I think SCO is not interested in protecting their code. [LWN.net]

I think SCO is not interested in protecting their code.

Posted May 19, 2003 19:33 UTC (Mon) by torsten (guest, #4137)
Parent article: Torvalds Suggests DiBona for SCO Panel (Linux Journal)

I remember SCO saying they didn't want to identify the "stolen" code publicly, because energetic hackers would surreptiously exorcise it from the available public repositories.

I don't understand what is wrong with that. Whenever a company is accused of infringing on the GPL, simple removal of the offending code (or rerelease under the GPL) is an acceptable solution.

I think SCO is not interested in protecting their code. There is something more to this issue, but what?

Torsten

to post comments

I think SCO is not interested in protecting their code.

Posted May 19, 2003 20:41 UTC (Mon) by dbhost (guest, #3461) [Link] (4 responses)

"I think SCO is not interested in protecting their code. There is something more to this issue, but what?"

To quote Suicidal Tendencies. "Here comes another con hiding behind a collar, his only God is the almighty dollar". The wide swath of damage SCO is willing to spread, against just about anybody that might have anything to do with computers, shows an interest in something beside correcting a simple violation of license from SCO, or even the outright theft of intellectual property. With the recent agreement from Microsoft to license UNIX code from SCO, one must wonder just exactly what SCO is up to, and whom they are in bed with. If I had bucks to bet, I would put good money that this is nothing more than an end game ploy to fatten the wallets of a dying company. Knowing what I know about the history of the licensing of UNIX, I seriously doubt SCO can grab any traction with this issue. However knowing what I know about juries in America with cases like the O.J. Simpson trial using Jury Nullification, and the elderly woman winning millions of dollars from McDonalds for spilling hot coffee, which is of course supposed to be hot, on herself, I somewhat suspect that we are all in for a very bad time in the near future. If there is any way, shape, or form that I can legitimately help in the defense against this baseless attack, I would gladly do it.

I think SCO is not interested in protecting their code.

Posted May 19, 2003 22:41 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

Except coffee isn't supposed to be SCALDINGLY hot. And McD's had had several warnings for serving coffee at about 10 degrees above the normal temperature.

And rumour has it (the final settlement is apparently sealed) that the LARGE award was basically just McDs paying the (not insubstantial) medical bills. I agree coffee is supposed to be hot. But not so hot that it causes serious injury.

Cheers,
Wol

Coffee

Posted May 20, 2003 13:41 UTC (Tue) by mwilck (subscriber, #1966) [Link] (1 responses)

Well if I make coffee at home, I usually do that with boiling water (I recently read the water should have 94°C for optimal aroma). I assume the physics of making coffee are pretty similar on both sides of the Atlantic. Thus any reasonable person should expect a fresh coffee to be hot (close to boiling temperature, actually), and take care not to spill it.

Sorry, European Way of Thinking. That was the point of the previous poster before the discussion went OT: Europeans expect just about ANYTHING from U.S. courts, no matter how unreasonable it appears for old-world minds. This holds for the SCO case, too.

Coffee

Posted May 20, 2003 16:16 UTC (Tue) by virtex (subscriber, #3019) [Link]

I can't speak for coffee since I'm not a coffee drinker, but if I ever spill boiling hot McDonalds orange juice on myself, then by God I'm going to sue.

*cough*

McDonalds coffee case [OT]

Posted May 20, 2003 18:18 UTC (Tue) by Ray (guest, #11342) [Link]

You don't need to rely on rumors, the details of the case are readily available via google. The woman got thrid degree burns, was in physical therapy for eight weeks, and in the end was paid less than the cost of her medical bills. Search on 'superheated mcdonalds coffee' to pull up a number of links on the case.

And, one of the primary points leading to the verdict hinged on the fact that McDonalds had roughly 700 prior cases of injury due to coffee, and did nothing about it. That changes it from an accident, to willfull negligence.

SCO is not protecting their CODE; they're protecting their LODE!

Posted May 20, 2003 5:54 UTC (Tue) by naughty-artkitekt (guest, #10552) [Link]

" I think SCO is not interested in protecting their code." no, no, here it is:
SCO is not protecting their CODE; they're protecting their LODE!

Well, let's see.. Didn't ms have an exec on the board of that PDA/Phone
compnay that went or is going bust?

Just how in the hell can that company NOT be able to forward ms the "withheld
and vital company health" information that ms own inside man could have
delivered. Obviously, to me, from what I understand, ms had complet opportunity
AND motive to sit on the information (if they had it) about the cell maker's
financial extremis. OTOH, if ms DID NOT know, then their inside man on the
board didn't really give a hoot about ms, and for which ms will likely extract a
heavy toll out him. However, I think ms wanted to own the information and tech
and IP the company owned and that is why FROM THE BEGINNING ms'
contract said "if you go belly up, we own you and your tech...".

Now, why would they NOT have made a similar arrangement with SCO. Weren't
a number of the Ts & Cs in the multimillions dollar deal kept confidential.

I am ***telling*** you, as are some others who feel the same or similar to my take,
ms is behind this. They are the puppeteer, shaking around those marionette
shumb dits at SCO. SCO, with its Unix heritage might be tempted as all hell to
pull this off on their own (I'd like to believe they'd restrain themselves and just
clean up their code and try to revive OpenLinux...), but in order to strike fear into
IBM and to make IBM rebuff yet still pose a serious risk to destroying ALL of
Linux in one major SWATH/SWATHE, who would want above all others to do
this?

Of COURSE. You know the answer. SCO hasn't the money to singly outlast IBM
in court, much less keep pace hoping to find a stalemate. SO, it's GOT to be
someone with DEEEEEEEEEEEP pockets who said "front this matter for us, win,
and we'll make you richer than the King of Jordan, the Sultans, and any other
being besides top ms officers..." (yes, the logic is flawed...)....

Given enough lattitude (and they've got the ATTItude), ms would "own" english
and any other language they could put into a computer or code base. As good as
they are at rewriting computer history, switching video testimony (check this
history of "testify". Technically, women CANNOT testify any more than men can
"ovify to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth..."), LYING to
judges, falsifying press releases, spreading FUD, and donating to the poor while
nearly mercilessly slaying or plotting the slaying their competitors, releasing buggy
or security ridden and NSA-backdoor deception upon domestic AND foreign
individuals, corporations and governments, it would only be about, oh, what, 15
years before we all ended up paying royalties.

RIGHT NOW, per a UK computer magazine I read today at B&N, RIGHT NOW
ms are "academically" researching the ability to charge people for e-mail sent,
regardless of the source. Even "cash" payments are in the cards, if credit/debit
payment cannot be grabbed for e-mail transmission. THE biggest fear is that ms
will become the repacement for the various postal deliver services as more people
shift from paper to electronic communications and signatures. Right now, it
appears to be aimed at ms' own properties. But once they claim the elminated
spam/UCE by 99%, every (trust-ms) shumb-dit looking to be a hero/heroine will
buy into the technology. It would only be a short time before every cell phone and
PDA could be manufactured with "LicenseSpeak" (I made it up for this example,
but then thought I'd better "do a google" and found a phrase of two words (vice
ONE) at: http://www.want2speak.com/want2speak.htm but the page has a dead
link...) into which we'd speak or from which we'd beam information. Then, we'd
shortly thereafter receive a bill from his billness. Now, how many of you want
some cats at ms to have access to and the ability to shunt or tamper with your
communications? Bad enough carnivore, echelon, carnilon, echevor and the other
digital tools are out there (surely, carnivore & echelon are mere sacrificial cover
stories, as the REAL DEAL will be decades away from true
exposure...Remember, with governments, particularly the US, there ARE
ALWAYS cover stories in, staged in multiple layers to diminish the likelihood of a
sensitive project being exposed. OTOH, some projects are really sacrificed for
obscure reasons, maybe to "look good" or to test how effectively sleuths can get
past the "blown" cover and toward the real deal...

Seriously/onward... though, dictionary companies think they own copyright to a
compilation of words. The ONLY words they own are the few "seeds" or
"tagants" they sew into their books to look for indications of wholesale
theft/reduplication of their printed matter. But they no more own the word
"quasar" than I own the universe. BUT, as far a ms is concerned, EVERYTHING
that interestes them is subject to takeover.

The question is: When will the world be rid of ms?

David Syes

I think SCO is not interested in protecting their code.

Posted May 22, 2003 20:55 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

How GPL licensors respond to violations of their copyright is irrelevant because GPL licensors rarely hold that copyright as a economic asset.

In contrast, SCO considers its copyright on Unix to be an economic asset. It doesn't want to stop people from copying Unix; it wants them to copy it like crazy and pay royalties on it. For the same reason, it wants people who copied Unix in the past, particularly if they made money by doing so, to pay SCO royalties.

There is nothing behind the SCO suit other than SCO's desire to cash in on an asset that it may hold (and paid good money for). Ordinary business.