SCO Targets US Government, TiVo 1539
An anonymous reader writes "According to SCO, if you have a TiVo set-top box, or those models of Sharp Zaurus which use Linux, someone now owes them $32, since the company wants money 'for each embedded system using Linux.' SCO also says government agencies must pay up to $699 for each copy of Linux that they use."
Must... have... licensing... revenue... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Must... have... licensing... revenue... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Must... have... licensing... revenue... (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets assume that they are. And lets assume they loose the lawsuit, and are proven not to own any Linux code.
What then? Do those people get their money back? Do they get to sue for extortion? What happens to the SCO execs?
Many questions, few answers.
Re:Must... have... licensing... revenue... (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is not. The way that theis scam is running, I'd expect that the first time they actually got a cheque from this (at least from a fortune-1000 company) they'd be pushing that out all of the news services. 'cause it would give their claims more credibility.
show sco where to stick their license fees (Score:5, Informative)
Re:show sco where to stick their license fees (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/index.html visit their webpage and tell them were they can stick their license fees.
Mod parent up, and this is an easier link [sco.com]. That was cool. They just got a request for Linux licensing requirements from Usama in Afghanistan, and they thanked me for it. Slashdotting their chosen extortion response system seems like a Good Thing. :)
Re:show sco where to stick their license fees (Score:5, Funny)
"You will be hearing from us soon"
hahahaha, the joke's on them!
good luck finding scoblows@goatse.cx... poor schmuck
I just sent them my counter-offer (Score:5, Funny)
In the event that they can show that their SMP code is indeed in the Linux kernel, I offered to remove said code -- since I don't use it anyway -- and I offered "the finger" again, since I have two hands.
Careful! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Must... have... licensing... revenue... (Score:5, Interesting)
They know they'll now be crushed out of existence by this move - hence the selling of stock.
This is nothing but simple stock fraud.
Re:Must... have... licensing... revenue... (Score:5, Interesting)
Incidentally, can someone point me to a better spot that ir.sco.com to see 'SCO exec's dumping their stock over the weekend'... most edgar-ish sites seem to be a month or more behind in reporting compared to this page? Is the 24th the weekend AC meant?!
Hmm... I despise SCO enough that I'm finally found something journal-worthy... Details for the masses off http://ir.sco.com/edgar.cfm on my
PS: I propose a different kind of DDOS to the sco pages... lots of legalese asking for clarification of license terms for OpenLinux, FreeDos, BSD, or anything else. The tougher the question, the better. I suspect this is a method (overwork) that Shakespeare would feel applied when he said: First thing, let's kill all the Lawyers. (Henry IV or V?)
--
Advaitavedanta, and don't you forget it.
Get your insider sales info straight from sec.gov (Score:5, Informative)
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
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!
Re:Get your insider sales info straight from sec.g (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're even thinking of investing in a company, read a recent 10Q first. This will clue you in on the state of the company, you'll find out if there are any external forces that may jeopardize the business and -- best of all -- it will point you in the direction of their competition.
Look at the competetors. Weed out the weak companies and get the one that is most likely to succeed in a sector (not necessarily the one that your "gut" tells you to go with).
Re:Must... have... licensing... revenue... (Score:5, Funny)
Where can I buy one o' them there SMP Tivos?
Re:Must... have... licensing... revenue... (Score:5, Informative)
And in a recent announcement... (Score:5, Funny)
Next up... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Next up... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Next up... (Score:5, Funny)
SCO (Score:5, Funny)
Re: SCO (Score:5, Funny)
> Trying to piss EVERYONE off, are we, SCO?
I heard they sent shake-down e-mail to Superman, Batman, and Darth Vader just before quitting time today.
Glad I don't live in that neck of the woods.
Holy Fucking Shit (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not selfish. It is not stupid. It is downright crazy. They must be laying the groundwork for an insanity defense for when the SEC picks them up.
Re:Holy Fucking Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO *really* thinks they are right or *really* thinks they have nothing to lose. The indication is the rapidity of their announcements--it's gone schoolyard--nah nah, nah nah, nah.
One PR to counter another announcement. The Red Hat announcement got them, SCO responds, SCO throws in some ridiculous licensing terms, SuSE came back with RH support, SCO annouces expanded targets including TiVO.
Look, these people are idiots and still look like idiots even if they manage to win--but they're employing hostile business tactics that work--they're boosting their own stock so their wealth on paper goes up. If they reach settlement with IBM, the stock skyrockets and they're richer. If they don't reach settlement with IBM or anyone else, it goes to court. During the court case, it will become very clear whether they are going to win or lose, and they'll be on the front lines with their cell phones to their brokers telling them whether to short the stock or hold.
If they lose the court case, they lose very little on paper--their initial stock purchases were worth shit to begin with. It's a PR move (which
Damn, SCO's actions are distasteful at best...and I really dislike the GPL and most people involved with it.
Re:SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SCO (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe they're going for that "+5 Funny" mod on /.
Re:SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SCO (Score:5, Funny)
Marry me.
Uh oh (Score:5, Funny)
1) You are female.
2) You are a geek.
3) Your boyfriend is NOT a geek.
Better hope your home address isn't easy to find you'll find him dangling from the roof tied up in Cat-5 cable and a line of geeks wating to woo you.
News: US Gov't Charges SCO for 'Freedom' (Score:5, Funny)
Re:News: US Gov't Charges SCO for 'Freedom' (Score:5, Funny)
Better Yet... (Score:5, Interesting)
When someone's property is needed by the governement for the public good, the government can appropriate it for pretty much whatever they deem it's worth. (Courts rarely prevent this, no matter how egregious an abuse by a governmental entity.)
Linux is used in National Security situations and powers a good deal of the Internet. Having Linux remain free is of serious national interest. Claim emminent domain over SCO's intellectual property. If they fork over the disputed code, just take that and put it in the public domain. If they resist, raid them and take all of Unixware.
I'll leave it to the bean counters to determine the appropriate worth of a dying piece of software from a dying company.
Re:Is Open Source the answer? (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Is Open Source the answer? (Score:5, Funny)
1989? really? wow, I didn't think Papa Bush did anything good during his tenure, but I guess I was wrong.
Linux routers (Score:5, Insightful)
*toggles off Caldera news*
Re:Linux routers (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Linux routers (Score:5, Insightful)
All SCO jokes have been spent. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:All SCO jokes have been spent. (Score:5, Funny)
"Why did SCO cross the road?"
"To get to the courtroom!"
"BWA HA HA HA HA! That's a keeper"
Re:All SCO jokes have been spent. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, no. It's way harder than that.
First, the Department of Comedy Appropriations Committee commissions an analysis on the current state of government humor. They appoint a consulting firm to investigate the effectiveness of current jokes, baseline requirements for replacement jokes plus evaluation of the risks of producing new jokes.
This report goes back to the committee who then approve the tender process. The tender duly goes out, where prospective contractors reply with details of past jokes, resumes of key comedy writers and detailed costings for writing of the joke.
The proposals go back to a subcommittee which produces three recommendations to return to the appropriations committee. The recommendations are announced and subjected to three months of public comment. After this, the committee meets again and formulates a single proposal which is then sent to Congress for approval. The proposal sits in committee for three months, during which it is amended to include extra benefits for certain committee members' pet comedic projects. Once approved, the contractor is appointed.
The contractor will almost certainly subcontract out some of the work, of course. If the joke requires a pun, for example, they will work closely with a specialised synophonic engineering corporation. At each stage, of course, the oversight committee must reconvene to approve the new subcontractor and possible budgetary implications.
After six months comes the first deliverable: a detailed design document outlining the scope of the joke, full details on how the joke is to be delivered, any training which the joke's target audience may have to receive beforehand, plus a full analysis of the joke's structure. Once this is approved, the joke moves to the comedy writers, who proceed to write a prototype joke. This is then sent out to simulated audiences where the prototype joke is tested for comedic effectiveness. The results of the tests are sent back to the comedy engineers who then rework the joke.
By this time, the Department of Comedy's Appropriations Secretary has been replaced. When the new secretary reviews the project, they see problems. Certain humorous allusions which are vital to the success of any replacement jokes have not been factored in. The project specifications are changed and new project deadlines are set. The prototype joke is amended, however, in the process, the new joke loses some of its satirical quality. After obtaining approval for more budget, a new quality assurance oversight group is commissioned to audit the joke and the writing process.
Once the new joke has been fully audited, it is ready for field testing. Specialised test comedians are employed to determine the joke's comedic value, plus to determine the most effective mode of delivery under various comedic conditions.
Finally, the joke is delivered, six months late and millions of dollars over budget, along with 26 volumes of JokeSpec-compliant supporting documentation. After a further round of testing by Department of Comedy test comedians, the joke is approved and ready for initial field deployment. At first the joke is used carefully at informal meetings. When problems are found, comedy writers are shipped out on-site to fix minor wording issues.
After six months of this, the joke is ready for prime-time use.
I'd tell you what the joke actually is, but unfortunately I'm under an NDA. Sorry.
Phone calls (Score:5, Interesting)
1) WHAT you get by paying them
2) WHAT part of linux infringes
3) TO SEE PROOF of infringement
When they don't provide it then it's time for lawsuits out the wazoo!
The text of SCO's "Linux license" (Score:5, Insightful)
Enjoy.
One of the LWN posters raise a very interesting question:
> > SCO WARRANTS THAT IT IS EMPOWERED TO GRANT THE
> > RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN.
>
> Does this mean that SCO is definitely claiming
> to own some rights over the a GNU/Linux system,
> and that anyone who buys this license can sue
> them when they turn out not to have any such
> "intellectual property"?
Very interesting, indeed.
Re: Phone calls (Score:5, Funny)
> Everybody should call SCO now and demand
Actually, we should all start mailing them Monopoly money, to pay for their equally fake IP.
Re:Phone calls (Score:5, Funny)
Want to see proof??
So do I. PinkFairies.org [pinkfairies.org] - Offering cash money for offending SCO code.
Only in business 20 hours, and we're up over $47.00!!
~Will.
Cannonballs (Score:5, Interesting)
Call me an idiot, but I can't imagine that they'd go down this path if they knew they were only bluffing. Who would honestly be stupid enough to take on the US government on a money issue like this, just when the electioneering is getting started for '04, without thinking they could win?
Maybe SCO, maybe not.
Re:Cannonballs (Score:5, Interesting)
Agent Smith:"That's right your Honor, after our thorough investigation we found that the code in question is nothing more than fiendishly hidden links to terrorist organizations and kiddy porn sites placed in the program by SCO."
Re:Cannonballs (Score:5, Insightful)
This could make them all wildly rich! Why not go for it, just in case somebody buys it?
Re:Cannonballs (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO's other option is to try and compete with Linux with OpenServer and UnixWare, both of which suck. This will be especially difficult considering the fact that SCO has almost no R&D personnel.
The fact of the matter is that SCO's tactics are actually working. Before the lawsuit SCOX stock hovered around $1.00/share, and now it's at $12.00/share. Canopy Group has already used SCO's high stock price to rid themselves of Vultus. SCO essentially paid top-dollar (then some) for Vultus in stock (mostly to Canopy Group) this stock was then cashed for more than $3 million dollars. The kicker, Canopy Group owns SCO as well. In essence the Canopy Group took $3 million of investor's money and bought out one of their other worthless companies, putting the proceeds in their own pocket. Not to mention all of the SCO executives that have been selling their personal shares while the stock is up.
SCO has years before the case even goes to trial. In the meantime they simply threaten the world and watch their stock price go up. Canopy Group and SCO executives can use the inflated stock price in a myriad of ways, and since the trial won't happen for years there is very little chance of SEC involvement. SCO management simply has to pretend like they believe they have a case.
Not to mention the fact that the government oftentimes loses court cases. Juries apparently don't mind picking the pockets of Uncle Sam. In the meantime, it's good press. Investors love the idea of some company dipping their hands in Uncle Sam's pockets.
Refreshing management trend (Score:5, Interesting)
No wishy-washyness. It's damn the torpedoes, and full speed ahead. Never a moment of doubt that they may be making a huge mistake. No second guessing themselves. We know what we want, and we know where we're going. And we'll be damned if ANYTHING is going to dissuade us. Full court press, lads.
Re:Refreshing management trend (Score:5, Funny)
I think they've eaten too many Mentos. They're way too Fresh(tm). They may have, in fact, overdosed on Mentos. At least, that's what the coronor's report will read about 2 hours after the government actually takes notice of this.
Article slashdotted, entire text here: (Score:5, Funny)
Sources close to the controversy report hearing SCO CEO Darl McBride screaming and then loud thumps, before noting a non-descript black van leaving the SCO compound.
Administration Spokesperson Dill Franken had this to say, "While we cannot reveal the identity of the individuals for reasons of National Security, we can safely say that we have thwarted a terrorist network in their attempts to threaten the government, and our way of life."
He then went on to check his watch and remarked, "they should be arriving at Camp X-ray, right... about... now!" He then took some questions and concluded the press conference.
You know... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You know... (Score:5, Funny)
Three Points (Score:5, Interesting)
2) Linux code should be de-SCOed to prevent this sort of problem from continuing to flair up
3) Would someone please investigate the RIAA to see if they're using any Linux systems? Personally I'd love to see the RIAA and SCO duke it out in court instead of on consumers who have to settle on their terms...
Re:Three Points (Score:5, Funny)
Crap (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Crap (Score:5, Funny)
A true example of how evil SCO are is seen when they bring a slashdotter to utter such a statement.
Exorbitant... (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone want to crunch the numbers line-by-line to discover how much a boxed linux version should set you back if SCO's per-line cost is translated across the entire code?
$699 = trying to kill Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
For some reason they are trying to kill linux. The point isn't to ransom money, but to keep users from using Linux. The government is not going to ante up $699 per copy of linux until there is proof that it MUST. HOWEVER, no government purchaser watching this linux/SCO soap opera should approve new linux boxes to be bought (and for that manner, any big business IT department). This happening at a time when linux was just starting to get on a roll and look to be a real force.
The exorbinate fee sure seems to make that agreement with Microsoft seem even more sleezy...
They're not demanding money from TiVo owners. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:They're not demanding money from TiVo owners. (Score:5, Interesting)
Last time I checked, TiVo used one of the 2.1.something kernels. The underlying hardware (in a Series 1, anyway) is a single PowerPC 403GCX running at (IIRC) 53 MHz...less power than an old PowerMac 6100. Out of the box, it's equipped with 16 megs of RAM (but you can bump that to 32 if you're good with a soldering iron).
I strongly doubt that TiVo used any of the technologies that $CO claims it owns (no SMP, no RCU, etc). Then again, $CO doesn't seem to be constrained too much by the truth.
Re:OT: Kernel version (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Re:They're not demanding money from TiVo owners. (Score:5, Informative)
Hmm. Maybe not. TiVo licenses their technology but the actual OEMs are Sony and Philips. Sounds even better!
Is extortion legal in america now? (Score:5, Interesting)
please create (Score:5, Insightful)
so much sco stuff has been happening lately and there's no sign of it going away anytime soon. The big shocking ones can make the main page, but I'm willing to bet there's so much sco stuff that you guys are turning away some of it.
You've recently done this with apple and games. I think a sco option would be useful.
Thanks!!!
TiVo is not affected by this (Score:5, Informative)
In related news.... (Score:5, Funny)
sweet (Score:5, Insightful)
Dr_LHA formally asks for $2 from SCO (Score:5, Funny)
A few choice nuggest from SCO's IP FAQ: (Score:5, Funny)
Does the SCO IP License for Linux include a media kit?
No. Nothing needs to be installed on the server or embedded device.
Excellent. I just purchased $700 of nothing. That'll be easy to justify to the boss
I have Linux servers deployed in my organization. What options do I have besides purchasing a SCO IP license?
There are 3 options for you to evaluate:
You have the option to do nothing, adopt a "wait and see" attitude, and hope that SCO is not serious about enforcing its intellectual property rights in the end user community.
You can replace all servers, desktop and embedded uses of Linux.
You can obtain a license from SCO to use SCO IP in binary form in Linux distributions
Cover your ass, install Windows, or pay up, bitch!
How are the licenses activated?
Licenses are activated by registering the license with SCO and identifying the system covered by the license. The identification of the system can follow whatever identification conventions you use internally. (i.e., by name, by location, etc.)
See your wallet becoming lighter? Good! Now you are compliant! Get on your knees!
Weird Uncle SCO rides again (Score:5, Funny)
Buy out? Stock pump! (Score:5, Insightful)
A story (Score:5, Funny)
Then, one day, one of the villagers announced that certain pieces of the pipeline were his, and had been used without his permission. Because of that, he said, the pipeline belonged to him, and anybody who wanted to get water from it had to pay him ten dollars for each bucket of water they took from the pipeline. The villagers offered to replace his stolen pipe sections with their own spare sections, and return the stolen ones to him, but the villager didn't want that -- in fact, he refused to even tell the other villagers which sections were the stolen ones. "Just pay me the money you owe me", he said, "and I'll let you use my pipeline."
The villagers gathered together again, to determine what to do about this new problem. After several minutes of debate, a plan was devised. That night, they went to the villager's house with torches and pitchforks, burned it to the ground, and fed the villager to the stray dogs.
And they all lived happily ever after.
The End.
In summary: (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, I forget the exact quote or where I heard it.
stocks (Score:5, Interesting)
Did SCO get bought by the guy who bought Pabst, closed all the breweries and leased the Pabst name? Charles Hurwitz, the same guy who bought the logging companies in Northern California, upped the logging, sold his stocks high, and then the logging companies went under when they logged out everything. Maybe it's 2 guys and I'm just thinking (hoping) it's just one evil guy.
Re:stocks and Stallman (Score:5, Interesting)
You know I thought it was as simple as this, up until yesterday. Yesterday mention was made that McBride had started mentioning targeting Stallman as one of those responsible for infringing on SCO IP. Stallman is certainly well known to most of us here, however to the stock broker and day trader monkeys he and his ideas are way too esoteric (for better or worse) to have any meaning at all in an attempt to manipulate stock price. Indeed Stallman has gone to great lengths to distance himself from the linux kernel (the only part of the GNU/linux package currently under contention by SCO), and is deeply involved in developing the independent HURD kernel - in these ways he is a completely incorrect target for the stock manipulation purpose.
I'm starting to think (with credit to others who have ruminated on the idea as well) there's something more insidious to all this than just a stock manipulation scheme. We've heard it before a dozen times - we'll just switch to a BSD, or we'll just remove the offending lines of code, or we'll just drop in HURD for the kernel instead of linux - our linux "problems" from SCO's perspective are seemingly easily solved, and in the short run you'd probably be right. But the scope of the SCO attack is too broad based (and seemingly getting more broad daily) to be simply focused on corrupting the linux kernel now - that is too easily thwarted - and if we can see it I'm sure someone at SCO sees it too. (Sorry chums we're not the only +5 insightful people on the planet)
I think that this is more about someone (and it has been suggested before on these boards by others, but bears repeating) is trying very hard to cut the legs out from under the entire OSS movement here and now. I think interested parties have come to realize that the time is near when it will no longer to be possible to perpetuate the proprietary program for rent business model of software development due to OSS having gained far too much momentum and widespread adoption. Even despite things like the SCO suits, we get more reports of more and larger businesses, governments and institutions committing firmly to integrating OSS and OSS products into their infrastructures on an almost daily basis. If those who wish to stop this are going to do so, they must do so now. I think this isn't only a last desperate gasp by SCO for some money, I think its a desperate gambit by proprietary software interests to kill OSS before it kills them. The stock manipulation thing is too transparent to be the only goal of the SCO attacks.
Or maybe I'm just giving too much credit and being too conspiracy theory. What the heck, it's interesting to consider.
As an aside, how bitter is the cup of vindication Stallman must be sipping from right now? And those who thought he was a bit too evangelical in his stance must at least be taking a moment to reflect that what he has been warning and working against is now beginning to happen right in front of us. Additionally, had people been more willing to acquiesce to the idea of using GNU/Linux as the name of the package used, it may have been more readily appearant to even laymen that even were SCO's claims valid their "contributions" still represent a ridiculously small amount of the overall package and thus their claim would have been more obviously worthless. I'll leave that for others to debate.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Dust off Kernel 2.2 (Score:5, Interesting)
Since 2.2 apparently doesn't infringe, why not create a super 2.2 kernel and swap it in for the (allegedly) infringing newer kernels on as many systems as possible?
Here's what I'm thinking/wondering:
1. How many Linux users actually need/use the components that IBM contributed?
2. How much non-infringing post-2.2 stuff can be back-ported to the 2.2 kernel?
3. If you managed to back-port as much as possible and polish-up a 2.2 kernel as much as it can be polished, will it meet the needs of most users?
The Freshmaker (Score:5, Funny)
SCO can suck my left nut (Score:5, Funny)
Even if those pig-fuckers had an airtight case, Debian-Hurd and Debian-BSD are an easy mkfs away. Do you think for one second that the kernel you're running makes a huge difference versus the software on top of it? And I'd go back to fucking CPM much more readily than I'd consider paying SCO's extortion money.
(Yes, I said pig-fuckers. I think they get up on pigs and they fuck them. Squeeeeee! Anyone wanna disagree?)
Re:SCO can suck my left nut (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you sir, for the quote of the day.
NUMA and RCU in embedded system ??? (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO is crasy if there expect to charge for somthing that don't even exists!
Khrushchev for CEO? (Score:5, Funny)
Is anyone else waiting for the televised press conference where the CEO or spokesperson or whoever starts banging on the podium with a shoe and screams "WE WILL BURY YOU!!!"? Is it just me?
Amazing... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, dude in wife-beater t-shirt and cutoffs starts a loud confrontation, barricades and arms himself, gets armed representatives of The Authorities (tm) sucked in, and then threatens said representatives with his weapon. SWAT dude has to pull the trigger, and then it's goodbye cruel world.
Damn near foolproof way to off yourself once the hardcore tactical team is on scene, and it's technically not suicide!
So, We've got SCO (bad mullet, tank-top, and raggy jeans) waving his 9mm around at everyone, including some folks that just finished getting heavy-handed on some folks between the Euphrates and Tigris. Like I said, suicide-by-cop.
And in local news... (Score:5, Informative)
A couple of interesting tidbits from the story:
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?
MS-SCO Conspiracy Alert (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if (well more like when) SCO lose, Microsoft can now bring up this case when it comes to any kind of OSS competition with regards to government contracts they will just say:
"Hey remember that whole SCO thing? How do you know it won't happen again but next time with a valid claim?"
I love the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Today on slashdot, there was an article on the 20 year old left wing loudmouth who gets a year in jail for linking to a website with bombmaking instructions while the despotic bastard CEO of SCO can make claims and threats about a computer operating system while offering no evidence whatsoever and not only get away with it, but also make a fair amount of money at the same time.
Compare the above to an article in the Washington Post about gangland killings in Washington DC, where gang members, who are all armed and are all involved in criminal activities are hardly prosecuted and the case of Germany, where a legal injunction forced SCO to withdraw it's claims in that country, completely.
I personally think that whatever happens to Linux in the USA in terms of SCO being able to legally enforce payment of licences, those will have no effect outside the USA and I will personally piss in my pants laughing when SCO attempts to do some enforcing in the EU.
Me too! (Score:5, Funny)
If you're running MAME, you owe me $32. Pay up! MAME includes some code I wrote, in violation of the GPL license on my code. Unlike SCO, I'm actually willing to publicly identify which lines of code are at issue.
I'm joking about the $32, although they really did violate my license. However, I'm NOT going to sue them. In fact, I think I'll grant the MAME project a license to use the code under the MAME license instead.
So much for my chances of making billions of dollars on it! :-)
Let's Put SCO Behind Bars (Score:5, Insightful)
While the lawsuits being defended by IBM [sco.com] and filed by Red Hat [redhat.com] are likely to put an end to The SCO Group's [sco.com] menace to the Free Software community, I don't think simply putting the company out of business is likely to prevent us from being threatened this way again by other companies who are enemies to our community. I feel we need to send a stronger message.
If we all work together, we can put the executives [sco.com] of the SCO Group in prison where they belong.
If you live in the U.S., please write a letter to your state Attorney General [naag.org]. If you live elsewhere, please write your national or provincial law enforcement authorities. Please ask that the SCO Group be prosecuted for criminal fraud and extortion.
It makes me very sad to write this, because I lived in Santa Cruz for fifteen years. Sam Sjogren, a close friend from Caltech [caltech.edu], was one of SCO's first programmers, and for a little while my only friend in town after I transferred to UCSC [ucsc.edu]. Many of my best friends used to work for SCO either writing code or doing tech support. I even used to sit in the company hot tub with my friends who worked there from time to time. I used to dance to the music of SCO's company band Deth Specula [deth.com] at parties around the town.
Before I ever installed my first Linux distro - remember Yggdrasil Plug-n-Play? - I was a happy user of a fully-licensed copy of SCO Open Desktop on my 386.
You wouldn't think the SCO Group of today is the same company that once had to tell its employees that they shouldn't be naked at work between 9 and 5 because they scared the visiting suits from AT&T. That's because it's not - the SCO Group got its name and intellectual property from SCO through an acquisition. I don't think any of the friends I once knew at the company are likely to still be working there. The SCO Group is in Utah. SCO was originally called The Santa Cruz Operation, a small father-and son consulting firm named for a beautiful small town [cruzio.com] between the mountains and the ocean in central California. The Santa Cruz Operation was once as much a bunch of freethinking hippies as any Linux hacker of today.
Yes, it makes me sad. But I digress.
It seems that SCO is asking a license fee of $699 [slashdot.org] for each Linux installation. Take a look at SCO's press release [sco.com] announcing the licensing program. That's just the introductory price - if we don't purchase our licenses before October 15, the price will increase to $1399.
I have three computers that run Linux. That means SCO claims I must pay $2097 today, or $4197 if I wait until after October 15. SCO says their fee applies even to devices running embedded linux, many of which were purchased by their owners for far less than SCO's "license fee".
My response is that SCO is guilty of criminal fraud and extortion. I didn't violate SCO's copyright or acquire their trade secrets through any illegal means, and it is fraud for them to claim that I did. It is extortion for them to tell me I must pay them money to avoid a lawsuit.
Even if SCO's claims are true, it is not a violation of their copyright for me to possess a copy of their code. Instead, any copyright infringement was committed by the vendors who supplied me with the Linux distributions I use.
SCO's license is actually no license at all - if it really is found that the Linux kernel contains any infringing code, the GPL forbids everyone who possesses a copy from using it at all. No one would be allowed to con
Death Rattle (Score:5, Insightful)
SCOX net earings 2003 -4 million
SCOX net earings 2002 -25 million
SCOX net earings 2001 -131 million
SCOX net earings 2000 -27 million
SCOX net earings 1999 -9 million
Right there that's 196 million dollars of debt that SCO has accumulted in the past 5 years. So when you realize that your business model just ain't working, hey, why not just sue everyone.
I submitted this today... (Score:5, Interesting)
An Austrian Free Software group by the name of FFS [ffs.or.at] has been talking to SCO Austria and SCO Germany, who have assured them SCO's European branches have "nothing to do" with SCO's claims, and there will be no Linux licences available from SCO in Europe. What's perhaps more interesting is that a SCO lawyer has admitted that SCO's copyright claims have little substance [pro-linux.de]. The article is in German, unfortunately. Here's a very rough translation of the title and the first paragraph:
SCO Plays Dead: No License Fees in Europe
As reported by Pro-Linux, representatives of the FFS [ffs.or.at] have been in touch with legal representatives of the Austrian and German branches of SCO, which has in the past few months accused Linux developers and users of intellectual property violations. These accusations, which remain as yet completely unsubstantiated, have recently culminated in SCO demanding license fees for Linux. This would amount to a misappropriation of Linux by the company, which would thus itself be exposed to accusations of software piracy. The FFS has now obtained a letter from SCO's legal counsel literally affirming that SCO's local branch has "nothing to do" with the claims. SCO's counsel, who has also admitted in a phone conversation with the FFS that SCO's copyright claims have little substance, goes on to protest that the company is doing everything to comply with the court decisions barring it from doing further damage to the reputation of Linux or its users.
[The rest of the article then goes into a rant on software patents etc.]
Comments on the linguistic side of my translation are also welcome, but bear in mind this was just a quickie.
And yes, I am karma whoring. But then, isn't everyone?
TiVo and the DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)
I paid my $32. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry, I can't divulge the location of the $32 at this time. I am willing to provide a set of scavenger hunt clues to selected, disinterested parties who are willing to sign an NDA, though...
An interersting panic run (Score:5, Insightful)
Insider trading link (Score:5, Informative)
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html
Re:I own a TiVo... (Score:5, Funny)
on a regular basis?
I hope you didn't catch anything, god knows who SCO has been sleeping with.
~foooo
Re:I own a TiVo... (Score:5, Funny)
i think its time for all the zombies to rise
Re:I own a TiVo... (Score:5, Funny)
Now all SCO needs to do, to really annoy and irritate everybody, is find some beer and pretzel companies who use Linux, and demand license fees.
TiVo uses Linux 2.1!! (Score:5, Interesting)
# uname -a
Linux (none) 2.1.24-TiVo-2.5 #8 Wed May 8 15:38:27 PDT 2002 ppc unknown
Re:Wouldn't it great... (Score:5, Funny)
i imagine each idea would start like this:
(...bong-water bubble sounds...)
(...pause...)
(...exhale...)
"Heeheehee... dude, check this one out, you are gonna freak:..."
(...stifled chortling...)
The idemnity issue (Score:5, Informative)
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.