New Caldera Promised

An anonymous reader writes "SCO has announced their plans to release a new version of Caldera Linux by the end of the year. From the announcement: 'To provide extensive reliability and performance features, the Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase has been merged with recently developed additions to SCO's world leading UNIX core operating system. Already contained code owned by SCO is still included benefiting the stability and overall experience opposed to recent Linux kernel releases.' The question is, is anyone listening?"

Really?

[gbulmash (688770)]

The GPL is a license, not a surrender of copyright, so if SCO does not accept the GPL, isn't all the GPL'ed code they're using in this distro is being used illegally? Is EFF prepping a lawsuit?

OTOH, why would SCO even do this? Any belief that it will give them some cash flow or some other position that benefits them is irrational.

This must be the hallucination that precedes death.

- G

Re:Really?

[stinerman (812158)]

If SCO does not abide by the GPL for all code that they do not have the copyright to, then they will be in violation of the GPL and may be sued by the copyright holders of any such code.

Re:Really?

[Vlad_the_Inhaler (32958)]

No way would I sue them, even if I had good grounds.
When their IBM lawsuit is finally over, they will be bust bust bust. Move along there, no money left to grab. Anyone who sues them now will be left sitting on their own lawyers' bills.

Practical Joke

[Ohreally_factor (593551)]

From this post [groklaw.net] at Groklaw:

Sorry, Guys And Gals!
Recently, on this site a fake anouncement of Caldera Open Linux X was found.

We thought it was obvious enough that it was fake. We had to learn it was not for all people reading it. So we took it down now. Apparently, also the DNS records are changed/deleted, so soon enough you won't get to this site using openlinux.org anyways.

We thought, it would not spread from Slashdot before we stop it (ie, this weekend). It was funny to follow people speculating and finding out about this site. Some people pointed out good reasons why this is hoax/parody, some bad or wrong reasons. Overall, we hope most people concluded it indeed was a parody.

Our submit to Slashdot concluded with "Is this real?" - sadly enough, Slashdot's editor wrote up a new text without any hints about this. We can't blame him, he maby was just in a hurry..

Nothing got hacked, it's just we got a previously used IP for this machine, so why not having some fun content on it? We apologize for any inconviences arised though! We didn't suspect it would be taken so serious. Some hints in the text proving this weren't read (talking about XML on a Server OS?), others were found but still taken serious. Please stop spreading this fake news, and if you know some sites who published it, please inform them to update their content. Thanks.

So, basically, Scuttlemonkey fucked up.

Re:Really?

[rehabdoll (221029)]

I guess they could just release everything as is with the GPL intact, since the pressrelease claims the lawsuit is nearing the end and they probably know they will lose.
They could also, in theory, strip out disputed code.. but I doubt they will.
And the suicide option to close the code also exist i guess. The last option might not be that far fetched, since their entire buisiness has been located in the courtroom these last couple of years.

I really like their disclaimer where they, if they so choose, say it'

Re:Really?

[kfg (145172)]

. . .the pressrelease claims the lawsuit is nearing the end and they probably know they will lose.

I particularly like this following bit:

"SCO is eager to be the only future provider of Linux Systems for the enterprise market."

I'll just bet they are.

I really like their disclaimer where they, if they so choose, say it's all the communitys fault if they fail with their "new" endeavour.

Ah, well, but then that's a responsibilty I'm willing to shoulder:

"It's all your fault."

"Why, thank you."

KFG

Re:Really?

[k33l0r (808028)]

Not to mention that "Linux" is a trademark owned by Linus Torvalds himself!

Re:Really?

[by Anonymous Coward]

I think they want a test of the GPL. It's bait. Someone is going to take their code and redistribute it "according to the GPL", if just to spite them. Then SCO can decide if, when and where they want to sue. They think they own Linux (via Unix), so they don't need to rely on the GPL to redistribute Linux. From that point of view refuting the GPL doesn't hurt them but it would shatter Open Source. It's a bet against all odds, but what have they got to lose?

Re:Really?

[dbIII (701233)]

Then SCO can decide if, when and where they want to sue.

Remember that a very highly paid member of the legal team is the brother of the CEO, who has a history that few would think would justify the very large amounts. Perhaps that will be a major factor if SCO takes more unwinnable legal action that will last for years - I personally think it was a major factor in going after IBM in the first place. Linux is not the victim here - SCO is getting milked by a two man scam right out of an old story about confidence tricksters.

Re:Really?

[Helldesk Hound (981604)]

> It's a bet against all odds, but what have they got to lose?

SCO has nothing to lose.

It has already lost its reputation - and most of its cash reserves - and any chance of getting its user base back.

But aside from that, it is likely that this was a bogus press release - http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200606171 85813203 [groklaw.net] has information about it.

Re:Really?

[ozmanjusri (601766)]

it is likely that this was a bogus press release

Yeah, it's a joke - pretty funny too when you start looking closely. Apart from the 2.5 kernel hint, here's a few gems.

Already contained code owned by SCO is still included benefiting the stability and overall experience opposed to recent Linux kernel releases.

What you say!! Somebody set us up the bomb!!

SCO is eager to be the only future provider of Linux Systems for the enterprise market.

The "only" provider? Yup, a realistic goal there, if you're a megalomaniac...

As according to the Yankee Group SCO OpenServer products still outbeat Linux' yearly uptime by about 20 percent

Outbeating is good. Not grammatically of course, but still good.

And of course the kicker is the uptime claim - Yankee Group actually claimed that it was Microsoft's Windows 2003 Server that had the 20% better uptime. Funny when you know many people think MS are behind SCO's litigation.

Laugh, people. It's a pisstake, and a pretty good one.

Re:Really?

[Millennium (2451)]

OTOH, why would SCO even do this? Any belief that it will give them some cash flow or some other position that benefits them is irrational.

Oh, they don't plan to release the code at all. This is a setup on their part; they want to get sued for violating the GPL. They will then attempt to argue in court that the GPL is "unenforceable" and therefore invalid. If they win in court (a very big [i]if[/i], given that this has been tried before but it's always failed), then they'll claim ownership over all of the L

Re:Really?

[Tim C (15259)]

If they win in court (a very big [i]if[/i], given that this has been tried before but it's always failed)

Got any links for that?

then they'll claim ownership over all of the Linux codebase and that will be that.

Claim ownership on what grounds? If the GPL is invalid, then the original copyright holders still retain copyright - there's nothing in the GPL giving up their claim to ownership, and even if there was, the GPL was just (hypothetically) ruled invalid, remember?

If the GPL were ever ruled invalid, no-on

already taken care of! :)

[Xtifr (1323)]

> they want to get sued for violating the GPL.

They already are; it's one of IBM's counterclaims in SCO v IBM.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200403310 43539340 [groklaw.net]

The sixth counterclaim, to be precise. (Just search for "SIXTH".)

But of course, in a case like this (as opposed to the IBM case), you don't normally sue for "GPL violations"; you sue for simple copyright violation, and leave it up to the defense to raise the issue of the GPL if they think it will help (which it won't if they haven't followed its terms). Note that IBM also includes copyright violations for their code in Linux in their eighth counterclaim (which is going to be the basis of a motion for summary judgement as soon as expert testimony is complete).

If they want to get the GPL ruled unenforceable, they're going to need to find a better trick than distibuting someone else's code without that someone else's permission. 'Cause that's illegal whether or not the GPL is involved.

Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[Iphtashu Fitz (263795)]

The current linux kernel is version 2.6.x. IIRC, the 2.5 branch was a development branch. Why would anybody want to use a linux distro based on an old developers version of the kernel?

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[garcia (6573)]

Why would anybody want to use a linux distro based on an old developers version of the kernel?

It's the only one that they had time to make sure that all their code was removed so that they wouldn't invalidate their desire to be distributing "their" code under the GPL.

That and it's a conversation piece (as you just made it). Who the fuck would care if they said, "we're going to release Caldera on 2.6?" Not many more people than would give a shit if they released it on 2.7 but at least it got our attention

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[ArbitraryConstant (763964)]

You say that like 2.6 isn't a development branch as well.

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[martinultima (832468)]

If you ask me, anything that's actively maintained is a "development branch" – 2.6 is just considered to be a more stable, ready-to-go development branch than 2.5. And honestly, since 5 and 6 are right next to each other on the keyboard, isn't there a possibility that it was just a typo? After all, it only says once that it's based on 2.5, for all we know they may have just let their fingers slip or something.

Either way, I'm not buying it – any way you interpret the phrase – I'd rather j

That's because this IS A FAKE

[shaneh0 (624603)]

For example:

- Remove the &id=24097 from the Querystring. The page still loads this press release. Releasedetail.cfm is nothing but a static page

- Now mess w/ the URL to generate a 404. You'll get this error:

> 404
> [...]
> because Bill Gates is a Jehovah's witness and so nothing can work on St. Swithin's day.

Not to mention the whole front page is reduced to linking to this single press release? The site has no navigation.

Re:That's because this IS A FAKE

[algae (2196)]

because Bill Gates is a Jehovah's witness and so nothing can work on St. Swithin's day.

I tried this and got various different messages on each reload. It looks like the server is just calling fortune with the BOFH excuses file. Still unlikely to be a real press release though.

Re:Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase

[cp.tar (871488)]

In Croatian, 'stolica' (pronounced something like /stolitzah/) can mean both a chair and feces.
Something like 'stool' in English, if I'm not mistaken.

So you could be right.

Question

[by Anonymous Coward]

What is Caldera?

Re:Question

[Aphrika (756248)]

Well, one description is here [wikipedia.org]
 
A caldera is formed when a company ejects a large volume of magma, fire and crap, creating a huge void within itself. Consequently, it collapses under its own weight.
 
Oh, did I say company? I meant volcano.
 

Starting to understand that book title now

[frovingslosh (582462)]

Is this what they mean by "Linux for Dummies"?

SCOs Reasoning...

[pavera (320634)]

It states in the press release that they are anticipating winning their lawsuits so they are releasing this version of Linux because as soon as they win they will be the only legal provider of Linux solutions.

Obviously as others have already stated, if they are using linux 2.5 codebase, don't they have to GPL everything they added? If not, can't Linus et al sue the pants off of them?

Talk about backfiring, here's a scenario for you.. MS gives SCO a chunk of cash to go fight linux, SCO illegally uses Linux code, Linus Torvalds sues them and gets all of MSs money to further linux development...

That's quite silly

[mcc (14761)]

In some alternate universe where SCO had a case, they perhaps might wind up with copyright ownership of some small part of the linux kernel. But that wouldn't mean they own linux. SCO would own part of the Linux kernel, and all the other parts of the Linux kernel would be owned by a wide variety of other persons who wrote those parts of the kernel. SCO could wind up with ownership of part of the kernel, and say "all you other people, you don't have the right to distribute what we own". But then this raises the question of why SCO has the right to distribute Linux-- they don't, except under the terms of the GPL. And the GPL says that if you can't allow free relicensing and free use of a piece of GPLed software, you aren't allowed to distribtue it at all.

In other words if SCO had valid claims to copyright over part of the Linux kernel, and denied anyone the right to distribute that part of the Linux kernel except under propreitary terms, it would be illegal for ANYONE, INCLUDING SCO, to distribute Linux. But if SCO distributed even one copy of Linux anyway, then they'd lose the ability to deny anyone the rights to distribute Linux, because the GPL says that anyone SCO distributes to automatically has the right to redistribute the copy of Linux they got from SCO...

I wonder if SCO, when they distribute these new copies of Linux, is including and adhering to the requirements of the GPL. If not they're opening a floodgate of lawsuits from all the people who own copyrights to parts of Linux and have only granted ability to use them under the GPL. Either way just this press release might open up for some nasty slander of title lawsuits or at least extensions of the Lanham Act cases already filed against them by Redhat etc...

This is interesting, SCO has made a major misstep here. The only way they can keep this latest action from destroying them is if they know that they'll be bankrupt by the time anyone has the time to respond to it...

Re:That's quite silly

[mcc (14761)]

Huh. Then how could that make SCO, as this press release claims, the "only" allowed distributor of Linux, if anyone could just distribute Linux by going back to 2.4 or 2.5 and distributing that?

Or is the idea that they took 2.5 and stripped out the parts SCO alleges copyright to, and nobody else can do that since nobody knows what SCO's secret allegations are except SCO?

And how could SCO take out the parts they claim copyright on? They've claimed copyright on nearly the whole thing at one point or another. At one time they were claiming ownership of 2.4, and just a couple weeks ago it came out that even now one of their export reports SCO is claiming ownership of the ELF magic number [slashdot.org]. Did they just take out ELF support or what?

The whole thing defies logic at every level.

Hmm....

[fuzzyfozzie (978329)]

caldera
n : a large crater caused by the violent explosion of a volcano that collapses into a depression
It somehow just seems so fitting...

Not really a good parody

[by Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'm not impressed by openlinux.com's parody skills. Using the SCO logo as well as statements that look like standard SEC disclaimers aren't a good idea. How different is this from someone trying to fake news in order to manipulate a stock price? The average user will not realize this is fake.

Is it a parody?

[mcc (14761)]

Real or not, this is absolutely SCO's website. Look at the whois. [dnsstuff.com]

Domain ID:D1704028-LROR
Domain Name:OPENLINUX.ORG
Created On:03-Aug-1998 04:00:00 UTC
Last Updated On:10-Nov-2004 04:47:01 UTC
Expiration Date:02-Aug-2006 04:00:00 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Dotster, Inc. (R34-LROR)
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:DOTR-00936995
Registrant Name:Domain Administrator
Registrant Organization:The SCO Group
Registrant Street1:355 S 520 W
Registrant Street2:Suite 100
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Lindon
Registrant State/Province:UT
Registrant Postal Code:84042
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:[phone]
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant ******************@sco.com
Admin ID:DOTC-03050361
Admin Name:Domain Administrator
Admin Organization:The SCO Group
Admin Street1:355 S 520 W
Admin Street2:Suite 100
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Lindon
Admin State/Province:UT
Admin Postal Code:84042
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:[phone]
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin ******************@sco.com
Tech ID:DOTC-03050361
Tech Name:Domain Administrator
Tech Organization:The SCO Group
Tech Street1:355 S 520 W
Tech Street2:Suite 100
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Lindon
Tech State/Province:UT
Tech Postal Code:84042
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:[phone]
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech ******************@sco.com
Name Server:NS.CALDERASYSTEMS.COM
Name Server:NS2.CALDERASYSTEMS.COM

Caldera nameservers and everything. So this is not a parody site. If this press release isn't real, it's only because SCO got hacked. Which is, y'know, a possibility. Weirdly enough, if you go to the IP address [131.188.40.90] that openlinux.org currently points to (thus stripping away the openlinux.org site's virtual server), you get.. a page saying nothing but "FSI INF". "FSI INF"? WTF?

Meanwhile it is awfully suspicious that caldera.com [caldera.com] says nothing about this that I can see. Is there any evidence this "press release" has been... you know... released to the press? Or is it just a page on a website?

Re:Is it a parody?

[Novus (182265)]

As far as I can tell, what has happened is this:

• Caldera in Erlangen runs openlinux.org site from 1998 or so. [archive.org]
• Caldera shuts down operation in Erlangen [prnewswire.com] but leaves DNS entry intact [netcraft.com].
• IP address is reallocated to Fachschaftsinitiative Informatik [uni-erlangen.de].
• Someone at FSI decides to play a little prank on SCO.
• openlinux.org [openlinux.org] entry is removed by SCO.

Talk about Caveat Emptor...

[tdvaughan (582870)]

FTFA:

The Company wishes to advise readers that a number of important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Those factors include the failure of the products described above to operate as designed due to incompatibility with some platforms or other defects; our reliance on developers in the open source community; new and changing technologies and customer acceptance of those technologies; the Company's ability to compete effectively with other companies; failure of our brand to achieve the broad recognition necessary to succeed; unenforceability of the GNU general public license; our reliance on third party developers of components of our software offerings; claims of infringement of third-party intellectual property rights; and disruption in the Company's distribution sales channel.

Sounds like someone at SCO is covering their arse...

The quote to read:

[TodLiebeck (633704)]

SCO is eager to be the only future provider of Linux Systems for the enterprise market.

(emphasis added)

Re:The quote to read:

[kabloie (4638)]

Continuing on that thread: I know what a Linux system is (or a GNU/Linux system), but what is a Linux System?

"As according to the Yankee Group SCO OpenServer products still outbeat Linux' yearly uptime by about 20 percent, world Leading companies should still consider to upgrade to SCO's UnixWare and OpenServer series."

They have summer interns writing these releases, right? Outbeat isn't a word. "world Leading" companies? "consider to upgrade" ?

Rather, I think they have an 8th grader in their shop. "I outbeat you on that UT2K4 swerver bizzitchizzzz!!!"

If SCO fell in the woods and no one was around...

[davmoo (63521)]

...would anyone still give a shit?

SCO could create the Perfect Operating System. It could be blessed by God, Linus Torvalds, Steve Wozniak, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates at a joint press conference. And I still wouldn't use it just because it was SCO that released it. They've shown us that just because they support it today doesn't mean they won't file a lawsuit against anyone using it tomorrow. Any business that trusts SCO is obviously being run by idiots.

ROFL! What a waste of time

[HangingChad (677530)]

The question is, is anyone listening?

Well, let's see.

<cricket_chrip.wav>

Not a good sign.

Poofreaders Wanted

[jabberw0k (62554)]

Displaying a remarkable failure in the Grammar section of their grade, SCO writes:

The SCO Group... today announced plans to release a new version of it's former OpenLinux franchise...

Brushing aside the common mistake ("it's" = "it is") -- if OpenLinux was formerly their franchise, to whom does it currently belong? The mind reels...

The decision... was made after it is evident...

Lack of verb parallelism

...SCO OpenServer products still outbeat Linux' yearly uptime...

How do you "outbeat" something? It sounds lewd.

Giggle ...

[Mostly a lurker (634878)]

Try entering an invalid page for openlinux.org (e.g. this [openlinux.org]) Note that repeated requests result in different responses.

IT'S A FAKE!

[martinultima (832468)]

Just try any one of these out:

http://www.openlinux.org/releasedetail.cfm?id= [openlinux.org]
http://www.openlinux.org/releasedetail.cfm?id=5435 63463 [openlinux.org]
http://www.openlinux.org/releasedetail.cfm?id=2352 561 [openlinux.org]

You can put in whatever value you want for the releasedetail.cfm id field, but either way it shows the same thing. I don't think any real company would have a Web site which worked like that – if it were real there would be some sort of error message or another press release.

And as I said earlier, I don't think it's that hard to set up an Apache virtual server [slashdot.org] and provide false information when registering a domain... depending on the registrar it may be quite a while before they realize that the domain doesn't belong to who it says it belongs to.

Besides, notice that there are (1) a lot of typos, and (2) no references on the main SCO site...

I'd try it out but...

[ejaw5 (570071)]

$699 seems a bit expensive for linux.

Slashdot Editors MIA?

[rm69990 (885744)]

Seriously Slashdot editors, pull this story and make yourselves look less retarded.

1) SCO distributes ALL of their press releases through PR Newswire, not through some random website

2) the openlinux.org site hasn't been changed in years before this change, and has obviously been hacked, or a student at the hosting university in Germany is playing a nice prank

3) This press release is not available on SCO.com

4) The grammar in this press release is atrocious, which is highly unusual, even for SCO. Probably written by a non-native english speaker, which makes sense since this abandoned web server is hosted at a German university.

Seriously....just pull the freakin article....

Morons.

/. has been punked

[Yonder Way (603108)]

magnus@orca:~$ host www.openlinux.org
www.openlinux.org has address 131.188.40.90
www.openlinux.org mail is handled by 100 mailhub.rrze.uni-erlangen.de.
www.openlinux.org mail is handled by 10 openlinux.informatik.uni-erlangen.de.
www.openlin ux.org mail is handled by 50 fauern.informatik.uni-erlangen.de.
magnus@orca:~$ host 131.188.40.90
90.40.188.131.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer fsi-server.informatik.uni-erlangen.de.
magnus@orc a:~$

There is no question any more?

[meowsqueak (599208)]

Well, when I visit the site, it freely admits it's a hoax:

"Recently, on this site a fake anouncement of Caldera Open Linux X was found.

We thought it was obvious enough that it was fake. We had to learn it was not for all people reading it. So we took it down now. Apparently, also the DNS records are changed/deleted, so soon enough you won't get to this site using openlinux.org anyways.

We thought, it would not spread from Slashdot before we stop it (ie, this weekend). It was funny to follow people speculating and finding out about this site. Some people pointed out good reasons why this is hoax/parody, some bad or wrong reasons. Overall, we hope most people concluded it indeed was a parody.

Our submit to Slashdot concluded with "Is this real?" - sadly enough, Slashdot's editor wrote up a new text without any hints about this. We can't blame him, he maby was just in a hurry..

Nothing got hacked, it's just we got a previously used IP for this machine, so why not having some fun content on it? We apologize for any inconviences arised though! We didn't suspect it would be taken so serious. Some hints in the text proving this weren't read (talking about XML on a Server OS?), others were found but still taken serious. Please stop spreading this fake news, and if you know some sites who published it, please inform them to update their content. Thanks."

Re:GPL

[Aadain2001 (684036)]

Technically, yes.

Two things can happen with this. One, the release the new version of Caldera like a normal Linux distro, in which case SCO has actively released all the "infringing" code under GPL. The second thing that could happen is that they don't release it like a normal distro and put out a binary only version. This of course will lead to the EFF suing them into Oblivion (bada-ching) because of the copyright violations as listed under the GPL.

I guess there is a third possibility: they release Calder and the source, and continue to be asshats and try to sue everyone who uses Linux. Saddly, the third option is looking more and more likely.

GPL: FSF not EFF

[weierstrass (669421)]

I think it's also likely the GP was confusing the EFF with FSF..

Re:this can't be real

[Sheridan (11610)]

One odd thing about the site is that the www.openlinux.org address resolves (at least from here) as 131.188.40.90 which according to a Network whois is in a netblock owned by the University of Erlangen, Nuremberg.

The domain name does look to be SCO owned though according to the domain whois.

See this link [centralops.net] for details.

Re:The sad part is Caldera was a noble linux

[kimvette (919543)]

Actually, the company formerly known as SCO did not get ahold of Caldera. When management at Caldera changed (Caldera was once a great company with great products), Caldera bought SCO's old line of business (Xenix plus the right to broker licenses to Novell's IP) as the original SCO (now Tarantella) wanted to exit the Unix/UNIX market and go on to new emerging markets before the commercial UNIX/Unix market becomes too small for long-term sustainability.

In other words, Caldera IS the bad guy here, not the or

Re:The sad part is Caldera was a noble linux

[Stephan Schulz (948)]

One of the more user-friendly distros and one of the first with a graphical install complete with a tetris game. Then SCO got a hold of it and ...

You got your history mixed up. Caldera was founded as a Linux company. Real SCO was founded as a UNIX company. Caldera used the money from their IPO to buy the SCO name and UNIX business from RealSCO (which became Tarantella and was acquired by SUN in 2005), with the idea of pushing Linux down the existing SCO sales channel. That failed, and when they noticed th

Particularly since

[IANAAC (692242)]

A whois gives SCO as the owner of the domain. And their DNS servers are from calderasystems.com.

Re:*sigh* You're getting old, guys

[kimvette (919543)]

SCO is so much of a joke that it's hard to post a joke that is more funny than the situation itself. What will top it though, is news about Darl being some inmate's bitch in a federal penitentiary. :)