SCO has valid case

[Rick Tomaschuk]

I did not get the impression SCO was trying to drag down the Linux
name especially as a "past time" but rather they are moving to protect
their IP (Intellectual Property) in the very same manner the music
industry has been doing. (ie.Napster) They seem adamant about their
current holdings (UNIX) and are trying to enforce their legal rights.
SCO's assertion is that IBM (as a company, not rogue employees) did
knowingly  introduce AIX code to Linux licensed from the
SCO/Novell/AT&T agreement. SCOX (Nasdaq $13.55) is a tiny company
approx. 350 employees & current market cap 100M++ now that their stock
price has increased from below one dollar a year ago. They were almost
delisted. SCO has an impressive team of professionals working on all
aspects of this case.

SCO is not a group of "stupid idiots" as many seem to think they are.
I'm amazed no one on the list server with advanced programming skills
took the time to go to Vegas to try to get to the bottom of things or
at the very least to hear SCO's side and grill them on the spot. They
were all there answering any and all questions. At least no one else
on the list server has spoken out yet about their trip to SCOForum
yet. Hell I'm almost sorry I said anything now.

I UNDERSTAND substantial code exists above and beyond the powerpoint
presentation however SCO is not prepared to release it publicly...yet.
Don't dump on me. I support the Linux effort with great enthusiasm
since it began but need to have options for different customers. I'm
as adversely affected by all this the same as others in the industry.
I don't need more FUD in my life. I was working with 3.5, 3.51, NT
when it first arrived. I sure did'nt need that CRAP in my life
especially when Novell had (what I considered) to be rock solid
technology at the time. I welcome all comments. Nothing like a great
brainstorming session to liven things up.

Rick Tomaschuk
rickt-ZACYGPecefkNbK0NzMECUg at public.gmane.org

Novell Resource: http://www.TorontoNUI.ca

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 19:45:37 +0300 (IDDT), "Peter L. Peres"
<plp-ysDPMY98cNQDDBjDh4tngg at public.gmane.org> wrote :

> 
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Rick Tomaschuk wrote:
> peanuts compared to the long term value it offered. What on earth is
>wrong with a free market? Our whole economy is based on a free market.
> 
> This is not about free market, this is about some firm or other
>dragging down the good name of Linux and attacking the GPL in a FUD
>war that precedes a multi-billion multi-year lawsuit in a country
>other than the one where you (I understand) and I (certainly) live,
>for months on end (**), where such things are a national passtime
>apparently.
> 
> The FIRST thing that should worry a Linux user/developer is whether the
> GPL was violated by someone. Not by whom. Then the second worry would be
> to undo the damage asap, first by applying the GPL provisions for
> violations of the GPL license, since THIS is the license that was
> violated, not some IP ownership or other, about which as a Linux
> user/developer you should care only as a second thought. That means
> immediate summons from the GPL and FSF (as appropriate) copyright and
> license rights owners (such as Linus Torvalds, who owns the copyright on
> the majority of the kernel code) to the involved or suspected parties to
> cease distribution and use of Linux and of the name Linux (Linux is
also a
> trademark of Linux Torvalds) until the matter is cleared, and in
parallel
> an effort to find and remove the code that OFFENDS THE GPL (I do NOT
care
> who else it offends !) from the Linux codebase, and replace it as
> necessary. THIS is what Linux users and developers need.
> 
> THEN, when on the side, we can talk about whose made a mistake and who
> went along with it, and have all the fud you want, about those firms who
> are involved in this. *NOT* about GPL and Linux, which is a *victim* of
> misuse by someone of someone else's IP, and not *guilty* of it. Come to
> think of it, the GPL copyright holders could sue both big firms for
> license violation and slander.
> 
> > The world is moving toward globalization. The GPL is a welcome
> > addition to our world but we still need to maintain other options.
IMHO
> 
> The GPL is a welcome addition to what exactly ? It has been here for
> nearly 10 years I think. Other options ? As many as you want. But
without
> the Linux codebase and the GPL, thank you, we will not have them mixed
> into the continuous-lawsuit-thing that takes part in a certain country.
> 
> {\footnote (**) New Linux versions come out about every 6 months. If the
> lawsuit will work as such lawsuits worked until now, it could bog down
> Linux development for 6 versions, easily. I do *NOT* want that, badly
> enough, to start contributing to a new codebase derived from 2.2,
and thus
> unaffected by the lawsuit, starting tomorrow. And I know I am not
alone on
> this. Know thy history, at least so you can avoid past mistakes.
'Waiting
> it out' is not a good idea in this case. And I don't care if I have to
> call it 'Notlin' or something like that. }
> 
> Peter
> --
> The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
> TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
> How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml
> 
> 
> 
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml