SCO Ordered To Put Up Or Shut Up
from the let's-see-some-damn-evidence-already dept
I’ve been avoiding posting the nearly daily back and forth stories about the SCO/Linux battle because it’s almost too crazy to believe. However, it sounds like the battle of dueling open letters and press releases may finally be coming to an end as a judge has told SCO to show the evidence against IBM already. This is bad news for SCO, because they’ve been acting as if it was all IBM’s fault that no evidence had been shown – and the judge clearly does not buy that argument. Still, it could be a very long time before this case is settled, so we should be seeing plenty more craziness for the next few years.
Comments on “SCO Ordered To Put Up Or Shut Up”
Thanks
Mike, thanks for NOT showing every little tidbit of this suit.
Some of us think that, while the original root of the IBM case has some issues that need examining, based on something we may or may not have seen personally, Mr McBride has vertainly not appeared favorably in his attempt to be open with people. I guess it works for RH but not SCO, and it seems to all depend on one’s current cummunity worth.
Staying out of the issue only makes you and techdirt look better as a site, as your impertiality allows people on both sides of the argument some reporting free of the bias we see everywhere else.
I’m glad that this case is being moved forward, and I hope that some of the things that I think need to be investigated, do indeed see the light of day. The underhanded, dirty dealings of companies need to see the light of day; we’d all be better people, better workers, and be part of better companies in such a scenario.
I’m also glad that Mr Love can work publicly again. It appears that the time for the Gnazis to forget most of one’s specific crimes is about 2 years, which also jibes with how long ago IBM’s sales-drive-relabeled-as-linux-donation was, complete with vandalized sidewalks.
Phew. Thankfully, I don’t run a website; I can be biased as hell. Therein, sir, lies the distinction, and you’re one of the very few with the real journalistic integrity to know the line, ‘put up or shut up’ language aside.
Re: Thanks
No, some of us remember other ‘issues’.
Linux Kernel 2.0.3X series took code from FreeBSD, scrubbed the BSD license off and put on a GPL. And the ATA code taken from FreeBSD. Thus the GPLers are willing to violate others licensing temrs and whine when SCO does the same to them.
SCO may have found violations like the above. The question is, is it worth $3 billion or just $1?
Re: Re: Thanks
> Linux Kernel 2.0.3X
Wow, talk about achient histroy…
and where was BSDi or the regients of the Universtiy of Califorina at Berkeley at the time?
Look, if you’re not going to defend your license (either because you won’t or because you can’t, finicially or otherwise), perhaps it’s not worth defending.
This battle is for the sole of open source; it’s not about petty *BSD is better than *Linux annoyances… and if you still think it is, consider this: with the shear amount of GPL code that has been incorporated into *BSD it’s about time that community returned the favor… and, of course, the really cool thing about dual *BSD and GPL developers is that they can enter their code first into the GPL realm and then, minutes later, into *BSD code base to prevent them from being bound by *BSD’s depricated licensing… of course, if you only look at the code base for *BSD and discover months or even years later, the same code in GPL code, you won’t understand this.
Re: Re: Re: U R so right
Look, if you’re not going to defend your license (either because you won’t or because you can’t, finicially or otherwise), perhaps it’s not worth defending.
Yes. Look at the Virgin WebPlayer. Ran Linux. Had a non-GPL compatible license.
The FSF was contacted, and the people on the Linux kernel mailing list knew about it, yet NOONE bothered to ‘defend the license’.
Guess the chest thumping GPLers when faced with RIAA-powered lawyers from the Virgin group lacked a backbone.
The purpose of the BSD license is to remove the liability of the author.
with the shear amount of GPL code that has been incorporated into *BSD
Huh? The user can opt to ADD GPL stuff at install time, but base installs of varing BSD’s don’t have ‘shear amount’s of GPLed code.
Re: Re: Re:2 U R so right
The purpose of the BSD license is to remove the liability of the author.
The purpose of the BSD license is to identify the author of the BSD licensed code, and to remove the liability of the author. The author gives others the right to release derivative works under any license they want, so long as they include the original copyright for the work they are using with the code they are using. Striping the copyright on code under the BSD license violates the copyright law and opens you up to lawsuits (if the author has the money or the time to prosecute it.)
I use the BSD license for my code because it allows anyone to use the code any way they want, so long as they keep my name and the disclaimer of liability in their derivative work. They can re-release it as GPL, or they could release it as commercial software.
However, I agree with Anonymous Coward when he says we should be sticking together in this. Now is not the time to fight over licenses, when SCO is accusing both Linux and *BSD of stealing their code (though it appears to be the opposite.)
pump and dump
SCO’s actions sound more and more like a pump-and-dump scheme, where the only purpose of the lawsuit was to temporarily drive up SCO’s stock price so the insiders could unload their stock, and SCO’s only reason now for wanting to prolong the case is to make the nature of the scheme less obvious.
Re: pump and dump
SCO’s actions sound more and more like a pump-and-dump scheme, where the only purpose of the lawsuit was to temporarily drive up SCO’s stock price so the insiders could unload their stock
I certainly don’t disagree, this has been obvious from the start and I hope the judge at the securities fraud case sees through their actions.
The problem has been that they are using the good name of several open source projects, and have been dragging everyone through the mud. I’ve had folks tell me with a straight face that they are happy I now have to spend $700 a computer for Linux, as I’ve been preaching to them the advantages of Open Source for years, and they had almost relented (the Microsoft pay-as-you-go scheme was beginning to swing them around.) Fortunately for me, I run both Linux, and *BSD (Free and Open, for the most part, occasionally Net,) but when they turned their guns towards BSD I became a little concerned. Luckily this judge has seen through the scheme, but I wonder how many politicians are getting the wrong idea about open source.
Of course, once they make open source illegal, I’ll be hitting up Anonymous Coward for a place in his country to reside.
Re: Re: Remember the source of the 'going after BSD'
they turned their guns towards BSD I became a little concerned
SCO has taken no action and made no comment “We are going after BSD”.
1) If that was the case, why was BSD mentioned as platform to move TO from GNU/Linux by SCO? (Along with Windows and SCO’s UNIX)
2) The person who made the comment as part of his ‘analysis’ was Joe Barr. Joe Barr is the same guy who lied about what Linus Torvalas said at Linuxworld – “FreeBSD is a couple of programmers”. Joe Barr also was the gent who sent mindcraft an e-mail about the Mindcraft benchmark. The one where Mindcraft was called asslicking whores, along with other things.
So until SCO declares ‘using BSD costs you $699’ or actually FILES any papers in ANY court VS BSD – thus in violation of the settlement agreement – the idea of “going after BSD” is either a mis-interpertation of thhe SCO postion or them just smok’n the cheap crack.
Re: Re: Re: Remember the source of the 'going after BSD'
SCO has taken no action and made no comment “We are going after BSD”.
I guess Blake Stowell, SCO’s head PR Monger does not speak for SCO as far as you are concerned.
Ars Technica
Darl apparently doesn’t speak for SCO either.
Daemon News
I do remember Joe Barr’s analysis, but I have a hard time trying to figure out how he went from the press release to the analysis he came up with. However, both Darl and Blake have said things that scare me. Of course Darl later said they had no plans of going after BSD.
So until SCO declares ‘using BSD costs you $699’ or actually FILES any papers in ANY court VS BSD – thus in violation of the settlement agreement – the idea of “going after BSD” is either a mis-interpertation of thhe SCO postion or them just smok’n the cheap crack.
Well, SCO has yet to actually file any papers in ANY court VS Linux, they have only filed papers against IBM putting stuff in Linux.
Of course, I think SCO is smoking the cheap crack lately, so I wouldn’t put anything past them.
Re: pump and dump
I thought this too… and have been thinking about shorting the stock (assuming their little ruse doesn’t completely backfire on them and their stock might actually be worth something in the long run).
Accordingly, I have been looking for the filing paperwork that would be required of such insider action. All I can find is paper stating that they’re paying their lawyers in prefered stock, but that doesn’t mean that they haven’t covered their tracks with cozy internal loans based upon stock at certain values at certain times.
Basically I conclude that SCO is very high beta at this point in time no matter which direction you might be hedging the stock.