decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

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

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Dear Darl, Look for a Letter Soon
Friday, September 12 2003 @ 05:33 PM EDT

Our community letter in answer to Darl's Open Letter to the Open Source Community is coming along, and so is the press list. We expect to have it done by Monday, if all continues to progress as it has been, so if anyone else has anything they'd like to say, now is the time. I have heard from several journalists already, expressing interest. I have tons of email too from readers, just full of great ideas and information. Here is some more space for further ideas, urls, press contacts, whatever you wish to add to the project. Say, this is fun, huh?


  


Dear Darl, Look for a Letter Soon | 87 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 02:39 PM EDT
The comments filled up again, so I got some email and here are two that gave permission to post on their behalf:

Hello again,

Here's more good stuff. I spent last night and this morning researching SCO's early relationship with Linux. Some of this material has been covered already, but I think most of it is fresh new stuff. What's most interesting about this collection of facts, to my eye, is that it completely destroys any argument that Old SCO was in any way virginal where Linux was concerned. By the time they were gobbled by Caldera, SCO owned part of LinuxMall, Caldera, and TurboLinux. They had open-sourced one of their products, created Linux services for TurboLinux, including clustering products, and they'd at least started the process of building their own distribution. They hadn't just seen the code, they'd gotten in bed with it.

Anyway, here it is. Feel free to put any/all of this up on Groklaw:

SCO's relationship with Linux did not begin in a friendly manner. While being interviewed by Computerworld in April of 1999 SCO CEO Doug Michels used words like "punk young kids who've taken and engineered pieces around the Unix [kernel]" to describe Linux programmers. Linux companies, he said, are "...not in control of their road map. They ship whatever happens to be current in the Linux community."

http:/ /www.computerworld.com/news/1999/story/0,11280,35431,00.html

Those who wonder whether SCO UNIX might contain stolen Linux code should note his answer to the last question:

Q: But you see Linux providing modules for SCO?

A: As far as I'm concerned, it's free R&D. A lot of developers who have always preferred Unix are developing on Linux. The last thing in the world I want is some cool app and have my customer go, "Oh, God, if I only had Linux, I could get that app."

Less dramatically, Linux journal carried this story about the SCO's conflicts involving Linux:

http://www.linuxjournal. com/article.php?sid=4922

Another story of Michels blasting Linux can be found here. (This is a forward from newswire.com.au, a site which apparently is no longer in business.)

http://www .linux.org.ve/archivo/l-linux-1999-April/002512.html

The denizens of SlashDot? were predictably grumpy:

http://slashdot.org/ar ticles/99/04/21/118210.shtml

but some of the stories they told made it clear that even in 1999 SCO was already considered a second class UNIX. One anonymous poster > wrote:

" SCO can no longer justify their existence. Their overpriced underfeatured OS simply cannot compete with Linux.

Every time I've worked with SCO in the past it's made my flesh crawl. The first time was in the late 80's on a 286 running SCO Xenix. The base OS was over $1000 and if I wanted any of the other amenities that I thought should come stock with the UNIX OS (C Compiler, nroff/troff, etc) you had to add more money. MUCH more money. In addition their support line could never tell us why the OS would suddenly slow to a crawl after 2 or 3 days of running. If Linux had existed back then, my company's choice would have been a hell of a lot easier.

In my last job I was working with SCO again and I welcomed the chance to see if they'd improved at all. Well they haven't. Their pricing plan is still one of the most confusing I've ever seen, they charge by the user if I recall correctly, and in general the OS is just plain irritating to deal with. I'm working with several different flavors of UNIX right now and SCO is the only one that feels like a toy when I use it.

SCO should do the industry a favor and disband, pausing only to bulk-format all their drives so that none of the evil source code can inadvertently escape into the world. Their marketing people and their tech support people should be sent to camps to be retrained for professions more suited to their skills and their buildings should be torn down and burned.

I'm betting SCO is the first casuality of the Open Source movement."

Another Slashdot reader, Jan Moren, wrote, "I would'nt be too suprised if SCO tried attacking the Linux distributors legally, claiming that they have unfair advantage in the marketplace. Don't think they could win such a suit, but it would probably slow the adoption of Linux during the legal proceedings."

Wow. Jan, you rock.

However, after some grovelling on Doug Michel's part, the relationship soon turned smooth, with SCO setting up partnerships with, and buying stakes in, TurboLinux? and LinuxMall?.

The letter in which Michels "clarifies" his feelings toward Linux is very interesting. You can find it here.

http://linuxtoday. com/infrastructure/1999051000210NWCY

Note particularly the paragraph which reads:

"I also believe in the principle that great programmers should "steal" great code whenever possible, so long as they do not violate any laws or license agreements. In hindsight, it's clear that "steal" was a poor and confusing choice of words on my part. I was perhaps being too flippant by trying to point out that one can't really steal that which is freely offered."

"freely offered," huh. Is Michels talking about GPLed code, and if so, what does he intend to do with that code? This may relate to an incident in which Michels is supposed to have spoken badly or Linux programmers, but I haven't tracked it down yet, so it may or may not relate to possible code theft. - Alex

However, in June of 1999, SCO released its SAR (System Activity Reporter) to the open source community, and by Fall of 1999, Linux was clearly part of SCO's strategy. For example, in October of 1999, LWN reported that SCO "...entered into strategic agreement with TurboLinux? to develop services for TurboLinux?'s TurboCluster? Server and provide Linux Professional Services for TurboLinux? customers. Old SCO also made a sizable investment in TurboLinux?, Caldera and LinuxMall?." You'll find that story here:

http://lwn.net/Comments/36053/

Here are some more URLs on SCO's purchase of a stake in LinuxMall?. Look for the headline which reads, "SCO has taken an equity stake in the Linux Mall." It's near the middle of the page.

http://lwn.net/1999/1014/

Here's SCO's press release on their investment in and strategic partnership with LinuxMall?:

http://lwn.net/1999/1014/a/ sco-linuxmall.html

ECommerce Times released a story discussing discussing SCO's partnership with TurboLinux?.

http://www.ecommerceti mes.com/perl/story/1780.html

SCO Partners With TurboLinux?

"In another recent Linux-related move, SCO and TurboLinux? jointly announced the availability of different levels of service offerings for the TurboLinux? TurboCluster? Server 4.0 product.

The packages, "TurboCluster? Audit" and "TurboCluster? Start-up," are designed, according to a joint statement, to assist corporate users and resellers in the processes of configuration, deployment, installation and planning. Additionally, TurboLinux? customers will have access to the Linux Professional Consulting Services available through SCO.

"We are ready to assist TurboLinux?'s customers with their enterprise deployments of the new TurboCluster? Server offering," commented David Taylor, vice president of SCO's Professional Services organization. "With more than 20 years experience providing services for Intel-based UNIX systems, SCO understands the customer requirements for enterprise-computing.""

Ultimately, going to the web pages below, we find out that SCO knows about IBM and AIX and Linux compatibility because they worked on it together along with Cygnus Solutions, (Cynus is a RedHat? subsidiary which specializes in implementing the gcc compiler on new chipsets) EPC, Geodesic, Merant, Parasoft and Roguewave.

http://web.archive.org/web/20011006104536/http://www.sco.com/monterey/aix 5l.htm

Note that the URL above links to an archive of SCO's website. The story is no longer available on SCO's wesite.

Another interesting SCO story involving Linux and Project Monterey begins:

"Linux fever is infecting even the staunchest Unix advocates, as evidenced this week at SCO Forum in Santa Cruz, California."

"While the partners involved in the Monterey Project -- the initiative between SCO, IBM, Intel, Sequent Computer and Compaq Computer to create a high-volume unified UNIX -- were upbeat on Monterey's prospects, they still had Linux on the brain."

Here's the URL:

http://news.zd net.co.uk/hardware/0,39020351,2073219,00.htm

And here are some more URLS that talk about Linux services being implemented in Project Monterey.

www.tdagroup.com/pdfs/ebus.pdf http://www-5.ibm.co m/se/news/1999/12/p9912081821.html http://archive.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/00/08/10/000810hnibmaix.xml http://home.clara.net/blenny/AIX5 L.html

Finally, after taking a 6.9 million restructuring charge in the spring of 2000, and after announcing a loss of "between 50 cents and 55 cents per share, not the 13 cent loss analysts had expected," SCO decided to begin distributing Linux.

According to an article published by Forbes.com on July 12th of 2000,

"Sources say it's (SCO) working out an arrangement with France's MandrakeSoft? to distribute its Linux-Mandrake operating system. SCO will use Linux-Mandrake as the base OS and add some features like clustering, which is a complex way to improve the performance and expansion of servers. MandrakeSoft? also has offices in Altadena, Calif.

SCO Chief Executive Doug Michels wouldn't comment specifically on a deal with MandrakeSoft?, but he says the company will become a Linux distributor."

http://www.forbes.com/2000/07/1 2/mu3.html

Another article also discusses a SCO Linux, though it doesn't mentioin MandrakeSoft? by name.

htt p://archive.infoworld.com/articles/pi/xml/00/03/22/000322pisco.xml

Here's another article on SCO's woes in spring of 2000:

htt p://archive.infoworld.com/articles/pi/xml/00/03/22/000322pisco.xml

Alex Roston

___________ Then from annon:

AND what Michael Dell thinks about paying SCO for LINUX use... http://www.linux.org/news/ 2003/09/10/0003.html [When asked whether the SCO Group's move to secure license fees for the use of Unix in Linux was affecting Dell's Linux plans, Michael Dell replied, "Not at all."

And his answer to the question "Are you paying license fees"? Michael simply replied "Nope."

--------------------------


pj, I think that I get it now!

McBride is just following the Caldera/SCO company line that Ransom Love defined while Love was trying to figure out how to monetize the value that Caldera (SCO) added to LINUX (and use all Linux applications on their own UNIX too)! Ransom Love and McBride and company were all along looking to use the UnitedLINUX developer's efforts to do LINUX apps on their enterprise UNIX. (I hope that everyone does not start yelling at me for being so dense all this while).

I think that McBride was originally hired to head a SCO (and to head just the marketing folks) that was about to move their Linux on UNIX product to the enterprise customers that they had targeted (all existing UNIX users - 1500 letters?)! When McBride heard IBM say they were going to help scale LINUX to enterprise levels then their house of cards suddenly blew away! Because SCO had mostly marketing folks to take SCO UNIX product line to 64bit as the CONTRACT with IBM, that SCO had, was part of a plan to con IBM into giving them what they needed to do a 64bit(intel) UNIX = ouch! IBM stating, in public (at as part of a major keynote speech), that IBM wanted an enterprise ready LINUX (and at the same time leaving UNIX behind - but not the AIX UNIX customers) was a direct assault on Caldera/SCO's years of planning! Years of Caldera/SCO convincing other LINUX groups to standardize LINUX on the UnitedLINUX platform, years of spending money for UNIX assets (some of these UNIX as sets being given away by Caldera/SCO were part of the original plan, as they also planned that the certain amounts of UNIX code that they freed would be too tempting to the LINUX/UnitedLinux developers not to use it... AND these developers using any of this old code would assist with the "forward and backward" compatibility future of their OpenUNIX-ware and OpenLinux enterprise goal), and the years of coding UNIX or getting others to help them upgrade the UNIX code (by maybe even borrowing LINUX GPL code to make UNIX able to run LINUX - remember the e-mail by former SCO employee and kernel developer, Christoph Helwig, where he pointing to any stealing that happened being associated with the possibility that LINUX code was going into SCO UNIXware) so that it would run free UnitedLinux compatible apps on enterprise level hardware (so that Caldera/SCO could reap enterprise level profits by owning a UNIX/LINUX hybrid that everyone else (UnitedLinux folks) would code for and SCO would just have to hire a marketing staff - ALL WENT POOF! All gone, Bye-bye, all blown away by IBM's different vision of UNIX! I wonder was what in that IBM contact that SCO saw as something that they could use to move their UNIX into the 64bit world (the only missing and final part to their plan)? This scheme is the #1 SCO reason as to why Caldera took on the UNIX assets!

Could it be that Canopy, Caldera/SCO's board of directors, and both Love and McBride have been singing the same song for oh-so long... that they now, due to efforts by IBM and others to make LINUX run on the mainframes, etc... that, they then were forced into having only one option left - sue IBM to try to get them to finish the 64bit part they needed for UNIXware, a hail mary law suit, and then a go for broke claim to own all of UNIX-to include LINUX as a defined UNIX and own it too? Believe it or not... at one point in time, there was a method to their conspiracy based madness!

The last quote found below is where Ransom Love drives home an interesting unFORK of an idea - to take the best of LINUX and move it to their very own UNIX (that would run Linux) cocktail. Hmmmm, - not really a FORK but, still a FORKING...! And it just may be that all this has got Microsoft now thinking of how to do the something creative with their new SCO UNIX rights! Hmmm, and just what is the wording of SCO's Microsoft Unix contract?

http://zdnet.com.com /2100-11-530155.html?legacy=zdnn [Now, Love said he is deadly serious in developing Linux to become the main business-platform. "From the technical view this is a major challenge. I hold a lot respect for all these Linux companies and their work. They are no parasites, either. They put millions into the development, just like us. Our job is now mainly marketing. It's sad, because the marketing guys are always seen as the bad guys. We never get the credit. But if we did not do that, none of the Linux companies on the market could survive. We pay 650 people to work for and on Linux, just as Suse or Red Hat do with their 600 employees each. I would call that a large contribution to the open source movement."]

http://news.com.com /2100-1001-251959.html?legacy=cnet [The combination of Caldera Systems' Linux products and SCO's Unix software puts Love in the position--unusual for a Linux executive--of discussing the weaknesses of Linux on high-end systems with multiple CPUs. Caldera has a financial stake in this argument; the company is modifying SCO software so it can run Linux software unchanged.

Caldera believes UnixWare is better-suited to these high-end environments. McCrab said that after years of tuning, Unixware 7 shows more than double the performance of Linux running Linux software on high-end systems.

The ability to run Linux software on SCO Unix will be ready in test form this March, with the final product available before midyear, McCrab said.]

http://www.linuxjournal. com/article.php?sid=5406 [A dangerous course indeed, in this market. Caldera can't afford to keep UnixWare alive as a proprietary product if the mainstream Linux kernel blows past it in performance and features. "Our model is to innovate, give back, and innovate again," Ransom says. So, if current industry trends are any guide, Caldera will be making a lot more of UnixWare a lot more open than they're expecting.]

http://www.computerworld.com/industrytopics/transportation/story/0 ,10801,48264,00.html [Orem, Utah-based Caldera said it would create an "open Internet platform," scaling from thin clients to the data center. On the high end, it will offer UnixWare and an upcoming 64-bit Unix that will result from Project Monterey, a joint effort by IBM and SCO. Both will run Linux binaries, but unlike Linux, their source code can't be freely redistributed.

In a conference call with analysts, Caldera CEO Ransom Love said developers would get access to all Caldera source code, but that Caldera would hold on to ownership of parts of the code. "Ownership [of code] is not a bad thing, it's actually a good thing," said Love. "It protects [code] quality."]

http://news.com.com/2008-1082-9 29697.html [So UnitedLinux will remain an open-source project? Absolutely. The only difference is that the UnitedLinux binaries will not be freely distributed. People will be able to download the source code and compile their own binaries, but they will not be able to use the UnitedLinux brand.]

http://news.zd net.co.uk/business/0,39020645,2111167,00.htm [What does all this mean for the operating systems you acquired from SCO, namely OpenLinux and OpenServer? We are not stopping development of our Unix operating systems, and have upgrades to OpenServer and OpenUnix coming. OpenUnix will run UnitedLinux applications by the end of the year, and that that time OpenLinux 4.0 (Caldera's Linux distribution) will ship with the UnitedLinux kernel. The message to developers is to develop Linux applications--that is, develop UnitedLinux applications so they can deploy to either OpenUnix or OpenLinux or any of the other UnitedLinux distributions out there.

So OpenUnix will continue in parallel to OpenLinux? Yes. Open Unix could well keep going in parallel to OpenLinux. We are not moving Open Unix onto Intel's 64-bit platform, but IA32 will be around for a long time yet.]

http://www .ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0305.0/0237.html Former SCO employee Christoph Hellwig quote RE: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?: "It might be more interesting to look for stolen Linux code in Unixware, I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux fileystem in the Linux compat addon product for UnixWare.. "

http://zdnet.com.com /2100-11-521486.html?legacy=zdnn [Love added that any kind of move on SCO's part to "unify Unix and Linux" would be "very positive."]


pj

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 02:58 PM EDT
My thoughts on the letter:

The DOS attacks need to be addressed. If there is proof that they did not occur, state it. Point out that no one announces a DOS attack before it occurs, because warning makes it easier to defend against. Also question how odd the Raymond announcement was- don't go out and say he was set up, let the reader figure it out. The DOS attacks were really used by Darl- disprove them and the boy has egg on his face.

The Linuxtag suit. How SCO's euro-CEO will have to pay or go to jail. Also, point out the maximum penalties- they are large and it sounds good.

The Redhat suit, and what it may do.

Point out Darl's lies in regards to the Computerwire article, and Computerwire's rebuttal.

The fact that SCO has threatened commercial users of Linux, but will not invoice them. And that they say they will take a "cc order," but won't tell you what that order is for.

Darl's code at the slideshow.

And finally, how all of this appears to be a setup- selective info. presented to journalists and analysts like DiDiot, manipulation of the media etc. Perhaps designed to scare IBM into a fast settlement. Bravado and bluster, no substance.

I would recommend going deeply into the questions regarding GPL vs. copyright, because this will put readers asleep. Ditto with long rebuttals of each one of Darl's points filled with legalese- not even lawyers like to read legalese. Far more effective to point out, like Linus did, that there should be no negotiation with Darl. Make it clear Darl is a thief, and highly unethical. Using his own statements against him can be highly effective.

If we can show that Darl lied about several things, has threatened commercial users on his website but won't send out invoices, and let the reader believe he is a fast talker with the goal of using the legal system to earn money, we have gone far in destroying the SCO FUD. The statements should be simple enough that someone as unfamiliar with the situation can follow and understand. And, very importantly, the tone of the letter should be calm and rational. Just like Darl's letter- only we will be telling the truth. Anger doesn't play well, except on Jerry Springer and Geraldo.

Make Darl McBride, CEO of SCO, become Darl McBride, liar, scoundrel, and con man in the mind of the reader. By telling the truth.


wild bill

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 02:59 PM EDT
I would recommend going deeply into the questions regarding GPL vs. copyright, because this will put readers asleep. Ditto with long rebuttals of each one of Darl's points filled with legalese- not even lawyers like to read legalese

Should be-

I would recommend NOT going deeply into the questions regarding GPL vs. copyright, because this will put readers asleep. Ditto with long rebuttals of each one of Darl's points filled with legalese- not even lawyers like to read legalese

Sorry.


wild bill

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 03:12 PM EDT
One final thought- this is agitprop, not a legal brief. Darl has been
propagandizing for months, and he calls his propaganda "press releases." This
is the answer to Darl's propaganda. Its rebuttal. And it wouldn't hurt to
entertain the audience a bit with "stupid Darl" quotes. Many can be found at
the "We Love the SCO Information Minister" website. Readers like to see that
the bad guy is a buffoon, too.
wild bill

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 03:20 PM EDT
Hmm, the day is almost over, how about some fun:
The right punishment for Darl McBride: http://www.rm-r.net/~getc h/punishments/curious/ The chapter about Branks and gags seems to be perfect... ;-)
Jadeclaw

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 03:31 PM EDT
wild bill - demonstrating that there PROBABLY wasn't a DoS (and if ther was it wasn't responsible for most of the downtime) is unfortunately a long technical argument. It also requires copies of the netcraft performance graphs. I don't think it is therefore appropriate in the letter but I have asked netcraft if they will allow republishing of their graphs (no response yet) so that we can put a separate web page together about it.

The one thing that is more accessible is the issue of the person who approached ESR. If SCO had really reported the incident to the FBI as they claimed then they would have said that ESR had been approached by someone claiming to know the attacker and ESR would have had a request to turn over any info he had. If the latter had happened it would have been in the Perens and ESR letter, if the attack had really happened SCO wouldn't have bluffed about reporting it therefore the most likely option is that the attack didn't happen.


Adam Baker

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 03:41 PM EDT
wild bill - SCO Group didn't get the DR-DOS money - Canopy split Caldera in 2, one went after MS and the other was the Linux business so canopy got the money.

quatermass - damages went from $1 billion to $3 billion as SCO started claiming triple damages for wilful infringment once they had notified IBM and IBM didn't magically make SCO profitable.


Adam Baker

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 04:03 PM EDT
This doesn't have to do directly with our Dear Darl, but it seems like a good place to mention it. I haven't seen this article posted anywhere, yet (although there's an awful lot of comments to search through!). It's a ComputerWorld opinion piece by Jonathan Schwartz, Exec. VP of Sun Microsystems, in which he calmly states that "Open-source is irrelevant" in that it doesn't help in the push for open standards (hogwash, by the way), also implying that if open source doesn't have that benefit, then it's pretty useless otherwise. This is the same guy that we saw announcing Sun's proposed "indemnification" plan the other day.

A few interesting quotes from the article:

"Now a variety of technology companies are delivering proprietary technology into the world, and they're creating dependencies while hiding under a shroud called 'open-source.' Don't be fooled, they're shirking the very open standards that guarantee interoperability. Why? Because they don't like interoperability—they like dependency."

Huh!? No open source software that I use fits this description. Open source people tend to love interoperability, and will go to great lengths to hack it into their projects. Even KDE and GNOME have done work together to promote interoperability, for crying out loud.

"To me, open-source is irrelevant to the discussion. And as the industry's single largest contributor to the open-source movement, I don't say that lightly."

O-kay. And..

"Ignore the fact that StarOffice is open-source. It's an irrelevance."

Does it sound like someone's trying to divert attention elsewhere?


pik

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 04:37 PM EDT
Adam Baker wrote: "wild bill - SCO Group didn't get the DR-DOS money - Canopy split Caldera in 2, one went after MS and the other was the Linux business so canopy got the money."

I thought the way that went was that Caldera bought DR-DOS from Novell, sued M$ and won about 155 million, with 25% going back to Novell because they owned a stake in Caldera. Days later, Caldera filed their IPO. And near the same time, the received investment capital from Sun Microsystems, SCO, Citrix, Novell, Egan Managed Capital, and Chicago Venture Partners. Caldera then went on to become "The SCO Group." Caldera was always in the Linux business- this is the same Caldera that sued MS, if I am not mistaken.


wild bill

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 04:39 PM EDT
Adam Baker wrote- "The one thing that is more accessible is the issue of the person who approached ESR. If SCO had really reported the incident to the FBI as they claimed then they would have said that ESR had been approached by someone claiming to know the attacker and ESR would have had a request to turn over any info he had. If the latter had happened it would have been in the Perens and ESR letter, if the attack had really happened SCO wouldn't have bluffed about reporting it therefore the most likely option is that the attack didn't happen. "

Is there any way to get this into the letter without getting too technical? Any way to determine whether or not a DOS attack was reported to any of the appropriate authorities? If it did not happen, my guess is that it was never reported. Darl isn't stupid enough to file a false report.


wild bill

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 04:56 PM EDT
I really think ESR would have said if the feds had asked him who contacted him.
Someone could check with him to be certain. If the matter had been reported then
ESR would have to have been approached unless the FBI had decided SCOs evidence
was so poor it was useless (and surely no-one could think that of evidence from
SCO:-)
Adam Baker

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 04:58 PM EDT
Some good posts at LWN.net on a proactive approach to educate the media about SCO.

http://lwn.net/Articles/48888/


ProgrammerMan

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 05:09 PM EDT
Couldn't the letter just raise questions about the alleged DOS, without actually proving that it didn't happen?

For example, it could say that its uptime/downtime patterns seemed to match business hours perfectly, and that several people were told by SCO employees that the site was down for maintenance. Those facts are simple to understand and easily supported.

Then, mention that no one (including ESR) has ever claimed to know the identity of the attacker, and that SCO has provided no evidence that they have reported it to the authorities.

Conclude that there isn't enough evidence yet to determine whether there were any attacks, or, if there were, whether they were responsible for all of SCO's site's recent downtime. State that, based on SCO's poor record in telling the truth so far, we would like to see more evidence, but that, in any case, such tactics find very little support in the open source community at large.


Dave

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 05:26 PM EDT
How about a very short main response that highlights 2 of the best points, and links/points to a lengthy, detailed dissection of of the 'open letter'

The short letter might be something along the lines of (definitely not to be repeated verbatim)

"the purpose of 'open letters' is generally to present new, useful information and build understandings. Your letter contains no new information, a great many accusations, and what would appear to be deliberate lies. Your 'open letter' is analyzed at great length <here>.

We question your sincerity because the letter continues SCO's aggressive, belligerent and unproven accusations and it proposes no resolution to the key issue of this whole debate.

The key issue of the debate SCO's cynical contempt of IP law, and contempt for genuine copyright holders.

Mr. McBride, your contempt of IP law and of the true copyright holders of Linux is proven by your refusal to abide by IP law by showing proof of the alleged violations. Your contempt is proved by your refusal to allow the alleged violations to be fixed. That is how IP law was written, that is how copyright law is applied by all who respect it.

Since you refuse to condunct yourself according to the law one can only conclude that you are contemptuous of it. "


Sanjeev

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 05:29 PM EDT
Be ready for this

"we attempted to give the open source community an olive branch and they refused it"

in a press release on Monday to accompany the RH suit response.


Sanjeev

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 05:41 PM EDT

Dave: Couldn't the letter just raise questions about the alleged DOS, without actually proving that it didn't happen?

Wouldn't that be fighting FUD with FUD? Much as I like to stick to the facts, sometimes the smellier skunk wins! :)


Frank

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 05:45 PM EDT
Darl can say hi to Hale & Dorr, LLP on Monday too, look them up.

Prehaps that has something to do with the "olive branch" (or was it skunk spray into the headlights of the oncoming Mack truck?)


Dan O'Mara

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 05:59 PM EDT
SCO wants u to concentrate on the attack. They read RMS letter ... it's ONE OF US ... and Darl was happy and knew he could use that. May be there was a little attack, but now Darl see a real good FUD opportunity. So he use that opportunity to change some stuff on the website... too shut down the website for no reason whatsoever once in a while. He know that Raymond made a mistake and that the community would react and he know that the facts (downtime after the first real attack) look not right. He know that the community will say they don't think there was an attack and then, then he comes with some FBI guy (or some kind of proof) that there really was an attack and how the community ignore and tried to lie about that fact and don't take responsibility and so on and bla bla bla more FUD.

Don't talk about the attack (onless you know the facts). YOu make the same mistake as RMS. I and You have nothing to do with that, no matter if it took place or not. Some individual may be did it, but he does not represend me.

Please, think, think, think! There are enough lies and facts that we can use. Don't use that attack. We don't know what happend, cause we didn't do it! End of the story!


NoAttack

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 06:03 PM EDT
I think it would be dangerous to refute SCO's claims that they suffered a DOS. I think it entirely possible that their first downtime WAS caused by a DOS [note that the traceroute posted on Groklaw the first night had a crucial typo]. If so, SCO could easily claim that the other downtime -which I agree does not look like a DOS - was caused by the need to upgrade their machine in response to the attack.

In other words, there is a trap we could walk into that looks like this: Groklaw: There is no evidence that Linux violates SCO's software, nor is there any evidence that SCO suffered a DOS attack.

SCO: Well, we can't release our evidence of Linux copyright violations because that is needed for our pending $3billion lawsuiit against IBM, but we will be happy to release the evidence of the attack [convincing evidence of initial DOS + ESR's bogus letter]

Media: Open Source advocates suffered a stunning defeat when SCO released the evidence they have been clamouring for. The evidence included a letter from the Rebel Leader of Open Source claiming responsibility for the controversy. IBM was not available for comment.


Billy Harris

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 06:05 PM EDT
No Attack, I read your post after submitting mine and absolutely agree with
you.
Billy Harris

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 06:20 PM EDT
I don't speak or write good english, but i can read and understand english and i really get nervous that the linux community make the same mistake. If you don't know the facts, don't use it! I'm a windows user, but the facts, ethic, moral, and truth are with the Linux community on this one, so please use these facts, truths, morals and tell the world where SCO was (is) lying!
NoAttack

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 06:24 PM EDT
Re: John G's revisons to his letter.

John, you might want to check your sources for the Sun and Mircosoft "licenses" to make sure that they are "perpetual, etc."

Reading the last 10Q, it would seem that these licenseses are only good for a year with an option for an extension, of one year.

If you have better information than I, you might want to referrence it in the paragraph.


D.

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 06:59 PM EDT
Wild Bill, Adam Baker is right about the Caldera Systems / Caldera International split. The Caldera that got the settlement from Microsoft is a different company from the Caldera that went public.

The Caldera that went public even mentions this in their S-1 IPO registration -- they say that they spun off an unrelated business unit.

As far as our PR for the DDOS goes, I'd like to see ESR contact SCO and ask for the name of the agent in charge in the investigation. Then ESR calls that agent and reports all the information known to ESR. Then ESR says that he has done these two things. That cleans up open source's reputation: we cooperate with the FBI to stop illegal actions.

If SCO says "sorry we won't tell you the name of the agent in charge of our investigation", then ESR reports *that* and SCO gets a black eye.

(I already wrote ESR back when he first talked about the phone call that he got, but got no response. I expect that he got a lot of mail during that time.)


mec

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 07:18 PM EDT
FYI, I believe that we can register with PR Newswire as a company for a year for $100. Then there's a cost for each news release, but I don't think it's that much. Here's what they say about using SCO's ticker in our press release:

"Tickers For Publicly Traded Companies Publicly traded companies automatically get their ticker symbol included in every release they issue. This is required so the releases will index properly on the hundreds of Web sites and databases carrying PR Newswire copy. The use of ticker symbols NOT belonging to the company issuing the news release will only be permitted if the news involving the second company is determined to be “material” by PR Newswire or if the ticker belongs to the issuing organization’s parent company or subsidiary. If applicable, please list additional tickers and respective exchanges: ..."

If you guys came up with some kind of press release that could get accepted with SCO's ticker, I'd be willing to spring for the couple hundred bucks for PR Newswire.

Mike


Michael Flaster

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 07:50 PM EDT
pj, oops-sorry... BUT, I copied the wrong version and e-mailed it to you... RE: annon quotes above - The URLs had more and I sent you the version that was lacking! For example: The first time that I have ever seen the *FORK* word quoted from the mouth of a Caldera/SCO offical should have been in the above version of the reading (in this case it is Ransom Love's mouth that says *FORK*...)! AND the second quote that was not in the version I sent is also LOVE saying: "In the future, all Linux applications will have a price tag".

Quote 1 (that should have been sent) http://www.linuxjournal. com/article.php?sid=5406 ["Linux is being pulled across the spectrum of IT solutions, and a single kernel won't scale," Ransom says. The considerations that are important to embedded Linux, to the small server market Linux rules now, and to the midrange and high-end server markets are different.

As Linux "forks" — hopefully through a proliferation of compile-time options, not a real fork, Ransom hastens to add — the high-end parts will end up participating in some sort of technology-sharing arrangement with UnixWare.

So, Linux, UnixWare, Openserver, Monterey (or whatever they're calling it now) — what is the secret master plan? I draw a chart — OSes down the left, years across the top, fill in "Linux 2.4" in 2001 with a question mark, and ask Ransom to fill in the rest. Arrows sprout from Linux and spread like fungus tendrils into the "UnixWare" and "Monterey" areas — that's the compatibility thing — and a big arrow moves forward into the future along the UnixWare/Linux dividing line. This represents the spawn of Linux and UnixWare, an über-OS with a yet-to-be-determined licensing policy. Ransom says you'll be able to see the source code, but parts will be open source, and parts will be "viewable source" — you'll be able to read it, but not modify and redistribute it.]

Quote 2 (also missed this quote by from Ransom Love)! http://zdnet.com.com /2100-11-530155.html?legacy=zdnn [The truth is, according to Love, nothing is for free. "Someone must pay for it. All these small modifications in the code... all this does cost money. To bring it to the point: The only way to make Linux a successful business is to cash in. This is the other side of the medal. In the future, all Linux applications will have a price tag. That's the job of the movement's marketing department. You will have to pay for it, but of course less than you would pay for NT products because one thing is clear: our main competitor is Microsoft." ]


annon

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 07:59 PM EDT
The letter should be detailed and substatiated with the facts only. Without proof to dispute the allegations we should not directly address them as lies, even if pure common sense says they are. Instead we should ask "Why were people told the website was down for an maitenance cycle upgrade?"

Any response to Darl's FUD has to bne based in fact, Personally I love the way ESR, Perrens and Linus handled it. Polite, nice to the point and sharply. For any Dungeons and Dragons players they practically hit McBride with a +10 Sword on a natural critical hit doing double damage (ouch).

Fact is McBride wants to steal Linux, we know it, and he knows we know it. So lets make sure everyone else knows it too.


Shaun

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 08:14 PM EDT
This month's form-3 and form-4 stock transactions, so far

Ryan Tibbitts ("General Counsel and Corp. Sec") gets 65,000 options http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110254203 000063/xslF345X02/edgardoc.xml

Olson sells 7000 shares at $17.52 to $17.7 (and buys 3000 at $2.07) http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110254203 000061/xslF345X02/edgardoc.xml

Broughton sells 5000 at $18.05 to $18.09 http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110254203 000059/xslF345X02/edgardoc.xml

Broughton sells 5000 at $14.71 to $14.721 http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110254203 000057/xslF345X02/edgardoc.xml


quatermass - SCO delenda est

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 08:15 PM EDT
If I were Linus, I would have replied something along these lines.

Darl, thanks for the business offer. I have long been wondering how to convert linux into cash. Wouldnt I, like anybody, love to make billions of dollars from my efforts.

Unfortunately, there are just a couple of issues.

All of the many people who have contributed to linux did so under the impression that their work would always be freely available to anyone who was also prepared to make the work freely available, and seeking their unanimous consent to close linux is something I will happily leave to you.

I understand there are also a few legal matters outstanding that need to be settled before we could take matters further.

Yours etc


peter garrone

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 08:19 PM EDT
Darl McBride Disappears!
http://timransomsfeeblemind.blog spot.com Thanks again
P.S., sorry I have nothing but humour to contribute
Tim Ransom

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 08:22 PM EDT
Brian Proffitt comments on Dar'ls letter. May have already been posted here.

http://linuxtoda y.com/infrastructure/2003091201426OPCDDV


Gerry Tool

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 08:55 PM EDT
Pik, you have quoted Johathan Schwartz completely out of context. The subject
was about the problem he had to apply for a patent when he has not Ms Word and
that the patent office only accept Word documents. He wasn't telling not to use
Open Source, he just said that it was not relevant in the present discussion.
Its, I think, a good example of what Mr McDribe (or whatever) was doing with
Bruce Perens quote...
jeanph01

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 08:58 PM EDT
annon: A little more recently: In January of this year IBM became a Technology Partner of SCO (United Linux). United Linux is “a partnership of industry-leading Linux companies combining their intellectual property". HP is also a partner. In fact almost all of the Major Project Monterey partners are still working together on The Carrier Grade Linux Project. Project.http://www.suse.co.uk/uk/company/press/press_releases/archive 03/ul_cgl.html

On March 17 of this year Opinder Bawa,formerly of IBM and Toshiba, but then Vice President of Technolgy and Development at SCO wrote an article for Computerworld. It was titled "How To Integrate Linux With Unix. His last suggestion was:

4. Contact the necessary vendors and gather the binaries and source code needed to allow Unix applications to run on Linux and Linux applications to run on Unix.

http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,79146,00.html

I think we should ask Darl and SCO to make a decision to either share our IP and technology, or to sue us over it. I for one am tired of seeing them try to do both.


Harlan

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 09:00 PM EDT
Sorry about the busted link.
href="http://www.suse.co.uk/uk/company/press/press_releases/archive03/ul_cgl.htm
l">http://www.suse.co.uk/uk/company/press/press_releases/archive03/ul_cgl.html a>
Harlan

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 09:00 PM EDT
Michael, thank you for your offer. I think, though, that it's considerably more expensive than $100. Can you find out? See what kind of deal you can make and let us know, pls. If you can't, post that you can't and someone else can then do it.

They're online, so checking shouldn't be hard. We'd want a one-time use, if they sell that way, not a year's subscription, which is more realistically going to be in the thousands.


pj

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 09:16 PM EDT
Quatermass said in the previous comments "but I'm struggling to understand how SCO could think they can have suffered so much damage from IBM." in relation to the $1 billion claim.

Look at it this way. You write software and sell it and support services. IBM made $589 million on operating system software and $2.7 billion on middleware, mostly WebSphere and DB/2, in the last quarter alone. And how much did Novell pay AT&T for UNIX? (And double the number to account for inflation.)

Or - Red Hat and SuSE charge about $1000 per year for Linux support and there are 2.5 million Linux servers out there. Wouldn't you like a piece of the action? With a decent product and an aggressive company it is quite possible for a good developer to write £1million dollars worth of code a year. Of course those dollars have to support more than just the developer in the company.

Tim, no need to apologise for your humour :-))


Chris Priest

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 09:19 PM EDT
PJ,

One point to remember, is that McB's letter is a recap of the BS that Caldera/SCOG has been spewing since 2001, and that there are four active responses to this c**p. Two active cases in Germany and two in the US.

Remember how you headlined the article "McBride Trolls, Hoping You'll Say Something Legally Stupid".

McBride, Sontag and to a lesser extent Stowell, are trying prop up a dead company to allow the principals to escape. This is common in small/medium enterpises here in America.

The Lindon gang is executing their "exit strategy".


D.

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 10:06 PM EDT
D said:

McBride, Sontag and to a lesser extent Stowell, are trying prop up a dead company to allow the principals to escape. This is common in small/medium enterpises here in America.

The Lindon gang is executing their "exit strategy".


I think this is a very important point that D makes - even though it may be speculation at some level, as it ties together the falsehoods, the trolling and other activities into a cohesive whole that makes sense.

Most business people - even the crooked ones I have dealt with in the past, at least behaved with decorum and tried to hide their motives, but Darl, et. al. are just hanging it all out there for everyone to see.

It it is handled right, it may even present a pattern sufficient to generate some legal interest by folks we whose attention we want to get.


Paul Penrod

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 10:09 PM EDT
I think that the Dear Darl open letter is a good idea. Not for convincing Darl of anything, but as a public anti-FUD document. What I really think should be done though is for someone to compile a list of points that a savvy journalist, especially someone with a good legal background, could ask in an interview with Darl. So far he has not been asked any really pointed questions and has totally ignored any of the points that have been raised by members of the OSS community in the interviews and public statements that he and the rest of the SCO gang have been uttering. It would be nigh impossible to cover all of the points, but such things as the contracts and side letters, derivative works, the BPF code that does not have the BSD copyight, trade secrets, SCO's grandiose statements of its products versus the reality of its dismal performance, how US copyright law trumps the GPL, etc. I am sure that someone could put together a really tough interview sheet. Finding an interviewer that is knowledgeable enough to ask those questions and do the follow up questions is one problem, but I am sure that someone in the OSS community knows just the right person. Then getting Darl to actually agree to such an interview is probably the biggest hurdle. He seems to want to speak only when he can control what questions are asked and by whom, as well as how many.

Glenn


Glenn Thigpen

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 10:13 PM EDT
Chris, IANAL, but your number doesn't work for me. I thought the damages that SCO is claiming from IBM are supposed to have some relationship to IBM's alleged unlawful actions.

> IBM made $589 million on operating system software and $2.7 billion on middleware, mostly WebSphere and DB/2, in the last quarter alone.

From what I can tell, SCO was getting any royalties from AIX anyway. I can't see any relationship between WebSphere/DB/2 and SCO's Unixware sales or lack thereof.

> And how much did Novell pay AT&T for UNIX? (And double the number to account for inflation.)

And how much did SCO/Caldera pay SCO/Tarantella for UNIX? From what I can make out a LOT less than Novell paid AT&T. And SCO/Caldera got a distribution channel, a division of SCO/Tarantella, Unixware, Open Server etc. for their money too. They actually valued all the UNIX assets at compartively very little, in SCO's own finanical statements.

Furthermore, software and R&D assets generally get worth LESS over time. Most companies, including I think SCO, depreciate intellectual property assets over time.

This is how it appears in Caldera's July 2001 10-Q (remember this was before SCO/Caldera did a reverse split so share numbers are a multiple of today's share numbers)

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000103570401500341/d9063 1e10-q.txt

In May 2001, the Company acquired significant assets and operations from Tarantella, Inc. in exchange for: (i) the issuance of 16 million shares of common stock (1.6 million of which are being held in escrow); (ii) the issuance of options to purchase up to an aggregate of 1.7 million shares of common stock in exchange for options to purchase Tarantella common stock held by people who became employees of Caldera; (iii) $23 million in cash, including the forgiveness of $7 million previously advanced to Tarantella; and (iv) a non-interest bearing promissory note in the amount of $8 million that will be paid in quarterly installments of $2 million beginning July 2002. In addition, if the OpenServer line of business generates revenue in excess of specified thresholds during the three-year period following the acquisition, Caldera will pay Tarantella 45% of the excess revenue. The following table summarizes the components of the consideration paid to Tarantella (in thousands except per share amounts)

SCO/Caldera in the table at bottom of page 9, give total value of deal as $93,787,000.

On page 10, they break out some values from the this $93.8m, specifically for technology/IP (this would be in thousands of dollars):- Existing technology (consisting primarily of UnixWare and OpenServer) 5,800

Acquired in-process research and development 1,500

Trade name and trademarks 800

In the same 10-Q, they value ALL intangible assets (page 2), at $35.562m

(Incidentally in April 2003, they value ALL intangible assets at $9.689m http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110465903012299/j2045_1 0q.htm )

So IBM is supposed to have done $1bn or $3bn of damages to a business that SCO acquired, 2 years ago, for $93.8m, and whose IP they valued at time, at approx $8.1m??

> Red Hat and SuSE charge about $1000 per year for Linux support and there are 2.5 million Linux servers out there. Wouldn't you like a piece of the action?

Personally I wouldn't as I'm not in that business :-) But I agree SCO might.

However that's hardly a realistic assessment of any damage by IBM's alleged actions. IBM is alleged to have done something to damage SCO's UNIX business. IBM is not alleged to have damaged SCO's Linux business. The fact that SCO is not sufficiently cashing on in any Linux business, does not seem to be in the complaint - and so I would conclude IBM is not even alleged to have done anything to stop SCO getting a slice of the Linux action.

> With a decent product and an aggressive company it is quite possible for a good developer to write £1million dollars worth of code a year. Of course those dollars have to support more than just the developer in the company.

The July 2001 10-Q has quarterly R&D of $6.662m plus non-cash total of $1.578m, plus in-process of $1.5m (the last one I suspect was written off but not sure). I have not looked thru every 10-Q but I suspect it's near the highest

The April 2003 10-Q has R&D of $2.542m plus stock-based compensation on R&D of less than $0.3m

Even if IBM's alleged actions destroyed all SCO R&D over a long period, and SCO's R&D were worth a great multiple of expenses that SCO spent on R&D over an equally long period of time, it's hard to get from these sort of numbers to $1bn or $3bn.

I have to ask again, what rationale lies behind the damages claim. IANAL, but it just seems hard to fathom for me. Especially in that it suddenly multipled by 3X. I also think that it's very lucky for SCO's media coverage that the damages allegedly caused by IBM are such a nice round number.


quatermass - SCO delenda est

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 10:39 PM EDT
Quartermass and Alex, your research produces a lot more results than my worst-case-scenarioing. Good stuff

Re: the Linux today article

Brian must have read my submissions here. : ) I've been saying that SCO is signalling out in the open through interviews and press releases for a long time.

No need for backroom discussions with MS and SUN when the press will carry your message for you just fine.

Darl's posturing as the victim is not flying.
A lot of people are not happy about US litigious contagion.
You're not a victim if you're "fighting for the right to buy a 2nd house"
Trying to steal from volunteers (something that has not seen a lot of coverage in the press, <sigh>) does not get "good little guy being put down".


Sanjeev

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 11:13 PM EDT
What ever happened to 'fiduciary responsibility' in the United States?

As the CEO of a publically traded company, Mr. McBride _has_ obligations, one of which is to his shareholders. Another is to the SEC (unless I am missing something...)

The 'blather' of Mr. McBride (and other "fiducaries" of The SCO Group) should be fair game to all 'code of conduct' laws in THE UNITED STATES. <hint!>

PJ?


Gerard

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 11:35 PM EDT
Scott Lazar, until we know the substance of SCO's allegations such an audit would be a waste of time.

Gerard, SCO is set up in such a way that Canopy group basically controls it. Darl's fiduciary responsibilities are to Canopy. Shareholder motions must be submitted months before the meetings, it requres 2/3 board of directors approval to allow a new member on the board of directors.

Non-Canopy shareholders are SOL as far as wielding any influence or oversight ability.

Many of the state fraud laws require citizens to sue the con artists. It requires clear and eggregious fraud to get the authorities involved. As long as SCO has that one small thin thread (the contracts) to hang by It looks as if law enforcement will do nothing, private citizens and companies will have to file suit.

I do believe that many people have complained to FTC, SEC, various state attorneys General and the FBI. I suppose FBI is much too busy with pot smokers and chronic pain patient heroin users, FTC with Listerine, SEC with Grasso, etc.... to care much about this sort of thing. (I am joking, I believe one complaint will go in the right ear (hey, that reminds me of an 80s song...) soon, and when that happens, SCO better have a good response ready. ...

See here for places you can complain (add your own too!!!)


Sanjeev

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 11:37 PM EDT
Glenn,
We are working on exactly what you suggest. Please, if anyone thinks of a good
question that should be on the list, please post it here. We will be preparing
a sheet of proposed questions for journalists to ask Mr. McBride and his
troops.
pj

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 12 2003 @ 11:57 PM EDT
Questions:

Some people charge that Microsoft and Sun did not buy their licenses from you because of any legal need, but instead bought them to help you scare users away from Linux. Would you like to comment on that charge?

Almost all of the lines of code that you claim infringe on SCO's IP are actually copyrighted by other companies. Do you believe you would be able to sue a Linux user for using code whose copyright you do not own?

Are there any legal issues that make SCO hesitant to send Linux IP invoices?


r.a.

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 12:00 AM EDT
Does anyone see what's happening? Groklaw is becoming kind of a temporary
volunteer press relations department for Linux. And a very good one. style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">r.a.

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 12:07 AM EDT
Question:

Of the code in Linux that infringes on your rights, how much is line by line copied code, how much is obfuscated code and how much is derivatives works?

All of the code in Linux has been viewable by the public for the entire time you claim code was being put in illegally. Since Caldera and SCO were both intimately involved in the Linux development process, why didn't your company object when the code was first put in?


r.a.

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 12:14 AM EDT
Question:

At SCO Forum you labelled code as being from Unix System V that has been identified as the berkeley packet filter routine code from the BSD operating system. Is that code properly attributed in the SCO code base?


r.a.

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 12:31 AM EDT
slightly off topic, but Microsoft is using the SCO lawsuit for FUD.

http://www.gul f-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=97436

looks like microsoft purchased a lincense all right. a license to spread FUD.


Dave Mears

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 01:27 AM EDT
Dave Mears says "slightly off topic, but Microsoft is using the SCO lawsuit for FUD. http://www.gul f-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=97436 looks like microsoft purchased a lincense all right. a license to spread FUD. "

Not that this was unexpected. Microsoft and their supporters will use any opportunity to discredit Linux. Of course, Linux developers *do* respect intellectual property (copyrights, patents, trademarks) but if Microsoft repeats a lie often enough then ... well you know the rest.

Though if any Microsoft spokesperson claims that Linux developers don't respect IP, you just mention Microsoft vs Timeline and watch them squirm. Microsoft supporters should not be throwing stones.

The problem is that Microsoft can't compete with Linux on price. TCO is nebulous but even then I think Linux has the upper hand. Microsoft could compete by producing better quality products but this doesn't seem to be their strong suit. FUD (and legislation, including IP lawsuits) are the only effective weapons against the Linux revolution.


Nathan Hand

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 02:10 AM EDT
Someone asked about my source for stating that the MS and Sun agreements were perpetual licenses. I can't find the post to respond to it, but the source is the SCO 10-Q filing from 6/13/03: http://tinyurl.com/n7vj

"This effort resulted in the execution of two license agreements during the April 30, 2003 quarter. The first of these licenses was with a long-time licensee of the UNIX source code which is a major participant in the UNIX industry and was a “clean-up” license to cover items that were outside the scope of the initial license. The second license was to Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), and covers Microsoft’s UNIX compatibility products, subject to certain specified limitations. These license agreements will be typical of those we expect to enter into with developers, manufacturers, and distributors of operating systems in that they are non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, paid up licenses to utilize the UNIX source code, including the right to sublicense that code." (Emphasis mine.)


John Gabriel

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 04:08 AM EDT
Hi Quatermass,

I always thought that claimed damages were a starting point for negotiations. ISTR reading somewhere in Groklaw that not even lawyers have to be truthful when negotiating a sale, otherwise how can you bargain? The judge and jury will decide the actual value, if any, of damages due.

Suppose you go down the junk shop and pick up a nice vase for $100, and that's what you believe then and that's what you tell the insurance company it's worth. Later on you figure out it's an antique worth $1000, and someone you know steals it, so you take them to court to get the vase or money back. Do you ask for $100 or $1000?

I take your point that it's SCOGs Unix, not Linux, business that's been damaged, but looking at PJs first first post here, we can see that SCOG had plans for mixing the two together to enhance the value of both. What would that value have been if the Itanic hadn't sunk and Linux on its own stayed confined to small systems? I think my IBM/RedHat financial argument shows that $1billion is not an unreasonable starting point from SCOGs point of view. (This is not to say that I think SCOG should or will win.:)

If RedHat plays it right, I can see them being a billion dollar a year company in five to ten years time. SCOG wanted to be there too with a combination of license and service fees, and some of those damages will be for their lost future.


Chris Priest

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 04:43 AM EDT
pj - you said "Michael, thank you for your offer. I think, though, that it's considerably more expensive than $100. Can you find out? See what kind of deal you can make and let us know, pls. If you can't, post that you can't and someone else can then do it."

Actually, it's off of their web site. https://prndirect.prnewswire.com/brochures/PR_Newswire_Membership_Appli cation.pdf Page 2, it says: "PR Newswire facilities are governed by Federal and State regulations. News copy and other information may be submitted to PR Newswire by members only, who are solely responsible for payment of all invoiced fees which are due upon receipt. Services may be withheld from overdue accounts. PR Newswire is a membership association. The 12-month membership fee is $100.00."

It later says: "News releases are billed according to word count. The first 400 words carry a base charge and each additional 100 words is subject to a length charge." but doesn't specify the charges.

I had a small company a couple of years back, and we joined a wire service and did some press releases. It was surprisingly inexpensive.


Michael Flaster

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 04:51 AM EDT
BTW, in order to join you have to be a company. So we'd have to have some company name.

Maybe the press release should just be something like "This is to announce the formation of Groklaw, Inc., a company devoted to giving a public face to Linux in its battle with SCOX. We have put together a web page with lots of useful info here _____. Our main points are ____."

Note I don't think we should call it "Groklaw Inc."

Maybe that's the main idea - that we should form a company devoted to being the PR engine for Linux. Or at least "a" PR engine for Linux. r.a. posted something to that effect above.

Not sure if we have any right to "speak" for Linux, or how that would work.


Michael Flaster

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 05:55 AM EDT
I haven't had time to follow the "open letter to Darl" discussion, but I've written a possible version of a section on intellectual property in case it might be useful. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it reflects what I've read here regarding the relevant laws.


Your use of the phrase "intellectual property" is imprecise and tends to confuse what are, in reality, separate issues. United States law provides four distinct types of protections that are sometimes loosely lumped together under the term "intellectual property." These concern copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. Since SCO holds neither the Unix trademark nor Unix patents, it is clear that any violations of SCO's intellectual property rights must involve some combination of trade secrets and copyrights.

Trade secret laws hinge on secrets' remaining secret. They allow legal action against those responsible for illegally disclosing a trade secret, but do not allow legal action against the general public for using a former trade secret if it becomes public knowledge. If laws were violated in providing SCO trade secrets to those responsible for the Linux kernel, it is entirely proper for SCO to take appropriate legal action against those who knowingly participated in the violations. But now that the secrets have been revealed, they are no longer secrets. The distribution and use of Linux versions containing former SCO trade secrets is not illegal.

That leaves only copyright law as a possible source for SCO "intellectual property" rights claims against Linux end users or against the Linux community as a whole. Copyrights cover only the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves, so methods of doing something cannot be copyrighted. Thus, the inclusion of "Unix methods" in Linux does not constitute a copyright violation. Similarly, you have no authority to demand payment based on copyrights that are owned by others unless the appropriate rights have been assigned to you. Even if every single line of Linux were contributed in violation of a contract you had with someone else, your legal remedy would be under contract law, not under copyright law.

Thus, for those of us not involved in the theft of trade secrets or the breach of contracts, the only real question is how many lines of Linux (if any) are illegally copied from copyrighted SCO code. Those are the only lines that matter in the slightest in determining what changes, if any, would be needed to bring Linux into compliance with your intellectual property rights.

We make this point not to downplay any violations that might fall into categories other than copyright, but rather to make it clear which types of actions SCO can legally hold the entire Linux community accountable for and which actions you can hold only the specific perpetrators accountable for. Demanding that Linux end users pay for offenses they had nothing to do with, as you are doing with your licensing program, at best merely compounds one injustice with another. If in fact your rights were violated, true justice can come only at the expense of the guilty, not at the expense of the innocent.


Nathan Barclay

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 06:54 AM EDT
BTW, do you do all your communication through these comments? It's a bit tedious to check all the time.

If anyone wants to e-mail me, see flaster.net.

Mike


Michael Flaster

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 09:19 AM EDT
Question:

SGI has stated that the 80 lines of code shown in your presentation were added in a manner consistent with its contracts and that "SCO has no basis for a claim against us" http://linuxinsider.com/per l/story/31536.html How do you respond to that statement?

In the Raelian human-cloning hoax, the Raelians said that they were unable to provide evidence except under unusual and restricted circumstances. Do you believe there are any similarities between that situation and the current SCO/Linux issue?


r.a.

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 09:27 AM EDT
Its a good thread, my only suggestion to PJ is to not rush the product. Don't
fire off something Monday you will regret Wednesday. Release it when its
done.
Ed L.

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 10:12 AM EDT
Questions for journalists to ask SCO

- Can you explain the process that SCO uses with it's developers to ensure that code they put into your products is not the property of closed source companies or open source projects?

- Why can no one who has called SCO been able to purchase a Linux license, will any be available before 10/15/2003 when the price goes up? If not, what was the purpose of the tiered pricing?

- Since SCO is in this for the long haul and believes that they will ultimately prevail, why are exectutives selling their stocks and no executives purchasing any stock on the open market?

- Why did Opinder Bawa CTO of SCO decide to sell all his stock in June, 2003 and resign effective July, 2003?

- Doesn't is make it difficult to continue to develop and support your existing products without a CTO to head this effort?

- What are the terms of the automatic stock divestiure plan? Is there a maximum number of shares per stock holder participating? A maximum time limit to the plan?

- Why has does the SCO Linux license published on it's web site say that if SCO no SCO 'IP' is found in Linux that the license holder cannot get a refund?

- Wouldn't it be more equitable for SCO to put any Linux license fees it receives before proving it's case in court into an escrow fund to be returned to the licensees if SCO is not entitled to receive the fees?

- Why does SCO repeately use the blamket term 'IP' when refering to its claims, rather than using the more legally correct terms: 'copyright', 'patent' or 'trade secret' depending on which area they are claiming.

- Why does SCO use the term 'IP' when refering to the IBM case, when in the past when press they have conceeded that they only have a contract case and not an 'IP' with IBM.

- At the SCO Forum at lot of noise was made about the evil GPL, etc. Yet you had a presentation entitled:"How to Use the GNU Toolkits," given by SCO engineer Kean Johnston. SCO also says that new veraions of OpenServer and UnixWare will include open source projects like Samba, Apache web server, OpenLDAP, Mozilla and others. So, is Open Source only good when it supports SCO's business and 'evil' the rest of the time?

http://www.i nfoworld.com/article/03/08/19/HNscodivide_1.html SCO users divided over GPL - CEO says GPL is about 'destroying value'

http://www.in foworld.com/article/03/08/19/HNscoplans_1.html SCO updates Unix, OpenServer product plans

--

Additional resources for questions and information: http://lwn.net/Articles/42784/ Hard questions I bet SCO is unwilling to answer

http://www.onlamp.com/pub/wlg/3702 A SCO-Fighting Press Kit


[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 10:45 AM EDT
I have been reading the various comments for the open letter and most seem to deal with details of law, technology, and other subjects of little interest to the man in the street. These details are essential, but I don't think they are enough; if we want to get published and quoted, then we need something short and quotable. backed up with all the detail for those who get interested enough to want them. One message that I think should go in everything is "Show us the code, and we'll remove it or show that it is legitimate." At any rate, here is my draft of the short and quotable version:

Dear Mr. McBride,

Your open letter suggests that SCO would like to enter a partnership with the open source community. But it is not clear that SCO has anything to offer.

A business model? You never made a profit under your old business model and your new business model is sustainable only as long as you can postpone a court verdict, if that long.

A model of due diligence? You sold Linux for four years without ever realizing that the GPL is a contract that imposes obligations as well as granting rights. You hired and paid programmers to work on Linux without ever making it clear to them what they could or could not properly contribute to the kernel.

Goodwill and the SCO name? The only goodwill that you have left is from the people locked into SCO software, and that will evaporate as soon as they get some alternative running.

Legal advice? Your attorney Mark Heise has made the risible claim that federal law pre-empts the right of a copyright holder to authorize the making of more than one copy of his work. Your own open letter fails to recognize that the GPL grants a license rather than transfers ownership.

Your code base? We wrote Linux without reference to your code, and created something better than what you have.

Monetizing our software? We aren't doing this for the money; we are doing it because it's fun, because we need the software for our own use, and for the respect of our peers. If you don't understand our motives, then you're a liability rather than an asset.

Freedom from false claims and frivolous lawsuits? We can get that through the legal system more cheaply and reliably than from you.

In short, your own actions have cost you the respect that is prerequisite to a successful partnership. We don't need you as a partner, and we don't want you.

Nevertheless, there is still a possible road by which you can regain our respect, if you have the will and courage. Tell us specifically where you claim Linux infringes on your intellectual property. Which files, which lines. Then for each of these we will either remove the offending code or show that we have the legitimate right to use it. If you are willing to deal in good faith, we can resolve the issues that lie between us. Make no mistake, this is a long road and uncertain of success. But it is the only road.


Paul Hughett

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 11:14 AM EDT
Wonderful comments, and I appreciate all the help. I will try to post in the comments section a draft of the exec summary by tomorrow.

I will do my best not to let you down. After I post, you can edit and fix and suggest. If we can do it by Monday, that is ideal. If it isn't done, we'll postpone.

We can't call ourselves Groklaw Inc. unless we actually incorporate. I will never do that. An LLC I might consider. There's expense associated with that. I don't really see the need for it though. If anyone wants to persuade me differently, please do so by email. Just click on the envelope on the left side of the home page. I don't want to post the address because of spam. The reason I don't see the need is a lot of reporters read Groklaw already. It will continue to establish itself based on content, as it already has.

The exec summary will be short. The lengthy proof document is another story, but that will be available here and referenced in the summary Dear Darl letter, for those that wish to have it. We want to do an attached suggested questions for journalists as well.

On the "attacks", I'm in the group that has doubts whether they happened, but they might have. Rather than take a position one way or another, why not ask him to make public his server logs and his upstream server logs? Anyone see anything wrong with that?


pj

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 12:21 PM EDT
Question:

Is Open Source really the problem here? If IBM, SGI and Sequent had given or sold to code to another closed source operating system such as Windows or a competing Unix variety, would SCO have the same issues, other than the obvious fact that SCO likely would never have found out?

About the attacks, I don't quite want to say they don't matter, but high profile companies are very often attacked and its almost never news. SCO has become, in a way, a high profile company so its done what other companies have done which is put up defenses against script-kiddie hackers that low profile companies don't have to worry about.

To the degree that this was ever news, it was news because ESR claimed it was "one of us" even though he didn't know the attacker's identity. It was very irresponsible for him to do that and Darl is trying to extract as much damage to the Linux community as he can from that mistake. If we fight on this issue, we are only helping Darl.

If ddos' were news, ibm.com could hold a press conference every twenty minutes.


r.a.

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 12:28 PM EDT
"Rather than take a position one way or another, why not ask him to make public
his server logs and his upstream server logs? Anyone see anything wrong with
that?" Nothing that I can see: your request puts the burden of proof on the the
SCO Group where it properly belongs.
blacklight

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 12:31 PM EDT
A dos is one step away from a hate mail letter.

If Darl claims he's getting hate mail we shouldn't ask him to prove it. I guess he probably is. That's not one of the major issues here. That's not something for us to be debating.

I'm glad SCO has upgraded its system to handle attacks better but we shouldn't help Darl turn a non-issue even into a minor issue.


r.a.

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 12:38 PM EDT
i dont think the dos attack should even be addressed.lots of companies get them
it isnt necessarily all linux users
it is usually an individual
also even MS bugs have caused dos attacks so that shouldnt be in the letter
it should be the things that we have facts for that really show the truth style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">brenda
banks

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 01:49 PM EDT
jeanph01 -

Regarding the Jonathan Schwartz quotes, I quite disagree. I stated the context of the quotes at the very beginning of my post. His claims that open source companies are sneakily "Creating dependencies" because "they don't like interoperability" are still FUD, in any context. My objections to the piece are two: one, that his claims of open source's irrelevancy in the push for open standards are complete rubbish (open source software authors tend to care a great deal about open standards, having created many of them themselves), and two, that he seems to be using that as an excuse to say a few other negative things about open source. We've seen that Sun is not on our side here, and we know it's in their battle plan to move people away from Linux and from FL/OSS. I stand by my earlier post.


pik

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 01:53 PM EDT
Question:

What specific things does SCO do to ensure that all of its code doesn't infringe on others rights that Linux developers do not do?


r.a.

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 02:38 PM EDT
Answer: nothing. They did not know and did not care that their NDA-ed code was
BSD. I expect that we'll eventually find so much public domain, BSD, Linux code
and licensee code in their UNIX V codebase that the judge will have to throw out
their copyrights claim. If the SCO Group has no compunction about misreading its
UNIX license contracts and trying to hijack Linux, I seriously doubt these are
the guys who would waste any time setting up any kind of safeguard against
infringement against others: it would imply that they have the kind of respect
for others that they just haven't demonstrated in the last six months. They have
been careless about bigger things like getting their facts right and reading the
letter and spirit of the law right. All these assessments converge to a
conclusion that not trampling on the rights of others is this management's top
priority.
blacklight

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 03:01 PM EDT
The "attack" was a large chunk of Darl's letter and it was the headline around the world. We can't ignore the issue and call it a reply to his letter. So pls. just think of ways to answer it that you feel will be effective. I have already decided that we will not say that it did or didn't happen. We can mention that many in the community have doubts. But we can't say it didn't happen, because without server logs, no one knows, including Raymond, in my view. But Darl's FUD was: you are counterculture creeps and the "attack" proves it and you need to police yourselves better.

That is what needs an answer of some sort. I have already seen everyone's opinion, so if you have anything new to add, this is the time.


pj

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 03:07 PM EDT
If SCO had been on the receiving and of a DoS that had been responsible for even a significant proportion of their downtime then they would have notified the FBI. At that point their server logs are evidence in a criminal investigation and they can't reveal them.

If we want to talk about the attacks at all in a letter then to my mind it has to be on the basis of have they been reported. In an interview it would be appropriate to ask about the pattern of the downtime and if SCO were using the discussion of a DoS as a cover to do other work on their website. Also how is a company supposed to be respected in the area of web services when they leave their web site down for 4 days and it takes a further week before it is working outside business hours when most other companies who suffer such an attack are back in a day or less.


Adam Baker

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 03:12 PM EDT
The thing is, if you ask for evidence about the "attack", if he has it, he'll present it, and we'll look bad, and if he doesn't, he'll either ignore us or instead act indignant that we're asking for evidence that they were attacked.

If you really want to say something about it, why don't you just make a statement saying how scummy it is to launch a DOS attach. Just denounce it.

I imagine the mainstream is completely confident SCO was DOS'ed by some "linux hacker". I'm not sure what you can accomplish - prove that they weren't attacked (when in fact they might have been)? And even if they weren't, I think it will be impossible to convince anyone.


Michael Flaster

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 03:43 PM EDT
Do not even mention the supposed DDOS attack ... it's not proven, there is doubt whether it actually happened, and ifthere are charges brought then it's tim eto mention it. IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE CODE!

Stick to what can be clearly shown:

SCO's adamant refusal to cooperate with the Linux developers so they can do the respectful thing and get his alleged "IP" out of the code.

The long, tangled history of the code SCO now has and Linux ... Novell, oldSCO, and Caldrea were all developing Linux and making UNIX work with Linux apps, and suddenly newSCO has problems with it? That particular can of worms was home-grown and passed along by the prevoius owner/developers of the code.


Tsu Dho Nimh

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 04:00 PM EDT
pj:
I'll just point out that Linus didn't mention the attacks in his response. Perens also didn't mention the 80 lines of code in his response.

john:
The problem with responding paragraph by paragraph is that Darl gets to choose all of the topics of discussion.

But if we must, how about:

resp. para 3 Mr. Raymond actually stated very clearly that that he did not know the identity of the attacker. As Mr. Raymond has, I'll take this opportunity to state that dos attacks are morally wrong.

resp. para 4 You are attempting to smear all supporters of Linux by the actions of some unknown person or people, when that action never been advocated and has been consistently denounced by many of Linux' most notable supporters. Unfortunately, you regularly attack Linux and the community around it with charges totally lacking in evidence or based on willful distortions of available evidence.


r.a.

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 04:08 PM EDT
I think we may all be concentrating on the DoS bit of Darl's letter because we saw that as a threat to us - probably because we were all so incensed with Eric Raymond's remarks when he made them.

Looking at the recent press coverage that google can find however that doesn't seem to be getting much attention - to be honest it looks like SCO are losing the press war. That being the case maybe the letter should focus on what the press do seem interested in, although from google that seems to be mainly SCOs lack of a long term business plan!


Adam Baker

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 04:45 PM EDT
Does anyone know if this http:/ /sourcefrog.net/weblog/issues/sco-vs-linux/boies-ethics.html dilemma of David Boies has been resolved? Could be this is occupying some of his time.
gumout

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 06:50 PM EDT
John,

I don't think we should get cute on this point either.

"Mr. Raymond has stated publicly that he opposes DOS attacks. We in the community join Mr. Raymond in clearly and strenuously opposing DOS attacks."


r.a.

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 07:50 PM EDT
Let's go for Darl McBride's throat: "While we differ with Eric Raymond [screw
you and your fast, loose and loud mouth, Eric!] in that we have doubts that the
attacks took place, we join him and Bruce Perens in condemning these attacks not
least because they interfere with our own efforts to regularly get public domain
information from your site. As a community, we bluntly reject any allegation of
yours that we as a community are somehow responsible for the actions of parties
unknown to us and over whom we have neither control or influence, and whose
actions directly interfere with our own efforts. And we reject any blame for
your irritating failure to live up to your responsibility to protect your site,
which again hinders our ability to get public domain information from your site
- assuming again that such DOS attacks took place and that you can tell the
difference between sytems that are taken down by DOS attacks and systems that
are taken down for maintenance."
blacklight

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 2003 @ 09:41 PM EDT
About the DOS attacks: I like what r.a. said. We condemn DOS attacks and we are happy to co-operate with law enforcement agencies in any investigation. Say as little as possible, but our message is: DDOS criminals are not part of our community. And did I mention: say as little as possible? We want to get OFF this point and onto another point.

About "questions for SCO": I think that's a great idea. I don't like some of the questions I've seen here because they are too hostile or too easily refuted. Remember that we have to get our message to a lot of people who *are not like us*.

My questions for SCO: (1) Did SCO have a contract with IBM for the joint development work of Project Monterey? (2) If you had a contract for Project Monterey, are you going to file that contract as evidence in your suit against IBM?


mec

[ 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 )