Brian wrote:

> I am not looking for your respect. If you are unhappy, you should share
> with your SCO representive. You should explain that a lot of people are
> pissed off over this unfounded attack on Linux!
>
> If you want to talk about respect, you should tell your SCO rep that
> everything and most everybody associated with SCO is held in total
> contempt.
>
> SCO Group are a pack of scum sucking thieves out to perpetuate a swindle
> on the entire Linux using community. SCO Group officials are lying on a
> daily basis in order to further this swindle. These lies are hurting many
> innocent hard working dedicated people and in effect aiding the Microsoft
> machine - funny that the majority of the lawsuit funding originates from
> Microsoft, no?
>
> Now take your whinny opinion and righteous indignation and stick it up the
> ass of the closest SCO representative you can find.
>
> Have I made my point perfectly clear?

Not quite. You're far too polite about SCO and their acolytes for my liking.

--
John Collins Xi Software Ltd www.xisl.com

tony@aplawrence.com wrote:

> Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>
>>SCO Group are a pack of scum sucking thieves out to perpetuate a swindle
>>on the entire Linux using community. SCO Group officials are lying on a
>>daily basis in order to further this swindle.
>
> You don't know that.
>
> You don't know if there is legitimacy to their claims. Does that not
> matter to you at all? If IBM really did release copyright protected
> code, don't they have a right to compensation?
>
> OK, from out here, it's hard to believe that. SCO has fumbled badly
> on this by showing silly examples that weren't what they said they
> were. Possibly, everything else they think they have is equally
> useless. But even if that is 100% true, that doesn't make them liars.
> Confused, possibly pretty dumb, maybe incompetent and so on, but
> not liars. But we don't know that at this point, and it may
> very well be that they have a solid case.

They don't seem to have acknowledged that the exmaples were silly. The
references I have seen still quote them as describing the examples as
"damning". Unless they mean damning to them.

But Mr McBride has said that "over a million lines of code has been copied
into Linux", referring to 2.4 and higher but not 2.2 or below.

Seeing as the total lines of source in 2.4 are about 200,000 and a good deal
of those are based on or unchanged from 2.2 he absolutely has to be lying
to say that - as Linus himself has said.

>
> They've handled this whole thing horribly, and could cause serious
> long term damage to Linux AND Unix. Any short term gains they could
> get from IBM if they really do have a case could quickly evaporate.

My hope is that this will get to court quickly so that this whole silly
episode can be over, hopefully leaving a blackened ruin where SCO used to
be.

--
John Collins Xi Software Ltd www.xisl.com

tony@aplawrence.com wrote:
> Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>> SCO Group are a pack of scum sucking thieves out to perpetuate a
>> swindle on the entire Linux using community. SCO Group officials
>> are lying on a daily basis in order to further this swindle.

> You don't know that.

I most certainly do Know That!

> You don't know if there is legitimacy to their claims.

Their claims from the very beginning were a smokescreen of lies and deceit
with the sole intention of sowing FUD in the IT community and swindling
Linux corporate users.

> Does that not matter to you at all? If IBM really did release
> copyright protected code, don't they have a right to compensation?

Give me a break Tony, if there is any SCO copyrighted material in Linux,
Show Me The Code!

Identify the lines of proprietary code in the Linux kernel source - you
don't even have to show the corresponding SCO code.

The reason they don't is because there is no SCO proprietary code in the
Linux kernel!

It is all a lie!

> OK, from out here, it's hard to believe that. SCO has fumbled badly
> on this by showing silly examples that weren't what they said they
> were.

Fumbled Badly!!! You have to be kidding, Tony?

The SCO Group (of scumbags) has done everything in their power to spread
Fear Uncertainty and Doubt - *EVERYTHING* in their power!

Now they are back-peddaling fast to avoid discovery of any of their proofs
with both RedHat and IBM - SCO is the one filing for delays!

What does that say to you Tony?

> Possibly, everything else they think they have is equally useless. But
> even if that is 100% true, that doesn't make them liars.

Or course it does. These people are professional administrators with a large
and experienced legal team on their payroll.

The SCO Group (of scumbags) are a pack of liars!

Absolutely No Grey Area There at all.

> Confused, possibly pretty dumb, maybe incompetent and so on, but
> not liars. But we don't know that at this point, and it may very
> well be that they have a solid case.

Bullshit!

You are living in a dream world Tony - SCO has No Case!

There is no theft of code and the analogy that The SCO Group (of scumbags)
uses concerning the theft of a car and it's return doesn't hold water.

When someone steals your car, you are deprived of the property AND you can
no longer drive around in that car. When someone includes some of your code
in their product, they have not physically taken control of the code, it is
still yours, *AND* you are not prevented for using and selling the code
yourself.

Do you *NOT* see the difference?

> They've handled this whole thing horribly, and could cause serious
> long term damage to Linux AND Unix. Any short term gains they could
> get from IBM if they really do have a case could quickly evaporate.

SCO and Canopy won't get a penny from IBM - not one red cent - zero.

IBM will end up owning SCO and will likely put all it's overpriced crap into
EOL - perhaps open source the libraries for a Linux compatibility layer.

If you want some idea about the value of the SCO channel, all you have to do
is listen to the numbers that have shown up for the road show - What A
Joke!

Before you start spinning me a story about all the righteous engineers that
are employed by The SCO Group (of scumbags) and what swell guys they are,
let me remind you that SCO is attempting to highjack the Open Source
community with it's thousands of dedicated coders that often work for
nothing, donating their contributions for the good of their community.

If the poor misunderstood engineers at SCO had any scruples, they would
leave in protest! They are staying for their paychecks Tony - that as far
as I am concerned makes them complicit!

The SCO Group are a pack of lying bastards spreading their filth over the
entire Linux/Unix community.

How will the Linux Open Source community be repaid for the damage to our
reputation and loss of credibility in the marketplace? Are you going to
pony up a few bucks? Is Bela? I don't think so!

After all the damage is done and The SCO Group is gone, who will repay us
for our losses?

Are there any SCO engineers that care to dispute my charges of lying and
deceit? I didn't think so! That's what I mean when I say complicit! Don't
ever come sucking around looking for a job here!

Brian

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 10:54:56 +0000 (UTC), tony@aplawrence.com wrote:
>Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>
>>SCO Group are a pack of scum sucking thieves out to perpetuate a swindle on
>>the entire Linux using community. SCO Group officials are lying on a daily
>>basis in order to further this swindle.
>
>You don't know that.
>
>You don't know if there is legitimacy to their claims. Does that not
>matter to you at all? If IBM really did release copyright protected
>code, don't they have a right to compensation?

Even SCO has not claimed that. SCO has claimed that IBM has released code
over which they have "control rights". SCO's execs have said that IBM
owns the copyright over the disputed code.

>
>OK, from out here, it's hard to believe that. SCO has fumbled badly
>on this by showing silly examples that weren't what they said they
>were.

In other words THEY LIED! That makes SCO's execs LIARS.


Possibly, everything else they think they have is equally
>useless. But even if that is 100% true, that doesn't make them liars.

Yes it does. If they show code that they claim was improperly put into
Linux and in fact it is clean it makes the statements LIES and the people
who made them LIARS!

>Confused, possibly pretty dumb, maybe incompetent and so on, but
>not liars.

Well, you can act as an apologist for them if you want. But let's analyse
the claims a bit more. Asusming that they made a mistake in showing code
that was in fact clean, the only conclusion oone can come to is that they
did not do the proper dilligence to check out their claims. In other
words, they did not show any respect for the truth.

But anyway, there are many other statements they made that have proven to
be lies. Just look at the statements the execs made early on about their
plans and what they in fact did.

>But we don't know that at this point, and it may
>very well be that they have a solid case.

Well, given they have take every opportunity to delay presenting any
evidence in 3 cases against them (including the one in Germany where they
declined to defend their actions), there is little eveidence of any merit
to their claims and a lot of evidence that their claims have no merit.

SCO's only claim comes from interpreting IBM's and SGI's developements as
somehow derivative works of SysV, despite much evidence that they were
independent developments.

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:04:09 +0100, John Collins <jmc@nospam.xisl.com> wrote:
>tony@aplawrence.com wrote:
>
>> Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>>
>>>SCO Group are a pack of scum sucking thieves out to perpetuate a swindle
>>>on the entire Linux using community. SCO Group officials are lying on a
>>>daily basis in order to further this swindle.
>>
>> You don't know that.
>>

Oh, yes, I could not forget reminding the newsgroup about Blake Stowell's
statement about IBM's patents... "Some of the patents aren't even filed
with the US Patent Office".

Frankly, I don't view that as clueless -- it so clueless, it has to be a
lie!

What great initials he has: "BS". I guess it sums up everything he has to
say!

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 10:54:56 +0000 (UTC), tony@aplawrence.com wrote:

>If IBM really did release copyright protected
>code, don't they have a right to compensation?

Nope. SCO has a right to sue for DAMAGE if the code leak contributed
to a loss of revenue. It will be necessary for SCO to prove such
damage, which methinks is going to be difficult. If damage could not
be proven, the best SCO can do is request an injunction to prevent
furthur use of the proprietary code and removal of the offending code.
In the unlikely event that SCO can prove damage, they are not entitled
to anything after they refused to release the offending code, as this
non-release makes SCO contributory to any alleged damage. No way is
the court going to award SCO anything if SCO also is allowing the
alleged damage to continue. One possible outcome is that the court
agrees that there was some use of proprietary code by IBM, but that
SCO is not entitled to any monetary awards.

>OK, from out here, it's hard to believe that. SCO has fumbled badly
>on this by showing silly examples that weren't what they said they
>were. Possibly, everything else they think they have is equally
>useless. But even if that is 100% true, that doesn't make them liars.
>Confused, possibly pretty dumb, maybe incompetent and so on, but
>not liars. But we don't know that at this point, and it may
>very well be that they have a solid case.

In the real world of high dollar litigation, nobody cares who's right,
wrong, clueless, or confused. Liars and truth stretching is epidemic.
Judgements are often made on the basis of political expediency,
partisan politix, and proximity to the next election or position
advancement window. The Linux mob could be 150% correct in all its
allegations of SCO's failure to prove its case, but if politix enters
the case, it's a waste of time. (I call to your attention the Justice
Dept vs Microsoft fiasco).

In this case, methinks SCO has uncovered a weakness in the copyright
laws. IBM cannot afford to have any upstart sue them for $3 billion
for the accidental or intentional recycling of code. IBM has far too
much invested in its patents and software to risk having every
individual or company that suspects IBM has either accidentally or
intentionally borrowed their code, suddenly sue IBM. If SCO were even
partly successful in their suit, that's the likely outcome.

In my never humble opinion and guesswork, IBM is likely to agree that
SCO may have a point, but that accidental plagerism of code is an
industry wide problem, especially when much of the code is of dubious
origin and ownership. It's likely that the court will arbirarily rule
that 5% plagerism is acceptable and not constitute sufficient
simularity to justify awards of damages.

As always, money is paramount. IBM has the most to lose if SCO sets a
precident, even if SCO only partially prevails in court. Linux is of
no financial consequence because frankly, there's no money in it. SCO
needs to continue to exist as a competitor to Microsoft or there is a
real risk that Microsoft might also be considered a monopoly in the
server market.

>They've handled this whole thing horribly, and could cause serious
>long term damage to Linux AND Unix.

Are there going to be any winners in this mess? I certainly don't see
any. Perhaps copyright law, the GPL, and perhaps software patents
might be clarified. Perhaps ownership of the Unix code base might
also be clarified. But winners, as in financial winners, none that I
can see.

>Any short term gains they could
>get from IBM if they really do have a case could quickly evaporate.

Gains? Even if SCO collects something from IBM to just go away, you
can be sure the present mob of litigators running the Utah end of the
puzzle will either divide up the pie and run, or sue each other into
impoverishment. Judging by the mentality and recent actions, I
suggest the latter.


--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us jeffl@cruzio.com

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:36:32 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>In this case, methinks SCO has uncovered a weakness in the copyright
>laws.

Since SCO has not filed any lawsuits alleging copyright infringement, I
rather doubt this.

On the other hand, SCO is accused in IBM counter-suit of copyright
infringement.

> IBM cannot afford to have any upstart sue them for $3 billion
>for the accidental or intentional recycling of code. IBM has far too
>

Exactly, this is why your next prediction is very unlikely to happen...

>In my never humble opinion and guesswork, IBM is likely to agree that
>SCO may have a point,

IMHO, IBM will agree to nothing, since to do otherwise would likely
encourage other similar suits against them.

> SCO needs to continue to exist as a competitor to Microsoft or there is a
> real risk that Microsoft might also be considered a monopoly in the
> server market.

You can't be serious, can you? SCO as a competitor in the server market?

Even so, perhpas it would be good for Microsoft to be SEEN as a monopoly,
not just act like one and get away with it.

Joe Dunning <joe@blahblah.invalid> wrote:

>You can't be serious, can you? SCO as a competitor in the server market?


They are. Not much of a competitor, but a competitor just the same.

Of course, I'm a competitor to IBM's Global Services Division too.

:-)


--
tony@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>tony@aplawrence.com wrote:
>> Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>>> SCO Group are a pack of scum sucking thieves out to perpetuate a
>>> swindle on the entire Linux using community. SCO Group officials
>>> are lying on a daily basis in order to further this swindle.

>> You don't know that.

>I most certainly do Know That!

No. It's your OPINION.

As an opinion, it isn't outrageous or unreasonable. But it isn't
fact, and isn't anything you can prove at this moment anyway.

>
>> You don't know if there is legitimacy to their claims.

>Their claims from the very beginning were a smokescreen of lies and deceit
>with the sole intention of sowing FUD in the IT community and swindling
>Linux corporate users.

Opinion.

>> Does that not matter to you at all? If IBM really did release
>> copyright protected code, don't they have a right to compensation?

>Give me a break Tony, if there is any SCO copyrighted material in Linux,
>Show Me The Code!

Um, I don't have the code. If there is anything to show, that's
up to SCO. Only they know that - or think they know it.

>Identify the lines of proprietary code in the Linux kernel source - you
>don't even have to show the corresponding SCO code.

SCO's lawyers apparently have decided that's the same thing. Did you
read http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...31010223050711 ?


>The reason they don't is because there is no SCO proprietary code in the
>Linux kernel!

Opinion.

>It is all a lie!

>> OK, from out here, it's hard to believe that. SCO has fumbled badly
>> on this by showing silly examples that weren't what they said they
>> were.

>Fumbled Badly!!! You have to be kidding, Tony?

No, I'm not kidding. If (IF) they really do have anything, they were
idiots to show those non-examples and crow about them. All that
did was further damage their already lousy reputation. Whoever
engineered that debacle should be fired.


>The SCO Group (of scumbags) has done everything in their power to spread
>Fear Uncertainty and Doubt - *EVERYTHING* in their power!

>Now they are back-peddaling fast to avoid discovery of any of their proofs
>with both RedHat and IBM - SCO is the one filing for delays!

>What does that say to you Tony?

It says the lawyers are doing their thing. As usual. I joke with
my customers that I don't own a watch because I bill by the hour,
but lawyers carry multiple watches and bill for each and every one
of them :-)

>> Possibly, everything else they think they have is equally useless. But
>> even if that is 100% true, that doesn't make them liars.

>Or course it does. These people are professional administrators with a large
>and experienced legal team on their payroll.

>The SCO Group (of scumbags) are a pack of liars!

>Absolutely No Grey Area There at all.

Opinion.

>> Confused, possibly pretty dumb, maybe incompetent and so on, but
>> not liars. But we don't know that at this point, and it may very
>> well be that they have a solid case.

>Bullshit!

No. Opinion. Mine, this time. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.
Not that it matters: http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B584.html

>You are living in a dream world Tony - SCO has No Case!

I didn't say that they do. I said it's possible that they
do, and also possible that they are a bunch of fools. Or
something in between. I certainly don't know. If you put
a gun to my head and said I had to guess right or die, I'd
guess that they are going to lose. But I'd still worry about
getting shot at the end of it all.

>There is no theft of code and the analogy that The SCO Group (of scumbags)
>uses concerning the theft of a car and it's return doesn't hold water.

>When someone steals your car, you are deprived of the property AND you can
>no longer drive around in that car. When someone includes some of your code
>in their product, they have not physically taken control of the code, it is
>still yours, *AND* you are not prevented for using and selling the code
>yourself.

>Do you *NOT* see the difference?

The difference is intellectual property. I personally hold that
software should NOT be protected by copyrights or patents, but
I'm not in charge, so it is. If you steal it, you face the
laws. I can disagree all I like, but that changes nothing,
at least right now it doesn't.


>> They've handled this whole thing horribly, and could cause serious
>> long term damage to Linux AND Unix. Any short term gains they could
>> get from IBM if they really do have a case could quickly evaporate.

>SCO and Canopy won't get a penny from IBM - not one red cent - zero.

>IBM will end up owning SCO and will likely put all it's overpriced crap into
>EOL - perhaps open source the libraries for a Linux compatibility layer.

Opinion.

>If you want some idea about the value of the SCO channel, all you have to do
>is listen to the numbers that have shown up for the road show - What A
>Joke!


I went to the Road Show. I also used to attend their Quarterly Business
Briefings. Attendance at the RS wasn't markedly different than the
QBB's were in recent years. http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B575.html


>Before you start spinning me a story about all the righteous engineers that
>are employed by The SCO Group (of scumbags) and what swell guys they are,

What would that have to do with this?

>let me remind you that SCO is attempting to highjack the Open Source
>community with it's thousands of dedicated coders that often work for
>nothing, donating their contributions for the good of their community.

Opinion.

>If the poor misunderstood engineers at SCO had any scruples, they would
>leave in protest! They are staying for their paychecks Tony - that as far
>as I am concerned makes them complicit!

Opinion.

>The SCO Group are a pack of lying bastards spreading their filth over the
>entire Linux/Unix community.

Opinion.

>How will the Linux Open Source community be repaid for the damage to our
>reputation and loss of credibility in the marketplace? Are you going to
>pony up a few bucks? Is Bela? I don't think so!

I don't know why I or Bela should be expected to do so. Do you?

>After all the damage is done and The SCO Group is gone, who will repay us
>for our losses?

Who's going to pay me for my losses?

Business is tough all over. When the railroads came in, the steam boat
operators lost money. When the PC came out, Dec and Wang started to
die. Shit happens.

Fact is, if SCO hadn't done this, someone else would. SCO has long
standing gripes against IBM for cutting them off at the knees with
Project Monterey. Maybe that's why they are so adamant about this,
I don't know.

Look, I understand your anger. A lot of us are angry over this.
I can't see any good coming of it. But facts are facts and
opinions are opinions. Opinions are all you and I have
right now. The difference is that I know I have only opinions,
and you foolishly insist that you have facts.

--
tony@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

<tony@aplawrence.com> wrote...
> Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
> >tony@aplawrence.com wrote:
> >> Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
> >>> SCO Group are a pack of scum sucking thieves out to perpetuate a
> >>> swindle on the entire Linux using community. SCO Group officials
> >>> are lying on a daily basis in order to further this swindle.

> >> You don't know that.

> >I most certainly do Know That!

> No. It's your OPINION.

Lets review:

The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group announce that Their Unix
Code has been improperly copied into the Linux Kernel 2.4 series.

The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group refuse to identify what code
they claim as theirs without individuals signing a rights-sucking NDA.

The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group show the alledged offending
code to people who sign the NDA but said code is miniscule in volume, is
disguised to prevent identification AND is impossible to verify - no
provenance! Just what was the point of the NDA if they show NOTHING?

The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group's alledged offending code is
revealed at the annual SCO Forum and is immediately identified as not
proprietary at all and in one case is not even owned by the The Scum Sucking
Lying Thieves at The SCO Group.

The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group now claim over a million
lines of Linux 2.4 kernel actually belongs to them and yet once again they
refuse to identify a single line.

SGI has access to the entire codebase of The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at
The SCO Group Unix and does an extensive search and finds a couple trivial
passages which they state has been BSDed and as such not a violation of any
proprietary rights but just to be safe they remove the code.

The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group are procrastinating,
delaying and filing motions to prevent the examination of any of it's proof
of violation of proprietary rights.

The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group maintain a constant stream
of PR events filled with accusations, threats, outright lies concerning
proprietary code, the Linux community, The General Public License and even
the law.

The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group are now handing out t-shirts
asking the question "is unix in your linux?"

The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group's road show is showing
minute attendance by pissed off resellers and yet they still refuse to
reveal a single line of code that they have absolute exclusive ownership of
that is included in Linux kernel 2.4.xx.

The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group have threatened repeatedly
to send invoices to Linux users but it has never happened - as a matter of
fact, every attempt to pay for and secure an SCO Linux license has failed.

The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group claim their new SCOsource
initiative has seen them through two quarters of profitability BUT their
only clients are Linux's most bitter rivals - Microsoft and SUN.

The claimed reason The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group refuse to
reveal the offending code in not founded in law - as a matter of actual
fact, the law is very clear about identifying each violation in order to
mitigate damages.

The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group have attacked the Open
Source community, the Linux community, the General Public License,
commercial Linux users, Linus Torvalds, all the talented coders that have
worked so hard developing & maintaining the open source codebase and
everything that is great about free software and yet continues to distribute
the Linux 2.4 kernel, continues to distribute GNU/Open Source products with
their proprietary Unix and are even bragging about the upcoming release of
Samba 3.0.

Despite all the rhetoric, accusations, announcements and threats, The Scum
Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group have yet to file a single suit
against any Linux user, distributor or contributor for a violation of
copyright.

Now I have a hard question for you: Just how stupid are you, Anthony? Are
you really so stupid that you can't connect the dots to some logical
conclusion?

You claim my theory is just my opinion BUT you are wrong about that. I have
behind me the collective credibility of the entire open source community
INCLUDING Linux Torvalds, numerous legal experts that have done an extensive
analysis INCLUDING Professor Lawrence Lessig, noted author and law
professor at Stanford University and hundreds of corporate, government and
IT leaders have all voiced support for our cause.

Lastly, have you heard a single opinion from the allegedly "In The Know"
engineers at SCO concerning a million lines of code? A thousand lines of
code? Any identifiable passage of code? Have you?

Now that you have made me jump through all these hoops, why don't you
outline your OPINION/Theory of how it could be otherwise.

The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group are nothing but Scum Sucking
Lying Thieves.

Now, either Put up or Shut up! No mealy mouthed cop-outs about how The Scum
Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group could have done it different or how
The Scum Sucking Lying Thieves at The SCO Group are misunderstood copyright
owners looking for payment from a community that is founded on free
contribution and distribution of code.

8^)

Brian