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!

Novell Releases SCO Letters

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the legal-chest-thumping dept.

Caldera 424

cyxs writes "Here is Novell's page with letters that have been sent back and forth between Novell and SCO. Very interesting read."

cancel ×


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

FP! (0, Funny)

devphaeton (695736) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963334)


As the Stomach Turns, so do the days of our SCO life!

I do not understand? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963430)

SCO. What is it all about? Is it good or is whack?

Re:FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963454)

speaking of stomach turning, your [] options [] are [] endless []


Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963516)



krog (25663) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963551)

the parent post is a mirror of

Re:FP! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963700)

On this hyar date we look at th' histo'y of wo'd "Nigger" in South Car'lina. This hyar expresshun still remains at th' center of anti-Black vahbal disto'shuns.

Th' histo'y of th' wo'd nigger is offen traced t'th' Latin wo'd niger, meanin' black. Shet mah mouth! This hyar wo'd became th' noun negro (black varmint) in English, an' simply th' colo' black in Spanish an' Po'tuguese. In Early Modern French niger became negre an', later, negress (black woomin) was unmistakably a part of lexical histo'y. One kin compare t'negre th' derogato'y nigger an' earlier English substeetootes sech as negar, neegar, neger, an' niggo' thet developed into its lexico-semannic true vahshun in English. It is probable thet nigger is a phonetic spellin' of th' white Southern mispronunciashun of Negro.

Whutevah its origeens, by th' early 1800s it was firmly established as a dejunerative nickname. In th' 21st century, it remains a principal symbol of white racism, dawgone it. Social scientists refer t'wo'ds like nigger, kike, spic, an' wetback comes fum three catego'ies: dispareegin' nicknames (chink, dago, nigger, etc); explicit group devaluashuns ("Jew him down," o' "niggerin' th' lan'"); an' irrelevant ethnic names used as a mild dispareegement ("jewbird" fo' cuckoos havin' prominent beaks o' "Irish cornfetti" fo' bricks thrown in a fight). Racial slurs haf vickimized all racial an' ethnic groups; but, no South Car'linan group goes through as menny racial nicknames as haf Blacks: coon, tom, savage, picanniny, mammah, buck, sambo, jigaboo, buckwheat an' mo'e. Menny of these slurs became fully developed pseudo-scientific, literary, cinematic, an' ev'ryday disto'shuns of African South Car'linans. These caricatures, whether spoken, writ, o' reprodooced in media, an' material objecks, refleck th' extent, th' vast netwawk, of anti-black prejudice.

Th' wo'd nigger carries wif it much of th' hatred an' repulshun direcked toward Africans an' African South Car'linans. Histo'ically, nigger defined, limited, an' mocked all Blacks. It was a term of exclushun, a vahbal jestificashun fo' discriminashun. Whether used as a noun, vahb, o' adjeckive, it reinfo'ced th' stereotype of th' lazy as a houn'dog, stoopid, dirty, wo'thless nobody. No other South Car'linan surname carries as much purposeful malice. Th' follerin' sho'tlist is impo'tant info'mashun.
Niggerish: Ackin' in a lazy as a houn'dog an' irresponsible manner. Niggerlippin': wettin' th' end of a cigarette while smokin' it.
Niggerlovah: Derogato'y term aimed at whites lackin' in th' necessary loathin' of blacks.
Nigger luck: 'Ceptionally fine luck, emphasis on undesarved, cuss it all t' tarnation.
Nigger-flicker: A small knife o' razo' wif one side heavily taped t'presarve th' user's fingers.
Nigger hevvin: Designated places, usually th' balcony, whar blacks were fo'ced t'sit, fo' example, in an integrated movie theater o' church.
Nigger knocker: Axe han'le o' weapon made fum an axe han'le.
Nigger rich: Deeply in debt but flamfellaant.
Nigger shooter: A slin'shot.
Nigger steak: A slice of livah o' a cheap piece of meat.
Nigger stick: Po-lice officer's baton, as enny fool kin plainly see.
Nigger tip: Leavin' a small tip o' no tip in a restaurant. Nigger in th' woodpile: A corncealed motive o' unknown facko' affeckin' a situashun in an advahse way.
Nigger wawk: Demeanin', menial taxs.

FIRST POST (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963342)


OMG SCO IS TEH SUCK LOL!!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963343)

HAHA Micro$soft suxx0r!!!

ha. . .wait.


Re:OMG SCO IS TEH SUCK LOL!!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963385)

looooooooooooolz, WTF!!1! LOL LAMERZ

SCO IS ON TEH SPOKE!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963500)


"The one thing I could never stand about SCO... all the goddamned living-undead bloodsuckers!!!"

first (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963352)

first one to respond! SCO rules!!

Snippet too Short. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963357)

I don't have time to read the letters. Will someone please pick out good tidbits and reply to this. Thanks!

SUMMARY: (-1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963419)

SCO wins the IP lawsuit, buys GNU and FSF for eight dollars and a six-pack of Mountain Dew. Darl McBride makes RMS his bitch, Linus becomes his maid. Bill Gates is crowned Emperor of the Universe and crushes most of the Linux-using troglodytes. The remaining Linux users move out of their parents' basements, get American programming jobs and begin earning money to pay $699 licensing fees for what is now known as "SCO/GNU/Lunixware" and continue to insist "it's better than Micro$loth Winblowz kthnkzlol"

Re:SUMMARY: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963523)

WAY funny! I think the Linux geeks that move out of their parent's basements are working at American based call centers servicing Indian consumer markets.

Next News (4, Funny)

OpCode42 (253084) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963382)

Darl claims that Novell released the letters to them, and sues Novell for copyright violation.

Egad (-1, Redundant)

musikit (716987) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963383)

holy slashdoting batman we like these guys don't flood them.

Re:Egad (-1, Flamebait)

eln (21727) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963467)

Novell may be on the right side in this particular fight, but since NetWare is the scourge of the Earth, I don't know that we should go nuts here and say we "like" them.

Re:Egad (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963494)

But Novell never should have sold the source to SCO in the first place. They are SCO-enablers.

Re:Egad (1)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963559)

Especially since the zip of all the pdf's is 44.6 MB. Anyone wanna post text of the interesting ones, or perhaps a summary?

Re:Egad (3, Informative)

mahdi13 (660205) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963679)

Or convert them to text and gzip them...
PDF is WAY over used and should be band from text-only use. Leave PDFs for flyers/presentations/manuals

Re:Egad (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963578)

Ya know, I'll bet Novel has enough server power to take it, the're not running this off some box on a DSL line...

Re:Egad (1)

Lovepump (58591) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963632)

I managed to get 61 bytes down before it started timing out...

Re:Egad (1)

robslimo (587196) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963624)

Bit Torrent link, please?

I'd setup a tracker once I get'm down, but I'm behind a NAT box.

Sluggish already, and the files are PDF (-1, Offtopic)

The One KEA (707661) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963388)

It would be nice if these could be republished as HTML or OOo files - then you wouldn't have to download them or futz with plugins.

/. Effect (1)

Moth7 (699815) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963405)

It's alright, the story's been up two minutes - we aren't able to read them either way ;-)

Re:/. Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963669)

get xpdf

Re:/. Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963709)

Link "litigious bastards [] " to on your webpage!

I have a way better idea. Link to "", so that the techs looking at that web server's logfiles will get a laugh.

Re:Sluggish already, and the files are PDF (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963428)

It would be nice if these could be republished as HTML or OOo files - then you wouldn't have to download them or futz with plugins.

You know, it's jackasses like you that give open source a bad name. Seriously, it's not enough that they're fighting your battles for you, so you have to bitch and moan about what format they post their documents in?


Re:Sluggish already, and the files are PDF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963683)

Have to agree with the parent, what's wrong with them releasing the documents as pdf? You can get pdf readers for every platform and people are more likely to have a pdf reader available than OOo.

Next someones going to insist they won't read the documents unless they're encoded as Ogg.

Re:Sluggish already, and the files are PDF (1)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963429)

The pdf files would be okay if they'd compressed them a bit better when saving them. There's no need for a two-page letter to take up 1Mb.

Text files on Groklaw (5, Informative)

mflaster (702697) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963453)

Many of the letters have been reformated as text on Groklaw []

We can Slashdot them instead... :-)


Re:Sluggish already, and the files are PDF (2, Informative)

Dave2 Wickham (600202) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963481)

When I started downloading (before it was posted) it was slowish - 19.7KB/s. It's currently downloading at 17.3KB/s, so not that much difference...

Re:Sluggish already, and the files are PDF (1)

rakaz (79963) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963666)

About 8 hours ago I was downloading the files at over 80 KB/s, then the story appeared on Groklaw and it dropped to about 4 KB/s. Despite several attempts I stil haven't been able to download the zip of the copyright registrations... Finally the speed was getting a bit better and then the site receives a proper /.ing... Thank you very much :)

Why aren't we done with this? (5, Interesting)

yukster (586300) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963391)

Wasn't SCO supposed to reveal their cards a couple days ago? Haven't seen a lick of news about that... maybe they missed the deadline cuz all the executives have fled to tropical islands without extradition treaties.

Re:Why aren't we done with this? (5, Informative)

Moth7 (699815) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963452)

Or maybe they actually gave the evidence - you don't normally see the huge (or otherwise) dossiers of collected for a trial in media until maybe after the trial as ended. Just because somebody is interested doesn't mean it will change. In fact, it would probably do SCO better to keep it closed so that we can't go grepping through the source tree to find these alleged infringements.

Re:Why aren't we done with this? (2, Insightful)

lynx_user_abroad (323975) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963455)

maybe they missed the deadline cuz all the executives have fled to tropical islands without extradition treaties.

That's not how it's done anymore. These days an executive will just buy an overly large and overly expensive house in Florida, declare bankruptcy (the house is shielded), sell the house and live off the proceeds.

Re:Why aren't we done with this? (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963610)

No your house isn't shielded. You are sheilded from loosing basic assets that allow you to continue to make a living. But while you won't lose your house, if there is any equity in your house, that equity will be pulled out to give to your creditors.

Re:Why aren't we done with this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963490)

Why would the executives flee with extradition treaties? Perhaps you would have been better writing :

all the executives have fled to tropical islands which don't have extradition treaties.

Re:Why aren't we done with this? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963620)

READ The Fucking Post you jackass.

Re:Why aren't we done with this? (5, Informative)

gowen (141411) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963522)

Wasn't SCO supposed to reveal their cards a couple days ago?
They did have to disclose to IBM. But IBM now have to plough through whats been disclosed before reporting back to judge, who then gets to decide if thats satisfactory. Next court date: 23rd January.

*Then* we might now.

Re:Why aren't we done with this? (1)

cshark (673578) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963605)

My favorite part was the way Novell was "acting on behalf of SCO [] " in regard to SGI. It's funny.

Awesome (2, Funny)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963395)

I don't have time to read them now because I'm working, but now I have something extra to look forward to when I get home.

Novell, the enemy of the enemy of my enemy who is the enemy of my greater enemy, is my friend, I think.

Great... (-1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963487)

>Novell, the enemy of the enemy of my enemy who is the enemy of my greater enemy, is my friend, I think.

Thanks a lot dude, now I'm going to lunch with a freakin' headache.

Re:Awesome (1, Offtopic)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963592)

Why? Having trouble sleeping lately?

danke, I be hea all da veek.

mirror mirror (1)

stanmann (602645) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963402)

I know it isn't usually kosher to mirror, but 23MB of pdfs is huge vs the 100k of txt that is actually there... or even converted to jpg or tiff.

Re:mirror mirror (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963427)

Fruitarians eat Fruits.

Re:mirror mirror (1)

tommck (69750) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963466)

Mirror them as text then...

Re:mirror mirror (1)

stanmann (602645) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963483)

I can't even get to them, and I don't have webspace that will stand a slashdotting.

Re:mirror mirror (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963590)

Most have already been posted as text under the comments relating to this at Groklaw.

Re:mirror mirror (3, Informative)

lynx_user_abroad (323975) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963529)

...23MB of pdfs is huge vs the 100k of txt...

This is equivalent to saying "you don't need the source, the binary is all you'll ever need." Presumably Novell did this so that if there was something in the letter which wasn't accurately represented by a text-only rendering of the letter, they couldn't be accused of having knowingly stripped that off.

Besides, some karma-whoring AC[1] will post the text conversion by the time I get this response posted anyway.

[1] I know, no such beast.

And SCO plays copycat again (4, Informative)

Carl (12719) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963406)

Interesting how quick SCO seems to be able to move when the cat is already out of the bag:

SCO Purchases Specific Novell Assets []

Wish they were so quick with pointing out what contract/copyright/trade secrets, if any, are actually violated by anybody they accuse of doing so...
When are the Red Hat and IBM cases scheduled for resolution anyway? This whole thing is going on for far to long. Why does it take so long to resolve these issues through the courts...

Re:And SCO plays copycat again (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963541)

Why does it take so long to resolve these issues through the courts...

Because there more outstanding cases than people in the US.

Obligatory Groklaw link (5, Informative)

Farmer Jimbo (515393) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963415)

As is usually the case with SCO related news, Groklaw [] is picking the information apart [] . For now most of it is transcriptions of the pdf's, but also some first blush analysis.

"obligatory *" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963460)

-1 Redundant.

Why don't editors put in the groklaw links to keep these useless karma whores down?

Re:"obligatory *" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963503)

To keep groklaw from being slashdotted.

Re:"obligatory *" (2, Insightful)

Farmer Jimbo (515393) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963530)

Why don't editors put in the groklaw links to keep these useless karma whores down?

Beats me. I think every SCO related article here should also link to Groklaw's analysis of the story. As for karma or mods, whatever.

site was "groklawed" earlier (5, Informative)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963431)

But here's some text to chew on:

(b) Buyer shall not, and shall not have the authority to, amend, modify or waive any right under or assign any SVRX License without the prior written consent of Seller. In addition, at Seller's sole discretion and direction, Buyer shall amend, supplement, modify or waive any rights under, or shall assign any rights to, any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect by Seller. In the event that Buyer shall fail to take any such action concerning the SVRX Licenses as required herein, Seller shall be authorized, and hereby is granted, the rights to take any action on Buyer's own behalf. Buyer shall not, and shall have no right to, enter into future licenses or amendments of the SVRX Licenses, except as may be incidentally involved through its rights to sell and license the Assets or the Merged Product (as such term is defined in the proposed Operating Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit 5.1(c)) or future versions thereof of the Merged Product.

(from section 4.16 of the Asset Purchase Agreement). Novell was doing a license audit in 2Q 2003.

Interesting read, but not as good as this (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963434)

:l ll llll l llIHHHHMMMMHHII:I:IHMMHAl lVHMHHHI:' '' '':,
QWl:llllllllll ll l llllQW:HHIIHHHHHHHIIHMMMHI:' 'VIQWll l l ,
QWl:lllllllllllll ll l lllAHIHIIIIIHHHIQW""' 'VII:ll ll l
QWl:l:llllllllll ll l lllHHHIIIIIIHHHIQWl l 'VIIQWl l l ,
'QW:l:l:lllll ll l l l ll:MHHIHIIIII:IQWl l 'VIIQW:l ll l
QWQW:l:ll:llll l l l lllAHHHHIHIIIIQW:l l 'VIIQW:l l l :l
QWQWQW:l:lllll ll l llllMHHHHHIHIIIQWl:ll l 'VIIQWl l QW
QWQWQWQW:l:llll ll llll:MHHHHIHII:IQWQWlll l 'VIQWl l QWI)
lQWQWQWQWQW:l:llll l lAMMHHIHIII:IQWQWlll l l IQWl lll:-"
:lQWIQWQWQWQWl:l l llMMMHHIHIIII:IQW:lll l l lQWl ,ll-"
:ll:II:IQWQW:l:ll l llMMMHHIHIIIIIII:IQWllll l l llQW""'

*fap fap fap* (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963515)

ooh baby.

that's some hot stuff.

the fact that it was modded down to -1 just goes to show that slashdot is gay. had it been a gigantic wang of some sort, it would be +5 homo-erotic.

Re:*fap fap fap* (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963567)

It looks like a map of New Jersey.

Are you governor Jim McGreedy, by any chance?

License Agreements? (1)

jbottz (708060) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963438)

Maybe it's just me, but isn't it interesting that SCO is apparently attempting to circumvent the purchase agreements by including language in the licensing agreements giving them rights they previously may not have had? I for one would love for someone to post a copy of or link to the SVRX license agreement.

Re:License Agreements? (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963511)

Here. []
Note that there's several licenses involved; I'd just download the whole zip file.

And here is my letter to SCO, for the records... (3, Funny)

Eric_Cartman_South_P (594330) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963439)

-------------begin archive-------------

Dear SCO,

Fuck you, your wives, and your bastard kids.

-------------end archive---------------

Re:And here is my letter to SCO, for the records.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963513)

And your pets!

Er, wait.

SCO's response. (5, Funny)

EvilStein (414640) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963689)


Already did. You're next, penguin boy.

Love, Darl


Slashdot loves you (4, Funny)

Christoff84 (707146) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963447)

After the slashdotting novell receives today, they will know for sure that they have slashdot behind them 100% in the drawing, hanging and quartering of SCO.

Re:Slashdot loves you (-1, Offtopic)

Moth7 (699815) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963658)

Are you so sure? We have slashdotted some pretty nasty people in the past ;-)

The name on the copyright registration (5, Funny)

scumdamn (82357) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963448)

Sue Goodwill does anybody else find that a funny name given the circumstances?

Re:The name on the copyright registration (3, Funny)

madprof (4723) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963667)

That's SCO's next action!

PDF's are being converted to text at Groklaw (5, Interesting)

The_Ronin (202785) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963451)

Groklaw already has been translating the PDF's into text as well as providing some good commentary.

From the looks of it, it appears that Novell is about to hit SCOX with a breach of contract suit. Additionally, the letters point out that the MS and SUN contracts should pay 95% of the amount to Novell.

With that in mind, it appears that SCO has lied on their latest earnings statement (fraud) as well as withheld information from Bay Star, etc...

SCO is in a lot of touble.

Hard to discern much.. (4, Informative)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963457)

It would be useful to have a copy of the asset purchase agreement in front of you, since these letters mostly refer to it in their arguments. Luckily, it looks like it's been OCRed and put up on Groklaw at here [] . The letters in isolation don't really make much sense, hard to figure out who's blowing smoke and who's not.

Summary from Groklaw (5, Interesting)

Carl (12719) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963458)

Grin. The following summary from groklaw seems to sum it up nicely. 30 20257821

May 12, 2003, SCO: We own UNIX. Those Linux thieves stole it. Now we are going to make them pay!

May 28, 2003, Novell: Your letter annoyed us. You don't own UNIX, we do.

June 6, 2003, Novell: Stick to the facts and stop threathening us.

June 6, 2003, SCO: We do own UNIX, stop telling everybody you own it. You did that on purpose on the same day as our earning annoucement. We also want to know what IBM told you and what you told IBM.

June 9, 2003, Novell: You can't just terminate IBM's license, so stop claiming you will. We do have the right to tell you what to do, you know.

June 11, 2003, SCO: We do own UNIX and we can do what we want. Stop telling everybody we can't, or else...

June 12, 2003, Novell: Come on, you can't be serious. When we signed the contracts we promised IBM you could not terminate the license. We at Novell keep our promises.

June 12, 2003, SCO: Okay, now you've done it. You didn't listen, so now we are giving IBM permission to keep using AIX. You may not like it, but it the way it is. The license will not be terminated!

June 18, 2003, Novell: Our press release about the copyrights coinciding with your earnings annouchment was purely coincidental. We do not want to hurt you, we are just protecting our interests.

June 24, 2003, Novell : You signed contracts with Microsoft and somebody else. You can't just do that without telling us first. What's up with that? So, we demand to get copies and demand that you do not do this again. Once we have the copies we will determine if you have to give their money to us instead.

June 26, 2003, Novell: You keep telling you own the patents and copyrights of UNIX. We do acknowledge you had the right to acquire 'some' of the copyrights and we are still looking into it how much exactly you are entitled to. In any case, you do NOT own the patents.

July 8, 2003, Novell: Please stop bothering our former executives.

July 11, 2003, Novell: You haven't paid us in 6 months, cough up the money! Also, we are definitely going to audit your ass.

July 17, 2003, Novell: We don't like you. You tell people lies. You thought you couldn't do that, so we didn't pay. Luckily for you we determined you could do that, so we will pay. Also, regarding the audit; we're busy, please come back later.

August 4, 2003, Novell: We noticed you registered the UNIX copyrights. We do not agree with that. You had to demonstrate you needed the copyrights and you didn't do that. Tough luck, the copyrights are still ours!

August 7, 2003, Novell: You withheld our money! No mather what your reasons are, you can't do that. We want assurances that this will never happen again. Compy!

August 20, 2003, Novell: You know what, we have a technology license agreement. We want copies of the source and binary code for all versions of UNIX and UnixWare. We tried to call, but you never called back. We want the code and we want to know when we can have it.

September 10, 2003, SCO: We don't agree with your interpretation of our contracts. You are conspiring with IBM to destroy us. SCO is not going to let this happen.

October 7, 2003, Novell: You seem to think that AIX modifications made by IBM are subject to restrictions. Sorry, but that is simply not true. IBM owns their own code and can do with it what they like. Stop bothering IBM.

October 7, 2003, Novell: You seem to think that IRIX modifications made by SGI are subject to restrictions. Sorry, but that is simply not true. SGI owns their own code and can do with it what they like. Even if SGI did contribute UNIX code to Linux, it was very small amount of code and it was removed very quickly. This simply does not warrant terminating SGI's license, so stop threathening that you will.

October 7, 2003, Novell: We heard you are going to send invoices to Linux users. We just want to let you know that the Technology License we talked about also allows our customers to use UNIX technology. By the way, because you are not the company we signed the contract with (a "Change of Control of SCO"), the restrictions of sublicensing and distribution are also not applicable anymore.

October 9, 2003, SCO: We paid Novell $150 million and we expected to get something in return. If we believe that what you said we would get far less than we thought we would get. That is not fair, and simply can't be true. We have been harmed by Novell's uninformed and unfounded claims. Any further attempts to harm SCO or its shareholders will be dealt with aggressively.

October 10, 2003, Novell: We said you didn't own IBM's own code and you didn't listed. Now we are telling IBM they own their code on your behalf. We can tell you what to do, you know.

October 10, 2003, Novell: We said you didn't can't terminate SGI's license without our permission. You are still threatening to do so, while you know we will not give you permission. So now we are telling SGI that their license is still valid on your behalf. Once again, we can tell you what to do.

October 13, 2003, SCO: You can not do that on our behalf.

November 19, 2003, Novell: You are publicly claiming that us buying SuSE violates a non-competition provision. We had to learn about this in the press, why didn't tell us yourself. Also, after looking at the agreements, we certainly do not agree with you. You are trying to disrupt our planned acquisisiton. We reserve the right to hold you liable for any damages.

November 21, 2003, Novell: Our audit teams requested information from you. We still have not received this information. We need to have it before we can close the audit. We also want some other information about amendments and modifications to SVRX licenses, new SVRX licenses and SVRX to UnixWare conversions.

December 23, 2003, Novell: We heard you are demanding SVRX licensees to issue certifications. The questions you are asking are not allowed according to the Asset Purchase Agreement. You are simply harrassing customers. You did not even consult us, while we get 95% of the revenues of those customers. Stop it!

December 29, 2003, Novell: We still haven't received the information we need to complete the audit. We want an answer before January 12th.

Januari 2, 2004, SCO: I've been on vacation, didn't have time respond to your letter from December 23. We are going to look into it... next week.

Januari 7, 2004, SCO: Okay, I've looked into it and we do have the right to ask for certification. We will continue to protect the assets purchased from Novell.

Re:Summary from Groklaw (5, Informative)

Troed (102527) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963517)

July 17, 2003, Novell: We don't like you. You tell people lies. You thought you couldn't do that, so we didn't pay. Luckily for you we determined you could do that, so we will pay. Also, regarding the audit; we're busy, please come back later.

That doesn't make sense until you replace Novell with SCO.

Correct, the July 17 letter is from SCO (2)

rakaz (79963) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963595)

I was a bit too quick when I originally posted this summary on Groklaw. I really should have proofread... There are also some really awful spelling mistakes in there.

Check out the oct 10,2003 letter... (1)

runfaster (687790) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963470)

Novell waives SCO's rights on SCO's behalf... :) These are pretty funny to read...

SCO sues the star of! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963477)

Lindon, Utah -- AP: In a surprise legal move, Darl McBride, President of SCO, has announced his company's intention to pursue legal action against the man made famous by the trollporn website, Goatse [] . Apparently, McBride claims that he, back in the 1970s, took the trademark of being "nothing more than an asshole" for himself, and now finds that Goatse, who's distended anal opening has made many a GNAA member abuse themself, is infringing upon this.

"We can clearly see here [] that Goatse is nothing more than an asshole. A big, sweet, juicy asshole like Bill (Gates) tells me that I have when he makes me his bitch and gang-rapes me with Steve-o Ballmer," McBride said.

Goatse could not be reached for comment.

bah! (1)

J_Omega (709711) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963493)

Sorry, no room to mirror 23M of pdfs. blast! In $ news,

Novell's current marketing model (4, Informative)

Dark Paladin (116525) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963497)

Type 1: We now do Linux. This is one I like, since it's something I've hoped for some time: take Novell's kick ass administration tools (granted, last time was Netware 4.1-5, so maybe the new Java/web interface sucks, but I loved the old NWadmin tool and plugins), and mix it with Linux (powerful, free as in freedom, and has more configuration text files than most junior admins know what to do with).

I also like how they aren't going to "change" SuSE (at least, not yet). Their best bet would be to use SuSE as a development crew - moving things ahead, keeping a separate product (rather than wrecking it the way WordPerfect pretty much was), and incorporating it's advances into Netware [insert whatever number here] as an "added value Enterprise product" - much like Fedora versus Red Hat Enterprise.

Type 2: We will indemnify you. This doesn't bother me too much - after all, SCO is playing "Big Bad" to Linux out there: "Use Linux, and we will sue you." Novell is providing some legal peace of mind. Granted, you have to buy their "new" product, but my feelings are horribly hurt by that - after all, they have to pay for the scum sucking evil hearted - I mean, laywers after all.

Type 3: We actually own the UNIX copyright. This ties into Type 2 in a certain respect, only without lawyers. This is to give current SuSE and other Linux customers less fear. Basically, it boils down to this:

"We know that SCO says they own the UNIX copyright and because of that they think they can get money from you for anything Linux.

"Bullshit. The fact is, Novell still owns the important copyrights, and we won't sue you. See? We're nice.

"Please buy our products."

Type 3 doesn't bother me that much either, since it at least appears to be "We're nice people - honest!" Granted, they are still an amoral corporation which pretty much means they're not doing it out of the charity of their hearts but because they want to make a buck - but you have to admit *right now* they're at least showing more class than SCO.

Either way, I'm not concerned. I figure about 12-24 months from now, this will all go away when the lawsuits finally fail and SCO and such run out of money to pay the heartless gutter snipes - I mean lawyers, President Richard Simmons will be in office with the War on Fat, iTunes Music Store will enjoy brief market domination before being the aliens arrive from Zardon VI and eradicate the earth when they learn we've evolved lawyers.

Or - something like that. Just my opinion.

One last thought (1)

Dark Paladin (116525) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963534)

Of course, Novell is also riding the journalist gravy train - SCO's stock price is up mainly because investors are buying "lottery tickets" - the more they are in the news, the more some investors think they'll make the "big bucks" if SCO wins a court case.

So as long as SCO is in the news, Novell probably figures to ride on their coat tails and get practically free advertising.

YOU FAILED IT. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963609)

Actually if you would've just done your research [] you'd see that Novell's stock has been steadily climbing for practically the past year anyway. It's not like they were fishing for bogus inflated prices. Nice try though.


What is obvious is that.. (0)

mccormick (40772) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963498)

I'm sure, having actually managed to be the one to get his slashdot story submission accepted, he had a thorough read through of the letters and hence the "interesting read" part is an informed comment.

SCO court date? (1)

jonathanduty (541508) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963512)

I'm confused? Why are we still talking about that. Wasn't SCO suppose to show evidence last week? Did they? Or has the judge bitch-slapped them? Does anyone have the status on that ruling and SCO's actions to fufill it?

Re:SCO court date? (2, Informative)

rumblin'rabbit (711865) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963656)

IBM is assessing the information, and will present to the court on January 23 their opinion on whether SCO has fully complied with the discovery request. If IBM says SCO has not complied, SCO gets to explain why they have complied, and so on and so forth.

Well I'm shocked (4, Funny)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963524)

None of the Novell letters to Darl start with "Dear Mush-For-Brains;".

Re:Well I'm shocked (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963591)

you're funny.


The impact of the lawsuits in our enterprise (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963526)

I've been working in IT field for nearly 30 years and I have to admit that SCO's action have left me dumbfounded. It would be wiser for McBride to perpetuate the release of Open Source operating system vis-a-vis in order to accentuate the capability contained within them.

I'm currently on assignment at a multi-national fabric manufacturer which is currently transitioning their IT operations to India (payroll, research, and marketing support). We would have deployed several Linux server had it not been for the imminent threat of a potential SCO lawsuit for our consulting firm. Instead we have been deploying Solaris and Mac OS X for the satellite locations.

We are investigating some way of outsourcing the database servers, so we have not given up hope on Linux.

Which is nice.

TEH REAL REASON. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963568)

You would have deployed several Linux servers except those ragheads kept on spilling "Curry in a Hurry" on the damn GPL.

Re:The impact of the lawsuits in our enterprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963706)

Then Microsoft has won. Anything that slows Linux helps Microsoft.

We know. But that's the wrong story. (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963557)

Yeah, we know. It was on Groklaw yesterday.

The real news is that SCO had a deadline to disclose to IBM, "with specificity", exactly what the claimed infringements are. That was yesterday. Neither IBM nor SCO has announced anything.

On January 23rd, there will be a hearing on whether IBM is satisfied with what SCO disclosed. Then we'll know quite a bit more.

Dissertation on the uselessness of Linux zealots (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963563)

A spectre is haunting the world -- the spectre of the Linux Zealot.

What the Linux Zealot is will appear evident to whoever has experienced or came in contact with the discussions which daily rage the Web disguised as news, e-mails, reference material, etc. The Linux Zealot, is nothing but an animal wandering unceasingly in virtual and true reality (which moreover he treats in the same way) claiming to be an authority on the Linux operating system, an out-and-out guarantor for everyone's freedom, opposed to any safeguard of intellectual works (for a Linux zealot, the expression "copyright" is tantamount to sin against the Holy Spirit: there is no kind of expiation); in fact, he champions software freedom as a fundamental point for world evolution.

But first and foremost, the Linux zealot is a deeply dangerous being as he claims to be the guardian of truth, and looks with suspicion (when it goes off well) or scorn (for the rest of cases, i.e. most of them) those people who simply think differently from him.

But what's Linux? A Linux zealot will never give an authentic answer to this kind of question. He won't, not because he doesn't want to (even if this is the case), but because this question has been answered already, somewhere else by someone else. Linux is nothing but an operating system. The Linux zealot will claim that it is a different operating system from all other ones. But this is not the case. Because an OS is an OS, its main function is to manage the resource of a machine we will call "computer" from now on, for comfort of description. By the term "computer" we mean what is commonly meant by this expression, i. e. the system of hardware resources which are fixed to a certain purpose, be it home use, business use, or server management. Linux is an operating system. Like Windows, MS-DOS, OS/2, etc. There is no difference, in this sense, between Linux and other operating systems. Linux manages a computer, no more, no less. So do MS-DOS, Windows and OS/2. What the Linux zealot self-importantly and arrogantly highlights, is the fact that Linux is a free operating system, i.e., it is made available free of charge to the end user. This of course isn't true at all, but the Linux Zealot believes it. Linux is freely distributable, not free of charge. This means that the kernel and everything included in the operating system's minimal requirements can be freely distributed, not that they must be distributed free of charge. This is the first great misapprehension of the Linux zealots, who find their claim challenged by facts: if the essential parts which make the operating system, and some additional software, are freely distributable, they should explain the reason of the costs -- not prohibitive but certainly notable -- of the most popular Linux distributions, Red Hat and SuSE foremost. And most of all, they should explain the fact that companies like Red Hat are regularly listed on the stock exchange, and Mr. Linux Torvalds enjoys a rather high standard of living. These benefactors of mankind, these software alternatives, these computer non-conformists (so much non-conformist as to be terribly conformist in their non-conformism) naturally justify the distributing companies' profits with excuses like "but there's a printed manual", "but the bundled software is qualitatively and numerically superior compared to the most popular distribution". "but it is easier to install" and other unspeakable nonsense. "On the other hand" they say "if someone wants Linux, they can just as easily download it from the Internet". Sure. Download it from the Internet. But how long must you stay connected, if you regularly pay an Internet bill, to complete the download of an updated version of a decent distribution of an operating system? So what? Is Linux free? No. Linux is not free, same as nothing downloaded from the Internet is free, unless you have access to an University server or can in whatever way scrounge a connection. If you ask a Linux zealot to burn the material you are interested in, he will do so with great disappointment, and at least he will ask the money for the CD back, or will invite you to make a donation to the GNU project, another sublime decoy produced by the zealots' ingenuity.

Why don't Linux zealots explain what Linux is and how it works? Simply because it is characteristic of the Linux zealot to be self-sufficient, to be content with what he himself (as a single person or as a representative of the collective entity of this operating system's users) makes. In this, the Linux zealot is wholly equivalent to the modern religious cults, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, or the ones of the last century, like the Mormons. The Linux zealot never asks anything outside of what the Linux world makes inside itself, in fact, he gets all the angrier everytime he has to deal with news, questions and inquisitiveness from the outside world. In this case, one cannot say that the Linux zealot be on par with his co-religionists of the Kingdom Hall. In fact, when Jehovah's Witnesses are asked questions by an external person, they are glad, they try to explain, they're inclined to a dialogue, and they bring themselves into question. If they don't have a sure answer on the question of the Trinity, they say: "Sorry, I can't answer you now, but I'll of course think about it, perhaps we'll meet in a few days and I'll give you an answer based on something firmer than my personal hypotheses". It's a fair attitude. Saying "I don't know" when someone asks us something is a good start. You stop, you collect informations, you work out, and then you go on. Insted the Linux zealot doesn't do so, he refers you to his literature, and that's it.

Hence, to the question "What's Linux?", which can be replaced by an appropriate number of other questions on the subject, according to the interlocutor's interest, the Linux zealot will always answer referring you to something others wrote for him, showing not only unparalleled pride and haughtyness, but especially a clear inability to reason for himself, seeing his stubbornness to persist putting forward solutions which are found inside documentation or manuals written by someone else. If moreover you approach the Linux world through the gateway of the so-called "external" (e.g. manuals bought in a bookstore, books or publications which aim to explain the Linux operating system and phenomenon to "people"), you will be looked upon with scorn, because for a Linux zealot, anything dealing with Linux which was not produced inside the Linux official channels does not merit consideration. If, for instance, you are looking for a manual and you find one of these books (absolutely useless in most cases, one must admit) which cost at least $ 50, containing step-by-step instructions for Linux installation and usage, possibly with an obsolete CD attached, and decide to pick it up, the true Linux zealot will give you his usual scornful look, and will say you were ripped off, as there are some wonderful tools on the Internet, which are called "Linux Documentation Project", which were written by a lunatic who had the wonderful idea to get the writer's cramp and gather up a ponderous work where, of course, you won't find any answer to your questions, and in addition, it's free. Do you have a SuSE distribution and don't know how to install it? Don't be frightened: you won't find a solution in the Linux Documentation Project. Never mind though; the work is ponderous, someone got the brilliant idea of making it available free of charge (and hitherto it's entirely their own business), but it's not necessarily valid. Should you try printing it, what with the paper and the ink cartridge -- not to talk of the printer itself, which may well be a write-off in the end -- you will spend a lot more that the dead tree book and CD you had set yourself to buy.

One cannot see why the Linux zealot has to look up and down anyone who commits the crime of not applying to the usual informative circuit of truth distribution. It's as if the mafia got angry at a drug addict who took detoxification instead of applying to his usual dealer for his daily supply of illegal drugs. In the Linux world, everything which is approved is legal. In this sense, the Linux zealot has no differences whatsoever with the Holy Inquisition or with the Imprimatur Commission of the Holiest Romanest Apostolicest Churchest.

Because what one does verify, is that Linux is a hard-to-use operating system, at least in the install phase. Especially if one wants to make it cohabit, at the start, with another OS with better-known features, waiting until one is more familiar with it, one must know what a partition is, how to create one, how two operating systems can safely coexist, and so on. But the Linux zealot doesn't explain this, he doesn't want to. "There are loads of explanations and publications; if one doesn't know what to do, he should refer to these and he'll find the solution to his question. If he doesn't, it's an indicator that he hasn't understood some basic concepts, and he must go a step backwards before carrying on". It's a very peaceful and logic wiewpoint on the surface. On the contrary, it's extremely violent and disrespectful. It's violent because one quietly calls the user an idiot without taking direct liability for what one says. It's disrespectful, because every user is different, and everyone has different requirements from time to time, from machine to machine.

What the Linux zealot never understood and will never understand, is that it's the user who chooses the available resources he needs, out of how he needs them, and out of how he can use them, there are no ready-made solutions which fit everyone. This is why the Linux philosophy is losing and will never gain ground, because it's not respectful, it's angry, it's gloomly and worryingly contentious, it demands others to adapt without being content with adapting to others' requirements. The Linux zealot doesn't proselytize those who are interested in using Linux, even if just to see how it works; the Linux zealot crusades against all other operating systems, especially Microsoft's. If someone doesn't agree with the way Microsoft work, distribute, and sell their software, or with their already unchallenged domination over the market, it's fair that he should create his own alternative channels, but it isn't at all fair that he demand others to comply. If a Windows user asks a Linux user about a malfunction he found in his operating system (Windows, not Linux), at the very least he will be answered that Windows is an OS that doesn't work, that it can't be OK, that Bill Gates sells his products and that these products are paid even if they're included with a computer. Among the Linux zealots, there are, inter alia, the mysterious figures of the Microsoft conscientious objectors, i.e. those who buy a computer, demand a bare machine, and ask for the operating system money back, pointing out that they're free to install what they want on their computer. With the result that the storekeeper understands he has a PITA in front of him, and sells the computer to someone else who doesn't make such a fuss, or sells the bare thing to him, making however a profit on the sale of the operating system he retains to himself, and will sell underhand to someone else. This is the great illusion: the Linux zealots think they've put a "system" under check, but the system keeps working even without them, or rather better, because from the business point of view, the less headaches the better. The saying of the Linux zealot is not "people have the right to do what they want" (in which case one cannot see why he gets so angry on those who use Microsoft products, as they also are doing what they want!), it is "I do what I want and the world must see and must know". Indeed. But one doesn't see why. One doesn't see why the world ought to know that a Linuz zealot uses Linux, same as one doesn't see why it should know that Linux exists and is free. If someone chooses to buy an OS which costs money, but allows him to do stuff more intuitively, one doesn't see why he could not. It's exactly like people who can't ski, and instead of plunging on the slope and snowploughing, they pay for the lessons of an instructor on the beginners' slope. The idiocy of the Linux philosophy appears particularly in the claim of free circulation of the OS and software in question. It's not by chance that Linux is a very common operating system in anarchoid environments. And when one speaks of anarchoid environments, one means precisely "anarchoid", not "anarchist". These who respect freedom do not force their truth on others' choices.
Windows crashes on you? First of all, you must reformat your hard drive and install Linux. You can't use an operating system without a GUI? Don't be afraid, Linux has an extremely heavy-to-load ugly-as-hell user-friendly interface, which will solve every problem for you, by shamelessly copying Windows. So then, we might just as well keep using Windows, which at least we know, and has a more pleasing look. You know, Linux zealots are especially angry by nature, and they object to this remark that there's no reason whatsoever to use Windows. If they need a word processor or a spreadsheet, there are free ones for Linux, without need for Office: in sum, Linux has everything you need to manage anything, so why insist on using something you must pay for when there are other applications which are free? The answer is simple: because it's not their own business. But they don't know this, or rather, they pretend not to. Choices are no longer personal: everyone can use what he wants, as long as he uses
what they want.

One of the objection which most frequently is made to the Linux zealots is that Linux is a hard to learn OS, that one must be a programmer, or anyway, know a lot about programming, to modify the source codes of freely distributed programs. Linux zealots use to answer, with the snooty self-importance which sets them apart, that Linux is a software made exactly for these in the know. So why on earth do they want Linux to be accessible to the humblest of users? If one can't program, if one can't use Linux, why should he be forced to use it? The answer is very simple again: because otherwise Linux zealots get angry and take it as a personal offence. Same as the fact that there are some people who develop software for whichever OS and sell it making a profit from their work is a personal offence. Again, the solution is only too simple, one doesn't need to bother Dr. Watson to find it: as copying software without permission is a crime in most countries, instead of attacking the law, they attack these who profit from it. These people clearly have never bought a newspaper in their life, when they go to the bookstore, they walk up to the pay desk with provocative and know-all attitude, and start saying: "A book cannot be intellectual property of the author, but of the people who read it".

For them, the intellectual work does not exist as such, but as a collective work. They wanted to make a free OS? Indeed, and they even want us to thank them. We can. Provided that they leave us, at last, in peace. Laughing.

A short summery - SCO is cooking it's books! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963573)

Basically, Novell says that it's owed 95% of the revenue from the Microsoft and Sun licensees (hmm, SCO already gave a good chunk to the lawyers, oops), and that SCO has failed to make expected payments on revenue from other Unix source licensees (double oops). They want their money, which basically would cut SCO off at the balls.

SCO says that they have the right to enter into new kinds of agreements and that the Microsoft and Sun licenses are not revised versions of the previous unix source licensing arrangements, so Novell can go pound salt.

Novell asks SCO to stop harassing Novell's customers (all existing Unix source licensees) and trying to ammend contracts they have no rights to ammend, threatening to terminate liceneses for IBM and SGI that only Novell has the right to do so, being a general pain in the a**, and that generally SCO are a bunch of lying cheats (yes, it's all in there, fun reading).

SCO doesnt say anything about being lying cheats, but claims Novell's Unix source licensees are their licensees, even though Novell has a 95% revenue interest, and SCO receives 5% "commission".

In short, this correspondence provides a foundation for Novell to say SCO is in violation of the original Unix purchase agreement, and could form the basis for Novell to have SCO's rights to Unix terminated. Since SCO knowingly failed to list money potentially owed to Novell on either their earning statements and their official SEC filings, or the potential risk to loosing most of their recent income, SCO is probably in deep sh*t SEC-wise, which probably explains the mysterious exit of that SCO employee in charge of doing the SEC filings right before their last earning report was do. Naturally he would not wish to be the one to sign a false earnings statements.

I guess looking at this, Bubba will soon have a new "Mc"-bride at club fed.

Asset Purchase Agreement (5, Interesting)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963601)

From the letter dated 12 June 2003, from Novell and IBM:

Accordingly, pursuant to Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchace Agreement, Novell, on behalf of The SCO Group, hereby waives any purported right SCO may claim to terminate IBM's SVRX Licenses enumerated in Amendment X or to revoke any rights thereunder, including any purported rights to terminate asserted in SCO's letter of March 6, 2003 to IBM.

This, in a nutshell, is Novell withdrawning SCO's right to terminate IBM's license, which was reported last year on Slashdot [] . What I really want to see, however, is the ubiquitous Asset Purchase Agreement, which appears in both this letter and most of the other ones; the whole dispute (at least, between SCO and IBM) appears to hinge on this agreement. Unfortunately, the agreement will probably never see the light of day, for reasons of corporate confidentiality.

Re:Asset Purchase Agreement (2, Informative)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963644)

Unfortunately, the agreement will probably never see the light of day, for reasons of corporate confidentiality.

I correct myself! SCO has just published the Asset Purchase Agreement [] . Thanks to Carl [] for pointing this out in another post.

Interesting that the music industry is mentioned. (5, Interesting)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963645)

In the letter titled: "Letter to Linux Customers" and SCO's lawsuit against IBM" from SCO to Novell (and other Linux customers), Daryll says:

"Similar to analogous efforts underway in the music industry, we are prepared to take all actions necessary to stop the ongoing voilation of our intellectual property or other rights."

And in response to the specific piece Jack Messman says in his response:

"In your letter, you analogize SCO's campaign against the Linux community to that of the record industry against major corporations whose servers contained downloaded music files. There are crucial differences between the two campaigns. The record industry has provided specific information to back up its allegation, while SCO steadfastly refuses to do so. In its allegation letter, the record industry provides evidence of allegedly infringing activity that is specific to the targeted company. This offers the company real notice of the activity, sufficient information to evaluate the allegation, and an opportunity to stop the activity if it determines the allegation is true. If SCO wants to compare its actions to that of the record industry, it should follow the example set by that industry and present specific evidence of the alleged infringement."

At the very least, read this entire response [] from Novell to SCO regarding it's letter to Linux customers. Jack has pretty much voiced *all* the concerns that the Slashdot community has come up with in a direct letter to Daryll.

Simpsons... (0)

frodo from middle ea (602941) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963659)

Comic book guy says "Shortest Story Ever"

You've GOT to be kidding me! A .zip file ?? (-1, Flamebait)

pair-a-noyd (594371) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963671)

A freaking winbloz .zip file? From Novell/Suse?

Haven't they heard that REAL men .tar.gz it??

Damn, I mean I would expect .zip files from SCO, but from Novell??

This should calm the fears of many (5, Informative)

WebTurtle (109015) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963678)

IT managers and and other executive decision makers who have been nervous about all the warning shots fired between the battleships in this war of words can finally feast their eyes on tangible evidence demonstrating the untennable position of Darl McBride.

In particular I point to the letter dated 12 Jun 2003 from Novell to SCO regarding the Asset Purchase Agreement between the Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. and Novell, Inc., September 19, 1995.

In this letter, Jack Messman pretty clearly identifies the absurdity of Darl's claims be referring to very specific portions of the Asset Purchase Agreement, which give IBM "irrevocable" rights, and states that Novell also retains certain rights, over which SCO has no say.

Darl, I don't think this is even a close call. You and I both understand the Asset Purchase Agreement deal: SCO acquired certain assests from Novell but acquired thos assets subject to certain rights of Novell. You can't have one without the other.

[...] Novell takes its contractual commitments seriously. When we enter into or amend a license to make it "irrevocable," we mean what we say, and we expect our customers to be able to rely on what we say. We ask you to do the same.

Now, I ask you, does this not sound like a man who is sure of his position and the position of his company? It seems to me that Linux users (corporate, individual, or those who've ascended to the next plane of existence) should be well in the clear from the majority of any claims SCO might possibly level. This evidence combined with the confidence exhibited by multi-million dollar legal defense funds set up to help those who might be the target of SCO legal action will go a long way to reassuring executives.

Now, if only the judges in this case would hurry up and slap SCO back into the last century, where they should have stayed...

Future? (1)

bluewee (677282) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963688)

Although _we_ all want SCO to DIE, but what are your thoughts on the the realistic future of SCO? My thoughts: - continues to sue household names trying to stir the public - stocks start to fall - Darl, begins RIAA tatics, suing little Sue, trying to scare the public to loose... - 6 months till they go belly up. bought by M$ (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963690)

We all know that was J2EE site promoting server side development. M$ has bought TSS and are now starting telling all Java developers to move to .Not.
M$ and it evil ways.

Lil Snip (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963722)

<SCO> I think I'm gonna be sick!
<Novell> Nah, go talk with IBM.
<IBM> I see. Say AARRGHHH...

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>