Slashdot Mirror
SCO Extorting Unixware Licenses to Linux Users?
An anonymous user noted that SCO will
sell you Unixware if you want to "Legitimize" your usage of Linux at your company. If you buy the license, you will be held blameless for your transgressions against SCO! Pricing has yet to be determined for the special licenses, but I suspect that for any value greater than zero, there are going to be a fair number of angry users.
dupe
Could this allow for future countersuits if SCO loses??
If I were a CIO or CTO debating the TCO of *nix vs. Win2K3 to a CEO, would IBM vs. SCO be the TKO that stops the CEO from approving A/P to pay my PO for RH's LGX?
FWIW, even if OSS is FAIB, if the DOJ considers *nix IP with a TM, then it basically become's SCO's LIC, meaning our OSS becomes a CSS OS, which would RSTBO.
AIBO going w/ an ASP that manages our OS? BTA, we might end up w/ a BOFH giving us ZA, which WWAD PMS.
AFAIK, INMP if SCO wants to be ITM by enforcing its supposed IPR - *nix IP should be PD or GNU, like BSD just on GP, IYKWIM. I keep asking myself in this situation - WWLD?
Oh, BTW - IITYWIMWYBMAD?
Thanks for beating the GNAA. Bet your nuts feel lucky now.
If Linus doesnt fear the SCO trolls, why should I? We're putting linux on our networks for free, and SCO wants a part of it.
Bugger Off SCO.
It has been mirrored already
Hate me!
Didn't we hear about this yesterday? This isn't exactly new, news. How about waiting for a new bit on it until we actually have some new information. Like IBM or some other simliarly large corporation bending SCO's back the wrong way until it crumples like tin foil?
Seriously.
We know that SCO is being a naughty boy.
We don't need to be reminded about it every day.
This couldn't have been edited onto the previous SCO story this morning?
It's getting to be a bit much, especially since attention is what they're after in the first place, Slashdot...
"Sufferin' succotash."
Ok, maybe I don't understand, but isn't supplying a binary-only copy of Linux w/o source the exact opposite of every ideal GNU and the FSF stand for? Maybe I read the article wrong, if anyone can clue me in I'd appreciate. Is this a violation of the GPL?
Even if the price is zero, then I'm personally likely to be angry enough as it is. This is all about accepting that SCO is in the right, and until such time as they've taken this through court and proven that to be the case, I have no intention of doing anything to suggest that they have the right to impose restrictions on my use of Linux.
If they're truly that confident of their position, they should be rushing through the court case, and then asking people to license Unixware, with a suitable judgement behind them to back it up.
As it is, their case is built mostly on hot air, so I can see their motivation in pushing for payment in advance.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
I, for one, am grateful for this opportunity to come clean. Where do I send the check?
Best Windows Freeware
Buy a license help validate SCO's claim...
is it possible that microsoft are paying sco to become 'most hated business ever' so that we stop beating up on the redmond boys? i'm running out of logical alternatives for this story. i mean... does sco really believe that anyone believes that linux belongs to them?
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Me no pay!
string sig = llGetSig("dimentox"); llSay(0,sig);
Q: "What UnixWare are you running?"
A: "I really don't want to concern myself with what UnixWare."
.sig
A few things can happen. 1) SCO loses, my license purchase was pointless then but I'm only out some money. 2) SCO wins and RedHat pays the licensing fees. My license purchase was pointless again because RedHat's aquisition of a license covers me. Not only that but RedHat will past the cost on to the consumers. 3) SCO wins and RedHat can't afford the licensing fee. RedHat goes out of business and I'm left with an orphaned product.
Basically unless I roll my own internal variant of linux I don't see any positive benefit to purchasing the license unless they intend to go after each business individually in court.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
What about a license to indemnify me from trangressions of SCO against Linux..oh wait IBM gives those out for free!
Thanks IBM!
Don't Tread on OpenSource
drops pants...
waves it around...
license this, SCO!
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
Two SCO stories within 3 hours?
This way, they make money without legal fees, and don't need to prove anything. The only thing that can stop this is a countersuit...which I very much hope we see.
Pending the outcome of our patent application we are offering carbon-based lifeforms to protect themselves from possible litigation by lisencing out technology for a low upfront fee based on the cell count of the organism.
By chosing to forgo purchasing a lisence, you may be opening yourself to a potential injunctive action down the road.
Ñ'
My employer has been asking me whether we should buy Unixware licenses to avoid legal threat. I've been saying that their threats have no backing, but he says he has been reading scary things in the Wall Street Journal. He thinks we should, and a board will vote tomorrow on whether to make the purchase.
What if SCO loses in court? What happens to all the companies that buy these licenses to license linux via Unixware? Do they demand a refund? Will SCO just claim "Hey you licensed SCO, not Linux" and keep their moneies?
Secondly, What happens if SCO loses and now since they are *licensing* Linux technologies? I'm sure proper wording can eliminate this all, but several companies could get screwed out of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars.
If I buy this SCO license it means I own Unix right? Do I own Linux? Netware is thrown in there somewhere too isn't it? What about the Brooklyn bridge?
You can have my Linux when you pry it from my cold dead hand.
"Yeah, it'z a real trad-jedy what happened to old Mr. Smith and his hosting bidness down da street. Poor guy. Hoid he was gonna retires in a few weeks. Simply tragic. So, bidness seems do be brisk today, eh? That's great news, iddnit, Bennie? I was was just sayin' to Bennie, 'Gosh, we loves seein local bidness thrive,' I was sayin'. 'Cuz ya know, we's all gots a stake in bidness bein' good, don't we? And we wants ta help make sure that your fine shop doesn't fall victim to the same thugs what so ruthlessly beat an' murdered Mr. Smith, God rest his soul..."
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Ahh! so finally we can fill in the blank at point 2.
We'll see how it works out.
Four fifths of all our troubles in this life would disappear if we would just sit down and keep still. -C. Coolidge
-1 Redundant.
Didn't this get covered ad nauseum yesterday?
What part of "GNU is not UNIX" don't you understand, SCO??
;-)
There... I feel better...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep the PC on the QT because if it leaks to the VC he could wind up MIA and then we'd all be put on KP.
IAALS.
I think frauding users in USA still unlawfull ??
Or what ? uh...
[My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
This was touched on briefly in yesterdays /. article regarding unix copyrights. News item is found here
This is getting a bit out of hand, don't you think? Does anyone else see McBride running around in a red suit?
"Cardinal Fang! Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!"
This is not far from not being a non-duplicated story.
Let's ask those pesky GNU/Linux developers to include a signed bootloader for Unixware in their ISO distributions or we will charge astronomical rates for ransom Unixware/binary Linux licences...
Yes, I know. Grub/Lilo allow Unixware to be booted too, but they aren't signed, so they don't count.
As I understand it, SCO are willing to grant licences to use 'binary-only' distributions of linux, so as to not violate their alleged IP. But if the agreement is that the source is not to be available, won't that violate the GNU? So in effect that will violate the IP rights of every other contributer to the Linux kernel?
IANAL, but it seems that SCO haven't thought parts of this out too well...
Will this put an end to the multitude of distros that we all know and love? I don't like being locked into a single distro...
Rather than buying a license, why not just go to their ftp site and download the source code to the Linux kernel? SCO is still distributing the Linux kernel sources under the GPL.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Even giving SCO the best case argument. Even arguing that their distribution of of Linux didn't put their IP into the GPL domain.... Neither did their distribution of Linux absolve them from obeying the GPL surely?
What I mean is, even if they didn't put their IP into the public sphere automatically by distributing Linux, surely they are now contractually obliged to do so by the GPL, at risk of being sued by 10,000 angry kernel developers?
i.e. They distributed under the GPL, mustn't they now follow the entire GPL at risk of severe IP violation to kernel rights holders? Surely their agreement to the GPL by their act of distribution is a stronger case than whatever they've got against IBM and their contract?
SCO can kiss my shiny metal ass.
C'mon mods, click the links before modding the comments...
nehpetS-
I neglected to read the first few SCO vs. everyone else stories, then was too lazy to catch up, and now I have no idea what the fuck is happening.
1) What the bloody hell is "SCO"?
2) What's this whole mess all about? "SCO", whatever it is, claims copyright on parts of Linux that cannot be removed or what? The first person to give an executive summary in 5 sentences or less will receive a cookie and 3 karma.
What are you talking about man? You sound like you are forced to copy the "illegal" Linux , and apologize to SCO for decreasing their income?
Maybe it's a new kind of irony i don't understand?
But Linux is legal right Now, no matter what SCO says.Mp> It is also reasonable that they are selling you a Unixware license for legitimizing Linux. This way , when they Loose in court you may have a hard time getting your money back (after all you bought UnixWare.. not Linux)
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
A sample of this, in perfect "Management-Speak":
* Do I need to buy a SCO license?
SCO has not demonstrated that any infringement exists, nor has it established that it owns derivative works in UNIX. Nothing has been proven to establish that such a license is needed.
Which, translated into English says:
* Do I need to buy a SCO license?
Not at all
You go, RedHat!
Peace!
I am not using RCU, JFS and SMP... so there... shove it up yours!
At what point can SCO finally be charged with fraud, extortion, and stock manipulation? When can SCO at least be sued in a civil court?
This is the most blantant racket I have ever witnessed. And the USA legal system seems to be completely incapible of doing anything about it. Frankly it is beginning to look like another huge failure of the USA legal system.
Germany shut down SCO a long time ago. Germany said put up or shut up - show us some evidence or stop making claims. Predictably, SCO ran away with it's tail between it's legs.
I have always been a bit patriotic. Honorably discharged from the US Air Force and all. It pains me to see how patheticly inept the US legal system really is.
I know the parent will be modded troll or flamebait, but really, I keep hearing that if SCO prevails, the offending code can be replaced quickly. Why not replace it NOW?
If Linux stole NUMA and SMP from SCO, that would be a mighty good trick, considering Linux had it first.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Why spend money on a primary injunction? While some predicted that this may have been a ruse to get bought out, others held to the premise that SCO is on a sinking ship and just wants money. Since the controversy started, their stock price has gone from $1.09 to upwards of $12 per share. Coincidence? Nope; controversy sells.
a tes/SRPMS/. If that's not donation, I don't know what is.
By spreading FUD and insisting everyone cease and desist without actually seeking an injunction, it seems that the dynamic duo of Sontag and McBride are hoping to make some money without doing any dirty work. However, as was noted before, we have seen the GPL stand up to the legal tests (remember Progress and MySQL fighting over Gemini?). I hope someone eventually nails these guys with a libel suit. They haven't proven anything and they talk about this magical "discovery" phase like the dirty laundry is about to be aired... but it hasn't. As of the time of this post, SCO still has GPL'd Linux up on their FTP: ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/upd
Never attribute to Hanlon that which can be adequately attributed to Heinlein.
Luxuries like legal software will just have to wait. Sorry, SCO.
With all due respect to your situation, that sounds like the "man stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family" story except you likely don't need legal software to feed your family
What the hell is "Unixware"? Or System V, for that matter? Seriously, help me out here, I'm kinda lost in the namespace of Unix business thingies.
They can have my HD when they pry it from my cold dead hands.
Seriously I hope they try to enforce this on people running Linux in the home:
SCO: "I see you have 3 machines with Linux so give us $4500".
Me: "Who let you in? Get off my property you bastards."
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
The guys that own SCO also own Trolltech.
Should we boycott QT to send them a message?
I see that you are new amongst us. Welcome. What you're referring to is what we slashdotters call a "dupe". Please report to the re-education center where you will learn many things including, but not limited to, "profit lists", and jokes about non longer in existance soviet nations.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
For desktops and servers, stay the course, but do your research now and be sure you're able to step back to 2.2 should SCO's claims prove valid. With 2.2, you give up some performance and compatibility with a few newer peripherals. But ducking down to 2.2 while the allegedly offending code is removed from 2.4 will cover your business. Be very surprised if it takes more than just a few weeks for an untainted 2.4 branch to be released.
The one thing you should not do is to purchase an SCO license without your legal department fully reviewing the terms of the license. By entering into a license agreement with SCO, your company could find itself vulnerable in all kinds of new ways. If SCO is turning into a pure litigation company, you don't want to be on their customer list!
And though I possess superhuman and godlike powers of my own proclaiming, I promise to use them carefully and judiciously. I will not arbitrarily turn Slashdot readers into toads; nor will I cause boils to rise on their asses; neither will I create pimples (new ones, anyway) on their faces. Simple worship and dollars will help me keep my promise. You may license my mercy.
Following the distribution of our letter to the CEOs of the Fortune 1000 and Global 500 companies, many of them contacted us to ask what they could do to move into compliance.
I bet many more contacted SCO telling them to fsck off.
You forget that:
1. It was more than 3 hours ago!!!!
2. It was far more complete and full of links which very probably few people managed to read.(actually _exxactly_ this story was posted as a reply from a user)
3. It's tuesday.
4. The previous one was by timothy and this is taco's... finally you can't expect them to check what has already been posted by another editor....;o)))))
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
I think the whole world should create a backlash at SCO and everyone who has anything to do with them.
Because every time the community thinks they know what SCO is talking about, they change their tune. First it was changes only in IBM's distribution, then it was in Red Hat, then it was in the stock 2.4 kernel, now it's in every kernel since 2.4.
It's NUMA, it's RCU, it's JFS, it's low-level subroutines, but they won't tell you exactly what it is. How can you change something when you don't know what needs changing?
Check out this posting from yesterday. You can download a GPLed copy of the Linux kernel from SCO, if you feel you need a license from them.
Problem solved, let's go back to writing code.
If a company is developing a product using Linux as an embedded solution, a simple way to avoid any problem with SCO (if there was any fear) would be to simply not include those portions of code which SCO claims as their own (SMP, etc). Why pay for IP you aren't going to use?
Problem solved
(I hope that anyone reading this can detect the sarcasm intended by it)
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
SMP came from Alan Cox's work with Caldera-sponsored equipment. A portion of NUMA came from IBM, as did the RCU which allowed greater scalability of the SMP kernel, mostly from removing overhead and latency with talking to many procs. The RCU which was sponsored through IBM, actually came from an acquisition of IBM, who essentially wrote it from scratch. It is the licensing terms and 'derivative work' stipulations which cast doubt on much of the validity of the added code.
Unfortunately, we will have to wait until April 2005 before we know exactly how far the term 'derivative work' encompasses. Is merely seeing Unix code enough to make any additional coding a derivative work? I say no, SCO is saying yes.
And oh yeah, go back under the bridge, troll. That wasn't even creative. j00 ()w|\|z3r3d nobody.
SCO announces it has the right to the Brooklyn Bridge. It will sell rights to use said bridge so people can use it legally. Sure there may be a legal case to determine if they own it, but why not by a permit to be safe?
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
As someone stated in an earlier thread, the case is against the code contributions that IBM made to Linux that have been contributed to the Linux 2.4.x kernel tree. While I can see the forward problems that this possibly might have, and assuming that SCO actually wins, it should be as simple as yanking the code from the Linux 2.6 kernel tree, and rewriting it. Additionally, from what I've read about the claims from SCO, it primarily discusses SMP. Assuming that you're server isn't compiled with SMP turned on (only one of mine are) then you are not using any code with they say belong to them.
I seem to recall another note regarding code contributions to JFS, and while I'm sure that the IBM JFS is very well designed, I am instead using SGI Journalling XFS and ResierFS in my boxen.
SCO is purely in it for the money at this point, which is very apparent from yesterday's (and prior days) stock jumps.
I can't blame them either, I have now bought some of the stock and will ride it out, it'll help me buy my plasma screen by the time this is all over!
This is my 39 cents, 2 cents for my thoughts, and 37 to get it into the postal system.
harryk
-nuff said
think before you write, it'll save me moderator points.
McBride made it clear on that interview yesterday that 2.2 kernel is clean.
Let's suppose that SCO's claim is valid and IBM put some code in Linux that shouldn't have been there.
:P
Why are the end users responsible for licensing SCO's code? They got the product (the linux kernel), under a license from the linux developers, and they're following the license they recieved the product from. If there was a license violation, it's on the developer's head (in this case, IBM).
Think about it: If closed source software stole code and sold it, could the company that originally owned the code sue all the users of that code for violating their license? This doesn't make sense to me -- they'd sue the offending closed source company, and perhaps have them issue some sort of recall or licensing program for the code, but they wouldn't go oafter individuals who thought they bought the software legitimately...
How about another example: if a magazine puts some copyrighted content that they're not supposed to use in their magazine, is the copyright owner going to go after every single person who bought the magazine? No! They're going to go after the distributer, who did the illegal *copying* in the first place!
I really don't understand why companies are giving money to SCO under their legal pressure, when it seems like they have absolutely no legal leg to stand on.
anyone know the real legal implications here? IANAL, Obviously
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
I'm tired of seeing stories about x-companies that have been reduced to lawyer squads trying to suck blood. Frankly, I don't think they're interesting or newsworthy.
Could we have a new category: "Bloodsuckers"?
Maybe with a leech icon?
...things are not always as they appear.
I am confident (though possibly wrong of course) that SCO is doing ALL of this for one reason and one reason only. Stock price manipulation. Look at the following issues and contrast them with the timing on this whole fiasco.
52 week stock price of SCO (SCOX)
Price of stock after each insane press release (while SCO has yet to show anything of substance, press releases feed the hungry speculative buyers out there).
Issuance of stock options at very low ($.6x) prices.
Exercising of options.
Sale of stock from exercised options.
I mean come on, most of these guys got options when the stock was at $.66 just before all of this craziness started. Then they crank up the stock price (fueled by nothing more than baseless accusations in the form of press releases) to $10-$12/share, exercise and dump. Where the heck is the SEC on this!!!
I believe that basically the execs at SCO new the ship was going down. They are doing what they're doing to squeeze what blood they can out of the turnip that is SCO. Once they have gotten what they can from stock games, they'll pull an "Oops, I guess we were wrong about that whole Linux intellectual property thing.", turn out the lights and call it quits...money in the bank.
Anyone disagree?
ER
(1) These features were never present in your own UNIX offering. They were not even developed by SCO/Caldera; they were developed by Dynix, which is now a subsidiary of IBM. Because these features were developed for SVR5, you claim they are derivative works of SVR5 and therefore your own intellectual property. The legitimacy of this claim depends upon your contracts with IBM; it is not as black and white as you make it out to be. When asked whether the code supposedly copied from SVR5 originated in BSD, you respond that this is high end "enterprise" code which isn't present in BSD--but it's not present in SVR5 either. Your claims on this matter are misleading.
(2) To state that Linux stole your market is preposterous, since you yourself were a Linux value-added reseller. In fact, you actively contributed to the development of enterprise features for the Linux kernel. You even cooperated with IBM in the Trillian Project (SMP on Linux). Your previous CEO, Ransom Love, spoke of unifying UNIX and Linux into a single platform. Now you turn and say that an enterprise-ready Linux took you completely by surprise, even though you helped bring it where it is.
You portray yourself as a protector of intellectual property rights, but then you seek to wrest control of Linux from its creators on the basis of unproven allegations of copyright infringement. Your arrogance and hypocrisy know no bounds. Linux development has been very transparent, as Linus Torvalds has said. If you were really interested in protecting the intellectual property of all parties involved, you would work with the kernel developers to find out which parties contributed your intellectual property to the kernel and seek relief from them and/or allow the infringing code to be removed. Even if this would disable Linux SMP for a time, there are millions of Linux users running uniprocessor systems who were never infringing on your IP in the first place, and should not have to pay you a license fee. Furthermore, your move to collect license payments from Linux users without identifying specifically what they are licensing or even proving that you have a claim on Linux at all is fraudulent.
Your proposed Linux licensing program amounts to the wholesale theft of years of effort from thousands of Linux contributors. You have profited from their efforts for nearly a decade, and now you stab them in the back and bite the hand that fed you. Since you could not compete in the marketplace, you resort to barratry, racketeering, and extortion.
What is a mare? I'm from France and don't know jack!
A mare.. you know, horses. Those 4 legged things you French eat.
Trolling is a art,
Microsoft views Linux as the next big threat. Since it is free how can you battle something like linux? The reputation is growing as well as software. So then lets use the legal route by creating fud and fear for companies. Notice legal action is not against individuals. So with legal fear in the air, companies will think twice about integrating linux into their infrastructure. Look at the city of Munich. This was a big blow to Microsoft. MS wants to stop this type of switchover asap. Think about it SCO has not provided the public any proof because it would show they have nothing. The longer SCO can create fear then the better chance MS has in getting accounts for all the old computers whose end of life is happening around this time. Plus, notice MS applied for licensing rights from SCO. Why? To provide security to CIOs that MS is legally in the clear therefore buy MS products to avoid legal issues. I don't know this is just my opinion but i smell a MS plot here.
Do you want to? Personally, I'll leave it to IBM to fight the good fight for now, but I'm sure someone will sue SCO, and hopefully they'll have deep pockets and good lawyers.
I don't see this as a failure of the US legal system as of yet; we do have laws in place that give us recourse against extortion and whatnot. But it does take two parties to have a lawsuit, so someone would have to sue SCO first.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
... to STFU about SCO.
evil adrian
Since SMP is a build option, it would be trivial to generate a source tree without it (right?).
I know that this sounds a little cowardly (but not anonymously so :-) but it would take away some of Microsoft's and SCO's attack on individual users of Linux.
-Mark
-1 ignorance.
If you want to replace something you have to know what it is. Since SCO has not told the Linux community which code they claim to be infringing, there's nothing to replace.
Cheers
So, if I work in a privately held company and I'm using linux, how is SCO to know that I'm using it?
They don't have any legal right to come barging in and demanding that we show what we've got running on our servers!
What this all comes down to is greed. SCO doesn't care about the idea of a community. What they see is an opportunity to make money, period.
I guess I'll have to reverse my stance on this. IBM should have bought them lock, stock and barrel and then just gutted the company and released the IP to the public domain.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Naah...
You ever get the feeling that you're in a crowd gathering around a school yard fight? There's this weasel who's irritated everyone with his loud mouth, and he went too far and shoved a full back on the foot ball team. The full back is standing there silently as the weasel dances around jabbering about cleaning the football stars clock.
The crowd gathers and the jeers begin. "Punch him in the gut!"
"Go for the nose!" "We want BLOOD!"
The weasel bellows out, "I'll have you all in the office for this."
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
You can mod me down as a paranoiac, but think about this for a second...
What is the one major difference between MS software and OSS software from a business standpoint?
Licensing.
What has Microsoft had so much trouble getting their customers on board about?
Licensing.
What is the one thing that SCO is now saying that Linux users must now purchase from them?
Licensing.
If you're the average run of the mill CTO, and you were thinking of switching to Linux... you now must think about licensing.
Furthermore, you must think about licensing it from a company embroiled in a lawsuit with IBM, whose future is uncertain.
So, given the choice between free software with no one company behind it, or closed-source software with a company behind it, and licensing on both sides... which do you pick?
The answer is obvious. And that is why Microsoft must be sitting pretty, grinning to themselves - they have effectively nullified the main argument for going with OSS. (Since some of the software can be at least considered on par, technical merits are equal.)
libertarianswag.com
Because, in their infinite confidence, they haven't told us what the offending code is.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
I just jumped over to Yahoo! Financials, which shows that SCO has a market cap of $170M. If that number is real, it seems like a good idea would be for open source users to find a way to buy the company. Under new ownership, the SCO management could be fired en masse and the "New SCO" could then sue the CEO and others for return of stock option gains, etc. It doesn't make any difference that the suits might be baseless -- under the current SCO doctrine, bringing lawsuits is just about making money; it's even better than rolling out new products! So why not give them a taste of their own medicine? Let's see -- 1,000,000 users at $200 apiece... That's tougher than it sounds. Well I can dream, can't I?
Am I not getting something? There is a lot of anger
expressed about the law suits. Most of it is because SCO is making unsubstantiated claims. Anyone who feels that their livelihood/property/or even well-being is damaged by these claims should be out suing SCO already. Why aren't we seeing any lawsuits by let's say Linus for damaging his good name, etc.?
I include it verbatim, to save you using the link
SCO has made a big noise about registering SVR4
copyrights and announced their linux liscensing
plan, which they call a UNIX liscensing plan. Looks
like they're going for $1500 per LINUX seat for Unixware
liscense to emdemnify from lawsuit.
HOWEVER everything is not as the media is reporting...
The copyright they registered is a 20 page revision
to SVR4 (i.e SVR4.1ES) registration number TX-5-705-356.
You can verify this at:
http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html
The original UNIX copyright was never registered to Novell,
and is currently registered to (SURPRISE!) AT&T.
I'm not sure about the legal ramnifications, I believe
that SCO has the right to copyright derivitive works
in their aggreement with Novell. However, a search at:
http://www.copyright.gov/records/
under the tab "Copyright ownership documents,
such as name changes and transfers" shows no
record of any copyright transfers to SCO Group.
In short, despite what is being widely reported,
SCO still has not acquired (and may not be able
to acquire) the copyright that they are
threatening to use to sue LINUX users.
(Copyrights MUST be registered before lawsuits
may be filed).
Ok SCO is out of control. Lawsuits in this country are getting out of control! I mean did you all hear that Metallica is suing a Canadian band for the use of the E-F chord in their song. Maybe our old friend Lars is at the helm here. If he is, God help us all. What's next Diznee suing the United States for the use of Red, White, and Blue in the flag since it was used in one of their cartoons. Hmm better not give them any ideas :)
Face the facts. All SCO has done is blabber on and on about how they think that Linux contains UNIX code and not backing up their claims about it with any substantial information. Their claims about SMP and business related aspects are total BS, as even before IBM involvement, Linux was a very mature OS. Right now, their third rate OS Unixware is capable of 8 processor SMP, while Linux is capable of up to 64. Why would any intelligent person take parts for a Mustang from an Escort?
Their claims will not hold up in a court of law. If you think that any company can just make random claims and extort money off of the hard work of others, then you obviously are not familliar with the legal process. The very notion that SCO is selling licenses to UnixWare for Linux, BEFORE a trial even started, just proves that they are dishonest in making a licensing scheme for a product that they did not prove was theirs.
The only solid evidence that SCO may have is the fact that there are portions of similar code in Linux and in SVR4 UNIX, the latter of which they own. Recently, the code, all 80 lines of it, was shown to some people who signed a non-disclosure agreement. Apparently, not all the people who viewed it had to sign, a mistake on their part, and it seems that even these 80 lines are kind of a stretch. There were no line numbers, no filenames, no function names on the demosnstration packet. Sometimes, there were portions that made no sense at all, like identical comments next to completely different portions of code. SCO claims that there are tens of thousands more, and Sontag even made that claim that there were files that were directly taken from UNIX. If any of that crap is true, then why did they show only 80 lines of it, where most of it was kind of a stretch?
Linux was developed through the most transparent means possible, and it is possible to see where almost every feature of the kernel came from. The developers were even very careful about the small portions that IBM did contribute, and added it in after much verification.
In conclusion, if you're not trolling, then you're either misinformed, hate Linux, or are just ignorant. I don't care whether or not you hate Linux or free software, but telling lies about it makes you no better than SCO.
I'll start out by saying I have not studied the Linux kernel source very much, so could be wrong in my following assumption.
As every system I own has only one processor, I haven't bothered to compile SMP support into the kernel. Therefore I'm not using any SCO code AFAIAA. If this is the case for me, it is also the case for thousands of other companies using single processor systems, vastly reducing the number of potential targets for SCO to extort from.
What I'm interested in now is seeing how they react to the report that a Caldera employee actually added SCO's IP to the kernel and that IBM merely improved that code.
--- Commission free trading & free stock up to $500 - use http://share.robinhood.com/kelvinp6
SCO has already indemnified users of Caldera Linux as valid license holders. They did this because otherwise it would seem "odd" that they were suing their own customers for owning something they had sold them.
Caldera Linux is licensed under the GPL, and is thus free in perpetuity. I have a copy of Caldera linux which I can continue to offer to anyone under the provisions of the GPL. Whatever "cost" SCO is asking for a license, the version I have (and which can be duplicated to anyone) is probably cheaper, and a defacto license.
By the same argument, SCO's endorsement of the GPL through Caldera Linux negates the infringing "look and feel" elements of SCO's new claims. (Caldera Linux uses System V runlevels, etc.)
Possibly, SCO's lawyers better take a quick peak at this "GPL thingy."
I suggest offering SCO a kind of royalty-based licence... I'll offer to pay them a fee equal to 100% of what I paid for linux.
I didn't think it was legal to extort payments for any reason at all. "Business" isn't a valid reason, surely?
This SCO thing looks exactly the same as a traditional mob protection racket to me. I can't see any significant difference at all between threatening with the possibility of a future suit and threatening with the possibility of sending the boys around with clubs, unless payment is made.
No doubt the license will have you indemnify and hold them harmless for any liability that might arise from for their doings of the past 6 months.
Definitely worth reading, even if he didn't say anything too surprising. (He does mention that they'll be using non-RH Linux soon, though.)
SCO had no future anyway, so the management are running it into the ground attacking linux.
I'll bet most if not all of the present SCO management will get offered overpaid jobs at microstif after SCO goes under.
I'll hand it to microsoft. This is the best FUD attack I've ever seen.
at some point, it may be cheaper for everyone to just buy SCO shares, and once they have a 51% stake, liquidate the company - including formally 'opensourcing' whatever it is that SCO currently 'claims' to own.
"Obviously Linux owes its heritage to UNIX, but not its code. We would not, nor will not, make such a claim."
Darl McBride, CEO, The SCO Group, August 2002 Linux Journal Article #6293
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
Unfortunately, we will have to wait until April 2005 before we know exactly how far the term 'derivative work' encompasses. Is merely seeing Unix code enough to make any additional coding a derivative work? I say no, SCO is saying yes.
I don't think Linux can afford to wait until 2005. The way corporate suits think, SCO will (and this is their aim) scare them away from Linux forever.
In the end, (puts tinfoil hat on) I think we will see that there is some deal between M$ and SCO. I think in the end, we will see M$ gobble up SCO, but not before M$ completely whores out SCO. Have you ever been to Red West? It's the way these people operate (removes tinfoil hat).
Sounds like a shake down by a protection racket. And about as legal too.
Instead of threatening people with baseball bats to the knees, they're throwin' lawyers around like WMDs.
Somebody needs to be driven into bankruptcy and wiped from the face of the planet, real soon now.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
This gives them a nice out: they don't offer a "linux license" but they threaten you if you don't have a Unixware one.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Probably no grounds for lawsuits because SCO will be careful about how they write the contracts.
However, there are plenty of clueless CTO's, managers, and pointy-haired-bosses who will think of this as a relatively cheap form of protection (racket?). PHBs will buy, because in thier mis-informed minds, this will seem like a good idea. There are also lots of legal departments out there are very risk adverse and they will counsel their firms that this is a cheap insurance policy.
If SCO owns part of Linux they could license that part. But licensing that part would disallow the GPL allowing use of the rest of the kernel. A license from SCO alone--- to a tiny (at most) part of a system is absolutely worthless without the rest of the system--- even assuming they didn't GPL the mythical tiny part they claim to own.
So, with Sco now wanting to provide users with a "license to use Linux", has anyone had a chance to look into the GPL for any possible conflicts or violations surrounding this?
#jlk
Because SCO will only show someone the "offending code" if they sign an NDA. The NDA would then prevent them from removing the code if it exists.
This shouldn't be a surprise. SCO doesn't want any alleged code to be removed. As soon as it is removed they no longer have anything to threaten customers with and force a license purchase. After all, a threat of "upgrade your kernel or pay us $1000" won't make nearly as much money as a threat of "pay us $1000 or risk a lawsuit."
The worst thing that could happen to SCO right now would be if the case was mainlined and taken to court quickly. I think this would also be the best thing for Linux too.
Note to SCO lawyers... this posting is mearly my opinion and IANAL.
SCO is selling something that it does not have. This has to be a violation of various laws aginst unfair and deceptive trade practices and there must be a lawyer who will represent defrauded customers everywhere in a class action against these dingbats.
Of course, first they would have to find a client who bought one of these worthless pieces of paper:-)
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Microsoft taught me how to fill in that particular blank a long time ago!
I think we will see that there is some deal between M$ and SCO.
I would love to see that. If that doesn't scream antitrust at the top of its lungs with a roman candle sticking out of its ass and a giant neon arrow pointing at it, I don't know what does.
IBM is a lot bigger than Netscape ever could be, and will most certainly decimate MS in a civil suit.
...but it's becoming increasingly obvious that the Slashdot "editors" have replaced themselves with very small shell scripts and are running around outside, sucking on their inhalers and embarrasing themselves fumbling hackeysacks and Frisbee(tm) Flying Disks.
Still, in this economic downturn, it's kind of nice to know that there are still companies willing to employee "creative" incompetents without bothering to check if they're getting value for money, or even a token pretence of doing any work.
Man, you guys who're paying per page must be laughing about this. No, not laughing. What's the word? Pissed.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
In the world of slash dot, their tactics are seen as paying for protection, and so most people here will be fighting them as the thugs they are.
But I know in my company, its the suits that make the decisions and they view the slashdot community as over zealous hippies.
this is a little OT, but what exactly does constitute a copyright violation? if you are an artist or musican, fair use allows for a certain amount of reusing someone elses work. also, in terms of coding structure, there maybe instances when something can only be written one way. read the proceeding from the USL vs BSDi for a more detailed clarification on this topic.
until this thing goes to court(sco vs ibm), paying sco a license fee of any sort is just feeding their fud. don't do it!
three can keep a secret, if two are dead - benjamin franklin
This reminds me of when a certain company trademarked the frownie :-( and demanded everyone who one them to pay up. Unfortunately SCO seems to be serious.
http://www.despair.com/frownies.html
Why doesn't someone just create a fork of the kernel at the point right before "tainted" code was added. SCO's code is not critical to the operation of the kernel. And IIRC the code added mainly benifits enterprise users. The rest of the Linux user base should start using forked code as it would affect them the least. Is corporate contribute to OSS code going to continue to be a problem. How come no one saw this coming? The mixing of GPL and proprietary code, open source or not is bound to cause problems. Looks as if people like Red Hat and Debian had it right all along in trying to keep all non-GPL or LGPL code out of the main distribution.
I have always been a bit patriotic. Honorably discharged from the US Air Force and all. It pains me to see how patheticly inept the US legal system really is.
The system works.
It is the best in the world.
We are a shining beacon of justice to humanity.
As we recall, when we demonstrated to the world how perfectly the American legal system works, showing the rest of humanity once again How to Live Properly(tm, Bush & Co.) with the historical supreme court ruled that a Florida recount really wasn't necessary through the most convulated and strained logic quite possibly ever set to paper and handed the presidency to a man most of the world correctly recognizes as not having been elected by the American People (but "it was a victory for democracy" quoth the spinmeisters).
America has the best system in the world. I know. I saw it on TV.
[/sarcasm]
The legal system in America is so broken, and in such disrepute among the common man, that even my republican voting mother has absolutely no faith in it. As a liberal voter on the other end of the spectrum I share her lack of confidence in that system fully, as does everyone I know or have spoken with, a couple of attorneys and one retired judge excepted.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
McBride made it clear on that interview yesterday that 2.2 kernel is clean.
OK, then that kind of narrows it, right? Based on this, it's a bit of a stretch to say we have "no idea" what the offending code is. There is at least SOME idea, and if 2.2 is "clean" then it might be wise to go from there?
See the thing is, attorneys cost money. May as well use the licensing to get your money. Also it makes you look confident that you will win which doesn't hurt the stock price.
My thought, is that if SCO starts going to companies using Linux and threatening them saying they will sue if they don't license their code, the correct response is, "show me the code." If I'm not mistaken they have to proove you KNOWINGLY violated their copyright, and given the legally indeterminate nature of this case right now, that doesn't seem plausible.
Maybe I should go and claim that my IP is in Linux too. It's not, but as long as nobody else knows that for certain, maybe I can get a few litigously nervous companies to write me nice checks.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Dear McBride,
Do the world a favor and go fsck yourself with a metal pole in a lightning storm.
Sincerely,
Christopher
(Posting AC from college)
Everybody who reads this site and is pissed at SCO :)
should pay the licensing fee. Of course I think the licensing
fee is worth one cent. So write them a check for one
cent, label the check as licensing fee, and send it
to them postage due. The result is they lose money.
The extortion appears to be legal too, otherwise they'd have been raided by now, surely.
Looks like a recipe for a new American business model. Well, maybe not an entirely new one, but it seems to use protection racket techniques more openly than ever before.
Although I hear the next release might take the kernel up from 2.0 to 2.2, so watch out!
-- Hulver's site
I work at a software vendor who produces software for numerous large commercial instituations such as banks, telco's, etc. We have recently had a number of these companies request that we sign an agreement stating that software we have provided them DOES NOT contain any "Free Software". This has been a headache as of late, especially for my team. We work in Java and have used numerous LGPL libraries from various locations in our product to save time during development. We now have to get rid of all of these and rewrite it ourselves. Not fun.
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
This has got to be the biggest corporate Hail Mary in recent years. SCO knows Linux is the future, so they're making a play to try and own it all.
By bluffing to the corporate world that they will win, they raise capital by selling licenses, which in turn will be used to fight the approaching legal battles. They also attract the favor of those who stand to lose if Linux wins, who will probably join them in the courtroom battle.
Where do I send my cheque to fight these guys?
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Boromir and Faramir were brothers, both sons of Denethor (son of Ecthelion). Denethor was steward of Gondor, since the line of Kings was (apparantly) broken when Isildur was killed.
But the line of Kings lived on, in the Rangers from the north. The purest line was Aragorn, direct male-line descendent of Isildur himself, who ultimately reclaimed the crown of Gondor.
Why don't you make another username? I reckon a significant fraction of Slashdot readers visibly wince whenever they look at it....
Its one thing to intimidate IBM and attempt to get bought out in a cheesy FUD scheme, but its another thing to attempt to defraud innocent consumers without any sort of legal standing.
Its time for the Federal Trade Commission to stop wasting time prosecuting online Viagra peddlers and go after SCO. Perhaps even Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for illegally inflating the price of their stock.
If IBM doesn't go for an early dismissal of this, that idiot McBride will keep spewing FUD. Time for several big hammers to come down!
(Actually, SCO not issuing another legal cart00ny or FUD during a day would be news.)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
when you compile your kernel? Seriously, SCO claims that they have specific IP ownership of limited portions of the Kernel. They've admitted recently, in public forums such as C-NET etc. that they're mostly talking about "High End Features" that weren't present in 2.2... Why not just leave out the SMP features in Linux and recompile? What's SCO going to sue you for then? Knowing that code that they "own" exists? Seriously, I wonder how many of the 2.4 million server installations are running on multi-processor machines, specifically the 16-32 processor machines that SCO seems to be all up-tight about...
Darl Bin Laden is as un-American as they come.
Here he is with his mask removed.
Darl Bin Laden
It is becoming fairly obvious that SCO is not going to tell anyone anything of substnace outside of court, if you really think that they don't have a leg to stand on buy some put options* before the case.
As this may well be the biggest pump and dump ever, we may as well try and profit from it. I would bet that all the major shareholders sell up and run before it gets anywhere near court.
*Put options basicaly involve you selling shares at a later date at the value you buy the put options. If shares go down you win if they go up you loose.
If that's the case, I'm moving to europe (or at least canada) where they don't have legal systems where parasite companies can take advantage of people and businesses.
The real question here is what is more viral - SCO's Unix licenses or the GPL.
SCO's license is for Derivitive Works of UNIX. IBM developed AIX from the Unix source tree. They can't just come up with AIX version 2 and decide not to pay SCO.
The GPL says that any software released under GPL must be released under GPL in any and all future versions and source code must be given. BOTH says all Derivative works must fall under the same license.
SCO is implying that IBM tried to take UNIX technology, put it into Linux and then ditch SCO licenses. Assume they are correct in their allegations. IBM, SCO or someone else released some code from a SCO Derivitive Work into the Linux Kernel.
Does Linux then become a Derivitive work of UNIX? Do parts of UNIX suddely become GPL? What if the code was originally from a 3rd party and in UNIX first, but freely available elsewhere? How much code must be transferred for these licenses to apply? Do the licenses cover the actual implementation or the algorithms used? Is removal of the code an acceptable solution when the order to do so may come down years later? What person or method could we trust enough to audit the code bases and decide what goes and stays?
Whatever the case may be, this long and drawn out lawsuit is bound to set some important precedents. The longer we wait, the more work that will be required *IF* code must be removed in the future after being built upon. The results of the Microsoft Monopoly case may have been disappointing, but this is IBM vs SCO battle with a Billion dollar prize.
In the end only the lawyers will be left standing.
http://news.com.com/2100-1011_3-5051603.html
SCO said that it will incorporate the Vultus software into SCOx, a set of tools for building Web services applications. Web services is a set of XML-based standards that make it easier to share data between disparate systems. Using Vultus' WebFace tools, a software programmer or SCO reseller can build a Web interface for a deskop PC to Web services applications that run on corporate servers.
According to SCO, the Vultus acquistition will be a "strategic" step to its Web services play. "SCO is targeting Web services as a platform for growth," Jeff Hunsaker, senior vice president of marketing at SCO, said in statement.
Does SCO actually believe someone would purchase a product from them going forward ( not that it was done to often in the past for that matter) ?
The guys are amazingly clueless......
For this? (linked off the "Products" page of their main site): http://www.sco.com/company/scosource/intellectual_ property/
Has anyone else made a conscious effort to Slashdot SCO's web site and servers? I mean, who among us with broadband doesn't need to download their entire ftp site each and every day?
d a v e
"Hmmm...upgrades."
I'm running unlicensed versions of Windows, so why would I pay for Linux? :P
Most humour on Slashdot is overwhelmingly hilarious. Each day it seems someone gets set up the laugh bomb and sets it off in our collective faces. Greetings to you good sir, may you enjoy your stay! Mods please mod his post +5 Welcome-Aboard-Matey!
This is exactly like what DirecTV is doing - suing anyone who ever bought a smart card reader unless they pay DirecTV money... It's extortion. I wonder if the two CEOs here are buddies? It would explain the similarities in their general evilness :)
Sun even more so. Unlike Msft, Sun insisted that their contributions remain confidenctial. Also, unlike msft, Sun got a buttload of option given to them by scox.
Sun is saying that they were just buying drivers from scox. Since when does a purchase like that come with a few hundred thousand options? The options are for $1.83, SCOX now selling for $13.
It will now offer SCO UnixWare licenses tailored to support run-time, binary use of Linux for all commercial users of Linux based on the 2.4 kernel and later.
Once the multitudes have fled the GPL security of the bona fide Linux and purchased the UnixWare license, the trap will be sprung. When 'critical' mass of those buying this license is reached, Microsoft and SCO will announce a merger where Microsoft will essentially buy SCO.
To put in more figurative terms, SCO is a 12-pounder cannon on the HMS Microsoft that is trying to blast the masts off of OSS Linux while the two are at broadsides. Once the main mast is broken, HMS Microsoft will wheel along side and try to dispatch the crew of OSS Linux.
What might be an insideous treason would be if SCO and Microsoft had this agreement some years back and SCO intentionally allowed its 'patented' and its 'copyrighted' source into Linux long before, and now are exploiting the treason.
Of course, this is all my opinion. :-)
Prepare to repel boarders!
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
You can't countersue, because you would have to prove their claims were false, which is going to be difficult if not impossible without knowing exactly what code they are talking about. Why do you think IBM haven't lodged a countersuit yet? If IBM with all their legal beagles aren't countersuing, perhaps there's a good reason, no? For further proof why exactly do you think SCO haven't lodged a damage-limiting injunction, which they should already have done if they're genuinely losing money? Perhaps because they have NO CASE.
Amongst many gems there is this,
I would strongly recommend reading the whole of the article I have linked. Moglen's stuff starts with the heading "Legally Speaking". It is very informative and quite reassuring.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Paying SCO for a license to run Linux in case they prove their claims in a court of law is about as sound an investment as going to the horse track and betting on a shetland pony being ridden by a Louie Anderson. Plus the pony is a quadruple amputee. And is also dead.
1. Post the same story as yesterday about SCO 2. ????? 3. Profit
If you wish to file a complaint with the SEC, you can find the directions (and even online forms) here:
http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml
Remember, be polite and businesslike in the text of your complaint. Be detailed, and make sure you are supplying facts that you can verify.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
...but I figured this was the best approach for figuring out exactly what SCO is trying to sell. Nowhere on the SCO page could I find any reference to this new "license" for UnixWare. In fact, the only place I could find any of their EULA information was by trying to download some of there software (I decided to check the EULA on UnixWare 7.1.3).
The only place that I can even see a mention of source code is here:
"Software" is the machine-readable (object) code portion of the Product and any human readable code contained on the media.
which reads to me that they don't give out their source code. Also, they have admitted here:
Caldera, the Caldera logos, Caldera OpenLearning, Caldera Volution, OpenLinux, Lizard, Webmin, SCO, The SCO Group, and associated logo, SCO OpenServer, SCO Open Server, ODT, Open Desktop, AIM Benchmark, and Hot Iron Awards are trademarks or registered trademarks of Caldera International, Inc. in the U.S.A. and other countries. Caldera Global Services is a service mark of Caldera International, Inc. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. UNIX and UnixWare, used under an exclusive license, are registered trademarks of The Open Group in the United States and other countries. SCO Legal Notice
that Linux is not SCO, and SCO is not Linux. As well as a reference in the EULA that there may be free software adhering to the GNU Public License included with their products.
So unless someone who was authorized to view their code (ie a real SCO developer), there should be no way that SCO Unix code could have found its way into the kernel. They also make no claims about Unix being SCO property in either their legal documentation or their EULA.
Either they haven't drafted this new license, or they're talking out of their asses. Any votes as to which??
The chains are broken
Loki is free
Ragnarok is at hand...
God to enforce patent on life. Every living being to pay licensing fee, otherwise your version of life will be terminated. thank you for your cooperation.
From SCO's reply to Novell's copyright allegations:
"Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights.... SCO intends to protect and enforce all of the contracts that the company has with more than 6,000 licensees."
So now SCO wants me to have a contract with them, by purchasing a UnixWare license? Why, so they can use it as a more effective weapon against me later? No thanks, Darl.
the no
There is a tiny possibility that SCO holds the copyright to some code in the Linux kernel, and there is also a tiny possibility that a judge will rule that for some reason downloading SCO's code from SCO's website with an included GPL license does not give you all the rights to the code specified in that license.
If the worst happens and these two possibilities both occur, then although downloading your Linux kernel from SCO should indemnify you from being sued for violating their copyright with that copy of the kernel, you will still not be legally allowed to make further copies of that code internally (until SCO identifies and Linus strips out any infringing bits).
In other words, the only way to be totally safe from a SCO lawsuit is to download a copy of that 25MB kernel file for every computer you own that runs Linux. I've got one for myself, and I'm getting a half dozen more to give friends and family now. I'm still getting 200+ kB/sec from SCO's servers, though, so apparantly most other Slashdot users just aren't as paranoid (or as pissed?) as I am.
Someone nuke Utah already!
Ahh but your breathing apparatus infringes on my being patent, as obviously you need a being to use the breathing apparatus, consequently the breathing apparatus is therefore a derivative of my being appartus. Therefore you are in breach of my being contract. I, hereby, revoke your users licenses of your breathing apparatus unless you pay for the damages of 3 Billion dollars. I'll see you in court and you'd better being holding your breath until then.
He also made it clear in an earlier interview that the issues were only on the periphery of the Linux kernel. SCO simply can't keep their story straight long enough for anybody to actually verify it.
nothing to see here, go back to your work.
I like the title of this article posted under "news" for SCO on Nasdaq... it's too bad the artical is boring in comparison. :)
/K I L L K I L L K I L L -- The SCO Group/
/PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- We are advised by The SCO Group that journalists and other readers should disregard the news release, SCO (Nasdaq: SCOX) Expands Web Services Strategy With Vultus Technology and Asset Acquisition, issued earlier today over PR Newswire. The SCO Group said a revised release will be issued later today.
MadCow.
Jul 22, 2003
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
The Jargon Lexicon.
Helping newbies understand the net since...a long time ago...
For a mere 10 bucks, I'll send them a photo of me giving them the finger. Until SCO produces real evidence, fuck SCO.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
The thought occurs that the code SCO claims may not actually be on the FTP site for distribution...
In SCO's case, the damages could be easily mitigated by releasing enough detailed information so that the offending modules can be rewritten. Now we have a good idea why SCO has chosen not to do this, it is not to their short term advantage. They are relying on FUD to boost their stock prices and provide a cash stream to pay Bois and friends.
So the real question is, how will the court interpret the fact that they have refused to mitigate damages? Any lawyers out there that can answer this question?
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
SCO group has been expertly marketing a new product. But will that product sell? Basically they are now selling insurance. Insurance that they will not try to sue your pants off. Sounds like a wimpy version of a type of fire insurance sold by a well know family business in NYC years ago. The real question to ask is does SCO have any IP rights to Unix at all? So far they have only shown contractual rights. No patents have been flaunted by SCO. They have shown no ownership of original art. So far we have heard about [and seen a little] of a contract of sale with Novell and the original ATT licenses. If SCO can't come up with original art or patents to support there IP claims then they are dead in the water. Although it will be interesting to see how a court sorts out a conflict between contract rights and patent rights. Perhaps the final note for SCO will be more like the crunch you hear when an enormous animal steps on a tiny bug [we can only hope it comes sooner than later].
The truth suffers more from convictions than from lies.
If you licence the code from SCO, their actions break the GPL code of the rest of the kernel. So from a hedging-your-bets perspective is it better to not be in compliance over 80 lines of code which are alledged to be stolen, or to not be in compliance over thousands of lines of code which is known to be licenced improperly?
Of course as far as risk goes, SCO is a lot more sue-happy than the kernel developers. Maybe it's time they started blowing around some hot air of their own?
I would, but that's not one of the choices, so I guess I'll respond instead.
And that is why Microsoft must be sitting pretty, grinning to themselves - they have effectively nullified the main argument for going with OSS.
Are you the kind of person who clicks on the "Your internet connection is not optimized, buy our product" banners? Are you one of the 100 or so people who keeps spammers in business by buying the products they advertise? Do you pay protection money to guys that threaten to burn your house down? If so, then you're exactly the sucker SCO is looking for.
Neither Microsoft nor SCO have "nullified" anything. You are not obligated to buy a license from SCO because there has been no decision regarding any copyright infringement, trade secret disclosure, patent violation, or whatever the hell else SCO is claiming these days. They're shouting from the rooftops about seeking relief once they've had their day in court, and trying to shake down gullible businesses by promising they'll be exempt from any infringment claims when that day comes if they buy their Unixware license now, but it's all just smoke and mirrors.
If SCO wins against IBM (remember, those are the parties in this case), there is no existing precedent or law that says you as a Linux end user are obligated to pay SCO one thin dime. If IBM wronged SCO, then IBM is responsible for making restitution. Any other interpretation has dire ramifications for software licensing in general:
I could care less what SCO thinks I "owe" them as a Linux end user. If they can prove that the Linux kernel has infringed code, I'll be the first in line to get the new 2.4.xx-scofree kernel release.
And if hell freezes over and some court decision makes it impossible to use Linux without paying SCO some kind of tribute...well, there are plenty of *BSDs out there. It'll take time for SCO to sue them all.
Jay (=
(1) I know the GIF patent has expired in the U.S., I'm taking a little artistic license here. Pretend you live in Japan or something.
Actually, while the issue you raise is interesting, it's not relevant to the SCO v. IBM case. SCO can claim that it owns derivative rights to all of IBM's Unix work till the cows come home, but IBM's contracts with ATT explicitly grant IBM ownership to its derivative works and exempt it from the derivative works clause of the standard ATT Unix System V contract.
See paragraph 2 of the following document:
http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitC.qxd.pdf
Christoph Hellwig
Kernel Engineer Unix/Linux Integration
Caldera Deutschland GmbH
Linux repeatedly and deliberately uses int main() in it's code and even has the gall to copy the return () function as well! The lot of you penguin snoggers should be shot, hung, drawn and quartered.
-- "You can lead a yak to water, but you can't teach an old dog to make a silk purse out of a pig in a poke" - Opus
Linus doesn't care about corporate suits, and has always maintained this.
Christoph Hellwig
Kernel Engineer Unix/Linux Integration
Caldera Deutschland GmbH
SCO must be paying Rob Malda to constantly run stories about it, thus generating more publicity for SCO! It's all a vast evil right wing conspiracy! Bwuhahahahah.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I'm interested to see what would happen if even 1/10th the users on Slashdot decided to 'investigate SCO's licensing options'. You know, just give them a call, or an email. Repeatedly. Just to be sure.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
maybe Darl McBride and his executive goons will soon get what they deserve - a bullet^H^H^H^H^H^Hboot to the head.
...what would happen if we tried "attacking" SCO the best way we know how - ignore them!
/. is falling into the trap of making a point of the amount of smoke the SCO is generating - and (accepting the golden rule about managers being sheep and not thinking for themselves) managers believe that where there's smoke....
/.'ers and the press are doing is pumping this information up and ramping up the share price of a company that was very near to having death throws not so long back.
/.'ers, the general populas) can do.
Treat them the same way you'd treat an abnoxious, rude kid that is throwing a tantrum - walk away. When the kid sees there isn't an audiance they normally stop.
All that this sort of reporting does is create more FUD - and
All
Until the Judge that hears the prelim falls about laughing before chucking the case out, there is nothing we (linux community,
So sit back, relax and when people go "What about SCO' case" go "BAH", wave them away with the words "shoo shoo" and then go back to making a difference.
And remember, you can't spell Scoundrels with out the letters s c o
Jaj
If the threat was they would come and break your legs if you don't put their logo on your face, sure. They are only demanding you purchase a license or be sued.. Pretty simple thought process.. ' Be legal or be sued, this is your last warning'
No different then any other company. They just are giving you the chance to be legal after the violation. Most companies just come and sue you with out an offer.
This doesn't mean I agree or disagree, just going under the assumption that if they win the court case that this practice inst extortion, as people are claiming.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I can't really fault your logic... except for it being wrong of course. :)
If the only thing at issue were the outcome of the case (IBMvSCO) you would be right about the need to delay action until the last possible moment, and then be brutal. Unfortunately, the outcome of the case is not a concern here.
let's concentrate instead on winning the minds and hearts of the people who make technology-related decisions
Indeed.
Those are the people who will abandon linux in droves, or who will immediately pay $50 per seat (or whatever), when a bill arrives along with a legal notice demanding payment. It is in the interest if the linux community, that is to say the developers, coders, and servicers of linux, to prevent those letters from being sent.
There is already a significant amount of FUD in the linux USER community, and especially in the COMMERCIAL user community. If we want that community to continue to remain healthy, then something must be done to curb this before it is too late.
I hate to be alarmist, but if linux is to be anything other than a home-user/enthusiast OS, action will need to be taken. Soon.
Ok,
/. have made proposals to "buy SCO" via a concerted effort via like-minded /.ers, etc.
Several folks on
I'd like to propose taking the idea a bit further. What I propose is:
1. Have a charitable organization set up a fund to collect money for the explicit purpose of buying SCO. Would EFF be interested?
2. Have paypal, etc. mechanisms set up to allow contributions to this fund.
3. Immediately start buying SCO shares as money rolls into the fund.
4. Immediately start letting SCO management know that their days are numbered.
5. Eventually, buy controlling number of shares.
6. Vote those shares towards a proposal to elect Linux Torvalds the Chairman of the Board. Other Open source dignitaries could be elected to the board as well. I'm sure RMS would be ticked that he wasn't Chairman. That's a whole other set of problems.
7. Take control of the company, put in the proper company president.
8. GPL whatever IP assets SCO believes it holds in the quickest manner possible.
9. Once the IP assets are distributed start selling the owned shares back to the public at large, i.e. get rid of it.
10. Take any proceeds from the sale of the shares and give them directly to EFF or whomever decided to take on the task of buying SCO in the first place.
11. Walk away satisfied knowing that you've made a whole lot of people happy.
Ok, what have I missed? Sounds like a decent, legal, fairly quick (this SCO thing could go on for many years) way to shut those guys up and return some normalcy back to things.
Nobody gets hurt (at least not badly), the money goes for a good cause, and IP rights are where they should be.
Thoughts?
Caution: Contents under pressure
They have yet to even prove their claims in court and they're already trying to go to the next step.
It's like selling you the 'paint sealant' at a car dealership. Most people scoff at it as a scam, but some people (who don't really understand the situation) think it's worth paying a bit more to protect them from a threat they perceive to be quite real. And it's a large enough percentage that the dealership considers the payoff worth the effort of having the salesmen push it.
I think this quote from Gordon Haff sums it up:
SCO is hoping that even if 99 percent of Linux customers laugh in their face, that there will be sufficient large companies who, for what is presumably going to be a relative drop in the bucket of their IT budgets, can potentially eliminate a cloud over their heads.
It reminds me of the tactics used by Robin Hood Software in one of yesterday's slashdot stories.
That's right let's all pay SCO the "license fee". Just remember to send them the right amount of Monopoly(tm) bills, because they don't give change.
Question: How many people visit Slashdot daily? How about weekly? Out of those, how many are highly upset over SCO's actions?
... and I will make them pay for what they've done!!!"
;)
Is it possible for us to unite against a common foe like SCO? I mean in legal ways. I'd love to hear some ideas from some of you folks out there. I know that most of you won't be recommending SCO products anytime soon, and that helps, but I keep wondering if there's not some way for thousands of pissed off people to have a bigger voice (or stick).
I know it's always chic to use Star Trek quotes on Slashdot, but I think this one is appropriate:
"We've already made too many compromises; too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not this time. The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!
Can it be done? Make it so!
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
This story is basically a duplicate of this one.
Cast:
1) American forces/American Commander: Linux Users
2) German armoured units: SCO Management
3) Total Annihilation/Surrender With Honor: UnixWare License
==================
To the American Commander:
The fortune of war is changing. The American forces in and near Bastogne have now been encircled by strong German armoured units.
There is only one possibility to save you from total annihilation: To surrender with honour. A term of two hours will be given from presenting this note. If this should be rejected heavy artillery corps and battalions will immediately after the two hours respite annihilate the American troops in and near Bastogne.
Signed:
The German Commander
====================
I believe the reply is just as appropriate here!
Yikes, SCO is in trouble, because Gracenote already has a patent on the business model of "Extort unsuspecting user community". Remember what they did to the (previously free) CDDB?
Damn it.
I've just spent all my money on an SMP system so that I can really utilise all this "stolen code"
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
... so bad, I did dream about SCO ripping my Linux apart tonight. /., but instead do something like writing your favourite senator.
It was really a bad dream - do you know how it feels, when your freedom is gone?
Please stop whining here at
And please tell me what I can do here in germany!
That would provide an exhaustive list of all code that could potentially be infringing copyrights. Of course infringement of SCO's alleged contract rights for so called derivative work would not be included, but that can't impact Linux users. IBM is the only party to the contract isn't it?
According to this Gartner Group article on SCO's website, "SCO has indicated that the libraries are available from SCO for $149, or lower with discounts."
I wonder how deep the discounts are? How deep will Micro$oft's discount be if they try to become the exclusive distributor of SCO's "licensed" linux?
----------
perl -e 'print(pack("H*","646176652e7761676e657240676d616
Are all open source projects vulnerable to this kind of legal attack? What if, say, company X claims that their IP found its way into the source code to Samba (or Apache, or GIMP, or ) and then tries extorting license fees from users of Samba. Is there any way to protect the end users from such an attack? Or will this become the open source business model of the future?
So, what kind of penalty could you expect for breaking an NDA?
As the organ sounds fade to black, tune in tomarrow for the next exciting episode of 'The World of Unix' will Daryl keep up this sharade or will he be ousted, will uncle Billy take advantage to offer servers cheap Linux migration packages? is Big Blue going to own up to the crime? Will the sysv virus kill all the Penguins in the zoo? Will Steve finally give in and use a real computer? and will that strange salesman from Europe get all the customers instead?
The suspence is killing me.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Can I borrow ten bucks?
General Nuisance: "Let's threaten to sue the world, and maybe we'll get bought" (If I scream loud enough, Mom or Dad will just give me ten bucks to get me to shut the hell up.)
Impotent attempt at Intimidation: "You'd better quit using Linux right now!" (Gimme the ten bucks, dammit!)
Appeal to authority: "I'll sue you if you don't quit using Linux" (I'll tell mommy you're being a hog if you don't share!)
Appeal to justice: "That code was developed here. Linux wouldn't exist without SCO." (You stole ten bucks from me last week. Give it back, ya big bully!). Note that Scooter's a little twerp who's way more likely to steal from someone else, than get stolen from.
Harrassing your Target: "Dear Linux User...you're using our code." (Can I borrow ten bucks? How 'bout now? How 'bout now?)
Appeal to pity: "How can you leave our company and all its employees without jobs?" (If you don't lend me ten bucks, I can't go see "Finding Nemo").
Bargaining: "Just buy this cheap license. I know it's worthless, but it'll get us to leave you alone." (Just give me five bucks and I'll quit bothering you)
Earning the ten bucks: "SCO begins developing a useful project (Maybe a financial program that interoperates with Quicken) & puts it up on sourceforge for us to all share & enjoy. Then they ask for donations to keep them afloat." (OK, Sis. I did all your chores for the week. Can I have the ten bucks now?)
Oops--that last one was how everyone else got their ten bucks. Scooter's looking for an easier way.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
I think almost everyone is buying the diversion and ignoring the real threat.
If SCO loses the lawsuit because of the so-called "viral" aspect of GPL, then Linux could suffer substantially as a result of SCO's loss.
Microsoft could say something like "see, we told you that crap was viral, you'll all lose your company's intellectual property rights if you use 'free software' with your proprietary work!"
Want to know how much "value" decision-makers perceive when they think about intellectual property and proprietary software? Look at the market cap of MSFT because the decision-makers do and many have owned shares since the early 1990's if they had a clue and wished their own companies were doing so well.
And by the time SCO loses, 'free software' would be associated strictly with GPL instead of any of dozens of other OSI-approved licenses such as BSD License and MIT License that are more friendly toward intellectual property ownership.
More and more news stories will talk about 'free software' ONLY in the context of GPL and basically cause every decision-maker to think they're one and the same. This is the subtle FUD (4th & 9th paragraphs) going on right now and most Linux advocates don't even realize it.
Face it, companies and governments like free stuff as much as we do but requiring them to give up their proprietary work makes it easy for SCO & Microsoft to argue against in the context of money and national security.
The fact that many companies won't make a dime on the affected proprietary software or that the govt's affected proprietary software is mostly useless crap doesn't matter--perception is what matters.
Why do you think SCO wanted 1,000+ companies to EXAMINE the GPL? Because they knew most didn't bother yet and their lawyers would freak out if they saw the intellectual property issues with GPL. So if SCO loses based on GPL, they end up winning what they originally set out to accomplish: making companies avoid the use of GPL software and by fud association all 'free software' too. How many clueless companies will replace Apache web server because they incorrectly believe it is covered by GPL? 8,000?
DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer and all my messages are not to be taken as statements of fact but are solely my own opinion.
So, even in the unlikely chance that SCO was able to demonstrate a violation of their copyrights, their actions might be against distributors, and they would have no right of action against the rest of us.
Sadly, this is not so cut-and-dry. Under one interpretation of copyright law (very popular with the content providers), you create an actionable copy every time you load something into RAM. Thus, it's conceivable that SCO could make a case that every time your computer boots Linux, you are violating their copyright. Not too likely, perhaps, but less far-fetched than some of the claims that they have already made.
http://www.ostracize.us/
;)
http://www.ostracize.us/
The ostracize.us project is simply a way to protest SCO and their current abuse of the legal system.
Using rbldns, I'm listing sites known to run any SCO operating system, or companies who directly support SCO.
I am but one person but w/ contributions from others, this project may grow
Linus doesn't care about corporate suits, and has always maintained this.
Linus may not care about corporate suits, but if you don't care to see M$ and SCO roll Linux up, stuff it in a pipe, and smoke it, you better. By the way, you are a troll.
If neither IBM nor Microsoft (both of whom have droves of lawyers specializing in IP) think SCO can pul it off, don't you think you're worrying for nothing?
Last I checked, Microsoft just paid SCO a small fortune. Conspiracy theorists suggest that M$ was simply paying $CO to spread FUD.
I conclude that M$ sees Linux as a threat... and is doing something about it.
IBM is following your good advice and will win their court battle. Remember, IBM is not irrevocably tied to linux. If linux dies due to FUD, they'll move on to service xBSD, or whatever other OS rises to replace it... even Windows if need be.
This should be basic wisdom now. If people are known to cave in to this sort of thing, be it from RIAA, SCO, or some two bit thug who wants protection money from you, then it will never stop. America is already totally polluted with the notion that you can scam your way to a big pile of money while providing the people you scam with little or nothing in return.
Either something happens to break the cycle, or we can become another south america.
Shrivel up and die SCO. You are worthless and we're all just laughing at you. I pirated your piece of shit "SCO Unix" years ago. It SUCKED. Just go bankrupt like you obviously have been for YEARS and stop trying to pull decent people down with you.
Oh, and I toured your building when I was 12. I was disgusted by you then, too.
(I sure hope someone at SCO reads that)
Woo Linux!
I recently sent my congressman an e-mail regarding off-shoring tech jobs through washtech. Is there a similar group that fights against stupid litigation that serves no other purpose other than confusing the public and wasting tax dollars? Not only do they want us to license our software but they are using our tax dollars to do it. Yes I know they pay for there own lawyers and such, however they also push back legitimate litigation and use up the courts.
SCO should lose their rights to do business in the united states, the patent and copyright department(s) should be reformed because of this copyright. Obviously they didn't know what they were looking at and didn't care to find out before the copyright was issued.
I wonder really how much grief this will cause the US government as well as any other governments because the copyright was given and not completely understood.
I know, 'they are users, they should not be expected to understand'. Yes and we are all still using horse drawn carriages and oil lamps.
SCO, is not welcome. I will never buy a SCO product and neither will any of my friends, family or clients. Yank their corporate license. Ask your congressmen to protect our rights, which should never have been in question to begin with.
I am typically security minded, paranoid if you will, however I can think of no better use for crackers at this point than to take down SCO and keep em down (not meant to encourage). They suck.
:-( --- argh. Despair, I owe again.
Ok, I did my part and filed a complaint with the SEC, concerning the allegations that this whole lawsuit was just a scheme to artificially inflate the price of SCOX stock, so the big shareholders could bail out and profit.
0 00 104746903023599/a2114384zs-3.htm
C OX %20&selected=SCOX
0 20 4&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=185
/ 05 28203&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=185
6 24 0&mode=thread&tid=130&tid=185&tid=187&tid=190&tid= 88
5 26 NWBZLL
Here's what I sent the SEC:
Names, Address, Telephone #s and Other Biographical Information
about Individuals Involved
Darl McBride, CEO, other executives
How you Learned about the Transaction or other Activity
Published media report, SEC filings, Internet postings on Slashdot.org
Details About the Transaction(S)
It appears that top executives at SCOX gave (and exercised) generous stock options at an artificially low price, to themselves, immediately before filing a lawsuit against IBM; regarding alleged IP violations relating to the Linux operating system. Since that time, SCOX stock has increased in value dramatically. Based on the volume of insider trades that have taken place since the suit was file, it appears that this suit was filed only to inflate the value of the SCOX stock, so they could "cash out" and pocket millions. There is also a strong possibility that these same executives know the suit is without merit, as they knowingly distributed the disputed code under the terms of the GPL license, which Linux is provided under. It also appears that if any IP made it's way from SCOX's code into Linux' code, it was done by an employee of SCOX (when they were previously known as Caldera ).
If on the Internet, All Relevant Internet Addresses
www.caldera.com, www.sco.com
Any Additional Information
Use this area to add any additional information that you wish.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/
http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/Holdings.asp?symbol=S
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/22/141
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/22
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/21/151
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2003072201
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
SCO's Tux tax.
JeR
money out of the corporations is a good idea, but the individual users should be left alone
The phaomnneil pweor of the hmuan mnid. Fcuknig amzanig eh!
But why did they do that? Because they know that SCO doesn't have a hope in hell of winning in court. If they thought that SCO could win, they would have bought SCO up in a second. Don't you think Microsofts' lawyers have already looked at this, and told Gates "No, they don't have a case, and if you buy a significant interest in their company, you will get your ass handed to you in court".
This way, their hands are relatively clean liability-wise when the wheels fall off SCO's case. After all, all they did was buy a license.
They're (Microsoft and SCO) both fighting a holding action, slowly giving ground. Linux won't die because of FUD. If that were the case, it would have been dead on the first Hallowe'en letter :-)
As for IBM's loyalty to Linux, remember how they got behind Linux way back when, and gave it credibility in the noo-space. Print ads, TV commercials, a commitment of $1,000,000,000.00 Sure, they could walk away from the money, but it's more than that - they've invested their credibiity, and from a business standpoint, a reversal would give them a whole lot of hurtin'.
[I hate posting anonymously, but due to contract restrictions, I cannot post this with my name attached since that could be traced back to my employer, and I can't (nor do I want to) do anything that could attract rabid SCO lawyers.]
I'm the IT manager for a company running close to 300 linux boxes and big plans for growth. We have no plans to send a penny to SCO, sign a contract with SCO, move from Linux (RedHat) or in any way change our strategy, tactics, or operations because of this farce SCO has perpetrated.
The executive team is comortable with this decision. Neither the VC nor the board, AFAIK, have even raised the question - and they are all *very* tuned in to such things.
If any of them were to want us to get in bed with SCO in *any way*, I would fight with every weapon at my disposal to keep us SCO-free.
We use a journaling file system, but not the one IBM wrote. We have a handful of systems running SMP, but we could work around that if we had to. And I would, before I'd let SCO into this company.
[FWIW, I have experience with SCO Unix a few years back - at the time it was abysmal. I fought to get SCO retired at that company (it worked), and I have had no use for SCO products since.]
Since there seems to be no shortage of clever (and not-so-clever) analogies for this whole SCO thing, I'll toss this one out to all the whiners wondering why Big Blue hasn't said anything yet.... "In a fight between a terrier and an Irish wolfhound, it's the yappy little dog that makes the most noise. But that doesn't mean it will win the fight." Not mine, can't remember where I cut that one from...
Our dear friend David Boies has said:
"It's not necessary to resolve the I.B.M. case before resolving - or litigating, if it comes to that - the issues with end users."
SCO could definitely make it unpleasant for many people. I hope IBM squishes them before this gets out of hand.
You post is a non-sequitor. If SCO put the code in there or released the kernel with the code in there, then they have released it under the terms of the GPL, plain and simple.
:)
It's not a matter of "respecting other peoples IP". It's a matter of SCO recognizing that they have released this code to the masses as part of their own distribution. Please see:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Also, since the code in question has never been *fully* shown (bit and pieces only from what I understand) to anyone, it's not possible to correct the situation by taking the code out, if it indeed *is* in there.
SCO is attempting to screw the community for their own benefit, just like USL did in years past to BSD. SCO will end up the same as USL in the end: limping away and linking it's wounds.
P.S. I don't use windows because it is so suceptible to viruses and I actually value my data.
P.P.S Only utter cowards post anonymously.
Have a nice day!
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Finally, a use for Micropayments! Surely it's worth a Flooz!
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
So, what kind of penalty could you expect for breaking an NDA?
You have to take a job at SCO.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
According to the US Copyright Office's online database (http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html), the SCO Group, Inc. holds one copyright:
1. Registration Number: TX-5-705-356
Title: UNIX system V, release 4.1ES.
Description: Computer program.
Note: Printout (20 p.) only deposited.
Claimant: the SCO Group, Inc.
Created: 1991
Published: 27Jun91
Registered: 30Jun03
Author on © Application: UNIX System Laboratories, Inc., employer for hire.
Previous Related Version: Prev. reg. 1992, TXu 510-028, et al.
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: revisions.
Special Codes: 1/C
Seems to me they should be listed on a boatload more if they really claim all Unix System V copyrights.
FYI, Novell has 521 items they registered their claim to copyright on. None of which are Unix System V. Unix System Labs is indicated as the author/claimant for about 75 items, including items dealing with Unix System V release 4.2
Seems slightly strange to me that SCO would not have requested updated records for prior Unix copyrights to add their claim
. there used to be a sig here.....
The more I hear about this SCO crap, the more I believe it's entirely orchastrated by Microsoft. I mean, who is is going to benefit from this? SCO? Do we think they're that stupid that they think people are going to suddenly buy Unixware instead of Linux? No, people will buy Windows Servers instead, if anything. Microsoft is the only company who stands to earn anything from this charade. It's really sad. =\
This is only here to put a little bit of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt into the head of Mr. McBride. He engenders within me a strong desire to kill him in a mysterious and subtle manner.
Reply saying that Windows also includes free software, ask them if they want your solutions developed in a different OS. Please do it, don't let ignorance triumph so easily.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It's not a problem for the latest tactic. If a Judge determines that SCO bought Calera -- without knowing that Caldera was distributing their stolen copyrighted code -- and they continued the normal operations of Caldera until such time as they figured out that "Hey, this is our code!" , then they promptly took legal action, it could be argued that they did not knowingly agree to the license.
Under this tactic, SCO is saying "well, fine, we won't distribute Linux (thus we won't be subject to the GPL), we'll just attack distributors who don't have licenses for our copyrighted code by taking them to court for copyright infringement.
Under this scenario, SCO doesn't care if the GPL is valid or invalid. SCO doesn't care if the IP was wrongfully contributed and distributed under the GPL... Under this scenario, SCO would be arguing that they haven't done any distributing, and thus they can prevent people from distributing these unauthorized copies of their work... unless they have a license... because SCO is a third party who has nothing to do with the GPL granted between the code-theif and the recipient.
Of course this means that they can't knowingly continue to violate the GPL by distributing Linux in any form.
The critical flaw with this whole scenario is in the GPL's clause indicating that the code cannot be distributed period if there is a license encumbrument. It goes a little weird when the contribution is by a code-theif who can't be trusted to reveal all their contributions and that the copyright is in the hands of a third party who won't reveal what the code-theif contributed either.
Unfortunately, if SCO is aruging that the code is a trade secret and is protected by copyright, they might just make it nearly impossible for anyone to definitively purge the secretly copyrighted code from the kernel.
So under this maligned idea, this will either push the kernel back a few years, or blow over when a Judge decides that either 1. SCO did release the code under the GPL, 2. The code is not stolen, 3. that the code is not a trade secret and SCO has an obligation to minimize everyone's damages by revealing where the copyrighted code resides.
IANAL, etc, it's just an idea. I think any judge in their right mind would at least argue #3. #1 and #2 are not crystal clear to me. After all, if Caldera for example, was cooking their books, would SCO be on the hook by discovering it and revealing it, even months after buying them?
SCO is arguing that Caldera, like everyone else distributing Linux is/was guilty of an illegal act.
Looking for Mr. or Ms. Good Lawyer...
What if someone signs the SCO NDA then breaks it by revealing the offending code? How much risk does this person actually incure? My guess is that the risks and consequences are purely individual. What if such a person basically had nothing to lose? What if such a person had only months to live and would be willing to volunteer for this Don Quixiote type of role? What would it take to have such a one enter into the NDA code review role?
Don't know if this is redundant or old but anyway here it is.
. as p
Linus on SCO in this article:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1133134,00
I think that this part is the most interesting
"SCO alleges that you need to focus more on getting clarification as to where the code that goes in the Linux kernel comes from. Do you have any plans to change the current Linux development model?
No. I allege that SCO is full of it, and that the Linux process is already the most transparent process in the whole industry. Let's face it, nobody else even comes close to being as good at showing the evolution and source of every single line of code out there. The only party that has had serious problems clarifying what they are talking about is SCO, and now when details start emerging like with RCU, it's clearly about IP that they had nothing to do with, and don't even own. I'm sure that they are confident that they own the collective work of Unix, but that's a separate thing entirely legally from being the actual copyright owner of any specific section of code."
This RCU he is talking about, if I am not misinformed is this not copyrighted by IBM?
I really HAD another userid
> McBride made it clear on that interview yesterday that 2.2 kernel is clean.
He also made it clear several months ago that Linux distributors/users weren't involved in all this, just IBM. Seems he's changed that tune a bit, huh?
So, fellow AC: any predictions on what Mr McB will say about the 2.2 kernel tomorrow?...('tomorrow' meaning 'at any future time')
is this you Darl?
I know it's you:) Do not shame of stupid remarks and post as AC. Everybody already knows you're IDIOT, there's really no need to hide that fact
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Here's an interesting and timely announcement from Microsoft:
...
Microsoft to pick up clients' legal tabs
Microsoft will now fully indemnify customers from any liability stemming from IP lawsuits involving Microsoft products.
Just in case there was any doubt as to who was pulling the strings in this whole SCO debacle
FTC Complaint Form
So, let's see SCO also announce... Windows licenses from SCO... guarantees that SCO won't also sue each and every Windows users.
This certain has to be one of the most creative scams in a while. One does have to give SCO/McBride credit for such a ballsy strategy...
That's pretty damning to my theory :-)
I work for a multinational. We have been slowly replacing some Solaris servers with Linux on the grounds of cost and have even deployed Linux for internal firewall, print, file and web services.
.Net which is already making inroads due to an evangalist.
We are largely windows based but OS has certainly been making inroads, especially in development which is largely Java based.
A week ago a memo went around from the head of IT saying that the use of Linux is banned and the use of any other OS product now has to be agreed at board level. This includes things like java libraries from the Jakarta project.
Subsequently my boss has had the Microsoft account manager onto him waffling about the 'OS cancer' and how basing an IT strategy on products where the intellectual property is at best dubious is a dangerous strategy.
So I've now been tasked with auditing every single place where Open Source is used, suggesting none OS replacements, their cost and the impact from plug-in replacement to complete redevelopment. I suspect at the end of the day we will end up dropping Java and going
The fact that a Microsoft account manager mentioned - although more in passing, about the SCO vs. Linux case made me wonder whether this isn't part of a carefully planned strategy between SCO and Microsoft. I suspect it will kill Linux in our organisation, why would anyone want to take the risk on OS now?
Why don't we all just email SCO and tell them, I am running a copy of linux and I won't pay you one cent. Kiss my A$$
SCO is counting on plenty of companies adding it all up and deciding that a few thousand for extortion is cheaper than being sued or moving to Windows Server 2003.
I hope they can get their money back when someone with principles and enough money for good lawyers finally slaps SCO down.
It took a real world war to end the airplane's patent wars. - Fâché Rouge -
When you sign the NDA you only get to see a small example of the (alleged) infringing code, you're not told what files it came from and your not allowed to take copies with you... You sit through a presentation of two similar code listings with all context stripped out...
Linux end users have not done anything analogous to buying a magazine. In the eyes of SCO, Linux end users have obtained Linux in a manner analogous to users downloading copyrighted music from Napster/Kazaa/etc.
Twelve-and-three-quarter inches. Unyielding. This wand belonged to Bellatrix Lestrange.
Allright SCO, I'm running SuSE 8.2, however, it's a special compile and I have removed all pirated SCO code. What that you say? I'm wrong? Come over and prove it. Show me the code and I'll gladly pay you a licsence.
Without SCO actually showing anyone the code that is supposedly theirs, how can they even tell me that it's in my compile. It's extortion, plain and simple.
That is what I'm doing. I tried to send an email to legal@sco.com, but it bounced. So, I'll have to call their legal dept. and say: "According to you, I am using Linux illegally. I am not going to buy UnixWare. What are you going to do about it?"
What do you think they'll do?
...my cousin Viny is extending this special offer to your business, for a limitted time only. A small fee will protect you from unexpected fires due to unexplained causes that may affect your building and are known to occur especially to those who miss the opportunity to buy this special insurance.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Anybody have any ideas what is in the SCO NDA? More importantly, what juristiction (there's a d in there somewhere, right?) would this have? What, for example, somebody from some tinpot little african country signs the NDA, then blabs about the alledgly "infected" code all over the web? What power would SCO have to actually prosecute?
Nothing has been proven in a court of law about this yet! SCO is practicing extortion and protection tactics, plain and simple.
These most recent developments change NOTHING!! It's still the same old story with a bit of window dressing. It's just more legal maneuvering and hard/fast talk from SCO.
Later, GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
It's about sales reps going into companies and saying "if you deploy Linux, you might get sued."
Specifically, it's about Microsoft and Sun sales reps saying that to your boss.
That's why Microsoft and Sun paid SCO $8 million last quarter, and are going to pay them another $8 million this quarter (figures from SCO's 10-Q and Darl McBride's earnings conference call). SCO gets $$$, Microsoft and Sun get a big FUD stick to beat on Linux with, and Linux gets screwed.
I so tired of the "your code is the same as mine" mentality.
...a money grab.
Just because the code is the same doesn't mean the machine code is the same. I can write 2 pieces of different code and get the same machine code. Am I stealing code then?
What if my loops count from 1 instead of 0.
The point is on what level of abstraction makes the "code" the same. I think technically the design phase has the same merit if you believe SCO.
It is possible to write 2 pieces of code exactly the same, without ever seeing the other.
Money grab just like every other headline you will ever see. What's behind it all?
I have a problem with what SCO is doing. I have bought and downloaded and used Caldera Linux in the past and recently from Caldera/SCO. So my question is do their customers need a license? If they don't and the product is GPLed then why does anyone need a license at all. If the product isn't GPL then I should be able to sue for "bait and switch" as well as misrepresentation of the product. I bought it, and it was suppose to be a GPLed Linux distribution. Also I should be able to sue for false advertisement since SCO/Caldera advertised a product that was suppose to be a GPLed Linux product with a few extra commercial programs and commercial support.
SCO can't say that everyone using Linux needs a license but their customers, because their customers are covered under their purchase and the GPL. If so then I can give my stuff away for free and SCO can't do anything about it. If not then I should sue SCO for lying to me both in the sale of the product and in the advertising of the product.
SCO can't have it both ways. They can't have their cake and eat it too. Either it was covered under the GPL and thus everyone should ignore SCO, or they are facing major lawsuits from all of their customers for misrepresentation of the product and out and out lying about the product.
Which is it?
Reminds me of the good old times when we had to buy a party approved list of boring books by high ranking communists in order to get a single classic.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
...have essentially gagged SCO until SCO shows that its IP really is present in Linux code. SCO has failed in court in Germany to present a convincing in support of its allegations concnerning the inclusion of SCO IP in the Linux kernel. Presently it is facing contempt charges for this. Why don't the linux developers and major release vendors file countersuits here?
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
I'm just waiting for a mob of penguins with pitch forks and flaming torches to knock on their door.
Either way, see the similarities with SCO, Rambus, and the Recording Industry Ass. of America/Motion Picture Ass. of America? Hell, where do you think all the mob/mafia guys go after their bosses are taken down? They regroup, duh!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The most recent posting on the Groklaw blog states the US Copyright Office claims that SCO cannot go after statutory damages or attorney fees for any copyright infringement based on the most recent filing. They can only go after actual damages, which are very hard to prove in court.
What are SCO's actual damages from someone using Linux who would never have bought any SCO product in the first place?
Doing some more copyright law searching.
Found these points at Bromberg and Sunstein LLP
Benefits of Federal Copyright Registration
Required for Infringement Suit. Generally speaking, unless the copyrighted work has been registered (or the Copyright Office has refused registration although the required deposit, application and fee were properly filed), a court action for infringement of the copyright will be dismissed.
Required for Statutory Damages. If registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work or prior to infringement, certain damages and attorneys' fees provided by law will be available, in addition to actual damages and lost profits.
Now, you can go to the Library of Congress Copyright site (www.copyright.gov) and search for the newly awarded SCO copyright: TX-5-705-356.
Notice that the SCO copyright lists publication date as 27Jun91, but registration date of 30Jun03. Combine that with "If registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work or prior to infringement, certain damages and attorneys' fees provided by law will be available, in addition to actual damages and lost profits." from above and it does seem like SCO will have a tough case to make in any litigation relating to copyright.
Presumption of Validity. In any judicial proceeding, a certificate of registration issued within five years of the first publication of the work confers a legal presumption that the copyright is valid and that all facts stated in the copyright registration certificate are true.
Also note that the 5 year presumption of validity time limit has expired.
Protection Against Importation of Infringing Copies. A copyright owner can record the registration with the U.S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing works.
Wonder how much of the alleged infringing work was done overseas? Wasn't some of it supposed to have been done by a German Caldera employee? Wonder if SCO has taken this step yet?
First off, I am just a lowly coder I have little or no power at this level of the company. The way it went down was that one of our customers(just one at this time, but a BIG one) sent our company a legal agreement stating that either we agreed to not ship them products with "free software" or they would find another supplier. The only reason I found out it was a customer that was requiring these changes was because I was talking to one of the lawyers about product naming for one of my products and this came up. Needless to say, I was surprised, and quickly responded with the "they run unix, they are already running free software", at that point the lawyer clammed up and realized he probably shouldn't have told me what he just did. This was about a month ago, and now the impact of that is hitting and we're doing rewrites of portions of our products.
This customer buys millions of dollars worth of our products and I can't go barging into the CEO or CTO's office telling him one of our huge customers is an idiot(BTW, most of this work is done in the mainframe world). If the CEO has to decide between losing millions of dollars of recurring revenue, and paying a handful of programmers to rewrite code for a month, I think the decision is pretty obvious.
But back to the point I was trying to make in my parent post. This whole SCO thing is affecting companies. The legal murkiness they are spewing is having its intended effect. This is just one example of how a company is trying to avoid the whole mess.
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
... now they own the Internet! The chumps that pay them for using Linux are just putting out a honeypot for every scam artist in the world.
Watching Cowboy Bebop in my jammies, eating a bowl of Shreddies.
What happened to Linux being a free open source OS alternative? Oxymoron. Why doesn't SCO try to make us have a passport account and activate Linux online and everytime we make minor changes in hardware configuration and charge us an arm and a leg for it. That sounds familiar... hmm. That's Linux with .Net.
(I hope someone thinks that spoof is funny)
I'd love to see a penquin in a red hat spray-painting cars to a customers liking...NOT!
it will be done as soon as you let us know what it is. so far sco has refused to identify it
Agent has it, it works just fine with newsgroups.
My Karma is bad. May I take you out for a drink? It's on me...
LinuxTag in Germany has gotten an injunction that makes a German equivalent of the Monday conference call illegal. Open Source Victoria has made a formal complaint to their government. When are 'We the People' in the US going to at least try to get an official requirement that SCO have to put up or shut up and be dismissed as FUDsters?
You are totally correct. This is something we as humans on planet earth really should need to learn soon. But, we shouldn't scrap the idea of faith completely, even if it has been abused for power-mongering and hate in the past. We should learn to understand the term correctly, as it was originally intended.
I'm not advocating blind faith. Blind faith is like attacking everything you don't believe in, because you're really not sure your faith can withstand outer pressure. It's when people become insecure, they become aggressive.
If faith cannot withstand logic, common sense or a sensible, human approach, then that faith needs to adjust to the living, breahting reality.
I'm talking about a bigger faith. That we can do something and make a difference, and even if we don't, at least we tried. That kind of faith can never be wrong, but people need to be open to new ideas and other's opinions. We need to find the values that are timeless, and not the symbols, rituals and words, that changes over time as everything else in this world.
Humility is to accept that you can be wrong. Everybody usually are in some way, it's very difficult to express timeless wisdom with the limitations of language. It's impossible to speak, without lying.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
What you are claiming as a "premise of the case" is not the lawsuit at all. That makes the rest of your comment meaningless. The case is about contract violations, having implications on the definition of derived works. The specific complaint from the lawsuit is:
The legal prohibition is copyright laws. The contract prohibition has not been shown to the public (AFAIK). As I have said to others, the case only about a contract violation between SCO and IBM. The issues that need to be resolved are: "What is a derived work in software? How much code copying is needed to make a program a derivative work? How much re-use of structures is required to make a derivative work?"The big issue is on derivative works. A narrow interpretation of the law could mean that any usage of any data structure created for SystemV would make the program a derivative work. Even a broad interpretation requiring extensive usage of System V ideas &/or code would place all modern unixes in danger. That is the fear of the IT Lawyers, and it should be your fear as well.
frob
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
SCO should be reported Tom Ridge and the Homeland Security crew. SCO are nothing but pure Corporate Terrorists. If, as rumored, their extortion efforts are being bankrolled by Microsoft, then MS should be brought up for supporting terrorists. Finally, commercials should be made with a supposedly wise gentleman telling his clueless lunch partner how using Windows or Office or playing XBox supports terrorism.
But Officer, I DID read the f**king article!
(If you don't lend me ten bucks, I can't go see "Finding Nemo")
Then you probably don't really want the ten bucks.
Will I retire or break 10K?
last post!
--
Ruby says "bwarghhhhh!"
Yes, and as much as I am continuing my use of Linux, I will continue to download music and movies (I am not sharing). I am out of reach of the RIAA/MPAA, as downloading (but not sharing) is legal in Sweden until December 31st 2003, when the EU Copyright Directive is put into effect in Swedish law.
By the way, my employer will continue to use AIX despite SCO:s wish.
Mmmmmmmmmarez.... *droool*
Actually, just one, you know, I'm in love...
All the Linuces of the world for one hug with her.
That fluffy, long mane, that gentle nose, pretty tail hiding the most ellegant black treasure.
And that tiny cute whiskers on her cheeks, she loves to have scritched so much!
Ehh, somebody get me a bucket!