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.
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.
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
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?
SCO: "Give me money." Linux user: "Prove you have a right to it first by winning your lawsuit against IBM." SCO: "Damn :/"
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
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
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
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?
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:
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
Copyright ownership is not "awarded", it is automatic for the creator of a work.
Prior art has nothing to do with copyright, but relates to patent claims for an invention of something that already existed.
What registering copyright is for is beyond me, but it doesn't change much. Either linux contains SCO code, or it doesn't No amount of registering things will change those facts.
I just wish SCO would show us the code or go away. What they are doing now is harassing people.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
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
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).
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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
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! --------
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
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
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
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?
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
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.
ALL YOUR UNIX ARE BELONG TO SCO
In Soviet Russia Unix patents SCO
(Sorry I was really bored)
Science is the Real TRUTH!
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
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.
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
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
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.
They're "chicken" nuggets, not chicken nuggets.
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
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!
"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.
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!"
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 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.
#include
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
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
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.
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
Remember folks the SCO banktruptcy party is in November..
What are you bringing food or drink?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
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.
Time to Borg-i-fy the SCO icon
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.
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
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....
Here's the referenced work:
So, again, unless they can be shown to also be the current copyright owner of the above, they're SOLAkamai 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?)
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.
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).
McDonald's is safe -- they don't put "meat" in their nuggets.
Sleep is for the Weak
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".
req@semiotek.com
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.
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.
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
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]
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
At home, I have the "Source Code CD" for "Open Linux 2.2" ... from Caldera... :-)
hmm.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
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?
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
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.
(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.
"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.
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
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
"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
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
...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,
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.
Yes the lack of copyright assignment will be a barrier, but not a huge one.
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
...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