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.
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.
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!
...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 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.
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)
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...
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.'"
... 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 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.
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.
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 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.
Yeah, makes me REALLY trust them . . .
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
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.
...because then I could charge them for criminal mail fraud.
DIE SCO, DIE!
My God! It's full of Voids!
---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.
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!
World to SCO:
Fuck you too!
Seriously, this is the last death-twitch before the body stops moving. SCO is as dead as... death. 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. The bigwigs are selling off shares while they are still worth something, and as more and more information leaks out about the lawsuit, we get more and more confident that it does not have any valid grounds.
The code in the Heise screenshots was quickly identified and reviewed, and failed miserably - instead of proving to the Linux community and IBM that the lawsuit really could be something we need to think about, instead it proved the opposite.
My guess is this is what is going to happen:
1. More information about the code SCO claims infringes their copyright will leak out.
2. Code will be reviewed and shown as not proving SCO-s case.
2b. Code can not be shown as "innocent" and will be rewritten quickly.
2c. The Linux kernel will be cleaned from any "suspicious" code and released. Joe User with an x86 uniprocessor desktop architecure will be able to use the "clean" kernel right away.
3. SCO will fall apart together with the lawsuit.
In fact I don't think it will ever even come near a courthouse. My firm belief is that IBM and the Linux community will finally prevail and have an even better position than before the lawsuit.
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.
(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.
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]
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.
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?
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
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
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
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.
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.
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 |
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 =/
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
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.
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.
Nah, just change it to something obscure & impossible. Take your pick:
* Commodore Vic-20
* ColecoVision
* TI-99/4A
* Apple ][
* Adam
* BIC 0.5mm #2 Pencil
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
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
...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
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.
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"
"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).
I mentioned earlier that I didn't think these cases could survive discovery. However, unless you have a corporate lawyer on staff, it will likely cost you more than $700 just to get to discovery. And, that's why these businesses will pay up -- because it's cheaper to just pay the $700 extortion fee than to spend thousands of dollars just to prove that you shouldn't have to pay the fee.
I'm not a big fan of the 'loser pays' court system, but something has to be done to stop these extortion lawsuits (SCO isn't the only one doing this) that have absolutely no legal merit.
-------------------------------------------------
I don't get it. How is it going to sue linux users without showing them the code?
Patriot Act?
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
That's 'cos Linux doesn't have a PR department.
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"?
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
Can someone PLEASE come up with a sticker that has Calvin taking a leak on SCO pronto???!!!
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.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
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.
So SCO says the GPL is invalid and won't stand up in court... but they use it as the basis to justify suing end users and hold them responsible for (supposedly) someone else inserting questionable code in the kernel? So which is it? Is GPL valid or not. Some of their claims depend on GPL being valid and others depend on it being invalid.
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
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 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.
I wouldn't join. All SCO's money will be in some Indonesian whorehouse by the time you manage to get a judgement.
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!
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.
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
I encourage any Linux users, MIS managers, development managers, CTOs, and CEOs with a fair amount of IT budget, and that have previously bought reports from the Yankee Group to voice their concerns to Yankee's sales department over DiDio's lack of professionalism and competense, as well as the extrememe bias in the SCO case. 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.
You can no longer can have faith in the Yankee Group's quality control and that this casts a great shadow of doubt over all their research reports. You can no longer trust their research when making decisions about IT investemts and industry trends, and you regret that you can no longer maintain a business relationship with the Yankee group.
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
...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;
The point is that even if the GPL is valid the end user is still responsible for any infringement.
That might be true if the user committed any sort of copying or distribution that did not constitute Fair Use and if they continued to do so after being reasonably notified that they were doing so in an infringing manner. Simple possession of a work does not violate any clause in Title 17 that I'm aware of. If you are aware of such a clause or a precedent in law that would be sufficient to back up the idea that simple possession of a work that was created or distributed in an infringing manner is illegal, please cite.
Patents are a different issue and there end users cannot use patented stuff without a license. To date I have not heard SCO once mention that they own patents that are being infringed.
I do not have a signature
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.
How about I give you the finger, and you go sell your scam to someone else?
Thank you.
Finding God in a Dog
If someone else is responsible for the infringement and SCO knows who it is (apparently they do) then it is not reasonable to go after end-users who obtained the code in a legal manner from a source that they had a reasonable expectation to provide legal code.
Even if the end-user could in theory be guilty of copyright infringement, I don't think the user can be held responsible until SCO tells us all what sections of code are infringing. So far we just have idle threats with no evidence. If SCO were to let everyone know the supposedly infringing code I think we'd all take action to make sure we weren't using it. The fact that SCO doesn't tell anyone forces end-users to continue to infringe because we haven't been told what they think is infringing.
Basically, we can't do anything until we are sued by SCO. That's bogus.
The point is that even if the GPL is valid the end user is still responsible for any infringement.
I doubt that will be found to be the case if this goes to court. I think the infringement was committed by the people/persons/company that took code from SCO and put it in Linux (if it indeed happened). Those are the ones SCO needs to go after. Going after end users is like going after Honda owners because they own cars that happen to contain designs that Honda stole from Toyota.
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.--
File:
http://www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm
to lodge on online complaint against SCO for manipulation of security prices.
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
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