| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Wow!Wow!Posted Aug 19, 2003 5:29 UTC (Tue) by AnswerGuy (subscriber, #1256)Parent article: SCO Turns Up the Heat on Linux Users (eWeek)
The sheer unmitigated audacity! That's about as inflammatory as if a Brit landed at Ellis Island and challenged that the U.S. ever "freed" themselves from the British Empire!
(Log in to post comments)
Even worse Posted Aug 19, 2003 8:38 UTC (Tue) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link] It's worse than that...'cause your Brit may have gotten here on his own, but Caldera/SCOX obtained UNIX based on the windfall it received in its early 2000 IPO -- and IPO that shot incredibly high as the company benefited from hype surrounding Linux.Use Linux to acquire UNIX and then blame Linux for destroying UNIX. Caldera/SCOX should sue itself and give back the Linux-tainted IPO cash before complaining about the GPL. If Microsoft made the charges that SCOX is making it would be __less__ offensive. Isn't ANYONE left in SCOX that has a conscience about these things? Is there anyone in Lindon that wants to have a future in IT? Why aren't they stepping forward, leaking documents, swearing affidavits, mutinying against their feckless management and causing basic mayhem? Does everyone in Lindon drink the Kool-Aid?
Hypothesis Posted Aug 19, 2003 12:04 UTC (Tue) by hathawsh (subscriber, #11289) [Link] Hypothesis: in recent years, the faithful Linux developers changed employment from SCO to Novell. The two companies are within minutes of each other.It would explain a lot, wouldn't it?
Even worse Posted Aug 19, 2003 13:23 UTC (Tue) by erat (guest, #21) [Link] Not quite. When Caldera acquired SCO assets (note, not all of SCO was acquired) Caldera was still a Linux company. You didn't hear jack about UNIX vs. Linux until the new management team took over. Ransom et al would have never done anything like what you're seeing today. SCO assets were never acquired with the sole intention of pitting UNIX against Linux at a later date; if anything, the SCO sales channel and the IP that the sales channel was selling (and the engineers maintaining the IP) were what Caldera acquired.Let the "SCO apologist" accusations begin...
Wow! Posted Aug 19, 2003 10:36 UTC (Tue) by djabsolut (guest, #12799) [Link] They're scraping the bottom of the well. They should seriously consider hiring a hollywood script writer to come up with a new Linux/GNU-harassment plotline. Pay him/her in stock options, so the writer's performance directly affects how much $$$ he/she gets. As for attacking the GPL... first they ignore it and still distribute the linux kernel from their ftp site. Then they make the absurd claim that their extortion contract (read: "license") is compatible with the GPL. When IBM invokes the relevant clause(s) from the GPL in their countersuit, SCO says "that IBM should move away from the GPL" (btw, IBM's action implicitly states that they have pretty good faith in the GPL). Now SCO is saying that this case is all about GPL. Go figure, but that's the kind of (lack of) logic we expect from SCO anyway (actually, it is logical if all they care about is Pump'n'Dump). One could dig through the GPL and come up with quite a few relevant clauses, but this one should suffice: 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. The GPL is not something you can just ignore. The linux kernel is copyrighted by many people and they have given their permission to redistribute their works via the GPL. Failing to adhere to the GPL means that SCO is in violation of copyright (read: they're infringing on OUR (as in the Linux/GNU community) intellectual rights). Part of the relevant clause: 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. (...)
Wow! and more Wow! Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:52 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] How large can we type, PLAIN FUD from typical criminal "smart" thieve?I'VE CHALENGE THEM, AS MANY OTHERS, TO SUE ME AS A USER, and i'm not one bit conserned... I know, its pretty obvious, that M$ and their friends from its financial pyramid are the ones really behind this stir and propaganda,... and i doubt they are willing to be reasonables, and are not serious about "biting" if they are allowed to, but... NO MATTER WHAT, THE WORST THING THE LINUX/OSS COMMUNITY CAN DO IS TO LET GO FROM EVOLVING STANDARDS (LIKE LSB), WITH FEAR OF WHAT MAY COME... It makes a lot more sense to abandon completly coding for Open-Source,..., yes that right,... if you are affraid is better to quit than wait for nothing, or else "shit" on SCO. AND EVOLVING THE OPEN STANDARDS IS THE BETTER WAY TO BEAT THE OWNER OF THE DOG NAMED SCO... All this stir from a "LEGAL" compleint against IBM about contracts, you can surely pretty clear see how far are they willing to go,... IF THEY WIN IS ONLY BECAUSE "YOU" HAVE QUITED !...
|
|||||||||||