Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix

Megamieuwsel · 08-26-2004, 01:24 PM

http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.p...72;fp;2;fpid;1

For those with link-o-phobia:

Quote:

SCO director defends fight-back stance

Sandra Rossi, Computerworld

26/08/2004 08:02:27

Tired of being portrayed as the bad guys of IT, Kieran O'Shaughnessy, director of SCO Australia and NZ, last week declared "we are not the anti-Christ of cyberspace" but a defender of Unix fighting the monolithic power of IBM.

Claiming SCO's business was stolen by "foul means", O'Shaughnessy said the company didn't just go out and pick a fight with IBM, but was backed against a wall and had to fight back.

"The only reason we are [pursuing a lawsuit against IBM] is to defend our Unix business; we are not a litigation company, we are about Unix on Intel," he said.

"IBM has transformed Linux from a bicycle to a Rolls-Royce, making it almost an enterprise-class operating system.

"It took us 25 years to build our business and it took [IBM] four years simply by stealing code and then giving it away free."

In an exclusive interview with Computerworld, O'Shaughnessy admitted the past 12 months have been tough coping with an avalanche of harsh public criticism while trying to maintain sales, protect its customer base and release new products.

"But there is support from the people who really matter, our customers and partners. Sure, there is concern about sales but if you go back to 1999 our revenues were in excess of $US250 million and today they are up by $40 million," O'Shaughnessy said.

Despite claims that the legal fight is the last gasp of a dying company, he said the company's cash balance is strong with $US45 million in the bank.

"The legal battle is certainly a cash drain, but we see it as an investment in our future because there will be a big return at the end. We wouldn't have started this if we didn't think we could win," he said adding that the legal costs are burning about $4 million a quarter.

O'Shaughnessy foreshadowed a significant shift in SCO's focus over the next 12 months pointing out that selling intellectual property (IP) licences is no longer a priority.

With two millions servers installed globally, he said the company has recently been more product focused, releasing more products in the past year than in the entire history of the company.

Early this year, O'Shaughnessy warned that SCO had prepared a hit list and would approach Australian Linux users to ensure they had an IP licence.

But this urgency has dissipated with O'Shaughnessy pointing out that he had enough on his plate and would simply sell licences as the opportunity arose.

IP licences, he said, have been sold but wouldn't "go down the path of numbers" except to say "we have broken our duck".

Claiming it is impossible to win a PR war against the likes of IBM, O'Shaughnessy said he's confident the public hysteria will subside over the next six months as "the truth unfolds" and SCO's adds "meat to the bare bones of the case" allowing commentators to get a different view of the facts.

"The true story will unfold as court filings continue and everyone gets to see our side of the story; the IT industry as a whole will take a different view and see we have been dumped on from a great height," he said.

"There will be less of the IBM spin version of events and the courts are the right place for it to come out."

SCO, he said, doesn't just expect financial compensation but removal of the stolen code.

"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix," he added.

BWUHAHAHAHHAHA!
That guy should watch his ass , else he's going to be sued by MicroSoft for infringing on their "Corporate-Bulshitting-Patent".

Crashed_Again · 08-26-2004, 02:33 PM

I wish this whole thing would just go away. Its so ridiculous and its making SCO look like a bunch of fools.

stabile007 · 08-26-2004, 03:35 PM

Wow talk about a PR nightmare.

After all their claims I have yet to see any proof or evidence confirming. But if SCO wins.....well wow.....The ramifications would be large indeed.

Unfortuantly I have little faith in the justice system of the US especially since IBM is the big mean bully company and SCO is the poor wittle harmless company just trying to survive in such a harsh harsh world

Here's hoping to IBM's lawyers.....

2damncommon · 08-26-2004, 09:11 PM

www.unlicensedversionofunixquestions.org???
I don't think so.

vasudevadas · 08-27-2004, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by stabile007
After all their claims I have yet to see any proof or evidence confirming. But if SCO wins.....well wow.....The ramifications would be large indeed.

SCO won't win. I predict that in the coming few months IBM are going to crush them. Things are really starting to move in that case, with IBM submitting motions for summary judgements. It looks like IBM have taken all this time to get their ducks in a row; it seems all to be coming together now. SCO don't have long left.

stabile007 · 08-27-2004, 02:05 AM

Yeah but this is the same system that awarded a lady several million dollars in "damages" to a lady because she dropped a cup of hot coffee on her leg and sued mcDonalds for not putting the words "Caution: Hot" Big enough on th ecup and easy to see....because you know coffee should be served cold. And burning yourself with coffee results in millions in damages.....yeah ok....

amosf · 08-27-2004, 02:48 AM

The suing mcdonalds thing is slightly different. For a start most times these amounts get reduced on apeal, but you rarely hear about it. Plus mcdonalds is willing to pay up rather than get bad PR... I don't think IBM is worried about PR when dealing with SCO as SCO is already doing such a good PR job for them.

2damncommon · 08-27-2004, 06:40 AM

Quote:

...hot coffee on her leg and sued mcDonalds...

Sorry, I don't have the link, but that case is much more interesting than people who use it as an absurd example tell.
McDonalds was serving their coffee much hotter (50 degrees more I think) than was normal.
They said it was because "it tasted better" that way.
They had received numerous complaints and warnings.
They ignored them.
It was demonstrated in court that coffee served at the temperature McDonalds served it would scald a person in a matter of seconds, as opposed to being hot and uncomfortable.
When contacted by the woman for medical bills they pretty much told her to get lost.
Well, we all know coffee should be hot, but it should not scald you in a matter of seconds.
A little more than just "give the lady a million" for hot coffee.

vasudevadas · 08-27-2004, 12:24 PM

Anyway, getting back to the topic, fear not. I agree that anything can happen when it gets to a jury trial, but this one will not. It will be decided against SCO on a matter of law long before a jury gets selected. In this case justice is as good as the judge hearing the case, and I have confidence in Judge Kimball.

Check www.groklaw.net for the definitive resource on the SCO vs. world+dog trials (like you didn't know that).

RJARRRPCGP · 08-27-2004, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by stabile007
Wow talk about a PR nightmare.

After all their claims I have yet to see any proof or evidence confirming. But if SCO wins.....well wow.....The ramifications would be large indeed.

Unfortuantly I have little faith in the justice system of the US especially since IBM is the big mean bully company and SCO is the poor wittle harmless company just trying to survive in such a harsh harsh world

Here's hoping to IBM's lawyers.....

That's BS!!! SCO's the bully.

Megamieuwsel · 08-27-2004, 02:20 PM

Quote:

SCO's the bully.

To the customers : yes.

But IBM is a bully in it's own leage : To other corporations.
Just glad , Big Blue is on the right side this time.

nuka_t · 08-28-2004, 02:50 AM

if sco wins, people will litterally be killed.

vasudevadas · 08-28-2004, 03:53 AM

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

issinho · 07-27-2005, 03:23 PM

Quote:

"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix,"

I don't know if I buy this. I mean, let's examine a little the history of UNIX and that of LINUX. Linux was formed from UNIX. However, I don't think this qualifies as an unlicensed version! Linux Trovalds put a lot of work getting Linux working and many others have developed LINUX. True, there are those that add to UNIX, but those apps are not the same, nor are they governed by the same laws as Linux.

I guess my point is: Linux is it's own entity now. AT&T sold their rights to UNIX. There is no UNLICESNSED VERSION OF ANYTHING.

username17 · 07-27-2005, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2damncommon
www.unlicensedversionofunixquestions.org???
I don't think so.

That made me laugh, that's great.