Annotated edit history of
SCO version 12, including all changes.
View license author blame.
Rev |
Author |
# |
Line |
10 |
AristotlePagaltzis |
1 |
An [Acronym] for __S__anta __C__ruz __O__peration |
|
|
2 |
|
12 |
AristotlePagaltzis |
3 |
Originally a company that distributed a version of [Unix] for the [Intel] [x86] architecture called [Xenix], bought from MicrosoftCorporation. Later they made another [Unix] version [SCO] [UNIX] System V/386. Their main market appears to have been relatively lightweight client PCs connecting to larger servers running a different flavour of [UNIX]. Their expensive software never became very popular, but their pricing structure fitted well with many consultants. In 1995 they bought ~UnixWare from [Novell], which [Novell] had bought directly from [AT&T], the original creators of [UNIX]. Their profits were being eaten alive by the growing popularity of [Linux] soon after however, and they made a few desperate moves to try this OpenSource thingamajic with little success. |
10 |
AristotlePagaltzis |
4 |
|
|
|
5 |
In 2001, they were bought by [Caldera], a [Linux] distributor that had repeatedly made big plans to establish their LinuxDistribution as part of the business world and had repeatedly failed. [Caldera]'s hope was to benefit from the well established distribution channels [SCO] had built in over ten years of work. Well, chalk another one up for [Caldera]; the attempt failed. Desperate to make profits, they turned to the [SCO] products bought in with the acquisition, renaming themselves to __The SCO Group__. One more failure. |
|
|
6 |
|
12 |
AristotlePagaltzis |
7 |
At this point, someone rememebered that they owned ~UnixWare, which meant ownership of the IntellectualProperty of the original [AT&T] [UNIX]. A plan was hatched to construe [Linux] as having been impossible to create without theft of IntellectualProperty from [UNIX]. The first one to get sued was [IBM], who had paid licenses to use that IntellectualProperty for their AIX clone of [UNIX], and later also invested (quite heavily) in [Linux]. The lawsuit is based on lateral interpretation of old legal documents. As if this wasn't ludicruous enough, they're also demanding money from ''users'' of [Linux], which is completely devoid of any legal basis. (If someone plagiarises your song, you don't sue the people who bought his CD, do you.) |
10 |
AristotlePagaltzis |
8 |
|
|
|
9 |
Let's hope this lawsuit is their ultimate failure. |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
11 |
There are __heaps__ of resources on the web about this lawsuit. The one you don't want to miss is [IWeThey:PiratesOfPenguinance]. |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
13 |
But see also: |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
15 |
* GrokLaw |
|
|
16 |
* [IWeThey:SCOvsIBM] |
|
|
17 |
* [Salt Lake City Weekly Editorial | http://www.slweekly.com/editorial/2004/feat_2004-01-22.cfm] (slightly long but very readable background to their dubious legal claims) |
|
|
18 |
* [A company history of SCO | http://williambader.com/museum/dell/xenixhistory.html] |
|
|
19 |
* [Cannot find Stolen SCO Code in Linux | http://www.linuxstolescocode.com/], a Page Not Found parody; also facts about the case and forums. |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
21 |
---- |
|
|
22 |
|
12 |
AristotlePagaltzis |
23 |
There's a [Google] bombing campaign to associate them with the search term [litigious bastards | http://www.sco.com/?sco=litigious+bastards]. At the time of writing they're the number #1 hit for [that query | Google:litigious bastards]. The MyDoom [DDoS] attack prompted [DNS] changes which caused <tt>www.sco.com</tt> to not resolve, but it is now back. |
10 |
AristotlePagaltzis |
24 |
|
|
|
25 |
---- |
|
|
26 |
CategoryCompany |