Professional Web Applications Themes

sco linux licensing legal actions - up or conspiracy - SCO

In article <bfj4hf$b3r$1$8300dec7news.demon.co.uk>, kevin bailey <deeval_operbigfoot.com> wrote: >SCO's lawyers have dismayed most unix developers/sysadmins >SCOworldwide and will now go under but what i want to know is... >is it just a complete up by SCO in allowing their lawyers to >try to make money from nothing instead of creating good product? >or.. >is the hand of MS behind this somehow - certainly smacks of FUD >tactics? The interview that Darl has on Zdnet explains the SCO side fairly well - even though some of Farber's question seem to be slighty biased. And I remember email exchanges from a couple of ...

  1. #1

    Default Re: sco linux licensing legal actions - up or conspiracy

    In article <bfj4hf$b3r$1$8300dec7news.demon.co.uk>, kevin bailey
    <deeval_operbigfoot.com> wrote:
    >SCO's lawyers have dismayed most unix developers/sysadmins
    >SCOworldwide and will now go under but what i want to know is...
    >is it just a complete up by SCO in allowing their lawyers to
    >try to make money from nothing instead of creating good product?
    >or..
    >is the hand of MS behind this somehow - certainly smacks of FUD
    >tactics?
    The interview that Darl has on Zdnet explains the SCO side fairly
    well - even though some of Farber's question seem to be slighty
    biased.

    And I remember email exchanges from a couple of very knowledgable
    people about the Unixware 2 SMP implementations - about 2 years
    after SCO acquired Unix from Novell. It really was about the best
    SMP around - about the only which scaled linearly.

    I combine that older knowledge with what Darl said in the interview
    about IBM and Project Montery - and his explanation makes sense.

    I'd suggest going to zdnet and searching for Dan Farber's interview
    with McBride. It about 10-15 minutes long and gives the SCO POV.

    And I see that SCOGroup bought a startup called Vultus today - a
    web services company.

    I guess well have to wait until 2005 until this goes to trial to
    see just who is right, who is wrong, and what lies in the
    middle-ground.




    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv wjv . com
    Bill Vermillion Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: sco linux licensing legal actions - up or conspiracy

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    willjay wrote, on 24/07/03 00:52:
    > SCO owns the rights to the code that IBM allegedly incorporated in to Linux.
    > If this proves to be true then SCO is right to go to the ends of the earth
    > to protect its interest.
    Bollocks. They should identify the code in question so it can be
    replaced if necessary. End of story.

    - --
    - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    begin GPG D694 FB76 12FC 94A7 4557 9951 8734 A4AC 7AA4 141E
    Ian Smith
    Worst . . . signature . . . ever !

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - [url]http://enigmail.mozdev.org[/url]

    iD8DBQE/HnNdhzSkrHqkFB4RAkHwAKCp7/qLt0WchWKwggOYrcHzM+TUKgCfSjlu
    AN85U5+zyDJ8b92814GqN8g=
    =LhWq
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    Bellyeye Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: sco linux licensing legal actions - up or conspiracy

    SCO owns the rights to the code that IBM allegedly incorporated in to Linux.
    If this proves to be true then SCO is right to go to the ends of the earth
    to protect its interest.

    wj

    "kevin bailey" <deeval_operbigfoot.com> wrote in message
    news:bfj4hf$b3r$1$8300dec7news.demon.co.uk...
    > SCO's lawyers have dismayed most unix developers/sysadmins worldwide and
    > SCO will now go under but what i want to know is...
    >
    > is it just a complete up by SCO in allowing their lawyers to try to
    > make money from nothing instead of creating good product?
    >
    > or..
    >
    > is the hand of MS behind this somehow - certainly smacks of FUD tactics?
    >
    > kev bailey



    willjay Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: sco linux licensing legal actions - up or conspiracy

    Maybe it's a conspiracy by the Mormon Church? Sound crazy? Consider
    this, it is begining to look like:

    Vultus
    Owned by SCO
    owned by Caldera
    owned by Angel Investors
    owned by Mormon Church
    ------------------

    It is difficult to know for sure. Here is what I am piecing together:

    It was recently announced that SCO "bought" Vultus. A strange
    aquisition, since both companies are controlled by the Canopy Group,
    and both companies reside in the same building. Later this press
    release was issued. There was supposed to be a revised release later,
    but I haven't seen one.
    ------------------------

    Tuesday July 22, 10:01 AM EDT

    Jul 22, 2003 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- We are advised by The SCO
    Group that journalists and other readers should disregard the news
    release, SCO (SCOX)Expands Web Services Strategy With Vultus
    Technology and Asset Acquisition, issued earlier today over PR
    Newswire. The SCO Group said a revised release will be issued later
    today.

    SOURCE The SCO Group

    URL: [url]http://www.SCO.com[/url]
    [url]http://www.prnewswire.com[/url]

    Copyright (C) 2003 PR Newswire. All rights reserved.

    [url]http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=cmt-203p3955&feed=cmt&date=[/url]
    20030722
    ------------------------

    Then I came across this:
    >>it is highly likely that Mormons are involved in both Canopy and SCO
    – but that's to be expected for companies headquartered in Utah. Three
    of SCO's board members are graduates of Brigham Young University, and
    Darl McBride worked closely with Stephen Covey before joining SCO<<

    [url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32872[/url]
    >>Many references are made to the Canopy Group but who controls them?
    A somewhat dark organization called Angel Investors who as it turns
    out are not publicly traded and are owned outright by the Mormon
    Church<<

    -- post on lwn.net

    ---------------------------

    I don't know. You tell me.





    kevin bailey <deeval_operbigfoot.com> wrote in message news:<bfj4hf$b3r$1$8300dec7news.demon.co.uk>...
    > SCO's lawyers have dismayed most unix developers/sysadmins worldwide and
    > SCO will now go under but what i want to know is...
    >
    > is it just a complete up by SCO in allowing their lawyers to try to
    > make money from nothing instead of creating good product?
    >
    > or..
    >
    > is the hand of MS behind this somehow - certainly smacks of FUD tactics?
    >
    > kev bailey
    walterbyrd Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: sco linux licensing legal actions - up or conspiracy

    Maybe it's a conspiracy by the Mormon Church? Sound crazy? Consider
    this, it is begining to look like:

    Vultus
    Owned by SCO
    owned by Caldera
    owned by Angel Investors
    owned by Mormon Church
    ------------------

    It is difficult to know for sure. Here is what I am piecing together:

    It was recently announced that SCO "bought" Vultus. A strange
    aquisition, since both companies are controlled by the Canopy Group,
    and both companies reside in the same building. Later this press
    release was issued. There was supposed to be a revised release later,
    but I haven't seen one.
    ------------------------

    Tuesday July 22, 10:01 AM EDT

    Jul 22, 2003 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- We are advised by The SCO
    Group that journalists and other readers should disregard the news
    release, SCO (SCOX)Expands Web Services Strategy With Vultus
    Technology and Asset Acquisition, issued earlier today over PR
    Newswire. The SCO Group said a revised release will be issued later
    today.

    SOURCE The SCO Group

    URL: [url]http://www.SCO.com[/url]
    [url]http://www.prnewswire.com[/url]

    Copyright (C) 2003 PR Newswire. All rights reserved.

    [url]http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=cmt-203p3955&feed=cmt&date=[/url]
    20030722
    ------------------------

    Then I came across this:
    >>it is highly likely that Mormons are involved in both Canopy and SCO
    – but that's to be expected for companies headquartered in Utah. Three
    of SCO's board members are graduates of Brigham Young University, and
    Darl McBride worked closely with Stephen Covey before joining SCO<<

    [url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32872[/url]
    >>Many references are made to the Canopy Group but who controls them?
    A somewhat dark organization called Angel Investors who as it turns
    out are not publicly traded and are owned outright by the Mormon
    Church<<

    -- post on lwn.net

    ---------------------------

    I don't know. You tell me.





    kevin bailey <deeval_operbigfoot.com> wrote in message news:<bfj4hf$b3r$1$8300dec7news.demon.co.uk>...
    > SCO's lawyers have dismayed most unix developers/sysadmins worldwide and
    > SCO will now go under but what i want to know is...
    >
    > is it just a complete up by SCO in allowing their lawyers to try to
    > make money from nothing instead of creating good product?
    >
    > or..
    >
    > is the hand of MS behind this somehow - certainly smacks of FUD tactics?
    >
    > kev bailey
    walterbyrd Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: sco linux licensing legal actions - up or conspiracy


    "Bill Campbell" <billcelestial.com> wrote in message
    news:20030722174557.A19040barryg.mi.celestial.com ...
    > On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 07:52:43PM -0400, willjay wrote:
    > >SCO owns the rights to the code that IBM allegedly incorporated in to
    Linux.
    > >If this proves to be true then SCO is right to go to the ends of the
    earth
    > >to protect its interest.
    >
    > Much of what I've read on this topic raises serious issues as to what SCO
    > owns, and what it doesn't. One of the best is Eric Raymond's:
    > [url]http://www.opensource.org/[/url]
    well Bill, I've known you and posted with you for years, but I thought ER's
    "history" was flawed, inaccurate, and completely subjective. In one
    paragraph he's dissing SCO's rights under their license and in the next
    paragraph, he's advocating the rights of Stallman's license. You can't
    claim protection under one license and ignore the rights and restrictions of
    the other license.

    Yes, much of the historical UNIX code was available, but unless you had a
    license, you had no right to view it. If you had a license, you had to take
    the appropriate steps to protect the code and intellectual property. No
    one, not AT&T, not Novell, not The Santa Cruz Operation and not Caldera has
    released the code into the public. On the contrary, all have made
    significant efforts to perserve their IP.

    IBM had a duty, as a source code licensee and due to some of the contractual
    obligations around Project Monterey, to preserve Caldera's IP. If they
    failed in this duty, then they deserve to face the penalties. The one thing
    the Linux communitiy has not done, in response to this issue, is address the
    root of the problem. Who will indemnify the customer in cases where IP is
    wrongly placed into the final product? Who will guarantee that the code
    represents original works by the author, and not some derivative work that
    the author does not have the appropriate rights to?

    Free software, under a variety of licenses and copylefts, is all about
    intellectual property rights and what the owner of code is allows third
    parties to do. Unfortunately, many of those who have embraced Open Source
    and Free Software have chosen to selectively enforce IP.


    Jim Sullivan Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: sco linux licensing legal actions - up or conspiracy

    On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Jim Sullivan wrote:
    >
    >
    > IBM had a duty, as a source code licensee and due to some of the contractual
    > obligations around Project Monterey, to preserve Caldera's IP. If they
    > failed in this duty, then they deserve to face the penalties. The one thing
    > the Linux communitiy has not done, in response to this issue, is address the
    > root of the problem. Who will indemnify the customer in cases where IP is
    > wrongly placed into the final product? Who will guarantee that the code
    > represents original works by the author, and not some derivative work that
    > the author does not have the appropriate rights to?
    You seem to be assuming that IBM has improperly put SCO's code in the
    kernel. There seems to be little evidence for this and SCO certainly has
    not provided it. But most of all, the amendment to the contract that
    clearly states that IBM owns derviative works written by or for IBM would
    appear to make it IBM's IP not SCO's.
    >
    > Free software, under a variety of licenses and copylefts, is all about
    > intellectual property rights and what the owner of code is allows third
    > parties to do. Unfortunately, many of those who have embraced Open Source
    > and Free Software have chosen to selectively enforce IP.
    I don't think there is any evidence of this. Firstly it is very important
    to understand that SCO is threatening COPYRIGHT violation against Linux
    users and TRADE SECRET violation against IBM. The two are very different.
    Now, if IBM has violated some of SCO's trade secrets, they are no longer
    trade secrets. Unless SCO actually owns the copyright and has not done
    anything to license it, then end users are free to use the code.

    The point is that it may be quite legal to take advantage of someone
    else's error in violating a trade secret. This is not selective
    enforcement, it is merely application of the law.

    Finally you assert that SCO has been careful to preserve their trade
    secrets. If so, why can you download the kernel from SCO's own ftp site?
    This shows very clearly that if the code ever was SCO's trade secret, it
    is no longer a trade secret. FYI, the copy of the kernel that is available
    form SCO;s site clearly states that it is licensed under the GPL, so
    one of the following is true:

    1. SCO has licensed "their" code under the GPL
    2. The GPL does not apply and SCO is violating the copyright of hundreds
    of kernel authors.
    3. The GPL does not apply but SCO has given away any copyright they ever
    had to the code.
    4. There never was any non-GPL SCO code in the kernel.

    The third option is quite interesting: imagine for a moment that the RIAA
    makes a new artist's song available for free download with no restriction
    from their FTP site. Do you think they could sue anyone who downloaded
    it? Now imagine that an artist records a song and makes it availble for
    donwload, but identifies someone else as the author. Copyright law
    requires identification of the author in order to apply. Do you think the
    author can assert any copyright control over the song?

    If the GPL does not apply, perhaps it is SCO who is playing fast and loose
    with other people's IP!
    > >
    >
    Whoever Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: sco linux licensing legal actions - up or conspiracy

    In article <6bWcnVePy4q98L6iXTWJhQcomcast.com>,
    Jim Sullivan <seattlecurlercomcast.net> wrote:
    >"Bill Campbell" <billcelestial.com> wrote in message
    >news:20030722174557.A19040barryg.mi.celestial.co m...
    >
    >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 07:52:43PM -0400, willjay wrote:
    >> >SCO owns the rights to the code that IBM allegedly
    >> >incorporated in to Linux. If this proves to be true then
    >> >SCO is right to go to the ends of the earth to protect its
    >> >interest.
    >> Much of what I've read on this topic raises serious issues as
    >> to what SCO owns, and what it doesn't. One of the best is Eric
    >> Raymond's: [url]http://www.opensource.org/[/url]
    >well Bill, I've known you and posted with you for years, but I
    >thought ER's "history" was flawed, inaccurate, and completely
    >subjective.
    I've found that many places/people citing the 'history' seemed not
    to have done any research. I've noted a few instances in O'Reilly's
    book 'Open Sources' - which is basically a compendium of article by
    the 'names' in the Open Source movement where the facts are quite
    correct. IOW it's just information handed down and repeated and
    sometimes modified with no one taking the time to check the facts.

    ....
    >Yes, much of the historical UNIX code was available, but unless
    >you had a license, you had no right to view it.
    What do you mean 'was' available. The oldest code is still
    available on CD - the source tree in browsable format is still
    there. And the licenses for the 'historical' versions are still
    there. This is the 32V and prior. Code post that era is not.

    The license I have excludes Sys III, and Sys V and successors, so
    I'm guessing your 'historical' is more akin to modern history than
    ancient history :-)

    ....
    >IBM had a duty, as a source code licensee and due to some of the
    >contractual obligations around Project Monterey, to preserve
    >Caldera's IP. If they failed in this duty, then they deserve
    >to face the penalties. The one thing the Linux communitiy has
    >not done, in response to this issue, is address the root of the
    >problem. Who will indemnify the customer in cases where IP is
    >wrongly placed into the final product?
    I have seen only two places where the company said they will
    indemnify the user - SCOgroup/Caldera and SUN Microsystems.
    And the SCOGroup/Caldera one is not currently available for DL.

    That leaves about 90 distributions out there where it is
    questionable. [I'm guessing about 90 as that's close to what I
    see at one major site - down from about 180 of two years ago]

    Bill
    --
    Bill Vermillion - bv wjv . com
    Bill Vermillion Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 17th, 05:07 PM
  2. Actions - loading actions by opening .atn action file
    By Danny Raphael in forum Adobe Photoshop 7, CS, CS2 & CS3
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: September 1st, 05:34 PM
  3. Need help if this is legal
    By Cats 4ever in forum Adobe Photoshop 7, CS, CS2 & CS3
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 13th, 05:10 PM
  4. Real conspiracy theory's script: leaving the key
    By PeopleIhavefeeling in forum PHP Development
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 6th, 08:07 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 3rd, 07:07 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139