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."
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.
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.
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)
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...
... 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.
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.
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.
...because then I could charge them for criminal mail fraud.
DIE SCO, DIE!
My God! It's full of Voids!
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.
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?
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.
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?
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...
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.
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
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 =/
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.
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
Is it time for someone to organize a class action counter suit on behalf of all of us end users?
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
for a "community" that dislikes government control I am fascinated by the fact that the Slashdot crowd supported your comment.
Whenever it infringes directly on you, the government sucks. Whenever it only infringes you indirectly do you want anything done.
BIG EVIL MS, BIG EVIL SCO. Now the government should act... What if it was RedHat. Would we be so quick to call in the Government Calvary?
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.
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
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?
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.
IANAL, but:
Sorry, but this isn't how precedents work. Firstly, if people can't afford the legal bill, they tend to settle. Settlements don't produce precedent. Not legal precedents, anyway.
Secondly, even if they went to court unrepresented, the courts would never find for SCO until they'd first demonstrated that they had a case to answer -- which would mean revealing the disputed source -- so I think we can certainly rule *that* avenue out.
Finally, you don't get precedents where you already have existing case law that covers an issue -- unless the case brings up some new and hitherto unresolved legal point -- which I haven't seen in this case so far.
You're right about the fact that this could bankrupt a small company and this is what they are counting on to try and collect their blood money. It's also why RedHat have gotten into the game. I'd expect RedHat's lawyers to have some decision -- or at least a restraining order -- on the issue of restraint of trade before it ever gets to this point though.
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.
(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.
But if you say that the GPL is not a valid license (which precisely what SCO is saying), you are therefore incapable of agreeing to it. You cannot distribute GPL'ed software without agreeing to the GPL license.
To quote from the GPL:
Boom.
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
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.
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.
*applause* 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, supporting free and open software means you have to support the right of people to do things with it that you don't approve of - this has been seen in the community before with things like forking, but this is where it gets hard.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 don't understand it neither. Here in Europe, if I had gotten one of those letters, I'd have gone to the nearest police-department and turned them in for extortion. Not opening a lawsuit myself, but turn them in, so the police would have to investigate by themselves and arrest the SCO-staff for extortion.
--
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
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.
The freedoms the GPL provides are available only if you accept the terms of the GPL. While IANAL, it appears that SCO does not -- having redistributed code under the GPL, they MUST accept the GPL -- it is the only thing that permits such redistribution (trumping default copyright law which forbids it).
Their attempt to restrict redistribution and use of GPL code translates directly into their inability to do this, and by extention, to charge for it (unless they want to take the position, "Pay us for nothing").
Now, having received GPL code, they may have fair use rights to do with it what they will internally (i.e. use gcc, samba, etc.) but I suspect that this extends to uses on SINGLE machines, with archival backups. Thus, if they use GCC on 100 PCs, they may very well have to demonstrate how they obtained each copy of GCC separately. Good luck.
Somehow, though, I think that argument may be a non-starter: I doubt that SCO, in it's present form can afford 100 PCs, and soon may not be able to affort the power to run them if it does have them.
You could've hired me.
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.
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?
If Didio did not sign the NDA, and they showed her the code, can they still claim the code as a trade secret????
I thought that was one of the big arguements they used for not allowing anyone to see any code without an NDA!!
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?
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.
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?)"
___________________________
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.
What he's saying is that the fact that you used the code under what you believed was a valid GPL license does not indemify you from copyright infringement. The point is that even if the GPL is valid the end user is still responsible for any infringement.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
SCO executives enjoy the notoriety their litigiousness brings...
Yes, so long as the legal cases remain virtual. Actually prosecuting becomes very costly very quickly when you start losing even if (as in SCO's case) you are conducting your own side of the argument.
Pumping up the shares is one possibility, but that is also a federal offense, I believe. Anyone buying SCO's shares following clearly unsustainable comments by the executives would have good grounds for a suit against SCO.
Perhaps the whole thing is a share scam, but if that's the case it is very risky and will probably end up with Darl & co. behind bars.
My hunch is the rising share price is a side effect that was perhaps unexpected but which SCO is taking advantage of. Remember that SCO has been making anti-Linux comments from the start while basing its whole case originally on a license deal with IBM.
It smells of misdirection and mudslinging, of cheap gimmicks designed to fool the press and to spread FUD. Such a construction can't last, it isn't meant to, just long enough to do the damage.
Thus my conclusion is that the "damage" is the intended goal, that profits from shares or publicity are incidental, and that the motivator is Microsoft, paying both with declared monies (their "license") and most likely undeclared monies (anyone be surprised if Darl and his buddies get nice jobs with Microsoft after this debacle is over?)
MS are paying the bill, easing the way, and grinning like madmen every time they see the GPL come under fire once again.
And one last thing... I have this terrible feeling that IBM's famed legal muscle is not being used for a reason we're not being told about. Where is the suit for "defamation and dastardly bandinage"? How can SCO speak of suing IBM's AIX clients (it's core Unix clientel) and still be standing five minutes later? I don't like it, not one bit.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
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.
t 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.
Not quite, but there's still question as to who originally committed the violation.
The code came from a file named ate_utils.c, part of the IA64 architecture-specific implementation. The file first appeared in a patch sometime in late November, 2001. The code wasn't added to the main kernel until at least early February, 2002, a couple weeks after Caldera released several old Unix codebases (including ones with the code in question) under a BSD-style licence. However, the file with the code does not credit Caldera--the copyright line credits SGI. SCO may have a case for this particular file, but it can be fixed with a simple attribution. I don't think that's worth $699 (soon to be $1399) per machine simply to run, especially on uniprocessor machines that don't make use of this chunk of code at all (it was part of an early ia64 multiproc implementation).
The question becomes one of whether this is from an SGI codebase, who at SGI or elsewhere wrote that code, and where they got that chunk of code from. There may be liability here, but it does not seem to fall with the Linux kernel maintainers--and the infringement, as I said, can be fixed with a simple credit addition to the file as outlined in the Caldera licence.
The code is already gone from the latest versions of the kernel, so the infringing code is obsolete, and it wouldn't be too difficult to wipe it off the net if it came to that.
This would be an easy way for SCO to cripple Linux if there really are "millions" of lines of infringing code. Instead, it looks clear SCO's more interested in getting a cash cow. I think there are several legal arguments that can be used to wipe out SCO's case because they haven't made a good-faith attempt at actually getting any infringing code removed.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
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
Take the demands to your state attorney general and ask them if this qualifies as extortion, seeing as the "ownership" of Linux is currently being contested, SCO has shown no proof of ownership, and ask what they can do about it. AG love being seen helping out the little guy against the big bad guy. They can at least start an investigation, subpoena a bunch of stuff (including SCO code, maybe), and make things exciting in Utha.
Be prepared, with all the background material, the two suits (RF/IBM) and the legal stuff from the FSF and the logs from GROKLAW and lamlaw ... they pretty well cover the issues.
Also contact RedHat and ask them for a bit of advice. You are their customer and you are being harassed by the FUD machine from SCO. They may know of others who have a solid case to ask for an injunction against this crap until SCO proves ownership.
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 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
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.
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.
So, if I bought a book by Stephen Ambrose, who has been accused of plagiarism, can the 'original' author sue me? It seems to me that plagiarism is the same as or similar to the type of copyright infringement that SCO is suing about. The book I bought isn't covered by any type of license that I'm aware of, and as far as I know, I have nothing that indemnifies me from any copyright infringement that might be in the book. Or if there are laws that protect me personally from legal action in owning a book that contains plagiarized text, why would I be personally liable from using a Linux kernel that may contain some of SCO's copyrighted code? After all, I obtained both in the good faith understanding that I wasn't intentionally committing some type of legal offense (or crime).
I've read that future editions of Ambrose's works will contain the correct attributions. How is this different that the potentially offending code being removed from the Linux kernel? And as far as I know there still isn't anything that compels me to purchase the newly corrected edition of the book. That would seem to leave it up to me to either upgrade/downgrade my kernel or not...
--All I want is a warm bed, a kind word, and unlimited power.--
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.
Any chance you can post the content of those letters for the rest of us to take a look at?
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.
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
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.
Why didn't she have to sign an NDA? Perhaps it's because she's just a SCO tounge wag
one better than mcleodeight
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
First of all, why are you pretending you know ANYTHING about the procedures of this type of lawsuit?
Why the hell are you assuming he doesn't? Just because one hasn't gone through law school doesn't mean one is totally ignorant of legal prodedings. People can *gasp* research these things you know.
And the poster is not just relying on his own assumptions like they were the gospel, he is referring to comments made by a professor of law and legal history. His opinions are based on legal education and experience.
SCO is a professional organization with a good litigation team with a very good track record.
SCO is an organization that is busily muddying legal waters as fast as it can. People like this are trying to clarify things.
What makes you think they WON'T show code in court? What makes you think they have to show ALL of the infringing code?
Where does he say they won't? What he says, if you read his post, is:
"Unless they have a lot better evidence than what they showed at the SCOsource fiasco, they would get bounced in a heartbeat"
To clarify, that's if they don't have any good evidence then their court case is frivolous. Thats if-then, not a sweeping generalization with no proof, even though there is much tangential evidence that suggests SCO is parading about in the emperor's new code (The code showed at SCOsource was not, in fact, SCOs; they're persuing multiple law suits without showing evidence; insiders are dumping shares while they're at a litigation-inspired high)
Rather than spouting conjecture about something you seemingly know very little about, maybe you should consider asserting fewer "facts" and asking more questions.
Maybe instead of attacking someone's well-supported opinions, you should shut your mouth and read what he's said.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
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.