Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is Licensing SCO Unix Legally Dangerous?

Posted by Cliff on from the stuff-to-think-about dept.

cheros asks: "I'm starting to get very puzzled by the SCO licensing scheme - am I mistaken or is licensing SCO actually about the most dangerous thing you can do as business or end user using Linux? [disclaimer: IANAL and AFAIK, so get decent legal council - I might be completely wrong ;-)] If I buy a copy of Linux from a provider, my contract is with that provider, NOT with SCO. In other words, if said provider has supplied me with something dodgy (and that is still very much an open question IMO), the issue lies with SCO and the provider, not with me and SCO, as I have no contractual relation with SCO in any way, shape or form. So, licensing SCO might actually CREATE that relationship and thus enable SCO to play further games with enforceable contractual obligations, something it currently lacks with end users. If that is correct it puts SCO in an even worse light (if that's possible) as that could mean deception as well as FUD. The latter might have become accepted in business and politics, but the former might actually be illegal in some countries. In short, as far as I can see you don't actually have a problem as a Linux end user...until you get a license. Comments?"

64 of 85 comments (clear)

  1. The one thing that licensing SCO linux will do is by Xenkar · · Score: 5, Funny

    It will make all of your linux friends laugh at you. Your new nickname will be SCO boy or something less flattering.

  2. This is worse than college football speculation. by BoomerSooner · · Score: 3, Informative

    At least with college football it will be concluded by january. This damn SCO thing is going to go on forever.

    Use linux, ignore SCO until they are done with IBM. And for the love of god quit asking slashdot, ask your lawyer.

  3. Your contract is with the distributor by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 5, Informative

    However, the distributor must comply with the terms of the copyright holder. If SCO holds any copyrights that are not covered by the GPL on the Linux codebase, your distributor is in violation of SCO's copyright unless they have specific exemptions granted by SCO.

    The upshot of this is that you as a consumer are safe from litigation, but if you were a distributor of the code (even passing a CD around the office would suffice) then you can be charged with copyright violations of SCO's code.

    1. Re:Your contract is with the distributor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The ownership of the code in question has NOT been decided, It could turn out that, as all /.ers know:

      Sco
      Copies
      Opensource

      In which case I would like to see all SCO customers getting letters from linux kernel developers for violation of their copyrights. Linux developers have the same legal claim over SCO software, that SCO has over Linux, until a court decides something one way or the other.

    2. Re:Your contract is with the distributor by deanpole · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, so buy your Linux from Sun. According to SCO they are the only Unix licensee who is completely paid up and squeaky clean. It only takes one copy by one person. GPL for one, GPL for all. :-)

    3. Re:Your contract is with the distributor by Derek · · Score: 2, Interesting
      According to Melise Blakeslee (a partner with the law firm McDermott, Will & Emery),

      "Users meanwhile need to understand that Linux enduser license agreements are an 'as is' contract, meaning Linux users aren't protected from copyright or intellectual-property infringement claims..."

      Quoted from the July 28th edition of Information Week magazine in an Article by Larry Greenmeier titled "Sco Group Threatens Users in Linux Fight" p.24 -- sorry, I couldn't find a link online.

      -Derek

  4. So.. by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... when's sco.slashdot.org gonna go online?

    1. Re:So.. by killmenow · · Score: 3, Funny

      yeah...so then I can put this in my host file:

      127.0.0.1 sco.slashdot.org

    2. Re:So.. by Kris_J · · Score: 2, Informative

      Craptacular as the SCO stuff is, it's actually very important stuff. SCO may not produce anything of note anymore, but they do appear to know how to abuse the legal system in a way that should concern anyone with a heavy investment in the IT industry.

    3. Re:So.. by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Why should there be concern. Anybody can sue anyone for anything. Everyone who has examined any of SCOs many and contradictory claims has found them to either be:

      a) provable false
      b) irrelevent to the point at hand

      There is no case, SCO will lose in court. There is no difference between SCO suing IBM over JFS and me suing IBM over the Kennedy assassanation.

  5. OSDL paper by Eben Moglen by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 4, Informative

    OSDL have produced Positional Paper on the SCO issue.

    It's a very well written 5-page document by FSF General counsel Eben Moglen, and can be found here.

    Ciaran O'Riordan
    --

    --
    Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
    1. Re:OSDL paper by Eben Moglen by Palos · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here is a reply to a portion of Eben's paper by another lawyer, it brings up some good points.

  6. Re:The one thing that licensing SCO linux will do by Ummagumma · · Score: 4, Funny

    It will make all of your linux friends laugh at you.

    Linux users have friends? I mean, other than the little stuffed penguin I^H *ahem* they keep on the monitor?

    --
    "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson
  7. Re:The one thing that licensing SCO linux will do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Of course you insensitive clod! I have a stuffed baby-simba-lion on my monitor.

  8. Exactly! by Greyjack · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Yep, it's just like when you buy a used stereo from a guy, and find out later that he stole it from someone else. Since you bought it in good faith, and in legal fashion, you get to keep it! After all, you didn't do anything wrong, why should YOU get screwed?

    Boy, this legal stuff is fun -- hit me with another one!

    1. Re:Exactly! by Alpha27 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Despite the stolen analogy, the guy above is absolutely right.

      Why should I, a purchaser (if I spent the money) and user of a product who acquired said product from a distributor who is responsible for the software bundling/creation, be responsible for it's illegal origins?

      It's the vendors who should be penalized for the wrong doing, not the user. If Microsoft added software to the Windows without the proper licensing, then Microsoft should be to blame, not I. If GM steals an IP idea from another auto maker and puts it into my new car, it's not I who has to cough up the car, it's GM who has to pay the penalty.

      So why is it that SCO thinks the user gets the penalty, and not the originator of the software?

      I'm so glad someone finally asked this important question.

      Now, it's just a matter of waiting for the final outcome, and seeing what happens.

      BTW, mod up the stereo thief. ;=)

    2. Re:Exactly! by nathanh · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Yep, it's just like when you buy a used stereo from a guy, and find out later that he stole it from someone else. Since you bought it in good faith, and in legal fashion, you get to keep it! After all, you didn't do anything wrong, why should YOU get screwed?

      It's not the same thing, because your example deals with physical property and the article's example is related to intellectual property and contractual agreements.

      Boy, this legal stuff is fun -- hit me with another one!

      Why bother, when you get even the easy ones wrong. Especially when the article is basically rephrasing what Eben Moglen said; you know, the professor who actually does know "legal stuff".

      Moglen points out that copyright law is not relevant to customers "using" Linux. In much the same way that readers can enjoy a book or a newspaper without a copyright license, so can users of software -- unless they have agreed to additional use restrictions in, for example, a shrink-wrapped box of software.

      But why do I get the impression that you're going to keep talking anyway.

    3. Re:Exactly! by Smartcowboy · · Score: 1

      I don't understand.

      Suppose I have a stereo. Then someone stole it to me. When the thief get caugh, it's too late because he sold my stereo to you. So I am screwed and I can't get my stereo back?

    4. Re:Exactly! by Greyjack · · Score: 4, Informative

      Um, I was being sarcastic.

      Say you buy a used stereo you find listed in the classified ads of your local newspaper. Then, a week later, the cops knock on your door to tell you it was originally stolen. What do you think happens then?

      If you bought it in good faith, you don't get arrested, no. But the cops take the stereo, and you're left to try and get your money back from the sleazeball that sold it to you.

      "Intellectual Property" isn't an accidental name -- it's property. If, instead of a stereo, it was a piece of software, I'd be very surprised if the actual owner who's work was ripped off would actually be so hamstrung; rather, I'll bet they could very easily drag you into court and demand that you either a) pay up, or b) stop using the software.

      Gee, kinda like SCO's doing right now! If we discover we actually ARE in some weird bent universe where SCO wins out in all this, fifty bucks says we WILL have to pay them or be branded pirates. But, we'll get to sue the hell out of RedHat, IBM, etc, to the extent that we actually paid them in the first place.

      Now, this DOESN'T mean that I think SCO has a case here, at all. I'm merely suggesting that this argument doesn't strike me as holding much water (otherwise, an Ask Slashdot wouldn't be the first place we heard about it -- it's an angle the more legally attuned Bigs would be pounding SCO with in much more public fashion).

      No, SCO is going to wind up in a world of hurt because they've ALREADY given their code away under the GPL.

      Further, five bucks says there's a handful greybeards out there who have full sets of circa 1974 unix source code, fresh from their personal archives, ready and waiting to be grep'ed for whatever code SCO is claiming is theirs. Given Unix's long, crufty evolution, there's doubtless TONS of code in there that SCO is assuming is theirs, but in actuality isn't.

      That, and they already gave away all their damn code under the GPL anyway. But then, I already said that :)

    5. Re:Exactly! by cthugha · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since you bought it in good faith, and in legal fashion, you get to keep it!

      Um, no, no you don't. There is a legal doctrine, nemo dat quod non habet (trans. "You can't give away what you don't have") that says otherwise. Since a vendor of stolen property does not possess title in the property, s/he can't possibly transfer it to someone else. Your only right over the property is a bare possessory right that's good against the entire world, except for the true owner.

      After all, you didn't do anything wrong, why should YOU get screwed?

      Yeah, life sucks sometimes. But why should the poor bastard who's had his stereo stolen have to suffer; he's just as innocent as you, after all. This is a case where the law has to come down on the side of one of two innocent parties who've both been wronged by a third, and the rule that the law has adopted in this case is caveat emptor.

    6. Re:Exactly! by EelBait · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You forgot that the phrase "Intellectual Property" is not a legal term. It is an attempt by sleazy lawyers to lump copyright, trademark, patents, etc. into some sort of catch-all even though they are nothing in common. Since the law does not recognize "intellectual property" your whole argument is baseless.

    7. Re:Exactly! by raffe · · Score: 1

      Why bother, when you get even the easy ones wrong. Especially when the article is basically rephrasing what Eben Moglen said; you know, the professor who actually does know "legal stuff".

      Moglen points out that copyright law is not relevant to customers "using" Linux. In much the same way that readers can enjoy a book or a newspaper without a copyright license, so can users of software -- unless they have agreed to additional use restrictions in, for example, a shrink-wrapped box of software.

      If this is so basic then why do SCO make such claims? They did sent out 1500 letters about it didnt they?

    8. Re:Exactly! by Basje · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not the same thing, because your example deals with physical property and the article's example is related to intellectual property and contractual agreements.

      No, not exactly, but the analogy is there. What he is referring to is the nemo plus rule (from "nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre postest quam ipse habet"). This says you can never transfer more rights to anything than you had in the first place.

      What you call physical property, is nothing but rights you have to a certain piece of matter. It is really not as dissimilar to intellectual rights, which are rights to an idea or concept. Both of them can (and are!) regulated by law. The only real difference is the object to which it applies.

      Next, please consider the following: rights are goods too. You can trade rights, just as you would trade physical goods. E.g. if you have a right to build a house on property you don't own, you can sell that right to a 3rd party. You can have a right to a right (e.g. the above example, you can have the right (option) to buy the above building rights)

      This brings us on a sidetrack: theft. Now that we've established that property is nothing but rights, and rights are goods, we can say something about taking or using intellectual property without permission. In that case, you take something that is not yours, and use it without having a right to. As you can see, that is theft. Often it is argued that with physical theft, the original owner gets deprived. But consider the following: someone has 1 billion pieces of candy. You take one, to keep for yourself, without permission. Is it theft? Do you think the person will be deprived? This is a good analogy to what is happening when an mp3 is copied. Theft is theft. (Piracy is something else)

      Once you realise that property isn't as absolute as you thought it was, the next step isn't hard to understand, although still hard to answer: who is liable in case of theft and fencing?

      When a person buys stolen property in good faith, most jurisdictions will protect that person. But what if that person is notified of the status of that property? In that case the person cannot claim good faith anymore. That's point one. From which moment on can't the buyer claim good faith? People who bought Linux before SCO came with their claims, obviously shouldn't need to worry. But people who bought after IBM refuted their claims? Is IBM's reputation so much stronger than SCO's that they can claim good faith?

      Why bother, when you get even the easy ones wrong.
      I'm sorry to say, but he was a lot closer than you were. Please check your assumptions before making conclusions.

      --
      the pun is mightier than the sword
    9. Re:Exactly! by Greyjack · · Score: 1

      I don't know that my argument is baseless -- however, I won't complain if you tell me it's pointless (as if there's a point to any post on /. that's IANAL in spirit).

      Whether it's full-blown "Property" or not, you can't deny that Microsoft has considerable rights, and thus considerable say, about who can / can't use WindowsXP.

      I don't think the minor semantic issues invalidate my point. I do apologize, however, for actually thinking, and occasionally coming to the conclusion that, from time to time, some of the anti-establishment, pro-Linux ideas that people present might have a slight flaw in them here or there.

      My bad.

    10. Re:Exactly! by Greyjack · · Score: 1

      Yeah, life sucks sometimes. But why should the poor bastard who's had his stereo stolen have to suffer; he's just as innocent as you, after all. This is a case where the law has to come down on the side of one of two innocent parties who've both been wronged by a third, and the rule that the law has adopted in this case is caveat emptor.

      Good point. So, if that's the case, why should SCO be denied their right to control the use of their code (assuming, for the sake of argument, that their claims are all true)?

      Or was the original Ask /. question just as flawed as my stereo analogy?

    11. Re:Exactly! by 8282now · · Score: 1

      But consider the following: someone has 1 billion pieces of candy. You take one, to keep for yourself, without permission. Is it theft?

      If someone has 1 billion pieces of candy and you take one away then, yes they are deprived.
      However, if someone has 1 billion pieces of candy and you make an exact copy, then they STILL HAVE 1 BILLION PIECES OF CANDY and you have one piece. Not 999,999,999 pieces.

      So your analogy isn't quite correct.

      Since this is a technically inclined group, allow me to pose a question:
      If it were possible to replicate (digitally) matter (food stuff for example), would/should there be grounds for providers of the original matter (farmers) to sue that their product was being stolen by the duplicators?

      What do you think about the concept of non-zero sum gain?

    12. Re:Exactly! by cthugha · · Score: 1

      The original question was pretty badly flawed because the poster was trying to apply privity of contract to property issues, but there is a possible defence in the fact that SCO has known about the use of its code and has basically let people use it unawares. There's an old doctrine known as proprietary estoppel that refrains the owner of property from exercising his or her property rights if s/he has knowingly allowed another person to improve the property with an honest belief that the property was theirs. I'm not sure if it's ever been applied to IP and I don't know of any authority on point, but it would be an interesting argument to run if SCO's claims of ownership were substantiated.

    13. Re:Exactly! by nathanh · · Score: 1
      No, not exactly, but the analogy is there.

      <sarcasm>And so many legal decisions are based on analogies rather than the law</sarcasm>

      Why bother, when you get even the easy ones wrong.

      I'm sorry to say, but he was a lot closer than you were.

      I merely quoted Eben Moglen. If you're saying he's wrong then that's your call, but I'm betting he knows more about copyright law than you do.

    14. Re:Exactly! by Basje · · Score: 1

      Rights can be split, as is the case in intellectual property. Eg, when you have a the copyright to a book, you can sell that right for North America to one party, and for Europe to another. You can keep doing that, all the way down to individual right, which is what happens when you buy a CD.

      When, instead of buying a CD, you decide to download an mp3, you very well deprive the copyright holder of a right that's split from his right to licence it. So they are deprived of their right.

      You can yell that they still have the original number of candy, but in fact, they have one less. So the analogy is more correct than you gave it credit for.

      Your question is a different one: you are talking about creating, by use of a duplicator in this case. Any matter, idea, or piece of music you create, you have the rights to. If, however, you use the duplicator to create a patented piece of machinery, you're infringing, just as you would had you used a hammer and a forge.

      --
      the pun is mightier than the sword
    15. Re:Exactly! by Greyjack · · Score: 1

      OK, in my initial reply, I was just being sarcastic (I know that if your stereo is stolen, and it's located, that you get it back, regardless of who bought it / sold it / whatever); I was trying to make a point by suggesting a ludicrous situation.

      However, when you start throwing terms like "primary estoppel" around, you very clearly a) more than just get any point that I might be trying to make, and b) are going to kick my ass, hard, if I try and argue against you any further on this, 'cause I'm clearly way out of my depth.

      Game, set, and match!

    16. Re:Exactly! by Basje · · Score: 1

      <sarcasm>And so many legal decisions are based on analogies rather than the law</sarcasm>
      Yes, they are. It's an often used tool for legal reasoning. In fact, the whole common law system is based on analogies and distictions between a case and precedents.

      If you want to read about it:
      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-reas- inter pret/
      http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/bridge/Analogy /analog y1.htm
      http://academic.udayton.edu/legaled/online /analyti cal/analys04.htm

      I merely quoted Eben Moglen. If you're saying he's wrong then that's your call, but I'm betting he knows more about copyright law than you do.

      I'm not saying he's wrong. I do say you may have misquoted him, because you obviously don't understand the matter.

      --
      the pun is mightier than the sword
    17. Re:Exactly! by schon · · Score: 1

      I don't think the minor semantic issues invalidate my point

      It's not a "minor semantic issue".

      If you buy a book, and it turns out that the author is guilty of plagarism, does that mean you're liable?

      No, it doesn't. As long as you're not making copies of the book (which would be illegal anyway), the plagarized authour would have no legal recourse against you.

      Software is more like a book than a stereo - it's covered by the same laws, in fact. So your argument doesn't hold water.

    18. Re:Exactly! by schon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If this is so basic then why do SCO make such claims?

      Because they have nothing to lose.

      NOTHING about SCO's position makes sense. They're fucked, they know it, and they're trying a "hail mary" to see if they can stay afloat long enough to drive the share price up so they can dump their stock and have enough to retire on.

    19. Re:Exactly! by jbolden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      can't deny that Microsoft has considerable rights, and thus considerable say, about who can / can't use WindowsXP

      I'll deny it. Microsoft has no rights regarding who can and can't use WindowsXP. They have one right about who can make copies of it. That's it. That is their only right, the right to control the creation of copies.

    20. Re:Exactly! by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      They have yet to establish their property rights at this time. They are like some neighborhood kid that's trying to take your shiny new bike from you without so much as a receipt.

      SCO is actively evading any attempt to make it show it's reciept. It is quite reasonable to think that they are full of sh*t.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    21. Re:Exactly! by Kalak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you bought it in good faith, you don't get arrested, no. But the cops take the stereo, and you're left to try and get your money back from the sleazeball that sold it to you.
      In other words, Linux is not in danger, as the cops knock on our door, take the offending code and we're left with some kernel hacker writing it based on established research papers, such as the RCU paper (sorry, not going to bother to link), and we're stuck getting our money back.

      I don't want to both getting my money back from RedHat, as I'm sure they will just release a clean kernel and I can move on.

      If this was a stereo we were talking about, it would be a big deal, but this a part of the kernel that will continue to evolve. Open source can evelve - a stereo can not.

      --
      I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by .hack)
    22. Re:Exactly! by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think the minor semantic issues invalidate my point.

      The problem is that they don't validate your point, either. Legally, your choices here are copyright infringement, patent infringement, and trademark infringement. Its clear that we do not infringe on SCO's trademarks because "Linux" is registered and in Torvald's name.

      Our next choice is patent infringement. Their claims that every variant of Unix and piece of software written for Unix infringes on their "Intellectual Property" might have a claim here... but nobody's been able to turn up a patent in their name covering this. No patent, no infringement.

      The last choice is copyright infringement. Here they might have some small fraction of their case against IBM: If someone at IBM took their written code and inserted it into Linux, SCO has a case. Even if the code was changed a little to avoid being a word-for-word copy, it would still bear the taint of being a derivative work or otherwise plagarized. In no way, though, could SCO claim to have copyrights on every piece of code in existance for Unix.

      Failing that, their only recourse is breach of contract, which would be an issue strictly between IBM and SCO. If SCO wins on the grounds of that, they have NO recourse against any Linux user, because their contract is only between IBM and SCO.

      I am not a lawyer, and there may be other laws I am unaware of, but that seems to pretty much cover the field as far as I'm aware.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    23. Re:Exactly! by itzdandy · · Score: 1

      actually, non-titled properties, those being properties that possesion implies ownership, would allow the purchaser to keep the property as long as it was bought in good faith.

      Good faith would also imply that the purchase was from a reputable dealer and not the crack head junky on the corner yelling "Stereo, 25 bucks homie!"

    24. Re:Exactly! by nathanh · · Score: 1
      I do say you may have misquoted him, because you obviously don't understand the matter.

      You get 0/10 for using the tired cliche of saying something is "obvious" to lend a veneer of false credibility to your indefensible opinion.

      You get negative points for choosing to call me a liar by claiming a misquote! That's your best argument? You're pathetic.

    25. Re:Exactly! by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      Whether it's full-blown "Property" or not, you can't deny that Microsoft has considerable rights, and thus considerable say, about who can / can't use WindowsXP.

      The only rights that Microsoft has via copyright law are the rights to determine how many copies of XP are sold. The so-called 'considerable rights' that microsoft claims to have come from your supposed acceptance of their shrink-wrap license. If you don't agree to their license then they don't have any hold on you...

      If, for example, I buy a PC, with a legitimate copy of Windows-XP, I have the right to use that software.. Microsoft can't claim anything from me until and unless I agree in a legally binding way to the extended terms of their contract. If they have a problems with the sale, then they have to go after the seller of the software (for violating the supposed contract, not the buyer (who has the right to buy the CD).

      Has Microsoft ever successfully sued someone for buying a used copy of their software from someone? Despite their copious legal bluster, I don't think so.

      I've never signed an SCO license, so they don't have any contractual hold on me beyond the GPL. If I go out and sign a 'protective' license with them, then I'm bound by whateve the terms of that license are... and I could end up (like IBM) owing them $1000 every time I break wind.

      I'm not stupid, I'm not gullible, and I'm not signing.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    26. Re:Exactly! by stephenbooth · · Score: 1

      For some reason the scenario that brings to mind is of Charlton Heston buying a gun that turns out to be stolen:

      "From my cold dead hand!"
      "Our pleasure Mr Heston."

      Perhaps I'm a sick fsck.

      Stephen

      --
      "Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
  9. SCO legal advice on slashdot. Just stop it. by mcdrewski42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    SMS>Since IANAL, and 4 this U need AL, U should get AL.<\summary>

    Seriously though, you're asking about the details of copyrights, sub-licensing and contract law on a site, which you have to admit, has shown it's opinion on this matter pretty strongly before.

    If you are being pressured into buying an SCO license, how about you ask those that are pressuring you what exactly you are licensing? what rights does it grant you and how may those rights be revoked?

    ie: Ask a lawyer. Don't ask slashdot.

    --
    /* affect != effect */ void affect(int *thing,int effect) { *thing += effect; }
  10. Don't contact SCO yet - if at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am not a lawyer, and neither are most Slashdot posters, so you're probably on a hiding to nowhere if you really expect to get advice on a legal matter here...

    Before I start, they haven't even started offering Unixware for Linux licenses yet - so why are you considering taking precipitate action. At the very least wait until they offer it! (and no I'm not advising you necessarily take it when they do)

    At least one lawyer seems to think you should not contact SCO, but maybe that's just Australia!

    A couple of other points have been raised from time to time:

    1. If you download Linux from ftp.sco.com (or get a CD), then you are getting from SCO under a GPL license. Some might say it's the end of the story, but even if it's not... SCO supplied it to you under a GPL license which they claim to have rescinded or not accepted (even while distributing it) - what is to stop them also rescinding or saying that they don't accept (in future) whatever new license terms you get their stuff under? They've done it once (GPL), how do you know they won't do it again (Unixware license for Linux)

    2. If you get Linux under some SCO license, you might be violating the GPL license of all the other kernel contributors (including individuals and large companies). If SCO gets destroyed, or even if not, as a result of this law suit, these people/entities could allege you broke their license, and sue you.... and I think yes they will find out who you are if they really want to, even if you SCO deal is confidential. The route they would take would (a) sue SCO, (b) get the list of SCO Unixware for Linux licensees from SCO through (a), (c) sue the Unixware for Linux licensees.

    1. Re:Don't contact SCO yet - if at all by jbolden · · Score: 1

      And what would be the grounds for the suit? The GPL does not require that you not be an idiot who gave in to an obvious con. Unless you yourself broke the GPL as part of SCO's license you haven't done anything wrong.

    2. Re:Don't contact SCO yet - if at all by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 1

      The GPL doesn't say you can't use Linux if it contains patented code, just that you can't re-distribute it.

      -a

      --
      /. users can't
    3. Re:Don't contact SCO yet - if at all by analog_line · · Score: 1

      This doesn't have anything to do with patents. This has to do with copyright infringement. Get with the program.

    4. Re:Don't contact SCO yet - if at all by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 1

      The same stipulation in the GPL states that if any part of a GPL'ed program turns out to be GPL-incompatible, you lose the right to distribute any of it.

      -a

      --
      /. users can't
  11. Re:The one thing that licensing SCO linux will do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They've got you by the SCO-tum.

  12. Hmmm. by Greyjack · · Score: 1

    Gee, there appears to be a flaw to this line of reasoning. Thanks for pointing that out.

  13. Re:This is worse than college football speculation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Is that a typo? Surely you meant "...ignore SCO until IBM is done with them" ?

  14. Re:So...Show SCO how to ho! by eyepeepackets · · Score: 1

    "...may not produce anything of note anymore, but they do appear to know how to..." be really, really annoying. Let me suggest that SCO (Caldera? SCOCAL!) would produce something of value if they just had an idea, ya know, a clue of what to do?

    Here's a an idea from which SCOCAL can attempt to make all the many millions they expected from riding Linux to the bank ("Hey, get off my penguin you fat bastards!"):

    The problem: I keep pop-ups "turned off" on my browser (Opera) because they are annoying and only occasionally useful, but that's the point I wish to emphasize -- they are occasionally useful but I have them turned off and that's a pain to change.

    The answer: I want a little yellow (whatever color) tag window to pop up next to my mouse when I mouseover a link which is in fact a pop up; if I want the link, I click the tag next to my mouse and get the popup, but all other popups are still denied for the usual general purposes but do show a (very little) click tag next to my mouse when I roll over one.

    There it is: a free, useful (emphasis on free) idea which SCOCAL can take to the bank. Did I mention free? It's so free an idea it's GPLed, right now, Fri Aug 1 00:12:49 MDT 2003!

    Oh my! I was just informed that SCOCAL would want _me_ to create both the idea _and_ the code, then they, SCOCAL, would try to begin to make all the many millions they expected from riding Linux to the bank ("Hey, get off my penguin right now, you fat bastards!")

    But wait, there's more: if and when they, SCOCAL, don't make all the many millions they expected from riding Linux to the bank from this free idea ("Hey, get off my penguin right now, you fat bastards!") they may become quite nasty about it and stomp and cry and and threaten and then sue ME if I decide to use some other company's mouse rollover tag instead of theirs because they, SCOCAL, are going to make all the many millions they expected from riding Linux to the bank ("Hey, get off my penguin right now, you fat bastards!") one way or another, regardless!

    Well, poo on that idea! SCOCAL can just go _DO_ (note the emphasis on the word "DO", it's part of the clue) something else and when they finally make all the many millions they expected from riding Linux to the bank, they will finally be OFF MY PENGUIN!

    non-anon

    --
    Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
  15. Could you lose your rights under GPL ? by ray-auch · · Score: 1

    The GPL says:

    7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License     [...then you can't distribute the work at all...]

    So if you sign a licence with SCO, then that licence might impose conditions on you wrt. Linux that would be contrary to the GPL - and then you would no longer be able to copy Linux at all.

    I think it will be pretty difficult (especially as they don't seem to understand the GPL) for SCO to draft a licence that forces people to pay the way they seem to want (per cpu) without imposing restrictions that would be contary to the GPL.

  16. Re:The one thing that licensing SCO linux will do by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

    Yay! I have a little porcelain baby Nala figure on my stack of SCSI drives. Along with a Ryo-oh-ki figure from Tenchi Muyo. Funny how work desks tend to accumulate little trinkets over the years...

  17. NO NEED CONTRACT TO BREAK LAW by OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN · · Score: 1

    OOGG is simple caveman with perhaps stone-age concept of law. But seem obvious no need contract to break law. OOGG use simple stone-age example.

    THROG HAVE STONE AXE. OOGG TELL Dancin Santa, TAKE AXE FROM THROG, GIVE OOGG. THROG angry. OOGG say "I don't have any contract with you, THROG, so your beef is with Dancin Santa." THROG probably say "THROG NO CARE, OOGG HAVE THROG AXE," crack OOGG in head with club.

    Many examples of breaking law without contract. Examples include: theft, copyright infringement, crack head with club, etc.

    1. Re:NO NEED CONTRACT TO BREAK LAW by Horny+Smurf · · Score: 1
      modern law works a little bit differently.

      Let's say I steal your axe. you still have title to it, even though I have posession of it. When I'm caught, it will be returned to you.

      However, let's say I sell your axe to CmdrTaco. If CmdrTaco reasonably believes that it is my axe, and pays fair value, he recieves title to the axe. Even if I am caught, CmdrTaco can keep the axe. However, I am liable for selling your axe without permission. This rule exists to protect buyers -- if I go to a store as a buyer, I should expect to gain title to stuff I buy.

      Note that if CmdrTaco thinks or knows I stole the axe, he does not receive title to it. Furthermore, if he doesn't pay fair value (eg, a reasonable value for a used axe, not a token $5), he does not recieve title.

  18. Not a great rebuttal by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the link.

    I was looking forward to a good rebuttal but Mark Radcliffe's points are quite weak.

    He argues that GNU/Linux users could be in violation because "Every time you load software into the processor of the computer, you're making a copy". If that's the best argument against Moglen's position then I'll continue to bet on Moglen. It could be deemed worthy of a day (year) in court but I'm content that it would ultimately fail.

    Radcliffe also points out that "the only lawsuit on record to date concerning SCO and Linux is the one SCO has filed against IBM". Moglen never claimed otherwise, he commented on the threatening letters that SCO have been sending to some GNU/Linux users.

    Radclife's biggest omission is that he doesn't comment on Moglens question "where's the evidence?".

    (Radclife seems to be generally commenting rather than rubutting Moglens arguments but his comments don't worry me.)

    Anyway, if there's a problem with Linux, we'll just run our GNU systems on the FreeBSD kernel :)
    GNU/FreeBSD

    Ciaran O'Riordan

    --
    Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
  19. Note : Kernel on ftp.sco.com by itzdandy · · Score: 1

    i can't find a kernel on ftp.sco.com

    they can offer other open sources software without destroying their case, but if they offer the kernel, which is GPL, then they release all code in the kernel via GPL. This is not like you can make SuSE linux GPL but not the artwork, the artwork is not IN SuSE Linux, but a file with it. The (supposedly)offending kernel code is IN the kernel theirfor would be GPL'd.

    but again, i can't find kernel sources available on their site, and im not sure if the linux they released ever included the kernel sources.

    1. Re:Note : Kernel on ftp.sco.com by Iron+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Isn't this a kernel?

      ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/update s/SRPMS/kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-106.nosrc.rpm

      I'm too lazy to actually download it and check, but it certainly looks like it's a kernel.

      --
      If my enemy's enemy is my friend, what happens if my enemy is his own worst enemy?
    2. Re:Note : Kernel on ftp.sco.com by Iron+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Heh... just noticed you said "kernel source" not just kernel. Still... I'm wondering why they would call it kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-106.nosrc.rpm

      --
      If my enemy's enemy is my friend, what happens if my enemy is his own worst enemy?
    3. Re:Note : Kernel on ftp.sco.com by croddy · · Score: 1

      no, it seems to contain only patches.

      still confusing why they're supplying patches to a kernel source they argue we shouldn't have.

    4. Re:Note : Kernel on ftp.sco.com by frkiii · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I read that the kernel source was there up to early July 2003.

      I have searched for it in the past two weeks and see a "patch" but not the kernel itself, at least what I can tell is the kernel.

      Seems the S.tupid C.orporate O.gre finally realized, after they said they were not distributing the source anymore, that they actually were for about six weeks or more, and finally removed it.

      If anyone has logs of having downloaded the kernel source (complete with the code they say was "copied" to it) after their announcment that they were not distributing it, I am sure certain parties (you could guess who) would be very happy to receive that data from you.

      Regards,

      Fredrick

  20. Correct by booch · · Score: 3, Interesting
    You are mostly correct. The whole SCO vs. IBM case is based on a contract dispute, not on any copyright or patent rights. SCO's CEO, Darl McBride, said in a teleconference that "we don't have any issues with copyright or patent with respect to any claims that we have made" regarding the IBM suit.

    And in this article he mentions "contract" 12 times, but only mentions copyright once, and that's only in regard to removing copyright statements. It's almost as if he is being coy -- making it sound as if there is copyright infringement without ever directly saying it. In other interviews, he also avoids the word, choosing instead words such as "infringing" and "Intellectual Property". The SCOvsIBM page makes a similar observation:

    Uncertainty is sown by much discussion of the case in terms of vague or broad terms such as "intellectual property" or "all rights", rather than addressing specific contractual, copyright, patent, or trademark claims. On specific grounds, Caldera/SCO's complaint seems quite limited.
    An important thing to remember is that you cannot be sued over the contract that SCO has with IBM. Third parties cannot be held liable for contracts that they did not agree to. So if you have no contract with SCO, they can only sue you on the basis of copyright infringement. And you can only be sued for copyright infringement if you have copied or distributed something.

    Do you really want to give SCO a new avenue by which to sue you? Given that SCO has not shown any evidence that anyone has infringed their copyrights, I don't see why you'd want to do that. SCO hasn't been exactly acting in good faith recently; I don't know if I'd trust any contracts they write up. Here's what Darl McBride says about SCO's use of contracts against their partners and customers:

    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.
    If I were you, I wouldn't even let them know that you use Linux. Why give them any evidence to use against you later? Try to stay off their radar.
    --
    Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
  21. Re:Is Licensing SCO Unix Dangerous? by stripe · · Score: 1

    So when and how does the community strike back? Is SCO support going to be yanked out of all GPL'ed products? Any legal minds think they can build a case to sue SCO? So far all I have read in the news from the Linux community is a wait and see, kind of defensive posture. I think the best defense is a good offense. :)

  22. Re:The one thing that licensing SCO linux will do by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    Your new nickname will be SCO boy or something less flattering.

    You mean even less flattering than the nickname I already have?

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.