Slashdot Mirror
SCO Attorney Declares GPL Invalid
chrullrich writes "According to heise (German, fishbait), SCO's chief counsel Mark Heise (unrelated) of Boies, Schiller and Flexner has declared that the GPL violates the US copyright law and is thus null and void. SCO's legal position is actually a little too crazy to believe: The GPL allows unlimited copies, the copyright law allows one. Therefore, the GPL is invalid. Apparently, they try to argue that the copyright law, in giving consumers the right to make one backup of their software without any permission from the copyright holder, outlaws any contractual agreement that allows users to make more than one copy." There's an Inquirer article in English. Apparently SCO is now using the Chewbacca Defense. Other SCO news: SCO reports a profit, examining SCO's contributions to Linux, an attorney summarizes the case.
So the GPL violates copyright law, eh? I thought the GPL is copyleft.
From the FSF website:
Copyleft is a general method for making a program free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well.
...
In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we ``copyleft'' it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom.
So why is anyone talking about copyright When the GPL is specifically designed to provide copyleft? :)
Sun Microsystems doesn't seem to mind what's happening with SCO. I wonder why?
The penguin is insatiable. Better wake up and smell the coffee.
I thought part the GPL was the copyright holder giving permission for people to make copies, etc..
but that doesn't make it so. Anyway, if it is invalid, then Linus should file suit immediately regarding their unauthorized distribution.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
They're trying to say that if I create something (it doesn't have to be a software program, call it a book) that I can't allow other people to copy it? What baloney!
Speed Demos Archive - Lots of speed runs!
Declares SCO invalid! OOH!
__________
Love conquers all... except CANCER
...that SCO does not exist. HA!
At this pace the next declaration of SCO will be that Bill Gates is the mesiah or some sh*t like that!
The interview has taken place in May!
...declares copyright and patent law illogical. Kind of like how that one judge wants the "higher law" of the ten commandments in the courthouse.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Would somebody please just set these guys on fire or something. God, why won't they just fuck off and leave us all alone? SCO is like that annoying kid in school that nobody likes, who is mean to everyone, but just keeps hanging around.
You mean SCO is going to go after George Lucas?
Trolling is a art,
Now real developers can take all the code they want from shitty projects and put into real products and make it work!
see folks
the system works!!
...welcome our new... wait a minute, it's another SCO article....nm
CowsAnonymous: We're here to help moo.
SCO has declared that the earth is actually flat, that you *can* dig a hole to China, and that the moon is, in fact, made of green cheese.
First, on point two he states:
While it is most assuredly true that parties in a contract have a duty to mitigate their damages, that mitigation duty hasn't been applied as far as I can tell to copyright infringement. And even if it is applied to copyright issues, the duty to mitigate only goes to the question of the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff, not to if the defendant is infringing.
Second, in point four he stated that:
First, it is clear that SCO is offer a per seat license at 50% and will increase after a certain date (Oct. 15>) Second, statutory damage amounts are provided by law to those who have a registered copyrighted work infringed. This amount is above any "ceiling" that Mr. Carey may mistakenly assert that exists.
Finally, Mr. Carey is right. If SCO's claims are without merit, then they have placed themselves at a huge risk of a substantial judgment against them. Of all our sakes, I hope that this is the case.
Stop undressing me with your eyes. I'm ugly naked.
So shareware and freeware programs have been illegal all these years... thank you so much SCO, for clarifying this point. NOT!
IBM attorney's declare SCO's existence invalid.
There will be a day of reckoning soon... A totaling of sums and a snapping of necks!
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
LOL
Seriously, there is a post every 2 days about SCO.
You know its coming.
Sigh....
------------
now I can't read any more books since (by this logic (sic)) publishers can only make one copy.
- "I thought the stuff about lessened expectations was satire."
...want to know why half the posts modded as +5, Funny today begin with "I, for one, welcome our new [ insert related character here ] overlords"! Is this the Soviet Russia / Natalie Portman of august?
go here http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=edithome
and check Caldera under topics, then hit save.
I'm sure i'm not the only one tired of these sco articles.
Because authors and publishers make a contract?
The GPL is, in a sense, also a contract. It says, "We're giving these rights to you. You don't have to agree to our terms, but if you want the rights we give to you, you have to agree to our other terms." The GPL doesn't modify copyright laws, any more than a contract an author makes with a publishing house does.
Sheesh.
Read Bujold. Free (as in
I've often heard of companies having a crack legal team, but this is the first time that I've heard of one being on crack.
HH
It's been over a week since both IBM and Red Hat filed their suits, and SCO still hasn't upated their PR page?
You say
And SCO is paying how much per hour for this legal mastery?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
What a joke. Johnnie Cochran must be part of their legal team.
if the gpl is -legal- then they have no legal legs to stand on.
-of-course- they'll 'declare it' illegal.
thank goodness their lawyer's opinions matter only slightly more than my cat's.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
It's because you suck at life.
The GPL is a license that allows people to use a work. Copyright is the owners method of ownership of a work. These licenses describe the way a work can be used. The GPL is a specific type of license. It retains the ownership of the work, yet allows the work to be distributed. Because it maintains ownership by a specific owner (eg Linus for the Linux kernel), it is constant with copyright law. Just because you use an GPL work doesn't mean you own it. I'm fairly sure this is how it works, but IANAL.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
Is it just me, or do others feel like the whole SCO thing has somehow slipped into a P.K. Dick novel?
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
Is it a ludicrous claim? Sure. But it's a claim about something that the majority of people out there don't even know about in the first place, and as such it won't be recognized as a ludicrous claim until after the executives finish selling their stock.
All things considered, I'm almost surprised that some company like SCO hasn't tried to do this sort of thing to free software and such earlier. When you look at it, free software has the advantage of being pretty much impossible to truly defeat (what with it being all grassroots), but it also often lacks major corporate/lawyer support for the same reason. At least we've got IBM and Redhat in the game, so we'll "win" eventually, but as I said not until SCO executives make a bundle.
If they can use the chewbaca defense, I'm calling SHENANIGANS!!!
...the more surreal it gets. They clearly do not understand the concepts of 'ridiculous' and 'preposterous'. They act like the kind of idiot who thinks that if he says patently stupid something often enough with a straight face, people will believe him.
They're whole legal case is just one big troll where they've gotten in so much shit because of it, they have to stick to their guns.
It's a shame real life moves so slowly, because all this will make for the most hilarious comedy ever in a decade or so.
That SCO will have to remove any BSD-licensed code from their Unices? (And I'm sure there is some.)
I first became concerned for my job three weeks before my employer purchased the lisences, when I noticed our mail administrator returning from a meeting with our comapny's board of directors. The conversation had gotten rather heated, as there had been a good deal of shouting and cursing coming from the board room. Two days later he was fired.
Rumors began spreading when 3 more people were laid off under similar circumstances, and the general consensus was that these people had been unfairly screwed by management.
I had no idea how true those rumors were. I soon found myself before the board of directors, being asked what I thought about purchasing Linux lisences for our servers from SCO. I answered truthfully: that not only was such an investment a waste of money, but that SCO's claims regarding intellectual property in Linux were questionable at best. My supervisor considered this thoughtfully for a second, nodded, and the secretary locked the door of the office. Two of the directors, with deceptive strength and agility, bound and gagged me. My memory is somewhat blurry about this part, but I remember having my pants torn from my waist, and then all of the board members took turns ravaging my virgin cornhole. The rumors were true: there I was, being screwed by management because of my opposition to SCO's Linux IP claims .
In the kind of shock that only comes with a brutal ass-raping, I stumbled back to my desk, thankfully unaware of the small stream of blood, liquified stool, and man-cheese that had stained my underwear, oozed down my leg and began to pool in my shoe. To complete my utter humiliation, I was given my pink slip 3 days later, before I had even recovered from my ordeal.
I have always been concerned about SCO's dubious legal claims, but I could never have prepared myself for the amount of personal violation that opposing the corporate bully would bring.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Wildly offtopic, I know, but I was just wondering if anyone had reverse engineered the msblast payload yet. I'm sitting here with all these linux boxes on a fat pipe, and I heard there was a party planned next saturday in Redmond. I feel a bit left out and would hate to install 2k/XP just to be able to join in. Can anyone help out?
Apparently, after Boies tangled with Microsoft, they hired some major voudou priestess to hex him good. First there was the Gore recount fiasco, now this.
Vague expansion of witty idea, looking like every other one-liner predictably posted to the thread.
--
Pointless and/or overly-geeky quote
They musta cashed that check from Micosoft "for licensing their IP" (wink wink) real fast.
This is just so ridiculous that the only thing that keeps the sanity is that *eventually* SCO shit will tumble down - may not be weeks, but definitely a few months to a couple of years.
SCO press releases make the (former) Iraqi Information Minister look "forthcomingly honest" and makes Faux news "fair and balanced". Heck, it makes Steve Ballmer look sedated.
S
Maybe because it was already queued for the page? Whining fucking dumbass.
I'd be worried if I were Kobe Bryant.
It doesn't make sense!
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
SCO has announced an agreement with the Business Software Alliance to raid data backup centers. SCO CEO Darl McBride was quoted as saying "These renegade 'backup' centers are no more than a front for illegitimate software duplication. Any customers who are found to have multiple 'backup' copies of any of SCO's intellectual property will be required to pay additional licensing fees, according to the number of processors in the machine that served as the source for these illicit duplicates."
Future targets, according to the press release, may include schools, small businesses, and FTP 'mirrors', which not only house myriad copies of copyrighted works, but also make them available to further illegal duplication by end users.
SCO Claims that copyright law prohibiting multiple backups of information may also cover music, movies, and published works. The RIAA and MPAA were reportedly intrigued, but unavailable for comment.
--Jasin Natael
True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
I declare SCO's declarations null and void. I also declare Carrie-Anne Moss and Natalie Portman as my bikini-clad slaves.
This just in: The SCO company has made startling news with the announcement that they have copyrighted breathing, and that basic human rights are invalid! ...
When the federal government was questioned on this startling development, most members of congress admitted that they wish they had thought of it.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
SCO is a bunch of belly crawlers. Scuttling cockroaches. Bottom feeding den of legal vermin.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
then I'd move to another country.
I wonder if that guys knows he is working for monopoly money?
Poor sod.
anime+manga together at last.. in real time.
US Copyright law guarantees the right to make one backup copy. That's fair use. It does not prohibit the copyright owner from allowing more than one copy. That would be absurd and the wording of the law does not resemble that at all. I have no doubt that he knows his own argument to be utterly false, but his job is to try and prove it in court anyway.
No, I did! Bow down before me, or feel the wrath of my lawyers.
sco .. drugs are bad mmmmmmmm-kay?
[alk]
Unless I'm reading this wrong this would also invalidate any site license for software, which allow for unlimited copies (albeit with some restrictions), it would also make freeware and pretty much everything else given away illegal. No court is going to buy this argument and deny the right to give things away. On the other hand, if SCO had sold something that had be GPL'd they might have a case that they had the right to sell it, but I really don't find anyone believing the "Hey You Guys, no giving away things for free" argument.
Parahpased/loosely transcribed events of the SCO financial conference call (I was multitasking on other work). It is biased, but you should get the gist of things.
rah rah rah
go sco
we made money. our market cap went from 10 million to over 140 million making it one of the leaders on the Nasdaq (Go lawsuit go!).
we r the "leader" in the Unix market.
over 100 parties have seen the code
our linux license was based on "demand". LOL. (because people who came and looked at the code inquired as to whether they would offer a license). that's demand?
companieS have been signing up! (no mention of who or how many). I didnt know ONE was plural.
4Q revenue to grow to 22-25 million due to ScamSource licensing
there are two Operating System platforms in the world. Windows and Unix. Microsoft owns Windows, we own Unix. We don't have a VERSION of Unix, we own ALL of it.
we will see this case through to the end despite what our competitors say (red hat: unmentioned by name).
the industry is being divided into two camps: those who respect IP and the those who are trying to destroy it. the "silent majority" is firmly behind SCO.
legal position is ROCK SOLID.
we continue to gain in credibility.
Q&A:
Budgeted Legal Expenses?
We have spent less than half of what we budgeted so far. Million/quarter range. 600,000-700,000 so far. they include these costs in as "costs of sales".
Guidance on First Linux License you sold?
Confidential. sorry, no.
The GPL
building your company around a GPL licensed software is like building your HQ on quicksand.
Even Linux companies that are pro-Linux are scared that their code "will get sucked into the GPL machine". Pure FUD.
Linux License
If you bought SCO linux, the binary license will be given to you for free.
Our "heritage line of software" wont grow but not because everyone hates us and thinks the product sucks, but because of the global economic slowdown.
Do you have new licensees?
Umm, hmmm, hummina, ermmmm, we are projecting we will for next quarter!
More GPL
When we were more involved in Linux, companies came in and said "how can you get involved with this beast.
There is NO WARRANTY in the license. This is problematic.
We look forward to going into a courtroom and dealing with these GPL licenses. We are very confident.
Insider Trading
When their shares vest, it causes the executives a tax event and this is the only way they can pay those taxes.
Darl McBride
My goal is to get money back on the shares I put into the company in 2000. The strike price on those is 56 dollars a share.
rofl. Good luck buddy.
...from the problem at hand. Once IBM countersued, SCO knew they were finished. Now their trying to make as much FUD in Linux before it is terminated. I'm sure IBM will add this to their list of damages that SCO has caused them.
The author of something can define his terms of agreement as he sees fit. If the author of a package wants to allow unlimited copies to be made and distributed, then so be it, no law can negate his wishes if he is the author of that work.
In other words, I can write a poem and I can make a public declaration that my poen belongs to the world and that anyone that wants can copy it and give it away and modify it and give that away, as much as they like. You can't then come along and tell me that there is a law that overrides my wishes (that my work be freely copied and distributed) and that I'm a lawbreaker..
SCO is a dirty diaper. They are full of shit, they stink and they need to be changed and thrown out..
Since I didn't know what it was I relied on the good old google cache
: www.connect-dots.com/Poofs/chewbacca.html+chewbacc a+defense
http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:bcblg2U6NdgJ
In the RED Corner, weighing in at $140M, we have the Self-Proclaimed Siiiilent Majorrrity. . .
And in the BLUE corner, weighing in at One Hunnnndred and Fifty Beeeellion Dollars, The Heavyweight Champion of Patent Litigation, DEEEEEEEEP POCKETTTTTTTS!!!!
Round 1.
Fight!
I think it is about time we modded all SCO publicity stunts to -1 for being flamebait.
I have read and attempted to understand the SCO's arguments. My head will now explode. They have won.
Long live Chewbacca!
***boom***
Thanks dude, I have now seen where your brain resides, deep inside a man's ass
after all in submitting my post to /. I am granting slashdot rights to make lots of copies of it so that people can read it.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
If there is no GPL they are infringing on the authors copyright.
They are selling this product.
Infringing copyright for financial gain is a criminal offense. By arguing that SCO does not have a license to distribute Linux definately hurts them.
To actually hurt ANY Linux distributer they would have to #1 prove they don't have a license to distribute. #2 be a copyright holder.
This is so obvious to me leads me to think that they really are MS monkeys and this may be the strongest attack they could muster.
Seriously, if this works... it marks a very sad point in our development as a society (obviously).
If someone in power can just declare something so obsurd, and have it accepted as the truth, then what's next? We've always been at war with Eurasia.
no comment
Copyright dictates that the copyright holder has final say on who, exactly, will have permission to copy a work. The single backup copy issue is "fair use", and has nothing to do with this.
The GPL works *WITH* copyright by telling recipients that the author has explicitly granted them permission to further distribute their works only so long as they comply with the terms of that license. If they do not wish to comply to those terms, they do not have permission from the author to distribute. End of story.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I've got it figured out. SCO is trying to throw out so many baseless accusitions, and fill the air with so much nonesense, that we simply become numb, unable to deal with it, or respond in a coherent manner.
It's like a two year old that keeps arguing that the sky is, in fact, green, and that he'll never grow up to be a basketball player if you don't let him eat cookies for breakfast. It's cute the first couple of times, then becomes slightly annoying, but eventually you are so baffled by the shear stupidity that you stop tyring to correct him, stop trying to prove your point, and simply say 'yes, dear.'
That, my friends, is SCO; Litigation through Temper Tantrum.
Thomas Galvin
Anybody up for a Austin Powers-esque bad SCO joke contest? Keep it in this thread. My first humble submission:
Wow, these guys are really SCOre losers! (I never said they had to be funny....)
...then by extension, probably all other EULAs do as well, and we are free to do anything with our software that isn't specifically forbidden under our respective copyright laws. Have SCO/Caldera realized that they just called for the banning of license agreements.
Also, on a side note, why is SCO making this the focus of the case if the reason for the lawsuit is that they are claiming that code was used without their permision. If that is the focus of the case then they should prove that code was used without there permision - not that the program is distribuited and they don't like the way it is distriuted.
Finally, Mr. Carey is right. If SCO's claims are without merit, then they have placed themselves at a huge risk of a substantial judgment against them. Of all our sakes, I hope that this is the case.
Screw SCO getting a big judgement against them. I want the SEC here; any doubt I had that this is at least partially a stock ploy just went out the window. Forget punishing SCO, I want the people in jail!
It's not really relevant whether the GPL is valid or not.
If the GPL is compeletly invalid -- they have a singular problem : Distributing copywrited software without a license. Linus et all can sue for massive damages.
If the GPL is valid, they are in a boatload of shit anyway: How the fuck could they get EXT2 compatability in SCO Unix? They sure the hell didn't clean room it. I wanna see the code to their filesystems. How about the Linux Compatability crap? Clean room? NO FUCKING WAY!
any way you slice it, SCO is gettin' ready to get their butts kicked, but IBM, Redhat SuSE and others.
"...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
If they lose this argument, then they lose their case against IBM because they have distributed their own distro under the GPL. If they win the argument (which they won't), they have committed mass copyright violation by distributing their own distro :)
The copyright law violates GPL!
FFS, can't they get anything straight??
Now if you excuse me, I'll start evangelizing these wicked followers of copyrights. Let's see, yes, it was that heretic... Bill Gates...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
The SCO Group Comments on Insider Transactions
m l
Thursday August 14, 7:01 am ET
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030814/lath032_1.ht
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Doesn't that make the contract that SCO has with IBM to make quite a few copies of UNIX available (via AIX) invalid?
What about this:Desmond McBribe...
anyway something serious:
For the USA Copyright law: here
See paragraph 106 wich says:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and toauthorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
Sounds clear to me....
Umm... right. Except the GPL license is an agreement by the creator to FOREGO copyright restrictions. I mean, if the creator of something can't decide how their work can and can't be used..... WTF!?!?
+5, Female
Dear Darl,
Thanks, I needed that. Can't remember when I heard something so goddamn funny. I nearly blew Mountain Dew through my nose on that one.
What, you're serious?! Ssnnnorrkkk!!! Damn, that's even funnier! Have you guys thought about doing a stand-up routine somewhere?
Really. Just too f'ing funny. Pardon me while I wipe the tears out of my eyes.
You're the best,
Bill Gates
is when the copymachine get a serious paperjam.
Evolution of Language Through The Ages: 6000 BC : ungh, grrf, booga 2000 AD : grep, awk, sed
That boies title in the partner's name caught my attention.
I checked out the site:
"...in 1998-2000 Mr. Boies served as Special Trial Counsel for the United States Department of Justice in its antitrust suit against Microsoft. Mr. Boies also served as the lead counsel for former Vice-President Al Gore in connection with litigation relating to the election 2000 Florida vote count."
now where exactly does this fit in the irony spectrum?
I love a good mod-war! That's about 8 moderations so far! Give em hell!
Every author of original works retains the copyright on those works, unless they choose to pass the copyright on.
A copyright is a governmental monopoly given to the author to allow them to control the production of copies of their work, to allow them to extract maximum profit from their activity (for a limited period... not so limited anymore, mind).
The GPL does not limit a person's copyright holding as the author. Such a license would be an illegal contract.
An author with copyright is able to offer a license to produce copies to publishing organisations. In the case of books, a publishing company. The author still holds the copyright, but they allow someone else to exercise it, based on conditions (either a set fee, or a more detailed contract). In fact, without these enabling contracts, copyright is merely a prison of ideas. They must be copied somehow and more authors are unable to do so themselves.
An author might write a book and then draw up a contract with a publisher to allow them exclusive rights to print hard copies for a limited time, with a set percentage of the profits going to the author. In the book business, it is common for publishers to borrow the copyright from the author for a given time, so that the author can't allow someone else to publish too. In the book business, three publishers producing the same new book is bad for the business of each publisher.
The GPL is a contract like the ones authors sign, that sits above copyright law. It extends it and makes it useful.
The GPL is a reasonable contract, by and large. It does not break the fundamental rights granted by law to the publishing parties, so it is a legal contract. Moreover, it does not damage copyright law, nor does it take the copyright away from the author illegally. If you don't like it, don't copy it and don't take advantage of the copyright monopolist giving you the ability to produce copies.
It is worth understanding, though, that each of us are publishers and have legal requirements to act in a responsible way.
But the GPL is quite, quite valid.
This is incredibly good news! For anyone having the slightest worry about whether SCO really might have had something with their licensing thing, today it is clear.
These people are talking directly from their arses, and clearly don't take the whole idea of "law" particularly seriously. It's great to see an argument like this come from them, it just confirms they are simply praying on people being baffled by the sheer magnitude of their outrageous claims that people think that they must certainly be true, because no one could seriously lie about it and keep such a straight face!
I just hope, once this is all over, that these clowns get together with the former Iraqi Information Minister and create the most awesome comedy ever. Let's pray though that the case against SCO is more successful than the war against Iraq, else it may not be us who are left laughing.
... I guess
...when did SCO hire the Iraqi Information Minister?
...is it the kind that gets dragged behind the boat?
Mark Heise goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed at the next pedestrian crossing.
(mad props to Douglas Adams)
Since you can only make one copy at a time, can't this be used to to unravel their "logic"?
Or, is the GPL valid if you are making one copy of a copy (according to their twist)?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
IANAL... however I believe that the US Copyright Laws are there to protect the owner of the copyright, whilst giving us (the average citizen) the right to make a backup copy, for our own protection. This statement that the GPL is therefore invalid, makes no sense. The GPL extends on that right by granting the end user with (duh) extended privleges over the rights to copy, and similarly distribute said software. In a world of further constriction over the citizens rights in favor of copyright holders, if we (IBM, Open source lovers everywhere, and and people concerned for their rights) allow SCO's lawyers to turn the purpose of this law towards a restriction instead of a right then we need to be prepared for the cascading consequences. FIGHT for your RIGHTS!!!!
Pointless plea to moderators to waste their points.
Beer wants to be free
Look, I'll be the first to say that this argument as put forward by SCO's councel seems pretty damned thin. Anorexic. Thin-sliced deli meat.
They may wind up being right of course, but that's not my point here...
I'm wondering why everyone is posting in a manner that suggests they didn't even understand the argument?
What SCO is claiming is that since the JPL is not a recognized framework under the law, but U.S. copyright law of course is, any contradiction between the two should result in what U.S. copyright law saying winning out.
They then further say that since U.S. copyright law allows for only one backup copy, any provision stating otherwise in the JPL is null and void under U.S. copyright law.
(One presumes they are only claiming this applies in the United States, they're flakier than we all think if they're claiming otherwise).
Those two points, when taken together, is their argument. And contrary to what so many seem to be saying, it is a logical conclusion to draw.
I'm not saying they are right... You have to use some discretion when applying law, that's what judges are ultimately for, and I, like everyone else, suspect that a judge is going to laugh about this.
But, it does make sense on the surface, and I'm surprised so many of you uber-geeks don't seem to see the argument for what it is, which is a massively stretched piece of logic, but a piece of logic none the less.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
For immediate release. The brain dead attorneys and executives after analyzing their own legal strategy have decided to sue themselves. Based on their legal theory that U.S. Copyright law restricts users to ONE COPY and ONE COPY only, SCO has violated copyright law by issuing site licenses for it's operating system products and other software. In a statement Darkly McBride said "Well when shit files out of my ass it inspires me. And it's only fair to sue those parties that are wrong."
They've attempted *ludicrous speed*!
Doesn't the GPL just lift a restriction placed on the number of duplicates that people make by Copyright Law? That isn't breaking a law -- it's extending it to allow more rights. Doesn't a Copyright holder have the right to give up some of his freedom for the freedom of others?
To counter this argument, SCO claims that GPL itself is invalid. Hence, even if SCO did previously distribute the disputed source code under GPL, SCO is still entitled to demand royalties because GPL violates the law.
Finally, SCO has a substantive claim. Apparently, the court case will finally come down to one issue: "Is GPL valid and enforceable?" If the answer is "yes", then SCO does not have a case.
Do you know what this means?
Since SCO issued their own version of Linux, bound by the GPL, if they were actually able to get the GPL declaired invalid, this means any intellectual property of theirs that was released in that variant is now in the public domain.
SCO is so wrong about this it's sick.
The basic principle of copyright is that the creator of a work has exclusive control over who can copy something. In effect, the copyright holder can decide to license the work to two people or two hundred million. However, it is solely the copyright holder that sets the conditions for who can distribute the work.
That being said, the copyright holder for GNU/Linux is the Free Software Foundation. The FSF has set the conditions for copying GNU code within the GPL. When the FSF finds out that someone violates the terms of the GPL, they contact that person and tell them to either become compliant with the terms of the GPL or cease and desist from using GPL code.
The FSF actively enforces its rights to the GNU copyright, and while the terms for distribution may be copyleft, those terms meet the statutory requirements of copyright under 17 USC.
It would seem that SCO is actually infringing on FSF's copyrights by claiming ownership of code that FSF owns. When SCO donated code to Linux - which , contrary to their press machine, they did, and quite often, prior to the new management team at SCO/Caldera - the code is now GPL'd. FSF "owns" that code, in the sense of copyright.
The end. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
"SCO, they're about to get on the wrong side of Microsoft too, since MS..."
Are you hoping for a Battle of Stalingrad situation, where there is really no site to cheer for?
Or is the Godzilla vs Rodan analogy more appropriate? Or would a simple shark feeding-frezny do.
This is what it's like when worlds collide....
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Wait until RMS and Eben Moglen hear about this crap.
I can't wait to hear the Free Software Foundation's answer. SCO's in for another kick in the ear...
And I just farted while reading this article. Coincidence?
Well, in that case, if GPL is invalid, it logically follows that SCO is guilty of copyright infringement. After all, if SCO has sold N copies of their Linux distribution, then SCO must be guilty of N-1 counts of copyright infringement for each and every software application that was included in the distribution under the terms of the GPL.
Obviously this is sheer nonsense. Yes, I'm trying to derive logic from an illogical fallacy. But, it's a slow news day, and I find that trying to make sense of SCO's legal argument is rather a cheap way to amuse oneself and pass some free time.
Certainly, they cannot be serious. That naturally leads to a question how could they possibly even think of coming up with such a big, fat whopper. I mean, you have to be doing some serious drugs in order for such a thought to enter your mind, through nothing but random, natural processes.
I think this is nothing more than a knee-jerk response to IBM's countersuit. SCO's got blindsided when IBM's countersued them for violating the GPL. I'm sure that SCO has planned their legal strategy (or whatever passes for one) in advance, and must've considered all kinds of potential responses from IBM to their original suit. They must've considered many possibilities, but it never considered that IBM would respond by countersuing them for violating the GPL.
Dollars-to-doughnuts SCO didn't even realize that large portions of the Linux kernel, which SCO themselves sold, were copyrighted by IBM, and licensed under the GPL, and IBM is now suing SCO not just for violating the GPL in general (which would be somewhat difficult, since IBM would have no real standing to sue) but IBM is now suing SCO as a copyright owner, and for full-fledged copyright infringement.
This is serious stuff. The GPL itself is not even the primary focus. Just forget about the "controversial" copyleft aspect of the GPL. Pretend for a moment that SCO had some kind of a license from IBM on IBM-copyrighted code, and they distributed the code in violation of the license agreement. Or they had no license at all. And now, IBM is suing them for copyright infringement. That's exactly what's happening here, and GPL just happens to be the terms of the original licensing agreement.
SCO didn't expect it this kind of a response, and got caught, flatfooted. So now they're scrambling to figure out how to respond to charges of full-fledged copyright infringement. I guess they figured that their best chance is to try to declare GPL invalid, and hence the idiocy from their legal beagle. So now, I'm waiting for them to explain exactly what kind of a license would then they believe to have to sell IBM's copyrighted code.
...which will never be read, let alone modded up.
The entire executive team of the Santa Cruz Operation is in protective custody at an undisclosed mental health facility after Al Quaieda terrorists admitted to placing massive doses of LSD in the SCO corporate headquarters drinking water.
Film at 11.
Invoice is in the Mail, Says SCO
4 f8 aa480256d7f0018bb99]
By Gavin Clarke
SCO Group Inc is preparing to invoice customers running or developing with Linux, while broadening its copyright net to include manufacturers of embedded systems.
The company told ComputerWire it would begin sending out invoices to organizations using Linux as a step towards enforcing SCO's claim that UnixWare System V code is used in Linux.
Invoices will be dispatched in the "next weeks or months" a company spokesperson confirmed.
Those being billed will include 1,500 end-users who were earlier this year informed by SCO in writing they should seek legal advice as running Linux violated the company's copyright. Customers running Linux who were not on SCO's original mailing list will also be targeted.
SCO last week announced customers would be charged $699 per server running Linux and $199 for a client.
It has also emerged OEMs developing devices running embedded Linux will be among those charged by SCO, making them so far the first set of industry representatives to be targeted.
OEMs will be asked to pay $32 per device running an embedded Linux operating system. SCO's spokesperson said it made more sense to charge OEMs rather than end users as customers running PDAs or cell phones are unaware their devices run Linux.
That means SCO will potentially chase companies such as Sharp and Tivo, whose respective Zaurus and set-top-box devices, both run Linux.
SCO's price is likely to place a hefty burden on embedded device manufactures, spanning a range of markets but especially in the consumer space, whose margins are extremely tight and whose products must be priced competitively.
Inder Singh, chairman and president of the Embedded Linux Consortium, said prices range between $1 to $100 for an embedded operating system, with low-priced consumer devices at the low end of the scale.
"One reason Linux is used is because it's inexpensive. SCO's action would defeat that objective," Singh said.
Commenting on the development, a spokesperson for Tivo would not say what the company's course of action will be until it received a SCO invoice. The company, though, seems relatively unconcerned by SCO's actions. "From observing what's a priority and what's talked about at Tivo, this has not been one of those things," he said.
Singh called SCO's decision to charge OEMs "attempted extortion, based on fear, uncertainty and doubt" as the company has not disclosed which code as at fault. He noted embedded Linux was also unlikely to contain any UnixWare System V code, as this is used on large systems.
[http://www.cbronline.com/latestnews/6b61a1cf11
Why oh why am I reminded of the kid I interview 8 years ago who claimed he wrote tight code because there was so little white space in it?
Oh yeah, 'cause he was an incompetant little twit.
Position paper from an attorney over at OSI.
Wow, a lucrative publishing contract! I don't have to be evil anymore. --Meteor
what? huh? what? huh?
wtf? this is wrong... Copyright law allows one backup copy, and such other copies as are necesary to use the software, unless the copyright holder grants permission to make more.
If their interpretation is valid, all free software available on the planet might be violating US copyrights laws because agreements that allow free distribution of copyrighted materials is illegal. Thanks for the tip, Boies office. I can no longer make copies of Mozilla or OpenOffice binaries without copyright holder's permission. Damnit!
But hold on a second; I thought GPL was an agreement more for distributor to release copyrighted materials to public without fees. While EULA is a Nazi copyright contract to limit users' rights, GPL works both on copyrights holder, distributor and end users mutually.
hmm, looks like SCO legal team, in desperation, is making radical accusations that is tough to verify.
So what if I write up a document explaining how to clean toe lint.
And then I make some copies, and give them to some people. I say they can make as many copies as they want and give it out -- THE INFORMATION ON CLEAN TOES WANTS TO BE FREE (at least, I want it to be free based on some peoples' feet I see).
Are they saying that copyright law makes this illegal? WTF? Disclaimer: I only read the English translation article.
Should be interesting to see how many words one has to utter in order to make a quick buck.
Laws of economics: greed and fear...
I think, therefore I am...I think.
"SCO claims apple pie un-american"
First, these guys alienate the Linux crowd.
Next, Open Sourcers get kicked in the nuts.
Geez, why can't they sue Microsoft like everyone else, get paid and retire somewhere?
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
IBM: That does it! Shenanigans! Shenanigans!!!
SCO: What are you doing?
IBM: I'm declaring Shenanigans on you. This lawsuit is rigged.
Maybe you should educate the morons of tomorrow so they'll stop believing the leaders of tomorrow. - Dogbert
to a giant penis icon.
First this was about IP in the Linux Kernel, now that that topic is being proven to be false or inmaterial (we know that you are guilty, but we cant tell you where or disclose the items in question).
Now they are saying that the GPL is invalid and breaks copyright law? Come on pick a defense and stick to it. I think that by clouding the issue to such an extent they may have a chance at this, mainly due to the confusing nature of the myriad of topics being brought forth.
I am sure that the creators of the GPL thought about this when they created the GPL. How can this be declared invalid. As long as the software is distributed with a license then you MUST abide by those licenses as long as it doesn't break any other laws, but how does the GPL break copyright law? It doesnt state anything about limiting copies. It states that you can make as many copies as you want as long as you include the copyright notice and distribute the source.
Does copyright law supercede any other license? If so then that could create some problems, but come on thats pretty lame.
This whole thing is wacky. I hope that SCO in turn is sued by the Linux community for breach of contract and general all around stupidity.
I think SCO should be a runner for the evil empire of the year award. They might not be the ulimate evil (Micro$oft), but hey they try harder!
"You're on my side and the dark side, like Lando Calrissian?" --Gimpy, Undergrads
Oh, well. If SCO says the GPL is invalid, then obviously it's time to pay up!!!
http://www.tuxrocks.com/
Nothing brings out more baseless and uninformed opinions than a copyright argument. Basically, copyright law is one gigantic joke, and if you think what seems insane is impossible simply because it seems insane, then you are truly misguided. Personally, I am affriad of what this could lead to. There have been plenty of insane judgements in copyright cases. It seems to me copyright law is essentially just a big game of Calvinball played in court. This scares me.
could be mistaken for a last grasp dying effort of a drowning man trying to latch on to ANYTHING that might save his life....that is my take on SCO not the the other :)
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
"He also characterized his detractors as a vocal minority. 'I would say that the silent majority is behind SCO in this case,' he said."
The silent majority silenty got up and jumped ship...the few that there were. Soon he will be the only one left, and the captain will go down with the ship.
Thinking about this lawyer's comments, I was wondering why anyone would hire David Boies as their lead counsel? Last two jobs? Failed takedown of Microsoft. Counsel for Al Gore on his failed litigation for vote counting in Florida.
Here's the pitch...STRIKE THREE!
I might put something together like:
./ troll == turd. /. troll.
-
- SCO lawyer == eats
but, I would be trolling.
This is a very very clever plot from GPL friends. It is a preemtive strike against possible future hostile legal fire.
What is happening is that SCO is effectively going to court, trying to attack every single possible legal problem of Linux and the GPL. It does so with enourmous stupidicy and incompetence, to such a degree that the judge will have no choice but to rule against them on every single claim. Then it will escalate all the way up to the supreme court, which will also rule against them on every single claim.
The result? Every possible legal weakness of Linux and the GPL has been strengthen by legal precedence, which is very hard to turn around.
Whoever it is who manages all this deserves every dollar that falls off as a biproduct.
That there are lawyers who smoke crack. That is the most rediculous statement I have every seen from a lawyer.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
That would be neat.
We all know this is true but SCO is also trying to claim that all software ever written that is built upon UNIX ideas is theirs (basically, all software). They think 'ALL YOUR SOFTWARE BELONG TO US!' and that the copyright claims will be null and void as well.
Personally they can have copyrights from software I've written when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
The Anti-Blog
If they can win this case, wouldn't it be feasible for small hunks of SCO Unix itself to fall under copyright weirdness, too? The Inquirer article makes the same point:
"If SCO's pleaders win this one, then surely it is guilty of massive copyright infringement too? And if they do, then surely it must apply to BSD and Apache style licences as well?"
So what's the point of doing this? The only thing I can come up with is that SCO wants to invalidate the existence of gpl'ed software in some convoluted attempt to make themselves look better.
...now that I don't have to take it seriously. I love the department tagline. Somehow the sight of a monkey in a fez seems utterly fitting. Any chance we could make that the new SCO icon?
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
Wouldn't a legal ruling along these lines make all commerical site licenses invalid as well? Can they really be arguing that the owner of a copyrighted work doesn't have the right to contractually license duplication rights to others? Wow, that's just plain nutty. --M
1. When this all started, it was a suit against IBM for contract violation.
2. Then, it became the theft of SCO's IP that was placed in Linux.
3. Then, they owned IP in Linux and wanted to charge every user of Linux $600 to be able to use it.
4. Now, the GPL is invalid and contrary to US copyright laws?
WTF? When may I expect my bill for breathing SCO's air?
Sun Microsystems doesn't seem to mind what's happening with SCO. I wonder why?
Because Sun has Solaris.
To anticipate two inevitable responses:
No, Sun isn't really trying to compete in the Joe/Jane Sixpack market - nor should they.
Yes, X86 running Linux are much faster in a lot of circumstances - irrelevant (see above).
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Come to think of it, SCO's source code agreements with everyone else (including Sun and MS) are probably invalid also. This is hilarious.
I am now waiting for SCO's explanation on how code in Linux can still be a secret in spite of the fact that tens of thousands of people regularly look at it. Next, we can learn how patent law does not permit Novell to retain Unix patents when relinguishing the source code and why SCO really does have the right to keep talking about its right to the 'Unix' IP (when it is supposed to have no such right because it does not even own the Unix trademark).
I think someone screwed up the headline. It should read:
GPL Declares SCO Attorney Invalid
Much better.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
the knuckle heads at SCO have fired up one to many crack pipes.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
SCO DECLARES YOU INVALID
Take your fingers out of your ass and have a reality check!.. (Or was that from each others ass?) BRUN SCO(m)! BURN!
I swear... if I see some SCO employee, lawyer or even a sympatiszer I'll gonna give them real beating!
Sorry for this post but enough is enough.. show me the proof or shut the fuck up!
I am not very clued up on US law but is there a short answer to the following question: Why can't IBM rapidly get a court to rule on issues like the fact that SCO won't disclose the code etc. Is there a (good) reason why it must drag on for a long time? Basically is there no quick ruling that could nip this all in the bud?
Information should be free!
"The fictitious comparison, with similar business practices could offer to Coca Cola also beverage prescriptions for the free Download and afterwards to everyone sue, which brews its drinks thereafter, leaves the SCO strategists obviously unaffected."
Wow, I don't know if it's the Fish or the SCO legal team that doesn't make sense!
I still remember when Boies represented Napster, he had an argument that supposedly would cause RIAA to lose ability to enforce their copyright:
Slashdot article from back then: Boies: Music Industry Could Lose Copyright
The CNET article linked from the above Slashdot article: Napster: Downloading music for free is legal
Of course, back then we all thought it was The Second Coming when The One Who Struck Down Microsoft discovered a shrewd loophole that would save Napster. Hah! We all know what happened there...
I hope his cute loopholes fail him again this time around...
fuddites, to be irrelevant/the walking dead.
.continue to come up on the short end of the FUDgeCycle(tm)
.controll? corepirate nazis? pharmaceuticals?
what's all the hoopla about? these fauxking guise are just a turd in the bucket/cesspool of last gasper megalomaniacal corepirate nazi greed/fear/ego based evile. not even worth the endless hypenosys they've attached their evile selves to.
never mind. back on the planet/population rescue task.
that's right. the absolutely free methods to improve yOUR condition include use of those time tested elements, oxygen, & water.
hard to believe that something so simple/cost effective, could improve yOUR ability to participate in the planet/population rescue program, as well as improving your owned lot, goes unrecognized. you can add/subtract various other stuff for cause&effect, but if you overlook the basics, you/all of us, will
once you get more oxygen on your brain, you'll begin to see the lights coming up. as most of you already know, we're all mostly water, so more of that can't hurt/helps a lot. why aren't these methods to superior health/ability widely known/promoted? can you say monIE? deception?
you're still hiding behind the 8bawl robbIE?
the lights are coming up now.
you can pretend all you want. our advise is to be as far away from the walking dead contingent as possible, when the big flash occurs. you wouldn't want to get any of that evile on you.
as to the free unlimited energy plan, as the lights come up, more&more folks will stop being misled into sucking up more&more of the infant killing barrolls of crudeness, & learn that it's more than ok to use newclear power generated by natural (hydro, solar, etc...) methods. of course more information about not wasting anything/behaving less frivolously is bound to show up, here&there.
cyphering how many babies it costs for a barroll of crudeness, we've decided to cut back, a lot, on wasteful things like giving monIE to felons, to help them destroy the planet/population.
no matter. the #1 task is planet/population rescue. the lights are coming up. we're in crisis mode. you can help.
the unlimited power (such as has never been seen before) is freely available to all, with the possible exception of the aforementioned walking dead.
consult with/trust in yOUR creator. more breathing. vote with yOUR wallet. seek others of non-aggressive intentions/behaviours. that's the spirit, moving you.
pay no heed/monIE to the greed/fear based walking dead.
each harmed innocent carries with it a bad toll. it will be repaid by you/us. the Godless felons will not be available to make reparations.
pay attention. that's definitely affordable, plus you might develop skills which could prevent you from being misled any further by phonIE ?pr? ?firm? generated misinformation.
good work so far. there's still much to be done. see you there. tell 'em robbIE.
the rest of the wwworld is laughing/crying at/for US in sympathy/disgust, as we fall/jump into the daze of the georgewellian corepirate nazi life0cide, whilst criticizing their ip gangsters, which are also members of the walking dead.
If these stooges new anything about computers, or had a shred of integrity, they probably wouldn't take the case. But then again, they're lawyers.
When the SCO executives get jail time for pumping and dumping SCO stock, can the lawyers be investigated and prosecuted as co-conspirators?
dudes.. warez sites will have hardtime spreading all the gpl'ed warez..
anonymous gpl distributor
SCO declares Law of gravity invalid, as servers with linux use it to stay on the ground.
Linux: Helping nerds look smarter since the late 90s.
Posted by Somefool on Thursday August 14, @02:40PM
from the them's-fightin'-words dept.
AnonymousCoward writes "According to no real open evidence, SpeeDFreaK_5 declares SCO's is full of s**t. When asked about any evidence he may have to prove his views, he replied "Evidence!?! Who the F**K needs evidence? Sure as hell not the people buying SCO's stock!" SCO's claims that the GPL violates the US copyright law and is thus null and void, declared by me!" Speedfreak's legal position isn't too crazy to believe: The GPL allows unlimited copies, the copyright law allows one. Therefore, the SCO's claims are invalid, and they are now the world's prison b*tch. Apparently, they are trying to argue that the copyright law, in giving consumers the right to make one backup of their software without any permission from the copyright holder, outlaws any contractual agreement that allows users to make more than one copy." In response, SpeeDFreaK says, "Screw SCO and everything their stock-pumping, extorting, lying, FUD spreading, dying a$$es represent."
On a more serious note, since they released their own brand of linux under the GPL, shouldn't their claims be null and void?
Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
... is if the lawyers haven't billed them yet.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
Any software that doesn't allow one copy also has an invalid license. Ergo by preventing me by license or DRM (digital restrictions managment) from making my one copy, the license is also invalid. Not that I'm rooting for the one copy thing to knock down the GPL, I'm just saying this is a two-edged sword that could also be used against draconian liceneses and DRM measures. Regardless, this bears watching. You can't argue that it works for more than one and than counter that you mean it can work for less than one.
as for va lairIE's whoreabully infactdead/pateNTdead PostBlock(tm) devise, it sucks too.
This lawsuit just gets more and more rediculous every single day.
Idiots.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
see SCOX tumble,
Die SCOX, DIE!.....
Mr. Heise, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this world is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. ** FULL DISCLOSURE Yeah, it's a repeat of a previous post of mine. So sue me...
After seeing this, all I can say is "SCO, what your law firm just said is one of the most insanely, idiotic things I have every heard. At no point in your law firms rambling, incoherent press release were they even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone that read that release is now dumber for having read it. I award no points and may god have mercy on your soul."
No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
If by some weird twise of fate SCO's challenge is upheld, the implications are far more staggering than just the end of free sortware (although that's bad enough.) It might mean the end of free *anything*. What they're arguing is essentially that the owner of a copyrighted work may only distribute it for a per-copy price. This would outlaw the Internet as we know it, as well as junk mail, Gideon's Bible, political leafletting and Lord knows what else.
or go here http://slashdot.org/zoo.pl?op=check&type=friend&ui d=686413
and check "foe", then hit "yes I'm positive".
I'm sure I'm not the only one tired of people bitching about what gets posted on slashdot.
PLS MOD THIS UP
If the GPL is declared null and void, then it removes one of their stumbling blocks in the IBM case. ( their potential release of code under GPL )
I personally don't feel they violated it as they didn't INTEND to release protected IP into the GPL so it doesn't count. ( once Caldera owned the IP and it was discovered in violation it was pulled, helping their intent case.... )
But its hard to prove intent in things like this, so removing the 'problem' of the GPL would only serve to help them.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I think SCO needs to get some new gaskets for their stock price pump. The motor on it is running faster and faster but it takes all the running they can do to stay in one place. See what I mean?
With this announcement, I think smoke is starting to come out of the motor too.
This is one thing that I'm wondering about.
Sure US copyright law allows one copy, that is well understood. But if you release it under the GPL, isnt that considered a different kind of copyright with the rules set forward under the license that every geek knows by heart?
For example: If you release it under the US copyright system, one copy is allowed, thats it, no exceptions.
But if you release it under the GPL, the US copyright laws are null and void against this software and they go by the GPL laws which allows unlimited copies as long as its compliant with the GPL laws.
Am I right or am I just seeing this wrong?
In other news, the Lindon, Utah-based SCO Group was caught distributing from their FTP server in excess of 3,000,000 lines of code demonstrably not written any of their employees, and for which by their own admission they had no licence. When asked to justify what surely must be one of the most brazen acts of piracy in recent history, CEO Darl McBride said: "What? You mean the rules don't just apply to everybody else?"
Mr. Stallman:
It is -NOW- time to file suit! What are you waiting for?
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
The specifics of copyright law are that you can make one copy of something "without" the permission of the owner for backup purposes. GPL'd code isn't released with a single owner. It has several owners. All of which, when they released there code under the GPL, "gave" permission to make as many copies as you want. So, the GPL in no way violates copyright law. I am not making copies "without" the copyright holders permission, but rather "with" the copyright holders permission. I am now going to use the permission I was given by the GPL to make another copy of my Slackware CD, and give it to my friend, absolutely free. He in turn, will make a copy of his copy, and give it to someone else, with 100% full permission to do so; thus spreading the yummy goodness!!
Password Authentication Bypassed for Root
And to think that I was actually worried that they might find some obscure loophole in the GPL that would allow them to get away with their extortion attempt. Trying to declare the GPL completely invalid is futile; no court is going to rule that copyright owners don't have the right to decide who can make copies (that's the whole "point" of copyright, for crying out loud!)
Intriguingly, SCO itself has very little to gain from a declaration that the GPL is invalid (since they themselves have distributed linux, this would make them guilty of a large number of copyright violations). So why this apparent kamikaze attack? Has some other party put them up to it?
Don't forget his amazing performance in the Napster case..
While the copyright act codifies fair use and backups as legal rights of the consumer, it rests upon the constitution. The cosntitution gives creators a monopoly on how that work is copied. If the creator wants people to make as many copies as they'd like, it should trump what the copyright act says as far as how many copies a consumer may make.
However, this could be very bad for fair use. If the copyright act stating that users may only make one copy is found to be unconstitutional in that it restricts what methods a creator can employ to make the copies of his work, then does this put the rest of the fair use provisions in jeopardy? Is the copyright act written in such a way that if one part of the law is found unconstitutional that the rest of it is still intact?
Bart no like. Baaaad medicine!
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
I think SCO has taken this whole "free as in beer" thing way too far... the *only* rational I can see at this point is they are all really really drunk off free beer.
If this were so, then SCO is infringing on the copyright of all GNU/Linux contributors. Only the GPL grants them a right to distribute GPL'd software, which valid license or not, GPL'd software is still copyrighted and and thus protected.
.00001% of Linux is worth $1,399, then they owe GNU/Linux contributors $139,900,000 for each copy they illegally distributed.
... ;)
Even if SCO is no longer distributing Linux and GPL'd utilities, then at the very least SCO will have to pay for past infringement. Let me see, if
Linus and RMS' share adds up to $1 trillion
I say this link for their stock price needs to be added every SCO article in the related links section.
Yet again their annoucements match the pattern of their stock, making their pump and dump scheme more clear.
Monday, not doing so well, so they release on Monday announcement that some undisclosed "fortune 500" company paid their license. Tuesday stock starts back up, and their pump & dump scheme is addressed. Wednesday they release their empty threats to terminate their license with IBM, stock keeps climbing. Today, stock jumps by about 1, looks like it is about to start going back down, and they claim the GPL is invalid.
1) Claim you own copyrights to undeclared code
2) Note that somebody else owns copyrights to all the supplemental code that you use and sell, thus violating the copyright law you are attempting to enforce
3) Get sued, while you get laughed at when trying to sue
4) ???
5) And, of course, PROFIT!!! (Their stock went UP after this?)
Sorry, but the post had to be made
Says that SCO's employees are in a plan 10b5-1 that allows them to sell stock with non public info.
plan
GPL Declares that a SCO Attorney is Invalid. More on this after these messages...
You can't handle the truth.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
It just seems unbelieveable that anyone would make such blatantly stupid claims in court.
I think this has to be some kind of joke.
BSD allows multiple copies given that you obey certain rules. The rules have less side-effects, but that is irrelevant to SCO's arguement.
The only alternative would be PD.
Precedence is going to be made. Just because SCO(X) is full of shit, does not mean that lawyers will simply drop the case. We will have to deal with the yack-dung that this conflict is bringing about for years afterwards.
/. sheep can do anything.
Do you think that those who are making decisions over this issue have the ideals of open source in mind? IBM and RH? They only want it for corporate profits. SCO(X)... yeah... big negative. The Courts?! They might be the only one we can get through to. We have to get involved. I recomend starting an e-mail list to protest the abuse of free rights that are being presented in this lawsuit.
or maybee I am just an idiot for thinking that a bunch of
hate me.
proud member
"this is the gloaming"
radiohead
almost a whole day without mention of the SCO case
This is absolutely insane. But if they are trying to tear apart oss, I guess the GPL is the one link to attack that covers all bases.
Of course now they'll just look silly in front of everyone.
Speak for yourself.
But to explain further, the GPL pretty much grants one the right to make copies, and the only condition is that, if you alter the source, you are requested to contribute your alterations.
That, unto itself, is a copyright license - it grants the right to copy to whoever uses the product licensed under such.
But it is not a copywrite.
This explains copyright.,p> This explains what a copywriter does, which is write copy. Copywrite is what a copywriter does, and it's broadcast radio jargon. You can copyright a copywrite, and copywrite a copyright, bu they are not interchangeable.
This sig no verb.
So that when they get prosecuted for their pump and dump scheme they will be found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Furthermore, if I am the creator of a GPL project there is nothing at all to prevent me from making the code I wrote and making it both GPL and shrinkwrap.
That's the whole point of copyright: you can "give away" your rights for one method of distribution and not lose control of the work. GPL is absolutely, completely and utterly NOT "public domain."
According to this article SCO plans on issuing invoices to "customers" for their Linux license soon. Will these then be recorded as sales? If so wouldn't that artifically inflate the revenue/profit profile? Watch those receivables grow!!!! http://www.cbronline.com/latestnews/6b61a1cf114f8a a480256d7f0018bb99
IANAL, but I was just wondering: how would a win in court for SCO (okay, that's very iffy....) affect Linux and the GPL in other countries ? Would people in Canada, Japan, Germany etc. have to pay a fee to SCO/Caldera as well ? I believe SCO had some troubles with a German court...
As many on the list have said, GPL is a copyright contract giving the user the right to re-distribute. This seems like a pathetic attempt at stooping the freight train that is heading straight for them.
Free speech is getting expensive...
SCO charges King James for theft of intellectual property in the Bible, claiming that in most of the books, their code is being used illegally to execute holy miracles. SCO is suing for 6.3 billion souls and the rights of ownership for Heaven and Earth
This was before SCO's linux license announcement however.
Let me see, SCO distributes Linux under GPL for how many years? IBM counter-sues saying that SCO has violated the GPL. SCO then claims that the GPL is invalid? That's too funny. SCO knows they do not have a leg to stand on in regards to the GPL. They obviously saw that they cannot claim "we didn't ever intend to release the code as GPL'd code", based on their relatively long history of distribution. Additionally, the code they are complaining about, is not even their code (despite their rantings). So, in affect, SCO is saying the GPL applies to us when we want it to, or not, but it doesn't apply to others because we say so (in reference to IBM's release of code under the GPL). SCO needs a new "SCOzo the Clown" corporate logo, with SCO's corporate color scheme and a big bullseye on its rear end with a sign taped to its back, just above the bullseye saying "IBM, kick me here, hard!" Regards, Fredrick
Copyright allows for one personal copy, a backup, in case the media it was originally on melts, or some other catastrophie occurs, so you won't need to buy it again. If you read license agreements nowadays, especially Nintendo games, they specifically say you don't need to make a backup copy, this is to get around the fact that you can't make a backup copy because of their anti-piracy methods. If, however, you read some of the older license agreements, such as those from Sierra On-Line (pre-vivendi), you'll notice that they readily inform the user that they can make one backup copy for personal use.
However, copyright law does not limit how many copies you can make when you are given the right, by the copyright holder, to do so. The GPL allows for unlimited distribution and modification provided that it all falls within the constraints of the GPL. This is similar to how indi games get distributed in retail form: the developers license their software to a distributor for X number of copies. Usually it's an unlimited number of copies, with a certain percent of royalties per copy sold. The GPL is similar (it grants unlimited distribution), though it also gives many additional rights (such as being able to modify the code), so long as everything falls within the GPL.
The GPL does not place a restriction on the number of personal backups youmay have, nor does it overrule the laws of copyright. You still have the right to hold one backup copy - it's just a nice side effect to have the ability to use that work without having to make a new agreement.
--LordKaT
declare that McBride is against the U.S. Law and therefore null and void?
how long until
...treating the idiot parent poster abusively and getting modded down quickly.
I like those success stories SCO posts on their website - particularly the Linux ones:
D =5
Incredible Technologies escapes "Microsoft lock-in" with help from SCO
Customer Overview
Rolling Meadows, Ill.-based Incredible Technologies (IT) is one of the leading game software providers in the world. They are committed to creating a variety of quality games at a reasonable price. They have proven that there is a big market for compelling games targeted for a wide range of players.
Golden Tee Fore! and the International Tournament System have brought back fun and excitement to street locations and players of all ages. Street operators are thrilled to have reasonably priced games that earn great profits for a long time. Distributors are enjoying the brisk sales, reliable hardware and efficient service that Incredible Technologies provides.
Business Problem
Intel based systems are the ideal platform for building coin-op systems. They are cheap, readily available and increasingly reliable. The downsides are that most vendors feel locked into the Microsoft proprietary world and pay a heavy tax for the privilege.
IT decided to explore the Linux opportunity and saw the advantages of the free software model the Open Source world provides. Using Linux software and the smallest Intel hardware footprint, they could create a brand new platform that would hit a lower price point to further expand the already huge gaming market. They needed to figure out how to migrate their games and development environment across to Linux and discern how to optimize Linux to give them the fastest and most flexible platform.
Solution
IT approached SCO to see how they could make their vision a reality. SCO's Professional Services team worked with IT to scope out and design a complete specification for their vision. Using a combination of SCO's Linux and Open Source technologies, they engineered a complete development environment for IT's game designers along with a customized version of Linux to deploy on IT's small footprint custom Intel system.
Benefits
Incredible Technologies coin-op systems now have all the power and cost effectiveness of Intel systems without the cost and lock in of the Microsoft world.
"With SCO's help, Incredible Technologies has built our next generation platform that will help keep us at the forefront of our market," said Chuck Zenkus, game designer and project manager at Incredible Technologies.
Using a combination of the latest Linux and Open Source technologies, SCO engineered a complete development environment for Incredible Technologies game designers along with a customized version of Linux to deploy on IT's small footprint custom Intel system. The result is coin-op systems that have all the power and cost effectiveness of Intel systems without the cost and lock in of a strictly proprietary operating system.
http://www.sco.com/company/success/story.html?I
Get more of these fabulous sources of joy at http://www.sco.com/company/success/search.html , choosing Linux as a product...
By the way, I checked the shop and did not find a way to obtain my antidote license! So I will have to continue using Windows, I guess...
Perhaps it would have been cooler, if Blaster had been set to target SCO rather then windows update... SCO is going beyond rational ..
tick tock tick tock..
I've got a bridge for sale, plz call me :o
So what happens in the Court trial? The SCO lawyers parade up and state clearly that the GPL is invalid because it gives permission to copy, which copyright law doesn't, and then the other lawyers show the judge the law, and the judge does terrible things to sco's lawyers? I just don't see them being that stupid. There must be more to this than what we are seeing.
What could come next? Of couse, BSD license, *BSD unix, all other free licenses, free projects like mozilla or star office, then claim that the only legal software licenses are the expensive ones, and after this, only SCO and Microsoft licenses are the only legal ones.
And next? Well, Microsoft ruler of the world and SCO the prince, Bill Gates elected US president, and the proclaim "all your base are belong to US"
Cheese mining! Call China imediatly!
After nothing better than a -1 troll or -1 flamebait from their previous comments, SCO finally gets a +5 funny. Pity you don't get karma for funny mods any more.
... They're really serious this time!
Section B (Marketplace) of the Wall Street Journal picked up the story (sorry I have no links today). In addition, they have a feature story about in a program by the government of Thailand is getting people to consider Linux (and how a large Operating system vendor is offering them low rates on their computers).
One suggestion: Instead of referring to "SCO" in /. stories and postings, refer instead to "SCO/Microsoft." This will help reinforce the fact that SCO is no more than a marionette, with Billy's bunch pulling the strings.
That ain't liver; that's beef kidney!
In other words, after examining all of SCO's "evidence" this was the best argument their lawyers could come up with because there ain't no evidence.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Issuing an "invoice" is not a sale. A "sale" is made when the parties agree about the terms of the sale, a "contract" if you will, with money and goods/services exchanging hands. First, these are not SCO's customers, no contract, even verbal, has been established, therefore "no sale". And, the "goods/services" are not even SCO's to sell, from my view, they don't even own them. So, no "good/services" to exchange. This is fraud. If SCO then tries to count these as "accounts receivable" and sics collection agencies on their "customers", watch the lawsuits start piling up. Regards, Fredrick
It seems to me the GPL acts as a balancer against a changing legal climate - the more "IP" friendly and less "fair use" friendly that climate becomes, the stronger the GPL becomes.
Brilliant.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
So if SCO does convince some court of law that this is a valid argument, they'll self-destruct.
How on earth can SCO get theri own product CDs pressed if the CD production company is only allowed to make one copy from the master? ;)
Yaz.
Suckers. Or very good honeypotters.
nmap -O www.boies-schiller.com
Starting nmap 3.27 ( www.insecure.org/nmap/ ) at 2003-08-14 14:36 CDT
Interesting ports on intermedia.net (64.78.42.134):
(The 1607 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
Port State Service
open ftp
open http
filtered loc-srv
filtered netbios-ssn
filtered snmp
filtered snmptrap
open https
filtered microsoft-ds
open ms-sql-s
filtered ms-sql-m
open iss-realsec
open msdtc
open ms-term-serv
open RETS-or-BackupExec
open coldfusion-auth
open coldfusion-auth
operating system guess: Windows Millennium Edition (Me), Win 2000, or Win
XP
Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 14.642 seconds
This was in September's Wired, so when did this interview take place to get published? At least a month to two months earlier. These guys have a long and detailed game plan. We may think they are idiots and wrong, but they are by no means "winging it".
I personally think these guys are going to lose, but anyone who thinks they are not skilled and very dangerous lawyers is fooling themselves. Thank goodness IBM (with lots of money and good lawyers) is taking them on and not some ragtag OpenSource or FSF outfit. We'd get crushed.
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs." -- Switchfoot, Ode to Chin
I promise you I WILL continue to distribute/copy the Linux kernal. You will NEVER get any(extortion) money out of me, I fully intend to fully comply with the GPL/GNU of my favorite Linux distro..
:)
SCO (S)tart (C)oding (O)penly, ok, I will
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
No, actually all work is copyrighted, but you can expressly release it into the public domain.
At first I thought this whole SCO thing was a joke. Then I thought that SCO really thought it could extort money from IBM and Linux users. That didn't last long since their claims were so outrageous. So I started to look elsewhere for answers. Then I wondered about a SCO/Microsoft conspiracy to bury Linux/Open Source. I held that view for a bit but now this whole thing is so out of control that I'm falling back the other way. I can't help but think that SCO is going to lose so big and that the whole issue will finally make mainstream news and that the GPL will finally receive some legal scrutiny. I can't help but think that this _is_ a conspiracy - that all the GPL/Linux friendly companies got together to defend against Microsoft's forthcoming attack on open source. SCO drew the short straw so SCO had to feign this attack on Linux and the GPL. Of course they will lose. IBM will then buy SCO with an unusually SCO favorable stock swap. IBM will then buy Novell/Ximian and everyone's stock will rise. There will be much rejoicing - at least for a while... OK go back to what you were doing. Nothing to see here.
What the law establishes is a floor - no license can prohibit the purchaser from making at least one backup/archival copy. Some vendors have tried to get around it by declaring the original media to be that single allowed archival copy, but I doubt that would stand up to a laugh test if it got to court.
It's common practice for lobbyists to try to convert floors into ceilings and vice versa during deliberation. That's why you'll occasionally see a group fight hard for a bill then suddenly oppose it - somebody managed to flip the sense of the bill. But you can't do that after the fact, especially for a product you don't own or produce. It's a silly as, oh, Red Hat claiming that copyright law prohibited any company from purchasing and installing more than a single copy of any Windows product.
If somebody rejects the GPL, they don't have the right to make or distribute ANY copies of the software.
(IANAL, but this is basic stuff that everyone should know.)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
mentions a "special 10b5-1 plan" that allows SCO insiders to sell their stock without fear of SEC reprisal. 88,000 shares of insider stock were moved in the third quarter, while SCO executives were huffing and puffing the share price into the stratosphere.
Google "10b5-1" for an example of the golden rule: they who have the gold make the rules.
It's also comforting to know that stock manipulation continues unabated in the post-Enron era. But, really, how else is a hard-working CEO going to get the cash together for a down payment on that third home?
So much for that "we respect linux, we just want to correct IP issues" crap they said earlier. They now have shown what they are up to and declared themselves enemies of the free software initiative and community. Anything they say know will be tainted by those ambitions.
--
Karma is overrated, whoring is ok.
Dude, there are papers published about Ext2fs which describe the data structures in exquisite detail. You don't need to look at the code to write an ext2fs clone. I have written proprietary utilities to access ext2fs data structures. I know what I am talking about.
s . htm
http://e2fsprogs.sourceforge.net/ext2intro.html
http://uranus.it.swin.edu.au/~jn/explore2fs/es2f
In addition, there are various commercial tools that read and write ext2, such as
Ext2fs Anywhere.
So in that case, you're full of crap. I don't know if I am really qualified to comment on the other case, but doesn't BSD have linux compatibility? And isn't BSD available under a much less restrictive license? They could just adapt that code.
If the obviously brain damaged shitheads at SCO wants to play like that, fine, let them. It can work to our advantage.
Since SCO claims the GPL is invalid and therefore SCO is not bound by it, then that works both ways. Authors of the software are not bound by it either. Therefore, everyone who has ever written a line of code that is used anywhere in GNU/Linux should now inform SCO that their rights to distribute the author's code has been withdrawn, royalties for any future distribution will be required, and royalties for past distribution are now due...just like SCO is wanting to do to IBM. If they want to play games, then dammit we can play games too. Batter up!
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Am i the only one who is *DYING* to see what the FSF/Linus/RMS *especially RMS* are going to have to say about this?!?!
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I do recall that the "L" in "GPL" stands for "License".
The Author (or copyright holder) has the right to grant and/or revoke Licenses at will, and to structure the license as he/she/they/it see(s) fit.
If they want to let Licensees make one copy, 20 copies, 1 billion copies, it is his/her/their/it's business. NOT SCO's.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
this all sounds like a recursive nightmare. a mirror within a mirror within a mirror. Talk about smoke and mirrors, SCO is going to try and convince us that they infact invented flight, and that they have copyright on copyright, so everyone must pay them, say, $50 a day for the rest of our lives.
Does that mean that all software site licenses would be invalid? They allow me unlimited copying of the software (within an organization). Interesting...
It seems that SCO, as much as they hate the GPL, have nothing bad to say about the LGPL.
Badass Resumes
Most companies indemnify their officers from personal lawsuits.
It now looks like the officers of SCO are using this entire farce to make bundle by selling their SCO stock before the company craters.
Once SCO is history it will not be able to protect them. So how about some individual lawsuits against the officers of SCO as individuals? I think it is time to shake these turkeys up a little.
Now who do we suggest this to?
I think we should pass SCO a little info.
/pulse/finger /ass/finger
Consider, if you will, the pulse, aka the lifebeat of SCO's business, as the very people they are pissing off. So now...
OK, here's the pulse. And here's your finger... far from the pulse, jammed straight up your ass.
Seriously, at some point SCO took their finger off the pulse, and lost touch with their customers. Even if Linux does somewhat suffer due to current litigation, do we really think that Unix would make a comeback. Can SCO believe that those using linux would give up, forget that SCO is evil, and switch to SCO Unix?
I, for one, will be boycotting SCO... perhaps we should offer them a chocolate covered pretzel?
SCO: mv
4. Sue Tim Berners-Lee for creating a copyright-circumvention tool
I can almost see someone trying #4. But I just can't think of anyone who would sue people for creating circumvention devices?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
OK, need an attorney here, but doesn't it seem bizarre that the rights holder cannot choose to award/cede whatever rights he/she desires? this seems like an intrinsic contradiction to the usual principle of permitting people to do as they like w/ their property, physical or otherwise.
ed
I'm not a lawyer, but I've watched a lot of Judge Judy, Judge Wapner, and Judge Brown, not to mention Divorce Court and Fashion Court. So in my television informed opinion (I saw it on TV so it must be true), I declare the lawyer in the SCO case to be null and void, and SCO to be in violation of logic, reason, and good taste.
Also I declare Microsoft guilty of conspiracy and Bill Gates should be taken out and beaten with California's recall gubenetorial candidate/pornstar Evangylene's enormous (.)(.)breasts until he is unconscious.
Spongebob: "Remember, licking doorknobs is illegal on other planets!"
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
... will there be a massive shift to BSD-style licenses. I like the BSD license just fine, but I'd be concerned that if the GPL is ruled invalid, that the BSD license wouldn't be valid either.
... a clear restriction, albeit a benign one), but the net effect is to allow greater lattitude for people to copy the work than the default otherwise permitted under copyright law.
Good God, don't you people think before you type? Or, more to the point, have those who have moderator priveleges today been passing the crack pipe around a little more frequently than usual?
The argument being used in this incredibly weak attempt to overturn the GPL is that it violates copyright law because the creator of the work is offering terms more liberal than copyright's default restrictions.
Now, for those slow on the uptake, what does a Microsoft site license do? Yup, it grants (in exchange for money) a more liberal right to copy than that otherwise offered by copyright law.
And, for those even slower on the uptake, what does the BSD-style license do? Yup, you guessed it again. It offers a more liberal right to copy than that otherwise offered by copyright law, just like the GPL. The specific restrictions BSD-style licenses impose are different from those of the GPL (and don't think for a minute it doesn't impose restrictions, however benign. If it didn't impose restrictions, the work would be in the public domain. Instead, you are required to maintain the copyright notice
Which part of this progression escapes you? If in some perverse miscarriage of anything remotely resembling rule of law, much less justice, the GPL were to be ruled invalid on this basis, that would spell instant death by precident to not only the GPL, but BSD-Style licenses, Creative Commons style licenses, Artistic Licenses, and, yes, corporate site licenses of the variety Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, and just about every other software company on the planet eagerly offers their customers in exchange for cold, hard cash. For about three minutes, before an appeals court slaps a stay on the judgement, hears the case, and overturns the ruling.
Any other outcome would mean we could say goodbye to the software industry, the online content industry, and probably a whole slew of other industries we're not thinking of as well, upon which copyright law touches in one way or another. Not to mention saying goodbye to 220+ years of precident.
There is absolutely no chance this argument will hold up. It will be interesting to see if any lawyers are disbarred or fined for even bringing this argument to court.
IANAL, but I am a sapient being with a three digit IQ, which is all this level of insight really requires.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"If that be the law sir, then the law is a ass."
--Charles Dickens, OLIVER TWIST
Mod parent more! I like the Kimball tie.
SCO is arguing that Linux is software, which US copyright law limits to one copy for backup purposes. What they fail to mention is that the US law is made to guarantee you the right to make at least one backup copy, even if the copyright holder expressly forbids any copies at all. However, if the copyright holder expressly grants you the right to make more than one copy, then it's nonsense, Alice-in-Wonderland-type talk to insist that US copyright law still limits you to that one copy limit.
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
I'm sick and tired of this SCO $hit. Let's send Darl to Guantanamo and forget about him.
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
The first link describes an utterly stupid defense by SCO, if it's true. The backup copy rule is an exception to exclusive copyright by the copyright holder, meant to protect the consumer. If the copyright holder wishes to grant you more rights to copy their stuff, this law shouldn't be able to prevent that, unless the law was very poorly written. Obviously the intent of the law was to protect consumers, not restrict their ability to copy even if the producer allows them to copy.
The last posted link has an interesting fact I haven't seen before. Apparently, part of IBM's agreement with SCO allows them to create and distribute derivative works as long as they write the code themselves. So, assuming IBM didn't actually copy SCO code, and assuming this information is true, SCO's case against IBM is looking pretty bad. This doesn't get linux completely off the hook, however, if the linux code violates SCO's copyright.
Vote for Pedro
I'm sorry if this is an off-topic comment, but... why "fishbait"? Certainly "heise" (name of the lawyer as well as the news service) is not the german word for fishbait...
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
The GPL is the only OSS license I would ever release my work under. Why the hell should I let anyone profit off of my work without giving anything back. Especialy fuckheads like you?
I should be able to release my code how I want. If you don't like it, then don't fucking use it.
If the only choice was All rights reserved or public domain, then I would choose rights-reserved over PD any day.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
now THAT was funny.
One gray night it happened: The money it came no more
:)
And SCO that corporation, it ceased its fearless roar
Board heads were bent in sorrow, their tears fell like rain
Lawyers no longer went to play in the courtroom's great domain
Without its greenbacked friends, SCO could not be brave
And so that 'mighty' corporation finally slipped into its cave
-- kudos to anyone who names that tune.
i am a soviet space shuttle
I spent the better part of four years as a lawyer drafting and negotiating software licenses worth millions.
If this is the real position of SCO, that the GPL is invalid because of no restriction on the number of copies... I am utterly speechless. This is the most retarded legal assertion I have ever heard.
In fact, this tidbit coupled with the revelation that it is Sequent's code that is the whole basis of this dispute has completely reduced SCO and its allegations, for me anyway, to utter nonsense without the slightest doubt.
As to Mr. Boies' stellar legal reputation, don't forget that big-name partners very often flash grins and sign up clients without a whole lot of thought about the merits of a case. (Happened quite often in my firm) Very often plebes in the bowels will then do all the shit-disturbing to see if there's really a case for the big-name partner to win.
I think Mr. Boies will enjoy his retainer on this one then wash his hands and move on to his next case. Publicity will only help him. I wonder if it's possible that Mr. Boies took any shares in lieu of payment and has already cashed them in? Our firm also used to do that too!
You just have to limit how many backup copies they can make. A reasonable number like 100 trillion or so should do.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Win the lawsuit, purchase SCO outright for pennies instead of the 150Million or whatever they claim to be worth right now and hold the rights to Unix themselves.
The real question becomes... Will IBM continue to be a friend of Linux at that point?
AF-Design, web development.
Well, I've got my law-school building, soon I'll be ready for my land-shark rush...
...when lawyers are making the judgements, and not the courts.
Disney should sue SCO/Caldera since their logo looks too much like Mickey Mouse's ears (in blue) on top of a red globe...
Do you realize how stupid you sound using "Faux News" as some kind of stab at Fox News?
Fox is pronounced "fawks" and it rhymes with "box."
Faux is pronounced "foe" and it rhymes with "toe."
"Foe News" just makes you sound stupid, and is not even remotely clever.
Nathan
SCO announce that Linus doesn't exist and that they actually wrote all of Linux and Apache and Postgresql and.... Someone hacked into your ftp server using their web browser and stole all your IP???.,.
For gods sake SCO give it a rest..
If SCO want us to respect their IP then they should tell us what IP is supposedly theirs so that it can be removed (Although we all know this will not happen for a long time because they are enjoying EXTORTING money out of everyone!) and then stop trying to STEAL/EXTORT our IP.
Does anybody else chuckle whenever they read about how (refering to themselves) SCO have for the last 20 years sold these products?? For fucks sake SCO you have written nothing.. YOU FAILED AT LINUX AND THEN BOUGHT "ORIGIONAL SCO's" IP AND THEN FAILED AT THAT TOO. IF ANYTHING YOU HAVE FAILED ALL OF THE ORIGIONAL SCO PROGRAMMERS AND JUST TO TOP IT OFF YOU ARE RUINING ALL OF UNIX's HISTORY.
Anyway even if SCO do find a judge who can be bought and in-turn ruin the GPL Licence do you really think thats it.. A new licence will be drawn up and all the origional programmers will licence their code under that and SCO will still end up with a ruined business.
And last of all a quick question for all of you.... If SCO destroy the GPL and inturn Linux won't that harm their new Linux Licence fees? Are SCO that STUPID? Or are SCO trying for the worlds best company suicide? (A Company Dawin award!?!!)
Mark.
---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
Interesting.. their law firm is that of David Boies.. the guy that tackled M$ in the Justice Dept's antitrust case.
-- jimmycarter
At that point, the infringing code will be written out and the problem goes away.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
There can be no other plausible rationale behind this. McBride et al are taking great pleasure from all this.
OpenOffice tips:richhillsoftware.com
I never looked at it that way. It's too bad McNealy feels the need to so adammantly refuse the adoption of Linux. It's understandable, since Solaris can still do things that Linux can't. But that doesn't mean he should hide from it - he should embrace it, get it up to speed (because Linux is going to be as powerful as UNIX soon anyways), and use it. I mean hell, like you said, it would save Sun money and pass those savings along to the customer.
This was covered in the marketplace section of today's WSJ. The odd thing about that article was that it quoted Eric Raymond as saying that Linus had said that he had some other license he would agree to switch Linux to if the GPL was invalidated. Anyone have anymore detail on that aspect?
-Rich
In the news.com article, it states "He [McBride] said the company had spent between $600,000 and $700,000 on legal expenses since March, less than half of the $1 million per quarter it has budgeted for such costs."
SCO is budgeting $333k per month to go up against the company that took on the part of the United States government that literally prints money and won?
Before reading this, I was willing to discount the comments about Darl and his merry men being on crack, but after reading this the only question I have is:
Darl, where can I find some of what you're smoking, swallowing, snorting or injecting?
myke
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
It is the first LEGAL statement I have seen. This is important as everyone can hide behind this if they are later sued.
It is not a good defense in court to state that you chose to ignore this whole issue based on advice from you uncle or your friends at Slashdot.
However if you say that you sought legal council and behaved as advised, you are OK in the sense that your max exposure is the License payment not recieved, no Punitives, fines etc.
Best quote from the Article: Quote:
Simply by being an interested and aggressive defendant with deep pockets, IBM is now effectively shielding Linux users from damages, even without an indemnity provision in the GPL.
Help fight continental drift.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.sco. com
Actualy, this is the same lawyer who defended Napster, and prosecuted Microsoft.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear in our last conversation.
What I meant to say is "Get crack team of lawyers", not "Get that team of lawyers some crack".
Sorry for any inconviences
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I disagree with your position, but it's a genuine opinion and clearly not written to offend or 'troll' users into replies. I won't debate the point here because I'm too busy at work. If I see this in M2 I'll certainly vote 'unfair'. JMO. --Maynard
In soviet Russia, the GPL declares SCO invalid.
I always thought of copyright and license to be two seperate things.. I can hold the copyright, but give you a license to distrubute it anyways you feel, thats the jist of GPL..
If they are saying that copyright only allows one copy, then there's many many companies that will have issue with this.. Think of software that allows 5 copies installed... Usually, they are called 5 user, yes you got it, licenses.. Not copyright..
Slashdot is like Playboy: I read it for the articles
SCO is bleeding money. Darl McBride, a young ambitious twit with no idea how to save the company is preparing for the worst.
Enter Microsoft and their legal department. They "suggest" that SCO make a play for Linux. Of course McBride says "What's in it for me, my stock is in the can, and a lawsuit this big will bankrupt us."
Microsoft's answer (delivered by Ballmer) "Make the play, we'll make sure you and the stockholders get a great deal when we buy you out. In the meantime, it slows the progress of Linux and allows us to test the weaknesses in the GPL (which we hate)".
Darl goes after IBM first because it is following the licencing trail. Next, it goes after users (FUD for Microsoft's cause). Finally, it goes after the GPL. THAT is the real legal test. Even though it looks like a lost cause, SCO doesn't care, the buyout is in place.
When this is all said and done, M$ will buy out SCO (worth $120mill, chump change for M$). Then they will sit around and tell large buyers (i.e goverments and F500s) "SEE all the trouble you can get into with that "free" software? Is it really worth it to you to trust your business to a bunch of immature geeks and their "quaint" licence? This could happen again ANY DAY!!!"
For the cost of lawyers and the $120 million for SCO, M$ gets a great piece of sales FUD to push. They MIGHT get IBM to back off of the Linux train, and they might even cripple Linux for a bit by getting features (NUMA, SMP) removed.
This is getting so obvious.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
The thing seems more addictive than crack and gives more delusions than LSD. The side effect seems to be the destruction of the neurons, but I just want to profit, not smoke it :-)
:-)
I think that the DEA has great interest in this case
The lawyers only get paid if they win.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
GPL invalid? Cool!
I will steal all your GPL code, put together some crap application and sell it for big money.
All your GPL code are belong to us.
1. Steal GPL code
2. Sell if crap application for Profit
3. PROFIT!!?!
w00t.
If the GPL is invalid because it allows multiple redistributions, doesn't that make all of SCO's UNIX licenses invalid?
Or at least doesn't it indicate that there is no good faith on their part?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
should read:
1. Steal GPL code
2. Sell in crap application for Profit
3. PROFIT!!?!
If you mean section as in the games, apple, books, science (the links on the left side of the page)type categories, it's for the same reason that we don't have a Microsoft section /. is way too biased against them. There is a story about Apache like 4 times a year but it still has it's own section. If you mean sections as in hardware, encryption, software, gnome, music (the icons that appear beside a story) there already is one. It's called Caldera.
Sigs are out of style, so I'm not going to use one...oh wait..
Who said anything about 'donate'? Why would I want to 'donate' code to anyone for any reason? Why on earth would I want to 'donate' my code to you? You're a dick. If I want to GPL something, that's my choice. I don't give up 'ownership' of the code in the way I would if I put it in the public domain.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I would imagine, if they won this round, they'd subsequently attempt to claim the copyrights individual authors hold on Linux are invalid, as the source code is freely available and now public domain.
Or somesuch.
Kythe
At least open source software you can point out parts that may have been misappropriated and remove them. Imagine how much misappropriated code could be in windows but no one will be able to prove that.
Imagine this: in 10 years, windows will be on sourceforge as a GPL'd project (heads of M$ were killed by an army of mechanical penguins and microsoft was forced to shutdown). Then each of you can pick out the code that they stole from your project.
In general, a contract can override the provisions of a law, except when the law explicitly states that it cannot. The copyright act has no such provision.
Oh well, what the hell...
Exactly!
Another thing that's stupid about this line of legal logic is that it would render site licenses invalid. What is a site license but a limited right to make copies?
Notice though that the attorney is simply declaring the GPL invalid. I will, in turn, declare Richard Stallman to be the King of Norway. Both of these declarations have no legal validity, and both are pretty hilarious concepts. What he says and what the courts say are likely to be very different things
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
What if, instead of trying to get the GPL invalidated, its hidden goal is to get EULAs validated?
By getting a court to declare against them, they gain de-facto approval of EULAs, which the BSA has failed to get via UCITA. That is, assuming that the judge doesn't summarily dismiss the whole thing given SCO's recent behavior.
Or maybe Boise has learned from Microsoft - be so "incompetent" that the judge gets pissed off at you and the case gets retried for judicial prejudice. It keeps the whole affair going until SCO's execs get rid of the last of their stock.
Let us live so that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry -- Mark Twain
Looking over the article on SCO profits, they mention some of the companies (Warner Bros. Entertainment, McDonalds, etc.) assisting the SCO extortionists. I for one will be boycotting these companies products and letter their CEO's know why.
'When I accept a license,' Darl McBride said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Tux, 'whether you can make clauses mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Darl McBride, 'who has better lawyers - that's all.' Tux was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Darl McBride began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly nondisclosure agreements: they're the proudest - Public Licenses you can do anything with, but not UNIX contracts - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!' 'Would you tell me, please,' said Tux, 'what that means?' 'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Darl McBride, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that when I want something from a license it means just what I want it to, and when it doesn't mean what I don't wish it didn't, it doesn't, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you want because you aren't getting it unless it suits my fancy, so I suggest you get over it unless you mean to be in litigation all the rest of your life.' 'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Tux said in a thoughtful tone. 'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Darl McBride, 'I always patent it.'
I'm really nervous about this going before a jury. It'll be the good corporate citizens defending their honest right to make money for their hard work vs. the godless communists who've infected IBM.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Wouldn't this interpretation (GPL forces software into the Public Domain) put the US in the wrong side of the Berne Convention? Since the US would now no longer honour non-US copyright of works under the GPL (which would still be valid outside the US.)
Challenging the GPL is a stupid move, even for SCO. Consider an analogy: Suppose I make a deal with Microsoft to sell copies of Windows XP. After distributing a few thousand copies, I call up Microsoft to taunt them. "When I signed that contract with you guys, I had my fingers crossed. I never had a valid agreement to copy your software at all. I totally pirated it! Muahahahaha!" Now, would this really be an intelligent move, or just a way to beg for lawsuits and/or jail time? Remember, GPL software is still copyrighted, which means distributing it is illegal without permission of the copyright holder(s). All the GPL does is spell out under which circumstances the author is willing to grant you that permission. Take away the GPL and this becomes a plain vanilla case of copyright infringement. By refuting the GPL, SCO essentially admits to being nothing more than an illegal warez operation.
SCO's legal position is actually a little too crazy to believe...
Well, then. I guess that is why I didn't see my AC comment on exactly this point pass Go to Post the other day, huh?
Still seems to me like something that could happen in the U.S. of Enron.
now i'm not a lawyer, don't pretend to be, but it would seem that this argument would also make things like shareware and freeware illegal as well not just open source, right? any software (or song or whatever) where the creator says, "make copies of this for your friends and give them away." would be illegal? so then this interpretation of copyright law has much broader implications than open source.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
For cases taken on contingency? I find this hard to believe.
Help fight continental drift.
Why are you all talking about SCO all of a sudden? ;P
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
don't bother modding me though. nobody every does
Does the US actually care? See: Hague Invasion Act...
and wrote them this :
:)
I'd like to thank you, SCO, for the great laughs you provide over each move regarding the Linux case. Everyday brings a new surprise ! What's gonna be funny tomorrow ?
Thanks for listening and have a nice day !
I think I should have added "you are so funny that's beginning to be pathetic"
IMHO, IANAL
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
I simply don't get it. I see two possibilities of the outcome IN FAVOR of SCO:
1) GPL is invalid, GPL code is made public domain:
Then SCO doesn't own bollocks, therefore SCO can't ask for licence fees to linux users. Because they made it available free on their site.
2) GPL is invalid, some linux kernel code belongs to SCO:
Then all code that isn't SCO's belongs to their respective writers and they can (and probably will) prohibit SCO's distribution. Linux coders rewrite SCO's portion and it's ready to go.
Of course I don't expect SCO to win, it's just that I don't understand what they are doing. It is like trying to understand a schizophrenic.
--
Karma is overrated, whoring is ok.
From an article entitled: SCO Rides Unix to Financial Turnaround
McBride quotes from the article:
SCO's intellectual-property ownership "is extremely powerful," president and CEO Darl McBride said at a media and analyst conference Thursday. "There are two major operating systems in play around the world--Unix and Windows. Microsoft owns Windows, and we own Unix."
The issue of intellectual property in the Internet age has begun to divide the IT industry into two camps--"those trying to destroy intellectual property and those who believe that intellectual property matters," McBride said. "The silent majority is behind SCO, and they're hoping that SCO prevails in the end. It gives other companies the ability to monetize their intellectual property."
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter
Forget site licenses. If SCO's logic were true, and it was not possible to grant someone permission to make copies, then you wouldn't be able to authorize a publisher to make copies of your work! So basically if you own a book by an author who retains the copyright to their book, then both you and the publisher are violating copyright law!
No... Wait... That's completely stupid, too. The whole reason we have copyright is so that the author can grant the right to copy to others, and request compensation in return. Unless we required all authors to self-publish, or transfer their copyright. Which I suppose SCO thinks is the case!
So is this Heise a moron, or does he think we all are? Does he actually not realize that copyright law prohibts only unauthorized copies, and that the GPL is a document which grants authorization? Or is he just hoping we won't realize that?
Either way: This is completely stupid.
The enemies of Democracy are
...SCO has hired Naji Sabri (of Iraqi foreign minister fame) as part of their defense team...
...for all the pain and suffering they have to endure as a result of having Bill Gates's hand stuck so far up their ass.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
On the other hand, you could have the camp that likes Linux because it's free (or close to it, depending on which way you go). Having insane licensing fees now attached to it will likely alienate those guys as well. Of course, those will probably be the first to be rejected by SCO's lawyers.
All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.
Not exactly Ivy League, but a solid background:
Mark J. Heise is a partner in the Miami, Florida office. His main practice areas are complex commercial litigation and class actions.
Since joining Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Mr. Heise has represented The SCO Group in its significant intellectual property claims involving the licensing of the UNIX source code. Mr. Heise is also involved in numerous class actions, including as lead counsel in a case against the City of Miami on behalf of persons who paid an unconstitutional parking tax.
Before joining Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Mr. Heise was the managing partner of Heise Markarian Foreman, P.A. He was previously a partner at Hanzman Criden Korge Chaykin Ponce & Heise, P.A. in Miami. Over the past 15 years, Mr. Heise has handled complex and multiparty litigation in Florida and in other jurisdictions. Some of the cases include a class action against AT&T Corp. that settled after the class was certified, Singer v. AT&T Corp., 185 F.R.D. 681 (S.D. Fla. 1998), and a successful effort at having a state statute declared unconstitutional. McGrath v. City of Miami, 789 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) aff'd. 824 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 2002). In addition to these and numerous other reported decisions, Mr. Heise has successfully litigated a variety of complex matters, including multimillion dollar property insurance claims arising out of Hurricane Andrew, the defense and prosecution of legal and accounting malpractice claims, securities litigation on behalf of defrauded investors and other significant commercial matters.
In 1985, Mr. Heise graduated, cum laude, with a Bachelor of Science in Mathematics from Vanderbilt University. He then obtained a Juris Doctor, with honors, from the University of Florida in 1988 where he received the Order of the Coif and was awarded Best Team in the school's Moot Court competition. After graduation, he clerked for the Honorable James Lawrence King, then Chief Judge of the Southern District of Florida. Mr. Heise has authored and lectured on a variety of topics, including Trial in Federal Court and Trying the Class Action Lawsuit in Florida.
Mr. Heise is admitted to practice in Florida and also before the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Southern and Middle Districts of Florida, and the Eastern District of Michigan. He also is a member of the Board of Directors of various local charities, including Children's Foundation of Greater Miami and The Wellness Community.
Preemption of a license agreement is a dead loss argument these days. The Federal Circuit took up that question in a far more important context: enforceability of a no-reverse-engineering provision. Their answer: no preemption.
In the Bowers v. Baystate opinion , the Federal Circuit considered the enforceability under Copyright preemption of a shrink-wrap no-reverse engineering provision. They held that there can be no preemption of a contract, even if it flies squarely into fundamental Copyright Policy like fair use and first sale doctrine. The Section 117 provision argument here is a far, far more attenuated argument.
Though it is pretty clear to me that provisions like the no-reverse-engineering clauses are clearly unconstitutional, I couldn't get the Supreme Court to get excited enough to take up the case in my Amicus brief on behalf of IEEE policy on no-reverse-engineering clauses. Maybe next time.
But in the meanwhile, Boies et al. are running squarely into the teeth of the most recent Circuit Court case addressing the point, and it won't be pretty for them.
All from http://www.boies-schiller.com/htm/flash.htm (had to suffer through their crappy Flash navigation to find this):
David Boies
Managing Partner
Armonk NY
212 909 7600
dboies@bsfllp.com
Jonathan D. Schiller
Managing Partner
Washington DC
202 237 5340
jschiller@bsfllp.com
Donald L. Flexner
Managing Partner
Washington DC
202 895 7562
dflexner@bsfllp.com
Mark J. Heise
Partner
Miami FL
305 539 8400
mheise@bsfllp.com
A pertinent quote:
Perhaps all the choices should be set aside in favor of
SCO zealots
From their website
"1999 SCO launches numerous Open Source Initiatives: 1) Offers free Open Source applications and tools to SCO customers; 2) Extends Professional Services to include audits and deployment consultation for customers interested in installing Linux and Open Source technologies; 3) Invests in LinuxMall.com, the leading portal for Linux-related products and services; 4) Enters strategic agreement with TurboLinux to develop services for TurboLinux's TurboCluster Server and provide Linux Professional Services for TurboLinux customers."
Sometimes the sellouts pretend to be the most zealous zealots of all. Kinda sad, really.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. -Richard Feynman
but we already knew that.
Those who distribute a copyrighted work may grant rights beyond what's granted by standard copyright. Copyright laws in no way hinder an author's ability to grant others extra rights. There is no way to interpret the standard copyright backup clause (1 copy) as preventing distributors from allowing unlimited copies.
That Boies can argue this shows that he is clearly a moron, or that he is completely unethical. If he thinks that there is any possibitlity of legitimacy to this absurd claim, he's a moron. More likely, though, he realizes it is bullshit -- completely untenable -- and is putting it forward anyways. That places him in violation of his oath to the court, as an officer of the court. Which makes him crooked, corrupt, evil, and possibly criminal.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
If if a jury found IBM guilty, there is always the appeals process. And we all know that no matter how well the initial phase of a case goes, the verdict can always be overturned.. see Microsoft..
Compare stabilty versus stupidity.1 d&s=scox&a=v&p=s&l=on&z=m& q=l
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=c&c=rhat+ibm&k=c1&t=
About 10,000 Linux advocates laughed themselves to death today, France is now confused about weather to add their share of the dead nerds to the heat death toll. In an official response to the sea SCO's chairman said there will now be weekly wild assertaions until the case is lost... errr he meant won.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
"The GPL allows unlimited copies, the copyright law allows one. Therefore, the GPL is invalid. The copyright law, in giving consumers the right to make one backup of their software without any permission from the copyright holder, outlaws any contractual agreement that allows users to make more than one copy."
There is an obvious flaw in the above reasoning. It focusses on the the public, and not on the copyright holder. A copyright holder decides how a work is to be released, after all, and it is perfectly legal for a copyright holder to release something to the Public Domain. In actual fact the copyright holder has the right to decide on any degree of release between public domain and not-at-all. So, when the copyright holder releases something under the GPL, the copyright holder has decided to accept the GPL's details for a release. In such case the copyright holder is giving the public the right to make unlimited copies, which fact does NOT violate the copyright law.
Thay think the legal system has become so megaoligopoly-friendly that any claim that benefits one will be held valid in court, no matter how insane.
"The Constitution doesn't say anything about nerds!"
If copyright law overrides GPL, then as noted, the BSD style licenses should be overriden by the same rule then right? There for UC-Berkley should sue SCO for every single piece of code used in UnixWare that is from the BSD stuff.
After all they own all unix, they said so themselves.
You are only required to submit the first 25 and last 25 pages of a copyrighted work in order to register it.
Large companies register their copyrighted programs by submitting 50 pages' worth of comments.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Don't be so judgemental guys! Let's wait until the other 9,999 SCO lawyers give their opinions before we form ours.
>The GPL allows unlimited copies, the copyright law allows one. Therefore, the GPL is invalid.
ERROR: DOES...NOT...COMPUTE...
Salsa Shark. We're gonna need a bigger boat.
A common quote here is:
"How does that work then? According to Heise, federal law only lets people make a single backup copy of software, and that makes the GPL void under US law."
But surely that doesn't apply anyway - If I install distro X on my PC and laptop I didn't make excess backup copies, I made, erm, frontdown copies. Under a standard commercial license I'd be ripping you off, but the GPL allows for multiple frontdown copies.
Cheers, Paul
... will there be a massive shift to BSD-style licenses. I like the BSD license just fine, but I'd be concerned that if the GPL is ruled invalid, that the BSD license wouldn't be valid either.
The BSD licence, even moreso than the GPL allows everybody to use it, with even less restrictions. Hence, it must also invalid and all the works licenced under it will somehow mysteriously enter the public domain.
*flicks back to real world* Gah, thinking SCOish make head hurt. Much stupidity. Me go play RPG. Seem more real.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
For those who haven't seen it, here's a link -- it's a short, sweet stomping.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
All we need is one slashdotter on the jury and SCO is doomed. I just hope it isn't the penis bird man, the Natalie Portman stalker, or the grits fetishist.
I can see Boies during voire dire.
Boies: "Have you ever read Slashdot?"
Juror: uh.......yeah
Boies: "Your honor I move to have this juror excused."
Juror: "But all I ever post is hot grits and natalie portman posts."
Boies: "Oh, sorry your honor. We'll keep him."
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
I won't have to read it then, Tried before always got a headache.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
If the GPL is declared invalid, then ALL EULA's are automatically invalid. The GPL grants rights not present under normal copyright law, EULA's take rights granted under normal copyright law away. Thus, if the GPL is invalidated in a court of law, so too are the EULA's of ALL software.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
All we need is one slashdotter on the jury and SCO is doomed. I just hope it isn't the penis bird man, the Natalie Portman stalker, or the grits fetishist.
I am not so sure. In criminal law (in most states) it requires "beyond a reasonable doubt" and all jurists agreeing. But the standard is lower in civil suits, and in some states, 10 of 12 have to agree is all. If it goes federal, I am also not sure. Any lawyers want to make yourself useful and fill us in?
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Wouldn't destroying the GPL kick the legs out from under any form of license?
Nimrod #1: "Hey, if SCO can find a way of getting rid of the GPL...whats to stop us from killing License X or License Y...."
Nimrod #2: "Hmmm. You may have a point. If something as ironclad and straightforward as the GPL can be blatantly pushed aside...what chance does an obnoxious, grabby click through EULA have?"
Nimrod #1: "I can see it now... 'Ahem, Yer Honor...this EULA interferes with my rights to use the program the way I need to...' "
Nimrod #2: "and the judge will say: 'Well, then the coder should've used the GPL...' "
Both Nimrods: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
It's seems like a waste of time to reply, or even converse about SCO's public releases anymore. Since they filed suit against IBM the SCO execs have been dumping stock left and right. Over a quarter of a million shares so far. SCOX is up right now. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=scox&d=v1 Check back tomorrow and see which exec dumped more of their stock while it was up over $10/share. Alas their court date is long into the future and they will just keep with their pump and dump (per IBM) stock scheme and the SEC will do nothing. Since SCO is based in the US, all execs will face utter defeat by IBM in court and ride away on their golden parachutes with their millions into retirement. I just hope that some of them are Mormon and get excommunicated from the church for lies and dishonest business practice. I doubt that will happen though as long as theiy keep putting their little bit into the offering plate every week.
IAAL, but not a copyright lawyer. SCO's arugment seems so clearly frivolous that presenting it in court would be an obvious ethical violation, subjecting the lawyer to professional discipline. Am I missing something?
Hey, I think there is a great job for Comical Ali as Weapon of Mass Deceipton at SCO
*SCNR*
*giggle*
SCO lawyers relegated to non-existence and no-one seems to care anymore :)
:)
That must be the ultimate insult to a lawyer, relegated to the no-one cares anymore and no-one wants to listen to you anyways zone.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Fearfully, I know that the side which is right and just is not always the side which wins, especially in the legal system.
So I wonder, what next? What happens if SCO's FUD campaign convinces a jury that the GPL is invalid?
Does Linus start over? Or in understood frustration, does he wash his hands of the whole thing and just code for himself?! Without the GPL, is it even possible to start over again?!
I am at a loss here. I fear that many on Slashdot is underestimating the shear ignornace of the legal system and the ineptitude of its judges. I think we need to have a plan just in case the worst happens.
If I would be SCO I would throw whatever mad idea to the press and then read slashdot to inform me about the pro's and con's to refine my following strategy.
If the GPL went down and took all other IP protections with it, it might not be such a bad thing. We'd be rid of indefinite copyright and ridiculous patents. go SCO!
SCO: Because it is too free, it must be completely free.
That's like saying "Because the speed limits here are so high, they must be invalid and I can drive as fast as I can."
Try that one the next time you're stopped for speeding, I'd love to hear what the officer thinks of that argument.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I suspect that SCO knows that it has indeed violated the GPL so they are grasping at straws for a defense.
Is it just me or is SCO really starting to annoy?
..and if they decide to anyway, investors will desert them in droves (having seen what happened to SCO).. ..and their employees will all quit (not wanting to be like their SCO counterparts), leaving the offending corporation unable to function.
Can we not just organise groups of people to go to each of their offices, burn them to the ground and kill all the employees (especially McBride).
Ok, there's the whole killing/destruction thing, but on the upside:
1) Instant cessation of SCO's hostilities.
2) Any other corporation (say, one in Redmond, can't remember it's name) thinking of having a swipe at open source will think twice..
3)
4)
Nice and simple, solving the SCO problem and stopping any future problems before they start.
They have one contract with an artist, and produce unlimited copies of songs for sale.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
WHAT DOES RANDOM LOVE SAY ABOUT THIS SCO LEGAL BATTLE?
Wasn't it Ransom himself who was in charge of Linux business in SCO? His name predicted the future. He's in LOVE with the RANSOM money he gets out of this.
So RANSOM LOVE, STEP UP and TELL US what is the RANSOM amount? How much money do you want as a RANSOM? We wanna know, cause we wanna pay so we can kill SCO.
I declare SCO it be invalid.
There that should solve all our problems!
Smeghead every day of the week.
SCO's bizarre actions can only be explained by one thing: they've been taken over by Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Information Minister! Next they'll be declaring that THERE ARE NO LINUX INFIDELS IN SCO. NEVER! OUR INITIAL ASSESSMENT IS THAT THEY WILL ALL DIE!
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
If they really feel the urge to attack the GPL itself then they must think that this is the only battle left. They might know it's a darn narrow longshot but they picked this fight... I think this really says that they have no foot on the ground...
man, I've been around /. awhile, but I must have missed the penis bird man. I must say, I'm glad I don't have to wade through tons of hot grits anymore, though.
If the GPL is invalid SCO STILL doesn't have an agreement with the developers that hold the copyright to the other parts of Linux to distribute them.
Section/topic/whatever. Slashdot is ALL about Microsoft news. It has its own topic and icon (the Borgified Bill). Keep your friends close and your enemies closer: http://slashdot.org/topics.shtml
Paragraph 84:
To make SCO UNIX of necessary quality for use by customers requiring EXT2, it needed to be re-designed and upgraded functionality that has taken Linux coder nearly 2 years to achieve. This re-design is not technologically feasible or even possible with (a) the slackjawed mouth-breather coders at SCO. (b) access to an old, tired codebase written to work on a PDP-11. (c) all our money invested in unrealized litigation.
Paragraph 88:
"To accomplish the end of transforming our weak-ass UNIX to a useful product, SCO set about to deliberately and improperly destroy the economic value of Linux on Intel-based processors."
Could you pay the licence fee from SCO, then sue them when they loose to IBM? Would the suit be a civil one limited to the cost of the licences, or could one argue that the effect of draining a company's capital was more devastating than the actual cost of the licences?
Hmm Whats this in Websters Dictionary?
\Cop"y*right\, n. The right of an author or his assignee, under statute, to print and publish his literary or artistic work, exclusively of all other persons. This right may be had in maps, charts, engravings, plays, and musical compositions, as well as in books.
ok Now lets see License...
\Li"cense\ (l[imac]"sens), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Licensed (l[imac]"senst); p. pr. & vb. n. Licensing.] To permit or authorize by license; to give license to.
Hmm, and their paying this guy as a Attorney?
CLUE FOR SCO: THE GPL IS NOT A COPYRIGHT!! It is a license between the author of said works, and user of said works.
End Transmission....
.. there goes my Uptime. :(
So ibm had to change the forms to say "ibm confidential when filled in".
Is this true or an urban myth?
(wrong thread..)
1. GPL is invalid and only one copy is allowed.
2. SCO used the GPL in their own distro.
3. SCO used other vendors'/individuals' IP under the GPL in their own distro.
SCO can't have it both ways (or all three ways). If the GPL is invalid why would they make a business decision to use it?
Even more stupid. What if SCO wins on that point? Wouldn't that mean that they owe money to every hacker/company/whatever that ever tweaked a bit of Linux code that appears in their distro? And wouldn't they owe each of those entities money multiplied by the number of copies distributed (admittedly not much of a multiplier, but still...)? Now, what happens if each of those entities go, ala SCO, after damages above and beyond the actual value of the individual copies of the code distributed by SCO?
Stock up on red ink for your printers everyone, I don't think the current channels can provide enough once SCO starts to balance the books on this pandora's box.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Correct me if I'm wrong here. Buy it's my understanding that the validity of the GPL is to be determined by lawmakers, not a couple of yahoo lawyers. It seems to me to be completely irresponsible for a lawyer to make such a public declaration. I think these gentlemen should be reported to the Bar Association.
When an author doesn't like his work to be copied, his work is protected by the copyright law.
When an author wants his work to be copied and even extended by others he will use GPL in order to not be limited by the copyright law.
If GPL can't exist because of the copyright law, that means the copyright law limits the author in publishing his work.
Do you really think the copyright law should limit an author's freedom of choice ?
It's going to be a nice learning experience for you to get kicked around by some IBM lawyers.
You know, a lot of people blame justice Suter et. al. for George W. Bush being our duly appointed president.
Maybe it was that Gore lost his case because David Boies is a complete farking idiot?
Is there any other explanation for his argument against the GPL here?
SCO is repositioning themselves as the next great sitcom.
SCO is still distributing gpl'd works. SCO has
now declared it doesn't accept the gpl. Doesn't
this mean they are violating copyright law and
are now open to being sued by anyone who has code
inside of Linux? To distribute Linux you must
accept the gpl. To not accept the gpl and
distribute Linux would be a copyright violation.
Does the fact that SCO's attorney declared that
the gpl is invalid make it SCO's opinion as well?
Yes, this SCO deal is pissing everybody off. If the original post says they are using th chewbacca defense, I would go further and say that they used the Argentinian attack, just like at Falkland.
As thoroughly discussed above, it seems pretty clear that GPL isn't at odds with the Copyright laws.
:-)
But, it is interesting that SCO feels the need to comment about GPL at all. Perhaps they feel threatened by it somehow?
If the GPL is invalid, it's because Darl is trying to cripple it... huh? Oh! You mean inVALid, not INvalid....
I feel so silly.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
obligatory Simpsons quote:
"I mooshed my wookie!"
Any lawyers want to make yourself useful and fill us in?
I'm having trouble replying while trying to suppress gales of laughter....
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
In essence, this could bring the entire IT insdustry to a screeching halt for the next five years while everybody figures out who owns what and sues each others bankrupt carcasses over it.
Not at all. Thankfully, we can still continue developing and installing servers thanks to SCO, who will issue you a guaranteed legal license to use your free software. Act now and save! Only $699 per cpu!
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Beings that the GPL gave them a publishing and derivative works license that allowed them to sell Caldera and then SCO Linux for many years- if the GPL is invalid, then they had no license to do so . They're guilty of years worth of IP infringement with the majority of the Linux kernel- and selling it at that. There will be no sympathy from any court at that point for them. No injunctive or financial relief- they have dirty hands all the way around.
On the other hand, SCO would then be open for thousands of infringement suits that would involve every dime they made on Linux over the years up to the point of the statute of limitations- this includes any monies that they may have obtained in their IPO.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
What advantage would SCO have by nullifying the GPL? Perhapse they discovered that the source of the code in question which they claim was copied out of SVr4 instead was copied from Linux into Unixware? If this is the case, then SCO is screwed (as if they were not screwed anyway). Perhapse they know this and thus are trying to limit any damages they might have due to this.
After all, they have offered absolutely zero credible evidence to back their claims that the Linux kernel contains their code.
-Aaron
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
... Be afraid... be very afraid...
There's no wrong way, to eat a Rhesus...
B4k4 declares SCO Invalid!
From what I've ever, they have quietly layed off massive amounts of their programming talent. Basically, the only people left at SCO are the executes (who are busy selling stock), public relations people (busy driving stock prices up), and lawyers (well, we know what they are doing...).
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Like lame Slashdotters who post before reading the article, SCO's lawyers appear to have not even bothered to read the GPL before declaring it illegal.
Heise is a German publisher of computer magazines. Stop bashing it, if you don't understand an article you haven't translated yourself or haven't read in original. Heise titles iX and c't are actually among the best computer/hardware/developer magazines on this planet. And Heise Telepolis is a valuable alternative news source. Period.
Did anybody mention that SCO is not only trying to steal millions of LOC of all other Linux contributors by this scam, Caldera/SCO/what-the-fXXX-they want-to-call-themselves even tried (or did?) change to a per-seat licensing scheme for their Linux dist, pretty M$-like. *echhh*
As mentioned in the comments to another article, the GPL has already been found valid and a just license in the MySQL case. Trying to invalidate it with some lawyer bla won't work with this precedent made in the MySQL case. "We" already have won such a case, SCO not. Period.
I found this out when being "forced" to hit that shiny MetaModerate button. *shudder*
You've just demonstrated that judges are capable of ignoring both law and constitution when it suits them. Although the case you describe could be seen to set a precedent against preemption it is also a case of a much more worrying precedent, that is it is a case of judges coming to a conclusion that flies in the face of the law and logic. Given that it can not be assumed that any ludicrous argument presented for the the GPL being invalid will not be upheld.
Well then....
I as an educated computer professional and Linux user/admin/advocate would like to declare all Lawyers working for SCO at this current point in time, past time, and in future times to be just as invalid.
"...the shortest distance between two points may be straight line, but it is by no means the most interesting."
someone did "echo 04-01-2004 | date" on a lawyer's computer. They tried making an April fools joke
Agreed.
An invalid license to distribute software does NOT lead a work under copyright into the public domain.
If their license to distribute is invalid, then they have NO LICENSE to distribute.
Therefore, if SCO really believes that GNU licensing is invalid, then they better the hell stop distributing my GNU-licensed software, or else they'll hear from my lawyer (me!) in court.
This is not legal advice.
...that even SCO would be that stupid. This story sounds a lot to me like someone garbled details of a legal brief in transmission.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Haven't you yet figured it out? SCO keeps throwing these accusations and claims so ridicolous that they'll surely end up on Slashdot. Then Boies and rest of the lawyer team read all your top-notch IANAL-advices and pick up the best ones for even more insane claims! Let's not help them too much to destroy the company with these lawsuits, it'll be more entertaining to see them screwing themselves on their own. ;)
5-layer deep redundant response, saying exactly the same thing over again.
I am unamerican, and proud of it!
If you release something under the GPL it does not mean you are giving up the copyright. Maybe you assigned the copyright to RMS or Linus or the FSF, but somebody still maintains the copyright. GPL software is copyrighted, but it allows you to make copies under certain conditions. Whether or not the GPL is valid, there is still a copyright holder and it ain't SCO.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
It's obvious that SCO is simply fucking with us at this point. We aren't the target (we aren't gonna buy them up) but for all practical purposes they might as well be actively thinking up ways to "irk the geeks."
/. brain for prior art or 2) a notice that the case is over, we never mention the Organization That Shall Not Be Named again.
I for one vote that, barring a need for 1) picking the collective
-DJ
McBride : Hello Mark. Can you explain your tactics?
Heise : It's very straightforward. The license clearly states that only one copy is allowed for backup purposes.
McBride : Oh, really?. Another thing; should we sell more shares?
Heise : Our case is very strong, I think you can expect market confidence to improve.
McBride : Thanks Mark.
Heise : Bye Steve. (click)
McBride : We can use him at SEC trial - we'll plead insanity.
Boies : That will work for us too. Mark hasn't been performing very well for us lately.
I just did it and to my amazement I violated US of A copyright law. I made a second copy of the page! Now my rights in the US are null and I will be completely outside the law when I travel to the US f A.
If they send the complaint in twofold to the justice dept, is the complaint valid? Maybe some US layer could answer this question!
Warper
They're going to call RMS to the stand. And he's going to go up there with no shoes, playing a flute, and make the jurors feel stupid.
Not that they won't be.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Although the case you describe could be seen to set a precedent against preemption it is also a case of a much more worrying precedent, that is it is a case of judges coming to a conclusion that flies in the face of the law and logic.
I wish that were so. The truth is far more interesting.
While I believe "our side" has the better side of that argument, Judge Rader's analysis is far from the illogical or illegal claptrap you suggest -- indeed, he is also far from alone, the 7th Circuit in ProCD began this particular line of analysis -- it is simply my view that the fair use and first sale issues are in some sense more fundamental statements of Federal policy than the quibbles in the ProCd and the utter silliness of the present GPL argument. There is more than ample precedent to explain these cases, and ultimately, I think, Bowers will be rejected over conflicting law, without exposing this Section 117 argument.
Comforted by the conflicting Vault v. Quaid case, which holds to the contrary concerning no-reverse-engineering provisions, and on grounds irrelevant to Bois' argument, I think justice ultimately will be done in each line of cases.
Sinners' Criminal Offenses (NAZDAK: SCO) today announced lawsuits targeting thieves in the streets of New York. According to SCO, these thieves allegedly infringed on SCO intellectual properties relating to SCO business processes. The move follows a recently filed SCO lawsuit against Microsoft for use of the letters "S" "C" and "O" in their name.
An SCO spokesperson commented, "These New York thieves are infringing on our business process rights by copying our operational procedures. SCO developed these procedures and therefore has the exclusive right to implement them." When asked which procedures were being copied by New York thieves, the spokesperson said, simply, "Theft."
In an interview, SCO CEO Darl McGroom said, "By leveraging innovative businesses processes such as theft, extortion and robbery, SCO creates value for shareholders and allows content providers to streamline compelling enterprise solutions. We own the rights on the business processes of theft. Those thieves in New York are infringing on our trade secrets."
SCO shares went up six and a half points shortly after the announcement. SCO shareholders quickly dumped more stock.
i know most GPL-heads, linux lovers and misc. nerds on here will be outraged or dumbfounded by the escalating surrealism of this whole fiasco, but the suits behind this are not idiots. there are probably good reasons for all the lawsuits, and this must be one of them:
l
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/32346.htm
(be sure to check out the computerworld link in the last paragraph.)
Hmmm... by that logic, the Blaster author ought to sue all those who were infected by and passed on the worm. After all, they made more than one copy of MSBlast.exe!
i think it's highly likely this guy will fuck this case up just like he fucked up his other recent high-profile cases. His reputation is going to be in the crapper. At least he'll have company down there.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Declaring the GPL invalid? Terminating IBM's AIX license? Sending unsolicited invoices to companies that use Linux?
BLUFF.
They've got a mish-mash of cards in their hands that amount to absolutely nothing, and they keep smirking and pushing these massive piles of chips into the pot hoping the world will back down.
Be prepared to take the Greyhound home, boys - you're going to lose everything.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Obligatory punchline.
"Sufferin' succotash."
...since they've distributed MILLIONS odfcopies of Windows, when the Copyright Act only allows ONE copy....
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
SCO has been going on about Linux being in violation of the law, IBM being in violation of the law, Linux users being in violation of the law, and now, incredibly, the GPL being in violation of the law on the grounds that copyright ownership prohibits you from transferring copying privileges, all of which point to the big question that nobody so far has asked:
Isn't having an entire company full of people smoking crack in violation of the law?
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
I think we (as led by mass media) are missing the point of SCO's venture. SCO's senior management are actually quite smart and cunning, and are getting exactly the results that they want (even if it will cost them the company).
The court date for SCO vs. IBM has been set to sometime in 2005. In the mean time, they have a pretty nifty scheme involving an absurd pending lawsuit, even more absurd press releases to match, Slashdot readers (&al) to provide free publicity, and gullible potential CEOs that are only asking where to send the check (and how much to put on it). 'Course, they'll stifle the use of Linux in some environments too, but hey, those are environments that probably should not be using Linux in the first place.
To put it in simpler terms - the lawsuit has nothing to do with legal issues such as license violations, copyrights etc. It's a ridiculous case that they are bound to lose, and they know it.
They are only trying to boost the stock price of their dying company long enough that their insiders can unload some shares. Sort of a highly publicised pump'n'dump scheme, if you will.
We saw the evidence yesterday, when some execs dumped some stocks (at a price higher than, say, back in May...).
Too bad this scheme is probably a little bit to the side of what the SEC normally would prosecute.
-tor
can see Boies during voire dire.
Boies: "Have you ever read Slashdot?"
Juror: uh.......yeah
Boies: Then you'll know that in Soviet Russia, intellectual property steals YOU. By stealing other people's intellectual property, SCO are simply engaged in the sort of anti-communist activity that's necessary to protect our way of life.
Judge (who is a Microsoft troll): Somebody mod that sucker UP!
I may be misunderstanding the situation due to neither being an American nor having lived in that country. However where I come from, Scotland, the argument that a vendor could deny a customer their legal rights through a shrink wrap license is a what you termed 'a zero traction argument'. There is a simple principal that you can not contract out of the law. Further the UK has law that prevents the insertion of unfair clauses in non negotiable contracts, any such clauses are deemed to be invalid.
The situation you describe seems to indicate that a vendor can escape the law, simply by printing on a package that the law doesn't apply to them. This surely raises an issue of sovereignty, and a legal system that allows that is surely in a mess. Especially one that treats precedent as having legal significance. Anyway, good luck in your efforts
I'm going to modify my copy of Freeciv RIGHT NOW! :)
I've seen a bazillion people post that it is fact that since the rights holder has the authority to grant a license to make unlimited copies, and the gpl does this, that fair use and backups are irrelevant.
This is true.
However, the fallacy in the argument is that the people who hold the copyrights to linux and released it under gpl are the rights holder in question.
By saying 'the gpl is irrelevant' what they could be saying is that they never released their copyrighted works under the gpl, and the distributors of linux only have the right to make one copy under fair use.
The argument and the test here is NOT if the gpl can authorize people to make more than one copy. I don't think they dispute that.
I think what they're trying to pull is convincing people that they never released the source under gpl in the first place, and therefore whether or not the gpl grants rights to make unlimited copies doesn't apply.
So we can't just assume that what they're saying is that the GPL isn't a contract or isn't binding: that we can laugh at them. We need to put our thinking caps on and find definitive proof and arguments on why the disputed code was released by SCO under the terms of the GPL. That is the issue here. Not whether gpl is enforceable, but if SCO ever did release code under the GPL. We can't just say so. We have to prove it.
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
If anyone has noticed this is not the first time that SCO has railed against the GPL. In their response to the IBM countersuit, they accused IBM of trying to divert attention away from the "real case" and claimed that IBM should idemnify Linux users and move away from the GPL.
This, in conjunction with today's amazing declaration by that lawyer, says to me that SCO is definitely on an anti-GPL agenda. Why? Perhaps because part of IBM's countersuit is an alleged GPL violation by SCO, and given that SCO threats of trying to gain money by billing Linux users and the strange idea of a binary only licence for Linux is clearly against the GPL, SCO is probably scared that they might very well lose this portion of the case.
It might very well be a ploy by Microsoft using SCO as a proxy to demolish the GPL, and given that the large majority of SCO's FUD has been directed against Linux the signs do tend to point in that direction. But that is something for the DOJ to investigate.
More probable is that it is partly an idea based on some lawyer deciding that SCO has a good case in winning the case on derivative works, mixed in with a clever marketing department deciding to use the suit as a tool to push stocks up.
I do however think that the mainstream press is no longer taking SCO's statements as seriously as they did in the beginning. The sheer volume of SCO press releases and the high level of contradictions within those releases pointing towards a strategy being made up as they go along is boring and irritating even the most anti Linux reporters out there. The statements by SCO especially those relating to Linux (no problem in the beginning , then the 1500 letters, then the threat to sue Linus, then the retraction, then the wierd pricing scheme and the binary licence being compliant with the GPL, then the decalration that the GPL is null and void) might frighten some PHBs and encourage some day traders, but it will wear off as time goes on and people tire of SCO's embarassing craziness in public.
Not quite time to go out in the streets and celebrate, but I have a big smile on my face.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
What they are going to try to do is say that anything lawfully released under the GPL is really public domain, but SCO IP that was illegally released under the GPL by IBM is not released at all.
Of course that is ridiculous. There is NO "oops, you made it public domain" clause.
This does make sense in SCO's world though: since they must invalidate the GPL or else face willfull copyright infringement suits from Red Hat and any other of the hundreds of Linux copyright holders for distributing Linux without a license.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
The legal team for SCO were disbarred for being total morons.
The SEC investigates SCO for Pump N Dump.
Guys, if you accept that they are intentionally spreading FUD, then life becomes easier.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
The Chewbacca defence made more sense to me than the bollocks that lawyers talking.
Does this stink of absolute desperation or am I imagining things?
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
and a legal system that allows that is surely in a mess
I think you have a crystal clear grasp of the issue.
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
it figures sco would claim that the gpl is invalid why would they..well looky here sco showing themselves taking code from linux kernel 2.4 into unixware go to august 21, 2000 http://www.sco.com/scosource/unixtree/unixhistory0 1.html (oddly the kernel they claim infringes) oh but if this is true what they are showing on their own website wouldnt that mean that unixware would need to be gpl'd... so of course the gpl needs to be invalid. but then when they argue that they also would be going against all these licenses since they are very similar in some ways. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ so now they are technically attacking more than just linux and gpl users. oh and as to a jury trial. Well they better hope it isnt anyone from utah(where they are from) why you may ask read the utah newspapers http://newsdirectory.com/news/press/na/us/ut/ apparently people in utah dont like sco either. I think sco is pretty well doomed. (my question remains though if their own website is right shouldnt the entire unixware os be gpl'd, id love to see darl's face then)
no, mr. connery, the category is I.A.N.A.L.--I am not a lawyer--NOT i anal.
mr sco!! you've lost your podium!
"Apparently, they try to argue that the copyright law, in giving consumers the right to make one backup of their software without any permission from the copyright holder, outlaws any contractual agreement that allows users to make more than one copy."
In no way does copyright law prevent the copyright owner from granting additional pemissions. The judge is going to have a good belly laugh over this one. Let's just hope that he can wait to get back to his chambers before rolling on the floor.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Thanks for the good show, dude. I must admit this is the most entertainment I've had in a very long time!! :)
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Yes.
/. please, KTHXBYE
I propose INL - "I'm No Lawyer / I'm Not a Lawyer"
Let's get the subtle homoeroticism out of
... for the druglab that supplies SCO with drugs they're smoking.
You can make "a copy" if either of the conditions are met. Notice that there is NOTHING in the conditions about ALREADY having made another copy which is still in existence. That alone would mean it's allowed. (Even if the meaning WAS ambiguous, there is a rule requiring the court to read ambiguous wording in favor of the accused.)
But in the case of archives it's obvious that the legislators explicitly considered having more than one backup copy - because they said that "all archival copies" must be destroyed if the ownership of the original is "no longer rightful".
Yes, the lawyers for the software manufacturers would love you to think you're limited to one backup - which could also be corrupted, or inconvenient to keep track of - and thus increase the chances you'll lose 'em both and have to buy another. And they write their shrinkwrap contracts that way, too. But the statue grants you an explicit right to make as many backups as you want, regardless of the copyright holder's wishes or a shrinkwrap's boilerplate.
The same, of course, applies to the other exception. But there it's obvious that a multiplicity of intermediate copies or derived works must be created (in buffers, RAM, caches, registers, compiler tables, installed component files, and the like) as necessary steps in "utilizing" the computer program even once.
The statute's limit on these copies is on the USES you put them to, not their number.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If his theory is true, then the obvious corollary is that all publishing contracts between a software author and a software publisher are also invalid, as they also allow the publishers to make more than one copy. This, of course, is stupid and wrong.
Actually, the law doesn't state how many backups you can make, the legal staute (17 USC 117) states:
In other words, it says, you can make "a copy", but it doesn't say "one copy", you can make a copy and then make a copy and then make a copy...; it also says "all archival copies [must be] destroyed". The legal standards for interpreting a statute say that all elements are presumed to have meaning; the "all archival copies" clause clearly envisions an owner with multiple archival copies. The omitted sub-section B also clearly states that multiple backup copies are permitted.In other, other words, SCO is blowing really, really, really weak smoke.
This is turning into a laugher...
I cannot wait for SCO to be dead so the Free Software/Open Source software community can concentrate on something with relevance, like...software :)
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Just about every company out there uses BSD licensed code (including Microsoft). If the BSD license is ruled invalid, there are going to be a lot of unhappy people out there! I can't see the US government allowing the destruction of MS windows.
Where I work, they ship systems based on UnixWare, with custom software added in. I've asked my managers many times why the company is sticking with an outdated product (conforms to the Unix95 standard, not the Unix98 standard - how lazy are they that they can't even make Genuine Unix System V.something code "Unix compatible"?).
The answer is always "there are no plans to change". More specifically, there's no budget allocated to change.
I fear that a few months from now, we'll have a dozen very expensive boxes sitting by the door with no OS on them. And some upset customers making many upset phone calls.
I wonder what the budget will have to say about that.
The point is, I'm sure this isn't rare. It's the main reason for MS Windows being so dominant in the face of better alternatives (more so in the past). To change would mean to make an effort, and if you've stuck with UnixWare this long, you're not the type to ever make an effort to change.
I don't have moderations points when I need them, I owe you a Insightfull point.
Let's all send Richard M. Stallman email congratulating him on his coronation. I'm curious as to what reply would come...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
WTFH is a "tax event"?
A "tax event" is a transaction that is significant for computing taxes. Typically it's a transfer of money or some other trade of valuable considerations where a price can be established for computing taxes.
For instance:
- Your employer hands you/mails/deposits a paycheck. (You get taxed on the "gain" - counting your time as worth nothing and the pay as profit.)
- You buy some stock. (The price of the stock becomes the "basis".)
- You sell some stock. (The selling price, minus the basis is your profit, on which you're taxed, or your loss, for which you can get a deduction against other taxes.)
The stock you bought for a dollar might go up to a thousand and back to two dollars before you sell it. But the daily price is not a "tax event". You buy at one dollar, you sell at two, you earned (and get taxed on) one.
In the case of options there are several events, of which only some are tax events:
- You are GRANTED an option. Not a tax event.
- You EXERCISE the option (or some fraction of it). This IS a tax event. You're buying shares of stock for the option price, when the market price on that day may be higher. You're taxed on the difference between the higher market price and the option price, and the market price becomes the new basis for when you sell it. (For employee stock options you can put off paying this tax until you finally sell the stock, though you may have to pay some "alternaitve minimum tax" - an ancient soak-the-rich scheme - for which you can get partial credit later if you take a loss from the basis when you finally sell the shares.)
- The stock, or the option, "vests". This is NOT a tax event. "Vesting" means you REALLY have a right to it. A typical employee stock option might vest over four years, with the first quarter vesting in a lump (the "vesting cliff") at the end of one year, and a month's worth of additional stock vesting each month thereafter. You can "exercise" either vested or unvested shares - and you'll typically exercise unvested shares to lock in a cheap price and start the clock for dropping to the capital-gains tax rate. But you can't SELL unvested shares until they vest. (That's because, if something happens to stop the vesting - like you quit or get laid off - you have to sell the unvested shares back to the company at the option price.)
- You SELL the option shares on the open market, or your unvested shares back to the company. This IS a tax event. You're taxed on the difference between the basis (the price on the day you exercised the option) and the price you sold them for.
Now if the SCO executives said that the vesting was a tax event they were lying - and they ought to know it.
If they said they'd sold because they EXERCISED the stock that WOULD be a reasonable explanation. A typical thing to do with an unexercised option on a stock that is trading far above the option price is to exercise it and simulteneously sell off enough of the stock to pay the option price - or that plus the taxes on the gain. Then you own the rest of the stock free-and-clear, with no out-of-pocket expense, and no taxes until you finally sell it off. You'll make money when you finally sell it even if it goes down all the way to zero - because when you sell the rest you'll only pay taxes against the gain since the day of the exercise, and if it's trading BELOW that day's price you'll get taxes BACK on the loss.
But if that were the case they'd have said the executives had EXERCISED their options - not made up FUD about being taxed on vesting.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Quite a few EULAs for various MSOffice versions allowed for a backup, an install at work, and a SECOND INSTALL AT HOME OR ON A LAPTOP.
Oops.
Hey, shareware and demos are invalid too, maybe.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
I've said it before, and I might as well say it again since I have little of value to add to this topic: SCO can FOAD any day now, plz/thx
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
I was joking. And yes you are correct.
Well, he could always convince the others with his finely tuned debating skills.
Shit, we're screwed.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
it's bad drugs. FDA needs to safeguard manufacture of whatever SCO and its lawyers are on. fsck 'em.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
so important what the release says, but what
it *implies*. SCO lawyers discussed the theory
whether the GPL is compatable with copyright laws, and perhaps
in a later press release they will informs us
whether the GPL violates the constitution.
But before they enlight us their legal theories,
they have to do the most basic of all things:
which is to provide us proof so we can stop
thinking of them as rope-dancers. The aim
of the new wave of legal theories fosters
the assumption that they already have proof, and
that they have been injured. WE ARE STILL WAITING!
I am afraid, no amount of extravagant legal theories
can make up for the fact that they must first provide
proof before they are allowed to open their mouth.
No. SCO executives seem to know well what their
are doing. So far, the left hand was dumping
stock while everyone was looking at their right
hand hold the U.S. Copyright Law. The real
question do *we* know what they are doing?
Or, are we distracted in the SCO v. IBM show, and in
claims of licensing fees,
when the real game is somewhere else?
Um, if SCO's lawyers do ever argue this in front of a judge, does this sort of stupidity count as one of the things for which a judge can declare the lawyer in contempt? Something along the lines of "Mr. SCO Lawyer, in recognition of your extreme ignorance of copyright law and for wasting our time, I'm fining you $500."
there is no way that the GPL would be demed illegal think about it slashdot reported a few days back that the navy has mac servers with linux on subs do you really think they would just over turn it?
Linux is like living in a teepee. No Windows, no Gates, Apache in house.
When someone boldly states "I know what I am talking about" and then points to the URLs that prove it. Nice post. :)
Conspiracy theory. Obligatory trashing of large corporations. Pathetic whinging about Republicans. Catty comment aimed at Libertarians. Incomprehensible metaphor mixing. Jumble of buzzwords all mashed together. Pie in the sky solution!!!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
This ain't been nothing compared to what will happen when Microsoft starts feeling really threatened.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I think I see what this Heise guy (SCO's lawyer) might be saying, and it's possible that he actually has a semi-valid point, well semi-valid enough that perhaps it can stand a comment.
1. I have read in several places today that every valid software license must allow you to make one copy for backup purposes. If the license does not allow this, it is not valid. Assume this is true for a moment.
2. The GPL says that if you do not adhere to the license, you have no license to copy.
Could his argument be that because in some circumstances you have no right to copy, then the license does not conform to point 1 above and therefore is not valid?
I think this argument fails if the GPL is a distribution license. However, it might (in the hands of a clever trial lawyer) be a problem if the GPL is a license to use. Which I don't think it is.
A second reason that the argument might fail is because the authorization to copy applies unless you break the license. It would be difficult to argue that a person breaking the license causes the license to become invalid.
Still, I think this one has to be a hoax. All the reports are second and third hand. My bet is that someone got annoyed at SCO's unending attacks on the credibility of Linux, and hit on this strategy to undermine SCO's credibility.
Not that SCO has any credibility to spare, but as a reported "legal strategy" this is just too incredible. Or did Monty Python manage to pass the bar exam?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
From all these reading, I felt there is a sinister shadow lurking in the back of all these mess.. who benefit the most?.. Microsoft.
The SCO fully knows it can't wins this unpopular lawsuit, yet they still commit this apprent commericial suicide, you have to wonder why. I am guessing Bill is pulling the string from the background, making sure that the Open Source Community will never recover from this mess, and the corporate market will too scared to have another of this kind of wide spectrum law suite to adopt the open Source softwares.
The fear and distrust have been sown in the OSS community now.
I'm not trolling or trying to be flamebait; I just am angry, but have some very good information about this whole mess, and I'm angry.
:) . I doubt the courts will work very well, since the courts of today are vastly corrupted (they'll probably side with SCO, even if SCO is nuts). I'm even the Cheif Technology Officer for a startup company right now that's investing time and money to develop Linux-based appliance servers, completely open-source. SCO (and anyone else involved) is trying to get the US government to impose fascism on this open source community (fascism is the government nationalization of industry; basically where the government 'controls' your business, but does not own all of it. Currently China is the best example of a fascist country), and indirectly try to take over our startup.
People wonder why I was against both Microsoft AND (GASP!) the US DOJ in the whole Microsoft monopoly ordeal. Boies, I'll finish you off later...
Two corrupt systems just make matters worse. Then, here comes this SCO insanity, with the old "good guy" on the "bad guy" side, and not only that, but with one of the SCO servers residing on Sequent's network (now IBM); this fact was presented in the last SCO slashdot article. If IBM and SCO are on the same sides in this (which was suggested by a post in the last sco article, in which the writer claimed it might be a crazy idea but possible), then we're all screwed. So I wonder which sides are absolutely good, and not just merely relatively good.
As for the GPL, their statements are beyond retarded. People choose what license they want to attach to their software. The software I created, called Skyscraper, which is a 3D virtual 138-story building, is distributed under the GPL license Nobody forced me to use the license; I chose it. I don't want the concept to be private, I want it to be public, and for people to use it and create their own versions and enhancements, etc. (the software is at http://www.tliquest.net/skyscraper)
This anti-GPL tactic is being used to simply destroy the GPL and override it, forcing SCO's licenses into everything (watch out - maybe BSD is next). Basically, to me, SCO is telling ME how to distribute MY software, without my consent. This is illegal, people. This scandal is reaching new heights. Oh am I mad right now...
So, what I would do right now, is place SCO, IBM, and any other directly related companies on "suspension" from the Open Source community, so that we have time to figure out who's really who, and what is really going on. Just completely ignore them (all SCO wants right now is attention, so what do we do? ignore them
This reminds me of what my grandpa told me about his escape from the Ukraine (from Stalin's control), and also how my grandma's family suffered under Hitler's control, and how they almost took away her dad for spreading inside info and rebelling (that's where I get some of my traits from). It reminds me of stories of extreme taxation and socialized systems, where the average person is forced to give almost his entire income to the government; then the government's social food programs can't feed the people anymore, due to the corrupt greedy moron dictators (hey, my Grandpa experienced the starvations Stalin was emposing on the public).
Oh God, help us all... (i am also a born-again Christian conservative/part libertarian political analyst, and have been told countless times that I'm "close minded" because i don't adhere to mainstream society, but can't understand why I don't really like Bush, and hate Gore even more, lol. Visit the following link for more info.)
http://www.thenewamerican.com (my favorite mag - oh yeah)
'but you're for big business' they say to me... even though I'm only 21 and broke. So I simply respond with "Prove it."
#Secret Windows Source Code, in MS C% - if (uptime >= "24 hours") then bsod() else print "Windows License Violation!"
GPL does not violate copyright law as SCO's backwards-logic lawyers say it is.
The GPL is a contract....a contract that gives ppl access to the source code under certain conditions and also requires them to use the same contract to give access to the source code, especially if they modify the original.
Hell, I think the GPL is better than copyright, at least if you consider the original intent of our founding fathers.
Anyways, copyright law says "WITHOUT permission" and well....the GPL IS the permission (not just the contract).
And this most recent action by SCO just further fortifies the look of how SCO's logic AND code (if any) is faulty, so much so, the exec's are jumping ship faster than ppl would if they suddenly find themselves on the ill-fated Titanic w/ Anna Nicole Smith (2 wrongs make it worse).
For example: You work at a place full of clueless snoops who monitor all URL traffic and call you about once a week to see why you're trying to "hack the Internet". Sucks, right? Privoxy is your friend here.
ssh -L8080:localhost:8080 myhost
Set Mozilla-proxy to localhost:8080
Run Privoxy on 8080...
And presto! No calls as to why you're reloading that "hacker site called 'slashdot'" every ten minutes or so! Not to mention the complete lack of web advertisements...
In additional SCO News...
1. SCO declares the Law of Gravity null and void. Spokesman declares: "Gravity is an infringment on our patented system of keeping stuff on the earth." (However, SCO doesn't really generate gravity, it just sucks.)
2. SCO filed suit in federal court today claiming they have a patent on breathing.
3. SCO's latest legal defense against the GPL: "We don't like it, poopy-pants!"
4. SCO was also going to sue the *BSDs until a little bird flew in and said, "Dumbass! That's already been tried."
5. SCO is copyrighting its press releases so that it can sue the newspapers that publish them.
I don't think SCO has any plan whatsoever, apart from making as much noise as possible in order to pump up the stock. Their actions are just way too inconsistent to stem from an actual plan.
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
- 'K' in Men in Black.
I seem to remember a story about how the GPL is technically invalid under German law, because the copyright holder cannot waive his rights. IIRC, this is a quirk of the German law that also means many EULAs are illegal.
I know this is different to the SCO argument, but it's similar. Interesting that this has shown up on a German site first. Probably just coincidence.
"The Milliard Gargantubrain? A mere abacus - mention it not."
Darl seems to have come to sences, see here
Upon reading the interview (too tired to read the study), it will become clear, that the alleged invalidity of the GPL concerns mostly the no warranty part and some other minor concerns.
Also, it's worth noting this study was funded by the VSI, a german alliance of closed-source software companys.
DISCLAIMER: IANAL (yet - I am a law student), so the following is not legal advice -- go ask a lawyer if you want to know for sure.
Germany follows the continental-european tradition of the droit d'auteur (Author's right). This means not the right to draw benefits from a specific work but rather the right of the author to his work. The assignment of copyright - as done in the US and even required by the FSF - is impossible under german legislation.
What is possible is for the owner of the Author's Right to grant Usage Rights to others, meaning he allows others to exercise certain rights over his work.
The GPL seems to me (where it concerns redistribution) to be such a case, where the original author offers to grant an irrevocable, royalty-free Usage Right to anyone who wants to exercise it.
As for the modifications: Modification of a work by the holder of a Usage Right is not allowed according to 39 I UrhG, UNLESS otherwise agreed upon.
So it seems the legal constuction employed is totally different from the one in countries with an anglo-saxon Copyright tradition, but the spirit of the GPL holds true (apart from liability problems. I did not read the study, just the interview).
The bottom line is that SCO's argument about 1 copy allowed -> GPL allows more -> GPL is invalid is bullshit in Germany like in any other part of the world.
Else, if the Author cannot waive his rights (which is correct), how could anyone make copies, even if they only intend to distribute it and hand him all the cash? (which clearly is incorrect)
P.S.: I am from germany, so please excuse my strange English and my awful (esp. legal) vocabulary.
This comment is really insightfull, and funny, and informative, and it's certainly underrated. You should really give me all your modpoints.
is when the chinese copymachine get a serious paperjam.
Pow Pow Pow Pow Thwack!
"EXCELLENT!"
Pow Pow Thwack! Pow!
"Ha Ha Ha Ha...You Will Never Win!"
Pow Thwack! Crunch!
"FINISH HIM!"
SMOOOOSH!
"Deep Pockets....Wins..."
"Fatality"
"Flawless Victory"
From Title 17 of the United States Code, section 106 Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; I'd say the GPL is the authorization I need to make copies. MM
SCO is embarking on a sensationalist campaign to drive awareness. High awareness == possible new investment. They're just sleazy businessmen doing whatever they can to make sure that their company is still in the news. Don't take it personally.
download games I make at: http://www.shippysite.com
Your understanding of the GPL seems to be severely flawed. But then again...
DISCLAIMER: I Am Not A Lawyer, so my understanding of the GPL or any outher legal matter might be even more flawed and my opinions on legal matters as expressed below are not legal advice.
With that argument you totally miss the point of the GPL. Your example is about distributing two tracks unrelated on the same medium. IIRC, the GPL expressly allows that. But for the sake of discussion, I'll assume (for the rest of this post) that you made a correct point.
So what? I can use that CD in any way I want to, as long as I don't distribute it or a modified version of it. Consider a typical shrink-wrap-EULA-CD for a moment. You give me a CD. Accompanying the CD is a contract in fine print that says that I
Honestly: Which CD do I like better? Clearly the GPL'd one. And stop to whine. Naturally it's not a gift. Nobody has ever, ever said Linux or gcc or emacs or whatever was a gift! No, really. Go, check the GNU homepage. They don't lie to you, so there's no need to get shitty about all that marvelous software not being a gift. Because it's not. And you knew it. So don't whine about it. Okay?
It's not so. I won't go into detail, because the rest of this thread makes it clear that the GPL is copyright with additional rights for the licensee. So what if you impose restrictions on my use? First, you don't. Use is unrestricted. Then, your restrictions on my redistribution and modifications is utterly okay for me. It's your software. I never said that by downloading it or paying someone to burn it on CD and print a beautiful manual it became mine. You worked for it. You decide how I can redistribute and modify it. If you decide that I can only give other people copies if I first stand on my head and blow my nose, then so be it. If I don't like those restrictions, I will simply not redistribute or modify your software. As for the alleged fact that I won't benefit of my work anyway, how about Linus Torvalds? I lost track somehow when he left Transmeta, but do you think those hired him simply because he was such a cool guy? No thought that Linux could have had to do with it? Okay, they didn't pay him for Linux but it surely opened some doors for him. So, how's that not profiting?
I'm no legal scholar, but this latest claim from SCO seems to not only not make sense but also to undermine their previous claims. I think this is just a little more evidence to support my claim that this whole operation is nothing more than a smear campaign aimed at injecting confusion and doubt in the OS marketplace. I wonder who would benefit from such a campaign.
SCO is paying their lawyers partly on contingency, partly straight up.
The "partly on contingency" part came from SCO's earnings conference call last quarter.
The $500,000 per quarter part comes from here:
SCO Posts 3Q Profit, Says Can Afford Legal Fight
And here's another lesson on becoming a stock geek:
Start at finance.yahoo.com.
Type in the ticker symbol of the company you want, SCOX.
Click on all the pretty links, starting with the news stories.
It actually is pretty easy.
Looks like I need a lesson in PREVIEW! Argh!
SCO Posts 3Q Profit, Says Can Afford Legal Fight
Interesting concept, but knowing Apple as I know them they'd probably have some bugs in it. Something like a malformed ping would make the device flush it's buffers. Not pretty!
But as I've always known that Apple makes crap software, this would merely confirm it.
Yours humbly,
Ta bu shi da yu
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Your analysis of stock options and tax events is completely correct.
But that's not the important point. The important point is that everybody on Wall Street KNOWS this stuff very well. Which means that McBride just flat out lied to all those analysts about something that the analysts KNOW is a lie.
This isn't a lie about Unix history, where the chart is tangled. It's not a lie about a legal claim, where there is always uncertainty about what a judge might believe by the time Boies gets through making the case. Unlike SCO's other lies, this is a lie about something that everybody on the street KNOWS about.
Between this and their "GPL is invalid because it grants rights to make more than one copy" trial balloon, I really think SCO is nearing the end of their FUD run.
Maybe McBride will do us all a favor and think he can fly from the top floor of SCO HQ.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
This is a civil suit, not a criminal trial. Therefore the burden of proof is "the proponderance of evidence" if I'm not mistaken. But of course, IANAL :)
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The GPL allows unlimited copies, the copyright law allows one. Therefore, the GPL is invalid.
*sigh*
The GPL allows NO copies "except as expressly provided under this (the GPL) licence". (from the GPL)
So if you don't buy into the GPL 100%, no copies for you, not even for backup. Not even if you are hosting an FTP site for an open source provider as a favor, because according to the GPL, "You MAY NOT COPY... except as provided under this License" (emphasis added)
That would seem to me to be opposed to fair use. If I am hosting an FTP site, why should I have to accept ANY licence to back up my server? But the GPL seems to require that.
What SCO is saying is that all this violates copyright law, which allows at least one copy for backup, without having to accept the GPL.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
Anyone know how they managed this? or did it come mostly from:
;)
1) License stuff to Microsoft
2) ???
3) Profit!
Because given the loss reported for the previous year, and that their business has been dropping over time, I just find it unlikely that they suddenly have an upsurge in their profits from their ordinary ongoing business.
Or considering what a soap opera this is, maybe Darl is hooking on the side
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The GPL works ontop of copyright law, ergo, you can make a backup copy without accepting the licence, but if you want to distribute to more than one more person you have to accept the licence.
:/
SCO's pulling at straws, or perhaps they got jealous of how much Microsoft is hated by geeks, and wanted to get some of it for themselves
criminal law will be involved soon enough.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
I just did a search back through 1999 on different articles regarding Caldera, SCO, Linux, etc.
It gave a very very interesting broad "picture" so to speak, regarding the mess SCO is trying to cook up here.
This last shot at the GPL, is actually in line with some of the articles and comments back from a couple years ago, and progressing to now.
It would be kind of neat to see a Slashdot article on the "history" of Caldera/SCO and Linux as it played out here on Slashdot.
But then again, maybe I am just a glutton for punishment, but still would like to see such a thing, summaries of important points, quotes, time line, things of that nature. And of course, the comments from other people here regarding the article would be an added bonus. :)
Regards,
Fredrick
What is next? Will SCO claim that the GPL was written by aliens? The GPL is an individual contract between a publisher and a user. Those two private parties can agree to anything they want. They can agree that the first illegitimate offspring of any subsequent animal/human coupling must be sacraficed in the nearest volcano if they want. It is a contract that doesn't have to comply with copywrite regulations. Those are there for people who don't have explicit contracts between each other.
> Didn't Abraham Lincoln say that it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt? that's Mark Twain, AKA Samuel Clemens.
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
Still no responses to your lawyer request.
;)
No prizes for guessing what that means about usefulness and lawyers
Still no responses to your lawyer request.
;)
:/
No prizes for guessing what that means about usefulness and lawyers
It just means most lawyers won't work for free, even for a 30 second reply
(Pro bono is NOT a bono that has lost his amatuer status!)
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Disclaimer - IANAL, I'm also Canadian ...not that there's anything wrong with that