Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
IBM Software The Internet Caldera Linux

SCO Relies On IBM-donated Servers With Groklaw 100

Posted by Zonk
from the come-together-right-now dept.
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!'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Relies On IBM-donated Servers With Groklaw

Comments Filter:
  • by SashaMan (263632) on Monday April 09, 2007 @03:30AM (#18660647)
    Did you even read the entire Groklaw article? The whole reason this was posted is in response to this totally asinine Information Week Article headline:

    IBM Helps Fund Web Hosting For Anti-SCO Site Groklaw

    (See http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jh tml?articleID=198100504 [informationweek.com])

    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09, 2007 @03:35AM (#18660657)
    Read the SCOG complaint ...

    http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-1018.pdf [groklaw.net]

    In that motions, SCOG make the claim ... "In fact, most of the servers on which Groklaw.net and other ibiblio publications run are hosted on IBM-donated servers. IBM's support of ibiblio is, according to the project's director, continuing in nature."

    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09, 2007 @03:58AM (#18660719)

    I'd say SCO's hoist on their own petard but I'm afraid that hook is buried where the sun don't shine.
    I think you've mixed metaphors. The phrase is "hoisted by one's own petard," meaning blown up by one's own bomb/grenade.
  • by Mistlefoot (636417) on Monday April 09, 2007 @04:18AM (#18660757)
    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200704032 33141649

    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.
  • by Pokerstars com (1060832) on Monday April 09, 2007 @04:45AM (#18660829) Homepage
    I've read some other stuff by Paul McDougall. Total waste of text if you ask me....
  • by sumdumass (711423) on Monday April 09, 2007 @10:11AM (#18662481) Journal
    Well, TO be fair, SCO claimed IBM destroyed evidence when they had their linux developers remove the Unix source from they workstation. But IBM claims that it wasn't destroying anything because they already had copies of everything as well as what was released to the public supporting their claim.

    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.
  • by mr_mischief (456295) on Monday April 09, 2007 @10:22AM (#18662627) Journal
    Lots of places have been accusing SCO of violating the GPL by providing lxrun but not the sources for it, and referring people to ibiblio for the sources. It's quite difficult, though, to violate the GPL when the project seems to be licensed exclusively under the Mozilla Public License [caltech.edu].

    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.

  • by Quila (201335) on Monday April 09, 2007 @12:20PM (#18664343)
    Maybe they -are- taking it seriously. And IBM is purposefully drawing this out.



    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.

  • by someone1234 (830754) on Monday April 09, 2007 @01:14PM (#18665095)
    Wiring in the red dress?
  • by Samari711 (521187) on Monday April 09, 2007 @02:06PM (#18665783)
    Not only that, but logs of who checked what out when should be a part of their source control system. IBM gave SCO a server that contained a complete copy of the repository that would have had that information in it, if SCO actually bothered to look for it.
  • IBM's Statement (Score:3, Informative)

    by jgoemat (565882) on Monday April 09, 2007 @06:53PM (#18669015)
    Read IBM's statement [informationweek.com] on the matter:

    IBM has no connection to the editorial content posted on Groklaw.

    Groklaw's website, and hundreds of others, are hosted on a website at the University of North Carolina (UNC), called ibliblio. This site is described by UNC as a public library. ibiblio runs on IBM System x servers which were funded through an IBM Shared University Award Grant awarded to UNC -- a grant that predates Groklaw ever being hosted on ibiblio. Anyone can host a site there and IBM does not sponsor, nor endorse, the content of those sites.

    IBM is proud to sponsor many universities around the world in various ways, including helping them host websites like the one at UNC."

    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:

    1. $66.1 million - Goodwill (SCO customer base)
    2. $26.7 million - Distribution/reseller channel
    3. $5.8 million - Existing technology (consisting primarily of UnixWare and OpenServer)
    4. $1.5 million - Acquired in-process research and development
    5. $1.4 million - Distribution agreement
    6. $0.8 million - Trade name and trademarks

    Calde

Uncompensated overtime? Just Say No.

Working...