[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: FUD, lies and videotape

SCO wrote:

> As you may know, the development process for Linux has differed
> substantially from the development process for other enterprise operating
> systems.

Yeah. It doesn't suck.

> Commercial software is built by carefully selected and screened teams of

Indian sweatshop slaves.

> programmers working to build proprietary, secure software.

Microsoft Windows being the finest example, of course.

> This process is designed to monitor the security and ownership of
> intellectual property rights associated with the code.

And insure that those intellectual property rights are violated as
thoroughly as possible. See also AT&T's theft of BSD code in ESR's paper on
this subject.

> There is no mechanism inherent in the Linux development process to assure
> that intellectual property rights, confidentiality or security are
> protected.

They make it sound like there /is/ such a mechanism inherent in commercial
software development. Riiiiight.

> The Linux process does not prevent inclusion of code that has been stolen
> outright, or developed by improper use of proprietary methods and
> concepts.

As I recall, the PPP BSD compression code is /only/ buildable as a module,
simply because building it into the kernel would be a copyright violation.

> Many Linux contributors were originally UNIX developers who had access to
> UNIX source code distributed by AT&T and were subject to confidentiality
> agreements, including confidentiality of the methods and concepts involved
> in software design.

Proof? References? Hello?

> We have evidence that portions of UNIX System V software code have been
> copied into Linux and that additional other portions of UNIX System V
> software code have been modified and copied into Linux, seemingly for the
> purposes of obfuscating their original source.

This isn't quite what I meant...

> As a consequence of Linux’s unrestricted authoring process, it is not
> surprising that Linux distributors do not warrant the legal integrity of
> the Linux code provided to customers.

How can they? They don't even have customers, per se.

> We believe that Linux infringes on our UNIX intellectual property and
> other rights. We intend to aggressively protect and enforce these rights.

By spewing more FUD than Microsoft ever did? How is this going to work,

> Consistent with this effort, on March 7, we initiated legal action against
> IBM for alleged unfair competition and breach of contract with respect to
> our UNIX rights.

Translation from lawyerese: We are currently in the process of committing
legal and financial suicide. Did you guys bother to ask your shareholders
about this first?

> This case is pending in Utah Federal District Court.

So as to make sure that the court is as ignorant of the truth as possible?

> Similar to analogous efforts underway in the music industry, we are
> prepared to take all actions necessary to stop the ongoing violation of
> our intellectual property or other rights.

What, denial of service attacks and purchasing senators? Where's all this
money coming from, drug sales in a back room?

> SCO’s actions may prove unpopular with those who wish to advance or
> otherwise benefit from Linux as a free software system for use in
> enterprise applications.

Remove 'for use in enterprise applications'.

> However, our property and contract rights are important and valuable; not
> only to us, but to every individual and every company whose livelihood
> depends on the continued viability of intellectual and intangible property
> rights in a digital age.

/Continued/ viability? That would imply that it is currently viable, doesn't


Reply to: