The MAIN "SCO" (rant) thread (Please post in here) - Page 3


Page 3 of 39 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 571

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

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Colorado USA
    Posts
    3,070
    Originally posted by stiles
    Of course deep pockets has everything to do with it. If SCO was so damn concerned with the Linux kernel why the hell haven't they sent a cease and desist order to Linus. It's simple they won't get paid that way.
    I totally agree stiles
    Some of my favorite links

    search engine's
    G4L & JL forum search
    one of the best Debian based distro's for new hardware
    registered Linux user # 288225

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Posts
    605
    In otherwords...."We think that this could be a re-write of the code that we have patent rights on, so we own it, even though it doesn't look like our code, it does the same thing as our code...so it's our code"
    SCO has already explained this in numerous interviews. They claim that the code is identical almost line for line. However, they have not sent their legal dogs after Linux vendors. They're blaming IBM for it but could go after companies like Red Hat Inc if they wanted to.

    As far as the time thing goes, I wouldn't be too surprised if they tried to say that their name change nullifies any decisions made previously.
    Who? Companies changing their name doesn't do squat. It won't have any barring whatsoever.

    And while it wouldn't surprise me if MS tried to buy SCO, even the worst FTC people couldn't argue in favor of that.
    Don't count on it. Ms tried that once before and failed. They would also have to explain why they did it. It would be a PR nightmare.

    Okay, maybe not all, but can you see them suing the BSD's again?
    That issue has been resolved.

    Would it be worth it to IBM to buy SCO?
    IBM would have to wait unitl after they one. Otherwise it would be bad PR and seen as an admission of quilt.

    Prove it's your code then. If it looks EXACTLY like your code, then you win.
    SCO fully intends to do that. However, their reasoning behind not doing it now is to "avoid further theft". It's a waiting game really. It could be a year or more before the case is heard.

    SCO is either using this because it wants to be acquired or is using the suit to force IBM to renegotiate its Unix license more quickly and earnestly (HP and Sun both bought out their licenses some time ago).
    Social Engineering Specialist
    Because the is no patch for human stupidity

    I spent a night in Paris. Wanna see the video?

    This post has been brought to you by the STFU Foundation.

    The Origins and Future of Open Source Software
    A NetAction Whitepaper by Nathan Newman

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    3,198
    This whole thing kind of reminds me of a story I was told:

    When IBM developed the BIOS, they had the ownership rights on it. When Compaq decided to make Personal Computers, they needed something similar to BIOS. IBM wanted to keep their share of the PC market under lockdown, so they refused to license the BIOS. So, Compaq had to create their own.

    However, IBM promptly threatened to sue for intellectual property infringement. So, to quell this threat, Compaq and IBM agreed to have lawyers from each side have access to each others' code. When a piece of Compaq code was written, a lawyer would compare it to the IBM code. If they thought it looked too similar, then they'd send it back to Compaq and say "Re-write it-- it looks too similar!"

    But they wouldn't give any details of how it looked similar. The coders would rewrite the offending code, and it would be recompared.

    Why couldn't SCO do something like this and audit whatever Linux code is deemed offensive? Since Linux is free, they'd have unfettered access to the code, and they wouldn't have to reveal any of their intellectual property to the world until it's absolutely neccesary.

    Personally, I'm going to think this lawsuit is a big load until SCO shows some hard proof, not just some hard talk.
    Registered Linux user #230403! Since March 2001! YAY.

    Try doing a forum search or a google search before asking a question. And please don't use HELP! in the topic of your post... it's so lame... Please don't PM me for help-- post a question in the forum instead.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Haarlem, The Netherlands
    Posts
    81
    Take a look at Kai99's post in this thread. I would say that he's right. If SCO distributes OpenLinux under GPL, doesn't that mean that ANY code included in that is released under GPL, thus bringing it into the public domain? Personally, I would say yes, but then again I'm not a lawyer.
    Linux? For shizzle!

    "As a finishing touch God created the Dutch"

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    14,947
    Ah, but GPL-licensed software isn't in the public domain.

    If a piece of code is in the public domain, then anyone can do anything they want to it -- including make a derivative work that's proprietary. The GPL prevents this (derivative works must also be GPL'ed).

    </nitpick>

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Oulu, Finland
    Posts
    492

    More slipppery crackers..cheese, watch out!

    Couldn't have put it better!

    http://www.theregister.com/content/4/30734.html

    You should also see their site, where they link to a letter basically calling their action "bizarre"

    Bruce Perens had a better word for it.
    "Rabid"

    -Andy

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    270

    Post War declared

    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9506

    1) Boot SCO out of united linux

    2) Let's make a strong distinction about Linux vs. Unix in the future. Some posters on justlinux have been playing fast and loose with linux as a "flavor of unix."

    3) Unix was, linux will be.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Western NY
    Posts
    1,116
    I have a feeling were going to hear the word "intellectual" alot more in the future. In that artical alone it was said like 8 times, they really seem to be really trying to drive that word into peoples head for some reason. I think them getting all pissy about "intellectuual property" is a bunch of hogwash. I see that as being like if I were to go on a rant about somehting and then someone else took the same view as I had. I would then have the right to get mad at them and demand them not to think like I do. From what Ive read on this it doesnt seem like there is the exact code copied into the kernel but more of an idea. Since when can you not take one persons creations and ideas and improve it, or change it to make it better. If that was the case there wouldnt be any growth in anything, not even just in tech, but in everything from cooking to hair cutting. If you could only take somehting in the original format and not have it change nothing would ever get improved. Without change there will be no growth.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Yellow Moutain
    Posts
    300
    i just find all these rather crazy..it's opensource..
    and under such license...we're allowed to do anything we want with it....if linux isn't under GPL...then..I can only see one thing...MS would boom...xcept for other reasons like linux is stable and powerful...and you know..stuffs..but...what took me into learning linux was because it's free..that gave me the allowance to learn and download anything I want..if this's the case...I wouldn't have got started anyway...so...I don't know where do we go from here now..it's crazy...

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Western NY
    Posts
    1,116
    Here Is a cool link about this.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    3,198

    Side note...

    Having just completed an Advanced UNIX course where the UNIX of choice was SCO OpenServer 5.0.6, I must say that I don't give a flip what happens to SCO.

    OpenServer was clunky. It had a stupid package management system, its GUI was just plain disgusting, and all of the SkunkWorks (pronounced "GNU Tools We've ported to SCO OS) were sadly outdated. Everything from the ksh to the way you administered users was just plain clunky.

    For what it's worth, I can have the scalabilty and power of SCO in a package like FreeBSD for little to nothing. I know SCO holds the licences for the original SYS V AT&T UNIX, so at least they get a nod for history, but I'm just not a fan of SCO products. Heck, I didn't really even like Caldera OpenLinux. I guess it was good as a corporate desktop OS, but it seemed that every application I would ever use wasn't installed, and it wasn't available through their download page.

    Now, the last part may be a little nit picky, but that's just how I feel. If this whole makes SCO and its clunky operating systems fade out of existence, then I won't stand in their way... It just seems to me like an act of either desparation or publicity, or both, even.
    Registered Linux user #230403! Since March 2001! YAY.

    Try doing a forum search or a google search before asking a question. And please don't use HELP! in the topic of your post... it's so lame... Please don't PM me for help-- post a question in the forum instead.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    428
    question: What is stopping SCO from taking some code from the kernel and placing it in Unix, thus saying that the code is rightfully theirs?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Yellow Moutain
    Posts
    300
    while...I'm not too sure about the law stuffs..but from my own understanding...they own the trademark....remember??so even though unix wasn't written by them...they still own it...now..I'm just waiting for linux trovalds to come out and say something..

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Somewhere, Texas
    Posts
    9,628
    Originally posted by yongbeng
    while...I'm not too sure about the law stuffs..but from my own understanding...they own the trademark....remember??so even though unix wasn't written by them...they still own it...now..I'm just waiting for linux trovalds to come out and say something..
    He has... and he's pretty much, ok so what is the code? Because they haven't released it yet he thinks that SCO doesn't even know what it is...

  15. #45
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    49
    It's typical of big business (or most business for that matter) that they don't like the idea of something free, that challenges and possibly overpowers the performance of their products, is distrabuted freely, can be changed and is given lots of people access to something really quite special. It appears to have MS so worried thay are authorising dealers to massively discount software and now SCO are looking for a quick few quid from the Open Source community.

    When the likes of the morons who run SCO and MS and the litigation lawyers die out, the world will be a much more pleasent place to live.

    Open Source = The Future....
    Slackware 9.1 / Gentoo 1.4 / Debian Woody

    www.clix.to/axis
    Try listening to Axis of Perdition - your head will never feel normal afterwards.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •