Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Claims Linux Sales After Suit Irrelevant

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the this-is-only-gonna-get-more-messy dept.

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. "

22 of 563 comments (clear)

  1. Copyright notices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    1. Re:Copyright notices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Copyright notices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Copyright notices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      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.

  2. Also in the news... by Seth+Finklestein · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    I'm not Seth Finkelstein. I still speak the truth.
    1. Re:Also in the news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      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.

  3. Sounds like "poisoned roots" by John+Penix · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    Someone named an OS for me.
    1. Re:Sounds like "poisoned roots" by Abcd1234 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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).

  4. Re:GPL == ? by shepd · · Score: 2, Informative

    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).

    --
    If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  5. Big Myths about copyrights by rxed · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Big Myths about copyrights by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  6. Do they think IBM, et al, are idiots? by ashpool7 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  7. Here's SuSE's public statement by cheros · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  8. From the GPL... by MrGrendel · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.
    1. Re:From the GPL... by jareds · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  9. Re:SCO PR department working overtime. by jgerman · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
  10. SCO Invites You to Join Its Conference Call by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  11. Re:not kernel by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Informative

    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?

  12. Re:After the lawsuit, ... by nexex · · Score: 2, Informative
    well their stock price has jumped dramatically with all this racket...

    --
    Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
  13. Re:Oh good grief. by mark-t · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.
    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  14. Re:Is this really a big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    "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.

  15. Re:Statutory Damages by Jetifi · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.