Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Linux Business Businesses Caldera Red Hat Software

SCO "Disappointed" by Red Hat Lawsuit 778

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the everybody-feel-bad dept.
schmidt349 writes "SCO has issued a preliminary response to Red Hat's lawsuit, in which President and CEO Darl McBride advises that SCO will prepare a "legal response" to Red Hat's requests for injunctive relief. In addition, he promises that the countersuit that SCO will file may include "counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy." His final statement-- that Red Hat's "decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux--" is chilling in light of the business strategy that SCO has adopted in its sales of UnixWare licenses to actual and potential users of the Linux kernel."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO "Disappointed" by Red Hat Lawsuit

Comments Filter:
  • by ArmageddonLord (607418) * on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:23AM (#6615294)
    "I am also disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than good faith discussions with SCO about the problems inherent in Linux."

    I don't seem to remember SCO giving IBM much of a chance for "good faith discussions"
    • by IFF123 (679162) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:31AM (#6615390)
      Look, I would be also "dissapointed" if somebody would destroy my money strategy. All SCO is saying is that "We can sue you, but you shouldn't sue us since" since we can't fight your claims in court.

      I still believe that Red Hat SHOUDLN'T have sued SCO. Red Hat is going to be drained of money for a loooong time in court. Or do you simply think that by suing, they would win in a few weeks.

      Prepare for a long winded fight in which SCO will do ANYTHING in it's power to smear Red Hat.

      In the long run, it's not who is right, it's who looks good in the end....

      • by tuffy (10202) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:35AM (#6615450) Homepage Journal
        I still believe that Red Hat SHOUDLN'T have sued SCO. Red Hat is going to be drained of money for a loooong time in court. Or do you simply think that by suing, they would win in a few weeks.

        Prepare for a long winded fight in which SCO will do ANYTHING in it's power to smear Red Hat.

        In the long run, it's not who is right, it's who looks good in the end....

        In this case, countersuing looks better to the consumer than simply allowing SCO's original claims to go largely uncontested in the court of public opinion. It might cost cash, but so does advertising. And in this case, both expenses accomplish largely the same purpose. It's not about winning or losing, it's about making sure SCO can't make Linux look bad.

        • by rekkanoryo (676146) * <rekkanoryo AT rekkanoryo DOT org> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:47AM (#6615578) Homepage
          In this case, countersuing looks better to the consumer than simply allowing SCO's original claims to go largely uncontested in the court of public opinion. It might cost cash, but so does advertising. And in this case, both expenses accomplish largely the same purpose. It's not about winning or losing, it's about making sure SCO can't make Linux look bad.
          Yes, exactly. And the more Linux vendors that jump on board with this initiative, the more foolish and stupid SCO will look. And when that happens, SCO will be no more.
          • by jdreed1024 (443938) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @12:47PM (#6616304)
            Yes, exactly. And the more Linux vendors that jump on board with this initiative, the more foolish and stupid SCO will look. And when that happens, SCO will be no more.

            <AOL> Me too! </AOL>

            When SCO first started making these claims, everyone said "Why doesn't some big name come out and say 'You're full of shit'". And now RedHat has done that with this lawsuit. And the same folks are saying this is a bad thing.

            *SIGH*

      • by rgmoore (133276) * <glandauer@charter.net> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:44AM (#6615549) Homepage
        Red Hat is going to be drained of money for a loooong time in court.

        That should be at least as much a worry for SCO, though. As numerous people have pointed out, RedHat has a lot more cash than SCO does, and their basic business is burning through that cash a lot more slowly, so that if the lawsuit comes down to being a battle of attrition than RedHat is likely to win. Just because SCO is acting like a big bully doesn't mean that they actually have the resources to back that up.

        In the long run, it's not who is right, it's who looks good in the end....

        I strongly suspect that what RedHat is worried about is looking good now. It's quite possible, even likely, that SCO's FUD is making some of RedHat's customers worry about their legal position, and if that's true than RedHat really has to do something about it. A willingness to launch a lawsuit to protect their customers' interests is exactly the kind of thing that will reassure those customers.

        • by whovian (107062) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @12:09PM (#6615787)
          What if linux users who are drinking the beer suddenly stopped and started buying distributions from the companies of their respective distributions (where applicable), regardless of whether they actually open up the box? That could translate into helping linux companies with more cash to fight SCO and its likes.

          Shooting from the hip this makes sense, but I can also imagine some twisted nasty consequences -- such as it would more easily give Microsoft some ammo to say "See, we told you so. Linux *is* a threat to our business so we're not a monopoly."
        • by Anonymous Canard (594978) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @12:14PM (#6615853)
          I strongly suspect that what RedHat is worried about is looking good now. It's quite possible, even likely, that SCO's FUD is making some of RedHat's customers worry about their legal position, and if that's true than RedHat really has to do something about it. A willingness to launch a lawsuit to protect their customers' interests is exactly the kind of thing that will reassure those customers.

          Actually it has already made Redhat at least a couple of bucks. My RHN demo account was expiring, and I could either renew it by spending a couple of bucks, or by filling out a long questionnaire. At the same time Redhat seemed to be disappearing from my radar having cancelled their desktop linux box set, leaving me in a bit of a quandary for what to do to find a replacement. Debian probably represents the best way of managing a distribution, but the end result is much too unpolished and BSD'ish for my tastes. SuSE might be an alternative although it doesn't have a huge presence in the USA.

          Anyway, Redhat filing this lawsuit puts them enough in alignment with my own priorities that I've reconsidered, and signed up with RHN for a couple of Basic accounts. I don't really doubt that RH is primarily concerned about proving the legality of its Enterprise offering, so if the desktop distribution goes seriously out of whack then I'll be looking again, but I'm willing for a while to see what their new mode of operating will put out.

          The sad part is that actually used to be a Caldera customer up until Caldera left customers who had purchased 1.0 without an upgrade path. SCO is suffering a terrible and sad loss of judgement.

        • I strongly suspect that what RedHat is worried about is looking good now. It's quite possible, even likely, that SCO's FUD is making some of RedHat's customers worry about their legal position, and if that's true than RedHat really has to do something about it. A willingness to launch a lawsuit to protect their customers' interests is exactly the kind of thing that will reassure those customers.

          This is so much true, it's frightening.

          Personally I don't care for RH's distro all that much, but, I'll stand up and stand by them on this one. They are doing the right thing. This can only help us, even if it goes sour, this shows that we do really believe that we are entitled to the product that we are pushing.

          You sir deserve a "Score: 1000, Actually Thinking" score.

          P.S. I know I used the word "we". I'm not a developer and haven't found a way to contribute to the comminity yet, but I love the ideals of all this. Have have for 5 or so years now.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:51AM (#6615629)
        But Redhat is trying to win an Injunction, which doesn't cost much and doesn't take long.

        If Redhat loses in its attempt, THEN you are talking about a longer lawsuit and then you are also more likely to see, as IIRC Bruce Perens was recently quoted as stating, the cases betwixt SCO, IBM and Redhat settling.

        This prediction of settlement I thought was one of this week's weirdest twists, and it hasn't been much commented upon. Are the issues so murky that Bruce thinks obtaining an injunction v. SCO is unlikely, and so like in the majority of cases which result in long, drawn-out court battles, all sides would then be more likely to settle and end the bleeding?
      • by Thoguth (203384) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @12:07PM (#6615766) Homepage
        SCO will also be drained of money addressing this lawsuit. In fact, if all the companies that are hurt by SCO's grandstanding barratry did this at once, it would really turn the tap on SCO's money pipe, and the nuisance would be over as soon as it was done. Sort of a DDOS, only with lawyers.
      • by acroyear (5882) <jws-slashdot@javaclientcookbook.net> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @12:10PM (#6615802) Homepage Journal
        I really thing RedHat was suing for one purpose : to get through subpoena (and thus, free of the Non-Disclosure agreements) the specific code samples out of SCO that they refuse to release publically themselves.

        RedHat's lawsuit can probably get that information far faster than the IBM case would be able to. And as soon as RedHat has it without the NDA, they'll publish it up front and give IBM, Linus & Alan, and the community the time to remove the code if its really infringing and replace it.
      • by bahamat (187909) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @12:16PM (#6615882) Homepage
        The suit is basically a slandar suit. RH is suing for injunctive action. Basically, asking the courts to order SCO to disclose any evidence they have, or to STFU.

        SCO will have to prove in court that they have a right to make the claims they are making. When SUSE did this in Germany SCO backed down. Red Hat is making a similar move here.

        There are only a few possible outcomes:
        1. SCO shuts up, IBM trial goes on with out SCO's media parade.
        2. SCO reveals their evidence
        A. They have none, destroying the IBM suit and putting an end to all of this
        B. They do have some but it's libelous, destroying the IBM suit and putting an end to all of this
        C. They do have some, RedHat looks bad, IBM looks bad, Linux looks bad. SCO becomes blabbermouths in Germany again. Linus has a chance to remove offending code and we can all get on with our lives.

        Nothing but good can come out of this move.
      • by eric76 (679787) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @12:21PM (#6615963)
        Let's see.

        SCO is going to be spending money fighting IBM. IBM has plenty of money.

        SCO is going to be spending money fighting Red Hat. Red Hat will have to spend money fighting SCO. (Red Hat is asking for attorney's fees in the lawsuit.) But if Red Hat wins the injunction early on, things are going to look awful bad for SCO before Red Hat has spent any really enormous amounts of money.

        I wonder if SuSE is also going to file suit. Maybe they should. SCO's FUD applies to SuSE as well as Red Hat.

        If SuSE were to file, than SCO would be spending money defending that action. Assuming that SuSE files in Germany, that would likely complicate things for SCO as well with a bunch more lawyers.

        What I'm really curious about is Lindows. They apparently have the right to distribute Linux, but SCO's FUD is likely to be hurting them as well even though SCO seems to have indicated that Lindows is safe. If SCO were to win, I think Lindows would be driven out of existence in short order. I wonder if Lindows will file as well.

        The other distributions as well could file suit.

        The burn rate for SCO could go up quite a bit in spite of the fact that preparing for one lawsuit may help them against others.

        There would still be lots of additional hours spent covering the different jurisdictions. Plus, you'd have to have more litigation teams in place to cover the different jurisdictions.

        Lawywers don't like to take on cases that may leave them unpaid. I can't imagine that Boies lawfirm is doing this with the intention of being paid when it is over, especially considering the dubious claims of the case. From what I've seen of lawyers and major law firms, I would expect that Boies would have to be assured of being paid regularly throughout the lifetime of the case before they would accept the case.

        One thing that some of the other distributions might want to consider is that when all is said and done, fighting SCO is likely to bring them much greater name recognition from everyone and much good will from current Linux users. Any major distributor of Linux who doesn't fight SCO may find it that much more difficult to survive.
      • by mbrod (19122) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @12:23PM (#6615985) Homepage Journal
        I still believe that Red Hat SHOUDLN'T have sued SCO. Red Hat is going to be drained of money for a loooong time in court. Or do you simply think that by suing, they would win in a few weeks.

        If you look at the flow of money into Red Hat over the years huge amounts have come from IBM and no doubt will in this case as well if they need it.

        This won't take much money anyway. SCO with a weak case/no case wants to stay as far from a court room as possible. Their battles to raise money are coming from media hype surrounding threats to go to court. They can't actually go to court on this stuff and win, they know this.
    • by GeckoFood (585211) <geckofood@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:31AM (#6615401) Journal

      Well said.

      Essentially, SCO's letter could alternately be read, "Waah! No fair! I'm the only one who can do that! You're not playing nice. I want my mom!"

      Go Red Hat. I hope they tie up SCO in court for a nice long time and win their case. SCO seems to be playing the intimidation game and is being very smug -- the tune will change if they get a slap in the face in court. Too bad only Red Hat has had the nads to fight back up to this point.

    • by h00pla (532294) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:41AM (#6615513) Homepage
      I don't seem to remember SCO giving IBM much of a chance for "good faith discussions"

      What's even worse, is that you'd never know if they actually had them or not. Their story keeps changing.

      First they say that they discovered stolen code in December ... no wait, it was March, wait... I think it was January. They said they decided to take legal action when we saw a presentation by IBM people saying that Unix was irrelevant .. no wait .. they decided when they did a code audit .. wait ... when they spoke with some Linux hacker in Keokuk Iowa .. yeh - that's it. Because of course, there is 80 lines of stolen code .. no wait... a couple hundred lines of code .. no, now they have discovered thousands of lines in hundreds of files. That's it. That's the ticket.

      They're suing IBM for breach of contract - but don't worry Linux users. Wait, then they thought should sue Linus Torvalds too. They claim he didn't answer their emails about it .. but wait, then they said that they had spoken to him about it in December.

      Now they want to go after *all* Linux users .. but wait.. if you buy a license, we won't touch you.

      As I said, they may have decided to have good faith discussions with IBM, or Santa Claus, or whovever .. you'd never know it.

    • by Znork (31774) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:48AM (#6615598)
      "At the time of your letter, we had expected the possibility of a global resolution of SCO's intellectual property claims against all Linux-related companies that would have likely included Red Hat. This effort has apparently stalled, through no fault of SCO."

      Again, SCO seems to forget that it has no claims that it can enter into any resolution over. There are only two ways this can play out.

      Either SCO can show there is infringing code and it has to be removed (as code licensed under GPL, which would be the other 99.999 percent of the code, cannot be distributed together with SCO licensed code), in which case SCO cant sell anything.

      Or SCO cannot show there is any infringing code because any similar code comes from the same public domain/BSD/whatever sources, or is in SCO Unix because SCO took it from Linux in which case SCO cant sell anything.

      Any negotiation besides "This is our contended code, here's the proof, now remove it" or "Hey, sorry, we're morons and we like to be very open about it" on SCO's part is bad faith negotiation.

      SCO has nothing they can sell to any Linux vendor.
    • by Stephen Samuel (106962) <samuel@@@bcgreen...com> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:40PM (#6616886) Homepage Journal
      "I am also disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than [Roll over and die]."

      Consider this a declaration that the Open Source Community does not negotiate with terrorists.

      Be warned that this is probably just the beginning.

  • by BJH (11355) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:24AM (#6615303)
    Hi Darl, you fascist, I run Linux on a dozen boxes. Please send me a bill that I will be happy to wipe my ass with and send back to you.

    What an arrogant little prick.
  • Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Richardsonke1 (612224) * on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:24AM (#6615305)
    I'm glad that Redhat finally brought their suit. This will assure linux users that they are not being left out to be attacked by SCO. Even if their claims are unfounded, you must agree that they seem to have a quite large legal team (if that isn't all that they have), and could really cause some damage if they started to attack companies. The companies may have to settle to just avoid a suit. Also, this'll nicely divide the SCO legal team into two suits.
    • Re:Finally... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by yog (19073) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @12:07PM (#6615772) Homepage Journal
      As a logical extension of what you wrote, why not have all Linux contributors file a class action suit against SCO? There are tens of thousands of people out there who own a piece of Linux in the sense that they contributed their code, beta testing efforts, documentation, etc. Split these people into groups of about 1000 and file dozens or hundreds of suits against SCO for theft, defamation of character, whatever. They will have to pay lawyers to respond to each query, motion, response, challenge, request for documents, deposition, etc. Now that's a way to drain their legal fund.

  • Conspiracy? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tremor_tj (656492) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:24AM (#6615306) Journal
    Conspiracy? Wow, that's a really strong word to throw into the FUD campaign. It will certainly have people looking at Linux with even more doubt. Hopefully, the judicial system will work in this case and force SCO to actually prove their side of the issue.
    • Re:Conspiracy? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by WCMI92 (592436) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:33AM (#6615419) Homepage
      Conspiracy is a word SCO should use lightly... Considering that the company that MOST benefits from anti-Linux FUD (and most definately from spreading doubts as to it's legality) propped them up to the tune of buying a "license" they didn't need...

      I'm of course speaking of Microsoft...

      How could Redhat conspire with ANYONE?! Did they conspire with IBM to SCO to sue?

      Certainly Redhat and IBM will work together in their own defenses (and offenses). They are partners with common interests.

      Just as SCO works with (and takes money from) Microsoft and Sun, the two companies with the MOST to lose from Linux...
  • Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mao che minh (611166) * on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:24AM (#6615308) Journal
    "We have been showing a portion of this code since early June. SCO has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users. We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX."
    - Darl McBride, CEO, SCO Group

    Again, end users are not at risk, if anyone is, but rather the distributors of the Linux kernel in question. Secondly, the code was released by SCO under the GPL, negating the claim. Third, by not asking the "infringers" (who would be IBM primarily and companies like Red Hat secondly) to remove the suspect the code and instead attack the customers of the "infringers", SCO has made no attempt to keep their trade secret a secret at all, which renders it's claim to secrecy invalid in legal terms.

    SCO has buried itself. I can't believe that anyone is still buying their stock, all they are doing is making McBride richer.

    "In any such meeting, we will provide example after example of infringement of our intellectual property found in Linux. Of course, any such demonstration must be pursuant to an acceptable confidentiality agreement and must be intended to further good faith discussions about resolving the differences between us.........If you seek information for the purpose of informal discovery intended to benefit IBM in the pending litigation, or for the purpose of devising your own litigation plans against SCO related to Linux, we must respectfully decline your request."
    - Robert Bench, CFO, SCO Group

    In other words, they still refuse to take action in defending their trade secrets and rectifying the problem. No moral judge is going to cut them any slack with this kind of behaviour.

    "Of course, we will prepare our legal response as required by your complaint. Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy."
    - Darl McBride, CEO, SCO Group

    It is amazing that this crook has the audacity to suppose that Red Hat is engaged in some kind of a conspiracy, considering the disgusting actions of his company. This is truly laughable.

    • Re:Amazing (Score:5, Funny)

      by BrynM (217883) * on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:30AM (#6615386) Homepage Journal
      "copyright infringement and conspiracy."

      McBride's reality checker is broken. We tried to send him replacement parts, but he keeps sending them back to us with a note saying that he doesn't need reality since he owns Unix. Poor bastard...

    • Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dmaxwell (43234) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:32AM (#6615416)
      In other words, they still refuse to take action in defending their trade secrets and rectifying the problem. No moral judge is going to cut them any slack with this kind of behaviour.

      A moral judge isn't necessarily a warranted assumption. All SCO needs is a somewhat viable legal theory to hang their case on. That isn't to say a "amoral" judge wouldn't find SCO's legal theories wanting but morality needn't enter into it.

    • by isn't my name (514234) <slash@three n o r t h .com> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:33AM (#6615430)
      Want to hear more details on the conspiracy and long term viability of Linux? Check out their conference call [prnewswire.com] today:

      Where: Toll Free within North America: 1-800-238-9007
      International: 719-457-2622
      Password to enter call: 274040

      When: Tuesday, Aug. 5, 2003
      2:00 p.m. EDT, 11:00 a.m. PDT

      • by isn't my name (514234) <slash@three n o r t h .com> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:41AM (#6615512)
        Reporters might want to consider this list of questions for the conference call today:

        Note: Brazenly ripped off from a post on the SCOX Yahoo discussion board [yahoo.com]:


        1. When you said there are thousands of files of "your" (ie SCO's) Intellectual Property in Linux, were you referring to IBM's copyrighted and patented code?

        2. Isn't that a very liberal and deceptive use of the word "your"?

        3. Were you intentionally trying to mislead investors, Linux users, and the general public by referring to it as "your" IP before your case with IBM even goes to trial?

        4. Are you concerned that your deceptive use of the words "your" and "our(s)" will lead to class action lawsuits by investors?

        5. Don't the clauses in ammendment X saying that IBM owns all work produced by IBM and that those works are not subject to the other restrictions in Ammendment X mean that IBM can donate its patented, copyrighted code to Linux?

        6. If you and other SCO execs feel you have such a strong case, why have there been no executives cashing in options and holding them?

        7. Assuming for the moment that IBM has violated your trade secrets, accourding to established IP law, wouldn't that simply mean that IBM was liable to you for damages, but that the 'secrets' are now out of the bag and there is no legal way to encumber Linux because of that?

        8. Given the filing date on your copyright, isn't SCO enjoined from seeking statutory damages or fees and limited only to the much harder to prove actual damages in any copyright legal action against Linux?

        9. How does SCO, a Unix company, expect to make use of Vultus, a web services company whose product works only in Internet Explorer for deployment on IIS servers as a slower than Java replacement for Java?

        10. Sontag has publicly stated that JFS, RCU, and NUMA are copyrighted by IBM but that SCO has "control rights" over that code. Is that type of contract legal? Has the validity of such a contract ever been tested in court?

        Compliments of martin_lvnv -

        11. When was the last time you checked on the number of resellers and developers? Don't you think it might be time to update those figures?
    • Re:Amazing (Score:5, Informative)

      by tshak (173364) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:39AM (#6615500) Homepage
      Secondly, the code was released by SCO under the GPL, negating the claim.

      This argument gets thrown around a lot but it can only be correct of SCO knowingly injected the code in question into Linux. However, that's not the argument. Even before SCO started selling distributions, the alleged code existed in the codebase. If this is true, than that code is not legitimately GPL'd.

      For example: I write some commercial code. You get the code under a license for internal modification. Later I decided to create a distribution for a cool project on Sourceforge. However, you took some of the code I licensed to you and contributed it to that project without my knowledge. Because you don't have ownership of that code, you do not have the right to GPL it. I distribute that project with no knowledge that my commercial code exists within it. This does not mean that I explicitly GPL'd my commercial code. Therefore, no one with the right to GPL said code GPL'd the code.

      Keep in mind that I'm not arguing that SCO's claims are valid, I'm simply pointing out the fallacy in this commonly used argument.
      • Re:Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Shishak (12540) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:49AM (#6615608) Homepage
        Yes but SCO continued to ship the code even after they new it was in there illegally. If they shipped the code without knowledge then it isn't under GPL. They were advised of the code being in their distribution (or they wouldn't have filed a claim). They continued to ship the code in their distribution which from that point on puts it under the GPL. Following your example if you continued to ship your cool project with your licensed code after you filed a lawsuit on your customer. The licensed code would be part of the project with your knowledge and therefore placed under the GPL.
      • Re:Amazing (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Stickster (72198) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @12:24PM (#6616010) Homepage
        At issue is not necessarily whether SCO explicitly GPL'd their code. The fact is that even as they contemplated the inclusion of UNIX technologies in Linux, and even after they had come to the conclusion (right or wrong) that their IP rights were under attack, they continued to distribute the code in question under the GPL. Whether or not this indemnifies anyone by nature of the GPL is secondary to the fact that it makes SCO's claims that their "trade secrets" have been exposed, and that they have thereby been injured, specious at best. Compounding this is the additional fact that they have clearly profited from the inclusion of these technologies in Linux products that they marketed.

        Clearly, the onus is not on an IP rights owner to keep their secrets to themselves. The onus is on potential thieves. But nevertheless, their ground becomes far shakier when their own business plan has used Linux extensively, long after they concluded that those rights were being violated. Had they immediately ceased distributing Linux in any form, and notified their customers of the problem, this would have safeguarded their position somewhat. This would be expected of any corporate entity -- to exercise oversight over the products they market, and ensure that they support the company's overall business strategy. Failure to do so, and then blaming outside entities for the consequent problems, is not likely to impress any judicial body.

        The issue might come down to whether SCO's publication of the questionable code in their Linux products is equivalent to a willful exposure of their trade secrets. The terms of the GPL may not even enter into the discussion.

  • Wtf? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kmac06 (608921) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:25AM (#6615321)
    decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux

    I would say this is the pot calling the kettle black...but that just doesn't come close...

  • Whua!? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Lord Custos (518206) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:26AM (#6615324) Homepage Journal
    We have been showing a portion of this code since early June.

    Um...no you haven't. Nobody has seen this comparison but Darl McBride and his evil twin brother.
    • Re:Whua!? (Score:5, Funny)

      by GrenDel Fuego (2558) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:31AM (#6615394)
      Nobody has seen this comparison but Darl McBride and his evil twin brother.

      Is that his other brother Darl?
    • Re:Whua!? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:49AM (#6615617)
      Um...no you haven't. Nobody has seen this comparison but Darl McBride and his evil twin brother.

      I have seen the code in question, it is a shameless copy, and occurs throughout the source. Here is just a brief snip of code that is seen copied throughout:

      /*

      then there is some text that looks like linux coders put in to conceal the copied code, but it always ends exactly as the SCO code:

      */
  • SCO quote (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ckd (72611) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:26AM (#6615329) Homepage
    To my surprise, I just discovered that your company filed legal action against The SCO Group earlier today. You, of course, mentioned nothing of this during our telephone conversation. I am disappointed that you were not more forthcoming about your intentions. I am also disappointed that you have chosen litigation rather than good faith discussions with SCO about the problems inherent in Linux.

    So, they're disappointed that other people are choosing litigation, which is exactly what they did. No surprise to me, though; I'm surprised that SCO is surprised.

    • Re:SCO quote (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Sheetrock (152993) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:32AM (#6615418) Homepage Journal
      It's all PR, obviously.

      The image that SCO is trying to put forward is that of course there isn't any problem that they're going after IBM (and threatening Linux end-users) because that group is in the wrong, but they're wounded that Red Hat is opportunistically and cynically using the court system to punish them for only trying to set things right.

      It's not going to work, mind you, because this is the kind of crap long-term 'stable' investors will cut through, and the ones that are betting on SCO as a kind of crapshoot have probably already committed themselves, but if you're going to bluff (as I'm still suspecting is their activity) why go halfway?

    • by artemis67 (93453) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:49AM (#6615616)
      No surprise to me, though; I'm surprised that SCO is surprised.

      Well, no surprise, but I'm surprised that you're suprised that SCO is surprised.

      I'm just... surprised.
  • by FuzzyDaddy (584528) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:26AM (#6615335) Journal
    SCO will now get to counter sue, and can draw a major Linux player into a legal dispute it had no basis to drag it into before.

    I'm not saying that Red Hat made the wrong decision - they were injured and are suing - but I think the more Linux players SCO can get involved with litigation, the happier they will be - if they can drag out the proceedings. Imagine the boost to the "Linux has IP problems" line if all the major Linux players are tied up in litigation over IP issues.

    The best that can happen is that they lose quickly. But I bet they'll drag it out as long as they can.

    • by WCMI92 (592436) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:42AM (#6615519) Homepage
      "I'm not saying that Red Hat made the wrong decision - they were injured and are suing - but I think the more Linux players SCO can get involved with litigation, the happier they will be - if they can drag out the proceedings. Imagine the boost to the "Linux has IP problems" line if all the major Linux players are tied up in litigation over IP issues."

      The more players that sue SCO, the more resources SCO has to devote to their litigation (lawyers are whores, but they ain't cheap), the LESS time left on their life support clock...

      Linux is a multibillion dollar industry now. There are players who make money (Redhat), some make LOTS of money (IBM, HP), and others who have a dog in the fight (Linus, RMS).

      SCO's market cap is tiny compared even to Redhat's... They are outnumbered, and the more suits get targeted at THEM, most preferably in a LOT of different locales (state courts where the case won't take years to get to trial), the faster this is brought to an END.

      A lion can be brought down by a pack of hyenas. It's all the more easy when SCO isn't a lion, but a jackass... And tigers are pursuing them...

      SCO already has taken money from MS and Sun. For MS and Sun to pump more into them would speak BLATANTLY of conspiracy. In MS's case, it could be a violation of their anti trust settmelent...
    • SCO will now get to counter sue, and can draw a major Linux player into a legal dispute it had no basis to drag it into before.

      I'm not saying that Red Hat made the wrong decision - they were injured and are suing - but I think the more Linux players SCO can get involved with litigation, the happier they will be - if they can drag out the proceedings. Imagine the boost to the "Linux has IP problems" line if all the major Linux players are tied up in litigation over IP issues.

      The best that can happen is that they lose quickly. But I bet they'll drag it out as long as they can.


      Actually, I think Red Hat made the right move. By suing first, they got to pick the venue. If they waited until SCO filed suit, then that choice would go to SCO. I've seen discussions on other boards that indicate the Deleware Federal Court is less likely to put up with BS and wants to move things along quickly than other Federal courts. (Ever notice how many corporations are incorporated in Deleware?)

      So, Red Hat picks the venue. They also force SCO to fight major lawsuits in 2 different courts.

      Plus, there have been reports that SCO's lawyers on the IBM suit are on a contingency basis. This will not be the case for lawyers defending SCO in a lawsuit. So, the Red Hat suit begins draining cash that SCO probably wasn't going through in its earlier suit.

      Also, many have speculated that the whole SCO lawsuit was a stock pump and dump scheme, but right now SCO is in between closing the quarter and announcing the results. The SEC generally frowns on insider sales during this period, so Red Hat has filed--an action likely to drive down the stock--at at time that the insiders are prevented from selling without drawing major SEC scrutiny.

      All in all, I'd say it was a pretty brilliant move by Red Hat.
  • by Anonym1ty (534715) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:27AM (#6615341) Homepage Journal

    SCO's "Disappointed"? Awe poor SCO.

    Well SCO, I'm very disappointed in YOU!

    Now go to your room and don't come out until you've thought about what you've done.

  • by schon (31600) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:28AM (#6615355)
    "How dare you counter our frivolous claims with an honest-to-goodness lawsuit based on real facts!?!?!"
  • by Darth_brooks (180756) <clipper377@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:28AM (#6615358) Homepage
    We at the SCO are disappointed you did not roll over and die when we used the word lawyers.

    We are awaiting further instruction from out legal team, however this may be delayed as our current course of action provided by our lawyers lists only the phrase "2. ???" for our next step. We are awaiting clarification from them before continuing.
  • What they mean... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sprouty76 (523155) <stephen_douglas@nOspaM.yahoo.com> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:29AM (#6615360) Homepage
    Red Hat's "decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux"

    Red Hat's decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of SCO.

  • Litigation culture (Score:4, Insightful)

    by benjiboo (640195) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:29AM (#6615362)
    I'm not sure where it went wrong, but litigation culture has gone too far. Fair enough IP has to be protected, but in a lot of cases the suits seem to be against the spirit of the law, if not the letter. Maybe something is fundamentally wrong in the way in which software is protected.

    If they all just got on with building software instead of legal wranglings, everyone would be better off. It just seems that almost anyone can kick up a fuss half expecting to be bought off, just because it's easier and cheaper than lititgation.

  • by CyberGarp (242942) <Shawn@Garbett.oCHICAGOrg minus city> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:29AM (#6615368) Homepage

    I liked Red Hat's letter to SCO. So much that it leaves me wondering what would happen if every Linux user coordinated sending a copy with their demands to SCO on the same day. We could all demand responses.

    Instead of supporting their FUD campaign with license fees, we could create cost by forcing them to deal with a mountain of letters. Make sure you send it registered/certified so that someone has to sign for it.

    Just picture the tractor trailer backing up full of letters...

  • Chilling (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MAXOMENOS (9802) <maxomai@NoSpAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:30AM (#6615376) Homepage
    "His final statement-- that Red Hat's "decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux--" is chilling in light of the business strategy that SCO has adopted in its sales of UnixWare licenses to actual and potential users of the Linux kernel."

    Whatever. If SCO proves their claims, then it won't be long before the Linux community re-writes those parts that IBM contributed and makes the Linux kernel "UNIX-free."

    You'll pardon me if I'm not frightened.

  • by twisty (179219) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:30AM (#6615387) Homepage Journal
    I don't seem to remember SCO giving IBM much of a chance for "good faith discussions"
    More importantly, how can they expect "good faith discussions" from Red Hat, when they used the vehicle of their IBM press to first alledge violation on Red Hat's part?

    SCO still has not formally charged someone with copyright violation... Their only (related) suit on record is a "contract breach" with IBM. That makes great grounds for libel and fraud, considering they continue to distribute Linux code over FTP months after proclaiming this a crime against themselves!
  • by yeremein (678037) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:31AM (#6615393)
    Blake Stowell on Moglen's statement that users don't need a "copyright license":
    Copyright absolutely applies. For the same reason that a commercial user must have a valid licence to run Microsoft Word, a user must also have a valid licence to run our Unix source code.

    It was my understanding that the Microsoft EULA is the "use" license for Word--Linux customers have made no such agreement with SCO.

    In addition, Stowell admits that IBM holds the copyrights to the code in question (emphasis mine):

    While IBM owns the copyrights on these derivative Unix programs, SCO owns the control rights to these and they cannot be contributed to open source. The contracts between IBM and SCO state all of this.

    Someone please ask SCO this:

    Since IBM has the copyrights to the code in question, what recourse can SCO possibly have against end-users?

    If the contracts forbid these "derivative works" from being contributed to open source, what recourse do you have against end-users now that they have been? You don't own the copyrights for such code, and end users are not party to your contract with IBM.

    Or do you realize that you have no claim against end-users, and as such are inventing a new kind of intellectual property called "control rights"?

  • by Tumbleweed (3706) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:31AM (#6615400)
    Saddam Hussein "Disappointed" by U.S. liberation of Iraq....news at 11!
  • SCO shares (Score:4, Informative)

    by linuxislandsucks (461335) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:34AM (#6615438) Homepage Journal
    slatted to lose 35% today after 8% losss yesterday..

    burn sco group shares!
  • by cluge (114877) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:35AM (#6615455) Homepage
    What SCO said, and what they really meant

    SCO has consistently stated that our UNIX System V source code and derivative UNIX code have been misappropriated into Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels

    We just want to scare you into paying us money. Thats easier than actually producing a product that anyone wants.

    We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX.

    We have been trying to extort money from you.

    SCO's claims are true and we look forward to proving them in court.

    If we can get you to give us money, then we don't really have to prove anything. Our lawyers told us that.

    Recent correspondence from SCO to Red Hat further explains SCO's position

    Holy SH*T someone is calling our bluff, what? They have lawyers? Suing WHO? I can't belive it, threatenting to sue is the way to do business, can't we grease your palm with some of our liscence fee to make this go away?
  • by Tolchz (19162) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:37AM (#6615467) Homepage
    Toll Free within North America: 1-800-238-9007
    International: 719-457-2622
    Password to enter call: 274040

    More info at: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030805/latu080_1.html [yahoo.com]
  • by brandonY (575282) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:41AM (#6615509)
    SCO has consistently stated that our UNIX System V source code and derivative UNIX code have been misappropriated into Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels. We have been showing a portion of this code since early June. SCO has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users. We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX. Linux includes source code that is a verbatim copy of UNIX and carries with it no warranty or indemnification. SCO's claims are true and we look forward to proving them in court.
    Recent correspondence from SCO to Red Hat further explains SCO's position.
    The first letter is from Bob Bench, CFO of The SCO Group, Inc., to Mark Webbink, Sr. Vice President and General Counsel of Red Hat, Inc., that SCO intended to send to Red Hat. After a conversation between Matthew Szulik and Darl McBride, Red Hat determined that SCO did not need to send this letter.
    The second letter is one that was sent to Matthew Szulik today from Darl McBride after Red Hat's lawsuit was filed.
    July 31, 2003

    Mark Webbink, Esq.
    Sr. Vice President and General Counsel
    RED HAT, INC.
    1801 Varsity Drive
    Raleigh, NC 27606

    VIA FACSIMILE: (919) 754-3700

    Dear Mr. Webbink:

    This letter is in response to yours of July 18, 2003 to Darl McBride President and CEO of The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO").
    Before responding to your request, it is important to place your letter in context. Your letter follows on the heels of Red Hat's S-3 filing of July 7, 2003, in which your company revised its risk disclosure statement.[1] In addition, SCO is currently engaged in litigation with International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") regarding its role in the development of the Linux operating system. At the time of your letter, we had expected the possibility of a global resolution of SCO's intellectual property claims against all Linux-related companies that would have likely included Red Hat. This effort has apparently stalled, through no fault of SCO.
    Based on the posture of our litigation and your revised risk disclosures, it is unclear to us the purpose of your July 18, 2003 letter. If you desire to enter good faith discussions to address SCO's intellectual property claims against Linux, either on behalf of a wider consortium of Linux companies or solely on behalf of Red Hat, we are willing to meet with you for that purpose. In any such meeting, we will provide example after example of infringement of our intellectual property found in Linux. Of course, any such demonstration must be pursuant to an acceptable confidentiality agreement and must be intended to further good faith discussions about resolving the differences between us.
    If you seek information for the purpose of informal discovery intended to benefit IBM in the pending litigation, or for the purpose of devising
    your own litigation plans against SCO related to Linux, we must respectfully decline your request. Therefore, please clarify in writing the purpose for your request. Thank you.

    Sincerely,
    Robert Bench
    Chief Financial Officer
    The SCO Group, Inc.

    [1] Red Hat states in the revised disclosure that it is "vulnerable to claims that [its] products infringe third-party intellectual property rights particularly because [its] products are comprised of distinct software components many of which are developed by independent parties." The revised risk disclosure continues: "[M]uch of the code in [Red Hat's] products is developed by independent parties over whom we exercise no supervision or control ... [and Red Hat's] lack of access to unpublished software patent applications, copyright registrations which fail to adequately disclose source code, and numerous issued software patents that are of dubious validity ... Claims of infringement could require us to seek to obtain
  • by cavemanf16 (303184) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:43AM (#6615538) Homepage Journal
    long int infinity = 32768;
    for (i=0,i<=inifinity,++i){
    Sue();
    GetCountersued();
    CountersueCountersuer();
    }
    Profit!

    I leave it to you to work out all the bugs for SCO and upload the source via CVS to the following ftp server: ftp://ftp.scogroup.com/evilbits/code/profitengine/

    Thanks!
  • by Badgerman (19207) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:44AM (#6615550)
    A few things that stood out for me:

    SCO has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users.

    I love the way this is phrased. It sounds like it's the first they've heard of the term FUD. They're literally adressing every word of the acronym.

    We have been educating end users on the risks of running an operating system that is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX.

    The risk is that SCO will sue you, of course.

    Linux includes source code that is a verbatim copy of UNIX and carries with it no warranty or indemnification. SCO's claims are true and we look forward to proving them in court.

    "Yep, the claims are true. Really true. See how true they are. And we'll show this truth at a later date. If we need to."

    And no warranty and indemnification . . .

    In any such meeting, we will provide example after example of infringement of our intellectual property found in Linux. Of course, any such demonstration must be pursuant to an acceptable confidentiality agreement and must be intended to further good faith discussions about resolving the differences between us.

    "So, we'll provide a ton of examples, then control how you can discuss them. Trust us. You have to sign the agreement of course before we provide them"

    If you seek information for the purpose of informal discovery intended to benefit IBM in the pending litigation, or for the purpose of devising your own litigation plans against SCO related to Linux, we must respectfully decline your request.

    This makes me wonder what kind of NDA would be required to see the code anyway. It sounds like "we can show you this stuff if it never gets involved in a lawsuit, but we can sue the bejesus out of you anytime."

    To my surprise, I just discovered that your company filed legal action against The SCO Group earlier today.

    A Linux company suing SCO. Will surprises never cease.

    Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy.

    "We're going to try and turn this lawsuit into a new revenue stream for us."

    I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux.

    Pure threat. Red Hat isn't the only Linux out there. This sounds like A) A general threat and B) more of a "bring it on" attitude towards Linux in general - posturing.

    I don't think much has changed. This is the usual mix of threat and PR work.

    My two cents.
  • by Ender Ryan (79406) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:45AM (#6615559) Journal
    After all SCO's base are belonged to RedHat, IBM, etc., will SCO still have a business model to keep them afloat?

    Here's a suggestion that I am proposing for Darl McBride, which he is free to use without paying royalties to myself:

    Darl allows people to punch him in the face in exchange for money.
    I would pay good money for that!

  • by amightywind (691887) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:45AM (#6615565) Journal

    The enemies of freedom were at it again last night. On Kudlow and Kramer on CNBC some analyst hack mentioned Linux's "IP problems" in a Microsoft story. I am afraid that the SCO suit is having its intended affect by negatively influencing public opinion and support by business and analysts. By proxy with SCO, Microsoft is accomplishing what it could not do alone in creating Linux FUD.

    By the way the /. crowd has ridiculed Stallman in the past about making contributors sign legal disclosure forms for FSF programs. What do you say now, fools? Had Linus and his open source buddies been half as vigilant about the source of code contibutions, this issue would not exist.

  • by sheddd (592499) <jmeadlock@perdid ... .com minus punct> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:49AM (#6615612)
    Forbes [forbes.com]

    "Linux geeks howled a bit, but then wrote off SCO as a bunch of sleazebags and went back to playing live-action roleplaying (LARP) games in their mothers' basements, or whatever it is they do when they're not writing device drivers and complaining about clueless end users."

  • by Teahouse (267087) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:54AM (#6615658)
    This portion of the correspondence (where Red Hat explains it's intentions) is the cusp of the thing:

    "Claims of infringement could require us to seek to obtain licenses from third parties in order to continue offering our products, to reengineer our products, or to discontinue the sale of our products in the event reengineering could not be accomplished on a timely basis."

    So Red Hat requested to know what parts are infringement. The purpose is to either pay a fee to use, rewrite the stuff to eliminate infringement, or stop selling the stuff if they can't get it fixed quickly. They gave SCO 30 days to provide them with the kernel code, then decided to sue them since they were dragging their heels. This is smart. Red Hat depends on Linux (duh). They want to get this resolved. By stating clearly that they will simply rewrite the code in question, SCO balked and delayed. Red Hat's managers seem to have a good grip on how a business is run, and SCO just realized that once Red Hat makes a compliant kernel, the rest of the community will follow, and SCO will have no suit. This is the real reason they are hiding the code till trial. They won't have a case if it comes out sooner.

  • by earthforce_1 (454968) <earthforce_1@yah[ ]com ['oo.' in gap]> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:59AM (#6615705) Journal

    Until April 2005, as I recall. From my own limited experiences with the legal system, (My father involved in a complex dispute over the family farm, and a drawn out divorce) these things move at a speed akin to continental drift. The whole thing will unfold in slow motion, and like an aging wine cannot be hurried. No matter who wins the 2005 hearing, there are bound to be further rounds of settlement talks. (in the unlikely event SCO gains a partial victory) Legal action involving other Linux distributors and SCO will play out over an even longer timeframe, if there is anything left of the carcass, assuming IBM wins.

    This will be both a cash drain and an unfortunate distraction for Red Hat, but it has the positive effect of casting a longer shadow over SCO, since they are now fighting a second front. If other Linux distributors follow suit, (or perhaps band together into a class action?) and sue SCO then it will put even greater pressure on them.

  • Don't worry (Score:4, Interesting)

    by yamla (136560) <chris@@@hypocrite...org> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @11:59AM (#6615707)
    SCO distributed the linux kernel to me under the terms of the GPL just last week (it is still on their ftp servers). I'm quite willing to license the kernel to Redhat under the GPL as is my right. SCO can't claim copyright infringement or anything as they did not take down the kernel even after I emailed them last week pointing this out.
  • by sielwolf (246764) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @12:02PM (#6615734) Homepage Journal
    I think /. should put together an interview with Mr McBride. Seriously, I want to hear this guy reason and rationalize this stuff. Maybe he can come up with a good reason. Or maybe his head will spin off like a fist full of Chinese fireworks.

    How would you translate that to text? *fffffffwwwwwwwwppppp!!!*
  • by PetiePooo (606423) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @12:09PM (#6615788)

    1. ... we had expected the possibility of a global resolution of SCO's intellectual property claims against all Linux-related companies that would have likely included Red Hat.
      -- Robert Bench, Chief Financial Officer, The SCO Group, Inc.

    Take notice, all you that still believe that this is just a simple contract dispute between SCO and IBM. SCO's CFO is clearly stating that they have IP claims against the Linux kernel!

    There should be no doubt of their intents after this...
  • by the bluebrain (443451) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @12:09PM (#6615793)
    ... for some message to pop up somewhere, with some guy going
    "OH GOD! YES! I DID IT! I COPIED V5 SOURCE CODE INTO THE LINUX KERNEL.
    I'M SO SORRY! THE PRESSURE! I COULDN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE! AAAARGH! *sob*
    "

    Whereupon we can all go "you know - you're a dick" and buy him a beer. Then everyone cleans up after him.

    As to Dee McBride ... I dunno. Is this guy more or less priceless than al-Sahaf?
    Dude - *you're* disappointed? Well let me tell you how *we* feel ...
  • by mabhatter654 (561290) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @12:12PM (#6615824)
    What Red Hat is trying to do it to draw out an actual DMCA C&D letter so that they can take LEGAL action to reduce the FUD. The DMCA was created as remedy for exactly the accusations SCO is making! It is the approperate legal thing for SCO to do if they are serious about IP.


    BUT...A DMCA letter being a instant shutdown of their operation would require SCO to go to a court and validate the need for such a shutdown of Red Hat's business....No sane judge would allow a SCO to shut another down and refuse in court to tell why the offender is liable and refuse to allow the company C&D'd to become compliant. A DMCA C&D would be horrible, but it's something tangible that Red Hat can fight against rather than the "will be open to.." or "We may sue..." that SCO has been spewing lately.

  • I always Wonder. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by OS24Ever (245667) * <trekkie@nomorestars.com> on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @12:18PM (#6615912) Homepage Journal
    Why are Dell and HP so silent on this? HP 'fully supports' Linux according to recent articles yet they're keeping their lips tighter than any of them. Not even a peep.

    Last time I looked at a changelog there were several @hp.com addresses that were adding stuff to the kernal.

    What's up with that?
  • by OMG (669971) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @12:42PM (#6616236)
    I just visited the German SCO Server (online again, *sig*). Their Newsletter 01/2003 [www.sco.de] brags about SCO-Linux being ready for enterprise level applications. They state that SCO Linux (distributed under GPL AFAIK) includes code of the "Open Source Community" and the "UnitedLinux LLC, which included and integrated the functionalities critical for professional enterprise deployment" (bad translation by me ;-)).

    Then they go on talking about what great stuff there is in this release (see page 2 of the newsletter):

    * Kernel 2.4.19, KDE 3 etc
    * Improvements in the memory manager for scalability and performance
    etc.

    I don't believe they did not know what they were distributing if they advertise with this stuff.

    OK ... back to see if they still have something about this whole mess on their German server. That would cost them a lot of money now.
  • by guacamolefoo (577448) on Tuesday August 05, 2003 @01:01PM (#6616468) Homepage Journal
    Dear Mr. "CmdrTaco" Malda and other Slashdot editors:

    I appreciated the link in the story to the SCO. It is always best to get the story straight from the horse's mouth. Or, in the case of SCO, the other end of the horse. However, would it be too much trouble to put a "goatse.cx" disclaimer on further links to SCO's website? They are clearly too closely related for my comfort.

    On another issue, I understand that there has been conversation regarding changing the SCO icon from it's current Mickey Mouse looking thing to something resembling the goatse.cx picture. I, for one, cast a whole-hearted "no" vote on that potential change. I think that the current Mickey Mouse looking icon accurately reflects the nature of SCO's enterprise and that the proposed alteration might be traumatic for the younger readers of this "family" website.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    Respectfully,
    guacamolefoo

1 Mole = 25 Cagey Bees

Working...