|
Eyewitness Account of Blepp's Speech in Germany |
|
Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 07:04 AM EDT
|
An eyewitness has emerged and he reports on the Blepp speech at the German university. He gave us permission to translate his account, and Mathias was kind enough to do so. The German account is here. Someone needs to send Mr. Blepp the memo that mum's the new word at SCO. He spills the beans that SCO at the beginning just wanted IBM to pay them some millions for "copyright infringement", and they are puzzled why that didn't happen. Naturally, being such a methodical person, my memory immediately remembered SCO is currently telling Judge Kimball that the Tenth Counterclaim should be dismissed or stayed because SCO hadn't charged IBM with any copyright infringement except for post-termination of the AIX license, which tells my logical brain that SCO must not think IBM is guilty of copyright infringement prior to that point, or that they can't prove it: "The only copyright claim SCO has asserted against IBM is primarily for IBM's continuing use of AIX and Dynix after SCO terminated IBM's UNIX licenses. See Second Amended Complaint, Count V. The Second Amended Complaint, however, does not contain a claim against IBM for copyright infringement arising out of its use, reproduction or improvement of Linux." When SCO first wanted their millions from IBM, then, were they just shaking the tree and hoping something would fall in their pocket? SCO doesn't look so good if the answer is Yes. If the answer to that is No, there really were copyright violations worthy of a payment of that magnitude, why *haven't* they so charged IBM? Is Blepp admitting that they brought a nuisance lawsuit? So maybe IBM didn't pay because they are not guilty? You think?
Blepp also says SCO would still like IBM to buy them. Hahahahaha. And if they win the lawsuit, "all" they want is $2-$20 per Linux server. They can't figure out what to do about free distros like Debian if they win, though. 'Tis a puzzlement. That, of course, also tells you that should such a crazy thing happen, there is an obvious and simple workaround. You'd think they could see the truly hopeless situation in which they find themselves. A second eyewitness chimed in,
saying that Blepp said that open source is destroying the market for proprietary software. He demonstrated several methods of taking an idea and completely rewriting it, so as to steal the idea. Remember Chris Sontag talking about obfuscated code in May of 2003 and Chris de Bona pointing out that in any large code base doing essentially the same task you will naturally find similar code, even if the programmers never saw each other's code? Challenged privately after the talk, Blepp admitted the code he showed might be BSD code ("Let's not talk about single lines of code", he reportedly said, to which the only conceivable response must be, "No, let's" -- for sure in court, it will happen) and he says there are only 4 people at SCO working on the legal case. There are, he said, 250 people at SCO and that includes 40 to 50 Caldera/Linux people. I think they must have been given a lobotomy, though, or they are kept in a dungeon, or they'd remember binutils isn't in the kernel, and that you don't sign a contract to indicate your distribution is under the GPL and they'd let their leaders know. Believe it or not, that is what the eyewitness says Blepp used as SCO's defense. They never signed a contract. That is so easy to answer. In fact, I did, over a year ago.
Can it be the whole world had to go through this horrible experience just because the new management at SCO didn't do their research and so they don't know that distribution is what makes the GPL kick in? It says so right in the license. There is no written contract. You manifest your distro is under the GPL by distribution with the GPL notice, which they did. If that is what they are relying upon, they are in for a real shock. I don't excuse them on the basis of "ignorance", though. The old management team, the Caldera team, knew better, so all they had to do was ask. For that matter, they could ask the 40 to 50 Caldera people who Blepp says are still there. Somebody must have a key to the dungeon. Or they could read. They could even find out what happens when there is an inadvertent release under the GPL. I've explained that too. They just don't pay attention. He was asked: "If IBM is integrating a driver, let's say for a filesystem in AIX, which, let's say it was released under GPL for Linux, does the SCO-IBM contract apply here, in a sense that the SysV-License for this driver is extended and has to be removed out of Linux?" His answer was, Yes, the driver is under the AIX license, because it is "part of AIX". Many left the room, this second eyewitness reports, before the evening was finished. The first eyewitness then responded. He gives some details about the Munich decision to go Linux, and then he reveals that when SCO accused IBM of stealing code, the community felt affronted and fought back, and no one at SCO had assumed that IBM would get so much support. They were surprised it became SCO against the world.
Here is the translation of the first eyewitness account. Clearly, this is a talk we want to see when the video is ready, to verify the details.
*********************************
sequence of events:
4:15pm begin, Blepp gives his lecture
7:00pm end of lecture, drink&discussion
8:00pm end of event
The lecture was very interesting.
In the beginning, Gregory Blepp introduced himself. He first worked for CA, then for SuSE, touched United Linux and went to SCO afterwards. He is in a consulting position there. Additionally, he is at the "Verband der Software Industrie Deutschland" (association of the software industry of Germany).
The first part was about the advantages of open source and he stressed that he is not against open source.
The second part was about the fine print in copyright law. He showed several methods how to copy a program (copy->paste, copy->paste->rewrite, just taking the idea and completely rewriting and so on).
The third part was about the legal battle SCO vs. IBM. He presented parts of the disputed source code (of course only a part where theft of code is assumed - nothing is proven yet). He mentioned the court decision from the County Court in Bremen, that SCO is forbidden to claim that Linux is part of the SCO code. He said "If I had said this, I would have always added 'if this is the case'". So he drew himself out of the affair in a nicely manner. He said that it's not so much about the code itself, this is irrelevant now, because the code is now inside the kernel. It's - according to SCO- only about a breach of contract by IBM, which copied the lines of code to Linux.
He just mentioned AT&T and Novell but only for a short time as this would have been too much.
He also mentioned the question if open source software and proprietary software can coexist. Answer: yes because SCO is selling UnixWare along with Samba, Mozilla and so on. SCO is just annoyed by the GPL because it is making commercial innovation impossible.
The speech was quite informal and offered several occasions to laughter.
In the discussion afterwards he talked about the inside of SCO. There are only 4 people working at SCO on this case. There are 250 people working at SCO in total, including 40-50 Caldera-Linux people.
In an early phase, SCO wanted only a few millions from IBM for the "copyright violation" but they did not agree on that. It's unknown why they did not agree to that.
Pesonally, this outcome of the case is almost irrelevant to him since SCO won't continue with UNIX (The company name/reputation is ruined, money was dumped in the case). Nowadays, the court cases are the real business of SCO. If SCO wins, they will introduce a Linux-license, (ca. 2-20$ per server). There is no solution to free distributions like Debian - no solution yet.
They still hope to be bought by IBM - all problems would be solved.
The audience was mostly students (including women!), at least a third were computer scientist and 80% of them Linux people. There were 2 or 3 people who approached Blepp with a hard voice but apart from that the discussion was very interesting and calm.
The invitation by the University of Jena was made because someone is writing his thesis about copyright and he met Blepp at the Verband der Software Industry.
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 07:11 AM EDT |
Please collect any mistakes here, so I can find them easily. Thank you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: penhead on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 07:24 AM EDT |
Smack!
There goes a huge fine so SCO for breaching the german gag order prhobiting them
from claiming that linux is in violation of their copyrights.
I should think reading court orders are more important than reading internal
memos, but hey - this is the this is the Scoundrels (and) Crooks Organization,
after all :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 07:26 AM EDT |
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: brian on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 07:40 AM EDT |
"The second part was about the fine print in copyright
law. He showed several methods how to copy a program
(copy->paste, copy->paste->rewrite, just taking the idea
and completely rewriting and so on)."
There are 2 combined concepts Blepp is using in this
example. Copyright and Trade Secret. The "copy->paste,
copy->paste->rewrite" is covered by copyright however, the
"just taking the idea and completely rewriting" is trade
secret. This is why the term "Intellectual Property" (IP)
should be removed from the vocabulary. IP covers 4
distinct areas with 4 distinct laws. Copyright,
tradmark, patent, and trade secret. Confusion happens when
they are all rolled up in one as SCO is clearly showing.
SCO has dropped the trade secret claim so what is Blepp
referring to with, "just taking the idea and completely
rewriting"? This man is every bit an idiot as Darl.
B.
---
#ifndef IANAL
#define IANAL
#endif[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 07:47 AM EDT |
On the other hand "all problems would be solved" if the Nazgul pound
them into oblivion. A lot more of us will be happy to see that happen. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: the_flatlander on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 07:48 AM EDT |
Ummm. They need to re-allocate a wee bit of their
litigation war chest money and pay a couple of large guys
to fly over to Germany and put Mr. Bleep *in* that
suitcase.
The Flatlander
There's a clear pattern that has emerged: every time any of
the SCOundrels or their lawyers speak about the specifics
of this case, they wind up gutting it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 08:04 AM EDT |
"no one at SCO had assumed that IBM would get so much support. They were
surprised it became SCO against the world."
Didn't Ransom Love warn Darl about precisely this thing?
I think their shock was not that IBM got support, but that the free software
community would be so effective at getting out word about SCO's scam.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 08:24 AM EDT |
The Whole chain of thought that Caldera has taken makes me wonder if there is a
far more sinister plot by Microsoft behind this.
We expect the whole try to kill Linux through legal action by a third party.
I believe there is more, Microsoft require the source code for device drivers
“certified by Microsoft”.
If the Caldera chain of thought on derivatives passes a court in any way,
Microsoft can then copyright all device drivers made for Windows. (they would be
derivatives, right?).
I work in support for a hardware maker, the latest problem is Microsoft Windows
has some policies which randomly get set after ”Windows updates” to only use
certified drivers.
We then get help desk calls that “I can't load your driver” “I don't have a
“Continue Anyway” button”.
Every help desk call costs a company money; Can we charge Microsoft for this, no
way, they just want our source code and certification fee.(Pay them to steal
your code)
Remember what Bill Gates said about “free hardware” being the next step in his
ideal computer revolution, If Microsoft owns the copyright on your device
drivers, how can you sell your hardware?
---
Litigation is no sustituite for Innovation.
Say No to SCO.
IMHO IANAL IAALINUXGEEK[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 08:30 AM EDT |
"They still hope to be bought by IBM - all problems would be
solved."
Look for this comment right at the foot of the
article. Is this it? Do the people who attended actually have Blepp on record as
saying this? Get me a lawyer, now! This looks like prime material for IBM to use
in demonstrating that SCO have brought a malicious legal case, just in the hope
of being bought out...
Can anyone who attended give us more details on
this point please?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: theguyfromsaturn on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 09:23 AM EDT |
Hi there, this is not relevant to the SCO case but I think it is still a topic
that is pertinent to Groklaw.
I just saw this post in slashdot:
Microsoft Sues Brazilian Official for
Defamation
Apparently the Brazilian official has accused Microsoft
of using drug dealing practices for offering Windows for digital inclusion
programs.
Interestingly enough, in one of the comments made by a
reader, a quote by Billy himself on C|NET pretty
much admits to that practice:
'Gates shed some light on his own
hard-nosed business
philosophy. "Although about 3 million
computers get sold
every year in China, but people don't pay for the software,"
he said. "Someday they will, though. As long as they are going to steal it, we
want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow
figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade." '
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 09:29 AM EDT |
Lessing is reporting
on the latest move of MS in Brazil. They are attacking a government
official personally for supporting OSS.
Microsoft characterizes Amadeu’s
statements as “beyond being absurd and criminal” and as evincing an “excess in
freedom of speech and freedom of thought.” “Freedom of speech and freedom of
thought” is, Microsoft apparently believes, properly prosecuted in Brazil, and
so it has brought this first step to prosecute the “felony of defamation”
evinced by Amadeu’s words.
Sergio Amadeu is head of the agency
responsible for spreading free software within the Brazilian government. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dkpatrick on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 09:38 AM EDT |
"They still hope to be bought by IBM - all problems would be solved."
If IBM had paid off SCO the millions SCO asked for, it would be an
acknowledgement that there was value to SCO's claim. The chain of thought at SCO
was most likely:
1. IBM pays SCO or buys SCO, putting a value on SCO's property
2. The executives at SCO make out like bandits and either bail out with the $$$
in hand or if bought by IBM, negotiate transition jobs (never hurts to have IBM
on your resume)
2. IBM, not being a charity, turns around and starts charging their Linux
customers since they have paid good money for something and want a return on
their investment
3. M$ is happy as a clam because the TCO issue starts to swing in their favor
So SCO got the tiger by the tail and can't let go. If Darl had had any dream of
building SCO into a proper company he would have abandoned the suit against IBM
as a "mistake which we intend to correct". But Darl clearly was
brought in to maximize the value of SCO, not build a company, and pushing IP is
the only business model this excuse for a CEO can drum up.
---
"Keep your friends close but your enemies closer!" -- Sun Tzu[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 09:51 AM EDT |
There are two reasons why IBM will never buy SCO or pay them off
1. If they were to buy SCO, when SCO have no genuine claim and no evidence, it
simply turns IBM into an easy mark for future schemesters of this type.
2. (a) If IBM were to pay off SCO. Wait 3-5 years, then SCO will do the whole
thing again. Remember IBM would have paid off SCO for no reason at all. And in
Yarro's mind, that would turn IBM into an easy mark
2. (b) If IBM were to buy SCO. Same as 2(a), except instead of another
shake-down on IBM by SCO, it'll be another dying Canopy company that Yarro wants
to sell.
SCO's entire strategy is to drive up the costs of IBM and others, so it is
cheaper (in the short run) to pay them off
This is why they want every iteration of AIX (when they admit openly in their
discovery memo that they haven't even examined what they got).
This is why they want AZ to be in Nevada, which is equally inconvenient to AZ
and SCO
What Darl doesn't understand however, IBM realizes that it may be marginally
cheaper in the short-run to pay off SCO, but in the long-run it will much
cheaper to simply crush them by litigation, to avoid and deter future schemes of
this type by Canopy and their like.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 10:20 AM EDT |
"Can it be the whole world had to go through this horrible experience just
because the new management at SCO didn't do their research....."
It appears very much like that is what happened and is happening.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 10:33 AM EDT |
> There were 2 or 3 people who approached Blepp with
> a hard voice
..Microsoft shills present in the audience? I mean, who
else has an interest in trying to make trouble and "Riot
in University Lecture on Open Source"-type headlines? ;-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 10:52 AM EDT |
This has been going on for about a year now. Scox loadly proclaims one thing
publically, then very quietly will say something different in the courtroom.
Scox investors, and the courts, seem to be aware - and entirely comfortable -
with this practise.
So what does it matter? Apparently scox can play this game of contradiction and
delay forever.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 11:12 AM EDT |
I've been thinking about this for some time, and this came up some months ago
but I havn't seen much more of it.
Sure there are *some* techies still working at SCO, be it a sysadmin for the
local systems, developer, or what have you.
I find it a little hard to beleive that there is a campus of computer
professionals that dont have something an opinion to voice (not even vaguely pro
or con SCO I might add).. Does SCO have ankle bracelets on all the employees?
(the kind that the alarm goes off if they try and think for themselves? or if
they log onto groklaw or slashdot?)...
There must be some real draconian fear eminating from the depths of them thare
holes...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Latesigner on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 11:25 AM EDT |
Am I the only one who remembers an interview with Ransom Love(?) in which he
said that he warned McBride what would happen if he tried suing Linux on the
grounds of copyright infringement?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Night Flyer on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 12:08 PM EDT |
I read the following rambling statement several times and I think I follow
it...
"He [Blepp] was asked: "If IBM is integrating a driver, let's say for
a filesystem in AIX, which, let's say it was released under GPL for Linux, does
the SCO-IBM contract apply here, in a sense that the SysV-License for this
driver is extended and has to be removed out of Linux?" His answer was,
Yes, the driver is under the AIX license, because it is "part of AIX".
Many left the room, this second eyewitness reports, before the evening was
finished."
On occasion some words have several antecedents. I am rewriting this, please
tell me if I got it right:
He [Blepp] was asked: "If IBM is integrating a driver (I presume, written
by IBM, not from SysV), let's say for a filesystem (clean-room written by IBM
i.e.: for OS/2 and ported into) in AIX, which, let's say it (the driver) was
(previously) released under GPL for Linux, does the SCO-IBM contract apply here,
in the sense that the SysV-License for this driver is extended and (the driver)
has to be removed out of Linux?" His answer was, Yes, the driver is under
the AIX license, because it is "part of AIX". ...
I interpret this to mean that SCO (Blepp) is using its unique interpretation of
"derivative" works, which goes counter to accepted legal definitions
and against the stated AT&T position that it did not intend to assume
control over any code written by others that did (does) not include SysV code.
Blepp seems to be cycling back to the position that anything that touches or is
associated with SysV comes under the control of SCO.
Deja vue
-------------------------
My clan motto: Veritas Vincit: Truth Conquers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rusty0101 on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 12:12 PM EDT |
...agressively selling UnixWare, and Novell is free to do what they wish with
respect to selling either Unix, or derivatives of Unix such as
Linux?
Pesonally, this outcome of the case is almost irrelevant to him
since SCO won't continue with UNIX (The company name/reputation is ruined, money
was dumped in the case). Nowadays, the court cases are the real business of
SCO.
I personally think this means that SCOX may be making motions about
selling Unix, but I seem to recall that the APA was written to indicate that SCO
(ne. Tarrantula) and later owners (SCOX) had to be agressive about such sales
attempts. I don't think trying to sell Linux licences qualifies as agressively
marketing or selling UnixWare. Likewise I don't think taking former licencees to
court qualifies either. Everything else seems to be all show, with no
expectation of actual sales going forward. That doesn't seem to me to be very
agressive either.
Along with that they are dismantaling their third party
sales forces outside of the US.
Then again, perhaps I missed something in
the interpretation of all that I have read over the past couple of
days.
-Rusty [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 12:52 PM EDT |
I had the pleasure of spending about two months in Jena almost a decade ago as
part of an international studies program at my college. Haven't heard much
about the place since then, and it's cool to find out that the uni there is
still going strong. We didn't do much with the university directly (besides eat
at their cafeteria - mostly good, only occasionally scary) but I ran into lots
of students in the endearing little nightclubs and beer gardens around the
downtown. (As a twenty-year-old American in Germany, you can imagine how I
spent my evenings - fortunately I exercised enough restraint as not to cause any
real problems.)
Generalization is always dangerous, but they collectively struck me as an
intelligent, practical sort who were mostly friendly but didn't tolerate a lot
of BS. I see that things haven't changed too much.
If there's anyone in Jena reading this, is that awful round tower still in the
middle of town? I remember there was a lot of discussion about tearing it down,
but I never heard if it ever happened.
For those of you who have never been there, Jena is a *lovely* town in the old
european style - a corner or two of the old-town wall is still standing. The
streets are mostly cobbled in town and so narrow that riding the pub-trans
busses through them is occasionally frightening. The town sits at the north end
of a valley, and good size forested hills rise probably a hundred meters around
it. I'm not sure how to describe the architecture, but at least in the downtown
it's old and friendly and a lot of the buildings have these charming
barrel-vault basements. To the south are Lobeda (Loebeda? Been too long) and
Winzerla, much more recent suburbs with a lot of mass housing. I spent dozens
of hours up in the hills above Lobeda writing and stargazing and generally
blissing out over the view.
...but smack in the middle of town the old East German government built this
Modern-styled tower for the university. It's 20 stories or so (rising 15
stories above every other building in town), *circular* in shape, and painted an
ungodly pure-white color that matches nothing around it. The elevators are my
scariest memory of the entire trip. It's ugly, ugly, ugly, UGLY, and you can
see it from almost everywhere in the valley.
Anyway, it wasn't much of a tourist spot when I was there, and there didn't seem
to be anything of major historical importance, but at the south-east corner or
town is (was) the best bratwurst street vendor in all of Germany. It seemed
like a good place to live, and a nice spot for a university.
There isn't much point to this post - mostly just fond reminiscense of youth and
travel. But Jena is a particularly nice spot, and someday I'd like to get back
there.
-K
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Weeble on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 02:25 PM EDT |
PJ, I followed your link about inadvertent contributions of code, but it didn't
seem to answer the issue you raised.
The article you referenced addressed the issue of GPL'ed code being
inadvertently included in a proprietary product.
The issue you raised here (which I'd like to get some clarification on) is the
reverse situation; that of proprietary code inadvertently being included in a
GPL'ed product. For example, SCOG's claim (I think they claim this--who knows
what they really claim?) that their distribution of Caldera/SCO Linux under the
GPL doesn't count as release of UNIX SysV code under the GPL because they
weren't initially aware that such code was in Linux, and specifically that it
wasn't in their distro.
Setting aside for the moment the issue of whether such code exists or not
(AFAIAC, it's a bunch of horsefeathers), what is the procedure for dealing with
the discovery that proprietary code has been inadvertently (or even maliciously)
included in a GPL program? Under the GPL and/or copyright law, is there any
remedy for the copyright holder other than (or in addition to) having the code
removed from the program?
For example, SCOG claims that they have rights to royalties for the proprietary
code which has been included in Linux for the time that it's been in there. Is
there any provision or precedent for that sort of claim?
I'm not just thinking of SCOG's claims here. Let's say (fictitious example) that
someone working on a GPL project (not necessarily any of the major projects) is
banging his/her head against the wall trying to get something to work. Said
programmer yields to temptation and pulls out a program module or piece of code
he/she has access to which happens to be proprietary, but it works. Said person
either forgets to write a non-proprietary equivalent of the code or decides to
leave it in, changing or removing the copyright headers because he/she is tired
of messing with that issue. The program is released under the GPL. Sometime
later, it's discovered that this section of code is proprietary. I presume that
1) the owner can demand its removal, 2) the programmer may be fired, but is that
the limit?
Again, I'm not saying that ANY of this has happened (including what SCOG claims
to have happened)--I just want to know what the law and/or the GPL have to say
on this point. Thanks.
---
"Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself--forcefully."
--the late Rev. O. Dean Martin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Eric Damron on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 02:42 PM EDT |
"Pesonally, this outcome of the case is almost irrelevant
to him since SCO won't continue with UNIX (The company
name/reputation is ruined, money was dumped in the case"
This is the best news of all. It should be a warning to
other companies who consider bringing bogus lawsuits
against a noble worldwide effort that doing so only leads
to ruin.
IBM should not settle with or buy SCO out. SCO have gone
too far and the only thing left to do is take the case to
its logical end. SCO's statement that they want $2 - $20
per Linux server and they don't know what to do about free
distros YET tells me that they NEVER plan on telling the
Linux community exactly what code they have problems with.
If they did the code would be either certified infringement
free or removed. And either way they wouldn't want their
hijacking scheme to end thus causing their cash cow to dry
up.
Microsoft isn't completely innocent in all of this either.
They knew exactly what they were doing when the funneled
cash into SCO to support this litigation and when they
introduced BayStar to SCO for the same purpose. Just as
SCO's name/reputation is ruined by this, Microsoft's name
should not remain untarnished. This is a company that has
shown disregard time and time again for antitrust laws.
This is a company that truly needs to be broken apart for
the common good.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Paul Shirley on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
A lot of people keep asking why SCOG don't just drop the more obvious lost
cases. Blepp gives away the reason: the core of this case is still an
attempt to get a pile of money from IBM to make them go away. Its barely
different from extortion.
The key to extortion is presenting a credible
threat: the lawsuits are the threat, they had to file one before IBM would take
them seriously at all. Later ones are designed to ratchet the threat level. They
cannot drop any of them and continue to have any credible nuisance value,
it sets a bad precedent. Take away the threat and their buyout/payoff dream
dies.
The endless delays are an integral part of the plan, nuisance value is
more important than winning the more frivolous cases, some of which clearly
exist only to entangle the cases and multiply the delays.
The other problem
SCOGs officers have in dropping cases is that it looks like an admission of
incompetence. Shareholders have a nasty habit of filing suits against
individuals when that happens. Personally I believe this will only be an
unqualified win for us if Darl & his gang face bankruptcy and/or prison, its
the only thing that will stop others trying this sort of scam. The longer they
keep the balls in the air the longer and personal consequences are delayed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IBM counterclaims - Authored by: PolR on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 05:31 PM EDT
- SCOG cannot delay much longer - Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 06:42 PM EDT
- slightly OT: why SCOG persist with lost causes - Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 07:04 PM EDT
- SCO Persistence - No, waiting for the other shoes to drop - The Hunt is On - Authored by: webster on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 11:51 PM EDT
- SCO Persistence - No, waiting for the other shoes to drop - The Hunt is On - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 20 2004 @ 01:02 AM EDT
- SCO Persistence - No, waiting for the other shoes to drop - The Hunt is On - Authored by: webster on Sunday, June 20 2004 @ 01:19 AM EDT
- "The vision of free software pioneers ...will carry the day." - Authored by: webster on Sunday, June 20 2004 @ 01:35 AM EDT
- SCO Persistence - No, waiting for the other shoes to drop - The Hunt is On - Authored by: archonix on Sunday, June 20 2004 @ 07:03 AM EDT
- SCO Persistence - No, waiting for the other shoes to drop - The Hunt is On - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 20 2004 @ 10:37 AM EDT
- Rein, not reign - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 20 2004 @ 07:53 PM EDT
- Rein, not reign - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 22 2004 @ 06:46 PM EDT
- SCO Persistence - No, waiting for the other shoes to drop - The Hunt is On - Authored by: John Hasler on Sunday, June 20 2004 @ 10:03 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 04:06 PM EDT |
Blepp is reported as mentioning there being real techies at SCO. That at least
is still true, at least in the same sense as most of the companies I've worked
for (think Dilbert as a qualifier there).
The example I (as an apache developer) am aware of is that there's a SCO bod
ensuring apache updates work on SCO's platforms. He seems to take that
seriously, and I have formed the impression that he finds the lawsuits all a bit
embarrassing. But ICBW.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Techies at SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 21 2004 @ 05:42 AM EDT
|
Authored by: RedBarchetta on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 04:52 PM EDT |
"You manifest your distro is under the GPL by distribution with
the GPL notice, which they did. If that is what they are relying upon, they are
in for a real shock. I don't excuse them on the basis of "ignorance", though.
The old management team, the Caldera team, knew better, so all they had to do
was ask."
PJ, I recall reading somewhere that Ransom Love did
indeed know about the GPL and the implications of challenging it, and advised
The SCO Group to "not go there" because the industry would turn on them. The
trouble is, I can't find the quote. Can someone assist?
However, while
searching for this quote, I came across an interesting
interview with
Ransom Love. Although slightly dated, here are some interesting quotes that
bear relevance on the current SCO Group nuisance
lawsuits:
eWEEK.com: Let's cut to the chase: What did you
intend to do with the Unix source code?
Love: Clearly, when we
acquired SCO and Unix, our intention was to see how Unix could expand and extend
Linux. [..]
The idea was to adopt Linux APIs and mechanisms to function
on top of a scalable Unix code designed for SMP [symmetric multiprocessing]. At
the time, Linux was moving to clustering to make Linux more scalable. We
wanted to combine Unix's improved symmetric multiprocessing with Linux so that
it would have both excellent clustering and SMP.
Indeed, at
first we wanted to open-source all of Unix's code, but we quickly found that
even though we owned it, it was, and still is, full of other companies'
copyrights.
The challenge was that there were a lot of business
entities that didn't want this to happen. Intel [Corp.] was the biggest
opposition.
[..]
eWEEK.com: Intel?
Why?
Love:We didn't want to spend years clearing out the old
copyright issues in the face of corporate opposition. So, instead we worked
on Linux Kernel Personalities to bring Linux application compatibility to SCO
Unix (formerly UnixWare) and OpenServer. The idea was to enable developers to
write for both Unix and Linux with a common Application Programming Interface
(API) and common Application Binary Interface
(ABI).
[..]
eWEEK.com: What do you think about SCO's current
management claims that IBM took Unix source code and put it into
Linux?
Love: I don't get into that level of expertise, so that's
an area I can't comment on. Of course, both SCO/Caldera and IBM contributed
to the Linux kernel. Certainly, IBM contributed SMP capability. We didn't do
much with SMP. Logically, I seriously doubt that IBM would actually list the
Unix code into Linux. Were they heavily influenced by Unix? Of course, all
operating system engineers are.
[..]
eWEEK.com: SCO's current
management is now going after the GPL. What do think of this
move?
Love: [..] Fundamentally, the only business model that
works with GPL is a subscription service, one like Caldera had and where Red Hat
has with its enterprise Linux distributions.
But, that said, I
wouldn't want to test the GPL in court, particularly given Caldera's history
of voluntary compliance with
it.
--- Collaborative efforts synergise. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Khym Chanur on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 05:20 PM EDT |
PJ, about SCO being so stupid as to think that binutils was part of the kernel:
didn't IBM's counterclaims ask SCO for everything they thought infringed
on SysV and their other "IP"? SysV isn't just a kernel, so it's theoretically
possible for things other than a kernel to infringe it. --- Give a man a
match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm
for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jkondis on Saturday, June 19 2004 @ 07:31 PM EDT |
I'm sorry, this stuff is just pure comedy. I have an image in my head of Mr.
Blepp being played by Jerry Lewis and tripping all over himself. I *do*
*sincerely* hope Blepp continues to open his German piehole in
public!
In an early phase, SCO wanted only a few millions from IBM
for the "copyright violation" but they did not agree on that. It's unknown why
they did not agree to that.
I know the quote is just a paraphrase,
but: GEE I WONDER WHY. It seems after IBM told them to get bent, they figured
they had to back up their extortion/blackmail threats lest anyone think that
Caldera/SCO Group *wouldn't* follow a bark with a bite.
They probably would
have agreed to have been bought out for an amount less than what IBM has spent
on lawyers, so they thought IBM would prefer to take the money-saving route.
I'm sure this was a central theme in those "discussions" Caldera/SCO Group and
IBM had before the lawsuit was announced. All the same, really, as IBM has
earned quite a reputation amongst the OSS crowd, and is getting a lot of good
publicity out of this as well. And they get to take the high road this
time.
Pesonally, this outcome of the case is almost irrelevant to
him [Blepp] since SCO won't continue with UNIX (The company name/reputation is
ruined, money was dumped in the case). Nowadays, the court cases are the real
business of SCO.
There goes Mr. Blepp's Christmas bonus! Right
out the window! (Hmm, I *wonder* just who's been doing the "ruining" of the
company name and reputation? Hmm... Deep thoughts...)
They still
hope to be bought by IBM - all problems would be solved.
Operating
word here being *still*. There you have it folks, a Caldera/SCO Group insider
admitting to the world they just wanted to be bought out. We may see some
trouble brewing on the legal end against Caldera/SCO Group officers from this
tacit admission to being a litigation/extortion racket.
I give poor Mr.
Blepp 4 months before he's fired or laid off. Personally, I appreciate what
little child-like candidness he is exhibiting, but I bet the BoD and the
CEO, CFO, etc. don't appreciate his comedy routines over there in
Germany.
Khym Chanur's .sig is this: "Give a man a match, and he'll be warm
for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his
life."
I think he should update it to: "Give SCOG a match, and they will
light themselves on fire and be warm for the rest of their
lives." --- Don't steal. Microsoft hates competition. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hsjones on Sunday, June 20 2004 @ 01:20 AM EDT |
My company is trying to do this now. We would appreciate some guidance and
lessons learned on how to package closed-source and GPL code into a single
product without either violating the GPL and/or unintentionally exposing
proprietary technology. The standard Linux resources on the Web say little or
nothing about this, just that it can be done.
If Linux is to make significant advancement in the enterprise, software vendors
need to be able to produce packages that are predominantly open source but that
also provide interoperability with legacy products from vendors who may not yet
be on board with FOSS. Interop modules that interact with the open source code
via a GPL isolation layer are very important. We need resources on how to do a
GPL isolation layer quickly, cleanly and correctly.
Any links or other resources that anyone can provide will be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Betting the Farm on FOSS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 20 2004 @ 01:29 AM EDT |
Is it Blepp, or Stowell and the rest of Ralph's Renegades?
In the writeup, you had:
"There are, he said, 250 people at SCO and that includes 40 to 50
Caldera/Linux people.... They never signed a contract. That is so easy to
answer. In fact, I did, over a year ago."
If you follow the link, it includes a quote from Stowell, saying they stopped
their Linux development and apparently let those people go. But here's Blepp,
saying they are still on board.
SO WHO'S LYING? Is SCOG still working on Linux? Did they keep distributing for
a year because the people were let go before they could evidence-tamper the
website, or because they were still working on code and the attorneys are guilty
of perjury?
One really hard part to believe in this mess: the Judge is actually stupid
enough (or crazy enough, well-paid enough. or ???) to let this crap into his
court.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 20 2004 @ 04:21 AM EDT |
"If SCO wins, they will introduce a Linux-license, (ca. 2-20$ per
server)."
Am I missing something here? Why would they introduce a license for a mere $20
per server when they already have a license which costs a minimum of $695 per
CPU (if it has not jumped up to $1295 or $1495 per CPU yet)? It doesn't make
any sense that they would drastically reduce the price of the license if they
win their lawsuit(s).
I got the striking impression that Mr. Blepp has no interaction with the rest of
the SCO personnel.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Sunday, June 20 2004 @ 06:24 AM EDT |
I'm reading all the comments here... and (as others have pointed out) the stuff
Blepp is saying is NUTS. Way more insane and inconsistent than SCOG was
previously.
The only thing that seems to make sense is that Blepp's job is just to be a
professional troll: he is here to annoy the OSS and make them waste their time
on him.
What other explanation is there? What are Blepp's qualifications and
background?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|