Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera Software Linux

SCO - EV1, Licensees, Groklaw, Armed Guards 778

Posted by simoniker
from the many-tidbits dept.
Camel Pilot writes "It looks like the CEO of EV1Servers underestimated the reaction to giving in to SCO demands and licensing Linux. I know we were looking for a new hosting home, and had EV1 at the top of the list, but now they are not even a consideration..." An anonymous reader writes "InfoWorld has an article with more info on Computer Associates denying being a SCO Linux licensee." Also, Mick Ohrberg writes "Pamela Jones, creator of Groklaw, an independent legal research site, responds to some allegations presented by SCO CEO Darl McBride." Finally, an anonymous reader writes "According to the Deseret News, Darl McBride says he sometimes carries a gun because his enemies are out to kill him. He checks into hotels under assumed names. An armed body guard protected him at Harvard Law School when he gave a speech last month." Update: 03/08 20:17 GMT by S : cdlu writes "Now the SEC is unofficially confirming some interest in the SCO and Microsoft connection, according to Newsforge [part of OSDN, like this site]."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO - EV1, Licensees, Groklaw, Armed Guards

Comments Filter:
  • Nice (Score:5, Informative)

    by big_groo (237634) <groovis&gmail,com> on Monday March 08, 2004 @03:11PM (#8501676) Homepage
    "The contract that we signed with SCO specifically prohibits any party from discussing the economics of the transaction. If you have an agreement that calls for certain aspects to be protected, then you would hope that that would be respected."

    Sue the litigious bastards [sco.com]. They'd sue you.

  • by KingOfBLASH (620432) on Monday March 08, 2004 @03:11PM (#8501684) Journal
    Darl McBride, chief executive of SCO Group Inc., says he sometimes carries a gun because his enemies are out to kill him. He checks into hotels under assumed names. An armed body guard protected him at Harvard Law School when he gave a speech last month.

    Darl McBride
    Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux operating system, calls SCO "the most despised company in technology."
    The reason: SCO is claiming rights to the Linux open source software code that thousands of users and supporters say should have no owner. SCO brought a $50 billion suit against International Business Machines Corp. last year and last week turned on Linux users DaimlerChrysler AG and AutoZone Inc., suing for an injunction and unspecified damages.
    "We are fighting the big battle," McBride said in a telephone interview from his office at SCO headquarters in Lindon.
    McBride, 44, is pitting SCO against an industry it once helped develop. Less than two years ago SCO, formerly Caldera International Inc., was helping to form a standard version of Linux to compete with Microsoft Corp.'s Windows. Once McBride took the helm in June 2002, the company changed tack, hired attorney David Boies and began claiming that Linux users infringed on SCO's intellectual property.
    Linux has attracted thousands of individuals and companies, some of whom see it as the only credible threat to Windows. Others use it because it's cheaper.
    The software is now being used by companies ranging from DaimlerChrysler, the world's largest maker of luxury cars, to Lehman Brothers Inc, the fourth-largest U.S. securities firm by capital, to Google Inc., the world's most widely used Internet search engine. Lockheed Martin Corp., the world's largest defense contractor, also has servers that run on Linux as part of its computer network.
    IBM pushes computers that run on the Linux operating system. Shipments of Linux-powered server computers, fast machines used to run Web sites, rose 53 percent in the fourth quarter, more than double the rate of Windows servers, market researcher IDC said.
    McBride and SCO are more hated than Microsoft, the world's largest software maker, and its chairman, Bill Gates, according to some Linux backers. That's because SCO, once a backer of Linux, has turned around and attacked the essence of the system: its free source code.
    "SCO are just complete hypocrites," said Jeremy Allison, co-author of Samba, an open-source software that runs a file and print service that SCO sells.
    SCO says it owns the copyright to the Unix system and that parts of the Unix code have been copied into Linux. SCO is demanding payment from each user of Linux. Novell Inc. separately is disputing SCO's claim to Unix.
    SCO claims IBM is distributing the Linux software containing its copyrighted Unix code. It claims companies such as Red Hat Inc. are building products using the same code. The company broadened its legal attack by suing AutoZone for using software that contains the code, and DaimlerChrysler for not certifying that Unix, which it obtained via license with SCO, has been used inappropriately.
    DaimlerChrysler spokesman Han Tjan said he had no comment on SCO's suit. AutoZone Chief Executive Steve Odland declined to comment on the claims. IBM spokeswoman Trink Guarino said the suit is groundless and the company will contest it.
    Linux, invented in 1991 by Torvalds as a student in Finland, found converts in part because it was a free, publicly shared operating system. Anyone can work on and modify the source code of Linux. By contrast, Microsoft licenses its Windows code only to select partners, which don't have permission to make changes.
    McBride is getting the most heat from the thousands of volunteers who have worked on Linux over the past 13 years. They say SCO has no claim on the code.
    "The real reason why people don't like SCO, and Darl McBride in particular, is that he is so dishonest," Torvalds, 34, said in an e-mail.
    McBride has done battle before. He compares
  • by isn't my name (514234) <slash.threenorth@com> on Monday March 08, 2004 @03:15PM (#8501735)
    According to Newsforge [newsforge.com] there is likely already an SEC investigation ongoing.

    Also, to plug my own horn, I've written up a few things on the financial dealings [threenorth.com]. Most are from August 2003, but the most recent relates to the Anderer memo. [threenorth.com]
  • by LostCluster (625375) * on Monday March 08, 2004 @03:17PM (#8501755)
    That's not so easy. EV1 doesn't have root over its customers boxes. They're not a managed hosting service. Therefore, forcing customers who don't want to switch OSes would be a messy process.
  • by Animats (122034) on Monday March 08, 2004 @03:19PM (#8501781) Homepage
    See Clarification - CA Signs Licenses. [yahoo.com]. This Dow Jones story is very negative on SCO, and it appears on most stock-related sites, although it's not up on Bloomberg yet.

    SCOX is down 2% today, reaching a new low for 2004. The stock has been in a screaming dive [yahoo.com] since December, dropping from 19 to 11.

  • by PCM2 (4486) on Monday March 08, 2004 @03:22PM (#8501820) Homepage
    McBride has done battle before. He compares his fight with Linux supporters to the time when his family caught thieves stealing cattle from their ranch in Utah.
    Really? I'd more compare it to the time he sued his own employers [thecopiernetwork.com] over his personal compensation package.
  • by isn't my name (514234) <slash.threenorth@com> on Monday March 08, 2004 @03:25PM (#8501869)
    I'm thinking that 'Ole Darl may have made the final plunge into the Tin Foil Hat club.

    Speaking of tinfoil hats, the following from a long, somewhat boring, analysis of SEC docs that SCO has filed [threenorth.com]:

    # Jul 2002 McBride is hired
    # Aug 2002 Morgan Keegan is hired
    # Aug 2002 Caldera changes name to The SCO Group
    # Sep/Nov/? 2002 MS memo discussing using intellectual property as an attack against open source is floating around in Germany and later publically
    # Oct - Dec 2002 SCO later admits to beginning to look at its own intellectual properties and first makes noise about UnixWare binary libraries.
    # Jan 2003 SCO creates stronger language to indemnify its officers of criminal activity
    # Dec? 2002 - Jan? 2003 At some point Boies is brought in, likely via Morgan Keegan, to negotiate license/stock deals with Sun and Microsoft
    # Feb 2003 Morgan Keegan clarifies its arrangement with SCO and includes language indicating they are anticipating an IBM buyout, though without naming IBM specifically
    # Feb 2003 Boies finalizes his agreement with SCO to sue IBM
    # March 2003 IBM lawsuit
    # Jul/Aug 2003 Anderer joins
    # Oct 2003 Anderer e-mail penned
    # Oct 2003 PIPE deal
    # Nov 2003 Boies has no one from law firm at key press conference
    # Nov 2003 Boies gets 20% of PIPE deal
    # Dec 2003 PIPE investors get veto power over Boies payouts
    # Nov/Dec/? 2003 16 to 20 million deal discussed by Anderer never happens
  • In other SCO News... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Performer Guy (69820) on Monday March 08, 2004 @03:27PM (#8501891)
    It hasn't been covered yet although I've submitted the article yesterday and it is still pending but the most significant development in the SCO debacle is here [groklaw.net], this broke on Saturday, basically Opinder Bawa, SCO's senior VP in charge of technology and development has been advocating the use of the Unix ABI with Linux and linking to a downloadable module to help SCO's ABI work on Linux, both admitting that Linux is thoroughly incompatible while encouraging what they've been implying is infringing use. This is quite stunning considering that SCO has been implausibly claiming copyright over Linux ABI headers.

    And of course groklaw has news today that the SEC may be taking an active interest in the Microsoft SCO relationship on various grounds.
  • by MooseByte (751829) on Monday March 08, 2004 @03:35PM (#8501991)

    Just ran across this updated article [cnn.com] on CNN Money. Nice to see the larger media outlets finally showing some responsible journalism vs. just regurgitating Darl's press releases.

    Now if only the SEC is truly, finally looking into this whole scam...!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @03:35PM (#8501995)
    End Reader Licensing Agreement

    By reading this, you agree not to sue me and not to use this information in any illegal manner.

    Here's all the contact info you should ever need for Mr. McBride.

    The SCO Group
    355 South 520 West
    Suite 100
    Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
    801-765-4999 phone
    801-765-1313 fax

    Contact SCO online
    http://www.thescogroup.com/company/feedbac k/index. html

    Darl C McBride
    1799 Vintage Oak Ln
    Salt Lake City, UT 84121-6539

    Darl's home phone #: (801)424-2006
    Darl's office phone #: 801-932-5820

    Email Darl: darl@sco.com
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @03:36PM (#8502001)
    No, a screaming dive is what Sulzer stock did in 2002 when news of a $2B judgement against them related to an implant negligence suit broke.

    Then went from $65/share in Mid-June to $6.50/share in the beginning of July. They lost 90% of their market cap.

    That's a screaming dive.

    You'll note Sulzer no longer exists as such. The landing was hard, too.

    A 3 month drop to 55% or so is fast, yes, but it's a ramp and not a cliff.
  • Re:Give me a break!! (Score:3, Informative)

    by slipgun (316092) on Monday March 08, 2004 @03:40PM (#8502044)
    He lives in Utah though, doesn't he? Isn't that a 'shall-issue' state with regard to carry licenses?
  • by gmhowell (26755) <gmhowell@gmail.com> on Monday March 08, 2004 @03:48PM (#8502154) Homepage Journal
    The NewsForge story is nothing of the sort. The only comment by the SEC is that there have been a flood of complaints coming in with regularity over the past few months. The bulk have come via the web. IOW, all the folks who post a link to the SEC complaint page in /. stories have had people follow up and fill out the form. I assume the 'regularity' refers to the fact that people hit the page as often as /. posts a new story on SCO.

    Not saying it isn't necessarily a good thing, but it's not exactly 'news'.

  • Groklaw is reporting [groklaw.net] on a Newsforge article [newsforge.com] that the FTC is investigating the apparent SCO/MS link exposed in the Halloween X document. I guess that some things are too obvious for even the Bush administration to totally ignore.
    The FTC will not officially acknowledge it, but their comments made by officials indicate that the deal (possibly among others) is definitely on their radar.
  • by bstadil (7110) on Monday March 08, 2004 @03:58PM (#8502306) Homepage
    A classic example of propaganda I've ever seen one..

    You might get a kick out of reading Twenty five rules to suppress truth [datawest.net]. The url was send to me and others from Jeff at TheLinuxshow [thelinuxshow.com]today.

  • by sulli (195030) * on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:04PM (#8502409) Journal
    In California, you need a concealed carry permit [state.ca.us] issued by the county sheriff. From the CA website:

    May I carry a concealed firearm in California? Except in extremely limited circumstances, you may not carry a concealed firearm on your person in public unless you have a valid CCW license. CCW permits are issued only by a county sheriff to residents of the county, or by the head of a city police department to residents of that city.

    I live in another state and have a permit to carry a concealed handgun that was issued in my home state. Does my permit allow me to carry a concealed handgun while in California? No. Weapons permits from other states are not valid in California.

    The City and County of San Francisco is downright parsimonious [sfbg.com] in issuing CCW permits:

    San Francisco is the toughest city in California, if not America, in which to be granted a CCW permit. Currently there are only five permits issued to non-law enforcement personnel in the city. (as of June 2003)

    So if Darl carried his weapon concealed in San Francisco, and he has not obtained a permit from Sheriff Hennessey (a reporter could easily ask), he's broken California state law, and should go to jail or at least pay a stiff fine. (Had the weapon remained in a locked container [state.ca.us], he would be okay.)

  • Re:Uh Huh (Score:4, Informative)

    by FyRE666 (263011) * on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:04PM (#8502417) Homepage
    As a young man, McBride participated in rodeo events and helped perform chores with his cowboy father...

    My how he's grown! Now instead of clearing up bullshit, he's spreading it around...
  • Re:Give me a break!! (Score:2, Informative)

    by proteinaceous (260982) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:06PM (#8502442)
    > That may well be so, but the law in various parts of the United > States does not allow one to carry firearms

    Actually, 37 states are "shall-issue" states meaning any law-abiding adult (age varies by state) citizen can carry concealed firearms. Some of those states require state-approved proficiency tests, written tests (mostly testing legal issues) and/or a physicians approval of mental status. Nevertheless, in those states it's not that difficult to obtain a concealed carry permit. Utah (where I imagine Darl lives) is a "shall-issue" state.

    Eight other states are "restricted carry" states (usually) meaning a citizen has to prove a "need" to carry a concealed weapon. A demonstratable "need", however, is pretty nebulous.

    Only 4 states and D.C. don't allow citizens to carry concealed weapons for any reason.

    Surprisingly, open carry is legal in many states...though I imagine you'd be very popular with the police.

    > In San Francisco, for example, where Darl claimed he had
    > armed bodyguards inside the Moscone Center. Were they
    > properly licensed in the City of SF?

    I imagine they were properly licensed in the state of California. California is a "restricted carry" state. I imagine a bodyguard can probably demonstrate a "need" to carry to satisfy the state requirements. There are a lot of celebrities in California and a number of them have (probably armed) bodyguards.

    Anyway, I'm not debating the politics of this...just pointing out the current laws.
  • by PetiePooo (606423) on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:09PM (#8502494)
    "This is a very difficult issue for us," Marsh said. "It is a huge disappointment to us that we would be thrown in the same bucket, so to say, with the SCO Group. We didn't make any admission that their IP was used in Linux. Our public position is certainly not to support that, and our intent was simply to take us out of the loop, not to make us public enemy number one."
    - - Robert Marsh, CEO, EV1Servers


    Captain Cheese, I suspect that many people simply don't trust a CEO that would make such a foolish, but expensive, impulse decision. If you believe SCO has a snowball's chance in hell, then you buy "insurance." However, if you're in tune enough with the tech community, then you know better than to throw your money away.

    And where does CEO Marsh's money come from? The people who host their servers with his company! Every dollar spent on SCO means a dollar that they cannot spend on servers, maintenance, preventative maintenance, etc.

    I'm all for the public outcry and boycotts. The more noise us Linux supporters make, the less people will buy from SCO, the quicker they fold and this thing goes away.. It just takes some people a little while to learn that you're either with us, or your against us on this issue.
  • dont use serverbeach (Score:3, Informative)

    by Indy1 (99447) <spamtrap@fuckedregime.com> on Monday March 08, 2004 @04:29PM (#8502752) Homepage
    they are a major spam haus [spamhaus.org]

  • by Keighvin (166133) on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:26PM (#8503371)
    I would like clarification on your statement as to the similarities between the Church of Scientology and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka., Mormons);

    My basic understanding of the premise of Scientology is that of an alien influenced creation lore, and the continued influence of those entities on regular terrestrial habitation. In order to be aware of, and excise the resulting influence, certain levels of mental discipline must be achieved (though as mentioned this theology is a thinly veiled means of brainwashing and embezzling funds).

    The Mormon/LDS theology is about the restoration of the organization and authority of the original establishment created by the Godhead in the early ages of man, and reiterated by the coming of Christ. The manifest principles of this premise are deeply rooted in mainstream Christian/Judaic theologies (including the temple ordinances).

    So, help me out a little here - I'm not seeing the significant overlap between the two.
  • Like this? (Score:-1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 08, 2004 @05:27PM (#8503383)
    <font face="symbol">
    The SCO Group
    355 South 520 West
    Suite 100
    Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
    801-765-4999 phone
    801-765-1313 fax

    Contact SCO online
    http://www.thescogroup.com/company/feedbac k/index. html

    Darl C McBride
    1799 Vintage Oak Ln
    Salt Lake City, UT 84121-6539

    Darl's home phone #: (801)424-2006
    Darl's office phone #: 801-932-5820

    Email Darl: darl@sco.com
    </font>
  • Re:Umm, hello??? (Score:4, Informative)

    by rewt66 (738525) on Monday March 08, 2004 @06:22PM (#8503868)
    Yes, they do have a history of being racist, both in doctrine (blacks were the cursed sons of Ham, who received black skin as a mark of their curse) and in practice (within the Mormon church, blacks were denied the priesthood until 1979 or thereabouts).

    "The polygamy crap" that you see on the news now is grounds for excommunication from the Mormon church, but until about 1890 it was official church doctrine (you couldn't reach the highest level of heaven - which enabled you to become a god yourself - unless you were a polygamist). But the church changed it's position (current doctrine is that polygamy is only for the hereafter, but will get you excommunicated if you do it here and now). But there are a number of Mormon-ish splinter groups who believe that the Mormon church was correct before 1890 but went astray when they abandoned polygamy, and said splinter groups adhere (more or less) to the official pre-1890 Mormon doctrine.

    For the record: I live in Utah, I'm not Mormon, but I pay attention to their position.

  • Re:Give me a break!! (Score:3, Informative)

    by iiioxx (610652) <iiioxx@gmail.com> on Monday March 08, 2004 @06:32PM (#8503958)
    An AR-15 (or other "civilian" equivalent of a Military assault rifles) lack an automatic capability because there is a catch in the receiver. File off the catch and you have a machine gun.

    Okay, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. First of, that "catch" is called a disconnector. The purpose of the disconnector is to grab the hammer after a round has been fired and while the trigger is still depressed. The purpose of this is to prevent the hammer from cycling forward again until the bolt is securely seated in the chamber with a new round.

    Yes, on a fully automatic weapon, the disconnector is disengaged when the selector switch is set to Auto. HOWEVER, there is another part called the sear which serves the same purpose as the disconnector. The only difference between the disconnector and the sear, is that the sear is automatically released as the bolt is seated and the disconnector is not.

    Now, if someone decided to convert their semi-auto AR-15 to full auto by filing down the disconnector, they would in fact succeed in acquiring a fully automatic weapon. However, their success would be short-lived, as the weapon would be slam-firing. This means that because the bolt is not given time to fully seat, the round is being discharged as the bolt is seating into the chamber. This will create a fully automatic weapon that is prone to blowing up in the shooter's face.

    Not a real bright idea, eh?

    People who illegally convert weapons like this have a tendency to solve the problem themselves. The best part is, when they wake up in the hospital with half their face missing, they still get to look forward to ten years in a federal prison for violating the 1986 ban on manufacturing full auto weapons for civilian use (conversion == manufacture).

    Actual conversion of a semi-automatic AR-15 to a full-auto M16 requires the replacement of five specific parts, and the addition of a sixth (the sear). A factory AR-15 can accomodate all of the parts except the sear. However, to install the sear, the weapon requires significant re-milling (which itself requires proper tools and some very specific knowledge). Without the sear, you've got a fully automatic face-shredding federal firearms violation.

    So, despite what you may have seen on alarmist "news" reports or 60 Minutes specials on gun violence in America, it is neither easy to convert a civilian weapon to full auto, nor is it a rampant problem. If fact, if you read something other than Brady Foundation pamplets, you might find that before the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, "assault weapons" were used in less than 2% of violent crimes in America (according to the FBI) and that rate has not changed in the 10 years since the ban went into affect. In other words, the law had no effect other than to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens.

  • Careful... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Prof. Pi (199260) on Tuesday March 09, 2004 @12:20AM (#8506931)
    Fourth, we have been accumulating this knowlege ever since we found the Anarchist's Cookbook on the local BBS

    Isn't there a rumor that the book was really written by the gov't and filled with unstable recipes so that the anarchist wannabes would blow themselves up?

Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Working...