Read the article. They're demanding $32 a copy from the OEM; in this case, the TiVo company themselves. Individual users are NOT liable for this, they cannot demand this and they won't get it. If TiVo ships code it shouldn't have, then they are liable, not their customers.

A company truly serious about a genuine claim would't be behaving this way, IMO. SCO wouldn't be trying to shake down users in advance of a judgment; rather, they'd get a judgment, and then, armed with that, their shakedown would have MUCH more teeth.

They used to use a 2.1.24 (plus mods) kernel, so they should fall outside SCO's demands. I don't know if the latest TiVos are using 2.4-based kernels, but I'd be surprised if they are.

everyone, visit

http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/index.html and tell SCO where they can stick their license fee. i.e. up their a**.

Make sure you select sales or something like that.

If you look at this, you will note that although the data is for last "two" years, it only shows actual insider trading starting (all sales) 6/20/2003. go figure!! http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html

Isn't 1789 the French Revolution? 1776 is USA independance.

March 4th, 1989 was the day set forth that the government would start operating under the Constitution prior to that the government as we know it didn't exist and therefore cannot charge for freedom prior to that date.

Datardly :-)

Is this significant?

http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html

http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/index.html [sco.com] clickable link

http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/index.html visit their webpage and tell them were they can stick their license fees.

They're demanding $32 a copy from the OEM; in this case, the TiVo company themselves.

Hmm. Maybe not. TiVo licenses their technology but the actual OEMs are Sony and Philips. Sounds even better!

SCO has gone way too far in the last couple of days.

They have not proven any claims, have not disclosed to the public what exactly is being infringed nor how it is infringed and have no legal basis for these charges they are putting forth.

IANAL, but in my view this is extortion.
And as such can be considered a felony by law.

Can some one (EFF? DOJ??) please get off your ass and sue these guys back to the TRS80 days their "IP" comes from?

The reactions towards SCO is one of sheer complacency and as far as I can tell, I and many others could be considered a felon by their new licensing terms (5 CPUs running linux = >3k, and "theft" of $2,500 is a felony)
And no disrespect to RedHat, but we need more than a counter suit here, we need SCO under the microscope of a Federal Investigation.

The US DOJ needs to get in here and bitch-slap these guys personally as they are going after US corps and US citizens for manufactured charges that have no legal weight, no basis on actual market pricing, are established purely upon allegation and in my eyes, priced to harm Linux rather than pose any sincere solution towards the Linux community.

Thus SCO is harming US consumers and corporations, is it not the DOJ's mandate to act as our protection? It's high time they weighted in.

SCO's demands have gone well past the point of obsurdity and are now taking on more aggressive and rabid tones that though dismissable, should not have to be tolerated by law abiding citizens and corporations by a company that is taking actions that are highly suspect in legality.

That means that we're [lanl.gov] going to have to pay $209,700 for the aprox. 300 nodes in the Space Simulator [lanl.gov] cluster.

That's nearly 40% of the original entire cost of the cluster! If that isn't a good advertisment to use Linux (at least, as long as it remains free or until SCO's claims actually become founded - hah!), I don't know what is!

Check out Tivo's Linux page [tivo.com]

Looks to me like they've been using 2.4 since Tivo Software version 3.0

This was in a link from the main article:


"One could argue that developers could write exact or very similar code, but the developers' comments in the code are basically your DNA, or fingerprints, for a particular piece of source code," said Laura DiDio, a senior analyst with the Yankee Group (Boston), who viewed the evidence.


Um, yeah, right ok. My comments are my "fingerprints", just like my "DNA", or a snowflake, no two are exactly alike.

This has got to be one of the most ridiculuous things I've ever heard.

Who is this Lauro Dildo anyway and why do all these articles quote her so frequently? She's obviously an uninformed twat.

SCO has been getting fairly positive coverage from the Deseret News. Today, they ran a story [deseretnews.com] that basically regurgitates their party line.

A couple of interesting tidbits from the story:

"Red Hat thinks that we should show them every line of infringing code so they can make changes and go forward with a complete disregard for our business rights," [McBride] said[...]"

IOW, the Linux community shouldn't be allowed to correct the infringement, but should instead be forced to pay royalties to SCO until the end of time.

Also, it says that the suit against IBM isn't going to trial until April 2005.

The Salt Lake Tribune takes a more pro-community stance in this story [sltrib.com]. It quotes Bruce Perens as saying, "Let me make it clear how dangerous the SCO license is to customers. If you buy it, you can be sued by each and every copyright holder of GPL software in a Linux system for infringing upon their copyright and violating the terms of their license. That's tens of thousands of potential plaintiffs."

Oh, and Laura DiDio compares Linux developers to a 60's hippie commune. It's a fun read. Could someone please remind me why this woman is qualified to have an opinion on anything?

SCO.com? The one running Apache on Linux? [netcraft.com]

They'll probably sue themselves next. There's not many targets left anyway.

From the afforementioned link:
-----
The embedded Linux licensing move "is extortion based on fraud. They are out to shake down people for what they can get," said Inder Singh, chairman of the Embedded Linux Consortium and chief executive of embedded Linux and real-time operating system maker LynuxWorks (San Jose). Neither the consortium nor his company has had any communications from SCO on the royalty demand, Singh said.
-----

Time to take the gloves off, and make sure words like "fraud", "extortion" and "racketeering" appear prominently in commentaries, to be picked up in the mainstream press whenever SCO issues press releases like this. Don't worry anymore about being sued for libel by SCO - The way things look, they will have the courts tied up until the end of the century, assuming there is anything left of them.

Emminent Domain also requires the government to compensate the individual/goup from which they seize the property... The only reason I know this is because I'm from Chicago and when they moved Comiskey Park (where the Chicago White Sox baseball team plays) across the street some very stubborn folks didn't want to move. Took the Sox to court. The state stepped in and used Eminent Domain to take their property, but had to pay them a pretty penny to do so.

Not to mention the fact that the Series 1 Tivos use a 2.2 kernel, and thus would not be subject to any action even if SCO's claims are true. SCO only alleges copied code in 2.4.x kernels. The article made no mention of Tivo, I guess the submitter made the assumption that Tivo would be subject to this.

The original tivo code base was forked from Linux v2.1! Yes, v2.1. The series2 (and maybe everything now) is based from v2.4.4. I seriously doubt Tivo has anything to worry about as they've made numerous changes to the kernel (scheduling and I/O systems.) Plus, they can always tell SCO to kiss their [censored] and return to 2.1.whatever.

As much as I hate to be accountable for inciting violence, I think it's time to call for a jehad. Someone go tell Milton, SCO has his stapler!

SEC reports from SCO [sec.gov]

The insider purchases and sales are "Form 4". Insiders have to file these within 48-72 hours or something like that.

If you wanna learn a little bit about being a stock geek ... read on.

First, how to find the stuff. Start at www.sec.gov. Look in the second section, "Filings and Forms". You can read the "Quick Edgar Tutorial" if you want, or go straight into "Search for Company Filings".

Click on "Companies & Other Filers" and type in "SCO".

Choose "Sco Group Inc".

Click on all the filings and start reading financialese. Hell, if you know any programming languages or scripting languages, financialese is not that hard to figure out.

Form 4 is "insider sales and purchases".
Form 10-Q is "quarterly report".
Form 10-K is "annual report".
Form PRE 14A and Form DEF 14A are the "proxy statement".

The proxy statement is where you find out how many shares and options the executives and directors get.

The form 4 is where you see many SCO execs selling mucho stock.

An executive can be fined or serve jail time if they lie in these reports, or if they fail to provide required information, so the quality of the information is better than other stuff they say which is NOT under penalty of perjury.

Watch out for the "risk factors". The way that companies get around the "must tell truth" and "must tell whole truth" requirements is to swamp their risk factors with extraneous crap. Like, for instance, the risk factors might say: "1. Martians might invade and disrupt our market. 2. Microsoft sells a product just like ours. 3. Airplanes might fly into our headquarters in Duluth. 4. Our top executives might catch Ebola." Only #2 is a real risk factor but they swamp it.

About 80% of the financial information available on the web is derivative of these reports, so if you read them on sec.gov, you get better info and cut out a lot of crap. Anything news-related takes a good long time to get into an SEC-report so you still have to read the news, but you can dig a lot of information out of the forms.

Have fun!

From the article:

"The $32 fee applies to any embedded system regardless of whether it is a Tivo set-top box which uses embedded Linux or some models of the Sharp Zaurus which also use that kernel."

Isn't 2.1.x a development branch? I thought 2.0.x and 2.2.x were the stable branches... oh well.

It seems strange that TiVo would've gone with 2.1 instead of 2.2, but that's what they did...

bash-2.02# cat /proc/version
Linux version 2.1.24-TiVo-2.5 (build@buildmaster12) (gcc version 2.8.1) #8 Wed May 8 15:38:27 PDT 2002
bash-2.02#

According to this page [tivo.com], TiVo switched to 2.4 for Series 2. They most likely did this for the USB support (plug a USB Ethernet dongle into a Series 2 and it'll "phone home" over your broadband connection).

Actually, it did: "The $32 fee applies to any embedded system regardless of whether it is a Tivo set-top box which uses embedded Linux or..."

Not only routers, but Cisco runs Linux on their NAMs (Network Analysis Modules...commonly found in 65xx switches)

Spend your revenue on anti-sco shirts, procceds to benifit open source now legal fund Suck it SCO [cafepress.com]

Phone or email your local SCO office: http://www.sco.com/worldwide/ [sco.com]

Sort of, but not really.

IBM declines to indemnify. That reveals uncertainty.

There are two factors to uncertainty: the risk that the event will happen times the cost of the event. The risk is low, especially as SCO is acting like a PR firm (and gets paid like one -- check out where their revenues come from). But the cost is huge. So (low risk) * (high cost) == wildly uncertain outcome. Nobody wants to step into that.

Underneath that, though, there is a real issue. Take the FSF's products for instance. With a few months of time, and cooperation from the FSF and its contributors, a small group of engineers could identify the origin of 99.9% of the source code in gcc and correlate it back to copyright assignments with physical signatures and indemnity clauses. RMS and Moglen knew what the fuck they were doing when they set up that system. I am not an expert on copyright protection, but I think it would be feasible for a company to do this and sell indemnified copies of gcc, if there were customer demand to pay for such a thing.

I've heard that IBM provides indemnification for Websphere, which includes Apache.

It helps that the kernel is under source control now. I hope that Torvalds is thinking about how to defend against this sort of attack in the future.

Here's some phone numbers you can call to tell them how you feel: Call John Medved at 1-801-932-5404. Or, you can leave a message at 1-801-932-5800 if you call after 5:30 PM (SCO time - e.g. bogus-time). Finally, call a customer service representative at 1-800-726-8649 and say you want to buy a license for Linux. Give them a fake credit card number or whatever, and a fake name. But call from a payphone if you call the 800 # since they can see your caller ID info even if your phone is blocked if you call an 800 #. Use a dial-around for the long distance #'s or a phone card or do that *72 or whatever it is thing... Have fun!

...like they want to piss the world off. My boyfriend...

Er. I really didn't realize the trouble that would cause, apologies. Me? Gay. I just had to say it before slashdot turned into a show on Bravo.

I do know several nice girls at Cal Tech though!

SCO Risk Factors [sec.gov]

Jesus. Read some of this stuff, it basically outlines exactly what they've been trying. It was Filed on the 13th of June.

Risk Factors

We do not have a history of profitable operations.

The April 30, 2003, quarter was our first quarter of profitability. If we do not receive SCOsource licensing revenue in future quarters and our revenue from the sale of our operating system platform products and services continues to decline, we will need to further reduce operating expenses in order to maintain profitability or generate positive cash flow. If we are unable to generate positive cash flow from operations, we will not be able to implement our business plan without additional funding, which may not be available to us.

Our future SCOsource licensing revenue is uncertain.

We initiated the SCOsource licensing effort in January 2003 to review the status of UNIX licensing and sublicensing agreements and to identify others in the industry that may be currently using our intellectual property without obtaining the necessary licenses. This effort resulted in the execution of two license agreements during the April 30, 2003 quarter. These two license agreements will be typical of those we expect to enter into with developers, manufacturers, and distributors of operating systems in that they are non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, paid up licenses to utilize the UNIX source code, including the right to sublicense that code. Due to a lack of historical experience and the uncertainties related to SCOsource licensing revenue, we are unable to estimate the amount and timing of future licensing revenue, if any. If we do receive revenue from this source, it may be sporadic and fluctuate from quarter to quarter. SCOsource licensing revenue is unlikely to produce stable, predictable revenue for the foreseeable future.

There's so much more...

Pursuit of the litigation against IBM and, potentially, others will be costly, and we expect our costs for legal fees could be substantial. In addition, we may experience a decrease in revenue as a result of the loss of sales of Linux products and initiatives previously undertaken jointly with IBM and others affiliated with IBM. We anticipate that participants in the Linux industry will seek to influence participants in the markets in which we sell our products to reduce or eliminate the amount of our products and services that they purchase. There is also a risk that the assertion of our intellectual property rights will be negatively viewed by participants in our marketplace and we may lose support from such participants. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect our position in the marketplace and our results of operations.

Go read. Now. Jesus christ. They have like 3 pages of this stuff.

Insightful, yes. Informative, no.

Clinton got more then 50% of the vote, and so did Gore.

No, they didn't.

Clinton received 43.09% of the popular vote in 1992.
Clinton received 49.24% of the popular vote in 1996.

Bush received 47.89% of the popular vote in 2000.
Gore received 48.38% of the popular vote in 2000.

Sources:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_el ection,_1992 [wikipedia.org]
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_el ection,_1996 [wikipedia.org]
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm [fec.gov]

Just so everyone knows, you get a confirmation message to prevent abuse.

My mail so far...

Hello, this is the qconfirm mail-handling program. One or more messages
from you are being held because your address was not recognized.

To release your pending message(s) for delivery, please reply to this
request. Your reply will not be read, so an empty message is fine.

If you do not reply to this request, your message(s) will eventually be
returned to you, and will never be delivered to the envelope recipient.

This confirmation verifies that your message(s) are legitimate and not
junk-mail.

Regards, the qconfirm program, http://smarden.org/qconfirm/

--- Below this line is the top of a message from you.

According to SCO's 2nd Quarter 10-Q [sec.gov] released on June 13, 2003 they have accumulated a deficit of $202,517,000.

Here are some interesting tidbits from the quarterly:

(1)The Company's revenue has historically been from two sources: (i) product license revenue, primarily from product sales to resellers and end users, and royalty revenue from product sales by source code OEMs; and (ii) service and support revenue, primarily from providing software updates, support and education and consulting services to end users. During the quarter ended April30, 2003, the Company recognized its first licensing revenue from its intellectual property initiative, SCOsource.

(2)Pursuit of the litigation against IBM and, potentially, others will be costly, and management expects the costs for legal fees could be substantial. In addition, the Company may experience a decrease in revenue as a result of the loss of sales of Linux products and initiatives previously undertaken jointly with IBM and others affiliated with IBM. The Company anticipates that participants in the Linux industry will seek to influence participants in the markets in which we sell our products to reduce or eliminate the amount of our products and services that they purchase. There is also a risk that the assertion of the Company's intellectual property rights will be negatively viewed by participants in our marketplace and we may lose support from such participants. Any of the foregoing could adversely affect the Company's position in the marketplace and our results of operations. The ultimate outcome or potential effect on the Company's results of operations or financial position is not currently known or determinable.

[..then you get to the 'Oh and by the way we dont make any money' section]
(3)Risk Factors

We do not have a history of profitable operations.

The April30, 2003, quarter was our first quarter of profitability. If we do not receive SCOsource licensing revenue in future quarters and our revenue from the sale of our operating system platform products and services continues to decline, we will need to further reduce operating expenses in order to maintain profitability or generate positive cash flow. If we are unable to generate positive cash flow from operations, we will not be able to implement our business plan without additional funding, which may not be available to us.

Obviously MS had an ulterior motive in legitimizing SCO's claims by happily paying those fees. That way everyone can't call them the bad guys if SCO manages to suck the life out of Linux.

How about an even easier [sco.com] link?

http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/thanks.html?lo cation=206&category=8&Email=bill%40microsoft.com&s ubject=Money%20well%40spent%41&message=Thanks%20fo r%20all%20the%20great%20Linux%20FUD%41

They've gone from seeming credible and aggressive to humorous and generally a giant joke

What part of this bullshit has ever been credible? The whole idea of accusing people who open their code up for public review theives was utter bullshit from day one. Only someone completely imersed in closed source nonsense would have given any of this a second thought. People who write their code from scratch and give it away as free have no need whatsoever to "steal" anyone else's code. That's what losers like Microsoft do. Anything that anyone might have maliciously put into the kernel can be removed and replaced in a mater of days if only SCO had any to point to. SCO's losses from 80 lines of code are as imposible to prove as the code is impossible to point at. It's never been funny, it's always been a huge insult. I'm not laughing about it.

I'm happy Microsoft put these idiots up to this. Anyone in the technical world with the slightest clue hates SCO and Microsoft with a virulent hatred by now. It takes about 2 seconds to explain what free software it to a complete neophyte, and another 2 seconds for them to understand how stupid this SCO shit is. The backlash will have more people than ever bailing out of Microsoft.

Here's a good example of how much resentment exists out there, and something that did make me laugh. Today, I talked to a young lady who was so agrivated by Microsoft's licensing that she cursed out a service representative over the phone from her place of work. She mentioned something about "hacked code". She was amazed to learn that free software was not some kind of backroom conspiracy to steal code, that it was all legal, legitimate and intended to be shared, not some "cracked junk from Cairo that phones home to share porn or God knows what." I cracked up when realized that Microsoft's service department had been cursed out by a young lady studying at a seminary of the same denomination that gave us Mr. Rodgers.

You can happily go to http://www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm [sec.gov] to file a complaint to SEC regarding SCO and see what happens.

I would suggest using semi-legitimate information when posting to their site. If you submit retarded stuff, they will recognize it and just delete it.

If you send a lot of questions about compliance and such, while trying to sound like a concerned businessman w/ a checkbook in hand, you will end up wasting them a lot of time and resources.

I often do this when a company shafts me. I have some pre-fab documents I wrote that are wordy and difficult to read, I will then add questions relating to a business transaction in them and start emailing service, support, and other groups inside said company. It's amazing how often I'll get a reply that probably took 5-30 minutes of someone's time.

Another option is calling repeatedly to different groups and waste time asking dumb questions. Back about 5 years ago when I did tech support, I recall the metrics working out to around $3/minute after my salary, benefits, electricity, infrastructure, etc were added up.

You get thousands of people to systematically converge on a company's customer service and support and they will fall apart. Actual customers will be irate at jammed phone lines and slow email responses. You will have issued a collective smackdown to be proud of.

Perhaps I should start a web site with instructions, times, and companies to hit. Sound like a plan? I could use slashdot code for it! :)

My guess was that originally, they'd just walk way from this, as a pump-n-dump. If so, it's going to happen soon.

Most of their exec's already have done the dump [yahoo.com] part, so whens the walk away part going to happen?

>>Well...no. It's a pretty safe guess that SCO isn't dumb. They'll be setting you up with a license (note: one may want to be fucking careful signing into licensing agreements with SCO, considering IBM's situation) that says that they won't press charges against you for any claims they have on Linux, or something along those lines. You aren't *buying* anything. One thing I remember from watching way too much Law and Order (which still does not make me a lawyer) is that contracts can never be used as a shield against criminal charges, and if the activities that brought about the contract were criminal, then the contract is null and void. btw, once again, ianal. So if SCOs activities are determined to be fraudulent, then yes you can sue them, or more precicely, what is left of them.