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.
And how do they intend to enforce that, as long as there is no judgment yet????
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!
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.
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
How can they force people to pay for the bits that don't belong to them? Assuming any do at all, that is.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
It's also cretinous, because any "use" that involves duplication (including, let's see, installation from CD or network, or uploading or downloading or distributing externally or internally) will constitute a fat violation of the copy rights of every other contributor ot the kernel.
There's a GPL exemption in the linux kernal for binary only Nvidia drivers. SCO has no such provision. 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.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
You are not entirely correct. As have others have shown, they are still distributing a Linux kernel via FTP.
In other words, SCO, by releasing a binary-only Linux, is violating the terms of the GNU General Public License, and hence, they are breaking the law.
Not breaking the law, they are in breach of contract. Who is going to take them to court to fight it? Nobody. However, this issue will be pressed by the IBM law team, and quite probably will have a favorable outcome on this point.
However, unless the members at SCO had authority (ostensible, I believe) to release the kernel source than it is not binding that SCO released it knowingly and willingly. Just like if I release proprietary source at my job, it would not be binding unless I had authority to do it. I think that it is a given that whomever released the packages at SCO did have the proper authority to do it, so I don't think any of this paragraph actually matters.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
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.
What I like about all this is that they own the copyrights to the CODE, but are choosing to license the BINARY implementation.
Convinent that, it will be awfully hard for Linux users to find the offending CODE in all those 0's and 1's.
Also if the code SCO owns is in the Linux kernel, and they sell it, aren't they required to distribute it under the GPL for free?
This is mindblowingly evil and an absolute anethma to everything open source stands for.
I can only hope to have a chance to soon view a press conference where IBM announces its takeover of SCO, and fires everyone who still "works" there. The only bad thing about this is how much money McBride will make on the deal.
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
Hmm...then what's this this doing on their FTP server? Hmm?
My journal has hot
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.
Why can't someone who got the extortion letter subpoena SCO to identify the infringing code?
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.
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...
Paying the fee actually opens companies to liability from Linux developers. Because now they have received a copy of Linux code in violation of the GPL because whoever they got their Linux from could not have given it to them. Since, they did not receive the code in accordance with the GPL, they have no license for the code whatsoever and standard copyright law applies giving them no rights with regards to Linux.
So, Linux developers can sue, and win, because by paying the fee to SCO they acknowledge that they have kowingly received Linux in violation of the GPL, and have no license to do anything with said software. Are developers likely to sue linux customers... No, they will do everything they can not to, but it may come down to that to at least prevent SCO from hijacking Linux.
IANAL
Dastardly
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
> 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.
Yea, but he can claim copyright to sunlight too and it doesnt make it any more true in a court of law
If they had any basis for this, we would have seen it.
Ford would have sued all other car makers for making cars, as they own the copyright on cars.
Authors would sue others for having a book with the same plot line.
All music would go away, after all, your rock song is based off my rock song, and the first song has a copyright on rock music.
Copyright doesnt apply to basic concepts.
Only to very specific cases of those concepts.
If they won, not just the american way of life is over as we know it (Nothing new will be allowed to be created, because its all based off previous work.. that is how technology works) but the entire world economy will fail for a short time, as we sue and press charges aginst every other country there is until the US is finally shunned as a world power and we are ignored.
This will _never_ be allowed to happen.
Bush would come right up and tell the courts to fuck right the hell off if they even tried.
But the point is, copyright law does not give ANYONE the right to do what they are claiming over at SCO.
If you wrote some code, and copyrighted it, and i stole that code, you can ONLY tell me to not distribute it.
As a matter of fact, i am perfectly within the bounds of copyright law to take your copyrighted work and use it however i see fit, as long as it never leaves my hands. You have no say so over the matter. They would legally (and in all cases in the past) side with me.
Copyright prevents the distribution of others works.
The only right they have (assuming they are correct) is they can say 'noone has the right to distribute our code'
And as I said, the problem would be fixed by replacing that code, or just removing it all together. Then they have no legal right to say anything.
They have no legal right to charge for linux, and are activly breaking the law by distributing it in binary only form without the source, even IF they win their dispute aginst IBM.
Think of it this way.
Band B steals some lyrics from Band A.
Does this give the world the right to steal all of Band B's music because their copyrights are somehow invalid now?
No.
Nor does SCO have any right to invalidate the copyright of thousands of developers who have copyrighted code in the kernel as well, whom are licencing it under GPL.
SCO owns their little part. Nothing more. Any any more that they take is copyright-voilation (Or theft as p2p haters like to call it)
It still mystifies me why IBM isn't doing anything at this point.
One thing to remember, even post-2000: 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. They will make no move before they have to. Right now, they (still) don't have to, and it wouldn't help much, anyways 'cause McBride's an asshole and IBM is above all that. The bully will back down, or be taken down, but it'll happen on IBM's time because that's how IBM operates. IBM's had almost 50 years of being able to deal with this type of legal idiot; trust their experience.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
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..."
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
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.
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
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).
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.
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?
The original agreement only transferred such rights as was required to allow SCO to sell copies of Unix as a licensee of Novell. In other words, that SCO could make changes, and those changes would belong to SCO, not Novell. As a licensee, SCO did not have to own the copyright to Unix, and this is why it was never transferred to SCO.
It's the same as if I wrote a book, and I assign to you the rights to distribute the first edition of it. I've assigned to you a limited right to make copies, but this does NOT make you the copyright owner.
I've got a feeling Novell knows this, and is biding it's time before giving SCO another nuking, or holding off so they can leverage something from someone (IBM?)
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?
"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)
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
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.
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?