Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
SCO's claims have absolutely no credibility (ZDNet)
Here's a ZDNet opinion column about SCO which pulls no punches. There's not much new there for LWN readers, but it's nice to see it all together in that forum.
"SCO's System V copyrights do not include rights to any of the code they are discussing: RCU, NUMA, JFS, SMP. RCU is patented by IBM. NUMA is not present in System V, and was independently developed by Sequent, SGI, and IBM (not SCO). SMP in Linux was originally assisted by SCO Caldera, and newer work includes functionality that no SCO product has ever included. IBM authored JFS originally for OS/2, not System V."
(Log in to post comments)
SCO's claims have absolutely no credibility (ZDNet) Posted Jul 25, 2003 13:47 UTC (Fri) by allesfresser (guest, #216) [Link] Very nice. I am truly amused, however, by the Microsoft ad that appeared prominently at the head of the article trumpeting "Download free code and boost your productivity!" Of course, what they actually mean is something else, but its proximity to the article was pretty amusing...
SCO's claims have absolutely no credibility (ZDNet) Posted Jul 25, 2003 14:44 UTC (Fri) by davidl (guest, #12156) [Link] I wouldn't know, I have my browser set to deny all images from third party servers. I did this in response to the annoying number of advertisements for Microsoft software and Windows Server 2003 I see on every article associated with Linux or Open Source software that I read.I thought Windows Server 2003 was selling?
SCO's claims have absolutely no credibility (ZDNet) Posted Jul 25, 2003 14:46 UTC (Fri) by TimCunningham (guest, #10316) [Link] Really, now. The only banner ads that really annoyed you were the Microsoft ones?
SCO's claims have absolutely no credibility (ZDNet) Posted Jul 25, 2003 15:09 UTC (Fri) by davidl (guest, #12156) [Link] Amongst others....
Section 12 of GPL is also relevant Posted Jul 25, 2003 14:07 UTC (Fri) by southey (subscriber, #9466) [Link] Very nice to see the arguments relative to Linux laid out in a concise way. But the author misses section 12 of the GPL about no warranty and that makes anyone not liable for damages (which are essentially undefined).
Section 12 of GPL is also relevant Posted Jul 25, 2003 18:30 UTC (Fri) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] That's not relevant here; no license term can exempt you from copyright law, sorry.Section 12 means that end-users cannot sue the developers/distributors for flaws in the software. It doesn't exempt either the users or the developers/distributors from being prosecuted by a third party for violating the law.
Section 12 of GPL is also relevant Posted Jul 29, 2003 14:19 UTC (Tue) by chohman (guest, #5519) [Link] Stevenj's observation on section 12 seems correct to me; however, I am unsure that that matters.If I am a Linux USER, and SCO wants to sue me: Perhaps you can suggest some legal theory under which they may be able to sue me, but I haven't seen anyone propose one yet.
SCO's claims have absolutely no credibility (ZDNet) Posted Jul 25, 2003 14:54 UTC (Fri) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] >There's not much new there for LWN readers, but it's nice to see it all together in that forum.Too bad most ZDnet readers probably won't notice it. I just looked at the ZDnet front page (www.zdnet.com), and there is still prominently the link to the "is this the end of free linux" story that the opinion column is responding to, but no obvious path leading to this response. I wonder how you found it?
Boycott SCO/Canopy email campaign. Posted Jul 25, 2003 16:36 UTC (Fri) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] I've already done most of the work for you. Please take few minutes to send an email to these canopy group portfolio companies.I am also including a list of canopy group web-sites, and a sample of the letter that I have sent to all of these companies. I want to make it clear that I am not just sending emails. I actually intend to do all that I can to boycott these companies, and to have others boycott these companies. I want as many companies as possible to understand that any affiliation with canopy group could cause those companies to lose sales - during a time when so many technology companies are already suffering from slow sales. Maybe this won't make a world of difference. But, if enough people will just send an email, maybe this will put a little pressure on the canopy group crime syndicate. I have worked in IT for 25 years, and have been involved in several major purchasing decisions. I am infuriated at SCO/Canopy's attempts at fraud and extortion. As well as SCO's FUD campaign against Linux. As such, I will no longer purchase, or recommend the purchase, of any products or services from any company that is even partially owned by SCO/Canopy. I intend to encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Boycott SCO/Canopy email campaign. Posted Jul 25, 2003 16:47 UTC (Fri) by sphealey (guest, #1028) [Link] I would suggest that rather than the phrase "fraud and extortion", substituting "treatment of customers, potential customers, and the general business community, and contribution to the creation of a sub-optimal computing experience for the general public". Or something like that. It is best not to use words like "fraud" until such has been proven in a court of law.sPh
Boycott SCO/Canopy email campaign. Posted Jul 25, 2003 17:05 UTC (Fri) by jbbm63 (guest, #13316) [Link] You made an error. Trolltech (sp? the makes of the Qt toolkit used by KDE) is *not* a "Canopy company". Look up who owns the majority of the shares, it's definitively not Canopy. This was talked about a few times on SlashDot, actually.
Boycott SCO/Canopy email campaign. Posted Jul 25, 2003 17:31 UTC (Fri) by DaveK (subscriber, #2531) [Link] Employees - 64.7%... Canopy Group - 4.1% ... SCO Group - 1.6% Seems I'll have to refrain from using 5.7% of Qt!
Boycott SCO/Canopy email campaign. Posted Jul 25, 2003 17:06 UTC (Fri) by mmarkov (guest, #4978) [Link] 1. What is The Canopy Group? I have neverheard of it before, today I see the name twice (in a comment after the ZD article as well). 2. Aren't TrollTech "good guys"? Why are Again, about the Canopy Gr. Is that an
Boycott SCO/Canopy email campaign. Posted Jul 25, 2003 17:32 UTC (Fri) by jeff@uclinux.org (guest, #8024) [Link] Canopy is Ralph Noorda's VC firm. It owns (and in most cases controls) largeparts of these companies. It is run by Ralph Yarro, and he has stated in the press that SCO mess is of his design (also "...if you mess with me..."). Sad. These guys were responsible for a huge chunk of the money spent on Linux during the bubble, and IMHO, they are now angry they didn't have commercial success. J
Boycott SCO/Canopy email campaign. Posted Jul 25, 2003 17:53 UTC (Fri) by drathos (guest, #6454) [Link] The Canopy Group owns SCO and many other companies. Their connection to Trolltech is that they own a 4.1% stake in it (follow the trolltech url listed above). SCO itself also has another 1.6%.The funny thing is that, if you go to the Canopy home page, they make it seem like they own Trolltech by listing it with all those companies they *do* own.
Boycott SCO/Canopy email campaign. Posted Jul 25, 2003 18:43 UTC (Fri) by mmarkov (guest, #4978) [Link] """Their connection to Trolltech is that they own a 4.1% stake in it (follow the trolltech url listed above)."""Hmm. According to that page (the link was provided by someone at ZD's forum), Ralph J. Yarro sits on the board of directors for Troll Tech. I have no idea how bad^H^H^Himportant this is.
Boycott SCO/Canopy email campaign. Posted Jul 25, 2003 19:45 UTC (Fri) by drathos (guest, #6454) [Link] That's probably due to the amount of shares that the Canopy Group holds. In general, the Board of Directors for a company is made up of the major investors (or their representatives).
SCO's claims have absolutely no credibility (ZDNet) Posted Jul 25, 2003 18:02 UTC (Fri) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] I believe trolltech is a private company, and as such, trolltech can control which companies invest in trolltech. I would like to encorage trolltech, and the other companies, to stop affiliating with Canopy and SCO. Because the investments by SCO/Canopy are small, it would be relatively easy for trolltech to stop affiliating with SCO/Canopy.Trolltech removing themselves from the Canopy portfolio list would send a strong statement. If trolltech got 30 or 40 serious emails, from people who wanted to boycott trolltech products/services because of Canopy, I wonder if there is any chance that trolltech might re-evaluate their relationship with Canopy. I believe the terms "fraud" and "extortion" are entirely appropriate to describe scox's behavior. However, I would like to encorage everybody to write their own letters, and to use whatever phrases you wish. It will be a cinch to send a letter to all of those companies, I doubt it would take 10 minutes. Just cut-n-paste the email list. Frankly, it bugs me a little, that so many so-called Linux advocates will complain about SCO all day, but won't do the slightest thing to help the situation.
SCO's claims have absolutely no credibility (ZDNet) Posted Jul 25, 2003 19:29 UTC (Fri) by melauer (guest, #2438) [Link] > Frankly, it bugs me a little, that so many so-called Linux advocates will> complain about SCO all day, but won't do the slightest thing to help the > situation. Unless you're personally familiar with all of the people you're complaining about, you should not make such broad claims. This sort of accusation is more likely to anger your potential supporters than to shame them into helping you.
SCO's claims have absolutely no credibility (ZDNet) Posted Jul 30, 2003 12:59 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] <quote>I believe trolltech is a private company, and as such, trolltech can control which companies invest in trolltech. I would like to encorage trolltech, and the other companies, to stop affiliating with Canopy and SCO. Because the investments by SCO/Canopy are small, it would be relatively easy for trolltech to stop affiliating with SCO/Canopy. </quote> No it would NOT be easy. As a private person, could I go up to you and say "I demand that you sell your house to me. I like it and I'm quite happy to pay a fair price"? The fact is, SCO & Canopy own about 5%, and it is THEIR PROPERTY. There is no way (short of passing a law of expropriation) that they can be coerced into selling against their will. And the fact that TT is private is irrelevant. I don't know the rules elsewhere, but in the UK the only way that shares can be forcibly transferred in the normal course of events is where the buyer has already bought 90% of the shares with the consent of their previous owners (this gives them the right to forcefully acquire the remaining shares at the same price), or where the share certificate explicitly defines the shares as redeemable and details the circumstances under which the issuing company is allowed to buy them back. My company actually has that sort of setup - the shares are nominally worthy £1 each and our shareholders are obliged to trade solely with us, at par. But that is part of the share contract we have with our shareholders and is not normal for a typical company. Cheers,
SCO's claims have absolutely no credibility (ZDNet) Posted Jul 28, 2003 13:14 UTC (Mon) by cspalletta (guest, #12402) [Link] Subject: Boycotting all companies affiliated with SCO/CanopyTo: salesinfo@altiris.com, help@customercare.avenueme.com, support@culturegrams.com, sales@center7.com, sales@cerberian.com, sales@cogitoinc.com, sales@communitect.com, yslew@datacrystal.com, info@devicelogics.com, info@directpointe.com, info@fatpipeinc.com, info@geolux.com, sales@helius.com, info@homepipeline.com, sales@iArchives.com, sales@industrialtrainingzone.com, brutledge@linuxnetworx.com, tyler@luxul.net, sales@maxstream.net, jclary@mi-corporation.com, info@mti.com, pr@myfamilyinc.com, ProTools@SaberToothTools.com, ronastarns@aztecenterprises.com, sales@caldera.com, info@trolltech.com, info@tuglet.com, sales@viawest.net, Sales@wrenchead.com <Your qualifications here> I am infuriated at SCO/Canopy's tactics in it's lawsuit against IBM, and at what I perceive As such, I will no longer purchase, or recommend the purchase, of any products or services BCC recipients: I encourage you to send a similar letter to the addressees if you concur.
SCO's claims have absolutely no credibility (ZDNet) Posted Jul 28, 2003 16:57 UTC (Mon) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link] The only domain of interest to me is TrollTech (MTI is still around? MyFamily...I'm not Mormon and not into genealogy research..., etc.) and I don't think TrollTech qualifies as a Canopy Company as much as a past benefactor of one-time Canopy largess.
Complain to SEC, Posted Jul 28, 2003 18:11 UTC (Mon) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] Include this:http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,83452,00.html SEC's web-site: SCO contact information:
|
|
||||||||||||