×

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 Madness Reigns Supreme

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the world's-funniest-joke dept.

Caldera 607

Sri Lumpa writes "It will come as little surprise for those of you that followed the SCO stories and read their latest filing that an IP attorney, Douglas Steele, Esq., thinks that 'SCO is trying to get the judge to declare all works released under the GPL for the last 3 years put into the public domain.' Meanwhile, more lawyers give their opinions, with Eben Moglen saying 'It's just rubbish,' while another says of SCO's defense: 'From the outside, it appears so bizarre and so ridiculous that I fear their argument is being misstated,' while Blake Stowell of SCO believes Congress has drawn a boundary between proprietary and open source and still insists that IBM should indemnify its Linux users while refusing to indemnify SCO's Samba users against a potential MS lawsuit. More links to related news stories continue to appear in the comment section of the first link, thanks to the Groklaw readers." Read on for another handful of updates in SCO vs. The World.

Roblimo knows good, honest Constitutional argumentation when he sees it, and over on NewsForge amplifies SCO's claims that the GPL is unconstitutional.

Dopey Panda writes "Looks like SCO has become just a bit worried about their liabilities for distributing the Linux kernel. Starting November 1 you will have to be a registered SCO customer to be able to access their FTP site. So that leaves just a couple days for you to download your own genuine SCO-approved GPL code!"

And perhaps today's most interesting SCO submission: 1HandClapping writes "In alwayson-network.com, Mark F. Radcliffe (HIAL) writes about a little-reported aspect of the SCO vs IBM case: 'Novell, as part of its sale of the UNIX licenses to SCO, retained the right to require SCO to "amend, supplement, modify or waive any right" under the license agreements (and if SCO did not comply, Novell could exercise those rights itself on SCO's behalf). At IBM's request, Novell employed this right and demanded that SCO waive IBM's purported violations. When SCO did not do so, Novell exercised its right to waive the violations on SCO's behalf. Basically, this defense destroys the core of the SCO case: IBM's violation of its UNIX license with SCO.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

607 comments

Michael, can I suck your cock? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7340804)

I am a girl and I really like you.

Ok, the truth is this is CmdrTaco... come over to my house later, we'll see what will happen.

It would be funny if....... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7340855)

Michael actually showed up at his house and then took off his coat and he was naked. Taco would be like, "WTF?" and Michael would be like, "you told me to come over here... ah fuck, AC got me again..." Then he would drive over to Timothy's house and start ass-raping him.

Noorda's revenge? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7340809)

One crazy thought that keeps popping into my mind is that the entire SCO mess might be Ray Noorda's final revenge on Microsoft.

Consider that Noorda has been around the tech industry a LONG time, that he has been involved in a lot of companys, he presumably knows who the A-team and B-team players are, and that he appears to dislike Microsoft a little bit.

So - he takes one of the organizations under his control. He fills it with C-team players. He fills (or prompts someone to fill) the C-team with truthful but misleading information about SCO's purported "intellectual property". He advises them to go after the biggest target first.

Then he sits back and watches while SCO leads a hopeless charge against IBM. This has the dual effect of (a) laying down case law _supporting_ the GPL that Microsoft will have a very hard time overturning (b) smoking out various linkages and anti-competitive behaviour on Microsoft's part.

Crazy, but I have a hard time seeing why else SCO is being so incompetent.

Re:Noorda's revenge? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7340877)

a rube goldburg...

pure genius :^)

Re:Noorda's revenge? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7340890)

so is a bunch If crazy metes. Jarl McBride Can go suck on a dread and die. (mean why on earth are CEOs of the United states of America So cm 247 : is it because they are a bunch ofathinds or am F just generalizing?

The enemy of my enemy (2, Insightful)

dmaxwell (43234) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340957)

is not necessarily my friend. Noorda dislikes MS to point of calling Ballmer "Emballmer" and Bill "Pearly" Gates. He was fond of saying something like "Emballmer gets you ready for the grave and Pearly drops you in it."

I have no doubt he would like to score a win of some kind against MS. But it wouldn't surprise me if Free Software offends him as badly as it does MS. A victory for the GPL isn't necessarily a victory for him. He isn't going to go out of his way for a little schadenfreude.

The other possibility is that he doesn't care what SCO does as long as they're scoring some change from SUN and MS.

Re:Noorda's revenge? (2, Interesting)

stephenry (648792) | more than 10 years ago | (#7341038)

There was a line in the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy which stated that if someone ever found out the true meaning to life, the universe and everything; God would simply destroy it and replace it with something even more unexplainable. Just because it can't be explained doesn't be that it can't be. Let's hope that whatever is lurking in the future for Linux has a case as plausible as SCO's.

Re:Noorda's revenge? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7341120)

Nice way to work a completely unwarranted Hitchhiker's Guide reference in there, nerd.

Hanlon's Razor (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7341087)

"Never attribute to malice that which can be sufficiently explained by stupidity."

(e)stop the madness (4, Insightful)

Empiric (675968) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340814)

By now, hasn't SCO contradicted themselves so many times on so many issues they're estoppeled [legal-definitions.com] from any course of action whatsoever?

Maybe just a non-lawyer's wishful thinking...

Re:(e)stop the madness (5, Insightful)

devphaeton (695736) | more than 10 years ago | (#7341080)

By now, hasn't SCO contradicted themselves so many times on so many issues they're estoppeled from any course of action whatsoever?

In a way, i kinda hope not. I would really like to see this go to court. Not only for the satisfaction of seeing SCO get smashed by an elephant, but also to see how the GPL will shake out in the courts. It's only a matter of time before the GPL gets called into court, and down the road there may be other opportunities, but it would really be advantageous to those supporting the GPL (of whom are habitually broke) to have this happen now, with the muscle (and finances) of IBM in our court.

At any other time, the "attrition strategy" of prolonging the court process until the other side is bankrupted might get turned against us.

We all know that even if the GPL is completely rock solid, it can still lose in court depending upon its presentation. And if it *does* lose in court, that could potentially start a firestorm of FUD and abandonment, if not a poor perception of Open Source products (even BSD-license ones.. consider how a PHB thinks). Next thing you know, we'll all be replacing linux/bsd servers with Windows Server 2003 or SUNW at our workplace.

I would hate to see the party crashed just as it was getting started, you know?

The Madness of King Darl (4, Interesting)

whig (6869) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340815)

I posted this to LWN earlier....

It's important to understand that this really is a war, and SCO has a point, albeit not one that sane people should accept.

The GPL is a truly revolutionary license, it is *designed*, as SCO says, to reduce the financial value of proprietary software. Yes, GPL software is freer than public domain, in the sense that the source code can never be taken proprietary (other than by the original author) and redistributed.

SCO's argument will likely be that this contravenes Congress's will, by creating a commons under rules other than those established by law.

SCO will say that GPLed code cannot be restricted by export controls, thus violates national security laws.

According to SCO, GPL purports to grant *too much freedom* and therefore, according to this argument, the lesser freedom of the public domain is and should be the appropriate terms by which previously GPLed code should be distributable.

By this reasoning, then, SCO will claim it has every right to use GPL code in its proprietary distributions, but on the other hand, can contend that its own code (or code which IBM created under a license which grants SCO ownership of their code) was never intended (by SCO) to be released under GPL nor public domain.

Now, to fully understand these arguments, you must put yourself in the mindset of a madman. Which, undoubtedly, Darl McBride is. Microsoft and others have surely encouraged his delusional state, and given him the resources he needs to pursue his dreams of world domination, with the understanding that even if SCO has no chance of succeeding in the final analysis, the legal case can and will create FUD to slow the adoption of Linux and buy time for proprietary firms.

If this is a war, SCO is a foot soldier. SCO will die, of course, but that's what foot soldiers are expected to do.

Re:The Madness of King Darl (2, Interesting)

CrimeDoggy (710126) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340879)

Very good point - but the missing thing from all of this IMO is an exit strategy. what is the end game for SCO? they know they can't win, unless the level of madness is so deep McBride is truly delusional. So what is the secret hidden goal they are going to piss away millions in legal fees in vain for? And the worst thing - I keep trying to short SCOX and there are no shares to borrow!

Re:The Madness of King Darl (2, Redundant)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340900)

The exit strategy isn't for the company, it's for the execs who plan to make a ton of money with this pump and dump scheme. They could care less what happens to the company long term.

Re:The Madness of King Darl (1)

sphealey (2855) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340994)

The exit strategy isn't for the company, it's for the execs who plan to make a ton of money with this pump and dump scheme. They could care less what happens to the company long term.
Yes, but shareholder lawsuits can go after the executives' personal fortunes. The SCOids have to know this, yet while their lawyers use careful, lawyerly, deniable language the SCO execs continue to say things that "could be used against you in a court of law". That is hard to understand.

sPh

Re:The Madness of King Darl (4, Insightful)

whig (6869) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340917)

McBride is *truly* delusional, IMHO.

As for the attorneys, under the amended agreement with SCO, they get 20% of certain licensing fees and investments, I believe. Which means they probably pocketed $1.6M from Microsoft's most recent licensing payment, and perhaps $10M from the RBC/BayStar investment.

Quite a motivation to continue pursuing a losing case. Even if Boies & Co. were to be disbarred, this is the kind of money that can make them say, "So what."

Re:The Madness of King Darl (1)

haystor (102186) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340968)

One reason they are going through this madness is to put on a show that they sincerely believe themselves to be right. They are wrong, everyone knows it, but right now they have to put on a show of believing their wrongness so that it's harder to prove they are guilty of fraud and not just bad decisions.

Then they'll just use the standard "needed to sell the stock to pay for the house(s), the timing was just a fluke" in order to avoid SEC charges.

Re:The Madness of King Darl (1)

sphealey (2855) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340901)

Well, we haven't seen SCO's detailed arguments on these points yet. At a minimum a couple of problems seem to pop up.
SCO's argument will likely be that this contravenes Congress's will, by creating a commons under rules other than those established by law.
Problem #1: how is this unconstitutional? The United States is not the Soviet Union; in the US anything which is not prohibited is permitted (more or less). And the 9th Amendment would certainly come into play here also.
SCO will say that GPLed code cannot be restricted by export controls, thus violates national security laws.
I can make all the high speed routers I desire, and I can license them under any terms I like. I just can't sell them to, e.g., North Korea, and if I do I can be prosecuted. How is distributing GPL software any different?

sPh

Re:The Madness of King Darl (1)

whig (6869) | more than 10 years ago | (#7341012)

Problem #1: how is this unconstitutional? The United States is not the Soviet Union; in the US anything which is not prohibited is permitted (more or less). And the 9th Amendment would certainly come into play here also.

It isn't unconstitutional by any stretch of *my* imagination, but that's just because I'm not delusional enough to buy into SCO's theory.

Re:The Madness of King Darl (3, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340914)

The GPL is a truly revolutionary license, it is *designed*, as SCO says, to reduce the financial value of proprietary software
Wrong... it is *designed* to generate _THE_ best software that is humanly possible, whether for financial gain or not.

Re:The Madness of King Darl (4, Interesting)

whig (6869) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340960)

Quote from the GNU Manifesto:

"GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition. You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but neither will your competitors be able to get an edge over you. You and they will compete in other areas, while benefiting mutually in this one. If your business is selling an operating system, you will not like GNU, but that's tough on you. If your business is something else, GNU can save you from being pushed into the expensive business of selling operating systems."

The same principles apply to non-OS GPL software, although the original concept was just to create a replacement for Unix.

Re:The Madness of King Darl (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7341053)

RTFL: [fsf.org]: the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.

Re:The Madness of King Darl (3, Insightful)

judd (3212) | more than 10 years ago | (#7341071)

No.

The GPL is designed to ensure that there is free software. That is all.

Any quality benefits are purely coincidental. (The Open Source crowd disagree, but that's a different kettle of fish, and a whole other bunch of licenses).

Re:The Madness of King Darl (3, Funny)

stephenry (648792) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340927)

The one thing I've never truely understood about the Export Control argument is that, firstly, Linux is not American, and can therefore not be controlled by it's government, secondly, export controls only apply to that which is not already freely available to the public. Unless, US law suddenly applies to everyone else in the world, I don't see this being successfull.

Shame really. I can just see it now. McBride's just spent his new $50 million hollowing out an old mountain (for SCO's new headquarters), bought him self a brand new white cat and leather chair and got his employees kit-ed out in matching grey overalls.

Re:The Madness of King Darl (1)

sphealey (2855) | more than 10 years ago | (#7341034)

The one thing I've never truely understood about the Export Control argument is that, firstly, Linux is not American, and can therefore not be controlled by it's government,
That argument has been advanced since the dawn of the Internet, but it turns out not to be the case. A lot of Linux developers do live in the US, RedHat is headquartered in the US, and at the moment Linus lives in the US as well. Whether or not "Linux" could be controlled by the USG, a lot of people who work on Linux could suffer adverse consequences if distribution of Linux is found to violate US export regs. Not that I think it will or that the argument is strong, but the potential consequences are there.

sPh

Val Kilmer says.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7340965)

Madman? No. A sophist who believe that which is true is that which he can convince a court of, certainly. In some respects he may actually be right. Which is the problem with lawyers. They aren't about or bound to either the truth or ethical behavior. They exist as storytellers and crafters of emotional arguments. Their industry is built on image as truth, and content as unimportant. Ask yourself what's the shocking thing about this fiasco? That SCO is lying, or that they expect people to believe them?

Re:The Madness of King Darl (1)

tuffy (10202) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340973)

The GPL is a truly revolutionary license, it is *designed*, as SCO says, to reduce the financial value of proprietary software. Yes, GPL software is freer than public domain, in the sense that the source code can never be taken proprietary (other than by the original author) and redistributed.
That's a bit of a paradox, isn't it? If one defines freedom by lack of restrictions, GPLed code is less free than public domain code by virtue of the GPL's specific copying conditions. Thus the only thing seperating GPLed code from other proprietary code is those cost and conditions.

Mad King Darl, it seems, doesn't like the GPL's cost and conditions because of what they mean for his stock price.

I am confused (2, Insightful)

Irishman (9604) | more than 10 years ago | (#7341027)

The argument that SCO has outlined states that the GPL contravenes the copyright law by making software very free. I won't try and figure out how something can be too free in a nation that purports to be the most free nation on Earth.

As I understand it, if I create a copyrightable work, I can impose any restrictions on the use of that work. If you want to use that work, you must comply. If I choose to release a work under the GPL, that is my choice. I am complying with the law in that I have imposed restrictions on the use of my work (or lack of restrictions). You as a consumer must comply with those restrictions. I am not forcing you to do so. If you cannot comply, you cannot use it, pure and simple.

Can someone explain to me how this is not constitutional?

The GPL is *not* freer than public domain software (1)

gengee (124713) | more than 10 years ago | (#7341039)

Yes, GPL software is freer than public domain, in the sense that the source code can never be taken proprietary (other than by the original author) and redistributed.

That's just plainly not true. You cannot take something entirely free and make it freer by restricting its use. The point of the GPL is that it restricts certain individual freedoms, while protecting common freedom. But make no mistake: public domain software is freer.

It's an issue of sematics, yes. But an important distinction.

Here is another artical (0, Redundant)

SirJaxalot (715418) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340823)

SCO Attempts to Have GPL Declared Void here [linuxworld.com]

Re:Here is another artical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7340935)

Excellent karma whoring, Jax, linking to articles that we've seen only a short while ago on Slashdot. Hope it helps you mod up the spam you post using your other aliases.

Re:Here is another artical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7341040)


If you're going to karma whore with old news, at the very least you should try to spell your subject heading correctly, you F|_|CK1NG tard.

Nerd on a rampage... (1)

YanceyAI (192279) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340837)

With all the draconian BS developers and tech industry have to deal with in their professional lives, I am genuinely surprised SCO hasn't pushed some overtaxed coder who is a Linux guy on the side way over the edge. I'd be nervous if I were that Darl McBride guy. Seriously, what a jack ass.

Oh, I see. (4, Funny)

utlemming (654269) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340839)

The tactic is to get everything thrown in the public domain. I guess we figured out the new strategy---

1. File law suits

2. Get the licensing declared illegal

3. Profits

The only thing is getting everything released under the GPL in the last three years turned over to public domain would trampel the very concept of a copyright. It is a nice idea for SCO, but in reality they have to be smoking crack to think that this one will work. I honestly can not see it happening.

Old and busted, but still applicable. (2, Funny)

mikeophile (647318) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340842)

Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: (pulling down a diagram) this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee - an eight foot tall Wookiee - want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!

Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major software company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.

And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation - does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

Re:Old and busted, but still applicable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7341030)

Ohfercrissake....

A "You owe SCO $699!" post would be fresher and funnier than this. Hell, an "In Soviet Russia..." post would be fresher and funnier than this.

This is getting so fucking stale.. (-1, Flamebait)

titzandkunt (623280) | more than 10 years ago | (#7341069)


I musta read this about a dozen times you tedious fucking whore.

T&K.

Boohoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7341121)

You're just mad cuz you don't gets no karma, but you'd have to post something interesting for that to happen.

I writ my own SCO article, here it is... (2, Interesting)

Pingular (670773) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340844)

In defence to IBM's counterclaims [lwn.net] to it's lawsuit, SCO have made public a 21 page document [sco.com], including 156 'answers'.
In the document the lawyers admit some facts submitted by Big Blue when it counterclaimed, but the important things are what it doesn't admit, of course.
It alleges that Linux is an "unathorized version of UNIX that is structured, assembled and designed to be technologically indistinguishable" from it.
I wonder how much the SCO lawyers are being paid.

Re:I writ my own SCO article, here it is... (1)

dacarr (562277) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340989)

This is an interesting point, but I think on the grounds that, as a for instance, Target's ready-to-drink Weight Loss Shake is otherwise indistinguishable on the surface (or in the glass) from Slim-Fast(TM)'s RTD diet shake, they are probably two different things when broken down.

In short, I think it was decided a while back that "look and feel" alone (which, AFAICT, is the argument presented here) is not grounds for dispute.

SCO Who? (1, Troll)

Chris_Stankowitz (612232) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340848)

It will come as little surprise for those of you that followed the SCO stories.....

Well I would have followed the stories but I read /. and they NEVER post anything.....

Who the hell am I kidding. I've changed my /. bookmark to read "Slashdot, News for Nerds. SCO Matters!"

Everything that is there to be said has been said (0, Flamebait)

Brahmastra (685988) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340849)

Why would there be anymore original or insightful comments on this topic? Everyone has already commented a million times about SCO and all the comments usually follow the same pattern. Yes I agree that SCO is a useless gold-digging, thieving corporation. But, all SCO stories need to be modded redundant. Or, post a story and link it to the comments in the old story.

Re:Everything that is there to be said has been sa (1)

XenoBrain (719411) | more than 10 years ago | (#7341108)

Yes, but the question is, does anybody really have a different opinion?

Who will come up.... (1)

Uzull (16705) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340850)

...with enough money to buy out SCO, Ray Noorda'S investement company and smash the whole thing so that we can start to do serious work ???? Maybe we should setup a paypal account, accumulate 1 or 2 billion (euros, dollars) and buy SCO.

Re:Who will come up.... (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 10 years ago | (#7341051)

No we should not. That is exactly what SCO is hoping will happen, and it would just encourage others to do the same.

The fact of the matter is that SCO is completely finished. Their OS is totally obsolete, and inferior to the free alternatives available.

Re:Who will come up.... (1)

rkhalloran (136467) | more than 10 years ago | (#7341083)

C'mon folks, Darl & Co EXPECTED to be bought out to shut them up. The problem with them being bought out now by some other deeper-pocketed company is that it would let them drag this farce out even longer.
What needs to happen to this particular corporate blood-sucker is a stake through the heart, beheading with a silver dagger, stuffing the mouth with garlic & sewing it shut, burning the corpse at a crossroads and scattering the ashes at sea to make sure it doesn't rise again...

SCO Troll? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7340854)

Wheres the SCO Troll?
I haven't been called a teabagger today.

FUCKING TEABAGGER (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7340992)

There.

Feel better now?

Re:FUCKING TEABAGGER (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7341055)

Eh, Thanks a lot buddeh!

fark.com down?? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7340856)

Does anyone know what is wrong with fark.com today?

Can one of you please fix it, thanks.

Re:fark.com down?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7340915)

The server for forums.fark.com is having an operating system upgrade.

OMG (0)

a_nimble_bahai (708626) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340859)

This is rediculous, but could you imagine what would happen if this actually succeded? SCO wants GLP code placed in the public domain, this must mean they realize that they're in volation of the GPL and will have the last shreds of thier business destroyed if a large organization sues them over it.

I repeat again - and i called it in advance... (5, Insightful)

gsfprez (27403) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340861)

i used to say...

SCO has every reason in the world to see the GPL killed. That reason is that they have (most likely) been using GPL'd code in their proprietary code. They want to see the GPL nulled and voided so that when "they win their case", they can, at a later date, keep right on using Linux code in their shitty products.

now, it looks like i need to amend it slightly...

SCO has every reason in the world to see all GPL software made public domain. That reason is that they have (most likely) been using GPL'd code in their proprietary code. They want to see the GPL nulled and voided so that when "they win their case", they can, at a later date, keep right on using Linux code in their shitty products, as well as to prevent being sued into oblivion by a horde of GPL contibutors.

it sucks being right.

I'm telling you - we need to see SCO's "closed source" product code - for there, you will see that they have been going what they have accuesed everyone else of doing.

There is NO other reason for wanting all GPL code made "public domain".

Re:I repeat again - and i called it in advance... (1)

earthforce_1 (454968) | more than 10 years ago | (#7341044)

> I'm telling you - we need to see SCO's "closed source" product code - for
> there, you will see that they have been going what they have accuesed
> everyone else of doing.

What do you suggest? A BSA type raid on their headquarters for a GPL licence compliance audit, perhaps using ESR's shredder SW on their source code?

Esquire? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7340862)

Adding the suffix Esquire on your title is unbelievably pathetic. Lawyers just got irritated that doctors ran around making sure everyone knew just who they were.

Here's the difference though - A doctor can save your life (yeah there as some assmonkey mathematics phds who call themselves doctor, but realize that everyone mocks them for it - The only one socially allowed to preface their name with doctor and not be proclaimed a jackass is a MD). A lawyer can fight a small claims case for you. W00t!

Here's a thought... (3, Interesting)

GearheadX (414240) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340863)

Why is SCO trying to get GPL code into the public domain? Could they perhaps be trying to cover their tails in case someone were to uncover GPL code in software THEY have been releasing closed source?

DEBIAN FUCKING SUCKS! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7340868)

Setting up libwxgtk2.4 (2.4.2.4) ... Setting up audacity (1.1.99pre1-2) ... Setting up autotools-dev (20031007.1) ... Setting up libplot2 (2.4.1-10) ... Setting up libpstoedit0 (3.33-9) ... Setting up libautotrace3 (0.31.1-1) ... Setting up autotrace (0.31.1-1) ... Setting up base-config (1.74) ... Setting up bb (1.3rc1-5) ... Setting up libisccc0 (9.2.2+9.2.3rc4-1) ... Setting up libisccfg0 (9.2.2+9.2.3rc4-1) ... Setting up bind9 (9.2.2+9.2.3rc4-1) ... Installing new version of config file /etc/bind/named.conf ... Setting up liborbit2 (2.8.1-5) ... Setting up cdda2wav (2.0+a19-2) ... Setting up libcdparanoia0 (3a9.8-10) ... Setting up cdparanoia (3a9.8-10) ... Setting up cdrecord (2.0+a19-2) ... Setting up libsdl1.2debian-oss (1.2.6-2) ... Setting up libsdl1.2debian (1.2.6-2) ... Setting up libsmpeg0 (0.4.5+cvs20030824-1) ... Setting up cpp-2.95 (2.95.4-19) ... Setting up libcupsimage2 (1.1.19final-1.4) ... Setting up libslp1 (1.0.11-4) ... Setting up libgimpprint1 (4.2.5-6) ... Setting up gs-esp (7.07.1-1) ... Setting up ijsgimpprint (4.2.5-6) ... Setting up hpijs (1.4.1-1) ... Setting up cupsys (1.1.19final-1.4) ... Setting up cupsys-client (1.1.19final-1.4) ... Setting up cvs (1.12.1-7) ... Installing new version of config file /etc/pam.d/cvs ... Setting up dante-client (1.1.14-1) ... Setting up deborphan (1.5-12) ... Setting up dialog (0.9b-20031002-1) ... Setting up dietlibc-dev (0.23-2) ... Setting up distcc (2.10.1-2) ... Setting up dosfstools (2.10-1) ... Setting up dump (0.4b34-1) ... Setting up libart-2.0-dev (2.3.16-1) ... Setting up libasound2-dev (0.9.6-3) ... Setting up libgcrypt-dev (1.1.12-4) ... Setting up zlib1g-dev (1.1.4-16) ... Setting up libgnutls7-dev (0.8.12-1) ... Setting up libcupsys2-dev (1.1.19final-1.4) ... Setting up libdb3-dev (3.2.9-19) ... Setting up libdb3-util (3.2.9-19) ... Setting up libexpat1-dev (1.95.6-6) ... Setting up libfam-dev (2.6.10-4) ... Setting up libfreetype6-dev (2.1.5-3) ... Setting up libjpeg62-dev (6b-9) ... Setting up libmad0-dev (0.15.0b-3) ... Setting up libncurses5-dev (5.3.20030719-3) ... Setting up libpam0g-dev (0.76-14) ... Setting up libsasl7 (1.5.28-6.1) ... Setting up libsasl-dev (1.5.28-6.1) ... Setting up libssl-dev (0.9.7c-5) ... Setting up render-dev (0.8-3) ... Setting up libxrender-dev (0.8.3-4) ... Setting up tcl8.4 (8.4.4-1) ... Setting up tk8.4 (8.4.4-1) ... Setting up util-linux-locales (2.12-4) ... Setting up x3270 (3.2.20-2) ... Installing new version of config file /etc/X11/app-defaults/X3270 ... Setting up binutils-dev (2.14.90.0.6-5) ... Setting up cupsys-bsd (1.1.19final-1.4) ... Setting up libgsmme1c102 (1.10-5) ... Setting up gsm-utils (1.10-5) ... Setting up klogd (1.4.1-13) ... Installing new version of config file /etc/init.d/klogd ... Stopping kernel log daemon: klogd. Starting kernel log daemon: klogd. Setting up sysklogd (1.4.1-13) ... Installing new version of config file /etc/init.d/sysklogd ... Installing new version of config file /etc/cron.daily/sysklogd ... Installing new version of config file /etc/cron.weekly/sysklogd ... Stopping system log daemon: syslogd. Starting system log daemon: syslogd. Setting up libstdc++5-3.3-dev (3.3.2-1) ... Setting up python (2.3.2-2) ... Setting up python2.3 (2.3.2-2) ... Compiling python modules in /usr/lib/python2.3 ... Compiling optimized python modules in /usr/lib/python2.3 ... Setting up libfontconfig1 (2.2.1-8) ... Setting up fontconfig (2.2.1-8) ... Installing new version of config file /etc/fonts/fonts.conf ... mkdir -p /var/lib/ucf/cache Replacing config file /etc/fonts/local.conf with new version Not saving /etc/fonts/local.conf, since it was unmodified cp -f /var/lib/fontconfig/local.conf /etc/fonts/local.conf Updating font configuration of fontconfig... Cleaning up category cid.. Cleaning up category truetype.. Cleaning up category type1.. Updating category type1.. Updating category truetype.. Updating category cid.. Regenerating fonts cache... done. Setting up libxft2 (2.1.2-4) ... Setting up libpango1.0-0 (1.2.5-2) ... Setting up libpango1.0-common (1.2.5-2) ... Updating the modules list for Pango-1.2.0...done. Setting up libgtk2.0-0 (2.2.4-1) ... Setting up libgtk2.0-common (2.2.4-1) ... Updating the IM modules list for GTK+-2.2.0...done. Updating the gdk-pixbuf loaders list for GTK+-2.2.0...done. Setting up libglade2-0 (2.0.1-6) ... Setting up libgucharmap3 (1.0.0-2) ... Setting up abiword (2.0.0+cvs.2003.09.25-1.1) ... Setting up libqt3c102-mt (3.2.1-6) ... Setting up libarts1 (1.1.4-2) ... Setting up kdelibs-bin (3.1.4-2) ... Setting up aumix-gtk (2.8-5) ... Installing new version of config file /etc/default/aumix ... Setting up libbonobo2-common (2.4.1-3) ... Configuration file `/etc/bonobo-activation/bonobo-activation-config.x ml' ==> File on system created by you or by a script. ==> File also in package provided by package maintainer. What would you like to do about it ? Your options are: Y or I : install the package maintainer's version N or O : keep your currently-installed version D : show the differences between the versions Z : background this process to examine the situation The default action is to keep your current version. *** bonobo-activation-config.xml (Y/I/N/O/D/Z) [default=N] ? G_____________________________________naann_______ ________G
N_____________________________nnnaa__nanaaa_______ ________A
A____________________aanana__nannaa_nna_an________ ________Y
A_____________annna_nnnnnan_aan_aa__na__aa________ ________*
G____________nnaana_nnn__nn_aa__nn__na_anaann_MERI CA______N
N___________ana__nn_an___an_aa_anaaannnanaa_______ ________I
A___________aa__ana_nn___nn_nnnnaa___ana__________ ________G
A__________nna__an__na___nn__nnn___SSOCIATION_of__ ________G
G__________ana_naa__an___nnn______________________ ________E
N__________ananan___nn___aan_IGGER________________ ________R
A__________nnna____naa____________________________ ________S
A________nnaa_____anan____________________________ ________*
G________anaannana________________________________ ________A
N________ananaannn_AY_____________________________ ________S
A________ana____nn_________IRC-EFNET-#GNAA________ ________S
A_______nn_____na_________________________________ ________O
*_______aaaan_____________________________________ ________C

Re:DEBIAN FUCKING SUCKS! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7341084)

Whats the point?
Is this an official GNAA policy regarding Debian?
Does the GNAA approve of FreeBSD?

I'm thinking we'll see this resolved by New Years (1)

Trillan (597339) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340873)

I'm going away for a month starting at the end of November. I think when I get back, I'll find this has been resolved.

SCO is just reaching too far now. How much longer can it go on? The pyramid of FUD has to collapse soon.

Of course, that's just my opinion. After all, this whole case was pretty obvious from day one, and it's still moving forward... reality seems to mean nothing to SCO.

Re:I'm thinking we'll see this resolved by New Yea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7341023)

I'm going away for a month starting at the end of November.

Wait... wait...

Oh, I almost gave a shit.

Madness (0)

panxerox (575545) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340876)

Step right up watch as our maddly dancing company self destructs right before your eyes ! Please keep your hands inside the car please...

GPL == General Public License? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7340885)

Why are they calling it this?

Stallman must be chewing his beard -- not only is it being called Linux (not GNU/Linux), but GNU is being dropped entirely, even from their license!

Re:GPL == General Public License? (1)

Trillan (597339) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340934)

Did I interpret that wrong, or are you asking why is it being called the General Public License?

If I interpreted it right, it's probably because it's what GNU calls it [gnu.org]. If it was the GGPL, GNU General Public License might make sense.

Of course, it's possible I've totally misunderstood you...

Re:GPL == General Public License? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7340993)

It's not technically "General Public License".

It is the "GNU General Public License".

Throughout the text of the license it refers to "this General Public License".

"General Public License" is incomplete, as the GPL is specifically GNU's GPL.

The point was that GNU was up in arms about having it called GNU/Linux -- so they cannot be too happy about GNU being left out of references to the GPL.

Re:GPL == General Public License? (1)

Trillan (597339) | more than 10 years ago | (#7341025)

Okay, I understand where you're coming from now. If you're doing anything other than just expanding the acronym, it makes sense to include the GNU part. :)

Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory (3, Interesting)

debaere (94918) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340891)

Does anyone else get the feeling that SCO is trying to get the Linux Kernel into the public domain so Microsoft can use it as a base for Longhorn? Robert X Cringley [pbs.org] had an article about this a few months back.

Re:Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory (2, Insightful)

MsGeek (162936) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340978)

They don't have to. There is a perfectly good kernel that Microsoft can grab, lock, stock and barrel, and assimilate into Longhorn. It's called the BSD kernel. FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD...it's all fair game because of the BSD license. Microsoft has assimilated BSD code in the past...run Strings on ftp.exe and see the "Regents of the University of California" copyright notice for yourself.

Fearless prediction: we will see WinBSD in our lifetimes. Only it will be referred to as just another iteration of NT.

Re:Blatant Anti-Microsoft Conspiracy Theory (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340984)

nah, the NT kernal really isn't that bad, its everything surrounding it that is very insecure, and a little unstable.

Hmmmm, maybe not such a bad idea.... (3, Interesting)

mikeophile (647318) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340893)

Getting the GPL declared public domain might provide just enough precedent to get all intellectual property declared public domain.

Free the meme! Viva la revolution!

Or not.

Re:Hmmmm, maybe not such a bad idea.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7340919)

Hey, we can re-release the GPL under the GPL and then it will be free. lmao

Re:Hmmmm, maybe not such a bad idea.... (1)

Empiric (675968) | more than 10 years ago | (#7341113)

My concern there would be that then there'd be no way to enforce the GPL's derivative works provisions, and we'd see a bunch of companies throwing a wrapper around GPL code and selling it, and the general public would say "Wow, look how great Linciscsys' products are! Nice that these responsible companies are finally putting those hacker anarchists in their place..."

*cough* Current Cisco ad *cough*

Besides, after all the work put into it, the original authors deserve at least recognition.

New theory (4, Funny)

lurker412 (706164) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340916)

SCO is obviously out to destroy the open source community, but their method is more subtle than previously thought. They just make an outrageous claim and then watch all the open source developers spend their time flaming on ./ rather than doing real work. Pretty sneaky...

To Timothy *confused* (1)

FrankoBoy (677614) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340918)

If you think the last submission is the most interesting one ( I agree, btw ), why the fuck did you put it at the end of the post and didn't mention it in the first paragraph ?!

Re:To Timothy *confused* (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7341046)

Do you realize that tools like you and me submit the text for each story on slashdot, and the fools like timothy just post them and sometimes add their own editorial blabs on the end?

If people won't RTFA... (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340930)

...then what makes anyone think that people will click on the "n bytes in body" link?

For reasons I don't understand, this "silver bullet" defense has not been widely reported in the press.

Sorry, Mark, but it didn't quite make front-page on /. either.

Bright spot amid all the lunacy. (2, Insightful)

Distan (122159) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340944)

If it is all going to boil down to the GPL being tried in a court of law, there is one big thing that we should all be thankful for. That is the fact that IBM is on the side of the GPL. IBM has some of the best and sharpest attorneys in the corporate world, and short of having Disney come aboard as well, I can't think of any corporation I'd prefer to have as my proxy warrior.

SCO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7340952)

so SCO is some kind of technology company right?

for the sake of arguement... (2, Interesting)

3seas (184403) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340964)

If the GPL is invalid, what other licensings would also be in question?

How about any licensings that violates or circumvents a persons constitutional rights (US)?

Might such a thing also extend to employment contracts?

Re:for the sake of arguement... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7341063)

A license is a contract, and under US law, contracts are void (no court will here a "breach of contract" case) if the contract stipulates that the promisee or promisor violates any law or statute. It's contract law 101. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but in the case of employment contracts, the law is heavily weighted towards the employee not the employer.

Huh? (2, Informative)

siskbc (598067) | more than 10 years ago | (#7341095)

How about any licensings that violates or circumvents a persons constitutional rights (US)?

Any contract whose terms are not legal is null. So I think that's already the case.

Note that there is a difference between someone waiving their rights and inalienable rights being violated. In any contract there is give and take - for example, in exchange for payment I give up some specific rights (like working for my employer's competition on the side, for instance). However, I couldn't sign a contract making me a slave. That's not legal.

Obligatory South Park Quote ... (1)

obsidianpreacher (316585) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340971)

The sexual harassment case of Everyone vs. Everyone begins tomorrow. No matter what the outcome, the public schools are sure to lose at least a whopping $30 million. Representing the side of Everyone is Gerald Broflovski, the lawyer from South Park who plans to make quite a commission. Representing the side of Everyone Else is Gerald Broflovski. So whatever the outcome, things look very bright for Kyle's dad. Personally, I think Kyle's dad is just a whore, taking advantage of everyone in town and... [a note is handed to him] This just in! Newscaster Kevin McCarty is being sued by Kyle's dad for slander. The newscaster has yet to be reached for comment. Wait...
Of course, this applies equally well to the "copyright/IP/patent/your_mom infringement" case of SCO vs Everyone ...

Liabilities (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340986)

Once again I ask: What liabilities are SCO's board members opening themselves up for with these ludicrous litigations and how can I get in on this class-action?

SCO's nefarious plan... (4, Funny)

studerby (160802) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340988)

SCO's nefarious plan is to get IBM's lawyer's to laugh themselves to death, and thereby win by default.

Sheer genius!

Restricting access to FTP won't help SCO (2, Informative)

47PHA60 (444748) | more than 10 years ago | (#7340997)

"Looks like SCO has become just a bit worried about their liabilities for distributing the Linux kernel. Starting November 1 you will have to be a registered SCO customer to be able to access their FTP site."

Doesn't matter; it is OK under the GPL to make code available only to those people who received binaries from you. You must, however, grant the same rights to those recipients so that they can further modify or distribute what they got from you.

In other words, if the GPL is enforceable, this move by SCO does not mitigate their responsibility to honor the terms of the license which they accepted by distributing the software.

If the GPL is enforceable, SCO has lost their rights by attempting to add further restrictions (in the form of their "SCO IP License"). If the GPL is not enforceable, then the whole software industry is in for a shake-up, because a license is the only way that software copyright holders extend any rights to you beyond what copyright allows.

Well then. (3, Insightful)

mcc (14761) | more than 10 years ago | (#7341002)

That solves everything neatly.
  1. November 1 comes.
  2. IBM buys one (1) SCO UNIX license.
  3. IBM downloads the full linux kernel from SCO's website.
  4. By giving IBM said kernel, SCO has just licensed Linux to IBM under the GPL. This can no longer be argued to be mistake, or something accidentally left around on the website. IBM is now not only someone who has grabbed a file off SCO's website-- which is all that you need for the GPL license to be extended-- they are now a paying customer.
  5. All the code IBM ever put into linux now falls into two categories.
    1. Code which IBM had the right to put into linux because they own it.
    2. Code which IBM has the right to put into linux because SCO has granted them an unfettered license to do so by distributing said code to IBM under the GPL in step 3.
  6. Thus, SCO's lawsuit against IBM-- in which they allege IBM put code into linux which by right of contract is the property of SCO-- is no longer valid, since whether said code is IBM's or SCO's property, IBM now has the right to distribute it under the GPL anyway. The suit can be thrown out.
Yes, I realize the above is utterly rediculous. I'm pointing this out just to elaborate how rediculous SCO's position is. As if it weren't already obvious to all.

Who gets the most from the death of the GPL? (2, Interesting)

billn (5184) | more than 10 years ago | (#7341019)

'SCO is trying to get the judge to declare all works released under the GPL for the last 3 years put into the public domain.'

There were early rumours about Microsoft having a puppeteer-like hand up SCO's collective ass when this whole mess started.

Everything released under the GPL over the last three years, ostensibly some pretty solid code and products, would suddenly be up for grabs without the viral GPL attachment, including the Linux Kernel.

(Linux - GPL) + (Innovative Open Source GPL Products - GPL) + (Microsoft - Innovation) = ?

Blah (1)

unorthod0x (263821) | more than 10 years ago | (#7341032)

The newsforge article [newsforge.com] can hardly be taken seriously when it says:
You non-Americans who read NewsForge can move on to the next story right now. We know you don't hold our Constitution dear and don't understand the ideals that make the United of States of America the greatest nation on earth, so there is no reason for you to read this.

Makes me sick..

Are we going to hear about this shit forever (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7341058)

I am so fucking sick of linux-vs-sco-fanboy articles that I am going to scream!

huh? (2, Insightful)

gyratedotorg (545872) | more than 10 years ago | (#7341077)

'SCO is trying to get the judge to declare all works released under the GPL for the last 3 years put into the public domain.'

correct me if im wrong, but wouldnt this put sco's linux distro into the public domain, and thus, invalidate all of their stolen-ip claims? sco did release their distro under the gpl, correct?

Finding the customer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7341098)

Dopey Panda writes "Looks like SCO has become just a bit worried about their liabilities for distributing the Linux kernel. Starting November 1 you will have to be a registered SCO customer to be able to access their FTP site. So that leaves just a couple days for you to download your own genuine SCO-approved GPL code!"

I guess they want people to register so they can track down who the customer is, would you buy a SCO product ?

Honestly, SCO must have a customer .. somewhere ..
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...