The MAIN "SCO" (rant) thread (Please post in here)

**andycrofts** · 08-08-2003, 02:34 AM

Hi
Picked up a thread somewhere called "SCO employee Grapevine" which implied that David Boies has decided not to work with SCO after all.
However, I can't find anything to substantiate this.

Anyone know more? This would be a potentially fatal blow to SCO, particularly if the media got hold of it...

Or, might be a good rumour to spread anyway

Bit of "Reverse FUD..."

-Andy

**mairving** · 08-08-2003, 08:00 AM

Funny, IBM has hired Boies old law firm to represent them. Boies last three major cases were:

US vs. Microsoft - Ending in MS giving computers to schools. A major loss.
Gore vs. Bush - Bush is president. Gore is working on growing a beard. A loss.
Napster vs. the Music Industry - A loss

I haven't heard that he was bowing out but with his past track record, we might want him to stay.

**CMonster** · 08-08-2003, 11:18 AM

Free Software Foundation's official statement regarding SCO fiasco: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/sco-statement.html

**andycrofts** · 08-09-2003, 07:14 AM

Totally agree. He didn't do OJ as well, did he (No, that was Barry Scheck - do check out "Actual Innocence")
Actually if someone said they have absolute proof that Linux was copied to the SO Sys-V code, but didn't show anyone, and then demanded indemnity from SCO's customers what would that do to d'ohh's share price?

Fun!!!

I think I might....

I've nothing to lose (being bankrupt!)

**kZahradnik** · 08-09-2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Gertrude
I just hope I didn't pay the $699 licensing fee for nothing...

Your are kidding me! You didn't pay did you?
May Linux have mercy on your soul!

**bigrigdriver** · 08-10-2003, 01:01 AM

Looks like I won't be upgrading eDesktop 2.4 to Workstation 3.11 after all. Look out LFS, here I come!

**carrja99** · 08-13-2003, 04:37 PM

SCO released another press release today, which included more shooting off at the mouth and they make more crazed claims, amongst other things, they state they are terminating IBM's contract even though Novell said they can't, etc. One really has to draw the line on the knuckleheads!

I mean, it's one thing to say "Hey, linux has our copyrighted code" and then proceed to take IBM and whoever submitted the code to court, but instead SCO insists on making press releases every possible chance they get and quite frankly, it's starting to get annoying.

Isn't there anyway to make them stop until thier claims are backed up in court? If General Mills told me I needed to buy a $699 license to eat a cake i cooked following instructions out of a cookbook, consumer watchdogs would be barking like mad!

EDIT: Also, I got to take a look at SCO's version of UNIX history.... man, are they on crack!?

http://www.sco.com/scosource/unixtre...history01.html

**kshim5** · 08-13-2003, 04:46 PM

How do you make a child fall to the floor and have a hissyfit ?

ignore them.

**serz** · 08-13-2003, 04:54 PM

Crack? Maybe, we just need to wait...

SCO will fall, hopefully soon....

**psi42** · 08-13-2003, 05:09 PM

Apparently some unnamed company has already bought a SCO license.

Without even showing any evidence at all, SCO is already making money off their accusations.

And another thing...I though SCO said they were having a fit over NUMA and some other high-end multiprocessor stuff. And now they are wanting to charge $699 for a single-processor, desktop computer.

**SuperNu** · 08-13-2003, 05:10 PM

Well, according to The Register, SCO is still offering the 'infringing' Linux source code for download. Isn't this considered distribution and therefore since they now know what parts of the kernel allegedly violate their IP they are knowlingly distributing the kernel under the GPL? If I had contributed source code to the Linux kernel, I would consider suing SCO for illiegally distributing my work in violation of the GPL and my copyright. They cannot pick and choose whose IP they wish to recognize. Just my $0.02.

--SN

**kshim5** · 08-13-2003, 05:22 PM

Apparently some unnamed company has already bought a SCO license.

yeahh microsoft.

**psi42** · 08-13-2003, 05:27 PM

Well, according to The Register, SCO is still offering the 'infringing' Linux source code for download. Isn't this considered distribution and therefore since they now know what parts of the kernel allegedly violate their IP they are knowlingly distributing the kernel under the GPL? If I had contributed source code to the Linux kernel, I would consider suing SCO for illiegally distributing my work in violation of the GPL and my copyright. They cannot pick and choose whose IP they wish to recognize. Just my $0.02.

IANAL, but I think that just about destroys SCO's entire case.

Now they are KNOWINGLY distributing "their" code under the GPL....

**mdwatts** · 08-13-2003, 05:33 PM

Could we please keep all the SCO related rants etc. all in this thread from now on?

All subsequent comments should be posted in this thread or else the mods can merge them if required.

**El_Cu_Guy** · 08-14-2003, 12:58 PM

SCO's legal nimrods claim GPL is invalid.

Here's a link This link takes you to a summary page at Newsforge. You can the open the [complete story] link in a new window/tab/layer/whatever and respond to posts at the summary page.

Thread: The MAIN "SCO" (rant) thread (Please post in here)

Thread Tools

Display

Rumour Boies has declined the SCO case?

FYI -FSF official statement re: SCO

He, heh!

Isn't there a way to just make SCO STFU!?

Simple

More FUD...

The MAIN SCO (rant) thread (please post in here)

Posting Permissions