Slashdot Mirror
Australian Linux User Group Fights Back Against SCO
ashitaka writes "The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that an Open Source group has gone on the offensive in response to SCO's latest demands that Linux users must buy a Unixware license to avoid any possible future unpleasantries. 'Open Source Victoria today filed a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, asking it to investigate SCO's activities in light of 'unsubstantiated claims and extortive legal threats for money' against possibly hundreds of thousands of Australians.' I especially like the last bit: 'One feels that this whole fiasco is the IT industry equivalent of a Nigerian scam or internet extortion ploy.' Oh yeah.."
Expect to see more of this in the future! And more publicity these counterlawsuits get, the better...
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
When all the trade commissions of the world are done with SCO, it's going to be one guy buried up to his neck and covered in Brazilian army ants marching aimlessly about his body consuming his delectably tasty flesh. Or maybe I'm thinking of someone else.
Open source group files complaint against SCO
By Sam Varghese
July 23 2003
An open source grouping has gone on the offensive against the SCO Group after the latter told companies using Linux to pay up or else face liability for running the open source operating system.
Open Source Victoria today filed a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, asking it to investigate SCO's activities in light of "unsubstantiated claims and extortive legal threats for money" against possibly hundreds of thousands of Australians.
OSV member Con Zymaris said "We take serious issue with The SCO Group's latest ploy, namely that of seeking licence fees from Linux users. As such, we have filed a complaint with the ACCC. We call on any Australian Linux users who feel pressured by SCO's actions to immediately contact the ACCC and file a complaint. You can do this online."
Zymaris said that with its latest move, SCO had crossed the line. "They're basically saying 'you owe use money'. But if someone asks 'why do I owe you money', they reply, "we can't tell you why, but you have to pay us anyway'," he said.
In March, SCO filed a billion-dollar lawsuit against IBM, alleging the latter had included SCO's Unix code in the Linux kernel. SCO also claimed that Linux was an unauthorised derivative of Unix and warned commercial Linux users that they could be legally liable for violation of intellectual copyright. SCO later expanded its claims against IBM to US$3 billion in June when SCO said it had withdrawn IBM's licence for its own Unix, AIX.
Another OSV member Andrew Pam said the organisation believed there may be a case to answer on the issue of "misrepresentation of need", where an organisation was suggesting that people must make payments that they were not obligated to make.
Pam said: "All of the Linux operating system has been released as Open Source software. We want to remind the IT industry that by definition, there are absolutely no licence fees payable on Free and Open Source Software. Anyone who claims that licence fees are required for Linux is deliberately misleading and confusing the public."
Zymaris said SCO's recent registration of copyright to the legacy Unix System V source code, on which SCO already claims copyright, in no way affected Linux. "Copyright registration is a simple filing procedure which merely formally registers a claim and does not in any way constitute proof of ownership," he said.
"SCO has yet to prove its claims of the existence of any disputed source in the Linux codebase. Linux was written from scratch by a global community of free software volunteers and IT corporations.
"We believe that SCO will find it extremely difficult to cement their claims in court, and until they do, they are spreading fear to extract money from innocent users. We believe this is unethical and possibly illegal in Australia."
Zymaris said that even if SCO could show that any Unix System V source code was present in the Linux kernel (and was not intentionally contributed by SCO's own staff) SCO could not absolve itself as for the past few months, it had been publishing all such code publicly under the GNU Public License.
"This releases all supposedly disputed code from any additional encumbrances from SCO, meaning that all users can use Linux with impunity. Through their insistence on withholding public disclosure of any worthwhile evidence in this case, The SCO Group are leaving an impression that they have no such evidence," Zymaris. said. "One feels that this whole fiasco is the IT industry equivalent of a Nigerian scam or internet extortion ploy."