Slashdot: News for Nerds



Thank you!




simoniker posted more than 10 years ago | from the more-acronyms-please dept.

Caldera 580

bkuhn writes "Last week's Wall Street Journal (and other news outlets) carried statements by SCO's Mark Heise challenging the "legality" of FSF's GPL. FSF has issued a response to this baseless claim." Also, mcgroarty points out that Intel and HP seem to be backing swiftly away from their sponsorship of SCO's in-progress Las Vegas conference (a EWeek article suggests that "Intel Corp. was recently billed as one of the lead sponsors of SCO's Forum 2003 conference here this week, but then suddenly disappeared from all marketing and press material for the forum. It appears that Hewlett-Packard Co. also got cold feet. As late as last week, SCO was telling attendees that HP would be giving a partner keynote at the forum on Tuesday morning. But on Sunday the schedule of events given to attendees when they registered makes no mention of an HP keynote...") M adds: Now we've got a few stories from the conference: and Eweek. Despite some bad headline writing at, SCO simply continues to employ the Chewbacca defense, showing no code to back up their claims. Amusingly, Darl McBride started his rant about copyright infringement by copying some footage from a James Bond movie. Bravo!

cancel ×


GNAA! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727626)


Are you GAY [] ?
Are you a NIGGER [] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [] ?









G_____________________________________naann_______ ________G
N_____________________________nnnaa__nanaaa_______ ________A
A____________________aanana__nannaa_nna_an________ ________Y
A_____________annna_nnnnnan_aan_aa__na__aa________ ________*
G____________nnaana_nnn__nn_aa__nn__na_anaann_MERI CA______N
N___________ana__nn_an___an_aa_anaaannnanaa_______ ________I
A___________aa__ana_nn___nn_nnnnaa___ana__________ ________G
A__________nna__an__na___nn__nnn___SSOCIATION_of__ ________G
G__________ana_naa__an___nnn______________________ ________E
N__________ananan___nn___aan_IGGER________________ ________R
A__________nnna____naa____________________________ ________S
A________nnaa_____anan____________________________ ________*
G________anaannana________________________________ ________A
N________ananaannn_AY_____________________________ ________S
A________ana____nn_________IRC-EFNET-#GNAA________ ________S
A_______nn_____na_________________________________ ________O
*_______aaaan_____________________________________ ________C

Re:GNAA! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727711)

Hey moderaters remove the Penisbird link because it crashed my computer.

Re:GNAA! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727763)

Hey moderaters remove the Penisbird link because it crashed my computer.

install mozilla problem solved

Re:GNAA! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727788)

hey dumb white trash, get a better fucking computer that doesnt crash when you run javascript


Re:GNAA! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727813)

wow, you moderators really are fucktards aren't yall?

Are you saying the parent and other reply to parent aren't offtopic?

dumb fucking shithole


Re:GNAA! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727840)

Okay, I've had enough. You have two minutes to moderate the other two comments down or I will shitstorm this thread.

Enough of your blatant hypocrisy.

It must be... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727628)


The End is Near (0, Offtopic)

acxr is wasted (653126) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727629)

Just like in the movie "Rising Sun": "They're distancing themselves."

Re:The End is Near (1)

rottenroot (698954) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727871)

SCO CEO Darl McBride dons the GPL:

SCO (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727639)

SCO are acting like Canadian.

bunghole (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727640)

gnaa reccomends anuses cheeses

SCO (0)

d3designs (663467) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727643)

They are killing themselves and they don't even see it! I can't understand this stupidity. :-/

Re:SCO (1, Funny)

jcsitte (555973) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727722)

Stupid is stupid does!

Re:SCO (1)

justsomebody (525308) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727799)

Neither are they, bet I think they're morr serious about not understanding them selves than you about not understanding them and their stupidity.

They will continue until they'll understand themselves and their stupidity

P.S. I hope I wrote this understanding in some form of understandable matter that would be understandable even to SCO:)

By the way, stupidity is just a formal legal expression of SCO claims

They shoot horses, don't they? (5, Funny)

FFFish (7567) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727648)

While I'm really enjoying watching this circus, I think it really is time to put Darl out of his misery. He's obviously suffering some sort of beri-beri brain-eating disease. Let's be humane and compassionate. He has suffered enough.

Re:They shoot horses, don't they? (5, Interesting)

nocomment (239368) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727742)

I agree. It's been fun to watch so far but it's time for everyone to collectively turn their back on SCO and just let them yell until they are blue in the face. It's like SCO is holding a handgrenade and people are slowly moving away from the madman so as not to make him blow you up to. As an aside, I wonder if slashdot could get an interview from the original SCO owners and get their take on the whole thing.

Re:They shoot horses, don't they? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727745)


Not beri-beri you fool, it's the viral GPL he's been trying to tell us about!


OMFG!! ROFL... (-1)

cerskine (202611) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727650)

LOLOLOL... This is a joke right? Open Source software, and Linux in particular, is a joke, isn't it? There aren't really sad people sitting round their computers, "hacking" together crap pieces of software for no money, are there?


SCO to sell Samba product... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727651)

according to
There ought to be a law preventing scumbag corporations like SCO from using free software. Oh well.

Re:SCO to sell Samba product... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727803)

What gives? First they blast the GPL, then proudly exclaim that they're using GPL'd software to extend their capabilities. They blast GPL programmers as being stupid, then get applause when advertising GPL'd software. This is shit. Samba, pull your head out of your ass and revoke their right to use/distribute your software. They're attacking the GPL and can't be trusted to abide by any of the GPL's provisions. Sheesh.

The Bond Clips (5, Informative)

NecroPuppy (222648) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727657)

Actually, if you read all the articles, you'll notice that the Bond clips were provided by MGM (who owns the hotel SCO is at) for SCO's use.

Thus, no piracy.

I dislike SCO's tactics as much as the next guy (unless the next guy is Gates or Ballmer), but a touch of fairness isn't going to hurt our cause.

Re:The Bond Clips (4, Insightful)

bninja_penguin (613992) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727793)

Actually, if you read all the articles, you'll notice that the Bond clips were provided by MGM (who owns the hotel SCO is at) for SCO's use. Thus, no piracy.

Ahhhh, but the esteemed counsel that SCO has sought out stated previously, that copyright law allows for one and only one copy to be made, for backup purposes only, so MGM better make damn sure they were using the original footage, with their fingers on the fast forward/rewind buttons, or even they are not in compliance with the SCO version of law.

Re:The Bond Clips (-1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727821)

As if facts and research ever had any place in a Slashdot article.

Groklaw (5, Informative)

NetFusion (86828) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727660)

PJ at Groklaw [] is doing a wonderful job at cutting through the SCO fud. I suggest you check out if you havent recently. The article's comments are quite good too.

Call the MPAA (0, Troll)

mhesseltine (541806) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727667)

Send in the Piracy Gestapo. He pirated material in front of hundreds of people, thus causing billions of dollars of damage to the entire movie industry (using *AA math)

Re:Call the MPAA (1)

EpsCylonB (307640) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727743)

Personally I wish I was able to cause billions of dollars worth of damage to the movie industry, however I know that it doesn't matter however many films I download cause jlo and affleck are still gonna be millionaires and on my telly all the freakin time.

Not quite what I wrote (4, Informative)

mcgroarty (633843) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727672)

I'm mentioned in the story writeup.

Actually while I had mentioned that Intel had backed out, when I submitted an article last week, HP was still listed as a premier sponsor of SCO's event. I urged Slashdot readers to write Carly Fiorina [] and let her know how you felt about HP supporting SCO. The point is moot now as the event has already started and HP has already retreated their support somewhat. Still, you might still write and express how you feel about HP having pulled out: a visible reaction from the Linux community this time around might well shape how they deal with SCO in the future.

Re:Not quite what I wrote (1)

mcgroarty (633843) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727728)

I should also add that the idea wasn't initially mine -- writing Carly was suggested on the Linux Elitists [] mailing list -- a low-traffic mailing list with some very well thought out posts, plus Mr. Bad!

Re:Not quite what I wrote (2, Informative)

Bowie J. Poag (16898) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727753)

Isn't this the same Carly Fiorina who is quoted as saying she plans to "ship as many American IT jobs overseas as possible." ?

No thanks.

Re:Not quite what I wrote (1, Troll)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727772)

That doesn't surprise me, considering that the "editors" routinely muck around with submissions to give them more of an "edge". That pours gasoline in the zealot flames - and of course generates more ad impressions.

Irony - please contact your employer (5, Interesting)

Tim Macinta (1052) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727681)

It's very ironic that SCO claims to be fighting for intellectual property rights when they are seeking to destroy the right of authors to control how their work is distributed. There is no reason that they should be attacking the legitimacy of open source licenses like this when their dispute with IBM is supposedly contractual. McBride actually admitted today that their attack is about destroying free software [] which is just disgusting considering that one of the core principals of IP law is that the author should be able to disseminate his work as he wishes - SCO apparently wants to destroy this choice.

I was disturbed enough by Darl McBride's statement last Friday (which he repeated again today in Vegas) that the "silent majority" of companies in the IT industry support SCO's recent actions that I had my company release a public statement of opposition to SCO [] . It would seem that the latest thing SCO is trying to claim ownership of is the opinion of companies that have been silent on the issue, so I am calling on companies to break the silence. If you have control over such things in your company, please get them to either copy the statement of opposition to SCO [] that I wrote to your company's website or write and post your own statement of opposition. Let the world know that SCO is strongly opposed within the industry and that they are truly fighting to destroy the intellectual property rights that they claim to be championing.

Picket? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727684)

Aren't there some slashbots in Las Vegas who would like to run a picket line in front of the MGM Grand?


Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727759)

If i were there I would join you.

SCOfinger (5, Funny)

pyros (61399) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727685)

scene: SCO is strapped to a table in IBM's hideout, with a laser creeping ever closer.

SCO: Do you expect me to show the code?

IBM: No Mr. SCO, I expect you to die!

(I know this has the rolls reversed, but it's funnier this way)

Re:SCOfinger (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727770)

> it's funnier this way

No, it's not.

Re:SCOfinger (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727878)

No, it's not.

I'm afaid it is.

Who is John Moore? (from Yahoo SCOX board) (5, Interesting)

nyet (19118) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727687)

from here []

>"The company's arguments seemed to hold weight with the SCO faithful. "I think (they've) got a strong case," said SCO reseller John Moore, the president of Moore Computer Consultants, based in Pembroke Pines, Florida."

>Is this company the same as ? Where at this link [] it mentions the president of the company is called "Terry Moore" ?? And it seems to be very much a Microsoft shop?!?

Good catch

I got some even better ones for you:

Here is searched by google for the term "Windows"

Here is searched by google for "Unix"

Want something REALLY revealing? Try this: this is searched by google for "SCO"

Judge for yourself if they are a Microsoft shop or a Unix shop. I wonder what they were even doing there at SCO Forum? SCO isn't even mentioned on their website ANYWHERE. I don't think they are a reseller of SCO's Unix, with no mention of SCO anywhere on their webpage - how could they be?

Re:Who is John Moore? (from Yahoo SCOX board) (4, Informative)

fava (513118) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727757)

Unfortunatly MCCI is based in Ithaca, New York not Pembrook Pines Florida.

It looks like the wrong company.

Funniest quote today. (1)

eddy (18759) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727691)

"Monday, CEO Darl McBride outlined the company's legal strategy and tried to convince SCO partners and customers that it is fighting the good fight.

``We're fighting for the right in the industry to be able to make a living selling software, McBride told the audience. The fight was for the ability ``to send your children to college and ``to buy a second home, he added." -- story []

He's clearly delusional.

And oh... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727720)

The SCO Forum crowd applauded when SCO executives announced that an upcoming version of its OpenServer [... will ...] provide better compatibility with Microsoft Windows through version 3 of Samba

I guess not all Open Source is bad in SCOwonderland. Fuckers.

Nothing New (0, Informative)

jcsitte (555973) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727694)

As far as i am concerned there seems to be nothing new here. SCO is just another brick in the wall of lies and control. The FSF must and hopefully will continue to show how false SCO and their foolish claims are. We need to put a stop to this madness now.

They showed some code (2)

fava (513118) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727697)

An Infoworld [] article claims that:

"Sontag and Heise also presented some short snippets of source code that they claimed had been directly copied from SCO's Unix to Linux."

Can anyone identify the snippets of code shown?

Re:They showed some code (4, Informative)

Charm (313273) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727810)

presented some short snippets of source code

But read more and you will see


So basically they show nothing again

Seems a key point (2, Insightful)

martissimo (515886) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727855)

The whole time this has been ongoing the people have been saying "show us the code", now they are starting to do just that. As I recall there was a very similar correlation between Unix and BSD a long while back, the end result was some offending code being removed and the case being over with no other real repercussions.

Forget the zealotry of we are right and they are wrong, why not look at the code they now show to be infringing and just get rid of (or change) it?

Legal precedent is on the side of this action being the correct one (from my somewhat foggy memories)

bunghole (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727701)

gnaa reccomends anuses cheeses.

stock (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727704)

It's a stock selling scheme. Run up the stock price and sell out.

Boycott SCO? (0)

Bowie J. Poag (16898) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727707)

I'd be willing to sign onto or even help organize a boycott of SCO and their products. Is anyone in the process of doing this?

Re:Boycott SCO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727726)

I have refused to service SCO UNIX machines twice in the past two weeks.

Re:Boycott SCO? (1)

ScriptMonkey (660975) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727761)

The entire world, for the past several years? :)

Re:Boycott SCO? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727804)

Boycott SCO? Does SCO do enough business that a boycott could actually hurt its bottom line?

Re:Boycott SCO? (1)

Bowie J. Poag (16898) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727822)


But it might send a message to other companies who do business with these pricks. Anything which gets SCO cartwheeling down the toilet faster is okay by me. What they're doing is despicable.

Re:Boycott SCO? (1)

eap (91469) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727848)


Yes, there is already a boycott of Linux going on.

Way ahead of you, man (4, Funny)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727852)


Most of the world has been, uh, "boycotting"(not buying) SCO products for years. Hence the publicity/money/attention grab :-)

Best quote (5, Funny)

LauraW (662560) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727712)

Referring to the "one backup copy" nonsense, the article says:
I love it when the lawyers start insulting each other. :-)

Bravo, indeed... (5, Insightful)

Empiric (675968) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727714)

Seeing Intel and HP walk out does my heart glad.

Hopefully these companies are seeing SCO's actions for what they are; an outright attempt to hijack the work of thousands of developers by fallacious statements, spin, and, at best, a tiny toehold on the body of work Linux constitutes.

Despite SCO's spin to the contrary, this isn't about the GPL model versus the proprietary software model; it's about unethical versus ethical business practices, and SCO is on the wrong side of the fence.

Would any reputable company now risk involvement with SCO on any level? Look at it this way. SCO made, in essence, a business deal. They distributed their software under the GPL, in an attempt to receive the benefits that the GPL approach can offer, much like Red Hat did. Now, they want to renege on the deal because they think they've got something more profitable. For them to now claim that they somehow didn't understand, or were somehow unaware of, their own business decisions is just completely disingenuous. What company would now sign any kind of business deal with them, knowing that given their history, they're likely to try to cry "do-over!" at some point and redefine their contract, making all sorts of legal threats and spurious statements in the process, and perhaps just decide that your IP is theirs by whatever stretch of the contract wording they can muster?

This is what's bad for business, not the GPL.

On a related note, I'd like to suggest that any companies out there contemplating paying SCO's extortion fees, even if the price is not a concern to them, refuse to pay it on principle. One good argument for not paying the Mafia, is that if you do, they are going to get bigger, and "lean" on you even more. And... I really must apologize to the Mafia for the analogy, as most of their profits derive from "consensual-crime" activity, rather than outright attempts to steal the property of individuals, in direct violation of the spirit and letter of the law. The Mafia has a higher percentage of legitimate business activites than SCO does.
SCO's activities are to the benefit of no one, except themselves. HP and Intel, by contrast, benefit themselves largely through developing products and services to benefit their customers, something SCO has apparently lost the capacity to do. Even the companies which have products in direct competition to Linux would have a hollow victory if SCO's legal challenge to the GPL resulted in an invalidation of the fundamental notion of copyright upon which the GPL rests, and the discretion it gives to the work's creator, for-profit, for-humanity, or both. The sooner this is recognized by everyone, as these two companies are taking the lead toward, the better.

flame bait? (0, Offtopic)

nyet (19118) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727749)

good job moderators

Text of the response. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727716)

Since the FSF website tends to get slashdotted easily, here is the text of the article.

SCO Scuttles Sense, Claiming GPL Invalidity
Eben Moglen

Tuesday 19 August 2003


According to the Journal, Mr Heise announced that SCO would challenge the GPL's "legality" on the ground that the GPL permits licensees to make unlimited copies of programs it covers, while copyright law only allows a single copy to be made. The GPL, the Journal quoted Mr Heise as saying, "is preempted by federal copyright law."


Of course, Mr Heise's statement is nothing but moonshine, based on an intentional misreading of the Copyright Act that would fail on any law school copyright examination. Mr Heise is referring to section 149 of the US Copyright Act, which is entitled "Limitation on exclusive rights: computer programs," and which provides that:






Copyright (C) Eben Moglen, 2003. Verbatim copying of this article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.


it's really very simple (2, Funny)

SHEENmaster (581283) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727717)

If SCO "owns" a small fraction of a widely distributed whole, that whole in its entirety is SCO's property.

If SCO doesn't own any part of a whole that it distributed in violation of copyright law, then copyright law is not applicable, for no specific reason.

If you violate their property, you deserve to go to hell. If they violate much more of your property, tough luck. If they violate it again, tough luck.

These guys have made the situation clear, why can't we just agree that they aren't affected by copyright law?

Chewbacca Defense (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727721)

South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone are huge Star Wars fans. There have been several Chewbacca references on the show.
In the "Chef Aid" episode, Chef is accused of trying to steal the song "Stinky Britches," which he really wrote many years ago. The record company takes Chef to court, and they hire Johnny Cochran to prosecute Chef. The whole town is wondering if he will use his famous "Chewbacca Defense," which he used during the O.J. Simpson trial. Here's a transcript:

Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: (pulling down a diagram of Chewie) this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! (jury looks shocked)
But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case? (calmly) Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!
Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, you must now decided whether to reverse the decision for my client Chef. I know he seems guilty, but ladies and gentlemen... (pulling down a diagram of Chewbacca) This is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one moment -- that does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a man's life is on the line? Why? I'll tell you why: I don't know.
(pulling a monkey out of his pocket) Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey! (one of the juror's heads explodes)
Eventually, Chef wins the case and all is well.

Chewbacca defense? (1)

Stonent1 (594886) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727731)

That's a new one on me. Would someone who is wise in the ways of the force explain?

Re:Chewbacca defense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727778)

It's from South Park.

Re:Chewbacca defense? (3, Informative)

NecroPuppy (222648) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727791)

Try here []

Re:Chewbacca defense? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727815) has a brief explanation.

basically you talk about something that doesn't make any sense to confuse the jury enough to decide in your favor even if it doesn't make any sense.

Re:Chewbacca defense? (1)

Mawbid (3993) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727844)

It's from South Park []

This notice brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Google monkey.

Re:Chewbacca defense? (1)

TClevenger (252206) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727847)

Go here [] and scroll down to "South Park." Basically it's a way of using misdirection to confuse a jury into voting your way.

On being deserted by Intel and HP. (3, Funny)

Spudley (171066) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727733)

On SCO being deserted by Intel and HP:

Hmm... why do the words "rats" and "sinking ship" spring the mind here?

Re:On being deserted by Intel and HP. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727837)

well it would have been real crazy for them to sponsor a company that is in effect extorting them too.


Number of back-ups (1)

studerby (160802) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727734)

As usual, Eblen was spot-on in his comments. I'm a little disappointed he didn't attack the "only one backup allowed by copyright" urban legend as well, although that's the less pointed of the two reasons why the SCO position was complete, utter, total bushwa.

SCO translator-o-matic (5, Funny)

Gherald (682277) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727735)

>We have tripled our cash position over the past four months.

We have made multiple spurrious legal claims over the last four months, dramatically raising our stock prices after a steady decline.

>SCO is actually going into business, not out of it

We've hired more lawyers.

> and we have turned the company around.

We think with and speak through our asses now.

> We are proud of that, and the future going forward is bright.

Shhh! I think we are getting a way with this, the SEC hasn't noticed yet...

> We have no long-term debt, cash balances are improved and we have reduced costs

It's cheaper to litigate than actually produce a product

Re:SCO translator-o-matic (2, Funny)

NecroPuppy (222648) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727825)



That light? It's at the end of the tunnel. From an oncoming train. Named IBM.

Re:SCO translator-o-matic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727850)

Hey, Rambus is still around, aren't they?

My first home is a trailer. (1)

tarquin_fim_bim (649994) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727738)

"to send your children to college" and "to buy a second home"

My second home covers 43 acres in Alaska, my kids eat the same shit as me. But I'm willing to pay Darth $699 to leave me the fuck alone.

FSF calls Redmond. Come in Redmond. Anyone there? (1)

arcanumas (646807) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727747)

It makes some very interesting points.

Am i the only one to think that a part of this document calls to Redmond (you who is there, don't you?) and says: "Wake up! You could loose too!"?
SCO behaves so ruthlessly and unpredictably (even for evil geniuses) that could make even MS scared. (hel, at least we KNOW what to expect from MS

the Godfather (1)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727764)

in the godfather movie there is a scene where the Don tries to reason with someone. This does not work, and regrettably he has to resolve the matter in a slightly different fashion.

I think we have reasoned long enough with McBride :)

Any mafiosi on linux ?

shameless plug: Join The Grapevine []

We are up to a million lines of code! (4, Informative)

Carl (12719) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727771)

Check it out: ives.asp?ArticleID=43982
(Soon there will not be any original code left!)

While it was difficult to ascertain the exact code being shown on screen, attorneys pointed to exact copying of some code from Unix to Linux and claimed that IBM improperly donated almost a million lines of Unix System V code to the Linux 2.4x and Linux 2.5x kernel that infringe on its Unix System V contract with SCO -- and SCO's intellectual property.

SCO claimed that much of the core code of Linux including Non-Uniform Memory Access, the Read Copy Update for high-end database scalability, Journaling File System, XFS, Schedulers, Linux PPC 32 and 64-bit support and enterprise volume management is covered by SCO's Unix System V contracts and copyrights.

For example, 110,000 lines of Unix System V code for read copy update, 55,000 lines of NUMA code and more than 750,000 lines of symmetric multi-processing code from Unix System V has made its way into Linux, attorneys and SCO executives claimed.

Re:We are up to a million lines of code! (0, Redundant)

justsomebody (525308) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727885)

Wake me up when they get to 10,000,000 lines, then I'll actualy bother my self to look how many lines in kernel really is:)

They're finally going to die (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727779)

It looks like SCO is finally dead and this lawsuit is over.

SCO's grasp at straws (5, Informative)

Experiment 626 (698257) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727787)

Linux is a copyrighted work. Copyright law allows you to make a single copy of something for backup purposes, unless you have the permission of the copyright holder, in which case you can make all the copies you want.

The GPL just spells out under what circumstances the copyright holder is willing to give you that permission.

SCO's argument rests on the fact that since one of these cases outlines how to lawfully make one copy of something, and the other deals with how to make unlimited copies of it, they must somehow be mutually exclusive. This is completely illogical. It is like saying that because it is possible to get a one ride ticket for the bus, it must therefore be illegal to buy an all day pass. Sorry SCO, your reasoning seems just a little bit flawed...

"Lines of disputed code" (1, Interesting)

prehistoric (608432) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727800)

From the article,

"... executives displayed the lines of disputed code..."

Can anybody confirm this? If true, it would mean
at lot of attendees whom I presume didn't sign a
NDA finally got to see the code. I doubt it's
true, but you never know.

Sco Is reportedly showing the code (1)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727802)

This article in Businessweek [] says that sco has been displaying the code at the conference. The part I thought truly ironic was that they were touting a revision of openserver featuring samba 3.0. The more you look at the tactics and the players behavior the more this appears to be a microsoft move.

Term for McBride's stupidity... (1, Funny)

kuwan (443684) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727806)

We, as an IT community, need to come up with a term appropriate for SCO and McBride's stupidity. Something that the community can use on a large scale that will hopefully become mainstream in our language.

I'm not sure what it should be, anybody have any suggestions? (Mine kinda suck)

Darl You!
Darl it!
Darl you to SCO!

Don't pull a Darl McBitch on me!

Re:Term for McBride's stupidity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727868)

But if you use the term "darl" as a verb, then the gerund is "darling", which I'd prefer not to associate with SCO.

Re:Term for McBride's stupidity... (1)

Enry (630) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727876)

You forgot Darlhat

the right to buy a second home??? (4, Insightful)

The Lynxpro (657990) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727808)

Does McBride even live anywhere in Northern California? There are plenty of wage-slaves out here (myself included) that cannot even afford to buy a FIRST HOME, let alone even begin to lust after further real estate like Tom Vu on an infomercial... I guess you could craft an analogy to SCO's profit motives from the following rental unit tale: Mr. McBride is hired by a landlord to squeeze out more profit from an inherited starter-home. The former owners bought the modest home and began making repairs and other improvements to the property. They then were successfully able to find tenants who leased the property. The owners/landlords then mysteriously vanished, presumed deceased. The tenants became the most popular people on the block because they threw great parties, but never rocked-the-boat with the other neighbors. The new owner (who inherited the property) found out from another neighbor the previous owners put in a lot of improvements in the property which caused the tenants so much fanfare in the neighborhood. The owner became jealous because nobody wanted to come over to his own houseparties down the street. The owner found a napkin in another neighbor's trashbin indicating some of the property's improvements, written down based upon observation at the last fondu (sic) party. The notes on the discarded napkin matched some informal notes the deceased owners wrote down on a legal pad. The jealous owner became livid and saw an ad in the Pennysaver from a Mr. McBride claiming he could sell refridgerators to the Inuit and he could bring his expertise to anyone for a nice slice of the pie and a $5 downpayment. Mr. McBride came to town and listened to the whole story. Mr. McBride, a FOB (Friend of Bill) then hires a skilled attorney to figure out a crafty legal strategy out of claiming monies from the tenants based upon the *unjust* enrichment they received from the goodwill of the deceased owners prior to signing their lease agreement. Because the lease agreement was written using a revolutionary new form of compact (ie contract) favored by new-agers, McBride and Company claim it is null and void. The property in question is at the intersection of Caldera Drive and Torvalds Way...

I for one am glad it's over. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727811)

Now I can freely use GNU/Linux [] again without worrying about legal threats.

SCO to face racketeering charges? (5, Informative)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727816)

The last paragraph of the Rumor Central [] column of eWeek this week claims that a couple of big unnamed linux shops are considering racketeering charges against SCO because of their recent actions. The clip states that at least four more companies would have to come forward.

One a similar note eWeek is also reporting that members of the open source community have approached SCO [] with a proposal for viewing the supposed offending code.

SCO shows the alleged "stolen" code (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727817)

Well, at least according to their executives [] , which I have my doubts. The PHBs could have just show them the whole linux source code, and I doubt most people in the audience would have a clue.

I do wonder if the investors didn't have to sign NDAs and if someone was able to take note of those "stolen" lines of code.

Best quotes from the article:
McBride said pattern-recognition experts SCO hired have ferreted out a slew of infringing code in Linux.
Yeah sure, who are these pattern-recognition experts and are they your executives?

"They have found already a mountain of code," McBride said. "The DNA of Linux is coming from Unix."
Only thing I can say about this is it sure sounds like a good PR FUD line to use to increase investor confidence.

judge will no doubt be a major SCOX shareholder (1)

Bob Bitchen (147646) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727819)

and it will not be considered a conflict of interest because SCOX is just a ubiquitous stock that it's in virtually everyone's portfolio. So what if the avg. volume is a pittance and that only the pump-and-dump crowd is participating in this not-even-an-also-ran company. And of course the final irony will be that Darl will be considered to have major cojones within the corporate world's CEO club and will be asked to join boards of lots of companies and consult for huge sums of money.

MGM and SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727828)

It seems appropriate that they are holding scoforum at MGM hotels as MGM realty bought the MGM name when MGM was nearly bankrupt decades ago. It invested nothing to create the mystic that is MGM but profits hansomely from it. Just in the same way that SCO is trying to profit from unix and old SCO

McCarthy would be proud (1)

sterno (16320) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727838)


And there are also 657 communists on this website!

At last, the barratry and FUD has ended! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#6727842)

My company was going to uninstall Linux and run Windows Server 2003 on all of our servers, but now I think I can convince them to stay with Linux. Hooray! []

Miscounted, somewhere? (3, Insightful)

posternutbaguk (637765) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727846)

From one of the (many) articles:

"[SCO] said, for example, that more than 829,000 lines of SMP code had been duplicated in Linux."

829,000 lines for symmetrical multiprocessing code in Linux? I don't have the stats to hand but I seriously doubt that.

Taking the wind out of their sails... (4, Interesting)

Wesley Everest (446824) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727853)

So I was thinking -- SCO is using these alleged copied lines of source code to spread their FUD. And they are having some success because their claim is currently unverifiable, so some people are unsure -- maybe there is a violation...

Now, if we could get a hold of their evidence we could either expose it as a fraud or, in the unlikely event that there is some truth to their claims, clean up Linux source to be legal. But since they require an NDA to see the evidence, you'd have to break the law to show that Linux isn't breaking any laws.

If only we could see their evidence legally without signing an NDA...

So then I got to thinking. If we knew what compiler and compiler options SCO used when they built their version of unix, we could build linux with that compiler and compiler options and have some pattern matching utility search for potentially duplicate machine code.

Then, we could look at the Linux source for the code in question, and follow the electronic paper trail to find when it was first submitted. If we could have proof that the Linux submitter was the original author, then we have proof that at least some of SCO's alleged pirated code was, in fact, pirated from Linux by SCO. If the code was of questionable origin, then we could clean-room reverse-engineer a replacement.

Anyone know how one might identify the compiler SCO used on a particular release of unix?

Why challenge the GPL? (5, Interesting)

epicurius (693593) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727857)

I dont get this. SCO owns copyrights to Sys V Unix. Claims violation of confidentiality provisions in IBM contract, sues IBM for the same. So far, it has some amount of believability. Even their Caldera Linux distro is not necessarily fatal to their case, they are arguing ignorance anyway. So why this totally redundant campaign against the GPL? And how does a tiny company like SCO manage to get this much press attention? The guys who sued MS and won a court judgement certainly got nowhere near this much press. Sure the activism of Linux advocates explains some of it but still.. Could there be more to this than meets the eye?

James Bond? (1)

ewhac (5844) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727860)

Please, Mr. McBride. Attempting to draw a parallel between yourself and James Bond is beyond laughable. The only legitimate similarily between your plight and a Bond yarn is that they are both complete works of fiction.

If an analogy must be drawn, it obviously must be to the character of Ernst Blofeld, a crippled has-been defeated early in Bond's career, who now foolishly pursues revenge, thereby relegating himself to little more than a minor, if shrill, annoyance. Even that white cat was more competent than Blofeld...


Damn I hate the way the use DNA all the time (0, Offtopic)

oolon (43347) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727870)

Sorry but its so wrong, for a long time Plants an animals were put into groups depending on how they looked. When DNA was discovered people started testing and found ALOT of mistakes it seems that the organisms looked similar because that was the right shape for the right job (both trying to fill the same niche). Anyway ALL multi-Cellular life is a derivative work, when the Oxygen content went up on this planet cell found a way to surve by teaming up with another (mytocondrals) which acted as a power house as it could deal with this poisonus gas. Check your Mytrocondral DNA with that of a Fly and you will find it pretty much the same thing, just a few mutations over the many millions of years.


"No, we're going back into business" (1)

rehabdoll (221029) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727883)

"Is SCO going out of business? No, we're going back into business. We will also increase shareholder value over the next year," McBride concluded.

Then why are the execs selling [] their stocks?

Percentages (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 10 years ago | (#6727884)

My current copy of 2.4.19 contains 4,404,238 lines of .c and .h files. SCO claims that over 100,000 of those were copied from SCO, which would be a very large percentage of the changes from 2.2 to 2.4 if you leave out stuff like Reiserfs (who knows? Maybe they don't leave out Reiserfs), procfs, usb support, direct rendering, etc.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode


Create a Slashdot Account