| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/26 |
| 2004/3/21-22 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux, Computer/SW/OS/SCO] UID:12789 Activity:kinda low |
3/21 Does anyone know the deal on this whole SCO/Linux thing? Has SCO
told anyone the specific code they think is stolen? Is it stolen
or copied? What is the deal here anyway? Couldn't Linux just
rewrite the code in question and the situation out be dead?
\_ kids these days and their researching skills...
\_ So far, every single line of code they showed turned out
to be BSD code, public domain code, genuine Linux code, and similar.
I think the claim of copied code was just a PR campaign to convince
the laymen that indeed something apparently has been copied from
SCO. The crux of SCO's case I think is that they're accusing IBM of
donating to Linux code that they claim has been "derived" from the
original Unix code, such as the JFS file systems. Maybe I am wrong,
you might want to list all the recent SCO-related articles on
slashdot, to get the idea ..
\_ SCO didn't want to release the code because they knew these hacker
geeks will do exactly that. SCO is desperate and looking for way
to milk money out of other people's hard work.
\_ Microsoft's puppet... to push people towards Windoze
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/36017.html
\_ I'll assume you're not trolling for a moment: assuming SCO is right
and code was stolen, changing it after the fact doesn't zero any
previous damage done to SCO's business. It *does* limit future
damage but the past is the past. I no longer believe they have a
case *but* if they did a rewrite won't save anyone from being sued
and paying penalties for previous theft.
\_ In a civil tort, the plaintiff has a duty to try and minimize
their damages. Since the open-source community basically told
them "show us the code and we'll fix it", SCO will have a hard
time claiming damages from the period after they notified the
community. They had an opportunity to to have people fix the
problem, for free, and they wouldn't identify the code. |
| 12/26 |
| 2004/3/4-5 [Computer/SW/OS/SCO] UID:12515 Activity:nil |
4/3 SCO shoots self in foot with MS Word document revision history.
http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5170073.html
\_ They should turn off Fast Save.
\_ That's not really too scandalous. Does it surprise anyone that they
did not have a singleminded desire to sue AutoZone? |
| 2004/1/28 [Computer/SW/OS/SCO, Computer/SW/Virus] UID:11983 Activity:nil |
1/28 How do AV companies come up with virus names? MyDoom is also called
Novarg and SCO, but none of these strings show up in the email or
the attatchment.
\_ randomly. how did codered get named?
\_ Some (Melissa) get names after strings in the payload. Some
(I love You) get named after the emails which deliver them. Some
(Kournikova) get named after what the payload is supposed to have.
\_ Code Red got named by the geeks who first discovered it in the
wild, who decided to name it after what they were drinking at
the time. -tom |
| 2003/12/11 [Computer/SW/OS/SCO, Computer/SW/Security] UID:11402 Activity:nil |
12/10 SCO's claim of a DDOS attack probably false:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031210163721614 |
| 2003/8/22-23 [Computer/SW/OS/SCO] UID:29439 Activity:high |
8/22 Lois Boland, director of international relations for the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office, said that open-source software runs
counter to the mission of WIPO, which is to promote intellectual-property
rights.
"To hold a meeting which has as its purpose to disclaim or waive such
rights seems to us to be contrary to the goals of WIPO," she said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23422-2003Aug20.html
\_ Lessig on the subject:
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001436.shtml
\_ Microsoft reduces visibility of open source with big lobbying $.
\_ The PTO predates MS by about 90 years. Let it go.
\_ let what go?
\_ Lois Boland does not. The office is old and established;
the appointee is younger and bribeable.
\_ For related discussion, see blurb on Petra Moser
http://mitsloan.mit.edu
\_ Can you give me a better url than that?
\_ Yes, that's their purpose. There isn't an anti-intellectual
property rights part of the government. That's because in this
case they're there to defend the rights of people who created
something, not people who want to use someone else's stuff free.
\_ You misread Boland's intent. He said that the government
is not interested in supporting the rights of people
who want to give away their own creations, only those
who wish to charge for them. This is actually a pretty
extreme position to take.
\_ People who want to give away their stuff have 2 simple choices
which don't require a lot of PTO assistance. 1) BSD style
free-beer license, 2) Everything else such as GPL, or license
for a dollar or whatever. People in neither category require
a large government agency to referee or interpret anything. I
understand what he was saying and find nothing extreme there.
\_ What does the word "contrary" mean to you? It is clear
that she believes it is her job to stop #2, even though
open source developers have the same IP rights as anyone
else. It is not a matter of getting government support,
it is the government opposition that is extreme and
disturbing.
\_ The PTO takes no action pro or con on people who want to
give their stuff away. The very concept that people who
want to give away their stuff for free need some sort of
government protection is bizarre at best.
\_ Have you followed the SCO vs Linux lawsuits at all?
People trying to give stuff away are being sued,
so yes, they need some kind of protection, or at
the very least, not the active hostility of the
agency whose job it is to monitor such things.
Boland's statment makes it clear that she is
"con" such activity.
\_ SCO's position is that people are trying to
give stuff that doesn't belong to them away.
\_ SCO's position is they have an really
awesome reality distortion field that will
destroy IBM
\_ SCO's position is that people are trying to
give stuff that doesn't belong to SCO away.
\_ Actually, that's SCO's critics' position.
SCO really does think that the UNIX bits
belong to SCO.
\_ GPL requires every bit as much government protection as
any other licensing scheme that places restrictions on
the "getting" party. Possibly more. -phuqm |
| 2003/8/19 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux, Computer/SW/OS/SCO] UID:29390 Activity:high |
8/19 If SCO's UNIX code is already in the Linux Kernel source, why don't
they just show everybody the relevant parts of their code? If it
was just pasted in, then their code is no longer secret, and should
be identical to the Linux code. Why the NDA?
\_ because they're full of shit and they know it but
they want to drag this out as long as possible and cause
as much damage in the minds of IT people and programming
managers as possible, as per their instructions from their
not so secret corporate masters in Redmond. assholes.
\_ Will the evil assholes buy SCO?
\_ So this is all a MS plot? Uhm, yeah. Idiot.
\_ Probably because the instant they reveal it, coders will modify
the source within the next hour, hence no more SCO code in Linux,
hence they can't charge $199-$699 per copy of Linux.
\_ SCO was going broke, then the new CEO came along. He's like,
"Whoa, we own rights to selling Unix(TM) licenses. Unix(TM)!!
Doesn't everyone use that?" SCO tries to make IBM pay more. IBM
said, "We're moving everything to Linux, and it's free." SCO:
"You sure you didn't move Unix(TM) proprietary source code into
Linux?" IBM: "No, and if we did, show us, and we'll fix it."
SCO: "We'll get back to you."
A consultant for SCO says, "You know, they aren't too careful
about the Linux source. There's a lot of code, down to the
comment level, taken from Unix(TM)." SCO CEO says, "Whoa! Linux
has Unix(TM)-proprietary source code! We got a case!" This
doesn't seem that evil to me.
\_ the press releases and public statements from SCO remind
me a lot of the ramblings of est followers. - danh
\_ I thought it was "este".
\_ On second thought, not revealing the problem source code is
evil. -op of "SCO was going broke ..."
\_ Damn right! Bwahaha! Why work when you can be Evil? And
even better, sell your insider stock on the bump for being
Evil and then act suprised when your lawsuit tanks and sucks
down the shell company with it. Evil works!
\_ Why is it evil? If they publish it and someone replaces it
all then it only confuses the issues further and it doesn't
relieve anyone of any legal guilt for prior actions anyway.
\_ To bring an infringement case against someone you have to
make an effort to limit the damages... which means telling
the accused party what your claims are. If you move
straight into a lawsuit it shows you're only after money or
FUD.
\_ IBM/Linus's assimilating Unix(TM) source code is more
believably accidental than willful. To me at least, SCO can't
ask people to pay for Unix(TM) licenses because the Linux
source base accidentally includes Unix(TM) source code. They
can't do it without first telling them which part has been
copied. After identifying the problem code, SCO can also show
how Unix(TM) didn't itself borrow the code from BSD or another
free source. -op of "SCO was going broke ..."
\_ Your opinions and feelings are nice and all but that's not
how the law works. The law says you have to be responsible
and take responsibility for your actions. The law doesn't
say you're required to spend your own time and energy helping
everyone not infringe on your property they've been using for
years and get nothing in return.
\_ troll
\_ What's more evil? Stealing UNIX code to profit from it or to sue
over your rights to UNIX code and profit?
\_ If there is UNIX code in Linux, it will be removed. |
| 2003/6/7-8 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux, Computer/SW/OS/SCO] UID:28661 Activity:high |
6/6 Why is the SCO case a big deal? If there is indeed copied
code (which is far from certain), what prevents the linux
community from re-writing those files? (Assuming that it is
only a few files, of course - all unknown still).
\_ SCO says: "That's like saying, 'show us the fingerprints on
\_ SCO won't disclose affected source code w/o an NDA.
SCO: "That's like saying, 'show us the fingerprints on
the gun so you can rub them off.'"
\_ Because you can't use someone else's IP and then get caught red
handed and then simply stop using it without penalty.
\_ True - but this doesn't change the fact that the linux
source code is out in public, and once the piece that was
plagarized (if that was truly the case) is known, what is
to stop the community from replacing it and proceeding as
previously?
\_ you're still ignoring the fact that you can't just say, "oh!
we got busted! we'll just change that bit and go on with life!
thanks for letting us use your IP for years at your expense!"
\_ Nothing. But they will claim Linux's success was due in part
to their stolen code, therefore they can claim a percentage
of past and future earnings from Linux distributors. The
analogy is if you stole $1000 and used it to build a very
successful business, then you got caught. Does returning the
$1000 mean no crime has been committed? Does the victim have
any claim to the business?
\_ Linux distributors have no earnings. And the analogy to
stealing money is a false one; most copyright cases don't
involve monetary damages. The likely result is a
patent cross-signing agreement. -tom
\_ BZZZT! That's between real companies and this isn't a
patent case and what patents would IBM swap for the
shitty copyright on some code? Also, they don't always
simply swap patents. Sometimes it's for real and the
thieves owe the IP holders tens or even hundreds of
millions of dollars plus are not allowed to use the IP
in the future. The Linux distributors certainly do
have earnings. The analogy to stealing money is
exactly correct. Unlike you, I've actually worked on
real patent and copyright cases for real lawyers in
real courts in the real world where the 'rules of
slashdot' don't apply.
\_ did you ACTUALLY work on REAL patents for REAL
lawyers? You may be right about this but it
is you racking up the twink points pal.
\_ We greatly value your insight, O anonymous
coward. -tom
\_ Thank goodness his anonymity completely
invalidates anything he has to say. -mice
\_ I'm anonymous and, unlike you, still know wtf
I'm talking about. Patent cross-signing when
it's a copyright claim? Copyright violations
don't involve monetary damages? No earnings at
Redhat, IBM, Dell, and other linux distributors?
You get a dozen twink points *and* you've again
proven that you're a complete idiot. |
| 2003/6/3 [Computer/SW/OS/SCO, Computer/SW/OS/FreeBSD] UID:28612 Activity:insanely high |
6/1 This SCO law suit is more serious than the AT&T's case against
the UCs. http://csua.org/u/334
Is there anything we the geeks can do, legally, to make a difference?
\_ No. You geeks can't stop M$:
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/2208691
\_ SCO is running Linux (pretty funny really):
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.sco.com
\_ I suppose you could read ESR:
http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html
\_ Serious in what sense? SCO is not allowing anyone to examine the
merits of the case. They've only just started suggesting it, though
they're requiring onerous NDAs. Really, SCO should be nicer--as the
next subdivision of IBM they might not get treated as well.
\_ Onerous NDAs? How would you know other than Linus said "nyah!"?
\_ How strong is SCO's legal stance is not the issue. I am just
afraid of what business world is going to react to what
Gartner is already doing, thus, send a chill message to the
business world and thus abandon Linux as an OS. -OP
\_ And go to BSD, as they should have before...
\_ Oh yes, and the business world has a history of distrusting
IBM, right? Seriously, SCO will be a subdivision shortly.
\_ Agreed.
\_ IBM is in trouble: link:csua.org/u/33d (reuters.com)
\_ Boo hoo hoo, the world will be forced to use a real unix that's
alledging panent infringement ... IBM has this amazing
stable, capable, and *truly* free like the *bsd systems and unlike
any "distro" of linux.
\- what you want to see is a "counter suit" from IBM
alledging patent infringement ... IBM has this amazing
arsenal of patents which i assume they hold on to
for stuff like this. if memory serves, ibm has
patents on stuff like "having graphics and text on
the screen at the same time". at one point 50% of
US r&d was public, 50% private ... 10% of private
r&d was ibm, with a legal budget and staff to match.
--psb, ex-IBM Research
\_ no, what I want to see if the death of the bastard
thing that is unix and everyone switch to a real
unix that is stable, fast, and *truly* free.
\_ And Moses said, "Let my people go." And Charlton
Heston went on to a new career as a gun nut, and
all the new unixes descended from the heavens, and
they were BSD, and the people saw that they were
BSD. And they knew that yea, Moses had set them
free. And everyone gave thanks, and lamented that
they could no longer play NwN. And Moses smote the
nonbelievers, and all was well.
\_ You can play NwN on *BSD (MacOS X)
\_ Like it or not, Linux is the closest thing that
has a remote chance to take a huge bite out of
Microsoft Empire, not any of your REAL unix.
BSD had a shot, it was a licensing experiment
which failed. Yes, I am using the word "failed."
Because if BSD succed in the 1980s , there
wouldnt' be Linux at all. Stop talking about
technical superiorities, as the most mediocre
Operating System happend to have the bulk of
of the market shares. |
| 2003/5/20 [Computer/SW/OS/SCO, Computer/SW/OS/Linux] UID:28499 Activity:high |
5/20 MSFT buys unix license from SCO. MSFT will sue linux to death!
Death to linux!
\_ MSFT use to own part of SCO, I don't remember how much, but
before OS/2 MSFT was considering using SCO UNIX as the base
\_ I hereby predict that Microsoft will soon create the
of their nextgen OS.
Linux with their crap.
\_ Try even further back in history. Microsoft sold
Xenix, an ancient Unix based on AT&T System III before
they bought DOS and started selling it. After DOS
took off, they sold Xenix to SCO, but kept a stake
in SCO as part of the deal. (cat /bin/clear on Solaris
for a Microsoft surprise left over from their Xenix days)
\_ yack yack yack. They can't sue anyone for any such thing. You
can go away now, thanks.
\_ I hereby predict that Microsoft will soon try to create a
Microsoft Linux Distribution. They they will try to pollute
Linux with their crap. But the linux folks will audit
the code, remove any SCO/M$ stuff, and linux will be purified
in the process and then Linux will slowly overcome Microsoft.
\_ URLP
\_ #t
\_ http://news.com.com
\_ MS is buying a license, not the right to license.
Order of events:
1. Linux spreads far and wide in homes and enterprise
2. SCO says, "Time to pay up, Linux has some of our source code"
3. IBM doesn't pay; SCO files suit
4. SCO sends more letters telling companies they're infringing by
using Linux
5. MS buys a license from SCO: "See, we're compliant"
\_ Why would MS do that? They don't use linux.
\_ MS: "See, IBM and all those other loser companies,
by using Linux and not paying a license fee,
are all damn pirates."
\_ My theory is that MS bought the Unix license from SCO just to inject
some cash into this bankrupt company because the longer they litigate
with IBM with more damage will be done to Linux PR (in short run). |
| 12/26 |