SCO articles

Here are 21 stories about the SCO Group lawsuits from March 2003 to September 2007.

SCO sues IBM. March 2003. First story when suit was filed. Quotes Bradley Kuhn of FSF, points out Boies’ poor track record, talks about SCO distributing GPL code.
Here.

“What SCO wants, SCO gets.” NB material about Darl McBride’s background; about Canopy Group horse-trading; its history of shakedowns via litigation; the stuff about John Wall, from Redmond, Wash., who somehow owned a stake in SCO; and the stuff about SCO buying back shares from Tarantella for less than a buck just before it filed suit and got a big pop in its stock. June 2003.
Here.

Revenge of the Nerds. The ragtag army attacking SCO. Is it funny? Scary? Or both? No matter what you think of SCO, you have to admit that the noisy folks on the other side are pretty weird. December 2003.
Here.

Red Hat sues SCO, saying put up or shut up. August 2003.
Here.

IBM won’t indemnify Linux users. August 2003.
Here.

IBM subpoenas SCO investors, analysts. “Some believe SCO’s claims are legit. What gave them that idea? IBM would like to know.” IBM playing hardball, going after securities analysts who have rated SCO a buy, among others. November 2003.
Here.

SCO targets Torvalds, Stallman. “The legal battle between SCO and IBM has taken another ugly lurch forward.” Subhed:”SCO gripes when IBM subpoenas its investors, then fires off its own subpoena threats. Good grief.” November 2003.
Here.

SCO makes threats against Hollywood. November 2003.
Here.

Linux Loyalists Leery. Some customers who were formerly big Linux users are moving off for 2 reasons — the SCO suit, and the new Red Hat licensing policies. March 2004.
Here.

SCO claims to have a smoking gun against IBM. August 2004.
Here.

SCO Scores. SCO wins a battle in the case. January 2005.
Here.

“Bumbling bully.” Money quote: “But you would think that when a tiny company from the middle of nowhere decides to sue $96.5 billion (2004 sales) IBM and take on the entire high-tech community, it would make sure to keep its house in order.” March 2005.
Here.

Marten Mickos of MySQL makes a deal with SCO, and gets attacked by open source community. October 2005.
Here.

Open source smack-down. A judge throws out most charges in SCO v. IBM, and Linux fans cheer. June 2006.
Here.

SCO claims IBM destroyed evidence. Lead sentence: “The SCO case is growing ever more desperate and ever more weird.” Subhed on syndication feed: “SCO now claims IBM destroyed software code. But are they grasping at straws? July 2006.
Here.

Dumb and Dumber. Microsoft’s financial ties to SCO revealed. Money quote: “The SCO Group v. IBM lawsuit is starting to remind me of the chorus from my favorite Robert Earl Keen tune: `The road goes on forever, and the party never ends.’ Seems like this case will never, ever grind to a conclusion. And not a month goes by without something weird or pathetic or inadvertently hilarious happening.” October 2006.
Here.

SCO gets TKO’d. “The sky is darkening over SCO Group.” Just got smacked down by another judge. November 2006.
Here.

New blow to SCO. SCO suffers another setback. Jan. 19, 2007.
Here.

SCO versus Blogger. Who is Pamela Jones? SCO is trying to find out. Just one problem: They can’t find her. February 2007.
Here.

Big No to SCO. At long last, SCO’s ugly, often farcical legal crusade against Linux appears to be over. August 2007.
Here.

Snowed by SCO. In June of 2003 I warned that SCO might prevail in its case against IBM. I got it wrong. September 2007.
Here.

Linux and FOSS articles

A list here, with links, of 49 articles I’ve done that touched on Linux or FOSS.

Hassle-free PC. The Linux-based Zonbu PC is a killer product, 10.15.07.
Here.

Dell’s new deal with Microsoft and Novell may hurt its credibility in Linux community, 5.7.07.
Here.

What’s in a name? IBM’s non-open “open client.” 2.12.07.
Here.

White Hat Black Hat. The world’s biggest software companies are taking aim at Red Hat. Dec. 2006.
Here.

Bear Hug. Microsoft has spent a decade trying to kill Linux. Now it makes a deal with Novell. Nov. 2006.
Here.

Toppling Linux. Why Richard Stallman is a threat to Linux. Oct. 2006
Here.

A Red Hat for Ellison? Oracle takes on Red Hat. October 2006
Here.

Novell: We Surrender. The #2 Linux vendor allies with Microsoft — and signs its death warrant. November. 2006.
Here.

Microsoft Linux? Microsoft and Novell make a deal. Money quote: “… the Linux kernel, a sort of cousin to Unix, is more stable and reliable than the Windows kernel. It doesn’t crash the way Windows does, and it keeps processes from interfering with one another …” November 2006.
Here.

The New Barbarians. Forbes cover story on the next wave of computing, powered by open source software, especially Linux, the “lingua franca” of the next wave. Sept. 2006.
Here.

Linux at Your Fingertips. A look at cool new Linux desktops. Sept. 18, 2006
Here.

Torvalds the traitor? Huh? Suddenly Linus is getting attacked because he won’t endorse GPLv3. Oct. 2006.
Here.

The Problem with St. Ignucius. How RMS is trying to derail Linux. Aug. 2006.
Here.

Desktop Linux. Who needs Windows when you can drive a souped up SLED? Aug. 2006.
Here.

Red Alert. Suddenly the disruptor (Red Hat) is being disrupted by one of its own — Billy Marshall of rPath. Sept. 2006.
Here.

Open Source Networking. Linux has nailed Sun Microsystems. Could Cisco be next? Sept. 2006.
Here.

Don’t Blame Scott. McNealy isn’t Sun’s problem. Linux is. It’s not only cheaper; it’s also better. April 2006.
Here.

Brave GNU License. Interview with RMS about GPLv3. March 2006.
Here.

Free v. Open. Interview with RMS. March 2006.
Here.

Torvalds on TiVo. Q/A with Linus. March 2006.
Here.

Linux Licensing. Q&A with Linus. March 2006.
Here.

Linux Rules Supercomputers. March 2005.
Here.

Research study shows SMB not interested in Linux. April 2005.
Here.

A Setback for Linux. Torvalds and his team drop BitMover, say this will slow things down for a while. May 2005.
Here.

The Open Source Heretic. Interview with Larry McVoy. May 2005.
Here.

Linux scare tactics. Pro-Linux folks say Linux infringes on patents and trying to cash in by selling insurance. August 2004.
Here.

Thanks, Linux. Why Linux is forcing Microsoft to work harder to win deals; and could, ironically, end up helping Microsoft. Aug. 2004.
Here.

Peace Love and Paychecks. How companies like NetApp are getting involved in sponsoring Linux kernel contributors. Sept. 2004.
Here.

Sun on the Run? Linux is hurting Sun’s business. Sun says it ain’t so. March 2004.
Here.

Linux Loyalists Leery. Some former Linux fans have been turned off by SCO case and by Red Hat’s new licensing policy. March 2004.
Here.

Kill Bill. IBM is pumping money into Linux to unseat Microsoft — and it’s working. June 2004.
Here.

In some areas IBM actually bad-mouths open source. Just ask Marc Fleury. June 2004.
Here.

The Big Blue Muzzle. Why Bruce Perens fears IBM could turn on the community. June 2004.
Here.

IBM refuses to indemnify Linux users. Some say it should. Aug. 2003.
Here.

Ballmer, Bemused. Microsoft CEO says his company is doing well against free software. March 2006.
Here.

Passing the (Red) Hat. Why Microsoft enemies are investing in Red Hat. May 1999.
Here.

Test Case. Why RMS insists on calling the OS “GNU/Linux” rather than “Linux.” Nov. 2003.
Here.

Has Open Source become a marketing slogan? Companies like VA Software rail against the evils of proprietary code and espouse “open source” but sell closed-source programs. April 2005.
Here.

Mock. Deny. Spin. Repeat. Linux is killing Sun, but Sun won’t admit it. April 2004.
Here.

Paul Maritz, former CTO of Microsoft, embraces open source. June 2006.
Here.

Open Source Smackdown. Marc Fleury has been a pain in IBM’s neck. Now IBM is fighting back. June 2005.
Here.

Linux’s Hit Men. Forget the “peace love and Linux” stuff. How the FSF threatens companies that violate the GPL. A look at the Linksys-Cisco case. October 2003.
Here.

Counting the Hops. How companies figure out which kernel contributors are the most important. Sept. 2004.
Here.

Open Source Crowd Turns on one of its own. Marten Mickos gets flamed for doing a deal with SCO. Oct. 2005.
Here.

Vista not “People Ready.” Vista is delayed– and it sucks anyway. Better alternatives exist, including Linux desktops which finally are very solid and easy to use. March 2006.
Here.

Cheapware. Corporate customers are fed up with proprietary vendors and moving to Linux and other open source programs in a huge way. Sept. 2004.
Here.

Free Bird. Profile of Theo de Raadt, head of the OpenBSD project. July 2005.
Here.

Is Linux for Losers? Fans of BSD think so. A look at the rivalry. June 2005.
Here.

Party Crasher. A look at the LAMP stack. Sept. 2004.
Here.

(Not So) Simple Simon. Simon Lok makes low-cost networking gear using open-source code like BSD. Nov. 2004.
Here.

Shoot the messenger

Hilarious stuff on Groklaw today. A reader writes in to ask PJ directly if she actually took money from OSDL and says, “If true, that does look rather whiffy. … I’d like to know if there’s substance in that particular allegation.” Naturally the poster is called a “troll.” Then PJ responds with her own comment in which she doesn’t answer the question but tries to make the whole thing about me. She suggests I’ve interviewed SCO officials and its lawyers, and that during these interviews, those people have told me things. Shocking! Of course I’ve talked to SCO and its lawyers. It’s what reporters do. (And yes, I’m so deeply entwined with SCO that their latest filing they identify me as a reporter at the Wall Street Journal. Yup, that’s how tight we are.)

From this PJ goes on to imply that I have taken SCO’s side in the lawsuit. Wrong. I’ve said over and over, I don’t care how the lawsuit turns out. I’m covering it, that’s all. I’d be happy to get information from IBM and/or its lawyers, but so far they haven’t been talking to the press. (At least that’s the official policy statement I get whenever I contact them with questions. PJ, however, seems to have had a knack for obtaining IBM filings before the public gets them.)

PJ’s response is the oldest dodge in the book and it doesn’t help her credibility. When faced with a question you don’t want to answer, shoot the messenger. Create a villain. “Don’t look here, look over there! Over there! At the bad guy!” Right. She’s the one who hit her sources up for money. She’s the one who’s ducking a subpoena. But I’m the bad guy because I’m reporting this. Most galling about all this is the comments from her readers claiming that I must be on someone’s payroll. It’s insulting. But also deliciously ironic.

Stallman says: Don’t use game consoles!

From the same Groklaw interview with Richard Stallman comes this wonderful gem of dialogue. Please note how the “reporter” agrees to do whatever Richard Stallman tells him, even when it’s something ridiculous like making his kids give up their game consoles. Stallman says it’s “unethical” for people to use game consoles because the code in those consoles is not “free.” (If only Nintendo would sign over its code to Stallman and the FSF so he could “protect” it and keep it “free,” then I guess we could use our Wiis in good conscience.)

Q: One final question. We’re seeing more and more devices, and I’m thinking specifically of games consoles — I know that my kids have one in the house — where there is no –

Richard Stallman: I wouldn’t. You have to learn how to say no to your kids.

Q: That’s true, that’s true, I wouldn’t deny it. Now, there is no free software at all for devices like this [correction: Yellow Dog supports some console(s)].

Richard Stallman: That’s why there is no possible ethical way you could use one, and so you shouldn’t have it.

Q: All right, I think I’ll take the kids out on the bike more often.

Richard Stallman: That would be much better for them.

Watch Richard Stallman duck and weave

This Q&A with a guy from Groklaw (see here) really provides a good sense of what it’s like to interview Stallman. He’s almost incapable of giving a straight answer to a straight question. He also refuses to tell what’s going on in the GPLv3 committee meetings:

Q: Very well. Free software has achieved considerable success since — in the sixteen years since the GPLv2 was published. GNU/Linux is big business now. Leaving aside Novell for the moment, have you experienced corporate pressure to influence the GPLv3 language?

Richard Stallman: Yes. And in some cases we’ve done what they wanted, and in other cases we’ve refused.

Q: Are there any specific cases you would want to talk about?

Richard Stallman: No.

But wait. I thought these guys were all about freedom, and transparency, and openness? I thought that’s what made the whole process so wonderful, that everyone could see exactly what was going on, at all times. Isn’t that why Linux is the greatest software program ever created? Because everyone can see the sausage being made and criticize every step?

Now suddenly Stallman won’t tell anyone who’s lobbying for what in the GPLv3? Combine this with the recent snarky comments from IBM’s Steve Mills about the FSF and the GPLv3 process and I think you can kind of connect the dots. IBM doesn’t like the way things are going and is leaning on Stallman big time. Stallman won’t dish because there’s still a chance he’ll cave to them and he doesn’t want it known that he buckled to IBM’s demands; instead he’ll claim it was his idea all along, or better yet, something that “the community” wanted.

You know. The “community.” ie, all those people who aren’t sitting in committee meetings and aren’t privy to what’s going on with that “free” software that Richard Stallman controls. Free as in “mine,” I guess, should be the new slogan.

 

 

Chris Stone, ex Novell, on the GPL

Here’s a guy who really believes in open source development but has grown disenchanted with the GPL and all the kookiness around it. Stone was vice chairman at Novell when the company was making its original push into Linux. He think Stallman and his followers aren’t doing anything to help Linux. See here.

Just a theory

Mull this over and see if it doesn’t kind of make sense.

Back in 2003, after SCO sued IBM, IBM put $50 million into Novell and promised to help promote Novell’s version of Linux to customers. At about the same time, Novell began raising a stink about whether SCO owned the copyrights to Unix. This slowed down SCO’s case against IBM and burdened SCO with all sorts of new legal costs. Was this a favor from Novell to IBM, its chief benefactor? One former Novell boss who spoke to me acknowledged in a “nudge nudge wink wink” way that it was.

But now Novell, under new management, makes a deal with Microsoft. IBM sees this as a threat. IBM’s proxies (RMS, Moglen, PJ) swing into action attacking Novell.

Novell’s current management wasn’t around when the IBM deal was made in 2003. Let’s presume they don’t feel obliged to help IBM fight its legal battles. And let’s presume they’re furious about the way IBM’s proxies (RMS, Moglen, PJ) have attacked Novell. Because make no mistake: These folks, who operate on IBM’s behalf, are trying to put Novell out of business.

But here’s the twist. Novell was involved in OSDL. They know where all the bodies are buried. Others from OSDL are also feeling bitter about how they were treated. They too know where the bodies are buried. They know who got what money from whom.

So SCO steps up and asks Novell to throw PJ under a bus. Novell is happy to oblige. Whether a judge will agree is another matter.

It’s not just PJ, by the way

IBM has bought off the entire pack of free software noisemakers. This includes Eben Moglen, Richard Stallman, the Software Freedom Law Center and the Free Software Foundation.

Consider this. Have you heard Stallman, Moglen, FSF or SFLC make a peep about IBM’s software-patent-related lawsuits against Amazon and PSI? Have you ever seen even a mention of these cases in the sidebar on Groklaw? Or even in comment strings?

The FSF folks claim to hate software patents. And they never miss a chance to protest about even the tiniest things. These are people who take to the streets in yellow jumpsuits over DRM in Microsoft products.

So ask yourself this: Why does IBM get a free ride?

The deal as it’s been described to me goes like this. IBM takes on SCO at great expense and presents this as a contribution to the community. They’re fighting a case that FSF and Moglen couldn’t afford to tackle. OSDL puts money into Moglen’s law center and into Groklaw. In return they get a free pass.

Please, before you write to me, go write to Stallman and Moglen and PJ and ask them why they’ve never criticized IBM over its use of software patents.

Moreover, take notice of the way these mouthpieces leap in to fight IBM’s battles. eg, Novell makes a deal with Microsoft; IBM is furious and feels betrayed, since it put all that money into Novell a few years ago; and suddenly the entire FSF apparatus swings into action. Moglen and Stallman rewrite the GPLv3 to screw Novell. Propaganda PJ starts attacking Novell on her blog.

The danger for IBM is that it’s risky business getting in bed with bomb-tossing loonies. In fact there are hints lately that IBM isn’t exactly thrilled about Stallman and his GPLv3 drafts. See this item on Barbara Darrow’s must-read “Unblog.”

Another favorite complaint

I’m getting email saying I’m involved in some kind of “smear campaign” because I’ve reported that PJ took money from OSDL and has been ducking a subpoena. How on earth is that a smear campaign? If I report that the Red Sox lost their season opener, is that a “smear” against the Red Sox?

Also: I love the way people will write and say that there is no connection between IBM and PJ. Their proof of this is that “PJ has said repeatedly that there is no connection.” Folks, think about that for a second.

My source on the OSDL payments is the guy who made the payments. He knows what he’s talking about. Don’t complain to me — go ask PJ about it.

As for ducking the subpoena, SCO filed notice on this back on Jan. 30. It’s been mentioned on PJ’s blog since early February in comment strings. Over and over again. Again, why bug me? Go bug PJ.

Is the Groklaw story now more interesting than the SCO case itself?

Okay that’s a rhetorical question. Answer: Yes, by a long shot. What really cracks me up is that every time I write anything about Groklaw I suddenly get loads of random emails from email addresses like “whatever@whatever.com” and “junkthing@hotmail.com.” They tell me all sorts of questions I should be asking SCO and point out all sorts of alleged flaws in my logic. They make straw man arguments where they say I’ve implied such-and-such and then they argue that such-and-such isn’t true. In other words, they leap through all sorts of hoops. But they never address the central point of whatever it is I’ve posted on my blog. Like, (a) what was PJ doing asking for (and taking) money from OSDL; and (b) why has PJ spent two months ducking a subpoena?