Scodera drops the other shoe

[ronnie gauthier]

I look at this as a marketing ploy. SCO has pulled the linux they control off
the shelf. This has to have shaken up some of the opposition in the linux
field, got them wondering what the hell is up. It also has, I'm sure, many users
worried that they may be corporately running illegal software. Now here is the
gamble. If the whole community ignores them they might go away. Not quietly, but
they will end up going away. OTOH, if other distros follow suit and pull their
offerings until "this can be resolved". SCO is ready. They will probably
announce an amnesty period for linux users to buy a kernal base license from
them or some such. This would probably be fairly cheap..say $4.95. Take that
small price to pay for legal security on "free" software and multiply it by
about 1-3 million. Yikes! I might try it too if had some IP.

just my 5 cents, and probably wrong.

On Thu, 15 May 2003 09:17:45 -0700 - Aaron Grewell
<agrewell at bothell.washington.edu> wrote the following
Re: RE: Scodera drops the other shoe

>This doesn't have much of anything to do with Novell.  Caldera is/was owned
>by the Canopy Group, which is in turn owned by Novell's founder.  This
>lawsuit has no ties to Novell as a company except through Ray Noorda, though
>undoubtedly it could only continue with Noorda's blessing.  SCO is just
>trying to stay alive, Rambus style.  They are emboldened by memories of the
>pain inflicted on FreeBSD by AT&T/Novell in '93.  Ironically, Linux would
>probably not be the dominant power it is today if it were not for the
>headstart that it was given by AT&T gutting critical bits of FreeBSD's
>internals.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: dep [mailto:dep at linuxandmain.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 7:17 AM
>To: linux-users at linux-sxs.org
>Subject: Re: Scodera drops the other shoe
>
>
>begin  Tom Wilson's  quote:
>
>| Now I am no lawyer here but how does the Statute of Limitations play 
>| into this?  Copyright violations have only a three-year statute of 
>| limitations.  Though that is from the last infringing date.  So 
>| assuming that Scodera IP is really in the kernel like they charge, and 
>| assuming they pursue legal action against Linux, if the part of kernel 
>| w/ "their IP"  hasn't been modified since 3 years before the date they 
>| file for legal action has the Statute of Limitations expired on it?  
>| Thus no infringement for 3 years and then go take a hike Sco you 
>| missed you chance.
>
>look. this just flat-out doesn't play as a legal case. novell, which 
>through caldera has been distributing linux forever, bought sco unix 
>in 1995 and distributed both, if memory serves. then novell sold sco. 
>then novell, through caldera, bought sco. caldera distributed linux 
>under the gpl. so the company would have to reconcile itself *with* 
>itself before it can even think of winning damages against anyone 
>else.
>
>the idea here is to destroy linux, pure, plain, and simple, through 
>one of the most skillful fud plays i've ever seen. to which the 
>question is and must be: why? who benefits? nobody would do this kind 
>of thing solely to peddle sco unix. there is really only one company 
>that on the face of it could benefit, and it sure as hell ain't in 
>utah.
>-- 
>dep
>
>http://www.linuxandmain.com -- outside the box, barely within the envelope,
>and no animated paperclip anywhere.
>_______________________________________________
>Linux-users mailing list
>Linux-users at linux-sxs.org
>Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc ->
>http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
>_______________________________________________
>Linux-users mailing list
>Linux-users at linux-sxs.org
>Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc ->
>http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users