SCO: Linux will destroy America

[Doobie]

Check out this (http://www.osaia.org/letters/sco_hill.pdf) insane SCO letter to Congress.

It says that open source software, especially Linux will damage the US economy, reduce America's tecnological innovation, and threaten national security. They stopped just short of claiming that Linux will help Al Qaeda nuke New York.

The SCO letter also insists that choosing to give away software for free is unconstitutional because the Consitution provides for copyright and patent laws for the purpose of profit (never mind that the Linux companies intend to make profits, never mind that Consitution does not at all oppose "free").

SCO is suing IBM for billions of dollars and SCO is demanding money from thousands of companies that use Linux. SCO claims to own some code in Linux but so far they have not shown anyone any Linux code that they have rights to.

With all this FUD, you know that Microsoft isn't far. Indeed, Microsoft is sinking money into SCO, obviously with the intent of helping SCO damage the marketability of Linux.

For those of you who are confused, here's a funny link (http://www.arie.org/doh/) to explain it.

[Kedirekin]

Man, does this make me want to rant. If there is any corporation that deserves to be starved out of existence, it's SCO. I can't believe anyone *chooses* to do business with them.

[communist]

Originally posted by Kedirekin
Man, does this make me want to rant. If there is any corporation that deserves to be starved out of existence, it's SCO Agreed.

Originally posted by Kedirekin
I can't believe anyone *chooses* to do business with them.
Well M$ *choosed* to :p

I hope this ends as quickly as it appeared coz they are getting more and more annoying :devil:

[Teegedeck]

I believe in some years we'll find out that the whole SCO-thing was an attempt by the Ferengi to pave the way for an invasion and subsequent exploitation of Earth. :scared:

Now, wasn't it Ferengi rule of acquisition No 47 that declared not wanting to make profit a punishable crime against the Ferengi constitution? 'He who rejects making profit shall be thrown of the roof of the tower of commerce.'

[Kedirekin]

I like that. McBride is a Ferengi - but the irritating, weasely Ferengi of TNG, not the smarter, more honorable Ferengi if DS9.

I think the letter (if genuine) proves that McBride is certainly not that smart. How stupid does he think Congressmen/Senators are? GPL and the FSF want to destroy copyright indeed! Okay, I know he probably didn't write the letter himself, but he did sign off on it, so he either didn't read it (stupid) or read it and approved (also stupid).

[Happygolucky]

Originally posted by Kedirekin
How stupid does he think Congressmen/Senators are?

He knows just how stupid they are and is attempting to take advantage of that fact.

SCO has become a huge nuisance that will hopefully get their a** handed to them in court.

[stax76]

in case somebody is not tired already of the SCO and Linux is ready for the desktop news, go here http://osnews.com it's a more appropriate place to discuss such things, if you visit it everyday like me it might get boring and disgusting after some time because the same topics are raised again and again :o

[Kedirekin]

I will go look, but I expect there's more there than I can digest easily.

Out of curiosity, and because you mentioned you go there every day, has there been any news around SCO's release of the offending source code? As I recall, they were supposed to release evidence supporting their claims (to IBM's lawyers at least) back on January 9, but I haven't seen any news or industry responses to that in the places that I visit. The only thing I've seen that might be even remotely related is the announcement that SCO is suing Novel now too, which can be interpreted either way (they have a leg to stand on / the don't have a leg to stand on).

[stax76]

most of the time I skip non technical topics, topics about laws, licenses etc. appear far more complicated to me. The only thing I'm good informed are the licenses and patents about .NET and Mono, I'm a little bit .NET nuts in case you did not notice already :D. The other topics I read only when they look very exciting like "SCO got busted", I'm waiting for this one :devil:

[mpucoder]

All I can say is IBM isn't worried. They are running television ads for their Linux, directing people to http://www.ibm.com/open/ Their stock is doing well since they announced they will be hiring 5000 new workers (presumbably for the open project).

[Kedirekin]

As expected there is far too much information to digest easily.

For those that are interested, it looks like SCO only nearly complied with the court order to supply the requested documents by January 14 (I though it was January 9 - apparently not - SCO interpreted 30 days from December 5 to be January 14 - seems like funny math to me).

As there are over a million lines of code in dispute, and as SCO didn't fully comply, I guess it isn't reasonable to expect any announcement from IBM. The next bit of news should be about the January 23 meeting in court, and the news will probably be about the partial compliance.

Also, an interesting tidbit - SCO is not suing IBM for outright copyright infringement, but for derived works. Funny, I thought the suit was about millions of lines of code that had been donated to Linux verbatim, not derived code that was sorta suspiciously similar.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Doobie
Check out this (http://www.osaia.org/letters/sco_hill.pdf) insane SCO letter to Congress.

Yes quite a steaming pile isn't it!

Originally posted by Doobie
It says that open source software, especially Linux will damage the US economy, reduce America's tecnological innovation, and threaten national security. They stopped just short of claiming that Linux will help Al Qaeda nuke New York.

Open Source provides the only real competition to companies like Microsoft or SCO. So they actually expect anyone to believe that if Open Source is oblitterated that they would be inclined to innovate technically or legally in any way? If you believe that I have some premium realestate located on the Sun I would be willing to sell you. It is warm all year round and has a nice view of the solar system.

Originally posted by Doobie
The SCO letter also insists that choosing to give away software for free is unconstitutional because the Consitution provides for copyright and patent laws for the purpose of profit (never mind that the Linux companies intend to make profits, never mind that Consitution does not at all oppose "free").

Never mind that Microsoft claims to give away Internet Explorer for free. Or Windows Media Player for free. Etc. If this passes and SCO does not want to look like a hypocrit they better sue Microsoft and for that matter themselves. :p

Originally posted by Doobie
SCO is suing IBM for billions of dollars and SCO is demanding money from thousands of companies that use Linux. SCO claims to own some code in Linux but so far they have not shown anyone any Linux code that they have rights to.

They own the rights and code to /dev/null. It is where they get their greatest inspiration from. And it is the biggest market for their product. Their legal department can be contacted at /dev/random. And financial status can be obtained at /dev/zero. :D

Originally posted by Doobie
With all this FUD, you know that Microsoft isn't far. Indeed, Microsoft is sinking money into SCO, obviously with the intent of helping SCO damage the marketability of Linux.

Thankfully though this has been backfiring nicely. All this supposed bad publicity is really helping Linux etc make a good name for themselves.

To put this in perspective SCO and Microsoft are two of the biggest if not the biggest companies in the world. Well at least Microsoft. In contrast Linux as a company does not have two dimes to rub together. They survive solely off the good will and donations of others. In return they provide their very capable services. In the real world this would be equivalent to two well off business men pulling up to a street corner. Stepping out of their mercedes and retreving their graphite and carbon fiber composit golf clubs. And then randomly using them to bludgeon a near by homeless guy dressed in rags. Another analogy would be that SCO and Microsoft are spoilt bullies who constantly pick on those who are smarter or more learned than they are and incapable of really defending themselves. Microsoft and SCO are indeed spoilt bullies who have pretty much always been given everything they have wanted. But Linux and friends as a whole have an IQ that is exponentially bigger than that of Microsoft and SCO. Microsoft and SCO jealous of Linux's obvious tallents use their only tallents/assets to try and make life hell for Linux by throwing their weight around.

This thing is just chock full of irony as well. IIRC SCO bought the rights to K&R Unix from Novell.(Novell said hey SCO. I have this bridge in brooklyn to sell. You interested?) SCO gets the rights to the IP. But finds much as Novell did that the IP in large part was not all that usefull and largely indefensable.(IE widespread examples of prior or conncurrent art) This rendered ownership of the IP to little more than useless boiler plate basically only usefull for name dropping. SCO after this discovery is upset at it's poor business dealings but cant pawn off the IP to anyone. Because they are all over at Novell's having a good laugh at SCO's expense. SCO gets severely depressed and decides to join a support group. While at Obvious Loosers Anonymous they meet a kindred spirit. Namely Microsoft. Together they form a working relationship/friendship and plan for revenge. Together they will make every one pay! Muahahahahahahahahahahaha*kof*hahahahahahahaha .......To be continued!....... God! We need to turn this into a made for TV prime time sitcom or drama. Or perhaps it would be better as a soap oppera.

[vio]

The 'alarmist' example of a North Korean building a supercomputer. I dont even know where to begin with that...

[Sirber]

lol

Microsoft and SCO will destroy america, by brigning easy-to-exploit servers and operating systems :cool:

also... maybe Koera want to build a super computer to encode with H264 :D

[jggimi]

One interesting view of things, that might help explain the history of SCO's interest in Unix is from the Open Group, who hold trademark on Unix, and certify both SCO and IBM's versions of Unix. Incidentally, they also do quite a bit of work in the Linux certification arena. Their press release on the squabble can be found at http://www.opengroup.org/press/22may03.htm

[Sirber]

the Open Group hold Linux too?

[StrawMan]

It appears as though some people are taking a more active role in their criticism of SCO....the "mydoom" virus is actually a virus based DOS attack against SCO that starts Sunday.....very clever.

I don't think the ends justify the means, but at least their hearts are in the right place.

[Kedirekin]

I have to admit, though I'm secretly tickled pink by anyone who harrasses SCO, I'd prefer to see them taken out by completely legitimate means.

Basically, I'd like to see all of their customers say 'see ya'. Starving corporations like this out of existence is probably the only way to let other corporations know that this kind of behaviour (litigation out of control) is simply unacceptable.

I wish the same on the RIAA / music labels and like-minded organizations.

[dragongodz]

a little update on this.

seems SCO is still not providing proof and is starting to piss the judge off. :)

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/business/0,39023166,39180826,00.htm

[Sirber]

nice nice nice. That was a really old thread that come back to life! :D

SCO... what a joke :)

[Neo Neko]

A little update on this.

For anyone who wants updates on this. Check out Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net/index.php). It's got the goods.

[Elias]

Originally posted by Kedirekin
Man, does this make me want to rant. If there is any corporation that deserves to be starved out of existence, it's SCO. I can't believe anyone *chooses* to do business with them. Agreed! Shit like this pisses me off way too much. Makes me want to learn linux and never touch anything Micro$oft. Well, at the very least, I only use their OS and nothing else (like codecs, browsers, media players etc). Linux rules, as does Open Source/GPL software. It'll always be better and perform better than anything that costs money. Money will destroy the world, as it's already doing so.

[KaiserS]

Originally posted by Elias
Linux rules, as does Open Source/GPL software. It'll always be better and perform better than anything that costs money.

Completely untrue. Just cause something is open source does not make it the best thing in the world. There are plenty of open source programs I have used that are far inferior to products of the same nature that weren't. In many cases this is true, but in just as many cases it isn't. Any idiot can crank out code under GPL, but just because it is now open source does not make it the greatest software in the universe. Don't get me wrong, I do like open source products but your generalization that everything that isn't open source is crap is just patently false.

[Elias]

Originally posted by KaiserS
Completely untrue. Just cause something is open source does not make it the best thing in the world. There are plenty of open source programs I have used that are far inferior to products of the same nature that weren't. In many cases this is true, but in just as many cases it isn't. Any idiot can crank out code under GPL, but just because it is now open source does not make it the greatest software in the universe. Don't get me wrong, I do like open source products but your generalization that everything that isn't open source is crap is just patently false. I meant more developed stuff, like Linux/virtualdub/xvid etc. A new open source/gpl software is of course very buggy and not that good. But software that has been around for a very long time and lots of people have been developing the code... always kicks more ass than similar commercial software :)

[KaiserS]

Originally posted by Elias
I meant more developed stuff, like Linux/virtualdub/xvid etc.

As did I. Even in these cases I've found developed open source programs that are still crap and not as good as a closed source program of the same type.

Originally posted by Elias
But software that has been around for a very long time and lots of people have been developing the code... always kicks more ass than similar commercial software :)

Sorry, but this is still not true. All open source programs DO NOT always beat closed source programs (you must realize that commercial does not mean closed source, as in the case of many Linux distros). BeSweet is an excellent example of a closed source program (closed source, but free) that is quite good and better the any other open source tool of the same kind that I've used.

[Elias]

Originally posted by KaiserS
BeSweet is an excellent example of a closed source program (closed source, but free) that is quite good and better the any other open source tool of the same kind that I've used. Oh, I thought that BeSweet was open source :D Well, I could be wrong you know :)

[KaiserS]

Originally posted by Elias
Oh, I thought that BeSweet was open source :D Well, I could be wrong you know :)

That's what I've been told (though whoever told me could be wrong, I admit). If it were open source, thouhg, it's odd that when you download it, it doesn't come with any source code, nor have I been able to find any links to download the source from http://dspguru.doom9.net/. But even still my point stands, there are plenty of closed source programs that I can list that are far better then open source alternatives and there are plenty the other way around.

[dragongodz]

Just cause something is open source does not make it the best thing in the world.
that is true. open source does not make something the best.

Any idiot can crank out code under GPL
oh and the program you have written is what and where exactly ? if you dont think a program is very good or that the programmer is that good fine but try not to be insulting.

besides which you are getting off topic. this thread is about SCO. if you want to debate closed source versus open source please start another thread.

[KaiserS]

Originally posted by dragongodz
oh and the program you have written is what and where exactly ? if you dont think a program is very good or that the programmer is that good fine but try not to be insulting.

Insulting to who/what? The same could be said about any idiot being able to crank out code that is closed source. I think you completely missed my point. It was meant to show that anyone, even a horrible programmer, can release code under the GPL, but just because it is open source and GPLed it doesn't automatically make it better then something that is closed source. It wasn't meant to insult anything as like I said before I think open source is a great thing, but it doesn't automatically make something good as there are plenty of good closed source (not always commercial) programs out there as well. And I'm not trying to debate anything as I think both have their place, I'm not as much of a zealot as to dismiss either philosophy. All I was saying was that ALL open source programs are not better then a closed source alternative as Elias claimed, nothing else.

[dragongodz]

I think you completely missed my point. It was meant to show that anyone, even a horrible programmer, can release code under the GPL, but just because it is open source and GPLed it doesn't automatically make it better then something that is closed source.
and i think you should learn to read first. specifically the first part of what i wrote since i agreed with you on that part.

HOWEVER, i do not agree with you calling any programmer an idiot no matter how bugged or poor their programs or skills are. ask any programmer their opinion of people calling their work crap or insulting them, especially from non-programmers, and you will get the same response 99% of the time. as i said fine to say a program is bugged or there is beter etc but there is no need to be insulting or use such language.

[KaiserS]

Well you were also trying to saw I was being insulting, which I wasn't. That was what I was clearing up.

[Doobie]

SCO has no evidence to support its charges and has been demanding that IBM turn over code. I suppose this is an effort to find some evidence to support the charges. It seems to me that there is something wrong with the court systems that lets SCO intimidate Linux users and potential users for an extended period of time over alleged violations that are never demonstrated. SCO should have been required to identify the misappropriated code on day one.

[dragongodz]

yes you have to wonder about who the burden of proof is meant to be on. i mean i thought it was the person/company doing the sueing that had to prove its charges. seems now its guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. :sly:

also it would have never got this far without some help
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/0,2000061733,39166798,00.htm

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by dragongodz
yes you have to wonder about who the burden of proof is meant to be on. i mean i thought it was the person/company doing the sueing that had to prove its charges. seems now its guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. :sly:

also it would have never got this far without some help
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/0,2000061733,39166798,00.htm

This is not the trial. They are just trying to figure out if there should be a trial! Should SCO be able to show reasonable doubt about anything IBM has done related to the case there will be a whole trial to follow this. So at this point the only pending judgment is whether or not to go to trial. SCO is dispicable. But they are being allowed this leway for good reasons. Imagine you are a small software company. You barely eek out enough writing software to keep writing software. Now lets say you found out that another company who is much bigger and much more powerfull than yourself may have used your own software as their own without your permission. Say someone like Microsoft. But lets say you don't have enough to show solid unshakeable proof MS is guilty. Should MS then just be left to get away with it if there is any plausability to the accusation? Is justice served by this. No in this instance we would want the little guy to have a chance to prove their case and stick it to MS good. In order to not shut those guys out you have to leave yourself open to goons like SCO/MS who try to game the system to their own ends. Justice is never eally swift. It is patient and slow. But left unfettered when it gets it's prey it has been known to shred them utterly. ;)

At this point in time SCO has oblidgingly put it's head in the noose and is daring someone to yank the rope. If this investigation is in any way in-conclusive or not difinitive it leaves the possibility open to re-start it! The only good outcome of this is for SCO to be difinitively disproven or dismissed with contempt. And it looks as if it may be both.

This (http://users.rcn.com/srstites/jacuse/sec.complaint.v4.html) looks as if it could be interesting. Some guy drafted a complaint to the SEC as a graduate thesis. :)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Doobie
SCO has no evidence to support its charges and has been demanding that IBM turn over code.

This is an expedition. Not a hunting one per se. Some would say a fishing one. They are surrounded by so much useless discovery on paper it may as well be a jungle of trees. And SCO is lost. Don't be surprised if at some point in time a public representative utters "Dr. Livingston I presume?".

Originally posted by Doobie
I suppose this is an effort to find some evidence to support the charges. It seems to me that there is something wrong with the court systems that lets SCO intimidate Linux users and potential users for an extended period of time over alleged violations that are never demonstrated. SCO should have been required to identify the misappropriated code on day one.

Well if the case were really about misapropriated code that would have likely been the first thing done. Someone has been reading the popular public press etc I see. ;) The case is about contracts. Remember SCO is at least two faced. Rather they are multi faced. One for each court they are currently in and a few spares. What's really going on is a boring case of contract law. Not some dramatic/flashy pattent/copyright suit. No matter what SCO and their cronies (Dido etc) claim in public. SCO is pulling a "pump and dump" scam. Starting several small cases about ambiguous contracts they were not a party to etc. And publicizing it as some sort of possibly world altering event. Basically say one thing and do another. And by the time everyone has fully anylized what you said you have already fleaced them. You then abandon ship and repeat ad-nauseum. The house that Canopy built is currently in disarray. Many close to the SCO subsidiary of Canopy just got their walking papers. Seems they have arroused the attention of someone higher up.

The Canopy group is a corporation. But not a normal one. The holder in interest has decreed that on his death the company will be disolved and assets donated to charity etc. Eccentric Utah mormons etc. At any rate death is not so far away for said person. He is still alive but closer to the end than he is the beginning. McBride etc tired of looking at the cookie jar and thinking it's all going to waste when the geezrer dies. (Waste being anyones pockets but their own) They took this opportunity to try and "raid" the cookie jar while the rading was good. Unfortunatly "father" waltzed in the kitchen and caught them in the middle of the act.

If you look at Darl McBrides long and illustrious history of former employment you would be hallucinating. As it doesn't exist. He has worked for several companies. But his resume is highly trumped up. Many of the companies he did not leave on good terms. Then there were the ones where there was no other option than leaving because the company was about to magically go poof! McBride is a vulture. And SCO is a dead carcas left behind by it's pack.

[shevegen]

As far as I know, SCO is extremely likely to lose everything so time is not on their side. Isnt it that they will be purged from Nasdaq too?

I, personally, dont believe MS or anyone else will put more money into SCO FUD stuff, it does not seem to generate a good return rate of your investment anymore.

What is far more interesting is that MS will enhance their IE Browser - can you say because of Firefox? I can. So its an example of an open sourced development team forcing a company to C-O-M-P-E-T-E (of course MS tried to disguise it that their customers said SP2 need improvement, but for me it more sounds as if MS tries to disguise that they are worried about losing browser share here - i mean, i am sure there are MANY users who complain about this or that to MS) ;)


SCO may rot in hell for all i care though :P

[dragongodz]

This is not the trial. They are just trying to figure out if there should be a trial! Should SCO be able to show reasonable doubt about anything IBM has done related to the case there will be a whole trial to follow this
yes but isnt the burden of proof, to prove it should go to trial, still up to SCO ? since its SCO that were told to produce evidence i would have thought so. :)

they are being allowed this leway for good reasons. Imagine you are a small software company. You barely eek out enough writing software to keep writing software. Now lets say you found out that another company who is much bigger and much more powerfull than yourself may have used your own software as their own without your permission. Say someone like Microsoft. But lets say you don't have enough to show solid unshakeable proof MS is guilty. Should MS then just be left to get away with it if there is any plausability to the accusation? Is justice served by this. No in this instance we would want the little guy to have a chance to prove their case and stick it to MS good.
there is being allowed leeway and then there is purposfully not following court instructions. SCO have been given a lot of time to produce evidence which is fine. however they have gone well beyond when they were told they had to produce something for the judge to look at. so they are abusing the leeway they have been given which has nothing to do with little guy versus big guy. the sizes of the companies should not mean they can hold things in stasis forever since justice in not served then either.

Well if the case were really about misapropriated code that would have likely been the first thing done. Someone has been reading the popular public press etc I see. The case is about contracts.
yes people should read the first link i provided. thats another thing thats not impressing the judge. first claim its misapropriated code, then sue for breach of contract etc, then keep talking about misapropriated code all the time everywhere. :D

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by dragongodz
yes but isnt the burden of proof, to prove it should go to trial, still up to SCO ? since its SCO that were told to produce evidence i would have thought so. :)

Like I said forget they are SCO for a moment. Imagine they were actually the little guy. Wouldn't it be in the interest of serving justice to allow "discovery". Yes SCO is not the little guy and yes they are abusing the process. And it might seem as if they suffer no reprocussions from this abuse. But aperances can be decieving. You can rest assured that both the court and IBM are just giving SCO enough rope to hang themselves thurroughly. They know there is no sense in doing something half assed. That just leavs SCO open to attack them again. They are going for the kill. The judge has to show that he afforded them every option. Denied them nothing within reason. And if he allows some slightly unreasonable things and SCO still comes up empty handed their case will be dismissed with prejudice meaning they will never be able to restart it.


Originally posted by dragongodz
there is being allowed leeway and then there is purposfully not following court instructions. SCO have been given a lot of time to produce evidence which is fine. however they have gone well beyond when they were told they had to produce something for the judge to look at.

Actually SCO is technically following court instructions for the most part. Had they not they would be declared in contempt of court and had their case thrown out with prejudice already.

Originally posted by dragongodz
so they are abusing the leeway they have been given which has nothing to do with little guy versus big guy. the sizes of the companies should not mean they can hold things in stasis forever since justice in not served then either.

Don't you see that this is exactly what they are working towards. Which will take longer. Killing SCO right the first time. Or a botched attempt that leaves open the possibiliy for nealy infinate appeals and the possibility they could threatten others later.

Originally posted by dragongodz
yes people should read the first link i provided. thats another thing thats not impressing the judge. first claim its misapropriated code, then sue for breach of contract etc, then keep talking about misapropriated code all the time everywhere. :D

It's all part of a trap. You gotta spring it at the right time. If you catch a tiger by the toe it can still maul you. Better to sever it's neck or shred it's heart. It's all about timing. We are not there yet. But it should be worth the wait.

[dragongodz]

Like I said forget they are SCO for a moment. Imagine they were actually the little guy. Wouldn't it be in the interest of serving justice to allow "discovery".
yes i would feel the same. the little guy would still need to provide something for the need for "discovery" to be based on. SCO do not appear to be even wanting to give anything substancial though they claim they have it.

Actually SCO is technically following court instructions for the most part. Had they not they would be declared in contempt of court and had their case thrown out with prejudice already.
actually it nearly did. instead the judge is basically giving them another chance but clearly getting pissed off about it. basically letting the small amount they have submitted be enough to continue.

It's all part of a trap. You gotta spring it at the right time. If you catch a tiger by the toe it can still maul you. Better to sever it's neck or shred it's heart. It's all about timing. We are not there yet. But it should be worth the wait.
well we can hope so. :)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by dragongodz
yes i would feel the same. the little guy would still need to provide something for the need for "discovery" to be based on. SCO do not appear to be even wanting to give anything substancial though they claim they have it.

Well here is what you are getting hung up on. All the proof SCO claims to have is for an accusation they are not currently litigating. What they claim is that even though there was no wording in the contracts OLD-SCO signed with IBM prohibiting IBM from using System V in other unrelated projects. New SCO(SCOX now SCOXE) feels that IBM is somehow in breach of that contract.

SCO's Linux claims have always been marginal. They can't show anything in that area and it is not important to the current issue that they do. Their Linux accusations are mostly secondary and probably part of an agreement they made with MS for aranging the investment from Baystar.

Ultimatly the opensource community may have SCO and Microsoft to thank for their sucess. Initially SCOs big mouth caused alot of worry and doubt. And if it had stayed that way SCO and MS would have been pleased. Unfortunatly what happened was that repeatedly being shown incompetent and dishonest everyone started to question what SCO was claiming. What's worse people who had never heard of, looked at, or considdered Linux decided to see what all the fuss was about. And horror of horrors many are finding it a stable, usable platform with lower over all total cost of ownership and less chance of vendor lock in.

In otherwords things backfired in a big way.

[Joe Fenton]

What I find funny is that The SCO Group (formerly Caldera) has yet to even produce their contract with SCO for the stuff they claim rights over. They say "it's misplaced." ;) So at the moment, they can't even prove they own ANYTHING, much less anything IBM has contributed to Linux. Notice how they've been stalling the Novell case where Novell has been pushing them to prove ownership of copyright on the code in question. The judge as much as said he doesn't believe TSG can show ownership of the code. From the contracts found so far, all TSG got was the right to sell one version of a UNIX distro, and the right to make a new distro of their own.

Another funny thing I'd love to see moved on was that TSG was supposed to send ALL money from UNIX contracts they made to Novell, then Novell would send them back the 5% they were due. Novell has already told TSG they intend to audit them on that very issue seeing as TSG claimed tens of millions of dollars from MS and Sun on renewed UNIX contracts which they then failed to turn over to Novell. Talk about breach of contract. :D

[Doobie]

A 2002 SCO internal email has surfaced that says "At the end, we had found absolutely nothing ie (sic) no evidence of any copyright infringement whatsoever." source (http://news.com.com/SCO+e-mail+No+smoking+gun+in+Linux+code/2100-7344_3-5789132.html?tag=nefd.top)

Like OJ getting off, this kind of thing shakes my faith in the justice system. How is it after all this time, with SCO producing no evidence, that this case hasn't been dropped? After this is over, SCO needs to be charged with malicious use of the court system with IBM and others being paid what they spent on their defense.

[Neo Neko]

A 2002 SCO internal email has surfaced that says "At the end, we had found absolutely nothing ie (sic) no evidence of any copyright infringement whatsoever." source (http://news.com.com/SCO+e-mail+No+smoking+gun+in+Linux+code/2100-7344_3-5789132.html?tag=nefd.top)

SCO is still skuking around. The story here (http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/05/07/15/162218.shtml?tid=187&tid=123&tid=130&tid=106) (slashdot.org) claims that this only applies to litteral copying. IE ctrl-c + ctrl-v. Which was never a big part of SCO's case to begin with. What they want is the judge to side with their interpritation of derived works. This would basically make it illegal for CIS students to write software like helloworld.c etc.

Like OJ getting off, this kind of thing shakes my faith in the justice system. How is it after all this time, with SCO producing no evidence, that this case hasn't been dropped? After this is over, SCO needs to be charged with malicious use of the court system with IBM and others being paid what they spent on their defense.

The case has not been dropped because the judge wants absolutely no chance for SCO to appeal. If the judge were a bit to rash and did something that in anyway could be seen as "unfair" to SCO it opens the chance for appeal and to do it all over again! Justice is not always swift. And I am not that worried about it. Just so long as it is thurrough. Right now the judge has a length of rope that he is feeding out to SCO and SCO seeming almost clueless is just hapily realing it in. Once the judge thinks they have enough he will hang them with that length. Then IBM, EV1 etall will be allowed to come in and loot the corpse. Also the SEC is starting to take interest in the whole baystar SCO deal. Which could mean that beyond divying up the remaining assets of the company after darl and friends pick it clean. There is a possibility that they will be relieved of much of the personal "assets" they left the company with.

This is far from over. In fact don't look for a final ruling in the case till sometime in 2007 most likely. I believe discovery ends sometime mid 2006. At which point the judge will decide if there is anything to go to trial over.

If you wanna see something just as irksome read about Daniel Wallace's laughable GPL anti-trust claims. Basically he states that that the GPL is a price fixing scheme and that he has some sort of standing to speak on behalf of all if any people it has hurt even though it does not effect him. He gets so much wrong that it would be even more irksome than the whole SCO fiasco if it wasn't so funny. Oh and just so you know Wallace has ties to SCO. ;)

[dragongodz]

thought i would post an update on this. SCO has suffered a hit incase anyone missed it. a bunch of their claims has been thrown out. no this does not mean its over, far from it.

also the judges comments make some good reading. ;)

http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_3997087
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060628175203644

[Mug Funky]

hahaha!

that's the legal equivalent of being telefragged...

[shevegen]

If there is any corporation that deserves to be starved out of existence, it's SCO

Agreed. I dont so much believe its a real company anymore, more like a lawsuit-company that tries to blackmail money out of other companies (which at least DO something different than sueing everyone, even though they sue of course as well)

I believe SCO's ultimate problem is that they DO NOT have a real handle, they are afraid to present ANY "evidence".

I am pretty sure they will never present any evidence too. :>

[shevegen]

" However, Stowell argued that the remaining third of nearly 300 claims made by SCO still left the "foundation for a strong case." Ironically, specifics of many of those allegations are under seal to protect proprietary data. "

In other words, they have no smoking gun, they probably dont have any evidence (cuz they are scared to reveal it), which in fact means that they have NOTHING at all (at least this is likely because they are doing the same since YEARS), are wasting EVERYONE'S involved time, and should be dissolved. Its a shame that "modern economics" give so much room for companies that are only existing - on law suits.

By the way the reasoning that Linux is used by terrorists may be that its not as easy to survey the Linux users compared to the Windows users. (And thus you dont have an easy handle against Linux)

Which is a rather ironic point of view, given that entities such as spy agencies spy against tax paying voters, and use the data gained from it for commercial/private stuff. :>

[dragongodz]

time for another little update :)

"SCO does not own Unix, judge rules"

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2196460/sco-does-own-unix-judge-rules

A federal judge has ruled that Novell and not SCO owns the copyrights to the Unix operating system.

Novell produced the original transaction agreement and bill of sale as evidence, which indicated that the purchase did not include the copyright. The agreement furthermore gives Novell the right to waive any claims for misuse of Unix by IBM, and requires SCO to forward all royalties that it received for the software to Novell.

The latter could very well lead to SCO's demise. The software maker in 2003 inked a $10m licensing agreement with Sun Microsystems, and a $16.8m agreement with Microsoft. It should have paid 95 per cent of those funds to Novell, but has failed to do so.

Novell hailed the ruling. "The court’s ruling has cut out the core of SCO’s case and, as a result, eliminates SCO’s threat to the Linux community based upon allegations of copyright infringement of Unix. We are extremely pleased with the outcome," spokesperson Kevan Barney wrote on a company blog.

[smileBhappy]

Check out this (http://www.osaia.org/letters/sco_hill.pdf) insane SCO letter to Congress.

It says that open source software, especially Linux will damage the US economy, reduce America's tecnological innovation, and threaten national security. They stopped just short of claiming that Linux will help Al Qaeda nuke New York.

The SCO letter also insists that choosing to give away software for free is unconstitutional because the Consitution provides for copyright and patent laws for the purpose of profit (never mind that the Linux companies intend to make profits, never mind that Consitution does not at all oppose "free").

SCO is suing IBM for billions of dollars and SCO is demanding money from thousands of companies that use Linux. SCO claims to own some code in Linux but so far they have not shown anyone any Linux code that they have rights to.

With all this FUD, you know that Microsoft isn't far. Indeed, Microsoft is sinking money into SCO, obviously with the intent of helping SCO damage the marketability of Linux.

For those of you who are confused, here's a funny link (http://www.arie.org/doh/) to explain it.

didnt sco try and sue everyone who used linux once because they claimed one of the files used in linux was taken from sco unix therefore everyone who ever used linux owed them money....

[Doobie]

didnt sco try and sue everyone who used linux once because they claimed one of the files used in linux was taken from sco unix therefore everyone who ever used linux owed them money....

Yes, SCO made a lot of lawsuit threats and is still suing IBM for something like four billion dollars. SCO claims that IBM used some SCO Unix code in Linux, thereby harming SCO. But, SCO has never shown any infringing code and now the court has ruled that SCO doesn't even own the code. Novell is the owner and only licensed SCO to use the code, not to own the code. Previously, a court had already thrown out most of SCOs claims for lack of evidence. Even if SCO owned the code, they would have released it to the Linux community because SCO released their own version of Linux, Caldera (http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=sco), with the GPL licence that essentially makes the code public. SCO claims that shouldn't count because it was a mistake (but, others should be held accountable if they accidentally used the SCO code in Linux).

SCO won't win and could and could find themselves in bankruptcy as a result (when Novell demands payment for fees SCO has collected). But, I'm really disappointed that their FUD attack on Linux has been allowed to last since at least 2002.