Slashdot Mirror
OSDL Position Paper on SCO and Linux
cshabazian writes "The OSDL has released a position paper raising serious questions about SCO Group's threatened litigation against end users of Linux. The position paper, which casts doubt on SCO's position, was authored by one of the world's leading legal experts on copyright law as applied to software, Professor Eben Moglen of Columbia University."
The ODSL has released a position paper...
I'm really glad to see the Old Dominion Soccer League (ODSL) taking a kick at this. Hopefully they'll have the balls hang tough with SCO and score one for Linux lovers everywhere!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
So basically all they did was smarten up a few thousand /. comments and put it into a PDF? so buissness plan for them is.
1: read /. comments
2: insert good grammer and spelling
3: mash them all together
4: release as pdf
5: ???
6: Profit!!!
"For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
So, I see at least Two Commandments broken here, Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness, and Thou Shall Not Steal.
Sadly, I doubt the courts will apply any punitive measures, even when SCO loses. I think if the top SCO execs, and Bois, were to be publically flogged on the Washington Mall, we might see a return to ethics in the boardroom.
A. Rightmann
It all hinges on how fair you think reverse engineering is. The fact is, anyone should be able to come out with a competing product without worrying that any similarity will bring a huge lawsuit and patent problems. If you stole their secrets, that's another thing, but a competing product should not automatically be illegal.
stuff |
We all know what's going on. The people who really need to read this sort of paper are the PHBs-- the sort of people who would believe the latest Gartner Group rubbish stating that Linux should be avoided...
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
One thing that hit me from the first paragraph: Why would they be going after the end users first, rather than the people who profit from their supposed patents? It's really starting to sound like FUD tactics against Linux. Why else would they try to scare people off of using it rather than getting $ that should have been theirs (that is, a legitimate copyright beef).
...right behind SCO with a sharp object in hand.
Seriously. STOP!
We get it.
Wow! He actually casts doubt on SCO's claims! That must have taken a legal genius! Certainly something none of the nerds on
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Call me a troll, but something like SCO case was actually needed by the Linux community. While the game was "just for fun", no one really paid attention to any licensing issues. However, currently we're experiencing major expansion of Linux-based systems into business field, and business executives usually ask about IP rights and responsibilities.
If Linux wants to be a player in the business world, it's got to play by the rules, and that's what SCO case is about to clarify. If there is any verdict on the SCO case, it will allow the Linux OS to be treated more seriously than just a hobby operating system.
Now faced with the question "How does Linux deal with copyright issues and licensing?" one can always point to the SCO case (assuming that the trial gets resolved in IBM's favor) and quote the precedent, which is usually good enough in the US.
This last outbreak of FUD attack by SCO will actually stop all the FUD and conspiracy theories surrounding Linux in the business world.
This is all great, but I think this sort of thing needs more press. Every time SCO speaks, it's everywhere, but these sorts of things are never mentioned. Hopefully some people notice.
Happy New Year, it's 1984!
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.
Agree with it or not, at least one lawyer thinks users could be liable. -Derek
s/ODSL/OSDL
ODSL = ??
OSDL = OpenSource Development Lab
(this sentence is here to bypass the lame lameness filter)
was authored by one of the world's leading legal experts on copyright law as applied to software
;)
...users of free software around the world are being pressured to pay...". Something about reading an article when the first line of it is incorrect doesnt bode well with me! SCO, HAS NOT yet got after any end customers... they have threatened that they could be in volilation, but have not gunned after anybody but distributors for money!
:)
Anyone notice how many "leading experts" there are these days?!?! That word has come to be so badly abused, I tend to ignore it. Once I hear "worlds... well... relatively mediocre expert" then I will stand up and take notice!!!
My only other complaint is from the very opening sentence... "
On the whole, not a nice way for one of the worlds leading experts (tm) to start, imho!
but I don't how this adds anything that wasn't already said.
--Chag
I was working for several years at SCO, and was the lead developer for their SMP module. Anyway, I was also good friends with Linus Torvalds at this time. Once I was working at home, and he came round to visit me. Anyway, when I got back to work, I noticed that my printer's paper tray was empty. I didn't think anything of it at the time, but I guess Linus must have printed off a copy of the code, and used that for Linux SMP support.
No idea why he didn't just ftp it to himself. I guess the guy never was too hot when it comes to computers.
We're all IANALs. So it actually took a REAL lawyer to sort this out.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
SCO got stood up at the wedding (project monteray) and is now suing IBM's new bride Linux, cause she didn't get what was promised to her.
And now she wants to ruin everyone elses wedding, unless she gets a gift for her ruined wedding.
Since when has SCO demonstrated ANY interest in the truth ? This is just more fodder for the SCO FUD machine.
The best thing we could all do is ingnore SCO and boycot them into oblivion and discuss the matter no further than we absolutly need to. While this document may be interesting, it's nothing extraordinary in that we have not already read it all before.
SCO has embarked on a truly extraordinary path of self destruction and they will get their wish. Let us not be the ones to prolong their demise.
1. where's the evidence of infringement?
this is the key argument: without evidence of infringement they clearly have no claim.
2. you can't charge a license fee to users
this has to be correct: if there has been a breach of SCO's copyright then SCO has a right to sue the Linux distributors. It has no right to charge or sue Linux users.
3. SCO distributed the allegedly-copyrighted work themselves, and have therefore licensed it under GPL
I'm not sure it's no simple. SCO will no doubt argue that, at the time, they didn't realise the source contained their copyrighted material. This raises the question of whether you can be legally bound by the GPL if you don't realise what you were licensing. This is a tricky question under English law; I've no idea what the US position is but doubt it is straightforward.
Stop Using Palatino
Of course, this looks like it was set in LaTeX so it's probably using URW's Palladio knockoff anyway.
FreeBSD - the power to serve.
void complaint = NULL; sorry, it won't compile.
Well see printing it out and typing it up by hand is a cude method of Clean Room engineering :)
and what about a mirror of this post?
He's basically boiled the thing down to three points, familiar to any regular slashdot reader by now, but put in a nice simple, short, easy to digest form by a qualified lawyer. Great link to send any PHB that is worried by SCOs FUD.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
The deal is, AT&T had a 'standard' contract for licensing Unix, which IBM, Sequent, and other companies signed. Sun Microsystems didn't, they purchased their license outright, and thus don't have a contract (or something, not really important but sun can do whatever it wants.)
The standard contract said that AT&T has rights on any changes you make to your Unix code, IBM got a special amendment to the contract stating that they owned any changes they made to AIX. but Sequent did not, and Sequent, not IBM developed the tech that SCO is bitching about (NUMA, RCU, ETC). IBM, SCO and Sequent were all working together on project Monterey, which was supposed to be an 'industry standard' Unix, but IBM lost interest in Monterey, purchased Sequent and left SCO out to dry (now, this was the 'old' SCO, not Canopy/Caldera SCO).
Anyway, SCO thinks that it owns the contracts because it owns the original Unix IP (or at least the copyrights anyway, none of the patents)
In fact, the person who wrote the RCU code for Dynix (or whatever Sequent's *nix was called) for Sequent is the sameperson who wrote the RCU code in Linux for IBM.
but, and here's the thing, Sequent developed it's tech independent of Unix. RCU and that stuff would work on any modern OS's kernel. They published their papers and filed their patents before they implemented it in their own version of Unix.
So the issues are:
Did the contract rights really transfer to SCO?
Does the "naked" contract Sequent signed mean all their tech is owned by SCO now? Does it mean that the "naked" contract mean that any technology that you develop, and later put into a Unix clone automatically become the property of SCO?
Does IBM's special contract apply to stuff they acquire from other Unix vendors?
The answers to these questions aren't totally obvious, although to me they should mostly go to IBM's favor here. On the other hand, the claim that SCO owns all of Unix is ridiculous. The proper thing to do is tell everyone what files are infringing and then have them rewritten by the community. SCO seems to claim now that anyone who touches any Licensed Unix code, or any code by anyone who has touched any Licensed Unix code has sold their soul to them, which is just idiotic.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Here is some more legal commentary. It seems to dispute some of the OSDL's position - but comes up with other reasons why SCO's case may be flawed.
Here's another lawyer (Australia), saying don't "drop your pants" to SCO.
Finally, here's IBM planning a response to SCO's amended complaint. Once again SCO's web site seems to omit some important issues.
Sure, a lot of us here were thinking the same things that this paper says (albiet with more four-letter words).
However, this is a pretty useful tool for showing to the people who normally WOUDLN'T have our technical backgrounds. I plan to point some folks to it.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
You guys always complain about bias when the Gartner Group etc., releases a study about how Microsoft is better at this or that.
But I don't see anyone complaining that the OSDL certainly has a vested interested here and is hardly to be expected to provide an unbiased report.
Discuss.
Linux is the direct competitor to SCO & Microsoft for position in markets they lose ground to every day that passes.
Microsoft spends quiet a bit of money studying "things" and one thing they admitted was that their FUD attempts have backfired at every twist and turn and the only thing that seems to get businesses to listen to was legal liablity.
Microsoft & SCO are simply trying to stop Linux anyway they can. SCO is simply a "middle man" between the two major forces here: Linux & Microsoft. Microsoft does not worry itself (or share holders) about SCO; they can easily be gotten rid of, and it's no small bonus that this whole ordeal will do it for them. They can't stop Linux adoption so it's simple case of "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" - until such time as it's not needed...
Legal liability is the card they are playing because it's the only one they have left regardless of merit. We all know it but businesses play by the rule of corporate liablity; which is how much money can we make/lose.
BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
Questioning SCO: A Hard Look at Nebulous Claims
Eben Moglen
Users of free software around the world are being pressured to pay The SCO Group, formerly Caldera, on the basis that SCO has "intellectual property" claims against the Linux operating system kernel or other free software that require users to buy a "license" from SCO. Allegations ap-parently serious have been made in an essentially unserious way: by press release, unaccompanied by evidence that would permit serious judgment of the factual basis for the claims. Firms that make significant use of free software are trying to evaluate the factual and legal basis for the demand. Failure to come forward with evidence of any infringement of SCO's legal rights is suspicious in itself; SCO's public announcement of a decision to pursue users, rather than the authors or distributors of allegedly-infringing free software only increases doubts.
It is impossible to assess the weight of undisclosed evidence. Based on the facts currently known, which are the facts SCO itself has chosen to disclose, a number of very severe questions arise concerning SCO's legal claims. As a lawyer with reasonably extensive experience in free software licensing, I see substantial reason to reject SCO's assertions. What follows isn't legal advice: firms must make their own decisions based upon an assessment of their particular situations through consultation with their own counsel. But I would like to suggest some of the questions that clients and lawyers may want to ask themselves in determining their response to SCO's licensing demands.
Eben Moglen is professor of law at Columbia University Law School. He has served without fee as General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation since 1993. This paper is based on a presentation given to the Open Source Development Lab's User Advisory Council in New York, July 24, 2003.
1 Where's the Beef?
What does SCO actually claim belongs to it that someone else has taken or is misusing? Though SCO talks about "intellectual property," this is a general term that needs specification. SCO has not alleged in any lawsuit or public statement that it holds patents that are being infringed. No trade-mark claims have been asserted. In its currently-pending lawsuit against IBM, SCO makes allegations of trade secret misappropriation, but it has not threatened to bring such claims against users of the Linux OS kernel, nor can it. It is undisputed that SCO has long distributed the Linux OS kernel itself, under the Free Software Foundation's GNU General Public License (GPL).1 To claim that one has a trade secret in any material which one is oneself fully publishing under a license that permits unlimited copying and redistribution fails two basic requirements of any trade secret claim: (1) that there is a secret; and (2) that the plaintiff has taken reasonable measures to maintain secrecy.
So SCO's claims against users of the Linux kernel cannot rest on patent, trademark, or trade secret. They can only be copyright claims. Indeed, SCO has recently asserted, in its first specific public statement, that certain versions of the Linux OS kernel, the 2.4 "stable" and 2.5 "development" branches, have since 2001 contained code copied from SCO's Sys V Unix in violation of copyright.2
The usual course in copyright infringement disputes is to show the dis-tributor or distributors of the supposedly-infringing work the copyrighted work upon which it infringes. SCO has not done so. It has offered to show third parties, who have no interest in Linux kernel copyrights, cer-tain material under non-disclosure agreements. SCO's press release of July 21 asserts that the code in recent versions of the Linux kernel for symmet-ric multi-processing violates their copyrights. Contributions of code to the Linux kernel are matters of public record: SMP support in the kernel is predominantly the work of frequent contributors to the kernel employed by Red Hat, Inc. and Intel Corp. Yet SCO has not shown any of its code said to have been copied
This is the guy who won't give a straight answer to explicit questions about the LGPL and Java linking?
Hey, Eben, when's the last time you won a case? When's the last time you were even arguing before a judge or jury court?
My medical studies make me an "leading expert" on the vulnerable areas of the human body. Funnily enough, that doesn't mean that any untrained street punk can't kick my ass.
Frankly I'd give more credence to a practicing lawyer than a guy who got tenure by documenting other peoples' achievements.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
...tradition of dueling to solve disagreements? Sounds like a great way for lawyers who disagree to resolve disputes to me. Dontyathink?
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
Why do you want those soccer moms and kids to get slashdotted?
This is probably because what those jocks did to you in high school, eh?
Forgive and forget, man.
Forgive and forget.
Or, is it maybe some pension fund or something like that with corrupt management "investing" in the SCO stock, helping their PHB pals at SCO?
Conspiracy!
(Well, that would make more sense than most other explanations...)
So when is this slated to go to trial ?
karma : former act as leading to inevitable results
> Now faced with the question
> "How does Linux deal with copyright issues and licensing?"
> one can always point to the SCO case
> (assuming that the trial gets resolved in IBM's favor)
> and quote the precedent, which is usually good enough in the US.
There may not be (and IMHO, probably won't be) a trial.
If SCO and IBM settle out of court, there is no precedent.
Even if the settlement says that SCO should pay IBM, it could be a secret settlement, and there still would be no precedent to slay the FUD.
I like the sound of that.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
- Code deliberately licensed by SCO under the GPL
- Secret code copied into the GPL by a third party
Moglen seems to be claiming that since SCO has distributed Linux after discovering its secret code, and thereby accepted the GPL licensing of Linux, it must therefore have accepted that its secret code is also now licensed under the GPL. Its odd that Moglen never actually quotes the GPL itself, although he does cite it.Obviously the licensing of certain code under the GPL by an organisation does not infect everything else published by that organisation. If the secret code exists in the kernel then SCO retains copyright and has not licensed anything.
The only clause that might "infect" the secret code with GPL-ness is the derivative works clause. Section 2 of the GPL states:
So if SCO has modified a stock version of the kernel to create a derivative work then it automatically licenses everything in that new derived work, and all works subsequently derived from it, under the GPL. In theory this applies whether a human being at SCO spotted the secret code or not, although I'm not at all sure that such an argument would stand up to the legal principle that you can only agree to something if you consciously know you are agreeing to it. However, having modified the kernel (creating a derivative work) and then distributed that derivative work, or one further derived from it, knowing that it contains the secret code, it does seem that SCO has indeed licensed the secret code under the GPL.
Moglen states that SCO has dontated chunks of code the Linux kernel. Torvalds has stated that it will be very easy to find out who contributed what in the past. So, can we find out exactly which bits of code were granted by SCO, and if it did indeed create a derived work that would trigger section 2b of the GPL?
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
They're everywhere on this site. They love downmodding anything they can, spilling their chai drinks in the frenzy to nail every troll they think they see. In the meantime, perfectly funny, worthwhile, and/or simply insightful posts fall into the drip tray of Slashdot.
Oh, and don't forget michael, king of the tools.
Regards,
Hank Kingsley
http://boston.internet.com/news/article.php/224331 1
Rugby.. Now there's a sport...
A solution to the problem with music today
Thus beginning a Monty Python thread :-)
What I wanna know is: What happend to OSDM? Is it in the same box with Preparation G and WD-39?
They tried that. It took 5 days of argueing over the rules for the court to decide whether the victor was theperson who was still standing, or the person lieing on the ground in a pool of blood.
Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose.
1. Where's the beef?
His first point argues that he doesn't have all the facts. He sets up a strawman outlining what he thinks SCO's position is, and then proceeds to argue against it. Bad form.
2. Why do User's need licenses?
Except for Free software, it's accepted that users need valid licenses for their software. His argument hinges on the position that SCO is going after copyright issues, which SCO hasn't claimed (point 1). PHBs accept software needs licenses.
3. Do Users already have a license?
I thought his argument was that they don't need a license? His argument here is the same as IBM's position paper - they distributed under the GPL so tough luck. It may be as cut and dry as this, but I would like to hear a judgement from the courts.
If you take my work, break the license and then distribute it as GPL, if I distribute your product under the GPL without knowledge that it infringes on my work, should I suffer?
In short, I think SCO is going to lose, but this article does little to convince me that companies may not be vulnerable. In fairness to the author, he admits not knowing the facts of the case at the beginning - so everything after that is pretty pointless.
I can't believe the moderators were silly enough to moderate this up. Perhaps
... there are still rampent copies of illegal windows installations running all over the place, as the BSA is all too willing to exploit and emphesize. Virtually every client I've done work for ... my current employer excepted thanks to our meticulous internal audits conducted by yours truly ... has been running numerous unlicensed programs, including Windows) and then write off any copyright or patent concerns as someone elses problem.
... hardly an outcome that will undue years of repetition of untruthful innuendo and FUD that Linux and free software will have to try and combat in the meantime.
Call me a troll, but something like SCO case was actually needed by the Linux community.
I don't believe you are a troll, so much as woefully (perhaps willfully?) ignorant of recent free software and open source history. I could speculate on an agenda you might push with such a reasonable sounding, but factually incorrect, comment, but as you are an Anonymous Coward it is pointless to do so. The moderators who modded this +5 on the other hand are fair game, and almost certainly Microsoft/Sun astroturfers in local garb.
While the game was "just for fun", no one really paid attention to any licensing issues.
Untrue. Linus released the original kernel he wrote under the GPL quite deliberately. Even then he was paying attention to licensing issues and their impact on his project (though he never dreamed of the magnitude of that impact).
RMS has always paid meticulous attention to licensing issues. Recall KDE/qt's GPL issues, that resulted in the creation of a competing project (gnome). Trolltech eventually addressed those issue, and KDE today is legal and solidly licensed under the GPL, but that entire process was a prime example of the community addressing licensing issues long before business issues were the driving force.
However, currently we're experiencing major expansion of Linux-based systems into business field, and business executives usually ask about IP rights and responsibilities.
Actually, that is rarely true. Business executives purchase a license (or not
This despite the fact the neither Microsoft, nor anyone else, offers any substantive indemnification to end users against 3rd party lawsuits (Redmond PR comments notwithstanding).
If Linux wants to be a player in the business world, it's got to play by the rules, and that's what SCO case is about to clarify.
Linux has been playing by the rules, meticulously and in a very open manner. The SCO case isn't going to 'clarify' this, as it is a contract dispute between IBM and SCO. Quite the contrary, the SCO FUD and misinformation, which contradicts itself from one day to the next, is doing anything but muddy the issue with as much misinformation as they can squeeze into a daily press release.
This last outbreak of FUD attack by SCO will actually stop all the FUD and conspiracy theories surrounding Linux in the business world.
Long term you may be correct. In the ensuing years however it will have the opposite effect, do to a gaping flaw in the US legal system that allows companies to spread disinformation and FUD without legal consiquence (one can "allege" anything, even with zero evidence). Contrast that with the laws of more reasonable countries, such as Germany and Australia, where doing this sort of thing can and does land one in hot water.
Worse, legal disputes that have dragged on for years usually rate one report ("SCO Lost, IBM vindicated") and are no longer news
The result is that this is a net-negative for Free Software and Linux, and is clearly going to be the tactic employed by Our Masters in their efforts to divide and conquer those of us uppity enough to recognize and exploit economic value in cooperation, rather than cutting one anoth
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
1. SCO makes sweeping claims
2. stock goes through the roof
3. short SCOX
4. profit!
http://money.cnn.com/services/tickerheadlines/p
The SCO Group Extends Invitation to Join Its Third-Quarter 2003 Financial Results Conference Call
August 1, 2003: 7:00 a.m. EST
LINDON, Utah (PRNewswire) - LINDON, Utah, Aug 1
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990421/SCOL
WHAT: The SCO Group, Inc. Third-Quarter Financial Results
Conference Call
WHEN: Thursday, August 14, 2003, 9:00 a.m. Mountain Daylight Time.
HOW: If you would like to participate in the live call, you may
dial 1.800.811.0667 or 1.913.981.4901; Passcode: 452322.
You may also join the call in listen-only mode via Web cast.
The URL is listed at http://ir.sco.com/medialist.cfm
IAAL - and I do software licensing & copyright.
Prof. Moglen makes the point that mere use of a program doesnt infringe the copying provisions of the Copyright Act. That may or may not be the correct analysis, noonetheless its worth pointing out that this is only true for US law. UK readers may be interested to note that under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act section 17(6) (here)the making of transient or incidental copies is an infringing act i.e. the mere act of loading it into RAM.
In the UK therefore users of 2.4 kernels would not have this defence if SCO is right. The same may be true elsewhere in the EU.
-he who laughs last, is a bit slow.
journal
I read the article, and it always amazes me how (although basically simple concepts) complicated open licences and copyright structures are when theyre actually written down by a lawyer. Now wonder SCO is having some success with nervous and uninformed organisations.
There always seems to be a disclaimer with articles like this that the author is not giving legal advice - is it an American thing? For the author not to be responsible for any legal action you take after reading such information?
------
beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
At first I was going to ask, as others have, how many times we need to hear that SCO is full of shit before we finally believe it.
But then I realized the more proper question is how many times does SCO have to hear they're full of shit before they finally believe it. Of course, some executives at SCO have already realized this, hence the large number of 'insider' shares already sold.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
But...Most people would consider a lawyer to be a legal expert.
It sounds to me that SCO effectively released code into the GPL, although it was at best unintentially released. They believe they own that code.
I think I've heard GPL described as a viral license. I wonder if this test is intended to put an end to that effect.
Anyone else notice that the NasDaq Summary Quotes for SCOX nasdaq.com has a article link at the bottom called /K I L L K I L L K I L L -- The SCO Group/ ? I wonder if it works?
They got in a free attempt at dismissing the entire case, and set themselves up so they can attack the complaint - before the trial even begins.
IANAL, but I have had scrapes with IP law in the past over some work I've done, and I had a damn fine lawyer - supposedly one of the best in the US (nothing like winning outright because of one well-written letter...). I've got to admire what IBM's doing here. That knife didn't even hurt when it went in, all nice and professional-like.
of this case. The copyright on code in question probably belongs to IBM. It is very unlikely that any actual System V code has made it into the linux codebase. Therefore, the primary issue will be whether IBM's software like RCU and NUMA are derivative works of any System V code.
I'd say that such an assertion is tenuous at best. Those technologies did not exist in System V when it was lisenced by IBM. They are not extensions or newer versions of anything in System V. SCO's argument would have to be that AIX is a derivative work of of System V (which it is) and that those technologies are part of AIX. Thus, SCO is asking the judge to hold that new technologies not based on anything even remotely derived from System V are derivative works of System V if used in AIX.
I haven't actually done the research, but I don't think that this fits the definition of derivative works. I'll have to pull out my old Copyright textbook when I get home.
ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/ Server/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/
It's not as recent as the 2.4.19 kernel they're distributing, but this one does have source code and GPL license included.
Flaw 1: SCO gave up their rights by distributing GPLed Linux code. - This is false because there is a difference between intentionally introducing code into Linux under GPL and redistributing code that others claim has a valid GPL copyright. So unless SCO intentionally introduces IP by introducing the code themselves, this arguement is weak.
Flaw 2: An end user can't be sued over copyright since he's not the one copying. - This is flawed in that many Linux distributors have licensing agreements with end users where they waive all responsibility for copyright vioaltions. This shifts the burden from the copyright infringer to the end user.
This doesn't mean I think people should start paying licensing fee to SCO, but don't be surprised if a court orders it some day.
Vote for Pedro
Hacked is the proper term, unless they were breaking a copy-protection scheme.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
"SCO will no doubt argue that, at the time, they didn't realise the source contained their copyrighted material. This raises the question of whether you can be legally bound by the GPL if you don't realise what you were licensing."
IANAL, but I have studied enough law to know that laws are much more strict when a Merchant (someone who is distributing a good as a business) gets involved. There are specific warranties a Merchant grants which CANNOT be waved. If Walmart sells you a microwave, do you think they have a right to send you a letter later saying you need to send them $1,000 for IP fees they failed to include in the price? No dice, Walmart implied a warranty that what you were getting was legit and SCO implied what they were distributing was legit.
Let me put it this was, if merchants were not forced to assume the risk of distributing the wrong thing, for the wrong pice, the entire U.S. economy would collapse. No one would buy ANYTHING because such transactions would represent an infinite legal liability to the purchaser.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Surely people can't just go around telling lies which cause serious damage to people's business? I mean, if MacDonalds can sue some hippies for handing out fliers critical of them, then why can't the Linux community do the same to SCO?
Isn't it just as valid to say AT&T UNIX is a derived work of MULTICS?
Who owns the copyright to MULTICS, Honeywell.
So if Honeywell would just start send letters to all of SCO's customers (both of them) demanding they buy a license...
"The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
Major Major
What IBM got was a "letter of understanding" from AT&T. That is much, much, different from an admendment to IBM's contract.
The letter explained to IBM what AT&T belived the contract meant in terms of "real world" situations that IBM might face.
An "understanding" by AT&T to any holder of the contract would apply to ALL holders of that contract who where faced with issues similar to IBM's. AT&T cannot claim its words "meant" one thing when using them with IBM, and another when using them with somebody else
This is important!
Granted it's not any sort of official judgement, in my opinion this PDF pretty much sums it up.
It should take any doubt anyone has about not using Linux due to fear of owing SCO money.
"SCO will no doubt argue that, at the time, they didn't realise the source contained their copyrighted material."
Dumbass. SCO is still distrubuting it.
> but it doesn't help anyone who has an illegal OS today.
No such thing as an "illegal OS".
Just those copies made as illegal distributions under copyright law. Generally, under copyright, an author's (SCO's) only cause of action is against those that produced the illegal copies. Never those that bought them in good faith.
As much as Microsoft, SCO, and every other propriatary software vendor might like, copyright IP simply isn't "property" in the traditional sense of the word. It cannot be "stolen", since the "owner" is never deprived of possesion. They continue to posses and enjoy their origional.
Copyright is violated only when there is distribution of an unauthorized copy. The distribution is the violation, not the purchase, and only the distribution is illegal. If you aquired the copy in good faith (surely the case in this SCO v. IBM thing), the person(s) that GAVE YOU THE COPY haa to pay up to the copyright holder for the copies they gave you. Mear possesion has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with copyright.
Look at it this way. If you buy a book that is later found to be a copyright violation, you still own the book. You own it outright, it cannot be taken from you. The author has to sue and get it's money from the people that printed the book, not the people that bought it, or read it. The DISTRIBUTOR has to "pay up" for your copy.
All unless you knew, or should have known, the copy was in violation before you bought it -- like a $2 DVD mail ordered from a third world country, sold to you as a "backup", file shared, etc. Only in this way can a copy you posses be "illegal".
Yes, I would agree that a user might be liable if the user aquired software from a reseller for a price only a fraction of that of the retail price. It is resonable to believe that the end user knew that the software was an illegal pirate copy. However, in the case of SCO and Linux the bulk of the code belongs to Linus Torvalds and other core developers and only a few portions are claimed to belong to SCO. SCO's material could be seen as inclusion of third party code. Now remeber the Stac vs. MS case. Stac won and said MS had to stop using there compression techniques. However Stac didn't go after every user of MS-DOS 6.2 for infringment. Remember when Sun won again MS on the Java licensing violation. This meant that MS no longer had a valid license. Sun didn't go after every user of IE 3.0-5.5 and say now everyone has to stop using Windows and IE or else be sued. If SCO is allowed to succeed in a suit against end-users it will send a terrible message. In fact commecial software could be in more danger in some ways. Software developers make deals to include third party components all the time. With all those included components you purchase yourself a minefield of potential lawsuits from companies you have never delt with directly. The vendor you deal with directly probably doesn't reveal which portions are third party components and who made them. The point is there is a reasonable expectation that the end user make sure to have a valid license to the product in question. However, I think that almost any reasonable person would say that it is not up to the end user to determine what all of the third party portions of that product are and investigate the validity of those licensing arrangements.
Yes... duel to the death.
i'm an employee of sco. been with them for awhile. some very interesting doings and sayings happening here. watch for scoblo.com. couple of us are going to put some very enlightening tidbits up. we're leaving here fairly soon (4 of us) so we have nothing to lose.
Just be nice you stupid UNIX fart-sniffers! Or, even better throw UNIX in the trash, and get a Linux!
You keep replying to people in this thread with claims that the GPL just has to be a EULA and that whatever claims the parent made hold water.
You also keep forgetting that 1) the GPL specificially doesn't cover use and 2) contains a provision for ignorance of the license. This provision specifically nullifies the license and exposes you to any other underlying copyright law or secondary licensing, including the whims of the original owner of the IP.
It definitely isn't a EULA in as much as use does not imply consent!
And as far as the Redhat/Mandrake things: Read the language carefully; the RedHat and Mandrake EULAs are different, but they cover the distribution as a whole and value-added features, and they essentially let you know that they won't be held liable for your troubles, just in case you were thinking they might as corporate entities. In that case, when you use the software, you agree to NOT do something to RedHat and Mandrake.
In the case of the GPL, there is no license for use. You can sue the author, but not because of a licensing issue. The author places a warning in the software as an act of good faith to remind you about the 'as is' nature of the product, but that does nothing to imply that they can be held liable or not.
Finally, the copyright infringement and IP claims trump the whole license anyway, but no judge would hold the end-user responsible as it is the author who originally passed off the document (source) as an original work under a new license that is to blame.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
s/s\/ODSL\/OSDL/s\/ODSL\/OSDL\//
...allright...I'll shut up...
It seems to me that the reason why SCO has been so secretive about the offending code is that as soon as they disclose what code was supposedly copied from SCO Unix, hundreds of programmers will begin work on rewriting it in the clear.
> SCO perhaps did not intentionally add the code in question to Linux, so their own distribution does not void the copyright issue.
It sure does after they claim IP violations yet CONTINUE to distribute their own Linux distro under the GPL for many weeks (months?) afterwards.
Oops.
That fact alone should render the Linux question moot.
In the last SCO conference call, Darl McBride, CEO of The SCO Group, said that they would agree not to sue any Linux users who bought a license for UnixWare 7.1.3, and that they considered all other Linux users to be in violation of their copyright and liable for damages.
You can dance around that if you want, but my interpretation is: SCO is threatening Linux end users.
As for why they are doing it: actually, I agree with you that they don't expect to collect the money. Fact: Microsoft and Sun paid SCO $8 million last quarter for the SCO Source program. Fact: this is 40% of the total revenue of The SCO Group. Fact: this is the only profitable line of business that The SCO Group has had since its incorporation. Fact: Darl McBride estimates that The SCO Group will receive another $5 million for this activity this quarter.
My interpretation: SCO is not a software company. They are a PR+legal company which bought the Unix source code, bought the name "The SCO Group" (they weren't born with it, you know), and are now exploiting those assets by selling their services as professional FUD-throwers. The buyers are Microsoft and Sun.
http://zdnet.com.com/1601-2-1027557.html
Warning: Windows Media or RealOne needed.
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
And where's the AT&T-Sequent contract?
SCO is suing IBM for breach of contract. However, courts don't read minds. The court does not know what a contract says unless somebody enters it into evidence.
In their lawsuit, SCO has filed exhibits showing the AT&T contract with IBM (which SCO is successor in interest), with an addendum between AT&T and IBM, and a later contract transferring the rights from Novell to SCO, with consent by IBM.
However -- SCO has not filed any exhibit showing a contract for Project Monterey, or any exhibit showing a contract between AT&T and Sequent for the code that SCO claims infringes.
Where are those contracts, SCO?
Moglen brings up trade secrets and patents to dispose of them, leaving copyrights. It is copyright that is the main subject of his paper.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
Only distribution rules.
Only distribution rules.
Only distribution rules.
You can do whatever you want to it, print it out and make it into wallpaper.
But the GPL is only a agreement about distribution rules. That's what it's there for, that's what it claims to be, and that's all there is.
Trying to make it any more than that is trying to push some illogical point. If you have a round hole and a square peg, let's not file down the peg, okay?
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
...as Kobe Bryant is to TV News.
CSound going Open Source is to Slashdot as Afghanistan is to TV News.
$evil_company is to Slashdot as $(kidnapping_involving_white_girl | rape_involving_Black_sports_figure) is to TV News.
$truly_interesting_tech_news is to Slashdot as $foreign_news is to TV news.
As an antidote to regular TV news, try BBC world or Google news. As an antidote to Slashdot? I dunno, else I'd not be here.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
SCO probably knows that when the real litigation starts they don't stand a chance and IBM will drain them dry.
The top leaders with lots of stock in SCO may want to spread FUD to bolster it's pathetic performance in the stock market long enough to dump their stock. Think about it. Litigation against IBM over such a weak case can't due any good in the long run.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
RE: First, what's the evidence of infringement? What has been copied from SCO copyrighted work?
SCO doesn't have to show anybody but a court. The fact that they've showed third parties is more than enough. I don't understand why so many people keep saying they haven't show infringements when I've read public reports by those who've seen them.
RE: Second, why do I need a copyright license to use the work, regardless of who holds copyright to each part of it?
Because 17 UCS 117 gives the right to only an OWNER of a copy, and "your" unlawfully distributed copy is not really yours. In the same way that you are not really the owner of that diamond ring you "bought" for $40 from the guy with dialated pupils.
RE: Third, didn't you distribute this work yourself, under a license that allows everyone, including me, to copy, modify and distribute freely? When I downloaded a copy of the work from your FTP site, and you gave me the source code and a copy of the GPL, do you mean that you weren't licensing me all of that source code under GPL, to the extent that it was yours to license?
No, and No. The GPL clearly states that it only covers a work "which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder". SCO's work contained no such notice, even if other work did or it's work had a notice placed by someone else. Period. But wait! There's more: Too many people forget that works with multiple authors are not fully owned by those who derived from earlier owners. Copyright claims are only valid on the work contributed by each contributor. That's clearly stated in 17 USC 103. The GPL's "entire whole" and "each and every part" is what's called "over-reaching" and is only good for fooling fools before entering the courtroom.
Yes. Make the litigants' lawyers have sex with each other until one side dies of exhaustion or gives up in disgust. There'd be a lot fewer lawsuits if we handled things this way. Make love, not war?
Obvious you didn't read the linked article, or you would have seen section 2, where it explains why users don't need licenses.
If they weren't copying anything, how did it get on their hard drive?
This point is explicitely covered in section 2 of the linked paper. Too bad you didn't read it before spouting off. In the case of software, copyright law specifically allows loading the software.
Lets just rename the site, "Slashdot: News for Nerds, who pretend to be lawyers."
Amazing irony here, where we have some clueless twit contradicting Eben Moglen (who is a lawyer), and then complaining how other slashdotters are pretending to be lawyers. Pot, I'd like you to meet Kettle.
"their FUD attempts have backfired at every twist and turn" This will backfire too. If Microsoft is using SCO as a proxy it will come out in the end. Why? MONEY! The SCO dispute has caused problems for ALL Linux distributors and developers worldwide. They are entitled to compensation. Microsoft has $46 billion in cash and are using SCO to do dirty tricks. That makes them liable or at least liable enough for me to sue them and perhaps get a nice out of court settlement. The one business lesson I have learned in life, 'go where the money is'.
"was authored by one of the world's leading legal experts on copyright law as applied to software"
In other words, he agrees with Slashdot's position on SCO.
I think any geek worth his salt can see that they're lying about the merits of the suit, they've already released everything with thier Linux distributions, and they top execs are dumping stock as fast as they can.
Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye: Is the purpose of SCO's actions to damage the GPL?
It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
IANAL, though
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP