|
|
| Intel Steps Up to the Plate -- New Legal Defense Fund For Linux Users |
 |
|
Monday, January 12 2004 @ 12:23 AM EST
|
Intel has chosen a side: ours. Welcome, Intel. OSDL announces today that it is setting up a legal defense fund to protect Linux users from You Know Who. They have raised $3 million so far and are aiming for $10 million, which they say they expect to easily reach. So far they have received funds from companies like Intel, IBM, and Monta Vista.
Stephen Shankland has the story, as always, as does the New York Times, which is finally waking up to the fact that this is the story of the year. They not only woke up, they call the operating system "GNU Linux". I think my work is done. Joke. I have more to do. They incorrectly state that SCO hasn't threatened to sue Linus. They did, but it was while the NY Times was still sleeping. They'll catch up, though.
The fund, administered by OSDL, will also be used to pay Linus' legal fees. Even if he isn't sued, he will have expenses just from being subpoenaed and he will obviously have to testify at trial. This fund is being announced as a defense fund, according to Shankland's report: "It would be made available to some Linux customers that come under litigation from SCO," said the OSDL's executive director, Stuart Cohen. A subcommittee of the consortium's board of directors will decide how to allocate funds, he said.... The funding would be used to protect Linux users who are sued for Linux issues common across the industry, not for issues particular to that user or company, an OSDL representative said. The Wall Street Journal's David Bank narrows it down further, saying [sub req'd] that the fund is a copyright infringement defense fund and it got the first reaction from dear Darl and from Intel: "We want to continue to provide peace of mind to end-users," said Stuart Cohen, chief executive of the Open Source Development Labs, or OSDL. "We don't want to see the momentum or deployment of Linux slowed down."... Darl McBride, chief executive of SCO, said in an interview that the company has a "very short list" of potential legal targets and intends to file a lawsuit against a Linux user by February. He said the target company likely would be a prominent company that makes heavy use of Linux and also holds a license to Unix that specifies how that technology may be used.
"No amount of money into a defense fund can protect somebody if they're the guilty party," Mr. McBride said. "Chuck Molloy, a spokesman for Intel, said the company was concerned that SCO has not disclosed specific details about the alleged infringement. "It prevents the Linux community from taking steps to fix the problem, if in fact there are any." I figure they must have wakened Darl from a deep sleep, because his statement makes no sense. Of course $10 million will protect you if you are the "guilty" party, unless SCO plans on breaking knee caps or cutting off thumbs or something. Hmm. Should Linux users hire bodyguards to protect us from SCO? Here's a list of the current members of OSDL. I see Novell has joined: OSDL members include Alcatel, Cisco, Computer Associates, Dell, Ericsson, Force Computers, Fujitsu, HP, Hitachi, IBM, Intel, Linuxcare, Miracle Linux Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric, MontaVista Software, NEC Corporation, Network Appliance, Nokia, Novell, NTT DATA INTELLILINK, Red Hat, Sun Microsystems, SUSE LINUX, TimeSys, Toshiba, Transmeta Corporation, Turbolinux, Ulticom, Unilever, VA Software and Wind River Systems. It's a natural fit for OSDL to defend end users, because end users are a part of their vision, as you can see from this snip of an interview with Mr. Cohen that IBM has on their site, "The OSDL Reaches Out to Linux End-Users": Q: I read, for example, that you recently announced that Unilever, a non-IT company, has just joined OSDL as well. What exactly is a non-IT company?
Cohen: A non-IT company is an end-user of Linux. Our mission is to become the center of gravity for Linux, and accelerate the adoption of Linux around the world. To do so we decided we needed become a place where the development community, the IT vendors, and the end users can all come together to discuss Linux, in all it's dimensions, in a vendor-neutral setting. Companies like Unilever, for example, can participate in the customer advisory councils that we have put in place in the U.S., and will put in place in Europe, and in Japan. There are also technical and marketing workgroups they can join.
Q: What would a non-IT company gain from a partnership with OSDL?
Cohen: We want to add an end-user's perspective to the requirements-gathering process for Linux, for IT vendors and for the development community as well. We're offering end-users opportunity to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Linux and open source, with the key stakeholders, in a vendor-neutral setting. I don't know of any proprietary operating system that provides end users with that opportunity. By the way, Google doesn't run Unix, does it? If not, that rumor must have been just some PR spin for a quiet day, because Darl says now you have to be running both Unix and Linux to make the cut. Companies that don't run Unix can sleep well tonight. Of course, with SCO, you'd best keep one eye open. They're like a rabid squirrel. You want to keep them in front of you at all times, in plain sight, and not make any moves that might set them off and running. There is one more detail in the Wall Street Journal account. McBride says they will be filing with the court tomorrow, not just sending materials to IBM, so let's keep a lookout. There's more bluster and a threat from Darl in the Journal article, which you can read if you have the appetite and if you have a sub. I hope Darl can get back to sleep OK. Nightmares might be a possibility, though, huh? IBM is offering a new point-of-sale product too, in case there are any big-name companies using Unix and some Linux and are thinking of switching quick to all-Linux for their cash registers or something: SUSE Linux AG and IBM are now offering SUSE's first-ever point-of-sale (POS) Linux operating system combined with IBM's retail services and support. In a deal announced today, the operating system, called IBM Retail Environment for SUSE Linux, will include an operating system based on SUSE Linux Enterprise Server, along with other software needed by retailers. The POS operating system is designed to be compatible with IBM's SurePOS cash register machines, eServers and middleware to allow retailers to create a scalable, secure operating environment across their entire business, according to IBM. Yes, sir. SuSE's first ever POS Linux operating system. I'll tell you what. You *really* don't want IBM mad at you. UPDATE: 2 PM Somehow Forbes has found a way to make the legal defense fund sound like a bad thing, at least to business types. Their article calls it "An ACLU For Linux," which isn't a way to appeal to businessmen. I am providing a link, but I'm not encouraging anyone to click on it. I see no reason to give any support to Forbes, but suit yourself. Their coverage of Linux seems to me consistently hostile, and they get advertising based on clicks, I presume. As usual with Forbes articles on this subject, they don't have their facts quite right: IBM and Intel plan to announce a defense fund to help little-guy Linux users pay lawyers in the event they are sued, presumably by the SCO Group, which owns the Unix operating system and says the GNU Linux infringes on Unix. First, the fund is for anyone, big or little. Second, "GNU Linux" is not accused of infringing anything. Only the kernel, the Linux part, is. As to ownership, that has yet to be determined. How do you like their description of SCO? "SCO, which claims annual revenue of $79 million. . ." Annually? Since when? How long has this been going on? And what did SCO tells us to expect in this quarter? Any mention of Novell's copyright registration? Forbes doesn't go into all that. Then there is this: The fund will defray legal expenses of Linux end-users (but not developers). OK. That is true, as far as it goes, but where is the mention of Red Hat's fund to protect developers? As is typical with Forbes, the facts are almost correct but the hints and innuendo paint an inaccurate or at least an incomplete picture. You call that objective reporting? Forbes' reputation is at stake, and their problem is that no one sees IBM as a radical, hippie crunchie. If the anti-Linux forces wanted to kill GNU/Linux, they should have done it a couple of years ago, before IBM and all the other corporations hopped on. It's too late now to persuade anyone rational that Linux users are radical, extremist, anti-capitalist hippies, not that a few aren't giving it their best shot. SCO has put out a press release in reaction to OSDL's announcement: The actions of these vendors today doesn't change the fact that SCO's intellectual property is being found in Linux. Commercial end users of Linux that continue to use SCO's intellectual property without authorization are in violation of SCO's copyrights. SCO continues to publicly show evidence of this infringement. We invite interested parties to view some of this evidence for themselves at www.sco.com/scosource .
"If vendors feel so confident with the intellectual property foundation under their massive contributions into Linux, then they should put their money where their mouth is and protect end users with true vendor-based indemnification," said Darl McBride, president and CEO, The SCO Group, Inc. I guess it'd be mean to laugh out loud.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: JMonroy on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 01:18 AM EST |
My goodness... now maybe the press/media will start to
understand the true nature of this battle. Thank you
Intel, thank you, thank you, thank you!!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 01:46 AM EST |
While this is obviously a good thing, it seems to duplicate the efforts of
RedHat's Open Source Now Fund. I guess this is IBM's way to give Linux users
peace of mind without bowing to SCO's "indemnify now" tauntings.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shaun on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 01:49 AM EST |
Intel knows Linux is very, very good for them. It makes a lot of sales for low
end to high end chips in servers and appliances. They make sales on hardware
from Linux. I would would dare several millions of dollars. That's an important
issue for them. Intel isn't willing to let some washed up company who has not
proven anything affect their bottom line anymore than IBM is. SCO is going to
come crashing down and hard very soon.
--Shaun[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eric76 on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 01:49 AM EST |
McBride says they will be filing with the court tomorrow, not just
sending materials to IBM, so let's keep a lookout.
That makes
me suspect that maybe SCO is trying to draw attention from their documents to be
provided to IBM. That way, they can issue a press release about adding new
charges and answer questions on those new charges instead of answering questions
about what they provided to IBM.
Questions ike, how many lines of code do
they now claim are infringing? More than a million? More than a thousand?
More than one? One?
Any guesses as to what the filing is?
Alleged
copyright violations, maybe? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 01:49 AM EST |
Darl McBride, chief executive of SCO, said in an interview that
the company has a 'very short list' of potential legal targets and intends to
file a lawsuit against a Linux user by February. He said the target company
likely would be a prominent company that makes heavy use of Linux and also holds
a license to Unix that specifies how that technology may be used.
I read this as that SCO is suing another (next too IBM)
Unix licensee over their contract. It will be another contract lawsuit and not a
IP lawsuit.
So there will be more IP FUD coming from SCO.
H@ns [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SkArcher on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 01:52 AM EST |
| Quick check: is Utah GMT-5 or GMT-6? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 02:01 AM EST |
Preface: The Court is serious about thirty days and specificity...and she won't
give SCO the last doubtful word. McBride is wiggling like a dug up worm at the
end and
the Judge sua sponte disillusions him about addressing SCO Motions if Complete
and Specific Discovery is not forthcoming:
[*look at how we can quote their thoughts! You have a foxy db, Ms. J.]
The Official Transcript (Parties' thoughts included)
THE COURT: Counsel, I am ready to rule in this matter. I think it is essential
to get the ball rolling in this circumstance [and get the plaintiff of its
kiester], and I'm convinced that my initial intended order is appropriate in
this case....
...
At this time, however, I will grant defendant IBM's motion to compel
answers.... SCO is to file its responses within 30 days of the entry of this
order, and if, for some reason, it is in good faith unable to obtain a
particular portion of that, then it must file the appropriate affidavits
ndicating why it cannot.
[*comment: They can't use the same reasons they used to oppose the discovery
requests.]
....
THE COURT: All right, let me just indicate further that those responses are to
identify, with specificity, the source codes that you are claiming from [sic]
the basis for your action. [Or you will lose points and fail the test.]
[*discussion re documents...]
THE COURT: I don't want to take -- perhaps if they're in written form, you can
provide that to Mr. McBride and --
MR. MARRIOTT: I'm happy to do that, Your Honor. [It's in the bag already! No
wiggle for SCO.]
THE COURT: -- the same requirement will be enforced. In the meantime, all other
discovery [*SCO'S] is postponed. And the -- you -- both parties will be
expected to abide by the protective order that is currently in place. I will set
this matter for a hearing.
[*schedule talk]...
THE COURT: All right. Does that give you sufficient time? I am holding you to
the 30 days, [*emphasis the court.] but if we get this order signed by Wednesday
of next week, let's make it even the fourth week of January, which is after the
19th. [So you are actually getting more than thirty days. I'm a nice gal.] Why
don't we do it Friday, then, the 23rd at 10 o'clock, again, and then we will
address the remaining motions of SCO, all right.
MR. MCBRIDE: So Your [bi-assed] Honor is not ruling on our motions at this point
in time; is that correct?
THE COURT: No [sweetie pie]. I'm not ruling on your motions, and that is
inherent [DUH!] in my order that further discovery be postponed.
MR. MCBRIDE: Very good, Your Honor. [you Blue lovin' hussy!]
THE COURT: We'll address them then. [faaat chance].
MR. MCBRIDE: So [be that way!] and we'll [give us a break!], in this next --
the January hearing then we will address the -- our pending motions as well?
[Please, you got to give us
something. They are essential for our timing to 2005.]
THE COURT: Yes. [Hmmm, What's he pulling here?]
MR. MCBRIDE: Thank you, Your Honor. [For the bone. We'll hold you to it.]
[*Next is sua sponte.]
THE COURT: [I better specify and protect the record] All right. That's with the
assumption that the discovery that
SCO is to complete has been completed, all right, and with the required
specificity. So what my intention is, then, is to then address the motions of
SCO. [You twerps! You aren't coming in and saying you're only prepared for
your own motions to compel!]
MR. MCBRIDE: Just -- I'm just thinking procedurally whether we will have time
to actually brief and agree upon whether we -- the [f#@$ing] specificity is
required in advance of the hearing or whether we will be doing that at the
hearing. [I'm just an ol' country lawyer.]
THE COURT: No [Stupid, answer and specify]. I would think that should be in
place prior to the hearing. If you want a date later than that, that's fine. I
don't care [You can be hot toast or warm toast, but burnt just the same].
[*The judge knows IBM will take care of the specificity issue, if any, before
the hearing.]
MR. MCBRIDE: Let's hold that date for the time being, and then if, for whatever
reason, it appears problematic, we'll notify the Court Does that seem
appropriate? [I'll ask later. Don't want to give a reason now.]
[*Request for continuance guaranteed by SCO maybe by IBM.]
THE COURT: [Of Course. Let me in on it.] It does [you slithery desert slimer].
END of TRANSCRIPT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RealProgrammer on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 02:03 AM EST |
The nicest thing is the direct result itself: Linus won't have to worry about
legal bills.
"'No amount of money into a defense fund can protect somebody if they're
the guilty party,' Mr. McBride said."
And if they're innocent, they shouldn't have to pay a dime.
Has IBM asked for SCO to pay court costs and attorney's fees yet?
---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: creysoft on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 02:07 AM EST |
Happy "Evidence Is Finally Due" day, everyone!
/me puts on party hat and throws confetti around
/me takes party hat off
Okay, now get back to work!
---
Fear th3 Platypus[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 02:27 AM EST |
"Don't get IBM mad at you."
As a thirty-five year veteran of that institution, let me assure you that
emotion plays no part. The real secret is "Never get between IBM and its
revenue stream".
Now, is there any validity to the rumor that Microsoft is trying to license
Donald Duck from Disney so they'll have a mascot for Windux?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: radix2 on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 02:30 AM EST |
Here's a list of the current members of OSDL. I see Novell has
joined
Yes - they announced it on December 9 2003. Press release here
(http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/12/pr03076.html).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: coolmos on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 02:37 AM EST |
"'No amount of money into a defense fund can protect somebody if
they're
the guilty party,' Mr. McBride said."
Somehow, this might backfire on Dear Darl.
Who was that guilty party again ? I hope the Canadian investors, Deutsche Bank
and the shareholders are listening to Darl, as he claims SCO to be a bottomless
pit.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 02:40 AM EST |
The OSDN fund is sort of a no brainer. It probably represents, in the short
term, moneys earmarked for OSDN from its various constituents.
Its good for the conglomerate to demonstrate they are liquid. At this point I
strongly doubt they expect to ever pay it out.
bv[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 02:43 AM EST |
For both this fund and the Red Hat defense fund my first thought was: what if
this isn't used? What happens to the money if nobody uses it to defend against
SCO? Will it still be there to defend against other lawsuits? What about
paying for development or donating to charity? What happens to interest? Sorry
so many questions :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 02:49 AM EST |
| It's IRE. I wonder if that is a coincidence? :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PM on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 03:04 AM EST |
Perhaps I have not been following other parts of the IT scene, but I think that
Intel's involvement is very significant. I have had the impression that Intel
has had to dance to Microsoft's tune with respect to processors and chip sets,
especially with hardware provisioning to enforce Longhorn with the implication
that the source of PC's capable or running Linux would dry up. This move
signals very strongly that Intel does not want to have to be beholden to
Microsoft in the future and want a decent slice of the Linux action.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 03:06 AM EST |
McBride's "No amount of money into a defense fund can protect somebody
if
they're the guilty party" comment makes perfect sense in a criminal
case: a
defense fund can't do your jail time for you.
Similarly, if this
defense fund only pays your attorney's and court
costs, then you would still be
on the hook for any damages you were
ordered to pay the other
party.
I don't have a WSJ subscription, and don't see any details
about this
at the OSDL site yet, so all I have to go on is the New York
Times
article, which describes the fund as "a $10 million legal defense
fund
to help pay for the litigation costs of corporate users". I don't
think
any compensation you are ordered to pay for infringement would
normally be
considered a "litigation cost".
(Not that I expect any SCO copyright
claim would ever actually result
in a damage award, mind you. I'm just
saying.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 03:06 AM EST |
Why is SCO focusing on company's that use UNIX and Linux
Some *possible* reasons (not mutually exclusive, there could be more than one
reason, and these are speculation not fact):
1. They don't think they have a good claim under copyright, trade secret or
patent law, so they hope to use some novel interpretation of the contracts.
2. They think they can get more damages for breech of contract than any other
type of claim.
3. The contracts are confusing enough that they have some leeway.
4. They know they don't own the copyrights (they have concluded Novell), but
maybe they think they have rights to pursue breach of contract.
5. They think they can avoid Lanham Act suits, by suing under breach of contract
theories, rather than saying bad stuff about Linux (bit late now!).
6. They just like attacking their own (even that is a stretch, given the
history) ... their own customers (okay I just threw that in for a joke)
7. Novell gets royalties from these contracts, so by terminating them, and
stopping the flow of royalties they think they can apply pressure to Novell
(either get Novell to pay up, or come down on their side on copyright, or to
un-waive their waiver of SCO's claims against IBM).
8. Kevin McBride and friends missed the class on copyright law, so they prefer
contract law (okay I threw that in for a joke too)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 03:07 AM EST |
Well, the threaded comments view show that the proper threading, but when I
change to nested view (my preferred method, as I basically speed read all the
comments in between doing other more theoretically "productive"
stuff), it all turns out flat!
Is it just my Opera browser that's gone barmy? Am I insane? Anyone experience
this?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 03:22 AM EST |
| If the defense fund reaches near $10M, this on its own is going to have a
severe psychological effect on the SCO management. They are driven by greed, if
one entity separate from Redhat and IBM can amass more money than SCO can afford
for their own legal costs (since they have a burn rate just running their doomed
company, and will be reluctant to shed costly employees as this is at odds with
the Growing Unix Owning Monolith spin) this will be perceived as a deeply
threatening pissing contest defeat where all of their supposed victims can beat
them.
As the number of enemies on their radar with significant legal teeth
multiplies, morale may take a dent there too. And since the whole thing is
driven by greed, its intrinsic that at some point the Vultures will no longer be
willing to put back the money they extracted, since they want to keep their
winnings. So somewhere if enough bad news comes for SCO there is a built-in
Game Over where the Cowled Emperor figures try to keep what they pumped out and
abandon the puppets. And if IBM destroy them in court this will be the
destruction of the main pillar holding up the rickety SCO Temple Of
FUD.
That Unix AND Linux thing is really significant too -- until the
babbling idiots contradict themselves again, that lets the majority of Linux
users off the hook I would think. And looking at how they plan to treat their
licensees, who in their right mind would enter into any kind of agreement or do
any business with these people and their encumbered Unix when there are Free
alternatives (that are far more heavily developed)? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 03:40 AM EST |
We really can be glad that this SCO mess came up at the time it did. Two years
earlier and Linux would be dead by now. Fortunately, Linux already has the
necessary critical mass and support from big names to resist SCO. IBM, Novell,
Intel, HP, Redhat ... what the hell was SCO thinking? They can't win this. For
crying out loud: they couldn't even win this if they had a case![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Linux on the move - Authored by: kberrien on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 07:40 AM EST
- Timing - Authored by: Captain on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 10:55 AM EST
- Timing - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 01:02 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 03:44 AM EST |
Reuters is catching on:
On Friday they started a story with
"SCO Group Inc., the software company that is
suing IBM and extracting
royalties from other Linux users".
Today, it's "SCO is suing IBM
and *trying* to extract royalties from
other Linux users" [emphasis
added].
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 04:08 AM EST |
From the article "SCO owns the license rights to the Unix operating
system".
It looks like Steve Lohr did his homework and realized that the only thing
"unix" that SCO owns free and clear is "license
rights".
Did anyone else notice that if SCO ever stops actively marketing unix licenses,
that Novell has a right to start selling them again?
That sure doesn't sound like something that would be written into a contract by
a company intending to sell all their rights in a product.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmc on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 05:17 AM EST |
If SCO does nothing and just continues to ramble on with their meaningless
threats and pin-stabbing into lists of files, maybe the fund could go on the
attack and lauch a Red Hat type suit?
Surely even SCO couldn't tie it up for months with a spurious dismissal motion
as they've done with RH?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lnx4me on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 06:43 AM EST |
Did anyone notice the IBM commercials during the football games Saturday:
IBM:open, Linux:free IIRC
'BAM!, Time to 'kick it up a notch' as Emeril would say.
Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mhoyes on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 07:00 AM EST |
Latest news is that SCO plans to sue Caldera for releasing their alledged IP.
In a move that stuned the rest of the country, SCO is sueing its former self for
illegally releaseing its internal IP code. SCO says they are assured of winning
the case as they have all of the evidence and can present it in court. Caldera
says they will be going to the ODSL to get funding for their legal defense to
defend against these alligations.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rcorg on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 07:14 AM EST |
Intel markets and supports a wide range of software developer tools, including
compilers and libraries, such as the IPP - Intel Performance Primitives -
implemented in Windows and Linux. The predominant market share of Intel
processors is directly supported by such software products.
For example, high performance workstations and even commodity desktop PCs today
perform tasks that previously would have required DSPs and other
application-specific hardware support.
The the Wintel platform now faces a major challenge with the transition to
64-bit computing, for which all device drivers will need to be rewritten, and
application software will have to be reengineered for 64-bit performance. AMD
has already proved itself ready for the challenge, and has achieved at least one
major design win over Intel - backward compatability with 32-bit software, which
gives AMD an early advantage in 64-bit market acceptance.
Intel has many strong reasons to support Linux, not the least of which is the
ongoing need to sell Linux development tools in order to sustain market share.
Opteron and Athlon64 boxes running Linux and OSS solutions are positioned
provide a truly viable alternative to Wintel. We already see the emergence of
AMD/Linux supercomputer and grid designs. Such exotic, high-end designs are
often bellwethers for the future of the commodity computing market. For example,
yesterday's supercomputera are matched in capability by some of today's game
boxes
I really don't foresee a wholesale demise of Wintel - rather a new chapter of
very healthy competition and innovation in this technology space.
Support for Linux is very much in Intel's slf-interest.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 07:18 AM EST |
I think that SCO has one major player in the Fast Food group that
they claim as a Unix user. The name starts with a "M". This POS is
perfect for Fast food and other franchise store setups... Mall
stores, outlet stores, etc... WOW !
Now, all SuSE and Red Hat and other distro's need to do is this:
they need is a replacement for Microsoft's Small Business Server
for the lower end. THe sooner the better! And this Linux SBS (that
could include LTSP and/or Nomachine.com technology) would also
be used by small governments as well. This Linux SBS must come
in at a price that is lower than Microsoft and with support that is
built-in, at a lower cost, that goes for 4 or 5 years without having to
go thru a major reinstall (very labor expensive). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PeteS on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 07:56 AM EST |
| First we see SGI to release
midrange Linux server
"Silicon Graphics Inc. plans to expand its
Linux computer line into the midrange area on Monday, when it will unveil an
Altix model with as many as 16 Itanium 2 processors".
This is more
processors (in a midrange box, as they call it; not so long ago this
would have been a very high end server) than any version of Unix or anything
else ever designed or sold by SCO or predecessors could handle.
So is SCOX
now going to try and sue SGI for making something they could not?
Then IBM
shows it's IP prowess in IBM retains
patent crown
"The computing giant said the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office granted it 3,415 patents, marking the 11th consecutive year the company
has been the top recipient.
So, Darl & Co, what do we say now about
Big Blue protecting it's own IP ?
Ah, the joys of Monday
;)
---
Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 08:11 AM EST |
|
The press release and FAQ
are noow availablee from thhe OSDL site.
H@ns [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 08:15 AM EST |
I see this as one of the first trickles in a tidal wave of legal help coming to
Linux.
SCO has bitten off way more than they can chew.
Even if by some miracle SCO had a case, the tide of public outcry will drowned
them very quickly.
I hope the SEC gets into this soon.
---
SCO directly to jail, do not collect two hundred dollars.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 08:20 AM EST |
Not to be trollish, but no one seems to have
mentioned the possible ominous side of
this announcement. Looks like IBM does NOT expect
SCO to disappear any time soon.
So I guess they doubt dismissal of SCO's suit is
likely and perhaps aren't too sure about swift
victory in the countersuit.
Maybe IBM is expecting a long, drawn out, and
difficult time in court, for themselves and other
Linux interests (distributors, devlopers AND
users).
Maybe SCO discover submission today will surprise
(when/if we find out about it in detail) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shareme on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 08:22 AM EST |
A question..
If and when the judge rules to dissmiss SCO claims..
Can IBM as k the court to sell SCOX assets or acquire them as part of gettin tis
corut and legal costs paid?
---
Sharing and thinking is only a crime in those societies where freedom doesn't
exist.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 08:31 AM EST |
My summary of events so far:
On the business front, the SCO Group is out of gas (unless we exclude the gas
that comes out of its corporate rear end): (1) the SCO Group's Unixware and
OPen Server revenue streams are uncumbered with IBM's patent claims; (2) IBM is
offering a Linux alternative to the SCO Group's existing customers such as
McDonald's.
Threatening Linux end users has triggered the existence of legal defense funds
such as RH's and now OSDL's. IMO, legal defense funds are far more effective
and deadlier to the viability of the SCO Group's extortion strategies than
idemnification including the idemnification provided by HP, Laura Didio's and
Rob Enderle's assertions notwhistanding.
On the legal front, Novell's action is a cloud on and a death threat to the SCO
Group's copyrights. The SCO Group has to no choice but to sue. Since Novell
owns some UNIX patents, Novell may be able to use them to countersue. In
addition, the SCO Group has done and said enough in the last two months to doom
its attempt to wiggle out of the RH lawsuit. Finally, we are all waiting for the
SCO Group to satisfactorily comply with IBM's motions by tomorrow. A failure of
the SCO Group to produce will set off a chain of events with adverse
consequences for the SCO Group.
The SCO Group wants to "offer" licenses in Australia, a country with
different laws, a different culture (they don't look at extortion with a kindly
eye either) and effective and aggressive Linux user groups.
I expect that the SCO Group's stock will either keep going up or stay at this
blatantly overpriced level since its "investors" are not investing
on the basis of any business fundamentals that I know of. I also expect the SCO
Group to continue waging its total war of disinformation and misinformation
using every PR technique and resource including connections in the rag trade
press and investment wanking - er, I meant "banking" - that are
available to the SCO Group. The PR returns on its total war are rapidly
diminishing, however.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 08:38 AM EST |
We all know the next company is google.com. Wonder if the linux user is Linus?
Maybe it is me, man there are so many to choose from.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 08:49 AM EST |
Naah, Linux-only users still have a problem. SCO thinks Linux is UNIX, and the
GPL is a type of license, so people who make copies of Linux for internal use do
have UNIX licenses. Nobody's safe. :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 08:51 AM EST |
"'No amount of money into a defense fund can protect somebody if they're
the guilty party,' Mr. McBride said.
Mr McBride, I have O. J.
Simpson for you on line 2. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 08:51 AM EST |
Beware SCO-- sue IBM and they will release their IRE (IBM Retail Environment) on
you.
This acronym is too good to be true....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 08:57 AM EST |
I think the idea of the OSDL Legal Defense Fund is very good in theory, but I
worry that this isn't sufficient enough for a legitimate, long term defense of
GNU, Linux, or the GPL.
While having the funds available to defray legal costs in a protracted IP battle
is beneficial, it doesn't do much good for the industry as a whole if one's
legal representation is - dare I say - even less effective than SCO's.
What happens if a company such as SCO sues an end user, who decides to retain as
council their friend Joe Lawyer, a twenty something, fresh-face right out of law
school? If the lawyer isn't really capable to handle a case which has such
significant economic, legal, and emotional ramifications across not only the IT
industry, but the entire globe, does the OSDL step in? Does the OSDL
predetermine which are acceptable firms that they'll pay? Does the OSDL also
assign council?
It would cost more to appeal and invalidate a ruling which is detrimental to the
GPL and other open source licenses, so it's paramount that such a SCO v. GPL
case never gets tried in a lower court where the defendant isn't adequately
prepared to defend himself, or where the defendant doesn't realize that such a
fund from OSDL is available to him.
I don't need money for my defense. I need Moglen, Lessig, et al.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: maxhrk on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 09:02 AM EST |
Havent you seen and heard the story of three musketeers? Intel, IBM, and
Novell.. and of course and many other musketeers behind is groklaw and other and
that SCO is super villiany and Didio it's supporter.
Just my two cent. :)
It been while i have posted the piece of my own.
---
Sincerely,
Richard M.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 09:03 AM EST |
You know what's amazing to me.. I have an Ameritrade account and when I look at
the articles for SCOX I see nothing but stuff that gives a positive spin to
their stock. It's amazing to me just how slow and stupid the financial press
is.
<hat type="tinfoil">
An alternate explanation is that the financial community has a strong vested
interest in keeping SCOX pumped until they can dump this turkey. (I really
think that's probably what the whole thing is about. Canopy: "Put some
lipstick on this pig, Darl.. we can all get our money out...")
</hat>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: apessos on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 09:13 AM EST |
Here's a question for you. Say there are little snippets of infringing code in
Linux. SCO has delayed giving over any sort of information about the infringing
code for almost over a year, in which time Linux developers could have taking it
out 10 fold. Wouldn't this fact affect SCO in a negative way.? And the longer
they drag this out, the more it could have been resolved easily by just engaging
in an open dialog. I'm ignoring the fact that it seems SCO is full of it,
but wondering giving all the offers to remove the code from the beginning how
this could effect their case, or any case by dragging out legal proceedings, if
any.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mdchaney on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 09:38 AM EST |
Hmm, Caldera sold a POS Linux system for years.
(ducks and runs)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: T. ProphetLactus on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 10:16 AM EST |
| How's Canopy's defense fund doing?
'No amount of money into a defense
fund can protect somebody if they're the guilty party,' Mr. McBride
said.
===========
Just contrast the nonsensical concept of *guilt*
in some bystanding Linux end-user vs. the culpability of the conspirators in a
stock fraud/ manipulation/extortion scheme...
Yeah, guilt.
TPL
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: irieiam on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 10:21 AM EST |
A McPOS would show the world (yet again) that linux is quite ready for the
enterprise. IBM seems to be on top of the corporate world's linux desktop
usage so...
NEXT!
---
-irieiam
The first requisite of Freedom is choice. The second would have to be
availability of information. Something bless the internet...please.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jdg on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 10:28 AM EST |
My guess is that IBM may end up with these assets as their compensation from
their (very likely) successful countersuit. Red Hat may also have a role here.
It would be nice if some more of Unix became open source.
-Dave
---
SCO is trying to appropriate the "commons"; don't let them[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: James on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 10:31 AM EST |
| SCO Stock is taking a nosedive as of 9:30 AM CST, expect a big announcement
about suing Google soon...
SCO Stock on Yahoo! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT: SCO Stock - Authored by: pjcm on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 10:44 AM EST
- Down 7% now. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 11:16 AM EST
- OT: SCO Stock - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 11:13 AM EST
- OT: SCO Stock - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 05:24 PM EST
- OT: SCO Stock - Authored by: kberrien on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 11:52 AM EST
- Boise and stock - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 12:59 PM EST
- OT: SCO Stock - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 05:23 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: maco on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 10:39 AM EST |
SCO is first round - MS is second. This is going to be the real
battle.
I think this puts Intel in an uncomfortable situation. They
probably joined the OSDL as a join tech venture - they do not what their
name linked with a defence fund that can be used against their biggest business
partner. Let's wait to see what Intel does when MS begins applying presure.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- and others - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 10:41 AM EST
- and others - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 11:43 AM EST
- and others - Authored by: stephenry on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 11:08 AM EST
- and others - Authored by: pooky on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 01:46 PM EST
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 03:06 PM EST
- and others - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 05:46 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 10:42 AM EST |
| "...which is finally waking up to the fact that this is the story of the
year."
LOL! Yeah, those nationwide election thingys that convene in
November this year are so passé. Why does the media waste so much time on
them? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Wise*** - Authored by: JMonroy on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 11:22 AM EST
- Wise*** - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 01:11 PM EST
- Monkey poo??? - Authored by: JMonroy on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 01:06 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 10:55 AM EST |
Has anyone examined the alternative of charging SCO with Extortion? This is a
criminal charge, and would require some DA to run with it. If a company makes
clear that they are going to sue many other companies that they think will be
forced to PAY THEM OFF instead of defending themselves, and if their grounds for
suit are poor, why ISN'T it extortion?
- The Precision Blogger
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lnx4me on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 11:38 AM EST |
Forbes
coverage of the same news.
Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 12:01 PM EST |
Microsoft - None (see EULA)
SCO - None (see EULA)
Linux on HP - Yes (many restrictions)
Linux - Yes
- IBM countersuit
- RedHat suit
- Redhat defense fund
- Novell counter copyright registration
- *** OSDL defense fund ***
- Groklaw
Laura Didio, press ALT-F, P.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 12:33 PM EST |
Reuters is catching on:
On Friday they started a story with
"SCO Group Inc., the software company that is
suing IBM and extracting
royalties from other Linux users".
Today, it's "SCO is suing IBM
and *trying* to extract royalties from
other Linux users" [emphasis
added].
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bbaston on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 12:46 PM EST |
Oh, this is fun! Big, big, big! What a chess game! SCO's move!
Besides such awesome support for Linux, there is the key point that no one but
HP took up SCO and "indemnifies" conditionally only certain Linux
binary. Red Hat offers a fund for legal defense of Linux developers, while the
OSDL (Intel and all, THANK YOU) fund is extended to any and all Linux users
suffering legal expense to defend "common" charges, such as
Attempted Embezzlement by SCO!
Only HP took the low road, limiting their participation to
"indemnification" _on_condition_ of an onerous license agreement
protecting only our use of particular binary, NOT the code! Now HP can be more
clearly seen as making a derisive marketing ploy asked for by SCO. Come on HP,
really defend us and our ideals before we let our opinion bias our market
decisions!!
Oh, this is fun! I could get emotional over the positive affect our Pamela Jones
has had on the course of history!
---
Ben B
-------------
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO,
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold,[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 01:00 PM EST |
In my view, this may be Intel's way of announcing support for Linux in general.
How important is this?
Well, I've seen some discussions that Intel might lock Microsoft's Palladium
into their chips, effectively squeezing out any other OS, which could have been
a Linux killer.
I hope this means that we need no longer fear that Linux will be locked out of
Intel chips. I believe this may be as important as when IBM came on board.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Captain on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 01:14 PM EST |
| OSDL goal: $10M defense fund for Linux users -
computerworld.com
Sorry if this is a repost, but I didn't read this McBride
quote before:
"Organizations and companies can try to align themselves
to allow end users to hide behind them, but at the end of the day, it doesn't
change the fact that SCO's intellectual property is in Linux," SCO said in the
statement. "Commercial end users of Linux that continue to use SCO's
intellectual property without authorization through a valid software license are
in violation of SCO's copyrights. We invite interested parties to view some of
this evidence for themselves at http://www.sco.com/scosource/."
I've
glanced over the scosource pages but all the evidence I could find were public
statements by IBM, like the ones Kevin referred to in that hearing. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 01:46 PM EST |
| SCO's reaction on OSDL:
Yahoo
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seeks2know on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 02:02 PM EST |
SCO is finding it increasingly difficult to pump up their stock price via PR.
Their primary problem is that their message clearly lacks consistency. As a
result, the mainstream and financial press no longer accept SCO press releases
as gospel. You see more and more instances where they question SCO's
statements or provide the alternative viewpoint.
Suing Google (or an alternative Linux user) will not boost their stock price.
In fact, I expect that this will result in further erosion in the value of their
stock.
Here is why:
Finacial analysts are already questioning the huge legal expenses incurred to
date. The IBM and Red Hat cases are not going any time soon, so SCO's expenses
are already on an upward trend. Opening a third battle front will severely
deplete SCO's cash resources. This vastly increases the risk associated with
investing in SCO. This is a long-winded way of saying the financial press will
not report this favorably for SCO.
In the mainstream press, SCO's action will create further confusion. What is
SCO's claim in all this? Is this about copyright infringement? Breach of
contract? Patent infringement? Trade secrets? SCO has claimed each of these
in the past. I predict that SCO's ever-changing claims are already reached the
precipice of believability with the mainstream press, and any new significant
claims will result in a massive loss of credibility for SCO.
Their stock has been trading sideways for months now. I believe that when the
price drops to around $14, that we will see large-scale dumping by institutional
investors, as the price plummets.
Well, one can only hope.
---
The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the
question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth. - Pierre Abelard[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 02:02 PM EST |
Looks like the battle lines are being drawn. It's literally
MicrosoftSCO Group against everyone else.
If I were
Intel, I would jump right on this bandwagon. Linux at this point represents more
of a replacement for UNIX and UNIX derivitave OS's than for Windows. Replacing
UNIX represents a lt of possible conversion from other processing platforms to
Intel chipsets. Their contribution to the legal fund, while welcomed, is also
self interested.
-pooky ---
Remember, just because SCO says it's
so doesn't make it so. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seeks2know on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 02:25 PM EST |
Best headline of the day:
Google receptionist baffled by SCO request for
licensing
fees
---
The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting
we come to the question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth. - Pierre
Abelard [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 02:31 PM EST |
It says "SCO owns the license rights to the Unix operating
system and contends that Linux, a variant of Unix,
violates its license and copyright."
Should it not say ""SCO owns the license rights to the
Unix operating system and contends that Linux *is* a
variant of Unix and violates its license and copyright." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mhoyes on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 02:55 PM EST |
Looking at News Factor, Ms
DiDio made a comment about the fund. To quote:
IBM's
contribution to the legal defense fund is no surprise, Yankee Group analyst
Laura DiDio told NewsFactor. "They're right on the front lines." However, she
said, IBM's contribution still is missing something. "I have yet to see them
step up to the plate and say, 'We are going to indemnify our customers, either
partially or wholly, against this.'"
Furthermore, since the GPL has not met
a full legal test, SCO's action may not be the only lawsuit Linux faces, which
means the indemnification issue will remain. In the face of continuing potential
threats, contributing to a defense fund instead of indemnifying customers "is
like putting a band-aid on a complex fracture," DiDio said.
This seems to show that once more, she is showing how
close to SCO she is. All the other analysts that I have seen in the news today
are questioning SCO, yet she continues in this indemnification
vein.
meh [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thumbo on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 03:03 PM EST |
Haven't seen this mentioned - it's a report of SCO's reaction to the OSDL
fund.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040112/lam085_1.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 03:11 PM EST |
Novell owns UNIX and Novell is part of the OSDL now. We all know that any way
you slice it Unix is old and worn out but it still has much that could be useful
to GNU/Linux. The thought is when IBM finally does it's death blow to SCO maybe
Novell will put UNIX out there in the OSS world. Free R&D on an old system
and since Novell is heading the open source way anyway maybe the plan is to keep
UNIX alive by moving it into LINUX. Also SCO is devaluing UNIX with this lovely
lawsuit and even if SCO is beaten into a bloody mess on the ground UNIX will
suffer eternally from a bad rap (SO TO SPEAK) and more and more business will be
moving away from it to LINUX and other Oss.
Sorry if this is just a little off topic and the fact that I am anonymous but
for some reason my account disappeared even though I am still getting the
newsletter in my mail I can't log in. So with that long winded explanation
enjoy the rest of your day.
~Justin Thayer~ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 03:27 PM EST |
For what it's worth, Forbes changed part of their article from your first
quote. You have:
"IBM and Intel plan to announce a defense fund to help little-guy Linux
users pay lawyers in the event they are sued, presumably by the SCO Group, which
owns the Unix operating system and says the GNU Linux infringes on Unix."
Now it's:
IBM and Intel plan to announce a defense fund to help little-guy Linux users pay
lawyers in the event they are sued, presumably by the SCO Group, which claims
certain intellectual property rights relating to the Unix Operating System* and
says the GNU Linux infringes on Unix.
With the footnote:
*An earlier version of this story mischaracterized the nature of SCO's rights
to Unix.
Care to take credit?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LinuxLobbyist on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 03:38 PM EST |
"'If vendors feel so confident with the intellectual
property foundation under their massive contributions into Linux, then they
should put their money where their mouth is and protect end users with true
vendor-based indemnification,' said Darl McBride, president and CEO, The SCO
Group, Inc."
I guess it'd be mean to laugh out
loud.
Hmm, funny. My reaction, at least to that last
paragraph, was somewhat different. I read it with a degree of satisfaction.
What I see in that comment is a note of...what shall I call it...righteous
indignation, maybe? Maybe not that, but I can't find the right words to
describe it.
You see, I think Darl is upset -- and blindsided is the
right word to use, as Linux Today did -- about this defense fund. He was hoping
for more vendors to offer indemnification.
If vendors offer
indemnification and SCO goes after an end user, theoretically the big pockets of
the indemnifying vendor would kick in and he doesn't have to go picking off
smaller users or identifying larger users. Go after any user and their
vendors are dragged into court. That doesn't work if only HP (unwisely) is
offering indemnification. All Linux vendors have to offer it for the
strategy to work.
Now when it comes to this defense fund, any end user
who is sued by SCO may potentially dip into this fund instead of settling. As
has been said, IBM hasn't opened its checkbook, why should anyone? (Unless you
don't have the funds to defend yourself, but a settlement will cost you
significantly less.)
SCO is, yet again, fighting and open source
principle. A community working together. Indemnification offered by all the
major vendors would have limited the targets to a few large pockets with (in
SCOs mind) huge damages (all those customers, each one representing a copyright
infringement). And they could have hit any one of those larger targets now
matter where they aimed.
Now what SCO has to deal with is many, many
end users with no large company to take over the litigation (and if found
liable, will be liable for all it's customers), but, nevertheless, with
the funds to defend itself against SCO's baseless charges.
Still, PJ,
I'm with you...I guess it is cause for laughing out loud after all! This fund
has hit a sore spot with Darl. And I feel justified and my satisfaction.
(Thankfully, I'm alone in the office today, so no one heard me snickering.
;-)) ---
Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try
Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Class action? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 04:14 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 12 2004 @ 07:16 PM EST |
A quick look at "Interix" (the Microsoft Cygwin knockoff--actually a
branch, ca. 2000) available at--
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/
shows under SDK/usr/include a signal.h file with the following comment:
"Names and numbers conform to V7, SysV, BSD, Posix, SUS."
For that matter, the headers are full of "OpenBSD" and the
executables, under "strings | grep BSD" seem to have been compiled
against memcpy, etc. from BSD.
And, of course, there is the whole GPLfullness of distributing gcc 3.3.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tejano on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 06:39 PM EST |
| Admittedly I have not watched Forbes.com cover this particular subject closely,
however they did bring to light 'The Canopy Group' and the nefarious
machinations that have been festering at SCO for the past several years:
http://www.forbes.c
om/2003/06/18/cz_dl_0618linux.html
Additionally, Google was approached
by SCO regarding a 'Linux license,' reported by Forbes as well:
h
ttp://www.forbes.com/markets/bonds/newswire/2004/01/09/rtr1205268.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
