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."
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.)
SEC Enforcement Complaint Form
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!
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
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.
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."