×

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 Gets More Desperate; Sends More Letters

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the pyramid-scheme-coming-down-around-their-ears dept.

Caldera 449

isn't my name writes "The New York Times is reporting that SCO has sent new letters to Linux-using businesses with specific examples of infringement. SCO has its fiscal earnings call scheduled tomorrow at 11am. In all probability, these letters are designed to get analyst/reporter interest focused on their claims instead of the numerous fundamental problems with their case. So, slashdotters, we need to find a copy of the letter and tear it apart with specificity before tomorrow morning in the US East Coast, so that any analysts/reporters will not be distracted."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

449 comments

first! (-1, Offtopic)

powlow (197142) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785037)

yes!

Re:first! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785138)

i feel i should congratulate you simply because you had the nerve to post with your username.. and you came out on top.

you must have big balls.

FIRST POST!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785039)

FIRST POST! YEAH!

Darl McBride can spoon his own ASS!

--stiffler

Why do they -need- this response from their 6000? (5, Interesting)

baryon351 (626717) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785040)

Copied/edited from a comment I posted on Groklaw, and thought very worth mentioning here too.
--
SCO, based in Lindon, Utah, is also sending letters to many of its 6,000 Unix licensees requiring them to certify in writing that they are complying with SCO licenses, a company executive said. SCO's Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux. .

Why is this necessary? is it all media show just to look like they're being exceptionally diligent in keeping their property under control, leaning on their licensees to make sure they don't bring up a situation like they claim is happening with IBM, or are they asking for something MORE than is in the original 6000 unix licenses?

Presumably, those licenses (for real SCO Unix customers) already prohibit the revealing of code from SCO products to Linux or anything else, so this step of having those licensees say "no we're not contributing" looks to be a double up of effort. They've signed those licenses, isn't that already enough?.

However, the wording as stated in the article may be relevant. It seems a pairing of two things that may not be related; "certify that you are complying with SCO licenses AND that none of your employees have contributed to Linux". It sounds a little like if you're trying to defend yourself against a drunk driving charge, and are being asked to sign a document saying "certify you did not drive while intoxicated AND that your car now belongs to me". You can refuse and it sounds you're saying you did drive drunk, or you can sign and you've given up your car. There's probably a legal term for this tactic, but of course, IANAL. IANEAP.

So do those existing 6000 licenses NOT cover things adequately? Is it possible those licenses may through loopholes, or just by their very nature, allow some level of code copying as the licensees need, into other products, and SCO is trying to plug a hole that could be undermining them? Is it a double up of what's already in the license, or a way of sneakily extending that license?

Or are they hedging bets, to give them more ammunition/evidence to sue their own customers if the IBM case fails.

Re:Why do they -need- this response from their 600 (5, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785123)

I think your drunk driving analogy is a bit extreme - you left out the words "Unix code" on that occassion. There is a big difference between "your employees contributed to Linux" and "your employees contributed Unix code to Linux". The former would be the devious legal weasel thing you imply, while the latter *is* wrong unless the license of the Unix code concerned permits this, and SCO's license does not.

It does however give them a signed document they can produce in a courtroom if one of your employees is found to have contributed some "infringing" code to Linux however. If I were one of SCO's customer's I'd be very worried they were about to pull an RIAA and start sueing the hand that pays the bills real soon now... Now *there's* the legal weasel tactic we all expect from SCO.

Re:Why do they -need- this response from their 600 (4, Interesting)

baryon351 (626717) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785155)

I think your drunk driving analogy is a bit extreme - you left out the words "Unix code" on that occassion.

Whoops. You're right there.

the latter *is* wrong unless the license of the Unix code concerned permits this, SCO's license does not.

That's the bit I didn't know and the reason I threw those thoughts together in my post, which is all quite a bit of a paranoid rant - they're my thoughts all the same.

If I were one of SCO's customer's I'd be very worried they were about to pull an RIAA and start sueing the hand that pays the bills real soon now... Now *there's* the legal weasel tactic we all expect from SCO.

Linux users, their own customers.. who next? Their ex employees? current employees?

(paranoid, yeah :)

Re:Why do they -need- this response from their 600 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785129)

Windows Rules :)

Re:Why do they -need- this response from their 600 (1)

wa5ter (628478) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785137)

Sorry to have to ask, but what's IANEAP?

Re:Why do they -need- this response from their 600 (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785170)

"IANAL, IANEAP" = "I am not a lawyer, I am not even a paralegal"

Re:Why do they -need- this response from their 600 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785189)

Sorry to have to ask, but what's IANEAP?

I Am Now Eating A Pie.

I'm not sure why the orignal poster felt the need to inform us of his diet though.

Re:Why do they -need- this response from their 600 (5, Funny)

ksquare (122606) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785212)

IANEAP - I am not even a paralegal. I believe the person at Groklaw (Pamela Jones) is currently employed in this supporting role within the legal profession. IANEAPBMSI (but my sister is).

Re:Why do they -need- this response from their 600 (5, Interesting)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785160)

In my mind Sco does criminal action. A Munich court ruled it anti-competitive, SCO Germany even had to pay a penalty, so we are secure against SCO FUD. A BSA troll used the SCO argument against Linux in a meeting in Germany, but we are more or less safe. Sco infringed basic business rules, when you are concerned about an infringement of copyright, nothing special, it happens, you don't start a public media campaign. Sco mixed up patents and copyright. Its messages to the press were intended to be misguiding.

The case shows how dangerous IPR in the hands of failed companies may become.

SCO's action has to be investigated because of capital market fraud.

Re:Why do they -need- this response from their 600 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785187)

A BSA troll used the SCO argument against Linux in a meeting in Germany, but we are more or less safe.

This sounds interesting. Do you have any more info/pointers to find more out?

I remember claims by microsoft here in Australia that Linux was anticompetitive because it was free. I thought that laughable.

Re:Why do they -need- this response from their 600 (5, Interesting)

SkArcher (676201) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785182)

The further point is that SCO don't have the right to determine what happens to copyrights held by other companies.

If a company (lets say... IBM) creates a software form which is copyrighted, they can choose exactly what to do with it. If they want to release it under the GPL, they can do that. If they want to release it to SCO for inclusion in Unix, they can do that too.

Note that, because it is possible for the copyright holder to release exactly the same code under both the GPL and another form of license, should they so wish. They can also create derivative works of the original code of theirs and distribute those derivative works as they see fit.

OpenOffice/StarOffice works on this principle, as (i belive) does one or more of the SQL implementations.

What SCO are claiming in this case is that IBM have effectively assigned all copyrights to SCO for the code in question, and/or that by licensing the code to SCO for use in Linux, the same code cannot also be Licensed for use in Linux. This is a gross misstatement or misunderstanding of the GPL and copyright law.

As copyright holders, IBM can allow anyone they feel like to use their code (including anything they have written regarding JFS, NUMA and SMP).

Note that this means that the code in UNIX does not mean that any part of UNIX will have to be placed under the GPL.

See the Groklaw Article :: The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling [groklaw.net] for related discussion.

And with that fact in mind we refer you to the RedHat case on anti-competitive practices.

Copyright is copyright (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785041)

Ever consider the possibility that they may actually have a legitimate claim?

For a group of people who make their living in software, slashdotters sure do hate it when someone el$e tries to!

yeah, yeah, I know... -1 flaimbait. *sigh*

Re:Copyright is copyright (4, Insightful)

lotas (177970) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785053)

they might have a legit clame, but they havent proved it yet

WHY DO THEY FIGHT WITH SPAM INSTEAD WITH LAWYERS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785124)

Shouldn't they sue IBM and everyone else if their claims are correct?

Why does the end-user have to be reponsible when companies stole(?) SCO's IP?

Why does it take soo long for the courts to take care of this?

And what is it with this PUMP-N-DUMP and stock quotes?

Might that be the only reason why SCO is so desperate to stay out of court?

I don't know. But it certainly meets my expectations about how the US laws/courts are functioning.

Who is financing SCO's legal bullsh*t? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785140)

It seems to be that the only effect SCO's actions could have is to discredit Linux (they can gen no money). So, who is financing SCO's actions? I can't believe these investors to be completely stupid, and therefore I can only wonder who they are and what are their goals.

Re:Copyright is copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785074)

They why don't they state that claim?

Re:Copyright is copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785087)

Since I am not a lawyer or a legal strategist, I am not qualified to comment on the validity of their strategy. My bet would be that it is not yet to their strategic advantage to fully expose their claim - that will work its way through the courts in due time. Don't jump the gun!

Re:Copyright is copyright (5, Insightful)

assemblyline (664755) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785141)

Due time! How long has this circus been going on?

Honestly, if they had a legitamate claim I would support them. But these scare tactics and Lionel Hutz style legal wrangling all seem like smoke and mirrors to raise stock prices. If as many lines of code are in Linux as they claim there are, then why keep it secret. Linux is open source so that infringing code is already in the public anyway.

Until they show me substance, my opinion about them wont change.

Assuming they are breaking it. (5, Insightful)

0mni (734493) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785080)

I'm all for copyright, and I will even support the removal of every piece of copyrighted code from linux. IF and only if it was there and they started prove it. Its not really as hard as they make it sound, it involves a highlighter and a few judges. Thats the best thing about open source, if someone makes the mistake of putting in code that is copyrighted or just plain stupid it is removed. The reason everyone is agains SCO is the stupidity of their attacks. It goes against logic (and natural selection for that matter) to fix the problem in the way SCO is. UNLESS of course they dont want the problem solved so much as want to make money from it.

Re:Assuming they are breaking it. (4, Insightful)

baryon351 (626717) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785100)

UNLESS of course they dont want the problem solved so much as want to make money from it. I think thats exactly it. SCO are doing their damnedest NOT to reveal just what they claim is in linux that shouldn't be there. They aren't trying to remedy a thing, and they've been talking about this for nearly 12 months. I suspect when they say they're "naming 65 files" that they won't name the files as in Linux, but they'll name the files -in SCO's source tree-. They'll say "You have the content of these 65 files in Linux so you must pay" with no way to check the content.

Re:Assuming they are breaking it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785121)

How many of the 65 files do you think were removed after the first year of linux development?. SCO never did say that the files were in current distributions.

No, -1, YOU_KNOW_NOTHING (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785093)

They failed to proove their claims, yet. And they failed to give an exact definition of their claims.

Until now they fought with FUD in the "Media Court" and do everything NOT to step into the real thing.

I recommend that you search slashdot for older SCO articles since you seem to have missed a lot of the past.

Re:No, -1, YOU_KNOW_NOTHING (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785114)

Just because you disagree with the legal process and their strategy doesn't mean that the parent is a Troll.

All will come out in time. They are NOT yet required to disclose their claims, and if they have damaged someone by invalid claims, then action can be taken against them! So chill out.

MOD PARENT UP (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785099)

You moderators are lame. The parent has a point. You disagree with it, and mark it as a troll.

Re:MOD PARENT UP (0, Offtopic)

RabidStoat (689404) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785154)

.. and then someone pointing out the inconsistencies of the moderation is tagged as Flamebait .. pathetic.

Re:Copyright is copyright (5, Insightful)

bunhed (208100) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785117)

Exactly and regardless, SCO's colors will come out in the wash, one way or the other. Nothing said here will change that. The danger is the damage that the linux community is doing to itself by spouting off like a bunch rabid loons. The penguin heads need to chill out and sit down and let SCO sink or swim. Really, what are they going to do, even if they are right? Linux isn't going to go away because of 2 lines or 200 lines of code. It won't go away even if they outlaw it altogether. :)

MOD PARENT UP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785135)

Hate to admit it, but you have a point there. (It could be from the tinfoil hat.)

Tomorrow? (-1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785045)

Today is the 22nd...

Re:Tomorrow? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785185)

Today is the 22nd...

A speaking clock is "2, Informative" nowadays?
I wonder if the poster would even pass the turing test!

The sad thing is... (4, Insightful)

rf0 (159958) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785046)

there stock price is going up, they will most likely make a profit and all for lying.

Rus

GOOD IDEA!!!! (5, Funny)

0mni (734493) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785110)

Everyone from Slashdot needs to buy SCO stock. But all at the same time as to not pay inflated prices. Now let's just say that all the Slashdot users put a few hundred dollars into SCO stock. Then we all co-ordinate to sell the stock at the now inflated price (once again at the same time). Not only will we all gain a few bucks from SCO but we may drive the share price down. Win-Win situation. (Oh and if this is illegal please tell me so I can spend the profit BEFORE my arrest)

Re:GOOD IDEA!!!! (1)

TheMidget (512188) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785167)

Good idea?

NOT!

Why not buy Microsoft stock, while you are at it? And short Redhat, for good measure!

You have a point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785192)

You do have a point, but I don't really want to deflate Redhat stock(quite the opposite), and I was also hoping for that good old fashioned stock price collapse we have all been asking Santa for.

Re:GOOD IDEA!!!! (4, Insightful)

jd142 (129673) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785195)

Umm, if every slashdotter bought a couple hundred dollars worth of stock, would that make us (as a group, disparate though it would be) majority stockholders, in which case we would have more pull to make them drop the suit?

I haven't done the math, but there can't be that many outstanding shares of stock compared to the number of registered slashdotters.

Impractical of course, but as long as you're talking about a coordinated effort, why not just solve the problem entirely.

Re:GOOD IDEA!!!! (4, Insightful)

sphealey (2855) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785214)

Umm, if every slashdotter bought a couple hundred dollars worth of stock, would that make us (as a group, disparate though it would be) majority stockholders, in which case we would have more pull to make them drop the suit?

I haven't done the math, but there can't be that many outstanding shares of stock compared to the number of registered slashdotters.

The majority of SCOX is currently held by insiders and various investment firms. The amount available for general trading isn't enough to gain control of the company. If FOSSers were to start buying the outstanding shares, that would only drive the price up to the benefit of Darl and Baystar.

Now, if thousands of Slashdotters were to place orders to buy at $0.50 with their brokers, that might get Wall Street's attention.

sPh

first post (-1, Redundant)

mistert2 (672789) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785047)

This should be easy to tear apart. I don't think they can stand on an attack that the victim does not know what is illegal.

NYT arcticle (for he privacy concerned) (3, Informative)

C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785048)

SCO Sends Second Warning Letter to Linux Users
By STEVE LOHR

Published: December 22, 2003

he SCO Group plans to announce today that it is escalating its campaign to collect license fees from corporations using the Linux operating system, with warning letters to the companies. Supporters of Linux, including I.B.M. and other companies, say that SCO's interpretation of its claim over Linux is exaggerated.

The letters, dated Friday, are the second round that SCO has sent to corporate users of Linux. SCO sent letters to 1,500 companies in May, warning them that it contended that Linux had violated its intellectual property rights. SCO owns the rights to the Unix operating system. The company asserts that Linux, a variant of Unix that is distributed free, violates SCO's license and copyright.

The new letters, signed by Ryan E. Tibbitts, SCO's general counsel, name more than 65 programming files that "have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted Unix code base and contributed to Linux."

The letters focus on application binary interfaces, the programming hooks by which a software application gains access to the underlying operating system. "We believe these violations are serious, and we will take appropriate actions to protect our rights," the letters state.

Letters asserting copyright violations in Linux are being sent to several hundred of its corporate users. SCO, based in Lindon, Utah, is also sending letters to many of its 6,000 Unix licensees requiring them to certify in writing that they are complying with SCO licenses, a company executive said. SCO's Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux.

The warning letters come after David A. Boies, a lawyer representing SCO, said on Nov. 18 that the company intended to single out and sue a large corporate user of Linux within three months.

The letters include an olive branch as well as a threat. "Once you have reviewed our position," the Linux letter said, "we will be happy to further discuss your options and work with you to remedy this problem."

SCO began its Linux campaign last March, when it sued I.B.M., the leading corporate champion of Linux. SCO, seeking $1 billion in damages, has accused I.B.M. of illegally contributing Unix code to Linux. I.B.M. has denied the charges.

On Dec. 5, a federal district judge in Utah ordered that within 30 days, SCO had to show the court and I.B.M. the Linux code to which SCO claims it has rights and where I.B.M. has infringed upon it.

Re:NYT arcticle (for he privacy concerned) (4, Interesting)

Dub Kat (183404) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785103)

Is anyone aware of smaller companies coming together to battle SCO if need be?

As a small company who's lifeblood depends on Linux, it'd be great if we came together to fight SCO if and when the time comes. Pooling our resources would likely work much better than going it alone. It really does give me pause when wondering what I'd do if I were the recipient of this letter.

This whole deal is aggravating to others I'm sure; we want to focus our time and energy on technology, not on what we'll do if SCO starts demanding thousands of dollars from us.

$60/Month Colocated Linux Server [aktiom.net]

Re:NYT arcticle (for he privacy concerned) (4, Funny)

TheMidget (512188) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785158)

It really does give me pause when wondering what I'd do if I were the recipient of this letter.

Indeed, a difficult question. The paper is probably far too hard and scruffy for the obvious use, unless you've got an unusually thick-skinned arse...

On the other hand, however, the letter certainly makes some nice kindling for the fireplace ;-)

65 files! (4, Funny)

LaminatorX (410794) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785201)

Gentlemen of this comitee, I have in my hand a list containing the names of 65 card carrying Communists within the Depart od ...

Excuse me, I meant to say 65 files that have been copied verbatem into the Linux kernel.

And no, I cannot actually show you the list. Revealing the files would compromise the ability of our brave pattern matching experts to compile further lists.

Good Night, and God Bless Unixware.

va lairIE desperate, reduced to 'dating' service? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785049)

must be some whoreabull lack of stuff that matters?

US, the ultimate .consumers? (Score:mynuts won, you need a date buddIE?)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 22, @05:53AM (#7784874)
now that we're 'outsourcing' the process of making things/work, we're reducing ourselves to a LIEf of leisure?

so, most of us will need only an outsourced monIE supply, to live LIEk billyonerrors/corepirate nazis?

does anywon think this is ever going to work for US?

it's easy to see why robbIE 'outsourced' his gnu 'dating' service'? who wants to hear about a bunch of lonely geekIE types who have been MiSled wonce again? how cruel can won be?

lookout bullow.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators.... the planet/population rescue mandate crisis level remains elevated. the lights are coming up now.
[ Reply to This ]
message in a badtoll? (Score:-1, Flamebait)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 22, @06:00AM (#7784887)
what can we learn about 'investing' from the MiStakes of the felonious corepirate nazi payper liesense softwar gangster stock markup FraUD execrable?

for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a badtoll that must/will be repaid by you/US, as the aforementioned walking dead contingent will not be available to make reparations, as the big flash is already underway.

'invest' in yOUR family/community, get ready to see the light.

Ignore them! (1)

DreamerFi (78710) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785057)

If those letters are indeed an attempt to get the press to look in a certain direction, then we should ignore it. Pretend they don't exist. If it's press coverage they want, then it's press coverage we want denied. So if you do have one of those letters, do NOT post them.

Re:Ignore them! (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785079)

But if we can show the press that they are talking complete b******, then that can only be a good thing.

Make the Press Work For US (1)

0mni (734493) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785157)

It would make for a much better story if each and every one of us sent a letter to SCO asking them to site the code they are talking about(offer a bounty for it if necessary), how many emails do you think it would take to shut down SCO's mail server permanently? ...Now that I think about it that all depends on how many photos of high quality ass-scannings are sent in.(I'm sending 4 as a side note)

Re:Make the Press Work For US (2, Interesting)

TheMidget (512188) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785191)

It would make for a much better story if each and every one of us sent a letter to SCO asking them to site the code they are talking about(offer a bounty for it if necessary), how many emails do you think it would take to shut down SCO's mail server permanently?

Or better yet: if each and every one who ever contributed code to the kernel (of his own, not copied from elsewhere...) would send a letter to SCO denying them all rights to use that code... Would make SCO's own distribution (Caldera?) pretty useless. Fight fire with fire!

Now that I think about it that all depends on how many photos of high quality ass-scannings are sent in.(I'm sending 4 as a side note)

Preferably, the ass shout have the SCO letter sticking out of it, for additional effect!

Proof of Open Source (1)

0mni (734493) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785216)

And once again an idea or product has been improved drastically by allowing others to view, comment and change it.

Desperation... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785060)

... is a 5 letter name: Linux!

quote discussion (4, Interesting)

powlow (197142) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785062)

quote from one of the stories :

"The new letters, signed by Ryan E. Tibbitts, SCO's general counsel, name more than 65 programming files that "have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted Unix code base and contributed to Linux.""

and

"SCO's Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux."

and

"The letters include an olive branch as well as a threat. "Once you have reviewed our position," the Linux letter said, "we will be happy to further discuss your options and work with you to remedy this problem.""

hmmm...reaching for payoffs anyone?!

Do-Not-Mail List (4, Funny)

agent dero (680753) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785063)

I would like to put my business using Linux, and all my clients on the "Do-Not-Mail" list that Congress enacted

That applies right? I don't want their telemarketing, "Register your copies of linux for only $699 per CPU"

Isn't that why Congress passed the anti-telemarketing bill right?

What next? (5, Funny)

mattjb0010 (724744) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785065)

SCO sends out Christmas cards? Does SCO stand for Santa Claus Operation?

Re:What next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785109)

more like Sorry Clowns Organization...

I'm bored with this... (5, Insightful)

svanstrom (734343) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785068)

Seriously, nothing significant will happen before trial, so why do we give them the publicity they're craving?

Sure, it might feel like "we" are fighting them, but what's the result of that fighting? Do we just spread the word that people can get sued for using Linux, or do we convince people that it's safe to use Linux?

And how come we don't hear people saying that "we" should move to *BSD while this is going on, showing SCO that we rather not use Linux than pay them?

Ok, so it isn't always easy, or even possible, to move away from Linux, but why do most people seem to think that there's just "free" Linux or "pay to SCO" Linux?

Re:I'm bored with this... (4, Informative)

tommck (69750) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785085)

And how come we don't hear people saying that "we" should move to *BSD while this is going on, showing SCO that we rather not use Linux than pay them?
Because SCO already said that they're going after BSD next [newsforge.com].

Re:I'm bored with this... (4, Interesting)

WCMI92 (592436) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785125)

And how come we don't hear people saying that "we" should move to *BSD while this is going on, showing SCO that we rather not use Linux than pay them?
Because SCO already said that they're going after BSD next.

Considering that SCO is on Microsoft and Sun's payroll, I'd think that EVERY non-MS or non-Sun OS product will be the subject of litigation, IF this travesty of a case succeeds.

And one can never tell whether it will or not. The Federal court system from top to bottom has clearly gone insane... Hell, laws can be passed now making it illegal to criticize SCO in ads 30 days prior to them having a board meeting and conference call...

Sound farfetched? It isn't. Once you've made a crack in the first amendment (Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech...), it's easier to use crowbars to widen it than it was to make the crack in the first place...

All it takes now is buying the right Congressmen. And the DMCA shows us how easy THAT is!

Re:I'm bored with this... (1)

bfree (113420) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785094)

The way I see it is they have taken what seems to be a very weak position and are trying to use spin and publicity to make it pay off! The best way to counter that is ... publicity! The stories, in particular those which can help to dismiss SCO arguments, are valuable as any good information discovered is likely to spread to other sources so more of the counter arguments are seen. Basically they are attacking a huge amount of people with this case so if they wish to have a trial in the court of public/shareholder opinion why stand down?

As for just "free" Linux or "pay to SCO" Linux, I think you miss the point that SCO have to be resisted at step 1 (Linux), rather than giving them any room to start trying to broaden it out (to BSD, OSX, Irix, *nix), and also that you never give in to terrorists, it sets a bad precedent which others will follow!

Let's not rip them apart financially (5, Interesting)

davetm (203784) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785070)

SCO's solvency may depend upon this meeting. I'd rather see this meeting go O.K. so that SCO survive and the case goes through the courts fully. That way linux is shown in court to be a good member of society.
If SCO go bankrupt before the case gets tested in court it will leave a smear on the good name of linux.

Re:Let's not rip them apart financially (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785175)

"If SCO go bankrupt before the case gets tested in court it will leave a smear on the good name of linux."

It would also be the proverbial head-on-a-stick to discourage others from attacking the community...

The post brought to you by the letters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785075)

S, C, and O

SCO hypocrits... (5, Insightful)

C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785081)

"Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux."

from a company that willingly contributed with more than a few lines of code...

mynuts won, you need a date MiSter? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785086)

US, the ultimate .consumers? (Score:mynuts won, Trolling for stuff that matters?)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 22, @05:53AM (#7784874 [slashdot.org]) now that we're 'outsourcing' the process of making things/work, we're reducing ourselves to a LIEf of leisure?

so, most of us will need only an outsourced monIE supply, to live LIEk billyonerrors/corepirate nazis?

does anywon think this is ever going to work for US?

it's easy to see why robbIE 'outsourced' his gnu 'dating' service'? who wants to hear about a bunch of lonely geekIE types who have been MiSled wonce again? how cruel can won be?

lookout bullow.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators.... the planet/population rescue mandate crisis level remains elevated. the lights are coming up now. [ Reply to This [slashdot.org] ]

Half News, Half Propaganda? (3, Insightful)

illuminata (668963) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785088)

I know that many Slashdot editors and story submitters like to put their two cents in, but this story is worse than almost any that I've seen before.

So, slashdotters, we need to find a copy of the letter and tear it apart with specificity before tomorrow morning in the US East Coast, so that any analysts/reporters will not be distracted.

This is about as bad as the stuff at indymedia.org! That's not news. In combination with the title of the story, SCO Gets More Desperate; Sends More Letters, this might as well be a political action site instead of a news source.

Michael, couldn't you just show an ounce of journalistic integrity and not accept stories with this much spin? Stating your opinion in something that's not an editorial doesn't help your credibility, either.

Re:Half News, Half Propaganda? (1, Offtopic)

mattjb0010 (724744) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785098)

That's not news.

It's olds: telling people things they already know, in this case that SCO is a bunch of wankers.

Re:Half News, Half Propaganda? (4, Funny)

richie2000 (159732) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785111)

SCO is a bunch of wankers

I disagree. Logic dictates that to be a wanker you need to have a dick, it's not enough to be one.

Re:Half News, Half Propaganda? (5, Informative)

silvakow (91320) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785152)

Michael, couldn't you just show an ounce of journalistic integrity and not accept stories with this much spin? Stating your opinion in something that's not an editorial doesn't help your credibility, either.

Pffft, Slashdot is not a news site. Slashdot links to news sites. They do no research of their own, and don't even bother verifying the validity of any of the articles. Indeed, all they have is editorial power. Remember, you're just posting a reply to a message about a news article.

Re:Half News, Half Propaganda? (0, Offtopic)

illuminata (668963) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785193)

Pffft, Slashdot is not a news site.

Then they should really change their slogan.

Or, maybe they're using that RMS style of thinking. News as in opinions about information, not news as in information. Silly me.

Re:Half News, Half Propaganda? (-1, Offtopic)

illuminata (668963) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785169)

Hmm, I lost two mod points one right after another in a matter of seconds and now I can't even get comment moderation messages. Can't get metamoderation messages (I assume they don't work). Couldn't get moderation despite having excellent karma for quite some time (until now, now it's just good). Couldn't post with my +1 bonus either. I think michael might have it out for me, what do you think?

On the topic of my parent post, I don't see how this is flamebait, it's the truth. Now, if I said that SCO was run by a bunch of assholes (which I do believe, by the way) because of what they're doing, and that we had to take action, that post would probably be moderated sky high despite being considered flamebait by whatever crazy criteria that was used to moderate this post down. It wouldn't be modded down though, nor should my parent post be. Yep, I'm telling you that there's bias around here, something that you should already know.

Anyways, keep wasting your mod points on me. You won't keep me from being noticed nor will you keep me quiet. Rah Rah Rah!

More SCOmmy behavior (5, Interesting)

WCMI92 (592436) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785097)

Looks a lot like a BSA stormtrooper threat letter to me... Certify that you are in compliance...

Yeah, like any company with a legal department, or headed by someone smart enough to consult a lawyer will send ANYTHING like that to a litigious company like SCO.

Actually, even that is wrong.. SCaldera isn't just a litigious company... All their R&D and PRODUCTION now is litigation!

If not for their friends at Microsoft, Sun, The Melinda Gates Foundation, and the idiots who keep buying their stock (Don't weep for these people when they lose it all, had they even done a GOOGLE search on SCO they'd have known not to invest) they'd have been bankrupt months ago.

Comic relief (-1, Troll)

heironymouscoward (683461) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785106)

Am I the only one who thinks SCO is like the fat dwarf in LoTR (I know he had a name, but for me he's just the "fat dwarf"), placed into the scene only to be the butt of lots of jokes?

Re:Comic relief (5, Funny)

cHALiTO (101461) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785146)

Actually, SCO is more like gollum. It's pathetic, corrupted, and still capable of doing some evil and cause harm.. but it is rotten and will not live much longer, and he may yet have some part to play in all this before the end :)

Times almost up. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785112)

Their time is almost up anyway.
Countdown! [scocountdown.com]

analysts reading slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785118)

So, slashdotters, we need to find a copy of the letter and tear it apart with specificity before tomorrow morning in the US East Coast, so that any analysts/reporters will not be distracted

I think you are misunderstanding the role of slashdot here, no serious analayst will go ahead and read tabloids and then make up his/her decision based on what he/she reads there. Slashdot is certainly fun to read, but that's all it can offer.

Slashdot sounds more dedsperate than SCO! (-1, Flamebait)

jkrise (535370) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785126)

Honestly! What has Slashdot or OSDN achieved by publishing more than 100 articles on a non-tech company? Have the Slashdot posters or the OSDN been able to actually do something constructive in dismantling SCO?

Why should we care two hoots about those 'poor sucker' investors? If people can see nothing immoral in investing in a dubious firm, a Slashdot protest-letter or 'fact-revealing' exercise is't gonna do anything good.

In fact, if it isn't immoral to make money off suckers and less-informed blokes, I think SCO is an excellent opportunity to invest money in! Better than OSDN, ,if you ask me.

The pathetic attempts to stoke response from readers, whose time could be spent writing better code - is, well, ,just pathetic. There's no need to worry about SCO for the next 18 months - atleast for lay users. Corporates who will pay money for non-existent non-proven Intellectual-Property-rights can and should take care of themselves.

There are more programmers to be saved than the bunch of sucker investors in SCO stock.

its a lost cause (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785127)

no company which actually cares about how much they spend will fold in to SCO. its not like they will be in trouble with the courts if they don't pay SCO for the right to use Linux. SCO has to prove it in a court of law before any (sensible) company will pay-up, and if any company does pay up, then they're so stupid that they deserve to!

So, Slashdotters... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785128)

So, slashdotters, we need to find a copy of the letter and tear it apart with specificity before tomorrow morning in the US East Coast, so that any analysts/reporters will not be distracted."

Jeez micheal,
I don't have any personal gripes against you or want to see SCO win on any level, but I'm a little put off that you would consider "slashdotters" potential puppets for your political regime! I personally don't have access to such documents, and wouldn't be of any help anyhow, but next time, please use more subtle phrasing, like, "It sure would be nice if someone would find a copy of that letter so we could present a reasonable, fair, and honest defense."

some say hangin's wat too gooed for the skalywags (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785171)

not sco. they're just last gasper corepirate nazi puppets, like robbIE?

slashdotting via phone (5, Informative)

sadangel (702907) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785133)

Can't wait to see if this will be the first case of slashdotting a phone call.

To hear the SCO call:
"Please join us by dialing: 1.800.289.0436 -or- 1.913.981.5507 Confirmation Code: 510065"

11:00 AM Eastern Time Monday

va lairIE/robbIE to open virtual massage parlor? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785136)

with other plans to 'outsource' the wiping of your .asps to remove any trace of stuff that really matters?

just bring some more monIE?

US, the ultimate .consumers? (Score:-1, Troll)

by Anonymous Coward
on Monday December 22, @05:53AM (#7784874 [slashdot.org])

now that we're 'outsourcing' the process of making things/work, we're reducing ourselves to a LIEf of leisure?

so, most of us will need only an outsourced monIE supply, to live LIEk billyonerrors/corepirate nazis?

does anywon think this is ever going to work for US?

it's
easy to see why robbIE 'outsourced' his gnu 'dating' service'? who
wants to hear about a bunch of lonely geekIE types who have been MiSled
wonce again? how cruel can won be?

lookout bullow.

consult
with/trust in yOUR creators.... the planet/population rescue mandate
crisis level remains elevated. the lights are coming up now.

[ Reply to This [slashdot.org]
]

  • message in a badtoll? [slashdot.org] by Anonymous Coward (Score:-1) Monday December 22, @06:00AM

    Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, comment posting has temporarily (permanently, if we could do it) been disabled. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner. If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down like with fuddle's phonIE ?pr? ?firm? bouNTy hunter scam. if you think this is unfair, we don't care.

va lairIE/robbIE's pyramid schemes coolappsing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785159)

today, it's just virtual dating/massage parlors. tomorrow, it's your .asp/the moon.

lookout bullow.

Classic case of... (3, Interesting)

Gethsemane (733524) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785143)

Its better to be thought of a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt. Personally, I would like to see SCO stand up and provide substantial claims to their suit other than a few lines of code that seem to be so generic anyone could have created them. I believe a few weeks ago a judge ordered SCO to cough up some real prrof and hopefully they run away with their tail between their legs.

Just a simple question (5, Interesting)

Advocadus Diaboli (323784) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785144)

SCO is sending letters to 1500 companies that are using the Linux operating system. May I ask where SCO got the addresses of those companies? I guess its not listed in the yellow pages that a company uses Linux. So they had to do some sort of "investigation". Could it be that this gathering of data is illegal? That its a form of industrial espionage?

Just a thought...

Header Files (4, Interesting)

femto (459605) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785145)

> ... The letters focus on application binary interfaces

Anyone get the impression that SCO is claiming that lines such as:

time_t time(time_t __timer);

in files such as time.h are violating their 'copyright'?

In that case, wouldn't it also be a copyright violation to quote the title of a book? US Law seems to be quite clear [ivanhoffman.com] that a thing like a book title cannot be copyrighted and plenty of boos share titles.

Greetz from Christmas island! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785151)

*_m_e_r_r_y_c_h_r_i_s_t_m_a_s_m_r_g_o_a_t_s_e_!_*
m_______________________________________________g
e_/_____\_____________\____________/____\_______o
r|_______|_____________\__________|______|______a
r|_______`._____________|_________|_______:_____t
y`________|_____________|________\|_______|_____s
c_\_______|_/_______/__\\\___--___\\_______:____e
h__\______\/____--~~__________~--__|_\_____|____x
i___\______\_-~____________________~-_\____|____*
s____\______\_________.--------.______\|___|____g
t______\_____\______//_________(_(__>_\___|_____o
m_______\___.__C____)_________(_(____>_|__/_____a
a_______/\_|___C_____)/______\_(_____>_|_/______t
m______/_/\|___C_____)__HO!__|_(___>_/__\_______s
r_____|___(____C_____)\______/__//__/_/_____\___e
g_____|____\__|_____\\_________//_(__/_______|__x
o____|_\____\____)___`----___--'_____________|__*
a____|__\______________\_______/____________/_|_g
t___|______________/____|_____|__\____________|_o
s___|_____________|____/_______\__\___________|_a
e___|__________/_/____|_________|__\___________|t
!___|_________/_/______\__/\___/____|__________|s
e__|_________/_/________|____|_______|_________|e
x__|__________|_________|____|_______|_________|x
*_m_e_r_r_y_c_h_r_i_s_t_m_a_s_m_r_g_o_a_t_s_e_!_*
mportant Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything

Single out one corporate? (3, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785163)

So, SCO plans to single out one large Linux using corporate for license infringement and "make an example of them". What's the bet that they will try and perform the usual predatory tactic and try and cull one of the weaker members of the GNU/Hurd? ;)

From the personals..... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785178)

52 year old obese Man looking for 5 year old YODA doll. The doll should prefrebly be greased, likes being shoved up rectums and must like being tortured with emacs key bindings such as meta+esc+pgdown-9-H

Why desperate ? (0)

habor (697329) | more than 10 years ago | (#7785197)

A easy way to make money. I think that they know it doesn't make sense this papers, but they have to make noise. Please no SCO messages anymore on Slashdot.

what we NEED to do (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7785204)

the slashdot community doesnt NEED to do anything but watch as SCO falls, and laugh when they hit the bottom. I honestly dont care if investors get "distracted" by these last ditch efforts (if that IS what they are) look at it this way, if they dont know whats up by now, what makes you think anything we do today is going to open blind eyes?
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...