Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature
Why people weren't talking about The SCO Group at LinuxWorld
Share
Print
Comments*UPDATED* Oh, there are still plenty of SCO-involved lawsuits (IBM, AutoZone, Red Hat, Novell, etc.) shuffling their way through the courts. All but one minor point in SCO's certification infringement lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler was satisfied between the two companies out of court prior to the case being dismissed by a judge, so that case is effectively off the boards (more on the DaimlerChrysler deal at this link). No solid evidence has turned up during legal "discovery" that incriminates IBM as being a patent-dodger or license denigrator. In fact, IBM has poured a great amount of corporate legal talent, time, effort, and money into proving SCO wrong; it has said in so many words that it intends to beat the rap, no matter how long it takes.
Bruce Perens, a longtime leader in the free software and open source community, spoke extensively about the threats to Linux and free software in general at the 2003 conference in his annual "state of open source" address. Surprisingly, he didn't even mention SCO this year.
Perens has taken this battle another step further as a board member of Open Source Risk Management, which indemnifies companies against Linux IP litigation. He spent his time during his talk introducing OSRM and explaining its mission, which is to take a larger look at legal threats to Linux and other open source software. SCO is one of the key reasons why this new insurance company was organized.
Perens sounds off
"Why is nobody talking about SCO? They're toast, that's why," Perens said. "What would I say about them? There's nothing left of them."
Well, SCO does have several hundred employees in several locations around the world. There is something left of them.
"When a company makes unfounded assertions for a month or two, it can be dismissed as a mistake or wishful thinking. When the distortions go on for a full year, it becomes difficult to explain the behavior as anything but a deliberate fraud meant to hurt Linux. SCO's campaign against Linux was aimed solely at kiting their stock from 50 cents to over $20 on many statements that, it is turning out, weren't true, " Perens said.
Other LinuxWorld attendees felt the same way.
"SCO has yet to prove anything, as far as I'm concerned," said one IT manager from Bristol, Conn. "They're a bunch of bumblers. Why can't they stick to UnixWare and their current licensees and leave everybody else alone?"
"Frankly, I'm real, real tired about worrying and talking about SCO," said a Linux developer from Toronto. "I don't have time anymore for this stuff. I've got work to do, you know? I used up all my commentary on this topic months ago. I haven't gotten a letter from them, and I don't expect to."
Overall, it wasn't the newsiest LinuxWorld conference ever. But there were undoubtedly a lot of sales and partnership deals made. This was the first bona fide LinuxWorld Business Conference. Perhaps the organizers should consider changing the name for next year.
Comments
on Why people weren't talking about The SCO Group at LinuxWorldNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
If these employees haven't found other jobs yet, they obviously can't be very bright.
The time when SCO had 700 employees has long past.
If I had edited this before it was published, I believe that I would have made either of the following changes:
A) SCO's certification infringement lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler was THROWN out of court recently...
B) SCO's certification infringement lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler SETTLED ON THE GROUND OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE recently, WHERE IT HAD BEEN THROWN BY THE JUDGE, AND THEN IT BEGAN BURNING A HOLE TOWARDS THE CENTER OF THE EARTH...
In any case, it was NOT settled out of court, according to any account I have read anywhere else.
Regards,
Sid
<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/cp
Daimler-Chrysler's motion for summary disposition was granted in all particulars except the one about the time taken to reply.
In short, SCO's case was thrown out.
SCOG's bone of contention was the length of time DC took to answer their request. Of course, SCOG ignored the fact they mailed the request to the wrong address for example. Additionaly SCOG was asking for information that went well beyond what DC needed to provide. For example, how many CPUs they had running Linux. Totally inmaterial.
In any case I get the impression you are suggesting DC still uses SCOG software, they do not.
No, you look it up. Groklaw would be a good place to start.
DaimlerChrysler, nine months after it was asked to by SCO Group, recertified its software with SCO. The suit was then deemed immaterial by the court and thrown out, but after DaimlerChrysler brought its software licenses up to date in an agreement with SCO. Look it up.
editingwhiz, iirc, is the handle for Chris the author. And the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/cp has the initials of Chris the author of this story, and the quote above. How is it that you got the above so wrong? The sub-post correcting you got it right, you got it wrong. How is this possible? Don't you read the stories that others submit? Haven't you heard of Groklaw?
What you posted sounds very similar to spin put out by SCO after the case was thrown out. Is Newforge now putting out SCO's spin?
I seem to recall correcting an earlier story you posted here, and you also then blasted me with some lame reply, just like this one.
I question your facts and intentions.
This time, give an answer to my follow up please, or I personally will never trust you again. Your credibility is on the line, here. What you say sure sounds a lot like incorrect information, spin, or something you just made up.
Post your sources for this information, or admit straight out that you misinformed the NewsForge readership (unintentionally, or otherwise).
NewsForge editors - watch this guy! He makes things up and swears to them, apparently.
Best Regards,
Sid
As a professional journalist, I certainly am not allowed to make up things in news stories or features. And I do not. Above all, credibility is all-important in any reporting position. The researcher/messenger must be trusted. What happened here is that some information that has not already been made public was given to me personally by the plaintiff, and I erred in believing that it had indeed been published.
Not everything involved in a court case is made public. I am currently preparing a story about The SCO Group's attitude toward the IT world that will include information you haven't seen before. I think you'll see things much clearer then.
Don't forget, Sid: You, as a reader, don't have to be objective. But I, as a journalist, do.
<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/cp
WHY?!?!?!?!?!
I'm still waiting for their millions of deep dived lines of code in System V unix that are somewhere in Linux to appear.
Was DC feeling remorseful for shooting down the lawsuit rather easily?
Here is a suggestion; look at the history of public allegations and/or statements the 'plaintiff' has made over the course of the last two years or so, and see how many were actually truthful or have panned out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...just make sure you have your spin-filter turned on.
And yes, Groklaw IS a pretty good place to start, since all articles there are actually researched, and therefore have a lot more credebility than this one.
-john
You, as a reader, don't have to be objective. But I, as a journalist, do.
Then could you bother to get the facts of the DC right? TSG lost in court. The didn't settle anything out of court. Now, if you have something that says other wise, share it.
Call Daimler-Chrysler and ask if they settled with SCO.
Regards,
Sid
<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/cp
Smartass
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 07, 2004 01:05 PMWell, SCO does have several hundred employees in several locations around the world. There is something left of them.
Might it be Mr. Preimersberger that when Perens says there's nothing left of SCO he means that SCO's litigition game is toast? You see, Mr. Preimersberger, SCO is for some reason (what would that reason be? I reaaaaaaaly don't know.) identified with its litigation.
#