Slashdot Mirror
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. "
A couple of thousand times.
Ñ'
They distributed the @($& code!
I hate lawyers, I really do.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Sheesh, it's amazing how much the SCO PR department has in
common with M$ 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.
Doug Tolton
"The destruction of a value which is, will not bring value to that which isn't." -John Galt
Linux claims SCO irrelevant after suit.
www.eFax.com are spammers
IANAL, but I thought that (at least under English
Law) something is copyright whether or not there is
a notice on it.
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.
When VPNs are outlawed, only outlaws have VPNs.
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.
Be careful - what if they accept your resume and hire you?
Then you get to watch them pass the Schwarzschild Radius from the INSIDE!
www.eFax.com are spammers
Even if all 3 of them return their copies.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
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.
"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):
They really should get better lawyers.
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?
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)
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.
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...
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).
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!!!
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.
Slashdot them to oblivion!
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.
SuSE responds to latest SCO actions
s /archive03/sco_statement.html
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_release
Insert
No, that's
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG^C
Sorry, got stuck in an infinite recursive loop.
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.
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.
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
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
home page
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?
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
Judges are familiar with 'closing the door after the horse bolted'.
SCO has no case.
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.
Quack, quack.
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?
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?
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
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
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.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
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!
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
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.
Indeed, here it's "you get what you pay for," and I'm afraid certain monopolies have deeper pockets than I...
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."
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;
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.
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:
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.
Life is too short to proofread.
The Iraqi Information Minister.
He now works for SCO.
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.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
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.
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.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.