3 ms·

Any mention of "unix" and "war" needs to include a reference to www.groklaw.net, a website set up as a focal point for a community defense of unix and linux. A

Any mention of "unix" and "war" needs to include a reference to www.groklaw.net, a website set up as a focal point for a community defense of unix and linux. A must read. It is in reverse order, with newest articles at the front so I recommend starting with this link: http://www.groklaw.net/index.php?page=482 http://www.groklaw.net/index.php?page=482 It is also a remarkable example of a website that provides value to the community, a service and a piece of history. If you are interested in the idea of what different social platforms provide/afford (Zeynep Tufecki's Twitter and Tear Gas) this is great example of what could be done. [edit for typo]

ubermonkey 6y ago
Wow, I read Groklaw daily back then, and had forgotten about it and her completely. What a resource that was!
DannyB2 6y ago
The Unix Wars article mentions Santa Cruz Operation (SCO). It is very important to realize that this is NOT the same SCO that sued IBM in 2003, which is what starts the very first Groklaw article. A company named Caldera renamed itself to SCO in order to create confusion. A few years later, during the (in)famous SCO vs IBM lawsuit, and covered by Groklaw, SCO considered naming itself USL. I would suggest that idea was simply to create more confusion and give an appearance of legitimacy to the company. Technically the SCO vs IBM suit is still alive. SCOXQ.PK has been in bankruptcy since 2007! (13 years!) Nothing has moved for several years except a few notices of appearance by different lawyers.
- _jal 6y ago
  Man, I didn't notice as daily life started becoming history. It is really time for a book. I wonder if PJ from Groklaw is considering it.
- justin66 6y ago
  > A company named Caldera renamed itself to SCO in order to create confusion. A few years later, during the (in)famous SCO vs IBM lawsuit, and covered by Groklaw, SCO considered naming itself USL. I would suggest that idea was simply to create more confusion and give an appearance of legitimacy to the company. Caldera paid SCO for the "rights" to the Unix IP, it's not like they just bought the name. Arguing about what the "rights" for Unix actually meant (and how much could be charged to license that IP to people who thought they had already paid for it) was the point of the braindead lawsuits that followed.
  - DannyB2 6y ago
    Novell owned the Unix IP. (See TFA, Unix Wars) In the following, SCO means Caldera, who renamed itself to SCO. Novell licensed Unix rights to SCO where SCO would send 95% of sales to Novell and SCO would keep 5%. (Who sounds like the owner here?) This is all thoroughly documented on Groklaw. The entire court dockets, all filings, motions, etc. It's all there to read, part of history. SCO later tried to claim that the agreement somehow transferred ownership of Unix to SCO. This resulted in a separate trial from SCO vs IBM. The judge found in Novell's favor in a bench trial. SCO appealed they should have had a jury trial. The Jury also found Novell owned Unix and SCO did not somehow get it via the license agreement. SCO appealed, and again the appeal court found for Novell. SCO got exactly what it paid for. Rights to resell its Unix derived OS. SCO could have negotiated to license more rights than it did.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
jlgaddis 6y ago
When SCO v. IBM was going on, Groklaw was the first web site I'd visit pretty much every day, right after waking up. Fo all of us Linux geeks back then, PJ provided an extraordinarily amazing service to the open-source community. Most of us would not have known about or understood all the happenings of the case if it weren't for Groklaw. PJ's contributions to the Linux community back then simply cannot be overstated. --- (For some reason, I want to say that it was PJ who first broke the news that Microsoft was providing "financial support" to SCO -- who was basically bankrupt by that point! -- during the lawsuit, but I'm almost certainly wrong about that. Of course, Microsoft tried to downplay their involvement and there are still many folks today who aren't aware of Microsoft's "collusion" with SCO.)

ubermonkey 6y ago

Wow, I read Groklaw daily back then, and had forgotten about it and her completely. What a resource that was!

DannyB2 6y ago

The Unix Wars article mentions Santa Cruz Operation (SCO). It is very important to realize that this is NOT the same SCO that sued IBM in 2003, which is what starts the very first Groklaw article. A company named Caldera renamed itself to SCO in order to create confusion. A few years later, during the (in)famous SCO vs IBM lawsuit, and covered by Groklaw, SCO considered naming itself USL. I would suggest that idea was simply to create more confusion and give an appearance of legitimacy to the company. Technically the SCO vs IBM suit is still alive. SCOXQ.PK has been in bankruptcy since 2007! (13 years!) Nothing has moved for several years except a few notices of appearance by different lawyers.

_jal 6y ago
Man, I didn't notice as daily life started becoming history. It is really time for a book. I wonder if PJ from Groklaw is considering it.
justin66 6y ago
> A company named Caldera renamed itself to SCO in order to create confusion. A few years later, during the (in)famous SCO vs IBM lawsuit, and covered by Groklaw, SCO considered naming itself USL. I would suggest that idea was simply to create more confusion and give an appearance of legitimacy to the company. Caldera paid SCO for the "rights" to the Unix IP, it's not like they just bought the name. Arguing about what the "rights" for Unix actually meant (and how much could be charged to license that IP to people who thought they had already paid for it) was the point of the braindead lawsuits that followed.
- DannyB2 6y ago
  Novell owned the Unix IP. (See TFA, Unix Wars) In the following, SCO means Caldera, who renamed itself to SCO. Novell licensed Unix rights to SCO where SCO would send 95% of sales to Novell and SCO would keep 5%. (Who sounds like the owner here?) This is all thoroughly documented on Groklaw. The entire court dockets, all filings, motions, etc. It's all there to read, part of history. SCO later tried to claim that the agreement somehow transferred ownership of Unix to SCO. This resulted in a separate trial from SCO vs IBM. The judge found in Novell's favor in a bench trial. SCO appealed they should have had a jury trial. The Jury also found Novell owned Unix and SCO did not somehow get it via the license agreement. SCO appealed, and again the appeal court found for Novell. SCO got exactly what it paid for. Rights to resell its Unix derived OS. SCO could have negotiated to license more rights than it did.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

jlgaddis 6y ago

When SCO v. IBM was going on, Groklaw was the first web site I'd visit pretty much every day, right after waking up. Fo all of us Linux geeks back then, PJ provided an extraordinarily amazing service to the open-source community. Most of us would not have known about or understood all the happenings of the case if it weren't for Groklaw. PJ's contributions to the Linux community back then simply cannot be overstated. --- (For some reason, I want to say that it was PJ who first broke the news that Microsoft was providing "financial support" to SCO -- who was basically bankrupt by that point! -- during the lawsuit, but I'm almost certainly wrong about that. Of course, Microsoft tried to downplay their involvement and there are still many folks today who aren't aware of Microsoft's "collusion" with SCO.)