Why SCO sucks ass

[Eglin]

I don't know how many of you have been following the press about this, but SCO (longtime UNIX players) have recently been suing everyone they can get into court in an attempt to raise funds. The claim is that Linux uses proprietary technologies, primarily leaked via IBM. They sent letters to each of about 1500 companies (including _every_ fortune 500 entity), essentially stating that using Linux makes them party to theft and subject to legal action. What a bunch of crap! Anyone who works in a corporate IT shop knows how hard it is to get a few Linux boxes just for internal utility, let alone any major rollout. Well, I promise that convincing executive management will not be any easier after they've gotten a letter like this (or even worse, "heard" about other people getting them). As someone who has invested a lot of time and effort into producing open-source software, this kind of crap just makes me sick! I respect a developer

[Yodason]

I concour.

[Trumpcard]

The thing that amazes me about the whole thing is that a company can send out PAY US or DIE letters to 1000 enterprise linux clients demanding payoffs with 0 evidence of source leakage, and legally they are not cornered.

In our world, this could be considered fraud, not sure how its different in corporate america.... Its become a bigger joke everyday, it seems people scan slashdot now just to get a laugh at the outrageous bullshit SCO is able to produce!

It is SO farfetched that it must be a move by SCO to entice IBM to buy them out rather than legally battle them. Notice that their board has been allowing stocks to trickle out of their private holdings.. Its almost a form of insider trading if you ask me...

[a_Guest03]

I've been following the news as well. I think SCO's executives are slandering linux and printing libelous drivel about it, and if it were a legal individual like a corporation, it could easily sue. Alas, the open-source community including the mighty GNU are not an entity like this.

For those who don't follow the news:
SCO is a company that was sold, and at some point was Caldera. It was bought by the current incarnation of SCO. It claims many unix rights that Caldera and the original unix contained. These are patents or copyrights. These rights were passed from company to company until SCO gained ownership.

Their legal complaint:
Linux contains "stolen copyrighted code", evidence of which they will eventually show us. They haven't really shown anything yet, but the slander and libel have flowed constantly through press releases for a long time. I think it's been a full year of whining and moaning without any proof of guilt.

They just threaten people with lawsuits and sell off shares of stock as they inflate the company. They're milking open source's good name and trading it for cash.

[tiker]

What ever happened with Novell saying they own the code in question which SCO is claiming as their own?

Did they ever decide who actually owns the portion of code which SCO is sueing everyone over?

[a_Guest03]

I disagree on the HP thing, Eglin. You claim:

[quote=Eglin]This isn

[Yodason]

if I had any code in the kernel I would be suing them as fast as I could call a laywer. However, IBM has a much better chance of A, pumelling them, b, bankrupting them, and then c, Eatting them.

[Eglin]

Originally Posted by a_Guest03

My complaint with your statement is that you display HP in a negative light when they offer their shelter to their enterprise customers. I think it's a wonderful offer, and that we shouldn't fault them for defending their own.

The misrepresentation of the offer is problem.

I don't think we're looking at this from the same perspective. If HP's goals were as magnanimous as you seem to think, then the correct action would be either to license the technologies in question from SCO or to drop them from their products altogether.

Instead, HP is leveraging FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) from the SCO fiasco to lock their customers into submission. If you can't modify your HP-based Linux without opening yourself up to legal attack, then you are essentially dependent on HP as a vendor. This is CRAP! I, personally, have contributed to many packages that are included with _all_ modern versions of Linux. Most of these packages were distributed under the GPL to prevent just this sort of thing! My code was released under the GPL to ensure that everyone who uses it has just the sort of freedom that HP's move is trying to limit. My rebuttal may be a little too verbose, since you appear to agree with me to some extent, but I wanted to be very clear that I think HP's response is as dirty as SCOs actions (in terms of direct affect to me, at least).

It should be very clear in the future that they only will assist their enterprise customers in legal battles.

You've got to be kidding. I think that reading the fine print of the conditions necessary to gain indemnity for the SCO stuff will pretty clearly illustrate that your statement is a fallacy. HP knows it isn't going to take any losses on this. It is a marketing ploy. Like I said above, it may be true that HP _already_ has license to utilize the SCO code in question, so it may be that they risk _nothing_ under _any_ circumstances by offering indemnity in this case.

The enterprise people do pay the bills, after all. Let them buy the license. Let their defense benefit us all.

See, that's the thing... For the majority of the Linux, HP doesn't _own_ the license. Most of it is GPL, and the fact that people are so confused about the facts is terribly disturbing. If you were, in fact, going to "buy a license" to use Linux, you sure as hell wouldn't buy it from HP.

When measuring the implications of all this activity, most neophites are going to incorrectly lump all open-source tools as "being Linux," too. On this forum alone, I've seen people make obviously misinformed statements about GCC ports (ala, "the cygwin GCC dist. is a linux emulator"). I don't know about you, but if I have to go back to using the shitty Sun Micro disktools (ack! rm -i doesn't work!), I'm going to go gonzo. Not to mention the fact that there isn't a UNIX vendor alive who makes a compiler better than GCC. You remember the days when UNIX vendors didn't include compilers in their OS dist? You had to license them seperately. Imagine what it would be like to go back to that because your braindead boss is scared of using linux (and like so many others, can't distinguish between Linux and a given GNU tool)? Trust me, HP isn't going to shed any tears in this scenario.

lol... sorry if this sounds like I'm hostile towards you. It is just that I start feeling like Leo Getz (lethal weapon?) everytime I think about this crap.

[a_Guest03]

I understand your position. I was taking the perspective of a corporation - they MUST protect their customers, especially when threatened. But how can HP avoid self-destruction from defending opne-source against SCO? If SCO's FUD makes a judge and jury decide that HP is to blame, then they will be liable for things out of their control.

I don't expect HP to allow this to happen. They must limit their liability, as every corporation does to save itself. You are right that they come off as noble in the news. They planned it that way. This is the behavior of corporations. They fight to survive, like any other individual. They're only defending themselves, basically, and in that you were correct as well. I just don't think that you can blame a creature for following its behavoral patterns. This is what large corporations do. It is neither noble nor evil. It is the only course of action.

I see more clearly your perspective, and it makes a lot of sense. I failed to recognize the true spirit of the GPL. It's hard for me to imagine something as free as GPL being stifled by HP. I don't think I really understood the freedom. I commend you for your contributions to the open-source movement, and humbly apologize for any ill will I may have appeared to show.

I think I worded several statements in my last post poorly, and because of that, it's hard to understand what I mean. I meant that HP needed to clear up its role in its press releases. I also think that they must tip their hats and acknowledge the bigger movement that flows behind them, in GPL, BSD, apache, et al, licenses. It should be a matter of pride, and not shame, that they receive open-source. It should be shown as a gift to our peoples.

Your rights are being trampled by SCO directly, and I can see how HP's actions are insulting to you. Forgive my lack of insight.

btw, I'm only 22, so I know jack sh!t about unix's trials and tribulations.

[Eglin]

ack! /emote regrets being so damned fractious!

btw, 22 makes you an old fart.

[a_Guest03]

My favorite SCO quote, snatched from Slashdot -->

(paraphrasing what led up to it)
Some mining company in Canada pulled the ol' pump and dump. About 5 guys got megarich lying about the awesomeness of a gold mine. They sprinkled the mine, lied about the ore, claimed a fortune in jumped stock value, and skipped town to the Cayman islands.

Results: Thousands of suffering investors, 5 very rich guys, and one very rich guy who "fell" from a helicopter over Indonesia.

The quotes:

1st Slashdotter: McBride, with any luck. In Antarctica. Amongst a bunch of angry, hungry penguins.

2nd Slashdotter: Surely 'Hungry, horny penguins?' It'd make for a great headline - 'McBride fuxed, snaxed by Tux.'