PDA

View Full Version : SCO sends second letter to linux user's


nrgy
12-22-2003, 08:10 AM
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5130422.html?tag=nefd_top

"The SCO Group plans to announce Monday that it is escalating its campaign to collect license fees from corporations using the Linux operating system, with warning letters to the companies. Supporters of Linux, including IBM and other companies, say that SCO's interpretation of its claim over Linux is exaggerated."

"The new letters, signed by Ryan E. Tibbitts, SCO's general counsel, name more than 65 programming files that "have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted Unix code base and contributed to Linux."

I can't wait for this to all end

Spankspeople
12-22-2003, 02:31 PM
Names files? Does that mean that they're finally going to tell SOMEONE what it is that they've been going on about this whole time? That'd be cool... that'd give 'em a leg to stand on... for all of the half hour it takes to get the bits out of Linux anyways. =P

JLV
12-22-2003, 09:59 PM
This is a little long, but puts it into perspective with an appropriate spin for the season. (humor, not informative)

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031106164630915

Jackdeth
12-22-2003, 10:06 PM
This reeks of Microshaft....

JLV
12-22-2003, 11:52 PM
The article link?
Just came across it and posted it solely for it's Christmas reference. If it does indeed "reek of Microshaft", I apologize for not sensing it. Sorta stuffed-up at the moment.

Gein
12-23-2003, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by Spankspeople
Names files? Does that mean that they're finally going to tell SOMEONE what it is that they've been going on about this whole time? That'd be cool... that'd give 'em a leg to stand on... for all of the half hour it takes to get the bits out of Linux anyways. =P

Even if SCO is right (I'm not saying they are), and even if Linux coders removed those pieces at once, there was still ground for the lawsuit. The code would be there in the first place. :)

Gein

NanoGator
12-23-2003, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by Jackdeth
This reeks of Microshaft....

Uh, no it doesn't.

Jackdeth
12-23-2003, 12:35 AM
SCO and Microsoft have a very close relationship. And correct me if I'm wrong, but MS has a lot of shares in SCO as well.

I've read a bunch on this, but not everything. One common theroy is that this is blackmail ploy by SCO to force IBM to buy them (making GIANT profits for the shareholders) to stop the negative media coverage that might scare some huge compaines from buying Linux...thus giving MS a chance to push Windows as Liunx is in flux.

But IBM didn't flinch and they are sticking to thier guns, not caving into the blackmail. I'm not saying SCO doesn't have a claim, no knows that forsure yet, but it seems very weak indeed.

Also, SCO already relased a shareware version of the same code that they are sueing over....Pot calling the ketel black?

NanoGator
12-23-2003, 12:43 AM
Microsoft has some of the Unix code in it's Windows operating system. That's why Microsoft bought a license with SCO. With 80+ million copies of Windows that would need a license for the infringing code, you do the math.

Sorry, I'm just not on-board with the Microsoft conspiracy theory for the simple reason that this case has absolutely no power to hurt Linux. Any 'infringing' code would be immediately removed and free of SCO licensing bs. This would be a huge waste of money for Microsoft.

Jackdeth
12-23-2003, 01:02 AM
Yea, but think off all of the big companies getting scared of being sued by SCO if they buy Linux instead of Windows? Even if this fail, and even if MS has nothing to do with, MS still gains lots of money from scared custiomers.

So how is this a waste of money for MS? Its win-win.

NanoGator
12-23-2003, 02:06 AM
They're not going to get scared and start using Windows. The truth of the matter is that they're using Linux because it solves problems that Windows isn't ideal for. They're either going to pay the $700, or switch to the SCO free Linux as soon as its available. (Court Case pending.)

It's a waste of money for Microsoft, assuming they're pulling SCO's strings, because it cannot happen in a way where lots of Windows licenses get sold. Certainly not enough to make up for the money they have put in to SCO. Heck, most places will switch to BSD before switching to Windows.

Gein
12-23-2003, 02:07 AM
Any 'infringing' code would be immediately removed and free of SCO licensing bs.

This is what I don't get.

Since when removing the code immediately would release IBM and others from charges? It's not like the evidence would go way.


Gein

NanoGator
12-23-2003, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by Gein
This is what I don't get.

Since when removing the code immediately would release IBM and others from charges? It's not like the evidence would go way.


Gein

That's one of the reasons SCO isn't big on making the infringing code public knowledge. If the court case wins in their favor, everybody using it at that moment owes them money. But, if they release that info and its fixed, people'll update their machines long before SCO has any ability to start charging ridiculous fees.

I find it interesting that Slashdot never seems to consider that possibilty, it's widely assumed that SCO is just making it up. I, personally have NFI if they have a case or not, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss their claims as a pump and dump scheme. Instead I'd be looking into how to minimize the damage if they win.

beaker
12-23-2003, 02:57 AM
SCO(Caldera at the time) bought dr dos, and 2 days later sued M$ over it for anti-trust monopoly pertaining to dos. Then M$ settled out of court for 150 million. I doubt m$ is exactly friends over that.

elam
12-23-2003, 02:57 AM
Maybe the people at Slashdot don't consider this possibility, but I'm sure the lawyers at IBM have.

Caldera, the predecessor to SCO, sued Microsoft in 1996 after buying the rights to an old version of DOS. Microsoft settled.
Darl McBride, the president of SCO, sued his own employer , IKON, in 1997, and won millions of bucks.
SCO is owned and run by a investment group called the Canopy Group, a Utah firm with investments in dozens of companies and who has a number of SCO executives as directors. Link. (http://www.forbes.com/2003/06/18/cz_dl_0618linux.html) Their business is making money, not software.

Their experienced litigators and they know what their doing and I think they thought IBM would flinch and quickly buy them out, but they haven't( and won't, imo). If anyone can play the game with these guys, it's IBM.

SCO embodies the worst aspects of law in the U.S. Using every trick in the book to try to make a slimy dollar. I would celebrate if Darl McBride, was say, accidently run over by a M1 Abrams tank.

Some of the things SCO has put out as evidence is obviously bullshit, but ultimately it's going to come down to a judges opinion and some shrewd lawyering.
By the way, for this last quarter, SCO grossed $7.4 million in profits and paid $9 million to lawyers. (http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5130499.html) :thumbsup:

Gein
12-23-2003, 07:26 PM
That's one of the reasons SCO isn't big on making the infringing code public knowledge. If the court case wins in their favor, everybody using it at that moment owes them money. But, if they release that info and its fixed, people'll update their machines long before SCO has any ability to start charging ridiculous fees.

Again, maybe I'm dumb, but I don't get it.

If you run illegal software for a while, and then remove it... does it mean you're not able to face charges anymore? just because you're not doing anything wrong now?!

If SCO released the code now, even if they removed it, the evidence would still be easy to find. I'm sure someone has ISO's of Red Hat 5 :)

Of course, if by removing it, you're no longer guilty of anything, then they are right not to release it. But if this is not the case, then there is no harm in telling people what's wrong. I'm sure good PR would help their cause.

Again, maybe I'm dumb :)

Gein

NanoGator
12-23-2003, 07:31 PM
SCO has to catch them using it while they're still using it. Give the user too much warning to switch, and there's not a thing they can do.

elam
12-23-2003, 10:52 PM
Again, maybe I'm dumb, but I don't get it.

Linux hasn't been declared illegal by a court of law. Only by SCO.
SCO hasn't really made a case that Linux users are doing anything illegal other than saying "IBM put some of our UNIX code in Linux, therefore if you use Linux your breaking the law. Pay us or we will sue you."

If a court decides that IBM did put UNIX source code into the Linux codebase, then from that point on, any Linux users would be liable, until the offending code was removed or replaced. At least that's how I understand it.

malducin
12-23-2003, 11:09 PM
Not exactly since the main part of the case with IBM is a contract dispute. Should SCO win, IBM would be the one liable, not users. Of course SCO keeps on tacking ridiculous claims. The latest one is that their Linux "expert" claims to know more about the infringing files than Linus himself. simply hilarious.

Groklaw is the way to go to sort through all these legal mess.

nvvm
12-23-2003, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by Jackdeth
This reeks of Microshaft.... I was thinking the same thing :lightbulb

NanoGator
12-23-2003, 11:18 PM
http://tinfoilhat.shmoo.com/logo.jpg

:D

nvvm
12-23-2003, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by elam
Maybe the people at Slashdot don't consider this possibility, but I'm sure the lawyers at IBM have.

Caldera, the predecessor to SCO, sued Microsoft in 1996 after buying the rights to an old version of DOS. Microsoft settled.
Darl McBride, the president of SCO, sued his own employer , IKON, in 1997, and won millions of bucks.
SCO is owned and run by a investment group called the Canopy Group, a Utah firm with investments in dozens of companies and who has a number of SCO executives as directors. Link. (http://www.forbes.com/2003/06/18/cz_dl_0618linux.html) Their business is making money, not software.

Their experienced litigators and they know what their doing and I think they thought IBM would flinch and quickly buy them out, but they haven't( and won't, imo). If anyone can play the game with these guys, it's IBM.

SCO embodies the worst aspects of law in the U.S. Using every trick in the book to try to make a slimy dollar. I would celebrate if Darl McBride, was say, accidently run over by a M1 Abrams tank.

Some of the things SCO has put out as evidence is obviously bullshit, but ultimately it's going to come down to a judges opinion and some shrewd lawyering.
By the way, for this last quarter, SCO grossed $7.4 million in profits and paid $9 million to lawyers. (http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5130499.html) :thumbsup: Good I hope they feel even more pain, and that their claim is unfounded. MS could easily be behind this some of you fail to see thru smoke and mirrors.

BoydLake
12-24-2003, 01:46 AM
It's pretty obvious that Microsoft is not behind the lawsuit.... but they I'm also sure they like the idea of someone exploiting the legal ambiguities of the GPL....... it was bound to happen at some point.

loopdreamz
12-24-2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by elam
Linux hasn't been declared illegal by a court of law. Only by SCO.
SCO hasn't really made a case that Linux users are doing anything illegal other than saying "IBM put some of our UNIX code in Linux, therefore if you use Linux your breaking the law. Pay us or we will sue you."

If a court decides that IBM did put UNIX source code into the Linux codebase, then from that point on, any Linux users would be liable, until the offending code was removed or replaced. At least that's how I understand it.


Exactly, and which already has some larger corporations wondering where they stand. I agree that MS isn't the one behind SCO's stupid case, but MS certainly has something to gain.

SCO will lose, eventually, but the ringleaders will come out of it with a hefty wad of cash in their chubby chipmunk cheeks.

nvvm
12-24-2003, 07:13 PM
I disagree:beer:

raducoc
12-26-2003, 11:07 PM
SHAME to micro$oft:wip:, SHAME to $co:wip:.

BiTMAP
12-29-2003, 09:58 PM
you see, becuase of how Linux works, if the infringing code is identified, then removed. no one can get in trouble. Becuase It was an accidental inclusion, that has been dealt with. Thus by not having the code in the linux, SCO can't charge you for a license, and SCO can't make money.

So SCO just has to keep trying to make up stuff till they get it in court and win, but they don't have a case... there just trying to pump and jump. Pump the cash into their accounts and jump ship.


M$ is of course looking at ways to profit from this, but they're not pouring money into SCO, they can't afford to have anti-trust problems if it where to happen that SCO lost or won.

NanoGator
12-29-2003, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by raducoc
SHAME to microsoft:wip:, SHAME to sco:wip:.

Microsoft's involvement is, at best, peripheral.

KayosIII
01-01-2004, 08:17 AM
When SCO produce one scrap of real evidence I might take them seriously.

CGTalk Moderation
01-16-2006, 11:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.