Beta

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!

SCO May Countersue Red Hat, SuSE Joins The Fray

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the not-being-forthcoming-huh dept.

The Courts 622

uninet writes "The SCO Group, Inc. today released a statement concerning the lawsuit filed against it yesterday by Red Hat, Inc. The release quotes Darl McBride, SCO's President and CEO, as being 'disappointed' with Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik for not being 'forthcoming' about Red Hat's intentions in a previous discussion." Reader psykocrime adds "According to this SuSE press release, SuSE has publically announced their support for RedHat's actions against SCO. Quoting from the press release: 'SCO has already been halted in Germany and we applaud Red Hat's actions to help end their activities in the US -- and beyond. We applaud their efforts to restrict the rhetoric of the SCO group -- and the FUD they are trying to instill -- and will determine quickly what actions SuSE can take to support Red Hat in their efforts.'" Read on for a few more links.

Vladimir writes "What no one has really touched upon is that the SCO vs. IBM court date is in April 2005, which could mean that the resolution of this case could be somewhere in 2006-2007, by which time Linux or any other OS may be irrelevant. People please keep your wallets in your pocket. Also, this lawyer has a long analysis of SCO extortion attempts and debunks a lot of their FUD."

Besides which, Omega writes "VNUnet has a story on how the economic analysis firm The Butler Group predicts that even if SCO can demonstrate there is offending code in the Linux kernel, it could easily be replaced."

cancel ×

622 comments

GNAA EARLY POST SYSTEM (fuck michael) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624373)

GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it.

Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website

Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on EFNet, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.isprime.com as one of the EFNet servers.
If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here [nero-online.org] .

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

This post proudly brought to you by the GNAA president

________________________________________________
| ______________________________________._a,____ |
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ |
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ |
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ |
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ |
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ |
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ |
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ |
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ |
| ______-"!^____________________________________ |
` _______________________________________________'

Re:GNAA EARLY POST SYSTEM (fuck michael) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624409)

er, fuck.
michael didnt post this story.
oh well
fuck michael anyway.
and fuck timothy.

not (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624375)

very frosty

1st post (-1, Offtopic)

tytanic11 (614029) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624378)

1st post !

YOU FAIL IT! (-1)

YOU FAIL IT! (624257) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624447)

I'd like to see SCO sue YOU for being a complete and total FAILURE! I call your post "deceptive advertising"!

YOU FAIL IT!

They always countersue (5, Informative)

PoochieReds (4973) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624379)

It's standard business practice to countersue when someone sues your company. The merits of the case have very little to do with it.

Nothing to see here, move along...

Yes, but... (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624431)

...it's a good bit of entertaining sport. :-)

Re:They always countersue (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624569)

Redhat is evil!

Not that I like SCO but Redhat is by no means any better. Doesn't anyone remember when they sold out democratic Taiwan because the dictatorship in China wanted it?

It's like SNK versus Capcom! (5, Funny)

JanusFury (452699) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624380)

Red Hat tags out and SuSE jumps into the fray, and then they both do a combo on SCO!

SCO is down to its last bit of health, it looks like the end!

Oh wait, SCO just tagged out! Here comes Microsoft!

Distros of the World unite... boring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624468)

This story is running out of mileage. SuSE are predictable and just want some press.. This is going nowhere fast... As in previous posts when / if SCO show the code it will be binned from all major distros (assuming it even exists) quicker the time it takes to download an M$ service pack

Re:It's like SNK versus Capcom! (1)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624505)

Meanwhile, IBM is waiting and watching, like Andre the Giant ready to squash the whole bunch of them...

Re:It's like SNK versus Capcom! (3, Funny)

Zoop (59907) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624562)

Ahem.

Would they use the SuSEplex move on SCO?

Wow (-1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624384)

Why don't they just call this site

Slashdot: News about SCO and Microsoft

See the code (5, Interesting)

tsa (15680) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624392)

What I don't understand is why SCO is so unwilling to show the code this is all about. If it's in the kernel everyone can already see it so why the secrecy and complicated NDA stuff?

Re:See the code (5, Funny)

Tsali (594389) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624397)

"Because it's devastating to my case!"
- Jim Carey, Liar, Liar

Re:See the code (1)

Ktulu_03 (668300) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624404)

The reason is, if they post what the code is, Linus and co. would replace it in a matter of hours probably, days at most. Then SCO would have no lawsuit. They have to keep it secret until this thing gets to trial.

Speaking of trial, are there any future court dates set already? I haven't heard of any.

Re:See the code (0, Flamebait)

Karamchand (607798) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624477)

Read the fucking story [slashdot.org] .
HTH! :-)

Re:See the code (5, Interesting)

isorox (205688) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624412)

Cynics view: Code doesnt exist, or they are frightened of someone pointing out that the code went to Linux and SCO from a *BSD tree.

Probable view: If they show the code, it would be out of the kernel in 4 hours, and re-written in a day, their case would collapse.

Re:See the code (4, Insightful)

benjiboo (640195) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624446)

Probable view: If they show the code, it would be out of the kernel in 4 hours, and re-written in a day, their case would collapse.

But the binaries of the kernels in question are still out there on thousands of machines. Removing the code would of course cancel out any claim they had to licensing revenues for further kernel builds, which I guess is not a hand they would willingly give up...

Re:See the code (0)

freeinformation (259062) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624457)

This is very simple. If they would show the code, it would be replaced in a few days, and they would not be able to make any money from that.


So it's clear that they are only doing this for the money, and who knows what conspiracy they are involved with? I think of our big evil brother :) who will do everything to discredit Open Source Software, in particular Linux.

Re:See the code (4, Informative)

Sique (173459) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624500)

Because the original case is not about the code itself, but about IBM allegedly infringing on the licensing conditions for AIX. SCO states that with IBM releasing code to the Linux kernel which was written for AIX and thus covered by the Unix license, IBM infringed on the contract.

SCO states that IBM had to protect not only the licensed source code but also the code IBM wrote to make a derivative work from the source code.

Write the Utah State Attorney General's Office!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624396)

And ask for an investigation. This behavior is at least unethical, and possibly criminal. If enough people (Utahans (?) this means you especially) make enough noise they may do something.

Please be rational and polite when you do it,

Re:Write the Utah State Attorney General's Office! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624463)

That would mean finding enough Utahans that could write.

Highly doubtful.

SCO (-1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624400)

I just paid SCO for a valid Linux license.

It is not THAT much money, and I don't have to worry about being sued or breaking the law.

Just my 2 cents

Re:SCO (2, Funny)

isorox (205688) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624452)

Dear Mr. COWARD,

We note that you are using the word "money" in your post. This is flagrant misuse of our intellectual property, and as such we will require you to license the word. Please contact our sales department (1-800-SUEMYSHORTS) to discuss volume licensing from $900 per instance.

Yours Sincerly

Mr I.S.Orox

Re:SCO (4, Insightful)

ninthwave (150430) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624461)

Yes you do on the same grounds SCO are saying you may be breaking the law with a linux kernel that has their ip, you now have a binary only license that contains non SCO ip protected by the GPL so you effectively bought a license that knowingly infringes on other people's ip and they can sue SCO for distributing it. As if you are liable or not you shouldn't have been liable for SCO's ip in the linux distribution you used so you never needed the license. You did not violate SCO's ip if it is in the linux kernel the perosn or persons whom supposedly placed the code there did, hence the suit against IBM and not against any Linux distribution and certainly not against any Linux users. You just wasted some money for something that was not your liability.

But neither here nor there now you are proof that SCO has taken money to license a product that they do not own I believe all kernel contributors can sue them for distribution of their IP against the terms of the GPL which protected their IP.

I repeat SCO does not have a right to license a binary only linux kernel if their IP is in it or not because they do not own the IP of the whole kernel only by their own admission part of it. Without supplying you the full source code upon request.

At least that is my take on it.
Any GPL advocates or kernel contributors want to enlighten the debate further for this is a key issue I would like to see more clarification and discussion on.

Re:SCO (2, Insightful)

benjiboo (640195) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624480)

It is not THAT much money, and I don't have to worry about being sued or breaking the law. I'm not sure if this comment is tongue in cheek, but a large company (for whom Linux only represents a small percentage of their install base), might consider paying up to remove any potential or perceived liability. Dirty tactics by SCO, but i'd guess in most situations, it's easier to pay the $700 rather than taking on an unlimited liability in terms of future costs.

Re:SCO (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624490)

In other news:
SCO revenue for the quarter ending August 31 2003 estimated at $690.

hey what did you buy? (2, Informative)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624543)

Since no user of any copyrighted software can be charged for damages of copyright infringment even windows users, what di you buy?

and how did you make the case to buy this thin air with your company's CFO?

Copyright infringment looks for damage by the infringer..did you put code in linux?

Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel! (1, Informative)

n3rd (111397) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624403)

In typical Slashdot fashion the story has been exaggerated:

We will prepare our legal response as required by your complaint

As anyone with the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader can tell, this does not say or even implies anything about counter-suing.

Re:Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel! (3, Informative)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624451)

According to a letter to Szulik that was attached to the announcement, SCO "will prepare our legal response as required by your complaint." McBride continued by suggesting that his company's response "will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy."

kthxbye.

Re:Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel! (3, Funny)

n3rd (111397) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624479)

My bad.

In typical Slashdot fashion I didn't read the whole article.

Re:Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624555)

What does "my bad" mean? I can probably guess, but wonder where this expression came from....

Re:Stay Tuned, Don't Change That Channel! (2, Funny)

Zigg (64962) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624492)

As anyone with the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader can tell, this does not say or even implies anything about counter-suing.

That's because you took the quote out of context. Add these lines:

Yours truly
Darl C. McBride

Now it becomes very obvious. :-)

Buying the SCO-licence in Germany not possible (5, Informative)

OMG (669971) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624405)

I contacted SCO Germany and tried to get an offer for a desktop licence. On the phone a SCO employee said I should stop "babbling" (yes, she used that word). I should sent an email instead. Others have tried that weeks ago and got no reaction up to now. The company doing the press releases for SCO Germany informed me that they are not allowed to comment on the licence in any way, too.

It looks like there is absolutly no chance to buy the SCO licence for Linux in Germany at the moment.

Speaking of licenses (4, Interesting)

xyote (598794) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624472)

Has anyone actually seen one of these beasties? Do the licenses make specific claims to IP or they the usual vague claims of extortion attempts, pay us and we won't hurt you.


Ha! I can just see Darl "Pirana" McBride's next bright idea, SCOO, the Santa Cruz Other Operation.

Re:Buying the SCO-licence in Germany not possible (1)

msgmonkey (599753) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624498)

Well if you cant buy one it's probably because they cant sell you one due to legal reasons not because they dont want to. Since when have companies refused to take customers money, especially for what in essence is just piece of paper?

Forthcoming about their intentions? (4, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624408)

What, just like SCO were when they decided to distribute a Linux distro, including code that said "Please use me", and then get all of their revenue by suing people for doing so?

Remind me, what SEC filing that that plan appear on? Because it seems to me like "Abandon development and marketing of obselete product, make all of our money from barratry" would be the sort of thing that investors would like to know about beforehand.

Re:Forthcoming about their intentions? (1)

dave at hostwerks (466530) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624483)

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):

Barratry \Bar"ra*try\, n. [Cf. F. baraterie, LL. barataria. See
Barrator, and cf. Bartery.]
1. (Law) The practice of exciting and encouraging lawsuits
and quarrels. [Also spelt barretry.] --Coke. Blackstone.

Re:Forthcoming about their intentions? (1)

buford_tannen (555867) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624528)

You raise an important point... where is the SEC in all of this?

Don't tell me they are too intimidated to take on SCO...

Now look for the others as well (3, Insightful)

deadmantalking (187403) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624414)

I assume Mandrake, Connectiva etc. will also announce support for Red Hats actions. But this could be a cool idea. Why dont all the vendors individually sue SCO? SCO will run out of money before it can address any of them. Of course then MS may buy it out and then we could have a REAL problem on our hands...
What i am interested in finding out is if any of the companies will put their money where their mouth is... donate to the Open Source Now! fund.

Re:Now look for the others as well (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624501)

REAL problem on our hands. Nope it will not. Then it will be an unfair competition matter. Whatever you may call MSFT they ain't stupid.

Re:Now look for the others as well (1)

azzy (86427) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624529)

Yeah, come on, MS are smart. They'll bring out a linux distro and join in on suing SCO! :)

Re:Now look for the others as well (1)

AllUsernamesAreGone (688381) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624518)

"Why dont all the vendors individually sue SCO?"

Probably because a lot of vendors aren't in the US so it is either (more) extremely expensive to sue them or legally problematical.

Re:Now look for the others as well (1)

saden1 (581102) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624585)

As much as M$ would love to buy i it can't...her is why:

1. It would be a public relations nightmare.
2. The department of justice (maybe not these bastards) and state attorney generals would look at M$'s tactics.
3. You can't stop Linux, you can only hope to contain it..and that is a futile effort. Any infringing code will have to come to light and will be replaced. Then what? Linux is once again clean, and MS is left with lots of pissed of governments and corporate customers.

Analysis - More than Linux hinges on this (5, Insightful)

Badgerman (19207) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624417)

I'm hoping that Red Hat and those supporting them beat the utter legal tar out of SCO. It's not just a Linux thing, either.

If SCO comes out ahead, there will be imitators. If "Extortion Liscenses" work once, people will try it again. How many claims for "IP violations" will there be by hucksters offering to sell "insurance."

I don't think SCO's imitatable yet since all they've done so far is inflate their stock price and annoy people. There are plenty of ways to inflate your stock price.

I don't expect SCO to win. But it is something that struck me as important.

Re:Analysis - More than Linux hinges on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624502)

> If SCO comes out ahead, there will be imitators. If "Extortion Liscenses" work once, people will try it again.

Not to talk about the danger of setting such a precedent in a court. That's the very first reason why SCO must lose that battle at any cost.

Replacing the Code (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624419)

even if SCO can demonstrate there is offending code in the Linux kernel, it could easily be replaced.

Once again I have to remind the slashdot crowd that replacing the offending code *now* is not sufficient to relieve you of all damages up until now. That would be like me embezelling money from my company every day, and when they catch me, I can just say "okay I will stop doing it now, so we are all square".

You are not all square... you have to pay for the IP you stole. End of story.

Not necessary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624456)

There is no offending code.

There is nothing there.

SCO are a bunch of liars.

Darl Shake-n-Bake McBride is headed for a long fall. He's going to catch a horrible disease, his wife will leave him, and his daughter will get knocked up.

Re:Not necessary (0)

Trigun (685027) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624514)

I'm working on the third one right now. Maybe tomorrow I'll work on the second.

Is Gonorreah a horrible disease, because after I'm done tomorrow, the plans will be in place for number one.

What you forget (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624493)

What you forget is that Caldera (now using the name SCO) has itself distributed that very code you speak of under the GPL for quite some time now. The cat is out of the bag. The horse has bolted. It's all over bar the shouting. It has run up the curtain and is singing with the choir invisibule.

Re:Replacing the Code (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624513)

Bite my shiny metal collection of pirated ogg vorbis files.

Re:Replacing the Code (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624570)

I the offending code *now* is not sufficient to relieve you of all damages up until now

That is not the point. The point is that Linux would survive simply by rewriting the offending lines. The damages up until now, realistically (even assuming SCO's claim is true), is probably just a few $1000s - whatever it takes to write 50 lines of code. I wrote about that much this morning as it happens.

Re:Replacing the Code (1)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624579)

Once again I have to remind the slashdot crowd that replacing the offending code *now* is not sufficient to relieve you of all damages up until now.

Hey, a SCO employee found his way to Slashdot. Aren't you a little worried the entire future of your company relies on suing people? If you're a programmer it pretty much makes your job irrelevent to the long term profitability of the company. They'll dump you guys first so they can feed the legal machine.

Re:Replacing the Code (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624582)

I disagree, are you at fault for a crime you didn't commit? I mean, it wasn't a crime until now. You have to knowingly commit embezelment, as theres no possible way to do it without knowing. This is diffrent though, you can do this without knowing.

Lawyerspeak (4, Funny)

Nogami_Saeko (466595) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624421)

Also, this lawyer has a long analysis of SCO extortion attempts and debunks a lot of their FUD.

And from the page:

"The jerkheads at SCO refuse to disclose what their IP is choosing instead to only make general and ambiguous public and inflammatory claims about others. Without proof, of course. Even without substance."

I don't know when the last time I've heard a lawyer use "jerkheads" was, but it was probably a long time ago, if ever ;)

N.

Maffia (1, Informative)

olderchurch (242469) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624424)

The way it is described at lawlaw.com, sounds like racketering....

SCOre One For Ignorant Quotes (2, Insightful)

tds67 (670584) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624432)

The release quotes Darl McBride, SCO's President and CEO, as being "disappointed" with Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik for not being "forthcoming" about Red Hat's intentions in a previous discussion.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Has SCO been forthcoming about their ever-changing intentions? Is SCO the only one allowed to operate in stealth-mode?


Darl, there's enough "disappointment" to go around--most of it pointed in your direction.

Re:SCOre One For Ignorant Quotes (0)

zr-rifle (677585) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624547)

The exact quote states:

"Matt, you insensitive clod..."

Lamentations: How Long? (4, Insightful)

4of12 (97621) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624436)


It's becoming clear that SCO is a rather deliberate-placed fly in the soothing low cost ointment of growing Linux deployments.

It's also clear that certain companies stand to benefit from slowing the rate of Linux adoption. It's in their interest to keep the question raised by SCO open for as long as possible because it will retard the growth rate of Linux. (I doubt the number of Linux deployments will decrease, or even level off, but the growth rate will probably slow.)

So how long will it take for the SCO issue to be closed?

Most current Linux users have dismissed SCO's claims as frivolous, but potential new users are probably more easily dissuaded by these kinds of questions.

What kind of legal event and how long will it take before SCO claims are no longer a question?

Re:Lamentations: How Long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624553)

I dont know about a legal event, but one event I would pay money to see is Mr McBride getting slapped around with are rather large and wet fish.

We need an injuction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624437)

saying that since SCO has threatened RedHat's customers, it must release all infringing code to RedHat so it can remove it to prevent further damage against SCO, and that they are effectivly trapping users, forcing them to infringe and then making threats.

The most important line for your PHB: (5, Insightful)

Badgerman (19207) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624441)

"The very last company you want to enter into a contract with is SCO. You can see now how they operate."

Definitely good ammo if someone gets cold feet towards Linux.

Ultimate profit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624443)

1) License an old version of DOS
2) Sue every m$ windows owner for $700
3) PROFIT!!!!!!

Re:Ultimate profit! (-1)

Radiantal (302895) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624488)

oh yeah that made absolute sense!??

*COUGH*BULLSHIT*COUGH*
Iceman, Top Gun

what sun thinks (5, Informative)

t123 (642988) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624449)

according to this eweek [eweek.com] story, sun believes it SCO can screw off:

In the early 1990's, Schwartz said, Sun chief executive Scott McNealy agreed to spend several million dollars to take a broad license with AT&T, essentially granting Sun legal rights equivalent to ownership of Unix code.

"As a result of that decision in 1993, we can do whatever we want (to the code)," Schwartz said. "We can drive forward and indemnify our customers too," a basic responsibility of any intellectual property provider, he said.

A call for unity (1, Insightful)

Compact Dick (518888) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624458)

These are testing times for Linux and its myriad distributions. As ludicrous as SCO's allegations are, the cynic in me wouldn't be all that surprised if events turned in their favour. Even more so if Microsoft turns out to be the Master behind the SCO Puppet. But I digress...

This is the time to cast aside our petty squabbles about how distro A beats distro B, or how Distro C sucks balls. Forget the small things.

Band up, my fellow mates and face this challenge strong, and as one. Our very future depends on it.

Bold statements (1)

godot42a (574354) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624471)

...in an attempt, we believe, primarily to slow the inevitable acceptance of Linux. Linux is a disruptive technology, troubling to many, puzzling to some, potentially freeing to all.

Hm...am I the only one to think these remarks are a little over the top?
Don't get me wrong -- Linux is a good system, and through its intimate connection with the concept of open source, it has merits beyond its technological quality. But they could spend their time better than issuing such bold claims (maybe they've got a politics student as intern in the press dept.? ;) )

SCO has already been halted in Germany and we applaud Red Hat's actions to help end their activities in the US -- and beyond.

Well, the case has been suspended in Germany, but only for at most six months. It's not over yet...

Death To SCO! Long Live Linux! (1)

buford_tannen (555867) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624474)

70 versions to anyone who can bring me the head of Darl McBride!

let's go!! (2, Insightful)

bryam (449040) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624478)

Go Turbolinux, Conectiva, Lindows, IBM, Oracle, SGI, HP, NEC, Fujitsu, members of OSDL, members of CELinuxForum!! Go!

Join to this RedHat action.

Re:let's go!! (1)

sinserve (455889) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624584)

GO bryam 449040 of, um, http://linuxkernel.foundries.sourceforge.net Inc. (NASDQ BRYM)

I just want to know which one of the big (1)

torpor (458) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624481)

... guys enters the fray first.

IBM, or Microsoft?

Anyone want to start taking bids?

Re:I just want to know which one of the big (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624544)

IBM is already in "the fray"...

Instead of just taking SCO to courrt.. (3, Funny)

bigmattana (646048) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624487)

Redhat and SuSE should use some of SCO's tactics. Since SCO's version of Linux probably contains some code that was generated by these companies or their employees, they can "sell" licenses to use their code before they sue SCO for violating the GPL. That way, the end user won't be held "liable". :) No more SCO linux users.

It doesn't have to be a valid threat to scare management into submission. I think more tech companies need to put insurance agents into upper management positions. Nothing intimidates those guys!

Time to phone sco UK (1)

Loosewire (628916) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624494)

Ask about how much a license is, say i cant pay and ask if i should stop using linux. Then when they say i should stop, laugh in their faces

Not about intellectual property rights (5, Insightful)

ljavelin (41345) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624495)

Clearly SCO is not hopeful that it will win the lawsuit against IBM - if it were, it wouldn't care about how many "SCO Linux licensees" are out there, and it wouldn't be trying to collect hundreds or thousands of dollars from them.

Just think: If SCO thought it could win the IBM suit, SCO would be very successful financially. SCO could then take that financial success and license their technology in terms that are legally clear to their customers.

Instead, they're trying to force organizations to be their customers by threatening them with potential lawsuits. And unclear lawsuits at that.

SCO is merely looking for extremely high visibility in the short term - negative visibility which can damage it's ability to be a product OR IP property. Basically, they're pissing off potential customers of their technology (no matter WHO they license it to).

SCO is looking for some short term cash with this deal, likely because all other forms of cashflow have stopped or in the process of stopping. Again, they can only bite the hand that COULD feed it, as at this point they have no product of any value except the threat of lawsuits (which isn't really considered a product).

Linux TCO (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624503)

All this FUD and bull crap floating around makes me remember a certain Study done saying operating Linux cost more than windows.
It looked a bit strange back then, but now with hindsight I see how it happened.
I wonder where they got their time machine from? ? ?

what gives / show stopper (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624515)

how to know that you are talking to someone in the MATRIX:

[calling customer care (sic) ]

customer:
"hi, im calling you because i bought
this really cool ADSL PCI modem from
you ... now i cannot install the drivers
under windows and linux. what can i do, please?"

customer-care-agent (evil!):
"just go to our web-site www.x.x
and download the newest drivers!"

customer:
"okay ... bye"

2 min. later ...

customer:
"uh, hi it's me again.
i can stil not go on-line ..."

customer-care-agent:
"not a problem, just go to our
web-site www.x.x ad download the
newest driver! simple."

customer:
"but i can't get on-line!"

customer-care-agent:
"not a problem, just download
the new driver from our web-site!"

customer:
"?"

-to be continued?-

RedHat ADSL how-to:

"
To install, connect the modem's (or router's) power cord, and connect the phone line between the DSL wall jack and the modem. This cable should be provided. If not, a regular phone cord will suffice. With the ethernet interfaced modems, you may also connect the ethernet cable between the NIC and the modem (but not really necessary at this point just to verify the modem is working). ...
Is the modem Linux compatible? If ethernet interfaced, this should not be a problem. >:O
But PCI or USB modems may require drivers just to achieve sync. This could be a show stopper since nearly(!!!) all PCI and USB modems are not Linux compatible. ...
Note that PCI and USB modems will need to load drivers before syncing, and thus make this test a little more complicated. ...
"

I have a 4 year old Caldera Linux license (1)

GeorgeTheNorge (67545) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624519)

Should I sell it on eBay?

Slashdot spreads FUD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624524)

And makes me buy SCOX!

Re:Slashdot spreads FUD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624551)

I know you're trolling but I can't ignore the little sad truth in your statement. Spreading the SCO FUD in a popular place like slashdot might have worse consequences for Linux' acceptance than SCO's own actions combined.

Slashdot was the first place here I've heard about "SCO" and SCOX rises with every further slashdot article. :(

Sorry, everyone.

Is this a repeat of the Rambus wars... (5, Informative)

SmackCrackandPot (641205) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624525)

Looking back at recent history, I found this list compiled from various technology news reports...

January 2000 Rambus files patent infringement lawsuit against Hitachi
June 2000 Rambus settles lawsuit against Hitachi
August 2000 Rambus files patent infringement lawsuit against Infineon
August 2000 Micron files patent infringement lawsuit against Rambus
August 2000 Hyundai files patent infringement lawsuit against Rambus
Sept. 2000 Rambus files patent infringement lawsuit against Micron and Hyundai (Hynix)
May 2001 Rambus lawsuit against Infineon dismissed, fined US $3.5 million
August 2001 Rambus faces class-action lawsuit for fraud

But the damage is done... (3, Insightful)

radbrad (687225) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624526)

Noi matter how much nice companies like Red Hat and SuSe help the effort, the damage to Linux's (considered in some circles) bad reputation, has been done.

Joe "Unix? Wha?" Average already is wearing his microsoft distributed OSS protected sun glasses, and will only see the bad PR from SCO.

It just sucks that now for every bad vibe that SCO has sent out regarding linux, it means we have to send out ten good vibes. So grab your friendly joe Avergae and explain to them what SCO really repreasents, just try not be too fanatical, people get wierded out by that.

Can someone explain what 'shorting' is? (1, Funny)

bigberk (547360) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624527)

I hope you don't consider this too off-topic ;)

Can someone explain to me, or provide some good links, so I can learn properly what 'shorting' is in respect to stocks? No particular reason...

Re:Can someone explain what 'shorting' is? (2, Informative)

veddermatic (143964) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624550)

Normally one buys stock in hopes that it will go up. "Shorting" a stock is agreeing to purchase stock at a future date in hopes it will go down.

In a nutshell, it's the reverse of a "normal" stock trade... you actually SELL first, THEN buy later.

ex: I believe SCO is going to tank, so I 'sell' 100 shares today at $3 each. In one months, which is how long I bought my short for, I then buy the stock for $1 and (minus commissions, minus the fees for the 3rd party who has to cover the month where I didn't have the stock I sold) I make money.

Wallpaper of the Penguin smashing the SCO Logo ? (3, Interesting)

Sector_001 (613729) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624533)

We need some logo and/or wallpaper that we can use to express our displeasure with SCO.

It needs to be something tasteful and non-libelous that can be placed, for example, as wallpaper on a corporate desktop.

Anybody got anything that they would like to contribute ? (The kind of thing that I am thinking of is the Penguin smashing the SCO Logo with a sledgehammer)

and in other news (5, Funny)

Darth_brooks (180756) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624535)

Mike Tyson has announced he will sue all of his former opponents, as they were not 'forthcoming' about their intentions to hit back.

McBride ended his letter somewhat vaguely by suggesting that Red Hat's "decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux."

Yeah, Defending your company's business practices is a horrible way to stay in business. You should attack other people's practices.

Paranoia and conspiracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624537)

This has probably been posted before, so apologies if I'm repeating someone else.

My paranoid train of thought goes something like this:

- US govt looking at huge tax revenues from M$
- M$ worried about Linux takeover on the desktop
- USG ponders disappearing M$ tax dollars, as Linux can't be taxed.
- USG finds some company with history of Unix development, prompts and prods it to become defacto 'owner' of Linux, and start charging license fees, which are taxable.
- SCO starts legal claims to place it in effective ownership of Linux
- SCO and M$ start being friendly, despite history of rivalry and no common interests

Call me a paranoid conspiracy nutcase, but the real winner in all this is the US Govt, who also control the courts who will be deciding the case...

Hmmm... (1)

CFBMoo1 (157453) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624538)

I have visions of an Episode 1 type battle. Where drone/driods of Microsoft and SCO are on one end of the battlefield and on the other I see hordes of Linux users riding giant Suse mascots and flying red fedora's. Go Gunga's!

Question (1, Interesting)

borgdows (599861) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624539)

Does SCO licence apply to PS2 Linux too?

I'd love to see Sony sue SCO... and everyvendor of Linux devices (Sharp, Matsushita, and other big boys)

SCO is like a mouse surrounded by dozens of 800lbs gorillas

AHAAHAHAHAH

Re:Question (1)

bryam (449040) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624552)

Yes. Apply to the Linux kernel 2.4.* and 2.5.* series.

Re:Question (1)

iapetus (24050) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624578)

AIUI, the PS2 Linux is based around kernel 2.2, and as a result isn't included.

I'll sell my own "insurance" (1)

tigre (178245) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624559)

Now for only $20 a processor, I will fully indemnify you for any damages you may be liable for to SCO as a result of their IP claims. Better hurry up, though, 'cause once the case goes to trial and they start showing the evidence, the price goes to $5000.

a long period of uncertainty (4, Interesting)

non (130182) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624560)

does the timing of all of this strike anyone else as intentional? that just when microsoft was starting to lose server interest share to linux at an ever-increasing rate a plague descends upon linux. does it further seem coincidental that microsoft has announced a number of open source/linux initiatives recently?

i think there are several things going on here, but they all originate from strategic, and not tactical, decisions by redmond. let me start with a comment i heard from a coworker (he's in technical sales), "if anyone can figure out how to make money out of linux, its microsoft."

one: microsoft has recently started to be perceived in the marketplace as stodgy. no, i don't have any business case studies to back it up; i feel it. so they're attempting to tell the world that they can change with the times like the best of them. how? by announcing open source initiatives, etc.

two: despite microsofts continued rants about TCO, business' experience probably show that linux TCO, especially in the area of server administration, and down-time associated with virii, patches and other security issues, is in fact lower. ergo microsoft's focus on security and providing 'enhanced' command-line tools for server administration.

three: they (redmond) know just how long it takes a suit to be completed. this whole series of events figures into some long-range plan. what, i don't know. remember though, this court date for the start of the suit is after the release of longhorn. my bet is that there will be a slew of patches and other enforced upgrades between now and then to change the balance. not in the home, where microsoft is feeling threatened, but in the corporate world, where they are quite seriously running scared.

Open letter to McBride (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6624567)

My open letter to Darl McBride
Dear Mr McBride,

If I understand SCO's position correctly, it is:

1. Linux 2.4 consists of copyrighted work licensed under the GPL by various authors, as well as some form of SCO's IP which has never been legitimately licensed under the GPL.

2. SCO believes in protecting IP holders' right is important.

While I will leave the merits of your claim of SCO's IP being in Linux to another day, I would like to ask you about the rights of other Linux copyright holders and whether SCO's actions are consistent with your stated position on the importance of protecting IP holders' rights.

As you are aware, the GPL forbids distribution of a combined work contains both GPLed and non-GPLed code.

I believe you are aware of this, and agree with this interpretation of the GPL, because it says so on your company's web site:

Quoting from http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicensefaq.html it says:

"Why doesn't SCO offer an IP License for Linux to the Linux distribution companies so that they can bundle SCO IP with their Linux distribution? " "The SCO compliance program is an end-user program for the right to use SCO IP in binary format. The IP License for Linux does not grant distribution rights, nor does it grant any rights associated with source code. SCO doesn't offer a license to cure the infringement on the part of the Linux distributor because SCO's source license agreement directly conflicts with the GPL. "

Furthermore, you reiterated this position in your August 5 conference call, referring to Red Hat's Linux distribution:

"But if infringing code is found, RH is required under the GPL to stop shipments of Linux."

It would therefore seem that distributing Linux would not be appropriate, in your view. As any such distribution, by anybody, would in fact infringe the copyrighted IP and GPL license, of the various Linux coders, for the portions of the code that does not form part of the alleged infringing code in Linux.

So I have to ask, by what right do SCO continue distribute GPL software (SCO Linux) from your official FTP site ftp.sco.com ?

I am not aware of any special provision in the GPL that grants SCO more rights to distribute Linux than Red Hat. So if Red Hat have no right to distribute Linux, why do you think SCO have that right?

I am aware you now (added today) state on your web site that your distribution is only for existing SCO Linux customers, but again I would do seem any provision in the GPL nor am aware of any special provision for SCO or anybody else, that says you may ignore the GPL if distributing to existing customers. So can you please explain why you think SCO is legally entitled to distribute GPL licensed Linux software, and especially the non-contested portions, at all?

Finally referring once again to your license FAQ at http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicensefaq.html

"If SCO doesn't offer a license that would permit the distribution of an in house customized Linux OS to internal data centers, what is the value of correcting the infringement on the part of my end users when my company as a whole is still infringing SCO's intellectual property? What should I do?" "Consider migrating from an in house customized version of Linux to a shrink wrap, off the shelf version of Linux or to an alternative operating system. If you are unable to migrate, consider outsourcing the development of the customized Linux distribution. SCO understands that these options are very constraining and is investigating alternative that both protect its intellectual property and are less burdensome for end users."

Specifically I would like to ask about these two sentences:

"Consider migrating from an in house customized version of Linux to a shrink wrap, off the shelf version of Linux or to an alternative operating system. If you are unable to migrate, consider outsourcing the development of the customized Linux distribution."

If as you contend nobody should be distributing Linux, aren't you encouraging further infringement of IP rights either by buying a shrink wrap version, or by simply getting somebody else to do it ("outsourcing")? If you don't think this is the case, why not?

P.S. I notice your Linux license from SCOsource is for Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.5. In future if I get a subsequent version of Linux, would you expect users to pay you for the upgrade?

The court date. (1)

eddy (18759) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624571)

We most certainly have "touched upon" and known about the late date for some time. I myself noted and knew of the date from an eweek article [eweek.com] that I cited [slashdot.org] almost three weeks ago.

No big mystery there. What we're all wondering is how the SCO-shell game is supposed to survive for so long. I expect a couple of more hysteric announcements; MS licensing linux for their labs and updated prices when kernel 2.6.0 is released first and foremost.

But after that, what crack induced pronouncements can we expect from crackhead Darl?

I hope their next earnings are bad, even with them minting new shares to lower the apparent loss/share, which I'm sure is a fact they'll spin, spin, spin.

In other news (2, Funny)

revividus (643168) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624572)

...the Mafia is sueing SCO for violating it's Racketeering(TM) IP. The Mafia intends to settle out of court, however, and has already sent representatives Vinnie and Guido to visit McBride....

SCO is hiring! (3, Funny)

borgdows (599861) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624574)

http://sco.com/company/jobs/

They're seeking a Senior Sales Account Manager... oh wait they should have called the job Senior Stupid Cow Milker!

Tune in next week! (2, Funny)

Darth_brooks (180756) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624586)

It's SCO RAW!

Announcer 1: Welcome back to the staples center where we're in the middle of the SCO-redhat cage match for the undisputed heavyweight rights to Unix! SCO Goes for the ankle lock, but Redhat counters. Redhat's climbing to the top rope (crown moans) Oh and a cheap shot by SCO to the groin! SCO is going for the reverse boston crab, things are not looking good for Redhat...

Announcer 2: OHMYGOD! Look at this!

Announcer 1: It's SuSE! SuSE is coming to the ring to make the save!

Announcer 2: Look out, he's got a folding chair....

So early (1)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 10 years ago | (#6624587)

Have the markets even opened yet? or is SCO just getting sloppy?
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

Loading...