SCO Claims Linux Sales After Suit Irrelevant

molarmass192 writes "Here's the first reaction I've seen from SCO regarding the public's stance that the code they distributed under the GPL negates their claims on code in the Linux kernel. They claim that the lack of copyright notices "placed by the copyright holder" means that the GPL does not protect the unmentioned code in question. "

Comments

SCO....

[levik]

Sounds like it's time to send them my resume.

A couple of thousand times.

Re:SCO....

[override11]

Or you could write a script that randomized names / histories / addresses and return email addresses, then set it to send out like 500 an hour. :) Ohh, that would be wicked, they would have no way of telling real apps from fake ones flooding in... and they would have to keep them all.. and thats a "Very Bad thing" (tm)

Re:SCO....

[Anonymous Coward]

Send it in Microsoft Word format.

Re:SCO....

[intermodal]

Sounds like a good idea to me...allow me to join you in this momentous occasion!

Re:SCO....

[Stickster]

Sounds like it's time to send them my resume. A couple of thousand times.

Bernie? Bernie Shifman? Is that you?

Re:SCO....

[Anonymous Coward]

Or try that snail-mail DoS again. I am not advocating it, mind you. I am just pointing out the nastiest thing to do.

Oh good grief.

[doublem]

They distributed the @($& code!

I hate lawyers, I really do.

Re:Oh good grief.

[Anonymous Coward]

They may or may not have a point about whether the GPL applies to their (supposed) code. But at the very least, by continuing to distribute it, they are in violation of section 7 of the GPL, which states that they must cease distribution if the integrity of the free software is in question (e.g. through patents or other circumstances).

FYI:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

Re:Oh good grief.

[ray-auch]

"If, as a consequence of [stuff] conditions are imposed on you that contradict [the GPL] [...then]"

ummm what conditions have been imposed on SCO ?

Re:Oh good grief.

[Milo77]

it has nothing to do with whether or not they distributed it. they're claiming ibm stole they're ip and put it into linux without them knowing. the illegally obtained code makes it into mainstream kernels which caldera distributed. the point is, ibm never "owned" the rights to distribute the code under *any* license, much less the gpl. what you're suggesting is that i can steal all your ideas, releases them into the public domain, and you have no recourse, which is just plain silly. i am not saying that what they are saying is true (how would i know), but if ibm did in fact "re-license" code to which they didn't own rights to, then sco certainly has a leg to stand on - they were stolen from!! i use linux both professionally and recreationally, so i am not the least bit pleased that this is happening, but if it is true, i blaim ibm, not sco....

Re:Oh good grief.

[Gerry Gleason]

... so i am not the least bit pleased that this is happening, but if it is true, i blaim ibm, not sco....

If it is "true", then it just points again to what a muddled mess software patents are. More likely, it is just a steaming pile of FUD, and all the blame goes to SCO and their IP lawyers. The idea that they didn't or don't know exactly which modules, functions, code, etc. are infringing just shows how weak their position is. There is no evidence that they have taken any steps WRT complying with the GPL in terms of their own Linux distribution, so I doubt the courts will be very supportive of their position.

To be clear, if third parties added SCO IP to the Linux distribution, then they (SCO) have an obligation to immediately stop their own organization from distributing infringing code, as soon as they became aware of it. Obviously, they can't do this until it is discovered, but they waited until long after actually filing legal actions before doing anything to stop their own distribution. The judge and/or jury will consider this when evaluating the merrits.

Frankly, the lack of any specifics is damning. Even if they can't point to specific code, they should be able to make specific claims about unique technology that they consider to be their property. To the extent that it is patents at issue, they need to make those claims specifying the actual patents. To the extent that it is copyright, the claim is very weak because there is nothing wrong with reading code and writing a new version based on what you learned. Even if they have a claim WRT copyright, it is a comparitively small matter to fix this sort of thing once you know what pieces of code need rewriting.

Re:Oh good grief.

[orcrist]

It has *everything* to do with whether they distributed it. That's all the GPL applies to. If you get GPL'ed code you can change it to your hearts content and don't have to release a single line of source. The only place the GPL can apply is for those cases when copyright law would require you to get permission from the author to distribute... *Then*, the act of distribution constitutes an agreement to the GPL, unless of course you have some other permission from the author(s). Thus, by distributing code which is copyrighted by others, they are either:
a) violating copyright (by distributing without a license)
or
b) violating the GPL

It's that simple. Someone else who is not authorized putting code in there would certainly not be covered by GPL/Copyright, etc; but the second SCO distributed it, they were agreeing to the GPL. They *might* have just gotten out of it by claiming ignorance of the presence of their (alleged) code (not sure about this), but certainly not after they filed the suit.

-chris

Re:Oh good grief.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I agree with them, but you're very, very, very wrong. They are arguing other people without the permission of SCO inserted code that SCO is the copyright owner of. This is not legal...and the GPL was written to respect the original copyright owner.

Re:Oh good grief.

[mark-t]

If it is "true", then it just points again to what a muddled mess software patents are

This suit is all about misappropriated trade secrets, not patents. SCO is not claiming to have patented the code in question here, so what you are saying doesn't apply. (Of course, I think software patents are abysmal too, but I see no reason to drag that issue into this.) Since it is about trade secrets, SCO will have to come up with some sort of proof that the code in question really was misappropriated from SCO and not just independantly developed (mere similarity of design doesn't by itself count as proof). Since Unix and its internals have been well documented in numerous books and talked about at length in many operating systems courses for over 20 years, I suspect SCO may have a heck of a time proving this.

Re:Oh good grief.

[flafish]

IANAL.
As soon as they knew that it was there, they had the obligation to stop selling their form of Linux. They didn't, and kept on selling until recently which meant that they blessed it being in SCO's Linux which is under the GPL. Any Linux version released after the date of them finding it and failing to stop their sale of their version would tend to make all later distros legal. Date of the filing for the IBM lawsuit is the latest they would have known and should have yanked it off the market for protection from the GPL.

But did anyone buy it after that date? Want to send a copy to RH and the rest to give them the rights to use the SCO code?

Sorry SCO, but you screwed up.

Re:Oh good grief.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, your trade secrets can be "stolen" and you have no recourse. Only by patenting them can you protect them- you make your secrets public in return for exclusive protection.

Re:Oh good grief.

[Archfeld]

The rules on trade secrets give them legal recourse to recover money for the LOST SECRETS, but once out in the open they are SECRETS NO MORE and can't be stuffed back in the bottle.

Re:Oh good grief.

[shaitand]

ok, whether or not ibm had the right to distribute the code under the gpl is irrelevent. Because SCO distributed the code under the GPL and SCO had the right to do so, every line of code that SCO distributed is now GPL code for those they distributed it to, because again I assure you SCO had every legal right to license that code under the GPL.

Now this doesn't mean that if IBM distributed the code before SCO did that it wouldn't be illegal and that IBM wouldn't be a fair target for lawsuit, it doesn't mean squat on that front (except SCO will have a tough time claiming that they themselves didn't put the code there first making it legal for IBM to distribute it). What it does mean is that any code in question that has been distributed by SCO under the GPL (even if IBM put it in a project, make no mistake if SCO distributed said tainted project they legitimized the code by themselves licensing it under the GPL) is pristine from this point forth and not something which need be taken out of those projects.

Personally, I think SCO screwed up, put some of their own proprietary code in a project, and now wants to make up some of the damage by suing IBM who has money and access to the same code.

Re:Oh good grief.

[shaitand]

This is true, and if IBM did what SCO accuses then they certainly have a lawsuit.

But the important issue has nothing to do with IBM, the important issue is that the copyright owner, SCO, distributed this code under the terms of gnu public license (GPL), they were aware it was there (how else could they file a lawsuit?) so they weren't doing so without their knowledge. If a copyright holder chooses to distribute source code under the GPL then that copyright holder has every legal right to do so and said code IS GPL'd code now and forever. Thus any projects that SCO distributes that had that code in them are NOT tainted as is because SCO itself GPL'd the code.

Now that doesn't help IBM a bit, but it does protect the other distributions and assures that
SCO has no legal rights to prevent that code from being used, modified, and redistributed from here on... they do however still have the right to offer it under other licenses to other parties under whatever terms they wish, for instance they can continue to license the code to IBM for use in the proprietary AIX distribution without affecting the gpl'd version of the code whatsoever.

Re:Oh good grief.

[mark-t]

The rules on trade secrets give them legal recourse to recover money for the LOST SECRETS,

Only if those secrets had been somehow misappropriated. If they were discovered through the process of independant invention or reverse engineering, they're stuck.

Re:Oh good grief.

[mark-t]

No, your trade secrets can be "stolen" and you have no recourse. Only by patenting them can you protect them- you make your secrets public in return for exclusive protection.

Right. But this isn't about patents, it's about trade secrets, so SCO only has a case *IF* their secrets were actually misappropriated, and not simply independantly discovered or even reverse engineered.

Re:Oh good grief.

[mpe]

Since it is about trade secrets, SCO will have to come up with some sort of proof that the code in question really was misappropriated from SCO

In which case the only people they can sue would be whoever leaked their "trade secrets" in the first place.
Yet SCO are also trying to sell licences to third parties. If they were claiming copyright or patent infringement that might give them some basis for doing this.

Re:Oh good grief.

[crizh]

Unfortunately he would appear to be correct.

0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.

Clearly any misappropriated sections of kernel code do not have notices 'placed by the copyright holder' and are therefore not covered by the GPL.

What this means is that you do not have any rights to copy, modify or redistribute those sections of code. However SCO are still as far as I know supplying copies of the kernel ( here ) which would give you the right to own a copy but not to modify or redistribute it.

All of the rest of the kernel remains untouched and can be modified/redistributed freely under the GPL.

I suspect a case could be made that all the other copyright holders that own sections of the kernel are having their rights infringed by SCO. By refusing to reveal which sections of the kernel belong to SCO they make it impossible for anyone else to legally distribute the kernel. I'd sue them for loss of business damages as I can no longer sell my own copyrighted code. In fact now that I think about it nobody is allowed to distributed a modified GPL program that contains non-GPL code even if that code belongs to the distributor.

'You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.'

'4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.'

So SCO have knowingly broken the law by distributing a GPL program that they claim contains copyrighted code, belonging to them, that they refuse to licence under the GPL.

By not including their copyrighted notices in the disputed code they have made it impossible for the GPL to apply to those sections should it be proven that said sections do indeed belong to SCO. Thus all copies of the kernel that SCO has subsequently distributed, since making these claims, are deliberate, knowing, breaches of the copyright's of the other kernel authors. Everyone else distributing the kernel does not know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they are breaking the law, SCO on the other hand is threatening to assert in open court that it knows for a fact that it is currently breaking the law.

And I will once again state, as the author of the article failed to, SCO has make NO PATENT OR COPYRIGHT CLAIMS AGAINST IBM!!!!!!!!!!!

SCO HAVE CLAIMED THAT THE KERNEL AUTHORS, PRIOR TO IBM'S INVOLVEMENT, HAVE BREACHED THEIR COPYRIGHTS.

THEY HAVE NOT BROUGHT ANY COURT CASE OR PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT CLAIM.

I may put that in my sig, because it seems to be beyond the comprehension of almost everyone participating in these threads.

Re:Oh good grief.

[Archfeld]

true, but if they were 'given' to the GPL by IBM, who did not legally own them, I don't know how that would classify as independent invention. Either way this is gonna be messy and the only ones winning are the lawyers :(

Re:Oh good grief.

[mark-t]

true, but if they were 'given' to the GPL by IBM, who did not legally own them, I don't know how that would classify as independent invention.

Absolutely. The problem SCO has is that they could end up having a *VERY* hard time trying to prove that the code *was* really copied from them if it turns out that the the code merely happens to follow principles that have been widely known among operating systems designers for decades (my money's on this option, personally).

The important thing to realize here is that *IF* IBM inappropriately copied code and put it under the GPL, then the bottom line is that the GPL does not apply to SCO's code and can therefore not be legally distributed, even though it's been included in source distributed under the GPL for some time now. GPL does not supercede ownership of copyright.

The primary weakness on SCO's case, btw, is not in how difficult it may be to prove that the code was actually copied, but in the fact that SCO did not reveal what the infringing code was immediately, so that it could be removed. Whether or not the code is covered by trade secret protection does not dismiss the simple fact that this would be a severe copyright violation. The fact that the code is already out in the public means that there is nothing SCO or anyone else can do to stop people from eventually discovering what "trade secrets" were supposedly lost by SCO, and if misappropriated code is found in Linux, SCO would have every legal right to claim damages for the loss of its trade secrets, as well as copyright violation, even if the Linux community removed the offending code within hours of SCO having revealed where it was. Further, although they would be losing trade secret status over any code that they publically announce was misappropriated, there's nothing anyone can do to stop that now. Even *IF* the judge were to rule in favour of SCO, the code would have to be changed anyways (because of copyright law), and people would find out SCO's "secrets" that way.

The damages that SCO *should* be able to collect from this (if their accusation is correct) should not exceed two or three times more than what the company itself is worth. The fact that they are asking for several orders of magnitude more than this actually places SCO's case in substantial jeopardy. The judge may go so far as to dismiss the case on the grounds that the extent of their damage claim is unsubstantiated. Much more probably (again, assuming that SCO's copyrighted code was indeed misappropriated), the judge woould reward a substantially smaller settlement.

SCO cannot fight the power of BSD!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bow down and worship the goddess of BSD!

You Linux-using fags cannot possibly comprehend the beauty of the one true goddess!

See how a true believer honors her. Take another look at the proper way to show your devotion to the divine babe of BSD!

There is truly no hope for Linux as long as the lovely Ceren smiles upon us!

Re:SCO cannot fight the power of BSD!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude: get over it. She's not pretty. Mmm-kay? She's got no tits, a fat ass (which is not the same thing as a big ass), stringy-ass hair, and a face that only a mother could love, and even then she'd probably just drown the poor thing rather than letting it live in this cruel, cruel world.

Re:SCO cannot fight the power of BSD!

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to start a flame war. OK lets go.

I deny your demon worship and choose the light. You claim that there is no hope for linux yet more and more hot babes choose linux each day.

For further proof see
linux_chick
linux_chick

Re:SCO cannot fight the power of BSD!

[bloxnet]

I can't help it, I have to ask.

Are you trying to somehow use pictures of a couple of possible pederasts hanging out with what appears to me to be a girl with a mild case of Down's as somehow superior to a collection of white Urkels hanging with Linus?

For some reason while reading your post I kept thinking about that line in Wargames when the computer states the only way to win is not to play.

Re:SCO cannot fight the power of BSD!

[Anonymous Coward]

Those pics were long ago admitted to having been photoshopped to have Tux on them. Sorry.

Re:SCO cannot fight the power of BSD!

[Anonymous Coward]

shut up loser. why don't you atleast choose a female who has not been airbrushed. you fucking, CUNT FACE

Re:SCO cannot fight the power of BSD!

[BasharTeg]

>For some reason while reading your post I kept thinking about that line in Wargames when the computer states the only way to win is not to play.

Then I guess you lost!

Re:SCO cannot fight the power of BSD!

[Anonymous Coward]

duuuude... that chick is like 15 years old.. that's not cool.

Re:SCO cannot fight the power of BSD!

[Anonymous Coward]

duuuuuude... that chick is like 16 years old.. that's not cool, unless of course you're a 16 year old as well.

Re:SCO cannot fight the power of BSD!

[sepluv]

photoshopped to have Tux on the them

Photoshopped? Not GIMPed? That's just...evil. How awful!

Using Ph*t*sh*p on Tux...poor thing...he may need help to recover though I guess being stuck with the females in the picture helped to go some way to negate any detrimental effects. :) P.S. Do you have any information on who may have been responsible for this terrible crime?

Re:SCO cannot fight the power of BSD!

[Anonymous Coward]

The age of consent in canada is 14.

Re:SCO cannot fight the power of BSD!

[vadim_t]

I guess then Lolo Ferrari would be the kind of woman you'd like? *shudder*

Re:SCO cannot fight the power of BSD!

[Anonymous Coward]

well, it's obvious you haven't gotten it yet, but in other countries girls can actually look nice WITHOUT silicone (and i hope it stays that way)

SCO are fucking retards!

[Anonymous Coward]

I just found this link on OSNews.com here.

SCO PR department working overtime.

[dtolton]

Sheesh, it's amazing how much the SCO PR department has in
common with M$ PR department. They both must read slashdot and
then formulate their responses accordingly.

When this law suit first came out, I dismissed it as rubbish.
Then I started to think about it, and I got a little worried
there was some truth to it. Then I read the OSI
Position Paper. I don't worry about this too much any more. The
OSI position paper makes some very compelling points, which SCO
hasn't addressed yet. In many cases they simply won't be able
to address them.

I'm not suprised that SCO has an opinion that this doesn't hurt
their case. Of course they'd have that opinion publicly, no
matter how pissed they are about it privately. Ultimately the
only opinion(s) that will matter are the judges.

Did you notice that hughes deflected and had no opinion on a
more questions than he answered? I suspect he is right about
the fact that the GPL can't make code free if the original
author didn't make it free, however the fact that they as the
original authors *were* distributing it under the GPL
complicates that claim greatly.

Of course that is all supposing there is any merit to their
claim that Linux contains enterprise code from SCO in the first
place. That is a claim that I and many others are dubious of in
the first place.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[happosai_tendo]

>Sheesh, it's amazing how much the SCO PR department has in
>common with M$ PR department. They both must read slashdot and
>then formulate their responses accordingly.

They MS is where they got their "legal advice"

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[MonopolyNews]

One, there is still reason to be scared, they have Boies.

However, consider this... they still ARE shipping their IP under GPL because they have aggreed to indemnify their own users. That code is under GPL, period, or else they can't distribute without THEM violating the codes license. They need to actually recall their shipments of linux.

Otherwise, if they persist in their claim that it has their proprietary IP then they have violated the GPL by telling their customers they may keep it. Further, their CUSTOMERS can be sued for violating the GPL now that they have been informed that there is proprietary code mixed with GPL code, a mix the GPL doesn't allow in the case of "code fragments".

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[molarmass192]

The part that really gets me is the "copyright notice" defense that they infer too. It would be interesting to get somebody with some legal background to interpret that clause. It's very vaguely defined in the GPL and I wonder how much water it holds legally for SCO.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[PCM2]

I suspect he is right about the fact that the GPL can't make code free if the original author didn't make it free, however the fact that they as the original authors *were* distributing it under the GPL complicates that claim greatly.

From the article, it sounds like what he's suggesting is that whomever originally distributed the code under the GPL was not a legal, designated agent of Caldera Inc. Basically, he seems to be saying that the engineering team included code in a GPL'ed release that they weren't supposed to, and that until any code released has been vetted by Caldera's legal department, the license doesn't apply.

Personally, I think they'll have a real hard time making that argument stick. I mean, what's next? "The guy who uploaded that tarball to our public server was just an intern we hired over the summer. Unless the Executive VP of Intellectual Property personally fired up an FTP client, the license doesn't apply..."

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[jgerman]

See there's the rub. It doesn't matter if the engineers weren't supposed to release it, or if it didn't go through legal. No one outside of Caldera is subject to their internal procedures. They fucked up, they face the consequences. I've said it before. If those engineers did something to cost the company money fine punish/fire them. But those engineers are acting on behalf of the company, it's not our job to police what they do.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[PD]

Everything is implicitly copyrighted, and the presence or absence of a notice means nothing.So if SCO is claiming that they didn't copyright their code, they are full of shit.

SCO is the copyright holder for the pieces that they claim to own that are in Linux, and they distributed their code under the GPL. Everything that SCO distributed falls under the GPL now, and they cannot recall it for any reason.

Oh I am going to laugh when they go under.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[The_Rook]

the scary thing about this is that it may make it impossible to add additional code to a piece of open source software without first getting a lawyer's permission.

think about it. say sco loses its case. that will mean every big developer that runs a gnu project will now have to have a team of lawyers look over the gnu code before it gets released, just to make sure noe of the developer's closed source or private code didn't leak into it somehow.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me if I'm wrong, this is the same Caldera which was selling distros for almost 9 years and were perfectly aware including the management that the kernel was GPLed.

This is not even twisting reality anymore!

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was always curious about this. By this rule some engineer at MS with access to windows code could add it to some open source project and all of windows would be GPL? It's a neat idea but it doesn't make sense that it could work. (and in any case, said engineer had better have a fatal disease and no legal relatives to avoid him and his family being enslaved to Microsoft for the rest of their lives.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[Anonymous Coward]

if he had a legal right to add it to that project, then that part of windows would be GPLd, the rest wouldn't. It wouldn't affect microsoft as they are the copyright owner so they could make whatever changes they want and put the future changes under whatever license they want.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[elmegil]

Like lawyers would know code from random ascii?

No, what will happen is that the engineers who are ALREADY expected to not be releasing proprietary code will be reviewed by other engineers. Which also already happens in some cases. Whoopty.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[GrenDel Fuego]

Only the actual owner of the code has the ability relicense it. Employees of a company generally do not own the code that they write (and especially code that was not written by them) unless it's specifically stated in their contract. I doubt a contract at MS allows that.

Since they don't own the code, they don't have the ability to relicense the code under the GPL.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[PCM2]

I was always curious about this. By this rule some engineer at MS with access to windows code could add it to some open source project and all of windows would be GPL?

The difference here is that it was actually Caldera that released the code. They distributed it, they wrote the press release. Once that's done, the fact that they failed to verify what it was that they released seems like their own problem.

The better example would be if an MS engineer with access to Windows code dropped a Trojan horse in there that would wipe out people's hard drives on his birthday. Does MS turn around and tell its customers, "Sorry! We can't help you get rid of the Trojan ... that part of Windows isn't covered under our support agreement, because we didn't know it was in there when we released it"?

...

...OK, never mind. :-)

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[jmauro]

No, in that case just the code added to the opensource project would be GPL, and only that version. The original version from windows would maintain it's original Microsoft EULA. Code can have multiple licenses.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[SerpentMage]

Do we really have to be scared? Ok so they have Boies. Hmmm, lets see the track record. MS trial, oh yeah that got far.... The end result was nothing and did not even slow MS down. Then Napster, which got where? Oh yeah Napster does not even exist anymore.... But yet Sherman with her file sharing company actually got some wins...

To be frank his track record is not that good!!!

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[Anonymous Coward]

By this rule some engineer at MS with access to windows code could add it to some open source project and all of windows would be GPL?

Just the opposite as I understand it. If a programmer at MS were to use GPLed code in Windows or some other MS product, that would force MS to release that product under the GPL. In theory at least.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[jgerman]

I think you're missing the point. These employees are getting paid by the company to write code. If they screw it up, it's the company's responsibilty to make sure products they are releasing aren't going to cause problems. The engineers did not release the code. The company did.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[Fnkmaster]

Right, which is why I don't quite agree with the grandparent post. You do have to be a legal agent of a company with respect to their held copyrights to release copyrighted material _owned by the company_ under any license. Remember that the GPL only holds if in fact the licensing entity holds the copyright. As to who is a legally designated agent of a company with respect to the company's copyrighted materials, I'm sure there's some existing jurisprudence out there on it. Obviously if a company was selling a product in stores that included GPLed code, and distributing the source code for said product from an FTP server, it would be next to impossible to argue convincingly in court that the company as an entity did not approve that distribution - there was no rogue employee who misappropriated copyrighted material and slapped a GPL on it in this case.

In any case, if the copyrighted material they supposedly gave up rights to had been previously surreptitiously added to a GPLed work without their consent, I don't think the fact that they later redistributed an amalgamated work under the GPL will be considered their consenting to the GPL licensing of their earlier copyrighted work, only of the work they contributed during the period they were distributing the GPLed work. IANAL, but that's my best guess as to how a (reasonable) court would interpret copyright law and the GPL in this case. A lot of the law revolves around how a "reasonable person" would interpret the situation, and I don't think any reasonable person would believe that by distributing a GPLed work, they could be relinquishing rights to other works of their that had been previously misappropriated and inserted surreptitiously into the GPLed work by another party.

Of course, I think it's moot anyway, because SCO has failed utterly to explain exactly where such code is. And none of this applies if it's not a copyright they claim was infringed but a trade secret or patent, which are governed by other laws entirely. Unfortunately, everything is speculation since SCO refuses to disclose what actual IP violations have occured.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[Malcolm Scott]

Further, their CUSTOMERS can be sued for violating the GPL now

Hold on, hold on. I'm sure this can't be right... if that's the case, *anyone* with a copy of the Linux kernel could be sued. Surely the onus lies on the distributor, or the "creator of a derivative work", not the customer.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[arkanes]

Someone posting things to the official company website, assuming they have authority to do so (in general - IE, they aren't cracking the webserver) is acting in thier capacity as a representative of the company. It doesn't matter that the engineer doesn't personally own the code.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[Anonymous Coward]

the scary thing about this is that it may make it impossible to add additional code to a piece of open source software without first getting a lawyer's permission.

think about it. say sco loses its case. that will mean every big developer that runs a gnu project will now have to have a team of lawyers look over the gnu code before it gets released, just to make sure noe of the developer's closed source or private code didn't leak into it somehow.
>
>
What the hell are you whining about?

If some "big developer" whatever the hell that means is screwing around with something placed under the GPL they have to follow the terms of
the GPL in order to use the code.

What's the problem?

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article, it sounds like what he's suggesting is that whomever originally distributed the code under the GPL was not a legal, designated agent of Caldera Inc.

No, from the article, the SCO spokesman is making a perfectly obvious and valid point. Only the copyright holder can release a work under GPL, by placing the GPL notices on it. If someone else slaps the GPL on a work to which they do not hold the copyright, then the GPL does not hold. They didn't have the right to grant GPL rights in the first place.

The Slashdot text talking about the article is in this case, really, really, bad. It goes beyond even changing the context of the quote and instead goes so far as to put words in the mouth of the actual speaker. Just read the original article and ignore the referencing text.

Note that the quote also says nothing directly about the other point people are keen to make: that SCO themselves labelled their code with the GPL. I think you might well have an arguable legal point if A gives code to B, B released under GPL (which they have no right to do); A picks B's modifications back up, and -- as the GPL insists -- releases their linked code under the GPL. If A doesn't notice that B stole their code, then yes, technically, they've released it under GPL, but yes, they were fooled into doing so. That's just the sort of legal technicality versus intent and common sense hairsplitting argument that lawyers love, because it keeps them in billable hours.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[bwt]

You forgot his participation in the most dramatic legal defeat of our time: Bush v Gore.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[edbarrett]

Here's the rub to your rub :)

It's my understanding that SCO licensed their source to IBM under a proprietary license. SCO now claims that some of that proprietary code was improperly incorporated into Linux and distributed under the GPL. So, in effect, IBM was violating their proprietary license to SCO's code.

So it's the same thing as "$foo stole GPL'd code and put it in proprietary product $bar!" but backwards.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[grmoc]

At least for/in the US. In other countries (i.e. under different treaties and copyright laws), in some cases copyright is EXPLICIT... i.e. if you don't put the notice on there, it doesn't count.

I forget the name of the convention/treaty, but in certain countries, for instance, if you don't put the "(C)" in there, it isn't copyright..

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[MisterFancypants]

No, in that case just the code added to the opensource project would be GPL, and only that version. The original version from windows would maintain it's original Microsoft EULA. Code can have multiple licenses.

Wrong, the code wouldn't be GPLed at all because the engineer in question doesn't have the legal authority to change its license.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[edbarrett]

Replying to my own post:

The point I'm trying to make is that it wasn't SCO that fucked up, it was IBM improperly relicensing code. It's IBM that GPL'd code they had no right to GPL.

Just as an example, I'm running Debian here, and my terminal emulator of choice is rxvt. If I were to produce an add-on to rxvt, I would be bound to the GPL by Geoff Wing and Oezguer Kesim (I think, looking at the sourceforge page), not Debian.

I personally don't think SCO has a leg to stand on, but this is how I understand their arguement.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[CPgrower]

The guy who uploaded that tarball to our public server was just an intern we hired over the summer. Unless the Executive VP of Intellectual Property personally fired up an FTP client, the license doesn't apply...

Although not in their (BSA) jurisdiction, I'd love to hear SCO use this argument against against the BSA

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[magi]

The difference here is that it was actually Caldera that released the code. They distributed it, they wrote the press release. Once that's done, the fact that they failed to verify what it was that they released seems like their own problem.

That's not correct. Distributing doesn't matter if it is done either accidentally or because of a fraud. The legal point here is due diligence, and cross-checking Linux codebase against their own codebase is everything but routine operation, and might even be impossible.

However, this argument would only matter if they unknowingly distributed something they didn't intend to. That is not the case with SCO -- they continued distributing their (alleged) code under a conflicting license.

It doesn't matter a bit if the copyright holder did not place the code in GPL licensed codebase, if they knowingly continue distributing it under GPL. And if it does, they are breaking GPL by distributing non-GPL code in a GPL program. If they win, sue 'em, I say. Either way, Linux wins legally.

The better example would be if an MS engineer with access to Windows code dropped a Trojan horse in there that would wipe out people's hard drives on his birthday.

Due diligence applies also to this, to some extent. It's a court's decision what diligence is due.

Also notice that proprietary licenses must contain a warranty, and the provider can't disclaim just everything (well they can but it doesn't apply). GPL licensed software, on the other hand, can be provided without warranty, "as is", so diligence is not needed at all.

IANAL, IDKA

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[jedidiah]

This is actually a quite common legal standard. If your lowest paid employee goes and does something stupid while on company time, the company is on the hook. It doesn't matter if the conduct is illegal or contrary to corporate policy.

Think of employees as if they were your children.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[jedidiah]

That might be the case if Microsoft IMMEDIATELY ceased distribution of that version of Windows and quickly remedied the situation by removing the offending code and creating patches to extract that code from shipped binaries.

SCO did nothing like this.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[Dr Caleb]

Clippy: "It looks like you're trying to write a lawsuit. Would you like to:"

Embrace

Extend

Extinguish

Crapflood

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[PhxBlue]

One, there is still reason to be scared, they have Boies.

Boies isn't infallible. He was on the Microsoft antitrust case and the Napster case. . . and he lost them both. You still have to have a case--you can't win a suit on force of personality alone.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[Jason Earl]

The point that you are missing is that SCO voluntarily distributed a version of Linux with the supposedly offensive code. Sure, IBM might have put it in the kernel (yeah right), but SCO still distributed the kernel all the same.

Once I have a copy of that code, then I have a legal license to it. I didn't purchase my CD from IBM, I purchased it from SCO (no, I didn't actually pay money for SCO Linux, it's just an example). SCO should have been looking at the source code before they distributed it. It is not my fault that they didn't. The time for SCO to complain was before they distributed the software.

Not that it matters, IBM didn't steal SCO's code and paste it into Linux.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[wildcard023]

FTP Servers, hell.

What about the guys that designed the box set and sent them all out to stores. Were they not designated agents? Did the CFO not approve the costs to do that? Is he not a designated agent?

--
Mike

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[orcrist]

He was on the Microsoft antitrust case and the Napster case. . . and he lost them both.

FYI, He *won* the Microsoft case. It just doesn't seem like it since the Bush DOJ let them off the hook with the settlement. :-(

-chris

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[willtsmith]

This is true. But I believe this pertains to liability, not intellectual property.

For example, if your lowest paid employee stole pieces of equipment and then sold them to a third party, who owns the equpiment at that point?

Lets say it was ... a car.

In the case of the car, the property reverts to the original owner. The thief is liable to remunerate the buyer for the amount paid.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. User-friendliness is the epitomy of funny on Slashdot.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[willtsmith]

Nope, it means that you must know the origin of the code you are adding.

If you write it, you know the origin. If download it, it best be distributed under GPL.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[magi]

That code is under GPL, period, or else they can't distribute without THEM violating the codes license.

I just realized that they might actually intend to go for that.

You see, they might say that the proprietary code that they distributed along with their Linux is not distributed under GPL. In that case, the users have no right to use it without a license from SCO.

Yes, yes, distributing non-GPL stuff in GPL software would be a violation of GPL and copyrights, but so what? That might not nullify their copyrights to their own code. FSF or some other entity would certainly sue them for the violation and demand compensation for...what damages? Yes, there is a concept of statutory damages, but those damages have limits, while the potential profits (hundreds of millions) from a SCO-Linux license do not.

However, it would probably not work that easy. While the statutory damages have a ceiling, a judge can rule that the defendant must pay damages for each violation if he continues to violate the copyright knowingly (after the ruling)! Such possibility makes sense -- a violator should not profit from continuing to break someone's rights.

The problem is that SCO would then have to stop selling their own Linux. That would not stop them from milking Linux users until Linux is dead.

This makes me worry.

IANAL, BIPOOSD, IDKA, IAN.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[rifter]

The engineers did not release the code. The company did.

According to SCO, IBM did. But it was not IBM's code to release. It was SCO's code. If this is true, they had no right to release it, and the SCO representative's reading of the relevant GPL sections is correct in such matters.

The bit about letting their customers have the code is something of a sticky wicket. But I think they would be premature in recalling anything at all until a judge has made some sort of decision in the matter, even if it is only a preliminary injunction.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[rifter]

Someone posting things to the official company website, assuming they have authority to do so (in general - IE, they aren't cracking the webserver) is acting in thier capacity as a representative of the company. It doesn't matter that the engineer doesn't personally own the code.

[sarcasm]That's good to know. I will tell you what. I will go ahead and submit a long screed about how my company sucks into our web content, then grab a few computers on my way out. Since I am a representative of the company, it is all right. Then I will hire you to be my lawyer. Does this sound like a good plan?[/sarcasm]

Employees who do not act in the interest of a company, especially when they are not acting with orders from management are *NOT* representing the company in their actions. Employees are empowered to be representatives of the company through orders from higher up. When they cease to do what they are told, or act on their own without authorization they do not represent the company.

This is a pretty simple concept. I can tell you if I ever become a hiring manager I will be sure to screen out people like you, since you seem to think your employee badge is a license to steal.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[jedidiah]

True.

However, your employees are the corporation.

How far do you take this SCO absurdity? Does the CEO have to review all code before a SCO copyright assignment is valid? Some MANAGER green lighted the distribution of SCO Linux post-lawsuit. Obviously that manager had to have legal standing within the company to release code under the GPL.

This is also the sort of argument that works better for a company that doesn't distribute code that is under the GPL.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[rifter]

That might be the case if Microsoft IMMEDIATELY ceased distribution of that version of Windows and quickly remedied the situation by removing the offending code and creating patches to extract that code from shipped binaries.

You have this backwards. Microsoft would still be able to legally ship Windows under its normal license agreement. The GPL program would be illegal, however, and would have to cease distribution until the offending code was removed. This is covered in the GPL license, which SCO has read and you have not.

The GPL does not eliminate copyright. It works precisely *because of* copyright.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[innocent_white_lamb]

I forget the name of the convention/treaty, but in certain countries, for instance, if you don't put the "(C)" in there, it isn't copyright..

I remember reading some years back that the (C) or (c) is not sufficient. You have to either spell out the word Copyright in its entirity, or use the c-in-a-circle symbol. (c) doesn't mean anything.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your total lack of proper spelling and grammar is far more amusing.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[Flower]

IANAL. The alleged offending code was never and will never be GPL'd if SCO's claims are true. This is whether SCO distributed it afterwards or not. The GPL already covers this. If you can't freely distribute the code due to patents or copyright then the code cannot be placed under the GPL. If you do try to place it under the GPL the license is revoked.

It simply doesn't matter if they distributed it or not. It is their code. Until the code gets a new GPL statement saying SCO places it under the GPL it is still their code under their copyright. Some engineer in IBM doesn't have that right to relicense it and saying that because SCO distributed it afterwards really doesn't mean SCO has relicensed the code. I would take the fact that they've continued to listen to legal advice and got out of distributing the source within what seems to be a reasonable amount of time to fulfil due care. Whatever GPL violations they might be committing now is a different issue and would have to be brought up in a new lawsuit.

Sorry, but SCO's stance really doesn't surprise me and I don't see it as being outlandish. I would think the next step is to counter-sue SCO and force them to point out what code is violating their IP rights and then remove it and force SCO to do the same or relicense it under the GPL if it can be proven that the code was actually stolen.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[Anonymous Coward]

The better example would be if an MS engineer with access to Windows code dropped a Trojan horse in there that would wipe out people's hard drives on his birthday.

They already have that, only it's random and more frequent.
It's called Windows Update.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[MonopolyNews]

Once you learn that the product was not your to legally use, you have to stop using it.

My understanding is that you could use that defense up to the point you are informed of the infringement.

IANAL of course, but I do obsess on these issues... :)

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[MonopolyNews]

An IP attorney I know explained damages in his area (working mostly with photographers), and you can also set the damages not on you sale price but on the money made by infringing. So SCO could be sued for those hundreds of millions.

However, who get the money? Who does the suing, etc.

I too am a bit worried about scenarios like the one you lay out, even if one is confident it works out in the end, legally, on paper, the impact to free software's chances in business is harder to guess. Right now I'm rooting strongly for it, not because of free ideals, I just like having a set of tools I can learn and become more expert in. A world of only proprietary tools is like one where every screwdriver uses a different head-pattern! frustrating, and making for a heavy toolbox for the integrators.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM Anti-Trust trial -- Boies successfully fends off the government, IBM gets bloated and almost goes under anyway.

MS Anti-Trust Trial -- The judge blows his wad on a reporter and the break-up judgement is dismissed. Not to mention that if not for the successful Finding of Fact, SCO would be property Microsoft right now.

Bush vs. Gore -- Supreme Court ends up making a judgement call with no legal basis.

Not really a bad track record -- more like bad luck!

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[arkanes]

It's a good thing you aren't a hiring manager, because you'd get someone sued. You think that the entire fucking sales force of SCO, which was aggressively marketing and selling Linux was operating "without authorization"?

If you're acting within the authority of your position, on behalf of your company, then yes, your company is liable for your actions. If you're a web admin, with write access to production webservers, and you replace your companies home page with, say, kiddie porn, you're damn right your company is going to get sued - especially if they didn't take IMMEDIATE action to remove you from your position and take the offending website offline.

You don't magically not represent your company anymore if you do something wrong - like not ensure that the code you know to be your trade secret (because you're filing a BILLION dollar lawsuit against one of the largest companies in the world) is removed from your anonymous FTP server, and that you continue distributing it under a license you know to be fundamentally opposed to the sort of controls you're trying to exert of this IP (because you're not a total fucking moron and had your lawyers read and explain the GPL). Yes, you're acting in your capacity as a company officer and within your authority as a representative of the company, and therefore you're actiing as a copyright holder.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[sbwoodside]

"I was always curious about this. By this rule some engineer at MS with access to windows code could add it to some open source project and all of windows would be GPL?"

The difference here is that it was actually Caldera that released the code. They distributed it, they wrote the press release. Once that's done, the fact that they failed to verify what it was that they released seems like their own problem.



Right. If some employee on a lark decides to break their NDA and release all the code under the GPL, two things will happen. First, the company will sue the employee. Second, the company will try to convince a judge that they retain the trade secret because they took steps to prevent it from happening, caught it and are after the hooligan who did it. Now, the judge can rule that the code is still an MS trade secret, and rule that it's not available under the GPL since the engineer was guilty.

simon

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[willtsmith]

This seems to be a question of "effective measures." Did you do enough to keep other peoples intellectual property out of your code. I think it's a really interesting question, and honestly I think it will haunt GPL folks a hell of a lot more than it will non-GPL companies.

However, in this case, SCO distributed their code in Linux knowingly under the GPL license. They still own the copyright, and SCO Unix is NOT compromised since they still own the copyright to THEIR OWN work and can license it how they choose. But, the portions of code that they DID license through GPL are available to the world under the conditions of the GPL.

GPL is a license, not a transfer of copyright ownerwhip. Since SCO's contribution is not a derivative of open-source work, they CAN include it in their own for-profit SCO Unix. Any internal derivative of that work does NOT apply to GPL since SCO can license the code for it's own use however it deems fitting.

Basically what I'm saying is that you can have IP and license it to one party under one condition and to another party under other conditions. In this case, SCO could still license their code to another for-profit company who intends to use it in for-profit software. It does not violate GPL licensing because the original owner can grant AS MANY licenses they like on whatever terms they deem fitting.

If SCO assests are sold off in say a liquidation (which they will SOON be) the copyright transfers to the new owners but licensees still retain their rights.

Back to open source. The open source community is MUCH MORE vulnerable to these types of Trojans. Indirect, third-party inclusion of GPL code in Open Source could very well wreck it. I wouldn't put it beyond Microsoft to try this intentionally.

If SCO hadn't knowingly published those pieces under GPL, Linux could've been in SERIOUS trouble. In general, it will be MUCH HARDER for open-source to check against this type of TrojanIP code than it would be for Microsoft since Open Sourcers generally DONT have access to proprietary code bases.

The notion of the virus GPL is really a misnomer. The proprietary stuff is far more virulant and has WAY more protection under the law.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[Anonymous Coward]

oh yeah but can they be held responsible for anything? Read their standard EULA...

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[DavidTC]

There's always the fun point that, logically, whoever SCO got their original copy of Linux from wasn't allowed, under the GPL, to distribute it (because it contained stuff copyright by SCO).

And hence SCO itself must immediately stop using Linux. Not just distributing, but using. ;)

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[DavidTC]

Yes, but SCO continued to actively sell and distribute Linux after they filed the lawsuit.

Note the 'sell' up there. Leaving source on an FTP might be possible to get away with...they suddenly discovered SCO source in Linux (which they didn't actually, the entire lawsuit is bogus, but let's pretend), and forgot to remove it.

But it's another thing completely to sell it, and not only ship it, but delibrately indemnify their own customers, which made their customers quite relieved they weren't in the crazy position of purchasing a copyright violation from the company enforcing said copyright, but made it utterly impossible for SCO to claim this was an accident...they delibrately shipped this fictional code under the GPL.

SCO just has no fucking clue at all. They did this groundless lawsuit as a PR stunt and managed to place themselves in a legally impossible position, because they stupidly thought they could continue to sell a product they claimed was illegal.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's the rub. SCO distributed their code, including the unmentionable parts about which they are bringing suit, UNDER THE GPL. SCO distributed the code under the GPL. SCO distributed the code under the GPL. SCO distributed the code under the GPL. Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[grahammm]

The internal authority of the employee does not matter (except intermally in the company). If the employee acts as though with the authority of the company (eg by posting to the official software download site), despite not following the prescribed internal procedures and obtaining the correct internal authority, the employee is still acting on behalf of the company.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[Ripplet]

Clippy: "Oh, I almost forgot, how much FUD would you like today?"

Severe

High

Elevated

Guarded

Low

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[grahamm]

How is someone outside the company supposed to know whether or not the employee is authorised and therefore representing the comany? IANAL but I am sure that if an employee acts as though they are representing the company then others are entitled to assume that the employee is acting for the company and the company is still bound by the actions of that employee.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[grahamm]

Or more likely, MS would not want to license that part of Windows under GPL so would be prohibited from distributing that product (while the GPLed code is included)

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[Tony Hoyle]

So if an employee does something good, they are representing the company, but if they do something bad, they're not?

Lucky the law doesn't agree with you... that's why many countries can have corporatem manslaughter laws (employee fucks up, CEO goes to jail) - (the exception being the US where you have employee fucks up, CEO gets huge payrise).

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[crizh]

0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.

The absence of the notice means that the code cannot be covered by the GPL.

The code is still copyrighted.

Everything that SCO distributed falls under the GPL now IF SCO added the above mentioned notice to it. I presume they have not.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[crizh]

'SCO now claims that some of that proprietary code was improperly incorporated into Linux'

WRONG.

SCO has never claimed that IBM ever put any of their code into Linux.

SCO claims that IBM improperly, in breach of contract, used SCO's trade secrets to improve Linux.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[crizh]

'According to SCO, IBM did.'

SCO has never claimed that IBM ever put any of their code into Linux.

SCO claims that IBM improperly, in breach of contract, used SCO's trade secrets to improve Linux.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[crizh]

Some engineer' in IBM doesn't have that right to relicense it'

SCO has never claimed that IBM ever put any of their code into Linux.

SCO claims that IBM improperly, in breach of contract, used SCO's trade secrets to improve Linux.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[crizh]

'they've continued to listen to legal advice and got out of distributing the source'

They are still distrubuting it ( here ) in blatant, knowing (=punitive damages) breach of the GPL.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[PD]

But the license also explains that the way to notify people of the license is through a file called "COPYING" located with the code. The Linux Kernel has that. Do you suppose that when SCO distributed Linux code and that file was present in the source tree that would count as being placed there by the copyright holder?

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[crizh]

'If SCO hadn't knowingly published those pieces under GPL, Linux could've been in SERIOUS trouble.'

'0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.'

To publish any piece of code under the GPL it must have a GPL notice placed in it BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER.

Assuming that SCO are indeed the copyright holders in this instance they have not placed a GPL notice in the disputed code (it would make it easy to find) and have therefore NOT distributed it under the terms of the General Public Licence.

They are still distrubuting it ( here ) in blatant, knowing (=punitive damages) breach of the GPL.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[bannerman]

You totally missed the point. It's more like the department making up signs for a restaurant posted "You can make our pizza at home! Here's how:" and then decided to sue everyone who used the recipe.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[jedidiah]

Linux, Alan, et al should immediately register their copyrights so that when this comes to a head they can sue SCO for statutory damages.

That may even be a good idea once this has blown over so as to dissuade the next joker that decides to pull this sort of stunt.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[crizh]

Good point.

"It is safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found."

Presumably the copyright and pointer must be placed on each file by the legitimate copyright holder. The crucial word is 'placed' and I'm sure SCO can demonstrate that every source file with infringing code in it was received by them with such a notice already in place. If it was already there I cannot imagine how you would go about arguing that SCO 'placed' it there.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[crizh]

I assume they already have.

By distributing the kernel ( here ) SCO have infringed Linus' copyright and are liable to punitive damages because they knew to continue to distribute would be illegal, thats why they pulled their distro's.

Why none of the kernel authors haven't sued for copyright infringement I don't know.

SCO have either infringed copyright deliberately or libelously described the kernel team as thieves.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[PD]

Maybe like this:

SCO published a work, and perhaps they own the copyright to some parts of the code that others put there.

But publishing isn't piecemeal. They didn't provide patches with just the little pieces they wanted to contribute, and tell us to buy Red Hat and apply their patches. I bet that a lawyer could make an argument out of the ambiguity of the word "placed". Does SCO actually have to operate the editor themselves, or is it enough to just make a product out of it? I don't know, but it'll be interesting to find out.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[jedidiah]

There is also a formal registration process in the US. This requires a bit of paperwork above and beyond a mere notice accompanying your work. This also requires a registration fee.

What this does is give those with money to pay for such registration a nice big club to bludgeon college students with (RIAA).

You see, without this formal registration you can only sue for actual damages rather than statutory damages. Statutory damages in copyright cases can actually be absurdly high (RIAA's student shakedown case).

Without formal registration, a GPL infringement case may not be worthwhile to prosecute.

Then again, we could all pass around the hat.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[jedidiah]

I was addressing the scenario where MICROSOFT WINDOWS is contaminated.

GPL code in any component of Windows would contaminate it and could arguably cause it to become a GPL work. Any relevant low-level code monkey could pull such a stunt.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[rifter]

So if an employee does something good, they are representing the company, but if they do something bad, they're not?

No. If an employee acts in their normal capacity, doing their job as directed by management, they are acting as a representative of the company.

If an employee acts in direct contravention of management orders, which is precisely what would have happened in a case in which someone placed NDA code in the Linux kernel, they do not represent the company. They are acting on their own, making their own decisions, and responsible for their actions. Or at least that is how it works in the US, and how it should work under any reasonable model. Companies historically are held accountable for their corporate actions, eg those taken in accordance with their normal procedures and business practices.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[rifter]

How is someone outside the company supposed to know whether or not the employee is authorised and therefore representing the comany? IANAL but I am sure that if an employee acts as though they are representing the company then others are entitled to assume that the employee is acting for the company and the company is still bound by the actions of that employee.

In a case like this, it would be a point of law decided in court. The company could always provide an affirmative defense by showing their internal processes and showing that the actions of the employee are not their normal business practice and were not condoned/sanctioned/ordered by management. In a case where an IBM employee released IP without authorization from management they could point to policies specifically prohibiting this.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[rifter]

It's a good thing you aren't a hiring manager, because you'd get someone sued. You think that the entire fucking sales force of SCO, which was aggressively marketing and selling Linux was operating "without authorization"?

Who is more likely to get the company sued? The guy who thinks he can rip random code from other companies and distribute it for free, then get away with it, or the guy who says "I don't think we should hire that guy, he sounds like trouble to me..."

The sales force of SCO did not put SCO-owned code into the Linux kernel. Of course they weren't acting without authorization. But they are also not in charge of releasing code, rather they are the sales staff. The IP lawyers, upper management, and product managers would be the pertenant entities here.

It is important to remember three points here:

1) SCO is alleging the infringing code was not submitted by their employees.

2) Very few people have been told what the code even is, or know specifically what the infringement entails.

3) It is unknown, even to most of SCO, potentially to all of SCO, what products exactly contain allegedly infringing code. I imagine there are some people pulling serious overtime right now puzzling that out.

If you're acting within the authority of your position, on behalf of your company, then yes, your company is liable for your actions. If you're a web admin, with write access to production webservers, and you replace your companies home page with, say, kiddie porn, you're damn right your company is going to get sued - especially if they didn't take IMMEDIATE action to remove you from your position and take the offending website offline.

The company may get sued, but accusation is not the same thing as guilt. Important legal questions would include what policies the company had in place at the time to govern these sorts of things, and what orders form management were. If management ordered employees to distribute kiddie pr0n, that is one thing. But the case in which an employee directly disobeys orders from management without them having any way of knowing (like what may have happened in the SCO case) it is a different story altogether.

Besides, we are talking about an employee of a completely different company. This is more a case in which an employee from IBM would have hacked the SCO web server and placed kiddie pr0n in a folder full of normal images. You're telling me that IBMer would suddenly represent SCO? SCO would be liable? Give me a break!

You don't magically not represent your company anymore if you do something wrong - like not ensure that the code you know to be your trade secret (because you're filing a BILLION dollar lawsuit against one of the largest companies in the world) is removed from your anonymous FTP server, and that you continue distributing it under a license you know to be fundamentally opposed to the sort of controls you're trying to exert of this IP (because you're not a total fucking moron and had your lawyers read and explain the GPL). Yes, you're acting in your capacity as a company officer and within your authority as a representative of the company, and therefore you're actiing as a copyright holder.

I think there are several important points which should be considered in this case. First off, SCO did not necessarily *know* their linux distributions contained their IP, even after they sued IBM. And to be sure, they would have had to check the code. That takes a lot of time, and there are corporate processes to follow and procedures, meetings to convene, etc etc. Secondly, there are serious legal and business implications if, for instance, SCO did not fulfill orders for which people had paid money, did not support customers who had paid for support, etc etc.

So in my view, 3 months is pretty fast for a corporation to completely stop distributing their major product. Besides, the whole point of thi

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[grmoc]

I believe the magical form is:
Copyright (C) ENTITY DATE

But, I'm not sure. .. And I agree, just putting the (C) was not sufficient.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[rifter]

GPL code in any component of Windows would contaminate it and could arguably cause it to become a GPL work. Any relevant low-level code monkey could pull such a stunt.

That is an interesting scenario, but I think at worst Microsoft could get away with GPL'ing the relevant library or executable. They would not have to GPL the whole OS. If that executable happened to be ntoskrnl.exe it would be kind of funny, but also kind of useless to most people, since whereas in execution Windows is pretty inseperable, in terms of individual libraries and executables it is pretty modular.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[arkanes]

Some points:

SCO claims (although they have not publically released this information) to have detailed, specific information about the code that was inserted. They would have to - this isn't something that you find out AFTER you file a billion dollar lawsuit. You do your own discovery first.

As I posted before - theoretically, both SCO upper management and SCO lawyers are aware of the implications of the GPL. If they aren't, then they're grossly negligent. In that case, they should be very aware of the fact that continuing distribution after they are aware of the existence of the offending code has at least the potential for signifigant legal problems - if every Joe Schmoe on Slashdot can see it, they certainly can. In this case, going public with thier accusations before cleaning house internally is again grossly negligent.

I would agree with almost everything you've said _if_ SCO hadn't been so free with both thier accusations and thier lawsuits - you shouldn't do that until AFTER you've cleaned house internally.
The parts I wouldn't agree with - that SCO wouldn't know if the offending code is in thier distro after they discovered it. Removing the code you're already aware of is the least of the obvious things to do before filing your lawsuit.
Here's something even more important - assuming every single one of SCOs allegations is true, they have no legal right to distribute Linux at all. That's a very obvious consequence of the GPL, and continuing to illegally distribute your product, even a major one, after making very public and very offensive comments is a pretty major blunder.

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[rifter]

I essentially agree with most of these points. I do, however, see how SCO could easily have ended up doing what they have done, even with the most careful diligence. That said, I will answer your points.

SCO claims (although they have not publically released this information) to have detailed, specific information about the code that was inserted. They would have to - this isn't something that you find out AFTER you file a billion dollar lawsuit. You do your own discovery first.

It is true they claim to have detailed information. I do not know that they have complete information about all infringing code. If fact it is very possible they do not. The way I see it, someone at SCO noticed something in a version of Linux being distributed by IBM that seemed familiar, notified someone else, and eventually legal became involved. When they had confirmed to their satisfaction that these things were true they went forward with their lawsuit. Either that or they are completely full of crap, which is probably the case anyhow.

Regardless, in the hypothetical case that SCO's claims are true, they had not at that point confirmed anything with respect to their own distribution. To this day they have waffled over whether the kernel.org kernel has anything to be concerned about, or other distributions. There have been some dire warnings and vague statements, but nothing specific.

It is clear they now believe there is such code in their distribution. They have since ceased distributing it.

As I posted before - theoretically, both SCO upper management and SCO lawyers are aware of the implications of the GPL. If they aren't, then they're grossly negligent. In that case, they should be very aware of the fact that continuing distribution after they are aware of the existence of the offending code has at least the potential for signifigant legal problems - if every Joe Schmoe on Slashdot can see it, they certainly can. In this case, going public with thier accusations before cleaning house internally is again grossly negligent.

I believe that SCO understands the GPL. I think their spirit is not in keeping with the Gnu or even the Linux way, and that has been true of Caldera and SCO throughout history (with the exception of the Kill Bill mentality that used to be there and has since vanished).

I think you are probably right about cleaning house. I believe they had not gone through whatever internal process would have been necessary to verify their distribution was tainted before making these public statements. I do not envy the managers in charge of such a project or their employees, because it is an arduous task and at the same time they have to keep everything they do completely confidential while employees would probably be bursting to leak the information and straining to post on slashdot or something. Already a former SCO employee has weighed in on the debate.

I would agree with almost everything you've said _if_ SCO hadn't been so free with both thier accusations and thier lawsuits - you shouldn't do that until AFTER you've cleaned house internally.
The parts I wouldn't agree with - that SCO wouldn't know if the offending code is in thier distro after they discovered it. Removing the code you're already aware of is the least of the obvious things to do before filing your lawsuit.
Here's something even more important - assuming every single one of SCOs allegations is true, they have no legal right to distribute Linux at all. That's a very obvious consequence of the GPL, and continuing to illegally distribute your product, even a major one, after making very public and very offensive comments is a pretty major blunder.

I agree wholeheartedly that they cannot distribute Linux if they believe the Linux they are distributing contains tainted code. I am sure the whole process of stopping distribution was in itself a major undertaking. Ask yourself how quickly your company could pull the plug o

Re:SCO PR department working overtime.

[boots@work]

Dude, he said "assuming they have authority to do so." If you take computers home from the office and you're authorized by management to do so then is it OK? Yes, of course it is.

Linux claims SCO irrelevant after suit

[wowbagger]

Linux claims SCO irrelevant after suit.

Re:Linux claims SCO irrelevant after suit

[axxackall]

I thought Linux claimed SCO irrelevant even before suite: I saw SCO customers migrating from SCO Unix to Linux (I've been seeing it for about 8 years, since I did it myself), but I've never seen Linux users migrating to SCO.

Re:Linux claims SCO irrelevant after suit

[lamename]

Couldn't agree more. I had the misfortune of working with SCO products years back, and I wouldn't touch anything thing they make now if they gave it away it free and threw in a happy meal with it.

Well DUH

[Lord Bitman]

let's go buy some code from Microsoft, and slip a windows disc in the binder before they hand it to us. THEN IT'LL BE OURS!

Re:Well DUH

[Dr. Photo]

let's go buy some code from Microsoft, and slip a windows disc in the binder before they hand it to us. THEN IT'LL BE OURS!

You're the guy who's been going through our garbage again, aren't you?

One wonders...

[irokitt]

If SCO is actually making money through their business. What percentage of their projected income this year is from the MicroShaft deal and their court escapades? While many of my misguided buddies like to point out some of the supposed bitterness in the open-source/free software community(ala Richard Stallman-Linus Torvalds), it seems to me the real problems exist with the companies holding patents, who like to play sore loser. Bummer.

GPL == ?

[greendoggg]

According to the article, GPL == "General Public License." Great job media people!

Re:GPL == ?

[shepd]

Uhhh, that's what it stands for, eh?

Well, it is actually "GNU General Public License" in full, but GPL for short (I suppose you get to choose what you want the G to stand for).

Re:GPL == ?

[smitty45]

uh, yeah. that's what it stands for. it's not "GNU public license"

Re:GPL == ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you don't like your karma because you are about to be modded into oblivion for just plain stupidity.

Re:GPL == ?

[HermanZA]

The media is correct: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#GPL

Re:GPL == ?

[LMCBoy]

Nah, I've often seen it calld the "GNU GPL", so the G definitely stands for 'General', IMHO (but IANRMS, so YMMV)

Re:GPL == ?

[Anonymous Coward]

dear sir,

you are a moron. did you have a lobotomy yesterday or something?

sincerely,
me

Re:GPL == ?

[greendoggg]

Who gives a crap about karma?!? But you're right, it was early in the morning, and just plain stupidity.

Same as something else?

[TrancePhreak]

Is this not the same clame about click through EULA's? I could be mistaken...

Re:Same as something else?

[orcrist]

No. EULA's have nothing to do with copyright. They are an attempt to claim you are entering a legally binding contract by clicking a button (never mind my 4-year-old could have clicked that button). GPL doesn't remove any rights you already have, it gives you the additional right to distribute (copy) code which is copyrighted by others. Those others have put an out-of-the-box license with their code saving you the trouble of contacting them personally for permission to distribute. You may not distribute the code without the GPL... because of copyright law, not because of anything in the GPL.

Re:Same as something else?

[TrancePhreak]

My understanding of the GPL is that you are required to distribute your code with the product. That's less a right and more a "contract" to me.

Re:Same as something else?

[orcrist]

Yes. It is a contract; but, in the sense that it is an agreement between 2 parties. I should have said 'privileges' rather than 'rights'; in any case, like most contracts, the GPL provides you with privileges in exchange for obligations. The GPL states that if you distribute this copyrighted product (a privilege), or a derivitave (and derivatives are covered by copyrights) you are required to distribute the source to *that* product as a whole (your obligation). The only way your code becomes involved, is if it makes up part of the derivative. Copyright law forbids you from distributing copyrighted material (or its derivatives) without permission from the author(s). That permission is given in a blanket license that gives you unlimited distribution rights provided you distribute the source to those products covered by the GPL.
If you modify GPL code in-company, and use it there, you are not required to distribute your changes. It's only when you have decided to distribute your code, in the form of modifications to GPL'ed code, that the GPL says "you must provide any recipient of this code, with the source."

This is completely normal copyright law in the sense that you may only distribute derivatives by agreeing to the conditions set by the author of the original code. It's not forced upon you, you have the choice: 1) distribute source or 2) don't distribute any of the code covered by the GPL with your code mixed in.

Of course, option 2 also leaves you free to use modified code in-house without distributing anything and/or distributing only unmodified GPL code (i.e. not containing code from you), with any code of yours cleanly separated. In the specific case of the Linux kernel, the license even explicitly allows non GPL'ed kernel modules, so its not like your hands are tied.

Anyway, it's a matter of opinion whether GPL is a 'good' license, but you certainly can't claim that it is a restrictive license.

-Chris

-Chris

Copyright notices

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but I thought that (at least under English
Law) something is copyright whether or not there is
a notice on it.

Re:Copyright notices

[Anonymous Coward]

It is. That's not the issue. The issue is that something can only placed under the GPL by its copyright holder. If somebody ELSE places a work under the GPL, then the GPL does not apply.

SCO is saying that work that belonged to them was placed under the GPL by somebody else, and that therefore that work is not protected by the GPL, and that therefore... well, you know the rest.

Re:Copyright notices

[N4m0r]

Oh my lord mod the parent post up. You do not have to say "Hey, this is copyrighted" in order to own the copyright to something. The mere fact that I am the author of my post gives me implied copyright to it.

Re:Copyright notices

[kalidasa]

It is under US law, too (IANAL, but I'm pretty sure about that one).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they're arguing that they didn't put *their* copyright notices on the Linux code that contained "their" "stolen" code, so they didn't invoke the GPL on that code, even though that code was contained within GPLed code, and that they didn't do so because they didn't realize that "their" code was in there, because "they" didn't add it, "someone else" did. Am I paraphrasing their argument accurately? Because if I am, I suspect they are in legal lalaland.

But IANAL

Re:Copyright notices

[Anonymous Coward]

You really like to use the word (i)ANAL, right?

Re:Copyright notices

[Zathrus]

You're more or less correct, if I read what you wrote correctly :)

But they're not in legal lala-land if so -- what they're saying is that some of their code was released by a 3rd party to the Linux kernel. They, as the copyright holder, did not authorize that release and, as such, the code is NOT under GPL.

Which would be true -- otherwise I could take all the Harry Potter books and release them under the FDL and suddenly Ms. Rowling and Scholastic would have lost their copyright! But that's not how it works - I'm not an authorized party and I don't own the copyright to those books. You can't change the license to something that you don't own!

I still think SCO is full of it, but what they've said is correct.

Of course, they proceeded to distribute the infringing code under the GPL after they knew it was illegal. That throws a monkey wrench into things -- but IANAL and don't know exactly what the legal implications of that is. I'd guess that, one way or another, they've violated the GPL, but I think the most you could get is damages that are triple the sales made during the known infringing period -- not much. And that's only if it's a registered copyright. Unregistered copyrights can only sue for cessation of subsequent infringement, and they've already stopped distributing the GPL code so they're already in compliance there.

Sticky, sticky, sticky.

Again, I think SCO is full of it, but it's increasingly looking like the courts are going to have to decide on this one. It's certainly not a good day for Linux -- this is the same kind of thing that caused *BSD pains in the early 90s.

Re:Copyright notices

[bwt]

So they admit that by distributing this improperly licenced code that they were commiting infringement against any author they don't have a proper licence from.

Re:Copyright notices

[kaltekar]

Yeah, your right, SCO hold the copyright and conrols the source. But if there code was misappropriated and placed under the GPL like they claim then then they should have stopped distributing the kernel and any other affected code. since they alleged IBM and then continued to distibute the kernel, then they forfit those rights as copyright holder. They redistibuted code knowing that there were infractions. Its similar to purcasing stolen goods, even if you don't know its stolen when you bought it, you still forfit the goods when you are discovered to be in possesion of them, if not arrested for recieving stolen property.

Re:Copyright notices

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. If a party distributes code that they believe to be GPL-licensed, but it's not actually GPL-licensed, then that party has infringed on the owner's copyright.

But in this case, of course, SCO infringed on their own copyright, which isn't infringement at all, which is what makes the whole thing moot.

See, some people had argued that SCO gave up their claim on their code when they distributed it under the terms of the GPL. What they're saying--which is entirely correct--is that if SCO didn't put their code under GPL, then that code wasn't under the GPL. Which means everybody that distributed it was infringing on SCO's copyright... except SCO itself, of course, because they can't infringe on their own copyright.

Get it? It actually makes complete sense if you stop to think about it for a second.

Re:Copyright notices

[jjo]

While it's true that I can't release SCO's code and suddenly make its copyright disappear, SCO can release that code and make its copyright disappear (mostly).

Since no one is required to sign the GPL, the analysis of any violation must take a two-pronged approach, either:

1. SCO did not accept the GPL, or

2. SCO did accept the GPL.

1. If SCO did not accept the GPL, then all of its IP rights in the Linux code (if any) are still intact. It is free to sue anyone who distributed that code without a SCO license. Unfortunately for SCO, every holder of copyright in the Linux code (and there are a lot of them) has the right to sue SCO for copyright infringement. SCO cannot very well claim that it didn't know that Linux was copyrighted, since the copyright and GPL notices are quite clear. So, option (1.) doesn't look like a winner for SCO.

2. If SCO did accept the GPL, then it's immune from lawsuits from the Linux copyright holders. However, this means that it licensed all the Linux code that it distributed. The GPL applies to the "work as a whole". If SCO wishes to avail itself of the GPL, it must abide by its requirements, first and foremost of which is that it must GPL the whole work it distributes.
So, option (2.) doen't bode well for SCO's lawsuit. [If SCO wants to argue that the GPL doesn't apply in this case, then we're back at option (1.).]

Even if a theoretical (and probably non-existent) Linux hacker included SCO code without authority to do so, SCO granted that authority the moment it released the code under the GPL. (Or, alternatively, it did not release the code under the GPL, and is now vulnerable to infringement suits from the Linux copyright holders).

Either way you look at it, SCO's position in its lawsuit looks pretty untenable.

Re:Copyright notices

[EllisDees]

>But they're not in legal lala-land if so -- what they're saying is that some of their code was released by a 3rd party to the Linux kernel. They, as the copyright holder, did not authorize that release and, as such, the code is NOT under GPL.

Yes, but they did distribute that exact same code under the GPL by shipping even one copy of the kernel. They had every opportunity to have a peek at the code before they shipped it to make sure there wasn't something in there that was theirs.

Re:Copyright notices

[mabinogi]

but in 2, they were accepting the GPL under the assumption that they weren't distributing their own code with it.

I don't think you can say they gave away rights to code that they didn't know was in there when they accepted the GPL for the rest.

And I also don't think it's up to them to scan every line of code, on the off chance that somehow their code got in there...

Re:Copyright notices

[jedidiah]

SCO is also violating the copyrights of anyone that has contributed to any of the modules that they are claiming have been contaminated.

Linus and Alan may very well have a cause of action against SCO now.

Re:Copyright notices

[bwt]

By what authority did SCO distribute linux? It isn't the GPL because SCO claims the inclusion of their code invalidated the GPL. So what is it?

SCO committed copyright infringement against any and all legitimate parts of the Linux kernel by distributing it without licence. Each and every legitimate contributor can and should sue them. Unlike the other distributors, SCO did this believing they had no valid licence.

Re:Copyright notices

[iplayfast]

I think it would probably be more of a class action involving anyone who contributed code that was falsely released under SCO's GPL.

Since SCO has released code claiming to be under GPL, and then are but are not abiding by the GPL's rules, they are releasing GPL'd code while violating the License agreement.

Re:Copyright notices

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO is also violating the copyrights of anyone that has contributed to any of the modules that they are claiming have been contaminated.

No.

Let's explain it like this. Let's say I create something, and somebody else takes a copy of it from me (either maliciously or accidentally) and sticks the GPL onto it. That somebody else releases it, and lots of people pick it up and start working on it. Derived works are created. I then get one of those derived works--which I don't even know is based on my original work--and distribute it per the terms of the GPL. Who's been wronged here?

Well, obviously, I've been wronged, because my work was taken from me and distributed without my permission. So that's #1.

Somebody then took a copy of that work and created a derived work, and then I distributed that derived work. Did I wrong them? NO! Because they never should have created their derived works in the first place, because I held the exclusive right to do that (unbeknownst to them). So anything anybody does with those derived works is an offense against ME, not against the people who created them based on my work in the first place.

See it now? If the basic facts of the case are correct--code owned by SCO was incorporated into Linux without SCO's permission--then the law is totally cut-and-dried.

Re:Copyright notices

[jjo]

They didn't 'give away rights to code'. They exchanged rights to their code for rights to other people's code. (Or they didn't, but distributed other people's code anyway.)

If you are going to distribute other people's copyrighted code (GPL or not), it behooves you to carefully consider your legal rights to distribute that code. There is no 'oops' exception in the GPL, allowing you a free license to distribute other people's code on your own terms just because you didn't pay attention to what you were doing.

If you want the GPL's protection, you must follow its terms. Those terms don't allow you to pick and choose which parts of a work are to be licensed and which are to be proprietary.

Re:Copyright notices

[Anonymous Coward]

By what authority did SCO distribute linux?

The GPL.

It isn't the GPL because SCO claims the inclusion of their code invalidated the GPL. So what is it?

The GPL's not an all-or-nothing thing. It applies to every source file separately. So for the stuff that was stolen from SCO, SCO has the authority to distribute it because they hold the copyright. For the stuff that didn't come from SCO, the authority came from the GPL.

SCO committed copyright infringement against any and all legitimate parts of the Linux kernel by distributing it without licence.

Nice try, but no. I'm afraid SCO really does have a solid case here, assuming the alleged facts are all true.

Re:Copyright notices

[iplayfast]

If you distribute the code under GPL, then it is assumed that you have distributed code under the GPL. The fact that you didn't check the code, shows incompetence, but does not inspire me to view you as the wronged party. The fact that you released the code after you discovered the copyright violation shows that you accept the violation and are willing to release the code.

If you don't want to play in the sandbox quit giving me your toys!

Re:Copyright notices

[mabinogi]

The point I'm making is that the code they recieved was infiringing before they received it.

It already contained their code, not under the GPL, put there without their permission. (If their claims are true that is....I'm not convinced, myself)

Re:Copyright notices

[bwt]

The GPL.

SCO has not complied with the GPL section 2b, which requires DISTRIBUTORS to independently licence the work as a whole under the terms of the GPL if any part of it is licenced under the GPL.

The GPL's not an all-or-nothing thing. It applies to every source file separately. So for the stuff that was stolen from SCO, SCO has the authority to distribute it because they hold the copyright. For the stuff that didn't come from SCO, the authority came from the GPL.

Utterly False. While it is true that the GPL applies to each file separately, you seem to infer that this is its complete scope. It applies to the "Program" aggregate and to the executable as well. In particular, all files that compile into code that is statically linked are parts of a combined derived work that must itself be authorized. The GPL provides as follows:

The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it

it continues...

For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.

But if your argument is true, then by the same reasoning, SCO has no claim.

But your argument isn't even sensible, because each and every file in the entire linux source code has been modified many times by people who licenced their contributions under the terms of the GPL.

So I ask again, for those files that contain, according to SCO, part GPL code and part UnixWare code, by what authority does SCO distribute those files?

Re:Copyright notices

[Anonymous Coward]

If you distribute the code under GPL, then it is assumed that you have distributed code under the GPL.

Assumed by whom? This is contract law, man. Nothing is assumed. Parties acting in good faith aren't held responsible for the actions of parties not acting in good faith. Whoever stuck the GPL on SCO code (assuming that did, in fact, happen) was not acting in good faith. Nothing "downstream" of that matters, because everybody else was (as far as we know) acting in good faith.

The fact that you released the code after you discovered the copyright violation shows that you accept the violation and are willing to release the code.

Wow. Thank god you're not a lawyer. You're probably somebody who argues that click-wrap licenses aren't valid because they lack an overt act of acceptance on the part of the receiving party, aren'tcha?

Re:Copyright notices

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO has not complied with the GPL section 2b, which requires DISTRIBUTORS to independently licence the work as a whole under the terms of the GPL if any part of it is licenced under the GPL.

No, that's not right. That would apply if SCO had knowingly released their own code along with GPL code. But since they didn't, they had no responsibility. They received code that was allegedly licensed under the GPL and acted accordingly. That's all. It was only later that they looked at it and went, "Hey! That's ours!"

Invoking 2b, incidentally, gives the anti-GPL crowd GREAT ammunition for their "avoid the GPL because it's a virus" argument. What you're saying by so invoking is basically yes, the GPL is viral, and SCO got infected by it, and now they're screwed. Not a good argument to take if you're pro-GPL.

But your argument isn't even sensible, because each and every file in the entire linux source code has been modified many times by people who licenced their contributions under the terms of the GPL.

You're missing the point. If File X was never licensed under the GPL to begin with, then subsequent changes to that file are nothing more or less than copyright infringement.

SCO is arguing that because they never released their code under the GPL, and because nobody else could do so legally, then the code was never covered by the GPL. Therefore all subsequent distribution was unlawful, except of course that done by SCO itself because they owned the copyrights in question.

So I ask again, for those files that contain, according to SCO, part GPL code and part UnixWare code, by what authority does SCO distribute those files?

Dude, quit pushing your agenda and look at the facts. The stuff that SCO received that was licensed under the GPL was distributed under the authority imbued by the GPL. The stuff that belonged to SCO was distributed under the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. There's no problem here with what SCO did. The problem, assuming the alleged facts are all true, is with what everybody else did.

Re:Copyright notices

[jjo]

That's as may be. It still doesn't give SCO permission to distribute GNU/Linux code without a license. The only available license is the GPL, which requires the distributor to license the whole work under the GPL.

Whether or not someone else put SCO code into GNU/Linux does not prevent an infringement suit brought against SCO by an innocent GNU/Linux copyright holder (such as the FSF). The bad act by some hypothetical infringer does not vitiate the copyrights of other GNU/Linux contributors.

Re:Copyright notices

[jedidiah]

Linus IS the original author of the kernel and Alan is pretty damn close. It is highly unlikely that anyone could attempt to create a proprietary derivative work of Linux and not violate the copyrights of either Linux or Alan.

There is certainly code in Linux that Alan and Linus can claim clear title to. If SCO's claims are on the kernel, then there is really no way that SCO could avoid voilating the copyrights of Linus with it's recent actions.

Mebbe Tannebaum could claim ownership of Linus's code but not SCO.

Re:Copyright notices

[mabinogi]

The point is that, if SCO is to be believed, then even if they never so much as touched Linux (much less distributed it), then everyone distributing it would be infringing on their copyright...

The fact that they also distributed it is irrelevant, since they were unaware that their code was in it.

They were not the ones violating the GPL...the party that took code they had no right to, and put it in with GPL'd code was both violating SCOs copyright, and the GPL at the same time.

However, I really doubt that someone did take SCOs code and put it in to Linux....so untill they actually show us the supposed infringing code, the argument is fairly pointless

Re:Copyright notices

[Anonymous Coward]

If SCO's claims are on the kernel, then there is really no way that SCO could avoid voilating the copyrights of Linus with it's recent actions.

Uh. No. See, hypothetically, let's say Torvalds copy-and-pasted a file out of UNIX into Linux. Or maybe not a whole file; maybe just a function, or even just a prototype.

Then it's not his work. He can't claim copyright over it, because it's not original. It's an unlicensed derivative work.

Now, where the line between SCO's work and Torvalds' work is is a far more complicated question. But it's not a simple matter of "SCO violated Torvalds' copyright." That's not gonna be true under any circumstances.

Re:Copyright notices

[willtsmith]

However,

SCO was under NO obligation to distribute that code under the GPL. In fact, it was under their power to remove the code and distribute Linux under GPL (since only THEY know what code it is).

The fact that they did NOT insert it is moot. They knew and they distributed it under GPL. They did NOT modify it after they discovered AND announced that their intellectual property was contained in Linux. This would imply that that they have released the affected portion (not the entirety of SCO Linux) as open source.

Let me ask this. After SCO discovered the problem. SCO Linux COULD HAVE distributed Linux and STILL kept their IP rights ... HOW? Well before and after the GPL they could have written the following.


Portions of this Linux release have been found to potntially contain proprietary source code from SCO Unix. SCO is distributing Linux in it's entirety but DOES NOT implicitely or explicitely transfer copyright or patents to General Public License by releasing Linux which is available free online.

By using this code, you affirm that SCO retains ALL intellectual property rights to code that may have been inserted illegaly by a third party.


Such a notice would ALSO have to be sent to all their customers that either bought a boxed SCO Linux or downloaded a SCO Linux. This would satisfy any requirements for notification.

Beyond that, the licensing would put everyone on notice that their were portions of the code that are subject to litigation. Irregardless of the legality of a modified license, they would not be telling people "This is GPL licensed code, have fun, modify and publish whatever you want under GPL" Which they did.

They may have been held accountable by Torvalds for such a modified license. But they wouldn't be explicitely publishing their propriety code under GPL.

Ultimately, I think this whole "secret" around WHAT code it is will backfire. In the meanwhile, people are creating derived works based on code THEY published under GPL. They have rights as well. How would anyone know WHICH code is tainted, and therefore how can their derived work be a copyright infringement if they had no way of knowing WHICH code is in violation.

SCOs failure to identify the tainted code will ultimately push it into the GPL as they have an OBLIGATION to notify other parties that they are in violation and HOW they are in violation. Since ALL GPL consumers effectively OWN the license and they have NOT been notified in a timely fashion, SCOs claim to infringement are now moot.

Re:Copyright notices

[willtsmith]

Somebody then took a copy of that work and created a derived work, and then I distributed that derived work. Did I wrong them? NO! Because they never should have created their derived works in the first place, because I held the exclusive right to do that (unbeknownst to them). So anything anybody does with those derived works is an offense against ME, not against the people who created them based on my work in the first place.


That doesn't GIVE you the right to print THEIR derived work. It only stops them from publishing the derived work (this is typically resolved through licensing).

Re:Copyright notices

[willtsmith]

SCO is arguing that because they never released their code under the GPL, and because nobody else could do so legally, then the code was never covered by the GPL. Therefore all subsequent distribution was unlawful, except of course that done by SCO itself because they owned the copyrights in question.


The fundamental problem is that SCO CONTINUED distribution of Linux as GPL code AFTER they allegedly discovered the inclusion of their Intellectual Property. Effectively they knowingly STAMPED THEIR code contained within Linux as GPL.

Had they notified all parties immediately AND included disclaimers and warnings that certain portions WERE NOT covered by GPL as they were stolen than SCO would be fine.

Remember Linux and GPL stole NOTHING from SCO. A third party did the deed and THEY are indeed actionable for damages. However, SCO distributed their IP knowingly and published it under General Public License knowingly. This is an EXPLICIT transfer of license for any code within that they MAY have had had claims to.

That code now belongs to the GPL collectively and all it's users. Irregardless of their intent, the screwed up and knowingly (by all admissions) branded their code as GPL. SCO owned the copyright, and SCO published that copyrighted work KNOWINGLY under GPL therefore giving EVERYONE permission to do with it as they please so long as the result is a GPL work.

Re:Copyright notices

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't GIVE you the right to print THEIR derived work.

They don't have a derived work. If you create a work unlawfully, you have no rights to it whatsoever.

Re:Copyright notices

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep using words like "essentially" and "effectively." These words have no meaning in this context.

I've had about enough of your armchair lawyering. Either acquire a clue or quit posting on this topic. You're so wrong it's not even funny any more.

Re:Copyright notices

[Sabalon]

So if I was to have taken SCO's code, put it in Linux with a GPL header and sent it out, because I am not the original copyright holder, I have no right to do that (assign a different copyright). Make sense.

But what if I am the copyright holder (SCO) and I take a file and distribute it. It has my code and a copyright on it. While I did not put the copyright on there, I (either intentionally or via negligance) decided to distribute my copyrighted material with that preable on it.

If that does not bless and make it official, then what is to stop people from retroactivly changing a copyright and saying the other release was not authorized or who knows what excuse?

Re:Copyright notices

[raga]

The copyright doesn't matter in this case - its the license that defines its use. For example, see:

www.tribug.org/pub/tuhs/Caldera-license.pdf
...
January 23, 2002

Dear UNIX? enthusiasts,

Caldera International, Inc. hereby grants a fee free license that includes the rights to use, modify and distribute this named source code, including creating derived binary products created from the source code.
...

cheers- raga

Re:Copyright notices

[bwt]

There is no requirement that copyright infringement be done "knowingly". You obviously have no clue how copyright law works. That might affect the extent to which statutory damages would be awarded, but it does not affect actual damages which include all profits that result from the infringement, whether it was knowingly done or not.

As to the GPL being "viral", SCO got affected by it only because they chose to distribute code under the GPL without examining what they were shipping. Under these conditions, the GPL is no more viral than any other copyright licence.

You're missing the point. If File X was never licensed under the GPL to begin with, then subsequent changes to that file are nothing more or less than copyright infringement.

No, YOU are missing the point. Every file in the Linux tree was, in fact, "licensed under the GPL to begin with". The idea that whole files were picked up verbatim from UnixWare and simply inserted into the Linux tree is even more laughable than SCO's claims. It is provably false by direct examination of the CVS history.

But more importantly, if Linus writes GPL'd code set A and SCO owns non-GPL'd code set B and IBM (allegedly) creates C by mixing A and B (regardless of which came first between A and B) and Linus and SCO both distribute C, then BOTH Linus and SCO have committed copyright infringement (SCO against A and Linus against B), except that Linus can say he relied on both IBM and SCO's face value assertion that C was GPL'd. Since SCO has never told Linus what B is, his infringment will be non-willful and he will simply have to remove the offending parts upon receiving notice of what they are (which he has stated he is willing to do). However, SCO willfully distributed C in violation of A's licence for two months after they identified that C was improperly licenced under the GPL.

SCO is arguing that because they never released their code under the GPL, and because nobody else could do so legally, then the code was never covered by the GPL.

The stuff that SCO received that was licensed under the GPL was distributed under the authority imbued by the GPL.

Your two statements are directly contradictory. It makes me wonder if you have basic thinking skills. The code SCO "received" and distributed can only be distributed by SCO if they follow 2b, which can only be done if your first statement is false.

Please be precise: Linus writes code set A under the GPL, SCO owns B under non-GPL, and SCO distributes C=A+B. By what authority does SCO distribute C? Please decide whether SCO distributed C under the GPL in compliance with 2b or not. Answer Yes or No or shut the hell up.

If you say "Yes", then this act by SCO places B under the GPL per 2b whether they do so knowingly or not. If you say "No" then C is not properly licenced at all in which case SCO's distribution of C infringes A in what can only be a willful and for-profit way.

Re:Copyright notices

[kalidasa]

Of course, they proceeded to distribute the infringing code under the GPL after they knew it was illegal.

That's the part that I said made me suspect they were in legal lalaland. I *think* (IANAL) they're claiming that since there is no separate SCO copyright on the code, it's an indication they didn't know the code was in there, and so when they distributed it, they didn't know their own IP was part of what they were distributing. In other words, "oh, yeah, we gave away $1M, but we didn't realize that $1K of it was out of our OWN wallets, as you can see because we didn't put our initials on the bills." If that analogy makes any sense.

Re:Copyright notices

[kalidasa]

And I also don't think it's up to them to scan every line of code, on the off chance that somehow their code got in there...

Actually, I think it is (IANAL). Whenever we release information to the public, it has to go through clearance to resolve any IP risks. Same should be true of SCO. They should have double-checked that none of their IP sneaked into the kernel. Otherwise how can they prove that the IP didn't get in their due to the actions of a SCO employee working under SCO's orders?

How can anyone OUTSIDE SCO verify their claims, if they've released their own versions of the code under the GPL with their IP in it? How can anyone be sure it isn't some kind of legal mulligan? "Oh, we decided we didn't like GPLing that code after all, but since we've got to deal with the fact that it's in there, we'll just say we didn't put it in, someone else did."

I'm not saying this is what they're doing, I'm saying this is one possible interpretation of the situation that I can think of that may or may not be compatible with legal reasoning (IANAL).

Re:Copyright notices

[jedidiah]

Just where is Torvald's going to get "UNIX" to cut and paste out of?

Also, if such a thing is so easy to do any number of other Linux detractors would have pointed it out a LONG LONG time ago. People have had 10 years to level such accusations. If the infraction were so trivial to accomplish, then verification would likely be similarly trivial.

If things are really that "murky", then SCO should not be the only entity ranting.

The fact remains that is far easier to contaminate a proprietary product than Free Software.

Also in the news...

[Seth Finklestein]

As a famous cybersecurity researcher, I have access to news articles that are impeccably fresh.

Understanding the Micro$haft-SCO connection
SCO Group drops old Caldera name - .com.com: isn't that a funny domain name?
German Linux association may drop SCO as member
Thousands say 'SCO Sue Me'

As a famous cybersecurity researcher, you should believe what I tell you.

Re:Also in the news...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was under the impression that the "famous" cybersecurity researcher was Seth Fink el stein. And that even he wouldn't be so vain as to call himself a famous cybersecurity researcher.

Re:Also in the news...

[Seth Finklestein]

Dear Michael Sims aka "Anonymous Coward",

Don't be under impressions. When you're under an impression, you make an ass out of you and me.

As a famous villain, Michael Sims is the master of asses, you, and me.

Re:Also in the news...

[Anonymous Coward]

ummm, why is posting related news considered flamebait? Those links *are* related.

Re:Also in the news...

[Anonymous Coward]

(answering my own question, yes I read his 'stupid journal'. Kid - GET A LIFE).
sheesh.

Re: Also in the news...

[Seth Finklestein]

My "stupid journal," which is actually a bastion of facts, is not on trial here. The man who is on trial, Michael Sims, is due to be tarred and feathered soon.

Instead, you should be rating my comments. My comments are Informative and Insightful, and I deserve all the praise you schmucks can throw at me.

Re: Also in the news...

[Seth Finklestein]

who would be friends with a Paranoid?

These friends, right over here.

And I'm not a "Kid." You are. I'm a man.

Re:Also in the news...

[PhxBlue]

As a famous cybersecurity researcher, you should believe what I tell you.

As a grammar nazi, I should point out that you totally dangled your participles. :) In public, no less!

Sounds like "poisoned roots"

[John Penix]

Am I correct in distilling their argument as:

"we are the copyright holder of Linux, only we are the copyright holder of Linux, and therefore only we can place Linux under the GPL. Since we didn't; it isn't".

Interesting claim.

Re:Sounds like "poisoned roots"

[Anonymous Coward]

It could get worse. Microsoft has bought a license for linux from them. Then they buy the company or take other control of. Then they engulf and devour linux. Then they refuse to licence Linux. Linux is dead. All that is left is BSD and Windows.

Re:Sounds like "poisoned roots"

[Anonymous Coward]

And isn't that exactly what they did? They did, and it is.

Re:Sounds like "poisoned roots"

[Abcd1234]

Nope, their claim is this: We are the copyright holders of the pirated code. The code was stolen without our knowledge and placed in the Linux kernel. Therefore, the attempt to license said code under the GPL was done without our permission. Thus, since they did not have the authority to place our code under the GPL, the license does not apply (as per a clause in the GPL itself).

Re:Sounds like "poisoned roots"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's absolutely right, except you have to write "parts of Linux" instead of "Linux."

We (says SCO) are the copyright holder for some of the parts of Linux. Only the copyright holder of those parts of Linux can be placed under the GPL, and since we didn't, they're not. Ergo, nobody can distribute those parts of Linux but us, because the GPL doesn't apply.

Re:Sounds like "poisoned roots"

[dackroyd]

You've almost got it but you need one extra step:

1) Source code is 'stolen' from SCO and put into Linux without SCOs knowledge.

2) SCO download the latest kernel, modify it and release it as SCO Linux, without realising that they're distributing some of their proprierty code.

3) They're now claiming that they never intentionally released the code under the GPL, and that it was put their illegally by someone else.

Of course they probably have buggered things up by not stopping their distribution of their Linux as soon as they discovered and announced that they were going to sue everyone over it.

Also any court is going to seriously look down on the fact that they're prolonging the time that their code is being used, by refusing to say exactly what it is.

Re:Sounds like "poisoned roots"

[Col. Klink (retired)]

But they *knew* the alleged code was in their distribution and they continued to distribute it.

Re:Sounds like "poisoned roots"

[narfbot]

I don't know what it is, but when they're talking about pirating as they are, this just makes me think that they're describing it as if they were (SCO) robbed on the high-seas, and just as dramatically. Yeah, and they talk as if pirates need a license to do what they did...

Re:Sounds like "poisoned roots"

[The_Rook]

this is, so far, the clearest description of sco's case i've seen. it's even clearer than sco's own argument.

but it puts sco in the wierd position of having infringed the copyright on their own code.

Re:Sounds like "poisoned roots"

[Anonymous Coward]

All properly licensed pirates had letters of marque

Re:Sounds like "poisoned roots"

[narfbot]

All properly licensed pirates had letters of marque
yeah. I guess that's why microsoft uses licenses =)

Re:Sounds like "poisoned roots"

[Spirald]

So at some point SCO realized that their 'stolen' IP was in the Linux kernel. SCO was distributing said Linux kernel at the time under the GPL and chose to continue distributing it under the GPL for some time after learning about the situation.

Regardless of IBM's culpability in stealing SCO's code (that is, if IBM is in fact guilty), there are two obvious licensing implications for the rest of the Linux community of SCO's continued distribution of the kernel under the GPL.

If SCO knowingly included their own IP in Linux kernel distributions, releasing the whole package under the GPL they:

1. Chose to release their own IP under the GPL and have thus spared the rest of the community from having to address the issue.

or

2. Have violated the terms of the GPL themselves by intentionally distributing GPLed code with their own proprietary code embedded in it. As such, they had no license to distribute the Linux kernel and may be guilty of copyright infringement against everyone who holds a copyright on code in the Linux kernel. They may also be responsible for any damage they may have caused to those receiving the distribution which was misrepresented as being GPL licensed, since at some point in time they had enough information to know that their distribution was infringing, yet they continued to distribute it.

I'm not a lawyer, but maybe a lawsuit to make SCO clarify their licensing position regarding code they have chosen to ship with the Linux kernel (once they had full knowledge it was their IP) would be in order.

Re:Sounds like "poisoned roots"

[Sri Lumpa]

Like other posters pointed out in a more convoluted form:

step 4) SCO distributes SCO Linux (still under GPL) with purported infringing code after starting lawsuit with IBM, at which point they had a firm belief that it contained some infringing code but still released it and thus are bound to the GPL or other relevant license for this code (unless they removed it from that version before shipping it), thus making their claim weaker.

oh, and let's not forget:

5) SCO refuses to specify which code is supposedly violating their copyright, thus making it impossible for other company to cease and desist their purported copyright infringement, thus making any claim that they tried in good faith to have these distributions comply with the law invalid should any further lawsuit with Linux vendors or users arise. It should also prevent them from claiming any damage for infringement occurring after the lawsuit since they didn't give an option of compliance to the distributions.

All in all, SCO has a very strange way to approach that suit but it makes for good entertainment ;)

Re:Sounds like "poisoned roots"

[m0rph3us0]

The main problem is once they start suing people they continue to release under the GPL nullifying completely their argument about not knowing.

Re:Sounds like "poisoned roots"

[Ian Bicking]

Of course, if SCO can say that they cannot be bound to the GPL, because they released their own code only due to fraud or misrepresentation, that seems to protect most of the distributions as well. If SCO is not under any copyright/licensing obligations due to their release of the code, no one else is either. Those distributions all have to stop releasing the code, and presumably everyone has to stop using the code, but they shouldn't be faulted for mistakenly using it in the past.

Whoever misrepresented that code and first violated the copyright on that code may be at fault -- IBM perhaps -- but everyone else should be fine. Any case SCO can bring against, say, Redhat, is the exact same case Linux developers can bring against SCO.

Of course, anyone who uses the code after the copyright violation has been revealed could be at fault. But I don't think anyone worries that the code will be hard to replace, even if they need to use clean room techniques. Potentially users who don't update their system could be at fault, but that's hardly a fruitful path for litigation.

Re:Sounds like "poisoned roots"

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO they also claim that the fact that they continue to distribute the kernel under GPL does not matter since they are forced to do it by their past obligations which they have to continue to meet.

For example, GPL requires that the sources for downloaded binaries should be available in one form or another for a reasonable amount of time and to comply with GPL SCO has to continue to make them available for some time to come even after they found a problem with it.

But it also means that they can only sue an entity they alleged to stole their code and perhaps get a court order asking everybody stop using that code within some time frame if they win the case.

Re:Sounds like "poisoned roots"

[DavidTC]

That doesn't make sense.

If the code never was really GPL in the first place, which is what SCO claims, then the correct response isn't to 'keep fufilling the GPL', it's to issue an immediate recall.

If a store purchases a bunch of TVs, and some people comes in and places them on layaway, and then the police show up and say the TVs are stolen property, the store can't then continue to give out the stolen TVs, regardless of the store's contract with their customer.

And it's even more absurd for SCO to claim it has to follow the GPL by giving out code that it claims isn't under the GPL.

Deplete the warchest

[PhipleTroenix]

Everyone who has ever bought a copy of Caldera/Linux should return it. Since it was marketed as GPL code and it's not.

If everyone does this right now they won't have $$$ to pay the lawyers and the whole thing might go away.

Re:Deplete the warchest

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, think about it...if people actually bought caldera cd's, they wouldn't be in this sue-happy desperate position to begin with. :)

Re:Deplete the warchest

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing this will hurt is the retailers. They take the loss for returned merchandise. Also, have you ever been successful in returning opened software before?

Re:Deplete the warchest

[Mikeytsi]

A better solution would be for customers to file a class-action suit against SCO for false advertising or something to that effect. Either way, SCO loses.

Re:Deplete the warchest

[Angst Badger]

Everyone who has ever bought a copy of Caldera/Linux should return it. Since it was marketed as GPL code and it's not. If everyone does this right now they won't have $$$ to pay the lawyers and the whole thing might go away.

Puh-leeeaaase. It's not like they don't have the cash on hand to buy back all fifty copies.

Re:Deplete the warchest

[HamNRye]

Except all the copies I have around the office got shipped to me free. Ho Hum. I hated Caldera ever since I first fired up Glint, and read the accompanying licensing.

Re:Deplete the warchest

[Anonymous Coward]

> Everyone who has ever bought a copy of Caldera/Linux should return it. Since it was marketed as GPL code and it's not.
> If everyone does this right now they won't have $$$ to pay the lawyers and the whole thing might go away.

Except for the $$$ invested by Microsoft via that just-done Unix licensing agreement. And any future $$$ that might come from that same source.

Re:Deplete the warchest

[Dr. Photo]

Au contraire.

Everyone who has bought a recent copy of Caldera Linux should be glad that SCO has so "generously" licensed the kernel code to you under the GPL, and should kindly make the kernel sources widely available (as is permitted by the license terms under which SCO/Caldera knowingly distributed them).

Then, in the worst-case scenario, we will all have access to a reasonably recent kernel that has been released under the GNU GPL by the good folks at SCO. :-)

Playground bully

[blackp]

If a kid hands a kick ball to another kid on a playground, then later sues the kid to pay rent for using that kickball, that is just silly.

If code was released into the GPL public domain, then SCO has the right to get reparations against those responsible for releasing that code, and maybe those responsible for knowingly distributing that code. In this case, they fire the guy that release the stuff into public domain, and request removal of their propritary information. Getting back licensing fees is nothing more than being a playground bully asking for kids' lunch money to play kickball.

Re:Playground bully

[kalidasa]

If code was released into the GPL public domain

Stop right there. The GPL is incompatible with the public domain. Please go back to the GNU site and reread the GPL before you post anything else on this subject. If code is public domain, it cannot be GPLed, because the GPL relies upon copyright law, and stuff that is in the public domain by definition is no longer subject to that law.

IANAL, but I know that.

Re:Playground bully

[Dylan Zimmerman]

Well, you're forgetting that intelectual property seems to be more valuable than real property now.

So, it's like said kid telling people about a game that he created and how to play it, but then trying to charge them for playing it.

Any sane and/or knowedgeable judge would throw this case out in a second. There is no possible way that SCO can say "Oops. We didn't mean to give you information. We would like it back now."

Why care?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 'Free World' (tm) SCO wouldn't have any possibility to win a courtfight. Of course in some 'other countries' law isn't always on the side of the innocent.

Have fun with your government and don't cry foul - after all: you get what you vote for.

Re:Why care?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, I really love software patents - they are soooo cool.

Re:Why care?

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmm... why not double the copyright period? imo it's way to short.

Re:Why care?

[Lendrick]

Have fun with your government and don't cry foul - after all: you get what you vote for.

Not in the United States, you don't.

Re:Why care?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you get what the MAJORITY votes for, no matter what YOU vote for.

Re:Why care?

[DeltaSigma]

Indeed, here it's "you get what you pay for," and I'm afraid certain monopolies have deeper pockets than I...

Re:Why care?

[Anonymous Coward]

As seen on a bumper sticker in Florida:

"Don't blame me, I think I voted for Gore."

Re:Why care?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you do, which is why Bush is President.

Re:Why care?

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Indeed, here it's "you get what you pay for," and I'm afraid certain monopolies have deeper pockets than I...

Reminds me of a sig I saw once: "Support democracy and congress, buy a congressman".

Re:Why care?

[DeltaSigma]

Which reminds me of a fark photoshop contest where farkers were challenged to create a new source of revenue for the government. The winner (okay my personal favorite): "Buy one U.S. Congressional Vote - $1000.00!"

Careful!

[wowbagger]

Be careful - what if they accept your resume and hire you?

Then you get to watch them pass the Schwarzschild Radius from the INSIDE!

Re:Careful!

[sebisor]

Not unless you want to work as "Production Manager" and you can lift 50 lbs. There seems to be only one position open at SCO www.sco.com/company/jobs/

For reference, Redhat has 23 positions (and you only have to lift 20-30 lbs. :=) ). Suse has no position available or I wasn't able to find any.

As much as we hate to admit it

[John Penix]

This depends, quite a bit, on whether SCO manages to sue RedHat into bankruptcy.

Re:As much as we hate to admit it

[mdfst13]

SCO has no basis for a suit against Red Hat. Red Hat never had their source code and could not have put any of it in Linux (unlike IBM). Otoh, Red Hat may have a suit against SCO, since SCO claims to have knowingly distributed a GPLed product that was encumbered by IP constraints. This is specifically prohibited in the GPL (section 7?).

Sco is also vulnerable because they are providing no assistance in removing the offending sections from Linux (by specifying which ones they are). Until they do so, there is no way that they can make claims against anyone for using any IP they may own. Further, if someone is damaged by their slowness or by their rash, blanket declaration of fault that was sent out to 1500 Linux using organizations, Sco would be subject to paying damages for their malfeasance.

I still predict that the net effect of this will be to bankrupt Sco. Even if they win the lawsuit against IBM (which seems unlikely, since of the two organizations, IBM is much farther along in IP issues; I still think that it is more likely that SCO used Linux or IBM code in Unixware than IBM put Unixware code into Linux; IBM had a whole department to vet whether code be used or not; did Sco?), they will still be vulnerable to lawsuits by the Free Software Foundation, et.al. for damages they caused with the heavy handedness of this lawsuit.

Lack of attribution doesnt remove rights.

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as you set something down and you are the creator of it, the copyright in that work belongs to you. It is yours to licence as you see fit, and there is no rule about where that licence has to be stored for your copyright to be in effect.

If SCO were negligent in discovering and obeying the licences of source they used then they are still guilty of infringment, wether the notices were attached or not. They are obliged to make sure that their code is clean.

"If in doubt, leave it out" is the rule that should be applied, in all cases. They should have (and probably did) audit the source as a matter of course when they took it over.

Re:Lack of attribution doesnt remove rights.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand. What SCO is saying is that works can only be put under the GPL by their authors. Somebody ELSE can't come along and put a work under the GPL if they don't hold the copyright to that work.

Therefore, the parts of Linux that belong to SCO are NOT under the GPL, despite what the license that's distributed with them says.

SCO, of course, had the right to distribute their own work in their Linux distributions, but since THEY didn't put the GPL on it--somebody else did--what SCO shipped was NOT licensed under the GPL.

Re:Lack of attribution doesnt remove rights.

[jedidiah]

SCO released their work under the GPL as soon as they knowningly released their work imbedded in any GPL project.

It's as simple as that really.

This seems to really boil down to BAD legal advice. It sounds like SCO really needs to sue it's own lawyers for malpractice.

Re:Lack of attribution doesnt remove rights.

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO released their work under the GPL as soon as they knowningly released their work imbedded in any GPL project.

It's as simple as that really.

No, it's not. It doesn't work like that. The GPL doesn't just automatically attach itself to anything. It has to be actively applied, and SCO never did that.

Unless, of course, it DOES just automatically attach itself, in which case everything Microsoft has been saying about how the GPL is a viral license and should be avoided at all costs is, in fact, completely true.

Re:Lack of attribution doesnt remove rights.

[jedidiah]

THEY LICENSED THEIR PRODUCT WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

Nothing else is relevant. The nature of the GPL doesn't even matter. They would be f*cked regardless of the license.

The situation would be no different if the Linux kernel (and sources) came with a declaration that Linux is public domain.

Re:Lack of attribution doesnt remove rights.

[Anonymous Coward]

Calm down. Don't shout. Take a deep breath and look at the facts.

You're wrong in two ways. First, you're wrong that SCO licensed their work under the GPL. They're saying they never did that. They never took any SCO work and put the GPL on it. Instead, they received work from others ostensibly under the GPL, but that work actually turned out, later, to be SCO's. They never stuck the GPL on it themselves, which is the only way the GPL can apply to a work.

Secondly, you're wrong that nothing else is relevant. This is a complicated question, with lots of twisty rights and obligations, all alike.

However, you're right when you say that the situation would be no different if we were talking about the public domain here rather than the GPL. If that were the case, then SCO would simply be able to say, "Uh, no it's not, and it never was," and everybody would have to stop distributing the work that was derived from SCO's work. Same thing here. If the alleged facts are what they appear to be, then everybody's gonna have to stop distributing the parts of Linux that are derived from SCO's work. That might be a little or it might be a lot; we'll have to wait and see.

Remember when that guy got busted working on Perl on company time a few years ago? His employer suddenly realized that they owned some fairly significant chunks of Perl, and that they always had. So everybody had to stop distributing those chunks of Perl, because they had no right to do so. I don't know exactly how that situation turned out, but it's exactly the same in basic principles as this one.

Re:Lack of attribution doesnt remove rights.

[jedidiah]

Obviously I need to shout because:

YOU AREN'T FUCKING PAYING ATTENTION!

Edison isn't only electrocuting the pooch, but he's buggering it too in full view of everyone. You're just to STUPID to perceive or acknowledge it.

SCO was STILL shipping Linux WHILE MAKING THREATS AGAINST OTHER DISTRIBUTORS AND END USERS.

Even a jury packed with trailer trash and hillbillies isn't going to be conned into believing that SCO was acting in ignorance.

If you give away your personal property, with a writ stating that you are giving away your personal property, and you are aware of the fact that your are doing this: the law doesn't give you the opportunity to be an "indian giver".

You lost your property. No ifs, ands, buts or pathetic excuses.

Won't help

[Cro Magnon]

Even if all 3 of them return their copies.

Re:Won't help

[flafish]

As I have 3 different copies, does that make me the sole buyer?

If SCO claims to be the copyright holder, its GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL does cover someone placing a GPL notice who has no right to the code. However, SCO distributed Linux with GPL and claims IT had rights to the code. Thus even if claims of copying are not a result of the theft of BSD code into ATT unix years ago, SCO had the code and put the notices on its stuff and if the code descended from ATT code that was not stolen from BSD, SCO still had the right to put GPL notices on it. The comment is interesting but irrelevant. They may claim it was a mistake, but it looks to me like they are not covered by the exclusions in the GPL unless they are saying they have no rights to the code. They can't have it both ways.

humm

[gobbligook]

Has anyone thought why a company like IBM would want to copy code from a company like SCO? I don't see IBM's motovation here. And further, I believe MS is only licensing the rights to that stuff because IBM is on the other side of the arguement. MS has no interest with SCO, but they sure do not like IBM much... This goes back to the early 80's and MS/IBM partnership on dos, and later with OS/2.

Besides SCO is like a recently decapitated chicken, it's head is cut off, and it is running around in circles, just waiting to completely die.

Re:humm

[cjjjer]

Or the M$ leagal team (which probably rivals the US Gov) has found something that may (if taken to court) would make SCO the clear winner. If I had the chance to cover my a$$ I would do it before it went to court rather than after.

Just the ramblings of a mad man...

Re:humm

[cheros]

MS paying the fee *could* (I say could, it's just your average anti-MS conspiracy theory) be for either of both of the following reasons:
(1) to establish some precedent and firm up the SCO suit's -rather thin- credibility and/or
(2) as an, er, form of sponsorship to help along some rather beneficial document shredding (see http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/30821.html) .

"Well, milord, as you can see from this evidence .."
[MS lawyer] ".. what evidence? Without the physical presence, how are we to prove this image hasn't been tampered with?"

But Enronning that paperwork is probably entirely coincidental - it just happens to take place at roughly the same time...

Re:humm

[stanmann]

If this were the case, MS would have bought SCO. OTOH, IBM also has a first rate legal team, and has rather more experience, so it would be the height of folly for MS to expose itself in that manner.

Their sales dropped to zero,

[HermanZA]

so they would not have had any sales after the suit was filed...

Obvious.

Silly SCO

[Saint Mitchell]

Linux Is Not yoUr Xenix

Re:Silly SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that best you got?

Re:Silly SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that best you got?
*throws sand in his face

Big Myths about copyrights

[rxed]

They claim that the lack of copyright notices "placed by the copyright holder" means that the GPL does not protect the unmentioned code in question. "

This was true in the past, but today all nations that follow the Berne copyright convention everything created after April 1, 1989 is considered copyrighted (GPL or otherwise) whether it has a notice or not.

SCO is running out of ideas. They are doomed.

Re:Big Myths about copyrights

[Abcd1234]

Actually, I believe the point of this argument is that, because SCO itself didn't choose to license the "unmentioned code" under the GPL (as they are the copyright holder), then the GPL does not apply, as per a couple clauses in the GPL itself.

Re:Big Myths about copyrights

[tuffy]

Actually, I believe the point of this argument is that, because SCO itself didn't choose to license the "unmentioned code" under the GPL (as they are the copyright holder), then the GPL does not apply, as per a couple clauses in the GPL itself.

But if they (SCO/Caldera) didn't choose to release their (mythical, all-powerful SCO Unix code) code under the GPL, why release a Linux distribution with that code? It's difficult for them to argue that "we didn't mean to release that mythical code" when they, in fact, have already done so.

It seems a little late to cry foul now, I think.

Re:Big Myths about copyrights

[javatips]

The GPL has nothing to do with a work being copyrighted or not. It has to do with LICENSING of the copyrighted work.

Original work I create are automatically copyrighted. But they are NOT automatically licensed under the GPL. If I make that work publicly availlable. Nobody has a right to redistribute it as he which UNLESS I explicitly release it under a license that give someone the right to distribute it.

What SCO is saying seems right in the first place. However, where they are wrong is that the GPL mandate that all the code included in the work (Linux kernel for example) must be GPLed. So if they distributed their own code (even without copyright notice) after their claim infrigment, then they are automatical releasing it under the GPL.

Re:Big Myths about copyrights

[StormReaver]

"This was true in the past, but today all nations that follow the Berne copyright convention everything created after April 1, 1989 is considered copyrighted (GPL or otherwise) whether it has a notice or not. "

That's not what the laughable dummies at SCO are arguing. They are now trying to say that the SCO employees who were selling SCO Linux, with the blessings of SCO top leadership, did not own the copyrights on the source code that SCO was distributing and therefore the GPL does not apply.

It's a totally brain-damaged argument, and I would be astounded to read it from anyone other than SCO. The argument is that employees do not have the right to sell and/or distribute their company's products even when the highest level executives, whose primary job is to authorize the sale and/or distribution of the company's products, demand that it be done as part of the company's core business!

So SCO's top bosses passed down the mandate to sell copies of SCO Linux, but the employees should not have done it because they don't personally own the copyrights on SCO's code.

This gets funnier everytime SCO tries to fumble for a defense.

Re:Big Myths about copyrights

[Anonymous Coward]

You misunderstand what is being said here. They are saying since they are the copyright holder to the code in question, and since they didn't place the GPL notice, the code does not fall under the GPL.

Their point is actually quite valid -- if you believe that SCO is the copyright holder. The very first line of the GPL is this: "This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License."

I.E., the GPL notice applies if it was placed by the copyright holder.

Re:Big Myths about copyrights

[Fnkmaster]

Yes, but the question is did they continue to redistribute the GPLed code in question AFTER they knew their "stolen code" was in there. That implies that they continued to accept the GPL license on that code, since they were "aware" of their own copyrighted code in the other parts of the work. Whether or not they "marked" it with a copyright notice is irrelevant as I understand the law (IANAL), but whether they were aware of and intended to license said code under the GPL is eminently relevant. Their continued distribution under the GPL of a work they knew to be composed of their own copyrighted code and others copyrighted code implies that they intended to place that code under the GPL at that time, and only after the fact, decided that it was more beneficial for them to take the "it was stolen, let's sue everybody" approach. They can only do that if they can show they never intended to release the code under the GPL - and it seems like admitting that they waited many months before stopping their own GPLed distribution of the relevant source code certainly does not strengthen their case. It likely hinges on whether a judge deems that they took reasonable efforts to prevent further dissemination of that code by their own organization under the GPL - how many months of lag time is reasonable in your mind?

Re:Big Myths about copyrights

[bwt]

That is their point. They have explicitly admitted that they have violated section 2b of the GPL which places a burden on the distributor of code "that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the [GPL'd] Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License".

Unless they have some other licence from Torvalds and Co, they are stipulating to 2 months of knowing, willful, for-profit copyright infringement for the part of the code that is legitimate Linux based GPL'd code.

Re:Big Myths about copyrights

[whoever57]

Without reading all of the convention, Article 15 seems to require at least the identification of the author, whether by real name or clearly identifying pseudonym. If true, then if SCO's name is not on it, the convention does not apply.

Re:Big Myths about copyrights

[StormReaver]

"You misunderstand what is being said here."

It's completely irrelevent whether SCO put its own GPL notice on the code it contributed to the kernel. The original authors of the kernel code did put a GPL notice in the code, and SCO contributed additions to the kernel which SCO then proceeded to distribute. This clearly places SCO's kernel contributions under the GPL.

SCO has absolutely no valid argument. SCO willingly and repeatedly distributed its source code contributions under the terms of the GPL.

Re:Big Myths about copyrights

[Gnulix]

It's difficult for them to argue that "we didn't mean to release that mythical code" when they, in fact, have already done so.

It will be very difficult for them to say that other companies should have discovered the IP breaches and ceased distributing Linux, when they themself didn't "discover" this fact until years after they begun distributing Linux. If they aren't able to take stock of what's in the Linux kernel that they ship and if they aren't able to stand 100% behind their own Linux product, they shouldn't be selling/distributing it. If they aren't able to uphold the very same standards for code inspection and IP/copyright verifications that they require from IBM, then they really don't have a case. If there is "stolen" code in the kernel and SCO has been distributing this, then they are just as much in the wrong as any other vendor. It is their job to make sure that their customers recieve a trust worthy product. By their complaint, they are only showing that they have been distributing a product without any knowledge of what it contains. A very poor qualitity process indeed! I wonder what stuff have wound up in the UNIX code, without SCO's "knowledge".

Re:Big Myths about copyrights

[jedidiah]

THEY placed the code into the GPL the moment they released it within a GPL governed project.

Before the IBM filing, they could claim that such actions were done in ignorance and unintentional. They could essentially claim that they were "conned".

However, once they knew what was going on they had the burden of obeying the GPL as well as covering their own *ass.

Re:Big Myths about copyrights

[Anonymous Coward]

In the U.S. the non-need for having any sort of notice goes back to at least 1976. So SCO is way out of their depths on this one.

Re:Big Myths about copyrights

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but SCO did license the "unmentioned code" itself by distributing said code under the GPL. At best, SCO could have a case during any period of time where others distributed their "unmentionable code" before SCO had a Linux distribution. I don't think this period of time exists. Furthermore, I don't think the "infringing code" even exists. But that's not really the topic anymore. Congratulations, SCO, on changing the topic! Pay no attention to that lack of a case behind the curtain!

Re:Big Myths about copyrights

[dcs]

So what? The code *is* copyrighted. It's just that GPL does not apply, because *they* didn't say it was released under GPL.

Re:Slashdotted??

[Anonymous Coward]

Erik Hughes (SCO flunky):
"In other words, the GPL itself covers situations where code is improperly or accidentally contributed to the GPL without proper authorization (sic) of the true copyright holder."

Which is true, so far as it goes. However, GPL section 7 states (emphasis added):

1. 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License.
2. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.

They really should get better lawyers.

reminds me of the cold war.

[MagicMerlin]

I am feeling more and more that SCO is a pawn in a much larger and more important struggle that is playing out between IBM and microsoft. Consider:

1. US and USSR never entered into active confict but used deparate or greedy 3rd world countries (SCO) to engage in conflict.

2. Like Communism, MS was based around lofty principles but actually survives by strangling all percieved threats.

3. IBM was earlier in a partnership with MS that turned sour (think US-Soviet relations in WW2).

4. Both empires keep its people distracted from the real facts by spreading FUD about the other side, even if that means undertaking petty wars.

5. The soviet empire eventually came down, killed by its own weight. Will MS suffer the same fate?

Re:reminds me of the cold war.

[cperciva]

I think that's the first time I've ever seen Microsoft compared to Communism.

Usually the comparison is the other way around.

Re:reminds me of the cold war.

[gearheadsmp]

So basically what we're supposed to be hoping for is some kind of scandelous revelation that Microsoft has been using screwy accounting all these years. But they could also sink quite a bit if their next OS release doesn't sell well (ie 2003 or Longhorn), as they've always used some kind of fuzzy-math where they take profit from the quarter where their latest OS premiered and dump it into less profitable quarters to fill in the gaps.

Re:reminds me of the cold war.

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

1. maybe
2. IBM used this strategy for decades. btw., what 'lofty principles' was M$ based on?
3. yup, but the US and USSR were forced into a partnership by Hitler and Tojo (Pearl Harbor), no parallels there.
4. yup. That 'petty wars' also sounds a bit like the Iraq war, but that is irrelevant here.
5. IBM suffered that fate in the late 1980s. They were reduced to bringing Lou Gerster in from outside (not really an option for the USA or USSR) to get going again. All large (and many smaller ones) companies run that risk. The US could well be going that way now.
   M$'s business-plan is based on growth. That is getting increasingly different and they might have to cut their losses and try to hold what they have.

But your original suggestion was that SCO is acting as a pawn for M$. More likely is that SCO screwed this up themselves and M$ saw some advantages for them in getting surrepticiously (sp?) involved.

Re:reminds me of the cold war.

[dmaxwell]

I think that's the first time I've ever seen Microsoft compared to Communism.

Personally, I think Communism has the same intelligent-conversation-ending abilities that Nazism does. It's the all-purpose right-wing/right-libertarian club.

Re:reminds me of the cold war.

[ichimunki]

And usually it's Microsoft trying to make it sound that they. Fabulous technique this: trying to tar your enemies with the brush of the evil you yourself harbor in your heart. Microsoft would love to centrally control the entire software economy. And not as a result of popularity contests like elections or free markets, but by executive fiat.

Re:reminds me of the cold war.

[jedidiah]

You just haven't been hanging around here long enough.

I have made such comparisons here. If there were such a thing as DejaNews for slashdot, you would be able to find some dusty reference from the depths of time.

The same goes for Linux and Atari advocacy groups on Usenet from 1988-2000.

Re:reminds me of the cold war.

[Anonymous Coward]

2. Like Communism, MS was based around lofty principles but actually survives by strangling all percieved threats.

You misspelled "capitalism".

Re:reminds me of the cold war.

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I think Communism has the same intelligent-conversation-ending abilities that Nazism does.

Ummm, there is a lot of democratic countries in the world that have communist political parties, and comparing communism to nazism would be defamation in these countries.

The fundament of communist ideology is based on people cooperating instead of competing against eachother. This might be highly idealistic, but thats what ideologies are for. Ultimately a society is built on cooperation and trust, not competition. You can see this 'sociocommunist' brick and mortar of societies at work in most traditional/rural communities all over the world. They go out hunting cooperatively, they raise barns in cooperation, their craftsmen work in gilds, the list of examples is endless.

It doesn't need argueing that communism has its flaws; 'dictatorship of the proletariat' being the big showstopper as it almost inevitably leads to despotism. But this very same flaw is embedded in capitalism too, only the path to despotism is now walked slowly. Unbridled capitalism leads to an everwidening chasm between the rich and the poor, and the rich elite getting ever smaller and ever richer will in the end lead to despotism. Actually socialism and communism spawned because of widespread concerns about this capitalist despotism.

The fact that this hasn't happened in the US doesn't prove to the contrary; the US isn't a purely capitalist country. Luckily for its citizens, some US politicians sometimes show a thread of responsability and don't give in to the stripping away of the legal protection Joe Sixpack has against the Big Buck that is going on for quite some time now.

Re:reminds me of the cold war.

[Anonymous Coward]

5. The soviet empire eventually came down, killed by its own weight. Will MS suffer the same fate?

I don't think so, because, your analogy assumes that Microsoft is Communism/USSR, which is wrong. Microsoft is the US. Why? This is why:

1. USSR has never been even a fraction of magnitude as successful as Microsoft.
2. The US has alway been a lot more powerful than the USSR, even during the glory day of the USSR.

Since there are no one more powerful than the Microsoft the above two points are proved.

Re:reminds me of the cold war.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this what you are "thought" in US high schools? This is what give fuel to the "idea" that north americans in general are ignorant.

Re:reminds me of the cold war.

[rueba]

IBM has larger revenues than Microsoft and is actually doing quite well right now.

Still, the analogy is pretty strained I agree.

The Real Story

[QuackQuack]

"SCO Claims Linux Sales After Suit Irrelevant"

SCO still has customers willing to buy Linux from them?

Or in other words:

[narfbot]

They claim that the lack of copyright notices "placed by the copyright holder" means that the GPL does not protect the unmentioned code in question. "

So, their notices aren't there, but they still claim it. What about GPL copyright notices already there? Doesn't this mean GPL extend s to all added code? What about previous Caldera contributions? (these are undoubtably even when it is in their self-modified kernel or in the main tree).

"In other words, the GPL itself covers situations where code is improperly or accidentally contributed to the GPL without proper authorization (sic) of the true copyright holder."

Yeah but publishing linux for years even after this lawsuit constitutes as authorization for it doesn't it?

Re:Or in other words:

[Abcd1234]

Yeah but publishing linux for years even after this lawsuit constitutes as authorization for it doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. If SCO didn't explicitely choose to include the code in Linux (it really is stolen, as they claim), then SCO also didn't explicitely choose to license the code under the GPL. And if that's the case, then the GPL doesn't apply to their code, and it reverts to the standard Berne Convention rules.

Re:Or in other words:

[narfbot]

Yeah, but it is either: the code was in the kernel for years or it wasn't. If it was, then they had plently of time to stop it and to know about it, because Caldera themselves worked on the GPLed kernel. They already have plenty of knowledge of what's in there. So if it has been in for years, their argument here won't work at all still.

If it wasn't in there for years, then it was just inserted (like a few months ago). Their claim is linux was nothing before this code was inserted. So if linux was bicycle a few months ago, and you actually compare Linux to UnixWare over the years and compare their claims (read that OSI paper) , it makes UnixWare... what? A flat bicycle tire? I realize what I previously said doesn't go much beyond rationalization, but in any truth, SCO doesn't have a case. If they reveal the code and find this code been in there for years, it won't get any better for them. (even then I'd believe any copyright claim is true)

Re:Or in other words:

[RealAlaskan]

If SCO didn't explicitely choose to include the code in Linux (it really is stolen, as they claim), then SCO also didn't explicitely choose to license the code under the GPL.

I think that the counter-argument to this is that:

SCO chose to peddle Linux.

Before they knew it contained bits of code they held copyright to, one might say that their decision to release that code under the GPL was inadvertent, and they shouldn't be held to it. That's weak, but plausible.

AFTER they knew that their copyrighted code was in there, the above,weak, argument is simply gone. ``Your honor, we did release code which we knew was our code under the terms of the GPL, but now we wish we hadn't, so please fix it for us.'' I really don't think that's going to fly in an honest court, though that may not be a problem here.

Re:Or in other words:

[schon]

If SCO didn't explicitely choose to include the code in Linux (it really is stolen, as they claim), then SCO also didn't explicitely choose to license the code under the GPL. And if that's the case, then the GPL doesn't apply to their code

Define "explicitely" (sp).

The fact is SCO KNOWINGLY DISTRIBUTED ANY CODE IN QUESTION AS PART OF A GPL'ED PRODUCT.

For a given piece of GPL'ed code, if you don't agree to the GPL, then you're not allowed to distribute the code. Since SCO knowingly distributed the code, and they knew it contained "their" code, then they must have agreed to the GPL.

Re:Or in other words:

[MerlynEmrys67]

So I have a business selling car stereos. I find out that my distributer is really selling stollen radios to me, so after I find this out, I stop selling radios.

Then it turns out, not only are they selling stollen radios, but they stole the radios from my own store...

Ugly, isn't it, guess I am out of the radio business, bankrupting me

Re:Or in other words:

[Anonymous Coward]

The way I see it is this:

SCO published (or made available) the kernel source (compliant with the GPL) with the infringing code on it. Whether they were aware of the presence of infringing code or not is debatable, but here's the kicker:

Scenario A) If they were not aware, then they're incompetent in their efforts to protect their (however unvaluable) IP, and (although IANAL) in U.S. law if you don't protect your IP, you lose your rights to being protected/compensated if/when its infringed. The whole "close the barn door after the horse has bolted" argument comes into play here.

Scenario B) If they were aware (or even partially aware), then there's even less of a case because they KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY distributed the code under the terms of the GPL regradless of who put it there.

It doesn't matter if I wrote code X and somebody else (who I licensed it to) put it into a third product - unless I COMPLAIN about it when it happens. If I don't, then I'm basically concedeing that I do not object to this use of my IP and thus said licensee has my tacit authorization to release the code (remember scenario A - I'm not protecting my IP).

IANAL but I think this simple argument debunks the entire SCO case regardless of the history of Unix (and subsequent USL/BSD litigation, etc).

Bottom line: Let SCO have their rant - they're going to lose it anyway. Let's focus on the puppeteer who's behind SCO (M$) and either A) bring them down, or B) make them "play fair".

Re:Or in other words:

[jareds]

No, it doesn't. If SCO didn't explicitely choose to include the code in Linux (it really is stolen, as they claim), then SCO also didn't explicitely choose to license the code under the GPL. And if that's the case, then the GPL doesn't apply to their code, and it reverts to the standard Berne Convention rules.

OK, fine, let's say SCO has not released their code under the GPL. Then they are distributing Linux, which they do not hold the copyright to, without complying with the terms of the GPL, which requires them to cause it (which allegedly includes their proprietary code) to become licensed to all third parties under the terms of the GPL, so they are guilty of willful copyright infringement (since they continued to distribute it long after filing the suit).

Re:Or in other words:

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing copyright and trademark laws. You must defend a trademark or lose it. This does not apply to copyrights or patents.

-AC

Re:Or in other words:

[rick446]

So....

1. SCO discovers Unix code in the Linux kernel, meaning that Linux kernel is partly a derivative work of hundreds/thousands of open source programmers and partly a derivative work of SysV.
2. SCO decides that the GPL does not apply to the Unix code since SCO did not knowingly release it via the GPL.
3. SCO continues to distribute the (Linux+Unix) kernel for a while, indemnifying their own users against infringment.

Doesn't that mean that SCO has distributed a derivative work of the Linux kernel (Linux+Unix) without the permission of the original authors of Linux (which permission is only gained by adhering to the constraints of the GPL)? And so if the Berne Convention (with which I am unfamiliar) applies, doesn't that mean that they can be sued by whatever Joe Schmoe has had a kernel patch accepted into the trunk? Has EVER had a kernel patch accepted? How is saying "the GPL is invalid because we didn't distribute the code under the GPL" going to help? It seems like it would hurt them enormously.

Re:Or in other words:

[theLOUDroom]

No, it doesn't. If SCO didn't explicitely choose to include the code in Linux (it really is stolen, as they claim), then SCO also didn't explicitely choose to license the code under the GPL.

Nope. Once they discovered the infingement, they continued to distribute the code under the GPL. At this point, they have willfully released their code under the GPL, even if they weren't before. (GPL copyright notices were included with the code distributed by them.)

Before they knew, they were unknowingly violation the GPL. Afterwards, they knew they were distributing the code, and they knew the terms of the GPL. This leaves two possibilities:

1. The therefore GPL'ed their code.
2. The were illegally distributing Linux, since the GPL is the only thing with gives them the right to do so.

Either way, SCO is fucked.

#1 leaves them with no damages. (Except possibly IBM, good luck.)

#2 leaves them willfully infringing on the copyright of the Linux kernel. This has all kinds of neat implications. I bet IBM owns the copyright on some part of the Linux code. They could sue SCO for more severe copyright infringement than SCO can sue them for.

Somewhat ironic?

[Sherloqq]

I have no doubts that a lot of the work IBM's put into Linux has benefited the community in one way or another. I find it kind of ironic, then, that SCO would continue for two months to sell a product they claim to infringes on their IP rights, and profit (as much or as little as they have in that time) from someone else's work. Something's just wrong with that picture.

Or maybe it's just me.

Re: Somewhat ironic?

[Black Parrot]

> I find it kind of ironic, then, that SCO would continue for two months to sell a product they claim to infringes on their IP rights, and profit (as much or as little as they have in that time) from someone else's work. Something's just wrong with that picture.

More ironic yet is the fact that they'd still be shipping it if they hadn't seen the GPL licensing argument on Slashdot!

We joke about Slashdot being a discussion site for The Register, but it looks like their press releases are a "discussion site" for what they read on Slashdot.

As has been said..

[Anonymous Coward]

In every other discussion about SCO of late, whether this had been released under GPL, BSD, or any other OSS license, the effect is the same. They failed to protect their trade secrets. They knowingly put their code in the open. IANAL

Shorter headline:

[obscurity]

SCO claims irrelevant.

Caldera != SCO

[Morthaur]

I really hate all the slagging that the SCO name's getting, and I think it's unfair to the legacy of a decent company, now that Caldera is doing business under their old moniker. I'd find it hard to believe that SCO (as they were) would ever have engaged in this kind of tactic, and wish that more of the flames were directed at their source (the company formerly known as Caldera).

And as a once-happy long-time user of OpenServer and UnixWare, I'd like to point out to Caldera (or whomever purchases their assets), that I will no longer run their systems (Linux, Unix, or otherwise), and will recommend that all instaled shops I am still in contact with switch to another system as soon as is feasible. Maybe if they lose enough licensing revenue, as well as losing this case (which seems almost certain), Caldera will finally go away for good.

One more thing- the original SCO is still around as Tarantella, which is a fabulous product- easily a match for Citrix, and deserves to succeed. For those who haven't tried it, they have free demos. available, and it must be seen to be believed.

Re:Caldera != SCO

[jaymzter]

As another poster noted, please see this link. It is perfectly alright to slag the SCO name, it would seem

Re:Caldera != SCO

[hughk]

I was a Xenix 386 and later a SCO ODT developer. Frankly, their stuff had all the problems of bad open source stuff but without the source code to allow you to repair/rebuild. The Microsoft/Lattice C compiler sucked big time and it was the devil's own job getting gcc up. It was easier to get it up under VAX/VMS (without all the posix support that it had in later years).

Re:Caldera != SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

I am afraid you have never used any of SCO's products, or else you would not be so honky dory about them. So please stop pretending.

Both SCO's propietary Unixen were the worst piece of turd I have had the misfortune of using. Heck I started using linux just because it felt much better than the SCO offerings when it come to chose a Unix for x86 (kernel 1.x days BTW), the only redeeming features of SCO were the scalability, and SMP support for x86. But it was such a pain in the neck to get the system up and running... That it made some of the earlier distros I used (slackware) almost look good... and that is a hard thing to do! Sure Linux aggravated me to no end back then, but at least it was free. SCO aggravated me and I had to pay for the honor of their aggravation. No thanks!

You just sound like you work for SCO's PR department "..Tarantella, which is a fabulous product- easily a match for Citrix, and deserves to succeed." "....and it must be seen to be believed." LOL!

Caldera != SCO and SCO != Caldera

[Znonymous Coward]

I like that, keep using the Caldera logo to reference SCO. They (SCO) really hate that.

Re:Caldera != SCO and SCO != Caldera

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed from the article that SCOs stock identifier is 'SCOX'. I guess it would be pronounced 'Sucks'.

When will we find out what the code is?

[teamhasnoi]

If it's already in the kernal, it's hardly secret. Where is it?

The longer they keep this info under their hats, the less I believe they have any leg to stand on.

Re:When will we find out what the code is?

[I Am The Owl]

Well, teamhasnoi, perhaps if you did a little research, you may find out. If not the infringing code, then at least how to properly spell "kernel".

Re: When will we find out what the code is?

[Black Parrot]

> If it's already in the kernal, it's hardly secret. Where is it?

I thought they said it wasn't in the kernel. There were some hints that it had to do with the SysV init scripts, but of course Linux used those long before IBM started their Linux-for-enterprise push.

\methinks SCO is just making it up as they go...

BTW, does anyone have a summary of what enterprise-friendly code IBM has actually contributed? That should narrow the search for the Yeti down to a single continent at any rate.

> The longer they keep this info under their hats, the less I believe they have any leg to stand on.

That's also why I believe that this is an anti-Linux FUD campaign. If they were really concerned with IP then they have nothing to gain by keeping the code secret. If they announce it now it will get removed now (which is what they want, right?) but they'll still be entitled to any legal remedy they'd be entitled to without announcing it (assuming any at all). There's simply no IP-based reason not to announce it.

But as for FUD-based reasons, well, it's only FUDworthy so long as everything is up in the air and businesses thinking about making the switch have something to worry about. Point to the code and the argument switches to the facts of the claim, or the code gets ripped out, and the FUD-bubble bursts overnight.

The IP motivation says "announce it", and the FUD motivations says "mum's the word".

No, this isn't about IP.

Re: When will we find out what the code is?

[JosefK]

> If it's already in the kernal, it's hardly secret. Where is it?

I thought they said it wasn't in the kernel.

That was last month. They've been all over the map since then, with statements ranging from "the kernel.org kernel is clear, but SuSE and Red Hat are not" to "the violations are in the kernel.org kernel *and* in the distros" to "we haven't looked at the kernel.org kernel yet."

SCO going down in flames

[atheos]

SCO is going down, and they know it.
This entire fiasco is a sad attempt to grasp some
kind of life from a dying company and they
have no problem taking the SCO name down with them.
I think it should be important to find the names
of the people within SCO responsible for this, and let this tarnish their names long after SCO is gone.

Re:SCO going down in flames

[u-235-sentinel]

Don't worry about it. If SCO get's what they are asking for then basically it amounts to SCO sueing themselves out of existance. They are after all contributors to the Linux code.

As sad as it really is.

Re:SCO going down in flames

[Greyfox]

Your very narrow screen lines make me think you're speaking in Haiku, but I'll respond to you anyway!

It's working.

I believe a lot of investors are betting on this lawsuit to pull SCO back into financial viability or at least get a big company to buy them. Personally I wouldn't put any money on that. IBM's response to the proceedings to date lead me to believe that a bitch-slap of epic proportions is impending, and SCO's not going to be the one dealing it.

I know for a fact in the mean time that this suit is making a lot of companies wary of Linux. I'm surprised the companies that make money off Linux aren't taking action or at least addressing the concerns on their web sites.

Re: SCO going down in flames

[Black Parrot]

> SCO is going down, and they know it.
This entire fiasco is a sad attempt to grasp some
kind of life from a dying company and they
have no problem taking the SCO name down with them.

Someone forgot to order the golden parachutes while the company was in the black, and now they're desperate to drum up enough money to buy a few on short notice.

argument

[pigscanfly.ca]

There arugment is that since they didnt authorize the putting in of the IP into the code that they still own it wheather on not it has been distributed on the GPL basis . This is true . It does not matter that they distributed the code because they did so without knowning *supposedly* that it was in there . However once they found out they should have stopped sales of there own linux product immeditly otherwise they are knownlingly distributing there code under the GPL and have implied concent by doing so(IMHO IANAL ,etc.) . However they seem to (given the quality of there PR department) shifted all the PR budget to the legal budget so they can probably weasly there way out of it . The one thing that I think is missing "show me the code" . Show me the code that violates your IP , untill then I dont care about anything you have to say (to sco)

Do they think IBM, et al, are idiots?

[ashpool7]

The GPL sections they quote only cover code that is distributed by persons other than the copyright owner. Since SCO "owns" the code, the sections do not apply if they distribute it.

This trial just needs to get started so IBM can thrash SCO into bankruptcy.

Re:Do they think IBM, et al, are idiots?

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem is SCO has a $43billion cash account at their beck and call. You know that SCO is just another way to spell M$-whore. This will drag on and on for years.

Liability by accident?

[jcdr]

SCO say: "In other words, the GPL itself covers situations where code is improperly or accidentally contributed to the GPL without proper authorization (sic) of the true copyright holder."

So IBM are liable because SCO accidentally put some code into Linux? How there can present to the court a causal fault from IBM? IBM are not here to verify that SCO don't put there preciouse code into Linux.

Re:Liability by accident?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how SMH put 'sic' in there -- silly Australians! That's how 'authorization' is spelled. None of this 'authorisation' crap!

In other news...

[mugnyte]

Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream is suing Baskin Robbins for copyright infringement, due to BR's use of the "vanilla" labelled product sold in all of its stores today.

B&J sells their own Vanilla using plainly listed ingredients and readily available flavoring. During a brief joint-venture between the two companies, Ben and Jerry's and Baskin Robbins formulated a suite of flavors. During this time, B&J claims Baskin Robbins stole the Vanilla formula and process from their internal patented process files. No mention on if Baskin Robbins actually simply read the label on the product to mimic this flavor.

Vanilla, or "plain" ice cream has been around for quite some time. The original copyright owner is itself under question, since the ingredients and process to form a similar flavor to the B&J private version are deceptively simple. The knowledge for creating such a product predates B&J and is well known in academic cooking circles.

A spokesman for B&J's Ice Cream commented Thursday: "We own Vanilla. Any use of the process were without our permission to create an exact product. Nobody could create vanilla without knowing our process. We demand compensation for any other vanilla product which has diluted our market share."

And now for something completely different...

Re:In other news...

[Ricdude]

Strange example...

Ben and Jerry's was acquired by Unilever, a food and grocery product conglomerate, so the analogy still holds (SCO buying out the homegrown AT&T Unix).

More importantly, Ben and Jerry published an ice cream recipe book, which includes a variety of recipes for their special ice cream flavours. They even include tips on how to quickly and easily shatter 25 pounds of Heath (tm) bar to add to ice cream.

Now since SCO is talking about "enterprise" capabilities, you'd have to pick an "enterprise" level flavour. Actually, since Ben and Jerry's is "enterprise" level ice cream, you'd have to change the analogy to, say, Baskin Robbins sueing B&J for publishing the recipe to some marginally wacky flavour BR doesn't even make, like, say Cherry Garcia.

I give you -1, Bad Analogy, 10 yards and loss of down.

GPL Really stands for...

[douglips]

GPL Public License

Re:GPL Really stands for...

[Eneff]

No, that's

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG^C

Sorry, got stuck in an infinite recursive loop.

Re:GPL Really stands for...

[Afty0r]

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG^C

Sorry, got stuck in an infinite recursive loop.

Looks rather finite to me...

Re:GPL Really stands for...

[Eneff]

^C = Control-C = stopping the process.
</JayLeno>

Re:GPL Really stands for...

[femto]

Actually, the 'G' in GPL stands for 'general' as in General Public License. Not recusrive at all.

You get recursion when you expand the 'G' in \GNU (had to escape that 'G' so we wouldn't be here forever).

HURD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wondering, if they win, why can't we all just switch to the GNU HURD kernel?

Re:HURD?

[cosmcactus]

Is there any good software written for the GNU HURD kernel? A kernel isn't much fun without applications.

Re:HURD?

[42forty-two42]

It supports the standard unix APIs, so just recompile something.

Call it out....

[BubbaTheBarbarian]

This should be called out for what it is...the first shot in Microsoft's war against OSS. Everything up to this point has been trivial. Now we have a company that is going to openly challenge the GPL, and one that is a MSBitch to boot.

I bet if you look at the money, all trails will lead to The Beast. OSS has been expecting this to come from any other place (look at openGL for reference of another possible MS suit) then from one of "there own." Makes me ashmed to say I even assosiated with Calders before they became a bunch of a-holes.

WAR TUX!!!

Re:Call it out....

[griffjon]

This too, will pass. This is not the beginning of the MS war, this is MS setting up petty warlords in third world companies and paying/supplying them to fight enemies of MS, enabling MS to keep its hands more or less clean officially, but do damage.

MS is too smart to go against the GPL straight off using its own name. As someone commented (I'm lazy) on the original SCO post, it is is MS's best interest for SCO to drag this out such that MS salesdroids can make references to outstanding lawsuits and pending rulings vs the GPL and whatnot.

This will be a cold war, not a WWII. The thing is, MS doesn't realize they're playing the part of the USSR...

Re:Call it out....

[rhizome]

This just in (well, the other day...buried under the licensing story):

SCO brings Active Directory authentication to Unix

By Online Staff
May 20 2003

The SCO Group has announced that it is releasing SCO Authentication for Microsoft Active Directory in partnership with Center 7, a developer and provider of IT infrastructure management and authentication products.

The company said SCO Authentication enabled end users to use a single login in mixed Unix and Windows environments.

It said companies with business-critical Unix applications could benefit from "the enhanced security and reduced management costs" associated with existing Microsoft Active Directory environment.

"This is a great solution for organisations managing networks running Windows, Unix and other operating systems where authentication is typically insecure and difficult to manage," said Kieran O'Shaughnessy, SCO's regional general manager for Australia and New Zealand.

"SCO Authentication for Microsoft Active Directory allows IT teams to seamlessly integrate Unix-based system logins with the secure authentication technology they've already paid for in the form of Microsoft Active Directory."

Re:Call it out....

[pngwen]

of course, there is the fact that it doesn't matter one pair of dingos kidneys what happens.

Sure it could stop people from adopting linux as a business solutions. So what? We'll still have it at home and we'll still have it to tinker with.

If there is offending code, that would be fun. Then we get to remove it and rewrite it. That could be a very rewarding end in and of itself.

Perhaps we'll even become one of the HURD. Who knows? I think it would be exciting, but the bottom line is that there is no way to kill OSS, because we'll keep on doing it for free for the shear joy of it.

It's all about the code and making friends for me, the more I have to write, the better :-)

Re:Call it out....

[Mr. McGibby]

We'll still have it at home and we'll still have it to tinker with.

Of course the problem with this is that while a lot of the work on the kernel is done by hobbyists, a lot of it is done by paid people at Red Hat, IBM, Suse, etc. If these companies go out of buisness because Linux is no longer viable as a "product", the time between releases with go up 10-fold.

Re:Call it out....

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely right. SCO is Micro$oft's FUD-puppet. They're using SCO to try to delay Linux deployment long enough for them to get the rest of the Server2003 family out (SQL2003, etc). M$ has no doubt been behind this from the very start. Realize that M$ doesn't need SCO to win or even look credible when this is all over. They just need enough uncertainty in the minds of business decision-makers to hold off the HUGE wave Linux is riding right now.

My boss asked me about this issue (we're deploying Linux this year). I showed him ESR's position paper. Then I asked him what guarantees he has that there is no 'pirated' code in M$'s offerings. Since the source is secret, how can he do his due diligence in insuring that he isn't buying stolen code from M$? He said that M$ guarantees it's products. Then I showed him various M$ EULA's. Executive types never seem to read this stuff on their own. Boy was he surprised.

These tactics should come as no shock and surprise to us. We all know M$'s history. They played dirty from day one to the current day. They broke laws and all semblances of ethics on their way to the top, and they certainly must be expected to fight dirty all the way down.

We'll beat them with better, more readily available, better-supported, and more secure applications and with our sheer numbers.

After the lawsuit, ...

[burgburgburg]

when they would in theory have full information on what SCO code was stolen, if there were any SCO code in their Linux distribution, they would have been releasing it under the GPL.

If on the other hand, they claim that their distribution did NOT have any SCO code, then simply diff their distribution against all others to find the files/code sections that they are potentially claiming are SCO code.

And if there is no difference, then we have further proof that their lawsuit is an extortionate gamble, a desperate grab for cash and a FUD tool of their new friend Microsoft.

Re:After the lawsuit, ...

[nexex]

well their stock price has jumped dramatically with all this racket...

Re:After the lawsuit, ...

[technoid_]

i just wonder if it is in response to the idea that IBM/whomever will buy them to kill this lawsuit.

Course stock price doesn't mean much about the quality of the company.

Re:After the lawsuit, ...

[Salsaman]

It's more likely the result of the $1 billion that Microsoft are paying them to license SCO's IP.

Re:After the lawsuit, ...

[Citizen of Earth]

further proof that their lawsuit is an extortionate gamble

We should use a phrase that has more currency: "corporate fraud".

3000 lawsuits can't be wrong....

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot them to oblivion!

Re:3000 lawsuits can't be wrong....

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, why not spend the 37 and send them a real letter.

That online petition thing will be about as effective as bitching in your Slashdot journal.

Re:3000 lawsuits can't be wrong....

[Mr. McGibby]

Except that the petition says that if you list your email address of the petition, that SCO can sue you, which the whole point of the petition. I browsed about 400 signatures, and none of them had an email address.

For Some Reason...

[Greyfox]

I just had the mental image of Lazlo Troth sitting in the steam tunnels with a printing press running 24x7.

Lets every single one of us send them a resume a day for the next couple of months.

Re:For Some Reason...

[kometes]

Except that his name is Lazlo Hollyfeld.

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0089886

Re:For Some Reason...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude...

http://www.google.com/search?q=Lazlo+Toth

I'll admit I never heard of him either, but... Dude.

This is ridiculous

[cjmckenzie]

Things like this hinder development. It's an unproductive way of getting money - - like killing some project to save money. In the end all you have is less then you started with. It's pathetic that companies still try this tactic.

SCO's a pimp.

[burgburgburg]

He never could've outfought Linux. But I didn't know until this day that it was Microsoft all along.

Variant on the original quote.

Re:SCO's a pimp.

[Seth Finklestein]

He never could've outfought Linux. But I didn't know until this day that it was Microsoft all along.

That's a good quote, but you misspelled "Micro$haft." As a famous cybersecurity researcher, I am privy to some advanced name-calling methods that you commoners just don't have.

Re:SCO's a pimp.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, as an unknown Slashdot visitor, I really wish that you would go fuck yourself, you moronic waste of human life (or lack thereof).

Re:SCO's a pimp.

[Seth Finklestein]

Dear Michael Sims,

I am much more powerful than you will ever be.

Love,
Seth Finklestein.

Re:SCO's a pimp.

[ebh]

Gates to SCO: "Someday, and that day may never come, I'll call upon you to do a service for me."

Here's SuSE's public statement

[cheros]

SuSE responds to latest SCO actions

The UnitedLinux product -- jointly designed and developed by SuSE Linux, Turbolinux, Conectiva and SCO -- will continue to be supported unconditionally by SuSE Linux. We will honor all UnitedLinux commitments to customers and partners, regardless of any actions that SCO may take or even allegations they may make.

SCO's actions are again indeed curious. We have asked SCO for clarification of their public statements, SCO has declined. We are not aware, nor has SCO made any attempt to make us aware, of any specific unauthorized code in any SuSE Linux product. As a matter of policy, we have diligent processes for ensuring that appropriate licensing arrangements (open source or otherwise) are in place for all code used in our products.

http://www.suse.de/en/company/press/press_releases /archive03/sco_statement.html

Re:Here's SuSE's public statement

[I Am The Owl]

Um, ok. If I wanted to read SuSE's press releases, I'd just have them send them to me at phobos@safe-mail.net

Re:Here's SuSE's public statement

[Anonymous Coward]

That's clever. Perhaps the most innocent looking mail-bombs I've seen in a long time.

Aside from the other time you did it.

How big are the "parts"

[John Penix]

Could work alikes be quickly coded? Or are we talking about man-years of effort here?

Re:How big are the "parts"

[Anonymous Coward]

Could work alikes be quickly coded?

Probably not. Yes, "work-alikes" could be created, but not quickly, because in order to do so you'd have to find somebody who has never seen the offending code and just give them an interface to program to.

Just exactly how "not quickly" depends on the code. It'll range from a little bit "not quickly" to very, very "not quickly."

It is not that it is not copyrighted.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a case of whether someone can GPL code that s/he does not have the copyright to.

SCO claims (well, one of their claims is) that some of the code in "Linux" is their code that was used without their permission.

Therefore, that code is not under the GPL, even if SCO did license a "Linux distribution" that included that code.

Whether SCO's code is included or not (I don't believe it neither is nor was included), this is an excellent LEGAL discussion to have.

Just to get a LEGAL ruling on this possible scenario. That would help other companies feel more secure in supporting Open Source Software.

Re:It is not that it is not copyrighted.

[jedidiah]

SCO, will full knowledge and informed consent, did infact distribute it's own source code and associated binaries under the GPL.

That's not something that SCO is going to be able to weasel out of.

If they ever want to sell Linux again, they either have to clean up the code or give us their source.

From the GPL...

[MrGrendel]

Section 2 b states:

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

This means that even if some sections were in violation of SCO's copyright, then SCO still has to license the entire kernel under the GPL because other valid non-SCO copyrights are in there. They can't just pick and choose pieces, or even files, and claim that they are not covered. If they are part of the kernel, then SCO has to consider them to be covered if they want to redistribute. So, SCO either gave their implicit consent to release those sections under the GPL, or they can claim that they are and never were covered by the GPL, which means that SCO was distributing Linux without a license or any other permission to do so. If they can't or won't abide by the terms of the GPL for any reason, then they cannot distribute any of the code.

Re:From the GPL...

[ctid]

I thought this originally, but I think I was wrong. What SCO is claiming is that the SCO code was placed in the Linux kernel by someone other than the copyright holder. In such a situation, they are right about the fact that the GPL doesn't apply.

None of this proves that there is actually SCO code in the kernel of course. The longer they delay in revealing exactly what it is, the more I think they're bluffing.

Re:From the GPL...

[schon]

In such a situation, they are right about the fact that the GPL doesn't apply.

Yes, but only until they distribute the code.

If they had stopped distributing their Linux distro as soon as they found "their" code in the kernel, they might have a leg to stand on.

They knowingly distributed "their" code as part of a GPL'ed product. Therefore, the GPL *does* apply.

Re:From the GPL...

[MrGrendel]

That might have been true before SCO knew that their code had been placed in Linux illegally (assuming they are correct). But as soon as they even suspected that there was a problem then they had to make a decision as to whether they would allow the code to remain and distributable under the GPL, or if they would make claims of copyright infringement. They continued to distribute for two months after filing the lawsuit and they certainly knew about the offending code long before then.

Note in section 7 the GPL says that if you can't follow the terms of the GPL for legal (or any other) reasons, then you are still not exempt from the terms of the GPL. To quote:

For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

That applies to any legal restrictions on redistribution, not just patents. You can distribute under the GPL or not at all. There is no in-between. When they filed the lawsuit and made the IP claims in public, their license to distribute Linux was terminated.

Re:From the GPL...

[gizmonic]

Now, IANAL, but if SCO makes the argument that the code (which they owned) was included without their permission by one of their employees (who did not have the right to include it) then they might have a very valid court case. Sure, you can argue that by including the code, even without their knowledge or permission, they are still responsible for its release, and bound by the GPL. But I doubt that outcome is likely. It opens too big a can of worms.

Here's why: If I get a job at Microsoft, and slip a bit of GPL code into the next Windows and Office release, without Microsoft's knowledge, it is just too bad for them and the whole thing is free (as in beer) now?

Right or wrong, that is the way I think the courts would see it. Of course, that depends on the attorneys, and what arguments SCO makes. Honestly, I hope it goes to trial as it should be a very interesting case to follow. Unfortunately, if I were forced to bet, I would bet against us.

The only thing that might save us is that since SCO was purposely releasing GPL software, they may have more of a liability for losing that code than would Microsoft in the above example, who was releasing only propriety code, with GPL code thrown in by a saboteur. But then, that makes sense, and the courts sometimes don't.

Re:From the GPL...

[ctid]

Yep. You're right of course (as is schon, below). And the point you make about Section 7 of the GPL is well made too. Yet more questions for SCO to answer when this gets into court.

I don't know about you, but if I worked for SCO, I'd be utterly humiliated by all of this. It's like the owner of the company getting up in public and saying, "we can make more money from a ludicrous stunt like this than we can from the efforts of those bozos we employ".

Re:From the GPL...

[jareds]

Here's why: If I get a job at Microsoft, and slip a bit of GPL code into the next Windows and Office release, without Microsoft's knowledge, it is just too bad for them and the whole thing is free (as in beer) now?

No, it means that Microsoft has either released it under the GPL or committed copyright infringement. They can cease distributing the version that includes the code they have no right to, and pay damages to the copyright holder. The latter option is no different than the consequences of an employee slipping in code copyrighted by someone else but not covered by the GPL.

Likewise, SCO can either claim that they have released the code in question under the GPL, or that they have committed copyright infringement by distributing code covered by the GPL (the rest of Linux that isn't the alleged proprietary SCO code) without complying with the terms of the GPL. The difference between the SCO case and the hypothetical Microsoft case is that the SCO case would be willful infringement, since they have continued to distribute Linux since they filed the suit.

Re:From the GPL...

[iabervon]

Anyone who wishes to distribute or publish GPL-derived software legally does have to license it under the GPL. There are two choices: SCO never licensed that code under the GPL, but merely passed on the (invalid) license they received with the copy they got back, and they don't intend to license it under the GPL; this is perfectly fine, and everyone (including SCO) who wants to do anything with the affected code will need to remove SCO's code from it (there is no way anyone else could have known, or could now know, that they are violating SCO's copyright, though, which makes it a tough case for SCO if they want to go after Red Hat; only SCO could have told Red Hat about SCO's IP, and SCO expressly refused to do so in hopes that Red Hat would violate it. Er...).

The other possibility is that SCO now licenses the IP properly, since they can, and then they can resume distributing it (and derived works), under the GPL.

I don't think the fact that SCO happens to own the content in question as well as being a redistributor of the same content without knowing, means that they've chosen the second option implicitly. In fact, I assume they'd take the first option, since they've put themselves out of the Linux business anyway. They're probably going to try to collect as much money as possible and go out of business before everyone using Linux sues them for damages for refusing to reveal what IP they own, thereby preventing people from working around the problem.

Re:From the GPL...

[MrGrendel]

I don't think the fact that SCO happens to own the content in question as well as being a redistributor of the same content without knowing, means that they've chosen the second option implicitly.

But they did know. They knew for two months after filing the lawsuit against IBM + the time it took to prepare the filing + the time that it took to decide what to do after they discovered the code. Now, they can still go after IBM for violating whatever licensing agreement they claim to have had, but that absolves anyone else of any wrongdoing unless SCO is going to admit that they distributed and modified Linux (via UnitedLinux) in violation of the GPL.

Re:From the GPL...

[PhilTR]

" b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

This means that even if some sections were in violation of SCO's copyright, then SCO still has to license the entire kernel under the GPL because other valid non-SCO copyrights are in there. They can't just pick and choose pieces, or even files, and claim that they are not covered. If they are part of the kernel, then SCO has to consider them to be covered if they want to redistribute. So, SCO either gave their implicit consent to release those sections under the GPL, or they can claim that they are and never were covered by the GPL, which means that SCO was distributing Linux without a license or any other permission to do so. If they can't or won't abide by the terms of the GPL for any reason, then they cannot distribute any of the code. "

To continue this observation, while UNIX was first being developed first by AT&T then AT&T Bell Labs and then USL, many hackers contributed varying amounts of code to the project possibly some with conditions attached.

Where are these people? Don't they have an interest here in their contributions?

Eric Raymond in his OSI Positon paper observes in his flow chart that prior to 1988, "The red arrow from 4.2BSD to System V represents stolen property. AT&T, SCO/Caldera's predecessor in interest, took code from BSD Unix into System V, removing copyright notices and attributions in violation of the Berkeley license."

Where are the folks who authored this code and shouldn't they be entertaing SCO with law suits or do statutes of limitations come into play here and above?

Re:From the GPL...

[sbwoodside]

Yes, but they're arguing that section 1 a, which defines The Program, does not include their code. They're saying that their code doesn't BECOME the Program, because it doesn't qualify as original work. Thus, 2 b wouldn't apply either.

simon

IANAFL

Re:From the GPL...

[Anonymous Coward]

Up until the point SCO starts distributing the kernel itself under the GPL (as they have to). The GPL does apply, since SCO distrubted it distribution under this license.

Re:Slashdotted??

[GrassyKnowl]

SCO has no case.

Reminds me from the old Marx Brothers movie...

[Teddyman]

Quote from Duck Soup:

Chicolini: Now I aska you one. What has a trunk, but no key, weighs 2,000 pounds and lives in a circus?

Prosecutor: That's irrelevant.

Chicolini: Irrelephant? Hey, that'sa that answer! There's a whole lot of irrelephants in the circus.

Re: YOU ARE AN IDIOT THAT'S NOT GOATSE

[Anonymous Coward]

nuff said.

A challenge from the Linux community

[tktk]

SCO recently sent a letter warning some Linux users (approx. 1500 people) that they could be sued for using SCO code. About 2500 Linux users then signed a petition and issued a challenge, basically daring SCO to sue.

Thousands Say 'SCO Sue Me'

I can see it now:

[A_Non_Moose]

Defendant: Your Honour, I was not "trafficing" in narcotics, because at the time of my arrest I was at home, not in traffic at the time.

Defendant: Also, I'm not guilty of "Intent to distribute" the X Kilos of $narcotic/drug because the DEA seized it all before I even thought of selling the stuff. It is not relevant that I was caught selling $narcotic/drug a year later.

Yeah, that'll work.

SCO is saved by Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

If it wasn't for Linux, SCO had already been history for long. If Microsoft had not been challenged by Linux it had already taken the server market and killed off virtual all Unix in small business......

I DEMAND

[Anonymous Coward]

That SCO receive their own borg icon.

If it doesn't matter...

[dinog]

Then why did they ever stop distributung Linux ? In my view, their actions speak louder than their words. Of course they have the opinion that they did nothing wrong, and were greatly wronged. Tell me about a plaintiff that didn't publicly say this, and then I'll be surprised.

However, they are trying to say that the fact that they knowingly and willingly continued to distribute their proprietary code under a GPL liscence is ok, just because they didn't add the copyright notice. Hmm, then maybe I'll add some code to Linux that I have copyrighted, but not put any copyright notice on in (indeed, I'll leave it blank.) Then after everyone is using it, I'll try to extort, umm, I mean protect my intellectual property rights. Maybe I'll even give the code to someone else, so I can't be shown to have willingly contributed it. Sounds a bit fishy to me, but aside from my hypotetical intention (which is very hard to prove in court), there is little to no difference with SCO's actions. They knew the code was there, and they knowingly and willingly continued to distribute it as part of a package widely known (and possibly advertised by them as, but I'm speculating) to be open source.

Now if it isn't a problem, then why stop now ? If it is a problem, then they should have stopped immediately. Their actions and words do seem to add up. However, maybe their webpage can show some insight :

The sale of this SCO Linux product to new customers is currently suspended due to intellectual property (IP) issues associated with the Linux operating system. Accordingly, SCO has announced the suspension of its own Linux activities until the issues surrounding Linux IP and the attendant risks are better understood and properly resolved.

Perhaps this is the answer, they simply don't understand all the ramifications. In that light, their actions are quite understandable. They are saying one thing, to make their case, and doing other things to cover their backsides, because they know that in cases like these, the result is rarely completely in one side's favor. It is quite possible for them to have a phyric victory. Remember the Scopes-Monkey Trial ? The creationist won the case, but still lost the war.

Of course I'm not a lawyer, so take this with several hundred milligrams of NaCl.

Dean

Of all the childhood role-models, I learned the most important lessons from the Cookie Monster.

Re:If it doesn't matter...

[John Penix]

Then why did they ever stop distributung Linux ? In my view, their actions speak louder than their words. Of course they have the opinion that they did nothing wrong, and were greatly wronged. Tell me about a plaintiff that didn't publicly say this, and then I'll be surprised.

Exactly, exactly. "Our distribution of Linux does not make it GPL'd, even though we stopped once we realized our mistake".

implied P.S.

[John Penix]

"Your puny American copyright law is invisible here"

nice try

[sbwoodside]

They're trying to say that if the person who contributes the code is not the copyright holder, then the GPL doesn't apply, so they're not responsible for GPLing the code, so their distro doesn't count. But it does.

He had this to offer about the GPL and SCO: "The GPL, by its terms, only applies to software programs or works which contain a notice "placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. (emphasis by him)

But they published the code, and it contained a notice, which they also published, saying that it's under the GPL. Even if the code went through other hands first, they are claiming that they are the copyright holder, AND they published it with the notice. So they STILL fall under the GPL provisions.

Simon

Quit feeding the trolls

[missing000]

Seth's a fucking troll. If you think otherwise, read his stupid journal.

Re:Quit feeding the trolls

[Seth Finklestein]

Dear missing000,

Don't fuck with me. I will destroy you just like I destroyed Michael Sims five years ago.

Love,
Seth Finklestein.

For thoes who havent been keeping track...

[Znonymous Coward]

Here is the SCO businesses model...

Step 1. Caldera buys SCO.
Step 2. Flush SCO down the toilet, Linux and OpenUNIX rules!
Step 3. Caldera Linux and OpenUNIX sales aren't so good.
Step 4. Rebrand as SCO and embrace Linux (if embrace = SuSe's distro ~s/SuSe/SCO/)
Step 5. SCO Linux sales aren't to good, but we still own UNIX IP.
Step 6. Sue IBM, get them to buy us out for our UNIX IP.
Step 7. Read GPL.
Step 8. Woops, we GPL'd our way out of a case.
Step 9. Strip ourselves of Linux so M$ will give us money.
Step 10. Start a FUD war funded by M$.
Step 11. ???
Step 12. Profit?

The GPL also states

[cyber_rigger]

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

As of 05/16/03 these files were available at ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/openlinux/contrib/RPMS/l ibc6

It looks like these files have been removed.

linux-kernel-binary-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 4525 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-2.2.10-1.i586.rpm 4450 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-2.2.10-1.i686.rpm 4450 KB 07/28/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 4477 KB 07/22/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-2.2.7ac1-1.i686.rpm 4463 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-smp-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 4606 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-smp-2.2.10-1.i586.rpm 4589 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-smp-2.2.10-1.i686.rpm 4589 KB 07/28/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-doc-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 800 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-doc-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 801 KB 07/22/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-include-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 836 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-include-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 864 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-alpha-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 295 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-alpha-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 292 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-arm-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 222 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-arm-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 274 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-common-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 9333 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-common-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 9403 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-i386-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 281 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-i386-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 276 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-m68k-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 602 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-m68k-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 583 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-mips-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 322 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-mips-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 322 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-ppc-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 419 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-ppc-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 403 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-sparc-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 489 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-sparc-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 489 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-sparc64-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 458 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-sparc64-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 456 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM

Re:The GPL also states

[Anonymous Coward]

Meaning that SCO has been been knowingly violating the GPL.

Re:The GPL also states

[curious.corn]

I dl'd a copy a couple of days ago... anyone offers to mirror?

caldera_acpitable-2002-05-17_2.4.13.gz 7464 1039508245 50d66b757c9f135884ca34cf55e8c5cc 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
cciss-2.4.23-2.4.13.patch 19778 1039508245 3939d9d71294b934d4af3c0a8efa3446 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
grub-del.pl 695 1039508245 832924822a63f2e2f75f19f3bf28c281 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
grub-ins.pl 2323 1039508245 c172be897e529b11e079fd3d3099ae2d 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
i845g-audio.patch 2842 1039508245 f15939889951e5f6770a7f611061982a 0100755 root root 0 0 0 X
kconf.pl 1269 1039508245 08591ac8d9e7a7053503652c083e0ec6 0100755 root root 0 0 0 X
kdb-v1.9-2.4.13-ac1.bz2 124927 1039508245 37526bcb53bb953a737fd5fd631ad130 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
lilo-del.pl 700 1039508245 429c248b6ce7b77cf47c64bf0469f6fc 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
lilo-ins.pl 1903 1039508245 d2164763933639162e1a12b308dd56e8 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.10-acpi.diff 3626 1039508245 3037eb4c048189b9c4f8b3f5e3ae0c30 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.13-AMD_AGPGART_conflict_attrib.patch 5982 1039508245 a737cc25671dca155525a4f67b08fdae 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.13-LSB1.1.patch 6839 1039508245 273b70244c642524d0a8051572c28ee6 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.13-cpqraid-zeroblocksize.patch 1616 1039508245 28c849384fa3317533b3b01a3e0ce3ad 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.13-etherleak.patch 2932 1051956778 3908d6a5b1811cb95fadc4e3406060c0 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.13-i2c-dev.patch 2283 1051966056 a89c930e2bc681419995684f4e90654c 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.13-i845-ide.patch 7380 1039508245 e6a51efaf1af593b10053da77cd7e0ec 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.13-ipc_lsb_compliance.patch 464 1039508245 78025142f6d84ca99d49ef44a91862c2 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.13-ips-6.00.patch 289438 1051966214 e970413f2f62c5d3c599434953d6498f 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.13-kdb-keyb.patch 3690 1039880494 1e682174c4c09da01bdd12e5a68d016c 0100755 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.13-kmod.patch 5970 1051966056 8ebbc5e1b37eabce0b66e2db9202d614 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.13-lcall7.patch 1229 1039508245 4f09886e6c4ccaf476b81f7ca3d4f8ad 0100755 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.13-libz2.patch 4375 1039508245 7ae32023742ffef96c66ba4a9cf8fc53 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.13-mpt.patch 951847 1043919952 31b31a1ab182c68efdd8c8e6fb632892 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.13-no_ps2mouse.patch 1418 1039508245 d8651f576c2b24469cff393717a8e60d 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.13-scatterlist-ia64.patch 1408 1039508245 587e45652cb74475c4132c984bcbecd3 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.13-secfix 3508 1039508245 80c76265397d80bcd0b45f44207f4985 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.13-singlestep.patch 1263 1039508245 3922b1a5aafbfead6884aaeec357f3e9 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.13-st.patch 945 1039508245 4eb22c482e4d632000fc49e1a70f4e63 0100755 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.13-svwks.patch 1041 1043919967 3d3a20f191ba58d5b43ad5df3635ea66 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.13.tar.bz2 23111925 1039508246 b2b95d9a50f7ef0a2421492ffd31241e 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.5-mxt.patch 79630 1039508246 a787a376c64f8d67ebe920cea1f49d37 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.6-mxtbios.patch 501 1039508246 14c34fdb41c3f7b91de139b320408ba1 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.6-mxtfix.patch 3416 1039508246 56ccebc3c5b094687d51e98f6ba28b9c 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-2.4.9-scsi_reset.patch 9625 1039508246 fdce2c2563c943f59f7f97dd5672ed61 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-COL.patch 5859 1039508246 e9258838d23f9f2b68832c013c2fa363 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-ca-hooks 1741 1039508246 7af9720ff973a785416df79ba3c967a4 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-col_logo.h 143251 1039508246 da456f9191013309348d82d9845684eb 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-miscfixes.patch 12185 1039508246 f2c8ccc962425e2e8dcb6f6e0b9c83b0 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-silent-COL.patch 823 1039508246 faa799ffc8e18ffa8ddbe947760f7655 0100644 root root 0 0 0 X
linux-vgaplan4-CO

Re:The GPL also states

[Anonymous Coward]

If a newer kernel is required to fix a security issue that leaves Calder/SCO Linux users up the creek without a battle. I don't know how they can claim they're supporting existing customers. They have given up their rights to distribute the Linux kernel.

Re:The GPL also states

[Anonymous Coward]

How many megs is it?

Must...stop...eyes...from...rolling...

[gamgee5273]

Screw it. I can't stop it.

>rolls eyes Do you think SCO would like some cheese with their whine?

Massive increases in tech pay at SCO?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the subject of employment at SCO, I expect that their technical people are now requesting *collosal* pay rises as a result of this debacle, because SCO now really have no alternative but to pay up.

They sure as hell won't be getting any further job applicants from the Unix/Linux community, so it's either that or let their well-staffed legal department do the coding. :-)

Re:Massive increases in tech pay at SCO?

[shaitand]

Since when does SCO need developers? Last I heard they just bought already developed code and then started suing people whether they used said code or not.

Stable door

[HermanZA]

Judges are familiar with 'closing the door after the horse bolted'.

SCO has no case.

Isn't this just more media for Linux?

[msimm]

Funny thing is, I'm seeing more 'legitimate' media talking about Linux then ever. The more they yell the more respected business journals will end up printing conversion stories with every bodies new favorite underdog.

I bet this all make for some pretty funny board meetings.

Re:Slashdotted??

[hpa]

Of course they don't. However, their stock has hexupled (that is, x6 in value), from the hype. Expect the execs to dump their stock before the judge throws the case out of court.

So who gets to Sue...

[Anonymous Coward]

for defamation?

The unsubstantiated comments that SCO is making are definitely injurious. Tortious, i believe.

So who gets to sue SCO for this?

This is a major weakness in the Open Source paradigm, because ownership is so dilute.

Is this really a big deal?

[Groovus]

This is slightly off topic, but it was running through my head on my bike ride home from work yesterday....

If one was served with a cease and desist from SCO regarding linux code, would it not be an acceptable response to then ask them to identify the offending code so that you could remove it from the code base you are using, and then replace it with code from elsewhere (created by you, obtained from another source, etc.) which would not infringe on their "technology"? Additionally would you not also be within your rights to request proof of SCO "ownership" of the offending code? Simply put, would not the burden of proof still be on SCO if they make such an accusation?

Note that one would be attempting to comply with their request, not going to court or settling for damages. Would this remedy avoid those two outcomes?

Basically it seems to me that given the nature of open source it would be trivial to shrug off any and all such threats/claims by SCO. I mention this not to discourage those who wish to punish SCO for their actions by dragging them through court and beating them, but more along the lines of attemting to nip any fear businesses may have in consideration of adopting Linux about the legality of using "tainted" code in the bud by establishing clear and easy methods of circumventing such chicanery.

You could kill the SCO ploy quickly and easily if it was viable to say that if SCO came calling you just need to have them identify "their" code, prove it is theirs, and then replace it by having coder x create substitute code from scratch or obtaining substitute code from open source project y. Would this work?

Re:Is this really a big deal?

[tuffy]

You could kill the SCO ploy quickly and easily if it was viable to say that if SCO came calling you just need to have them identify "their" code, prove it is theirs, and then replace it by having coder x create substitute code from scratch or obtaining substitute code from open source project y. Would this work?

But replacing code previously published in violation of copyright doesn't excuse one from the original (purely hypothetical) violation.

Re:Is this really a big deal?

[Groovus]

Agreed. However (hopefully by now it is painfully clear that IANAL) are you liable for past unknowing violations? Ie. there is as yet no justification of SCO's claims, therefore no one is currently or previously in breech of anything in regards to their claim. As far as you or I or anyone but SCO now knows there is no SCO copyrighted material in linux which is restricted as of right now - we use linux in the full faith and knowledge that we are in fact entitled to do so by all legal means at the current time. If SCO were vindicated in their claim does that mean they are entitled to collect for code used in the past that only recently has become taboo? I seem to recall rules in place to disallow such things, but again I am not by any means an expert on such things.

I would like to think that those who attempt to rectify any discovered infringements in good faith would not be subject to compensating SCO for prior "damages" unknown and unproven to either party at the time of the alleged infringement. Someone else can probably think of apt analogies. Then again our legal system doesn't always operate in ways that seem logical to me. As always more information from more knowledgeable sources would be welcome.

Re:Is this really a big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If one was served with a cease and desist from SCO regarding linux code, would it not be an acceptable response to then ask them to identify the offending code so that you could remove it from the code base you are using, and then replace it with code from elsewhere (created by you, obtained from another source, etc.) which would not infringe on their "technology"? Additionally would you not also be within your rights to request proof of SCO "ownership" of the offending code? Simply put, would not the burden of proof still be on SCO if they make such an accusation?"

Once a suit is filed, the only "acceptable responses" require action by the court. If one files a formal response, the case moves forward ... if not, one will have a default judgment against them. If one files a response and a counterclaim, the suit similarly moves forward. If one settles "out of court", the settlement still requires approval of the court. In other words, once the court proceedings have begun, they have to be formally addressed and resolved by the court. And yes, ownership would need to be proven, and the burden of proof of not only ownership but also the claims (misappropriation of trade secrets, etc.) remains on the party filing the claim (SCO).

"Would this work?"

No.

"Basically it seems to me that given the nature of open source it would be trivial to shrug off any and all such threats/claims by SCO."

As mentioned above, if one "shrugs it off", they will end up having a default judgment rendered against them, including a judgment for any damages requested in the complaint. So "shrugging it off" is not really a viable option.

Re:Is this really a big deal?

[Groovus]

Thanks for that. It was my understanding (and this may again be wrong) that in cases like this there needs to be some notification to the "offending" party of their transgression and an opportunity for them to correct the transgression before things can go to court. This discussion has been had before here, and it seemed to me that you are not allowed to sit on on infringement, knowingly racking up the damages and then start suing people out of nowhere when you feel there's enough money to be had at that point. Ie. SCO has known for some time of this problem - it seems they needed to notify as soon as they became aware of it if they expected to collect damages. Similar to the GIF case I believe - but I certainly could be wrong.

error

[narfbot]

(even then I'd believe any copyright claim is not true)

SCO Still distributing Linux Kernel...

[Anonymous Coward]

ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/updates/ SRPMS/kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm

How about a Slashdot Interview

[lobsterGun]

Has anyone heard what any of the SCO techies are saying about this suit? We've all heard what the lawyers and the suits have to say.

How about we have a Slashdot Interview with an anonymous SCO techie? Most techies I know would jump at the opportunity to set the record straight if they were in a similar circumstance (espescially if their anonimity could be guarranteed.)

So what do you say Comandante Taco? Can we get and interview?

Re:How about a Slashdot Interview

[Anonymous Coward]

They're just as evil as their overlords in management. Right now I'm sure they're sitting around rubbing their hands together and, with an evil laugh, saying "EXXXXXXCELLENT!"

Re:How about a Slashdot Interview

[mandolin]

The suits must be relying on some techies to examine the code, in order to give their case a semblance of feasibility.

It's probably a small number, too. Any willing techie who could give sufficient information to make for an interesting interview would be quickly discovered, fired, and probably sued as well.

Anyone at SCO: look for another job now. Your execs have somehow managed to bring the wrath of IBM, the entire linux industry (hey it's a couple thousand dollars :)) and an entire demographic of the world population upon them. You're wasting time with IBM. You have two OSs that compete with each other, drain your time trying to write compatibility kits (which also add bloat..), and they both suck compared to the competition (and I've used OpenServer, I know that of which I speak). You're probably being asked to make up some creative bullshit for the court case. Aside from all that, countersuits are terribly likely.

I hope the utah job market pans out for you.

Re:How about a Slashdot Interview

[swillden]

How about we have a Slashdot Interview with an anonymous SCO techie?

A SCO employee would have to be a complete fool to do this right now, regardless of what guarantees of anonymity might be provided. In a situation like this, the possible repercussions of being found out far exceed simply being canned.

Re:How about a Slashdot Interview

[Anonymous Coward]

He could do it from a cybercafe in a different state, wearing a false beard.

Re:How about a Slashdot Interview

[swillden]

He could do it from a cybercafe in a different state, wearing a false beard.

And he'd better hope he doesn't inadvertently offer any clues, based on the particular sets of facts he knows, or doesn't know, or based on writing style, tone, attitude, word choice, etc., that might give away his identity. If there's *anything* that catches him out, the world will come crashing down on top of him. If there's no solid evidence linking to his identity and if he's able to keep a straight face and lie with conviction when confronted about it, then he *might* be able to get away with it.

As I said before, he'd have to be a fool to try it. And who wants to interview a fool, anyway?

Re:How about a Slashdot Interview

[Anonymous Coward]

Or he has to have BAWLS of STEEL.

Don't forget about him representing Al Gore

[maugt]

That one was a bit of a bust too, wasn't it. Didn't Dubya win that?

Accept this position

[rjamestaylor]

Accept their position that the GPL requires that the copyright holder place the item in perview of the GPL. Accept their position that the GPL protects copyright holders from having code pirated or released by unauthorized persons. Then, now that all sides agree on the legitimacy of the GPL as the governing license, force SCO to prove code was pirated or released under the GPL by someone other than the copyright holder.

Then challenge SCO on the Linux-compatibility layer, especially the EXT2 code, as suggested anonymously on the LKML. Make SCO defend its own pirating of GPL'ed code.

SCO Invites You to Join Its Conference Call

[Anonymous Coward]

The SCO Group Invites You to Join Its Second-Quarter 2003 Results Conference Call
LINDON, Utah, May 22, 2003 -- The SCO® Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX) will report financial results for its second quarter ended April 30, 2003 before the market open on Wednesday, May 28, 2003, followed by a teleconference regarding its results and outlook.

WHAT: The SCO Group, Inc. Second-Quarter Results Conference Call

WHEN: Wednesday, May 28, 2003, 9:00 a.m. Mountain Daylight Time (11:00 a.m. EDT)

HOW: If you would like to participate in the live call, you may dial 1.800.946.0719 or 1.719.457.2645; Passcode: 728447.

You may also join the call in listen only mode via web cast at http://ir.sco.com/conference.cfm or www.companyboardroom.com

These sites will host an archive of the call for a minimum of 30-days.

About SCO

Founded in 1979, The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX), helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries around the world grow their businesses everyday through the company's UNIX, Linux and Windows business solutions. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a network of more than 16,000 resellers and 8,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services, visit http://www.sco.com .

SCO and the associated SCO logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of Caldera International, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX and UnixWare, used under an exclusive license, are registered trademarks of The Open Group in the United States and other countries. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. All other brand or product names are or may be trademarks of, and are used to identify products or services of, their respective owners.

Dear Mr. Gates

[DailyGrind]

Dear Bill,

I am eagerly awaiting your third wish.

Sincerely,
Satan

Re:not kernel

[tomhudson]

If you've followed this from the beginning, the suit itself (not the suits at SCO talking about it, who haven't read their legal brief) doesn't state thate there is any code from SCO/Caldera/whoever in the linux kernel, just that there are 8 or 9 library files that are used to run older software. None of these files are shipped with any of the newer distros, so it's all bs anyway. When's the last time you used/needed iBCS support?

Step 11:

[mikeee]

Executives pay selves huge severance packages as company goes under.

Someone should say it...

[Anonymous Coward]

...so Slashdot, just keep the old Caldera logo for SCO topics for the time remaining. I guess it'll be just for a while...

Mickey Mouse

[Anonymous Coward]

Recently, I've had trouble interpreting what I see.

For instance, when I looked at the SCO global-C logo, what I saw was Disney's Mouse logo projected on a globe, and turned to the right so only the ear on the left shows.

I'm still having trouble perceiving the C, even now that I know what it is.

Re:Linux?

[questionlp]

Regarding GIF images, I think it's okay to create, modify and distribute GIF images iff (if and only if) the vendor of the program used to create the GIF holds a valid license to the GIF patent.

I believe this is the reason why The GIMP does not include support for writing out to GIF by default (yet it can still view GIF images). A plugin to allow for GIF saving/export is available as a separate download.

So if a GIF was created from Microsoft Paint or Photo Editor, it ought to be fine since Microsoft, most likely, has paid their licensing dues. The same may not be said about Joe Schmoe's image editing program that allows for saving images in GIF format.

That's my understand of it... but I could be wrong.

Use OSS methodology against SCO

[bstadil]

We need to start using the "lots of eyeballs" methodology against SCO. We need to find cases inside Unixware where the lifted code from Linux.

According to latest thread on Kernel List Quoted below this is likely to have happened. Even though the Code is not public available there must be some versions floating around that can be used for "analysis". Once something is found public bug reports can be used as Evidence. Same bugs in SCO binaries as in Linux.

If someone have a copy of the SCO source code maybe make a Torrent file, so we can start analysing if they indeed stole something. A few nuggets will go a long way to quash the FUD from SCO. Anyone know where old SCO bug reports can be found?

Quote:

6. Possible License Violations Within The Kernel Source

Elsewhere, Christoph Hellwig replied to the original post as well, saying:

As somone who walked for SCO (or rather Caldera how it was called at that time) I can tell you this is utter crap. There were very people actually doing Linux kernel work then (and when the German office was closed down all those left the company) and we really had better things to do then trying to retrofit UnixWare code into the linux kenrel. Especially given that the kernel internals are so different that you'd need a big glue layer to actually make it work and you can guess how that would be ripped apart in a usual lkml review :)

It might be more interesting to look for stolen Linux code in Unixware, I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux fileystem in the Linux compat addon product for UnixWare..

Jim Nance said, "Wouldnt it be halirous if whatever code SCO is talking about when they say there is Unix code in Linux turns out to be code some SCO employee ripped out of some GPL program and stuck it into Unixware. That is actually far more likely than what they alledge."

--

Re:Use OSS methodology against SCO

[Eunuchswear]

If someone have a copy of the SCO source code maybe make a Torrent file, so we can start analysing if they indeed stole something.

Very clever. Incite people to break the law in order to win a lawsuit.

You are not a lawyer I take it.

Hmmm... Conspiracy

[philci52]

Microsoft to SCO: We'll pay you if you can interrupt linux development.
SCO to Microsoft: OK, We know a pretty good way to spread FUD
Newsflash: SCO to sue Redhat/IBM...
Micrsoft to SCO: Good Job, here you go
Newsflash: Micrsoft licenses SCO's UNIX
SCO to Microsoft: Now what?
Microsoft to SCO: HA! Now only you and I can distribute linux if the suite is actually true...uhmm I guess IBM too
Microsoft and SCO: PROFIT!!

Total Crap

[bwt]

This is total crap. Under SCO's theory, they are admitting violating many, many authors copyrights. If they are distributing ANY non-SCO GPL code mixed with non-GPL'd code (owned by SCO or not) then they have commited a violation of the GPL'd code's copyright. They are practically stipulating to the fact that they have commited copyright infringement.

The hypocracy of SCO's position is amazing. Let's think about this... Linus and Co. wrote codeset A, the parts of Linux which are their original work. SCO claims it owns codeset B (the UnixWare stuff) and that IBM created codeset C=A+B. If SCO distributed C then they are infringing the licence on A for exactly the same reason that they claim everyone else is violating the licence to B by distributing C. In fact, for them to distribute C is worse from a legal point of view, because they believed that it was infringing, whereas nobody else does. Since SCO has refused to even notify anyone else who distributes C (including the authors of A) of which parts of codeset C they believe are infringing, they are the ONLY ones who could prevent the infringement since they are the only ones with the knowledge to prevent the infringement.

If their view of the facts turns out to be true, then their distribution of Linux was willful for-profit infringement, practically by stipulation, and Linus, Alan Cox, Dave Miller and every other legitimate code author should get statutory damages from SCO as well as any profits that SCO earned as a result of their infringement.

IF YOU WROTE ANY PART OF LINUX, YOU SHOULD SUE SCO FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT FOR DISTRIBUTING YOUR CODE IN VIOLATION OF YOUR LICENCE

Re:not kernel

[Anonymous Coward]

If you've followed this closely, SCO has contridicted itself with each press release saying that the code isn't in the kernel, that it is, that they aren't going after the distros, that they will. Since it is all bullshit it's not surprising they can't stick to a single story.

One reason they're ignoring the GPL issue...

[chiller2]

I can see it now...

"In his new position at Unix vendor SCO, former Iraqi information minister Mohammed Saeed Al-Sahaf wasted no time in denying the claims that SCO had given away intellectual property within its own Linux distribution.." ;)

Re:Linus is going to lose the lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

I said:
"Hello to all my SCO friends out there! Together we sill crush these linux upstarts!
---

rj: rjcarr316@hotmail.com."

Somebody modded me a troll!?! What's trolling about that? I'm joking about the lack of SCO people on here?

rj: rjcarr316@hotmail.com

Re:Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

How in the world is this off-topic of the parent is responding to something that's it's parent is citing?

Erik Hughes?

[linuxislandsucks]

Why would anyone go on record of understanding the GPL well enough to dispprove a mjor portion of SCO Group sown statements?

Per GPL if an individual developer by any action added code that was a derivative work of another copyright then GPL cannot be the copyright holder of that work..

That basically means that there was frameworks in place to hadle the infringment issue before a lawsuit depsite SCO Groups claims to the contrary..

It also means that the damage claims rest with those individual developers or their companies not USERS!!

and of course the actual trade secrets and othe rcliams of Unix IP are nto worth the paper they are printed on according to the 1993 suit between BSDI, ULC, and etc.. in which the community won thus forcing specific Unix methods and code into public domain vi athe original work of those free coders..

They did what?

[gr8_phk]

So SCO distributed (sold even) code that they claim contained no copyright notice? Either they knew it was theirs and have no case against anyone as a result, or they knowingly sold someone else's work claiming it was GPLed.

Caldera OpenLinux 2.2, Turbo Linux 4.0

[Anonymous Coward]

The first retail-packaged Linux I purchase was Caldera OpenLinux 2.2. Based on Linux Kernel 2.2.5. By far, the worsed distribution I've ever encountered. It always hung on my Dual Pentium Pro's AIC7880 SCSI and I needed to bootup Tom's RootBoot Linux just to install it. I later bought Turbo Linux 4.0 retail; based on Linux Kernel 2.2.10, same hanging on AIC7880 SCSI. I continued using my eBay $5 purchase of RedHat 5.2 because it always had no problems with the SCSI. My dual CPU Pentium Pro system wasn't being utilized to the fullest, and I decided to put Caldera 2.2 and Turbo 4.0 back into their boxes and ship them into ...The Box Of Misfit Software, right next to MS Windows NT 4.0 and Dr. Solomon's Anti-Virus 7. I ran over to www.LinuxFromScratch.org, followed their instructions to download and compile, and had myself a recent fully-featured Linux system on GLIBC 2.1.3 and Kernel 2.2.9 for over 2 years. Ice Window Manager, Accelerated openGL with my Voodoo2 in a XFree86 3.3.6 window, SoundBlaster 128...everything worked fine. I since sold that system and bought an Alpha ev56 machine, running Debian 3.0: Alpha is fast and Debian is beautiful, I even have Voodoo2 in my Alpha, alongside Radeon 9000 PCI and it is FAST and vivid! I completly recommend Alpha because it's a 64bit CPU for its entire lifetime; well designed, efficient power consumption, fastest FPU in the industry, and they are affordable on eBay (21164 only...21264 is a little hefty, but buy one if you have the money).

Not that I'm RMS' biggest fan......

[dmaxwell]

I'll preface by saying that I have ambivalent feelings about RMS and the FSF. I think of the GPL and LGPL as tools which are appropriate for some goals but not others. That said, since SCO has not clearly stated what they believe infringes then this may have very little to do with the Linux kernel proper. It may well be that some of the their claims will be made against glibc or other FSF owned pieces. If in fact they do that then they will be staring down both barrels of an FSF countersuit. It's rather amusing actually. They could wind up suing each other for copyright violation. Should that happen, a little cash thrown the FSF's way would not be amiss. Not as a way of being an RMS fanboy but as a way to help slap these a-holes back to the Stone Age.

Of course, if it is about the kernel then they are open to a countersuit from members of the Linux kernel team. Sooner or later they will have to get down to brass tacks. If they do it over GPLed code they released then the owners get to smack them back. Let's make sure the good guys win.

Re:Slashdotted??

[erikdotla]

then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.

They really should get better lawyers.

But the program was distributed. Isn't that their point? Someone distributed their code and attached the GPL to it, which they legally weren't allowed to do. It spread from there. They allege that IBM did this deliberately, sucking code out of SCO's UNIX, GPLing it, and slapping it into the kernel.

If they're right, it seems that any code proven as such, could never have been inserted into the Linux kernel and would need to be immediately removed, or face litgation from SCO.

Of course, we still don't know what code this is. They won't release it because we (Linux dev's) would just "cover our tracks" as if we could rewrite history (CVS history, specifically.)

It's all fun to read and follow though, isn't it?

Step 11.1

[Znonymous Coward]

Stock goes up 300% based on FUD. Sell, sell, sell.

Berne Convention(international law)

[SuperBanana]

IANAL, but I thought that (at least under English Law) something is copyright whether or not there is a notice on it.

It's international law as well- the Berne Convention. Everything is automatically copyrighted- you don't have to explicitly state a bit of text or an image is your copyright. Copyright holders are still advised to place copyright notices, of course.

This is one of the reasons you can't forward an email I send you without seeking my permission first- it's a copyrighted work, and you can't reproduce it without my permission. Every single post to Slashdot is copyrighted, too :-)

Re:How did you defeat ME??!?!?!?!?!?

[koh]

"View selection source" in Mozilla shows (quite) instantly that he's used the following elements :

<b> <ol></ol></b><br>

This is probably one of many ways to fool the system ;)

Note to SCO...

[earthforce_1]

You are too far from reality!

If you actually read the GPL...

[whoever57]

You will see that SCO are correct. But take the discussion further..

SCO knowingly distributed what they allege is their code without copyright markings. Then can no longer claim trade secret violations against any user who obtained the code after they discovered "their" code in the kernel.

What's more, since it did not have their copyright markings, neither can they assert any copyright rights against users of the disputed code.

They state the GPL does not apply, so if not what does? Answer: NOTHING! They have even *less* control over the code than if the GPL applied!

The important point is that they *knowingly* gave away what they claim as their own code. Free, gratis, no strings attached, not even the GPL!

Perfectly Reasonable

[maynard]

"[Huges] had this to offer about the GPL and SCO: "The GPL, by its terms, only applies to software programs or works which contain a notice "placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. (emphasis by him)"

This is perfectly reasonable. We're all so pissed of at SCO that we forget to think of the potential consequences of taking this line of thought to its logical conclusion. Rip SCO out and reconsider this statement:

I own a company which writes a proprietary application sold to the public. It contains lib 'a' which is used for manipulating the general class of 'foo', something very useful. One of my employees releases the lib 'a' source under the GPL without corporate knowledge or acquiescence. This is then incorporated into several other GPL'd applications, one of which we happen to distribute without knowing that a part of this application contains our source. Is lib 'a' now covered under the GPL because of our mistake?

I certainly hope not. I doubt this would be rms's or the FSF's attorney wish either. Such a conclusion goes against the grain of allowing the copyright holder to designate contractual licenses limiting duplication rights. Note that I don't say right to use, but basic duplication rights. The eventual outcome of that would be a loophole which could dilute basic copyright law; the very foundation of the GPL.

Whatever of SCO's code that may or may not be in the generic Linux Kernel, it's perfectly clear that only the owner of a copyright may specify the contractual terms of licensing. Simply put, if someone other than the owner contributed code which was accepted into the kernel tree (or distributed said code as a patch), the owner shouldn't be held to account for having also distributed their own code by accident; code which they didn't knowingly or purposefully contribute.

Screwing SCO on a 'gotcha' because they continued to distribute the Linux kernel after they filed the lawsuit may seem like just deserts, but long term it could have damaging consequences to the Free Software community after the fact. We should instead be looking for prior examples of development and ownership for everything SCO claims copyright over. If everything they claim can be proven factually false, their case dies a just death. The way to win is to show that SCO has no legal basis for claiming copyright infringement: that they, as SCO, never created whatever code they claim as theirs is in the Linux kernel; nor could they have since the historical timeline clearly shows developments by a wide range of authors who have no connection to IBM, HP, or SCO (or Project Monterey, SCO OpenServer, and/or UNIXWare). Kill their idiotic suit with facts and they will shut up and die already.

Should it turn out that some small portion of the kernel contains illegally expropriated code copyrighted by SCO, then rip it out and recode ASAP. Remove the illegal code from all previous copies in the masters and mirrors. Minimize the damage once it's discovered and plead to the judge that the principal authors didn't and couldn't have known. Point out that the plagiarizing author, the one who submitted whatever infringing code in bad faith, should be the responsible party. Let SCO sue that infringer, the person who willfully broke the law, and then let it drop. SCO winds up with little or no money, the principal authors keep their good name and reputation, and Linux continues on it's merry way.

JMO,
--Maynard

Re:Perfectly Reasonable

[no_code_charlie]

"" One of my employees releases the lib 'a' source under the GPL without corporate knowledge or acquiescence. " Corporations are artificial entities: they can have no more actual "knowledge" than can my coffee maker. However, if the employee who released the code had so much as "apparent" authority (i.e., wrt to outsiders relying on the act) then its tough beans for the corp.: It's GPL City. What constitutes apparent authority may vary from case to case but if releasing software under open licenses (or otherwise) is what the employee generally does, or if the corp. lacks any diligence in preventing/detecting/remedying the problem, or if the reliance and detriment to outsiders is great, the corp. is going to have a long long row to hoe in order to get any relief from a corp. Contractual mistakes are often made but relief therefrom is seldom granted.

Re:Perfectly Reasonable

[MonopolyNews]

you're right. The real issue is the two months they still shipped and the fact that they are indemnifying their previous linux customers. If SCO's NON-GPL code is in those copies of linux it's either GPLed now or SCO is illegally shipping linux in violation of the GPL.

SCO seems to be forgetting, they can indemnify their users against the use of SCO IP, but they cannot do that with all the rest of the linux code, which is legitimately GPLed. As if only their IP is of concern.

I repeat, either their IP is now GPLed or they are violating the GPL. They must not just stop shipping Linux, they must recall the versions they have distributed.

Re:Perfectly Reasonable

[jareds]

I own a company which writes a proprietary application sold to the public. It contains lib 'a' which is used for manipulating the general class of 'foo', something very useful. One of my employees releases the lib 'a' source under the GPL without corporate knowledge or acquiescence. This is then incorporated into several other GPL'd applications, one of which we happen to distribute without knowing that a part of this application contains our source. Is lib 'a' now covered under the GPL because of our mistake?

It need not be. You need not agree to the GPL, because you have never signed it. However, you have no right to distribute the GPL'd application (except for lib 'a' itself) in question without following the terms of the GPL, becuase you do not hold the copyright to it. You should thus immediately stop distributing versions of the application that contain lib 'a' (as should third parties, who have no right to distribute lib 'a' at all). In contrast, SCO has continued to distribute Linux long after filing this suit. If they have not caused their proprietary code to be licensed under the GPL, they are committing willful copyright infringement. I don't see how there can be other options available to them. (Also, in your example, one would expect your company to inform third parties that you hold the copyright to lib 'a' specifically and ask them to stop distributing it. SCO has not done this. No one yet knows what SCO is claiming copyright to sepcifically.)

The point is that others cannot distribute GPL'd software containing SCO's proprietary code, but neither can SCO itself. That is the whole point of the GPL! If its claim that Linux contains SCO's proprietary code is correct, it must cease distributing Linux, or at least excise its code from the version it distributes. If SCO continues to distribute Linux without excising its code or releasing its code under the GPL, it should be sued for copyright infringement by the kernel team.

Re:Perfectly Reasonable

[jmorris42]

> Screwing SCO on a 'gotcha' because they continued to distribute the
> Linux kernel after they filed the lawsuit may seem like just deserts

Perhaps, but how about these ideas?

If we stipulate that there is some SCO IP in the kernel (which I doubt) and that IBM did indeed contribute it to Linus and claim it as their own (which I'd be shocked to find true) and acknowledge that SCO did indeed distribute said tainted code before and after learning it's origins we get the following:

1. SCO can not expect 3rd parties to be any more liable for infringement than SCO themselves are for their own lack of due dilligence. Since SCO is likely to hold themselves and their customers blameless they can't then expect damages from anyone else. After all, only SCO possessed their precious archival UNIX code to compare against so they were in the best position to detect the infringment.

2. Since SCO has yet to formally request a DMCA takedown, no distributer can be held liable up to such time as they file a formal takedown request. Yes, the DMCA is going to work in our favor in this case, especially for kernel.org and mirrors.

3. So we get a best case for SCO, where they prove their case anc get a total legal victory and are unable to collect damages from anyone other than IBM. And IBM can keep the case on appeal until sometime after the final trump blows so they get no money and end up bankrupt.

Re:Perfectly Reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, if it weren't for the fact that you are not looking to BLEED SCO DRY over this, I'd have mistaken you for one-o-dem nogud layyer types.

Re:Perfectly Reasonable

[CmdrGravy]

Fair enough if they don't know the infringing code is in their release but now that they are saying that Linux does contain their Code you have to assume to know it's there and where it is. If they continue distributing their Linux knowing all of the above then that surely has to undermine any claims they may have.

A lot of this hinges on proving 'intent'

[nurb432]

If they continued to release what Caldera was originally distributing and not yet knowing there was illegal code in it, then they did not 'convert' anything to gpl. That would take a conscious decision to release under GPL.

Once they learned of the mistake the product was pulled.. Showing it was not their intention to continue the illegal distribution made by their parent company that started BEFORE the acquisition...

Proving intent would be hard, but I do believe it would hold up in court FOR SCO since they have taken proper steps to remove the said illegal product that is under their control.

Re:A lot of this hinges on proving 'intent'

[JonathanX]

I could be mistaken, but it was my understanding that Caldera bought SCO, not the other way around. I.E. SCO = Caldera / Tarantella = SCO

Re:A lot of this hinges on proving 'intent'

[jedidiah]

Proving intent will actually be quite trivial.

SCO continued distributing the "contaminated" product for months after going public with their intent to sue IBM and all of their Linux competitors.

Also, if SCO's case against IBM is something other than barratry, then they had to have prior knowledge that the Linux that they distribute is contaminated.

SCO's argument only works if they discontinued ALL LINUX DISTRIBUTION prior to filing against IBM.

Re:A lot of this hinges on proving 'intent'

[nurb432]

Yes that is how it happened, perhaps i worded it poorly...

Statutory Damages

[overshoot]

Talk about foot-in-mouth. According to this, SCO deliberately and after consultation with Counsel chose to distribute copies of a copyrighted work without authorization (the non-SCO portions of the Linux kernel.) [1].

Therefore, every copy of Linux that they've distributed since then (and maybe some before) meets all of the statutory requirements for "willful infringement," which carries a statutory damage of $50,000 to $150,000 per copy. It's not necessary to show damages in this case, the law itself specifies them. Slam-dunk summary judgment stuff.

The FSF (assignee of at least some of the GPL contributions) should sue SCO pronto, citing their own testimony. SCO is estopped from denying the charge, the Court awards $50,000 times a whole bunch of copies, plus legal fees, and the FSF ends up owning what's left of SCO.

Happily ever after.

[1] Since they knew that portions of the work were encumbered, the GPL ceases to enable distribution of any of it, thus copyright law applies. See damages above.

Re:Statutory Damages

[Oswald]

This scenario has that "too good to be true" feel to it. Is it worth dropping an email to the FSF, just in case it's doable?

Re:Statutory Damages

[Anonymous Coward]

Good idea, but the problem is that so far there isn't any code that's been officially encumbered. SCO has just made a lot of noise without any specific statements or restrictions.

Still it will come in handy when they try to enforce any restrictions on redistribution of the "stolen" code.

Re:Statutory Damages

[theLOUDroom]

Wow. That's a really good point!

If they're claiming the weren't distributing their code under the GPL, they had no right to distribute to Linux kernel at all.

The GPL is one damned clever license. I think it's probably the most important thing the FSF has ever done.

Re:Statutory Damages

[PolR]

This could work only if Linux contains code that violates SCO's IP because otherwise everything is properly GPLed and can be legally distributed regardless of their suit. IANAL but won't suing them now be construed as an acknowledgement that Linux indeed contains IP infringement?

Funny to see how SCO's own inepty will save them from that one. On the other hand, it is ironic to see how a win on their side means they will get washed out of everything they might gain.

Re:Statutory Damages

[sbwoodside]

[1] Since they knew that portions of the work were encumbered, the GPL ceases to enable distribution of any of it, thus copyright law applies. See damages above.

It's an interesting idea but how do you know that the GPL will cease to cover everything? That's not stated in the GPL. I think that the license would continue to cover the non-infringing work. The only parts not covered by the GPL would then be the hypothetical code that was stolen from SCO. But then, since they released it with the GPL label, and THEY ARE the owners of that code, then it is covered under GPL ;-)

simon

Re:Statutory Damages

[bstadil]

Is it worth dropping an email to the FSF, just in case it's doable?

Absolutely, I think he reads /. but no harm sending a note,

If you know other developers send them a note too.

Re:Statutory Damages

[Jetifi]

That's [restriction on distribution of encumbered work] not stated in the GPL

I think this should cover it:

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

Now, IANAL, but if SCO claim that Linux is encumbered, this should meet the criteria of 'conditions'' that ''contradict the conditions of [the GPL]''. So if(the above == true) then ''as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.'', which is fairly clear.

Just my two cents.

Re:Linux?

[BurritoWarrior]

Personally, I don't want to have anything to do with SCO or any product they ever touched.

That's why I switched to Dr. DOS.

Lawyers can be idiots, too...

[OmniGeek]

As we can clearly see from SCO's assorted statements (sordid statements?). Then again, their lawyers have to put the best public face on whatever rotten hand their client and the facts have dealt them, so maybe they KNOW that they have no case and are banking on the fact that judges can be idiots as well. It makes me have a moment's sympathy for lawyers with idiot clients. ... Whew, thank goodness that passed quickly!

Re:Lawyers can be idiots, too...

[ONOIML8]

"Then again, their lawyers have to put the best public face on whatever rotten hand their client and the facts have dealt them."

No. Absolutly they do not. I don't have to repair radios and computers for people who I know are using them for illegal things like making and selling drugs or child porn or some shit. And lawyers do not have to be part of anything dishonest just because a potential client asks it of them.

Lawyers, like anyone else, are supposed to be bound by a code of ethics. "Common" business ethics would be just a starting point for them.

So your theory doesn't apply here. One of two conditions exist:

1) The lawyers looked at SCO's case and felt that it had merit.

or

2) SCO's legal team is a bunch of money grabbing unethical bastards who are taking SCO for what money they can and don't give a rat's ass about the law, ethics, the software industry, their own mothers or anything else.

Think about your experiences with lawyers and you decide which of those two options is most likely.

Iraqi Information Minister

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of the Iraqi Information Minister...

"The code is not protected by the GPL. In fact, there IS no such thing as the GPL. It is merely propaganda! In fact, we have already won this case. Our first billion dollar payment is scheduled for tomorrow! Don't believe the lies!"

Their argument DOES NOT HELP THEM.

[Svartalf]

It's a valid argument. However, if they're claiming that they're not obligated under the GPL, they're mistaken.

They knew about the distribution of their code for over 5 months if other official statements made by SCO are to be believed. It is the obligation of distributors of ANY code that is GPLed to ensure that the said code is not encumbered with non-licensed code or patented algorithms without a compatible license. In other words, SCO, by distributing Linux is obligated at the time of discovery to NOT distribute the said code- excising it from the distribution as needed. Since they did not, they abrogated their rights under the GPL to distribute the code in question.

It's a simple matter really.

Either they tacitly licensed the code and they should cease comments about infringement or they're guilty of 5+ months of infringement on the copyrights of the code that has the alleged infringements in it.

Re:Their argument DOES NOT HELP THEM.

[Anonymous Coward]

They knew about the distribution of their code for over 5 months if other official statements made by SCO are to be believed.

It should be obvious from their statements that nothing they said over the past five months can be believed. As much as I want to see SCO fry for this, if they pled stupid as a defense I'm afraid I'd accept it.

How about Scaldera...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that would be an appropriate moniker for them...

Re:SCO....vs Raelians

[IronClad]

Raelians:
Small cult following space aliens
SCO:
Small company following space cadets

Raelians:
Believe genetics will keep them immortal.
SCO:
Believe SYS5 never died.

Raelians:
Announced a nonexistent clone for some rich suit, hid the evidence.
SCO:
Announced an expensive suit over a nonexistent clone, hid the evidence.

Raelians:
From France, prefer outer space.
SCO:
From outer space, prefer Utah.

Raelians:
Hideous pseudo-human spokesperson
SCO:
Ray Noorda

Raelians:
Pull stunts for public attention, hoping we'll buy their crap.
SCO:
Ditto, but hope IBM will buy their crappy company.

MY NAME!!!

[EllisDees]

Erik Hughes?!? Erik Hughes!!!

That dirty rat bastard has my name!

No, not this name, my real name. How dare he tarnish that beautiful name (he even spells it the proper way - with a 'K') by siding with SCO in this lawsuit? I wonder if I can sue him for defamation or something...

Huh? That is not possible

[Kjella]

but it puts sco in the wierd position of having infringed the copyright on their own code.

A copyright holder can never infringe on his own copyright. What they are claiming is that they were tricked into licencing it under a licence they did not want to, and so that it can not apply.

However under the GPL, you must redistribute and licence it as a whole, and so they *have* unknowingly given the licence under the GPL. What they are trying to do is to revoke and ex post facto give their customers a new licence, a licence that is not possible.

If they revoke the licence for any proprietary code, they revoke the entire licence for SCO Linux. And while SCO may grant a new licence to use their proprietary code with the remaining GPL code, the GPL explicitly forbids using GPL'd code with SCOs code. Thus, if SCO continues this line of argument, they should be countersued for violating the GPL.

The only thing SCO can hope for is to have their code separated from the GPL code, with their code being kept proprietary and the GPL on those parts of the code be ruled invalid. No matter what the legal ruling on this will be, SCO has no right to sell a GPL/SCO hybrid product.

If they do win and continue to distribute SCO Linux, they should be brought up on felony copyright violations with no valid licence. Being a corporation it might even fall under the RICO Act, as said violations are their business plan.

Kjella

The GPL

[joshsnow]

Can someone answer this question? A quick look at the licences in various KDE apps shows it to be the (L)GPL circa 1991 and contains text to the effect that the licence may be copied but *not* changed. Part of that licence gives copyright to the Free Software Foundation, rather than the author of the work. Now, I may be misunderstanding this, but in order to use the GPL, must one give copyright of ones work to the FSF? ------------ re: Article. More and more it's becoming apparent that this whole SCO case is the result of sour grapes by SCO (as opposed to Caldera) because SCO fought and lost the battle for *nix OSes on intel. They tried FUD, they tried a Linux Kernel Personality patch and they failed. The final curtain was being taken over by Caldera - a Linux company. Unfourtanately, the old and unrepentant SCO management have taken over the company following an internal coup, renamed it SCO, busted Ransom Love out and restarted their fight to protect their rapidly declining market. Unfourtanately for them they have a Linux product line and that's causing some serious problems for their latest strategy.

Re:The GPL

[josepha48]

Interesting is that he says that the one giving away the Linux kernel code did not have a license to, but SCO was selling it / and letting people download Linux AFTER the merger / takeover as both Caldera AND SCO. So weren't THEY (SCO) authorizing this by giving / selling Linux?

IGNORANCE is NO excuse. SCO's 'claiming' ignorance will get them nowhere but out of business. (I HOPE)

Following the money

[bill_mcgonigle]

Gee, this is real hard:

• SCO releases trivial code under GPL.
• SCO sues IBM (Microsoft's most feared competitor) for releasing said code in Linux distro - plans large court battle to find IBM guilty/GPL invalid. Announces intention to sue linux system integrators.
• Major media all run articles spreading FUD as to whether developing for linux is a recipe for disaster. Microsoft purchases advertising in said media.
• Microsoft pays SCO 'undisclosed sum of money' to license code most people think they likely don't and won't use.
• SCO announces GPL irrelevant.

A conspiracy theorist might imagine this scenario:

Microsoft: "Hey, you're on a cash burn deathmarch - how would you like to make a bundle of money and keep your jobs for a couple more years?"
SCO: "OK, what do we have to do?"

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you...

Re:Following the money

[BubbaTheBarbarian]

A conspiracy theorist might imagine this scenario:

Microsoft: "Hey, you're on a cash burn deathmarch - how would you like to make a bundle of money and keep your jobs for a couple more years?"
SCO: "OK, what do we have to do?"

And, pray tell, is so hard about reading that. There is enough spin on this to make an owl dizzy. One thi is for sure...

I KNOW the old Caldera, and they HATED MS with a firey passion. so does Novell for that matter. But both were bought off, and people who coded the code that was stolen where then laid off (and these layoffs occured within 6 months of a settlement). so am I leary of Caldera all of sudden turning around and sticking there nose into OSS as MSBitch. For sure. Anyone who dealt with MS in the bad old days before they started playing nice and just buying companies for outlandish amounts will vouch for that. Now they have more money then God, they just go out and buy what they want and source it in. Trust me, somewhere down the line they will make an overt move to buy some piece of OSS and source it into WindersXX and then sue anyone else who uses that source. EFF or not, that could get real ugly real fast.

Paraniod or not...well, I am not sure!

The GPL doesn't give too many choices here

[p3d0]

Well, as I see it, SCO can only have it one of two ways, with regards to kernel code:

1. The code they released in their Linux distro was implicitly covered under the GPL or something compatible. In this case, they don't have a leg to stand on in their suit against IBM.
2. The code was not covered under anything compatible under the GPL; ergo, they violated the GPL by distributing GPL'ed code with their own.

(Disclaimer: Though I am an IBM employee, I am not a party to any "inside information" that makes me any more of an authority on this topic than any typical Slashdot reader. I am merely spouting an unfounded opinion of my own, based on my superficial familiarity with the GPL. See my sig.)

Re:Deplete the warchest-Better Idea: Counter Suit

[@madeus]

I don't think that many people bought it in the first place for that to work. A better tactic would be to inundate

BUT those individuals and corporations who did buy it can sue for being missold a product which they are unable to use and which subsequently cost them money to resolve (i.e. by noting that they had to purchase new operating systems, or even operating platforms, they can even cite costs in the form of reasources, like time spent by staff installing new operating systems or distributions).

Even if SCO decided to grant a limited license to these customers, they can claim to have been forced to take action because of the confusion caused by SCO and their inaction to resolve the issue. It would be advisable for these companies and individuals to formally request comment by SCO now, so they have something to help bolster their case in court (as no dobut, SCO will stall them too).

I would think customers who purchased AFTER SCO made these allegations would stand a particularly good chance.

Of course, the current events (as has already been speculated in reputable financial press) are merely a ruse to increase Caldera's IP value in order to expediate a buy out, initialy by IBM (who they have probably pissed off far to much by now), but ultimately by somebody (anybody, quick before we go into administration!).

This is why the exact details of the code have not been released (again, as as already been speculated in the finiancial & business media) - it is purely to protract the proceedings for as long as possible, thus increasing their chances of being acquired.

I think however, their goods are now so tained the only company that might be interested in purchasing them are Microsoft..

I don't think this is correct

[maynard]

Corporations are artificial entities: they can have no more actual "knowledge" than can my coffee maker. However, if the employee who released the code had so much as "apparent" authority (i.e., wrt to outsiders relying on the act) then its tough beans for the corp.: It's GPL City. What constitutes apparent authority may vary from case to case but if releasing software under open licenses (or otherwise) is what the employee generally does, or if the corp. lacks any diligence in preventing/detecting/remedying the problem, or if the reliance and detriment to outsiders is great, the corp. is going to have a long long row to hoe in order to get any relief from a corp. Contractual mistakes are often made but relief therefrom is seldom granted.

I think you're mistaken. There are two separate fallacies here:

a) That because a corporation is an artificial entity it lacks legal relief from employee theft. This is clearly not the case. I suggest you try lifting office supplies in front of your boss sometime for further proof.

b) Your second point presumes that the employee who released lib 'a' as a GPL's library had the authority to do so. I never said he did. In fact, I assume that the employee had no right to release any code whatsoever, as would normally be the case with any company creating a propritary application.

While a corporation may not have "knowledge" or any sense of "conscious awareness" like a human being, it's policies are set by a board of humans who's policies are acted upon by management (other humans). Without an explicite directive from management, who have due authority given to them by the board of directors, an employee would have no right to set arbitary Intellectual Property policies or act of their own accord to release Intellectual Property (or any other type of property).

So, are you saying that a company should lose their property in the event that an employee releases proprietary code, without corporate permission, and that code now in the wild winds up included in a GPL'd app which his/her company happens to distribute? Does that mean the previously propritary code is now covered under the GPL even though the IP holder doesn't indend this to be so? Is this a proper outcome for copyright law? I certainly don't think so.

--Maynard

Re:I don't think this is correct

[no_code_charlie]

"So, are you saying that a company should lose their property in the event that an employee releases proprietary code, without corporate permission, and that code now in the wild winds up included in a GPL'd app which his/her company happens to distribute?" - "Should" is a meaningless word. I prefer "will" as in: 1) A general publication of trade secret matter will result in loss of trade secret status irrespective of the [wrongful] nature of the general publication; 2) A claim of 'inadvertent' release of code under the GPL will not ipso facto render the GPL unenforeable; Rather, the party seeking relief from the mistake would have to demonstrate existence of traditional elements requisite to aplication of contractual mistake doctrine and mere claim of mistake in insufficient; - " Does that mean the previously propritary code is now covered under the GPL even though the IP holder doesn't indend this to be so? " A party's subjective intent is rarely relevant in a contract determination. The important question is what did the party's words and actions reasonably lead the other parties to the agreement to believe. - "Is this a proper outcome for copyright law? I certainly don't think so." You're partially right here. Licensing matters are not copyright law matters. Rather, licensing matters are contract matters. U.S. copyright law does not regulate licensing. (cf. assignments).

Re:I don't think this is correct

[maynard]

Not being an attorney I'll defer if you so wish to claim you are one, however:

1) SCO's claim is breach of copyright. Your trade secret point is thus irrelevant.

2) You seem to be saying that the owner of a copyright would have the burden of proof in its claim that said code was released inadvertently, and is thus not covered under the license upon which it was released. I'm not sure if this is reasonable or not, honestly, but I do think that if the owner can provide reasonable evidence that an employee acted without authority when releasing the code, the license on which the employee released would be null and void. At least that's the outcome I would expect. Certainly a buyer of stolen goods doesn't expect relief from the original wronged party, it's the thief who is responsible.

3) Note that when discussing licensing I'm being explicit in limiting the discussion to duplication rights, which do have a long history WRT copyright law. That is, there is long standing precedent which allows the copyright holder to stipulate restrictions for duplication rights; this is what the GPL does. However, if due to special circumstances the licensing contract (GPL) is termed invalid, does that not mean that the recipient has no duplication rights whatsoever? Isn't the result the same?

Cheers,
--Maynard

Re:I don't think this is correct

[no_code_charlie]

I do not wish to claim that I am an attorney (who would?) and prefer no deference, but: 1) I haven't yet seen a single thing relevant to the present situation wherein SCO claimed any copyright in anything linux-related. However, SCO's action against IBM is all about trade secrets. Honestly, though, I think that SCO's FUD against the linux community mean to *impliedly* allege copyright violations. 2) In this [wierd] case, if SCO's IP [to use their phrase] was contained in their own linux distributions then, at least on its face, that IP was distributed under the GPL. The prima facie case for GPL having thus been made, it would be SCO's burden to establish that the GPL somehow did not apply to its claimed IP. This would be a very hard case. The analogy to stolen personal property is not a good one; personal property and intellectual property are governed by disparate laws. 3) I'm not sure that I understand this question. Copyright generally gives authors the exclusive right to copy, modify, distribute, etc. their works. This means the right to exclude others from doing so. Of course authors of copyrigted works can chose not to exercise some or all of these rights of exclusion and its OK if someone pays them money (or other consideration) in exchange for the author's agreement not to do so. This is what a license agreement is. The effect of invalidity of a license agreement varies and depends on many things (often, on the terms of the license agreement itself.) For example, just because one part of a license agreement is deemed *invalid* its doesn't necessarily mean that the whole agreement and the license granted under it is *void.* However, in the event of total failure of a license agreement, it is true that the would-be licensee has no right to copy/modify/distribute/etc. the copyrighted work and any such use would constitute infringement. (That is my undertainding of things, anyway.)

Re:I don't think this is correct

[Eunuchswear]

Have you bothered to read SCO's claim?

SCO's claim is breach of copyright. Your trade secret point is thus irrelevant.

From the claim:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Misappropriation of Trade Secrets--Utah Code Ann. 13-24-1 et seq.)

someone hit this guy up w/ mod points

[Anonymous Coward]

he's even an OG(uid50000)

Even if they're right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they're allowing their own users to still use the code as GPLed, couldn't someone just download whatever version it is that they're distributing, then be able to use thier code under the GPL, then send it to Linus to post on kernel.org...

They could even patch it all the way up to whatever the current 2.5 development release is at. :D

Agreed

[maynard]

SCO seems to be forgetting, they can indemnify their users against the use of SCO IP, but they cannot do that with all the rest of the linux code, which is legitimately GPLed. As if only their IP is of concern.

I agree with this. They can't both knowingly release the proprietary code falsely under the GPL, while also indemnifying their customers from copyright infringement from using their proprietary code. Though they could release it under a dual GPL and proprietary license, this wouldn't have the desired efffect.

If their code derives from a previously GPL'd application they must either GPL their code or stop distribution. If someone elses code under the GPL which illegally derives from their code, they must inform the infringer(s) and take legal action to safeguard their IP. They cannot have it both ways. --M

Linux is dying.

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to repent BSD is dying bastardos!

Re:Linux is dying.

[anotherlevel]

I agree...soon Microcrap will make money off of every Linux distro sold; strange how they bought SCO shares just recently....gives SCO lots of cash to play with!

If I were IBM

[CoralCain2002]

I would create a program called "Prepare for the Future" This program would provide migration to SCO customers who wish to migrate from SCO Unix to IBM Linux. Then I would give the service away for free to the first 1000 customers who sign up.

SCO is just pissed

[plazman30]

SCO is just pissed than no one will buy them now. This is all just smoke and mirros in the hopes that some big player will gobble them up.

Sad really. And if SCO is so damn worried abou their code in Linux, let them take the kernel, scrub it clean and release a tarball. AT&T did it with BSD.

See how fast Linux and Alan and CO. fill the gaps!

You asked for it.

[MasonMcD]

OK. I guess we have to cover this territory once again. Here is SCO's legal argument:

"Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, SCO's detractors would certainly want you to believe my client was issuing confusing EULAs, confounding their critics and confusing the multitudes, and they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself. But Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk who carried a gun and ran from the mob. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense.

But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case. Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer representing a major software company and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.

And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must not acquit.

I know he seems innocent. But ladies and gentlemen this is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when billions of dollars of recurring license revenue are on the line? Why? I'll tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense you must not acquit. Here look at the monkey , look at the silly monkey.

The plaintiff rests."

We're in total agreement

[maynard]

You wrote:

So we get a best case for SCO, where they prove their case anc get a total legal victory and are unable to collect damages from anyone other than IBM. And IBM can keep the case on appeal until sometime after the final trump blows so they get no money and end up bankrupt.

I previously wrote:

Should it turn out that some small portion of the kernel contains illegally expropriated code copyrighted by SCO, then rip it out and recode ASAP. Remove the illegal code from all previous copies in the masters and mirrors. Minimize the damage once it's discovered and plead to the judge that the principal authors didn't and couldn't have known. Point out that the plagiarizing author, the one who submitted whatever infringing code in bad faith, should be the responsible party. Let SCO sue that infringer, the person who willfully broke the law, and then let it drop. SCO winds up with little or no money, the principal authors keep their good name and reputation, and Linux continues on it's merry way.

Basically the same thing. :) --M

code theft.

[twitter]

Be careful - what if they accept your resume and hire you?

It's more likely that SCO people cut and paste things from your resume into their own. There are many reasons for this, all true.

Re:code theft.

[loginx]

It's more likely that SCO people cut and paste things from your resume into their own. There are many reasons for this, all true.

I disagree.
If you put a copyright notice in your resume, they would have to sue themselves for violation of copyright because that's illegal.

I'm thinking about offering them to license my resume...

--
this->value = 0;

Has anyone actually seen the offending code?

[bigdaddy_bis]

Everyone seems to be assuming that the offending code is actually there (somewhere). We still don't know that IBM did anything wrong, and that SCO is simply making to whole thing up to generate publicity and jack up their stock price.

You're on the crack, boy.

[StarKruzr]

She's not a supermodel, but she's quite the attractive girl.

You don't need huge tits or a Kate Moss ass to be hot.

Re:You're on the crack, boy.

[Anonymous Coward]

How many girls do you know? I mean, seriously. No fooling around now. What's your sample size?

I don't know a TON of girls, but I know a few. Every one of 'em--well, with one exception, poor thing--would kick that BSD chick's ass in a straight up shoot-out.

GPL

[fedux]

"In other words, the GPL itself covers situations where code is improperly or accidentally contributed to the GPL without proper authorization (sic) of the true copyright holder."

But *they* released the Linux code under the GPL in their distribution. So, *if* there is any part that is copyrighted by SCO they can't make any claims on that because *they* released it on the terms of the GPL.

Knowledge of GPLed code

[Gerry Gleason]

Actually, the MS example and the SCO case are almost the opposite. MS releases a non GPL product, and through an error or actions of an employee they ship some GPL stuff along. No problem, they just remove it as soon as they become aware. SCO releases a product that they well know is coverred by the GPL (at least most of the core components), and someone in their organization adds some of their IP to it, they can't claim that their organizational intent wasn't to release a GPLed product. Their claim that a third party introduced the code that wasn't intended for GPL does give them some recourse. We don't expect the SCO release team to know everything that IBM added to the kernel, but as soon as they knew or suspected, they had an obligation to inform the Linux community in a way that makes removing their code easier. If they continue to distribute Linux after being aware of the problems, they are weakening any IP claim they may later bring.

Re:Knowledge of GPLed code

[JosefK]

They would also have been in violation of the GPL during the period between when they became aware of the violation and when they ceased distribution. And they may be able to indemnify their customers for use of their own code, but they don't have the standing to indemnify them from using tainted GPL code.

Re:Knowledge of GPLed code

[Gerry Gleason]

Right, they can't just say to their own customers, "it's ok if you keep using this", because they don't control the rest of the contributed GPLed code base. I'm not sure I fully understand the GPL terms about the status of code distributed in violation of the GPL. I guess you are still allowed to use it and modify it, but you can't distribute it.

The kicker is that since SCO does own the questionable code, they can distribute it under GPL, which is exactly what they have done, but then they must honor all the terms and they can no longer assert their IP rights for the GPLed code that they released. The argument that IBM compromised their IP without their knowledge is moot if they continued to distribute after they knew about it (which they did). Even if they had a case in the first place, which they don't, they committed a serious tactical error by not stoping their distribution of Linux immediately.

Re:Knowledge of GPLed code

[JosefK]

I'm not sure I fully understand the GPL terms about the status of code distributed in violation of the GPL. I guess you are still allowed to use it and modify it, but you can't distribute it.

I believe it would be up to any individual copyright holders (or the FSF) to decide whether to sue SCO for violating the license on their code. And I'm not sure there could be any claims for damages, given that, if SCO is correct in their allegations, many/all of the other distros would be in the same boat.

The argument that IBM compromised their IP without their knowledge is moot if they continued to distribute after they knew about it (which they did). Even if they had a case in the first place, which they don't, they committed a serious tactical error by not stoping their distribution of Linux immediately.

I'm not positive a judge would go that far. However, the situation would probably mitigate any monetary damages SCO is asking for.

Re:Knowledge of GPLed code

[Tony-A]

Doesn't SCO have a tactical nightmare supporting their existing Caldera Linux customer base? The mind boggles at the implications if they actually have to do something.

Irrelevent if True

[Angry Pixie]

Okay first year law students, get those "Even if" arguments ready:

Even if the Linux kernel code contains code belonging to SCO which was not originally authorized to appear in said code, SCO knew or otherwise had reason to know of the existence of the code at issue when it reviewed, compiled, tested, marketed, and distributed SCO's own Linux products commercially; thus in turn releasing any proprietary code from any other license restrictions and thereby placing said code under the GPL. By release of its own Linux product, SCO in fact authorized the presence of the code at issue.

Catch-22

[overshoot]

Yuppers -- SCO has really hosed themselves this time. No matter which way they play it, they're toast. If they lose in court, IBM owns them. If they win in court, the FSF owns them. It's like a Faustian morality play: selling your soul to Redmond and getting nothing of value after all.

Bwahahaaaa!

In case you were wondering what happened to...

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

The Iraqi Information Minister.
He now works for SCO.

If this is a crime, where is the police report?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there any requirements for the reporting of computer crime which would force Caldera to disclose the nature of the crime?

For example, DOD requires mandatory reporting of computer crime with required assistance from all witnesses. Do they have a DOD contract or a federal agency contract to develop Linux or Unixware such as for combat systems? If so, they are probably in violation of their contract.

Look into similar requirements in other countries, particularly EU countries. If any country where Caldera Linux is sold has a requirement for prompt reporting of computer crimes or copyright violations, you might be able to force details out of them. It can't be a crime in one country and not another.

Reading the OSI position paper

[hayden]

Have the /. editors taken up proofreading other people's work now?

Re: Irrelevent if True...

[towatatalko]

Not so much "authorized" but benefited from it. Therefore, if they benefited from it they need to return the money they acquired from those sales and only then they can claim code volitions, assuming it is true that Linux kernel contains their code, which is so far doubtful, because they didn't release their code. Besides, there's an issues if "their" code really belongs to them since they don't own UNIX trademark, and UNIX code was distributed among developers prior to their purchase of UNIX from Novell.

Re:Slashdotted??

[JosefK]

"But the program was distributed. Isn't that their point?"

And SCO continued to distribute their distro after filing suit against IBM due to this alleged infringement. If they had proof of infringement at the time they filed suit, they should have immediately ceased distribution of their Linux product and should have notified their customers to prevent further redistribution. They are now indemnifying their own customers from liability, presumably by covering the SCO code under another license. However, this puts them in violation of the GPL license covering all of the non-SCO, legitimately-GPL'd code in their distro.

Community Lawsuit against SCO?

[small_dick]

Why not a community lawsuit against SCO...clearly they have defamed many people in the linux community. EFF, PayPal...etc.

It's SCO's fault; they have GPLed it, and worse!

[leonbrooks]

If The SCO Group become aware that they have their "valuable IP" on FTP servers and heading out the door on CDs and do nothing to stop that (which is exactly what happened for several weeks), then it is either The SCO Group's fault that this happened, or the fault of every SCO employee who was in a position to stop the bleed and did not. I can't think of a court that wouldn't come down on the side of the former.

Now that they're aware and have taken some measures to stop the bleeding, any further bleeding is entirely The SCO Group's own corporate fault. So "existing customers" that they continue to support by shipping stuff to - including the Linux kernel source with their "valuable IP" - represent a deliberate "dilution" of the "valuable IP" by The SCO Group.

But it's worse than that: even presuming that there is some merit to their claims of IP theft (ha!), it no longer matters who "placed" the code under the GPL, because SCO have continued to ship (ie, "disclose") the source to that code themselves without removing it from the GPL, which is a clear statement that they accept the terms under which it is distributed.

But wait! It's worse than even that! (-:

In continuing to ship the code under someone else's copyright (call him/her/them/it Q) after they became aware of it they are acknowledging Q's ownership of that code... so Q now has some grounds for suing SCO for restricting distribution (of what SCO have acknowledged Q owns) contrary to the terms of the GPL which SCO have also implicitly accepted by "republishing" the code.

It's a kind of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose situation, so SCO are in the unenviable position of their best option being pressing on blindly and hoping the coin lands on its edge or the toss is cancelled.

SCO....

[Anonymous Coward]

THe Caldera (SCO Group) -vs- IBM case comes down to three things....

1) Did the SCO Group release code under GPL?

---yes

2) Does the SCO Group have any trade secretes in Sys V?

---no, original authors pubulished source code in journals, text books on Unis OS Design, BSD -vs- USL.

3) Does the SCO Group have a contract with IBM?

---yes, the court will sort that out.

Therefore, SCO has --*NO*-- against Linux. And friend of the court briefs have already been filed saying just that.

Further, if I were Dave McBride, I would bone up on the following legal topics, Libel, Slander, and Prejury!

A corporate officer making a proven false statement is a crimminal offense!

SCO is in violation of the GPL already

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL clearly states:

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

Threatening Redhat, SuSE and Linux users in addition to IBM, clearly ran afoul of "Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License." It was an attempt to restrict the rights of users to code that SCO had intentionally released. From that moment on, SCO did not have a valid license to distribute Linux. Yet they continued to do so.

Every Linux kernel developer now has grounds to sue SCO for violation of the GPL. I would suggest a coordinated effort, filing suits in as many jurisdictions as possible simultaneously. It is dirt cheap to file in small claims court in the US. Let them die the death of a thousand cuts.

Another motive

[ewe2]

Seeing the mention of apparently dubious Linux compatibility added to UnixWare made me think that perhaps all this is really a pre-emptive strike to protect it! They may merely be trying for a ruling that allows them to avoid GPL encumbrance on their product by rendering parts of it unworkable, particularly as applied to Linux kernel code.

I know it's a stretch, but with Boies involved, something's got to make sense :)

Just Thinking....

[richman555]

What would Judge Judy have to say about this?

Closest analog for SCO's behavior is rape...

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't care who they hurt so long as they get what they want.

Not trying to flame here at all. It's just every time I read about what SCO is doing the only comparable human behavior I can think of is a family member brutally betraying the trust and closeness of another family member by raping them.

<TangentialRant>
In a country where we afford coorporations the privileges of legal personhood it saddens me to see that even such legal fictions are capable of corporate acts no better than rape. I'd argue that because corporate persons are vastly more powerful than corporeal persons they should be held to much higher standards, but they're NOT - their power has purchased them influence and power that you or i can't claim or effectively counter, and i think this is a root cause of many of the problems we face today - as a society, as a community, as a country and as a planet.
</TangentialRant>

Re:Isn't this just more media for Linux? -OT

[quan74]

"My dream: the power of Gentoo and the features of Mandrake."

Grab all the srpms, set up your cflags, rpm -ba *.spec

voila! The power of Gentoo and the features of mandrake!

Missing Person Case Solved

[dancoit]

Bahgdad Bob has resurfaced! He's been hired by SCO to head up the PR Department!

Re:SCO....vs Raelians

[Japer Lamar Crabb]

>Raelians:
>From France, prefer outer space.

From Quebec, actually. They're a considerably less noxious export than Celin Dion, though still worthy of the ridicule implicit in any comparison to SCO ;p

Before long they'll be using the Chewbacca defense

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM: Why would you claim that we have violated you IP when you put it under the GPL - that DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!

Boies: Now why would and 8-foot Wookie live on Endor with 4 foot Ewoks? That DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!! If this case DOES NOT MAKE SENSE you must find IBM guilty of IP violations!

(jury-member's head explodes)

MS/SCO hope there is NO "After the lawsuit, ..."

[The Monster]

lawsuit is an extortionate gamble, a desperate grab for cash and a FUD tool of their new friend Microsoft.

SCO and MS do not want the suit to actually go to trial. They want it to drag out as long as possible, because if it goes to trial they will lose bigtime, and strengthen Linux.

Meanwhile, as long as the suit hangs like the Sword of Damocles over the heads of IT managers considering a move to Linux, it fuels the FUD. It's the threat that Linux could cost some undefined amount if SCO wins that gives MS the ability to scare the crap out of the PHBs.

How would it even work?

[groovemaneuver]

How is it that a significant chunk of code (i.e. enough code to make it very unlikely that two independent programmers happened upon the same solution, line-by-line), would even work in the kernels of two different operating systems? I realize Linux is UNIX-like, but I fail to see how this would work without at least some re-working of the supposed-stolen code.

SCO sucks dirty mouse balls! -- and for some reason, this whole thing gives me a renewed hatred for Novell/Netware...(yeah, I know it's completely off-topic, but I just felt the need to share that...)

Exactly What is the Suit about?

[Gerry Gleason]

SCO's complaints aren't particularly clear about any of this, but it was my impression that they are asserting a number of IP claims involving patents, copyright and trade secrets. The main reason I focussed on the patent issue is that an enforcable patent would be the biggest problem to deal with. This is the only enforcement that could cause features to be withdrawn from Linux. Once the copyright infringement is declared specifically, it will be easy enough to write around it, much like the handful of files in the BSD ruling.

Maybe I don't understand all the legalities, but I can't see how they can get much with the trade secrets angle. As other followups to this stated, they can really only collect damages from IBM for that, and they can't put the genie back in the bottle either.

Re:Exactly What is the Suit about?

[Eunuchswear]

As has been pointed out many times before, The SCO Group appear to hold no patents.

They seem to be claiming that two bad things were done

1. That people have been using thier OpenServer shared libraries without licenses (copyright violation)

   (I'm betting that they've some internal memo or letter from some low level IBM guy telling one of his clients how to run some legacy app on Linux).

2. That IBM stole "enterprise UNIX Technology" (trade secrets) from UnixWare and copied them into Linux.

   (Some statements even seem to imply code copying, which would be another breach of copyright).

You say:

Maybe I don't understand all the legalities, but I can't see how they can get much with the trade secrets angle. As other followups to this stated, they can really only collect damages from IBM for that, and they can't put the genie back in the bottle either.

But UnixWare and OpenServer are dead, there is no genie to put back in the bottle. A huge pile of cash is all they want.

$CO and CO$

[Platinum Dragon]

Considering that SCO seems to be relying on the L. Ron Hubbard theory of public relations ("always attack, never defend"), that it relies on waves of lawsuits for survival, and that other posters have pointed out what a huge foot bullet this statement is, I suspect SCO has closer ties to another cult.

So... does that make Unix an anagram for an alien locked in a volcano somewhere?

sco just a warm up for microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is so disgusting it is repellant to take it seriously. However, the notion that MS (MacroSophistry) is behind all of this does have to be taken seriously and this has me worried. My fear is that what we are seeing with SCO is just a warm-up for a more concerted legal attack which MS will launch against Linux.

The scenario would be something like this:

A kernel developer, in league with people who aren't our friends, makes a contribution of code he or she knows to be copyrighted and proprietary. The code is released "under the gpl" and then the code owner comes forward and sues Linus Torvalds and others in the kernel developer community for failing to exercise due diligence.

The idea would be to impose legal inhibitions on the development process in order to stifle or slow the linux development process. I hope someone is thinking of a way to protect against such a legal attack.

Nice try...

[DarkVein]

They claim that the lack of copyright notices "placed by the copyright holder" means that the GPL does not protect the unmentioned code in question.

• SCO's strongest claim against IBM is based on trade secret law, not copyright.
• 1976 Copyright law does not require copyright notice to be posted, and as both SCO and IBM are US companies, Berne Convention be damned.

SCO's claims have nothing to do with the GPL license. The only impact GPL may have is in a resolution to solve the problem: can the alleged code be extracted from a public work? This question requires that 1) code can be considered trade secret, and 2) the code is still a trade secret, after SCO's complete ineptitude to enforce anything resembling secrecy over seven years.

IANAL

You forgot

[delmoi]

Raelians: crazy sex orgies.

SCO: run by mormons.

Definetly have to go with the Raelians this time.

Copyright not protected

[gkuchera]

Seems to me if I remember my copyright law correctly if you don't expressly give up your copyright on something you wire it still belongs to you the author. So wether it's GNU or not it's still covered by whoever wrote it.

-My 2 cents..

Geoff

Well, look at this way

[delmoi]

If I hack into IBM's servers, steal the code for AIX (or whatever), and then shove most of it into my own OS under the GPL, it would not free the OS/2 code, even if IBM put it up on an FTP server somewhere. Because they didn't know.

The GPL is not a law, it's a grant of rights by the owner of the copyright. You can't give up rights unintentionaly.

(not that SCO isn't totaly full of shit)

Re:Well, look at this way

[SEE]

Which works -- right up to the moment that IBM knows and does nothing to stop its distribution. After that, they are knowingly distrbuting their code under the GPL, and they are intentionally distributing their code under the GPL.

It dosn't need to stick

[delmoi]

Because the argument they are trying to counter is bunk anyway. Caldera never meant to give away the rights to their source code. The GPL is not a law. Worst case senario here is that they can no longer distribute Linux themselves (becuase they don't have the legal right too). But they've already stopped and are trying to get everyone else to do the same.

Anyway, we're not going to know for a long time. SCO is going to play this out as long as they can, while getting secret payments from Microsoft.

Re:It dosn't need to stick

[SEE]

Right, "We didn't mean to do it, we just kept doing it for two months after we knew we were doing it by, er, accident!"

Re:It dosn't need to stick

[crizh]

SCO has never claimed that IBM ever put any of their code into Linux.

SCO claims that IBM improperly, in breach of contract, used SCO's trade secrets to improve Linux.

SCO, now, claims that the kernel source was contaminated with their code before IBM became involved and that they have only just discovered this. As this is a copyright issue, and they recognise the terms of the GPL would make it illegal to distribute a GPL program that contains non-GPL code, they have pulled their distro's.

They are still distributing it ( here ) in blatant, knowing (=punitive damages) breach of the GPL, unfortunately.

Re:Isn't this just more media for Linux? -OT

[msimm]

Close. I think actually the next best think is the bootable Gentoo. Of course Americas Army is a nice bone thrown in there too.

Got to have emerge. Besided srpms fail, a lot. Still easier to use make by hand and thats just not as satisfying (but still more fun then double-click-install:-).

Gentoo Games

Re:Slashdotted??

[anotherlevel]

I like to thing SCO has no case. However, why has Microsoft been intersted in SCO lately? I read a couple of days ago that Microsoft has invested in SCO. Anyone heard this?

Re: Irrelevent if True...

[no_code_charlie]

I don't think that returning the money would even help them. The bargain that SCO made was this: SCO gets free GPL'd code to copy/modify/distribute + $$$ from paying customers in exchange for GPL'ing whatever it was copied/modified/distributed. The owners of the GPL'd code (kernel developers) given to SCO already gave it and their intended beneficiaries (i.e., the public) already received SCO's GPL'd code. It was a three-way deal, not readily rescinded as per an ordinary contract. (As if the nonmonetary consideration could actually be 'returned') Besides, the GPL, by its own terms, is not wholly rescindable.

Not a likely course of action

[Basje]

A lot of code in the linux kernel comes from companies like redhat and suse, who have developers working for them. I even think that it is more than this alleged unix code. That code _is_ copyrighted by those companies.

In the case mentioned (SCO violates GPL) these companies can try to get compensation through litigation. In plain english: if SCO wins their suit against IBM (which I do not think) due to this kind of reasoning, they'll sue SCO for the damages they had due to SCO violating their licence (GPL) and thus illegally and knowingly(!) distributing their copyrighted code. SCO will lose more than they have won in the first place that way. This course of action would make them vulnerable to the extend that they do not only have to worry about damages they caused, but because it was knowingly they also have to worry about punitive damages too.

Not a pretty sight.

Re:It's SCO's fault; they have GPLed it, and worse

[flinkflonk]

Now wouldn't that be great, IBM counter-sues SCO for breach of the GPL :)

Seriously though, I doubt anything like this will happen. As has been pointed out in other places, SCO is the sacrificial lamb on another company's PR altar. That other company is in breach of a court agreement when they fund SCO's suicidal behaviour, but what the heck, they can't be accused of the same crime twice. Or can they?

I found the code...

[Karem Lore]

I found the code that SCO is complaining about. In fact, it is so obviously SCO's code that I think they may have a case...Not sure if it is IBM that put it in there though..."What is it?", I hear you scream...well, without further ado, from the bowels of the linux kernel I bring you SCO's code:

int System_Call_Operator = 0;

See that? System_Call_Operator...proof!

That is a blatant use of the SCO name...

Boom boom!

[pommiekiwifruit]

== commutative, man exploits man :-)

Re:MS/SCO hope there is NO "After the lawsuit, ...

[Tony-A]

Methinks the real threat in this mess boomarangs back on SCO. How does SCO manage to support their existing customers? Short term, stuff pretty well runs on inertia, but if I were running SCO or Caldera I'd be starting to get very nervous. Despite (because of?) various flame wars between various flavors of unix-like systems, there is a large amount of fundamental cross-system support that SCO has cut itself out of. (Methinks FUD started with PHBs being deathly afraid of doing anything to annoy IBM because IBM could, while honoring the letter of all agreements, effectively grind their operation to a halt.)

It all comes down to those two months

[smiff]

This could work only if Linux contains code that violates SCO's IP because otherwise everything is properly GPLed and can be legally distributed regardless of their suit

No. If SCO is distributing Linux while simply refusing to license it under the GPL they are committing both civil and criminal copyright infringment.

Someone should get a statement from the now. Long after discovering the alleged violations, and two months after filing suit, they continued to distribute Linux. Were those copies licensed under the GPL or not? If it was, any infringing code no longer infringes. If it wasn't, SCO was violating copyright law (assuming someone actually purchased or downloaded a copy during that time).

On the other hand, if there is no copyright violation, and it comes down to nothing but trade secrets, SCO already published those "secrets", thus placing them in the public domain.

I'm guessing Linux is safe for another reason. Most likely, everyone in OpenLinux had a cross-licensing agreement. So Suse could legally publish the allegedly infringing code under the GPL (which they most likely have).

small peanuts

[10bt]

these comments are getting too predictable and like-minded, all the negativism a tad tiresome. sorry to break the party guys, but all that really matters to the SCO board is the steep mountain. money talks, a shooting stock price shouts, and most /. comments is irrelevant white noise. at least according to the suits.

Re:SCO....vs Raelians

[lovebyte]

>From France, prefer outer space.

From Quebec, actually.

Rael, the guru is from somewhere in the centre of France. AFAIK, the sect started in France. Could be based in Canada now, I don't know.

Theft Intellictual Property.

[Windows Dude]

The owner of a publishing company tries his hand a writing a book. He wants an opinion on how good it is, so he lets his best friend, the owner of a rival publishing company read the first 3 chapters of the book. His friend then takes and writes a book around the same story and characters in the manuscript. It becomes a best seller, and the original author of the 3 chapters never reads the book. His buddy comes to him one day and says "Hey, my publishing house is way to overloaded to handle the sales of this book. Can you print and resell them for me to meet the demand?" Being a friend (and wanting to make money off a good thing), he starts to print and sell the book. He finally sits down to read it, and finds out that his "friend" has plagerized all 3 chapters of his manuscript! Even though he sold the book, he is still the owner of the Intellictual property rights to those 3 chapters, so he sues his buddy. This is the same situation that SCO and IBM are in. SCO owns the code. IT doesn't matter how they got the ownership. What matters is that someone at IBM released the code to the Linux community without the permission of it's owner. The fact that that owner found this out AFTER they had released the code in there own version of Linux is irrevalent. They own the code, and they have the right to do with it as they please. If it was distributed without their permission, then the entities that distributed it are subject to prosecution.

Re: Irrelevent if True...

[Angry Pixie]

Whether or not someone benefitted from the code is unimportant for determining a copyright violation.

I've previously discussed some of the hurdles SCO faces in regard to successfully arguing their case. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=64619&cid=5986 806

Owning the UNIX trademark is irrelevent here since there is no contest to determine who has the UNIX trademark. SCO argues merely that the Linux kernel contains code that was illegally included from UNIX sources now owned by SCO... that and that SCO was a major UNIX player :)

SCO also contends that they are doing this for the *other* developers who have had their code stolen and put in Linux. As pointed before, if SCO does succeed in showing that Linux contains unauthorized code, SCO opens itself up to liability to any other copyright holders who intend to launch similar suits. This is a way shows that SCO is not the best named plaintiff for any suit involving other parties.

Anyone remember when businesses made money by selling products and services, and not by patent/copyright litigation?

You Must Work for SCO's Legal Firm...

[jmcnally]

I assume the misspellings in your post are to throw people off?

Sig Comment

[MonopolyNews]

nice to have W. Buffet on the side of the little man, eh? Well, now that the money men are all into pump and sell and Buffet is Mr. "What does this business do in the real world"... everything's upside down.

Buffet for Fed Chairman!? :)

Blowback

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems this strategy of threatening customers is a good one. Since patent law gives the holder the exclusive right to "make, use, or sell" protected devices and processes, every company with an IP dispute with Microsoft should actively attack every big pocket enterprise. By using MS products, they are obviously violating valid IP claims.

Is there a lawyer in the house? Is this strategy workable? The blowback could be huge. Are users protected somehow from legal action, if they bought a product? What if they are sent a notice that they should cease and desist from buying the infringing products? How would that impact future claims.

For the techies, if it is a viable strategy let's identify the top 25 deepest pocket MS shops, and start putting together an information packet that would allow companies to attack these additional 25 companies at minimal incremental cost.

The ideal outcome would be a letter sent to every CEO in the country detailing the outstanding IP claims against Microsoft and putting them On Notice that they are liable for any successful claims.

Spread the FUD,
Anonymous Coward

Why am I responding to an AC?

[StarKruzr]

Around 75% of my friends are girls, and I have a LOT of friends.

In fairness, I'm not terribly picky. But she's really not unattractive.