Letters to the editor

selinux

Has anyone followed the line of thinking that since the US government
released a linux version, selinux, that SCO would have to sue the US
government also?
 
Or that by providing a million pages to IBM, that SCO implies it has
copyrights to items which we already know belong to open source, there
fore they have "lied" in court by claiming copyrights that they don't
own....
Put "MR. SCO" on the stand....and have IBM ask...
 
IBM: Page 1. ...SCO is this yours? MR. SCO:.....err....uh....no
 
IBM: Page 2. ...SCO is this yours? MR. SCO:......err....uh....no
 
IBM: Page 3. ...SCO is this yours? MR. SCO:......err....uh....no
 
IBM: Page 4. ...SCO is this yours? MR. SCO:......err....uh....no
 
IBM: Page 5. ...SCO is this yours? MR. SCO:......err....uh....no
...
 
until the judge just dismisses the case, or orders
SCO to provide the exact pages/lines.
-
Mike
 
 

Comments (2 posted)

Time to laugh at SCO once again

This light-hearted moment of unbridled sarcasm is licensed under
Creative Commons. Please feel free to publish this and contribute
additions or corrections.
 
 
SCO rules of the game.
 
1. Only SCO is allowed to bully and intimidate. No one may bully or
intimidate SCO or its partners.
 
2. If anyone claims SCO has broken any laws, those laws are
automatically one or more of the following: invalid, unenforcible,
unconstitutional, violate export laws. If SCO claims IBM, Linux users
or anyone else has broken any laws, they are automatically guilty and no
evidence is necessary. Only unsubstantiated claims are necessary to
prove guilt of others.
 
3. SCO is free to change its story as many times and as frequently as
it deems necessary. There is no such thing as lying, inconsistency,
hypocrisy or self-contradiction.
 
4. The most effective legal strategy is to mimic our opponent's every
move. Taking the initiative is not necessary.
 
5. Hype and sensationalism in the media are all that is necessary to
prove that many people owe us money. Waiting quietly for our day in
court is not acceptable.
 
6. SCO will easily survive for the next 2 years waiting for the IBM and
Red Hat trials to begin and then more years for the appeals process.
SCO is a highly respected member of the Unix and Linux community and
sells many high quality products and services and has a profitable,
growing business.
 
7. SCO has the moral high ground.
 
8. SCO has the silent majority supporting its claims.
 
9. SCO executives are entitled to make enough money to own a second
house.
 
10. Only SCO is allowed to have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
 
11. Novell, Red Hat, Eric Raymond, Bruce Perens and the entire open
source community are illegally conspiring against SCO because IBM is
paying them to do it.
 
12. SCO is free to use the terms "IP" and "intellectual property," even
in court, even though they are vage, nebulous terma. SCO does not ever
need to specifically state what type of rights, such as copyrights,
trade secrets, patents or trademarks.
 
13. The claims against Linux are part of a wider debate about
intellectual property rights in a digital age. We are not aggrandizing
the issues or trying to use smoke and mirrors to prevent you from
discovering the emperor has no clothes. SCO and/or its executives are
not trying to make themselves look and feel more important than they
really are.
 

Comments (2 posted)

Page editor: Jonathan Corbet