Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Attorney Declares GPL Invalid

Posted by michael on from the look-at-the-silly-monkey dept.

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.

37 of 1,137 comments (clear)

  1. Hold up a second... by cruppel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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? :)

    1. Re:Hold up a second... by Zachary+Kessin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      because there is legally no such thing as "copyleft" its something that RMS made up to stand for his ideas. Copyright is a a legal term defined by law treaty and convention. Copyleft is a concept that can only exist ontop of copyright.

      Now in truth while IANAL, when he wrote the GPL rms did consult with law professors who created a document that should stand up in court.

      SCO can say that it not valid, but they are probably wrong.
      They could say that 2+2 = 5 but they would probably be wrong about that too.

      --
      Erlang Developer and podcaster
    2. Re:Hold up a second... by walt-sjc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh, it's pretty clear what SCO is trying to do is claim that the GPL is invalid, therefore the fact that they were ALSO distributing linux is moot. It's firing back at IBM's and others claims that SCO has given up all rights to any IP based upon that fact that they distributed Linux under the GPL. And it's not gonna work.

    3. Re:Hold up a second... by EvanED · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is probably (it's untested, hence the "probably") untrue. One of the rights that is reserved for the copyright holders under Title 17 is the right to make derivative works. Modifying code would almost certainly be seen as making a derivative work, at least if the changes are more than an extremely minor patch or something, and hence a violation without the copyright holder's permission.

    4. Re:Hold up a second... by cshark · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, but if their case is as strong and undisputable as they say it is, then why would they even need to attack the validity of the GPL?

      They are barely into the discovery phase of the law suit and they're already gasping for air?

      This doesn't bode well for the credibility of the company.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    5. Re:Hold up a second... by watchful.babbler · · Score: 4, Interesting
      When the FSF refers to the GPL license as being a "copyleft" they're making a joke, because they're using COPYRIGHT law to ensure that the code remains freely available. Copyleft is not a principle the law recognizes.

      Absolutely correct, and that's why invoking preemption isn't so crazy as many seem to think. The federal courts, in Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software, held that Title 17 Sec. 117 of the U.S. Code preempted terms in Vault's shrink-wrap licensing, so there's precedent for applying the preemption doctrine to private contracts in copyright litigation.

      Without knowing more about SCO's argument, we certainly can't argue on the merits of it, but there's always the possibility that some enterprising copyright lawyer has found a potential incompatibility between the GPL and copyright law. (Offhand, though, any argument based on Title 17 Sec. 117(a) seems specious to me, since I don't see how it could possibly affect the right to authorize copies and derivative works in Sec. 106 -- but IANA(IP)L.)

      And, actually, *I* say :x!, but who's keeping track?

      --
      "Freedom is kind of a hobby with me, and I have disposable income that I'll spend to find out how to get people more."
    6. Re:Hold up a second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      As a liberal I am quite offended by their attempts
      to slander and libel the liberal cause by calling
      their license a copy"left", the base hipocrosy of
      wanting to release source code whilst at the same
      time trying to maintain a proprietary level of
      control over the software is odious to anybody who
      has eyes with which to see. Stallman's heavy handed
      and domineering ways of promoting his cause would
      offend many liberals who see that only through
      toleration of difference can a society survive. His
      exclusive us-versus-them vision of "community" is at
      its heart a very conservative. Any body who
      dissents to his beliefs is no longer to be considered
      part of his "Free Software Community".
      He talks of freedom whilst at the same time he
      tries his damndest to quash those who dissagree
      with him.
      He is a man who is willing to trample and hurt
      others for the furthurance of his principles,
      noble may they be, and I find that abhorrent.

    7. Re:Hold up a second... by gmhowell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In that case, I would suggest RH sues SCO in a VA or MD court, where UCITA makes shrink wrap licenses hunky dorey. Hoist 'them' on their own petard.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  2. SCO and UNIX by mao+che+minh · · Score: 4, Interesting
    And people still wonder whether or not UNIX is really dying, when you see companies like SCO fighting tooth and nail, in any way that they can regardless of how despicable and embarrassing it is, to stop Linux. SCO basically gave up the UNIX business because of Linux.

    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.

    1. Re:SCO and UNIX by geekee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      " Sun doesn't mind because their revenue doesn't necessarily come from Solaris, it comes from servers and support contracts. Whether they slap Solaris on a box or Linux, won't matter as long as they are still the ones supplying the hardware with redundant power supplies, "

      Sun should be worried since they use the Apple business strategy of using software to lock you into buy their hardware. Once a client no longer needs Solaris, they no longer need Sun's overpriced, underperforming hardware.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
  3. Review of Attorney's Summary by ipandithurts · · Score: 5, Interesting
    After reading the attorney's article in ZDNet, while I enjoyed it, I have to make a couple comments as he's simply missing the point on one point he made and outright wrong on another point.

    First, on point two he states:

    2. SCO has a duty to mitigate damages. Any plaintiff complaining that it is being injured by wrongful conduct has a duty to mitigate its damages. In order for SCO to assert claims against Linux users, it has to take reasonable steps to lessen the harm that it is suffering. This means giving Linux users the opportunity to remove the infringing code from Linux. SCO's refusal to identify the Linux code in question is hard to defend. SCO says that it can't do so, because it would be akin to showing a thief his fingerprints so that he can clean them off. But that makes no sense. The "fingerprints" are available in many forms, and can be traced electronically. Keeping the Linux community guessing about the code seems more tailored to running up the damages than preserving evidence.


    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:
    4. SCO may have set a ceiling on recovery. SCO has already announced a licensing program with specific license rates. In the worst case, and unless and until SCO makes a much clearer and more public case that its code has been stolen, SCO is not likely to recover from individual users more than it has announced its license fees to be. Why pay now when you can pay later or quite possibly not at all?


    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.
    1. Re:Review of Attorney's Summary by eric76 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      that mitigation duty hasn't been applied as far as I can tell to copyright infringement

      In at least one case, it has been applied. Someone was denied damages because they didn't mitigate their damages even though it was found that the other work did infringe on theirs.

      And the judge in that matter is the same Judge Kimball who is presiding over this case. In the opinion, he said "Had Jacobsen voiced his disapproval in 1996, Hughes would have had the opportunity to take the offending material out of the books".

  4. So if this actually gets upheld... by Captain+Tenille · · Score: 3, Interesting
    ... 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.

    Sigh....

    --

    ------------
    /* You are not expected to understand
  5. Copyright... by c0dedude · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?
  6. This would make other licenses illegal by OfficerNoGun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. If the GPL violates copyright... by JeffTL · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...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.

  8. There is no way to win! by His+name+cannot+be+s · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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..."
  9. Finally, a Substantive Claim from SCO by reporter · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Why is SCO claiming that the GPL violates copyright law? IBM poignantly noted, a while ago, that SCO distributed any disputed source code under GPL. Hence, according to IBM, the disputed source code is available for any use allowed by GPL. That is a very strong argument by IBM.

    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.

  10. BWAHAHAHAH! by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  11. Ok then, SCO's guilty of copyright infringement. by mrsam · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  12. Re:...and I declare SCO "petunias"... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I disagree. I think the last thing we need is another friggin' lawsuit. Litigious greed is what got us into this mess to begin with.

    I think I forgot the <smartass> tags around that. No, I don't really think that Linus should start suing. However, it seems like a pretty stupid idea to begin making claims that, when pared to their essence, would indicate that you've violated the same rights of the person you're suing that you claim they infringed. Why even bring it up?

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  13. Re:...and I declare SCO "petunias"... by TopShelf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Interesting points about their earnings announcement:

    1) Profits were $3.1 million
    2) According to a story over at Infoworld, Microsoft may have paid $6 million for their Unix license.
    3) Out of $20.1 million in revenues, $7.3 million came from SCOsource, which is the unit driving this whole nonsense.
    4) And according to SCO itself, they've spent around $1 million on legal costs so far related to the IBM suit.

    Bottom line: SCO's fundamental business is still in a death spiral. Take away the legal fees and the SCOsource revenue, and the rest of the biz lost around $2.2 million, on revenues of $16 million...

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  14. You're the worst damn lawyer I EVER seen! by nagora · · Score: 2, Interesting
    They've totally lost it. If the GPL is invalid what exactly is giving them permission to distribute people's GPL'd code in their Linux distro?

    Idiots.

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  15. Re:This is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Actually, the FSF took great care NOT to make the GPL a contract. My LUG had dinner once with Bradley Kuhn, and he explained that, while software companies were lobbying congress to make copyright law more like contract law, the GPL doesn't force any contractual obligations on the user.

    Basically, copyright allows you to limit the distribution and redistribution of your software and its derivatives. The GPL does NOT go beyond these limitations. It limits only the distribution of the original work and its derivatives, and it's fairly generous about that (though I DO prefer the BSD license, myself).

    For those of you who are about to say, "It doesn't allow linking with proprietary software, which is a limitation on its use", you're wrong. The idea is that, by linking with GPL-covered software, you are incorporating it into your own work-- thus creating a derivative work that requires a license. The GPL simply refuses to grant a license for unacceptably-licensed software. So applications which incorporate GPLed software but are not themselves under the GPL or compatible licenses are considered to be using the GPLed software without a license-- a violation of copyright law.

    Anyway, there are NO contractual obligations placed on distributors or users of GPLed software. That's why, if SCO is really violating the GPL in this case, the Linux developers wouldn't be able to sue SCO for "breach of contract", but only for "violation of copyright" (which is also a criminal offense, made worse by the fact that they were distributing Linux for money at one point).

    That help clear things up?

  16. Re:Hmm by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    IANAL either, but I can tell you that you are in error. According to U.S. law, all works are copyrighted at the moment of creation. The notion that you can choose to put something into the public domain has no force of law behind it.

    Wrong. I mean, really wrong.

    Public Domain is a great concept, and release into Public Domain by the author has long been upheld as legally binding.

    If I write a novel, host it on my website, and clearly state that it's in the public domain (a nice "this whole novel is in public domain" should work), I won't be able to sue someone for taking my PD novel and selling it for thousands of dollars.

    (well, I could, but I'd have to convince a Jury that I didn't mean to put that statement there--something like "that was never there" or "hey, a hacker did it!" would be plausible.)

  17. Hold on a second... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Does that mean that all software site licenses would be invalid? They allow me unlimited copying of the software (within an organization). Interesting...

  18. Lawyer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

  19. Re:I've Got It Figured Out by Chops · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.

    This is actually a viable arguing strategy if the point you're arguing is wholly wrong. If you say things that are wrongly based, confusing, or self-contradictory, you raise the bar for people unfamiliar with the reality of the situation to make sense of it. People who understand the SCO situation, or are willing to take half an hour to examine it, are going to think SCO's full of shit in any case; that's not who this is aimed at.
  20. Also in the Wall Street Journal by Goner · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

  21. Legal Position issued by OSDL by bstadil · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There is a good article here about the whole issue

    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.
  22. Here is the timeline by Teahouse · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  23. Very bad move by Experiment+626 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  24. Why is SCO fighting the GPL? by AaronW · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  25. Re:Preemption of Contract is a Zero Traction Argum by Lochin+Rabbar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    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.

  26. This is classic poker by flacco · · Score: 2, Interesting
    SCO is exhibiting all the signs of a classic poker bluff.

    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.
  27. The reason for the anti-GPL declaration by theolein · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  28. This is very good news by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The fact that SCO is grasping at such small (and obviously non-boyant) straws is in indicator that SCO never really thought this one through. With millions of dollars at stake, they have no better answer to the GPL than this.

    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.