decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux
Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 08:15 AM EDT

UPDATED on May 28, 2004

I gather SCO reads Groklaw. You will find that the links that all worked the day this article was published have now joined the missing MIT scientists SCO used to claim they had but who have since disappeared. It's like the old Chilean government. One day here, then poof. Not a hair left behind. Creepy. And pointless. We all saved a copy for a rainy day, knowing with whom we are dealing. I would suggest you not even click on the links, not unless you want the referring web site recorded. And who knows what else.

The OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint mentions a page oldSCO has since removed from its site, "SCO, Open Source and Linux":

"In a web page from 2000, (since removed from their site) old SCO repeated this theme: 'The concept of collaborative development and shared source has been ubiquitous in the UNIX system industry from the beginning. Today, the Internet has magnified that trend dramatically and led to the exciting phenomenon that is Linux.'

"Between the time Caldera acquired SCO in 2001 and early 2003, SCO/Caldera continued to trumpet its commitment to Linux and boast of its plans to merge leading-edge Linux technology into its UnixWare source code. This reflected the market reality that the UnixWare code base was generally perceived to be old, tired, and out of date."

There is a footnote 30, that points you to Wayback Archive's copy, but while it seems to work now, once I got this message:

"Robots.txt Retrieval Exclusion.

We're sorry, access to has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt."

I decided to try to find the page elsewhere, just in case it disappeared. A Groklaw reader found a copy of the page at, but then I got busy with Grokline, and today, when I went back for it, I find it no longer works. Now I have found it on another active site. Whether or not this is a deliberate scrubbing operation or just the Internet at work and play, I thought it a valuable addition to our permanent collection of the history of this case. I discovered that the page has some interesting links as well.

Following links to links, I ended up finding a mother lode of old press releases, going back to 1998, including:

  • the announcement[broken link] of Caldera's purchase from oldSCO of their SCO Server Software Division and the Professional Services Division in August of 2000
  • the announcement[broken link] of the release of the Linux Kernel Personality
  • a February 2000 press release called "SCO Unveils Linux Strategy"[broken link]
  • one from 1999, which shows that it was oldSCO, not Caldera, that entered into the Project Monterey agreement with IBM
  • another[broken link] that shows that IBM really did try to make Project Monterey go. The two companies did some seminars, selling Project Monterey across the country in 1999. They called it "the SCO and IBM Retail Technology Seminar Series - a free, one-day seminar that brings industry experts together and educates retailers about the benefits of UNIX on Intel eBusiness and Monterey/64."

Here[broken link] is a press release about SCO donating UnixWare 7 code to Korean universities:

"Continuing its commitment to its Free UNIX License Program, SCO (NASDAQ: SCOC) today announced the donation of UnixWare 7 operating system product and licenses to ten National Universities throughout Korea for educational use and research. SCO will also license its UnixWare 7 source code product to the computer science department at Seoul National University, the cutting-edge computer study environment in Korea."

And on October 14, 1999, in this press release[broken link] about SCO's investment in LinuxMall, SCO said it had been involved with Linux for five years, so obviously being involved in Project Monterey was not considered a bar to also being simultaneously involved in Linux:

"'SCO has a long history in the Open Systems and Open Source movements,' said Doug Michels, president and CEO of SCO. 'We have been distributing Open Source offerings for over five years as part of our product line. is a fast-growing company with a very compelling business model. The opportunity provides SCO with a way to pursue new business opportunities in the Linux marketplace with a partner that is distribution neutral.'"

In fact, in another press release[broken link], when SCO "announced it has plans to license key software and source code to the open source community", namely SAR, in 1999, note that SCO's CEO thought openness was good for business:

"'The open source model is very positive for the entire software industry,' said Doug Michels, president and CEO of SCO. 'The concept of many individuals working without commercial intent has played a large role in the innovation and success of UNIX and open systems. We appreciate this opportunity to support the open source community and are releasing SAR to help solve system analysis problems across multiple platforms.'"

That press release also mentions that SCO was a member of Project UDI (Uniform Driver Interface). "This project will make driver development totally independent from operating system development."

That led me to discover Project UDI's list of press releases. The one from February 2001 announcing SCO releasing the UDI supplement for UnixWare 7 is no longer on SCO's site (it was at Note the sentence:

"In August 2000, Caldera Systems, Inc., providers of OpenLinux platforms, announced plans to purchase the SCO Server Software Division and Professional Services Division. 'UDI reinforces our vision for the unification of UNIX and Linux operating systems that the new Caldera International will deliver,' continued Harker."

Another, from December 23, 1999, which used to be at is now here. Here are a couple more on UDI and SCO.

If you would like to deep dive too, just note the list of press releases on the left of any of the press releases linked to above, such as this one[broken link], which I suggest you visit quickly, before they disappear. You might enjoy this link[broken link] that will lead you to a picture of Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie receiving the 1998 US National Medal of Technology from President Clinton in 1999. I'm thinking we should add a page on Grokline for such things.

The August 21, 2000 press release about LKP mentions that they gave away free beta copies of it at Forum2000:

"Customers will be able to receive a free beta copy of LKP this week at Forum2000, co-hosted by The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. and Caldera Systems, Inc. Last week, SCO previewed the LKP at LinuxWorld Expo in San Jose.

"LKP for UnixWare 7 will be available in December and included with the next version of UnixWare 7."

If you got one, could you let me know if you still have it?

SCO today claims to be oldSCO in its legal papers and on its web site, but the press releases present the true history of the two companies, oldSCO (Santa Cruz Operation, now Tarantella), and Caldera (now The SCO Group). You can read the 2000 press release announcing SCO's name change[broken link] to Tarantella, showing its survival after the Caldera acquisition.

So here, for you historians (and lawyers), is the oldSCO view of open source, the text of the "SCO, Open Source and Linux" web page, with some commentary by me in purple and some more interesting links.


SCO, Open Source and Linux

The concept of collaborative development and shared source has been ubiquitous in the UNIX system industry from the beginning. Today, the Internet has magnified that trend dramatically and led to the exciting phenomenon that is Linux.

[ Note that back then, there was full acknowledgment that UNIX was an open and collaborative development environment, and that sharing source was "ubiquitous" from the beginning of UNIX. I hate to ruin SCO's day, but this flies in the face of their claims that they carefully kept their software a closely guarded secret. It also makes their aspersions on Linux even sillier, as if their code comes from known sources and Linux is open and collaborative. That is exactly how UNIX was born and nurtured, until somebody decided to close it off and make some money from it, which resulted in its balkanization and eventual mummification, which is exactly why it is now in danger of dying.]

As the leading provider of UNIX Server operating systems with over 20 years' experience in UNIX systems, Intel platforms, open systems and Open Source technologies, SCO is the ideal partner for customers who are evaluating Linux and UNIX solutions for their business. SCO is a company that understands business critical computing, and is the ideal source for professional services to assist customers with all their server evaluation and deployment needs, including Linux and Open Source products.

SCO offers extensive UNIX on Intel and Open Source expertise, possibly more than any other software company in the world. SCO also provides a full range of Server-based products including commercial UNIX Server operating systems that provide applications compatibility and interoperability with Linux, Professional Services offerings, and Tarantella web-enabling software for a wide range of UNIX and Linux Systems. With these products and services SCO can provide businesses with a comprehensive and integrated UNIX environment that spans workstations, entry-level servers, mid-range business servers and the data-center.

A corporate sponsor of Linux International, SCO has always supported open standards, UNIX Systems and server-based technologies and solutions that benefit business computing. Our engineers have continuously participated in the Open Source movement, providing source code such as lxrun, and the OpenSAR kernel monitoring utility. We offer a free Open Source software supplement that includes many Open Source technologies as well as making our commercial UNIX products available free for non-commercial use.

[So, SCO has always supported open standards and their engineers have participated in the Open Source movement, they say. This tends to confirm Groklaw's December 12, 2003 research report in which Tigran Aivazian said his SMP contributions to the Linux kernel while at SCO were approved by his supervisor. Note they also say SCO was a member of Linux International. If you go to the linked LI page, you will find that they are listed and so is Caldera Systems, Inc. listed as a corporate sponsor of LI, since August of 1995. So, oldSCO and Caldera were obviously not the same company, despite current SCO's claims to be oldSCO. Their link to LI still works, but the link to their offer of free UNIX for noncommercial use now forbids entry. Obviously back then, it worked. You can still use the link to their Skunkware, but the lxrun link is broken. You can find it, though, on Wayback. It starts like this:

"One of the main reasons many developers are attracted to UNIX® systems as a development and deployment platform is the 'Open' nature of the operating system."]

And, more recently, our investments in Caldera, TurboLinux and enable us to engage a wider Open Source community and reflects our continuing support of Open Source and UNIX on Intel.


oldSCO, Open Source and Linux | 296 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here Please
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 08:11 AM EDT
Please collect all my mistakes here in one place, so I can find them easily.

[ Reply to This | # ]

New Urls and Updates here please
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 08:22 AM EDT
Much good luck with grokline, congrats PJ and comunity!

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 08:25 AM EDT
Outstanding. Are you grabbing all of these and putting into the Groklaw archive
so even if the disappear they be there for us to look at?

ken king

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux - Webrot and scrubbing
Authored by: hairylarry on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 08:36 AM EDT
Links that die are part of the web and scrubbing, the deliberate deletion of
sensitive articles, makes things worse.

How can someone legally preserve contents of pages that might be scrubbed?

Perhaps a printout including the url? Should it be notarized to affirm the date
printed? Any other ideas?


Hairy Larry

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO's self description
Authored by: DrStupid on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 08:41 AM EDT
Note that oldSCO describe themselves in the press release not as the owner of
UNIX but merely "the world's leading provider of UNIX operating

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux
Authored by: arch_dude on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 08:45 AM EDT
This is very important. SCOG's tenuous theory is that their own release of Linux
under the GPL does not count, since they were unaware that their newly-acquired
UNIX SVRx copyrights were being violated by Linux.

However, we now have substantial evidence that their predecessor in interest,
oldSCO, was in fact very knowledgable about Linux. oldSCO was aware, or should
have been aware, of any infringements of the UNIX SVRx copyrights in Linux. They
aquiesced in any such infringement. Therefore, they either sold "damaged
goods" to SCOG, or there was some understanding between the companies that
there were no infringed copyrights.

What we really need to nail this down is a copy of Linux, released by oldSCO,
before the business was sold to newSCO.

Almost as good would be a release of Linux by a consortium that oldSCO was a
member of, prior to the sale of the business.

If we can find either, we destroy SCOG's last remaining tenuous claim, because
the code would have been knowingly GPL'ed by its owner prior to becoming SCOG's
property. This assuems it was ever legitimately copyrighted in the first place,
and that the copyrights ever conveyed to oldSCO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 08:48 AM EDT
Wayback link works for me, still a good idea to preserve these things though,
just in case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO claiming to be OldSCO is silly
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 08:50 AM EDT
It amazes me to see the persistence of NewSCO to be claim being OldSCO in the
courts and the media. I can see the FUD value in the media, but in courts this
is just suicidal. Do they really believe opposing lawyers can't present the
appropriate document in front of a judge? This is a simple and easily
understandable proof this lawsuit is about misrepresenting reality in the hope
of a selfish gain. This will come to bite them when it will be payback time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux
Authored by: meat straw on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 09:00 AM EDT
Has anyone tried to get in touch the oldSCO press contact? Clearly, it's a shot
in the dark, but who knows? It's worth trying.

Press Contact:
Jodi Reinman
The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Tel: 831-427-7047

[ Reply to This | # ]

[OT] Interesting Headline
Authored by: 920 on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 09:01 AM EDT
Biggest Utah cities show jump in crime From the Salt Lake Tribune. Just struck me as funny seeing that knowing who's based in Utah :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 09:11 AM EDT
I find it fascinating that SCO believes linux users lack the knowlege and
creativity to be able to create code without "borrowing" it from them.
This is laughable and tells me that they simply want more money. If you follow
CSO's line of logic then the creators of the first assembler language should be
getting a kick back from all subsequent programs as they all get converted to
binary for the computers to use anyway. I hope CSO falls flat on their faces
vindicating the open souce method that is making Linux one of the most popular
operating systems.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: nvanevski on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 09:24 AM EDT
Ok, since I come from the Balkans myself (i.e. from Macedonia), anyone
native-Enlish speaking care to explain the term "Balkanization"? I
have a vague feeling that it has something to do with all the wars and divisions
here, but I'd like to know the context.

Oh, and a little side-note : Here in Macedonia, we programmers are trying hard
to "linuxate" the Balkan :) especially since the government made a
deal with the devil himself (MS) for buying MS products for government usage...
I think that Groklaw will have lot of influence on our success (if we have any).

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 09:38 AM EDT
When you detect incriminating pages moving, disappearing or being scrubbed, the thing to do is ask the people at The Memory Hole to preserve a copy for you. If the page is totally gone already, you might still be able to find it in Google's cache.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Stowell STILL says SCO code in Linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 09:40 AM EDT

Nonetheless, SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said the proposal was an admission that "the Linux gatekeepers [had done] little to verify the cleanliness of the code that was being submitted."

"This is the very reason why inappropriate contributions of SCO's Unix code and Unix derivatives made their way into Linux," he added. "While this is a step in the right direction for the future of Linux, they are closing the barn door after the horse has already bolted."
I rather hope this one appears in an IBM filing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 09:49 AM EDT
Having seen what old SCO was, and knowing what new SCO could have been, it saddens me to see what its current officers have chosen to make of it.

Greed always has its payback. It may be long in coming, but it will be devastating when it comes.

What goes around comes around, and it grows as it goes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My confidence in Linux and Open Source
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 09:58 AM EDT
I have this sense of security that Linux and Open Source are here to stay
because of the latest developments on with the advent of the and the methods and dedication of pulling documents from the attics
and basements of the internet to subvert the old tried-and-true way of
litigating a company, an idea, or a concept out of existence. What worked on
OS/2 Warp, Novell Dos 7, and the Amiga to remove the technology from the
marketplace so that only "Microsoft" technology was present does not
work now because of the OPENNESS of the internet.

And maybe I won't change careers because now I know someone (in general) cares
in this industry about the consumer, the market, and ultimately, my family and
myself. I feel like this part of America is not going to the dogs (Microsoft,)
because of efforts like Groklaw, IBM (see "Kill Bill" @,)
Novell, Linux SIGs, and many more. Significant people are getting involved and
putting money on the line for an OS and software nobody owns but commonly
shares. They are taking a risk for something they can't see right now, but have
a vision of freedom, not a Monopoly, for the future in computing. I never
thought it would ever turn out like this in my 24 years in personal computing.

Just like we didn't "find" WMD in Iraq, we took out the living WMD,
Saddam Hussien. And we need to do the same here by bringing Microsoft to justice
for unjust business practices we can't readily prove yet (do you really think
the DOJ cares about Netscape.) The truth will be revealed in time if we keep the
effort up. Look at what happened to WorldCom and Emron. I believe Microsoft is
the new mafia in organized crime and terrorism. Microsoft is the WMD of the
world computer market.

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux
Authored by: Sauja on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 10:07 AM EDT
You can still get it on wayback.

I you fill in the search box with and set the year to
2000, then click the "Take me back" button, you should get a hit for
Aug. 16 2000.

So even if they manage to clean up thier own sites, the internet still


[ Reply to This | # ]

Can we see any of these
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 10:12 AM EDT

153 - Exhibits 1 to 42
154 - Declaration of Daniel Frye
156 - Declaration of Amy F. Sorenson
157 - Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy

Red Hat v SCO

37 - Declaration of Josy W. Ingersoll, Esq. in Support of D.I
38 - Letter to Judge Robinson from J. Ingersoll
39 - Answer Brief Filed by SCO Group Inc. [35-1] motion for Reconsideration of
[34-1] order - Reply Brief due 5/11/04 (ft) [Entry date 05/05/04]

(I guess there must be a 40 as well, Reply Brief by RH)


I understand there are new filings in both cases

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux
Authored by: mhoyes on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 10:24 AM EDT
I started looking and here is a news article from CNN that was posted on June 19, 2000. In it, they have some interesting comments, like this talking about them getting into the Linux business:
(IDG) -- Companies lacking faith in the pack of young companies selling Linux will soon have the option of buying a version of Linux delivered by a relative old-timer: The Santa Cruz Operation.

SCO, which has been around for more than 20 years, this week will unveil plans for its own brand of Linux, one that will come with the kinds of management, clustering and Web serving technologies that have helped the company become a leading Unix supplier. On top of that, the company has a network of 15,000 resellers and development partners, plus a support organization.

So that shows that they were thinking of the all the features that The SCO group are complaining about.

Then to show the separation, they also had this paragraph:

While SCO may be rolling out its Linux distribution long after Red Hat and Caldera hit the market with theirs, SCO is no open source Johnny-come-lately. The company offers support services to Caldera and TurboLinux customers. In addition, the company's Tarantella middleware supports Linux, as will Monterey, the Intel-based version of Unix that SCO is building with IBM.

So, here they are separate from Caldera, and also shows the Monterey connection to oldSCO.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw Foundation
Authored by: stephenry on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 10:25 AM EDT
Having been keeping up with the interesting discussions about the AdTI on the
Yahoo Message board I came up with a thought. Why does Groklaw not become a
foundation, much like the GNOME or Apache Foundations? I would sure like to
donate money to Groklaw to see it expand (yearly subscriptions to further
investigations and research) and I a tax-free foundation would be able to
further such a goal.


Stephen Henry

[ Reply to This | # ]

monterey and good faith
Authored by: codswallop on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 10:42 AM EDT
SCO's Monterey claims are some the stronger ones in its case against IBM. As their other claims begin to be pruned, these will become more imortant. They may not be valid, but they don't require any bizarre legal theories or twisted reading of contracts. But what sorts of claims are these, really? Because SCO is posing as Santa Cruz, this isn't very clear from its filings. There are 3 sorts of claims, as I see it.

1) that it was damaged by IBM's failure to live up to representations to or agreements with Caldera before or during the acquisition causing Caldera to do a deal it otherwise wouldn't have or would have done cheaper

2) that as the successor to Santa Cruz in Monterey, it was damaged directly by IBM's non-performance after the acquisitiom of agreements that IBM made in bad faith with Santa Cruz or later with Caldera as the Monterey successor.

3) that it is the successsor to whatever claims Santa Cruz had against IBM for non-performance before and during the acquisition.

1 is the weakest. Given that Caldera renegotiated the deal, SCO can only claim damages based on the terms under which IBM agreed the project would continue under Caldera. Other than representations by IBM, Caldera had not other valid reasons for believing IBM would continue Monterey or would do so on the same or similar terms. The Monterey agreement says:

Notwithstanding Section 15.1, IBM shall have the right to terminate this Agreement immediately upon the occurrence of a Change of Control of SCO which IBM in its sole discretion determines will substantially and adversely impact the overall purpose of the cooperation set forth by this Agreement and applicable Project Supplements or will create a significant risk or material and adverse exposure of IBM's confidential and/or technical proprietary information (which is subject to, and to the extent of, confidentiality restrictions) ("Information").
There were a number of press release about IBM's back as far as 1998, and SCO has shown no evidence of any IBM agreements with it directly about Monterey.

2 isn't a lot better. Any non-performance would have to be before the acquisition, because as far as I can tell from reading the agreement, any IBM representations concerning supporting Monterey would end if IBM ended the project. Since it was entitled to do this in the event of a change in control, SCO would have to shpw that IBM agreed to continue Monterey. It would also have to show what terms IBM continued it under and that IBM violated these terms.

Neither side has said anything factual about the terms under which Monterey continued with Caldera, or even that it did continue. SCO claim that IBM announced the project was dead in May 2001, but IBM had been saying similar things since August 2000. The important thing is whether there was an offical notice of cancellation, and what it said. If there was no formal cancellation, what documents are there concerning how the project would continue.

IBM's problem here is that if they didn't formally cancel the project, they could be bound to what they agreed to with Santa Cruz. This was to port a significant amount of IBM software to Monterey, such as Message-Q, DB2 and Tivoli. There are indications that they did most or all of this. They also announced with Santa Cruz, a major marketing effort for Monterey. It's fairly clear they didn't make such an effort, but were they still obligated to?

3) Since it's not clear that IBM didn't completely honor the agreement before the acquisition (at least before the announcement of it), the only possible claims are for interfering with the acquisition or acting in bad faith by pursuing its Linux initiative and hiding this from Santa Cruz. In order to have a strong case, SCO would have to show that IBM started this duplicity before the start of the agreement, and that Santa Cruz was ignorant of IBM's plans.

There's too much evidence from press releases and interviews on both sides to make this very believeable.

What would be nice would be to make a collection of press releases and interviews about Monterey from 1998-2000 , particularly before the start date of the IBM-Santa Cruz agreement - OCT. 23, 1998.

Also, Monterey had a number of other members, including Sequent and Intel (members before IBM was), Compaq and later Oracle. We don't know anything about what part they played in the death of Monterey. Did they back out first? Was it their cold feet that persuaded IBM Monterey had no future?

The Merced delay announcements were happening regularly during 1998-2000. It was originally scheduled for 1999, but shipped in 2001. It was too slow, too hot, wouldn't run legacy code and required expensive RDRAM. Articles predicting the death of Merced started appearing in the summer of 1998. By fall 2000, it was clear Merced was going to be a disaster, and Intel started talking about it as pilot project for their next generation 64 bit chip - McKinley, to be out in 2002. Given this, 64 bit Monterey on Intel couldn't be expected to have significant sales until the end of 2003 at best. In fact, such a prediction would have been seriously overoptimistic. Even with today's installed base, it would be niche product, small compared with Apples OS X, invisible compared to Linux.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unix decay and pending extinction
Authored by: PJP on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 11:01 AM EDT
That is exactly how UNIX was born and nurtured, until somebody decided to close it off and make some money from it, which resulted in its balkanization and eventual mummification, which is exactly why it is now in danger of dying.

This is true, but it is not the complete picture. Unix development slowed considerably when it was closed off by AT&T's actions. The development that did take place was from AT&T trying to make it "commercial" by adding in what they thought were essential items (such as the System V Inter Process Communications components).

But the real killer (IMHO) was the fracturing caused by the introduction of many, many incompatible "features" added by companies trying to make their version of Unix stand out from the crowd. This is something which (again, MHO) is a serious threat to Linux.

Perhaps the biggest threat to Linux, as well as its potential future is its commercialization - not that commercialization in itself is bad, it makes Linux face up to its deficiences and someone, somewhere, will have to go and write that boring and anything but sexy code to fill in the gaps which otherwise would remain - but the methods that the Linux distributors are using to maximise their profits also have the potential to kill Linux as effectively as it mortaly wounded Unix.

I am talking about the completely artificial packaging of Linux into home, pro, server etc. packages. This is a direct rip-off of Microsoft's business practices, with exactly the same motive - extract the maximum amount of money from their customer base.

I have the latest Solaris distribution sitting on my desk. Its not a "home", distribution, its not a "pro" distribution and its not a "server" distribution, its a SOLARIS distribution, and guess what? The same distribution will hapilly install and configure on anything from a single CPU desktop workstation to a full-blows 128 CPU top-end server. There is absolutely no reason why Linux distributions shouldn't be the same.

We also went through the different window-manager wars with Unix, which was another killer, and only too late was an effort made to standardise on the window manager that HP had produced. We seem to be destined to repeat the exersise with Linux, we need a really usable and lightweight, standard destop/window manager, without it, Linux is dead, still kicking, but destined to whither and die and leave the world to Microsoft.

Its far from a done deal that Linux won't follow the same path to oblivion. To avoid this some people are going to have to sacrifice a potential few percent of possible profits, and developers are going to have to let go of their resistance to change and accept that their favorite pieces of software may have to go, or morph considerably for the greater good.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Skunkware and lxrun in recent times
Authored by: moogy on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 11:12 AM EDT
I had written a command line tool for someone that
collects a list of dir's and files from an ftp server
and lists them in human readable format.
I decided to turn it loose on the 2 sco/caldera ftp
sites I am aware of. As of April 29, 2004 shows all of a Skunkware distribution
along with lxrun still being available. There were,
however, some 364 empty skunkware dir's. Following
is a list of the lxrun related files still found.





Mike Tuxford - #Groklaw
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
then they fight you, then you win. --Gandhi

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux
Authored by: John Hasler on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 11:20 AM EDT
All the talk about "unification" of Unix and Linux really makes me
want to root around in Unixware and the LKP for bits of Linux code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

UDI and Linux
Authored by: n0ano on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 11:25 AM EDT
For my sins I have to admit that I'm the one who first ported UDI to Linux and, I have to say, there really was no conspiracy there and no issues with contaminated source files or anything.

The driving idea behind UDI was an attempt to solve the `new hardware requires multiple drivers for every OS in the world'. The problem being that the HW manufacturers just created one driver for Windows that covered 90% of the market and then just ignored everybody else. The UDI people realized that attempting to create a binary standard was impossible, there were too many different binary formats, architectures and OS quirks to deal with. Instead they created a source standard, basically a source level API, that provided all of the support infrastructure that a driver would need. A HW manufacturer could write their driver using this source API and then merely re-compile that source, with not changes, for any OS they wanted to support. The standard was pretty baroque (design by committee will do that) but it did the job, we got UDI drivers for SCSI and ethernet working without too much difficulty.

Personally, even though I ported UDI to Linux, I never understood why this was necessary for Linux. Linux already had a source API standard, it was called the Linux kernel. Why did we need another API layered on top of that? If you wanted a standard source API just write your driver for Linux and provide a Linux driver layer on top of the other OS's. Nobody listened to me (I came in way too late to influence the design anyway) so I just did what my boss said and ported UDI to Linux.

Anyway, back to the source issues with UDI. I honestly don't remember what license we used for the source. Since UDI was a collaboration of many companies (original SCO, Adaptec, Interphase just to name a few) it clearly was not copyrighted exclusively by SCO. In fact, looking at the UDI home page it looks like UDI is release under a BSD license so I don't think current SCO can cause any mischief here.

"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux
Authored by: kberrien on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 11:34 AM EDT
>to ten National Universities throughout Korea for educational use and research.

This suggests that the Unix code is there for the students to learn, perhaps modify. How can you bark about things like ABI files (which is just facts), derivative works, access to source tainting - when you give licenses and source for the purpose of education, and Computer Science.

I guess this is just another one of those, look at the wookie things.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jodi Reinman, oldSCO and Caldera
Authored by: SoundChaser on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 12:07 PM EDT
As I was (as several others have) looking to see if I could identify where Jodi Reinman was working now, I came accross another joint press release from Informix and SCO on June 7, 2000: Informix Dynamic Server.2000 Now Certified For SCO-UnixWare 7 NonStop Clusters. There is an interesting paragraph:

    About SCO

    SCO (NASDAQ: SCOC) is a global leader in server-based software for networked business computing. The market-leading UNIX server software from SCO runs non-stop businesses worldwide. The Tarantella family of software products provides instant Web access to applications running on all leading servers, enabling businesses to access and manage information anywhere, anytime. SCO Professional Services help businesses plan, deploy and maintain UNIX, Linux and Tarantella environments. Visit SCO on the Web at

What's interesting is that this is less than 3 years before they filed their lawsuit, and at this point (if I am doing my math correctly...) this is newSCO acknowledging their involvement with Linux, Tarantella. And, at this point, they are actually using the name "Caldera". Note that in a later press release (SCO Receives Go Ahead From SEC), from March 2001, they are claiming "The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. is comprised of three independent divisions", but not referencing the Caldera website as they did in the earlier press release.

Also, with a little more digging around, the last SCO Press Release that I could find with Jodi Reinman's name on it is from August, 2000 (Caldera and SCO Unveil First Steps Along the Path To a Linux and UNIX Marriage -- rather ironic given today's situation), while the earliest HDS press release I could find with Jodi's name in it was around June, 2001 (S torage Networking Industry Leaders Forge Breakthrough Interoperability Initiatives).

Interesting coincidence that SCOC / Caldera filed their reorganization notice with the SEC in August, 2000: SCO Receives Go Ahead From SEC. After August 2000, SCO's press releases don't have Jodi's name on them (at least I dind't find any via Google). Notice the SEC approval took seven months. Three months after the approval (in March 2001), Jodi Reinman "shows up" at HDS.

Obviously, there isn't anything definitive in this information, however it does point to the possibility (my emphasis) that Jodi was around at the beginning of the SCO reorg-shuffle, and may have some insight into the whole situation. Especially about the time frame from August 2000 - August 2001.

[ Reply to This | # ]

lxrun &c.
Authored by: gormanly on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 12:15 PM EDT

Have anyone taken a proper look at Lxrun, or is it generally thought unimportant?

Lxrun appears to have been written by Michael Davidson and others at SCO. According to Caldera/SCO, it's "now maintained as a Skunkware project", but their page suggests SCO customers should:

  • "visit the canonical Lxrun web site" (text linked to
  • "Read the Lxrun FAQ" (")
  • "Vis it our ftp site containing source, binaries and linux libs" (

The project homepage describes Davidson as having "released the source code into the public domain" in 1997. The web site appears to date from October that year, and be run by Steve Ginzburg, the maintainer, who seems to have worked at SCO that summer.

Most of the files in the Lxrun tar archive contain copyright notices from Michael Davidson, and a few from Steve Ginzburg. The most interesting, though are

  • procfs.c: * Copyright (C) 1998,1999 SCO Inc
  • procfs.h: * Copyright (C) 1998, 1999 SCO Inc

which seems to indicate that SCO were at least giving their blessing to the project.

Of the 25 header files under the directory "include/linux/" in this archive, the only one bearing a copyright notice is from OSS:

  • include/linux/soundcard.h: * Copyright by Hannu Savolainen 1993-1996

The other files in this directory are (for the 0.9.5 release)

  • a.out.h
  • ioctl.h
  • resource.h
  • sigcont ext.h
  • statfs.h
  • types.h
  • elf.h
  • ipc.h
  • sche d.h
  • signal.h
  • stat.h
  • utsname.h
  • errno.h
  • mman.h
  • sem.h
  • socket.h
  • sysinfo.h
  • vtkd.h
  • fcntl.h
  • msg.h
  • shm.h
  • termios.h
  • wait.h

parts of which are identical to parts of files with the same name in the "linux/include/linux/" directory of kernel tarballs. What was Caldera/SCO's take on header files again? Just asking, as I checked the Lxrun "elf.h", and it's clearly the same file as that in Linux 1.3, between linux-1.3.22 (Sep 1 1995) and linux-pre2.0.7 (May 21 1996)...

More info on lxrun, and other stuff from 1997, on the 86open FAQ.

Current membership in the group reflects perspectives from Be Inc. BeOS, BSDI BSD/OS, Caldera Linux, Debian GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Red Hat Linux, SCO® (OpenServer and UnixWare), Sunsoft Solaris, Intel® and The Open Group.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: short interest update
Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 12:15 PM EDT
Just when it seems shorting has leveled out, along comes a 42% jump for
March-April. More than one in four SCO stockholders is expecting SCO to go
belly up Real Soon Now.

Apr. 15, 2004 3,952,844
Mar. 15, 2004 2,777,603
Feb. 13, 2004 2,407,088
Jan. 15, 2004 2,141,937
Dec. 15, 2003 2,057,561
Nov. 14, 2003 1,616,098
Oct. 15, 2003 925,518
Sep. 15, 2003 894,777
Aug. 15, 2003 458,520
Jul. 15, 2003 391,346
Jun. 13, 2003 276,810
May 15, 2003 33,397

Interesting to see that Royce Technology Value Fund (aka Jonathan Cohen's),
SCO's biggest institutional holder is gradually shedding SCO:

Royce Technology Value Fund:
Top-Ten Holdings as of 4/30/04
The SCO Group (SCO) 4.7% of fund
Top 10 Holdings as of Quarter-End, 3/31/2004
SCO Group (The) 5.7% of fund

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux
Authored by: mrx on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 12:50 PM EDT
I don't think newSCO regularly cleans out its servers!

No, I didn't route that though Wayback Machine!

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: SCO 2004 Forum
Authored by: geoff lane on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 01:17 PM EDT
While having a browse in the session info for the SCO 2004 forum I found the following as the last item...

Selling SCO IP Licenses - Kitrina Shafer-Broughton

A Kitrina Shafer used to work for Acrylis, Inc (a company that sold Linux software), as did Reg Broughton who is now SCO Senior Vice President of International Operations.

Looks like there is still a little love in Utah :-)

Sadly for Kitrina I expect her to be talking to an empty room.

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 01:18 PM EDT
Caldera Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: CALD) is the leader in Unifying UNIX with Linux for Business. Caldera specializes in the development, deployment and management of UNIX and Linux-based clients and servers.
Emphasis is mine. Caldera (aka The SCO Group), the leader in Unifying UNIX and Linux, filed a lawsuit against IBM for something doing something they proudly proclaimed in press releases. This is just too funny.

Hopefully someone is mirroring what is left before it disappears.

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 01:49 PM EDT
http://artemis.sco. com/press/releases/2000/6942.html
Details of the Agreement

Caldera Systems, Inc. will form a new holding company, Caldera, Inc., to acquire assets from the SCO Server Software Division plus the SCO Professional Services Division, including a highly skilled workforce, products and channel resources. Caldera, Inc. will have exclusive distribution rights for the SCO OpenServer product line, and is fully committed to servicing and supporting the SCO OpenServer customer base.

SCO will receive 28% of Caldera, Inc., which is estimated to be an aggregate of approximately 17.54 million shares of Caldera stock (including approximately 2 million shares reserved for employee options assumed by Caldera for options currently held by SCO employees joining Caldera), and $7 million in cash. In conjunction with the acquisition, The Canopy Group, Inc., a major stockholder of Caldera Systems, Inc., has agreed to loan $18 million to SCO. SCO will retain its Tarantella Division, and the SCO OpenServer revenue stream and intellectual properties. Revenues for SCO OpenServer were $11.1 million in Q3 of FY2000. Net proceeds to SCO after expenses will be approximately 55% of future SCO OpenServer revenues. The investment banking firms of Chase H&Q and Broadview respectively, assisted SCO and Caldera Systems in evaluating this acquisition.

Caldera, Inc. will be headquartered in Orem, Utah, with locations worldwide. The boards of directors of both companies have unanimously approved the acquisition which is subject to the approval of Caldera Systems, Inc. and The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. stockholders, and regulatory agencies, as well as meeting certain other closing conditions. The companies anticipate closing the transaction during October, 2000.

Following the completion of the acquisition, Ransom Love, current president and CEO of Caldera Systems, Inc. will become CEO of Caldera, Inc., and David McCrabb, current president of the SCO Server Software Division, will become president and COO of Caldera, Inc. Jim Wilt, current president of the SCO Professional Services Division will become president of the newly formed Caldera Services Division. Doug Michels, president and CEO of The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc., will join the Caldera, Inc. board of directors. SCO will also appoint a second representative to the board of Caldera, Inc.

Something interesting that stands out is that The Canopy Group loaned Santa Cruz Operations $18 million in the deal. The Canopy Group seems to be too intimately involved in a lot of Caldera's/The SCO Group's deals. I don't think IBM will have too many problems going after The Canopy Group when they get finished with The SCO Group.

The thing that stands out the most is that Caldera admits in it's own press release that Santa Cruz Operations retained the revenue and intellectual properties for OpenServer. Everyone already knows that Novell is still receiving revenue for SysV UNIX licenses. Caldera must have switched SysV UNIX with OpenServer in the press release. This press release also explains why The SCO Group claimed the dog ate the aggreement between Caldera and Santa Cruz Operations, or whatever their excuse was to the court on why the couldn't find that aggreement. It would show that they didn't receive any rights to OpenServer/SysV UNIX. This would also be why The SCO Group keeps pointing to the amendment that they claim transfers the rights from Novell to Santa Cruz Operations. If the purchase agreement between Santa Cruz Operations and Caldera shows that Caldera didn't receive any of the intellectual rights, IBM would be able to ask for the lawsuit to be dismissed today.

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 02:18 PM EDT

SCO consists of three independent divisions, each with a separate management team and dedicated development, marketing and sales organizations - the Server Software Division, the Tarantella Division and the Professional Services Division.
The Tarantella Division's goal is to rapidly exploit the commercial and technical superiority and unique web-based architecture of the Tarantella product family. The division is focusing on revenue growth by exploiting three industry trends: the strong demand for universal access to applications over the internet, the industry's accelerating trend towards server-based thin-client computing and the rise in importance of Application Service Providers (ASPs).
The goal of the Server Software Division is to continue SCO's leadership of the UNIX-on-Intel market by providing UnixWare and OpenServer server software to its traditional global markets of SMB (small and medium sized businesses), retail, telecommunications and government.
The Professional Services Division is growing with the rise in e-Business and server-centric computing using UNIX and Linux based servers. The division is further developing its consulting services with particular emphasis on Internet solutions based around Open Source applications and both SCO's product families and those of other vendors.

From ss/releases/2001/6988.html
For Immediate Release Contacts: Lynn Schroeder Investor Relations Tel: 831-427-7399 Bette Kun Tarantella, Inc. Tel: 831-427-7397 SCO Announces Shareholder Approval for Sale of Two Divisions to Caldera Systems, Inc. SCO to change name of company to Tarantella, Inc. Santa Cruz, CA (May 4, 2001) - The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. (SCO) (Nasdaq: SCOC) today announced shareholder approval of the sale of the company's Server Software and Professional Services Divisions to Caldera Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: CALD). In addition, the shareholders approved a change in SCO's corporate name to Tarantella, Inc., as the remaining Tarantella Division now becomes the basis for the future corporate entity. The company plans to change its Nasdaq trading symbol shortly to TTLA to reflect the new name.
Doesn't this prove them wrong on the "who we are" issue, or am I missing something?

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 02:46 PM EDT
Interesting note on the history page provided by SCO...

1999 - SCO launches numerous Open Source initiatives: 1) Offers free Open Source applications and tools to SCO customers; 2) Extends Professional Services to include audits and deployment consultation for customers interested in installing Linux (my emphasis) and Open Source technologies; 3) Invests in, the leading portal for Linux-related products and services; 4) Enters strategic agreement with TurboLinux to develop services for TurboLinux's TurboCluster Server and provide Linux Professional Services for TurboLinux customers.

You'd think they would know what code was in Linux if they sold auditing and deployment consultations for the system...

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT - Speaking of Licenses and disappearing pages
Authored by: tangomike on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 02:47 PM EDT
The SCOSource licensing program link says Step 1 is to review the EULA.

The link to it brings up a page that says,

"Please contact your SCO sales representative for a current copy of the
software license."

Good thing Groklaw has it, back in Feb.

To The SCO Group - please come back when you pass a Turing test.

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 02:48 PM EDT
Has Anybody had a good look at usenet.
comp.unix.sco.announce looks like it is a goldmine. I had a search on Google
Groups and it seems that many press releases that oldSCO made and many from
CalderaSCO are archived here.
One Ironic Headline:


SCO Adds Linux Application Binary Support To Award-Winning UnixWare

Date: 1999/03/03

Amazing how things change. oldSCO claim to be able to add a Linux ABI to Unix
but newSCO claim you can't use a Unix ABI on Linux.

Think this stuff would benefit from "the many eyes approach" Lots of
stuff to look at.

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux...and MS.
Authored by: irieiam on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 03:06 PM EDT
And so adjustments are made...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newslink: Public sector urged to think Microsoft
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 03:16 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Smoking Gun?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 03:30 PM EDT
I cut this little gem out of the SCO/Caldera announcement. This was annoucing
the formation of Caldera Inc as a holding company, etc. etc.

"SCO will retain its Tarantella Division, and the SCO OpenServer revenue
stream and intellectual properties."

Sounds a lot like the Novell deal.

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 05:44 PM EDT
"Between the time Caldera acquired SCO in 2001 and early 2003, SCO/Caldera
continued to trumpet its commitment to Linux and boast of its plans to merge
leading-edge Linux technology into its UnixWare source code. This reflected the
market reality that the UnixWare code base was generally perceived to be old,
tired, and out of date."

So what we have really is coppied Linux code in SCO's UNIX.
Looks like you found proff of who the real theif is. Millions of lines of Unix
in Linux, looks like it may turn out to be the other way around. WOULD THAT BE A

[ Reply to This | # ]

[OT] Fedora drops MySQL for switching to GPL
Authored by: raindog on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 05:53 PM EDT

This has to be the first time a Linux distro has dropped a package not because it was GPL-incompatible, but because it *was* GPL! Apparently this is because PHP's license changes with version 4 have made it GPL-incompatible, whereas previously it was dual licensed between the GPL and a proprietary license just as MySQL is now.... shouldn't the Fedora guys have put up a red flag back when that changed rather than dropping a GPL'ed package now?!


[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Novell is back, thanks to Linux
Authored by: m_si_M on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 06:11 PM EDT

Novell nets a profit due to its Linux business.


[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Missing and not so missing documents
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 06:17 PM EDT
We haven't seen a number of documents from the various cases, however some of
them can be tracked down elsewhere



154 - Declaration of Daniel Frye Re: [152-1] cross motion for partial summary
judgment on claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement (blk) [Entry date

156 - Declaration of Amy F. Sorenson Re: [155-1] opposition memorandum (blk)
[Entry date 05/19/04]

157 - Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy Re: [152-1] cross motion for partial
summary judgment on claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement. (Please
Note: This is an oversized document and has been placed in an expandable folder
next to the case file.) (blk) [Entry date 05/19/04] [Edit date 05/19/04]

Exhibits to 157:

Exhibit 1: SCO Linux Introduction, SCO Education v.1.2

Exhibit 3: SCO Community Contributions - SCO Forum 2002

Exhibit 24: transcript of 11-12-03 re: Utah Software Company suing IBM
(I have read partial transcripts of this)

Exhibit 28: Letter from Brent Hatch to Shaughnesy dated 4-19-04 containing Chris
Sontag Declaration

Exhibit 29: Letter from Heise to Marriot dated 2-4-04
(actually I'm not certain but I think this has appeared as an exhibit before)

NOT SO MISSING (where to find)

Exhibit 2: IBM case
Exhibit 4: SEC
Exhibit 5: IBM case
Exhibit 6: SEC
Exhibit 7: (this is announcement of UnitedLinux)
Exhibit 8: (announcement of name change Caldera to SCO)
Exhibit 9: IBM case
Exhibit 10: This is the May 2003 letter to 1500 companies
Exhibit 11: Transcript of SCO teleconference, we have this
Exhibit 12: IBM case
Exhibit 13: IBM case
Exhibit 14: AutoZone case
Exhibit 15: IBM case
Exhibit 16: IBM case
Exhibit 17: RedHat case
Exhibit 18: Red Hat case
Exhibit 19: Red Hat case
Exhibit 20:
Exhibit 21:
Exhibit 22:
Exhibit 23:
Exhibit 25:
Exhibit 26: IBM case
Exhibit 27: IBM case
Exhibit 30: Fortune Magazine (print)
Exhibit 31:
Exhibit 32: Spiegel Online
Exhibit 33: IBM case
Exhibit 34: IBM case
Exhibit 35: IBM case
Exhibit 36: IBM case
Exhibit 37: IBM case
Exhibit 38: IBM case
Exhibit 39: IBM case
Exhibit 40: IBM case
Exhibit 41: IBM case
Exhibit 42: IBM case



37 - Declaration of Josy W. Ingersoll, Esq. in Support of D.I. #35 (ft) [Entry
date 04/21/04]

38 - Letter to Judge Robinson from J. Ingersoll re D.I. # 37; writing to clarify
that the documents which were the subject of declaration filed on 4/20/04 (D.I.
#37), did not include attachments, except for Exhibit J (ft) [Entry date

39 - Answer Brief Filed by SCO Group Inc. [35-1] motion for Reconsideration of
[34-1] order - Reply Brief due 5/11/04 (ft) [Entry date 05/05/04]

I think there is Red Hat reply in support of 35-1, presumably 40


I think a SCO reply to 2004-04-15-A (DC's motion for summary disposition) has
been filed


I think a SCO reply to 10 (AZ Motion to stay or in the alternative for a more
definite statemnt) has been filed. This might be document 24.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Developer source
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 06:38 PM EDT
As a software developer that had some clients running SCO I registered in the
'SCO Partner' and even got a free SCO Unixware or two.

SCO used to send me packages of stuff under the PartnerWare brand: magazines,
CDs, bulletins, most of which I have kept (I can hardly move in my basement).

PartnerWare 16 has the 2000 Forum promotion. 17 has a News Flash about Caldera
buying two divisions of SCO. 18 has Caldera Logos on it as well as SCO.

18's CD pack has:

"SCO, The Santa Cruz Operation, ... and Unixware are trademarks or
registered trademarks of the Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. ... Unix is a registered
trademark of The Open Group. ..."

See, they _did_ know.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The NY Times spins for SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 06:41 PM EDT

You need to be registered to read, I don't think that I can put their text
directly on Groklaw (can I PJ?).

[ Reply to This | # ]

What I want to know
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 09:41 PM EDT
Let's assume IBM win's their partial summary judgement motion, and partial
summary judgement

As a result, the court establishes: IBM's Linux activities, including IBM's
distribution of Linux, do not infringe any SCO copyright.

Then what happens if SCO keep on demanding license fees from IBM customers and
potential IBM customers? As I assume they would.

What happens next?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Archived copy of SCO Linux page, from Egyptian backup
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 26 2004 @ 01:59 AM EDT
Here is a copy of the relevant page. This is from the public backup copy of the Internet Archive at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina in Alexandria, Egypt, a service of the Egyptian government.

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 26 2004 @ 03:37 AM EDT
I'm curious to know; is there anything stopping me from suing SCO and/or SCO's
customers for copyright infringement?

I mean, other than I can't program at all well (I expect neither can Darl), I
never bought any code from anyone (fair enough, novell says SCO didn't either)
and so on. Oh, and I have no significant assets. If I were a company, I'd be in
the crapper. Sort of like SCO was before this all started.

I figure if some large company with an agenda wanted to slip me a couple of
million, I could go buy a suit, hire a few lawyers, and have a bunch of fun
filing lawsuits and trying to scam/extort SCO's customers (should that be
plural?) into paying 'licencing fees'.

Is there really no law against doing this?!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO, Open Source and Linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 26 2004 @ 08:43 AM EDT
But is Groklaw being archived somewhere in case it disappears one day?
(Twilight Zone music playing in background)


[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )