Slashdot Mirror
LinuxTag To SCO: Detail Code Theft Or Retract Claims
RoLi writes "Heise has a story (The babelfish translation sounds like a speech from Yoda, but the important facts are translated correctly.) about LinuxTag taking legal action against SCO. SCO will either have to retract their claims, disclose their "proof" (if it exists) or be fined. That's certainly good news."
Update: 05/26 17:25 GMT by T : Reader Fizz points to the more understandable LinuxTag press release (in English and German), and adds: "The notice, dated Friday, May 23, maintains that SCO Group is sowing uncertainty among the community of GNU/Linux users, developers and suppliers."
I've been swashdotted -- Elmer Fudd
The company I work for sells network security products, some of which are based on Linux. We have gotten inquiries from a large user saying that SCO sent their CEO a "cease and desist from using Linux" letter.
I can't confirm that SCO actually did this, and it's not just the customer's way of pushing the issue. But, either way, it shows their FUD campaign is working.
I didn't see mention of a fine in either the babel translation or in the english version. Can anybody comment on what gives LinuxTag the ability to fine SCO?
Which is basically what they are saying. FYI, you don't need bablefish, you just need to click on the british(or english?) flag.
What SCO is doing is could be considered slander IF they have no proof, thus slander is finable.
Well I say, SCO, show us what code you think Linux is infringing, and what proof you have that it came from IBM OR "SCO/UNIX IP"?
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
If this lawsuit goes against linux, could this be the rebirth of BSD to the mainstream? The lawsuits in the early 90s nearly killed it, but now it is legally clear, so if Linux has problems legally we could revive BSD.
Although there is a problem because FreeBSD has problems with Christian owned companies in my experience. One of my clients got offended when I installed an OS whose logo was a Daemon. She made me install Solaris instead of FreeBSD because she didn't want a "Satanic" OS.
Wouldn't this be like E3 suing Electronic Arts because Electronic Arts alleges IP violation in say a ID Software Game?
Or like COMDEX suing Motorola, because they allege Ericsson stole some technology.
LinuxTag is a conference, a media event. I think they are grossly overstepping their bounds.
Would a "Car Show" sue a major car manufacturer because said manufacturer comes up with some legal case that threatens to make all other manufacturers indebted to them? They might be pissed, but filing some legal suit for such a 4th party participant in the field is misuse of the system.
-malakai
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
Neither the German nor the English text says anything at all about any legal action by LinuxTag. The piece in heise.de does say that lawyers have sent each other nastygrams. Lawyers do that all the time, I hear. I get the sense that people don't know what LinuxTag is. It's a trade show. Nowhere in any of the linked articles does anyone say what the legal theory for a lawsuit against SCO would be...especially by a trade show! Frankly, it'd be more of a story if there were such information. Nothin' to see here, people, move along...
They have called the linux developers liars and theives, plain and simple.
They claim the "Enterprise Features" mentioned in ESR's work did not exist before IBM's involvement.
I'm suprised a variety of lawsuits haven't been filed against SCO by now. In particular, a class action law suit by the developers of all the enterprise features.
Of course, SCO has been planning this (probably with Microsoft) for many months, it might take time to get all the ducks in line for a major counter suit.
This could be a violation of their terms with the DOJ as well. DOJ should be subpoenaing all notes/conversations/etc between Microsoft and SCO for the last year or so...find that smoking gun and turn it right back that Microsoft.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
It is usually plaintiffs attorneys who do this - in the hope of getting a big payoff. People are not required to join those suits.
My being defamed has nothing to do with anyone else being defamed.
Good idea. It would probably be more proper though to have received one of the threatening letters, and to also be using linux in a business capacity, or have a client who has declined a bid or contract from you involving the "controversial" linux from you based on a letter they had received from SCO. Even judge judy wants to see documents.
With that said, I forget exactly how many letters sent out, but it sure seems like anyone receiving one could sue in small claims. Not very expensive and the good part is most places (that I am aware of, I could be corrected) they can't use lawyers in the presentation!
Each individual in the open source movement needs to file a small claims law suit not only against SCO but against the individual lawyers working for SCO. These people have defamed us, and they need to learn that they do well to leave all of us alone.
Any reason this can't be done to other enemies of OpenSource and antitrust law violators, like Microsoft?
This space left intentionally blank.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
They have cleary stated that Red Hat is one of the companies infringing on their IP. If I was in charge over at Red Hat I'd being suing them right now for libel and slander. They are in effect try to destroy the reputation of Red Hat through flase claims that are in all likelyhood causing Red Hat to lose business.
You simply can't issue press release after press release slandering a company legally.
Either Red Hat thinks this will all blow over or they are really guilty along with everyone else. Sitting on the sidelines is stupid IMO and the longer these SCO claims are out there the more credence they will accumulate.
Its not time for SCO to shit or get off the pot, its time for linux vendors and service providers to go on the offense and sue the crap out of SCO for the damage this is causing. That or face the music for the infringing IP.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
"The problem with this is that forcing SCO to disclose evidence in a civil trial before the appropriate time will harm their ability to make their case against IBM in court. Now, I assume that SCO has sued IBM in the US, but that this action is happening in Germany, but I would imagine treaties between the US and Germany would prevent a German court from doing anything that harms SCO's case in the US."
Why? How would disclosing the "evidence" in advance damage their case? If they have allegations and evidence to BACK IT UP, it will not be changed by public exposure. Even if there were infringing code in the kernel that were disclosed by SCO and changed tomorrow, there'd still be evidence that it WAS there.
Indeed, Caldera has to disclose their evidence IN ADVANCE to the defendants anyway, it's called discovery.
The ONLY way advance disclosure would "harm" Caldera is IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, that all their case is are lies, inuendo, smoke and mirrors. Which I suspect that it is. Disclosing REAL evidence of infringing code in public would only STRENGTHEN their case, and put pressure on IBM and others to buy them out.
No, the purpose of this suit is to keep the "facts" secret as long as possible to drag it out as long as possible to cause economic damage to Linux and businesses that do business in Linux so as to put pressure on them to buy out Caldera.
Corporatism != Free Market
Don't you get it? You would be giving them exactly what they want... MONEY! I will not make them rich, you go ahead...
Maybe Microsoft said.. "Look.. just have a go at trying to screw over Linux. We'll step in right at the end, and buy you out just as soon as the money starts to run out."
I don't think anything else can explain the bizarre & back stabbing attempts they have made to shit on the community.
Die SCO, die.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
I have a naive belief in balance in the universe. Of course, the universe takes a while to make its effects known ...
... I can't see how this could have any merit, and after all has been shown to be the usual FUD, it will strengthen free source software very much. I believe that's why Microsoft is keeping quiet. They can afford to throw a few million at SCO for "licensing" and never miss it when it turns out to be a lost cause. A few pantywaists will flee Linux. Anyone with half a brain will proceed as if nothing has happened, because, well, nothing *has* happened.
But anyway, I believe this will backfire badly on Microsoft. Of course they paid SCO a bunch of money to throw more FUD in Linux's way, and free source software in general. Whether or not they put SCO up to it in the first place, I don't know.
However
And after it's all over, Microsoft's arguments about the evils of free source software will look more and more inane.
Every tactic Microsoft has tried has backfired or at least failed, and the bigger the lie, the more egg on their face when it is discovered.
Infuriate left and right
Mr. Saint, Yes, both sides could potentially be wrong (or wronged), but your analysis of negative reaction to the pending suit as an attempt to gain moral ground is an oversimplification. I'll tackled just one portion of SCO suit, the claim of financial injury as a result of the supposed infusion of proprietary information into Linux code; the many other arguments as to the merits of this suit are available on this site and others. A plaintiff in a civil suit cannot claim damages unless he (or she) can demonstrate some previous or potential harm by which the absence of positive ruling would allow. By these limitations, SCO not only has to show its proprietary code found its way into Linux, but also that the introduction of this code has somehow given Linux (either the kernel or one of its many variants) a competitive edge, and has therefore hurt sales of SCO's own Unix product line. The question is - does SCO actually have a product which can compete with Linux on a even playing field? (or does SCO even market a product which could be construed as a competitor to Linux?) Suspiciously, SCO in its compliant has found it necessary to distort Linux's capabilities, stating among other things, that without big blue's help, Linux is a mere "hobbyist" attempt to play in league with(sic)'the professionals'. If SCO cannot show harm, that Linux unaided by IBM is incapable of competing with its own commercial Unix variant, then even if illicit code did enter into some application of Linux, its case is lost. Definitely by creating uncertainty and thereby delaying commitment to Linux by the computing enterprise, a competitor would gain some advantage, and this ultimately is one point SCO (and others)I'm sure are well aware of.
How do you think we can win these suits? There are 2 ways I can think of:
1) On technicality: since they can respond to an overwhelming no. of lawsuits, we will win.
2) On merits of the argument: that we are indeed defamed, since that there isn't any possibility SCO's code in Linux.
For 1): I'm sure it'll not work, because we probably cannot coordinate court attacks using thousands that will risk litigation (remember, we are putting our collective asses in the target of the countersue squad). Furthermore, if this would work then we can also have a coordinated 'Sue Micro$oft Day' can't we?
For 2) this point is precisely the point of SCO's case against IBM, i.e. if there is really SCO's code in their products. At most this will hasten SCO's need to provide the proof that this is so - and we have no guarantees that we'll win or have the resources like IBM to fight against it.
So I don't think we can win at this stage. BUT there is something we can do: when the courts rule against SCO in the IBM case, I propose that ALL parties with interest with Linux countersue them for damages - and that means all the thousands of us. We can win on the same merits as the IBM case.
This will be an enormous deterrent against anyone else who will dream of such lawsuits against OSS projects in the future!
I think that this is expecting a bit much of IBM. It is far more likely that the message that they will send SCO (and anyone who might consider a similar lawsuit) is "Attack IBM and die."
Or maybe: my name is Inigo Business Montoya; you question my IP handling? Prepare to die.
They've already made the comments and issued the letters, so under german law, they need to retract or show some evidence of their claims due to the german business laws. All-in-all it's a neat end run around SCO's abuse of the american legal system.
The problem is probably not going to be this case. It's the fact that this case opens the doors for a united assault on the open source paradigm.
Regardless of if there is, or is not any case for SCO, think about the big issue which is not accidental insertion of IP code, but deliberate insertion of IP code.
Consider this:
Look at how the open source community for the kernel and all the other open packages out there is run. Imagine that some company Company$XXX has hired some person PersonBad. PersonBad is told by the company to contribute (privately) to some open source product by placing some code from a proprietary product Product$XXX in the open source product.
Imagine that PersonBad pretends to be a NiceOpenSourceCoder, who is simply contributing to the open source product. Imagine that PersonBad does what they are told and takes the bonus Company$XXX is offering.
Now, six months later, Company$XXX launches a law suit (like SCO) claiming either the kernel or the open source product in question contains IP belonging to the company. They (like SCO) refuse to disclose the details of the code in question outside of court.
The kernel or product must be changed to have the sections in question removed. Now, regardless of the fact that distributing versions of the code with the IP in it is illegal according to the court case, making getting people to fix the problem is going to be difficult, just imagine:
Imagine that this six months later is just after a major new release of some distribution, and not only Company$XXX have done this, but Company$XXY and Company$XXZ and Company$XXP, who have formed a consortium claiming that the open source community is ripping them off.
That could easily tie up distribution and development of the open source products (and the distribution in general) for days, weeks, even months (if the court orders an injunction).
It would finally get resolved one way or another, but it'd be a serious blow to the open source community. It'd also be a serious blow to people trying to distribute versions of the distribution that was infringing IP. It'd be bad.
Imagine if the same thing happened all over again six months later. It'd be a disaster.
The problem is that there is NO WAY to tell a decent open source coder from a nasty malicious coder who is pretending to be a decent open source coder but providing obfuscated IP code.
Look at all the people who are unhappy with the open source community of free stuff. Look at how they've been trying to cut it down to size for a while now. Don't say the SCO thing is nothing to worry about. It's a serious, major concern that we should all be thinking about RIGHT NOW. It's not really SCO that a huge problem, it's other people who can use the same tactics (and do it properly).
Trying to tackle this problem once it has already happened is going to be a total pain.
Maybe I'm just being paranoid and cynical. Maybe not. Think about it.