Slashdot Mirror
Skeptical Reactions To SCO From Around The Globe
IpsissimusMarr writes "The Inquirer reports that 'The biggest computer manufacturers in Japan that build systems running Linux will hold out against blustering by SCO to extract license fees based upon unsubstantiated infringement claims, it has emerged.' Its nice to see more support from the business world denouncing SCO's tactics."
janda writes "ComputerWorld is reporting that several companies, including Coastal Transportation, Burlington Coat Factory, and Boscov's Department Store are taking a wait-and-see attitude towards SCO and their new 'Linux license' arrangement.
Best quote from the article:
'I don't remember signing anything with SCO saying I owe them any kind of licensing fees.' (Tom Pratt, Coastal Transportation)
I find it refreshing that companies are starting to stand up to SCO's blackmail attempts."
An anonymous reader points to this story at Mozillaquest according to which IBM says that SCO does not have a viable claim to JFS, NUMA, RCU, etc., writing "IBM says it owns the AIX code it contributed to the Linux kernel despite SCO claims that it has registered its Unix System V copyrights. A big problem for IBM and the GNU/Linux community might be the inclusion of JFS, NUMA software, RCU, etc into the Linux kernel. SCO claims it owns them. However, IBM, SuSE, and kernel.org's Richard Gooch reject SCO-Caldera and Darl McBride's claims that GNU/Linux contains SCO-owned or SCO-copyrighted code. ... The Linux kernel code is copyrighted under the GNU GPL. IBM owns its AIX additions and copyrights to Unix System V code and its development of JFS, RCU, and NUMA software code."
arilian writes "According to this article from ARNnet, SCO's new license may leave them open to litigation by other contributers to the Linux kernel." Bruce Perens and intellectual property lawyer Jim LaBarre are quoted in this one.
Finally, Joe Barr writes "I just filed a complaint against The SCO Group with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It was easy. I used their online complaint form at:
www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm.
The basis for my complaint is that SCO is using false and unsubstantiated claims of IP rights to UNIX and Linux in order to manipulate its stock price and force consumers to purchase SCO licenses.
Maybe someone else would like to do the same."
One word: Insane.
"I just filed a complaint against The SCO Group with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It was easy. I used their online complaint form... ...
Maybe someone else would like to do the same."
If a lot of people file complaints, perhaps that will cause the SEC, or the government in general, to take some serious notice of this serious problem.
no thanks
How valid is it to complain (via the online form mentioned) when one is not an affected or threatened party in this matter?
http://thechubbyferret.net - Ferret pictures and informative links.
It is good to see, that people are realizing that this is mostly smoke and bluster. In the end, however, it doesn't matter. What matters, the only thing that will really matter, is when the US government either says "You're right, here's your blank check" or "You're wrong, now shut the hell up." And compensation for all the trouble they've caused would be nice, too.
It amazes me that a company can do as much dammage as SCO, even if it is at the time being only damage to a reputation, without having to offer some sort of proof. The government is supposed to hold people blameless until they can prove otherwise, but corporations can throw accusations around all they please. We can learn a lot from Germany and australia in this regard.
Thomas Galvin
That's why. You could patent my work, and if I never challenge it, then you can say it's yours all you want.
SCO is stating that any code which IBM develops becomes property of SCO, due to a licensing agreement. So looking up patents is a moot point.
Aside from stating that IBM's license for AIX is perpetual and irrevocable, they have stayed quiet. If they were to come out and say "We own RCU. We own NUMA. This is why...", IBM could kill a lot of the FUD flying around in one swat.
Of course, to IBM, this would be tipping their hand too early.
Complaints are good, but you want to have a _serious basis_ for them, not just geek conjecture.
Otherwise, you're just going to piss the SEC off, and open yourself up for a lible suit.
There is some interesting evidence that this whole lawsuit is part of an insider trader scam. Look in the discussion from yesterday's SCO story, and you'll find some links to stuff on Nasdaq.com, and SEC filings, showing SCO executives purchasing SCO stock at bargain basement prices right before filing the lawsuit against IBM, and then you see those same executives selling may shares at dramatically inflated prices, in the last few weeks.
If you want to find the links quickly, take a lot at my recent postings, one of them is from yesterday, and it's where I posted exactly what I sent to the SEC.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
In order to see the disputed code, SCO makes one sign a NDA. Fine. What's to prevent him from passing the data to someone else who then posts it?
Umm, the NDA?
If you think it can't hurt you, why don't you sign it?
And if you still think it's a good idea, read this.
I had just thought it was moronic until I read the "warning to linux shops" ( http://sco.com/scosource/gartner_warning.html ) and afterwards have since filed every complaint form I can find about that company..
.gif thing, they are just shooting themselves in the stomach to slowly bleed to death..
yea, they are all bluster and think they *have* something.. but look what happened with the
I will *never* allow this company or any others I work for to have any dealings with them now, and further I will urge any customer of mine to drop any dealings with them. That is power of Linux users I bet they never thought they would see..
I have purchasing power and you SCO will never see it. (I hope your stockholders read this)
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
People keep saying this, but the people who say it aren't reading what SCO is saying.
/. posters say "So what if SCO doesn't believe it's clean, if we remove the offending code, it will be clean and then they'll have no claim."
SCO has said publicly that it no specific section of Linux can be removed or re-written to make it "clean". Their argument is that once SCO's IP was copied into the Linux kernel, later versions of Linux-- all of it-- became a "derivative work" and thus the entire kernel is now "SCO IP".
The only way they feel you could "clean" Linux is to revert to kernel 2.2 and restart development from there, but none of the existing developers or even Linux users could work on development because they've already been tainted-- all current Linux users have already seen the secret SCO IP in Linux kernels they're using. Any code created by current Linux developers or users would therefore be written with knowledge of SCO's super-duper technology, so SCO says that any code written by current Linux developers or users would therefore be "SCO IP" from the day it is born because it is a derivative work. And so they would still have to sue you for licensing fees over it, even though you just wrote it five minutes ago.
So, SCO says, we're letting you all off the hook. Since the only way to "clean" Linux development would eventually kill it completely (since no existing Linux developers or Linux users could work on a clean version), we'll be generous and let Linux live, and just charge license fees instead.
Now I've seen other
But they don't have any claim now; by most peoples' standards, they're making fraudulent claims to manipulate their stock price.Why does everyone think that if we remove some code from Linux and send a nice card to SCO saying that's what we've done, SCO will sit down and say "Okay, you're clean now. Thanks, Linux people!" and then withdraw their case?
And in fact, they've said they won't.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
I noticed a comment a few moments ago that hasn't yet been moderated above the default threshold. Please go take a look. Would anyone who knows better please care to comment on whether or not this complaint is reasonable, valid, and safe to submit without aggrivating the SEC?
Join Tor today!
Ahh, but the problem there is that the whole 'ownership of derivative work' thing only works when there is a contract in place. If I copy a chapter of a book and put it in my book, that's copyright infringement, but it doesn't make my book now owned by the plagarized author. Same with trade secrets and any other form of IP "protection".
There is no contract between SCO and "Linux", so the derivative work angle will not work. It also wouldn't work even if IBM did do something wrong, since they don't own the rights to the rest of Linux either so nothing they could have done could change the ownership of any of that copyright or any other IP besides that which they added.