Hey yangtsekid,

WHERE DO I SIGN UP???

I'll personally give Darl McBride $20.00 if he withdraws
this silly frivolous suit.
It's more than he'll ever get from IBM, Novell, or anyone
else in the community!!!

Kill $co and M$,are you ready?

Is anybody interested in participating in a class action lawsuit against SCO?

Grounds for the suit would include the following:

* "Undermining the credibility of Unix and Linux”
(due to their poor implementation)

* Malicious Criminal damage to Linux’s credibility

* "Slandering" Unix by poor implementations.

* Contribution to Microsoft Windows monopoly

BTW - it is too bad you cannot sue for stupidity and ignorance. SCO would definitely qualify for that as well.

Any attorneys out there?? Sounds like a good case to me.

So I'm a bit confused now. I've read before
somewhere a "Proof" why GPL and Free Software
couldn't exist. Where was said about copyright
ownership on original works, and derivative
works. The logic was something like this, First,
to distribute a derivative work, you need first
an agreement between the original rights owner
and the derivative work owner, but, there were a
clear separation on which the original rights
owner could impose over the derivative work
owner rights.

In that logic, the original rights owner
couldn't impose the derivative work owner the
obligation to open (or close) sources on it's
part of the whole work, if the original work has
closed sources, that should continue that way,
but couldn't step over the derivative works
rights to do what ever he wants with his work,
so that (in their view), GPL couldn't exist. In
my view GPL says, "I agree you may distribute
or do whatever you want with the derivative
work, IF you agree you will also copyleft your
work" (Don't force, just this are my rules to
give you the rights to work with this, you take
from a public thing, and may use if you still
leave this public, despite you may charge for it)

Now when SCO says:
"SCO, meanwhile, is basing its copyright claims
on IBM's alleged breach of its Unix agreements
and its breach of Sequent's Unix agreements and
the fact that since SCO terminated IBM's AIX
license last year, "IBM has continued to
reproduce, prepare derivative works of and
distribute Unix software, source code, object
code, programming tools and documentation." SCO
claims IBM infringement has been willful"
it seams they say the opposite, they MAY impose
the same restrictions for sequent work, and all
sequent work is virusely contaminated by UNIX
code (and even the knowledge which is on people
minds), so if you just have a new feature, you
may have an abstractions SO layer, if this
touches UNIX API, now it's unix, and so will be
everything which subsequently touch this layer.

They are so desperate they are by now throwing
nonsense affirmations every directions (even over

themselves)... their lawyers should be a bit
confused too since they want
desperately their 3-5 billion
cake slice no matter what they do for this...

SCO are being selfish, and foolish. The $5 Billion is a far-fethched amount to begin with, but can only be argued with some measure of logic by them on the basis of future value of their (alleged) Linux code. What they fail to recognize is that their lawsuit against IBM, and threats against other users, could damage the Linux movement and thereby decrease the value of that code. They are selfishly seeking a one-time reward that could put a serious dent in the Linux movement. If they were to win it would be a pyric victory for them, and would delight Sun and Microsoft, because the very users who are turning to Linux as a source of low-cost operating system performance would no longer have that compelling reason to do so, and might very well abandon Linux plans and stay with the proprietary, higher-cost operating systems. They are threatening the future of Linux just as it starts to really gain momentum. They seem to have missed the fact that it is still not too late for most companies to abandon Linux plans and stay the course with Sun and Microsoft, thereby seriously decreasing the value of their supposed damages. If they win, Sun and Microsoft win. The rest of us would be the ones who lose.

SCO are being selfish, and foolish. The $5 Billion is a far-fethched amount to begin with, but can only be argued with some measure of logic by them on the basis of future value of their (alleged) Linux code. What they fail to recognize is that their lawsuit against IBM, and threats against other users, could damage the Linux movement and thereby decrease the value of that code. They are selfishly seeking a one-time reward that could put a serious dent in the Linux movement. If they were to win it would be a pyric victory for them, and would delight Sun and Microsoft, because the very users who are turning to Linux as a source of low-cost operating system performance would no longer have that compelling reason to do so, and might very well abandon Linux plans and stay with the proprietary, higher-cost operating systems. They are threatening the future of Linux just as it starts to really gain momentum. They seem to have missed the fact that it is still not too late for most companies to abandon Linux plans and stay the course with Sun and Microsoft, thereby seriously decreasing the value of their supposed damages. If they win, Sun and Microsoft win. The rest of us would be the ones who lose.

$5 Billion? Only in America could a company demand such a ridiculous sum in damages/compensation. The people at SCO must be living in cloud cuckoo land, must be complete mental cases. In the more sane countries of the world such an action would be LAUGHED out of court!

You know if you subscibed to a daily newspaper instead the
weekly you seem to be using, you would find out about this stuff sooner.
I Also reccommend home delivery.