Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Caldera Software Your Rights Online Linux

One Company's Response to SCO 705

Posted by michael from the seven-up-yours dept.
Great_Jehovah writes "The CIO of Just Sports USA received an extortion letter from SCO, started a thread about it on the pgsql-general and then posted his response letter after weighing the various pieces of advice and info he received. Here's hoping that most of SCO's intended victims do the same." An anonymous reader submits a story in a Utah paper about SCO: "The Salt Lake City Weekly paper is running a front page article on the SCO shenanigans. The reporter interviewed Darl, Linus, Bruce Perens and others for the article with new choice quotes from them all." Also, IBM at Linuxworld claims it will win against SCO (miscellaneous plug: CmdrTaco will be speaking at Linuxworld later today).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

One Company's Response to SCO More

One Company's Response to SCO

Comments Filter:
  • ...is going the right way [yahoo.com] so far today.

  • My Concern (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheRealMindChild ( 743925 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:42PM (#8056715) Homepage Journal
    My concern with all of this crap, is the fact that someone hasn't forced SCO to shut the hell up. It reminds me of the Bully in grade school. He would consistantly beat up on kids every day. Some even to the point of actual damage, and he was NEVER suspended. Never. Ever. I think that is what needs to be really focused on. Not so much as "When will all of this madness end?", but rather "How can we prevent this from ever getting this far, if history repeats itself?"

  • One person's response to SCO (Score:5, Funny)

    by Em Emalb ( 452530 ) * <ememalb AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:42PM (#8056721) Homepage Journal
    ha.

    Haha.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Heh.

    GWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    SCO.

    *sniff*

    What was the question again?

  • Save us from ourselves.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:42PM (#8056722) Homepage Journal
    From the article: "I've been pounding the table here for a year or so saying there's no free lunch, and there is going to be a day of reckoning for every company that thinks they are going to try and sell a free model."

    What is with this messianic attitude? Perhaps what Darl does not realize is that folks contribute to Linux and other open source projects through a variety of reasons. Notably, some contributions to open source have happened via tax-payer funded projects from a variety of nations throughout the world. Other contributions are made from the generous and charitable contributions of others who simply want to make a difference. Darl wants to exploit those contributions and leverage his band of merry lawyers to "liberate" Linux from the rest of us. Only his liberation is not for anything other than selfish desires (like any criminal who sees nothing wrong with theft) with no respect to the common good.

    • "there's no free lunch" (Score:4, Funny)

      by Idou ( 572394 ) * on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:11PM (#8057093) Journal
      Yes, Darl, there IS NO free lunch . . . get over it and shut the hell up.

      How many levels of irony must this guy go through before his head explodes?

    • Re:Save us from ourselves.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Joe MacDonald ( 9951 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:13PM (#8057127) Homepage
      Holy crap! Did Darl really say he was pounding on the table? As soon as I read that I thought of Eben Moglen's article [gnu.org] and this bit from the very first:
      There's a traditional definition of a shyster: a lawyer who, when the law is against him, pounds on the facts; when the facts are against him, pounds on the law; and when both the facts and the law are against him, pounds on the table.
      Not a good picture to paint of yourself, even if you aren't the lawyer.

    • Re:Save us from ourselves.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TwinkieStix ( 571736 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:31PM (#8057450) Homepage
      Don't forget the most "capitalistic" of them all:
      I need a feature, so I'll pay somebody to do it (or if I can code do it myself).
      In the long run, I can see this being the most popular way new featured are added. It's almost as if we cut out the middle man (sales, marketing, useless features to make a 2004 version of the 2003 version for extra cash flow, lawyers, CEOs) and software is directly created by companies and users, or people paid directly by them.

      An additional side effect will be small consulting firms for companies to get specialized software. These firms will be local and supply only domestic work.

  • Here's what I'm wondering... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by neilcSD ( 743335 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:42PM (#8056730)
    Why is it that no one has taken SCO to court to get an injunction filed against them, barring them from collecting money or sending 'extortion' letters until their case is proved in court? It makes no sense to me that they can send out these letters, making threats, on a legal matter that is nowhere close to being decided. How about if SCO loses? Do they have to refund everyone who was coerced into buying licenses? It's ridiculous that no one has tried to prevent them from talking out their asses yet. It makes sense to me, am I missing something?

    • Re:Here's what I'm wondering... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by peragrin ( 659227 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:48PM (#8056821)
      It does make sense to shut them up. Then again the more they talk now, the more you can get off libel and slander lawsuits that follow. Those Suits won't be againist the SCO group, bt personally againist, Darell, Chris, Blake, Tibbets, Boise.

    • Re:Here's what I'm wondering... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:57PM (#8056946) Journal
      Why is it that no one has taken SCO to court to get an injunction filed against them, barring them from collecting money or sending 'extortion' letters until their case is proved in court?

      Er.... That would be RedHat, would'nt it? Isn't that exactly what RedHat's lawsuit is about?

    • Re:Here's what I'm wondering... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Asic Eng ( 193332 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:16PM (#8057177)
      Why is it that no one has taken SCO to court to get an injunction filed against them

      That was already done in Germany, they can't talk about their claims there until they are willing to show their "proof" in court.

    • Re:Here's what I'm wondering... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hesiod ( 111176 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:35PM (#8057514)
      > How about if SCO loses? Do they have to refund everyone who was coerced into buying licenses?

      No, because at the time, the people "chose" to pay the license. They could have:
      - paid the fee
      - stopped using the software (however unrealistic)
      - challenged the fee in court
      - waited for the outcome of this case.

      If they choose the last option and SCO wins, they can be penalized even more for not paying "when required." If they choose to challenge it, they put a lot of money on the line (hell of a lot more than $699) to defend themselves. They could switch OSes, but that's entirely unrealistic, and I imagine SCO is counting all this to force the victims to choose the first option: to pay with no chance of refund (unless later they pursue further legal action over the extortion of $700).

  • Salt Lake Article (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) * <jhummel.johnhummel@net> on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:44PM (#8056746) Homepage
    That has to be the best damned article I've read on the "SCO" case. Granted, it was slanted against SCO - but it provided logical, point-by-point facts about the history of the case. No new arguments for the geek crowd - but that's one I'll print out and show to the non-geeks I work with who haven't understood what the big deal is.

    While we're at it, Mr. Johnson's article should be printed out and mailed to every member of Congress, the Senate, and to Mr. Bush to stop any of the "anti-Open Source" lobbyists dead in their tracks.

    I used to live in Salt Lake and remember how good the "City Weekly" was, but I had forgotten that every so often, those bastards could really write.

    • Re:Salt Lake Article (Score:5, Interesting)

      by hargettp ( 74445 ) * on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:58PM (#8056953)
      That the article was written in Darl McBride's own backyard (Utah) is particularly telling. Any company worth it's salt knows that you at least keep your local press on your side: that's who your employees, your suppliers, and your closetst customers and partners read.

      • Re:Salt Lake Article (Score:5, Informative)

        by utahjazz ( 177190 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:55PM (#8057810)
        Any company worth it's salt knows that you at least keep your local press on your side:

        City Weekly is a paper catering to the non-Mormon majority in Salt Lake, who see Lindon/Orem/Provo as a sureal Mormon enclave a million miles away. People joke that you need to get a visa to go there.

        To Darl, the 'local press' is the Deseret News. Their slant can be seen here:

        SCO Group now offering license outside the U.S. [deseretnews.com]

        Google and SCO hold talks [deseretnews.com]

        SCO sues Novell, claiming slander [deseretnews.com]

        Bear in mind, Novell is in Orem.

  • Rofl (Score:3, Funny)

    by Chitlenz ( 184283 ) <chitlenz@ch i t lenz.com> on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:44PM (#8056753) Homepage
    Darlness... nice.

    Don't get any on you heh.

  • Choice quotes (Score:5, Funny)

    by herrvinny ( 698679 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:45PM (#8056758)
    "He's no geek," says Benjamin Choate, a self-trained Linux user living in Logan. "His tan's too good."....

    In June 2002, the copper-toned McBride took over the reigns of Caldera, a Linux and UNIX distributor desperately trying to find its place in the Information Technology world.

    Gotta love the journalist for poking fun at Darly.

    And Linus:

    When asked if he had any questions to pass along to McBride, Linus Torvalds chose to err on the side of caution. "The less I have to do with Darl McBride, the better off I am ... I don't want for that 'Darlness' to rub off on me."

  • Text of the .PDF response letter (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:48PM (#8056808)
    January 21, 2004
    Mr. Philip Langer
    Regional Director, Intellectual Property Licensing
    SCO Group
    355 South 520 West Suite 100
    Lindon, Utah 84042
    Dear Mr. Langer:
    I am writing you in response to your letter dated January 19th, 2004 in which you advised that you would
    consider legal action if we failed to respond to your efforts to pursue a licensing arrangement. To date, I
    have yet to receive any information concerning our systems and what you allege violates your intellectual
    property rights. You have sent me letters that conflict with other statements made by representatives of the
    SCO Group concerning SCO's ownership of UNIX ABI's and their supposed (re)distribution under the
    GPL in the Linux kernel.
    If you would like to detail directly which of our systems allegedly violate your copyrights, and specifically
    which code on said systems allegedly violates said copyrights, we will be happy to do an internal audit to
    verify your claims. Once the results of said audit are complete, we will be more than willing discuss any
    pending licensing issues with you.
    Our current understanding of your legal situation is that your organization has yet to prove your claims of
    SCO intellectual property being included in the GPL based Linux kernel software that SCO itself has
    distributed under the GPL. While I understand your concerns regarding intellectual property and your
    desire to protect SCO's property, at this time, the legality and claims concerning SCO's ownership of code
    that exists in the 2.4 Linux kernel has yet to be determined by a court of law. I, speaking for myself, follow
    with interest SCO Group's contortions in its lawsuits against Novell and IBM, and its defense against the
    lawsuit brought by Red Hat. In my study of the events that have transpired, it's my understanding that
    SCO Group has yet to produce any substantive evidence as to the claims regarding code misappropriation
    by IBM. I am requesting the SCO Group to provide to my organization substantive evidence of alleged
    copyright violations so that we may compare the alleged violations for the purpose of internal audit to
    determine if any licensing needs to indeed exist. I do, however, intend to publicly document the results of
    said audit and any communication with the SCO Group regarding this matter.
    Before you waste any more of my time or yours, please detail exact information such as the offending lines
    of code and the kernel versions you contend this code is in. Alternatively if your organization agrees, we
    can re-address these issues after your current lawsuits regarding these issues are finalized.
    Sincerely,
    Gavin M. Roy
    Chief Information Officer
    Just Sports USA

  • My favorite quote (Score:3, Funny)

    by bahamat ( 187909 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:49PM (#8056828) Homepage
    "That's Darl McBride, president and CEO of the SCO Group, a perennial loser at selling UNIX"

    Nice :-)

  • RICO act Remedy? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HealYourChurchWebSit ( 615198 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:49PM (#8056834) Homepage


    I'm sure this has been brought up before (though I can't find it right off), but isn't this type of arm-twisting by SCO illegal?

    For example, and any input from you legal beagles out there would be greatly appreciated, couldn't a company such as Just Sports use the RICO act [ricoact.com] as a means of seeking relief?

    • Re:RICO act Remedy? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by enjo13 ( 444114 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:15PM (#8057163) Homepage
      IANAL:)

      However, this has been brought up with our lawyers in response to SCO. According to our counsel, to really have any chance of winning we'd need to be able to show that SCO has direct knowledge that their claims are false. At this point, SCO is attempting to assert rights and claims that it BELEIVES it has (apparently). As such, until the courts decide one way or the other they can pretty much get away with this.

      What would be gold would be a company memo, high ranking employee, or anything that could clearly show that this is all made up or based on very thin evidence.... which is pretty unlikely to turn up.

  • A template letter for SCO responses... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lobsang ( 255003 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:51PM (#8056857) Homepage
    Dear [Insert foo&bar SCO lawyer's name here]

    After careful consideration, and based on recent media coverage of the events involving the SCO group claiming ownership of code in the Linux 2.4 kernels, plus the fact that to this date no tangible evidence has been presented in a court of law, we understand that SCO's upper management has been under the influence of recreational drugs for a considerable amount of time and thus, should not be taken seriously.

    Under these premises, we'll transfer further threatening letters to our security experts, Corleone & Corleone inc for further appreciation and action.

    Kind Regards,
    [Insert your name here]

  • Daily Reminder (Score:5, Funny)

    by rudy_wayne ( 414635 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:53PM (#8056880)

    You can't spell fiasco without SCO

  • They can't find the code (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LehiNephi ( 695428 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:54PM (#8056896) Journal
    Here's the way I see it:

    SCO can't find any code from SysV in Linux. If there were any SysV code in Linux, they would have been able to find it, since they have the source code to both. There would have been no need to ask IBM for Sequent/Dynix code, since they would have found 'their' (SCO's) code in both SysV and Linux.

    In other words, no SysV code in Linux

    So they asked IBM for all the code that IBM has written, trying to find out exactly what code from IBM made it into both Unix and Linux. This leads me to the conclusion that they consider all code written by IBM for Unix to belong to SCO as a 'derivative work'. However, they (and we) don't know whether IBM developed the code specifically for Unix (and later contributed it to Linux), or whether IBM wrote it for both Unix and Linux at the same time.

    If IBM originally wrote the code for both, I can't see how SCO can claim ownership/copyright/patent/IP rights/whatever. However, even if IBM did write it for Unix and later contributed it to Linux, SCO still have to prove that the code IBM wrote belongs to them(SCO). I find that doubtful at best.

    • terms of contract (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ender Ryan ( 79406 )
      The original Unix contracts signed by IBM et al, have language that is a little bit ambiguous about ownership of code that each party adds to Unix, more specifically, it was really to do with Unix trade-secrets, not actual copyright. IBM didn't like the apparent ambiguity and asserted that they(IBM) own, and can do whatever they please with, any code that they develop, and AT&T signed off on that. I'm not sure if that was an alteration to IBM's contract, or if that was just a clarification of the lang

  • Mainstream Press (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mugnyte ( 203225 ) * on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:54PM (#8056900) Journal

    That newspaper article is one of the most approachable versions of this saga I've seen in a long time. Hopefully, with more mainstream press, we can see the FUD factor affecting the rank-n-file investors. We need this to be picked up in the WSJ.

  • McBride must be institutionalized... (Score:4, Funny)

    by moojin ( 124799 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:55PM (#8056905)
    "'Listen real clearly to what's happening here,' McBride said by telephone from his Lindon office in early January. 'The situation is that we used to be the leader ... we were where Red Hat [the No. 1 Linux distributor] is now. Linux then comes in, with Red Hat being the ringleader, and really attacks our [UNIX] market share and our marketplace..."

    self-explanatory

  • Cheer (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cipster ( 623378 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:55PM (#8056906)
    Bruce Perens, a Linux cheerleader and open-source advocate

    The thought of Bruce in a short skirt and waving pompoms just made me shudder. "Give me an L!"
    Ahhhhh Noooo

  • Don't even think about buying a licence.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by HogynCymraeg ( 624823 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @01:59PM (#8056962)
    It's about as much use as a pair of binoculars is to a cyclops...

  • It's getting serious - I hear SCO is considering.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Snork Asaurus ( 595692 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:00PM (#8056978) Journal
    turning the entire matter over to the RIAA.

  • SCO is so LOUD (Score:4, Funny)

    by automatix ( 664568 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:02PM (#8056994) Homepage
    Why is the SCO letter full of capitals, bold, and underlines? Didn't they learn basic ettiquette that people don't like to be SHOUTED AT?

    The funny thing is, fully 3/4 of the letter is underlined. Maybe they think if they shout and emphasise it they think people will just agree without even taking it in.

    "WE BELIEVE WE CAN PROPOSE SOLUTIONS THAT WOULD WASTE YOUR MONEY AND TIME AND WE OWNZ YOU"

  • Brilliant article (Score:5, Informative)

    by iantri ( 687643 ) <iantri&gmx,net> on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:07PM (#8057058) Homepage
    Though it is a bit biased toward Linux (I guess it's impossible to write without SOME bias, though), this has got to be the best article about the whole situation I have ever read.

    It provides a detailed description of what the supposed 'problem' is, and clearly shows each sides claims.

    An excellent article to show to the hestitant boss..

  • Too bad we can't support this company (Score:5, Funny)

    by The Wing Lover ( 106357 ) <awh@awh.org> on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:11PM (#8057091) Homepage
    Being /. readers, it's unfortunate that we will never get the chance to give business to Just Sports...

  • Darl's New Makeover... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Schlemphfer ( 556732 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:12PM (#8057116) Homepage
    So I went and read the article linked in the summary. And it has a pic of Darl [slweekly.com] unlike any I've ever seen.

    I was like, "where have I seen this guy before?" Computer guy...wearing a blue work shirt exposing bare forearms. Cocked a bit to the site with his arms folded across his chest.

    And then I realized, it's Peter Norton. [peoples.ru]

  • CmdrTaco's Presentation (Score:5, Funny)

    by jasondlee ( 70657 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:13PM (#8057131)
    miscellaneous plug: CmdrTaco will be speaking at Linuxworld later today

    Don't worry if you miss CmrdTaco's presentation today. In typical /. fashion, the same presentation will be made by Timothy some time tomorrow.

    jason

  • should've just passed on to lawyer (Score:3)

    by corbettw ( 214229 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:17PM (#8057187) Journal
    Laymen shouldn't try to respond to letters from attornies. He should have just passed the threat letter to his lawyer, and have him type up a response similar to what was written. It could be he's left himself open to legal action doing it this way.
    • On the contrary. He has not opened himself (or his company) to anything. This is no different than someone trying to invoice me for a service that was never provided. There is no legal relationship between the 2 parties. There is no pending litigation.

      The day I lose the right to call shit as shit is the day I move somewhere else.

  • Anyone read this part? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by symbolic ( 11752 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:18PM (#8057192)
    I want to walk the Court through enough of our complaint to help the Court understand that IBM clearly did contribute a lot of the Unix-related information into Linux. We just don't know what it is...

    This comment was made by McBride's lawyer/brother (birds of a feather?) with during pre-discovery, and sums up the whole mess in its entirety. If a court order were issued to "Figure out what it is or shut up," I think it's quite likely that we'd never hear from SCO again. SCO would still die, only quietly.

  • Letter written to my Congressman and Senators... (Score:5, Informative)

    by cswiii ( 11061 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:22PM (#8057264)
    I wrote this earlier today -- well, ok, very late last night -- in response to SCO's apparent Capitol Hill diatribe.

    Anyone interested in reading it can find it here [jut.net], complete with the minor grammatical/typing errors that I failed to catch when reading it the first 20 times.

    I encourage all of you to do the same thing. No one is quite sure how wide a distribution Darl's letter has gotten, but we can certainly counter them.

  • From the article:

    the Linux kernel--the core chunk of code underlying most distributions of the Linux operating system.

    I used to use Linux-Linux, but I've become a big fan of the Linux distributions that don't use Linux.

  • Wow, he IS insane (Score:3, Interesting)

    by enjo13 ( 444114 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:24PM (#8057305) Homepage
    "Our customers that are buying [UNIX] from us today, we generally don't have a problem with," McBride said. "We have some former customers that have left that are running on Linux, and they are in the crosshairs."

    So basically they are targetting former customers? Are they seriously trying to keep their few remaining licensees in line with these kind of scare tactics? It seems like they are saying 'stay with us or we'll sue'.

    Unbeleivable.

  • The "infringing" code (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Aumaden ( 598628 ) <Devon...C...Miller@@@gmail...com> on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:25PM (#8057309) Journal

    I've followed most of the SCO nonsense over the past year, but somehow in all of that I missed something....

    In SCO's letter [ftso.org] it is talking about the Unix ABIs. I had always assumed the issue involved actual code (e.g., the buffer management code). But they're talking about ABIs here.

    For those that haven't dealt directly with ABIs, here's the skinny...

    When you want to open a file you issue a command like:

    int fd = open("/etc/motd", O_RDONLY);
    if (fd == -1 && errno == ENOENT) {
    printf("File does not exist\n");
    }

    The ABI defines the value of O_RDONLY (0) and the value of ENOENT (2). Without an ABI, one vendor (vendorA) might use the values 0 and 2 while another (vendorB) might use the values 1 and 3. Thus while you would have source compatability (code using the macros O_RDONLY and ENOENT will compile anywhere), you would not have binary compatability (code compiled with vendorA's headers will not run in vendorB's environment).

    What all this means is: SCO is basing their case on the values of #defines!

    • Re:The "infringing" code (Score:4, Insightful)

      by yeremein ( 678037 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @03:36PM (#8058438)
      What's more, the same ABIs are used in practically every open-source UNIX, including the BSDs and the "ancient" UNIXes. As well as Cygwin's headers (with no copyright notice present), and even Microsoft's headers as well. It would be mighty hard for SCO to argue that it controls the ABI.

      And even if SCO can successfully lay claim to the numbering scheme, then they have a problem, because their own proprietary UNIX offering emulates the Linux ABI. Even if SCO didn't steal any GPL'd code (which is questionable at best), they'd still be infringing Linus's copyrights if their theory were to be upheld.

  • Need a shorter reply letter (Score:5, Funny)

    by kammat ( 114899 ) * on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:26PM (#8057337)
    Dear SCO:

    After reviewing your claims with our legal department and system administrators in extreme detail, we have come to the following conclusion.

    Bite me.

    Sincerely,
    Some Random Company

  • linus's comment. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sg_oneill ( 159032 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:47PM (#8057712)
    I note in the rather excelent salt lake article that Linus was asked if he wanted to pass on a message to Darl, which he declined.

    I would of loved that oportunity. I'd ask Darl a question. Sorta like this;-
    I'd ask "Darl, Are you happy? I mean *REALLY* happy?. Are you happy that you have made one of the most well loved unix brands into an almost universal object of loathing amongst IT professionals. Happy you are planning to capture and destroy the work of thousands of passionate individuals worth millions of manhours. Happy you are building an enterprise on a foundation of litigation of lies."
    I'd ask "Darl. If indeed you are happy then, tell me, would you in all conscience recomend to your children that they act as you do?"
    And finally I'd ask "Darl. Men live in this world only a short time. When your day of reckoning comes, just what *WILL* you say to your creator when he asks you if your prescence on this planet has made the world a better place."

    Cos sure as heck, I'd like to know.

  • SCO Sending letters to congress? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @02:48PM (#8057727)
    Okay, now they're sending letters lobbying congress. This is getting so out of hand. But, here's where you and I can actually fight back. If you're involved in open source (or even if you just support it) and you're a U.S. citizen, write your congressperson in support of Open Source. Be polite and be professional. Explain your understanding of the facts and why what SCO is doing is extortion and ask your congressperson to consider the facts before passing legislation.

    In particular, point out to said congressperson that to date, no evidence has provided by SCO has survived more than a day's scrutiny by the community. That no court has yet supported any of SCO's allegations, and so on.

    Please send snail mail instead of e-mail, if possible. Snail mail is more likely to be read. The great thing about congress is, if you send a lot of letters, they sometimes get the point (though not always, as evidenced by the DMCA among other things).

  • What SCO CEOs are really interested in (Score:4, Insightful)

    by aaandre ( 526056 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @03:27PM (#8058312)
    What SCO CEOs are really interested in is getting rich. They are doing very well so far.

    Whether they'll win in court or not is irrelevant. Whether they'll collect on those Linux licenses is irrelevant. All that matters is the movement of the stock. This is a wag the dog situation. They have started a bullshit war and winning or losing it is not the point. The point is having the war and make it look as real as possible, for long enough.

    This they are very successful at. I guess that's what they teach you in Management School.

    What I want is them to be accountable for their actions as individuals, no more able to hide behind the "Corporation".

    What I see is the history repeating: Very powerful people use power to create an environment where they are no longer accountable for their actions. Reminds me of "noble" families in the past - owning the land and the lives of others just because they are noble. Able to steal, rape and kill without consequences.

    My feeling is, King of England is back.

    I am not amused.

  • To the Sports Company. !!!Please Read!!! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eadint ( 156250 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @03:32PM (#8058380) Homepage Journal
    Now that you have an actual Letter from SCO Please contact the SEC with this letter, inform them that SCO is attemting to extort money from you, send them a copy of this letter and also report this to the DA in your state This should be covered under the RICO act.

    If any other company has recieved a letter like this plese report this to the SEC the DA and consider a class action suit against SCO for Extortion and Defamation.

    What this means to you.
    IF you win against SCO you can MAKE money from the law suit. a class action suit for 100M$ would not be too much for this kind of offence.
    IANAL

  • Community support for SCO targets (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fnf ( 744381 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @04:07PM (#8058870)
    After reading the SCO letter and Gavin's response, I just couldn't sit around any longer and do nothing. Below is the text of the FAX I just sent Gavin:

    Dear Mr. Roy,

    I just read the article on slashdot.org about you receiving a demand letter from SCO regarding their yet-to-be-proven claims of IP infringement in linux. I also read your reply letter to Mr. Langer and would like to congratulate you for handling this matter in what I feel is the most appropriate response to these scoundrels.

    Please consider this FAX to be a legally binding pledge in the amount of $1,000 to help defray any litigation costs should SCO file any sort of legal action against Just Sports. I sincerely hope you will resist any and all efforts by them to extract payment from linux users until such time as they have proven their claims in court.

  • Uping the ante.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by utlemming ( 654269 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @04:35PM (#8059222) Homepage
    If you read the first letter from SCO to Mr. Roy and then read Mr. Roy's response, you'll notice that Mr. Roy's rewsponse was indeed appropriate.

    How you ask? Well, SCO provides nothing more than broadbased and unsubstantiated allegations. The SCO letter says, in essence, "You are using our code." Mr. Roy responded with, "Show me were." Further, SCO threatened to litigate the matter if Just Sports did not respond. The SCO letter tells Mr. Roy that if he wishes to avoid litigation then HE HAS to initiate a buisness relation. You'll notice this idea is proposed via:
    "I am requesting a meeting so that we may discuss the alternatives with your firm. WE BELIEVE WE CAN PROPOSE SOLUTIONS THAT WILL BE AGREEABLE AND ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE FOR YOU....If you fail to respond to our efforts to pursue a licensing arrangement, WE WILL TURN YOUR NAME OVER TO OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR CONSIDERATION OF LEGAL ACTION"


    This whole discussion as to whether the letter was unprofessional or not is stupid. When you look at Mr. Roy's response letter, you will notice that is actually more mature and professional that SCO's. SCO ordered Just Sports to initiate a buisness relationship or face the posiability of legal action. Notice that Just Sports was not given the opportunity to stop using Linux and switch to a "clean" system, SCO said that they have to do buisness.

    All Mr. Roy's letter did was say, "We don't believe you," and provide the evidence to substantiate the claim. Furthr, Mr. Roy said that Just Sports and SCO will not talk until the court cases are settled.

  • Dear Darl (Score:5, Funny)

    by alteran ( 70039 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @05:40PM (#8059909)
    Dear Mr. Darl McBride,

    It has come to my attention that something in your house may belong to me.

    You are breaking the law by having my possession. I am willing to rent it to you for $200 a year, or $700 if you use it commercially.

    Obviously, I cannot identify the item because you would give it back to me. I am willing to prove that the item is there, however. Send me a list of every single possession in your house, and I will tell you whether it is somewhere in the list.

    Please contact me about payment or I will send this case to my contigency counsel, who will litigate you until you pay.

    In the meantime, be aware that I will be spreading lies about you, your family, and anything else you happen to care about.

    Sincerely,
    --alteran

  • The value of SCO is completely illusional. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chris_sawtell ( 10326 ) * on Thursday January 22, 2004 @05:59PM (#8060088) Journal
    The value of SCO would be destroyed if a very large number of application code developers, code maintainers, and installers declared that they would have nothing to do with any SCO products. Getting the message out to the small investors and proprietors that the product was 'black' would pull the rug out from under Mr. Darl McBride and the rest of the associated SCOundrels. There is no point in dealing or trafficking in any product, software or otherwise, which is, in effect, unsupported, because nobody is going to buy it. Bye Bye SCO you've had your day in the sun. Somebody else's turn now.

  • It's *NICE*... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sakeneko ( 447402 ) on Thursday January 22, 2004 @06:35PM (#8060382) Homepage Journal

    ...to see someone diplomatically tell SCO to go to hell. I hope the court system and the judges don't let these folks down.

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close