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.

Related to:
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:
[HYPERLINK@ir.sco.com]




There are lots of documents at
[HYPERLINK@www.unitedlinux.com]


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 dilligance.



Of course its most likely that they didn't own it in the first place, at least that's what Novell says.

-Sean

Return to the LXer Features

Subject Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
A lawyer's opinion of SCO number6x 4 1,282 Jan 10, 2006 9:23 AM

You cannot post until you login.

LXer

  Latest Features
Scott Ruecker (Phoenix, U.S.): LXer Weekly Roundup for 21-Sept-2014
Sep 22, 2014

Scott Ruecker (Phoenix, U.S.) : Interview With Richard Kenner of AdaCore
Aug 29, 2014

Carla Schroder: Test Sites for Heartbleed OpenSSL Vulnerability
Apr 09, 2014

penguinist: Better Than a Quad-Head Display: My Adventures with "4K" 2160p and Linux
Mar 31, 2014

Dr Tony Young: Replacing KDE4 with Xfce
Mar 07, 2014

Dr Tony Young: Removing/Disabling The Semantic Deskop in KDE4 Running on openSUSE 13.1 Part 2
Feb 18, 2014

Dr Tony Young: Removing/Disabling The Semantic Deskop in KDE4 (and firing up Thunderbird) Part 1
Feb 08, 2014

Dr Tony Young: KMail Complexity - and a little Patience
Jan 26, 2014

Carla Schroder: Linux Nerd New Year's Resolutions
Dec 29, 2013

Carla Schroder: Fedora 20 Released With New, Newer, and Newest
Dec 17, 2013


View all

  Search Features

Search LXer Features:

[ Copyright © LXer | All times are recorded in Central Daylight Time (CDT) ]

[ Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | About us | rss | Mobile ]

Login