SCO faces AUUG anger, claims Linux users still liable (ComputerWorld)

Posted Sep 4, 2003 14:21 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link]

Commercal Linux users and developers:

I am not one of them, but I think it's time for you to take action.

Infoworld has them blabbering that they have signed "a Linux license customer."

There is something seriously wrong with what SCO is doing, and you are the ones that risk suffering for it.

Posted Sep 4, 2003 14:53 UTC (Thu) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link]

When asked by an audience member if SCO would identify the Linux code in question so it can be removed, O'Shaughnessy said: "It is not in our interests to release key evidence before the trial."
I think this statement is important for the trial. For now, it is impossible to avoid any misuse of IP. (If there is SCO IP in Linux, that still is an open question until proven). Up to now the claim is as vague as"I own some part of the US, everyone in the US should pay me rent."

Posted Sep 4, 2003 18:42 UTC (Thu) by hathawsh (guest, #11289) [Link]

I can't stand this nonsense. I was concerned about SCO until I realized that SCO has no right to charge for all of the copyrighted code in Linux that they do not own, which is the vast majority of the code. SCO is trying to convince the public that the GPL is equivalent to public domain! Even if the GPL were deemed invalid, copyright law would take over, and SCO would have no other license to use or distribute Linux. Therefore, charging all Linux users is a grand copyright violation.

SCO is a schoolyard bully. Pick on too many kids and they just might gang up, SCO.

Posted Sep 4, 2003 18:48 UTC (Thu) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link]

"The core of SCO’s business is profitable."
They were hemorrhaging money like a stuck pig last anyone knew.
"This is not a stock ‘pumping’ exercise"
Looks like one to everyone else in the universe.
"SCO [has] tried to resolve the IP issues without the use of litigation."
Ummm ... how, exactly?

Posted Sep 4, 2003 19:49 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link]

"This picante sauce was made in New York City!"
"NEW YORK CITY?..."
"Get a rope...."

Posted Sep 5, 2003 6:07 UTC (Fri) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]

His mouth is moving !

Seriously. Many of the things they routinely say are ridiculous enough that it is unplausible that they are able to believe them themselves. Such as the earlier argument that copyrigth allows one to make a single backup-copy, and thus the GPL (and all other license!) are invalid since it allows unlimited copies. Noone, including the person who said it (a lawyer no less) actually believes this.

And now this:

"This IP battle is only one part of SCOs business and is an add-on component. The core of SCOs business is profitable," Oh really ? Which quarter did they ever post a profit again ? They never did. Not once. Before the latest bailout for Microsoft precisely for the current "IP battle" made them barely into the black last quarter.

"SCO feels it has no choice [but] to sue, having tried to resolve the IP issues without the use of litigation" Really ? What exactly did they try then ?

Telling us what exactly they are claiming ? (NO: in the first months they where making statements like: "This is not about copyrigth, this is about breach of contract.")

Showing us which code exactly they're having problems with ? No.

Even talking to us in a tone which mage negotiations possible ? Certainly no.

ANYTHING at all to "resolve" the issues outside of the courtroom ? NO. A blatant lie. And they know it.

"SCO owns the Unix operating system" I don't think so. They own neither all unix-code, nor the unix trademark. So they can claim to own "the" unix operating-system only trough deliberately lying. There is no "the" unix operating-system. It may be true that SCO owns some rigths to a unix operating-system.

and we have found significant Unix code in Linux. This they're fond of saying, and terrified beyond belief of actually supporting. My guess is the reason is that they know they cannot support the claim.

All Lies !

Posted Sep 5, 2003 6:37 UTC (Fri) by fooker (guest, #14834) [Link]

This is a bit off-topic, but still ;)

<fun>

A thought occurred to me last night. What if the commercial Linux distributors started sending letters to SCO customers warning that their operating system may contain code copied illegally from Linux (in a similar way SCO has done so far, but without the license threats)?

Like:

From: Major Linux Distributor
To: SCO customer

The software you have bought from SCO (of whatever the company was called at the time) may contain code illegally copied from the Linux operating system and thus you may be held liable for <paste some SCO statements here>.

To avoid legal risks in using software that might containd illegal code, we recommend you to switch to Linux. In fact, we took the liberty to enclose in this letter our latest distribution for easier migration. Install it freely to as many servers you wish. And workstations. And to your kids too. Should you have any problems, we offer an extensive product support package. Plus, if you are uncertain whether the code violates any copyrights or not, check yourself. The sources are there for everyone to read (unlike in some proprietary operating systems we won't bother to mention here).

CEO of Major Linux Distributor

I wonder what kind of a reaction that would raise in the public?
It's fudding time!
It's fudding time children!

</fun>

Disclaimer:
No, I'm not seriously suggesting that the community should start to throw crap at SCO just because they're doing it to us. Nor do I want to give anyone any crazy ideas.