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.

Comments

What if I do not use SCO code?

[ryan76]

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 $$?

Re:What if I do not use SCO code?

[Fareq]

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.

Re:What if I do not use SCO code?

[Frymaster]

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.

Re:What if I do not use SCO code?

[Bun]

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.

Re:What if I do not use SCO code?

[B'Trey]

I'm convinced that no modifications will be necessary - I don't believe SCO will be able to prove it's case at all. However, in the remote chance that they do, you're right that the damage will quickly be coded around.

Re:What if I do not use SCO code?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

SCO code is SHIT, if there web applications are any indication.

I just thought I'd peek at their site right now, to see what phantasm they were conjuring now.

They had a promising looking link at http://www.sco.com/licensing. The link says REGISTER , which in good fun, I clicked... Getting pages of badly escaped error in SQL connection. A Caldera URL, domain and coding are evident... Enough info in the error to guess that their CGI fields map to names in the table space.

A decent SQL injection could probably drop the DB, who knows? Maybe more. Real amateur job they've done.

Re:What if I do not use SCO code?

[plugger]

I just went to their piracy reporting form. I thought they would be interested to hear about a company which is distributing GPL code combined with code which said company claim to be proprietry, in violation of the GPL. I hope they take this as seriously as any other 'piracy' that is brought to their attention.

Re:What if I do not use SCO code?

[screenrc]

Read the article, please. The laywer clearly said
that even if you use SCO code in violation (assumeing
they ever provide proof), you still don't
have to pay SCO because it is IBM who will
pay for damages, and SCO cannot collect twice.
This answers the question of the poster which
was about having to pay damages, and was
not about whether he will be in violation
of SCO's (alleged) violation of trade secrets.
Read the article, please. The laywer clearly said
that even if you use SCO code in violation (assumeing
they ever provide proof), you still don't
have to pay SCO because it is IBM who will
pay for damages, and SCO cannot collect twice.
This answers the question of the poster which
was about having to pay damages, and was
not about whether he will be in violation
of SCO's (alleged) violation of trade secrets.

Re:What if I do not use SCO code?

[Fareq]

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.

Re:What if I do not use SCO code?

[ninthwave]

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.

Re:What if I do not use SCO code?

[stu_coates]

...and if you look here, you'll see that SCO are still using Linux themselves....

Document summary

[mhesseltine]

Q: Should I buy a license from SCO?

A: No

Re:Document summary

[killthiskid]

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.

Re:Document summary

[ePhil_One]

Q: Should I buy a license from SCO?

A: No

But what if I were trying to protect my monopoly on x86 operating systems?

Re:Document summary

[mhesseltine]

But what if I were trying to protect my monopoly on x86 operating systems?

Well then, Mr. Gates, go ahead and purchase as many licenses as you see fit.

Re:Document summary

[interiot]

• 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.

But ladies and gentlemen this is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a man's life is on the line? Why? I'll tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense you must acquit.

Re:Document summary

[TheFrood]

Q: Should I buy a license from SCO?

A: No.

Q: But what if...

A: No.

Q: Okay, but suppose...

A: Even then, no.

TheFrood

Re:Document summary

[rainmanjag]

Quite simple.

The secondary element to this whole clusterfuck is that SCO is threatening to sue individual businesses and individual distributors of Linux unless they pay SCO licensing fees. If Linux is covered under the GPL, then SCO cannot legally force anybody to pay them license fees. It's against the GPL.

However, if the GPL is a legally invalid license, then SCO is released from that restraint. They can go to whomever and invalidate a potential license-purchaser's argument of protection under the GPL and have a stronger legal threat to extort^H^H^H^H^H^Hcollect license fees.

Of course, Rosen is absolutely correct that the courts would be exceptionally unlikely to allow SCO to claim damages from individual users of Linux *and* from IBM.

Disclaimer: IANAL

-jag

Re:Document summary

[DaveAtFraud]

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.

Re:Document summary

[eric76]

It appears that they even want you to pay licensing fees if you're using their own Linux distribution.

By the way, there is some question of whether they can double collect damages.

If they collect from end users, can they also collect from IBM?

If they collect from IBM, can they also collect from end users?

One article that was written by a lawyer says that courts tend to take a very dim view of such double dipping.

Re:Document summary

[RickHunter]

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.

Re:Document summary

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Document summary

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I won't respond to your general view of things legal/editorial comments about the progess of the SCO vs. IBM lawsuit, but what you say here is factually incorrect (and I'm no fan of SCO). I've read all the publicly available court filings. The GPL was brought into the lawsuit in IBM's counter-claim against SCO. Yes, SCO blew a ton of public hot air about the GPL, but SCO did not formally introduce the GPL into the suit. If a claim is not formally before the court, the court has no power to settle it. And IBM was the party that filed the formal papers bringing the GPL before the court, and thus into legal scrutiny.

Re:Document summary

[darkonc]

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.

Right. But if their argument stopped here, all of the owners of original Linux code would have the right to sue SCO into the ground for violating their copyright anyways -- except that we'd have the right to sue them starting with their first distribution of Linux code.

The only way around that would be to say that anything put under the GPL was actually put into the public domain. Once it's in the public domain, SCO would be able to do anything that they want with the code -- including asking for further license fees.

On the other hand, this would also mean that -- since their code was distributed by them (with their knowledge) under the GPL license, IT would be public domain as well... and they wouldn't have any legal force behind a request for more money..

In other words, the worst case of this argument would be that all of Linux (including the SCO code) is public domain, and nobody has to pay anybody for any of it. (but SCO would be free to relicense it in the future).

SCO

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO, wow, I haven't heard about them for a long time! I was starting to wonder what happened to them.

Good Job Slashdot!

They didn't answer the real questions

[rf0]

How far up is SCO's head up their own ass?

- Normal service is now resumed -

Rus

Re:They didn't answer the real questions

[Anonymous Coward]

How far up is SCO's head up their own ass?

Far enough to recieve legal advice from yesterday's dinner.

Ugly site

[Robawesome]

Did anyone else notice that the Q&A site was poorly formatted and ugly-colored?



"SCO purports to be a respecter of intellectual property- but in fact at this time is violating no less than four IBM patents" -IBM counterclaim

So...

[grasshoppa]

..they are saying what we already knew: "SCO is full of shit".

Wouldn't that be great if a big time lawer for IBM called a huge press conference to say just that?

"Thank you all for coming today. We would like to say, in response to SCO's most recent *finger quotes* allegations, that SCO is full of shit. Thank you all for coming."

Re:So...

[Shivetya]

I still prefered the summarized version of the 46 page counter suit.... (someone posted on that thread)

ARMONK, NY - Aug. 8, 2003 -- "Dodge this."

Paranoia

[Faust7]

a Q&A paper written by noted technology law and intellectual property expert Lawrence Rosen

Boy, that gave me a nasty start.

Re:Paranoia

[GnuVince]

My reaction was quite the opposite: I thought it was Lawrence Lessig, hero of all Slashdot geeks.

Re:Paranoia

[be-fan]

Who is Lawrence Rosen? The love-child of Lawrence Lessig and Hillary Rosen.

That sound you just heard was the heads of every single slashdotter simultaniously exploding...

Q&A in Html

[ebacon]

Here:

Re:Q&A in Html

[Zigg]

Err, what Mozilla are you using? My copy of 1.4 has no trouble. Mind you, it's not pretty, but neither are any of the Google-autoconverted PDFs; this looks similar to one of those. Perfectly readable though.

SCO this, SCO that

[notque]

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.

Oooh! I don't have to read the article, I am going to guess... NO! Anyone who purchases a license from SCO is either extremely paranoid, or a moron. Granted, I would be paranoid too with the ammount of money that these lawsuits are generating.

The real question is will Al Franken defeat the "Fair and Balanced" Fox News.

Same old Same old

[Crashmarik]

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.

Re:Same old Same old

[wfberg]

Obviously, the employees at SCO read slashdot. With so much, perhaps unfounded, speculation going on at slashdot about insider trading, perhaps it's a good time to point out to our SCO readership the Insider Trading Bounty program. If there are any transactions going on by insiders that isn't listed here or here, the SEC, and slashdot, would like to know!

Re:Same old Same old

[Thumb-One]

Of course, were I a SCO insider that also read Slashdot, when the inevitable investigations came, I would have a response ready:

"It wasn't insider trading! I sold because it was common knowledge that we were fscked; hell, I read it on Slashdot fuhchrissakes."

why would a user pay for the seller's crimes?

[sirshannon]

if I bought a copy of Red Hat and it contained illegal code, there is no way I would even begin to consider paying SCO for the illegal code. Either Red Hat would pay SCO or Red Hat would refund my money and I would stop using the product.

Re:why would a user pay for the seller's crimes?

[Fluid Truth]

And if I just downloaded the kernel from kernel.org? What then? There's no money to refund and no company who would pay SCO for the illegal code.

Not that I think their claims have any merit, anyway...

PDF v.s. HTML

[thenextpresident]

Let's see, they offer a PDF version and an HTML version. Hrm? I know! This is Slashdot, and we have to try and bring them down. Rather than link to the HTML version, let's link to the PDF version. I mean seriously, HTML is so not the prefered format for reading things on web sites.

SCO?

[Biomechanoid]

SCO? Whats a SCO? Is that Danish? I noticed a couple of other people talk about a SCO also on slashdot.

Re:SCO?

[molarmass192]

I think it's an abbreviation for SCOW which is a Dutch (not Danish) word for the common trash barge. In slang I think it would be referred to as "a floating pile of sh*t".

Re:SCO?

[Xeth]

I know! I feel so betrayed, the slashdot editors have failed badly in their attempts to bring news of this "SCO" pastry to their loyal readerships. Perhaps if they had posted stories now and again...

Call to linux developers

[ciroknight]

I know this is a difficult request.. but could someone PLEASE start a project to replace what ever code SCO claims to have copyright over? And start NOW instead of after SCO wins or loses? This way half way through the case, SCO will lose plainly because they couldn't even claim they had hold in the kernel at all....

This is made difficult by the fact that SCO refuses to tell anyone what code actually is "theirs" in the kernel, other than it has to deal with computers with more than one processor.. I'm just getting sick and tired of hearing SCO's lawyers and execs and everyone else flaming because they can't figure out who really owns the code.... It's disgusting really. Please help :-)

Re:Call to linux developers

[plierhead]

could someone PLEASE start a project to replace what ever code SCO claims to have copyright over ?

Actually I claim ownership over the whole of linux myself - I wrote most of it in my spare time using notepad on the computer here in my cube at Walmart's admin offices. Oh yeah, and some of it I wrote on my palm pilot on the bus on the way to work..

Why are you panicking? Life is full of people who act like bullies. Usually they get whats coming to them. The key here is to draw SCO so far into this that they overstretch themselves, go belly up and take their shareholders down with them.

SCO

[cluge]

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

Outstanding achievement

[Timesprout]

He points out that SCO has a long long shaft up its ass

Finally legalese I can understand

The Current SCO Situation...via the medium of song

[Gourou]

The Current SCO Situation...via the medium of song

Please mirror and spread if you agree with the sentiment (if not the singing :-)

The Asshat Song [2.73MB MP3]

To the tune of You're So Vain by Carly Simon ;-)

Troll Alert

[Lochin Rabbar]

The original link, second paragraph, states:

He points out that SCO has a long way to go before it can assert broad intellectual property claims against an operating system that was written by thousands of open source programmers worldwide.

In the so called repost this changes to:

He points out that SCO has a long long shaft up its ass before it can assert broad intellectual property claims against an operating system that was written by thousands of open source programmers worldwide.

Come on folks! Stop modding up these trolls.

Should I pay for a SCO license

[zakezuke]

I'm probally one of the few people that have a Caldera distro. It was given to me freely as a promo. I thought cool, I can see what this is all about. I installed it on a 486sx laptop, in fact it was one of the few distrobutions that wouldn't crash due to the absence of a mathco. It's just a glorified network terminal. I know I could have recompiled the kernel to take this into account, but I'm lazy and I was given something that works.

The way I see it, Caldera gave it to me for free. They didn't have to, but they did choose to. If they wanted money they should have asked for it. Any code, propriorty or not, was given to me freely.

Because it was made clear on the CD I was sent in the mail I could make unlimited copies of it... SCO is NOT going to get any money from me.

Anagrams of "Santa Cruz Operation" (SCO)

[Alien Being]

sue a corp, anoint tzar
ran crap zoo, sue titan
i can root azure pants
rapacious, not zen art
can't earn it, zap our os
ip rat unto an os craze

- a post one czar in a rut

Not written for us

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the Q&A and it doesn't seem like it's written for us, the poeple that understand what is truely going on.

But, it is written for all the bosses out there that are scared with what is going on. My boss is worried about this whole thing because of a major prodoct that we are releasing that will run on a Linux server. He is concerned that if SCO wins, can we still use Linux.

I for one am going to be sending him this Q&A.

Like I said, we all understand that SCO is full of crap, but our bosses don't.

Boycott SCO

[stealthkaz]

Ok, SCO wants to take it to court. They believe the power of the GNU & Linux projects are in the terms of the License agreement. What they do not understand is that the power of Opensource is in the people commited to opensource. Law exists to serve the populous, and maintain fairness. If SCO wants to challenge the fairness of what we (opensource supporters) have determined to be fair, then lets challenge back. Please visit Bapudi.com and post to the bulletin board in support of boycotting SCO. After we collect your posts, we will mail out our boycot postings to remind SCO that challenging the ideals of opensource is more than just detrimental to opensource, it will be suicide for thier business.

An Allegory: The SCO Poker Game

[Gourou]

It's a saloon in the wild west.
There's a poker game on. Texas Hold 'Em.
There's five cards on the table.
The first player is from Utah.

He says "I got Ace High. I win the hand."
The second player. They call him the Finn.
He's got lots of friends, says "Show me your cards then."
Utah says "No, just hand over your cash. You don't need to see my cards."

Then the third player, Bluebeard pipes up: "Well I got a flush. So I beat ya anyway."
Utah says "Show me *your* cards then."
Bluebeard replies "Nope. I'm gonna wait to see your lame ass ace."
Utah smiles nervously "Did I say ace high? I meant four aces. Yeah. Four aces."

Now the silent fourth player, Berkeley pipes up
"Well I got a Royal Flush and I've had it since the flop."
But Utah has turned to Joe at the bar and says
"Well, you owe me $32 for this game."
Joe looks puzzled "But I ain't even playing the game."

Utah gets a mean look now and starts sweating.
He pulls his guns and shouts "Look, just give me your money now. No questions. I MEAN IT!"
Suddenly Utah is surround by a whole boatload of guns.

There's Joe Public, he has no guns, but good fists,
Linus the Finn and his friends have guns, but they rarely use them,
they're rumoured to be really quick on the draw.
Berkeley is calmest of all, he's won a gunfight just like this one already.

Finally Utah turns to Bluebeard. He has a shotgun.
Bluebeard smiles, and pulls the trigger.
And that's the legend of how old SCO died.

SCO's bulletproof action plan:

[rice_burners_suck]

For immediate release:

Scam Con & Overcharge (NAZDAC: SCO) today announced a barrage of new lawsuits against users of pornography processing software called Linux. A proprietary IBM product, Linux allegedly violates SCO intellectual property. This new development comes on the heels of another SCO lawsuit against God for denying immortality to SCO CEO Darl McBurglary.

"Women and young children are viewing cartoon images of NAKED penguins!" shouted McBurglary, throwing his coffee mug across the room during an interview. "It's disgusting! And besides, it contains OUR intellectual property! It's a conspiracy! And everybody's in on it!!!"

When asked which SCO intellectual property was found in Linux, McBurglary commented, "IBM invented, developed, trademarked, copyrighted and patented certain technologies. Therefore, they are infringing on OUR intellectual property rights!"

SCO spokespersons refused to specify what constitutes the allegedly infringing properties. McBurglary had to be escorted back to his home at the looney bin by two big black guys in pinstriped suits. "Die, fucker, die!!" he yelled at some child walking down the street with a stuffed penguin doll. (I know we're only joking, but with SCO, it could happen!)

Re:Boycott Canopy Group

[walterbyrd]

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.

---
salesinfo@altiris.com
help@customercare.av enueme.com
support@culturegrams.com
sales@center 7.com
sales@cerberian.com
sales@cogitoinc.com
s ales@communitect.com
yslew@datacrystal.com
info@ devicelogics.com
info@directpointe.com
info@fatp ipeinc.com
info@geolux.com
sales@helius.com
inf o@homepipeline.com
sales@iArchives.com
sales@ind ustrialtrainingzone.com
brutledge@linuxnetworx.co m
tyler@luxul.net,
sales@maxstream.net,
jclary@ mi-corporation.com,
info@mti.com,
pr@myfamilyinc .com,
info@perimeterdata.com,
ProTools@SaberToot hTools.com,
ronastarns@aztecenterprises.com,
sal es@caldera.com,
info@trolltech.com
info@tuglet.c om
sales@viawest.net
Sales@wrenchead.com
---
B oycotting all companies affiliated with SCO/Canopy

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.

OSDL Attorney Declares SCO Invalid

[cnb]

... would have made a nice headline coming
right after "SCO attorney declares GPL invalid"

What Is A Shame...

[vigilology]

...is that when this is all over, all we will remember is that 'SCO were a bunch of scumbags'. Nobody'll say, 'Misters Such And Such formerly from SCO are a bunch of scumbags'. They'd virtually get off scott free as far as their reputation with the general (Slashdot) goes. They could set up a new company that does something that gets a headline and we're all full of praise, without even knowing it's the same people.

Conectiva Linux Position

[yajacuk]

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.

I hereby nominate

[pair-a-noyd]

the goatse "person" to replace the /. SCO logo. Tubgirl is first runnerup.

Free Legal Research

[Goyuix]

As I am a big subscriber to conspiracy theory, I have to admit that it seems awefully nice of the community to continue to point out the strong and weak points of the whole SCO mess. What firm wouldn't kill to be able to cruise along with a bit of PR each day to fuel the fire and get people to view the story from a thousand different angles - making it that much easier to plug those holes and stand in court....

Not that SCO has much of chance, it just seems intersting that pretty much everyone who is anyone (including myself now) has had to drop their two cents in the bucket regarding the case.

CEO of RIAAA

[gibodean]

Answering my own post after a google search.

Her name is Hilary Rosen (one "l" in Hilary)

She is the president and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, which is the long arm of the law for major record labels.

Anyone notice this??

[pair-a-noyd]

On the bottom of the CBS market watch page a few
interesting links?? (see below)

Coincidence??? Or prophecy?????

Sponsored Matches
(What are Sponsor Matches?)

Avoid Bankruptcy - Learn to Manage Your Money! Free Credit Counseling Services & More

Bankruptcy Alternative - Savings to 70% on Credit Card Debt on $20,000 up: Call 866-7xx-xxxx

"I Filed Bankruptcy" - Read my story and see what it is really like before you file

Patents and other IP claims

[Anonymous Coward]

ianal But I am surprised the articles don't say more about IBM's counterclaims for patent infringement. Patents are the legally strongest form of IP. It doesn't matter if SCO has a trade secret, a copyright, or a registered copyright: if IBM's patent claims are upheld, then SCO's products are infringing, and cannot be legally produced or distributed by anyone without permission from IBM. This leaves SCO with an illegal product, so their claims against big blue become moot.

Meanwhile, SCO has conveniently stated they value each infringing article at $1398 US. IBM is seeking treble damages for deliberate and malicious infringement, so that comes to $4194 US per copy. SCO also stated that a product without the infringing technology is useless, "the equivalant of a bicycle". That certainly helps IBM justify large damaages for infringement!

So what may become of this? If IBM prevails on their patent claims, SCO faces check-mate. Their best hope would be to settle, on IBM's terms. Based on previous results, these terms would likely include:

SCO agrees to drop all claims against IBM

SCO agrees that those claims had no foundation in fact

SCO agrees that IBM has a perpetual, irrevokable right to use and distribute aix, linux, etc.

SCO does all this as partial compensation for delinquent patent royalties

In addition to paying a large cash settlement

In other words, SCO surrenders.

If you get a SCO invoice: Claim Mailfraud

[bstadil]

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.

Finished the DRDOS lawsuit, need something to do?

[Peter Greenwood]

Caldera (back when SCO were called that) bought Digital Research, apparently just to get the right to sue MS over DRDOS.

3 months ago this was wound up. I suppose SCO's lawyers need to keep looking busy. Or maybe there's something more sinister going on, since this is Slashdot?

Doesn't completely answer indemnity problems...

[mjh]

This guy doesn't completely answer the indemnity problems that arise from the SCO lawsuit. Yes, it doesn't look like users are going to be in trouble from SCO, even if SCO wins this thing. But that doesn't totally answer the question.

If you're a big company, say Citibank, and you're considering whether or not to use Linux, or ANY open source or free software for that matter, (including sendmail, bind, etc), you have to consider what the risk is that someone has slipped code into the software that is under intellectual property restrictions. Take, for example, a patent. Suppose someone puts a challenge response antispam system into sendmail. Right or wrong, mailblocks claims to own the patent on that type of system. Mailblocks is not a party to the agreement between sendmail.org and Citibank, and they see that Citibank is infringing on their patent without a license. Mailblocks can sue Citibank for patent infringement, and Citibank doesn't have anyone to go to in order to complain because there is no indemnification provided by the license to use sendmail.

The indemnification problem is NOT specific to the SCO case. But looking at the case points out that there is a general problem. It means that anyone who uses free/open-source software has to consider the additional risk of potentially getting sued into oblivion by some unknown 3rd party with a patent portfolio.

And before you think I'm making this up, read this.

I don't have an answer for this, short getting rid of software patents. Some please tell me there's another way to see this.

Re:Doesn't completely answer indemnity problems...

[hotair]

So how is this different from a typical commercial software license? I notice that the License that SCO recently published excludes indemnification against the incidental inclusion of IP they don't own, even in the code that they claim is all theirs. I don't think this is unusual. Nor is it unusual for the software to come with a statement that it isn't warranted to do *anything* at all useful and a warning that it may do something harmful. The only obvious risk to the vendor is that you might stop buying.

Re:Doesn't completely answer indemnity problems...

[mjh]

Well, you have to ask the question of whether or not it's an individual you're talking about or a corporation. The typical individual user does not get indemnification from commercial or free software providers because they don't really need it. But, Dell, on the other hand, almost certainly has indemnification from Microsoft. So if I have a patent portfolio that I'm looking at, and I see hotair, mjh, and Dell in my radar screen of infringers, who am I going to sue? Dell gets the nod. And Dell knows this, so they expect an indemnification from Microsoft who almost certainly provides it. Same thing goes for large corporate customers (e.g. Citibank, etc).

But with opensource/free software, there's no one who provides this indemnification. Not for individuals and not for large corporations. For individuals this isn't a problem because it isn't necessary. But for Citibank it is a problem. And really, it's incredibly risky for someone like IBM or RedHat to actually provide such indemnification. While being part of the development process for Linux, they aren't in complete control of what does and doesn't get into the code. Consequenlty, it's very difficult for them to provide such indemnification without potentially risking a huge portion of their business.

Now, if Citibank (et al) are doing their job, this risk is simply part of the risk analysis that should go into any decision. On the one hand, you have the risk of misappropriated IP being incorporated into opensource or free software which you use and could cause you extra liability. On the other hand, you've got the upfront and long term additional costs from using proprietary software. Many companies will still choose to engage the risk with opensource/free software. But the risk is there, and so far I haven't heard any good strategies for mitigating it. Consequently, our only answer at this point is, when we try to convince corporate customers who are considering switching, is that it's a risk that they have to accept. Some will. Some won't. It'd be better if we had something that we could answer which would mitigate the risk. But I can't think of anything.

SCO-Linux EZ registration kit!

[pair-a-noyd]

Due to all the confusion about licensing and registration of your Linux package,
we good folks at Blackbag Opz have completed work on an all new registration kit for the confused.

Just run *this* easy to use SCO Registration Kit,
fill in the blanks, check "Number of Cycles, Infinite" and press the SEND button.

Sit back and wait while your SCO-Linux EZ registration kit does the hard work for you!

And sleep well tonight knowing that SCO got your message!

Already Started

[Little Brother]

In fact they started before Linux was started. This replacement contains no code in common with the Linux kernel and thus cannot have any of the code that was entered illegaly into the Linux kernel. So ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you linux-free linux!

Now I wait for Stallman to put a price on my head for not only calling the Hurd Linux, but also for not calling it GNU/Hurd and GNU/Linux. :)

Intel Skips SCO Forum Only HP left

[bstadil]

Intel skips SCOForum sponsorship

Let me suggest you all email HP

Mod parent up!

[ultrabot]

Really, some pressure should be applied on HP. Are they indeed so clueless how much PR damage this is going to cause HP, as opposed to the positive PR they would get by loudly dropping out their sponsorship?

It appears that in the end, IBM is the only HW manufacturer worth supporting.

even IF code was leaked...

[wrathcretin]

I don't think the paper addressed the question that if in fact SCO's proprietary code got into Linux, how that necessarily means IBM did it. Wouldn't there have to be evidence shown in the form of SCO source code vs IBM contributed source code, belonging to SCO, as being the same? Even then, it would only take about a few weeks before SCO published the specific code, already in Linux and fixes were made to exclude the code...invalidating the whole concept of a license. Its not a fine for using linux, its a license of SCO's proprietary code. Next: Does SCO have the right to sell licenses to code they may not own? Through their own propaganda, they think so...if this is the case and we all flock to buy SCO licenses, could we file a class action suit against SCO for our money back because SCO never owned the code? I could imagine my ass getting sued if i sold the rights to the rolling stones catalogue to some gulliable moron...

Because they have not proof

[screenrc]

Simple. They every few days they have to
issue a press release to keep the soap opera
going. It is quite typical of them to outdo
their previous nonsense with even greater nonsense.
And if this shift the talk away from the main
issue, which is PROOF, then it is a good strategy.

These people have to show us proof before they
are allowed to open their mouth again.

One things for sure

[maroberts]

..anyone claiming long Linux uptimes in the Eastern US is almost certainly a liar or a survivalist!! :-)

Re:Boycott Canopy Group

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

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. ...
info@trolltech.com ...


Whoa...what's Trolltech (the makers of Qt) doing there? I can't believe that Trolltech would want to be associated with SCO in any way.

Hmmm, just found this:
Myth: Trolltech is owned by Canopy Group which is the owner of SCO.

DARLMCBRIDE.COM

[joostje]

seems his vanity-domain has an interesting take on the whole story.

unknowingly!?

[minkwe]

SCO claims that they did not knowingly distribute their IP under the
GPL so they are not bound by it?

Now check these links from SCO's own website:

SCO releases OpenLinux 4 for Itanium
Date April 15,2003, 1 month after filing the suit against IBM. SCO
releases OpenLinux 4.0 for Itanium. Remember what SCO's amended
complaint states as their claims (NUMA,RCU,SMP,JFS).

Product Features
The product features of OpenLinux Server for itanium, released on April
14,2003, advertise JFS,SMP as enterprise features of the new version.

"Journaling file systems add a higher level of reliability and
faster recovery time. JFS, ReiserFS, XFS and Ext3 journaling
file systems are included with SCO Linux Server."

Core Technology whitepaper for OpenLinux 4.0 32bit
This document is the core technology white-paper for SCO Linux 4 32-bit
version released in December 2002. Under features for business on the
second page, the document advertises NUMA,O(1) scheduler, SMP, JFS as
enterprise features for business for OpenLinux 4.0

"Linux 2.4.19 Kernel The core of SCO Linux Server 4.0 is the
2.4.19 Linux kernel. New features include broadened USB
support, Logical Volume Manager, improved journaling file
system support, POSIX-ACLS, new O(1) scheduler (improves
SMP support), Asynchronous I/O, Enterprise Volume
Management System (EVMS), PCI Hot Plug Support on
supported hardware, NUMA support, and many other
performance enhancing capabilities."

"Journaling File System Journaling file systems add a higher
level of reliability and faster recovery time. JFS, ReiserFS,
XFS and Ext3 journaling file systems are included with SCO Linux
Server. Each of these file systems has been tested and optimized
for the best performance and stability."

Thus even if NUMA,RCU,SMP,JFS are derivative works of SysV ( a long
shot) they are now legally GPL'ed. IANAL but their lawyers may have
realized this and that is why they are trying to fight against the GPL.
That is their only chance (no matter how slim) of winning anything in
this saga.

Double Dipping.

[SnarfQuest]

According to the article, it is illegal for SCO to extort money from both IBM and from the individual users.

If even one individual user has bought the SCO license, wouldn't that force SCO to have to sue individual users and drop the IBM suit, or fall into trouble with these double dipping laws?

Re:SCO is not in danger

[raju1kabir]

SCO management dumped their stock

Yup. I'd say they did okay for a few months' fudding. Significant sales since June:

• Reginald Broughton, SVP: $853,200.

• Jeff Hunsaker, VP: $300,000.

• Robert Bench, CFO: $153,300.

• Michael Wilson, SVP: $136,920.

• Michael Olson, VP: $86,000.