Why is SCO STILL a member of United Linux

carrja99 · 09-18-2003, 09:58 PM

http://www.sco.com/unitedlinux/

I'm just curious... with thier stance on linux and Suse's recent statements against them, how can they still be part of United Linux, not to mention that the page seems to completely ignore SCO's recent deceptive claims.

What's the story!?

rshaw · 09-18-2003, 10:05 PM

probably some b.s. contractual obligation.

Thymox · 09-19-2003, 10:39 AM

I could be lacking in some seriously important part of the story, but I didn't think that SCO was against Linux per se. I was under the impression that they were having a go at IBM for contributing what they see as SCO's code into the Linux kernel.

Please fill me in if I'm wrong here.

trickykid · 09-19-2003, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thymox
I could be lacking in some seriously important part of the story, but I didn't think that SCO was against Linux per se. I was under the impression that they were having a go at IBM for contributing what they see as SCO's code into the Linux kernel.

Please fill me in if I'm wrong here.

Your not wrong Thymox. Most don't understand the SCO case. I don't feel that SCO is against Linux in general, well at least from their suit they aren't. Its all because of breach of contract in IBM supplying supposed code into the Linux kernel.

Its just SCO wants to be compensated now, on grounds that they have not proven yet. I just think they are a desperate company trying to find a way to save themselves in the long run, since everyone knows that company was doomed before all of this occured.

Regards...

crashmeister · 09-19-2003, 11:10 AM

They are not against Linux per se might be right.But wanting 698.-- US$ per CPU from Linux users and geting contributions from M$ can't exactly been seen as overly friendly either.
It doesn't make sense if they stay with United since they pulled the plug from Caldere due to "licensing Issues'.

Greyweather · 09-19-2003, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thymox
I could be lacking in some seriously important part of the story, but I didn't think that SCO was against Linux per se.

You're right. They aren't against Linux per se.

They just claim that the GPL is invalid (even when using using GPLed code themselves), that over a million lines of code were stolen line for line from Unix and put into Linux, and that SCO has the right to sue any company using Linux unless they buy a licence from SCO, as if Linux were their product. They do all this despite having thus far shown no evidence that supports their claims.

Thymox · 09-19-2003, 11:21 AM

Hehe! A nice little thing in this month's Linux Format says something along the lines of...

Since the alleged code that SCO are arguing over is (apparently) to do with SMP support in the Linux kernel, anyone running a uni-processor kernel is not using the supposed 'illegal code' and so therefore would not be 'obliged' to obtain an SCO licence.

There are also allegations (from IBM, I think) that SCO are simply running a 'pump and dump' setup where they keep on with their actions purely to inflate their share prices, and then surrupticously (sp?) the top bods sell off their shares at the inflated prices. Of course, I couldn't possibly comment on whether this is a likely situation or otherwise - but it certainly does let the imagination run a little.

On the UL front - personally I don't think it is playing fair to be damaging the very system that you are supposed to be supporting (they do still sell Linux distros, don't they?). But there you go.

Thymox · 09-19-2003, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greyweather
They just claim that ... over a million lines of code were stolen line for line from Unix and put into Linux...

Sorry - must have posted at the same time!

I thought it was 148 individual files stolen amounting to 168,000 lines of code. Please don't ask me where I found those numbers as it was whilst browsing and I have no idea what the site was.

Greyweather · 09-19-2003, 11:30 AM

Quote:

personally I don't think it is playing fair to be damaging the very system that you are supposed to be supporting (they do still sell Linux distros, don't they?)

On 15 May 2003, SCO suspended the distribution of its Linux-based operating systems, claiming intellectual property infringments.

Quote:

I thought it was 148 individual files stolen amounting to 168,000 lines of code.

http://www.infoconomy.com/pages/news...group83631.adp

"Chris Sontag, vice president of SCOsource, SCO's intellectual property licensing arm, claimed that 1,549 files amounting to more than one million lines of code had been contributed by IBM to Linux — the clearest indication yet of the scale of SCO's complaint."

http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=...=thread&tid=11

"Earlier statements by McBride indicate that SCO code didn't begin showing up in Linux until the 2.4 version. According to David Wheeler's analysis of the total lines of code in Linux, the kernel grew from 1,526,722 lines in version 2.2 to 2,437,470 lines of code by release 2.4.2.

If McBride's latest unsubstantiated claim is to be believed, the Linux kernel developers didn't actually contribute any new lines of code to the 2.4 release. It all would have had to come from SCO. "

Quote:

There are also allegations (from IBM, I think) that SCO are simply running a 'pump and dump' setup where they keep on with their actions purely to inflate their share prices, and then surrupticously (sp?) the top bods sell off their shares at the inflated prices.

http://worldwatch.linuxgazette.com/a...php?sid=101%22
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5057033.html

I don't think IBM has anything to do with how people are interpreting information filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Then there's this:
http://www.computerworld.com/softwar...,83452,00.html