Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
SCO's earnings report
Here is SCO's
press release on its third quarter earnings. The company claims a
$3.1 million profit, thanks to ongoing payments on the licenses sold
to Sun and Microsoft. "We intend to use this
capital to continue our intellectual property protection and licensing
initiative as well as for launching SCOx, our Web services
strategy." SCO has also put out a
press release on insider trading that, as far as we can tell, says
almost nothing at all.
(Log in to post comments)
SCO's earnings report Posted Aug 14, 2003 13:27 UTC (Thu) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link] The following article (in german) is also an interesting read: SCO declares the GPL to be invalid
SCO's earnings report Posted Aug 14, 2003 13:31 UTC (Thu) by jeroen (subscriber, #12372) [Link] The inquirer has an article about it in english: SCO to argue General Public Licence invalid
SCO's earnings report Posted Aug 14, 2003 13:37 UTC (Thu) by dbhost (guest, #3461) [Link] Let's see, Copyright claims that additional copies may be made with the copyright holder's written permission, the copyright holder has released the software under the GNU / GPL, which supplies said written permission, so what's the big deal? If anything, it looks like McBumpkin and his cronies are sniffing glue again.
SCO's earnings report Posted Aug 14, 2003 13:50 UTC (Thu) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] Well, we know that SCO breaks the GPL by wanting an antidot license, and therefore, theGPL is invalid for SCO. But according to their own words, the GPL is null and void as is, anyway, so they broke the copyright of thousands by distributing Caldera OpenLinux. They had only the right to make a single personal backup of the RedHat distribution OpenLinux originally bases on. How hot is it in Utah at the moment?
SCO's earnings report Posted Aug 14, 2003 15:19 UTC (Thu) by erat (guest, #21) [Link] Actually, OpenLinux was based on the LST distribution from Erlangen, Germany. Caldera Network Desktop used Red Hat.Just clearin' a few things up, that's all.
Re: English article Posted Aug 14, 2003 14:08 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] That seems to be a poorly researched or hastily written article.The GPL doesn't disclaim copyright of a work, so while it may be true The article also says that SCO legal firm said it will claim that In any case, if what they say is true, then they are still in violation If software licenses as a whole can only grant those rights explicitly That argument sounds so flawed and so likely to hurt them that I don't Of course IANAL and SCO has done some crazy things already so we'll see...
Re: English article Posted Aug 14, 2003 15:17 UTC (Thu) by kunitz (subscriber, #3965) [Link] I have an subscription to the WSJ website.It is reported that Mr. Mark Heise of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP said, that SCO will argue that the GPL itself is invalid. In Heise's legal theory US federal law pre-empts the GPL by allowing only one single backup copy. I can't comment on this nonsense.
Re: English article Posted Aug 14, 2003 15:44 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] I can; that's ridiculous.If the copyright holder allows redistribution of the work, then that would override any fedaral law. There is no way this Government is going to tell me, the creator of a work of art, useful or otherwise, how many backup copies I can permit others to make, nor whether I may or may not permit others to redistribute my work without limit. Because if they *are* going to try that, and they succeed, it's time for a full-scale revolution--this has become a dictatorship. I will be positive, and assume a sensible judge would stop that one good.
Re: English article Posted Aug 14, 2003 16:08 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] Second comment:I went to read the Register article, which talked about this. When I think about it more, I believe the Federal law was applicable if the copyright holder had reserved all rights. That law was supposed to be a way for people to preserve their investment in a software package, even if the copyright holder prohibited any copying at all. If that's true, either Boise's team is incredibly stupid, or they're out to misuse the law for their client's gain. Again, I would hope a judge wouls squash this like a bug.
SCO's earnings report Posted Aug 14, 2003 17:30 UTC (Thu) by gups (guest, #14053) [Link] What the hell are Boise and his boys doing? First they took on a case which would sure damage both their and their client's credibility. Then they sat back and let their client continuously mouth off garbage. Now they come up with this hilarious crap in WSJ.No wonder they're so famous!
SCO's earnings report Posted Aug 14, 2003 18:25 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "JUST PLAIN F U D"After RED HAT and IBM lawsuits, i have to be cautious with more sensitive persons, but i have to say that: SCO, OR BETTER SAYING IT'S MA$TER, IS WINNING HIS INTENTS. The danger for "they" is not if they win or lose in the courts, but if they go in with enough time to lock the majority of users behind DRM machines,..., the lawsuits, absurd as they always seemed IS ONLY A DIVERSION, wich intent is to create enough stir and FUD to prevent the flocking of users to alternative OSes and away from DRM. 14000 desktops in Munich, more a couple of thousands here and there, even 200000 along several years, is not enough yet to unsettle the dictator of the IT world. IMHO, WOULD BE THOUNSAND TIMES A MUCH BETTER JOB, NOT TO TALK ABOUT SCO, AND TO TALK WIHT THE SAME INTENSITY ABOUT IMPROVING LINUX/OSS STANDARDS(LSB et all)!... Because if the DRM machine hit hard, than no more tips or papers to wright OSS drivers, no more freeware or shareware even being closed binary forms,... and no more Linux/OSS.
SCO's earnings report Posted Aug 14, 2003 20:09 UTC (Thu) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] I humbly make a prediction. For next monday's regular SCO press release.Maybe the week after. Whatever. SCO will be the founding member of an organisation called, say, Americans for the Survival of Software Business. The goal of the organisation will be to challenge the legality of 'business destroying free software, especially GPL'ed software'. They will be taking contributions from members, establish a fund for pursuit of GPL and related legal claims. Another goal will be to change copyright laws to make it difficult to release free software. One well known large software firm will make a large contribution. They will have talking heads that will be quoted in the media everytime Linux or other free software is mentioned. Derek
SCO's earnings report Posted Aug 14, 2003 21:38 UTC (Thu) by alspnost (guest, #2763) [Link] Interesting point indeed, but I hope you're wrong! Then again, isn't the ISC (better known as the Initiative for Choosing Microsoft) already going along this path? What could emerge is simply a stronger and more vocal version of that. The self-declared capital of "freedom" is being coerced into mounting a war against freedom, and most people don't even know it's happening. Worrying indeed.
Well that settles it. Posted Aug 14, 2003 14:10 UTC (Thu) by cjdewey (guest, #5128) [Link] They announced a "web services strategy"? Stick a fork in 'em, 'cause SCO is done.
SCO's earnings report Posted Aug 14, 2003 14:16 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] Again, my experience with NORML applies here.I know nothing (or very little) about stock-trading regulations, but I am suspicious that these people may be obeying the letter of the law, while at the same time violating the spirit of it as much as possible. and that's assuming the regulations didn't have built-in loopholes to begin with. If I'm wrong, this would be a good time for IBM and Red Hat to set their lawyers to digging in, and then report SCO's management to the appropriate law-enforcement bodies.
Insiders sold for tax purposes? Posted Aug 14, 2003 16:45 UTC (Thu) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] from a post on yahoo message boards:-------------------------- McBride and flunkies stated that the insiders who sold did so because they were forced to. that is, in order to cover their tax liability for their options. I suppose that is true of the upcoming sales as well.
10b5-1 Posted Aug 15, 2003 9:55 UTC (Fri) by lyda (subscriber, #7429) [Link] i honestly don't think people should pursue the stock dumping angle. the plan sco says they use is here: http://www.10b5-1.com/ . sco has opened plenty of angles of attack so far that are clearly and obviously easy to win. insider trading is not easy to win. if people want to contact the sec directly that's fine, but it seems to me that we'd be better served if we just kept quiet on the stock angle bit in public.
|
|||||||||||||