| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Leaked Memo Says Microsoft Raised $86 million for SCO | |
|
||
| Time: 09:45 EST/14:45 GMT | News Source: Slashdot | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
"Eric S. Raymond's Open Source site has a new Halloween memo. The Halloween X memo, which ESR says he received by email from an anonymous whistleblower inside SCO, appears to confirm Microsoft's alleged funding of SCO's anti-Linux initiative. And the actual dollar amounts are much larger than previously rumored!" The consultant is discussing his fee for bringing in this business, in the first few lines of the email. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 254 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:42:55 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 3/5/2004 10:29:44 AM |
|
Microsoft gives us the facts here...
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=18202021 Once again Erik Raymond jumps to conclusions without evidence... |
| #2 By 19992 (164.214.4.61) at 3/5/2004 10:44:24 AM |
|
Soda - I fail to see how that article disproves ESRs take on the document. I would expect all involved parties to deny the allegation (even if said allegations are true).
The reason this story strikes up so much interest (for me at least) is, Why would a current SCO employee send out a document of this nature to an open source advocate? It can't be for any form of financial gain on the employees part, so what would prompt this? |
| #3 By 19992 (164.214.4.61) at 3/5/2004 12:02:36 PM |
|
I think you need to re-read the article again then because this is EXACTLY what it does.
I have, which part proves that MS had nothing to do with this? OSS is about ego, getting your name in the lime light What are you talking about? In order for this employee to hype up his own ego, he decided to send it out to ESR anonymously? That makes no sense to me. Here, I'll quote from the link that I'm being sent to now from Activewin "The Halloween X memo, which ESR says he received by email from an anonymous whistleblower inside SCO". Are YOU so stupid that you think that anonymous and ego go hand in hand? e·go n. pl. e·gos The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves. In psychoanalysis, the division of the psyche that is conscious, most immediately controls thought and behavior, and is most in touch with external reality. An exaggerated sense of self-importance; conceit. Appropriate pride in oneself; self-esteem. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- a·non·y·mous adj. Having an unknown or unacknowledged name: an anonymous author. Having an unknown or withheld authorship or agency: an anonymous letter; an anonymous phone call. Having no distinctive character or recognition factor: “a very great, almost anonymous center of people who just want peace” (Alan Paton). This post was edited by happyguy on Friday, March 05, 2004 at 12:40. |
| #4 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 3/5/2004 12:33:37 PM |
|
Microsoft gives us the facts?
"Microsoft did not return calls on the issue placed by InformationWeek sister publication CRN." Microsoft gives nothing. SCO gives its usual crap. I've heard them make hundreds maybe thousands of statements in the last year, and I didn't beleive any of them. Many of them have been refuted. So what facts do we have, soda? |
| #5 By 19992 (164.214.4.61) at 3/5/2004 12:38:57 PM |
|
Sodajerk - MS has responded. MS response is pasted below. Original article can be found here http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1542915,00.asp
Responding to the allegations, a Microsoft spokesman said: "The allegations in the posting are not accurate. Microsoft has purchased a license to SCO's intellectual property, to ensure interoperability and legal indemnification for our customers. The details of this agreement have been widely reported and this is the only financial relationship Microsoft has with SCO. In addition, Microsoft has no direct or indirect financial relationship with BayStar." Whether you believe them or not is another matter entirely. This post was edited by happyguy on Friday, March 05, 2004 at 12:44. |
| #6 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 3/6/2004 12:37:08 AM |
|
From what I can see, there are only claims... no evidence either way, so the correct response would be to defer decisions until evidence is presented. Obviously, many of you have already made your decisions.
What is pretty obvious is that it would be easy to catch Microsoft lying about this. A financial transaction of this kind would leave a massive paper trail, including a paper trail in many places that the public (or, rather, a reporter who cared to take a look) could access. If Microsoft gave SCO $80 million+ bucks, it would be easy to prove. |
| #7 By 6253 (24.1.206.27) at 3/6/2004 12:47:16 AM |
|
Other than for appearances and emotional outrage, does it actually matter whether Microsoft is supporting SCO?
Is it illegal to support the legal costs of someone who might have truly been harmed by IBM and Daimler-Chrysler, who clearly have deep pockets to fight and stonewall any opponent? The only 2 questions should be: Does SCO have the rights to Unix which they claim? If they do, then did these companies use portions of Unix illegally? All the talk about whether IBM "should" own any code they wrote for Unix (and thus be entitled to contribute it to Linux) is irrelevant. An agreement is an agreement. If you agree to write code which somebody else is going to own, then somebody else will own it. Having your name on the byline is just a useless ego boost typically sought by Open Sourcers. When IBM became a Unix licensee, it essentially wound up doing work without getting credit. Big deal, IBM has done the same thing with Java. Open Source advocates treat the 2 key questions as if bombing an abortion clinic, as if their righteousness were obvious to any thinking creature and beyond question. I've read mounds of the evidence available so far, and I don't think it's so ridiculously clear-cut. There's enough indication that it could go either way. It's worthy of being decided in court, and it's futile to predict what a court will decide after examining tons of stuff that the public never will (and doing so according to rules that Slashdot doesn't have to follow). Don't forget: this is the legal system that acquitted O.J. but found him "responsible." Our system doesn't always make everyone happy and doesn't always make 100% sense, but that's the system we've got, and in the long run it works. You can't wait until the electoral votes are counted before deciding that the popular vote matters, and you can't just ignore contracts and intellectual property because you've becomed "enlightened" with the Free Love that is Open Source and find commercialized IP to be offensive. |
| #8 By 19992 (68.69.127.19) at 3/6/2004 10:06:13 PM |
|
#11 Other than for appearances and emotional outrage, does it actually matter whether Microsoft is supporting SCO?
Not at all. But in this case (assuming that these allegations are ultimately proven true) the moral outrage could be fairly damaging to MS. The only 2 questions should be: Does SCO have the rights to Unix which they claim? I can think of several others in addition to that. Such as: Does the GPL violate the Constitution as SCO claims? and Does SCOs prior acceptance of the GPL invalidate their claims in court? or how about, Is SCO legally able to claim ownership of every bit of technology ever designed to work with their software? All the talk about whether IBM "should" own any code they wrote for Unix (and thus be entitled to contribute it to Linux) is irrelevant. An agreement is an agreement Until the other day that's exactly what was being argued in court. SCO felt the agreements said one thing and IBM felt they said something else. I'm not sure where the new copyright infringement claims are coming from, but I'm sure that Darl or Stowell will make up some reason soon. Added comment and you can't just ignore contracts and intellectual property because you've becomed "enlightened" with the Free Love that is Open Source and find commercialized IP to be offensive. [/i} I don't think that anyone on the Linux kernel team has ignored the contracts on this. Linus has stated that he would be willing and more than happy to remove any and all code in proven to come from SVR V. Part of the problem is that some of the code that SCO has mentioned (but not identified) has been in Linux since before the USL vs. BSD lawsuit. Since Linux was not privvy to the terms of the settlement it would be rather difficult for them to comply, yes? Every single code contributer to the Linux kernel has a copyright on the code they have submitted, these are people who feel very strongly that copyrights are a good thing. Also, many of these people work for companies with ALOT of commercialized IP, so you're statement about the coders of the Linux kernel finding commercialized IP offensive is a rather odd observation. I'd love to know how you came to the conclusion that the Linux kernel team finds commercial IP offensive? #12 MS needs to be broken up, and the sooner the better I have to disagree with you on this one. Breaking up Microsoft is not going to fix anything. All we will get is some market fragmentation for a while and then another giant will rise to take the place of MS. Breaking up MS will not resolve a single thing. #13 I can't trust OSS mainly because of their apparent hatred of MS Look at OSS again. Alot of OSS is designed to work ON MS platforms. This post was edited by happyguy on Monday, March 08, 2004 at 08:05. |
| #9 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 3/7/2004 6:37:27 AM |
|
holedup - spot on!
happy - uhh, the moral outrage of the linux crowd could be fairly damaging? I don't know of any non-Linux backer, who'd put any stock in anything that ESR has to say. The only way this is outrageous is if you've already decided that SCO is full of crap with their lawsuits. If you've decided that, I'd guess you've also already firmly planted your feet in the anti-Microsoft crowd. I don't see that one more thing to add to your hatred will have much effect at all. |
| #10 By 19992 (164.214.4.61) at 3/8/2004 7:53:03 AM |
|
BobSmith
The only way this is outrageous is if you've already decided that SCO is full of crap with their lawsuits. If you've decided that, I'd guess you've also already firmly planted your feet in the anti-Microsoft crowd. Wow, that's one hell of a leap, how do you reach that conclusion? What you are saying is: I don't like the approach of SCO in this and don't think their lawsuit has much (if any) merit, therefore I hate Microsoft? I fail to see what one has to do with the other. the moral outrage of the linux crowd could be fairly damaging? I didn't state that this would be contained to the Linux crowd. You never know what is going to break consumer opinion of a company. This could be it, I personally doubt it, but it is possible. In addition, this will probably firm up several companies desire to support Linux. I don't know of any non-Linux backer, who'd put any stock in anything that ESR has to say. Once again, I never said that any furor would arise of what ESR had to say, I stated that assuming that these allegations are ultimately proven true the moral outrage could be damaging to Microsoft. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 254 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:42:55 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
