The MAIN "SCO" (rant) thread (Please post in here) - Page 5


Page 5 of 39 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 571

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

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada
    Posts
    128
    Here is a story from Linux Today with some insight from someone from the GPL (who incidentally is a lawyer )

    http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php...18-26-OS-BZ-LL

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    GA--United States
    Posts
    273
    SCO is waiting to sue and disrupt the distributions until they have the only distro of Linux left, and then they're going to try and pull a M$.

    They should not have the right to go claim intellectual property rights from violations that took place b4 they even obtained those rights in 1995. AT&T didn't care...Novell didn't care. So why should SCO care. Those money-hungry litigous bastards.
    SAJChurchey

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Posts
    605
    RWiggum --

    It really depends on which SCO bigwig you are reading quotes from. They are having trouble keeping their stories straight. Some have changed or revoked their statements. It expands and contracts weekly because it's all BS.

    First it was numerous lines of code. Then it was a few libraries. First they were going to sue every GNU/Linux distributor. Then they said they companies like SuSE and Red HAt are in the clear. They SuSE's CEO said they would be re-evaluating SCO's status in UnitedLinux. SCO is now threatening possible action against SCO.

    The statement I made for the most part is accurate as only one or two morons at SCO have ever placed the kernel under suspiscion.

    As far as the kernel and SCO's statement about how Linux wouldn't have gotten anywhere if not for code strealing...no one is worried. Companies like HP, Dell, IBM and Novell obviously saw something. These were all early adopters in some way or another.

    SCO is waiting to sue and disrupt the distributions until they have the only distro of Linux left, and then they're going to try and pull a M$.
    SCO is in the toilet. They are looking to be acquired or for some money.

    They should not have the right to go claim intellectual property rights from violations that took place b4 they even obtained those rights in 1995.
    IBM's major involvement was after Caldera obtained the IP. It stems from collaboration (according to at least one claim) between IBM and [then] Caldera. Now the claims (according to the lawuit are that the misappropriation comes down to the allegation that IBM, having rightful possession of Unix secrets, breached its duty of secrecy with SCO by conveying and transmitting those secrets to third parties.

    IBM should have bought out it's license long ago like HP and Sun.

    AT&T didn't care
    AT&T sold Unix to Novell Inc in 1993 (later of intent signed 1992).

    Novell didn't care
    See above regarding IBM Caldera collboration. Caldera released older Unix code under the original BSD license (up to "V7" and "32V").

    Wonder if this is the code that was found.
    Last edited by El_Cu_Guy; 05-16-2003 at 10:01 PM.
    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

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    14,947
    El_Cu_Guy: Have you read the OSI position paper on this?

    http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html

    The lawsuit (NOT executives from SCO, the actual lawsuit) is claiming that IBM put SCO's IP into Linux. The damages are resulting from the fact that, according to them, Linux could not have been nearly as successful in the enterprise without stuff like SMP, journalling filesystems, hotplug capability, etc. And they're probably right -- but Bell Labs UNIX had none of these features either, and neither did SCO's UnixWare, and neither did SCO's derivative UNIX (whatever that was).

    Where else could SMP, journalled FSes, hotplug, etc. be, except in the kernel?

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    8
    come on everybody join hands, im number 744.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Western NY
    Posts
    1,116
    1047

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Posts
    605
    Where else could SMP, journalled FSes, hotplug, etc. be, except in the kernel?
    I never mentioned anything regarding the lawsuit. While in the complaint SCO bigwigs have since avoided or made mention that the lawsuit does not affect the kernel. This is because the code SCO claimed was used had already been disputed many times as not being used in GNU/Linux distros.

    For example, IBM's contribution of JFS was derived from OS/2 code and not AIX. It is by no means widely used. SMP arguments in the complaint have also been shot down.

    Even before SCO issued press releases explaining the complaint it was picked apart. So many "bigwgs" have been playing loose with their words.

    Publicly they are sticking to their guns. Privately I'm betting they wished they'd never done it (unless they're hoping to be acquired (by IBM)).

    I mean come on, ALL proprietary unices based on System V? SunOS is based on BSD.

    Note:
    SunOS - BSD (up to SunOS 4.1.3, aka Solaris 1.x)
    SunOS - System V (after SunOS 5.0 aka Solaris 2.x)

    The complaint also assumes that The SCO Group has umbrella like control over all propietary unices. Strangely HP and Sun Microsystems bought out their licenses some time ago.
    Last edited by El_Cu_Guy; 05-19-2003 at 03:41 AM.
    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

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    59

    Microsoft Licenses Rival Unix, SCO Shares Soar

    Microsoft Licenses Rival Unix, SCO Shares Soar

    By Siobhan Kennedy

    NEW YORK (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp., the world's largest software maker, said on Monday it will license the rights to a rival Unix (news - web sites) computer operating system from SCO Group, sending SCO's shares soaring 40 percent.

    The deal could put pressure on other firms to follow suit and sign license agreements. In addition, it could up the ante in a lawsuit that SCO filed against International Business Machines Corp. last March.

    SCO sued IBM, alleging the world's biggest computer company abused its intellectual property rights by including some of SCO's Unix software code in a derivative version of Unix called Linux (news - web sites). IBM has denied the charges.


    Both Linux and Unix are major rivals of Microsoft's Windows software, the dominant operating system software.


    In a statement, Microsoft said the Unix license was intended to ensure that the software maker did not violate any intellectual property rights when developing products that allow computers with differing operating systems to work in tandem with one another.


    "This helps to ensure IP (intellectual property) compliance across Microsoft solutions and supports our efforts around existing products, like services for Unix that further Unix interoperability," Brad Smith, Microsoft general counsel and senior vice president, said in a statement.


    MICROSOFT TIMING


    Microsoft's announcement comes as SCO last week turned up the heat on its intellectual property battle by notifying 1,500 of the world's largest corporations that their use of Linux may be in violation of SCO's software rights.


    SCO also said it suspended shipments of its own version of Linux, saying the operating system was an "unauthorized derivative" of Unix. It said promised not to sue existing customers but said future companies could be liable if they use the Linux software.


    Linux is being distributed by hundreds of companies, which charge little or nothing for the core software, but which make money mostly on modifications, services and maintenance.


    In a note last week, Goldman Sachs analyst Rick Sherlund said the growing intellectual property controversy surrounding Linux could create enough confusion and doubt that it would benefit Linux competitors, most notably Microsoft.


    "Microsoft once maintained that Linux is 'a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches' and is eager to exploit the uncertainties around Linux," Sherlund said.


    Microsoft spokeswoman Alex Mercer denied Microsoft's timing had anything to do with trying to exploit controversy in the Linux market to benefit Windows. She said the two companies had been working on the license agreement for several months and had finally signed the deal last week.


    SCO STRUGGLED


    Unix was developed in the 1960s by AT&T Corp., although the majority of big computer companies -- including Sun Microsystems Inc., IBM and Hewlett-Packard Co. -- licensed the technology and developed their own version of the software.


    The product was sold to Novell Inc. in 1992, which in turn sold the technology to SCO in 1995. SCO made the first version of Unix to work on computers that use Intel Corp. chips. It also helped IBM develop its own version of Unix, called AIX.


    But with the growth of Microsoft's Windows software and the advent of Linux as a popular alternative to Unix, SCO struggled. Microsoft even owned a portion of the company, but sold it in 2000.


    SCO then sold the technology to Caldera, a distributor of Linux. Caldera has recently asked its shareholders to change its name to SCO.

    Shares of SCO gained 45 percent, or $2.15, to a $6.90 in afternoon trade on the Nasdaq.

    The specific terms of the deal with Microsoft were not disclosed. However, a SCO spokesman said the company has entered into a license pact with another major technology company, which it would not name.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Panorama, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,053
    words cannot express my disgust for SCO and Microsoft at this time
    CMonster says, "You can't choose the right OS if you don't have a choice."

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Panorama, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,053
    I signed the "Hey SCO Sue me" petition www.petitiononline.com/scosueme/petition.html and here was my comment:
    I'm not begging you to sue me but how about if you actually produced a product worth buying and earn your money the old fasion way -working for it! I still remember the DRDOS fiasco and your litigation against Microsoft -I cheered you then, but now I see how your company is -very American litigation-happy parasites. I work for the City of Los Angeles and I will see to it that they are warned about the dangers of SCO -I'd rather they used Microsoft!!!
    Last edited by CMonster; 05-19-2003 at 05:17 PM.
    CMonster says, "You can't choose the right OS if you don't have a choice."

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Panorama, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,053

    Angry "Hey SCO Sue Me" petition

    CMonster says, "You can't choose the right OS if you don't have a choice."

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    14,947
    bkinney -- in the future, please do not copy and paste entire articles here. A link to the web site where the article is published is more than adequate -- we can all click on links. A summary, if it's pretty short, is probably also OK.

    As it is, you are violating copyright law, and this site has had problems before with members doing exactly what you're doing (even though the trouble was with adequacy.org that time, their complaints were valid).

    Thanks much.

    But I thought that Microsoft was forbidden by an agreement they made back when they sold off Xenix to ever make a Unix again? Anyone know if that's true or not?

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    270
    Microsoft has made internix 3.0 that only recently was rolled back into USW (Unix services for windows) Microsoft said this is a "defensive move" and that may have something to do with the post above.

    Also to protect itself if any of the unix security model was "accidently" copied into longhorn.
    Last edited by chatins; 05-19-2003 at 07:54 PM.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Wyoming, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    274
    The boys at Redmond (M$) obviously have their wheels turning.....

    This is how I am reading it:

    --> Microsoft teams up with SCO (and gives a lame reason for doing so)

    --> SCO will win their lawauits against IBM and own the rights to *nix

    --> M$ will buy out SCO.....and say, "oh, and by the way - everything the world once knew as open source is now copyright by M$ and is closed source - SO START PAYING UP !!!!

    --> hahahahahahaha ( an evil, conquring laugh by all M$ executives)

    maybe I'm just mad right now, and not thinking straight.....
    Linux? What's that?

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Lee's Summit, MO
    Posts
    605
    But I thought that Microsoft was forbidden by an agreement they made back when they sold off Xenix to ever make a Unix again? Anyone know if that's true or not?
    Possibly the contract has expired. They have a habit of doing so. Also Microsoft sold their rights to the Unix market when they sold Xenix and their (MS) license to SCO. They used the money to finance Windows 3.x because Bill Gates apparently had not seen X11.

    He later tried to purchase SCO (pre-Caldera) but the other investors would not sell. Microsoft would later team up with IBM on OS/2. When they abandoned OS/2 for NT they advertised that it was the new Unix (a Unix with a friendly intuitive GUI or that NT had supassed Unix). Purchaing a Unix license then would have been bad for MS as they would have had to admit that their products suck.

    They have now [obviously] found a way to avoid bad press (so they think) for purchasing a Unix license under the guise that it will help them avoid lawsuits and benefit their arguments for IP.

    M$ will buy out SCO.....and say, "oh, and by the way - everything the world once knew as open source is now copyright by M$ and is closed source - SO START PAYING UP !!!!
    Linux=OSS but OSS does not equal Linux (common name for GNU/Linux). Confused? A car is an automobile but an automobile is not necessarily a car. It's also a truck a van or SUV.

    Even if Linux were to flop because of a theoretical buyout by MS OSS (ie Apache) would continue. It would do better for Sun, HP and BSD Unix.

    Just like BeOS developers went to AtheOs then Linux, so too will Linux community back a BSD. Note that I use the phrase "a BSD" as they are not equal and there is some fragmentation between them and they are built for specific purposes.

    FreeBSD = easy installation, newer technology support
    NetBSD = better multi-platform support while maintaining a consistant code base between platforms.
    OpenBSD = NetBSD + emphasis on security.
    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

Posting Permissions

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