Slashdot Mirror
IBM Adds SCO Counterclaim Charging Copyright Infringement
linuxjack55 writes "According to Yahoo! Finance, IBM has filed yet another counterclaim against SCO, this time claiming that SCO 'infringed IBM's copyrights by distributing IBM's contributions to Linux after SCO had violated its Linux license by claiming a copyright on parts of Linux.' Like it or not, it looks like the GPL is going to get a full vetting in this case. It is, however, nice to know that IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL."
This just in.
I'll just let that... sink in.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
The GPL requires Linux distributors to permit customers to freely copy the software.
During your holiday on Mars, SCO insisted that every Linux user must pay SCO ~$700 for the fantastic yet undefined SCO IP in Linux. That's where SCO slightly deviated from the "freely copy" bit.
IBM rock and SCO paper.
They have annouced they are selling/requiring licenses to GPL covered code.
Additionally, SCO can't have a binary-only runtime license, under the GPL:
Remember that the GPL has already been tested in court, and won?
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
Hopefully, this will require SCO to reveal more evidence since IBM is claiming that SCO's current practices are causing damage. In related news, SCO stock continues to drift lower under heavy volume...
...are prone to manipulation. WHen volume is high and there's a lot of activity and the bid/ask spread is narrow, there's not much luck of manipulating it short of throwing wads of cash at it. SOmeone on the Yahoo finance message board for SCO says that someone spent $1 million in 15 minutes to stop the free fall.
WHen the volume is low and the bid/ask spread is wide, someone can (illegally) collude with someone else to make wash trades within the bid/ask spread to slowly walk the price upward. The price is completely unsupported so that when selling hits again, it free falls as it did today.
You can learn a lot about the risks of trading thinly traded stocks by reading the last few weeks of messages on the Yahoo finance board.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
...they're going to slip up and claim "If we want to continue to distribute Linux to our existing customers, we can do that because we own the copyrights on that Linux software.", because that's what they're implying to say.
Now I haven't checked how many LOC Linux is, but the great great majority is NOT in any way copyrighted to SCO, even with their most absurd of claims. That means they need a valid licence to distribute Linux, and must abide by the terms of the GPL.
This in particular includes paragraph 2b:
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
and 6:
"Each time you redistribute the Program (...), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
However SCOs rights may or may not have been violated, SCO has no right to violate the rights of all the honest contributors to the Linux kernel. Their right to compensation comes from the legal system, not by stealing back. "Some of you (OSS developers) took our code and illegally licenced/distrbuted it, now we'll take yours and do the same!"
That's what their claiming. Not even that their the same people. It's like claiming "Well this one black guy punched me once, so now it's my right to punch any black guy I feel like!" That argument is only for the press - they'd be torn to pieces for it in court.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
they don't really have an OS of their own
Whuh? AIX, OS/2 off the top of my head. OS/2 is "dead", but AIX isn't. I'm sure they have a few others too. Or they could write one next week, if they wanted to.
Thats right, IBM has not a single OS of their very own :)
IANAL, but I'm not letting that stop me from saying... buzz! Wrong! You fail to recognize that the Linux kernel is the effort of hundreds, each holding copyright to their own contributions. IBM has their own contributions in there, too. And the whole lot is covered under a license that places certain restrictions on what one may do with the material. If you don't agree to the terms of the license, then normal copyright law takes effect. And according to copyright LAW, what SCO is alledged to have done is illegal.
This isn't just an IBM vs SCO thing. It's a Linux kernel contributor vs. SCO thing.
I see 12 replies, so maybe this will be redundant.
The thing is, the GPL says you cannot have royalty generating IP in a GPL covered product. When SCO found out their IP was in there, they had to remove it. They had to RECALL IT! That's right, they had to recall their shipped copies of linux, not because their customers had no right to SCO IP, but because they don't have a right to everything else. E.g. you can't have GNOME because you have that under GPL, the violating IP means you don't have the GPL, and therefore SCO can't ship linux because of all the IP in there that does not belong to them. Of course the best example is not GNOME, but the parts of the kernel that are comingled with supposed SCO IP.
So when SCO indemnifies SCO Linux customers, they were saying SCO wouldn't sue them, but in reality, IBM now can! Those customers are using IBM IP without a license (because the GPL doesn't apply while SCO's royalty generating IP is in there with it!)
-pyrrho
It would be *FAR* more effective if the individual suits weren't joined into a single class action suit. SCO would have to defend themselves in dozens of courts instead of one. That is a much more expensive undertaking. They might not even show up in some of the cases, and the plaintiff might win by default. That could set precedent for other courts and lead to SCO's rapid demise.
It's title 17. Sections are subdivisions of Titles. For instance, 17 USC 1201 et seq. is where most of the provisions of the DMCA are lodged. Although the criminal penalties are encoded in title 17 (in various places), Title 17 encompasses statutory Copyright law in all its forms.
Essentially, IBM is invoking section 4 of the GPL, which reads in part:
SCO has done a number of things that certainly violate the spirit and probably the letter of the GPL (extra licensing, etc. -- and if the rumors are true, they've backported Linux code into their proprietary Unixes). Under section 4, this terminates SCO's rights to distribute Linux. IBM has copyright on its contributions to Linux, therefore SCO has been distributing IBM's (and ever other Linux contributer's) code without a license. That's copyright infringement.
-- Alastair
'infringed IBM's copyrights by distributing IBM's contributions to Linux after SCO had violated its Linux license by claiming a copyright on parts of Linux.'
I read and re-read it and I can't make heads or tails out of what they are saying. Reminds me of this thread. Sure glad they aren't after me.
SCO disagreed with the GPL (and declared it void). That means they aren't allowed the benefits it provides (redistribution). They continued (probably still on their FTP site) to distribute Linux.
IBM has the copyright to part of the Linux source code. Their work is being distributed counter to the terms they offer it under (the GPL). IBM sues SCO under copyright law for infringement.
Has anyone considered short selling SCO shares by using options?
It doesn't look like the options are being sold on the major markets -- a few quick checks of public stock data show no options available for SCOX. Not surprising - it's a very low volume stock with very few shares outstanding.
That said, unless you can get some very long term options, I certainly wouldn't buy them. Until the case goes to trial (2005) the stock is going to vary wildly based on market perception. Presuming the trial goes as expected it would mean the stock would drop and your options are worth something.
Options are a very dangerous way to play the market -- you pay money for them and if the stock doesn't become worth more or less than the option price (depending on the kind of option you buy) then you lose all your money. You don't even have the stock to show for it -- which could at least revalue at some point.
Unless you're very market savvy, I'd recommend staying away from options.
I read and re-read it and I can't make heads or tails out of what they are saying. Reminds me of this thread. Sure glad they aren't after me.
I can help you out with that. SCO is still distributing the Linux kernel sources from their ftp site. That kernel contains work contributed by IBM. IBM still has the copyright on that work.
The GPL says that if you can't meet all of the obligations of the license then you can't distribute a covered work at all.
SCO would not have been as open to this if they had ceased all distribution of Linux as soon as they started this foofraw. As it is, they left an opening for IBM and everyone who holds copyright on various components of the kernel to sue them. RedHat is nailing them for GPL violation as well.
SCOX opened at $17.02. It closed at $14.29.
Between the shares he owns outright and his vested options, the net value of Darl C. McBride's SCOX portfolio dropped from $5,133,293.22 to $4,227,836.85, a one-day fall of $905,456.37.
I was hoping he would break the million-dollar barrier, but a small rally in the last half-hour of trading took the stock above 14.
The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected. -- Will Rogers
This is not "the first *real* case of the GPL/BSD type licenses" as the two licenses are totally different. GPL is more restrictive.
With a BSD license I can take the code, modify it, and sell binaries without providing source EVER.
With the GPL I can take the source, modify it, and sell binaries. BUT I'll have to give up the source to anyone who asks for the source. I can only charge, at best, the cost of providing the source ($10 ship/handling).
Try reading the licenses sometime.
No, the shareholders are not responsible (legally or financially) for the debts or actions of the company. The limit of their liability is the price they paid for the stock they own. It can go to zero - in a bankruptcy for example - but it can't go any lower than that.
Yes, the officers and board of the company ARE individually liable for the actions of the company - both to the shareholders and to the rest of the world.
Although I do think the shareholders are MORALLY responsible for the actions of their company.
IANAL, either.
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
I am always taken back when lawyers talk about Ethics, but I guess it has to be understood in a Arbeit Macht Frei sense
Help fight continental drift.
(Judge) Saris declined to get into the complexities of the GPL
Help fight continental drift.