Slashdot Mirror
How SCO Helped Linux Go Enterprise
An anonymous reader submits: "SCO may now have filed for UNIX copyrights and made various allegations about code-copying, but the actual complaint against IBM still seems to be focused around allegations UNIX-based enterprise technologies (such as RCU, JFS and SMP) being improperly added to Linux. Yet, reviewing the Linux kernel archives reveals some interesting and surprising background on just who helped put these technologies into Linux. PJ's GROKLAW blog has uncovered that 'Caldera Employee Was Key Linux Kernel Contributor,' including what looks like
a lot of work on the early stages of JFS.
The same employee's name also crops up when we look at RCU. When
IBM posts RCU improvements, did he complain? No, he requests further improvements even helpfully providing a link to inspire the IBMer!"
"Lastly, definitely worth reading, Alan Cox on Linux SMP. He says that got he ideas from a book (which presumably can't be somebody's trade secret), invented his own implementation, and did this using hardware provided by Caldera (SCO themselves do acknowledge providing hardware to the Linux SMP team)." The article points out of Christof Hellwig (the Caldera-employed kernel contributor) that "He's likely a great guy, and he's undoubtedly been a trusted Linux contributor, so this is nothing against him. It's about SCO and their position in the lawsuit, and it's about IBM's affirmative defenses."
It's trying to help itself from Enterprises that went Linux.
Big difference.
-
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
For better or worse, this battle is based as much on the court of public opinion as anything else. The repeated accusations, the repeated lies on SCO's part, will do their damage, even though all of it may well prove to be baseless.
As Deep Throat (of Watergate fame) said: "Follow the money."
Soli Deo Gloria
There's a category for "The Courts". It's not a section though, they would still have to pick a section like "Developers" or "News". Of course, the whole section/topic thing is pretty screwed up anyway.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
SCO are Caldera. They changed their name.
Can't we just change YRO to "Legal Shit" and post all these stories under that? I could filter it a lot easier then.
/. is part of the SCO FUD machine. What else can explain non-story after non-story about SCO?
I suggest SCO gossip or SCOssip. It even appears
All the points mentioned in this article have been thrashed thread-bare at Slashdot. And yet, when McBride sneezes, it makes headlines at Slashdot.
-
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
On alt.os.development, we've been discussing this somewhat humorously. It will eventually not be a problem. Linux will be able to simply rewrite its SMP handling (and other things that have allegedly been taken from SCO). In fact, at the OS level, working with 32 processors is no different from working with 2 (which Linux could already do before the alleged copyright infringement). However, handling 32 processors very well is a completely different story.
In any case, this is a big inconvenience for many people using Linux in their companies. I have to stop development on one of my projects because I don't want to pay SCO any money to use Linux. And why should I? Linux is supposed to be free. (All the more reason to use BSD, which I like more than Linux, but anyway...)
SCO is screaming to be bought out by IBM, even though they say in a press release that this is highly unlikely. It seems obvious to me, in any case -- SCO's not had a very successful product in a very long time.
Here's hoping that the case goes to a court where there are people who know what they're talking about are presiding on the jury.
And somebody please fill me in, but is the SCO hotshot lawyer who lost the Gore case against Florida and worked against Microsoft such a hotshot? It seems to me that he's more of a loser.
My 2 cents.
Kind regards, Devon H. O'Dell
> SCO may now have filed for UNIX copyrights and made various allegations about code-copying, but the actual complaint against IBM still seems to be focused around allegations UNIX-based enterprise technologies (such as RCU, JFS and SMP) being improperly added to Linux.
Yeah, but the actual complaint doesn't have any FUD value, and certainly isn't going to raise share prices enough to finance a set of golden parachutes, so you can expect to keep hear them harping on all that other stuff.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
What thing I've learned from all this malarky surrounding SCO, and I'm by no means an expert, is that to find reason and logic behind it is pointless. Many people have tried to analyse and investigate SCO's claims, most have failed. Even watching the cnet interview, McBride comes over as a babbling idiot; no one is convinced.
In the end however, it all boils down to this: SCO cannot really do anything. Okay, they paint a nice picture, blag a good story, but nothing -nothing- stands up to the evidence. Sure they could sue over copyright, patents (or what ever they've decided upon that day); but, linux is an international collaboration, and although it may have hit a hitch in the USA, it hasn't anywhere else. Linux will continue to move from strength to strength, SCO will die.
Steve.
I don't understand how a small company can be this inconsistent.
Also, with regard to their recent announcement of a "binary run-time license":
How can _anyone_ distribute linux? If it contains code that requires a license from SCO, then it can't be licensed under the GPL (see clause 7 of the GPL).
Therefore no-one can distribute it, not even SCO, since they don't own all the copyright. Is this what SCO intend? Just to get rid of ~12 years of work?
It even appears /. is part of the SCO FUD machine.
What else can explain non-story after non-story about SCO?
oh wait!! I'm sure GNAA is part of the SCO FUD machine too!
What else can explain pityful trolls after pityful trolls about GNAA then ?
here's some actual donations from the SCO folks as well. http://www.caldera.com/developers/community/contri b/
is this the code??
so i was out walking the dog and this spaceship came down and a grey being came out of the spaceship and talked to my dog afterwards my dog told me that the aliens had provided him with the key to the meaning of the universe and that it was encoded in the source code to unix so i bought sco because they own unix and i started looking for the answer to the meaning of the universe and i saw some code that looked like the answer and my dog was pretty excited but it turned out to be linux code and my dog was angry because he wanted the meaning of the universe and linux had it instead so he told me to sue linux but i couldn't so i sued ibm and now ibm and my dog are angry at me and the aliens are laughing at me and linux has the answer to the meaning of the universe and my head hurts but i wont take the pills oh no because the pills let the doctors read my thoughts and they want to steal the answer to the meaning of the universe and my dog would be angry so i hide the pills and pretend i took them and my head hurts
darl mcbride
How long do we have to wait for the total excommunication of SCO from the tech industry?
IBM, HP, Dell and friends could easily drop support for SCO Unix on their hardware, all OSS should refuse to compile on SCO unix (print an URL to a website explaining why). A lot could be done by adjusting autoconf or whatever.
Their representatives would not be allowed to enter premises of any company, their IP packages would be silently scrapped by routers on the internet.
Darl and Sontag would be kicked out of their yacht clubs.
Essentially, they would be told that everybody hates them. Money matters, but let's not underestimate industry recognition.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
... see NYT and c|net
WinNT 4.0 end of support date is June 30 2003 according to microsoft.com. This SCO thing couldn't just be a load of FUD to make people migrate NT4.0 to Win2K instead of Linux could it?
The whole SCO business just seems unbelievable. Maybe I've missed something somewhere but the basic story seems to be:
1. SCO helps out Linux development in a few small ways -- some hardware here, a few lines of code there
2. SCO turns around and says it owns the other 99% of Linux it had nothing to do with because of the 1% that it did
3. SCO is now trying to extort licensing fees from end users because it "owns" Linux
4. This is somewhat akin to Bob's Auto Parts Factory saying that, because the wholesaler from which my mechanic purchased a very small part he used in repairing my car part didn't pay them for the part, I now must pay Bob rent on my car -- and furthermore, they won't tell either my mechanic or me which part it was, because it's a "trade secret". Hell, they won't even tell my mechanic which wholesaler he supposedly bought the part from!
Am I wrong? Did I miss something somewhere? Please feel free to correct me if I have.
-----
(*I Am Not A Kernel Developer)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I can't be the only one frustrated that there isn't an effective way I can fight back at SCO at the moment.
Could there be grounds for a class action suit here? There are lots of developers that make their living in some way from linux. SCOs actions could well be a genuine threat to their livelihoods.
SCO is basically using the legal system as a weapon. Perhaps we used be using it back on them? I propose a campaign whereby:
1) Everyone that SCO thinks should pay for Linux should instead be encoraged to donate a sum to a legal fund.
2) Developers who work with Linux should find a lawer who would be willing to represent them in a class action against SCO.
Just an idea.
Ingo, Linus: Any chance to see that in 2.5 soon?
Christoph
Now we just need to get rid of SCO and make Unix even simpler.
I'm sure GNAA is part of the SCO FUD machine too!
You read them?? Set your threshold to 2, and GNAA won't harm you. OTOH, how do I avoid the SCO FUD?
-
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Well as it seems a lot of enterprises are all for closed source if the support is there, I guess SCO got a wide market. In the end, in at least 60% of the cases, it's the amount of specialized on site availiable support that determines what solution any big company chooses.
And if this was the way to enterprise with sco, fine =).
Oh, this is wonderful.
It became apparent in yesterday's new that SCO was going after the Sequent SMP code that IBM donated to Linux.
Why the Sequent code? I'm guessing that Boies finally realized that the IBM sideletter gave IBM all rights to its own derivative work, which would burst most of SCO's claims. But the Sequent code would not have been protected from ATT's derivative works clause since Sequent didn't appear to have a side agreement like IBM's.
Of course, if Caldera/SCO had a programmer actually working on the code, as this article suggests, then Caldera/SCO is an equal partner in donating and modifying the SMP code for Linux.
Forget about whether they donated the code through "inadvertently" GPL'ing it. This proves they donated the SMP code knowingly, and even helped modify it for use with Linux. That's a much stronger case than relying on any of GPL's so-called viral qualities.
IBM's quiet. Too quiet.
There has been nothing of substance to this lawsuit from the beginning. If there actually is any matters of substance, SCO has carefully and maliciously opti mized its strategy to cause the greatest harm and distress to people that were seeking to perform a public service.
That Caldera/SCO should be responsible for the complaints of the suit should come as no surprise. Mr. McBride has a history of manipulating the legal system, and The Canopy groups previous history has certainly involved legal manipulation as a profit center.
At this point its not enough that SCO lose the lawsuit. SCO needs to be completely destroyed, and at the very least McBride need to be held personally accountable. Its the only way to discourage future land grabs by avaricious jackasses.
If SCO MCBRIDE et al, aren't put down soundly it may very well stall or destroy Open source development permanently.
Look at Rambus, SCO's strategy is no different. now can you imagine if a company with clear intelectual rights to a technology, an algorythm, or a "business method" arranges to have it placed in the kernel, or Glibc, or X. If they wait a few years removing the code might still be possible but the collateral damage from dependant programs breaking might be insurmountable.
If we enter a regime where all OSS submission have to be checked against unpublished undistributed works OSS will be dead.
If one of SCO's employee's (and by that I mean a company owned by SCO) is giving this technology away just how much do they value it? It's a good case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. "No one's buying our Unix software anymore, WAIT let's change our business model to SUE other companies for stealing our stuff...." (Meanwhile someone on the inside is GIVING it away willingly)
And yet, when McBride sneezes, it makes headlines at Slashdot.
I dunno. When it was officially revealed that Sun is the secret licensee, it was not covered at all (which IMO would have been in order).
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
Caldera Employee Was Key Linux Kernel Contributor
Christoph Hellwig has been, according to this web page, "in the top-ten list of commits to both the Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.5 tree". The page also mentions another fascinating piece of news, that he worked for Caldera for at least part of the time he was making those kernel contributions:
"After a number of smaller network administration and programming contracts he worked for Caldera's German development subsidiary on various kernel and userlevel aspects of the OpenLinux distribution."
In 2002, he offered a paper on "Linux-ABI: Support for Non-native Applications" which is described like this:
"The Linux-ABI project is a modification to the Linux 2.4 kernel that allows Linux to support binaries compiled for non-Linux operating systems such as SCO OpenServer or Sun Solaris."
Back in 2002, he was described, in connection with his appearance at the Ottawa 2002 Linux Symposium, like this:
"Christoph Hellwig
"Reverse engineering an advanced filesystem
"Christoph Hellwig is employed by Caldera, working on the Linux-ABI binary emulation modules. In his spare time he cares for other parts of the kernel, often involving filesystem-related activities."
So, in short, he was contributing to the kernel and working for Caldera on Linux/UNIX integration at the same time. His work for Caldera was on the Linux kernel ("he worked for Caldera's German development subsidiary on various kernel and userlevel aspects of the OpenLinux distribution"), and he also did work on his own on the kernel. Did Caldera know about his freelance contributions, in addition to knowing about his work for them? What do you think? He used his hch at caldera.de email address when doing it. All contributions to the kernel are publicly available anyway. They certainly could have known. As for his job, his signature on his emails back in 2001 was:
"Christoph Hellwig
Kernel Engineer Unix/Linux Integration
Caldera Deutschland GmbH".
He used the email address hch at bsdonline.org sometimes too, and here you can see some of his Linux-abi contributions. Here are some of his contributions to JFS, Journaled File System. Yes, that JFS. Here he is credited as sysvfs maintainer, and he confirms it in this email, writing, "I've run native sysvfs tools under linux, but as now that I'm Linux sysvfs maintainer I'm looking into implementing free versions of it."
Here is a list of the operating systems that use or can handle the file system sysvfs:
"sysvfs: UNIX System V; SCO, Xenix, Coherent e21
"operating systems that can handle sysvfs: FreeBSD (rw), LINUX (R), SCO (NRWF)"
Here's a page listing by author (alphabetically by first name), with his emails to linux-kernel in June 2003, so he is still contributing.
Here he is listed on the Change log for patch v2.4.17. Here he tells Andrew Morton in 2002 that he will
Complexity is a measure of our ignorance...
Money for nothing, pix for free
our old enemy SCO.
No, SCO is not our old enemy. SCO is our new enemy. Don't know who qualifies for the old enemy title. Perhaps M$ or RIAA?
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Has anyone found an article on the SCO debacle where an interviewer has point-blank asked McBride (or whoever) why SCO has been (and continues) to offer their Linux distro with full source under the GPL on their own FTP site?
You know and I know that it's there and available for the downloading, but have any of the "journalists" brought this (and its implications) to SCO's attention in an interview?
I'd *love* to hear SCO's answer to that one!
Microsoft has copied some of my code, and put it in Windows. Every Windows user must pay me a $700 licensing fee or I will sue them.
What? I'm sorry, I can't show you the code -- it's a trade secret. Just trust me and sign that check.
--Insert catchy
For what it's worth, this is not a large project for any large company. But I'd rather play it safe now. Getting one of those stupid SCO letters isn't on my agenda, considering that I'd have to go to court and I don't, at the time, live in America.
I imagine other people who are providing commercial Linux solutions are holding back a little bit until this gets resolved. I can imagine that a company whining so much at this point will only whine ore if they do win the case and find people who didn't stop before they did. Their receiving ownership the copyrights on that code doesn't help much either, since my project makes use of SMP and JFS.
Until things are cleared up, I think I'd rather be safe than sorry.
Kind regards, Devon H. O'Dell
http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_rhletter2.html
From the article:"Below, we've provided answers to questions that may help clarify Red Hat's position. If you have additional questions that aren't answered below, please email us at legal@redhat.com."
Then surely SCO's actions pertain to your right to do so.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Everybody complains about SCO, but nobody actually does anything.
Say what you may, it seem like SCO is leading this game. They claims may be complete bull$%* but nobody is really facing them.
First of all, there is IBM. Remember the way Intel responded when DEC sued them over patent infrigement? They responded quickly by sueing DEC. I would expect IBM to do the same. The fact IBM is so quiest about it is very irritating.
However, it's not just about IBM anymore. It is about the open-source/free(as in speech)-software world in general, and SCO is already making real damage. I think it's time the free-software world would stop being passive here and take the lead from the hands of SCO both by taking legal actions against them and by doing some real protest.
Why do you have to stop? There is no law saying you have to pay SCO anything to use Linux. Seems to me you've fallen into the FUD trap.
Seriously, I can't beleive this got modded +5 Insightful. This story does indeed have a bearing to "Your Rights Online", if you use or distribute Linux in any way shape or form.
And please, if you're not interested in the story, do not respond to it!
*rolls eyes at the idioacy*
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Read about The Trillian project and Ransom Love's LW 2000 Keynote speech.
... somebody is gonna throw a hissy fit when the sun rises over Utah.
Whoa, did someone lose their karma bonus or something? Someone on here has a sig: "Arguing with the moderators is like shouting at god, he's probably not listening, and if he is, he's angry". I wouldn't worry about it.
Why not fork?
You're not reffering to this article titled "SCO's Other Investor: Sun Microsystems" now are you?
SCO Trademarks Penguin Mascot, Offers Licensing Program to Linux Users
There's more, but I didn't want to post the whole thing.
http://www.linux-sxs.org/pipermail/linux-users/200 3-June/017827.html
;)
He worked for SCO, and now works at Veritas. Tigran even wrote books on kernel internals, and worked on both SMP and inode code, two areas that are also the subject of SCO's mudslinging.
Given that both SCO and Caldera worked on Linux, accusing IBM of adding the code is LAUGHABLE. Personally, I hope Tigran gets a lawyer, and someone takes a deposition from him on SCO policies wrt IP, Linux Kernel work, the methods used to prevent 'contamination', etc.
Pretty much ANY former workers of SCO who worked on the kernel should start retaining lawyers now. Tis would be a noble thing if IBM helped them out for testimony in the case...
When I read this article, the ad banner at the top of the page was for Windows Server 2003.
The tag line read "do more with less".
I am glad that Microsoft is finally admitting that Windows is "less".
IBM
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
SCO is fucked up - on the original complaint against IBM they got the state IBM is incorporated in wrong.
Real lawyers don't make that mistake!!!!
In other words no real lawyer would take the case. My guess is that SCO's remunerations of Boies uses the $10 million they got from M$ - when that's gone, so will Boies.
Unless there are enough morons dumb enough to send SCO $$$ because they sent you a letter.
PS - what's your company address? I'm thinking of sending them some official-sounding legalese demanding they send me money. Seems as it they'd go for it...
I am logged in. I am also involved very closely with a large Open Source project which is not Linux, but is dependent on Linux code and depending on the outcome of the SCO case, could impact our ability to distribute that code. So thanks, I understand perfectly well exactly how the SCO lawsuit could impact My Rights, and I have far more to be concerned about than you do.
It is not, however, Your Rights Online. YRO is supposed to refer to laws which impact the internet (You know, the Online bit). SCO suing IBM is nothing to do with the Internet and is therfore nothing to do with Your Rights Online.
Until the case comes to court and the judge rules, there is fuck all we can do about it. Posting a story to Slashdot every time Darl McBride clears his throat isn't going to change that, so why do it? The bottom line is that SCO are unlikely to win this case anyway, and most of these SCO stories (This one included) are non-stories. I'd rather Slashdot posted some real Geek stories, instead of this pontificating circle jerking about SCO and "Your Rights Only Tangebly Connected To Being Online"
You must be making a lot from all this hot air, so thank Slashdot and stop trolling under anonymity.
There is no reason Linux users and developers should worry about having to pay one penny to SCO. Consider that after years of battling Sears in court, the patent holder for the adjustable wrench got a huge settlement from Sears for the theft of his patented invention, but the many owners of Sears Craftsman wrenches never had to pay him royalties. Even though many of the owners of wrenches may have been businesses that used the wrenches to make their own products. Sort of the way you are using Linux to develop a project.
Think about how Paramount had to pay the copyright holder, Art Buchwald, for the copyrighted material they took and put in the Eddy Murphy movie 'Coming to America', but movie goers didn't have to each send Mr. Buchwald a check. None of the theater companies that made money showing the film paid Mr. Buchwald, even though they 'trafficked' in tainted goods!
Now, before they even prove they own it. Before they even show anyone what they own. The SCO group want Linux users to pay up front. This is totally unprecedented.
Overturning years of precedent and setting a new example like SCO wants to do would have a chilling effect on the software industry in America. The software giants in the industry will not let this become standard operating procedure.
IBM is very good at the IP law end of the software business. I am sure they did 'due diligence', and made sure the code they put in Linux was their code and not stolen. I think it is highly unlikely that the SCO group will be able to prove otherwise, especially because SysV UNIX is so tainted with other open source code.
But even if SCO wins a settlement from IBM, just like Sears and Paramount, the users of the 'tainted' product will not have to pay a single penny.
It is easy for us geeks to poke holes in SCO's arguments about code origin. Don't any of these Wall street analysts have enough business sense, and experience in past cases to call SCO's bluff?
I now that all these costs eventually get passed down to the consumer level, so software users will pay for the extra legal work needed in the future to develop software. But this just adds to the cost of developing software within the USA. SCO is bad for the economy. Free market oriented software development like Linux and Apache are much better for helping to create a robust competitive economy.
Support freedom of choice.
Support free enterprise.
Support free software.
That's it, the case will be thrown out of court !
The Man
I also found that SCO donated Unixware and System V code to IBM's AIX 5L project. This was the successor to Project Monterey. See evidence on this page. The SCO page has disappeared from their site, but I was able to retrieve it elsewhere.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
I'm right behind you! Get going!
...and please file all SCO/Caldera topics under "Caldera." So far I've seen SCO topics crawl up in under Linux in The Business, YRO, Announce, etc. For those who tire of the SCO drama and actually want the "news" that matters, let us filter the garbage.
...from their own FTP site (haven't checked in a couple of weeks but it was their very late June).
I see all these people talking about how 2.4 is what SCO is complaining about.
What about 2.5 or 2.6? Have these bits of code been re-engineered out, or are they also "infringing"?
The previous sig has been removed due to
From what I heard in the cnet interview McBride essentially declared the GPL is not enforceable since SCO did not "sign" rights away according to copyright law.
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
"Christoph Hellwig
"Reverse engineering an advanced filesystem
"Christoph Hellwig is employed by Caldera, working on the Linux-ABI binary emulation modules. In his spare time he cares for other parts of the kernel, often involving filesystem-related activities."
So, in short, he was contributing to the kernel and working for Caldera on Linux/UNIX integration at the same time. His work for Caldera was on the Linux kernel ("he worked for Caldera's German development subsidiary on various kernel and userlevel aspects of the OpenLinux distribution"), and he also did work on his own on the kernel. Did Caldera know about his freelance contributions, in addition to knowing about his work for them? What do you think? He used his hch at caldera.de email address when doing it. All contributions to the kernel are publicly available anyway. They certainly could have known. As for his job, his signature on his emails back in 2001 was:
Just because Christoph worked for Caldera doesn't mean any work he did on the kernel for adding JFS was supported by Caldera. It clearly states that he did that (JFS) work in his spare time. (not on Caldera's dollar) The work he did on Caldera's dollar was on Linux-ABI not RCU, SMP, or JFS.
Personally, I hope SCO dies a rotten nasty death, but I don't see how this information hurts SCO position unless you can directly relate Christoph's work to a SCO directive.
It is odd to see a company who is to pursue correction of IP infringements, demanding end users to obtain license in order to become immune from potential litigation, that the company will bring up otherwise. If you have common sense, you may wonder that the distributors of the product in alleged IP violation (RH, SuSE, and SCO itself) are the ones to be tried before end users. Even RIAA tried Napster, the distribution means of legal and personal files, before it began to pursue endusers in violation.
Moreover, legitimacy of SCO's claim is yet to be proven by the court. McB claims that Linux is covered with a big cloud, but SCO is the one that keeps producing thick yellow smoke to keep the truth unrevealed. It is such an irony that SCO.com's current tag line reads: "relax: Worry Free Software." They are now officially and shamelessly using FUD for their marketing. How could one "relax" in using products of the company who extorts end users for their own profit?
Approaching endusers before correcting distributors' violation suggests that 1. SCO knows it doesn't have a strong case to stand, and 2. It is more profitable for SCO to keep the truth in the mist and play games with big corporations heavily relying on Linux. In news.com.com.com's interview, McB states that Linus can take alleged SCO source out of Linux kernel to be "clean" --which he claims is impossible without losing enterprise capability-- OR SCO should be compensated for the loss. Having given Linus skewed options (w/NDA) to examine the alleged code, McB and Boies' intention is clear: SCO does not want Linux to be fixed. SCO et al wants the state of infringing code to remain unclear and the future of Linux to be uncertain, and wants current Linux users to continue using Linux so that SCO can charge license fees.
SCO is no longer in Tech business. They sell worthless paper titled "EULA" now.
If a famous artist stole your work, would you send letters to endusers and ask them to buy your book so that you won't be prosecuted for copyright infringement? I don't think so. But SCO does.
Sorry, but why on earth would you pay for something you DON'T EVEN KNOW IS SCO's? Until they prove, in a court of law, that it's their IP (and at this point everybody doubts that will happen - if it were true, they'd have already shown something, anything), you are free to use it as you see fit. It's not SCO's to sell. Period.
You're also implying that SCO received ownership to Linux copyright (your wording is ambiguous). Please. All you're doing here is perpetuating FUD.
Wise up.
Time tables are very important here because if Caldera was not purchased by SCO when the donation happend then it coul be a real mess for the court to figure out. If Caldera did not have the same IP rights as SCO then they were contributing derrivitive works contolled under the original ATT licensing. If SCO was not aware of this when they bought Caldera or if SCO had purchased Caldera but were unaware that an employee of Caldera was violating SCO's IP then they are still free to seek remedy for the IP violations. This assumes Caldera tried to donate code to Linux which they did not own the IP or copyright to. This is all specutlation though (IANAL). The case does have some merrits in my opinion and I think will be a good test of the GPL if IBM decides to argue that point in court.
The truth suffers more from convictions than from lies.
*Rolls his eyes at the idiocy of spelling idiocy as idioacy*
So I'm hearing a lot about this case, all kinds of maneuvering and yelling and screaming. When does it finally go to court? When do we see who's got what it takes?
Unfortunatly, how?
We theoretically could claim class action law suit. Who's going to pony up the legal fees to pay the lawyers? You?
Besides, it's likely that no court would even see the case because the SCO vs. IBM case hasn't come to fruition. And *IF* SCO wins, there's no class action case at all. All their actions to 'harm' us would be perfectly in their rights.
It's frustrating, but until this thing is seen by a judge, nothing can happen.
How else can we 'take the lead' from SCO?
Zapman
How does a Caldera employee contributing to Linux have anything to do with your rights?
SCO's been covered endlessly at Slashdot. This is getting old.
"Sufferin' succotash."
What implication does this have on your civil rights, or your human rights? None whatsoever.
Hey! Christoph is a good guy, he worked for Caldera BEFORE they bought SCO and changed their name. He is a technical guy, and this suit was initiated by admins.
Here is how IBM could stop SCO from spreading all this FUD: offer anti-SCO legal liability insurance to linunx users, for some amount much less than SCO is attempting to extort. Say, 20 cents a copy. This would send a powerful signal to the market that SCO is unlikely to prevail.
This wouldn't cost IBM much, since they are footing the legal bill anyway. Any it would deprive SCO of the revenue stream which they would probably use to further the suit.
Currently the trial date is set for 2005. We don't want the FUD to continue that long.
Most of SCOs allegations have to do with 2.4 and SMP.
What does this have to do with the small group of boxen I oversee, all on 2.4, none SMP?
Remember that even if these were SMP boxes, you can't run them that way without building/booting an SMP kernel.
Remember that SCO is talking about a *binary* license.
So it would seem to IANAL me that the vast bulk of Linux systems are completely unaffected, even if SCO happened to be right.
Besides, with or without SMP, a binary-only license for Linux is utterly worthless for truly serious usage. Provided binary kernels are OK for casual usage on garden-variety hardware, but for serious usage, or serious hardware, you just about have to recompile.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
If he's not doing it for Caldera/SCO, why is he posting from a caldera.de email address and identifying himself as a Caldera employee?
Why does his job title basically describe him as a Caldera employee working on Linux?
Even if Caldera were to say he were doing it freelance:
(1) why do they allow him to use company resource (like email) to do it?
(2) doesn't the fact he is using caldera.de etc., make him a representative of the company?
and (3) even if you think the answer to 2 is no, isn't it completely reasonable for others (like Linus, IBM, etc) to assume he is doing with authorization of his employer given his email address, job title, etc.
With enough public statements like the following, I think SCO could not hope to collect a dime from Linux users. Dear Linux user: SCO has claimed that the source code which they distributed and improved as part of Linux 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 Linux under 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 if 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.
Yes, I will pay the legal fees for such class action. Not the whole sum of course, but some of it.
Just like I've sent money to EFF in the past, I'll be happy to contribute any organization that issue class action against SCO.
Is there a case for such action? I believe we may have a case. IANAL, but it seems to me like SCO's latest move changes their position. Till now, it was between IBM and SCO, but once SCO is trying to extort "protection fee" from Linux users, its time to ask for preliminary injunction against SCO.
I don't think we could afford to wait for SCO vs. IBM case to come to fruition. SCO is deliberately stalling the process. They know they can only benefit from the uncertainty - and it's time to take some action that would counter some of that uncertainty now.
The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
I want to be alone with the sandwich
"Darl, this is Bubba. Bubba, this is Darl McBride, your new bit^H^H^H, cellmate."
.sig
- it is unfortunate that Linux is involved in SCO's machinations, but the company's behavior only serves to highlight the problems with the U.S. patent system (there are also problems with the copyright system as well)... - i also look at SCO's behavior as a prime example of what to expect in the software industry as open source forces a paradigm shift towards commoditization of the operating system... the next resort will be embedded solutions (which, as we've seen, may also be manipulated)... - wait until the software monopoly (Microsoft) starts experiencing the market effects of free software... unless the company has been given direction to 'reinvent' itself within the next six years, Microsoft will start lashing out - and it will have a much bigger stick... i'd be willing to bet that Microsoft is closely monitoring SCO's efforts (and of course, feeding monies as a client in licensing 'transactions')...
Very interesting theory. Can someone provide a legally informed opinion? Is that a criminal offense or a tort?
Very interesting news.
That's not it exactly. While the company will go down in flames, the people who lead it there will bail with money made from their current scheme; which is to pump the stock by parading their dog'n'pony show in the largely ignorant and unquestioning news-media while selling off stock in batches off-stage. They won't be stuck with "huge legal fees", they'll be off to their next venture while posing for the cover of Fortune Magazine.
In the end there'll be a bunch of fucked dot-bomb-again'ers who bought stock high, and lots and lots of rich lawyers leaving the table well fed.
There can be no victory, no justice unless the now unquestioning media is forced to introspection and betterment, and McBride and his serfs is led off in handcuffs to get ass-raped in prison. Oh, did I say ass-raped? I meant "serve the community as the judicial branch sees fit"
What do you call a dead SCO-employee?
Belief is the currency of delusion.
And who are you to assume what *I* have on the line w/regards the SCO suit? I have plenty on the line - so fuck you, ignorant prick.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Well you can't setup software intentionally to not compile if you look at the open source definition it says that a free software (Open source) program can not be restricted in how it is used. Similarly the GPL says that an author can not restrict how a program is used if it under the GPL.
This is all true but project maintainers can still refuse to support renegade vendors. Also, the GPL doesn't rule out technical shenanigans. For instance, the build scripts for nmap try to detect SCO products and refuse to build binaries on them. Yes, a SCO user can remove those checks but his binary will be orphaned. Nobody will help him with any problems it has. The problem gets thornier. Say a SCO product needs some patches to the source to operate correctly, they won't be included by the maintainer. Since SCO is anathema now, there won't be enough community to maintain forks. Much of the value of Open Source comes from maintainer and community support. If that support is removed then running OS on renegade platforms will still be legal but hideously difficult.
Even if a maintainer doesn't go as far as nmap's author did, the build scripts can still inform SCO users that they are on their own until SCO starts behaving ethically.
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/updates/ SRPMS
s ource-2.4.19.SuSE-106.nosrc.rpm4 .19.SuSE-133.nosrc.rpm- 152.nosrc.rpm
s rc.rpm9 -246.src.rpm
c .rpm
r pmc .rpm
9 .src.rpm. 4.19-238.src.rpm
Kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm
Kernel-
Kernel-source-2.
Kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE
k_deflt-2.4.19-120.src.rpm
k_deflt-2.4.19-156.
k_deflt-2.4.19-207.src.rpm
k_deflt-2.4.1
k_deflt-2.4.19-274.src.rpm
k_psmp-2.4.19-115.src.rpm
k_psmp-2.4.19-152.sr
k_psmp-2.4.19-201.src.rpm
k_smp-2.4.19-113.src.rpm
k_smp-2.4.19-146.src.
k_smp-2.4.19-196.src.rpm
k_smp-2.4.19-233.sr
k_smp-2.4.19-257.src.rpm
k_athlon-2.4.19-111.src.rpm
k_athlon-2.4.19-14
k_athlon-2.4.19-200.src.rpm
k_athlon-2
Oh I see how it is! They can use the OSS stuff at leasure, but better not
have anyone outside of SCO using anything they claim is UNIX code base. So
in otherwords they benefit from all the free development and expect all those
that contributed (and most likely - before SCO, during Ransom Love days and
Caldera) to pay for their generous offer of their code (if in fact any of it
is there - that they won't let us see)!!!!
And rumor has it that they won't let anyone see their Unix code because they
are frantically porting anything useful that the OSS devs do to fold into their
products (aka UnixWare and associated code) - Can anyone comment on this?
Just more FUD but I'm really getting pissed off (like fantasies of knee
capping, etc.). And someone clear something else up... Wasn't the 2.4.19-xxx
series released after SCO started this shit???? If so then how the hell do
they justify the kernel as tainted while folding in the new "tainted"
developments/code into their products all the while screaming foul.
GAWD these guys have balls.. They need to be squashed slowly with much pain.
It seems to me that SCO's actions must be making
it more difficult for IBM to sell Linux to their
enterprise customers. They are very quiet. When
will IBM stand up and silence SCO? It would seem
that they could do something similar to what
the group did in Germany. They have copyrights from
their contributions. They have the money and the
legal department. I wish someone would stand up
and shut them up. If not IBM, then FSF or
Linus. SCO shouldn't be allowed to profit from
the work of all the Linux developers.
#include IANAL_disclaimer.h
The reason you haven't is because in the case of commercial/proprietary software, the manufacturer provides you protection with a clause in the license called indemnification.
This means the manufacturer takes responsibility for all litigation concerning copyright infringment, trade secret disclosure, etc. This is a blanket insurance policy that guarantees that you will never be involved in a lawsuit over the use of the software.
Linux has no such indemnification. Even IBM has not stated it will indemnify its customers (though this may change if SCO starts screwing with their Linux customers). Indemnification is not something to be taken lightly by a company. It places a very large responsibility on the company. Normally, providing this protection is a no-brainer as the company is both manufacturer and distributor and would be held liable in any case. For Linux, the major vendors are merely distributors. They provide no indemnification for their customers, which, in the aftermath of the SCO lawsuit, no matter what the outcome, will hurt Linux in the long run. After SCO, corporations using Linux will start to demand indemnification, and will hold suspect any company that refuses to provide it, since it will be seen as an unwillingness to stand behind the product.
Your examples of how people are not held responsible for copyright infringement with regards to published works are correct, but not apropos. Software is treated differently from other published works. Whether this is correct or not is another issue entirely, but it is still a fact.
This is my understanding of indemnification. Anyone who has more insight into it, please contribute and correct any mistakes I may have made.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
Don't forget that, more than likely, IBM knows what they're doing with this suit. I would doubt they have their head in the sand as to what implications this could have on the Linux community.
IBM's lawyers are not to be messed with, from what I understand. If they take this suit seriously, they know exactly how and when they plan to crush SCO.
Hey, you assumed it didn't impact me, I just returned the favour. I also never said it wasn't News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters. It is a minor story though, and it does not belong in Your Rights Online!
I've also managed to refain from ad hominen attacks. You might want to try it some time.
This would amount to admitting that SCO has a case at all, and would probably hurt their defense. On the other hand, there's nothing to stop someone else from offering this insurance. Well, maybe some legal wrangling, but it would just be FUD vs FUD.
Whoa - Kramer vs. Kramer flashback. Maybe SCO will get some extra cash from selling the movie rights.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
Anyone who uses Linux as part of a large or medium sized business has a simple option. Hire a lawyer, require SCO to disclose the parts of the code that are infected because it will cause 'irreparable harm' to projects currently under development. "I can't get cash to develop my app because SCO threatens my OS." The judge may agree, allowing all SCO code claims to be disclosed so you can avoid them. This will make it easy to strip the code from the kernal, and everywhere else. Thus the technology dispute becomes a fight over code which will be obsolete within a few months. Obsolete code is worthless, especially when the judge sees that the code was stripped in a month or 2, and wasn't really all that central. Then SCO is open to counter claims. "I was damaged by SCO, because I couldn't sell my worthless obsolete code I wrote 2 years ago, because they infringed Linux." They would be run out of town quickly if 100 lawsuits for $2 billion were set against them. Anyone know Colt, the makers of the Colt 45 handgun and the M-16. They stopped making civilian weapons based on this very tactic. Anyone can hire a cheap lawyer, file a motion, get into court. If 50 or 100 people do it in 30 different jurisdictions the institutional entropy becomes unbearable. Simply coordinating the lawsuits becomes confusing and time consuming with expensive lawyers doing the coordination (At $200 an hour with 100 laysuits it would roughly cost $5 million a month just to maintain the paperwork), unless they hire legions of lawyers they are doomed, if they hire legions of lawyers they are doomed to fees. And even if they win, simply have a proxy file another lawsuit, and drag them back into court in a separate jusridiciton with a separate judge, it could be a never ending nightmare for them.
Darl Bin Laden is showing his TRUE COLORS
I did no such thing, and my ad hominen was defensive, not offensive. Furthermore, your assumptions about me were phrased in an intentionally offensive manner, ie. ad hominem.
I've also managed to refain from ad hominen attacks. You might want to try it some time.
1. You haven't, 2. you might want to try skipping stories you have no interest in other than posting flaimbait to.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
He's talking retribution.
It may not be legally possible, but it would be sweet. It does not need to be a license thing, just a Microsoftian technical thing. Like a patch for firewall modules that silently drop any IP packet coming from or going to known SCO servers. A patch for web servers that silently refuses connections to or from SCO servers. A patch for all OSS software (Web Servers, Mail Servers, RDBMSs etc) that make them uncompilable/unusable under Unixware. Many possibilities. All obviously sitting in the open. One can go there an patch the patch. But who would do that short of SCO?
Microsoft is the big winner here. Not because some little IT shop is going to upgrade to Win2K instead of NT4.0.
The win for M$ will manifest itself in the form of some weenie company president reading the letter about how using Linux can get his company sued unless they pay up. He has his assistant tell the CIO that Linux is no longer allowed. Voila! More money for Bill.
The bigger win will come over the longer term as the M$ flacks can use this as yet another 'example' of how Open Source Is Bad For You(tm).
Of course this is IMHO...
Umm, FYI, the Linux-ABI interface is part of SCO's complaint against IBM. It was the interface designed for emulating Unix, in particular Unixware, to run Unixware binaries.
So, yes, it is work on code done at Caldera's directive that SCO claims to be infringing on its IP rights.
I don't know if it's true or not, or if they really have a solid legal case against SCO. IANAL. And I can't afford the legal fees to ask one. But wouldn't it be great if an organization we all trusted set up a fund to explore these issues and hopefully find some ammunition to use against SCO? So we could proactively end this bullshit instead of enduring eight years of FUD?
Wow, a lucrative publishing contract! I don't have to be evil anymore. --Meteor
There is no such thing as a defensive ad hominen. The very act of making an ad hominen is that it is offensive. So whatever, you lose.
If you consider "I have far more to be concerned about than you do" offensive then I would seriously consider cutting back on stimulants and consulting a Doctor, as you appear to be highly strung. I do consider the idea that my point is somehow less valid or "idiotic" because I am posting as an Anonymous Coward offensive. I didn't attack you for it though, did I?
Right, with that out of the way, my post was not Flamebait. It has not recieved a single Flamebait mod. In fact, it was at +5 Insightful before a mod with an axe to grind mod bombed it. I'm not the only one sick of these SCO non-stories filling up the front page and most importantly, pushing out geniunely interesting News for News.
Yes, Sun is a licensee of some drivers from SCO to include in Solaris/x86. That's all. And it has been that way since before McBride and company arrived.
.... move along ....
Nothing to see here
I was just wondering if this SCO fiasco has anything to do with Linus deciding to work full time on the kernel. Maybe Linus is thinking that he could re-write the areas that SCO are concerned about and make this whole sordid affair go away?
See here's the thing that gets interesting. There are two pieces of the Linux defense that could cause this thing to fall apart:
1) A judge could rule the viral implications of the GPL to be invalid. Certainly copyright gives them exclusive rights over things and they can license it under terms, it's a grey area that their license can compel you to change the license of your software.
2) The judge could rule that, though individuals at SCO contributed, that overall SCO is not liable for the actions of those individuals. Essentially this defense would be the "left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing" principle. That SCO never conciously chose to distribute their IP inside of Linux.
It still won't effect the state of Linux because the code, once revealed in court, can be eliminated if it is a violation.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
summary
You've noticed that Christoph Hellwig is not mentioned as a contributer on the SCO contributions to linux page, listed in the Caldara link above.
This would suggest that they don't regard his work as having been contributed by them.
Maybe he's under a gagging order, but presumably some of the senior kernel developers, with whom he's worked could ask/have asked whether he's been approached about this work by the suits.
Does this reduce the IBM Linux Novell etc saga to a breach of contract voluntary or involuntary by an employee?
Poor bloke.
In slashdot tomorrow
SCO sues employee for $1 trillion.
Moreover, SCO is testing the bounds and limits of the legal system by going after the end users. I have not seen any company idiotic enough to believe that the users of the software owe them money, for an unsubstantiated claim that, most likely, will not hold out in court. The users have done nothing wrong. If, in the unlikely case that there is a substantial amount of infringing code in the Linux kernel, the users were not aware of that when they first started using the OS, and therefore should be absolved from any blame, and the blame, as well as the indemity, goes squarely on the shoulders of those who planted the code there, whether it be IBM or some other firm/individual.
So, the end result is, if there is some wrongdoing on IBM's part, which is unlikely, SCO's beef is still with IBM, and the end users, who have no wrongdoing on their part, should be immune to any attack by SCO. Just think: if your friend stashed pot in your car and you had no idea that it was there, it would be your friend who recieves the blame if you two were ever busted.
Is a little company from Utah turning into the spoiler of the open-source software movement?
The SCO Group yesterday escalated its campaign to reap profits from corporate users of the Linux operating system, announcing that it wants companies to pay licensing fees. SCO is holding fast to its contention that Linux is "an unauthorized derivative of Unix," which it owns the code and copyright for. "SCO acknowledged it is seeking to bolster sagging sales by wringing revenue out of its rights to Unix, an older operating system from which Linux was derived," The Wall Street Journal reported.
It doesn't sound like the many credible journalists are taking this threat seriously. The same post article quotes quite a few other news sources (including /.) that have less than supportive opinions of SCO.
Before SCO started filing lawsuits and trying to impose fees for the use of Linux, Caldera was described as a parasite that took from Linux and never gave anything back. No amount of correction from me or anyone else seemed to sway you. In fact, all that I accomplished in this effort was shutting some folks up for a week or so, after which they'd jump right back in the ring, thrashing Caldera as brutally as ever.
Now that SCO's doing what it's doing, all of a sudden you people are SCOURING for Caldera contributions and are uncovering all kinds of interesting stuff. Gee, could it be that the stuff I've been saying here for years is true, that Caldera wasn't the parasite that you folks made them out to be??
Here's what really kills me: you folks may not have the power to kill a company, but I can't help but think that if Caldera got a bit more support from you people -- or even just a bit less of a thrashing -- the odds of SCO not being in the picture would have increased significantly. Ponder that for a moment. I'll wait...
Before you, RMS, whoever (you know who you are), pick out the next legitimate Linux company to make into a pariah, perhaps you'll do a similar amount of research and uncover the truth about the company first.
Microsoft knowingly underpaid TimeLine and took a risk on TimeLine rolling over for that. TimeLine didn't, and the end users are at risk. In real life, Microsoft are actually at risk for defrauding all of their MS-SQL developer community into buying a safely licenced product that wasn't, but no developer has the balls to sue them for that.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
and how they might win even if they *are* wrong...
x .h tml
http://www.forbes.com/2003/06/18/cz_dl_0618linu
IBM (and whoever is losing any money because of the SCO FUD), please consider donating to chillingeffects.org and get them to write up a nice Q&A on the case and a template response letter to SCO's letters.
IBM sales people being asked about SCO/Linux/AIX can then politely point companies to this Q&A. Something that will be clear for corporate counsels (for those that do not specialize in Copyright issues) and other legal advisors, plus a well prepared response letter could be pretty useful for assisting companies not caving in to SCO's extortion.
The fewer companies that cave in, the less money SCO will have to fuel this BS.
...AKA Mandrake Linux. (-:
BTW, does NT4 do IPv6?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
ad hominem - Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason
It is quite possible to resort to ad hominem defensively.
2. You implied that I have nothing on the line w/regards to Linux, ie. that I don't use Linux for anything but a hobby. Furthermore, you flat out said that you have more to be concerned about than me, ie. that whatever I'm doing is less important than what you are doing; assumptions like that are offensive. You don't walk around the street telling people to get out of your way because your business is more important than theirs.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Of course when caldera bought SCO, who didn't see the code going both ways? I'm sure the Linux Kernel Personality that was added into SCO doesn't contain any Linux code (yeah right).
Okay, I kinda expected this to happen. The question now is which files are tainted? Then who needs to recode them, SCO or Linux?
Since Caldera did not have source code control or a policy in place on this and THEY released the code (albiet unkowingly probably) doesn't it still falls under the GPL? Does SCO have any claim on any of the code?
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Wow... that page is quite telling is it not? Somebody mod this guy up please. The evidence sited on that page pretty much says it all. SCO themselves is to blame for what they are blaming IBM for. They even have Ransom Love's own Keynote speech recorded to prove it! Not to mention the dozens of links to postings made to various Linux development lists that clearly show SCO to be the driving force not IBM.
J
I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
(With the exception of course of the one contracts law claim they filed), they're not using the legal system as a weapon, they're using the media. Relax, this is almost never a good litigation strategy and is usually a sign of a weak litigation posture.
I may be wrong. But I thought SCO only owned the System 5 UNIX code and technology. And I'm pretty sure that SYS5 would only work on a uniprocessor machine, and never had a journaling file system.
Or am I completely missing that?
PG.. Law of probable dispersal: Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.
this i would contribute to FUNNY
A: "Better than the rest"
(taken from content here)
Legally Speaking
Eben Moglen, professor of law at Columbia University and general counsel to the Free Software Foundation (FSF), though says there is absolutely no reason for anyone to buy SCO's license. "Users don't need a license to use copyrighted programs anymore than they need to pay a copyright fee before reading Gone with the Wind. If you copy, distribute, or modify copyrighted material, then you can be in copyright violation."
But, he adds, if a distributor, such as Debian, were to agree to SCO's license, they would then be in violation of section 7 of the Gnu General Public License (GPL). This section specifies that if legal "conditions are imposed... that contradict the conditions of this License" you cannot distribute GPL protected free software.
"Even if SCO IP is in the Linux kernel, which has not been proved, an end-user could still not be held responsible for the copyright violation," Moglen argued.
Curiously, though, SCO is not, at this time, going after Linux distributors--nor did they suggest that they would be adding copyright infringement to their IBM lawsuit. Moglen thinks that "SCO is simply trying to scare people about using free software by making irresponsible comments." He notes that, until recently, SCO itself was distributing the code they now claim violated their own copyrights.
One reason why SCO may be hesitating about going after the Linux distributors, even though they would be the natural target for copyright violations since they've actively engaged in copying and distributing Linux source code may be because, SCO is still in the Linux distribution business.
And, speaking for himself (Moglen) and not the FSF, "I have renewed my offer to assist free software developers who may feel the need for legal assistance" because of SCO's recent actions.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
Keep in mind that the SCO suit against IBM is based on Trade-Secrets. SCO has a duty to protect it and once out it is, in the eyes of the court, no longer considered a trade-secret.
They may then have a case against the Christoph but the suit as it stands today is pretty much shot.
Help fight continental drift.
I am faced with the prospect of rewriting large parts of a codebase that have reused code from Linux, specifically in the areas which SCO have previously identified. I do not believe that many people are in this position, outside of Linux (Although who knows, maybe the Linux allocator, scheduler & SMP code is widly used?) I stand by my previous statement; I expect I do have more to worry about than you do.
I also do not walk around the streets calling people idiots and ignorant pricks. You have the definition of ad hominen. How nice, now how is that defensive? I do not believe "fuck you, you ignorent prick" is defensive. In fact, that is flat out offensive.
In essence, you said to me, "Shut up, my work is more important than yours!"
And I respond by saying, "Fuck you!"
Ie. Defensive ad hominem.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
SCO was introduced by Q to the Enterprise in the episode "Q Who?". Here's a line from that episode to jog people's memories
"SCO: Resistance is futile. Linux's distinctiveness will be added to the Unixware collective. Be prepared to be assimilated by the Unixware license."
Yeah but the line from First Contact is better:
Picard: - I will not sacrifice Linux, I have made to many comprimises already, to many retreats....they envade our space and we fall back, they assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. But not again, the line must be drawn here! This far, no further!...And I....will make them pay for what they've done.!
SCO right now is getting away with murder. Why do we keep falling back and letting them keep stomping over Linux with their FUD machine? We fought Microsoft stronger and their FUD was mild compared to what SCO is dishing out.
Elaborating from some posts back, this whole SCO nonsense occurs around the same time as the end of support for NT4. Now since Microsoft is trying to fight a battle with the Linux community, could this possibly be an attack by Microsoft (followed through by SCO of course)? The logic behind this is that Microsoft can't fight Linux, unless they somehow attack some core issues (mainly attempt to make Linux illegal). There were also Microsoft connections to SCO in this case, if I recall correctly.
#Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"
The reason SCO can do what is does is because the legal landscape of the U.S. allows companies to do this.
Yea, and so can IBM.
If SCO are found to have no case, then their worth will mostly be in copyrights on a codebase that can be mostly replaced by the then judicially cleared Linux and *BSD kernels. It would almost be like suing a dead horse to get a refund.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
Yes, I'm actually hoping this gets to court. No one believes for a second that SCO was damaged by anything other than their own bumbling in the market place!
This case is important because it is the test of the GPL. It has the potential to answer the question, "Is the GPL a legally enforcable software license?" It also has the potential to establish the parameters around the GPL. The Open Source community seems to be afraid of having these questions answered.
Why though are they afraid? Perhaps, its because of the GPL is an attempt to use the protections of copyright law, to subvert the intent of copyright law. This is no idle matter. It is a valid subject to bring up and debate.
They are afraid because they believe 1) the protections of copyright law are legitimate, 2)the GPL is a subversion of it, and 3)making the GPL illegal will damage or destroy the open source community.
The first premise is that copyrights and patents are legitimate legal constructions which accomplish their stated purposes. The purpose, for example, of patents is to create an artificial monopoly to allow the inventor of the patented invention to bring his product to market WITHOUT COMPETITION for a period of time. The alleged protection is from the "Big Bully" on the block who would immediately offer his new product without allowing the creator just recompense for his efforts. The fear is that innovation would cease or slow if patents weren't granted as there would be less incentive to create these innovations.
The argument with copyrights is that without copyrights authors wouldn't create books, musicians wouldn't create music, and software developers wouldn't create software. But we know from experience that this is not true! The copyright is not for the creator, but for the distributer. Few developers, authors, or musicians achieve any great financial success from copyrights. The distribution companies do however.
In the software industry experience shows that neither patents or copyrights are necessary to create new and innovative software. The Apache Group, sourceforge, Linux, PHP, Perl, Python, etc. are all software projects which have succeeded with what could be considered subversive copyrights - Copyrights which allow copying and distribution without payment to the holder of the copyright. They have been created because they do the job!
Copyrights and patents are what this lawsuit is about, and with any luck it will go to trial. Either way the court case is decided is a benefit to the consumer. If SCO wins, the ridiculous of the nature of copyrights and patents will become more obvious and apply more pressure on consumers, thus causing more pressure on politicians. If however SCO loses, it will validate the nature of the GPL.
The GPL at heart is an attempt to reinvigorate the Commons, with a little bit of malice. Simply providing the source code into the public domain, would help the commons. However, the GPL attempts to subvert copyright laws and patent laws, by requiring code which comes into contact to be infected with the GPL. It operates on the assumption that the quality and quantity of content in the commons is more important than the artificially constructed monopolies of patents and copyrights! I happen to agree.
Copyrights and patents aren't used to protect the struggling inventor, the hungry artist, the mystery writer, the drug scientist, or the software developer. They are designed to provide the distributers of the copyrighted and patented products from competition. In practice we find that large corporations build up portfolios of intellectual property and use it to THWART THE COMPETITION OF THE SMALL BUSINESS OR INDIVIDUAL. With large pockets, legal threats and a vast arsenal of IP, a large company badgers a lesser competitor into selling or quitting.
In the SCO case we see the opposite. The little failed company is trying to eek out a little more value from its vaunted IP for the investors, before they go belly up. The fault isn't with SCO for doing it. It's a natural consequence of the desparateness of their position. The fault is with legally sanctioned monopolies on intellectual property WHICH CANNOT HELP BUT BE COPIED!
Thanks
David B.
Wrong, there is a reason to pay SCO. Once you have purchased a copy of official Linux from SCO you will be free under the GPL to do whatever you want with that code as long as you follow the GPL liscense, or am I missing something. They can't have it both ways, demand royalties for having their code 'involuntarily' in Linux (which is not subject to GPL) and then place their code in Linux 'voluntarily' (which IS subject to GPL) and demand royalties that way too. Once they place their code in Linux voluntarily, and distribute that code, they give up their rights under GPL, in effect they trump their own claim. The GPL restricts them from selling or owning a portion of Linux. They can only claim harm and extract penalties for piracy or make Linux 2.4 illegal, in which case their code will be stripped and new versions will appear, delaying progress but not stopping it. If they are able somehow to set the GPL aside, the GPL would be set aside for all contributors, and the software would revert to the copyright of the original contributor, in which case they will only have a tiny fraction of the code that they own, a fraction that cannot be reincorporated into Linux or it will pass out of their control. They will have useless intellectual property. I don't even think Microsoft would buy them after this.
Say what you may, it seem like SCO is leading this game. They claims may be complete bull$%* but nobody is really facing them.
First of all, there is IBM. Remember the way Intel responded when DEC sued them over patent infrigement? They responded quickly by sueing DEC. I would expect IBM to do the same. The fact IBM is so quiest about it is very irritating.
Usually it takes very few words to explain a fact, while it takes many to explain a fantasy. I find IBM's lack of noise other than the firm SCO has no case statement very comforting.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I just thought I would ask, because it seems like this is really crucial to one's understanding of this article. I don't know myself, I just thought some one might be able to, you know, fill me in. Thanks.
They are demanding that the code become their property Under GPL, code remains the property of its author.
Check out osnippets for a fun way to report SCO piracy.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Once GPLed it would ship. If not by them, by someone else. I don't know if ReactOS would be happy to be redundant or annoyed that their little challenge was taken from them.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...if that's really when we run out of IPv4 numbers.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
SCO expands to making car parts. Then we should all expect this in the mail about three years after they start this new venture. Long enough for the various car makers to have all their products "tainted".
The letter would read as follows:
Hello. I represent the SCO automoblie manufacturing company. We are sending this
communication to you becuase we are concerned that the automoblle you drive
has parts in it that violate are patents. These cars were made by GM, FORD,
DODGE, NISSAN, TOYOTA, SUBARU just to name a few. In fact any car made
outside the former Soviet Block nations or those in the People Republic of
China, or The Peoples Republic of Korea, Veitnam, South Africa may or may not
be liable for using our patented parts and technologies in their automobiles.
We are currently investigating these foreign auto makers for violation of our
patents.
The reason we are writing to you as a private owner of one of these
automobiles is because by owning and operating these automobile you are
violating Federal and State laws. We are aware that that it is not you
intention to do so. However, this is the case. In order to alleviate the
risk of fines and/or incarceration that may be imposed upon you should we
feel the need to begin filing complaints with the authorities and courts, we
at the SCO automobile manufacturing company are offering a way for the
customers of these car makers to aviod any liablity on their part.
In order to ensure that your liabilty in this matter is covered we highly urge
you to contact one of our representives at 1-800-pay-dumbshit or send an
email at sucker@sco.com in order to review the many options available to you
in procuring your license to the patented products in your automoblie.
All plans include a per-tire license, but many options are available such as a
volume license deal - should you own more than one vehicle. Also in many
cases you may also considering procuring a license for your trailor,
motorcycle, atv, ski-doo, motorboats, airplanes, helicopters, lawn mowers,
lawn edgers, weed whackers, blimps, powered model airplanes, power model
helicopters, powered model boats, chainsaws, gas-powered handheld geological
drilling devices, water pumps, irrigation pumps, gas-powered air pumps, and
many many other internal combustion devices, wheeled or powered devices. For a full list of all products in violation of our patents please send a self addressed stamped envelope to
SCO automoblie manufacturing company, PO Box 0666, Lindon Utah. We must note
that the specific parts and technologies that are in violation of our patents
can not be obtained by request or court order. We cannot provide any
information about the specific parts or technologies on the advice of our
legal council.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter beyond the list of vehicle we advise contacting legal council. We at SCO would also like to inform you that we have received lists from 46 of the 50 state department of motor vehicles with a complete list of all owners of the infringing vehicles.
Avoid the embarrasment and costly ordeal of a court proceeding with the
enevitable fines and the possibility of jail time by arranging your license
agreement now. Be sure to enclose you check or money order with your
requests and submissions. We do accept cash.
Thank You. Daryl McBride, CEO. SCO automoblie manufacturing company
I noticed some activity to this site and, sure enough, here it is. In black and white (and yellow... and brown?!? - who designs this crap?). What do you think you're doing? Don't you have enough work to do? You may not be acting on my behalf, but that's ok - I'll act on my behalf for you. You're fired. We'll just divert those "company resources" to somewhere where they're actually useful - my cocaine habit. Now get out.
Manager: "Tell me again why we still need an NT box?"
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
You're not reffering to this article titled "SCO's Other Investor: Sun Microsystems" now are you?
Ooops, yeah.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
I know this has whole topic has been gone over and over but still. If SCO had a legitimate greavance with their code being in Linux, they should tell us what it is so we can remove it and stop any ligitation on SCOs part.
If SCO are trying to profit from some minor peice of code that could be removed in an instant, then they would do what they are doing now. They have no GENUNIE GREVANCE they just sense an opertunaty to profit and are trying to maxamise this rather than settle the problem.
The issue with the GPL is not as simple as it seems. If something was put into GPLed code which the owner of the code did not authorise to be there then the owner should have the right for it to be removed. It is possible that IBM did this with some jointly owned code without SCOs permision. This could meen that the person who inserted it was breaking the law when they inserted the code and therefor the code contains bits that are not covered under GPL. This does not meen that the whole thing becomes SCOs property. AFAIK there is no grevance procedure for people who beleive code they own is in the GPL.
The nice thing to do would be to authorise the code
The proper way to handle it would be to identify the code, prove your ownership of it, and get it removed.
You could say that bits were inserted iligaly and are not covered by GPL and try and licence the use of those bits. But you would still need to prove that the bits were inserted iligaly to be able to demand licence fees.
IMHO, IANAL, etc.
last post!
--
Ruby says "bwarghhhhh!"