SCO sends second letter to Linux users
Posted by malebolgia on 22 December 2003 - 15:20 · 19 comments & 1023 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgiaContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by wired57 on 22 Dec 2003 - 15:24
- Sorry, but SCO needs to get a freaking life.
-
#2 Posted by ribino on 22 Dec 2003 - 15:40
- Linux was built to be free. Linus Torvald even stated that Linux was built off of Unix long back when he created the OS. So why are they complaining now? Everyone just wants money nowadays I guess.
-
#3 Posted by tom5 on 22 Dec 2003 - 15:54
- SCO is so lame
I think they want their website to be 'upgraded' for Christmas
-
#4 Posted by FlukeII on 22 Dec 2003 - 17:05
- Why is SCO resorting to these scare tactics? No one is going to pay. Unless of course, SCO wins their "Clear-Cut" case. Then maybe they can send out these letters, until then they are just corporate spammers and a joke worldwide.
-
(1 reply)
#5 Posted by Arcticflare on 22 Dec 2003 - 18:10
- Doesn't anybody know what GNU means anymore?
-
#6 Posted by Sparkler on 22 Dec 2003 - 18:20
- sco sux
-
#7 Posted by matt74441 on 22 Dec 2003 - 18:27
- When is the SCO's thirty days up? I would really like to see the incriminating evidence.
-
(3 replies)
#8 Posted by Freenetter on 22 Dec 2003 - 18:43
- No CEO worth their salt is going to give in to what amounts to thinly veiled threat to extort money. The people using Linux have a copyright in the form of the GPL and the only people SCO can go after are the people issuing that licence. Hey don’t believe me check out these: -
Eben Moglen's position paper
Eben Moglen's second statement
By the time IBM have finished, SCO's stock will have junk bond status. If you are unfortunate enough to use SCO Unix then consider an upgrade before they go under, I doubt there will be a company called SCO by this time next year…..
Last edited by 30542 on 23 Dec 2003 - 08:09 -
#8.1 Posted by BobSmith on 24 Dec 2003 - 00:27
- Hmm, methinks if it is so obvious, as you state, that SCO has no case, then IBM would have moved for summary judgement and the case would have been dropped months ago. It seems that you have little idea what you are talking about.
BTW, when you offer "proof" in the future, you might go to the trouble of finding something less biased than Open Source Development Labs. That makes about as much sense as referring to IBM. Quite obviously, their opinion, and it is very much an opinion, differs from SCO's.
As for this all being over in a year, I think you are far, far too optimistic. You likely aren't aware the SCO has hired the top trial lawyer in the country (the one who took down Microsoft in the anti-trust case). Do you really think David Boise would tarnish his reputation by taking on a case of no merit? I highly doubt he'd touch the case unless he thought there was a very good chance he could win. -
#8.2 Posted by markjensen on 24 Dec 2003 - 00:57
- David Boies also represented Napster and Al Gore. Not exactly winning cases. He picks cases that serve his long-term interests. Whether monetary or publicity benefits (and the two often go hand-in-hand). With SCO, he has a pretty sweet deal if someone (ANYone) decides to buy out the SCO Group. Plus, the publicity is pretty good (small SCO taking on Big IBM brings about images of David vs. Goliath).
Plus, his judgement isn't always so hot... Ethics charges have been filed against him for inappropriate payments in the $400,000 ballpark in an apparent conflict of interest situation. Not saying that he intended on doing anything illegal or unethical, but his actions may not always have the proper amount of forethought that a lawyer of his level ought to have.
As far as speaking out goes, SCO has certainly rattled their sabres quite a lot, and they are the ones who could potentially get into a HEAP of legal trouble if it is concluded that this was a plot to inflate stock prices. I think it is appropriate for Neowin users to express their opinions, as well. -
#8.3 Posted by Freenetter on 24 Dec 2003 - 11:14
- In reply to BobSmith, I don't think you need to be much of an expert to understand common sence. This paragraph from the first paper says it all really
"This is why lawsuits of the form that SCO appears to be threatening—against users of copyrighted works for infringement damages—do not actually happen. Imagine the literary equivalent of SCO’s current bluster: Publishing house A alleges that the bestselling novel by Author X topping the charts from Publisher B plagiarizes its own more obscure novel by Author Y. “But,” the chairman of Publisher A announces at a news conference, “we’re not suing Author X or Publisher B; we’re only suing all the people who bought X’s book. They have to pay us for a license to read the book immediately, or we’ll come after them.” That doesn’t happen, because that’s not the law."
Q) Why does SCO go after the users of Linux?
A) Because it thinks they are easy picking and they hope that if a few give in the rest will follow.
This later thread also makes amusing reading.
SCO is merely trying to spread FUD in the minds of companies that prefer the GNU licensing model to theirs. All this in the vain attempt to claw back some of the business it has lost to Linux. I am not normally a conspiracy theorist but I wouldn't be at all surprised if another large well known company was not ultimately behind all this. After all, report after report suggests that Linux is being accepted not just in the server market but also on the desktop. Many European and Asian governments and agencies are actively considering Linux when they go for the next round of upgrades as it offers gigantic cost savings. This is not wild speculation but FACT. I know because the agency I work for has and is moving to Linux whenever the opportunity arises and the cost savings are already noticeable.
No CEO should risk his shareholder's profit until the case against IBM is settled. Only then if SCO win do they have any right of redress against Linux users.
Last edited by 30542 on 24 Dec 2003 - 16:16
-
#9 Posted by Grappa on 22 Dec 2003 - 18:56
- I can't wait to see SCO go down in flames.
G
-
(1 reply)
#10 Posted by BetaguyGZT on 22 Dec 2003 - 19:23
- Wow. SCO must have been bored again.
As far as I'm concerned, SCO had their chance to show the evidence and they didn't. Linus was probably overheard mumbling something about SCO's position on the food chain, and Darl got all insecure again over it.
-
#11 Posted by StuRReaL on 22 Dec 2003 - 20:36
- its the court room greed culture i'm affraid
I blame the parents 
-
#12 Posted by Sparkler on 22 Dec 2003 - 23:00
-
(1 reply)
#13 Posted by LordHatrus on 23 Dec 2003 - 03:20
- SCO probably gets hacked at least 40 times a day.
Gotta love a company that red hat hackers hate more than microsoft.
(Bill gates should be paying SCO off for their trouble!)
The letters, dated Friday, are the second round that SCO has sent to corporate users of Linux. SCO sent letters to 1,500 companies in May, warning them that it contended that Linux had violated its intellectual property rights. SCO owns the rights to the Unix operating system. The company asserts that Linux, a variant of Unix that is distributed free, violates SCO's license and copyright.
The new letters, signed by Ryan E. Tibbitts, SCO's general counsel, name more than 65 programming files that "have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted Unix code base and contributed to Linux." The letters focus on application binary interfaces, the programming hooks by which a software application gains access to the underlying operating system. "We believe these violations are serious, and we will take appropriate actions to protect our rights," the letters state.
Changes in Current Version:
- Introduced Easy mode for newbies, Advanced mode for pros
- Improved detections to avoid false positives (MD5 checksums)
- Improved detection mechanisms for morphing files (dynamic checksums)
- Added new Immunize section as a preventive measure against spyware
- Improved help (including description of each page, quick help & help buttons on each page)
- Added silent mode command line parameters
- Fixed some problems appearing as Zugriffsverletzung
- Improved readability for blind users
- Improved and printable logs
- Fixed bug that prevented all user accounts to be scanned
- Improved support for running on non-admin account
- Added support for external file viewers