SCO shares fell nearly 10% Friday, after an IBM memo rejecting SCO’s Linux claims turned up. Meanwhile, Andy Butler of Gartner said “Users should not start waving their cheque books” in apparent contradiction of earlier comments by his colleague George Weiss. GROKLAW lists several other analysts taking anti-SCO positions on Linux licensing. Form-4 filings with the SEC reveal SCO Executives have been cashing out stock. They made $398,833.90 in June, and $781,964.70 in July.
Tide Turns Against SCO
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
95 Comments
2003-07-26 6:46 pm
2003-07-26 7:05 pm
Anonymous
One thing that crosses my mind is that the SCO “license” claim letters going out to companies may well be beaking federal criminal laws in some way. IANAL and would not know if this is the case. However if you receive one of these letters from SCO you could complain to the FBI.
The FBI has a site where you could do it online:
It is for internet fraud but then they are making these claims on their SCO website.
Alternatively you could forward copies of the SCO letter to the SEC, DOJ and FBI with a brief covering letter why yuou think this may be a fraudulent extortion scheme,
2003-07-26 7:18 pm
Anonymous
sco doesn’t have any linux litigation but it’s trying to extort money from corporations who use linux. sco is trying not to get sued, because if they did actually sue someone over linux, they’d be in court and their fraud would come to a rapid end. playing the media game where they mouth off with theif fud has worked so far, but now that they’ve played their trump card and nobody’s buying, and the mainstream media has jumped on the bash-sco bandwagaon… sco will hopefully fall off that knife edge and crotch themselves.
the canopy group execs truly deserve large amounts of jail time for this stock fraud scheme. maybe all the people filing sec complaints will give them exactly what they deserve.
2003-07-26 7:22 pm
Anonymous
after all the talk about sco…if it looks as bad for them as i think it does… i think we should all just take a step back and laugh at them… they will be the laughing stock of IT and McBride will never get a job as an executive again…
we should all just point and laugh as the SEC chains sco’s office front door shut:)
2003-07-26 7:41 pm
Anonymous
All they did was keep rotating the stoc, thats not illegal, they sold stock to keep the Price high
I am working on an opinion paper in regards to SCO’s new licensing schem that eugenia will get when Im done
2003-07-26 7:42 pm
Anonymous
they are asking for money from people *BEFORE* actually filing a lawsuit against Linux. They will never file a lawsuit. They don’t have a case and they know it.
It is despicable how corporations can commit these frauds and there’s no law against it. SCO executives should be in jail, not getting rich off their stock fraud.
I read that Utah governor’s son is working for SCO. I’d even bet that Orin Hatch is somehow involved because somebody with national level political influence has to be pulling some strings for this scheme to go this far without some criminal investigation shutting it down.
2003-07-26 7:44 pm
Anonymous
The motive of a corporation is making money. Making money is central to our economy. Linux is preventing SCO from making money, through stealing code and selling their product too cheap (“dumping”. aren’t there laws against this too?). So Linux must be stopped. This logic makes perfect sense, and I fully support SCO’s right to make money and not starve on the street or live in parent’s basements like most Linux developers.
2003-07-26 8:09 pm
Anonymous
May I add that I saw the evidence of stolen code by signing an NDA. I think it is very convincing, and this is only the tip of iceberg. During the court case, a *lot* of details will come out which raise doubts about the very validity of open source. In court you will see that another major project is affected too… hint: its that open source web server…
2003-07-26 8:11 pm
Anonymous
Linux is preventing SCO from making money, through stealing code…
SCO claims Linux use stolen code. That is yet to be proven.
…and selling their product too cheap (“dumping”. aren’t there laws against this too?).
First, I don’t know if dumping laws can be used against software, as it’s not a physical goods like a monitor or a computer. Second, corporations making their own commercial distro are selling them at a right price. The retail version of RH and SuSE are not too cheap (IMO). Third, I don’t remember a law prohibiting the use of free software…
…or live in parent’s basements like most Linux developers.
Stop trolling.
2003-07-26 8:14 pm
Anonymous
The motive of a corporation is making money
True.
Making money is central to our economy.
true again.
Linux is preventing SCO from making money, through stealing code and selling their product too cheap (“dumping”. aren’t there laws against this too?).
Wha..wha..what!?!? Linux is only keeping SCO from making money by having a superior product at better prices. There is no proof anywhere (despite SCO’s FUD campaign) that Linux contains any copyrighted code from SysV. “Dumping” is selling something in a market at a loss simply to beat a competitor, while selling it in other markets at a normal price. Linux is developed for free. It can’t be “dumped.”
>So Linux must be stopped. This logic makes perfect sense…
No, this logic makes no sense, and furthermore is based on faulty presuppositions.
>I fully support SCO’s right to make money and not starve on the street or live in parent’s basements like most Linux developers.
I also support their right to make money; however, I want them to make money as a legitimate business in the marketplace, not by throwing around allegations without any bit of evidence. As far as linux developers not getting paid or living in parents’ basements, I’m sure all the linux hackers for IBM get paid pretty well.
2003-07-26 8:16 pm
Anonymous
May I add that I saw the evidence of stolen code by signing an NDA. I think it is very convincing, and this is only the tip of iceberg.
Hmm… Well, I’ve seen an editorial by a Linux user (here: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6956 ) that also signed the NDA and he wrote that it wasn’t THAT convincing, especially because they didn’t provided any creation/modification date.
During the court case, a *lot* of details will come out which raise doubts about the very validity of open source.
We’ll see…
In court you will see that another major project is affected too… hint: its that open source web server…
I thought you signed a NDA? 
2003-07-26 8:22 pm
Anonymous
There have been just as many people to see the code who say that SCO have no case what so ever. Furthermore, how could this case raise questions about the validity of open source? If code was copied, get rid of it; if not, then there’s not a problem. Even if code was copied, SCO themselves distributed that code in the form of their own distribution of Linux under the GPL. They continue to do so (look at their ftp server). They have knowingly distributed that code as GPL code. They can’t do anything about it now.
and WTF are you talking about with apache? When did SCO ever do anything with webserver software? Eugenia, kick this troll the fsck out!
2003-07-26 8:36 pm
Anonymous
What are your credentials.
Besides, if you signed an NDA, you have just become liable. You wouldn’t be so daring would you.
Anyway, at the end of the day, software code is not lodged anywhere for public viewing, so it is not the responsibility of the community to make sure offending code is never put there. I could argue that SCO, or Caldera, knowing that it had a similar product, UNIX, and had access to both UNIX code and Linux code, they were not very diligent in making sure their IP wasn’t appopriated, if it was appropriated anyway.
I think the NDAs might just serve as a useful defence for Linux in general anyway. Its a damn good example of how closed source code cannot be protected by normal IP laws. Its usually enough to patent someting by describing what it does, or how it does it. But that is not possible with software, otherwise the makers og the original spreadsheet might still have been the only ones making them. If its the code that should be protected, then it should be available for reference. If the law wants to protect code owners, then it must allow those who do not own it to at least know what it is.
2003-07-26 9:19 pm
Anonymous
Sherbert said:
“May I add that I saw the evidence of stolen code by signing an NDA. I think it is very convincing…”
Assuming your claim is genuine and not a troll: yes, of course, the “evidence” is convincing, this is what lawyers (particularly amoral reptiles like Boies) are paid to do. Then again, how difficult was it to convince you? Did you ask for real proof of the origin of the code they showed you? Were you able to verify this evidence for yourself? Are you qualified to do so?
Are you aware that a SCO (then Caldera) employee participated directly in kernel development with the job title “Kernel Engineer Unix/Linux Integration”, and that his messages to the kernel mailing list make his participation and intent clear and obvious? Did you ask SCO about this when they presented their “evidence” to you?
You can read about this SCO employee here:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/07/18.html
2003-07-26 9:25 pm
Anonymous
Yes, but WHERE did it come from? There have already been several examples of Caldera employees submitting kernel patches. Also SCO Agrees IBM Owns AIX, JFS, NUMA, RCU Copyrights, so how is Linux now affected? Answer: it isn’t. It goes back to a CONTRACT dispute between IBM and SCO that has nada to do with Linux.
2003-07-26 9:44 pm
Anonymous
All very interesting questions, and that’s why we have courts and judges and juries. In the meantime, if I was planning a Linux deployment I’d be *very* cautious. My company just finished migrating our remaining Linux servers to Windows 2003, and the only thing the users noticed was increased performance.
2003-07-26 9:54 pm
Anonymous
In the meantime, if I was planning a Linux deployment I’d be *very* cautious.
Yes… but you should very cautious for any deployment, anyway. Linux isn’t always the best solution for everything, nor is Windows, BSD or any other OS. However, I must admit that you should be especially cautious with Linux as we don’t really know if SCO claims the truth or if they’re just spreading FUD (something I wouldn’t be surprised of).
My company just finished migrating our remaining Linux servers to Windows 2003, and the only thing the users noticed was increased performance.
I won’t comment on this, but judging by your previous posts, I suspect a troll/flamebait.
2003-07-26 10:01 pm
Anonymous
“My company just finished migrating our remaining Linux servers to Windows 2003, and the only thing the users noticed was increased performance.”
That’s all? What about working with a clear conscience? Must be a relief after all these years
Olav
2003-07-26 10:05 pm
Anonymous
“Linux is preventing SCO from making money, through stealing code and selling their product too cheap (“dumping”. aren’t there laws against this too?). So Linux must be stopped.”
SCO has the right to make money like any other corporation or individual. However, if market conditions change and their customers go away, tough sh*t! There’s no guarantee of a profit.
As for stealing code, how do we know it wasn’t the other way around? We don’t have access to SCO’s code archives.
2003-07-26 10:25 pm
2003-07-26 10:37 pm
Anonymous
Right you are. I was once one of these Linux “free software”
zealots myself, largely because of political activities on the part of Bill Gates and Microsoft that I consider unamerican though and not the equally unamerican “free software” (actually COMMUNIST PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE) philosophy of Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds and the rest of these atheistic lefties ;-).
Like them I also believed in the SCO pump ‘n’ dump stock fraud theory of the lawsuit and even made posts advocating jail for Darl McBride as late as last week. However I now withdraw that idea now. It has come to my attention that IBM
and not the Linux codders or SCO themselves seems to be the main culprit here just as the current lawsuit states. (For one thing they have a record of being antiamerican and WORSE that far exceeds Bill Gates’s and Microsoft’s. beacuse of this the one place that I would disagree with Sherbert is that the soul purpose of a corperation is to make money. It would seem that once they become financially secure and MULTINATIONAL treason and war crimes tend to enter at least some of their “priority lists” as well!!!)
And I do hope that Top Speed sees this new SCO thread and ends his sabbatical again. He is GREAT at dealing with these
leftie trolls like Wrawrat and Archiesteele who call us capitalists trolls like the pot calling the kettle black
for exposing the truth behind their COMMUNIST PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE scheme as UNfree just like any other form of communism. However we have to be VERY careful of the “evidence” that these lefties to “prove” their case that
SCO is still distributing Linux under their commie license.
This takes the form of a link to a NOW UNAUTHORIZED part of the Sco FTP site that they add to virtually all of their posts. This puppy is a sure fine, lawsuit or go to JAIL link so DON’T EVER CLICK ON IT!!!
And as for the SCO NDA, I will admit that I have not seen it
(I am a game and programmer’s library programmer and NOT an Operating Systems programmer and therefore not affected too much by this except for possible restrictions on what platforms I can program for as a result of this suit.) However I am sure that the NDA only restricts revealing the location of the stolen code in the Linux kernel, NOT saying weather it exists or not. After all a revelation that the stolen code is there is an important proof of SCO’s case so I’m sure they wouldn’t restrict THAT ;-).
2003-07-26 10:54 pm
Anonymous
I thought dumping referred specifically to when companies take products they can’t sell anymore and sell them at or below cost whilst at the same time undermining their competitors.
Besides, the most widely used operating system in the world is also free. I think trying to apply economics to software wil show you that software is overpriced. Half baked economics theory doesn’t apply here sorry. It is actually the other way around.
Dumping usually involves companies seling surplus production at below cost in such a way as to undermine their competition, especially with regards foreign trade. Like happens with at times with farm surplus from developed countries.
Dumping is more akin to what Microsoft did, (let people pirate software) and then got people locked in and whilst this undermined their competitors. OSS is not to undermine competitors for gain in the future. Microsoft can take those pirate cds away, but you can not take away the source. So the dumping theory is out of place here.
2003-07-26 10:58 pm
Anonymous
The new twist is something like this:
SCO: We’d like to get the scalibility and reliability code,
which you have devoloped for AIX. We’ll develop a version
of UNIX for IA64 and share it with you, if you will share
the desired code with us, and pay us a substantial amount of
money. It should take about 6 months.
IBM: OK. Here’s the code, but we don’t want you publishing
it under GPL or BSD licenses without our permission. We’ll
also give you some money to fund the development:
6 months later.
IBM: It’s been about 6 months, where is the IA64 code?
SCO: Well, it’s still not working, we’ve been a bit
short-handed, we have other priorities, and we probably
won’t have it done for another year. Intel has delayed
their release of IA64, so it’s no big deal, right?
IBM: Linus already has a working version of IA64 Linux, and
has fully functional and tested systems running on the
simulators and the prototype chips. What have you got?
SCO: Well we’re almost finished with the low level design,
and we have started the coding.
IBM: At this rate, you won’t be done for another year,
possibly more. This really isn’t acceptable. If you wish
to continue with the project, you may do so, but we will
also need to explore other solutions.
SCO: So we can still keep the scalability code?
IBM: Sure. If you come up with something useful, we might
even help you market it. But at this point, we will have to
terminate this contract.
2 years later.
SCO: You gave Linus and his linux team the same code you
gave us. And you dedicated $1 billion for Linux. We want
$1 billion too, or we’ll sue you.
IBM: You are going to sue us for giving Linus code we
developed, at our expense, using our research team, simply
because we gave you the same code?
SCO: Not only that, we also demand royalties for all of the
copies of Linux. We are also revoking all contracts with
IBM, which includes revoking your contract for UNIX.
IBM: You can’t revoke those contracts. Nearly 80% of the
code you use in your versions of UNIX, as well as all of the
other UNIX vendors, was funded or developed and by IBM.
SCO: That’s for the court to decide. But meanwhile, we’ll
be giving Linux and IBM terrible publicity. We’ll also
demand payments from your biggest customers. They won’t
touch you with a 10 foot pole.
In reality, IBM was not contacted prior to the lawsuit.
They received a notice of intent to file suit, sent about 3
days before the lawsuit was filed. This made sure that IBM
would not have enough time to show that the suit was
groundless and therefore subject to a UTAH law that allowed
IBM to sue SCO for damages for filing the initial lawsuit.
Rather than demand the restitution, IBM changed the Venue to
the Federal Courts, which eliminated the hometown advantage.
2003-07-26 11:00 pm
2003-07-26 11:13 pm
Anonymous
Aparantly you know nothing about communism. the GPL and open source software is very little like communism.
In Communism, the government owns everything and must distribute it evenly. This can lead to problems because politicians are soooo honest 😉
In Open Source software, the PEOPLE have it. Anybody with an internet connection can download and modify the code. And then don’t HAVE to give away their modifications. Just if they do, they have to agree to share.
What a horrible thing.
2003-07-26 11:48 pm
Anonymous
The GPL is Communism because its conditions are controlled by Leftist ideological DICTATORS like that loud mouthed overfed hippie Richard M. Stallman who created it and Linus Torvalds. The only TRUE free software is software volunatirly placed in the PUBLIC DOMAIN and free of ALL Intellectual Property, licensing or ideological commitments.
In fact that you even use the Intellectual Property Laws to protect your commie license while generally being in opposition it those same laws shows you to be HYPOCRITES as well as commies.
And one more thing you leftie trolls show that UNAUTHORIZED
sco FTP link any more and this Coral Snake will BITE BACK
with links PROVING that your favorite Multinational Corporation IBM violated the TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT during World War II in a way that aided and abbetted the HOLICAUST and that they are CURRENTLY engaged in TREASONOUS ACTIVITIES.
2003-07-27 12:07 am
2003-07-27 12:24 am
2003-07-27 12:38 am
Anonymous
always groveling before the rich and the powerful.
look how eagerly they fall all over themselves to be the first in line to give bj’s to the very corporations which laugh in their stupid faces.
2003-07-27 12:47 am
Anonymous
Commies? Communists? Leftists? What has all that crap got to do with anything? Whenever people run out of good arguments, they try witch-hunting and name-calling.
I read all these stupid, supposedly pro-capitalist posts, and the common presumption is that communism is bad. Why the hell is that a given? Why is communism bad? Just because the US finally undermined the USSR doesn’t necessarily mean that capitalism is a better system. Why should we accept that whatever it is that the Bush and his gang are currently practicising is better than whatever they are doing in China?
SCO is a nonsensical company, they haven’t done anything innovative, or even competent from a business perspective, in like forever. Microsoft is always getting into news, trying their best to do all kinds of interesting products. Other than incompetently hawking linux and trying to cash out from the linux effort, name one thing noteworthy that SCO has done in the last 5 years. If that’s capitalist business practice, give me the commies anyday.
2003-07-27 1:02 am
Anonymous
…he offers as much proof about actually seeing SCO’s evidence than SCO about the fact that there is System V code in Linux.
I’d like to take this opportunity to also say that I’ve seen the evidence as well and that I don’t believe that SCO’s got a case.
Now, if you can believe Sherbert, you can believe me as well… 🙂
2003-07-27 1:10 am
Anonymous
There are far more Capitalist dictatorships in this world, than there have been Communist Dictatorships. In fact I don’t think that there has ever exsisted a true communist government. The communist regimes that have exsisted are ultimately like all the dictatorships that include the words democratic in thier name.
I hope that SCO has to put up or shut up sometime soon. The sooner this little scam is over the better.
2003-07-27 1:11 am
Anonymous
“What about the other employees who’ve been working there for years? I’m sure they’d all like to see high six figure retirement funds but it seems – as always – the executives are the first and only to prosper in times of need.”
I would hope that at least one of them doesn’t feel as trapped as the rest, and will come forward on some of these issues.
For example, how much code SCO stole from other people. I’ve seen second-hand statemenst to that effect here.
Or maybe this is a sign that the American (immigrant/invader) way of doing business is coming to an end, and that workers (people who actually *do the work* around the world should take notice, and startstanding up for their basic rights:
food
a place to live
medical help
an education for their children
…and other such things that people who cash out of companies like SCO hoard for themselves.
2003-07-27 1:25 am
Anonymous
He is GREAT at dealing with these leftie trolls like Wrawrat and Archiesteele who call us capitalists trolls
Me? A leftist troll??? Are you a moron or what?
First, I’m FAR from being a leftist. I already told you that. Using Linux doesn’t make me a leftist like using proprietary software doesn’t make you a capitalist. Second, I never, ever called you a capitalist troll. I don’t care of your political preferences, nor you should care of mine.
And I do hope that Top Speed sees this new SCO thread and ends his sabbatical again.
You don’t get it, eh. We stop posting it because we’re tired of clueless people trolling around. We can’t have a serious discussion with people like them… and you. He did brang good points at first, but he ruined the entire thread by trolling another troll.
And as for the SCO NDA, I will admit that I have not seen it
Then how can you say that they stole the code? *sigh*
However I am sure that the NDA only restricts revealing the location of the stolen code in the Linux kernel, NOT saying weather it exists or not.
Did you read the NDA? While it does allow you to say if they’re right or not, it’s far more draconian than you seem to believe. Some coders refused to sign it ’cause it would probably prohibit them to code for Linux. I don’t blame them if they don’t want to sign it to confirm if there’s *really* some Unix code in Linux.
The only TRUE free software is software volunatirly placed in the PUBLIC DOMAIN and free of ALL Intellectual Property, licensing or ideological commitments.
Yeah. However, true freedom is being without any rules, yet the american people call themselves free… GPL software is only free as free beer, i.e. you can get it for free. That’s all. If you don’t like the FSF and their GPL, don’t use it.
And one more thing you leftie trolls show that UNAUTHORIZED sco FTP link any more and this Coral Snake will BITE BACK…
You believe in yourself too much… Hello, we’re in OSNews, not in a Wrestlemania show. Then again, you can continue, ’cause I always have a good laughing when you say that!
with links PROVING that your favorite Multinational Corporation IBM violated the TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT during World War II in a way that aided and abbetted the HOLICAUST and that they are CURRENTLY engaged in TREASONOUS ACTIVITIES.
Do you think the FSF or the Linux community *really* cares of IBM? Come on. If they did tainted the code, the Linux community just remove it and restart from scratch while stopping the current redistribution of tainted code.
Btw, I guess SCO’s Unix code will need to be audited by the court… Perhaps there’s really some Unix code in Linux, but if they find Linux code in SCO, well, history repeats itself (AT&T & co vs BSD inc and the University of California at Berkerley)…
2003-07-27 1:26 am
2003-07-27 1:36 am
Anonymous
You must live in Russia. Here in the good o’le US of A we have rules and laws that must be followed
Hahahaha! That’s very funny. Read any newspapers lately?
2003-07-27 1:39 am
Anonymous
I was once one of these Linux “free software”
Yeah, like a week ago, when you first appeared on this website. Didn’t take you too long to convert!
Now, I suggest it won’t take long for TopSpeed, your “mentor”, to appear on this thread as well. Two trolls for the price of one.
(For everyone else: Top Speed and Coral Snake are likely to be the same person – in any case, they seem to agree on everything and keep mentioning that they really like and respect each other, despite the fact that one is rabidly anti-Linux, and the other one is a so-called Linux advocate…)
Hi TopSnake, did you miss me?
2003-07-27 2:05 am
Anonymous
If SCO thinks Linux could not have gotten as far as it did without its code, they just might have to prove that they actually are ahead of Linux.
If they do not have any code for IA64 or for x86-64 then this might work against them in court. I mean, Linux seems one of, if not the most portable operating systems available right now. Does any version of SCO UNIX run on any number of processors to actually take a shot at other supercomputers.
It seems to me that SCO UNIX is antiquated and is not the best enterprise performer out there. The argument that it is so good that developers actually copied stuff there to ‘speed’ up Linux development is shaky on those grounds. I think if Linux people wanted to copy something, at least if I wanted to copy something, I would have gone for Solaris. And then again, there are the BSDs to take code from. I am not advocating stealing code here. Just saying it seems stupid to take code from losers like SCO in the first place.
Something also about these contracts. I don’t thnk IBM would have taken out a contract with SCO for some performance, without a provision for exceptions, like if SCO failed to perform. IBM is a big company and it cannot wait for SCO to screw it over. I am sure they will always have contigency in their plans and SCO knows this.
2003-07-27 2:06 am
Anonymous
The rich steal. The hard working a-hole is just a mule to the rich, a toy for their expoitation. Here’s SCO trying to steal the effort and labor of thousands of programmers. Kill the rich, burn them to the ground, until there’s no one rich around. That’s all that they deserve. Their greed is all they serve.
2003-07-27 2:20 am
Anonymous
Went on vacation three weeks ago, cursing SCO for raining on Linux parade …
Came back home only to read the McBride gang devised a new scheme to extort dough from companies using Linux …
Gosh, hopefully these clowns will disappear before they get humiliated in court by Big Blue.
2003-07-27 2:25 am
Anonymous
Ever heard of the French Revolution?
mmm….I think we should bring back beheadings. 
That would show them.
2003-07-27 2:26 am
Anonymous
If they do not have any code for IA64 or for x86-64 then this might work against them in court. I mean, Linux seems one of, if not the most portable operating systems available right now.
NetBSD, another open-source project, seems to be the most portable one. Anyway, portability doesn’t make an OS superior (IMO).
Does any version of SCO UNIX run on any number of processors to actually take a shot at other supercomputers.
If you talk about SCO’s own UNIX (UnixWare/OpenUnix), no. Linux isn’t THAT good in SMP when you compare it against commercial Unices like AIX or Solaris. Then again, they weren’t developed by SCO. 
Something also about these contracts. I don’t thnk IBM would have taken out a contract with SCO for some performance, without a provision for exceptions, like if SCO failed to perform.
Well, I’m not aware of any contract that IBM made with SCO except for the one they had for the Montery(sp?) project. IBM got their UNIX licence for AIX from AT&T.
2003-07-27 2:34 am
Anonymous
Remember that’s http://www.sco.com. You may have to remember that when the time comes for us home users to get our LINUX LICENSE. Be nice to them and they may still keep it at the personal boxed distro price of $30.00 a license for us.
2003-07-27 2:46 am
Anonymous
Funny, I would consider the /pub directory of http://ftp.sco.com which doesn’t have any need for a password to access to be a open channel of distribution. I don’t see that I need any authorization to access it, so therefore its an authorized source.
I really don’t see how SCO is going to come out of this. They can’t break off thier attack now. The stock sales have become public knowledge, IBM has started to make noise, and they’ll never be able to distribute linux with thier binary only liscense for fear of a massive counter suit by the kernel developers (probably backed by IBM, they’ve sunk a billion dollars into linux development, do you really think they’ll give up so easily?).
2003-07-27 2:55 am
Anonymous
All we seen eny time SCO puts out fud on Linux MS comes saying buy windose Bill Gates makes some dreamable comments about windows.
2003-07-27 2:59 am
Anonymous
1. Go to http://www.sco.com
2. Use the quicklinks they provide (2nd drop box on the right hand side) and go to Support, this takes you to http://www.sco.com/support/
3. Click Support Download on the right, and it takes you to http://www.sco.com/support/download.html
No where does it say, that you must pay or be a SCO customer or anything else.
On the http://www.sco.com/support/download.html page, SCO they tell you where to go, and even link to their main ftp site, and then to the /pub directory. The ftp site has a message saying export to Cuba, etc. is not allowed. That aside, I guess they wouldn’t make it so easy, and even given instructions on how to download, if they didn’t want people accessing it.
2003-07-27 3:11 am
Anonymous
SCO is accusing IBM of disclosing SCO intellectual property. In other words, there are no other so-called license violators at this time.
IBM has come back stating that what they contributed to Linux was created BY IBM, FOR IBM and they can do what ever they bloody well feel like with IBM’S intellectual property.
Effectively what SCO is saying is that when IBM created these bits and pieces, when they were added to their UNIX, which is derived from SCO’s IP, they then handed over that IP to SCO. Why would IBM spend millions developing features for their operating system mearly to hand it over to some little pimp squeak?
The sooner SCO dies the better. Maybe there should be a buy out sceme of which the WHOLE UNIX base is opensourced under the BSD license, and SCO is renamed the UNIX Foundation who only manages the could but does not enforce and patents that UNIX may hold.
The sooner that happens, the better.
2003-07-27 3:12 am
Anonymous
Remember that’s http://www.sco.com. You may have to remember that when the time comes for us home users to get our LINUX LICENSE. Be nice to them and they may still keep it at the personal boxed distro price of $30.00 a license for us.
…if SCO wins their case. They’re not in court yet so we can’t really predict the outcome. Come on, you’re smarter than that. Btw, I’ve read that McBride (that’s his name?) doesn’t plan to licence the OS to home users, only to commercial ones. I’ll try to find back my source, but I think it was C|Net or ZDNet.
2003-07-27 3:21 am
Anonymous
After the whole Enron fiasco, there was actually a move to turn the SEC into less of a paper tiger and more into a ruthless gardian.
Many months later, instead of getting something which can uphold the spirit of the anti-fraud laws, GWB bows down the the pressure of his campaign financers and simply keeps the the SEC as a paper tiger.
2003-07-27 4:32 am
Anonymous
I am the V.P of North American Channerl Sales and I must say I am applaed at the comments I am reading here. SCO group is owned and operated by Mormons. We are Gods chosen people and whether you like it or not SCO is going to take over the world. It will only be a matter of time before you will have to buy a license from us just to breath.
Please direct all comments to my email address abaove
2003-07-27 4:45 am
Anonymous
browse:
ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/updates/SRPMS/
you will find:
kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-106.nosrc.rpm
kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-133.nosrc.rpm
kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-152.nosrc.rpm
kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm
I thought this was “trade secret” / “ip” stuff.
2003-07-27 5:06 am
2003-07-27 5:12 am
Anonymous
I’ll make this as simple as I can for leftie trolls because they STILL DON’T GET IT!!!
Lesson number ONE: During World War II IBM TRADED WITH THE ENEMY In a way that directly aided tabulations of Jews for the HOLOCAUST!!
Lesson number TWO: IBM has been prosicuted for Anti Trust Violations more than any other computer related company, even MICRO$OFT!!!
Lesson number TREE: IBM is currently being investegated for a lot of the SAME crimes that you accuse SCO of.
Lesson number FOUR: The CEOs of IBM, Micro$oft, Oracle, Dell and Sun Microsystems were guests at a secret meeting of a group of International TRATORS known as the Bilderburgs in 1999. The probable purpose of this meeting was plans to replace our current system of independent stand alone personal computers, privately licensed software libraries and decentralized internet with a system of DUMB TERMINALS and centralized Government/Corperation owned server based ON LINE RENTAL SOFTWARE more suited to the people control system of a ONE WORLD CORPERATE/FASCIST/SOCIALIST type of government.
Lesson number FIVE: The current SCO V IBM battle is much like a non lethal analog of the Eastern Front of World War II. Linux and other PROPRIETARY COMMUNIST SOFTWARE after IBM finally officially killed off OS/2 AS PART OF THE SAME PLOT became the only thing to stand in the Way of the Bilderburg Fascists and their computing re centralization scheme. In otherwords this is NOT communism v capitalism as the more commie orianted of Linux users proclaim. It is a replay of the World War II eastern front in a non lethal way COMMUNISM V FASCISM!!! BOTH FORMS OF SOCIALISM!!!
Lesson SIX: After the first part of IBM’s part in the plot
was done (Kill “at home” development of OS/2 than outsource
any remaining sales and support potential it might have to a small “under the radar” company named Serrenity Systems.)
The second part of the their part in the plot began PRETEND SUPPORT FOR GNU, LINUX AND THEIR PROPRIETARY COMMUNIST SOFTWARE SCHEME SO THAT STOLEN CODE COULD BE PLANTED IN IT FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF ITS DESTRUCTION!!!
Lesson SEVEN: All this goes to show that A LEOPARD DOES NOT CHANGE ITS SPOTS as much as the communist proprietary software “community” might want to think it does.
Darl McBride is well within his rights to have Linux declared outlaw and destroy it because of what happened in this Bilderburg sting, just like he did with the Traitors’
AIX *nix from whence the stolen code came. However even though he might not believe my “tin foil hat” theories on how the stolen code got there he does seem to know that there is more to this than meets the eye and that is probably why he is willing to LICENSE the stolen code rather than destroy Linux.
I for one would not mind buying Linux from SCO weather under a single seat license or not. They were the company that got me started with linux when they were Caldera and they are an AMERICAN company. Not the socialist Saddam loving snail eaters (Mandrake) and goose steppers (SuSE) that I have been buying it from lately!!! By the way I here IBM is using SuSE in this little Bilderburg plot of theirs.
This is not really news however. They always have had good relations with GERMANY!!! See lessons number ONE and SEVEN
;-).
2003-07-27 5:39 am
Anonymous
Coral Snake,
Since you seem to have all the answers I got some questions you might be able to answer.
Question 1: Where is Jimmy Hoffa’s body?
Question 2: Whatever happend in Roswell?
Question 3: Where is Elvis?
Question 4: Where was the moon landing filmed at?
Question 5: Where is JFK’s brain kept alive?
Question 6: What happends to the light when you close the refridgerator door?
2003-07-27 5:47 am
Anonymous
…I just thought you’d like this new monicker better, you know, being a raving, paranoid lunatic and all. Cthulhu ftahng!
Or actually, pretending to be a raving lunatic, since this is most likely just another persona you’ve made up for this web site, just like TopSpeed.
At lease, I really hope it’s just a persona, because if you really believe what you write – man, talk about severe neuroses…I mean, whenever someone writes about “communist proprietary software“, you know they’re not quite in touch with reality anymore – or they’re acting that way, pretending to be a Linux advocate, so that they can make Linux advocates look like total loonies by association.
I agree with the others: Eugenia, this troll is really bringing these threads to a new low – and that’s a pretty hard thing considering the number of Linux vs. BSD vs. Windows flamewars that rage around here! Time to do some moderatin’!
2003-07-27 5:47 am
Anonymous
geez coral,
I am a republican hardline rightwinger conservative. And may I sugest you take your meds.
you are sounding more like an idiot with each post you make. It is obvious you have no clue as to what is going on in this case.
2003-07-27 5:51 am
Anonymous
…the people control system of a ONE WORLD CORPERATE/FASCIST/SOCIALIST type of government…
How can something be corporate, fascist and socialist at the same time? By definition, corporate and socialist are opposite, same thing for fascist and socialist (although the latter term has been hijacked by authoritarian regimes)?
I think someone in here has been drinkin’ too much Snake Juice!
2003-07-27 6:45 am
Anonymous
Thanks for all your sources supporting your arguments. They greatly helped me to understand your point of view. I hope I’ll be able to “argue” with you again.
2003-07-27 7:52 am
Anonymous
Answer 1. No one knows including me.
Answer 2. A balloon crashed.
Answer 3. In a cemetary in or near Graceland.
Answer 4. On the moon.
Answer 5. It was blown out of his head during Oswald’s
successful assassination attempt.
Answer 6. It goes off.
Sorry folks but I do NOT believe in all Conspiracy theories,
only ones where there is reasonably good information available such as published guest and membership lists for certain organizations and “encampments” of the international
Socialist/Fascist/Corperate elite and solid evidence that often comes from their own mouths. Nor do I believe that these people are “Reptiles” like that anti-semitic idiot
David Icke. In fact I spend much of my non computing life studying reptiles and that description is unfair TO THE REPTILES!!! No these folk are just only humans like us that have managed to worm their way into inordinate power in our governments, central banks and corporations by palming themselves off as “experts” in a given government department’s, bank’s or corporation’s field of endevor. Yes some ARE also occultic as I have claimed in my many posts but you even occultic people in your “community” I’m pretty sure from looking at some of his readings that Eric Raymond identifies himself as a NeoPagan and therefore occultic. I belive that this makes occultism amongst these power hungry elites a proper topic for discussion here when it concerns the nature of who gets control over our computers and OSs (since this is OS-NEWS). After all the Nazi Party began in an occultic group called the Thule Society that was in nature much like the Bohemian Club in California now.
(Only the Thule Society was more into Swastikas than owls and that is essentially how the Nazi Swastika was born.)
Now to the subject of IBM, the Holocaust, and the Trading with the enemy act. That was NOT EVEN FROM A CONSPIRACY SITE ORIGINALLY. It was a regular news story that I picked up in the TUBE first before it EVER made its way into those sites.
As for my Conspiracy theory for the stolen code in Lunux I STILL feel it is a good theory about how it happened. The PUBLISHED GUEST LIST of the Bilderburg meeting of 1999 has on it the names of Bill Gates, Michel Dell, Lewis Gerstner,
Scott McNeely and Larry Ellison. Seemingly sworn enemies but all heavily involved in what at the time was called “Network Computing” but is now refered to in the form of multiple projects such as .NET, PassPort, Paladium,
Trusted Computing and DRM. I just find it MORE THAN MERELY COINCIDENTAL that all of these projects essentially designed to support a centralized managed online rental software system with dumb terminals only for us average joes HAVE VIRTUALLY ALL COME INTO PROPOSITION OR FRUITION AFTER 1999 WHEN THIS MEETING OCCURED!!! I also see Lewis Gerstner being at this meeting, the death of OS/2 (a desktop OS for INDEPENDENT PCs) and now this stolen code in Linux thing also being tied to his company MORE THAN MERELY COINCIDENTAL!!!
And I will say one more thing that I have said in many of my posts (Not Top Speed since I am NOT Top Speed) That is that Linux by whatever political euphemism you may want to call it was in 1999 and is now the ONLY THING standing between these “experts” and their computer re centralization scheme. (The last best hope with traditional Proprietary Single Seat licensed OSs was BeOS but its owners made the mistake of believing that they could “tag along” with Microsoft Windows on duo boot systems rather than compete with them and thereby was BeOS killed.)
It was and is therefore a verry likely target for demilition by a conspiracy such as the one I have outlined.
And I will also admit that communist was too harsh a word to discribe GPL software and that the less politically loaded word COMMUNITY may be a more proper description of it but I still stand by the word HYPOCRACY when people like Richard Stallman and the FSF refer to it as “free” and will continue to stress this point.
I still contend that software with copyrights, patents, trademarks, and license agreements tied to it is PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE, and that only true PUBLIC DOMAIN software is free because it is not tied to these Intellectual Property incumberances. (I think that even Mr. Stallman would agree with me on the patent thingy, I’ve read alot of his work too ;-).)
After all isn’t this exactly what Micro$oft, Borland, Adobe,
PowerBASIC, Shareware distributors and every other producer of proprietary software that has survived the Micro$oft juggernaut does?
Therefore I would now propose a new HONEST name for GPL software and one that is in fact used by most people in the movement to discribe their programming teams and users. I think that an honest non hypocritical name for it would be COMMUNITY SOFTWARE. and that the FSF Licenses should be changed to General COMMUNITY License and Lesser General COMMUNITY License.
2003-07-27 8:25 am
Anonymous
And I am indeed sorry for calling GPL software communist when it is obvously not. (As you migth recall in my last
argument with you In alliance with Top Speed who I am NOT I properly discribed communism as “sharing” imposed by the STATE ALONE and fascism as “sharing” imposed by a CORPORATE/STATE Alliance under threat of torture and death. It is quite obvious that GPL software or as I now call it Community Software is none of these things.
It is just that I get a little ticked off when people like
Richard Stallman WHO ARE LEFTISTS continue to hypocritically call software encumbered with copyrights, patents, trademarks license agreements and other elements of Intellectual PROPERTY law “free” when it is obviously not.
As you can tell I’ve started taking my “meds” like another Conservitive on this thread suggested. And now that I know that you are not a Leftist I would actually be interested in knowing what your political beliefs are, capitalist libertarian perhaps, I know that there are a lot of them working in the Community Software Movement. (In fact I think Eric Raymond fits that catagory too as well as Neo Pagan.) As you can probably tell by some of the stuff I have been posting here mine would tend to fall in the American Christian Patriot persuasion.
2003-07-27 8:39 am
Anonymous
And unlike Top Speed (Who I am NOT). Eveh though I believe that the stolen code is there I do believe that LINUX CAN BE SAVED by going back to the kernel 2.2 tree (Which even Darl McBride admits is unpolluted) and adding the truely community AND NOT MULTINATIONAL CORPERATION DONATED elements of 2.4 and the new 2.6 to it to produce a new addvanced and non polluted Linux Kernel.
2003-07-27 10:32 am
Anonymous
You are aware, are you not, that you have in fact broken the terms of the NDA by that outburts?
So SCO should take you to court as well as IBM.
It’s all for your own good ;^)
2003-07-27 10:52 am
Anonymous
I Have have found out that Wrawrat and Archiesteel are RIGHT
about SCO still distributing Linux under the GPL. But this proof is even BETTER than the ftp site. It comes from what I always said was their ONLY OFFICIAL SITE http://WWW.SCO.COM.
Another very nice pro Linux poster who would only screen name himself as Anonomous on this thread directed me to this link
http://www.sco.com/support/download.html
(Sorry but I don’t know HTML well enought to make it linkable. I am not a web programmer.)
where I found the following ISOs still available
OpenLinux 64
OpenLinux 3.1.1 Server and Workstation
OpenLinux 3.1 Server and Workstation
Of course I didn’t download any of these not because I have any fear of legality problems like I have with the FTP site (This is http://WWW.SCO.COM!!!) but because downloading full distribution Linux ISOs would take SEVERAL DAYS using the Opera browser’s download management system under
DIAL UP ;-).
However thinks to this unknown pro Linux poster we now have the BEST PROOF avilable against SCO where the GPL is concerned.
I can now say like the rest of the pro Linux people out there that SCO IS STILL DISTRIBUTING LINUX UNDER THE GPL.
Even Better I CAN SAY THAT SCO IS DISTRBUTING LINUX UNDER THE GPL IN THEIR OFFICIAL SITE http://WWW.SCO.COM!!!!
This should also show one of the persons that I’m addressing
here that Top Speed and I are not the same person. He’s probably going to be SICK when he sees THIS proof of what you have been saying all along.
I only came to his defense when I thaught I saw two lefites
flaming a fellow Conservative who belived that games should be Open Source and also believed as I do that the stolen code IS in Linux. However that REALLY doesn’t matter anymore as SCO is distrubuting it to this day under the GPL ON THEIR OFFICIAL SITE!!! http://WWW.SCO.COM!!! (I too believe in open source or community games and that is why I am going to develop some based on the more “exotic” subjects of my posts here. I also know that I am half wrong about what I thought I saw on that first thread.
(Wrawrat is not a Leftist.)
2003-07-27 11:19 am
Anonymous
You know, the one where they say IBM deliberately trashed SCO’s money-maker, Unix, by incorporating Unix’s crown jewel, such as the OS/2’s JFS, DYNIX/ptx’s RCU (DYNIX/ptx was a System V Release 4 compatibility layer on top of 4.3BSD if I remember correctly.), etc, into Linux?
There’s a form of market prompting called loss leading, well described in the following:
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween1.php#_Toc427495742
VinodV neglected the third use of loss leading – reviving interest in a market failure – it’s partly why shops closing doors have their closing down sales – once people start turning up for the bargains, the fact that people are still buying can be used to prove that said shop can trade its way out of difficulties.
Now how about this:
/*
UNIFYING UNIX WITH LINUX FOR BUSINESS
CALDERA
Caldera Free Products Licensing
Caldera Ceritificate of License
Wesley:
Your License Numbers and License Information for your single-user copy are displayed below. You will need to enter all the license information below during your installation.
Open UNIX 8 License Number: 3IH029656
License Code: tccltmaw
License Data:
Caldera UnixWare 7 License Number: 2GL074056
License Code: duyzkcfs
License Data: k0;mp2gtgm
Caldera OpenServer 5.0.5 Enterprise System
License Number: 1NC055561
License Code: scdnrdyf
License Data: c1;g0;k1;q1;mk5g3je
Caldera OpenServer 5.0.5 Development System
License Number: 2NC022750
License Code: nxljppqz
License Data: g0;k0;q1;mfzwzdf
*Return to Caldera Home Page (http://www.caldera.com/) Information on Free Caldera products (http://www.caldera.com/license/offers.html)
26/09/2001
*/
Now if that is not a loss leader – and SCO Original was offering this back in 1999, I kid you not – then I don’t know what would be. IBM got involved in Linux around about the time Bigfoot
http://linas.org/linux/i370.html
was started. And IBM only got into Linux when it had been shown to port satisfactorily to the System 370-390 computer architecture, which happend around 1999.
SCO Original had been losing to Linux for at least a couple of years before then. If fact, Doug Michels had reportedly – during 1997 or earlier – had offered Linux users an “upgrade” to either UnixWare of OpenServer, I’m not sure which, and had been laughed out of court.
SCO really should be the subject of one of Johnny Rotten’s diatribes, or a Sex Pistol’s song. That’s all they’re fitted for – unless it’s the subject of the Goon Show or Monty Python – but that may ennoble them unfortunately.
2003-07-27 1:31 pm
Anonymous
Here are the web-sies, and a sample letter.
https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01
http://naag.org/naag/feedback_form.php?subject=COMMENT
http://www.usdoj.gov/contact-us.html
I am writing to file a complaint regarding the actions of the SCO Group.
SCO is making unspecific and unsubstantiated claims that it owns copyright pertaining to the Linux operating system. SCO is threatening legal action against anybody who uses Linux. SCO has stated that the only way anybody can avoid legal action from SCO, is to purchase SCO’s UnixWare product.
In deference to anything SCO may be claiming: SCO does not own Linux, nor does SCO have any special rights to Linux. Linux is protected by the General Public License (GPL). SCO has no more rights to tell people they can’t use Linux, than SCO has to tell people they can’t use MS-Windows.
Would you please investigate the claims that SCO is making so that small businesses and other companies are not pressured into making unwarranted payments.
Contact information for the SCO Group:
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West, Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042
801.765.4999 phone
801.765.1313 fax
2003-07-27 1:39 pm
Anonymous
I’ve already done most of the work for you. Please take few minutes to send an email to these canopy group portfolio companies.
I am also including a list of canopy group web-sites, and a sample of the letter that I have sent to all of these companies.
I want to make it clear that I am not just sending emails. I actually intend to do all that I can to boycott these companies, and to have others boycott these companies.
I want as many companies as possible to understand that any affiliation with canopy group could cause those companies to lose sales – during a time when so many technology companies are already suffering from slow sales.
Maybe this won’t make a world of difference. But, if enough people will just send an email, maybe this will put a little pressure on the canopy group crime syndicate.
Note: the perimeterdata.com email didn’t work, so I deleted it from this list. You may need to go to their web-site.
———————————–
————————————
http://www.avenueme.com/jsp/index.jsp
http://www.cerberian.com/main.html
http://www.cogitoinc.com/corporate/index.htm
http://www.communitect.com/contact.html
http://www.datacrystal.com/contact.html
http://www.devicelogics.com/contact.html
http://www.directpointe.com/company/contact.html
http://www.fatpipeinc.com/contact/
http://www.geolux.com/contact_us.htm
http://www.helius.com/companyinfo/contact.html
http://www.homepipeline.com/hpcontact.html
http://www.iarchives.com/general_info/contact_info.jsp
http://www.industrialtrainingzone.com/about.htm
http://www.linuxnetworx.com/services/index.php
http://www.store.yahoo.com/thewirelesswave/contacts.html
http://www.maxstream.net/contact.html
http://www.mi-corporation.com/contact/
http://www.mti.com/contact.asp,
http://www.myfamilyinc.com/about_us/information.htm
http://www.perimeterlabs.com/pages/general/?ContactUs
http://www.sabertoothtools.com/tools/contact_us.html
http://www.power-innovations.com/how_to_buy/sales_reps.html
http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/index.html
http://www.trolltech.com/newsroom/investors.html
http://www.tuglet.com/aboutus.asp
http://www.viawest.net/contactus/default.asp
http://www.wrenchead.com/wh_mem/corporate/contactus.asp
———————————–
Subject: Boycotting all companies affiliated with SCO/Canopy
I have worked in IT for 25 years, and have been involved in several major purchasing decisions.
I am infuriated at SCO/Canopy’s attempts at fraud and extortion. As well as SCO’s FUD campaign against Linux.
As such, I will no longer purchase, or recommend the purchase, of any products or services from any company that is even partially owned by SCO/Canopy. I intend to encourage my colleagues to do the same.
2003-07-27 1:40 pm
Anonymous
Here is the web-site, and a sample letter.
http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml
I am writing to file a complaint regarding the actions of the SCO Group, and it’s controlling company: Canopy Group.
SCO is making unspecific and unsubstantiated claims that it owns copyright pertaining to the Linux operating system. SCO has indicated that the only way for a company to use Linux legally is to buy SCO’s own UnixWare product. If Linux users were, in fact, legally required to purchase UnixWare, this would substantially boost SCO’s revenue.
However, SCO has no legal basis to force companies to buy their products; and SCO knows it. I know this because I have specifically informed SCO that I am using Linux, and that I will not buy UnixWare. Predictably, SCO is not taking any legal action against me.
It is glaringly obvious that SCO’s statements are in fact designed to inflate SCO’s share price by misleading investors. SCO’s share price has sky-rocketed recently because of SCO’s deceptive campaign.
SCO Contact information:
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West, Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042
USA.
801.765.4999 phone
801.765.1313 fax
2003-07-27 4:32 pm
Anonymous
“May I add that I saw the evidence of stolen code by signing an NDA. I think it is very convincing, and this is only the tip of iceberg. During the court case, a *lot* of details will come out which raise doubts about the very validity of open source. In court you will see that another major project is affected too… hint: its that open source web server…”
Good for you, you signed an NDA.
Now, how is the target of (your)? lawsuit supposed to mitigate the situation.
And, by the way, what happened with that SURVERY YOU PEOPLE CALLED AROUND WITH TO FRIGHTEN PEOPLE????? I’M STILL WAITING FOR MY MONEY.
2003-07-27 4:45 pm
Anonymous
” It will only be a matter of time before you will have to buy a license from us just to breath.”
So, sales managers doen’t need to know how to spell?
2003-07-27 5:36 pm
Anonymous
…TopSpeed could never admit that one could download Linux from SCO’s web site. (By the way http://ftp.sco.com is as much the “official” SCO site as http://www.sco.com – http://ftp.sco.com is the official FTP site, while http://www.sco.com is the official WEB site).
As far as the conspiracy theory goes, it’s certainly interesting, but a little far-fetched. IBM did help the nazis keep a tally of the jewish population pre-WWII, a system that was almost certainly used in the logistical efforts that led to the “final solution”. But that was some time ago, and it’s far from clear that the IBM managers back then knew what their system would be used for. As for this latest conspiracy, well…I doubt that such companies with divergent goals would forge such an alliance to “control the population”…You can’t keep these kinds of secret for long enough to be worth the risks incurred if exposed. All it would take is one whistleblower and the whole house of cards would collaps. I doubt CEOs are very much interested in this after the Enron debacle.
Also, I’d be interested to know what you, an avowed capitalist, think about the fact that this is what capitalism invariably leads to, i.e. powerful, quasi-monopolistic corporations that control a market. In fact, if it wasn’t for government regulations, these companies would be even more powerful than they are…there seems to be a contradiction here, don’t you think?
Anyway, as far as clandestine matters go, I’m much more interested in the Casolaro conspiracy, which as recently claimed the life of another journalist. But this isn’t the right place to discuss this. There are plenty of conspiracy web sites where your theories will be better received, you know…
2003-07-27 6:11 pm
Anonymous
Tried DLing UDs to OpenServer 5.0.4 (FTP) froze everything- 3 times -reboot, 2 computers, (… yes I have a license) maybe it’s just me …
Now, should I TRY again?
Anyone have better luck?
http://www.sco.com/support/download.html
OpenServer 5.0.4 drivers (all)
2003-07-27 7:45 pm
Anonymous
No problem here. I just downloaded an entire folder of drivers (OSR500-OSR502) using Konqueror (dragged ‘n’ dropped on the desktop) without a hitch.
What ftp app are you using?
2003-07-27 8:37 pm
Anonymous
….and Linux are right now Microsoft’s biggest rivals. The dodobird above let slip that SCO is “going after” Apache.
Well, isn’t THAT interesting? A Web server based on COMPLETELY OPEN-SOURCE CODE from a time when nobody did Web servers BUT OSS, and now all of a sudden Microsoft’s whore is going after it, because it managed to be BETTER THAN MICROSOFT’S OWN PRODUCTS.
Man….I’m REALLY starting to get deja vu about the Hayes-vs.-everyone else debacle.
What we need now is a tortious-interference exterminator.
2003-07-27 9:29 pm
Anonymous
Well, that’s only if Sherbert’s allegations have any truth to them. As it is, considering how he would probably have violated the NDA with his comments, I’m inclined to doubt that they are.
2003-07-27 10:47 pm
Anonymous
>>Looking over the OSes we’ve been talking about in this article, there are a few things that stand out. The first is that SCO’s UnixWare and OpenServer are underpowered, overpriced, and lacking in scalability and security. Furthermore the company is highly unstable, having gone through a long period of financial loss before deciding to blackmail corporate GNU/Linux users with legal threats backed by invisible and baseless claims. To add to it all, SCO refused to respond to any of my queries about product features, leading me to believe that most of their information is mindless propaganda. In short, the company stinks, their products stink, and you’d be insane to buy one of their operating systems for any environment, let alone a corporation with sensitive and important data. SCO may be the “true” Unix, but it’s also the weakest.<<
http://www.thejemreport.com/articles/sco.htm
2003-07-28 12:05 am
Anonymous
The prattle about the SCO scoundrels is interesting. The open source community has tried, convicted and executed the Linden, Utah company without a clue about the specific code that is in question. The rational for their conclusion, because SCO hasn’t published the copied source code to the public. Hmm, they haven’t published their secret sauce to prove it was improperly shared by IBM? They want NDA’s before they will share the proof? Would Microsoft or IBM do anything less with their IP? Give me a break.
Clearly SCO would be wise to register their copyrighted code before publishing any of it, if any. Second, the proof that matters is the proof that is offered in court not OSnews.com. In a court proceeding evidence can be offered under a protective order where experts and attorney’s can use it, but the copyright and IP holder doesn’t have to publish his or her secret sauce to get justice from those that stole it.
The other interesting and scary thing about the OSS community is, based on their discussions on the web, they don’t really understand copyright law or intellectual property rights. That is bad, because if they don’t understand it, how can they be expected to not violate it and the GPL? The GPL clearly recognizes copyrights, that is why it was created to have a way to donate code to the project without any confusion of rights. If IBM programmers working on AIX developed new features while working under a derivative license from SCO, the recognized copyright holder, and thought that new code was free to give away, they were dead wrong. You cannot work as an extra on the Attack of the Clones set of Lucas Arts and then go home and write a separate screen play based on Star Wars and sell it or give it away to some other studio. You would hear from George Lucas’s lawyers real quick. Your work has to be completely original, or you have to have the permission of the copyright holder to distribute it to others. Derivative works are like sequels, an inteloper can’t jump on the Star Wars franchise and run with it without the consent of the original right holders
2003-07-28 12:36 am
Anonymous
Capitalism per se is not the problem Great Cthulhu. Rather it is rediculously long copyright and patent trms on the computer industry that have made PLANDED OBSOLECENCE a profitable profession. This planned obsolecence backed up by the rediculouslu long copyright and patent terms essentially allows jerks like Bill Gates to get fabulously rich by essentially selling the same program or OS over and over and over and OVER again while keeping full intellectual property rights to the abandonware “obsolete” versions and preventing their free public domain use that they would have ordinarily gone to under the ORIGINAL Capitalist system founded by the American Constitution.
(As you can see I study history in matters other than conspiracy theory).
This is why I advocate a strict limit of FIVE YEARS on copyrights and patents in the computer industry and the placement of ALL abandonware “obsolete” versions of software products INNEDIATELY TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (This os probably something else that Top Speed and I would dissagree on. He seems to believe in the perminant intellectual property concept of copyrights and patents that we have now.)
I would also appreciate links to evedence that SCO is engaged in a pump ‘n’ dump stock fraud scheme witch either you or Wrawrat might have.
And the next time Top Speed shows up dare him to click THIS.
http://www.sco.com/support/download.html
It is at least a little bit harder to deny than the ftp site.
And as to the conspiracies if I quit posting them you will miss out on the one where Bill Gates put Steve Ballmer on a diet of “shrooms” and “wacky weed” salad to put him in a condition to accept the “Go to jail” seat at M$ for when their own “pump ‘n’ dump” natural fertilizer hits the rotating device therby creating the infamous “Monkey Boy Dance” and DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS incedints.
Just joking. I have a sense of humor too, but WITHOUT the “hit man” stuff!!!
And PPPLLLEEEASSSE change your name bask to Archiesteel, easier to remember and spell ;-).
2003-07-28 12:43 am
Anonymous
“IBM violated the TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT during World War II”
What Coral Snake is making reference to is;
An IBM subsidiary, Hollerith (sic?) designed a census computer for the Nazi government. IBM didn’t do it. A company they owned located in a coutry at war with the United States did it. Did that company have any idea why the Nazis wanted a census? Doubtful.
Dear Coral Snake,
As a great provider of answers, please tell me how many holes could there be if someone bothered to remove the soil?
2003-07-28 12:51 am
Anonymous
(With a name like that, you’re bound to make Coral Snake nervous… 😉
I very much doubt that IBM, who is no newbie when it comes to IP law, is not aware of what is and what isn’t considered a derivative work under their contractual obligations with SCO. They claim that NUMA, JFS, SMP, etc. are not derivative works. In fact, Eric Raymond of the Open Source Initiative convincingly explains how these were not part of System V code, and in fact are either non-existant or defective in SCO’s UnixWare and other Unix products. In fact, it seems that those technologies were developed on other platforms, then ported to Unix.
But even if they were, the fact is that SCO has continued to distribute this code as part of their GNU/Linux distributions. In fact, you can still download various Linux 2.4.X kernels from sco.com, complete with GPL headers and licenses (in the srpms and source packages). So, in fact, SCO has released the allegedly offensive code under the GPL. So it does not matter anymore as far as Linux users are concerned: the code is now GPL’d, and as such can be freely redistributed as long as the GPL license is redistributed with it, etc.
I think OSS advocates are better versed in Copyright law than you give them credit for.
2003-07-28 12:54 am
Anonymous
For all your wackiness – and this is coming from a guy who uses the name of a H.P. Lovecraft god/demon as a nickname – I must agree with you on patent/copyright time limits. I think that system was made for a different era.
2003-07-28 12:56 am
Anonymous
Sorry for the mispellings in my last post but as I have said
in the last thread where we met in that “troll ‘n’ flame” fight I am on a dial up connection that tends to “cut off”
douring extensive “spell check” sessions ;-). Would you believe that mine is actually sharing this number with TWENTY other ISPs.
2003-07-28 2:59 am
Anonymous
I just finished reading the first story (the one about IBM,
a favorite target of mine as you know) In Eugena’s small post that begins this thread (and all threads on OS-NEWS).
It would seem that the “regime change” that I have talked about with Top Speed has actually occured there without my knowing it. It did NOT result in the OS/2 revival that I thought it would but IBM DOES now seem to be defending Linux against SCO (despite Top Speed’s assertions that they wouldn’t) using substantially the same arguments as
Wrawrat and the “Great Cthulhu” (aka Archiesteele) use
(That SCO distributed Linux under the GPL and continues to do so despite their claims of no longer being active in it.) I’ve gone back to my ORIGINAL position on Darl McBride.
This guy has GOT to be either on “shrooms” or something closely related thereto or “pump ‘n’ dumping” his stock.
And you guys have to admit that a Darl McBride SCO “pump ‘n’
dump” scam is one conspiracy that DOES belong on OS-NEWS.
2003-07-28 8:54 am
Anonymous
Um, Mason, you might lighten up a bit there.
RCU was recently claimed by SCO as part and parcel of their violated “Intellectual Property” rights. But RCU was developed at Sequent on DYNIX/ptx, which was a 4.3BSD with SVR4 compatibility layering. As such, RCU is clearly a BSD derivative technology, not a SVRx derivative technology. If IBM ported it to AIX after buying Sequent and then donated it to the Monterey project, which was a SVRx derivative project, then that was inordinately generous of them, considering the results.
Since its copyright remains with IBM, IBM is perfectly entitled to retain the original RCU hacker to redevelop his original ideas for Linux. And since RCU has only the most tenuous of links to SVRx, what SCO is trying to use it for, is little less than blatant theft of “Intellectual Property“.
It seems to me that you could use a break all right.
2003-07-28 2:55 pm
Anonymous
According to SCO Dynix/Sequent are derivative works of System V. If you port some BSD functionality to System V with interrelated operations you may have a copyright problem. As for SCO distributing Linux, distributing is not the same as contributing. You need to read the GPL, it is very clear how code has to be donated. The author has to include a notice of ownership and an explicit donation of that code and rights. Copyrights are Federal statutory right that also says rights can only be transfered with written consent of owner. The GPL is a contract of sorts, and it is black letter law that a contract cannot modify and overrule a law. SCO is no way met the requirements of the copyright law, or the GPL. I standby my claim that IP knowledge is weak in this forum.
As for IBM being so smart on IP issues because they have lots of lawyers, well Microsoft and Novell have lots of IP lawyers and they screwed up to. Microsoft stole disk compression software and paid and Novell claimed SCO didn’t have copyrights to Unix and then had to eat their words. IBM has claimed a perpetual and irrevocable license to Unix source code, that is an oxymoron. A license is not a license if it isn’t revocable. Either they have copyrights (which do expire) or they have a license. IBM hasn’t claim copyrights to Unix code, just a license. A license is right of use under conditions set. Violation of the terms is a basis for revocation.
2003-07-28 3:51 pm
Anonymous
Distribution is different from contribution. However, if SCO had issues with some code in Linux, then they should have stopped the distribution of the code. By being the owner of said code and continuing to distribute the code under the GPL (which they do to this day), they are giving implicit indication that they are indeed releasing the code under the GPL. They are aware the code is there, they are aware of where it is. The GPL states that if you do distribute a code that belongs to you under the GPL, then you are ipso facto releasing that code under the GPL.
SCO knew the code was there and continued to distribute it under the GPL. The code is therefore GPLed, otherwise SCO wouldn’t have distributed it under the GPL – they would have instantly stopped distribution until the matter was resolved. The FSF legal counsel has been crystal clear about this.
2003-07-28 6:13 pm
Anonymous
This is ugly. SCO executives should not be profiting off of stock based on a disputed lawsuit with questionable merits which they initiated. If they are so sure they are going to win, then their stock would jump far higher after a judgement in their favor. The fact that they are cashing in now says a lot about the merits of the case.
An SEC investigation is called for.
This is a pump and dump stock scheme, plain and simple. Can you say Enron???
Whoddathunkit..?!!
Look, this is all bluster and pose. The whole thing has been shady from the start. A vailed attempt to legitimize it with some quasi-look-at-the-taint-code sessions with very stringent NDAs (which the blew in Germany and allow to be viewed without it – lol).
And if anyone paid attention (which it doesn’t look like too many were) one noted that SCOs stock was rising each time a new salvo in their FUD campaign was fired.
Now, the acquisition of this new company is very suspect. Why? Because it’s owned by the same parent group? Because it’s in the same freaking build in Lindon Utah as SCO. Because it really a way to channel money without the stock holders/investors realizing what’s happening? It’s a shell game – and someone isn’t paying attention. Yes, can you say ENRON? So, once again the SEC is either sleeping or turning a blind eye. Hmmmm! I wonder what would it take to get the SEC involved?
I hate to see this cycle repeated all the time. I see the executives are cashing out quickly and making money as much money before the stock crashes.
What about the other employees who’ve been working there for years? I’m sure they’d all like to see high six figure retirement funds but it seems – as always – the executives are the first and only to prosper in times of need. E
Executives can always find work but in the .com crash I’m sure other SCO employees (programmers, etc) – in the eventuality SCO goes under – are going to have a hard timv finding work.
but the way I see it is SCO is claiming several things.
1. That IBM wrote code for Unix then contributed that code to Linux in violation of there UNIX License from sco.
2. That Unix System V Code has been copied directly into Linux by unknown parties.
I would like to comment that point one has no bearing on Linux whatsoever. Even if a court rules that IBM is in violation of the contract by releasing this code they still own the copyright to the code in question so can distribute them how they like regardless of the Unix License.
If point 2 also winds up being true and the court rules in favor of SCO it appears that they are talking about at most a few hundred to a thousand lines of code out of millions. a small fraction of 1% which will be easily re-written and as SCO’s Unix code is closed source, regardless of what they claim, Linus Torvald and friends could not have known the code was not original because they could not have checked the Unix Code or any other closed source code because they don’t have access to it.
SCO seems to think that people not in possession of code have a duty to check all of that code none the less yet they, with full access to both the Unix and Linux code are immune to copyright and licensing laws on the basis that they didn’t check the Linux code before releasing it and are trying to twist the GPL and claim that it says they have to specify they are contributing code that they own and are distributing before it falls under the GPL. Under their interpretation you can add code to Linux then claim you didn’t know it was there so it doesn’t fall under the license which is exactly what the license is there to stop.
True enough, the executives, some of whom are responsible for this fiasco, are most likely to land on their feet.
The IT people make not be so lucky in this economy ( I’m a Unix admin who hasn’t had full-time employment in over a year).
If SCO does bite the bullet, their customers will still need support or may even want to migrate to other platforms. In that case, maybe IBM, SUN, HP or Redhat may have a niche for some of the SCO technical staff or they may be able to start consulting services.
“2. That Unix System V Code has been copied directly into Linux by unknown parties.”
How funny is this claim, though? Yeah, let’s make Linux better by copying some antiquated Unix code from 1992! What next? Microsoft will claim that Linux has stolen code from Windows 3.1??? After all, how else could Linux gained such ‘enterprise’ features???
well, the SEC published the form-4’s.
they did not do anything illegal in terms of SEC filings, but they might have criminal fraud charges coming if it is found out that they were knowingly pumping out this false copyright infringement crap which I think is self evident.
if investors get burned because of tis, I think they have good standing to sue the CEO.
I’ve never been one to write letters or get involved politically, but this entire SCO scam has really angered me. I decided to contact the SEC. I don’t know if it will even help, but at least I’ve publicly voiced my opinion. Here is what I said:
My complaint stems from recent news about SCO’s claim of copyright
infringement by Linux and the Linux community. I am not a stock owner;
however, I am a concerned US citizen tired of corporate scandal.
SCO has been generating a lot of buzz lately, suing IBM, threatening to
sue other Linux vendors, and basically extorting licensing fees from
Linux users saying that if a user buys a license for Linux from SCO, they
can avoid being sued. This is highly publicized, so I’m sure your
investigators can find information about this readily available online.
Today I read an article which states that SCO executives have been
selling SCO stock that seems to have increased in value each time SCO
made a statement about sueing Linux users and IBM. This appears to be
very Enron-like in that they are creating hype in order to boost their
stocks so that they can sell it off at a high price and make millions until
the company falls. All of this can be verified in the Form-4 filings with
the SEC (http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-
edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001102542&owner=include).
While SCO may not be guilty of what I have stated above, their business
practices are, at the least, questionable. I hope that you will look into
this matter not only for the people who own SCO stock, but for the
people who use Linux and Open Source Software to run their businesses
legally. Also keep in mind the people that work for SCO who will
probably lose their jobs if SCO executives are merely trying to wring the
last penny out of a dying corporation before they jump ship, leaving
their employees with nothing.
Sincerely,
Brian Wilkins
————
Even if it doesn’t help, I feel like I’ve done something other than complain on message boards.
If you would like to make a complaint go here:
http://www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec7040.htm“