Comment of the Day - January 4, 2006 - Why SCOX got another $10M
|Posted by tadelste on Jan 7, 2006 8:35 AM|
LXer.com -Article; By number6x
number6x writes: Am I certain they are criminals? I believe so, and stated that it is my opinion. I believe that Ralph Yarro and others involved in the Canopy companies engaged in activities that will not stand up to investigation by authorities. But I guess that they are not technically criminals, until they are convicted. By law they are innocent until proven guilty.
SCO out to kill SuSE
You'll have to go to places like Groklaw and lamlaw and tuxrocks to get
a feel for some of the shenanigans. Since SCOX's stock is mostly held
by just a few people, they may never be called to account. They are the
majority stock holders.
Al Petrovsky seems to be the outside stockholder who asks the most questions.
BayStar started asking question, and dumped their SCOX stock.
SCOX did distribute United Linux:
There are lots of documents at
You will see that several of the technologies SCOX are claiming SuSE is
ilegally distributing were distributed by SCOX in United Linux under
the GPL. United Linux was based on SuSE Linux server edition.
SCOX distributed these things under the GPL. If SCOX/Caldera were an
auto parts reseller, or a car manufacturer, I think that they could
plead before the Judge that they were not familiar with things like
computer source code and technology like that.
I do not believe that a company that is made up from the parts of a
major Linux distributor, and a major Unix distributor can argue these
things succesfully. If a major Linux company with several years
experience in developing, distributing, and servicing Linux in industry
does not know that source code contains copyrighted material they are
most likely not telling the truth. If a publisher publishes a book or
magazine that is a collection of other's copyrighted works, they are
responsible for ensuring that they have permission to do so. If SCOX
was publishing work they owned under the GPL, but didn't realize it,
they only have themselves to blame. They should have done due
Of course its most likely that they didn't own it in the first place, at least that's what Novell says.
Return to the LXer Features
You cannot post until you login.
ubuuser: The good and bad of Ubuntu 13.04 beta 2
Apr 15, 2013
Scott Ruecker (Phoenix, U.S.): LXer Weekly Roundup for 10-Mar-2013
Mar 11, 2013
Scott Ruecker (Phoenix, U.S.): LXer Weekly Roundup for 03-Mar-2013
Mar 03, 2013
: Ubuntu Touch Developer Preview released
Feb 21, 2013
Scott Ruecker (Phoenix, U.S.): LXer Weekly Roundup for 17-Feb-2013
Feb 18, 2013
Scott Ruecker (Phoenix, U.S.): LXer Weekly Roundup for 03-Feb-2013
Feb 04, 2013
Nick Black, SprezzOS Project Hacker-in-Charge: SprezzOS emerges, promising new-school tech with old-school gumption
Feb 02, 2013
Scott Ruecker (Phoenix, U.S.): LXer Weekly Roundup for 27-Jan-2013
Jan 28, 2013
Scott Ruecker (Phoenix, U.S.): LXer Weekly Roundup for 20-Jan-2013
Jan 21, 2013
ubuuser: Ubuntu releasing smartphone OS has better chance than other platforms
Jan 09, 2013