Yes, I read several stories about that a couple of hours ago. While he is claiming that, another SCO official claims that the vanilla Linux kernel is not tainted. Go figure, they can't even keep their story straight. Personally, I think they are just trying to scare IBM into buying them. There are several ways code may be polluted. One way is that copyrighted code somehow makes its way into the code

On Fri, 2 May 2003 23:22:19 -0400 Charles Philip Chan wrote: base. This occurs when developers who have access to the copyrighted code base do not use the proper care and restraint. The other way is when developers who have access to the proprietary code base implement some patented algorithms into the non-proprietary code base. The bottom line is that I think this lawsuit might end up hurting SCO/Caldera in the long run, but my hope is that it does not negatively affect Linux. -- Jerry Feldman Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9

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.

Friends, If SCO is out to dominate the Linux community in the manner it is acting then the Linux users and its other producers should go for an all out boycott of the SCO group. I am a proud user of Linuxware and Unixware and I believe strongly in the ways that this community holds on to the freedom of usage and delivery of this software. SCO has underestimated the users and overestimated its stupidity. So why not just tell SCO to take a hike. ABHIJIT NAIK On Sat, 3 May 2003, James Mohr wrote:

On Saturday 03 May 2003 16:03, Nick Zentena wrote:

...

On May 3, 2003 10:14 am, James Mohr wrote:

...

to keep secret what lines of code it thinks were "stolen". That would prevent the developers from cleaning up the code before the trial.

How would some one clean up CDs currently in possesion of the plantiff? At the very least they are required to tell the person being sued what is the problem. Giving the person the chance to stop the current problem. By not doing that they weaken any claim to damages.

Nick

Well, you could simply remove those components from your system that your system. However, that might be a valid argument for IBM, SuSE, RedHat, etc. SO maybe "forcing" Caldera to tell us, we increase the damages they might have to pay. Hmmm. Sometimes, I'm glad I am not a lawyer.

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

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 03 May 2003 09:14, James Mohr wrote:

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.

Well, this becomes questionable regarding the timing and the recent rollout of Windows server 2003. Would it be beyond plausibility to see this sort of thing happening in order to a more positive response in the market to a product line that faces scepticism in regards to licensing and price at time when both the economy and security are major issues?

<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.

<snip>

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.

True enough. We, those outside of the parties directly involved, are not privy to being exposed to trade secrets and proprietary codes. However, IBM is and they have just lately made a statement about the allegations in a manner that leads me to believe that perhaps they have more specific knowledge and therefore feel confident about their counter allegations regarding the meat of this. Those that are accussed have the right to understand the exact nature of the allegations - otherwise a clear and congent defense is not possible. Granted the David Boies is a very competent attorney with a large and capable team, however IBM has a fleet of laywers as well. Given the track record of Mr. Boies of late one might garner to say the he has a less than perfect batting averages. The larger problem that I can see outside of the direct consequence of the charges it that it will drag on, further keep things in "limbo" and this is were it can get farily destructive IMHO. But this is also an indication that Linux has come into its' own regarding market value and the industry. Large viable corporations sue each other all the time. Having said that, one also realizes that most companies weather these in stride. Yes, this could have an impact on Linux in the market in some cases, but on the other hand develpment rolls and as does the market. I can bet fairly confidently that overall Linux will keep rolling along as well.

<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???...........

<snip>

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.

This is where the danger is for SCO IMHO. If they have any hope of retaining any marketability and client base one would wonder if this would not dramatically backfire on SCO. Perhaps aspect of Linux are "limbo" as you suggest. But the larger question is the viability of SCO as a product and commodity in light of its current state of affairs. Those in a position to promote SCO products and services have been blatantly curtailed to only those directly employed by SCO. Those outside of any vested interest face both a growing avoidance of SCO either by boycott or as a direct effect of the boycott. I mean I'm an admin at a large company when I conference with my CTO. My suggestions as to which product and services to contract or purchase will most not likely involve SCO due to the quagmire revolving around the company. This does not necessarily translate over to Linux however. I would only translate or carry over if their were questions about how it would impact anything my company were doing that might involve the use of a proprietary code or product line that may taint my own product or service. As of now I find no indication, at least if I were in a postion to have greater background knowledge of what may or may not be in question, to believe that I was in a position of risk or compromise regarding any infringement I could incur using a Linux or OSS product. In otherwords, just because SCO is screaming vaguely that IBM has improperly used code belonging to SCO and I have no SCO or IBM wares why would I be overly concerned? Even if I had concerns related to SCO. This would only pertain to hardware that was directly purchased from IBM and that then had Linux/OSS software intsalled by IBM AFAICT. So, if I bought Linux servers for Dell or others why would I be overly concerned. Yes this may extend generally to Linux but unless it is indicated then overall I would question what why I would directly be concerned. However, on the otherside of the coin, if one checks the changelog for the 2.5.68 kernel one does find reference to IBM developers in regards to scsi and IPV4 code and a bit or /proc code relatete to meminfo and the S390. Likewise there are references to HP, adaptec and a host of other major companies. In light of this one can see a negative impact on SCO in a larger sense. Since these companies have far more reservation in dealing with SCO then vice verse. So, if anyone has to be concerned about their future I would speculate the SCO is in a much more tenuious position than anyone else. Like I said. This may very well be a case study in Professional and Market suicide and Blacklisting more than anything else. As for your thoughts on ancillary torts against SCO during or after knowledge and findings of fact. This also is an area I would be concerned with if I were SCO or partnered with them. If it is found that SCO is in deed using any degree of smoke and mirrors the backlash could be potentially devistating IMHO. Cheers, Curtis. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+tTKZ7WVLiDrqeksRAqY0AKDmOQZ0l69ONRxrB7R1c3uxRBFfsACg3Bgg 35HsxAG9W9fzPXleyNsuDNA= =nD1N -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

* Hans Forbrich (forbrich@telusplanet.net) [030503 12:28]: ->I thoroughly confused. Since they are a founding member of UnitedLinux, does ->this mean they are suing themselves? They should. Because they've been shipping for quite sometime under the GPL the same code they are now bitching people have stolen. Since they ..SCO.. shipped this "tainted" code to the general public under a license that makes it free to do whatever you wish with it. Does this not make it Free Software? It's amazing the amount of stupid things business's do to try to seem like they have a business plan when they don't. My opinion is that SCO wants to become a part of IBM and it's management wants out. ;) It would be wonderful if IBM bought them and just friggin open sourced all of that old ass code. ;) The no more problems and IBM look like superheroes. Just my 0.02. -- Ben Rosenberg ---===---===---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org Tell me what you believe.. I'll tell you what you should see.

Hi Guys, What if IBM is guilty? What if the IBM employees that were assigned to linux kernel hacking actually did have access to SCO's IP that IBM has a License for and is used in their AIX vers of UNIX? Slasdot http://slashdot.org had a few articles that described IBMs entry into full support of Linux and there was a "Q & A" with the IBM Linux kernel hackers where they shared their knowledge of the AIX code and how it compared to the Linux kernel. That means that IBM employees with knowledge of and access to SCO's IP were working on and contributing to the Linux kernel. Isn't that all that SCO needs to prove to win? Maybe my memory is faulty, but it seems to me that the IBM kernel hackers talked about how their experiance would help improve the SMP support in Linux. Then when 2.4 arrived SMP was improved. I am not advocating for SCO, I hate how this might turn out, but we shouldn't be blind to the facts. PeterB On Monday 05 May 2003 02:13 am, Curtis Rey wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

. My opinion is that SCO wants to become a part of IBM and it's

...

management wants out. ;)

I think this is part of it. I have a sneaking suspicion that those at the SCO helm have mismanaged it horribly and that they're very concerned about the company tanking big time and incurring the wrath of it's board and shareholders. If it tanks, the share holder cry foul, file torts, launch inquiries and gross incomptence and non-disclose is found. Then the shareholder will definitely want heads to roll - can you say McBride and Ransom on a platter?

So, IBM buckles under and buys them out. They get off the hook, the share holders get nice payouts, and no one's the wiser. Except, if this is the case, IBM ain't that dumb and will most likely suck the financial lifeblood out of the company via the courts and attornys before buying it for pennies on the dollar.

Just my $0.02

Curtis :) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+tg877WVLiDrqeksRAm41AKDfJzDoKOdIdcseVUngbzYsOOevNwCgwJYh 5wAkepL9SvGolzyWGUP+AKc= =VZ2l -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----