On Saturday 01 March 2003 15:28, Fred A. Miller wrote:

SCO Group shocker

<http://www.open-mag.com/02873583279.htm>

I ain't shocked. Disgusted would be a far better word. Caldera is not able to bring out a product that competes with any other distribution, technically, philosophically and obviously from a business perspective. As a result they have lost loads of cash and see the only way to make money is forcing it out of other distributions. The ratio of possibly patented code to code that Caldera is using for free to make money is probably on the order of over 1:10000. It is disgusting to see them take advantage of Open Source code and make the rest of us pay for the few tidbits they have the rights to. IMHO, if there is any validity to Caldera's claims, I see the only way for it to work is on the basis of patents and not copyright. Since Linux source problably does not contain anything from the original AT&T source, I doubt that there is an issue of copyright, although the Boies gang might be able to twist things enough that something in the Linux source infringes on AT&T patents. However, IFAIK patents are only protected for 17 (?) years and is not simply renewed when the rights changes has. Maybe the GPL should be changed to protect us from these kinds of people. When I registered by Linkbat project on SourceForge, I specifically chose the "Academic Free License" because of this clause: "Mutual Termination for Patent Action. This License shall terminate automatically and You may no longer exercise any of the rights granted to You by this License if You file a lawsuit in any court alleging that any OSI Certified open source software that is licensed under any license containing this "Mutual Termination for Patent Action" clause infringes any patent claims that are essential to use that software." If someone was going to use something that I created and let them use for free, I did not want them to be able to continue using my stuff if they are making others pay for the rights. It might be nice to include an additional "jerk" clause, which says that if you behave like a jerk then the licensor/copyright owner has the right to say you no longer have the right to use the software at all. If Caldera goes under, the truelly sad things is that SCO Unix will probably completely disappear. 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.

Well, possibly time for someone strong enough in the Linux community to do a hostile take over - providing they're in the public sector (haven't investigated this yet). SCO appears to be an exercises in how to alienate your consituency and cut of your nose despite your face. I really don't know what they figure to gain from this except raw cash. Certainly they won't engender a spirit of cooperation with the OSS community. I do see them doing an effective job of isolating themselves and spend alot of money in court - and apperently the money issues seem paramount to the point of litigations. Do they really think that IBM, RH, etc, etc.... are going to sit back and let SCO attempt to run rough shod over their investments and future prospects? I really don't think so! Seems that Caldera drove their business into the dirt and tried restructuring and giving themselves an new face. Now, as evident by this latest move, they appear to be unable to procure fiscal gains in the market by producing products and providing services. So, now they try to pull a quasi-license move based on perported patents/copyrights or whatever. I personally think this is the last gasp of a dying company that's trying vainly to find a steady revenue stream. Most likely just another case of a law firm whispering some CEOs ear know both that the CEO is desparate and that either win or lose the lawers get paid. Hmmmm. In the mean time this could stir up a bit of confussion that the Redmondians will be giddy to run with. I still think if someone has the money they should just buy SCO and be done with it - or perhaps that is an underlying theme to this farce? This is going to be hot and heavy and I really hope that the rest of the community keeps their focus, because I'm sure Bill and Steve are watching this one closely. Curtis. On Saturday 01 March 2003 08:28, Fred A. Miller wrote:

SCO Group shocker

<http://www.open-mag.com/02873583279.htm>

-- Fred A. Miller Systems Administrator Cornell Univ. Press Services fm@cupserv.org, www.cupserv.org