×

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!

OSCON Panel: SCO Lawsuit About the Money

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the well-there's-a-shocker dept.

Caldera 252

viewstyle writes "Just when you had heard enough, the ongoing controversy about SCO vs. Linux has popped up over at the O'Reilly Open Source Convention (OSCON). According to Eweek's story, the panelists agreed that SCO is targeting companies like IBM in an attempt to raise cash. Most importantly: "if a company is not after money, suing is not the way to go.""

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

252 comments

Official WIZARD postal flip out! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409626)

[mit.edu]
http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~dking3/real_ultimate_p ow er.htm


Wizards are sooooooooooo sweet that I want to crap my pants.

Facts:

1. Wizards are mammals.
2. Wizards fight ALL the time.
3.The purpose of the wizard is to flip out and kill people.

Re:Official WIZARD postal flip out! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409727)

You ASSHAT! You wasted a perfectly good first post by getting the link wrong!

Thereby, I claim that YOU HAVE FAILED IT and your first post is invalid.

Now get out of the way and let the real trolls do their job.

Have a nice day.

How is SCO's Lawsuit affecting sales of Linux? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409634)

If I were a CIO or CTO debating the TCO of *nix vs. Win2K3 to a CEO, would IBM vs. SCO be the TKO that stops the CEO from approving A/P to pay my PO for RH's LGX?

FWIW, even if OSS is FAIB, if the DOJ considers *nix IP with a TM, then it basically become's SCO's LIC, meaning our OSS becomes a CSS OS, which would RSTBO.

AIBO going w/ an ASP that manages our OS? BTA, we might end up w/ a BOFH giving us ZA, which WWAD PMS.

AFAIK, INMP if SCO wants to be ITM by enforcing its supposed IPR - *nix IP should be PD or GNU, like BSD just on GP, IYKWIM. I keep asking myself in this situation - WWLD?

Oh, BTW - IITYWIMWYBMAD?

Re:How is SCO's Lawsuit affecting sales of Linux? (2, Funny)

Homology (639438) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409659)

Here's a dollar for you to buy some vowels.

Re:How is SCO's Lawsuit affecting sales of Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409701)

this reply to the parent has also been done before... " Here's a dollar for you to buy some vowels."

friggin amusing

Re:How is SCO's Lawsuit affecting sales of Linux? (1)

Homology (639438) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409739)

this reply to the parent has also been done before... " Here's a dollar for you to buy some vowels."

Actually, most comments on SCO has been done before, and I just carry on this great tradition on /. Whatever did you expect on yet another story about SCO on /. ?

Re:How is SCO's Lawsuit affecting sales of Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409670)

this thing is becoming as common as the 'beowulf'||'hotgrits'||'soviet russia' etc jokes... amusing, but still, its like the 10th time I've seen this on /.

Who started this joke, anyway?

Re:How is SCO's Lawsuit affecting sales of Linux? (1)

trelanexiph (605826) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409676)

sounds like a case of acute acronym dependancy, (Where a nontechnical person overuses tech jargon acronyms to sound intelligent, most often found in IT bosses, and salesdroids). I'd suggest a quick jaunt out to the nearest highway to play in traffic, it's the only known cure I'm afraid. :)

Re:How is SCO's Lawsuit affecting sales of Linux? (5, Funny)

wayward_son (146338) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409705)


If I were a CIO or CTO debating the TCO of *nix vs. Win2K3 to a CEO, would IBM vs. SCO be the TKO that stops the CEO from approving A/P to pay my PO for RH's LGX?

FWIW, even if OSS is FAIB, if the DOJ considers *nix IP with a TM, then it basically become's SCO's LIC, meaning our OSS becomes a CSS OS, which would RSTBO.

AIBO going w/ an ASP that manages our OS? BTA, we might end up w/ a BOFH giving us ZA, which WWAD PMS.

AFAIK, INMP if SCO wants to be ITM by enforcing its supposed IPR - *nix IP should be PD or GNU, like BSD just on GP, IYKWIM. I keep asking myself in this situation - WWLD?

Oh, BTW - IITYWIMWYBMAD?


WTF???

Re:How is SCO's Lawsuit affecting sales of Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409754)

Hey now! That's my IP you're posting there!
original post [slashdot.org]

But its cool... funny to see this thing coming up again & again...

Re:How is SCO's Lawsuit affecting sales of Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409764)

No, BYOFDYCSOB!

Re:How is SCO's Lawsuit affecting sales of Linux? (1)

halo8 (445515) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409765)

Free MOD Points for the 1st post that CORRECTLY translates this..

good luck

and happy karma whoring

Re:How is SCO's Lawsuit affecting sales of Linux? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409778)

Its already been done - translation [slashdot.org]

Translation please? (0, Redundant)

Lux (49200) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409779)

LOL! I get many of these, but probably less than half. Can anyone translate (expand?) the whole thing?

-Lux

stating the obvious (1, Interesting)

stonebeat.org (562495) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409635)

wasn't that pretty obvious from day 1???

Re:stating the obvious (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409679)

yup, that's exactly why this article is -1 Overrated (or more likely Redundant).

I read through it laughing the whole way. Did they seriously take the comments on /. and put them behind names of people at companies that I could care less about?

"MS is doing this to make the GPL look bad." First of all, who the fuck cares, second of all, duh, and third of all, I doubt it.

My comments are just as important as those people in this article.

Again, -1 Redundant/Overrated.

Just my worthless .02

Re:stating the obvious (1)

scalis (594038) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409933)

wasn't that pretty obvious from day 1???

Wait! something has changed in the Matrix! Although im not sure we had this EXACT same discussion before or one just like it...

SCO Lawsuit About the Money (5, Funny)

grennis (344262) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409636)

In other news, it was discovered that the Earth is round and fire is hot. Film at 11.

Re:SCO Lawsuit About the Money (5, Funny)

Bob McCown (8411) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409663)

In other news, it was discovered that the Earth is round and fire is hot. Film at 11.

I thought it was "Cellophane factory burns. No film at 11!"

Re:SCO Lawsuit About the Money (1)

rhinoX (7448) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409706)

Actually, the earth is an oblique ellipsoid.

Re:SCO Lawsuit About the Money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409825)

Oblate spheroid.

Re:SCO Lawsuit About the Money (1, Insightful)

deadsaijinx* (637410) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409713)

At least taco had the good humor to put it in the well-there's-a-shocker dept.

DUH (4, Interesting)

mlyle (148697) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409640)

There are only two reasons you sue-- for injunctive relief of some kind, or to receive damages.

And there is one reason for profit corporations exist-- to make money. This is a surprise why?

You missed the opportunity (5, Funny)

Pac (9516) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409712)

And there is one reason for profit corporations exist-- to make money. This is a surprise why?

The real quote would be: And there is one reason for Courts to exist-- to help corporations make money. This is a surprise why?

Re:DUH (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409756)

And there is one reason for profit corporations exist-- to make money. This is a surprise why?

Remember, we're talking about GNU hippies here... I don't think they use money in GNUtopia.

My favorite "insight" from the article:

"the rich ones have deep pockets."

We use published lines of code, actually (1)

Pac (9516) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409937)

Although some people now advocate using function points instead, but that is another discussion entirely. Anyway, in GNUtopia your capacity to buy goods is proportional to number of lines of code you authored and "deposited" in Savanah. There is also a requirement that the software you contributed for is actually being used by someone outside your family. Under this system, would you be poor or rich?

Re:DUH (2, Informative)

sporty (27564) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409871)

Or to get a ruling on somethign that may come up later. Two companies may arrange a trial just to see if something is ok by US law or not.

But I'm not sure if it's considered "suing". (sueing?)

Third reason: sock puppet license fees (5, Interesting)

mec (14700) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409927)

Those are the classical two reasons to sue. SCO has developed an innovative third reason.

Look at SCO's revenue and income for the past quarter. They recorded $13 million from sales of products and services and $8 million from SCO Source. SCO Source has two customers: one is Microsoft, and the other is an unnamed large Unix company (I think it's likely to be Sun).

On the income side, SCO lost money on products and services, but made up for it by making money from SCO Source.

SCO has found a way to monetize anti-Linux FUD. This is not just a sideline. It's the only profitable activity The SCO Group has ever had in its corporate existence.

SCO doesn't need to win the lawsuit. They just need throw enough FUD so that Microsoft keeps cutting them checks. I think it's important that open source people understand this business model.

Just like... (1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409643)

Spike Lee suing Viacom over the Spike TV name, and, gosh, he happened to settle when he got a TV deal from Viacom owned network Showtime.

Moderators on crack (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409684)

Read the comment before you moderate next time. It's perfectly on topic. It's another situation of someone suing to get a deal for themselves, like SCO is doing.

duh? (1)

SuperDuG (134989) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409646)

I'm surprised an entire panel was even required to state the obvious here. Hmmm want to make money because you think someone has wronged you?? What other options are there?

If SCO wasn't in it for the money then they'd be gripin to Linus to have their name added to the Linux (R) contributors list, or a request to have the elusive code removed from the linux kernel.

Still don't understand why a whole panel was required.

Good thing this isn't fark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409653)

I'd have to put this under the heading .... Obvious.

Umm.. (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409666)


You mean Chris Sontag isn't serious about wanting Linux to grow and prosper? That greedy son of a bitch!

Slashdot quoting slashdot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409667)

The moderator of the Panel... /.'s own Chris DiBona

This isn't news. It's hardly even opinion.

It's just a consequence of a natural process (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409671)

When an animal dies its sphincter loosens up and a smelly mess is created. Ditto SCO.

uhhh (1, Funny)

deadsaijinx* (637410) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409672)

*News Anchor*
In todays news, a Law Suit was actually about money. Tune in at 11 for more info on the controvesy. But first, for a word from our sponsors.
*TV Personality Voice*
the news is brought to you today by the words "No Shit" ....

or how bout, "Thank you Captain Obvious!"

And in other news... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409808)

... CNN is reporting [cnn.com] that Stonehenge is actually a big stone representation of a human female reproductive orifice. I kid you not. Now that *is* News for Nerds. ROTFLMFAO!

How informative (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409674)

I would never have imagined that suing IBM was to squeeze money out of them.. And that bigger companies have more money to collect then small fish..

Thanks for the information..

geesh what a waste of an article.

Oh, the outrage (1)

wayward_son (146338) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409675)

And to think I thought SCO was suing IBM for strictly altruistic reasons. Or for entertainment purposes (it certainly is amusing). To think that they're just in it for the money leaves me feeling hollow inside and disillusioned.

So I guess I'm the only one... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409680)

who thinks the point of the lawsuit is to bleed money
out of Caldera/SCO. Create a pointless lawsuit, and have the company
pay a ton of money in legal bills to a lawfirm that the
CEO is a part of. A nice way to bleed a company dry.
When all done, McBride will move onto the next company
with too much money and suck that one dry also.

Well, yes (4, Insightful)

Faust7 (314817) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409682)

Corporate lawsuits often are--although in this case I would say there's a large, genuine streak of pseudo-evil vindictiveness behind the suit as well, just judging from all the public comments SCO has made thus far. They certainly have a bee in their bonnet about something, and god's death, they may even sincerely believe they're right (even if their claims are based on the wind).

It's all about money? (3, Funny)

Homology (639438) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409688)

Oh dear! I just thought it was righteous outrage at teft of SCO's GPL'ed IP.

Well, no kidding. (4, Insightful)

FreeLinux (555387) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409693)

When are people going to realize that first, parties with a vested interest in the matter, such as OSCON, will hold this or a biased opinion. Secondly, the only opinion that matters is that of a judge or a jury. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks. Finally, a judge or jury is unlikely to render an opinion on the matter for another two to three years so, the constant rehashing of some OSS member's take is completely pointless.

Give it a rest. People need to focus on the positive aspects of Open Source and stop dwelling on this lawsuit. Regardless of the outcome, having this "news" constantly at the forefront is only going to damage Linux and Open Source due to the FUD factor.

Good point, companies shouldn't try to make money. (2, Funny)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409696)

if a company is not after money, suing is not the way to go

Why exactly would a company want money anyways? Couldn't they pursue a few less evil goods, such as prostitues and /or illegal drugs? It would clear out the courts of senceless lawsuits like this one. Who the heck is going to sue for crack? Yep, let em fight it out on the streets I say. Or maybe their street girls could fight it out for them. Hey, it worked in dope wars.

SCO wants Money OMGD! More seriously... (1)

pigscanfly.ca (664381) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409711)

Tell me something I dont know . You sue people for money . SCO is suing to get money !
On a less than sco wants money note , the article mentions that all open source users need to know where the source code came from . THank you very much but I dont feel like trying to read the linux kernel today and check and see if it violates any patents , I would rather take linuses approach , its not an issue unless I get sued ; even then ...

Sorry... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409717)

...but that's a moronic quote. ALL companies are after money. That's why people start a business, they want to make money from it. They don't start one because they want to go out of business and be broke.

How is suing not a good way of making money? If they're successful (I doubt they will be, but that's beside the point), they'll make all sorts of money. There's a whole bunch of people, companies and presidents out there that have found great financial success through lawsuits.

Use protection (4, Funny)

mikeophile (647318) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409729)

People in the open-source community should also not accept software under the Microsoft Shared Source license as they could become "contaminated"

That just sounds vaguely nasty.

Remember kids, don't share unprotected source with Microsoft, or you risk litigiously tramsmitted diseases.

Commerce (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409730)

According to the article's suggestion, they claim suing is: not the way to go?

Hello, the reason people comply with laws is because of some sort of Commercial Liability, or in my case, Heavenly Liability.

May I suggest, from my church (that's my spirit);
"Render to caezer what is caezar's. Render to God what is God's."

Does IBM have any of caezar's (SCO) code? If so, give it back to them, preferably printed on toilette paper. Otherwise, IBM is at liability to be in possesion of patented material, of which both SCO and IBM are corporations that agreed to honor copyright laws upon their corporate (roman) founding.

I, myself, do not honor copyright laws because it is my belief that everything is God's property. Although, God's property has shepards in possesion of it. It so happense, people don't mimick eachother; they have liberty to create as they please. A copy is not the same as a duplicate, their essence is different.

Re:Commerce (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409850)

Does IBM have any of caezar's (SCO) code? If so, give it back to them, preferably printed on toilette paper.
Also preferably used :)

not true! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409736)

It's aboot justice! *head flaps* It's aboot Intellectual Prooperty! It's aboot... it's aboot...

I just cannot believe it! (1)

Mensa Babe (675349) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409738)

Could SCO lawsuit possibly be about the money? I mean the money is all it is about? By which I am asking if they really want to get the money and nothing more? I am shocked! I would have never thought about it! How have they figured it out? Was there some internal memo leakage? Industrial espionage? Sabotage?

Ummmm... (1)

sterno (16320) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409748)

Name me one company that's not about the money.

Re:Ummmm... (1)

Schezar (249629) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409795)

Schezar-soft. Only one employee, but we're not about the money.

We're about... I'll get back to you when I write some software.

1. Write Software
2. ???
3. Not about the money

IP problems of Linux well known to Unix experts ? (2, Interesting)

Krapangor (533950) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409762)

In the light of the SCO lawsuit Apples engagement for FreeBSD as a basis for their new system come into a totally different view point.
We all know that Jobs is a Unix expert mainly due to this economic adventures with Next.
So why did he decide to choose FreeBSD ?
The GPL is not the real problem. Apple has released the Darwin source anyway and it's interface framework is not touched by the GPL. And FreeBSD is today neither more stable nor faster than Linux. In fact with a bigger userbase Apple might have caught much more customers for their new systems when choosing Linux.
So, it seems that there must be a very different point which spoke against Linux.
Indeed FreeBSD is freed and therefore immune to such lawsuits due to the power of the AT&T vs. Berkeley ruling. This doesn't hold for Linux.
The main question is:How the fuck did Jobs know this ages before the SCO suit ?
The only explanation would be that Apple knowing both codebases saw similarities they didn't like and therefore ditched Linux. Note that it is not surprising that didn't make any fuzz about it: they might oblidged by NDA etc. to keep silent and they couldn't provide the code to back such stuff up anyways.

Is this a Troll? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409836)

Or are you an idiot?

Re:Is this a Troll? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409914)

Why on Earth would you think that those two possibilities were mutually exclusive?

Re:IP problems of Linux well known to Unix experts (2, Interesting)

Knife_Edge (582068) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409856)

I thought it was mostly because the licensing terms of the BSD license were more liberal, allowing commercial use of the FreeBSD code with hardly any restrictions. Whereas the GPL contains more restrictions on the user that are intended to keep the code free no matter what.

Maybe this is what you just said, but I think what I am saying is a different reason. I think Apple went with FreeBSD because it was easier to use for commercial purposes than Linux, rather than because it was immune to lawsuits.

I also do not think that Apple could possibly be familiar with all the code bases of the commercial Unixes out there, of which SCO is one. That is where the lawsuit is coming from, a commercial Unix vendor, not the Linux community!

Incidentally, Apple approached Linus about working with them, but he refused because he thought MacOS 9 was a 'piece of crap' (direct quote).

Re:IP problems of Linux well known to Unix experts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409913)

Actually you misquoted him. When Linus was asked about _Mac OS X_ he said that is was a 'piece of crap'.

Re:IP problems of Linux well known to Unix experts (1)

Dr. Evil (3501) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409862)

And here I thought it was so that they would be able to choose what code they wanted to release, when and if they wanted to release it, and make proprietary any significant improvements to the OS by locking down the source.

Soap Opera (1)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409766)

Coming up on the next episode, a startling revelation: SCO reveals she filed divorce for alimony. What will BigBlue do? What will the mother-in-law think? Join us next time for another melodramatic episode of SCO and the BigBlue.

News at 5 next.

Well Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409767)

No Shit, Sherlock!

SCO = New type of business (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409770)

SCO have created the patent parasite company. It won't be long before SCO employs more lawyers than programmers.

Money (1)

rf0 (159958) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409776)

Well of course its obvious but you have to wondered how long it took them to think it up? Surely that must of taken some time. I can just imagine the meeting now

Boss: Right we are out of money. What can we do?
Staff: Improve our product, market it and try to attract new business?
Staff: Lay off people?
Boss: Nah we will just sue big companies who will either give us cash or buy us out. Anyone for a quick trip to Barbados?

Rus

Elementary, my dear Watson, elementary... (1, Funny)

mrsam (12205) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409812)

Gee, a bunch of people get together at a "conference", talk to each other, and come up with an earth-shattering observation that...






Wait....






Get ready for it...






People sue other people in order to get some money!!!!!

Wow!!!! I would never be able to figure that one out myself!! Who said that Slashdot isn't an education web site? Thank gawd for all those smart'em folks, who go to 'em fancy conferences!

And I always thought that folks just liked pissing away money at lawyers, for some reason, or they liked seeing their names on thick bundles of double-spaced paper, in a butt-ugly fixed-width font. Or, I guessed that they get a hard-on climbing the concrete steps to the courthouse.

Well, I think I'll run this by my drinking buddies, over at the pub tonight. They sure to be impressed...

in another news (1)

porky_pig_jr (129948) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409821)

the same panel of experts determined Britney Spears is indeed no longer a virgin.

Can't imagine what our life would be without the panels of experts.

corporate ethics (4, Insightful)

zenlunatics (516752) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409824)

based on all the sarcasm so far it looks like most people buy into the idea that companies can do whatever they want to make money, they shouldn't be judged in the same way we judge people. Obviously there are limits as we wouldn't condone a company that murdered people (or would we? look at all the defense companies that sell to just about anyone) and people start to grumble about companies like ENRON and Martha Stewart and Nike and other companies using child labor, etc. Why are corporate criminals are rarely punished? Is this attitude a result of the increasing difficulty in achieving the American dream? Are there people we might consider ethical who convince themselves that it's OK to keep working for Nike or SCO or Microsoft or whomever because they're just a cog and aren't responsible for the company's actions? Obviously it's not always a black-and-white call for someone to make but I think a lot of people are in major denial. Companies don't only exist to make money. They also provide some goods or services, provide employment, conduct research that eventually benefits the public, etc. All of the focus on profit is harmful and shouldn't be accepted by people inside or outside the company.

sean

Your daily insider update (4, Informative)

eddy (18759) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409831)

Our friends Charles Broughton [sec.gov] (Sr VP Int'l Sales), Robert Bench [sec.gov] (CFO) and Jeff Hunsaker [sec.gov] (VP, Worldwide Marketing) are selling [sec.gov] , selling [sec.gov] and.. wait for it... selling [sec.gov] .

Re:Your daily insider update (1)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409901)

Yeah. I wonder what the options prices are for SCO. Does anyone know where to find out that sort of information? Somehow I imagine they've got a pretty high premium right now.

Tin foil hats on, please... (4, Interesting)

Pendersempai (625351) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409837)

From the article:

"[Microsoft's recent Unix license deal with SCO] proves that Microsoft and proprietary software vendors have a great deal to fear from intellectual property held by others. Maybe Microsoft felt it had something in its software to fear, and perhaps that's maybe why it took out that license."

Or perhaps, maybe, dare I suggest, that Microsoft's public endorsement of SCO's products are meant to reward its loyalty in dealing OSS in general such a blow.

MS leaked an internal memo a while ago that reported on some consumer focus groups they'd conducted to find which arguments against Linux were most effective. People largely ignored philosophical appeals about the nature of OSS, and they didn't really care about the so-called "viral nature of the GPL." The only thing that really worked was MS's suggestion that they could be legally liable for using OSS if -- unbeknownst to them -- it had been tainted by copyright infringement. That result was documented, and MS is well aware that legally-inspired terror is their best weapon against OSS.

Lo and behold, a puppet dances onto the stage and engages in an outrageously publicized lawsuit against a company backing Linux. Maybe I'm crazy, maybe there's no connection, maybe SCO really is just in it for the money. Nevertheless, I think I'm catching glimpses of a four-color butterfly pulling SCO's strings.

i moderate this... (1)

Valar (167606) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409841)

-1, Redundant. Any action by a corporation is going to be "about the money." Sometimes it's just a question of how immediate the pay out is going to be.

Money (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409842)

Bling Bling,
What what,
Dolla Dolla Bill, Ya'll!

SCIZZO (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6409917)

SCIZZO is sizuing for tha scrilla, yo!

In Soviet Russia... (1)

hipster_doofus (670671) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409846)

we settle these disputes with a bottle of vodka and a game of our special "Roulette."

Sorry, it had to be done!

We've gather a panel of experts and ... (0, Redundant)

dinog (582015) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409857)

after review by these luminaries they tell us what is brazenly obvious to even the non-experts.

Dean G.

More SCO News (3, Interesting)

joncarwash (600744) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409867)

Here is another story [com.com] on SCO, from CNET, focusing on their recent licensing deals and the impact on its earnings.

Also, in this story [cnet.com] our "favorite" CEO claimed he was in Japan not to invade the Consumer Electronics Linux Forum [cnet.com] but instead "just" to get more Japanese firms to license code from SCO.

By the way, when is that code you always talk about going to show up in court? I'm still waiting to see something, anything... yeah...

Am I the only one (2, Funny)

RedBear (207369) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409902)

... who read the first sentence of the post and thought SCO was suing OSCON because they were using 'SCO' in the name of their conference?

The bad thing is, I believed SCO was actually capable of stooping that low! (For a few seconds, at least. LOL.)

Ransom Love's Linuxworld 2000 Keynote Speech (5, Informative)

NZheretic (23872) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409905)

The SCO Group is currently suing IBM for breach of contract for apparently putting Unixware/Monterey "technology" in Linux. SCO/Caldera's complaint depends critically on certain historical and technical assertions which are materially false and (apparently quite intentionally) misleading [opensource.org] .

The SCO group, and both Old SCO and Caldera before it, directly acknowledged and assisted IBM with the scalablity of Linux [weblogs.com]

In August 2000, just days after Caldera purchased the Old SCO server division, the then CEO of Caldera, Ransom Love, made a keynote speech at LinuxWorld 2000. A RealPlayer video stream of the event can be found at DrDobbs Journal's Technetcast [ddj.com]

In the question and answer session at the end of the keynote, Love was asked about the possible conflict over Monterey and Linux IA-64 [iwethey.org]

A mp3 capture [iwethey.org] of the following transcribed portion

Q: What happens about Project Monterey, because that conflicts with the AI-64 Linux, 64-bit Linux?

Love: OK. I don't -- if we do our job right in making Linux scale over like UnixWare to the degree that everybody, that we know we can... May I ask, some people have said, "Well, people have tried this in the past, but they haven't been that successful," may I suggest: we don't have any ulterior motives for not making it successful. Technologically has not been the reason why it hasn't done it before. There's always some other motive, right? And so to talk about Monterey, clearly we want to make sure we have the same level of Linux integration on Monterey that we would have in our Unixware product. Now, we don't control, I mean, we have a great relationship... it's a joint development relationship with IBM which we intend to preserve ... but they have similar interests and so this is really a very synergistic, uh, this transaction is great for all of the major partners as they have already wanted to embrace Linux moving forward.

Now, let me address one other aspect of your question, which is that the Monterey Project is in conflict with the IA-64 Linux Project. I don't believe it's in conflict at all. Now, clearly, we have tremendous vested interest in the IA-64 Linux Project and with the acquisition of SCO, they've been doing a lot, so you combine those, and we've got one of the more comprehensive offerings, I believe, on the IA-64 Linux. So that's clearly an area that we're very committed to. But like Unixware, there's elements of the Monterey kernel that are more scalable, OK? Now, on the IA-64 platform, I don't know how long of window that is, but today, it's a little bit more robust and more scalable than the IA-64 Linux is today. Now, I'm not saying that over time that won't change.

But, and let me address one other thing. Sorry, (laughs) you're getting all of it through one question. But clearly we are going to add components back to the Linux kernel on both IA-32 and IA-64 platforms. We'll work with Linus and everyone in order to make that available. That will take some time. And as I mentioned earlier, I don't know that over time you can have a single kernel -- in fact I know you can't -- that will scale, you know, the breadth of IT technology needs. So I think we're looking, in the Linux community, at having multiple kernels, so...

Q: Multiple Linux kernels? Or multiple UNIX kernels?

Love: Multiple Linux kernels as well, over time.

Q: Thank you.

Love: You bet.

I am not a lawyer, but even I can see that The SCO Group has put itself into an intractable situation, any judge will listen to evidence from the above and laugh the SCO group out of court.

It's about time to reexamine the recent claims of The SCO group and call in the lawyers and maybe the authorities

GNU Beach (5, Funny)

Dr. Mojura (584120) | more than 10 years ago | (#6409934)

The Free Software Foundation has never sued anyone who was in beach of the GNU General Public License (GPL) as it simply wants them to come into compliance with the license.
I have never heard of this beach before. Where can I find it? Is it a GNUde beach?
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...