|
|
| IBM: No Indemnification -- SCO's Case Has Zero Merit |
 |
|
Friday, January 23 2004 @ 12:14 AM EST
|
SearchEnterpriseLinux.com reports IBM said again at LinuxWorld that it has no plans to offer indemnification: "'If we give indemnification, it does not get this over with. In our legal system, you go to court to get this over with. That's where we are putting our energy,' said Irving Wladawsky-Berger, IBM's vice president of technology and strategy, during a LinuxWorld event. 'We believe the suit has zero merit. The right thing will happen. Let it play out.
"'Our customers have all the information. No community can feel better protected, given how this community has responded to the attacks.'
"Judging from the reactions of some enterprise users, IBM's strategy suits them just fine.
"'I have no problem with it, and I don't think their refusal to offer indemnification validates anything SCO has said,' said Joe Cooper, senior network engineer for the Bank of New York."
Regular readers of Groklaw know that I have issues with indemnification that seriously limits the freedom to modify code. The real way to make litigation-happy companies leave you alone, IBM is saying, is to litigate them into the stone age. You do that until copycats realize that Linux is not the low-hanging fruit they thought it was and go away, or more accurately look around for someone else to bother. Longterm strategy is what you would expect from a company that has been around as long as IBM has. What I hear IBM saying is that they have no doubt of ultimate victory and they intend "to get it over with," meaning to make a decisive victory reverberate so loudly and so long that it will discourage future legal cowboys from approaching the GNU/Linux herd. Why SCO thought IBM would be a suitable target is beyond me. But nothing could have been better for Linux than to have IBM willing to stand up and carry this burden on Linux's behalf. They know how and they have the resources to get the job done thoroughly and well. When they tell me "the right thing will happen," I believe it, particularly because they didn't say a word until well into discovery. So that is good news. In other news, Microsoft said today it is in discussions with the Indian government to let India see their source code. I hope India's government realizes the serious consequences that ensue if programmers look at Microsoft code. It seems a defining fork in the road for a programmer and I hope nobody takes Microsoft's offer up without discussing it with an IP attorney first. In the case of India, likely the implications are understood, as Subra writes to me about India's "techie President": "The Govt. of India, led by
its techie President, Mr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam (who is a
Ph.D and has led most of the defence and space
programs in India before becoming the non-executive
President), has spoken many a time about full-scale
adoption of free and open source software, as it would
save tons of money for a developing country like
India, as well as provide the freedom to customise
most of the needed software into multiple languages.
This last part is critical in a linguistically and
politically diverse country like India." No doubt Mr. Kalam's viewpoint influenced Microsoft to make its offer. Perhaps you would be interested in reading an article on the SCO case from an Indian author,
Rajeev Srinivasan, from September. My favorite part, when describing why Linux is becoming so popular there: "But Linux, free from the institutional greed that killed Unix's chances, has thrived. And it has found some strong backers, such as IBM. To a lesser extent, HP, Dell, and so forth, have also jumped on the Linux bandwagon, because they all recognize that Microsoft has been skimming away most of the profits through its monopoly on the operating system.
"The net result is that today one can buy a Linux-based PC for far less money than a Microsoft Windows-based PC. It will, it is pretty much guaranteed, work much better, and be less resource hungry: you don't have to throw away your computer every couple of years just because Microsoft's new OS is a resource hog.
"Linux, with its compelling advantages, has put the brakes on Microsoft's attempts to dominate the server market as much as it dominates the desktop market. It is much more robust, it costs essentially nothing; if problems are found, the army of Linux enthusiasts will fix them practically overnight . . ." Darl likes to tell it that Linux destroyed Unix. This author says it was institutional greed. You know what institutional greed is, don't you, Mr. McBride? If not, I believe the rest of us could explain the concept using a modern-day example.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: leeway00 on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 01:53 AM EST |
"Let it play out."
Those are the key words, IMHO. Coming from IBM, it sounds like they will
eventually bomb SCO back into the stone age & put any questions about the
GPL's future to rest. They seem to get it.
Another funny thing about SCO's letter to Congress is how proprietary software
is the only source of innovation. IBM has committed to $1B in research re Open
Source. How many years of SCO R&D would it take to top $1B? That's a few
jobs IBM is creating.
Leeway[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 02:07 AM EST |
A couple of observations:
"The net result is that today one can
buy a Linux-based PC
for far less money than a Microsoft Windows-based PC. It
will, it is pretty much guaranteed, work much better, and
be less resource
hungry: you don't have to throw away
your computer every couple of years
just because
Microsoft's new OS is a resource hog."
I
agree; I have an odd theory on the machine/resource hog
issue. The developers
at Microsoft work for the
wealthiest company in the world. Chances are, they
have
the latest and greatest hardware. Did they ever bother to
step over to
the 200MHz Pentium abandoned in the corner
and load Windows NT 4.0? If they
did, they would have
realized what a pig it was for it's time. On the other
hand, OSS developers have the entire gammit of PC's, from
"Ferraris" to the
lowly "Yugos." I bet some of you didn't
know that you can still load FreeBSD
on '386 with 4meg of
RAM and a few hundred meg of disk space, did you?
Try that with Windows XP... :-P
"Linux, with its
compelling advantages, has put the
brakes on Microsoft's attempts to dominate
the server
market as much as it dominates the desktop market. It is
much
more robust, it costs essentially nothing; if
problems are found, the army
of Linux enthusiasts will fix
them practically overnight..."
Nowhere is this more true then my recent experience with
the folks
at sendmail.org. I had a daunting e-mail issue
for which I requested support
via e-mail. Not only did I
have a response within a couple of hours, but I
have 2
responses from 2 people, and the level of professionalism
was much
higher than any tech support experience in recent
memory, even after they
pointed out I mis-configured
e-mail. Thanks Neil, Claus - you guys are worth
your
weight in gold.
"Darl likes to tell it that Linux
destroyed Unix. This
author says it was institutional greed. You know what
institutional greed is, don't you, Mr. McBride?"
As my old
Spanish teacher in high-school used to say,
"Birds of a feather flock
together."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- XP can install on old machines just fine! :P - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 03:06 AM EST
- Microsoft and expensive PC's - Authored by: stevem on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 04:06 AM EST
- IBM: No Indemnification -- SCO's Case Has Zero Merit - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 04:22 AM EST
- IBM: No Indemnification -- SCO's Case Has Zero Merit - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 06:25 AM EST
- IBM: No Indemnification -- SCO's Case Has Zero Merit - Authored by: Azmodan on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 10:47 AM EST
- IBM: No Indemnification -- SCO's Case Has Zero Merit - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 11:08 AM EST
- OT: Resource Hog - Authored by: red floyd on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 11:25 AM EST
- OT: Resource Hog - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 01:03 PM EST
- IBM: No Indemnification -- SCO's Case Has Zero Merit - Authored by: dan_d on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 10:35 PM EST
- Something to remember about the Sendmail crew... - Authored by: valdis on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 12:48 AM EST
- Birds of a feather flock together - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 10:54 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: richardpitt on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 02:09 AM EST |
| The reason SCO targetted IBM is that they had the bucks to buy their way out of
the suit by purchasing SCO for some unreasonable price. The problem is that Darl
and the rest of the SCO directors misjudged IBM's resolve.
IBM will grind SCO
into the ground - any company that follows even distantly the leadership of SCO
will embody the litany that "those who fail to study history are doomed to
repeat it"
The only problem I see is the (potentially non-existent) backing
by Microsoft. I say potentially non-existent since they of course are masters of
disguise and obfuscation.
The major thing to remember is that, whatever the
outcome of the case in the US, the rest of us (I'm Canadian) will struggle on
along the path to freedom ;) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 02:27 AM EST |
IANAL IMHO
I think SCO's harping on aboutt indemnification was to try to get IBM and other
Linux companies to get insurance to back their indemnification.
If you read lamlaw.com (which has some excellent legal analysis of SCO v IBM,
although I personally think it more shakey in other areas, and probably puts a
lot of people off because it's use of language) - anyway if you read lamlaw.com
he repeatedly makes the point:
1. SCO has declined to make copyright claims (in court rather than PR) against
any party who can defend themselves. Not IBM. Not Red Hat. Not Novell.
2. SCO wants to sue parties who can't defend themselves (because they don't
want have the background knowledge in general), i.e. Linux end-users, on
copyright issues.
Now, if IBM had taken the kind of indemnification that SCO hoped they would,
instead of SCO v IBM, it would effectively be SCO vs IBM's insurance company.
(It's pretty obvious right now, that SCO had no real plan or preparation to
fight IBM directly.)
Continuing the insurance company logic: if SCO got some outrageous discovery
requests in, (like everything to do with Intel processors, every bit of history
of AIX and Dynix over decades involving thousands of people - i.e. stuff they
could never hope or intend to analyze) -- then the insurance company would
eventually say to IBM -- okay let's settle for say $50m (or whatever), it's
cheaper than producing all these documents.
So, that's why they started on indemnification.
When IBM didn't bite, they thought a bit more pressure on IBM, and IBM via
IBM's customers, and it might work. Remember Darl even said in Fortune magazine
that he expected IBM's customers to be pressuring IBM to settle. When it still
didn't work, it was a stick to beat IBM with and viagra for SCO's stock price.
When HP indemnified, they probably even thought, heck, now IBM will fall for
our plan.
We know why IBM didn't bite. They are not fools, and maybe they do get the
other issues too.
One thing that is notable. None of the other companies that have indemnified or
warrantied, HP, Novell, Red Hat, have done it thru an insurance company or
backed by an insurance company. I think they all know the score behind SCO's
plan.
As evidence for this theory: Don't you think it's noteable that Darl and Blake
both spoke about HP's alleged huge liability after HP indemnified. If you
check the MozillaQuest interview from around this time, Blake even jumps to the
conclusion that HP must have an insurance company backing their
indemnification.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Insurance companies - Authored by: roxyb on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 03:00 AM EST
- IKON - Authored by: RedBarchetta on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 03:12 AM EST
- IKON - Authored by: skidrash on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 09:51 AM EST
- Insurance companies - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 06:47 AM EST
- Insurance companies - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 12:57 PM EST
- Darl - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 12:14 AM EST
- Insurance companies - Authored by: Wol on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 03:08 AM EST
- Insurance companies - Authored by: skidrash on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 09:44 AM EST
- Insurance companies - Authored by: sphealey on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 10:49 PM EST
- Re: Your point #2... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 24 2004 @ 02:43 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Checkmate on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 02:30 AM EST |
Lawsuit cases seem to have a habit of ignoring or even shunning the general
public from influencing it. I was thinking about this, and decided to describe a
scenario to see what other people think. Don't just say it's unrealistic;
pretend this is reasonable:
The current generation of internet ISPs invariably charge money for their
services. But do people have to subscribe and pay money to these companies,
where you will undoubtedly encounter bad tech support, poor performance, and
expense?
Let's say, hypothetically, that I, growing tired of all this, start a campaign
that will offer 100 percent FREE internet to every household in the country. I
will fund a project (funds coming from who-knows-where) to wire fiber-optic
cable directly to households. The fiber-optic connection will offer the very
fastest internet service currently possible, and there is no subscription or fee
of any kind necessary to use it.
But what about the ISPs? They will lose a LOT of business. Is the business of
these companies more important than high-quality internet access to the general
public? Have I committed a crime against them by doing this? What rights do the
company or I have?
Of course, the subject doesn't necessarily have to be ISPs...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 02:58 AM EST |
Why SCO thought IBM would be a suitable target is beyond
me.
If you think that The SCO Group started the battle to
win a case in court, then it is indeed puzzling. If you leave that premisse and
think that the purpose was to get as much media coverage as possibble, then it
makes completely sense.
The SCO Group doesn't need to win the case, they
only want to make a lot of mony for themselves.
H@ns [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 03:11 AM EST |
I know someone said that any lawsuit "gets put on hold".
But would it be possible for IBM to continue (at its own expense) and ask for
(a) declaratory rulings, where the evidence so permitted, and also (b)
provisional rulings where the Judge would state how she would rule given the
evidence presented thus far and what would make her change her mind.
Seeing as "justice delayed is justice denied", it would be a
travesty of justice if IBM could not convert the case into a sort of "John
Doe" case.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ZeusLegion on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 03:14 AM EST |
Sun's Schwartz attacked IBM for refusing to resell Linux and for its
unwillingness to legally indemnify customers for its use. He said the whole
affair had left him confused and disappointed by IBM's whole Linux strategy.
"What's most disappointing is there appears to be no real commitment to Linux.
Are you, or aren't you, moving your desktops? I guess I just don't understand
your Linux strategy." - quoted from T
his Article.
This is ironic and hyprocritical coming from a guy who
only months ago claimed that Sun had absolutely no Linux strategy
whatsoever.
---
Z [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 03:19 AM EST |
I'm probably one of the few who feels this, but...
IBM has done more for the open source community by aggressivly persuing this
case than every other idemnifier combined. In the end, the idemnifiers probably
won't have to pay a penny out of pocket (except novell) but IBM sure is. I
think we all should be very grateful we've got such a powerful ally. Without
IBM, SCO would have probably targeted a smaller vendor that might not have the
legal funds to fight the case to the end _and_ survive unscathed finanically
afterwards.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 03:25 AM EST |
| From eWeek:
If Sun
is to become a Linux power as well as a Solaris power, and I feel it must for
the long term, it must drop SCO. This isn't just for Sun's customers well-being,
it's for Sun's as well. You can't be a Linux player and an SCO supporter; it's
as simple as that.
H@ns [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RSC on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 03:57 AM EST |
Does anyone else get the feeling that IBM is getting ready for a devastating
smack down?
RSC.
---
----
An Australian who IS interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: roadfeldt on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 04:04 AM EST |
First time poster, have to give a HUGE thanks to PJ!!
Could part of the puzzle be that SCO wants commercialized versions of linux to
cost significantly more? I could see a situation where SCO screams that everyone
needs to indemnify linux users and starts suing people to do scare them. In
order for the linux vendors and related companies to keep their linux business
they feel required to provide some type of support to calm fears,
indemnification being one way.
Possible reasons for this type of strategy, or part of the overal strategy
abound. Most of the reason revolve around "proprietary" OS vendors
getting the zero cost factor of linux nullified, cause linux vendors now have to
recoup their costs for the support/indemnification. For this I see SCO, Sun and
Microsoft being the obvious benefactors. Another possibility is that SCO's
purpose would be to scare end users in a different way. If the product your
buying comes with all sorts of legal protection, you may start to wonder why?
Why does this product need this level or type of protection? I don't think the
second reason is very sound, but you never know. SCO's reasoning may be
brilliantly thought out, or it just may be a fool's erend. My vote is the
latter. But you never know.
Personally, I have being using linux since around '93/'94. I don't see myself
stopping anytime soon. I will say that in my next round of hardware purchases
for my job, I will be taking a serious look at what IBM offers, if for nothing
else but to support a company that is supporting the linux community.
For what it's worth, I did a very brief contract job at a IBM shop for a few
months. My cube was just feet away from some of the linux PPC kernel folks.
While there I saw the measures they went to to prevent the type of
containmination SCO is screaming about. I can say that the folks at IBM took it
very seriously and made every conceivable measure to ensure the code that made
it to the kernel was in the clear. I am not worried. IBM knew/knows what they
are doing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jaydee on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 04:32 AM EST |
The thing about Linux / OSS is freedom. I can understand that some
people/companies want to be indemnified. I can also understand that a lot of
people/companies don't want it.
Linux offers both... and other options such as the OSDL defence fund.
I think that in the end indemnification will cease to be an issue, it is a short
term measure during the "market penetration" phase of linux. If
there are no further SCO type cases, market forces will make indemnification
unsustainable.
A common defence fund will be the way forward for the long term. Anybody wanting
to do an SCO would think twice when there is a multi-million dollar fund
available to stomp them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 04:36 AM EST |
Although IBM has it's own very good reasons for reducing SCO to a smoking
crater they have also forced "the powers that be" within Linux to look at a
future where Linux is a dominant force within computing and is subject to other
attacks (it's widely expected that there will be a major attempt to use the
patent system against linux in
the near future.)
Linux cannot rely on an unending supply of White
Knights.
Just as Microsoft and other major computing companies lobby
governments, Linux and free/open software in general needs a voice that can be
heard. Hopefully any money left in the OSDL defence fund can be used to fund
such a campaign.
Finally, when this is all over and the champaign bottles
are empty the Linux community must thank IBM somehow. Pehaps IBM could be the
next winner of a Golden Tux award? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sa on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 05:06 AM EST |
I agree that SCO have acheived their apparent objective. That's SCO's choice
and although it has unpleasant consequences, IBM can't control the actions they
have chosen to take.
IBM, however, are in this for the long term, and will want to ensure that SCO
are publically spit-roasted as a warning to any others in future.
They will be content for this to drag out if necessary - their outlook is over
the next few decades and a few extra months of pain are a reasonable price to
pay.
Also, IBM will not want to be seen to be litigious because it damages reputation
and gives your competitors a lever over potential customers.
I suspect that Novell's apparent reluctance to litigate is similarly twofold;
their reputation and a desire to debate the legitimacy of GNU/Linux in public.
I guess that three parties are looking for a quicker outcome to this:
Redhat (because their current tier-two prospects are nervous of SCO's actions)
SCO + Their lawyers (because they need a revenue stream from the action to
remain alive)
Microsoft (because they probably sense that this particular attack be SCO is
running out of steam, and their is a perception that they may be somewhere in
the shadows)
There is one thing that may upset IBM's plan to see this through to the end -
the PIPE investors can at any point pull the plug on SCO and effectively halt
proceedings. It may suit some parties (for example Microsoft) for the case to
NEVER come to court and linger around as a potential future threat.
This outcome is probably the worst for the supporters of GNU/Linux.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JCA on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 05:25 AM EST |
This case must be the best thing that ever happened to IBM, and I think they
have played their cards very wisely:
In the "good old days" IBM was "big blue" &
"multinational company" and more or less everything bad in many
people's impression.
With this case, IBM is getting an image as "The White Knight" saving
the "little computer user". I would guess that the marketing value
of the exercise by far exceeds the cost of litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mark Levitt on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 05:28 AM EST |
is not just their size.
If you read about the history of IBM, you find a company that is *extremelly*
careful of IP.
Why? Because they were dragged through an anti-trust suit for years. They lived
under the thumb of a consent-decree for years.
IBMers will tell you stories of having their offices sealed becuase a security
guard saw that they'd left some documents out on the desk at night.
There are stories of people's car's being clamped in IBM parking lots becuase
security guards discovered IBM papers in an unlocked trunk.
Visitors to IBM had to be escorted everywhere. Microsoft employees, when they
were working with IBM on OS/2, used to play games by running off in two
different directions, leving their IBM escort with a dilima.
In other words, IBM not only has a ton of lawyers, they've been using them for
*years* to make sure that IBM dots every i and crosses every t.
If it was anyone else, I might think it's possible that some UNIX code
accidently slipped into Linux. I could see it happening at Sun. I could see it
happening at SGI. Not becuase those companies are evil, but because they
haven't been forced to be so careful.
IBM is absolutly paranoid about making sure they don't let any of their IP slip
out and, equally, making sure that they are not contaminated by other people's
IP.
I can't believe for a second that IBM has let a single character of UNIX code
into Linux.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 05:46 AM EST |
| PJ:
I hope this makes it to your attention. Just ran across a story called
Linux Code Red by Shane Johnson.
http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2004/feat_2004-01-22.cfm
"“I’ve
been pounding the table here for a year or so saying there’s no free lunch,
and there is going to be a day of reckoning for every company that thinks
they are going to try and sell a free model.” That’s Darl McBride, president and
CEO of the SCO Group, a perennial loser at selling UNIX and, until recently,
Linux operating systems."
Bobcat [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: WojtekPod on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 06:36 AM EST |
Hello. This is my first post here on Groklaw. I am considering to write a letter
to the Polish section of the CHIP magazine. In their latest issue they stated
that SCO is going to sue 1500 Linux users and SCO has already shown the code in
question (IIRC, it was the same code that here on Groklaw was proved to be
written by Linus Torvalds). I find these statements misleading (to put it VERY
mildly). I am not a lawyer or journalist, though. What should I write to the
journalists of CHIP magazine?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 07:29 AM EST |
I found a problem with IE which is loops taking all resources if you include two
script files in a single HTML file. Emailed MS support, highlighting the exact
problem, work around and some URL's that I had found showing it was not
"my" problem. First response pay or we don't look at it. Second
response Pay or we don't look at it. Third response pay or we don't look at
it. Each time I noted that "I" did not have a problem because I
had figured out the problem and worked around it. Took about 3 weeks and I am
still not sure whether this will ever be documented or fixed.
I had a gcc problem, I documented it simply and email the gcc list. Woke up
the next morning to a patch and a new release on debian. No arguments, no
hassles, just works.
I have also got Microsoft to agree to a bug some years ago. They promised me a
free upgrade from excel 4 to excel 5 when the bug was fixed. Still waiting for
my copy.
I constantly have problems even getting work support people to raise bugs with
vendors. With FOSS I can email the problem myself and get real results. Why do
company have this fallacy of support for proprietary products, I cannot get any![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 08:14 AM EST |
Redhat CEO is also in India these days. He had talks with Dr. A.P.J. Kalam, the
President of India. And look what he has to say:
This is the first time
I met the head of a state who was so knowledgeable and had such a clear vision
for the collaborative way of software development. I felt I was in the presence
of a mystic; he was very eloquent in his explanation of the open source
movement.
Article is
here
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 08:29 AM EST |
"Why SCO thought IBM would be a suitable target is beyond me."
Several reasons:
1.) IBM is incredibly rich ...
2.) there was a project involving oldSCO and IBM that ended in resounding
mediocrity as Caldera was finalizing the purchase of th eUNIX licensing business
from oldSCO.
3.) IBM has a license for UNIX code from someone
It's a very tenuous link, but I think the original plan was to make "you
stole our UNIX IP during Monterey and violated your contract" noises until
IBM paid for licensing or bought UNIX from Caldera. It didn't happen (IBM says
Caldera never contacted them, SCO/Caldera says they did), and Caldera/SCO upped
the ante by filing suit against IBM, hoping to settle out of court for a couple
hundred millions.
They miscalculated. IBM does NOT reward litigious companies, and especially not
when they are accused of sloppy handling of confidential data. That's the
basis of BILLIONS in income for IBM, and settling would damage their reputation.
Nothing short of a clear-cut win in court will do. They will cheerfully spend
a few millions on lawyers to defend a reputation worth billions.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 08:47 AM EST |
| dallas
report [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sauja on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 09:14 AM EST |
| To learn about Institutional Greed check out:
The Corporation
And if the above html
didn't work:
http://www.thecorporation.com
Sauja
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 09:21 AM EST |
Bravo IBM for not buying into the new "protection racket" business
model for commercial software!
This is the game, you know. The idea is: if large portions of commercial
software no longer can stand on merit alone, create another reason for buying
them. You're not buying software, they say... you are buying *protection*.
Once again, bravo! IBM seems to think they can actually <gasp!> compete
on merit. Wow... who would have thunk it?
The sad thing is, while SCO might have a hard time competing on merit (the 80s
called, they want their OS back), Microsoft very easily could. There *are*
things that Windows does much better than any OSS platform, such as unified
interfaces and rapid application development. But, MS seems to *think* they
can't win a fair fight.. maybe Billy has a self-esteem problem or something...
BTW, does the fact that IBM has now become the darling of the hacker community
strike anyone as a snow blower in hell phenomenon? :) It is however quite
smart on IBM's part... eventually Microsoft will also realize that alienating
and angering your customers is not a good long term business strategy... cause
like... those are the people who are supposed to buy your stuff...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 09:28 AM EST |
Face it. IBM could have bought out SCO the day Darl called to ask about this IP
thing threatening with a lawsuit.
But If you're IBM, and you have money and resources tied into Linux. And you
were planning to promote the hell out of it. What do you do, you cut a few
millions out of your PR budget and sent it over to litigation.
That way you get publicity from the case, you affirm to the world how serious
you are about sticking with Linux, AND you gather then support of the Linux
army.
They could have bought them out, but the really smart thing to do is fight it
out in public. If Darl was hoping for an early buyout, he's as stupid as we
think cause this is all pretty obvious stuff to me.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 09:33 AM EST |
I hope the Indian government demands they see the source code with a few
guarantees:
1. They need no NDA, or there will be a presumption that whoever evaluates can
still work on GPL software. Indian IP laws may be helpful or create
difficulties here.
2. They guarantee that the source code they see is actually what is in the
product(s), and hasn't been cleansed of DRM, spyware, backdoors, and other
annoying things. They shouldn't have mere access to the source code, they
should be able to run a build and have all the DLLs, kernel, exes, and such pop
out. And that they can see everything going forward.
3. That they can modify and fix things and release binaries, and similarly talk
publicly about the horrors or glories they see when examining the code
(remembering the beta restrictions on commentary).
With those guarantees, they can let someone view the code, but make sure there
is backup if he turns to stone or runs out screaming (or laughing)
hysterically.
And even with the above guarantees, what does viewing the source buy them?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stumbles on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 09:37 AM EST |
Well, it seems the non-sense Microsoft was spewing during their
circus, errmm
monopoly trial that revealing their source code was
a matter of national
security is a lie. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: koa on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 09:41 AM EST |
I have a theoretical question...
If IBM wins in court (and I beleive they will..).. Isn't it at all possible
that IBM would end up owning SCO (as in its assests) out of a summary judgement?
i.e. Instead of buying out SCO in the short term; they are simply going to end
up buying them out by way of legal process.. That would certainly throw a monkey
into the compensation agreement with Boise now wouldn't it?
Or am I barking up the wrong delusion?
---
...move along...nothing to see here...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 09:42 AM EST |
Indemnification is not the answer. No vendor will completely indemnify an
end-user because they cannot. The end user is always capable of doing something
that is not the vendors responsibility, that cannot be indemnified, and should
not be.
If you think Novell and HP are offering complete indemnification, think again.
HP's clauses are very strict in restricting what you can do with Linux to
remain indemnified (i.e. you can't modify it in any way)
Novell says this:
"Indemnification is offered for copyright infringement claims made by
third parties against registered Novell customers who obtain SUSE LINUX
Enterprise Server 8 and who after January 12, 2004, obtain upgrade protection
and a qualifying technical support contract from Novell or a participating
Novell or SUSE LINUX channel partner"
To get indemnity from Novell, it is not enough simply to use SuSE linux, you
must purchase a support contract with Novell (or presumably SuSE before the
acquisition). You also have to accept the terms which I have not seen but it is
implied strongly at Novell's site that there are many limitations and
restrictions applying to this.
Is this bad, not really. Any vendor should be willing to stand behind their
product and assert that what they sell you is in fact legal. But complete
indemnification is not something anyone is going to do because they cannot
accept the liability for actions outside their control, it's that simple.
I think IBM realizes this fact and is not even going to attempt to make a PR
event out of indemnifying users, like HP and Novell have done. Let's face it,
both of these companies are spinning their support and limited indemnity into
"you should be our customer because we stand behind you". I hate to
say it but it's a somewhat hollow offering.
-pooky
---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 09:44 AM EST |
That part about:
"Our customers have all the information. No community can feel better
protected, given how this community has responded to the attacks."
sounds to me like a compliment to PJ, -- made, of course, in a discreet,
respectful, and lawyerly manner.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stumbles on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 09:58 AM EST |
| I don't agree indemnification is any kind of protection
racket. It is
something used in the proprietary world to give the
end user a false sense
of security or recourse. I have not
read an indemnification clause that
offers the end user anything
really useful, except perhaps a return of
original software costs.
Neither am I aware of any end user that has
actually initiated such
a clause. Does anyone here know of such an event? If
such has
happened, what did the end user get out of it?
No, IMO the
real reason SCO and others have harped on this
non-sense is to initiate
ownership creep. So far as I can tell the
indemnification offered covering
their version of GPLed software
amounts to being null and void should the end
user modify it.
That to me violates the spirit and intentions of GPL.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 10:01 AM EST |
IBM's tactical approach is sound: you take the war to the SCO Group by
crucifying them in court, just as you stop a mad scientist by going into his lab
and looking for him, or just as you stop a mad dictator by going into his bunker
and looking for him.
The concept of idemnification has value only if it has at its core an iron-clad
promise, shall we say a pledge, that the war and all the horrors associated with
it will be taken to the enemy if he dares attack - but idemnification by itself
does not crush the enemy unless he has crossed that line in the sand and unless
the pledge implicit in idemnification is kept and honored. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 10:04 AM EST |
| Have a look at If
Vendors were Film Stars.
Our fiend Darl appears in a starring role... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 10:13 AM EST |
I just had a thought(no, really).
all total, SCO has sent around what 2000 unsolicted letters to businesses and
government officials.
at what point do they qualify as Spammers?
they could add that as a new division of their litigation department.
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/cad-linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TheMohel on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 10:38 AM EST |
The latest Forbes (print and online) has an
article
that
actually gets it. Companies all over the world are using
Linux because there's
no artificial price tag attached.
"As the price of a PC falls,
the portion of the cost that goes to Wintel is rising," says James C. Chen, a
vice president for Acer, another big PC maker. "It costs $65 for Windows and
$2 for Linux," he adds.
And they're getting the rest of
the idea too:
"Since Linux is open, we will reveal the code to
anybody who asks," says Toshiba spokesperson Midori Suzuki. Toshiba will
differentiate its product with superior hardware, she
says.
This is the point of open source operating systems.
Nobody (OK, maybe RMS) is trying to make ALL software open, but things like
operating systems have become so basic that it's stupid to tax each user. And a
legion of good coders and better citizens have gotten together to remove the
stupidity.
And Microsoft, and SCO, and a few idiot analysts, are in the
position of King Canute and the tide, and they're maybe wishing they had worn
waterproof socks. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 11:15 AM EST |
Wonder if anyone has bothered to take a look at the warranty^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
license of a SCO product (assuming they have such a thing). Exactly what do
they indemnify their users against? If it's like any EULA I've seen, the
answer is either nothing, or at most the CD isn't defective.
Since there's very little (or no) overlap between Linux and SCO UNIX, I wonder
why Darl isn't screaming that drivers of Fords aren't being indemnified
against SCOsuits?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: troy on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 11:47 AM EST |
At what point does IBM get a ruling on what is a derivitave work in the context
of the contract? Is that going to be part of the next round from IBM?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 12:00 PM EST |
Why SCO thought IBM would be a suitable target is beyond
me.
I have been thinking about this for a long time now.
SCO is not filled with idiots, but rather some very smart people. It bends the
mind that they could be purposely acting is such a way that will likely destroy
the company that they work for. I have been searching for an explanation.
Something along the lines of the most-believable-concept. Try this on for
size.
IBM, who realizes that Linux may be the cornerstone of its
business in the future, is concerned that the GPL and F/OSS is a legal hotbed
and has never been tested. Risk management proposes an odd idea: approach a
former Linux player who happens to own(?) some amount of UNIX, with whom you
have friends (and contracts) and ask them to baselessly sue you over Linux and
the GPL. Propose any number of incentives as IBM is wealthy.
This has
many advantages for IBM.
- They become the hero of the open source
community
- They realize that if any company is accused of backing SCO,
it will be Microsoft, a top competitor.
- It allows prime oppurtunity to
set up all sorts of legal foundations to protect linux
- They discourage
any suits that may have merit in the future, as now there is legal
basis.
In short they create a mountain of fear uncertainty and doubt
for anybody even trying to debunk their premiere software package, upon which
sells their hardware and services. Forget not: IBM was the one who created FUD
in the first place. See the jargon file.
Except that IBM didn't realize
the hornets nest it would stir up and didn't realize how tranparent the SCO
cases would become with research done by people here and other places. They
become concerned about how transparently false SCO claims are but can't change
and tells SCO to keep the up clamoring as any change would be subject to intense
scrutiny.
I believe this scenario is more likely and it rationally
explains the outlandish actions of SCO, as well as the supposed 'heroics' of
IBM. Somebody tell me why this isn't this case, as from this perspective,
everything makes sense. Has anybody thought of this possibility
before?
~dubious[remove]9@yahoo.com
----------
Knowledge is
knowing a street is one way; wisdom is still looking both ways.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 12:26 PM EST |
I'm not sure if anybody else has already posted it, but here's a letter that
really ought to go directly into the Groklaw record. It's a response
(http://www.gavinroy.com/~gavinr/SCO%20Response.pdf) to an extortion letter
(http://www.gavinroy.com/~gavinr/sco_threat.gif) sent to Just Sports USA
(http://www.justsportstore.com). Roy's response was formulated with advice
garnered from the pgsql mailing list
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2004-01/msg01188.php)
Mr. Roy published this material on Slashdot so I've not redacted addresses,
etc.
[Letterhead, Just Sports USA]
Just Sports USA
6261 Varial Ave, Suite C
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
(818) 719-8623
January 21, 2004
Mr. Philip Langer
Regional Director, Intellectual Property
SCO Group South 520 West Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042
Dear Mr. Langer
I am writing you in response to your letter dated Janary 19th, 2004 in which you
advised that you would consider legal action if we failed to respond to your
efforts to pursue a licensing arrangement. To date, I have yet to receive any
information concerning our systems and what you allege violates your
intellectual property rights. You have sent me letters that conflict with other
statements made by representatives of the SCO Group concerning SCO's ownership
of UNIX ABI's and their supposed (re)distribution under the GPL in the Linux
kernel.
If you would like to detail directly which of our systems allegedly violate your
copyrights, and specifically which code on said systems allegedly violates said
copyrights, we will be happy to do an internal audit to verify your claims. Once
the results of said audit are complete, we will be more than willing discuss any
pending license issues with you.
Our current understanding of your legal situation is that your organization has
yet to prove your claims of SCO intellectual property being included in the GPL
based Linux kernel software that SCO itself has distributed under the GPL. While
I understand your concerns regarding intellectual property and your desire to
protect SCO's property, at this time the legality and claims concerning SCO's
ownership of code that exists in the 2.4 Linux kernel has yet to be determined
by a court of law. I, speaking for myself, follow with interest SCO Group's
contortions in its lawsuits against Novell and IBM, and its defense against the
lawsuit brought by Red Hat. In my study of the events that have transpired,
it's my understanding that SCO Group has yet to produce any substantive
evidence as to the claims regarding code misappropriation by IBM. I am
requesting the SCO group to provide my organization substantive evidence of
alleged copyright violations so that we may compare the alleged violations for
the purpose of internal audit to determine if any licensing needs do indeed
exist. I do, however, intend to publicly document the results of said audit and
any communication with the SCO Group regarding this matter.
Before you waste any more of my time or yours, please detail exact information
such as the offending lines of code and the kernel versions you contend this
code is in. Alternatively if your organization agrees, we can re-address these
issues after your current lawsuits regarding these issues are finalized.
Sincerely,
Gavin M. Roy
Chief Information Officer
Just Sports USA
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 12:43 PM EST |
An IBM senior manager calling Darl at SCO .....
Hey, Darl... I got this Idea. SCO is having problems selling this UNIX thing.
Your company is pretty much on the down side. How about this Idea that I've
got that can make us both pretty rich and stick it to Microsoft. Let us get
some publicity for Linux by... I know.... How about you sue us for something
concerning Linux ... How about IP violation or something like that. We'll blow
this into the press. We'll get a heck of a lot of free publicity for Linux.
Eventually IBM will end up owning SCO and merge whatever we can find of any
value in Unix into Linux. But in the process, we'll all get rich... What ya
think?? Kinda like a bad company, good company idea. And Microsoft will end up
being the big loser. Hell, I bet in the short term, Microsoft will give you
money to fight us.... Give us a chance to get even with those boy's in Redmond
for that PC-DOS vs MS-DOS fiasco.
Darl....
Sound's kinda interesting... But do you think people would think we're off our
bonkers by suing IBM????
IBM.....
Nawwww..... Not if we pull it off right.....
Darl....
Let me think about it. I'll get back to you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kevind on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 12:47 PM EST |
I know that when a "regular" insurance company's client is on the
receiving end of a lawsuit, that the insurance company must establish cash
reserves sufficient to cover the expected settlement if their client loses. The
reserve account means that the insurance company must take money out of high
rate of return investments, and dump them into a settlement account where it
collects dust, even if they ultimately prevail in defending the suit.
I also know most major corporations are "self-insured".
I don't know corporate law, can someone tell me, if Red Hat & friends did
not "layoff" the indemnification to a 3rd party underwriter, would
they be required to set aside cash reserves in the event SCO sues an end-user of
theirs?
Knowing the answer this could open interesting avenues of thought. Obviously,
RH and others would not offer an indemnity if SCO, even if bound to lose in
court, could tie up huge amounts of their cash for a few years by simply filing
some end-user lawsuits for sufficiently large amounts.
So, either:
1. They have re-insured their indemnity to a 3rd party underwriter.
2. Corporate law does not require such an indemnity to establish cash reserves
in the case of pending claims, as it does for a "regular" insurance
entity.
3. RH & company are sure that SCO won't actually sue an end-user, so the
indemnity is really just a press release to counter FUD.
Am I reading the situation here correctly?
KD[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Turing_Machine on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 12:57 PM EST |
| Everyone download this file (just click OK at the
username/password prompt) and IBM should then be able to prove continuous
and notorious distribution of software that SCO has forfeit their right to.
Wouldn't this be a "dirty hands" kind of situation? I'm a coder, and have been
for many years, so it goes without saying, IANAL, etc., but I vaguely remember
from my one and only Business Law class something about "dirty hands" being
something that could have this case thrown out quickly. That being said, I would
prefer if this case was decided on its merits, instead of some sort of
technicality. If this case is summarily dismissed, it leaves the current "cloud
of uncertainty" where it is. I think a decisive judgement is required to really
un-encumber the future of Open Source Software, etc. Still, it would be a nice
addition if everyone here, running Linux or not, was able to download this file,
thereby showing bad faith in their own handling of software licensing. Maybe
another counter-suit FROM the end-users? Some sort of class-action suit? Not
that there will be much of Gaul to divide once IBM is finished, but maybe
opening another front for SCO to have to respond to would hasten their plans,
and finally get all the cards on the table. Again, IANAL, but I am a coder, and
I have personal experience with the benefits of Open Source Software, etc. The
whole world needs to know that their own efforts can not be
taken from them based upon FUD, etc. ---
No, I'm not interested in
developing a powerful brain. All I'm after is just a mediocre brain, something
like the President of the AT&T --Alan Turing [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 01:10 PM EST |
I am sorry to be so blunt, but:
This stupid conspiracy idea is the stupidest stupid thing I've ever heard.
If your theory were true, it would implicate IBM in a massive fraud, probably
criminal, against SCO shareholders.
It your theory were true, it would also implicate IBM in a massive fraud,
probably criminal, against HP, RedHat, Novell, SuSE, all sorts of Linux-related
companies or Linux-offering companies, which include Sun, Oracle, Dell, etc.
If your theory were true, it would also be a massive, probably criminal, abuse
of the courts of process.
Sorry, it is plainly obvious that your theory is not true, and you do not have
one iota of evidence for it either.
IBM is the victim of baseless ligitation. They are not the instigator.
In short:
This stupid conspiracy idea is the stupidest stupid thing I've ever heard.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Joss the Red on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 02:29 PM EST |
What is it like being told by one of IBM's rare official press releases that
IBM plans to not only win the case and the countersuit, but also to use your
company as an example to everyone who might possibly get any stupid ideas?
What is it like to be deloused?
---
I don't even play a lawyer on TV.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 03:00 PM EST |
From the LinuxWorld coverage:
"IBM strongly backed the SuSE acquisition, pledging a $50 million
investment in Novell contingent on the deal's closing. SuSE was the first Linux
seller to support IBM's entire server line--a much broader collection of
products than the Intel processor-based systems in which Linux is most
common."
Two Aha!s:
"$50 million": where have I seen that number before? Oh, yes,
that's the amount in the RBC/Baystar/SCO funding deal last fall. Grin from ear
to ear.
SuSE supports the whole IBM line: that was a brilliant move on someone's part.
Find the richest hardware company on the planet and support the software
they've publicly praised on its whole line. Even slicker: Novell buys them
before IBM can. Wow. I don't know if Novell had Suse's IBM support in their
sights when they bought them, but either way it's a great move.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbeadle on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 03:27 PM EST |
Just saw an article in eWeek about Amazon finishing their migration from Sun
UNIX to Linux running on HP hardware. They expect to be 100% Linux by the end
of the second quarter this year.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1455164,00.asp
Perhaps they really are on SCO's radar...
John[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: atul on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 03:32 PM EST |
Apparently the other UL partners (SuSE/Novell, TurboLinux, Connectiva) have shut
down the partnership because SCO wouldn't leave. They were asked to resign,
but they refused to go. Typical SCO behavior.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5146194.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 03:50 PM EST |
Yet another way Darl has tried to confuse OldSCO and SGOG.
Obviously it worked because I thought Monterey was with SCOG.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Hyrion on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 04:04 PM EST |
My appologies for not droping the article into an HTML link. I haven't gotten
around to becoming familiar with HTML yet.
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,89335,00.html
Now my understanding, and IANAL, is that if you knowingly participate in
something illegal you are in for a world of hurt. For example, if you knowingly
purchase a stolen product you can be charged with at the very least possesion of
stolen goods. You could also get dinged with being an accomplice, especially if
you sell it shortly after that (a fence).
On one hand, SCOX claims that Linux and the GPL are illegal and
unconstitutional.
On the other hand, SCOX is attempting to License Linux.
As near as I can see it, SCOX has to drop one of those two lines of attack. If
they don't, they are clearly setting themselves up for a world of hurt.
A) If they know that Linux and the GPL are illegal, by attempting to license
said illegal activity they are playing a very visible part of the activity.
B) If they know that Linux and the GPL are Legal then they have just knowingly
lied to not only Congress but also everyone else including their stock holders.
I don't know why someone would deliberatly set themselves up like that and I'm
not sure I want to know.
Is anyone aware of statements made by McBride on the two issues above that we
can directly point to and say: he was fully, 100% aware therefore no plausible
deniability. Or even the board of directors as a whole? Maybe a letter (public
as well as directly delivered in a tracable fashion?) to the SCOX Board of
Directors pointing that out would help clarify things.
I believe SCOX is simply panicking. They really need to stop, take a breather,
and shut up if they want to limit how much damage they're responsible for.
Let me know if my viewpoint on the above is faulty.
---
There are many kinds of dreams. All can be reached if a person chooses. - RS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: radix2 on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 05:20 PM EST |
erm PJ. I think you mean the GNU Hurd :o)
For those of you who don't
know, the GNU project was and is working on an OS Kernel of it's own. The
upstart Linux came along and usurped Hurd's place in the whole GNU
project...
from
http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html
"The GNU Hurd is the GNU
project's replacement for the Unix kernel. The Hurd is a collection of servers
that run on the Mach microkernel to implement file systems, network protocols,
file access control, and other features that are implemented by the Unix kernel
or similar kernels (such as Linux).
Currently, the Hurd runs on IA32
machines. The Hurd should, and probably will, be ported to other hardware
architectures or other microkernels in the future. "
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 05:41 PM EST |
SCO Discovery response specifies that Linux Lines xyz (Linux Code) are from SCO
SVX Lines rst (SCO Code.)
1-IBM says that it is header files, interface codes that are open and can't be
proprietary. they lhave been opened and encouraged by SCO itself.
2-IBM says the Linux Code is different on its face and denies it is from SCO
Code.
3-IBM says that if the Linux Code is not found to be different, then it is not
from other IBM Code.
4-IBM says that if it is our code, It is our original code.
5-IBM says that if it is not found to be their original code, then it is not
from SCO Code, but their AIX or Dynix Code.
6-IBM says that this AIX or Dyniz Code is not derived SCO Code but their own
work.
7-IBM says that if this Linux Code is from AIX Code which is derived from SCO
Code, then they have a contractual right.
8-IBM says that if we may not do so by contract then the code is not exclusive,
original SCO Code but a coinciding derivitive of earlier released unix code such
as BSD.
9-IBM says that it is licensed to use such Code by Novell. It is Novell's
Code.
10-IBM says that SCO employees wrote the code and donated it to Linux per order
of SCO.
11-IBM says that SCO released the code itself under the GPL and continues to do
so. They got some copies themselves.
12-IBM says that Linus says he wrote the Code.
SCO's claim has merit if they win every argument on every line of code.
---
webster
Recent Windows refugee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tintak on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 05:42 PM EST |
Hi All. Interesting piece on the Beeb website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3422853.stm
---
What shape should a weathervane be?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PM on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 07:44 PM EST |
Congress members no doubt receive crackpot letters all of the time. The more
serious ones would be referred to the FBI or Secret Service. The ordinary ones
would get scant attention.
It begs the question of why Darl's letters would receive any more attention
than those from the average crackpot.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 08:55 PM EST |
I can see SCO after court:
Our case being thrown out with Prejudice proves we have a real case .....
<g>
---
Litigation is no sustituite for Innovation.
IMHO IANAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveAtFraud on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 09:12 PM EST |
Where on the scale of:
"completely without merit"
"utterly without merit"
"utterly and completely without merit"
does "zero merit" fall?
---
Quietly implementing RFC 1925 wherever I go.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: waldotim on Friday, January 23 2004 @ 09:49 PM EST |
> Darl likes to tell it that Linux destroyed Unix. This author
> says it was institutional greed. You know what institutional
> greed is, don't you, Mr. McBride? If not, I believe the rest
> of us could explain the concept using a modern-day example.
There's another great quote to put in my ~/.signatures directory. Thanks again
Ms. Jones, and keep up the good work!
-Tim[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
