Slashdot Mirror
SCO Prepares To Sue Linux End Users
Bootsy Collins writes "In a brief article,
Computer Business Review Online quotes Darl McBride as saying that SCO has been busily identifying Linux end users and is
preparing to launch lawsuits against them in order to encourage more such end users to buy licenses from SCO. SCO indicates that they'll start with a company that uses AIX, Dynix and Linux, so as to 'settle several legal arguments in one go.'" Not everyone is going to take the SCO approach sitting down; read on for a story on how (among others) Weta Digital and Australia's Massey University aren't jumping to say Uncle to SCO. Update: 08/20 13:11 GMT by T : Oops! Massey University is in New Zealand, not Australia.
Chris Brewer writes "Massey University's Helix supercomputer would incur a licensing charge of nearly US$100,000 for it's 132 CPU Beowulf cluster, and Weta Digital's render farm could cost somewhere between US$1.15 and US$1.5 million dollars at SCO's 'introductory' pricing, according to this Computerworld article. Massey's parallel computing director says it's unlikely that they'll buy a licence, instead, waiting for what the U.S. Courts decide. Weta's CTO Scott Houston says that they're also not going to buy a licence, but are focusing on making movies in the meantime."
Linus once asked SCO: "Does Linux have the SCO-nature?"
SCO answered: "There is no Linux, only SCO."
I could care less, but not without a lobotomy
Lets see... morning coffee... morning donut... morning SCO story...
the day can start now!
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
SCO to World: Fuck you.
If you look at what SCO has done since the start of this debacle you really have to question the method and means. They started by saying that the open source community wasn't good enough to produce Linux, they have now gone on to openly attack the GPL Itself.
We shouldn't be worrying about the gritty details of what they are doing at treat this as what it is. SCO has declared war on the foundations of the open source community and we should be responding appropriately.
If they are claiming the GPL is invalid, the copyright holders of relevant software should be sending them personal letters telling them they are denied use of gcc, samba, apache, perl and all the other mainstays of modern computing that are released under the GPL. I'm not suggesting engaging in any illegal activity but what is kneaded here is attack rather than passive defence. Obviously the RedHat suit is a pretty good thing. The IBM counter suit I'm not sure about, there patent portfolio is a weapon that could just as easily be turned on us.
Just imagine Beofulf cluster of Darl McBrides.. That, would be a twist.
Dephine URL
So why are you hiding as an AC poster? Almost sounds like you work for SCO
Can this thing just end already? When is the US Government, or a federal judge/court system actually going to step in? This just keeps getting more and more rediculous.
Don't Tread on Me
they'll start with a company that uses AIX, Dynix and Linux
omg! they'll sue IBM again!
Is enought of fiaSCO today.
...from a Prestigious NON-ACCREDITED University.
Until SCO gets squashed, they'll be working so many actions at once, they'll hire any lawyer with a pulse. They'll be lucky if the IBM suit isn't argued by paralegals.
Or maybe they'll just outsource the whole thing to India.
Massey University is in New Zealand. And New Zealand is not a State of Australia (yet?). Perhaps we can brush up on our geography skills...
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
You're like the knight in Holy Grail and my biggest wish at the moment is to see SCO cut up limb by limb.
So, here's to SCO: Read my lips and
FUCK OFF
I guess their scare tactics worked on you then. "Better do what I'm told or I'll be punished" eh? This is the attitude that has served many a tyrant. You can always trust the ignorant to be timid.
Cease and Desist... or give us money.
Talk about running before you can walk, these jokers haven't proved a thing in any one of 1,000 law cases they're now involved in, they're a joke, I'd love to find out just how much they're going to be paying in legal fees after all this is cleared up.
If they continue on I wouldn't be surprised if this is what pulls the company under.
Comment: Yes I realise the username 'fuckfuck101' makes me sound intelligent, no you cannot buy it from me.
You'll need every bit you can get after taking this step. What exactly do you hope to accomplish with your childish bullying, mass capitulation to your preposterous demands?
Linux users: give SCO the united finger. They deserve worse, but we don't have to stoop to their lowly depths.
That is all I have to say.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
You know, I thought their stock price was getting a little low.
They're making IBM's case for them.
When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
Darl McBride as saying that SCO has been busily identifying Linux end users and is preparing to launch lawsuits against them in order to encourage more such end users to buy licenses from SCO
Encourage? Sounds like a threat to me.
Israel will rip you then.
The only code they've so far shown anybody (2 snippets snapped at their show by Heisse) is from Ancient Unix and is covered by the BSD License from BSD 2.2 Onwards also released from its original 16bit Unix V5 under a BSD license by Caldera / the SCO group a couple of years back.
The license you bought, you can wipe your arse with, it's all its good for.
Economic Left/Right: -0.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
I'm proudly registered at the Linux Counter with number #150681, and I'm going show it off on my homepage.
"It is more complicated than you think" (The Eighth Networking Truth from RFC 1925)
They all wear gumboots at Massey anyway.
Has anyone ever wondered if IBM or RH weren't players here? What kind of law suit would we have? Claims for damages would not be possible since SCO would be combatting GPL alone and thus a couple of non-profit organisations.
;-)
This is a more generic question for open source software in general. What if some bug company needs to be sued?? Who does it? The developer?!
And what would the possible outcomes be? The developer wouldn't have undergone much damages, so no money there. Would it be a big fine?
World to SCO: Fuck you.
No love lost here then...
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Assuming for the moment that Linux does contian SCO copyrighted code,
I was under the impression that it was the distribution of copyrighted
materials that consituted copyright infringement, not the posession.
Is there a valid legal argument that makes users vulnerable to litigation
on the basis of copyright infringement?
*sigh* back to work...
They already got compensated for distributing cod eto linus under GPL..
both as Caldera employees and having free access to code..
What did you buy when the copyright infringment claims made identify only BSD code and code contributed by Caldera employess under GPL which nmeans the claim is entirely baseless...
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Lets play IP-Infringment Mad-Libs!
"In a brief article, {Industry} Business Review Online quotes {Figurehead} as saying that {Company} has been busily identifying {Debated IP} end users and is preparing to launch lawsuits against them in order to encourage more such end users to buy licenses from {Company}. {Company} indicates that they'll start with a company that uses {Example IP 1}, {Example IP 2} and {Example 3}, so as to 'settle several legal arguments in one go.'"
Can those who they threaten be given damages for the wilful actions of this litigious little bastard of a company?
I have a old copy of Caldera 2.2. I wonder if I can reutrn it for a full refund because of the defect. Charging more after the purchase just doesn't seem right.
Does anybody know if BSD has the same problem?
The truth shall set you free!
Please help save my soul. Contact your state attorney general and tell them you will not stand for this extortion from SCO. Contact the SEC and put in a stock price manipulation complaint against SCO. Please! Linux is the only hope for me being able to buy my soul back from Micro$oft! Help me!
Now you've done it... Kiwis have this little thing about everything from NZ being called Australian. Bit like saying Canadian's UCLA....
... why SCO can even sue Linux users at this point? I mean, don't they have to actually WAIT for the court decision vs. IBM to come through before suing the users? They're basically saying "following the court decision in our favor in the case of SCO vs IBM that went to court in 2005, you owe us money". Do they have a time travel section in addition to their litigation one?
Christ, have them stop already. They haven't even been to court yet and are acting as if they won. I wonder how the courts will react to these legal proceeding against the users on the basis of a pending legal case.
A different lawyer joke, for a bit of variety
I can just see the next action in Darl McBride's plan: "Kill Napster's dead body - again".
Or perhaps they're working on a virus that kills off copies of Linux that haven't paid for a SCO license. They would have released it already, but every time they tested it in the lab, it killed all their own computers.
Of course, we'll all enjoy it when Steve Jobs starts revolutionizing open source by selling SCO Linux for 99 cents a copy.
I think this action of SCO is smart. Smart from SCO's standpoint. I hate the company, just to make it clear.
By going after the end users they can create clarity in the courts because the end users probably won't put up a defence like IBM or RedHat would. They simply wouldn't be able to afford the legal bill. So by going after these small time offenders first they can set precidence in the courts that would be harder (and take longer) to reverse when Redhat and IBM step up to the plate.
Luckly i am not in the position to be targetted by SCO. First off because i live an ocean away. If i were targetted by them however, thinking im a smaller than fortune500 company, i would probably be very tempted to pay up. I would however demand a addition to the license that would warrent me a refund if on a later date SCO was proven wrong in their statements.
A small company would go bankrupt before they could take on SCO. Is it time for the EFF to step up to the plate for us all? Possible defend the first company being sued by SCO? I would pay for that to happen. I would pay most certainly.
Real programmers don't document.
It was hard to write so it should be hard to understand.
I'm sorry who are you? didn't we meet at a barmitzah last year?
This would be a fine news story to show to the masses and will achieve more than any venom we could ever spill - it would show the truth.
The Brain Murderer
Wired: Are you afraid of being remembered as the man who killed open source?
... This whole process is going to make Linux and open source stronger.
McBride:
Yeah, that is clearly your goal. It's not about the money for you. No way.
Anyway, lets assume that a lot of people has filed complaints against the behaviour of SCO... then why don't we see any results of those complaints? Are the people that received the complaints all sleeping or is SCO protected from legal investigation?
Sorry for my little understanding of US law, but here in Germany SCO had to shut up quite quickly after complaints were filed, but it looks like that in the US nothing of that sort happens.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial[...]
Did you note the word speedy? How does it come that SCO can take people to court with more speed than IBM or RedHat can do with SCO?
thats going to be expensive.. and do they have enough cash to fund 10 million lawyers?
dms0
-= world leaders choose world leaders not us, not a democracy, not a revolution! =-
the GPL offers 4 freedoms
1 Freedom to use. A GPL licensed program can be used for any purpose whatsoever.
2 Freedom to copy and distribute. You are allowed to make exact copies and distribute these, in both source and binary code, as long as you grant the same right to the person you distribute it too.
3 Freedom to modify. You are allowed to modify the code in whatever way you want.
4 Freedom to copy and distribute modifications. Again, the distribution has to be in source and binary code, and it has to grant the same right to the person it is distributed to.
What you are proposing is breaking the 1st freedom; it is not because they claim the GPL is invalid that we believe so and should break it. A more valid request is IMHO the one GCC did, is to refuse to accept SCO specifics in the later (from now onwards) GCC versions. If they do want the GCC compilers, they'll have to branch them and maintain them themselves...
But I agree, a clear point should be made, they cannot expect to keep on benefiting from our efforts while at the same time attacking the fundamentals of the free and open software community. They basically declared war on us but still expect us to do work for them willingly.
Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."
I'm no lawyer and that's why I probably find this rather odd:
They haven't proved to anyone yet that they have any right to charge for licenses for the Linux kernel. Since they haven't proved yet, that any code coverd by their ownership of AT&T Unix, and not developed at Berkley as part of BSD, is in the Linux kernel. So far they have not convinced a single court. And yet they are allowed to sue people for not paying them for a license.
It's a bit like if I started suing say British Airways, trying to claim that all of the 747's they are using are in fact mine!
As I said I'm no lawyer but to me it would make sense if the courts said: OK we'll wait for you to prove your case against IBM and _then_ we'll look at your cases suing Linux end users.
... but for all the screaming that we /. crowd do about SCO being evil etc. , are we that sure that they're wrong? Am fully prepared for the incoming 'flamebait' mod, but if it turns out that somebody has actually nicked SCO code and plonked it into Linux, all of their legal actions become retroactively entirely justified and we look a bit silly :/
I don't get it. How is it going to sue linux users without showing them the code?
Companies that have been sued by SCO have bought their products from Red Hat or similar companies. This means, the responsibility actually falls on Red Hat and SuSe etc.
In essence SCO is suing Red Hat etc.
But Red Hat and SuSe are already suing SCO, and so is IBM.
This means the companies, users using linux aree insulated because their case will not proceed until the above cases are solved.
That means SCO can kiss my ass.
Bush is on fire and its not good for my lungs.
This story in the boston globe shows how when even the mainstream media pick up the gist of an isssue they don't get it right. They completely missed the fact the code is licensed under BSD and has twice been granted that license.
I really want to see how SCO is going to sue end users without disclosing the code.
No your honor, To the best of my knowledge, I am not in possession of SCO's intellectual property. Yes, I realize that they state that I am, but they refuse to show me what exactly is their property. All they have shown is code snippets which are pubically available on the internet under a BSD license.
Yeah, makes me REALLY trust them . . .
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
My understanding is that it doesnt matter what the code is itself, but rather, the concept used to implement SMP.
If that is the case, you can rewrite it a hundred times but if it operates under a standard principle that SCO claims ownership of then the effort is wasted.
SCO has three groups working on identifying and approaching Linux users. The first is drawing up the list, the second will send out letters offering the chance to license the code SCO says has been copied into Linux, and the third will take legal action against those who refuse.
I seem to hear the sound of baseball bats hitting knees in the background.
Oh wait, that's now the daily SCO press release.
I'm not usually inclined to make "correct your spelling" posts on Slashdot, but I'm making an exception here. Your otherwise well written post combined with your humorous misuse of "kneaded" makes me think you actually intended to use "kneaded" here rather than "needed". You *need* a soda. You don't *knead* a soda... well, you might, but it would be just as odd as the usage in your post.
Imagine if every Linux user in the world did what that one guy did, and sent them their agreement with $699.00 in Monopoly money. I say, "Flood'em" with license agreements and Monopoly money.
The company has signed one large customer up to its Intellectual Property License for Linux. [...] "Instead of doing mass-mailings we're now taking a very targeted approach," [Darl McBride] said.
Yes, Darl, Microsoft has let you re-announce that they gave you $10 for a license, and yes, we know that everybody else has ignored you. Do you have any actual news, or are you still just trying to spin your past ineptitude into shinola again?
We need a sweepstake on when he's going to (illegally) dump his stock and head to Brazil for a face change. I'm guessing it'll be the day before they actually hit a court with this farce.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Um, excuse me SCO, but what if I just remove "your" code from my kernel and recompile? What if I've already engineered my own replacement?
IANAL, but it seems to me that anyone who gets sued by SCO could just demand to see the evidence of infringement, and then pay a college student to rewrite those portions of the kernel. After that SCO would have no case.
Quite frankly, they can sue all they want. If it ever comes to them suing me, I need do little more than demand evidence of infringement, and show up in court with my new source tree for my "modified" linux kernel.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
It still smells like bovine patties steaming in the morning sun.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
If they are claiming the GPL is invalid, the copyright holders of relevant software should be sending them personal letters telling them they are denied use of gcc, samba, apache, perl and all the other mainstays of modern computing that are released under the GPL. I'm not suggesting engaging in any illegal activity but what is kneaded here is attack rather than passive defence. Obviously the RedHat suit is a pretty good thing. The IBM counter suit I'm not sure about, there patent portfolio is a weapon that could just as easily be turned on us.
Ehm, you do know Apache is not released under the GPL? Even if it were, this would be a very, very bad idea. One of the points of free software is that everyone can use it, and touching that principle means tearing apart the very foundations of the community you're trying to defend. Unless what you're trying to defend is a community in which geeks only want to be able to play with source files, in which case I believe that community deserves to die.
$6,990,000 USD.
Assuming:
- They still only have 10,000 boxes
- Those boxes are running Kernel >= 2.4
"The thing about Linux is, you can talk about a free, open operating system all you want, but you can't take that idea of free and open and put it into a capitalist system and maintain it as though it is some kind of hippie commune or ashram," she said in a phone interview from her home in Massachusetts. "Because if you can do it like that, at that point I'm like, 'Pass the hookah please!'" -- Salon
DiDio, you are the BEST analyst 3vah!
See also PJ's Groklaw for another set of DiDio quotes, which are hilarious when we know what code she was probably shown before uttering them. Non-programmers judging code.. *rotfl*
...because then I could charge them for criminal mail fraud.
DIE SCO, DIE!
My God! It's full of Voids!
1. SCO sues a small Linux user who doesn't have the legal muscle of IBM.
2. Boies & co show the judge thousands of lines that look identical between Sys V and Linux.
3. Judge rules that Linux illegally copied Unix source before IBM goes to trial.
4. megaprofit
Nothing like a mail fraud conviction!
Suing someone using AIX, Dynix, and Linux.
Sounds like they're going to try to use a contrived example to try to scare other users, whose cases are not as related to SCO's claims as SCO would like them to think.
I'm betting the details of their first lawsuit will center more around SCO's claim to have revoked IBM's license for UNIX that lets them make and sell AIX. They'll naturally try to make it LOOK like a general Linux copyright issue to the media, since they know some percentage of the masses won't be smart enough, or thorough enough, to detect the difference.
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
---Letter Ripped off of Linux Today---
:
Over the past few months, the SCO (Santa Cruz Operation) Corporation (formerly Caldera International, Inc. a Linux distribution vendor) has been complaining about violations of its Copyright works by the Linux kernel code.
Recently, Darl McBride, the Chief Executive Officer of SCO has been making pejorative statements regarding the license used by the Linux kernel, the GNU GPL. In a keynote speech he recently said
"At the end of the day, the GPL is not about making software free; it's about destroying value."
In light of this it is the depths of hypocrisy that at the same event SCO also announced the incorporation of the Samba3 release into their latest OpenServer product. Samba is an Open Source/Free Software project that allows Linux and UNIX servers to interoperate with Microsoft Windows clients. The reason for this is clear; Samba3 allows Linux and UNIX servers to replace Microsoft Windows NT Domain Controllers and will add great value to any Operating System which includes it. However, Samba is also developed and distributed under the GNU GPL license, in exactly the same manner as the Linux kernel code that SCO has been criticizing for its lack of care in ownership attribution.
We observe that SCO is both attacking the GPL on the one hand and benefiting from the GPL on the other hand. SCO can't have it both ways. SCO has a clear choice: either pledge not to use any Open Source/Free Software in any of their products, or actively participate in the Open Source/Free Software movement and reap the benefits. For SCO to continue to use Open Source/Free Software while attacking others for using it is the epitome of hypocrisy.
The strength of Open Source/Free Software is that it is available to all without restrictions on fields of endeavor, as the Samba Team believes the ability to freely use, modify and learn from software code is one of the grounding principles of computer science, and a basic freedom for all.
Because of this, we believe that the Samba must remain true to our principles and be freely available to use even in ways we personally disapprove of.
Even when used by rank hypocrites like SCO.
Jeremy Allison,
Marc Kaplan,
Andrew Bartlett,
Christopher R. Hertel,
Jerry Carter,
Jean Francois Micouleau,
Paul Green,
Rafal Szczesniak.
Samba Team.
... shouldn't be that difficult: http://counter.li.org/
;-)
As the lawsuit is doomed anyway, let's help where we can!
...slashdot will always serve you to spread your FUD.
Slashdot & SCO
working together since 2002
Can someone please do something, like get an injunction against them or *something*?! I don't know crap all about US law (or really any other countries laws), but there got to be *SOME* way the courts can *quickly* stop SCO from charging license fee for software that hasn't even been proven to be theirs yet!
How does the law expcet a regular "user" to stand up to a company like this in a lawsuit? Its next-to-impossible.
If one user is forced into paying the license fee, because they are not able to fight SCO in court, does that form a precedent, which could make it easier to win any/all other lawsuits SCO currently has going on for or against them?
Massey University == massey.ac.NZ
:P
not massey.edu.au
NEW ZEALAND
like WETA DIGITAL
OMG!
You mixed up Canadians!!
me too...PLEASE!
Me and my lawyer cant wait to line up with all the other LinuxUsers to sue SCO off the face of this planet forever...
Grrr...this make me sooo angry...
I actually went to the DOJ site and sent a message about this. Itg seems to me like SCO wants to be the new Sopranos, using extorsion as their weapon. The address is AskDOJ@usdoj.gov. Maybe if many messages were received by them, the DOJ could take a look at this issue.
First, their lawsuit against IBM has to be successful, and then they have to prove that it constitutes more than just breach of contract, ie. copyright infringement.
Until they do that, they have no grounds to go after Linux users. The fact that they are pursuing users of Linux right now should be a heads up to the FTC and SEC.
These bastards belong in jail...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Rackateering, extortion....Mea culpa, Godfather!
The important word there being 'preparing'. Like they're 'preparing' to audit AIX customers, sue AIX customers, sue Linus Torvalds, raise holy Jihad against the GPL... (continues) They've had months to carry this out, yet their STILL preparing to do so? Yeah, right! Looks like their just trying raise FUD to get their stocks out of a proverbial downard spiral, as seen for the last couple of days.
I'll belive it when I see it!
Everyone is waiting for IBM to deal the killing blow to SCO but IBM is a company with its own interest foremost and its own agenda.
Now is the time that the Open Source community needs to defend itself on its own. This is a lightweight attack so use it as a way to organise before a heavyweight attack comes - as it is sure to do.
Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.
They'll never know i use linux. umm errr.. crap.
John Hancock
Actually the GPL does have a provision which automatically terminates the license if its provisions are not honoured.
Apache is not GPL, quite a bit of Free software is under BSD/MIT style licenses actually, but SCO has certainly terminated their own rights to use the stuff that is GPL because of that clause. It's just a matter of who has the money and time to C&D them and be ready to back it up with litigation.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
What is being stated is as follows:
:)
1. To use GPL covered software you have to agree with the GPL.
2. SCO says GPL is invalid
3. Therefore SCO cannot agree with the GPL.
4. If you disagree with the GPL you are not allowed to use the software.
5. Kernel, GCC, GNU, samba, etc all sue SCO for violation of the license and SCO goes away.
*6. ???
*7. Profit
Note: * 6 and 7 are just for a bit of karma whoring
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
Until the IBM suit is settled, anything else they do is meaningless. They just want to see how many suckers send a check. Ignore them and they'll go away.
If it's a case of implementation of SMP, then wouldn't all OS's be infringing on SCO's IP? XP uses multi-processing, OSX uses multi-processing, so would this mean they are next on the list to be hit by SCO?
Part of me hopes so. As much as I don't like a lot of the tactics used by MS and their legal team, it'd be nice to see them take SCO's foot and plant it nicely into their mouth.
Zro . two
"I come from Canada...they say I'm slow....eh?"
(IANAL, but) I have bought my Linux in "good faith", which means according to German law that I am not liable if the distributor violated any license terms (which I think is not the case). With me all other end users of Linux distros in Germany are immune to any SCO claims.
And hey, when SuSe 8.3 comes out I will buy it, although I am very satisfied with my current 8.2. Just to send a little "Fuck You" to SCO.
Signature deleted by lameness filter.
When will SCO's druglab make an IPO? Considering the potency of the drugs that SCO people seem to be smoking these days, SCO just might make a profit.
There argument is basically licence this or we will sue you. How is this different from extortion.
On the plus side the announcements are getting more and more extreme and are having almost no effect on the stock price now. Hopefully even the most desperate of the market hyenas have realised that this stock is a gamble at best.
Sontag warned users that ignoring SCO's requests to license the code in advance of a court case could be costly. "Those who have chosen to ignore the license are more in a situation of potential willful infringement," Sontag said.
How can it be willful infrigement if there hasn't been any violations proven yet? This is getting ridiculous. Germany already stopped these idiots, I can't believe nothing is being done here to stop these morons from talking so much shit!
[alk]
how will they find all the linux users? what do they do if a linux user won't pay (heh, non of them will ;-))
it's a small code afaik, why not remove it from the kernel and write a new one.
NUMA is inconsequential on the 386 architecture - applies only to other architectures.
RCU is SMP only, not significant enough to be even mentioned.
JFS is an IBM contribution to the kernel, but since we have other jfs's, it could be removed with little pain.
Ext3, OTOH, is the only item being used by your average Linux user.
The SMP code in general is not in question.
And remember, it's between SCO and IBM. Anyone else got their Linux under the GPL license distributed by RedHat, SuSE etc, and shouldn't bother with SCO (except kicking any SCO products they might have).
I'm in a Unix state of mind.
Summarizing yesterday's events that put SCO's demands of payments into perspective (for references read analysis by Bruce Perens):
On Monday at their trade show in Las Vegas, SCO showed code that they claimed was copied illegally into Linux. Many who saw the slides in Vegas were convinced of SCO's case.
However, probably unknown to and unauthorized by SCO, the German publisher Heise obtained photographs of two slides in SCO's presentation and published them yesterday.
It turned out that the code SCO showed in Vegas originated from 1973. The code has appeared in programming text books already in 70s and it has been released under BSD license several times by many parties, including SCO (then Caldera) itself last year. The code SCO showed, allegedly violating their rights, was therefore in Linux legally.
If this really was a sample of their "best evidence" then SCO and their executives are in deep trouble - considering all unsubstantiated allegations they have made, legal threats, demands of payments and stock pumping and insiders dumping.
let's see.. riaa.. sco.. mpaa.. riaa.. sco.. mpaa..
so hard to decide.
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
I suppose all they want is to get as much out of scared users and companies as they can before their scam scheme becomes bleedingly obvious to even the dumbest moron on the planet. Such legal proceedings take a lot of time, time enough to suck money out of people who fear legal actions because they can't afford them. So, SCO doesn't hope for speedy trials. They'd hope it takes a real long time, because they know perfectly well there's shitall they can prove with their forged "evidence". I concur with those people who say we should just drop the subject instead of offering them the stage to pull their evil stunt.
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
SCO won't be protecting users of GPL software it distributes either.
This is just doubletalk.
I would love to see SCO explain how their distribution of GCC, Samba or any other GPL code is any different from someone elses.
I don't think SCO has a general IP strategy. They are using open source, and fighting it at the same time.
I heard they had a Using GNU tools seminar at the same conference where they informed people about the dangers of the GPL. Maybe a corporate strategy would help them?
SCO has basically decided to take this matter to the edge of violence. While the vast majority of open source zealots are peaceful and merely annoying, how many are in the Ted Kaczynski Unabomber Club?
Emotionally unstable, socially detached, angry and brilliant people are going to start having trouble holding it together. Kaczynski didn't have the benefit of the net to get better information or gravitate towards like minds.
What if SCO/Microsoft knows this and is purposely creating an environment where a small group snaps and discredits everything about the "eccentric" hobbies of geeks?
The whole concept of doing geek stuff outside of university walls is a very young concept. Read up on the history of astronomy. Rulers and the church had no problem with what these guys were doing as long as it stayed within the walls.
If we move all knowledge back to universities, corporations will call all the shots on progress. That's exactly what will happen after the first zealots decide that "Bombs not reason" is a good name for a political action committee.
How many idiots have issued death threats against spammers? The clock is winding down.
Laws are for people with no friends.
I wish you people would stop bashing SCO! They are obviously just trying to keep up with the latest trend of giant companies suing their customers and potential customers. They are just trying to be like every other company on the block. If your friend walked down the street in a pair of the newest Nike's, wouldn't you want a pair too? This case is no different! They are just trying to gain acceptance from the RIAA, MPAA etc.
-William Brendel
Perl isn't released under the GPL. It's released under the Perl Artistic License. http://www.perl.com/language/misc/Artistic.html
They should make another south park movie, this time with all the SCO execs right beside Satan, all jolly and gay, slapping Saddam's ass.
-If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
SEC Enforcement Complaint Form
Booo!
I think I get your point, that Copyright holder's retracting their license on Samba et al. would be antethical to the ideals of the Free Software community. While this could be true, is it not also against our interests to simply lie back and take this sort of abuse without a fight?
I certainly support the right of free use, and nobody is suggesting SCO should be somehow enjoined from using old versions of Samba, Apache, etc BUT it is suicidal for us to continue giving SCO free labor which they sell to their customers to finance a lawsuit to destroy the beauty and utility of one of humanit's greatest (non-profit) community initiatives ever. Consider how amazing the Linux kernel/family of software is... It mostly exists because a few people with some spare time wanted it to. There are people involved in for-profit development on open source apps, and nobody begrudges them that success, but mainly it is a volunteer effort.
Who did what now?
AHHHH...ok, makes more sense now.
Thanks for Enlightening this Windows user.
Zro . two
"I come from Canada...they say I'm slow....eh?"
I paid them. I sent SCO $199 in Monopoly money - which I figure is worth MORE than the license they are offering.
Will I get sued, probably since they have my name and address.
Do I really care, not really. Since SCO has been showing *stolen* code (which is actually free code that was written somewhere around 1974).
SCO is a bunch of greedy dumbasses who are just out to make a buck.
At their conference they were saying how damaging the GPL and free software is, yet their latest release has over 100 OPEN SOURCE components.
HEY DUMBASSES (this means you SCO), I challenge you to release a product WITHOUT using ANY Open Source tools.
-- Windows security? Sure, which ONE would you like? -me
Lucky me, using bsd.. Guess they will come after us *bsd users soon aswell, better get ready :)
that Microsoft is really behind this anymore?
Unable to compete on technical merit, they are trying to price Linux out of the market. Uncanny when you think about it. I wonder what kind of behind the scenes sweetheart deal Darl has?
Am I missing something here?
It appears that only 2.4 kernel is effected, and nothing previous. I also heard that 2.6 is not effected.
If this is the case, and morality aside - why doesn't everybody just grab a kernel that isn't effected? Its cheaper than paying $700...
I admit that at first I was really wondering. The fact that SCO seems to be used to dirty litigation and won against MS in the past (if I remember well?) made me doubt, not about their rights, but about their nuisance capabilities.
But the more this pathetic story goes on, the more I feel like this is going to be a disaster for SCO. I am convinced that this will serve free-software. It will mark the history with the example of a big company anihilited when it tried to mess with the free-software community.
It is going to be difficult in the future for a lawyer to enter the office of the CEO saying "hey I have this great idea to get money from free-software users!"
--
Go debian!
Your memory can't be too good.
/. article published hardly more than two weeks ago,
h tm l
According to a
Red Hat set up a legal fund to deal with this kind of tactic:
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/08/04/1817247.s
If it goes to court, SCO will need to produce evidence, and that's what they're desperate to avoid. Even if they can show some flimsy but enforceable link to their IP, showing it means there'll be kernel patches the next day and they're SOL.
Was there a memo passed around the RIAA and SCO that said, "Our customers will be sued"?
Massey University's Helix supercomputer would incur a licensing charge of nearly US$100,000 for it's 132 CPU Beowulf cluster
For a while, I suppose the officials at Massey U could resort to just imagining a Beowulf cluster instead of having one.
Apache is not GPL, quite a bit of Free software is under BSD/MIT style licenses actually, but SCO has certainly terminated their own rights to use the stuff that is GPL because of that clause. It's just a matter of who has the money and time to C&D them and be ready to back it up with litigation.
Ehm, IANAL, but I don't think so. The GPL covers distribution, not use. You don't have to agree with the GPL to use software it covers, that's only necessary when you want to distribute that software or derrived works.
This should give more than enough leverage for IBM and others to slap a "cease and desist" injunction against them. Darl wanted things to move along quicker, and on this one point I agree with him. It will also encourage other organizations to step up to bat against SCO.
My rights don't need management.
Ok after yesterdays code release, which members of the community had traced and proven was not SCO IP within a matter or mints. Also showing several sources, you would think that someone would start saying, hey maybe we should wait tell SCO proves something before we even allow SCO to sue any users.
But I see this being a good thing and here is why.
SCO "I am suing u, we want one hundred billion dollars"
Me "Ok lets see a judge, hey mister judge why should I pay SCO since they have not shown they any real code proving there IP is in linux"
Judge "SCO please show me why I should make the poor linux user pay you"
SCO "because we say so"
Judge "that is not good enough, we need proof"
SCO "well if we show the code, we can't blackmail Linux and GPL"
Judge "Then you don't get paid"
SCO "Ok here is code sample"
5 min later
Judge "I have 10,000 linux users just e mail showing this is not your IP"
SCO "Um yes it is, we say it is, give us money"
Judge "Hey linux user, u are free, SCO, u are being charged with blackmailing people for money and such, move 4 spaces and go to jail"
Basically I am at the point where, I don't think SCO could prove any court case without getting themselves in more trouble or without showing the code. And when the code is releases, if it is actual IP, and hey maybe SCO had some IP added in there just for this (hey they have bitched this long, makes you think don't it). They have shown no proof, yet act as if the whole linux community should pay them cash. To be honest my 2-year-old god sun doses not cry as much as SCO. I just with the USA would wake up and do what Germany did, basically a put up or shut up stance.
Also on one last note, I wrote SCO about their linux license saying I was a contractor with many clients who where running linux stating some where wondering why they should get the license. Acted in a very professional manner and all, and All I ever got after 2 messages was a automated reply. So they well not even tell someone who is actually interested in buying the license (not really but hey they did not know that) any reason at ALL why we should pay out.
If I break the GPL on one "product" I do not have a license to distribute it and I am violating the copyright on that product and no longer have permission to distribute and modify.
This does not mean I lose my license to distribute other products also licensed under the GPL.
I'm rather tempted to send them some empty banana skins or something, just for the looks on their faces... but I'd hate to subject the postal services to the smell of rotting banana skins by the time they made their way over the atlantic (by boat, of course).
Then again, there's a small SCO office not far from where I live in England...
Miri it is whil Linux ilast...
If the end-user suits are filed then SCO has taken the fairly obscure legal issue of marginal infringement (never marginal with the expansions in copyright, No Electronic Theft, and the Sonny Bono Acts - innocent infringers simply do not exist) and found a way to snatch total defeat from a nuisance settlement.
When Polaroid (The Land Corporation) sued Kodak for instant camera/photo patent infringement and enjoined Kodak from further production of the infringing products - Land never targeted the jobbers, distributors, end-unit-sales operators or individual owners of the infringing product. They were aware that they would poison the market for their products and create a vast public backlash from such tactics.
(Yes, the analogy is flawed: the laws were different then - but the option to sue a larger group and Land's decision not to do so was a valid option that they eschewed.)
SCO is far from their progenitor the Santa Cruz Operation and their UNIX for the PC OS.
I'm not certain what SCO brings to the market today, save chaos.
Has Ken Starr signed on as chief counsel? What good result can SCO possibly expect from this tactic?
SCO cannot survive this vast expansion of their litigation without a huge (vast, impossible to predict) infusion of cash to fund the litigation. Even with unlimited funds the secondary costs will eat them alive.
Public backlash over time and costs are two things that SCO clearly has not considered properly in this litigation. So long SCO - you won't be missed any more than a broken abacus.
SCO doesn't need to prove anything to file a lawsuit, the courts decide on the validity of the lawsuit after it's filed. My feeling is that they're not even really interested in suing any end users, the return on investment is far too small. What they're really hoping for is that more end users will pony up and pay their extortion fee based on the empty threat of a lawsuit.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
...I guess our buddy Darl is going for the "it's better to burn out than to fade away" method of running one's company into the ground. (No matter how this lawsuit works out, who the fuck is ever going to want to do business with SCO afterwards?
It's not like there's any grounds for going after end-users -- they haven't even proved that there was theft of their intellectual property yet. It'll be hard for them to sue an end-user in court and say, "Well, he's using stuff that illegally contains our IP."
Joe Average end-user is never going to be able to see the SCO code or even bother to look at the Linux kernel code ("kernel? like in corn?"), and will have no basis for comparison. Furthermore, the IP onus is not on the end-user. That would be like Ford suing the owners of Nissan cars if Nissan were to happen to use a mechanical part that Ford owned the patent to, without licensing it properly.
Translation: SCOFUD.
blog |
All together now.
Given that it seems the disputed code made its way into SCO's source code from BSD, it seems like a no-brainer that BSD has the same problem.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Anyone got it?
I'm thinking a nice letter writing campaign might change his mind.
Picture this:
We all send him email with the goatse.cx guy's picture and tell him that this is what he can do with his attempts at extortion - shove it up his ass.
Anyone?
I'd say drop it in the mail but I'm thinking that this might fall under some federal anti-pr0n laws (in that you can't send pr0n to someone via USMail w/o their opting in).
So how many of you think that Microsoft is the "one Fortune 500" company to buy licenses...
It would make sense- why not give move money over to SCO to allow them to continue suing (gives them a valid reason to hand over money), and gives other companies the impression that a major company has determined the "bogus" license fees are valid. Then other companies would think, maybe we need to investigate the claims more seriously since someone already paid.
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
Centralisation is not the way to go.
Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.
"How is it going to sue linux users without showing them the code?"
Under NDA, of course!
We haven't even begun. This is the same process that we go through whenever an American company is spiraling toward bankruptcy. It goes out in a blaze of lawsuits in a desperate attempt to pad the executives' golden parachutes. Anyone remember a company called Wang? They were everywhere in the mid-1980s. The only difference is that back then, we didn't have /. chronicling the daily lunacy of profit by litigation.
The good news is that ten years hence, we will be asking, "Remember a company called SCO?" If there were justice in the USA, Darl McBride will be in a gutter, pathetically crawling in a puddle of his own vomit. Unfortunately, there is no justice.
Are they using netcraft? If so, how can we spoof our machines to make them look like another OS to Netcraft. Of course, then we'll see a 100000% increase in windows servers, and MS$ will get all giddy.
However a judge may decide it doesn't go to trial. Lawsuits in the US don't have to have solid ground to be filed. I could sue for being called splice42 if I wanted to. It'd get thrown out on account of being stupid, but I could file the papers all the same.
busily identifying Linux end users and is preparing to launch lawsuits against them
Let's see... $699. That's small claims court. As they haven't provided PROOF of anything, I'll be happy to meet them in small claims court for them to get their money. It'll cost 'em more than $699 to have their lawyer drive to the courthouse.
Bad business model.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
IANAL, so this may be rubbish. but, if the GPL is declared invalid in court, wouldn't most of the code be technically unlicensed?
And if code is unlicensed wouldn't SCO (and everyone else) be unable to use it wholly until it was relicensed formally under a different license?
So if sco win, they're guilty of using unlicensed code, if they lose, they're guilty of using unlicensed code =/
4 Freedom to copy and distribute modifications. Again, the distribution has to be in source and binary code,...
The GPL only requires that you release the source code, not binaries.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
I better remove my Linux and install a pirated copy of Windows!...
:: Andrea
Anime Wallpapers
My understanding is that it doesnt matter what the code is itself, but rather, the concept used to implement SMP.
If that is the case, you can rewrite it a hundred times but if it operates under a standard principle that SCO claims ownership of then the effort is wasted.
Only once SCO actually make their case. e.g produce a valid patent. Any idiot can claim ownership of anything they like, by itself such a claim means nothing.
Dear American Slashdotters,
I'm very annoyed with the SCO lawsuits. Now, tell me, is there any law in the US that allows the Open Source Community to sue SCO based on criminal charges? The way SCO conducts its "business" through litigation and countless allegations, as to disrupt the deployment of Linux on various scales, is a felony in my view. Shouldn't the Criminal Justice Department come into action by now?
What I think they are really hoping for is to scare people away from Linux altogether. Interesting how they want the entire license fee for something that contains a fraction of their software.
I agree that SCO has declared war, and concerned companies and individuals should respond accordingly. However, breaking open source licenses is not the best way to respond. How about we start by boycotting SCO and then boycotting any company that gives in to SCOs extortion and pays for licenses. After that, we need to continue to speak out against SCO as loudly as possible. Also, IANAL, but depending on how SCO proceeds with targetting Linux end users there may be a means of countersuit that the entire community can participate in.
If they are claiming the GPL is invalid
It seems to be worse than that. From the article, the point they keep trying to make is that "[the GPL] has forced it to take action against Linux users". McBribe states, "There's a bouncing ball that ends up in the hands of customers because of the GPL".
So the attack is basically "using GPLed soft makes you liable to the first nutcase who wants to stir up some trouble". Now I'm really starting to wonder what type of deal went down between Microsoft and SCO...
If they demand proof, inform them that they should let you know the exact line numbers within which functions so that you can send them the rewritten code. If they demand all your kernel code, tell them that your modifications are a Trade Secret, and that you are permitted only send them specific small sections of code.
IANAL, but it would seem to me to be a good defence, given that they are unwilling to reveal exactly which sections of code were supposedly stolen.
SCO and the RIAA have teamed together to created a new litigation system! For each friend using Linux or MP3s that you turn over, you get $245! For each friend they turn over, you get $243!
You may not believe me, but I got a check for $10,045! It really works! Forward this email to everyone you know and start turning in friends today!
If I had something intelligent to say, I would have said it.
If they do want the GCC compilers, they'll have to branch them and maintain them themselves
And then gcc is theirs:
SCO: Look, it's all the same. They [The GCC programmers] actually copied our branch. Even the comments!!!
Here is the best answer I know to SCO's attempt to collect license fees:
I'm afraid I can't pay your license fee as I do not use your SCO Unix product. Should I ever use your software, I will purchase it through my local SCO authorized partner.
Very Sincerely,
__________________
P.S. Your legal department is horrible at sales and marketing. They don't exactly inspire me to want to do business with you.
-- $G
Don't give them a cent. If SCO wins change to BSD.
SCO are a bunch of extorting c**ts who will get their f**ken "just deserts".
Lame bunch of f**ken ar**holes! Everyone should follow the directors to each and every company they go to for the rest of their lives. LEST WE FORGET!
Watch it, buddy. We'll park a carrier battle group off Wellington and bomb you to the Stone Age. The oppression of the Maori by your dictatorial, murderous regime forces us to bring democracy to New Zealand and remove the pall of violence, rape and torture that has settled over the Southern Ocean. A coalition of the willing, including residents of the Chatham Islands, is behind us on this one, so submit or perish. Also, the prospect of halving the price of wool and thereby boosting LLBean's profits makes it all worthwhile! Jenna Bush will be so happy!!!
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
Apparently SCO aren't being anywhere near so noxious in Europe - I'd certainly check the policy of your local branch before sending over the banana skins.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
You can not revoke the GPL, this permits forking even if the origional authors don't like you.
The only real power is removing someones rights under the GPL when they violate it.
......to BSD. Wha?!? They own that too?
Legal response
After reading the above, you can return to ignoring the whole SCO problem.
Yes, of course you're right, SCO still has the right, say, to run Samba on their servers.
But the main 'use' they engage in with Samba is modifying it and distributing it in their own system. That 'use' is in fact governed by the licensing which they have forfeited, and is therefore copyright infringement which the Samba team could pursue them for.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Now look at them yo-yo's that's the way you do it
Extorting everyone for phony licencing fees
That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Money for nothin' and the kernel for fee
Now that ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Lemme tell ya them guys ain't dumb
Their company's in the toilet anyway
So hey why not sue everyone?
No one's installing our operating system
It's less popular than NetBSD
We can't move any inventory
So lets move up the litigiosity
See the greedy faggots who want a $700 markup
Buncha rejects from Novell and emWare
That greedy faggot wants his own jet airplane
That greedy faggot wants to be a billionaire
No one's installing our operating system
It's less popular than NetBSD
We can't move any inventory
So lets move up the litigiosity
I shoulda learned to write NDAs
I shoulda learned to be a total scum
Look at that Sontag, mailing out FUD warnings
Man lets pump, dump and run
And he's up there, what's that? Red Hat countersuit?
Instead of Business, they should've got a law degree
That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
Get your money for nothin' and the kernel for fee
No one's installing our operating system
It's less popular than NetBSD
We can't move any inventory
So lets move up the litigiosity
I want my, I want my, I want my licencing fee
I want my, I want my, I want my licencing fee
I want my, I want my, I want my licencing fee
I want my, I want my, I want my licencing fee
That ain't workin'
However, SCO has argued that the GPL is invalid because US copyright law supercedes contractual agreements; namely that US copyright law says "one copy only" which takes precedence over "as many copies as you like", unless you are the copyright holder; which means you can make as many copies as you want.
Aside from the lack of legal and historical basis for this position, it also means that they may not distribute GPL-ed software, because they cannot make more than 1 copy, since they do not hold the copyright on the software they are selling.
Also, this would affect all other "freely redistribute" licenses, I would think.
Of course, the whole argument is full of shit anyway, but that's beside the point.
Sontag warned users that ignoring SCO's requests to license the code in advance of a court case could be costly. "Those who have chosen to ignore the license are more in a situation of potential willful infringement," Sontag said.
The only "willful infringement" here is SCO's infringement of copyrighted Linux source code. SCO has already admitted that they believe that they are not in posession of a valid license to distribute Linux--they claim that the GPL is invalid. Furthermore, SCO has stated publicly that Linux contains non-GPL'ed code, yet they continue to distribute it in violation of the license under which they obtained that code.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here is something I posted over at Linux Today:
Any thoughts, improvements. Any weakness in my application of the GPL?
Perhaps this would be worthwhile:
--------- --------
Free Software Project (GPL)
project_leader@Free_Softwar e_Project.org
123 Some Street,
One Town,
A Country
Date
Darl McBride
SCO
Dear Darl,
it has come to our attention that our software is destributed by SCO. In light of recent public statements by SCO, we would like you to clarify your postion re the GPL.
Do you agree to the terms of the GPL. Do you accept it as a valid license? If you accept the GPL, kindly respond via email and registered letter stating your acceptance of the GPL in general and with respect to our software in particular.
If you do not accept the GPL as valid, kindly indicate to us by what authority you are copying and distributing out copyrighted software. In the event that you do not accept the GPL as valid and do not provide proof of some other authority to copy and distribute our copyrighted software, you should cease such copying and distributing right away.
In any case, you may continue to use our COPYRIGHTED software internally within SCO until conditions may change.
-----------------
all the best,
drew
(+1)/10 to email me
zotz@999jamz.com
Finally mainstream press gets a little bit of non-SCO side in this battle.
karma : former act as leading to inevitable results
Like most users of Linux, we are at the point where we are not going to stand still while SCO trashes the entire Free Software movement. I have already authorized a payment of $10,000 to the FSF, and a payment of $5,000 to the Red Hat Open Source Now fund. If you want to do all you can during this waiting period before the trial, I would urge you to sign this petition that signifies the unity of the Free and Open source communities against SCO's outlandish claims.
I wouldn't suggest doing that with the license. Orphanage-grade toilet paper is of higher quality.
"I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
"Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
Instead of endlessly repeating our distress over SCO's insanity on /. why not
just pick up the phone and tell them why you think their extortion tactics will fail and you will never buy anything by SCO *EVER*.
If a 10th of the people who read /. call them they're sales staff will be swamped.
Product and Sales Inquiries
1-800-726-8649
Or, call their home office and complain some more...
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
801-765-4999 phone
801-765-1313 fax
As a network manager for an Australian provider of some minor linux services for Massey university, i can assure you, they are NOT in this country... If they were, i wouldent sweat so much over each reboot :)
(They are in good company in NZ though, it seems, along with Weta Digital)
as well as the RIAA sueing its customers!!!
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
SCO's manoever has never been about anything else than attacking the GPL and the concept of OSS.
IBM and AIX are entirely incidental to the affair, and the connection between AIX and Linux is a spurious convenience.
If SCO were serious about their original "license agreement" allegations with IBM they would stick to this point and not start commenting on the GPL. SCO may be lying, thieving scoundrels, but they are working for someone else, or they would stick to the issues that might pay off.
I've said this for months now: the most likely director of SCO's actions is Microsoft, the only significant player to benefit from this mess. Every time the "validity" of the GPL is discussed Microsoft get a thrill and achieve what they could not do directly - no-one takes Microsoft's propaganda seriously anymore.
At least one goal appears to be working, namely to discuss the "validity" of the GPL as if it were a law or a contract. The GPL is a license that an author (that is, the person who's sweat, blood and tears were spent on making a work) can choose as the vehicle for licensing his or her work. Period. Anyone taking this work must obey the license conditions.
If I choose to license my work with an agreement that says that you must wear only red, that is my right. SCO may say "we choose not to use the GPL for our work", but to attack it like this is purely malicious.
And, so, we come back to the people who have in the past spent so much effort attacking the GPL because they realize that it frames their demise. The Redmond Gang, the company that believs might makes right, that laws are for buying, not obeying, and that lawyers are for suing other people.
Sigh.
On the bright side, I assume if they sue me for using Linux, and they lose, then they will pay my legal fees?
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Is it time for someone to organize a class action counter suit on behalf of all of us end users?
The company has signed one large customer up to its Intellectual Property License for Linux, but faces opposition from many more who believe SCO must prove its claims in a court of law before they will hand over the $700 per CPU for the license.
What happened to the other (not Microsoft) companies that SCO was claiming had bought licenses?
before the money trail gets traced back to Microsoft? If you seriously look at this, there is exactly one entity that will benefit from all this: Microsoft. Even SCO is screwed, they could never take on Big Blue. Sun has the problem that PHBs don't understand that Unix is not Linux is not BSD. They see it as Windows or Unix (maybe Apple if they do graphics). They see trouble in the Unix world and that means they look to Microsoft.
To sum up, I think that it's just getting waaaaaay too convenient for MS for all of this SCO stuff to be happening. This begs the question, assuming Redmond is behind all this will the truth ever be found, and if so when? If the truth does come out, how will the business world react, or will they?
Find me in ~/.sig
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=sco.com
Regardless of how this litigation silliness works out, NOBODY is going to trust SCO ever again. They have alienated both the "big business" crowd AND the "value oriented" small business crowd in one swell foop. Even if IBM or other firm's counterclaims result in no cash taken out of SCO's hide, they are finished.
Given that, I can't see how paying up on their licensing fee makes any sense at all. I suspect they'll collect as many fees as they can get away with, likely lose in the courts, then file for bankrupcy long before they can be forced to refund those fees. In the meantime, SCO insiders are lining their pockets by selling shares of the company at an artificially inflated price.
is all SCO cares about. If everyone on slashdot were to short as much SCO stock as they can afford, the price would go down. After they lose, it'll go down even more. Just a thought... Not sure if this would be legal or not so Im not actually suggesting anybody DO THIS. I also lost 10 grand in one day shorting stock, so Im not the best person to take investing tips from..
All I am saying is that $ are votes in this situation.. er most situations. er.. um...
bash-2.05b$ uname -a
Linux A1000 2.4.20-gentoo-r5 #4 SMP Mon Aug 11 08:59:55 EST 2003 i686 AMD Athlon(tm) Processor AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux
What are you going to do SCO? Sue me?
And just how did they do that? Is the CIA assisting them or what?
If "McBribe" wants his Linux license money I guess I'll see him in court, because I sure as hell won't pay.
Microsoft was among the first companies to legitimately purchase a Unix license from SCO.
A month later, Microsoft's beta of Windows Services for Unix 3.0 is released on the web.
Now SCO is suing/charging everyone for Linux: a move that will scare some Linux-using corporations back to the "cheaper" (by comparison) solution of using Windows and Office.
But what about those in-house Unix apps those companies use? No problem, Windows Services for Unix saves the day.
And I'm sure that SCO must have gotten some sort of recent fiancial boost in order to give them the confidence to take thefinancial behemoth IBM and, now, end users.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
...On a related note, I'm "preparing" to nail Shakira.
Who did what now?
Why, just because you and thousands like you are unhappy about it? Life sucks for millions of people around the world for various reasons at various times and a lot of them end up dead or losing family and friends to brutal militarism, terrorism, religious persecution, natural disaster, etc. So far it's only annoying. Deal.
When is the US Government, or a federal judge/court system actually going to step in?
Consider what you just asked and the ultra-light tap on the wrist Microsoft got for their lousy behaviour, which was a continuation of their lousy behaviour which got them in trouble with courts and prosecutors and well-meaning people at least once before. In short, you'd get jack.
This just keeps getting more and more rediculous.
As opposed to greendiculous or bluediculous which can be very embarassing when explaining to the significant other.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Whoa man, those Linux servers ya got there look mighty fragile. If someone was to accidentally revoke your license, that would be bad for business, see? Bad for you, bad for me, yes? Maybe you'd like some insurance, make sure it doesn't happen? Special price today, only for you my friend, next week it'll be double...
I think we can start a fund going to cover Vinny and Luigis's fee... here's my /. two cent's worth...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
The best tactic the community could use, IMHO, would be to overwhelm SCO with piddling, individual small claims. I may be wrong on this, but doesn't a corporate officer or some such have to show up for this, as opposed to legal council?
If just the 1500 companies that had received threatening letters were to do this, each claiming the loss of say, 200 dollars for letter processing time and such, SCO couldn't possibly keep up with the docket.
Of course, I could be wrong (and often am).
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
From the article:
/completely/ bonkers, there seems to be no way they can win anything in court.
The downside is that they're making a lot of money with these scare tactics, thus setting an example, and they might be able to scare some companies/people into buying their licenses.
"There is no warranty for infringement of intellectual property [in the GPL], so all of the liability ends up with end users."
"End users are improperly using this copyrighted material, and under copyright law SCO is entitled to damages and injunctive relief,"
The latter statement is close to the truth in that under copyright law they would be entitled to damages and injunctive relief should they be able to prove their case. What they seem to be implying that somehow it's the people who've bought a linux distro that should pay for their 'damages'. Which sounds, put mildly, a bit unreasonable. IANAL, but this appears to be pure FUD.
Read the copyright disclaimer in any book, and you'll not see any warranty for infringement. In fact you'll probably see something more like
THIS PUBLICATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT
(emphasis added). The example is from "Concurrent Programming in Java" by Doug Lea (Addison Wesley)
The end users are not trying to distribute the bits SCO claims to be theirs or derivative works thereof. SCO should be suing whoever sold the 'linux servers' they're in the process of 'identifying', but apparently consider it too risky.
They are trying to make a (possible although unlikely) case of copyright infringement by IBM seem like a violation of an license agreement between them and the end user. At the same time they're trying to convince everyone that the license they've been distributing their linux distro under is not valid and trying to scare people into accepting whatever licensing terms and prices they come up with.
The upside is that if the US legal system hasn't gone
Which, like pointed out before, is just like paying the Mafia.
This isn't even very funny anymore.
All SCO has to do is to demonstrate clearly which parts of the Linux kernel they actually hold copyright to and haven't yet licensed under an open source license themselves. Once they do, I'll be happy to come into compliance by removing the offending code from my Linux source tree--based even on SCO's most outrageous claims, I'm not using any of those features.
Overall, I seriously doubt that any judge is going to award damages or even consider something willful copyright infringement until SCO actually identifies the offending code. And then SCO's legal strategy simply falls apart because as soon as they demonstrate any copyright infringement, the offending code will be removed from the kernel instantly.
I think it would be interesting to see a SCO vs. GPL fact sheet/page that covers some of the hypocrisy of SCO's claims.
Could someone who has access, or is using, or is currently phasing out some of SCO's products grep for the GPL and record how many instances are encountered?
Then, it would be further interesting to see how many instances the GPL is not included with software packages that are licensed under the GPL.
SCO: The copy of linux you're using contains a million lines of our code, hand over the money.
User: Nah, I replaced all that code myself, I'm now running a custom kernel.
SCO: I don't believe you, show me the source!
User: Erm, no.
Personally I'm going to customize the GPL for my work where you cannot use it with SCO software, for the SCO company, etc. etc.
There's no reason I'm going to better the work of a company who tries to harm my OS!
Get paid to code OSS
Obviously, SCO doesn't care their market share at all, now and future. This is like a nitro boost to the short term market price of SCO price.
..., so I am alright? And free to develop upon and use it freely? Hmmm ... look like SCO need to do better to shut down the open source communities.
I mean, there is FreeBSD, if SCO get any outcome out of this mess, it won't be market share. People will switch over to fork BSD and pound on it.
I think the more important issue how should the open source communities carry forward. We must have a system that is accountable, not necessary to blame, but to correct in instance like this, treat this like a bug fix.
BTW, SCO kept saying 2.4, what if I use the last version of the dev kernel? LIke 2.3.XX
I don't know why, but the more I hear about the SCO suits and the RIAA suits, I am almost certain these lawyers are part of the same old boy network and play golf with each other every afternoon. Just imagine the evil they dream up together.
;)
BTW I think I know who paid for that 'Linux' license, from SCO. It was probably MS for their research project
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
SCO is going to start suing those individuals and companies who are thinking about using Linux.
"Conspiracy to destroy value" something like that.
Pretty soon I would expect the rabid SCO dog to turn on its master (since Microsoft has that new Linux lab, an obvious sign of their evil intentions) and decide to go after Microsoft's $50 billion in cash.
Of course to get a copy of the Windows source code to look at, SCO would have to partner with a government...
"SCO and Nigeria announce $1 trillion dollar lawsuit against Microsoft"
What will SCO do if the users declare to see the code and DO NOT sign the NDA? That essentially means that the lawsuit is invalid?
Lets use this analogy. Just an example. Say XY company claims JKL company stole some widget designs from them. JKL manufacturers those designs.
1500 people have bought those widgets. XY decides to sue those 1500 people. If XY took this to court, would this case be valid? Probably not.
Surely this is extortion. It would be nice to see SCO brought to justice for it.
Karma: Bad. (As in Good?)
For fuck's sake: they are publicly stating that they are going to start an extortion racket! Where's the bloody police? Where's the C&D letters? Why is it so easy to lie and steal if you are a company? Any human individual would be behind bars by now.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I think you may be right (IANAL either, but you probably already knew that). From what I understand, works are implicitly copyrighted. You may have to prove it, but in this case I think we have all the proof we need.
Being copyrighted, you still need permission from the copyright owner.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
"Wouldn't the GPL being proven invalid just replace it with standard copyright law, and if so doesn't that mean that they have NO rights to the code what-so-ever?"
As I understand it, SCO isn't just trying to get the GPL declared invalid. They're trying to get the GPL declared invalid and all GPLed software declared public domain. Basically, their argument (however invalid it may be) is that anyone who gives you as much freedom as the GPL gives must obviously not care to do anything with their copyright, and therefore "GPL" == "public domain".
I personally find this "They gave us a piece, so they owe us the whole pizza!" argument reprehensible, but it seems as if it is perfectly acceptable to some people (read: SCO lawyers).
Anyone who seriously contemplates denying the legitimacy of the GPL must be morally bankrupt.
That shit was written with spirit and inspiration, and has obviously struck a chord with millions of people.
Did someone recently wave a flag somewhere that signalled "OK everyone, act like complete c**ts to each other"?
SCO has argued that the GPL is invalid because US copyright law supercedes contractual agreements; namely that US copyright law says "one copy only" which takes precedence over "as many copies as you like", unless you are the copyright holder[,] which means you can make as many copies as you want.
US copyright law says that is the minimum right that you have.
errr... apache is released under the ASL (Apache Software License), and perl is under (surprise) the PAL (Perl Artistic License).
you can see the pattern of going from GPL to any other license that allows multiple copies to be made/advocates free distribution, but don't assume all standard open-source software packages are GPL.
What if every Linux user sends a snail-mail to SCO asking to be sued and demanding a respond by return of post. Hey, the postage alone would cripple them...they'd need a bigger fucking mailbox too.<br><br.Of course, I'd be appalled if this actually happened.<br>
--This isn't a man who is leaving with his head between his legs.
This will not be the last time a company launches this kind of attack. We are seeing that the Open Source process has weaknesses which can be used by individuals/companies to try to assess control on a specific product. We need to address these weeknesses.
I will concentrate on the GPL, since this is the license I know best. They are looking at the GPL weak points. Let's point them out an evaluate them:
I think the current case is a very important opportunity for the Open Source community to build up defenses against attacks like the one we are seeing; we knew this was going to happen sooner or later, so let's embrace this opportunity and take the best out of it. Thanks to this experience, we will have a legal/economic infrastructure set in place to protect ourselfs. And the legal precedents that this case will set will have also an enourmous importance.
The IBM counter suit I'm not sure about, there patent portfolio is a weapon that could just as easily be turned on us.
IBM's patent portfolio does make me uneasy as well, but software patents are a fact of life. From a practical point of view, IBM is probably one of the best companies in this regard because they actually distribute lots of GPL'ed software. As I understand the GPL, IBM cannot make patent infringement claims related to GPL'ed code they themselves have, at some point, distributed, and unlike other companies, they distribute quite a bit of GPL'ed code.
I don't get it. How is it going to sue linux users without showing them the code?
Patriot Act?
You want to sue me? I'll sue you! I'll sue you for copyright infringement, since you're still distributing the Linux kernel with MY copyrighted code (for all you know) in it, despite the fact that you do not agree with the terms of the GPL and therefore the terms of the license revert to standard copyright. I'll sue you for harassment. I'll sue you for frivolous prosecution. I'll sue you for slander. Hell I'll even file individual lawsuits against the officers of the company. I'm bored. I got nothing better to do. I'll devote my entire life, every dollar I have, every breath in my body to filing lawsuits against SCO and its officers. Go ahead, bring it on!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
SOmeone Need to drag SCO's sorry ass into court and get the source revieled once and for all. Untless they submit it as evidence, they will never be able to prove anything. And once it is in evidence it should become part of the public records wich can be perused, or at least xeorxed by the defence attoryney.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
Just send them this :
http://www.smellypoop.com
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
I thought of a new meaning for FUD last night - Fuck U Darl.
End users individually suing SCO! With the idea from the Windows Refund article, how about if thousansd of end users take SCO to court for the same reasons Red Hat is..
I'm unfortunately not a lawyer but perhaps some lawyer type on here can make up a standard form letter that end users can take to their local courthouse to initiate a small claims action against SCO.
You have to be able to show you were harmed in some way.. surely it can't be that hard to prove that the FUD that SCO is promulgating has harmed your business. Small Claims (at least in NY) is good for up to $3,000 in damages so the independent Linux consultants should at least be able to come up with a couple hundred to a thousand dollars of damanges, at least for the time spent explaining to your clients what the suit is all about, and attempting to reassure your clients that all is going to be OK.
Folks, this is a problem that needs taken care of. SCO has labeled YOU as Fair Game. It's time to return the favor. Make sure to document your time!
Maybe someone who IAL (is a lawyer) can determine if this will work. If not, surely there is something else that the geek collective can do.
If we are to truly take the wind from SCO's sails at this point, we need to cut off their revenue stream. To do this, one of the injured parties (any of the Linux Distributors, for example) must go into court and ask for an injunction to prevent SCO from attempting to collect any licence fees from Linux users or distributors until such time as they prove their claims - either to the Kernel developers or (failing that) to a court of law. Since SCO has a) announced a price list, and b) sold a licence they cannot argue that they are NOT pursuing licencing, so injunctive relief is a valid request for Linux distributors at this time.
Because SCO's current action smells more of extortion than of copyright-licencing there is a pretty good chance that any halfway-decent lawyer (sorry for the oxymoron) could walk out court with a temporary injunction almost immediately
I would think that the sheer insanity of SCO's position ("You have our code but we won't tell you what it is") would be all the excuse a judge would need to step in.
This would cut SCO off from their anticipated revenue stream for the forseeable future, and could even trigger a stock collapse since there was no likelihood of any corporate growth until the completion of the lawsuits sometime in the next few decades.
Well fuck them; I want some of this pizza.
-If God wanted people to be better than me, he would have made them that way.
This does not mean I lose my license to distribute other products also licensed under the GPL.
... yes, even MS has GPLed some software!) doesn't have any bearing on whether or not you've violated the GPL on a completely unrelated product, owned by different people, such as, say, Linux.
... this is exactly the sort of ploy that could hand SCO a victory it otherwise would never achieve. Disclaimer: IANAL, yada yada yada.
Actually it does. Violate the GPL on a GNU product and refuse to be reasonable when it's pointed out and they'll C&D you to cease modifying and distributing anything the FSF owns copyright on and licenses under the GPL, not just that one program.
Yes, but the FSF owns the copyright on all those programs. The FSF cannot tell someone violating the GNU copyright (by violating the GPL) that they cannot use Linux (even though Linux is GPLed) because they do not own the copyright, and can therefor neither license, nor revoke the license of Linux. Likewise, Samba's copyright is owned by a different group of people than Linux, so the fact that SCO has committed massive copyright violations of Linux does not mean the Linux folks can revoke SCO's GPL license to Samba. And, since SCO has not violated Samba's license (the GPL) on Samba, at least to our knowledge, the Samba folks can't revoke that license either.
This is one of the reasons the FSF recommends one assign copyright to them when one GPLs a project...it does buy you a great deal of clout when things like this arise.
As it is, were the Samba folks (or the FSF) to attempt to revoke SCO's license on distributing GPLed software unrelated to Linux (the product whose copyright SCO is violating), I doubt very much it would hold up in court.
Think about it. The GPL doesn't allow willy-nilly revokation without cause, and your violating a license on Microsoft's code (even that small amount of code Microsoft has GPLed
I think any attempt to make one violation on one product apply to all licenses on all products who happen to be identically licensed won't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being upheld in court
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Thats because we actual laws thats stop them making outragous, unsubstantiated claims in an effort to extort money from users with the threat of legal action.
Companies that have been sued by SCO have bought their products from Red Hat or similar companies. This means, the responsibility actually falls on Red Hat and SuSe etc
:-). Are you saying that you expect only to be able to sue the person who took those photos, but cannot go and get the actual site to take down those photos?
.
Erm... are you sure this is how the law works?
Let's say someone takes sneak photos of you when you're naked (for the sake of argument here, no smart-aleck follow-on posts here, please). That someone then goes off and sells/gives it to other people (again, for the sake of argument). This someone has committed a crime, but the people they sell it to go on and use it to populate their website, "DIRTY NAKED ASSHOLES!!!!" for example (... hrm. I've just decided I'm not going to google this to find out if it exists
If you take it that SCO is doing all this to do the maximum amount of FUD etc. (either because they're funded by MS to do such a thing to disrupt linux adoption, or whatever other purpose), then it is EXACTLY to their goals to hit on as wide a range of people as possible, and even if they do not prevail in the end (and I don't know if it's a certainty they can't win - it's been said before, when you go to court, you don't get Justice, you get the Law, and they may not be the same thing... - heck look at all the people released from jail years later after DNA evidence proves they're innocent), I think it looks like they CAN request court action to stop people from using/doing things...
Can anyone tell me how this think work? If the US court declares SCO victory, will other countries follow? What if they don't, does this means they are going to break some treaty or something with US government?
What is the worst possible fall out? For example, Canada, what happen to company using Linux in Canada? How about China?
So they send me a C&D doesn't mean anything.
It is just a legal request to stop doing something they don't like, it doesn't mean they are right, it doesn't mean it will hold up.
Think of all the DMCA C&D's and junk flying around.
I really don't care what the FSF wants. If a person gives me a clear valid license to do something I can do it. They can't place additional restrictions beyond those in the GPL on it.
I would like to see a reference demonstrating this is the intent, or when it has been asserted in the past. I don't see this intent, and I don't know when it has been asserted before.
I'm not trying to be obtuse, I just don't agree with that interpretation.
The Caldera/Microsoft suit dealt with drdos being able to compete with msdos ( a good summary is here: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2000/02/07 /schulman.html)
Fabienne: Whose text is this?
Butch: It's source code, baby.
Fabienne: Whose source code is this?
Butch: It's SCO's. (or so they claim)
Fabienne: Who's SCO?
Butch: SCO's dead, baby. SCO's dead.
Free as in mason.
I want to give say $20 to a fund to fight these fuckers, so that the first mom-and-pop store running Linux has a gazillion bucks, and won't settle. Where is this, or do I have to start it?
Do you have some sort of involuntary reflex that makes you click on every story? Skip the SCO stories if they bore you.
/. stories page until it's resolved because it matters very much to most readers here. Why? Because many of us rely on Linux on daily basis, personally and professionally. We've contributed to its development and we use it in our businesses.
This is "Stuff that matters" and will continue to dominate the
But now SCO has broadened the scope of its attack. It's taking on the GPL in particular and open source movement in general. It matters. It matters in particular because the foundlessness of SCO's claims has been pointed out in articles linked to from these stories.
It matters that they can do this unchecked as much as it would matter to you if someone were allowed to slander your name, character or reputation. There's a reason there are laws in place to protect you from that. We're now seeing a gaping hole in the American legal system that's hurting a lot of businesses and inviduals (note that in countries like Germany, the same laws that protect you from slander have prevented SCO from doing what they're doing elsewhere) while allowing SCO's executives and share holders to play a stock market shell game.
I've already posted on this thread before, but another thought has occured to me. Shouldn't everyone who's contributed to the Linux source turn around and sue SCO? SCO is trying to claim that the inclusion of a few lines of code entitles them to all the work and labor of the programmers that built Linux, which is clearly B.S. What they're asking for a license is on par with a Windows server license or a Mac OS X Server license, and the code (according to independent investigations) isn't even necessarily theirs! I'd be surprised if it makes up 1% of Linux.
blog |
I'm no expert on software licenses, but I do wonder:
Is any popular open-source software licensed in such a way that the creator could revoke someone's license?
If so nobody in their right mind would use such software for anything important, since the permission to use it could be revoked on a whim.
On the other hand, SCO probably doesn't read the licenses...
This Like That - fun with words!
Maybe you'll get your money back when SCO is counter-sued into oblivion and forced to pay restitution to everyone they extorted money from.
_______
2B1ASK1
4. If you disagree with the GPL you are not allowed to use the software.
My understanding is that if you disagree, you can't DISTRIBUTE. You don't have to agree to USE it. Even tho SCO says they no longer distribute, or rather they only give access to current customers to keep up their support, anyone can log into ftp.sco.com and download all the GNU software they want.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
I hear you - I really do - but actions like those will actually reinforce SCO's position that the GPL is invalid
The devlopers can't revoke their license, because the license makes no restrictions on use (the kernel's a different matter, because SCO've violated their redistribution rights thus revoking their right to use).
Essentially authors of GPLed works have no right to stop people using their code for any purpose they choose. Sco could (and probably have) use the softare to make a baby killing machine
Really? I'd assumed it was because the European decision-makers at SCO didn't have enough shares to sell off after artificially inflating their value. :)
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
I think you are right we should take SCO as declaring WAR against us!
Now, we need to solve this problem, they have abused the GPL liscense, they distributed GNU software in violation of it.
We need to set a fund up to enable all the kernal maintainers and other developers to launch concurrent lawsuits against SCO.
If they recieve several thousand lawsuits at once they will need to hire additional legal council depleting the cash M$ just gave to them.
All of the major Linux supporters will have to jump on the boat to send supplementary legal council to all those that sue or risk losing a case and killing their business.
As far as IBMs patent portfolio, well they have made a commitment to Linux and as such those patents are our patents, not in a legal sense, but they are essentially cross-liscensed to us.
The reality is many many companies and IP firms hold patents that could at anytime be used against Linux, the good thing about IBM is that their patent portfolio is diverse enough to squelch any of those people who would attack Linux, much the same way MicroSoft can not attack Linux head on or risk losing their cross liscenses from IBM, and many others who use Linux to make money.
Write and call your congressman now to get them on board OSS software. We need to hit SCO from as many fronts as possible and make them sink as quickly as possible.
If McBrides recent attacks on the GPL and Linux end uers (the later being a wet dream of Bill Gates) doesn't prove that SCO is in Microsofts pocket, I don't know what does.
How about Gollum talking about Darl McBride and his precioussss code (you know, the stuff released under BSD).
"The company has signed one large customer up to its Intellectual Property License for Linux, but faces opposition from many more who believe hell must freeze over before they will hand over the $700 per CPU for the license."
Has anyone noticed a pattern here? Every time that SCO gets a major slap-down, they churn out a new press release with some sort of new angle to temporarily bolster their position until the next slap-down? You can practically time the when press releases roll out the factory, folks.
I don't think there isn't anything illegal in that, per se, but in my mind, it kind of points to a goal in all of this. But then again, I could be tying the generation of a 'fear buzz' with the stock price. They are doing an excellent job of keeping the fear buzz going.
Technically, they can *start* a lawsuit without showing code. The initial complaint can be as little as a paragraph saying "They stole my code!" During the initial stages of litigation, they would have to introduce more evidence or the judge would eventually dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. To get scheduled for a trial they would have to show code. Unless they have a lot better evidence than what they showed at the SCOsource fiasco, they would get bounced in a heartbeat.
Also, Eben Moglen is right about the stupidity of Mark Heise's interpretation of the GPL as being preempted by the Copyright Act. (Heise is the lawyer representing SCO). If any lawyer were incompetent or malicious enough to waste a court's time with garbage like that they would likely get a stiff fine under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In layman's terms, Rule 11 is used by a judge to say "You have the nerve to bring that piece of shit argument into my courtroom?" It is hard to believe that Heise is really stupid enough to believe what he said so maybe he is just being deceptive. On the other hand, SCO has been repeating that reasoning in interviews with the press so maybe Heise and co. really are that dumb.
So take your pick--Heise is:
A. Dumb
B. Dishonest
C. All of the above
Can I sue SCO before the sue me. Then they can come to Michigan instead of me going to thier shitty state.
Mike
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
The IBM counter suit I'm not sure about, there patent portfolio is a weapon that could just as easily be turned on us.
Overall, I have to say that while I'd be the first to agree that the (US) patent system is comprehensively broken, I regard IBM as a model of restraint when it comes to enforcing its patent rights. Admittedly, it earns a fair amount of its income from licensing fees, but on the other hand it actually does invest substantial amounts in real R&D. And in general it doesn't throw its considerable weight around unless provoked, which it clearly has been, mightily, by SCO.
This is an outrage! Congress should pass my "Orphanage Minimum Standards/Copyright Extension Act" today!
Sincerely,
Your Congressman
With the Stupid Copyright Ordeal going on, and users of Linux now being directly threatened, where is Linus on all this?
If there was a time for the progenitor to speak out, now would certainly be a good time.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
If I get sued, I will defend myself (I'm running SuSE 8.2 SCO, come get me), but send out an offer to the open source community to help me in my suit. $199 in monopoly money says that hundreds of lawyers and non's alike will rush to assist me.
The Umbrella you're postulating doesn't protect us unless we get the contested code from a commercial distribution. That kind-of violates the spirit of the GPL and free software.
IAANAL, but AIUI, the GPL isn't a licence to use, it's a licence to distribute. So, you can reject the GPL and still use GPLed software, but you can't distribute it unless you accept the GPL (or whatever other licensing terms the software author offers as an alternative.)
In the specific case of Linux, the only licence to distribute is the GPL, so if SCO rejects the GPL, then they've breached copyright every time they've distributed a copy, which (in most relevant jurisdictions) is a criminal offence.
Also, declared invalid in court would only apply on a case-by-case basis, and only between parties who disagreed about the GPL. So, even if SCO prevailed in court over its validity, it wouldn't suddenly destroy the agreements it's the basis of everywhere else, unless the parties to those agreements then changed their minds.
I don't live in the US (Canada), we haven't really seen FUD from SCO here. Most large companies have laughed and moved on. Why doesn't the US gov't stop this? No infringement is proven, yet they're threatening lawsuits? Is there some kind of law saying that it's legal? And.. don't you have a blue sky law? I really don't see how SCO is selling anything but that..
I'll transfer all my property into someone else's name. Sue me? Feel free! They can't get what I don't have.
This way they have to pay their ninga lawyers to get squat.
Until such time SCO can prove ownership of any code in question, I'm not too worried. This can pretty much only happen in court, and this will take a few years.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Unlike internet access, food and water, I don't think a sofa has been declared as a basic human necessity. So you don't *need* a sofa.
Fair, unfair, the childish skill of spotting a horses
arse 2 out of 3 times. All unprofitable. Perhaps
even criminal.
Forgive me Hillary, I didn't know I was required
to watch all the TV commercials. Mercy. Mercy.
Yes, oh ye gods.... have mercy.
The GPL expressly disclaims covering a "freedom to use", stating rather the following:
What does this mean? Not only does the GPL provide authors no handle by which to prevent someone from using the covered code, it also presumes that a user does not need additional permission from the copyright holder to use a copy which is legitimately obtained. If you buy a copy of a work, it becomes your property and you may use it; you need permission and licensure only when you wish to make and distribute copies.
The scammers behind proprietary licenses have come up with all sort of language to mask this fact: "licensed, not sold"; "you own the media, not the work"; and so forth, as if it were possible to deprive someone of a purchase retroactively by declaring it to have not taken place. (It isn't; if you walk into a store, and the store's staff and you carry out the overt ritual of selling and purchasing a given item, then you have purchased the item, even if a paper inside the box describes it as "licensed, not sold". Naturally, you have not purchased the copyright, but the copy you have purchased is yours to use or abuse.)
Vice versa, there is no way that SCO's post facto claims that the GPL is worthless can cause the GPL to be worthless to SCO. They may rail against it for years, and it will still be sufficient to grant them the right to copy and distribute binaries and source together. You can waive many sorts of right merely by saying you do, but the GPL isn't such a right. Rather, it is a grant of permission, which remains efficacious even if you deny it. No matter how much SCO says, "The GPL is worthless," they still have and hold the rights granted them under it.
That is, of course, one of its strengths.
...is said to be nine tenths of the law.
Looks like SCO is trying to actually acquire some sort of legal claim on all of the things that they're trying to grab before they enter court.
Perhaps they're hoping they can gain a legal claim in truth over the things they're only saying they control, so that IBM doesn't devour them and add its technolgical distinctivenes to its own.
(insert thunderous applause here)
Apologies to fans of "Scent of a Woman". :)
It's all fun and games until someone loses the key to the handcuffs.
If they are claiming the GPL is invalid, the copyright holders of relevant software should be sending them personal letters telling them they are denied use of gcc, samba, apache, perl and all the other mainstays of modern computing that are released under the GPL. I'm not suggesting engaging in any illegal activity but what is kneaded here is attack rather than passive defence. Obviously the RedHat suit is a pretty good thing. The IBM counter suit I'm not sure about, there patent portfolio is a weapon that could just as easily be turned on us.
I disagree. It needs to be shown that the GPL can withstand this abuse on its own two feet. The license was designed to prevent destructive abuse, it should show that it can.
If the license needs to be modified to deal with this, then its flawed to begin with (and I don't believe it is).
This is just how I feel about the stupid Patriot (Treason) Act.
For stealing their stupid lawsuit ideas.
... I can damn well write a disclaimer that makes you feel good about taking my advice at face value!
(Disclaimer: I cannot claim to have invented recursive discalimers, but in this context it's actually quite a fun idea to try and suggest so by actually suggesting otherwise (Disclaimer disclaimer: Recurse my recursives at your own risk, further posts may lead to head-spins and loss of topic).)
You should read the GPL:
"If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Library at all." -Section 11 of GPL
What this means is SCO is forgoing its rights to distribute Linux under the GPL because of breaking many sections the contract (i.e. charging for copies).
Linux is still copyrighted even though it is GPL, the contributors to Linux could choose to sue SCO for using Linux beyond the agreed upon terms.
Let me guess. It's name starts with M and has t at the end?
/Phre4k
"Nobody really checks their email any more. They just delete their spam"
Unable to afford scalpers' price for a Red Sox ticket, the Tawny Titan heard from an East Coast paralegal while he watched the game from a saloon near Fenway Park. The legal eagle claimed two large Linux customers are eyeing racketeering charges against SCO for asking for money before it proves its case. They would need about four more companies to come forward, claimed the tattler. "Seems like a dream come true for some attorney general," said the Furball. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1224399,00.as p
Gnu For President 2004
Personally I'm going to customize the GPL for my work where you cannot use it with SCO software, for the SCO company, etc. etc.
... are they suddenly banned from using your software. Are you going to ban Darl McBride by name? The Mormons as a whole? America? Where does this sort of thing stop.
... if anyone does so, they will put the GPL in a no-win situation, where if it is upheld, you cannot revoke SCO's license becauuse you don't like them, or it is not upheld, you can revoke the license of people you don't like later, and none of us are safe (the very foundation of software freedom is taken away). One thing is almost certain: violating the license of one product isn't going to mean you lose licenses to all products who happen to use the same license ... I cannot imagine any court of law ruling that, for example, you lose the license to Samba because you violate the license of transcode, merely because the two products' licenses happen to have the same text (the GPL) and are otherwise unrelated.
What do you do when SCO changes its name, is bought out by Microsoft (or IBM), or otherwise metamorphasizes itself through corporate/legal slight-of-hand. Do you ban the canopy group? What if canopy purchases an innocent bystander (if they haven't already)
SCO has violated the GPL on Linux. They are no longer allowed to distribute Linux under US copyright law, and they are violating that law massively even as I type this. That is enough.
Do not try to revoke SCO's GPL license to products they haven't violated the license of
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Ah, but if the GPL is invalid (their claim), then it defaults back to copyright law sans license, which means they don't have any legal copies of GPL'd software.
What difference does the cost make to them? I'm guessing all these attorneys are working largely on contingency and are shooting for a percentage of settlement.
This whole series of death throes is all about pump-and-dump for the stock. Darl et. al. want to go out in a blaze of glory and get rich while they're at it. It will certainly drag the company into chapter whatever bankruptcy and the lawyers will end up fighting over the scraps. What's sad is I don't think this will create enough of an outcry to get McBride and pals tossed into jail.
So long, michael. Don't let the door hit you...
SCO has also declared "I am not a crook"
Therefore we are supposed to take at face value SCO's statement that "secret" IP belonging to SCO was copied into the very public Linux kernel, without ANY assistance from Caldera, by evil Linux developers intent to rule the world. SCO will not tell us who these "code pirates" are. Although SCO would have us believe they have proof that will hold up in court, SCO will not arrest those persons whose names are on the list as having contributed SCO's copyrighted cude code. Stealing that "SCO" code that cannot do NUMA, SMP or any of the other crucial enterprise technologies that our Linux developers have slaved for years to create, would NOT have brought Linux to the height of technology that it shares today.
SCO has stated that there is code common to Unixware and Linux, I believe this. I do not believe that the Linux community stole SCO's code, SCO has shown who the thieves are, through their legal filings, market manipulation and loud complaining.
SCO is hoping for the same settlement that ATT had years ago, some code they can call their own. This brings software development to a new low, who needs programmers just hire lawyers, steal code from the world, and then charge the people who wrote that code to use it.
I hate to use a cliche, but in this case the guilty dog has barked first.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
So if I have this straight, once SCO starts suing linux end users they must discontinue distribution of the linux kernel, or Linus (or the FSF on his behalf) can sue them for copyright infringement.
Or is it the case that they already lost permission to distribute the linux kernel because they've started demanding fees from end users so they can be sued NOW?
Liberty.
Personally, I'll wish them bad luck.
for SCO's legal abuse of Linux users "EXTORTION?"
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
Now...I'm not saying anyone should kill Mr. McBride...but lets just say, I'd understand.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
The "big advances" SCO is advertising for future releases all hinge on at least one GPL component. If they are declaring the GPL invalid, then they are using that component without permission.
Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.
With all thies attacks from SCO and Darl McBride I'm beginning to have sereous doupts that McBride could have become a CEO by honnest means.
If you accept Darl McBride's assertion that the Linux community could not have made Linux as good as it is today the logical conclusion is that IBM enhanced Linux with IBMs intelectual proterty. Darl McBride has jumpped to the conclusion however that IBM took the code from SCO.
So not only is McBride clamming the Linux community couldn't do it they are also clamming IBM couldn't do it eather and that ONLY SCO is good enough to make something as good as Linux.
Darl McBride has made the conclusion that theft is the only possability. In my experence the people who make such conclusions are usually crooks.
I don't actually exist.
As someone pointed out on http://lwn.net/Articles/45019, the snippet even contains a syntax error, so the code in question cannot even be compiled and certainly cannot be used. I wouldn't call this a very carefully crafted lie but rather a sloppy one, esp. in front of someone who actually has the time to analyze it.
I plan to plan / Dutch course in The Hague
It looks to me that SCO is trying to duplicate the recent success the RIAA has had in suing end users. Stats showed that P2P usage dropped after the RIAA went on their rampage so SCO is probably trying to elicit the same effect with Linux usage. They probably figure (like the RIAA) that if you sue the users they will do anything you want. The only difference is, the RIAA might have a legitimate reason to be doing it, while SCO has none whatsoever. So once again, they are counting on ignorance and fear to prey on the minds of their victims. Just sad, really.
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
End users are improperly using this copyrighted material, and under copyright law SCO is entitled to damages and injunctive relief
What damages?!?
What kinda nut modded it off-topic?
He's a Linux user, and displaying on his website that he's not afraid of SCO - we need this unity.
SCO IS DISTRIBUTING it in their products.
I don't give a flying fornication if there is SCO code in the Linux kernel. Hell, I'll enjoy it even more if it turns out that there _is_ SCO code in the kernel.
I'm just soooo tired of Corporations playing the Shareholder value game and releasing crap software, that I actually look forward to the possibility of actively cheating them out of a few measly greenbacks.
I'm sorry but I must disagree with you. SCO is no big company, it's just a big nuisance.
If someone wants to start said countersuit against SCO they can count me in.
Even if SCO say that they don't distribute, they still are distributing it via their FTP.
Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
Wouldn't he be able to ask for big compensations in the following class action for extortion that should follow?
Also what about the story of Microsoft buying SCO shares some time ago? Hasn't SCO become somehow a Microsoft satellite company, spreading all this FUD and intimidation to drive companies away from Linux in fear of litigation (at least for the moment)? I mean, SCO will be scrified at the end of the day, that seems clear.
3 Freedom to modify. You are allowed to modify the code in whatever way you want.
4 Freedom to copy and distribute modifications. Again, the distribution has to be in source and binary code, and it has to grant the same right to the person it is distributed to.
This is absolutely false, and you know it.
Under the GPL, you are FORBIDDEN to modify the code UNLESS you release your modifications to the public, and you are forbidden to distribute any copies of the code UNLESS you include that release of modifications, i.e. under the GPL, you can kiss your intellectual property goodbye [which, by the way, is the whole purpose of the GPL: the elimination of any and all concept of intellectual property in the world of information technology, as a first step towards the elimination of any and all concept of property in the society at large].
Under the BSD license, you are free to do as you please.
- SCO sues IBM
- RedHat sues SCO
- IBM sues SCO
- SCO sues IBM
- Lawsuits circle at a speed approaching that of light
- The fabric of legal space-time tears, creating a legal wormhole
- SCO, IBM and all Linux vendors disappear into a legal wormhole and are never heard of again
- Sun is left as the only UNIX vendor in this part of the universe
- (Sun) Profits!!!
Remember, you heard it hear first.I am TheRaven on Soylent News
>4. If you disagree with the GPL you are not allowed to use the software.
Not true. The GPL allows you to use the software even if you do not agree with it.
It doesn't allow you to re-distribute it in any form, however.So (5) still olds and SCO goes away.
-><- no
Look at this a little more closely.
It's true, of course, that they have standing to enforce copyright only where they own it. But don't confuse having standing to enforce copyright with license revocation.
In this case no person would be revoking the license except the licensee. The license terms are clear, if you violate them, the license is revoked automatically. Neither the FSF nor anyone else can revoke your license except for you yourself.
But if you do violate, and thereby revoke, your GPL license, then you stand in copyright violation any time you use any GPL code beyond your basic rights under copyright law. Since the violation is copyright infringment, it is up to the copyright holders to pursue legal sanctions if they wish. They have no obligation to, and so you might get away with it, but there is no guarantee - the copyright holder of any GPL code you are infringing on can serve you for it at any time once you revoke your license.
Now this is exactly what SCO has done - they've revoked their own rights to use GPL code, deliberately, and they've made an enourmous amount of noise about it. They're publically stating that they don't think the GPL is valid anyway. Well, if they don't think it's valid, how can they agree to it? If they don't agree to it, they have no right to use any code under it. They have no right to modify and/or distribute Samba, Linux, Gnome, the GNU toolchain... any of it. Both because they stand in violation of the GPL in the case of Linux specifically, and because their public statements make it clear that they do not agree to the GPL terms on the other packages which means that they have no license for those programs.
Now is it possible that a court would rule that the words of the GPL are not properly written to be able to enforce section 4 in this case? Sure. If so then it would be good to find out so the next revision can fix that. But even so the other line still means that SCO is practicing copyright violation in their use of any and all GPL software too. It's not uncommon or unwise to give courts multiple arguments in these cases, and the arguments can even contradict each other, that's not a problem. Look at SCO and IBMs court filings - both take this approach, saying A, then saying even if you reject A, then B, and in the event B is not true, then C must be...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I agree that it is important and that many people do want to know about it. I hope you didn't think I was implying otherwise. All I was saying is that I personally don't want to read the stories (on the front page, this is the first one I have clicked through to) and something that gets so much attention should have its own section anyway.
According to http://www.sco.com/scosource/ their licensing program will only apply to Linux kernels 2.4 and above? So does this mean those running older versions of Linux would be spared the trouble? Does anyone know what this code is, exactly? Why doesn't some just create a script to patch the kernel with a new code?
Star: First there is no light just a bunch of mass in a cloud.
SCO: Just a bunch of guys thinking hey this may be a good idea.
Star: Forces Pull the particles to gather, and light begins to shine.
SCO: Programmers finish porting
Star: Shines brightly in the sky for a while. Although compared to other starts it doest seem any special but to the people close to the star it is.
SCO: They gain some footage and sell their product to fair size but nothing special customer base.
Star: It begins to expand and engulfs some planets.
SCO: Buys some companies or merges into a bigger one.
Star: Blows up and becomes one of the brightest stars in the sky for a short time. and destroying anything close.
SCO: Realizing it will not longer stay it Sues whatever seems to be close to itself so it can get a lot of public attention.
Star: finally fades away into a tiny little star that every couple of days may shoot out a beam of light.
SCO: Out of buisness and bankrupt. Every couple of days someone who liked SCO will try to get attention to it. Much like BEOS or Amega People.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You probably don't want to grant SCO any kind of blanket permission to do anything, so I'd reword that last sentence to say:
Nothing in this letter should be construed to interfere with the use of [[software project]] internally within SCO.
That way, you're only limiting the scope of this particular letter, not your potential future rights in general.
Also, I'm not certain (IANAL, so take this as cargo-cult lawyer immitation only), but I'd replace the words "right away" with "immediately". This is just based on my observation that documents from lawyers tend to use the word "immediately" when they mean "now, before you go file papers in court and wait for a judge to say something".
And of course the standard punctuation/spelling mistakes, but I assume you'd correct those if you actually were sending this to SCO.
Just as a nitpick, showing that code is probably enough to get a court hearing - judges as a rule aren't programmers or experts on the history of Unix (I'm the former but not the latter, and 15 minutes of time with Google only told me that it was remotely possible there was infringment - this was before the LWN article and the Perens article and such were posted), and theres obvious similarity there. Defense against the claims would, of course, be trivial. You'd certainly have to pay a lawyer.
pubically available on the internet
Yes, your honor, you do have to get f***ed in order to gain access to their copy of the source.
Noooo....It's the evil Republic let by Lord McBride and his trusty FUD-Sabre. Ohhh No, let them sue me into oblivion, I'm Canadian. (jouris-my-diction!).
Why don't we all just happily rename all the functions in linux from malloc() to fmalloc() (free as in beer!). and then run a nice little $cript to change all the FUD. We can have that same worm writer for blaster however the new kernel me read like the following....C0m3 S33 My L337T HaX0r'ng, 1 hAv3 $ingle hAnd3dLy $cr3w3d M$ and CalD3ra....no no no, wait cant have that would never make it past the board, perhaps we should all write a module that can be loaded to remove all FUD-Claims.
I'm now off to claim the moon in the name Ford Prefects everywhere! Thus when we do get obliterated by some form of INTELLEGENT life to make room for a highway, we will be rid of the SCO-FUD. No really I think Mr. McBride's strategem was concieved during a hemmorage caused by the board of directors trying to figure out a way to actually make any money with SCO, but instead of following a good sales & marketing strategy, catbert appered and fortold of the fud-ponzi scheme to screw the GPL using the Ignorance of the american legal system to thier favour.
personally, I hope red-hat sues them into oblivion, and Mr. McBride lands a Real McJob, that way at least he'll know he's still serveing Sh*t.
Those whom forget history are doomed to repeat it, again and again.
This is the true danger of using industry "Buzzwords" like Intellectual Property (IP), and my personal favorite "Total Cost of Ownership". SCO thinks that they can make the TCO of Linux their income, I just wish McBride would get struck by falling penguins so I could DIE laughing.
My life is an open book ... up to a point.
What you are proposing is breaking the 1st freedom; it is not because they claim the GPL is invalid that we believe so and should break it. A more valid request is IMHO the one GCC did, is to refuse to accept SCO specifics in the later (from now onwards) GCC versions. If they do want the GCC compilers, they'll have to branch them and maintain them themselves...
Not really. From the statement of the gpl from the gnu site:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
and
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
The relevant clause SCO is breaking is the redistribution clause. Under the gpl, if SCO does not accept gpl it cannot redistribute gpl-ed programs.
Looks like it's time for a minor change of tactics. I don't know the exact legal term for suing the lawfirms representing SCO for abusing the legal process, but that's exctly what need to be done. We need to attack the problem at it's source. - Have linux users file suit against the SCO lawyers for abuse of process in the state, federal judicial district/foreign country they reside in. Make SCOs legal team file responses in every juridiction in the world. - Users should file complaints with the American Bar Association as well as the state bar in the state they reside for abuse of process. Start the ball rolling for an investigation against SCOs legal team. Making the lawyers defend themselves in 50 + 1 investigations by the various State/National Bar ought to make SCO's lawyers realize the enormity of the beast they have roused by attacking open source software users.
High time to disclose personal info in your Linux Counter entry! Let them know you care!
Come on, guys. I'm waiting...
13-4=54/6
I guess at this pont why isn't the linux community tareting companies that use SCO services. If McDonalds is still a big purchaser of SCO a campaign to boycott them would really scare them because of their profit situation an in turn would drive down SCO's stock price.
I've been searchin for the chord I can't hear Ive been searchin for years Its somewhere inside But its well disguised
I may not have a lot of money seeing as I'm only a Senior in HS, going into college soon, but you know what? I stand behind linux. Go Ahead SCO, SUE ME. And with me, sue my school district (just got a few linux boxes up) and my church (I would love to see that one). Seriously, I will fight the best I can. I don't care if I'm in debt for years, to me it would be worth the fight to see SCO gone. Plus, I don't think they will be around to see the IBM Lawsuit at the rate of their stocks. And I bet they don't have enough money and manpower to take on all these companies, THEN all the end-users.
When I am elected President, I will use the USA Patriot Act to indefinately hold McBride and the entire SCO legal team as terrorists.
This is my sig.
That's right SCO, you go ahead & piss off the MPAA's darling of the moment, WETA. See you at your funeral.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
I'll use a real life example - the Tommy Lee/Pamela Anderson video. It was illegal obtained, and then sold to (several) distributors (this is actually a little bit of a stretch, since in this case the people buying it knew that there was a good possibility it wasn't legitimate). In any case, once it started spreading, Pamela & Tommy tried to stop it - they were able to get injunctions against (at least some) of the sites distributing it. But the customers of those companies were never at risk or liable.
At the time Microsoft had just been lost it's court round and been declared in violation of US antitrust laws and while MS got almost no penalty the ruling opened the way for everyone damage in the past to sue them. SCO won that round because MS was drowning in lawsuits and jumped at the chance to settle to free up lawyers to handle much more expensive problems.
Had they gone up against an undistracted MS they surely would have lost.
Your immunity is irrelevant. Your Linux box is coated with corbomite. You will pay us, or face the consequences.
It's Red Hat's getting fed up with the overall abuse and suing SCO in court to make them put up or shut up.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
This will be bigger than the rumble in the jungle.
This will be better than the thrilla in manilla.
I will shake your world up SCO. I will beat you worse than tyson beat holyfield's ear. I will beat you worse than the LAPD beat rodney king.
I AM THE GREATEST FIGHTER OF ALL TIME.
But if you do violate, and thereby revoke, your GPL license,
I would say your license on that program only, you have no violated any other programs license yet.
If I make a contract with you, and you break it, our contract has failed.
This does not mean that if someone else has an identical contract with you that it has necessarily failed.
A license agreement is the same.
Do you know how ridiculous this sounds on its face? Assuming your reasoning applies here, please explain why would the US government take the side of the tiny company (SCO) against the side of the deep-pocketed multinational superconoglomerate (IBM) if it was so beholden to business interests?
This
This is especially amusing because Samba is potentially in much more legal danger than Linux ever was - due to MS's patents & annoying EULAs on documentation, Samba developers have to be VERY carefull about what they read and look at, and it'd be much easier to slip them up or even press claims that they did splip up than against Linux.
I believe this is what you're talking about:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
IF SCOs blathering lawsuits are all FUD, and if the execs are 'dumping stock' as some others claim, can not IBM or other powerful people request a full investigation of SCO executives / their finances / and related dealings?
If they didn't give any slack to Martha Stewart,
then they might be highly critical of SCO's executives private financial actions?
The question is: Is SCO doing anything illegal ?
Didn't SCO just announce the other day a new product that would be distributed with Samba 3.0? I know I read that somewhere...
Ahh, yes...there's this and this.
Does violating the GPL with one product (the kernel) violate it under another (samba)?
That is, could the Samba team actually file against SCO for injunctive relief to prohibit them from distributing Samba for license violation just because they violated the GPL where the Linux kernel is concerned?
1. To use GPL covered software you have to agree with the GPL.
No you don't. You could print the GPL off on low grade paper and wipe your add with it if you wanted to, but you can still use the software.
Your point #4 is naturally also invalidated by this.
new zealand, australia - really what's the difference...
Hey, most programmers value simplicity. I'm guessing he's a consultant...
Claim that you have evidence. But put the evidence under a non disclosure agreement. This forces that the "evidence" code remains in the kernel. License the kernel containing the alleged offending code. The NDA sees to that the code cannot be purged from the kernel and those who pay the license cannot see without signing the NDA if they are required to pay the license for using the offending code. If they use offending code they cannot rewrite linux to avoid paying the license.
We need a judge to nullify the NDA. So the SCO code can be purged and rewritten. If there are any such code.... Which I don't believe that there is. Why else the NDA?
TELEPHONE.8017654999.
16/08/2003
LINDON-UTAH.
ATTN;FROM THE PRESIDENT/CEO
RE: CONFIDENTIAL LINUX LICENSE
HAVING CONSULTED WITH MY COLLEAGUES, AND BASED ON THEINFORMATION GATHERED FROM
AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION HERE IN UTAH, I HAVETHE PRIVILEGE TO REQUEST YOUR ASSISTANCE TO TRANSFER THE SUM OF SIX HUNDRED NINETY-NINE UNITED STATE DOLLARS ($699.00 U.S DOLLARS)INTO YOUR ACCOUNT.
THE ABOVE SUM RESULTED FROM AN OVER-INVOICED CONTRACTEXECUTED, COMMISSIONED AND PAID FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS (5 YRS) AGO BY A LINUX DEVELOPER. THIS ACTION WAS HOWEVER INTENTIONAL AND SINCE THEN THE FUNDHAS BEEN IN A SUSPENSE ACCOUNT AT THE CENTRAL BANK OF UTAH, OUR APEXBANK. WE ARE NOW READY TO TRANSFER THE FUND OVERSEAS, AND THAT IS WHEREYOU COME IN.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO INFORM YOU THAT AS SCO EXECUTIVES WE ARE FORBIDDEN TO OPERATE FOREIGN ACCOUNTS; THAT IS WHY WE REQUIRE YOURASSISTANCE. THE TOTAL SUM WILL BE SHARED AS FOLLOWS: - 70% FOR US, 25%FOR YOU AND 5% FOR LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL EXPENSES INCIDENTAL TO THE TRANSFER.
THE TRANSFER IS RISK FREE ON BOTH SIDES. I AM AN EXECTUTIVE THE SCO.INC (SCO). IF YOU FINDTHIS PROPOSAL ACCEPTABLE, WE SHALL FAX YOU A LINUX LICENSE APPLICATIONFORM WHICH YOU WILL HAVE TO COMPLETE AND FAX BACK TO US.
THIS BUSINESS WILL TAKE US 30 WORKING DAYS TO ACCOMPLISH.
FOR SECURITY REASONS ALL CORRESPONDENSE SHOULD BE DIRECTEDTO MY EMAIL ACCOUNT.
PLEASE REPLY URGENTLY.
BEST REGARDS,
MR Darl C. McBride-
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
I think this is the best thing SCO could possibly do. An RIAA-style legal attack with SCO's utter lack of evidence should thoroughly trounce the little bitches. I say bring it. SCO, I use Linux! Sue me soon!
What will SCO do if the users declare to see the code and DO NOT sign the NDA? That essentially means that the lawsuit is invalid?
No, they get thrown in jail for contempt of court. Judges can, and often do, require that evidence disclosed during court proceedings (and in discovery, etc.) be held under non-disclosure if it is personal or commercially sensitive.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
First we have LinuxTag telling SCO to put up or shut up, treating everybody to the sight of SCO withdrawing their claims without even pretending to fight, meek as mice. Then we have Heise magazine getting pictures of the code out to the world, probably one of the biggest scoops in the history of computer journalism, giving the good guys their first chance to mount a counterattack.
That's two of the most important developments from the same European country. During this time, the American legal system hasn't even been able to pull its finger out, let alone do anything to stop these madmen. When this is over and the GPL has won, it will be no small part because of the Germans -- and somehow, I don't think SCO was expecting them even to come to the party.
Is it possible that Microsoft is silently proping up SCO by buying its stock, either directly or indirectly? Are such purchases a matter of public record?
I believe, but am not certain (and can't check, because our DNS server is down) that one of the requirments for OSI-approved licenses is that they can't be arbitrarily revoke. It certainly doesn't make much sense - it's not very "free" then, after all.
In other words they have no confidence in there accusations and want to gouge people now
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
Just burn SCO down, find out what law firm those fucks are using, burn that down, beat the shit out of Darl, and tell him he'll get worse if he keeps it up.
There... enough with this shit already, I'm sick of seeing SCO sotries!!
If I weren't 2,000 niles away, I'd help, but I have too much work to do, and not enough vacation time. =(
Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
IANAL, so this may be rubbish. but, if the GPL is declared invalid in court, wouldn't most of the code be technically unlicensed?Yes, but.
Copyright applies to all software. The GPL says, "This software is copyrighted, BUT we're going to allow you to do some things that copyright normally doesn't allow." If the GPL is found to be invalid, then GPL-licensed code is now technically unlicensed. However, that means that normal copyright kicks in. IANAL myself, but it seems to me that if something like Samba is no longer GPLed, then SCO has no rights to modify or distribute the code, since they have not made alternative licensing arrangements with the people who own/control Samba.
If that's true, then SCO is shooting themselves in the foot. Once the GPL is declared invalid, then SCO loses the ability to use any GPLed software until they make other licensing arrangements with the people who control/own that GPLed software.
For a "federal judge/court system" to step in, they have to be invited in.
Someone has to sue SCO and then the process starts. Perhaps some corporate lawyer can get a preliminary injunction preventing SCO from demanding license fees pending a court decision on whether they have anything to demand fees on.
Were SCO smart, they would have targeted little guys using Linux (like a small college or something) before attacking someone with pockets. If the cost of Linux licensing is smaller than a legal battle, smaller orgs may start caving in. Going to some big organization, putting pinky to mouth in their best Dr. Evil impression and saying "You owe us.... (pregnant pause) Five MILLION dollars" is of course going to get them a "Not know but Hell No" response.
Isn't part of _ANY_ trial discovery? Doesn't that mean that both sides have to give each other the evidence they are going to use in the case? More to the point, if SCO decided to sue you, could you basically stand up and say to the judge "SCO needs to turn over any and all evidence of infringement, and the trial should not start until they do so?"
Go fuck yourself, SCO. Thank you, and have a nice day. ^_^
Can someone PLEASE come up with a sticker that has Calvin taking a leak on SCO pronto???!!!
I now hate SCO more than Microsoft.
At least Windows _exists_
Perhaps the morning Crack fix hasn't kicked in yet, but doesn't this whole spaz attack by SCO seem like nothing more than a SLAPP suite?
Evidently since backing up their allegations is 'hard', and IBM shows no interrest in buying them up for their 'IP', they're seeking to make money through frivilous lawsuits.
Now is it possible for the defendants to file a class action suit to recoup legal fees? Is there any sort of precedent where a company using the legal system to harass and financially injure innocent people? Remember, these aren't the people who stole the code, these are people who refuse to pay a licencing fee based on 'because I say so'. So until SCO prooves they do indeed have a claim, how is it legal for them to file suit with impunity?
I suppose the real trick is figuring how the first amendment fits in. If code isn't free speech (decss), certainly your opinion is. What you wear has been (I think) defended to be free speech (or at least a poor fashion statement). So, to me, it stands to reason that your choice in operating system should be free speech. It reflects on what you believe to be the best tool to do your job.
In case its not entirely clear. I am not a lawyer. I am a Minister of the Church of Hump-Hump and born again pimp. These opinions are not my own, they are those of my crack pipe and hallucinatory posessed hootchie mama.
I base these observations on this definition:
A SLAPP suit is a strategic lawsuit against public participation -- civil complaints or counterclaims (against either an individual or an organization) in which the alleged injury was the result of petitioning or free speech activities protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
SLAPP's are often brought by corporations, real estate developers, or government officials and entities against individuals who oppose them on public issues. Typically, SLAPPs are based on ordinary civil tort claims such as defamation, conspiracy, and interference with prospective economic advantage.
While most SLAPPs are legally meritless, they effectively achieve their principal purpose: to chill public debate on specific issues. Defending a SLAPP requires substantial money, time, and legal resources and thus diverts the defendant's attention away from the public issue. Equally important, however, a SLAPP also sends a message to others: you, too, can be sued if you speak up.
I think we'd rather imagine a Beowulf cluster dropping on Darl McBride.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
The GPL only requires that you release the source code, not binaries.
But the only time the GPL kicks in is when you release binaries; if you don't distribute the binaries, you don't have to distribute your changes, either.
'Sontag warned users that ignoring SCO's requests to license the code in advance of a court case could be costly. "Those who have chosen to ignore the license are more in a situation of potential willful infringement,"'
Who the hell is this fool kidding? Until it has been established in a court of law that there has indeed been a copyright infringement, I or any other linux user need pay no more attention to SCO's idiot crap than I would to the ranting alcoholic tramp who accosts people in the local bus station and shouts incomprehensible rubbish at them..
SCO's attempt to steal Linux from the world will tread on enough toes as it is. If they target AIX end-users at the same time they are going to find themselves under legal attack from a LOT of very large companies who depend on this software (AIX is rather more popular than UNIXware, after all..).
I am thinking particularly of the banking industry here - given the amount of big iron these companies run it would almost certainly be cheaper for hem to fight this one out in court rather than cave in to SCO's amateurish blackmail.
SCO has been failing as a company for some time, and if it comes down to a legal endurance race I doubt they could outlast or outgun the likes of Citibank or HSBC..
It has become obvious that SCO are in no hurry to have the issue cleared up properly in court, but rather hope to profit from browbeating the weak into offering them tribute. "The weak" most certainly do not count fortune 500 companies among their number.
I for one can't wait until this gets to court..it's going to be like the beginning of Rocky III when Hulk Hogan beats the shit out of the midget..
This is a case of going after the weak sisters. The idea is go after people that can not afford to defend themselves. The will
1. Settle and pony up some money.
2. Go to court and not afford to pay the big guns needed to defend themselves and loose.
It is a win win for SCO. If the company pays the can use that in court to say, "Look XYZ paid because they knew we where right."
Or if they go to court and SCO wins then which it very well could beacuse a company that is not IBM or Red Hat does not have the knowlege or the money to defend it's self. With a win or two under it's belt they will have "Proof" that they where right all along.
It is a nasty tactic but not a new one.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Class Action Lawsuit...
Seriously folks... there's gotta be a lawyer out there thinking about this... getting all of the American linux community together and suing SCO...
Mmm... the warm glow of that thought almost gets me past my anger that SCO stories foster...
BlackNova Traders
...and your software runs on linux, chances are it will also run on freeBSD.
This could be a temporary measure, if not permanent, for those intimidated by SCO's claims.
Darl McBride, the Chief Executive Officer of SCO, isn't after money from licinses, he's after a seat on Microsoft's board of directors.
Will someone please put McBride and Canopy out of their misery? McBride said that they have no debt at the SCO Conference. That is great news for the companies that are suing SCO. With no creditors having grabs on anything SCO has of value, SCO will lose it's precious UNIX IP to IBM/RedHat/Anyone else who brings a suit against them. They don't have the money to pay out a settlement, so that leaves their IP. Please do it quickly. McBride and other execs are dumping their stock and yet telling everyone they will conquer the world. He is giving the Irish a bad name!
What would happen if a few thousand (million??) end users sued SCO?? Bury them in paper and let them burn up their capital paying lawyers and law clerks to sort it out. Let SCO figure out how to respond to 1,000's of suits filed on the same day in different jurisdictions.
I reckon they don't expect it to get to the point where they actually have to show the code in court. They probably expect to get a settlement before an actual court process takes place. This 'win' would boost the stock price up so the SO management can cash out.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
This makes those of us running *BSD happy we made the decision we did. At least until next week when they decide the 4.4 Lite wasn't really as "lite" as we thought it was.
Plant a tree in a developing country.
and tell him to come get me but....
Aug 20 10:03:37 kaylee postfix/smtp[2643]: 764A93FB2: to=, relay=none, delay=31, status=deferred (connect to mail.ut.caldera.com[216.250.130.2]: Connection timed out)
Wups?
You've gotten better at reading inane comments (300)!
This standard should be easy to carry over to SCO (after all, they're assholes :-) )
Sig:Why copyright isn't a fundamental human right
If SCO goes after user, what about the other way around?
Is it possible for users to group themselves and go after SCO?
If any slashdot user gives 1 $ on average, that's 600000 $. Isn't that sufficient to make a trial?
Or better, to pay^^^lobby a bunch of senators to shut the mouth of this company?
Warning: I have absolutely no law background.
Sneak teach kids Algebra using a game
The GPL doesn't prevent anyone from USING anything. What the GPL prevents is companies rebranding a product as it's own and otherwise treating your code as their own personal property.
So, the question becomes: What Apache "users" depend on the ability to take apache and put their own arbitrary copyright on it?
If you can't think of anyone, then then the impact of the GPL in the case of Apache would be NULL.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Of course they would have to submit the source code to the court properly, which would make it a matter of public record unless they could actually convince a judge that it is a trade secret. It is highly unlikely that an entire case could go to court and
1) Everyone involved managed not to talk about the evidence.
2) The transcript was not made public record.
3) The evidence was not made public record.
I work for a company that develop special steering software for steel cooking, especialy for the finishing of high quality steel. This software
runs for historical reasons under SCO.
The software runs also for years under Linux. To be exact, we develop under Linux. Till now we deliver and deploy only SCO.
We decided today to do no new versions for SCO.
Ok, for the customers the operation system is irrelevant, since it's the application they need.
The complete systems will be replaced on any update.
Ok, it's only a small step, but from our side
they are out of business.
If there are other companys and people who can
force this there will be no so called 'core'
business anymore.
Now...I'm not saying anyone should kill Mr. McBride...but lets just say, I'd understand.
... not because some free software enthusiast (really an absolute zealot in this hypothetical case) would take it into their mind to shoot him, but because his backers, who have a great deal to gain by discrediting free software, might well find it to be very cost effective to bump him off. A propoganda ploy with a huge payoff in terms of denigrating free software (and tying up one loose end to boot).
... that is the only scenerio in which the GPL could lose, as most probably no one license can be applied to unrelated products, merely because they happen to be licensed under the same terms.)
... and that will be the nail in not only SCO's coffin, but SCO's silent, if not so opaque, backer(s) as well. Or at least one of them (in Redmond) ... Sun actually does have the viable option of embracing Linux and free software, and persuing their hardware+maintenance business model quite effectively. The other company likely wouldn't survive such a transition, but I digress.
LOL!
On a much more serious note...
As satisfying as seeing Darl's grey matter (or what passes for it) splattered against a wall in true Hollywood fashion, that would be the aboslutely worst thing that could possibly happen to free software. Which is why, if I were Darl McBride, I'd be very concerned
Let us not forget that SCO's bringing this case is probably the best possible scenerio in which the GPL can be tried in court, and almost certainly upheld (assuming someone doesn't do something completely boneheaded, like try to revoke SCO's license to use any GPLed code, rather than just the code on which they violated the license
Darl is an evil fuck, but he is, in a bizzar manner and at the end of the day, probably doing free software a favor. About the only way (other than the boneheaded maneuver I mentioned above) free software could lose this is if some deranged fool actually does go and physically threaten one of these evil pricks. In which case, we'll suddenly be the ones lookign like thugs and almost certainly have our own work stolen from us by a court seeing us in all the wrong light (remember Kaplan and deCSS).
The GPL is about to be upheld legally
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I bought Caldera Linux, so how do they plan to sue me? Seems like I already paid them once; how can they charge me again for the same product? How can they claim that my license is invalid?
Post was on topic
moderation is awry
McBride here, perhaps
1. Jail
2. Death by hanging
3. Hands chopped
4. Buuurn him! Buuuurn!
5. Single fare on the next Mars mission
6. Brain reformatting (partition type : 82)
7. Becoming CowboyNeal's sexual slave
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
What good is Slashdot if all the techies just hand around and carp at each other about those evil people out there? We should put our collective muscle together to make some noise. I'm totally willing to get an e-mail campaign going, but I don't have any connections to a good reputable site to host the home. Any one wanna help?
I'm waiting for my letter from SCO. I'll be asking for proof that I infringed their code or that I signed some contract with them and broke my agreement.
Bring it on SCO. This lunacy is about to end and I'm ready to retire.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
I just got off the phone with the FTC. If everyone calls and complains then the chances they will investigate SCO goes up. They look for patterns. In other words, if the majority of their calls are about SCO then they will investigate. It is time to take the Slashdot effect to the phones.
These are the key points to make:
-You did not purchase software from SCO
-The company that "produced" your software did not purchase it from SCO
-It was not marketed or packaged by SCO
-Despite this SCO is asking for $199 from home users (You) and $699 from business for 1 CPU
They will ask for your name, phone number, address etc. That is mostly to verify your identity and citizenship I think.
Here is the number:
1-877-382-4357 option 4
They are nice and listen well. The lady I talked to even took the time to get a better understanding of what Linux is. The best quote from her "You didn't purchase it from them and they want you to pay them? That sounds crazy."
NOTICE: SCO has suspended new sales and distribution of SCO Linux until
the intellectual property issues surrounding Linux are resolved. SCO will,
however, continue to support existing SCO Linux and Caldera OpenLinux
customers consistent with existing contractual obligations. SCO offers at
no extra charge to its existing Linux customers a SCO UNIX IP license for
their use of prior SCO or Caldera distributions of Linux in binary
format. The license also covers binary use of support updates distributed
to them by SCO. This SCO license balances SCO's need to enforce its
intellectual property rights against the practical needs of existing
customers in the marketplace.
The Linux rpms available on SCO's ftp site are offered for download to
existing customers of SCO Linux, Caldera OpenLinux or SCO UnixWare with
LKP, in order to honor SCO's support obligations to such customers.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
How could they say liability with the GPL is on the end user and then try suing the contributer (IBM) and the end users? That's messed up.
Excelent argument! This means that because Caldera sold Caldera Open Linux, I can copy and distribute SCO OpenSewer. I mean, they clearly don't care about their copyrights, do they?
nt
I still don't see what they can sue end users *for*. Copyright law makes it illegal to *distribute* copyrighted works without a license. It doesn't cover posessing a copy. Trade secrets are similar; while you can certainly sue the person or company who leaked your secret once it's out you can't just sue anyone who has it.
They could sue for *patent* violations, but they don't own the patents in question (IBM does) and they haven't even tried to lay claim to the patents in any BS press releases for quite some time now.
I notice that "one company" is not identified in the article. Do ya think perhaps its name starts with "Micro" and ends with "Soft"?
Loved this quote: "There is no warranty for infringement of intellectual property [in the GPL], so all of the liability ends up with end users."
Does ANY software license indemify the user against spurious IP claims? I'm not a big fan of reading end user licenses, but I've never seen one that protects me against specious litigation by a pack of raving baboons.
And on it goes
"End users are improperly using this copyrighted material, and under copyright law SCO is entitled to damages and injunctive relief,"
Doesn't this actually have to be determined in a court of law first? Maybe its just me, but I'm a stickler for details.
" "Those who have chosen to ignore the license are more in a situation of potential willful infringement," Sontag said."
Which "license" is he talking about exactly? They may have ignored extortion letters and blustering threats, but the GPL doesn't say anything about ex post facto licensing fees, to my knowledge.
I seriously think this guy needs to spend some time in a Federal pen. I generally wouldn't wish our court system on my worst enemy, but this McBride makes me wish that Uday and Qusay were still around to work on a contract basis.
Don't forget, even though SCO claims the GPL is invalid, they're using the GPL as their reason for sueing end users. Hmmm, if it's invalid in their defence, wouldn't it be invalid in their offence too? So, IBM, you can't sue me over the GPL because the GPL is invalid, but End User, according to the GPL, I can sue you. Oh, THAT really makes a lot of sense. I feel sorry for the judge who has to listen to this freakshow...
Ahhh, but you can add exceptions. Even Stallman says you can do this.
I agree mostly with what you are saying, but the point that (I believe this is the case (look at the changelogs, and there appear to be a bunch of people from samba.org) several of the people contribuiting to samba also contribute to the kernel, so infact, they have violated the GPL with some of the copyright holders.
... but any legal misstep on something like this could seriously undercut the GPL's legal clout in a way very unbeneficial to the free software community, so anyone thinking of doing this had better not fuck it up.
Thoughts?
Talk to a lawyer (I am not one)...and make damn sure its a very good, competent lawyer you talk to.
Those holding copyright's on part of the kernal and part of Samba might be able to make something stick, they might not. I don't know
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
SCO is starting to look more and more like DirecTV. Throw out thousands of civil suits that have absolutely no credability at end users, make the cost slightly less then the cost of defending yourself, and try and take the common man to the cleaners to make a buck. I get more and more disgusted at the actions of some of these large corporations!
The IBM counter suit I'm not sure about, there patent portfolio is a weapon that could just as easily be turned on us.
Unlikely, they aren't stupid, they've seen what kind of damage has been done to SCO with their underhand tactics, they aren't going to do a lemming jump off the face of the earth like SCO.
--Mods giveth, Mods taketh away--
/*SCO has declared war on the foundations of the open source community and we should be responding appropriately.*/ SCO's behaviour is against common business rules, in some states illegal (Germany: anti-competetive behaviour). We shall exhaust all possibilities of legal action against SCO.
This is the best thing that SCO can do for Open Source community. Let's assume that IBM blatantly stole SCO's copy protected code. If the courts find that end users are only required to upgrade to Linux kernels that don't have the offending code but don't bear any other responsibility then this will be great day for Linux. On an open source project it is only a matter of time before someone does steal copy protected code. Once we get a legal precedent that clarifies how this impacts the end user it will remove part of the FUD that MS spreads about open source.
If you really want one go here. http://www.linusco.com This guy makes the best custom stickers around. He's done some pretty cool ones for me. I am sure he can hook you up.
Why don't we set up a project where every one buys 1 share of SCO stock, then sign over proxy to Linus Or Bruce, etc. As many people as there are in the Open source movement, we should be able to do a hostile takeover, with the cost being minimul to each person. It would then just be a matter of firing everybody.
As a defensive step, I have e-mailed SCO, stating that I am cercerned about their claims that I am infringing on their property, asking for an indication of exactly how I'm infringing on their property, asking (politely!) that they show me the offending code.
:)
:)
Of course, I am not in a position to license Linux from SCO without that information. So I'm just waiting for them to mail me back
(BTW: I live in a country where the LAW is actually reasonable, I don't think SCO could convince any Danish judge with their outrageous claims
SLOGEN [ http://ungdomshus.nu : Sebastian cover music]
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
I'd love to file an SEC complaint about this but, to be quite honest, I'm somewhat overwhelmed by the amount/type of information they're requesting. There's obviously plenty of information abounding about this lawsuit (much of it on /.) -- are there any suggested links/citations/templates for responses that I can follow when filing a complaint? I'm not oblivious as to what their questions mean; I'm simply finding it difficult to gather all this into some organized fashion (you must admit, this/these lawsuit(s) are so messy that it's hard to get any organization out of it). Any suggestions would be highly appreciated by me (and I'm sure by others as well). I certainly don't want to come across as whiny when filing this complaint.
Feel free to post here and/or email me with suggestions.
--Devon
www.sitetronics.com/wordpress
Crimony people, they're using the same tactics as RIAA. They're not expecting to make money off of this maneuver, but they're hoping to scare the shit out of some of the lower tier resellers/companies who can't afford to defend themselves like RH and IBM can. Those companies will either pay or, possibly, funnel that money into some microsoft products. At 700 bucks per linux server, you could almost transfer to a MS infrastructure for that and tell SCO to fuck off, you don't use linux anymore. The conspiracy theorists here have already belabored the possibility that this whole thing is designed to discredit all unix and unix-like OS's to microsoft's benefit.
Same as RIAA, first they went after the corporates and scared them into rethinking linux, and now they're making noise about suing everyone, knowing that at least some people will decide to cut their losses and bail out rather than risk legal proceedings. Not to mention it makes a good news story and i'd bet their stock is up as of this evening.
If you get your linux from, say Redhar, you already have a licence. You got it from REdhar. It is RedHat's problem, not yours if they have not paid SCO (assuming SCO have anything to be paid for).
Thus, since we have a licence WTF would I pay SCO?
Why don't we get a petition together end send SCO a list of the names and addresses of loads of linux users telling them we have a licence already thanks.
This is really scaring me. Because it really looks like SCO is putting, destroying linux a priority over saving its own butt and winning in court. I don't like to make assumptions, because I could be wrong, but let's speculate.
;-)
It looks more and more like this lawsuit is in fact for the benefit of another companie, SCO knows it is going to lose but the point is to make as much damage to linux as they can while doing it. And since, I am sure any trace of discution/conspiring with this third companie is probably non existant, there is really no proof and people promoting linux can never get compensated for the damage.
When is this actually going to court? It is obvious that when it does the juge will make them stop all of this nonsence. I hope it is soon.
Could someone ask for an injunction on this destructive behaviour, negative publicity etc. until the whole thing gets settled? Who would be responsible in representing and protecting linux and the GPL?
Now what corporation could SCO be doing this for???
Darl McBride, if you read this, know that in your next reincarnation you still have a chance to get born as a human, despite how much you fucked your karma up by now. Don't do this for money, it's not worth it.
Thanks, I'm calling now.
www.sitetronics.com/wordpress
I think you left something out. Shouldn't it be: ...5. Kernel, GCC, GNU, samba, etc all short sell SCO
6. Kernel, GCC, GNU, samba, etc all issue press releases publicly terminating SCO's right to use the software
7. Kernel, GCC, GNU, samba, etc all sue SCO for violation of the license and SCO goes away.
8. Complete the short sale as SCO's stock hits the floor
9. Profit
Installing a single copy of a computer program which the user "owns" is not an infringement of Copyright. That's in section 109.
Now, it's hard to say when one "owns" a copy of an infringing work. It appears to me that if you purchase media from a Linux distributor and install it on one OC, you have not infringed.
If you do multiple installs from one piece of media or duplicate that media or patch the kernel (to make a derivative work) or even compile your own kernel, you may have infringed *IF* the SCO Copyright claims have any merit.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
First of all, why are you pretending you know ANYTHING about the procedures of this type of lawsuit?
SCO is a professional organization with a good litigation team with a very good track record.
You're just throwing out assumptions like they were the gospel without bothering to consider that maybe 1 or ALL of your assumptions are wrong!
In layman's terms, Rule 11 is used by a judge to say "You have the nerve to bring that piece of shit argument into my courtroom?"
Do you really think SCO's lawyers are so enept that they're going to break Rule 11?
During the initial stages of litigation, they would have to introduce more evidence or the judge would eventually dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. To get scheduled for a trial they would have to show code.
What makes you think they WON'T show code in court? What makes you think they have to show ALL of the infringing code? Lastly, What makes you think they can't convince the judge to protect their "Trade Secret" from being dissemenated beyond the court?
Have you ever bothered to consider SCO is really fucking with our heads?
Consider Sun Tzu:
All warfare is based on deception.
Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;
when using our forces, we must seem inactive;
when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away;
when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
Hold out baits to entice the enemy.
Feign disorder, and crush him.
Rather than spouting conjecture about something you seemingly know very little about, maybe you should consider asserting fewer "facts" and asking more questions.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
SCO sues you, now you have to prove in court what all your systems run. Microsoft will be sitting the side lines, "Uhh you have 51 computers running Windows??? You only have a license for 50! We're going to sue you too!"
It's time to sink SCO in every way possible.
GPl is based in copyright. You are setting out a set of copying rights that increase, not decrease the minimum allowed rights granted under the consitiution and law. As such, it is well established that a person may fairly grant or not grant rights of copying to other persons as they see fit. You may forbid coying entirely (legal), you may grant Public domain (you retain no rights to restrict copying) or you may stipulate resonable actions to allow copying. Mostly, this means money paid to the copyright holder.
The GPL thence is misnamed - it is more fo a copyright "rules of copying". As you have agreed to release your code under the GPL (read, rules of copying), the person doing the copying is bound by the rule you allowed or disallowed copying.
You follow me?
Okay, in this case the GPL says you are allowed to copy as long as you provide source code for free and a whole bunch of other blah in the same vein. As the copyright holder you are allowed to stipulate these resonable actions so that others may legally copy your work.
Thence, SCO is misstating the GPL - it is NOT a licence as per say. The only case the GPL has to be examined for is IF it is a resonable set of copying rules. I believe that as SCO has and continues to release code under the GPL, a case can be made they accepted these terms of copying as fair so to be honest even fi the first court has a brain fart and rules for SCO, it will not survive appeal. Copyright law is well understood and believe it or not, fairly clear.
SCO therefore they have a problem. Code is still copyrighted by the original writers and unless you public domain your right, it is never lost. SCO is copying Linux code AGAINST the wishes of the real copyright holders.
I'm afraid the GPL is better thought out that some realise and it's strength is the fact it is allowable under copyright law. That is a clear fact. The ONLY problem it could face is if it is an unresonable demand to grant rights of copying.
And if it is shown to be such, SCO is still fucked, cause they are distributing copyright code they dont own. Case reverts to normal copyright laws. All it will take is ONE person to sue SCO under copyright breach.
I really dont see how SCO can win.
SCO path is very clear to me ...
They were very close to bankruptcy before they begun with this all.
Then, they challenge IBM with two objectives: burst up their stock options and sell the company to IBM.
When IBM opted to challenge them back, they got in BIG trouble, and now they need to stay in the media and try to get some funds anywhere to maintain their points. If they did not it, they will be accepting that they tried to manipulate the stock options, and will be in serious trouble ?
Now, they are looking for the end users because they are easier to extort. In this case, they will not try to chase everyone, but only a carefully choose handful to stay in the media and to bring fear to the others. Some of them will fail and send money to them, and this money will be used to maintain the process against others ?
In their position, now I will try to make some very public agreements with some minor users and make a BIG media show with that. They need to stay in the media.
The only way to protect us all against them is:
1. do not send any money to them.
2. talk to everyone you know about what they are trying and that they have to saty against it.
We have one thing that they do not. We have a great community in the INTERNET.
We need to use it, and the information we have, against them.
I do not know how your government works (I'm Brazilian), but if they did not block this patern very soon, your software development will became a real mess?
that you can't buy stock in SCO's Attorney. let's face it - they're the only ones making any money.
"Omnis tuus capsa sunt inesse nos"
Oh! Ah... aaaaah. Sue me hard. Oooooh... ah ah AAAH! Harder! Sue me HARDER. OOOh AAaahh... SUE ME LIKE A BITCH! AAAAAH!!!
SCO must have gone to school with the RIAA. They continue to tell their customers they are lying, cheating bastards, and then wonder why their profits are down.
You can't tell your end-user he is breaking the law if you want respect from that end-user.
GM doesn't tell someone who bought a used GMC Truck they are stupid, should have paid full price and because of them the cost for new trucks is going up. It just doesn't make sense.
Stupid SCO...stupid RIAA....
Why wasn't there a worm to attack SCO rather than windowsupdate this week?
I think you may have missed the point there: If SCO believes the GPL is not valid, then they must also believe that distributing code that is intended to be covered by the GPL is actually an infringement of copyright.
If SCO distribute GPL software and believe the license doesn't count they are, according to their logic, illegally copying software.
So it would be entirely reasonable for copyright owners of such software to send SCO a legal C&D stating, essentially: "Either confirm in writing you recognise the validity of the GPL on this software, or stop distributing it"
You're not remembering part of the SCO strategy. First, they're interested in getting rid of the GPL. This is so they can erase their own mistake of releasing their code under it. Second, once the GPL is gone, they pursue their definition of "derivative work".
If they were to succeed in nullifying the GPL, then all the free software becomes unlicensed. SCO then says that since such software was written for/based on the Unix operating system, it is a derivative work of Unix, and thus, belongs to them. Bingo! SCO then owns the Linux kernel AND the supporting, free utilities that have made Linux so attractive. They would have successfully litigated an entire collection of products away from those who originally wrote them.
Granted, that's a worst case scenario, but that is what they seem to be shooting for.
If you're in PA and you use Linux, consider filling out this Consumer Complaint Form. Maybe we can get the PA, and other states', attorney general interested.
No. But if they are denying the GPL, then they have no right to distribute the code. None.
Still, I'm not sure that "saying" that you deny the GPL is denying it. As long as you continue to obey the terms. SCO is being maximally annoying, but as far as I can tell they are actually obeying the requirements. (This may well be true even if they sell their license. Extortion isn't covered under the GPL...that's a different legal code.)
As to whether the GPL should be modified to include a requirement that "if you publically deny the legality of the GPL, you are denied all rights to redistribute this code until you have recanted in a manner at least as public, in the judgement of the author, as the origial denial"... that's probably a bad idea. Probably.
But it would have made this particular scenario not happen.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
(bender)
SCO can kiss my shiny metal ass.
(/bender)
I'm running the 2.2 kernel!
Not unable to use it, unable to copy it.
There's a big distinction here, that should be kept straight. You don't need to accept the GPL to use GPL software, only to redistribute it.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I've been saying this (and getting modded up) since SCO started, but nobody who matters cares. Linus et al need to start caring, because this is a major problem that is not going to disappear overnight without their involvement. SCO is currently guilty of massive copyright infringement, literally enough to shut the company down and possibly "pierce the corporate veil" and allow the officers to be pursued to help pay up. But they'll keep using that money to trash Linux and threaten others until someone does something about it. A lawsuit by Linus alleging that SCO is improperly using Linux code would allow him to subpoena their code without the stupid NDA.
It seems that the open source community thinks copyright law is something for the RIAA and MPAA to wield against file sharers. It works just as well for us, likely better since nobody likes the entertainment industry outside of Congress.
Anyway, you're right, it's time we go on the offensive. My suggestion was the establishment of a legal fund for offense, which is much more needed than Red Hat's defensive fund. Winnings would be split 50/50, with the copyright holder getting 50% and the fund getting 50% of the winnings. We'd be able to grow it within a few years to the point that nobody would want to mess with us, but only if people (e.g. Linus) pulled their thumbs out of their asses and started defending their property.
Michael
Do you have ESP?
What I want to know is - why SCO hasn't set their sights on Google yet? By their own admission, Google has over 10,000 Linux boxes. If SCO still wants $699 a box, that's a cool 6.9 million dollars!!
I'd like to see them try and get that.
Weta Digital are working on Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. I'll be very upset with SCO if they mess with them, as will a few other people I'll wager!
What you are proposing is breaking the 1st freedom; it is not because they claim the GPL is invalid that we believe so and should break it.
You need to be modded to (-1: Bullshit), but I don't have mod points. SCO says the GPL is invalid. The GPL provides the only right that they have to distribute code, such as the Linux kernel. They are actively breaking the terms of the GPL with respect to the Linux kernel. Therefore, they should be sued for copyright infringement.
Do you have ESP?
Here's the plan:
Pay SCO the $700.
Ask for it back, on the grounds that they do not have the right to license the "property" that they licensed for $700. (SCO would likely not refund)
Sue them in small claims court for the $700.
This may be a thought that's been done to death...but isn't this RIAA-like announcement of an assault on end-users, based on a claim that has not been proven in court, sort of like extortion, in the *legal* definition of the term?
Doesn't this (here in the US) fall under RICO (racketeering, and used against corporate crooks, as well)?
mark "come on, SCO, come after *me* (now,
what's the phone # for the federal
prosecutor?)"
Since it was Monopoly money why not pay in full and give them $699 dumbass?
The simple reality of the situation is this:
SCO has realized they don't have a case. They realize they can't win against IBM. So instead, they go after customers for the initial extortion, take their money, then run. The customer will probably not have the legal resources to understand the intracate details behind this suit and therefore will not be able to win. For example, most of these companies will not realize that all versions of Unix up to and including V7 are under a BSD-like license. Further, such companies will not be in the position to know what is necessary to supeona in order to prove that SCO is full of shit.
I again reiterate: Microsoft is 100% behind this to create FUD about Linux in an attempt to kill it. Bill Gates is a weenie who wouldn't know competition if it hit him over the head with an anvil. The Unix license is their way of funneling money to SCO to pay for the lawsuit, and they are most likely the company which bought the licenses from SCO.
You forgot a choice...
D. Cowboy Neil in Disguise!
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/ags/all.cfm
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Right! My figuring is this :
I think it's time that Linux users and developers started a class action against SCO for defamation and for violation of the GPL.
___________________________
Mec's post:
The SCO Group is not a real company. They are an operating tentacle of The Canopy Group. More news of interest: Computer Associates Agrees to a $40 million settlement [thestreet.com] Level 7, another Canopy Group tentacle, sued CA and settled for $40 million. Check this line out: Level 7 didn't write its own software, it bought software, entered a contract with Computer Associates, and then turned around and sued them.
These aren't the death spasms of a dying company. It's actually the ordinary life cycle of a Canopy tentacle. The very name "The SCO Group" masks this, because it's associated with 20 years of Unix history.
___________________________
Below is a portion of an article from Forbes magazine; I bolded several sections.
In 1996, SCO's predecessor company, Caldera, bought the rights to a decrepit version of the DOS operating system and used it to sue Microsoft, eventually shaking a settlement out of the Redmond, Wash., software giant. In 1997, Darl McBride, now SCO's chief executive, sued his then employer, IKON Office Solutions, and won a settlement that he says was worth multiple millions. (IKON acknowledges the settlement but disputes the amount.)
McBride joined Caldera as chief executive in June 2002. Two months later he changed the company's name to The SCO Group, based on the name of an ailing Unix product that Caldera had purchased in 2001 from its creator, The Santa Cruz Operation, of Santa Cruz, Calif. The Santa Cruz Operation now calls itself Tarantella. As with the 1996 DOS lawsuit against Microsoft, in the current lawsuit over Unix and Linux this company aims to take a nearly dead chunk of old code, bought for a song, and parlay it into a windfall. Not only is the strategy the same--so are some of the players.
SCO is basically owned and run by The Canopy Group, a Utah firm with investments in dozens of companies. Canopy's chief executive, Ralph J. Yarro III, is chairman of SCO's board of directors and engineered the suit against Microsoft in 1996. Darcy Mott, Canopy's chief financial officer, is another SCO director, along with Thomas Raimondi, chief executive of a Canopy company called MTI Technology. In this cozy company, SCO even leases its office space from Canopy--a fact disclosed in Securities and Exchange Commission filings, along with the fact that SCO's chief financial officer, Robert Bench, has a side job as a partner in a Utah consulting firm that last year billed SCO for $71,200.
Canopy companies sometimes share more than a common parent. They form joint ventures and buy and sell one another's stock. Last November SCO formed a joint venture called Volution with Center 7, a Canopy company. In 2000, Caldera sold off part of its business to EBIZ Enterprises, a Texas company in which Canopy holds a controlling interest and whose board boasts three Canopy execs, including Mott, according to SEC filings. Previously, Caldera bought shares in two other Canopy companies, Troll Tech and Lineo, and later wrote off the Troll Tech investment but sold the Lineo shares at a profit, according to SEC filings. In 1999, Caldera sold its own shares to MTI, then bought those shares back last year, according to SEC filings.
IANAL, so I'm gonna ask for a lawyer to answer this question for me:
Is there some sort of burden of minimum evidence requirement one has to meet to file a law suit? For example, would SCO have to show that the sources are at least similar (to a judge) before bringing suit? I'd imagine there must be some sort of protection here.
The reason I ask is because I see this situation happening. Small company uses linux for a server cluster. SCO sues small company without any tiny bit of proof. Small company can't afford to fight, settles with SCO.
I can't honestly believe that there's no minimum requrement. If SCO does start suing, they'll actually be so far off base as to make RIAA seem justified in suing Kazaa users. At least RIAA made an effort to gather evidence for something that is definitely illegal.
-=-=-=-=-=
I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
An explanation for the humor-impared, both the parent poster and its moderators:
The joke is the insinuation that only IBM would use all three OSes.
it is time to hire a hitman to have a talk with some of this mouthasses involving a buck of concrete and a bit of water (a river or so)
It will surely put a definitive stop to this madness.
This article is filled with so much misinformation as to be astounding:
Choosing a user of AIX and Dynix would help the company to back up its position that it terminated IBM's licenses for Unix in AIX and Dynix in June and August respectively
No, actually, it wouldn't help prove that, because SCO could not and can not terminate IBM's right to use AIX. IBM created AIX and has the absolute and unquestioned right to use or not use it.
"There is no warranty for infringement of intellectual property [in the GPL], so all of the liability ends up with end users."
There is no warrantee against infringement for *any* software you buy, from *anyone*, including Microsoft, SCO, IBM, etc. This is also true of the GPL. In fact, to even imply that there could be a warrantee for infringment is absurd. It is, quite frankly, impossible. There is so much bullshit crap out there that you can't write a single line of code without violating some trivial bullshit patent somewhere. At least, with FS and OSS licenses, the code is open-source, so issues of infringment can easily be identified.
There is no hiding skeletons in the closet when you develop FS and OSS software. It's all out in the open. If there really was an infringement issue, it would have been found and dealt with long long long ago (e.g., like when SCO was distributing Caldera). Also, by having distributed GNU/Linux, SCO loses the ability to seriously do any of this crap (which is why they have to attack the GPL).
"End users are improperly using this copyrighted material, and under copyright law SCO is entitled to damages and injunctive relief"
Until there's some actual evidence and a court rules, no-one is using misappropriated material. No-one is obligated to do anything until a court rules on real evidence, that SCO actually has valid claims. This is, of course, why they're pressing so hard, because they know the court will find that their case is non-sense. If they want to have any serious case against end-users, they need to show end-users *proof* that the software they use violates SCO's copyright. Even then, they still have no case, because they distributed a GNU/Linux distribution.
"Those who have chosen to ignore the license are more in a situation of potential willful infringement"
Actually, no, they aren't, since SCO hasn't presented any evidence what-so-ever that anyone is violating SCO's copyrights.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Unless you are the recipient of a C&D letter from SCO, there isn't a whole lot you can do civily against them. Criminally, however, a case can be made against SCO on two counts:
Fraud
Every time SCO comes out and makes a statement such as this, it is commercial speech (speech for commercial business/profit) and must be truthful. The current case against Nike has been allowed to proceed and would be very relevant here. Even without the Nike case, there is enough evidence to file charges.
Extortion
In most DMCA cases, the copyright owner files a suit against the supposed infringer and settles out of court; this is underhanded but legal. In this case, SCO is not filing suit but is asking for a "settlement" anyway, IOW, "pay your protection money or I'll sue you and put you out of business". This is extortion, and might also fall under the RICO statutes.
You wanna get rid of the SCO monster? Write your attorney general, write the U.S. attorney general, and write your Congressmen and state legislators and make them clean this mess up. The reason SCO can get away with FUD like this is that the Legislature hasn't put in place proper protections and the Executive won't enforce the protections that exist.
Someone asked if I had patched against MSBlast; I said yes, I installed Linux.
It is a good habit.
Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.
If your IP was so important to you, why would you knowingly apply your IP under a software licence that would force you to release and licence it?
Which is precisely SCO's point, asswipe.
They've examined the Linux kernel source, and found that it's riddled with their intellectual property!!!!!
http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicensefaq.html and the links from that page. this is fucking unbeleivable. im taking a ciggie break then e-mailing sco telling them i'm a Linux user, run multiple servers, and I will never ever every pay them for anything. If linux becomes warez temporarily until parts of the kernel are rewritten then so be it. It should be illegal for them to hassle users like this before any decision had been make in court. IANAL but it sounds like they are making false claims.
Hmm, I can't help but notice that Microsoft used to more or less own a piece of SCO and that Sun ponied up their license fees too.
So I ask myself, would SCO benefit from the demise of Linux? Not really. Its market share would continue to dwindle in the face of Solaris and Windows.
The battle for the server is between Windows and Unix, for the most part, and Sun's Khosla more or less stated that Solaris was the version of Unix that made all other versions irrelevant.
SCO's claims are an attempt to damage IBM's sales of AIX and it's hardware which benefits Sun. Likewise, SCO's claims are an attempt to damage Linux which benefits Sun and Microsoft. So why would SCO take this course of action that can't really bring it any benefit unless there is some other motive?
Take your pick:
a) McBride and Co. are simply trying to get the last $$$ out of a dead horse.
b) SCO has a deal with Sun and/or Microsoft to be the "bad guy" that will result in SCO being bought by one or the other after irreparable damage has been wrought.
c) There is a greater conspiracy to rid the world of that troublesome GPL concept that SCO and Microsoft (and to some extent Sun) have called "a destroyer of intellectual property rights".
d) All of the above.
Of course, I could be misreading the events and the motives behind them.
Or not.
The state attorney general's office is just waiting for the first threat letters to arrive at state and local government agencies. They intend to pursue the matter as it it were organized crime.
If the "stolen" code was released under BSD liscence, wouldn't that make their (SCO's) contract with Novell null and void?
GETPKG - Package Management for Slackware
Would it be nitpicking to point out that SCO received their GPL programs from a distributor. If they state the GPL is invalid, they do not have a legal, licensed copy of that software and must stop using it immediately.
"Remember, any tool can be the right tool." -- Red Green
No. If the GPL is invalid, then it goes away. If the GPL no longer applies, then 'default' copyright law applies, which says that you can't copy the code without the authors permission. This is why the GPL is very unlikely to be rendered invalid, as it is just a list of statments that say: "I grant you permission to distribute this code, provided you follow these conditions. If you don't follow these conditions, then copyright still applies, and the code may not be distributed."
At least the RIAA has a case. SCO will either get an incompetent jury or they will get blasted in court.
...and ye shall receive:
s co.gif
http://homepage.mac.com/patgaddis/calvinpissingon
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
...that the US Government isn't the secret driving force behind SCO in this affair? Think about it. The economy is tanked, and Linux and GPL'ed software is the greatest threat to the "establishment" technology corporations, who only just a few short years ago were kings of the hill in a vibrant economy. What better way to get money pouring back into the IT economy that to suddenly "ban" Linux and free software, and force everyone who must use computers to have to repurchase all their stuff all over again from government-blessed companies. It will create a boon to the economy the likes of which haven't been seen since the scramble in the last '90's to achieve Y2K compliance!!!! And that's just what "they" want.
Yes, but no. SCO can only not redistribute the program that it has broken the license agreement for. So they cannot distribute Linux, but could still distribute Samba, GCC, et al. unless they made similar moves against them.
If SCO is bound and determined to commit public-relations and corporate suicide, all in one swell foop, I'm sure there are cleaner and quieter ways to go about it.
All this grandstanding (without presenting independently-verifiable proof of their claims, I think that's all they're doing) is only going to do one thing: Create a serious financial drain on the company in terms of court costs.
One interesting side effect to this whole mess may be that BSD-based OS's will get more attention. As far as I know, neither NetBSD, nor FreeBSD, nor OpenBSD have ever been the subject of lawsuits of the type that SCO is pushing.
Whatever happens, I think SCO has gone utterly, irretrievably bonkers if they think this kind of behavior will help them in any way. I feel sorry for the employees...
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
Small correction: Apache is not distributed under GPL, not sure about others.
...remember good 'ol times when IP used to mean Internet Protocol....
Traditional corporate structures already distrusted 'free' and 'open' software as alien concepts; SCO's tactics only reinforce the underlying feeling that 'free' software is associated with communists, heretrics, and software pirates.
Free software is one of several forces trying to force changes in the religion of Capitalism; it is a new Reformation. Companies like Microsoft will fight back, tooth and nail, by whatever means they can find -- including surrogate wars waged by SCO.
All about me
I agree that total passivity isn't the right response. I'd really like to see owners of code under the GPL distributed by SCO (Samba for example), ask for either confirmation that SCO accepts the terms of the GPL for that software or stop shipping it. This doesn't require revoking anyones rights under the GPL (if SCO accept the terms they can ship, but it's going to look a little odd in court- if they don't accept the terms then either they stop shipping or they violate copyright: the GPL doesn't really come into it).
Such letters would also count against any claim the GPL==PD that SCO might like to make because the copyright owners are attempting protect their rights.
I knew I should have written some wonderful utility and GPL'd it just so I could send the letter.
Court sealed documents don't have the same terms as the SCO NDA (me thinks). The SCO NDA, to me, looks an awful lot like some non-compete clauses that I've seen that have been thrown out as taking away the livelihood of the person involved.
You may be required to not talk about the case or the evidence, but I'd rather go to jail for contempt than be forced to give up my ability to work. At least I'd get 3 squares a day.
I was just thinking, if Linux-using companies got together and organized a divestment campaign against SCO, could that succeed in dampening SCO's interest in continuing to pursue it's new business model of aggressive and unfounded IP litigation? This would mean dumping any directly controlled investments in SCO, both by the corporate parent and any subsidiaries. Even greater pressure could be brought to bear through 401K and pension plans. Companies could eliminate mutual funds which include SCO stock in their portfolios from the list of investment options included in employee 401K and pension plans. Such a campaign might not only appeal to Linux-using companies, but to any company who feels that SCO's litigious strategy is fundamentally bad for the business environment in general. If the SCO business model was adopted widely it would only succeed in sucking productive corporate resources (e.g. money, time) and fattening the wallets of lawyers. Once you get a few corporate behemoths together to start the divestment campaign, it could generate publicity, snowball, and really drive down the price of SCO stock.
One analyst Stowell cited was Laura DiDio, of the Yankee Group. DiDio, a personable woman who has been covering technology for decades, first as a journalist and then as an analyst, says that one of her strengths is that "I call it as I see it -- I have no qualms about criticizing any vendor, especially when their competition are the one's paying my bills." And when it comes to companies who have bet their fortunes on Linux and other open-source software, Didio says she sees much to criticize.
And here's my "analysis".
"I call it as I see it -- I have no qualms about criticizing any analyst. And when it comes to companies who have bet their fortunes on the Yankee Group and Ms Didio, or any other group (yes, you in the back there Gartner), I see much to criticize.
I am NaN
Take 'em to small claims court. Get SCO into the courtroom to reimburse you for your expenses in processing their garbage.
And get all your business contacts to do the same. Play the game using a set of rules by which we can effectively slashdot the entire corporation in the legal system.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
I'm using SuSE too, and it's a great distro. However, I doubt I'll buy 8.3, and instead go for RedHat, even though I don't like RedHat as much.
Why? Because RedHat is standing up for the right of free software, and committing large sums of money to it as well as taking SCO on in court, while we at the same time see old SuSE honchos now working for SCO.
Regards,
--
*Art
Yes, but they are blatantly re-distributing it, what do you think including it in their products constitutes?
I am NaN
the creater/hoster of goatse. Looks like it runs linux
Is the author of a book entitled to "damages" if I read it after having found it? Or how about if I buy it at a used book store? The only "damages" under copyright are those from the person copying the material, not someone who merely has access to it.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
> 1. To use GPL covered software you have to agree ...
> with the GPL.
> 4. If you disagree with the GPL you are not
> allowed to use the software.
That's not true. You don't *have* to accept the GPL. If you don't, then your code falls under standard copyright law, which says, you can't distribute the formerly GPLed code.
So you can refuse to accept the GPL and link proprietary code to GPLed code, but you won't be able to distribute it.
That's the genius of the GPL, even when you don't accept the GPL, you're accepting the GPL;-)
Even though points 1 and 4 are wrong, point 5 is still right since SCO is distributing GPLed software.
I think getting sued by SCO would be good for many slashbots.
That's because you are a bunch of subservient morons who usually never miss a chance to bow down before your MBA and JD masters.
If a broadband company advertises "20 times the speed of dialup" and then caps the modems and blocks all ports, half the thread is taken up explaining in condescending terms that the cable company has to make money, therefore false advertising and fraud just have to be set aside.
Stories on file sharing are full of nervous worry about artists going out of business. So what ? Whose job is it to keep the artist from starving, me or the artist ? Any news of any type of corporate rip-off or fraud generates a nervous round of excuses: sure 1/2 of every telecom bill is fraud, but who will take care of the wires ? (Someone honest who charges half as much ?) Sure every telecom charges fees for number portability that they don't deliver, but we like the idea of number portability ! ( Like the idea of faster than light travel ? Pay me $2 a month and I'll look into it, and you'll never get that either !) Sure Linksys is violating the GPL, but if we aren't nice little victims some board members might thing bad things about the GPL, and that would be awful ! Sure DirectTV is asserting unconstitutional and facist like claims against our ability to manipulate the EM waves they send through our houses and bodies, but . . . but . . . it just feels rebelious to object !
I hope all you fuckers get taken for at least $4,000 to $8,000 in legal fees. I hope the Federal Marshalls come and take your computers, and charge you a nice fat handling fee to get them back on top of whatever SCO manages to get you spinelessly settle for, and I hope the BSA and RIAA jump in there and make you pay for every copy of windows and every mp3. (Let's see the "but I have nothing to hide, so I'm against the 4th Amendment" posts then!) Ideally, the financial hardship will force you to drop out of the university for a semester or two, see the real world, get fucked over and laid off at a couple of different jobs, and maybe grow out of your junior Republican industrial peasant mentality.
1. the 'open-source/public-domain' genie out of bottle.
2. 'copyright/patent/trademark' cork lost.
3. oh well, sucks to be you.
Court sealed documents don't have the same terms as the SCO NDA (me thinks).
I haven't read the NDA, so I can't really compare the two; but in this case I think it suffices to say that if SCO presents the 'stolen' code and it is sealed in court, we're probably not going to be seeing a complete accounting here on slashdot.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
SCO is dead and was dead before all this happened. They knew it, we know it - but the community is becoming obsessed with this and clearly is missing the boat. This is an attack against the OpenSource business model, not Linux users in general. The whole point of this noise is to confuse and spread FUD about GPL, open source, and Linux. There are certain companies who benefit from this - and SCO is NOT one of them. Stop spending your time worrying about SCO - worry about the effect this has on people who might have been considering open source or Linux and may have stepped back as a result. Consider who gains from this - and worry about THEM! The one company who gains the most from this IMO is Microsoft and the fact that they have been funding this FUD campaign by licensing IP from SCO just stands out like a sore thumb to me.
I'm looking forward to the next BOFH:
"Some jackass corp guy keeps complaining he doesn't get any email, so I told him that somebody stole some IP of his. He got really frothy at the mouth... LOL. Now, with the volume of email he's getting... I could fill the next transport to outer space with hard drives full of it.
Pretty soon, he'll be complaining to someone ELSE... the warden."
"Apache is not GPL, quite a bit of Free software is under BSD/MIT style licenses actually, but SCO has certainly terminated their own rights to use the stuff that is GPL because of that clause. It's just a matter of who has the money and time to C&D them and be ready to back it up with litigation."
Ehm, IANAL, but I don't think so. The GPL covers distribution, not use. You don't have to agree with the GPL to use software it covers, that's only necessary when you want to distribute that software or derrived works.
Firstly, you are right in that the GPL explicitly covers only distribution and says essentially that usage licenses are unneccessary for any software. However, SCO is currently distributing GPL software because they distribute Linux. Not only that, they have been beefing up UnixWare by adding Free Software like Samba, Apache, et al to Unixware, to say nothing of their Linux Kernel Personality which uses Linux kernel code.
They are distributing this code without giving their customers the rights they have under the GPL. Further, they are attempting to require Linux users to pay licensing fees, a practice which directly violates the GPL. All of this adds up to SCO not following the GPL when it comes to distribution, ergo they have no right to distribute any of the Free Software they are distributing.
The copyright holders would be well within their rights to offically inform SCO that they cannot distribute Linux, Samba, et al if they insist on breaking the GPL and especially since they have declared it invalid, and if they persist they will be sued for copyright violation. It would also be poetic justice.
Come to think about it, it woudl be just plain justice. SCO has wrongfully appropriated the IP of others and had the gall to try and turn the whole situation on its head. The company now known as SCO has created 0 IP no matter what they say they own. Now I am willing to concede they own some IP which they have purchased (though what exactly they bought is something they and the people from whom they purchased the IP do not agree on), but the fact of the matter is they are claiming to own all kinds of things, including AIX and Linux which they did not create. They are trying to make themselves the sole licensee for Linux and therefore own Linux.
Their argument that Linux users just do not want to pay for software just does not hold water. After all the people who paid RedHat $2500/pop for Advanced Server or whatever would beg to differ. Besides that they make no sense. If Linus and friends create something and give it away for free, how is that something SCO has anything to do with at all? Why is it that we should pay SCO because "Linux is just too good to be free?" They did not create Linux; it is not for them to be charging jack shit.
I feel bad for the men and women working for SCO. It must be a nauseating ride, like sailors below decks while the drunken captain mans the wheel.
If you know a programmer (sysadmin, etc) working at SCO, try to get them a job somewhere else. Turnover of technical people costs companies big $$.
SCO wants to use slimy tactics. Why can't we?
I'm informing all the vendors with whom I work that my organization is adopting a zero tolerance policy with respect to SCO. We will not purchase items from vendors who sell any SCO/Caldera products.
Don'tcha mean needed?
d. pick any two.
Not to piss on your parade, but the code in question has twice been licensed under the original BSD license, which is *not* GPL compatible. Therefore, the code in question cannot have legally been transferred into a GPLed product, namingly Linux, along that vector.
That's not to say that the code in question is definitely infringing. There are several other legitimate ways it could have gotten in there, but the "original BSD" license grant is not one of them.
As far as suing without disclosing the code, SCO will have to disclose to any defendents, but they would certainly ask the judge for sealed proceedings, which the judge would probably grant. So the defendent would know what specifically is alleged to be infringing, but would be legally enjoined from telling anyone else about it.
Perhaps it's a bit rash but... I sent this to the sco registration question and comments e-mail address: webreg@caldera.com :
-----snip-----
Hi,
My Name is Michael Crawford and i have been using linux since 1997. I have various flavours running as both servers and desktops. I am wondering if (since you claim to own Linux) i would have to pay you for all those versions (including parts I personally for a fact know you didn't write.)
Basically i am absolutely redfaced that you would have the arrogance to ask users to pay for Linux. Especially since your null claims have not been validated in court, which they will never will thanks to IBM's lawyers. Since you claim me, now to be breaking the law, and since you might sue end users. I'll save you the trouble and give you all the necessary info:
Michael Crawford
*address censored but included in original mail*
My cell phone is *this too*
Bring it on,
Michael Crawford
PS: FUCK YOU.
I didn't know you could run a business on giving your customers software, then threatening them for money!
SCO - The "legitimate" mob.
Nunar
"This would be modded up, but I don't have any friends."
THANKS, Bubba! That hurts SO good!
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
What this means is that the dunderheads at SCO figured out that attacking a behemoth like IBM was maybe not so wise. So instead they're going to try to fry some small fish first. Small organizations without the resources or will to put up a fight. If they can get someone to roll over, then they'll trumpet their victory in an effort to further inflate their share price, dump some stock, and drag this out a little longer.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Why does every little peep that is pro SCO get spewed all over the investers headlines, yet when they get slam dunked (like yesterdays disputed code) only hit Open Source supported headlines?
One of the execs at my company holds quite abit of SCO stock, but he knows nothing of any of the claims against SCO's stance because all his invester news fails to note these facts?
It's as if SCO was in bed with AOL/Time Warner and all other media/invester outlets.
Has anyone else see any see any negative (towards SCO I mean) information about SCO in the headlines?
I just called a few minutes ago.
Here's some information that may help. They actually asked for this info:
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042
801-765-4999 phone
The guy I spoke with was actually somewhat familiar with what Linux is. One of his first questions was how this company got involved with me, which my answer was "Well, that's the problem. They didn't."
He eventually asked if SCO has contacted me personally with regard to this situation, which they have not. Don't lie to them. Be completely truthful. At the end of the call I got a reference number, and he said that if SCO does contact me personally, I should call back and let them know.
It was very easy to do, and took about 5 minutes of my time. The recording while I wated for the counselor to pick up the phone did say that the FTC does track trends in complaints. If we get enough people to complain, something will happen. Please, take a few minutes and call!
Thank you for this information, div_2n.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
IBM will stand by that customer, supporting them in court. After all, it looks really bad for IBM if small customer X flounders in legal fees, with a product that is supposedly not legit but sold by IBM. In that case, at least lending the support of a few attack lawyers to any customers in need would be a good move by IBM. After all, all they need is a quick win in court and a judge saying "shut to f*** up SCO you retard" and then we have precedent set, customers feeling a lot more secure, and the death of SCO engraved on a tombstone.
P.S. Is it possible to reserve a tombstone for a business entity? Who wants to put up one that says R.I.P. SCO, suffocated due to heads up their posterior.
The thing that worries me about all this is that if they start threatening litigation, companies will pay regardless of factual basis of their claims.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Information About Your Complaint
/ SRPMS/). As The SCO Group has even released some of their own code to the public (http://web.archive.org/web/20020203074245/ir.cald era.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=45279).
p =s &t=1y&l=on&z=m&q=l
l
e s/ SRPMS/
l de ra.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=45279
Type of Security: stock
Entity Name: The SCO Group
Names, Address, Telephone #s and Other Biographical Information
about Individuals Involved
Ralph Yarro, lll, 38
Chairman
Ralph J. Yarro III has served as a member of the Company's Board of Directors since August 1998.
Darl McBride, 43
Pres, CEO
Darl McBride has served as the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer since June 2002 and is responsible for the company's strategic direction and planning. Mr. McBride oversees all aspects of the Company including engineering, support, marketing and sales.
Robert Bench, 53
CFO, Principal Accounting Officer
Robert K. Bench has served as the Company's Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer since November 2000. As Chief Financial Officer for SCO, Mr. Bench manages financial, general and administrative functions of the Company and communicates financial vision.
Opinder Bawa, 39
Sr. VP-Technology
Opinder Bawa has served as senior Vice President of Technology since November 2001. Mr. Bawa is responsible for defining an integrated corporate and technology strategy to leverage market opportunities for meeting customer needs.
Christopher Sontag, 39
Sr. VP, Operating Systems Group
Chris Sontag has served as senior Vice President, Operating Systems since September 2002. Mr. Sontag is responsible for directing the marketing and strategy of the Company's operating systems division, guiding corporate marketing and overseeing the development of SCO's intellectual property.
355 South 520 West, Suite 100
Lindon, UT 84042
Phone: (801) 765-4999
Fax: (801) 765-1313
How you Learned about the Transaction or other Activity
News services and company research services.
Who Contacted you: no one
Sales Material in Your Possession
none
Details About the Transaction(S)
On Monday, June 6th, The SCO Group filed lawsuit against IBM reguarding a contract dispute over computer software source code being leaked to the public.
On the 20th of June, executives from The SCO Group started selling stock option. This is suspicious considering that there has been no insider trades for a year and a half preceding this (see http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html for a list of Insider & Form 144 Filings from The SCO Group from the last two years). The start of the sell-off coincides with the stock reaching a two year high. It seems that The SCO Group is using the lawsuit to gain profits for the executive team.
The SCO Group has also been making claims that companies that use the disputed software owe The SCO Group license fees. Yet, there has been no ruling that The SCO Group has any rights to the disputed code. In fact, The SCO Group has been releasing the disputed code for several years from the on computer systems (see ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/updates
These claims appear to be intended to hurt their growing competition in the Linux support industry and manipulate the price of their stock. There are several summaries of this unwarrented attack by The SCO Group, one of them is here: http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/08/11.html
If on the Internet, All Relevant Internet Addresses
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/s/scox.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/n/s/scox.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=c&k=c1&a=v&
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/08/11.htm
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/updat
http://web.archive.org/web/20020203074245/ir.ca
Any Additional Information
Use this area to add any additional information that you wish.
> IANAL, so this may be rubbish.
What has the former got to do with the latter?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
So they cannot distribute Linux, but could still distribute Samba, GCC, et al. unless they made similar moves against them.
But, how can they attack Linux on grounds that the GPL is not valid, then turn around and take rights to other software under the GPL. While at this time Samba, GCC, et al. cannot sue SCO. They could request written clarification of SCO's acceptance of the GPL, if SCO were dumb enough to write that letter, they can hand a copy over to IBM to demonstrate SCO's acceptance that the GPL is legal. But, they still can't sue SCO, yet. The lawsuits could only occur if SCO somehow wins on grounds the GPL is invalid, in which case all copyright holders of GPL software that SCO has ever distributed sue SCO for infringement. Because if the GPL is declared not valid, it was never valid, and therefore SCO has been infringing since day 1.
Dastardly
How about I give you the finger, and you go sell your scam to someone else?
Thank you.
Finding God in a Dog
I see a (potential) small problem here.
Suppose that program A is distributed under the terms of the GPL. The GPL does not grant any right to use the program (it presumes none is required.) (It is an interesting question of law whether rights to use a program, legitimately obtained, can be covered by copyright law, and to what extent. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm clueless on this one.)
Thus it may (however unlikely) turn out to be the case that SCO's claim and licensing stuff is valid, yet only pertains to actually using the software. Note that they are selling per-CPU licences to use the software, and are placing no restrictions on usage. Thus they place no restriction modification or redistribution, but people who obtain a copy, whilst allowed to copy and modify it to their hearts content, are not allowed to use the kernel without a license from SCO.
Maybe the GPL 3.0 should explicitly include sections pertaining to use of the program (so that it is explicitly agains the license to freely allow redistribution, yet restrict usage of the code on a CPU.)
I suspect there are some serious flaws in the above. I hope there are, and I hope someone can explain where the problems lie.
John_Chalisque
praise to parent
According to this article on ZDNet News, SCO pointed out some of the allegedly copied code in Linux in a presentation at SCO forum.
I think when you start getting quotes like "The DNA of Linux is coming from Unix.", it starts sounding more and more like a bad soap opera or worse "Voyager".
Their tactics are getting more and more desperate, and they are trying to scare the world into believing their claims without presenting any real proof that the claims are valid
Problem is, many companies might just shell out the cash to SCO to be done with the whole thing. They may not like it, but see it as the least cost / hassle way to get on with their business which is not fending off SCO threats, but rather making money for their stockholders.
Bring it on.
1. To use GPL covered software you have to agree with the GPL.
4. If you disagree with the GPL you are not allowed to use the software.
From the GPL: (emphasis mine)
To DISTRIBUTE GPL covered software, you have to agree with the GPL. GPL is a distribution license, not an EULA.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
We just ignore anything SCO says or does> They've had enough /.-promotion of their fight against Linux, and quite frankly, each new bit of news is being blown up like they really have a clue what they are doing. Lets just ignore SCO and their demented actions, let IBM and Redhat fight it out, and in the mean time actually have some serious news we actually care a bit about...
This sig is intentionally left blank
I'm looking forward to the point when SCO employees start releasing confidential internal documents and source code to fight back. There must be Linux supporters (or freedom-lovers!) who work for SCO, and surely they're starting to get fed up with all this crap.
Oh, and shouting filth at SCO will make them go away? Have ANY effect at all? Well it will have some, in that SCO will chuckle and say to themselves "what a bunch of idiots".
Has anyone noticed some of the rediculous court rulings being passed out these days? SCO might very well prevail on their position in court.
I just got off the phone with my State Attorney Generals' office (Utah). They have been receiving a lot of e-mails and calls regarding SCO.
She referred me to a different person who read me a prepared statement that basically said that the issues raised by SCO are Federal copyright issues and the State has no Jurisdiction.
She suggested I contact either my elected officials to complain, or contact the US Attorney for my area. I wasn't able to talk with a live person there, but did leave a message.
I can't believe SCO is allowed to threaten innocent companies without first proving their claims. Based on the code samples seen yesterday, they have only tried to find similar code blocks between their code and Linux. What they haven't done is determine where their code came from, or if it has been released to the public in the past.
OK. Linux has enough friends in high places, it's time we started putting pressure on the SEC to move to quash these bastards. Let's see. They are attacking IBM. IBM is *big* friends with Apple. Apple is using a free*nix version for its OS and may be the next target. Apple has Al Gore on its board of directors. Al Gore is a lawyer and a democrat and the democrats have *lots* of contacts within the bureacracy, congress and senate. I'm sure if the SEC got a phone call from a senator it might actually carry some weight.
Or maybe someone has a shorter route to the SEC. Someone in a high office or department (NASA, JPL?) has to benefit from Linux. Which democrats and republicans are the largest backers of science and technology? Lets make some calls to our representatives. I know it sounds futile, but if enough people started calling their representatives that might make a difference.
Wait. I just had a much better idea. The Wall Street trading floor is one of the biggest backers of linux. That should hit them where it hurts. Maybe the head the IT trading floor should call the SEC and call bullshit. Shennanigans!
Time to mobilize, people!
Let's see how there stock fairs when they come under SEC investigation.
bstowell@sco.comp r.com
mmodersi@sco.com
sco@schwartz-
just write what you think about it all
I am right now
This is a great example of the mindset of SCO ... deride the GPL where it threatens them, but embrace it where it suits them.
I think those were common shares. In which case MS has no official connection to the corporate decision making.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
SCO is assuming individuals who hold the copyrights will not take them to court (too expensive). Look at Linus for example. This is why it is important that someone with good backing (IBM) is making claims against SCO involving GPL violation. If not for them, we would probably rely on the FSF who might fight but with more limited resources.
This all illustrates why it is important to use the GPL rather than any of those other licenses floating around that nobody ever heard of. If it's GPL compatible, then why not use GPL instead to avoid confusion. People always want to put their own slant on a good idea.
IANAL, but couldn't all users of Linux go for a class action against them for the unfounded claims they're making? I'd still wait to see what happens with the existing stuff before taking that route.
WETA isn't the only motion-picture related company using Linux. However, since WETA is in New Zealand and probably have no operations in the United States, SCO will probably have to go to New Zealand to file suit against them. Fat chance a New Zealand court will convict their own media heroes. But, New Line Cinema, a division of AOL Time Warner, certainly has made lots of money off the special effects derived from all of those *SCO-IP infringing* computers loaded with Linux. Then we go to AOL Time Warner itself. A couple of quarters ago, AOL itself made a big deal about replacing all their servers running Unix with Linux. Then we have DreamWorks SKG that rendered all of "Sinbad" using Linux. Last week, we heard that Disney and two (2) refuse-to-be-named movie studios pooled their resources together to get Adobe Photoshop to run under Linux since each of the three (3) studios were switching every PC over to Linux. And then we have Lucasfilm/ILM. They switched everything over to Linux as well. So in summary, the fun is really going to start when SCO pushes all these players too far: 1. AOL Time Warner/AOL/New Line Cinema/WETA, 2. DreamWorks SKG, 3. Disney, *cough cough* 4. and 5. 20th Century Fox and Sony Pictures, and 6. Lucasfilm/ILM. Care to wager bets when the bootleg video of Mr. McBride getting a Super Star Destroyer stuffed into him hits Kazaa? It'll be funnier than the *Star Wars Kid* video and far more legally damaging... :)
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
My understanding is that if you disagree, you can't DISTRIBUTE..... anyone can log into ftp.sco.com and download all the GNU software they want.
So what you are saying is that SCO is in the same category as music "thieves" and parrot toting pirates?
Should we submit them to the BSA and get the FBI running through SCO headquarters?
Hmmmm... any BSA members using GPL code?
But where will I drink a soda if not on my comfy sofa?
That would indeed constitute redistribution. But, as I mentioned elsewhere, as far as I can tell they are actually adhereing to the letter of what the GPL requires them to do. And the GPL doesn't contain any provisions that say you can't bad-mouth it.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
WTF!?!?!?!?
You can't modify the GPL, remember Version 2, June 1991 Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
I had much the same experience. I got the impression that they will take it more seriously if people who have been persoanlly threatened call in.
Also, I asked what is done with the personal info I gave them. They said it is kept secure and nobody but FTC and law enforcement will see it.
For all the "SCO is almost dead" chanting that slashdotters have been doing.....SCO is still here. Alive and kicking...and doing damage.
I would really like someone to rise up and destroy the SCO once and for all. But it hasn't happened yet. And until it does....being sued is a very real concern.
But you don't have to live like a refugee.
Everybody's had to fight to be free...
... but what's a few million "}"s among friends...
Let me summarize ALL of JohnDenver's Slashdot posts:
"Blaw, blaw, blaw, sputter... "
Thank you!
File:
http://www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm
to lodge on online complaint against SCO for manipulation of security prices.
By the way, I don't care McDonald's gave you your Ketchup for free, I want 50 cents for every packet you get. I own some of whats inside, but I'm not telling you what. Just send the money.
http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit/ gives links to court papers. i'm not sure how complete it is considering it *does* come from SCO.
Violating the GPL on one piece of software does not automatically prevent you from accepting and honoring the GPL on other software. If I violate the GPL on emacs I can no longer distribute emacs... but I can still distribute GCC as long as I follow the GPL with respect to GCC.
I do not have a signature
I almost wish SCO would sue me as an end-user. Because then it would be in my rights for me to know every detail of their claims against me -- i.e. I would be able to demand that they show me every piece of infringing source code. Then I would show the rest of the world :-)
Of course that would never happen -- they would refuse to show me -- and besides, they can't find me anyway...
Well, if the GPL == public domain then no Linux user has anything to worry about. The Linux kernel has been released under GPL by everyone distributing it, including SCO, and they continue distributing it under those terms so can't claim they didn't know any longer. If GPL == public domain then Linux is public domain and nobody can be sued for using or distributing it!
I have continuously wondered if SCO isn't trolling. Their tactics are classic of a Usenet troll...enter a domain and make wild unsubstanciated claims bound to piss someone off in that group...fan the flames when necissary... Maybe someday soon they will say "HA HA, You fell for it suckas" and we will all go "Wow, that was classic!"
I don't understand how someone could actually believe all of the contrary logic that comes out of the mouth of SCO.
NR
It's kinda funny that after SCO said the GPL was invalid they announced that They were including Samba 3 in the next release of their crapware. Option 1 So if the GPL is valid and they released thier code in the kernel under the GPL, effectively giving it away and now conning companies to pay them for free software therefore: SCO = thieves Option 2 The GPL is invalid as SCO have claimed and they are including samba code that they have no right to therefore: SCO = thieves
I Just called too..
the guy i talked to was very nice and the whole call took less than 5 min.
iF yOu WAnT to C YOUr iP agaIn gAThEr tWO MilLIon dOLLArS IN Non - cONsEcuTivE TweNtY's AnD AWaiT FuRThER iNstrUctIoN
SCO wants your balls!
The way I read their brief, the patent stuff was an "and by the way".
I agree that patent issues can come around to haunt us, but much as it hurts to say this, I think IBM has thrown it's hat in with us.
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
If we tried to buy up SCO stock to take them over, it would create demand for SCO stock, drive the price up, and the SCO directors would make out on their options. You can bet that a buyout offer from IBM is probably one of the outcomes that SCO's corporate directors would really like.
If you have distributed a piece of code under the GPL that's currently distributed by SCO:
- write a letter asking SCO if they respect the GPL re the use of your code.
- organize a press conference for the occasion.
It's as simple as that. Is this grown up behaviour? No, but it
1) is completely legal;
2) doesn't have any consequenses for you;
3) is a nice public display of the strength of GPL'd code;
4) could seriously embarras SCO even before they go to court;
5) doesn't weaken the position of the GPL in the least.
I presume there are ways to limit the use of said code if they publicly state they don't respect the license it's distributed under.
And if SCO willingly disregards those limitations, it consequently could be taken up by interested parties with deeper pockets... but that's not the issue.
It is not about starting another lawsuit, but about making it public knowledge that Very Powerful Software(tm) is being produced under the GPL and that the same idiots who refute the GPL can't possibly do what they do without it.
That incidentally includes MS.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
$ host www.sco.com
...
www.sco.com A 216.250.140.112
$ whois 216.250.140.112
OrgName: NFT
OrgID: NFT
Address: 333 S 520 W Suite 300
City: Lindon
StateProv: UT
PostalCode: 84042
Country: US
NetRange: 216.250.128.0 - 216.250.143.255
CIDR: 216.250.128.0/20
iptables -I INPUT -s 216.250.128.0/20 -j DROP
Take care now. Bye-bye then.
"I drank what?" -Socrates
Of course, proving they have copyright to linux is like...well, like proving I own the copyright to Microsoft Windows. Impossible.
> The biggest test of your ideals is when someone you don't like is taking advantage of them. Just as believing in freedom of speech means you have to support the right of people to say things you don't like...
Don't oversimplify the situation. Drawing an analogy to Freedom of Speech, what you rightly say must be protected is the right of, oh, Microsoft to make extensive use of BSD-licensed code in its products. Hell, for all I care they can bundle GPL'ed code as long as they adhere to its terms.
But Freedom of Speech does have limits. Not that horrible "falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater" decision from a century ago - the courts have long upheld contrary views.
But you don't have the right to incite a riot. You don't have the right to disturb my peaceful enjoyment of my own property. You don't have the right to use mechanical means to prevent others from hearing me. That's why "fighting words" laws have been upheld, and laws regulating space on the basis of time, manner and place.
More generally, it's usually acceptable to make use of something provided by others (or society as a whole) while criticizing it, but not acceptable to use it while demanding that all others give up all rights to it.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
But if you do violate, and thereby revoke, your GPL license, then you stand in copyright violation any time you use any GPL code beyond your basic rights under copyright law.
PLEASE KILL THIS MEME! The GPL is NOT one single license agreement which everything GPL'd is under. Each GPL'd "thing" has it's own "personal" GPL. In other words, the GPL is a common license DOCUMENT, a commonly USED license agreement, etc. It IS NOT a license structure used IN common by disparate projects. I'm having trouble finding other ways to state what seems staggeringly, painfully obvious. The GPL is a license you may copy and use for your own license agreements (this is why it states in the GPL that you have permission to copy the GPL itself freely but WITHOUT ANY modification): your using the textually same license does not create any connection to any other licensing agreement done by anyone--even you!
(anyone with karma has my permission to copy this and post in under each of the ridiculous number of comments saying/assuming otherwise ;)
I'm waiting for the complete "copyrighted" code to be printed on a tshirt juust like DeCSS was. Back when anyone gave a damn anyway.
Chris Brewer writes "Massey University's Helix supercomputer would incur a licensing charge of nearly US$100,000 for it's 132 CPU Beowulf cluster
Thanks, Chris, for pre-empting the otherwise inevitable, "Imagine licensing a beowulf cluster of..." postings.
As I wrote here an organized corporate divestment campaign including employee 401K and pension plans could really stick it to SCO.
Hrmm, I would prefer to see Beowulf beating the shit out of McBride, Grendel style...
Actually, you already have #1. Once you have GPLed software (provided your copy is legal) you're free to use it (as with all software, or books, etc) without agreeing to a license.
You only need to agree to the GPL to do things you couldn't otherwise, such as #2 - #4.
Send SCO a letter saying that you aren't allowed to copy Samba without agreeing to the GPL, and you can't in good faith agree to a contract you don't believe is legal. Put up or shut up. If the GPL isn't valid, Samba reverts to the individual copyrights of a ton of people, if the GPL is valid, you've given permission for any of your source, if there is any, which made it into Linux, by releasing Linux under the GPL.
Since the issues of this case is obvously not her field of expertise, it must be of some concerns that she is willing to issue conclusive and sweeping statements using only one source of information, namely the SCO insiders.
Not to mention that, as a Windows specialist, she has a vested interest in keeping its market share large enough that it remains newsworthy, so she doesn't have to retrain to stay in business. B-)
But by the same token signing the NDA could end the carreer of a Linux analyst. So it will be hard to get any to sign up just to view the internals of SCO's FUD.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
the rest of the world will go on. sco has no power outside of america. this would be disasterous for america though, since that would be the country that can not move forward in software, except for that meglomaniac everyone else is scared of anyway.
id love to seem them try to sue the chinees govt...
japan basically ignored them, and i dont think the rest of asia is even on thier radar. where are they going to go? germany?
your right though, paid off by MS is the only thing that makes sense.
Feel free to call them and follow up.....
From the following Forbes article we have chief technology strategist from Merril Lynch Rick Carey who is "staking his reputation" on Linux. I'm sure he should be easy to find. Also Steve Yatko who is the CTO of CFSB should be making some calls to the SEC. Someone suggest it to him.
Wall Street Embraces Linux
And from this CRN New Zealand article we have a quote from Merril Lynch VP of Linux strategy Mark Snodgrass. I think he should give the SEC a phone call.
Linux gaining interest from Wall Street (Reseller News)
How about Mark Hunt, Global Directory, Enterprise Product Marketing for Reuters? Or Jeff Birnbaum, CTO of Morgan-Stanley?
Wall Street's Secret Affair With Linux (CIO Update)
How abou Robert Ryan, Linux product manager for JP Morgan Chase? What is Evan Bauer, former CTO of Credit-Suisse First Boston doing these days? Is he calling the SEC to stop the SCO FUD damage? Apparently Robert Liefowitz who is the Director of Meryll-Lynch's Technical Architecture Group thinks Linux is the secod coming of Christ. Has he called the SEC?
Wall Street Gaining Respect for Linux
An excellent quote from Ryan...
These trading firms need to put their money where their mouth is. Something like 3 trillion dollars a day flows through wall street. They have benefitted from Linux more than anyone else.
That's fine, if that's how they want to play, we can go by the same rules. Just keep begging their lawyers for a quarter. When they give it to you, take their life savings.
And let the Bush administration defend what they love more than business, our aresenal of massive destruction.
Actually, I think you have this backwards. By distributing Samba (and for that matter, Linux) under a GPL license they have implicitly agreed to the terms of the GPL. They can argue until they're blue in the face that the GPL is invalid, but their words hold no merit if their actions say otherwise. It would be like standing on a street corner and yelling "There is no right to free speech!" - it makes no sense (the Chewbacca defense?). IDHTBAL (I don't have to be a lawyer) to show that their actions undermine their arguments.
,for example.
Of course, technically they're only agreeing to the GPL if they distribute the software. So let's all go to SCO's ftp site and download some GPL'd code - preferably a nice big package, like kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-152.nosrc.rpm
On stereophonic equipment, the monaural sound obtained through multiple channels will enhance your listening pleasure.
Maybe he only needed an end-user license. I was going to call you a dumbass, too, but I decided against it, at the last minute.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Back when they were the best distro in town ( for business clients ) i bought licenses for both server and workstation, to show my support. ( yes that was a while ago, before they fell WAY behind, and became a non issue on the linux map )
Ive been waiting for 'the letter' since day one.. has not arrived yet....
And to think i helped fund this mess in a small way...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I am not (yet?) a lawyer, so this might be the worst idea since New Coke / Microsoft Bob / whatever...
But why don't end users, separately but in something of a concerted effort, start filing lawsuits for declaratory judgments against SCO? The filing fees would be substantially cheaper than the license, and it's better to be a plaintiff than a defendant. I seriously doubt SCO wants to litigate 50 separate suits (one per state; the dollar amount is too low for federal subject matter jurisdiction, so no change of venue)... I wonder (I doubt it) if this could be done in small claims court...
Ripeness shouldn't be a problem, if SCO is filing their own suits. Thinking people with, say, five Linux installs (I have five, in two states, if you count laptops), or whatever subject matter jurisdiction requires for your local superior court ($5000? So, 8 Linux instances at SCO's current $700 demand?). Use their tactics against them, before they get around to using them against you. And, best of all, get some DISCOVERY, and start disproving their bullshit...
geek. lawyer.
Here is a letter i am writing and i will be mailing today. can anyone out there point me to links that provide information on SCO's illegal tactices i would like to include it in the letter.
California Department of Justice
Public Inquiry Unit
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
To whom it may concern:
My name is Eric Adint, I am a software engineer. Recently I have been troubled by the claims that a company called SCO has been making. They are currently suing every company that uses Linux in an attempt to discredit the open source movement. Their claims are based on the supposition that there is intellectual property (IP) in the Linux kernel that they own. The problem is that the refuse to show the infringing IP and they have yet to provide legal proofe of its existence. This has seriously damaged the reputation of a great operating system and in my opinion a form of extortion. In essence I would like to report the SCO group to you for racketeering and extortion. Below I will provide you with the proof that shows that SCO is performing illegal practices. If you want you can simply do a google search and find all the relative information about SCO's attempted extortion.
Sincerely
Eric Adint
Sue users for what? Next thing we know they'll be suing us for breathing. The air was probably once in their offices, you know. This stuff has been freely available to anyone with the means of access, and some without, for years. Isn't there some kind of prior-art law? Oh right, there isn't. SCO is taking tips from the RIAA. Some poor random end-user is going to get sued, will have no money and no publicity, and willhave to settle out of court with life savings. I think I'll buy a Windows OS now. It's cheaper considering that I pay the MS tax anyway when I buy a computer from certain vendors.
The only problem is that it takes more time to compose something like the parent's letter than it does to ignore it. Perhaps an automated letter generator, taking pre-written paraphrases of key points, is in order.
If you're willing to give your name and address or phone number, snail mail and POTS is probably the best way, but email isn't horrible either (and it's easier to automate).
http://www.sco.com/company/feedback/index.html ,
licensing@sco.com ,
http://www.sco.com/licensing/piracy.html ,
webreg@caldera.com ,
1-800 726-8649,
And probably many others I don't have time to find, including investors relations and any media channels.
Litigious bastards
I've followed this chicanery since the beginning and wish to strike
one blow among many (IBM, HP, etc.) at SCO.
I want to claim that my consulting company, Robert Tilley Inc.,
has been hurt by the claims and announcements of SCO.
Filing a lawsuit claiming that I've lost customers seems a good idea.
Are there any more experienced legal minds here that can offer unofficial advice?
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
The crux of their concern actually was the very fact that every large commercial software manufacturer, including MS, included language in their EULAs that indemnified the customer against patent- or copyright-infringing code.
Actually they don't.
SCO itself doesn't, at the very least not on any of the GPL code they distribute that I'm aware of.
Okay, so, once again, various threads have descended into mini-flame wars over opinion from a bunch of non-lawyers who got modded up because the mods liked their opinions. You know what? I've had it. If there ARE any law professionals here on /. feel free to reply to this with some sort of proof. An e-mail address from your firm. Something. Anything.
I'll add you as my "friends" with some sort of karma modifier, and make the list publicly available. We should be able to improve the SNR that way.
If someone's already done something like this, point me in the right direction.
Michael C. Hollinger
> That is, could the Samba team actually file against SCO for injunctive relief to prohibit them from distributing Samba for license violation just because they violated the GPL where the Linux kernel is concerned?
And SCO can turn right around and file a countersuit against the Samba team.
You think the Samba team has the deep legal pockets as SCO? You care to fund the Samba team's defense of that countersuit?..
Bring it on, SCO!
This sig no verb.
How are the Licenses registered?
;-P
The url to register and activate the license is http://www.sco.com/support/registration/
Anyone up to writing a registerbot???
You know exactly what I'm talking about, don't you?
Shit.. where's the remove button??
What the hell is keeping IBM/RedHat/FSF/HP/Samba/the Pope from having an injunction slapped on these crooks?
Probably the same legal issues that caused the judge to throw out a similar move against DirecTV's extortion of money from purchasers of smartcard programming hardware.
They're threatening legal action. Any notices associated with it are "privileged". They don't get a cent unless they prove their cases in court or the defendant folds, so the legal system assumes the defendant is being properly handled and "gets his day in court".
Now AFTER you WIN you MIGHT be able to go after them if you can show they knew their case was bogus. But until it gets ground through the legal mill you're stuck.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You're correct in some respects, but I would say that according to your link, stating "the people ARE the shareholders!" is a bit misleading, something like saying "the people ARE the SUV drivers!" Less than half of families (however that's defined) own corporate stock, so protecting only their rights is perfectly OK?
I would venture to say that more businesses, and through extension people (employees, customers, etc.) benefit from Free software, and Linux in particular, than benefit from SCO (which at this point can probably be narrowed down to mostly their stockholders). I don't think that the government should necessarily do anything about it at this point, because as you pointed out, it's not their place (beyond whatever comes out of the Red Hat and IBM suits against SCO).
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
If someone rips a copy of a DVD and sells it to me as an original, I'm not liable for copyright infringement for watching it - the person who copied the DVD is.
Now, SCO could perhaps demand that the end user stop using the product since it's effectively stolen, but you're not liable for prior use, including use prior to SCO demostrating that your product is, in fact, infringing.
paintball
What a bunch of sad idiots.
Oh well, what the hell...
Perhaps he needed to pay his rent on Park Place?
so when exactly does this meet the legal definition of extortion ?
[...] every large commercial software manufacturer, including MS, included language in their EULAs that indemnified the customer against patent- or copyright-infringing code.
So maybe what they're doing is trying to cause a significant amount of legal and financial damage to a large number of customers, so IBM, RedHat, etc. become liable for a MASSIVE indemnity payment.
Another move to make it more expensive to fight them than to buy them off. (And buying them off, if it doesn't include buying them out, just makes them stronger when they stage their NEXT attack on someone who HASN'T knuckled under.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
No, because the programs are seperately licensed. However, you could make the argument that SCO's public comments are a rejection of the GPL, probably through their comment that it was illegal. Since I doubt you can agree to a contract that you know is illegal, SCO did not agree to the terms of the GPL and is thus not allowed to distribute Samba.
"Evil company X is threatening to restrict our rights! Let's all get together to stop--OOOH! SHINEY!!!" -- AC
I've been wanting to do this, but can't due to my company.
Someone should step up, and tell SCO:
Hi, I'd like to stop infringing your intellectual property, so I'd like to rip out the infringing parts of my linux-2.4 kernel. Please tell me which parts infringe on your IP....
Wouldn't they have to be helpfull to those who would want this????
If any case screams out for class action it's this one. What can we do to make sure that all of the linux defendents get lumped into one class that acts together? This will prevent SCO from bullying 1 million defendants with 1 million lawsuits. Instead it'll get cleared up with only one trial. Should we set up a website? I'm sure there will be no shortage of great lawyers who would handle our case.
I was reading the Copyright Office regulations last night and I found this section.
U.S. Copyright Office--Regulations
Here is a big block of legalese:
(2) Requests for certified or uncertified reproductions of the copies, phonorecords, or identifying material deposited in connection with a copyright registration of published or unpublished works in the custody of the Copyright Office will be granted only when one of the following three conditions has been met:
(i) The Copyright Office receives written authorization from the copyright claimant of record or his or her designated agent, or from the owner of any of the exclusive rights in the copyright as long as this ownership can be demonstrated by written documentation of the transfer
of ownership.
(ii) The Copyright Office receives a written request from an attorney on behalf of either the plaintiff or defendant in connection with litigation, actual or prospective, involving the copyrighted work.
The following information must be included in such a request:
(A) The names of all the parties involved and the nature of the controversy;
(B) The name of the court in which the actual case is pending or, in the case of a prospective proceeding, a full statement of the facts of the controversy in which the copyrighted work is involved; and
(C) Satisfactory assurance that the requested reproduction will be used only in connection with the specified litigation.
So, anyone who gets such a letter, you may want to ask your attorney to ask the Copyright Office for a copy of the code that SCO actually owns before you take any action.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Could someone just file against SCO a huge
class action suit for work and business lost
in dealing with their bogus claims?
That would really be justice.
The call was fast, they were very polite. They will want to know the company name and address (see the other posts on this subject). The person I talked to did not know about the issue, they clearly have not gotten many calls about it yet.
SCO is assuming individuals who hold the copyrights will not take them to court (too expensive).
The FSF would take them to court in a heartbeat.
As I understand it, SCO isn't just trying to get the GPL declared invalid. They're trying to get the GPL declared invalid and all GPLed software declared public domain. Basically, their argument (however invalid it may be) is that anyone who gives you as much freedom as the GPL gives must obviously not care to do anything with their copyright, and therefore "GPL" == "public domain".
And since they've distributed their own alleged code under the same license, they basically want the court to declare everyone else's code public domain, but keep their own rights. Yeah, that'll fly...
Kythe
1-800-726-8649
Ask them if the GPL is invalid, then why do they distribute Samba under it?
Come on everybody - lets run their phone bill up!
"No, because the programs are seperately licensed. However, you could make the argument that SCO's public comments are a rejection of the GPL, probably through their comment that it was illegal. Since I doubt you can agree to a contract that you know is illegal, SCO did not agree to the terms of the GPL and is thus not allowed to distribute Samba."
If SCO is claiming the GPL's provision that allows redistribiution is illegal, then they have forefited their right to distribute ANY GPLED CODE. They are infringing on copyright themselves.
They can't have their cake and eat it too. They can't say the GPL is "invalid" with respect to one program and then take advantage of it in another.
And IBM/Redhat's lawyers will surely harp on this point...
Corporatism != Free Market
In other words, if I use something that I assume to be OK, and it isn't, then surely I have a right to remove it and if I don't, then the copyright holder can claim damages (in other words, you can't sue for damages except from AFTER when you show the issue).
Why doesn't every just start using a modified GPL that has an explicit caveat that the software can't be used on SCO operating systems? The SCO would be in violation for all the new GPL code they distribute. i.e. Samba 3.1 or whatever.
The license you bought, you can wipe your arse with, it's all its good for.
well it might have some value to collectors someday. like Confederate money.
SCO cannot distribute GPL code unless they actively agree to be bound by it. I'm not sure if they can simultaneously do that and argue the GPL is invalid. Even if they can, dragging them into a seperate case over their use of Samba can still be devastating to them. They need to make mutally contradictory statements in each case arguing that the GPL is both valid and invalid. Any statement they make in one case can be used against them in the other case They pretty much HAVE to lose at least one of the two cases.
I'm not a lawyer and I'm about to get in a bit over my head in some pretty hairy legal doctrines here, but I belive that SCO may get hosed by estopple and equity. (or unclean hands?) Basicly estopple can forbid them from making certain statements/arguments in one case that contradict what they said in the other. Equity (or unclean hands?) may bite them for trying to cheat and benefit from both sides of the issue at the same time.
SCO could conceivably paint themselves into a corner and lose BOTH cases. While SCO's loss in a Samba case might seem like a blow to the GPL, it would be intimately tied to SCO's behavior here. It would probably have absoltely no effect on anyone else.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Ain't workin anymore!
l ?i Page=lqd&Symbol=scox
http://moneycentral.msn.com/scripts/webquote.dl
This stock pump doesn't seem to be helping... You know, there is a "law of diminishing returns" that applies to everything...
FUD built on outrageous FUD diminishes in effectiveness the more times it's tried.
Corporatism != Free Market
That's a completely separate issue. Sure it'd be nice to have 1 million people sue SCO (on what grounds I'm not sure). But SCO is forcing our hand by filing lawsuits against us. There isn't anything we can do to prevent this. So we need to make sure that we as defendant's don't say "well, $699 is cheaper than a lawsuit, I fold." That is (I presume) SCO's strategy -- the let's throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. They probably don't have any intention of actually suing anyone. And why would you if you can get them to pay by just sending out a threating letter. That is (or should be) our worst nightmare.
As a linux end user, personal and for my business, I've tried to ask SCO for info regarding it's Linux License: warrenty, support, what I am buying. So far SCO has ignored me and refused to reply. Now they want to sue me? I think it's time for a consumer complaint.
Gotta love /.
Nobody felt the need to ask to what video you were referring.
"If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."
~Epictetus
Please, do not go down the slippery slope of thinking that only Red Hat will have to go to trial if SCO has its way. Everyone who has ever been involved with free software by necessity made a "copy" and will get dragged to court by your "distributor" argument. This is not SCO vs Red Hat and IBM, this is SCO vs everyone who has ever done GPL software.
I think people are missing something important. Follow this chain of thought and see if it's seems valid:
1) SCO sues IBM for violation of their contract because IBM distributed code that was a DERIVITIVE of SCO owned code.
These facts are not in dispute: that IBM did distribute the code, that the code was derived in some manner from SCO code. The dispute is if IBM had a right to distribute derivitives of SCO code. SCO says no IBM says yes.
2) The GPL is a license (contract between user and copyright holder) that has as it's core the users obligations and rights to DERIVITIVE works of the code covered by copyright.
On the one hand the argument must be that the license cannot (does not, will not) allow the rights of the copyright holder to extend to derivitive works.
On the other hand that the license does allow the rights of the copyright holder to extend to derivitive works.
Boies isn't dumb. If the above conflicting arguments can be framed in the context of copyright law (i.e. either one or the other are permissible under copyright law) then IBM loses.
This I think is the really argument. This Samba/GPL/Linux Code stuff is just a diversion to keep people busy and confused.
Of course this begs the question about HOW commited big blue is to Open Source, are they willing to lose the law suit and argue for the GPL if it comes to that?
disclaimer: I am not a lawyer
How many companies do you know that have deployed Linux use it on only ONE CPU? (Note this does not count companies that happen to use Linux for a handful of mailservers or webservers; I'm talking serious enterprise use) Recall that SCO is charging $700 PER CPU. If I have deployed 1,000 machines with Linux, that's $700,000. If I'm a larger company and have it installed on 10,000 machines, now we're talking $7,000,000. Suddenly the lawyers are cheaper than the licensing fee.
Also remember that the initial cost of hiring a lawyer is generally not an issue. Only the tiniest of companies do not have an in-house lawyer to handle day-to-day legal concerns, and going after tiny companies is not in their best interest since the return in licensing fees would not be worth the effort.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
If we'd sent in Sam Fisher to begin with, we wouldn't have this problem!
"Sam, Nikoladze has released another video over the Internet, claiming that the second phase of his war on America will be aimed at the public itself."
"What's he got planned?"
"We think he's planning to prosecute Americans for illegally using the SCO code!"
"I see. And what do you want me to do about it."
"SCO headquarters is under constant guard. Lawyers prowl the hallways. Get that code!"
"Am I off the leash?"
"Absolutely. Fifth freedom is in full effect. This is war!"
I'm picturing a spoof on Austin Powers where Bill Gates (as Dr. Evil) and Steve Ballmer (as Number Two) videoconferencing will Darl McBride...
Dr. Evil: Excellent idea Darl, we'll charge them per license...One Hundred Ninety Nine Dollars! Muwahahaha!
Number Two: Uhm, Dr. Evil - that's what we currently charge for Windows XP Professional.
Dr. Evil: Oh. Will somebody throw me a frickin' bone here?! Fine. Each license of Linux will cost of...Six Hundred Ninety Nine Dollars!
Muwhahaha! Muwhahaha! Muwhahaha! Muwhahaha! Muwhahaha! Muwhahaha! Muwhahaha! Muwhahaha! Muwhahaha! Muwhahaha! Muwhahaha!
Why don't you try taking your own advice? Or better yet, just shut your festering kringle-hole.
...but Blue mage can't attack Green mage. ...but Blue mage can't attack Green mage.
I do. I rarely post.
When I do post, it's usually because I feel compelled to correct some "group think" (mass stupidity) when it gets out of control.
What really gets me is when people think they are lawyers and begin asserting legal predictions and interpretations like they are Dungeons and Dragon's rules.
Slashdotter:
SCO Exec:
Slashdotter: Oww
SCO Exec:
Slashdotter: Hey... You're not supposed to punch in D&D
SCO Exec:
Slashdotter: Stop that!
I do not understand how you can legally sue a someone for using software with a revoked license untill you revoke their license. But you cannot revoke the license untill you LEGALLY prove in court you can in fact revoke their license.
Did I miss the SCO vs. IBM trial already being settled? I didn't think so. So fuck off SCO.
"Engineers do the work of man, Physicists do the work of God"
I would rephrase that letter more in terms of the legal allegations rather than their motives. I would not speculate as to their motive - only to the fact that they are demanding payment for a violation that they have so far refused to prove or support. They are demanding payment for something that there is no reasonable or prudent common knowledge evidence that they own; something that isn't theirs; under threat of lawsuit.
I'd also run it through a spell checker...
Thats soo gona be stenciled into the side of my case!
END OF LINE
Apple doesn't seem like suck a bad alternative now, huh?
___ alwaysBETA.com - Hey, you've got nothing better to do.
Let's turn this around. If SCO can sue any Linux user, without providing any evidence substantiating their claims, what is to stop any software copyright owner from suing SCO on the same basis? Anybody care to pick up copies of every document SCO files with the court, do a global search & replace, and file the same exact suit against them, using their own lawyers output against them? The only thing stopping us appears to be an overdeveloped sense of ethics...
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
...look how much Los Alamos is gonna owe!
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
The worse this gets, the more it makes you wish you could countersue SCO, not for monetary damages, but for their heads on platters -- what other option do we have? They've already given up their souls...
Karma: Oldschool
Organizations that feel threatened by SCO may want to consider worry free advertisements:)
;D"
Freedom of Internet has created an online resource to assist the community in the fight against SCO - A visitor writes:
"Your website RULZ! Nice and organized... and that contest looks awfully tempting. The best part, though, is the empowering idea that I could be making my own linux-oriented wardrobe right now... http://www.gotlinux.com/parody/p141.html The iron-ons are a marvelous idea. The stickers, 2! Keep up the good work. (And I can't wait to start making some shirts. What better way to advertize your nerd status?) -Danelle
Enter the Parody of SCO cartoon contest today.
Shouldn't the GPL contain a clause to the effect that "Any entity that attacks the GPL in court or in the press thereby forefeits the right to any use whatsoever of any software granted by a GPL license." Would such a clause be enforcable?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
If SCO would like to take back that settlement, I'm sure the good folks at Wind River (who owns BSDi) would have a thing or two to say---especially since they published a white paper (yesterday, according to Google) whose cover page implies that they're considering doing something with Linux....
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
What you are proposing is breaking the 1st freedom; it is not because they claim the GPL is invalid that we believe so and should break it.
I agree with you in one sense, yet agree with the post to which you responded in another...
Clearly, you have the "right" idea WRT to the meaning of the GPL. However, since SCO has decided to attack it, consider what would happen if every major GPL'd project out there sent them official notice that SCO no longer had the right to use their code - SCO would have a HUGE disincentive to press on with their attack on the GPL, since winning would cripple their own product.
Basically a pre-emptive delayed-payload attack on them. If they go away, no problem. If they press on, they risk injuring themselves more than anyone else.
But a judge has already ruled that since running a program copies it from the hard drive to RAM, then running software is making a copy of it. Therefore, using it is the same as copying it. That is why EULA's exist. Because if you don't agree with them, it is illegal to run the software, period.
So, becauase of that boneheaded ruling, if you do not agree to the GPL, you cannot run the software, either. At least, not according to US law.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Otherwise that would be a loophole in the GPL big enough to drive a truck through.
Female Prison Rape in NY
It's easy to have principles when they don't cost anything but they get real expensive at $250/hour. It's also possible that they'll be able to get their money back if SCO can't come up with the goods in their IBM and RedHat lawsuits.
Think of it like a war. SCO, IBM, and Red Hat are the big countries with large armies and lots of resources. Attempting to make something for their PR people, SCO's decided to go bash some little country and take their shit so they can proclaim a huge victory. "Mighty War Machine Crushes Latvia!" and so-forth. They just don't mention that the "crushing victory" was merely an agreement that Latvia would hand over 10% of their cash on hand.
Latvia, of course, representing some small but well known company using Linux. This small company doesn't have the resources to battle a lean, mean, litigating machine like SCO so they pay the extortion fee, hoping that they'll be able to recover some of the money when IBM and RedHat are done destroying SCO.
Even if they don't get it back, at least they still exist. Better to be a thriving company with bullshit licenses than a bankrupt company with principles.
the parent is not referring to quotes from the main article, but from a salon article linked to from its parent. The quotes are accurate. So do not mod the comment down.
How about a Beowulf cluster of fees ?
Think of the Supercomputers, people!
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
The Didio quotes are there, in the Salon article, on page 2.
Female Prison Rape in NY
You really have to salute SCO for their persistence.
Fools ignore complexity; pragmatists suffer it; experts avoid it; geniuses remove it. ~A. Perlis
SCO is what you'd get if Microsoft laid off all the programmers.
"Homer contends that class attorney Mark Heise, a partner at Boies Schiller & Flexner, cannot serve as plaintiff counsel in the case because his law firm is a member of the class. [Heise and co-counsel] are asking the court for $3.6 million in attorney's fees. Their fees would be paid first out of the $14 million fund established under the proposed settlement."
Hmm. Thats annoying. I clicked on "parent" for that post to make sure that there wasn't some other attribution farther upstream. Nothing showed up.
:-P
Slashdot really annoys me sometimes. Sometimes it's impossible to tell what is going on with the threading.
My apologies.
---
SEC will stay mum on any investigation until it's concluded. (NOTE: IANAL nor do I work for the SEC)
Because the actions of the SEC could have an effect on the value of a company, the SEC will not comment on any ongoing or planned investigation. The company can say anything they want. In fact, IIRC Microsoft noted several times that it was being investigated a couple of years back.
Once they have finished, the SEC will announce the results of any investigation, which is the first time any member of the public normally hears about it.
So if the very worst thing possible happened and SCO got their wish and seized all the Linux IP, shouldn't they have to pay all the developers who volunteered their time for their work?
Photos are a bad example, because of theway the law is written. Under US copyright law, the photographer is the de facto owner of the copyright of those pictures, and you will have to do a Cameron Diaz and prove that you didn't sign a model release, and then notify the websites that the seller didn't have the rights to sell the photos. You can then offer to license the photos to them or not, but you must prove your case against the photographer first.
To put this into something where the creation of intellectual work is at stake, if I plagiarize the excellent DUMMIES for DUMMIES book, selling it as IDIOTS for IDIOTS, the copyright holder of the DUMMIES book can come after me for damages. If I have collected money for the right to resell IDIOTS for IDIOTS, those people are not liable, because they were not in a position to know where I got the text, and because my profits are going to be forfeit to the DUMMIES author. However, my resellers can probably sue me to get their money back for selling them a worthless product.
Save me Jebus!
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
Are you meaning my quote or my child/your parent comment? If mine, how is it a fraud? I just repeated what was in an article. I had a serious question about what DiDio said....that she could enter a oral NDA by "giving her word" even though Yankee prohibits NDAs.
I'd like to see them sue me... They can have my box under the bridge and 1.05 in change.
i cant seem to come up with a sig.
But a judge has already ruled that since running a program copies it from the hard drive to RAM, then running software is making a copy of it. Therefore, using it is the same as copying it. That is why EULA's exist. Because if you don't agree with them, it is illegal to run the software, period.
So, becauase of that boneheaded ruling, if you do not agree to the GPL, you cannot run the software, either. At least, not according to US law.
I am not familiar with that ruling, and would have to say I would disagree with it anyway, but if you have a link to info on it, please send it this way.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
SCO's case is very weak and I doubt even they think they can win this. Notice that their whole campaign is, on one hand, making as much noise as possible, and on the other hand, they drag their feet as much as possible to stretch it out. Isn't it obvious? They are just Microsoft's puppet. Every day they get free publicity which is free negative publicity against Linux. Who benefits (not SCO, their name is mud with most people these days), but Microsoft. Why would SCO do these things. Its obviously a pump and dump scheme with their own stock where their executives get rich. They make crazy announcement, stock price bounces a little, Darl and the boys dump some more stock, Microsoft smiles, and Slashdotters get indignent. Rinse, then repeat. Any chance they'll go to jail for it? Practically none given who is in the whitehouse. One call from Bill G and the justice department won't even prosecute the case. Eventually, IBM and Red Hat will win, but by that time, Microsoft has taken a lot of wind out of Linux's sails. Darl and the boys will be laying on the beach in Tahiti with all the money they got from their pump n' dump scheme.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Oh yes, thats it.. sue the end users who do not have the money to defend themselves, rather than actually suing IBM who would take you to the cleaners.
SCO.. you are a bunch of fucking cowards.. I cannot WAIT for IBM to have their day(s) in you with court, and when they take you to the cleaners I will just kick back and read about it on Mozilla under Linux and laugh.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
And by the way, I'm not going to show you. Take that SCOSUXORS.
I'm a very happy OS X user, and really have no real reason to install Linux on the old PII which I've been considering getting rid of... until now !
I'm going to install Linux on my old Windows machine just because I'll be happy knowing I'm doing something SCO would rather I didn't !
It is illuminating to look at a graph1 &a=v&p= s&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l) ;>
(http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=c&k=c
of SCOs stock from the year 2000 to the present. There is a consistent downslope from the start until it bottoms out in Q3-2001, with a brief spike just before the end of the year. Then it is basically flat until Q1-2003. I think this says a lot about the quality of the management at SCO. Most companies nosedived when the tech bubble burst, but SCO parachuted down with Euclidean grace. That takes Skill!
Why can't the original copyright holders specifically state SCO Group cannot modify or distribute code? I know it goes against the whole purpose of GPL, but f*** SCO!
Really, I'm not trying to be clever with my signature.
Dumbass? I didn't want to waste the $500 bill! DUH!
-- Windows security? Sure, which ONE would you like? -me
When they apply the same methods as they used for comparing UNIX and linux on their mailfeed, all mail to SCO will end up in /dev/null.
All they have to do is rewrite their existing "linixblaster" program...
My guess is that their mailserver will be set up with the following filter:(At a different terminal:) (clicketyclicketyclick)-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
SCO is not going to sue anybody. As usual, they are all talk and no act. They just want to scare the companies using Linux and force them to pay. I would be VERY surprised if any litigation came out of this grand annoncement. And even if it did, i'm sure the FSF and other association would gladly support the defendant through the process. Until it can show code, SCO had nothing. Hence, they will toot their horn as loud as possible to scare people and force them to settle. It is called extortion. Moreover, it pumps their stock price up...
Once the GPL is declared invalid, then SCO loses the ability to use any GPLed software until they make other licensing arrangements with the people who control/own that GPLed software.
Then so does everyone else. Can you imagine the mayhem as a result ?
As end users, we should very well be taking our own futures into account.
Thusly, I suggest that EVERYBODY phone SCO to inquire about a license. Details as to exactly why can be found here.
xScruffx (who is no longer posting this link anonymously)
hmmm....looks like I have to dig out those pitchforks and flaming torchs and rally up the troops......
I haven't done that since the rolling blackouts here in California a few years ago.
A court declaring the GPL unenforceable would be a major catastrophe for the community. The FSF would react by publishing GPL version 3 and the common "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" clause would kick in.
> Erm... are you sure this is how the law works?
I don't know about the original poster, but it is clear you haven't a clue. Here is how your example resolves:
If the photographer supplied the proper releases to the porn sites they are only obligated to remove the unlicensed content when advised of it's true status. They are then free to sue the photographer, but they will have to get in line behind the original victim. Only if they can't show proof of having obtained the material legally do they have to worry. But in the special case of pr0n they wouldn't be worried about the lawsuits with the victim, but the feds who will throw them in ass pounding federal prison for distributing pr0n without the model releases that proves they aren't dealing in kiddie porn. (Yes you really are guilty until proven innocent in the pr0n game. Welcome to Amerika, where we will violate any Right in the name of The Children.)
But there is NO precedent where a victim could demand to get the list of customers and demand that they pay/destroy the material/etc.
Democrat delenda est
After I filed my complaint with the FTC, the rep. referred me to another organization that did this kind of stuff more specifically. www.fraud.org (1-800-876-7060)
If their argument is correct, then all of the PC OEMs are in violation of copyright law since they obviously make more than one copy of WindowsXP when they sell computers to end users.
Also, In the bizarro world of SCO, M$ will be able to sue each and every one of those end users as well as the OEMs.
When is this going to stop? It has gone way beyond stupid...
-- hgc
Linux: There is no infringing code.
Let's start a webcampain. That'll show them...errr...I mean, it's gonna be fun...;-)
Here's mine:
http://www.blissx.co.uk
Scohit.jpg
Send a generic letter of complaint to SCO, and CC to all of these:
n elux.comm m o .comc o.comn fo@sco.come vinhsu@sco.com
annm@sco.com
infod@caldera.de
info@caldera-be
gregb@sco.com
fr@sco.com
infod@sco.co
ukinfo@sco.com
maindesk@sco.com
mirekp@sco.co
asirotin@sco.com
infoes@sco.com
africainfo@sc
felixe@sco.com
kierano@sco.com
anz_info@s
jeffjl@163bj.com
Kellyhan@sco.com
indiai
info@jp.caldera.com
shong@sco.com
k
info@sco.com.mx
info@sco.com.ar
Personally, I don't ANAL like you all seem to, but I agree that SCO sux.
of retired U.S. Gen. Tommy Franks and Pres. George Bush, "Bring 'em on."
I ain't afraid'a no SCO.
To any SCO legal reps reading this: please direct all e-mail regarding lawsuits to this address.
Just another freak in the freak kingdom.
Plus, if successful this will set a precident which will likely be followed by other courts across the US.
Yes, the GPL does have that handy section 4 whch allows for the termination of redistribution rights of any company that violates the GPL. I plan to exercise this (actually it happens automatically) to revoke their right to redistribute Nmap. I just started on the wording and haven't run it by a lawyer yet (I will). But the announcement will probably be something like:
SCO Corporation of Lindon, Utah (formerly Caldera) has lately taken to an extortion campaign of demanding license fees from Linux users for code that they themselves knowingly distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL. They have also refused to accept the GPL, claiming that some preposterous theory of theirs makes it invalid. In response to these blatant violations, and in accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we hereby terminate SCO's rights to redistribute any versions of Nmap in any of their products, including (without limitation) OpenLinux, OpenServer, and UNIXWare.
-Fyodor
Concerned about your network security? Try the free Nmap Security Scanner
lol - that's classic :) Well done.
Well, there are ways to get around filters against words like "Iicense". And of course, there's always snail mail.
Litigious bastards
I hate people who decide based only on one source of information, namely slashdot.org.
IANAL too, and no, there is no minimum requirement to file a lawsuit, other than the filing fee.
So let's say I decide to sue you for stealing my super-secret OS, which happens to be Linux. Obviously, I don't really own the copyright, but all I have to come up with is the filing fee.
However, if I do that you can sue me under various laws for filing a meritless lawsuit. Also, if I was represented by an attorney, that attorney can get in lots of trouble with the state bar.
if you do not take direct action to destroy and or stop SCO cold Linux will die.
this is what i have just done today.
why don't you do something you stupid geeks or you will loose Linux.
1) i snail mailed my congress rep, senator, Governor, the doj, and the sec. and informed them of the threat that SCO is posing to Linux and that they are extorting the users.
2) i emailed every news company that i could think of and explained what SCO is doing.
3) i emailed everyone i know asking them to do the same.
if you as a Linux user do not do the following actions then you will be responsible for the destruction of Linux. only consolidated action will achieve any results posting on a BBS Will only help SCO in their attempt to destroy open-source.
All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.
Bu the sooner one of the big boys SWATS them out of existence with a countersuit the better.. Go on IBM - take em to peices...
I would even recommend our secretaries use VIA Voice on a Model 55SX as a token of my gratitude..
OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
You may grant rights as you see fit, as long as you don't demand anything illegal. You can't say, for example, that "you can copy my book as many times as you want if you shoot the president." I'm not saying that the GPL makes any illicit demands, by the way. Just picking a nit. As far as I can see, this is the only way that the GPL could be declared invalid: if its demands overreached legality.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Okay, my asbestos suit: I'm a free software fan (of the GNU sort).
This looks to me as if somebody at SCO is finally thinking. By suing lesser mortals than IBM, they can more easily get a "conviction". And if they win these little battles enough times, they can use that as evidence that their claims are legit (I own the Brooklyn Bridge because one thousand people paid me $500 to use it). Beautiful but scary strategy!
I for one am willing to admit my wrong doings in using this clearly copyrighted code that was illegally taken from the brilliant minds of SCO without their authorization. I think that all of us should, in an effort to "come clean", e-mail SCO and explain to them how each of us is using Linux and to discuss with them ways to handle the quandary we have unknowingly gotten ourselves into.
karma is for the weak >)
let's just have us a lynching.
It's easy. You start out with a protest at the SCO headquarters. Things get a little out of control. A few SCO execs get strung up. No one's to blame.
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
I see all that talk about lawsuits as just more noise. I doubt whether this is what SCO really wants - we need to keep an eye on the magician's other hand instead.
Yes: they get to jiggle the share price up and down at their whim, make quite a lot of money for a short while, but the whole thing will collapse in the end. Short-term stuff.
Let's not take our eyes off the ball; Yes: the GPL needs to be defended - that's probably the easy part.
The really dangerous effect is the FUD: Repeat it often enough, and lots of people will believe it - after all most people have no idea of what we mean when we say free - remember that there are people out there who actually believe that turning the ignition key makes the wheels run (think: direct connection).
This whole thing is the natural progression of the scenarious that were laid out in the Haloween Documents. Eric Raymond is bound to have predicted that somewhere. Yes: I'm sure that M$ is pulling the strings somewhere in the darkness.
Which basically leads us back to: How do we fight FUD?. (yes: the truth will come out sooner or later, but I'd rather have it sooner). Will the old defence actually work this time? Ideas are welcome...
The FUD this generates mainly benefits one company - (!MegaHard).
PS: By FUD here I mean the notion of Open Source software being of dubious origin, dangerous to use etc.
Now that end users are involved, we should consider a class action suit against Linux booksellers--here's why:
-- the weak point of the GPL will probably prove to be the disclaimer of warranty. A court might hold that unconscionable as an industry practice.
-- this could drive a wedge between Linux distribution commercially (by XXX XXX [tm], say) and non commercial. A court might hold, for example, that XXX XXX or IBM really must warrant their distribution.
-- even if SCO loses, dredging this up could be a problem.
-- we need to mobilize more than just software distributors. Right now, McBride is saying his actions are pro-business. Actually, he is for some businesses (SCO, proprietary model software distribution) against other business segments and models. O'Reilly, McGraw-Hill and friends make more money off of Linux than SCO ever dreamed of.
-- one way to mobilize an industry segment is to scare it with legal risk. If Linux violates copyright, so do the booksellers who distribute it. Part of the reason I pay $40 for a Linux book is the convenience of not downloading Linux (or paying XXX XXX [tm] prices).
-- the business press will wake up if it looks like a software publisher vs. book publisher fight. Especially the part of the press that is owned by book publishers.... Suddenly McBride won't be a business hero. He'll be a threat.
-- how to enlist the booksellers? Sue 'em. Class action. They're exposing us to risk, selling us copyrighted material they have no right to distribute, and disclaiming all warranty too.
You are confusing the text of the GPL and the act of granting a license. The former is just a reusable license granting document template, not an actual grant of license. An actual license is only granted when both of the following occur: 1) the copyright holder makes his/her work available under whatever conditions (s)he sees fit; 2) the other party agrees to those terms. The actual license is the agreement between the two parties, NOT the document that describes the licensing rules. That is why it's called "granting a license".
Therefore, if I grant SCO a license to use my code under the conditions of the GPL, not only can the FSF not revoke it, but also SCO can NOT loose it by whatever nastyness they do to the Samba code. Their license to use my code remains, because that only involves them and me as parties, NOT the Samba team. This remains true independent of the fact that I did not pay a lawyer to write my own license document and instead like so many others decided to reuse the one the FSF created and kindly made available for exactly that purpose. If I were to sue SCO for violating their license on my code with their use of (for instance) the Samba code as my only argument, I would immediately get thrown out of court.
Linux user since early January 1992.
Well, you're really only a distributor if you've been distributing the linux kernel, not just any free software.
You are right about this being SCO vs. anyone who have ever done GPL software. Or anyone who has even touched Linux for that matter. They seem to be ready and willing to sue anything that moves and breathes.
"Vice versa, there is no way that SCO's post facto claims that the GPL is worthless can cause the GPL to be worthless to SCO. They may rail against it for years, and it will still be sufficient to grant them the right to copy and distribute binaries and source together. You can waive many sorts of right merely by saying you do, but the GPL isn't such a right. Rather, it is a grant of permission, which remains efficacious even if you deny it. No matter how much SCO says, "The GPL is worthless," they still have and hold the rights granted them under it."
I agree that simply denouncing the GPL does not mean anything. But what if SCO doesn't just claim the GPL is worthless: what if they distribute GPL'd work while also claiming proprietry ownership of part of it and claim that an additional license is needed? If they break the GPL, is their license to distribute revoked? Can they be enjoined from distributing Linux because they claim you need a SCO license to use it? And is their continued distribution of Linux not willfull copyright violation? Or does one of the hundreds of Linux copyright holders need to send them notice of copyright infringement before they are on the hook for willfull violation?
That is a lot of questions but the essence is "What happens when one breaks the GPL, unrepentantly?" If I rememember correctly, copyright violation was one of the charges that RedHat brought against SCO, so I hope that case gets to court quickly. I'd love to see SCO barred from asking for Linux licenses on the basis that they accepted the GPL's terms when they distributed Linux after they knew the disputed code was in it. Seeing them on the hook for willfull copyright violation would be almost as good.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Added some more.... enjoy. Thanks to ennui for the driveby. http://www.geocities.com/artiste242
how can scso sue end users when there case isnt even proven in court yet. there just a company going out of busness kicking and screaming.
I thought for a sec I was reading another RIAA-related lawsuit article.
Dolemite
__________________________
Save the World! Use a Quote!
Stand up and be counted. SCO can only afford so much in legal expenses, and there are a lot of us. I'll happily sit around in a courtroom while they piss away their cash.
To: bstowell@sco.com
Subject: a request
From: Russell Neches
Hi there --
I've used Linux since 1998. I own and operate a variety of machines of various architectures on which I have installed the GNU/Linux operating system. Furthermore, I use a several Linux machines at school (as well as working as a volunteer administrator of said machines). Furthermore, I use and enjoy a large number of products and services that depend on Linux. This includes, but is not limited to, Akami hosting, Weta Digital movies, Merrill Lynch financial services, New York Times Co. media products, and T-Mobile wireless services (who happen to run my distribution of choice, Debian).
If you plan to continue your pursuit of licencing fees from Linux users, I am hereby declaring my intent to refuse to pay such fees. Please add me to your list of people against whom you wish to file suit.
I may be reached at xxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx, or through my (Debian-using) cell phone service provider at xxx-xxx-xxxx. I shall furnish a mailing address once I have established one.
Russell Neches
In spite of the suggestions and all the tests that I have made, I have not cavato a spider from the hole.
With facts of course.
Rockin' on without Microsoft
" You see, I'm not in this just to get free software. No. 1, I don't think there's any such thing as free software. I think there's a cost in implementing all of it. How much of a cost depends on whom you talk to. Microsoft and some analysts will tell you about all the support calls and service problems. That's hysterical. Have they worked in my office? I can find out how many calls my guys have made to Red Hat, but I'm pretty sure the answer is none or close to it...It just doesn't crash as much as Windows. And I don't have to buy new computers every time they come out with a new release and abandon the old one."
This SOC FUD/ cum Extortion is just an extention of the trade markded Microsoft varitey
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
So if SCO comes to you to verify that you are running linux could you tell them that they must sign an NDA before you can release that information? And since they are under NDA they cannot name you in their lawsuit.
Go to the SCO support page and then to the bug reporting system and tell them to find a new job while there's still time.
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
It is less than accurate to say that one can break or violate the GPL, since the GPL is neither a law nor a contract: it is a limited grant of permission. One cannot violate it like a contract, but one can exceed the bounds of the permission granted. If one does so, one is infringing upon copyright: one is violating copyright law. In the case of a registered copyright, such violation carries statutory damages.
Consider: Suppose that we lived in a society with strict and unforgiving trespassing laws: anyone who walks on another's land without permission is both guilty of the crime of trespassing, and liable to the landowner for statutory damages.
Under this regime, Fred grants Barney permission to walk across his front lawn, but not his back lawn. This is a limited permission: it spells out what Barney may do which he otherwise mayn't, and also clearly notes what he still mayn't do. (Likewise, the GPL spells out that one may copy and distribute with source, but not without.)
If Barney strays, and walks across Fred's back lawn, is he in violation of the Fred Lawn-Walking License? No, not at all. He is simply in violation of the trespassing laws, for he has no permission to cross Fred's back lawn. The fact that he does have permission to cross the front does not militate against his conviction and liability: he took an action (crossing Fred's back lawn) which requires permission, which permission he did not have.
To bring the matter back to SCO: SCO, and other Linux distributors, do not contract with Linux and Samba authors under the GPL. It is not a contract; thus, it may not be violated. Rather, the GPL is the instrument by which the Linux and Samba authors grant SCO and others permission to do something they otherwise would be forbidden from doing: copying and redistributing Linux and Samba.
When a distributor strays beyond the bounds of that permission -- for instance, by distributing binaries and refusing to distribute source; or failing to distribute derivative works under the same license as the original -- the distributor is a common copyright violator. The very same laws that make Joe College liable for running off copies of the RIAA's favorite tunes, make the infringing distributor likewise liable.
That's copyright. Copyright law is about obtaining permission from authors before you may copy and redistribute their works. That permission needn't be in the form of a contract, and indeed in the case of GPL works it is not. A distributor who "violates the GPL" by failing to distribute sources is overstepping the bounds of their permission -- and is, in the vulgar argot, a software pirate.
the meaning of this?
http://www.sco.com/unitedlinux/
I mean, doesn't SCO think Linux is built on pure evil? Why are they still a part of this coalition?
Linux with kernel panic...
MadPenguin.org
Linus isn't the sole copyright holder, by a long shot. Anyone who's written code in the kernel holds copyright on their piece of the kernel, distributed to SCO under a license that SCO may be infringing, so any of those people could file the lawsuit and subpoena that you suggested.
I'd like to see one of them do it.
Details on how to contact me can be found on my site, so, Darl McBride and cronies, if you want to try this on in an Australian court, you're perfectly welcome to try it on here.
Bear in mind that Australia has quite good barratry laws, but if you're happy that your case is watertight, I'll see you here.
I await your contact.
BRING IT ON!!
"SCO development: right on target" (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...IBM are well on their way to so doing, and of course Heise is doing their bit and LWN is documenting the process.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Software licenses are the means that software companies have used to compensate for inherent weaknesses in our IP legislation. For example, no one needs a license to read a book, but making copies without authorization is illegal. Without creating licenses software companies would have a much harder time purusing those only crime was using software that somone else provided them a copy of. If software was as difficult to copy as printed works, I seriously doubt that software licenses would even exist, save perhaps on packages whose price was high enough to create enough incentive to encourage someone to overcome the difficulty of copying it.
That does not however mean that there is something special about computer software that creates the legal REQUIREMENT that it be accompanied by a license of some sort. Software that is not covered by a legally valid license should have the same legal status as printed works do.
I'm not a lawyer so I may not be correct about some of my details, but it doesn't take a lawyer to know that software licenses aren't a legal requirement when the person or entity with the legal right to be the licensor isn't exercising that right.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Note: * 6 and 7 are just for a bit of karma whoring :)
1. Confess to being a karma whore.
2. ???
3. Karma!
Am I going to get sued? I have several versions of Linux around here...
www.blueapples.org
if SCO (and any penetration testing attacker for that matter) cannot tell what is running, there is nothing to be done or be sued for licensing.
s t=www.ddos .com
See for example:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?ho
-=-=-=-=-=
I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
In your example the "end user" is distributing - by having the website
Hrm, ok, good point, bad example on my part...
But the customers of those companies were never at risk or liable
But is this a question of not-being-able-to-do-it, or not-being-allowed-to-do-it? If, theoretically it was possible to sue each and every person who downloaded that picture off the site, isn't it logical that if that picture was unacceptable-for-distribution in the first place, they can be demanded-back and destroyed?
In the "real world" it's going to be nigh-impossible to try and get x million people rounded up and have their offending pictures destroyed, but still ... - hrm, would something like illegal pornography be a better example?
For example, there was that porn actress who they discovered later on that she was underage - they recalled and destroyed the existing stocks of the videos etc. Does it mean that the people who already bought it are ok to hang on to it? (as a separate question from "can they be tracked down" or "did the district attorneys try to go after the customers")
I don't know about MS but Sun is introducing Linux machines and GPLed software (Mozilla, Gonme) in Solaris.
I don;t see how they could benefit in view of those efforts and repeated commitments to Linux.
They back stabbed IBM with the AIX issue, for which I hope they live to regret it. Honestly, you don't want a company like Sun that has made a name out of technical quality to use such despicable tactics, but so far they have not shown any animosity towards Linux or towards the GPL.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I'm not a lawyer, but I try to stay informed, and I've never heard of anything, either in case law or in the law itself that would allow you to prosecute an end-user for copyright infringment for a legitimatly obtained work, rather than the original distributor. All the lawyers I have heard speak on the issue, except SCO ones, have said more or less the same thing. One important thing to remember is what a civil case does - it's supposed to compensate you for a wrong. If SCO sues, say, Redhat and wins, they've _already been paid_ for everyone who uses Redhat Linux. SCO can't demand MORE money from individual users.
Amen, brother.
/insult/ corporations nowadays?
It's funny that people consider this flamebait. Can one even
All generalizations are false, including this one. (Mark Twain)
This may be a little premature, but has anyone started a linux consumer SCO defense fund/plan? If so, please post the relevant information. If not, anyone think it's a good idea?
D
SCO is shooting themselves in the foot because they don't need their feet any more. Someone on life support in a hospital bed, who will never walk again, is free to shoot their foot and then sue the hospital for lack of security.
I'm sure Darl and SCO's board of directors looked at their options, decided they couldn't survive the honorable way, and so decided to take this route. They passed the point of no return BEFORE they filed the law suits.
-- Skip
From the outside, and from a legal standpoint, yes this looks like corporate hypocrisy. But really it is dissension in the ranks at SCO, a serious disconnection between the executives and the technical/development people. Clearly their development team recognizes the *value* of GPL'd software such as Samba, or they wouldn't include it. But just as clearly, their executives and legal mosquitoes are not in communication with the development team, or they never would have incorporating GPL'd software. This is not just a sign of corporate stupidity. It is the last stage of economic suicide.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
I invite it. Let them try. We've seen how flimsy their claims are, it would only help us to show them up in court!!
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Im not sure who the coward is that modded me a troll but this is not a troll this is a cry to action in the protection of an operating system that i contribute to and care about. so whoever modded me a troll.
1) you are a coward.
2) you are and idiot.
I just called and lodged my complaint with FTC. Hopefully enough of us are calling so they will investigate!!
E V E R Y T H I N G I W R I T E I S F A L S E
Thank you, I found that informative.
I'm still a little bit unsure as to how those copyrights get enforced. SCO has made a lot of contradictory and nonsense statements which may or may not have any legal weight, but they HAVE claimed proprietary and closed ownership of part or all of Linux while distributing said files, and claimed that you need a separate license from them to run it (included in buying their Linux products); but I still wonder if their actions of distributing GPL'd code while knowingly not complying with the terms means that they are willfully violating copyright? Or does Linus or any other copyright holder need to send SCO a notice of copyright violation and a Cease and Desist letter before the unlicensed distribution becomes a serious problem? Doesn't it become criminal at some point? Why hasn't this angle been employed? I must be missing something.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Huh?
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
Then so does everyone else. Can you imagine the mayhem as a result ? Unless, of course, the copyright holders for those pieces of software all got together and say something like, "we hereby grant permission for anyone except SCO to use our software, under the terms of whatever new license we want to use." I don't see how the GPL could ever be actually declared invalid, though. IANAL, but it seems to me that all the GPL does is say, "you are allowed to distribute this copyrighted software, as long as you follow these rules." If you choose not to follow the rules, your right to use the software ceases, but that doesn't affect anyone else's rights. On a related note, has SCO ever actually asserted in court (not in the media) that they're entitled to use any software under the terms of the GPL? (Or, has Caldera?) If they have, a nifty thing called collateral estoppel kicks in -- basically, a legal principle that says that once you have asserted a given fact to be true in a legal proceeding, you can't assert it to be false in a subsequent legal proceeding.
Take a look at his posting history before you mod, and consider his truthfulness, verus the possibility that you're just feeding a troll, eh?
I'm also deeply impressed that people are sending email addresses to someone who four posts earlier claimed that he worked as a spammer.
Seriously, "a small business" that has a *legal department* at all, much less two lawyers, doesn't ring a bell here? Hell, I work at a rather large place that produces scads of patents, and we have *one* lawyer.
May we never see th