Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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

Further Selections From the Mixed-Up SCO Files 697

grahamlee writes "It may be a case of 'do as we say, not as we do' over at the Santa Cruz Operation. The Netcraft statistics meter says that for the last year, SCO's web site has been served by Apache on Linux. Indeed, it's been more than a year since the site was ever served from a SCO Unix machine. So what is the possible reason for this? Your humble author suggests that SCO found themselves requiring a multithreaded web server, and as SCO UNIX is based on an ancient version of The UNIX spec it just couldn't cope ;-)." Read on for one of the strangest-yet turns to the SCO story, and several merely insipid ones.

An anonymous reader writes "SCO have made much of how their claims about UNIX code being improperly copied into Linux were verified by 3 teams including 'MIT Mathematicians.' However, MIT can't seem to find the mathematicians concerned!"

(SCO's explanation is that the company is talking about a team made up of people who formerly worked at MIT, rather than a group still associated with the school, but "due to contractual obligations, we cannot specifically name the individuals.")

kuwan writes "SCO has responded to the massive debunking of their 'evidence' last week. Chris Sontag claims that the BPF code was 'not intended to be an example of stolen code, but rather a demonstration of how SCO was able to detect "obfuscated" code.' That, however is a flat-out lie. If you look at their Obfuscated Copying slide (#15), it clearly states 'Obfuscated System V Code Has Been Copied Into Linux Kernel Releases 2.4x and 2.5x,' and then the slide labels the BPF code on the left as 'System V Code.'

At this point I think they realized that their case has been severly weakened and they need to spin it any way they can. And in their case this means more lying."

Captain Beefheart writes "According to this story over at The Inquirer (crediting a special edition of Terry Shannon's Shannon Knows HPC newsletter), SCO has officially announced that HP is safe from their infringement lawsuit brigade ... This leads one to suspect that HP is the Fortune 500 company that SCO claimed recently had paid for a license."

Maybe HP just wants to avoid Microsoft/BSA-style hassles: FatRatBastard writes "According to an article on Commentwire.com SCO has started sending invoices to Linux users. If a company signs up for SCO's 'Intellectual Property License for Linux,' they allow the possibility of being audited at SCO's expense to ensure that the user has been truthful about the number of Linux installations it has. Should the audit reveal that the user has underpaid SCO by 5% or $5,000, whichever is highest, the user also agrees to pay the price for the audit."

Blacklantern writes "The SCO lawsuit has made it into "Halloween Documents" gallery. Eric Raymond takes on the contents of the lawsuit point-by-point. "

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

Further Selections From the Mixed-Up SCO Files

Comments Filter:
  • by TopShelf ( 92521 ) * on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:16PM (#6807868) Homepage Journal
    This is all pretty amusing stuff, but I can't believe they left this story out:

    Over at Computerworld [computerworld.com], they have an article which outlines SCO's plans to revitalize their Unix offering, and market it as a competitor to Linux. The best part, of course, is Darl's insight:
    "It's like a house that hasn't been maintained in a few years," McBride said. "We're going to come back and spruce the place up."

    Sure, a little paint and some nifty accents from Pottery Barn, and SCO will be swimming in cash, right??? Thanks again, Darl, for making my day just a little funnier...
    • by DataPath ( 1111 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:20PM (#6807911)
      Can you even GET a building permit for a condemned building?
    • by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:23PM (#6807945)
      Sure, just bring in Bob Vila to do a segment called "This old OS".
    • by El ( 94934 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:51PM (#6808224)
      We're going to come back and spruce the place up."
      Uh, perhaps they should do a title search on the old building first, and make sure they actually own it!
    • by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @05:10PM (#6808383)
      This is all pretty amusing stuff, but I can't believe they left this story out:

      I just wish the slashdot editors would check the submitted blurbs against the content of the articles, even superficially.

      HP Doesn't appear to claim or remotely imply they might have bought licenses from SCO, or that they recognize SCO's outrageous claims in any sense whatsoever. Indeed, this article [theinquirer.net] seems to indicate that they are ignoring SCO, as everyone else ought to as well (the trial will determine this, and the judgement, while virtually a foregone conclusion -- SCO loses, will determine what, if any, licensing fees anyone should pay.


      HP LAST WEEK claimed that it doesn't infringe on the copyrights SCO claims it owns on Linux, according to a special edition of Terry Shannon's Shannon knows HPC newsletter.

      The newsletter quoted Linux business strategist Mike Balma as saying at HP World that while HP didn't comment on law suits, HP "has found no infringement issues" using Linux.

      The same newsletter claimed that HP has 3.2K Linux boxes installed throughout HP.


      It seems rather clear that management at SCO talked to legal, who probably advised them that SCO's claims are frivolous and will not hold up in court, and not to pay. Ergo, HP claims it does not infringe on SCO's copyrights.

      Or SCO looked at the Heise images, realized that they do not use the hardware platform the alleged infringing code is in, but rather Intel. (As an aside, since almost everyone uses Intel, Power PC, Alpha, or ARM architectures, that includes HP and 99.999% or more of all GNU/Linux deployments everywhere.)

      HP certainly would have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by going along with SCO, so in light of this article it seems the blurb's innuendo is more than a little misplaced (hardly a first for slashdot, but still...). Indeed, quite the opposite is happening here: HP evaluated SCOs claims and likely filed their "invoice" right where it belonged, either under "pending litigation against litigious thugs trying to shake us down" or the more general Circular File.
      • by molo ( 94384 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @05:48PM (#6808678) Journal
        HP & Intel jointly created IA-64. Its now Intel's baby, but HP was a major contributer. The IA-64 processor line is to replace HPPA 2.0 for HPUX installations in the future. HPUX 11.20 (aka 11i v1.5) is currently available on IA-64.

        So HP certainly would have an issue with the IA-64 Linux code. Of course, that issue is moot since it came from a legal source.

        -molo
    • by rgmoore ( 133276 ) * <glandauer@charter.net> on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @06:55PM (#6809135) Homepage

      I think that you missed the really important quote in there:

      But many IT managers whose companies don't already use SCO Unix said in telephone interviews or via e-mail that SCO's legal assault on Linux--which includes a lawsuit against IBM and threats to sue users of the open-source operating system--have left them unwilling to even consider the company's technology.

      "I have no intentions of ever doing business with SCO," said Chad Wilson, a computer support analyst at an Ohio-based hospital that runs Windows servers as well as some Linux and IBM AIX systems. "Basically, with their tactics, they hurt their chance of getting a future customer."

      Ronald Edge, manager of information systems at Indiana University's Intercollegiate Athletics Department in Bloomington, was even more blunt. "I feel a harsh, bitter Norwegian cold equivalent to hell toward SCO," Edge said.

      It sounds as though SCO has done quite a thorough job of shooting itself in the foot on the issue. Even if they do somehow manage to improve their current UNIX line to the point that it can compete with Linux, they've pissed off the people they might have sold it to to the point that they're not going to be able to close the deal. Great going, Darl!

    • by jeti ( 105266 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @04:16AM (#6811796)
      >> "It's like a house that hasn't been maintained in a few years,"
      >> McBride said. "We're going to come back and spruce the place up."

      > Sure, a little paint and some nifty accents from Pottery Barn,
      > and SCO will be swimming in cash, right??? Thanks again,
      > Darl, for making my day just a little funnier...

      No, no, no. You misunderstand. SCO UnixWare Ng will be an
      up to date, enteprise-worthy OS. They just need to wait for
      Linux 2.6 to get final before they can create it by ripping out
      all these misattributed copyright notices.

      SCO knows what it owns.
  • by koali ( 175176 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:18PM (#6807889)
    Why wouldn't they use Linux? They own it, don't they?
    • by zjbs14 ( 549864 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:45PM (#6808154) Homepage
      Even more interesting is the fact that the Investor Relations area on their site (http://ir.sco.com/) [sco.com] uses ColdFusion running on IIS. That's just sad on many levels.
      • Re:Ok, -1 redundant (Score:5, Interesting)

        by platypus ( 18156 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:59PM (#6808293) Homepage
        Do you want to know what's really intersting and funny?

        IP block ir.sco.com

        OrgName: Sequent Computer Systems, Incorporated
        OrgID: SCS-65
        Address: 1000 River Street
        City: Essex Junction
        StateProv: VT
        PostalCode: 05452
        Country: US

        NetRange: 170.224.0.0 - 170.227.255.255
        CIDR: 170.224.0.0/14
        NetName: SEQUENT-B
        NetHandle: NET-170-224-0-0-1
        Parent: NET-170-0-0-0-0
        NetType: Direct Assignment
        NameServer: NS1.RALEIGH.USF.IBM.COM
        NameServer: NS2.RALEIGH.USF.IBM.COM
        Comment:
        RegDate: 1995-04-21
        Updated: 2001-04-06

        TechHandle: ZI22-ARIN
        TechName: Role Account
        TechPhone: +1-866-373-6714
        TechEmail: noc@ibm.com

        # ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2003-08-26 19:15
        # Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.



        So the one SCO Server which still works and coincidentally is for Investor Relations is hosted on the IBM Global Network (I think), and the IP block is still registered for Sequent. The irony.

  • by Pulse_Instance ( 698417 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:19PM (#6807903)
    It seems to me that SCO is just trying to get a "free" updated version of their old code. Which from the sounds of things has been vastly improved since they have had any updates done to it.
  • invoicing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by heh2k ( 84254 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:19PM (#6807909) Homepage
    who is been invoiced? that link contains no useful info. big companies? random users? anyone have any more info?
    • Re:invoicing (Score:5, Interesting)

      by hackstraw ( 262471 ) * on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:42PM (#6808129)
      who is been invoiced? that link contains no useful info. big companies? random users? anyone have any more info?

      Dunno, I've called 1-800-726-8649 twice, leaving my name and number saying they would "call me back". I havn't heard from them.

      Being that I "owe" them about $100k to continue using the software that I've been using for the past 2 years, it seems as though they would be interested in talking to me.

      I would suggest that _everyone_ here that runs linux call SCO 1-800-726-8649 and see if they give a call back. If these ppl are too lame to return a phonecall to collect $100k, then I doubt they will be around too much longer to be of concern to anyone.

      Oh, regarding HP buying licenses. I doubt it. I just met with HP last week to buy another 40 CPUs worth of Itaniums, and I asked them about SCO. They seemed knowledgable of the case, and said something to the affect that "they are off thier rocker".
      • Re:invoicing (Score:4, Insightful)

        by hackwrench ( 573697 ) <hackwrench@hotmail.com> on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:54PM (#6808251) Homepage Journal
        What and get on their radar? Now that you've called them they are probably preparing a lawsuit to get more than $100k from you right now.
      • Re:invoicing (Score:5, Interesting)

        by budgenator ( 254554 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @05:33PM (#6808564) Journal
        To Whom It May Concern, at SCO;
        This short note is to inform you that on Aug 18 2003, that I downloaded the rpm package for the openLinux kernal version 2.4.19 under the provisions of the Free Software Organization's General Public License, as you distributed through your ftp site.
        If you have any questions reguarding your rights, duties and obligations as a distributer of GPL'ed software I'd advise you to got to the Free Software Foundation website for general information and of course seek competant legal advise regarding your specific sitsuation.

        And again let me welcome you the comunity of comercial companies who have donated their copyrighted code for distribution via the GPL.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @05:10PM (#6808377)
      There was an article a week or two ago suggesting this, that any company that receives an invoice should file mail fraud charges against SCO! They are trying to bill companies for something that they have no right to bill for (fraud), and they are doing it through the mail (I presume).

      Besides getting postal investigators in on the action, in the worst case scenario, i.e., SCO wins everything, companies can claim that they were waiting on the outcome of the mail fraud investigation and so shouldn't be liable for any extra damages due to failure to pay in a timely manner.

      In summary, please publicise the suggestion that any company who receives an invoice for Linux from SCO file mail fraud charges!
    • by ONOIML8 ( 23262 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @08:30PM (#6809650) Homepage
      It's not been for lack of effort. I have sent them 5 messages so far asking about licenses and offering to perhaps purchase. In one email I asked them for a cost breakdown of Linux (If their contributed code is worth $699 then how much is the remainder, the bulk of the code worth).

      SCO hasn't even given me the courtesy of a reply.

      In my last attempt to contact them I offered to purchase a license if they could prove the necessity. But I also mentioned that this was my fifth attempt at it and that if I did not hear back in 72 hours then I would consider them not to be serious about the license issue and proceed with business as usual.

      SCO still hasn't given me the courtesy of a reply.

  • Backdoor? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Eric Ass Raymond ( 662593 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:20PM (#6807915) Journal
    So, could this be the reason why the successful DoS attack on SCO by an overly zealous open source advocate [linuxtoday.com] was so successful?
  • licensing fees (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Frostalicious ( 657235 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:20PM (#6807916) Journal
    'do as we say, not as we do'

    This doesn't apply. SCO doesn't want you to stop using Linux, they just want you to pay a licensing fee. One would take for granted that SCO does not need to pay themselves a licensing fee to run their webserver.
  • Ahhh... (Score:4, Funny)

    by stames ( 692349 ) <jtj.ucla@edu> on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:21PM (#6807918)
    Finally! An SCO story. I've been going into depressive withdrawal...
  • by Mr. Sketch ( 111112 ) * <mister.sketch@noSPAM.gmail.com> on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:21PM (#6807923)
    Why would any company pay their license fees to SCO right now? They haven't proven anything yet, so it would stand to reason that _after_ SCO proves its case in court then companies can begin paying SCO license fees. As long as the issue is disputed, I see no reason any company would decide to pay a license fee to a company that just claims to own some IP without actually proving it.
    • by DataPath ( 1111 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:25PM (#6807971)
      I think some economics could answer that question. SCO can't ask a really high price for licensing right now. No one would buy it. Before they prove their case, low license fees.

      After they would have proven it, though... They can milk that cow for all its worth until no one would buy or use linux. Then they get the multimillion dollar prize from Microsoft. Cash. To the execs.
    • by Verteiron ( 224042 ) * on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:28PM (#6807996) Homepage
      Ah, but companies who pay now will pay less. You can bet that if by some miracle of chance (or more likely, idiocy of judge) SCO wins their court case, companies who were given the "chance" to pay earlier will be paying a lot more afterwards.

      It's a gamble: Pay a little now or risk a chance of paying a lot later. Pointy-haired bosses don't like gambles. If they can pay a little now to make the problem go away (and incidentally add strength to SCO's claims), they'll do so.
      • by pjrc ( 134994 ) <paul@pjrc.com> on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @06:13PM (#6808859) Homepage Journal
        On every SCO story, invariably someone posts a paranoid concern that perhaps a clueless judge will be assigned to the case, and rule in favor of SCO. These are often moderated to +5, which is quite silly since Judge Dale A. Kimball [utahbar.org] has already be assigned to the case, and we can see that he's got a reputation for being fair and capable of understanding cases involving technology.

        Groklaw has very extensive research on Kimball's history [weblogs.com], which is nicely summarized and easy to read. Every case has links to much more detail. The overall appearance is that Kimball will probably do the right thing.

        Probably most important is the Jacobsen vs Hughes copyright case [deseretnews.com]. Apart from considering much of the material uncopyrightable historical facts, Judge Kimball was quite unimpressed by the plaintif's failure to act in a timely manner to mitigate damages. Quoting from that article:

        "Had Jacobsen voiced his disapproval in 1996, Hughes would have had the opportunity to take the offending material out of the books," Kimball wrote. "For Jacobsen to wait until three volumes of the series had been published before voicing his disapproval, when it is clear he had ample opportunity to let Hughes know of his disapproval as early as 1996, results in extreme prejudice to Hughes."

        Obviously this bodes quite well for IBM and all Linux users. SCO of course will claim they stopped distribution of linux, but this ruling at least shows that Judge Kimball isn't likely to be be charmed with the deplorable way SCO has conducted itself. Kimball's willingness to consider the writing a separate work, even though a part of it was loosely based on Jacobsen's also casts quite a shadow over SCO's chances (assuming the unlikely worst case scenario that SCO has an ace up its sleeve, rather than the bogus examples we've seen so far). It's certainly a good sign that Kimball is unlikely to buy SCO expansive theories about what constitutes a derivitive work.

        The groklaw page has examples where Kimball has ruled against big business, where he's shown competence at handling software intellectual property disputes (eg, Altiris vs Symantec), and where he's handled very complex cases.

        While nothing is 100% certain going into the courtroom, it is a fact that the Judge Kimball has been selected to hear this case. His history shows he's competent, fair, and at least in Jacobsen vs Hughes, he doesn't tollerate the sort of shenanigans SCO has been pulling!

        (yes, -1 redundant... I posted this on the last SCO story.... but the "idiot judge" comments never seem to stop either!)

    • by ThingOne ( 578618 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:30PM (#6808020)
      Apparently some people are paying license fees, If you take a look at their most recent Quarterly Report [sec.gov]
      they mention

      "During the quarter ended April 30, 2003, we recognized $8,250,000, or 39 percent of our quarterly revenue, from our intellectual property licensing initiative, SCOsource, launched in January 2003."

      Obviously some people are stupid enough to license.

      • MS and SUn (Score:3, Informative)

        * million was MS's payment SUn deal was an offer to pick up more stock
      • Almost all of it is from Microsoft, and for them it's a good investment if they can slow down Linux deployment by creating fear.

      • Apparently some people are paying license fees, If you take a look at their most recent Quarterly Report

        they mention

        "During the quarter ended April 30, 2003, we recognized $8,250,000, or 39 percent of our quarterly revenue, from our intellectual property licensing initiative, SCOsource, launched in January 2003."

        Obviously some people are stupid enough to license.

        If Enron taught us anything, it's that dollar amounts are not necessarily based on anything real.

      • "Nice little software operation you got here... be a shame if anything should happen to it, right Vinny?" "Yeah Boss, be a shame!" "You see, we down at the Operation, we figure we actually own dis here business, so you owe us big time! You can pay us now, or pay us later!"
  • by ferret70 ( 154171 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:21PM (#6807924)
    More specifically, Steve Jobs's Reality Distortion Field(TM), except that he crossed the wires wrong and only he is affected. W00t!
  • by cavemanf16 ( 303184 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:23PM (#6807940) Homepage Journal
    OK, this is just a crazy thought I suppose, but why in the world would a company the size of SCO take on a company the size of IBM if they knew their claims were bull? Is it that their claims are "just arguable enough" in a court of law, and they think somehow that choosing the right jurisdiction with the right judge will net them a win? I.e. Choose a really clueless judge in a really backwards jurisdiction or some such crap like that? Or maybe they already have a judge up their sleeve? Or some other MAJOR leverage point that will make this worth their while?

    I just don't see how any person could act so completely ridiculously in a business setting. Then again, the boom of the '90's gave us such wonder-boys as the Enron exec's, so maybe it's not so far fetched that Darl really is a "moron."
    • by 26199 ( 577806 ) *

      Are you forgetting the fact that they've been making a killing on the stock market [yahoo.com]?

    • by TMB ( 70166 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:30PM (#6808015)
      Darl is no moron... he's making a tidy wad of cash selling stock that's risen dramatically in price on the promise of tons of licensing revenue...

      [TMB]
      • by Tony ( 765 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @05:59PM (#6808758) Journal
        The top execs are not selling their stock, or else they might draw the fire of the SEC.

        What's happening instead is a shuffling of stock to other Canopy Group shell companies, and it is dumped from there. Bruce Perens supplied a link in one of the commments around here someplace. So, the deal is probably like this:

        While SCO has stock that is worth something more than toilet paper, they "buy" companies already owned by their parent company, The Canopy Group. The Canopy Group liquidates those stocks, and at the end, Darl and Friends get a nice hefty bonus, as SCO stock tanks.

        It's a nice scam, if you can get it.
    • by El ( 94934 )
      They have no expectation of winning the lawsuit... they plan on having all their shares of stock sold before they get a judgement! Yes, it's a crazy world where you can run up your share prices by spouting bullshit... but then, people have been put in jail for less obvious frauds.
    • by steveha ( 103154 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @05:20PM (#6808457) Homepage
      There has been speculation that Darl and company wanted to make a big noise, and that IBM or someone would buy SCO to make the noise go away. This would avoid an Enron-like ending.

      It quickly became clear that IBM didn't intend to buy SCO, but was (and is) willing to fight SCO forever in court. But perhaps by then they felt they were committed.

      steveha
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:23PM (#6807941)
    Why are so many companies who are doing Linux business (SuSE, for example) complaining, but not unleashing their lawyers. The last thing SCO needs right now are more countersuits, which in turn makes it for us the first thing we should do right now.
  • by AEton ( 654737 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:23PM (#6807948)

    Paul Hatch, a SCO spokesman, wrote in a statement to The Tech, "To clarify, the individuals reviewing the code had been involved with MIT labs in the past, but are not currently at MIT. Unfortunately, due to contractual obligations, we cannot specifically name the individuals."

    I get the sudden impression of a trio who tried out for the role of the Lone Gunmen on the X-Files and failed miserably, crawling through MIT's underground tunnels.

    "Quick, it's the campus cops! Run!"

    "But we haven't finished copying UNIX code into /src/kernel!"

    "That's okay, we'll just grep some BSD code and put it in Symbol font. They'll never know the difference!"

  • by Vip ( 11172 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:23PM (#6807951)
    How many of you would do business with a company who would buy a license from SCO?

    I think buying a license, and then allowing it to be public knowlege that you did so would be corporate suicide. Unless you didn't want Linux (or to an extent, Unix) to succeed.

    Vip
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:24PM (#6807955)

    If you look at their Obfuscated Copying slide (#15), it clearly states 'Obfuscated System V Code Has Been Copied Into Linux Kernel Releases 2.4x and 2.5x,' and then the slide labels the BPF code on the left as 'System V Code.'

    Actually that doesn't make it a "flat-out lie" - it could easily be interpreted as Sontag says. Think of it as a explanatory diagram rather than an example of alledged infringing code.

    Doesn't matter whether you or I would interpret it that way, but whether a judge or jury can be made to. And that might even be what it really was - since they apparently don't want to release the code, they might have just picked something similar in style or lineage to illustrate their point without revealing the actual sources of their claim.

  • SCO reminds me of my brother and I fighting over something. My brother would say I had something of his, and I would say, "Prove it, fart-butt!" And he'd run off to his room and grab some miniscule carpet fiber (which he had been saving for months) that had an imprint on it which *might* have looked like a part of my shoe, which proved I was in his room. But he never could say what I took, why I took it, when I had the opportunity to take it, or even that he wanted it back! He just wanted me to pay for the "missing property" immediately, or he'd pound me into grape jelly.

    My mother would tap her foot impatiently, say, "She doesn't have your stuff, stop being so mean to your sister," and promptly ground him for being a dork.

    So, using this logic, IBM should say, "Linux doesn't have your code, stop being so mean to the open source community," and promptly sue them for being dorks.

  • BPF (Score:5, Insightful)

    by henbane ( 663769 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:27PM (#6807981)
    Isn't it possible that something as obviously non-infringing as the BPF filter is just an effort to make the community relax? I can't see how anyone, even a company as litigious as SCO, could possibly be stuck with examples like this. You can dig the algorithm and comments from textbooks over 20 years old. If you was to use it in a college assignment as is it would just be considered proper use of the tools at hand so how can SCO possibly believe that it is infringement.

    Am I the only one who believes there has got to be more to this claim? I know that all their actions seem to be designed and timed to boost their stock price every time it seems to be flagging a little from its already inflated position but surely BPF and similar code is not all they have?

    Those AT&T contracts IBM signed were pretty damn restrictive and having read the responses from Perens and Raymond I can understand how someone "reasonable" with an understanding of the issues involved can see that this is not the same as a derivative work but we are talking about something coming from a legal point of view which doesn't always look at things reasonably especially when it comes to U.S. copyright law. Even though this is a contract dispute it still looks like it could become another copyright mess so I don't really understand the seemingly overwhelming confidence of the OSS community.

    • Re:BPF (Score:5, Funny)

      by Sven Tuerpe ( 265795 ) <sven@gaos. o r g> on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:46PM (#6808164) Homepage
      Am I the only one who believes there has got to be more to this claim?

      Yes.

    • Re:BPF (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BooRadley ( 3956 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @05:05PM (#6808340)
      First of all, this is a lawsuit. That hasn't made it to court. And probably won't.

      Disclaimer: The following is my opinion, so if you are easily offended by sweeping generalities, outright ignorance, bad grammar, or misspellings, do not read further. Thanks.

      The lawsuit states that IBM used licensed code from the UNIX kernel source to create some functionality or other in AIX and linux, which they redistributed. And that's all it says.

      SCO will not allow IBM to see what the supposed "infringing code" is, so they are trying to maximize any damages, instead of helping to remedy the situation.

      The only mention of going after Linux, Linux users, or the Free Software community that has been made has been utterly without any legal or court filing, and only through press release. SCO realized that the AIX user community didn't give two shits about their claims, and by extension IBM wasn't about to be blackmailed into buying them out. So falling back to plan B, they spewed one press release after another to generate all the press they could, and behold, their stock price has jumped through the roof.

      IBM amd RedHat, on the other hand, have filed court motions to out SCO's proof, and to penalize them for unethical behavior, slander, tort, and all sorts of other slimy shit. Not to mention IBM's patent portfolio.

      There has been no mention of copyright, patent, or any other intellectual property violation on sco's part, except through press release that they are "preparing" to sue someone.

      I can say I'm "preparing" to light my farts and fly to the moon, but until I actually do it, it's not going to get a lot of attention.

      SCO's going to get pounded into the ground, and until there is a motion of actual litigation on their part against someone for infringing code in linux, there's not much to get riled up about. Until then, it's just a contract dispute between sco and IBM.

      So lighten up and go write some code!
    • Re:BPF (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kismet ( 13199 ) <.gro.mca. .ta. .sbmoccmp.> on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @05:10PM (#6808379) Homepage
      The effect of the "Big Lie", as Hitler put it, is to suggest to reasonable minds that they must be in err. The claims are so preposterous, so fantastic, that we suppose we must have overlooked some critical piece of evidence. Therefore, we question ourselves and our conclusions. We say things like "I don't understand how we can be so confident about this."

      This was a Nazi propaganda tool, and it was very effective. I see a lot of similarities today in the SCO case.

      Part of our responsibility as reasonable thinkers, is to remove any bias we might have, and evaluate assertions on their factual merits. By removing our bias, we seek to give each side of the argument equal footing.

      Many people believe that, if they are unbiased, then they are thinking reasonably. What we fail to realize is how facts and evidence can prove the truth of any assertion beyond reasonable doubt. People have a hard time with facts because facts tend to restore bias in favor of the truth. Reasonable people are uncomfortable being biased, and are therefore more susceptible to the Big Lie.

      There are two sides of the SCO issue. The SCO side is supported entirely with allegations, without a single shred of factual evidence that has been disclosed to the public.

      The other side has a mountain of facts to refute every allegation that SCO has made.

      I suggest that it is unfair to give SCO an unbiased benefit of the doubt when all of the facts clearly contradict everything they have said. That would be like presenting a Suicide Cult as a reasonable doctrine for society to consider.

      We have no reason to not be confident in our position. SCO has no proof of their claims, not a single bit.
      • Re:BPF (Score:4, Informative)

        by benzapp ( 464105 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @08:37PM (#6809682)
        The term "Big Lie" is something which is often quoted as coming from Hitler, but that is not entirely accurate. German Prapoganda (The term "Nazi" was in fact a British propaganda tool, the Germans nor the National Socialist Party members referred to themselves as such) was in many ways much more accurate than allied propoganda at the time. Hitler did write extensively about the subject of Propoganda, most importantly in his book Mein Kampf. The term "The Big Lie" was not actually used however. The discussion focused more on how the British extensively used Propoganda whereas the Germans did little more then mock their enemies as idiots. Hitler also went into some detail about how propaganda is the art of selling an idea and rightly compared it to commercial advertising. I highly doubt Arie Fleischer would admit he is nothing more than an advertiser, selling the ideas pushed by the Bush administration. Whatever else Hitler did, he did not lie to the world about his goals, propaganda included.

        The real usage of the term "Big Lie" by the Germans was mostly by Joseph Goebbels, the Propoganda minister. It was mostly in reference to the primary British argument for why Germany must be stopped. The British accused the Germans of plotting to take over the world, something you hear often today. It doesn't really matter this was never a stated goal of Germany, nor that they completely lacked the means and admitted as such. What matters is Great Britain already controlled 2/3 of the world in 1940. Not only was Britains lie without any basis in fact, it was incredibly hypocritical.

        Here [calvin.edu] is a speech by Goebbels regarding this topic.

        The proper analogy you should be making is SCO's claim that their rights are being infringed upon by Linux are as proposterous as Britain's claim that Germany wished and was able to control the world.
  • by cpeterso ( 19082 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:27PM (#6807983) Homepage

    SCO's web site has been served by Apache on Linux. Your humble author suggests that SCO found themselves requiring a multithreaded web server, and as SCO UNIX is based on an ancient version of The UNIX spec it just couldn't cope

    If SCO needed a multithreaded web server, why would they use Apache 1.3.14?
  • by El_Ge_Ex ( 218107 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:28PM (#6807994) Journal
    Should the audit reveal that the user has underpaid SCO by 5% or $5,000, whichever is highest, the user also agrees to pay the price for the audit.

    So, not only am I being extorted, but I'm agreeing to be extorted at a future date as well!?!

    Please, SCO spare us the bandwidth. Shut Up!

    -B
  • about time. (Score:3, Funny)

    by 514x0r ( 691137 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:29PM (#6808007)
    wow, it's 4:30. i'd almost given up on my daily SCO story.
  • Invoices? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kaa ( 21510 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:30PM (#6808009) Homepage
    Anyone here works at a place that actually got one of these "invoices" from SCO?
  • by shotfeel ( 235240 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:32PM (#6808038)
    ...but that stuff about the mathematicians had me imagining a SCO representative doing a Maxwell Smart impersonation.

    "Yes, we hired a team of crack mathematicians from MIT to scour the code...."
    "Would you believe we hired an accountant who's heard of MIT to scour the code..."
    "How about we cornered a kid coming out of his remedial math class and offered him free pizza if he could find two words that matched?"
    • by VValdo ( 10446 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @05:20PM (#6808459)
      but it would go like...

      "You might not realize this, IBM, but standing on the other side of that door is a team of MIT ninja mathematicians with top-of-the-line pattern-matching supercomputers!"

      No one comes in the door. IBM stares blankly.

      "Uh...wouldja believe a team of highly-paid CPAs with a beowulf cluster?"

      No dice.

      "How 'bout an advanced algebra class and 'diff'?"

      Nope.

      "Two monkeys and an abacus?"

      W
  • Dear SCO (Score:5, Funny)

    by QuackQuack ( 550293 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:35PM (#6808067) Journal
    Dear SCO,

    I have already paid for your Linux license, yet I have erroniously received another invoice.

    After some investigation, I think I figured out the mix up. Due to contractual obligations, I had to send the payment secretly. It's in a white unmarked envelope with no return address. Due to the circumstances, I was forced to send cash against the advice of the US postal service. Still I trust that it arrived safely. If you have any doubts, my accountant, whose name I cannot reveal, will vouch for me. He used to teach at MIT so his credibility is obviously impeccable.

    Now that we've straightened out this matter, I will discard this invoice.

    Thank you,

  • by El ( 94934 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:35PM (#6808072)
    "To clarify, the individuals reviewing the code had been involved with MIT labs in the past, but are not currently at MIT. Unfortunately, due to contractual obligations, we cannot specifically name the individuals."
    Well, sure, if I was working for SCO, I wouldn't want me name known publicly either!

    "We're the owners of the Unix (AT&T) System V code, and so we would know what it would look like,"
    Yeah, sure, having recently purchased rights to the code, they would definately have a better idea what it looks like than, say, the guys that wrote the code!!

  • by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) * <bruce@perens.com> on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:36PM (#6808076) Homepage Journal
    This Computerworld story [computerworld.com] tells how Canopy Group is cashing in on the SCO fear war. As SCO kites its stock, Canopy directs SCO to purchase other, not-tremendously-desirable Canopy Group companies. Canopy Group then gets more SCO stock to sell for cash.

    The latest SCO acquisition is Vultus, which even sounds evil. The SCO stockholders are the eventual losers, but I find it difficult to develop sympathy for someone who buys into a shakedown racket.

    Bruce

  • by Aiua ( 688192 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:36PM (#6808082)
    According to Australian LinuxWorld [linuxworld.com.au] is reporting that Novell's [novell.com] CTO has issued an ultimatum to SCO: put up or shut up [linuxworld.com.au].
  • by GreenCrackBaby ( 203293 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:37PM (#6808089) Homepage
    I've been following the SCO case, and other IP-related cases, with great iterest -- collecting as many articles as I can about everything related. One thing I've noticed is that SCO's grandiose claims were plastered over all the business-related media pretty quickly, but all the rebuttal arguments (that make SCO's case looks like Swiss chesse) aren't showing up in the same outlets.

    Unless some IT manager also read sites such as /., it's quite possible they would still believe SCO has a good case on their hands.

    The whole thing is damning to Linux specifically, and open source as well. I cannot help but see a media bias against OSS. Anyone else notice this?
    • by Overly Critical Guy ( 663429 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:50PM (#6808201)
      Funny, since a couple of years ago, people said there was a pro-OSS bias in the media, back when Linux was the darling child of the dot-com boom. In the end, it's not bias against OSS, it's bias toward controversy which gets readers. Just like Slashdot and its obsessive string of SCO and Microsoft hole stories.
  • by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:38PM (#6808099) Homepage Journal
    Darl McBride is a big yellow turd [sco.com]
    Displaying documents 1-20 of total 2825 found.
    1. SCO | Company | History of SCO

    Plans for the next weekly Pot-Party [sco.com]
    Displaying documents 1-20 of total 2951 found.

    We think we rock big time [sco.com]
    Displaying documents 1-20 of total 1116 found.

    nya nya nya nya take that suckers [sco.com]
    Displaying documents 1-20 of total 1586 found.

    Why shit and waste it when you can burp and taste it.

  • Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by heironymouscoward ( 683461 ) <[moc.oohay] [ta] [drawocsuomynorieh]> on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:42PM (#6808131) Journal
    There are perfectly good - and fast - multithreaded web servers that will run on SCO, at least as fast or faster than Apache.

    Xitami (which I admit I wrote huge chunks of) is one such beast.

    SCO are stupider than I thought.
  • by pb ( 1020 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:47PM (#6808175)
    Caldera bought SCO [netcraft.com], remember? That's probably when and why it changed over.

    Why, I remember when Caldera was trying to be a Linux company, and SCO was just a defunct Unix. Now all we have is Caldera/SCO trying hard to be a defunct company!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:49PM (#6808193)
    Ralph Yarro [canopy.com] is the real enemy. SCO is just the means to his evil. Ralph sits on the board and controls many of the the Canopy Groups companies. Look here for the various companies he controls/subsidizes/owns/sits on the board of [canopy.com]. If you do business with them, let them know that this lawsuit is a bad idea. The way to get to Ralph is to hurt him in the pocket book. He just doesn't seem to understand logic. The way to make him understand is by showing him that we mean business.

    Some of these subsidiary companies, by the way, are Linux/Open source whatever companies. He'll get the message real fast and call of the dogs if we just turn up the fire on his flank side.

  • by BootSpooge ( 61137 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:51PM (#6808223)
    Maybe.......

    CHAPTER 17. DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

    SUBCHAPTER E. DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

    17.46. Deceptive Trade Practices Unlawful

    Text of subd. (24), as amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 962, 1, effective Sept. 1, 2001.

    (24) failing to disclose information concerning goods or services which was known at the time of the transaction if such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer into a transaction into which the consumer would not have entered had the information been disclosed;


    It would seem by not divulging exactly what they are trying to license they are breaking the above law. If they said gimme $699 for GPL code would you buy it?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @04:59PM (#6808287)
    Come on, guys.

    The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. dissolved several years ago, and no longer exists. The company that has been in the headlines recently is SCO Group, formerly Caldera, based out of Utah.

    There's no such operating system as "SCO UNIX". There's OpenServer (which is based on an old non-threading version of the UNIX kernel...SVR3) and OpenUNIX, formerly UnixWare, which is about as modern as UNIXes get.

    Of course, Caldera/SCO Group was originally a pure Linux company, so it's not surprising they use Linux to host their web server. However, thanks to the LKP (Linux Kernel Personality) feature in OpenUNIX, that "Linux" web server may actually have a UNIX SVR5 kernel inside it with a GNU+Apache filesystem on top, making it indistinguishable from Linux from the outside.
  • HP (Score:4, Informative)

    by El ( 94934 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @05:05PM (#6808344)
    SCO has officially announced that HP is safe from their infringement lawsuit brigade
    By my reading of the story, HP has announced that HP doesn't beleive it infringes on SCO code... not SCO.
  • by pomakis ( 323200 ) <pomakis@pobox.com> on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @05:10PM (#6808381) Homepage
    The referenced sending invoices to Linux users [commentwire.com] article states:

    The company has also indicated, however, that should it lose such a case, there are no provisions for refunding IP license fees.

    Is this legal? I mean, can they get away with this once the courts decide that they're full of shit? If a person buys an IP license fee and then the courts decide that no such IP license exists, wouldn't he or she be legally entitled to a refund?

  • by LinuxParanoid ( 64467 ) * on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @05:11PM (#6808392) Homepage Journal
    Your humble author suggests that SCO found themselves requiring a multithreaded web server, and as SCO UNIX is based on an ancient version of The UNIX spec it just couldn't cope ;-).

    Well, there's a smiley so I know you're kidding.

    But there are also some inaccurate facts and presuppositions buried in those comments.

    First, your comment appears to ignore SCO's ability to use SCO UnixWare. SCO has two UNIX products, SCO UnixWare, and SCO OpenServer. SCO OpenServer is a Xenix descendent that is singlethreaded and probably as you suggest, couldn't cope. This is what most of SCO's installed base uses, and yeah it's old cruddy technology. SCO UnixWare uses pretty-sophisticated SVR5 technology that is really the core SVR kernel descended from AT&T & Novell days. It's pretty slick functionally (imho), is quite multithreaded running on 8-way (and NUMA I believe) systems, and conforms to UNIX 95 [opengroup.org] (although not UNIX 98 or the new UNIX 03 tweaks.) SCO is really suing over technology and rights allegedly derived from UnixWare/SVR4-5, not the older OpenServer technology you'd find in 90% of SCO installations.

    Second, having a multithreaded webserver that can cope has little or nothing to do with whether one conforms to the latest UNIX specs from the Open Group. But I know you probably know that and are just trying to toss that in there, right?

    --LP, not a UnixWare fan, just trying to reduce misinformation on the subject of SCO UNIXes
  • Class Action Time (Score:5, Interesting)

    by oni ( 41625 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @05:16PM (#6808437) Homepage
    I've said this before and I'll say it again. It's time for we the people who have had our reputations tarnished by SCO's actions to take them to court. It takes years to build a resume of Linux qualifications, experience, certifications, etc. And it's damn hard enough to find a job in this economy.

    SCO's executives come along with what can only be described as a scheme to enrich themselves by inflating stock, and they run our reputations into the mud. As a result of SCO's executives' actions it is now more difficult for me to get a job.

    I believe that a case can be made that the executives of SCO knew from the outset that their allegations didn't hold water. I believe that a case can be made that their actions were motivated by personal greed - the evidence for this is the pattern of press releases correlating with dips in stock prices and the sale of stock by those executives.

    As a result, I believe that the SCO executives should be held personally responsible in a court a law. They made decisions that have cost me potential income, and I think they should be the made to defend those decisions in a class action suit.
  • by drakaan ( 688386 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @05:37PM (#6808599) Homepage Journal
    Is it just me, or does anyone else occasionally feel like running to Utah and twisting Darl's balls off after reading some of the articles that he's quoted in?

    "The linux community is splitting hairs"

    For the love of god, please, somebody give him a solid-gold 5-iron and point him towards a lightning-prone golf course.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @07:23PM (#6809301)

    Ok this is mail fraud plain and simple.

    So report any invoices you get from SCO to your Postmaster Inspectors at the U.S. Postal Inspection Service [usps.com].

    Report it and get these guys in jail, 5 years per Invoice.

    This will not cost you a dime and it is up to the postmaster to go after them. SCO must prove it to the postmaster.

    The more people the better to quote the webpage:

    Postal Inspectors base their investigations of mail fraud on the number, pattern and substance of complaints received from the public. The Postal Inspection Service is interested in your concerns and will carefully review the information you provide.

  • by penguin7of9 ( 697383 ) on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @09:28PM (#6809908)
    "To clarify, the individuals reviewing the code had been involved with MIT labs in the past, but are not currently at MIT.

    Translation: one of the individuals' brother in law was a part-time undergraduate at MIT before dropping out.

    Unfortunately, due to contractual obligations, we cannot specifically name the individuals."

    Translation: their expert said "as long as I don't have to defend this opinion in court or to the press and as long as you guarantee that you won't leak my name, sure, I'll take your consulting money and you can put out whatever you like in your press release".
  • by Tsu Dho Nimh ( 663417 ) <{moc.liamtoh} {ta} {ixacaba}> on Wednesday August 27, 2003 @11:08PM (#6810496)
    Just released SEC document [sec.gov] for HUNSAKER JEFF F VP Int'l Marketing

    2 sales, 2500 each, sale price 14.3 and 14.26 for a total of $71375. He only has 15,494 more shares to go.

  • by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @02:11AM (#6811324)
    According to an article on Commentwire.com SCO has started sending invoices to Linux users.

    It's a matter of simple accounting. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or an accountant, which I am not) to figure this out: Under accrual basis, the invoices you write go into "accounts receivable" which are considered an asset before you actually receive the currency. In English, that means that by sending out invoices, SCO makes itself look more successful, on its financial statements, than it really is.

    CRIMINAL CHARGES were just filed against some of the Worldcom folks. I can't wait until the evening news announces that criminal charges are filed against Darl McBluff, alias Darl Helmet, alias Baghdad McBride, alias Bubba's Bitch.

  • by jdfox ( 74524 ) on Thursday August 28, 2003 @03:04AM (#6811569)
    There are a lot more SCO Group company sites running Linux [netcraft.com] than just sco.com:

    1 internetworld.com 433 461 461 Linux Apache/1.3.11 (Unix) ApacheJServ/1.1.2 mod_perl/1.21 PHP/4.2.3
    2 www.nft.com 427 462 461 Linux Apache/1.3.11 (Unix) ApacheJServ/1.1.2 mod_perl/1.21 PHP/4.2.3
    3 www.canopy.com 422 462 461 Linux Apache/1.3.11 (Unix) ApacheJServ/1.1.2 mod_perl/1.21 PHP/4.2.3
    4 www.in2m.com 408 453 453 Solaris 8 Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) mod_jk/1.2.0 mod_ssl/2.8.12 OpenSSL/0.9.6h PHP/4.2.2
    5 www.caldera.com 235 490 283 Linux Apache
    6 www.sco.de 235 490 283 Linux Apache
    7 it.sco.com 234 283 283 Linux unknown
    8 au.caldera.com 234 489 283 Linux Apache
    9 www.sco.com 234 489 266 Linux Apache
    10 sco.com 234 489 266 Linux Apache
    11 www.caldera.de 233 489 283 Linux Apache
    12 www.za.caldera.com 232 489 283 Linux Apache
    13 caldera.com 231 490 283 Linux Apache
    14 www.sco.at 231 283 283 Linux unknown
    15 doc.sco.com 230 283 283 Linux unknown
    16 uw7doc.sco.com 230 489 283 Linux Apache
    17 osr5doc.sco.com 229 490 280 Linux Apache
    18 uk.sco.com 227 279 280 Linux unknown
    19 www.calderasystems.com 227 489 283 Linux Apache
    20 www.emeia.sco.com 227 491 283 Linux Apache
    21 www.sco.it 226 489 260 Linux Apache
    22 au.sco.com 223 283 283 Linux unknown
    23 www.smilereminder.com 178 180 180 Linux Apache-AdvancedExtranetServer/1.3.23 (Mandrake Linux/4mdk) mod_ssl/2.8.7 OpenSSL/0.9.6c
    24 www.bushfam.com 89 129 129 Linux Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) (Red-Hat/Linux) mod_python/2.7.8 Python/1.5.2 mod_ssl/2.8.12 OpenSSL/0.9.6b DAV/1.0.2 PHP/4.1.2 mod_perl/1.26 mod_throttle/3.1.2
    25 www.vultus.com 34 305 43 Linux Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) mod_jk/1.2.2 mod_gzip/1.3.19.1a mod_ssl/2.8.10 OpenSSL/0.9.6g
    26 shop.sco.com 17 43 0 Linux unknown
    27 canopy.com 15 287 1 Linux Apache-AdvancedExtranetServer/1.3.23 (Mandrake Linux/4.2mdk) mod_ssl/2.8.7 OpenSSL/0.9.6c PHP/4.1.2
    28 www.centershift.com 4 27 12 Windows 2000 Microsoft-IIS/5.0
    29 www.helius.com - 44 18 Linux Apache/1.3.27 (Unix)
    30 www.homepipeline.com - 28 5 Windows 2000 Microsoft-IIS/5.0
    31 wdb1.sco.com - 17 0 Linux Oracle9iAS/9.0.2 Oracle HTTP Server Oracle9iAS-Web-Cache/Oracl
    32 wdb1.caldera.com - 17 0 Linux Oracle9iAS/9.0.2 Oracle HTTP Server Oracle9iAS-Web-Cache/Oracl
    33 www.communitect.com - 174 174 Linux Apache-AdvancedExtranetServer/1.3.23 (Mandrake Linux/4.1mdk) mod_ssl/2.8.7 OpenSSL/0.9.6c
    34 www.power-innovations.com - 133 134 Windows 2000 Microsoft-IIS/5.0
    35 ruckus.clan-nua.com - 31 6 Windows 2000 Abyss/1.1.6 (Win32) AbyssLib/1.0.7
    36 nft.com - 25 1 Linux Apache-AdvancedExtranetServer/1.3.23 (Mandrake Linux/4.2mdk) mod_ssl/2.8.7 OpenSSL/0.9.6c PHP/4.1.2
    37 www2.skwire.net - 25 6 Windows 2000 Abyss/1.1.6 (Win32) AbyssLib/1.0.7
    38 demo.vultus.com - 41 42 Linux Apache/1.3.26 (Unix) mod_jk/1.2.2 mod_gzip/1.3.19.1a mod_ssl/2.8.10 OpenSSL/0.9.6g
    39 locutus3.calderasystems.com - 4 0 Linux Apache/1.3.14 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.7.1 OpenSSL/0.9.6 ApacheJServ/1.1 PHP/3.0.15
    40 zeus.ut.sco.com - 17 0 Linux Oracle9iAS/9.0.2 Oracle HTTP Server Oracle9iAS-Web-Cache/Oracl

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (3) Ha, ha, I can't believe they're actually going to adopt this sucker.

Working...