SCO not exactly the lovable little guy (Salt Lake Tribune) [LWN.net]

The Salt Lake Tribune is carrying a Wall Street Journal article on the SCO affair. "SCO says it won't identify all the infringing code in Linux because Linux developers would quickly replace it. But isn't that exactly what someone alleging a legal injury should, for starters, want -- to stop being injured? Damages for past injuries can always come later. Or maybe SCO knows that if it laid out its cards, people would just walk away from the table laughing at its hand -- rather than pay a license fee." The Tribune also has an article on insider trading of SCO shares.

(Log in to post comments)

SCO not exactly the lovable little guy (Salt Lake Tribune)

Posted Aug 12, 2003 15:07 UTC (Tue) by ksmathers (guest, #2353) [Link]

Does anyone else see a similarity between SCO and a Mariachi band?

Their refusal to reveal what source code is in contention so that it can be removed from Linux is (as the IBM countersuit notes) a failure to mitigate their own damages.

But like a Mariachi band as long as everyone wantonly refuses to buy them out, they keep playing louder and more annoyingly. I suspect that if this suit ever gets to trial then SCO will already have lost their game.

SCO not exactly the lovable little guy (Salt Lake Tribune)

Posted Aug 12, 2003 15:35 UTC (Tue) by pglennon (guest, #649) [Link]

Hey! I *love* Mariachi music!

SCO not exactly the lovable little guy (Salt Lake Tribune)

Posted Aug 12, 2003 18:42 UTC (Tue) by Frapazoid (guest, #13982) [Link]

You offended my dawg! He's a chihuahua!!!

SCO not exactly the lovable little guy (Salt Lake Tribune)

Posted Aug 13, 2003 13:24 UTC (Wed) by fLameDogg (guest, #11305) [Link]

Grrr!

scox: "I theenk I need a beeger lawsuit!"

SCO not exactly the lovable little guy (Salt Lake Tribune)

Posted Aug 12, 2003 15:35 UTC (Tue) by dbhost (guest, #3461) [Link]

I am filled with nice warm fuzzies now. Reputable financial press is now reporting on the SCO issue, and being carried in a major paper in SCO's own home state, and in terms quite unflattering to SCO... I think I need to go to the vending machine, grab a bag of microwave popcorn, and spend the afternoon watching SCO stock value tank... :-)

SCO not exactly the lovable little guy (Salt Lake Tribune)

Posted Aug 12, 2003 17:13 UTC (Tue) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link]

..spend the afternoon watching SCO stock value tank

That was yesterday. But you can still be entertained by the dead cat bounce.

SCO not exactly the lovable little guy (Salt Lake Tribune)

Posted Aug 12, 2003 17:44 UTC (Tue) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link]

I, for one, am glad the "insider trading" issue is starting to get press.

Now, if only those former SCO employees would come clean, we'd be in even better shape. I, for one, would love to know how much GPL'ed and BSD code they stole from everyone (not to mention any proprietary source code they had access to.)

I've always ben suspicious SCO was pirating; they're making too much noise for it to be anything else.

SCO not exactly the lovable little guy (Salt Lake Tribune)

Posted Aug 12, 2003 18:29 UTC (Tue) by gurulabs (subscriber, #10753) [Link]

It isn't possible to "steal" BSD licensed code, or code that you wrote yourself and released under the GPL.

SCO not exactly the lovable little guy (Salt Lake Tribune)

Posted Aug 12, 2003 19:48 UTC (Tue) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link]

Sure it is. All you have to do is strip the copyrights off/remove the "copying" file or whatever, then claim you wrote it first. Then, you claim the GPL'ed code was stolen from *you.*

SCO not exactly the lovable little guy (Salt Lake Tribune)

Posted Aug 13, 2003 12:29 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

How come AT&T got convicted of it, then?

Or at least, we assume that's what happened. The details aren't public, but as far as anyone can make out, they got their head handed to them on a plate when they sued BSD.

Cheers,
Wol

SCO not exactly the lovable little guy (Salt Lake Tribune)

Posted Aug 14, 2003 7:42 UTC (Thu) by jeroen (subscriber, #12372) [Link]

They didn't comply with the advertising clause of the BSD license IIRC.