Just wondering what you guys thought about SCO...
Does it have a case agsint IBM/Linux or is it all FUD?
Let's also please be adults about it, even if SCO is Microsoft's new b***h.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :p
Printable View
Just wondering what you guys thought about SCO...
Does it have a case agsint IBM/Linux or is it all FUD?
Let's also please be adults about it, even if SCO is Microsoft's new b***h.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :p
here is the nice little icon I have made
https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2004/01/1.jpg
thing is, all the things SCO has said that was in the Linux Kernel was actually ripped by SCO..and there trying to claim it. The thing with IBM being siid, well thing is the code that was added was under the BSD Free Source License whicb I guess SCO owns, but its free...so there trying to sue for somthing thats not there...thats as far as I knowQuote:
Originally posted by Dark Millennium
Just wondering what you guys thought about SCO...
Does it have a case agsint IBM/Linux or is it all FUD?
Let's also please be adults about it, even if SCO is Microsoft's new b***h.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :p
This is quite a complex issue, it has a significant amount of noise arround it due to the parties involved, so this is my perspective on it.
SCO is tainted because MS has linkage to it - Even if SCO is/were 100% Clean and wins 100% it will still be considered Dirty.
IBM is a big corp that plays both sides of the field to get one thing, profits - If IBM had found its code infringed by SCO what do you think they would have done?
LINUX is a mixed bag, Unfortunatly it has some very outspoken zelots who cannot and will not see reason - They think that they are helping LINUX but infact they are a major handicap that forces a large number of companies to have doubt over LINUX. People who have a patalogical hatred of MS do not make good spokes people for your cause.
SO what do we know?
1) SCO claims IBM infringed its code.
2) SCO claim damages from IBM
3) IBM has concedded that it used SCO code but claims that SCO had released the code under GPL and thus has nothing to answer for.
4) IBM claims damages due to SCO's lawsuit.
Lets forget all the damages bit and look at (3) now this is the critical point and this is what Microsoft want to test in court. The GPL license - If the court rules that SCO code is not under GPL then IBM are in the crap, Worse still is the impact that it allows SCO to go after Redhat and SUSE etc.
If SCO wins (and it may remember its the law, not who is morally right or morally wrong but what you can legally prove is right) LINUX, GPL and all the companies that have profitted from it will have to pay the piper.
I think that a whole lot of linux programmers/developers have been caught out, for years thes guys/gurls have been including code that is owned by their employers or derived from their employers IP and now some one has pointed the finger. Much Like a child caught with a cookie that they sholdn't have they are abdicating responsibility and blaming some one else while demanding indemnity from their actions.
well said...Quote:
Originally posted by Rojacks
This is quite a complex issue, it has a significant amount of noise arround it due to the parties involved, so this is my perspective on it.
SCO is tainted because MS has linkage to it - Even if SCO is/were 100% Clean and wins 100% it will still be considered Dirty.
IBM is a big corp that plays both sides of the field to get one thing, profits - If IBM had found its code infringed by SCO what do you think they would have done?
LINUX is a mixed bag, Unfortunatly it has some very outspoken zelots who cannot and will not see reason - They think that they are helping LINUX but infact they are a major handicap that forces a large number of companies to have doubt over LINUX. People who have a patalogical hatred of MS do not make good spokes people for your cause.
SO what do we know?
1) SCO claims IBM infringed its code.
2) SCO claim damages from IBM
3) IBM has concedded that it used SCO code but claims that SCO had released the code under GPL and thus has nothing to answer for.
4) IBM claims damages due to SCO's lawsuit.
Lets forget all the damages bit and look at (3) now this is the critical point and this is what Microsoft want to test in court. The GPL license - If the court rules that SCO code is not under GPL then IBM are in the crap, Worse still is the impact that it allows SCO to go after Redhat and SUSE etc.
If SCO wins (and it may remember its the law, not who is morally right or morally wrong but what you can legally prove is right) LINUX, GPL and all the companies that have profitted from it will have to pay the piper.
I think that a whole lot of linux programmers/developers have been caught out, for years thes guys/gurls have been including code that is owned by their employers or derived from their employers IP and now some one has pointed the finger. Much Like a child caught with a cookie that they sholdn't have they are abdicating responsibility and blaming some one else while demanding indemnity from their actions.
https://forums.windrivers.com/images.../2004/01/1.jpg
One thing I would like to add is that Linux users, whether corporate or personal, are not going to be in trouble. SCO can not collect for damages from IBM and then turn around to collect additional damages from Linux users. SCO has shot themselves in the foot by not letting anyone see the supposed infringing code without signing an NDA. They have not tried (actually, gone out of their way) to limit their damages by showing the supposed infringing code to Linux companies so those companies can either make some kind of license agreement or remove said code. They haven't even tried to get an injunction to keep their code from being used (because it's not their code or it is their code, but they inserted it into Linux themselves). SCO even had their own version of Linux (SCO Linux) and had a department whose sole purpose was to port their own Unix code into Linux.
If (and it's a humongous if) SCO wins their lawsuit against IBM, IBM will be the sole source of damages assessed (Linux companies will just remove the infringing code and life will go on). SCO would have to attempt to prove willful intent on the part of the Linux companies to use code that they "knew" was infringing (which they didn't). From what I have seen, the code that SCO has been showing is either not even their own code or code that they actually inserted into Linux themselves under the GPL or BSD licenses. So far it's been nothing but a "smoke and mirrors" show from SCO. First it was a breach of contract, then it was a copyright issue, then it wasn't a copyright issue. First it was just IBM and then it was all of Linux. First it was a handful of lines of code and then it was a million lines of code. SCO wants you to believe that nearly 80% of the code from kernel 2.4 forward is SCO's code because apparently prior to 2.4 there was no infringing code.
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. It amounts to a classic pump and dump. A dying company's last ditch effort to grab some cash before fading into oblivion. Let's also not forget the fact that Microsoft "licensed" SCO's Unix source code for an undisclosed amount right before this whole thing started. SCO wants to charge Linux users between $199.00 to $699.00 per computer for licensing the supposed infringing code. Gimme a break. "Do I get a refund if you lose in court?" "Nope."
SCO's argument for the GPL? Copyright law allows for only one copy to be made so the GPL is invalid. Since when does copyright supercede licensing agreements? If I give you a license to make as many copies as you want and then turn around to say that copyright law only allows for one copy, do you think I'll be able to collect for all of your copies? I didn't think so either. SCO's evidence and arguments are laughable at best. Sleep easy. SCO is the one that is in trouble after the smoke clears. I'm surprised the SEC hasn't stepped into the fray yet. Maybe they're just waiting for SCO to gather enough rope to hang themselves with.
It's just SCO's way of trying to get bought out, they figure because they can't support themselves maybe they can be somebody's b*tch.
If they win they still will have alienated the whole Unix/Linux community and who will buy their stuff then? because the Linux coders will have written it out before you can say ''kernel panic''
if they lose they still will have alienated the whole Unix/Linux community and who will buy their stuff then?
In the meantime their stock continues to rise with all the buzz when the truth begins to surface in trial their stock will plummet and some big fish will swim along and swallow them up to the tune of non-disclosure agreement and we will have never heard the gavel fall.
Till then we'll be sick of hearing about it and the end result will be mere trivia.
then I'm going to excercise MY copyright :D
Will SCO, IBM get a fair trial?
The problem is the Linux / open source zealots who actually damage the work done by the large majority in a legal, respectful and business like manner.
For a 2nd time the SCO website has been knocked down due to a DoS attack by some disgruntled Linux zealot. This is the WORST thing that some one could do as it brands linux supports as potential vandals that will attack you company if they don't like what you do. It also makes SCO a victim and thus gains them sympathy, like it or not the Judge / Judges who here the case will know about these attacks and it is something as trivial as this that can swing the balance when the argument is not black and white.
People need to let the legal process take its course and not post such inflammatory statements either one way or the othet nor use illegal methods to exact revenge against a assumed guilty party.