SCO Invokes DMCA, Names Headers, Novell Steps In 770
Sparky writes "We've already heard that SCO have invoked the DMCA via 'letters sent to select Fortune 1000 Linux end users.' The specifics come via a copy of the letter reprinted at LWN.net - they've decided that they own the copyright to about 65 header files contained in Linux - largely errno.h, signal.h and ioctl.h." balloonpup also notes "CNet News has reported that SCO has reported a fourth quarter loss of $1.6 million, owing mostly to hefty legal fees in its war against Linux. SCO said they would have reported $7.4 million in earnings, if not for the $9 million payout to their lawyers. Way to go, SCO!" Many readers also point out a Groklaw article indicating Novell has registered for the copyrights on multiple versions of Unix with the U.S. Copyright Office, so that "both the SCO Group and Novell have registered for UNIX System V copyrights for the same code."
DMCA Must gooo! its gayer than the YMCA (Score:2, Interesting)
Manufacturers/programmers/whatever should never be responsible for what anyone does outside the intended uses.
Big Red takes aim (Score:5, Interesting)
The next step will be their own series of letters to SCO reminding them of their contractual obligations to Novell.
If you don't have a product sue! (Score:3, Interesting)
also with Novel's Copyright on it, it seams to me that Novel's came first, so SCO could be a nice target if (big IF) they win this case, it has seamed to me that Novel does not want to see this case go though.
SCO is a dead company that just wants to be bought out, and they did not get IBM to buy them out liked they hoped.
clue me in.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:DMCA Must gooo! its gayer than the YMCA (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Remove the current DMCA and amend it such that only specific uses of media are prohibited. Allow for the use of back-engineering tools with HARSH punishments for people who knowingly use them to break copyrighted material with intent to distribute. This leaves the burden of proof with a prosecutors instead of the "guilty-til-proven- innocent" tactics of the RIAA et. al.
2) Make a specific statement for "loser pays": anyone suing under using this legislation who loses the case pays for the legal costs of both parties. Settlements don't count, and this will outright favor the bigger players, but in the American climate of "legal attrition" as a business strategy I see no other effective means of trying to relieve this aspect of the DMCA problem.
3) Allow publications on computer security to be done freely and thoroughly if tied to legitimate academic or corporate entities. Hold computer manufacturers liable if one of their components has a security flaw that causes eggregious commercial/monetary damage but which could have been fixed by repair of one of these published flaws.
4) Ensure that American laws apply only to American citizens with the express wording that products purchased in other parts of the world which belong to the consumer are theirs to do with as they please. A clause allowing rightful action to take whatever steps necessary to use that product would be nice (mod chips et. al)
Pointing fingers makes us feel good, but unless we propose alternatives and compromises, are we really doing anything but venting? Does anyone else have potential solutions/thoughts on how to resolve this issue?
I feel so dirty but... (Score:5, Interesting)
checking out insider holdings (Score:5, Interesting)
BENCH, ROBERT K.
Chief Investment Officer
8-Oct-03 214,243 Shares Left
BROUGHTON, REGINALD CHARLES
Senior Vice President
17-Sep-03 95,000 Shares left
GASPARRO, LARRY
Vice President
10-Dec-03 0 Shares Left
HUNSAKER, JEFF F.
Vice President
13-Aug-03 20,494 Shares Left
OLSON, MICHAEL P
Vice President
11-Nov-03 47,330 Shares Left
WILSON, MICHAEL
Senior Vice President
14-Jul-03 0 Shares Left
WILSON, MICHAEL SEAN
Senior Vice President
15-Jul-03 0 Shares Left
Notice How little the insiders still actually own (Aside from Robert Bench)? Smells fishy to me
not just Linux... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If you don't have a product sue! (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that they are now claiming copyrights on HEADER FILES is the ultimate testament to the weakness of their cases.
I mean, how could one re-engineer APIs without replicating headers. If Linux is in violation, than BSD must be in violation as well. They should be suing Apple.
Re:DMCA Must gooo! its gayer than the YMCA (Score:0, Interesting)
Hrm? Facinating (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, someone told me once that the BSD and GPL licenses were not in-exclusion, but that they could co-inhabit the same code. BSD has one set of limits, namely giving of copyright notice while GPL has other limits tied to it, but they were not mutually exclusive.
SCO admitted ABI code was GPL (Score:5, Interesting)
MozillaQuest Magazine: Regarding binfmt_coff, abi-util, lcall7, abi-svr4, abi-sco; are any of these modules SCO IP?
Blake Stowell: No, none of the code in the Linux ABI modules contains SCO IP. This code is under the GPL and it re-implements publicly documented interfaces. We do not have an issue with the Linux ABI modules. The IP that we are licensing is all in the shared libraries - these libraries are needed by many OpenServer applications *in addition* to the Linux ABI.
Re:clue me in.... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is strange in that 1) the full outcome of the settlement was sealed AFAIK and 2) the headers in question are licensed under the BSD license which would have been known of in 1.
Like has been mentioned earlier by many people here, maybe SCO want to re-open the BSD case as this seems to be there only line of defense.
The smear continues (Score:4, Interesting)
That's right, boys and girls, the GPL is a tool for TERRORISTS and COMMUNISTS!
Every day I see SCO's stock price and I mutter to myself, "it's just not fair."
-paul
The FreeBSD file says: (Score:5, Interesting)
* Copyright (c) 1988 University of Utah.
* Copyright (c) 1990, 1993
* The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
* (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
* All or some portions of this file are derived from material licensed
* to the University of California by American Telephone and Telegraph
* Co. or Unix System Laboratories, Inc. and are reproduced herein with
* the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
*
* This code is derived from software contributed to Berkeley by
* the Systems Programming Group of the University of Utah Computer
* Science Department.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
The Linux code I just looked at is lacking the copyright notice like the above.
If taken from BSD or SYSV, it is a licence violation because of clause #1.
I worry it could be worse (Score:5, Interesting)
So, I hope Novell has their heart in the right place. But really, this depends on the judges. To sue over header files is so damn crazy, the real winners are obviously the people who ran off with $9 million in legal fees. What did the lawyers tell SCO that made them think this is a good investment when the case is so absurdly flimsy? That must have been a home-run sales pitch!
Re:That's what usually happens (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of those delays stem from the simple fact that legal staff usually haven't got the vaguest understanding of how software is architected or compiled. They don't know that half the headers mentioned are part of ANSI and ISO C/C++ standards.
They don't know that every single platform with a C compiler since the early '80s has had an "errno.h" header file.
It's about time some limits were imposed in US courts, as in:
Then maybe the world can get back to doing business instead of letting these useless "IP companies" affect billions of dollars of purchase and deployment decisions, without fear of repercussions for their fraud.
Novell can now sue SCO! (Score:5, Interesting)
Makes for Interesting Thought!
System 7 and ancient code (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is it enough to change the comments at the top? (Score:2, Interesting)
What happened to '4 quarters of profitabiity'? ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Thanks for clarifying, if possible
Re:DMCA Must gooo! its gayer than the YMCA (Score:5, Interesting)
We've passed the point where the law can be patched back into usefulness; it's time to rethink on a more fundamental level.
The Q and A part of the call (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the most interesting questions was "Of the really large Linux users, how many have licenced from you?" The answer was "We haven't had anyone over the 5000 CPU amount buy a licence, but a couple of them are thinking about it."
Or, in other words: "No one big is buying our BS, cause they have a legal team that knows we are full of it. Or at least is willing to wait it out and see where the chips fall, rather than believing our hype."
To me, that speaks volumes about their case.
No substance (Score:5, Interesting)
trump cards (Score:4, Interesting)
-t
Re:not just Linux... (Score:3, Interesting)
I ask because 1. i am not a C/C++ expert (i do program in it alot) and 2. i've very interested
Q: can anyone provide me with sample code that will return one result with using parens () and a different result without the parens ()?
ex.
return X
vs.
return (X)
can someone give me an X for which
return X != return (X)
Headers (Score:5, Interesting)
The lawsuit against IBM is still a contract dispute. Even though SCO claimed they would be adding Copyright infringement claims against IBM, they have yet to do so. My guess is they haven't made any Copyright infringement claims yet because even they are not 100% sure if they really own any of the code. And making false claims in court would kill their lawsuit.
When Caldera first obtained the old UNIX source code, they wanted to release ALL of it under an Open Source license. But they were not able to because to many other people and companies still have rights via Copyright to the code the other parties added.
The letter that SCO is sending out is just one more thing that will come back to haunt them.
Re:DMCA Must gooo! its gayer than the YMCA (Score:1, Interesting)
The U.S. Constitution grants copyright protection only for a limited time. Information should not be in a locked box so society can never use it freely.
If Newton had legal protection for the Calculus, how much would science have progressed while unable to use it? And if the Calculus became unavailable when Newton died?
Re:Vote bush out of office (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:DMCA Must gooo! its gayer than the YMCA (Score:5, Interesting)
(Score:-1, Homophobic)
Nobody's mentioned yet... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:9 million? (Score:3, Interesting)
There are multiple reasons why you might purchase a particular stock. Sometimes it's because you believe it's a good company with great products. Sometimes it's because you're willing to risk some money speculating on a low-probability high-return outcome. If you bought SCO recently for the first reason, well, you're an idiot. If you bought it for the second reason, you don't really care what the share price or the operating results are -- you care what the judge in the case has said recently. If SCO were to eventually win $1B from IBM, the bulk of what remains after the legal fees will almost certainly be distributed as a special one-time dividend, enriching the insiders, the Canary Group, and some gamblers who were willing to hold on through all of the legal proceedings and appeals. Roughly 75% of SCOX is held by insiders and institutions.
For the right kind of fund, buying 50,000 shares back when it was selling for $3 might have been a very reasonable gamble. Suppose the dividend is $100 per share -- that's a 33-to-1 payoff and might justify "backing" a legal case with 20-to-1 odds. At today's price of about $18, the potential return would only be 5.5-to-1, no longer worth the gamble.
Re:Even better news from SCO SEC filing (Score:2, Interesting)
Not only do they need more money, but they need the money to be free. If they accept additional investment, like PIPE's, Boies' firm would get a contingency payout, and Baystar/RBC has the right to then veto the action as it would dilute the value of their PIPE.
About the only way that SCO can get money, is thru their existing heritage UNIX business, and their joing UNIX and Linux SCO Source venture. While SCO's got 15 million or so total from UNIX SCO Source, that appears to be dried up, and I doubt even MS will buy more of it. SCO seems to not yet have made a single dollar from Linux SCO Source.
I guess in theory, MS could realize that they've got a few linux machines for the purpose of knowing their enemy, and decide to fork over some money for them, but as MS won't admit to over a few hundred (at most!) linux boxen they won't even be able to cover Darl's $250K/year salary.
It looks increasingly like all the real cards have been played, and SCO is left grasping at straws trying to play out this game a bit longer.
just explain this: (Score:3, Interesting)
Every open letter from SCO should come with a default +1 Funny modifier
That's What I Figured All Along (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux was/is a derivative of Minix. There is no real Minix code left in Linux, but back in the 0.9x days, Linux was still evolving. You can still download Minix from here. [cs.vu.nl]
Now, here's the key point: although the NAMES of the various system calls, IOCTLs, error numbers and signals are part of the POSIX standard, their numeric assignments are not. The implementor is left to define them. Not all implementations define these the same way - take a look at the Linux/FreeBSD/SYSV emulation code in NetBSD to see the kinds of translations that need to be done to provide cross-platform compatibility.
Now compare the Minix include files with those of Linux and FreeBSD. You will notice very much the same error code and signal numbers. The Linux code dates from 1991 and is pre-ATT/BSDI settlement. It's likely that Tannenbaum is also in violation of AT&T's IP, and Linux has just inherited it. Of course, there's no money in SCO suing Tannenbaum.
Does this damage SCO? Not really. Is it worth US$699/seat? Definitely not. Can SCO collect damages? Probably, knowing the U.S. legal system.
Re:Vote bush out of office (Score:2, Interesting)
Plus, one of the main points of that party is protection of property. That would include such measures as the DMCA. Maybe that's why they let an Indy pastor run for city council who thought his church didn't have to pay payroll taxes because of the "separation of church and state" (dumbass must not have realized that the separation he was talking about meant that his church was to be treated like other non-profits, not given tax-exempt status on payroll).
I know that the Libertarian dude that was running for senator in IN in 2002 (no, I didn't vote for him, he was an idiot) said he thought that the DMCA had the right ideas, it was just poorly implemented and too vague.
Or maybe... (Score:3, Interesting)
Either way, this just comes out as pathetic. Even if some Linux developer copy-pasted the interface #define's from BSD (which you can't do by the old BSD licence, because of the advertising clause), it's basicly simple facts of the POSIX standard.
It's like copyrighting "#define PI = 3.14". Now all other programs that define PI, must be infringing on mine. Yeah. Right. It's yet another bullshit tactic just like the last "proof" they showed. They're going to display stuff that is common to SCO, BSD and Linux and state "look, they took our code (through BSD and BSD settlement)". It's enough to get past the idiot test "Umm these look similar. They must have stolen it"
Kjella
Re:Dear Santa (Score:3, Interesting)
I Would like the SEC to implement a freeze on the buying and selling of SCOX so that the slimeballs playing the pump & dump scam will take it in the ass when the stock collapses.
ABI vs API code (Score:4, Interesting)
Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces ("ABI Code") have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted UNIX code base and contributed to Linux for distribution under the General Public License ("GPL") without proper authorization and without copyright attribution.
Now all these header files that they've named, are just that, header files. Which relate to the POSIX|UNIX API. These are two different things right?
Re:That's What I Figured All Along (Score:2, Interesting)
Except that Minix is only licensed for free educational use, so Linux could/better not have taken any copyrighted material from Minix.
Re:DMCA Must gooo! its gayer than the YMCA (Score:1, Interesting)
The Gay YMCA connection came about because back in the 60s & 70s, many YMCAs served as youth hostels with cheap room and boarding for transient men. Since all boarders at a YMCA were men, this quickly became a good hook-up scene for gay men. This is why the Village People celebrated the YMCA with a song.
Of course, the top post is just the sort of homophobic idiocy that gets modded up on Slashdot just for speaking out about the DMCA. There's nothing nearly so "7th grade" as calling thing you dislike "gay."
You may wish to turn your view away from the vitriol they routinely spew forth like so much bile, but you can not have an enjoyable and enlightening experience here on Slashdot until you dare to view at -1.
No, I think I'll have to disagree on this one. I've been reading, moderating, and meta-moderating Slashdot for years, and I'll have to say that 95% of posts modded down to -1 are a total waste of bandwidth and Slashdot server resources. I wouldn't call all the over-repeated memes, racism, and namecalling "cutting-edge" or "witty." It is extremely rare that anything of substance gets modded down that far, and quite frankly, I don't need my already cynical view of humanity's worth challenged any further by yet another GNAA post.
So, until this injustice is somehow remedied, I recommend to you all that you browse at -1. The posts you will find are wonderful, and often quite amusing. In some cases, they can even be educational. I know that I always want to find out who got the first post! Usually it's some AC though. Blah.
Yes, there's nothing quite so "educational" as finding out who hit the freaking "Post A Comment" button the fastest, and nothing's quite so amusing as -1 posts if you have a "Beavis and Butthead" sense of humor, but I think I'll stick with the trolls that are talented enough to actually get modded up.
Re:DMCA Must gooo! its gayer than the YMCA (Score:5, Interesting)
The DMCA also makes it illegal to "pick the lock" as well, not just the creation of the tool to pick the lock. And it doesn't distinguish between locks you own and locks you don't own.
This is just too good to be true (Score:5, Interesting)
#define EPERM 1
#define ENOENT 2
#define ESRCH 3
#define EINTR 4
#define EIO 5
#define ENXIO 6
#define E2BIG 7
And the POSIX [opengroup.org] standard says:
The [errno.h] header shall provide a declaration for errno and give positive values for the following symbolic constants. Their values shall be unique except as noted below.
[EPERM]
Operation not permitted.
[ENOENT]
No such file or directory.
[ESRCH]
No such process.
[EINTR]
Interrupted function.
[EIO]
I/O error.
[ENXIO]
No such device or address.
[E2BIG]
Argument list too long.
Conclusion:
This is hogwash. Complete and utter hogwash. Even the descriptions are specified in the standard. You see some minor differences (Argument vs Arg, function vs system call) but it is simply trivial. If this is the "infringing" stuff, the replacement with completely non-infringing comments would be ready in about 30 seconds directly from the standard. I can volunteer to do a cleanroom implementation without neither SCO nor BSD code
Kjella
Re:The important question, I think (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:DMCA Must gooo! its gayer than the YMCA (Score:3, Interesting)
> A better analogy would be to make it illegal to make a hairpin, as it could be used to pick a lock
Stop, you're both right. The DMCA bans both circumventing copyright protections (picking the lock) and tools for performing this circumvention (the hairpin).
Re:That's What I Figured All Along (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably not. In order to assess damages, you determine how much damage was caused (in this case, ~$0). Then you look at how quickly the plaintiff addressed the issue (more than two years, in this case.) Then you look at how quickly the plaintiff notified the infringer, and attempted settlement. In this case - well, we're still waiting on that (Linus, Eben Moglen, and others have contacted SCO attempting to find out the specifics of their claims - all were rebuffed. SCO released this "evidence" to third parties, they never once sent it to the actual alleged infringers.)
SCO can't collect damages because they have declared (through their actions) that they value the alleged stolen code at $0.
Re:Vote bush out of office (Score:4, Interesting)
If the major parties see a substantial portion of votes going to a single-issue candidate, they'll see that people feel strongly about that issue and try to adjust their platform to attract those voters. When people don't vote at all, politicians just assume that nobody cares what they do.
I dislike the libertarians because (like Bush) they often seem to be more interested in the rights of corporations than of human beings, but the principle still stands.
Re:DMCA Must gooo! its gayer than the YMCA (Score:3, Interesting)
All empires collapse. History allows for no exceptions. I live in the home of the previous Empire, Britain, and we got out of it quite lightly.
Pray you don't go down like the Romans.
"Argentina was never like the US."
True. It was never as powerful or dangerous.
Re:ABI vs API code (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:That's What I Figured All Along (Score:4, Interesting)
http://minnie.tuhs.org/VSTa/srctree/newsrc/includ
http://minnie.tuhs.org/FreeBSD-srctree/newsrc/sys
The some of the numbers in the above are identical, others are not. SCO claimed in court that there are no trade secrets in UNIX, only in the Unixware that SCO sells. So unless the different errno.h files in Linux are identical to what is found in Unixware, SCO doesn't have anything to stand on. The above files are from the same archive that contained a copy of malloc.c that SCO tried to use as proof that code was copied into Linux. It was later shown that the malloc.c code in question was released under a BSD style license at least twice and was probably in the public domain as well. So that can't make any Copyright claims.
Even if the headers are located in Unixware, SCO already acknowledged that some of the header files in question came from BSD. Much of the code from the AT&T-BSD settlement was placed in the public domain. http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1028217/posts
In SCO's letter that they recently sent, they are claiming Copyright to everything from the settlement. They seem to have forgotten that Caldera was founded on selling Linux under the GPL. SCO is trying to obscure that fact, in the media and in court, that they changed their name from Caldera.SCO also seems to forget that they can't place their Copyrights on stuff that has been placed in the public domain. Some of the code that SGI added to Linux turned out to be from SCO who had wrongly placed Copyright notices on the files.
Re:That's What I Figured All Along (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't any of this is particularly relevant to the SCO case, but FWIW, the above statement is no longer correct. Minix is now license under a very liberal license similar to a BSD type license.
For more on the Minix license see:
here [cs.vu.nl] and here [cs.vu.nl]
OK, let's rewrite errno.h (Score:3, Interesting)
POSIX standard error return values.
Modernized descriptions.
*/
enum errno_t {
EOK = 0,
EPERM = 1,
ENOENT = 2,
ESRCH = 3,
EINTR = 4,
EIO = 5,
ENXIO = 6,
E2BIG = 7,
ENOEXEC = 8,
EBADF = 9,
ECHILD = 10,
EGAGAIN = 11,
ENOMEM = 12,
EACCESS = 13,
EFAULT = 14,
ENOTBLK = 15,
EBUSY = 16,
EEXIST = 17,
EXDEV = 18,
ENODEV = 19,
ENOTDIR = 20,
EISDIR = 21,
EINVAL = 22,
ENFILE = 23,
EMFILE = 24,
ETXTBSY = 26,
EFBIG = 27,
ENOSPC = 28,
ESPIPE = 29,
EROFS = 30,
EMLINK = 31,
EPIPE = 32,
EDOM = 33,
ERANGE = 34,
ENOMSG = 35,
};
This provides modernized descriptions of the errors, and makes errno an enum, which is still compatible with integer declarations of errno, but cleaner. The list is not complete, and should be updated with the additional error numbers defined in Linux.
Offered under the GPL by John Nagle, the author.
Re:DMCA Must gooo! its gayer than the YMCA (Score:3, Interesting)
Good thing Microsoft bought a license (Score:4, Interesting)
"Novell is desperate" says Darl (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, if that's not the pot calling the kettle black... They really are a joke.
I have a serious problem with this... (Score:3, Interesting)
I know for a fact that SCOs system has bugs in it that other systems and projects fixed years ago, instead, SCO was busy making up, for the most part, utterly useless, products. Their userland is horrible, the kernel clunky, and the system is riddled with bugs that should have been fixed.
SCO claims, "they did their best" but the world owes them something.
Sorry, you can't make money for being incompetent and then blaming someone else's good fortune.
Copyright status of UNIX headers (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not a lawyer. I am not a paralegal. I do not offer legal advice to anyone, ever.
As someone who uses Linux and BSD every day, I do have an interest in this case, and in the history of UNIX.
Remember, copyright law has changed since UNIX was written. Be careful not to make incorrect assumptions based on what the law says today
I have one question: are the BSD header files subject to copyright ? I really tought that these files were declared as "no copyrightables" in 1973
Not quite. IIRC they were not "declared 'no copyrightables'" in 1973 but in 1993 the court found that 32V may have entered the public domain due to AT&T's not following copyright rules in effect between 1978 and 1986.
Please read this document, esp. the section titled "1. Copyright Infringement".
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/930303
Please note that this is a ruling denying an injunction that would have prevented distribution of BSD, not a dismissal of the entire case. So it's not as strong as we might like.
There is a lot of information about the BSD case on the web, start here [bell-labs.com] . Of course, the settlement itself is sealed, so it's hard to say exactly what it contains. However, such a settlement would restrict USL, BSDI and the Regents of the University of California, not the Linux developers or IBM.
And the general feeling is that USL asked for the seal because they had their ass handed to them, not because the wanted to spare the Regents a public humiliation.
<grin>
Does this help clear things up?
Re:Forgive me, I'm forced to use SCO at work.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:clue me in.... (Score:3, Interesting)
The brief reason why is that these are interface files. It has been established for over a decade that there is no breach of copyright when interface files have been copied, even if they have been literally ripped off (Computer Associates v Altai). Even I thought they'd come up with something better than this, and I've thought they were full of it from day one. That's why Groklaw are doubled over laughing - SCO have literally come up with the weakest possible argument they could have attempted.
Where SCO comes in... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it's part of the BSD settlement, which basicly goes like this AT&T licences to BSD, BSD licences to AT&T. Because they'd both been using eachother's work. Any code that should be attributed to both AT&T and Berkley, is SCOs business since SCO now owns the Unix code of AT&T. So their claims to a copyright notice is not without merit, the silly part is laying claims to the definitions of the POSIX standard.
Kjella
Document SCO lie - from Groklaw (Score:2, Interesting)
No, none of the code in the Linux ABI modules contains SCO IP. This code is under the GPL and it re-implements publicly documented interfaces. We do not have an issue with the Linux ABI modules. The IP that we are licensing is all in the shared libraries - these libraries are needed by many OpenServer applications *in addition* to the Linux ABI.-- Blake Stowell, 2003-02-05
Think IBM will find this interesting?
Re:If SCO gets bought, the terrorists win (Score:2, Interesting)
With a distributed buy out, then we simply call a stock-holders meeting. To which we propose that we are going to raze the company from within. With Darl at the meeting, then the Linux users vote to opensource all the SCO source code -- every single bit of it. Well Darl is still in shock, we vote to have Darl booted with the whole board. As Darl is picking up the bricks he just dropped out of his pants then we vote to dissolve the company.
The way I figure is that if we get half of the
The best part is that since it is no company but a group of stock holders that are really pissed off it is not illegal. How? Because it is not a hostile take over, and it is not the actions of one entity, but in this case the actions of several thousand people -- who hold interest in the company -- making the decisions to Enron it.
Re:DMCA Must gooo! its gayer than the YMCA (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you name any? The only one I'm aware of is the District of Columbia, which technically isn't a state.