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."
Stock? (Score:5, Insightful)
How much did their stock go up by announcing
this? Why is everyone so "blind" to this?
Re: Stock? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: Stock? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Stock? (Score:5, Interesting)
> I can accept that.
Why, because it makes no sense? I've heard people say things like that before, yet it seems to defy logic.
One lemming is perfectly normal. A whole group of them is not. If only one is stupid and jumps off a cliff, then the rest follow. Another example is crowd, and how they will panic as a group, like a concert, and end up killing others accidently.
How often have you been in an audience of some sort, not paying attention, but everyone started clapping, so you did too? A minor, but common, example.
My personal conclusion would be that an individual thinks as an individual, as long as he is alone, but when he is in a group, he will defer his own opinions and follow the majority of those around him, assuming the majority knows best. I would bet money that this is an instictual reaction for man and animal, akin to "follow the herd and stay together to stay safe".
Re: Stock? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now go out and join a protest. Protest something, anything, and do it with a lot of people. You won't feel like a fool. You'll feel powerful, different, and you'll tend to do things you don't normally do. I guarantee it. Then come back and tell me that a collection of humans is the same as a bunch of individual thinkers. The whole is not the same as the sum of the parts.
Individuals are smart. Groups of people are stupid. Every fireman, cop, EMT and politician in the world knows this. Nature defies logic. Science is counter-intuitive. And sometimes the truth is stupid.
Re: Stock? (Score:5, Interesting)
The observation that "a person is smart, people are dumb" is a useful simplification of the differences between individual psychology and group psychology. Quite simply, people act differently in groups than they do when they believe they are solitary. Usually, they cede some of their decision making to the group consensus. Not always, and only to a certain extent, but any number of experiments have been completed that substantiate that assertion.
As a result of this evidence, media, marketing, and politics have all evolved to take advantage of group psychology. Further, people spending any time in those professions generally opine that people are rather stupid. But when you and I look around and talk to our friends and family, we generally observe that we are among fairly smart people. That dichotomy goes directly back to the statement you objected to.
So forget about the ants. Analogies only stretch so far and the breadth of variety in nature is absolutely breathtaking. If there ever was an psychological opposite to the ant, we're probably it.
Regards,
Ross
Re:Stock? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stock? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think a stock pump-n-dump to illegaly make money is "the most vile of sin"s then i think you need to watch the evening news a bit more......It's a crime and should be punished, but just today we have a story of a lady leaving a 2-year old in her apartment for days while she was in jail, never mentioned to the cops that a child was left home alone! That's VILE!
Dante ["the most vile of sin"] (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think a stock pump-n-dump to illegaly make money is "the most vile of sin"s then i think you need to watch the evening news a bit more......It's a crime and should be punished
Dante's heirarchy of hell [pentaone.com] defines the worst level of sinners, those frozen with Satan in Hell's ninth and deepest layer, to be those who betray or kill country, kin, and benefactor.
SCO/Caldera would fit this definition, having produced a sustained attack for eight months now attempting to destroy, for its own shallow gain, the linux community from which the SCO group was born-- the community which produced the thing (linux) which allowed Caldera to gain all of its current status and wealth, including the wealth it used to buy SCO and the UNIX copyrights that give Caldera the pretenses for its suit. By Dante's heirarchy, this would put them in the same circle as the lady you mentioned, though slightly further from the center.
If you think that my definition of "betrayal against kin" is too loose, well, okay, we can free SCO of that allegation-- which has them doing a little bit better than the woman who left her 2-year old surviving for days on uncooked pasta it found-- but it should be noted that all that does is rise the SCO group up one layer to level 8, the level for fraudulence and malice, which dante apparently considered a worse sin than murder and violence (level 7).
Re:Stock? (Score:5, Informative)
Outcome a Repeat of History? (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking of "predict", I reckon the Closed Source vs Open Source arena we have, today, is much like the Closed Architecture vs the Open Architecture hardware arena of the past (ironic that IBM started this, then tried to re-neg -- remember the Charlie Chaplin ads?).
Back then, we didn't have the World Wide Web, so one had to read about the goings on of that market battle in the trade papers. But I bet history is, once again, repeating itself. This time it's about software, not hardware, of course. Makes sense that it's taken longer to get the software battle under way because hardware, well, just has to come first -- no hardware, no software possible.
But the past is interesting to me because of my (strange?) belief that we can probably predict the ultimate outcome and peer into the future a bit, by looking into the past. But, I can't remember how the last battle went (I was too young to care much, fresh out of college).
BTW, I really like how things turned out. At the time I was a real Motorola fan -- wished that the most ubiquitous desktop hardware hadn't gone little-endian and had shared stack/heap/program space (what a pain it was/is to write firmware for Intel chips vs Motorola!!!). However, what I like, now is paying next to nothing for seemingly endless increases in power!
So, what about the past? Anyone remember the hardware "Open Architecture" battles that went on? Are we closely repeating our technology history? Did anyone get as bent out of shape (as I feel over SCO) toward the "wrong side" at the time? Did we win?
Mor[m]ons are buying. (Score:3, Interesting)
Word is that the Salt Lake Tribune(?) published one of those "SCO -- which is a 'best performing stock' with +800% -- is run by nice Mormons, IBM is the evil Goliath"-articles today.
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].
Re:Mor[m]ons are buying. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Mor[m]ons are buying. (Score:5, Informative)
Littl Tech Titan [sltrib.com]
I'll let you reach your own conclusions.
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 behi
Re:Mor[m]ons are buying. (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.sltrib.com/help/forum.asp
Re:Mor[m]ons are buying. (Score:5, Interesting)
As a Utah transplant I would characterize the "The Trib" simply a less pro-mormon publication. I wouldn't thik it's possible to have the circulation that The Trib has and be anti-mormon. I can't speak for the first 40 years of its existance but displaying a shred of balance is far from what I would call anti-mormon.
I also would characterize the Trib's coverage as pro SCO. Headlines and first paragraphs consistently tell SCO's side while the very end of an article will have a couple quotes from the other side. I can easily see how someone who wants to invest in good clean profitable Utah companies could read the Trib and fall for the SCO point of view.
Freudian slip (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Stock? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stock? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure the stock is garbage, and its probably being pumped, but that doesn't mean it will go up further before the crash.
if you shorted the
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:Stock? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stock? (Score:3, Funny)
SCO vs 12 year old girls (Score:5, Funny)
Re:SCO vs 12 year old girls (Score:5, Funny)
Unless you're 12-year old girl running linux.
--- Does anybody know where I can download the "Barbie" distro for my niece????
Barbie Distro? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:SCO vs 12 year old girls (Score:2, Funny)
Relax (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Relax (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Relax (Score:5, Funny)
What they mean is : We need to fix our briefs after an "atomic" wedgy IBM and RHAT gave us.
So Naieve (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So Naieve (Score:3, Insightful)
In a word, no!
It is to IBM's interest to be Number One.
In a world with very strong and healthy numbers 2,3,4,...
So much better than being number one in a game nobody else wants to play.
With strong and healthy competition, IBM is a very safe bet. Without the competition, Information Technology is something you want less of, not more of.
Re:Relax (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be counter to IBM's whole Linux strategy. IBM is making money off of services related to Linux because businesses want Linux so they aren't locked into a proprietary software choice. IBM owning Linux would make it proprietary and aside from stability, not a very convincing argument from the other champion of proprietary solutions, that being Microsoft. IBM already has a proprietary (version of Unix)solution of their own, and that is AIX.
I'd love an invoice. (Score:5, Funny)
Too bad - I'd love to hang up such an (otherwise ignored) invoice here in my office. SCO can kiss my ass in Macy's window during a One Day Sale.
Re:I'd love an invoice. (Score:5, Insightful)
-Craig
Re:I'd love an invoice. (Score:3, Funny)
Show them what, his ass or the invoice?
Re:I'd love an invoice. (Score:2)
The real reason for wanting an invoice should be that you want to press charges for commercial fraud, or possibly join a class action.
Re:I'd love an invoice. (Score:2)
That's a great idea! It would go great with those framed Enron stock certificates [whitehouse.org], and you could really complete the "look" with various states' marijuana tax stamps [kissaneonline.com]!
Since it would constitute Mail Fraud, ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fantastic News! (Score:5, Insightful)
The Penguin just gets bigger and bigger.
Yup, SYSV is dead (Score:3, Troll)
well... (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, I have as much legal right to do it to them as they do!
Re:well... (Score:2, Funny)
Hey, I have as much legal right to do it to them as they do!
Wouldn't you first have to give them a licence, in order to revoke it?
1) Send SCO a licence for Unix.
2) Revoke the licence, with appropriate publicity.
3) ???
4) Profit.
I hereby revoke Darl's claim of IP (Score:5, Funny)
Indemnification DDOS (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO has been shouting that since the beginning. My bet is they have a legal DDOS already planned to sue every single one of IBM's customers. By IBM providing indeminification, they would be swamped responding to the individual claims. It may be hard to take out a 800lb gorilla with a slingshot, but half a million mosquitoes will suck one dry.
I remember an article or discussion in the last week about Darl getting a bonus and the freedom to cash out more stock once SCO has 4 consecutive profitable quarters. Febuary 4th would round this out nicely. Then Darl is free to jump ship and watch it burn. I'm sure someone will post the link below
Re:Indemnification DDOS (Score:5, Insightful)
My bet is they have a legal DDOS already planned to sue every single one of IBM's customers. By IBM providing indeminification, they would be swamped responding to the individual claims. It may be hard to take out a 800lb gorilla with a slingshot, but half a million mosquitoes will suck one dry.
I don't think so. To do this, SCO would have to pay to file and prosecute all of those lawsuits. Such a move might make sense in a situation where the DDOSer has vastly more resources than the recipient, but that is obviously not the case here.
No, I think the plan here is what has already been mentioned many times: If SCO can get all of the major Linux players offering indemnification then they can really cramp the growth and development of the operating system. Why? Because all commercial users will feel obligated to obtain indemnification. That's a little bit bad because it would mean that only large Linux providers can sell to businesses, but the real kicker is that it would limit commercial users' ability to modify and enhance the software.
That may seem like a non-sequiteur, but it's not. Look at HP's indemnification scheme: you only get indemnity if you run an unmodified version, unless you go through an as-yet-undefined (and probably expensive) process to get HP to cover your modified version. Why is HP limiting their indemnity this way? Because they have to. There's absolutely no way they can give blanket indemnity, because their customers could do things like tossing a bunch of, say, SCO Unixware code into Linux and then expect HP to take the heat.
IBM and any other company that offered indemnity would also have to limit the applicability of their guarantees, which would therefore limit the usage and development of Linux. That might give Unixware a better chance to compete, but I suspect the real reason is that it would work towards Microsoft's goal of slowing, FUDding and generally interfering with Linux.
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.
Same old same old (Score:2, Interesting)
SGO's Legal Strategy (Score:4, Funny)
Lookout PBS, you're next.
Re:SGO's Legal Strategy (Score:2, Funny)
ulterior motives? (Score:4, Interesting)
Open Letters (Score:5, Insightful)
License Fee (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM is pretty savy for adopting an open source project as one of their main OS offerings, largely because it does provide them with a certain level of insulation from OS problems, but also because it provides them with considerable developement power at minimal cost.
Let us not forget that Apple has pretty much put their entire future into an open source OS as well, for pretty much the same reasons I think.
It just makes sense to me to build your OS upon a common open source framework. More compatable, more developers, more solutions to problems.
Ya, there are hoards of problems with that approach as well, but I think they can be succesfully managed.
IBM To Buy Out Novell? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:IBM To Buy Out Novell? (Score:2)
sPh
Re:IBM To Buy Out Novell? (Score:3, Interesting)
Stupid SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
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 onl
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 (L
We can all invoice SCO! (Score:5, Funny)
At the very least, it'll be more entertaining. Heh.
Re:Fire up the photocopiers! (Score:5, Interesting)
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
801-765-4999 phone
801-765-1313 fax
Actually, if i wanted to do some harm, I would suggest that the masses do the same thing that was recently done to a notorious spammer: search for "free catalog" on the internet and fill in the information with Darl's name and SCO's information. If a few thousand people did a few hundred catalog requests each, this would mean about a ton of mail a day.
Now, I am sure they get a ton of mail as it is, normal mail, bills, hate mail, etc. but this still sucks to have to deal with. DDOM (distributed denial of mail)
If you have the bucks, and use a good LD service like the 10-10-987 at 3 cents a minute, you could just fax them thousands of pages that have only one word on the front. I bet they use a paper fax machine. At least it would tie it up for legitimate use if enough people would war dial it. Would also work with the regular number, with people keeping their phone tied up by asking stupid questions.
I guess we could all order pizzas from the local dominoes to be delivered there, but I think they would catch on to 10,000 pizza's being ordered and thats not fair to them....
Yea, nasty kiddie stuff, but fun as hell to at least think about.
Joe Formage? (Score:2, Funny)
Pro-Linux Conspiracy (Score:5, Insightful)
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 giv
Strange way to do business (Score:2)
Even Barbie has a Distro (Score:2, Funny)
Indemnification (Score:5, Interesting)
WHY ISN'T SCO OFFERING ITS CUSTOMERS INDEMNIFICATION AGAINST IBM'S CLAIMS???????
SCO has shown that they believe that indemnifying customers over alleged violations of IP is critical to a business. Why won't they offer it themselves?
Grab your popcorn! (Score:5, Interesting)
Bel, the mostly sane..
There are Two Laws at Work (Score:3, Funny)
Hanlon's Razor [reference.com] "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
It's only funny because it's true.
Re:Grab your popcorn! (Score:3, Interesting)
I was asked once why a colleague was always causing problems. It seemed impossible to figure out why he did what he did. My comment was--you're assuming there is a real purpose behind his actions. Sometimes, people simply operate at a level above their intellectual capacity and what you take for malice is merely an inability to comprehend the consequences of their actions.
And sometimes, people are simply nuts. And it happens a lot more often than most would expect.
A good friend of mine and I have worke
Joe's got a great letter but... (Score:5, Interesting)
You might be interested in reading this article at MetroActive.com [metroactive.com]
Excerpt:
In the chapter "My Contact," Firmage writes that in the white-hot weeks leading up to USWeb's IPO, a year ago, he was awakened by his alarm at 6:10am one morning but then he decided to hit the snooze instead of going to the gym.
"A remarkable being, clothed in brilliant white light, appeared hovering over my bed in my room," he writes. "Out of him emerged an electric blue sphere, just smaller than a basketball, which was swirling with what looks like electrical arcs. It left his body, floated down, and entered me."
Firmage soon founded the International Space Sciences Organization with $3 million of his own money to administer a project he called "Kairos," a Greek word meaning "the right moment" or "a critical time." Firmage believes we live in a "kairos" in which humanity is finally advanced enough to comprehend alien beings.
Not that Joe is wrong but this is just another interesting insight into this guy.
I loved the point he made about what if Physics, etc were developed based on proprietary interests. zinnnnnnnnnnnnng!
Not recognizing GPL is bad for SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
/. and SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
There's an article refering to SGI's stuff (The Linux in Hollywood one) this morning and now McBride starts pointing a finger at them too. I wonder how many SCO FUD Spinners read
SCO vs. The World (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, I hope they take away all the Unix licences of everyone that has contributed to Linux. But pick on one 800lb gorilla, you might have a case. If you go after a flock of them, you look like a raving madman. Which is why I think this is all talk. They'll spread more FUD, but not actually sue SGI or revoke their licence. They'll say that they could, but are busy dealing with IBM and collect damages from SGI later (in a more FUDified way, of course).
Kjella
this may be a stupid question, but I'm curious (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, when this case finally gets to trial, and SCO loses (God willing), could the company turn around and sue for extortion/other illegality, since it has been proven in court that SCO has no legal basis to enforce/collect licensing fees?
Re:this may be a stupid question, but I'm curious (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, if SCO was stupid enough to send anyone a "bill" for Linux licensing, and was further stupid enough to do it through the mail, then they'd be subject to US laws regarding mail fraud.
If you simply pay them money for "indemnification" without having been billed for it there's all of jack you can do. You gave them money. Did you have to? No. So why the hell did you?
If they send you a receipt for having paid for the "protection" then you might have a case, but I doubt it. IANAL. If you really want an answer, pay the money to SCO and then go get legal consul. Or do so beforehand, although you'll pay far more than $700 for legal consultation and research.
Re:this may be a stupid question, but I'm curious (Score:3, Insightful)
Depending on how the license you buy from SCO is phrased, probably not.
If you buy a license from SCO, you are, in effect, placing a $700.00 bet on a roulette wheel that:
Re:this may be a stupid question, but I'm curious (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, when this case finally gets to trial, and SCO loses (God willing), could the company turn around and sue for extortion/other illegality, since it has been proven in court that SCO has no legal basis to enforce/collect lic
validity of GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, SCO is saying, "We believe we have no legal right to distribute a huge amount of the software that we are in fact distributing." Which member of their legal brain trust thought that one up?
This is much different from simply encumbering the Linux kernel, which is what would happen if there really were one million billion gazillion lines of modern copyrighted SysV code copied directly into Linux. They want to sell UNIX(R), so killing the kernel would be fine to them. But a lot of their business depends on GPLed code. They can't kill the GPL and have a surviving product line. The only way to get around this is to claim that all GPLed code has really been put in the public domain (against the specific written intent of the copyright holders). This is a legal theory almost too bizarre to put into words.
I am happy to entertain any explanation of SCO's behavior as something other than fraudulent stock manipulation, but I haven't heard any that can explain their actions.
SCO, hyper-enlarged Right Brain (Score:3, Funny)
Had Darl and Co. applied all this effort and creative thinking toward the improvement of OpenServer and Caldera Linux they might have had a customer base and a little revenue these days..
Somehow their reputation has always been a ball and chain - I remember someone on the net posted (around 1995) in a newsgroup - "I'd rather have my spinal cord pulled out through my asshole than have to do system administration on SCO Unix."
a grudge-match between SCO and SGI is like... (Score:5, Funny)
Then again, people do buy those *Bum Fights* DVDs...
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:
- If IBM (or Redhat) were to indemnify Linux users, that's as good as saying they're not so sure of their case. HP can get away with it because they haven't been targeted and probably won't be before the thing is over. Besides, for them, it looks good. So one thing SCO wants is for IBM to show a tiny bit of uncertainty in public instead of all this "SCO's claims are without merit." and "The Earth is not flat." stuff that they keep throwing around.
- The second reason is a little more complicated: Right now, SCO has a huge legal staff devoted to protecting a large corporation. Right now, if SCO were to choose a bunch of Joe-Linux-user types (not companies using Linux, but individuals), it would look really bad, and they'd have to fork over their evidence soon, since for $699, that's small claims court, and it's not that easy to delay a small claims trial for the next two years or so. So, with no indemnification from IBM, it's not at all practical to sue the little guys. If IBM is indemnifying them though, it works well for SCO to attack all of the smallest users they can find. IBM is able to defend itself perfectly well, but if SCO were to go RIAA-style and start with a few hundred or even a few thousand Linux users, and IBM had to defend them or pay up, IBM is not so well equipped. They'd have to hire a bunch of lawyers on the side to take care of it which would cost money and create a huge sideshow to mask whatever SCO's goal is.
So there you go. Unless SCO is actually concerned about Linux users. Ha! Can you see it?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:Why does SCO want IBM to provide indemnificatio (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO really thought IBM would quietly settle. They probably pissed their pants when IBM called their bluff. So they are trying to exert pressure on IBM thru IBM's customers by stirring up this idea of indemnification.
For me, this hypothesis passes the "Ockham's Razor" test. Simple and believable.
SCO's strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect SCO's strategy was much like what the new guy in prison is supposed to do: Go nuts and beat somebody up your first day, and people will treat you with respect. They want to wring licensing fees out of people, so they need to get a big, powerful company to bow down to their threats. For some strange reason they chose IBM, a company not exactly known for their reluctance to litigate (unlike Microsoft, IBM actually defended itself against antitrust claims from the government and won).
It's clear now that the strategy isn't working; IBM isn't having any of it, and while it certainly has generated some concern and doubt in the business community, SCO isn't going to be collecting any significant royalties anytime soon (in fact they're not even prepared to yet). But when your cards are on the table and you've only got the road ahead of you, I suppose you have to see it through, even if you realize you have a bad hand.
I wonder if SCO will even exist as a distinct company five years from now. I suspect not.
My prediction (Score:4, Interesting)
Open letter from SGI (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Open letter from SGI (Score:3, Insightful)
So, either there is a stack of code in SysV that SGI doesn't have access to, or there is no actionable similarity between Linux and SysV and SCO is full of crap. Take your pick.
Prank (Score:3, Funny)
-Thomas
And in other news (Score:3, Funny)
Correct me if I am wrong, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright law does not stipulate what conditions must be established in order for permission from the copyright holder to be recognized. These conditions are entirely at the discretion of the holder of the copyright.
The GPL outlines the terms and conditions that person must agree to in order to have legally recognized permission from the copyright holder to distribute a GPL'd work.
People who do not agree to the terms of the GPL and still distribute the work are therefore in violation of plain old ordinary copyright law.
What SCO doesn't seem to "get" is that the GPL does not force derivative work contributers to fork over their copyrights - they still own those. What it *DOES* do is force derivative work contributes to do is not be able to distribute derivative works without subjecting it to the terms of the GPL. This is possible because in a derivative work, some or all of the code copyrighted by someone else and released under the terms of the GPL is usually still included in the final package. If a person were to disagree with the terms of the GPL, yet still distribute their derived works, they would also be distributing some or all of the original author's work without recognized permission (the upshot of this is that if a derived work no longer happens to contain any code that was originally released under the GPL by someone else, then the GPL does not actually have to apply to the derived work). Ultimately, it appears that the only *possible* reason to feel like the GPL's terms and conditions are unfair is if one's primary form of code reuse is "copy/paste" (which can carry copyright ramifications anyways, if you are copying code you didn't write).
revoking licenses.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Profits after termination... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is it only me (Score:2)
Re:Is it only me (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is it only me (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot does seem to be grouping it all under Caldera. That gives you the ability to filter it out. Even if you don't it is so easy to scroll down the screen and bypass the things you don't want to read.
The fact that you did read it, opened this thread and then actually took the time to post.....well let's just say that it gives the appearance of "just trolling."
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
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:The problem with SCO's business (Score:3, Interesting)