Darl, who the hell asked you to spew out your
nonsensical, psychotic, and pathetic white noise?

When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you!

McBride vs SCOG

McBride's statements often contradict SCOG's court filings. I don't see any conflict this time, so I'll just link to a comment on Groklaw by a user who offered his name and position at AutoZone, a company that, in a discovery response, SCOG accused of stealing SCOG's copyrighted code. The accusation was based on the contention that AutoZone could not have done it themselves.

The Groklaw commentor was a Senior Technical Advisor and project leader of the project to port AutoZone's port to Linux. He said: "I personally ported all of AutoZone's internal software libraries for use under Linux. I personally developed the rules by which other AutoZone developers should make changes to their code to support both Linux and SCO's OpenServer product. ... As to the claim that SCO's shared libraries were a necessary part of the port: false. No SCO libraries were involved in the porting activity. As to the claim that IBM induced us to transition to Linux: false."

The link is http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040215015800694#c78161

Well, as Darl says, he is just out to increase shareholder value. In the good ol' days, Microsoft used to hold ... what was it? ... 40% of SCO shares. Do they still? Obviously Darl thinks so.

yo fecal,
M$ has put the multi-million sco license they purchaesed to use. Via their new SFU package. Rumor has it that it is based on openbsd code which was free and not unix anyways go fiqure. I tried it out for kicks and it sucks, djgpp from the 90's was better. Another intersting not the company they hire to develop SFU was the same one that leaked their source on the net. Like that was'nt intentional give me a brake. How boring windows source code who wants that medusa?

JeR,

Willy Gates may not be the CEO, but he DOES have the absolute
'final say' with respect to EVERYTHING Microsoft does.

(by the way... What the hell drunken monarch decided to
Knight him?)

As per andy1307's quote from Business Week...
"...Microsoft has spent more than $12 million on SCO
licenses. Microsoft says it needs the licenses because
it sells technology that allows its customers to run
applications that were designed for Unix..."

I DARE Microsoft to show even 1 opened package of that UNIX
it so badly needed from SCO. ...That's assuming they even
received the 'physical' goods from SCO.
...I'm sure the software MS bought from SCO is sitting
in a landfill site somewhere...

Great, uhmm, summary. Only, Bill Gates isn't the CEO of Microsoft any more.

At Comdex on November 18, 1993, McBride stated that SCO would target Linux users in legal proceedings within 90 days--that gives McBride until TOMORROW to begin legal proceedings.

Since this piece mentions Microsoft, try looking at this Business Week piece:

The Most Hated Company In Tech THE MICROSOFT FACTOR

A quote from the article: "But who stands to gain the most from an SCO win? Microsoft. Linux is the primary force standing between Microsoft and domination of the computer world. The software giant is happily fanning customers' fears with an anti-Linux campaign while pumping money into SCO. Even though neither company has disclosed a dollar figure, sources close to SCO say Microsoft has spent more than $12 million on SCO licenses. Microsoft says it needs the licenses because it sells technology that allows its customers to run applications that were designed for Unix, the operating system Linux was modeled on. Critics believe it is just helping SCO finance its lawsuit."

here's Linus Torvalds at his best:

"... And even if we were to live in that alternate universe where SCO would be right, they'd still be wrong."

You gotta love that guy's way of making a point.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=litigious+bastards

Still working just fine

Remember the attempt last month at starting a GoogleBombing where "litigious bastards" links to SCO? Is it still working?

Wasn't it McBride who is on record as saying: "I said my goal was to get a return on the initial Caldera IPO, when it was trading at $56 per share...."

I'm sure everyone would like their money back from the tech-bust, but there's this little thing called reality. Unless you're Darl, of course.

When all is said and done with this case I think Darl McBride will be making a fast exit... to South America.

Other people have said it and I agree with it... those attempted extortion, excuse me, licensing letters they sent out are should be pursued as federal mail fraud, and the SEC should take a long hard look at Mr. McBride and his lawyers, and how they're playing their own company's stock.

SCO can do absolutely anything they want. Lie, steal, commit slander and fraud. There are no repercussions.

The linux community, meanwhile, has to be absolutely perfect and saintlike and have not a single user do anything that could be interpreted as unethical, or they get blasted as scary anarchists.

This is even more funny when you consider SCO is a singular organization which can enforce ethical standards, whereas "the linux community" is an open ended, uncontrollable group of people that basically means everyone who downloads a certain program.

We need a media that knows how to do more than reprint press releases.

Just to put it out there -- shorting SCO is harder than you think. I've tried. I have access to 2 brokerages (USAA brokerage and Ameritrade), and neither could meet my repeated requests to short SCO. I also contacted Schwab to see if they could (to then open an account), and they also said no. The reality is, there's just not that much stock out there for the "average investor" to work with, long or short; the average volume over the last 10 days has been 177,000 on 13,850,000 shares outstanding. Do the math, that's a pretty small percentage.

For other reasons as well, I'm not a fan of the stock kiting scheme theory. I don't see how the numbers support that theory. Here is the summary stockholder information as of today: 45.83% % Held by Insiders, 30.44% Held by Institutions; within the institutional holdings, a large fraction are held by institutions who have aligned themselves with SCO through other financial arrangements. In addition, the trading records show that the rise in the stock price has been mainly due to trading between and among various insiders and institutional investors. I can't pose as an expert on schemes or grifting, but it is my understanding that any successful scam eventually needs a mark, and I just don't see who that mark is going to be in this case; that is, it seems to me that for a stock price inflation scheme to be successful, you eventually have to find buyers at the inflated price, and I haven't seen indications of the kind of demand for SCO stock that would be needed to support a big payday for insiders and institutions -- unless, of course, SCO were to win its case. Maybe there's another angle on the scheme, such as using the inflated stock price as collateral for loans or something, but if it is a stock kiting scheme there would seem to be some problems in the execution.

Peter Yellman

SCO looks doomed. Even the financial people look like they're starting to get it, the stock is down over 40% from it's top valuation (allthough still sky-high over earlier levels), and the short-interest stays steadily at insane levels. (i.e. the number of people willing to be cold hard cash that SCO is, infact, bullshitting is staying steadily at record levels.)

Offcourse the nerd-population has been saying this for months. I hope there's a few kernel-contributors among the many many many people holding this stock short.

Darl is not a reasonable man. He claimed (and still does) that Linux contains millions of lines of code from System V. Discovery in the IBM case has shown zero lines of System V code provided by SCO. Instead they listed some AIX and Dynix files... He is far from reasonable.

Not to mention his blathering about GPL. One day it's valid (when it suits him), the other it isn't.

He was offered an opportunity to clear this whole thing up many times. He wouldn't take it. Now it's time for Mr Marriot and the rest of IBM to grind him, SCO and their lawyers into dust.

Much as it goes against the grain, for SCO to charge a fee is not actually
a breach of license in itself.

On the other hand, SCO threatening end-users unless they pay up
would seem to go way beyond what the GPL allows.

Ian

SCOX should stop infringing on GPL, SCOX owns no Copyrights or Patents that could challenge Linux