SCO Derides GPL, Will Revoke SGI's UNIX License 681
larry2k writes "PR newswire has an open letter from SCO to IBM.
From the letter: 'SCO believes that the GPL -- created by the Free Software Foundation to supplant current U.S. copyright laws -- is a shaky foundation on which to build a legal case.'" The release is also carried by NewsForge. Among other things, SCO says "By so strongly defending the controversial GPL, IBM is also defending a questionable licensing scheme through which it can avoid providing software indemnification for its customers."
Doesn't supplant mean "replace"? That's not what the GPL does.
And if you're wondering why you have not received an invoice from SCO for any Linux-based OS you may be running, benploni writes "From Groklaw: In this Detroit News story Blake Stowell explains why no one has received an invoice: 'SCO in August said Linux users could avoid lawsuits by paying a one-time fee of $699. The fee will rise to $1,399 on Oct. 15. Since the response to its appeal was adequate, SCO didn't send bills to thousands of Linux users, company spokesman Blake Stowell said.' [emphasis added]. We all knew there was no way they'd risk actually sending out invoices, and here's the proof."
Re:Is it only me (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Stock? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dictionary, anyone (Score:3, Informative)
Main Entry: supplant
Pronunciation: s&-'plant
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French supplanter, from Latin supplantare to overthrow by tripping up, from sub- + planta sole of the foot -- more at PLACE
Date: 14th century
1 : to supersede (another) especially by force or treachery
2 a (1) obsolete : UPROOT (2) : to eradicate and supply a substitute for b : to take the place of and serve as a substitute for especially by reason of superior excellence or power
synonym see REPLACE
Re:ulterior motives? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Stock? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Excuse me,... but how is SGI implicated in Linu (Score:3, Informative)
Check out their OSS page [sgi.com] for things they have their finger in.
Re:Stock? (Score:2, Informative)
Because it's not illegal for executives to sell stock. Even if their company is suing IBM.
The SEC would only investigate if there was strong evidence that executives were cooking the books, or leaking inside info to outsiders. As long as they themselves are filing trading plans in advance of selling, they are fine.
On the other hand, a shareholder lawsuit is entirely possible (especially if they lose the case).
From what I could tell after the last "big" news, executives started dumping stock.
If you were at SCO, and suddenly your stock/options were no longer under water, wouldn't you sell too?
Re:Pro-Linux Conspiracy (Score:2, Informative)
Not a damn thing.
In their financials, they stated their belief that the license was non-terminable. So, even though they don't have the deep pockets of IBM, they should still wait and let a judge sort it out.
And it's "when", not "if". I wouldn't be surprised of SCO pulled the licenses of every licensee who ever contributed anything to Linux, GNU, or any other GPL'd project, because of their asinine opinion of what constitutes a derivative work.
Re:Excuse me,... but how is SGI implicated in Linu (Score:1, Informative)
www.sgi.com -> developers -> open source
SGI Open Source Project List
The following projects have either originated within SGI, have SGI employees coordinating the development and maintaining the master trees, or have SGI employees as significant core contributors.
Linux(R) Kernel Work
SGI ProPackTM for Linux (contains kernel work and other packages)
CpuMemSets (Processor and Memory Placement)
KDB (Linux kernel debugger)
Kernprof (Kernel Profiling)
Lockmeter (Linux kernel lock-metering)
NUMA (NUMA support in Linux)
Linux Resource Management Work
CSA (Comprehensive System Accounting)
PAGG (Process Aggregates)
Filesystem & Storage Work
Linux FailSafeTM (SGI FailSafe for Linux)
XFSTM (High Performance Journaling File System)
fam & imon (File Alteration Monitor and Inode Monitor)
Graphics Projects
OpenGL Performer (High-Performance 3D Rendering Toolkit)
GLX (OpenGL extensions to X)
OpenGL(R) Sample Implementation (Standard Cross-platform 3D and 2D Graphics API)
Open InventorTM (object-oriented toolkit for interactive 3D graphics)
Digital Media Projects
Audio File Library
Other Projects
PCP (System Performance Monitoring and Management Framework)
LKCD (Linux Kernel Crash Dumps)
ob1 (Sample Implementation of a Trusted Operating System)
LTP (Linux Test Project)
Rhino (Infrastructure for System Administration Applications)
Mozilla (also see SGI Freeware)
SGI(R) Histx 1.0 (software installation for SGI ProPackTM 2.1 or later)
Re:Indemnification DDOS (Score:5, Informative)
I'm posting in a snip of my comment I posted in relation to said post linked above... hopefully my math is right
In the best case, he won't be fully vested for approximately another 3 years! By then SCO will probably be in ruins and the stock worthless. Although he does have some stock options available to him, they are nowhere near the bulk of what he was awarded that hasn't vested yet.
Here's my math, assuming he was hired in June 2002 (as somebody posted above):
Total stock options: 600,000 It doesn't specify when he was awarded these 600,000 shares but let's assume it was Q4 2002 (salary for fiscal year 2003). Options vested Q4 2003: 100,000 The remaining 300,000 options of his 400,000 "performance" options will be vested 8333.33(repeating) per month for the next 3 years.
Now, let's assume that somehow they remain profitable until the end of the year, making it 4 quarters in a row. First profitable quarter: Q1 2003 Options vested Q1 2004: 50,000 Options vested Q4 2004: 150,000
So based on my lame math, in December of this year he'll have 100,000 shares vested, with another approximately 75,000 by end of Q1 2004. Do we really have to listen to his mouth spew crap for another 3 years (assuming best case scenario for their finances) until he can sell off all his stock? Or do we really think they can keep the FUD machine running for another year so he can get the rest of his stock options.
I highly doubt it. Once this goes to trial the stock will probably bomb as they are forced to reveal their evidence and IBM lays the smackdown.
Let's hope my math is right...
And you may be right on this indemnification crap. IMNSHO it's a bunch of bull. Does it matter if you indemnify your customers? Protect them from SCO lawsuits that are illegal anyways? SCO doesn't even with its Linux license. I wish somebody in a high position would step up and tell them to cut the indemnification crap because they don't even offer it in their illegal (oops, did I say that out loud?) Linux license.
Re:Mor[m]ons are buying. (Score:5, Informative)
There's also a dryer, less rah-rah note on the filing for extension here [sltrib.com].
Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, SGI is going to do the same thing IBM did.
However what IBM did was NOT to use linux 'even more'
(it's only been 6 months since their license was 'terminated, and I don't see any major changes in IBMs stance on AIX)
What IBM did was: nothing. Both IBM and SGI have irrevocable Unix licences.
They both know this, and so does SCO.
This is all SCO posturing to give the impression that they own everything in the Unix world, and you seem to be believing it.
Re:Mor[m]ons are buying. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Must be time... (Score:2, Informative)
Why does SCO want IBM to provide indemnification? (Score:5, Informative)
We [SCO] continue to urge IBM to provide legal indemnification for its Linux customers.
Now why, oh why, does SCO want that? Well, one reason that occurs to me is this: IBM has been fairly unaffected by SCO's suite against them. They're not cowering in fear or hiding under rocks or anything. SCO would like IBM to look worried because, well heck, if I'm going to make flagrantly ridiculous accusations against somebody who could squish me like a bug, and nobody believes me, nobody's going to put up much argument when it's squish-time. So here's what SCO has to gain:
SCO: Hey IBM, we're really concerned about your users. We're worried that we might accidentally catch them up in our extortion scheme. How bout you pay us off and nothing bad happens?
IBM: *stomp*
SCO: *squish*
Re:Mor[m]ons are buying. (Score:2, Informative)
Open letter from SGI (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mor[m]ons are buying. (Score:5, Informative)
Littl Tech Titan [sltrib.com]
I'll let you reach your own conclusions.
Just more evidence for an impotent/clueless SEC (Score:2, Informative)
This is nuts-- it's obviously a complete free-for-all WRT making bogus claims to inflate your stock.
Re:Stock? (Score:5, Informative)
SCO succeeding or failing has absolute nothing, zero, nada to do with the legal validity of the GPL. That's really just a red herring. In fact, an invalid GPL would make SCOs distribution of the Linux kernel illegal (as it would fall back to regular Berne convention rules) and open them up to a class-action copyright infringement suit by the various kernel developers.
No, real the first question is, was SCOs copyrighted material placed in the kernel illegally? By all indications, probably not (since they've been hiding their evidence all along, which buys them nothing in the long run). The second question is, does SCOs Unix license also apply to IBMs work (JFS, various SMP-related technologies, etc). This is somewhat less cut-and-dried, although I'm leaning in IBMs favour for this one, simply because I can't imagine IBMs legal team signing a deal as onerous as that.
Now, me, I consider the chances of SCO actually succeeding in litigation to be slim at best. They're up against a goliath with claims which, IMHO, are pretty weak. So shorting the stock could very well make sense... it really depends on what you consider SCOs chances of winning are.
magnitude (Score:5, Informative)
And you'd be a fool. The last suit of this magnitude that SCO/Caldera played they settled for a tenth of their demand. And only after MS decided to get out before their last AT trial. That was the Dr. DOS settlement, hmmm?
Blue has no reason to back down or settle up. When this thing pans out sometime in 2008, SCO, if not bankrupted already, will be by the judgement.
SCO is swimming in their own piss.
Re:Stupid SCO (Score:3, Informative)
No, if SCO's argument is found legally sound, then the GPL becomes invalid for SCO. That means they succeed in terminating their own rights to distribute the GPL software in question.
As the GPL only grants you rights you dont have and places no limitations on you that copyright doesnt already place, the only thing you can accomplish by trying to challange the GPL in court is to get your own rights revoked. A not so very brilliant idea, and the reason why the GPL has not been challanged in court. You cant win. If you lose, you lose. If you win, you lose even more.
Considering that in the cases that the FSF has been involved in GPL enforcement the violators have folded each and every time, and never dared to go to court I'd say the FSF has all the power it needs. If it requires someone as terminally retarded as Darl McBride to get a challange, then it's quite watertight.
Still, it will be fun to watch it.
Re:Stupid SCO...Wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong.
Linus Torvalds' work is his, years before this SCO mess. You don't have to apply for a copyright, its automatically given in any country that has signed the Berne convention. It is only necessary to register for copyright if you plan to sue anyone for damages.
Its lose lose for SCO; either GPL is valid and the code contributed (from all parties including Caldara/SCO) stays as is, or the GPL is invalid and the copyrights stay with their respective owners (Linus, and other developers / companies).
Re:Fire up the photocopiers! (Score:2, Informative)
It's illegal and can result in a hefty
civil penalty.
Lauro DiDio (Score:3, Informative)
What's the connection?
Lauro DiDio, an analyst with the Yankee Group, said it is obvious that in Yarro, the torch has been successfully passed from the mentoring hand of Noorda.
"In his day, Ray Noorda was very forward-thinking, able to focus in on the trees and yet still see the forest and beyond," she says. "He had a public persona as a sort of svelt Santa Claus, but behind closed doors, Ray really knew now to wheel and deal. He could be ruthless when he had to be."
Re:Mor[m]ons are buying. (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.sltrib.com/help/forum.asp