Posted on 01/10/2006 8:34:45 AM PST by TechJunkYard
Don't just take his word for it... the contracts are all here. However, these three are pertinent:
Carey's comments also discussed at:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060109231849961
Carey: [It's] quite possible the renewed activity results from the recent completion of a PIPE [Private Investment in Public Equity] offering by SCO, giving it the funds to proceed more vigorously than before.
Is there anyone out there stupid enough to invest in SCO thinking it is likely to make money? The only reason I could see putting money into SCO is to damage Linux. And I can think of only one company has a significant reason to want Linux damaged. I'm not saying who, but their initials are M$.
This caughy my attention. Since I have heard nothing in regards to 3.0, is this true? Are they really going to try to GPL dynamically linked code? I can't see a legal footing for that.
I know this may be done for clean writing, but it falls into SCO's hands and therefore annoys me. IBM did not negotiate a contract with SCO. Its contracts were with AT&T and the Santa Cruz Operation (now called Tarantella), not SCO.
SCO even changed its name from Caldera to SCO in order to give it an air of legitimacy for the law suits. They are not enforcing their own contracts, only interpreting contracts made long before by others, against the interpretations of those who actually negotiated the contracts.
Neither can I. Can Stallman be trying for a push to expand the GPL by legal technicalities? We all know he hates the very concept of non-GPL software.
I just spent some time reading on the GPL3. It doesn't look that bad. It will mainly tighten up some loopholes that let people abuse the license, treat software running a web server as distribution, and address software patents. It'll be a fully public and transparent group effort with the motto "First, do no harm."
That still doesn't mean it won't be Stallman-psycho, but I'll just wait and see.
I have to research that. It could be that the "draft" test has such a loophole that people are concerned about.
Any idea where our favorite future felon may be hiding?
I don't know, but I'm glad there's no ex post facto. I've had too much fun in the past playing with the trolls, which I'm sure annoyed them.
Especially when IBM dug up statements from practically everyone involved on both sides to show SCO's interpretation was wrong. Maybe this is just a big comedy of errors thought up by some brilliant film producer.
She's all windows, all the time, so she's probably busy as hell patching. If we're thinking of the same person.
SCO is going to go bankrupt if they keep up this nonesense with the lawsuits... oh wait they did that on their own with their worthless product.
"She"? I didn't picture that...
Not anymore. At the time of the original PIPE deal, there was enough speculation in the "tech" press that there was at least some merit to SCO's position, that investors who didn't do the research may have thought there was a BIG payoff just down the road.
Now that there has been a big change of attitude even among SCO's old supporters, investment money has been hard to come by. Almost everybody has heard of the case by now and almost all of them think it's a scam.
The only reason I could see putting money into SCO is to damage Linux. And I can think of only one company has a significant reason to want Linux damaged. I'm not saying who, but their initials are M$.
Another reason might be an insider PR campaign to show "support" for SCO. The latest shot-in-the-arm included a lot of money from Darcy Mott, a board member, supposedly to support a stock buyback, but I've heard speculation that someone flush with cash and close to SCO (Ralph Yarrow perhaps?) is trying to get rid of some of it. IMO, Micr'soft isn't likely to be the source of this cash because (1) MS saw what happened the first time the PIPE was attempted, and (2) it didn't work -- Linux growth actually accelerated.
Novell can do it singlehandedly if they ask for 95% of the SUN and MS license money to be escrowed, and the request is granted.
But it looks to me like the lawyers are setting up to do it for them. SCO's last payment to their legal team was last month; after February the lawyers will be working for free. IBM is about ready to go to SJ or trial, while Novell is headed for discovery;
Now let me ask you if it might be interesting for the lawyers to get these two cases so wrapped up in dependencies on each other, both in front of the same judge, such that no one can determine which case should be tried first? And then SCO goes belly-up and heads to bankruptcy court? And gets resolved?
Dark clouds hang over Novell's copyright issues, IBM's home-grown code rights and the very heritage of Linux. Party in Redmond!
I'm becoming more convinced that this is the strategy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.