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."
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.
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."
SCO tends to complain about "intellectual property" without identifying the particular genus of IP that they believe is infringed. There are roughly four classes of IP claims: copyright, trade secret, trademark and patent infringement.
End users cannot infringe on a copyright unless they make unauthorized copies of the work -- users at home tend not to do this, but corporate users make enough copies that SCO could (if you assume they have a valid claim to copyright in the first place) claim that the corporate users infringe.
A person is only liable under trade secret or breach of contract laws if he is party to a contract or has reasonable knowledge that the information is protected. Someone who simply uses the Linux kernel would be safe from such a claim, as would a majority of developers.
SCO has no apparent basis to assert a trademark infringement complaint, so end users are safe there too.
SCO has not mentioned ownership rights in any patents -- in fact, most of the relevant patents seem to be assigned to companies they might sue. Here again, Linux users appear safe.
(ObDisclaimer: I am not a lawyer. If you want legal advice, retain counsel and ask for opinions specific to your situation.)
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.
(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.
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.
SEC Enforcement Complaint Form
Booo!
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
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.
IANAL, but if they sue some Linux end-user, they have to sue them for some real legal claim: contract violation, copyright or patent infringement, etc. Note that there is no "violating our IP" course of action.
Since there is no contract - let alone even contact- between SCO and the random Linux end-user, there cannot be a contract violation.
From SCO's own statements it's not patents. So it must be copyrights.
First question that SCO must answer: what exactly is infringing? The case goes nowhere until SCO 'fesses up. "Judge, they won't tell me what's infringing."
And the Linux end-user won't have to sign an NDA to get it - SCO would have to hope the presiding judge wouldn't allow the defendent to release the results of discovery.
That would run counter to everything SCO's done so far - which is run a PR campaign, not a legal one.
SCO's just making noise - IMO they are not going to sue.
Whatever you do - don't roll over!!! (yeah, IANAL and all that, but it's still a helluva lot cheaper to hire a lawyer to file a "show me the infringment" discovery motion than to pay $700...)
Bring 'em on!
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.
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
The interesting thing here is that the 'license' SCO is trying to bully companies into buying covers only the activities that SCO cannot possibly have any legal basis for pursuing them for in the first place - simply running the software. If you pay them, you get a contract limiting your rights to the ones which you already have, even assuming the strongest form of SCOs case! Under all other assumptions, you would be paying SCO to limit your rights drastically.
It would be absolutely stupid to agree to such a license from them - it gives the buyer nothing, gives SCO a contract which they can later use to sue you, after all the claims they're making now get dropped or dismissed, and you pay them for the privilege!
SCO obviously thinks the people running these companies are incredibly stupid.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
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.
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
From a little later in the article:
With as anal SCO is about showing people the code, I seriously find it hard to beleive that SCO just took her word on the agreement and still gave her the code. If she seriously did verbally agree to the NDA and planned on abiding by it, what difference does it make if you sign it? Does the Yankee Group really say "You can't sign NDAs, but you can give your word that you won't violate the NDA"?
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
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.
Canopy Group *does not* own TrolTech.
Read...
Me
They have but 5.7% stake in the company. Canopy does technically control SCO, on the other hand. So, who's the real enemy here? Canopy, or SCO?
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.
Here's the actual text:
Note that this only applies when you are distributing the program in question, not when you are using it internally.So what's the problem? If you want to benefit from the community, but you don't want to put back in, don't distribute the program in any form, including binary.
Or you can distribute in binary and source form. Your intellectual property is still yours, but you've made it available for others to work with/improve. It's not a zero-sum game. You'll benefit in the long run.
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.
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!
...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;
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.
File:
http://www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm
to lodge on online complaint against SCO for manipulation of security prices.
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
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