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!

Novell Quotes AT&T on Derivative Works

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the ma-bell-swings-her-hammer-of-truth dept.

Caldera 354

grendelkhan writes "Novell has released their latest correspondance with the litigous bastards ordering them to stop the lawsuit by noon tomorrow, and clarify what the SVRX licensing agreements with AT&T meant regarding derivative works. The letter quotes AT&T from the April '85 issue of $echo as stating that they 'claim no ownership interest in any portion of such a modification or derivative work.' So much for the ladder rung analogy." And reader highwaytohell links to today's CRN article in which Eben Moglen suggests that the SCO/Linux lawsuit cannot move ahead "until SCO resolves its dispute with Novell. And regardless of which company prevails in court, he said, customers won't have to pay any company for a license fee since both claimants--SCO and Novell--have distributed the Linux code under the GPL. Once again, SCO have no comment."

cancel ×

354 comments

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

I just took a piss on a dead palestinian girl! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244169)

fp

Woo.... (-1, Redundant)

Oen_Seneg (673357) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244171)

...It looks like this farce coming ever closer to the end!

Meanwhile, back on the western front... (4, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244172)

Assuming that this letter kicks the stool right out from under SCO (and Canopy) while they attempt to raid the cookie jar, we now return to "copyrights, Copyrights, Who Owns the Copyrights?"

IIRC SCO claims the copyrights and Novell claims "NOT!" the battle, what's left of it shifts to SCO having to defend themselves from Novell before they could proceed on anything else.

Looks pretty awful. I wonder when they'll exhibit some sense and give up, granted some heads would roll at SCO, but it's been a long time coming.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244261)

the only copyrights SCO claims are to sysV unix (and some older unices that don't matter). They also have contractual rights to *derivative works* made from sysV. IBM's AIX is such a derivative work, and IBM cannot release it without SCO approval - for sure they can't turn AIX into GPL code.

BUT, IBM has independently produced a lot of software that is part of AIX but is not sysV code. This material from NOVELL makes it even clearer (if anything can be clearer than perfectly transparent) that IBM owns this independently developed code and can do whatever it wants with it -- notably, they can contribute it to linux under the GPL. SCO is toast.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front... (1)

diersing (679767) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244328)

Do the SCO lawyers think the judge is an idiot? As I was reading it, I kept getting anoyed with his damn analogies.

For unknown reasons, I want to climb a ladder and see what rungs 16 and 17 are all about.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front... (4, Informative)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244472)

Well, they purport to have contractual rights to the derivative works. According to some of the posters on Groklaw, anyone who relied on the statements made in AT&T's $echo publication could say that SCO is barred as AT&T's successor in interest from asserting rights over the derivative works.

Moreover, according to the case law I've seen presented on Groklaw, it looks like SCO's theory of derivative works is unreasonable, to say the least.

Mind you, I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice, etc. but this new evidence from Novell is pretty well nailing down any last avenues of escape SCO might have hoped to have.

Honestly, SCO is totally screwed with respect to the lawsuits right now... I'm just wondering if they still have anything else up their sleeves? It's been rather apparent that they were screwed or going to be screwed for some time now, so they might have made contingency plans which may or may not need to be delt with... (e.g. what happens if they suddenly assign all their rights to another company or something?)

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front... (1)

MrLint (519792) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244662)

I expect SCO will try and claim they own the though processes that go into making anything that behaves in any way like unix. So multitasking, like talking to your wife and thinking about your mistress, would be one or making wild claims in the press while at the same time not fulfilling a court order to show evidence, that would be one too. I suppose pumping and dumping stock might also be. I mean just examples.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front... (4, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244522)

OK, let's wax lyrical and assume that SCO's cupboard is finally bare and it's all over for SCO's case freeing up IBM to go for damages, and maybe Novell, Red Hat and others as well. Once the lawyers are paid off, there is not going to be much left in the piggy back except for SCO's various Unix licences and copyrights, which will probably get transferred to IBM or Novell. The big question then is, what will *they* do with them?

First and foremost, IBM is a hardware and services company; they don't *really* care about software beyond the fact that it helps them shift hardware and services. If they can get revenue from the software, great, but it's a drop in the ocean as far as their turnover is concerned. Novell is primarily a software company, although they do appear to be trying to reinvent themselves as a Linux networking services company to me.

So, what do either of them have to lose by simply releasing all of their newly acquired copyrights and licenses into the public domain? Perhaps not a lot. What they have to *gain* though, is phenomonal; for a start the OSS community is going to see them as the heroes that set UNIX free which brings its own rewards. Best of all for IBM and Novell though, it's going to be a big kick in the teeth for Microsoft and will probably have a serious impact on Solaris sales as well.

It could well be that 2004 is *the* year that OSS really hits the big time that has been inevitable for so long. But who would have dreamed a few years ago that it might be IBM, Novell that made it happen after SCO/Caldera inadvertantly provided the catalyst?

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front... (5, Funny)

Bull999999 (652264) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244623)

Maybe IBM will use the licences to create GNU/UNIX to spite RMS.

I wouldn't go kicking any stools around SCO... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244325)

You'll get your shoes all dirty and stinky.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front... (1)

MisanthropicProggram (597526) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244341)

I was hoping it would kick the stool right into them!

Captain Crunch (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244173)

He shat on top my cereal!

latest correspondance ??? (1, Funny)

srinivas_rc (737431) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244178)

Is this the new official name ;)

Re:latest correspondance ??? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244193)

pist frost!

you fucking FAIL IT (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244223)

you stupid motherfucking cock sucker. eat pubes and die bitch

Re:latest correspondance ??? (2, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244214)

Is this the new official name ;)

No, I think SCO will become "SCO Donut Company" because that's what'll be on their bottom line, a donut.

I've got some sad news (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244197)

Google has apparently noticed, and now neither litigious bastards [google.com] or just plain bastards [google.com] comes up with SCO [sco.com] . (This may not yet be true on all Google mirrors.)

This has been fixed. (2, Funny)

Edward Teach (11577) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244361)

http://www.litigiousbastards.com/

watch the truncat... (4, Interesting)

xixax (44677) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244393)

Interestingly, the Google news page [google.com] truncates the CRN headline to:

"Expert Claims SCO-Novell Copyright Dispute Will Halt Linux..."

the truncated bit is "customer lawsuit".

Xix.

Re:I've got some sad news (1)

liquidsin (398151) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244442)

Yeah, but www.litigiousbastards.com is the first hit (which is a site about SCO) and the entirety of the first page of returns, besides that site, are blogs supporting the googlebombing effort. So even though the litigious bastards don't show up in person, there are more than enough others there that anyone searching google for "litigious bastards" will get returns about SCO, which is still pretty fucking funny :)

Re:I've got some sad news (1)

Colonel Cholling (715787) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244643)

Considering the fact that sco.com is apparently still down, it may be that the page simply no longer comes up in search results at all. Searching for just SCO [google.com] also failed to turn up the company's webpage.

Re:I've got some sad news (1)

robogun (466062) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244699)

Interestingly, SCO.com came up instantly when typed directly into another browser (Netscape if it makes a difference). Clicking the link in the submission produces an error -- probably sco is blocking access based on the referrer.

Re:I've got some sad news (1)

shadowbearer (554144) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244764)


Nope. Typing it directly into a fresh lynx browser here came up with a "alert: unable to connect to remote host" error.

Hmm. :)

SB

Try it with a dash (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244715)

Google Search: litigious-bastards [google.com]
and you get a link to a working SCO Server

That's priceless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244733)

I hope it makes the Zeitgeist.

Huh? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244201)

Can someone explain this in laymens terms? I'm so high right now I really don't understand what the post was about.

Mutex

Up2date (0, Offtopic)

swordboy (472941) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244210)

For those that like to follow this stuff, I have found Google News [google.com] to be an amazing service. I can only wonder what might come along and top these guys.

Re:Up2date (2, Funny)

evilmango (689265) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244290)

I can only wonder what might come along and top these guys.

SCO actually getting their $699 license fee?

Re:Up2date (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244407)

Only from a cock smoking teabagger.

Re:Up2date (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244380)

I'm still getting sco as the first result.....Does anyone know when the next google dance is?

litigous bastards? (4, Insightful)

MooKore 2004 (737557) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244211)

I know that everyone and their dog here at Slashdot hates SCO, but is it really necesscary to call them names? It just makes us look like Mad Zealots [debian.org] . Youd think after the what the BBC published you would try and take this case more calmly?

Re:litigous bastards? (2, Interesting)

GQuon (643387) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244319)

Google has apparently noticed, and now neither litigious bastards or just plain bastards comes up with SCO

Could be wise if they want to avoid a lawsuit.

Wow. That means that either
  • Google is more afraid of SCO than they are of the president*.
  • Bastards complained that they were wrongfully associated with Darl McBride and co.
  • Google has pity on the Caldera employees.


* Michael Moore is now the top miserable failure. How long before they drop him off the list like they did SCO?

Re:litigous bastards? (3, Insightful)

LearnToSpell (694184) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244812)

Or sco.com is down, and Google doesn't link to downed sites. Not much of a conspiracy here, I'm afraid.

Re:litigous bastards? (4, Interesting)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244350)

aActually, I would disagree. I wrote the BBC and received a reply today. Ironically, they did not seem to address the actual issues I brought up. I do give them credit for at least replying, however, the text of their email is as follows:

Thanks for your e-mail.


I have noted the points you made - as well as the vigorous debate on Slashdot.org about this article.

Well, Stephen Evan's weekly "stateside" column is not a news story, but an analytical look at major events and business trends in the United States.

It is, of course, debatable whether MyDoom/Novarg/Shimgapi was written just to bring down the SCO website, or whether the installation of spamming tools on numerous computers was an additional - or even the main - motive.

That was not the point of Stephen's article.

In his piece he wanted to draw the attention of BBC News Online's audience - many of whom are unlikely to know the ins and outs of the Open Source debate - to the rapid spread of Linux as a commercial application, SCO's attempts to cash in on this fact, and the deep anger that SCO has caused within the Linux community through its legal actions.

Stephen is not the first to draw the link between MyDoom and SCO's actions over Linux - plenty of others have done that before, including virus experts.

Regards,

Tim Weber
Business Editor
BBC News Interactive - www.bbc.co.uk/businessnews


Now, I would disagree with the point of the article, which the BBC won't even claim is an article. They seemed to be more intent on defending themselves than addressing issues. They even brought up Slashdot in my reply, although I didn't tell them I read about it at slashdot. My original letter is as follows:

After reading the story titled "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty" by Stephen Evans, I have to question the research that went into the article. While the author tries to remain objective, there are many assumptions in the article that simply do not hold water.


To put the blame, without any evidence, on a group of Linux users is certainly easy, and at first glance it may seem appropriate. However, a small amount of research would demonstrate the author of the virus would have to be an expert Windows programmer. Generally speaking, programmers who excel on one platform are not experts on another. The differences between Windows and Linux are broad enough to make specializing in both rather impractical. This is demonstrated by the difficulty in porting Windows applications over to the Linux platform, and the fact that Linux runs on many different CPUs by design, whereas Windows runs on the x86 platform only.

A more plausible theory, and one more backed by the facts, is an individual or group who writes a virus that can DDOS (Distributed Denial of Service) any website, and chooses SCO because they know that Linux zealots will be blamed. Its the "perfect crime" in that many will blindly blame someone other than you.

If the author of the article had done any significant research, he would have discovered that all of the well known programmers in the Linux community are quite confident that SCO will not prevail in its court case, and have publicly, loudly, and often told fellow Linux users that it is important to NOT attack, verbally or digitally, SCO. The courts will do their job. The fact is, this attack makes the Linux community look bad, and it is likely that any member of this community would know this, and would be less inclined to participate in these actions.

I can't say with any certainty who created this virus, but in spite of your articles claims, it is NOT obviously a Linux zealot.

By the way, I'm a happy Windows user who dabbles in Linux because it is a fun operating system. I am concerned about the SCO lawsuit, and more concerned about the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) that is being spewed by both sides. I am quite disappointed when an institution such as the BBC, appears to not only lay blame without any proof, but ends up participating in spreading false information because the author of the article did not properly research the topic.


Again, I give them credit for answering, but thats about it. More concerned about telling me how the article isn't "a news story" (which I didn't refer to it as.

At this point, I am not too concerned what the BBC or other news agencies think of the Linux community regarding this issue. We shouldn't attack sco.com's site, or make comments that are not true simply because its the wrong thing to do, not because the BBC might frown on it. Just like in the rest of my life, I try to do the right thing when no one is looking, and try hard to not give a flying fsck what anyone else thinks about it.

Re:litigous bastards? (4, Informative)

red floyd (220712) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244607)

It's a form letter. According to the Groklaw-ites, several people who wrote to complain got the identical letter.

Re:litigous bastards? (3, Interesting)

pla (258480) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244469)

Youd think after the what the BBC published you would try and take this case more calmly?

Some of us really don't give a damn about politics. We do, however, appreciate a good joke, and we do enjoy seeing justice done when the legal system fails in its role.

Having Google's top link to "Litigious bastards" point to SCO doesn't hurt anyone, and made for a good laugh when I first saw that. You could call the MyDoom worm a bit less harmless, but y'know, despite Bruce P begging us all to behave, I really don't give a shit. I egged on the worm, and felt quite pleased when SCO had to change the URL of their web site. Sadly, it appears in hindsight that the worm's author used the SCO attack as a ruse, but the end result remains overall positive. SCO deserves it, and much worse, for their current business model."Litigious bastards" doesn't "call them names", it makes a statement of fact.

Call it vigilanteism if you want, but when a company can get away with obviously "wrong" activities simply because they haven't broken any existing laws, I for one consider it "justice" that they have a fed-up mob come after them to burn them at the stake.

So, behave? Hey, I won't start it. But when a pedophile priest "mysteriously" suicides in a crowded jail cell, we all know what happened, and we all cheer it on. When a father hunts down and brutally disembowels his daughter's rapist, who got off on a techinicality, no one cries for the dead scum. And when a worm targets SCO, well, sometimes two wrongs does make a right.


But, hey... Just my opinion. Feel free to defend SCO's raping of our legal system. And remember, even if they lose, they still got what they wanted (time to sell their shares at a massively inflated rate compared to their actual value). Justice? No. We can at best hope to annoy them, since they've already "gotten away" with the actual offense.

OT: Your .sig (1)

BugZRevengE (622917) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244519)

your .sig is the funniest thing i have seen in a long time... love the new browser... but you are right

Re:litigous bastards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244647)

I fail to see why anger is so frowned upon, or why I should try to sound less so. I have a right to be angry, I am angry, and I will likely remain angry.

Not seeing a problem (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244792)

I know that everyone and their dog here at Slashdot hates SCO, but is it really necesscary to call them names?

Necessary is a matter of opinion. But it certainly is fun.

Re:litigous bastards? (1)

shadowbearer (554144) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244803)

If SCO can't take the heat, they should never have entered the kitchen and lit the stove. Wah.

I have no friccin sympathy for them, at all. They've been attempting to screw/rip off a lot of people under some shady pretext they call "law".
Why shouldn't I be angry?

Side note: www.sco.com doesn't resolve at all for me, now, and hasn't all day. Did they pull their dns info? WTF?

SB

I wonder.. (4, Funny)

E_elven (600520) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244212)

..if there's a spot for a free-lance commenter at SCO. They seem to be awfully quiet nowadays. Although they might just be busy developing new software, or something, too.

Re:I wonder.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244353)

While I kinda wish they had gagged Darl, I suspect that either his lawyers clued him in, he's going overboard on the next press release, or they're working on new lawsuits...

Re:I wonder.. (1)

robbedbit (598810) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244585)

I was driving past the SCO building this last Saturday...I had a burger in my hand. The partialy eaten tomato was begging me to sling it on to the shiny glass. I guess I blew my chance.

Hello world! from the USA (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244218)

Still jealous and envious of our fine country and culture? Well unlike most other countries you can come and join us and be an American.We still have a good time while kicking the shit ou of those who would destroy our civization.We even tolreate anti-American Communists and offer good jobs for them on our University payrolls.

You really blew it (5, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244222)


The google bomb is not going to work when you misspell litigious bastards.

Think of how many links you could have generated if you had of spent some time with the dictionary.

*sigh*

Re:You really blew it (1, Funny)

grendelkhan (168481) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244251)

DAMMIT! DAMMIT! DAMMIT!

I need a spellchecker plugin for Firefox.

Re:You really blew it (2, Funny)

emily_the_dragonet (749396) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244287)

the plug-in actually works. http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=5083 6 This thread helped me get the spell checker to work in firefox. Make sure you have all the right parts downloaded, and in the right folders. ie: not the firebird folders.

Re:You really blew it (5, Funny)

Colonel Cholling (715787) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244656)

Think of how many links you could have generated if you had of spent some time with the dictionary.

"Had of"? Would you like some grammar with your dictionary?

How soon we forget. (5, Insightful)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244230)

"Novell has released their latest correspondance with the litigous bastards..."

And some of you accused the BBC of making an unfounded claim [slashdot.org] when they said this:

"If anyone's anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source). So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus and its variants are internet vandals with a specific grudge."

If you guys don't like having the finger pointed at you, then don't say things like that to attract attention to yourselves.

Re:How soon we forget. (4, Interesting)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244282)

Don't get me wrong, linking them to that term so that they show up on certain Google searches is rather immature.

However, it represents only a 1st Ammendment protected oppinion, and poses no harm nor threat to SCO in any way.

In short, yes, it looks bad and should probably be avoided simply because of the impression certain people in the media try to give of us [1], but it is still a valid form of protest.

We can't all picket SCO's offices [2].

[1] Especially Daniel Lyons of Forbes, who I have recently chastized here for quoting random trolls and jokes as sources for his "story" ... see my posting history. I strongly suggest you not turn to Forbes for financial advice if this is the extent of their "research" ...

[2] Incidentally, as you can read from some rather old Groklaw.com stories, SCO made false signs to mingle with those of the protesters and to malign them, saying something to the effect of 'we support communism'. So any further actions by them would not be the first time they had used an agent provacateur to malign their opponents...

Re:How soon we forget. (4, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244284)

I disagree. Linux zealots or not, Sco are litigous bastards. BBC linking Linux users and coders to MyDoom trojan without looking at any other points of view, now that is some 'fair' news delivery.

Re:How soon we forget. (1)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244473)

It is your opinion that they are ligitous bastards. And defamation is not protected =) Do you have proof that SCO's executives, lawyers and other employees were born out of wedlock and are fatherless? :P

Re:How soon we forget. (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244679)

"BBC linking Linux users and coders to MyDoom trojan without looking at any other points of view, now that is some 'fair' news delivery."

They very clearly said "It seems likely...". So no, they did not report that as fact. Secondly, who has any real motive besides the Linux users that stand to lose the most? BBC did nothing wrong by pointing the spotlight at the people most likely to have done it.

I don't remember anybody around here using this argument in Michael Jackson's defense with the latest round of accusations.

Re:How soon we forget. (2, Insightful)

Surazal (729) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244743)

I worry about arguments like yours because it implies I am guilty of the crime *by default*, which is not the case here.

I don't recall sending out any orders to Russian terrorists to infiltrate our internet with a misleading computer worm.

Re:How soon we forget. (1)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244790)

"I worry about arguments like yours because it implies I am guilty of the crime *by default*, which is not the case here."

I never said you were guilty. I said motive, and it's fair to report that. You guys did a good job of earning that reputation, don't whine to me about it.

Hate the PDF? (4, Informative)

W32.Klez.A (656478) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244234)

For those of you who don't have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed, here's a handy link to read the pdf online [samurajdata.se] .

SCO.com down (kinda) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244248)

It seems that www.sco.com is down now, for some reason. So if you want to link to that slimy company [sco.com] , you should just link to sco.com.

Even so, I wonder if they won't block slashdot referrers soon... Oh well.

Incidentally, Google may be blocking the "Google bomb" ... Perhaps we should start linking to caldera.com?

Or you can just click here to h4x0r SCO [sco.com] ... (j/k! but click it just for fun...)

Re:SCO.com down (kinda) (5, Informative)

wtansill (576643) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244372)

" It seems that www.sco.com is down now, for some reason."
Well, yes. They changed the site name to www.thescogroup.com to hide from mydoom

the thing that makes me the most mad (5, Funny)

drp (63138) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244253)

is that freaking e-trade doesn't have SCOX on its list of shortable securities.

Re:the thing that makes me the most mad (1)

starm_ (573321) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244310)

whats a shortable security???

Re:the thing that makes me the most mad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244330)

Sell shares you don't yet own.

Re:the thing that makes me the most mad (1)

starm_ (573321) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244344)

Ok I answered my question. The problem was that when I search on google for "shortable security" I got no hit but I guess this term is only used in its plural form "shortable securities" . Then I got the info I wanted.

It referes to short selling or delling more stocks than you own in the hope that the price is going to drop and you can buy back you "virtual" stocks at a loer price.

so what criteria does the stock need to have so that e-trade consideres it shortable???

Re:the thing that makes me the most mad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244462)

I've shorted it BIG TIME via ameritrade. The amount you're going to be shorting is pretty small, so any shorting you do on an equity will be borowed from the pool your broker company (etrade, ameritrade) owns... It's called EASY $$$

Re:the thing that makes me the most mad (3, Funny)

starm_ (573321) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244646)

maybe you should try SCOttrade [scottrade.com]

And if you listen very carefully... (5, Funny)

Howard Roark (13208) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244254)



...you can hear the sound of a coffin being nailed shut!

MOD PARENT DOWN,STORY UP,ALL CHILDREN DOWN (-1, Offtopic)

SirJaxalot (715418) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244276)

...you can hear the sound of a coffin being nailed shut!

Parent is offtopic, everyone knows Dean's campaign has been layed to rest.

DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DO, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244830)

if we wanted your input into moderation, we would have given you positive karma.

love,
the mods

Re:And if you listen very carefully... (1)

WankersRevenge (452399) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244364)

About your sig ... Just read the fountainhead .. absolutely loved it. Although, I don't subscribe to Rand's view of capitalism (my personal belief, everything that's wrong in the world is clearly outlined in Atlas Shrugged as being a "good thing"). Still - great book. Nice to someone on Slashdot actually opens a book which doesn't describe variables or women doing the cha cha with chickens.

license agreements useless (4, Interesting)

potpie (706881) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244256)

If SCO actually started selling binary only (or whatever they are) licenses, wouldn't they be violating the GPL for every bit of code that wasn't theirs (assuming they had some in there at all)? Correct me if I'm wrong (no really, I think I might be wrong), but isn't it inevitable that if they have any code in the kernel, it'll be removed not because they have to point out what's theirs but because they have to point out what's not theirs?

Re:license agreements useless (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244375)

IANAL, but that would seem to violate any reading of the GPL I can imagine.

Of course, SCO claims that the GPL is not applicable in any way, so...

I refer you to Eben Moglen's recent position paper concerning that if you want a more lawyerly oppinion of just why SCO is wrong.

www.sco.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244257)

hmm, this looks familiar [sco.com] .

www.sco.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244260)

i don't know about the rest of your crazy louts, but www.sco.com gives me a host name not found error.

Re:www.sco.com (2, Informative)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244311)

Yup. sco.com (no www) is still resolving though.

Everyone together now! (5, Funny)

ckedge (192996) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244281)

and a 1
and a 2 ...
"Na na naa naaa..., na na naa naaaa..., heyyy eyy eyy, GOODBYE!!!!!

Plaintext version of PDF (5, Informative)

soullessbastard (596494) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244289)

Mr. Ryan E. Tibbitts
General Counsel
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Lindon, UT 84042

Re: Sequent Computer Systems

Dear Mr. Tibbitts:

On May 29, 2003, SCO sent a letter to Sequent Computer Systems providing notice that it would terminate Sequent's SVRX license agreement as of September 2, 2003 if Sequent did not remedy certain alleged breaches of the license agreement. On August 11, 2003, SCO sent another letter to Sequent purporting to terminate Sequent's SVRX license agreement. IBM, on behalf of Sequent, responded to these letters by letter of August 14, 2003.

As it has with IBM and other SVRX licensees, SCO appears to be taking the position that code developed by Sequent, or licensed by Sequent form a third party, which Sequent incorporated in its UNIX variant but which itself does not contain proprietary UNIX code supplied by AT&T under the license agreement betwee AT&T and Sequent (Sequent Code), must nevertheless be maintained as confidental and may not be contributed to Linux. As we have said before, SCO's position defies both logic and the terms of the SVRX license agreement.

SCO cites, as support for its position, section 2.01 of Sequent agreement, which, like other SVRX licenses, provides as follows:

Such right to use includes the right to modify such SOFTWARE PRODUCT and to prepare derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided the resulting materials are treated hereunder as part of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT.

As we have said, however, this provision merely confirms that AT&T retained ownership of its code even if it was incorporated in a derivative work, and does not purport to impose confidentiality or use restrictions on Sequent Code.

In fact, SCO's interpretation of 2.01 is plainly contrary to the position taken by AT&T, as author of and party to the SVRX licenses. AT&T clarified the meaning of section 2.01 in its $ echo publication, which AT&T described as its own newsletter to reach all UNIX System V licensees through one defined medium and keeps them abreast of any product announcements, policy changes, company business and pricing structures.

Specifically, in an edition of $ echo dated April 1985 (the same month that the Sequent license agreement was signed), AT&T announced that changes would be made to hte SVRX license agreement to clarify ownership of modifications or derivative works prepared by a licensee. AT&T said this and other announced changes were in response to direct feedback from AT&T licensees and [were] intended to make the contracts more responsive to the needs of licensees. AT&T then followed up by adding to section 2.01 a sentence clarifying that AT&T claims no ownership interest in any portion of such a modification or derivative work that is not part of a SOFTWARE PRODUCT. Even more clearly, the August 1985 edition of $ echo explained that this sentence was added to assure licensees that AT&T will claim no ownership in the software that they developed - only the portion of the software developed by AT&T. Copies of the April and August 1985 editions of $ echo are enclosed for your convenience.

For these reasons, and the reasons stated in our October 7, 2003 letter to you about IBM-developed code, SCO's position on Sequent Code is unsupportable.

Under Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Novell retains the right at Novell's sole discretion and direction, to require SCO to amend, supplement, modify, or waive any rights under, or...assign any rights to, any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect by [Novell]. That section further provides that to the extent SCO shall fail to take any such action concerning the SVRX Licenses as directed by Novell, Novell shall be authorized, and hereby is granted, the rights to take any action on [SCO's] own behalf.

Accordingly, pursuant to Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Novell hereby directs SCO to waive any purported right SCO may claim to require Sequent (or IBM as its successor) to treat Sequent Code as subject to the confidentiality obligations or use restrictions of Sequent's SVRX license.

Novell directs SCO to take these actions by noon, MDT, February 11, 2004, and to notify Novell that it has done so by that time.

Sincerely,
Joseph A. LaSala, Jr.

cc: Mr. Darl Mc Bride
Mr. Ronald A. Lauderdale,
Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, IBM

just can't hear the comment (4, Funny)

geekd (14774) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244294)

Once again, SCO have no comment.

They may well be trying to comment, but it's hard to hear what they are saying, since they have thier heads so far up thier asses....

They bought the "Linux license" from SCO (5, Interesting)

brett_sinclair (673309) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244326)

According to one of SCO's lawyers, in a letter published on Groklaw [groklaw.net] , SCO only managed to sell three "Linux licenses".

Yes. Three (3).

He says: "At this juncture, I am only aware of a license with Computer Associates, Questar and Leggett & Platt."

I'm betting you can get a good price on a used Linux license from them by now...

Re:They bought the "Linux license" from SCO (3, Interesting)

pato perez (570823) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244596)

Why did these three companies but a SCO license? One could easily conjecture why Computer Associates would want to support SCO. Questar is a Utah company, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were some incestuous link between them and SCO/Canopy. Reason for Legget & Platt? They're based in Carthage,MO--perhaps there's an LDS link? In any case, these companies most likely bought licenses to support SCO--not because they felt SCO's claims have any merit. They aren't likely to sell, even if they could.

Re:They bought the "Linux license" from SCO (1)

Bull999999 (652264) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244640)

I'd figure it would've been Microsoft, MSN, and the newly created MikeRoweSoft who bought those three Linux licenses.

Re:They bought the "Linux license" from SCO (1)

starman97 (29863) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244653)

Maybe they think they will have value as collector's items after SCO blows up and goes away.

After all, Confederate dollars are worth more than face value today, a mere 150 years later.. :)

Auctioneer in 2050
"For your consideration, we have 1 of the 3 SCO Linux licenses ever sold"

Re:They bought the "Linux license" from SCO (5, Funny)

dj245 (732906) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244702)

...And the number of the Linux Licenses shall be three. Four shall the number of the linux licenses not be, neither shall the number of Linux Licenses be two, without immediately selling/giving away exactly one more license, for a total of three. Five is right out. And when the number three, being the third number of Licenses having been given away, be reached, I shall reach out with my holiest of lawsuits, and the Litigating Bastards shall be smited....

Re:They bought the "Linux license" from SCO (2, Interesting)

briansz (731406) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244758)

I managed a crew of workers some years back at a mid-sized store fixture company that was later acquired by Leggett and Platt.

While I left before the acquisition by L&P was final, if the two companies are anything alike, this is not only poetic, but hardly surprising.

The corporate culture there was comprised of a bunch of new-agey, good-feeling, responsibility-shirking, issue-clouding, completely spineless Yes-Men spewing first class BULLSHIT.

I've decided today after reading that Leggett and Platt bought a SCO 'license' that there is such a thing as Karma. And it's delightful to observe it in action firsthand.

Re:They bought the "Linux license" from SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244774)

Why does Leggett & Platt even know what linux is??? They are well known for the generic metal bed frame that they produce. Pretty cool though. hrmph

Under SCO's 5 reasons to use SCO instead of Linux (2, Funny)

wobedraggled (549225) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244329)

SCO is the owner of the UNIX(R) Operating System Intellectual Property that dates all the way back to 1969, when the UNIX(R) System was created at Bell Laboratories. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, SCO has acquired ownership of the copyrights and core technology associated with the UNIX(R) System. The SCO source division will continue to offer traditional UNIX(R) System licenses to preserve, protect, and enhance shareholder value.

As early as May 2003, SCO warned Linux(R) users that enterprise use of the Linux(R) operating system was in violation of its intellectual property rights in UNIX(R) technology. Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces ("ABI Code") have been copied verbatim from SCO's copyrighted UNIX(R) code base and contributed to Linux(R) for distribution under the General Public License ("GPL") without proper authorization and without copyright attribution. These facts support SCO's position that the use of the Linux(R) operating system in a commercial setting violates our rights under the United States Copyright Act, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

While some application programming interfaces ("API Code") have been made available over the years through POSIX and other open standards, the UNIX(R) ABI Code has only been made available under copyright restrictions. AT&T made these binary interfaces available in order to support application development to UNIX(R) operating systems and to assist UNIX(R) licensees in the development process. The UNIX(R) ABIs were never authorized for unrestricted use or distribution under the GPL in Linux(R). As the copyright holder, SCO has never granted such permission. Nevertheless, many of the ABIs contained in Linux(R), and improperly distributed under the GPL, are direct copies of our UNIX(R) copyrighted software code.

Bwhahahahaha!!!

RBC, TICC, SCO (3, Interesting)

b00y4 (723478) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244333)

I was reading through the message boards on Yahoo! Finance for SCO, and there were several messages about RBC, TICC, and SCO, with the implication being that perhaps there was some illegal activity going on in the financing of SCO. I have not read anything about that on groklaw or /. and was wondering if anyone here knows anything about it.

SCO/Linux (4, Funny)

mdpye (687533) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244363)

Darl begins a campaign to have kernel renamed SCO/Linux, after all it is a combination of SCO and Linux contributer IP, no? ;)

MP

Huh? (4, Funny)

unsigned integer (721338) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244373)

SCO have no comment

Who writes this stuff? Yoda?

Re:Huh? (3, Funny)

CdnYoda (692753) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244464)

careful, you should be! Naturally, I am always monitoring the Dark (Darl?) Side... Whether it be the Death Star in Redmond, or the pitiful Tie Fighters in SCO - vigilant, I am!..soon, balance will be restored to the Force, my young padwan =)...patience, patience...

Re:Huh? (3, Informative)

red floyd (220712) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244616)

The Brits tend to refer to companies in the plural.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244716)

SCO is a group of litigious bastards [sco.com] , hence the plural form.

Benefits of SCO UNIX? (5, Funny)

sean1121 (614907) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244498)

As seen here [sco.com] one of the benefits is "These security features guard against business interruption, denial of service attacks and protect against identity or corporate information theft." (emphasis mine) It makes one wonder why they don't run their web server on it instead of linux [netcraft.com] ?

Novell quotes $echo as a legal reference??? (2, Interesting)

compactable (714182) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244573)

... I mean, I loathe SCO as much as anyone, but cmon. This is a small step above pie charts done in crayon.

I'm proud of them finding this, and I'm glad its been brought to SCO's attention, but geez. And publicly announcing this to the world instead of dealing with it in a professional manner - what is is with Utah companies? They're like the morons I work with that reply-all on company-wide emails.

Decorum, children, decorum...

SCO has no comment? (4, Interesting)

OpenSourcerer (515213) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244589)

I think their comment is right here. [yahoo.com]

Anything to make this mess go away. (3, Interesting)

Linus Sixpack (709619) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244611)

It will be nice to see newSCO go down in flames and the legal basis for Linux reaffirmed.

Mostly it will be nice to see the puffery and mugging for stock prices end!

ls

again with the spellchecking... (1)

JVert (578547) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244657)

Now I understand that slashdot is known to be spellcheck impared [slashdot.org] , but when your trying to googlebomb someone there isn't much of an excuse to screwing that up.

Text of Novell letter (-1, Redundant)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244674)

Joseph A. La Sala, Jr.
Senior Vice President
General Counsel and Secretary

NOVELL VIA FACSIMILE AND CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

February 6, 2004

Mr. Ryan E. Tibbitts
General Counsel
The SCO Group
[address]
RE: Sequent Computer Systems

Dear Mr. Tibbitts:

On May 29, 2003, SCO sent a letter to Sequent Computer Systems providing notice that it would terminate Sequent's SVRX license agreement as of Secptember 2, 2003 if Sequent did not remedy certain alleged breaches of the license agreement. On Agust 11, 2003, SCO sent another letter to Sequent purporting to terminate Sequent's SVRX license agreement. IBM, on behalf of Sequent, responded to these letters by letter of August 14, 2003.

As it has with IBM and other SVRX licensees, SCO appears to be taking the position that code developed by Sequent, or licensed by Sequent from a third party, which Sequent incorporated in its UNIX variant but which itseld foes not contain proprietary UNIX code supplied by AT&T under the license agreement between AT&T and Sequent ("Sequent Code"), must nevertheless be maintained as confidential and may not be contributed to Linux. As we have said before, SCO's position defies both logic and the terms of the SVRX license agreement.

SCO cites, as support for its position, section 2.01 of Sequent agreement, which, like other SVRX licenses, provides as follows:

Such right to use includes the right to modify such SOFTWARE PRODUCT and to prepare derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided the resulting materials are treated hereunder as part of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT.

As we have said, however, this provision merely confirms that AT&T retained ownership of its code even if it was incorporated in a derivative work, and does not purport to impose confidentiality or use restrictions on Sequent Code.

In fact, SCO's interpretation of section 2.01 is plainly contrary to the position taken by AT&T, as author of and party to the SVRX licenses. AT&T clarified the meaning of section 2.01 in its $ echo publication, which AT&T described as its own newsletter "to reach all UNIX System V licensees through one defined medium" and "keeps them abreast of any product announcements, policy changes, company business and pricing structures."

Specifically, in an edition of $ echo dated April 1985 (the same month that the Sequent license agreement was signed), AT&T announced that changes would be made to the SVRX license agreement "to clarify ownership of modifications or derivative works prepared by a licensee." AT&T said this and other announced changes were "in response to direct feedback from AT&T licensees and [were] intended to make the contracts more responsive to the needs of the licensees." AT&T then followed up by adding to section 2.01 a sentence clarifying that AT&T "claims no ownership interest in any portion of such a modification or derivative work that is not part of a SOFTWARE PRODUCT." Even more clearly, the August 1985 edition of $ echo explained that this "sentence was added to assure licensees that AT&T will claim no ownership in the software that they developed -- only the portion of the software developed by AT&T." Copies of the April and August 1985 editions of $ echo are enclosed for your convenience.

For these reasons, and the reasons stated in our October 7, 2003 letter to you about IBM-developed code, SCO's position on Sequent Code is unsupportable.

Under Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Novell retains the right, at Novell's "sole discretion and direction," to require SCO to "amend, supplement, modify or waive any rights under, or . . . assign any rights to, any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect by [Novell]." That section further provides that to the extent SCO "shall fail to take any such action concerning the SVRX Licenses" as directed by Novell, Novell "shall be authorized, and hereby is granted, the rights to take any action on [SCO's] own behalf."

Accordingly, pursuant to Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Novell hereby directs SCO to waive any purported right SCO may claim to require Sequent (or IBM as its successor) to treat Sequent Code as subject to the confidentiality obligations or use restrictions of Sequent's SVRX license.

Novell directs SCO to take these actions by noon, MDT, February 11, 2004, and to notify Novell that it has done so by that time.

Sincerely,

Joseph A. LaSala, Jr.

cc: Mr. Darl McBride
Mr. Ronald A. Lauderdale,
Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, IBM

Insta-Consensus (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8244729)

Darl, I think I speak for everyone when I say.. (BR) (BR) (BR) Piss off. You whore mongering, penile infattuated, flatulent, overrated, non-intelligent, goat fucker. (BR) P.S. I hope your gonna be satisfied as Satans personal prick cradle, you moron.

Am I the only one... (3, Funny)

evanbd (210358) | more than 10 years ago | (#8244747)

who skipped not only the article but the summary, to directly see what the latest round of SCO jokes was?
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>