FSF Statement on SCO vs. IBM

tomdp writes "Eben Moglen, Law professor and general counsel for the Free Software Foundation, has written a statement about SCO's lawsuit against IBM."

Comments

Thank you FSF

[krb]

nice to see such a clear, concise and complete dismissal of SCO's FUD. They kept it professional and straightforward, and with any luck, this'll defuse some of the tension surronding the entire situation.

Kudos FSF and Eben Moglen

Definite Quality article

[dnoyeb]

I agree. This was a quality article. Much moreso than the interview that came out of FSF earlier in the week. He hit the points and did a pretty good job of explaining it. His explanation of why GNUs not "the Linux Kernel" and the whole seperation of terms fit into the points he subsequently made. So it didnt sound like beating a dead horse.

I think this will certainly put to rest any out there nervous about this case. Well, except IBM.

Operating System?

[RVT]

I have been taught that the OS is the kernel, not the collection of programs running under it.
Now that the FSF claims the OS to be the kernel plus the GNU utils, do we have to change the definition? Is CS a democratic science ruled by majority? I know, I am picking nits. I have a whole basket full.

Contingency Fee, not cash.

[Arch_dude]

In a statement in late May, quoted in a CNET article on 28 May, Darryl McBride of SCO said that the SCO lawyers are are working on a contingency fee basis. SCO is not paying the lawyers anything. IFthey win, the lawyers get a big cut of the proceeds. If SCO gets counter-sued for barratry, I hope their lawyers are required to pay an equivalent percentage of the penalty.

Re:Contingency Fee, not cash.

[majorflaw]

I am AL, and I find it extremely difficult to believe that any other L would handle this for SCO without any guaranty of payment. Please keep in mind that the *actual* fee arrangement is subject to lawyer-client confidentiality and that Mr. McBride has not displayed any "undue honesty" to date. I am willing to bet the ranch that SCO's lawyers have been paid, continue to be paid, and that a written agreement exists which clearly spells out how much more they will be paid in the event of a settlement. The absence of any mention of provisions in the event SCO wins a legal victory is purely intentional.

no shit sherlock

[ArchieBunker]

"In most cases businesses aren't working for your best interests."

It took you this long to realize that? The whole point of a business is to make money. Although I do think acting like the GPL is the next messiah is childish. It makes you look like a teenage anarchist who hasn't grown up yet.

Re:First line...

[Monkey-Man2000]

The interesting thing is that they aren't really the Santa Cruz Operation but The SCO Group.

Voiding GNU wouldn't work

[Stephen Samuel]

Perhaps their lawyers believe that if they can make an argument that invalidates the GPL then they can indeed make a claim against IBM.

Voiding the GPL would be mostly shooting themselves in the foot. The GPl is mostly a promise by the owner of the software in question that they will not sue you for copyright violation if you agree to -- and follow certain principles

If SCO were to step in front of the court and claim that they believed that the GPL was void. They would be arguing that they have been knowingly distributing millions of lines of other peoples' code without any binding legal agreement that gave them permission to do so.

Anything that they got from IBM, at that point, would be eaten up by copyright infringment suits against SCO.

Novell: "Stolen Code" is Actually Public-Domain IP

[jg21]

Summarizing what it terms Novell's "Linux ambitions," Maureen O'Gara's LinuxGram is reporting today that Novell is not only porting its services - including the services stack in the future NetWare 7 - to Linux and launching Novell Nterprise Linux Services to run on Red Hat Enterprise Linux and SuSE Linux Enterprise Server from later this year, but that it has also - as the company that sold Unix to SCO's predecessor - been tipped off by one of the folks who examined the source code that the SCO Group claims Linux copied from SVR4...and been able to trace the code back to a pre-SVR4 version of BSD.

"As a result, Novell is supposedly trying to figure out how to lob another discrediting hand grenade at SCO and claim that the code SCO is basing its $3 billion contentions on is actually in the public domain," LinuxGram says.

Re:A Legal Virus...

[Mostly a lurker]

Someone is going to sue for defamation, and probably win

I do not disagree with you, but when will they finally be forced to try to produce a real case? Based on what I have seen of US litigation in the past, is there not every prospect of years of unsubstantiated FUD before they ever have to produce something for a court to make a decision about?

it's more part of the whole philosophy

[Trepidity]

Linus uses a very pragmatic philosophy - "the best tool for the job." Debian, by and large does not, and instead uses the Free Software Foundation's "the best tool for the job, as long as it's Free." Hence the Debian Free Software Guidelines, the name GNU/Linux, and the strong insistence on keeping the "non-free" portions of Debian optional and un-tied to the main part of the OS, which is wholly Free.

Furthermore, I'd argue that Debian is a good example of RMS's argument that Linux is just a kernel, and not the operating system. Debian is working on several alternate systems in which the major portion of the OS is kept the same, and the kernel is replaced. Thus Debian can be viewed as essentially a distribution of the GNU OS, with various versions including different kernels (hence Debian GNU/Linux, Debian GNU/HURD, and the in-discussion Debian GNU/BSD).

Re:First line...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the bottom of the page you linked:

"SCO History
Caldera, Inc. was founded in 1994 by Ransom Love and Bryan Sparks. In 1998, Caldera Systems, Inc. was created to develop Linux-based business solutions. In 2001, Caldera Systems, Inc. acquired the assets of the Server Software Division and Professional Services Division of The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. (SCO), forming a new company, Caldera International, Inc. In 2002, Caldera changed its name to The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX)."

Do you read only the first line of everything?

5000+ years of successful business w/o corporation

[cluelessinportland]

Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific (1886) established corporate personhood in the US. A corporation has the same legal rights as a person in the US. However, I do believe there were more than 5000 years of successful business trading in the world without corporations. People will by and sell goods no matter if the is an artificial legal construct that allows individual to act as irresponsible as they wish or not.

Re:We will publish no brief before its time.

[Zeinfeld]

That's bullshit, go ahead and ask any IP lawyer. Just because the infringing code is removed doesn't negate the fact that the infringement occured, and it would have absolutely no negative effect on any damages awarded.

Removing the alleged infringing code does not eliminate the infringement but it does significantly limit the damages.

If the infringement is deemed to be willful the plaintif is entitled to statutory damages irrespective of any actual damage that occurs and punitive trebled damages.

If the infringement is not willful SCO only get to recover actual damages. In this case the cost of a cafe latte and doughnut for each member of the board.