Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SCO Relies On IBM-donated Servers With Groklaw

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the come-together-right-now dept.

IBM 100

Technician writes "It appears that SCO and Groklaw have the exact same tie to IBM: the ibiblio service. 'An eagle-eyed Groklaw ninja, sk43, has spotted an ftp site where you can get binary copies of Linux libraries needed by SCO's OpenServer and UnixWare customers who use lxrun. But you can't get the source code from that sco.com ftp site. SCO directs their customers to .... sunsite.unc.edu. Why bless my stars, sunsite.unc.edu is the old name for what is now ibiblio!'"

cancel ×

100 comments

Stupidest SCO article ever. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18660617)

Good job. It's a ridiculous Groklaw post, and it's asinine that Slashdot repeats it here with a headline that Groklaw themselves suggests and then calls "absolutely accurate and totally misleading".

This serves no purpose and contributes nothing to anyone's understanding or to productive discussion.

Re:Stupidest SCO article ever. (5, Informative)

SashaMan (263632) | more than 7 years ago | (#18660647)

Did you even read the entire Groklaw article? The whole reason this was posted is in response to this totally asinine Information Week Article headline:

IBM Helps Fund Web Hosting For Anti-SCO Site Groklaw

(See http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jh tml?articleID=198100504 [informationweek.com] )

Basically, Information Week and some asshat reporter named Paul McDougall tried to smear Pamela Jones by suggesting IBM was behind Groklaw because Groklaw is hosted on ibiblio. Well, so is a shitload of other stuff, including support files for SCO OpenWare.

Re:Stupidest SCO article ever. (5, Informative)

Mistlefoot (636417) | more than 7 years ago | (#18660757)

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200704032 33141649

Exhibit 15 and 16 as offered by SCO are about Ibiblio supporting Groklaw. This isn't just about an Information week article - this is evidence SCO is offering to the court.

Sco is using this as evidence IN COURT that IBM is supporting Groklaw. Now we see that SCO is supported by Ibiblio (and therefore IBM, by SCO logic). This nullifies pretty much any benefit these exhibits would be for SCO.

Re:Stupidest SCO article ever. (3, Funny)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661313)

It now proves IBM is also behind SCO and this whole trial is nothing but a PR tool so IBM can sell more AIX and zOS licenses.

Oh.. Wait...

Re:Stupidest SCO article ever. (2, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661333)

Exhibit 15 and 16 as offered by SCO are about Ibiblio supporting Groklaw. This isn't just about an Information week article - this is evidence SCO is offering to the court.


You pay peanuts, you get lawyers who throw monkey shit at the judge.

Misunderstanding SCO's goals. (4, Insightful)

Eevee (535658) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661523)

Except they aren't paying peanuts.

SCO didn't just pick some random lawyers out of the phone book. One of the firms has Kevin McBride as a partner. Last name sound familiar? Kevin is the brother of SCO's CEO Darl McBride. In my paranoid (yet possibly true) ravings, part of SCO's plan has alway been to funnel part of the money to their friends and relatives in these law firms. Grab as much as they can for themselves, send the rest to friends as legal fees, and leave as little as possible for the damages that they'll be forced to pay once the farce is over.

On the other hand, this monkey shit is exactly what the lawyers are getting paid for. Not to win the case, not even to make valid legal point--only to draw the case out as long as possible. SCO isn't trying to win, just to get more money out of the market. (Does Microsoft pay "licensing fees" based on how long SCO keeps up the FUD about the legality of OSS?)

Re:Stupidest SCO article ever. (2, Informative)

Pokerstars com (1060832) | more than 7 years ago | (#18660829)

I've read some other stuff by Paul McDougall. Total waste of text if you ask me....

Re:Stupidest SCO article ever. (1)

trewornan (608722) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661675)

The thing I don't understand about this is what difference it would make if PJ *was* a front for IBM.

I mean, OK it's unethical for a company to hire someone to act as a PR front without admitting they work for them, but that doesn't make it against the law. Suppose SCO is exactly right (unlikely I know) and PJ isn't a real person at all but just a front for IBM's PR department - so what?

Re:Stupidest SCO article ever. (1)

schon (31600) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662073)

Suppose SCO is exactly right (unlikely I know) and PJ isn't a real person at all but just a front for IBM's PR department - so what?
Isn't is obvious?

If PJ is a front for IBM, that means that every Linux user owes SCOX $699 per cpu!

Re:Stupidest SCO article ever. (1)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 7 years ago | (#18666007)

The difference is that IBM stated for the record that they were not publishing any information regarding the trial either themselves or through third parties.

If SCO could prove that IBM was using the *PJ* persona to funnel information (even if it's all accurate) it would go against IBM based on what they presented to the courts.

Re:Stupidest SCO article ever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18660839)

Nevermind Biff. Console yourself by spending the vast fortune you can get selling your SCOX shares.

Some Slashdot Moderator Loves PJ (1)

DarrenR114 (6724) | more than 7 years ago | (#18667013)

as is apparent from the unfair modding of the parent as "Flamebait"

Take a look at my user # - I've been following Slashdot a long time and I can say that it is no longer worth a damn to really read ... I'll just stick with Digg.

User #?? (1)

splutty (43475) | more than 7 years ago | (#18676151)

Take a look at my user # - I've been following Slashdot a long time and I can say that it is no longer worth a damn to really read ... I'll just stick with Digg.

Uhm.. Your user number is 18 million, 667 thousand and 13... How does this make you 'following Slashdot a long time'..

And no, please don't check my user #...

Ignore my comment ;) (1)

splutty (43475) | more than 7 years ago | (#18676741)

ROFL.

Someone please hand me more coffee... I wanna go home!

Man that was silly.

I'd say SCO's hoist on their own petard.. (3, Funny)

SirFozzie (442268) | more than 7 years ago | (#18660621)

... but I'm afraid that hook is buried where the sun don't shine.

Re:I'd say SCO's hoist on their own petard.. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18660719)

I'd say SCO's hoist on their own petard but I'm afraid that hook is buried where the sun don't shine.
I think you've mixed metaphors. The phrase is "hoisted by one's own petard," meaning blown up by one's own bomb/grenade.

Re:I'd say SCO's hoist on their own petard.. (3, Funny)

sentientbeing (688713) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661229)

Mixing metaphors reaps you the most bang for your buck. You dont want to rock the waters.

Re:I'd say SCO's hoist on their own petard.. (1, Funny)

trewornan (608722) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661305)

You dont want to rock the waters.


Or take up arms against a sea of troubles.

Re:I'd say SCO's hoist on their own petard.. (1)

EatHam (597465) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662109)

Or take up arms against a sea of troubles.

If you do, your dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.

Re:I'd say SCO's hoist on their own petard.. (1)

x_MeRLiN_x (935994) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662777)

That's a simile; not a metaphor. ;)

Re:I'd say SCO's hoist on their own petard.. (1)

e4g4 (533831) | more than 7 years ago | (#18664675)

Maybe, but it's still a great reference....I can't wait until they release more Futurama.

Re:I'd say SCO's hoist on their own petard.. (1)

daf00masta (581247) | more than 7 years ago | (#18666379)

you know what they say... people in glass houses ss..ss...ssink ships

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18660627)

I must have been hibernating for some time... Ibiblio? Is this news? Interesting? Do I need to follow this?

Re:What? (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 7 years ago | (#18660723)

Probably not. It's more SCO FUD. I guess now they've finally succumbed to grasping at straws that aren't there.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18660875)

SCO has been grasping at their own straw so hard with this lawsuit, they failed to notice whose straw they had grabbed.

Re:What? (1)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661035)

> I guess now they've finally succumbed to grasping at straws that aren't there.

"Finally"? You must be new here. The Society for Confabulation and Obsfucation have been building entire imaginary straw men out of those things, trying to Don Quixote their way through court.

My money still says SCO has been hoping a payoff, buy out or outright take over by IBM or one of the other (previous) defendents before they crash and burn. At this stage about all they're going to get is a helmet so they don't hurt themselves and a seat on the little corporate school bus on its way to Enronville. Hopefully, by the time they implode, the only stockholders will be McBride and his pals, and their attorneys.

Love Triangle (4, Funny)

kihjin (866070) | more than 7 years ago | (#18660631)

Anyone else getting that old-junior-high-school drama vibe?


Did you hear about Becky? She's been with Dave.
Dave! But Dave's been seeing Sarah.
Dude that's my sister.
Well she's hot.
Shut up.


Cue the collective sigh from the rest of /.

Re:Love Triangle (1)

waspleg (316038) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661503)

old? highschool? do you work in an office?

waspleg

a-HA (3, Funny)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18660633)

This can only mean one thing...

SCO is a front for IBM!

No, wait...

SCO will now sue themselves (3, Funny)

MSRedfox (1043112) | more than 7 years ago | (#18660777)

SCO will add themselves to the list of people being sued. They will then quickly settle with themselves thus proving that being hoisted on ibiblio is admission of guilt. It's the ultimate Catch-SCO-22.

Re:SCO will now sue themselves (1, Funny)

Workaphobia (931620) | more than 7 years ago | (#18660787)

Well, the whole suit was just a means of controlling their stock price, so sueing themselves seems like the next logical step.

Re:SCO will now sue themselves (1)

nuser (198161) | more than 7 years ago | (#18676303)

being hoisted on ibiblio is admission of guilt

Sounds more like the punishment

Re:a-HA (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662279)

A long dead sister. That was born a brother and now she is back.

Will SCO stay with IBM? Will IBM have a lovechild of RMS? Will PJ sue SCO?

Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of

IBIBLIO

On a more important offtopic Note (-1, Offtopic)

ThoreauHD (213527) | more than 7 years ago | (#18660655)

Plextor has released the firmware for linux. The have iso upgrades now making them OS agnostic. It's listed under the "non-windows" section of firmware. Just a heads up since the story about will help you as much as a frontal lobotomy.

A very good illustration of SCOX folly (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18660657)

Read the SCOG complaint ...

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-1018.pdf [groklaw.net]

In that motions, SCOG make the claim ... "In fact, most of the servers on which Groklaw.net and other ibiblio publications run are hosted on IBM-donated servers. IBM's support of ibiblio is, according to the project's director, continuing in nature."

OK, so groklaw simply points out that SCOG material is found amongst the "other ibiblio publications", and the entire SCOG motion is easily exposed as the utter nonsense it truly is.

Re:A very good illustration of SCOX folly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18662333)

That is not a complaint. It is a memorandum.

Complaint... document that accompanies filing of lawsuit that identifies that basic reason for the action and the statutes involved.

Memorandum... arguments and references to law and facts that attempt to support an associated motion.

Motion... request for a judge to produce an order aiding in case disposition.

Let me be the first to say... (2, Funny)

FiniteElementalist (1073824) | more than 7 years ago | (#18660731)

Huh?

It's mostly about media corruption and Forbes etc. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18660821)

There have been many strange articles in the media, for example in this forbes article they report that IBM may have destroyed evidence [forbes.com] . However that evidence was what SCO used as a basis for starting the case, and so SCO "must" have had it to begin with. Forbes and other similar media outlets report large amounts of SCO material without comment.

The question has been raised: where are they getting this material and why are the reporting it as it is. The primary place where that's been raised has been Groklaw [groklaw.net] and the accusation has been that parts of the media are actively backing SCO even against all possible evidence. Now SCO and those parts of the media have started an intimidation campaign against Groklaw both in court and in the media, along side attempts to by SCO's media friends to invade her privacy [informationweek.com] . This recent posting is showing the hypocrisy which is behind this campaign and it's media backers who use as accusations in court filings things that they themselves also do.

Re:It's mostly about media corruption and Forbes e (2, Informative)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662481)

Well, TO be fair, SCO claimed IBM destroyed evidence when they had their linux developers remove the Unix source from they workstation. But IBM claims that it wasn't destroying anything because they already had copies of everything as well as what was released to the public supporting their claim.

So, there was some destruction of evidences. Although this so called evidence had nothing to contribute other then what was already known and wasn't really destroyed in the sense of trying to hide it. It was just removed from particular workstations after SCO had copies of everything.

Re:It's mostly about media corruption and Forbes e (2, Informative)

Samari711 (521187) | more than 7 years ago | (#18665783)

Not only that, but logs of who checked what out when should be a part of their source control system. IBM gave SCO a server that contained a complete copy of the repository that would have had that information in it, if SCO actually bothered to look for it.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

Pad-Lok (831143) | more than 7 years ago | (#18660851)

Was it, like, beep beep beep beep bleebleebleep, first?

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 7 years ago | (#18663893)

It was a really good paper.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661319)

Congratulations. You get first scooby-take post.

IBM - SCO case a mere drama? (2, Interesting)

jkrise (535370) | more than 7 years ago | (#18660971)

Let's remember that IBM is still the biggest 'Unix' vendor - AIX. IBM's association with Linux may be purely incidental. They still maintain BOTH branches - Linux and AIX in their offerings. The case with SCO could've been closed months ago... wonder whether IBM's taking the matter REALLY seriously.

How will this drama unfold? Given the parallel SCO - Novell case that'd be heard first, I guess it could appear Novell, not SCO holds copyrights... and SCO vs IBM gets dissolved.

Given the negative publicity surrounding the MS-Novell deal, it's going to look foolish if Novell suddenly sues IBM and shuts down other distros except SuSE.

Anyways, it now appears SCO is just a front for IBM.. or the other way round!

Re:IBM - SCO case a mere drama? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661109)

Maybe they -are- taking it seriously. And IBM is purposefully drawing this out. The longer it takes, the larger the court fees they get to charge against SCO when they win. Make that number big enough and SCO's stock will die and IBM -never- has to worry about them again. Failing to get some court fees has got to be peanuts next to that. (Because we all know SCO won't be able to pay when they lose.)

Re:IBM - SCO case a mere drama? (1)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661357)

It's the lawyer way to stick their enemies' heads up on poles and displaying them as a warning to anyone who attempts such foolishness in the future.

And it is also helpful in US law to set a precedent so any similar future pursuits can be dealt with swiftly.

Re:IBM - SCO case a mere drama? (2, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662551)

I agree. Settling this once and for all will give IBM so much more leverage then anything. It also clears a shadow over their product and it set the bar appropriately high to discourage someone else decides form making similar claims. I doubt IBM really cares about SCO as much as they do running their product line and making money from it.

Re:IBM - SCO case a mere drama? (1)

k8to (9046) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661599)

That might make sense, but SCO does not have enough money to see them through the year. There's no need to draw anything out, they already have far too little money to pay what they owe to Novell, let alone legal fees, or (soon enough) employee salaries.

Re:IBM - SCO case a mere drama? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662589)

I'd have agreed with you if they hadn't managed to live this long. They are obviously being helped by outside forces (Microsoft is one, apparently) and have already lived FAR longer than anyone suspected was possible.

Like a vampire, you can't just kill it, you have to also stick the stake in it's heart and make sure it doesn't get loose. I probably even go so far as to behead and then burn it, just to be absolutely sure. Maybe spread the ashes in some well sun-lit area afterwards.

Re:IBM - SCO case a mere drama? (1)

k8to (9046) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672629)

Yes, they got a large cash infusion, but they're a public company, and the books are open. THe money is done.

Umm, it is not IBM that is drawing this out. (1)

Tran (721196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662413)

Read enough on groklaw and you quickly find out it is SCO that is drawing this out.

Re:IBM - SCO case a mere drama? (2, Informative)

Quila (201335) | more than 7 years ago | (#18664343)

Maybe they -are- taking it seriously. And IBM is purposefully drawing this out.



SCO has been notoriously drawing this case out, delaying it using every possible legal trick. IBM has repeatedly asked the judge not to give them their delays, but SCO has won them many times.

Re:IBM - SCO case a mere drama? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#18664519)

Yes, I've been paying attention. My statement suggests (maybe not strongly enough) that the shoe may be on the other foot, now. Maybe it benefits IBM to delay now, and hurts SCO.

SCO wanted delays because they believed it would give them time to find proof for their case. They haven't found any, and now the little bit of 'proof' they DID have has been completely unmasked as being horseshit. Further delays will probably not help them 1 bit and will cost them a lot of money.

Re:IBM - SCO case a mere drama? (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 7 years ago | (#18664831)

I can't say I know what IBM is thinking, but I think they have a strong incentive to get this tried quickly as a deterrent to other would-be SCOs out there. The question of Linux's legal status is still up if SCO goes bankrupt before it's over.

Re:IBM - SCO case a mere drama? (1)

rm69990 (885744) | more than 7 years ago | (#18669399)

You're both wrong. It is SCO that as been digging in their feet and dragging things out. IBM already tried to have the whole case thrown overboard 2 years ago, and they're trying again right now with their summary judgment motions. It was SCO that turned discovery from a 1 year preparation into a 3 year fishing expedition (still finding nothing in the end it seems).

Well actually ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661125)

I would say IBM has bet the farm on Linux. Otherwise, the case might have been over long ago.

As far as anyone can tell, SCO brought the suit in hopes that IBM would buy them to shut them up. A few people would have made a lot of money and they could move along to the next scam. The trouble was that IBM, having bet the aforementioned farm, needed Linux to be unencumbered by any taint of anyone else's IP. So, IBM has defended Linux vigorously and when it's all over nobody will doubt that Linux is as pure as the driven snow. As Machiavelli pointed out, you don't send half your army into a battle that will determine your whole fate.

So, no, it's not just drama.

Much simpler - IBM never gives in to blackmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18663833)

IBM's fighting of this case has nothing to do with the importance Linux has in their business plans.

IBM, quite simply, does not give in to legal blackmail. And that's been well-known in two major communities for decades: the technical and legal communities.

So don't tell us SCO was trying to get bought out. That's bullshit, because everybody on planet Earth knew the last thing IBM would do would be to actually reward a nuisance lawsuit. Nope, SCO is nothing more than a wind-up FUD monkey that Bill Gates aimed at Linux. Any nuisance lawsuit aimed at getting SCO bought out would not have needed a PIPE fairy...

SCO/Caldera's M.O. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18664125)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/special_ca ldera_case_report_microsofts/ [theregister.co.uk]

Caldera successfully sued Microsoft over Dr DOS. Having managed to shake down Microsoft, they probably thought they could do the same thing to IBM. It is quite possible that Darl was clueless enough to think he had a case. The grandfather post refers to the motivation that led Caldera/SCO to attack IBM in the first case. Conditions changed and so did their motivation. They went through a phase when they looked like they were doing a pump and dump. At some point it became clear that the pipe fairy was at work. Now, I think they are desperately trying to make it look like their case was not completely frivolous. If they can't do that, they and their lawyers are in serious trouble.

The consensus over at Groklaw (people who have actually been following the case closely) was that the case started out as a shake-down. Other aspects emerged later.

Re:Well actually ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18664109)

what does this have to do with SCO's IP in linux?

oh, that's right - nothing. i guess that part of the case is pretty much settled or SCO would be putting their energy toward that portion of the case instead of turning this into a circus.

good riddance SCO.

Re:Well actually ... (3, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 7 years ago | (#18665289)

That and IBM is well aware that if you pay extortionists, they or others like them will be back for more. When (not if) SCO goes down in flames for their lame play at IBM, they'll serve as an example for others.

Re:Well actually ... (1)

rm69990 (885744) | more than 7 years ago | (#18669425)

Hmmm, I always thought this case was about SCO's alleged IP. I wasn't aware that this case would establish that Linux doesn't infringe any IP, whether or not it (allegedly) belongs to SCO.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but any random company could turn around and sue Linux distributors for patent infringement after this case and the results of this case would have no bearing on it whatsoever.

Re:IBM - SCO case a mere drama? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661517)

If IBM were taking the matter seriously, SCO would have been:
* Kicked to the ground
* Head stomped in
* grabbed by the throat and raised up
* Falcon punched right in the womb
* knocked back to the ground, where IBM waits for sparklies to appear and IBM loots every single penny they have.

Re:IBM - SCO case a mere drama? (1)

TENTH SHOW JAM (599239) | more than 7 years ago | (#18668975)

And currently IBMs Nasgul, err... legal team, are circling to
* Kick head into the ground. "AT&T gave us an irrevocable licence to do the hell what we want"
* Head stomped in. "IBM own all the code it donated under the terms of the GPL to Linux"
* Grabbed by the throat and raised up. "Novell owns your source code, you just own the business of selling it"
* Falcon punched right in the womb. "Hey, looky here, you've stolen GPL code that we own the copyright to. Fix it or lose LKP"
* Knocked to the ground, where IBM will say to Novell, "You want to buy this peice of trash?" To which Novell will take one look at the Sys5 code and say "We grant a BSD licence to it all"

And then that will be the end of that. Darl will be lucky to avoid the pump and dump scandle.

Re:IBM - SCO case a mere drama? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18662837)

Let's remember that IBM is still the biggest 'Unix' vendor - AIX. IBM's association with Linux may be purely incidental. They still maintain BOTH branches - Linux and AIX in their offerings
No, they maintain only AIX. Linux is a separate entity outside of IBM. IBM contributes to linux.

The "exact same" ties? (2, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661135)

Did IBM donate $50,000 to SCO via the IBM-chaired OSDL organization, as SCO alleges that they did with "Groklaw" (i.e. PJ)?

Or... are we still not allowed to talk about that part of SCO's allegations, or PJ's refusal to so much as discuss, let alone deny it, until she gets (quote) "lawyered up"?

Commence troll ratings in 5... 4... 3...

Re:The "exact same" ties? (2, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661199)

You've just convinced me this story is too complicated for me to follow. You had me and then you lost me.

Re:The "exact same" ties? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 7 years ago | (#18666501)

Synopsis: SCO == stupid Microsoft catspaws, PJ == clever IBM catspaw.

Re:The "exact same" ties? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18661495)

>>Did IBM donate $50,000 to SCO via the IBM-chaired OSDL organization, as SCO alleges that they did with "Groklaw" (i.e. PJ)?

I don't know. That's an unsubstantiated allegation made by the same group who claim to be "SCO" and that "mountains of 'UNIX'* code was found in Linux by their 'rocket scientist deep-divers'" so confidence in the truth of their assertions might be low.

On the other hand; we know that:

" SANTA CLARA Calif., Aug. 30, 2000 - Hewlett-Packard, Intel Corporation, IBM* and NEC Corporation today announced the Open Source Development Lab, the industry's first independent, non-profit lab for developers who are adding enterprise capabilities to Linux*. The four companies plan to provide significant equipment and funding to the lab over the next several years. Additional contributors and sponsors of the lab include Caldera, Dell, Linuxcare, LynuxWorks, Red Hat, SGI, SuSE, Turbolinux and VA Linux."

So we might surmise that OSDL has simply made a check out to the smelly hippies at Groklaw in the exact amount that Caldera (dba/ the SCO Group) paid in membership dues.

Therefore SCO is covertly funding Groklaw in its campaign to dissect SCO's nuisance lawsuits and bogus claims (and there are more of them than those that are brought against IBM).

Q.E.D.

* Third party marks and brands are property of their respective holders.
* IBM is a registered trademark of International Business Machines Corporation.
* Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.
* UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group.
* Trolling is an unregistered service mark of BIFF in Belgium and other countries.

OSDL-Groklaw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18662499)

The issue with OSDL $ going to Groklaw is that the OSDL is promoting corporate acceptance of Linux and thus should be impartial to a matter where one company is claiming that their IP was stolen and placed into Linux.

No matter how bogus SCO's claims might be, the OSDL is trying to on one hand appear impartial in that the matter will play out justly in the courts and on the other hand, if the OSDL is funding Groklaw (which they have not commented on despite inquiries from the media) then they are taking sides on the issue.

So OSDL legitimacy could be compromised due to the appearance that if a corporation's IP is placed into an open source project without the corporation's consent, the OSDL would be siding against that corporation in the matter.

Re:OSDL-Groklaw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18662971)

"...OSDL is promoting corporate acceptance of Linux and thus should be impartial to a matter where one company is claiming that their IP was stolen and placed into Linux."

How does that follow? If OSDL has done its own analysis and concluded that SCO's claims are not believable, shouldn't it being doing what it can do counter the FUD?

Re:OSDL-Groklaw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18663039)

>If OSDL has done its own analysis and concluded that SCO's claims are not believable, shouldn't it being doing what it can do counter the FUD?

Yes, as long as it is all above board and their (OSDL) position has been officially stated.

Otherwise, you have got some behind the scenes concerns right now asking what is going on with this.

Re:OSDL-Groklaw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18667535)

I don't understand your concern...wouldn't it be completely impartial to claim that SCO is simply full of crap? i.e. no ideological allegiance, just a statement of verifiable facts.

The fact that OSDL has not yet said "SCO is a lying sack of shit" means that OSDL is slightly biased toward politeness and nonconfrontationalism, which happens to also bias them toward SCO, not against them.

Re:OSDL-Groklaw (1)

rm69990 (885744) | more than 7 years ago | (#18669553)

I suggest you search their site for SCO using Google and then try to tell me that OSDL should be impartial. They didn't exactly make it unknown which side of the fence they sit on, considering they published numerous position papers on why exactly SCO is full of shit (paraphrased here of course).

Besides, I could care less who funds Groklaw. They've been right 99% of the time, and SCO doesn't exactly have clean hands when it comes to influencing and abusing the media. I seem to recall SCO using the media to widely spread slanderous statements about other people and companies with the seemingly sole purpose of extorting licensing fees from innocent companies and boosting their stock price.

SCO accusing IBM of funding Groklaw to influence public opinion is a blatant case of the pot calling the kettle black. It's sad that SCO has such high standards for everyone else and no standards at all for their own conduct.

SHHH!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18663971)

Didn't you get the memo? We're not supposed to talk about that!


--
please type the word in this image: contempt

Re:The "exact same" ties? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18662737)

I was going to mod this "Interesting", before I read the last statement in the post: "Commence troll ratings in 5... 4... 3..."

I hate it when posters include statements like that; it doesn't add any worthwhile content to the post, and I can't help but feel it's something akin to begging for up-mods using reverse psychology. The poster says "Oh noes!!1! I'm going to get modded troll for this, even though I'm only trying to present an interesting counter-opinion! But, don't worry about me, *sniffle*, I'll sacrifice my own karma so that maybe, just maybe, my message will be heard. *teardrop* ... *sniffle* ... *puppy-dog eyes* " Then, the poster hopes, someone with mod points will see the post and agree with it a little (but maybe not enough to mod it up); upon seeing the final statement, though, the reader may think "Well, that's a decent post -- I wasn't going to mod it up, but I don't want to see it modded troll. I think I'll go ahead and mod it up."

Well you're not getting my mod point, even though I thought your point was interesting enough for a mod. Leave out the pity party next time. (Anonymous because I've already modded in this discussion.)

Re:The "exact same" ties? (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 7 years ago | (#18664301)

Did IBM donate $50,000 to SCO via the IBM-chaired OSDL organization, as SCO alleges that they did with "Groklaw" (i.e. PJ)?
The origin of the story is Daniel Lyons, known SCO cheerleader and Groklaw hater. He stated that the money was for "infrastructure issues." Tell me, what kind of $50,000 infrastructure issues could there be with Groklaw hosted at ibiblio for free?

Re:The "exact same" ties? (2, Informative)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 7 years ago | (#18665095)

Wiring in the red dress?

Re:The "exact same" ties? (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 7 years ago | (#18666391)

And yet, curiously, despite falling over herself to draw our attention to and debunk every other claim, PJ declines to deny this one, even when asked directly about it.

It's not *that* curious (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18668035)

And yet, curiously, despite falling over herself to draw our attention to and debunk every other claim, PJ declines to deny this one, even when asked directly about it.

Perhaps because it's a legal document, filed about her specifically?

It's one thing to refute claims made about you in the media, or claims made in court about someone else. But claims made about you in a court of law? Can you blame her for not wanting to make statements on the subject without legal representation?

Re:It's not *that* curious (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672353)

..every other claim in this document. Don't take my word for it; go and read Groklaw and see if you can spot her addressing this one specific issue.

Re:The "exact same" ties? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18665645)

Daryl is that you?

You didn't read her website lately have you.

Re:The "exact same" ties? (1)

rm69990 (885744) | more than 7 years ago | (#18669509)

No, feel free to discuss them. However, the strength of the allegations SCO has made has been thoroughly debunked with regard to iBiblio. After 3 years of this consistently happening to every allegation SCO makes (millions of lines of code, Project Monteray, ownership of copyrights and patents), I would recommend you have your head thoroughly examined though if you actually BELIEVE what they say without confirmation first. Everyone important at SCO is a compulsive liar, plain and simple.

Do I necessarily believe PJ 100% of the time? No, have a look through my comment history at Groklaw, I disagree with her on many things and have even been labeled a troll at Groklaw at times as a result. She's blatantly biased. However, I'll believe PJ, IBM, Red Hat and some random guy trying to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge any day of the week before I blindly believe, or even suspect to be potentially true, anything SCO or their lawyers spew forth. They've earned that standing with me and most people who have watched this farce for 4 years now.

In short, if they present more than allegations and actually offer proof (something they struggle with often), I'll believe it. Otherwise, it's just hot air to me.

there's more (5, Interesting)

hebertrich (472331) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661721)

didnt beleive it .. so i did it myself ..
ir.sco.com is the investors relations website for SCO
well ok .. so lest see :

ric@ric ~ $ host ir.sco.com
ir.sco.com is an alias for cald.client.shareholder.com.
cald.client.shareholder.com is an alias for webcenter360.shareholder.com.
webcenter360.shareholder.com has address 170.224.5.57
ric@ric ~ $ whois 170.224.5.57

OrgName: IBM
OrgID: IBM-1
Address: 3039 Cornwallis Road
City: Research Triangle Park
StateProv: NC
PostalCode: 27709-2195
Country: US

So .. IBM is hosting the SCO's investors relations
website ..

errr .. conspiracy theories are surfacing that
IBM actually owns SCO :)

ROFL

Ahhh patience.... grasshoppah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18662245)

errr .. conspiracy theories are surfacing that
IBM actually owns SCO :)


Just wait a little while longer... They will soon enough.

Re:there's more (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18665245)

IBM actually pwns SCO :)

Fixed that for ya. No charge--I don't work for SCO.

Sunsite vs Ibiblio (1)

Transdimentia (840912) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661863)

Sorry, don't mean to rewrite history but I'm pretty sure ibiblio was the 'new' name for sunsite.unc.edu, not the other way around. Everything old is new again.

doh! (1)

Transdimentia (840912) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661885)

Ignore me, my eye transplants are acting up again.

Do they have editors here? (1)

germansausage (682057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18661941)

I notice the summary managed to spell "ibiblio" two different ways in the same paragraph. If they had editors here, do you would think they would have caught that?

Yeah, I must be new here.... sigh

Re:Do they have editors here? (0, Flamebait)

gimple (152864) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662447)

They have people who call themselves editors here, but they don't edit, and they can't spell--so I prefer to call them editers.

Don't believe the GPL violation hype on this one (2, Informative)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662627)

Lots of places have been accusing SCO of violating the GPL by providing lxrun but not the sources for it, and referring people to ibiblio for the sources. It's quite difficult, though, to violate the GPL when the project seems to be licensed exclusively under the Mozilla Public License [caltech.edu] .

Let's not sink to the level of SCO by making accusations which are easily demonstrated to be false. Of course, if there's GPLed code in lxrun which was relicensed without permission of the original author that's another matter, but I haven't seen any claims of that.

People really should not assume someone is violating a license without checking to even see what license is involved. That includes when the accused is a big ball of crud like SCO.

Re:Don't believe the GPL violation hype on this on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18663449)

The concern is over Linux libraries...which are not part of lxrun, and _are_ licensed under the GPL.

However, the whole thing is really silly because nobody uses lxrun anymore. SCO dropped lxrun in favor of LKP more than five years ago. The fact that there's any mention of lxrun on SCO's web site just shows they've been spending more resources suing IBM than keeping their web server up to date.

Re:Don't believe the GPL violation hype on this on (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18664105)

However, the whole thing is really silly because nobody uses lxrun anymore. SCO dropped lxrun in favor of LKP more than five years ago. The fact that there's any mention of lxrun on SCO's web site just shows they've been spending more resources suing IBM than keeping their web server up to date.

The fact remains that if they are distributing GPL code in contravention of the license (I have no idea if they are or not and don't much care at this point as they will become a smoking hole in the ground with an IBM sign up next to it) their sole remedy is to stop distribution.

Read the filings, not the headlines (1)

jgoemat (565882) | more than 7 years ago | (#18667947)

"lxrun" might be under the Mozilla Public License, but the Linux binaries that SCO is hosting without the source code are not.

Re:Don't believe the GPL violation hype on this on (1)

rm69990 (885744) | more than 7 years ago | (#18669607)

Ummm...you should check YOUR facts. lxrun is licensed under the MPL, but the LINUX LIBRARIES used by lxrun are still covered under the GPL or LGPL, much like the end-user software run using lxrun would retain the same license. The Groklaw article clearly states it is talking about Linux LIBRARIES used BY lxrun. I just skimmed the article and retained that much before reading your comment, did you even bother opening and reading it?

Using a library doesn't require distributing it (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 7 years ago | (#18670287)

You know what, I did in fact read several posts all over the web that said Lxrun was GPL. However, I went to SCO's site to see if they really are distributing Linux libraries, and this is what I found:

1. There's a link to a linux-libs directory which no longer exists. that link is here [sco.com] . I have no proof there's been anything there in the last ten years or that there weren't sources under that directory somewhere when it did exist. The date on the link does not necessarily reflect when the directory actually existed, either.

2. There is actually a binary copy of something called ld.so in the lxrun tar.gz file available at this location [sco.com] So yes, there does seem to be an issue here after all. Now, I did say "seem to be". Let's dig a little more...

If you read the README files that come in the lxrun tar.gz file and the source comments for the ld-linux.c that's in the lxrun sources (hosted by SCO), they talk about including a fake ld-linux which just sets the environment in order to call the real ld-linux.so, and then go on to say where to get both the binary and the source for that. Look in this location [sco.com] and open any of the lxrun archive files there to see what I mean.

Now, there might still be some truth to the claims, since the fact that I didn't find it doesn't mean it's not out there somewhere. However, I went looking for some and still didn't see it. All I found for sure was there's an MPL-licensed package -- with source* -- which uses GPLed libraries. If that's what passes for a GPL violation, then I'm going to stop using GPLed software.

Now I hate SCO as much as the next guy. However, making accusations that can't be proven is their M.O., not mine. You can talk about anything you want being the real issue, but unless it's true and verifiable, it doesn't mean a damn. I don't actually doubt SCO has violated several licenses in several ways, because the people involved with them seem to have no respect for law or justice in any form. In this particular case, though, it may just be that there's not the smoking gun we'd all like.

* The versions available as binaries do not match exactly the versions for which source is available, but there are multiple binary versions and multiple source versions. The MPL, as I understand it, doesn't require one to distribute the source if it's unmodified anyway.

Remember SunSITE? (1)

mnmn (145599) | more than 7 years ago | (#18662719)

Do you guys remember when ibiblio was sunsite.unc.edu? And when it was ftp.cdrom.com?

I still remember the way I used to fetch Slackware binaries, ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/distributions/slac kware/slackware-3.2 .... with a capital L in Linux. Else it wouldn't work.

as usual SCO's PR campaign backfires (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18664565)

It looks like the slimy underhanded attack on Pamela Jones, the independent journalist (and apparently a very competent researcher/analyst), who is responsible for Groklaw, is backfiring in the usual spectacular SCO fashion. SCO really has a problem with anyone who dares to examine the facts in their spurious lawsuit circus.
Even without Groklaw, anyone with a brain could read any of SCO's filings and easily pick out weasel words, half truths, untruths, and outright lies. I challenge you to find a single filing from SCO that is truthful, and backed up by believable evidence.

IBM's Statement (2, Informative)

jgoemat (565882) | more than 7 years ago | (#18669015)

Read IBM's statement [informationweek.com] on the matter:

IBM has no connection to the editorial content posted on Groklaw.

Groklaw's website, and hundreds of others, are hosted on a website at the University of North Carolina (UNC), called ibliblio. This site is described by UNC as a public library. ibiblio runs on IBM System x servers which were funded through an IBM Shared University Award Grant awarded to UNC -- a grant that predates Groklaw ever being hosted on ibiblio. Anyone can host a site there and IBM does not sponsor, nor endorse, the content of those sites.

IBM is proud to sponsor many universities around the world in various ways, including helping them host websites like the one at UNC."

Groklaw met the criteria [ibiblio.org] for hosting on ibiblio's free servers. If your web site meets the criteria, you can host it there for free also. View some other sites on their collection page [ibiblio.org] . Groklaw is a site to discuss open source legal issues, it is not limited to IBM or to SCO, although that is the predominant legal battle going on at this time. If you read Groklaw, you will know that there are not only articles about the other SCO litigation (RedHat, AutoZone, Daimler-Chrysler and Novell), but discussions about Microsoft, patents, ODF vs. MSXML, other GPL cases and the new GPL V3. Ibiblio is run by the University of North Carolina. IBM has contributed servers to the project long before Groklaw came into existence. IBM has no say in the sites hosted at Ibiblio or their content. Ibiblio could host SCO's site if it met their criteria.

I want to know why it matters though... Groklaw looks at the public filings that anyone could get if they were willing to go to the courthouse for a copy. They don't have any secret information and don't get information from IBM. IBM has been nearly quiet in the media since the case has begun, citing their preference not to comment on litigation.

Since before the IBM case started, SCO has been issuing public statements both through their media shills and on their own web site. They've made outrageous claims with no evidence whatsoever to support them. They've tried to co-opt the GNU/Linux operating system as their own, charging $700 per processor to run it. That's a slap in the face for the thousands of contributors who relied on the GPL and made their own contributions, and to Linus Trovalds who initially developed Linux. After initially claiming that three teams of experts found millions of lines of infringing code in Linux, they waited three years to show ANY evidence and then it was only 326 lines. They transformed their case from Trade Secrets (since UNIX contains none as admitted by their lawyer Kevin McBride) into some bizzare "ladder" theory where IBM loses control of it's own independent creations simply by associating them with their flavors of licensed UNIX.

The most bizarre thing is how they value their "core UNIX intellectual property". Caldera was created as a Linux company in 1994. They raised about $70 million in an IPO as a Linux company when they went public in 2000. They purchased assets and operations from Tarentalla (Santa Cruz Operation) for $93.8 million in 2001. You can see that in the 10-Q [sec.gov] report they filed with the SEC (search for "Purchase price allocation"). They allocated that money this way:

  1. $66.1 million - Goodwill (SCO customer base)
  2. $26.7 million - Distribution/reseller channel
  3. $5.8 million - Existing technology (consisting primarily of UnixWare and OpenServer)
  4. $1.5 million - Acquired in-process research and development
  5. $1.4 million - Distribution agreement
  6. $0.8 million - Trade name and trademarks

Caldera's stated intent in the purchase was twofold. First they intended to do the exact thing they are accusing IBM of, improving Linux with technology from UnixWare and OpenServer. Second they hoped to use SCO's distribution channel and customer base to market their flavor of Linux, replacing the business they are now accusing IBM of destroying. That didn't work, so Caldera's new management thinks that a $5.8 million investment in technology is worth $5 BILLION from a single company. Tarentella's shareholders should be forming a class-action lawsuit right about now since their management sold their prized assets for what amounts comparatively to a handful of beans.

If you add up all the evidence, you should see that SCO doesn't even own the UNIX copyrights. UNIX was mostly BSD code anyway, but all that Santa Cruz bought from Novell in 1996 was the right to combine their own OpenServer with Novell's UnixWare. They didn't have any rights to license the UNIX code except when selling that merged product or administering the existing UNIX licensees that Novell still received 95% of the income from. Copyrights were specifically excluded in the APA, except for the rights SCO needed to do these things. UNIX copyrights aren't even mentioned in the 10-Q, just UnixWare and OpenServer "technology". SCO attempted to get Novell to go along with them on their "SCO IP for Linux" scheme and the lawsuits. SCO knew that Novell still had the copyrights, why else would they bother? When Novell turned them down, and the company was faced with insolvency, they illegally sold licenses to the technology still owned by Novell to Microsoft and SUN, and they illegally tried to extort licensing fees from Linux end-users. They decided the various complicated agreements could be read to transfer the copyrights (if you squinted your eyes, read only every other sentence and made up new definitions for certain words) and to forbid IBM from ever working with Linux. Then, instead of suing RedHat who is supposedly actively distributing and marketing a work that infringes on their copyrights, they sue IBM. If you really own copyrights, you should want infringers to stop and try to get a preliminary injunction to stop them. Instead, SCO ignored the very people distributing the software that supposedly infringes on their copyrights and had the RedHat case delayed, then went on to sue to companies that bought Linux and don't even distribute it outside the company.

Let me use an analogy to describe this case. The song "Ice Ice Baby" by Vanilla Ice includes a beat from the Queen song "Under Pressure", but totally different lyrics (and mostly different music). Let us say there's a rapper called MC Marvin that uses Vanilla Ice's lyrics in his song "Ice Ice Marvin", but not a single recognizable part of the beat from "Under Pressure". MC Marvin gives his song away for free (Vanilla Ice being the copyright holder for "Ice Ice Baby" says he can), and iTunes sells the song (without DRM) for 25 cents. Now Madonna comes along and buys the rights to use the words from the Queen song "Under Pressure" in her own song for $5,000, but not the music. SCO's lawsuits would be like Madonna a) suing Vanilla Ice for $4 million (for allowing MC Marvin to use his lyrics), b) ignoring MC Marvin and iTunes c) telling people they have to pay 70 cents to Madonna for the song they already bought from iTunes and d) suing a few iTunes customers who already purchased the song (and had purchased "Under Pressure" in the past) for $1,000 each. This despite the fact that "Ice Ice Marvin" doesn't contain any part of the Queen song "Under Pressure" and the fact that Madonna doesn't have the copyrights.

Queen: Novell
Vanilla Ice: IBM (although this would be as if the beat were properly licensed from Queen)
MC Marvin: Linux
iTunes: RedHat
Madonna: SCO

I am not a lawyer and this is all my own opinion...

But... (1)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 7 years ago | (#18669683)

They belong on ibiblio. They dont profit anymore, that makes them a non-profit organization :)
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...