Slashdot Mirror

Groklaw had an article about this some days ago, there are tons of discussion there why a license change;
1. Would be stupid.
2. Won't happen.

Please read this.

It's clear that you're wrong about the copywrites, why not just bow donw gracefully?

The honorable Senator Orrin Hatch's son, Brent O. Hatch, is a lawyer for SCO. Read the service list at the bottom of this motion for preliminary summary judgment.

I suppose that it's remotely possible that the good senator actually thinks he's doing good, if he's had his head in the sand, but his son's actioins are flatly inexcusable. If Brent Hatch doesn't know enough of the law to realize he's the point man for an extortion ring of copyright thieves, well...

So to summarize: Daddy senator wants to blow up computers of copyright thieves. Son is working for copyright thieves who IBM says have stolen 750,000 plus lines of code.

Makes me sick.

Oh yeah, I'm from Utah.

hanzie.

• Breach of IBM Software Agreement
• Breach of IBM Sublicensing Agreement
• Breach of Sequent Software Agreement
• Unfair Competition
• Interference with Contract
• Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

"The GPL only give you rights, it doesn't take any rights away from you" Heard that one before? This is the principle that make the GPL a licence. If it took rights away from you, it would have been a contract, and that would require a signature (or a click-through) for it to be valid.

The thing is, I have the right to not agree with the GPL. If it is so that the GPL takes away my right not to agree with it, then the GPL is not a license, but a contract, and it's not valid unless I sign it.

Read The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling for some background info.

So much for the GPL 'never being tested in court.'

So much for the GPL 'never being tested in court.'

I was reading the filing (the link for which I found at groklaw, naturally) and was shocked at the sheer volume of code copyrighted to IBM in the kernel, 700,000+ lines. They have a great deal invested in the littel kernel that could. Its a no-brainer they are defending it. Still, how health is it for one entity, a private entity at that, to have that much code in the kernel?

On a lighter note, page 18 of the filing has the first wedding dress reference I have seen in this case.

"This public display of plaintiffs' bridal dresses and copyrighter lacee designs...."

Note: The aforementiones lace reference has been taken out of context for your amusement.

"EIGHT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust and export control laws, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."

My first reaction was to disagree, and say that this is about the GPL, for several reasons. Some of those reasons have been articulated by others, but in particular, I remembered that IBM had a counterclaim specifically about the GPL. But when I checked the counterclaims, I saw that you are right! This is a motion for summary judgement on IBM's eighth counterclaim, which is "Copyright Infringement", not on their sixth counterclaim, which is "Breach of the GNU General Public License". Which means this is only going to get more interesting when IBM finally does get around to arguing counterclaim six. :)

So much for the GPL 'never being tested in court.'

It stood up in court recently in Germany, AFAIK

The German GPL Order - Translated from GROKLAW

SCO may not get it, and that's fine. Heaven only knows their keynote speaker missed the boat. But it's satisfying to know that Linus understands exactly what we are trying to do here.

Yesterday's breaking news, but on Slashdot it's "scheduled in the future".

Way to be on the ball, editors.

I think the shark Slashdot jumped a while ago must have died and left its rotting, stinking carcass somewhere....

Hint to MS: It's Bad When Reporters Burst Into Laughter at Your FUD Tuesday, August 17 2004 @ 03:39 AM EDT

But catch her in a dishonesty before you slam her.

Why? She doesn't offer that to writers at BusinessWeek who disagree with her.

But catch her in dishonesty I have:

ITEM ONE:
She put words in the mouth of a columnist at LinuxInsider (Phil Albert) claiming he said something he never said then strawmanned him to death. The original article was "lost" on Groklaw, but you can read his response to PJ accusing her of putting words in his mouth here.

To quote PJ (from memory, since the original is gone): Basically, he [Albert] basically told businesses not to use the GPL.

Albert's response: My column on the GPL 2.0 was a product review, not an attack on the GPL itself -- and anyway, it was mostly favorable. I never said that companies should not use it, and I am not opposed to the concept of copyleft.

I read Albert's original article. He's right. By my reading, he never even implied it. PJ made that up out of whole cloth.

ITEM TWO:
She did a character assassination on Gosling because they don't see eye-to-eye on Java and the GPL -- and because Sun isn't doing what PJ and RMS wants them to do with their own software (release the Sun JDK under the GPL). However in the BusinessWeek rant, she says the authors should license however they want. Nice double standard. To quote PJ: You have to admit, there is something comical in a commentary asking the authors to change their license. Yes, there is PJ. Yes, there is. Leave Gosling alone for not wanting to release the Sun JDK under your favorite license.

ITEM THREE:
Here's another double standard form PJ. From today no less:

Journalists are a cynical bunch. They've seen it all, heard execs and politicians spin baloney, and endured endless press conferences where they've been told what turn out to be lies, so they can be forgiven for ending up Being From Missouri. The thing about journalists is, they do usually know what is really happening. They may not print what they know, or all they know, or they may feel compelled to slant it to suit their editors/owners. But they know.

Wow! Journalists suddenly "know"! Despite 18 months of PJ's rants that journalists will report whatever FUD is put in front of them. I could quote them, but why bother. You've read them for months.

In this case, PJ is right. Journalists "may feel compelled to slant it to suit their editors/owners". PJ should know. According to the top of the Groklaw site, she's now a "journalist".
- - - - - -
You know, I'm not doing anything with this post that PJ doesn't do every day with Groklaw. I'm using PJ's own contradictory words against her. The difference is, I admit that I'm biased against PJ and I'm slanted against her rants. I also don't call myself a "journalist", which implies that I'm being objective. I'm not. I admit that. That is what separates me from her.

For the record, the output of a "journalist" is not a "blog".

Didn't you read? They're planning to raise their prices.

Anyhow, I submitted something just like this, only with about a dozen links to more information (sadly, I don't have all of them here now), so perhaps I can explain more --

This motion follows IBM's motion to strike Sontag's declaration as incompetant (he doesn't know jack about IBM's internal source controls, but he made a number of wild guesses and swore to them under oath), as well as IBM's movement for a declaration of non-infringement concerning their Linux activities. It is ironic on the last part that SCO doesn't want to let them have one, and it says at the same time that they're not arguing that IBM has infringed on their copyrights now.

I'd link those motions, but I don't have time. They can all be found on Groklaw's legal documents page. Just be sure you're looking at the SCO vs. IBM part, and that you start at the bottom & scroll up--both SCO's complaint & IBM's counter-claims have changed over time, and you want the most recent version.

If they were to grant all of IBM's motions, they would be enough to rend pretty much all Linux-related issues from this case, and would leave SCO with almost nothing that could stand on its own and SCO would still face the counter-claims.

Of course, the judge has to be really strict on granting summary judgements. There have to be no material (relevant) issues of fact to decide--the evidence has to be so one-sided that no rational trier of fact could possibly decide for SCO on any of the issues the judge decides. This is important because the judge rules on the law, while the jury rules on the facts in any jury trial. If you can't guess from that, a summary judgement is where the judge gets to decide an issue early because there are no material issues of fact for a jury to decide.

In other words, though IBM's motions are well-argued, they face a *very* high standard of law here. Please note that while Enderle has said that he would decide for SCO, that's irrelevant because the trier of fact would have to be rational, and logic is not Enderle's strong suit.

Right. And SCOForum doesn't host talks called "Free Software and the Fools Who Use It"

Well, for them to change the license, they must have the copyright on that code (or the consent of all those who do hold copyright on it).

From then on, they can license it however they please under any license they see fit.

However, what was GPL'd *stays* GPL'd, so you can restart a fork of it with all new developers if you so choose. Also, if you have many copyright holders (e.g. as with Linux), you effectively cannot change the license, because it would probably be impossible to get the consent of enough of the copyright holders.

IANAL, but I've spent a lot of time reading US copyright law and Groklaw.

...and a Groklaw article demonstrating why the BusinessWeek author should have done more research first.

... groklaw? I mean, how many other sites use that CSS / graphic? I know I'm dumb to admit this, but after I clicked the link I thought "PJ must be having a slow day ..."

I'm sorry, have you not all been reading the on-line mags and such? Your local newspaper? There is no way to make money on the internet giving away things for free. Rob Enderle of SCO has something to say about this (Free Software and the Fools That Use it). Thank you very much.

No, no, they're busy on Groklaw. Remember, the puppet-masters are busy everywhere.

Not much that's typed, but a lot of printed filled-in forms still lying around.

Think "teacher's comments" in school records, "officer's comments" on traffic tickets, doctor's notes, and in some countries, paper checks.

Yes, a lot of that is moving towards digital-data-entry, and a lot of the rest is being moved to scan-store-and-shred.

But in the meantime, there's a market for OCR and after-the-fact handwriting recognition.

As an example, the folks at GrokLaw are putting SCO-related court case files online. Usually someone can get a PDF fairly easily, either from the court's web site or having someone local to that particular court go to the courthouse, get a paper copy, and scan it. It sometimes takes a day or two before the text version is up. If the PDF is from a "clean scan" then OCR can do a really good job of it. If the PDF is "dirty" due to a bad scan, add-ons like rubber stamps or handwritten notes, or just a bad photocopy at the courthouse, it takes a lot of hand-editing. I know, I've tried.

6 digits! Did Microsft buy a few licences or something? I doubt the EV1 deal can bring 6 digits, and there isn't really anything else they can count as SCOSource revenue.
As reported on Groklaw they are thinking of bundling SCOsource with their UNIX-offerings. That way, the customer just pays for UNIX but SCO can book part of the revenue as SCOsource to make shareholders happy.

People were freely sharing source code long before that, because no significant commercial/proprietary value was generally recognized for software source.

Sure, in fact RMS talks about this in his talk on the beginning of the free software community. But it wasn't anything to do with "open source" that recognized that this community of hackers who shared code was dying. During the time when hackers freely shared code (often not putting copyright notices on it at all), sharing was the norm. There was no need for a free software community (or the open source movement within that community) because everyone shared what code they had (including businesses which sold mainframe computers--the OS source code came with the machines and it was understood that their customers would share and modify the code to suit their needs).

Once "intellectual property" became the name of the technology game, the open source world needed tools like the GPL.

It's interesting that you would use the GPL to try and make your point because the writing and design of the GNU General Public License has nothing to do with the open source movement.

The Open Source Initiative merely defined their terms broadly enough to accept the GPLv2. There were already a number of programs licensed under the GPL by the time the OSI was founded and declared the GPL to be acceptable. The GPL was written by RMS and Eben Moglen who are both FSF people. The GPL was written for the free software movement (that's why there are so many references to software freedom in the GPL). The open source movement doesn't even talk about software freedom (their FAQ appears to consider it "ideological tub-thumping", hardly an astute analysis of the issues at hand) because the open source movement's goals aim to grease the wheels for business to take advantage of the unpaid programming labor in the world. By contrast, the free software movement's message of software freedom targets all computer users. The essay I pointed to on the differences between the two movements has an interesting story highlighting how the open source message doesn't necessarily include users. Lots of people who are trying to spread the news about a movement where people can share code don't understand this aspect of the open source movement.

Nothing has changed, except the lawyers got involved.

More lawyers, perhaps, but some of the ones who are doing the most interesting work have been involved for a while now. Eben Moglen, for example, was ahead of the curve (and, from what he discussed in his Harvard talk, he still is). He's a lawyer and he co-wrote the GPL well before the OSI existed or the term "open source" had been coined.

In the end it looks like OSS got a huge boost by having the protection and facilities offered by GPL.

They did--they benefitted greatly from a license the founders of that movement had nothing to do with writing or conceiving. It's a shame that the authorship and intention of the GPL are lost to so many by pairing that license with a movement that didn't exist when the license was written and a movement that doesn't speak to the value of software freedom which is the heart of the GPL.

sounds like Novell are interested in dodging the case without having the issue of copyrights decided. . . . Why? What possible advantage would there be in this to them?

By having this case dismissed, Novell shuts down SCO's preferred line of attack. First of all, SCO will need to start over with a new suit, meaning more cash burn from SCO's rapidly depleting coffers. Second, it buys time for SCO's position on other fronts (like IBM's tenth counterclaim) to weaken. If IBM can prove there's no UNIX in Linux, the issue of who owns the UNIX copyrights becomes moot. Finally, it means that SCO will have to open a suit explicitly stating that they want to prove they own the copyrights, a very difficult position since the documentation doesn't seem to support that claim.

Remember, the job of Novell's lawyers is not to defend Linux. It is to defend Novell. It's only in the current circumstances that the two interests happen to coincide.

Also, thanks to Groklaw, I learned about this thing called Promissory Estoppel that would pretty much stop them from bringing a patent suit at this point.

it hasn't been groklaw'd yet

it hasn't been groklaw'd yet

I was pointing out that SCOX is in all probability estopped from doing any thing about it. They endorsed AIX 5L on the power platform. It would also seem that it is SCOX that is limited to the Intel platform not IBM as is pointed out here and here

I was pointing out that SCOX is in all probability estopped from doing any thing about it. They endorsed AIX 5L on the power platform. It would also seem that it is SCOX that is limited to the Intel platform not IBM as is pointed out here and here

From your link

(d) License to IBM of Licensed SCO Materials and SCO Project Work

1. The license grants contained in this section shall apply to all
SCO Third Party Licensed Materials unless different terms for a
specific item of SCO Third Party Licensed Materials are
specified in a Project Supplement. Any such different license
terms must, at a minimum, provide a worldwide, nonexclusive
right and license consistent with the terms of the license
grants contained in this section for the purpose of inclusion
with, use and distribution of the IA-32 Product and the IA-64
Product. Any separate license grant for any item of the SCO
Third Party Licensed Materials contained in a Project Supplement
which is more limited than the license grants contained in this
section must be applicable only to items which are separable
from other code in the Deliverable.

2. Subject to Section (d) (1) above regarding third party or other
restrictions, SCO hereby grants to IBM a worldwide,
non-exclusive, royalty free (subject to the royalty provisions
set forth below), perpetual and irrevocable (subject to Section
14.0, "Termination") right and license under SCO's and
applicable third parties' copyrights, to the extent SCO has the
right to grant such rights, and any trade secrets or
confidential information in the Licensed SCO Materials and SCO
Project Work which are included in Deliverables to (i) prepare
or have prepared Derivative Works, (ii) use, execute, reproduce,
display and perform the Licensed SCO Materials and SCO Project
Work and Derivative Works thereof, (iii) sublicense and
distribute the Licensed SCO Materials and SCO Project Work and
Derivative Works thereof either directly or through
Distributors, in the form of Source Code, Object Code,
Documentation, and/or in any other form whatsoever, and (iv)
grant licenses, sublicenses, and authorizations to others
(including without limitation IBM Subsidiaries, Distributors and
any other third parties), on a non-exclusive basis that is equal
to the scope of the licenses granted hereunder, limited only as
specifically described in Section (e) below.

This Groklaw report from SCOForum conference came down the pipes of one of the LUG mailing lists I belong to. Apparently they mentioned the IBM/AIX "bombshell" in private interviews during the same conference. I wonder why they didn't announce it on the stage?

(c) License to SCO of Licensed IBM Materials and IBM Project Work

The rights and licenses granted in this Section (c)(2), with respect to the IA-64 Product, shall be limited to use and distribution solely in connection with SCO products designed to operate on the Intel Architecture

It is in the process of being groklaw'd already.

Great article at Groklaw about this very thing. Note it's from a year ago.

Groklaw has a much more detailed article.

But then I'd be very surprised if /. was first to post the news. :P

"McBride took the stage after a montage of "Rocky" clips that showed the bloodied fighter winning a boxing match while in a state of near-collapse....To hammer the point home, he showed a scene from the film in which Wesley is being tortured to death, and emitting a wail of 'ultimate suffering.' Linux Insider

"The movie theme continued as McBride began his keynote, when he compared the SCO litigation to 'The Princess Bride.' He said he identified most strongly with the film's protagonist, Wesley, who was filled with righteous anger as a result of being wronged."

"I think that what we got drawn into was that IBM has a lot of agents that are out there day in and day out that attack us." -Darl

"And we felt like, from a defense standpoint to protect our shareholders that are on the call today, we were like the only guys in town to fight back." -Darl

Darl's speech is laced with violent expressions. "Sock in the mouth." "Only guys in town to fight back." "Pounding my fist on the table." "Stepping up with the key generals."

Darl sues his ex-partners and customers...he claims to need a concealed firearm to protect himself from Linux zealots, claims of hiring a sharpshooter at Harvard to protect him from assasins...

This guy's speech, presentations and, (if these movie clips are truly how he thinks of himself) self image all revolve around violence. And he identifies with Wesley, who has "righteous anger." "Righteous anger" has been responsible for some of the worlds worst atrocities.

What do these patterns of behavior say to you?

That's why we argue about why they shouldn't be allowed. The best arguement I saw was someone from Gloklaw. Paraphrased: Software is math. If you allow someone to patent 2+2=4, how long before no one can write any statement about 4 without violating a patent?

GrokLine, brought to you by the folks at GrokLaw of SCO v. IBM fame, is PART of what you are looking for. They focus on Unix-related prior art. However, they probably don't cover things like device drivers.

Here's a blurb from their web site:

2004-05-23
Grokline's Launch

Welcome to the launch of Grokline. We are ready for you to start to help by contributing what you know about UNIX.

We hope with this living UNIX history project to be able to identify any conceivable legal problems that those wishing to block or hobble GNU/Linux may try to use in future assaults on the community. If there are litigation risks, even just from nuisance lawsuits, particularly with respect to patents, we want to find those risks, hopefully before they do, and mitigate or resolve them now. Also, if we can carefully document prior art, we may find it comes in very handy one of these days. I am personally convinced, as you no doubt are too, that the next wave of attacks on GNU/Linux and the GPL will involve patents.


I hope this helps.

I have it figured out, I think. Sun's Jonathan Schwartz is jealous of Darl McBride. *He* yearns to be the most hated man in tech. But no matter how many awful things he says, he's still just the runner up. Actually, no one bothers to hate either of them, but it'd be easy, if we weren't so nice here on the good guy side.

oh no you dont, Darl

From 4.1 Combination of Trademarks in Product Names ...

"Licensees may combine the UNIX Trademark with their own trademarks as a product name, provided they seek prior approval by submitting the proposed combination including a sketch of the proposed use. If approporate, to X/Open Company. X/Open Company may ask to review a proof of the final artwork."

"Licensees may use the UNIX Trademark as part of the proper name of a product." ...

"The License specifically prohibits Licensees of any Trademarks from registering with the relevant trademark authorities specific forms of the Trademarks including Trademarks used in combination."

Is this a dup? I dunno, but Green Hills FUD was discussed on groklaw at great length over 3-1/2 months ago.

Linux Proves Security of Open Source: First Back-Door Attempt Thwarted"

Truly nothing to see here, folks. Just empty FUD that has been discredited.

Truly nothing to see here, folks. Just empty FUD that has been discredited.

Truly nothing to see here, folks. Just empty FUD that has been discredited.

Contingency plans are for something that is reasonably possible, with the probability of disaster being amortized over the cost of not being prepared.

Last year, the Linux community was looking at contingency plans. Last week SCO and Baystar were fighting over who was going to to be stuck with most of SCO's rotting carcas after this is all said and done.

Even SCO is implicitly acknowledging that the end is near. Over the last year, they've gone from claiming full ownership of Unix, with partial rights to Linux and the known world (er, sorry about that last bit of hyperbole) to acknowledging that "UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group." in a press release that doesn't otherwise mention Unix or Linux.

All things said and done, I honestly do believe that the Apocalypse is more likely, in the next 5 years, than SCO winning anything material in their lawsuits -- but I'm not buying papal pardons, either.

If you read this earlier article on Groklaw, you'll see plenty of quotes to show that much of the mainstream media is quite clueless. There aren't many who have caught on yet, although investors don't seem to value the stock any more. Then again, there are still those mysterious end of the day rallies, which some say are indications that someone is "painting the tape" (e.g. manipulating the stock price--not hard to do with a stock like SCOX, apparently).