Slashdot Mirror
OSDL Releases Q&A on SCO Legal Actions
craigoda writes "OSDL released a Q&A today written by Lawrence Rosen, noted expert on technology and intellectual property law. The Q&A points to serious flaws in SCO's claims that end-users have to pay for Linux licenses." The press release is a little more diplomatic, saying that the document only helps one determine whether or not one should buy a license from SCO.
Here:
Yes, because by copying then to your hard drive you have made a copy. If SCO actually does own a piece of the code in Linux, AND it is decided that the GPL is meaningless, (or only applies when big companies feel like it) THEN simply copying the code (in source or binary form) to your system constitutes "use"
Thus, if SCO were right in all of their claims (highly unlikely the way I read it), you would be allowed to use Linux only if you did not have any copies of the SCO code anywhere on your system (or if you bought a license to use them)
So, yes. If you simply disabled those features, you'd still potentially be liable -- if you physically uninstalled them? you should be fine.
The original link, second paragraph, states:
In the so called repost this changes to:
Come on folks! Stop modding up these trolls.
Scox isn't selling anything anyway. All scox earnings are fud money from msft and sunw. You need to boycott scox's controlling company: Canopy Group. I urge you to email these companies and explain that you will not do any business with them. I have included the letter that I sent to these companies as a sample.
v enueme.comr 7.com
s ales@communitect.com@ devicelogics.comp ipeinc.comf o@homepipeline.comd ustrialtrainingzone.como m@ mi-corporation.com,c .com,t hTools.com,l es@caldera.com,c om
B oycotting all companies affiliated with SCO/Canopy
---
salesinfo@altiris.com
help@customercare.a
support@culturegrams.com
sales@cente
sales@cerberian.com
sales@cogitoinc.com
yslew@datacrystal.com
info
info@directpointe.com
info@fat
info@geolux.com
sales@helius.com
in
sales@iArchives.com
sales@in
brutledge@linuxnetworx.c
tyler@luxul.net,
sales@maxstream.net,
jclary
info@mti.com,
pr@myfamilyin
info@perimeterdata.com,
ProTools@SaberToo
ronastarns@aztecenterprises.com,
sa
info@trolltech.com
info@tuglet.
sales@viawest.net
Sales@wrenchead.com
---
I have worked in IT for 25 years, and have been involved in several major purchasing decisions.
I am infuriated at SCO/Canopy's attempts at fraud and extortion. As well as SCO's FUD campaign against Linux.
As such, I will no longer purchase, or recommend the purchase, of any products or services from any company that is even partially owned by SCO/Canopy. I intend to encourage my colleges to do the same.
You wouldn't owe them any money anyway. They are suing IBM for damanges caused by the alleged contract infringement. Demanding $ from Linux users for the use of the code is a form of double indemnity and is generally not allowed by courts.
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
Step 1: SCO sues IBM over supposedly contributing confidential, proprietary SCO information to Linux and thus disclosing it. IBM tells SCO to shove it.
Step 2: SCO starts FUD campaign to scare people into not using Linux. Part of their FUD is to sell a license for their intellectual property that has been included in Linux which they have also distributed. Selling this license violates the GPL.
Step 3: SCO now finds itself in the position of having made probably unproveable claims about copyright infringement against IBM and Linux and having committed very public and thus proveable violations of the GPL. The only way SCO can continue their FUD campaign and charge people to use Linux is if they can now also get the GPL declared invalid.
The original lawsuit between SCO and IBM had absolutely nothing to do with the GPL. SCO brought the GPL into the mess by asserting they could sell licenses to Linux users for the portion of Linux that was based on their IP. This violates the GPL becuase they had distributed Linux with the offending code which makes it subject to the GPL.
If the issue had been strictly about copyright violations, it would have burried on the back page of some legal journal. SCO and their behind the scenes backers (think about who benefits from Linux and open source being discredited) have turned it into a public attack on Linux and free/open source software.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
I just read on the conectiva linux site, their position on the SCO X IBM court case.
"There is no evidence that any piece of the Linux Kernel, from version 2.4 up, is of SCO intellectual property."
I just wonder if there is anyone out there that supports SCO in its claims.
Wow, so many wrong answers. It's not a Chewbacca defense.
In addition to licensing their code to IBM under whatever license they used, but they ALSO licensed the entire Linux 2.4 kernel, including things they claim to have IP rights over, to their customers under the GPL.
Any of SCO's customers, under the GPL, has the absolute right to commit those updates into the main Linux kernel tree. So in a way it's irrelevant if SCO has any rights to the code in question at all--even if they did, they gave it away.
Thus the GPL challenge. If the GPL is declared invalid, *nobody* would have any rights to use Linux except the copyright holders of the original code. Luckily, most things in Linux have their copyrights ascribed to the Free Software Foundation. If, however, SCO proves that it owns the copyright on this code, AND they invalidate the GPL, that would be the only way to successfully remove the code from Linux (legally speaking).
Just because it's a dumb-ass defense doesn't make it a Chewbacca defense.
Let me suggest you all email HP
Help fight continental drift.
But of course they are little shits.
No disagreements here, but that wasn't the point I was making. I was just helping to define "use" of IP according to US copyright law. That is not to say that, in this particular case, I think it will come out that way.
Just read SCO's outlandishly absurd reasoning why the GPL is invalid. It went something like: 'Copyright law gives right X, no contract that can be construed as granting any rights beyond X are valid'
Woah!!! but... what if I buy 5000 licenses to SCO's bullshitware. Those licenses would also be invalid by the same logic: after all, they grant me the right to make 5000 copies. 5000 is more than one, thus: not valid
Oh, and about not being liable because IBM is?
Assume, for the moment, that SCO owned IP that IBM gave to Linux. I know, it could never happen, but... just pretend for a minute.
Also lets assume that you are using Linux.
In this case, SCO can sue IBM for trade-secrets violations for giving code to Linux that is wasn't allowed to give away.
Additionally, however, you are using SCO IP without permission. Since IBM (or your distro) chose not to indemnify you against IP claims, you COULD (not necessarily, but quite possibly) be liable for damages. If you are a public library or educational institution and had a valid reason to believe that you had the right to use the IP (like you acquired a license that said you could from a provider without the authority to make that claim) then you would be allowed to remove the IP and avoid paying damages.
Otherwise its up to the judge.
Oh. I missed one other essential assumption: SCO never released a copy of its IP under a license that allows limitless copying (such as, say, Caldera under the GPL) Because, you see, if I am offered a license (a contract granting me certain rights, and forbidding me others in exchange for some (possibly monetary) value) to duplicate the software, and the organization granting the license had the right to do so, then I can do whatever the license says I can do. After all, thats what we agreed to. Contracts are binding like that. If you sign on the dotted line you are stuck. Especially if you wrote the contract (or offered the boiler-plate contract)
In short: because SCO released a copy of Linux under the GPL (assuming it survives a court test), and especially because it can be easily proven hat they know they did so (I'm sure it had a copy of the license on it) they are SOL.
Yes but Unix code in general has been used as examples in operating system programming. One of the big problems SCO has is Unix has been around so long that core features of it have been used in many other places than Unix.
So here are some links with some history and the battle SCO has is to prove that the code they see in Linux didn't come from these sources instead of IBM because if it came from these sources there is nothing SCO gets.
Public Money, Private Code
Quote from above: In 1992, Berkeley released its version of Unix and TCP/IP to the public as open-source code, and the combination quickly became the backbone of a network so vast that people started to call it, simply, "the Internet"
Why Caldera Decided to Release Unix
From that article note that Caldera did release Unix source code on some version and again SCO has to defend against the chance that code came from this source. And though it appears in protected System V it was also present in the release V7 and V32.
Introducing the Caldera OpenLinux Workstation
From thie quote on the above:OpenLinux is Caldera's self-hosted source code Linux distribution that conforms to commercial software release procedures. OpenLinux is based on the most current stable open source technologies, but subjected to rigorous testing procedures similar to those used for proprietary operating systems. How can SCO clain they did not see infected code go into Linux if they had standards that if up to proprietary operating systems would include a check as such.
Berkley Lab Notes
My question here is if you follow the links on this page and understand the history of Unix and how it became freely released can anyone tell me what if anything was left propietary in Unix?????
And maybe that is a question SCO should be answering.
And really this needs to be explored in detail because what does System V have that BSD does not and how does the BSDi vs USL case affect the Unix propietary code.
I know this is redundant it has all been said before but the Q&A is right. Without SCO showing the code in question and that code be compared to so much of the Unix system that legally leaked into the world they have no case.
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius