Beta
×

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 Invokes DMCA, Names Headers, Novell Steps In

simoniker posted more than 9 years ago | from the ruckus-and-tomfoolery dept.

Caldera 770

Sparky writes "We've already heard that SCO have invoked the DMCA via 'letters sent to select Fortune 1000 Linux end users.' The specifics come via a copy of the letter reprinted at LWN.net - they've decided that they own the copyright to about 65 header files contained in Linux - largely errno.h, signal.h and ioctl.h." balloonpup also notes "CNet News has reported that SCO has reported a fourth quarter loss of $1.6 million, owing mostly to hefty legal fees in its war against Linux. SCO said they would have reported $7.4 million in earnings, if not for the $9 million payout to their lawyers. Way to go, SCO!" Many readers also point out a Groklaw article indicating Novell has registered for the copyrights on multiple versions of Unix with the U.S. Copyright Office, so that "both the SCO Group and Novell have registered for UNIX System V copyrights for the same code."

cancel ×

770 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Leffe (686621) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787700)

This is a good FP, I hope. 1000 comments?

Re:FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787850)

You are dangerously close to becoming the Sir Haxalot/Pingular of first posts.

wow (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787706)

I'm amazed.

At how gay you are.

FAIL IT (I)

Re:wow (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787735)

LICKING DIRTY DICKS FOR JESUS

DMCA Must gooo! its gayer than the YMCA (2, Interesting)

rkz (667993) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787709)

This article really shows why it is time for the DMCA to go. Anyone who happens to create any sort of device that someone figures out a way to use it to circumvent anything can be sued under the DMCA. (See also the Sklyarov incident.) Remember when someone discovered that you could use a Sharpie to circumvent the copy protection on a CD?
Manufacturers/programmers/whatever should never be responsible for what anyone does outside the intended uses.

Re:DMCA Must gooo! its gayer than the YMCA (4, Interesting)

bethane (686358) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787769)

The DMCA was created in the spirit that new forms of electronic media were not safe from potential copyright violations, and the act did what it set out to do. Yet it also did a great deal more as special interests and corporate schmoozers managed to get their paws on the bill and turn it into more of a "dominant market player protection act" than anything else. We all agree that the amount of innovation stifled using the DMCA as justification is staggering. Yet electronic media should also be protected from the loopholes the bill originally solved. Here are a few potential solutions:

1) Remove the current DMCA and amend it such that only specific uses of media are prohibited. Allow for the use of back-engineering tools with HARSH punishments for people who knowingly use them to break copyrighted material with intent to distribute. This leaves the burden of proof with a prosecutors instead of the "guilty-til-proven- innocent" tactics of the RIAA et. al.

2) Make a specific statement for "loser pays": anyone suing under using this legislation who loses the case pays for the legal costs of both parties. Settlements don't count, and this will outright favor the bigger players, but in the American climate of "legal attrition" as a business strategy I see no other effective means of trying to relieve this aspect of the DMCA problem.

3) Allow publications on computer security to be done freely and thoroughly if tied to legitimate academic or corporate entities. Hold computer manufacturers liable if one of their components has a security flaw that causes eggregious commercial/monetary damage but which could have been fixed by repair of one of these published flaws.

4) Ensure that American laws apply only to American citizens with the express wording that products purchased in other parts of the world which belong to the consumer are theirs to do with as they please. A clause allowing rightful action to take whatever steps necessary to use that product would be nice (mod chips et. al)

Pointing fingers makes us feel good, but unless we propose alternatives and compromises, are we really doing anything but venting? Does anyone else have potential solutions/thoughts on how to resolve this issue?

Vote bush out of office (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787852)

the DMCA was remian as Bush remains in office. In 2004, whatever you do , organize, and make people aware of the bad things this adminstration is doing, and throw your support behind the democratic nom...

Re:Vote bush out of office (1, Offtopic)

bethane (686358) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787874)

Wait a minute! We're supposed to "Take back our freedom!" by voting Democrat??

Who was in office when the DMCA was signed? Bill Clinton. Umm, what party was he a member of again?

Here's the frustrating thing. I've talked to so many self-proclaimed "Democrats" who have plenty of good ideas, but don't seem to cohesively and logically put all of it together. They'll make statements I completely agree with, but then turn around and claim that members of their beloved party are all for those statements - when they're clearly (and publically) opposed to them!

Meanwhile, yes, Republicans are really screwing up the country too, in the name of "freedom and democracy", no less.

THIS is why the Libertarian party exists! Right now, nobody who can do basic math would sanely argue that a Libertarian candidate has good odds of getting elected next term. Still, what you CAN do is research the candidates on the major 2 platforms and pick out the ones who side with Libertarian beliefs. Next election, whatever you do - DON'T just pull that lever to vote for everyone on one party! Pick and choose the people who are doing the right things, no matter what title they run under. These days, you have "Republicrats" and "Demicans", and lots of people in between.

Re:DMCA Must gooo! its gayer than the YMCA (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787915)

The solution is easy.

Get rid of the law.
Replace it with nothing.

Circumventing copyright protection should not be illegal. US copyright law grants the enduser the right to make a backup copy of any copyrighted material he owns. Also anyone is free to make copies of uncopyrighted material. The DMCA clearly violates established consumers rights.

What it amounts to is a law saying that it is illegal to pick locks. Well then what do you do if you are locked out of your house or car?

The DMCA does nothing to stop copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is illegal to begin with. Making it 'more' illegal isn't going to stop anyone who was going to commite the crime in the first place.

Say a thief is going to break into your home to steal your tv. Making it illegal to pick locks isnt really going to deter him. All it will lead to is poorly designed locks.

In short there is no reason to make a law to protect something that is already protected by law.

Re:DMCA Must gooo! its gayer than the YMCA (3, Insightful)

turbod (114654) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787794)

The gun industry is trying to get that point across as well. I honestly hope they succeed. Almost every device on the planet can be used in a nefarious manner, but it seems some opportunistic folks in the world think they should get paid by the device's creators when someone actually does something with the device that it was not intended to do.

I would disagree with you on your subject title though... not all YMCAs are plagued with moral improprieties.

TurboD

Re:SIG Must gooo! its the gay GOATSE.CX guy (-1, Offtopic)

bflong (107195) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787801)

Dude. The link in your sig is just plain evil. Very, very evil. I won't be able to sleep for a week. Every time I close my eyes, that guys streched rectum seems to be burned into the inside of my eyelids.

Re:SIG Must gooo! its the gay GOATSE.CX guy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787894)

hahaaha you got modded off-topic. suck my cock

-- rkz

Re:SIG Must gooo! its the gay GOATSE.CX guy (1, Offtopic)

turbod (114654) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787904)

Didn't your Momma tell you not to click on strange sigs?!

Long ago I quit clicking on slashdot sig links. *Especially* when it has goat in the link text :P

TurboD

Mod parent down please - goatse (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787804)

go ahead try it ...

Re:DMCA Must gooo! its gayer than the YMCA (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787809)

Manufacturers/programmers/whatever should never be responsible for what anyone does outside the intended uses.
Hi, I invented asbestos acoustical ceilings, thalidomide, and phen/fen. I never actually intended for anyone to ingest my inventions though. Thanks for the absolution!

Slylandro (1)

Leffe (686621) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787825)

The Slylandro incident... I remember that. Luckily I made peace in the galaxy.

System 7 and ancient code (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787897)

I wonder how many of these headers are from System 7 and the ancient code that SCO itself made available?

Re:DMCA Must gooo! its gayer than the YMCA (-1, Troll)

DrMrLordX (559371) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787921)

Well, obviously we should ban all sharpies then.

By the way . . . just how gay IS the YMCA? I've never noticed any homosexual people there before.

.
.
.
.
.
.

The following is off-topic, but needs to be said. Please mod this up if you actually have some courage.

Slashdot is suffering from a malaise brought on by a lack of trolls and troll exposure. Those precious trolls whom we do have are shunned by the majority and damned to live an existance with posts automatically modded -1 upon posting. Silencing trolls, however vile you may find them to be, is a travesty. We must all enjoy their unique perspectives on the issues of the day(the same goes for off-topic and flamebait posters as well).

You may wish to turn your view away from the vitriol they routinely spew forth like so much bile, but you can not have an enjoyable and enlightening experience here on Slashdot until you dare to view at -1. Most trolls are not the slobbering idiots you imagine them to be. They are cutting-edge, witty, and even charming posters that threaten to expose the weakness of your own arguments, opinions, and philosophies. They test our notions of ettiquette and challenge our prejudices on a regular basis. By shocking us, they awaken and enlighten us, IF we dare to pay heed to their words. They are gadflies, much like Socrates.

Sadly, their words often fall on deaf ears, or no ears at all(er, eyes?). They are deliberately hidden from view. This is a terrible crime against the entire Slashdot community.

So, until this injustice is somehow remedied, I recommend to you all that you browse at -1. The posts you will find are wonderful, and often quite amusing. In some cases, they can even be educational. I know that I always want to find out who got the first post! Usually it's some AC though. Blah.

You people called it upon yourselves (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787711)

If the kernel developers respected the copyright and required each submitter with CVS access to sign a written form saying that the code had not been taken out of commercial projects, none of this would be happening.

Other than that, respect the copyrights, and pay up.

Re:You people called it upon yourselves (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787742)

Darl?

Re:You people called it upon yourselves (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787755)

You probably have a good point there, but I hope you enjoy the -1 you're going to get anyway.

Re:You people called it upon yourselves (2, Informative)

ivanmarsh (634711) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787891)

There are VERY strict controls over what gets into the kernel.

This is nothing but FUD.

SCO v. Novell (1, Redundant)

cRueLio (679516) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787718)

SCO vs. Novell? Jeez, how many more companies and people are SCO trying to piss off... I wonder wtf is driving them to cause all this trouble Just my $.02

Make it BSD v. SCO v. Novell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787798)

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Fighting for a hidden IP Treasure.

Re:SCO v. Novell (4, Insightful)

pizzaman100 (588500) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787805)

Jeez, how many more companies and people are SCO trying to piss off... I wonder wtf is driving them to cause all this trouble

SCO knows that without the lawsuits they have a losing business model. If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em, and hope that 1)One of the charges stick, or 2)Somebody buys you out.

This isn't the first time that someone [rambus.com] has tried this.

Copyrighted Errors (3, Funny)

unixbum (720776) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787719)

so does this mean that my errors are copyrighted matierial?

That's what usually happens (3, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787730)

As with most lawsuits, especially ones that drag out like this, the only people that really win are the lawyers.

Re:That's what usually happens (3, Insightful)

PunXX0r (694958) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787834)

Hrm.

I doubt that I will feel that "only the Lawyers won" when SCO is a distant, unpleasant memory thanks to the IBM countersuit. In fact, I think that there will be enough win to go around for every person interested-in, contributing-to, or using FOSS.

I agree that it is much easier to over-simplify this, but let's be honest... even if it takes lawyers to crush SCO, it will be a win for everyone when they are gone.

Re:That's what usually happens (4, Funny)

Deagol (323173) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787837)

Tell me about it. I have on my desk two checks from Citibank: $0.24 and $0.35. They are the results of some lawsuit against Citibank and AT&T Universal Card.

I don't know how much I really got screwed (hell, I didn't even know there was a lawsuit -- I wonder how they even found my current adddress!). The letter states it was "not practical to provide individual caculations" for the refunds. Yeah, right!

I know sure as shit that the lawyers got a hell of a lot more than two checks totalling less than a dollar!

Re:That's what usually happens (2, Insightful)

kcornia (152859) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787888)

My wife and I were just trying to figure out how much it must have cost to create and send the check we just got for .28 from ATT.

We didn't even get to the cost for the bank to process it, we had to come to work.

I know I know, offtopic. I just found it hilarious that I got a check for 28 friggin' cents!

Re:That's what usually happens (5, Interesting)

msobkow (48369) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787870)

A lot of those delays stem from the simple fact that legal staff usually haven't got the vaguest understanding of how software is architected or compiled. They don't know that half the headers mentioned are part of ANSI and ISO C/C++ standards.

They don't know that every single platform with a C compiler since the early '80s has had an "errno.h" header file.

It's about time some limits were imposed in US courts, as in:

You have 12 months to prepare your case, unless the defending party opts to extend. Under no circumstances may the preparation extend beyond 24 months. Should your claims prove false, you will be responsible for all legal costs and damages direct and incidental, not only for the defendant, but for any business in the court's jurisdiction whose financial performance can reasonably be presumed to be affected by the accusations.

Then maybe the world can get back to doing business instead of letting these useless "IP companies" affect billions of dollars of purchase and deployment decisions, without fear of repercussions for their fraud.

Big Red takes aim (4, Interesting)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787732)

This is just novells first step.

The next step will be their own series of letters to SCO reminding them of their contractual obligations to Novell.

I worry it could be worse (4, Interesting)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787869)

Novell might be thinking: "Hey, if the millions of legal fees actually produce some settlements for SCO, we can ride their gravy train with no investment at all; If a judge rules that someone owes SCO money, we will be owed that very same money. That would be money for nuthin, who can turn that down?"

So, I hope Novell has their heart in the right place. But really, this depends on the judges. To sue over header files is so damn crazy, the real winners are obviously the people who ran off with $9 million in legal fees. What did the lawyers tell SCO that made them think this is a good investment when the case is so absurdly flimsy? That must have been a home-run sales pitch!

If you don't have a product sue! (3, Interesting)

mpost4 (115369) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787734)

I doubt that they are lossing money only over the lawsuit. Also the info for erron could be derived by other methodes, it would be considered comman knolage for all unix programmers, so if they had to implement a compatablity layer, they could do it from memory.

also with Novel's Copyright on it, it seams to me that Novel's came first, so SCO could be a nice target if (big IF) they win this case, it has seamed to me that Novel does not want to see this case go though.

SCO is a dead company that just wants to be bought out, and they did not get IBM to buy them out liked they hoped.

Re:If you don't have a product sue! (4, Interesting)

willtsmith (466546) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787802)

SCO just keeps getting funnier every day. I've stopped being angry and have chalked it all up to entertainment.

The fact that they are now claiming copyrights on HEADER FILES is the ultimate testament to the weakness of their cases.

I mean, how could one re-engineer APIs without replicating headers. If Linux is in violation, than BSD must be in violation as well. They should be suing Apple.

Re:If you don't have a product sue! (4, Informative)

mpost4 (115369) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787812)

Well in one of the articals they clame that there is a deal that BSD is alowed to use them but not linux. But you are still right it is BS

Worst spelling, EVAR! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787815)

lossing - losing
erron - error
methodes - methods
comman - common
knolage - knowledge
compatablity - compatibility
seams - seems
seamed - seemed

Re:Worst spelling, EVAR! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787884)

Thanks, reading that post hurt my brain...

Re:If you don't have a product sue! (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787828)

If you don't have a product COMMA sue!

I doubt that they are lossing money only over the lawsuit. Also the info for erron could be derived by other methodes, it would be considered comman knolage for all unix programmers, so if they had to implement a compatablity layer, they could do it from memory.

also with Novel's Copyright on it, it seams to me that Novel's came first, so SCO could be a nice target if (big IF) they win this case, it has seamed to me that Novel does not want to see this case go though.

SCO is a dead company that just wants to be bought out, and they did not get IBM to buy them out liked they hoped.

IBM will likely buy Novell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787842)

for their Suse/Ximian Linux technology and just as a side-effect it will render this SCO lawsuit moot.

Re:If you don't have a product sue! (1)

erlenic (95003) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787853)

Actually, if I remember correctly, Darl said in the conference call this morning that they generated cash from their UnixWare products either in the third quarter of FY2003 or the entire year (I forget which.)

clue me in.... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787736)

arent the headers (especially some of those, like errno.h) published publically as ISO/ANSI C and/or UNIX Definition documents? Hence, if they look similar, it's because they're defined standards from various standards committees? Perhaps someone should point out the document name and number and page numbers.

Re:clue me in.... (5, Insightful)

Maul (83993) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787781)

This letter is designed for PHB's who will look at it and then look at Linux and say "Crap! errno.h IS in Linux," not people who look at it and think of defined standards and realize that SCO is stooping to the lowest levels in order to keep their schemes going.

Re:clue me in.... (5, Interesting)

msgmonkey (599753) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787826)

Generally all those C/Unix headers come under general umbrella of POSIX compliance. I think what they are saying is that the files are directly lifted from BSD and that the settlement with BSD forbode redistribution.

This is strange in that 1) the full outcome of the settlement was sealed AFAIK and 2) the headers in question are licensed under the BSD license which would have been known of in 1.

Like has been mentioned earlier by many people here, maybe SCO want to re-open the BSD case as this seems to be there only line of defense.

Re:clue me in.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787865)

The doctrines of waiver and delay probably scuttle any chance they have of reopening the BSD decision. IANAL, though.

Re:clue me in.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787867)

Like has been mentioned earlier by many people here, maybe SCO want to re-open the BSD case as this seems to be there only line of defense.

So Linux can simply call itself a BSD UNIX - case closed.

Re:clue me in.... (2, Insightful)

PineGreen (446635) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787892)

Well, probably, the problem is, however, that all the comments are exactly the same, so it is unlikely two people would come with exactly same description... i.e. the errno.h has things like:

#define EPERM 1 /* Operation not permitted */
#define ENOENT 2 /* No such file or directory */
#define ESRCH 3 /* No such process */
#define EINTR 4 /* Interrupted system call */
#define EIO 5 /* I/O error */
#define ENXIO 6 /* No such device or address */
#define E2BIG 7 /* Arg list too long */

etc. So if you say "arg list too long", instead of say, "too many arguments" in all comments, it is very likely that the actual .h was stolen... Not that I want to support SCO...

SCO (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787739)

I really *HATE* these fuckers.

first post? OoO (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787747)

IIRC, Doesnt novell own the unix copyrights, and SCO merely has the rights to them under contract? How is this news? SCO doesnt "own" squat.

Law is Hard (5, Funny)

moehoward (668736) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787749)

This stuff is too complicated for me to understand. Why didn't a slashdot editor add a quirky, sarcastic, biased comment so I would know how to think?

I don't want to read all those links. Is there any way that I can make fun of Microsoft based on any of this? That would make it easier. TIA

Re:Law is Hard (0, Offtopic)

destiney (149922) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787883)


Awesome post :)

Wish I had mod points.

Pull troops out of Iraq... (3, Funny)

Genghis9 (575560) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787752)

...and deploy them to SCO headquarters. There are WMD's (weenies of mass dumbness) in that building and they have to go, NOW!

I named a header once. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787756)

Named it Frank.

Why Linux is doomed (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787765)

SCO owns it and Linus stole it from them. Theft is not fair. There will be justice and vengeance, in the name of the Lord and America.

A more fun (accurate?) version of this posting... (4, Funny)

coupland (160334) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787767)

"We've already heard that SCO have invoked the winged minions of hell via 'voodoo dools shaped like the CEOs of Fortune 1000 companies.' The specifics come via a photo of a doll made to look like Samuel J. Palmisano of IBM - they've decided that they own the souls of about 65 CEOs running Linux - largely IBM, HP and Ford." balloonpup also notes "CNet News has reported that SCO has reported a fourth quarter loss of $1.6 million, owing mostly to hefty witchdoctor and soothsayer fees in its war against Linux. SCO said they would have reported $7.4 million in earnings, if not for the $9 million payout to the Prince of Darkness. Way to go, SCO!" Many readers also point out a Groklaw article indicating Novell has been praying for the souls of CEOs running Linux with the Holy Catholic Church, so that "both the SCO Group and Novell have claimed the souls of the same people."

I feel so dirty but... (5, Interesting)

nocomment (239368) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787771)

GO NOVELL! GO IBM! :-) It may seem strange, but I really am feeling some sort of loyalty to these two companies. I am way more likely to use them in future than I think I would have before the whole SCO debacle. Although I'd still never ever in the coldest darkest hour in hell use netware or AIX again(blech).

AIX (ot) (1)

mekkab (133181) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787803)

Sorry, but I love AIX. I like Kernel Extensions, I like the CDLI interface, I like the AIX trace facility, I like it all.

Re:AIX (ot) (4, Insightful)

finkployd (12902) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787878)

Same here, but I would contend that AIX really shines in huge enterprise settings, which most people have never come in contact with and do not really see the benefits of it.

Finkployd

Re:I feel so dirty but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787844)

It has probably been a long time since you have used NetWare, but you should check out v6 and v6.5--they are quite impressive. And despite anyone's claims on here, NetWare is still fully entrenched in governement and educational institutions--for good reason.

Re:I feel so dirty but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787896)

That's why they can now offer you SuSe linux and Ximian products. Netware still rocks BTW..

Re:I feel so dirty but... (1)

Hayzeus (596826) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787905)

Clearly, you've never done any NLM development...

9 million? (5, Insightful)

westcourt_monk (516239) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787773)

I love it... 9 million to lawyers, -1.6 to report to it's investors and they are no where. If they win I imagine they stand to make 10x whatever they pay for lawyers but how much do they have to put out before it is not longer worth the risk?

The investors must be getting worried.

Hats off to Novell (0, Redundant)

An0maly (448481) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787774)

Beautiful. And props to whomever submitted my SCO fix for the day.

login.h (5, Funny)

mios (715734) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787779)

I think I'm going to file a claim that I own a copyright to login.h ... this way, everytime anyone logs into their system I should be entitled to some roylaties ... this should work ...

checking out insider holdings (5, Interesting)

greechneb (574646) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787783)

Larry Gasparro is the last to cash out with nearly $500k in December - Look at the latest holdings of the insider roster

BENCH, ROBERT K.
Chief Investment Officer
8-Oct-03 214,243 Shares Left

BROUGHTON, REGINALD CHARLES
Senior Vice President
17-Sep-03 95,000 Shares left

GASPARRO, LARRY
Vice President
10-Dec-03 0 Shares Left

HUNSAKER, JEFF F.
Vice President
13-Aug-03 20,494 Shares Left

OLSON, MICHAEL P
Vice President
11-Nov-03 47,330 Shares Left

WILSON, MICHAEL
Senior Vice President
14-Jul-03 0 Shares Left

WILSON, MICHAEL SEAN
Senior Vice President
15-Jul-03 0 Shares Left

Notice How little the insiders still actually own (Aside from Robert Bench)? Smells fishy to me

Re:checking out insider holdings (5, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787847)

I've been practicing to be a psychic so let's see how I'm doing so far...

I see these men having big problems with the SEC in the future.

Re:checking out insider holdings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787857)

Insider trading is illegal isnt it :D

They have some explaining to do.

Just file a complaint to the SFO.

"Header" files (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787786)

Funny, Darl didn't mention it the other night when he was giving me header files..?

Distract the sharholders (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787787)

Using the DMCA is nothing more than an attempt to distract the shareholders from the almost 2 million dollars that SCO just lost.

Ruckus and tomfoolery, indeed! (5, Funny)

FunWithHeadlines (644929) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787788)

Poor SCO, no one takes them seriously any more. "We own Linux-- er, UNIX, um I mean, some of it, or do we Novell? And we're going to sue everybody in existence for theft-- uh, copyright violations of this code-- oops, not that code, don't look at the man behind the curtain, we mean this code over here -- what? not that code either? OK, I mean these header files -- um, you can't copyright ideas, you have to patent them, and we have plenty of patents -- we don't? Well, we'll be threaten-- um, sending letters to our partners (aren't you happy to be doing business with SCO?) telling to to keep their noses clean and line up for a nose inspection -- what, Novell just copyrighted the same stuff we claim to have copyrighted? Don't tell the judge that! Yikes! What's our stock doing now?! Quick read this press release about, um, yeah, that's it: we just got DDoSed, um, Again! Yeah, that'll work....what's that you say? How much are we paying our lawyers for this nonsense? It's contingency, people, don't worry. Contingency all the way...except for the huge fees we pay along the way...and 20% of the company...but otherwise not much -- and yes, that just wiped out any chance of profits in this quarter, but don't worry, next quarter the legal fees go up and we still don't have any licensees yet. But step right up with $699 and you can be the first on the block to say you got rooked--, uh squared yourself with the law-- um, not really the law, with our lawyers, yeah, that's it."

hey, pass the popcorn please! (1)

tuxette (731067) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787789)

This is becoming very entertaining! And it's a lot better than the Christmas crud they're showing on TV now!

TEH GHEY HAS STRUCK AGAIN (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787790)

Fucking SCO fags

not just Linux... (5, Interesting)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787792)

SCO has now asserted ownership over not just Linux, but every single C/C++ compiler out there, and every OS based on C, including the BSD variants and all the other versions of Unix out there.

Re:not just Linux... (3, Funny)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787864)

Next, they'll be asserting ownership over stdio.h and Hello,World.

#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
printf("Hello, Darl\n");
return (0);
}

Hey, did I just violate a SCO license?

Re:not just Linux... (4, Funny)

EricTheGreen (223110) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787868)

This is just step #2 in their master plan. The final claim will be ownership of the '\n' character.

What an odd business model (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787796)

SCO said they would have reported $7.4 million in earnings, if not for the $9 million payout to their lawyers.

So SCO has changed from a technology company to an employment agency for lawyers? I'd be interest to see what the step was just before "Profit!"

Re:What an odd business model (5, Funny)

RetroGeek (206522) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787879)

I'd be interest to see what the step was just before "Profit!"

??
Profit!

Re:What an odd business model (2, Funny)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787880)

Lobotomy?

With great power... (5, Funny)

Quixadhal (45024) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787807)

...comes great responsibility.

If SCO wants to claim ownership of things in errno.h, then I want monetary compensation for each and every segfault, since they are now SCO's responsibility, not mine!

Boy, no more having to double-check pointers in my code, whoo hoo!

DMCA vs Godwin's Law (5, Funny)

NialScorva (213763) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787810)

There needs to be some equivalent to Godwin's Law for the DMCA. How does "Given enough time, all legal battles in the tech industry will invoke the DMCA. This generally means that all constructive arguments have ended."

Hrm? Facinating (3, Interesting)

downix (84795) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787811)

SCO is claiming that those headers were retrieved from BSDi. Well, there are folk out here that know more about headers than I, where did they come from?

Also, someone told me once that the BSD and GPL licenses were not in-exclusion, but that they could co-inhabit the same code. BSD has one set of limits, namely giving of copyright notice while GPL has other limits tied to it, but they were not mutually exclusive.

Re:Hrm? Facinating (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787903)

I don't know about other people, but my copies of those header files came with my copy of Caldera(R) OpenLinux(tm)! So I guess that means I'm immune to their lawsuits. And look! They gave me the right to redistribute them too! I'll have this whole thing cleared up in a jiffy.

Even better news from SCO SEC filing (5, Informative)

zzabur (611866) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787817)

Revenue from SCOsource licenses is expected to be minimal in the first quarter as the Company finalizes license agreements with vendors and continues to implement its intellectual property license initiative...

...Operating expenses relating to the Company's UNIX business are anticipated to remain flat during fiscal 2004. Expenses associated with SCOsource initiatives are expected to increase in fiscal 2004 as the Company pursues and expands the scope of its legal strategy to enforce and protect its UNIX intellectual property...

If the above information is correct, SCO revenue in Q1/2004 will be around 15 M$ and net loss could be >5-10 M$. It seems they don't get more money soon, they will be out of business before summer.

Re:Even better news from SCO SEC filing (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787907)

Depends how much of their $70m bribe is left.

SCO admitted ABI code was GPL (5, Interesting)

cmcguffin (156798) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787819)

In this interview [mozillaquest.com] from February, SCO themselves claimed the ABI code was GPLd:

MozillaQuest Magazine: Regarding binfmt_coff, abi-util, lcall7, abi-svr4, abi-sco; are any of these modules SCO IP?

Blake Stowell: No, none of the code in the Linux ABI modules contains SCO IP. This code is under the GPL and it re-implements publicly documented interfaces. We do not have an issue with the Linux ABI modules. The IP that we are licensing is all in the shared libraries - these libraries are needed by many OpenServer applications *in addition* to the Linux ABI.

I listened to the call (5, Informative)

El_Smack (267329) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787821)

After seeing the number posted on /., I dialed it up and listened. I have to say that, even though I know what they are doing is messed up, they put some very posive spin on thier situation, albiet that is the purpose of this conference call.
One of the first questions in the Q and A period was "If I pay the $699, do I have rights to use the source and continue to run Linux?" Darl very neatly sidestepped half the question and answered "Yes, you can continue to run the binary (emphasis mine) within the agreement."

From that, I take it that if you pay, you can run the kernel, but they won't say you can play with it.

Is it enough to change the comments at the top? (4, Insightful)

BerntB (584621) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787829)

SCO's only argument is that free distribution of errno.h (etc) is allowed -- but not with a GNU copyright header?!

It should then be enough to copy the BSD comments in the beginning and replace the copyright on errno.h, signal.h, etc.

Or?

(As another user noted, errno.h et al are also parts of ANSI standards for C...)

Otherwise -- thanks, SCO -- finally I might get a kick on my backside to take the trouble to install and try OpenBSD! :-)

Dear Santa (5, Funny)

neurojab (15737) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787839)

Dear Santa,

My christmas wish is for the SCO stockholders to wake up and realize they're being taken for a ride. That way the rest of the world could get on with their lives without worrying about being bitten in the ankles by Daryl McBride. For Daryl, I wish a long stay in the relaxing resort for his kind of folk known as Utah State Prison. I wish for him a large roommate named Bubba.

Peace.
An ordinary Linux user.

The smear continues (4, Interesting)

crimethinker (721591) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787840)

Can't you just feel the love?

The company has not made available for export, directly or indirectly, any part of UNIX covered by their agreement to any country that is currently prohibited from receiving supercomputing technology, including Syria, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and any other such country, through a distribution under the General Public License (GPL) for Linux, or otherwise.

That's right, boys and girls, the GPL is a tool for TERRORISTS and COMMUNISTS!

Every day I see SCO's stock price and I mutter to myself, "it's just not fair."

-paul

Could I use that excuse? (4, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787845)

SCO said they would have reported $7.4 million in earnings, if not for the $9 million payout to their lawyers.

Damn, can I use that excuse? I would have been in the black this month if I had not had to pay my bills. But seriously, this really tells a great deal of SCO's financial picture. Their money is running out. Their legal bills are mounting. This letter is nothing more than it appears: Desperation to get any last revenue that they can get.

On another note, has anybody looked at the headers that SCO has mentioned. I'm willing to bet that some of them are legacy to BSD not SCO.

HAHAHAHAAHAH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787854)

MUAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

this is so darn funny. I own headerfiles.. I own idea of compilation.. I own computer languages.. I own english.. hahahahaahahah

drinking game: (4, Funny)

gotem (678274) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787855)

take a sip everytime the letter says "copyright"

The FreeBSD file says: (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#7787862)

From /usr/include/sys/ipc.h

* Copyright (c) 1988 University of Utah.
* Copyright (c) 1990, 1993
* The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
* (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
* All or some portions of this file are derived from material licensed
* to the University of California by American Telephone and Telegraph
* Co. or Unix System Laboratories, Inc. and are reproduced herein with
* the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
*
* This code is derived from software contributed to Berkeley by
* the Systems Programming Group of the University of Utah Computer
* Science Department.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

The Linux code I just looked at is lacking the copyright notice like the above.

If taken from BSD or SYSV, it is a licence violation because of clause #1.

Novell can now sue SCO! (5, Interesting)

codepunk (167897) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787871)

Now isn't this funny, Novell can sue SCO former Caldera for copyright and contract breach. Caldera placed the old SYS V code under a open source license and made it available for download. So what gave Caldera the right's to do this if the code is Novell's?

Makes for Interesting Thought!

This is worth a lawsuit?! (2, Funny)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787882)

Error numbers, IO control function names, and abstract type specifications? Repeated 6 times, once for each platform?

This is a joke. Less than a joke - this is like the framework of a joke, without the topics or punchline filled in. It's like Microsoft hiring Yakov Smirnoff [yakov.com] to sue anyone on Slashdot who had a .sig that could be seen as somewhat like his humor style.

Ryan Fenton

TTV, behind the code. (2, Funny)

Libertarian_Geek (691416) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787889)

When all of this is said and done, TechTV needs to do a "Behind The Music" style documentary. Just let your imaginations run wild on this one. How about some ideas? Darl with a bad comb-over talking about how the technical community turned their backs on him during his cry for help. An exclusive interview with Tux.

HA HA HA, SCO! (2, Funny)

herrvinny (698679) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787890)

Wow, two SCO stories in one day. It might be better just to dedicate a brand new /. section on sco (sco.slashdot.org or caldera.slashdot.org, etc).

Yes, SCO is definitely going down. Anyone have new ideas on what I should put up on SCO Report [ibmlawsuit.com] or SCO Countdown [scocountdown.com] ?

errno evil, cno evil, signal evil (1)

bunhed (208100) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787900)

tune in next week when darl claims copyright on /dev/null and all computer dates since 1970...

#define COPYRIGHT NULL;
#define SCO SIG_HUP;

Look at the monkey! (5, Insightful)

Zelatrix (18990) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787901)

Claiming copyright on this list of files is so nonsensical, it must be a distraction tactic.

After all, SCO have already stated that 2.2 does not infringe.

So what are we supposed to not be looking at at the moment? Oh look, the quarterly financial statement just got published. And even booking revunue on shipment rather than payment (along with other dodgy accounting practices) couldn't stop a net loss.

Something crooked is going on here. This letter is an irrelevance.

Breakdown (5, Funny)

chaoticset (574254) | more than 9 years ago | (#7787919)

Profit for SCO's lawyers: 9 million
Earnings for SCO: -1.6 million
Watching SCO die and set a precedent for anybody who tries stupid legal things with Linux: Priceless
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>