Slashdot: News for Nerds


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!

cancel ×


1st scost (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204192)

1st scost

Re:1st scost (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204221)

thats my shorthand for
1st post, sco's toast.

blargh (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204193)

first post

sink those bastards. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204195)

assboats for everyone! your gonna need em especially, sco.

And in other news... (-1, Offtopic)

BandwidthHog (257320) | about 11 years ago | (#6204197)


I hate to say... (5, Insightful)

Associate (317603) | about 11 years ago | (#6204198)

I hate to say this, but who actually thought IBM would give in to this undersized bully?

Re:I hate to say... (0, Interesting)

Andrewkov (140579) | about 11 years ago | (#6204212)

Haha, they didn't give in, they are fighting it. If they had of complied by the dead line, then they would have given in.

Re:I hate to say... (5, Insightful)

littlerubberfeet (453565) | about 11 years ago | (#6204230)

well, they didn't give in...

IBM has been around for over 50 years now...They have a DoJ sized legal department that is now out for blood.

My money is on Big Blue

Re:I hate to say... (4, Informative)

norwoodites (226775) | about 11 years ago | (#6204316)

50 years, more like 100 years, it was called something different 100 years ago but still the same IBM. It made counting machines used for the census.

Re:I hate to say... (5, Informative)

tartanblue (125663) | about 11 years ago | (#6204337)

Yeah, it used to be called Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company back in 1911. CTR merger in 1911 []

Re:I hate to say... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204231)

Read the article, dumb ass.

Re:I hate to say... (1, Informative)

alexre1 (662339) | about 11 years ago | (#6204241)

LOL! The guy wasn't saying that IBM gave in. He was just saying 'OK, well nobody expected IBM to give in anyway, so this isn't much of a surprise'. Though I admit it WAS worded somewhat ambiguously.

Re:I hate to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204276)

Why do you hate to say it?

Re:I hate to say... (4, Insightful)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | about 11 years ago | (#6204324)

I hate to say this. I have good karma and it makes me sound a bit immature. But...

Suck it up bitches, I'm looking forward to seeing IBM rip you into small pieces and feed you to the dogs. I only hope that considerable finacial harm can also come to Daryl et al personally.

And I don't think I'm alone in this viewpoint.

Re:I hate to say... (4, Interesting)

EvilAlien (133134) | about 11 years ago | (#6204374)

You absolutely aren't alone... I think it is safe to say that SCO is well on its way to being the most hated company in the IT sector. Microsoft, step aside, there is a new whipping boy in town.

Re:I hate to say... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204370)

Look at all the replies misinterpreting your post. They think you are somehow saying that IBM did give in!

I don't know where they got this from your words... Just goes to show you that Slashdot readers have very poor reading comprehension.

I did... (1)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | about 11 years ago | (#6204402)

Or at least, I feared they might. It is common for very large companies to settle even poorly founded lawsuits, because it is cheaper than fighting them.

place your bets!! (5, Funny)

tucolino (654142) | about 11 years ago | (#6204205)

Third round!! 50 bucks on IBM!!!

Re:place your bets!! (5, Funny)

corsec67 (627446) | about 11 years ago | (#6204220)

Well, considering that IBM has (more) money, and that their busines plann isn't:
1. Sue
2. ???
3. Profit?

I think that we all will agree that IBM just about has to win this case.

Re:place your bets!! (3, Funny)

alexre1 (662339) | about 11 years ago | (#6204248)

Lol, it's more like

1. Annoyed by annoying fly buzzing around
2. Swat annoying fly
3. Profit?


Re:place your bets!! (3, Interesting)

Rob.Mathers (527086) | about 11 years ago | (#6204252)

However, unlike other prominent lawsuits in the tech world, IBM actually has more than just a money-tree with which to pay lawyers. They actually have the law on their side (assuming that all the indications are correct and SCO's claim is BS, which I would rate at atleast 95% chance).

Re:place your bets!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204430)

I think that we all will agree that IBM just about has to win this case.

You may want to remember that this will take place in US courts, where common sense is in extremely short supply.

Once upon a time there were people who believed that O.J. just about had to be convicted, but he's still a free man, looking for the Real Killer on the golf course. :-)

Re:place your bets!! (4, Funny)

jo_ham (604554) | about 11 years ago | (#6204285)

It's Ali in the ring.

First round, first minute.

SCO just lost 50 brain cells thanks to walking into IBM's fist.

They're 49 brain cells in debt now.

*popping corn* (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204217)

Purile as this comment is, I can't wait for SCO to get their asses kicked. This should be fun, a cathartic troll-bashing in the courts. Just a pity that the SCO were ever so desperate as to try and resort to this.

and in other news (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204219)

On Friday the 13th a black cat was found dead at SCO underneath a broken mirror.

Re:and in other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204328)

Was it the SAME black cat or just similar?

IBM vs SCO Poker Game (4, Funny)

ticklemeozmo (595926) | about 11 years ago | (#6204225)

SCO: I bet "Friday the 13th"
IBM: I call.
SCO: Umm..*looks at cards*
IBM: *smiles*
to be continued...

An IBM lawyer... (4, Funny)

sql*kitten (1359) | about 11 years ago | (#6204226)

... was later heard to comment, "Ha ha ha, they are SOOOO dead".

Re:An IBM lawyer... (4, Funny)

p0ppe (246551) | about 11 years ago | (#6204286)

I believe that would be, "Ha ha ha, they are SCOOOO dead".

Re:An IBM lawyer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204385)

You must be a genius.

Bye bye SCO! (2, Funny)

Indio_do_Xingu (675644) | about 11 years ago | (#6204236)

So, this is really the dead line for SCO..

SCO managed to dig its own grave...

Sick of this crap... (4, Insightful)

telecaster (468063) | about 11 years ago | (#6204237)

I'm sick of the money grubbing BS that's hovering around this case. It's clear that SCO is using the "open" in open source to try and challenge an IP issue because they know the court's never seen anything like this before. Also, the fact that M$ injects money into SCO is really suspect and deserves and out right investigation, because EVERYONE knows they [SCO] wouldn't be paying lawyer's for this FUD if they didn't have the cash.

Everyone here knows that Linux is kicking the shit out of Microsoft on the server, and they [M$]know it's not long before it starts cutting into their desktop margins.

This stuff is making me sick. It's a joke, it's friggin' "high-tech ambulance chasing".

I can't wait until they lose and I hope IBM find's something suspect in the case so that they can reveal the true evil behind all this...

Re:Sick of this crap... (4, Insightful)

KDan (90353) | about 11 years ago | (#6204277)

To be honest I hope IBM counter-sues and sues Microsoft for being a party to this lawsuit by their blatant money-injection. That must be illegal in some way.

Additionally, I must repeat what has been said before.. "I won't at all feel sorry for SCO when they get completely trashed in court." Also I think this whole case shows how desperate Microsoft has really become to try to spread FUD about linux, to resort to such crude and ineffective methods.


Re:Sick of this crap... (4, Insightful)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | about 11 years ago | (#6204344)

To be honest I hope IBM counter-sues and sues Microsoft for being a party to this lawsuit by their blatant money-injection. That must be illegal in some way.

I wish that too, but it will not happen, unless direct collusion can be proven. I doubt it ever will. Remember, MS has the best, most experienced legal team in the business (they need it). There is no way to prove that they gave SCO money to pursue the case, even though that is almost certainly true.

Re:Sick of this crap... (1)

debrain (29228) | about 11 years ago | (#6204331)

... because EVERYONE knows they [SCO] wouldn't be paying lawyer's for this FUD if they didn't have the cash.

IIRC, David Boies et al. only get paid from the settlement. ie. If SCO loses, they get nothing. I honestly don't know much about that, and I'd like to know more, but I haven't been able to find the original reference I read it from.

One or two day old news proliferating on ./ (-1, Troll)

squashed (664265) | about 11 years ago | (#6204238)

I don't know why we keep seeing refs to articles from the nation's leading periodicals, like the NYT, showing up on "./" one or two days after the fact. This article, case in point, was posted to the NYT Saturday at Midnight, Eastern time. It's now about 36 hours later. This practice seems to be accelerating.

Re:One or two day old news proliferating on ./ (1)

CableModemSniper (556285) | about 11 years ago | (#6204354)

No kidding, while I was reading the article I was thinking to myself, hmm this seems familiar. I then realized I read the dead tree version of the article yesterday.

Who are we cheering for? (4, Interesting)

cperciva (102828) | about 11 years ago | (#6204244)

I'm a bit confused here... do we want SCO to win, or do we want SCO to lose?

Ok, SCO is a bunch of scumbags, so obviously we don't want them to win.

On the other hand, if SCO loses, it will send a strong message to the world: "Stay away from anything GPL, or you'll find your proprietary code taken away from you."

I'm really not sure which outcome would be worse.

Re:Who are we cheering for? (5, Insightful)

rking (32070) | about 11 years ago | (#6204280)

On the other hand, if SCO loses, it will send a strong message to the world: "Stay away from anything GPL, or you'll find your proprietary code taken away from you."

If SCO lose because their rights have not been infringed upon, as seems likely, then that doesn't say anything bad about the GPL at all. How could it?

You're assuming ownership... (5, Insightful)

TheConfusedOne (442158) | about 11 years ago | (#6204281)

...of something strongly in doubt.

First off, SCO has to prove that the code in question is in fact "theirs". Considering the rather incestuous family tree that is UNIX that is not so cut and dry.

Additionally, there are allegations that SCO has been helping themselves to GPL'd code without credit or redistribution.

No, the thing we're learning here is that if you really have an IP case against Linux or another GPL project than just be right out in the open. Document the code and PROVE your case. Don't hide behind lawyers, NDA's, horribly out of context quotes and vaguely threatening letters.

And, oh yeah, it helps if you can at least stick to one story for greater than a week.

Re:You're assuming ownership... (1)

pyrotic (169450) | about 11 years ago | (#6204341)

SCO doesn't need to win this case in court. If they win, it would be great. But if they can get enough of the major Linux customers they've been sending letters to to switch, then it will have been worth the legal costs. They already have Microsoft paying them money off the back of this. Which is why their stock price is doing OK right now.

The court case will take years. For now, everything is going according to plan.

Re:You're assuming ownership... (2, Interesting)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | about 11 years ago | (#6204358)

Maybe it won't take years.
Evidence revealed? []

Re:Who are we cheering for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204282)

We want them to win for a paltry sum of $200.

Re:Who are we cheering for? (1)

Hatfieldje (147296) | about 11 years ago | (#6204283)

For the sake of all things GPL-ish, I'm pretty sure we want SCO to lose. If they're able to start enforcing copyright on things that are currently GPL'd or otherwise what most people consider public domain, the repercussions would be hard felt and long lasting.

And SCO isn't trying to take anyone else's proprietary code away. They're claiming that people are using their(SCO's) code in an unapproved way.

Frankly, win or lose, I think SCO has damaged their reputation among open source programmers, so I wonder who they're going to find to produce anything new for them.

Re:Who are we cheering for? (4, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | about 11 years ago | (#6204300)

IBM has contributed to Open Source far more than SCO has. If SCO wins (*snort*) the message being sent will be "Don't contribute to Open Source; you never know whose gonna claim that the code you submitted was really theirs".

Nope, this is a no brainer, IBM all the way.

Go blue!

Re:Who are we cheering for? (1)

cheese_wallet (88279) | about 11 years ago | (#6204304)

On the other hand, if SCO loses, it will send a strong message to the world: "Stay away from anything GPL, or you'll find your proprietary code taken away from you."

I think you have it backwards. If SCO wins, that would mean (in a perfect world) that SCOs code *was* in fact taken and placed in a GPL product. That, to me, would say "Stay away from anything GPL..."

If SCO loses (note the single "o" in lose), that would mean their code *was not* taken and placed in a GPL product. That, to me, would say "litigious companies suck ass, stay away from anything SCO..."

Re:Who are we cheering for? (5, Insightful)

dachshund (300733) | about 11 years ago | (#6204310)

On the other hand, if SCO loses, it will send a strong message to the world: "Stay away from anything GPL, or you'll find your proprietary code taken away from you."

And if SCO wins, it'll send a message to the world that you can't trust any GPLed product, because a contributor might suddenly determine that, oops, some of the code in it was "unintentionally" released-- and therefore, you never really had a license to use/distribute it in the first place.

Of course, you really have to break this case into four separate decisions:

1) Did IBM steal proprietary code from SCO in violation of an NDA, and include that code in their Linux release?

2) Does SCO even own the copyrights to that code, or do they still belong to Novell, in which case the determination in (1) may or may not be important.

3) Assuming (1) and (2) break in favor of SCO, does SCO have the right to sue Linux end-users for posessing/distributing Linux code, even if the end-users didn't know they were breaking the law? This turns on...

4) Does SCO's distributing their own version of Linux (under the GPL) invalidate any copyright claims they might have made on code that was (without their knowledge) included in the Linux codebase? In other words, if you steal my code and hide it in a corner of the Linux kernel, can I legally be deprived of my rights to it just because I distributed a copy of Linux?

Quite frankly, the best outcome is for SCO just to drop this nonsense.

Re:Who are we cheering for? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204312)

I'll have to disagree here. This case isn't about gpl, in spite of anything SCO has to say. It's a contract dispute over who owns something. Open and free software isn't about stealing anything.

From the outside, a business perspective, lets look at what has happened. SCO 'owns' Unix. Unix was slowly descending into irrelevance, except in specialized markets. Linux, with GNU, and the other BSD's have brought *nix to the desktop, low end servers, set-top boxes, hand helds, etc. All over. Why? IBM and others have jumped on a moving train instead of getting run down by it. Good business.

This case wouldn't exist, neither would SCO, if Linux and the GPL weren't around.


Win or lose? (5, Interesting)

mindstrm (20013) | about 11 years ago | (#6204329)

If IBM illegally copied code that rightfully belonged to SCO,and is large enough to warrant real copyright protections, and it made it's way into linux, then we want SCO to win against IBM, and we want SCO to do the right thing, which is let us know which code it is so the linux world at large can work to remove that code from future versions.

Furthermore, realize that we aren't obligated to remove it immediately; even if IBM copied it into, say, OS2, their customers would not be obligated to uninstall their software. SCO can claim damages, but claiming control over all of linux sure isn't going to happen.

On the other hand, if scos claims are really baseless, we want them to die, because they suck.

Re:Who are we cheering for? (1)

sdmacguru (628469) | about 11 years ago | (#6204333)

cperciva said: "...if SCO loses, it will send a strong message to the world: 'Stay away from anything GPL, or you'll find your proprietary code taken away from you.'" I think you are making a very, very big assumption here that SCO may have facts on their side. The prevailing assumption on /., and my own opinion, is that they have no legal legs to stand on. They have acted excessively squirrelly throughout this thing and seem to be making up strategy as they go. I can't believe their motivation is what they say it is. Remember, this isn't about IP, it's about an (alleged) contract violation by IBM, right? It isn't about GPL or LGPL or any other license scheme, it is about a contract between IBM and SCO. I think the strong message being sent to the world is, 'Don't partner with SCO'. You have implied a valid concern regarding companies perceptions of open source licensing, in that many companies PHB's seem to assume that using or modifying for their own use an OSS requires releasing their code back to the world. Obviously this isn't true, but there is a lot of confusion in this area that all OSS advocates need to address any chance they get. I certainly don't understand all the nuances of GPL vs. LGPL vs. BSD vs. RPL vs. MIT , etc... and I don't meet that many people that do.

Re:Who are we cheering for? (1)

Camel Pilot (78781) | about 11 years ago | (#6204346)

On the other hand, if SCO loses, it will send a strong message to the world: "Stay away from anything GPL, or you'll find your proprietary code taken away from you.

SCO is not swirling down the toilet because they dabbled with an Open Source project. They are drowning because Linux is devalueing their product and in no way represents a compatible product with anything else they have to offer. They toyed with Linux out of desperation and it is quit obvious their intentions were not alturistic and yes they are scumbags.

Nobody wants SCO source code (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204363)

SCO is only proving that it is bad to engage into proprietary licesing.
If you are a business and you get into licensing source code from SCO, now you know for a fact that you may be threaten with a $1B lawsuit. That they can try to revoke your license and go after your customers.

What business would be interested on doing that?

Nobody wants SCO source code.


Re:Who are we cheering for? (4, Insightful)

dcavanaugh (248349) | about 11 years ago | (#6204394)

Very simple: SCO must die. Their downfall is not so much GPL as it is the overdependence on old technology that is now commoditized. Just how many dollars were they expecting to squeeze out of Unix, anyway?

Would you have sympathy for M$ if their DOS business was threatened by FreeDOS, or would you tell them to grow up and spend a few dollars on R&D?

I find it ironic that SCO/Caldera is the first company to be killed by Linux while simultaneously failing as a Linux company. Good riddance.

Victory! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204247)

I posted about the dumb NY Times link issue yesterday in a similar post. A day later, a reader submits a story with a no-reg-needed URL. Way to go! Now, if we can get the message out to everybody that they should follow this pattern! Great work!

Drama (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204251)

Who needs drama/soaps on tv when you have a show right here..

SCO and IBM's marriage isnt going well.
SCO says IBM is cheating with another OS.
SCO files for divorce.
SCO takes IBM's keys to the house away
IBM fights for the house.

Oh how I will tune in next week to see what happens.

I fear that IBM will win. (0, Insightful)

Krapangor (533950) | about 11 years ago | (#6204254)

With all their legal, financial and IP power it's very likely. But this we be a huge setback for open source software.
Yes, this opinion might surprise you, but let's look at the fundamental issue of todays open source system:
Modern OSS lack original ideas. Linus created Linux - as he claimed himself - as a Unix clone, to give himself and students access to a decent Unix-like OS on x86 basis. The same goes for many other OSS projects. Usually the ideas of commercial software are copied (of course not the code nobody is that stupid). And this makes exactly OSS always vulnerable to bongus attacks like SCO's nonsense claims.
If SCO would be successful then OSS will be forced to step beyond its inital hobbiest pratices and do original innovation at scientific level. There are some movements in this direction like OpenBSD, but the mass is sticking to the ole power-through-copy concepts like Linux etc.
But we can go beyond this. OSS can make cutting-edge software and the highest innovation level. And we can, indeed much easier than any commercial company, refuse any bounds to old deprecated systems by "compatibility arguments". People should just stop to emacs and vi onto any crappy platform but do something productive and insightful instead.

Power through copy eh? (3, Interesting)

TheConfusedOne (442158) | about 11 years ago | (#6204298)

You mean like Beowulf clusters? (Who were those copied from?)

Puh-leeze. Any Operting System has to have certain features and capabilities. Of course there's going to seem to be some copying involved because everyone's working to the same goals.

There is NO advantage to SCO successfully prosecuting this case. First off, the "IP" that they're claiming and trying to protect so jealously is something that they bought fourth hand. They didn't even create it themselves.

Second, they've been gladly trying to make a business from others' IP and when that didn't work out they suddenly decide that they need to pursue licensing?

Licensing IP advances nothing. It's just making everyone pay over and over again for the same damn thing. To make matters worse they're pursuing this with all the class and aplomb of any eight-year-old shouting "I'll just take my bat and ball and go home!"

Re:Power through copy eh? (1)

Hatfieldje (147296) | about 11 years ago | (#6204366)

To make matters worse they're pursuing this with all the class and aplomb of any eight-year-old shouting "I'll just take my bat and ball and go home!"

The problem with this analogy is that the 8 year old can usually prove that the bat and ball are his, and someone might actually care if he leaves.

Re:I fear that IBM will win. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204308)

> Modern OSS lack original ideas.
No it doesn't. Look at GNU Radio. You can use it to decode HDTV signals. Try finding non-free software that does the same thing. The linux kernel has VFS (Virtual Filesystem Switch) which acts as an abstraction layer allowing you to mount and use many different file systems in the same way. That's pretty original. Look at OpenBSD. It has encrypted swap space and random pids. What other OS has that? Look at apache. Before apache you couldn't have more than one website per box. Look at Gnutella, it was the first distributed p2p software ever. And the list goes on....

VFS [Was:I fear that IBM will win.] (0)

gwhulbert (534218) | about 11 years ago | (#6204433)

Solaris has had VFS long before linux.

Re:I fear that IBM will win. (0, Redundant)

zygber (674195) | about 11 years ago | (#6204336)

"People should just stop to emacs and vi onto any crappy platform but do something productive and insightful instead."

<SARCASM>Yeah sure...</SARCASM> Why should anyone stop developing such a nice OS like Emacs?!

Re:I fear that IBM will win. (4, Insightful)

alienw (585907) | about 11 years ago | (#6204349)

How the hell did this teenage troll get modded up? In case anyone actually believes he has a valid point (even though he can spell neither 'hobbyist' nor 'bogus'), here is a little rebuttal.

First, OpenBSD is probably one of the LEAST innovative software projects. It has to be -- innovative means untested, which usually means insecure. Hardly appropriate for a system which strives for the ultimate in security.

Second, SCO's claims have nothing to do with originality of ideas. They have everything to do with alleged code theft. You will have that problem in any open-source project, period. If it's actually innovative, you may also run into patents, which are much more of a problem.

Third, nobody wants "innovative" software, if innovative simply means "different". This is the fundamental difference between a computer science research project and enterprise-class software (which is what Linux is quickly becoming). Rejecting compatibility, adding "cutting-edge" features, and creating a brand-new untested design are all symptoms of amateurism and are OK for college students, but not for serious use. Rejectng backwards compatibility and/or a proven design is just like saying "let's tear down New York City and rebuild it with wider streets in order to solve traffic problems." It's a rather childish suggestion.

Re:I fear that IBM will win. (4, Informative)

Monster Munch (152218) | about 11 years ago | (#6204381)

How can you say this?

Although Linux originally started as a unix clone, it was derived from Minix which in turn was based on the unix methodology. But Linux has changed, grown, if it hadn't why would people now be using it?

Open source is different for exactly the reason that its open source, anyone can look it and they are free to change it. This means that the software is continually evolving - sometimes using multiple paths, with each contributing to the overall future of the software. Who knows what Linux will look like in another 10 years? but at least it can adapt, new hardware vendors can view the source and optimise their hardware/drivers ready for Linux and if needed the kernel itself can be changed to help accomodate them.

As other people have said any software can become tainted with other proprietry code, especially when you have source licenses from many
vendors used on one of your products.

Take for example the MSQL/Timeline patent issue.

How many people would be willing to start from scratch now? look how long the hurd has taken to emerge, and even now it uses code from Linux to help it take off.

Some would say that Gnome and KDE are just Windows wannabes, but for how long? again they will evolve over time as people demand new ideas and concepts.

So it's important that open source comes out of this mess as clean as possible because if it doesn't then important contributors may be scared off and thus reduce the speed at which the current open source movement is expanding.

This is purely a knee-jerk reaction by SCO^h^h^h Caldera to take as much as possible from our community when they realised that their business model had failed.

Re:I fear that IBM will win. (0, Offtopic)

Cozminsky (452030) | about 11 years ago | (#6204409)

I don't feel that OpenBSD's strength is that they are doing something different. It shares a large base of code with the other BSDs and is about as *nix as you can get. The strength of OpenBSD is that the maintainers are actively seeking out and squashing bugs. Even with all the linux advocates out there trumpeting the many eyes theory it doesn't beat a core team that spend the majority of their time just finding bugs.

SCO stock at 28 month high (4, Interesting)

26199 (577806) | about 11 years ago | (#6204265)

It seems the Friday deadline looked good to traders, the stock price jumped [] ... Yahoo has an article [] , written on Friday, about the jump.

Any bets on what happens to the stock price on Monday?...

Re:SCO stock at 28 month high (1)

Zo0ok (209803) | about 11 years ago | (#6204303)

Given the fact that the SCO share has risen from like $0.60 to $9 quite quickly indicates that either the market beleives in them, or the market sees this as some kind of lottery.

One billion dollar would of course be jackpot. If they manage to get any money from IBM that is probably a bonus. The worst thing for the stock would probably be if SCO turned out reasonable and nice - wouldnt be much of a lottery left then.

To answer the question: I dont beleive anyone beleived in a deal with IBM before 13th, so stock should not be very affected by this.

Re:SCO stock at 28 month high (1)

26199 (577806) | about 11 years ago | (#6204365)

Hmm, definitely a big jump on the morning of the Friday, though... perhaps enough people thought the deadline would mean something for there to be a rush to buy...

If that's the case, I would expect a noticable fall tomorrow. But what do I know :-)

Re:SCO stock at 28 month high (2, Funny)

RickHunter (103108) | about 11 years ago | (#6204390)

Yeah, its going to crash as every single SCO executive sells every share they own and emigrates to some place with no extradition treaties with the USA.

ass report (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204267)

last night i was out at teh clubs. There was a reasonably ok looking girl, she could manage to lose 5-10 pounds, but not Kathleen-Fent fat by any means. She was wearing a pink top (no bra), and a black dress. She also had a small nose-ring, left sie of her nose.

she was making out with some guy. Probably just met him. He seemed more interested in his Budweisre than in her. She was grinding her hips, dry fucking him. He was standing there. Then he went off to the bar to get another drink. She stood around for 10 minutes looking sad. I briefly thought, "hey, leftovers!", but her arms were a little too flabby, and i expected she wouldn't look so good in the morning.

eventually, she found her "boyfriend" and started making out with him again.

04/24/00 (2, Interesting)

minkwe (222331) | about 11 years ago | (#6204268)

IBM Chooses Caldera's OpenLinux eServer as First Linux Pre-load On Netfinity Servers
eServer Pre-load Saves Customers Time and Money
OREM, Utah--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 24, 2000--Caldera Systems Inc., (NASDAQ: CALD - news), the ``Linux for eBusiness'' leader, today announced that IBM (NYSE: IBM - news) will pre-load Caldera's OpenLinux eServer on its IBM Netfinity servers.

The Netfinity servers may be purchased either pre-installed or bundled with OpenLinux eServer through IBM Direct. This is IBM's first Linux pre-load on Netfinity servers.

IBM believes that Linux will help drive the long-term growth of the Internet by providing an open application platform that can harness leading-edge technologies and simplify customer choice. The common application platform will help ensure software interoperability across heterogeneous servers.

I'd like to comply ... (5, Funny)

jc42 (318812) | about 11 years ago | (#6204270)

Since I don't have the money to defend myself in court like IBM, I'd really like to comply with SCO's claims that not just linux, but a lot of other software infringes on SCO's claimed copyright. I'm just a bit puzzled as to how I might go about this.

For example, I'm looking at a line of code in one of my GPL'd programs:

i += j - n;

Does this infringe on any code claimed by SCO? How would I know?

The only way I can think of is that SCO should send me a copy of their code. I can easily write a little perl script that will compare every line of my code with every line of theirs, and I can rewrite anything that seems to be infringing.

Can anyone think of another way?

Since my code is GPL'd and on my web site, SCO could do it themselves. But they are probably pretty busy, so I'd rather do it myself. Anyway, recent history shows that when they find infringing code, they don't send the programmer a nice message so the code can be changed. SCO just sues them for big bucks. I'd much rather avoid this threat, and save them time, by eliminating any infringements myself.

SCO doesn't need to send me their code. If someone at SCO would just package it up in a few .tgz files and post the URL here, I can download it and take care of it myself.

Eagerly awaiting the URL ...

Re:I'd like to comply ... (5, Interesting)

Jaghound (560040) | about 11 years ago | (#6204322)

i += j - n;

Does this infringe on any code claimed by SCO? How would I know?

I guess your post was written as a joke, but I am going to write a serious answer.

"It's the comments, stupid!"

If you read the what the reporters said about the code they were shown under NDA, they explicitly stated that they thought the code was identical because of identical comments. As comments serve no real purpose from the compilers point-of-view, chances of two comment lines taken from two different projects should be about zero.

Interesting comparison comes from world of chess, where the reconrding of moves can _not_ be copyrighted (because nobody could then play those moves again), but the comments on those moves (like in a book) _can_ be.

Re:It's the comments, stupid! (2, Funny)

jc42 (318812) | about 11 years ago | (#6204448)

Ah! I understand now. If I simply remove all the comments from my code, I won't have to worry about infringing SCO's copyrights.

I can do that. All it takes is a little perl program. I can probably do it as a one-liner. And I'll be sure not to comment it.

One thing that puzzles me, though. There is an old theory about the lack of comments in the original Bell Labs unix: Before sending it out to universities, the folks at Bell Labs ran it through a filter that deleted comments. This was later verified (by Ken, IIRC) as not a rumor at all; they had such a program.

This would imply that if you actually use the AT&T code, all you have to do is add comments, and your code would be different enough to avoid an infringement charge.

This is apparently what SCO did, since they are charging people with stealing their comments. So making any infringing linux code should be especially easy. Just strip out all the comments.

I'd post a URL for a comment stripper, but I'd bet that any perl, tcl or python hacker here can type the program faster than /. can get it into a web page, especially if I use the Preview button. In fact, I'd bet that a lot of they have typed in just such a program as soon as they read the parent comment.

Has Slashdot reported this? (5, Informative)

beldraen (94534) | about 11 years ago | (#6204273)

It appears SCO is expanding their threats to everyone else [] .

Linux software companies could also become SCO targets. "Do we have potential issues with Red Hat, SuSE and other commercial Linux distributors--yes, we might," Sontag said, adding that chances for negotiating with such companies appear to be slim.

Re:Has Slashdot reported this? (1)

broeman (638571) | about 11 years ago | (#6204350)

But how?

SCO is suing IBM claiming a technology transfer ... RedHat, SuSE and other distributions might be using it, but if they weren't involved or had any prior knowledge about the transfer, how can they be sued?

Re:Has Slashdot reported this? (1)

beldraen (94534) | about 11 years ago | (#6204382)

Because logic and reason have nothing to do with the situation.

This really reminds me... (5, Interesting)

RyanFenton (230700) | about 11 years ago | (#6204278)

Of a case involving MCA Universal, Nintendo and Donkey Kong. []

It ends up Universal didn't actually OWN the rights to Donkey Kong, but bullied several companies, and sued Nintendo anyway... and ended up paying 1.8 million for the trouble.

Ryan Fenton

Corrections to my own post. (1)

RyanFenton (230700) | about 11 years ago | (#6204392)

It was, of course, King Kong that Universal did not own - making it an even more appropriate story, because Nintendo actually showed that King Kong was public domain! Much of the 1.8 million was to pay for the damage caused by the lawsuit to companies connected to Nintendo... which will be interesting to see what happens with Linux-related companies getting in on the action.

Also, note another connection between Universal and Nintendo [] - yet again, the offending company had deep, friendly connections with Nintendo and their games, yet still somehow decided to go through with the worthless threats and lawsuit.


Ryan Fenton

Sad and tragic (5, Interesting)

christurkel (520220) | about 11 years ago | (#6204293)

SCO can't compete with Linux. Its UnixWare OS, while a fine middle level server OS, doesn't have the the scalability, hardware support or applications that Linux has. They know it. SCO couldn't make money selling its own Linux.
So, it does what M$ could only dream of: launch a self destructive lawsuit in a last, desperate gasp of trying to save its business and destroy Linux, unleashing the greatest FUD attack witnessed yet. People are scared. M$, with its "license" pulls the strings, and watches with glee. "I told you so!" M$ will say. "You can't trust open source!"
SCO needs to be destroyed. No bought or settled with, but crushed, utterly and completely. What they have done is unethical, immoral and (hopefully) completely without legal base.

Re:Sad and tragic (2, Insightful)

TVmisGuided (151197) | about 11 years ago | (#6204348)

SCO needs to be destroyed. No bought or settled with, but crushed, utterly and completely. What they have done is unethical, immoral and (hopefully) completely without legal base.

Your wish is most likely granted, and it's going to be by SCO's own hand. Someone called them "the 800-pound gorilla" a while back, when I mentioned that they should be bought up. They may still be an 800-pound gorilla, but gorillas don't fare very well against a well-trained sharpshooter (read: IBM).

What's going to destroy them? Simple. IBM, and anyone else who wanders along and wants to buy in, will happily dedicate the financial resources needed to tie SCO's suit up in court for years. SCO will simply go broke from litigation costs. I doubt even MSFT is going to stand by them, no matter the appearances of MSFT's recent purchase of a license from SCO. This, of course, is predicated on the court not tossing the whole thing out in the first two weeks as a frivolous lawsuit.

Just my two cents' up the change for a banana split or something.

Re:Sad and tragic (1)

rmohr02 (208447) | about 11 years ago | (#6204425)

What SCO produces is certified as Unix by The Open Group. Therefore, it scales to a large number of processors. Linux does not scale nearly as well as any Unix. Hardware support I can't comment on. As for applications, as long as the particular brand of Unix that SCO sells is limited to the architectures the gcc supports, then almost any *nix application should work on SCO Unix.

I'm not defending SCO, I'm just pointing out that there are reasons companies are still using Unix instead of Linux on servers.

I just want to know (4, Interesting)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | about 11 years ago | (#6204296)

When is the class-action countersuit going to begin?

The text (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204297)

Conveniently sorted by line:

"It's caused a great deal of angst within the open-source community, but
"We've got a strong defense case, and we're going to fight it," Trink
AIX, once the 100-day deadline passes. The SCO executives were consulting
But Microsoft's critics regard the deal as a tactic to support SCO's
Corporation Linux (Computer Operating System) Computer Software Copyrights
David Boies, the lead trial lawyer for the Justice Department in the
Fink said. To date, the SCO-I.B.M. dispute has not hurt the Linux market.
Gartner. "The significance of this case is unclear, but there's no
Guarino, a spokeswoman for I.B.M., said yesterday. The dispute between SCO
Hewlett-Packard developed their own flavors of Unix over the years. SCO
I.B.M. 100 days to settle the case, a deadline that expired yesterday.
I.B.M. strategy, he says, is to make contributions to Linux technology so
Ken King, director of technical strategy for I.B.M.'s software group. The
McBride argues this is being done with a "don't ask, don't tell mentality"
Microsoft antitrust case. For years, SCO â" whose previous corporate name
Microsoft says the deal was intended to make sure its products could
Monday morning. SCO would scarcely seem a match for I.B.M., the world's
No Concession From I.B.M. in Linux Fight By STEVE LOHR .B.M. said yesterday
Reprints TIMES NEWS TRACKER Topics Alerts International Business Machines
Since Linux's code is distributed free and is improved and debugged by a
a small company based in Lindon, Utah, in a legal fight that is causing
according to industry executives. But the prospect that the suit may
and I.B.M. has not yet slowed the advance of Linux in the marketplace,
and SCO's license contracts in particular. "I.B.M. is the ringleader," he
any software license," observed Martin Fink, vice president for Linux
as the leading big-company promoter of Linux. The company has 250
be evidence if the SCO suit goes to trial. Yet other companies who handle
board, which includes intellectual property lawyers, to examine all
both propriety and open-source software say it is a straightforward
brought in a new chief executive, Darl C. McBride. He quickly decided the
business in Linux try to make money by offering technical support for Linux
business, largely by aggressively enforcing its license rights. But
buyers. "They're really concerned," noted George Weiss, an analyst at
campaign against Linux, which has become a serious challenger in some
communicate with Unix systems without intellectual property violations.
company was losing ground "chasing the Linux dream," he said in a recent
concern among the many corporations that use the increasingly popular Linux
developers working on 29 separate Linux projects worldwide, according to
distributed free and is used by I.B.M. on some of its computers. SCO gave
from Novell the licensing rights and source code to Unix, which is closely
halt the shipment of AIX products. A SCO spokesman said the company
has threatened to revoke the license on I.B.M.'s version of Unix, called
interview. So he decided the company's best path was to focus on its Unix
it to handle the demanding computing tasks in corporate data centers. Mr.
its outcome, also points to a broader issue that will not go away: how to
largest computer company. But SCO certainly has name-brand legal
late 1960's, but many companies including I.B.M., Sun Microsystems and
lawyers who have looked at its license agreements question whether SCO owns
linger indefinitely can only add to the anxiety of corporate technology
loose-knit, far-flung network of programmers, most companies pursuing a
manage the meeting of two worlds of programming. The traditional kind
management issue. "You have to be careful, but you have to careful with
markets to Microsoft's Windows operating system. SCO has focused on I.B.M.
of copyright and patent, while the fast-growing open-source movement,
operating system to handle some computing chores. The SCO Group filed a
or developing specialized software that runs on Linux. A year ago, SCO
planned to make an announcement before the opening of the stock market
produces proprietary software guarded by strict intellectual property laws
projects at Hewlett-Packard. Hewlett-Packard has a six-member review
question it has gotten the attention of people." The case, regardless of
related to Linux. Unix was initially developed at AT&T's Bell Labs in the
representation in the firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, which is led by
responsible for software like Linux, has thrived by freely sharing code and
rights or licenses of others. I.B.M. contends that that these matters will
said Matthew Szulik, chief executive of Red Hat, the largest distributor of
said. I.B.M. declined to spell out what steps it is taking to monitor the
shunning the constraints of intellectual property. In 1995, SCO bought
significant decisions the company makes with open source software, Mr.
suit against I.B.M. in March, arguing that I.B.M. violated its contract
technology it contributes to open-source projects like Linux and to ensure
that it had no intention of reaching a quick settlement with the SCO Group,
that its Linux development does not violate the intellectual property
that shows a cavalier disregard for intellectual property rights in general
that the operating system becomes more powerful and reliable, thus enabling
the I.B.M. license to Unix and asking a court for a temporary injunction to
the broad rights it asserts. To date, SCO has signed new licensing deals
there has been no slowdown whatsoever in the progress Linux is making,"
was Caldera Systems â" has tried to build a Linux business of its own.
with SCO by copying code from the Unix operating system to Linux, which is
with their lawyers all day yesterday. Their legal options include revoking
with two companies. One is Microsoft; the other has not been identified.

They're putting the UD in FUD (4, Interesting)

CPT Carl (222361) | about 11 years ago | (#6204306)

Directly from the article:

" The dispute between SCO and I.B.M. has not yet slowed the advance of Linux in the marketplace, according to industry executives. But the prospect that the suit may linger indefinitely can only add to the anxiety of corporate technology buyers.

"They're really concerned," noted George Weiss, an analyst at Gartner. "The significance of this case is unclear, but there's no question it has gotten the attention of people." "

SCO & MS are injecting some good ol' fashion Uncertainty & Doubt into the minds of corporate IT people considering a Linux project with IBM. Both SCO & MS have nothing to lose by bringing this case.

Win: They get some $$ and stop IBM's new Linux business strategy
Lose: They spread enough UD around to make buyers hesitate, thus still stopping IBM's Linux business.

Xenix (4, Interesting)

-*MadMax666*- (613848) | about 11 years ago | (#6204309)

Correct me if im wrong but didnt SCO aquire Xenix from microsoft some time in the eighties, Xenix then becoming SCO OpenServer. I wonder if this is a reason microsoft and SCO seem to be such good chum's. Also wouldnt it be embarasing if code from what was Xenix turned up in Linux!

Re:Xenix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204372)

Interesting. Bear in mind too if you want to be completely paranoid that all of the legal documents in the Caldera/MSFT case were destroyed just before SCO brought the IBM suit. One wonders what they might have contained.

I will add this to the pile of things to worry about. SCO does not have to be right here at all. All they have to do is keep stirring the pot and threatening everyone so that Linux gets enough of a black eye on possible exposure that companies are forced to dump it and go back to proprietary solutions.

I am sure that we wil see this expanded to all kinds of Open Source. It is indeed possible to destroy a business that has legally done nothing wrong by filing suit after suit and scaring customers away. It does have the filthy paw marks of the Beast of Redmond all over it. But unfortunately it is perfectly legal.

The only way out is to have IBM win this thing, then offer to buy the company out and give the IP away to the public domain or to a trust under GPL. Otherwise this will simply keep happening.

Oddly no one seems to have brought up the issue of WHEN this code might have been added either. Just a detail, but if it was added while Novell still held the rights and they were aware of it, then SCO does not have a leg to stand on does it?

On the other hand there are 3 million lines of code to cherry pick away at....this could go on forever.

Re:Xenix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204404)

Correct me if im wrong

You seem to forget that the company NOW called SCO *WAS* called Caldera. This Caldera IPOed as a Linux 'maker'.

Wouldn't it be embarasing if a Linux software company sued another Linux backer?

And in other news... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204323)

Francisco Franco is still dead.

New kernel release - political statement? (1, Offtopic)

DarkMan (32280) | about 11 years ago | (#6204327)

2.4.21 is out.

Now, what's particularly interesting is that it's arrived right at the dead time between SCO treatening to do something, and actually doing it.

If I wanted to thumb my nose at SCO, I'd release a kernel right now (probably call it the "recumbant bicycle" release, or something). Of course, the dev time for the stable series is so long, that it's just coincidence - right?

So why did Marcelo say he was planning 2.4.22 in a few weeks?

If SCO's aim is to hurt linux, I think that they just got a good demonstration that the engineers (who, in terms of OSS, are the only ones who count) don't care about them.

I had to laugh. (5, Funny)

fidget42 (538823) | about 11 years ago | (#6204332)

To date, SCO has signed new licensing deals with two companies. One is Microsoft; the other has not been identified.

Could the other one also be Microsoft? Just thinking.

If you own SCOX stock, you'd better read this. (4, Interesting)

GreatDave (620927) | about 11 years ago | (#6204342)

Friends, I have seen the future.

The SCO Group has three core businesses now. One is OpenServer and UnixWare, which as we all know, suck to high heaven and have never had more than 2% market share in the Unix market. They also hav-- er, had their UnitedLinux offering, but now that we have discovered just how much Darl McBride hates Linux, it's safe to say that SCO OpenLinux is history.

That leaves us with SCO's newest business: SCOsource, their gambit in the lawsuit industry. Now, every time I think about SCO and the lawsuit and the questions being raised, I am reminded of a certain Texas energy trading company that is no longer among the living. SCO can't even confirm how much Unix IP they actually own. Novell says they have the patents as a certainty and some of the copyrights as well, and SCO won't say what they actually own. Meanwhile, SCO says that SCOsource is a key business unit, allowing them to record their extortion fees as regular income, suddenly making them a "profitable" company.

Consider Enron. They inflated their revenues by trading energy that didn't exist and raping their customers for doing so. Now look at SCO. They're suing their customers, claiming infringement of IP that may not exist (they certainly won't confirm or deny the existence of it!).

You'd think investors would have learned from the Enron incident, but nope. SCOX is over $10 for the first time in its history, and McBride and his FUD-spewing lawyer-demons are just waiting for the perfect opportunity to cash out. I just pray that justice is done and that this fscked-up company will be wiped off the face of the planet.

Re:If you own SCOX stock, you'd better read this. (4, Interesting)

minkwe (222331) | about 11 years ago | (#6204421)

Check this out [] ...
My goodness, did people read the latest 10Q?

You know those licensing deals that gave SCO its
first quarter in the black? It issued 210K options
at strike $1.83 to one of the licensees, priced them
at half a million and accounted for it by reducing their
license revenue!

Those options are 2 mio in the money now and the
owner will be looking to dump. Did you check out
the insider trades info?

People, you are being majorly scammed! [] []

" In connection with the execution of the first license agreement, we granted a warrant to the licensee to purchase up to 210,000 shares of our common stock, for a period of five years, at a price of $1.83 per share. This warrant has been valued, using the Black-Scholes valuation method, at $500,000. Because the warrant was issued for no consideration, $500,000 of the license proceeds have been recorded as warrant outstanding and the license revenue reduced accordingly."

It's any wonder (1, Troll)

Bruha (412869) | about 11 years ago | (#6204345)

Microsoft, pays SCO, Microsoft buys the leading AV solution Rav antivirus and announces they will discontinue the Linux product line. What's next they buy Netscape from AOL and say they're discontinueing the linux version and all the code that netscape put in now is not licensed to mozilla and the list can go on.

Obviously the monopoly lawsuit has done nothing but bolster Microsoft into doing more drastic measures to ensure they're the only choice when it comes to running a computer.

Call me Scully or Muldar...but I think... (5, Interesting)

ScottGant (642590) | about 11 years ago | (#6204355)

Ok, let's play what if.

Suppose there was a meeting. There were no notes taken of this meeting. No emails or memos were ever written that it even took place.

The meeting was between Microsoft and SCO.

Microsoft promises to keep SCO afloat...doling out money to them over the next 10 to 15 years. In small chunks. First up is to buy a license from SCO...totally out in the open. Saying that they just want to be on the up and up with any code they may write in the future.

But in exchange for Microsofts funding, SCO must openly attack Linux...the only thing that Microsoft truly fears. They must attack Linux, and all the big companies that support it. They must stir up a huge shit-storm around Linux and spout off FUD like there is no tomorrow. This will put doubt in the eyes of future Linux adopters, investors and users while Microsoft gains an even larger foothold.

But remember, there are no documents ever written to this effect. No emails that can be found or memos to be brought forward. No one even knows what is going on except the people at the top. No one has actually said "Linux must die". But this is the ultimate goal.

Just a thought.

Re:Call me Scully or Muldar...but I think... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | about 11 years ago | (#6204410)

> Microsoft promises...
> ...
> But remember, there are no documents...

If there are no documents there are no promises.

Re:Call me Scully or Muldar...but I think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204435)

You also believe that the declassified Roswell files prove nothing, and that the lizards have taken over, don't you?

Linux is Ripped Off (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#6204403)

enough said

How would you find GPL code in SCO ? (3, Interesting)

Crashmarik (635988) | about 11 years ago | (#6204411)

IANAL, but it was always my impression you couldn't claim trade secret protection and copyright protection. Copyright protection pertains to works that are explicitly meant to be published and trade secret for works whose publication would destroy their inherent value. Note most companies claim copyright on the object code not the source.

It was a big legal brouhaha in the 70's and 80's on whether object code was copyrightable as it wasn't a human readable entity (yes it does depend on the human).

My question is really does anyone know what tools are being used to build SCO unix products ? And, are there decompilers that could reasonably show that SCO stole GPL CODE.

Lets face it the reason that SCO is being so secretive is they are the thieves hoping to pull a fast one on the world. Its pretty much obvious that SCO isnt protecting anything new or revolutionary. My guess is SCO had programmers that were either pressed to meet deadlines or got involved in a little intracorporate one upsmanship , and appropriated GPL code, thinking how could anyone notice.

The SCO source is the big mystery here. If it can be shown that significant parts came from GPL or the open source community (i.e. berkely unattributed). Well there goes SCO down the toilet where they belong.

Um, guys? (1)

nightsweat (604367) | about 11 years ago | (#6204426)

SCO lawyers after the deadline passed - "We're going back to get a bigger boat, right?"

I hope IBM buys SCO out... (1)

caitsith01 (606117) | about 11 years ago | (#6204434)

...and then shuts down all their actual work activities and makes every single SCO employee work out the remainder of their contract fetching coffee and donuts for IBM's IP lawyers and mopping floors.

At the end of each contract IBM can then lay off the employee as 'redundant' because they have decided to shut down their 'total jerk' business unit.


They could buy them out and then use the contract between Micro$oft and SCO to irritate the hell out of MS.

Either way it's gotta be worth a few million to a company the size of IBM to end this bullcrap and win the love of the open source community. I imagine there will be a brutal court battle and, if unsuccessful, IBM will then 'invest' in SCO.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account