Slashdot Mirror
SCO Says IBM is Beating Up on Them
SCO's McBride claims that IBM is stage-managing all the attacks and bad press, which would probably explain why I cleared this article with IBM World Headquarters before running it (not!). The publisher of Linux Journal invites SCO to sue. One of SCO's lawyers has this barely coherent interview where he spouts legal rubbish for a gullible reporter. There's an interview in German (machine translation) with SCO's execs. And finally, SCO is still hoping for a settlement with IBM. Update: 08/22 18:26 GMT by M : ESR responds.
So this is why Darl claimed that the "silent majority" supports SCO - he mis-counted all the opposers as one voice since he thought it couldn't be anything other than IBM heading up a consiparcy. F.U.Darl.
... didnt ask any questions about the BSD involvement. almost like she didnt know about bruce peren's findings. yet, the day before (8/20) she published an article with peren's assertions. question becomes: when did this interview take place?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
The RIAA is going after users for "illegal" music on their computers. SCO is trying to go after Linux users for illegal use of their code. I've heard quite a few people say that once IBM settles this thing ... if for some ungodly reason they should loose SCO cannot target Linux users because the damage has already been done. Can't this apply to the RIAA? They already shutdown Napster ... how can they still continue to claim damages after having been paid for them already?
~ryan
just my .02 cents ... yes thats .02 cents ... its not worth much but its all I have
I've talked to him via e-mail. He's very pragmatic and tends to be a racehorse with blinders on.
I personally feel a great deal of mental anguish, and the need to collect some compensation...
Now where's a rabid lawyer when you really need one?
in the odd position of rooting for IBM. Never thought I'd be on Big Blue's side...in what strange times we live.
"However, SCO's public relations (PR) department has had a busy few months. McBride proudly dumped two phone-book-sized binders of press clippings on the stage during his SCO Forum keynote on Monday as proof that his company had become more relevant in the high technology industry. SCO has issued 46 press releases since filing suit against IBM on March 7. Last year it issued only 29 press releases between March and August."
;-)
More relevant in the high tech industry? Just by spouting trash all this time will make you more relevant? I guess writing good code and marketing it properly wasn't part of the business plan after all. Sad.
"McBride also pointed to the involvement in the dispute of the Free Software Foundation, whose legal counsel, Eben Moglen, has issued a position paper critical of SCO, and Linus Torvalds, who has been increasingly vocal in his criticism of the Unix company. "You've got all of these guys and it looks like the whole world is coming against SCO. It's really IBM that has wired in all of these relationships," he said. "That's why it looks like they're sitting back and not doing anything. It's us fighting a whole bunch of people that they put on the stage."
What's amusing here is that SCO doesn't realize that it really IS the whole community going after them and they REALLY HAVE pissed off everyone on the planet. WTF did they think would happen? We would simply bend over and pay up like good little lemmings?
Speaking of which... I still haven't received any payments from SCO for the use of my code in UnixWare. I'm pretty sure it's there. Honest
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
And what makes you think what is said on Slashdot makes a rip of difference to the fight between IBM and SCO, or even between Linux distributions and SCO. I seriously doubt anyone at Slashdot, particularly not the readers, are in any way involved in these lawsuits except as interested outsiders.
It's silly to ask the vast readership of slashdot, and even the slashdot editors, to censor themselves when it's not going to make a damn bit of difference whether they do or not.
As for reading the article and thinking before posting, you're on the wrong website. Please, calm down.
Regarding the interview with the lawyer, I got the impression he was largely spouting the party line for his client. It did feel rather incoherent and he honestly didn't seem to believe what he was saying.
Meanwhile back at SCO, apparently they're not buying crazy because they've got a stock of it. Claiming IBM is orchestrating some conspiracy to attack them is just another one of the bizarre psychological acrobatic displays we've seen from SCO, admittedly one of the more impressively stupid ones since this started.
Looking at the articles, I'm feeling SCO is stuck in a "ratchet it up until they give in" mentality, where they'll keep making attacks and outrageous claims until someone gives in and buys them or gives them lots of money. However, they have to count on people backing down - which isn't really happening. Since they have no other options, I think they're going to keep at it.
I actually do wonder just how in touch with reality some of the SCO execs are. Now that they've committed to a business path based on lawsuits and dubious legal claims, they can't really back out, so it seems they're becoming wrapped up in the worlds they created to justify their claims.
Expect it to get even more insane.
Get your popcorn out.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
That interview was full of softball questions. What are the questions I would ask?
The Open Source community has shown pretty definitively that the source code you displayed was not stolen. Was that your best shot and if not, show me your best shot now, not under NDA.
Your theory of a derivative work is really stretching. Would you please tell me why you think that JFS is a derivative work of Unix? Under a theory that makes JFS a derivative work, aren't you saying that all Unix device drivers are also derivative works? What are the limits to your theory of derivative works?
SCO insiders have been dumping a lot of stock lately. Why aren't your execs holding onto what should become a vastly more valuable commodity?
I'm sure others can add a bunch more hard hitting questions. The interview was a fluff piece at best.
What's amusing here is that SCO doesn't realize that it really IS the whole community going after them and they REALLY HAVE pissed off everyone on the planet.
Well, I don't want to be like RMS or Bruce and speak for everyone, but SCO certainly pissed me off!
McBride obviously seems to believe that the Open Source community isn't capable of refuting their bullshit without the backing of a large company.
I've been wondering more and more about the psychology of Daryl and company.
I think he and his cohorts may be so insulated, out-of-touch, and unaware of how OS and its community works that they may honestly NOT believe it is capable of organizing without some mysterious backer. Their actions certainly show ignorance, willing or otherwise, of many things, from the origin of code to human nature.
Maybe its a bit of projection. They've got their little personal conspiracy to attack Linux to boost stock prices and make money, they may assume that any counteraction is also less than honest.
Just a thought.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Quote:
Uhhhmmm... It isn't fair to make fun of people with learning difficulties, I know; but -- they pay this guy to work as a lawyer? He can't even construct a sentence!
And then further down he says:
Well, no you're not, but only because the SCO Group is just a new name for Caldera. You'd forgotten these ones, had you, Mark?
Documentation/networking/tlan.txt:(C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
drivers/net/tlan.c: * (C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
drivers/net/tlan.h: * (C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
net/ipx/af_ipx.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc. <greg@caldera.com>
net/ipx/af_ipx.c: KERN_INFO "IPX Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc.\n" \
You know what would be really interesting (editors, bloggers, are you listening)? It would be really interesting to hear what Marcus Meissner <Marcus.Meissner@caldera.de> and Greg Page <greg@caldera.com> think about all this.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Considering there is 12.6Mu shares outstanding and 40% directly owned by Canopy and 20% indirectly, yesterdays volume is 8% or so of "normal" outstanding tradebable shares.
So question arrises WHO IS BUYING especilly after the code snippet flap earlier in the week.
Consensus, most likely MS' investment arm.
It's the quid pro quo for SCO committing legal suicide.
Help fight continental drift.
The more I read of SCO's garbage, the more I think that SCO Really Does Not Get It.
:)
I think that McBride and Cronys really do believe in their heart of hearts that people are not capable of organizing, co-ordinating, and for that matter, producing functional code, without the direct support of some company as a mastermind.
When you think about it, the forces and processes behind Linux and other Open Source/Free Software are so contrary to what are taught at business schools that it must threaten to make your average MBA's head explode.
In many ways, the whole Free Software movement is a direct refutation of the core principles of the MBA curriculem* I can't wait to see how Alan Cox does on his MBA.
When one reads an SCO press release, one cannot help but imagine a group of dinosaurs confronted by an ice age - and mammals.
DG
* One may interpret through this that I think Free Software in inheritly Communist - and I don't agree. One of the central principles of Communism is Central Planning, and that's NOT how Linux etc development is done - it's more like a free market of ideas. Where the MBA-brainfuck comes in is that this "free market" has absolutely nothing to do with MONEY. There's no PRODUCT here - instead, it's a "free market" designed to provide something for the common good.
So we have a quasi-Capitalist process - with no capital, per sae - in the service of a quasi-Communist ideal. This is, I think, something new and scary, and this fear colours everything coming out of SCO.
Ah, brave new world!
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Nope, it's not paranoia, it's desperation!
There's no clearer sign that SCO is walking on thin ice here than the desperation of their tactics lately.
Desperate acts:
* They accuse IBM of being this manipulating orwellian company that could somehow motivate us open source advocates to hate them.
* They claim the GPL is invalid on grounds that would effectively destroy the publishing industry if upheld.
* They make many of their claims sound like legal claims without actually filing them in court
They are trying to win a war of public opinion to infalte the stock price. They will lose in court, without question, so they are doing everything they can to try to make IBM bail them out.
IBM is an evil corporation, don't get me wrong, but it's nice to see them excercising a little enlightened self interest and playing chicken with SCO.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
They are claiming they are the copyright owners and that as such only they have the right to put the code under GPL and that if IBM (or anyone else) put that code out under GPL it is meaningless because they never had the right to do so.
The question of whether SCO distributing Linux has made the code available under GPL only comes into play if IBM don't own copyright in that code.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Hmmmm - let's see:
- SCO ammends lawsuit to claim damages done by IBM's 'interference' with their business.
- SCO announces new 'secure' initiative (don't they all)
- Darl McBride claims that the original BSD/AT&T lawsuit is invalid and therefore not relevant to SCO, i.e. 'All Code Are Belong To Us'
- SCO accuses the GPL as promoting communism in China, socialism in Europe, and drug use in California.
- David Boies will never make another appearance unless SCO 're-rents' him for another day.
- SCO will continue to reap the benefits of open source projects like GCC and SAMBA and yet slam the GPL for being too 'restrictive' on IP.
Far Future Prediction:
SCO's execs will be living in luxury on some tropical island while their customers, users, resellers, and programmers get totally screwed.
"That's just the way it is. Some things will never change." - Bruce Hornsby
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
I applaud Phil Hughes for taking a stand in the face of that idiot organization known as SCO. I have always enjoyed Linux Journal and SSC's way of doing business and it makes me really glad that there are good people like Hughes out there.
In other news... SCO today announced that it will be suing itself. That's right... SCO is suing SCO for violation of its own copyrights. Here is a snippet from an interview with SCO CEO Darl McBride:
SCO stock climbed another 9% after that announcement. Oh yeah... and there was some rumor that SCO is going to sue the devil next.Darl is a baby! Darl is a baby! Nanny nanny boo boo!
SCO should have paid attention to Godfather 2 when Senator Geary decided to try and put the squeeze on the Corleone family. They might find, as the senator did, that the reaction to the group being squeezed is not what they expected
I posted this thought as an Ask Slashdot submission, but it was rejected, so I'll state it here.
Perhaps it's time for Linux developers to consider suing SCO for slander. After all, SCO is accusing them of theft and therefore damaging their reputations, which not only hurts Linux, but could hurt the developers' ability to advance their careers. Would you hire a programmer accused of stealing code to put into his software? And note that SCO won't precisely define what they allege is stolen or who stole it, but it is crystal clear that they're accusing Linux developers of illegal acts.
Suing SCO will have at least two consequences. First, it'll make SCO clearly define and prove their allegations. Second, any lawyer worth his salt will ask a judge to slap a temporary restraining order on SCO to stop their constant threats and accusations.
Any developers out there who want to consider this?
Ms. Bowman:
Yes, copyright law governs, but Mark Heise's interpretation of copyright law is one that would not pass muster in a beginning journalism copyright course, and would get well-buttered dinner rolls hurled at him if he presented it in an after-dinner speech in front of any professional writers' organization.
USC 17 106 Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4-6 deleted because they only deal with visual arts)
If the owner of the copyrighted code wants to authorize, via the Gnu Public Licence or the Lesser Gnu Public Licence, or a license of the owner's own devising, unlimited reproduction and distribution and modification into derivative works, they can do it. USC 17 106 says they have the EXCLUSIVE rights to do so. And when licensing one's work, one can place restrictions in the license if one wishes. The GPL has a "poison pill" restriction in it: if you violate the GPL, the GPL ceases to apply, and your permission to copy and distribute and modify also ceases, making you immediately in violation of USC 17 106, and immediately infringing upon the copyright of the author or authors of the work.
As for the USC 17 301 that Heise cites, claiming that it pre-empts the GPL, I sincerely hope he did not say what your article said he said: The section he cited has nothing at all to do with the author's absolute right to authorize use of the author's work:
301 Preemption with respect to other laws
(a) On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State.
... that does not affect the GPL at all. It does prevent the states from writing their own copyright laws, and nullifies any such laws they might have had before January 1, 1978. Heise fails to grasp that the GPL is not a law, it is a "license" in the legal sense of the word, and it does not conflict with USC 17 in any way. It is merely a widely used way to grant rights which a copyright holder is authorized to grant by USC 17 106.
The way I see it, an attack on one member of the Open Source community is an attack on all of us.
I don't see this as just an attack on the Open Source community. This is an attack on our society, because it is an abuse of our legal system. As far as I'm concerned, abusing the legal system is worse than breaking the law. I noticed in an article that some SCO users, who even had booths at SCO Forum, were outraged by what this company is doing. And has been doing. Forbes points out that SCO has pulled this same shit with Microsoft -- and won. In this case they bought the rights to an old, 'decrepit' version of DOS and proceeded to sue the shit out of Redmond. They are crafty bastards. And they basically leverage intellectual property law to fuck other people over. Obviously.
This kind of behavior, taken to these extremes, has the potential to seriously disrupt the fabric of our society. Especially since our society is becoming increasingly dependant on software. If SCO wins, which they might (I mean hell, they beat MS), their example has the potential to make the software industry even more litigious, even less focused on solid product design and just generally shittier. EVERYONE should be up in arms about this... Darl McBride makes Bill Gates look like freakin RMS.
The only thing that came close to pissing me off this much was when Rosa Parks sued Outkast -- although the stakes were much, much lower.
Maybe partying will help...
Just by spouting trash all this time will make you more relevant?
No, but it will give SCO grounds for it's next round of lawsuits, against the news media. Those press releases are SCO's intellectual property, you know!
Of course, the media's lawyers may bleat that the press releases came from SCO attached to terms that allowed redistribution, but that's just as stupid as the people who have copies of the Linux kernel from ftp.sco.com; just because you receive a license for SCO's IP directly from SCO doesn't mean they can't sue you for using it, you know!
But M$ knows that the GPL will not be overturned. They may be evil but the're not stupid (about the law at least). Their plan (if it exists) is to spread fud about Linux, GNU and the GPL.
They know they are going to eventually get steamrolled by GNU/Linux. The current SCO ploy is to slow down the steam roller. And for now it's working. They've bought themselves more time.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
It seems that if IBM has access to both the UNIX source code and the Linux source code, they should be analyzing the two to determine if any code was improperly copied into Linux. They could then either use their resources to fix the problem or identify questionable code to the community for rewrite. It would be interesting if IBM starts submitting a bunch of patches changing code, but not functionality.
Here's my theory, SCO doesn't even have a copy of the code they claim infringes. Think about it, the million lines bullshit is from them adding up all contributions to Linux from any UNIX vendor (IBM, Silicon Graphics, etc.). My guess is all they're doing is looking for contributions or copyrights in code that contain a UNIX vendor. If a certain section of Code was touched by a UNIX vendor then it becomes infringing and under the control of SCO.
Does SCO really have access to the complete source of AIX? My guess is that IBM wouldn't want that and that they probably don't. It's possible that they do, but I would think that IBM wouldn't want to give up the crown jewels to SCO or anyone else.
This is why they've been requiring an NDA to view the code and have only shown small code snippets. I bet that what they have shown is similar to what was already debunked, that is, code available through BSD or so old that it's been published and studied for 30 years. They haven't shown any of IBM's infringing code because they don't have it! Think about it.
Of course I have no proof or evidence of this, but that makes me no different from SCO on the matter.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
This is just like in politics. I've noticed many times that the bad guy accuses the good guy of doing what the bad guy himself is doing. From what I've seen, it is a pretty good indicator of the bad guy's own tactics.
Facts are stubborn things.
I wish Slashdot would run a Slashdot semi-interview with sCO. Everybody submit questions as usual, we mod them as usual, we send them to Darl McBride as usual.
I don't expect SCO to respond. If they do, fine, we get to see answers to our questions.
But even if they don't respond, I do expect that Slashdot can generate some usable questions for real journalists. If our top ten questions are on the Slashdot front page, there is a chance that someone else can pick up on them.
My questions:
You announced that you are shipping Samba 3.0, which is GPL licensed software. Do you accept the GPL as a valid license for Samba?
Do you write your own implementation of Java, or do you obtain it from another supplier? Who is your supplier of Java code?
Do you plan to continue supporting gcc and gdb for UnixWare?
Did you have a contract with IBM for the joint development work that you did with IBM for Project Monterey? If you did have a contract, are you going to file that contract as an exhibit to your lawsuit?
Wee, bonnie McBride said in one of the interviews (CRN):
Now, I'm a big proponent of not just blindly listening to what people say. Legal cases are generally public record, are they not? That means we should be able to find out who's really delaying things, and how? Unfortunately, not having much experience with the US legal system, I wouldn't have the faintest clue how to go about this. Does anybody else? Who's really dreading the courtroom?
--Somebody infect me with a
The SCO lawsuit, then, is a conspiracy by Microsoft against Open Source.
Baahh! You say! Here's the Evidence:
There you have it. Microsoft is SCO. Have you indulged in your favorite conspiracy theory today?
Cheers!
-Mybrid
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
This is from Judge Kimball's info page:
Tips for practitioners appearing before Judge Kimball include:
# At oral argument, know the cases that you cited in your briefs.
# Behave responsibly and civilly to witnesses, the court, and opposing counsel.
# Don't try to stretch your position. If you have weakness, admit to the weakness, and try to persuade the Judge that you should win anyway.
# Brevity is appreciated and highly effective as a tool of advocacy. This applies both in briefs and oral arguments.
# If you have a bad argument, leave it out of your brief and your oral argument. Making bad arguments hurts your credibility with the Court.
The betting line on this case is 23 counts of contempt of court, before the case gets summarily dismissed and the plantiffs ejected with significant velocity.
>> Oh come on. This is their same claim that Federal Copyright only allows 1 copy for backup and the GPL allows multiple copies and is therefore invalid.
If this claim were true, then the RIAA/MPAA should be VERY scared! Without the ability to LICENSE additional copies of copyrighted work (as the GPL does), you can't legally sell CD's, DVD's, etc.
Wouldn't that be sweet? The RIAA/MPAA suing SCO to stop spreading FUD about copyright law, in support of the GPL?
q:]
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
I'm not from SCO, and i don't necessarily agree with the law suit. But (despite the fact i'll be modded to -8;) I'll try to reply to your questions
How do you address claims that SCO's demonstrated evidence so far is not theirs to copyright!
We are going to court to prove this. In any case, whether the work is our copyright or not is not in question. What is important is whether the work was in the public domain, and whether IBM failed to honour an agreement on confidentiality of code.
Nobody has answered the questions about the four kernal modules origin and algorithms being textbook common knowledge - in whole or in part. Why is this considered IP?
All knowledge that can be protected under the law is IP. What is in question is whether the original knowledge was distributed legitimately. We believe it was not.
Why did SCO keep distributing the GPL'd code while putting out press releases?
This is irrelevant. What is in question is whether the code that IBM distributed was done so legally. The distribution of legitimately GPL'd code is not in question. SCO can do that like any other organisation or person, as long as it keeps the conditions of the GPL.
Why does SCO make use of many many GPL'd tools for their own product?
See the above answer.
Why does SCO [threaten to] spread this lawsuit out to Linux users instead of only IBM's copyright infringement case?
Anyone who uses infringing code is commiting a copyright violation. As a management, we have responsibility to our shareholders to maximise the value of the company. This requires us to ensure that we are paid for our products, even if to do so we have to sue illegitimate users. This is the case for any organisation.
How is SCO planning a business model around a licensed copy of Linux when it will be quickly obsolete once the full body of evidence is released? By continuing to license and produce excellent intellectual property.
What are your definitions of "derivative works" in this case? Would future version of Linux without any SCO IP be within those bounds?
The law is quite clear on this point. Look it up;)
Why are the true numbers of lost existing customers for SCO due directly to their adopting a "free" Linux alternative? How are they calculating damages?
The number of users of the affected distributions is a start. We then times the average licensing cost by the number of users of those distributions (defined by downloads from mirror sites.)
Can SCO provide the complete code references to things it DID contribute to Linux (as SCO or Caldera) and thus differentiate between given and stolen? Yes. Whether we will or not, is a different matter;)
"As a writer / novelist you might want to spellcheck your sig.
The sad part is the class bully's stock price doesn't go up $1.50 when he starts crying. If you know someone who bought SCO stock today, please throttle them for me. Thanks.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
When the evidence SCO showed at their developer conference turned out to be bogus. The price of the SCO stock rose significantly, and now when the SCO CEO makes statements that sounds like if they orginated directly from the funny farm, ths price is going up even more.
To any normal invester this would be signs to sell SCO, not buy. What is going on? Could it be and we are seing a hostile takeover in working?
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
Have IBM even issued a press release yet!? I haven't seen or heard anything from them, admittedly I haven't been out looking, and I live in a different country, but SCO are everywhere right now. They're just getting really scared now from what I can tell.
I've done some thinking on the whole SCO thing, and I may have hit on the endgame strategy for SCO. As a corporate entity, SCO has been going downhill for some time. They've got to do something to save the company. One way to do this is to gain a sponsor, in a more powerful corporation. They'd be in a much better position as a subsidiary of IBM than as a competitor.
By suing IBM, and laying out lots of accusations which have little or no basis in fact, SCO places themselves at great risk of countersuit. Said countersuit stands much greater chances of success than SCO does in its own lawsuit.
So, SCO loses its lawsuit. IBM countersues and beats the pants off of SCO. SCO must raise cash to pay the bill, but the damage their accusations have done is worth more than SCO is. Therefore, in order to pay the bill, SCO stock would be handed over to IBM in payment. SCO ends up being a subsidiary of IBM.
If they pull it off right, the higher-ups get to keep some stock, maybe keep their jobs, and eventually increase their available cash. Either way, the lawyers get paid.
Sure, it's a wacked-out theory, but it's no less so than SCO's lawsuit claims.
Visit Lockjaw's Lair. He won't bite.
What I'm specifically talking about is this idea that IBM is covertly directing Redhat, Novell, etc. to go after SCO. The clincher for me was when McBride said that ESR was on IBM's payroll, that sounded like something that Heber Jentzsch might have said.
So, does the S in SCO stand for Scienology or are Mormons and Clams even more similar then I already believed?
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Why doesn't one of the hundreds of copyright holders of Linux (Linus himself would be good) just send SCO a notice of copyright infringement and a Cease and Desist letter for their continued distribution of Linux? SCO is not obeying the terms of the GPL because they are claiming proprietary/closed ownership of part of the code and claiming that people need a separate SCO license to run it. That does violate the GPL doesn't it? The GPL only grants you permission to distribute if you agree to the terms, and if you do not agree to the terms it expressly does NOT give you permission. If you don't agree to the terms of the GPL, then you can only distribute Linux if you negotiate other terms with ALL the copyright holders, right? So aren't they distributing copyrighted work without permission? Isn't it CRIMINAL to knowingly violate copyright? Wouldn't a C&D force SCO to either drop their demands for money from Linux users, or stop distributing all their Linux products?
If anyone out there can explain the flaw in my logic, I would appreciate it.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
IBM has another legal document that shows that Novell and ATT had modified that. Everybody except for SCO has acknowledged that one. And a number of lawyers have said that IBM is in the clear on that stuff. The only real place that has any chance is the earlier sequent's work. They may not have had a document to cover their work, but IBM's contract may (or may not) cover it.
From where I sit (as in IANAL), it would appear that SCO has little chance of winning (but then again, outcomes can be altered in this day and age as shown by MS's case).
I do note a couple of things
No, McBride is all over the world with this stuff. I am quite sure that SCO has no case. Even the current stock B/S that is occuring indicates manipulation rather than investment.
Personally, I think that in mid to late sept. we will see the real interesting activity between SCO vs. redhat, suse, and IBM.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
At a big company I have a relationship with, after the executives recieved the original warning letter SCO sent out to 100's of top companies, projects around the company involving linux were forced on hold or cancelled.
Hundreds of man hours of labour have been wasted.
This must be the case at other big corporations, and if so, wouldn't some sort of class action suit be in order?
Can you imagine how quickly SCO would crumble if many of the Fortune 500 companies and lots of other big institutions got involved?