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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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....

[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)

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.

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?

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!!!

3000 lawsuits can't be wrong....

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot them to oblivion!

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.