Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Adds SCO Counterclaim Charging Copyright Infringement

Posted by michael on from the both-barrels dept.

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."

49 of 743 comments (clear)

  1. You reap what you sow. by guacamolefoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IBM has the resources to make a test case of the GPL. I'm going to be very interested to see how this turns out.

    GF.

    --
    Lots of petrified grits
    1. Re:You reap what you sow. by Trigun · · Score: 5, Funny

      IBM does not have the resources to make a test case of the GPL. IBM has the resources to make this a slam-dunk that will make the O.J. Magic Mystery Tour look like a circus sideshow.

      Right or wrong, who cares. It's going to come down to who has the most cash.

    2. Re:You reap what you sow. by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I for one agree, as this is the first *real* case of the GPL/BSD type licenses, and its LONG overdue..

      But, this will either solidify what we are all doing, or kill us off....

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    3. Re:You reap what you sow. by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Right or wrong, who cares. It's going to come down to who has the most cash

      So how come most of the trouble with software patents has come from small companies or even individuals with almost no money taking on big companies?

      According to your theory, Microsoft should have blown Eolas out of the water right from the start.

    4. Re:You reap what you sow. by Sevn · · Score: 5, Funny

      Amen brutha. No matter what happens, it's going to be a hoot. Damn. I hope some smart bastard gets the movie rights. It would make an excellent mini-series starring:

      John Bobbet as Daryl McBride

      Giant Killer Robots With Nuclear Bombs For Balls as the IBM legal team

      Wilford Brimley as the caring and passionate Judge

      The cast of Friends as disgruntled Linux users

      Ryan Phillipe as the young Eric S Raymond during a flashback scene

      That chick from voyager as the evil SCO lawyer

      Danny Bonaduce as the hotdog vendor out on the street who has keen insight and good advice.

      And a cameo by Sean Connery as the old prison guard that comforts Daryl after his first pooper invasion in the prison scene at the end of the movie.

      --
      For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
    5. Re:You reap what you sow. by AJWM · · Score: 5, Informative
      I read and re-read it and I can't make heads or tails out of what they are saying.

      Essentially, IBM is invoking section 4 of the GPL, which reads in part:

      4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.

      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
    6. Re:You reap what you sow. by dmaxwell · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:You reap what you sow. by hqm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Microsoft wanted Eolas to win. It means they have to close their browser down to third party plugins. It was probably worth $5 billion to them
      to lose that case. It means they *own* the desktop, and no one can accuse them of monopolistic practices if they close their browser up to any third party extensions.

    8. Re:You reap what you sow. by dfung · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If I had points, I'd mod you up... When the big MS antitrust case was running, at the very beginning, I believe MS was trying to make a very specific point about the relationship of IE to Windows. MS was saying that their HTML rendering engine was a component of Windows (much like Gecko was the rendering component of Netscape) and that IE was a thin application shell that wrapped around that engine to create the behavior of a browser like Netscape. Other Windows applications can use that rendering engine, such as their help. So they could construct help files like web pages, but the app that you see them in is a help tool, not a browser.

      That architecture is different than Netscape who carried their own rendering engine along with many other components as a bundle in their app. That difference in architecture is where the rathole regarding "taking IE out of Windows" comes from - removing the shell (as the CMU prof demonstrated) is relatively trivial, but if you object to the presence of the rendering engine, then the removal of that is not only painful but breaks other parts of Windows such as help.

      Of course, it doesn't help that MS was also being an ass about this all.

      Netscape (actually, I think it's other plantiffs such as Sun's Java) would complain that their ability to interact with the interfaces of these internal components was disadvantageous vs. Microsoft's own access and ability to enact change in the interfaces.

      The remedy to this solution would have been hard to implement I think - you have to force Microsoft to publish and commit to a set of public interfaces and functionality, make them available to all comers, and create some mechanism through which MS can't have back-door entry. In practice, quite difficult to do, especially in areas like this, subject to significant evolution.

      Once again, it doesn't help that MS was being an ass about this too.

      OK, now flash forward to Eolas. For competitive reasons, MS got pulled into having plug-in interfaces. Later, they took the ball and moved it beyond where Netscape had already set it. Today, those public plug-in interfaces are the way that Real audio can be a pluggable replacement to Windows Media, or that Macromedia in some future Flash will become yet another option. Again, to a lesser extent, these kinds of plug in interfaces are what allows Sun to build a pluggable JVM (although I believe this is a pretty different mechanism).

      So, if MS decides to lose the EOLAS case, that pretty much gives them carte blanche to slam the doors through the existing public interfaces shut and switch back to proprietary interfaces of their own, and their own control. In Soviet Russia, you don't plug into the brower, it plugs in to you (sorry, couldn't help it)! In a post-EOLAS world, poor Microsoft can't publish an API that allows Quicktime or Flash or RealMedia to appear in a window because they can't afford the license. But that won't stop them from doing a non-infringing implementation of Windows Media will it?

      I think this is definitely NOT a case where the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

  2. I have empathy for other people. by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    Ouch, the graph shows that SCO dropped ~15% since that news broke.

    Darl, I'll let you sleep on the couch in my basement. Note though that my cat is very fussy, you'll have to completely bury your turds in the litterbox or she'll get mad. Thanks, buddy!

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:I have empathy for other people. by realdpk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      On the contrary, it's the ONLY indicator of SCO's fortunes, for they have no real/actual revenue (aside from the bullshit $699 licensing).

      However, it is VERY pleasing to see that it dropped so much so quickly after news broke. That means that people are still at least somewhat sane. They know there's very little propping SCOX up, and that any bad news could cause it to fall fast, so lots of people have set it to sell very quickly at even the most minor of price drops.

  3. Someone needs to do a lawsuit flowchart by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 4, Funny

    I cant keep track anymore.

    --
    All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
  4. SCO responds. by eddy · · Score: 5, Informative

    This just in.

    Stowell disputed the idea that SCO could no longer distribute Linux. "We're the copyright holder for the core Unix operating system. If we want to charge someone a licensing fee for using our copyrighted software that's gone into Linux, then we have that prerogative," he said. "If we want to continue to distribute Linux to our existing customers, we can do that because we own the copyrights on that Unix software."

    I'll just let that... sink in.

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
    1. Re:SCO responds. by kfg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Indeed, one wonders how SCO acquired the rights to distribute any code I may have contributed to their Linux distro (note that this is a broader field than just "Linux")when I have no contractual obligations to transfer rights to SCO.

      One wonders exactly which files they claim ownership of, and even if they refuse to identify specific lines of code that they believe are theirs they should be required to at least identify the files they are charging a license fee for before they can collect any money. That's basic contract law.

      "Give us some money."

      "What do I get?"

      "We can't tell you. Ha, ha, ha!"

      Right Sparky. Blow me.

      If you have written a single line of code that is being distributed in a file that SCO is charging a license fee for and are under no contractual obligation to transfer rights of derivitive works to SCO, even if they do own the core operating system code they are still violating your license on your IP.

      By law derivitive works belong to the actual author.

      I wonder what would happen if everyone who has contributed legitimate code under the GPL to SCO's distro were to each file a suit for violation of their license terms?

      More than wonder, I highly recommend it.

      If you represent yourself pro se it will cost you some time, some stationary and the filing fee.

      It will cost them a lawyer to respond, for each individual case.

      Make the bastards bleed from one thousand little legal cuts. Even the expense of that many band-aids and bactine will hurt.

      KFG

    2. Re:SCO responds. by rgmoore · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Do they understnd the GPL at all?

      No, they don't. But IBM does. There's a great quote from IBM later in the article:

      "The typical approach to indemnity, and apparently HP's approach as outlined in the press, we believe runs fundamentally counter to the Linux value proposition," Samson wrote. Because HP's indemnification is rendered void as soon as customers make modifications to the source code, "it will inhibit customers from taking full advantage of the open source development process," he wrote.

      That's a quote from somebody who genuinely understands the power of Free/Open Source software.

      It's pretty clear that IBM's lawyers get the legal aspects of the GPL, too. I remember hearing a story about IBM when they were first considering going into Free/Open Source software. IBM, being IBM, didn't want to get involved without understanding the legal issues, so they asked their lawyers to look over the GPL. The lawyers came back with the opinion that it was a well written legal document. Their business background meant that they didn't understand why anyone would want to release their code under the GPL, but they agreed that it actually would achieve its goal of keeping the source open. IBM never would have used GPLed software if they weren't quite confident that the license was sound.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    3. Re:SCO responds. by kfg · · Score: 4, Informative

      The question boils down, at least in part, to what copyright they claim to be distributing their distro under.

      The distro has a license that may be unique and apart from the licenses of each individual file.

      If they distribute their distro under a blanket GPL license then yes, they are effectively charging a license fee for code they have no rights to even if a single line of that code does not belong to them and are thus in violation of the GPL for their entire distro. Every individual who has contributed code to that distro may sue them for license violation.

      How many people have contributed code to their distro? Richard Stallman, Bill Joy and Linus Torvalds, for starters, since it is a BSD/GNU/Linux distro. The entire KDE/Gnome teams as well.

      If they have not claimed GPL over the entire distro than they must enummerate those files which are under a different license and take care that all linking and derivitive works therein comply with any GPL licensed code.

      If they have not they are in violation of the GPL for each instantiation.

      If you right a VB app Microsoft may own the VB runtime, but they do not own your code as a derivitave work. You own that.

      SCO has effectively declared legal war on anyone who has contributed code to their entire distro.

      Fight back.

      KFG

  5. IBM's Millions and Millions of Lawyers by JasonUCF · · Score: 5, Funny

    I swear, if this ever proceeds to court, I fully believe Darl McBride will be wearing Depends.

    How charming to think that the lying, snivelling legal lapdogs at SCO are going to get the Big Blue treatment.

    Thanks Big Blue!

  6. Duh...... by phunhippy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is, however, nice to know that IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL."

    yesh because with all the work IBM has done with linux in the past short years they obviously have no vested interest in making money off the GPL or linux(or GNU/LINUX or SCO/GNU/LINUX, whatever you want to call it).

    this trial should prove to be interesting as long as it doesn't drag out for 5 years

  7. No by brlewis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The GPL will only get a full vetting when it goes to court. SCO will never let this case see a courtroom.

  8. Pump and dump now! by hackstraw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This press release was 11:48, and look at SCO's stock drop.

    Its interesting that IBM is getting behind the GPL, but I do think that this suit is just a press release, and I would be very supprised if it ever made it to court. If it were the case that Linux has SCO IP in the kernel, then IBM's case would have no merit. Also, I do not see where SCO is even in violation of the GPL. IBM says:

    SCO violated the general Public License under which Linux is distributed. The GPL requires Linux distributors to permit customers to freely copy the software.

    SCO's binary runtime license says nothing about source code nor distribution.

    1. Re:Pump and dump now! by Eric+Damron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "If it were the case that Linux has SCO IP in the kernel, then IBM's case would have no merit."

      No, no, no. You miss the point. IBM has contributed a lot of it's own code that SCO could not possibly have claim over. These are two different issues. Further, everyone who has contributed any code that SCO distributed has had their copyright violated by SCO. And I'm not just talking about the kernel. Any applications that are GPL'd that SCO distributed with its distro. as well.

      SCO = TOAST

      --
      The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    2. Re:Pump and dump now! by pyrrho · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

  9. That might not work by siskbc · · Score: 4, Funny
    Darl, I'll let you sleep on the couch in my basement. Note though that my cat is very fussy, you'll have to completely bury your turds in the litterbox or she'll get mad. Thanks, buddy!

    Darl's such a turd, your cat will try to bury HIM.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  10. You are easily misled by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..nice to know that IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL

    No, IBMs lawyers are quite decidedly on the side of IBM. If IBMs linux experiment fails, all bets are off.

    I still remember when IBM was the big evil. I remember the geeks cheering when MSFT crushed OS/2 to secure Windows' place on the desktop. Hooray! No more IBM monopoly!

    That is, of course, not to say that I dont find every bit of minutia about this nerd hissy fit absofuckinglutely enthralling.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  11. IBM owns patent on FUD. by ryan76 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am almost positive SCO has violated several IBM patents on FUD.

    --
    http://threetechguys.info Come, discuss Technology. Got a technology question? Come ask!
  12. Irony, thy name is IBM by GrouchoMarx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is, however, nice to know that IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL.

    The company that is known for having more patents (hardware and software) than any other company in the world is now the poster child for and the paladin of those who believe such patents to be immoral in the first place.

    Satire is dead! Reality is so much weirder.

    --

    --GrouchoMarx
    Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?

  13. WLTSIM comments on press coverage by Demona · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From We Love the SCO Information Minister:

    "I think this [website] comes from a few individuals in the open-source community, which tends to paint a bad picture of the community as a whole. I think most in the open-source community are good, hard-working developers that want to create some great things. It's unfortunate that a few bad apples spoil the image of the whole group." - Blake Stowell, September 25 2003

    Thanks to SearchEnterpriseLinux for their coverage, but we must disagree with the statement that our site "excerpts several comments SCO officials have allegedly made about Linux during the past year or so." None of these comments are "allegedly" -- they're 100% verifiable fact, statements made in front of God and everyone...which is the point of providing links, so the reader can check the full original context. Of greater significance is the assumption that our creation must be motivated by anger; since we don't know Darl personally, our feelings could best be described as "affection". Like Saeed al-Sahaf, McBride proves that "truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense." With his rampant contradictions and defiance of all logic, he provides us with the finest gift of all -- the gift of laughter. Rather than provide needless attempts at witty commentary, we prefer to let his statements speak for themselves.

    Stowell and company should recognize WLTSIM as being far less hostile to them than their own crude propaganda was to the Linux community.
    --
    Fuck Slashdot
  14. Re:Someone needs to do a lawsuit flowchart by larien · · Score: 5, Funny

    We'd need MC Escher for that, I think....

  15. "Legion of fire-breathing IP lawyers" ?? by Rick.C · · Score: 5, Funny

    There are in fact only 16 of them, but they multiplex into a virtual legion of 4096.

    --
    You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
    "Math in a song is good."-Linford
  16. They may have to now by siskbc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The GPL will only get a full vetting when it goes to court. SCO will never let this case see a courtroom.

    They can't make IBM dismiss the counterclaim. Unless they go bankrupt or something, this is probably going to court - I think IBM doesn't want this sort of thing to happen again, and it appears SCO will be made an example/bitch.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  17. Correction by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL.

    (1) It's IBM that's on the side of the GPL. It's fire-breath lawyers are on the side of whoever pays them.

    (2) IBM is on the side of the GPL because they don't have much of a choice : they don't really have an OS of their own, and they had already invested millions in promoting Linux before this whole SCO idiocy.

    This said, if IBM's lawyers reckon the GPL is a tool worth using in court, then you can be pretty sure it's a solid license, which is good news for the rest of us (read: IBM's money has paid for a very thorough review of the GPL for the rest of us. Thanks guys!)

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Correction by RevMike · · Score: 4, Insightful
      IBM is on the side of the GPL because they don't have much of a choice : they don't really have an OS of their own, and they had already invested millions in promoting Linux before this whole SCO idiocy.

      They do have an OS of their own. In fact the have more than one. They have OS390 and AIX.

      What is really happening here is that IBM missed the last paradigm change. When the PC market exploded with quality clones, IBM was always 6 months late and $1000 too expensive. IBM didn't manage to bring a really respectable PC product to market from the tim eof the IBM AT until the first ThinkPads hit.

      The reality is that there isn't much money in either PCs or OS and Application Development. The real money is in enterprise hardware and consulting services. As long as the linux market continues to grow, IBM Global Services is sitting pretty doing implementations.

    2. Re:Correction by pavon · · Score: 5, Informative

      Thats right, IBM has not a single OS of their very own :)

  18. I like IBM's approach better than HP. by ron_ivi · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So to summarize:


    IBM: "Free software wants to be free."

    HP: "Pay us because free software is scary."

  19. Ransome Love talks about SCO by kuwan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    eWeek has an interview with Ransome Love, the former CEO of Caldera/SCO where he comments on SCO's current lawsuit and what Caldera's intentions were when they purchased the Unix source from the original SCO.

    Some interesting bits of information are that Caldera originally wanted to open source the Unix code they had purchased and that Ransom Love sold all of his shares in SCO when they announced the lawsuit with IBM.

    Here's a nice quote from Love: "I don't believe that the suit is good for the company or Linux."

    --
    infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
  20. Re:Schoolyard fun. by rossz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Naw, it's more like the chess club challenging the varsity football team. They go in thinking they'll be able to checkmate in a few moves, but suddenly find themselves in a huddle on the football field.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
  21. Obligatory Matrix Quote by oni · · Score: 4, Funny

    Do you hear that Mr. McBride? That is the sound of inevitability.

  22. Stowell tells a bald-faced lie by gvc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know that all of SCO's statements have been, shall we say, disingenuous, but Stowell's comment today, if quoted accurately, is the clearest lie I have yet seen issued from an officer of that company:

    "If we want to continue to distribute Linux to our existing customers, we can do that because we own the copyrights on that Unix software."

    cf. Infoworld

  23. IBM got the idea from me by dillon_rinker · · Score: 4, Funny

    Seriously. Look here.

    I will be insufferable for the rest of the day.

  24. More than just a GPL issue by CgiJobs · · Score: 5, Informative
    The claim also states "SCO has published false statements in a series of widely-distributed press releases ... as part of its bad faith campaign to discredit IBM's products and services in the marketplace ... IBM has suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial."

    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...

  25. Brilliant strategy by WCMI92 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Everyone is missing what this manuver does... SO far, SCO's ACTUAL FILED allegations are about a contract dispute with IBM.

    They keep making their copyright claims in press releases.

    By IBM introducing copyright violations into the suit themselves, THEY FORCE SCO TO RESPOND. Also, IBM can get the code that SCO claims is in Linux in the discovery phase.

    This thing is quickly going nuclear. I notice the stock's dump has started to level off, guess Melinda Gates is spending more pocket change...

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  26. SCO validates GPL and erradicates their own case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is actually a brilliant move by IBM. Either of the following will happen:

    a) SCO says the GPL is valid and that they are free to distribute under the terms of the GPL - thereby making IBM's claim superflous AND also making Linux (and any theoretical infringing code therein) available to all users under GPL with no need of licensing from SCO.

    b) SCO says the GPL is invalid - thereby making IBM's couterclaim true - thereby making themselves subject to endless lawsuits for delivering code that they don't have a license to - thereby insuring the timely demise of SCO due to lack of legal funds.

    SCO can't win. They can't have it both ways. They are in a very bad legal quagmire.

    Paul Seamons

  27. Re:No, where's BOIES?!! by WCMI92 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Boies, hotshot?! Has this guy ever WON a case?! He lost the Napster case, lost against Microsoft, lost defending Algore's perpetual recount, etc.

    I don't know WHY this guy has ANY kind of reputation that is positive. He is either a horseshit lawyer, or he takes on loser cases. There is no third possibility.

    Hell, the best sign for our side was that BOIES's name was tacked on...

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  28. Re:No it's not by pknoll · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I doubt this crap will make it to court. SCO is bluffing all the way.

    As another poster pointed out, SCO no longer has a choice. They cannot simply wave a magic wand and make IBM's countersuit disappear if IBM isn't interested in an out of court solution.

    They may have been bluffing, but IBM has called them on it.

  29. Thinly Traded Stocks... by Royster · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...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
  30. One of these days... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...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
  31. IBM is like Godzilla. by raygundan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He's a monster, but sometimes he helps us fight off other monsters. We can cheer as long as he's saving Tokyo. Once that's done, we just have to make sure he goes back into the ocean.

  32. Re:Profit from SCO's demise by Zathrus · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  33. Little Solace Boise facing Ethics charges by bstadil · · Score: 4, Informative
    The Boise scumbag is facing Ethics violations in Florida.

    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.