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!

Unsealed SCO Email Reveals Linux Code is Clean

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the we-tried-to-tell dept.

Caldera 733

rm69990 writes "In a recently unsealed email in the SCO vs. IBM case, it appears that an outside consultant, hired by SCO in 2002, failed to find copyright violations in the Linux Kernel. This was right around the time Darl McBride, who has before been hired by litigious companies as CEO, was hired. It appears that before SCO even began its investigation, they were hoping to find a smoking gun, not believing that Linux could possibly not contain Unix code. Apparently, they ignored the advice of this consultant."

cancel ×

733 comments

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

Don't forget... (3, Funny)

SCO$699FeeTroll (695565) | more than 9 years ago | (#13067989)

...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.

finally (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13067994)

first post

Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty (5, Funny)

nokilli (759129) | more than 9 years ago | (#13067995)

Quoting Darl McBride:
"We're finding...cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code... we're finding code that looks likes it's been obfuscated to make it look like it wasn't UnixWare code--but it was."
Quoting George Bush:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
I want to pre-answer the next "Ask Slashdot" question: How do you build a bullshit detector? Well, you get a cardboard box, and you get a magic marker. You use the magic marker to draw a dial on the box where one end is labeled TRUE and the other end is labeled BULLSHIT.

Then you draw a needle on the dial that points to BULLSHIT.

Then whenever you hear anybody on the TV who has the word 'CHIEF' or 'EXECUTIVE' or 'OFFICER' in their title, you point the box at the TV and there's your answer.

(also works with radio, newspapers and the Internet. Patent Pending of course.)

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty (0, Troll)

FIRST BUSH BASH! (897588) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068014)

Congratulations! You are the first person to bash Bush in a completely unrelated story. Kudos!

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty (5, Insightful)

nokilli (759129) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068041)

It isn't unrelated. Why do you think people like Darl McBride feel that they can get away with shit like this?

Because that's the example that's been set at the top.

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068172)

Exactly. The president who boldly lied to the American people, and subsequently impeached for it, and whose stated policy was regime change in Iraq.

Oh wait, that wasn't Bush, it was Clinton.

OH SNAP!! YOU SMOKED HIM!!!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068233)

I love these liberal pussies who think they can argue, but then a right-thinking person like yourself just completely blew this comment out of the water with your incredible wit and intelligence.

Kudos, my man, kudos. Keep up the good work in blasting these filthy hippies. You keep up my faith in slashdot.

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty (-1, Troll)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068189)

Just like Bernie Ebbers, John Rigas, and Ken Lay deceiving the world about what was happening behind closed doors in their headquarters while Bill Clinton was deceiving the world about what was happening behind closed doors in the White House.

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty (2)

pinchhazard (728983) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068248)

Yes, jobs and pensions lost == blowjobs and of course, deaths in Iraq == blowjobs. Of course Ebbers and Lay and Bush and company are on the same level as Clinton.

Just kidding: those first three guys are pretty evil.

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty (-1, Flamebait)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068303)

Because that's the example that's been set at the top.

Darl exemplifies the apex of Mormon/Protestant/Christian values for honesty and integrity. All the other shit flingers out there are hellbound infidels.

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068310)

1. don't use double negatives
2. don't give darl an excuse via your political opinions
3. when a report is revealed stating qualitatively that george bush knew there were no WMDs in Iraq, then we will have an analagous situation. until such evidence is established, the relation is as shaky and imaginary as those WMDs.

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068042)

Congratulations! You obviously have no better way to spend your time and money!

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty (3, Funny)

Shag (3737) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068051)

Wait... does this mean McBride and Bush aren't the same person? Has anyone seen them together?

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty (0)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068061)

Congratulations , your new around here . Bush whacking like in Australia is a popular and healthy sport around slashdot .
Although i do not think bashing the a former member of Enron in a story about corruption is unrelated

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty (0)

Reducer2001 (197985) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068307)

your new around here . Bush whacking like in Australia is a popular and healthy sport around slashdot .

So is using the word your when you should have written you are or you're.

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068131)

Holy crap it works, you should patent it.

Re:Bullshit Detector (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068193)

Nice try, but Bezos already patented it...

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty (1)

Darth McBride (749942) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068254)

Hey, I took a shower this quarter!

Re:Reveals Darl McBride is Dirty (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068301)

Quoting George Bush: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

We now know for certain that Bush's statement was entirely accurate.

The British have consistently stood by that conclusion. In September 2003, an independent British parliamentary committee looked into the matter and determined that the claim made by British intelligence was "reasonable" (the media forgot to cover that one too). Indeed, Britain's spies stand by their claim to this day. Interestingly, French intelligence also reported an Iraqi attempt to procure uranium from Niger.

Yes, there were fake documents relating to Niger-Iraq sales. But no, those forgeries were not the evidence that convinced British intelligence that Saddam may have been shopping for "yellowcake" uranium. On the contrary, according to some intelligence sources, the forgery was planted in order to be discovered -- as a ruse to discredit the story of a Niger-Iraq link, to persuade people there were no grounds for the charge. If that was the plan, it worked like a charm.

But that's not all. The Butler report, yet another British government inquiry, also is expected to conclude this week that British intelligence was correct to say that Saddam sought uranium from Niger.

And in recent days, the Financial Times has reported that illicit sales of uranium from Niger were indeed being negotiated with Iraq, as well as with four other states.

According to the FT: "European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq."

Interesting (5, Insightful)

BWJones (18351) | more than 9 years ago | (#13067997)

It appears that before SCO even began its investigation, they were hoping to find a smoking gun, not believing that Linux could possibly not contain Unix code. Apparently, they ignored the advice of this consultant."

Gee, that sounds familiar. Seems to be a popular strategy in both business and *cough*cough*cough, government these days. Seriously though, this is a model that does appear to have some traction in a variety of fields in that if you press your case hard enough, and you convince enough of the right people, there is ground to be gained from simply sticking to your guns no matter what the reality happens to be. In my business, when you have a theory, you design an experiment to test it and collect data in an attempt to disprove that theory. When the data supports the theory, then you are golden. The way NOT to run business, science (or government) is to come up with a theory (or a desire) and then try to fit the evidence to support what you want. This of course is exactly what has happened with the SCO case, a couple of other business debacles in the news recently and interestingly, in the hunt for WMD in Iraq.

Re:Interesting (1)

Dasch (832632) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068137)

So SCO should try to prove that there *isn't* Unix code in Linux?

Re:Interesting (1)

BWJones (18351) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068267)

So SCO should try to prove that there *isn't* Unix code in Linux?

Exactly! More precisely, according to their case however, is that they should have tried to prove that there is no SCO specific code in the Linux distributions that companies/individuals are using. When you cannot, despite your best efforts, disprove that theory, then you have reason to reformulate your theory, suspect that a theft might have happened and only then occupy the courts time, taxpayer dollars, and shareholders risk. Of course if your business model is predicated upon making baseless accusations in an effort to boost stock prices to line your own pocket, then that is another matter entirely more suited to a criminal court or moral evaluation. In an ideal world, the legal system should be constructed so as to place the burden of proof on the accuser rather than cause others to have to defend themselves against empty threats.

Re:Interesting (5, Insightful)

the_mighty_$ (726261) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068140)

this is a model that does appear to have some traction in a variety of fields in that if you press your case hard enough, and you convince enough of the right people, there is ground to be gained from simply sticking to your guns no matter what the reality happens to be

Important note: whenever a business/government tries this horrible tactic, they always fail. SCO's case is (has) colapsed, people all around the world view the US government as untrustworthy, etc. Sometimes it takes a while, but they always lose in the end.

News stories like this are just a nice reminder to everyone not to try tactics like this.

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068143)

It's called "thugging", and sadly it has indeed become SOP for big biz and gubmint in our fair land. :(

--anon cow
(moo)

Re:Interesting (1, Insightful)

Aggrajag (716041) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068205)

Well, you Americans, are in the hands of republicans and big businesses now. Now it is your time to think how to get rid of them. Maybe by voting? Unless republicans have thought of some way of getting rid of some votes...

Re:Interesting (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068309)

Of all the bumper stickers I have ever seen, the one on my truck annoys the most people.
It simply says "If you didn't serve, don't vote"
I am tired of these namby pamby arm chair quarterbacks talking tough but scared to put on a uniform

Sounds like religion or "Scientific Creationism" (2)

jarboy (653135) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068217)

quote: "The way NOT to run business, science (or government) is to come up with a theory (or a desire) and then try to fit the evidence to support what you want." Is exactly what those 'Intelligent Design' idiots do. They have their theory (desire, really) and they try to find anecdotes to support it. Hell with all the evidence that shows its all BS.

No Linux copyright violation, film at 11 (4, Funny)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 9 years ago | (#13067999)

Is this really still news?

--
Toby

Re:No Linux copyright violation, film at 11 (4, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068028)

It shouldn't be. We've known since almost the beginning that SCO, whose business was drying up, had invented the whole thing in the hopes that IBM would either simply buy them out or settle the case. They didn't seem to realize that Big Blue had decided that Linux was such a major part of their strategy that they'd be willing to say "See you in court". Hopefully this can all be ended so that we can watch the SEC investigation. Maybe McBride can become good buddies with Ebbers, and Ebbers can give him tips on how to have a "serious heart condition" right about the time sentencing begins.

Re:No Linux copyright violation, film at 11 (4, Interesting)

Gogo Dodo (129808) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068067)

What is news is that this is evidence that SCO knew a long time ago there was no copyright violations.

Re:No Linux copyright violation, film at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068096)

Is this really still news?

Nope. But I bet that CowboyNeal dude owns SCO stock.

That sucker.

SCO sucks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068002)

...and you know it

So we like consultants now? (1, Insightful)

alexhmit01 (104757) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068003)

Look, this whole process is retarded, but hiring a consultant to investigate doesn't necessarily mean the end.

Also, while SCO's PR has talking about Linux (after IBM started implying it), this was ORIGINALLY a lawsuit about the derivative works from a company working with a Unix license that IBM bought. It was originally a breach of contract case, not a "Linux is a derivative work" case, it just got weird when they started flailing around.

Alex

Re:So we like consultants now? (1)

mcc (14761) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068158)

Look, this whole process is retarded, but hiring a consultant to investigate doesn't necessarily mean the end.

Not for IBM's case, no. But it DEFINITELY has a pretty fricking serious impact on the slander/lanham act/whatever cases that RedHat and others will be starting up just as soon as the SCO-IBM case ends, I would expect.

What the consultant thinks isn't really important. What matters is what SCO knew at the time, as contributed to by this consultant.

derivative works from a company working with a Unix license that IBM bought. It was originally a breach of contract case, not a "Linux is a derivative work" case, it just got weird when they started flailing around.

Um, I do not quite think you were following the early portion of this case. "ORIGINALLY" SCO had different claims in the case than they do now, it is just that they have dropped some of them and others. The Sequent claim as far as I'm aware was not part of the originally stated lawsuit. [wikipedia.org] Present, however, were now-dropped trade secret claims that claimed IBM had inserted SCO IP into Linux.

Re:So we like consultants now? (5, Informative)

gsfprez (27403) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068161)

this was ORIGINALLY a lawsuit about the derivative works from a company working with a Unix license that IBM bought.

what are you talking about? In their first filing,

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200407041 70212250 [groklaw.net]

their first cause of action was "Linux is full of UNIX, which belongs to us"

First cause of action - (Misappropriation of Trade Secrets--Utah Code Ann. 13-24-1 et seq.)

this is in reference to their placing UNIX code in linux... read the previous 103 statements to see what they are alleging.

in their second (and current) complaint, they keep it up!

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200402070 22922296 [groklaw.net]

3. A variant or clone of UNIX currently exists in the computer marketplace called "Linux." Linux is, in material part, based upon UNIX source code and methods.

4. The UNIX software distribution vendors, such as IBM, are contractually and legally prohibited from giving away or disclosing proprietary UNIX source code and methods for external business purposes, such as contributions to Linux, or from otherwise using UNIX for the benefit of others. This prohibition extends to derivative work products that are modifications of, or derivative works based on, UNIX System V source code or technology. IBM is violating this prohibition, en masse, as though no prohibition or proprietary restrictions exist at all with respect to the UNIX technology. As a result of IBM's wholesale disregard of its contractual and legal obligations to SCO, Linux 2.4.x and 2.6.x and the development Linux kernel, 2.5.x, are replete with protected technology. As such, the Linux 2.4.x and Linux 2.5.x and 2.6.x kernels are unauthorized derivatives of UNIX System V.

the are, have, and continue to claim that Linux is full of Unix, and that its a derivative because IBM put UNIX code in Linux.

That's the basics of their case, in a few words... they are hiding that contention behind their contracts with IBM. But how did they breach contract with SCO? - SCO alleges that they put UNIX in Linux.

If there is no illegal UNIX in Linux, then they've not breached any contracts, have they? To have breached contract, they would have had to have infringed on SCO's "UNIX copyrights"

Zero Wing for GNU (1)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068283)

All your linux belong to us!

Re:So we like consultants now? (1)

kerrle (810808) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068201)

You have that completely backwards. It only became a breach of contract case after everything else was dropped.

For one, this consultant was hired in 2002 - it's not a recent development. The email just got unsealed recently.

Originally, SCO made the broad, sweeping claims, and they started their Linux licensing program before the IBM suit was even started. Breach of contract is one of the few things that hasn't been dropped from the case, but it's not how this started, and it's not the only suit SCO is involved in over it.

The history is quite well documented on several sites; it's not hard to verify.

Re:So we like consultants now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068204)

To be fair, this consultant (Bob Swartz) is quite a legend. He did the clean-room implementation of Coherent, a clone of AT&T Unix. Unfortunately like so many techies he had no business savvy, eventually leading to this: http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.os.coherent/ browse_frm/thread/bf3c22925baa8686/e36245dd33a5fbd 7 [google.co.uk] .

Not all consultants are evil. The 'generic' consultants are, the ones who have genuine expertise are to be honoured...

Re:So we like consultants now? (1)

rm69990 (885744) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068274)

Lol, yeah, I could have done a better job on that one. I thought to myself it sounded stupid after it was first accepted and posted. Should pay more attention next time.

Shareholder disclosure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068011)

Wouldn't Darl McBride have been under the obligation to reveal this information to his shareholders?

Is it legal that he didn't?

Don't know (1)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068146)

"Wouldn't Darl McBride have been under the obligation to reveal this information to his shareholders?"

Don't know. Was there surprise on Gates' and Ballmer's faces?

Summary (2, Interesting)

gunpowda (825571) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068015)

not believing that Linux could possibly not contain Unix code. Is there any more awkward way that could have been expressed?

Hardly unlikely. (4, Funny)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068072)

But not unpossible.

Re:Summary (1)

Ann Elk (668880) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068188)

Yes, that was expressed very awkwardnessfully.

Re:Summary (1)

spune (715782) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068255)

not believing that Linux could possibly not contain Unix code. not disbelieving that Linux couldn't not possibly not uncontain not Unix code?

Re:Summary (1)

rm69990 (885744) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068295)

Lol, yeah, I shouldve checked it over before submitting it better :-P

The nail in the coffin? (4, Insightful)

bhsx (458600) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068037)

Probably not. This whole thing is still going to take another year or so to play out. Not the SCO has a snowball's chance; but they'll keep going at least until their "prepaid" lawyers run out on them. Hopefully that'll happen before they get to court. Actually, hopefully not, as if they were to quit halfway through the court procedings the judge would probably ask the bar association to investigate them. F*cking lawyers, er rather, THESE f*cking lawyers.

Re:The nail in the coffin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068075)

F*cking lawyers, er rather, THESE f*cking lawyers.
No, you had it right the first time, it's "F*cking lawyers"..

Re:The nail in the coffin? (5, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068141)

No, you had it right the first time, it's "F*cking lawyers"..

Christ Almighty! You mean we're letting them breed???? Have we learned nothing from the Black Death?

Yet more proof (5, Funny)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068040)

Yet more proof that the Googlebomb calling SCO "litigious bastards" is correct.

Maybe now the case will be dismissed...

Making Sure The Guilty Pay Their Price (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068043)

As SCO continues to desintigrate, it is import to keep an eye those responsible who worked there as they try to find their way back into the respectable computing world.

No one should be able to participate in a sickeningly slezy shakedown like SCO tried to pull off and just wash their hands and pretend it never happended.

Of course not everyone associated with SCO is guilty of sleaze but keeping an eye out for key SCO people and either making sure they don't get hired or at least making it known to companies that would think of hiring the scumbags it isn't worth the bad press/karma.

Re:Making Sure The Guilty Pay Their Price (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068084)

I'm eagerly awaiting the outcry from the severely handicapped investors who thought it was a real good idea to invest in a company whose business plan was "we're going to threaten potential customers with spurious claims and sue IBM". These investors deserve to lose their shirts. Perhaps we can parade them around with name tags like "Joe Smoe - SCO Investor and Moron" or "Janet Doe - Bought SCO Stock and Now Lives in a Cardboard Box Next to the Dumpster".

Re:Making Sure The Guilty Pay Their Price (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068166)

PS F spelling

Re:Making Sure The Guilty Pay Their Price (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068218)

It would be nice if there was a public list available to the open source community that outlined:

1) The name of the SCO or company working with them employee

2) Their position and role

3) Some estimate of what they made in profit from SCO

Making it public that you will be publicly bitchslapped hard if you fuck with the open source community ever again would be strong warning sign to those who look to follow a similar path of sleaze in the future.

I think we all were a bit lucky with SCO, they were both sleazy AND incompetent. The next fuckers who try to pull something like this probably won't be as dumb.

Shareholder SUits (4, Interesting)

PingXao (153057) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068053)

Bwahahaha! Hopefully this revelation will lead to a bunch of lawsuits against the directors and officers of SCO for willful malfeasance. This may be the opening that allows them to pierce the corporate veil and go after them personally. Darl is not the only one richly deserving of jail time.

What would happen to UnixWare and OpenServer? (3, Interesting)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068064)

Now that it looks like their case is beyond salvation, and suppose they were to lose their lawsuit and become financially void, what would happen to the UnixWare and OpenServer codebases? Would they be transferred to one of TSG's debitors?

Indeed, if IBM did happen to acquire the rights to UnixWare and OpenServer via such means, then it would be very helpful to the community if they released the source code to both products. Of course, Novell's involvement may sticky things up a bit. But it would be great to have the systems available to the community.

Being a former sysadmin of SCO systems, I remember them fondly from the late 1980s and early 1990s. With some community-based work, they could easily be made useful again today. On older systems they would fly, thus making obsolete hardware usable again.

Re:What would happen to UnixWare and OpenServer? (1)

Gogo Dodo (129808) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068117)

Now that it looks like their case is beyond salvation, and suppose they were to lose their lawsuit and become financially void, what would happen to the UnixWare and OpenServer codebases? Would they be transferred to one of TSG's debitors?

More likely sold and the money from the sale given to the creditors. Creditors often don't care about the actual assets of a bankrupt company, but how much they can recoup from the sale of said assets.

Re:What would happen to UnixWare and OpenServer? (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068168)

Indeed, it would be interesting if IBM ended up purchasing from whoever the source code and distribution rights, and then proceeded to turn them over to the community. At the very least it would further help ensure that they (the source base) would not be abused again in the future against the open source community. It could potentially gain IBM many fans, not to mention make a very positive contribution back to the community. This could work out very well to their advantage.

Re:What would happen to UnixWare and OpenServer? (1)

failure-man (870605) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068230)

Not to mention being several kinds of hillarious when former SCO code ends up in Linux.

Re:What would happen to UnixWare and OpenServer? (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068234)

2003 SCO sues IBM for breech of contract.
2004 It is revealed that SCO is getting money from Microsoft through indirect means.
2005 A memo reveals that SCO knew all along that there was no copyrighted code in Linux.
2006 Case against IBM dismissed, SCO files for bankruptcy, split up. Unix rights bought by OSC.
2007 OSC sues IBM for breach of contract.
2008 It is revealed that OSC is getting money from Microsoft through indirect means.
2009 A memo reveals that OSC knew all along that there was no copyrighted code in Linux.
2010 Case against IBM dismissed, OSC files for bankruptcy, split up. Unix rights bought COS.
2011 COS sues IBM for breach of contract.
2012 It is revealed that COS is getting money from Microsoft through indirect means.
2013 A memo reveals that COS knew all along that there was no copyrighted code in Linux.
2014 Case against IBM dismissed, COS files for bankruptcy, split up. Unix rights bought by CSO.

Don't get your hopes up... (5, Insightful)

James A. D. Joyce (742507) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068085)

...as much as I'd love for SCO to get their arses handed to them, I wouldn't get excited until their suit is actually thrown out of court.

...relax and enjoy (5, Funny)

jfengel (409917) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068286)

Dude, you're too focused on ends. Enjoy the process.

Each day brings a new humilation to Darl McBride. Treasure this moment, because all too soon the case will be thrown out of court and then you won't have Darl to kick around any more.

So just relax and enoy, and don't be so focused on the final result. (No, your girlfriend didn't pay me to say that.)

Re:Don't get your hopes up... (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068313)

actually what "we" want is 1 the sco V ibm case completes (the nazguls start feeding on the leftover bits) 2 The criminal case(s) begin (darl & co start new jobs @ McDonalds) 3 The Microsoft Case gets thrown out of court due to the sco case. 4 Software Patents in the EU Die in the Caldera that was made 5 The One True GNU OS has a Desktop at Last ( the now broke Bill G is given a computer with GNU preloaded)

bwahaha (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068086)

muhahaha bwhahahaah narf zorg :o

Now that the case looks (1)

amcdiarmid (856796) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068098)

like it has a SCOballs chance in hell of succeeding, we can all go back to real work.

Congrats to everyone at Grocklaw.

Still (1)

Eternauta3k (680157) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068102)

I don't think it'll stop the lawsuit inmediatly, since a single source's opinion isn't necessarily the truth. However, it WILL increase the general bitching against SCO

advice to McBride.... (5, Funny)

The Lynxpro (657990) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068104)


Tune in the news and pay attention to the video images of Bernie Edwards going to jail for 25 years. Now, go down to your local "adult" store and buy some lube in preparation for your own date with justice.

Re:advice to McBride.... (4, Insightful)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068142)

Err, you mean Bernie Ebbers. But the real question is: will he actually spend 25 years in jail? That's doubtful. It wouldn't be surprising if he was actually out within 2 or 3 years, and back at the helm of some corporation within half a decade from now. CEOs are never held truly accountable for their actions. It won't happen with Ebbers, and it won't happen with McBridge. That is just a flaw with the system.

Re:advice to McBride.... (1)

The Lynxpro (657990) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068176)

"Err, you mean Bernie Ebbers."

Damn my fingers. Actually, damn my subliminal mind for pulling out the last name of my least favorite VP candidate from 2004. :)

Maybe Edwards could represent Ebbers in any future appeal... :0

Re:advice to McBride.... (1)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068238)

I meant to type "McBride" rather than "McBridge", pardon my soul.

I'd give it even odds (1)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068266)

But the real question is: will he actually spend 25 years in jail? That's doubtful.

Now there is an iteresting question. I think that you have to do at least 1/3 of your sentince before you can be put up for parole. He's something like 65 now, so when he gets out, he will be past his seventies.

I think the judge only gave him 25 years because of his age. There is a fair chance he will die in prison.

Perhaps more interesting than the email itself... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068110)

... is the fact that the PDV version (available on TFA) is slightly sqewed, meaning that it was printed off, then scanned in to a computer and uploaded.

Why would someone bother doing that?

(my guess is, its a fake)

Re:Perhaps more interesting than the email itself. (1)

mcc (14761) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068209)

Why would someone bother doing that?

Because sometimes evidence in court cases is provided in printed form.

Re:Perhaps more interesting than the email itself. (4, Interesting)

ValentineMSmith (670074) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068252)

I've got mod points today, but I think I'll reply rather than modding you down to the oblivion you deserve. The reason that it looks like it was printed off and scanned into a computer is...

Because it was printed off and scanned into a computer (and no, it is not fake).

The document was submitted in printed form as part of the discovery process. The clerk of the court then took the document and scanned it in as a PDF, allowing an image of the original (as opposed to an OCR'ed copy) to be stored electronically. This version of the document is the one released to the public on demand. Doing it this way is

  • more economical
  • more environmentally conscious
  • easier to distribute

than trying to photocopy originals of all of these documents.

Re:Perhaps more interesting than the email itself. (4, Informative)

mabinogi (74033) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068291)

if you read the article properly, you'd see that they actually _say_ it was scanned in.

This is a paper exhibit, which Frank Sorenson obtained from the court, scanned for us, and did the HTML. There are misspellings in the original. Thank you, Frank.

SCO lies.... (5, Funny)

Rick Zeman (15628) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068120)

...and in other news, kitten naps.....

Shame make-work schemes for lawyers aren't illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068125)

Hi:

And if SCO does get nailed with starting a frivolous law suit, more goes to the lawyers. Last year there was an excellent article in Foreign Affairs (www.foreignaffairs.org) that mentioned how the number of lawyers in the US economy was turning into an economic disadvantage: four per cent of the world's population and 80 per cent of the world's lawyers mean they have to manufacture work for themselves.

Oh well. Let the shouting begin.

Jail time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068127)

If SCO should have known that there was no Unix code in Linux and they sent letters to 1500 companies threatening court action and trying to convince them to buy $699 licenses, then were they not committing fraud?

We also have the possibility that they deliberately inflated the stock price with their claims. Again, if they knew their claims were false, were they not committing a fraud?

I'm glad I'm not them.

Re:Jail time (4, Insightful)

bigberk (547360) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068198)

possibility that they deliberately inflated the stock price with their claims
Of course they did! That's how it's done in the stock market. You have to understand this before you ever touch a stock trading screen. Even if an executive knows that their business is dead, as long as they can prop up public perception (lawsuits, advertising, stunts) they can prop up the stock price. Then the insiders exit either directly or indirectly, and once that is done it no longer happens what happens to the corporation because those in the know have saved their butts. When SCOX was reaching new highs I kept telling people this was a short opportunity from heaven; it was classic pump-and-dump and all you needed was a little computer knowledge to be able to tell fact from fiction. I doubt McBride ever thought linux licensing was sane and I doubt he thought he would get away with the lawsuits. BUT the news tricked the public into buying SCOX shares, which was all that was needed

Operating systems are Black Magic, Toqueville says (5, Interesting)

Theovon (109752) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068130)

I talked at length with that guy from the Toqueville institute. I tried and tried to explain that Linux is just a kernel, only a small part of an OS, and that anyone with a decent CS education is taught everything they need to know to develop a kernel as simple as the first Linux kernel that Linus wrote. I explained that Linux is a social phenomenon more than a technical achievement, because, conceptually, kernels just aren't such a big deal (although debugging them is a hassle, well handled by the 'many eyes' of the community).

No matter what I said, he was not able to grasp it. He just could not believe that one guy could write an OS kernel. But he really didn't understand what a kernel is either, so that was a bit of a barrier also. The fact that various CS professors had come out and said the same thing didn't faze him.

Darl McBride is just another non-technical businessman who thinks that operating systems are black magic that only huge teams of people can write. His reasoning leads him to believe that if "one guy" did it, but one guy really couldn't have done it, then he must have copied it. Pure, simple, logical, but unsound in that it completely doesn't account for just how simple or complex a kernel is.

Just like how some people can't possibly understand how a piston engine works, some people aren't cut out to grok OS kernels. Darl just doesn't have the brains for it. (Plus, his primary motivation is to make money, not actually UNDERSTAND anything.)

Begin.. (0)

manavendra (688020) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068154)

1) Endless gloating about holiness of Linux
2) I'm Darl McBride, you insensitive...
3) Bush couldnt find WMD, like McBride couldn't find violations
4) ? 5) Profit!!!

Re:Begin.. (1)

Blutarsky (580739) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068277)

For shame! You completely left out:
In Soviet Russia, consultant listens to you.
In korea only old people listen to consultants

Attention Karma Whores! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068155)

Here, I'll do it for you:

"Does SCO make any real products anymore?"

"SCO's lying. Was this news to anyone?"

Rhetorical question? Practical answer (3, Insightful)

twilight30 (84644) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068165)

'And why did Darl tell the world, and Congress, that because Linux was written by volunteers, there was no way to know if it was clean code, that it was a "free-for-all", that "there's not a policeman to check in the code at the Linux kernel level to ensure that there are not violations", when they already knew that it presented very clear evidence of purity?'

Because Darl is a lying cunt, that's why.

close code fond (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068169)

the word "for" and the vars "i" & "j" were among the code.. it must be copied..

so what would be good punishment for Darl? (3, Funny)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068184)

Maybe, having to put "Sank Sunbeam and The SCO Group through excessive litigation" on his resume, and a special "Ambulance Chaser" license plate on his car.

Hmmmm... (5, Funny)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068185)

Should I be happy because someone ignored a consultant or sad that they caused so much trouble by doing so? Decisions, decisions...

OpenSource questioned also (2, Interesting)

kyndig (579355) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068203)

I believe the way the open-source community works right now has some fundamental flaws that have got to be addressed. We need to address how this open-source intellectual property is developed, routed, and sold. Thousands of software developers send code to contribute to open-source projects -- but there isn't a protective device for the customer using the software to ensure they're not in violation of the law by using stolen code.

In tracking this roller coaster, it hadn't occurred to me till just now that the overall target isn't Linux itself, rather the Open Source movement. I see more concern in this statement about Open Source development, than I do about Linux code infringement.

Or is Open Source questioning just an added bonus tacked onto SCO claims.

SCO doesn't use SCO products within SCO? (3, Interesting)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068215)

Notice the forwarded email from Michael Davidson to Reg Broughton contains the email header
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I).

That is very interesting, indeed. Why would SCO be using Windows 98 machines internally? Indeed, one would expect them to be using SCO UnixWare.

Re:SCO doesn't use SCO products within SCO? (1, Flamebait)

JerryBruckheimer (896257) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068320)

No, it's not interesting. Do you expect everyone at Cessna to fly to work? Everyone at LL Bean to live in a tent? Just because your company makes a product doesn't mean that everybody at the company should use it for all purposes.

What!?!?! (2, Funny)

kamg (312270) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068224)

I am SHOCKED! Shocked, I tell you!!!

Where is the surprise? (1)

0x000000 (841725) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068227)

Where is the surprise. Everyone at the beginning said that there was nothing wrong with it.

What i find particularly funny, is the fact that Darl did not even make up the idea himself, but rather he got it from someone elsed in the company. He is nothing but someone who thought it could not be true, eventhough there was proof to the contrary.

As PJ tells you, there were articles out that cleared Linux of all copyright infringement before, as there was none. This has just shown all of use Open Source users, that our code is clean, and that they can not take us down. Instead of doing what they had hoped, generate business, they are now losing it.

Linux has an awesome way to get new code into the kernel. It also has been proven now that it is a system that works. The code is clean from any infringement, as even Darl and all of his lawyers can not find any infringement in the code. Only some stuff that looks alike just because there is no other way to name the variables. No clearcut copyright infringement.

Darl, do us all a favor. Apologize to the world, and then take your company and shove it up your ass. After that, eat your lawsuit, as IBM is going to bury you with it, and you are not getting out of it unless you can eat your way out.

One word (1)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068235)

There's just one word that sums up this whole SCO ordeal:

LMFAO!!

Re:One word (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068294)

LMFAO is an acronym, stupid! We can always try add laughingmyfuckingassoff to the dictionary, but we may run into problems.

The smoking gun (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068239)

This means the SCO lawsuit has just crossed the line from "Completely clueless lawsuit" to "Intentional frivilous lawsuit". Doesn't ignoring this email leave SCO wide-open to a counterclaim by IBM for restraint of trade? SCO may be right about one thing -- this may very well be 4 billion dollar lawsuit. The problem is, it looks like the billions in damage claims may very well be awarded to IBM, not SCO.

Hey... you here that? (1)

David Webb (883154) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068241)

Thats the sound of SCO getting the smackdown. Let's here it some more.I hope the entire company goes under.So sad when you can't make money from quality product yourself.Hmm company in trouble equals sue everyone in sight.ya thats the ticket!!!!

In response to the yawns... (2, Insightful)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068247)

Virtually every news item posted here can start a flamewar. Amidst the Microsoft bashing, several voices will point out good things they have done. Praise or bash the iPod, and you will generate a response. It's nice to see that there is one thing that unites us all, liberal/conservative, Apple fan/hater, and that is the universal agreement that Darl is scum.

There are very few universally accepted truths in this world, and it is nice to be reminded of them once in a while.

You Linux people just wait.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13068253)

When Microsoft buys SCO and takes over the lawsuit they will be able to tie this up in court indefinately and they have the giant pot of gold to fund it. Truth will have no matter when the sued companies cave or go bust. It will be a sad era indeed!

Insurance (4, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068268)

There was, at one stage, the idea that we would sell licenses to corporate customers who were using Linux as a kind of "insurance policy" in case it turned out that they were using code which infringed our copyright...

Yeah, I got a friend named Guido who sells "insurance policies" too... his catch phrase is "Nice place you've got here... be a shame if anything should happen to it!"

Am I misreading the law, or does this actually qualify as extortion?

Wait!!!!! (4, Funny)

Laura_DilDio (874259) | more than 9 years ago | (#13068279)

But what about all the journalists (some call me that..but basically I'm a paid MonkeySoft shill) that SCO invited to see examples of infringing code. I know we had to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so I can't talk about what I saw, but believe me there was lots of powerpoint slides!!!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?