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
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.
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.
They'll send nasty lawyergrams. And if you don't pay up, they'll send some more!
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
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
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.
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
No you mis-read. They're offering a license for the binary, not the binary. If they do, in fact, offer the binary itself, then they are violating the GPL by now also distributing source.
;-)
If, on the other hand they say, "your existing license is invalid, here have another." Then they are in the right. They cannot license the GPLed pieces, but that's fine. You can demonstrate that you received those pieces under the GPL.
It's an ugly use of the GPL, and companies like Red Hat will be 100% screwed by this.
That's ok, though, because the current odds on SCO winning this case are somewhere around the odds of the Red Sox winning the Superbowl right after the Triple Crown
Repeat after me: You can't distribute Linux for 2 months under the GPL *after* claiming it contains your code, and *then* remove it from distribution. It's out there. It's GPLed. They're done. All they have left is a contractual dispute with IBM that affects no one by IBM and SCO.
Oh, and by the way IBM is likely to win that one too.
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
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).
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.
No - SCO isn't packaging and selling the kernel. SCO is selling a license allowing users to USE a (precompiled binary) Linux kernel, which (according to SCO) contains SCO's proprietary code.
Distributing said kernel (by anyone including ftp.kernel.org) is apparently illegal if SCO's copyright claims are correct (which they aren't). SCO cannot sell a license allowing the Linux kernel to be distributed unless said license was compatible with the GPL (which it wouldn't be).
If SCO's copyright claims are correct, it is illegal for anyone except the copyright holders (all of them, including SCO, together as a group) to distribute copies of the Linux kernel - copyright law prohibits this (just like it prohibits distribution of copies of Windows XP by anyone other than Microsoft), and the GPL would be void (because SCO's part of the code isn't licensed by the copyright holder under a GPL-compatible license).
IANAL; somebody correct me.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I sent SCO my name/address/phone number and informed them that they are welcome to come and try to collect. I live in Texas. We pack iron.
We don't play bullshit.
We don't need no steenking licenses!
Begone McBride, you annoy us, lest we dispatch 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
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! --------
Why can't someone who got the extortion letter subpoena SCO to identify the infringing code?
Understatement of the year: "We're not exactly winning the Miss Congeniality contest"
What's funny is, McBride actually saved us the trouble and compared SCO to the MPAA and the RIAA for us. The difference is, the RIAA didn't give any MP3's away. McBride's argument is crap. U.S. copyright law may prevent a copyright holder from accidentally giving up their rights, but there's no excuse for violating the GPL when all of the code is right there.
And if that wasn't a total line of bullshit, how bout when McBride said "We don't wanna sue anybody"? For somebody who doesn't wanna sue anybody, they sure have an awful lot of lawyers going to work for them...
Line of bullshit #3: "The pull of linux is not the operating system, it's the ability to run unix on cheap intel hardware" Having worked on SCO machines and having worked on linux machines, I had to swallow my teeth when he dropped this one.
I wonder if McBride would do an Ask Slashdot interview? Lemme get my question in now:
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
"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
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!
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
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..."
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
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.
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).
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
However, don't, don't, don't send me your names if you want to sue SCO, please. The email address I have posted at Slashdot is /dev/null, and I am presently (but hopefully not for too much longer) working for a giant law firm where I can't just decide to take a case if I want to. But if I were not under that limitation, I would be very interested in talking with anyone who became the target of a cease-and-desist letter from SCO. I'm sure there are others with similar interests who are not under the same professional constraints, and I suggest that anyone who gets a SCO Linux nastygram consider contacting www.chillingeffects.org and posting the letter there, whereupon students and professors at various law schools may offer free commentary and legal advice. It's my understanding that some victims of improper copyright abuse have obtained lawyers as a result of posting on chillingeffects (although I don't think the site actually offers representation).
I want to correct (or I guess just put a different gloss on) one statement that has been made in the discussion. The GPL's comments regarding standing to sue are probably the law in most jurisdictions. However, in California where I am licensed, there is a statute known as Section 17200 that gives its citizens broad standing to sue for unfair business practices on behalf of the public interest. Although the remedies would be limited to disgorgement of profits (paying back anyone who paid for a SCO Linux license) and injunctive relief (an order that SCO stop asking people to pay for licenses, claiming they own Linux, distributing binary-only, etc.), the interest of the open source community in continuing its free development and use of Linux seems in my view to be exactly the type of public interest this (oft-misused) statute was designed to protect. Moreover, attorney fees can be awarded under 17200, so I feel certain that if the news is well-disseminated, some lawyer not currently wearing the golden handcuffs (as I am) will take up the banner.
No, no, no. This is not a sig.
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.
On thier site, the timestamp on the SRPM file was 5/9/03 17:51:00
Ammusingly enough, the first entry in the changelog is:Also from the spec file. Heh, fixing an IBM RAID driver... oh, their prophetic souls.
Inside the SRPM, I do not see anything that could indicate that SCO does not wish to distribute this code under the terms of the GPL. As such, I believe that I am now the owner of a SCO-issued license to use, distribute and modify Linux source code as of version 2.4.13 (the entire tar-file for that version is contained in SRPM as a discrete and separarable file which also contains a copy of the GPL).
If you area a lawyer, and you read this, please speak up. I would like to know what my rights are here and to what extent I can re-distribute and modify this work in accordance with its stated license.
SCO is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They continue to support thier Linux customers with distributions of source code licensed under the GPL while saying that no one but they have the right to do so (staunchly ignoring the terms of their own licensing of the Linux soruce code). My head is spinning. Clearly there is a deck involved here, and it's not quite full. Is it mine?