
LFS machines. I have one other box which is my firewall/router/caching DNS
server which is using FreeSco [www.freesco.org].
Anyway, I decided to
pull down the Caldera OpenLinux for Dummies book from the shelf just to have a
look and see if there's anything relevant to these troubling times.
The
first thing is, although the CD is printed with IDG's familiar '...for Dummies'
label, it is essentially the same ISO for OpenLinux 2.3. The book itself was
written by Jon "maddog" Hall who was at the time the Executive Director of Linux
International, and Nicholas Wells who was the Director of Technical Marketing at
Caldera. Nicholas has also spent some time at Novell.
The first chapter
is about what Linux is all about, and there's this interesting
snippet:
"Where does Caldera come in? Caldera was founded in
1994 by Bryan Sparks to create a complete desktop and server operating system
using Linux. Caldera created a distribution called OpenLinux, the focus of
which is to provide a Linux system that benefits businesses and new users. To
that end, OpenLinux includes the easiest installation and the most commercial
add-ons among the Linux distributions as of this writing. Version 2.3 of
OpenLinux is described in this book and included on the CD-ROM as well."
[emphasis mine] [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 04:34 AM EST |
"As a result, companies with Unix licences could be in breach of contract
if they now use Linux, said Mr McBride."
Is this what all the fuss is about.
Is it Just Unix user that use Linux.
And not just Linux users.
Very Confused.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PeteS on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 06:00 AM EST |
| The LinxuWorld
Conference and Expo opens today in New York.
Expect a lot of
upbeat and enterprise level press releases from the exhibitors.
I
know that my company alone has 4 press releases related to this event alone, so
it is quite possible that the triple whammy effect of non-compliance with
discovery, restatement of risks in S3 and the press waking up to SCOs antics
(noted in other threads) makes it imperative for SCOX to do something
today.
Enjoy the press releases from companies using Linux to do astounding
things that SCOX never even dreamed of (keep an eye out for Linux supercomputing
clusters spreading further into the top 100 of the Top500 list). ---
Recursion: n. See
Recursion
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RSC on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 06:07 AM EST |
Just a question RE injuntion.
Why has no one ask for an injuction against SCO for the FUD?
Or is the FUD perfectly leagal in the US?
I seem to be missing something.
Can some one please set me straight?
RSC.
---
----
An Australian who IS interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pt on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 06:14 AM EST |
BP, Fujitsu, Siemens: which one is the odd one out?
BP, because both Fujitsu (ReliantUNIX) and Siemens (SINIX) have/had their own
SVRX based UNIX distributions. Therefore they must also have a source licence
from AT&T. Assuming the source licence is similar to the ones we have
already seen (IBMs and SGIs), then it will certainly provide Fujitsu and Siemens
the right to use (allegedly) SVRX derived software within their organisations.
So if the lawsuit is against Fujitsu or Siemens, SCO can only try to claim
they've contributed code to Linux. SCO can't claim Siemens and Fujitsu have
illegally used SVRX code allegedly contained in Linux as their AT&T licence
already allows them to use all SVRX code.
I would not be surprised if BP had a AT&T source licence as well, but at
least they've never released their own UNIX distribution. They're probably one
of the very few companies that hasn't done so :-)
PS. Of course it is possible that the SCO will claim the original source
AT&T licences are not valid due to some technicalities...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 06:29 AM EST |
Interesting that they should pick Fujitsu and Siemens. The Fujitsu-Siemens
partnership is a big corporate IT player in Europe. A quick check of the
company's front page, www.fujitsu-siemens.com, and this jumps out:
"Fujitsu Siemens Computers’ best-suited hardware for Linux wears a new
hat
OEM agreement signed with Red Hat"
I am beginning to think that this will eventually turn out to be good for Linux.
Look at the list of pro-Linux IT players SCO have got involved in this mess-
IBM, Novell/SuSE/Ximian, Red Hat, HP and now Fujitsu-Siemens.
These companies are looking at Linux as a key part of their business. They all
need the current SCO controversy to disappear, so I would imagine that at the
least, they are sharing information.
It is possible that SCO are actually acting as a catalyst to encourage dialogue
and positive business relations to form between these companies.
In the end of this mess a significant portion of the IT sector will have taken a
public pro-linux stance, that has conviniently been brought to the attention of
corporate executives by SCO's screaming and shouting.
I'm trying to think think like a CIO at a major firm... "Well, if Linux
works for someone like BP, it might work for us. I know I can get Linux services
and support from one of several big, reliable corporate vendors. Time we had an
evaluation."
Ultimatley it may turn out that there is no such thing as bad publicity.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: parky on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 06:30 AM EST |
In the press
release, it says"By purchasing the license, customers are
properly compensating SCO for the UNIX source code, derivative UNIX code and
other UNIX-related intellectual property and copyrights owned by SCO as it is
currently found in Linux"
Of course, SCO has failed to
demonstrate ownership of any 'IP' in Linux in any court in the world, so aren't
they saying that you're buying a licence for nothing?
Following on from
this reasoning, in the unlikely event that they do show some ownership, it might
imply that SCO would go after companies who've bought such a licence and ask for
more money to cover the code which has subsequently been demonstrated.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gordon on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 06:45 AM EST |
Sorry if this has come up in another thread, but there's a story over at The Register saying
that Redhat are to offer software warranties which will offer:
...a
measure of vendor-indemnification against legal action on copyright infringement
grounds.
I can't see anything on the Redhat site about this yet.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kai on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 06:45 AM EST |
| I think the only enquiries Kieran has seen is from some members of our local
linux mailing list asking for him to "specifically identify any significant
portions of the SCO Group's intellectual property" with a timeframe to respond,
and if Kieran doesn't respond in that time from I think the ACCC will be getting
an email.
eamacnaghten asked "It would be interesting to see what
MicroSoft advertising operations are occuring Down-UNder at this time." the
only thing I've seen relating to that was in eWeek, which AFAIK is not
Australian based, but there's plenty of MS advertising in magazines
though.
BTW: in regards to eWeek, the article I was reading is here, check the lovely coincidence with
the MS add on the left and the text wrapping around it, gold ! :P [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Captain on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 06:45 AM EST |
Vaporware: Nuke 'Em if Ya Got 'Em
Meanwhile, dishonorable
mentions go to SCO for the as-yet-unseen Unix code that the company alleges was
ripped off in Linux, and to Microsoft for its "secure computing initiative" and
the ever-slipping ship date for Longhorn, which is shaping up to be a very
promising candidate for the Vaporware awards in 2006, 2007 and maybe even
2008.
lol[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: k4_pacific on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 06:56 AM EST |
Went to www.ibm.com, typed SCO in search box, and found this page:
http://www-1.ibm.com/l
inux/viewaudience_4014.shtml
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 07:07 AM EST |
SCO are dead. SCO are really dead. You thought it was a long stay in jail for
Enron, but that's peanuts to SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Marc Duflot on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 07:11 AM EST |
| BP and Fujitsu are SCO's customers and are mentioned in
SCO's complaint:
31. The simplicity and power of this ?UNIX on Intel?
business
model
helped SCO grow rapidly. SCO gained other large
enterprise customers such as
CitiGroup, K-Mart, Cendant,
Target Stores, Texas Instruments, BMW, Walgreens,
Merck,
Sherwin Williams, Radio Shack, Auto Zone, British
Petroleum,
Papa John?s Pizza, Costco and many others.
125. IBM,
directly and through its Linux distribution
partners, has intentionally and
without justification
induced SCO?s customers and licensees to breach their
corporate licensing agreements, including but not limited
to, inducing the
customers to reverse engineer, decompile,
translate, create derivative works,
modify or otherwise
use the UNIX software in ways in violation of the license
agreements. These customers include Sherwin Williams,
Papa John?s Pizza,
and Auto Zone, among others. The
licensees include Hewlett-Packard,
Fujitsu, NEC and
Toshiba, among others.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BsAtHome on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 07:33 AM EST |
I am so disappointed by this global license announcement because
Denmark, as all nordic countries, go through the German sales-office.
Unfortunately, they are not
allowed to make any "speculative" statements there.
So, I am robbed of any possibility of being forced into bying a license;... and
therefore not able to sue the nice gentlemen for fraud. How
sad... ---
SCOop of the day, Groklaw Rulez [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 08:39 AM EST |
I believe if The SCO Group spokesmen were personally responsible, their press
releases would be different.
Google sues any The SCO Group individual who attempts to trash their IPO, Redhat
sues everyone who said "We can sue Linux customers", IBM sues
McBride for slander.......
---
SCO directly to jail, do not collect two hundred dollars.
BTW - I could never become a Lawyer.(I ID ten tee)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 08:45 AM EST |
$AU295 is an awful lot to pay for errno.h, and those other three header files
that they claimed were put into Linux.
For that sort of money, I would expect SCO to prove that they had written the
*entire Linux OS* before I would say that the amount of money was fair
compensation for the use of their IP.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mhoyes on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 08:53 AM EST |
I am having trouble understanding this statement and I wonder if anyone has
figured out where in the license from AT&T it says you can' be using Linux?
If I am a company with a Unix license and I happen to use Linux, what does it
matter? Now, if I am making a distribution of Linux available, and they can
prove I have incorporated code from Unix in Linux, then I could see where they
could sue, but for use? Can someone with a legal background explain this to me,
or am I wearing the wrong glasses?
meh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: koa on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 09:02 AM EST |
Doesn't each passing remark about "who were gonna sue next" remind
you of a sales pitch of a new product to go on sale?
Speaking of which, when was the last time anyone heard of SCO actually promoting
a product they sell???
But anyhow, I don't see how they can even begin to threaten anyone else.
Don't they have to prove that there is any unix code in Linux? and before that
don't they have to prove that thy code was covered under their contract with
Novell? and even before that they ALSO have to prove that they actually own the
code in question?
Due process anyone?
---
...move along...nothing to see here...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sales Pitch? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 10:50 AM EST
- Sales Pitch? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:17 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: chrism on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 09:45 AM EST |
All:
I'm a programmer and I have been finding the issue of copyright infringement of
source code hard to get a handle on.
Presummably, a copyright infringement case would sometimes come down to
independent programmers being called in to examine two bodies of code to see if
they think one was copied from the other in enough detail that it seems clear
one person copied from another.
I think that any attempt to get a working theory/definition of what constitutes
source code copying off the ground one would have to lay out a lot of examples,
small and large, of cases where we would have to agree that copying occurred,
cases where we would have to agree that it didn't, and cases where we wouldn't
be able to agree either way.
Does anyone know of any attempt on the part of any soceity/group to do such an
analysis and lay out examples?
Surely the legal system would need to refer to such a corpus of examples to have
any hope of having copyright taken seriously, or am I missing something about
how the law operates?
Chris Marshall
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kcassidy on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 10:58 AM EST |
Would it not be a logical assumption that Boies and his firm took as long a
vacation as all of the executives at SCO, so in other words longer than a month
for Christmas? With the money they are being paid, it wouldn't surprise
me.
Or maybe, and this is my hope, there is some headway on the RH
lawsuit which may actually have some merit and Boies' team is looking more into
how to protect SCO from the accusations made there as opposed to fighting a
battle they are destined to lose.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 11:03 AM EST |
So I hear the SCO Group is planning to throw a lawsuit party? I won't be
surprised be if IBM, Novell, RH and HP will crash it. And we the groklaw
community will of course invite ourselves. My beloved late mom once smacked me
for asking her: "Mom, why do people scream before they die?" Perhaps
the SCO Group will not be too busy dying to give me the answer I seek.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 11:48 AM EST |
I understand RH is taking a case against them, I understand what SCO's obvious
motives are.... but....
What I don't get is why the government is
ignoring this. It's almost like SCO is intentionally trying to make their
actions show as criminal.
The DoJ should unquestionably be
investigating Microsoft's involvement in this. Microsoft has publicly stated
they have licenses with SCO - giving Microsoft access and control over yet
another industry. One that's competative to their primary
product!
The FTC SHOULD be involved for the OBVIOUS fact that
SCO is swinging PR campaigns to influence it's own stock price and damage
another market.
I mean, come ON, they've even given their execs a get
out of jail free card with their 'preferred' stock holders being able to
liquidate their stock to the company at a 'premium' price 'when
triggered.'
A deaf bat could see what's going on
here!
This shouldn't be the soul burdon of a few Linux
companies, what SCO is doing isn't just illegal this should be criminal!
Criminal acts should be the responsibility of the government to prosecute - NOT
the victim(s).
At this rate, 20 years from now I'll get mugged and have
to take the mugger to court and sue him myself to get any justice.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 11:50 AM EST |
After all companies with a market capitalization of $180 billion are just going
to roll over every time a frivolous law suit arrives. In fact I doubt BP even
have their own legal dept., or if they do it`s probably staffed by second rate
individuals who will burst into tears the moment a letter from SCO turns up.
Perhaps someone should e-mail BP`s legal dept., give them some background info.,
and point them to Groklaw ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 11:55 AM EST |
I understand RH is taking a case against them, I understand what SCO's obvious
motives are.... but....
What I don't get is why the government is
ignoring this. It's almost like SCO is intentionally trying to make their
actions show as criminal.
The DoJ should unquestionably be
investigating Microsoft's involvement in this. Microsoft has publicly stated
they have licenses with SCO - giving Microsoft access and control over yet
another industry. One that's competative to their primary
product!
The FTC SHOULD be involved for the OBVIOUS fact that
SCO is swinging PR campaigns to influence it's own stock price and damage
another market.
I mean, come ON, they've even given their execs a get
out of jail free card with their 'preferred' stock holders being able to
liquidate their stock to the company at a 'premium' price 'when
triggered.'
A deaf bat could see what's going on
here!
This shouldn't be the soul burdon of a few Linux
companies, what SCO is doing isn't just illegal this should be criminal!
Criminal acts should be the responsibility of the government to prosecute - NOT
the victim(s).
At this rate, 20 years from now I'll get mugged and have
to take the mugger to court and sue him myself to get any justice.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:09 PM EST |
Why do Darl's quotes remind me of the fat cartoon sheep dog that used to run
around saying (with crazed glee) "We're going to catch a fox and we're going to
cut it's tail off, oh boy!"
With Darl, he could be saying (to
himself):
"We're going to catch an investor, and we're going to cut his
income off, oh boy!" or "We're going to catch a Linux user, and we're going to
sue his tail off, oh boy!"
Of course, it never happens. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:27 PM EST |
| Redhats press release can be found
here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:31 PM EST |
According to the SCOX message board on Yahoo!, they're already backpedaling on
the lawsuit threats:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040120/36/ejvhi.html
The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and in the meantime
Darl is behaving like a loose cannon. Reminds me of the story of
ValueAmerica.com in the book "Dot Bomb".
Sorry about the text link...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:36 PM EST |
SCO wants to sell licenses in Australia. How many licenses have they sold so far
in the USA? From what I recall from their latest accounting report, very few.
Does anybody have the numbers?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:48 PM EST |
SCO filed its Notice of Compliance a week ago. Isn't IBM going to have to file
something with Judge Wells before the Jan. 23 hearing, to let her know how SCO
did and did not comply with the Order to Compel Discovery?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 01:04 PM EST |
From
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c
=StoryFT&cid=1073281114455
It is using an unusual
breach-of-contract claim to try to draw the international companies into
the fray. Many companies around the world using the Unix computer operating
system - which has long been a fixture of corporate computing - bought licences
from AT&T, which first developed the software.
SCO assumed the
rights to Unix in the 1990s and now claims some of the Unix code has found its
way into Linux.
As a result, companies with Unix licences could be in
breach of contract if they now use Linux, said Mr McBride.
This
is called swerving around Novell's newly erected copyright roadblock. Yet
another thing SCOG has changed it's mind about apparently, this is not
copyright infringement. I'll venutre a guess to say that SCOG/Caldera will
not attempt to sue someone over Copyright infringement until they litigate with
Novell and come to a resolution of some kind over the issue.
This, IMHO,
is incredibly shaky ground for SCOG to be on. This is more of an uncertainty
than a copyright claim would be against an end user I think. For one, the
potential target list seems to be mainly comprised of companies that SCOG
identified as examples of IBM pulling business away from them. Wouldn't this be
viewed as retaliation rather than rights enforcement? Could SCOG still sue the
licensee if the licensee has cancelled the
license?
-pooky
---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I
stuck around."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 01:12 PM EST |
I sure hope that some kindly Aussie will avail himself of the opportunity and
ask SCO for a copy of the license, for review of course... It would be very
interesting to see exactly what SCO would claim to be selling. If, surprize, it
lacks specificity, one could always ask for more detail to satisfy one's legal
people. I am sure that the Groklaw collective would be happy to assist in the
review.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 02:07 PM EST |
Someone should do an article about this. The news got lost because SCO sent
that letter about a bunch of files in linux. I suppose that was on purpose to
divert attention from its s-3 it issued the next day. There was a lot of
controversy, and so no one noticed that SCO had sold zero licenses. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 02:13 PM EST |
Hot from Google News
http://www.silicon.com/software/os/talkback.htm?PROCESS=show&ID=20016555&
;AT=39117873-39024651t-40000022c
interesting.....Scog might be "bombed" on Friday ....then again has
Daryl used up all 9 lives yet?
morven24[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SRatkowski on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 02:52 PM EST |
ok, my first post as a NON anonymous coward:
Could someone please clarify something for me that simply doesn't make sense at
all?
Here's what SCO seems to be saying:
"Linux has some of our proprietary IP in it, but we can't tell you what
until we root around in IBM's files"
To a naive person, this doesn't make sense BECAUSE of the following issues:
1) SCO obviously has all source code to anything they THINK they have IP rights
for.
2) The current (and past) versions of Linux are posted on the web for all to
see.
3) (THIS IS THE PART I AM UNSURE OF) SCOspeak notwithstanding, the process of
getting code into Linux, and the provenance of such code, is ALSO available on
the web.
-THEREFORE-
If SCO looks at Linux, and says, "GEE, THAT piece of code in Linux is
IDENTICAL to THIS piece of code in our Unix, so there must be a theft
here."
THEN they can simply identify who put the code into Linux by looking at the
revision history, right????
SO, tell me again why they need to go fishing in IBM's files?????
For completeness, could someone who knows, explain how code is accepted into
Linux, and how the donars are expected to provide assurance that they hold the
copyright to what they are donating? Part of the SCOSpeak is the statement that
"Thousands of anonymous hackers can put anything they like into Linux, and
there is no way of tracing the history of the code, or know where they stole
it." If we could blow THAT statement out of the water, it would go a long
way towards REALLY killing the FUD!
---
--
Reality is for those who can't handle Science Fiction....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jam on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 03:40 PM EST |
| Check out Yahoo News for the story.
SCO is
suing over Novell filing false copyright claims, hurting
their business, etc.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 03:56 PM EST |
Here's the link on Yahoo News:
Press Release Source: The SCO
Group, Inc.
SCO Files Slander of Title Lawsuit Against
Novell
Tuesday January 20, 3:25 pm ET
Complaint Requests Injunctive
Relief and Damages Against Novell for Copyright Misrepresentations and Alleges
Bad Faith Effort by Novell to Interfere With SCO's Intellectual Property Rights
to UNIX and UnixWare
http://biz.yahoo.com/pr
news/040120/latu099_1.html
-pooky ---
Veni, vidi,
velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 04:56 PM EST |
Press Release Source: The SCO Group, Inc.
SCO Files Slander of Title Lawsuit Against Novell
Tuesday January 20, 3:25 pm ET
Complaint Requests Injunctive Relief and Damages Against Novell for Copyright
Misrepresentations and Alleges Bad Faith Effort by Novell to Interfere With
SCO's Intellectual Property Rights to UNIX and UnixWare
LINDON, Utah, Jan. 20 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq:
SCOX - News), the owner of the UNIX® operating system and a leading provider of
UNIX-based solutions, today filed suit against Novell (Nasdaq: NOVL - News) for
its alleged bad faith effort to interfere with SCO's rights with respect to
UNIX and UnixWare®. Among the allegations in the suit:
* Novell has improperly filed copyright registrations in the United
States Copyright Office for UNIX technology covered by SCO's
copyrights.
* Novell has made false and misleading public claims that it, and not
SCO, owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights.
* Novell has made false statements with the intent to cause customers
and potential customers to not do business with SCO.
* Novell has attempted, in bad faith, to block SCO's ability to enforce
its copyrights.
* Novell's false and misleading representations that it owns the UNIX
and UnixWare copyrights has caused SCO irreparable harm to its
copyrights, its business, and its reputation.
The lawsuit, filed in Utah State court, in Salt Lake City, requests preliminary
and permanent injunctive relief as well as damages. The injunction would require
Novell to assign to SCO all copyrights that Novell has wrongfully registered,
prevent Novell from representing any ownership interest in those copyrights, and
require Novell to retract or withdraw all representations it has made regarding
its purported ownership of those copyrights.
"SCO takes this action today given Novell's recent and repeated
announcements regarding their claimed ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare
copyrights. SCO has received many questions about Novell's actions from
potential customers, investors and the press. Although SCO owns the UNIX and
UnixWare copyrights, Novell's efforts to claim ownership of these copyrights
has forced this action," said Mark Heise, partner, Boies, Schiller and
Flexner, LLP. "We encourage the public and commercial Linux users to read
the Asset Purchase Agreement from 1995 (including Attachment E found at
www.sco.com/novell) and Amendment 2 so they can see for themselves that SCO owns
the copyrights to UNIX and UnixWare."
The lawsuit seeks damages in an amount to be proven at trial for Novell's
alleged slander of SCO's title to the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights. In
addition, the lawsuit seeks punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial
for Novell's malicious and willful conduct.
Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements regarding SCO's lawsuit
against Novell. These forward-looking statements relate to SCO's allegations
against Novell and the relief sought by SCO. These forward- looking statements
are subject to risks and uncertainties including, without limitation, the risk
that SCO may not be successful in its claims against Novell and that the pursuit
of protections for SCO's copyrights will require the expenditure of resources
and may result in further litigation. These forward-looking statements are also
subject to the risks and uncertainties set forth in SCO's filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
About SCO
The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX - News) helps millions of customers in more than 82
countries to grow their businesses everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO
has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers. SCO
Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to partners and
customers. For more information on SCO products and services, visit
http://www.sco.com .
SCO, and the associated SCO logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of The
SCO Group, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX and UnixWare are
registered trademarks of The Open Group.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 05:57 PM EST |
They managed to tile at least one suit - this one accusing
Novel of slander -
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040120/latu099_1.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 06:05 PM EST |
The heading of this item and the title of the news article on smh.com.au, taken
at face value, demonstrate the success of SCO's PR technique. No doubt people
all over the world will be repeating, "SCO is selling Linux IP binary
licenses in Australia."
SCO is NOT selling Linux IP binary licenses. Not in Australia, Not in the U.
S., not in the U. K., not in China, and (especially) not in Germany. SCO have
not asked or demanded that anyone buy a Linux IP binary license. No one can buy
a Linux IP binary license from SCO, even if they show up at the front door in
Lindon with $699 cash in hand.
Go ahead, try it. Call SCO and demand a "Linux IP binary license".
It is not the case that SCO is offering the license and so far there are no
takers -- there is in fact no such license.
SCO just keeps announcing, in successively more risible venues, that they will
demand licensing fees from all Linux users "real soon now". The
announcements themselves are evidently sufficient for their purposes, with no
actual demands required.
-AIB.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tyche on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 06:07 PM EST |
The following quote, from a Science Fantisy novel, was in answer to the
question, "What is evil?"
“It seems to me that evil is a kind of ultimate greed, a greed that is so
all-encompassing that it can't ever see anything lovely, rare, or precious
without wanting to possess it. A greed so total that if it can't possess these
things, it will destroy them rather than chance that someone else might have
them. And a greed so intense that even having these things never causes it to
lessen one iota—the lovely, the rare, and the precious never affect it except to
make it want them.”
(From Mercedes Lackey, Arrow's Fall: Daw Books Inc., 1988, pg. 2110.)
I felt that it was appropriate to the general subject matter of this site.
Craig
(Tyche)
---
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of
knowledge."
Stephen Hawking[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pfusco on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 07:16 PM EST |
| here is a article from SMH.com.au that is very refreshing in my eyes.
A
Perth-based open source consulting company has told the SCO Group that unless it
details, by February 1, the specifics of what it claims are IP violations in the
Linux kernel, the company would refer the matter to the appropriate legal
authorities.
Leon Brooks, director of CyberKnights, wrote to Kieran
O'Shaughnessy, the SCO Group's regional general manager, Australia and New
Zealand, yesterday after SCO announced the availablility of its intellectual
property licence in Australia and New Zealand.
SCO claims that some UNIX code
which it owns has been incorporated into Linux; this is the basis for selling
the licences.
"If SCO ANZ can't specifically identify any significant portions
of The SCO Group's intellectual property in a timely manner in any of the Linux
distributions which CyberKnights deploys, we must assume that SCO ANZ is making
fraudulent claims and must, in defence of CyberKnights' good name, vigorously
pursue public acknowledgement of fault and material redress from SCO ANZ,"
Brooks said.
It feels good seeing this.
---
only the soul matters
in the end [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Pres on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 08:38 PM EST |
Did SCO get permission from the PIPE investors (Baystar et al) to launch this
new lawsuit ?
Wasn't that part of the recent agreement between the PIPE investors and SCO ?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 11:58 PM EST |
| Quoted
from Slashdot
This is probably why SCO didn't explicity threaten legal
action in their press release [sco.com].
"When asked why the media
release which provided this information had not specifically told commercial
Linux users - whom O'Shaughnessy said were SCO's target - to take out a licence
or else face the consequences, ..." - from the SMH Article
[smh.com.au]
The Australian Copyright Council [copyright.org.au]
advises people to be very careful when alleging copyright infringement, as it is
easy to fall foul of defamation laws or section 202 of the copyright act.
"In some circumstances, letters claiming that someone has
infringed copyright can result in problems under the law of defamation or under
section 202 of the Copyright Act (which prohibits the making of groundless
threats of legal proceedings). Therefore, it is advisable to have a letter of
demand drafted by a lawyer." - Australian Copyright Council [copyright.org.au]
Consequently, SCO's press release would probably have been vetted
by a lawyer.
Unfortunately Mr O'Shaughnessy may have blown it with his
unvetted response to the SMH journalist (continuation of the first quote)
"... he said "in effect, this is what is being said." " - from the
SMH Article [smh.com.au]
So there you go, straight from the mouth
of the boss of SCO Australia. Pay up or we sue you. Does this make him
personably liable for defamation or prosecution under section 202? Does anyone
who actually knows what they are talking about want to comment?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 21 2004 @ 03:01 AM EST |
I just checked my alternate email account and discovered
this:
SCO Announces ANZ Availability of SCO Intellectual
Property License
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Sydney, January 20 2004
The SCO
Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of the UNIXR operating
system and a
leading provider of UNIX-based solutions, today announced
the availability of
the SCO Intellectual Property License to companies
and organisations in
Australia and New Zealand.
The company began the worldwide roll out of the
license in the UK,
France and other European countries last week, and plans to
make the
license available to many more countries and regions by February 1.
The SCO Intellectual Property (IP) License permits the use of
SCO's
intellectual property, in binary form only, as contained in
Linux
distributions. By purchasing the license, customers are
properly
compensating SCO for the UNIX source code, derivative UNIX code
and
other UNIX-related intellectual property and copyrights owned by SCO
as
it
is currently found in Linux.
Pricing:
The SCO IP License is currently
available at introductory pricing of
AUD$999.00 per server processor and
AUD$285.00 per desktop processor.
The company is also offering the license
to embedded device
manufacturers that use Linux to run their devices.
In
addition to extending the license to customers worldwide, the
company
also
announced that the license will shortly be made available through
select SCO
resellers. SCO resellers who are interested in obtaining
more information about
providing the SCO IP License to their customers
can contact SCO at
anz_info@sco.com
after February 1, 2004.
"While we have identified
several problem areas at issue within
Linux,
we also want to be fair to
customers and allow them to continue using
Linux and our intellectual property
unencumbered," said Chris
Sontag,
senior vice president and general manager of
SCOsource, the
intellectual
property licensing and protection division of The
SCO Group, Inc.
"We
believe the SCO IP License helps customers satisfy the
legal
requirements to continue using SCO's UNIX intellectual property
in
Linux
in a forthright way while properly compensating the company for use
of
its property."
Kieran O'Shaughnessy, SCO's Regional General Manager,
Australia and
New
Zealand, said he will begin briefing the company's local
distributors
this week regarding the SCO IP License's introduction.
"The
SCO IP License helps organisations in Australia and New
Zealand to
protect and
leverage the investments they have made in Linux while
providing the means for
them to continue day-to-day business without
interruption," he said.
Availability:
Commercial business end users of Linux, based on the 2.2
kernel and
later, that are interested in more information or in purchasing
the
SCO
IP License in Australia or New Zealand can call +61 2 9440 7577
or
e-mail SCO at anz_info@sco.com.
ends
Notes for
Editors:
Forward looking statement safe harbor:
This press release
contains a forward looking statement regarding The
Company's plans to make the
SCO Intellectual Property License
available
in Australia, New Zealand, the U.K.,
France, and other European
countries and many more countries and regions by
February 1, 2004.
This
statement is subject to risks and uncertainties including
without
limitation those risks and uncertainties identified in our
filings
with
the SEC and the risk that we will not be in a position to roll
out
this
license in such countries and regions as planned. We undertake
no
obligation to update the information in this release, except as
required
by
law.
About The SCO Group
The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX) helps millions of
customers in more than
82
countries to grow their businesses with UNIX business
solutions.
Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of
more
than
11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers. SCO Global Services
provides
reliable localized support and services to all partners and
customers.
For more information on SCO products and services
visit:
http://www.sco.com .
SCO and the associated SCO logo are trademarks
or registered
trademarks
of The SCO Group, Inc., in the U.S. and other
countries. UNIX is a
registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States
and other
countries. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.
All
other
brand or product names are or may be trademarks of, and are used
to
identify products or services of, their respective owners.
______________________________________________________________________
Thi
s message was sent by The SCO Group using Responsys Interact.
Safely
unsubscribe from The SCO Group e-mail at any time:
http://sco.rsc01.net/servlet/optout?JHsKLkHDYYZZADVEHknhlRUFtHpsDJhtE0
Vie
w our permission marketing policy:
http://www.rsvp0.net/servlet/pp/1?u=http://sco.rsc01.net/servlet/optout?JHsKLkHD
YYZZADVEHknhlRUFtHpsDJhtE0
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 21 2004 @ 07:59 AM EST |
http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicense.html
"The Linux distributors are unable to do so because of the terms and
conditions in the General Public License (GPL)."
The GPL does not stop indemnity, it is a business decision. Companies have
indemnified. This is false.
"End users who purchase this license are granted the right to use the SCO
IP in Linux in binary format only."
So the kernel source on my PC is illegal. I cannot roll my own.
I have raised this with the ACCC regarding the false and misleading statements.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 21 2004 @ 10:23 AM EST |
Is there any significance to SCO making the licences available only through
resellers?
Do SCO resellers face any legal risks for selling / trying to sell (in
"good" faith) the SCO licences? If so, can this information be
reported?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 21 2004 @ 05:08 PM EST |
http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2004/feat_2004-01-22.cfm
Found on Google news It would appear that the Truth is out there and it is in
Darl's local paper. It is a long well written piece
morven24[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
