Your "easy conclusion, IYO", is, sadly, inconsistent with history. [LWN.net]

Your "easy conclusion, IYO", is, sadly, inconsistent with history.

Posted Sep 16, 2005 19:36 UTC (Fri) by rev (guest, #15082)
In reply to: Chart of SCO's Answer to Novell's Counterclaims (Groklaw) by mmarq
Parent article: Chart of SCO's Answer to Novell's Counterclaims (Groklaw)

its easy to conclude, IMO, that Santa Cruz was purchased and SCO formed only to launch the SCO Intellectual Property campaingn

At the time of the Santa Cruz Operation purchase, Ransom Love was CEO of Caldera. McBride was nowhere to be seen at that time. Love's primary interest in the Santa Cruz deal was the Santa Cruz's resellers channel.. to sell Linux. See this interview.

to post comments

Your "easy conclusion, IYO", is, sadly, inconsistent with history.

Posted Sep 16, 2005 19:55 UTC (Fri) by rm6990 (guest, #30921) [Link] (4 responses)

Ah, but you are wrong. As shown in the Davidson Email (linked to on Groklaw here http://web.archive.org/web/20200528231032/http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050714144923365 ), SCO management was convinced as early as 1999 (before the Caldera purchase) that Linux contained stolen code and hired a consultant to do the comparison. This is what the email is about. I think this has been in planning for quite some time.

Also, Caldera did not aquire Santa Cruz. Santa Cruz sold their Unix business to Caldera and then changed its name to Tarantella, which was later aquired by Sun Microsystems. Caldera, after purchasing Santa Cruz's Unix assets, changed its name to The SCO Group.

Boy, you are confused (oldSCO aka Santa Cruz vs newSCO aka Caldera)

Posted Sep 17, 2005 11:00 UTC (Sat) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link] (3 responses)

Look, the assertion was Caldera bought Santa Cruz, aka oldSCO, in order to launch the anti-Linux campaign. I.e. that Caldera (the buying party) had this as it motives.

The Ransom Love interview, CEO of Caldera at the time, shows that Caldera had a different motive in purchasing Santa Cruz, aka oldSCO, namely it was intereset in Santa Cruz's resellers channel.This falsifies the above assertion.

How does the fact that within the ranks of Santa Cruz, aka old SCO, the purchased party, prior to the Santa Cruz - Caldera deal lived some anti-Linux sentiments imply that Caldera was primarily interested in these sentiments present in what it sought to buy? It doesn't.

However, it seems likely that years after the Santa Cruz - Caldera purchase, and some time after McBride became CEO of Caldera, these sentiments surfaced within Caldera/newSCO and became its core business.

Boy, you are confused (oldSCO aka Santa Cruz vs newSCO aka Caldera)

Posted Sep 17, 2005 18:34 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] (2 responses)

" The Ransom Love interview, CEO of Caldera at the time, shows that Caldera had a different motive in purchasing Santa Cruz, aka oldSCO, namely it was intereset in Santa Cruz's resellers channel. This falsifies the above assertion. "

No, i never said that Caldera had that intention. What i said was that when the NEW SCO was incorporated (the name changed from Caldera to SCO) it was already with the intension of delivering the SCO source campaingn...

I dont know no one personaly but i belive Ransom Love had a completely different idea, and was unjustly removed...

And even if i'm wrong and was not "Darl&Cª" who finneshed the deal, i make no delusions, because no senior manager makes **such a mistake** of resorting to a strategy (like the SCO source) to make another company rich. Because if "SCO source" could ever had been such a clear shot, as "Darl&Cª" makes belive, other much bigger institutions like Sun or even IBM, would had pick it up long before Caldera. I repeat:

"When **(new)SCO** was incorporated its management surely knew this situation. It was a BAD BUSINESS from any angle you look at it, and from the very begining. I dont belive that Darl&Cª had ever the defect of being stupids."

... unless there was another business after all... And that would VERY VERY hardly be the substancial grow of the OpenServer/Unixware in a relatively short time(belive no one sensible would ever bet a cent on it, in the 200x IT clima), short enough for not depleting SCO with long intense R&D costs. Pump & Dump can only be very short lived, and Darl&Cª are not facing jail and probably never will, because with *governance* allowance businesses have trended to become immoral (Enron, Worlcom...SCO)

Sorry but you dont invalidate the question of who/What made "Darl&Cª" to jump out off the cliff.

Boy, you are confused (oldSCO aka Santa Cruz vs newSCO aka Caldera)

Posted Sep 17, 2005 19:10 UTC (Sat) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link] (1 responses)

Ok, glad to have that misunderstanding rectified. (However, since you used the words Santa Cruz was purchased and SCO formed only to launch the SCO Intellectual Property campaingn..)

Boy, you are confused (oldSCO aka Santa Cruz vs newSCO aka Caldera)

Posted Sep 17, 2005 19:35 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

But that is it!. the only diference in words could be:

The (old) SCO Unix business was purchased by Caldera, and then the (new)SCO formed only(or with primary intention) to launch the SCO Intellectual Property campaingn..

... i know, i should make better attention to the wording.