Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Today's SCO News

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the feel-the-excitement dept.

Unix 417

joebeone writes "Linus has commented on the SCO v. IBM suit saying "SCO is playing it like the Raelians" and that he will withhold his judgement until the code in question is shown in court. He has also recommended that former slashdot editor, Chris DiBona, be appointed to a panel offered by SCO to examine the evidence." Businessweek has an interview with SCO's CEO. The Open Group would like to remind everyone that SCO is only one of many in the Unix world.

cancel ×

417 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Again (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023701)

First Again!

Re:First Again (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023790)

Try this link [slashdumb.com] for a more meaningful conversation.

Re:First Again (1)

aborchers (471342) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023859)

Rotten commercial troll. This site is an ad for Dumb and Dumberer.

FP, snatch faces! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023704)

funx

SCO == Cloneaid? (-1, Offtopic)

cyphergirl (186872) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023706)

Insert joke here....

Re:SCO == Cloneaid? (2, Funny)

muckdog (607284) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023794)

Thanks to SCO (Santa Cloneaid Operations) never again will have have to sit through another lame "yea, we saved Christmas" Chritsmas special. SCO will just make lots of Santa clones so even if Santa gets kidnapped on Christmas eve, again, by the evil villian that hates Christmas, we will have lots of other cloned Santas ready to take his place and deliver presents around the world.

Re:SCO == Cloneaid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023904)

HAHAHA - That was soooo not funny.

Re:SCO == Cloneaid? (2, Funny)

IronClad (114176) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023852)

Certainly, here it is[was]. [slashdot.org]

show us the CODE! (0, Redundant)

sparkes (125299) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023713)

this is SCO joke they are getting everywhere.

until SCO show us the code they are going nowhere fast, after they do they will probably go down the pan fast.

sparkes

Re:show us the CODE! (5, Interesting)

DailyGrind (456659) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023853)

Actually the executives are going somewhere.... have you seen the stock price.

Unfortunately in the U$ the end justifies the means and the executive options for SCO are now making them rich.,.

It is not important if they win as long as they can cash out before the outcome....

Re:show us the CODE! (5, Interesting)

Mr2cents (323101) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023867)

Well, the article states it is:
- it is added in the last 18 months
- it is added by IBM
- they added 'a whole program'

I think this narrows things down a bit, shouldn't it be possible to make a list of code added by IBM in the last 18 months?
Maybe we could all put a snippet of this code on our website, and the one who gets sued by SCO has the right part :)

Lawyers... (5, Funny)

Albert Pussyjuice (675113) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023718)

"One source close to SCO confirmed that IBM lawyers are in "discussions about possible discussions" with SCO's legal team."
Aren't lawyers great?

Why charge for one discussion when you can charge for two?

I ANAL (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023749)

*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_
g_______________________________________________g_ _
o_/_____\_____________\____________/____\_______o_ _
a|_______|_____________\__________|______|______a_ _
t|_______`._____________|_________|_______:_____t_ _
s`________|_____________|________\|_______|_____s_ _
e_\_______|_/_______/__\\\___--___\\_______:____e_ _
x__\______\/____--~~__________~--__|_\_____|____x_ _
*___\______\_-~____________________~-_\____|____*_ _
g____\______\_________.--------.______\|___|____g_ _
o______\_____\______//_________(_(__>__\___|____o_ _
a_______\___.__C____)_________(_(____>__|__/____a_ _
t_______/\_|___C_____)/_SCO__\_(_____>__|_/_____t_ _
s______/_/\|___C_____)__IS___|__(___>___/__\____s_ _
e_____|___(____C_____)\DYING_/__//__/_/_____\___e_ _
x_____|____\__|_____\\_________//_(__/_______|__x_ _
*____|_\____\____)___`----___--'_____________|__*_ _
g____|__\______________\_______/____________/_|_g_ _
o___|______________/____|_____|__\____________|_o_ _
a___|_____________|____/_______\__\___________|_a_ _
t___|__________/_/____|_________|__\___________|t_ _
s___|_________/_/______\__/\___/____|__________|s_ _
e__|_________/_/________|____|_______|_________|e_ _
x__|__________|_________|____|_______|_________|x_ _
*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_e_x_*_


Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

you suck (-1, Offtopic)

slimey_limey (655670) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023773)

you coward. This thread is off-topic and pointless. Please follow the rules of common sense.

That's the stuff (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023728)

blame management decisions on aliens...

... seems about right.

considered the father of Linux? (5, Funny)

asv108 (141455) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023731)

In an e-mail response to CRN, Torvalds, widely considered the father of Linux

Who the hell else is under consideration? SCO's CEO?

Re:considered the father of Linux? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023756)

Tanenbaum (sic)

Re:considered the father of Linux? (4, Interesting)

aborchers (471342) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023765)

This SCO guy raises one really disturbing question. What if someone has, in the past or future, malicously or accidentally, injected proprietary code w/ copyright or patent entanglements, into core Linux systems? What are the implications for users who have no way of recognizing the code in violation? Is this really a serious flaw in the open source model?

Re:considered the father of Linux? (1)

SILIZIUMM (241333) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023831)

What if someone has, in the past or future, malicously or accidentally, injected proprietary code w/ copyright or patent entanglements, into core Linux systems?

If such accident happened, wouln't it be a guy that was working for SCO at the time ? Then, the problem wouln't be Linux code itself, but rather the guy that leaked SCO's proprietary code, isn't it ?

Re:considered the father of Linux? (3, Interesting)

aborchers (471342) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023885)

No, I mean in general, not just in this SCO case. Anyone contributing code could theoretically copy and paste unattributed commercial code into the system. Since it's proprietary, noone (say, on the kernel group) reviewing it would recognize it and it might get approved and passed into the kernel. The person who did the paste would certainly be guilty of copyright infringement, but is that liability passed on to every user of the infringing derivative work?

Re:considered the father of Linux? (1)

JayateMo (607023) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023923)

You aren't very likely to "cut and paste" anything from another OS into the linux kernel and make it work, if you could(with lots of 'wrapping' code) it wouldn't get past any of the kernel developers, simply becouse it would look like crap, and crap wouldn't make it into the kernel. It is as simple as that!

Re:considered the father of Linux? (4, Informative)

RoLi (141856) | more than 11 years ago | (#6024002)

The person who did the paste would certainly be guilty of copyright infringement,

Exactly.

but is that liability passed on to every user of the infringing derivative work?

No, it isn't.

No matter how much you or SCO's CEO wishes it to be, there is no liability passed to the end user, period.

Wouldn't make any sense or would it? Just because some vendor is guilty of a crime, suddently all users shall be guilty of that crime, too? What nonsense.

Re:considered the father of Linux? (4, Insightful)

RoLi (141856) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023968)

What if someone has, in the past or future, malicously or accidentally, injected proprietary code w/ copyright or patent entanglements, into core Linux systems? What are the implications for users who have no way of recognizing the code in violation?

What if Microsoft has, in the past or future, malicously or accidentally, injected proprietary code w/ copyright or patent entanglements, into core Windows systems? What are the implications for users who have no way of recognizing the code in violation?

There are no implications for the user, period. If someone uses code he is not allowed to, it's his problem and nobody else's. And this applies to all licenses and all development models equally.

Re:considered the father of Linux? (3, Informative)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 11 years ago | (#6024004)

Weel, patents are a problem, but because of the stupid laws it's actually worse for the kernel types to check patents! If they do, they open themselves up to the charge of "willful violation" and triple damages; if they can plausibly plead ignorance the risk is much lower.

Just one of those fun legal quirks.

Re:considered the father of Linux? (5, Funny)

finkployd (12902) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023775)

I understand back in the 70's Al Gore took the initiative in creating Linux :)

Finkployd

Re:considered the father of Linux? (0, Redundant)

Chris_Stankowitz (612232) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023776)

In an e-mail response to CRN, Torvalds, widely considered the father of Linux

>Who the hell else is under consideration? SCO's CEO?

Rumor has it that Al Gore had something to do with Linux.

There is no Linux Spoon (0, Offtopic)

plemeljr (250971) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023779)

If Linus is the Father, is he then the Architect? And will we have to choose between two doors? One to save Linux and the other to destroy it?

If so, at leat give us Trinity.

</ stupidity >

Please (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023834)

take a cock in your mouth and shut up.

seriously.

Re:considered the father of Linux? (1)

gerf (532474) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023784)

"In an e-mail response to CRN, Torvalds, widely considered the father of Linux"

From the reverence he gets, it seems some think of him as God.

Recalls four ill-chosen words Linus once said... (2, Interesting)

MsGeek (162936) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023868)

"I am your god" -- Linus Torvalds

(Yes, he was joking...but he was taken way too seriously at the time if my memory serves me right.)

Re:considered the father of Linux? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023797)

Who the hell else is under consideration? SCO's CEO?
GNU/Stallman is the father of GNU/Linux don't you know

Re:considered the father of Linux? (4, Funny)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023806)

Well, has there ever really been a paternity test? Perhaps he can go on Montel...

Re:considered the father of Linux? (1)

tanveer1979 (530624) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023814)

Who the hell else is under consideration? SCO's CEO?
Nope, Actually SCO's CEO's wife ran of with Linus and they produced Linux. Thats why he wants revenge ;-)

8th (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023740)

post

Dear Mr. Gates (5, Funny)

DailyGrind (456659) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023742)

Hello Bill,

Re: Dropping of the anti-trust matter - done
Re: Slowing down Linux - done

I am eagerly awaiting your third wish.

Sincerely,
Satan

Re:Dear Mr. Gates (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023810)

Since when did John Ashcroft change his name?

Re:Dear Mr. Gates (-1)

Saturday Night Palsy (604905) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023881)

HAAHAHAHHAAHHAAH yuo aer teh funney!@ we al nkow taht evaryone si afreid of JHNON AHSCRATF nad he si teh SCAREY!!!!@!!@ YUO HAEV ORGINANAL TIHNKIGN.

Re:Dear Mr. Gates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6024030)

You rode the short bus to school, didn't you?

Re:Dear Mr. Gates (2, Funny)

l0st3d (548002) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023848)

no no no ... you got that wrong those were wish 2 & 3 ... wish 1 was make windows sell, no matter how bad it is :-)

Re:Dear Mr. Gates (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023870)

I want to be the richest man in the world.

Re:Dear Mr. Gates (1)

aurelian (551052) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023887)

My third wish:

Please can you keep that Kildall guy away from me when I do arrive down there in Hell.

Yours,

billg

Re:Dear Mr. Gates (1)

usotsuki (530037) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023999)

No problem, Kildall's on the other side of the coin. :)

-uso.

Rumors or Speculation (1, Funny)

The Jonas (623192) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023743)

"SCO does not comment on rumors or speculation," said Jeff Hunsaker, senior vice president of worldwide marketing at SCO.

Well then, how did they start this whole "infringing code" thing in the first place???

He didn't deny *creating* rumors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023876)

Just that he wouldn't comment on existing rumors.

Something Mismatches (5, Interesting)

tanveer1979 (530624) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023748)

Yea the SCO is firing on all counts against Linux. But there are certain strange anomalies as far as their India Division is concerned. SCO India is apprently still pusihing linux!

The May Issue [linuxforu.com] of Linux for You India [linuxforyou] has interview of SCO India Head in which that guy is pushing linux and says linux is the key focus of SCO with they wanting to contribute to the Linux Community by way of more software. Isnt that a bit odd!

Re:Something Mismatches (0, Offtopic)

p3d0 (42270) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023989)

Sorry, what does "firing on all counts"? Do you mean "filing on all counts"? Or "firing on all cylinders"?

chrisd? (-1, Offtopic)

Horny Smurf (590916) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023750)

Given the circumstances of chrisd's departure, and his actions as an editor, I don't think I'd want him on any panel.

Has he cleaned up since then?

Re:chrisd? (0)

Brian_rts (87718) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023774)

What did he do?

Re:chrisd? (0)

ramzak2k (596734) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023900)

What did he do?
All I remember is him creating polls *always* with Cowboyneal option.

Re:chrisd? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6024016)

I think he was caught posting comments under other user's accounts, and trying to sell the slashdot user email list to some spammers.


That's 2nd hand information, of course (the first rule of slashdot is don't talk about slashdot). I had a friend that was a manager at VA Linux^wResearch^wSystems at the time, though.

Re:chrisd? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023801)

Cleaned up? I don't think he's wiped off his laderhosen!

Re:chrisd? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023809)

somebody else alread asked, but i'll second it: what did chrisd do?

The proof of Evil! (-1, Troll)

borgdows (599861) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023751)

SCO and MS are tied! check by yourself :

$ whois sco.com
Whois Server Version 1.3

Domain Name: SCO.COM
Created on: 03-SEP-87
Expires on: 02-SEP-04
Last Updated on: 22-JAN-03

Administrative, Technical Contact:
The SCO Group
355 S 520 W
Suite 100
Lindon, UT 84042
US
801-932-5800

Billing Contact:
Microsoft Corp
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
US
425 882 8080

-1 Troll (3, Informative)

42forty-two42 (532340) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023795)

$ whois sco.com
[Querying whois.internic.net]
[Redirected to whois.dotster.com]
[Querying whois.dotster.com]
[whois.dotster.com]

The data contained in the WHOIS database, while
believed by the company to be reliable, is provided "as is",
with no guarantee or warranties regarding its accuracy. This
information is provided for the sole purpose of assisting you
in obtaining information about domain name registration records.
Any use of this data for any other purpose, including, but not
limited to, allowing or making possible dissemination or
collection of this data in part or in its entirety for any
purpose, such as the transmission of unsolicited advertising and
solicitations, is expressly forbidden without the prior written
permission of this company. By submitting an inquiry, you agree
to these terms of usage and limitations of warranty.
Please limit your queries to 10 per minute and one connection.

Registrant:
The SCO Group
355 S 520 W
Suite 100
Lindon, UT 84042
US

Registrar: DOTSTER
Domain Name: SCO.COM
Created on: 03-SEP-87
Expires on: 02-SEP-04
Last Updated on: 22-JAN-03

Administrative, Technical Contact:
Administrator, Domain domain.admin@sco.com
The SCO Group
355 S 520 W
Suite 100
Lindon, UT 84042
US
801-932-5800

Domain servers in listed order:
NS.CALDERASYSTEMS.COM
NS2.CALDERASYSTEMS.COM
C7NS1.CENTER7.COM
NSCA.SCO.COM

End of Whois Information

Re:-1 Troll (1, Offtopic)

generic-man (33649) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023886)

Did you know that the word "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?

It's true! It turns out that the word is not officially part of the English language. I just looked it up this morning.

Re:-1 Troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023898)

do you know the word 'humor'??

Linus for Panel Member (5, Informative)

aridhol (112307) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023753)

Linus is the maintainer of the whole system. He should be allowed to see the code. If not him, then his designate, preferably a maintainer of a large part of the kernel.

Even better, if SCO is willing to say what area of the code infringes, the maintainer for that section should be allowed to see the code. Along with Linus.

If SCO gets to pick all the "experts", they can seriously stack the deck. Linus and IBM together should be allowed to choose the same number of experts as SCO chooses.

Re:Linus for Panel Member (1)

cruppel (603595) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023799)

We'll show you proof in a few weeks, through an expert panel that we trust.

trust = pay

Re:Linus for Panel Member (5, Insightful)

GGardner (97375) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023841)

Linus is the last person you want on the panel, for once he's seen the Unix(tm) source code in question, he is "unclean", and further work he does on the kernel (even the integration work he mostly does now) would be suspect.

Re:Linus for Panel Member (1)

aridhol (112307) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023888)

Hmm...true. Didn't think of that.

So what they need is somebody who knows the kernel, but will never be able to contribute again. Someone that Linus and IBM can trust. Is Chris that man, then?

Re:Linus for Panel Member (4, Funny)

SuperDuG (134989) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023947)

STALLMAN!!! I ELECT STALLMAN!!

hehehe he'd go in "unclean" and leave even more "unclean" ... eh eh eh

Nope (5, Insightful)

FreeLinux (555387) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023895)

As Linus himself has already stated, he cannot be on the panel. Remember that this panel is a SCO setup and SCO is requiring panel members to sign NDAs before seeing the code. This would contaminate and restrict panel members, making them unable to contribute further to the kernel. Linus is too close and too omportant to the kernel to be retired by SCO's NDA. So is Alan Cox et al. Linus recommended chrisd because he feels that chrisd is knowledgeable enough about the kernel to make sense of it all, yet chrisd does not actively contribute to the kernel's development so his restriction by the NDA would not impact future kernel development.

In any case, the whole panel thing is just a ruse by SCO. They are not going to disclose anything outside of court and I am sure that they will make every effort to have this whole thing settled out of court. If the case is settled out of court, the supposed infringment evidence will never be revealed.

Re:Linus for Panel Member (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023952)

Probably a bad idea to have _any_ of the maintainers sign the undoubtedly draconian NDA SCO is goint to require.

SCO's own goal (5, Interesting)

bazik (672335) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023759)

Anyone else noticed that SCO continued to sell their Linux distribution for two months _AFTER_ they sued IBM? They even had a kernel source code on their servers available for download >:)


For more information click here [smh.com.au] .

Re:SCO's own goal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023842)

No, nobody has noticed that. It has not been mentioned 10 million times in the last month. You are the only genious to make that particular insight. You are a golden god.

Re:SCO's own goal (1)

bazik (672335) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023890)

It was a simple question you insensitive clod!

Raelians (-1, Offtopic)

MySpleenHurts (575068) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023761)

Bad teeth, silly accents and operating systems don't mix.

WHO THE FUCK CARES? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023763)



LOL!

Slashdot is trolling... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023777)

for advertisement hits again. I wish all this speculation of SCO will cease until we actually see the evidence. Otherwise, everything is just speculation.

SCO's Ineffable Fallacy (5, Interesting)

codefool (189025) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023783)

"If trade secrets are the issue, it wouldn't be hard for the Linux community to recode the offending software."

This is precicely why SCO does not divulge exactly what's in question: it would be too easy for IBM et al to say "Oh. So sorry. Many regretti." and recode it, thus deflating any hope they have for the Home Run.

All SCO can be after is money - QED.

Re:SCO's Ineffable Fallacy (5, Insightful)

spitzak (4019) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023967)

Revealing the code would not remove the fact that copyright infringment has been done already, and they could still collect exactly as much damages as before.

There are only two reasons for them not to reveal the code:

1. There is no such code

2. The code is in some laughably insignificant or obsolete part of Linux, which would backfire on them because everybody would then say that SCO's code is obsolete and this proves that Linux has far surpassed them.

Some people say there is a conspiracy and Microsoft is paying SCO to cast fear and doubt on Linux, and that this doubt is more valuable to them than winning the case. But this still does not explain why they don't reveal any of the code. If there was any code of value, it would likely be in several pieces. They could reveal one piece so that everybody knows they are serious and they can prove they have a case, and say "there are several others that we will reveal later". This would be far more damaging to Linux than their current actions and would make Microsoft happy. Therefore I feel pretty confident now that they have no case whatsoever.

Re:SCO's Ineffable Fallacy (1)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023990)

This is precicely why SCO does not divulge exactly what's in question: it would be too easy for IBM et al to say "Oh. So sorry. Many regretti." and recode it, thus deflating any hope they have for the Home Run.

If so its a poor strategy, SCO will be forced to specify the exact code chunks in dispute during discovery.

Also the fact that the capabilities are not in dispute, only the code means that damages are likely to be small, if any should SCO win. The fact that

Linus was wrong, the Raelians had far more credibility.

Does it... (5, Insightful)

frodo from middle ea (602941) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023788)

Does it occur to any one , that the result of this problem is not of much importance.
Think about it, Microsoft has been spreading the FUD that GPL is THE big problem in enterprise environments not open source.
With all the bad publicity this is generating for linux, even if SCO were to loose its case in court, the Damage has already been done

Do managers really care whether linux code has or has not infringed upon copyright code? Do they ?

All they will see is that, GPLed code could potentially land them in problem.

This has a two fold implications on a IT manager thinking of deploying linux

  • One:- As long as the case is not resolved, using Linux could mean risking being sued for copyright infringments. Also what's to gurantee that no other company could sue in future.
  • Secondly mixing GPLed code, or even using the GPLed libraries with their own propritory code is now a NO-NO
This has been probably the most successful attack policy of Microsoft. Shoot from the shoulders of SCO and scare the IT managers.

Remember programmers like you and me, don't matter as long as IT managers are scared to use linux in their enterprise.

This is the real concern (5, Insightful)

AppHack (622902) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023957)

I was at a meeting yesterday with 60 or so Security and IT leaders from around our city. One of the items being discussed was the use of OSS. The general consensus of the non-techie leaders was that they would steer away from OSS when things like SCO were going on. The more technical leaders were trying to explain some of the issues, but that largely fell on deaf ears.

This entire issue has nothing to do with the code. It doesn't matter when SCO release the "offending" code or if the code is really an IP infraction or not. Most people's understanding of this will simply be a headline here and there. The idea that you might get sued for using Linux will be all they remember. If the courts determine there is some basis to this, it will get even worse. Those things take a long time for the general population to forget.

Re:Does it... (4, Insightful)

LMCBoy (185365) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023961)

Remember programmers like you and me, don't matter as long as IT managers are scared to use linux in their enterprise.

Why do you think that? I seriously do not understand this. Linux is and always has been of the hackers, for the hackers, and by the hackers. Who cares if Linux is adopted by the "enterprise" or not? Sure, it's nice to have the boost in development that large companies can bring, but to say that IT managers are more important than active members of the community just boggles my mind.
Don't think of Linux as a business product. If we fall into that trap, they've won.

all over the place? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023803)

Surely they could reconstruct the origional code from random portions of the kernel.

One frag for Linus Torvalds (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023807)

Linus has commented on the SCO v. IBM suit saying "SCO is playing it like the Raelians"

PWNED!

Re:One frag for Linus Torvalds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023861)

(Score: -1, Idiot)

heh (3, Funny)

Talisman (39902) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023811)

From the article:

"...Linus Torvalds has suggested...former Slashdot editor Chris DiBona for membership on the panel of experts to which SCO executive Chris Sontag has offered to reveal evidence of copying code from SCO UnixWare to Linux."

And you just freakin' know what LT wanted to add was, "I would also recommend Slashdot editor CmdrTaco, but judging from his posts, he doesn't seem to know much about UNIX and is kinda stupid in general."

Talisman

a cunning ploy (5, Funny)

mikeee (137160) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023847)

Linus, of course, is cleverly hedging his bets here. He knows there's no chance that a Slashdot editor will catch a duplicate!

IBM response to SCO : (3, Funny)

borgdows (599861) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023822)

What the f*** do you think you are doing?

(with the express permission from Madonna)

Re:IBM response to SCO : (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023996)

Why dosen't IBM just jingle some pocket change, buy SCO, and fire all the useless knobs...? They've sunk megabucks into Linux already, this would just be another minor investment in Linux...

Or use *BSD.

Re:IBM response to SCO : (5, Funny)

HisMother (413313) | more than 11 years ago | (#6024012)

Isn't that "What the F# do you think you're doing?"

Lawyers to the rescue! (5, Funny)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023828)

One source close to SCO confirmed that IBM lawyers are in "discussions about possible discussions" with SCO's legal team.

Its nice to see that the two sides are moving closer together. It seems like only last week that they were only discussing the possibility of disscussing discussions regarding the discussion of case discussions.

morons attempting to hold hobbyist dogooders.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023863)

hostage?

it'll never work. it's a stall. lookout bullow. don't get caught under/become fodder for, ANY of the s(t)inking dinosaurs. that's the spirit

Media Ploy? (0, Interesting)

rinkjustice (24156) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023864)

I imagine SCO was just another acronym that Linux newbies/Windows users ignored, but now all this press (negative or not) is bringing out a new level of awareness. I can see it now... a new SCO user base will arise out of this bad publicity. End users who would have never considered using SCO will now start using it religiously, just to go against the mainstream. Kinda like "rebel consumers" who won't buy certain brands like ECKO because it's too popular.

The lonely kid at the back of the classroom is finally the center of attention.

Re:Media Ploy? (1)

WeeBull (645243) | more than 11 years ago | (#6024001)

Hmmm ... too popular? Oh. I don't buy from ECKO because it's misspelt and would make me look like an idiot ...

Key quote. My question: how to remedy? (4, Insightful)

LinuxParanoid (64467) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023875)

The key quotes from the CEO are:

"We have examples of code being lifted verbatim. If you look at the code we believe has been copied in, it's not just a line or two, it's an entire section -- and in some cases, an entire program. "

Now this may or may not be true or may be true in some mostly-irrelevant way. But that leads me to a question.

My question would be, if, theoretically, a coder knows in their conscience that they did violate copyright in this way, what would be their best recourse to fix the situation?

Should they patch the code themselves and submit a patch? Would such a patch withstand legal scrutiny?
And should they warn the person who they send the patch to about the urgency/motivation of the patch?

Alternatively, should they merely notify/tell someone else ASAP so that the violating code can
be removed and replaced by someone 'clean', and sooner rather than later?

It would seem one of these two would be wise. That way, the amount of time between when the violation is ruled to have occurred, and the time when it is 'made right' through a fix is minimized, and the effects of any judge-ruled injunctions to correct things are minimized. Or if the issue is fixed particularly before the case is ruled upon, perhaps the point can be ruled as 'moot' since the violation has since been fixed.

Either way, this raises some sub-questions:
A) who should they tell in the open source community about their indiscretion?
B) should they attempt to be anonymous in their communications? (to avoid legal liability)
C) does telling someone else then open the tell-ee to some sort of potential legal liability?

Clearly a swamp of legal issues that are better avoided entirely. Any answers though?

--LP

P.S. Of course Slashdot advice/commentary isn't legal advice/comment. But it's an interesting question and I figure *someone* on here has a more considered opinion than I.

Why? (5, Funny)

eric2hill (33085) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023880)

"He has also recommended that former slashdot editor, Chris DiBona, be appointed to a panel offered by SCO to examine the evidence."

Why's that? So that it can get sent to court three or four times?

<ducks>

Re:Why? (1)

Lxy (80823) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023931)

No, so COWBOY NEAL can get sent to court 3 or 4 times.

Re:Why? (n/t) (-1, Offtopic)

bofkentucky (555107) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023970)

<+1 funny>

Message to Darl (1)

Choron (88276) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023896)

I notice you lost much weight between this photo and [caldera.com] that one [caldera.com] . Given how much money SCO is losing (and it will be dying soon, as you and I both know very well) we're not surprised by that weight loss, you have no money to eat, eh ?
Still if you could find somebody else to get money from (I heard M$ has plenty of it), we'd all be grateful.

Thanks in advance. Sincerely,

Jack.

So what you're saying is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6024015)

SCO is dying.

Panel Opinion (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6023921)

So if chrisd is on the panel might one of the opinions be something like "Linux sprung fully-formed from CowboyNeal's head"?

Even if SCO shows the code (4, Interesting)

mocm (141920) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023924)

how can they prove that they did not take the linux code and incorporate into their code.
The dates and times of code inclusion into linux are pretty well documented, but how can you do that with closed source.

The father? (0, Offtopic)

grub (11606) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023926)


In an e-mail response to CRN, Torvalds, widely considered the father of Linux

Who is this Linus Torvalds they speak of and what is this "Linux"?

Scaring OSS consumers (5, Insightful)

wine (211387) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023927)

In the business week article Darl McBride tries to scare (potential) OSS consumers:

I believe the way the open-source community works right now has some fundamental flaws that have got to be addressed. We need to address how this open-source intellectual property is developed, routed, and sold. Thousands of software developers send code to contribute to open-source projects -- but there isn't a protective device for the customer using the software to ensure they're not in violation of the law by using stolen code.

This might be true, IANAL. But this is no different for proprieraty, closed source code. For open and closed source alike, you cannot trace if code has illegaly been copied into it from another source. So, even if you buy a proprietary closed source application, you might as well be in violation of the law.

Playing it like the Raelians... (5, Funny)

FFFish (7567) | more than 11 years ago | (#6023928)

...except the Raelians don't appear to be a doomsday death cult.

SCO is playing it much more like, say, Heaven's Gate or Jonestown. Drink the koolaid, take a trip on the passing comet.

And soon to be... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 11 years ago | (#6024022)


> The Open Group would like to remind everyone that SCO is only one of many in the Unix world.

And soon to be zero of many - 1 in the Unix world, if I read the tea leaves correctly.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>