SCO Relies On IBM-donated Servers With Groklaw 100
Technician writes "It appears that SCO and Groklaw have the exact same tie to IBM: the ibiblio service. 'An eagle-eyed Groklaw ninja, sk43, has spotted an ftp site where you can get binary copies of Linux libraries needed by SCO's OpenServer and UnixWare customers who use lxrun. But you can't get the source code from that sco.com ftp site. SCO directs their customers to .... sunsite.unc.edu. Why bless my stars, sunsite.unc.edu is the old name for what is now ibiblio!'"
Re:Stupidest SCO article ever. (Score:5, Informative)
IBM Helps Fund Web Hosting For Anti-SCO Site Groklaw
(See http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.j
Basically, Information Week and some asshat reporter named Paul McDougall tried to smear Pamela Jones by suggesting IBM was behind Groklaw because Groklaw is hosted on ibiblio. Well, so is a shitload of other stuff, including support files for SCO OpenWare.
A very good illustration of SCOX folly (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-1018.pdf [groklaw.net]
In that motions, SCOG make the claim
OK, so groklaw simply points out that SCOG material is found amongst the "other ibiblio publications", and the entire SCOG motion is easily exposed as the utter nonsense it truly is.
Re:I'd say SCO's hoist on their own petard.. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Stupidest SCO article ever. (Score:5, Informative)
Exhibit 15 and 16 as offered by SCO are about Ibiblio supporting Groklaw. This isn't just about an Information week article - this is evidence SCO is offering to the court.
Sco is using this as evidence IN COURT that IBM is supporting Groklaw. Now we see that SCO is supported by Ibiblio (and therefore IBM, by SCO logic). This nullifies pretty much any benefit these exhibits would be for SCO.
Re:Stupidest SCO article ever. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It's mostly about media corruption and Forbes e (Score:3, Informative)
So, there was some destruction of evidences. Although this so called evidence had nothing to contribute other then what was already known and wasn't really destroyed in the sense of trying to hide it. It was just removed from particular workstations after SCO had copies of everything.
Don't believe the GPL violation hype on this one (Score:3, Informative)
Let's not sink to the level of SCO by making accusations which are easily demonstrated to be false. Of course, if there's GPLed code in lxrun which was relicensed without permission of the original author that's another matter, but I haven't seen any claims of that.
People really should not assume someone is violating a license without checking to even see what license is involved. That includes when the accused is a big ball of crud like SCO.
Re:IBM - SCO case a mere drama? (Score:3, Informative)
SCO has been notoriously drawing this case out, delaying it using every possible legal trick. IBM has repeatedly asked the judge not to give them their delays, but SCO has won them many times.
Re:The "exact same" ties? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's mostly about media corruption and Forbes e (Score:3, Informative)
IBM's Statement (Score:3, Informative)
Groklaw met the criteria [ibiblio.org] for hosting on ibiblio's free servers. If your web site meets the criteria, you can host it there for free also. View some other sites on their collection page [ibiblio.org]. Groklaw is a site to discuss open source legal issues, it is not limited to IBM or to SCO, although that is the predominant legal battle going on at this time. If you read Groklaw, you will know that there are not only articles about the other SCO litigation (RedHat, AutoZone, Daimler-Chrysler and Novell), but discussions about Microsoft, patents, ODF vs. MSXML, other GPL cases and the new GPL V3. Ibiblio is run by the University of North Carolina. IBM has contributed servers to the project long before Groklaw came into existence. IBM has no say in the sites hosted at Ibiblio or their content. Ibiblio could host SCO's site if it met their criteria.
I want to know why it matters though... Groklaw looks at the public filings that anyone could get if they were willing to go to the courthouse for a copy. They don't have any secret information and don't get information from IBM. IBM has been nearly quiet in the media since the case has begun, citing their preference not to comment on litigation.
Since before the IBM case started, SCO has been issuing public statements both through their media shills and on their own web site. They've made outrageous claims with no evidence whatsoever to support them. They've tried to co-opt the GNU/Linux operating system as their own, charging $700 per processor to run it. That's a slap in the face for the thousands of contributors who relied on the GPL and made their own contributions, and to Linus Trovalds who initially developed Linux. After initially claiming that three teams of experts found millions of lines of infringing code in Linux, they waited three years to show ANY evidence and then it was only 326 lines. They transformed their case from Trade Secrets (since UNIX contains none as admitted by their lawyer Kevin McBride) into some bizzare "ladder" theory where IBM loses control of it's own independent creations simply by associating them with their flavors of licensed UNIX.
The most bizarre thing is how they value their "core UNIX intellectual property". Caldera was created as a Linux company in 1994. They raised about $70 million in an IPO as a Linux company when they went public in 2000. They purchased assets and operations from Tarentalla (Santa Cruz Operation) for $93.8 million in 2001. You can see that in the 10-Q [sec.gov] report they filed with the SEC (search for "Purchase price allocation"). They allocated that money this way:
Calde