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.

7 of 285 comments (clear)

  1. What if I do not use SCO code? by ryan76 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What if I run Linux but I do not use any of the features that invoke SCO code? (Provided they were indentified) Would I still owe them $$?

    --
    http://threetechguys.info Come, discuss Technology. Got a technology question? Come ask!
    1. Re:What if I do not use SCO code? by Frymaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

      however, sco is unlikely to sue you since a court case is likely to force them to identify the code in question, and they don't want to do that since, once the code is identified, linus and co. will start working on linux lite (to steal a phrase from bsd). they'll probably only tip their hat in a high stakes suit.

  2. Same old Same old by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sco's stock price drops below 11 and their claims grow louder and more rediculous. My only question is how do they think they will avoid the inevitable insider trading and fraud investigations.

  3. Re:Document summary by killthiskid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The thing I don't get is this...

    SCO claims that IBM took SCO's confidential information about Unix and the AIX operating system and improperly contributed it to Linux. The Linux operating system, they assert, was infected with SCO's confidential information and, because Linux is open source, that confidential information has been disclosed to the world. Now that Linux is replacing Unix in the operating system marketplace, SCO has lost business. It claims over $1 billion in damages.

    So this is the thing: what does this have to do with SCO declaring the GPL invalid? What the HELL does it have to do with their lawsuit against IBM. I do not understand.

  4. SCO by cluge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have used SCO in the past to develop IBM mainframe software on. SCO was the base OS, and an emulator allowed us to emulate OS390 ran on top of it. Now with most big Iron able to run linux Vm's we can program directly for Linux. Where am I going with this? We are suggesting to writer of that software that it needs to be ported to Linux - we no longer run SCO on any machine.

    If you are anyone that you know runs SCO, find out why, and have the software that runs on SCO ported to Linux. It's usually quite easy, and it makes your skin feel better knowing that your SCO free. Somone (wink wink nudge nudge) should put up a web site that counts the number of SCO de-installs since the law suit was filed. I bet such a web site wouldn't make SCO stock holders feel so good. I've de-installed SCO from the 2 machines - any one else?

    cluge

    --
    "Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
  5. Re:Document summary by RickHunter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The real problem is that, if the GPL is not invalid, SCO is in some serious legal problems. Because not only did they distribute their code under the GPL unknowingly, but they continued to do so after they were informed of the fact. And they still continue to do so, because otherwise they'd loose what few customers they have left. (The distribution in question is them providing Linux binaries, patches, and possibly source from their FTP site) If the GPL's valid, they have no right to do this unless they license the code/IP in question under the GPL, which makes their case (and stock price) collapse.

    Unfortunately, they're equally screwed if the GPL is invalid. Just because Linux was "infected" with "confidential information" doesn't give them ownership over all the other IP in there. And if the GPL's invalid, that falls back to the default of US copyright law. Which means that SCO has no right to distribute it or modify it. So if it is invalid, they're equally screwed.

    That's why they're now (IIRC) trying to not only claim that its invalid, but that anything formerly under the GPL is now public domain. Why? Because this is Chewbacca. No, wait, that's wrong. Because the author allowed unlimited copies.

    Yeah, everyone else is just as puzzled.

  6. If you get a SCO invoice: Claim Mailfraud by bstadil · · Score: 5, Interesting
    There is a strong rumour that SCO is preparing invoices to be send to "selected" Linux users.

    IRA McGee over at LinuxToday had a brilliant suggestion, if you get one.

    Call your local USPS or FBI and claim MailFraud

    the objective of mail fraud is to accomplish a desired result by deception, trickery, concealment, and/or dishonesty, albeit through the use of the United States Mail Service or other private/commercial interstate carriers

    This is taken serious and hopefully will result in Darl getting his behind serviced on a regular basis.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.