Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Operating Systems Software Unix News Your Rights Online Linux

SCO May Countersue Red Hat, SuSE Joins The Fray 622

Posted by timothy
from the not-being-forthcoming-huh dept.
uninet writes "The SCO Group, Inc. today released a statement concerning the lawsuit filed against it yesterday by Red Hat, Inc. The release quotes Darl McBride, SCO's President and CEO, as being 'disappointed' with Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik for not being 'forthcoming' about Red Hat's intentions in a previous discussion." Reader psykocrime adds "According to this SuSE press release, SuSE has publically announced their support for RedHat's actions against SCO. Quoting from the press release: 'SCO has already been halted in Germany and we applaud Red Hat's actions to help end their activities in the US -- and beyond. We applaud their efforts to restrict the rhetoric of the SCO group -- and the FUD they are trying to instill -- and will determine quickly what actions SuSE can take to support Red Hat in their efforts.'" Read on for a few more links.

Vladimir writes "What no one has really touched upon is that the SCO vs. IBM court date is in April 2005, which could mean that the resolution of this case could be somewhere in 2006-2007, by which time Linux or any other OS may be irrelevant. People please keep your wallets in your pocket. Also, this lawyer has a long analysis of SCO extortion attempts and debunks a lot of their FUD."

Besides which, Omega writes "VNUnet has a story on how the economic analysis firm The Butler Group predicts that even if SCO can demonstrate there is offending code in the Linux kernel, it could easily be replaced."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO May Countersue Red Hat, SuSE Joins The Fray

Comments Filter:
  • by PoochieReds (4973) * <jlayton@poochie[ ]s.net ['red' in gap]> on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @06:50AM (#6624379) Homepage
    It's standard business practice to countersue when someone sues your company. The merits of the case have very little to do with it.

    Nothing to see here, move along...
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @08:17AM (#6624905)
      Its also common practice to counter*(see below)sue someone for libal and slander. Not to mention trying to extort your customer with vage threats of possible lawsuits and other reprocussions in the future.

      Especially WITH NO PROOF WHAT-SO-EVER.

      What if Ford motor company went to all the people who bought GM products and said to them, "Chevy, Pontiac and freinds stole technology from us, I am not going to tell you what they stole and how they stole it, but you should know that many of the people who designed for GM have also worked for other companies who make cars, including Ford. If you don't pay us 3000 dollars for every GM car you own within 3 months then I may have the government put you in jail, or mske you pay a big fine on top of what you owe us for using GM products."

      I doubt that would go on long with out some serious reprocussions.

      *And don't forget that SCO hasn't SUED REDHAT AT ALL. This is not a counter-suit. SCO has sued IBM, which sells Redhat products along with some of it's servers, but that doesn't have much bearing on the lawsuite at all. SCO allegesthat IBM put some code from AIX into Linux, during IBM's development of it's contribution to Linux's code base; thus "devalueing Unix".

      The rest is a bunch a propaganda BS that SCO is using in a attempt to frighten unwitting people into giving them free money. SCO's version of UNIX is inferiorer in pretty much everyway, not only to Linux, but NetBSD, FreeBSD, and in some aspects to OpenBSD, PLUS ALL the commercial versions on Unix such as AIX or Solaras.

      SCO is screwed even if they win the lawsuit. It's a company with no future and open source deployment and support was their best bet for survival, however limited, and they flushed that down the f*king drain.

      This lawsuit is just a chance for them to get the company recognized as a unix provider so that their stock market "value" goes up and give the to p execs a chance to unload their stocks with as little as a loss as possible before their investors realise that they are banking on a loser and pull out, which I would think would be around... ahhh sometime between 2005 and 2006?

      I am just happy to see a lawsuit that is not frivolus comming out of the american justice system.
    • by perdelucena (455667) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @08:29AM (#6624978) Homepage
      Nope, this is recursive! there must be a stop condition.

      --
      Sco Sucks
    • by epiphani (254981) <epiphani@da[ ]et ['l.n' in gap]> on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @08:33AM (#6625000)
      Who has the most to gain from SCO winning this lawsuit? Certainly not SCO, because they arent going to get money from Linux development. Not microsoft, because linux will not die.

      Sure, SCO will get the money from the lawsuit itself, but nothing beyond that.

      Sun.

      Think about it. If major corporations are forced to switch away from linux, Solaris is the next viable product. SCO is not only a bad product, but they've sucessfully put the last nail in their own coffin with this lawsuit. They pissed off the majority of the industry.

      Microsoft wouldnt take the market, because all the applications and development are designed around linux/unix environments.

      Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of what Sun is doing, but they're probably waiting with baited breath to see the outcome of this.
      • by ryanvm (247662) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @09:21AM (#6625338)
        If major corporations are forced to switch away from linux, Solaris is the next viable product.

        I don't think so. Solaris is a little more expensive than what most Linux users are used to paying. You really can't think of any other free, UNIX-like operating systems with a proven technical track record? I'll give you a hint - their names end in BSD.

        Sure Sun may be the most viable commercial product, but I think you'd see the *BSDs picking up a lot more users than Solaris would.

        Of course, the truth is that most Linux users would probably just continue to do so. So they have to download it from offshore - big deal. It's not like the BSA could touch them (no filthy EULA to empower them). They'd have to be tracked down and prosecuted by regular law enforcement for copyright violation. Good luck with that one, SCO.
      • by Darth Yoshi (91228) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @09:32AM (#6625421)
        Sure, SCO will get the money from the lawsuit itself, but nothing beyond that.

        Sun.


        My opinion is (and, hey, I post on Slashdot so I've gotta have an opinion) it isn't about SCO or Unix at all. It's about some opportunist executives sucking the last life out of a dying company.

        I think the original plan was to sue IBM, have IBM buy SCO, exercise their stock options, open their golden parachutes and bail out.

        When that plan failed, their backup plan was to pump-up their stock prices using exaggerated claims about the value of their Unix intellectual property rights while quietly exercising their stock options and selling off their stock in the background (I hope the SEC is looking into this).

        I think that as soon as they've sold off all of their personally held stock, the executives will open their golden parachutes together and bail out and SCO (and their lawsuit) will die shortly thereafter.

        I hope Boies was smart enough to get paid in advance.
    • by GreyWolf3000 (468618) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @10:27AM (#6625886) Journal
      Suse joining in is much more intersting to me...after all, SuSE and SCO were partners in {UnitedLinux} crime!
  • by JanusFury (452699) <kevin.gadd@gmail. c o m> on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @06:50AM (#6624380) Homepage Journal
    Red Hat tags out and SuSE jumps into the fray, and then they both do a combo on SCO!

    SCO is down to its last bit of health, it looks like the end!

    Oh wait, SCO just tagged out! Here comes Microsoft!
  • See the code (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tsa (15680) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @06:53AM (#6624392) Homepage
    What I don't understand is why SCO is so unwilling to show the code this is all about. If it's in the kernel everyone can already see it so why the secrecy and complicated NDA stuff?
    • by Tsali (594389) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @06:54AM (#6624397)
      "Because it's devastating to my case!"
      - Jim Carey, Liar, Liar

    • Re:See the code (Score:5, Interesting)

      by isorox (205688) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @06:57AM (#6624412) Homepage Journal
      Cynics view: Code doesnt exist, or they are frightened of someone pointing out that the code went to Linux and SCO from a *BSD tree.

      Probable view: If they show the code, it would be out of the kernel in 4 hours, and re-written in a day, their case would collapse.
      • Re:See the code (Score:5, Insightful)

        by benjiboo (640195) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:02AM (#6624446)
        Probable view: If they show the code, it would be out of the kernel in 4 hours, and re-written in a day, their case would collapse.

        But the binaries of the kernels in question are still out there on thousands of machines. Removing the code would of course cancel out any claim they had to licensing revenues for further kernel builds, which I guess is not a hand they would willingly give up...

      • Re:See the code (Score:3, Insightful)

        by superid (46543)
        "Probable view: If they show the code, it would be out of the kernel in 4 hours, and re-written in a day, their case would collapse"

        Is there a legal basis for this? I do not doubt for a minute that any infringing code could be rewritten quickly, but why would an otherwise legitamite SCO case collapse? As an analogy, my neighbor breaks into my house and infringes upon (steals) my tv, I sue him and he says "ok I'll put it back". It seems to me that he is still guilty of a crime.

        • Re:See the code (Score:4, Insightful)

          by alienw (585907) <<alienw.slashdot> <at> <gmail.com>> on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @08:43AM (#6625065)
          That's an improper analogy. If the code can be replaced in 4 hours, then the court will see that the code was not valuable or important and was most likely included by accident. Then, SCO won't be eligible for punitive damages. Remember: intent is very important here.

          Here's a closer analogy. You borrow a pen from a co-worker. You forget to return said pen. Co-worker accuses you of theft, but refuses to say what you have stolen. I don't think the case would get very far, given that a pen hardly costs anything, the theft wasn't intentional, and you would likely return the pen had he asked.
        • Copyright does not create a thing, per se, like a television. When you copy and distribute something without the Copyright holder's permission, you're not commiting an act of theft, but one of infringement- you're taking away the right of the holder to control production and distribution of the IP in question. It's the way the law is worded and there's a good reason for it as IP isn't really property- when you infringe, you don't take away the idea; when you steal, you take away the object and it's use fr
      • Re:See the code (Score:3, Interesting)

        by zerocool^ (112121)
        Cynics view: Code doesnt exist, or they are frightened of someone pointing out that the code went to Linux and SCO from a *BSD tree.

        We'll see:

        PinkFairies.org [pinkfairies.org] - Home of the SCO code bounty hunt.

        Hopefully we'll sweat it out of 'em. Got code? Claim your prize!

        ~Will

    • Re:See the code (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sique (173459) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:08AM (#6624500) Homepage
      Because the original case is not about the code itself, but about IBM allegedly infringing on the licensing conditions for AIX. SCO states that with IBM releasing code to the Linux kernel which was written for AIX and thus covered by the Unix license, IBM infringed on the contract.

      SCO states that IBM had to protect not only the licensed source code but also the code IBM wrote to make a derivative work from the source code.
      • Re:See the code (Score:4, Insightful)

        by cdrudge (68377) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:38AM (#6624655) Homepage
        Yes that was the original case. But SCO changes its story so often. If it's related to Linux, Unix, IBM, or any other company that might someday appear as a blip on SCO's radar, they have accused them of something. You don't send out 1500 letters to people who have done no dealings with IBM saying that they are infringing on SCOs IP due to a contract dispute.
      • Re:See the code (Score:3, Informative)

        by B'Trey (111263)
        If it was only the original case, Red Hat wouldn't be bringing suit. SCO is also contacting customers of Red Hat (as well as other Linux versions), warning them that they're liable for copyright infringement or violation of trade secrets, and offering to sell them a license. That's why Red Hat is suing.
    • Re:See the code (Score:3, Insightful)

      by affenmann (195152)
      > What I don't understand is why SCO is so unwilling to show the code this is all about.
      > If it's in the kernel everyone can already see
      > it so why the secrecy and complicated NDA stuff?

      Maybe they're afraid. I bet that only days after they show us the source there will be a clean version of the Linux kernel, perhaps with a few features disabled. In any case, it'll only take a short time to get a clean kernel. And then they can't force anyone into paying them...
      Isn't open source great ? :-)
    • by jkrise (535370) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:42AM (#6624683) Journal
      'Cos SCO is interested in extortion, not reasoning.
      'Cos the justice system is such that anyone can throw shit and ask others to clean up the mess.
      'Cos firms are no longer interested in delivering products and services, but in making money and enriching a few directors.
      'Cos, maybe there isn't much truth in what SCO's trying to have us believe.

      -
    • by nut (19435) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:59AM (#6624801) Homepage
      Very simple. As soon as SCO tells the world exactly what pieces of code in the linux kernel they are claiming ownership of, they will be removed and re-written by an army of open of open source developers. SCO immediately loses ownership as soon as it tells people what it claims to own.
      It's a bit like Schrodinger's cat, except that even if it's alive when it comes out of the box, we immediately kill it anyway.
    • Re:See the code (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zipsonic (89057) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @08:36AM (#6625023)
      Well I've been thinking alot about this, and I think it's funny that they give a blanket statement about it being in the 2.4 - 2.5 (now 2.6). If its in every 2.4 kernel, then it would had to have shown up in the 2.3 development cycle. Parts of the kernel dont magically appear at the beginning of a new production/stable cycle.
      But telling us the exact release number would infringe on their IP, and we couldnt have that.

      Darl, you need to put up, and then shut up when we've removed it from the kernel.
  • by OMG (669971) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @06:55AM (#6624405)
    I contacted SCO Germany and tried to get an offer for a desktop licence. On the phone a SCO employee said I should stop "babbling" (yes, she used that word). I should sent an email instead. Others have tried that weeks ago and got no reaction up to now. The company doing the press releases for SCO Germany informed me that they are not allowed to comment on the licence in any way, too.

    It looks like there is absolutly no chance to buy the SCO licence for Linux in Germany at the moment.
    • Speaking of licenses (Score:5, Interesting)

      by xyote (598794) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:05AM (#6624472)
      Has anyone actually seen one of these beasties? Do the licenses make specific claims to IP or they the usual vague claims of extortion attempts, pay us and we won't hurt you.


      Ha! I can just see Darl "Pirana" McBride's next bright idea, SCOO, the Santa Cruz Other Operation.

      • Well, they couldn't afford a horse's head, so I got a Gerbil's. They also can't afford a Godfather, Daryl is the Nephew. The hitman is armed with a waterpistol filled with lemon juice.
  • by Rogerborg (306625) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @06:56AM (#6624408) Homepage

    What, just like SCO were when they decided to distribute a Linux distro, including code that said "Please use me", and then get all of their revenue by suing people for doing so?

    Remind me, what SEC filing that that plan appear on? Because it seems to me like "Abandon development and marketing of obselete product, make all of our money from barratry" would be the sort of thing that investors would like to know about beforehand.

  • by deadmantalking (187403) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @06:57AM (#6624414)
    I assume Mandrake, Connectiva etc. will also announce support for Red Hats actions. But this could be a cool idea. Why dont all the vendors individually sue SCO? SCO will run out of money before it can address any of them. Of course then MS may buy it out and then we could have a REAL problem on our hands...
    What i am interested in finding out is if any of the companies will put their money where their mouth is... donate to the Open Source Now! fund.
  • by Badgerman (19207) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @06:58AM (#6624417)
    I'm hoping that Red Hat and those supporting them beat the utter legal tar out of SCO. It's not just a Linux thing, either.

    If SCO comes out ahead, there will be imitators. If "Extortion Liscenses" work once, people will try it again. How many claims for "IP violations" will there be by hucksters offering to sell "insurance."

    I don't think SCO's imitatable yet since all they've done so far is inflate their stock price and annoy people. There are plenty of ways to inflate your stock price.

    I don't expect SCO to win. But it is something that struck me as important.

  • Lawyerspeak (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nogami_Saeko (466595) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @06:58AM (#6624421)
    Also, this lawyer has a long analysis of SCO extortion attempts and debunks a lot of their FUD.

    And from the page:

    "The jerkheads at SCO refuse to disclose what their IP is choosing instead to only make general and ambiguous public and inflammatory claims about others. Without proof, of course. Even without substance."

    I don't know when the last time I've heard a lawyer use "jerkheads" was, but it was probably a long time ago, if ever ;)

    N.
    • Yeah, I know lawyer speak can be confusing but it is like youre brain surgeon speaking with a southern accent. I just rather not.

      A good lawyer, for that matter anyone with a brain would never use swear words (no matter how mild) in a document. Not even on the internet.

      I wouldn't put to much trust in this "lawyer" words, if he speaks the same way in a courtroom he will be on charges of contempt before the charges have been read.

    • by praedor (218403) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @08:41AM (#6625049) Homepage

      So true. They normally make heavy use of the time-venerated "stupidhead" descriptor, and somewhat less frequently, the softer "poo-head".

  • by 4of12 (97621) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:00AM (#6624436) Homepage Journal

    It's becoming clear that SCO is a rather deliberate-placed fly in the soothing low cost ointment of growing Linux deployments.

    It's also clear that certain companies stand to benefit from slowing the rate of Linux adoption. It's in their interest to keep the question raised by SCO open for as long as possible because it will retard the growth rate of Linux. (I doubt the number of Linux deployments will decrease, or even level off, but the growth rate will probably slow.)

    So how long will it take for the SCO issue to be closed?

    Most current Linux users have dismissed SCO's claims as frivolous, but potential new users are probably more easily dissuaded by these kinds of questions.

    What kind of legal event and how long will it take before SCO claims are no longer a question?

  • by Badgerman (19207) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:01AM (#6624441)
    "The very last company you want to enter into a contract with is SCO. You can see now how they operate."

    Definitely good ammo if someone gets cold feet towards Linux.

  • what sun thinks (Score:5, Informative)

    by t123 (642988) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:02AM (#6624449)
    according to this eweek [eweek.com] story, sun believes it SCO can screw off:

    In the early 1990's, Schwartz said, Sun chief executive Scott McNealy agreed to spend several million dollars to take a broad license with AT&T, essentially granting Sun legal rights equivalent to ownership of Unix code.

    "As a result of that decision in 1993, we can do whatever we want (to the code)," Schwartz said. "We can drive forward and indemnify our customers too," a basic responsibility of any intellectual property provider, he said.
  • by bigmattana (646048) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:07AM (#6624487)
    Redhat and SuSE should use some of SCO's tactics. Since SCO's version of Linux probably contains some code that was generated by these companies or their employees, they can "sell" licenses to use their code before they sue SCO for violating the GPL. That way, the end user won't be held "liable". :) No more SCO linux users.

    It doesn't have to be a valid threat to scare management into submission. I think more tech companies need to put insurance agents into upper management positions. Nothing intimidates those guys!
    • by AgTiger (458268) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:31AM (#6624625) Homepage
      > Redhat and SuSE should use some of SCO's tactics.

      Absolutely not. The actions of the SCO executive are unethical, unconscionable, and at least in Germany, illegal.

      Were RedHat or SuSE GMBH to comport themselves in this manner, I would be forced to take a similar dim view of them, and would no longer buy their distributions.

      A very large message needs to be sent to companies everywhere: Act reasonable while providing quality products, and customers will stay with you and be loyal. Act like McBride, and go down, hard.

      There should be no other outcome.

  • by ljavelin (41345) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:08AM (#6624495)
    Clearly SCO is not hopeful that it will win the lawsuit against IBM - if it were, it wouldn't care about how many "SCO Linux licensees" are out there, and it wouldn't be trying to collect hundreds or thousands of dollars from them.

    Just think: If SCO thought it could win the IBM suit, SCO would be very successful financially. SCO could then take that financial success and license their technology in terms that are legally clear to their customers.

    Instead, they're trying to force organizations to be their customers by threatening them with potential lawsuits. And unclear lawsuits at that.

    SCO is merely looking for extremely high visibility in the short term - negative visibility which can damage it's ability to be a product OR IP property. Basically, they're pissing off potential customers of their technology (no matter WHO they license it to).

    SCO is looking for some short term cash with this deal, likely because all other forms of cashflow have stopped or in the process of stopping. Again, they can only bite the hand that COULD feed it, as at this point they have no product of any value except the threat of lawsuits (which isn't really considered a product).
  • by SmackCrackandPot (641205) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:13AM (#6624525)
    Looking back at recent history, I found this list compiled from various technology news reports...

    January 2000 Rambus files patent infringement lawsuit against Hitachi
    June 2000 Rambus settles lawsuit against Hitachi
    August 2000 Rambus files patent infringement lawsuit against Infineon
    August 2000 Micron files patent infringement lawsuit against Rambus
    August 2000 Hyundai files patent infringement lawsuit against Rambus
    Sept. 2000 Rambus files patent infringement lawsuit against Micron and Hyundai (Hynix)
    May 2001 Rambus lawsuit against Infineon dismissed, fined US $3.5 million
    August 2001 Rambus faces class-action lawsuit for fraud
  • by radbrad (687225) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:13AM (#6624526) Homepage
    Noi matter how much nice companies like Red Hat and SuSe help the effort, the damage to Linux's (considered in some circles) bad reputation, has been done.

    Joe "Unix? Wha?" Average already is wearing his microsoft distributed OSS protected sun glasses, and will only see the bad PR from SCO.

    It just sucks that now for every bad vibe that SCO has sent out regarding linux, it means we have to send out ten good vibes. So grab your friendly joe Avergae and explain to them what SCO really repreasents, just try not be too fanatical, people get wierded out by that.
    • by Dan Ost (415913) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:31AM (#6624626)
      If SCO's loses (read: no settlement), then Linux will emerge from this
      stronger than if this had never happened.

      Linux IP had always been a legal grey area. After this, legal precedent will
      be set and everyone will point to this case as a reference for future IP
      questions.

      Also, because of this suit, Linux is closer to being a household name than
      ever before. The public must first be aware of Linux before it can accept it.

      Finally, this suit causes the Linux community (and perhaps the larger OSS
      community) to put aside some of their differences and become less fragmented.
      This can only be a good thing.
  • by Sector_001 (613729) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:15AM (#6624533)
    We need some logo and/or wallpaper that we can use to express our displeasure with SCO.

    It needs to be something tasteful and non-libelous that can be placed, for example, as wallpaper on a corporate desktop.

    Anybody got anything that they would like to contribute ? (The kind of thing that I am thinking of is the Penguin smashing the SCO Logo with a sledgehammer)

  • by Darth_brooks (180756) <clipper377@nOSPAm.gmail.com> on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:15AM (#6624535) Homepage
    Mike Tyson has announced he will sue all of his former opponents, as they were not 'forthcoming' about their intentions to hit back.

    McBride ended his letter somewhat vaguely by suggesting that Red Hat's "decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux."

    Yeah, Defending your company's business practices is a horrible way to stay in business. You should attack other people's practices.
  • by non (130182) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:20AM (#6624560) Homepage Journal
    does the timing of all of this strike anyone else as intentional? that just when microsoft was starting to lose server interest share to linux at an ever-increasing rate a plague descends upon linux. does it further seem coincidental that microsoft has announced a number of open source/linux initiatives recently?

    i think there are several things going on here, but they all originate from strategic, and not tactical, decisions by redmond. let me start with a comment i heard from a coworker (he's in technical sales), "if anyone can figure out how to make money out of linux, its microsoft."

    one: microsoft has recently started to be perceived in the marketplace as stodgy. no, i don't have any business case studies to back it up; i feel it. so they're attempting to tell the world that they can change with the times like the best of them. how? by announcing open source initiatives, etc.

    two: despite microsofts continued rants about TCO, business' experience probably show that linux TCO, especially in the area of server administration, and down-time associated with virii, patches and other security issues, is in fact lower. ergo microsoft's focus on security and providing 'enhanced' command-line tools for server administration.

    three: they (redmond) know just how long it takes a suit to be completed. this whole series of events figures into some long-range plan. what, i don't know. remember though, this court date for the start of the suit is after the release of longhorn. my bet is that there will be a slew of patches and other enforced upgrades between now and then to change the balance. not in the home, where microsoft is feeling threatened, but in the corporate world, where they are quite seriously running scared.
  • by borgdows (599861) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:23AM (#6624574)
    http://sco.com/company/jobs/

    They're seeking a Senior Sales Account Manager... oh wait they should have called the job Senior Stupid Cow Milker!
  • Bickering Children (Score:3, Interesting)

    by asciimonster (305672) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:29AM (#6624612) Journal
    I beleive the SCO case is just like two bickering children. ("You stole my code! What code? That code! I did not! Yes you did! Wel prove it! I'm telling mommy! Well I'll tell daddy!") I think we are now in the running to mommy and daddy stage. It's the time that the stakes are risen and neighter party can emerge victorious. What is left is the question of who looses the least. Damned shame.

    I as an interested outsider can do two things: laugh my ass off or argyly ignore all post concerning SCO. Since I am finding it more and more difficult to do the first I will shut up now and have me mod -1 now...
  • SCO (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kris2k (676294) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:40AM (#6624666)

    I feel soo bad, considering that I just ordered about 2K of licensing upgrades from a SCO distributor for a client yesterday. :(

    If it wasn't for a proprietary set of apps, Linux + SCO bin emu was looking very good. I even had a chance to test this scenario, but encountered some serious issues.

    This just proves that, like any other commercial OS, if a company adopts a commercial OS, and their production apps are taylored to that environment, the companies are just locked-in, wether they like it or not.

  • WWF! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Noryungi (70322) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @07:40AM (#6624671) Homepage Journal
    Is it me, or is this SCO thing looking more and more like a bad parody of a wrestling match??!!

    "And, in the left corner, Red Hat is entering the ring, with his trademarked legal fund spandex and red fedora! SuSE is standing by, ready to lend a helping hand to his wrestling partner, while SCO's partner-in-crime, Microsoft is screaming 'HURT HIM!, HURT HIM!' to Darl McBride... But wait! Oh my Gosh! Red Hat has started a double-nuclear-powered screwdriver on both Darl McBride legs!! Wait!! Microsoft is trying to bite Red Hat butt while being severely pounded by 'Mein licenz ist GPL' SuSE!! It's a four way fight, people!"

    Aaaaah... Saturday night wrestling... (lick lips in anticipation)...

    Let's just hope that the good guys win! 10 to 1 on the little guy with the red hat! ;-)
  • by Urkki (668283) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @08:05AM (#6624840)
    "What no one has really touched upon is that the SCO vs. IBM court date is in April 2005, which could mean that the resolution of this case could be somewhere in 2006-2007"

    This thing is here to stay. We really do need a separate slashdot category for SCO stuff...

  • hedging one's bets (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DdJ (10790) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @08:46AM (#6625078) Homepage Journal
    So, let's see. The case may not ultimately be decided until 2006 or later.

    The case applies to kernel version 2.4 or later. If you're using 2.2, you're okay. Right?

    In order to hedge one's bets, maybe a distinct fork of 2.2 is called for? If we want to be utterly over-the-top paranoid, we need to make sure that if we're called upon to roll back to 2.2, we can do that, even four years from now. Which means we need to make sure device drivers written for new hardware up until then can be made to work with the 2.2-series kernel architecture.

    It'd also be good if distributions continued to give the option to use a 2.2-series kernel up until this is resolved. The current stable Debian distribution does; I hope the next two or three do as well.
  • Free Software on SCO (Score:4, Interesting)

    by naken (132677) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @09:01AM (#6625184) Homepage
    Not that any of my software is important, but to help alienate SCO I've changed all my licenses so that my software cannot be installed on SCO operating systems:

    http://ringtonetools.mikekohn.net/license.php
    h ttp://nakenchat.naken.cc/license.php
    http://asp2p hp.naken.cc/license.php

    for example.

    Maybe other free software developers will do the same? /mike

    1 2 1 2 The Naken Crew

  • by Theovon (109752) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @09:30AM (#6625395)
    Something that we need more of in the Free Software community is cohesion. We need to work together and support each other if we're going to improve technology for everyone and beat down predators like Microsoft. SCO is getting Red Hat and SuSE to work together, despite the fact that they are competitors. Everyone is rallying together against SCO. The common enemy makes us united. If that feeling of unity continues past the point where we have beaten SCO, the world will be better.
  • by nathanh (1214) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @09:37AM (#6625458) Homepage
    It doesn't matter now whether SCO is right or wrong because Linux has been permanently harmed by the allegations SCO has made. I count at least 3 ways.

    First, SCO has opened the flood gates for similar litigation. You think claims that UNIX is in Linux are bad? Wait until every trumped up failure of a company starts claiming IP ownership of everything open source. Not just Linux but all of userspace, applications, libraries, the lot. It's going to be a gold rush with Linux as the grand prize.

    Second, the media attention over "indemnity". The closed source vendors are gleefully telling any journalist who will listen: "when you buy closed source we will indemnify you against litigation, when you use open source there is no indemnity". That's a significant blow against open source. I can already see every PHB in the whole damn world reconsidering their plans to deploy Linux because of the fear of lawsuits. If I was a conspiracy nut, I'd say that this was the real reason behind SCOs actions; somebody wanted a noisy and public demonstration that Linux is "risky".

    Third, this is the beginning of the end for all corporate support. The growth of open source really exploded once companies took an interest. Not just the kernel but also userspace (OO.org, Mozilla) and infrastructure (GNOME, KDE) and harder concepts like marketting and packaging and sales. Linux went from "that hobbyist thing" to something much more because PHBs figured that if IBM/SGI/HP/Sun are treating it seriously then maybe there was something worth looking at. But can you imagine the CEOs approving Linux development now? Certainly not when Linux development leads to lawsuits from trumped up nothings like SCO. Large companies are slow to react but I predict within 18 months there will be a huge drop in corporate Linux support.

    Linux is hurt by these actions. Right or wrong. True or false. None of that matters. I've seen the needle. The damage is done.
  • by Stone316 (629009) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @09:37AM (#6625463) Journal
    I was curious to see if any stock holders were cashing in on SCO's inflated stock price. Check out the following link which details the last month. Not alot of huge transactions, maybe their really think their cashcow vision will come true? Yahoo Insider Trades [yahoo.com]
  • why do companies release needless papers stating their position on stupid things such as this, for once i wanna see a company release a press statment to a company pulling crap like SCO that says "Get fucked." what more do you need to say? seriously i'm not trying to start a flame war here, think about it, whats the most simple way to deal with SCO right now? sometimes you need a simple message for simple minded people.
  • by darkonc (47285) <stephen_samuel.bcgreen@com> on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @09:42AM (#6625505) Homepage Journal
    Does anybody have a copy of SCO Linux from after Feb 2003 (that they haven't already burned)? an install ISO would be best. I'd like to have a copy of SCO Linux running on one of my boxes before I call them to talk about their new license scheme.

    Sources would be good too (I guess I could always load an update kernel binary and source from their website)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @10:08AM (#6625740)
    Hello dear friend and greetings from sunny Nigeria.
    Please forgive me this intrusion, but your name was forwarded to me as a person I can trust. My name is Dr. Mombutu and I am the CEO of SCO for Nigeria. As you are probably aware SCO is now involved in a lawsuit which will undoubtedly result in a multi million dollar settlement as every user of devil spawn Linux will be ordered to pay money that is being owned to SCO as a result of copyright infringement. According to careful estimates this would result in a sum of $47.8 million US Dollars being deposited in SCO's accounts over the period of next 2 (two) years. I would like to offer you 10% (ten percent) of the entire $47.8 million if you help us in the legal fight against Linux. Your contribution will only have to amount to US$ 699 if you have a uniprocessor machine running Linux, US$1149 for a dual processor machine US$2499 for quad and US$4999 for a eight cCPU machine. Each additional single CPU will be $749, while a promotional licence fee for embedded devices is $32 per device. I personally guarantee that 10% of the entire $47.8 million will be deposited into the account of your choice as soon as the lawsuit is completed. Please send cash, certified cheque or money order to

    Dr. Mombutu
    Box. 2301
    1 Aguiyi Ironsi Street
    Maitama Abuja, Nigeria NG
  • Cosa Nostra (Score:3, Funny)

    by bonoboy (98001) on Wednesday August 06, 2003 @10:10AM (#6625754) Homepage Journal
    The only real difference is that this "organization" is not threatening the law suit on shaky if not absurd grounds. Rather is it like an insurance company of sorts.


    Yeah, and exactly like SCO, it's also known as a "protection racket."

  • sol:/usr/src/linux # egrep -ri '(@sco\.|@caldera)' * 2>/dev/null
    CREDITS:E: sp@caldera.de
    arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c: * 1.0 16 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>
    arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c: * 1.01 18 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>
    arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c: * 1.02 21 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>
    arch/i386/kernel/microcode.c: * 1.03 29 Feb 2000, Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>
    drivers/net/slip.c: * from Jim Freeman's <jfree@caldera.com>
    drivers/net/tlan.c: * Tigran Aivazian <tigran@sco.com>: TLan_PciProbe() now uses
    drivers/char/drm/drm_context.h: * 2001-11-16 Torsten Duwe <duwe@caldera.de>
    drivers/scsi/ips.c:/* 4.00.06a - Port to 2.4 (trivial) -- Christoph Hellwig <hch@caldera.de> */
    drivers/scsi/advansys.c: Erik Ratcliffe <erik@caldera.com> has done testing of the
    drivers/sound/esssolo1.c: * up. Marcus Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
    drivers/sound/esssolo1.c: * Marcus Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
    drivers/sound/maestro.c: * v0.15 - May 21 2001 - Marcus Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
    drivers/sound/rme96xx.c: Marcus Meissner <Marcus.Meissner@caldera.de>
    drivers/sound/nm256_ audio.c: * 19-04-2001 Marcus Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
    drivers/sound/sonicvibes.c: * Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
    fs/freevxfs/vxfs_olt.c:&nbs p; printk(KERN_NOTICE "vxfs: please notify hch@caldera.de\n");
    net/ipx/af_ipx.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc. <greg@caldera.com>
    net/ipx/af_spx.c: * Jim Freeman <jfree@caldera.com>

If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong. -- Norm Schryer

Working...