static Posted August 14, 2003 Report Share Posted August 14, 2003 SCO will attempt to win its $3 billion case against IBM by arguing that the General Public Licence (GPL) is invalid. :lol: HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! :lol: IBM is going to make roadkill outta SCO in court! You go to hell, SCO! You go to hell and you die! This lawsuit has been sponsored by M$ don't forget. They gave 6 million to SCO for a license was it? I love to see them waste their money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ixthusdan Posted August 14, 2003 Report Share Posted August 14, 2003 At last the cards are shown, and thus the players are known. This whole thing has been a pr and fud battle about the gpl!! Who would gain from defeating the gpl?? Here's a hint: M___OS__T. Fill in the letters, and the secret is revealed! What do you mean just follow the money?? :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtweidmann Posted August 14, 2003 Report Share Posted August 14, 2003 Ok you've beaten me, can I have a clue? :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero0w Posted August 14, 2003 Report Share Posted August 14, 2003 Already saw that coming . However, as things stand, even if GPL is invalid, that does not mean (1) SCO can claim the ownership of the remaining 98%+ code in the Linux Kernel, (2) it only serves to kill Linux, but not to own it. What remains to be seen is that even the Court decide GPL is invalid, does it mean the original copyright owner of the code in the Linux Kernel lose its ownership? I doubt it. SCO stands to lose ANY type of Linux benefit/support/revenue as possible. Besides, I believe its case is weak in arguing against GPL, I agree GPL is not a shield for exposing stolen code, but SCO has yet to prove they are stolen - not as a result of convergence or code contribution of her own. AND SCO is still hosting Linux Kernel on its FTP server under GPL because GPL requires it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezroller Posted August 14, 2003 Report Share Posted August 14, 2003 AND SCO is still hosting Linux Kernel on its FTP server under GPL because GPL requires it. that is F-ing hilarious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ixthusdan Posted August 14, 2003 Report Share Posted August 14, 2003 This whole thing is about gpl. sco knows that they are not viable. Once again, microduff's money at work paying people to be worthless. It never was about sco. They are trying to shut down open source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JaseP Posted August 19, 2003 Report Share Posted August 19, 2003 As a lawyer, I find it even more funny. Even a 1st year matriculated law student knows that a statute in derogation of the common law is to be strictly construed. Therefore, if you look at UCITA in light of the common law rights of contract, there is no violation perpetuated by the GPL. An owner of a contract right has the right to alienate those rights unless they are deemed against public policy or unless it is prohibited by the contract. I would have a hard time in being able to find where a GPL license would run afoul of UCITA given this criteria. The COURT is not going to invalidate a whole business model, one that effects global economy, based upon one poorly written statute. In short, it's more FUD, This flunky of deBois (is that his name???) should be disbarred for making such a crappy argument. The crap will hit the fan as soon as IBM starts getting serious. I envsion them crushing SCO in a way that is not even humorous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramfree17 Posted August 19, 2003 Report Share Posted August 19, 2003 As a lawyer, I find it even more funny. Even a 1st year matriculated law student knows that a statute in derogation of the common law is to be strictly construed. Therefore, if you look at UCITA in light of the common law rights of contract, there is no violation perpetuated by the GPL. An owner of a contract right has the right to alienate those rights unless they are deemed against public policy or unless it is prohibited by the contract. I would have a hard time in being able to find where a GPL license would run afoul of UCITA given this criteria. The COURT is not going to invalidate a whole business model, one that effects global economy, based upon one poorly written statute. :? ..uuhhh???? :unsure: In short, it's more FUD, this the part where i laugh? :mystilol: :#: sorry jasep, but you really lost me on the first quoted paragraph. (you know big words make me dizzy ) ciao! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted August 19, 2003 Report Share Posted August 19, 2003 this is good ? Isn't it? I mean GPL has yet to be tested legally and this remains a weakness. If it were tested against a more valid case then perhaps that might set a precedent but it isn't. Its beinhg tested against a ...well The COURT is not going to invalidate a whole business model, one that effects global economy, based upon one poorly written statute. So perhaps SCO are really all nice guys who are just doing this to strengthen the GPL ?? OK maybe not but it seems a welcome side effect :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JaseP Posted August 19, 2003 Report Share Posted August 19, 2003 It's well known now that the guys behind SCO, in it's present form, are a bunch of Tech firm speculators who use a sort of legal pump and dump top make money off a corp while it's in its dying throws... They've used this strategy before. What they do is have the whole consortium of partners take over somewhat defunct business who's stock is devalued. They try and "Exercise" IP rights to some thing or another and bring out awareness of the company, which causes a temporary escalation of the stock price. The ones who actually do the running of the business take stock in lieu of salary. As the stock increases in value, they sell off to pay themselves, the others short the stock, and whole crew makes money (almost literally). The good side is that it's likely they KNOW the SCO suit is crap... but are just using it as best they can to temporarily raise stock prices. The bad side is that this is currently legal, as long as they make their SEC filings, and there is a cognizable (in other words, it can be made out logically, if not on a practical basis) claim to the intellectual property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iphitus Posted August 20, 2003 Report Share Posted August 20, 2003 It's all FUD, It's a conspiracy!! They are working with MS to generate FUD, make linux look like some 5 minute throw together with heaps of copied code and not even legally properly covered I bet Bill is payin the CEO's of SCO And they signed a death warrant as soon as they said a bad word against Linux James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtweidmann Posted August 20, 2003 Report Share Posted August 20, 2003 http://newsforge.com/newsforge/03/08/19/16...33.shtml?tid=11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liquidzoo Posted August 20, 2003 Report Share Posted August 20, 2003 You know, a big part of me wants to drive down to Lindon (it's only 120 miles from here) and slap McBride and his cohorts with a dead fish. Maybe it would knock some sense into them, but probably not. They would make up some new lawsuit about it. I can see the headline now: "SCO to sue local man in fish slapping incident - Claims that incident violates it's IP. It was my idea to do that to the Linux community first - Darl McBride" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
static Posted August 20, 2003 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2003 That link 2 posts up is also hilarious. SCO gets more ridiculous everyday! If I were them, I'd go - "JUST KIDDING! Thanks for the $6 Million M$, we're using to fund KDE and Gnome, sucka!" I read somewhere that a win for SCO indicating that the GPL is invalid would somehow void all copyrights because of the way they're enforced or something... interesting. There's too much at stake for any sane judge to side with a dung-pile over hard proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted August 20, 2003 Report Share Posted August 20, 2003 When asked for a comment this morning, Linus Torvalds had this to say about McBride's claim of a million lines of SCO code in Linux: "He's lying." gotta love Linus' straight-forwardness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.