Slashdot Mirror
SCO Calls IBM Countersuit "Unsubstantiated Allegations"
dacarr writes "Yahoo currently hosts a press release from SCO that basically calls for IBM to "move away from the GPL"." Lycoris tries to dodge the flood of idiocy from Utah. Another non-programmer has seen SCO's presentation, and without attempting to verify the facts through his own research, reported on it. One reader buys a SCO license. SCO justifies their continuing illegal distribution of the Linux kernel.
These guys have some serious nerve - I hope they get put behind bars for this crap.
This has really became the Nerd version of the OJ trial.
SCO's accussing IBM of making unsubstantiated claims? Did I wake up in Bizarro world this morning. At least IBM told them what code they were suing them for.
So I'm going to take your comment at face value and assume you saw the code, saw line-for-line similarities between the Linux code and the SCO code, etc.
But what I don't see is how this proves SCO's case.
For example, does seeing the similarities prove that the code in question originated at SCO? No. It's more likely that both SCO and Linux copied code from a common source--quite possibly the author, who has the right to license the same code to two different groups user two different licenses.
Also, assuming SCO did author the code in question, would their case still be proven? No. They licensed that code to the Linux community under the GPL when they released their Linux distribution.
Unless you have answers for these very important points, SCO will lose. They will lose big.
With all due respect, what makes you so sure that they *will* win this?
SCO v. IBM is *not* an IP battle.
Let me reiterate: SCO v. IBM is *not* an IP battle.
It is a contract law dispute (read the original complaint). So unless the NDA allowed you to read the contracts that governed the IBM purchase from AT&T, and then the Novell purchase from AT&T, and then the SCO purchase from Novell, along with all of the side letter agreements, and you understand how the concept of 'derivative works' applies to software, as well as the legal admissibility of both that definition as well as the definition contained in said contracts, I am unsure of your ability to make such an assertion.
This doesn't mean that I think you are wrong. I am just curious on grounds you base your assertion.
Matt.
I guess that SCO is basically screwed unless they can some how force the GPL to break-down in court
Not a problem if the GPL is ruled invalid, then SCO is committing a copyright violation for commercial gain.
If they are selling someone elses work, for financial gain, knowing they do not have a license to do so they could be in a LOT of trouble.
Isn't that actually criminal copyright infringement? Do you think the SCO execs would rather go to jail then lose a lawsuit?
Everyone is pissed at SCO. I am wondering if it would work to just have thousand/tens of thousands of people go and almost simultaneously file small claims court case against them. The amount (199-699) is perfect for small claims and we can all allege fraud and extortion, and sue for court cost (or maybe add on the attempted license fee too). In the suit we can say there is no proof to substantiate the license. If they show up you don't have much to lose and they have to show prrof so we would find out and remove the proof. If they don't you should be immune to further prosecution on that computer and they get stuck with many bills. If enough users file there is no way they could respond to this. Maybe this is far fetched, but I don't see why it wouldn't work. It would ultimately force SCO to quit this as we bleed them dry and they end up with almost no end users to try and charge without finally revealing their code and having it removed anyway.
Noone in the linux community can prove where or who it came from, it just sort of miraculously appeared and noone took credit for it.
I doubt very much that this is the case. Linus does not accept anonymous additions to the kernal! And everything is logged. So you're talking out your ass I'm afraid.
The only reason we can't identify where it came from is because SCO won't tell us what the code is!
SCO has shipped these products for many years, in some cases for nearly two decades, and this is the first time that IBM has ever raised an issue about patent infringement in these products.
Gee officer, you've been standing there with your gun all this time, but you didn't point it at me until I started snatching old ladies' purses...
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
Even better, it's against clasue #3 of the GPL to not distribute the source code or at least post a notice offering the source code. Chaulk up another actionable violation.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
-
http://www.goingware.com/notes/prosecute-sco.html
Here's the introduction: Thanks for your help.Request your free CD of my piano music.
What scares me is the thought of a jury made up of the usual non-techie types who don't even have a clue of what an operating system is. I wouldn't be surprised if SCO's lawyers filter out any potential jurors who've used Linux or done any professional programming.
It looks from the analysts comments as if the SCO claims have merit. Even a non-programmer can tell that two code blocks are identical. Most likely the code in question was copied and pasted in this case. This is too bad, but it underscores the importance of keeping others IP out of your IP.
Yeah, just as I can show you two pieces of identical code and you'll be able to see that they're identical.
What's more important is:
None of the analyst said it was shown historical proof that code belongs to them
Good thing I use Linux:)
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Up to this point, MHO was that while Mr. Stallman had a lot of good ideas, he was being a bit too fanatical in implementation, which I think was a fairly common opinion.
I must say that events of this week are causing me to reconsider that opinion. SCO's direct assult on the GPL seems to justify both Mr. Stallman's position on free vs. non-free software and also his fanaticism in keeping free software "pure".
sPh
I've read the other responses. The GPL won't collapse. Here's why:
MS would love for Linux to go away. However, the power of OSS is that many minds can organize efficiently enough to create a workable product. After years of educationally-focused Unix-like software getting streamlined, studied, debugged and now ported, we've hit commercial grade server product. For free.
The GPL is the grease for that organization. It forces the trust to appear in the transactions working with this code. It also enables the rejection of people who won't play by the rules. We're simply watching a greed-based test of that right now with SCO. Sure MS is rooting for the SCO team, they need to sell against only SUN, HP and other moneymakers in the industry. They know how to undercut someone with production costs.
Linux's only production costs are in manhours donated. Come hither-dither, feast/famine, Linux has been at enterprise quality and will only improve as new theories and algorithms get tested and then put into the churning process for implmentation, testing, etc.
So if SCO's code is present in the current Linux, "derivative works" clauses be damned, we're going to end up with a free something as an OS. The machienery for creating such a beast is already well constructed. if we OSS'd the old BeOS, or the obscure other OS'es out there right now, it would quickly flower into a powerhouse. BSD isn't a derivative, so we're only a kernel away from another Nix flavor anyway.
That said, I believe this mess of a SCO press release per day (and all the FUD in it) and then the world's jabbering about it, will pass when the courtroom doors finally open. There just isn't any logic left in it anymore. Also, serious cases aren't tried in press releases. We're talking about simple sales numbers here. MS pays SCO, makes the next Munich sale. If this doesn't happen, the money well will dry up and the lawyers will pick the bones clean at SCO.
You can be sure, though, that this brain-numbing series of moves by SCO is not without support. 5 execs aren't doing this because they want their stock to simply go from 0.25 to 11.00 - this is an orchestrated effort to remove the trust/reliability and certainty in the Linux-is-an-option for corporate servers. Who benefits most? MS. By far. One could be very certain Balmer is getting an inside on the SCO moves word-by-word before we are. He's ready to play off of this.
If you need to check, ask for an MS sales rep to come by and give a little presentation for your next "long-range server upgrade" - for those in the $10mil and up range (they will check your company structure, sales and potential first). Those slides are hot off the press from that morning's sales meeting. And they say: "Linux is a liability because of the GPL." Almost verbatim SCO's press release.
mug
None of these claims have any merit at all.
Two identical pieces of code can have a variety of explanations:
Until they disclose more information, it can be total BS. The reviewers could even be outright lying.
These kind of claims are called "unsubstantiated claims".
"Please look at that listing again, and if you don't believe the "nosrc" part, unpack the SRPMS and see for yourself."
So they're guilty of 8 million counts of copyright infringement, one from each author whose copyrighted code they're illegally distributing without permission.
How does that help them?
It all depends on the benchmarks you choose.
They won't win any awards for processing power per dollar, that's for sure. Their I/O bandwidth is extraordinary, however, and their reliability puts even Suns biggest boxes to shame.
For what they are designed for, they're still the kings.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Employees are remunerated for their work and time through money and other tradables.
They are not working there as a personal investment and because of faith in the company, at least they shouldn't. If they are not properly compensated for their time and work, they should ask for proper compensation or look for greener pastures.
Consumers are not investing in your company. They are investing in their own demand. They are remunerating the company for meeting that demand, which brings money to your company, but their loyalty is (psychological manipulation aside) to satisfying their demand. Or should be.
Businesses need to deal with these three groups to be successful, but that doesn't make them all equal in nature. Nor would that make them all shareholders by any linguistic stretch of the imagination. I'd love to see what kind of etymological magic is behind that.
Let's get our facts straight:
- Businesses are for-profit entities created to make money for the owners (stockholders).
- Employees are people making money by selling their work/time (human resources) to the company. If anything they are business partners of the company, not shareholders.
- Consumers are people who demand something and are willing to pay for it to whatever business best meets the demand.
- Businesses are successful if they, on average and on the long term, make money for the owners. This can only be done if they don't screw over their employees (losing their resources) or their consumers (losing their clients).
Yet we don't say the goal of the company is to follow those rules anymore than the purpose of human life is to take a bath, use the toilet or eat frequently. Those are just things you have to do if you want to successfully do whatever it is you're doing with your life. It's the environment of the game. It's a given.
The people behind the Enron scandal did a lot of illegal things. Some of them were illegal because they bankrupted the company and defrauded investors. Others were illegal because of entirely different, non-business, reasons.
Screwing over employees is wrong, and often illegal. Screwing over consumers is also mora than plain stupid. There's no reason to justify the immorality of one with the language of the other.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...