SCO's next target: SGI?

[beaker]

They probably won't sue them because they know that they are broke. SCO's real reason behind this whole hubbub is to make money and there is no money to be made from suing SGI even though from what they have shown in those slides from a few weeks ago, alot of the NUMA stuff they say that they own is SGI contributed code, not IBM.

[thesaint]

I think the whole thing is absolutley sickening. I hope SCO go out of business hard and fast and are never heard of again.
What a tarnish to the Utah name these schisters are.

They contribute nothing to the open-source movement except fear and misery. Now they want EVERY network user of Linux (every dev), Unix, Irix and so on to pay them a fee for something they never even did themselves, just aquired the rights too.

These guys are setting back the open-souce movement (especially Linux), just when they where getting off the ground.

Burn SCO, burn. (I wonder if they are owned by MS??)


:) I guess i have some strong feelings about these guys, huh.

[Gein]

Greetings.

Burn SCO, burn. (I wonder if they are owned by MS??)

They're not owned, but Microsoft did licence Unix code recently.

Microsoft licenses Unix code link (http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1007528.html?tag=fd_top)

So there's some truth to what you said :)

Gein

[Matt Leishman]

What a tarnish to the Utah name these schisters are.

wow, someone besides Ed Catmull at Pixar thinks highly of Utah!! I now have hope . . . oh wait, I guess I also need talent.

never mind

;)

[trthing]

SGI compares Linux, Unix source code

http://www.itworld.com/Man/2685/031006sgisco/

"...Weiss praised the tack SGI has taken with its letter, saying that Altmaier's response has helped mitigate SCO's allegations. "I thought it was one of the best responses (to SCO) that I had seen. Instead of getting deeply offensive and heaping abuse on SCO, they took a more productive approach, attempting to see what the claims might be," he said.

The fact that SGI has replaced the three code fragments in question does not satisfy SCO, according to Blake Stowell, a SCO spokesman. "These releases have already taken place in Linux," he said. "You still have all these machines out there that haven't applied patches that are still benefitting from this Unix System V code."..."

[thesaint]

It's hard not to get worked up about these people, but the article you quote, and i guess you too, are quite right. A structured response that puts the ball in their court is far better.

For one thing, in all of this, they seem to thrive when they don't have to really answer any questions, just demand that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

One claim that interests me is that they assert that Linux will never be mature without compling with their demands. They state that people will not trust Linux is legitimate without resolution of SCO's claims. What nonsense.

Anyway, i want to be productively against this lawsuit, not raving at it again!!

nice post trthing.

[trthing]

It is easy to get emotional about this subject and I am glad that toned down arguments are beginning to show up in the media. I guess SCO was very agressive in the early claims and that triggered a sometimes not-so-mature response from the Linux community. I wonder how SGI could release these details since all we had until now was strict NDA "no comments" stuff.

[Spankspeople]

From what I remember reading, SCO never showed SGI what they were complaining about, SGI just found it on their own, thus the NDA doesn't apply.

The fact that nearly everything that SCO claims is theirs is redundant and done better elsewhere in the kernel anyways doesn't help their case either...

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.