Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Caldera News

Judge Orders SCO, IBM To Produce Disputed Code 587

Posted by simoniker
from the put-up-or-etc dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A NewsForge story [part of OSDN, like Slashdot] says a court ruling by Judge Brooke C. Wells in the SCO Group vs. IBM intellectual property lawsuit amounting to 'show me the code' was released today in the form of a nine-page document [PDF link]. For a change, the SCO Group had no comment, because Judge Wells told it not to issue any. The judge said SCO is to provide and identify all specific lines of code IBM is alleged to have contributed to Linux from either AIX or Dynix, provide and identify all specific lines of code from Unix System V from which IBM's contributions from AIX or Dynix are alleged to be derived, and provide and identify all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Orders SCO, IBM To Produce Disputed Code

Comments Filter:
  • by JoeLinux (20366) <joelinux@NoSPam.gmail.com> on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:22PM (#8458863) Homepage
    I hope they are thinking "put-up-or-shut-up" now, and clamp down on SCO's grandstanding...

    On the plus side, maybe the stock will slide to the point that we can get a dozen shares for a quarter. I'd buy 'em out for that price...
  • Start Counting... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Suhas (232056) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:23PM (#8458879)
    ...now SCO has 45 days in which to produce the offending lines of code before IBM calls to dismiss the case. This is the beginning of the end.
    • by ashitaka (27544) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:28PM (#8458946) Homepage
      How many times have we seen someone say "This is the beginning of the end" when a judge asks SCO to produce something Months pass, appeals are made, claims withdrawn and changed and the whole thing just keeps dragging on.

      Reminds me of the conviction of Shoko Asahara for the Sarin gassing of the Tokyo subway. Only eight years to finally sentence him to hang.

      But wait!

      He's appealed, and thus begins another eight to ten years of legal wrangling. Each time the government says they'll speed up the court system but very little actually changes.
      • Re:Start Counting... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by shanen (462549) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:55PM (#8459177) Homepage Journal
        Reminds me of the conviction of Shoko Asahara for the Sarin gassing of the Tokyo subway. Only eight years to finally sentence him to hang.
        Well, I actually think that watching him dangle should be counted as part of the punishment. He isn't going anywhere. The only substantive question is whether they hang him before he dies of old age. At least with a life sentence the suspense would be over. Sort of reminds me of the golf joke about the second "gotcha".

        As regards the actual topic of this thread, SCO, my own opinion is that this situation is different because the crime is ongoing, and SCO is actually using the legal system to help commit the fraud. This is a case where justice delayed is not merely justice denied, but actual injustice perpetuated.

        On the positive side, I think IBM should just turn over everything, and immediately. I can't even imagine why they haven't done so already--except that lawyers love playing games and SCO's lawyers are probably desperately phishing for anything they can imagine. Sure, SCO's original claims will turn out to be completely bogus, but SCO is hoping to find a blue dress or some WMDs somewhere in there, and then they can start a whole NEW lawsuit against IBM.

        Right now it looks like we'll have to wait another 45 days for SCO to clarify anything, and then there'll be another delay while they analyze those claims, and IBM will deny all of them, and SCO will claim they need more information from IBM, then amend their claims some more, and then, and then... By now we're somewhere in 2007. Anyway, you can safely bet that Darl et al. will have dumped their SCO stock by then. Actually, looking at Darl's track record, he's due to change employeers again any day now. We're all sure the next guy will be glad to clean up the mess, right?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:34PM (#8459003)

      "...now SCO has 45 days in which to produce the offending lines of code"

      That allows SCO to present their evidence on April 1. I like the way this judge thinks!

  • What next? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by iantri (687643) <iantri@gmx . n et> on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:24PM (#8458886) Homepage
    I hope this is going to put a halt to this SCO nonsense, but I fear that it won't..

    The last announcement SCO made (re: the suing bit) had nothing to do with the disputed code, and they intentionally phrased it to seem like AutoZone was being sued for just running Linux.

    SCO's tactics seem to be growing more and more deceitful and misleading..

  • The best part... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by IgD (232964) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:24PM (#8458887)
    [SCO] is hereby ordered to:

    4. SCO is to provide and identify with specificity all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to.

    PDF: http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/IBM/IBM-109.pdf

    I can't wait to see the answer to this one...
    • My favourite: (Score:5, Interesting)

      by eddy (18759) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:54PM (#8459171) Homepage Journal

      (5) is good too. If I understand it correctly they'll have to tell the judge that they're still distributing linux 2.4.21 to the world under the license "GNU GPL", and we can all be on the list:

      wget --http-user= --http-passwd= wget http://linuxupdate.sco.com/scolinux/update/RPMS.up dates/kernel-source-2.4.21-138.i586.rpm

      "SCO is to provide and identify with specificity the lines of code that SCO distributed to other parties. This is to include where applicable the conditions of release, to whom the code was released, the date and under what circumstances such code was released."

      Let's all help them out by posting our names, dates and the fact that the license is the GNU GPL and the circumstances is "public SCO FTP and HTTP server"

  • by scrote-ma-hote (547370) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:24PM (#8458888)
    This is neither here not there. It's probably the most moderate result we could have asked for. It doesn't swing to far one way and give the impression that the judge is being biased (a la the Microsoft case), but doesn't give SCO too much either, and remains in the "no you show first mode".

    A fair ruling IMHO.

  • by sp00 (639381) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:24PM (#8458893)
    For a change, the SCO Group had no comment, because Judge Wells told it not to issue any.
    It's about time...
  • by BoomerSooner (308737) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:25PM (#8458906) Homepage Journal
    The Server [netcraft.com] that they have to post their PDF filings to runs Linux! (The webserver for the court.)
  • by Lane.exe (672783) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:26PM (#8458910) Homepage
    How SCO will stall around this deadline:

    (*) More countersuits

    (*) They won't

    (*) Darl ends up sharing a cell with CowboyNeal

  • IBM's memos... (Score:5, Informative)

    by MicktheMech (697533) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:26PM (#8458912) Homepage
    I've just read what ZDnet [com.com] had to say. From article:
    She ordered IBM to produce memos from IBM Chief Executive Sam Palmisano and from Irving Wladawsky-Berger, a top Linux executive.
    Does anyone know what these memos are supposed to be about or is SCO just grasping at straws?
    • Re:IBM's memos... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by clem.dickey (102292) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @09:19PM (#8459352)
      In the Justice Department's anti-trust suit against IBM the government found an IBM strategy document with the notation "Telex -> dying company." In some context (perhaps it was the 1956 consent decree) IBM was not supposed to specifically plan to kill its competition. Perhaps SCO is hoping to find something along those lines. I hardly think that Sam Palmisano or Irving Wladawsky-Berger would be so incautious.

      And in the only "me too" lawsuit of that era which IBM did not win outright, CDC acquired a bunch of IBM memos through disclosure. IBM and CDC settled out of court, with IBM selling its service business (Service Bureu Corporation) to CDC and promising not to re-enter the service market for many years. I wonder what CDC found in those memos.
  • Groklaw too (Score:5, Insightful)

    by k98sven (324383) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:26PM (#8458913) Journal
    As per usual, Groklaw has the full treatment [groklaw.net].

    Basically, the court ruled SCO must put up within 45 days, while IBM must also give AIX (but not all versions) to SCO.

    This is of course bad for SCO, who claims they need IBM to provide AIX before they can identify what is infringing. As IBM most likely won't be handing over AIX in the next 44 days or so, obviously SCO will not be able to comply.

    It's a cute judgement, since it is fair to both parties while being devastating to SCO at the ame time.

    It'll be interesting to see if they will play the 'we need the AIX code!' card again for the third hearing running.
    • Re:Groklaw too (Score:5, Informative)

      by MeanMF (631837) * on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:41PM (#8459058) Homepage
      This is of course bad for SCO, who claims they need IBM to provide AIX before they can identify what is infringing. As IBM most likely won't be handing over AIX in the next 44 days or so, obviously SCO will not be able to comply.

      From the ruling: "This is to include all lines of code that SCO can identify at this time." Later it says "Following this production, SCO is to provide additional memoranda to the Court indicating if and how these files support its position and how they were relevant." There's nothing in there that says that SCO's initial list has to be exhaustive (in fact it says the opposite), and there's no time limit on SCO to respond to the receipt of AIX source code.
  • by sisukapalli1 (471175) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:27PM (#8458921)
    SCOX went up after the ruling, though it fell over 10% during the day (the net is still down 8%), so it is a good thing :).

    SCO may try to spin it as a positive for them, though I do not see how any of it can be positive...

    S
  • next excuse (Score:5, Funny)

    by prof187 (235849) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:28PM (#8458940) Homepage
    "As a result of this newest court order, SCO now has another 45 days, or until April 17, to produce the disputed lines of code and explain them clearly to the court."

    Darl: "we were working on our taxes and 2 days is *so* not long enough to make all of this up"
  • by Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:29PM (#8458955) Homepage
    It's not quite "put-up-or-shut-up" for SCO. You see, there are some directions in the ruling for IBM as well (apparently not relevant to the story here at Slashdot). For example, under the heading "IBM", the ruling also says that SCO made a "good faith effort" to comply with the Court's prior order, and so the Court removed the discovery stay that it had previously ordered. There are quite a few things that the Court has ordered IBM to now turn over to SCO, such as certain releases of AIX and Dynix that SCO had requested. Actually, IBM is being told to turn quite a bit over to SCO, it's not really a "win" either way.
    • by k98sven (324383) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:34PM (#8459001) Journal
      There are quite a few things that the Court has ordered IBM to now turn over to SCO, such as certain releases of AIX and Dynix that SCO had requested. Actually, IBM is being told to turn quite a bit over to SCO, it's not really a "win" either way.

      Yes it is. Because IBM has the same 45 days to produce this as SCO does to produce its evidence of infringement.

      SCO has already stated in court that they cannot possibly comply with this without all the AIX code. Now, they are neither getting all the AIX code or the chance to use it to prove infringments, since IBM is hardly going to hand over the source at once.

      (This is of course what the court intended by giving them a concurrent deadline. SCO must prove their case on their own hand, but IBM must still comply with discovery.)
  • by Talonius (97106) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:36PM (#8459020)
    #include "IANAL.H"

    ...unbiased. She has asked that IBM provide the "approximately 232 products" and the source logs for them, as well as email and memos pertaining to them. She's basically allowing SCO to go diving for the information that they are after.

    However, this is discovery and not trial so items obtained during discovery don't seem to always be admissable. It simply seems that Judge Wells is doing her best judicial duty to ensure that there can be no claim of mistrial due to denied evidence.

    As well SCO has quite a ballgame ahead of them. The items requested from them were quite numerous and it seems that Judge Wells doesn't buy the "we can't specify it because it would violate agreements" argument that they are bandying about. (See item #5 on the order itself; where the code was distributed, to whom, and under what agreements.)

    The end result is this order seems better for SCO than IBM, but then again SCO couldn't get much lower on hope than they were. I disagree with the allowance of the requested versions of Dynix and AIX and all source code for them -- perhaps I should simply sue Microsoft and insinuate that they have some of my code in their product. While I admire the discovery must be broad... that seems to be a bit too broad.

    SCO wants to subpoena 7200 witnesses. Holy Christ. How, when, why? That many witnesses? Tell me there'd be some sort of expedited process to get the questions SCO is seeking answered -- that seems ludicrous, especially in light of the fact that SCO has repeatedly altered its complaints.

    I also laugh at "considering SCO's good faith effort." What? WHAT? And THANK GOD she muzzled McBridge and his cronies. I just hope that she doesn't start putting the remainder of the case under seal so as to prevent the rest of us from knowing what's going on. You know SCO will suggest it at least once.

    Talonius
  • by Mawbid (3993) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:37PM (#8459029)
    Wait a minute. Isn't this what the judge said last time?

    Why, yes it is:

    SCO has not complied with the court's first order issued on Dec. 12, 2003, to "provide and identify specific lines of code that IBM has alleged to have contributed to Linux or Dynix." SCO had been ordered to provide these lines of code within 30 days (by Jan. 12, 2004) but did not do so. In a separate hearing on the matter held Feb. 6, SCO was able to convince the court that it is proceeding in good faith, and the court lifted its 30-day discovery stay.

    As a result of this newest court order, SCO now has another 45 days, or until April 17, to produce the disputed lines of code and explain them clearly to the court.

    I wonder which will come first, the end of SCO vs. IBM or the release of Half-Life 2.

  • Text of PDF. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:42PM (#8459068)
    It's from Groklaw, but the DB server seems ready to crash!

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    CENTRAL DIVISION, DISTRICT OF UTAH
    ______________________________________
    THE SCO GROUP, INC.

    Plaintiff,

    vs

    INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP.

    Defendant
    Case No. 2:03cv00294 DK

    ORDER REGARDING SCO'S
    MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
    AND IBM'S MOTION TO COMPEL
    DISCOVERY

    On February 6, 2004, the Court heard arguments regarding SCO Group Incorporated's (SCO) compliance with the court's prior order of December 12, 2003. The Court also heard argument on SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery. SCO was represneted by Mark Heise, Brent Hatch and Kevin McBride. International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) was represented by David Marriot, Todd Schaughnessy, Chris Chow, and Amy Sorenson.

    The Court having heard argument, having read the parties' memoranda, having considered relevant case law, and finding good cause shown, hereby enters the following Orders:

    I. SCO

    Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant is hereby ORDERED:

    1. To fully comply within 45 days of the entry of this order with the corut's previous order dated December 12, 2003. This is to include those items that SCO had difficulty in obtaining prior to the Court's previously ordered deadline of January 12, 2004.

    2. As previously ordered, SCO is to provide and identify all specific lines of code that IBM is alleged to have contributed to Linux from either AIX or Dynix. This is to include all lines of code that SCO can identify at this time.

    3. SCO is to provide and identify all specific lines of code from Unix System V from which IBM's contributions from AIX and Dynix are alleged to be derived.

    4. SCO is to provide and identify with specificity all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to.

    5. SCO is to provide and identify with specificity the lines of code that SCO distributed to other parties. This is to include where appplicable the conditions of release, to whom the code was released, the date and under what circumstances such code was released.

    II. IBM

    In light of what the court considers SCO's good faith efforts to comply with the Court's prior order, the Court lifts the discovery stay it previously imposed.

    Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure states in relevant part: "Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.... The information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information sought appears to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). This rule has been interpreted broadly by the United States Supreme Court. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. V. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S. Ct. 2380 (1978). "[A]th the discovery stage, the concept of revelance should be construed very broadly." Gohler, IRA, er al. v. Wood er al., 162 F.R.D. 691,695 (D. Utah 1995). However, a court may limit discovery where "the discovery sought is ... obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(i). A Court may also limit discovery if "the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(iii).

    Based on the Court's decision to lift the discovery stay and because relevance should be construed broadly at the discovery stage, IBM is hereby ORDERED:

    1. To provide the releases of AIX and Dynix consisting of "about 232 products" as was represented by Mr. Marriott at the February 6, 2004 hearing. The releases are to be provided within 45 days of the entry of this order. Following the production, SCO is to provide additional memoranda to the Court indicating if and how these files support its position and how they are relevant. The memorandum is to include with specificity, and to the extent possible, identification of
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:45PM (#8459091)
    Judge Wells' Order - SCO Doesn't Get All AIX Files,IBM Doesn't Have to Go First

    Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 06:28 PM EST

    The order is in. She tells both sides to comply with discovery, but in the case of IBM, she specifically restricts the requirement that they provide AIX files to the 232 mentioned by IBM's lawyer, David Marriott, at the last hearing on February 6. SCO must demonstrate a need for more if they want more. But they don't get every AIX version from the beginning, as they had repeatedly requested. SCO has 45 days to comply fully with IBM's discovery demands. Remember, that is what IBM asked for, that SCO be given a date to comply.

    SCO has 45 days to identify "all specific lines of code" they allege IBM put into Linux from AIX or Dynix; identify and provide "with specificity all lines of code in Linux that it claims rights to; provide and identify with specificity the lines of code that SCO distributed to other parties, and this is to include "where applicable the conditions of release, to whom the code was released, the date and under what circumstances such code was released."

    The previous discovery stay is lifted. IBM has 45 days to provide "the releases of AIX and Dynix consisting of 'about 232 products' as was represented by Mr. Marriott at the February 6, 2004 hearing." After that SCO can provide memoranda indicating "if and how these files support its position and how they are relevant." If they ask for more files, they are to explain reasons for such requests.. Then the court "will consider ordering IBM to produce more code from AIX and Dynix."

    What it all means in practical terms is that the court didn't buy SCO's argument that it needed all of AIX and Dynix and it specifically rejected its request that IBM *first* provide AIX and Dynix, so that after that SCO could find what it needed. Since, obviously, IBM is unlikely to provide its side of the discovery order until the 45th day, SCO, under the identical 45-day requirement, will have to provide its answers to discovery before it gets to look at any more AIX or Dynix.

    SCO is granted one request: that IBM turn over discovery regarding top management, including Sam Palmisano. Also Judge Wells asks that IBM turn over any nonpublic contributions to Linux that it may have made. She will learn more about Linux as the case goes along, and I believe she will find there aren't any such. SCO asked for source logs. Wells says fine, but SCO has to do the same for IBM. I don't remember IBM asking for source logs, but it is only fair.

    She then asks both sides to explain how the new amended complaint impacts IBM's Motion to Strike. That's it. She would like the case to move forward, but she has done so in a way that is not a problem for IBM. SCO, on the other hand, has to provide what it told her at the hearing it can't provide without looking at all of AIX first. How they will do that remains to be seen.

    We hope to have it transcribed soon. Here is the PDF from SCO's website. We should have a local copy soon, if you prefer to wait.

    To refresh your memory, here is the transcript of SCO saying it is impossible for them to provide the discovery without getting AIX and Dynix first:

    MR. HEISE: The reason I am maybe going more into the merits than I probably should in front of Your Honor is it directly ties into the adequacy of these interrogatory answers. The interrogatory answers detail exhaustively the contributions of AIX and Dynix that were made in there. There is no dispute about that.

    They then in this letter that they wrote earlier this week said, Well, you didn't identify the line-for-line matching in every single place. There are two times when we did not do that in our answers to interrogatories. One is in table A of our interrogatories which we identified eight different files and we said the copying is complete throughout. We are not matching up the lines and I gave an example of that in the demonstrative aids when it says copying of Dynix slash into Linux, and you can s
  • Maybe they could ask (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:47PM (#8459111) Homepage Journal
    Darl mentioned that "last summer" some Linux programmers admitted there was some stolen code in the kernel.
    A really sharp female journalist from CRN [crn.com] asked what code was stolen and who these programmers were. Darl got tongue tied and someobdy else from SCO stepped in and said they couldn't comment on that.
  • by junky (22650) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:48PM (#8459118)
    Novell has been sitting on the sidelines sending polite setup letters for a while. Perhaps this is what they have been waiting for.

    By suing Novell's customers (for which SCO has been providing an administrative service) SCO has:

    1. Clearly defied a contractually valid direct order
    2. Took actions and asserted rights not specified in the contract, and
    3. Demonstrably harmed the product's (SysV licenses) future revenue stream.

    Perhaps SCO thought the suit against Novell would somehow shield them from the reality that the only thing propping any of this up is their contract with Novell.

    Here's to hoping for some "quick" justice.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @08:56PM (#8459184)
    This idea just popped into my head, in case someone has the balls to do it. If you have a company that could generate some sort of press attention by buying an SCO license, buy one and tell Darl that you'll be glad to attend a press conference with him to make the announcement. Then, when everyone's there with their tape recorders, cameras, etc. out and ready, get up to the podium, hold up the license, and announce to the world that you bought it so you'd have a nice momento to hang on your wall when this is all over and SCO has been pounded into the ground by IBM's legal team. After that, I figure you'll have about two minutes to begin making your case before utter pandemonium sets in. Don't waste those few minutes. Arrive well-armed with as many through legal analyses as you can gather, in paper form and on CD for easy cutting and pasting. You'll want these to give out to the reporters who'll be clamoring to know how you reached this conclusion. Be calm, professional, and thorough, and if you have the luxury, have an attorney waiting nearby who will then walk in on cue and answer any legal questions that may come up.

    Then, sit back and watch the fallout.

    Oh yeah, and you may also want to have a paramedic on hand to revive Darl, who will undoubtedly have had a heart attack by this time.
  • I hope this is it... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gweihir (88907) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @09:16PM (#8459338)
    ... but so far SCO has managed to avoid any deadline. Quite an acomplishment, in my opinion. Not a positive one, but it sure shows

    a) they are scared
    b) their lawyers are scared
  • A-ha! (Score:5, Funny)

    by TrebleJunkie (208060) <ezahurak@atlan[ ]bb.net ['tic' in gap]> on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @10:16PM (#8459745) Homepage Journal
    So *that's* how you say, "shit or get off the pot," in 9 pages.
  • by mnemonic_ (164550) <<ude.hcimu> <ta> <cemaj>> on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @10:54PM (#8459960) Homepage Journal
    This is the first Slashdot story I've read that doesn't have a "Die SCO, linux forever" slant to it. Not that I support SCO or anything (I very much take the majority opinion here, that of SCO being wrong), I just find it interesting to see a mostly objective story on SCO for once.
  • by rice_burners_suck (243660) on Wednesday March 03, 2004 @10:56PM (#8459975)
    From the article: As a result of this newest court order, SCO now has another 45 days, or until April 17, to produce the disputed lines of code and explain them clearly to the court.

    This is, of course, after they disobeyed the court's previous order to produce the code within 30 days. I'd almost be willing to bet a million bucks that when April 17 comes around, they'll motion for an extension, and repeat it upon termination of that extension, essentially putting off production of the evidence forever. (But I don't have a million bucks.)

  • by dacarr (562277) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @12:00AM (#8460330) Homepage Journal
    This is not a "put up or shut up" demand from the judge. Note the judge told SCO to not comment.

    It is therefore a "Shut up and put up" demand.

  • by eniu!uine (317250) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @01:32AM (#8460710)
    Surely there was a larger file on SCO's website they could have linked to. The site is still up!

  • Holy Crap! (Score:5, Informative)

    by WhiteWolf666 (145211) <sherwin@nOsPaM.amiran.us> on Thursday March 04, 2004 @02:25AM (#8460939) Homepage Journal
    Halloween X: [opensource.org]

    MS is funding SCO. Evidence at OSI!

    Absolutely amazing. If this is real.....some heads will roll :)

    Time for the SEC is whoop some ass

Mediocrity finds safety in standardization. -- Frederick Crane

Working...