Slashdot Mirror
SCO Awarded UNIX Copyright Regs, McBride Interview
Prizm writes "It seems that SCO is continuing to build up its case for world domination, as today it was awarded U.S. copyright registrations for UNIX System V source code by the U.S. Copyright Office. Shares are up 20%, Novell is nowhere to be found, and SCO is releasing binary, run-only Linux licensing. You can read all about it over in their press release." C|Net is also running an interview with McBride.
SCO awarded patent on breathable air technology, stock in Nature down 50%
Does anybody have info as to how expensive this Linux licensing is going to be? It's quite possible that many companies may just pay the fee instead of going through the time, effort, cost and liability of doing otherwise. It's sad to see SCO actually get rewarded for how they're conducting themselves...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
And how do they intend to enforce that, as long as there is no judgment yet????
SCO will hold harmless commercial Linux customers that purchase a UnixWare license against any past copyright violations, and for any future use of Linux in a run-only, binary format.
That's extortion...or some other form of legalese.
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
Isn't about time that we as Linux users file a class action lawsuit against SCO for misuse of Linux source? If we demonstrate kernel source commits that date back far enough to show that SCO has known for quite a while that they were selling and distributing Linux with the code that they claim is a problem (and all System V code should not be available from the copyright office since it's been filed) that we would be able to demonstrate failure on their part as a business to properly handle their IP, and to ask the court to release it to the public domain?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
What is the delay in getting SCO to court with IBM so they actually have to SHOW US what they are claiming violates their contract with IBM and / or their IP ?
IANAL, so I might be missing something here, but the sooner they go to court, the better imho, else they will keep pumping out FUD and hyping their stock price.
Does having a copyright of the code that contains the lines supposedly stolen by IBM boost their case at all? It doesn't seem like it, as the issue is not whether they own the code but whether IBM copied it line by line or not. Also, their moves to contact companies currently using Linux sounds like a very RIAA business measure to take.
One reader of Linux magazine (not me) expressed the idea that the reason for SCO's recent stock rise was NOT that the market thinks they will win this lawsuit, but because someone has been quietly buying up their stock in advance of a hostile take over. That someone would be IBM, and McBride and his deatheaters will find themselves kicked out without a golden parachute. We can only hope!
I'd like to know what code I'm licensing. Yes, I'd like to know what lines...
So, if I take those lines out, I don't need a license from you? Thanks.
If anyone has been waiting to test the GPL in court surely now's the time to set up a fighting fund - everyone who's contributed to the kernel is today seing their hard work being stolen, exploited and sold by SCO.
The Streets will flow with the blood of the Non-Believers"
WTF? Over?
After careful thought and ethical consideration, I have come to a conclusion regarding my use of Linux and the SCO license. It is as follows:
Mr. McBride, bite me.
I will not submit to your extortion. I will, however, point it out to my Missouri Attorney State General, for his consideration. In fact, the RICO statute comes to mind.
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
If the copyright was awarded only recently, can the code that was contained in Linux prior to the registration be considered as prior art?
Note to any companies thinking of caving on this. According to Cnet, the license being offered is "run-time, binary use".
If you then duplicate this kernel in any way (yes, Virginia, downloading and installing from network or CD for internal use as well) without distributing or making available the contested SCO source under the terms of a GPL license, then regardless of whether you distribute the rest of the source you are breaking the terms of the GPL and violating the copy rights of every other rights owner that has contributed to the linux kernel, and you should expect to hear from them presently, possibly as a class action.
Furthermore, you are also declaring (implicitely) that you believe that IBM distributed without a license, that they violated both SCO's rights and (as a consequence) that they violated the rights of every other contributor as well. If you cave in to SCO, be prepared for IBM's lawyers to come around asking if you'd like to form part of a test case to see how implicit you can be while still libelling someone to their material loss.
I'd suggest that your best bet is to sit tight. You can always pay up if and when IBM lose the copyright case (which they probably won't), by which time the actual contested code will have been made public and rapidly replaced in kernel 2.6 anyway. So you can choose to upgrade for nothing, or you can pay to retain old code while sending a message that IBM are thieves and that you are prepared to cave in to any penny ante playa that sends you an invoice. Your choice.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Listening in on the SCO conference call today, they announced that all Linux 2.4 users are in violation of their Unix copyrights. They will now be selling a UnixWare license to Linux users to become compliant.
Is the beef they have with kernel 2.4 and above and primarily suspcions due to the increase in SMP capabilities that were made in this series? If so are those using kernels in the 2.2 series and below immune to the System V threats?
... that they're not based in Texas, where "Needs Killing" defense to a murder charge is an on-the-books recognized defense...
It is difficult sometimes to seperate what we want to happen from what will happen. And like wise what we think should be legal versus what our laws say is legal. This whole sco thing is like a massive storm gathering ont he horizan. Sometimes they just blow right over without so much as a single drop of rain, othertimes all hell breaks loose. I don't know what will happen, but I'm starting to get a little nervous. That makes me even more nervous because that is exaclty the kind of reaction sco wants.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
SCO: "Give me money." Linux user: "Prove you have a right to it first by winning your lawsuit against IBM." SCO: "Damn :/"
This is getting a bit old, they claim all sorts of things, but they haven't released ANY proof.
Personally I'm more interested in the suit brought against SCO demanding a retraction. Where did that go?
They have GPL'd their code in the linux kernel that they are apparently STILL distributing, this whole thing is just dragging out, tell us when there is news.
This is not at all clear.
... what a position ... they sure don't want to make the GPL illegal, since it could cascade into making all copyright licenses illegal. I wonder if they knew who they were going to bed with when they bought a license from SCO to keep them afloat. As much as I despise Microsoft, I can't believe this would do them any good, except in the short term FUD department. If SCO can claim ownership of Linux, it doesn't seem like a far stretch to own every other OS which ever borrowed from Unix ideas.
SCO will hold harmless commercial Linux customers that purchase a UnixWare license against any past copyright violations, and for any future use of Linux in a run-only, binary format.
and
In May, SCO announced that Linux contained SCO's UNIX System V source code and that Linux was an unauthorized derivative of UNIX.
Does SCO claim they own Linux? Do they claim to license Linux binaries that every one else provides? Will they distribute binaries only, and not provide the source? Are they going to sue everyone else who distributes Linux?
I cannot believe the gall of these idiots, it is breathtaking, far exceeding any nonsense coming out of Redmond.
I wonder if this will be the first GPL case to go to court. And Microsoft
Infuriate left and right
When the state of IP law gets to where it is, this kind of thing is bound to happen.
Linux has a radical new licensing model (relatively speaking) that has not been through all the legal machinations yet.
There is still grey area in terms of who owns what. Still, its ridiculous that SCO can try to take hostages here without actually showing any of the infringed on code!
"Guess what? Linux infringes on some code I bought the rights for back in the day. But I can't show it to you. Save yourself some trouble and send me $200 for every computer you have linux installed on."
Troll Like a Champion Today
SCO will hold harmless commercial Linux customers that purchase a UnixWare license against any past copyright violations, and for any future use of Linux in a run-only, binary format.
Does anybody else think this sounds a bit like blackmail? Also, this undermines the core belief of Linux, which (AFAIK) is that it should be free and modifiable by anyone... What would happen if all the Linux users boycotted the license? It'd probably put SCO down the sh*tter (farther than it already is) I'm not sure where we'd go, though... Maybe BeOS (gasp!) or something... Does anyone know if Plan 9 is based on System V?
SCO is coming dangerously close to infringing on Microsoft's patents
-- "You can lead a yak to water, but you can't teach an old dog to make a silk purse out of a pig in a poke" - Opus
Linus owns the Linux trademark or servicemark, right? He needs to revoke SCO's right to use the Linux name and any Linux source, binary, or whatever. Something along the lines of "SCO's license to use or distribute the Linux software is hereby revoked. Future distribution of Linux software will be considered a willful violation of copyright," etc. etc.
-- Will program for bandwidth
that there is currently NO CASE for any of this. As far as I can tell, this has not been decided in any court, so any 'copyright violations' are just so much hot air issuing from lawyers' mouths until such time as this goes to court.
Just my $.04
hmmmm?
Hold on a minute. Doesn't this violate the GPL? Just cause you believe that you've been wronged doesn't mean you should wrong others.
Remember how long it took to get Microsoft into court, let alone get something vaguely resembling a ruling? Courts are slow. We'll be lucky if this is resolved in 5 years. In the mean time SCO can make a pretty penny on FUD and legal threats to companies. It sucks, but that's the legal system for ya.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Does this latest act cross the line on and start violating the GPL ? It smells like it does and I think it's a clear violation. If that's true, should GPL holders start filing a class action against SCO because they are now violating the GPL in a blatant fashion ?
Fuck ingenuity, good ideas, communities and generosity.
Just make money with patent / copyright system abuse, and speading FUD about anything thats good for the world...
I'm glad I haven't written any big GPL apps or contributed as much as some to the open source world, as I would be seriously pissed off (and a little upset maybe) that my goodwill and hours spent contributing were being eroded by money grabbing, whiny corporations.
...what about NONCOMMERCIAL Linux use? Such as, for instance, me running Debian/PPC on my Power Mac G4 (which I am doing at this very moment)?
... what was that little "rumor" or "guess" several people have posted, about Microsoft being in league with SCO?
Also, wouldn't the whole "binary-only" thing destroy half of the usefulness of Linux? Half the whole point of Linux is that you are free to do what you wish to it-- including modifying it. Not to be a tinfoil-hat loony about things, but
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
Copyright exists from the moment that the document is made. All that's happened is that SCO have registered the copyright, which may make it easier for them to claim damages (in the U.S.) if any infrigement is found.
Of course, it's really just a share-price boosting move. It doesn't increase their chances of winning their case against IBM at all.
How is that SCO can get a copyright on something that had already had a copyright. I'm still pretty new to the legal history of Unix but didn't ATT/Bell Labs already copyright all of the System V source code. Later to find out illegal BSD code was in there. Has SCO made any significant changes to System V?
Translation:
SCO Obtains New Masturbation Toy, Wanks
Sooner or later if they want this to hold in court, they are going to need to show the source code that has been "copied."
The stock price jumped 15% yesterday and 20% today. I'm thinking to myself that a short term investor might have a good chance to make some money off of SCO. And also any insider for that matter.
If their goal is to be bought out, then the execs naturally want the stock price to be a high as possible when the buyout occurs.
Even if the source code exists (which I doubt), the moment it is revealed it will be out of the Linux kernel. They know this, and so they want to delay as much as they can to be bought out before getting to court.
Any companies paying for a "Linux lisence" before a judgement are stupid and are simply allowing SCO to continue this scam for a bit longer.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Speech delivered in the SCO shareholder meeting
on July 21, 2003
BY DARL MCBRIDE
FÜHRER AND CHANCELLOR
This session of the Reichstag takes place on a date which is full of significance for the Utah Shareholders. Four years have passed since the beginning of that great internal revolution which in the meantime has been giving a new aspect to operating systems. This is the period of four years which I asked the American people to grant me for the purpose of putting my UnixWare to the test and submitting it to their judgement. Hence at the present moment nothing could be more opportune than for me to render you an account of all the successes that have been achieved and the progress that has been made during these four years, for the welfare of the shareholders. But within the limits of the short statement I have to make it would be entirely impossible to enumerate all the remarkable results that have been reached during a time which may be looked upon as probably the most astounding epoch in the life of our people. That task belongs rather to the press and the propaganda. Moreover, during the course of the present year there will be an Exposition here in Berlin which is being organized for the purpose of giving a more comprehensive and detailed picture of the works that have been misappropriated into Linux, the results that have been obtained and the projects on which work has been begun, all of which can be explained better in this way than I could do it within the limits of an address that is to last for two hours. Therefore I shall utilize the opportunity afforded me by this historic meeting of the Reichstag to cast a glance back over the past four years and call attention to some of the new knowledge that we have gained, some of the experiences which we have been through, and the consequences that have resulted therefrom--in so far as there have a general validity. It is important that we should understand them clearly, not only for our own sake but also for that of the generations to come.
Having done this, I shall pass on to explain our attitude towards those problems and tasks whose importance for us and for the world around us must be appreciated before it will be possible to live in better relations with one another. Finally I should like to describe as briefly as possible the projects which I have before my mind for our work in the near future and indeed in the distant future also.
At the time when I used to go here and there throughout the country, simply as a public speaker, people from the bourgeois classes used to ask me why we believed that a revolution would be necessary, instead of working within the framework of the established political order and with the collaboration of IBM, Redhat, and SuSe, for the purpose of improving Linux 2.6, conditions which we considered unsound and injurious. Why must be have a new Unix, and especially why a new Linux revolution?
The answer which I then gave may be stated under the following headings:
Prior art and copyright registration are completely different things.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
I have yet to see anything come out of SCO that convinces me they have a valid case. Show us the code, show us the code history, prove that you created it instead of pilfering it from an OSS archive somewhere.
Unless they prove their case, I have absolutely no intention of submitting to what feels like extortion.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
You have to buy a seat of UnixWare, per the press release. That's $1500 per seat. Do YOU think anyone is going to pay that?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Two people can hold a copyright on same/similar things if those things weren't based of the other.
Whereas with a patent, it guarantees a monopoly on said thing.
Copyright merely guarantees that nobody can (legally) copy one's work. While still allowing them to create a same/similar work.
Wow - they won an interview with a McBride and got a McCopyright... can't wait to get my hands on their McLinux release!!!
if they were to buy SCO and the grind them into dust.
Eric Aitala
www.f1m.com
The bullshit just keeps rising higher and higher...
"...The company also announced it will offer
UnixWare(R) licenses tailored to support run-time, binary use of Linux for all
commercial users of Linux based on kernel version 2.4.x and later. SCO will
hold harmless commercial Linux customers that purchase a UnixWare license
against any past copyright violations, and for any future use of Linux in a
run-only, binary format."
So users no longer have access to Linux source? They can't recompile the kernel? Oh, that's right, Linux is an "unauthorized derivative of UNIX", so I assume they're laying claim to all of Linux now.
"Since the year 2001 commercial Linux customers have been purchasing and receiving software that includes misappropriated UNIX software owned by SCO... While using pirated software is copyright infringement, our first choice in helping Linux customers is to give them an option that will not disrupt their IT infrastructures..."
They have not provided any proof that Linux contains SCO IP... even if it did that does NOT mean that Linux users are committing software piracy.
Hundreds of files of misappropriated UNIX source code and derivative UNIX
code have been contributed to Linux in a variety of areas, including
multi-processing capabilities. The Linux 2.2.x kernel was able to scale to 2-4 processors. With Linux 2.4.x and the 2.5.x development kernel, Linux now scales to 32 and 64 processors through the addition of advanced Symmetrical Multi-Processing (SMP) capabilities taken from UNIX System V and derivative works, in violation of SCO's contract agreements and copyrights."
This is IBM (and formerly Sequent) code. It's NOT SCO's intellectual property. They CLAIM to have control over its distribution, but again, they haven't proven it in court. That certainly doesn't mean they own it.
I could go on but I'm sure many brighter ones will do a better job...
Wanted: One witty yet thought provoking
This sounds like more than it is, but one must understand a fundamental difference between copyright and other IP, such as patents and trademarks.
When the PTO grants a patent, it awards the actual patent itself after an investigation and a determination that the invention meets the requirements for a patent. When a trademark is registered, a different process takes place, but one that also attempts to determine the validity of the trademark.
Copyright registrations don't do that. They just record the fact that someone claimed that something was theirs on such and such a date.
This is a practical matter, as apart from very bare minimum standards, there isn't a very good way to investigate the validity of a copyright application short of an adversarial proceeding.
- Convince SCO to freely license the copyrights to everyone.
- Change the Linux code to no longer be in violation of the copyright.
- Stop distributing linux.
The GPL quite clearly states that if you will not provide source code to a GPLed binary you distribute, and if you will not allow someone you give GPLed source/binary to to redistribute it under the GPL, it is a GPL violation to distribute it at all. SCO can claim Linux in violation of their copyrights but they can't remove Linux from the GPL.Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
We can just replace that dirty IBM contributed code with, uh, let's see, the exact same code that SCO chose to distribute themselves under the terms of a GPL license for year after year. Mmm, yup, I'll just replace it file for file, then recompile to produce an identical binary. Prove otherwise?
Sorry about the italics. I know it's traditional to point out idiotic licensing terms USING UPPER CASE AOLSPEAK, but I thought I'd try and sneak this wheeze under the crack SCO legal team's beady eyes.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Since SCO distributed the OTHER portions of the code that are non-infringing with their IP intermixed, they're in an unenviable position of knowingly infringing the IP rights of other holders.
Clause 4 of the GPL requires that you make everything you ship out to be GPL- no exceptions. They've been distributing Linux in the alleged condition for over seven months now- stating that it was "okay" for them to do so, because the alleged IP was theirs to begin with.
They don't own the other 98% of the kernel source- other people do. And they've been distributing it for too much time to be excused for not knowing what was going on.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Goto Kernel.org, download the code and start removing all SYSTEM V style stuff, such as booting, IPC. If linux is to survive it must stop being a *NIX clone, and become something unique.
Nero-burning ROM for Linux!
"SCO is releasing binary, run-only Linux licensing" So could someone like IBM purchase this Linux and then sue for their rights under GPL (source and no patents that restrict free re-distrobution)? It seems like this is sorta do-or-die for GPL in America?
I still don't understand why the legal system hasn't stepped in; Basically, SCO is saying IBM and all Linux distros are ILLEGAL, and they wave this Sys V copyright in everyone's face, as if that's proof that they own linux. How far can they go? Will they be able to scare people even more, without any kind of legal backing? How is this not libel/slander? Come on IBM, knock these guys down!
It still mystifies me why IBM isn't doing anything at this point. They really do have to defend themselves, or they will start to look guilty, even if the charges are completely baseless (I still don't see how SCO can believe they own linux).
Thanks everybody for the explanation. My bad; I tend to get copyright and patents confused in the case of software. I have an excuse, though: software code is no different from, let's say, a complech chemical formula. Thus, if pharmaceuticals are awarded patents, I always tend to think that software gets patent protection as well.
If SCO didnt want to screw with Linux as they claim, they would post the offending code and the opensource world could replace it and move on.
instead SCO is hunting to make more money where they can find it.
Such sweethearts.
They claim that Linux is an illegal derivative of Unix, to which they own the copyright. That's in their latest press release. What they have claimed before is that they own all sorts of crap related to Unix, and that any operating system which incorporates those ideas is violating their intellectual property rights. No joke, they seriously believe that just about every current OS violates their rights to Unix. If you are to read their comments and interviews and take them seriously, the recent license they sold to Microsoft does not preclude later claims against Windows for violating their UNIX IP rights.
This is entirely separate from SCO code having made its way into the Linux sources.
They also claim that any code IBM contributed to Linux belongs to SCO, because they UNIX license IBM has makes all subsequent UNIX development at IBM belong to SCO.
The sheer arrogance is amazing.
Infuriate left and right
They just got the copyright office to issue them a copyright. IANAL but it says nothing about the legitimacy of their claims so they still have to defend their claims.
some ragheads fly some airplanes into SCO..
That would be sweet..
You know, the one where they want to make placing even a single copyrighted file on the internet against the copyright holders' wishes/license a felony?
If not, do you think it would be too risky or confuse my senator too much if I were to lobby for passing this law, let it sit on the books long enough to let McBride and everyone else in that company redistributing Linux in violation of the GPL get sent to federal, "pound me in the ass" prison, then lobby to get the law repealed afterward?
I believe the recent action merely transferred the copyright, which had been granted long ago.
Infuriate left and right
Your always hearing of SCO doing this, this, and that. Where's IBM, no where to be found. Why? Well, IBM sees that SCO is bringing on their own doom, and IBM doesn't have to do anything.
As far as SCO's Linux licensing, I think I can say what we are all thinking, SCO can suck my big fat dick.
copyright only grants certain specific rights governing distribution, too many people don't get this
They want all commercial customers to pay for a Unixware 7.1.3 license for EVERY copy of Linux they are running.
Here's my rundown of the call
Freedom Is Universal
Linux-Universe
Wouldn't do MS any good? If it went that far, who do you think would purchase SCO?
Do I think it will go that far? No. Would it surprise me if it did? Unfortunately, no. IP laws are just that stupid. I think SCO execs are looking for a way out, and MS could very well be their "daddy" on this whole thing.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Dear SCO,
As a contributer to the Linux kernel, I have decided to start a new licensing program. Your company will be required to pay a fee of 5000 USD per cpu on all installations of Linux you use or sell which include my code. Regrettably, I cannot tell you which lines these are, as doing so would my trade secrets to the world.
Also, I have identified numerous cases in which lines of my code were copied into the source for your Unixware product. The same licensing terms I have descibed above will therefore apply to Unixware.
I have sent letters to all 5 of your customers informing them of this new policy. I understand Sun has also been in touch with them.
I will be contacting you soon to discuss payment options.
Thank you.
that was an informative reply
TOOL
In our contry we use to hire a Hitman. Works better than a lawyer.
The poor guy looks like he hasn't slept in a couple of months. Ya know, he's not a bad looking guy though. Yes, he's rather hot, in fact.
SCO expects to be compensated for supposed 1% of the kernel code.
It looks like SCO is inciting people to violate the GPL, and willfully violating the GPL themselves.
This invalidates the GPL licence and means that SCO is violating the copyright of 99% of the kernel code, along with extorting others to do the same.
Because of this, SCO needs to pay damages to the Linux source code that it is pirating ( and encouraging to pirate).
If SCO beleives that it is due 1 * x, where x is some compensation for its supposed source code, then SCO now owes 99 * x to the other linux developers.
Ooo. They got registration for a copyright. Big deal. Copyright ownership can still be challenged and owning a copyright doesn't guarantee that the other side is infringing that copyright.
While this might be good PR for SCO, registration does not indicate any likelihood of success regarding this situation.
When asked about dealings with Linus, SCO indicated that they had only done email exchanges and that Linus had indicated the situation was a contract dispute and he was staying out of it. McBride then went on to say that as of today everything has changed. SCO stated that everyone involved with Linux from the users to the contributors to the distributors are either violation of their Unix copyrights or are contributing to the violation. They also stated that they could sue for copyright violations without showing damages.
I don't know if anyone read an interview a while back with McBride, but he's claiming 2 other points:
1. ALL modern operating systems are dervied from Sys V UNIX and they may be due royalties from companies like Microsoft and Novell.
2. SCO feels there were errors in the original agreement from Berkely and AT&T and they think they will need to audit all the BSD kernels to make sure no SCO IP was left in those kernels after the AT&T agreement.
So, basically, if you make an OS of any kind whatsoever, you owe SCO royalties.
They're just out of control.
Or just switch to *BSD. If SCO wins and manages to declare some core Linux component as infringing, guess what will be thriving instead of dying.
Will I retire or break 10K?
And it's impossible too: the GPL is incompatible with licensing and run-only-binary-distribution (unless the sourcecode is made available). So SCO can't sell a run-only binary distribution under their licensing terms and any distributor who accepts SCOs licensing terms and imposes them on his customers can't distribute anything either since he would violate the GPL.
Violating the GPL means that it is replaced by normal copyright of all the individuals who contributed to the kernel (we're still only talking about the Linux-kernel here) and you need to make explicit deals with each of them to distribute the kernel-code as a whole. It is more likeley that most of those copyrightholders will sue SCO for infringing on their copyrights by distributing their Linux under a restrictive license, in violation of the GPL and hence without permission.
This is just SCO raising up the ante again spewing propaganda to up their shares another few bucks. On the day their bubble bursts and the shares fall through the floor, i will cheer and gleefully tell all those idiots who bet their money on SCO 0wn1ng Linux, that Linux can't be 0wn3d and never will be.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
If they can prove that Linux infringes upon SysV code that they claim to own, then that code will be removed from Linux and replaced. Period. There will be no issue of charging for it's use. They certainly can't charge for it's use now, as they haven't even shown what code is allegedly infringing. If you tell someone their infringing your copyright, but don't give them the information to allow them to stop infringing, then any legal case you have will go nowhere.
If there is any validity to their claims, the offending code will be expunged from Linux and replaced, which will conclusively end the matter.
In any event, they already GPL'ed all of their code by releasing a GNU/Linux distribution.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
This is hillarious! SCO doesnt have a leg to stand on! SCO released a verion of Linux under the GPL, so even if their code is in the kernel, anyone can use Linux free of charge! And if these fools release a binary-only distribution of Linux they will be violating the GPL, and developers will be able to file a class action suit against SCO. It might even be a good thing if that happenes. Winning the court case would be a sure thing and punitive damages could be awarded to developers to help fund their projects.
And that's a very intriguing development, from the point of Redmond. Defeating the GPL likely will invalidate just about every other software license. Not only is there a real question of whether SCO wants what they appear to be going after, but you have to wonder about what is going on at Microsoft right now ... no way do they want software licensing defeated. As much as they want to destroy the GPL, I can't believe they want to destroy licensing itself. I imagine all sorts of shock in Microsoft conference rooms right now.
Infuriate left and right
Ok, looks like it's ALMOST time to sell SCO, wait for it to nose dive when the SEC comes after them for manipulating the stock price, and buy to cover!!!
Something tells me the brains at sco left a long time ago, and the company is now flailing about like a headless chicken, with the legal dept in control.
Then again, since the BSDs have already been cleared of using proprietry code in court, I haven't been paying a great deal of attention :)
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
I don't believe it's a coincidence. MS has been looking for an opportunity like this for quite a while. Companies that were unsure about linux because of issues like support and licensing will be scared away by garbage like this, concerned that at any moment they'll be required to license something that was supposed to be Free.
This is exactly what the oponents of Free/Open Source software need to try to stop linuxs growth into the marketplace. Scare tactics and vague claims. I doubt many people will be switching over to linux in the coming months, and companies considering it are going to have second thoughts. Linux vendors now have to attempt to reassure people that the product they are selling is really what it's supposed to be.
Anyway, this is ridiculous. This is extremely damaging to the image of Linux as a platform, and any business attempting to make money off of linux should start screaming for SCO's blood now. Redhat, Suse, Mandrake, IBM, Google, ... etc. This needs to be stopped, and the sooner the better.
This is the beginning of a stream of events, that eventually will be known as the Great GPL War.
A company can not claim ownership of a few lines of code, and than steal millions of GPL-ed lines, package them and sell them. This is outrageous.
FSF is forced to react on this one. GPL is going to court.
regards
PiCz
------- Look mum! I have posted another Slashdot comment! --------
Ding, ding, that's true, and so long as SCO keeps it's mouth shut about what's actually infringing, I'll just abide by the kernel license, the GPL. I don't have much to say to SCO people except that they can come and get free software if they are in Baton Rouge today. This offer, of course, extends to anyone who happens to be in Baton Rouge today.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Someone should post the home addresses of these scumbags. Then maybe Tony Soprano and Co. could go pay them a nice visit in the middle of the night, like sometime really, really soon...
Eh???
Someone out there is bound to have the dirt on these low lifes....
never sounded so good... :)
So what are the odds that Stallman is secretly enjoying this while toiling away at the hurd?
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
I wish I had some points...people need to realize that what you say is absolutely correct. SCO can never license Linux under a license other than GPL.
It's well understood that the SCO FUD machine is trying to reach as much publicity as it possibly can. This is why it is important to let the other side of the force to get some publicity as well. One way is to make links to sites that deal with the SCO FUD from Linux users' viewpoint in order to get better rank in search engines. One of the best sites is at sco.iwethey.org.
Please consider linking.
You do not understand the arrogance of McBride and his brethren. He has claimed in interviews that all of Linux, and every other UNIX clone, is a derivative of UNIX, whether the code was developed from scratch or not. He even hinted that Windows was not immune to this, that the license bought by Microsoft did not protect them from being sued for violating SCO rights concerning UNIX.
Infuriate left and right
"(SCO) has received U.S. copyright registrations for UNIX System V source code, a jurisdictional pre-requisite to enforcement of its UNIX copyrights."
But they haven't a) proven that System V code is infact present in the Linux kernel and b) explained their problem with that given that they themselves distributed said code under the GPL.
Case dismissed, costs awarded against SCO for wasting the court's time.
while sco {
wget -O
}
I smell a large divestment of stock by SCO upper brass now that the stock is as high as it is likely to get.
As a backup plan, HURD is coming along nicely...
Oh, was that my outside voice?
They distributed a GNU/Linux distribution. They had the source for that distribution offered until a few weeks after they launched the lawsuit. There is no plausible way that you can say that it was released by one renegade employee without authority.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Let's face it, Gates seems to have found a chink in open source armor. I opine that he has (encouraged|abetted|paid) SCO along its current course of action. This is the FUD campaign to end all FUD campaigns.
"Hey, SCO. How about you go after Linux like gang-busters. We'll underwrite your legal fees."
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
I doubt that victory in court is part of their plan. SCO believes that IBM or some other company will step in and buy them out, rather than having to endure the multi-year legal war that threatens to ensue.
The GPL battle is only one front in that war. Should IBM choose to take this to court, they will almost certainly break out their patent arsenal, which will add years and millions of dollars to the process. SCO and its newfound stockholders are hoping to cut a deal and make some money from this turkey.
You can get the Linux kernel from them, GPL license included, as a free download from ftp.caldera.com.
Why can't someone who got the extortion letter subpoena SCO to identify the infringing code?
You cannot redistribute GPL'ed software if it infringes on anybody's intellectual property. That clause was put there with the intention of preventing SCO-style blackmail. It could be argued that that means that companies that obtain software with the intention of paying a licensing fees already are not covered by the GPL because they believe it infringes on someone's intellectual property.
The clause may not be strong enough to achieve its intended effect, so perhaps it should be revised for the next version of the GPL to something that explicitly states "if you pay anyone a license fee for using this piece of software, you lose your rights to use or redistribute it under the GPL".
Understatement of the year: "We're not exactly winning the Miss Congeniality contest"
What's funny is, McBride actually saved us the trouble and compared SCO to the MPAA and the RIAA for us. The difference is, the RIAA didn't give any MP3's away. McBride's argument is crap. U.S. copyright law may prevent a copyright holder from accidentally giving up their rights, but there's no excuse for violating the GPL when all of the code is right there.
And if that wasn't a total line of bullshit, how bout when McBride said "We don't wanna sue anybody"? For somebody who doesn't wanna sue anybody, they sure have an awful lot of lawyers going to work for them...
Line of bullshit #3: "The pull of linux is not the operating system, it's the ability to run unix on cheap intel hardware" Having worked on SCO machines and having worked on linux machines, I had to swallow my teeth when he dropped this one.
I wonder if McBride would do an Ask Slashdot interview? Lemme get my question in now:
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
A better question would be, "Why hasn't the FSF done anything about a major challenge to the GNU license?" "Why are they sitting on their hands, doing nothing but releasing 'statements'?"
From the GNU homepage:
We rely on support from individuals like you who support FSF's mission to preserve, protect and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer software, and to defend the rights of Free Software users.
Second question would be "Why hasn't IBM slapped SCO with a Legal Ugly Stick yet?"
Please help metamoderate.
It grants rights not given by normal copyright law, upon certain conditions that you must agree to to get those rights. If you don't agree to thsoe conditions, or violate those conditions after agreeing to the GPL, then standard copyright law applies. That means that you've violated standard copyright law.
Very simply, there is no way that the GPL can be defeated in a court-room. But, if it is, that might be good. If the GPL is invalidated, then ALL EULAs would necessarily be invalidated, as they take away rights granted by standard copyright law.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Imagine if by some fluke that SCO does get to charge for the use of Linux. Would SCO therefore have to split up the profits and distribute them to the other kernal developers?
It would seem to me that if SCO only has 80 lines of the millions of lines in the kernal source code that they would not be making very much off of charging for Linux after they paid royalties to the people who did the lion's share of the work.
Shh.
SCO: You are going to have to pay a license to use linux because otherwise you will be illegally using software that we wrote.
Linux User: OK, which lines did you write?
SCO: I'm not telling.
Linux User: I'm not paying.
Whereas SCO is stating that they own Linux due to several lines of their code being in the kernel (and previously released by SCO/Caldera/whomever, I'm sure), they are now placing a binary-only distro available for users. This is a flagrant violation of the GPL. But wait, they are saying that their code is in there. If (God forbid) they didn't release this, it's time for a rewrite.
Hey, Linus, it's time for you to get medeival on SCO's sorry collective ass.
This sig no verb.
giving a company WORLDWIDE rights ?!?! WTF Even as a US citizen that seems a bit off. I hope the rest of the world tells SCO where to go...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
ALL YOUR UNIX ARE BELONG TO SCO
In Soviet Russia Unix patents SCO
(Sorry I was really bored)
Science is the Real TRUTH!
GNU is the law? Huh! That was an interesting statement. I always though GNU was crap.
© 2004 The SCO Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Seeing as SCO does not actually offer the Linux kernel in any form, their sale of licenses for UnixWare to cover Linux is a gross dilution of the term. If you don't have Linux, you can't call it Linux, that's what trademard is all about. SCO is going to have to come up with a name like SNL, SCO's Not Linux.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
They're beligerent and obviously unwilling to work with the community over this (Did anyone ever believe them when they said that they weren't going to go after the Linux community when they started this BS? I sure as hell didn't...).
I wonder when the kernel coders will start working at filing infringement suits on SCO over their 1-2% in the kernel and the licensing they just announced.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Pertinent passage:
If the copyright holder is the Free Software Foundation, please send the report to . Note that the GPL, and other copyleft licenses, are copyright licenses. This means that only the copyright holders are empowered to act against violations. The FSF acts on all GPL violations reported on FSF copyrighted code, and we offer assistance to any other copyright holder who wishes to do the same. But, we cannot act on our own if we do not hold copyright. Thus, be sure to find out who the copyright holders of the software are before reporting a violation.
Please help metamoderate.
"SCO needs to openly show this code before anyone can assess their claim," IBM spokeswoman Trink Guarino said. The company has said in the past that the suit is baseless.
Regarding SCO's decision to offer a license to users of Linux -- the open-source software that can be copied and modified freely -- Guarino said, "SCO seems to be asking customers to pay for a license based on allegations and not facts."
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030721/tech_sco_4.html
"You're gonna need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
>They have not provided any proof that Linux contains SCO IP... even if it did that does NOT mean that Linux users are committing software piracy.
No proof? They don't need to submit proof. Linux is clearly a unix clone and has been considered so for a long time by the (programmer) masses. It's hard to backpedal on that now. The idea that Unix is too similar to other older operating systems is not where this case is going to go. As an OS watcher, I copy and paste lots and lots of code written by all manner of people just to get work done in little scripts I write. I serioiusly doubt I am unique in that regard. By the same note, I doubt that the early developers of low level OS apps were so different from me; after all, it's just our job.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
I'll sell McBitch a shell account anytime he feels the need for a real OS. Just reply in this thread and I'll tell you where to send the money.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Another arrogant slashdotter who thinks that social rules don't apply to him as long as he's got access to the source code and a speedy Internet connection.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Linux was made from Scratch...Good one! LOL You're an idiot.
© 2004 The SCO Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
"SCO will hold harmless commercial Linux customers that purchase a UnixWare license against any past copyright violations, and for any future use of Linux in a run-only, binary format."
Of course that means that they would be in violation of the GPL by not offering source code. I mean does code ole Darl really think they can violate someone elses license because they claim theirs was violated?
The situation where one company holds another hostage by claiming infringement without every putting up any evidence is not new. To address it, we have declarative judgements. The Linux community could and should ask for a declarative judgement on SCO's alleged copyright violations. Then, SCO either has to put up the evidence, or the judge will rule against them.
SCO cannot sell a license that would make your Linux install "legal".
You see, if you need a license to run the SCO code then you lose the license to run the rest of the Linux code. Go read your GPL.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Registering a copyright for sourcecode amounts to sending in a form with the code and a fee to the copyright office. They datestamp it and file it away. It's not required to register to claim copyright, or even to register at all. Registering just gives the holder some leverage in court, since in the absence of other information, the side with the earlier registration date wins.
So, since they are just filing now, and have a 2003 registration date, I don't see what this has to do with anything at all. All this means is that they are "officially" claiming copyright, id doesn't mean they's been "granted" any rights at all. That's for a court to decide in specific disputes.
IANAL, but I've sent in a number of Copyright Form TX filings in my day, at about $10 each. Big deal.
I have a question, and being that I'm not a lawyer, perhaps someone more knowledgable can chime in - I seem to remember reading that in any kind of civil action like this, the plaintiff has a duty to actively mitigate his damages to the maximum extent possible - for instance, if some schmuck pulls out in front of me on the highway, I have a duty to attempt to prevent an accident, even if it's his fault. Regarding the SCO/Linux situation, SCO has steadfastly refused to tell Linus or anyone else specifically where the code is that's infringing while being fully aware of the fact that armed with that knowledge, the OSS community would very quickly make the needed changes to remove the disputed IP.
By acting in this manner, SCO appears to not be interested in mitigating their claimed damages in the least, and actually appears to be attempting to increase them as much as possbile - how do you suppose a judge/jury is going to look upon this?
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Wrong answer. *They* themselves distributed a Linux kernel, complete with source up until a week or so after they filed the suit, IIRC. If it was infringeing then, then they have relased whatever code might be in there under the terms of the GNU General Public License.
I don't think this will hold up. On this point I suspect a judge will side with SCO if they claim that the copyright is invalid because they where not fully aware at the time of the scope of the offending code content.
We hear this GNU/GPL argument all the time here, but it's not as simple as that. There are lots of scenarios that would invalidate this idea.
By the way, take note that not one of the big players in this fiasco even brings this up, they know that in this case the GNU/GPL is questionable and probably not enforceable.
is how much SCO upper management has made off selling an artificially inflated stock (see for yourself). That is assuming that major insider trading activities are not being concealed some how, which, considering the ethical principles of the people involved, is a dubious assumption. Most of this stock selling is in lots under 6k of shares, which shows a concious effort to avoid scrutiny from the SEC.
Enron might have lied about large numbers, however, I am convinced that SCO represents the most a company has ever multiplied the perception of its own worth through blatant lies. This has either exposed something horrible about our financial system or the complete incompetence in this area on the part of investors (probably both . . .).
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
He literally claims that developing any code for a UNIX clone violates UNIX IP rights, thus if you or I or anyone writes code for Linux, it belongs to SCO.
In a theroretical sense, it makes sense -- if I own land, and you build a house on it, thanks, you just built me a house (actually happened to the land I won, with the people I bought it from). Look at all the Harry Potter parodies which have been shut down.
SCO will certainly lose long term, the question is how much of a circus it will be getting there.
Infuriate left and right
If I were a CIO or CTO debating the TCO of *nix vs. Win2K3 to a CEO, would IBM vs. SCO be the TKO that stops the CEO from approving A/P to pay my PO for RH's LGX?
FWIW, even if OSS is FAIB, if the DOJ considers *nix IP with a TM, then it basically become's SCO's LIC, meaning our OSS becomes a CSS OS, which would RSTBO.
AIBO going w/ an ASP that manages our OS? BTA, we might end up w/ a BOFH giving us ZA, which WWAD PMS.
AFAIK, INMP if SCO wants to be ITM by enforcing its supposed IPR - *nix IP should be PD or GNU, like BSD just on GP, IYKWIM. I keep asking myself in this situation - WWLD?
Oh, BTW - IITYWIMWYBMAD?
I actually do believe that 2.4's NUMA architecture, SMP, et al, came in bulk from outside the linux kernel hackers cadre.
I dont believe that they fumbled for a decade with scalability, only to hit the nail on the head, miraculously, in time for IBM to hitch it's cart to the horse.
SCO may be right, and then what? Rollback to 2.2 kernel, or earlier. IBM helped shove that code in there, hoping that if the genie was out of the bottle, no court could put it back in for SCO.
I actually believe 95% of all open source projects are due to stolen code or other IP.
Are there any good resources about learning how to 'short' stocks? Is it basically just betting that a stock will go down in a specified timeframe? Will shorting a stock also put immediate downward pressure on it?
Sorry for the TOTALLY unrelated post. These questions have nothing to do with SCO at all... I was just curious about stocks and stuff. Thanks for the help in advance,
Use Python
I have a web server running a copy of Linux that I downloaded from SCO. SCO allowed me to download it -the whole thing - under the GPL. By demanding payment now, they are violating that licence.
In a surprise move earlier today, God announced a multibillion dollar lawsuit against Coca-Cola Co. Apparently the soft drink company has been sneaking water into their flagship products for several years. God said He would be requiring licensing fees from all Coca-Cola drinkers, but anyone who has previously been baptized will not be expected to pay usage fees for water.
`which fortune`
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Serv er/current/RPMS/linux-kernel-binary-2.4.13-21S.i38 6.rpm
yepp... thats SCO distributing the linux kernel, *right now*
tasty electronic music vittles
I just finished watching the interview and McBride is claiming that the GPL only enforces their claims.....McBride says that the GPL is very clear in stating that there is a difference between donating code and distributing code into Linux kernel. SCO claims that they never 'officially signed away their code' to be used in the linux kernel. He even goes on to say that since there is any proprietary code in the kernel, that the GPL itself is nullified as a valid license for the kernel. Good interview, but McBride still comes off as evasive in some of his responses. (I guess that shouldn't surprise me) This is going to be a major test for the GPL. I'm getting frustrated that we haven't heard more from IBM.
Someone with some money and a lawyer to burn, PLEASE sue SCO to force the disclosure of the "evidence" they claim to have.
We can continue sit here and fester in our own self-confidence, but until we know for sure what's up, we're sitting ducks. Better to know NOW what the extent of the problem is, and fix the damn thing.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
This is hurting IBM's image as a Linux vendor. We all believe they are going to win the law suit utterly. Why aren't they issuing any statements with some short reasons why these claims are ridiculous?
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
I think it's time that we get Pat Robertson to "pray" for Darl McBride and Chris Sontag.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
All this copyright/patent/whining/pissing/moaning bullshit has got to stop.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
"SCO will hold harmless commercial Linux customers that purchase a UnixWare license against any past copyright violations"
"Hello, RIAA. Please direct further correspondance to this other address."
They're "chicken" nuggets, not chicken nuggets.
hint: Alan Cox doesn't work in the United States, never mind Utah.
And he will also never visit the USA again, for fears of being arrested under the DMCA.
Has anyone comtemplated that SCO will have granted by the court in the SCO/IBM case a provision to seal this portion of the case on the basis of trade secrets? In that case it seems that the development community may never see the actual code, and only learn the result of the lawsuit, making it extremely difficult to "clean up" the current codebase of infringing material!
also, if IBM ever decides to settle the case, SCO may demand to keep the code secret under an NDA. (and don't think IBM can't decide to settle, weirder things have happened before with corporations- it may be cheaper and easier to settle!)
Let's organize ourselves and all call on the same day to ask about their "license" pricing. They have a 800 number ((800) 726-8649) so the dime is on them. How much long distance charges can ./ rack up?
Isn't there one thing for certain: Linus owns the trademark on Linux. Even if they did own the code (which they don't), they can't market it as Linux after Linus says to stop. He'll be needing a lawyer soon. His inaction to date was waranted - he said it was between IBM and SCO. Now it should be nice and personal.
From the GPL:
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.
meaning that even if they win they cannot distribute the binary-only version of Linux they are distributing, as announced in the article. Hence, as I mentioned before, they are currently violating the GPL. Whether or not they did it before is another issue altogether.
My journal has hot
I find it intresting that SCO and IBM have a very simular list of primary instutional investors.
Barclays Bank Plc
Vanguard Group, Inc.
FMR Corporation (Fidelity Management & Research Corp)
Northern Trust Corporation
I know jack about investments and this is purly speculation but I do know that something smells rotten in Denmark. IBM's done nothing, and someone is eventually going to bite on the SCO FUD giving them a position to stand on.
That's all very nice, but what if I need help and send email to a list that Brett Glass is on ? Worse, what if one of my clients (I install linux samba servers for small offices to use as network backup) sends such an email, and Brett Glass AND Theo respond ?
I can be fairly certain that Torvalds and Cox will just not respond to annoying email, and not drive my customers away.
Face, BSD people are bad for business. I'd rather pay the $90 for my customers to call MS support than have them interact with those people for free.
OT!
While not hilarious, my signature has a link.. and a couple of funny things.. All under 120 characters!
But I would appreciate more space for a sig. I want to include a poem, and a disourse on debate.
Online Starcraft RPG? At
Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
In fact, SCO has never owned UNIX or the definition of what a UNIX system is. From the OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint:
From http://opengroup.org/:
The Open Group owns UNIX. SCO just owns the copyright on some old source code that *implements* UNIX and nobody could care less. Furthermore
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
This is like saying "Well, the makers of the Terminator movie have a copyright on that movie, so they can sue anyone that makes any story that even resembles a plot where robots take over the world."
That isnt how copyright works, even in copyrights current fucked up state.
Actually, it is somewhat ironic that you use the Terminator example, because the SF author Harlan Ellison sued James Cameron over copyright infringement -- the "crime"? That Cameron made a movie that involved robot killers going back in time. Apparently Ellison thought he owned that hackneyed concept. Cameron even settled with him.
SCO will hold harmless commercial Linux customers that purchase a UnixWare license against any past copyright violations, and for any future use of Linux in a run-only, binary format.
Isn't this against the GPL? If they distribute Linux they MUST provide the source. This seems like a serious conflict. I also find it odd that if they where interested in protecting their IP that they have not issued any cease and desist orders to any of the other major Linux distos like Redhat. One more question. What will happen to somebody if he is running SCO Linux? Are they going to sue someone for running software that SCO itself distributed?
Linux will die, once it is dead, $CO and M$ will go after anything that remotely resembles System V Unix, and thus, M$ will own the OS Market.
"At that point, the distribution of every piece of linux that they don't explicitly own becomes prohibited, completely, because Linux falls back to copyright law which indicates that the contributors of the other pieces still own them and have not licensed them to any distribution but GPL."
Okay, we know who the contributors are, isn't it time someone like the FSF (who I am a member of) sues SCO for copyright infringement?
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
In the first place, copyrights are not patents. Independently-arrived-at code does not infringe on "copyright" rights, which only affect the right to make copies, not independently-arrived at code.
Secondly, we all know how trustworthy the USPTO is **bullshit**.
Third, even if the copyright is held to be valid, they still have the problem of proving that current implementations contain copied code (not just that it's identical, but that the copying, if any, went from their crap to Linux and not the other way around).
Fourth, we have thw whole issue of them having released gpl-ed versions of Linux, so any code that was copied is still okay.
Fifth, they don't have the right to license Linux binaries, 'cause they don't own those rights. The gpl is quite clear on this. Either the gpl'ed software can be used free and clear, or it can't be used at all.
In summary, this means absolutely nothing, except that SCO may end up having to fork over any monies obtained for trying to "license" gpl-ed code under non-gpl terms.
I would like to announce that parts of an SO I made found their way into the linux kernel. All users up to the 2.6 kernel are in violation.
I'll therefore be collecting my XISIKS (that's the name of my OS) licenses from everybody that runs linux.
Please send your chack to my address and I won't sue you. Promise...
Thank you.
BTW I won't show anyone the code. SCO didn't do it!
how long until
Actually, it's not even (at least, according to the article) that they're licensing binary Linux.
What they're doing is licensing UnixWare. Then they're saying "if you have purchased a UnixWare license, then we will not sue you for copyright infringement should you choose to use Linux, provided that you use Linux in a binary run-only format."
It doesn't appear that they're licensing or selling Linux at all. You still have to get that somewhere else; but if you want immunity from SCO-suits, then you have to find Linux in a "binary run-only format."
--When you buy proprietary software, you don't get better software. What you get is the right to complain about it.
Dear Linux Community, I have a claim on intellectual property included within the Linux product. If you want to use Linux please send your checks payable to creep73.
Proof..... Well that is forth coming. You can send the checks now though. If you wait for proof I will be increasing the price and will be holding you liable for those months you didn't pay.
Thanks
Nice doing business with you.
Creep73
There has been a lot of anger expressed throughout all of the SCO threads of late, most with venom bordering on violence. Keep this advice in mind, however, as you discuss this issue.
If you are a Linux kernel developer, explore your legal options. With SCO's market cap soaring near $175MUSD, there are a few attorney's who might consider contingency representation. If you want to file a class action suit, file it in Madison County, Illinois.
As for your personal comments, keep in mind that Slashdot cannot stop SCO from supoenaing their user records for discovery should you ever decide to sue. If so, be prepared to be REALLY pissed off when you are deposed. They will imply you've been engaging in copyright theft in an attempt to get an emotional response that they can drag out in court against you. I've been deposed; it an emotional roller-coaster.
Remain calm. That is your best strategy. Do not rise to their bait. Refrain from name calling or empty threats. If you truly believe you have been harmed by SCO's actions, then take your case to court or hold off until the IBM/SCO dust settles. Your shouting about the GPL and making threats to tear Darl's nuts off and feed them to him will do nothing but harm to you and any potential case you may have.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
First, as stated before elsewhere, Linus is not the sole owner of the trademark. There are a couple of hundred of developers who co-own the mark.
Linus has outlined the general policy for the trademark use here a long time ago. Today I believe Linux International manges all Linux trademark related issues and mantain a trademark fund to help finnance Linux development.
I think every major distro has entered an agreement with Linus\Linux International about the use of the "Linux" trademark in conjunction with their "service" trademarks or "combination" trademarks.
I think this shows they know they have a weak case. If they thought they really owned the code, they would say, "buy our licence or we will sue you." Instead they say that buying the licence is insurance against the **possibility** of being sued. In other words, "buy our licence or we **might** sue you." It sounds like a bluff.
I'm not a great shorthand guy, so everybody below will be speaking with weird clipped diction. I'll post my summary and opinions in a followup note. Also, the lameness filter doesn't like my writing style ("too few characters per line") so there is some crap at the end to compensate.
... you can't do anything until IBM case is resolved, right?
... today's announcement ... is a new front. Boies: There would possibility of case-by-case litigation. It is not necessary to resolve the IBM case [first].
... very stark ... that type of code comes from various vendors, primarily other than IBM. #2: SMP, high-end technology, NUMA, RCU. In the early days of Linux, Linux supported 2-4 processors. Now with Linux 2.4, 16-32 processors. Hundreds of *files* were contributed by our vendors. #3: methods and concepts. ... With respect to pricing ... benchmarked on UnixWare 7.1.3.
... how are you going to make them stick?
... software flows from Torvalds to distributors to hardware vendors to end user." "It starts with the end user."
...
12:07 Blake Stowell
Speakers today will be David Boies, Darl McBride, Chris Sontag.
12:08 Darl McBride
In May 2003, we warned Fortune 1500 companies. Enterprise use of Linux 2.4 violates SCO's copyrights and contract rights. Hundreds of files were taken from System 5, or from derived works, or have the same structure, sequence, and organization. Linux would have little multiprocessor capability without our IP. SCO has registered its copyrights. Linux vendors are selling a product with no IP warranty. By not providing a warranty, IBM has profited from Linux, but shifted risk to customers. We intend to use our IP rights carefully and judiciously. SCO is prepared to offer a license for Unixware 7.1.3 to Linux customers.
12:13 Question and Answer
Question #1 Dan Gordon, Bloomberg News
Question: You say Linux violates SCO copyrights. What has changed from contract rights to copyrights?
McBride: This started off as a contract case. With respect to copyright, this is new as of today. What is new today is the copyright registration.
Question #2 Peter Galway, e-week magazine
Question: If enterprise customers don't buy in
McBride: The IBM case is a contract issue
Question #3 Dean Takahashi, San Jose Mercury NEws
Question: Can you more completely describe the offending code and its origins?
Question: [how much will this cost end users?]
McBride: Three types: #1, line by line copying, including developer comments and errors
Question #4 Don Marti, Linux Journal
Question: Ian Lance Taylor says that the code he saw in Unixware and Linux, he saw in other places too, on the Internet.
McBride: A lot of this code is not questionable. IBM RCU code, from Dynix. We're not talking about BSD code. We're talking about high end SMP code.
Question #5 Todd Weiss, ComputerWorld
Question: What was the name of the license?
McBride: SCO UnixWare 7.1.3.
Question #6 Richard Waters, Financial Times
Question: What penalties can you impose
Boies: The copyright laws provide a wide range of penalties. Statutory damages, actual damages, extra damages for willful violations.
Question #7 Robert Mina, Copper Beach Capital
Question: What are the implications for Linux distributors such as Red Hat?
McBride: "Complicated
Question: What about contributory infringement?
No reply at all.
Question #8 David Bark, Wall Street Journal
Question: More about copyright registration date
McBride: We typically register on enforcement.
Boies: Registration is a precedent in bringing a lawsuit.
Copyrightable material was not filed until need for enforcement.
Question #9 Wilstang Gruner
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
It's over. The our world is collapsing around us. The open source dream is dead. SCO has stolen our future, so we may as well take leave of this place. If we eat the jello, maybe the mother ship will come and take us away.
"If you cave in to these terms, expect to hear from other rights owners, each and every one of whom has as much claim as SCO."
of very idiot who caves in and will start sending them complete bogus invoices. Hey, if it works for SCO . . .
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
"If you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."
Looks as if their new Copyright may be GPL'd.
Get a free ipod.
Remember the copyright claims have to be duked out in Federal Court... the current case is in State court and is mostly a contract/ unfair business dispute. This particular piece of news shouldn't have registered as large as it is... the only good from this for SCO is a few more idiotic "licensees" who don't understand the issues as well as /.ers.
And I have to say IANAL because, in the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, if some moron takes what I said as actual professional legal advice, and then loses in court, I might get sued and hence arrested next time I have to catch a connecting flight through this Bastion of Freedom, for giving legal advice without stating that I'm not actually a lawyer. Even though I wasn't actually giving legal advice, or talking to the guy directly.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm not even using the alleged infringing code on any of my 4 Linux boxes. I've got SMP turned off.
/usr/src/linux-2.4.20/Documentation/Configure.help :
from
Symmetric Multi-Processing support
CONFIG_SMP
This enables support for systems with more than one CPU. If you have
a system with only one CPU, like most personal computers, say N. If
you have a system with more than one CPU, say Y.
If you say N here, the kernel will run on single and multiprocessor
machines, but will use only one CPU of a multiprocessor machine. If
you say Y here, the kernel will run on many, but not all,
single machines. On a singleprocessor machine, the kernel
will run faster if you say N here.
Note that if you say Y here and choose architecture "586" or
"Pentium" under "Processor family", the kernel will not work on 486
architectures. Similarly, multiprocessor kernels for the "PPro"
architecture may not work on all Pentium based boards.
People using multiprocessor machines who say Y here should also say
Y to "Enhanced Real Time Clock Support", below. The "Advanced Power
Management" code will be disabled if you say Y here.
Having seen this last night, and being unable to shake it from my head, I gotta ask:
How much money will greedy SCO bully out of the Linux community?
A. under $10 million
B. $10 million - $20 million
C. $20 million - $50 million
D. more than $50 million
Bet Now!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
#include
OMG!!! beer all over the keyboard LOLOLOL
It has nothing to do with whether or not any suit would have merit, it has to do with the fact that Microsoft can keep any company in court until they go bust, or give in to their demands.
At the same time, they have access to all the code, and can cherry pick whatever they need. If Microsoft were to buy SCO, OSS is dead, dead, dead. Every cost advantage of Linux goes out the window that day. Everything done to the Kernal has to go through a Microsoft ANAL PROBE for compliance.
With these SCO copyrights, ya'll better hope that Gates and the boys are not feeling bitter this morning, because if they are, you may be bending over and taking one for Linux. OUCH! "Where the fuck did I put that Astroglide?"-OSS
Why would a totally hogwash company get openly involved with linux development if all they want todo is go around and stab people in the back.
I mean SCO did sell a linux distro didn't they? This included giving out the source code. So what now that their distro isn't selling they abuse the GPL and sue people?
As a proud Debian user I can say "SCO go fuck yourselves!"
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Download Solaris9 from Sun, and use that license. They generously offer it for free for non-commercial use. Just replace their content with Linux's and have a field day.
If you have a single processor G4, disable SMP support and you are avoiding the area they say they control.
I hope Linus sues the hell out of them, becomes rich, and gets to live out his days working on Linux. I also hope SCO dies off and the SysV source code is liberated.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
They're a Unix house and they publish their pricelist on an Excell spread sheet - no wonder the actual technology side of the company is in the toilet - guy - you're not selling things because you are speaking a different 'language' from your customers and they can't figure out how to buy stuff from you
sco will not win, it can do what it likes at the moment but nothing will become of it, sit back and laugh at them, and just wait for the day they lose, and then rejoice by mail bombing the fuckheads with an appropriately titled email.
WTF is a sig?
I've been putting off posting a message like this, but it appears that SCO is intending on profiting off the hard labors of others, and denying them their rights to their own fruits of labor.
SCO MUST BE STOPPED. NOW.
My proposal to stop SCO is a simple, easy to implement little plan.
The Goal : Make SCO's stock drop like a rock.
The Method: If as many people as possible go onto stock boards, and post their negative feelings about SCO, and their own speculations as to what the outcome of the battle with IBM will be, Buyers will begin to flee from the stock.
It is important, that if you use this technique, that you label your comments as an OPINION, and that they are simply your own feelings as to what the outcome will be.
It would be also well to do if you indicate that your company will NEVER purchase, license, or other wise enter into a business agreement with SCO, as you feel that their products (specifically name them) are of low quality and should not be used in production environments.
If this is to work, as many people who care about the freedom of Open Source and Free Software should find a stock board, and start posting.
SCO is getting away with many lies, spreading FUD, and generally making everyone's life a little hellish. These acts are a direct threat to our way of life, and must be dealt with in a most severe fashion.
In order to ensure SCO does not have the tools to fight such a fight, we must eliminate the largest source of income from them at this point: STOCK.
"...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
- Convincing brain-dead and/or paranoid middle managers in random companies who don't understand enough of 'source code' or copyright law to understand this is bullshit to just toss off however much money SCO wants because it seems easier than fighting a lawsuit later. These are the only people SCO is targetting right now. It doesn't matter if 99.5% of linux users, including you, realize SCO is speaking utter nonsense; if the remaining 0.5% pay SCO $1500 each, SCO gets huge enough gobs of money to have made the entire exercise more than worthwhile. (Of course, maybe they'll use that money to buy more lawyers, and come for you and me and sue us later. Who knows. But we don't necessarily matter.)
- Continuuing to have fuel for their process of making more outlandish claims every week than the week before, so they can stay constantly in the news and their stock price will keep rising.
As to the last bit of your post, though:I will, however, point it out to my Missouri Attorney State General, for his consideration. In fact, the RICO statute comes to mind.
This is a fantastic idea. Please do so, and we should all follow your example.
I would like to try to do so, but I do not really know enough about "real law" to make a letter I am sure will be convincing. Can anyone give me recommendations for how I could write a letter to the Indiana state attourney general complaining about SCO's actions in light of whatever the RICO laws are around here?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
For RICO to apply,the "protection" racket would have to involve some illegal act that they're going to do if you don't give them money. Like, if I'm the mob, you might take out "fire insurance" on your business so I don't burn it down. That's a protection racket.
However, if you do something illegal, it's not racketeering for me to grant you license to continue doing that (now formerly) illegal thing in exchange for money. The difference is that you put yourself in the squeeze by doing said illegal thing in the first place.
Obviously, the viability of that racket is contingent upon SCO being right, but they're effectively offering the "licenses" at dramatically reduced prices compared to any penalties - in other words, take your chances if you want, or act now and get a discount. So, assuming their IP claim has any merit at all (or if they genuinely think it does), what they're doing is *not* racketeering.
Of course, since they almost certainly have no case, this stinks like crap, but it's certainly not racketeering regardless. Now, if they've intentionally fabricated evidence of SysV being in linux, now *that* would be a protection racket. Or at least fraud.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
...the 90's BSD lawsuits. All over again.
Those lawsuits did absolutely stupendous damage to the BSD community. Were it not for those, Linux would be little more than a hobby project. And now we're seeing it all over again and if it plays out as it did before it'll be MS' biggest wet dream come true.
Stop sitting around and acting smug already. Frivolous or not this is _NOT_ something we can afford to ignore. Those that don't learn from history...
"I'm glad I haven't written any big GPL apps or contributed as much as some to the open source world, as I would be seriously pissed off (and a little upset maybe) that my goodwill and hours spent contributing were being eroded by money grabbing, whiny corporations."
is that people do not internalize an injustice unless it is personally directed towards them.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
The linux news sites should consult council and come up with a list of questions to at at interviews to "lead" SCO's mindset where WE want it to go. For instance, one thing that comes to mind as a showstopper would be talking SCO into filing a DMCA violation against someone hosting the linux kernel. While a fautisian bargian, using the DMCA would force SCO to show it's hand before it's legally ready to do so.
It's like brer rabbit beggin' not to be thrown in the briar patch. They have the mindset of brer fox and are blinded by glory of their own boastings. If such lots of people at interviews repeated the same questions over and over they'd either shut up from fustration, or stop giving interviews!
If they will not allow people to identify and remove the code, and the code was inserted innocently, and they distributed the surce code under an obscure license to people who are used to working under the GPL - could that be considered racketeering? Remove the code remove the infringement... if they will not reveal the code are the aiding copyright infringement of their own works.. disgusting.
What is this Bull Shit? Why would anyone pony up any money to these shit eating slimeballs?
Let's sue SCO for breach of contract in regards to Linux.
by suing SCO.
/Dread
- Copyright violations of current kernel developers.
- Extorion of businesses using foney copyright claims.
- Membership of a criminal organisation, aimed at making extortion money, this includes SUN, MS, and other licencees of alleged "derivatives".
- Ransacking the commons in a destructive way (ok there SHOULD be a law against that)
- Inflating stockprices with false information with the intent to profit.
I propose we start a fund, treasured by FSF, spokon by RMS.
We then approach several law firms, and let them bid for a piece of the pie we will no doubt win. (Look under the tablecloth guys! Check who owns SCO shares)
I sense a huge hole in the legal market here... Lets make money! Ill buy (err I mean deposit) money in such fund! Lots!
In that case it will be time to get rid of Microsoft. By whatever means. Microsoft is evil and they must go.
Microsoft must go.
So, what is an alternative here? Does the linux
community as a whole have anything to pimp-slap
sco with, or is this just a new form of acceptance
that my a55 is going to hurt if I run linux?
It's obvious SCO is simply going to create
as much FUD as they can, and settle for any funds
they can get out of that.
I'm surprised a US business can get away with
this kind of behaviour under the guise of "legal".
No wonder osama is so pi55ed off.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
this is just another tactic for them to extort money out of companies.
I am an end user, and I will continue to use it.
I seriously doubt that there is any code of theirs in Linux.
I see the death of SCO coming, they will need more cash than they are generating to pay back all the companies they are extoring now.
If you are right, the FTC would like to hear from you I am sure. SCO really deserves an audit, after all, it's in the SCO investors' interest to make sure that SCO is not inflating the situation.
Why don't we simply take out the code that SCO put in, and replace it with our own? Or is it not as simple as that?
Why is nothing being done to counteract all this FUD? IBM? Hello!?!? FSF? Hello?!? Someone? This FUD train will continue to roll and people will begin to believe the lies.
Sure, we can all rant about this all day long here on Slashdot, but we need action!
--- witty signature
If SCO says all Linux 2.4 users are in violation, why not switch back to kernel 2.2? As it is, Debian uses that as its default kernel, and I have heard that it's rock-solid, compared to the 2.4 series.
Their case is a contract dispute with IBM. IBM wrote RCU (among other things) and placed the code (which IBM owned) under the GPL so that it could be a part of Linux.
They also placed the code in AIX. SCO claims their contract with IBM says that any code that is put into SysV code becomes THEIRS. Based on that claim, SCO says that they own the RCU code, and that they don't want it to be GPL'd.
I don't know if anyone at SCO really is sure what their case is about. If I'm correct about what their case is about, the FSF has a very good defamation (and probably more severe charges, but IANAL) suit against SCO. The case has nothing to with the valadility of the GPL, or even code being copied into Linux. If I'm right about their case, then everyone knows that that code was put into Linux, and SCO is saying that it shouldn't have been put into Linux.
Even if they win, I think there's an excellent lawsuit against SCO. They're dragging this on, and spreading a bunch of crap, which is unnecessary. IANAL, but from the eleventy-billion SCO articles that have been run in Slashdot, I think I might be correct.
The other issue is, can they copyright the SysV code? How much of it is code that was fought over in ATT vs Berkely? I bet that 99.9% of this code is already copyright, and SCO can't go re-copyrighting it. Someone (*coughIBMFSFcough*) has to challenge this, and force them to show their code. We'd have to pick some programmers (not kernel developers, etc, because they would be come "tainted") to look at it and evaluate the claims.
Just my 2 (or maybe 3) cents, and IANAL.
Dead wrong.
Ever heard of 'derivative works'? Replacing code gets you nowhere. You not only have to replace the code itself, but the way that the original code does whatever it does. You have to come up with a completely original method, or you are still in violation of the original works.
Check the Amazon 'One-Click' lawsuit with Barnes and Noble.
well shit... :-/
Does anyone else get the feeling that this is just the sort of thing people like RMS and the IBM legal department have been quietly waiting for? If SCO is stupid enough to try to enforce this, then they will have the "smoking gun" they need to really slam SCO into the ground, on the basis of clear and continuing violation of a legal contract (the GPL). Basically, they (RMS, etc.) have been patiently waiting for SCO to tie its own noose and stick its head in it, before they trigger the trap door...
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Fuck SCO!
Um, yes. NUMA came from the SEQUENT (now IBM) codebase. Same with RCU. But SCO's claim is that since Sequent (Dynix) was a derivative of SysV, then it's THEIR code. Which presumably, means that this is not merely a contract dispute with IBM but an intellectual property case. But, it is very unlikely that SCO can prove in court that Sequent's contract with AT&T/USL/Novell/SCO/Caldera/SCO grants SCO any rights whatsoever to ownership, let alone control, of Sequent NUMA code. So SCO is claiming piracy of IP they don't even own (or at least haven't proven as such in court).
Wanted: One witty yet thought provoking
What do you suggest? You gonna call Bin Laden? It's too late. Microsoft's competition shot their wad over Netscape and Java. The beast is back, and he is pissed.
Remember folks the SCO banktruptcy party is in November..
What are you bringing food or drink?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Where's ESR when you need him? (and his NRA leanings)
Yeah, just look at those top filings of #4 documents: executives exercising options to buy at $0.66 and selling at $10.66. Very sweet deal if you can get it.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
Maybe if all of the contributors and developers of the Linux kernel source code collectively filed suit for wages from SCO for their work, SCO might realize that they really don't own what someone else created for everyone to use...even them.
And the reason they're trying to break GPL is that they have nothing to lose.
They're betting the company that their damn expensive lawyers can beat the pro deim people they think the gpl community can throw up, and you know what? They may be right.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
Organize enough people to buy 51% of SCO and fire their management. It might be cheaper overall than paying the $1500 tax they are trying to impose.
Stop Feeding The Trolls.
Relax man and enjoy the show!
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
IANASB (I'm not a stockbroker) but is there some avenue available to some subset of the general public (eg, the /. crowd) to use SCO's stance as a publically traded company against them and/or to our favor? A company has to file with the SEC once they've purchased more than 5% of a company's worth, but groups of individuals aren't under any such requirements are they? Any thoughts?
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
But I will happily donate one tobacco-class-action lawyer who will work for 30% of the settlement.
paintball
Anarchy != violence
I would gladly pay for each seat, just like I pay for each seat of windows, and each seat of shareware software i've ever downloaded. Not to mention buying all the albums of mp3's i've downloaded
DISCLAIMER: I'm joking, as in it's a joke, i'm not being serious, the post is based on a fictitious scenerio that is not based on any real life scenerios or presumptions. as a matter of fact i'm a minor who grew up in the soviate block who found and old 8088 amstrad that I jerry rigged a modem for after watching Mcgyver
I feel I speak for most everyone here when I say... wtf?
But charging for something without giving proof that you really own it
(lines which are from sys/v in the linux kernel)
I don't know if this is the same in the US, but in my country this could be marked as clear fraud!
Or in other words, Sco give us proof or you are guilty of fraud!
While this case has been nothing if not intentionally confusing on SCO's part, what seems to be clear from the video interview is that SCO is now concentrating on the NUMA code.
Now, I'll admit that I only have a vague notion of how NUMA support affects the kernel. But how many people actually use hardware that requires NUMA support? While I assume that adding NUMA support has had an impact on code used for simple 2-4 CPU SMP and even single-processor code like the scheduler and memory management techniques, I doubt that it is required for such support. It seems that simply removing support for NUMA systems would take away most of the weight behind their claims.
I use Linux on systems having from 1 to 6 CPUs, nothing that couldn't have been used with a 2.2 kernel. Am I using anything in the 2.4 kernels that relates to their NUMA claims? I doubt it. If I'm not, then most likely anyone who hasn't compiled in NUMA support (which I think is just the "Multi-node NUMA system support" and maybe a couple other options) isn't really using that code anyway.
Time to Borg-i-fy the SCO icon
I don't see anything about not being for public distribution here...
Welcome to SCO's FTP site!
This site hosts UNIX software patches, device drivers and supplements
from SCO.
To access Skunkware and Supplemental Open Source Packages, please
connect to ftp2.caldera.com.
** Please read the following export notice **
Please note that the electronic transfer of this data to a destination
outside of the United States constitutes an export (as defined by the
U.S. Bureau of Export Administration) and is authorized ONLY to the end
user. Any subsequent re-exportation of this data requires that the end
user obtain an additional export license. Also note that it is illegal
to re-route Caldera product to Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea,
Sudan or Syria and that you must file a special license if you intend
to re-route goods to the embargoed regions of Serbia or the Taliban
controlled areas of Afghanistan. Placement of this order constitutes
an agreement to comply with these stipulations.
If it's only SMP related code and most systems aren't running SMP then are we technically clear? Since the other code is owned by others and we've been given the right to run it - might this limit the class of user that SCO could go after - only users of SMP machines?
Just a question...
needs to unite and launch a global assault on SCO, hack those mother fsckers to no end, hack them until they bleed from their eyeballs and their asses, hack them and everyone they every spoke to or did business with. Hack them and shut down, forever, any machines they ever have put online or may ever put online.
how about a global hack on SCO...???
All you have to do is fill out the form and send it in with the fee. They don't do any verification to make sure you actually have rights over what you're claiming. The filing is just a technicality required to pursue a federal copyright suit.
You don't need to register to have rights under copyright law, and there's nothing stopping you from registering fraudulently.
Shit...
Does anyone know where I can get a pirated copy of Linux?
We were sent an email from SCO an hour ago. Our spam/virus blocking software found it had the klez32 virus attached! Isn't that nice of them?
Copyright can propogate to derived software *ONLY* as long as the derived code still contains enough of the original copyrighted material to warrant copyright infringement if permission to copy had not been obtained.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Why are people not understanding that SCO worked, contributed, and distributed Linux under the GPL.
Infringing IBM code taken away from the Linux kernel still leaves the remaining code GPLed by SCO. Willfully and knowingly!
Can't anyone be assigned copyrights by registering a work with the government? Registering a copy doesn't mean that a person definitively owns the material, only that they staked a claim. Enforcement of claims is carried out by the courts, and any lawsuit offers the chance to contest the claim. Sounds like a lot of ballyhoo over routine paperwork that could be shot down later. And why did they wait until now ?? Usually copyrights are registered before releasing the work of art to the consuming public.
IANAL but I am jbyron
It is amazing that the news resulted in a 20% jump in the stock. If I am not mistaken, the Copyright office awards a copyright registration just about anytime someone sends them an envelope with $30 and an attached piece of paper.
Registering a copyright is pretty much like a cat pissing on a couch to say "this is mine" and I will scratch cats who say otherwise. Actual ownership is a different question that gets resolved in courts.
If anyone else has a documented claim to any of the work that SCO just filed, then SCO's filing for a copyright puts them in a difficult position.
I have to admit the SCO news report is amazing. Basically with the investment of half hours work on the part of lawyer ($180), a days work for a filing clerk ($80), an envelope ($1), a express mail stamp ($3.70) and a $30.00 filing fee, they got a 20% boost in their stock. You gotta love the stock market.
We should get the SEC to look at the insider trading for the stock, if there were any insider purchases before this phenomenal scam and any insider selling after the scam, maybe we could get their theiving arses hauled before the judge.
Is someone going to countersue for the damage this is doing to Linux?
Especially those of you with static IP's. Try to get your fingerprint to look like Win2k server. I was going to say SCO OpenServer but there are probably so few licenses that it would be too easy for them to nail you :)
If they get creative and start sweeping the IP space they could harvest many boxes. Watch out.
Hedley
You do realize that the bulk of SCO's stockholders are professional money managers, right?
The popularity of the day trader occupation faded out about, oh, two years ago.
If as many people as possible go onto stock boards, and post their negative feelings about SCO, and their own speculations as to what the outcome of the battle with IBM will be, Buyers will begin to flee from the stock.
Do you really think that will work?
T. Carl MoneyManager: Hm, the expected value of SCO's stock, given current P/E ratios, recent developments, and our analysts' recommendations marks SCO stock as a Buy/Hold. However, LUNIXLOVER111@HOTMAIL.COM claimed "Haha, $CO suxxx0rs, Linux owns!!" on a free market message board. OK, SELL it ALL!!! short it, even!!
It would be also well to do if you indicate that your company will NEVER purchase, license, or other wise enter into a business agreement with SCO, as you feel that their products (specifically name them) are of low quality and should not be used in production environments.
Right. I believe you.
More than one person has commented how this whole SCO-licensing-Linux thing looks like a thinly veiled protection racket-- as in racketeering.
I'd actually cheer Ashcroft if he had the whole SCO executive team perp-walked to a paddy wagon.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Another option:
IBM buys SCO, fires everyone responsible for this.
The thing at issue here is copyright. Derivatives don't apply. Only patents cover the actually method; copyrights only cover expressions.
Unless SCO has a patent on these things -- which they don't -- they can't prohibit others from using similar methods to achieve them. If they have a patent on an SMP-method, they can prohibit others from using the same method they use; they cannot, however, prevent people from using other SMP-methods.
If they simply have a copyright, then all that needs to be done is that the code needs to be removed and replaced. The act of re-coding it will most likely result in a different method anyways, safely putting it beyond patent-actionability.
The one-click lawsuit you mention between Amazon and Barnes and Noble is a patent lawsuit, not a copyright lawsuit.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
FSF does not have standing.
Unlike the GNU organization, Linus (& Co.) don't tend to assign copyrights to any central authority. Without those rights, the FSF cannot sue. Only the actual holder(s) of the copyright have that right.
It is a problem. To bring such a suit requres good standing, and a boatload of money. Few, very few, contributors have that pesky money bit covered. Remember, this is Federal level stuff in the US we're talking about. This is the land where justice doesn't exist unless it's bought and paid for.
Further, Linus has made arbitrary "exceptions" to the GPL (like, modules). The situation can unfold where some contributors may want to sue, while others do not. That act by Linus may have created an environment where a clear "agreement" on the license terms may not legally exist. The court may hold that the "most credible" understanding agreement is that held by the majority of contributors. So unless a majority sue, the case will be lost.
Maybe Linus can affort to file, maybe a few working for Red Hat, et. al. but to think a majority of contributors can afford it is unlikely.
Maybe a class action, but the GPL is about "freedom" -- there are no easily quantified monitary damaages to the contributors. One would have to fall back to the criminal penalty in copyright law (About $150K). Few lawyers would be able to conduct a full fledged class action, let alone a copyright, suit for that sum.
If the end user was unaware of and took no part in the release or implementation of the SCO code is there a legal basis for SCO to come after the end user? That is as ridiculous as Ford motor company selling me a car with a Motorola chip in it that stole code from Philips. Instead of Philips taking action against Ford they just skip that step and ask each car owner to pay 1,500 to give us an opportunity "to make it right" and avoid legal hassles. Screw 'em, let them go after IBM, I didn't do anything and you cannot hold be accountable for something you haven't even proven yourself!
Actually, it depends on the extent of the (highly unlikely) victory. If they only win on the specific "lines of code" that IBM took, then IBM pays a negligable amount (by IBM standards) and IBM rewrites the code (or has someone else do it). If IBM settles out of court, nothing changes, so a new court case would have to come up to prove McBride's idiocy.
If they win the big one, the "linux is a derivative" claim (unlikely given the precedent set in the BSD case), then they would be within their rights to overrule Linus and change the license to the 2.4 kernel. The GPL would be irrelevant because any distribution of 2.4 under the GPL was already established as an illegal distribution. Copyright holders can (and do; look at XP vs the old win98 system) change the licenses for products.
But IBM's not going to lose this one.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
SCO is going right at the heart of the GPL.
As others have pointed out, SCO has been violating the GPL by having kept Linux on their ftp site after announcing the copyright issues. Maybe this isn't an accident, maybe it isn't negligence.
Maybe SCO is trying to get the GPL invalidated in court.
Of course how you invalidate the GPL without the repercussions affecting other aspects of software copyright might well be another issue. There might be a bunch of Unintended Consequences cropping up, if SCO were to actually win.
In another sense, the true utility of the GPL is that it grants 'fix it yourself' ability. SCO's offered license removes that.
So in another sense, the SCO suit strikes at the heart of the GPL.
This may well be a much more precise strike than it seems. Given than it's really a vehement anti-GPL campaign, and we know *who* hates the GPL more than anyone, it's not hard to imagine that there's a puppeteer pulling the strings on this.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
If you were going to be blackmailed, wouldn't you want to see proof that the person blackmailing you could do what they say they might do before you start giving them money?
You would have to be a fool to give SCO money before they show proof that they own what you're using.
On the other hand, I hope SCO updates us regularly with press releases of who pays up. I want to know which corporate execs I can extort money out of by claiming to have pictures of them in compromising situations without actually needing to show them any pictures....
First, the fact that SCO still has a Linux dist. on their FTP server is not evidence of anything. IIRC SCO is claiming that IBM contributed SCO owned code recently (yes, I know that SCO is making noise about owning everything ever written, but that is PR not legal filings). As long as the versions of Linux on SCO's FTP server pre-date the potentually offending contributions, SCO has not ceded their proprietary rights to the GPL.
For instance, if SCO is still distributing 2.2.17 on their FTP server, we can assume that the infringing code came later. The fact that later versions may have at one time been available from SCO is not neccessarily an indication that those versions are clean, since the licenser can't accidentally license something, particularly if the licenser makes moves to rectiufy the situation afterwards.
Second, the GPL specifies that proprietary and GPL code cannot be mixed in a distribution. It does not prevent mixing by the end user. This is how some video card manufacturers publish binary only drivers for linking by the end user.
Understanding that point, SCO is free to license their SysV code to linux users. Linux users are free to use it. Linux Distribution Puiblishers, both for profit and non-profit, are the parties in violation of the GPL. The end users are in no way bound by the GPL, they are just in violation of SCO's copyright.
If IBM really did contribute SCO code, SCO does have legitimate remedies against IBM, distributors, and users. Users can mitigate their risk by rewinding their systems back to the latest kernel version still available from SCO. That version is free from SCO IP issues because, since SCO themselves distributed it, it is covered by the GPL.
It is unlikely that the distributors are in too much trouble, since SCO has not revealed the offending code, they have not been in a position to make a good faith effort to rectify the infringement. This would likely be taken into account in a "damages" phase of a future SCO v. linux distributors lawsuit (which would follow a SCO win over IBM). It is likely that, upon being sued, the attornies for the linux distributors would immediately stipulate that they did indeed distribute SCO code, but that they relied on the code contributor that they had license to do so. Then they would implead IBM, who at this point already was found guilty of violating SCO's copyrights.
IBM is potentially in bad shape, legally and in damages. Of course, this is all assuming that their is merit to SCO's claim that their code was placed in Linux.
When President Bush made the stament that one bullet could solve the problem in the midle east, I suspect its ok for me to say that one fire-bomb at the SCO's world headquarters would solve this issue. At any rate, its only a matter of time before the SCO sources are compared to the Linux sources by Computer Science prfessors, and other qualified persons. At that time it will be a matter of court record (public or sealled), and ultimatly the areas of sources will be altered with fresh code, or proved to be of the type that is algorythmically common to code design. Comments in code are not normally admisable, as they were not in the Berkley case in 94. anyways, once the code is clean, as was the way in the berkley case, SCO will have nothing to license, and their UnixWare will still suck.
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
I missed downloading the linux kernel from SCO's website, which they were distributing via the GPL. Can someone who downloaded a copy of the kernel from SCO under the GPL please forward me a copy?
Mail me at "req at semiotek.com" with details if you would be so kind.
It is my belief that since SCO at one point distributed the kernel under the GPL that anyone who downloaded it is legally entitled to use it under the GPL, and therefore legally entitled to send me (or anyone else) a copy.
The 2.3 kernel was the development kernel for 2.4. Therefor most everything within that kernel would be 'tainted' by the technologies and code that SCO claims is a component of the 2.4.x series of the Linux Kernel.
In order to have a "Free" kernel. If the SCO case is determined to be a good case... The only way to move forward would be to take a 2.2.x series kernel without any "back-ported" patches and components from the later 2.3 and 2.4 series kernels and build on that.
This would put Linux back several years in development and could even make Linus and several of the current kernel development people unable to add to the kernel or maintain this 'new' branch since they would be 'tainted' by the SCO code.
This wouldn't exactly destroy Linux, but it could take nearly 5 years to bring the 'new' branch up to where the current 2.4.x release is, in terms of useability, capability and scalability.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Here's the referenced work:
So, again, unless they can be shown to also be the current copyright owner of the above, they're SOLYou mean SEC, not FTC, since those are the guys dealing with stocks and public companies.
Akamai served content for companies/sites like CNN.com, Microsoft, the Federal Government - to include the Whitehouse, FBI, etc., and many, many others, and as many of you may have noticed, often when you retrive web content, you'll see a URL pop up in the browser status bar saying xxx.akamai.com or some such.
Now, let's do a little math. Since I left Akamai, I understand they've increased the number of servers to greater than 12,000. So, we'll be conservative and estimate 80% of 12,000 are Linux, giving 9,600 Linux servers. Remember, we're talking servers and not desktops - they have many more systems internally that are Linux (I had 3 in my office while I was there, and many in my group had at least two).
9,600 * $1,500 =
- $14,400,000
Now add the desktop systems to that. I don't see Akamai paying out that kind of cash, especially given their stock prices since 2001, and since they have contributed to kernel development themselves.Akamai is just one company that relies upon Linux for their business. There are many others (despite what some reports would lead people to believe), and I venture that if there weren't that many, SCO would not be pulling this crap. Akamai also uses IBM Linux servers for (possibly) one of the largest distributed database systems in the world (unless they shut it down - we were building it while I was there and there was a big press release). I would imagine that this will/has pissed off IBM, Akamai, and others and SCO has just not only shot themselves in the foot, but shoved the shotgun barrel into their collective mouths.
I myself will never, every pay the extortionists at SCO a penny for my use of Linus and others (including my own) hard work in the Linux kernel.
However, let me finish by saying that I'm quite sure IBM, Akamai, and others are quite aware of what the GPL says and how to interpret it in a court of law. IBM has a crack law team, and Akamai's are no slouches either. IBM has money to spare on legal fees, do you think SCO has money to spare for even a new company car? Even if Linux has SCO copyrighted code in it - and many Linux developers have stated it does not - they did release that code under the GPL. Therefore, it seems to me the question - if SCO copyrighted code is in Linux - is how the GPL applies. From reading the GPL myself several times (since I too have developed GPL code for various projects), I'd have to refer back to a previous paragraph and a sentence therein about SCO and a shotgun barrel.
PGA
(Spell checker?! What's that?)
Here is a link to the Wired News article on this story. I really like this quote...'"We would prefer licensing to litigation," McBride added.'5 9701,00 .html
Yeah, I bet you do...
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,
Didn't M$ recently give some source code to China? I bet there is some interesting code in there!
Testes
Sorry, thats right, I made a mistake. Thanks.
Will someone BUY these buttwads! IBM R U LISTENING!
Can we get sco.slashdot.org then post on the main page only when something significant happens - like the release of the infringing code. I'd read The Godfather if I wanted to hear about crap like this.
Not only will you take advantage of the inevitable profit taking, the large slashdo community will likely help drive the stock down.
More money for us, less for SCO.
"What did SCO announce on January 22, 2003? ...intellectual property that we sell. Many Linux environments have been using SCO's UNIX shared libraries because they are a superior product and they make these environments more productive. But until today, there were two ways for users to get the shared libraries:
r ce_QandA .html
1. Buy a SCO UNIX or Linux product that included the shared libraries as part of the bundled offering. This is legal.
2. Copy the shared libraries from a disk or through the Internet. In this case someone has unbundled the shared libraries from the SCO offering and opened them up for copying. This is illegal. It is this behavior that we will stop through the creation of SCOsource and today's announcement.
SCO's UNIX shared libraries are not open source code available for free use. "
Am I an idiot or are THEY trying to technobabble their way into court and pull wool over everyone's eyes? (the jury) As far as I know Linux is just a kernel and NOTHING more. You can install additional software on top of it, and even create a distribution. Few lines before they start threating everyone, they say they "gave" their shared libraries (for $150 per cpu) and now they claim people stole them. Personally, I have never seen nor used their libraries so I don't see how this or any of their BS applies to me or 99.99% of other linux + GPL software users out there.
here's link to my search
http://www.sco.com/scosource/Final_SCOsou
Let's call their 800 number and demand some answers.
They only have 2 options:
a) They are violating the license of some code that is not registered at the US Copyright Office. Their legal liability is minimal in a civil court of law.
b) They are violating criminal provisions in the US Copyright Statute. Their legal liability is severe and outweighs anything they might gain from selling Linux licenses.
This isn't like Monsanto dumping toxic waste. SCO is far too small and the profit they stand to make on their venture is miniscuele.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
FUD /fuhd/ n. Defined by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering [Amdahl] products." The idea, of course, was to persuade them to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors' equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the future of competitors' equipment or software. See IBM. After 1990 the term FUD was associated increasingly frequently with Microsoft, and has become generalized to refer to any kind of disinformation used as a competitive weapon.
D
source: www.dictionary.com
for complte source inforamtion see:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=FU
The only change in share price was due to employees and execs buying the stock ..not due to any outsiders trusting SCO Group:
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html
Don't Tread on OpenSource
IBM is SLOW. Every move is calculated, weighed, optioned, signed off by multiple layers of beauracracy, and conditioned in sherry casks, before actually being acted upon.
What SCO is doing is like taking a chainsaw to one of those black 2001 monoliths. It'll just sit there like a rock for several months before swallowing up the chainsaw wielder without a trace. The monolith won't have so much as a scratch on it either.
Really, US courts patent and copyrigth rulings means nothing to a court of another country. Really, that foreign court has to observe national and international laws (that it signed on to). Anything else would be criminal. The foreign court has no legal choice here, end of story.
SCO was told by a German court to "show the evidence or shut up! Ignore our ruling at your own peril." SCO promptly closed donw the German branch office.
$CO seems have gotten a copywrite on work that had been widely distrubited without copywrite notice, and a Judge ruled that ATT had waived copyright protection for failing to add notice to the code. This was the turning point in the ATT/UC/BSDI case a decade ago.
IANAL, but I don't think this will stand up to a summary challange
No doubt it would be impossible to release the details to the public about the offending lines of code.
However, what if the companies in question were to correct the licensing problem by, say, enlisting the help of kernel developers (under court-approved NDA, of course) to replace the code?
The real reason that scox is up 15% today, after being up 15% Friday is because SCO has announced their new licensing plan.
7 77 1
>>The company said it plans to offer UnixWare licenses tailored to support run-time, binary use of Linux for all commercial users of Linux based on the 2.4.x and later versions of the Linux kernel. SCO said any commercial Linux customers that purchase the license will be held harmless against past copyright violations and for any future use of Linux in a run-only, binary format
http://boston.internet.com/news/article.php/223
To me it seems that scox is putting the cart before the horse.
Shouldn't scox *first* prove that scox has some special rights to all versions of Linux with kernel 2.4 or above?
Then, *if* and only *if* scox does have some special rights, *then* scox can demand that linux users somehow pay scox for the privildge of using linux.
Right now scox is only *saying* they have special rights to linux. Talk is cheap. I could *say* I own the Brooklyn Bridge. Does that mean I can put up my own toll-booth on the bridge? Just because I say so?
By the way, if I had contributed to a voluntary effort like efforts, only to see my efforts stolen by McBride, I would be pissed.
Take all those prisoners down in gitmo and load them onto some old airplanes.
Fuel them up to the top and give them the GPS coords for SCO.
Two problems solved in one.
Best wishes...
Now, since it's a copyrighted work on deposit w. the Library of Congress, maybe someone can mosey on down there and get that 20-page printout (TX-5-705-356), and show the world the "millions of lines of source code" that were supposedly copied into Linux (must have been using really fine print to cram it all on 20 pages).
An idle thought: This is shaping up like one of those poker tournaments ESPN's been showing. SCO has some hole cards ("some of your code is really mine, but I'm not telling what"), looking to see who will fold early.
So I've got a few questions. First: Is anyone checking for sabotage? If I wanted to kill an open source project, this is how I'd do it. Deliberately plant 'illegal' source in the pipeline early enough to lay claim to most later releases.
Secondly: Is anyone working on a replacement project, or taking any direct contingency action? I'll (cynically) assume that SCO will win whatever case they bring, because they're (a) a company with copyrights to something, and (b) they're claiming infringement against anything Open Source, which these days, should relieve them of having to actually prove anything in a court.
Okay, we know who the contributors are, isn't it time someone like the FSF (who I am a member of) sues SCO for copyright infringement?
The FSF will only sue when people infringe on FSF copyrights. I'm not sure, but I don't think there is any FSF code in the kernel.
There's a specific legal term for threatening baseless legal action: barratry.
The precise legal definitions of barratry vary from state to state, and I'm not in any kind of position to evaluate whether SCO might or might not be in violation of one of those laws. (Being neither a lawyer nor someone who has gotten a "pay up or else" notice for use of Linux)
Since SCO is selling "Binary Licenses" does this imply that whenever one of these licensees downloads and installs a new version of the kernel, they now would no longer be covered by the previously defined licenses agreement?
Does SCO now own the copyrights, that it just obtained on code, to cover all the source in question including code which may have been linux derrivates (I would assume this is based on their original and not recent ones that aren't "tainted by linux"? Does that mean all of the linux code code be seen as a copyright now owned by SCO?
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
Yeah, that's what I think. Somebody ought to just buy SCO. Steve Jobs has a whole bunch o' cash, doesn't he?
Linux and open sores software is seen as a big shiny penny in the street. SCO is trying to pick it up. Big business owns you, owns me, owns the gobbermint too. Only a matter of time before Big Business owns Linux. The open movement has gotten big enough for big biz to take notice. There is simply too much money involved. Linux is increasing in demand, this makes it valueable, it could be worth a lot of money someday. Big biz, in the words of Judas Priest:
"Out there is fortune waiting to be had. You think I'd let go? You're mad - you've got another thing comming."
Does the movement think they can win this in the courts? Can the GPL stand up to big biz in court? No way. The govt. is in the pocket of big biz and big biz will soon be assigned ownership of Linux and open sores software. All that revenue could help the economy, right?
Congratulations, you got noticed. Welcome to the real world.
Before you mod, are you sure this is a troll? I just call it like I see it.
It's pretty irrelevant, and pretty lame on their part, to try to twist a couple hundred lines of code, which doesn't even apply to Linux, into "We Own Unix, Linux and the Whole Damn Universe".
That's a great idea, and it's already been out there for a while. That's Caldera's logo though isn't it ?
United States of America, good ol' backers of world peace.
Actually, the GPL doesn't prevent you from charging for gpl'd code. And as has been pointed out above, they are still distributing the source from their ftp site, so they are still in compliance with the gpl. As I see it, they are capitalizing on their fud and trying to collect money from nervous IT managers/companies who consider the payment a form of insurance.
SCOX finally registered some unix copyrights at the same time that SCOX announced new licensing plan.
Do you suppose that scox wants people to think that the two events are related? As if Scox registering unix copywrite, somehow gives scox some special rights regarding linux?
Just sue them ;P
United States of America, good ol' backers of world peace.
from that url:
Q: Earlier you said you were still a products company and not a strictly IP company. This appears to have changed and you are now an IP company. Would you agree with that assessment? Linux has succceeded while your product failed in the marketplace.
A: Our Unixware product was damaged by Linux and that is why it isn't successful. That is why we are doing this. We didn't fail, it is Linux' fault we failed.
ratings: 15 troll, 4 informative, 18million overrated.
What they own is the legal privilege of restricting the copying of Sys V code, not the code itself. There is no other explanation that explains fair use doctrine than that the code itself is unowned but the right to copy is restricted by the legal privilege granted in the patents and copyrights article of the US Constitution in order to further the advance of arts and sciences.
If the code itself is owned then when it falls into public domain via government directive, why doesn't the government have to write a check in compensation of this taking? Why doesn't the government have to write a check for every 'fair use'? No, the code itself has to be not subject to ownership.
I have yet to see any legal evidence presented that demonstrates that your statement that Linux contains Sys V code is true. Nobody knows the respective modules that are copied and whether SysV is the originator of that code or they themselves have copied if from some other source, perhaps BSD which is where Linux picked it up from. The BSD license generally permits such actions but doesn't permit somebody who takes code in this way from suing others for doing the exact same thing.
Nobody seems to have run any checks whether this code appears in BSD as well. If it does, this company is going to get buried under a ton of libel and slander accusations and will finish SCO.
Even if Microsoft were to come out and openly show that they're the ones behind this, they don't win.
How many companies have ever, in the history of IP, won an IP infringement case against IBM?
Hint: None.
Didn't Enron expose something horrible about our financial system? And its not just finanacial. Our entire way of life is based on capitalism. Perhaps we need to rethink these things.
Perhaps we forgot how to think. I don't know.
Why isn't that illegal?
Because they have lawyers sending out the letters who very carefully know the barratry statutes in the different states they're sending these letters to. I'm willing to bet that any "pay up or else" letter (the existence of which I am beginning to doubt, by the way) would be very carefully worded to be just on the legal side of the statutes.
How many software engineers does SCO have working for them?
Why are they still working at SCO? Surely they value their dignity, right?
[o]_O
hehehehe.... You even sound good enough to be masquerading as an employee of SCO.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
to avoid all this SCO nonsence why don't the developers start back with kernel 2.3 and figure out where the code is, replace it, and redistribute? is that even possible?
nature loves variety::society hates it get your variety at http://www.monkeypantz.net
For anyone interested, the easy way to hurt SCO is to dial their sales rep at 800-726-8649 (number taken directly from article) and making BS inquiries. Bogus inquiries = wasted resources = lost revenue.
--
www.nitemarecafe.com
SCO should release the code that *we* linux users are alleged to be pirating. You have to wonder about why SCO has not directed some group to remove the code(s) they claim to be theirs under their copyright. There are no excuses; It's not under trade secrets any more, and looking at what is supposedly SysV code in no way taintes the
users; in the same sense that reading a paragraph from an unpublish novel taints the readability of novel to future readers. I think the only reason
they have not pointed out the code specifically, is that they DO NOT KNOW for a fact that the code in Linux is a line for line pirated copy of thier
supposed SysV code. Additionally, code the IBM contributed to Linux under the GPL is, what I understand, a highly scrutinized, completely and wholly IBM IP.
It's like if I posted a copyrighted picture on my website and some third party writes me and says "you are in violation of my copyrights. I will
license it to you for 1500 bucks" and you follow up with "which image is it?" He replys "Oh.. ahh.. I can't say... but it has blue in it".
Seriously though; when you are talking an installed base of 2.4+ million servers and a better number of desktops linux users now. SCO Group is just full of hot legalize wind blowing crap just to extort money from the linux community. Now they are trying to claim ownership
of linux itself..
Unbelievable!
The confidence that most of us Linux users have that the code is not stolen from SCO is the assurance of Linux community leaders and various companies selling Linux. This people and companies have deliberately mislead people into illegally using code which belongs, in part, to SCO.
Surely the correct reaction of the community is to pay SCO, look to moving to another operating system and to bring suit against Linus et al for misleading us into committing a crime? Even if the code wasn't stolen from SCO it will still be easier to sue Torvalds, Cox and the rest of the major kernel contributors than to sue a major successful company like SCO.
Note: No, I am not serious. Sorry.
Someone should crash this party.,
Quite insightful. I have a question now. Couldn't the kernel developers use this to force SCO to reveal once and for all exactly what code is in Linux that infringes on their "intellectual property"? (whatever that means)
What I mean is, what if some fifty, or say a hundred kernel developers individually sue SCO for copyright infringement? The argument is that, since SCO claims to have the rights to impose a license on Linux, then the GPL becomes void, and they cannot distribute Linux at all. But they are doing it, distributing Linux, even as I write! Thus, by their own claims, they are infringing on the copyrights of quite a lot of coders.
Just think of the DoS to SCO's legal team! And the headlines: SCO bitchslapped by dozens of lawsuits by Linux developers! And of asshole McBride being called as a witness for the prosecution to show how the GPL is void and they are infringing copyright!
But the important part is, it seems to me that then SCO would have to either (a) claim themselves guilty of copyright infringement, be fined and forced to compensate the copyright holders (paying through the nose, I only hope), making themselves the laughingstock of the whole industry; or (b) admit they did not have any rights over Linux to begin with, ending this madness once and for all.
Of course, I'm no lawyer, not even a citizen of the U.S. of A., so I may be just wanking here. Also, if things were to go through my (otherwise happy) option (b), that could be not too good for the kernel developers (I'm thinking about they losing their suits and having to pay attorney fees and so). But maybe the EFF could give some support here. At least I would gladly donate for this cause.
Anyway. What do you think, sirs?
To whom it may concern,
I am a commercial user of the Linux kernel. As the president of my company I hereby declare that I am willfully using Linux without any additional licensing from SCO beyond acceptance of the terms of the standard GPL. Go ahead and try to sue me you sick pathetic morons. I'd love to see it.
There, you have been notified. Maybe I'll send some certified mail as well, just for good measure. Any lack of action on your part constitutes acceptance that SCO owns no rights to Linux kernel source code outside of those provided by the GPL.
[Name and address]
There has been a lot of insight into the legal issues and the proper level of outrage to be displayed over this issue. I have truly appreciated reading everyone's comments so far.
:)
Had to laugh over this a bit though, as it reminds me of college. Anyone else play "You're stupid. Give me $20!" with incoming freshmen? Anyone make any good money?
Also, I read someone's post regarding guesses on who may be secretly buying up SCO stock...to that person: Think darker. Think anti-trust, and slap-on-the-hand. Just my initial thoughts on that idea. Who knows?!
Its time SCO is sued for distributing Linux in violation of the GPL, for several times what the company is worth. SCO is fyi still distributing Linux on its servers, and attempting to resell it violates every right of every business that has contributed code to it.
Suits can come from anyone, from small contributers up to IBM. While it might stretch on for awhile, I don't think this is a friviolous lawsuit, but one that ought to be clearly won. Look at the facts: Tries to sit on committees contributing code, continues to distribute Linux after SCO lawsuits filed, tries to sell Linux licenses.
I think its win-able, but I don't think SCO has as much money as it needs to pay off all the lawsuits.
Make sure their web server is down 24x7 please. We should have enough expertise for some good old fashioned DNS poisoning, etc...
Robber barrons. If we find out they have nothing, which we may never..., I believe there should be a CRIMINAL law suit for extortion. Send these phonies to jail where they belong.
(see how I can't change my mind from one comment to another?)
I misread another (unlinked) article. I believe Linus is the sole owner of the trademark and the Linux Mark Institute is the actual entity responsible for defending the name, something they seem to do eagerly (so again, yes, the Linux trademark is actively protected). The Penguin, on the other hand, can be used without a license...
... I'll be sitting at home on my couch peacefully reading the latest Linux Jornal magazine and listening to the "gentle whirring" of my Linux boxen in the other room when suddenly my peace and quiet will be interrupted by a few dozen screaming FBI agents in full riot gear with automatic weapons crashing in through my doors and windows. I'll be tossed to the floor, a boot jammed up my crotch with a rifle pointed to the back of my head as my arms are pulled back roughly behind me, my hands tightly handcuffed to be used to drag me away and throw me into the back of an unmarked white SUV never to be seen again...
Just because the folks at SCO are annoyed with hte large stack of payment demands they have sent me.
I'm just not certain if this is the new American Dream or the new American nightmare...
There's no proof, no case and no real actions.
Ok, I'll say that once again:
1. SCO hasn't shown any proof yet
2. Based on how calmed Linus, Redhat and IBM are, I'd say there's no case.
3. Kernel is all built in public which makes available to track any part of code being added during time.
4. Main SCO's intention is to drag this as forever as possible, without actions, just blufffing
5. America is the only place where is possible to license something during legal dispute of that something (same as thief got caught stealing in shop, bought items during trial got freed and then sued shop for false alligations), I really don't understand how it is possible to license something that isn't yours. It's just like I would buy Dell, place some card in it, copyrighted my product and sued everyone that uses this configuration.
the only possible solution to stop FUD is that every Linux distributer (and every company that profits on Linux) sues SCO, for false allegations and business loss because of them. If there would be enough law cases, that wouldn't solve anything, it would just speed up main case that everything goes around
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Why does Yahoo just print the press release as if it were news? Sure, the mention that the source is SCO, but I didn't notice that right away... and was shocked when I started reading stuff like this as if it were fact:
Hundreds of files of misappropriated UNIX source code and derivative UNIX code have been contributed to Linux in a variety of areas, including multi-processing capabilities. The Linux 2.2.x kernel was able to scale to 2-4 processors. With Linux 2.4.x and the 2.5.x development kernel, Linux now scales to 32 and 64 processors through the addition of advanced Symmetrical Multi-Processing (SMP) capabilities taken from UNIX System V and derivative works, in violation of SCO's contract agreements and copyrights.
Yoicks.
There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.
SCO contends that Linux could not have gotten the "enterprise" features without IBM copying Unix code and pasting it into the Linux kernel. That is the only real claim I have heard (read).
A couple of questions I have. If I am using linux in desktop mode on a single cpu, how can I possibly be using the actual features that they claim were necessary to scale beyond 4 processors?
I also have a client that is running a 4 year old Linux distro on a closed network that just runs night and day. How could this possibly infringe since it predates the IBM kernel contributions that SCO claims started this bruhaha? Yet they seem to want a license fee for any vintage of running Linux.
SCO wants to distribute a binary only Unixware runtime that can execute Linux binaries, presumably as the only "legal and non-infringing" platform for doing so. How can they completely incorporate this capability without taking any GPL'd code and ignoring the license?
My opinion after dwelling on this for a while is this:
1 - SCO is trying to overthrow the entire Linux movement that threatens their struggling business. They are scaring the heck out of businesses that currently run or were thinking about deploying Linux. They are not allowing any access to information about their claimed code swap. This means they have no desire to co-exist, but to supercede completely. Their steps so far support this opinion, future moves may change this opinion. Kernel coders have expressed great interest in learning which features supposedly infringe on SCO IP so they can be replaced. It seems that SCO has been completely unwilling to inform them without having them sign an NDA that would then prevent them from fixing any actual code infringment.
2 - SCO is attempting to openly break and defy the terms of the (L)GPL. If they can do so, then they weaken it tremendously and encourage others to dissent too. They are also attempting to change established precedent concerning IP infringment and end user rights. Way back in the early 1990's Microsoft stole compression technology from Stac and had to pay them a large settlement. The outcome for consumers that had already purchased the infringing product? They got to keep possession and continue to use the product they had payed for. Some people got free upgrades, but the ones that chose to keep using the original MS stealware didn't have to get an additional license from Stac to remain legal. Microsoft also countersued claiming that Stac had illegaly reverse engineered part of MS-DOS to enable them to seemlessly integrate their product below the filesystem level. MS won the counter-suit and a smaller $13million award. Customers that had purchased Stac products still had the legal right to use them too. This is because the customer or end user wasn't involved in the actual theft and only indirectly get benefit from the illegal acts on both sides. This precedent holds true in all of the cases that come easily to mind, but there may be exceptions. What the freak is SCO trying to pull?
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
The sad thing is this: The management of SCO may even claim they had to do this. They are supposedly required by law to maximize profits to the investors.
;-)
What sort of foul, unethical creature has Corporations become?
How many laws do a nation really need, and where did morality, responsibility, sharing and helping go?
Down the drain?
We shouldn't be pissed off at such behaviour, but feel pity and compassion to those greedy people who think they can be happy on other peoples energy. And do something about it instead of whining. Improve anything. Begin with yourself.
On a happy note: This is what you get when management runs a technical shop..
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
I'd like to see such a distrubution, patch, made directly from SCO's own Linux distrubtion.
Is it legal for SCO to even take these actions before anything is proven in court? It seems as though they're saying "OK! We filed a lawsuit! That proves it, pay up!"
I would think they couldn't (by law) collect on such claims until after the suit, and even then, only with a ruling in their favor? Or can they say what they want, and the suckers shall fall?
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
SCO's been obfuscating this thing enough to confuse anyone and everyone...there are still many areas of this lawsuit the are confusing to me.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Actually, there's no need for a "copyright notice". Under the Berne Convention everything is automatically copyrighted at creation. If you want to collect maximum damages, you'll need a copyright notice (and a filing with the Registrar of Copyright), but its absence doesn't negate your copyright. It sounds like SCO might be shooting themselves in the foot on this...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
McBride mentions (in the interview) that the few dozen people who have come in have 'unanimously' agreed that SCO's claims were strong. I remember distincly a few open souce guys going in and while they did write they were treated with respect in Lindon, they did not in ANY way give credibility to their claims. Anybody else see the problem here?
http://www.dumblaws.com/states/states.php?State=Ma ssachusetts
Some other great ones in there too (including the 'no one may bathe without physicians' authorization, mentioned by another poster in this thread)
This says it all, really. The heart of the argument is that intellectual property is valuable and must be paid for. That's a very Microsoftian point of view, if you ask me. That statement leaves NO room for the idea of intellectual property as freely used for the benefit of all.
Let the fuckers sue me. I've signed no agreements with SCO. As far as I recall, you can't be held liable for purchasing stolen goods if you were acting in good faith, believing they were legitimate. You may have to give 'em back. OK, SCO, tell me what I need to give back.
These people looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
Failing Company
Fear, Uncertainity and Doubt
Damn you IBM
This is a point I've been trying to make all along, but was lost in the 'SCO is stupid" ranting:
That even if the code is to be displayed, and we fix the offending lines. The very fact we have seen them ( be it documented or not ) means anything we do is legally tainted..
It would make 'fixing' the kernel rather difficult.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I've been using unlicensed versions of Windows for years now, so why would I pay for Linux
Who needs to sue? Instead use SCO's tactics against them.
Dear Linux users:
SCO has claimed that the source code which they distributed for years, and even for months after publicly claiming copyright to unspecified portions of it, is not covered by GPL.
If their claims are true, then the code cannot be distributed under GPL, in which case you have no right to use the code which I have personally contributed to GPL. I am happy to license these lines of code to you for 50 billion dollars. Be sure to ask each other contributor how much he requires to run the code not under GPL.
So, the choice is either believe that the code is GPLed or pay for a SCO license plus $50 billion to me, plus the proper compensation to each other contributor.
Here is the link. Go nuts.
Finding God in a Dog
If it's not 2.3.99, take 2.3.43 or 2.3.18... If problematic code exists, it have been introduced in a know version of linux, take version-1 and merge the evolution and fix.
SCO case is about introduction of code into Linux, not about Linux having the same functionality as sysV.
SCO filed in state court.
IBM pointed out, in a very sarcastic lawyerly manner, that SCO is a Delaware corporation but IBM is a *New York* corporation, not a Delaware corporation as SCO mistakenly claimed in their filing. Therefore diversity of jurisdiction applies and the case may not be heard in a state court.
So now the case is before the US District Court for the District of Utah.
If you want to know more:
SCO Page on the IBM Lawsuit
Read the PDF's there.
It's becoming clear to me (at least) that SCO's ultimate goal is not capitulation from IBM, but to coopt Linux.
We are being duped with the IBM/SCO legal manuevers. SCO, with a sleight of hand is now selling LINUX binary licenses for 2.4+, declaring anybody running 2.4+ in violation of their copyright (IP or whatever) and at risk, unless they of course buy the new SCO binary license.
Now, there is alot of ranting and raving about GPL this, GPL that, the question is, who is going to step up to the plate with money and lawyers and defend the GPL?
The GPL is weak when it comes to protecting GPL code. The reason why it is weak is nobody has any vested interest in defending it. Now SCO is going to coopt LINUX and nobody can do anything about it?
SCO is going to offer binary licenses, some are going to buy. Those that buy help strengthen SCO's claim. Eventually, without somebody coming in and stopping SCO via a Infringement lawsuite claim of their own, SCO is slowly going to tighten the noose around LINUX. Now, who is going to defend against somebody licensing software and selling it, that is alreay licensed and distributed for free.
My best guess is that all those Linux Distributers who have money, oughtta get together and start a class action and cease and desist against SCO before SCO owns them.
They let the beaten dead horse rest long enough. Now that SCO stories have re-emerged, we now have another 700 or so comments about how SCO sux to wade through. Please don't beat the horse (Run horsey run!)
Anyway, I think I liked it more when there was no SCO (story or company that is). Enough of my ranting, time to read and wish I could mod 90% of articles in this thread as reduntant.
Go ahead! Mod my post as a redundant, flamebaiting, troll, see what I care.
This sig is a hand typed one of a kind sig, there are many like it, but this one is mine.
(note: The above is taken verbatim from the US Copyright Office online record database)
So... either SCO only copyrighted 20 pages of code, or you don't need to deposit the whole work with the CO in order to have it copyrighted. Unless the '(20 p.)' above means something entirely different...
Interesting, all the same.
What interest me in this law suite is that nothing have been proven yet.
.
SCO is going ahead sueing everybody making accusations that until now have not been proven. It is time that the same tack is taken. Until now it looked like a contract dispute but SCO is now effectivelly calling Linux developers theives.
I find this very offensive. One of the primary reasons for using Linux is to keep myself legal without having to fork out thousands of dollars for the other products.
I do not have the organizational skills, money or clout to go ahead and do it myself but I think personally that a Linux organization should start contacting developers and build a case against SCO
The first step would be to get the SCO code get an idependant organisation to audit their code and make sure no GPL code is in there. If any code was released by them through their Caldera effort will be released under GPL and thus not subject.
After that the code that is left are subject to the claim. Interesting part of course is that as far as I understand it if a part of the SCO code is under the GPL (as it was included in Linux) is there not a viral effect that a lot of the SCO code are then automatically subject to the GPL and as such must be released (just a thought).
Personall I think this is what happened and like any good strategist would know an attack is the best defence. It is and have been time for Linux developers to fight back.
Considering that it's parent is highly overrated, this post, which is informative, should at least get one or two mods.
assert(expired(knowledge));
"With more than 2.4 million Linux servers running our software, and thousands more running Linux every day, we expect SCO to be compensated for the benefits realized by tens of thousands of customers."
"Running our software?" Running our software? How dare they! This whole issue didn't really bother me until now. I guess that's what SCO's been claiming all along, that they are the rightful owner of Linux. But to now see it in black and white that "2.4 million Linux servers (are) running our software" doesn't just upset me, it makes me livid.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
I have been following all of the discussions regarding SCO and their claims to Unix/Linux. One issue that I have not seen mentioned is that there were concerns in the second half of the 1980's that something like this was going to happen.
Back then, the focal point for everything was AT&T and their licensing of System V Release 4 (I believe that's the right release). All of the commercial Unix vendors were licensing rights to Unix from AT&T. Prior to System V Release 4 AT&T was charging a very minor fee and licensing under a minimally restrictive set of terms and conditions. With the release of System V Release 4, AT&T tightened up the terms and conditions. My memory is that they did not significantly increase pricing. But, the industry reacted with a great deal of concern that AT&T was laying the foundation for significant increases in licensing pricing. These companies viewed this as a major threat to their existance. If they signed on for the System V Release 4 license, went their line of reasoning, they were giving up control of their Unix OS product pricing, and at any point, AT&T could jack up prices and put them out of business.
Thus motivated, Apollo Computer (remember them?) put together a consortium that included HP, IBM, Digital, and forgive me for forgetting the other players. Their initial charter was to produce a Unix OS reference code base that was licensed under terms and conditions that ensured all parties had control of their own destinies. To the best of my knowledge, the only vendor to ever actually ship that OS was Digital, initially shipping it under the OSF name of OSF1, and then renaming it Tru64.
One company visibly went a different path. Sun very early in the process partnered with AT&T. They, in fact, had a lot of involvement in the development of System V Release 4.
So, why is this history important?
First, Sun and their Solaris product line is exempt from the SCO excitment because of their special licensing terms and conditions that originated in their partnering with AT&T in their work on System V Release 4.
Second, as I see it, the actions being taken by SCO are precisely those that motivated the formation of the OSF.
Does anyone know if Digital and Tru64 are also exempt from SCO's actions? If so, then it would give HP an unexpected (they couldn't be THAT visionary, could they?) benefit from their purchase of Digital.
This is not actually true. High agression actually carries a large cost. In places without strong competition for a limited resource, high agression brings limited return for a high mortality rate.
While I could lecture for hours and swamp you with actual evolutionary examples (start with the sloth) I'll just let you think about High School. The high agression males who took up street racing and then (if they lived) joined the Marines vs the geeks who got food delivered. Compare their death-rates or insurance rates. [Ignore the eventual heart disease, they will have reproduced by then. You're not worth as much after you stop breeding. (aside: memes vs genes)]
Back on topic:
Sitting back and ignoring them is a reasonable tactic. It doesn't take much effort. It doesn't take much money. We can spend our time wooing mates (like that sexy PPC970). All we have to do is wait for SCO to run off a cliff. If somehow they survive the fall, we drop rocks on them. Safe and sound on the higher ground.
Finally, OSS continues to gain in public exposure and sympathy (except MO state government). The later the trial takes place, the more likely a judge is to be favorably inclined toward us. Thus it is SCO's best interest to get this over as quickly as possible (not to mention legal fees.) It is our best interest to let public opinion and technical excellence build. SCO can bleed for a while.
I'm really not in a rush.
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
..and they still have this on their homepage.
Two-faced bastards.
Hint: None.
IBM may make more money than MS, but how much money can they afford to blow on a protracted legal dispute, instead of just forking over dough to MS?
True enough. However, it does prevent you from removing the rights of your customers to re-distribute the code. In other words, you can charge anything you like for the code, but you can't slap a license on it prohibiting the further distribution of the GPL'ed code.
It all depends on how they word the actual license.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
I have to ask, and it's too bad that I'm too late to be modded up, but at what point is Linus Torvalds going to pull his head out of his ass and sue SCO for violating HIS copyrights? They are still distributing his copyrighted material, and they have decided to not abide by the terms of the GPL. $150K/incident (download) in statutory damages are waiting for him. He can own their company (literally, they can't begin to pay what they owe) and make their "IP" freely available.
Please, Linus, take care of this festering wound. It's not going away.
Michael
Do you have ESP?
Can we please have a DarlBorg image (similar to the Microsoft story image, but with the obvious difference).
:)
Thanks
Uhh guys, this has all happened before, think USL vs CSRG/UCB. IN fact I think some of the aim here is to smear Linux's good name like it did with BSD. But honestly I think the momentum and the current players make that a fool's gambit.
;)
Meanwhile, when is SCO gonna go after BSD?
FreeBSD The Power to Serve
... is that even if (almost) all of us believe that SCO is full of _____, there are many corporate execs who will go along with the stupid licensing bid, and that will give credibility to SCO's claims, valid or not. But worse yet, is the impact it can have on the acceptance of Linux in the corporate environment. As a recent Netcraft survey showed, linux is loosing some web server market space to MS. I am not saying that all of the loss is due to the SCO issue, but I am sure that some is, and that is not acceptable.
Free speech is getting expensive...
SCO are terrorists, trying to hurt the USA economy, and they must be stopped, even if it means suspending their constitutional rights for a little while. They want to start charging money for free software, charging companies that can barely make ends meet as it is? They're trying to terrorize our nation. Off to Cuba with them.
$8.95/mo web hosting
Time for wee dram to calm the nerves from all the FUD that's been flying.
Where is that Bowmore Darkest?
How are deriative works defined? SCO seems to take a broad definition of any kernel feature that has been added to the original source not just enhancements to the original functions?
How can they claim to own Linux's implementation of SMP, or RCU, or NUMA support, etc ???
Yes, they do need to provide proof. Linux is a Unix clone, but SCO still has to prove that their IP is actually in Linux. Making something that is functionally similar to another party's product is not a violation of their IP.
"I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
"Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
I contributed code for three device drivers. They are distributing *my* code without permission or compensation. When the code was under the GPL, I was compensated because any changes to my code was added to it and it was also advertising of my skills to potential customers (I'm a consultant). I haven't done it yet, but if the need arose, I could have relicensed my own code (without GPLed additions from other people) and to any proprietary vendor I wish for extra cash. While I wouldn't get 1 million for it, I could get several tens of thousands (if I licensed per unit). This GPL-proprietary dual licence business model does work (e.g. OpenOffice/StarOffice, GPLed Qt/propietary Qt, MySQL/proprietary MySQL, Berkeley DB/proprietary Berkeley DB), so I have a case.
If the Slashdot sets up a registry of Linux contributors and the sections of code they contributed. I'd register and be willing to ask for 10K in a class action lawsuit. Linus, Andrew Morton, Alan Cox, and Reiser, have at least contributed 10 million dollars value each (if they decided to relicense their code for a properietary Unixes or proprietary products, they'd easily get that much in licensing fees, especially if they sold it to Microsoft).
Once we have such a registry in place and add up the total amount owning, I'd be willing to bet that a class action lawsuit would easily be filed for 2 billion dollars.
To be honest, this is even bigger than Linux. If SCO succeeds in violating the GPL, it puts the business models of every GPL/proprietary dual-licensed company on the planet. If that isn't a multi-billion dollar lawsuit, I don't know what is.
No really M# would have all kinds of DOJ people after them if they bought SCO the party would turn very interesting then
Has anyone comtemplated that SCO will have granted by the court in the SCO/IBM case a provision to seal this portion of the case on the basis of trade secrets?
No, because it's ludicrous.
The entire Linux kernel, including any alleged infringin code is publically available. It's therefore not a secret. (Hint - if everybody know something, then it's not a secret.)
the development community may never see the actual code, and only learn the result of the lawsuit, making it extremely difficult to "clean up" the current codebase of infringing material!
Any such ruling would get the (senile) judge that issued it thrown off the bench. Let's see: "You violated the law, and therefore must make amends, but we're not going to tell you what it is you did." Maybe you've heard of a small document called The Constitution that prohibits this?
if IBM ever decides to settle the case
IBM can't decide to settle. First, they've done nothing wrong (SCO's refusal to tell anyone where "their" code is is proof of this). And second, it would encourage every dying coroporation in the country to sue them.
SCO may demand to keep the code secret under an NDA.
And then what? SCO just lets the whole thing drop? Unlikely.. eventually they're going to run up against someone who A) will stand and fight, or B) will remove the code from the kernel, which everybody then uses.
www.sfmuseum.org/hist1/norton.html
All SCO has done so far is talk a lot.
In Germany, that got them into trouble.
SCO can sell any "license" they can get idiots to buy. Whether such is worth anything depends upon the outcome of the court case. SCO can claim that they own anything and everything.
It all comes down to whether the court will support their claim when they try to get money from someone for selling or licensing what SCO claims they own.
Until that point, they're just like Norton.
Sontag didn't speak at all.
...
... Canopy is betting SCO Group, and if they lose, they have other companies. They'll just buy some more IP and continue their long-time campaign of IP litigation. It worked for Caldera International + DR-DOS (which they bought) and they are trying again with SCO Group + Unix (which they bought).
... that's what matters. That's what SCO Group gets paid for.
Boies spoke a little, but mostly basic stuff. Such as: a copyright owner doesn't have to register the copyright until it's time to file a lawsuit.
McBride's main points are:
SCO registered the copyrights from Novell. This gives them a lot more legal ammunition. Before, this was just a contract dispute from IBM. Now, they are opening up another "front" (he used that word) -- everyone who runs Linux is infringing. They can go after people who run Linux, not just people that SCO has pre-existing contracts with.
It's all about enterprise, SMP, RCU, and so on. It's about Linux kernel 2.4, not linux kernel 2.2.
SCO is not interested in pursuing individual home Linux users at this time. They are very interested in pursuing enterprise SMP users. They are not pursuing source code distributors such as Red Hat at this time.
SCO's proposition is: buy a license for UnixWare 7.1.3, and it comes with a covenant from SCO that they won't sue you if you run Linux. They are currently in negotiations with many many companies to sell these licenses. These licenses are run-time binary licenses.
There was complicated discussion in Question #13, Jonathan Collins, VNU, about the GNU Project and the GPL. I would appreciate if anyone could post a word-for-word transcript for that. The part I got was Boies saying that the UnixWare license "... does not provide protection for people who touch the source code." and McBride said "right".
McBride said that the literal copying, which they've been exhibiting, came mostly from Unix vendors other than IBM.
McBride sees SCO as the rightful owner of the "Unix on Intel" market. His position is that Linux usurped that position by offering "Unix on Intel for free", and that Linux did so illegally by copying code from Unix.
My take on all this
Remember that SCO makes a lot of money from their SCO Source program (funded by Microsoft and Sun). It accounts for 40% of their revenus and ALL of their profit. In fact, the only profit that SCO has made in their entire corporate history comes from this program. They don't have to win the lawsuit, they just have to throw enough mud at Linux so that Microsoft and Sun will keep cutting them checks.
Also, SCO is not really an independent company. Canopy Group controls SCO. Canopy chose the legal strategy and the lawyers for this initiative. So it's not like SCO is betting the company
(Hey, remember Jeff Merkey and the Timpanogas Research Group, which was developing NTFS and Netware-related software for Linux? Guess who bought them out? Canopy Group.)
This time around, Canopy isn't going for a pure legal strategy. Legally, their case has big holes in it, such as their distribution of the Linux kernel source after they had actual knowledge of its alleged infringing contents; plus their lack of specific notice to Linux users. Canopy is also going for a strategy of intimidation: buy a $1500 license or we will drag you into the mud.
But most centrally, Canopy is going for a PR campaign. They already took $8 million to the bank from Microsoft and Sun to wage this anti-Linux campaign, and they expect to collect another $5 million this quarter (McBride estimated $8 million on the last quarterly earnings call, but he has revised the number downwards since then). That's why the legalisms don't matter. Whatever convinces your department manager to put Linux on hold and run Windows or Solaris instead
ACs don't have foe lists
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
Here's my 10p's (15c) worth:
Dear SCO I'm not interested in your offer because:
a) You have yet to prove in open court that the code you claim is yours. Until a definite state of ownership is decided it is unreasonable and possibly illegal for you to demand payment with threats for goods that may not even belong to you.
b) You were distributing the Linux kernel on your site up to 3 weeks after you announced you believed the disputed code was included. Had you pulled this code on the day of the announcement I would have probably listened. However, by providing a GPL'd kernel for download after stating your belief that your code was included you accepted the GPL and surrendered all rights to charge for your code.
c) If, and I doubt it, you win the court case, I wil be removing my current Linux installations from my machines and will be replacing them with versions in which the offending code has been removed by the kernel developers. This, like step a), is a reasonable thing to do and in complying immeadiately with the courts decision I do not think you will be owed anything.
d) I do not live in the US and I do not intend visiting the US at any point in the future. If you wish to come to the UK to sue me and more like me I promise you this much: I do not own my house, car, or anything else in my posession. I am unemployed and have a minimal income since losing a finger in an accident leaving me with nothing to lose should I be on the receiving end of a court case. As McDonalds discovered, there is little more dangerous to the reputation of a global corporation than a pissed off "true believer" with a point to prove, financial backing from anti-globalisation organisations and time on his hands. McDonalds spent four years in court, won a limited battle but lost the PR war and came out of it looking like a bunch of burger munching litigation monkeys. I have nothing to lose but will gain a hell of a lot of cred in the open source arena.
e) After the revelations over non-existent WMD in Iraq, the number of people outside of the US who believe that your country is the spreader of freedom and democracy as opposed to a global empire building, cash hungry bully is growing and I'm afraid that the kind of brainless behaviour you are displaying is only going to strengthen anti-American sentiment. Our beloved Prime Minister is on the verge of getting it in the neck and GWB is going to find that people who kiss arse that deeply are a once in a lfetime thing so if you want to help fuck up your countries reputation please continue to so.
Nuff said
Bollocks to the lot of you,
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
"I don't see it as something that should incite an enterprise Linux customer to do any more than they did last week," he said. "The threat level increases a bit, but mainly because the perception that SCO is a psycho killer, not that the case has changed."
Jonathan Eunice, Illuminata Inc., Nashua, N.H. in ComputerWorld
(Emphasis mine)
You are wrong on so many counts one is forced to wonder if you aren't an astroturfer for SCO, or one of their underwriters such as Sun Microsystems or Microsoft, or just woefully uninformed.
First, the fact that SCO still has a Linux dist. on their FTP server is not evidence of anything.
Wrong. It is evidence of the 'smoking gun' variety that they are doing one of the following
1) Legally distributing GPLed code
a) any Caldera contributed code is likewise GPLed and legal
b) Either there is no misappropriated code present or they have implicitly chosen to GPL it.
2) SCO is willfully and knowingly violating copyright, as violating the GPL (or disregarding it) means that regular copyright law applies, and they have no right to distribute any code but that which they wrote (which excludes virtually everything except that contributed by Caldera, if anything).
Either way, it is certainly evidence of 'something.'
The end users are in no way bound by the GPL, they are just in violation of SCO's copyright.
The end users most certainly are bound by copyright law, and are thus not permitted by default to download (ie. 'copy'), much less use the software in question unless they adhere to the GPL. Therefor, end users are REQUIRED by law to adhere to the GPL if they make any use of the software (including the Linux kernel itself). This includes SCO and anyone else.
Understanding that point, SCO is free to license their SysV code to linux users. Linux users are free to use it.
Yes, but in the extraordinarilly unlikely event that there is SCO code in Linux, users are NOT permitted to violate the GPL OR SCO's license. The two are incompatible, so the user in question must chose to adhere to one or the other (guess which one wins? Yup, the GPL, as SCO's contribution, if any, won't a working kernel make).
IBM is potentially in bad shape, legally and in damages. Of course, this is all assuming that their is merit to SCO's claim that their code was placed in Linux.
The world is in dire straights, assuming the claims of Osama bin Laden and your local suicide cult have merit. The fact of the matter is that SCO consistently provides absolutely no evidence of any of their claims, and has continued to do so for months, while the Linux development process has been in contrast very transparent and well documented. You have more chance of being right by joining the local suicide cult than you do by suggesting these fraudulant attorneys have any shred of legitimacy in their arguments. Indeed, the court filing papers underscore just how lacking their case really is, and how empty their bellecose assertions vis-a-vis Linux copyright really are.
That really isn't important. Even if SCO were 100% correct, they themselves would be willfully guilty of copyright violation, and while everyone might have to switch to FreeBSD from Linux (unlikely in the extreme), SCO would be buried under copyright suits of their own, and will not stay in business regardless. Their day is over, they have become little more than stooges for Sun Microsystems and Microsoft, and their passing is loud, noise, and annoying, but ultimately of little lasting interest. They do not own the copyright on Linux, they have no legal basis to license code they do not own, and once this stock bubble collapses there is a very real liklihood that most of their leadership will be in court, quite possibly followed by prison.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Well, I've read most of the replies here, and I would like to give a weird example, which is related, and you tell me what you think.
I used to study in the Technion in Israel, which states that any type of research or development that a student does, is owned by the Technion itself.
Now, imagine that you go about and create this really cool distributed computing tool, or an ultra-fast SQL server that would put Oracle out of business. You go about and create a website for your project, in it you distribute documents and code from your project, cause it's a scientific project. Basically, the project is owned by the Technion, but anyone can access it. Now, imagine that a SCO employe goes about and gets into the site, reading about the cool things, and decides: "WOW, that would really fit nicely in our code". Then, takes the code, puts it in, and uses it. Now, we have a funny situation, the code made by the SCO employe is based on a FREE piece of code, which by law, is owned by the Technion. Is the Technion now allowed to ask royalties from SCO? Is the Technion allowed to ask royalties from ALL THE LINUX USERS IN THE WORLD??? Something to think about, no?
A Call to arms: I call to all the computer science geeks and students out there, download the code, and compare any pieces of the code that SCO refers to any academic code in your university. Find a simple piece of code that would be similar to what SCO wrote, and boom, the law suit is gone, cause they stole the code from someone else. Bring enough evidence and cases, and the US court will make mince-meat out of them.
L.S.
Then it will become a matter for the regulators almost immediately. That is the reason why MSFT is bying fake licenses and not doing it themselves.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
I'm glad I never fought for freedom because some oppressors would inevitably try to come and take it away again. And that would make me seriously pissed off.
If the mere thought of protecting your freedoms (digital or otherwise) presents so much of a burden to you that it prevents you from making a contribution, you probably don't have the wherewithal to make a significant contribution anyway.
A binary only Linux license is SOFTWARE PIRACY.
Exactly. You beat me to it. Now how to appeal to investors:
1: File a class action lawsuit on the behalf of all kernel developers against SCO accusing them of software piracy, breach of contract, et. al.
2: Publicize the GPL and that SCO distributed Linux under the GPL for some time *after* they filed the complaint with IBM.
I have sympathized with Linus for staying out, but now, I think it is time for he and every other kernel developer to stop software piracy.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I really don't think that IBM has anything to worry about as far as cash reserves go.
It's one of the classic blunders! The first of which is never get involved in a land war in Asia. The second of which, and only less well known, is never get involved with a Sicilian when death is on the line. And the third, of course, is never get involved with IBM over an IP dispute!
The Caldera logo beside the post also looks like a silhouette of Mickey Mouse's head on a red globe. I think I smell another copyright lawsuit.
Surfing around about anti SCO sentiment and found a link to this wallpaper. http://www.angelfire.com/crazy2/funkybrewster/Anti _SCO_Wallpaper_1600x1200.jpg
Now, I think any court in the land would say that the supplier's claim is at best a laughable bunch of hooey if the supplier actually made an honest goof (it was their own fault for being careless). However if it could be shown that the supplier knew ahead of time that the extra-super-duper materials were being sent but said nothing to the customer about it until after the house was built, a court would call that fraud and possibly extortion on the part of the supplier.
Also, imagine that you make the generous offer to the supplier to return the extra-super-duper materials and replace them with other materials of your own choosing. However, the supplier refuses to identify which materials are the extra-super-duper ones so their is no way for you to return them and replace them with other materials. In this case any court would order the supplier to identify the extra-super-duper materials and give you the chance to replace them with other materials. If the supplier refused to identify the materials, the court would throw it's case out in about 2 seconds (and maybe fine them for wasting the court's time).
If they win the big one, the "linux is a derivative" claim (unlikely given the precedent set in the BSD case), then they would be within their rights to overrule Linus and change the license to the 2.4 kernel.
I do not believe that the courts would purport to award SCO ownership of copyrights on works created by people in no way involved in the case and without any representation.
I guess it's conceivable that the court would award SCO control over IP that would otherwise belong to IBM but that's the limit. The idea that SCO can sue IBM and be awarded control of works created by me or you or anyone else that they aren't suing is without foundation.
build up its case for world domination
And like many such strategies, they're doing a lot of saber-rattling.
Many of us wonder just what length saber it is that SCO really has.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I know the FSF owns copyrights for some of the Linux kernel. I think IBM assigned their s390 code to the FSF...
:)
It will be interesting to watch the fun.
Sound to me like this practice ought to be illegal.
http://newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=31552&cid=564 83
The **AA IP cartels routinely use the DMCA to issue some sort of legal paperwork straight to ISPs, saying "We believe your user, Joe Kazaa, is illegally distributing our copyright works. Please remove their website / net access under DMCA." - and the ISP is legally compelled to do so *without any due process*. Now many here are asserting that SCO are now in breach of copyright law; by breaking the GPL, they lose their right to distribute GPL'd works *at all*. So why doesn't some US-based author of stolen GPL'd programs get an order to force SCO to (at least) suspend distribution of GPL'd work, pending the outcome of the court case? That would also cover selling these junk paper "licenses" to Linux, hopefully hitting the stock price. This hasn't happened, so presumably there's a good reason why... anyone?
That's not even close to the legal definition. "Barratry" gets thrown around a lot on slashdot, but have fun finding situations where it was actually used successfully. "Using a lawsuit to screw the little guy" doesn't meet the burden. In fact, it wouldn't work here because there haven't *been* any lawsuits, and if they don't win against IBM, there won't be. If they do win, then it won't be barratry because they'll have a very good case.
And you might believe that the whole GPL case makes this so obvious that the result is extortion, but until this gets decided they have the right to sell licenses to their IP, and it only makes sense to indemnify their customers. They have no relationship with non-customers, by definition, so no one is actually being extorted.
What they're not doing is going up to someone and saying "buy this now or we'll sue you." - even though that wouldn't even be blatant extortion if worded correctly. They're making an open offer to companies to buy their product and indemnification. That's nowhere near the legal requirement for extortion, and if you believe it is, I'd love to see some case history.
SCOX is obviously threatening whoever they think they can get away with threatening; a fishing expedition.
Gee, kind of like Microsoft's action through the BSA, huh? I never saw any barratry or extortion suits there, either. The problem is that, yes, you and I know that this is basically extortion, in the vernacular sense. Unfortunately, it's not legally, and it's not enough to qualify for barratry either. Check out the results of the DirecTV suit recently - that claim of extortion got nuked pretty quick. Bottom line is that what you seem to believe in terms of this case is not consistent with case law, though I would also love to see SCO get nailed.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
One word: RMS
Unlike patent and trademark applications, which are examined by someone, copyright applications are simply rubber-stamped by a clerk. Literally. When you want to copyright something, you fill out a one-page form, and attach it to what you want to copyright. You mail that to the copyright office. A clerk copies the one-page form, stamps it, and returns it to you. I could copyright The Phantom Menace if I wanted. (But why would I want to?) Whether that registration will hold up in court is an entirely different question.
Before any code can be used as evidence in a lawsuit, the code must be registered with the US Copyright Office as a matter of course. Basically, the courts say "don't waste our time unless you at least have a registered copyright." Of course, merely having a copyright proves little.
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
Then, just in case IBM tries to countersue, declare bankruptcy quickly and go away.
When I try to manipulate the stock market, I make sure to do it as an AC.
Let's just ignore the fact that it looks nearly identical from the command line or uses the same apps that were designed for unix or any of a number of small jumps that unix made and everyone else adopted relating to permissions and mail....a product that is similar is exactly why there is IP. The fact that I can make a linux box loose taste smell and feel like a Unix box should be demonstrative enough for most judges. (like Sonyy Walkmen, looks similar ENOUGH)
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
And when they do become public, you might not be able to find what you're looking for if the copyright holder is a trustee of some sort.
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
How does this affect BSD which is not a System V clone? Does SCO have any kind leverage on that OS?
...you illiterate, uneducated maggot.
Well this is the problem i see. Linux is a collaboration of work. In the end yes it is one project but there hundreds of pieces that thousands of people have put in. SCO cant lay claim to that work that was done with those pieces. They can only lay claim to the piece they *may* or definately may not be theirs. You see the problem is that they dont own the TCP/IP stack of Linux. They dont own ext3 support in the kernel. They dont own SMP support in the kernel. They dont own IPv4 and IPv6 support in the kernel. They dont own ACPI ability in the kernel. They dont own Virtual Memory in the kernel. They dont own the IP to any of that. That was written by people and GPL'ed for the kernel, legally. If any thing, they *possibly* own 80 lines of code 1/3 of which is probably comments. So who gives a fuck. They cant license parts they dont own. That is illegal and they will get seriously fucked if they think RedHat, Suse, Mandrake, IBM and the literally millions of people who use Linux arent going to give up a little cash to crush SCO and forever end the doubt about someone elses code in the linux kernel. Linux has its whole existence documented in view of the public. There are books about its general history. There are CVS logs of who added what. Linux can prove anything it needs to. SCO on the other hand is hiding itself behind shadows and closed doors and its history with UNIX is not only confusing but questionable. They cant license anything but the code they own and they cant license code they dont own. And the list above they dont own, so they cant license it or they can be sued by the original people who wrote it for breach of the GPL. SCO is fucked plain and simple and the fact that they have shown absolutely no evidence to the public means that they are full of shit. If their case is so fucking air tight why do they have to hide it. Because its not thats why.
75% of all statistics are made up!
I wanna go to Hawaiii, Yeeeey!
This is just something to milk for a press opportunity. As has already been pointed out, all registering a copyright does for you is attach a date to a submission, and nothing else-- it does not prove that you own the rights to the submission, merely that you claimed to have at a given time. It's up to the courts to sort out what that means. Anyone can register anything.
The fact that SCO has turned it into an important event shows that their strategy is based on continued FUD in the marketplace. What better way to bully some Linux users into paying license fees? If the FUD subsides, they lose their leverage in that regard. So expect an announcement of some kind by them periodically, when interest and concern about the issue wanes, just to keep their name in the news in an attempt to fan the FUD flames. Pathetic, really.
Apparently it is possible to install ext2 support on SCO Unixware 7 and newer. (See http://www.sco.com/skunkware/COMPONENTS.html for version 7 information)
.60$ low last year they might already have made more from selling at 13$ than they might have made from selling their entire holding at around 1$.)
According to someone who used to work for SCO (or Caldera) it is a good possibility that this support is based on code stolen from Linux: linux kernel posting. IMHO the Linux community should be allowed to examine this code, and if it is found to disregard the copyright the remaining Unixware code should be examined closely.
As it apears that US copyright law is based around "give lawers as much income as possible" I imagine that there is plenty of precedence for suing a company over this, but certainly press released should be issued, and all SCO customers should be made aware of their (possible) rights under the GPL to Unixware source.
Oh, and the Canopy group should be mentioned as well: They owned 68% of SCO before the first press releases in March, but just a few days later stated in a SEC filling that they would start selling off stock. It shouldn't be too hard to show that it is possible that this is simply a ploy by the Canopy group to boost share price while selling out.
(With the stock at 13$ up from a
(Or to be more precise, could someone in Washington DC go and look at it?)
If so, could someone please take a look and note down some search strings to grep the Linux kernel for? This could be the way around the NDA to figure out what bits of Linux they are going to claim to own.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
I am going to use an analogy for this.
Let say SCO wrote a book called Unixware. They give IBM the right to edit the book and to then publish that book. IBM changes the name of that book to AIX and sells it to the to anyone that wants to buy it. If IBM decides to contribute some of the book that SCO originally wrote as their own work into another book who is going to be sued IBM, the publisher for the new book or the person that bought the book and read it?
On top of it all SCO is saying that because so many people have read the book that no other books on this topic can be written unless royalties are paid to them because they provided all the inspiration.
We all know that this wouldn't work. I mean come on they don't want to tell us because then we would comply with the law and remove the offending code then they don't have a business model. How many businesses do you know that make you pay for something that you are using without telling you what it is you are using.
OK, so nobody knows the exact lines that would have been copied (by people other than IBM it seems), but don't you all have a pretty good idea?
...
Why not start a workgroup to create XXXprocessor support for linux from scratch?
Or make alternative distro's and bounce them of the head of these SCO lawyers until they're bullshit-free?
Then make those available as publicly as possible as open source and include it in every new build from then on.
Is this possible?
I know, the grown-up thing to do is to ignore the snots, but me thinks this stuff is starting to affect the market, not to mention a lot of good people's good work
Cheers
I think, therefore I am...I think.
I believe that the law says that the code is copyright as soon as it is registered, or published for the first time. And that copyright is by the author.
It seems to me that there are four major possibilities for linux kernel code :
-- It was written and posted to the kernel mailing list, or put online by a linux contributor. In which case the copyright does not belong to SCO. Dates for this should be verifyable by the lkml mailing list, or other mailing lists, or by web archives.
-- It was written by an SCO employeee and they have verifiable proof of that fact (something that seems a bit tough to me - would a timestamp on an SCM system work? I can suggest several ways to fake that. ) And has been kept completely secret. In which case it belongs to SCO and since it was kept secret, can't be in the kernel. So SCO claims against the kernel are baseless.
-- Neither of the above can be proved completely. In which case I can't see how SCO can claim ownership. This might occur if the date on their code and the date of first publication are very close or the same. If there is good evidence of this code being published by a non SCO employee, evidence that SCO produced it on that date or even a day or two before would be very suspect in my eyes (imagine setting the time on the SCM server to be a week behind the real date).
-- It was written by an SCO employee, can be proved to be written by an SCO employee and was deliberately (a very interesting notion) or inadvertently included in code that is otherwise GPL'ed. In which case I think the GPL should take precedence.
The burden of proof on SCO seems pretty high to me.
We haven't even got to the stage where SCO have proven their claims, and he's talking about giving prosecution exemption to companies who pay them.
Well, DON'T pay them. At least not until they've won a court case proving copyright infringement.
Darl, take someone to court, or shut the fuck up!
a corporation can attempt to claim ownership of code that was written by what may be thousands of individuals.
Shouldn't the government at some point step in and put an end to this ?
Doesn't it make sense that even if it were true that a few hundred lines of code belong to SCO that developers would be given the fair chance to eliminate those said lines instead of company just outright highjacking the rest of the codebase ?
Where the FUCK is justice in this country!
SCO = "Anna Nicole Sm!th"
Of course, SCO gives "Gold-digging" a bad name.
...to release and distribute the software under the provisions of the GPL.
e rv er/current/SRPMS
The GPL very clearly states that if code cannot be freely redistributed then it cannot be distributed at all. SCO has explicitely stated that they have valid copyright claims over the Linux kernel and intend to exercise them. The minute they make a statement like that then the GPL is invalid according to them and they lose the right to distribute.
However, they CONTINUE to distribute to this day. (And have even recently updated their distribution of the kernel).
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/S
linux-2.4.13-21S.src.rpm 5/9/2003 5:51:00 PM
(Emphasis added)
This is the part where it gets really messy.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Notify the users/distributors of the software of the infringement. Get together with the infringer and suggest a settlement of "stop distribution"/remove offending code and pay a financial settlement.
If the infringer doesn't play ball, sue them.
That is the 'good faith' approach. SCO have not taken this approach. If they have the evidence of infringement, they should sue IBM, or shut up.
I'm curious as to why SCO are not taking legal action RIGHT NOW. They have the evidence, and can serve papers on IBM right now.
I hope those considering buying SCO stock are asking the same question.
I've snipped an interesting comment from apple.slashdot (ars technica IBM G5 interview).
Why interesting: it seems some people want to claim ownership of Linux on INTEL.
That's what was said in this interview, right?
So does their copyright or whatever apply on PPC?
"...
Improvements to GCC? (Score:5, Interesting)
by Realistic_Dragon (655151)
(...)
At one point in the interview it looks like IBM and Apple are working together on GCC improvements and donating the code back to the FSF.
This is a fairly big deal as people have pointed out before that GCC on PPC isn't as hot as it should be, but with that kind of muscle and money behind it it should go forwards by leaps and bounds.
With the new GCC improvements it looks like Linux on those new, remarkably cheap, P970 IBM boxes is going to be a real winner. And AFAIK Gentoo already runs on PPC fine - no one is going to be bitching about compile times with 4 1gig+ CPUs crunching away at it!
(...)
"
I think, therefore I am...I think.
This page is more readable --
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html
It looks like primiry target of SCO is not people but companies (of course !). So, some legal defense formula can shield it's CEO and sure them about Linux using. It can be something like this: I use system and code with GPL of somebody but not SCO. Any problems SCO should resolve with that guys first. If SCO proves it's claim then... we will take some steps agains that "pirates" (but I do not believe SCO can prove it).
http://www.scifience.net/images/sco.png Take a look at SCO's "new and improved" website, as designed by me!
The GPL very clearly states that if code cannot be freely redistributed then it cannot be distributed at all. SCO has explicitely stated that they have valid copyright claims over the Linux kernel and intend to exercise them. The minute they make a statement like that then the GPL is invalid according to them and they lose the right to distribute.
SCO is obviously acting as the ostensible authority towards releases of their software, including OpenLinux. SCO has acknowledged the usage of their copyrighted code and released it, thereby agreeing to the terms of the GPL. SCO saying that they do not agree to the GPL, and then doing it, doesn't matter. Actions speak louder than words. However, it's all up to what the court decides...
Do you have any idea when is this actually going to start going to trial?
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
I do not trust in humanity's capacity for good, and I know for a fact that corporations have no capacity for good. Even if they do good, it is for their own selfish agenda; this cannot be characterized as truly good. This saying is true: 'the heart of humanity is deceitful and desperately wicked; who can know it?'. When SCO starts lying and then has to make a bigger lie to cover up/explain/obfuscate the preivous lie, remember these words.
Before: 1) Write linux kernel code. 2) Liscence under GPL. 3)???? 4)Profit! Now: 3) Sue SCO.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
change the license to the 2.4 kernel.
:P Stupid stupid stupid.
IANAL, But: No way. Even if they win, all that will have shown is that the 2.4 kernel = 2.2 kernel (which does not infringce SCO copyrights t?) + SCO code.+ other stuff.
Therefore, 2.4 kernel must be relicensed in such a way that ALL licenses agree. Since the 2.2 copyrights are under the GPL, the ONLY license that can work here is the GPL. If they say they don't want their code distributed under the GPL, then the 2.4 kernel can't be used at all.
So, their indemnification is really stupid. I don't know if they realize it, but if they lose, their customers wasted money paying off SCO, and if they win and put the 2.4+ under GPL, then why bother paying. And if they win and demand a change to the license, then the 2.4+ kernel users can't use the code anyways since the GPL will kill it.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
....there isn't much insider buying happening with SCOX, especially now that we know the company stands to make billions.
It's like a stock analyst once told me: An insider sale can mean anything -- low confidence, a new pool in the backyard, college tuition for the kids. A buy means only one thing -- somebody on the inside sees the company doing well over the long haul.
as early as 1993 microsoft corporation owned 19% of SCO, then called santa clara operations because of its location, which has subsequently changed, ergo SCO only.
SCO has been the single largest distributor of multiple unix flavors for a long time and MS had their hands in the pie from the beginning.
of course MS was behind the scenes ~ they are paranoid of losing WIN to LIN which is already beginning to happen.
its been obvious all along.
peace
Where are the bucks to put up a defense for Linux?
IBM has no stake, they don't distribute Linux. They contributed; they push Linux compatible hardware; but they don't sell Linux. Same with HP and SUN.
The FSF could care less. They don't hold the copyright on Linux because Linus didn't sign it over
Even RedHat bailed out by making 9.0.3 a project instead of a product.
What will SuSE and Mandrake do? Will they follow in RedHats' footsteps?
So, SCO says (paraphrased) if we do happen to win this lawsuit, USERS (BIG, commercial USERS with deep pockets) are going to be the target. Pay us now or pay us later and the premium for this ext^H^H^Hinsurance is one UnixWare license for each of your CPUs that is currently running Linux. In return, if we win, we won't sue you; ever. If we lose, you get to keep the UnixWare licenses!
Does the income I've derived from working with Unix belong to SCO?
Yes, yes, you're exactly right. The silence is killing us SlashDotters, but I think we all just need to wait this out.
There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
If you'd been following the BS going on in Yahoo!'s SCOX board, you'd see that the informed ones are the ones posting Strong Sell and putting forward the facts of the case. The Strong Buy's are doing pretty much nothing more than flametrolling...
While I admit Yahoo!'s boards are not indicative, I do believe that the ignorance of all the details is what is driving up the prices.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
...but I'd like to be proven wrong. IANAL.
So far, I have seen a few arguments as to why SCO could not possible get away with this. For the sake of argument, let's assume SCO is telling the truth about the copyrighted code. Their claim, while dubious, is probably not entirely without merit.
1. SCO released a GPL distro of Linux which necessarily GPLs any source code of their own which was included.
Why it doesn't matter:
SCO themselves did not insert the code. They simply redistributed a source package which already contained their code before it came into their possession. A judge is probably going to look at this claim and dismiss it outright. Let me illustrate with an example
If I work for Microsoft, steal some code, create a free Unix driver for WinFS, and distribute it, this creates a copyright violation for the users. If MS provided this to Solaris users (even with mods) on their website afterwards, it is very doubtful that a judge would suddenly declare the stolen code in the public domain. The fact that MS participated in the public code license doesn't suddenly indemnify all the users of the proprietary code of a copyright violation.
At this point, MS would almost certainly be able to sue users of the code, as well as me for releasing the code. I can hear some of you crying out, "But SCO went one further! They kept distributing the code even after they 'discovered' the violation." This is true; in fact they are still distributing the code, although this may be accidental. I'm sure you can find the SRPM link somewhere around here. Let me explain why this doesn't matter:
SCO is going to claim that they were not the ones to insert their proprietary code into Linux, IBM was. Therefore, it isn't their responsibility to take it out. In fact, they allege that they still are not aware of the extent of the violation. It's not as if SCO received a clean GPLed version of Linux, added their proprietary code, rereleased it under the GPL, and now expect payment for their code. What they have done is participate in a "good faith" way in the GPL license, adding code and releasing it under the GPL. If the code they received wasn't GPL, however, it isn't legally their fault, but the fault of the individuals who added it originally. SCO doesn't immediately give up their rights to their code just because they added GPLed code to a non-GPL product.
SCO doesn't bear responsibility for the code getting into Linux. Therefore, releasing Linux under the GPL doesn't GPL any unauthorized code simply because SCO is the owner. I would say a judge would probably consider the GPL violation to have occurred when IBM inserted the code, not at SCO. SCO can probably keep releasing Linux under the GPL without giving up the rights to their code, because the violation occurs before them in the distribution stream.
If it is a GPL violation for SCO to release their distro (which is doubtful), then they will have to deal with that. But, if it is, it is also a violation for every single other Linux distro. Therefore, even if this particular claim is correct, it damns all distros along with SCO's. It would mean ANY distributer such as RH, Suse, etc., could be sued at any time by any of the copyright holders of the Linux source code. Surely, this isn't the victory the Linux community is seeking. It makes more sense to leave the violation where it allegedly occured: namely, at IBM. Everyone else (including SCO) can then begin releasing a legal version of Linux as soon as possible.
In essence, SCO is not GPLing their code by rereleasing it under the GPL. They are only GPLing it when they primarily release it under the GPL. I sincerely doubt a judge would set the precedent of allowing unauthorized code to be GPLed by the owner simply for redistributing it.
SCO may be found in GPL violation for knowingly redistributing GPL code which shouldn't have been. Most likely,
Cameron finally wound up paying Ellison $144,000 and adding Ellison to the credits.
From Sci-Fi Wars:
Too many times the fight has come down to this.. again the strike for freedom in development and trually measuring people for there capabilities not the one good (backed) idea! This is only the begining, SCO will probably fight this one in the hope they will win, backed by companies who just hope they will fight the fight until winning no longer matters. Linux is a great operating system, as capable as its competitors, but in the end US capitalism will fight to kill that with its need most (eager, intelligent injections of hope)
First IBM, then Linux. Can MicroSoft be far behind?
The people buying aren't ON the boards for the most part. That's a fact.
.
What WILL stop SCO dead in its tracks is a handfull of infringement suits filed against them. The more, the merrier. After all, they are STILL distributing the Linux kernel in violation of the terms set forth in Clause 4 of the GPL. They've been doing it for over seven months now
What you need is to see the kernel coders sue SCO into oblivion.
Now, THAT is something I'd fund in a heartbeat.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Phew, an Australian already has patented the wheel, so SCO won't be able too...
;)
Following this announcement, all car makers stock dropped by 22%
Montreal - Best city to live in!
Actually, the deposition requirements are limited to the first and last 25 pages of source code, reproduced in a visually perceptible form, together with the page containing the copyright notice. (Source.
Didn't work as advertised. Didn't he state (in the interview) that this should turn up some evidence? That even in the copyright on the headers in the linux kernel, I should find some statements about Dynix? He even referred to Sourceforge if I remember correctly.
I'm using kernel 2.4.21_pre7 (with Gentoo patches). Anyone else found it?
ftp://ftp2.caldera.com/pub/
It is a violation of the GPL to knowingly distribute GPLed works linked with non-GPL compatible works. So either SCO are making baseless claims which they have no intention of following up, or they are currently in violation of the GPL. Everyone else who is distributing the Linux kernel has the defense that SCO has not yet made their claims known, and by continuing to distribute the code themselves are giving a clear signal that there is no reason to stop distributing it.
Since they are required to deposit the first 25 and last 25 pages (50, and they only deposited 20 pages in total, and one of them has to be the copyright notice page, that means they deposited their code in its' entirety.
So now we're down to 19 pages, of which how much is comments, white space, etc?
It's just a "modification to Unix SysV release 4.1 ES". Doesn't seem to be something important enough to get on the front page of google news, and certainly not something Linux users need to pay attention to.
SCO loses the case when everyone figures out that the code was actually written by the open source community and then misappropriated by SCO, and the people responsible for all this bullshit are found guilty of fraud and sent to jail.
If the justice system worked properly, this is what would happen, though it won't happen. The people at SCO are crooks. They're stealing way more money than your petty theives stealing old ladies' purses, but they're never going to treated the same way. Why not? Because the US patent and copyright law system is BADLY broken and needs some serious overhauling (the rest of the world isn't doing much better, just ask the Austrailian guy who was granted a patent on the wheel).
http://www.potifos.com/fraud/
Yes the lack of copyright assignment will be a barrier, but not a huge one.
How much would it cost to have someone create animation in which Bill Gates takes a shit, and Darl McBride comes out?
When this is all clear and done I hope that McBride and his buddies go to jail for fraud and extortion.
that I doubt they have enough body guards on duty to really protect these assholes.
They've really, really pissed off the planet.
McBride is more hated than Bin Laden now..
We didn't fail, it is Linux' fault we failed.
My god, did he really say that?
Logic parse error.
I think the point that people keep missing here, from what I can tell, is that SCO isn't claiming that their code was put into Linux. The jist of the issue is the Unix licensing which even Microsoft would have to consider too restrictive, states that if a licensee (IBM) modifies the licensed code, then SCO or unix owner of the week then owns that modified code. They aren't claiming that their developers (or unix owner of the week) wrote the code. They are imposing some bizarre legaleaz to claim ownership of NUMA, JFS, and a bunch of others that were developed in house at IBM, which appeared in AIX (a derivitive of their code), so that now they own that code, not IBM. That's why this whole thing is so stupid. Had SysV code been copied into Linux, this would be a no brainer, and the people responsible would most likely have been ousted by the community. So what needs to be shown in court is that these things were developed exclusively (or possibly first?) for AIX, and not OS/2, which carries no such licensing because its IBM's.
I believe this last announcement of the binary only Linux distro is the best thing for the community to come out of SCO thus far. They just shot themselves in the foot, and put themselves in the same position that Unisys was in when they sued BSD. Now they've stolen our code, and they claim but have not proven that we've stolen anything of theirs.
Dear Mr. and Mrs. SCO,
Your son has been aware of our class activities for weeks now, but the date has arrived for our annual show and tell and your son has done nothing but tell.
We were suprised at this, since young SCO has been going about the place telling everyone July is show and tell month, but unfortunately he seems to have become preoccupied with a game he calls "share inflation" with his pals in the playground, which involves helping them all share with him and then taking his own ball away at the crucial moment.
Perhaps a meeting with the two (or one, if young SCO turns out to be the slang term he's behaving like) of you would be appropriate?
Yours,
Concerned teacher.
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
But what case does RedHat have? The way I see it, SCO has violated the GPL by claiming proprietary ownership of parts of it. Therefore, they seem so be distributing Linux without a license, and therefore violating the copyright of Mr. Torvalds and Mr. Stallman and a few hundred others.
Maybe SCO is counting on NOT getting sued by the small copyright holders who don't have a big legal team or a litigation budget? That seems like a bad bet, considering that IBM and many other companies that have a large interest in Linux would probably be happy to contribute to a Linux legal fund.
Then again, maybe SCO just expects that the penalties for their copyright violation will come long after the executives have sold off their stock.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
The FSF, and Eben Moglen (chief counsel of the FSF), who wrote the GNU GPL and deal with GPL cases all the time disagree with you.
And "IP infringment (copyright)" is wrong--the phrase "intellectual property" doesn't just refer to copyright. It's a mish-mash of copyright, patent, trademark, and a host of other areas of law that aren't always compatible. Again, the FSF disagrees with you here.
The GNU GPL does not use the word "contract". There is another lawyer's analysis of this which illustrates the logic the FSF uses to show why they don't need a contract (and often don't have one anyhow) to accomplish what the GPL sets out to accomplish. The paper has some problems, but it is quite interesting as well. It also suggests a reason why it is valuable to purchase Free Software rather than getting it at no charge.
Digital Citizen
Check near the bottom of this link Sontag says that noncommercial users will not need a license. I wonder who is covered under "noncommercial" I suspect that this is to avoid a legal mess of going after thousands of individuals and groups such as universities and even government agencies. I mean the NSA has their very own distribution. Although I suspect that this noncommercial use clause does not cover code modification and redistribution.
I dialed their sales number at 800-726-8649. I kept going around in circles in their voicemail. It seemed like hours - the system isn't very smart. I don't understand what happened. Maybe if more people contact them and let them know that their legal action is bad for the industry, they may get the message ; )
Our Unixware product was damaged by Linux and that is why it isn't successful.
So, given that they were distributing Linux themselves, this means they were contributing to their own failure! No wonder they need to rely on FUD.
The Dynix patch mentioned in the lawsuit: http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/rcu/patches/rcl ock-2.4.1-01.patch
Thus a patch for 2.4.1, but the code isn't in the 2.4.20 linux kernel proper, well, atleast not anymore. Now the big question is: Is the code still in the kernel, and has the patch entered linux proper?
This sig is intentionally left blank
Some Linux contributer (copyright holder) needs to contact his congressman and have him get information on what was copyrighted, so that all Linux contributers can verify that SCO has not hijacked their code.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the concept of "owning" ideas is simply not in the interest of humanity.
-- $G
Therefore, SCO has two ways of profiting from their UNIX now. They can either sue people for violating their copyright by alleging that they have misapproprated code from their OS in some way, or, they can get the money from coercing other businesses to buy licenses to their third rate operating system to use another OS.
Either way, they profit, even if it means that they will have to tell a mountain of lies and distort a brainsick amount of facts. Clearly, these people have no morals, no ethics, only the desire for cash, even if it comes from the hard work of others.
Therefore, they must be stopped, and very soon, before they can reap the benefits that they do not deserve.
The behaviour of this troupe of unspeakbly arrogant SCO bosses is making a fool and a mockery of your country. Does your constitution allow a company to openly defame others without having showed any proof whatsoever? Do your laws allow any company to threaten any other company without legally proven reasons? Do your laws allow a company to damage the credibility and business performance of another without fear of being held responsible?
In the interview McBride specifically states that this new action has nothing to do with IBM.
Where are all the goddamn big mouth open source gurus now? Where the fuck is Linus "I don't give a fuck about IP" Torvalds? Why doesn't he stand up and fight? Where the fuck is Eric "They're wrong, I know it" Raymond and the FSF? Are they too chicken too actually do something apart from yakking away about the advantages of their fucking GPL?
In short, when it comes to the crunch, where are all our intellectual heroes now, when we need them? Isn't it about fucking time that they came down from their clouds and realised that Linux is taking fucking water? Why don't these over zealous baboons start a legal fund to fight the case? I'd give $100 for my part.
Excuse my cursing. I'm excedingly angry that this farce is allowed to carry on and damage what we all enjoy working on without one single respected legal word in a prominent newspaper in defense of Linux.
What's to say that I (or anyone else) can't claim that a piece of code that they contributed to Linux was missaporpriated; that it was submitted without my concent and is tainted?
Then I could threaten to sue everyone (maybe for $3 billion, maybe even SCO), but then I could blackmail companies that are afraid of my litigation and agree not to sue them for small fee. That way, I can make money from the entire open-source communities' hardwork even though I suck and have really done nothing.
I could be a millionare.
Q: Earlier you said you were still a products company and not a strictly IP company. This appears to have changed and you are now an IP company. Would you agree with that assessment? Linux has succceeded while your product failed in the marketplace.
A: Our Unixware product was damaged by Linux and that is why it isn't successful. That is why we are doing this. We didn't fail, it is Linux' fault we failed.
Strange, I personally had thought that UNIXware wasn't successful because it lacked features of other UNICES, lacked drivers, lacked support, lacked stability and because most systems administrators would have rather been anally raped and eaten by carnivorous lepers than have to attempt to support systems running UNIXware. I'm glad that's been cleared up for me. Oh, and in other news the Iraqi minister of information announced that Iraq didn't lose the Gulf War, parts I and II but that it was the United States' fault that it failed.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
It is time for the Attorneys General of several states to get involved here, to get a hold of the code in question here and determine whether this is simply a scheme of extortion or worse.
Unix licensing ...states that if a licensee (IBM) modifies the licensed code, then SCO or unix owner of the week then owns that modified code.
Especially since we're talking whole new modules, not just modified modules. By SCO's argument, they would own all of Unix, Linux, BSD, AIX, etc. - clearly nonsense.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
It's so refreshing to here a CEO admit that their company is a complete failure. Now they are relying on the US government to help prop up their failed business model. Luckily IBM is gong to also be relying on the US government to protect it's successful business model.
Click
here for info on Polish legal actions
And SCO might even be found in contempt of the german court. Click here for info on the german court actions.
If the court finds against SCO they can be fined a 250000 euros for each infraction.
By that logic, SCO has no case. To most people, if it isn't Windows it doesn't exist.
They could throw out some nice, Judge-convincing BS like "We only made these files available via the 'FTP' program, which is only for highly advanced technical individuals such as corporate IT managers, for the convenience of our paying customers. It was not intended for download by unlicensed individuals, and in fact doing so constitutes hacking as per the terms of the DMCA..."
Unless reading security advisories from LinuxSecurity.com constitutes "hacking", I don't see that argument as particularily convincing. SCO posted the kernel on their FTP server May 9th. A Linux kernel developer told SCO about it a month ago. Links to the story were posted on many popular news sites. The code is still there.
So why is SCO causing trouble now? They have had years to bring up this dispute. Doesn't the court system recognize that by waiting out a technology or device you've patented to see how well it does before trying to take control of it is wrong?
I hope so.. !
I actually happen to live near the Library of Congress. I don't feel like going over there and looking it up, though.
If things don't pan out for SCO as they expect regarding their IP.
Is it possible for SCO to be brought up on criminal charges ?
I know it's not legal to scream "FIRE RUN FOR YOUR LIVES" in a crowded movie theater.
The question is does the FSF have a legal fund for when a true challenge of the GPL comes forth? Some have speculated that the FSF have been over the years putting away money into such a fund while avoiding any of the small violation cases in order to save for the day when the entire GPL system was taken to court. If so, would the spend the fund for this case? If not, will they start a fundraising campaign for the purpose of protecting the GNU/Linux system?
Download your source RPMs here:
v er/current/SRPMS
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Ser
When was the last time you read the Declaration of Independance?
Life is filled with exceptions, and that includes the use of guns too. (there are other US documents in such support)
Perhaps the failure here is the court system (AGAIN).
What do the people want? Oh wait, they aready said that they want freedom from corporate abuses.
it was gravity's fault I fell.
.
Hmm, sounds a bit different when put into perspective . .
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
covers extortion...
Unless the liscence explicityly states what is included, they are going to get a dozen PHBs at best...
I think the SEC needs to look HARD at the trading habits of the employees.
Or perhaps they are... The continually surprise me by nailing assholes that desperately need it.
If they don't want to keep the whole thing, they can keep just the hash value. Say, an md5sum. The first / middle / last pages are clearly insufficient.
It is strange that there can be yelling at linux that is using UNIX stuff with out permision when from time to time linux is a decarded UNIX basicly linux is in it next development stage between bothering about decaring. Now SCO may have the copyright but it does not mean they can inforce it.
Number one there is a chance that linux is home safe as a BSD based operating system. SCO was force to prove that they were the copyright holder yet this does not mean they have any rights any more. Just that they can use the code anyway they like without being sued to get the source code what was on the boards due to freebsd being based on a early version of Unixware operation system. Now overlap it to expected when Novell that made Unixware got caught stealling from BSD. This was used to form the base from what OpenBSD and FreeBSD came from then from there and minix linux has formed. So over laping functions would be expected. Basicly this ruling means nothing SCO has got no where fast. Think linux is based on BSD parts of linux kernel are still covered by the BSD licence basicly everyone forgets that linux kernel is a mult licences that just happen to be compad with GPL so GPL can be used as a over ruling licence. Most comon problem here for SCO is there has been a lot of thought from the OpenBSD and FreeBSD groups that SCO has been keeping up the novell system of stealing code. Most likely it will turn out that someone removed a BSD copyright notice by misstake but unlike Novell the source code was still open to the pubic and when ask linux will change the licence to fix. From the time SCO found these overlaps there have been a few sections in linux that should have been maked as BSD that were not. Basicly it seam strange to be fighting over something that is fix just by adding a licence marker.
Basic this is a FUD War about time SCO stops calling peoples Bluff and lay the cards on the table for a full check out. The problem is that SCO is trying to bluff linux into buying a SCO licence because if they cannot UNIXWARE will be worth nothing since linux is getting as advanced as UNIXWARE.
You have to realise at some point in your life, that as much effective you want the GPL scheme to be, so much you have to respect the rest of the licensing schemes as well.
"If SCO is stupid enough to try to enforce this, then they will have the "smoking gun" they need to really slam SCO into the ground, on the basis of clear and continuing violation of a legal contract (the GPL)."
David Boies is not stupid. The GPL is a copyright agreement. Why would you think it's valid if the work in question is a derivative of someone else's work, as SCO claims? It is interesting though that they're going outside the legal system in collecting damages, i.e. licensing fees. I would have thought they'd need to wait for the courts to award them, but IANAL. It'll be interesting to see what the courts decide, but it'll take a few years.
Vote for Pedro
ftp://ftp2.caldera.com/pub/skunkware/uw7/Packages/ top-3.5beta9.pkg
- Top provides updated information about the top cpu processes
It is my underestanding that copyright registration is not like patent application.... there is no "approval" process.. copyright applications are not rejected unless the forms aren't filled out right. IT's just a legal record that you applied on a certain date.. it does not imply any special grant of copyright... that still rests with the authors.
Looks like something out of a fucking Mafia movie.
Look yous guys, pays us what we wants and nobody gets hurt.
The 'protection scam' is a protection scam no matter what industry.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I thought that windows security was when the user cuts the power cord with a knife while the computer was running. Removes the computer from the internet, and removes the user from life. Thus preventing any "hacker" from obtaining information from either the computer or the user.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
Ownership of the operating systems you listed is probably SCO's ultimate goal. I wouldn't be surprised if SCO tried to convince a judge that the only way to remedy the situation without jeopardizing SCO's trade secrets is to give SCO ownership of Linux.
"I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
"Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
Very informative, and not offtopic as lesser minds would have us believe...
Ye gods, what a foul smell!
It's only $10 or $15 million rather than the $150 million the market is valuing them at now, but they've got some assets, mostly cash.
Of course, the important reason to sue them is to provide a court venue to publicize whatever evidence (or lack thereof) they've been keeping secret so far, to thereby show that the executive officers who are currently selling off their stock at ten times its natural price have been inflating that price by keeping relevant information secret, and to make them pay for those hundreds of thousands of dollars of deception (and millions of dollars worth of FUD) with hard prison time.
1. Start a fund (EFF can help)
2. Find sum ballsy guy to sign the NDA
3. Have the guy remove the code from the kernel & submit it with a special *FREED FROM SCO CODE* to the kernel mailing list or whatever
4. let him get sued by SCO
5. the fund pays his legal expensens/fines
6. get really really drnk & fart in the general direction of darl mcbride.
- You're not paranoid, they really are after you.
SCO MUST BE STOPPED. NOW.
My proposal to stop SCO is a simple, easy to implement little plan.
The Goal : Make SCO's stock drop like a rock.
The Method: If as many people as possible go onto stock boards, and post their negative feelings about SCO, and their own speculations as to what the outcome of the battle with IBM will be, Buyers will begin to flee from the stock.
Do you really think this would work?
I've got a better idea!
It involves bullets.
There comes a time when things get so rediculous that discussing the merits of this SCO debacle on forums lik this one just doesn't cut it anymore. SCO offering to sell licenses to linux is like any other compoany offering to sell a license to a product manufactured by and sold by a completely unrelated company! If this licensing scheme (actually more like Racketeering scheme as what SCO is truly selling is "protection") works does that mean we need to prepare for the possibility that the manufacturer of the paint used by Ford Motor Company to paint the car I purchased from a Ford dealership could at some point in the future decide to require me to pay them a licensing fee if I wish to continue to "legally operate my vehicle"? This is completely and utterly absurd. It is high time for the leaders in the Linux community to stand up, in unison and voice their complete and total dis-association from SCO! I think a good place to start would be with the other members of the "United Linux" group. How does SuSE for example, feel about SCO charging their customers a license fee for the product they distributed? The other members ofg the United Linux foundation should all denounce the tactics being used by SCO to extort money from the Linux using populace of the world! I can understand IBM biding their time up to this point as they most likely feel, rightly so, that SCO's claims have no merit BUT isn't it time to say enough is enough and publicly state the rediculous notion that SCO can claim to be due licensing fees for products distributed by others. Not only publicly but in the form of some sort of press release that would be just as visible and noticeable to the fortune 500 companies and others that just may give in to this extortion simply to hedge their bets. SCO does not deserve a single red cent from the linus community! I have gone from being an interested observer of this case, to becomming almost boared with the FUD to now being exceptionally angry. I am normally a calm and patient person but isn't this a case where enough is enough?
The Matrix is real... but I'm only visiting!
Is the Free Software Foundation just Stupid or is it broke? WTF is the FSF just laying there like jello for? This crap has got to STOP. If the FSF can't defend the GPL then the GPL isn't worth wiping your ass on.
I am starting to think all these OSS Gurus are only in it for the pay checks and don't give a fuck about GPL or OSS. This is not a troll. I am serious. How come there is no suit against SCO for this actual violation of th GPL. WTF is going on?
Someone who actually knows something needs to answer this. Like someone from the FSF not some IANAL or self appointed GPL expert.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
I'm actually not sure that it's ever been put quite so baldly as in this press release (note that this is an SCO press release, not an actual article, which is why it does things like state as fact rather than as allegations that Linux code is pirated). I'd think that someone would have pretty good grounds for a lawsuit now, if they didn't before - this is a flat statement of something that had better be true if they're going to threaten people with it.
I think Daryl is putting a little too much faith in the respect the market has for ballsiness...
It's not on their website anywhere, or in any of the press release newswires I looked at. Are you being a jerk?
In today's world we are taught "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it". In the 18th century common society didn't really have much of a concept of an economy. We forget that life during those times consisted mainly of ... well ... just surviving. When Marie Antoinette (supposedly) said "Let them eat cake" the common man compared the rotten food they were being forced to eat with the good food the royals had... that and dessert? While all they had worked for... thier livelyhood... even their very lives were at stake?
... and then you're going to have to pay them to use the tools you wrote. This isn't capitalism... it's madness.
Needless to say we all know what happened. In today's world we have come up with systems to make sure that most of our basic physical needs are to met until we are old enough to retire and die. Government doesn't so much govern humans anymore as they govern the systems in which we live our lives. Capitalism, the economy, lobbyists, etc. Quite frankly we have a pathetic excuse for a government.
Getting back to Marie Antoinette... now unless I'm a way off base I'm pretty sure that people are still people. If our very survival is threatened we tend to get mean. In today's world if the very base systems are threatened I don't know what people are capable of.
<insane example>
SCO wins it all, they own all UNIX/Linux. They kill open source. Say 20 years has passed and in that time you've found someone and settled down. Perhaps this means a family. Perhaps this means "just a lot of debt". Who cares? In the end you have some form of life and responsibility.
Of course you never believed in the US Supreme Court ruling where Linus Torvalds had to sign Linux over to SCO. So you moved away from the US to another country. You started a small software firm based on Linux, GNU, Open Source... and the like.
All at once international copyright and trademark law come into being. Suddenly SCO decides to change the licensing of Linux to $1,000,000 per seat. Within 2 hours a 16 year old collection boy accompanied by a fleet of lawyers and the UN police come up to your home with a bill for (Dr. Evil Voice) ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. Due upon receipt.
</insane example>
Would you lash out? Would all Linux hackers lash out? Would you revolt against the entire world for messing with your way of life? Being some place they have no right whatsoever to be?
Let's be realistic... SCO is just a bunch of shareholders in a dead corporation with a few bucks in the bank. There hadn't been a unified development movement in the entire UNIX world in oh... about the time that the GNU project and Linux met each other head on. Linux is a tool that has helped a number of us build a life... and now some crusty shareholders want to charge the very people who have been developing, building, testing, and using that tool?
It stands to reason that it may be time for us hackers to stop being so cynical, bitchy, and nonchalant about these issues. Wishing they would just "go away" thinking "everyone will wise up eventually". And realistically this is stupid, and if we're not careful our government is going to give one of our more important tools (our own work) away to someone else
Opinions?
They continued to sell Linux products after the point at which they filed the lawsuit. At that point they must have known there was "infringing" IP in the Linux kernel. By continuing to distribute Linux, they officially licensed their alleged IP under the GPL. Thus, even if code exists that was straight from UnixWare or wherever it's alleged to have come from, it's GPL'd because they knowingly published it under GPL license terms.
So they can go fuck themselves. Linus should file for an injunction on their licensing plan.
Not that I really know or understand the GPL (or even have read it), but doesn't it state somewhere that GPL products *must* include source code? and also any modification or additions to that GPL code *must* also include source code for said?
so then, if SCO does what they claim, they are therefore violating the GPL and GNU/EFF should sue them into submission...
Having just spoken with a corporate attorney about this (said attorney happens to be my father), I was told that only one thing really matters in this case:
What is the dimension of copyrightability or of patentability, as it applies to computer software?
This is to say, what can SCO claim it had patented or copyrighted. Narrowly, one could say that SCO's protection applies only to the letter of its source code, not to any ancillary ideas. But SCO could counter this claim, saying that its protections extended to the UNIX "user experience." Such things as the command syntax of the Bourne shell, the Shell/Kernel design, the presence of standard utilities like awk and make, or even the something as nebulous as the "shape of the integrated whole" (the experiential architecture of a UNIX system and what it "feels" like when it is operated) could, in fact, be claimed as intellectual property.
One should realize, in defense of SCO, that all essentially all early UNIX and UNIX-like technology was developed by a small team at AT&T Bell Labs, and clearly AT&T didn't pay and fund that team simply to write code. No, that team was funded by-and-large to craft an operating system, a "user-experience," "application programming interface experience" and "overall system architecture." Indeed, these latter ideas were far more important (and valuable) than the UNIX source code itself. AT&T forced Novell, as Novell later forced SCO, to pay good money for the rights to these ideas, so if I were SCO and had paid some $500 million for the rights to such ideas, I too would be rather perturbed should an individual and an organization (Linus and the FSF) come along with the vision of creating "a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software" (source: FSF website, GNU project homepage), this is to say, creating a product that uses all of my policy, interface specification, and design ideas, without rightfully paying for them.
Everyone here should realize that Linus, RMS, and their ilk simply wrote programs that implemented policy, architecture, and user-experience specifications and ideas developed, at the cost of millions of dollars, some twenty-years before at AT&T Bell Labs. That SCO later paid millions for those ideas, something that people here seem to laugh at, should not, in my mind, be taken lightly.
Those are all paraphrases as I am not a stenographer, but that is essentially waht they said. It was along the lines of "two years ago we had this great Unixware product with 250 million (or 150 million, i forget which) in sales, and growing. Then IBM came along and scaled up this Linux thing and it took off and that is how Unixware was damaged. It is because of Linux newfound scalibility in the 2.4 series, contributed by IBM and others that caused damage to our product".
:)
That is still paraphrased, but with more detail.
Freedom Is Universal
Linux-Universe
these fucks are being allowed to try this case in the media.
Where the fuck is IBM? It issues one fucking statement, then shuts up. I realize it's not a good idea to be babbling about the case in public, but IBM needs to AT LEAST REITERATE its position whenever these SCO assholes run their mouth.
And the Slashdot headline misses the point. SCO in its press release is saying that UNLESS ALL LINUX USERS BUY LICENSES THEY WILL BE SUED. At least that's the way the rest of the IT trade press is putting it. One of Microsoft's tame research organizations is claiming that users are confused and starting to think about dumping Linux.
This crap is going to hurt Linux in the market and it is going to hurt IBM's Linux business if it keeps up, so IBM needs to SAY SOMETHING.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
this is the impression I got from Darl what's his name from SCO from the McBride interview, is that the SCO Unix license is more viral that what M$ is saying the GPL is.. He basically said that they own any works that any compnay does that happens to work in their licensed Unix code from SCO....
It's rather ammusing..
Back in their early days Ford Moter Company was sued by General moters for making cars. GM came about because someone got a patent on cars, and conviced Mr. Chevy, Mr Buick, Mr. Pontiac, and a few others who made cars that his patent was valid and they were better off partenering with him than getting sued and shut down. Ford said the patent was invalid and fought in court to prove it. (I don't recall the outcome)
We most certainly do not have to respect licenses that remove our freedom. The GPL gives the copyright holder the right to relicense that code commercially or otherwise at their discretion. Its this very type of licensing that prompted RMS to found the FSF long before Bill was enemy #1. This type of license needs to be fought vigilantly. It IS cancerous, for exactly the same reasons that the GPL is not. We do have to honor those licenses, with the caveat that those licenses do still need to be legally enforceable but they are not deserving of any respect. I could ship some software with a licensing clause that I now own your first born, but that doesn't automatically make it so. The burden of proof should clearly be on SCO to prove that the IBM code was derivitive of their work, not for IBM to show that they still own their own code. Thats rediculous.
...it's working at least temporarily for TSG, too. From 80c to $14 in six months would be impressive if it hadn't been achieved fraudulently.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...about to sell a lot of SCOX shares. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
That's still not good faith (just fraud and/or extortion) but they have sued.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
a copyright, they were not awarded anything.
In other words, they walked to a governmetn
office, they claimed that they own the copyright,
and their statement was stamped and date on
the records. That is it, They were not awarded
anyting at all!
So please, you being the 1000th person who
repeats misleading half-truths from SCO's
PR department, please cease to repeat that
a copyright was awarded by the government to
System V. That is not the case at all. I can
get a the government "award me" the rights to
System V tomorrow, it I sent them $30 dollars;
and I am confident, hundreds of other people might have
received the same "award" to System V already.
OK smarty, did you actually follow your own link? Yes there are a bunch of SRPMS there, but where is the kernel?
I don't see it.
It either has been removed or it was distributed elsewhere. What I am actually asking for is someone who actually has a copy of the kernel which they downloaded from SCO to send me a copy, as contrary to reports here it does NOT appear to be on the website or the FTP site.
YOU can get it for actual OR PROSPECTIVE litigation ...
"The Copyright Office Litigation Statement Form is completed and received from an attorney or authorized representative in connection with litigation, actual or prospective, involving the copyrighted work. The following information must be included in such a request: a) the names of all parties involved and the nature of the controversy; and b) the name of the court in which the actual case is pending. In the case of a prospective proceeding, the requestor must give full statement of the facts of controversy in which the copyrighted work is involved, attach any letter or other document that supports the claim that litigation may be instituted, and make satisfactory assurance that the requested reproduction will be used only in connection with the specified litigation.
...during the interview reported in this BYTE article. You can see here that Microsoft have updated the later builds of MS-Windows 2003 to reflect this.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...that before this the "My" in "My Computer" used to stand for William Henry "Trey" Gates III, so as far as the users are concerned, it's just a flag day. Swap one litigious, greedy control freak for another, big whoop-ti-doo.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Actually, though, a "binary only Linux license" is not software piracy, it's just a license. This may seem like I'm splitting hairs, and maybe I am but I think I have a good reason.
...
;^)
Now if they distribute the software, that would be piracy, but if they just sit back and collect from those already using the software, for a promise not to sue, then that really has nothing to do with the actual license of the software concerned, does it? I mean it might be blackmail, but
I'm wondering if this is not what they're up to, since actually distributing the software under licensing terms specifically prohibited by its owners would open them up to legal liability of their own. Just because a little of their code may or may not be in Linux doesn't mean they own all the code and can do anything they like with it. I don't think even they'd be arrogant enough to do that. Of course I could be wrong here.
Anyway, if they do not distribute the binaries themselves, they can just sit back and watch the dough roll in from all those companies not wanting to risk it.
In any case they are calling it a Unixware license. Of course they didn't offer any details on that either. So Linux might not even be part of the equation except that along with whatever else you get for buying it (if anything), you get the peace of mind that they won't come after you.
So what if your ID is bigger than mine? I'm sure I've got something here in my Inbox which'll fix it! (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
So, I need a question answered by some kernel maintainers, contributors, etc. Just how much code are we talking about? 2K lines? 10K lines? Or is it small portions of copywritten code? If it's small portions, can we simply not rewrite that part of the codebase more effeciently (effeciency is a good reason) and re-release the kernel with the updated code? It seems to me that (and this was earlier with their comparison of a few lines of code) that you elminate that problem, do something in a slightly different way to avoid copyright infringement, and everyone's happy (not SCO, but we'll leave them out of this).
Secondly, does anyone think that SCO will release their Linux distribution royalty free of these copyright charges? If so, does it seem to anyone else as it does to me that we've finally met the MS of the Linux world?
Not that I think they'll succeed, but that's just hope talking. I think an action like this can sour Enterprise on Linux and shift many Linux customers back over to MS. Way to go, SCO.
"It's here, but no one wants it." - The Sugar Speaker
joy!, isnt the world becoming a great place,
bill & SCO, we thanks you for your kindness
you will be remembered as saints,
viva la revolution
Actually, I do not hold the opinions expressed in this post, but I want to try and play devil's (appropriate) advocate. The code to be compared is AIX and Sequent code. As such, even though major portions are in open source, SCO must refrain from freely sharing the full sources since the rights are shared with IBM and some portions are not in open source.
David Boies is not stupid. The GPL is a copyright agreement. Why would you think it's valid if the work in question is a derivative of someone else's work, as SCO claims?
That's a pretty big "if" (though granted Boies is being paid to think like a SCOian). If SCO's copyright claims are ruled invalid, then SCO is (or will be) violating the GPL and in for even more trouble than they were before.
It is interesting though that they're going outside the legal system in collecting damages, i.e. licensing fees.
My IANAL guess is that SCO knows full well that they're going to get blasted in court, and is trying to scrape as much money off people as they can before they get smashed into little bits of corporate kibble.
SCO Trademarks Penguin Mascot, Offers Licensing Program to Linux Users
Full Story
It could only be a derivitive work if IBM owned the copyright for the entire Linux kernel. (As IBM may/may not have signed a contract giving up derivitive rights to SCO).
However IBM does not own the linux kernel copyright.
At worst there may be copyright infringement in modules submitted by IBM. But since IBM claimed full copyright on any such submissions, the worst case becomes:
1.) IBM submitted modules must be removed from the kernel.
2.) IBM (not linux users) is liable for any damages caused by falsely claiming copyright and illegally distributing said code.
Under no circumstances can SCO claim ownership over linux, nor do they have any licensing, etc claims on previously distributed linux copies.
If anything SCO is severly restricting their ability to claim damages by not immediately informing the parties that were distrubuted the mis-copyrighted code.
This lawsuit shows all the signs of taking advantage of the federal 2 year civil case waiting period, rather than actually trying to win the case.
Thanks to Microsoft, those things have to be ignored. Apple lost the suit where they accused Microsoft of stealing the look and feel of the Macintosh operating system. SCO must prove that its code is in Linux and that it was contributed without proper consent. Simply being a Unix clone is not proof that SCO's IP is in Linux. That would be like saying that Goodyear couldn't sell tires because they infringe on Firestone's IP for tires.
"I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
"Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
Or. . .
.
.Err, where did you put the money?
SCO: You are going to have to pay a license to use linux because otherwise you will be illegally using software that we wrote.
Linux User: OK, which lines did you write?
SCO: I'm not telling.
Linux User: I'm paying.
SCO: Thank you. . .
SCO: . .
Linux User: I'm not telling.
Perhaps because of similarity to the case of Pictosphere. This is the company of Ford Oxaal, who last year settled with Ipix. Ipix, you may recall, threatened several individuals including Prof. Helmut Dersch (author of the free Panorama Tools software; web page offline since last year), and sued Infinite Pictures over patent infringement and won.
Oxaal's dispute with Ipix was based on his claim that Ipix stole their patented ideas from him. Oxaal has a patent similar to Ipix's; it's not really clear who was first to "invent" (if you can call it that, this being software based on long-established mathematical algorithms). Under the terms of the settlement, Ipix paid for a license to use Oxaal's technology (presumably an admission that Oxaal owned the technology, not Ipix).
The similarity is that Pictosphere is offering, for $500 US, a license that (it is claimed) would protect users from prosecution for infringement (e.g., by Ipix).
The second similarity is that, while claiming patent rights to the concept of spherical panorama photography, Pictosphere is now distributing Prof. Dersch's software under the GPL.
Lest you think that Pictosphere, by playing the SCO-like role in this matter, is the only bad guy here, Ipix is now
suing Pictosphere, now claiming that Pictosphere's software infringes the same Ipix patent that was previously disputed. Ipix has achieved some notoriety for using the chilling effects of patent law.
http://news.gw.com/netbsd.advocacy/3435
X Da9Irx5b/
SCO update: "Issues with BSD" ?
[netbsd.advocacy]
Subject: SCO update: "Issues with BSD" ?
From: mac@Wireless.Com (Mike Cheponis)
Newsgroups: netbsd.advocacy
Organization: TAC News Gateway
Date: Jun 16 2003 23:47:18
Hmmm.... SCO is certainly making life unpleasant for many. -Mike
From BYTE.COM newsletter:
________
1. Special Feature: SCO Owns Your Computer
________
Fittingly, it was Friday the 13th. A sunny San Francisco morning.
But my discussion with Chris Sontag, SCO's Senior Vice President,
Operating Systems Division, was driving the sunshine from our
room, creating an atmosphere appropriate for the 13th. Let me
summarize in a parable...
In the beginning was AT&T Bell Labs, staffed by a benevolent team
of PhDs and research scientists. AT&T produced this really neat
operating system--System V--which computer manufacturers wanted to
license and use. Everybody was happy to sign tough contracts with
these benevolent scientists--licenses which deeded all derivative
works back to AT&T, licenses that covered all "methods" and
"concepts" of operating systems. But now those licenses are owned
by SCO and its team of lawyers who are certain that AIX and all
the other IXs belong to SCO. And the company now wants royalties
from users of all these operating systems--especially Linux.
Specifically, Sontag believes the "SCO technologies" which were
misappropriated into AIX, IRIX, and the derivative UNIX-alikes
(including Linux) are:
* JFS (Journalling File System).
* NUMA (Non Uniform Memory Access), a SGI/Stanford collaboration.
* RCU (Read-Copy-Update).
* SMP (Symmetrical Multi-Processing).
"But what about BSD?" I asked. Sontag responded that there
"could be issues with the [BSD] settlement agreement," adding that
Berkeley may not have lived up to all of its commitments under the
settlement.
"So you want royalties from FreeBSD as well?" I asked. Sontag
responded that "there may or may not be issues. We believe that
UNIX System V provided the basic building blocks for all subsequent
computer operating systems, and that they all tend to be derived
from UNIX System V (and therefore are claimed as SCO's intellectual
property)."
"So is anybody clean? What about Apple and Microsoft?" I wondered.
"Sun is clean," he said--but he gave no answer in regards to Apple
and Microsoft.
"But I thought that Microsoft had signed a license agreement?" "No,"
Sontag said. Microsoft merely licensed an "applications interface layer."
*** Read more at http://click.byte.email-publisher.com/maabaREaaYD
This article is freely available to all readers. ***
www@gw.com
I am surprised all the Linux Distros / IBM / Apple - etc have not all banded together to slap an injunction on them like they did in Germany. They should also demand to see what was licenced by M$ - especially since M$ is already in trouble with the class action stuff being investigated again.
Amounts to little more than extortion, pure and simple.
Protection money. Pay up, and we won't sue you. Utter BS.
Seem to bear out what I posted above. They didn't make any reference to JFS, or porting Linux to PPC and Power chips, or any IBM derived and/modified works. They seem to be going after the works that apply to SMP and were purchased with Sequent. This is the way Boies works: He throws everything at you in a complaint, makes his complaint more specific based on what you give him in response. Narrows it down closer, and closer, until he's got a legal document shaped by natural selection. He finally figured out that he will have to go after IBM on copyright at this point, and that it's best to go after everyone on copyright once he files those amendments to the IBM case.
Nine out of ten of the voices in my head
told me to stay home today and clean my guns.
It's looking very much like this was SCO's plan from the beginning. SCO wants the GPL declared an invalid license by a court judge. For what purpose? Who can tell.
Could the developers' group sue Microsoft for receiving Linux in violation to GPL ? MS did buy a license from SCO or did it ?
SCO selling Linux binarys violating the GPL (Sorry even if it dose contain SCOs IP it also contains a bunch of other peoples IP and the mix of the two means nobody on the face of the earth has any right to do anything with Linux at all piriod end of story good bye)
Of the technologys SCO is suing IBM over is IBMs to start with.
It appears the code SCO "found" by discription was given to SCO and Linux by system manufactuerers so that the consummers may use SCO or Linux if they so chouse permitting the manufacter to sell more computers. That code is given to anyone who asks. There would be no reason IBM would have said code let alone introduce it into Linux as it would mean supporting compeating producs something IBM is clearly not going to do if they can at all avoid it.
SCO clames ownership of System V and Novel clames otherwise.
Now SCO regestures that clame with the copyright office.
If I understand everything correctly (Hay IANAL nore am I omipotent so I nither have all the facts nore do I know law) I'd say quite soon SCO will cease to exist soon enough...
I'm Selling my SCO stock and buying stock in humanity while faith in SCO is high an faith in humanity is low becouse I think when SCO folds faith in humanity will hit an all time high....
I don't actually exist.
Not sure about all of the details (or even where you'd look, maybe SCO or IBM have something up on a site) but the hearing for their permanent injuction is in 2005. SCO upped their original $1G claim to $3G too.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
From reading a little about the GPL now, there seems to be a "module" clause using forks that allow the adding of non-GPL code with GPL code. Maybe SCO will try and use this?
The sourse of the original could still be sent, minus the proprietry code that you just wrote.
What about this: I give you the kernel, and source for that kernel under the GPL. Then I give you a binary module that you run over the kernel that adds functionality to the GPL code. Is this allowed?
Karem
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
I wish I had mod points right now.
That Plan 9 reference is exactly right on.
Sadly, most of the readers will not get this.
That line alone deserves a point.
Consider this post a ghost mod.
I laughed a lot at that bit of brilliance. It really stood out and I thank you.
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
> Of course they'd prefer licensing. They were NOT granted a copyright on SysV Unix, but on a 20-page printout of some modifications to Sys5 verseion 4.1.
The funny thing is that the ploy (I have trouble thinking of it as anything else) was sufficient to drive their share price up by 20%. We should keep that fact in mind next time we hear someone claim that share prices tell us anything useful.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I read about the kind of crap they are trying to pull in E-Week just today, I showed it to my IT manager and he just had a fit. He swore that he would not pay SCO one red cent. (He sits on a IT board for a very large company)
I just wonder how many CTO's actually contacted SCO and wanted to hand them money. (Then again, SPAM does work, I dearly hope SCO advertises the companys names, We already know one, Microsoft)
I frankly could not believe what I was reading.
A quick comment: These creatins have bigger balls than Steve Ballmer and that is saying a lot!
I wonder if SCO had the chutzpah to send one of these letters to Microsoft.
Microsoft is most certainly in the top 1000 companys. And don't doubt they are running Linux on a few computers.
On to my questions:
1. I don't wear a tin hat but SCO is doing just about everything in its power to discredit open source and the GPL. Who is the default protector of the GPL, and why are they not sueing SCO over flagrant violations?
2. I first thought Microsoft was behind this, but at this rate, Microsoft has as much to lose as anybody if SCO somehow wins. My question is: Is SCO just trying to sling as much mud as it can and just seeing what sticks?
Their business model closely mimics the RIAA's
I doubt they will have any friends after this.
Watch Microsoft for an indicator of how the landscape must fall. (I know how you guys hate BG. But he could be a major factor in this one)
I personally think this is going to rank in the "Bob" catagory for Microsoft.
SCO me hard!
Direct quote: "The real grown up thing to to is take McBride out with the rest of these SCO greed heads and just eliminate the scoundrels. Give up on going to court with these loosers. They are attempting to steal that which isn't theirs. We will get no fair play in court. They will buy all the justice they need and Linux will get none. Bastards like McBride his compatriots and his whoreson attorney Boies have sick and twisted minds. All you pacifists need to wake up and get a grip on this shit. Violence does solve certain issues. These thieving fucks are a waste of human skin and need to be removed from the gene pool. They are a threat to civilization and the commonwheal. Death to the tryants. Let us get us some rope and proceed in community action!" Think about this before you decide to do it. This will get you thrown in jail for a long time! Don't be stupid about this! P.S. I love the comment about the "whoreson attorney Boies". He was the Golden Boy when he was prosecuting Microsoft, but now he's a "whoreson" when he works for SCO.
Nah, that's unreasonable. There's many people will clear copyright claims on Linux, and there's no way in which copyright for that code could be reassigned to SCO. I don't think the courts even have the authority to do that sort of thing at all, especially not when many of those copyright holders aren't associated with any wrongdoing.
Sometimes I wonder about that, looking at his latest string of big name cases... ;-)
> Why would you think it's valid if the work in question is a derivative of someone else's work, as SCO claims?
Doesn't matter. There is a heck of a lot of code in the linux kernel (something like 99.99% of it by SCO's count) that predates any contributions from Caldera (legally or otherwise) to which they can make no claim. If they are in violation of copyright, then the copyright owners can go after them.
Of course, it's probably a heck of a lot more complicated than that, which is why SCO is paying big bucks for Boies to weezle his way through all the loopholes. However, I think they are skating on thinner and thinner ice. It almost looks like they are baiting the Linux developers into some sort of complicated legal trap, which is probably why IBM legal department is still keeping its head down, giving them no target to shoot at.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Serv er/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/
Finding God in a Dog
You ever see a lawyer use Webster's dictionary in court? No? Maybe there's a reason. It's because words have extremely specific meanings in law.
However, since you asked, this is neither as SCO has actually not approached any specific party. They've said that any customers of theirs won't be sued by them. However, they've not approached anyone saying "Buy this or we'll sue your ass."
Also, your definition includes "unlawful," making things a bit circular. You've shown nothing that suggests that what they're doing isn't completely legal. If you believe it is, suggest some case law.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
as early as 1993 microsoft corporation owned 19% of SCO, then called santa clara operations
Uhm.... Santa Cruz Operations.
Santa Clara Operations is someone else entirely.
Operating Systems fall into 2 catagories:
1) *nix
2) The rest
The distinction between what constitutes 'similar' is arbitrary. Any judge could say Goodyear had to stop making tires because they are using Firestone IP, but the decision to not make tires as a design a copyrighted design, must have never been claimed or opened to the public domain or more likely no one can dig up the relevant discoveries. IP law allows for these types of situations, which is why most ppl think it is a broken system.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
When I smell cat urine, it causes an immediate allergic reaction in my sinus cavity beknownst to doctors as: Hick Rage
Hick Rage is a compression of the sinus cavity, causing the subjectively infected human to begin speakin' from his'ser's 0wn asshole, in turn also being so self-aggrivated at his'ser's 0wn unability to communicate that any animal with hair will imediatly be skinned whilst dead or alive.
Be careful SCO! I have Hick Rage, you pissed on my father's front porch, I smell cat urine, prepare to die d00de5!!!1!
I mentioned Eben Moglen, not RMS. I don't know why you are railing against RMS here. But since you're now trying to change the subject and talk about RMS winning that award, I'll offer that he was right. Linus Torvalds contributed a piece of the puzzle--a good piece, a needed piece, but not the framework by which the rest of the pieces had been collected for years before Torvalds arrived on the scene.
The FSF was never a part of the Open Source movement, they began the Free Software movement over a decade before the Open Source movement came along.
If either organization (FSF or OSI) is bitter about the other's success, it is probably OSI being bitter about the FSF's success. After all, the GNU General Public License is the most widely-used license in both movements. The GPL sets the terms of the debate in many cases. The OSI had no part in writing the GNU GPL. The FSF and RMS identified what is important to continue to make and distribute software freely (and with insights that continue to be valuable today--the ongoing Bitkeeper thread, for example). It is the FSF who, in the GPL, skillfully used copyright law to defend our interests instead of letting us continue to be unequal players in someone else's license (like the APSL which the OSI puts their stamp of approval on and the FSF considers non-free). The FSF is grateful that the Open Source movement has brought so many people to using the GNU GPL and other Free Software licenses, but the FSF warns against licenses that don't defend all of the community's interests. Meanwhile some notable members in the Open Source movement offer vicious words (and I'm not the first person to notice this).
Digital Citizen
"By SCO's argument, they would own all of Unix, Linux, BSD, AIX, etc"
Except that IBM aparently licensed those modules under that restrictive license, thereby agreeing to its terms, then copied that same code into the Linux kernel, not BSD. And according to them, they do own Unix and AIX, thats what this is all about, those modules were never part of SCO's product, just under the unmbrella of the SysV codebase licens. What remains to be seen, is if IBM doesn't have the right to relicense its own code, if they were legally encumbered by a more free license of their own before licensing it under the Unix one, or if thats even a legal restriction to begin with.
At least as far as I understand it, and IANAL too.
Why doesn't the SEC bust SCO for fraud and stock manipulation?
By putting GPL and open source in UNIXWare and SCO products they are in fact the poachers. Take DNS/Bind, Sendmail, Perl, awk, sed and others out of their products.
Didn't the GPL license say something about incorporating the code in derived products make it public domain?
Does not the letters sent to corporations amount to extortion as in fact no legal battle has been won nor proved?
Microsoft sponsored terrorism and FUD?
If we didn't buy into products that had law suits, we would see Microsoft broke and out of business. Don't let FUD (Fear and Uncertanty for Dummys) fool you --- this is the new way to make money when you can't do anything else, corporate extortion, business of the new century.
However, don't, don't, don't send me your names if you want to sue SCO, please
:-)
neg----pos----neg (ah shucks)
I will consider your services, If you tell me to don't again.
Dear (Denis) of Rithciedom art thou in heaven? I am in a C based DLL hell. BSD, MS and Linux are all sending daemons to do their bidding on my electron speaking Oracle, and I am locked in a shell.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!