Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (4749 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [SLE] It's Official: SCO Declares IP Jihad on Linux
- From: James Mohr <suse_mailing_list@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 16:14:10 +0200
- Message-id: <200305031614.10799.suse_mailing_list@xxxxxxxxx>
On Sunday 04 May 2003 06:26, Curtis Rey wrote:
<snip>
> If anything
> is in the works on IBMs side regarding a buyout I'll bet my last dollar
> that they wait until SCO is so desperate and get the best bang for the
> buck, on IBMs terms rather than SCOs ( or someone like M$ swoops in for the
> kill at an opportune moment).
As the article said:
"First, it provides a way to place Linux in an intellectual property limbo,
perhaps making those planning to adopt it more likely to go elsewhere (queue
the SCO marketing department)."
or perhaps to Microsoft. It would not surprise me in the least if MS paid
Caldera off in their DR DOS suit or in some other way. Why spend $500 million
in marketing to "destroy" Linux when you can do it for half that by paying
Caldera to do that for you.
<snip>
> The possible motives could (well do) give one a headache. But on the
> otherhand this borders on the absurd. I mean McBride and Co had been long
> on accusations and short on about anything else substantial. I mean
> fearing that disclosing even a hint at what part of the Linux kernel is
> under SCO license/patents for fear of them scrubbing out the evidence is,
> well...., just dumb.
It's typical of Caldera for years. They were a marketing company and not much
has changed.
Sorry, I just can't bring myself to call them SCO. I worked in SCO tech
support for four years and it was a good company. It provided a good product
and treated it's customers and employees well.
<snip>
> On the other hand the "rules of disclosure and discovery"
> mandates that if he/SCO has said proof that it must be made available at
> some point, barring surprise witnesses or evidence. But seeing how this is
> still pretrial and discovery he will eventually have to bring some sort of
> plausible documentation forth.
I'm not a lawyer, but in some of the cases that I have followed "rules of
disclosure and discovery" apply to the defense and not the general public. In
one of the articles there was a comment that one of the motions could be to
"keep proprietary evidence secret". I could image that Caldera motions to
keep secret what lines of code it thinks were "stolen". That would prevent
the developers from cleaning up the code before the trial.
<snip>
On the other hand, I am being indirectly accused of using something illegal
(or using it illegally, whatever). Don't I have the right to know just what
it is that is illegal??? As I writer, I personally take the issue of IP very
seriously and I honestly do not want to infringe on someone's IP rights.
However, Caldera cannot reasonably expect me to stop using **all** of my SuSE
distribution based solely on their claim that there is something, somewhere
that was taken from the original source. Maybe it's the extfs code. Well, I
have a reiserfs. Maybe it was the SMP code, I only have a single processor.
So, unless Caldera tells me what I am doing wrong I cannot correct it.
Obviously Caldera won't be going after the users. However, it is a moral
issue of being accused of using something illegally. I wonder what Caldera
would do with a million plus law suits forcing them to divuldge just what it
is we are doing illegally.
Hmmmm. Just a thought.
Regards,
jimmo
--
---------------------------------------
"Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your
character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others
think you are." -- John Wooden
---------------------------------------
Be sure to visit the Linux Tutorial: http://www.linux-tutorial.info
---------------------------------------
NOTE: All messages sent to me in response to my posts to newsgroups, mailing
lists or forums are subject to reposting.
<snip>
> If anything
> is in the works on IBMs side regarding a buyout I'll bet my last dollar
> that they wait until SCO is so desperate and get the best bang for the
> buck, on IBMs terms rather than SCOs ( or someone like M$ swoops in for the
> kill at an opportune moment).
As the article said:
"First, it provides a way to place Linux in an intellectual property limbo,
perhaps making those planning to adopt it more likely to go elsewhere (queue
the SCO marketing department)."
or perhaps to Microsoft. It would not surprise me in the least if MS paid
Caldera off in their DR DOS suit or in some other way. Why spend $500 million
in marketing to "destroy" Linux when you can do it for half that by paying
Caldera to do that for you.
<snip>
> The possible motives could (well do) give one a headache. But on the
> otherhand this borders on the absurd. I mean McBride and Co had been long
> on accusations and short on about anything else substantial. I mean
> fearing that disclosing even a hint at what part of the Linux kernel is
> under SCO license/patents for fear of them scrubbing out the evidence is,
> well...., just dumb.
It's typical of Caldera for years. They were a marketing company and not much
has changed.
Sorry, I just can't bring myself to call them SCO. I worked in SCO tech
support for four years and it was a good company. It provided a good product
and treated it's customers and employees well.
<snip>
> On the other hand the "rules of disclosure and discovery"
> mandates that if he/SCO has said proof that it must be made available at
> some point, barring surprise witnesses or evidence. But seeing how this is
> still pretrial and discovery he will eventually have to bring some sort of
> plausible documentation forth.
I'm not a lawyer, but in some of the cases that I have followed "rules of
disclosure and discovery" apply to the defense and not the general public. In
one of the articles there was a comment that one of the motions could be to
"keep proprietary evidence secret". I could image that Caldera motions to
keep secret what lines of code it thinks were "stolen". That would prevent
the developers from cleaning up the code before the trial.
<snip>
On the other hand, I am being indirectly accused of using something illegal
(or using it illegally, whatever). Don't I have the right to know just what
it is that is illegal??? As I writer, I personally take the issue of IP very
seriously and I honestly do not want to infringe on someone's IP rights.
However, Caldera cannot reasonably expect me to stop using **all** of my SuSE
distribution based solely on their claim that there is something, somewhere
that was taken from the original source. Maybe it's the extfs code. Well, I
have a reiserfs. Maybe it was the SMP code, I only have a single processor.
So, unless Caldera tells me what I am doing wrong I cannot correct it.
Obviously Caldera won't be going after the users. However, it is a moral
issue of being accused of using something illegally. I wonder what Caldera
would do with a million plus law suits forcing them to divuldge just what it
is we are doing illegally.
Hmmmm. Just a thought.
Regards,
jimmo
--
---------------------------------------
"Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your
character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others
think you are." -- John Wooden
---------------------------------------
Be sure to visit the Linux Tutorial: http://www.linux-tutorial.info
---------------------------------------
NOTE: All messages sent to me in response to my posts to newsgroups, mailing
lists or forums are subject to reposting.
| < Previous | Next > |