Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageRecent Features
| |||||||||||||
SCO - Linux' Worst Nightmare Is Back (OpenSource Magazine)
It is with some trepidation that your editor points out this
OpenSource Magazine article, which might better be titled "Maureen
O'Gara is back." But it is bizarrely different view of the ruling in SCO
v. Novell; it's worth knowing that this kind of thought is out there.
"The court also said Novell couldn't run interference for Linux and
stop SCO from seeking royalty payments for alleged UnixWare and OpenServer
infringement by Linux users under its infamous SCOsource licensing program.
Armed with that decision, it's merely a matter of time before SCO starts
seeking those payments."
(Log in to post comments)
SCO - Linux' Worst Nightmare Is Back (OpenSource Magazine) Posted Jul 18, 2008 19:51 UTC (Fri) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] What in God's name is she smoking??? (Disclaimer: Several posters at Groklaw had nearly-identical reactions as mine.)
SCO - Linux' Worst Nightmare Is Back (OpenSource Magazine) Posted Jul 18, 2008 21:35 UTC (Fri) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link] What is she smoking? Most likely shares of SCO stock she has stock-piled. In today's depressed economy the paper it is printed on is probably more valuable as a source of heat and the vaporized ink as a recreational drug..then its original purpose as a financial document. -jef
SCO - Linux' Worst Nightmare Is Back (OpenSource Magazine) Posted Jul 24, 2008 16:43 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] She's smoking that which 99% of humanity imbibes on an all too frequent basis - the "I wasn't wrong! I wasn't! I wasn't!!!" drug.
SCO - Linux' Worst Nightmare Is Back (OpenSource Magazine) Posted Jul 18, 2008 21:35 UTC (Fri) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link] Its also a sum small enough to persuade SCOs new Arab friends to go ahead and write that check for $100 million that theyve been promising to invest in the company, money that will be used to press both SCOs appeal and its suit against IBM and Linux. If SCO wins its prospective appeal and makes progress in the IBM suit (IBM may finally have met a budget that exceeds even its unlimited resources) well, heaven help the Linux user. Priceless. I put that whole article at the level of the Onion.
SCO - Linux' Worst Nightmare Is Back (OpenSource Magazine) Posted Jul 18, 2008 23:59 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Impressive spin. The tiny element of truth, I think, is that the judge did draw a possible distinction between code that SCO added, and code that SCO was selling on behalf of Novell, which might appear to a confused journalist to mean that if SCO could prove that someone copied that code, they might collect damages. But SCO doesn't have any evidence of that, and this is never what they charged IBM with.
SCO - Linux' Worst Nightmare Is Back (OpenSource Magazine) Posted Jul 19, 2008 7:19 UTC (Sat) by xtifr (subscriber, #143) [Link] What they charged IBM with is...impressively vague. What they finally showed when compelled to present their evidence, however, was, yes, small amounts of old SYSV code, not anything they can claim to actually own.
SCO - Linux' Worst Nightmare Is Back (OpenSource Magazine) Posted Jul 19, 2008 8:49 UTC (Sat) by chrisV (subscriber, #43417) [Link] In my view it was mistake to post a link to this article, which is just ill informed propaganda and not serious journalism. It will just increase the hit rate. It misses two points. First there has never been any doubt from the outset that SCO owns the copyright to Unixware/Openserver code which is not in Sys V, but SCO has not so far alleged that there is any infringement of Unixware/Openserver-only copyrights. Secondly, to prove such infringement, all the wishy-washy "methods and concepts" arguments are for nought if they have to show the code is in Unixware/Openserver but not in Sys V, as they would. Secondly, they are now in a nice bind. The finding against them for only $2.5 was made because the court had held that they did not as a matter of law own the Sys V copyrights so the SCOsource licenses could as a matter of fact only grant rights to use non-Sys V code, so all the license fees must relate only to Unixware/Openserver - so the wronged party is the licensee and not Novel. If they do own the Sys V copyrights then they would be liable for around $20 million. I think that was the judge's little joke.
SCO - Linux' Worst Nightmare Is Back (OpenSource Magazine) Posted Jul 20, 2008 21:05 UTC (Sun) by Xman (guest, #10620) [Link] First there has never been any doubt from the outset that SCO owns the copyright to Unixware/Openserver code which is not in Sys V, but SCO has not so far alleged that there is any infringement of Unixware/Openserver-only copyrights.There must have been some doubt about Unixware, as it was part of what SCO licensed from Novell, yes?
SCO - Linux' Worst Nightmare Is Back (OpenSource Magazine) Posted Jul 24, 2008 16:47 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] > The finding against them for only $2.5 was made... Only ten quarters...? but it's STILL higher than their market capitalisation... ;)
SCO - Linux' Worst Nightmare Is Back (OpenSource Magazine) Posted Jul 19, 2008 18:39 UTC (Sat) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link] it's worth knowing that this kind of thought is out there.You said it: it's out there alright; way out there! ;-)
SCO - Linux' Worst Nightmare Is Back (OpenSource Magazine) Posted Jul 20, 2008 15:21 UTC (Sun) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] Given the history of SCO, MoG may well be right, regardless of her outrageous journalistic track record. They'll need someone to provide them with the cash to burn, though. Management willing, who's to stop SCO from suing forever? Wasn't the Autozone case based on a UnixWare or SCOServer library by the way? I forget, but somehow the library in question proved unconnectable to the IBM case at the time?
SCO - Linux' Worst Nightmare Is Back (OpenSource Magazine) Posted Jul 20, 2008 18:16 UTC (Sun) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link] Information about the SCO claim is on http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040303075355356 The case is on hold until after the IBM, Novell etc. cases. The claim is: "AutoZone violated SCO's UNIX copyrights by running versions of the Linux operating system that contain code, structure, sequence and/or organization from SCO's proprietary UNIX System V code in violation of SCO's copyrights." Well, from the Novell case it is clear SCO doesn't own the UNIX System V code. Further part of the claim: "Upon information and belief, Autozone's new Linux based software implemented by IBM featured SCO's shared libraries .." is a statement solely based on "belief", and not supported by facts or evidence. The "belief" was based on SCO's idea that it was impossible to migrate to Linux without those libraries. A typical case of confusing "I can't do it" with "It can't be done"
SCO - Linux' Worst Nightmare Is Back (OpenSource Magazine) Posted Jul 21, 2008 20:02 UTC (Mon) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] Hm ... I went back and checked (the response by AZ to SCO, as text) ... "Upon in-depth analysis of its servers as a result of the discovery process, AutoZone discovered that there were a limited number of programs that had been errantly copied to its store server image that were old OpenServer compiled programs. Because these programs had been compiled under OpenServer, they included copies of certain SCO libraries (an issue that is discussed in Section B below). ..." With the exception of some old Xenix files, that seemed to be the only thing _technically_ in violation of SCO's copyright. AZ was ripping mad for havin provided the information to SCO in good faith and SCO turning around to rebase their complaint on that.
SCO - Linux' Worst Nightmare Is Back (OpenSource Magazine) Posted Jul 22, 2008 6:50 UTC (Tue) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link] Well, those claims are without chance anyway. As for the Xenix files, they could not run, so the matter is only storing files by somone who has a valid license. As for the files compiled on SCO, SCO was a great promoter of binary compatibility of executables between systems. The development system was able to generate binaries for several ABI's, e.g SVR4 SVR5 and iBCS2, and was promoted as such. Therefore running programs compiled under SCO on other systems that support those ABI's can't be a violation of the license. It was an advertised future. Besides that, AZ still had valid SCO licenses for the about 3000 systems, and the use of this programs compiled on SCO was not intentional. I have done a migration from SCO to linux myself, and these things can happen, eg. when during the transition, for some reason, someone loads an old version of a subsystem. So the AZ case adds nothing.
SCO - Linux' Worst Nightmare Is Back (OpenSource Magazine) Posted Jul 22, 2008 7:55 UTC (Tue) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] Yes, I agree with all the above. Just saying that if SCO in their own little SCO Universe wants to go ahead with such claims, all that's left of AZ is about code that SCO technically owns. SCO-Novell won't help here. One can hope that the judge will have no sympathy for such nonsense, though.
Maureen O'Gara Posted Jul 21, 2008 5:33 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] She's living in her own dream world. Many people simply stopped talking to her - and Sys-Con in general - after she tried to disclose PJ's personal information. She didn't handle that well. And she's going to write what she needs to prove to herself that she is right while we are all wrong. It won't look very much like reality.
SCO - Linux' Worst Nightmare Is Back (OpenSource Magazine) Posted Jul 21, 2008 8:46 UTC (Mon) by sean.hunter (guest, #7920) [Link] She meant (of course) "Armed with that decision and evidence of actionable wrong-doing...". See, without that pesky old evidence that someone has done something wrong in Linux they're going to have a hard old time pursuing damages against end-users. Now you'd think that in the 1000 years or so that this lawsuit has been going on that they would somewhere have uncovered some of that evidence but so far they haven't produced any in court in spite of their many public claims.
|
|||||||||||||