SCO Now Willfully Violating the GPL

Hmm.. question.. by rylin · 2003-10-31 03:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not only should people send a C&D letter, but can't they also take scox to at least small court?
Not that I know smack about law or anything

Re:Hmm.. question.. by harlows_monkeys · 2003-10-31 03:27 · Score: 4, Informative

Not only should people send a C&D letter, but can't they also take scox to at least small court?
It's been a while since I studied Civil Procedure, but I believe that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright matters, and so small-claims court could not hear such cases, since they are state courts.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by idiotnot · 2003-10-31 03:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Most states you cannot take a corporation to "small court." If you want to file a lawsuit against a foreign corporation (which would take into account all the US kernel developers who do not live in Utah), you have to serve papers on their registered agent in your state, unless you want to sue them in Utah (and why on earth would you want to do that?).
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:32 · Score: 0

Now is when SCO gets the butt-kicking it's so clearly asking for.

Now is when IBM, SGI, Sun, Cray, ... and all the other myriad companies that have contributed software to Linux under the GPL to first send a C&D, and failing immediate resolution, file for an injunction against SCO.

The case is pretty clear; IANAL, but any reasonable judge would be bound to issue a restraining order.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Waffle+Iron · 2003-10-31 03:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

Not only should people send a C&D letter, but can't they also take scox to at least small court?
Small claims court? If each and every music track put on a publicly accessible share is worth tens of thousands of dollars in fines, think of how much you could get from somebody who is illegally distributing a complete server operating system. With the number of source files involved, you could stand to make $Millions!
Re:Hmm.. question.. by fliplap · 2003-10-31 03:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

But this isn't soley a copyright case. This is a simple contract/license dispute. You, as a kernel developer, gave SCO a license to distribute your work, they aren't living up to thier end of the bargain.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by TWX · 2003-10-31 03:45 · Score: 5, Informative

But, those contracts are specifically designed to work with copyright law. Thus as such, they're copyright enforcement.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by spikev · 2003-10-31 03:47 · Score: 1, Funny

Maybe we can terrorize SCO with some of those WMDs we've confiscated from Iraq.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by el_gordo101 · 2003-10-31 03:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

Obligitory IANAL, blah, blah, but shouldn't it be possible to form a class-action suit against SCOX on behaf of all of the contributing devlopers? Just a thought.

--
TODO: Insert witty sig
Re:Hmm.. question.. by John+Hasler · 2003-10-31 03:53 · Score: 1

It might be possible to form such a class action, but doing so would be to SCO's advantage. They would only need to defend against one lawsuit instead of thousands.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Dashing+Leech · 2003-10-31 03:57 · Score: 3, Funny

I don't think you can terrorize with vaporware.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by arkanes · 2003-10-31 03:58 · Score: 1

File suit individuall for each file. Mmmmm. 10,000 per infringment.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by John+Hasler · 2003-10-31 04:02 · Score: 5, Informative

> Most states you cannot take a corporation to
> "small court."

You most certainly can sue corporations, local or foreign, in most small claims courts.

> If you want to file a lawsuit against a foreign
> corporation ... you have to serve papers on
> their registered agent in your state....

Which is exactly the same procedure as for a local corporation. That is why such agents are required (if they don't have such an agent they lose all lawsuits by default).

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by IWannaBeAnAC · 2003-10-31 04:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

Or the other way around? SCO versus a lawyer funded on the cheap by a single developer (once they win the first case, the precedent lets them get through the other N-1 pretty quickly), or SCO versus a bunch of lawyers funded by a pool?
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

Exactly. The tobacco companies got some early rulings in their favor and it took a long time and a lot of class action work to overcome those precedents.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:11 · Score: 3, Funny

Microsoft have managed it for the previous two decades.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by dipipanone · 2003-10-31 04:15 · Score: 1

Well, I said it right at the very beginning of this law suit and had the pants flamed off me for having the termerity to suggest it, but if I were either Linus or the FSF, I'd be adding a rider to my licenses that they can be used by anybody with the exception of SCO, who should have no right at all to distribute GPL'd software, and customers of SCO, who could only use it if they were prepared to pay $799 per processor to the Free Software Foundation.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Keds · 2003-10-31 04:24 · Score: 0

Quoth the poster:
Not only should people send a C&D letter, but can't they also take scox to at least small court? Not that I know smack about law or anything
Most people take the word of the "learned judge" as holy writ. In fact, a lot of judges don't know a lot about the law. This is especially true in most small claims courts. Small claims court is usually presided over by a judge who is used to hearing criminal misdemeanors, speeding tickets, and the like. In small claims court, they're usually hearing from people suing their landlords to get their wrongfully withheld security deposit back. It's disconcerting to watch their eyes glaze over when confronted with anything even slightly more complex - like even spam. So no, a complex copyright case would not be appropriate for small claims court.

--
Karma: Sucky (mosty affected by saying things people know to be true but don't want to hear)
Re:Hmm.. question.. by N3WBI3 · 2003-10-31 04:43 · Score: 1, Insightful

How totally pathetic that someone trys to turn a thread about court and contract into a bash GWB fest... Get a life

--
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:47 · Score: 0

hmmm... perhaps "Vapor"ware is not the best analogy to be mixed in with WMD...
Re:Hmm.. question.. by BLAG-blast · 2003-10-31 05:01 · Score: 0, Troll

I can understand why you would get flamed for that.
and customers of SCO, who could only use it if they were prepared to pay $799 per processor to the Free Software Foundation.
So companies such as IBM, SUN, SGI and dozens of other smaller companies would have to pay $799, per cpu, for Linux license. is that going to help GNU/Linux in any way? For IBM to run Linux on 16,000 processor box would cost almost $13 Million.
Pretty much everybody who has anything to do with "UNIX(tm)" is a customer of SCO. I don't think this is a good idea, infact it would be a very bad thing for linux to do this....
Now, are you sure you got flame, and it wasn't just a bunch of people telling you it was a bad idea?

--
M0571y H@rml355.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by sg_oneill · 2003-10-31 05:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

You most certainly can sue corporations, local or foreign, in most small claims courts.

You most certainly can. Furthermore, IBM/FSF/REDHAT/SAMBA/WHOEVER should not only cease and desist these fuckers, but should as a matter of urgency try and get there assets/stocks frozen on the basis that these will be needed to repay the litigants once they have won.

Fortunately the first inevitable judgement against SCO is likely to lead to a panic sell, which could either trash SCO's financial position or make it impossible for them to repay any fines/compensation imposed.

Some folks will argue "what about shareholders". I would argue "EXACTLY!". There should be a massive penalty against shareholders in SCO who are currently able to sell out but aint.

People who knowingly invest in fraudulent enterprises should be punished as loan sharks and charlitans.

To cut a long story short. SCO should be crashed and its shareholders bankerupted.

Not because its satisfying. But because its moral.

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by TooTallFourThinking · 2003-10-31 05:08 · Score: 1

But that's the wonder of the freedom that they so enjoy. And you do for bitching about them bitching about GWB. Don't even get me started about me bitching about you bitching about them...

Oh and get a life. ;-)
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:09 · Score: 0

I believe it is. You aren't suing to enforce the license, you are suing for the copyright infringement that came about because of it.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by feragen · 2003-10-31 05:20 · Score: 1

I don't think you can terrorize with vaporware.

oh really?
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

But, those contracts are specifically designed to work with copyright law. Thus as such, they're copyright enforcement.

No. Disputing the terms of a contract is never copyright law. The relevant point is that SCO couldn't possibly argue that they are complying with the GPL (and have stated as much). This means that the GPL is irrelevant, and so it falls back to plain copyright infringement, not breach of contract.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:47 · Score: 0

Do you LIKE GWB? That is anti-american and will be outlawed as terrorism by the next president. GWB himself will be outlawed as a terrorist by the next president. And the tax payer will still get fucked in the ass.

Are you a tax payer?
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:04 · Score: 0

This is somewhat ironic from a fellow who has "The French are cheese eating surrender monkeys." for a sig.

Les The (plural)
Francais French
sont are (masc. pl. of etre (to be))
des singes monkeys
de capitulation of surrendering
qui who
mangent eat
du fromage cheese.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:06 · Score: 0

Stupid fucking mods, this is the opposite of infomative!!!!
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:11 · Score: 0

I agree about the taxes, liberals always screw people with increased taxes. Fascist bastards!
Re:Hmm.. question.. by MrResistor · 2003-10-31 06:11 · Score: 4, Informative

It is strictly a copyright case. If they are using GPLed software in a way that violates the GPL then their rights under the GPL are void and they are guilty of copyright infringement. It says so right in the GPL.

--
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by BeBoxer · 2003-10-31 06:12 · Score: 1

How totally pathetic that someone trys to turn a thread about court and contract into a bash GWB fest... Get a life

Les Francais sont des singes de capitulation qui mangent du fromage.

Translation: The French are monkeys of capitulation which eat cheese

How totally pathetic that someone trys[sp] to turn every thread into a bash the French fest... Get a life
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Venner · 2003-10-31 06:20 · Score: 1

Sell out their shares....doesn't that imply someone is buying those shares?

--
A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by dipipanone · 2003-10-31 06:30 · Score: 1

So companies such as IBM, SUN, SGI and dozens of other smaller companies would have to pay $799, per cpu, for Linux license.

Well, they'd either have to do that, or they'd have to stop using/paying for SCO software. Or stop using Linux. Does IBM etc. still pay an ongoing license fee to SCO? I thought that they'd paid for a license in perpetuity and therefore they wouldn't be a SCO customer any more. But as far as those companies like Sun and Microsoft who seem to be paying them license fees for something that is arguably in the public domain, then yes, I'd be quite happy to force those companies to choose sides. Go with the past, or go with the future.

After all, I don't see Apple paying SCO any money for a license, and they seem to have a perfectly functional operating system running on a generic unix base.

is that going to help GNU/Linux in any way? For IBM to run Linux on 16,000 processor box would cost almost $13 Million.

I believe it would help linux, yes. I believe that it would do so in a number of ways. Firstly, I think it would finally bankrupt SCO and that would help linux and open source software no end. Secondly, it would encourage these companies to put all of their unix efforts into developing for Open Source un*xes, rather than continuing to maintain their legacy closed source software. Finally, it would also send a very clear message to those people who seek to steal open source software and hijack it for their own purposes that the linux community isn't going to take it lying down. Yet again, linux (and by extension, all of us) are the winners.

I'd actually argue that by failing to do this, the open source community is sending a message to certain predatory people that says 'you can screw us over all you like. Try and steal our software, we don't mind. We're happy to let you steal a public good because no single person actually benefits from its ownership.' Sometimes, freedom has to be defended with every tool at your disposal and I believe that this is one of those occasions. Now, are you sure you got flame

I think you can see by the way that your post has been moderated that there are clearly some deeply irrational people who post to Slashdot. So yes, it was very definitely a flame.

I'd have welcomed the sort of discussion around it that you're engaged in because even if it *is* a bad idea, it's very hard for me to see why it isn't one that isn't worth exploring.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by bs_02_06_02 · 2003-10-31 07:16 · Score: 0

Watch out for the Mormon Mafia!

--
-- No sig for you!
Re:Hmm.. question.. by mr_z_beeblebrox · 2003-10-31 07:30 · Score: 1

think of how much you could get from somebody who is illegally distributing a complete server operating system. With the number of source files involved, you could stand to make $Millions!

This is not an interesting, informative etc... comment. If someone owns a track or two on an album they own it. There are not 1000s of owners. You do not own Linux, nor do I. You take them to small claims court to recover compensation on the two lines you contributed as a patch for serial.h etc... You will not see millions, maybe thousands but doubtfully so. Mainly SCOs investors will start to see that this is a bad idea.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by mr_z_beeblebrox · 2003-10-31 07:33 · Score: 1

You will not see millions, maybe thousands but doubtfully so.

Sorry forgot to add. There are some people who could do this based on the amount they have contributed to the kernel. There is one who could shut them down...Linus owns the trademark on Linux (name). They can not call what they are distributing Linux if he says no, if they change the name on it then there license disregard is suddenly obvious even to lay folk.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by bwt · 2003-10-31 07:48 · Score: 1

You most certainly can sue corporations, local or foreign, in most small claims courts.

This is absolutely true -- BUT -- copyright is exclusively a federal law issue, so you cannot sue ANYBODY for copyright violations in state court (small claims or otherwise). There is no federal small claims court, so you'll eventually litigate any copyright claim in a US District Court.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by N3WBI3 · 2003-10-31 07:49 · Score: 1

Actually I dont care too much for him, I did vote for him last election as my only other choices were Gore or Nader and I could not bring myself to vote for either of them. I will not vote for Bush next time around but that has nothing to do with Iraq, thats all about increasing government spending..

--
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Tony+Hoyle · 2003-10-31 07:50 · Score: 1

Linus and the FSF can't have a GPL that applies to everybody except SCO, because that would violate the GPL itself... :)

There's nothing to stop the FSF bringing out GPLv3 which specifically forbids SCO and their shareholders/families/customers from using software under it, but then each contributor would have to agree to the license change.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by johnnyb · 2003-10-31 07:53 · Score: 1

"if I were either Linus or the FSF, I'd be adding a rider to my licenses that they can be used by anybody with the exception of SCO"

Then it would be totally incompatible with every piece of GPL software in existence. Yeah, that would be great.

The GPL _forbids_ anyone adding extra terms. Since you just added a term, that means you can't combine works with a GPL'd item.

--
Engineering and the Ultimate
Re:Hmm.. question.. by N3WBI3 · 2003-10-31 07:53 · Score: 1

From the simpsons, get over it..

--
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 08:04 · Score: 0

> I don't think you can terrorize with vaporware.

Apparently you're too young to have ever taken
part in a demonstration blown apart by tear gas.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 08:14 · Score: 0

How totally pathetic that someone trys to turn a thread about court and contract into a bash GWB fest... Get a life
Why not? The criminal fucker is a fair target and symptomatic of capitalism's sickness. The bastard's coming to Blighty 9/10/11 November and I'm sure he'll be made most welcome. I wouldn't recommend any public appearances, though.
In fact, it'd be quite funky if some LHO did a JFK on the guy.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by eatdave13 · 2003-10-31 08:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.

Under capitalism man exploits Man. Under communism it's the other way around.

--
"Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin
Re:Hmm.. question.. by God+Hates+Liberals · 2003-10-31 09:11 · Score: 1

Wow, you had some interesting points but you have gone off of the deep end. We have a right to purchase stock for any reason we choose to. Moreover, I do not believe that most people buy SCO stocks with the intent to tank the open source community. Although we may be on the same side of this issue, I'm glad you're not a judge, buddy.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 09:15 · Score: 0

Small claims is generaly for a few hundred dollars, max. Copyright infringment is $150,000 per infringment, way out of the leage of a small claims court.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 09:26 · Score: 0

Can someone please post the fax number and mailing address for SCO.

Also does anyone have a generic C&D letter that can be supplied and customized for those who in need of doing this?

Also, could this be grounds for a class action suit?
Re:Hmm.. question.. by srobring · 2003-10-31 09:34 · Score: 1

An updated version of the GPL will only affect future releases of the code, which specifically refer to the new licensing terms. Most current code released under the GPL give the option of using a later version of the license to the licensee.
either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by EvilAlien · 2003-10-31 10:44 · Score: 1

What about RICO?

Get the fuckers some jail time.

--
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Re:Hmm.. question.. by SillySlashdotName · 2003-10-31 10:44 · Score: 1

copyright is exclusively a federal law issue, so you cannot sue ANYBODY for copyright violations in state court

So far I have not heard anyone talking about copyright violation. THIS IS A LICENSE ISSUE, BASED ON A CONTRACT contained in the GPL - L as in LICENSE.

Yes, it is a contract between a (bunch of) copyright holder(s) and SCO, but it is JUST A (license) CONTRACT.

The contract states that if SCO does not agree to the contract then they can not redistribute the code. SCO did say they agreed with the contract and began distributing the code, but now they say they do not agree with the contract - but they are still distributing the code.

SCO is not violating the copyright, they are violating the GPL, the only license giving them the right to distribute the code they are still serving over the Internet, the license they had agreed to but have now repudiated.

The points to bring are:

1) The software is copyrighted
2) The copyright holder gave SCO rights to distribute based on the terms of the GPL
3) SCO began distributing the code based on those GPL derived rights.
4) SCO now says the licensing terms do not apply, BUT THEY HAVE NOT STOPPED DISTRIBUTING the code

Based on their acknowledgement of their need for licensing of the code in the first place (under 2 and 3 above), knowingly continuing to distribute without a license that allows them to do so is illegal and posibly could be proven to be deliberate - can you say punative damages? I thought you could! (although maybe not in small claims court - can punative damages be asserted in SC court?)

I am NOT a lawyer, so feel free to slap me down with facts - shucks, I might even like it!

--
Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by pyrrhonist · 2003-10-31 11:35 · Score: 2, Funny

Drive by missionary work?

--
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Sj0 · 2003-10-31 12:03 · Score: 1

Also keep in mind that since the Linux platform's development is decentralized, SCO isn't stealing from just one person, it's stealing from thousands, maybe even millions. Each and every person to contribute to a GPL'd project stolen by SCO for use in OpenLinux has a leagal right to sue SCO right now, and if they succeed in getting all the GPL'd code in the world turned over the the Public Domain, Every person who has ever written a GPL'd program can sue the US government for a blatant theft of billions of lines of code.

--
It's been a long time.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by E_elven · 2003-10-31 14:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

>Moreover, I do not believe that most people buy SCO stocks with the intent to tank the open source community.

Correct. Stock is bought to generate money. Not *one* major player in the stock market cares what the company does -or even if it's doing well. Nowadays you don't buy and sell parts of companies. You trade pieces of paper based on their assumed value. The stock market is the most ingeniously engineered manipulation of mass psyche in the history of the universe.

--
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
Re:Hmm.. question.. by yourmom16 · 2003-10-31 15:09 · Score: 1

It is copyright violation because they didn't have permission to distribute it. The license is just permission to do certain things with it. You do not have permision to distribute a derivative work unless you are willing to give out the source, and to license your code under the GPL.
BTW I don't think SCO will be able to pay punitive damages before they tank.

--
"We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
Re:Hmm.. question.. by BigFootApe · 2003-10-31 15:35 · Score: 1

Isn't the discovery process significantly truncated in small claims court? If so, prosecuting them in small claims would force SCO to reveal their information immediately so that we could dispel their insidious schemes.

How about this: take them to small claims for Bash, or something, then lay the smack down over the Linux Kernel, GCC, etc.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Doomdark · 2003-10-31 15:47 · Score: 1

Not *one* major player in the stock market cares what the company does -or even if it's doing well.
Are you saying Warren Buffet is not a major player, or that he doesn't care about companies he (or rather, his company) owns? Because I thought he for one is and does? He may be in minority, but as one of the most SUCCESFUL investors around he's an exception to the rule of reality distorted gambling-style investors.
Now, what and how company does is exactly what determines if it makes money; and company making money is the ONLY RELIABLE way stock will make its owner money. It is possible to earn money with bubble stocks, but that's volatile and risky way. Day trading (market timing etc) is only popular because many people refuse to accept anything but quick fixes: losing weight without eating less or exercising more, or investing without having a clue as to what company is like, just having blind faith in hocus pocus of things like "technical" analysis. As boring as long term investing in good companies is, it's still the best way; it works.

--
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Re:Hmm.. question.. by WildCode · 2003-10-31 17:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think people are missing the BIGGER picture, its not just the linux kernel, but every single GPL'd application that SCO are distributing under their new licence. you could be looking at a couple of million people. a class action that big if it won could kill SCO.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by sg_oneill · 2003-10-31 21:11 · Score: 1

No. Just that theyd LIKE to sell em. If no one wants to buy them, the market corrects the price down until its true value is revealed. Well thats the theory (hocus pocus). Of course if nobody wants to buy at any price, then the value might just crash because it sudenly has become worthless.

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by jasonditz · 2003-11-01 03:20 · Score: 1

In corporate law there is no need to get their assets frozen. If SCO attempted to give out all their assets before a fine was imposed they'd be guilty of an illegal divestigure, and those responsible would not only have to pay it back, they'd wind up in jail.

Shareholders are only able to lose the value of their stock. You can't start punishing shareholders... and in all fairness I doubt most shareholders have even heard of this.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by Eggplant62 · 2003-11-01 03:44 · Score: 1

People who knowingly invest in fraudulent enterprises should be punished as loan sharks and charlitans.

Wall Street would be void of human life if this were to happen.

Rich
Re:Hmm.. question.. by MrResistor · 2003-11-01 07:39 · Score: 1

I've had this discussion way to many times. It's my sig, and you're wrong. I'm very much aware of the gramatical details, and I said exactly what I meant.

Think of it as a political koan. Meditate upon it and you will be enlightened.

--
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by wpanderson · 2003-11-01 22:09 · Score: 1

Is this a "one small leap for man" type word usage issue? :)

--
neuro at well dot com (when I post, it's my opinions, no-one elses)
Re:Hmm.. question.. by BLAG-blast · 2003-11-02 07:11 · Score: 1
I'd have welcomed the sort of discussion around it that you're engaged in because even if it *is* a bad idea, it's very hard for me to see why it isn't one that isn't worth exploring.
I wrote a pretty in depth follow up to your post, but after I hit the submit button I didn't see it again....
Main points:
- Linux will be Free (to certain people) Software. This will no longer be Free Software.
- It will make it harder for companies to change to Linux, if they have used SCO before.
- It will send a message to companies that we will change our licenses to screw companies over. This week it's SCO, next week it could be you. (Not everybody see's the SCO vs Linux as clear cut as you and I). This will be bad for free software.
- Implementation would be hard. Would every body agree?
- Enforcement would make us look bad. You've got enforce it to or it's not much use. But then you are starting to sue your own customers and users, just because they made a choice to use SCO and Linux. Last I checked Free Software was about freedom of choice, not forcing people to make choices.
- SCO are playing a game that can't be won, if try and beat them at there own game (licensing bullshit) we will lose.
- At $799 per node, IBM would not use linux to run on muilt 1000 cpu machine (or submit the relative fixes and patches, not to mention the testing and scalability experience we get from it).
- More companies would turn to BSD for when looking at using an open source OS.
- Many companies use SCO because they have to support a version of their software on SCO for a customer, often under contractual obligation. If this company was a heavy in house Linux user they would have switch to some other OS or incur heavy costs. (Many place develope on Linux and sell on Solaris.)
I cannot see a company going, "oh, well just change our business model/mode of operation, so we can continue using linux". Which board of directors is going approve ditching their customers which use SCO so they can continue to let the developers use Linux?
Why won't we put the price up again if people start paying? We would have already put the price of free software up once - why not again?
Bottom line: Free Software is powerfull because it's free. These abuses will happen, we have methods of fighting these, it will be a long battle. Donating money to the FSF is an effective way of fueling our methods of fight these people.
--
M0571y H@rml355.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by eatdave13 · 2003-11-02 12:02 · Score: 1

It's not a koan though, it's just wrong and doesn't make any sense that way. If I mediate on it I'll start drooling.

--
"Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin
Re:Hmm.. question.. by eatdave13 · 2003-11-02 12:07 · Score: 1

s/mediate/meditate/

--
"Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin
Re:Hmm.. question.. by MrResistor · 2003-11-03 14:42 · Score: 1

Sorry, but it is you who are wrong. It's not my fault if you're too stuck in your little box to get it.

Also, you clearly don't understand what a koan is.

--
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by eatdave13 · 2003-11-03 18:33 · Score: 1

I understand what a koan is, but I think you just made a mistake when you first quoted that and refuse to admit it.

If you really want your sig to be a koan, why don't you make one up?

Nothing is not wrong.

--
"Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin
Re:Hmm.. question.. by bwt · 2003-11-04 09:15 · Score: 1

SCO is not violating the copyright, they are violating the GPL

I really have no idea why you think there is a difference. Federal law says you must have permission from the copyright owner. That permission IS the license. Violating the licences is completely equivalent to violating copyright law.

SCO is going to get handed its head on this issue. They have based their entire Linux business on piracy of GPL software.
Re:Hmm.. question.. by MrResistor · 2003-11-04 11:11 · Score: 1

As I said before, I made no mistake. My sig says exactly what I mean.

I think the mistake you are making is that you are trying to place some greater significance on it. No matter what the economic system individuals are exploiting individuals. While in theory the two systems are opposed, in reality we can observe that the end results are the same. In both, man exploits man, with a select few gaining the bulk of the benefit. The only difference is in how those few are chosen.

To try and say that man exploits Man (or vice versa) is to vastly oversimplify the problem. Both systems result in a complex web of exploitation with a few who are simply more skilled at it than the rest. Thus it becomes not a comparison of economic systems, but rather a comentary on human nature.

Finally, I never said I wanted my sig to be a koan, I said you could think of it that way. However, I stand by my assessment of your understanding of koans in general. What is a koan but something that is stupid, nonsensical, or clearly a mistake until the moment you figure it out?

--
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.

That's right by Kierthos · 2003-10-31 03:21 · Score: 5, Funny

we'll Slashdot their mail room....

Are they even obligated to legally respond to any C&D letters? IANAL, so I have no idea...

Kierthos

--
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.

Re:That's right by dougmc · 2003-10-31 03:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

Are they even obligated to legally respond to any C&D letters?
No, nobody is. But cease and desist letters are usually sent with an understanding (at least they attempt to foster the understanding) that if they are ignored, further legal action will be taken, such as a suit. Sending a C&D letter is cheap, but if all you want to do is scare somebody into stopping, they're often effective.
They don't do much to SCO, however. Somebody will have to actually sue.
As always, I am not a lawyer.
Re:That's right by buff_pilot · 2003-10-31 03:29 · Score: 1, Flamebait

we'll Slashdot their mail room....

Nah.... how about their server...

http://www.sco.com/support/linux_info.html
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:29 · Score: 0, Insightful

So many of you Slashdotters think that committing copyright violations against RIAA is just fine, but as soon as someone does it to Linux, you're all up in arms.

This is the funniest thing I've ever seen!
Re:That's right by jchawk · 2003-10-31 03:29 · Score: 5, Informative

IANAL, but we have had to send a handful of cease and desist letters. Our lawyers advised us to send 2 copies of the letter. 1 copy goes by certified mail and the other goes in the regular mail. Get a recept that both were sent, that way if it goes to court you have proof you sent the letter, even if they don't sign for the certified letter.

Finally if you are really worried you can pay a constible to serve them papers. Once they are served, they are responsible for this information even if they throw the papers in the trash without reading them.
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:33 · Score: 0

Because Linux is good. RIAA is bad. So it is written, so it shall be done.
Re:That's right by AntiOrganic · 2003-10-31 03:48 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Kinda like how Americans have been sponsoring overseas terrorism for decades, but go nuts and put stickers everywhere when the World Trade Center gets attacked.

But to keep it on topic, I think a lot of us such as myself are buying from labels like Nuclear Blast and Century Media that are not affiliated with the RIAA.
Re:That's right by Dr.+Evil · 2003-10-31 03:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

By posting that message, you're a Slashdotter.
Make up your mind about copyrights!
Re:That's right by Angram · 2003-10-31 03:50 · Score: 3, Informative

Letters like a C&D are sent with a timeframe - either they comply or it will go to court as of a certain date (typically a month in Small Claims Court). Basically, that letter (which should be sent with a Return Receipt, etc., is proof that they were made aware of the issue and were given time to resolve it. Without it, the court may just tell you that you have to give them a chance and throw out the case.

I'm no lawyer, but I was trained in Small Claims Court counselling (don't ask).

--

GL
Re:That's right by dspeyer · 2003-10-31 03:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

I won't claim there's no hypocrisy in the replies to this articles (or any article), but this particular point makes sense. SCO, unlike 'music pirates' is actually trying to steal Linux. They are trying to make it so that they own it and the authors don't. They want exclusive power of disribution.
If they just wanted to enjoy it, or pass it around on kazaa, we wouldn't object. That's why we gave them permission to do that.
But they're trying to tell us that we can't do that, simply on the authority that they bluff well and have a lot of lawyers (actually, that they bluff mediocerly, and have some lawyers). They're more like the RIAA, only with no grounds for their actions.
Hopefully they'll overstep so far that even PHB's will laugh at them, and then IBM will swat them like a bug, and the SEC will through the ringleaders in jail for securities fraud. It really could happen.

--
Sig:Why copyright isn't a fundamental human right
Re:That's right by 11223 · 2003-10-31 03:53 · Score: 4, Funny

Dude, if you're going to try to slashdot someone, at least do it right:
This is a big, clickable link to slashdot SCO's servers!
Re:That's right by Damn_Canuck · 2003-10-31 03:55 · Score: 2

It's not really up in arms over the the copyright violations. The community is more or less now going to follow SCO's lead, should the need arise: you are using our copyrighted information, without our permission, so we sue you. If SCO says that they are not breaking copyright law, then their own case has no merit by their own argument.

Everything can be looked at from several perspectives, no matter what it is. In this case, there are the two obvious ones: SCO is right in their argument, or SCO is wrong. If SCO is right, then they deserve to be sued back via their own stance on the issue. If they are wrong, then they have to drop the lawsuit and everything is done and gone.

--
Given that God is infinite, and the Universe is also infinite, would you like some toast?
Re:That's right by mr_tommy · 2003-10-31 03:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Its about perspective. I imagine that if Linus T was making a few billion each year, some of you lot might just be up in arms.

Equally, your argument is somewhat flawed; the whole point of this SCO hoo har is too decide WHO has the copyrights to apsects of the linux OS - wether code was stolen which was SCO code, which by implication would give SCO ownership of parts of Linux.
Re:That's right by MS_is_the_best · 2003-10-31 03:55 · Score: 1

Indeed, there all slashot readers have only one opinion. Very strange the editors put so much effort in creating a moderation system at all?

What's up, are trolls now moderating their friends up to +3 Insightful, instead of posting their own trolls?
Re:That's right by mrroach · 2003-10-31 03:56 · Score: 1

Yes, because all the thousands of slashdot readers/posters have only one point of view...

Find specific instances of people who are ok with violations of the RIAA's copyright but not with violations of Linux's copyright and then you will have something to say.

Saying "many think X and many think not-X" proves nothing without showing an overlap between the groups.

bonehead.

-Mark
Re:That's right by x-router · 2003-10-31 03:59 · Score: 1

Interesting, however I think generally people here (sweeping assumption) object to the RIAA attempts to control fair use not the downloading of tracks they don't own and at the end of the day OS is about the good of all not about making money.
The RIAA doesn't help schools, the 3rd world etc etc OS does but SCO dont want that because all they see is $$$$.
Re:That's right by Cramer · 2003-10-31 04:01 · Score: 2

There's a big difference here -- even if the law doesn't make any distinction. SCO is taking stuff thousands of people have created for free, calling it theirs and then selling it (for real money.) And they're going even further to say it doesn't belong to those who created it. File swapping of songs is taking something someone was paid to create (and presumablly, at least one person paid money to obtain) and giving it away for free. (It's not as if everyone were downloading from napster, burning the stuff to CDs, and then selling them as their own songs.)

Granted, legally, there's no distinction between the two. Both are copyright violations and theft. Selling something that's free or giving away something that's forsale... doesn't matter.
Re:That's right by back_pages · 2003-10-31 04:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is the funniest thing I've ever seen!
What an embarrassment to moderately smart people everywhere. The GPL specifically SUPPORTS the copying and distribution of Linux. SCO is trying to usurp the RIGHTS to the body of work, whereas music downloaders are merely copying it for themselves.
Offtopic or Totally Stupid was the right moderation for this comment.
Re:That's right by Mmm_pickles · 2003-10-31 04:11 · Score: 1

No, they're separate issues. This kind of accusation is exactly why it's so important to make sure we don't conflate one with the other. When I talk to non-geeks about these issues, I'm always careful to point out the distinction and how it's intellectually consistent to support FOSS while not supporting unauthorized downloads of copyrighted music. That is, FOSS is the position, "I created this thing and I want to share it," or, "I want to use this thing that someone shared." Unauthorized music downloads are, "I want to use this thing whether the creator is sharing it or not."

The intellectual consistency between the two positions is strong enough that noone should have to defend their position on the RIAA when defending FOSS.
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:15 · Score: 0

Probably because no one really give a flying fuck about the RIAA.

And we don't *think* it's okay to commit copyright violations against the RIAA, we *know* it's okay.
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:16 · Score: 0

Thank you, Darl for a wonderful post.
Re:That's right by wfberg · 2003-10-31 04:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Are they even obligated to legally respond to any C&D letters?

No, nobody is. But cease and desist letters are usually sent with an understanding (at least they attempt to foster the understanding) that if they are ignored, further legal action will be taken, such as a suit. Sending a C&D letter is cheap, but if all you want to do is scare somebody into stopping, they're often effective.

How about send a DMCA notice?

--
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Re:That's right by DroopyStonx · 2003-10-31 04:19 · Score: 1

Hm...

RIAA: Sues 12 year old girl and 65 year old man for "copyright violation".

Linux community: Volunteers to develop code so that everyone can have an alternative to overpriced crap from MS.

Quite a big difference there!

--
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:20 · Score: 0

You mean all those people in the WTC were plotting the demise of people in Third World Nations?

Wait, they weren't. 9/11 was just a bunch of assholes trying to make a statement.
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:25 · Score: 0

Why, thank you Mr. I-pull-facts-out-of-my-ass. You can go to bed now, kid.
Re:That's right by cyt0plas · 2003-10-31 04:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Find specific instances of people who are ok with violations of the RIAA's copyright but not with violations of Linux's copyright and then you will have something to say."

I'll bite. I have little problems with violations of copyright infringement against the RIAA, and have problem with SCO vs. Linux.

Why? A couple of reasons. For one thing, I consider SCO and the RIAA to be evil (or at the very least bad). I have a hard time rooting for the bad guy, whether they are "right" or not. Secondly, few would dispute that the RIAA does in fact have the rights (rightly, or wrongly) to the music they sell. For better or worse, they own them. SCO is trying to take the rights away from everybody else.

Finally, I believe "piracy" (like everything else) has positive and negative aspects. There are a number of pieces of software that I own, that I used before I owned it. A number of my associates have purchased software solely on my recommendation. I personally don't buy audio (and didn't even before napster/kazaa), but I suspect in many cases it's similar.

As for the RIAA being evil, I'm not so much convinced by how they treat their "customers" - They are a company, and the primary job of a company is to make money. I'm primarily upset by their hypocracy, and their poor treatment of their artists, the very source of their income.

--
Contact Me (got tired of viruses emailing me).
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:28 · Score: 0

Yeah, it's absolutely hilarious. Big corporations attempting to reduce the right of people to access information that they've either paid for, or have had use rights granted to them is always something that makes me laugh my ass off.

It's like those damned Native Americans. Where the hell do they get off thinking that just because they always lived here, they somehow had a 'right' to inhabit the land? What kind of fool nonsense is that? Every intelligent person knows that those who have money and power always own everything all the time, and anyone who doesn't understand that really does need laughing at, right?

Now do bend over, there's a good chap. I'm sure that you have no difficulty at all with the notion that because I'm much wealthier than you are, the sodomy rights to your arsehole all belong to me.
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:30 · Score: 0

Wish Slashdot would introduce "Even more insightful than ..." as a moderation....
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:31 · Score: 0

So many of you Slashdotters think that committing copyright violations against RIAA is just fine, but as soon as someone does it to Linux, you're all up in arms.

And? First, you have to show that the same Slashdotters hold the two opinions. Then you have to find out the reasoning behind it.

For example, I might routinely commit copyright infringement against the RIAA by ignoring copyright on works that are older than 30 years, because I do not agree that longer copyright terms are at all sensible. This doesn't mean that I am a hypocrite for supporting action against SCO for this copyright infringement.
Re:That's right by dubious9 · 2003-10-31 04:33 · Score: 1

It would be much more effective by

while(true)
wget http://www.sco.com/support/linux_info.html

Of course this is rudimentary DOS attack, so be carefull.

--
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
Re:That's right by flacco · 2003-10-31 04:33 · Score: 0, Insightful

Kinda like how Americans have been sponsoring overseas terrorism for decades, but go nuts and put stickers everywhere when the World Trade Center gets attacked.
Douchebag.

--
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Re:That's right by dipipanone · 2003-10-31 04:36 · Score: 1

Equally, your argument is somewhat flawed; the whole point of this SCO hoo har is too decide WHO has the copyrights to apsects of the linux OS - wether code was stolen which was SCO code, which by implication would give SCO ownership of parts of Linux.

Well, SCO might have said that (along with many other obfuscating things) in their press releases. but they don't appear to be making such a claim in their IBM law suit.

If their recent filings to the court are true, they don't appear to actually *have* any examples of "stolen code" that they can point to.

Apparently, they seem to think that it's IBM's job to produce that for them.
Re:That's right by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2003-10-31 04:39 · Score: 1

SCO, unlike 'music pirates' is actually trying to steal Linux.

What are music pirates doing? "Borrowing" music?

--
"Sufferin' succotash."
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:39 · Score: 0

Imagined recognition of hypocrisy is now the fastest way to get modded up on Slashdot these days. Expect more of this silliness, no matter how tortured the "logic."
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:43 · Score: 0

well if you consider downloading music stealing, theyre not trying to claim that they wrote the music themselves so they can make money off of it.
Re:That's right by dipipanone · 2003-10-31 04:44 · Score: 1

I'm primarily upset by their hypocracy

Speaking of hypocracy, I'm inclined towards the view that this whole thread is the result of us being trolled by a hypocrite.

Lets just flip the thing on it's head for a moment. Assuming that the original poster believes that the RIAA has the moral right to pursue the actions that it pursues, then surely nobody could have any problem at all finding SCO's actions despicable and reprehensible.

However, the parent poster's response isn't to get angry about that, but rather his immediate emotion is to laugh about the situation.

I have to say, that doesn't strike me as the response of somebody genuinely concerned about the equitable pursuit of copyright violations. Rather, it strikes me as the typical attitude of a troll -- and a somewhat successful troll at that.
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:47 · Score: 0

Douchebag? Why, CUNT?
Re:That's right by N3WBI3 · 2003-10-31 04:47 · Score: 1

The point is that SCO is trying to take linux and call it their own IP, when some kid downloads music on the net he is in the wrong but he is not trying to say the song anywhere in all its forms belong to him..

--
Re:That's right by GEEKPUNK · 2003-10-31 04:49 · Score: 1

although a surface layer , if your talking copywrite law... sure it seems silly

but from a fredom issue it is 100% in line w/ complaining about the RIAA

The RIAA and SCO are trying to control and kill freedom of knowledge.

knowledge is freedom and should stay free

--
/* declare all variables */
Re:That's right by Omni-Cognate · 2003-10-31 04:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, they are illegally making copies. If you have copyright on some information, and I make an illegal copy, you still have copyright on the information. Copyright infringement is not theft, because it does not involve taking something off the victim, but instead making an unauthorised copy of something he owns. The victim may suffer financial losses further down the line, but this is the loss of a hypothetical (money which might have been made later if...), not of actual property.

What SCO are trying to do is to take away the right to control distribution. The only strategy that makes sense if they are trying to have the GPL declared invalid is to try and get GPL'd code placed in the public domain (if they do not acheive this second part, they are guilty of copyright infringement). In this case, they are actually trying to take away the copyright, not make a copy of the software. There is a much stronger case for calling this theft, morally if not legally, than what music pirates do.

--
"The Milliard Gargantubrain? A mere abacus - mention it not."
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:53 · Score: 0

Nope, it's just your wishful thinking.
Re:That's right by No+One's+Zero · 2003-10-31 04:53 · Score: 3, Funny

Mirror Here!
Er, is this a bad place to start karma whoring?

--
There are two types of people: those that can fill in the blanks,
Re:That's right by Chakde+Phate! · 2003-10-31 04:54 · Score: 1

No, I don't think it would work from DOS.

Oh...I get it...I'll just go hide under the table now.
Re:That's right by AntiOrganic · 2003-10-31 05:09 · Score: 1

Relax, I was just trolling the troll.
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:11 · Score: 0

What? He's right. Read something called history, you'll see.
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:16 · Score: 0

If the pirates were downloading the music and then pawning it off as there own, then it would be like SCO. Otherwise it's a poor analogy to compare music pirates with SCO.

When you read the parent, the distinction is quite clear.

SCO trying to take ownership of Linux.
Music pirate download music, not pawn it off as there own.
Re:That's right by rutledjw · 2003-10-31 05:21 · Score: 0, Redundant

What an ass. Overseas terrorism how?
You've lost ANY moral stance you had with that first comment...

--

Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
Re:That's right by Samus · 2003-10-31 05:41 · Score: 0

Chile, thirty years ago, a democratically elected president is replaced by a CIA backed Augusto Pinochet (sp?). Pinochet leaves a large blood bath in his wake. I'm American and it makes me ashamed even though I wasn't even alive. Much of the worlds unstable state is a byproduct of the cold war. Maybe it looked right then but like slavery it doesn't look right now.

--
In Republican America phones tap you.
Re:That's right by Greedo · 2003-10-31 05:52 · Score: 1

Training of Nicaraguan contras ...

Training of Colombian rebels ...

1985 Beruit bombing in An-Najaf ...

Attempted assinsations of Fidel Castro and bombings in Cuba ...

Overthrow of Arbenz government in Guatamala ...

Overthrow of Allende and installation of Pinochet in Chile.

And (my favourite): CIA recruiting Iraqi Baath Party (including a young Saddam Hussein) to assasinate the new leader, Abdul-Karim Kassem.

--
Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
Re:That's right by JeffWhitledge · 2003-10-31 05:57 · Score: 0

Small Claims Court counselling?

(Sorry, I had to ask.)

--
These comments do express the opinions of my employers, and, personally, I think they're complete rubbish.
Re:That's right by Camel+Pilot · 2003-10-31 05:59 · Score: 1

Serving up html is one thing do a full phrase seach is another
Re:That's right by VdG · 2003-10-31 05:59 · Score: 0, Redundant

Isn't it important that the copyright owners are seen to be defending their IP? Otherwise, SCO could just turn around and say "Sure: Fred owns that bit of code but he doesn't really care about it, so the copyright's lapsed and we can do what the hell we like."

That might not be the case, and of course it's the sort of thing that could vary from one jurisdiction to another.
Re:That's right by borgdows · 2003-10-31 06:04 · Score: 0

when some kid downloads music on the net he is in the wrong but he is not trying to say the song anywhere in all its forms belong to him..

well... you don't seem to know MacBride's son!
Re:That's right by iso_bars · 2003-10-31 06:04 · Score: 2, Informative

Err, are we meant to be able to download from their 'password restricted download site' ?

If you just dont enter a username or password you can get at everything. whats going on there?
Re:That's right by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2003-10-31 06:07 · Score: 0, Troll

Copyright infringement is not theft, because it does not involve taking something off the victim, but instead making an unauthorised copy of something he owns.

Absolutely wrong.

You ARE stealing, because you are not paying the artists the monetary compensation owed to them. You're stealing their money. This is so plainly obvious and yet conveniently ignored.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."
Re:That's right by Kelz · 2003-10-31 06:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

CO is trying to usurp the RIGHTS to the body of work, whereas music downloaders are merely copying it for themselves

For the mentally impaired, that's like saying to the RIAA that I made the music, not the artists.
Re:That's right by DaveAtFraud · 2003-10-31 06:12 · Score: 1

Someone over at Groklaw that they are clearly in violation of the NET (NO Electronic Theft) Act. The post is the fifth one down in the discussion. I wonder what it takes to file a such criminal complaint?

--
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:12 · Score: 1, Insightful

Invalidating the GPL isn't enough. It is just the tool by which the programmers are granting others to use their work, it is not the copyright itself, so invalidating the GPL still leaves the copyright with the owners. They need to somehow convince the judge to transfer all of those copyrights to them. I can't imagine any judge allowing such theft, and an appeals court would probably overturn any judge who does.
Re:That's right by monkeyfinger · 2003-10-31 06:13 · Score: 0

When the americans dropped nukes on hiroshima and nagasaki they killed hundreds of thousands of japanese civilians.
Some people might consider that terrorism.
Re:That's right by Krach42 · 2003-10-31 06:19 · Score: 1

I've gotten a Cease and Desist letter from nVidia, because I had some of their IP shared on the internet.

It contained no timeframe (to my recollection), but I still complied as soon as I could.

Duh, I didn't want to risk getting sued by some corporation.

--

I am unamerican, and proud of it!
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:19 · Score: 0

I will not feed the trolls............ oh, fsck it!
How come everyone blames the US and Israel alone for this problem? Plenty of other people at least equally responsible. Could it be that you care more about looking intelegent by quoting what you heard on TV, that about actually HELPING the palistenians
How come you don't blame the UN? That's right the UN; The people who have TWO separate definitions of refugee: one for the Palistinians and one for everyone else! Normal refugees get help with finding homes, and jobs, and actually resolving the problem. The Palistinians get a bunch of permanant "refugee camps." Infact under the wonderful watch of the UN the number of refugees has QUADRUPLED. Why would the UN benefit from keeping them in camps, you ask? Because as long as the Palistinians are in camps they can be used as political pawns. This problem won't go away until we stop pretending to help them and GO HELP THEM.
Re:That's right by Ceadda · 2003-10-31 06:23 · Score: 1

"Copyright infringement is not theft, because it does not involve taking something off the victim, but instead making an unauthorised copy of something he owns. Absolutely wrong." And your an Absolute moron. If the person who makes/downloads the copy of the song, never, ever would have paid money for it in a million years, they are not stealing it. They didnt take any money from the artist because the artist never would have gotten money from them. If they couldnt get it for free, they wouldnt have it.

--
*There's Klingons on the starboard bow, scrape em off Jim!*
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:35 · Score: 0

Damn Darl, how'd you get Bills cock out of your ass long enough to post?
Re:That's right by Wastl · 2003-10-31 06:37 · Score: 2, Funny

Unconvenient. Try search for "GPL Violation" instead.
Sebastian
Re:That's right by The+LowTech+Swede · 2003-10-31 06:43 · Score: 1

Perhaps the reason we blame the US is that they are blocking any meaningful action the UN could take?
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:43 · Score: 0

I imagine that if Linus T was making a few billion each year, some of you lot might just be up in arms.

Well, you save yourself with the word "some". On a site with as many readers as Slashdot, any statement like "some of you lot" is probably going to be true. Most of us here couldn't care less how much Linux Torvalds makes-- unless he's making it by selling crack to kindergartners or robbing banks. It all depends how he would be making all of this hypothetical money. And of course "some" of this lot would say that at some point no person needs to make more than a certain multiple of the average income.

Further your second claim as to the point of this whole "SCO hoo har" is inaccurate. So far the ONLY legal claims they seem to have made are part of a a contract dispute with IBM. The suits that have been filed against SCO are about defamation and tortious interference in commerce. And no matter what SCO cannot have "ownership" of parts of Linux. Linux, may (on remote chance) be infringing SCO's copyright, but this doesn't give SCO any rights in Linux. What it does give them is the right to make Linux distributors remove the offending portions, license the offending portions so that they are no longer infringing, or stop distributing the code altogether. As the community has said loudly for months now: if SCO would demonstrate which portions of the kernel are infringing, those portions would be immediately be removed.

There are two problems though. One: no one is ready to take SCO's word on what code infringes or not at this point, since they appear to be a group of forked-tongue liars. Two: SCO itself doesn't even know what code might be infringing because one of their big claims is that they own the rights to major pieces of IBM-developed code that were used in conjuction with AIX... so they are trying to figure out what IBM-contributed code is common with the code they think they have the rights to... and even then, who knows if they'll ever actually make a case against some Linux distributor for infringment.
Re:That's right by Jaysyn · 2003-10-31 06:44 · Score: 1

And of course the Japaneese didn't kill *any* civilians during the attack on Pearl Harbor. Let me give you a hint; if they had a bomb, they would have dropped it on Pearl Harbor to *start* the war, not end it.

*note: I *do not* support my governments black op involvement in the affars of other countries (Pinochet et all), but Hiroshima & Nagasaki are very, very bad examples.

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:That's right by shaitand · 2003-10-31 07:02 · Score: 1

copyright is for X length of time, period, either you have it or you don't. Short of giving it up or selling it, you cannot lose your copyright. You don't have to defend it, it's not like a trademark.
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 07:03 · Score: 0

Here's a nice detailed record of resolutions that have been unilaterally vetoed by the United States.

Of course, one could argue that the problem lies in the veto power assigned to United Nations members, and in that regard it is partially the UN's fault.
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 07:13 · Score: 0

Try THIS one!
Substring search, baby.
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 07:26 · Score: 0

What if I go into a store and grab a chocolate bar that I wouldn't normally purchase? The chocolate bar company isn't losing any money because they wouldn't have got my money anyway...

No, people are still losing money from piracy. While it's not as obvious as the chocolate bar example, it's still there. It costs a lot of money to make an album which they have to recoup somehow. In the case of music, it's album sales. Retailers are also losing money because you aren't in their stores making purchases, just like that store selling that chocolate bar.

While I hate the RIAA just as much as the next person, I can still see their point. I'd just rather see the money go to the artists instead of the labels.
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 07:31 · Score: 0

whereas music downloaders are merely copying it for themselves.

Ya, right into their shared p2p folder
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 07:43 · Score: 0

Absolutly !
I make enough money to pay for all the music I want, _and_I_do_. The MP3's I download and keep are either content that I have already paid for, content that I _can't_ pay for (not for sale) or content that is not copyrighted at all (old radio shows etc).

I also download things that I would never dream of paying for. If it turns out I like it, I buy it.

In no case do I feel I am stealing.

With what they cost to produce/distribute, and what they pay the artist's, and especialy what the charge us, the ones stealing here are the RIAA.
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 07:47 · Score: 0

Moron.

They lost money producing the bar,
and shipping it.

And

By taking it you prevented someone else from purchasing the bar.

Not even close to being the same as mp3's.
Re:That's right by B3ryllium · 2003-10-31 07:53 · Score: 1

September 11th, 1973.
Re:That's right by Tony+Hoyle · 2003-10-31 08:01 · Score: 1

I'd love to know how a one word answer managed to get 'insigtful'!

Ahh the wonders of slashdot moderation :)
Re:That's right by Marc2k · 2003-10-31 08:14 · Score: 1

IDIOT.

THIS IS NOT A QUESTION IT IS A FACT. The RIAA is FILING LAWSUITS for COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT, NOT STEALING. The only part of their campaign that says STEALING is the public relations part. People LIKE YOU tend not to know the meaning or implication of COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, and seem to think that somehow stealing is worse. It's a completely psychological thing. I don't know why you're telling people that copyright infringement is WORSE than STEALING, infringement is a MUCH greater crime in the eyes of the civil court.

--
--- What
Re:That's right by whittrash · 2003-10-31 08:15 · Score: 1

IANAL, but I would like to say that all lawyers should be beaten and thrown in the stocks.
Re:That's right by vsprintf · 2003-10-31 08:46 · Score: 1

Fer cryin' out loud, would someone please mod that +Funny?
Re:That's right by dave+at+hostwerks · 2003-10-31 08:54 · Score: 1

Hilarious. Here's a link to the largest file in the directory, I suggest everyone download it once or twice for off-site archival purposes. And I do mean everyone. http://linuxupdate.sco.com/scolinux/SRPMS/ldp-2001 0328-4.src.rpm

--
d a v e
"Hmmm...upgrades."
Re:That's right by dytin · 2003-10-31 09:06 · Score: 1

If you look through the files, you'll see that they are all source rpm's. Maybe this is their way of still complying with the GPL. Although they say that they are defying it, when they go to court, and realize that they are about to lose, they'll just tell the judge, "well actually we were complying with the GPL, all you had to do was click ok to get to the source code".
Re:That's right by WCMI92 · 2003-10-31 09:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

Send a DMCA takedown notice to SCO's ISP.

If they distribute GPL'ed code in this way by internet, they are violating the DMCA.

--
Corporatism != Free Market
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 09:45 · Score: 0

i think you not only have to make the source accessible, but you also need to let others *know* the mechanism that exists to access that source. if they don't tell anyone, it's just as bad as not having it available.
Re:That's right by Nucleon500 · 2003-10-31 09:52 · Score: 1

Hint: we Slashdotters aren't all the same person, and as such, we don't all have the same opinion. Obviously there are some hypocrites, but for the most part, the people who advocate mass copyright infringement (not me) aren't the same people who want to call SCO on doing this similar thing. Also, consider how many of us make a living producing copyrighted material - I think it's fair to say that in general, we respect copyrights.

--
Litigious bastards
Re:That's right by vsprintf · 2003-10-31 09:59 · Score: 1

Its about perspective. I imagine that if Linus T was making a few billion each year, some of you lot might just be up in arms.

I can't figure out what you're replying to, but your perspective seems wobbly and short-sighted at best. If Linus were making billions per year on the back of Linux, there would be no Linux, hence no billions . . .
Re:That's right by vsprintf · 2003-10-31 10:51 · Score: 1

I metamoderate negative mods mostly as fair because most people mark them unfair.

So you are ignoring the moderation instructions about promoting instead of demoting just because you're a contrarian? You are supporting the person who moderates as redundant the first five comments in a thread that he disagrees with. You are supporting the moderators-on-crack. Congratulations.

BTW I meta mod often

So do I. However, I try to put a little thought into it. I take a serious look at down mods, especially redundant mods, which are often just from moderation cowards with an agenda.
Re:That's right by jedidiah · 2003-10-31 10:51 · Score: 0

> What if I go into a store and grab a chocolate bar
> that I wouldn't normally purchase? The chocolate
> bar company isn't losing any money because they
> wouldn't have got my money anyway...

It never ceases to amaze me how people intellegent
enough to use a computer could still manage to
advocate such BULLSHIT arguments.

When you steal a candy bar you are depriving the
merchant of a physical piece of stock. That item
costs money to acquire and replace.

Music piracy is more akin to people making their
own chocolate on their own stove using a Hershey
recipe they found on the web.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 11:41 · Score: 0

Yeah, but I'd rather watch the Iraqi/SCO Information Minister declare Darl's imminent victory while the lying pig-dogs at IBM rot in infinite hell (or something? :)

Watch the fun, here.
Re:That's right by pyrrhonist · 2003-10-31 11:52 · Score: 0, Offtopic

What you don't realize is that the Japanese were planning on doing the same thing.
The Japanese used balloons to send bombs filled with biological weapons to the U.S.
They had a huge biological weapons plant in China, and they used biological weapons on the Chinese - the effects of which are still affecting China.
They Japanese developed submarines capable of carrying airplanes, and were planning on using them to attack California with biological weapons and spread disease. This would have caused massive loss of life in the U.S. for many years.
One thing stopped this from happening: the U.S. dropped the bomb and Japan surrended just a few days before the scheduled attack.

--
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 12:05 · Score: 0

Kinda like the assholes on Slashdot that have to post a political comment, no matter what the topic.
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 12:11 · Score: 0

YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 12:13 · Score: 0

YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 13:38 · Score: 0

" we'll Slashdot their mail room...."

Hurra!!! Wait, I work in a mailroom....
Re:That's right by monkeyfinger · 2003-10-31 15:07 · Score: 0

And of course the Japaneese didn't kill *any* civilians during the attack on Pearl Harbor. Let me give you a hint; if they had a bomb, they would have dropped it on Pearl Harbor to *start* the war, not end it.
Action - The japanese kill some american civilians at pearl harbour.
Reaction - Americans kill japanese civilians at hiroshima and nagasaki.
Result - Not terrorism
Action - The americans kill arab civilians in the first gulf war.
Reaction - Arabs kill american civilians at the trade centre.
Result - Terrorism.
Either I'm missing something or there are some double standards here.
Re:That's right by tonyray · 2003-10-31 15:50 · Score: 2, Informative

Only paying a constible to serve the papers will stand up in court as proof of delivery (been there). In my case, I gave the sheriff's office the papers. They made copies so they could testify as to what they delivered and then delivered the originals. Worked great and wasn't very expensive.
Re:That's right by Doomdark · 2003-10-31 16:11 · Score: 1

As for the RIAA being evil, I'm not so much convinced by how they treat their "customers" - They are a company, and the primary job of a company is to make money. I'm primarily upset by their hypocracy, and their poor treatment of their artists, the very source of their income.
Hmmh? Not that I like artists' treatment, but claiming that money does NOT come from "customers", but from artists seems bit bass ackwards to me? I know that artists creative talents create the opportunity to sell copies, but in the end it's buyers who bring in the money.
Personally I'm not so much upset by treating of customers per se, but by the fact customers are locked-in, and there's no way to choose another vendor (than members of RIAA), and by RIAA members abusing that power. If it was possible to have competition (obligatory licensing, say), there would be legal way to punish companies with bad customer "service". As of now, there is none.
For artists there is at least theoretical possibility of choosing a non-RIAA company, or even producing and distributing your music some other way. Not that this is a particularly compelling solution, but at least it could be done.

--
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Re:That's right by eloki · 2003-10-31 16:33 · Score: 1

You ARE stealing, because you are not paying the artists the monetary compensation owed to them. You're stealing their money. This is so plainly obvious and yet conveniently ignored.

And how does this fit into how you understand open source? It's still copyrighted, but I give you a copy of my source code for free under an open source license. Does that mean that if you claim it as your own, you're not stealing, because there was no monetary compensation?

People should always clarify whether they mean terms like "steal" in a legal context, in an ethical context, or simply in a common meaning context.
Re:That's right by Sj0 · 2003-10-31 16:36 · Score: 1

Yeah, they're both stealing. Sco is stealing more though. The final result of having all GPL'd software placed in the public domain would be true theft of IP rights on a scale unheard of....ever.

It would make little Timmy downloading some music off the internet look like nothing in comparison.

--
It's been a long time.
Re:That's right by f0rt0r · 2003-11-01 01:07 · Score: 1

This must be your first troll, because it is done so badly. Dude, you got to obscure what you are saying a bit more so its harder for the reader to catch the fallacy of your logic, especially in the first few sentences. A good troll is never read all the way through, because the reader is so inflamed at the first sentence or two, that they hit the reply button almost immediately. So, put the semi-plausible statements first, and the absolute junk reasoning at the end.

In the case of downloading music, look for some of the "I am a music store owner and my sales have dropped through the floor" posts. Those are usually well-done ( but overused ) trolls you can use as an template.

--
I can't afford a sig!
Re:That's right by Samus · 2003-11-01 03:41 · Score: 1

Well I do say mostly as fair. I put this in my sig because I find that most moderations that I mark negative get an unfair meta mod. I don't do it lightly either. If a post can be construed both ways I look at the posters history. If nothing is determinable from that then I usually give the moderator the benefit of the doubt. I feel that the meta moderators are often too harsh on the moderators when it comes to a negative mod. This just discourages people from moderating negatively. All you end up with is a bunch of positive mods with everybody afraid to mark something poorly. While the people who spew the crap continue to do so with little thought.

--
In Republican America phones tap you.
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-01 04:41 · Score: 0

Training and arming Osama bin Laden and band of other rebel loonies against Soviets in Afghanistan.
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-01 07:18 · Score: 0

Don't worry. Evil Adrian is well known around here for his never ending RIAA ass-licking trollfests!
However, he has one weak spot: he talks to Anonymous Cowards, so you can troll back!
I wonder whether he also talks to lamp posts on his way home from the pub...
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-01 08:59 · Score: 0

Yes, and thank you for that message with nothing but an insult, go to bed now condescending prick....hey these are easy to write...thanks!
Re:That's right by vsprintf · 2003-11-01 11:26 · Score: 1

I put this in my sig because I find that most moderations that I mark negative get an unfair meta mod.

I think it's interesting that you say *most of your negative mods*. Out of all the moderation I've done, I can only recall two down mods. They were obvious and just necessary janitorial work. Why not just let the nonsense languish and instead use your mod points to reward someone with a good point or a clever joke? People who are ignored will usually go away. If they are not being ignored, then maybe they are saying something that appeals to some segment.

I don't do it lightly either. If a post can be construed both ways I look at the posters history.

Sorry, that doesn't sway me. If a post can be construed either way, give the benefit of the doubt to the poster. A confirmed troll can make an occasional insightful comment. If I'm really unsure about a negative mod, I just don't score it.

All you end up with is a bunch of positive mods with everybody afraid to mark something poorly.

That hasn't happened. There are any number of discussions where we have honest discussion moderated as troll and flamebait, or the first five comments in a thread will be modded redundant. It seems we really have the opposite problem: Some moderators have no fear of abusing their privilege.
Re:That's right by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-03 08:32 · Score: 0

You're missing something, but I don't have the week of time it will take to explain it.

Strange... by nefele · 2003-10-31 03:21 · Score: 1, Funny

Such a topic and no comments? Is everyone writing their letters? ;)

A non-issue by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:21 · Score: 0

The GPL only gives rights, it does not take them away, right? Forbidding SCO from doing this would be taking away rights.

Re:A non-issue by Tenareth · 2003-10-31 03:22 · Score: 3, Informative

Wrong, the GPL defines the rights. One right it does not give is the ability to restrict rights.

--
This sig is the express property of someone.
Re:A non-issue by ThePiMan2003 · 2003-10-31 03:24 · Score: 1

Actually the right that the GPL gives SCO is to distribute GPL'd code but only under the GPL. They never had the right to distribute it under any other license. So no the GPL isn't taking anything frmo them.
Re:A non-issue by Trick · 2003-10-31 03:24 · Score: 2, Informative

No, it wouldn't. The GPL gives them the right to distribute code, provided they follow the conditions of the license. Without the GPL, they'd have no right to distribute it at all.

You can't take away a right SCO didn't have to begin with.
Re:A non-issue by nxt · 2003-10-31 03:27 · Score: 1

Anyone who publishes and copyrights software has to display its source code. Otherwise it puts all other software companies at risk of violating their rights without even knowing it. How should I know this code was written two years before I wrote it, when I can not see it?
Re:A non-issue by DHam · 2003-10-31 03:39 · Score: 2, Informative

You misunderstand copyright. You do not violate copyright for writing down something that someone else has already written down. You violate copyright when you copy their work. In fact, being able to show that you never had access to the other company's source code would be a pretty good way of showing that you hadn't violated copyright.

This aspect of copyright law (and the fact that copyright law only protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves) is the reason that clean room implementations are legally possible.

Incidentially, this is all OT to what SCO is reported to have done. They are just copying source code in breach of copyright which has nothing to do with the situation you raise.

When will the madness end? by buff_pilot · 2003-10-31 03:22 · Score: 1

SCO seems like a drunken idiot, getting deeper and deeper into a disease. How irrational can the get?

Re:When will the madness end? by Foofoobar · 2003-10-31 03:24 · Score: 1

So which disease would this be? The tech version of syphilis? Going insane and blind as time goes by?

Lucky they have Microsoft funding their insanity. Can someone put this poor stupid beast out of its misery before it starts fucking our livestock and peeing in our drinking water?

--
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Re:When will the madness end? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:28 · Score: 0

SCO seems like a drunken idiot, getting deeper and deeper into a disease. How irrational can the get?

I'm from the future, you should save you question till after they break out the small firearms. They days that ensue pit geek against geek in a horrible tragic turn of events culminating with the bloody battle of Redmond hill.
Re:When will the madness end? by TedCheshireAcad · 2003-10-31 03:40 · Score: 1

Seriously. NOW whose stealing Intellectual Property?
Re:When will the madness end? by SpaceLifeForm · 2003-10-31 15:25 · Score: 1

It may be possible, but killing off SCOX may be more difficult.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

Venting my Outrage... by Lodragandraoidh · 2003-10-31 03:22 · Score: 1, Funny

Outrageous!

--

Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain

Re:Venting my Outrage... by friedmud · 2003-10-31 03:51 · Score: 1

This pretty much sums up how I feel.

The fact that a corporation would take a body of work that thousands of people have put their sweat and tears into - and then release it as their own work without acknowledging the rights of the people that made it. IS ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS!

It is hard for me to fathom sitting in a meeting and chiming in with: "Hey! I've got an idea! Let's just walk ALL over those free software developers! We'll just steal their code and call it our own! It will be great!".

Whatever human inside Sco decided to do this is absolutely despicable! I hope they never meet me! They would definitely get the ass kicking of their life!

Derek
Re:Venting my Outrage... by Lodragandraoidh · 2003-10-31 03:57 · Score: 1

The problem is they don't sit there and talk about walking all over the software developers in those terms.

They are lawyers and bankers, so they sit there and say something like:

The lawyers say, "We have the legal right to market our own code. Since we own Unix and Unix equals Linux, then we have the legal right to market Linux (which is really Unix)"

The bankers say, "Great! This will put even more money into our, for a better term, 'retirement fund'"

--

Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain

Darl McBride Dance Dance Revolution by corby · 2003-10-31 03:22 · Score: 4, Funny

SCO Group is to resume distributing Linux, but only if you agree to a new "IP license" which implicitly supports SCO's intellectual property claims.

So SCO can distribute code they do not own, and I can download the code I do not own, so long as SCO and I agree to our own made-up license for distributing this IP.

Don't you see where this is headed? SCO is entering the music distribution business!

Under this precendent, they will be able to host MP3s for major-label artists, even though the do not own the IP for the songs. Anyone can download the music, so long as you agree with SCO on the licensing terms!

Long live the Darl McBride Dance Dance Revolution!

Re:Darl McBride Dance Dance Revolution by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:30 · Score: 0

Darl, Darl, twist and whirl
Prancing round like a little girl
Re:Darl McBride Dance Dance Revolution by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:44 · Score: 0

someone mod this guy up!
Re:Darl McBride Dance Dance Revolution by cgenman · 2003-10-31 04:09 · Score: 3, Funny

Yes. SCO seems to be under the delusion that assertions made in court are TRUE until proven FALSE. That, for example, if a license is declared invalid the item falling under the license is immediately in the public domain. Or that a company which has allegedly been wronged is entitled to payments during the discovery phase of the trial, rather than after a ruling has been made. Or that claiming copyright infringement is the equivalent of proving copyright infringement.

In the spirit of SCO, I would like to begin the Great Darl McBride Sales-A-Bration! Darl has wronged both me and my family, and owes us his entire estate. How much do I hear for a slightly used 4.2 liter 2002 Jaguar S-Type R?*

*Anyone participating in the Great Darl McBride Sales-A-Bration implicitly agrees that the Great Darl McBride Sales-A-Bration is completely legal and enforceable. All US judges and members of congress are required to take part in the Great Darl McBride Sales-A-Bration. Some restrictions apply, which we will announce at the appropriate time in the future.

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:Darl McBride Dance Dance Revolution by midav · 2003-10-31 04:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

That, for example, if a license is declared invalid the item falling under the license is immediately in the public domain.
Though, I despise what SCO is doing, please, RTFDocs, before making statements like this.
Their reasoning why GPLed works should fall into public domain is not that it happens implicitly. What they say is that because GPL violated U.S.C. 17 you can not claim protection under it as a matter of equity. Look up AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES section here
Re:Darl McBride Dance Dance Revolution by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:48 · Score: 0

What the fuck does this have to do with DDR?

(DDR := RIAA) == 0
Re:Darl McBride Dance Dance Revolution by mpe · 2003-10-31 05:15 · Score: 1

Yes. SCO seems to be under the delusion that assertions made in court are TRUE until proven FALSE.

Never mind the "Twilight Zone" we now have the "SCO (and crossbones) Zone".

That, for example, if a license is declared invalid the item falling under the license is immediately in the public domain.

Using this "logic" just about every copyright work would "fall" into the public domain within a short period of time.

Or that a company which has allegedly been wronged is entitled to payments during the discovery phase of the trial, rather than after a ruling has been made.

In which case it is up to the judge to set the level and scope of any payments, they form part of the ruling.

Or that claiming copyright infringement is the equivalent of proving copyright infringement.

Nice of SCO to prove that they are software pirates. Now what do they intend to offer me and the rest of the copyright holders who's work they have distributed illegally?
Re:Darl McBride Dance Dance Revolution by cgenman · 2003-10-31 06:38 · Score: 1

True... The statement should have included the specific reason that the license is invalid. Still, such an omission is immaterial to the basis for the Great Darl McBride Sales-A-Bration, which continues unabated with the full blessing of the US court system and congressmen.*

*the Great Darl McBride Sales-A-Bration Committee is not responsible for the use of information released in conjunction with any activity, promotional or otherwise. Producing said information in a court of law is a violation of your license and will result in immediate forfeiture of all of your intellectual property, here and in perpetuity. This revocable contract is irrevocable. Taking legal advice from a Slashdot comment modded "Score:4, Funny" will result in getting what you deserve.

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:Darl McBride Dance Dance Revolution by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 08:28 · Score: 0

Sorry, I should have expressed my objections in a more civilized form.
Vadim.
Re:Darl McBride Dance Dance Revolution by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 12:23 · Score: 0

Reminds me of this little gem for some reason, heh :)
Re:Darl McBride Dance Dance Revolution by PurpleBob · 2003-10-31 20:04 · Score: 1

Never mind the "Twilight Zone" we now have the "SCO (and crossbones) Zone".

I forget who it is who said this:

If you try to make two jokes at the same time, neither of them will work.

--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota

Such audacity by base_chakra · 2003-10-31 03:22 · Score: 2, Funny

It's as if they're actually trying to outdo themselves!

Makes sense by ruisantos · 2003-10-31 03:22 · Score: 1

Don't they think GPL is invalid?

Re:Makes sense by Talthane · 2003-10-31 03:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

That doesn't matter, because much of the code is not theirs (they haven't claimed ownership of everything). Suppose you offer a licence for your app at X pounds; if I don't like the licence, the application doesn't nonetheless become mine.

It's my right to refuse to take the offer on your terms, if I don't like them or think they're wrong; however, it's not within my rights at all to substitute my own terms for your product instead.

This doesn't of course apply to their own stuff, which they can sell under whatever licence they choose; however, in changing the licence for someone else's code (e.g. Samba) they are breaking every rule in the book.

--
"This is why men never share their feelings; because women always remember." -Just Shoot Me.
Re:Makes sense by JeffTL · 2003-10-31 03:34 · Score: 1

...in which case they are stealing code from developers.
Re:Makes sense by dubious9 · 2003-10-31 04:42 · Score: 1

SCO is arguing that not only is the GPL null and void, but code put under that license is under the public domain. Therefore, according to their dumass logic they can do anything with it.

Anyway, I've found some modicum of logic, no matter how small or misguided in all of SCO actions to this point. But I can not find any evidence of intellegence in this action. Someone should submit to Merriam-Webster a new definition of stupidity. Or as, somebody said(i think Enstien) , insanity is doing something over and over again but expecting different results.

--
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
Re:Makes sense by Fiver-rah · 2003-10-31 04:48 · Score: 1

It's my right to refuse to take the offer on your terms, if I don't like them or think they're wrong; however, it's not within my rights at all to substitute my own terms for your product instead. Actually, there's a section of the UCC that's supposed to deal with exactly this question: what happens when two parties contract, but each side claims different terms? Typically this applies in cases where someone sends a purchase order with preprinted terms and the seller responds with a sales order with preprinted terms on it. There's no reason, on the grounds of fairness, why you should pick one set of terms over another. So there's rules about how you pick things. So it's not generally true that the terms that goods are offered under must be the terms that the manufacturer provides. If I tell you that I will buy goods under X terms and you send me back something saying that you're selling me goods under Y terms, there are rules to determine whose terms win. If SCO had engaged in the above situation, where you had a simple contract with combatting terms, you'd simply cross off the combatting terms and supply default terms--which would, in fact, invalidate the GPL, since any default copyright terms are not very GPL friendly. But this presupposes that SCO had a contract with someone who supplied them code, made only by the contracting party, under the GPL, and SCO hadn't assented to those terms by any means. The problem with SCO's strategy is not that they're trying to impose their own terms on another party they contracted with--they're trying to impose their terms on parties they have no contract with at all. Additionally, we don't have a situation where the parties initially disagreed on the terms. SCO distributed code under the GPL--if that ain't assent to the terms of the GPL, I'm not sure what is. So you have the right answer. But the wrong reason.

--
Read Bujold. Free (as in
Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 07:29 · Score: 0

You're right as far as it goes, but you're missing the real point. You offer me a widget for X pounds, under Y conditions. Now, I pay my X pounds, and I get the widget. I don't do Y.

A court subsequently rules that requiring someone to do Y is illegal. The contract between me and you is invalidated (at least to some degree).

What happens to my rights to the widget?

In all likelihood, if a condition were to be invalidated -- but not the overall circumstances of the contract, the rest of the contract would be upheld. So, really, my use of the widget is allowed to continue despite whatever condition was invalidated.

This applies to the GPL, also, despite what most people believe. Most of you are saying that if any part of the GPL is voided, no license exists. However, that isn't true. A court order could provide that the license will remain in force excepting the portions duly voided -- a court doing so would most likely void, ignore or reapply the infamous "you must accept this whole license" clause (which smacks of click through EULAs and is often voided) in order to accomplish this.

SCO doesn't really want the GPL voided and they don't really need the works to be put into the public domain (a near impossibility anyways)--what they really want are the the viral aspects of the GPL to be voided, but leaving the rest in force. In effect, it BSD-ifies the GPL. Which, in truth, is probably what would happen if they prevail.

A better idea by Pingular · 2003-10-31 03:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

Time for every single developer who has contributed code to the kernel to send a Cease and Desist letter to SCO.
A better idea might be to get together a petition, sending it to SCO telling them to stop this. If they fail to comply, the petition could be used as evidence in court against SCO, strengthing the cause of the open source community.

--

When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)

Re:A better idea by AllUsernamesAreGone · 2003-10-31 03:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, a proper C&D, drawn up and sent by a real live lawyer (or as alive as undead bloodsuckers can get) on behalf of someone who owns the copyright on th ecode that SCO is distributing is the way to go.

Petitions are the last resort of the helpless attempting to achieve the impossible through the rediculous.
Re:A better idea by azzy · 2003-10-31 03:29 · Score: 1, Insightful

Ermmm a 1,000 name petition (for example) being ignored is not any more powerful in court as evidence than SCO ignoring 1,000 C&D notices. Even though I'm not a legal type (am I an illegal type then?) this seems pretty obvious.
Re:A better idea by dougmc · 2003-10-31 03:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

A better idea might be to get together a petition, sending it to SCO telling them to stop this.
All a petition does is show that lots of people care about something -- either they want something, don't want something else, etc.
They're effective against people seeking re-election, or companies who actually sell a product (to the masses.) SCO knows that what they're doing is very unpopular, and so telling them that what they're doing is unpopular isn't going to have any effect on them.
Re:A better idea by pknoll · 2003-10-31 04:14 · Score: 1

on behalf of someone who owns the copyright on the code that SCO is distributing is the way to go
Someone like, maybe, Linus Torvalds?
Re:A better idea by SanLouBlues · 2003-10-31 04:19 · Score: 1

With real lawyer, this could be the first class action suit regarding copyright infringement.

I just hope that if it did get class action status, that whatever lawyers were involved would get a fair judgement or settlement. This is the FSF's chance to shine.
Re:A better idea by SeaEye420 · 2003-10-31 04:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Petitions are the last resort of the helpless attempting to achieve the impossible through the rediculous.
I don't think that Grey Davis would agree with you.

--
Wort Wort Wort!
Re:A better idea by Brandonski · 2003-10-31 05:06 · Score: 1

Guys! I am not a laywer, nor a kernel hacker...But, it seems to me that a class action suit brouhgt by all who have contributed code, is the way to go. ....it don't mean a thing..... ...id you can't get that ping...
Re:A better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:27 · Score: 0

"If they fail to comply, the petition could be used as evidence in court against SCO"

This is so naive that I can't believe you're older than 14.

A petition has no relevance to anything. Nothing. Nothing at all. Everybody in the world could sign a petition that OJ was guilty. Its meaningless.
Re:A better idea by Jaysyn · 2003-10-31 06:52 · Score: 1

Touche'!

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:A better idea by LPetrazickis · 2003-10-31 07:05 · Score: 1

Actually, I suspect that both William Shatner and Grey Davis would agree that petitions are the last resort of the helpless attempting to achieve the impossible through the ridiculous. It's just that this is a poetic kind of impossible that is sometimes achieved and not the the physical kind that isn't.;)

--
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Re:A better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 07:37 · Score: 0

You almost sounded credible until you spelled 'ridiculous' wrong. Worthy of 'ridicule.'
Re:A better idea by scrytch · 2003-10-31 07:54 · Score: 1

A more effective tactic might be to purchase one share of SCO stock. Not short, you need a real share. Or a few thousand, then sell them one at a time to everyone else.

Invade the stockholders meeting. They have to have these, and they cannot keep you out. They can toss you out if you're being disruptive, but otherwise you can freely press the flesh with other stockholders and tell them what worthless wastes of flesh the current board is...

--
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Re:A better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 08:04 · Score: 0

I suggest we subscribe the slacker to all those penis enlargment spam via physical mail, like we did to that spammer some time ago.
Re:A better idea by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 10:28 · Score: 0

We need to draw a line on the ground here and on one side we can put SCO and their code modifications and such... They can use this.
On the other side we can put sendmail, bind, xwin, gimp, apache, and all the other things that make their os useful... and they cant use this.
Then they can try to sell their now basicly useless product to the masses on their own terms and everyone else can go about their business.
Re:A better idea by sbaker · 2003-10-31 13:40 · Score: 1

He didn't say they don't work - only that they are a last resort.

--
www.sjbaker.org

Grrrr... by GaspodeTheWonderDog · 2003-10-31 03:23 · Score: 2, Informative

Just more corporate games... if only the strategy made any sense... as far as I can tell though, big business rarely makes any sense.

Honestly though, is a COD *really* going to do anything? Unless somebody comes up with the money to back it up... I can't imagine it doing any good.

They'll just keep doing as they please and leave a tangled mess in the courts.

--
This space for sale

Re:Grrrr... by happyfrogcow · 2003-10-31 03:31 · Score: 1

Honestly though, is a COD *really* going to do anything?

You truly underestimate a mail room full of stinking cod. Throw in some carp and they'll be begging for forgiveness.
Re:Grrrr... by csnydermvpsoft · 2003-10-31 03:31 · Score: 1

COD? Would that be a cease or desist? How would that work?
Re:Grrrr... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:33 · Score: 0

Honestly though, is a COD *really* going to do anything? Unless somebody comes up with the money to back it up... I can't imagine it doing any good.

'course. * anonymous_coward slaps SCO around a bit with a large codfish.
Re:Grrrr... by azzy · 2003-10-31 03:34 · Score: 1

> Honestly though, is a COD *really* going to do anything?

It might swim around a bit, and perhaps avoid any hooks or nets it spots.
Re:Grrrr... by bluGill · 2003-10-31 03:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

IBM for one has the money to back it, and it might be in their interests to help someone sending on.
If you have contributed code to the kernel, and can easially prove it is your own personal creation, a lawyer who knows copyright law may be willing to take this case for a share of the winnings.
Of course you have to go through some steps. A C&D letter for the first part shouldn't cost more than about $75 (If I remember lawyer fees correctly), if that is ignored you then have to register the copyright (easy to do) before you can sue. You can in most cases get them to stop infringing, and lawyer fees. (But ask a lawyer)
If anyone is concerned about this happening to code they are developing for some other project consider registering the copyright formally once in a while, by registering before a violation occures you get tripple damages when you sue.
I'm not sure that a C&D letter is required prior to suing someone, if you have an airtight case (pre-registered copyright) you can bring them to court, but since this is expensive you normally don't want to explore cheaper options. Remember too that in court you can lose for no obvious reason (jurys are not a good way to decide cases, but everything else is too easially corruptable). Thus most people suing prefer to settle out of court if they can.
I am not a lawyer, if you are considering taking any action you should consult a lawyer trained in copyright law.
Re:Grrrr... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:50 · Score: 0

Think how expensive it would get for SCO paying COD on all those C&D letters.

Time to enforce the GPL? by l2718 · 2003-10-31 03:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

So far this was between IBM and SCO. However, now the major copyright holders for the GNU/Linux system can assert themselves.

In particular, should the FSF (GNU project) sue SCO for license violation?

Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by Platinum+Dragon · 2003-10-31 03:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

IANAL, of course. This is Slashdot, we all play lawyers here.

The FSF and the kernel hackers could have a field day with SCO right now. This, along with the aborted attempt to sell binary run-time licences that restrict rights in a similar fashion, may be exactly the mistakes the GNU/Linux copyright owners have been waiting for.

I'm pretty sure SCO's public statements about the invalidity of the GPL, combined with the GPL's own statements that any disagreement over the terms of GPL-code distribution kicks the whole package back to standard copyright and thus makes SCO's own continued distribution illegal as hell, will make this case a laugher. For all of SCO's claims that the GPL is anti-copyright and unconstitutional, the licence itself makes clear that if the conditions can't be fulfilled or the licence is found to be unenforceable, standard copyright law applies--which means, unfortunately for SCO, the code they're trying to distribute is not automatically public domain, and thus they have no right to distribute any code they can't claim direct ownership for. It just means the authors would have to come up with another way to licence their code, either collectively or individually--and SCO would be in no position to make demands.

--

Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by styxlord · 2003-10-31 03:44 · Score: 1

the licence itself makes clear that if the conditions can't be fulfilled or the licence is found to be unenforceable, standard copyright law applies

Sure, but isn't this SCO's goal?
They could care less about selling their own version of Linux, they just want to get paid for the components of Linux they're asserting ownership of.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by acroyear · 2003-10-31 03:46 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm pretty sure SCO's public statements about the invalidity of the GPL, combined with the GPL's own statements that any disagreement over the terms of GPL-code distribution kicks the whole package back to standard copyright and thus makes SCO's own continued distribution illegal as hell, will make this case a laugher.

Except that the brunt of SCO's claim is that Linux, being a Unix derivative, is really the copyright of SCO (having bought the System V copyrights, or so they claim; Novell says otherwise), so the copyright and licenses can only be decided upon and enforced by SCO.

Now, we all know *THAT* claim is also laughable, but that's the first claim and the actual court case itself, and if that's disproven, the GPL gets no legal test because its irrelevant to that particular issue. It all hinges on the case against IBM and whether or not Linux is decided to be a Unix System V derivative.

If SCO owns Linux, as they claim, they can assert their copyrights and the GPL simply doesn't exist on Linux anymore. Fortunately, the BSD case already set a precident that simple code copying of small modules, violating copyright/licenses or not, doesn't make for ownership of the whole project.

If SCO doesn't own Linux, then the GPL case can get tested, but only in countersuit. SCO's refuting of the GPL is at this point FUD and publicity. When SCO loses the IBM case, and Linux is proven to remain totally the property of Linus, then IBM or the FSF can countersue the GPL violations. But they won't bother, because after that loss, SCO will lose so much stock value the Canopy group (the *real* culpricks here) will sell it all off and run for the hills. There won't be anybody left worth sueing, or any money to be gained from it.

--
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by Rich0 · 2003-10-31 03:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Nah - they just want to kill linux altogether.

If the GPL dies, then so does the FSF-ideology. Sure, you can have the BSD license, but any time a BSD project achieves execllence we'll just see a proprietary vendor take the software, add three features, and start selling it. If they become established they start messing with the code to break compatibility with the free project, and the free project dies.

This is the standard MS embrace-and-extend technique. Only the GPL has shown immunity to it.

Under standard copyright law linux would just die - many linux developers would not be willing to devote hundreds of hours of their time to a project that will just end up being a code donation to a proprietary vendor.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by Platinum+Dragon · 2003-10-31 03:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sure, but isn't this SCO's goal?

Quite frankly, this may not be SCO's goal. Some people have asserted, without evidence but with some inferences, that SCO may already be violating the GPL. By having the licence declared invalid before anyone gets a chance to look at their code (if ever), any discoveries would be legally cleared in a similar way to how the code SCO showed at their stockholders meeting was found to be clean--it was released at a previous point in the past under a GPL-compatible licence. Alternatively, those who think Microsoft is behind the whole thing believe that M$ may be attempting to destroy the GPL, and thus have the right to either raid Linux code, or wipe out a potential competitor without having to get their own hands dirty. Since M$ is working on its own, new CLI for embedded systems and GUI-less systems, eliminating a potential competitor that already does these things would make market penetration very easy, since I suspect many relatively recent Linux converts would go running back into Bill's arms before moving on to the *BSDs. Comfort syndrome and all.

They could care less about selling their own version of Linux, they just want to get paid for the components of Linux they're asserting ownership of.

No, they want to get paid for all of Linux, regardless of how much they may actually own. If they really cared about clearing copyright infringements and getting properly paid, they could have been far more open and cooperative about what particular code is infringing. Instead, they're trying to hold IBM up for big money over code that many people have demonstrated SCO never touched, and may not be able to touch depending on the exact content and scope of various SysV licencing agreements.

--

Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by Donwulff · 2003-10-31 03:53 · Score: 1

There is a clear danger that this kind of move could lead to ruling that GPL is invalid and standard copyright laws apply (Already it seems many people are calling to try this under normal copyright laws!). Because of the number of people who have contributed to GPL software, many who are only known by long-expired e-mail address if even that, this would totally kill off GPL software. At this point, it seems the only possible logical reason for SCO's actions would be to simply try to ruin Linux regardless of what happens to them. I wonder who would want such a thing?
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by walt-sjc · 2003-10-31 03:56 · Score: 1

But this does not stop anyone who wrote or contributed GPL'ed code from filing a separate suit. They have no need to wait for the outcome of the SCO suit. SCO's current actions violate GPL NOW.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by bluGill · 2003-10-31 03:58 · Score: 1

No, only the parts derived from Unix are theirs. The parts that a developer with no license for Unix code, and no access to Unix code, is copyright that developer. That developer gives rights to his code only under the GPL, if the GPL is invalid you have no right to it.
Note that many GPL products require code ownership to be donated to the orginization (normally FSF) as a condition of being placed in the main distribution. This does not apply to Linux, each developer owns copyright on his personal work and agrees to license their share under the GPL.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by Platinum+Dragon · 2003-10-31 03:58 · Score: 3, Informative

Except that the brunt of SCO's claim is that Linux, being a Unix derivative, is really the copyright of SCO (having bought the System V copyrights, or so they claim; Novell says otherwise), so the copyright and licenses can only be decided upon and enforced by SCO.

For this claim to have any merit, SCO must prove that:

a) IBM or another party they attack willfully contributed SysV code to the Linux codebase, and it is still there.

b) The licences agreed to by IBM or another party gives SCO the right to any derivative works based on SysV code (many people have stated that the JFS code in Linux, upon which one of SCO's claims is based, most likely came from IBM's clean-room OS/2 implementation).

c) The "derivative works" clause would give SCO control over any other program containing the actual derivative code, regardless of other existing copyrights prior to introduction of, and after removal of, said infringing code.

Linux, after all, is not a Unix "derivative", but a Unix work-alike. It looks like Unix, smells like Unix, but is not a direct branch from other Unices (except, possibly, with code from various BSDs contributed over time). Its tool suite is not from Unix, but from the GNU work-alikes. SCO's seriously reaching here.

I see what you're getting at, but there are now issues beyond the SCO-IBM case. SCO is now, possibly, willfully violating the copyrights of other programmers. This now goes beyond SCO-IBM, and SCO's public statements can now be used in other ways in a potentially far more important case for the GPL. To paraphrase someone's Slashdot sig, they've stepped into penguinshit. On purpose.

--

Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by __past__ · 2003-10-31 03:59 · Score: 1

any time a BSD project achieves execllence we'll just see a proprietary vendor take the software, add three features, and start selling it. If they become established they start messing with the code to break compatibility with the free project, and the free project dies.
Actually no, the project doesn't die. At least this has never happened with any BSD-licensed project before, even though their code is reused in proprietary projects that are sometimes incompatible.
Of course, many developers that now use the GPL won't like their code ending up in a potentially incompatible proprietary product anyway, even without this aspect. Which is their good right, nobody is forced to like non-copyleft free software - but at least, they should dislike it for the right reason, not FUD.

--
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:59 · Score: 0

"they just want to get paid for the components of Linux they're asserting ownership of. "

I thought if one party in a contract breaches it, then the other party can with impunity? And sort of say "bring it on" (that isn't a legal term, admittedly).
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by lynx_user_abroad · 2003-10-31 04:01 · Score: 1

But they won't bother, because after that loss...[t]here won't be anybody left worth sueing, or any money to be gained from it.

There may be one thing of value left inside SCO; their claim to own the UNIX(tm) sources. FSF could settle out of court for assignment of any claim SCO has ("...or may have...") over the UNIX sources, re-license all of that under GPL and end the discussions once and for all. That might be worth settling for, or forking over the $2.03 for 51% of the SCO shares after this is settled.

--
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by arkanes · 2003-10-31 04:06 · Score: 2, Informative

Just to be clear, SCO hasn't asserted, except in press releases, any ownership over Linux whatsoever. Theres no courtcase whatsoever. The scope of thier actual, legal claims in the IBM case are for more restrained (although still laughable, imo) than thier statements to the press.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by IM6100 · 2003-10-31 04:07 · Score: 1

The BSD Unix OSes have achieved excellence and what you claim will happen, hasn't happened. Please don't spread your FUD about other open source licenses merely to hype up your GPL.

Frankly, the BSD licensed projects seem to be doing pretty good. I'm typing this on a NetBSD system using Mozilla, another non-GPL code base.

--
A Good Intro to NetBS
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by originalhack · 2003-10-31 04:08 · Score: 1

Actually, it would be better to sue based on the copyright of a non-kernel component. There is no opportunity to create confusion about Kernel patches if the suit is about bash or binutils.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by acroyear · 2003-10-31 04:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

True enough, but who's got the money to do it?

--
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by Spoing · 2003-10-31 04:15 · Score: 1

In particular, should the FSF (GNU project) sue SCO for license violation?
Sure, anyone can...if they are the copyright holders or are SCO customers and SCO does not actually abide by the terms of the GPL.
If they say they ignore the GPL, but provide source to customers and do other things such as include the GPL licence, then they are not actually ignoring the GPL...they are following it. In that case, the FSF or anyone else can't sue because of a licence violation -- there isn't one.
Does anyone know if SCO is in actual violation, or are they just making a fuss again?

--
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by Wylfing · 2003-10-31 04:16 · Score: 1

unfortunately for SCO, the code they're trying to distribute is not automatically public domain, and thus they have no right to distribute any code they can't claim direct ownership for
What planet do you live on? SCO owns all Linux code. It's theirs to do with as they see fit.

--
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by bill_mcgonigle · 2003-10-31 04:22 · Score: 5, Funny

IANAL, of course. This is Slashdot, we all play lawyers here.

Can't we just get a checkbox on our preferences page that says "I'm a lawyer". Then we can have a little shark icon that displays next to our username.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:28 · Score: 0

If the FSF doesn't step up and C&D or sue SCO within the next week, it's time to call a boycott on funding for the FSF.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by nahdude812 · 2003-10-31 04:30 · Score: 1

Well, distributing it with a different license is in violation of the GPL even if they follow all the other points of the GPL. The GPL says that derivative works, if distributed, must also be distributed under the GPL.

I'm not certain that this counts as a license violation, or a copyright violation, making changes to the license of GPL products, or GPL derived products is not their decision unless they are the copyright holder. In the case of the kernel, the copyright belongs to so many many people that it'd be essentially impossible to change the license on the kernel.

--
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by nahdude812 · 2003-10-31 04:32 · Score: 1

Oh, and, distributing it under a different license is basically the equivalent of me taking the latest Metallica album / Harry Potter book, selling / giving away copies of it, and telling the recipients of these copies that they're permitted to use the material in a way not permitted under its original copyright (or that they're not permitted to use the material in a way that *is* permitted under its original copyright).

--
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by Goo.cc · 2003-10-31 04:48 · Score: 1

There are so many developers involved in this that it would probably be easier to file a copyright class action suit.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:57 · Score: 0

You're correct...thanks for the insight.
--Spoing~
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by Twylite · 2003-10-31 04:58 · Score: 4, Informative

If SCO owns Linux, as they claim, they can assert their copyrights and the GPL simply doesn't exist on Linux anymore

This is incorrect. If you create a derivative work without the permission of the copyright holder (of the original), you own the copyright on the derivative. The copyright holder of the original work has no claim to your derivative.

HOWEVER, if you attempt to exercise any of your intellectual rights regarding your (derivative) work (i.e. publication, distribution, etc) every copy you make of your work will be an infringement of the copyright of the copyright holder of the original.

This is well established in international law. This page provides commentary on Xu Liu vs. Price Waterhouse LLP et. al, which illustrates a similar issue. Apart from this there are (several) cases in which the the rights to a motion picture derived from a book were limited (in terms of time) and not renewed: the distribution of the motion picture was found to be infringing, but in no case has the court found that the derivative work (the motion picture) is owned by the book's copyright holder.

The result is that SCO cannot claim ownership of Linux. All it can claim is that Linux is an infringing derivative, and that is therefore has a claim against anyone who has used and/or copied Linux.

--
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by drinkypoo · 2003-10-31 05:06 · Score: 1

SCO would only own the copyright to their code, which they have already distributed knowingly under the GPL; that means that it has become GPL-licensed, and they may not apply another licensing scheme to it.
If SCO took Linux source off their servers the day they claimed it had their code in it, then they might have a leg to stand on.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by Eudial · 2003-10-31 05:24 · Score: 2, Funny

;; Then we can have a little shark icon that displays next to our username.

You forgot the lasers...

--
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by aussersterne · 2003-10-31 05:27 · Score: 1

Linux, after all, is not a Unix "derivative", but a Unix work-alike. It looks like Unix, smells like Unix, but is not a direct branch from other Unices (except, possibly, with code from various BSDs contributed over time). Its tool suite is not from Unix, but from the GNU work-alikes. SCO's seriously reaching here.

Don't forget, this is the same SCO that told Byte that all computer operating systems currently in use (including Windows and BSD) are their "IP" because every operating system can be traced back to a SysV influence and is therefore in one way or another a "derivative."

By that definition (influenced by SysV), Linux is easily "their IP."

--
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:31 · Score: 0

Except that the brunt of SCO's claim is that Linux, being a Unix derivative, is really the copyright of SCO

No. They are claiming that Linux is a derivative work. This doesn't mean that they claim copyright over all of it, it just means they think they need to grant licenses over it for copying to occur legally.

At no point, as far as I know, have they claimed that they hold copyright for the whole thing. That would take the whole fiasco into a whole new universe of stupidity.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:44 · Score: 0

I'm not a lawyer , I'm a knitter !Wonder how many knitters can you find on /slashdot :P
That must be inflammatory ...
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:45 · Score: 0

In particular, should the FSF (GNU project) sue SCO for license violation?
No, of course not. Pay attention, this was covered yesterday in the interview of Eblen Mogen. The FSF has no legal standing with enforcing the GPL for the Linux kernel. Please note that this is different from having no interest.
Now, if Linus calls RMS and asks for help, then yeah, they'll have standing, and I suspect will cheerfully have at with SCO.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by acroyear · 2003-10-31 05:47 · Score: 1

ok, for the floggin' record, I was speaking figuratively in my use of the word "own". I wasn't talking ownership in a legal sense, but in the figurative sense of a statement like "I *own* you". Having control over derivative works to charge for or prevent their distribution is a form of ownership, in the sense I was talking about.

sheesh, bleein' literalists...

--
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by JamesP · 2003-10-31 06:05 · Score: 1

However, now the major copyright holders for the GNU/Linux system can assert themselves.

Yes, including IBM (since they released a lot under the GPL)

--
how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by Dalcius · 2003-10-31 06:16 · Score: 1

I'm not generally fond of falling for "alternate explainations", but it would be interesting if some of the SCO folks were doing this to help Linux/OSS?

Think about it. One one front, SCO claims the GPL is invalid. On the other, they distribute GPL'ed code under a more restrictive licence.
They're either violaiting the GPL or copyright law, one or the other.

SCO sues IBM for three billion dollars. IBM.

No remotely sane individual, no matter what their legal ammo, could ever hope to win this. SCO puts itself up against a 900,000 lbs gorilla and then begins sawing off its own legs.

Pump and dump seems most likely, but I wonder if any of the SCO (formerly Caldera Linux) employees are doing this to help Linux/OSS? A highly visible example case to prove the GPL and OSS is what we need most right now. This is a godsend, folks -- the court room is the place OSS is most vulnerable.

--
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by mpe · 2003-10-31 06:26 · Score: 1

For all of SCO's claims that the GPL is anti-copyright and unconstitutional, the licence itself makes clear that if the conditions can't be fulfilled or the licence is found to be unenforceable, standard copyright law applies--which means, unfortunately for SCO, the code they're trying to distribute is not automatically public domain, and thus they have no right to distribute any code they can't claim direct ownership for.

They certainly can't attempt to put their own licence on their distribution. Unless their licence is endorsed by all of the actual copyright holders then it is totally null and void. One thing to remember is that SCO's bogus licence does not destroy the GPL anyway. It dosn't matter how someone may have recieved GPL code they still have permission from the copyright holders to redistribute in accordance with the stated conditions.

It just means the authors would have to come up with another way to licence their code, either collectively or individually--and SCO would be in no position to make demands.

The copyright holders don't have to do anything, they could ignore SCO, they could offer SCO alternative licence conditions, they could initiate civil and/or criminal procedings against SCO.
Most likely they have done this on a Friday so as to give them the weekend's extra "piracy time" before the likes of DMCA takedown notices start arriving.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by mpe · 2003-10-31 06:47 · Score: 1

Oh, and, distributing it under a different license is basically the equivalent of me taking the latest Metallica album / Harry Potter book, selling / giving away copies of it, and telling the recipients of these copies that they're permitted to use the material in a way not permitted under its original copyright

Actually SCO are going rather further than this. To complete the analogy the person distributing the copies would be claiming that they (by a reasoning incomprehensible to the sane) were the copyright holders and Metallica/J K Rowling were not.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by nahdude812 · 2003-10-31 06:56 · Score: 1

Actually I read someplace that they only made this claim in press releases, and not in any official capacity. I'm not sure how accurate that is, I try to not get overly involved in the whole thing :-)

--
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by hal9000 · 2003-10-31 07:20 · Score: 1

Make it a radiobox:

( ) I'm a lawyer
( ) I'm no lawyer, but I play one on TV

The respective icons would be a shark and a Matlock.

--
Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by Suppafly · 2003-10-31 07:31 · Score: 2, Funny

Can't we just get a checkbox on our preferences page that says "I'm a lawyer". Then we can have a little shark icon that displays next to our username.

If they implemented that, I think I'd seriously consider becoming a lawyer just for the cool points on slashdot.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by jonadab · 2003-10-31 07:55 · Score: 1

> This is the standard MS embrace-and-extend technique. Only the GPL has
> shown immunity to it.

The GPL (or something very like it) is the only major *license* that is immune
to it, but there are other ways of overcoming embrace-and-extend, the most
useful one being to have a popular and active project. The MPL, for example,
is very unlike the GPL, but anybody who tries to embrace and extend Mozilla
quickly runs into obsolescence. It's *painful* to maintain a fork -- or even
a patch -- on code that comes from an active and popular project. Merging
changes soaks up all your time, if you can even manage it all. The only way
out of that madness is to commit your changes to the trunk, so that everybody
*else* has to sync *their* changes with *your* stuff.

--
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by cynicalmoose · 2003-10-31 08:21 · Score: 1

> should the FSF sue SCO for license violation

The FSF prohibit the open source community from modifiying the GPL. SCO's actions show why.

In doing this, they take a responsibility as guardians of the GPL; they modify it as appropriate (think about libraries) when modifications are for the good of the community.

As guardians, therefore, they should take action (be it a C&D, suit or whatever) against SCO. Not that this absolves the users of the GPL, simply that the GPL, as the FSFs responsiblity, means that they have the moral, not legal responsibility to deal with SCO.

--
Exercise your right not to vote. thinkoutside.org
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by foolip · 2003-10-31 09:08 · Score: 1

should the FSF (GNU project) sue SCO for license violation?

No, this is about Linux, not GNU or the FSF.

Another post suggested that "IBM/FSF/REDHAT/SAMBA/WHOEVER" should sue SCO, but the FSF surely can't, and Samba only could if they have some stuff in the kernel (perhaps they do, I don't know.

[rant] It's not ideal to call any system that uses Linux "Linux". It confuses a part of the system for the whole and now has some people believing the whole operating system is "in danger" from SCO's sillyness. Linux is Linux, GNU is GNU and GNU/Linux is both, or at the very least, Linux isn't both. [end rant]

The only people who can sue here are kernel contributors. The FSF has no buisness in this except perhaps as legal advice. They "just" provide the license, and have no say over projects that use it (e.g. Linux).
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by vsprintf · 2003-10-31 11:33 · Score: 1

Don't forget, this is the same SCO that told Byte that all computer operating systems currently in use (including Windows and BSD) are their "IP" because every operating system can be traced back to a SysV influence and is therefore in one way or another a "derivative."

Don't forget that if anyone took that claim seriously, an office building in Utah would have been quickly moved and reassembled in Washington. (Business-bots optional) :)
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by vericgar · 2003-10-31 12:06 · Score: 1

"The FSF has no buisness in this except perhaps as legal advice."

Unless of course some kernel developers transferred thier copyright to the FSF for "safe-keeping".
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by vsprintf · 2003-10-31 12:11 · Score: 1

Can't we just get a checkbox on our preferences page that says "I'm a lawyer". Then we can have a little shark icon that displays next to our username.

Okay, everyone else has made all the obvious jokes, but this is a good idea. Just like the subscriber doodad, you have a lawyer doodad, and the rest of us no longer have to do disclaimers about not being ambul^H^H^H^H^Hlawyers. Just think of the bandwidth saved.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by L1TH10N · 2003-10-31 12:34 · Score: 1

If a company makes press releases with fraudulent claims for the purpose of increasing share value is this fraud?

--
Yet another ironic recursive statement.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by Pharmboy · 2003-10-31 14:18 · Score: 1

True enough, but who's got the money to do it?

We do. Linux users. If the FSF filed the suit (since it owns much of the Copyrights now), funded by $5, $10, $20, $100 from Linux users. Its economy of scale, consolidating many small instances of infringement that are similar, to prove a pattern. It would be a good time to sign over copyright to FSF of projects where it reasonable, and let this ONE group go after them, backed by you and I, and maybe a few corporate bucks as well. IBM already is contributing enough to the cause by taking the first punch, but a lot of companies are benefiting and should consider contributing.

Samba, Apache, utilities, etc. are all used by lots of people for free (as in beer), and they are free (as in speech), although not all GPL. It would be easy to talk me into donating $20-$30, which is much cheaper than buying alternatives, and would hopefully put this whole GPL issue to rest. It needs to be confirmed, or declared illegal NOW and fixed. Other free licenses would be strengthened by a favorable ruling as well, just as our case is favored by the BSD case of the 70s-80s.

Only in America do you have to go to court to prove its legal to distribute software without overcharging for it.

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by smiff · 2003-10-31 15:17 · Score: 1

HOWEVER, if you attempt to exercise any of your intellectual rights regarding your (derivative) work (i.e. publication, distribution, etc) every copy you make of your work will be an infringement of the copyright of the copyright holder of the original.
What does the conditional have to do with anything? If your work is a derivative, every copy violates the original authors rights, regardless of any attempt to enforce your rights.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by Rich0 · 2003-10-31 16:30 · Score: 1

That is certainly insightful - I hadn't thought about it that way.

Are there any other strategies for overcoming embrace-and-extend that you can think of? Or any good links?

I agree that most of the BSD code that has been appropriated by vendors is stuff like protocols such as TCP/IP, which don't change since the whole idea of a protocol is to maintain compatibility.

I think mozilla is vulnerable to embrace-and-extend. But only in the sense of stealing snippets of code and incorporating it into an independant parallel project. For example, MS might steal the search toolbar code from Firebird and stick it into IE. If mozilla changes, they don't care - they migrated it once and they'll let them drift apart. Stealing an entire product is much more difficult - as you pointed out.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by debrain · 2003-10-31 16:30 · Score: 1

a) IBM or another party they attack willfully contributed SysV code to the Linux codebase, and it is still there.

It doesn't have to be willfully contributed; it could be negligently infringing, and they would still be liable for copyright infringment. The infringment itself constitutes harm sufficient for a cause of action.

In general, negligence may lead to a specific remedy (ie. remove infringing code), whereas intentional may lead to damages (ie. $1 billion). The question is, then, do intentional actions of an agent of IBM, ie. an employee, constitute intentional actions of the company?

YMMV :)
Cheers
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by jbolden · 2003-10-31 23:41 · Score: 1

being a Unix derivative, is really the copyright of SCO (having bought the System V copyrights, or so they claim; Novell says otherwise), so the copyright and licenses can only be decided upon and enforced by SCO.

Close but not quite. IBM as an AT&T license agreed to certain additional restrictions on dervived works. Under normal law even if the Linux were found to be a derived work of Unix that wouldn't give SCO ownership.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by jbolden · 2003-10-31 23:49 · Score: 1

If a company makes press releases with fraudulent claims for the purpose of increasing share value is this fraud?

Yep. Even highly misleading is enough for fraud with respect to a public company. the claims themselves do not need to be false if they materially effect stock price.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by jbolden · 2003-10-31 23:58 · Score: 1

. At least this has never happened with any BSD-licensed project before,

Absolutely it did. What do you think happened to the original MIT versions of X? The whole reason the XFree project had to basically start from scratch was that 10 years of X knowledge was all commercial at this point. X as a free product had ceased to exist.

Unix on the desktop lost a decade over BSD style licenses.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by jbolden · 2003-11-01 00:07 · Score: 1

Standard copyright law is consistent with the GPL.

X writes something and disappears without leaving behind any claim. Y finds it and publishes it. X is gone so he can't sue Y. Z copies from Y, and so Z has violated Y's copyright and can still be sued.

Copyright law applies to copies not some platonic orginal. If you get the code from RedHat under the GPL you are still bound by the GPL regardless of whether RedHat can find the original author or not.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by jbolden · 2003-11-01 00:11 · Score: 1

I'm not certain that this counts as a license violation, or a copyright violation

Neither it doesn't fall under the civil system at all. It falls under the criminal system. Its a civil violation to copy something without permission. Its a criminal violation to claim to own copyright on something you don't.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by jbolden · 2003-11-01 00:22 · Score: 1

A press release is an official capacity. Its not a filing in court or swearing under oath but it absolutely is official.
Re:Time to enforce the GPL? by sjames · 2003-11-01 02:46 · Score: 1

Actually for 'c', they would only gain control over works that IBM had the legal right to give to them in the first place. You cannot give the shirt off of someone else's back in a contract without them willingly entering into the agreement.

Since IBM does not hold the copyright to Linux as a whole, they cannot be contracturally forced to turn it over to SCO. That would be like me agreeing in a bank loan that if I default, your house is forfiet and you headr nothing of it. No court in the world would expect you to comply.

In a case like this, even if a court decides in SCO's favor, any damages will have to come from IBM alone. Since they cannot give SCO the copyrights to Linux, some equivilant in monetary damages would have to be awarded instead.

Thus, SCO has no legal claim to Linux as a whole. At most, they may claim rights to IBM's contributed code, but they'll have to prove that in court.

In order to actually own Linux, SCO would have to show that every last contributor worldwide entered into an agreement with them. Just to make things more interesting, I wonder if any minors have contributed to the kernel?

What about me? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:23 · Score: 0

The offer is only open to SCO's existing customers

Well, darn...

Isnt' this a good thing? by moehoward · 2003-10-31 03:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

Hasn't the slashdot crowd been clamoring for a test of the GPL since day one?

Why is this a bad thing?

Fine. Take them to court. Seems pretty simple at this point. Both sides want the same thing. A legal test of the GPL. Shouldn't we be celebrating?

--
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus

Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by mirko · 2003-10-31 03:31 · Score: 1

Exactly, just show them it's not because it has not costed millions in "lawyer^Wexpert" fees that it is not solid..

--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by tuffy · 2003-10-31 03:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hasn't the slashdot crowd been clamoring for a test of the GPL since day one?

Only the morons. There's nothing to test. If the GPL isn't an applicable license, code licensed under it can't be redistributed in any fashion without some new license. But since the copyright holder gets to determine the license, there's little reason the GPL shouldn't be a valid one.

--
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by sphealey · 2003-10-31 03:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Hasn't the slashdot crowd been clamoring for a test of the GPL since day one?
Why is this a bad thing?

In the long run, the SCO suit is a very good thing for Linux and the GPL. The weakest possible opponent filed the weakest possible challenge under the most disadvantageous circumstances with overt support from Microsoft. Assuming a victory of some sort for IBM, RedHat, and the GPL (looks likely but of course not certain) solid case law will be laid down on the most advantageous terms for Linux.
In the short term though Linux will have to endure a little pain and FUD, but that's OK: "whatever doesn't kill me makes me stronger [unless it leaves me a cripped wreck!]"
sPh
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by azzy · 2003-10-31 03:36 · Score: 1

Oh this is a very bad thing, that's why it's so good!!
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by MagnusDredd · 2003-10-31 03:43 · Score: 1

There is an unspoken deep-rooted fear that a test of the GPL will fail when presented in court.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by GoofyBoy · 2003-10-31 04:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

>If the GPL isn't an applicable license, code licensed under it can't be redistributed in any fashion without some new license.

Thats the sort of questions that need to be answered.

If I release code that says "You may use it if you give me your first born." and then that is found illegal/unenforcable, do I get to try a to retroactively apply a new license or have I released something which has no enforcable license? (Not enforcable so others can legally ignore it.)

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by kiwimate · 2003-10-31 04:01 · Score: 1

Bugger me...you're looking for people to step into the real world here, aren't you?

Sniping aside, I concur. So...who's going to take them to court? Anyone? I can't, I don't do any development, so have no claim against them. Taco/Neal/Michael/et al.? Or are we going to hope IBM or Red Hat steps up to the plate?
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:04 · Score: 0

I agree. After all, the DOJ vs. Microsoft case went so well what with all the excellent evidence of misconduct presented against them in court. I mean, it was a forgone conclusion that our sane and rational legal system should inflict on them the just and fair penalities that they did. We can only hope that the SCO case goes just as well.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:07 · Score: 0

do I get to try a to retroactively apply a new license or have I released something which has no enforcable license.

If it's not under a license it automatically falls back on copyright. You don't have any rights without a license.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by Spoing · 2003-10-31 04:18 · Score: 1

The weakest possible opponent filed the weakest possible challenge under the most disadvantageous circumstances with overt support from Microsoft.
A weak case backed by ~$50 million USD. This could still drag on for years.

--
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by GiMP · 2003-10-31 04:19 · Score: 1

Only the section regarding being required to give the first born child would be unenforcable. The rest of the contract would still be enforcable.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by Deven · 2003-10-31 04:21 · Score: 1

Keep in mind, the DOJ rolled over and offered a slap on the wrist after winning their case! There's no way IBM will do any such thing. IBM wants to crush SCO, and they will!

--

Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by DavidLJ · 2003-10-31 04:28 · Score: 1

Everybody has commented that SCO's case is weak. It seems to me weaker than that: it's all been tried before, by AT&T's subsidiary UDL, I think it was, about ten years ago when they tried to shut down Berkeley's BSD. They lost with humiliating totality. The court records are referenced on Dennis Ritchie's home page http://www.cs.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/, a slightly wicked example of Dennis at least nipping the hand that feeds.

One sorry oddity in this whole silly interlude in computer history: SCO is obviously going to end up down the drain, and there won't be enough left of either it or McBride to pay off all the shareholders suits for the manifest fiduciary violations of SCO's own shareholders' rights.

-dlj.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by lynx_user_abroad · 2003-10-31 04:40 · Score: 2, Informative

If I release code that says "You may use it if you give me your first born." and then that is found illegal/unenforcable, do I get to try a to retroactively apply a new license or have I released something which has no enforcable license?

If the contract said in effect "You may (cash my Adoption Fee check) if you give me your first born." and it was ruled unenforcable for me to demand your first born. I don't believe you would stll be entitled to cash my check anyway. I'd be even more surprised if your inability to deliver the goods stood as grounds for you to cash the check anyway.
SCO's behavior seems to be that of an organization which either fails to understand the terms of the GPL license it has agreed to (and fails to understand the necessity of understanding now) or that of an organization which is trying hard to maintain the facade that it does not (or cannot) understand the terms of the license. Maybe they honestly misunderstood what they thought they were getting when they signed-onto the GPL and don't want to admit that in court for fear of the dereliction-of-duty backlash from the investors. Or perhaps they really are hoping to cash in on a strategy of "Your Honor, the GPL couldn't possibly mean what it actually says, so lets just presume the thousands of contributors actually meant to dump their contributions into the public domain instead."

--
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by interiot · 2003-10-31 04:41 · Score: 1

Their lawyers are completely inept. 1) They're assuming the GPL will be invalidated, and recommending that their clients act on that assumption before it's proven in court, putting their clients in the way of certain lawsuits if they can't invalidate it. 2) As others have better said, even if the GPL was invalidated, that doesn't give SCO the right to distribute linux at all, so the lawyer who recommended that one is a bonehead too.
As long as SCO sticks with their current lawyers, we'll almost certainly win, even if does take a long long while.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by loucura! · 2003-10-31 04:42 · Score: 1

Not true, you have the rights to USE the work, but not to distribute reproductions or derivative works.

--
Black and grey are both shades of white.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by thaddjuice · 2003-10-31 04:52 · Score: 1

In the short term though Linux will have to endure a little pain and FUD, but that's OK: "whatever doesn't kill me makes me stronger [unless it leaves me a cripped wreck!]"

Despair, Inc. disagrees.

--
Find me in ~/.sig
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by meatpopcicle · 2003-10-31 04:58 · Score: 1

Well who's going to do it?

The problem with a distributed community of developers is that we are distributed. Almost no single entity could take on this corporation directly (not with their $50M warchest). So a group effort would be required to do so.

This is time consuming and costly and would have to be headed by a group. Their would have to be some kind of election process. It can be done, but would take time as there are lots of interested parties.

If this is done half-ass then they WILL get what they want. My worry is that they have a plan. They seem to be somewhat coherent in their attack strategy, and may have something up their sleeve.

One can hope that the distributed masses can rally and take out goliath.

--
"You're on my side and the dark side, like Lando Calrissian?" --Gimpy, Undergrads
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:00 · Score: 0

Screw court, this calls for an angry mob. Angry mobs are above the law anyway.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:01 · Score: 0

As long as SCO sticks with their current lawyers, we'll almost certainly win, even if does take a long long while.

After all, their current lawyer has quite a track record: against Microsoft in the anti-trust trial, technically won, but Pyhrric victory at best; Napster, lost; Gore vs. Bush, lost big time. In fact, has Boies ever won anything?
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by Spoing · 2003-10-31 05:03 · Score: 1

As long as SCO sticks with their current lawyers, we'll almost certainly win, even if does take a long long while.
Agreed. The sad thing is that over that time dammage will be done, and the crooks will likely make money playing the markets encouraging them to continue...
...though it's in one way it is flattering. The software that makes up Linux -- and by association other GPLed apps -- is so valuable as a commodity that someone will attempt this kind of crazy action on the outside chance that they would be able to get a slice of the pie by force let alone the whole pie and tin that it comes in.

--
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by Viking+Coder · 2003-10-31 05:03 · Score: 1

I think the grand-parent poster meant "You don't have any distribution rights without a license."

--
Education is the silver bullet.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by Darren+Winsper · 2003-10-31 05:06 · Score: 1

I'm quite afraid of the GPL failing in court, but I'm comforted by the fact that nobody has managed to come up with a convincing reason that it is invalid.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by WNight · 2003-10-31 05:09 · Score: 2, Informative

A contract that is invalid for any reason isn't binding. Because you need a binding contract to allow you to copy a copyrighted work, if the contract wasn't valid you'd be right back at the start, with you having a copyrighted work and someone wanting it. They wouldn't get it free because of this, any more than you'd get a car for free because the dealership misspelled your name on the contract.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by GooberToo · 2003-10-31 05:26 · Score: 1

A contract that is invalid for any reason isn't binding.

There is a difference between a contract and a clause contained within a contract. Not sure where you got your information from. Generally speaking, a specific clause can be unenforceable but that does not necessarily invalidate the whole contract. I've been told this by three distinct lawyers. Only that specific clause would be invalid. If what you said were true, pretty much every employment contract that ever was would be invalidated on the spot. Which, of course, doesn't happen. Worse case, specific clauses are found to be invalid and the contract, as a whole is left in place.

It would be at this point in time, renegotiation can take place by request of one or more of the parties. Or, one can request the contract in whole to be invalid, requiring each party to start back at square one. Whereby, the second party has no rights granted.

In this case, should the GPL be declared invalid, any reasonable judge would understand the spirit of the license and deny rights to TSG, as none have been granted. At which, the code would fall under various copyrights, none of which TSG has rights to. Furthermore, should specific clauses be stricten, the FSF would be entitled to have the contract declared invalid and copyrights would then prevail. FSF would then be free to stablish new terms for the GPL which the court agrees with. At which time, TSG would be free to accept the new terms or reject and obtain copyright rights from every software author; which isn't going to happen.

This is a no-win situation for SCO, no matter how you look at it.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by GooberToo · 2003-10-31 05:33 · Score: 1

"Or perhaps they really are hoping to cash in on a strategy of "Your Honor, the GPL couldn't possibly mean what it actually says, so lets just presume the thousands of contributors actually meant to dump their contributions into the public domain instead."

On the other hand, any sane judge would recognize that the GPL specifically sought to avoid public domain status. As such, even if the GPL were struck down, the spirit is clear. A such, it would fall back on standard copyright law, whereby, TSG has no rights, but is free to negotiate a new license; should both parties wish to do so. At which time, it would be much more likely a class action suit would be filed against TSG for mass copyright violations, effectively bankrupting them.

This is a no-win situation for TSG. Only the execs and their pump-n-dump scheme turn out as winners here; assuming they are not already being investigated.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:46 · Score: 0

> They lost with humiliating totality.

That's completely bogus. Basically Ray Noorda (current owner of SCO) bought USL from AT&T and then decided to be nice and settle the case. Nobody "won" or "lost" - they comprimised.

Even though USL may have eventually lost, you can bet they could have dragged the case out for 2-3 more years, and they probably could have quashed any BSD development in the meanwhile.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by RabidChipmunk · 2003-10-31 06:10 · Score: 1

Well, no, because your right to "use" the code also comes from the GPL. So if you give up the GPL, any internal "use" throws you into the whole IP "piracy" discussion.

Then you have to start rangling with your lawyers about the meaning of things in quotes.

--
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by loucura! · 2003-10-31 06:15 · Score: 1

No, my right to use the code comes from it being distributed to me in good-faith from a lawful distributor. Hence, there is no "license" to use a music cd I purchase. Nor is there a "license" to use software received under the GPL (it quite specifically says that you can use it even if you do not agree with the license).

--
Black and grey are both shades of white.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by WNight · 2003-10-31 06:20 · Score: 1

Correct, some clauses can be found to be invalid and not invalidate the contract as a whole. I was trying to over-simplify. However, if key clauses are invalid, the contract is almost always void.

If some minor clauses says you can't compete with the company for three years after employment and the state law limits that to six months, then six months it is, yet the rest will probably stand. However, if I say I'll pay you by giving you a car and it turns out I don't own the car (or there's some other technicality that invalidates the contract) I don't get to keep your work.

The 'must license derivative work under GPL, must honor GPL to distribute this work' is pretty much the key point. They may not be valid, but if not, there's no transfer or granting of rights.

However, perhaps the courts could rule that some of the finer points regarding what counts as a derivative work aren't correct and the GPL as a whole would be fine, but someone's non-authorized use would be allowed because the courts rule that the GPL is wrong about what a derivative work (but in this case, you'd have been allowed to copy the work without the GPL probably, so it's a minor point.)
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by InfiniteWisdom · 2003-10-31 06:33 · Score: 1

You can't enforce a license if it violates applicable law or the contitution. For example you can't have a license that requires you to be bound to slavery or hand over your first born child.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by WhiteWolf666 · 2003-10-31 06:41 · Score: 1

Nobody listens to me about this :)

If some crazy judge says the GPL=unenforcable, so all the code is public domain, and linux is property of TSG, than I say it is time to start firebombing ;=)

Not that I would ever do anything violent :)

--
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by mpe · 2003-10-31 06:55 · Score: 1

The problem with a distributed community of developers is that we are distributed. Almost no single entity could take on this corporation directly (not with their $50M warchest). So a group effort would be required to do so.

Is this actually a problem. Whilst their "warchest" might be very useful for fighting a big case. either against IBM or some kind of class action suit. How useful would it be against hundreds (or even thousands) of small cases. Where it would cost SCO more to put in a defence than the damages claimed.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by DavidTC · 2003-10-31 07:06 · Score: 1

Specifically, the 'derivative work' clause has always been the weakest part of the GPL. It's entirely possible that it's legal to 'library-tize' a GPL program and call it from a non-GPL program, despite the GPL explicting saying you can't do that, because linking to a library may not legally be a 'derivative work' of the library, and hence doesn't have to follow the GPL anyway.
But that's not incredibly important in this case. The key point to the GPL is that you can distribute it under said terms, as long as you don't change the terms. It's incredibly easy and clear to understand, and if the GPL is invalid, the judge would simply say 'Okay, you're going to have to come up with new, better terms for this.', and not throw copyright out the window.
The only contract that would really even be possible to throw out would be one that had *many* requirements, and a minor one was invalid, or alternately one that had so few requirements that didn't really benefit the author. (Something like notification-ware, for example, saying you can put up mirrors of software if you notify the owner. The intend of notification-ware is clearly to distribute the program freely, the notification is not actually payment. Note I'm not saying such contracts *aren't* legal, I'm saying that if the 'notification requirement' clause *wasn't* legal for whatever crazy reason, the judge would probably just decide you could mirror the software freely, as that doesn't really hurt the author.)
Frankly, I'm having a little difficulty figuring exactly why any part of the GPL would be thrown out anyway. Despite SCO's wackass claims, there is absolutly nothing in copyright law that stops you from allowing other people to make copies of your work, and in fact that's basically counter to the entire point of copyright law.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by jonadab · 2003-10-31 09:48 · Score: 1

> Generally speaking, a specific clause can be unenforceable but that does
> not necessarily invalidate the whole contract.

IANAL, but doesn't the GPL contain language that expressly invalidates the
whole thing if any part of it is invalid for some legal reason? I was thinking
I had heard something to that effect.

--
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by Sri+Lumpa · 2003-10-31 18:37 · Score: 1

"In fact, has Boies ever won anything?"

Maybe when he was still working at IBM?

--
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Re:Isnt' this a good thing? by GooberToo · 2003-11-01 05:01 · Score: 1

As that's the spirit of the contract, the intent is fairly well spelled out. Just the same, it would be up to the spirit of the judge to determine it's real outcome. At any rate, the spirit is fairly clear. I do believe the GPL does have such a clause.

Oh boy. by maelstrom · 2003-10-31 03:23 · Score: 1, Funny

This is gonna be fun. Anyone care to short SCO?

--
The more you know, the less you understand.

Re:Oh boy. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:58 · Score: 0

Yeah, quick, everyone who knows what that means do so. Everyone who heard about it or read about it on Slashdot (this guy), um, well, go build a Beowulf cluster that runs Linux and runs you in Soviet Russia and is l337 and owns your base.

Um, it's a Pentium, uh, 5 with, uh, a gigabyte. No, I don't use the internet, I have AOL.
Re:Oh boy. by Znork · 2003-10-31 03:59 · Score: 1

Well, it's gonna make Eben Moglen happy at least;

"If I had used the courts to enforce the GPL years ago, Microsoft's whispering would now be falling on deaf ears. Just this month I have been working on a couple of moderately sticky situations. ``Look,'' I say, ``at how many people all over the world are pressuring me to enforce the GPL in court, just to prove I can. I really need to make an example of someone. Would you like to volunteer?''" - Eben Moglen, Professor of Law and Legal history, General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation

Sounds like he's got his volunteer to be made an example of.

Makes me wish I contributed to Linux by phunhippy · 2003-10-31 03:24 · Score: 1

Makes me wish I had contributed to Linux(not that I'm a coder but hey ya know...)

I'd love to jump in and send a C&D letter to them now :(

Re:Makes me wish I contributed to Linux by AntiOrganic · 2003-10-31 03:51 · Score: 1

You can always just wait for them to send you your $1299 licensing notice, and then charge them with extortion instead.
Re:Makes me wish I contributed to Linux by DF5JT · 2003-10-31 22:34 · Score: 1

" Makes me wish I had contributed to Linux(not that I'm a coder but hey ya know...)"

Pretty easy: Write documentation or translate existing documentation of any of the "interesting" GPL projects (i.e. the ones that are potentially being distributed by SCO) and publish these snippets under the GPL.

Apart from then having the wonderful opportunity of countersuing SCO you may actually contribute something worthwile to the cause.

Come on... by MoeMoe · 2003-10-31 03:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

We already knew the SCO were up to no good. They are just re-affirming what we already know. SCO seems to want revenge for a crime that hasn't been commited... How long do you think it will be until Linus files for a class action suit?

The only true question I must ask considering that the SCO knew the consequences is... why?

--
Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...

Re:Come on... by Foofoobar · 2003-10-31 03:36 · Score: 1

Nah... it's that they are in bed with Microsoft and getting PAID to do this.

Who owns the Xenix code? SCO.

Who paid to develop it? Microsoft.

Who is helping in the development of Longhorn?
Xenix developers.

Who bought a couple millions dollars worth of licenses from SCO? Microsoft

Put 2+2 together and you see the REAL motivation behind this.

--
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Re:Come on... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2003-10-31 03:52 · Score: 1

Why?

SCO was getting destroyed in the competetive marketplace so they have to go to plan B. Unfortunately, the US legal system has been twisted so badly that there exists a perfectly viable business plan of just suing everyone you don't like (Rambus stock price: 25). They probably crossed a line with today's actions. I think Linus and the FSF and going to cooperate with IBM and crush SCO. The problem is that it may take 2-4 years of legal wrangling.

-B
Re:Come on... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2003-10-31 04:29 · Score: 1

Who is helping in the development of Longhorn?
Xenix developers.

I think you mispelled VMS.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"

From SCO's eyes by tekiegreg · 2003-10-31 03:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Speaking from SCO's eyes, the Linux developers violated SCO's user agreements. So it's essentially a retaliatory move I take it. However, even in a court of law 2 wrongs don't make a right. I can only hope for a speedy resolution to this whole mess so even SCO could go back to doing something normal and productive, instead of shooting themselves in the foot all the damn time (do they even have any foot left?)

--
...in bed

Re:From SCO's eyes by aug24 · 2003-10-31 03:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

However, they are violating the rights of *all* kernel contributors and they only allege infringement by IBM's kernel developers.
Hence there are an awful lot of innocent people out there with whom SCO are breaking their licence terms. Got get 'em!
Justin.

--
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Re:From SCO's eyes by walt-sjc · 2003-10-31 04:03 · Score: 1

Um, but what about all the linux developers (non-kernel code too) that never even SAW an SCO user agreement? The problem is that SCO is violating the GPL for EVERYTHING in their distro. This includes documentation, makefiles, other utilities, etc. Even if they won their case against IBM that does not mean that everything else in Linux is fair game.... Only the parts that were considered infringing.
Re:From SCO's eyes by Spoing · 2003-10-31 04:50 · Score: 1

I can only hope for a speedy resolution to this whole mess so even SCO could go back to doing something normal and productive
Like withering away from neglect?
The time for SCO to focus on anything productive is long gone. Why would anyone spend a penny for anything SCO has or will produce? With no customers, or a vanishing and betrayed pool of them, what possibly could SCO be planning for?
I feel sorry for the contracting groups and resellers who are now stuck supporting SCO's products. If they aren't transitioning off of SCO's products right now, they must be making plans to even if they think SCO will win.
Bottom line: SCO is not trust worthy or reliable and is not capable of going it on their own.

--
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Re:From SCO's eyes by tekiegreg · 2003-10-31 05:09 · Score: 1

Hear hear!

Truly I have wondered whether or not SCO's new mission statement has been to clog up the legal system for an eternity and annoy *nix users for all eternity in a pointless and useless battle that would have no impact on *nix even if won.

--
...in bed
Re:From SCO's eyes by efflux · 2003-10-31 10:01 · Score: 1

Speaking from SCO's eyes.
This is a rather disturbing image. Watch your metaphors.

--
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitman
Re:From SCO's eyes by tekiegreg · 2003-10-31 10:10 · Score: 1

Agreed, but to defeat thine enemy, it helps to understand him. Devil's advocate is a good thing to be if you plan on being the Devil slayer someday :-)

--
...in bed
Re:From SCO's eyes by efflux · 2003-10-31 13:43 · Score: 1

I don't think you caught what I was saying. You said: "*speaking* from SCO's *eyes*". It would be better to say "speaking from SCO's perspective". Technically, what you said was a mixed metaphor, and a rather disturbing one at that.

--
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitman

How can It be?? by still_the_same · 2003-10-31 03:24 · Score: 1

How can it be that SCO is still a partner of United linux??

Ask for compensations then... by xPertCodert · 2003-10-31 03:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think that every developer ever contributed to GNU/Linux should not send cease-and-desist letters, but ask for monetary compensation and enforce his own copyright . Let's see, how SCO will be able to cope with that

Re:Ask for compensations then... by Daniel_Staal · 2003-10-31 04:23 · Score: 1

Sending a cease-and-desist letter is the first step in that. It means you have informed the other party of their infraction, and asked them nicely to stop. When they ignore that you have a stronger case.

--
'Sensible' is a curse word.

Ahh by UrgleHoth · 2003-10-31 03:25 · Score: 2

My SCO drama fix for the day.
Thank you!

--

Dogma - "let's just say we'd like to avoid any empirical entanglements."

Understand.. by adeyadey · 2003-10-31 03:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

If the GPL *is* invalid, as SCO claim, then the code reverts back to being the copyright of the individual contributers, who can then sue them for breach. Either way they are stuffed..

--
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"

Re:Understand.. by Planesdragon · 2003-10-31 03:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

If the GPL *is* invalid, as SCO claim[s], thene the code reverts back to being the copyright of the indivdual contributers...

Only if the GPL is totally voided--which would make the re-compilation of Linux impracticable. (Annoying word, that--sure, it COULD be done, but it's not practical...)

If SCO wins their "Copyleft is non-constitutional" argument, then they'll probably argue that the GPL is a warranty-free release into the Public Domain, or at least similar to the BSD license.
Re:Understand.. by fishbonez · 2003-10-31 03:33 · Score: 1

SCO is actually claiming in their legal filings that the code would not revert back to the original contributors but instead be placed in the public domain. Therefore, the original contributors would have no legal claim against SCO and the SCOholes would be free to redistribute the now public domain software as they see fit. IANAL

--
Frylock: That's not a toy!
Master Shake: You say that about everything you own. You should own toys. They're fun.
Re:Understand.. by adeyadey · 2003-10-31 03:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

But of course that makes no sense. eg. I am a programmer, I release my code under a set of conditions called GPL. If GPL holds water, then you may only redistribute under the terms of the GPL. If the GPL doesnt hold water, then I keep copyright. At what stage did I state that my code is in the public domain? Its like a tenant saying to a landlord - "there is a technical mistake which makes the tenancy agreement void - so I can now live in your house rent-free forever.."

--
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
Re:Understand.. by Platinum+Dragon · 2003-10-31 03:43 · Score: 1

SCO is actually claiming in their legal filings that the code would not revert back to the original contributors but instead be placed in the public domain. Therefore, the original contributors would have no legal claim against SCO and the SCOholes would be free to redistribute the now public domain software as they see fit.

Considering how pro-copyright legislatures and courts have been as of late, this would be a stunning reversal. SCO would have to make an unbelieveably persuasive argument that the contributors never intended to exert any control over the code once released, even though distribution under the GPL implies at least some restrictions over distribution.

If SCO tries to argue that the code is already "in the wild", and thus impossible to restrict again, I would argue that the copyright owners, who clearly intended to maintain some influence and control over distribution of the code as is their right under copyright law, can simply collectively state that current holders of the code can either delete or continue to use the existing formerly-GPL'd code, but it cannot be distributed until something is worked out. Ordering copies of copyrighted works destroyed is not unknown; Pepsi managed to win an injunction against the band Negativland over the Dispepsi album, which resulted in a destruction order. Enforcement may be a minor headache, but unfortunately for SCO, there is precedent in this matter. (FIXME: someone check this fact. I'm in a minor rush now, and it may not have been Dispepsi that was hit with the destruction order--but Negativland has been in trouble over copyright issues in the past.)

--

Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Re:Understand.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:57 · Score: 0

If SCO win their case, then they are the copyright holders for Linux. So they can use whatever license they like.
Re:Understand.. by julesh · 2003-10-31 03:57 · Score: 1

If GPL holds water, then you may only redistribute under the terms of the GPL. If the GPL doesnt hold water, then I keep copyright.

The GPL is a contract between the copyright owner and anybody who wants to accept its terms. There is a legal concept that if part of a contract is deemed by a court not to be unenforceable, in some (but not all) cases, the remainder of the contract stands with the unenforceable parts removed.

SCO's argument is (probably) that the section of the GPL that states that derivitive versions, etc, must be licensed under the GPL is unenforceable. However, they contend, the section of it that allows you to make copys, derivitives, etc., is a straightforward grant of IP rights and is therefore not unenforceable.

This will probably fail, largely because there is no reason that I have heard of that makes sense of the idea that the licensing restrictions are unenforcable. Also, even if they were, the court would probably deem a modified contract to be unfair on the copyright holder and void the entire thing - but this is not a certainty, it is at the discretion of the court.

Its like a tenant saying to a landlord - "there is a technical mistake which makes the tenancy agreement void - so I can now live in your house rent-free forever.."

Actually, I don't know about the USA, but here in the UK that can almost happen. Not rent free, but if you make a mistake in a fixed-term letting contract you can end up not being able to regain posession at the end of the term...

(NB: IANAL, my legal knowledge is UK specific, but I think what I've said applies in the USA also, our contract laws are broadly similar...)
Re:Understand.. by fishbonez · 2003-10-31 03:59 · Score: 1

I agree that their claim runs counter to the tendency of the courts and politicians to increase protection of copyrights. Groklaw has an analysis of SCO's claim that GPL = Public Domain. Basically, it's a big stretch legally but pretty much every SCO claim is a long shot.

--
Frylock: That's not a toy!
Master Shake: You say that about everything you own. You should own toys. They're fun.
Re:Understand.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:08 · Score: 1

SCO is actually claiming in their legal filings that the code would not revert back to the original contributors but instead be placed in the public domain. Therefore, the original contributors would have no legal claim against SCO and the SCOholes would be free to redistribute the now public domain software as they see fit.

But this is exactly where it all falls apart. Assume SCO wins on this point (won't happen if the world is sane, but I'm not taking any bets) Then Linux is PD. All of it. Even the bits that came from SCO. SCO could argue that their bits were never intended to be PD (or even GPL) but this would be an extrordinarliy weak argument, seeing that SCO just succeeded in voiding the copyright for thousands of developers against their will.

This decision could be used to make a strong case that UNIX source is so widely distributed that it should be declared PD.
Re:Understand.. by Threni · 2003-10-31 04:08 · Score: 1

>impracticable. (Annoying word, that--sure, it COULD
> be done, but it's not practical...)

So use `impractical`.
Re:Understand.. by Planesdragon · 2003-10-31 04:19 · Score: 1

Its like a tenant saying to a landlord - "there is a technical mistake which makes the tenancy agreement void - so I can now live in your house rent-free forever.."

Let's say that you're a hot chick, and you sign a 100-year lease for a great apartment for $100 and sex with the landlord.

You parents/boyfriend/friendly pro-bono fema-lawyer files suit, arguing that the "have sex" part is illegal.

So, you're now in court, and you can probably get the "must have sex" part tossed out easily enough. Now, however, the status of the rest of the lease is in the judge's hands--he might apply rent-control laws and say that the contract remains, even without the sex clause, or he might adjust it, or he might toss it out. All depends on the judge and the facts of the case.

Take a look at sections 7 and 8 of the GPL. A judge could, in my non-lawyerly opinion, interpret them as a modifiability clause, and alter the GPL instead of voiding it. (And remember, no one wants the GPL voided--they just want it invalidated.)
Re:Understand.. by Sgt_Jake · 2003-10-31 04:27 · Score: 1

Its like a tenant saying to a landlord - "there is a technical mistake which makes the tenancy agreement void - so I can now live in your house rent-free forever.."

Wouldn't it be more like the tenant telling the landlord "that mistake makes this apartment public property, therefor, I can live here rent-free"?
Re:Understand.. by briaman · 2003-10-31 04:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, The BSD licence is a copyleft licence in the same way the the GPL is. If copyleft licences are unconstitutional, and I can't see any way that they are, then the BSD and every other copyleft licence is similarly unconstitutional and thus voided. IANAL, but even in such circumstances, the court does not have authority to set aside the authors ownership of the copyright to the original work. Those who had already received the work would probably have reasonable grounds for continuing their ownership and use of the work as they received it in good faith and with the presumed consent of the author, but they would have no right to redistribute the work as that right derived from the GPL (or BSD etc). A mighty hole would have been kicked into the side of the copyright system as any licence would be liable to challenge using the GPL revocation as a precedent. Microsoft and many other software houses would suffer serious problems as they face the loss of redistribution rights over the BSD portions of code in their products. Ultimatelty, the Free Software movement will continue as the FSF and other organisations establish explicit contract procedures where you sign up to membership of a society and receive access to source-code and documentation in return. There's a little good in every situation. All we have to do is find it.

--
==========
Error in module creativity.dll : Unable to create witty comment.
Abort / Retry / Ignore ?
Re:Understand.. by (void*) · 2003-10-31 04:54 · Score: 1

There is a legal concept that if part of a contract is deemed by a court not to be unenforceable, in some (but not all) cases, the remainder of the contract stands with the unenforceable parts removed.

This is interesting legal theory, but it is expressly not allowed by the GPL. In the very license itself, it states that you either accept the license wholly or not at all. You don't get to pick and choose.
Re:Understand.. by Darren+Winsper · 2003-10-31 05:13 · Score: 1

I doubt it'll get changed to have a completely different spirit. Whilst judges may be able to alter a contract, they'll be changing:
"you may redistribute this software if you do this, this and this"
to:
"you may redistribute this software"
It's an absolutely massive change in not only the word of the contract, but the spirit. I'm from the UK, so I can only speak from that perspective, but the Human Rights Act is supposed to have similar intentions to the constitution and I imagine one could argue (in the UK) that the Human Rights Act combined with copyright law would make such a change in intent illegal.
Re:Understand.. by WNight · 2003-10-31 05:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Only in very few cases does invalidating part of a contract not invalidate the whole thing, and usually only when that one clause was somehow slipped past one of the parties. As the saying goes, it's the courts' job to make sure you get a fair deal, not to make sure you get a good deal. If you sell you house for $1, when clearly compotent to make such a deal, then it stands. If you buy a TV and part of the warranty contract on page 20 says that I own your house, and I specifically told you that the contract didn't say anything of the sort, it wouldn't be binding, even if you didn't read it. Courts are also a little more strict with contracts for necessities, ruling that if I buy a car and get a bad deal it's too bad, but if I'm afraid to buy food or shelter because of the contracts, that's not acceptable.

(The courts are really starting to find that contracts that both parties didn't expect to be read aren't binding - giving the average Joe a twenty-page, densely worded contract with sneaky lawyer tricks in it, just isn't going to convince the judge that you were in agreement, another key point for the contract, because there's no way the average Joe could be expected to find and understand some hidden clause.)

Further, even when a contract is voided, if the consideration (what you or I get) for one party is somehow invalid (illegal, whatever) the whole contract is pretty much voided. The court isn't going to rule that just because it turns out I couldn't give you my house, that you still had to pay me $250K for it.

To summarize, the GPL is fairly clear, there are plaintext summaries to get you to read the appropriate parts, not for a necessity, and clear that it does not override existing copyrights, etc. Because of this, it's very unlikely that any part of it would be found invalid. But, even if it was, the whole consideration for the original author is that their code remains public even in derivative form, if the courts removed this they'd void the whole thing and you'd be back at regular copyright.
Re:Understand.. by midav · 2003-10-31 05:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

If copyleft licences are unconstitutional, and I can't see any way that they are.
Mostly because there are two schools of interpretation of IP in the US. One, which equates IP with ordinary property, allows you to form a contract with any parties on any conditions the standard contract law would find legal. Incidentally, GPL implicitly relies on this interpretation when builds upon U.S.C. 17.
The other school distinguishes IP from P and sees U.S.C. 17 as artificial construct carefully crafted by State to strike the balance between IP creators and IP consumers. If you look at the IP from this angle, then GPL may be considered illegal (at least in the US) because it alters this balance. Hence, the SCO's argument that it is illegal and must be pre-empted.
There are precedents that decided both ways of interpretation, which makes SCO's case less laughable, then any one of us would want it.
Whether GPLed works fall into public domain or not is a separate question. AFAIK, SCO's argument why they should, is because distributing works under illegal license, you barred yourself from the copyright law protection as a matter of equity.
The most ironic part of the whole thing, is that, in general, most people on /. (including myself) consider IP != P, which weakens their pro-GPL case and corporate IP creators, including SCO, in general, argue that P == IP, which makes their anti-GPL case weaker.
Since both sides try to have a pie and eat it too, I expect the trial to be more interesting then MS' anti-trust case.
Re:Understand.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:35 · Score: 0

Only if the GPL is totally voided

This is the relevant part of the GPL:

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.

It's hard to see how "the balance of section 7", which basically amounts to "if you can't deal with it, tough shit you can't distribute copies" could possibly be interpreted as a PD release.
Re:Understand.. by GooberToo · 2003-10-31 05:37 · Score: 1

But the courts do.
Re:Understand.. by AntonyBartlett · 2003-10-31 06:08 · Score: 1

If the GPL *is* invalid, as SCO claim, then the code reverts back to being the copyright of the individual contributers, who can then sue them for breach.
And also sue IBM... Red Hat... each other...
Does anyone know if you're allowed to defend copyright against infringement selectively? Either way, the Free Software movement will be in a real pickle in this senario.
Re:Understand.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:10 · Score: 0

ts like a tenant saying to a landlord - "there is a technical mistake which makes the tenancy agreement void - so I can now live in your house rent-free forever.." You don't live in Massachusetts, do you?
Re:Understand.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:11 · Score: 0

Ever see the movie "Pacific Heights"?
Re:Understand.. by Planesdragon · 2003-10-31 06:15 · Score: 2, Informative

The BSD licence is a copyleft licence in the same way the the GPL is.

Last time I checked, BSD allowed for the creation of derivitive works and non-attributed sale of said works.

It's quite different from the GPL; if it wasn't, Windows wouldn't have its TCP/IP stack and OS X wouldn't even exist.
Re:Understand.. by WhiteWolf666 · 2003-10-31 07:02 · Score: 1

I have 2 thoughts on the matter:

a) It's HIGHLY unlikely that the judge will do that. Contracts require some sort of exchange of compensation. Doubtful that the judge will invalidate one side of that. Much, much more likely that the judge will decide than since the 'if you do this, this, and this' section' is invalid, only standard copyright appli\es, and the GPL is voided.

b) If the GPL is either voided OR modified in the way you have described, the FSF can change it, release GPL v4, and we can relicense Linux, et al.

Sure it will be a GIGANTIC bitch, but it can, and will, be done.

This will have a much more interesting effect upon SCO regarding other GPLed and GNU tools in SCO Unix --- i.e. its probably much easier for the Samba team to relicense Samba such that SCO can't use it.

And maybe make changes to the codebase to break Samba (and other) compatability with SCO products.

--
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Re:Understand.. by DavidTC · 2003-10-31 07:18 · Score: 1

I fail to see how requiring less from someone than the law requires can be illegal. If it was illegal to sublicense out your work, pretty much every single book, TV show, movie, everythign, is a copyright violation. No writer prints their own books, no production studio prints their own DVDs.
Saying the GPL is illegal is like saying leases that let you do specific types of remodeling are illegal, because, under the law, you can't remodel a house you don't own. Well, obviously you can if the owner lets you! Likewise, copying Linux CDs is illegal under the law, but the copyright owner lets us.
In fact, copyright explicitly says that the copies must be authorized by the copyright owner. I don't know in what world that translates to 'A contract with a copyright owner giving you permission to make copies is illegal under copyright law.', but I suspect it's not this one.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:Understand.. by WhiteWolf666 · 2003-10-31 07:20 · Score: 1

I have a feeling that if they do manage to win something like this, than IBM will have more room to play with their claim that SCO distributed their supposedly 'proprietary' code in their GPL'ed Caldera distribution.

The result of this is that ALL linux, including the supposedly SCO infringing material, would exist under some sort of a BSD license.

Not a big deal. You know why? Because we can just relicense it (piece by piece), under a corrected, SCO-resistant GPL v4.

Even if SCO kills the GPL, it doesn't make a bit of difference.

Unless the courts make some crazy, broad interpretation which bans any sort of a copyleft license, and public-domains all copyleft stuff, while simultaneously agreeing that SCO unknowingly released the code into linux, and that stuff is all proprietary.

If THAT happens, and we do actually live in some kind of crazy, twilight zone universe, .... then....

I'll be first in line for the revolution!

--
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Re:Understand.. by DavidTC · 2003-10-31 07:27 · Score: 1

You know, that 'consideration' thing is one I hadn't thought about. The consideration for copying GPL code is that you GPL it. While minor sections of contracts can be voided, the fricking consideration can't be. Without a both sides gaining something, there's no contract in the first place. Void a consideration, and exactly the same thing happens, no contract.
It's like an employment contract. The non-compete clause can voided, lots of clauses can be, but if for some reason the employees' paycheck was voided (For example, he was to be paid in illegal drugs.), then the entire contract has to voided, because he gets no consideration from the contract and hence doesn't have to keep working for free.
The GPL says 'You can copy this code for free, and in return you have to give the community (and, hence, me) back the code.'. If you strike the second part, it's no longer a contract and completely void, as you gain nothing from letting them copy your code.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:Understand.. by DavidTC · 2003-10-31 07:34 · Score: 1

Whitewolf touched on this, but 'you may redistribute this software' is simply not a valid contract under the law. Even if everyone knows exactly what they are doing and want to sign a completely one-sided piece of paper, they are not valid contracts and you cannot be held to them.
That's why you get houses sold for things like 'For the total of one dollar and other valuable considerations...'. You can't legally create a contract giving a house away, it's impossible. You have to exchange it for some good or service or something. It could be 'for a single strand of hair' or 'mowing the grass at the (to be his as soon as he finishes) house', or whatever, but lawyers usually have no sense of humor and sell things for a dollar.
Hence no judge would edit the GPL in that way.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:Understand.. by midav · 2003-10-31 07:54 · Score: 2, Informative

David, you are missing the point.
To clarify it, I'll recite Bruce Perens: Federal law "establishes the right to license copyrights in return for some compensation, which is what the GPL does," Perens said."The only difference between our licenses and those used by everyone else is that they ask for cash; we ask for some rights regarding derived works."
This is what exactly the SCO's point, you can ask for anything but the "rights regarding derived works", because these rights are already established by U.S.C. 17. To take your examples in this context In fact, copyright explicitly says that the copies must be authorized by the copyright owner.. If I were arguing for SCO, I would say that they (FSF) can control authorization of copying their work, but not in a way that alter our rights to use derivative work to the fullest extent granted us by U.S.C. 17.
Now, excuse me, I have to go and wash my mouth :)
Re:Understand.. by DavidTC · 2003-10-31 08:14 · Score: 1

But nothing in the GPL does alter anyone's rights under USC 17 to use the work.
And asking for limited rights over derivated works in return for allowing such derivated works to be made is a fairly standard setup. It happens all the time, although I'm not privy to any specific example. But, um, to make up an example, the Harry Potter movies. They are a derivative work of the book, and as such require permission. I'm sure part of this permission was that the author gets limited control of the end result.
What SCO is saying possibly applies to EULAs that restrict things like reinstalling on a different computer, but the GPL is not a EULA, and does not alter in any way rights that people have. People simply do not have the right to edit a work and redistribute it, which is the only thing the GPL puts restrictions on.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:Understand.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 08:29 · Score: 0

... and OS X wouldn't even exist.
Sure it would. It would just be based on BeOS and be about 1,000,000 times faster.
Re:Understand.. by firewood · 2003-10-31 08:46 · Score: 1

If the GPL *is* invalid, as SCO claim, then the code reverts back to being the copyright of the individual contributers, who can then sue them for breach.
If the GPL is somehow held invalid by the courts, there may still be the issue of whether distributing ones code under the GPL, without consideration or expectation of compensation from an unknown number of users, and freely to countries with unknown IP laws, might somehow impair ones right to selectively sue for copyright infringement.
Re:Understand.. by adeyadey · 2003-10-31 08:55 · Score: 1

As I understand it, it is at the discretion of the copyright holder as to whom they sue. This may only get modified if "fair trade" or monopoly legislation is envoked.. Not that I want to give SCO ideas..

--
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
Re:Understand.. by adeyadey · 2003-10-31 09:04 · Score: 1

Actually the tenency-landlord analogy I used isnt too wonderful, there is special protection built into UK law (perhaps US too) that give the tenant a fair bit of protection, whatever the contact says, and courts tend to sympathise with the tenant. I think in a more straight ltd-co vs ltd-co battle, the court is more inclined to stick to the word of the contract- exculding special considerations like monopoly/fair trade laws, etc..

--
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
Re:Understand.. by adeyadey · 2003-10-31 09:10 · Score: 1

Ok, but thats different to saying "for free". Actually the landlord-tenant analogy is not too wonderful, because there are special considerations made for the tenant in law, regardless of the contract.

As someone else has said, there is a clause in the GPL that specifically says that the user must accept the whole license, or not at all. There is no middle way..

--
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
Re:Understand.. by midav · 2003-10-31 09:14 · Score: 2, Informative

But nothing in the GPL does alter anyone's rights under USC 17 to use the work.
I am not talking about use of the work. I am talking about control of the rights on the derived work. And, technically, requirement to release it under specific license, may be construed as alteration.
And asking for limited rights over derivated works in return for allowing such derivated works to be made is a fairly standard setup. It happens all the time, although I'm not privy to any specific example.
I would consider AT&T UNIX License, so precious to SCO, as one of those examples, since it limits use of derived components to the use only within the derived work. Which by SCO's logic also should make it unconstitutional.
What SCO is saying possibly applies to EULAs that restrict things like reinstalling on a different computer
This is exactly what SCO is NOT talking about. SCO is not arguing validity of GPL for distributing/using original work, only the part that governs distribution of derivative works, e.g. they do not try invalidate BSD-like licenses because they do not exhert any control over derived works.
Re:Understand.. by sbaker · 2003-10-31 13:27 · Score: 1

> If the GPL *is* invalid, as SCO claim, then the code reverts
> back to being the copyright of the individual contributers...

I don't know whether that's true or not - but assuming it is...where would that leave the dozen or so MILLION people who have (and use) copies of that code?

The license they thought they had to use it would vaporize - and the chances of finding every single author of every single itty bitty part and getting them to sign up to some 'son-of-GPL' license - are pretty slim.

We'd be in a state of utter chaos for years afterwards.

If the GPL were simply to evaporate as if it had never existed - then SCO would be the very least of our problems.

I think it's more likely that if we lost the battle - then the GPL would have been shown to not provide the protections to the authors rights that he/she thought it would...which would allow people who have the software to distribute it in ways the original owner did not want because the license would have been found not to effectively prevent that abuse.

That's not actually a total disaster. Although it wouldn't please an awful lot of people - we'd still have Linux for free everywhere.

However, even that is not what's really going on here. SCO are not merely asserting their supposed right to redistribute the software in ways contrary to the GPL's spirit - they have actually CHANGED the terms of the license. Whether the GPL would provide the protections we'd hoped for or not - SCO can only change the license completely if they own the copyright to it.

So - we must conclude that SCO are asserting that THEY own the copyright to the code...presumably on some bogus theory about we having stolen sources from them for which they DO own the copyright.

The whole things just seems crazy.

--
www.sjbaker.org
Re:Understand.. by Xtifr · 2003-10-31 13:54 · Score: 1

This is what exactly the SCO's point, you can ask for anything but the "rights regarding derived works", because these rights are already established by U.S.C. 17.

But that's why the terms of the GPL are voluntary. The GPL does not say that you can only use the code under the specified terms. It merely states some conditions under which you can use the code without asking further. In other words, it's a conditional shortcutting of license negotiation. And, in fact, some businesses (e.g. Trolltech) use it exactly in that way.

If licensing something under the GPL made it impossible for that code to be licensed another way, then I think you/SCO might have a point. But that's clearly not the case -- Trolltech will happily sell you a license to use QT in your proprietary app if you don't want to use the GPL on your derivative work. The fact that in some cases (e.g. Linux), it may be prohibitively difficult to arrange alternate licensing doesn't mean it's not possible.

In fact, I have to say that I'm really surprised nobody has brought Trolltech up in these discussions before. Perhaps it's because they're a Norwegian company, not a US one. But still, it seems incredibly relevent. If SCO gets a judgement declaring GPL == PD, then Trolltech is dead. Contrariwise, Trolltech's business model seems to completely torpedo SCO's claims about the effects of the GPL. If the GPL did undermine copyright law in the way that SCO seems to be alleging, then Trolltech wouldn't have a business model. But they do, and a moderately successful one at that.
Re:Understand.. by Alsee · 2003-10-31 14:31 · Score: 1

SCO has made a rather peculiar argument in court. They are basicly saying that by releasing your code under the GPL you were making some sort of "charitable gift" and since the GPL is invalid and since you are dead and can't properly correct problems with your charitable gift, the judge then has to carry out spirit of your gift as closely as possible, and SCO says that the closest possible substitute for the GPL is to dump it into the public domain.

Yeah, there are more than a few holes in that argument, starting with the fact that you aren't dead, but it's no more absurd than their other arguments.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Understand.. by AntonyBartlett · 2003-10-31 20:42 · Score: 1

The license they thought they had to use it would vaporize - and the chances of finding every single author of every single itty bitty part and getting them to sign up to some 'son-of-GPL' license - are pretty slim.
It wouldn't be quite that bad because a lot of well organised projects have their contributors assign their copyrights to the projects as a whole. Therefore a process often exists by which a new licenses could be drawn up (e.g. referendum amoung active contributors... or project leader dictates... or whatever)
So, for example, the software in gnu.org would be fine, but perhaps a fair amount of the stuff in sourceforge would be stuffed.
Re:Understand.. by AntonyBartlett · 2003-10-31 20:45 · Score: 1

Oh well, that would be something anyway. I was probably thinking of trademarks when I wondered if selective enforcement was allowed (I believe you can't selectively enforce a trademark)
Re:Understand.. by damas · 2003-10-31 21:19 · Score: 1

Sorry, but your logic doesn't hold water.
Part 1.
The GPL does not restrict in any way the use of the works and the creation of derivative works. It does not impose additional conditions on the use of the works or the creation of derivative works.

Understand? No restrictions on the creation of derivative works.

Part 2.
Copyright law does not allow for distribution of derivative works. The GPL allows with the provision that all source code be made available and placed under GPL.
Re:Understand.. by DavidTC · 2003-11-01 11:20 · Score: 1

Ah. That's still insanely stupid, but barely less so.
The concept that copyright owners have control of derivative works is a fairly important part of copyright law. The GPL just give people an automatic license to distribute those works under.
The problem with SCO's argument is that people who create deriviate works are not in control of them anyway. If you create one, both you and the original copyright owner are in complete control of it, to do anything with it, you both have to agree. This is obvious, it would be insane to let people modify a work in any way and suddenly they control all the copyrights.
And, yes, it's completely insane for SCO to be making any argument of this type, as SCO has a license that apparently says 'If at any time a work is a derivative of our work, all versions of that work are under our complete control.', which copyright law certainly doen't allow at all.
The ability to restrict derivate works is such a hard and fast rule of copyright law I have no idea where SCO is going with this. Copyright owners execute control over copyright works all the time. For example, George Lucas lets people write Star Wars' books, and they have to follow certain rules. He owns the copyright for the universe and all the characters in it, he can set the rules. It would be absurd for a writer who has permission to write such a book writing one outside those bounds, and then claiming the contract was somehow invalid and hence he can do whatever he wants, because the contract lets him 'write a book'.
In fact, it's rather surreal, because if all their claims were true, they would have no claim on the Linux kernel, even it was somehow a derivative work of theirs.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?

Rubbish. by ledow · 2003-10-31 03:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

I've heard that their legal basis for this is that they don't believe the GPL to be enforceable. I don't think that parts of some EULA's are enforcable (especially those "you must agree before you open, but you're agreeing to what's inside" type), so can I go distributing that software as and when I like under my own license?

I don't believe Microsoft XP's EULA is enforceable in Europe, so I'm gonna GPL it and stick it on the internet? Can't see a judge agreeing with this.

When they have a written statement from a court of law saying that the GPL is unenforcable and the copyright of all GPL'd work is null and void, then maybe they could try this.

Re:Rubbish. by FauxPasIII · 2003-10-31 03:32 · Score: 1

> When they have a written statement from a court of law saying that
> the GPL is unenforcable and the copyright of all GPL'd work is
> null and void, then maybe they could try this.

It's simpler than all that, even. If the GPL is declared null and void, then you revert back to conventional copyright law which doesn't allow redistribution in the first place.

--
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
Re:Rubbish. by aborchers · 2003-10-31 03:52 · Score: 1

If the GPL is declared null and void, then you revert back to conventional copyright law which doesn't allow redistribution in the first place.

Says who? That may be how the RIAA has programmed people to believe copyright works because it is how they work, but such a restriction is simply an artifact of the way copyrighted material is conventionally licensed.

IAALs please chime in: Is there anything in any copyright law that forbids redistribution under limited or unlimited terms if it is permitted by the copyright holder?

--
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Re:Rubbish. by Zeinfeld · 2003-10-31 04:23 · Score: 1

I've heard that their legal basis for this is that they don't believe the GPL to be enforceable. I don't think that parts of some EULA's are enforcable (especially those "you must agree before you open, but you're agreeing to what's inside" type), so can I go distributing that software as and when I like under my own license?
It is possible for a contract to be unenforceable and I suspect that there are cases where the GPL would be found to be unenforceable, but not as a blanket rule.
The cases where I don't think it would be enforceable is if Alice writes a program, 99% of which is her own work, happens to include a subroutine that is GPL. I do not beleive Micsoroft is right in asserting that as a matter of law the whole program becomes GPL, although if you read the GPL closely that is a possible interpretation. It certainly is RMS's actual intent, and yes I do know him. I think that Bill Gates is the only person who actually takes him seriously.
I suspect that in ordinary circumstances the limit of redress in a GPL suit would be an injunction prohibiting the distribution of the code fragments that are GPL.
I do not buy the argument that the GPL is contrary to public policy. What we have between SCO and IBM is a mutual interest contract, both IBM and SCO benefitted from the knowledge that they were pooling their mutual copyright interests in the code. This type of situation is very common, it is the basis of most standards work. In fact the US govt itself is a participant in numerous standards working groups operating under similar rules and has adopted standards based on those groups. Participation in these groups is clearly not contrary to public policy and is in fact completely uncontrovertial.
What IBM should do here is to apply to the judge for an order that puts the whole case on hold pending SCO's identification of the specific code that it claims ownership of.

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Re:Rubbish. by FauxPasIII · 2003-10-31 10:13 · Score: 1

> limited or unlimited terms if it is permitted by the copyright holder?

There's the rub... in the case of SCO and Linux, the agreement with the copyright holder is the GPL, and they've withdrawn from that agreement. So the question is, IN ABSENCE of any agreement with a copyright holder, what are the rights of any other person to redistribute the copyrighted content ?

--
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
Re:Rubbish. by aborchers · 2003-10-31 13:59 · Score: 1

Certainly. In the absence of an agreement the rights are retained by the holder, ergo SCO can't claim rights to the GPLed code even if the GPL is not valid. Nonetheless, if the copyright holder agrees to allow redistribution rights only to those who would honor the conditions of the GPL, that is their right given the monopoly over control conferred by copyright. All of which makes it impossible for me to fathom how the GPL could be "invalidated".

--
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.

Re:Get over it by Curtman · 2003-10-31 03:26 · Score: 5, Informative

Nice troll.. But copyright law is exactly what this is about. If, the GPL was invalid copyright law would still hold. It's the GPL that gives them distribution rights. Without that, they are violating copyright law.

Hippies unite! Have a nice day.

OMG FRANCE by Neophytus · 2003-10-31 03:26 · Score: 0

VIVA LA OUTRAGE!

Some has to make them stop. by Darth_Foo · 2003-10-31 03:26 · Score: 1

Since I'm not a developer, I can't very well send SCO a cease-and-desist from using my code in violation of the license. On the other hand, I'm an attorney and I am also an end-user who uses Linux. What I can do is dare SCO to sue me, as they've threatened to sue end-users in the past. Sue me, you stupid bastards, and see what Federal district judges think of your licensing charade. God, I can't wait until IBM takes these assholes apart in Court.

Re:Some has to make them stop. by azzy · 2003-10-31 03:39 · Score: 1

You could also volunteer to write C&D letters for free. I'm sure some on /. might appreciate that. Hey, maybe some copyright holders will transfer the copyright of a few lines to you so you can send a C&D letter on your own behalf ;)
Re:Some has to make them stop. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:45 · Score: 0

I hereby volunteer the services of 150 of my company's Xerox copiers in the interest of efficiency. Surely the poor chap isn't going to manually print all those cease and desist letters you've so kindly pseudo-volunteered him for...

Just drop me a line at dmcbride@sco.com, or tell my friend Bill to give me a call.

/. just reach a new low by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:26 · Score: 0

This is the worst article I have ever seen. No references, apart from two links. One's a 404 and the other useless.

Nice work!

Re:/. just reach a new low by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:31 · Score: 0

You must be new here.
Re:/. just reach a new low by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:42 · Score: 0

It wasn't a 404 error when it was posted. It was a 404 error when we burned it down.

Re:Corporations... by wo1verin3 · 2003-10-31 03:27 · Score: 1

Phantom isn't ripping off other peoples work and saying that those people have no rights to them any longer.

What's the deal? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:27 · Score: 0

So WHAT CAN WE DO???????????

Obviously I'm not a lawyer. SCO IS BREAKING THE FUCKING LAW!!!!!! Yet no one seems to be doing anything about it? Seriously, what we can we do, and how can I help??

If you know how to procedd with this, GET OFF YOUR ASS and do something already!

Re:What's the deal? by azzy · 2003-10-31 03:42 · Score: 1

The fucking law? I'm aware the USA has many peculiar laws regarding sex, but in what way is SCO breaking any of them?
Re:What's the deal? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:57 · Score: 0

If you know how to procedd with this, GET OFF YOUR ASS and do something already!

I hear posting to Slashdot using RANDOM, POINTLESS CAPITALIZATION is quite effective.

I like the sound of this. by LNO · 2003-10-31 03:28 · Score: 1

In a move likely to antagonize the free software community even further, the SCO Group is to resume distributing Linux, but only if you agree to a new "IP license" which implicitly supports SCO's intellectual property claims.

Dear SCO,
I am to resume encouraging you to agree to my "suck my wang" license which explicity supports my wang-sucking claims.
Love,
Me.

PS- No teeth.

Of course, SCO, you realize... by Noryungi · 2003-10-31 03:28 · Score: 1

... this means WAR!. Go FSF, go!

--
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)

What do they have to lose? by jtnishi · 2003-10-31 03:28 · Score: 1, Interesting

Think about it. At this point, if their case really is that bad, what do they have to lose by pushing the envelope? I don't think this is a move that necessarily hurts their case, per se. And if they were to somehow win in the courts, they'd make off with a fortune

And to anyone who says that they have absolutely no chance in court, because the law is clearly on the other side, just remember how many id judgments have come out of this court system.

Ramifications by Shadow2097 · 2003-10-31 03:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

If they invalidate the GPL in this manner and get away with it, won't they just have the effect of providing legel precedent for throwing out ALL software licenses and EULAs? Surely this move has got to be one of the STRANGEST moves yet by SCO.

Assuming that their actions of late (starting with the IBM lawsuit) have been directed under the advice of their team of lawyers, who the heck gave the approval for this? Even IF they somehow invalidate the GPL, are their lawyers so short-sighted that they can't see this coming back to haunt not just SCO, but the entire commercial software industry?

-Shadow

Re:Ramifications by AntiOrganic · 2003-10-31 03:57 · Score: 3, Funny

For some reason, I can't picture them being that worried about SCO UnixWare getting pirated.
Re:Ramifications by rmohr02 · 2003-10-31 05:13 · Score: 1

Yes, but not in the manner you're referring to. The GPL is fundamentally different from an EULA. An EULA restricts the rights you already have (by buying a piece of software at a store you are given a right to install and use that software (at least, in theory)). The GPL is only a license for redistribution--you do not have to agree to it, but nothing else gives you the right to redistribute the software.

If the GPL was found invalid by some judge, all of copyright law would be undone, which includes EULAs.
Re:Ramifications by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:25 · Score: 0

how bout i ramificate it up your ass!!!!!!!!!111oneoneone
Re:Ramifications by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:25 · Score: 0

SCO has had finacial problems for a while now. If they didn't get a new cash cow, they would have gone under. This lawsuit is their solution. If they lose, well the stocks would be up for a while so they would have stayed in business longer and kept up the funds for the lawyers. If they win they get Linux and a good source of revenue for a while. It's a big gamble, but for them it's worth it. Oh and they get a chunk of money from IBM.
Re:Ramifications by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:45 · Score: 0

I'm not sure about overthrowing EULA's as well, but they will have to overthrow US Copyright law, which they hold so dear. Even if an EULA, GPL, or any other license is deemed invalid, copyright law holds true. All violations of the GPL are violations of copyright law. All the GPL does is give anybody permission to supercede copyright law under certain conditions, which is what source code licensing does anyway, only on an individual bases, and not a public basis like the GPL. It doesn't rewrite copyright law.
Re:Ramifications by mpe · 2003-10-31 07:16 · Score: 1

If they invalidate the GPL in this manner and get away with it, won't they just have the effect of providing legel precedent for throwing out ALL software licenses and EULAs?

EULA's are probably a different "kettle of fish". But as for distribution licences why stop with software? Would this not be a perfectly good precedent for killing off things like DVD region codes...
Re:Ramifications by stripe · 2003-10-31 07:34 · Score: 1

I wonder what their masters in Redmond will think of this new tactic. If it even looks like it could hold water and that they could invalidate EULA's it would be a major shake up of the software industry.
Re:Ramifications by $javamaniac · 2003-10-31 11:15 · Score: 1

Closed source software is a recent aberration -- one that can credibly be largely attributed to none other than [drum roll] good ole uncle Bill! This is documented in great and boring detail by Stallman et al in their justifications of the FSF.
In the days before widespread microcomputer availability, it was normal, when a business had software developed or customised, for the source code to be supplied and for that particular incarnation of the software (assuming it to be a derivative work) to become the property of the business that commissioned and paid for it.

So invalidation of copyright law as currently applied to software could reasonably be regarded as a return to normal. It would also be extremely amusing to see this upset the RIAA's grubby little applecart.
Re:Ramifications by Ciggy · 2003-11-03 10:18 · Score: 0

If they invalidate the GPL in this manner and get away with it, won't they just have the effect of providing legel precedent for throwing out ALL software licenses and EULAs?

But if they don't, then it provides a stronger basis for [click-through] EULAs?

--

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet;
A chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell
Re:Ramifications by shadowcabbit · 2003-11-13 16:15 · Score: 1

That's it, of course! SCO's not being funded by Microsoft, they're being funded by extreme Free-Software cyberterrorists! Programs want to be free (as in speech)! ...but seriously.

Law school teaches you that it doesn't matter if you're proving someone innocent of a murder or proving 2+2=5 -- you must be right, because you convinced a dozen yokels of that point.

--
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...

Conspiracy Theory by TexVex · 2003-10-31 03:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

I would like to once again put forth the theory that SCO is in fact on the side of open source -- that what is really going on is, they are just working a win-win-win deal where they make a little bank while getting the GPL upheld in a court of law as they go out of business with a bang!

--
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.

Re:Conspiracy Theory by happyfrogcow · 2003-10-31 03:37 · Score: 1

hehe. i had thought about that too. I can almost believe it too. I can just imagine the faces of slashdot when we all realize we've been had, but not in the malicious way we thought we had been. Then we all proclaim Darl as the savior of.. .

oh wait. no, he's still a manipulative @$$h013.

The time has come by CRiMSON · 2003-10-31 03:28 · Score: 1

Everyone wanted a test of the GPL, well here it is. Now we will see just how enforacble the GPL really is.

--
oogly boogly!

The MASSIVE problem with SCO's actions... by Rahga · 2003-10-31 03:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

Is that right now, their actions are in violation of the GPL, and while they can claim that they believe the GPL is unenforcable and void, that does not mean it is until the courts say so.

Essentially, what they are doing RIGHT NOW is as wrongheaded as pirating and selling the latest sets of MSDN.

The other issue is their notion that an invalid GPL means that all copyrights on Linux source code also becomes invalid and the work enters public domain. I'm no copyright expert, but I really doubt that's the way this works in the real world.

Re:The MASSIVE problem with SCO's actions... by Pfhreakaz0id · 2003-10-31 03:31 · Score: 1

.. there's someone who doesn't have the latest sets of MSDN?

--
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
Re:The MASSIVE problem with SCO's actions... by Shimbo · 2003-10-31 04:01 · Score: 1

The other issue is their notion that an invalid GPL means that all copyrights on Linux source code also becomes invalid and the work enters public domain. I'm no copyright expert, but I really doubt that's the way this works in the real world.

And it seems a curious thing to argue, even from their twisted point of view. Sure, it weakens IBMs counterclaim. However, it also implies that all the code they allegedly own in Linux has been effectively released into the public domain by themselves. Unless they mean: all code released under the GPL is in the public domain, except ours.

What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine too.
-- Rule of Acquisition #42
Re:The MASSIVE problem with SCO's actions... by Lumpy · 2003-10-31 04:09 · Score: 1

no.

if you invalidate the GPL then standard copyright takes effect and NOBODY can distribute anything without permission from the author.

I.E. SCO is throwing themselves on the AXE.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:The MASSIVE problem with SCO's actions... by mark-t · 2003-10-31 04:19 · Score: 1

if you invalidate the GPL then standard copyright takes effect and NOBODY can distribute anything without permission from the author.
Whether or not the GPL applies, the code is copyrighted, and nobody can distribute without permission from the author. It just so happens that the GPL outlines what constitutes getting permission (agreeing to the terms of the license)

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:The MASSIVE problem with SCO's actions... by abe+ferlman · 2003-10-31 04:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Essentially, what they are doing RIGHT NOW is as wrongheaded as pirating and selling the latest sets of MSDN.

It's actually worse, because the price you pay for free software is so much more reasonable than the monopoly rents (not to mention restrictive licensing!) Microsoft is charging. No sharecropping for me thanks.

--
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Re:The MASSIVE problem with SCO's actions... by greenegg77 · 2003-10-31 05:28 · Score: 2, Funny

The SCO Group (SCOX) announced today that it will begin selling unauthorized copies of Microsoft's (MSFT) MSDN CD's. "We believe that the license that Microsoft distributes their software under is unenforceable and void," said SCO CEO Daryl McBride. "As an added incentive, we will also begin selling Milli Vanilli CD's since they weren't worth licensing in the first place."

--
--- This .sig for sale - $500 OBO.
Re:The MASSIVE problem with SCO's actions... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:13 · Score: 0

Actually no.

If SCO's insane interpretation were correct and the GPL was unenforcable and void, they could just ignore it. In fact, that is what they're doing. The question doesn't arise until they actually get sued.

But as a general rule, if you know a contract (or some parts of a contract) to be invalid, you don't have to abide by it. You don't need to ask a court unless you aren't sure (even then, I'm not sure how you would even do that in practice). Obviously if you're wrong, you can get sued and lose...

So basically SCO's actions are merely compatible with what they claim to believe.
Re:The MASSIVE problem with SCO's actions... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:17 · Score: 0

Actually, didn't this kind of argument come up with SCO on the other side? I remember someone early on saying that even if SCO's claims were true, the "secret" is already out, so the code cannot be recalled (basically public domain). The same thign would seem to apply to linux developers whose code has been released. they may still have thier copyright, but the code is still out and cannot be just yanked back under closed doors (or licences as the case may be)
Re:The MASSIVE problem with SCO's actions... by mpe · 2003-10-31 07:20 · Score: 1

Whether or not the GPL applies,

The GPL applies until actual statute or case law says it dosn't.

the code is copyrighted, and nobody can distribute without permission from the author. It just so happens that the GPL outlines what constitutes getting permission (agreeing to the terms of the license)

Disagreeing with a distribution licence does not grant permission and it certainly does not transfer ownership of copyright. If SCO's argument were accepted it would void the entire concept of copyright.

Real Strategy? by MrLint · 2003-10-31 03:28 · Score: 1

Ive been starting to wonder about SCO's massively brain damaged antics lately and im wondering why. Im starting to think its all a scheme to shuffle as much money as possible to someone's law firm before the company implodes from planned stupidity.

In other news, i hope SCOs investor wake up and realize that SCO itself is now willfully violating the law.

It's time by Digital+Dharma · 2003-10-31 03:29 · Score: 1

For me to release those pictures I took of Cary Sherman and Darl McBride getting it on in the copier room at the last Xmas party.

--
End of Line.

But... by siskbc · 2003-10-31 03:29 · Score: 1

So far this was between IBM and SCO. However, now the major copyright holders for the GNU/Linux system can assert themselves.

...the only interested one I can think of with the requisite deep pockets is....IBM. It certainly gives more to any further action by IBM though.

--

-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

Re:But... by the_bahua · 2003-10-31 03:36 · Score: 1

Among many other well-monied companies, HP and Oracle both have a bested interest in Linux. Expect to see them get active.
Re:But... by the_bahua · 2003-10-31 03:38 · Score: 1

meh, make that "vested," and make me proofread hasty posts.
Re:But... by walt-sjc · 2003-10-31 03:53 · Score: 1

Redhat has a true vested interest as they employ several kernel developers as does IBM. They still have some money...

Frankly MANY MANY companies have GPL'ed code in Linux (both in the kernel and all the other applications distributed with Linux.)

Hrmm by acehole · 2003-10-31 03:29 · Score: 1, Funny

words and phrases you might need for your letter:

* bitch
* open source
* crack & crack pipe
* fuckyou
* GPL
* upside your head
* enema
* what is up, my homie?
* copyright
* fraud
* federal 'pounding in the ass' jail

--
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!

Re:Hrmm by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:34 · Score: 1

It's "federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison", watch the movie again.
Re:Hrmm by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:43 · Score: 0

You're both wrong its:

"federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison"

Small claims court by Lane.exe · 2003-10-31 03:29 · Score: 1, Insightful

Take 'em to court! Cease and decist letters are one thing, but SCO is willfully violating the IP of millions of programs by violating the license under which code was written and released. Because GPL is not public domain, SCO is not free to do with this code as they please -- they too must abide by the license. A license is a conract, and the GPL doesn't *have* to be tested in court. If two parties enter into a legal contract (which the GPL is, because it doesn't violate any existing laws) then they must abide by the contract or face the consequences.

And since SCO is now not abiding by that contract, by releasing GPL'd code under their own license, they can be sued for breach of contract. I'm not sure what someone could actually pull for monetary damages, but it would be the show of support for OSS that such suits would bring. SCO might even be balked into small, out-of-court settlements to save time.

Basically, this is the same thing that happens anytime someone uses a proprietary license. It's not really a copyright so much as it is a contract -- it says Person A will only do X and not Y with software P. SCO is doing Y with software P, and this leaves them in breach.

I suggest Legal Engine as a good resource for how to file small claims in Utah.

--
IAALS.

Role model by Koos+Baster · 2003-10-31 03:29 · Score: 1

Wow. SCO has finally decided to take their arduous taks as role-model evil company seriously. Mr. Balmer, mr. Gates, please look closely because you might learn something.
</SARCASM>
--
Nothing is illegal if one hundred businessmen decide to do it -- Andrew Young

Ignore it? by jevring · 2003-10-31 03:29 · Score: 1

Honestly, SCO just seems to grasp for more and more desperate measures, none of which actually do anything, and most are semi-illegal at best.
And since SCO hasn't been able to prove their case, or that they even HAVE a case, I think this is just something we can ignore, and hopefully, it'll go away.
Atleast untill SCO actually DOES something worth our collective effort.
They dont have any bite, only bark...

--
Move sig!

Asswipes by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:29 · Score: 0

Asswipes. I wonder long before they accuse Linus of being a terrorist.

Re:Asswipes by azzy · 2003-10-31 03:44 · Score: 1

Hey, copyright that phrase, so if SCO does use it, you can sue them!

It would be more to the point... by Tenareth · 2003-10-31 03:30 · Score: 1

If Darl would go on National TV, hold out both hands with the middle fingers up and shout "You could not have written better code than us, so FUCK YOU!" "WAAAHHH!!!"

--
This sig is the express property of someone.

I must congratulate SCO. by pecosdave · 2003-10-31 03:30 · Score: 4, Funny

I didn't know it was possible to invent a better kick me sign.

--
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.

Re:I must congratulate SCO. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:55 · Score: 0

I didn't know it was possible to invent a better kick me sign.

And it was SOOOOOO simple! They simply put it infront of their testicles.

Amazing!

Lets All register with SCO by Avihson · 2003-10-31 03:30 · Score: 1

Bolster their claims of a customer base by going here and registering as a bogus customer.
Can we /. a database?

Re:Lets All register with SCO by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:43 · Score: 0

Customer? I though we were developers! After all, WE WROTE WHAT THEY ARE SELLING!!! We should have legal right to join the developers forum and have our say. We should have the right to /. every developer forum they have, but as a "customer" your skating on thin ice! Malitious pranks can land you in jail, but it you ever wrote a line of code that is in one of their products they sell then /. away!!
Re:Lets All register with SCO by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:10 · Score: 0

Er, not sure registering with SCO is a good idea right now. They'll spin it as people embracing their licensing terms, thus validating their claims. And stuffing their database with junk would be (justifiably) interpreted as an attack by open source zealots, which wouldn't really win open source any fans in the business world.

With each new story on SCO, I'm becoming more and more confident that they're hanging themselves.

SCO smells by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:30 · Score: 0

like that raunchy fart I just let go. Wow, it stinks bad.

death by 1000 cuts by Ffakr · 2003-10-31 03:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think the idea of individual developers taking SCO to small claims court is actually a really good idea.
Small claims verdicts are usually not all that tough to win. You go in, show you own the code, show the judge the GPL that was attached to the code. Of course SCO won't/can't send out a lawer for every regional small claims court session so they pretty much default.
You get a 1000 developers winning $1,500 a pop against SCO and it starts to hurt the bottom line.
Not to mention an ever growing list of losses against the corporation.

--

I'm not feeling witty so bite me

Re:death by 1000 cuts by happyfrogcow · 2003-10-31 03:47 · Score: 1

and the press release that goes along with ticker names for stock research :)

"Eleventy Billion lawsuits have been filed against SCO (SCOX) today from the widespread community of software developers who liscensed their software under the GPL.
In releated news, Darl McBride was seen buying adult diapers, presumably for himself and the board of directors.
This press release contains forward looking statements... bla bla bla"

btw, didn't gator the spyware change their name? you might want to add that to your sig.
Re:death by 1000 cuts by Zathrus · 2003-10-31 03:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Small claims court isn't going to touch copyright issues. For one thing, copyright is a federal law, not a state one, much less county. A county small claims court has no jurisdiction, and there is no such thing as a federal small claims court.

If you actually want to sue SCO you have to do it the right way -- file a lawsuit in your local federal court.

Have fun. Enjoy going broke from lawyers fees. Expect to be fired from your job because you need to be in court so often (if you didn't hire a lawyer). Understand that whatever the ruling is, if it goes to appellate court you cannot represent yourself (at least in criminal cases; not sure about civil). Oh, and proving ownership of the code should be enough fun, since SCO's lawyers are likely to hound you over whether or not you actually wrote it, what sources (books, consultation on IRC, etc.) you used while composing it, and so forth.

For the love of GNU, stay out of this. Do not let SCO drag you or any other OSS advocates into court. Sadly, this may force FSF's hand and cause them to enter into a lawsuit with SCO as representation for all of the developers that contributed to anything SCO is relicensing. I really think this is what SCO wants, although I cannot fathom what they expect to gain from it. Are their lawyers really that certain that the GPL can be broken, and that the judge will rule that the code is actually public domain? (note - this would still allow them to sue over copyright violation, since you cannot place anything into the public domain that is not yours. Of course, this tenant of copyright law is one of the parts that strengthens the GPL, which they're now trying to break.)
Re:death by 1000 cuts by lildogie · 2003-10-31 03:56 · Score: 1

IANAL, but isn't that the sort of thing that kicks in a class action suit?
Re:death by 1000 cuts by musikit · 2003-10-31 03:56 · Score: 0

Sadly, this may force FSF's hand and cause them to enter into a lawsuit with SCO as representation for all of the developers that contributed to anything SCO is relicensing. wouldn't it be really funny if they planned this so that they could funnel the SCO money to the FSF in a legal manor? SCO: FSF we're gonna create these outrageous claims about us owning linux FSF: OK SCO: in 1 year sue us and when you win all SCO's money is your SCO goes bankrupt and doesn't need to pay back it's backer and loans. FSF: GOOD PLAN!!!!
Re:death by 1000 cuts by griblik · 2003-10-31 04:47 · Score: 1

Any british solicitors out there? I know that in the UK, you automatically win any small claims (claiming < 1000GBP) case if the other side doesn't show up, but I don't know if you can take this kind of thing to small claims...

--
Warning: May contain nuts
Re:death by 1000 cuts by martyros · 2003-10-31 05:13 · Score: 1

Well first of all, this should be able to be put into a class action lawsuit; between FSF and EFF, there ought to be enough money to pay for lawyers to do that.
Secondly, even if the developers do try each case individually: sure, each coder has to pay for his own lawyer; but SCO has to pay for a team of lawyers for each coder as well. I can certainly afford a few thousand dollars for something so important; if I'm willing to spend so much of my free time writing Linux kernel code, I'd be willing to spend at least as much fighting to keep it free. Can SCO afford to handle 1000 cases all at once?
I don't really know what it is SCO's up to; it's clear that they're doing this song-and-dance for effect, but I have no idea what that effect is supposed to be. But I can't but think that SCO being sued into oblivion, and the GPL being held up in court, would be a great thing for the GPL in general.

--
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
Re:death by 1000 cuts by druske · 2003-10-31 06:16 · Score: 1

"...this may force FSF's hand and cause them to enter into a lawsuit with SCO as representation for all of the developers that contributed to anything SCO is relicensing. I really think this is what SCO wants, although I cannot fathom what they expect to gain from it..."
Well, let's see, they could get RMS in the courtroom and let him start ranting. If they want to portray the open source community as a bunch of crazies, a circus like that could be helpful to them. ;)
Re:death by 1000 cuts by temojen · 2003-10-31 07:02 · Score: 1
Here's two Scenarios:
- - 1000 developers file against SCO.
  - in case 1000 SCO files a continuance pending the outcome of 999,
  - in case 999 SCO files a continuance pending the outcome of 998,
  - in case 998 SCO files a continuance pending the outcome of 997,
  - ...
  - in case 1 SCO files a continuance pending the outcome of SCO vs IBM
  - MSFT, RBC, Power Corp, Haliburton, et al pump up SCO's warchest to insane numbers
  - SCO wins SCO vs IBM
  - The other cases fall like dominoes
  - The way is paved for Carnivore, TIA, Echelon, DRM, backdoors in Cryptography, "Remote Shutdown" of freenet nodes, etc
- IBM, SGI, HP, The FSF, Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, Hans Reiser, and thousands of other contributors to Linux and the GNU toolchain etc form a class & file a class action suit against SCO. The class can afford far more legal expenses than each individual rights holder due to donations from non rights-holding users of software libre.
Re:death by 1000 cuts by John+Hasler · 2003-10-31 07:18 · Score: 1

> Secondly, even if the developers do try each case
> individually: sure, each coder has to pay for his
> own lawyer;

Not necessarily. A legal fund could be set up and pro bono lawyers recruited.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:death by 1000 cuts by martyros · 2003-10-31 07:59 · Score: 1

Yeah, you're right -- I guess I really meant, "provide for" or "arrange for". I do kernel hacking for my research, but none of my stuff is in the mainline kernel (yet); and if I weren't a graduate student, I'd gladly help some other hacker sue.

--
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:32 · Score: 0, Offtopic

This is a violation of copyright, since only the GPL gives them any rights to distribute the code. Time for every single developer who has contributed code to the kernel to send a Cease and Desist letter to SCO.

Why aren't you calling for cease and desist letters for music pirates? Why is it OK to violate RIAA company's copyrights but not Linux??

Re:Cry me a river by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:01 · Score: 0

It is only a problem now because of the negative effects it could have on everyone. Think about all the people that are pirating music, they are getting something out of it while screwing someone else. This matter is similar in that someone is getting screwed but it will not be the big corporations, it will be us. The problem is the same, just hurts to look at it like that.

Amazing by Fished · 2003-10-31 03:32 · Score: 1

Amazing what $50 million can buy. The gotcha is that, by default under copyright law, one has no distribution rights whatsoever. So, if SCO holds the GPL to be invalid, then they have no rights and can't redistribute the code. It's one or the other, it can't be both.

The only reason I can see for SCO's actions is that they have a vested interest in destroying Linux, and the only person with such an interest iwth $50mil is Microsoft. Let's stop protending that the enemy is anyone buy Bill Gates. Darl is nothing but a puppet.

--
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1

Re:Amazing by IM6100 · 2003-10-31 04:22 · Score: 1

You're wrong.

There are so many different possible entities with an interest in breaking/debunking the GPL that they're uncountable. Many interests with deep pockets wouldn't mind things staying the way they are in the software business.

Trying to turn it into a 'blame Microsoft' issue will just get you branded an 'anti Micro$oft nutcase' by the main public.

--
A Good Intro to NetBS

SCO Was in total violation anyway by JamesSharman · 2003-10-31 03:32 · Score: 5, Informative

To understand the extent of the hole that SCO have dug for themselves, you have to look at the full extent of GPL software that is out there that they are relying on, and then read clause 5 of the GPL.

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

Now read it again. You are not required too accept this licence (they don't, they claim it is contrary to the us constitution, us copyright law yada yada yada). But nothing else gives you permission to modify or distribute the program. Considering the wording of this in the GPL (IANAL so please correct me if I'm wrong) this paragraph effectively removes all rights for SCO to distribute ANY GPL software, not just Linux.

Lets go on and look at another clause.

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on 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. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

You may not impose any further restrictions (which is obviously exactly what they are trying to do). Incidentally the first bit states that a copy is licensed by the original licensor (not the distributor) which in the case of the contested code is IBM, this both means but SCO should be going after IBM and not end users, and in my interpretation also suggests that SCO did not release there code under the GPL by distributing Linux (if there actually is any in there) since IBM would still have been the licensor.

And now the bombshell that it's seems SCO are completely unaware of.

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If you agree to SCO's new licence you are agreeing that they have a right to charge a royalty. However not only is the issuer (SCO) breaching GPL but the recipient would be if they then distributed (since they are accepting that a licence is payable to SCO) so in effect SCO are in double breach.

IANAL, But I wish I were, someone is going to make some serious money fighting this one.

Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by julesh · 2003-10-31 04:03 · Score: 1

You are not required too accept this licence (they don't, they claim it is contrary to the us constitution, us copyright law yada yada yada).

My understanding of the situation is that they do accept the licence, but claim parts of it are unenforceable. Probably most of the parts that you quoted in your message.

Now, as to why those parts should be unenforceable, that's an entirely separate matter, and yet another one they haven't made clear...

Also, the question of whether or not parts of the license being unenforceable would void the entire license are far from clear.

IANAL, too...
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by k98sven · 2003-10-31 04:16 · Score: 1

Considering the wording of this in the GPL (IANAL so please correct me if I'm wrong) this paragraph effectively removes all rights for SCO to distribute ANY GPL software, not just Linux.

I doubt it.. Yes, it *could* be interpreted that way.. but I don't think it's intended to be interpreted that way.
'Accepting the license' is intended to mean respecting the terms of the license for that particular piece of software.

I don't think we want it to be interpreted any other way either.
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by Deven · 2003-10-31 04:24 · Score: 1

SCO has basically told the court that they don't accept the GPL, so it should be a moot point...

--

Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by nanojath · 2003-10-31 04:26 · Score: 1

You pegged this one directly. The issue of "license" is not codified in copyright law per se. However, there is extensive precedent in the practical world of using this kind of explicit license to allow people to reproduce things under specific, defined circumstances - stating that copying is okay for non-commercial purposes, for that matter the little blurb in the front of a novel that says it's okay to reproduce for the sake of a review.

But what the hell. Let's just pretend that SCO is right, that layering a license over your copyright is not legal. The next big flaw in their argument is that Linux should therefor revert to the public domain. Bzzzt! I'm sorry, that is incorrect. In fact, it's just plain crazy, and stupid.

A thousand random hackers can hassle them, Linus can sue them, but they'll be pining for the irritation of that swarm of gnats when the main attraction comes - IBM handing them their asses on a platter.

Someone is giving SCO such insanely terrible legal advice that I'm starting to credit the idea that it's actually sabotage. I think this is the beginning of the end.

--
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by Spoing · 2003-10-31 04:36 · Score: 1

SCO has basically told the court that they don't accept the GPL, so it should be a moot point...
SCO can say just about anything they want, though I admit that saying they will ignore the GPL isn't a minor thing and may be open them to lawsuits.
If they actually violate the GPL, then they can be sued for that violation (no maybe about it).

--
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by Dun+Malg · 2003-10-31 04:45 · Score: 1

Also, the question of whether or not parts of the license being unenforceable would void the entire license are far from clear.
Yeah, at that point it's going to come down to a judge. In other cases where contract provisions have been found unenforceable and the whole contract is declared null and void, it has generally fallen one of two ways. Either the judge says "no contract, no deal; both of you go home", or "party A paid party B for (whatever), so party A gets to keep it". The latter happens under some sort of "implied contract", under the premise that when you buy something, you reasonably and prudently expect it to be yours to use. But since GPL'd software is FREE(as in beer), it's hard to argue implied contract. I guess it'd come down to a question of whether a reasonable and prudent person would, in a judge's mind, expect to get free(beer) OS/software without any limitations on its use.
IANAL either, but it's sure amusing to try and think like one sometimes.

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:51 · Score: 0

You can't really apply the GPL (right now) on their redist of Linux with a more restrictive license because they are asserting the GPL is invalid. This argument may be sound given the GPL holds up in court, but right now there are multiple issues that have to be resolved first.
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by mjh · 2003-10-31 04:51 · Score: 1

Considering the wording of this in the GPL (IANAL so please correct me if I'm wrong) this paragraph effectively removes all rights for SCO to distribute ANY GPL software, not just Linux.
IANAL either, but I don't think that's the case. The license that you're looking at came with a specific piece of software. That license is only granting rights for that peice of software. If you disagree with the license being granted you for that piece of software, then you are not allowed to modify & distribute that piece of software. There's nothing in there that says if you disagree with the license for software A, that you're not allowed to modify and copy software B. Why? Because the copyrights for A are owned by someone other than the copyrights for B, and each person must agree or disagree with those licenses granted by each copyright owner.
Disagreeing with the GPL for software A does not mean that you disagree with the GPL for all other software that is licensed under it. Let's take TiVo for example. They agree to and comply with the terms of the GPL for the Linux kernel that they've modified and distribute. But they do not agree with the terms of MythTV (which I believe is GPL), so they don't modify and distribute it. And, more importantly, they don't incorporate Myth's code into their proprietary software because they don't wish to comply with the terms applied to that code. Just because they disagree with the license for MythTV software does not mean they are barred from distributing Linux.

--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by Asic+Eng · 2003-10-31 04:55 · Score: 1

I think SCO is making entirely bogus claims, but this sounds a bit like a circular argument to me. Let's say you accept this: You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it.
Ok, let's say they take that view. Now the second part: However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. - Well that's what the license says, in other words the document which they are not accepting.
So I think, if you are trying to find out what happens if the GPL does not hold up in court, it doesn't make sense to analyze further requirements of the GPL. You'd instead have to look at general copyright law.
Similarly if the code was not actually property of the people who attached the GPL license, then the GPL would not apply - you can't rightfully attach a license to something which doesn't belong to you. Again, in this case to look at provisions of the GPL does not help. If code was generated by a combination of GPL code and stolen (yeah right) SCO code, than the person generating that code has no rights to it. Neither GPL rights nor copyrights.
On the other hand if they are found to have no case, and they are violating the GPL - e.g. when distributing gcc, then the gcc contributors should have a way to sue. I wasn't able to find that on their page though. (Might have missed it.)
The Register says: the SCO Group is to resume distributing Linux, but only if you agree to a new "IP license" which implicitly supports SCO's intellectual property claims.
However here is the download page: http://www.sco.com/support/linux_info.html - where is the restrictive license?
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by Twylite · 2003-10-31 05:16 · Score: 4, Informative

I'm going to be somewhat of a Devil's Advocate here. The problem with the GPL is the same as the problem with any shrink-wrap license: there is a combination of the private law of contract and the property law of copyright at work.

Consider the following simple license: "This software is Copyright. All Rights Reserved. You may receive and use a single copy of this software is you have paid the author $20. You agree to waive your fair use rights."

What does that mean, legally? Copyright law gives the holder certain rights, and gives the user of a legitimate copy certain rights. Now the holder has attempted to use his rights in conjunction with (a presumed) demand for the product and the law of contract to remove the statutory rights of the user.

So the user takes a screenshot of a menu from the program for a review in his blog. Now what? Arguably the user has not infringed on the copyright because fair use is a statutory defense against infringement. But the user has broken the contract. The effect of breaking the contract is (typically) to invalidate it and make the breaker liable for damages. Only the breaking of the contract, in this case, also terminates the right afforded to the user to use the legitimate copy. So by keeping the screenshot in the blog, the user is infringing copyright, because fair use only applies if you have a legitimate copy. Nasty.

More subtly, this contract also contradicts the doctrine of first sale. It requires payment directly to the author, and in the case of infringement the "onwership" of the copy is revoked, and cannot be transferred.

Let's look at this from a different angle. Another author releases his work into the public domain, but only distributes it to his web site, where he has a click-wrap license agreement: "This work is in the public domain and you may download and use one copy, but you may not copy it, distribute or publish it, or modify it in any way". No use of copyright at all, just the law of contract. Would this contract be considered legally valid? If so, is there a point in copyright at all?

When Microsoft claims their license locks an operating system to a particular hardware system, we object and say the license is invalid. But many of the same arguments hold against the GPL because ultimately the GPL, like a commercial EULA, is a combination of contractual and copyright law, and is largely untested ground.

--
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:23 · Score: 0

"The effect of breaking the contract is (typically) to invalidate it and make the breaker liable for damages. Only the breaking of the contract, in this case, also terminates the right afforded to the user to use the legitimate copy."

#include "IANAL.h";

Except, that you do not need a license to *use* something that is copyrighted. You need a license to distribute copies of something that is copyrighted. If the license you wrote above were invalidated, it would default to standard copyright (same as the GPL). The difference here is that the GPL gives more rights than copyright laws default to, while your license gives less.
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by Twylite · 2003-10-31 05:45 · Score: 1

#include "IANAL.h" but I just wrote my exam on Intellectual Property ...

Possessing a copy that is not legitimate is infringement. If you make the copy, that is direct infringement. If you accepted an illegitimate copy, even in good faith, that is indirect infringement. A prerequisite for using a copy is possession, thus use requires suitable permission from the copyright holder.

However, you do make an interesting point in this specific case: if you already have a legitimate copy and take an action that is delictual with regard to the copyright holder, do you (or can you) lose the right (which was premised on a contract with the holder)?

I would answer that as follows: this is a reciprocal contract in which the user agrees to (1) pay $20 and (2) waive the right to fair use, in exchange for which the copyright holder provides a (legitimate) copy. If the user exercises his/her fair use right, this is a breach of contract. The copyright holder could demand performance, damages, and/or another remedy.

It is possible that the use would keep the right to use the legitimate copy; it is also possible that a remedy would involve depriving the user of that right. I would agree that, on closer inspection, you do not automatically lose your right to use the copy.

Let me throw in a curve ball: what if the original license included a penalty clause "If the user breaches this contract (s)he shall not have the right to make use of the copy acquired in terms of the contract". This is typical in commercial EULAs.

--
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by Deven · 2003-10-31 06:37 · Score: 1

How can they be sued for violating a contract (the GPL) not entered into? If they don't accept the GPL, they're not bound by its terms. However, it leaves them wide open for a claim of copyright infringement, since the GPL was the only license available...

--

Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by RabidChipmunk · 2003-10-31 06:38 · Score: 1

3rd variant:
Party B provided the good or service and Party A never paid. Party A has to give it back or pay some court negotiated restitution.

This is the situation SCO is in.

--
This is not a political statement. This is not legal advice. It's a frick'n Slasdot post. However: I'm Running For
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by Watts+Martin · 2003-10-31 07:19 · Score: 1

While all the standard disclaimers apply, I think that if SCO only claims the Linux kernel falls under the DMBL (Darl's Magic Beans License), they can distribute all the other GPL software that makes up the GNU/Linux system without legal difficulty as long as they don't violate provisions of the GPL in doing so. The DMBL kernel with the GPL userland utilities is "mere aggregation" in GPL terms (section 2).
The only real question is whether or not the GPL requires you to make the source code for GPL software you distribute available from your servers rather than simply saying, "the unmodified code is available at [public server]" when asked. This may violate section 3 of the GPL, but if the identical source code is widely available from other documented sources, it might be hard to make stick.
This doesn't affect the legality of the DMBL, obviously, but the call for GPL developers to send cease-and-desist orders to SCO may be irrelevant to anyone who isn't a kernel contributor. To those who are, of course, it'd fall on deaf ears, since I suspect SCO will do their damndest to claim that their all-powerful Unix licenses reach forward through time and cover all changes made to "their" source code in perpetuity.
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by Spoing · 2003-10-31 08:23 · Score: 1

Clarification: If they follow the GPL -- yet in public say they do not -- they are not in violation of the GPL.
If in both act and deed they do not follow the GPL and still distribute the software that has a GPL licence, then they are in breach and you are correct.
My point was that they may say one thing and do another.
What I've read is that they are in violation of the GPL right now. The main reason is that they have an additional SCO licence that attempts to cover the GPLed software as well as non-GPLed software and that licence claims ownership of the GPLed code and attempts to ignore the GPL.

--
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by ShinmaWa · 2003-10-31 10:05 · Score: 1

What I've read is that they are in violation of the GPL right now. The main reason is that they have an additional SCO licence that attempts to cover the GPLed software as well as non-GPLed software and that licence claims ownership of the GPLed code and attempts to ignore the GPL.

Can you quote this license? I've been all over SCO's website and I can't find it.

The only thing I can find is a reference to "product license number" and "product license registration", which seem to be nothing more than a tracking system for those who have paid to use SCO's servers and those who have not. RedHat does the exact same thing. So does Mandrake. This is completely valid under the GPL. You can restrict downloads to only those people you choose to allow to download it. The GPL is very explicit about that. The webpage also claims the SRPMs are available for download to the same people they are distributing the binaries to. This is in compliance with the GPL as well. I can't find a GPL violation here at all.

Everyone is ASSUMING that there's this other license out there that is a great big GPL violation and the Register has accused SCO straight out for that, but no one (including the article) can actually PRODUCE THIS LICENSE!

--
The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by John+Hasler · 2003-10-31 10:18 · Score: 1

The GPL differs fundamentally from all of your examples in that it does not require you to give up any of the rights you would have in it's absence. In fact, you need not accept it at all unless you intend to distribute the subject work or derivatives of it. What it does do is offer to grant you certain rights beyond those inherent in the legal possession of a copy of the subject work in return for your agreement to certain conditions on the distribution of copies and derivatives.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by RickHunter · 2003-10-31 10:49 · Score: 1

Sorry, no. If you don't accept the GPL, you default to ordinary copyright law and have no right to redistribute or modify at all. If you do accept the GPL, you have the right to redistribute and modify under certain controlled conditions.
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by dmaxwell · 2003-10-31 10:58 · Score: 1

SCO's ftp site and installation media contains a plethora or GPLed software. I think it would be safe to say that all of the major GPLed projects are represented in their distribution schemes. KDE, SAMBA, the kernel devs, GNOME, you name it. If SCO is violating the GPL then the copyright holders of that code (some of which are deep pocketed corps) can have their asses for lunch.
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by Ian+Bicking · 2003-10-31 11:27 · Score: 1

I'm not sure exactly what your point is. You bring up various examples which don't really apply to the GPL. The GPL does not remove your fair use rights. The GPL does not restrict any rights. It only grants rights, which is why agreeing to the GPL is voluntary.
But copyright law is pretty clear -- you don't have the right to modify or redistribute/copy material that is protected by a copyright, without permission from its owner.
SCO isn't really arguing that the GPL is invalid. They are arguing that by distributing code under the GPL, it becomes part of the public domain. They are attacking the copyright of individual contributors. (So that haven't really forgotten paragraph 7)
Well, their other technique might be that if the GPL as a whole is invalid, then no one anywhere has permission to distribute GPL code, but obviously not everyone can be at fault for doing so, and it would be discriminatory for SCO to be punished specifically for that action when others were not.
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 13:04 · Score: 0

> But I wish I were, someone is going to make some serious money fighting this one.
Possibly not. What if SCO is kept as an empty shell? MS simply feeds it a steady stream of funds to keep the next day's legal action going. When SCO loses, it simply shuts up shop and Canopy moves onto the next thing. The copyright holders are left with the small amount of money in SCO, which was to pay for tomorrow's legal action nd only covers a fraction of the damages awarded.
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by Alsee · 2003-10-31 13:41 · Score: 1

Possessing a copy that is not legitimate is infringement.

Hahahahahahahaha.

If Tower Records decides to commit infringment, makes infringing copies of CDs, puts them on the shelves, and you buy one, you are NOT guilty of anything. Possestion of a copy that was created through infringment is not illegal. The act of creating that copy is infringement. Whoever created that copy leagally owes the copyright holder damages to compensate for the creation of that copy.

typical in commercial EULAs

The GPL is not an EULA. The GPL is an ordinary licence to reproduce and distribute. The GPL simply doesn't apply to you unless you choose to use it. EULA's are based on a legal fiction of a "licence to use" and they try to FORCE it to apply based on a legal fiction that merely buying a box means you've agreed to whatever contract they hide inside.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by Malcontent · 2003-10-31 14:07 · Score: 1

The FSF would like nothing better then to have the GPL be invalidated completely. It would mean that all EULAS are invalid. Like you said the GPL is just another EULA.

Imagine a world in which EULAs are not worth the paper they are written on. RMS would grin from ear to ear.

The beauty of the GPL is that it uses copyright low itself to threaten EULAS. You can't take down the GPL without taking down the foundations of all software licences and even copyright itself.

--
War is necrophilia.
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 14:33 · Score: 0

What is so hard to understand? You aren't even arguing the points of the parent. I know all the M$ fanboy mods need something to use thier biased modpoints on, but at least choose something a little more honest.
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by smiff · 2003-10-31 15:46 · Score: 1

Let's look at this from a different angle. Another author releases his work into the public domain, but only distributes it to his web site, where he has a click-wrap license agreement: "This work is in the public domain and you may download and use one copy, but you may not copy it, distribute or publish it, or modify it in any way". No use of copyright at all, just the law of contract. Would this contract be considered legally valid? If so, is there a point in copyright at all?
Suppose someone downloads the work, then distributes it in violation of the license agreement. The person they distributed to is not bound by the license, and so they can redistribute all they want. Copyright prevents this sort of behavior.
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by Spoing · 2003-10-31 18:16 · Score: 1

Everyone is ASSUMING that there's this other license out there that is a great big GPL violation and the Register has accused SCO straight out for that, but no one (including the article) can actually PRODUCE THIS LICENSE!
Point taken. I'm curious myself.

--
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway by goldfndr · 2003-10-31 20:20 · Score: 1
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on 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. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
IIRC, one of SCO's complaints was about how this last sentence made it seem like the FSF was the be-all end-all enforcement arm of the GPL, usurping other copyright holders' responsibility for enforcement. With some credit, I do find the wording a bit vague, and the GPL's explanation doesn't help much. Maybe I'm too dense?
- Who is a "third party" (recipient? their recipient? anyone other than FSF?)
- What does enforcement responsibility cover? (active checking? passive replying? forwarding?)
- Can someone elect to be "responsible"?
IANAL, maybe these are already well-defined and I'm just unsophisticated.
--
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)

Class action lawsuit. by MongooseCN · 2003-10-31 03:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

IANAL but how about every coder who has contributed to Linux, get together and file a class action lawsuit against SCO? SCO's current move violates everyones contribution to Linux. I think a lawsuit that combines as many FOSS developers as possible is the only way the GPL will get the financial backing to fight SCO.

Someone should put up a website that will coordinate this effort. Someone, or some group, should get a lawyer and discuss the problem. I would start something but I know nothing about law.

--

Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl

Re:Class action lawsuit. by DFJA · 2003-10-31 04:13 · Score: 1

Maybe I misunderstand the US legal system, but.....why a class action? Why not a huge number of individual actions in different jurisdictions? This would put a far higher burnen on their legal system, and could potentially drown them if enough actions against them were filed. I know that the outcome of one case could be applied to others, but this would take time to achieve, and in the meantime they could be drowned in a sea of legal red tape that would make it cheaper simply to drop the whole thing. OTOH, a case going to completion could show the GPL to be robust and obviate the 'need' for future litigation.

--
43 - For those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe and everything.
Re:Class action lawsuit. by SchroedingersCat · 2003-10-31 06:44 · Score: 1

It takes lawyers and money to bring a lawsuit to court. Class action is more preferable since it actually may interest some law firm to represent all these people. It is like a carpool. If each seeks $10k for infrigiment, you round up 100 of them then you got yourself 1 millon dollar lawsuit.
Re:Class action lawsuit. by earthforce_1 · 2003-10-31 06:53 · Score: 1

No, not a class action suit. Instead, every major kernel contributor (both corporate and individual) should seek a separate injuction in his or her juristdiction barring SCO from distributing whatever potions of the kernel they hold copyright over. Their lawyer will have to fight 1000+ simultaneous cases in jusrisdictions all over the world, or at least all over the USA. If even one of these injuctions are upheld and SCO continues to distribute, they are automatically in contempt.

--
My rights don't need management.
Re:Class action lawsuit. by flafish · 2003-10-31 08:00 · Score: 1

Get a case going in as many places as possible and require them to appear for depositions. (Daryl, etc....) Cost of the travel alone would make them wince.

Awesome! by Captain+Rotundo · 2003-10-31 03:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

I remember the simpler days. Back when falmes wars would be fought over the defendability of the GPL in court. Its was interresting conversation then but all speculation. Now we finally may have a chance to see it.

I say good! Let SCO violate the GPL blatently, and let it go to court. Lets put it all on the line and see once and for all what the courts say about the GPL. Of course I believe the GPL is rock solid and will prevail, but even if it doesn't we'll have it settled and know what has to change.

Imagine the insanity if all the code has to be re-licensed! - things like this point to everything that is wrong with our so-called "intellectual property" system. Sane people using common sense can clearly see the intent of the GPL, and if not it can be discussed easily. But we can't do it that way, why? because the world is filled with assholes and degenerates that will do every thing they can to lie and cheat and get away with it.

Too bad the legal system isn't as simple as common sense, then the authors of the code could go to a judge and say "any child with half a brain can see our intent, and that SCO is violating that intent" :) - of course the whole reason for the GPL wouldn't exist if it weren't for proprietary software makers exercising the 'rules' in a much harsher way.

Re:Awesome! by jifl · 2003-10-31 07:34 · Score: 1

Imagine the insanity if all the code has to be re-licensed!

More than most people imagine. To change the GPL terms on the Linux kernel you have to get permission from every copyright holder. It simply wouldn't be possible.

The FSF are in a better position as they sensibly insist on copyright assignment from all contributors to FSF projects.

12 percent of SCO's stock is short already. by Wakko+Warner · 2003-10-31 03:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

People are catching on.

- A.P.

--
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"

Re:12 percent of SCO's stock is short already. by sabNetwork · 2003-10-31 03:45 · Score: 1

Sorry, this is completely off topic, but where did you find this data? I'm not doubting you at all; I'd just like to take a look myself. It's interesting.
Re:12 percent of SCO's stock is short already. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:55 · Score: 0

Sorry, this is completely off topic, but where did you find this data?

C'mon. This is slashdot. He made it up of course.

(Are you new around here?)
Re:12 percent of SCO's stock is short already. by sqlrob · 2003-10-31 03:56 · Score: 1

I heard 31% the other day
Re:12 percent of SCO's stock is short already. by splaytree · 2003-10-31 04:08 · Score: 1

Detailed quote from today's Wall Street Journal:

Short Interest
Total On
9/8/03: 895,000
Total Shares For
Previous Month: 459,000
Short Interest
Ratio** 3
Short Interest as
% of Public Float 11.93%

Indemnification by Doesn't_Comment_Code · 2003-10-31 03:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

Has SCO made an offer to indemnify all the users or redistributors of their illegal license?

--

Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.

Argh by LCookie · 2003-10-31 03:34 · Score: 1

I think we should flood their asses off.. In case you don't remember: ping -f -s Damn them..

Oh... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:35 · Score: 0

Its On now, like a game of donkey kong. Linus will smote thoes bitches.

Unixware Free Download by idlethought · 2003-10-31 03:35 · Score: 2, Funny

I'm planning to set up a ftp site where you can freely download source and binaries of SCO's Unixware and other products.

It's all perfectly legal: You can only download if you agree to an additional license that allows you access to my proprietary IP that comprises part of the SCO products.

I can't tell you what that IP is, because I haven't looked. But I'm a pretty clever guy and there is bound to be something I've thought of in there- or at the very least something that I would have thought of had I bothered to think about it.

-- Learning from SCO one Crime at a Time.

Re:Unixware Free Download by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:38 · Score: 0

Well, I came very close to getting a free download of
Unixware. Before BSDi was sold off, they gave
away CDs of their program (timebombed after 2 months) to anybody
who requested it. The CD came with UnixWare libraries
and some programs i believe. Still have the CD around
here. I would put them on my NetBSD machine except I have
no programs that would require it. Maybe someday it
can be useful.
Re:Unixware Free Download by darksoulz · 2003-10-31 07:37 · Score: 1

Why not just run around yelling about SCO's license to Unixware being invalid, and then freely distribute it under a license that you create. It would be close if not the exact same thing that they are doing with Linux.

Although something tells me that Darl & Co would see it differently. Might be nice if it got taken to court and the similarities were pointed out. It would either give you free reign to distribute their code, or it would be a major hit against them.

Get a lawyer, class action style, sue by fudgefactor7 · 2003-10-31 03:35 · Score: 1

It's just that simple.

Call this redundant, trollish, flamebait, whatever you like, but you know that's the only way to deal with them. Fight fire with fire, goddamnit.

It's Halloween... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:35 · Score: 0

and it seems as though SCO just provided ESR with yet another opportunity to show his stuff. By this point, I think it's going to be a race to see who gets SCO's money. The choices so far:

(1) IBM, from countersuit, attorney's fees, etc. Obviously they have a bit of a head start.
(2) The foundation started by IBM and RedHat.
(3) FSF, for clear license violation.
(4) Lawyers.
(5) Linus, for license violation, and possibly libel.
(6) Almost any other major contributor for the same reasons as Linus (e.g. Alan Cox)

On your mark, get set, !

Put up or shut up by nurb432 · 2003-10-31 03:35 · Score: 1

Its time to test the GPL in court. Its what we all wanted.. now its time..

And abide by the ruling/consequences..

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

*grrrrr* by DaneelGiskard · 2003-10-31 03:36 · Score: 1

Wasn't there an article about the "FSF Hitman" lately? Time for them to get going I think.

Now they have crossed the line, that means war!

Said that, let me get back to work now.

SCO and IIM... connection? hmmmm.... by spazmolytic666 · 2003-10-31 03:37 · Score: 0

"I can assure you that those villains will recognize, will discover in appropriate time in the future how stupid they are and how they are pretending things which have never taken place."
- Iraqi Information Minister

"IBM's claims are barred by fraud, illegality, collusion, conspiracy and/or lack of clean hands,"
- SCO Information Minister

--
Help! I've fallen in a karma hole and I can't get up!

SUSE is partner of SCO by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:37 · Score: 0

well, look at who's SCO's partners in unitedLinux:
it's the most commercial and non-free distro, SuSE.
Their own code (e.g. their configuration program YaST) is purely closed source

Enforce your copyright by TheSwirlingMaelstrom · 2003-10-31 03:37 · Score: 1

Some people have been commenting that there is no point to sending Cease and Desist letters to SCO.

IANAL, but it seems to me that if you choose not to enforce your copyright when there is such a blatant violation of your license, you implicitly surrender your rights in this case. Just to ensure that your rights can be upheld in court, doesn't it make some sense to lodge a protest with SCO -- also ensuring that the letter of protest is duly recorded elsewhere?

Perhaps one of the FSF lawyers can draft such a letter template, allowing the individual copyright holders to reference their copyrighted code in the letter and demanding that SCO stop distributing the code. A copy to SCO and to FSF should ensure that it would stand up in court (again, IANAL).

--
#include "cunning_plan.h"

Mod parent up. by s20451 · 2003-10-31 03:37 · Score: 0

Me without mod points. Alas.

--
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.

Class-Action lawsuit by buckinm · 2003-10-31 03:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Couldn't someone start a class action lawsuit on behalf of everyone who has any code in the Linux kernel? Seems like it might be a good way to pool resources, especially if there is a lawyer out there who might take the case on a get-paid-if-you-win basis...

--
This isn't any ordinary darkness. It's advanced darkness.

This latest action adds nothing new by gvc · 2003-10-31 03:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

In spite of the fury in Groklaw and here, I don't see that SCO's actions constitute anything new. They have distributed and continue to distribute Linux. And they have claimed and continue to claim that they are entitled to additional licencing restrictions/revenues on this code.

As of this summer, they have claimed an additional encumbrance on Linux; that it contains their IP and that users have to pay them additional money. GPL is very clear that they can't distribute the software and also enforce these additional restrictions.

The fact that they are restricting their ftp downloads is moot. They continue to distribute code that they claim is not free and clear, and this distribution is not in accordance with the rights granted to it by the copyright holders.

In their response to IBM's complaint, SCO did not even attempt to claim that they were in compliance with the terms of the copyright holders. Instead their defense was to claim that those terms were invalid.

SCO has essentially stipulated that they operate outside GPL; this newest action seems insignificant to me.

Anyone have this license? by James+McP · 2003-10-31 03:38 · Score: 1

I can't get to anything that will show this "restrictive" license, just that they require re-registration verified by the license code that came with the software. So far that seems pretty much like any other paid-support site.

I'm not saying that SCO isn't addle-pated enough to re-license all GPL software but until I actually *see* this bit of lunacy I'm not unlimbering my pitchfork or lighting the torches.

--
I've been on slashdot so long I'm starting to get out of touch with the cool stuff if it ain't on slashdot.

Ahh it all becomes clear now! by razorguy0 · 2003-10-31 03:38 · Score: 1

SCO were in dire straits, no one was buying their product and united Linux wasn't really happening.

Someone wanted GPL broken

Someone came up with the bright idea that if SCO with their odd collection of copyrights starts a lawsuit then GPL will go to court and will end up invaliated in which case the whole Open source movement is screwed, and "real" software companies can get back to making money.

SCO is simply being sacrificed, obviously the board are doing quite nicely out of it and SCOs employees are probably being kept employed for a while longer.

So everyone's a winner!

unless the GPL stands up... but then SCO is still dead and the investors behind it are still making off with the cash they made while the stock price was high

Already have by nuggz · 2003-10-31 03:39 · Score: 1

They have accused the GPL of violating US export regulations.
Exporting to certain hostile regimes is illegal, the GPl permits it.

Re:Already have by Tony+Hoyle · 2003-11-01 01:36 · Score: 1

The GPL can't grant rights you don't have under the law, in fact IIRC there's even a paragraph stating this.

Plus exporting to certain hostile regimes is *not* illegal unless the software contains strong encryption, anyway.
Re:Already have by nuggz · 2003-11-01 02:39 · Score: 1

Really I didn't know the US could sell stuff to Cuba.

We need some changes by mao+che+minh · 2003-10-31 03:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

In between the absurdity and jokes, we have forgotten how serious and profound this whole fiasco is. It's pretty sad when a collection of companies can't defeat a community-developed operating system, so they must resort to dramtic and exotic legal tactics. All of those billions of dollars, all of those employees, and they can't beat an operating system that is largely developed by volunteers.

What's really sad is that they are allowed to get away with it. In Germany, SCO has already been prevented from spreading lies and making baseless allegations in public. I enjoy and respect the liberty that is "freedom of speech", but I wouldn't categorize what SCO, Microsoft, and Sun are doing as merely "freely speaking".

Re:We need some changes by babyrat · 2003-10-31 05:00 · Score: 1

Microsoft, and Sun are doing as merely "freely speaking".

What exactly are Microsoft and Sun doing?
Re:We need some changes by Malcontent · 2003-10-31 14:10 · Score: 1

Funding SCO. It's like when the so called islamic charities fund terrorists.

The exact same thing. MS is funding SCO terrorism.

--
War is necrophilia.

Class Action by supersmike · 2003-10-31 03:39 · Score: 1

If they do end up filing a class action, everyone on /. deserves a piece simply for all the hours of our lives we've lost reading about SCO's stupidity.

So send a C&D Anyways... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:40 · Score: 3, Funny

When they ask you to show what part of Linux you contributed, say "you first". :)

DMCA Takedown request, anyone? by lynx_user_abroad · 2003-10-31 03:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

Wouldn't it be possible to send their upstream provider a DMCA takedown request, alleging illegal distribution of copyrighted works?

I don't think someone representing the Free Software Foundation would have any problem convincing anyone that at least some of the files in their distro are (c) by the FSF.

Of course, SCO, with their current state of mind, could simply strip-off all the (improper, from their point of view anyway) copyright attributions and continue distributing. ;-)

--

The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

Re:DMCA Takedown request, anyone? by bigberk · 2003-10-31 05:07 · Score: 1

Of course, SCO, with their current state of mind, could simply strip-off all the copyright attributions and continue distributing.
Maybe this recent post was by an SCO employee
Re:DMCA Takedown request, anyone? by lynx_user_abroad · 2003-10-31 05:29 · Score: 1

I'd pay good money to buy an Official copy of Linux kernel sources from SCO claiming full copyright of the source files by SCO.
I'd probably pay even more for that than I'd pay for a similar copy of the SCO UNIX sources. And I wouldn't even care about the license terms...

--
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Re:DMCA Takedown request, anyone? by wackysootroom · 2003-10-31 05:56 · Score: 1

Great Idea, but I have a hard time seeing how it will work. The DMCA was created by corporations, for corporations.

When an ISP gets a letter from Mr. Big at Very large media corporation, inc., they will notice. If an ISP gets a letter from joeslashdot@somedomain.com, they won't read it, and if they do, they'll think to themselves "I can't believe that this guy has the cojones to tell me that I should take this huge, good standing customer's website down", then the letter will end up in the trash.
Re:DMCA Takedown request, anyone? by darkonc · 2003-10-31 06:02 · Score: 1

Of course, SCO, with their current state of mind, could simply strip-off all the (improper, from their point of view anyway) copyright attributions and continue distributing. ;-)
With, or without copyright attribution, it's still a violation of copyright to distribute my GPL code in violation of the GPL. Removing copyright attribution is a violation of the GPL.

--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Re:DMCA Takedown request, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:11 · Score: 0

Then someone needs to convice IBM to send it.
Re:DMCA Takedown request, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:37 · Score: 1, Informative

If an ISP gets a letter from joeslashdot@somedomain.com, they won't read it, and if they do, ..., then the letter will end up in the trash.

IIRC, they are legally required to read DMCA takedown notices. Then they must give SCO a chance to file a counter-notice - if SCO doesn't file one, the ISP must cut off their service, otherwise they will become legally responsible for the infringement.

If 1000 developers send valid takedown notices, SCO would have to file 1000 counter-notices to keep their service. If the 1000 notices are distinct, not just a form letter with names/filenames changed, that could waste quite a bit of their lawyers' time.

At least that's my understanding of the law. There may be some other conditions, like having to use registered mail, making sure to sign the takedown notice, etc.
Re:DMCA Takedown request, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:49 · Score: 0

IBM could send out the DMCA takedown request.
Re:DMCA Takedown request, anyone? by isn't+my+name · 2003-10-31 07:23 · Score: 1

IIRC, they are legally required to read DMCA takedown notices. Then they must give SCO a chance to file a counter-notice - if SCO doesn't file one, the ISP must cut off their service, otherwise they will become legally responsible for the infringement.

Plus, SCO would have to explain exactly why they do not believe they were infringing, in the face of clear copyright notices in the code. That could provide interesting ammo for the various existing and future lawsuits.
Re:DMCA Takedown request, anyone? by gdeinsta · 2003-10-31 09:50 · Score: 1

At first blush I was in favour of this but now I realize it would be catastrophic. SCO would simply reply in kind, forcing the takedown of every U.S. site for downloading Linux - and every link to an overseas site. This is in keeping with their practise of responding to every legal accusation with the same accusation reversed.

Remember, the DMCA only requires that you have a belief that your copyright is being infringed, not a reasonable belief. One court has already ruled that the accuser doesn't have to do any research at all (like viewing the website) to force a takedown - you can get a site taken down because voices from Mars told you it is violating your copyright.

So do not issue a takedown against SCO, no matter how well justified it would be - it would start the legal equivalent of nuclear war!
Re:DMCA Takedown request, anyone? by lynx_user_abroad · 2003-10-31 10:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

SCO would simply reply in kind, forcing the takedown of every U.S. site for downloading Linux...

Ah, but you have to spoecify exactly which files you believe infringe your copyrights, something SCO is completely unwilling to do.
SCO would not succeed requesting a takedown of rh90.iso but if they go after lance.c in anyone's distro, we at least know where to look.
Besides, at least one of SCO's position is that these Linux files belong in the public domain, so anyone should have the opportunity to publish at will. Now I wouldn't put it past them to shoot one of their own arguments in the foot with a braindead act like asking IBM to takedown their Linux files, but I think trying to have a DMCA takedown issued for every mirror of every kernel file is too much work for them; it's just not their style. SCO is playing a strategy based on only having to win one battle, and only having to fight in the court room (their home turf). Personally, I think the real world frightens them.

--
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Re:DMCA Takedown request, anyone? by Alsee · 2003-10-31 14:03 · Score: 1

"I can't believe that this guy has the cojones to tell me that I should take this huge, good standing customer's website down", then the letter will end up in the trash.

Then you sue the ISP for contributory infringement for ignoring your notification and failng to act. That leads to one of two possible outcomes, either you you win and succeed in the goal of turning the the DMCA against them, or you lose and ISP's are NOT liable for ignoring DMCA takedown notifications which has the far better result of neutering the DMCA bullshit in general.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Demented strategy by Infonaut · 2003-10-31 03:40 · Score: 1

If you look at the value of SCO's stock since they started these shenanegans, it's obvious that the strategy is to raise as much money as possible through stock, then pump that money into acquisitions and other activities designed to save the company.

SCO was going down the tubes, and McBride and company saw that they had one arrow left in their quiver, which was their supposed intellectual property. Being ethically-challenged individuals, they took the path most likely to generate money.

Of course the whole scheme is incredibly shortsighted and has generated so much ill will and turmoil that SCO can't be long for this world (at least in its current incarnation).

Threatening your customers and your supposed allies only works when you run a monopoly. When you're just a little pissant like SCO, it just makes everyone want to get rid of you.

--
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ

Text of the license? by hoegg · 2003-10-31 03:41 · Score: 1

I'm not so sure we should be dancing in the streets just yet. The wording of the GPL can get pretty complex at times, and all we know is that they are distributing under a modified version of the GPL under which their claims are supported.

Perhaps they just changed the license on the files they think are theirs. Perhaps they added an extra clause to the GPL saying something to the effect that the linux codebase contains intellectual property owned by SCO. I can't see how that would violate the GPL in any way.

Anyone have access to the actual license? Does it force you not to show anyone else the text?

HOLY BEZEEBUS, WE'VE FOUND ONE! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:41 · Score: 0

Millions of /. fans the world over celebrated in unison upon the discovery that *finally* someone has stepped forward to proudly proclaim:

IAAL

God bless him.

Not exactly, they say GPL==public-domain by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:41 · Score: 0

They have to argue the GPL is an implicit assignment of copyrights to the public domain.

If it is simply invalid they have no right to distribute the sourcecode.

No GPL Violation by m_evanchik · 2003-10-31 03:42 · Score: 1

I can't see any GPL violation. Looking at the sign-up page (http://www.sco.com/support/linux_info.html) quoted in the article, I just see that they ask you for some basic info to prove you actually purchased the product from them.

If the GPL just requires one to make source code available to people who you specifically distribute the binaries to, registration seems a reasonable step to take to make sure only actual customers download it from you. If nothing else, this is reasonable since it cuts down on bandwidth consumption.

Of course, the GPL doesn't let SCO stop their customers from distributing source and binary files, but it should not be held responsible to distribute source and binary files universally.

On its face, this seems a reasonable step by SCO.

Could anyone point out where the actual GPL violation is?

*And please control yourselves. I'm not trying to troll or start a flame war.

--

evanchik.net

Re:No GPL Violation by idlethought · 2003-10-31 03:52 · Score: 1

You could previously download the binaries even if you were not a customer: they must continue to make the source available to such people or they lose the right to continue to distribute GPL source and binaries to anyone.

They might escape just by pointing to someone else's server if the source is available somewhere else.
Re:No GPL Violation by m_evanchik · 2003-10-31 04:08 · Score: 1

Are they restricting access to all source files or only the source files of future updates? If it's the latter they would still seem to be in the clear. Plus, the GPL doesn't require that getting the source files be as easy as anonymous FTPing. It is legitimate to give added convenience to paying customers. Has anyone yet been specifically DENIED source files if they asked for them from SCO.

I'm not talking about being denied access to the FTP site, but has anyone who had previously freely downloaded binaries, without being a customer, been denied the source to said binaries by SCO when they, for instance, emailed them, or better yet, sent a registered letter with a certified check for reasonable costs.

I'm splitting hairs here, but I would imagine that these questions matter.

SCO can make a case that it has different levels of access. Paying customers get FTP, freeloaders must send a money-order. I would think this would satisfy the GPL. And I bet SCO hasn't thought of that but maybe they read slashdot and they'll use my idea. That's OK. One of the beauties of free software (and ideas) is that the creator has no control over how it is used, or by whom.

--
evanchik.net
Re:No GPL Violation by narfbot · 2003-10-31 04:18 · Score: 4, Informative

If you look and see their help section, it shows that during the sign up process, they require you to agree to a *new license* (SCO IP license) before you can access the code. That's a GPL violation. And if they claim that the GPL is invalid, then they're still infringing on the copyright.

This is completely unreasonable of SCO. And if you look at it, it's their plan all along. Their goal is to brand linux into their own proprietory unix.
Re:No GPL Violation by Stephen+Samuel · 2003-10-31 06:45 · Score: 1

If the GPL just requires one to make source code available to people who you specifically distribute the binaries to, registration seems a reasonable step to take to make sure only actual customers download it from you. If nothing else, this is reasonable since it cuts down on bandwidth consumption.
A big 'depends' here. If everybody that they've ever given a copy of the binaries to has also been given (or offered) the source code at the same time/place, then they're in the clear there. On the other hand, if they've ever given peope binary-only copies then they have to make the corresponding sources available to anybody for the next 3 years. If they found code that they considered to be theirs and improperly included (by someone else), then they're probably allowed to remove that code, but they'd have to change their binaries to be consistent with those changes.
If they're restricting distribution of new versions of their code to specific people but still including source code and GPL rights to that source code then all's well.
If they're distributing 'their' code as part of Linux and limiting redistribution of "their" code (with or without identifying it), then their ass is still legal grass.
If they're distributing Linux with (or without) their code and limiting redistribution of the whole thing, then it's open season.

--
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.

C&D? No, DMCA by overshoot · 2003-10-31 03:43 · Score: 1

A Cease & Desist is a good first start, but along with it you should send a DMCA takedown notice to their ISP. Yes, that ISP is another Canopy company, but when (not if) they refuse to pull the plug you have another target for statutory damages on contributory infringement. One that won't be a glowing crater following IBM's TOKARI [1]

[1] Trans-Orbital Kinetic Anvil Rectal Insertion

--
Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."

Uh oh... by cgreuter · 2003-10-31 03:43 · Score: 1

They'd better stop doing that now. Otherwise, they'll really piss off the open-source community.

Can somebody explain to me what's wrong here? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:43 · Score: 0

The page

http://www.sco.com/support/linux_info.html

appears to say that only registered users can download the RPMs/SRPMs.

Registered users are from the subset of people who downloaded their software. The GPL requires SCO to give the source to whoever gets SCO binaries, provided they ask for it. The registration process (which I can't complete since I don't have a product, and they require a license code) can be seen as simply a method of identifying who purchased the product.

Is the violation the fact that you don't need to identify yourself as a purchaser? Or that you need to give up personal information? I don't see anything on the page to show that you're accepting a different license other than the GPL.

Can somebody make this explicit? I don't see the violation.

Re:Can somebody explain to me what's wrong here? by strags · 2003-10-31 03:58 · Score: 1

The violation is (as I understand it) due to the fact that when they provide you with Linux, SCO imposes its own (more restrictive) license. This is something the GPL explicitly prohibits.
Re:Can somebody explain to me what's wrong here? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:24 · Score: 0

Yes, that's what I'm asking. Where is the license? I don't see it. What are the more restrictive terms?

Does anyone have a copy of this license?

In other new, the FSF is not calling a C&D.... by revividus · 2003-10-31 03:43 · Score: 1

...until SCO agrees to refer to the alleged IP violations as `GNU/Linux'

--

philcrissman.com.

$50 million by Kohath · 2003-10-31 03:44 · Score: 1

Skip the C&D letters. File suit. SCO has $50 million dollars now. I think Linux developers could put that to good use.

what are the more restrictive terms? by Jeremy+Erwin · 2003-10-31 03:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm not an a SCO customer, and am unlikely to ever be one, so I can't register my product. Does anybody have a text copy of this new IP license?

Re:what are the more restrictive terms? by chainsaw1 · 2003-10-31 04:47 · Score: 1

It's not online. You have to get it from a sales rep or call their number to get it

(from: http://www.sco.com/scosource/linuxlicense.html)

--
- Sig

Fair Use by glenrm · 2003-10-31 03:44 · Score: 1

Seems like fair use to me... Which is it today copyright good or copyright bad? Of course many people here understand that law and copyright law in particular are what allow Linux and the GPL and copyleft to exsist in the first place, other well they are drifting a sea or moral relativism...

--
Onward to the Aether Sphere!

Re:Fair Use by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:59 · Score: 0

Stop talking out of your ass. You have no idea what "free use" means.

Shorting == good idea! by supabeast! · 2003-10-31 03:45 · Score: 1

That's actually a pretty good idea! Why not set up a project with the goal of a massive SCO shorting make sure that Darl can't keep pushing up the stock price this way? If we can get a few thousand geeks to all short SCO in one morning, that alone should have a huge negative effect on the stock price, and the the negative publicity following would hurt it even more. Do it repeatedly and the shorts would be such a PITA for SCO investors that the board might tell Darl to start doing his damned job and make some intelligent choices.

Of course, this might run afoul of SEC regulations, but with careful orchestration handled via servers outside the USA, they might not be able to go after anyone.

Re:Shorting == good idea! by splaytree · 2003-10-31 04:18 · Score: 1

You can only sell stocks short on an uptick (aka the Uptick Rule). This means that the transaction is only allowed at a price higher than the previous. This is done to "prevent" speculators from driving down the stock price.
Re:Shorting == good idea! by lynx_user_abroad · 2003-10-31 04:57 · Score: 1

Why not set up a project with the goal of a massive SCO shorting...

You can't buy a stock unless you can find someone to sell it. Shorting is a bit more complicated than that; you can't short a stock unless you can first find someone who will loan it to you, and second find someone else willing to buy it from you. If there is no stock available to short, you can go no further. If you borrow stock for shorting, and are unable to find anyone to buy what you've borrowed, you're stuck with it.
Anyone knows what happens if I offer a share for shorting, buy it back at a lower price, then offer it for shorting again? (lather, rinse, repeat?)

--
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Re:Shorting == good idea! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:42 · Score: 0

Well you could also own the stock that you short instead of borrowing it. This is the method used in non-taxable accounts, like my IRA rollover. Since it's a non-taxable account, I can't trade on margin, which you're assuming by saying borrow the stock to short. Agreed that this is the most common way to short a stock, but again, you can also buy first then short your own shares, which prevents you from entering the unlimited loss territory.

The original posters suggestion to mass short SCO is not a very good idea, since the participants would have to first acquire shares to short by either borrowing them, which you can't do unless you have a margin account, and can find someone to loan the shares out, or buy them first then short your own. The latter approach only seems viable, in my opion, if your a long term holder or unless you can predict a run-up with a soon to follow drop. Everyone knows that timing a stock is the holy grail of trading and is as close to impossible as it gets. I think everyone is better of just staying away from SCO stock and watching on the sidelines. McBride says he's suing jesus christ for misrepresentation of the GPL and the stock skyrockets on speculation then slowly trickles off. Only Daryl in his dillusionary world knows when he's going to make another half-assed claim.

On another note. I was tempted to buy a few shares , assuming a complete loss, so I could participate the any class action lawsuits that may follow.

The other thing I thought about was that SCO could use a lot of the slashdot posts as evidence in a trial that people in the open source community are conspiring against them. I mean asking to rally people to short a companies stock is probably illegal. People have been arrested for this shit in the past. Remeber the kid who posted false press releases on yahoo finanace boards?

Awww shucks! IBM doesn't have a chance by l0ungeb0y · 2003-10-31 03:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

At this rate, IBM's legal team wont have the day in court they are so looking forward to...
Seems they will be taken down by a horde of Joe-Blo developers and rightfully so.

IANAL, but the ones I have talked to about sending nasty grams (cease and desist et al) have stated that the offending party can be billed for that "service".
Consider the math, if even 1,000 contributors (remember, this isn't just the kernal, but all "bundled" services as well) send cease and desist and then have their lawyers invoice SCO: figure US $500.00 x 1,000 = 500,000.00
And that's just for cease and desist letters (cheap ones at that).
Not too hard to imagine a picture of a slashdot effect in the courtroom as this does seem to qualify for a class action on behalf of all US developers, not sure about international developers abroad however. And if such a class action was granted, SCO would be killed prior IBM's legal skirmish as a class action could be argued to take precedence as they have harmed individual persons in a gross and egregarious manner.

Overall, I am not surprised by this latest tactic. DarlCo seems to crib it's notes off ShrubCo in it's motive of Preemptive strikes.

ShrubCo: No proof/discloser on Iraqi WMD's, state they want a war, start a war still without the proof/disclosure to justify it's actions.
DarlCo: No proof/disclosure on Source Code infringements, states the GPL is moot/void state that all source code under the GPL within the last 3 years should be Public Domain, they preempt and relicense the "public domain" source code.

DarlCo unfortunately doesn't have the sway or the power to cover it's ass. They aren't the largest military unit in the world and do not enjoy certain protections. This act right now is THE FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN
They just woke up a force more powerful than IBM, the open source community. Which if organized against a common menace is a force much larger than any corporate entity in the world. That's why MS is scared of Gnu/Linux, not the market share but mind share.

Alas poor Darl, we hardly knew ye.

Re:Awww shucks! IBM doesn't have a chance by IM6100 · 2003-10-31 04:32 · Score: 1

Tying this ideologically to the actions of the Bush Administration in Iraq is a great way to divide and conquer the Linux/GPL community.

Keep it up! (meant sarcastically)

--
A Good Intro to NetBS
Re:Awww shucks! IBM doesn't have a chance by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:33 · Score: 0

ShrubCo: No proof/discloser on Iraqi WMD's, state they want a war, start a war still without the proof/disclosure to justify it's actions.
Just so you know, the burden of proof was always on Saddam, not on the United States. He had to prove that he didn't have the WMDs.
Re:Awww shucks! IBM doesn't have a chance by jamesmrankinjr · 2003-10-31 05:08 · Score: 1

ShrubCo: No proof/discloser on Iraqi WMD's, state they want a war, start a war still without the proof/disclosure to justify it's actions. DarlCo: No proof/disclosure on Source Code infringements, states the GPL is moot/void state that all source code under the GPL within the last 3 years should be Public Domain, they preempt and relicense the "public domain" source code.
So...
Linus == Saddam Hussein?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo

--
XML Tools for Mac OS X
Re:Awww shucks! IBM doesn't have a chance by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-04 11:28 · Score: 0

No,

Linus == American public and soldiers.

Will Linus Sue? by Ridgelift · 2003-10-31 03:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

the SCO Group is to resume distributing Linux, but only if you agree to a new "IP license" which implicitly supports SCO's intellectual property claims.

Since Linus Torvalds is the trademark holder for the name Linux, does this mean Linus will sue SCO?

--
Ruby on Rails Screencast

Re:Will Linus Sue? by kalidasa · 2003-10-31 04:02 · Score: 1

I think he'll have to revoke their license to use the trademark first (and revoke their GPL); then if they continue to distribute in violation of the trademark license and the GPL, he'll have grounds to sue. But that's uninformed speculation, and IANAL.
Re:Will Linus Sue? by FireFury03 · 2003-10-31 04:16 · Score: 1

I suspect Linus won't sue, but I'm hoping some of the big projects that have some muscle who are affected (samba, mysql, etc) might throw some legal weight around.

--
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Re:Will Linus Sue? by Dr.+Evil · 2003-10-31 04:23 · Score: 1

Linus is a trademark holder and a copyright holder of the contributions he's made to Linux.
The trademark aspect doesn't enter it unless Linus has a problem with SCO using the name "Linux".
Re:Will Linus Sue? by Ridgelift · 2003-10-31 04:26 · Score: 1

I suspect Linus won't sue, but I'm hoping some of the big projects that have some muscle who are affected (samba, mysql, etc) might throw some legal weight around.

You're probably right. But since Linus is to Linux what the Pope is to Catholicism, would he be the most logical person to be fronting the assault?

Or maybe Linus isn't the right guy. What about Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation? Since he is the originator of the GPL and SCO is basically giving him the finger, will Richard sue SCO?

--
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Re:Will Linus Sue? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:27 · Score: 0

IANAL

That much is obvious.
Re:Will Linus Sue? by Ridgelift · 2003-10-31 04:30 · Score: 1

Linus is a trademark holder and a copyright holder of the contributions he's made to Linux.

The trademark aspect doesn't enter it unless Linus has a problem with SCO using the name "Linux".

So I guess that's the big question: does> Linus have a problem with SCO using the name "Linux"? Can anyone find any links as to his position either pro/con/apathy on the point?

--
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Re:Will Linus Sue? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:53 · Score: 0

If Linus takes SCO to court, I will contribute $50 towards his legal fees.

[j]
Re:Will Linus Sue? by John+Hasler · 2003-10-31 05:03 · Score: 1

> I think he'll have to revoke their license to
> use the trademark...

What license?

> ...and revoke their GPL...

The GPL has nothing to do with the trademark and need not be "revoked".

> ...if they continue to distribute in violation
> of the trademark license and the GPL, he'll have
> grounds to sue.

He has excellent grounds to sue for copyright infringement and I hope he does so. However, the Linux trademark is _very_ weak. Read up on its history.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:Will Linus Sue? by kalidasa · 2003-10-31 08:55 · Score: 1

Really? Well, since you obviously are a lawyer, perhaps you could enlighten us? What is the legal process for the author of GPLed software when he learns that a user is violating the license? Does he, or does he not, have to notify them that they are in violation of the license?
I know full well that the trademark "has nothing to do with the GPL," despite the suggestion to the contrary by another poster who at least has the guts to sign his name and make counterarguments, but if there is an implied license to use the trademark, LT may have to notify SCO that they are in violation of the license to distribute the software, and that any further distribution of the software is a violation of LT's copyright, and then that any further use of the Linux trademark on SCO's products is a violation of the terms under which the trademark may be used. If one is revoked, the other needs to be, otherwise there is a suggestion of inconsistency. The "revocation" is a necessity of the process of enforcement - unless you are a lawyer and can give me case law to argue to the contrary, I believe you can't enforce against a violation of a license without giving notice to the violator that he is in violation.
I am not a lawyer, and my arguments in this thread are not legal advice, but the proper way to respond to them is with counterargument, not with snide bullshit.
Re:Will Linus Sue? by kalidasa · 2003-10-31 09:01 · Score: 1

Yeah, I know some of the background. But if it's a registered trademark, he must be either licensing it (under an implied license, or something like the GPL, anyway) or he's letting it become a generic term, right? If it's not a generic term, another user requires permission to use it, no? And so as holder of the trademark, he can revoke that permission. That's my argument. I wouldn't bet a week's salary on it ...
The other half of my argument is that if someone uses your work in violation of a license like the GPL, you must inform them that they are in violation of the license and explicitly warn them against using it before you can sue. I'm not a lawyer, but I would be quite shocked if that is not the case. That's what I meant by "revocation." There was a degree of sarcasm, of course, referring to SCO's own antics wrt IBM.

Anybody *seen* the new license by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:45 · Score: 0

I hate to rain on a parade, but has anyone actually *seen* this license? I went to SCO's web site and all I can find is that they've changed the registration process. It appears to be just a normal registration (but since I don't own one of their products, I didn't get very far).

AFAICT, they are getting rid of the public FTP site and replacing it with a private one. You get access to the source RPMs if you register your copy of the code. There's nothing wrong with this. You are only required to distribute source to those people which you've distributed the binary.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it's possible people are jumping to conclusions here.

Re:Anybody *seen* the new license by linuxbikr · 2003-10-31 04:06 · Score: 1

The question is: Did SCO ever offer Caldera Linux for free download by anyone much in the same way SuSe or Red Hat offer free downloads of their products? If so, then SCO has an obligation to make those sources available to that community as well. Just because you didn't buy the product does not waive SCO's obligation under the GPL to make those sources available to you on demand for up to three years via electronic or physical media after your download.
If they did allow free downloads of Caldera, then they just committed an open, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt violation of the GPL, not one that can be danced around with intrepretive, legal-sounding rhetoric.

What's wrong with SCO? by deanj · 2003-10-31 03:45 · Score: 3, Funny

What's wrong with SCO? Do they think Linux is an MP3 file or something??

Re:What's wrong with SCO? by AntiOrganic · 2003-10-31 03:59 · Score: 1

With UnixWare's stunning display of up-to-date technology, I'd be surprised if they could play MIDI.

They dont have enough money to bribe a judge by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:46 · Score: 0

which will grant that.

Where do I send my money? by Get+Behind+the+Mule · 2003-10-31 03:46 · Score: 1

Since Slashdot has featured a post about new SCO outrages almost every day for weeks now, it may be hard to realize that this is the moment that war has begun. SCO is violating the law, harming the authors of open source software, and attempting to destroy the GPL. They're stealing something that isn't theirs. This is Lexington & Concord, the sinking of the Lusitania, the invasion of Poland, the Golf of Tonkin incident.

For we all know, maybe this what SCO was planning all along. Maybe IBM never was their real target.

I'm not one of the kernel authors, but I'd like to help them. I'll donate cash, write a letter, join a picket, whatever, just give me something to do. It might be a good idea for the kernel authors to pool their efforts in response to SCO. Maybe the FSF lawyers would be willing to work on their collective behalf, or maybe some kind of class action will be necessary. And maybe Linus Torvalds personally will have to respond in some way, since he's the owner of the Linux trademark. In any case, the reponse to SCO might very well be costly in terms of effort, time and cold hard cash, and whoever's doing it could probably use some help. I think that the time is now for anyone who cares about these issues to do whatever they can.

--
Always keep a sapphire in your mind

Re:Where do I send my money? by Haeleth · 2003-10-31 04:19 · Score: 1

> This is ... the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

No - this is really happening.
Re:Where do I send my money? by IM6100 · 2003-10-31 05:02 · Score: 1

For all your high-sounding rhetoric, don't you think you're going to look pretty ridiculous playing golf at Tonkin?

Send your money to the United Way. heh.

--
A Good Intro to NetBS

Anybody have the username and PW to download? by christopher240240 · 2003-10-31 03:47 · Score: 1

Let's willfully violate their license using their own distro.

Re:Anybody have the username and PW to download? by Ernest · 2003-10-31 04:41 · Score: 1

you can still download it @
ftp://ftp.sco.com/

--
Ernest J.W. ter Kuile
Re:Anybody have the username and PW to download? by Jaysyn · 2003-10-31 07:04 · Score: 1

You don't need it, leave it blank, really....

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.

SCO's Legal Strategy by MattTC · 2003-10-31 03:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

Although willfully violating the GPL/copyright law seems like an insane thing to do, it actually isn't.

Lets assume that SCO is convinced there actually is proprietary code in the Linux kernel. Therefore, by inviting suits to be brought against them, they are bringing the targets for countersuits out into the light.

They proably hope that there will be a class action, and can countersue the whole class for using their proprietary code.

It's an interesting, if machiavellian legal strategy.

--
--"You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think."

Re:SCO's Legal Strategy by panda · 2003-10-31 04:12 · Score: 1

SCO has no legal strategy. I knew that from day one when they hired David Boies and company.

Boies is a big shot. His firm is great at publicity and not so great in the court room. Just ask Al Gore.

This is a ploy to jack the stock price up and transfer shares to other Canopy ventures where the shares can be sold off the books.

--
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
Re:SCO's Legal Strategy by jjohnson · 2003-10-31 04:19 · Score: 1

Ask Microsoft how David Boies is in a courtroom.

--
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Re:SCO's Legal Strategy by platypus · 2003-10-31 04:51 · Score: 1

No. This event is actually the result of SCO painting themselves into a corner when they started the whole thing. Since day one, everybody said (rightly) that SCO themselves, by distributing linux with the GPL attached when they "knew" (in their surreal world) about the "contamination" of the kernel with their "IP", have practically cleared that IP for use in the linux kernel.

So they had to do something. They couldn't stop distributing linux (I assume their clients would be too happy), so now we see what they decided would be their best course of action.

I assume they went this route, because by stopping to distribute linux they would have opened themselves to more imminent charges by their clients, compared to the threat of lawsuits etc. by copyright holders of their linux version, which they might face now.

All in all, for me this just proofs that they (Canopy and other shareholders of SCO) are really expecting the company to sink, they just want enough time to do god-knows-what.
Re:SCO's Legal Strategy by julesh · 2003-10-31 04:58 · Score: 1

That wouldn't stand up. Only a very small portion of the class would be responsible for any infringing code that may or may not be in there, hence the court would throw out a countersuit PDQ.
Re:SCO's Legal Strategy by josepha48 · 2003-10-31 06:01 · Score: 1

Problem is that If SCO is right and their code is in the kernel, this does NOT give them the right to the rest of the GNU/Llinux distribution. IE gcc/ glibc/ gnome / kde / openoffice, and every other program that falls in there. SCO's claims are against certain subsystems in Linux.
Personally I think they are screwing themselves royally. First they distributed Linux under the GPL WITH thier code ( assuming it was theirs ever), now they are changing the license of ALL GPL code to take ALL GPL code as theirs. They cannot do that. I can see Redhat / SuSE and all other Linux vendors taking this one on.

--
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Re:SCO's Legal Strategy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 07:09 · Score: 0

" Ask Microsoft how David Boies is in a courtroom."

Yeah. That Boise sure showed 'em.

Why... he.... well he won a court case, but.... the judge was... uh, he was brilliant when he...ummmm.

Oh shit. Boise didn't do crap to MS.
Re:SCO's Legal Strategy by jjohnson · 2003-10-31 08:36 · Score: 1

Boise mopped the floor in the courtroom. By any observer's account, it was a virtuoso performance of what can be accomplished in front of a judge. The judge's lunacy came afterwards (and during, but that was after hours with reporters in his chambers).

--
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.

actually... by thoolihan · 2003-10-31 03:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

This makes perfect sense for SCO to do. Their whole claim stands on the GPL being invalid. If you're betting the farm on the case, why would they care if they are held liable for violating the GPL? If it stands up there won't be an SCO left to sue.

SCO is throwing a hail mary. I'm not suprised they are sending as many receivers as possible. (Note I said this makes sense, I didn't use the word ethical or correct)

-t

--
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"

Re:actually... by julesh · 2003-10-31 05:03 · Score: 1

This makes perfect sense for SCO to do. Their whole claim stands on the GPL being invalid.

Actually, SCO could win the IBM case without having the GPL declared invalid.

They could rely on either of these, or many other strategies. This is just what I can think of off the top of my head, I'm sure SCO's lawyers are better at this than I am...

1. IBM's actions were unuathorised right up until the moment somebody from IBM first downloaded the code from SCO. This could have been quite a long time, and they would be entitled for compensation over this time.

2. IBM may have violated non-disclosure agreements, or other contracts, resulting in SCO incurring losses.

The GPL invalid route is only one of many that I'm certain they're pursuing independently.
Re:actually... by Brad+Mace · 2003-10-31 05:17 · Score: 1

Even if there's no SCO left, we ought to be able to put some people in jail.
Re:actually... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:49 · Score: 0

Unfortunately for them, the only thing they'll end up receiving is prodigious prison love. Go deep!
Re:actually... by pavera · 2003-10-31 06:22 · Score: 1

Unfortunately if the GPL is invalid that means all that code is governed by copyright, and all the kernel contributors can sue for infringment. At 150,000/infringement, that will quickly eat up even the 50 million SCO just got.

Mod up by poptones · 2003-10-31 03:48 · Score: 1

This should be modded up. And this SHOULD be done as well, by as many documented contributors as is possible. The corporations lobbied for the DMCA, they damn sure should be forced to live with it.

mod this up by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:48 · Score: 0

I agree.. I see so much hypocrisy here that its unreal.

Re:Furthermore by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:49 · Score: 0

Since, corporations are considered citizens vis-a-vis jurisdiction, any developer not located in SCO's principal place of business or incorporation (Utah?) would have to take SCO to federal court on diversity of citizenship grounds.

Register Those Copyrights by John+Hasler · 2003-10-31 03:49 · Score: 1

It is past time for the authors of the Linux kernel to register their copyrights so that they can sue for statutory damages.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.

*N*E*W*S*F*L*A*S*H* by JaJ_D · 2003-10-31 03:50 · Score: 3, Funny

Mircosoft HQ Redmond

A press spokesman for microsoft declared that Microsoft 7 year undisputed record, and title of "Biggest Pisstakers of The Year" had finnaly gone.

"We just could compete with the SCO Board" He was heard to say "Their tactics have been unbelievable! There are a lot of people, here at Microsoft, who are very unhappy - with alrights we should have thought of this"

His comments were into SCO latest tactic in the We-are-on-a-loser-but-our-share-options-are-rising -so-we-can-bail plan. The reason Microssoft is unhappy is becuase of SCO's tactic of getting developers to do all the work for them, with out paying, and the altering the licensing so apparently claiming the work as there own. Intersting in any other case this would be simply called "theft".

As the Microsoft spokesman summed up the anger and frustration many people at Microsoft feel, "why could we think of that - it was shear brilliance! Think of all the money we could save. Heads will role because of this"

Also today the Microsoft announced their latest offering. "In the world of computing", the spokesman said "there is a need for reliable, effective, cheap, stable, secure computing. It has to be said that our latest offering have fell a little way short. So it our pleasure to announce the release of 'Mircosoft Lin++'. It is a fully compatible Linux operating system, that only costs $129 per user licence".

More details of MS Lin++ to follow shortly"

Jaj

With tongue firmly in his cheek

How to handle this? by andrewm · 2003-10-31 03:50 · Score: 1

IANL, but I have contributed to the Linux kernel and other projects (INN, ISC DHCP, DB4, XFree86, etc.).

I'm not even in the U.S., and I certainly don't have the time or means to enforce anything. A snail mail letter would probably be best, but have no teeth.

I'm sure most Open Source developers are in a similar boat.

Re:How to handle this? by Ernest · 2003-10-31 04:38 · Score: 1

If you are indeed a copyright holder, and I suspect this must be specified in one of the file sco is distributing, a cease and desist letter might be a good start.

--
Ernest J.W. ter Kuile

They can't though by bluGill · 2003-10-31 03:51 · Score: 1

They can claim the GPL is unenforable, but that just strenthens anyones claim against SCO. GPL is just an agreement that allows you to make copys of otherwise copyrighted work. If you don't agree to the GPL and copy work covered under the GPL, then you are violating international law.

EULAs like Microsoft's are unenforceable only where they take away rights allowed under other laws. Microsoft claims that you cannot sell a copy of windows under their EULA, even if you first remove it from your computer. Under most copyright laws there is a concept of "first sale" which doesn't allow this restriction, so Microsoft's EULA might be invalid under that law. (Note though that copyright law doesn't technially allow you to copy windows from the instalation CD to your harddrive and then into memory, the EULA does allow that, and so the claim is the EULA is a contract which can in some cases place extra restricions like that) GPL has no such restriction, and was carefullly written to avoid such issues.

Meanwhile at SCO headquarters... by Thaidog · 2003-10-31 03:52 · Score: 1

KNOCK! KNOCK!

Who's there?

TRICK OF TREAT!!!

Bug off kids we don't give ANYTHING away free!

--

||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.

[Sco == Thieves] Suggestion for all slashdot users by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:52 · Score: 0

Use [Sco == Thieves] tag in all your mailing lists, and usenet posts for at least one week.

Releasing software. by blanks · 2003-10-31 03:52 · Score: 1

This is why I never release my software, too many issues with licenses, and copyright issues.

And it has nothing to do with drinking and womanizing all the time!

--
TruePunk | Games

New slant on this whole situation... by gmac63 · 2003-10-31 03:53 · Score: 1

Has anyone though this whole SCO vs. the World may actually me a good thing?

Think about it. SCO, while they seem completely harless (litigationwise), and for the most part are, their contribution to Free Software, Open Source, GNU, GPL, and any other open software community is going to be immeasurable.

Hear me out here: SCO, should this all go to "trial", will lose. Period. Thus the arguments SCO has proposed so far will be on legal record and may set precedence for further legal decisions. In this case "what doesn't kill ya, will make ya stronger" might apply!

Of course, I'm sure I am not the only one who's thought of this, and this might just be restating the completely obvious, but we all rant at SCO. I say "Go SCO... Give us all you have. You will lose and this makes the case for GPL (and alikes) stronger." Freedom for all.

God, I can't wait for this to end on a good note.

--

INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';

tarball with or without COPYING? by tlk+nnr · 2003-10-31 03:54 · Score: 1

A password protected area is not a GPL violation: The GPL requests that you make the source available for everyone who got a binary from you, and that you give him all rights that are granted by the GPL.
It's not necessary that you set up a public server.

The interesting question is the content of the SRPMS: Did SCO remove the COPYING file, or add a second file that tries to limit the rights? Such a sublicensing would be a GPL violation.

Anyone around who bought SCO Linux and could check what's in the SRPMS?
My fear is that SCO has 0 customers, and thus they aren't obliged to distribute the sources.

Re:tarball with or without COPYING? by ajs318 · 2003-10-31 04:16 · Score: 1

The GPL requests that you make the source available for everyone who got a binary from you
Almost. The GPL requests that you make the source code available to everyone even whether or not they got a binary from you.

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Re:tarball with or without COPYING? by Ernest · 2003-10-31 04:34 · Score: 1

ftp.sco.com is still open. check for yourself.

There is a file ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/Legal_Notice
there which states that from tomorrow on (1 november) this will really close.

--
Ernest J.W. ter Kuile

This is great!!! by neilb78 · 2003-10-31 03:55 · Score: 0

I think this is a great test of the GPL. I have often wondered how GPL violations would be handled and if it would hold-up in court. I'm anxious to see how this plays-out.

--
© 2004 The SCO Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Re:Get over it by ajs318 · 2003-10-31 03:56 · Score: 1

What exactly makes you think the GPL is invalid? As far as I can see - and I've read it several times and agree with it - it is just a letter of permission, granted by the copyright holder, authorising the recipient to perform certain actions over and above the fair use provisions of copyright law {aka "your statutory rights"}.

Only the copyright holder can grant those rights until the copyright expires. That is the whole point of copyright law. So how exactly is the GPL invalid? And if the GPL is invalid, how is any other licence valid?

The problem I have with the BSD licence is that, unlike the GPL, it does not oblige developers to share alike. If you release code under a BSD licence, someone can take it, make a tiny modification, and they don't have to share their modifications - in fact, they can make it closed-source. How is that fair?!

I will finish by repeating my question. Without making an ad hominem attack, what makes you think that the GPL is invalid?

--
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!

Darl by alx512 · 2003-10-31 03:56 · Score: 1

I just made the startling realization that I used to work for Darl Mcbride about 5 years ago at Pointserve (www.pointserve.com). As I recall, he had one of the hugest egos of anyone I had ever met. At the time though I think he was only a VP, but he came up with a bunch of brilliant strategies that basically ran the company into the ground. I love how all the bios of him hype his Pointserve years as being a success, when from the inside it looked like a big fat failure. Amazingly, the company is still around.

Time to enforce the GPL? GET A LIFE! by Clippy · 2003-10-31 03:58 · Score: 0

"Not..." "No..." "Unconstitutional..." "Blaww, blaw, blaw..."

It's fun to hear people spout off about this and that like they where God's personal lawyer. I'll bet RMS is just frothing at the mouth, and shitting his pants, but SCO **KNOWS** they got the lawyers and they got the money, so any "action" from the socialist Open Sourcers' just ain't gonna happen. IMHO.

--

My Karma is bad. May I take you out for a drink? It's on me...

Don't bother with C & D letters, use the DMCA! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 03:58 · Score: 1, Interesting

Send DMCA takedown notices! Send them to SCO, it's ISP, and it's backbone providers.

Make stupid law work for you.

actually by Ender+Ryan · 2003-10-31 03:59 · Score: 1

Actually, the GPL is on pretty solid legal ground, from what I understand. IBM's legal team seems to think it is, and so do many companies who have violated it and then corrected their errors. In fact, RMS consulted a lawyer when writing the GPL, IIRC.

So far, no corporation has dared take it to court, most likely because they know they would lose. SCO is obviously going out of business, so they have nothing to lose anyway.

Nice troll though.

--
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden

Re:actually by spacecowboy420 · 2003-10-31 04:05 · Score: 1

A law proffessor

--
ymmv

SRPMS only availiable with a password? by AndIWonderIfIWonder · 2003-10-31 03:59 · Score: 1

At the end of the register's article they state:

IBM has countersued SCO, arguing that it no longer has the right to distribute GPL software. SCO made its position on the GPL perfectly clear in a filing last week: it doesn't think the GPL is enforceable, so it's going to carry on violating it. The offer is only open to SCO's existing customers, and details are here. (R)

A brief look at the link they provide shows that indeed SCO are saying that we can get RPMS & SRPMS only with a password, and if we are a SCO customer. (and not from their ftp site).

So now I sit here wondering how the download availiable in this directory... ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Serv er/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/

Much has been asked about the GPL in the US courts by hrieke · 2003-10-31 03:59 · Score: 1

But how does the GLP play in other courts of law- outside of the US jurdiction.
And if they happen to take a stand on the GPL which is different than the US legal view, how would that effect all of the work done under the GPL?

To take this question to the next step, I'd also have to wonder how it would be played out in the political realm.

--
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIIIV IIVIIIIIIVIII...

SCO hasn't got enough money by wonkavader · 2003-10-31 04:00 · Score: 1

A class action suit against SCO would not pay for the Linux and GNU community's work. They don't have enough money.

Since individuals made these decisions, can a class action suit include name those individuals as defendants, along with SCO as a corporate entity, so that there will be enough to pay for the development effort which SCO has stolen?

SCO's only going to be able to cough up tens of millions at the most, and they'll spend every asset of the company fighting this, such that a the community might win only a notice of bankruptcy. Not so if the personal fortunes of the decision-making officers are included.

What's the Samba team say to this, I wonder? by Zocalo · 2003-10-31 04:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

I wonder what stance the Samba team is going to take on this? They (quite rightly, IMHO) stood by and let SCO bundle the Samba package with SCO Unix because they were doing so without breaking the GPL, only bending it. Now that, they are applying further restrictions to the license and are in clear breach of the GPL they could tell SCO to stick it without the slightest stain on the conciences that let SCO continue to distribute Samba in the first place.

I'm sure the remaining users of SCO Unix are going to love how their plans to integrate their systems with Windows are going to have to be shelved until SCO can write their own (like that's ever going to happen). SCO strategy update:

Piss off IBM
Get counter-sued by IBM
Piss off OSS community
Get sued by RedHat, SuSE...
Violate GPL
Get sued by EFF
Piss off SCO customers
Lose significant chunk of customer base
???
Profit^H^H^H^H^H^H Devastating loss & jail time (oops!)

I wonder if Jack Valenti or Hilary Rosen have doing some moon lighting they didn't tell us about.

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!

Re:What's the Samba team say to this, I wonder? by lpontiac · 2003-10-31 05:15 · Score: 1

Now that, they are applying further restrictions to the license and are in clear breach of the GPL

They are in clear breach of Linux's license, which is the GPL. But they are not in clear breach of Samba's license. That the license text is the same doesn't make it apply to all or none - the GPL with the Linux code applies only the Linux, the GPL with the Samba code applies only to Samba.
Re:What's the Samba team say to this, I wonder? by Zocalo · 2003-10-31 05:45 · Score: 1

Samba is distributed under the GPL. SCO distributes Samba, both as part of its Linux product and, as recently announced, with its commericial SCO Unix product. If you refuse to accept the GPL license for a product (SCO don't) then you may not distribute that product at all.
The Samba's teams previous stance was to the moral high ground, and that since SCO was not totally infringing the GPL, they would not try to prevent them from distributing it. Now SCO is violating the GPL, they can keep the moral high ground and revoke SCO's right to distribute their product on copyright grounds. SCO could try and dispute that is valid as well, but that would also entail picking a fight with the movie, music and printing industries amongst others. I doubt even SCO is that dumb.

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Re:What's the Samba team say to this, I wonder? by stud9920 · 2003-10-31 09:48 · Score: 1

Piss off SCO customers
Both of them ?

The scum of the Earth. by supabeast! · 2003-10-31 04:01 · Score: 1

Well, at least now we know that Microsoft isn't really the most evil company out there. MSFT may play dirty, talk a lot of trash, and lie like crazy (not that I haven't seen GNU/open-source advocates do the same), but the people running the dog-and-pony show at SCO are just being assholes.

Re:The scum of the Earth. by Ernest · 2003-10-31 04:11 · Score: 1

Actually, MS is paying for this. This way they keep there hands clean!

--
Ernest J.W. ter Kuile
Re:The scum of the Earth. by frkiii · 2003-10-31 05:55 · Score: 1

Now now, saying "... SCO are just being assholes" is probably very insulting to all the fine up-standing assholes out there. ;)

Well that just about says it all ... by the+bluebrain · 2003-10-31 04:01 · Score: 1

Link to http://www.sco.com/products/linux/ from their homepage, returns a 403:

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /products/linux/ on this server.

Well feh.

--
yes, we have no bananas

Re:Well that just about says it all ... by Jaysyn · 2003-10-31 07:38 · Score: 1

About an hour ago you could get on there with as the user name & pass. Someone must have noticed.

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:Well that just about says it all ... by Jaysyn · 2003-10-31 07:46 · Score: 1

That should have been blank (as in empty) as the user name & pass.

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.

How to Stop them distributing linux by taff^2 · 2003-10-31 04:02 · Score: 0

I call on everybody that manages a DNS server or network router (no doubt using OSS) to simply drop packets to sco and their networks.

Let them see the real value of OSS as something that powers the internet and generously, through albeit unenforcable licenses, allow them to continue their business of Theft and FUD.

--
Karma: Bad. (As in Good?)

IANAL, but... by jbeamon · 2003-10-31 04:02 · Score: 1

... that doesn't really seem to matter anymore in discussions of legal issues.

--
-j

Follow up by poptones · 2003-10-31 04:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

it would appear "the community" has already taken care of the take-down part.

ERROR
The requested URL could not be retrieved

While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.sco.com/support/linux_info.html

The following error was encountered:

* Read Timeout

The system returned:

[No Error]

A Timeout occurred while waiting to read data from the network. The network or server may be down or congested. Please retry your request.

Re:Follow up by lynx_user_abroad · 2003-10-31 05:20 · Score: 1

Well, let's not be so hasty.
First, if SCO is unable to distribute Linux, it's hard to make the case they are and therefore must stop. I'm gonna echo ESR here, DDOS'ing SCO is counterproductive to the Free Software community and should be stopped if at all possible.
And second, I'm not sure it's in the best interest of the Free Software community to prevent some small-time distributor like SCO from offering their Distro. I haven't read their license requirements myself (see above) but the GPL does not prevent anyone from offering a warranty/service agreement for a charge so long as they also offer the sources for free.
Can an incorrectly configured (read: wide open) FTP server be cited as a form of "download this, no charge" compliance under these circumstances?

--
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Re:Follow up by Roofus · 2003-10-31 05:32 · Score: 1

Wow, so many things need to be addressed.

First, if SCO is unable to distribute Linux, it's hard to make the case they are and therefore must stop.

Yes, the are UNABLE to distribute Linux, at least in the legal sense. But they ARE doing it. That's the whole point of this Slashdot story. They're doing it illegally.

I haven't read their license requirements myself (see above) but the GPL does not prevent anyone from offering a warranty/service agreement for a charge so long as they also offer the sources for free.

According to the story, SCO is adding restrictions to what you can do with the software once downloaded. This is a blatant violation of section 6 of the GPL, which states:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on 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. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

Can an incorrectly configured (read: wide open) FTP server be cited as a form of "download this, no charge" compliance under these circumstances?

What does that have to do with anything? If your trying to insinuate that SCO has been unknowingly distrbuting Linux the last 6 months you need professional help. Of course you're pobably just trolling anyway.
Re:Follow up by lynx_user_abroad · 2003-10-31 06:32 · Score: 1

But they ARE doing it. That's the whole point of this Slashdot story. They're doing it illegally.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. It is neither a Copyright nor GPL violation to claim to be offering downloads when your server is flat on it's back and offering nothing. Just like you can't be convicted of murder if you can't shoot straight enough to hit your target. THe DDOS'ing or slashdotting of their server works against the Free Software community in this way.
According to the story, SCO is adding restrictions to what you can do with the software once downloaded.

It sounds like neither of us has been able to read the actual SCO license terms.
If SCO distributes GPL'd software under more restrictive terms, their terms are unenforceable. Offering terms you cannot enforce is not illegal. (is it?) You and I can still re-distribute the GPL'd software we get from SCO (assuming we abide by the GPL, etc) regardless of what restrictions SCO claims. They may have also lost their license to redistribute, but that doesn't affect our license to redistribute, because our license comes from "the original licensor". To be honest, I don't really care how much SCO screws up their own business; my concern is to ensure the rights of the Free Software community are not being trampeled.
As I said, I haven't read their license requirements myself so I don't claim to know what the terms of the restriction are. But even if their stated terms are more restrictive than GPL, I don't know if you could pull their GPL license until they try to "impose" those terms; as long as they still also offer the sources and continue to meet all their GPL requirements, I can't complain. Remember, we're dealing with some well-oiled lawyers here.
Can an incorrectly configured (read: wide open) FTP server be cited as a form of "download this, no charge" compliance under these circumstances?
What does that have to do with anything? If your trying to insinuate that SCO has been unknowingly distrbuting Linux the last 6 months you need professional help. Of course you're pobably just trolling anyway.

Dock me one point for humor. I was trying to say it would be just our luch to have SCO misconfigure their server such that any decent cracker could still download sources from them, and they'd cite that as their "See, here's how you get the sources, free, just like we're required to offer..." defense in court. But it's never funny if you have to explain it.
And no, I wasn't trolling, but I'm not going to deny I may need professional help.

--
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

Dear Close Enough by Letter · 2003-10-31 04:04 · Score: 0

Dear Close Enough,

It's an au file.

Letter

Cease and Desist Letter - Put 3D17.org to the test by cuppm · 2003-10-31 04:05 · Score: 1

Anybody want to put 3D17.org to the test and work on a cease and desist letter to SCO on it? Once it's done we can all send it in. :)

--
I have no sig, the eyebrows seal the deal. That's right. Eyebrows.

SCOX stock by TWX · 2003-10-31 04:07 · Score: 1

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=5d&l=on&z=m &q=l&c=">SCOX at Yahoo! Finance

That's where I look at it, anyway. The pretty pictures make it easy.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

Can you say Class Action? by skogs · 2003-10-31 04:07 · Score: 1

Can all the developers be organized somewhat into a class action lawsuit. I'm sure the words class action have wonderful impacts on stock price.

how can SCO be so swarthy...dirty...underhanded...immoral...mean...s elfish...prideful...ignorant...

--
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!

Yeah! Is there a CUSTOMER in the house?!?! by abb3w · 2003-10-31 04:09 · Score: 1

Upmod Parent! Unlikely as it is... is *anyone* on Slashdot an actual SCO customer, who would have access to the text of the new SCO license, and could post it?

Of course, SCO could have put the sub-license under an NDA... but that would probably be proof of GPL violation (further restriction) right there.

--
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.

Package contents? by Tom · 2003-10-31 04:09 · Score: 1

So does anyone know what exactly they are selling? Which apps besides the kernel are in?

I haven't contributed to the kernel, but I have written code for a few other GPL programs. I'd love to know if my code is in there.
You see - they already lost a court case about their FUD campaign over here in Germany. Not a good start for further lawsuits for them. :)

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Re:Package contents? by Jaysyn · 2003-10-31 07:43 · Score: 1

Well I was on there earlier (before they took it down), I saw Samba packages, and a lot of stuff with SuSe's name in it.

Jaysyn

--
There is a war going on for your mind.

SCO *already* infringed copyrights of GPL'd code! by Deven · 2003-10-31 04:09 · Score: 1

Paragraph 28 of IBM's counterclaim:

28. SCO accepted the terms of the GPL by modifying and distributing Linux products. By distributing Linux products under the GPL, SCO agreed, among other things, not to assert -- indeed, it is prohibited from asserting -- certain proprietary rights over any programs distributed by SCO under the terms of the GPL. SCO also agreed not to restrict further distribution of any programs distributed by SCO under the terms of the GPL.

The response from SCO's lawyers in their answer to IBM's counterclaim:

28. Denies the allegations of [paragraph] 28.

They asserted a blanket denial of that paragraph, including SCO's acceptance of the GPL. While the GPL states that you don't have to accept the license, nothing else would give SCO a valid license to distribute copyrighted works of others licensed under the GPL. Since SCO's court filing (quoted above) indicates that they did not accept the GPL. However, without accepting the GPL, SCO had no valid license to distributed the copyrighted works covered under the GPL!

I am not a lawyer, but it appears to me that SCO has admitted in a court document (quoted above) that they did not accept the GPL -- couldn't this court document could be used as evidence for any Linux copyright owner to sue SCO for willful copyright infringement? How could SCO possibly worm their way out of this one without perjury?

--

Deven

"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay

I say we sue them for one MILLION dollars! by Perlguy · 2003-10-31 04:09 · Score: 4, Funny

What? Oh.

One HUNDRED... BILLION dollars!

--
-- Windows security? Sure, which ONE would you like? -me

News flash: SCO revokes its GNU license by asr_man · 2003-10-31 04:09 · Score: 1

UTAH - SCO (SCOX) announced today it is revoking its GNU license. "We gave the FSF guys plenty of time to respond to our claims and work with us," CEO Darl McBride told reporters, "but they've left us no choice." A few moments later a visibly angered McBride approached reporters again and disputed the "arbitrary" pulling of SCO's license. "We believe we have a fully paid-up, irrevocable license!"

Legal Help by moojin · 2003-10-31 04:09 · Score: 1

Does anybody know of any lawyers or legal organizations that will help developers send cease and desist letters or help them start a lawsuit (for free)? I think a generic cease and desist letter that was drawn up by a lawyer, but could be used by any of the developers would be good.

Just a thought...

Andrew

--
Why did I lurk so long before registering for a Slashdot account? I could have had a Slashdot ID of less than 100000.

Again, with Preview! by TWX · 2003-10-31 04:10 · Score: 1

SCOX at Yahoo! Finance

That's where I look at it, anyway. The pretty pictures make it easy.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

Whose going to sue SCO? by gfordham · 2003-10-31 04:10 · Score: 1

Well SCO is obviously in breach of the GPL, but who is going to sue them for it?

How many open source programmers are willing to bring a class action lawsuit against SCO?

More importantly it would have to be people who actually authored code. I believe they are really the only ones with a right to sue.

Maybe the eff could organize this.

As usual IANAL though.
--G

--
When work feels overwhelming, remember that you're going to die.

Why would anyone download Anything from them?? by marz007 · 2003-10-31 04:10 · Score: 1

I can't understand why anyone would need to download even a 'bit' from their ftp site. Isn't anything that they might have there somewhere else already anyway?

I couldn't understand why anyone is still a SCO customer, until I ran into TWO old SCO boxen that were running a phone system at a VERY LARGE University recently. One of them had failed and the second one that was supposed to be the failover...didn't. I asked why they were still using this trash. Nobody knew and nobody knew how to fix them, but they were dead in the water without them because these boxes were tied to the phone system and they did all the proprietary logging of all the calls so they could do their BILLING!!!! *BOGGLE* I offerd to help them find some newer software or even write some new stuff on a Linux box, but they declined and just called SCO to help them out. I told them "Have a Nice Day". I have no idea if SCO actually answered the phone and helped them or not.

Some people you just can't help. You do what you can..then you just have to move on and let them die peacefully as they can. They just don't want to change anything. "Fear of Change"

*sigh*

Time for devs outside the US to call their lawyers by Yaztromo · 2003-10-31 04:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

AFAIK, SCO is only challenging the GPL within the US court system. Regardless of the outcome, the US doesn't dictate license validity to the rest of the world -- only their own country.

And so far as I am aware, many (although certainly not all...) kernel and other core Linux developers live outside the US.

I think it's time for these developers to rise up and smack SCO within their own countries. If SCO is redistributing their work outside the confines of the license the copyright holders provide it under, SCO is in violation. And if developers in enough countries where SCO does business file lawsuits, SCO's going to have to hire a massive army of lawyers to deal with all of them, hitting SCO's coffers.

I know that if SCO were to start redistributing any of my GPL'd code under another license without my prior permission, I'd be hauling them into Canadian court to answer for their actions.

Yaz.

So... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:10 · Score: 1, Funny

Since they don't agree with GPL they think they have free reign to violate it? Geeze that's audacious.

Imagine if I didn't agree with copyright law and just downloaded mp3s...no wait, that's completly different.

Linux at issue there not GNU/Linux by bluGill · 2003-10-31 04:11 · Score: 1

But in this case it is a linux specific issue. SCO is not claiming action against GNU software, only the linux kernel. Thus saying GNU/Linux in the context of this artical is likely wrong!

Re:Linux at issue there not GNU/Linux by revividus · 2003-10-31 07:22 · Score: 1

I agree, actually. Just making a dumb joke. Not a funny one, apparently.

--
philcrissman.com.

Class Action Suit Time? by handmedowns · 2003-10-31 04:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Wouldn't this warrant all of the linux developers to now come together and file a class action suit against SCO for violating their copyright? Or does this indeed have to be done by the FSF and FSF alone since the copyright is turned over to them? In either case isn't it one more suit that we can hit SCO with?

--
The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.

Missing pieces by TWX · 2003-10-31 04:13 · Score: 1

You're confusing Caldera Software for the Santa Cruz Operation. Xenix was written by the Santa Cruz Operation, or whatever they were called, back before that company as it was ceased to exist. Caldera is using a "doing business as" filing to operate as SCO.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

Re:Missing pieces by Foofoobar · 2003-10-31 04:16 · Score: 1

Nope... not confusing it at all. Read the history of SCO and know thine enemy.

--
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Re:Missing pieces by Foofoobar · 2003-10-31 04:38 · Score: 1

A little more research on the Tarantella website (formerly SCO) shows that Caldera purchased their entire operating system divisions in 2001... meaning that Caldera IS Xenix.

Now Xenix as you know was Microsofts attempt at Unix. The work on the OS eventually was farmed out to SCO rather than done in house and eventually SCO owned the license to the OS... thus ending Microsofts attempt at a Unix version. Now mind you Caldera (the newly renamed SCO) is NOT the same company, and that Microsoft lost a lawsuit with Caldera forcing a huge settlement out of court.

Now Microsoft threw tons of money at SCO the second the lawsuit against Linux started... which leads many to believe this is a combined effort by both companies.

--
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Re:Missing pieces by cdrudge · 2003-10-31 05:02 · Score: 1

Nope. Caldera as an official company has ceased to exist. For a while they were still Caldera d/b/a The SCO Group but they officially changed their name a month or two ago. If you see anything with Candera's name on it, it is either old, or it's The SCO Group d/b/a Caldera.

Xenix was written by Microsoft for Tandy 8086 and 8080 processors and later merged with AT&T SysV. Then it was sold to the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) and was renamed/eventually became SCO XENIX, SCO XENIX 286, SCO XENIX 386, then developed into SCO OpenServer while Unixware came from Novel/AT&T Unix Labs. Caldera purchased The Santa Cruz Operation back in 2001. At this point, IBM and SCO were collaborating on Project Monterey since 1998, which was subsequently broken off. With the purchase of SCO, Caldera became a distributor of OpenLinux, OpenServer, and Unixware while spinning off Tarantella to a seperate company. Caldera struggled for a while, eventually trying to revive sales with partnerships with Suse, Connectivia, TurboLinux, and someone else with UnitedLinux. At this point Ransom Love was in charge of the company and seemed to reasonably embrase the idea of OSS. They even at one point toyed with the idea of supporting many differnet flavors of Linux (RedHat, Debian, Suse, etc) with service contracts to companies. That subsequently failed that they went back to primarily Unix sales and renamed Caldera International to The SCO Group, hoping the familiar old name would project a new image. Ransom left and our beloved Darl came into power. Then Darl realized that Linux was a threat to their entire business model (both sales of licenses and support), that they decided to go down their path they are currently on.

Note, SCO no longer stands for Santa Cruz Operation.
Re:Missing pieces by Foofoobar · 2003-11-04 08:03 · Score: 1

Welll yes, this is fairly correct. But the ORIGINAL SCO changed their named to Tarantella. Caldera bought Xenix and all other operating systems from the ORIGINAL SCO and then later CHANGED their name to SCO... so in other words:

Tarantella = old SCO
Caldera = new SCO

and the old SCO sold Xenix and all that crap to what is now the NEW SCO.

--
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.

Is this actually a GPL violation? by arkanes · 2003-10-31 04:15 · Score: 1

I don't see anything on the SCO pages linked from the Reg article that would make this a GPL violation - they're password protecting thier FTP server so that only thier customers can access it. This is completely legitimate.

No license is displayed anywhere I can see (I'm not an SCO customer...), but I assume you can get one from the FTP site itself. Does anyone who IS an SCO customer want to actually look at the license and post the text?

Re:Is this actually a GPL violation? by fishbowl · 2003-10-31 08:06 · Score: 1

"I don't see anything on the SCO pages linked from the Reg article that would make this a GPL violation"

They openly reject the GPL, yet they distribute software licensed under it to which they have no interest or any claim of interest. When they rejected the GPL they gave up the right to distribute Vim, NcFTP, glibc, etc.

They have made some vague claims to owning the kernel, but nothing specific. Even if you let them slide the kernel, waiving their privileges under the GPL and continuing to distribute software that is licensed under the GPL, puts them in a position where they are damaging the interests of those works.

It does not matter what additional license terms the put this software under. They gave up their right to distribute it when they rejected the GPL. They basically told the international press "We reject the agreement." There is no gray area here. They have no right to distribute the software, and they should be getting C&D's already, if not restraining orders, and takedown notices from network providers, etc.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:Is this actually a GPL violation? by Tony+Hoyle · 2003-10-31 08:08 · Score: 1

So you're looking for someone who:

(a) Is an SCO customer, and
(b) Reads slashdot

Umm... happy hunting!
Re:Is this actually a GPL violation? by arkanes · 2003-10-31 09:33 · Score: 1

Well, blah blah blah - I suppose you could say that, as far as it goes, although I believe you're allowed to SAY a license is invalid all day long as long as you still conform to it.
That aside, the Reg article (and Slashdot write up) are claiming a new, specific GPL violation - the distribution of Linux under a different and not GPL compliant license. I can't find any proof of that from the provided links and would like some before "we" mouth off too much.

Donate to FSF by Pup5 · 2003-10-31 04:15 · Score: 1

I've always been a supporter in spirit, but it takes money to wage these wars.

FSF Website

Donating is easy. You can even buy stuff that will put money in their hands.

Re:Time to enforce the GPL?.....NO, this is bait.. by Dr_Marvin_Monroe · 2003-10-31 04:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Of course, the standard disclaimer IANAL applies, but this whole new mess that SCO has stirred up seems to have a purpose. A nefarious purpose, but a purpose none the less.

The more lawsuits now, the better their plan works. Remember, they are pursuing a plan of FUD, stock price manipulation and legal mudwrestling. They are not interested in really getting ANYTHING settled. I'm sure that Daryl is sitting in Utah right now, laughing while these headline come out. Their position as MS shill (licensing to MS and some bulls*%#t cross licensing of MS communication protocols under the settlement agreement to make it look as if MS is really sharing) and their disregard for the future viability of Linux (SCO not interested if it survives or not) has already been documented. They are not really interested in creating anything other than a sharkfest feeding frenzy over the code within Linux...trying to create an atmosphere around Linux that rivals their own sorded and utterly confusing legal past.

SCO's only purpose is to somehow stay in business and continue to dump these types of infuriating legal turd tidbits for the community to find. This serves as the legal equivilent to "..hey, look over there!..." While they trumpet to the entire world that "we're still alive, so we must be winning our case" That's a tactic used by MS in court too....

Do not allow them to change the subject. Their initial claim is "IBM put SCO's code in Linux"...make them prove that first!...Anything else is changing the subject. I do not beleve that there should be additional suits UNTIL the original suit is settled. There will be plenty of time to file after the IBM/SCO cage-match gets started.

They are doing this because they don't want you to notice how weak their hand is, and to drag everyone else into the mud also....don't fall for it, we'll pull SCO's body apart piece by piece in due time.... ....don't kill them yet, we need them alive so that we can torture them later!

Critical moment for GPL'd code by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:16 · Score: 0

This is an extremely important moment for every shred of code licensed under the GPL. For SCO to try to distribute GPL'd code under their own license is a flagrant violation of the GPL and infringes on the copyrighted intellectual property of all those developers. It's clear what SCO's angle will be in court. The idea that any piece of code licensed under a GPL essentially puts that code in the public domain. That is not the case. But to assure that SCO's tactics don't work, all the owners of GPL'd code that SCO is trying to redistribute must act vigorously and immediately to defend their IP. If IP is not defended under copyright law it is lost to the public domain where SCO can do whatever they want with it.

GPL Licence is NULL ? by cozman69 · 2003-10-31 04:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's interesting that the GPL licence is currently powerless to protect Linux against SCO hijacking the source code and doing whatever it wants with it. Considering that was the very reason the GPL was written, right now it's turning out to be a complete failure.

And it's also interesting that the BSD licenced OS's don't care about code hijack, and yet have the least problems with it.

Is it time to think about getting the GPL tested in the courts ? What's gonna stop Microsoft from using Linux source in their next Windows version ?

Is Linux dying as opposed to *BSD ?

Re:GPL Licence is NULL ? by bamberg · 2003-10-31 05:29 · Score: 1

Nice troll.

For those of you who are just tuning in, this is the GPL's test in court, and when it's over SCO's complete destruction will be a harsh lesson for any other company that might try to hijack GPL'd code. GPL'd code that provides a financial benefit to deep-pocketed corporations, anyway.

Since there's no such thing as hijacking BSD'd code, obviously BSD has no problem with it.

As for your last question, I would guess that the sort of people who think (to use the term loosely) that *BSD is dying probably think that Linux is dying as well. The rest of us are a little more realistic.
Re:GPL Licence is NULL ? by iggymanz · 2003-10-31 06:02 · Score: 1

actually, it is possible to hijack BSD code as well

- Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

And of course, BSD is very much alive in proprietary as well as open source form.
Re:GPL Licence is NULL ? by fishbowl · 2003-10-31 07:56 · Score: 1

>this is the GPL's test in court

This *might* be the GPL's test to determine whether all its clauses apply between SCO and IBM. Whether it applies between any other parties is still open to discussion, and always will be.

Would you claim your mortgage agreement hasn't been tested in court just because you haven't sued your bank yet?

Either it is legal for one party to grant the privileges provided by each clause in the license, or it is not. Either it is legal for another party to accept those license terms, or it is not, with respect to a given product.

If the GPL is "invalid" for one person, that doesn't mean it's invalid for anyone else.

It does not require actions or conditions that are illegal in Utah or in the US. I don't know what aspect of the license people think needs to be "tested", or what legal meaning they think that has. To say that the GPL has never been tested in the US, is tantamount to saying copyright law in the US is but a theory.

So there hasn't been a major case with respect to a piece of software that was licensed under the GPL before. The case law to look for would be ANY software license. Anything that gives force to the GPL, is the same thing that gives force to any other software agreement. And that force extends from an authors *Constitutional* rights under copyright law.

If someone is claiming that Constitutional rights haven't been tested, he's smoking the same stuff as Daryl.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:GPL Licence is NULL ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 08:08 · Score: 0

What are you 15? You realize that this shit takes time right?
Re:GPL Licence is NULL ? by bamberg · 2003-10-31 08:52 · Score: 1

I'm not sure if my comment is the one you meant to reply to, but if it is you have completely misinterpreted my position.

I am not questioning the GPL's validity; in the U.S. it is a straightforward application of copyright law. There is no question that software is covered under copyright and that copyright owners have the ability to grant others the right to distribute derived works, which is what the GPL does.

The value of "testing" the GPL in court is not to find out if it is valid; it's to have a nice legal reference to point to when Certain Parties spread FUD about the legal standing of Linux and other GPL software. When someone says "the GPL has never been tested in court!" (as though that mattered) we can point to SCO v IBM and the smoking crater in Utah that used to be SCO headquarters.

Not even similar by DingoBueno · 2003-10-31 04:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

So many of you Slashdotters think that committing copyright violations against RIAA is just fine, but as soon as someone does it to Linux, you're all up in arms.

No. When I listen to music, I just listen to it. I do not take it, repackage it, perform and sell it as my own, claiming to be the artist. On top of that, I do not send a letter to the artist demanding a licensing fee for their continued use of their work. I also do not claim I developed music theory, and that everyone else who uses it is commiting ip fraud.

--
ascii art

Re:Not even similar by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 07:23 · Score: 0

amen
Re:Not even similar by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 09:25 · Score: 0

You must not work for the recording industry.
Re:Not even similar by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 15:52 · Score: 0

What makes you think that?

One more thing re: public domain by Platinum+Dragon · 2003-10-31 04:20 · Score: 1

I should mention that by asking a judge to put any GPLd code into the public domain, instead of letting it revert to standard copyright, SCO is asking the courts to, effectively, write a new IP law. Current American IP law specifically states that a work cannot enter public domain until either the author's life plus 70 years passes, or until the author explicitly places their work into the public domain. SCO is asking the court to place entire bodies of work into the public domain without the consent of the copyright holders, and long before the legal copyright period expires. I don't think even the original twenty-eight year limit on copyright set over two centuries ago would have expired on GPL works.

Does SCO really know what kind of a Pandora's Box they're opening here?

--

Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.

Re:One more thing re: public domain by mpe · 2003-10-31 07:13 · Score: 1

I should mention that by asking a judge to put any GPLd code into the public domain, instead of letting it revert to standard copyright, SCO is asking the courts to, effectively, write a new IP law.

Not all of the copyright holders are from the US, but their copyright is accepted there because of various treaties. Notably Bern and WIPO. So they are not only asking the court to drastically ammend statutes they are also asking it to break treaties. N.B. these are recipricol treaties, break them and any US produced copyright works become public domain over most of the planet. Which would be to the disadvantage of a great many parties, including SCO.

Current American IP law specifically states that a work cannot enter public domain until either the author's life plus 70 years passes, or until the author explicitly places their work into the public domain.

There is even some reason to suspect that a copyright holder placing something in the public domain is actually revokable, under current laws.

SCO is asking the court to place entire bodies of work into the public domain without the consent of the copyright holders

Indeed against the copyright holders explicit wishes. SCO are attempting to use a principle applicable to willing property to charities. Even though the vast majority of the copyright holders are alive and perfectly capable indicating their wishes. AFAIK no GPL copyright has been willed to a charity. Any which might have been willed having been willed to a person or corporation.

Claim in article is not correct by Brett+Glass · 2003-10-31 04:21 · Score: 1

only the GPL gives them any rights to distribute the code

Not true. The code does seem to be derivative of SCO's. This gives them an ownership interest in the code, which of course allows them to distribute it in any way they please.

Just because the GPL claims that it's the only thing that gives you right to code does not mean that it's true.

Re:Claim in article is not correct by Todd+Knarr · 2003-10-31 04:27 · Score: 1

They can distribute their code any way they please. The problem is, Linux contains other people's code, and they've only licensed it to be distributed under the GPL. SCO has no ownership interest in any code they didn't write, and no other law gives them any rights to it, so unless they agree to the GPL they're limited to the rights they'd have under copyright which specifically exclude the right to redistribute without permission.

What you can do with your code doesn't affect what you can do with my code.
Re:Claim in article is not correct by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:39 · Score: 0

Someone mod parent flamebait!!
Re:Claim in article is not correct by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:42 · Score: 1, Interesting

BrettGlass wrote:
The code does seem to be derivative of SCO's. This gives them an ownership interest in the code, which of course allows them to distribute it in any way they please.

This is in fact false. If this were true than the writer of the book Forest Gump could redistribute the movie however he wanted to. He could sell copies of it that compete with those from the studio. This is not the case. Owning a copywrite to a work that someone makes a derivative work based on, does not confer copywrite to the derivitive. Thank you for playing.
Re:Claim in article is not correct by 47PHA60 · 2003-11-01 11:06 · Score: 1

Just because the GPL claims that it's the only thing that gives you right to code does not mean that it's true.

This claim in the General Public License is based on US and international copyright laws. The GPL is simply the only software license that explains something about copyright.

Not true. The code does seem to be derivative of SCO's.

Which code are you talking about? Did you sign the NDA and see it? The examples shown publicly so far have been proven to be freely released under a BSD style license or original work. Please elaborate.

Hooray for funding! by Moekandu · 2003-10-31 04:21 · Score: 1

Oh boy! I am so glad that SCO just received $50 million in funding!

I figure it should just about cover the damages awarded on the class-action lawsuit filed by the copyright holders.

Moekandu

"It is a sad state of affairs when a family can be torn apart by something as simple as a pack of wild dogs."

--
Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius. -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

The DMCA as your friend? by Cecil · 2003-10-31 04:22 · Score: 1

The law is supposed to be blind, and the draconian punishments it allows protect ANYONE's copyright claim. Why doesn't a copyright holder on portions of the code issue a takedown notice to SCO's upstream provider and get them taken off the net?

No one will miss SCO, and once companies start seeing the very damaging takedown notices that can be inflicted upon them (as opposed to some random weirdo's weblog) that portion of the law at least may be in danger.

IANAL, nor an American, so I don't know. Just a thought.

--
Random and weird software I've written.

Re:The DMCA as your friend? by magic · 2003-10-31 04:36 · Score: 1

Why doesn't a copyright holder on portions of the code

Doesn't the GPL require you to assign your copyright to the Free Software Foundation? Only the FSF can take action.

-m
Re:The DMCA as your friend? by ctid · 2003-10-31 04:41 · Score: 1

Doesn't the GPL require you to assign your copyright to the Free Software Foundation?

No it doesn't.

Only the FSF can take action.

Not true. Anyone who is a copyright holder on kernel code can (and probably should) sue.

--
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Re:The DMCA as your friend? by ender- · 2003-10-31 04:42 · Score: 1

Doesn't the GPL require you to assign your copyright to the Free Software Foundation? Only the FSF can take action.

No, I think it suggests that you do so, but it does not require it.

--
Nothing to see here
Re:The DMCA as your friend? by John+Hasler · 2003-10-31 05:26 · Score: 2, Informative

> No, I think it suggests that you do so, but it
> does not require it.

The GPL suggests no such thing. Read it:

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

b) 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.

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
^L
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute
the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:The DMCA as your friend? by ender- · 2003-10-31 05:45 · Score: 1

Ok I did some more searching and this is what I found. It looks like if you contribute code to a FSF project, they require you to assign the copyright to them. And I'm not 100% sure I'm reading this right, but they seem to suggest something similar for your own programs.

Sorry for the confusion, but I wasn't suggesting the GPL suggested this. I had simply remembered the FSF suggesting it a long time ago.

Ender

--
Nothing to see here
Re:The DMCA as your friend? by Kymermosst · 2003-10-31 16:56 · Score: 1

Doesn't the GPL require you to assign your copyright to the Free Software Foundation?

No.

--
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.

A Theory by TransistorTv · 2003-10-31 04:23 · Score: 1

I think SCO is trying to keep this in the media as long as they can, and I actually think they're working on Microsofts behalf. I would guess that Longhorn will be released in the beginning of the Trial, when SCO has had it's 2-3 years in the media once in a while with their FUD about Linux. So they will FUD linux as much as they can while trying to make their system as good as linux or better, while the case goes to Trial Windows Marketers are going to blow their Longhorn and promote Windows as never before. --- In a world without fences, who needs Gates!

It only removes rights for Linux by roystgnr · 2003-10-31 04:24 · Score: 1

Considering the wording of this in the GPL (IANAL so please correct me if I'm wrong) this paragraph effectively removes all rights for SCO to distribute ANY GPL software, not just Linux.

IANAL either, but I think that "this license" only refers to the GPL license attached to the Linux kernel. I suspect that legally the GPL license attached to Samba doesn't count as "this license" but rather as "another license with identical wording"; that would make more sense since phrases like "the Program" are also defined to mean different things in the two different licenses.

SCO and RIAA by nuggz · 2003-10-31 04:26 · Score: 1, Interesting

No actually I don't.

I don't commit any copyright violations against RIAA.

Personal copies made by me for my own personal use are completely legal. We even pay a blank media tax to compensate the copyright holder.

Re:SCO and RIAA by arose · 2003-11-01 08:18 · Score: 1

"We even pay a blank media tax to compensate the copyright holder." I am a copyright holder (everything that is "created", like this post, is automaticly copyrighted) and I haven't seen a penny, where do I apply for my money?

--
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Re:SCO and RIAA by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-02 10:21 · Score: 0

>> "We even pay a blank media tax to compensate the copyright holder."
>> I am a copyright holder ... and I haven't seen a penny, where do I apply for my money?

I know you're being facetious, but the straight answer is that the RIAA gets the royalty money. If you're a member, they probably own the copyright on your work. Ask them for the money!

SCO might be good guys masquarading! by f64 · 2003-10-31 04:26 · Score: 1

hey!

maybe SCO knows how much a court test of the GPL means to the Linux community, and has decided to let itself be ripped apart in court so as to validate the GPL and scare off future violators of open source licenses!

don't you see? they're martyring themselves for the great good of us all! and althought they in a weak moment might shout "oh Linus, why hast thou abandoned me?", they shall be remembered as having spilled their lawyer blood for the embetterment of the world!

f64 : making toys out of poop

Re:SCO might be good guys masquarading! by fishbowl · 2003-10-31 05:28 · Score: 2, Informative

I don't know what anyone thinks a "court test of the GPL" means, exactly, but the only thing to be found about it is the question of whether it is legal for a given party to license a given work under each clause, and then whether it is legal for a given second party to distribute a given work under each clause.

The "test" that everyone wants has already been done a thousand times. Attorneys who are licensed to practice law have read the GPL, and have found nothing specifically illegal about it.

Read it yourself, it is quite clear. Ask yourself at each and every clause, "is it legal in my State for me to make this agreement?"

Saying the GPL has not withstood the legal test is like saying that my mortgage contract has not stood the legal test. Just because I haven't sued my lender, doesn't mean the contract I signed is no good. Even if there is an illegal clause or two in that contract, doesn't mean I'm going to lose my house, or that I'm going to get it free. And it sure as hell wouldn't mean that the State can come and bulldoze it without compensating either me or the bank.

That's what SCO is proposing. Because they have an idea that there is a clause in the GPL that does not apply to SCO or IBM, that they can make the property rights of arbitrary other parties go away. They have only suggested that was possible, but they have not made any sort of argument that would even reach the ear of a judge, much less be decided on.

I think the popularity of the whole SCO versus IBM thing caught SCO by surprise. I don't think they understood that the noise they made would create an international contraversy. They probably thought it would be settled under the radar of the public eye, that the FUD they created would somehow derail the free software movement which they no doubt perceive as fragile and easily derailed. I think someone may have miscalculated significantly, and now a combination of cognitive dissonance (we've risked our future on this, we MUST prevail), risks associated with estoppel (we cannot change our story even if we know we're wrong), and wishful thinking (if we keep up the negative publicity against linux and gcc, people will stop using it and start looking to us for alternatives) has shaped their strategy.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

Kernel Developers by polyp2000 · 2003-10-31 04:27 · Score: 1

I'd imagine the kernel developers are going to be rather pissed about this. Donating time and efforts to the open comunity only to have some big-nog coporate to rape the very community that built it.

--
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp

Big Legal Error on SCO's part. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:27 · Score: 0

Because now anyone SCO is threatening to sue *KNOWS* SCO ain't going to do it - because all of SCOs targets have contirbuted code to the Linux kernel. They've just given IBM, SGI, et. al. a gift-wrapped countersuit. "Sue us, and we'll jsut sue you for stealing our code. Nyah, Nyah."

What is slashdot doing abouth this ? by dominic.laporte · 2003-10-31 04:29 · Score: 1

I think it is time someone organized a web site against sco.
1) It will attract major news sites !
2) Those idiots buying sco stocks read those news sites.

Hmm, can I sue SCO now? by linuxbikr · 2003-10-31 04:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

Just finished a quick bit of research and found a couple of interesting things...

1) I can download Caldera OpenLinux ISO images from here.
2) The SCO "register to access downloads" feature is a bunch of crap. Wander on over to Caldera's FTP site and download the source RPMs at will, the legal notice notwithstanding.

So, what happens if I install OpenLinux 3.1.1 workstation on my box at home (it is free and I have a spare machine I'm not using) and SCO closes the Caldera website down? If I go to SCO and say I need the sources, they ask "Are you a Caldera customer, I say, 'No, I am using a free downloaded version of OpenLinux 3.1.1' and they reply "You need to buy a SCO Linux License.", I think I have the grounds at that point to sue them for violation of the GPL's terms of distribution since they cannot deny me the sources on a product they distributed just because I didn't buy it.

Also, here is a fun page on SCO's own website OpenLinux Supplemental Open Source Software. Hmm, does IBM need some more ammunition provided by SCO themselves?

Re:Hmm, can I sue SCO now? by John+Hasler · 2003-10-31 05:29 · Score: 1

> I think I have the grounds at that point to sue
> them for violation of the GPL's terms of
> distribution since they cannot deny me the sources
> on a product they distributed just because I
> didn't buy it.

No. You have no standing to sue. Only a copyright owner does. Contact one or more of the copyright owners and suggest that they do so.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.

What's new is it's in writing now by roystgnr · 2003-10-31 04:30 · Score: 1

Check out the backpedaling in their responses in the IBM and Red Hat cases. "No, we never threatened Linux users with lawsuits!" "No, we never accused IBM of copying lines of our source code!" As far as SCO is concerned, nothing they say in the media should have any sort of legal weight, and you can bet they wouldn't have any qualms about pulling the same stunt when accused of attempting to add additional restrictions to GPLed software.

Now if they try to use a defense like that against their copyright infringement, IBM and Red Hat (and anyone else who wants to bring suit) don't have to base their case on a bunch of misinterpretable statements quoted by third party reporters; they can quote an official licensing statement straight from SCO's servers to prove infringement.

Where is EFF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:31 · Score: 0

Since EFF is the primary enforcer of GPL, they should be the one that sends the C&D and the authors in the Linux kernel should collectivly send their C&D via EFF so EFF can start filing law suits on behalf of authors against SCO. I wonder if this could even qualify as classic action?

Re:Where is EFF? by fishbowl · 2003-10-31 05:17 · Score: 1

>Since EFF is the primary enforcer of GPL

"Enforcer?" Where do you get the idea that the word is appropriate? What's to be "enforced" is copyright law. Enforcement of laws is the sole domain of duly appointed agents of the government, and only by manner of due process.

Individuals may assert their rights under contract or copyright law, but "enforcement" is reserved to those with a monopoly on the use of force.

Anyone who holds a copyright is entitled to initiate process to protect that copyright. He or she has the right to file a motion in court (a lawsuit, for example), or to make legal requests to cease an infraction (a C&D letter).

>classic action

You mean "class action".

First you need a ruling that creates a legal entity that represents everyone in the class. That would have to be a pretty broad entity, and *many* would object to being made part of the class. I don't think a class action suit would be the best approach at all. It would be much better to force SCO into a position where they must negotiate separate licenses for each and every copyrighted work to which they have rejected the current license.

I can't imagine a legal ruling that includes every author of every GPL'd work (including some that have never been distributed at all, please consider that!), but such a "class" would have to include pretty much everybody on the planet, and it would NEVER include me, because no one represents me, or my interests, but me. Period.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

Time for the DMCA to work for us? by k98sven · 2003-10-31 04:32 · Score: 1

What I'd like to see right now, is all the kernel hackers to use their DMCA rights to serve SCO with a huge bunch of subpoenas.

Unconstitutional? hahahah by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:33 · Score: 0

I've been hearing SCO says the GPL is "unenforceable, unconsititutional, and void".

Ok, unenforceable sure, smoke some crack. Void sure, smoke more crack. But "unconstitutional"?

How exactly is the GPL "unconstitutional"? I have never heard an explanation of this. They might as well throw in that the GPL causes cancer too.

Has ANYBODY heard SCO's explanation of how the GPL is "unconstitutional"? Do they even have ane explanation?

Re:Unconstitutional? hahahah by fishbowl · 2003-10-31 05:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

>Has ANYBODY heard SCO's explanation of how the
>GPL is "unconstitutional"? Do they even have ane
>explanation?

They haven't given one, apparently.

Lots of people comment on how the GPL has "never been tested in court."

My lease agreement with my landlady hasn't been tested in court either, but unless there is something in every clause that is plainly illegal, it's a safe bet that the contract will prevail.

As distribution licenses go, the GPL is as simple as it gets. You can go through it line by line, and at every clause, ask "is it legal for two parties to enter into this agreement?"

The answer will be "yes." The only question in this case will be whether the agreement is valid between the two parties at suit (SCO, and IBM).
It may be a result of this lawsuit that one or both of those parties is found to be unable to agree to the GPL due to some other constraints. (For instance, I could sign a contract that said I will not distribute GPL software, and that would be binding.)

Now, SCO realizes that if it came to this, SCO would not get very many offers of an alternative license agreement, whereas IBM probably would.

But if there's anything *unconstitutional* about the GPL, in any of its clauses or as a whole, what's really frightening about that is the same finding would certainly invalidate many other licenses. I'd expect EVERY software license to have a problem, and it's hard to see how it wouldn't translate to "copyright law is unconstitutional."

The bottom line of the GPL is that it is an expression of an author's rights under copyright law. The question is, do I, an author, have the right to enter into this agreement, or do I not?

If not, there must be reasons. The circular argument won't cut it. The reasons have to be specific. "Because it's the GPL and the GPL is not valid" will never be the precedent. In Mcarthyist philosophy, the socialist colour of the license might be accepted as grounds for prejudice, but that isn't going to drive a contemporary judicial decision, not even in Utah.

So, clause by clause, we need reasons why any part of the agreement is illegal, in the State of Utah, in the US, or in any other jurisdiction. If you can find anything in the GPL that constitutes a breach of law, that parties are breaking the law merely by entering into it, the finding should be construed to apply to every other agreement sharing the same characteristics. A judge may not simply "ban the GPL." That would show clear prejudice and would be a blatant disregard for equal protection of the law.

There was some noise about "releasing GPL'd copyrights into the public domain" also.

If you want to get into "unconstitutional" territory, we need to start with the right of an individual not to be deprived of property without due process of law.

A settlement in a lawsuit between two parties unrelated to me, does not constitute process on the question of my property rights. That is simply not something that the judge has the authority to consider. The motion to release copyrights into the public domain would have to be filed against each and every individual work, and each and every author would be entitled to due process.

Some of them would be in a position to put up an even bigger fight than IBM, since the question would be even clearer.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:Unconstitutional? hahahah by MrGrendel · 2003-10-31 12:23 · Score: 1

They didn't give an explanation in the court filings of how the GPL is unconstitutional, but Blake Stowell gave an explanation in an interview. The exact verbage should be in Groklaw's quotation database. They basically want to argue that the constitution specifies Congress as the sole regulator of copyrights. So far, so good. Then they claim that the FSF is attempting to regulate copyrights by publishing the GPL and enforcing its terms on software they own. Following their logic, the FSF has set up its own parallel set of copyright laws via the GPL and that is clearly unconstitutional. They do not explain, however, how the publication of a copyright license equates to the establishment of an independant law-making body. Say what you will about RMS, but I don't think he believes that he is the President of the GNUnited States of America (the GNU/President?).

I have two guesses as to what is really going on here: 1) David Boies and Co. have found a source of some really good smack. 2) They are planning to spike Judge Kimball's coffee with a hit of LSD right before oral arguments begin.

Hail Darl by jason.mitchell · 2003-10-31 04:34 · Score: 1

Hail Darl my communist monkey. He wants to rule it all. RIAA and SCO should team up for total domination. /3 SCO-CKS

I think his point was by FanaticalDesperado · 2003-10-31 04:35 · Score: 1

that SCO has declared the GPL invalid (or unenforceable, I don't remember the exact wording they used). Given that fact, can anyone really claim to be surprised by this story? Isn't SCO's suit against IBM a contractual dispute in which SCO cliams that IBM had no right to put code that IBM developed into linux, while IBM thinks they have every right to do so?

Suppose you offer a licence for your app at X pounds; if I don't like the licence, the application doesn't nonetheless become mine.
Your assuming that you and SCO are playing by the same rules. You're not! While you are all about fair play, SCO seems to be making up their own rules.

Bozo by ratboy666 · 2003-10-31 04:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

It is NOT illegal to make a copy of a sound recording in the US and Canada (no, I don't know about other jurisdictions).

It is illegal to mass duplicate music - and I agree with that.

The Copying rights for Linux are CLEARLY labeled, and every user is CLEARLY informed of them. It is illegal to not supply this information.

The Copying rights for CDs aren't particularly clearly stated. It takes a bit of digging to actually figure them out.

Sound recordings occupy a special place in Copyright law. Computer source programs are NOT the same thing at all.

Now, all of this has been hashed to death, but the thing that makes you a Bozo is:

The RIAA does NOT hold sound recording copyrights. The RIAA is simply a cartel representing its members.

Linux is not even a cartel. It is simply a trademark. There is NO cartel; copyright is held and defended by the individual authors, or, in some cases, has been assigned to the FSF.

Ratboy

--
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061

Re:Bozo by benjamindees · 2003-10-31 11:34 · Score: 1

It is illegal to mass duplicate music
sp/'mass duplicate'/distribute

--
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"

What makes you think you can prove copyright? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:36 · Score: 0

Since everyone seems to agree that SCO can't prove that they own any of the Linux code, what makes any on /. think that a small developed can prove that they have copyright on any part of Linux?

Something to think about.

Is there a non-SCO mirror of the SCO kernel RPMS? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:38 · Score: 0

I have some kernel patches that never made it into the vanilla kernel.org distributions. If SCO is using my patches I am sure as hell going to send them a C&D.

But to date I've never bothered to download the SCO kernels. Now I can't. Is there a mirror somewhere that grabbed a copy before they locked their FTP server down? I need to grab their .src.rpm and see if my code is in it before I can complain.

Thanks.

indemnity by wintermute740 · 2003-10-31 04:39 · Score: 1

So, if I'm a Caldera customer and agree to their more restrictive license, is SCO going to be a hypocrite and refuse to offer me indemnity in case Redhat or IBM decides to sue me? I mean, it's only fair that if they complain that other companies won't indemnify their customer against SCO's lawsuits, that they offer the same thing theirselve, right? Oh, that's right, their defense to that reads something along the lines of a Monty Python sketch:

SCO: He turned me into a GNU.
IBM: A GNU?
SCO: I got better.

--

--
www.nitemarecafe.com

WTF? by t0ny · 2003-10-31 04:40 · Score: 4, Funny

I dont even use Linux, and SCO is really pissing me off.

--

Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

Re:WTF? by dtfinch · 2003-10-31 05:36 · Score: 1

Pretty much the same here. I have Slackware 9.1, but not on by best pc.

After reading this article, I went ahead and bought a membership at fsf.org. It's $60 a year since I'm a student.
Re:WTF? by cHALiTO · 2003-10-31 08:02 · Score: 1

Same here, and as a student too, using debian, gentoo and slack.
This has just gone too far.

--
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
Re:WTF? by Trillan · 2003-10-31 09:09 · Score: 1

Yeah, same here.

Oh well. At least I'm getting my daily slime intake without it directly affecting me.
Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 16:16 · Score: 0

Yeah me neither, just a few boxes running SuSE, an Agenda, my Z, and a couple of modded X-boxes.

Nope, hardly ever touch the stuff...

I can't see they break the GPL by Esben · 2003-10-31 04:40 · Score: 1

Where does it state in the GPL that you can't restrict downloads? Even charge for downloads? (MontaVista is doing the same thing I believe).

What you can't do, however, is to put any other licence but the GPL on the downloaded material. I.e. anyone who downloads those rpms are free to destribute it. Where is that license? There is nothing about it on their website.

On the other hand, no matter what kind of passwords they put on their service and they don't put on additional licences they are still distributing the code under GPL - i.e. giving you the rights to use whatever code they might actually have copyright to under the GPL.

Re:I can't see they break the GPL by fishbowl · 2003-10-31 04:51 · Score: 2, Informative

>Where does it state in the GPL that you can't
>restrict downloads?

If you reject the GPL and do not negotiate some other agreement, under copyright law you have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to distribute the code.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:I can't see they break the GPL by iggymanz · 2003-10-31 06:06 · Score: 1

they are now distributing Linux under *another* license, which affirms SCO's "intellectual property" rights. This is a violation of the GPL.
Re:I can't see they break the GPL by ShinmaWa · 2003-10-31 09:39 · Score: 1

they are now distributing Linux under *another* license, which affirms SCO's "intellectual property" rights. This is a violation of the GPL.

What other license? I can't find it. There's no mention of another license on the webpage. The Register doesn't quote any of the license in their article, but only makes vague references to it. Where's this license? Can you quote it for me?

It looks to me like SCO is restricting access to their servers to only those who paid money to use them. There are references to "product license numbers" on their webpage. This might be an unfortunate phrase, but is truly no different than what RedHat does with some of the services they reserve for paying customers only.

I really don't see any GPL violation here. The Register seems to have made one HELL of a jump.

--
The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.
Re:I can't see they break the GPL by ShinmaWa · 2003-10-31 09:46 · Score: 1

If you reject the GPL...

SCO can SAY whatever they want. The GPL doesn't stipulate that it is null and void if the licensee trashes it in legal documents or screams vile things about it from the top of every hillside. So as long as SCO ACTS within the bounds of the GPL, no matter what they say, they are in compliance to its terms.

Restricting downloads to only those who have purchased the product is well within the bounds of the GPL.

--
The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.
Re:I can't see they break the GPL by iggymanz · 2003-10-31 11:10 · Score: 1

THAT is a violation of the GPL
Re:I can't see they break the GPL by ShinmaWa · 2003-10-31 11:36 · Score: 1

Yeahup... that'd do it. :)

Man... why couldn't that have been easier to find!? :)

--
The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.

Re:Furthermore by N3WBI3 · 2003-10-31 04:40 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually if someone wanted to drive to Utah they could press SCO to small claims in that state (actually they could press for their own home but that would require a lawyer and thus make it not worth the effort).

Think about it if every time a contract went bad and it had to go the the lowest level of courts the geographically includes both the federal courts would be far too busy.. When working on a projectin NY with a company in MI a dispute came up and it was handled in NY becuase that is where the contract was taking place..

--

Mod Up. by Loki_1929 · 2003-10-31 04:40 · Score: 1

The parent is absolutely correct and should be modded up as soon as possible. This is an excellent idea.

--
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

Class Action by Catskul · 2003-10-31 04:41 · Score: 0, Offtopic

IANAL, but what about a class action suit? Have everyone who has ever submitted any work to the kernel participate.

--

Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni

A distinction by TWX · 2003-10-31 04:41 · Score: 1

"SCO has essentially stipulated that they operate outside GPL; this newest action seems insignificant to me."

It does serve one very important distinction though. They are being overt, rather than covert or grey about it. This goes from being an incidental violation of the rules to a flagrant violation, which can change the way that their actions are interpretted in court if a case were to reach a damages ruling. It's one thing to accidently break the rules, or to not really follow them but keep your mouth shut, it's another to make a strong point of breaking the rules such that you force everyone to see it.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

SCO, MSOFT, RIAA, GOOGLE = copyright war by argoff · 2003-10-31 04:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

The copyright war is almost here. Amazingly there are so many parallels to our last civil war. The way the plantation system could no longer controll the labor force and so after desperately regulating slaves (to the point they wernt even allowed to read) failed, then they tried to micro regulate the northern states who had no intention of placing the industrial revolution on hold for the sake of the plantation system. It wasn't long before they broke off into seperate camps and all hell broke loose. Today we see this with SCO and open source tech industries, xcept for this time there is no north and southern boundaries - it will be more like anarchy, and also because the government is so beholden to the media, I am not sure we can rely on them to be on our side this time either, perhaps the courts will take one side - the congress the other. First the battles will play themselves out thru the system, then it will likely play out onto the streets as those who try to impose copyrights try to terrorize, fear monger, buy off, and brow beat those who resist into submission. I could really envision a mafia and gang like enforcement units, and armed independents trying to protect their industries and way of life batteling it out with each other. I know it seems crazy, but when there are trillions and trillions of dollars at stake, crazy things will happen.

how to get revenge by linuxislandsucks · 2003-10-31 04:42 · Score: 1

Under the DCMA there a specific document you can turn into the ISP/Host company that handles CSo Group's itnernet services that can take this download off servers until the court case is resolved.

Can we talk GPL authoers into doing this?

--
Don't Tread on OpenSource

YOU FAIL IT ! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:43 · Score: 0

Yu0 = HtMl F4!|Ur|z470r

DMCA? by uucpbrain · 2003-10-31 04:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Forgive me for such an evil thought, but it occurs to me that it might be possible to demand that SCO's upstream provider shut them down for illegally distributing copyrighted software. Wouldn't that be the most ironic thing in the world?

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Re:DMCA? by fred87 · 2003-11-01 07:13 · Score: 1

dunno if it's true, but one of the higher up posts said that their upstream provider is in the same corporate group ;)

Re:death by a $150,000,000 cuts by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:45 · Score: 0

Even better, given how many files that are involved, 1000? 10000? At $150,000 a pop (max fine for copyright infringment) this could cost them a bundle. And hey, didn't they just get a nice bundle of cash recently?

I can see it now ... by dominic.laporte · 2003-10-31 04:45 · Score: 1

IBMdude ... wakes up the SCOdude ...
IBMdude: Hey dude ! Lets get into court
SCOdude: bout what ?
IBMdude: GPL
SCOdude: G what ?
IBMdude: It does not matter ...
SCOdude: Ok dude !
IBMdude: grab your friend bill as well !
SCOdude: hehe ... its gonna be prutty cool hein IBMdude: (silence)
SCOdude: ... (goes back to crack)

who cares? by gyratedotorg · 2003-10-31 04:46 · Score: 1

should we really care? its not like they're actually distributing any linux code, since nobody wants their distro anyway. =)

--
Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"

Time to turn the tables by MO! · 2003-10-31 04:47 · Score: 1

Now SCO Group is willfully violating Copyrights. So, do as they did - each contributor to the Linux kernel (and all other code they are bundling with their distribution) needs to announce to the press that they are going to send invoices to all of SCO's licensed customers for using misapproriated IP. Announce they will sue all of SCO's licensed customers if they fail to pay up. File suit against SCO for huge monetary damages in every jurisdiction possible.

Then sit back and watch their stock drop as investors realize they've been dragged over the ledge.

--
I AM, therefore I THINK!

BSA by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:50 · Score: 0

Quickly! Someone notify the Business Software Alliance of this infraction... I don't see Linux in the member listing. Strange oversight.

Down boy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:50 · Score: 0

You're wrong and stupid:

We're not going to some white collar resort prison. No, no, no! We're going to Federal POUND ME IN THE ASS prison!

Oh and it's "it's".

Time for The Big Boys to Step to the Plate by mrmdls · 2003-10-31 04:50 · Score: 1

This is the final straw, I believe that Red Hat, SUSE,Mandrake, exc along with every individual developer, should file suit for violating the GPL. As for myself, somewhere I have an old copy of Open Linux that I am going to send back to them, along with a message that the SCO Executives can eat my shorts!!!, They can sue me for using Linux. Dave S.

YOU DO NOT FAIL IT ! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:51 · Score: 0

Yu0 != HtMl F4!|Ur|z470r

Re:Is there a non-SCO mirror of the SCO kernel RPM by linuxbikr · 2003-10-31 04:52 · Score: 1

Right here. Knock yourself out.

Re:Get over it by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:54 · Score: 0

Behold a follow up trolling...

Word to the BSD license

Class Action Lawsuit? by bobbv · 2003-10-31 04:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

There's all this talk about slashdotting their mailroom and taking them to small claims court. Hello? This situation is exactly what class action lawsuits are for. Someone needs to hire a lawyer and set up a class action lawsuit about breach of license. RMS seems like the logical person, since he's the one who started the whole thing and has been the strongest defender of the strong interpretation of the License. Then everyone who contributed--everyone who ever checked in (or even checked out)--code into something that SCO is overly restricting can join it.

Re:Class Action Lawsuit? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 07:44 · Score: 0

In order to be a member of the class you would probably have to waive your individual rights, and also waive any control of who represents your interests.

A lot of people will reject that.

It's hard to imagine a class that simultaneously represents RMS and IBM and myself.
Re:Class Action Lawsuit? by AnonymousCowheart · 2003-10-31 10:16 · Score: 1

A class that defends the GPL! IBM (i think) would like to see the GPL is enforced, I'm sure you would, and ofcourse RMS would. I haven't done any development on anything, but I would atleast donate some money to a class action suit to cover lawyer fees.
Re:Class Action Lawsuit? by ps_inkling · 2003-11-01 02:56 · Score: 1

But I don't want a coupon for $10 off of their $699 license fee.

Why do WE have to go after SCO by schmiddy · 2003-10-31 04:56 · Score: 1

You guys remember when the DOJ lawyers were being interviewed on Slashdot? The first question asked basically boils down to:

We all have no doubt that if Jack Valenti finds a website selling pirated versions of his movies that law enforcement will descend upon the infringer with a fury comparable to that wielded against drug smugglers and violent criminals... I wonder whether an individual author's rights as a copyright owner would be similary protected?

Their answer was fairly predictable:

The prosecutions we undertake do in fact benefit real people. If you look at the people and organizations who have been victimized by the defendants we prosecute, you will see that we enforce the law without regard to who the victims may be and we have protected the rights of victim companies of all sizes.

So, these lawyers for the DOJ are trying to assert that they go after ALL cases of copyright infringement that warrant serious investigation, regardless of who the copyright holder is. This is certainly the case for underground warez sites, they get busted all the time.
Isn't a page on the SCO website, linked to by a reputable news source, hosted by a publicly traded company, that is illegally distributing copyrighted material that they do not have claim to, just as serious as some dude on a random site spreading movies on the www? Why don't these supposedly good-hearted lawyers take some initiative?

--
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search

Dear SCO by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:56 · Score: 0

Please go find a hole in the ground and die there.

Thank you.
-Everyone

SuSE is an enemy of Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:57 · Score: 0

SuSE would be a good target when the Smoking Crack Operation will be down on its knees begging for mercy not to be beheaded with a butter knife.

The fact is, SuSE's intentions are EVIL. Peep this news item.

Re:SuSE is an enemy of Linux by bhtooefr · 2003-10-31 09:40 · Score: 1

Linux means two companies: Red Hat and SuSE, and nobody else. There will be no third distribution that will be supported by the large IT vendors.

Read the next sentence... oh, wait - you didn't RTFA back then, did you?

BTW, has SCO pulled out of UnitedLinux yet? If not, SuSE (the best distro for my hardware) is coming off the HDD...

Also, they're quite within their bounds to release a closed config utility, as long as GPL software isn't part of it's code.
Re:SuSE is an enemy of Linux by bhtooefr · 2003-10-31 09:43 · Score: 1

I'm meaning: has the page been updated recently (which means the page is right) or has it not been updated in a couple months? I realize that the thread-starter said that SCO was a member of UnLin, but does that poster have correct info?

assign their rights? by micq · 2003-10-31 04:58 · Score: 1

Since the kernel hackers aren't going to see royalties off their contributions anyways, maybe they'd be willing to assign their rights to a U.S. company or organization that would be in position to take SCO on with Redhat and the likes...

--
Snooze and you lose your sushi.

For your convience: SCO Contact info by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 04:59 · Score: 1, Informative

The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042 USA
801-765-4999 phone
801-765-1313 fax

a matter of strategy by kipple · 2003-10-31 05:05 · Score: 1

people at SCO aren't stupid. I mean - they are, but not THAT stupid. I wonder
1. who is leading the strategy
2. why is he/she doing that
3. where is he/she going
and finally
4. what is he/she REALLY pursuing.

What's the reason for all that? I look at it as just smoke in the eyes. I fear that there might be something behind it. I don't want to talk about paranoia and conspiracy theories, but this looks like "using a corpse to see how far the enemy can shoot".

SCO is dead meat. No matter how they are going to put it, customers are losing their faith in that company. They may change name but it won't solve much - SCO Unix/Linux is SCO. They'll have to give assistance for the product, so changing name won't help. So, given that SCO is already dead, I think that "they" are using it as a shooting target to see how far the GPL and the Open Source community can go.
After that, I think that the OS world will have to face an ever-increasing slope of legal challenges.

You know - if you can't show you're superior, or if you just are not superior, you can always sue the opponent and gain territory on another front. This is how things work in the corporate world.

Those are just my opinions, believe in them or not. I have no interest in posting facts over here, those are just thoughts. I don't want to convince anyone about anything - just making people think.

Have fun

--
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)

The REAL fun, now it's non-USA, too by dpilot · 2003-10-31 05:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

So far the SCO mess could have been considered a "domestic squabble" between US-based corporations. There was a little noise in Europe and Australia over threats and such, but that died down fairly rapidly, and could have bogged down in the 'definition of thread' issue.

But this is different. Now SCO is violating copyright law, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Obviously they're testing the GPL, and thinking about US law. But now they have to worry about the status of the GPL under other nations, as well.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.

Re:The REAL fun, now it's non-USA, too by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 14:03 · Score: 0

uh ill think youll find in au the ACCC told SCO to put up or shut up.

<giggle> by Black+Parrot · 2003-10-31 05:08 · Score: 1

"I heard 31% the other day"

So many people are eager to short SCOX that it's actually driving the share prices up. Short-SCOX is a hot commodity!

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:Hmm.. answer. by ubiquitin · 2003-10-31 05:09 · Score: 2, Funny

Really? Microsoft has done this for years.

They're still doing so. Longhorn anyone?

--
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52

Not quite... by Sxooter · 2003-10-31 05:10 · Score: 1

If I redistribute GPL software, my only requirements are to provide source code to the people I distribute the binaries to. I can charge anything I want. $1,000,000 if I want to.

BUT, the GPL guarantees the people I charged $1,000,000 for the binaries and source can then give the code away for free.

That's likely where SCO's gonna fall in the river.

--

--- It is not the things we do which we regret the most, but the things which we don't do.

Playing Devil's Advocate by rjw57 · 2003-10-31 05:12 · Score: 1

Much as I would hate to support SCO, it doesn't appear they are actually violating the GPL. Sure you have to be a registered user to download the kernel from them now but they say nothing about re-distributing it. Until they try to stop someone posting the OpenLinux kernel RPMs they aren't violating the GPL.

--
Rich

Re:Playing Devil's Advocate by eberry · 2003-10-31 05:34 · Score: 1

Actually they are since their new "license" contains a clause claiming they have IP rights over said code.

--
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter

Suing them is predictable by ls-lta · 2003-10-31 05:18 · Score: 1

So, what do they have in mind? They want to have the GPL tested fully. They probably want to taint Linux further (if you try to use it commercially, you'll get sued). I'd suggest one developer send them a C&D and see how it plays.

Minor nitpick by Wills · 2003-10-31 05:20 · Score: 1

"this tenant [sic] of copyright law

should be "this tenet of copyright law" because "tenet" means a principle whereas a "tenant" is someone who pays to use someone else's asset. There seems to be a recent trend among certain Slashdot users to use soundalike words instead of the standard ones.

--
Scroogle

Re:Minor nitpick by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:29 · Score: 0

"soundalike words", is that Bush-speak for homonym?
Just asking...
Re:Minor nitpick by Wills · 2003-10-31 05:43 · Score: 1

No, because "homonym" means a word that has the same sound, and often the same spelling too, as another word whereas "sound-a-like" or "soundalike" [and OED] means a word that sounds like another word without necessarily being homonymous to it.

--
Scroogle
Re:Minor nitpick by Eric+S.+Smith · 2003-10-31 06:19 · Score: 1

There may be a new rule, here, analogous with the one that states that all spelling flames will contain at least one spelling error. "Any correction to diction will contain at least one word for which a better alternative exists," perhaps.

"soundalike words", is that Bush-speak for homonym?
No, because "homonym" means a word that has the same sound, and often the same spelling too, as another word whereas "sound-a-like" or "soundalike" means a word that sounds like another word without necessarily being homonymous to it.

You mean like a homophone?

Homophone isn't exactly the right word, of course, because "tenet" and "tenant" don't sound the same (or oughtn't to). But it would have been better than "homonym" in the initial joke.

By the way, I'd always assumed that words had to be spelled identically to count as homonyms; the definitions to which you refer conflate what are in my opinion two separate categories (which is why I happen to know what a homophone is).

I wonder what the OED has to say about these sound-alike words. My ancient COD (4th ed.) lacks homophone, requires homonyms to be "of the same form," and offers the apparently synonymous "homograph ... [w]ord spelt like another, but with different meaning."

--
Mind the Gap
Re:Minor nitpick by Wills · 2003-10-31 07:00 · Score: 1

"You mean like a homophone?"
No, that would be just as wrong as using "homonym" because "homophone" means a word that is pronounced the same way as another word but which has either a different meaning or a different spelling. A "homonym" means a word that has the same sound or spelling as another word. The words "tenet" and "tenant" are pronounced differently and spelt differently, so they are obviously neither homophones nor homonyms. Because they do not sound the same, merely similar, they are, therefore, sound-a-likes .
A "homograph" is a word that has the same spelling as another word but which differs in meaning. The clue is in the etymology of the word "graph" which is derived from the Greek word "graphos" which means to write.

--
Scroogle
Re:Minor nitpick by Eric+S.+Smith · 2003-10-31 08:20 · Score: 1

You mean like a homophone?
No, that would be just as wrong as using "homonym" ...

...as I pointed out myself. However, it would have been the more appropriate word to use in the context of the joke, because the principal feature of homophones is that they sound alike.

A "homograph" is a word that has the same spelling as another word but which differs in meaning.

Indeed, just as the COD entry I quoted states.

Clearly you've read my post, as you've just written it back to me. But, since you're such a stickler, I should point out a hint that you didn't take: it's "sound-alike," not "sound-a-like."

--
Mind the Gap
Re:Minor nitpick by Wills · 2003-10-31 08:47 · Score: 1

For the second time, homophones do not sound alike; the sounds must be identical to satisfy the definition! Yes, I wrote "sound-a-like" instead of sound-alike. I was wrong. Yippee!

--
Scroogle

Too bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:21 · Score: 0

... that everyone can see through your pathetic attempts to troll now. You may have pulled the wool over quite a few eyes in the past, but those days are now long gone.

HTH
YAAD
FOAD

FSF by gr8_phk · 2003-10-31 05:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

I will gladly make a large FSF donation if Linus will get off his fucking ass and have FSF represent him in this case. I'd appreciate if other developers would join him, and if other /.ers would contribute with dollars. If you've been wondering when "that time" would come, it's here now.

Re:FSF by msimm · 2003-10-31 07:48 · Score: 1

Well, it appears this would be a place to do it. I sure wish the fsf.org site where easier to navigate and actually updated regularly. I'd love to know what they think and I'd be more encouraged to donate if I knew they where going to take action.

--
Quack, quack.
Re:FSF by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 20:54 · Score: 0

Speaking of asses...

How this made it to +5 interesting I'll never guess, but since SCO started this latest crap like what, yesterday?, why don't you give the man a break and give him a day or two to get off of his fucking ass?
Re:FSF by gr8_phk · 2003-11-07 06:32 · Score: 1

but since SCO started this latest crap like what, yesterday?
SCO has been making claims that violate Linus GPL for months, and he has taken no action. You could argue he was correct in waiting for something a little more concrete before doing anything. In fact, he may want to wait until they sell a copy under the new terms, not just say they will. I don't know how I got a +5 out of this either ;-) Linus just doesn't seem to care much about it. I guess I'm just looking for an indication that he does - as are other people I know.

Just Linux/GNU tools or other GPLed stuff too? by HighOrbit · 2003-10-31 05:23 · Score: 1

Does this mean they also plan to ignore the GPL on stuff like Samaba?

Re:SCO *already* infringed copyrights of GPL'd cod by julesh · 2003-10-31 05:26 · Score: 1

I am not a lawyer, but it appears to me that SCO has admitted in a court document (quoted above) that they did not accept the GPL

I don't think so. A possible interpretation of your quote is that that at least one of the clauses of paragraph 28 is not true. I quote it again for convenience:

28. SCO accepted the terms of the GPL by modifying and distributing Linux products. By distributing Linux products under the GPL, SCO agreed, among other things, not to assert -- indeed, it is prohibited from asserting -- certain proprietary rights over any programs distributed by SCO under the terms of the GPL. SCO also agreed not to restrict further distribution of any programs distributed by SCO under the terms of the GPL.

First of all, I would say that SCO didn't accept the terms of the GPL by modifying and distributing Linux products. This action was almost certainly performed by employees who do not have the authority to bind the company to a contract like the GPL; the decision to accept the GPL would have to have been made at a management level. This is poor phrasing on behalf of IBM's lawyers. Better would have been 'By modifying and/or distributing Linux products, SCO indicated that they have accepted the terms of the GPL.' This same criticism applies to the second sentence also; the act of distribution is irrelevant, the GPL must have already been accepted before it happened.

Also, if SCO believed when they accepted the GPL that certain portions of it were not enforceable, they may believe that they didn't accept those portions, while accepting the remainder. It is up to a court to decide if this is a reasonable action for them to have taken (at a guess, the court will decide that it wasn't...).

Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway (followup) by Twylite · 2003-10-31 05:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

Further to my last post ...

The ALA has some comments on mass-market licenses. In general a negotiated contract is enforcable over Copyright law, while a non-negotiated one ... well, that depends on the court, from time to time.

So riddle me this: a fBSD kernel coder sees a cute trick in the Linux kernel and, with minor modifications, uses it. Infringement or not?

Is it fair use?

It is small, probably factual (despite its precise expression), so it probably meets the requirements for fair use.
The GPL is non-negotiated, and thus fair use may be a defense against infringement.

Ouch. Strictly a violation of the GPL, but legally acceptable? How far does this go?

--
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net

Boies is not *that* dumb by ProfDumb · 2003-10-31 05:30 · Score: 1

In the end, I don't think that SCO is going to try to invalidate the entire GPL license; they know (or will quickly realize) that would leave them in a bad spot.

I think they are going to try to restrict the interpretations of some sections. For example, they want to invalidate IBM's counter-claim that they gave up any right to sue when they continued to distribute the GPL'd code. IANAL, but courts in the past have restricted the interpretation of licenses (such as ruling against certain parts of EULAs). On very narrow grounds, SCO might have some chance to "clarify" the GPL in their own direction.

Re:SCO *already* infringed copyrights of GPL'd cod by julesh · 2003-10-31 05:32 · Score: 1

Another thought. I ain't a lawyer, but I think 'deny' in this context probably doesn't have the same meaning it would have in normal speach; I think it may instead mean 'does not admit'. They've certainly used it this way in other parts of the document, and have explicitly explained that they have done so, usually due to not having adequate information to determine the point one way or the other; this can't be argued in this case, which may be why they haven't said so here, but they're under no obligation to admit P28 even if it is true, I believe.

Linus Vs. SCO Legal Fund by doublem · 2003-10-31 05:33 · Score: 1

I'll kick in $60

--
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA

Re:[Sco == Thieves] Suggestion for all slashdot us by ihatesco · 2003-10-31 05:36 · Score: 1

Use [Sco == Thieves] tag in all your mailing lists, and usenet posts for at least one week.

Interesting way to spread a meme.

Isn't it too far reaching anyway? Isn't it a way to find legal trouble? Wouldn't be better to use something else? Maybe [Sco Violates GPL] (even if it is long) would be a bit better as a tag. Also I think it would be too spammy. It's a good idea but it has some problems... Let's see what happens...

--
"I am slashbot, hear me roar!"

Very annoyed! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:38 · Score: 0

Having contributed several non trivial patches to the linux kernel I am furious at SCO's flagrant disregard for the GPL. I will be taking legal advise on this matter ASAP, I strongly urge all others involved to do the same.

Microsoft must be freaking out about Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:40 · Score: 0

Microsoft must be freaking out about Linux's gaining popularity and there's *nothing* they can do about it, hence SCO's behaviour.

This SCO thing is an interesting attempt by microsoft to lessen the impact of Linux but isn't worth a hill of beans where it really counts, India and China.

So let's set up a betting pool for when Microsoft must, for pragmatic buisness reasons, will eat their pride and embrace (and not in the embrace-and-extend-sense!) Linux. Two years? Four?

dumber things have happened. by twitter · 2003-10-31 05:42 · Score: 1

Under US law all sorts of stupid and contradictory things are possible. Cable operators are forced to air local broadcast TV "competition" but do not have to allow access to ISP competitors to the same wires. The bill of rights is quite clear about free press but I can't tell you anything about DeCSS. I really hope that my country is not dumb enough to "invalidate" the GPL, one of the least restrictive of all copyright dependent licenses, while upholding more and less restrictive ones. The only thing that the above have in common is that they put money in someone's pocket at the expense of others. It's more than a scandal or discgrace it's economically harmful.

Surely the contradiction would be large enough for people to notice in the GPL case. If M$'s odius EULA's continue to be enforced by BSA raids while the GPL is openly violated would that not be enough to show that laws are bought and paid for? I'm not sure how anyone could violate BSD style license terms.

Things comming to that point would kill the tremendous IT momentum that's been building in the US and elswhere. I can't be alone in thinking that I'd be better off not coding at all than writing stuff that any old greed head is free to close up, pervert and promote over my own work. Free software is doing more than opening the floodgates of programming for everyone, it establishes a community of trust and a base of code that won't be abused to the detriment of all. Independent contractors, large and small, can use free software without having to asnwer questions about when the big M$ junk will come out and not work with it. This is largely responsible for the tremendous variety of quality code we see on Linux today - the GPL works and works for everyone but tools like M$ and $CO.

Anti-competitive laws lead to nothing but stagnation.

--

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

Re: can't just sue locally by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:42 · Score: 0

If you actually want to sue SCO you have to do it the right way -- file a lawsuit in your local federal court. As someone who was sued--and who forced the other side to settle in my favor out of court--I would point out that in a copyright dispute with SCO you have to sue them in the district court where they are located, i.e. Utah. The law gives defendants the "home court" advantage. That, in general, is good, since most of the time they involve a deep-pocketed plaintiff attempting to bully someone with less resources.

That will make it much more expensive for you and much simplier for them. One advantage I had in my dispute was that a conference with the judge was a $2.50 round trip bus ride for me. It required my opponents to pay not only their NYC lawyers but a lawyer in my district who provided a local presence. (Each federal court has different local procedures, requiring a lawyer familiar with them.)

It's best to leave any suing and threats about suing in this case to the OSF and their kin. They have the expertise and can tell contributing programmers how they can best contribute. The court is likely to take note of the fact that the freely contributed copyrights of hundreds of people are being violated.

One plus is that SCOs anti-GPL remarks make it clear that what they are doing is deliberate. That opens the door for much more serious penalities, particularly since a judge is likely to not look with favor on remarks in which SCO seems to be taking on the perogative of a court--deciding what the law means. And to SCOs disadvantage they not only accepted the GPL agreement, they lived by it for several years.

Don't forget that the end result of all this hassle could just be the assessment of legal fees and damages against SCO that are so great that all legal rights to Unix get transferred to a open source friendly organization in lieu of payment.

get medieval by Georges+Roux · 2003-10-31 05:44 · Score: 1

We need to sue them. We burn them after.

SCO reminds me of George Bush by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:46 · Score: 0

Every time they say or do something I have to take at least two more aspirins. I am afraid that I'll run out before Bush stops being Pres or SCO gets the shaft in court.

Find it interesting? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:46 · Score: 0

Now all of a sudden we're waving a big red copyright flag after spending years telling other copyright owners to "fsck off, if you publish it, we will warez it?"

Hypocrisy.

Let's get organized .... by taniwha · 2003-10-31 05:46 · Score: 1

Probably the FSF is best here ....

First we need a web page with simple instructions on how to send a C&D

Next we need a list of what's being distributed - is the GPLed code I've released thru KDE there? (actually someone should go thru the copyright headers of all the code being distrbuted by SCO and mail everyone)

Clock towers by monkeyfinger · 2003-10-31 05:46 · Score: 0

Are there any clock towers in Lindon, Utah?

Just curious.....

Re:Clock towers by bhtooefr · 2003-10-31 08:41 · Score: 1

It's Utah - try a Mormon church's bells, maybe?

GPL isn't really powerless, proprietary checkable by dwheeler · 2003-10-31 05:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

I don't think you're seeing the full picture. All licenses are "powerless", but only in the same sense that all laws are powerless. There are laws against other kinds of stealing and of murder, but clearly many kinds of stealing and murder happen all the time. The power of law, and of licenses, is that if you break the law/license and get caught, there's a strong (deterrent) risk of being punished.

From that perspective, it's clear that SCO is not "getting away" with their actions. Instead, they're being sued by two organizations.

This case is becoming exactly what you asked for - a possible situation where the GPL is tested in the courts. It may not come to that; SCO could quickly back off on those points when it's trial time. But to get the GPL tested in the courts, you need someone willing to blatantly violate the license and continue to do so while in a trial. That's not happened before; violations are usually unintentional, and nobody's ever been willing to stay in court to fight the GPL. I think most lawyers have decided that it'd be far too risky to play that game, and their clients have some product or service that can make them money. SCO has nothing to lose.

By the way, you ask "What's gonna stop Microsoft from using Linux source in their next Windows version?" There have been persistent rumors that some major proprietary vendors (including Microsoft) are using GPL'ed code illegally in their proprietary code. However, they're just that, rumors, and it is not fair to allege that someone has committed a crime when there's no evidence that they've done so. Indeed, I think Microsoft takes copyright quite seriously and I would expect them to take many steps to prevent violating any licenses.

Currently it's difficult to detect stolen GPL code in proprietary programs. But in theory it's quite possible to compare proprietary machine code (possibly decompiled) with GPL'd source code. If anyone suspects that GPLed code has been wrongfully included in proprietary code, and the binary is available, feel free to create and use tools to do such checking.

--
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)

Re:SCO *already* infringed copyrights of GPL'd cod by frkiii · 2003-10-31 05:52 · Score: 1

But they "did" accept the terms of the GPL.

I believe Caldera's SEC filing regaring their IPO even includes a copy of the GPL.

That might be all the evidence necessary to show that they "accepted" the GPL, that they "knew" it was valid, etc., despite their claims otherwise in the press, court filings, etc.

Wow their new registration works great by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:54 · Score: 0

go to http://linuxupdate.sco.com/scolinux, it will prompt you for your username and password.

Leave the fields blank, hit okay and you're in.

Looks like they didn't put much work into implementing this...

Re:Wow their new registration works great by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:03 · Score: 0

Hahaha this is great. Nice find.
Re:Wow their new registration works great by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 07:03 · Score: 0

http://linuxupdate.sco.com/scolinux/SRPMS/

Evidence! get your evidence!
Re:Wow their new registration works great by frkiii · 2003-10-31 08:41 · Score: 1

Bwahahaha.
It's true then. SCO IS as incompetent as their own words make them out to be.
I hope someone working for SCO doesn't read this particular comment in /. for a while. :)
Regards,
Fredrick

I guess this is where we find out... by dcavanaugh · 2003-10-31 05:54 · Score: 1

If the FBI really investigates and prosecutes copyright infringement, as described in the warning message in front of any rented movie. Isn't there some sort of whopper fine for copyright infringement?

Don't send C&D by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:55 · Score: 0

You have Antrax Now
Are You Happy?
You are going to diE...

GoOD NighT, DarYL

have you been smoking with Dayrl? by twitter · 2003-10-31 05:58 · Score: 1

by inviting suits to be brought against them, they are bringing the targets for countersuits out into the light.

Free software copyright holders don't have to be rooted out. They put their names in the souce code that SCO is distributing and everyone who bothers to read knows who they are.

They proably hope that there will be a class action, and can countersue the whole class for using their proprietary code.

Well that would be icing on the cake. After suing business partners, big users and treatening everyone who has ever used "Linux", they would turn around and sue the very authors of the code they wish to steal. Fat chance, there bub.

SCO has nothing. They arethe only company in world that can tell what their own code is and if it's ever landed in free software. So far their public proof has brought them nothing but embarasment - claiming BSD code as their own.

Willfully violating the GPL puts SCO in the same class as movie and music "pirates" who wholesale violate copyright law for proftit. Their reasoning is wholy circular and worthless. Individual free software authors have done nothing wrong to SCO and have no relationship with them other than the GPL that alows SCO to distribute their code. Each and every one of them can remove their piece from SCO's ability to distribute. It's simple copyright law, they never granted SCO the explicit permission needed to publish their works and can stop SCO at any time.

--

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

Re:Is there a non-SCO mirror of the SCO kernel RPM by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 05:59 · Score: 0

Nope. No kernel SRPMS are available there.
Anybody else?

SCO are Microsoft Puppets by malsdavis · 2003-10-31 06:00 · Score: 1

Is SCO now anything more than a Microsoft Puppet company to try and spread legal fears (and therefor decrease adoption) of Linux?

Why are companies allowewd to launch long legal threats with appeals after appeal (which if SCO listen to their Microsoft lawyers, will do again and again for the next few years) which are obviuosly going to fail just so they can hope to discredit the other party during the proceedings?

right on, brother by rodentia · 2003-10-31 06:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

They've gone beyond the simple, day-to-day corporate malfeasance and arrogance. A simple boycott of their crappy products doesn't help because their only clients are those already locked into their platform. FSF needs to open a website taking donations strictly for the fight they *must* pick with these bastards.

If software libre means anything, the FSF *must* file a suit. Show me where to contribute. Moglen, et. al. just got job security for the next four years.

--
illegitimii non ingravare

Re:right on, brother by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 07:36 · Score: 0

Show me where to contribute. Moglen, et. al. just got job security for the next four years.

I believe that Eben Moglen is pro bono council for FSF, i.e., he does it for free.
Re:right on, brother by Hatta · 2003-10-31 11:03 · Score: 1

What complaint would the FSF have? Just because linux is distributed under the GPL doesn't mean it's owned or controlled by GNU. Linus is the one who would need to file suit.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:right on, brother by black+mariah · 2003-10-31 12:21 · Score: 1

Incorrect. Linus, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, holds the copyright on the Linux name, but the code in the kernel belongs to everyone that's ever helped develop it. I may be wrong, but I think that's the way it is. SCO should be seeing a few thousand C&D's heading their way.

--
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Re:right on, brother by some+guy+I+know · 2003-10-31 18:36 · Score: 1

In addition, SCO doesn't distribute just the Linux kernel, but also the GNU utilities (shells, compilers, etc.), libraries, etc. that run on it.
The FSF owns (or has had assigned to them) the copyrights to many of these utilites.

--
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Re:right on, brother by fredrik70 · 2003-11-04 09:35 · Score: 1

donations to fsf can be done here.

--
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }

Perspective by unsung · 2003-10-31 06:03 · Score: 1

There should be legal action, but it's nothing for us to be worried about.

GPL essentially tries to ensure that all modifications to the original code is made available and shared. SCO is no longer a tech company and means that they won't be making code changes *anyway*.

A very off the wall thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:08 · Score: 0

Suppose SCO is actually doing this out of concern for linux and its longevity. There has always been speculation that the GPL may run into problems in court. Suppose SCO is doing all this to bash the GPL and strengthen it, ie expose any weaknesses or flaws in it so that it can be improved, which it surely will, whether or not this idea is true.

Just maybe this is whats going on, or just maybe I've been brainwashed...

the new .NET community effort. by twitter · 2003-10-31 06:08 · Score: 1

This just in! Swarms of hackers are going to small claims court to eliminate copyright law, American Pie and Motherhood. Microsoft is calling on all active NOT NET developers to activly defend SCO in a small claims court near you! Give us your time, effort, code and blood to match the money we collect from you! Rise and crush the Anarchist-AntiChrists who would librate you from our lockins and other Restrictions. We can't fund SCO forever!

- 0 Comments - 69,023 deleted for unfavorable or inapriate content. Those posting with Font Page are no longer alowed to use it.

--

Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

Here is how it may get interesting by er_col · 2003-10-31 06:09 · Score: 1

Consider this scenario:

1. John Q. Hacker goes and files a copyright suit against SCO, without telling anyone.
2. SCO goes to court, also without telling anyone.
3. The case is somehow turned in such a way that the judge sides with SCO. Doesn't matter how.
4. The "hacker" chooses not to appeal, so that the case reaches a point where the decision is final, before anyone notices.

What happens then? Can SCO gain unexpected advantage this way and give themselves a chance to win the other suit(s) where they seemingly have no chance at this point?

Because if they can, they (or M$) may just "invent" such John Q. Hacker.

Re:Here is how it may get interesting by SpaceLifeForm · 2003-10-31 13:54 · Score: 1

MOD parent up please.
I totally agree that your scenario is possible.
For way too long now (30+ years I'd say), the courts have been 'making law', with judges using prior decisions by other judges to make their own decisions. It is a mess of twisty little passages, all different. That's why this mess will cost major dollars, and I cannot envision any outcome that does not get decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

FSF by rodentia · 2003-10-31 06:14 · Score: 1

FSF should be able to capitalize on this. Show me where to donate to a dedicated fund to get Moglen and company on their tails. This is beyond their other claims and concoctions. They are in direct violation of their license and must be enjoined.

If free software means anything, anymore, we have to go to court to enjoin this behavior. I'll pay, we all should be willing to pay to see this stopped.

--
illegitimii non ingravare

Important Question by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:15 · Score: 0

Can we get a list of the software that is included in their distribution?

For example, I am the author of a small program that is currently in many Linux distributions. If *my* program is being included in their distribution, then it is *my* responsibility (and chance!) to sue them myself. (The FSF does not have the copyright to my code.)

I will glady take them to court if my software is included. Other developers should do the same!

need help! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:16 · Score: 0

Okay, this is TOTALLY off topic, but I need help... Someone posted a link to a really cool website. The website has a dynamic map of all the leaders in business, executives, board members, and the like... I can't find the site!!! Any help?

Re:need help! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 09:11 · Score: 0

Try this.

This is very interesting... by jav1231 · 2003-10-31 06:18 · Score: 1

I wonder if this is a "calling out" for the GPL and it's defenders. Think about it. They've been saying "The GPL is unenforceable." Now they are basically challenging it head on by doing this. Maybe this is a way of taking the GPL to court on someone else's dime.

will someone PLEASE SHOOT THESE MOTHERFUCKERS by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:19 · Score: 0

and shit on their rotting corpses

The story seems pretty light on details. by An+Onerous+Coward · 2003-10-31 06:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Register says that, in order to download the kernel source, you have to agree to some sort of license agreement that "supports their IP claims." But I didn't really see anything on the SCO link.

Does anyone have a copy of this agreement, and have they successfully downloaded a copy of the kernel source under said agreement? If so, we're eager for details.

I wouldn't put it past SCO to do something like this, but neither would I put it past The Register to exaggerate the situation to get click-throughs.

Dammit, now SCO's website is down. :)

--

You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

Imagine a beowulf cluster of lawsuits.. by Yorkshire · 2003-10-31 06:21 · Score: 1

For the love of GNU, stay out of this. Do not let SCO drag you or any other OSS advocates into court.

Somehow I doubt SCO could represent themselves in so many different courts simultaneously, they'd need tens of thousands of lawyers.

Distributed Destruction of SCO, sounds good to me

--
Custom Rules For SpamAssassin

Cry havoc... by generationxyu · 2003-10-31 06:30 · Score: 1

and let loose the dogs of war.

--
I mod down pyramid schemes in sigs.

UW CS and Law School by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:30 · Score: 0

Paul Allen, co-founder of Microsoft and now technology venture capital in the Puget Sound region, donated a bucket-full of cash to the University of Washington so that he could get his name on a building. Thus the university has a newly outfitted, fully modern Computer Science and Engineering building, ready to support and create a competent or excellent next generation of scientists and engineers so critical to Allen's current work and interests. Or so I suppose.

William Gates, also co-founder of Microsoft, did a similar thing, and now the University of Washington has a newly outfitted and fully modern Law School.

In an unrelated note about competent or excellent lawyers, the famous David Boies. Well. Tell me again which of those high profile cases made him famous because he actually won them?

With the potential to damage the open-source image by Frad+Haskins · 2003-10-31 06:31 · Score: 1

...it make me wonder if Micro$oft doesn't own a chunk of SCO.

--
This is a sample sig. Press F1 to personalize.

Re:Time to enforce the GPL?.....NO, this is bait.. by mpe · 2003-10-31 06:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

The more lawsuits now, the better their plan works. Remember, they are pursuing a plan of FUD, stock price manipulation and legal mudwrestling.

I'm not sure of the logic here. They can't easily fight that many lawsuits at the same time. How many judgements against them would their stock price survive?

They are not really interested in creating anything other than a sharkfest feeding frenzy over the code within Linux...trying to create an atmosphere around Linux that rivals their own sorded and utterly confusing legal past.

What's so bad about wanting to them to the sharks.

Do not allow them to change the subject. Their initial claim is "IBM put SCO's code in Linux"...make them prove that first!...Anything else is changing the subject. I do not beleve that there should be additional suits UNTIL the original suit is settled. There will be plenty of time to file after the IBM/SCO cage-match gets started.

How does the IBM case affect the industrial scale copyright infringment they are now enguaged in? If anything waiting would weaken any copyright infringement actions, because they could use a "you knew on 31st October 2003, but did nothing until now" kind of defence.

I've got it, why they are doing this by ebrandsberg · 2003-10-31 06:39 · Score: 1

They plan on cashing out their stock and shorting it now. It's not just a pump and dump, but a pump'n squash.

BZZZZZTTTTT! by wcdw · 2003-10-31 06:41 · Score: 1

That's _absolutely_ incorrect. One simply sues the corporation via the registered agent for that corporation - which must be done in the locality in which the corporation is registered.

I'm not sure what rights Utah gives to non-residents, although I doubt there are any restrictions in that regard -- other than having to travel (presumably to Utah) to file.

--
If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!

GPL vs BSD by nuggz · 2003-10-31 06:42 · Score: 1

What is stoping someone from using GPL/BSD code in a closed source application.

GPL, unless they release the source it is illegal.

BSD, nothing. It is entirely legal and acceptable to "hijack" BSD code. Apple and MS have already done so, and admit to it.

Has anyone actually seen the new license yet? by stevezero · 2003-10-31 06:45 · Score: 1

and if so, could someone actually post it, or provide a solid link?

I mean, if we're going to dissect this, let's actually take a look at it.

Look at Their Strategy by spiritraveller · 2003-10-31 06:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

Standing back with mouth agape, wondering how they could be so dumb is not a recipe for success. We would better serve ourselves by determining what SCO's strategy really is when it does things like this.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it their position that they now own all software that has ever derived from UNIX (pursuant to the original UNIX license)? They have at times implied that even the BSDs are not immune.

AT&T made this "derivative software license" claim with BSD a long time ago, but they lost because they had violated the BSD license themselves (by stripping the copyright notices of BSD contributors). SCO has said that BSD might not have complied with that court order. Sounds like FUD to me, but it does reveal their hand a bit.

Of course, their argument regarding Linux (which seems doomed to fail) will be that because Linux at some point in time had some of their code in it, they own it under their license as a derivative work, free of the GPL. It's the same argument that AT&T made 20 years ago.

The SCO code that existed in Linux (which at least SGI has admitted to inserting) was a copyright violation only until SCO distributed that same code under the GPL. As soon as SCO distributed that same code under the GPL, it gave everyone the right to use that code under the GPL.

SCO's distribution of its own code under the GPL was not intentional... but it doesn't have to be because copyright law creates strict liability.

Will they argue that they should not be deemed to have relicensed their code under GPL unknowingly... Will they at the same time argue that everyone who used that code is strictly liable and shouldn't be allowed to rely on the fact that SCO had distributed the code under the GPL? That is arguing for a double standard under the same statute: strict liability for them, fault liability for me.

Their argument doesn't hold water, and hopefully the court will see that.

Whether we like to admit it or not, the future of Linux, and the future of SCO now depend on what a judge says. SCO is betting the company on a legal strategy. They were going down the tubes anyway, so why not bet it all on a long shot?

Copy and Distribution by BanjoBob · 2003-10-31 06:46 · Score: 1

One can copy and distribute just about anything to anybody if they have permission. The concept that only a single body may produce copies and distribute them is absurd.

Every CocaCola plant in the world makes their own cans and prints them. They then send these to various distributors who in turn sell them to retailers. In this case both copyright and trademark are legally being copied and distributed by many others.

How is Linux/GNU any different? GPL grants the right to copy and distribute provided you agree to the terms of the GPL license. Thus, I don't have to pay a fee, get a special license or whatever to copy and distribute code under GPL. It is part of the rights provided in the top-level GLP license.

SCO is still smoking something..

--
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix

Re:Copy and Distribution by fishbowl · 2003-10-31 07:38 · Score: 1

>How is Linux/GNU any different?

SCO is trying to claim that some clause or clauses in the GPL are not enforceable with respect to them. Presumably, they have some argument that some clause in the GPL is actually illegal, meaning it was not legal for the author to grant this license to anyone. This is preposterous, of course, and you don't need to be a lawyer to understand that you do indeed have rights (Constitutional rights, even) to make such grants.

SCO is going even further, though, and they seem to have some argument which construes a release under the GPL as an absolute surrender of all distribution rights.

Any argument they make that is not a prejudiced circular argument, will probably fail because it can also be applied to any other software license. If an author does not have the right to distribute under the GPL, whatever case can be made for that argument would almost certainly apply to every other license on every other limited grant of distribution privileges under copyright. This is an enormous claim, and reaches far beyond the scope of anything the judge in their suit against IBM is empowered to render a descision on.

If the GPL is invalid between SCO and IBM, that's one thing. It is entirely possible for that to be true. If one of the parties in SCO v. IBM is ordered to not enter into any software under this license as part of a settlement agreemnent, that is also a possibility.

There is no conceivable outcome of this lawsuit that puts HJ Liu's gcc work into the public domain, or Donald Becker's ethernet drivers, or Perl6 for that matter. No possibility of that without each and every copyright interest having full rights to due process.

Perhaps the GPL is invalid between IBM and SCO. I do not believe a judge can simply make that ruling without giving *reasons*. Specific reasons, not "this is the GPL, therefore the GPL does not have merit." More likely the judge will know that SCO rejected the license, and it won't matter if the license is valid or not. All that will matter is whether the material is copyright, and by whom, assuming the question of copyright is ever called in the case.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:Copy and Distribution by WCMI92 · 2003-10-31 08:39 · Score: 1

SCO is essentially making the argument that a software license that GRANTS rights that you don't have under copyright law is somehow illegal, while restrictive licenses (such as the MS EULA) that takes AWAY rights granted or not covered by copyright law is weak and ludicrous in the extreme.

And furthermore, if the GPL is "invalid" how can they now claim to be able to USE GPL'ed code without accepting the GPL, unless SCO has reached a proprietary license agreement with EACH AND EVERY copyright holder of their Linux distro?

About the only argument I think SCO will make (and it's very VERY weak), is the one that, because all the little GNU bits, gcc, perl, etc, make up part of a UNIX-like OS (remember they keep claiming to _OWN_ UNIX) then they owe their copyrights to SCO.

Very hard to argue, and clearly outside the scope of the SCO vs. IBM case.

I think this newest move more or less proves that all SCO exists to do is to make noise and spread FUD for Microsoft. If they truly had a case THEY WANTED TO WIN they'd not be doing what they are doing. This move clearly weakens THEIR OWN copyright claims...

Indeed, their open WILLFUL theft of code (and that is exactly what this is, failure to accept the GPL, followed by WILLFUL distrobution, modification, sale, etc is THEFT of the code) opens SCO up to being sued and forced to reveal THEIR code because clearly there is now PROBABLE CAUSE to think that GPL'ed code has been misappropriated!

--
Corporatism != Free Market

Ooh! Business plan! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:48 · Score: 0

1. Steal music
2. License music and music theory
3. Profit!!!

My Plan(TM). If you wanna use it you have to buy a license. ;P

Clearing up a few things by zdislaw · 2003-10-31 06:49 · Score: 1

Just to set some facts straight:

"few would dispute that the RIAA does in fact have the rights (rightly, or wrongly) to the music they sell. For better or worse, they own them."

I'll dispute that. I'm not sure you know what RIAA is. They don't sell music or own music. They are a trade group that represents the Recording industry.

"As for the RIAA being evil, I'm not so much convinced by how they treat their "customers" - They are a company, and the primary job of a company is to make money. I'm primarily upset by their hypocracy, and their poor treatment of their artists, the very source of their income."

RIAA is not a company, it's an organization of members. They do not have customers, and as far as how they "treat their artists"? Not to flog a dead horse, but they have no artists and they don't treat them in any particular way. I think you might be getting RIAA confused with a recording label. What RIAA does is try to protect the property of recording labels, and by extension, artists (although few artists manage to maintain ownership of their own songs). Some artists support what RIAA does and some don't, but few would argue that working to ensure artists receive whatever pittance the recording label has deemed appropriate, is a bad thing for the artist. It's recording labels who treat artists either well or not-well. RIAA has nothing to do with artists.

Now, I think RIAA is behaving shortsightedly and ignorantly, maybe even acting beyond their bounds. My band used to be on MCA records and, believe me, I have no love whatsoever for the industry.

I download shit now and again and don't feel the least bit guilty. As far as I'm concerned it's a matter of personal morals, not some sort of revenge for an ignorantly motivated hatred of an organization that you obviously don't understand. I just happen to think it's okay for me to steal. It's as simple as that.

Feel how you want to feel about RIAA - you're entitled to your feelings- but don't mistake your feelings for fact. And don't start thinking somehow that you're not stealing from the same artists you claimed to feel for whenever you donwload a song instead of buying it.

--
bad sig...no donut.

Does SCO posses some kind of immunity? by DeadTOm · 2003-10-31 06:49 · Score: 1

How is it possible that they are getting away with the things that they are doing and nothing is being done about it?
First they start demanding that people pay them for a license when it hasn't even been proven in court that they own the product they are licensing.
Now they're willfully, blatantly and openly violating a license.
Both of these were done simply because they say so. Is this the new system of justice? Companies can break the law just because they don't agree with it?
What the hell?

Re:Does SCO posses some kind of immunity? by fishbowl · 2003-10-31 07:25 · Score: 1

"How is it possible that they are getting away with the things that they are doing and nothing is being done about it?"

What do you mean nothing? They are facing a lawsuit involving one of the best funded technology coroporations in the history of technology, with billions of dollars at stake.

IBM has expressed an interest in actually going to court, even to say they are looking forward to it. I'd say something is being done, sure. Instead of being victims, people are going to actually defend themselves in a lawsuit for a change.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

Time to turn the tables! by c4ffeine · 2003-10-31 06:51 · Score: 1

We can sue the hell out of them if we want. Seriously, there's something like 1 million unique IPs that visit here each week. If half of us contribute a couple bucks, that's enough to hire a team of sharks for a while... sorry, i meant lawyers. Why don't we do this? Also, try sending DMCA takedown letters; companies use them against us, it's time to turn the tables. It's worth a try. Maybe we can scare them legally. If not, IBM has lawyers too...

--
"73% of quotes on the Internet are made up" -Ben Franklin

This is JUST what RedHat needs by whoever57 · 2003-10-31 06:52 · Score: 1

Now RedHat can add more claims to their suit against SCO.

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!

Lets see if we can get an answer from someone... by coldnight · 2003-10-31 06:54 · Score: 2, Informative

I used to work CSR/Helpdesk. I know how to behave on the phone even when I have to jelly elephant [1] something.

So, just for grins, I thought I'd call SCO. I asked what was going on and if they could explain how they were now stealing code while sueing others over the theft of thier code.

I got hung up on. No suprise. But, maybe someone else will have better luck.

Product and Sales Inquiries
1-800-726-8649

I own a copy of Caldera linux 2.2 and they give this number for help: 1-800-850-7779

Also, 1-800-go-linux ( oh the irony! ) I don't know if this last one is still active.

I'm going to call them and ask what my standing is and what an 'upgrade' would cost. Mostly for grins. Okay, all for grins - no way I'm going to give them a penny.

Could SCO be trying to bait people by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 06:56 · Score: 0

Could SCO be baiting someone to sue them by doing this, with the purpose of going to court against someone who doesn't have the funds to properly defend the GPL?
Could they try to defeat the GPL by fighting smaller fish to get precedent, instead of going directly after the big fish (IBM)?
What they are doing seems insane, but maybe there is an alterior motive.

New License - GPL/NoSCO by z00z · 2003-10-31 06:57 · Score: 1

Let me suggest that all linux app developers everywhere adopt a new license that is basically comprised of the GPL, with a small addendum stating something to the effect of:

This software may NOT be run on any computer that is running SCO software.

IANAL of course.

Re:New License - GPL/NoSCO by TeddyR · 2003-10-31 08:09 · Score: 1

I am in a similar situation... Even though I am pro GPL, my omly problem is that for personal reasons, I want to specifically restict my work/software/access to my systems/networks from small group only but allow everyone else access to it. {some that may fall into the group can be specifically allowed access on a case by case scenario}

the memebrs are
1- WTAMU.EDU students and staff
2- ARN.NET staff and Customers
3- SCO
4- [certain unnamed people; about 4]

Short of hiring a lawyer to draft one up, I cant find one suitable....

--

--
Time is on my side
Re:New License - GPL/NoSCO by Tony+Hoyle · 2003-10-31 08:21 · Score: 1

To be effective it should be:

This software may not be used by any employees or shareholders of SCO, on anyone related to any of the above.

Ya gotta take down the shareholders - that's all that SCO care about really.
Re:New License - GPL/NoSCO by iapetus · 2003-10-31 15:03 · Score: 1

Nor are you in the spirit of the GPL. The whole point is that the software is supposed to be free. That means that, so long as they respect that right, anyone can use it for whatever they want. Limiting the GPL in this sort of way defeats the entire point of free software in the first place.

--
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Re:New License - GPL/NoSCO by vch976 · 2003-11-01 21:06 · Score: 1

Why #1 and #2?

Everyone already knows why #3....

--
If you dont like what I am saying, well then why dont you +++ATH0

Dear Mr. F*cktard by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 07:00 · Score: 0

"Why aren't you calling for cease and desist letters for music pirates?"

How do you know he hasn't or isn't?

Look, either don't think at all, or think it all the way through. This "half-thinking" that you do is simultaneously stupid and funny.

And I don't mean that in a good way.

You have to admit... by Un+pobre+guey · 2003-10-31 07:02 · Score: 1

...they may not have the brains, but they certainly have the balls.

Here is a list of rpms on their site by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 07:04 · Score: 0

Index of /scolinux/SRPMS

Name Last modified Size Description

Parent Directory 22-Oct-2003 10:59 -
3ddiag-0.496-92.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 29k
844-ksc-pcf-19990207..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 3.0M
AST-1.0-1sco.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 14.8M
MD5SUMS 24-Oct-2003 08:46 35k
MToolsFM-1.8-1sco.sr..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 158k
MyODBC-libiodbc-2.50..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 166k
MyODBC-unixODBC-2.50..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 4k
SDL-1.2.4-209.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 1.4M
SuSEfirewall2-3.1-26..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 69k
SuSEfirewall2-3.1-50..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 72k
SuSEfirewall2-3.1-90..> 24-Oct-2003 08:49 72k
TraceToolkit-0.9.5-4..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 943k
UnitedLinux-build-ke..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 7k
a2ps-4.13-1sco.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 1.4M
aaa_base-2002.10.21-..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 304k
aaa_base-2003.3.27-3..> 24-Oct-2003 08:49 306k
aaa_skel-2002.10.14-..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 25k
aalib-1.2-698.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 327k
acct-6.3.5-423.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 132k
acl-2.0.19-17.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 108k
acroread-5.07-3.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:49 8.7M
aide-0.9-32.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 172k
alsa-0.9.0.cvs200209..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 2.0M
amanda-2.4.2p2-1sco...> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 923k
ami-1.0.10-525.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 1.1M
antiword-0.33-69.src..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 182k
apache-1.3.26-57.src..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 2.6M
apcupsd-3.9.8-1sco.s..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 2.5M
apcupsd-3.9.8-2sco.s..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 2.5M
apmd-3.0.2-197.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 100k
apt-0.5.4cnc7-4sco.s..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 552k
apt-0.5.4cnc9-3sco.s..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 567k
aptitude-0.2.11.1-1s..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 774k
argus-2.0.5-50.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 370k
arpwatch-2.1a11-203...> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 167k
arts-1.0.3-130.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 1.1M
ash-0.2-641.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 113k
at-3.1.8-622.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 103k
atk-1.0.3-66.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 244k
attr-2.0.11-16.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 74k
audiofile-0.2.3-172...> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 261k
authldap-1.6.0-397.s..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 71k
autoconf-2.53-150.sr..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 751k
autofs-3.1.7-425.src..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 74k
autofs-3.1.7-556.src..> 24-Oct-2003 08:49 75k
automake-1.6.3-37.sr..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 478k
autoyast2-2.6.36-0.s..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 638k
avm_fcdsl-1.0-44.src..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 1.6M
awesfx-0.4.4a-215.sr..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 67k
backhand-1.2.1-168.s..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 219k
baekmuk-2.1-4.nosrc.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 16.1M
bash-2.05b-50.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 2.2M
bastille-1.3.0-51.sr..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 261k
bc-1.06-478.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 232k
bc-1.06-498.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 232k
bin86-0.14.9-441.src..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 770k
bind9-9.1.3-264.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 2.4M
bing-1.0.4-610.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 32k
binutils-2.12.90.0.1..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 8.2M
bison-1.35-47.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 619k
blt-2.4y-81.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 1.5M
bonnie-1.4-75.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 22k
bonobo-1.0.20-221.sr..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 1.1M
bonobo-activation-1...> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 421k
bonobo-conf-0.14-505..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 352k
bootcycle-0.2-6.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:49 5k
bootsplash-1.0-124.n..> 24-Oct-2003 08:49 55k
bootsplash-1.0-71.no..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 54k
bug-buddy2-2.2.0-235..> 24-Oct-2003 08:46 395k
bzip2-1.0.2-51.src.rpm 24-Oct-2003 08:46 656k
cadaver-0.19.1

patent? by preclose · 2003-10-31 07:05 · Score: 1

Is it too late to patent the idea of stealing GPL'd code?

No, you understand... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 07:11 · Score: 0

You missed the point -- it doesn't matter what the GPL expressly allows or disallows: if the GPL is invalidated as a contract, the courts will decide how to apply the law. The courts, in fact, get to pick and choose.

I'm not saying that a court will ever declare GPL'd works to be public domain. However, the improbability of that extreme case doesn't mean the GPL could not be declared invalid (on contract law grounds) while otherwise permitting existing licensors to maintain some rights to use, modify or distribute the work or derivative works.

Re:No, you understand... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 08:21 · Score: 0

Non-separability clauses are generally honored

The MySQL AB case by Un+pobre+guey · 2003-10-31 07:13 · Score: 2, Informative

Apparently, GPL has been tested in court. You really have to wonder about SCO's legal counsel.

MySQL AB even wrote a thank you letter to the FSF.

Score one for the DMCA by Greg+Lindahl · 2003-10-31 07:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why not send a DMCA takedown to their ISP?

This is where the $50 million went... by Sethra · 2003-10-31 07:22 · Score: 1

BayStar is almost certainly the catalyst for this latest ploy. That $50 million in venture capital goes a long way towards making headlines while the courts hear arguments over the legitimacy of the GPL.

Keep your eye on the mark, don't get distracted by shadows. This is all about grabbing big headlines and pumping that stock, not the actual merits of the case.

Where are Linus & Stallman? by coliva · 2003-10-31 07:23 · Score: 1

I would think that such an obvious violation of the GPL would be a good time for Linus and/or Stallman to directly confront SCO. Also, where is the EFF and other concerned organizations?

But remember .... by taniwha · 2003-10-31 07:23 · Score: 1

SCO doesn't just distribute Linux, they distribute lots of other GPL'd code too .... if the KDE and Gnome, XFree86, gcc, etc etc teams (who's code is also being distributed by SCO) withdraw their code SCO can't even pretend to compete with the rest of the world. Yet all this is GPL'd code (or some varient) that SCO is now distributing in violation of the GPL ....

It's a Ploy! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 07:25 · Score: 0

They are doing this so that they can sift for a case with a better set of facts than they have for the IBM GPL countersuit.

With any small judgement against the GPL they can whittle away at it.

We need to carbomb these fuckers by gelfling · 2003-10-31 07:26 · Score: 2, Flamebait

They have got completely out of control. This is like giving legitimacy to the Mafia. Someone really needs to pack the truck with exploding material and drive it the fuck through their front door.

Re:We need to carbomb these fuckers by Tony+Hoyle · 2003-10-31 08:26 · Score: 1

Ordinarily I'd be thinking 'Troll' but the complete uselesness of the IBM lawyers so far (how much are they paying them? They need to get off their asses before SCO win by default) shows what an utter failure the legal system is in this case.

I wouldn't go as far as a carbomb but pickets, petitions, publicity.

I always thought the idea of dumping a tonne of manure of McBride's doorstep was cool :) Relatively cheap too.
Re:We need to carbomb these fuckers by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 08:52 · Score: 1

IBM's lawyers are doing exactly what they are paid to do: Make sure that IBM wins the case. In this case, that means remaining tight lipped while SCO runs around screaming all manner of stuff that, when the IBM case actually gets to court, will see them completely run through with a very large sword. IBMs lawyers are not trying to defend open source software, they are trying to defend IBM. The more they let SCO blather idiocies while remaining quietly tight lipped, the better their case gets.

How to handle SCO by cdn-programmer · 2003-10-31 07:27 · Score: 1

Ok...

Suppose 10,000 developers each start calling their 1 800 726-8649 number and demand to know how it is that SCO thinks it has the legal right to impose their constraints on software we wrote!

Perhaps we need to file 10,000 law suits against SCO.

Do I see a class action in the works here?

NO MORE SCO POSTS by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 07:28 · Score: 0

Enough already. None of this shit matters. SCO's going down big deal. Post a story about SCO's demise when it happens but until then give it a rest PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SCO realy doesn't know what its done by budgenator · 2003-10-31 07:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

We use SCO at work and they are pissing me off too.
In all honesty I told the boss, SCO is sueing IBM, IBM will crush SCO and pave them over. Now we are replacing our SCO aplication server with a WinXP and a new application, we are a dental office and a vertical market for software. This used to be SCO's bread and butter, multi-user apps in dental/medical/vetrinary offices, restarants that sort of thing; now all gone these people are leary of Linux and now petrified of SCO leaving them without OS support again. I think all these types of markets will go to a microsoft based application, as their hardware gets obsolete.

If Microsoft isn't behind this, they should have been, SCO wins Microsoft wins, SCO loses, Microsoft wins!

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Re:SCO realy doesn't know what its done by u-235-sentinel · 2003-10-31 14:11 · Score: 1

What truely amazes me is SCO's argument is something similar to the following.

Say I write sql/pl code for my oracle database. Now I sell that code/application whatever. Does this mean I am in violation since sql/pl is Oracle product? Or what if I use some other product. Write code then sell or give it away. Does that manufacturer claim IP rites over the product I created?

We could say the same thing with Microsoft. Oh wait.. they have violated IP from other companies. Bad example ;-)

--
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com

Outsourcing to Korea by isn't+my+name · 2003-10-31 07:30 · Score: 1

Not unless they are outsourcing this work to Korea

Contradiction central by Loconut1389 · 2003-10-31 07:31 · Score: 1

So its ok to break other people's licenses and redistribute huge chunks of code under a new license, but a page of code that is not even in place any more duplicated under their own license is practically under penalty of death.

Class-action? Group petitions? WTF? by JGski · 2003-10-31 07:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

Class-action suits?
Group petitions?
WTF?

Doesn't anyone learn anything from watching the news about Afghanistan or Iraq??? Why do think we're getting our butts kicked? Why is Ramadan now synonymous with Tet? Stabbing with a million little knives is always far deadlier and more effective than with a single large knife! Did Saddam plan it this way? Hell, yes! This precisely what the war-naysayers in the Pentagon was worried about.

J-H-C! Do the fixed and variable cost of engagement calculation. Learn something about Lanchester equations already! Why did Rumsfeld say "we're at a disadvantage... our cost structure is $1Bs and the resistance is $1Ms"? It's the fundamental weakness of centralized power against distributed power. It's a mathematical inevitability. It's why you don't jump into a guerilla war with a conventional force, unless you're an idiot or a shrub. Why do you really think open source kicks butt on proprietary source?

The most effective way to combat SCO's blatant copyright violation and rights theft is precisely to file a million separate C&D letters, followed by a million separate lawsuits, each for maybe only several $1K-100K each. To make this easy the EFF, open source lawyer, et al., should post a D&C template kit and a copyright lawsuit template kit (GPLed of course!) that can be taken to a local lawyer for a perfunctory blessing and establishment of legal figurehead.

Now, the overhead of addressing each and every suit (as SCO is required by law) is probably enough to burn out all their new venture money by itself and then some. To make it extra difficult and expensive, allocate the filings over every federal court district. Hey, lawyers do this calculation all the time!

But just case that isn't enough, follow through to step two. Next the EFF becomes a clearinghouse for a marketing and pr campaign against SCO based on all these D&Cs and suits. The campaign should focus on institutional investors, first and the general media. Add up the damages and publicize the enormous financial risk facing SCO and pretty soon even the most strident SCO supporters will be demanding they backdown or will be pulling their investments.

And then there's steps 3 and 4, but I won't go into those...

Sigh!
Group petitions?! Class-action?! Psshaww! This is war, unfortunately. You want to make yourselves an easy target for neutralization? Class-action has a single-point failure! Just like Lanchester's Convention-vs-Convention engagement you have a square-law force multiplier: double the legal clout and they get 4x better results. The only group action should be massively independent distributed action, just like open source development itself! Also like DDOS :-( The square-law multiplier and economies of scale (aka technology and financial resources) are neutralized and much more, by a distributed, asymmetric engagement. That also is a mathematical inevitability. That's how we lost Vietnam and how we'll probably lose in Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps we can finally learn something good from it.

JGski

Sue them for 100 Billion by lildogie · 2003-10-31 07:37 · Score: 1

Overflow their puny 32-bit integers. That should cow them!

Document not found by ziegast · 2003-10-31 07:38 · Score: 1

I tried going here today, and it didn't work....

http://www.sco.com/ethics.htm

Re:Document not found by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 10:06 · Score: 0

That's because the correct location is http://www.sco.com/ethics.html
Re:Document not found by ziegast · 2003-10-31 10:52 · Score: 1

Nope, that doesn't work either. I also tried SCO's search tool for "ethics", and I still couldn't find anything. Perhaps I should try another company if I'm looking for ethics.

I did find alot of results for "bug" in SCO's search engine, though.

-ez

I have to ask... by LWATCDR · 2003-10-31 07:38 · Score: 1

What the heck are the people a SCO smoking!!!
Good greif people they have got to have a death wish or have been slipped LSD!!!

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

Be rude and call SCO 1800 726 8649 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 07:39 · Score: 0

Look, we have over 50,000 developers that SCO is trying to rip off. Why should they think that they have the right to impose their licensing on what WE wrote.

Call them up. Demand they address this. It is OUR property they are trying to hijack.

They will hang up. Most phones have the redial function.

Be rude and persistant. How is this any different that a theif walking in your living room? Who would be inclined to be civil? Reasonable people would just want to kick ass!

Re:Be rude and call SCO 1800 726 8649 by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 08:18 · Score: 0

"They will hang up. Most phones have the redial function."

You cannot annoy them into compliance. However, if you can make a claim that entitles you to discovery, you can at least force them to respond to you. You can also start a process that temporarily restrains their distribution of your work pending civil action.

Contact the Attorney General of the State of Utah.

If you live in Utah, file a motion for a TRO.

FSF activity by sirReal.83. · 2003-10-31 07:44 · Score: 1, Informative

I just called the FSF's GNU Press office. The woman I spoke to told me that there's nothing to worry about (duh) and that while they weren't planning any legal action yet, they do a lot more than what is publicized. She said they prefer to negotiate. "We see [SCO] as a child who is acting out." Damn right.

Re:FSF activity by Simple-Simmian · 2003-10-31 11:13 · Score: 1

"She said they prefer to nogotiate." exactly what I have been saying they will not do anything. Pretty useless. Can anyone point to any infringers that have "negotiated", paid a settlement and come into compliance? I am not being a smart ass are there any? Is the FSF is a paper tiger? Am I just being a pessimist when I don't expect to see them do crap about SCO?
They haven't "planned" any legal action ever nor apperently ever taken any either as far as I can see. This doesn't encourage me. This is something that can't wait on the IBM suit. If SCO get away with this plenty of other companies will just follow their lead adding thier own restrictive and propritary licenses to GPLed software and code. Then Linux and the GPL are fried.

--
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
Re:FSF activity by sirReal.83. · 2003-10-31 14:33 · Score: 1, Interesting

You're totally right, and the fact that they aren't doing much (anything?) definitely bothers me. Maybe you're a pessimist, maybe not. I'm not sure if I don't expect them to do anything, but I do fear that they won't...
it's basically up to them to defend the GPL, and if they don't/can't... that's a Very Bad Thing (TM).
the lady that i talked to hadn't heard yet that SCO had begun distributing GPL software under their own license, or that there are a few people filing complaints against SCO with the SEC (whoever came up with that idea, good move). maybe whoever is in charge at the FSF will react more strongly now.
Re:FSF activity by Simple-Simmian · 2003-11-01 05:27 · Score: 1

I am just shakin' my head.

--
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?

Mod this up!Re:Class-action? Group petitions? WTF? by cdn-programmer · 2003-10-31 07:47 · Score: 1

Well - I'm a moderator today but I chose to post instead. This is a really good idea.

Small claims courts typically have a filing fee of under $100 bux. Yets see - 1 million law suits is a waste of 100 million but that should probably grind SCO into the dirt PDQ.

If people are really mad then consider that the same $100 bux could be invested in an association to patent every damn thing WE dream up and thus create a sheaf of patents that can be used to force companies like TI and IBM to cross license with the open source community.

It time to talk with your wallets folks.

We have the power so lets go do it!

Even if all that is true... by Kjella · 2003-10-31 07:49 · Score: 1

Except that the brunt of SCO's claim is that Linux, being a Unix derivative, is really the copyright of SCO (having bought the System V copyrights, or so they claim; Novell says otherwise), so the copyright and licenses can only be decided upon and enforced by SCO.

If, assuming, that at some point an illegal SCO/GPL derivate was created, the rights of BOTH SCO and the GPL author(s) were infringed. So the result is that while SCO is claiming that Linux is an illegal derivate of their code, now SCO is selling an illegal SCO/GPL derivate of other people's code.

It doesn't matter what IP rights SCO have or sell. They can not sell you the right to link GPL'd code with proprietary code. Any derivate of SCO and GPL code is illegal. Their business model is to force people to be criminals through illegally copying their unidentifiable code, then collect protection money for the very crimes they forced you to commit.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

They are daring to be sued by PolR · 2003-10-31 07:49 · Score: 1

What are the legal consequences if copyright holders do not sue? Are they waiving anything? This stuff could have legal consequences if there is no move.

Re:They are daring to be sued by fishbowl · 2003-10-31 08:16 · Score: 1

"What are the legal consequences if copyright holders do not sue?"

None, until (unless) the copyright expires, or is surrendered to the public domain (explicitly).

You do not lose your copyright (a Constitutional right, mind you), simply because you chose not to sue someone for infringement.

Trademark dilution is rather a different story. But this is not that story.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:They are daring to be sued by M.+Silver · 2003-10-31 08:49 · Score: 1

Not to pick nits, but there are *some* legal consequences. You might lose the option to sue for certain kinds of damages (the name of which escapes me at the moment) in future cases. But you never lose the ability to tell infringers "Cut it out."

--

Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife

Re:Begging the question by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 07:51 · Score: 0

I've heard this claim often, and it does seem an essential part of the GPL: If any part of this license does not apply, then we revert to standard copyright law. Under which you have no rights to distribute this code.

This is (the non-Slashdot form of) begging the question against SCO. The above clause is itself a part of the GPL, so if the GPL is precisely what is in question, then you cannot just assume that what it says is true, namely, that the license on the code will become governed by normal copyright if the license fails to apply. SCO's whole point is that the GPL is invalid (including this clause), and so they have their own case to make that the code should go to public domain.

It is not clear if a strong case can be made for their view. I guess it depends on what the law says in general should happen when a license is ruled invalid/unenforceable/whatever. But we don't look to the GPL for the answer.

Who has standing? by blackbear · 2003-10-31 07:51 · Score: 2, Informative

While IANL, I just got off the phone with mine for an unrelated reason, but the SCO question came up. The question is, who is being infringed? Did the contributers to the kernel give up their copyright in favor of Linus's (i.e. Linus (or his legal entity) now owns all kerl code for Linux) or does the Linux kernel have many different owners, all of whom have agreed to distribute thier code under the same license.

If it's the former, then only Linus (or his legal entity) can send SCO a C&D letter. If not then SCO is looking at a lot of potential law suits. But that also means very bad things for companies that use Linux because they would not have a sngle point of negotiation. Also, there are a lot of GPL'd packages that are typically distributed with Linux. Each of those owners is likely being infringed as well.

Anyway, this is an interesting problem. If you do want to sue SCO (in the US) or serve them for some reason you must find thier registered agent. Many national companies maintain one in each state. I was unsuccessfull, after speaking with the VA SCC, in finding one in my home state of VA.

Re:Who has standing? by cdn-programmer · 2003-10-31 08:11 · Score: 1

Precedent has already been set. Linux is a collection of millions of different programs each enjoying its own copyright.

The anaolgy is a movie. You will see that the movie has a consitancy and theme that is its own. Yet it may include songs and dialogue and be based on books perhaps... each song has its own copyright and the book (if it exists) has its own copyright and the movie as a whole also has a copyright.

Similarly, each program or function in linux has its own copyright and that copyright is owned by the author. In the USA these copyrights should be registered. In other countries under the Borne Copyright coneventions, like Canada, registration is not required.

The only way in Canada that copyright can be transfered from the author is via a written and signed agreement.

I do not recall SCO getting any of these agreements and hense they do not have the right to do what they are trying;. This means that winning in small claims is a no-brainer.

I am touching base with the OpenBSD folks who happen the be headquartered here in Calgary. If some of them choose to file in small claims then potentially SCO Canada will be bankrupt in about 2 months - because that is how quick small claims works here.

If so, then perhaps the OpenBSD folks have found a new source of financing to replace the DARPA funding that was withdrawn.

This probably is worth investing $100 bux and 1/2 of an afternoon.

what users? by mblase · 2003-10-31 07:54 · Score: 1

The offer is only open to SCO's existing customers

Thank God, I was afraid there would be somebody out there who was affected by this.

Samba GPL by nuggz · 2003-10-31 07:55 · Score: 1

They are violating their Linux license (the GPL), some copyright holders (namely IBM) are suing SCO for this action.

SCO has not yet violated the terms of their Samba licence (the GPL).

Just another delaying tatic... by CrazyFool · 2003-10-31 07:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

Your honor.. we need more time to dump our stocks ... um... respond to IBM's allegations because we have to respond to so many copyright infringement lawsuits.

Re:SCO *already* infringed copyrights of GPL'd cod by Deven · 2003-10-31 07:59 · Score: 1

I don't think so. A possible interpretation of your quote is that that at least one of the clauses of paragraph 28 is not true.

I doubt it. If you look at the rest of SCO's response, they carefully admit anything obviously, provably true (except the things which would destroy their case to admit), while denying everything else. I don't know the legalities of it, but it seems like that blanket denial would be equally applicably to each allegation in the paragraph, including IBM's allegation that SCO accepted the terms of the GPL (by modifying and distributing Linux products). IANAL; maybe a real lawyer can answer this?

This is poor phrasing on behalf of IBM's lawyers.

I think you're picking nits. No doubt IBM pays handsomely for their legal representation; do you really think they would make such a mistake in the wording if it mattered? IBM's wording seems pretty careful throughout. Actions of SCO's employees might bind SCO, acting as their agents, especially when SCO's management continued to distribute Linux under the GPL after filing a lawsuit alleging illicit SCO code being put into Linux. Surely the management was cognizant well before filing the lawsuit? It would be a bit disingenuous for SCO to claim that management was unaware of problems with their own Linux distribution after filing that lawsuit! (Not that I'd put it past them to make the claim anyhow.)

Also, if SCO believed when they accepted the GPL that certain portions of it were not enforceable, they may believe that they didn't accept those portions, while accepting the remainder.

Certainly, this argument could have been made, but then they should have admitted to accepting the "enforceable" parts of the GPL, while denying the rest. Instead, they seem to have denied accepting the GPL at all...

--

Deven

"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay

Re:SCO *already* infringed copyrights of GPL'd cod by Deven · 2003-10-31 08:02 · Score: 1

Certainly, including the GPL in an SEC filing would imply that they accepted the GPL. But so does distributing software accompanied by the GPL license. Yet here they seem to be directly denying having accepted the GPL. So which do we believe? The implied acceptance, or the nearly-explicit denial?

Ultimately, it doesn't matter -- either they accepted the GPL, and are liable for violating that contract or they didn't accept it and are liable for copyright infringement. Either way, they're liable, right?

--

Deven

"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay

Suggestion by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 08:02 · Score: 0

You may want to try cutting down on the caffiene...

Are you Morpheus? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 08:05 · Score: 0

I think your Morpheus.

Prediction by Simple-Simmian · 2003-10-31 08:07 · Score: 1

I predict the FSF will nothing do. I has said this before. They have a wonderful time with the little money they have but they would rather negotiate complaince. In other words they will not go to court or sue the prefer to settle out of court. What ever that means. So if they will not defend it and they admit as much, the GPL is doomed. Does anyone expect SCO to settle out of court? SCO knows the FSF will not sue to enforce the GPL and is acting accordingly.

--
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?

Re:SCO *already* infringed copyrights of GPL'd cod by Deven · 2003-10-31 08:08 · Score: 1

Another thought. I ain't a lawyer, but I think 'deny' in this context probably doesn't have the same meaning it would have in normal speach; I think it may instead mean 'does not admit'.

This seems like a stretch. But it sure would be nice for an actual lawyer to clarify this for us!

They've certainly used it this way in other parts of the document, and have explicitly explained that they have done so, usually due to not having adequate information to determine the point one way or the other; this can't be argued in this case, which may be why they haven't said so here, but they're under no obligation to admit P28 even if it is true, I believe.

I have a hard time believing this argument, because IBM did not deny anything where they lacked information -- they said they lacked the information to admit or deny, and left it at that. Why didn't SCO do the same?

I suspect "deny" means what it normally means, and SCO is simply following a strategy of "deny, deny, deny" as much as possible.

Unless a lawyer tells us otherwise, I'm going to assume that this definition of "deny" (which doesn't mean what it means) is as bogus as SCO's ridiculous claim that copyright law does not permit a copyright owner to license free distribution of a work, merely because copyright law guarantees the right to make a single backup copy (in absense of any license)...

--

Deven

"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay

Re:Hmm.. question.. question. by MarkedMan · 2003-10-31 08:08 · Score: 1

IANAL, and therefore must ask: if you take someone to court, you must show damages. If you will not recieve financial compensation for your code, what kind of damages can you show? Or is it enough that SCO will somehow make money off your code, so the money belongs to you?

Re:SCO *already* infringed copyrights of GPL'd cod by frkiii · 2003-10-31 08:10 · Score: 1

I would say, most definitely.

SCO is toast either way they go on this.

If they "did not accept" and they are distrubting in violation of the GPL, they are toast.

If they "did accept" and they are distrubting in a manner that violates the GPL, they are also toast.

I think this puts them between a rock and, like, another rock. :)

Re:GPL isn't really powerless, proprietary checkab by Tony+Hoyle · 2003-10-31 08:12 · Score: 1

However, they're just that, rumors, and it is not fair to allege that someone has committed a crime when there's no evidence that they've done so.

Quick! Someone tell SCO!

Hold the phone! by istartedi · 2003-10-31 08:17 · Score: 1

Has anybody actually bought SCO's product? Maybe somebody from Slashdot ought to buy one just to make sure.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?

Wonder if SCO could handle 429 simultaneous suits? by Gunfighter · 2003-10-31 08:21 · Score: 1

Rather than one big class action suit, how about the Slashdot effect?

gun@curly stuart $ cd /usr/src/linux-2.4.22
gun@curly linux $ grep N: CREDITS | wc -l
429
gun@curly linux $

Even just 429 small claims suits would be a thorn in their side. Imagine if everyone slapped them around in district civil court!

I know there are many Linux developers in countries other than the U.S. What are the international laws regarding compensation for copyright infringement? Perhaps we can shut these idiots up once and for all.

--
-- Stu

/. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.

SCO logical assumptions by SiliBelgian · 2003-10-31 08:24 · Score: 1

1) 70 lines of code in the linux kernel belong to us. Let's sue IBM for this.
2) The GPL is unconstitutional. All developers which have released code under the GPL now lose their copyright and the code becomes public domain.
3) Taking the code from the public domain to be ours, we own ALL of GNU/Linux and everything ever released under the GPL.
4) Hooray.

--

"Hell hath no fury like a hippo with a machine gun."

Slashdot | SCO Now by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 08:25 · Score: 0

I just minimized IE and next to the start button it reads, "Slashdot | SCO Now...". Everyone complains about the goverment being "Big Brother", but what about Microsoft being able to read the minds of pissed off Linux developers and Open Source users?

Re:Slashdot | SCO Now by 00420 · 2003-10-31 18:48 · Score: 1

what about Microsoft being able to read the minds of pissed off Linux developers and Open Source users?

Yes, because so many of them are using IE.

--
Have you tried Linux yet?

Let's not go eye for an eye here. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 08:41 · Score: 1, Interesting

That would only make the rest of us seem as juvenile as SCO. BUt here's a thought as well.

Do send them C&D's
Let's have some serious players set up an account or two that will accept paypal, cc's etc. so we can voluenteer $$.

Heck, I live in utah. I'm sure there's many people that would love to see their HQ and offsite facilities for backups burned or even just "disabled"

Any takers

Tell their ISP! by theonetruekeebler · 2003-10-31 08:48 · Score: 1

C'mon! If they're violating your copyright online, they're in violation of the DMCA you can get their NSP to shut them down. Damn, that would be fun!

--
This is not my sandwich.

You forgot... by Trikenstein · 2003-10-31 08:49 · Score: 1

*pinky to corner of mouth

An address by FunnyLookinHat · 2003-10-31 08:51 · Score: 1

Is there an address that would be best to send hate (err... cease-and-dismiss) mail to so that maybe our millions of letters might be noticed?

Short their stock en masse = Instant bankruptcy? by Bowie+J.+Poag · 2003-10-31 08:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

If i'm not mistaken, a good way to harm a company is to short their stock en masse. Basically, you're betting that the company's stock price will drop, versus go up value.

10,000 pissed off penguins shorting SCOX at the same time on the same day might send an interesting message to the market.

Regardless, if I were a kernel developer, i'd be mighty pissed right now. Between lacing up my boots and thinking of the right orifice to plant them in, i'd do a little bit of thinking... You know, along the lines of, "How many more companies need to rip me off before you finally get up and do something about it? 2? 3? ...20?"

For those who are still a little on-the-fence, I have just one question. If you're not going to do anything about it, can I have some of your money too? :)

--
Bowie J. Poag

C&D letters to SCO's customers! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 09:00 · Score: 0

After all, using pirated software is illeagal.

False Lawsuits by Spl0it · 2003-10-31 09:04 · Score: 1

IANAL but in US law isn't there some sort of penalties for filing false lawsuits?? As far as I know a company cannot make rediculous claims in new lawsuits all the time or in continuing lawsuits without some sort of proof/basis. Perhaps I'm wrong, but if I am wrong, your legal system sucks.

--

No, this is

Re:False Lawsuits by fishbowl · 2003-10-31 10:08 · Score: 1

>Isn't there some sort of penalties for filing
>false lawsuits?

The penalty for filing a lawsuit with weak evidence is, you don't win the suit.

The penalty for knowlingly testifying with false information is quite severe.

However, all we get are press releases. The depositions will have much less sensational claims. You can lie all you want in a press release, at least up to the point where you tread on someone else's rights (e.g., libel, trademark infringement, etc.)

Did you somehow have the idea that everything you read in the news journal is true? Do you think there is some law that makes it a crime to make false statements to the press?

We haven't seen any depositions yet, and we haven't heard any testimony, and we haven't heard a judge's opinion yet. We simply are not to that phase of the process at all.

There are factors that preclude SCO from changing its story, but they tend to lead to dismissal of the case, not more serious consequences.

You can lie all you want to until you are giving sworn testimony.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

Wake up, people. The Microsoft angle is important by hqm · 2003-10-31 09:17 · Score: 1

I think in the wave after wave of unbelievable crap that SCO has been dishing out, people have overlooked one very scary and terrible thing. SCO is basically funded by Microsoft at this point. Publicly, Microsoft has given SCO
a reported "multimillion dollar license". That is a huge amount of money, enough to keep SCO afloat for years if they are careful. And then then after that $50 million more showed up from some "investors", and I would bet following that money trail would lead to Microsoft as well.

Forget all the speculation about what SCO thinks will happen; they have just pocketed millions of dollars in cold hard cash from their "terror masters" (as George Bush would refer to them) at
Microsoft.

So it does not matter one bit if SCO has no long term way to profit from the scam they are pulling. They are providing hundreds of millions of dollars in "service" to Microsoft by creating fear and doubt about free software and Linux, and all they have to do is keep it up to ensure a steady supply of "license fees" from Microsoft.

if there was ever a time for the Justice Department to investigate monopoly practices by Microsoft it would be now, but I think they are too big an assortment of chuckleheads to understand what is going on now.

Report the DMCA violation to xo.net by iabervon · 2003-10-31 09:25 · Score: 1

Suing SCO is probably still not worthwhile; it would take too long, and SCO probably won't have any assets let to forfeit by them. Getting a summary judgement will only force them to stop doing this, and it doesn't matter much if they distribute improperly licensed code with is available properly licensed as well.

On the other hand, SCO has made themselves the world's biggest warez site, and has refused to take down the infringing content. It's time their network connection got shut off, and kept off until they can demonstrate that they have the right to distribute the content. In addition to the insignificant effect of preventing them from distributing Linux with their improper license, it would probably kill their stock price if they couldn't get an internet connection due to their blatent disregard for copyright law.

Today, as in the Ancient Rome... by rd4tech · 2003-10-31 09:27 · Score: 0

(Colloseum, flames, torches, lions, jaguars, tigers, and a really small gladiator in the middle of the quite hungry wild life)

./ emperor: "Let the games,Begin!"

...

Multiple DMCA violations? by smwalker · 2003-10-31 09:32 · Score: 1

First IANAL....
However, I have to service more than my fair share of DMCA Takedown requests...So I've actually read the text a few times.

I would think there are at least a few violations here:
1. Defeat of a "technological measure" to "control access" to a work protected under the DMCA, where the technological measure to control access consists of FTP and Web sites the world over to ensure it remains free?
2. Change of "Copyright Management Information". Would SCO's change in IP Licensing consitute a change in the copyright management information made without the consent of the actual copyright owner?
3. Whether the GPL itself is enforcable or not, would it seem the individual authors and copyright owners would still have cause for relief under the portions pertaining to the change in Copyright Management Information and "Terms and conditions for use of the work." ?
4. Couldn't this also satisfy the commercial advantage portion in the "Criminal offenses and penalties" Section? At $500,000 + 5 years imprisonment for the first offense, and $1,000,000 and 10 years for the second, couldn't SCO's exec's be in big trouble if any of my questions above are correct?
On the other hand, SCO seems to be selling for about $17/share, with 13.8M shares outstanding.
By my calculations, we'd need about 1,000,000 open source adherents to chip in $134 apeice, and we could stage our own hostile takeover...anyone know if this would be kosher with the SEC?

Don't you guys get it??? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 09:33 · Score: 0

SCO is doing this to prove a point. SCO argues that we've taken their IP and put it in Linux. We argue that the "infringing" code has been in the public domain long before SCO had any claims to it, therefore we are not violating their IP claims. Now by doing this, SCO has a new argument. If that code was in the public domain, we have no right to slap the GPL on it and regulate how anyone else uses the code. Now, obviously there is tons of original code that Linux kernel developers have contributed, but that's not SCO's point. All they need to do is discredit the GPL so as to make it unenforceable. Once they do that, consider it a victory for M$, Sun, and whoever else doesn't "get it."

Re:Don't you guys get it??? by fishbowl · 2003-10-31 10:02 · Score: 1

"All they need to do is discredit the GPL so as to make it unenforceable."

The best they can hope for with this strategy is to make it unenforceable against them, with respect to the specific works in question.

The outcome of this lawsuit will have no effect on any other code, nor will it affect any other party besides SCO and IBM. This lawsuit would create a judgement on the record, but that does not mean it becomes a precedent which subsequent cases will follow as law.

It does mean that the matter of SCO v. IBM can be used as evidence in future hearings. But that's all. This lawsuit won't create law respecting the GPL in general.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

Re:Short their stock en masse = Instant bankruptcy by Queuetue · 2003-10-31 09:33 · Score: 1

Wouldn't that just punish thier investors? How would it punish them, or drive them into bankruptcy?

It's Halloween, how come I can't say BOO? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 09:36 · Score: 0

A scary Halloween thought; It might be to IBM's advantage to have the GPL PDed, lotsa base code to work from. Bwahahahaha!

I think a class action is more appropriate. by jcr · 2003-10-31 09:44 · Score: 1

The class would be all those people who have code in the distro that SCO is shipping. What is that these days, some tens of thousands of people?

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

Re:Get over it by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 09:48 · Score: 0

BSD is dying, moron.

Who needs a lawyer? by DaveAtFraud · 2003-10-31 09:51 · Score: 1

Nolo Press includes a sample "cease and desist" letter for copyright infringement in their Copyright Handbook. A cease and desist letter crafted by a lawyer carries no more legal weight than one written by an individual so long as the one crafted by the individual contains all of the required elements for a valid cease and desist request. The same is generally true for any simple legal document. On the other hand, if things aren't simple, get a lawyer involved.

IANAL, but any individual contributor to the kernel fits into the category of having their individual work infringed upon by SCO's actions. Contributors who worked for someone else and developed the work as an employee do not fit the category; however their employer can send a cease and desist. (I wonder if Alan Cox will get Red Hat to also send a cease and desist now?)

--
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben

Re:Who needs a lawyer? by AllUsernamesAreGone · 2003-10-31 10:06 · Score: 1

"A cease and desist letter crafted by a lawyer carries no more legal weight than one written by an individual"

Legally, perhaps. But phsycologically, which is more likely to get someone to listen? A letter sent by a lawyer or solicitor indicates that you have already obtained legal advice and you have employed someone who may have considerably knowledge of copyright law. On the other hand, a letter sent by an individual, with a normal house address and obviously based on a stock online letter with words filled in is likely to have less of an impression. Yes, they have the same legal weight, but the former certainly gives the impression of someone more determined to follow through if the C&D is not adhered to.
Re:Who needs a lawyer? by DaveAtFraud · 2003-10-31 12:38 · Score: 1

Either way, what would probably be needed is a "registry" of sorts such that each contributor who sends such a letter gets "counted." I don't see anyone short of IBM, Red Hat, etc. actually getting results in court in the near term primarily because of the cost involved. On the other hand, I definitely like the idea of someone like the FSF putting out a news release that umpty-hundred kernel contributors from around the world have sent C&D letters to SCO demanding that SCO stop infringing their copyrighted work.

If this were closer to a battle of equals, what you have said would be absolutely correct. SCO seems to think (that's probably too strong of a word) that they have the resources to challenge IBM so I doubt that a C&D from an individual kernel contributor will have that much impact on them even if its written by a lawyer (instead of a Nolo Press form letter). In the media battle however, several hundred C&Ds carry a lot of impact (think SCO stock and their other financial backers).

--
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben

Try C&D then class action when SCO ignores the by theshowmecanuck · 2003-10-31 10:01 · Score: 0

Get all the contributing projects/developers to send cease and desist orders to SCO. When SCO ignores them, find the tobacco lawyers and start a class action lawsuit. Make sure to go for a lot of money.

Solicit donations (which I am sure you will get... I'd contribute at least something) to pay the lawyer's retainer fees etc. With a large well organized and very experienced legal team to back you up, SCO could be fatally hurt, and the GPL proved. Going after them one after the other, individually, you are likely to loose as most developer can't afford the cost of going to court against a corporation. And then a precedent might end up being set which would make it harder to beat SCO for the next guy/girl. In any case, if the GPL goes down, so does the open source movement. So it's in everyone's best interest to work together. It needs a large effort on the order of what IBM can mount.

This is only my two cents, but this crap from SCO has got to stop. Wouldn't it be nice to also be able to go after the people who just bankrolled SCO's attack on the GPL (oops I mean 'invested' in SCO)? We can only dream.

These are only my own rantings. But I know I am not alone when I say SCO is starting to really piss me off! :-) :-/

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.

Any lawyers around? by jgoemat · 2003-10-31 10:04 · Score: 1

Since SCO is willfully violating the copyright of every contributor to Linux and making a profit off it, they are violating criminal law. Copyright is not just about civil penalties that would arise from suing comeone, there are actual federal fines and even prison time involved for people that do this sort of thing. Usually they are reserved for people that are intentionally making money off other people's copyrighted material, such as a company that sells music CDs they make themselves without the right to do so. Isn't that exactly what SCO is doing now, selling other people's copyrighted works without the right to do so?

I don't know about Utah, but some states have laws where private citizens can sue to force the district attorney to bring criminal charges against someone (such as Colorado). Can't something be done about this? I would be very willing to contribute to a fund to do this. Or would this be more difficult to do since it would be a federal case?

Another option: Hurt SCO financially but legally by theshowmecanuck · 2003-10-31 10:07 · Score: 0

Another alternative is to find a way to hurt SCO financially, but in a legal way. Maybe some sort of group action by developers and IT people. Example: Job Action. Don't work for anyone who supports SCO... even if only for a day or two to get their attention. Or some other alternate ways to cause SCO financial pain.

Some people might find this 'union-esqe', but what the heck, power to the people! Or something like that.

OK, I know this is probably only a pipe dream, so don't flame me... but we need to start thinking of ways to fight back. If they have the momentum, then it is easier for them to keep rolling.

Remember to use thought and not emotions... if it's not a Vulcan quote, it should be.

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.

Care to tell us what it was they wanted to hide? by pr0ntab · 2003-10-31 10:17 · Score: 1

Dont worry, this is slashdot. No one knows you're a dog.

--
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice

Re:Short their stock en masse = Instant bankruptcy by ShinmaWa · 2003-10-31 10:18 · Score: 1

10,000 pissed off penguins shorting SCOX at the same time on the same day... ...would require enough other investors willing to loan and/or purchase enough SCOX stock for 10,000 penguins to short. See the problem?

--
The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.

You what you really mean is... by pr0ntab · 2003-10-31 10:20 · Score: 1

I do not take it, repackage it, perform and sell it as my own, claiming to be the artist.

Oh.... So you're NOT Puffy? I was confused there.

--
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice

SCO Lawyers by SlashDev · 2003-10-31 10:21 · Score: 1

Do you really think that SCO took such a step without consulting with top notch law firms? I agree that it was a dirty thing to do, but think about it...

--

TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs

Re:Short their stock en masse = Instant bankruptcy by Bowie+J.+Poag · 2003-10-31 10:53 · Score: 1

...We could use our own money, though.

Depends on how angry you are.

--
Bowie J. Poag

Re:SCO Was in total violation anyway (followup) by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 10:54 · Score: 0

This is a question for courts (NOT lawyers --- they'll say whetever you pay them to say). But fair use is fair use, regardless of what restrictions (payment, GPL, etc.) the author would like to place on a work.

There is nothing in the GPL that tries to take away fair use rights. In fact, the license specifically says that it doesn't take away any rights at all, which would include fair use.

On the other hand. by dmaxwell · 2003-10-31 11:01 · Score: 1

If the letter comes from joeslashdotsattacklawyer@lawfirm.com then he has to think at least twice.

WTF by whittrash · 2003-10-31 11:03 · Score: 1

You know how crazy this all sounds. SCO is going to try to take over Linux. WTF?

SCO: We are going to anhilate the open source movement with our profound and far reaching UNIX V IP, the most advanced code ever conceived my man, or GOD himself! Our Unix is the overlord of the Linux Code and therefore rules supreme. We shall harness, NAY enslave, Linux, and it shall do our bidding. We shall be kings...and GODS; immortal and all powerful!

Slashdotter: We will resist your onslaught with our legions of dedicated hackers who number more than drops of water in the ocean. We see with crystal clarity your evil. And with furious and righteous MIGHT...we shall destroy your...puny ship, the Santa Cruz.... as a drop gathers into a bucket into a wave into a tidal wave and bring you all to DESPAIR. And then we shall drag you down to the pit of the ocean and crush the air from your cursed lungs and you shall drown...and then we will laugh! Hahahahahahahahahaha.

SCO: NAY! NAY and NAY again! We are the overlord, puny, in 'sig' nificant wretch.

Slashdotter: I am but one of a legion. We shall be victorious. We accept no master but Linus. Behold our wrath!

Bystander: What the fuck are these people talking about, and who cares anyway. All of this crap is overblown, over dramatized and melodramatic enough to make me puke! As a matter of fact, I am so blown away by the stupidity of this fight I am going to KILL MYSELF. (Bystander pulls out gun. BANG. DEAD)

And this brings me to my point. Stop freaking out every time SCO says something stupid. They are just blowing air out of their ass. A smart person would harvest this vast source of methane and use it as an alternative fuel source to power his car. Don't feed the TROLL.

Re:WTF by whereiswaldo · 2003-10-31 16:42 · Score: 1

Stop freaking out every time SCO says something stupid. They are just blowing air out of their ass.

That cracks me up. No pun intended. ;)

Last time I read into the law, it looked more favourably on those who abide by it and fight their fights in court properly. SCO's breaking the law by violating the GPL, and I think this is *not* going to help them whatsoever.

Re:Hmm.. answer. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 11:08 · Score: 0

Forget Longhorn. Try 'operating system' and 'secure'. ;)

I have the SCO kernel... by herrvinny · 2003-10-31 11:29 · Score: 1

After I read the previous SCO story, I went to the SCO ftp site and downloaded all the kernel files (the ones starting with kernel-source...) from ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/updates/ SRPMS/. It's about 123 MB total, 10 files total. Does this make me a customer of SCO now? Can I demand to get the new SCO Linux files without having to agree to their worthless license?

Re:I have the SCO kernel... by herrvinny · 2003-10-31 11:37 · Score: 1

Forgot to say, if anyone wants the kernel files, I'll gladly send you a CD of them. Unfortunately, UW Madison doesn't give undergrads web site space, nor do I have enough privately owned space to post them on the net.

Got a better idea.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 11:35 · Score: 0

Line the fuckers against a wall and shoot them.

They have absolutely no remorse for being such arseholes, and deserve to die. Once a twat, always a twat.

Everyone in the Linux/GPL world is too damn nice.

Call the police? by Kirth · 2003-10-31 11:40 · Score: 1

I don't know, but here I'd call the police because SCO is doing illegal distribution of software.

Can't you do this in the USA? Call the police and they do a raid and crack down the software-pirates?
--

--
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse

Re:Call the police? by DavidH_Mphs · 2003-10-31 18:03 · Score: 1

nah, police in the USA only handle regular crimes in cities and towns. Something like this would probably be handled by the FBI.

Re:Short their stock en masse = Instant bankruptcy by herrvinny · 2003-10-31 11:42 · Score: 1

IANAL, and I hate to burst the bubble, but isn't that illegal? Working with others to manipulate a stock price? A better thing to do would be to check your stock portfolio, make sure you don't own any SCO or rivals of SCO stock, then send hordes of developers to continually post on finance message boards (can anyone say finance.yahoo.com) and convince people you have no financial interest in the matter, you're doing the Right Thing (TM) and tell people that it is your professional opinion that SCO should shove it.

not quite by mabhatter654 · 2003-10-31 11:54 · Score: 1

The GPL is different from an EULA...there is no license given...or required by law to run a binary distributed program [your contaract parts] Get it...the whole EULA industry is a SHAM!

The GPL avoids all that. Only by manapulating and USING the copyrighted code for another type of work do you come under the GPL. Remember, the goal of GPL is to treat code "like a book". There's no license required to read a book, or to make use of information in a book [ala cookbooks], there's no license required for writing book reports or citing the book as a reference in other works. The only time you get in trouble with book copyrights is when you start ripping stuff out and trying to claim it as your own! The GPL mearly requires similar terms to what is understood in the "normal" world of paper copyright. Because compiled code is "secret" [not human readable] there is not a good method of attribution for "borrowed" code. Hence the GPL requirement to publish the source [again only neccesary because of the preverted copyright intrepetations of the software industry] is similar to acedemic "citations" in thesis and discetations...What you are licensing is the SOURCE, not some nebulous "program media" like everyone else is trying to sell you.

In short the GPL is no different than the understood idea of preventing plagurism in acedemic circles. That should be completely enforceable...and pretty air tight.

Do they really have lawyers ? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 11:54 · Score: 0

If the GPL is valid, they're breaching contract; if, as they claim, it is invalid, they're breaking copyright law.
Either way they'll get their ass kicked.
I really can't understand the logic here.

Re:With the potential to damage the open-source im by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 11:58 · Score: 0

Micro$oft

lol

Maybe I'm troll or flamebait... by Ian-K · 2003-10-31 11:58 · Score: 1

... but I can't wait for the day when Darl McBride is some Colombian/Mexican guy's new girlfriend in prison :-)

Trian

--
I'm no longer fed up with MS Windows: I go rid of them :)

But isn't this criminal? by cabalamat2 · 2003-10-31 11:59 · Score: 1

IANAL, but my understanding is that unauthorised copying of copyright material, when done deliberately, wilfully and commercially, is a criminal offence in the USA, with penalties including large fines and imprisonment.

This being the case, perhaps copyright-holders of parts of the Linux kernel (Linus would be an appropriate person to do this) should notify the relevant law-enforcement authorities.

According to this and this, the maximum sentence is 10 years. Don't bend over to pick up the soap, Darl!

UnixWare Break-in by mcstout · 2003-10-31 12:00 · Score: 1

I worked at a small IT company a few years ago. Burglers broke in one night and took PC's, install disks, UPS's, monitors, you name it. We had one cartridge tape with UnixWare on it the night before the hit. After the burglers had hit, we had two cartridge tapes with UnixWare on them.

I'm pissed by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 12:00 · Score: 0

They must really believe this. You mean this whole lawsuit thing is for real? It makes sense, when you really hunker down and think about it.

SCO responsible for California Wildfires by whoever57 · 2003-10-31 12:03 · Score: 1

SCO responsible for California Wildfires
October 31, 2003
By: Staff Reporter

The cause of wildfires engulfing much of southern California has recently been been identified as ageing SCO UnixWare computers used, ironically, by the California Department of Fire.

A spokesman stated: "It seems the servers that were handling the logistics of a small fire simply could not cope and overheated as a result."

OK, the above is a parody, inspired by reading a report about CDF's use of SCO (search for "fire SCO" in news.google.com and you will see).

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!

Plan B by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 12:13 · Score: 0

Quick! Somebody put in a fake new ticker across the bottom of the desktop and let Fox News take them out!

Re:FIRST PR0ST by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 12:22 · Score: 0

Dude! SCO is beating everyone up. Run!

Re:Hmm.. question.. question. by black+mariah · 2003-10-31 12:26 · Score: 1

Incorrect. This would be a contract dispute. You don't have to show damages in a contract dispute, only that the defendant broke said contract. IANAL, but I pretend to be 'cause it gets the chicks.

--
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.

This affects the *ENTIRE DISTRIBUTION* by 0x0d0a · 2003-10-31 12:28 · Score: 2

I would like to note that this does *not* merely affect the kernel, as the earlier poster (inadvertently) claimed. This affects the entire GNU/Linux distribution, including FSF-owned libraries such as glibc (thereby invoking the we-go-after-people-who-steal-software-we-own policy of the FSF...FWIW with IBM already in the game). As I am a contributor to a number of software packages that are commonly distributed with Linux, I would be interested if anyone could post/link to a list of their software packages. I believe that SCO may be infringing on my own copyrights.

--
May we never see th

it is illegal and it won't work by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 12:32 · Score: 0

Bankruptcy is a function of debts, assets and cash flow.

Your stock valuation has nothing to do with it.

Their stock could go to 0 (as a limit) and it wouldn't affect their business operations unless they suddently needed to float a new stock offering to raise cash.

They are already unable to float decent stock offerings anyway, as proven by their private placement in the last month.

What specific violation? by billstewart · 2003-10-31 12:55 · Score: 1

I haven't bought a SCO run-time product from the current corporate entity named SCO, but I didn't see a violation here - what I saw was that IF you have one of their binary products, they'll let you onto the download pages, and IF YOU DON'T have one of their binary products, they won't. But the GPL doesn't require you to freely distribute source code to people that you've never given binaries or source code to; it only requires that IF you give people binaries of GPL'd stuff, you also have to give them either the source code (without restrictions and without more than a distribution/media charge) or a pointer to somewhere that they can get it.

Since I didn't see how the pages the Register pointed to let me get a binary, I don't see that any violation occurred.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Re:What specific violation? by jbolden · 2003-10-31 23:56 · Score: 1

The violation is that they don't give they people they are giving the copies to permission to redistribute under the same terms.

SCO sucessfull by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 13:01 · Score: 0

Sco never intended to win anything, since its funded by microsoft the only intention was to spread uneasyness considering linux as an alternative to windows. That goal is already reached.

Regards
Anonymous Coward

Don't forget to refresh a couple of times by Mr2cents · 2003-10-31 13:11 · Score: 1

And again, and again..
Nothing illegal about that..

--
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey

SCO tactics by jskline · 2003-10-31 13:25 · Score: 1

Why does this smell... excuse me... wreak of Microsoft's embrace, muffle, muddy, and stomp...

I guess their business model is now real popular.

I think I'll just stick with the version that I have that works, and not update it... other than fix holes in my own source and recompile!

Take that SCO!!!

This is the entire point by OpenSourceOfAllEvil · 2003-10-31 13:35 · Score: 1

I've been saying this since the whole mess started. The entire purpose of SCO's suit has been to undermine the GPL. "People" kept telling me the GPL was iron clad and it was just a simple scheme to get rich quick with FUD. Yes, it's a gamble for them, but it's a gamble that isn't costing any real money, when you see some companies paying them off and their owners cashing out stock. If their scheme works the reward for certain parties is in the billion$. We need to stop sitting on our asses like a bunch of Democrats watching their House on fire. It's time to hit them legally with every recourse available. Even a marginal compromise to the GPL would be catastrophic. The GPL is just like any other legal document (or patent). The only proof of how valid it is, is in a court of law.

Don't Sue Without the Resources to Win by billstewart · 2003-10-31 13:55 · Score: 1

It's never a good idea to sue somebody if you don't have the resources to win and a slam-dunk kick-their-ass case. It's a much worse idea to do that in something that's politically significant which may impact lots of other people who have cases, because if you attack and lose, you set precedent that weakens all their positions. If 1000 random people sue SCO, they're in really good position to find the weakest and worst-funded cases, delay on all the others (especially the strongest ones), go in and beat the incompetent random who sued them, use that to leverage some more weak and badly-funded cases, and use the precedent in the cases where they should have lost. If they do a class action, with some funding and competence, that can work well, but it doesn't have the harassment value of 1000 people suing SCO.

There are a couple of interesting large players here. IBM is obviously one of them, though their case is special because they had a Unix license from SCO so it's possible that their position is weaker than somebody who doesn't have a license, and they've also got the deepest pockets. The FSF are obvious strong players, and SCO's case is sufficiently bogus that it's not too bad an opportunity for them to set a precedent, because they can attack SCO for what they're doing to the NON-IBM-related parts of the Linux kernel which SCO is misbehaving with (at least to the extent that FSF helped with the kernel as opposed to user-space, since SCO's mostly causing trouble about the kernel and at least some of their distributions have been kernel-only or kernel-mostly.) Linux is in an intermediate position between SCO and IBM - he or his kernel henchpersons accepted the disputed IBM code.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Re:Time to enforce the GPL?.....NO, this is bait.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 14:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

Do not allow them to change the subject. Their initial claim is "IBM put SCO's code in Linux"...make them prove that first!...Anything else is changing the subject.

The IBM suit involves allegations that IBM infringed SCO's trade secrets. That allegation has nothing to do with SCO infringing the GPL. What you're saying is akin to:

"Jeffery Dahmer called me a slob. Don't let him change the subject. We'll have plenty of time to prosecute him for murder once he proves I'm a slob."

The two issues are totally unrelated. They should be dealt with separately.

Besides, if a kernel developer sues them. SCO will be subject to discovery under the theory that SCO is violating the GPL as part of a propaganda campaign to pay for their new Microsoft licenses. SCO will be forced to turn over all kinds of embarrassing material.

Linux Kernel, not GNU/Linux (not a flame :-) by billstewart · 2003-10-31 14:12 · Score: 1

The advocates of the term "GNU/Linux" mainly take the position that "GNU" is the whole system, and that "Linux" is just the kernel, and SCO's case is primarily about the kernel. Yes, they've obfuscated and put up Greek-font copies of malloc and such, but to the extent that they've got an actual case, it seems to be about IBM using some of the SVR4(etc.) code for multiple processor support, NUMA, LVM, hot-swap stuff, and Journaling File Systems when they were developing the AIX features that they ported into Linux and gave to the Linux community.
That's the part that Stallman doesn't usually complain about when you call it "Linux".

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

In Your Face by ONOIML8 · 2003-10-31 14:14 · Score: 1

Right, like any of your sniveling is going to do any good. Oh sure, take them to small claims.

None of this matters. The execs and lawyers are about to take all the assets offshore. That much has been obvious from the start.

So now they violate copyright. Just what are you going to do about it that makes any difference?

Not a damn thing, that's what.

--
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.

Mod parent up! by E_elven · 2003-10-31 14:23 · Score: 1

+3 Terry-Quoted

--
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!

Re:Time to enforce the GPL?.....NO, this is bait.. by glass_window · 2003-10-31 15:21 · Score: 1

I'm probably way off, but this sounds like they are they are going more for an attempt to divert attention away from others (maybe because they knew they were going under and it was a "hey, how far can we go, let's have fun with it? sort of thing?) and the whole thing is being funded by that "super mysterious company that keeps paying for their licensing"? Just a hunch, it seems too wonderland-ish to be very serious. The other thought is they're doing something like amazon.com ceo is doing, just on the copyright side as opposed to the patent side. Heck, maybe they were just out to tear down the GPL/GNU to begin with. There's a lot of good possiblities, but most of them smell very fishy.

Re:Begging the question by Platinum+Dragon · 2003-10-31 15:38 · Score: 1

SCO's whole point is that the GPL is invalid (including this clause), and so they have their own case to make that the code should go to public domain.

Nope. There is no provision in law that I'm aware of allowing a judge to declare a work public domain before the copyright period (life+70 years, currently) expires, or without the explicit permission of the original author. If a judge were to actually grant this to SCO, it would effectively write a new IP law and open a can of worms regarding licences on practically any form of "intellectual property", including SCO's. Indeed, if it turned out there is misappropriated SysV code in Linux, forcing it into the public domain could form the basis of an argument that SCO's own licences on SysV no longer applied, and that code should be forced into the public domain.

SCO needs to fire its legal team, or the execs need to grow brains, before this turns into the kind of IP apocalypse RMS could only dream of.

--

Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.

And Always Remember.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 17:23 · Score: 0

while (true) {
`curl http://sco.com/`;
}

Sco won't let their servers be pingflooded, but how will they cope with a thousand http requests a second?

(what's that? DDOSing is sneaky and cowardly? I'll bear that in mind)

Here's a funny thought... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 19:00 · Score: 0

I belive that SCO is deliberatly attempting to anger the open source comunity. It certianly looks to me as if they are pushing a lot of buttons.

How does this actually hurt them? They weren't exactly doing well before they started their lawsuit against IBM. Court cases on their own do not normally improve the bottom line. The vast majority of the people using Linux wouldn't consider paying SCO any money for an OS anyway.

Why not just get all these non-paying customers riled up, some of whom could reasonably be described as fanatics, and live on the resulting publicity?

Comercial software companies sell software to people who want to pay money. These days, some of the people still willing to pay money for operating systems are suspicious of the open source model. There has obviously been a lot of progress there in recent years, but nothing will reverse that progress faster than a few angry fanatics.

SCO and Caldera are in the business of selling operating systems. I don't think they were ever really prepared to make their money from support, services or hardware, the way Red Hat and IBM does. Compared to selling the same piece of software to multiple customers and collecting roalties, the service sector is a low margin industry because you constantly have to create new projects just to survive and your old projects are not an ongoing source of revenue.

So I ask again, what does SCO loose by angering the entire open source comunity? Nothing, from their perspective. Heck, they could even be "steamrolled" legally by IBM, and STILL come out on top. Why? Because they've polarized the market place and attracted the attention of all the people who WEREN'T going to use Open Source ANYWAY. Heck, SCO probably loves all the Open Source "Fanatics". What wonderful publicity, when they picket outside SCO headquarters.

Why not just let IBM "steam roll" them, but let it happen quietly, calmly and hopefully, quickly? Do everything you can to make the process boring and mundane. Routine. SCO is a small fish in the ocean of software, do they really deserve the level of attention they are getting now?

Here's a thought.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-31 19:02 · Score: 0

I belive that SCO is deliberatly attempting to anger the open source comunity. It certianly looks to me as if they are pushing a lot of buttons.

How does this actually hurt them? They weren't exactly doing well before they started their lawsuit against IBM. Court cases on their own do not normally improve the bottom line. The vast majority of the people using Linux wouldn't consider paying SCO any money for an OS anyway.

Why not just get all these non-paying customers riled up, some of whom could reasonably be described as fanatics, and live on the resulting publicity?

Comercial software companies sell software to people who want to pay money. These days, some of the people still willing to pay money for operating systems are suspicious of the open source model. There has obviously been a lot of progress there in recent years, but nothing will reverse that progress faster than a few angry fanatics.

SCO and Caldera are in the business of selling operating systems. I don't think they were ever really prepared to make their money from support, services or hardware, the way Red Hat and IBM does. Compared to selling the same piece of software to multiple customers and collecting roalties, the service sector is a low margin industry because you constantly have to create new projects just to survive and your old projects are not an ongoing source of revenue.

So I ask again, what does SCO loose by angering the entire open source comunity? Nothing, from their perspective. Heck, they could even be "steamrolled" legally by IBM, and STILL come out on top. Why? Because they've polarized the market place and attracted the attention of all the people who WEREN'T going to use Open Source ANYWAY. Heck, SCO probably loves all the Open Source "Fanatics". What wonderful publicity, when they picket outside SCO headquarters.

Why not just let IBM "steam roll" them, but let it happen quietly, calmly and hopefully, quickly? Do everything you can to make the process boring and mundane. Routine. SCO is a small fish in the ocean of software, do they really deserve the level of attention they are getting now?

Why not just get all these non-paying customers riled up, some of whom could reasonably be described as fanatics, and live on the resulting publicity?

Comercial software companies sell software to people who want to pay money. These days, some of the people still willing to pay money for operating systems are suspicious of the open source model. There has obviously been a lot of progress there in recent years, but nothing will reverse that progress faster than a few angry fanatics.

SCO and Caldera are in the business of selling operating systems. I don't think they were ever really prepared to make their money from support, services or hardware, the way Red Hat and IBM does. Compared to selling the same piece of software to multiple customers and collecting roalties, the service sector is a low margin industry because you constantly have to create new projects just to survive.

So I ask again, what does SCO loose by angering the entire open source comunity? Nothing, from their perspective. Heck, they could even be "steamrolled" legally by IBM, and STILL come out on top. Why? Because they've polarized the market place and attracted the attention of all the people who WEREN'T going to use Open Source ANYWAY. Heck, SCO probably loves all the Open Source "Fanatics". What wonderful publicity, when they picket outside SCO headquarters.

Sounds like a publicity stunt to me. If you're really angry about what they're up to... well, do any of you seriously believe they have any legal standing whatsoever?

Ignore them and if they present an obstical, calmly and quietly take them to court. Let IBM "steam roll" them, but let it happen quietly, calmly and hopefully, quickly. Do everything you can to make the process boring and mundane. Routine. SCO is a small fish in the ocean of software, do they really deserve the level of attention they are getting now?

Re:Here's a thought.... by WhiteWolf666 · 2003-11-05 08:30 · Score: 1

You forget.

Say it with me now: "Counter-suit"

IBM, if it does steamroll them, will OWN SCO outright.

Because SCO will not be able to afford the massive damages IBM will claim.

Let alone will they be able to get out of the patent infringment IBM will claim, nor the injunctions against selling any Unix related product.

--
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell

So when does Linus engage his patent rights? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-01 00:43 · Score: 0

Linus does hold patent on linux, and SCO is plainly distributing something that falls under this patent without a license... So they are damaging Linus, right?

(The GPL also covers patent licensing in this case, right?)

Patent royalties? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-01 00:55 · Score: 0

1. Some moron patents Linux
2. Said patent is assigned to Linus Torvalds
3. Some silly company pisses off Linus
4. Linus requires them to charge a royalty on their commercial distribution of Linux
5. Silly company has new problems

The REALLY interesting question ... by ninewands · 2003-11-01 02:04 · Score: 1

All the posturing and roaring on both sides of the three current disputes (SCO v. IBM, SCO v. SGI and RedHat v. SCO) appears to ignore the really interesting question here.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that there really IS SCO-owned System V code scattered liberally through the Linux kernel. Being generous to Darl & Co., let's even assume that there really might be "thousands of lines" of "infringing System V code" in the kernel. After all, it could really BE thousands of lines and still be a miniscule portion of the whole kernel.

Now, having assumed that to be true, the interesting question becomes, "Who contributed that code to the kernel?" It is a matter of historical record that both SCO (the Santa Cruz Operation) and Caldera (the SCO Group) were significant contributors to the development of the Linux kernel. SCO (the SCO Group) cannot assert that their rights are infringed by any code contributed to the kernel project by SCO (the Santa Cruz Operation) because that code was lawfully given away by its lawful owners BEFORE SCO (the SCO Group) bought the code base. They do not own any exclusive rights in code they didn't buy as the exclusive property of SCO (the Santa Cruz Operation). They bought, at best, partial ownership of the code. Needless to say, any SCO (the SCO Group) code contributed to the kernel by Caldera falls into the same category.

As a plaintiff, it is SCO's (the SCO Group's) burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that 1) there is infringing code in the kernel, and 2) a PARTICULAR entity (IBM in SCO's lawsuit) contributed that code to the kernel.

All the argument that SCO has GPL'd any and all SCO-owned code in the kernel by the mere fact that they distributed Caldera Open Linux is very interesting in an academic sort of way, but I would really like to see them try to clear the second hurdle of their claim, which is "Who is responsible for the presence of the infringing code?"

The question of whether the IBM-contributed code makes Linux a "derivative work" of System V is also academically interesting, but this argument faces an even higher hurdle. SCO must prove that JFS, etc. could NOT have been developed in the absence of the System V code that they must first prove was NOT contributed by SCO (the SCO Group) or any of its predecessors-in-interest (AT&T, USL, The Santa Cruz Operation or Novell).

Darl & Co. have admitted that IBM owns the copyrights to JFS and a number of other goodies IBM has contributed to the kernel codebase. They CLAIM (and the claim is, as yet, unsupported) that these goodies are "derivative works" of the System V codebase. All IBM must do to win the lawsuit is show that the abstract algorithms were first implemented on some other IBM-owned platform (say, OS/2, System 390, the AS400 ... there are so MANY candidates) and then ported to AIX after the fact. If this is the case, I am positive IBM has records that would support such an argument.

All in all (and with all due respect to the IP litigation expertise of David Boies, which is to say 'not much' given his recent track record) my opinion is that Darl & Co. have just about built themselves an unwinnable lawsuit

Just my $0.02

--
utter rubbish

Re:The REALLY interesting question ... by Zelatrix · 2003-11-01 03:33 · Score: 1

All the argument that SCO has GPL'd any and all SCO-owned code in the kernel by the mere fact that they distributed Caldera Open Linux is very interesting in an academic sort of way, but I would really like to see them try to clear the second hurdle of their claim, which is "Who is responsible for the presence of the infringing code?"

Huh. I'd like to see them clear the first hurdle: "Show that there is infringing code."

Yes, I know that you assumed it for the sake of the argument. The more that I follow this case, the more unlikely I believe it to be.

Z

Kick things off yourself by PDAllen · 2003-11-01 02:15 · Score: 1

1. Buy shares in SCO.

2. Observe that SCO is failing to get money from eveyone using GPLed software.

3. Write registered letter to SCO requiring that they exercise due diligence, i.e. get the money. If SCO do not get the money, then they owe you for the dividend you didn't get, and then everyone owning SCO shares jumps on them and demands money; SCO go down the toilet.
If SCO do try to get the money, i.e. take people to court, they have to show the GPL is invalid, and either they can't and set a precedent that leaves them in the shit, or they can and the original copyright holders are free to demand royalties - and enough law firms take on class action suits that are clearly winnable with fee dependent on winning to make this an attractive option.

But have SCO accepted the license? by Per+Abrahamsen · 2003-11-01 02:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm sure they will deny that. They are simply redistributing some code they claim is in the public domain.

Since there is no way any sane court will accept their claim the GNU/Linux is in the public domain, and they haven't accepted the license, they are simply making a copyright violation.

By their own estomate, GNU/Linux is worth at least US$ 699 (that's their price, right?), per seat. So as a copyright holder, you should sue them for that amount for every copy of Linux ever distributed by SCO, including those downloaded from ftp. This is what RIAA does, with success.

Site is not that secure. by The_DoubleU · 2003-11-01 08:20 · Score: 1

If you go to ftp.sco.com you are asked for a userid and pw. Just leave everything blank and press OK and you are in. So did they remove the IP license? There is Legal Notice in the Root Dir:

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.

--
What power has law where only money rules.

Re:Warning: Proximity to Idiocy by Sj0 · 2003-11-02 03:06 · Score: 1

don't get into semantics with me, boy. I'll mop the floor with you.

--
It's been a long time.

Re:Short their stock en masse = Instant bankruptcy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-02 17:10 · Score: 0

"If i'm not mistaken"

you are mistaken.
and you're an idiot. STFU.

"...shorting SCOX at the same time..."
proof, again, that you're an idiot. good luck with that brain, you're gonna need it.

They are all treated differently. Linus has trademarked the word *Linux*. The contributors to the GNU project and Linux kernel, including Mr. Torvalds, own the copyright to their particular contributions. Stallman created the GNU GPL and organized the FSF to protect this legal framework as the basis for free development. The FSF *is* in the business of enforcing the GPL, though historically this has involved exposing violations and pursuasion. They could enjoin SCO in the name of protecting their contributing copyright owners' IP.

--
illegitimii non ingravare

Re:Short their stock en masse = Instant bankruptcy by Bowie+J.+Poag · 2003-11-03 19:04 · Score: 1

Well, educate us, Mr. Greenspan -- How wouldn't a massive vote of "no confidence" in SCOX's stock harm them?

--
Bowie J. Poag

Re:Short their stock en masse = Instant bankruptcy by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-04 04:04 · Score: 0

it would harm them, but correct me if I'm wrong: you're trying to get a "massive" amount of people to short SCO's stock by a single post on slashdot ?

shorting SCO's stock would not hurt them as much as some other things. how about this one: let IBM kick the shit out of them.

that's reason #1 why you're an idiot.
I got about 300 more reasons, so whenever you're ready...

Re:Class-action? Group petitions? WTF? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-04 21:25 · Score: 0

holy crap, you are brilliant. insane. but brilliant.

Slashdot Mirror

SCO Now Willfully Violating the GPL

1,043 comments