SCO SUCKS

[samwichse]

A letter posted on theinquirer.net:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9635

My summarizing translation (word for word takes way to long to type out):

They first accuse IBM of distributing dirty code in Linux to kill the "economic viability" of UNIX and then say they will take three actions:

1)

Quote:

1 - La primera es enviar una carta avisando a los usuarios comerciales del hecho de que la responsabilidad por el uso de Linux puede ampliarse a los usuarios finales. Los clientes empezarán a recibir esta carta hoy. Si está interesado puede ver una copia de la misma en: http://www.sco.com/scosource/letter_...customers.html

They sent a letter to all the commercial Linux users telling them that it even applies to end users and there's a copy of the letter attached.

2)

Quote:

2 - La segunda acción es suspender todas las ventas futuras del sistema operativo Linux de SCO, hasta que los riesgos que conlleva Linux se entiendan mejor y sean adecuadamente resueltos.

[Scott Tiger]

I hope IBM's lawyers step in on this fast. You're right about reputations in the coporate world - once they're established it's hard to change them.

[CMonster]

Microsoft, no friend of SCO (formerly Caldera -who already litigated against MS), has pumped tons of money into SCO in the guise of licensing SCO UNIX -no doubt in my mind that MS is now funding the litigation against IBM and Linux.

SCOs suit should not affect Linux, it seems to be basically about Linux customers who want to run native UNIX apps that require the SCO shared libs (like dlls), and these libs seem to have been used by IBM and others illegally. But the suit will have a negative impact to the Linux community and the resulting fud are bound to slow the adoption of Linux by major commercial customers.

[crouse]

http://www.usalug.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=101

http://news.com.com/2010-1071_3-1007758.html

http://www.informationweek.com/story...cleID=10000263

http://www.techimo.com/newsapp/index...page=20&sort=1

[pbharris]

f 'em

[nukes]

Have they produced any proof of this 'theft' yet? and have they proved it was not present in any Linux products they themselves distributed?
Until I see this, I remain unconvinced.
If it was 'stolen' but present in any one of their Linux products, then they have no case, as they distributed it under the terms of the GPL and there is SFA they can do about it.

[linux_guru]

I'm embarressed to say I'm SCO certified now.

[nukes]

Why, it just adds something to your resume. It doesn't mean you support this BS lawsuit.

[CMonster]

Let's keep in mind that the people behind this are not the original SCO group, it is the litigious monkeys of the former Caldera who seem to think the only way to make a buck is through the courts.

I am embarassed that I cheered them on when they litigated agains Microsoft over DRDOS -MS settled and paid Caldera an undisclosed sum that many believe was close to $400,000,000 -that is a pretty good sum of money for something that you simply aquired the rights to by purchasing it, as in the case of DRDOS.

(Interestingly enough, Caldera seems to have dropped it's boxed desktop Linux product shortly after the settlement and resulting MS money infusion (eDesktop 2.4 was the last complete boxed set in the OpenLinux line).

I guess Caldera (now the "new" SCO) ran out of money and purchased another cash cow with rights to sue...


Sounds a little like North Korea's foreign policy to me -threaten nukes- -get paid.

[nukes]

Yes, but if thats the case, they need to prove that they never distributed any of the said code under the GPL otherwise it is in the public domain and there is nothing they can do about it - assuming this code was stolen in the first place. The only way they have a case is if they can PROVE that there has been sourcecode stolen, and that they have had nothing to do with its distribution.