Slashdot Mirror
SCO Fires back, Subpoenas Stallman, Torvalds et al
SirFozzie writes "SCO has just, within the past hour, announced that they have fired back against IBM's legal broadside, with one of their own, filing subpoenas against several of the biggest names in Linux. SCO filed subpoenas with the U.S. District Court in Utah, targeting six different individuals or organizations. Those include Novell; Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux kernel; Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation; Stewart Cohen, chief executive of the Open Source Development Labs; and John Horsley, general counsel of Transmeta."
Lets see how M$ or some other Linux enemy is in some way funding SCO here. There is something going on beyond what we see my intuition tells me.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
"When the elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers."
-- "Sucks to your ass-mar"
Swell, Stallman will be rocking in his chair, picking fleas from his beard and muttering "GNU/SCO.. GNU/SCO.. GNU/SCO.." It's like a strawman argument against the millions of free software users..
Trolling is a art,
for us europeans, the US legal system is like a free TV channel : mostly crap, but sometimes a true gem is broadcasted.
On the other hand, i feel for those who live in it
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
I bet ol' Brucie is pissed that he's not considered a "big name in Linux" by SCO.
Lawyer: Mr Stallman, can you explain what GNU is? Stallman: Gnu's Not Unix
Lawyer: Yes, Mr Stallman, but can you please answer the question.
Stallman: Gnu's Not Unix
ad infinitum.
IBM is actually trying to get some facts with their subpoenas, like offending source code. What does SCO think they are going to get out of Linus? Hopefully he doesn't let them look a the Linux source code..... oh wait.
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
He's got my donation anytime!
In fact, I was expecting them to subpoena "all linux contributors"....
... this case would drag on for YEARS and YEARS unless the judge was clueful and told SCO to stuff themselves.
imagine, if they said they needed to depose all those people, or at least most of them
The FSF's advice to centralize copyrights doesn't seem so superfluous now, does it? Linus, Apache Software Foundation, are you listening? Get *ALL* copyrights assigned to an LLC or non-profit so these things are streamlined in the future!!!!
Or do you honestly believe this is the last time a closed-source company will use the legal system to intimidate free software?
PS: why did they subpoena stallman I wonder?
SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said he did not know what the subpoenas asked for, but "I know that some of them have been served."
They haven't got a clue what they're doing, but they're doing it.
I for one welcome our subpoena overlords. No, actually, not, revolution!
/., not SCO-news-of-the-day.
Can someone who is not IANAL comment on ways this could be forced into court, and ended (or at least revealed for the sham it is as I'm sure SCO will appeal)? I want to get back to my normal flying-cars and distro-wars
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
I see how the others relate, but how exactly does John Horsley, general counsel of Transmeta fit into that list? Besides being Linus' old workplace, what do they have to do with all this?
.
I imagine this is what Stallman wanted, a chance to prove the GPL in court. And involvement in the case may give him legal room to see 'evidence' without signing non-disclosures.
-t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
Doesn't this simply mean that SCO will be seekign testimony from these people? It isn't like SCO is sueing Linus, right?
-- bearclaw
Don't take this the wrong way, Gnuites, but I wish they hadn't gone for putting RS up on the stand...
RS is an idealist, and I honour him for his ideals, but idealism has no place in a courtroom, pragmatism is the rule of law.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
sPh
They reacted to this awfull fast. Does it seem to anyone else that SCO was planning this all along? Thay just waited for IBM to make the first move.
SCO.com uses Linux
Here's our good friend Blakey.... Quote... SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said he did not know what the subpoenas asked for, but "I know that some of them have been served." Unquote... I don't know what they hope to prove by service subpoenas on a handful of linux-related people...I mean, don't they technically have to serve some purpose at a TRIAL? Perhaps someday we will actually get to that point...but I think this is more meaningless pump-and-dumping on the part of the SCO people.
Fuck, this is bad.. stallman in court.. jesus christ.. i can't imagine what it'll be like... i feel bad for the lawyers questioning him, it'll be worse than questioning the soup nazi on the last episode of sienfeld.
SCO's Stowell said his company provided about a million pages of documents in response to IBM's requests. "They are trying to coerce and intimidate," Stowell said, referring to Big Blue's subpoenas. "I think what they're trying to do is that if you're a potential investor in our company or an industry analyst that says anything even remotely favorable toward SCO, you're going to be subpoenaed by IBM."
Hmmmm.... Sounds eerily familiar to some company trying to extort money by saying that if you use Linux, you may be violating our IP and subject to a big ass lawsuit. Unless you fork over $699 that is.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
Is that you Darl?
Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
>
> Is SCO completely, utterly, loony? What the fuck? What the fucking fuck fuck?!
Oh, right. That as me, quoting myself from Septempter, and then from October.
So, to bring you all up to date. It's November. The proper question is now:
"Is SCO completely, utterly, apeshit and batshit, half-a-gig-short-of-a-Debian-ISO, stark, slavering, buggo?!? What the fuck? What the fucking fuck fuck fuck [ several dozen instances of the word "fuck" deleted for brevity ] fuck?!?!"
Me: A sphincter says what?
SCO: What?
Me: Exactly.
(paraphrasing from Wayne's World)
Yes, because I imagine that so far they've just been sitting on their hands. The need to plan a good counterattack started ages ago - there have even been articles on here where Linus said as much, and I imagine RMS is itching to have his say (whether anyone else is listening or not ;-)). The mere fact that they've been subpoenaed is nothing unexpected (it just means they're compelled to give evidence after all) and nothing that, in itself, requires any more of a "legal counterattack" than was required anyway.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
Do you suppose that the timimg of the Microsoft proclamation on the death of free software coincides with these subpoenas for a reason?
For lack of a better sig, this one has to do.
I'm leaving out extra milk and cookies this year.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Umm, you do realize that a subpoena does not mean those people are being attacked? It merely means that SCO ostensibly thinks they possess information which is relevant to the case, and they are asking that it be turned over. Although the article said nothing at all about exactly what information SCO was after (going by their past performance, I'm guessing it will be overly broad and intended to show a bias in SCO's favour - something like "Give us all information you have that might validate our claims", then when the people can't come up with this they will accuse the linux community of holding back important information), it seems reasonable to me to subpoena the people that ostensibly know the most about the software in question. However, while issuing subpoenas for these people seems reasonable to me, I somehow doubt that the subpoenas themselves will be reasonable.
Oh dear. Darl probably noticed that their stock didn't go up to $45 but rather went back down to around $14 and panicked and subponeaed a few guys in the lawsuit to make investors believe that they are competently litigating this.
Luckily the Pump seems to be a bit dry today, even after they opened their mouth; is it a sign that investors are catching on on their scam? I surely hope so.
Also, being served a subponea hopefully will be the last straw for Linus before he files a copyright infringement suit against SCO.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
That's just f***ing great, now the bar for being a cool guy in free software just got raised. It used to be you just had to write a million lines of useful code. Now you've got to get a subpoena from SCO to be cool.
"Should we invite Jeff to speak at our little conference?" "Well, he didn't get a subpoena from SCO, so he's probably not that important..."
jeff
y'all might want to point your browsers at: http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030622& mode=classic
Preferences -> Home Page -> Exclude Stories from the Homepage -> check "Caldera"
:)
I'm waiting my USD 100
This is nothing surprising. It's SCO's standard delay-as-long-as-we-can tactic. SCO knows that as soon as they actually have to offer up their proof that copied code is in Linux, it won't stand up to analysis, their case will be rejected, and their stock will drop like a stone. It'll be game over for SCO as a company. Their current business model depends on not offering any proof of their claims.
So why not subpoena everyone, to make things as slow and difficult as possible? I'm surprised Elvis and Bigfoot aren't on the list.
Kinda reminds me of the negotiations at the end of the Korean war. Every last detail of how the talks were to proceed were argued to death before the talks could begin. There were even provisions as to which direction the delegates sat and how high their chairs were in relation to each other before they'd talk. And the reason was, was that the delegates simply didn't want to be there. Same for SCO.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Sort of like if your neighbors found out there's a toxic waste dump in their back yard, so they sue you over the fence you put up, hoping your cheapest way out of the suit is to buy their house, toxic waste dump and all. There's no merit to the suit, but the point isn't to get the fence moved, it's to get you to buy them out and take the liability off their hands.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Pretty much for the same reason businesses shouldn't pay extortion money. If SCO gets ground to dust by this it'll deter others from doing the same. If they get a big buy-out (which appears to be their goal) then what is to stop the next guy with some IP (or who buys some IP) from following SCO's example?
It seems pretty telling that SCO's Lawyers are promised 20% of the buy-out if one happens, doesn't it?
Stowell, spokesman for the company, was unable to explain the latest round of subpoenas in the company's lawsuit against IBM for copyright infringment. When asked what the purpose was, he replied that he had no idea, but"I know that some of them have been served."
For veteran SCO watchers, this is a sign that the previously-untouchable spokesman may be on the outs.
"Why wouldn't the spokesman know what was going on?" asked one CIA analyst. "It's his job. But it's little clues like this that give us a suprisingly good idea of what's going on in Utah."
A source within SCO, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed this view of events.
"Darl [McBride, CEO of SCO] just went crazy the other day when [Stowell] asked what the next step was," he said. "He started asking all sorts of questions about whose side [Stowell] was on, was he wearing a wire, who else felt like this, this sort of thing. He even pulled out his laptop and started Googling for Stowell's name on LKML [a mailing list for Linux kernel developers]. Now we're not allowed to talk to Blake at all."
"It's a shame, because Blake was one of the moderates," the source continued. "A while back Darl started talking about putting Richard Stallman's head on a pike outside the compound. Said it was the least he deserved. Blake talked him down from that before anything could happen. Now there's very few left to do that."
However, McBride's hold over the company is anything but absolute, and the future of his leadership is still in question. "There's still a significant group within SCO that are trying to find the combination for the safe where he keeps his shares," said the CIA analyst. "That's why he hasn't left the compound in over six weeks."
Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation, was unavailable for comment. Sources close to the computer guru said he had gone underground. "He saw some guy hanging around the office that he thought was a bounty hunter. That was enough for Richard."
Carousel is a lie!
This drama is giving all those soaps a serious run for their money.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
The tactic from the SCO side may be to "dance" with these, for us, important guys. Until our guys take a wrong step. SCOers are expendable. Thorvalds and Stallman are not.
>> That's going to be tough when 46% of the
>> company is held by insiders don't you think?
If they weren't available to be bought out, why would their lawyers stand to make 50 million or more. Obviously this is a way of ending the the stand off that SCO is comfortable with.
I however would prefer that instead of being rewarded for this behaviour, if (when) SCO loses they should all go to federal pound me in the ass prison.
boils down to "No GNU'S is good GNEWS"
I know you started your reply by crying out: 'give me a break', but I would really wish to point out that you are the exact kind of poster that I want to give me a break
While attentions are diverted from Microsoft they are rebuilding. Once the dust of the present war ends Microsoft will step in, fully rested, and pick up where it left off however they will be fighting a tired and battle weary enemy.
Does somebody again want to clarify what this is all about in the first place. I bought a red-hat boxed linux sometime ago, and it did not come with sharp knives, camoflauge paint or gunpowder to get me ready for the up and coming technology war of the century, in fact, knowing then what I know now, I wouldn't have bought the box, since I can get that stuff free on the internet. What is the fight all about???? Who's doing battle with who??? You're stepping onto the battlefield to put your life on the line for what? So that people you've never met get forced to use your operating system of choice? Can't I just use my computer happily and quietly, the way I want...why do I have to fight in the trenches?
I've been reading slashdot for a while, and I don't post often, but you my friend, have finally caused me to put in my two cents. I use a computer running linux for one reason, and one reason only: it suits my needs. I am not planning on battling a giant software company by using it. Linux will _never_ die (I'd be willing to argue that point, but I won't now). People will continue to use windows as well, and most of the people I know that do, I don't blame them, as they have their own reasons. It makes no difference to anybody except yourself what you want to use, so if you have the savvy to run something like linux, then by all means, run your own box. What this isn't about is fighting a battle against a large software company (note that I don't call them a monopolist, as they aren't). I'll let redhat do that, as that's what they are in the business for. If I start my own company, no matter what I do, I'd buy software that works best for what we need. Do I stake my company on the automatic install of OSS based on my moral beliefs that OSS is better? How about I only hire employees that have the same moral opinion as I do, regardless of their skill level? Sounds like something's not right with this picture.
I sincerely hope that people like yourself will eventually realize that this isn't about war, it's about freedom...and you have to remember that if you exercise your own freedom effectively, war is not necessary.
Didn't Alan Cox write a lot of the "offending" code? Besides being far more important to Linux than many of the subpoena'd people.
That part about Caldera (now SCO) supporting his writing the very code they are suing over might cause problems for them, though...
Let's assume that (somehow) SCO wins, and starts charging large sums of money for the OS they didn't really develop. What can be done? Can the offending bits be removed from the Linux source tree, and SCO cut out of the loop entirely (which is how I expect the case will really go)? How taxing would it be for companies that can't afford SCO's fees to move to another free open source OS, like FreeBSD?
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
1: do as ze Germans did. File an injunction and get it enforced
The fine comes nearly three months after a regional court in Munich issued the court order in response to a suit brought by the nonprofit Linux conference organization, LinuxTag e.V., and IT consulting firm Tarent GmbH. The two groups sought the injunction to prevent SCO from making claims about intellectual property violations in Linux without presenting any evidence...
2: do as IBM has done and try to get the facts out. And since we know SCO won't give up the goods, get it from anyone else with their hand in the SCO piggy bank. "It is time for SCO to produce something meaningful. They have been dragging their feet and it is not clear there is any incentive for SCO to try this in court"
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Stallman has been waiting for the opportunity to speak and this subpeona gives him a venue.
SCO may get more than they bargained for.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
So this is it.
SCO takes off the wrapper and makes it absolutely clear that it intends make an attempt to destroy Open Source.
There can be no other reason for delivering subpoenas on Stallman and Cohen, to a lesser degree Torvolds.
They are going to go after the license, they almost _have_ to try and discredit GPL after distributing the code themselves.
They can't shine a light of accusation at IBM until they have done so.
I think it's time that the FSF put a call in to the ACLU.
Even with the help of IBM this portends to be big, dirty and long.
The stakes go much deeper than software they go to the heart of freedom and a free society.
Well, perhaps in a courtroom he will present himself a little better. Hopefully Eben Moglan will get him cleaned up, and prepped on what to talk about. Don't get me wrong: I like Richard Stallman. But, I've seen him at some Linux conventions, and some of the hardlines he takes makes him a good target for Red-Baiting.
I dunno, I just remember thinking at the shows I saw him at that, well, he's very good at evangelizing geeks about Free Software. But put him on the stand in a courtroom, or in some other very public setting, and he might do a good job of alienating the general public.
I truely hope that I'm wrong. Really, I do. Let's just say I think RMS might need to work on his people skills, and personal appearance, a little bit before getting on the witness stand.
It's surprising that they didn't include Bruce Perens and/or ESR in their list. Those two have been pretty involved in pointing out SCO's FUD. SCO even implied that ESR was being paid by IBM to attack them!
I'm not sure what the point of sending a supoena to RMS is though. Perhap the braintrust at SCO is unaware that free software != open source software? I'm sure he would be happy to send them a copy of the free software manifesto. It might not hurt if he sent them a copy of the BSD ruling as well.
If SCO ever had a plan beyond:
they are doing a very good job of hiding it. It just looks like one ad-hoc decision after another. Since they initiated the proceedings against IBM, the chewbacca defense isn't an option, and it is difficult to see any coherent strategy at work here.
Of course, slashdotters are not the intended audience. SCO is playing to the analysts who will repeat what they have been told about SCO's claims being legitimate in order to keep those share prices up there. It is obvious that SCO is not interested in speaking to people who know something about software and technology.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
In case you haven't figured it out SCO, RMS ain't stupid and has the potential to eat your lawywers for breakfast.
> While attentions are diverted from Microsoft
> they are rebuilding. Once the dust of the
> present war ends Microsoft will step in,
> fully rested, and pick up where it left off
> however they will be fighting a tired and
> battle weary enemy.
Let's tell it like it really is ok?
While attentions are diverted from Microsoft, they are attempting to circumvent the letter of their agreement with the DOJ (such as it is). Once the dust of the present war ends, Microsoft will step in, with an untried codebase, and pick up where it left off. However, they will be fighting a battle hardened and litigation tested enemy.
Now, that is more to the point of it isn't it?
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Two outta three ain't bad. They can embrace and attempt to extend, but since they can't buy the IP they can't extinguish....
The real catch is the fact that if they embrace and extend, they have to open the source, which would be instantly forked without their contributions. They can't extinguish something they have to have in the open. If they DID embrace a program, lets say Mozilla, and then added some crapola that was MS only specific, called it Billzilla, then two years later dropped it. They have to show us the code, and the Bill part of the zilla would be stripped out instantly, and any good stuff would be left in. They can't kill it.
GPL is like the Borg in one way, you can't kill it. You can't revoke the license, you can't make any software under the GPL go away. It lives forever, and not even the copyright holder can kill it, because I can always take the last release and fork it, change the name (leave the copyrights) and release it. It's like Freddy Krugar, with #comments.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Is anyone else really, really afraid of putting Stallman on the stand? If that got televised Microsoft would have a field day showing off what a kook the leader of the anti-American commie GNU army is.
We should do whatever it takes to get Stallman on Queer Eye. Only the fab five can get him cleaned up and into an outfit that won't make him look like a nut.
Attorney: Isn't it true that you stole code from SCO?
Geek: Yes.
Attorney: What? So, you did steal code from SCO?
Geek: No.
Attorney: I'm confused, now, did you or did you not steal code from SCO?
Geek: Yes.
Attorney: Your Honor, I would like to treat this witness as hostile.
The Court: The witness is directed to answer only "yes" or "no".
Attorney: AAAARRRRGH!
Geek: Hmmm...Is is Sept 19 already?
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Consider SCO statements that claim "the GPL is unconstitutional" or the philosophy motivating linux is to "destroy commercial software".
I'll bet the questions directed toward them will include references to RS social contentions posted on his web site and perhaps if Linus Torvalds is - "a devoted communist, like your father".
the mind is its own beautiful prisoner
Linus being subpoenaed should be able to bring the code that SCO says in violation of thier licence.
Linus: "Please show me the code that is in question".
"That's it? Fuck here is the fix. Case closed.
By the way you owe me a palne ticket and $2000.00 for my time."
I really, really want to see this event - it's one of those "mustn't be missed" extravaganzas.
Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman in the same court room? With IBM lawyers too! No doubt Eric Moglen will be present in some capacity.
Please tell me where I can buy tickets to this show? This is going to be a demonstration of The American Way at its finest, I'm sure - forget the shallow charades involved in the Microsoft antitrust case - this is the real thing!
I can't wait for the director's cut DVD...
Mmm... IBM requested proof of SCO's claims. That's how our system of "justice" works, the plaintiff files a case then proves it by providing evidence.
In alleged response to IBM's request, SCO filed a bunch of its own subpoenas. Exactly how is that "firing back"?! The only way SCO could "fire back" is by responding to IBM's request, i.e., PROVE ITS CASE!!!
SCO's subpoenas are nothing but a delay tactic. It's an attempt to avoid firing back as long as possible. SCO is not ready to let the world know it has absolutely no proof.
For any SCO supporters out there, ask yourself this: If SCO had evidence, why is it STILL hiding it?! An author cannot sue another author for plagiarism, but refuse to tell exactly what was plagiarized!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Business Professor: Now Students, we are going to learn about business models today. Forget what you have learned about supplying a product or service to a client, that way of making money is old school.
Business Student: But if a company has nothing to offer, how can they make money?
Business Professor: *shakes head* There is a new approach we are going to call the 'Legal Model.' In this model you don't need a product or service, but good lawyers. You see, you get a good law firm and you target innocent people, twelve year olds are good, or even large businesses. It does not matter the reason, in fact, the stupider the reason, the more you look to gain from it. Inveritably someone will invest in your cause, your stock will go up and whether you are bought out or win, you stand to make money. Helps to use bully tactics to force settlements out of people as well.
Business Student: But how do you plan to pay for the lawyers?
Business Professor: Oh just give them a large percentage if you are bought out or win the law suits. Lawyers are suckers for those types of deals. It's actually incentive for them.
Is this the Business Model of the Future?
Sig? No thanks, I don't smoke.
http://www.whatpc.co.uk/News/1147824
SEC Filings are public.
For some reason this reminds me of the scenario from the first Godfather movie, where they figure out where the meeting will be because the Police Chief has to let his station know where he'll be at all times
Microsoft claims that if linux was more popular then there would be more viruses for linux, and that proves that the OS produces equivalent security. Well, here is my little proof to the contrary. Assumtion: if two software development methods produce equivalently secure code, then equivalent products produced by each method should have the same number of viruses if there are equal number of users. Proof: Apache and IIS are equivalent software packages. (not exactly true, but most people say they are comparably similar) According to netcraft Apache runs more web servers than IIS (by more than 2 to 1) If OS and closed source development methods produce equivalently secure code then the above implies that there should be more viruses for Apache than IIS. However, there are many more viruses for IIS than Apache, thus the above assumption must be incorrect.
Ok, I get it all, except for the Sept. 19th thing...anyone want to hit me with the old clue-bat?
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
"So, Mr. Thorvalds, did you describe SCO as, and I quote, 'smoking crack'?"
"Yes, I did."
"Do you stand by that description."
"No, I do not. It would be an insult to crack-smokers everywhere."
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Actually, most subpoenaes are fishing expeditions. If that doesn't work, then a character assasination takes place. From someone who's gone through this, it is an ugly process, something you rarely ever want to go through. And, unlike criciminal cases, there often isn't a judge there to decide what questions can be asked. You still have to answer a question, even if your lawyer objects. The judge subsequently decides whether the objection is merited. But even if a question isn't admitted in the official transcript, the fact that it can be asked can make your life miserable. You are also more likely to lose your cool if you keep being pounded without having a judge there to stop frivolous questions.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
He would not represent that movement at all. He is the first to speak up when people make the mistake you just did. If you listen to his speeches, you can read or hear him speak on this issue when he corrected Mike Uretsky. I think you would be well served to learn what he has to say instead of judging him by your prejudical view of his appearance.
Digital Citizen
Hopefully Linus or RMS will get the chance to use the line "It's absolutely true your honor. This man (McBride) has no dick" in court.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Just in case anyone is getting wrongheaded expectations of RMS and/or Linus appearing in a courtroom anytime soon, these subpoenas most likely are asking for either: a) depositions relative to discovery or b) specific documents, answers or background information relative to one of the issues being considered at trial. Nothing terribly exciting here, although it does make for a catchy headline.
I mention this because a number of posts speculate on "the GPL finally going to trial" or some such as a consequence of this. That may very well happen, but not as an immediate result of this. So those of you awaiting the "GPL Final Combat" should probably sheathe the swords for a little while longer...
I concur. It is precisely this go-along-to-get-along attitude on issues that control his ability to continue to do what he wants to do that appeal to many Slashdot readers, unfortunately. Torvalds reaffirms apathy by tossing off subjects as unimportant. He is an impressive hacker, but I hesitate to point to his words for informed opinion on political and ethical matters.
Stallman, by contrast, makes you listen to uncomfortable things like ethical computing--a subject too few other people even approach in their public speaking. Stallman recognizes the importance of the legalized bribery system Americans call campaign finance, and he has said if he had a way to fix it he would do so and nothing could make him prouder. Stallman seems, to me, to be much more in tune with the technological forces that affect our lives as hackers and citizens.
Digital Citizen
(IANAL) I'd guess they intend to get Stallman and Torvalds both to admit that the GNU and Linux projects have always been about duplicating Unix, which is, frankly, true. From this I'll guess they hope to get the court to declare that GNU/Linux is an illegal derivative of Unix, and therefore is the property of SCO. Nah, that'll never work... Maybe they intend to show that Richard and Linus consipred to destroy the commercial value of Unix. But I don't believe that's even illegal, unless you are a monopoly.
This is one of SCO's weaker FUD moves. When IBM subpeona's investors that is something that makes sense to the financial types. "SCO subpeona's Linus!!" is a tech geek issue, not an issue the investors can understand or really care about.
-Nuke the moon
Bah. We're talking of Richard Stallman here!
> (not (didp you (stealp you sco-code)))
t
> (didp you (stealp you sco-code))
nil
> (or (not (didp you (stealp you sco-code))) (didp you (stealp you sco-code)))
t
Try this:
Google for 'legal definition of monopoly'
The very top link includes the phrase:
"All combinations among merchants to raise the price of merchandise to the injury of the public, is also said to be a monopoly."
Perhaps the best is from legal-definitions.com, a few results down:
"monopoly definition: a monopoly is characterized by the power to fix prices or exclude competition, coupled with policies designed to use or preserve that power.
The only problem is the audit trail. All the Linux code is kept in either CVS or BitKeeper, both of which maintain a trail in the repository of exactly who changed what and when. IBM maintains at least that much of an audit trail as well. If SCO tries that, all IBM has to do is pull out the change log and trace the code back to it's original check-in. If the check-in was prior to SCO's code's alleged creation date, or was by someone with no access to SCO code, SCO has a world of explaining to do to the judge.
What does "Win" mean?
well, I used to type that a lot in Windows 3.11...
The first thing the public saw was their stupid slide show, which included proof that:
SCO doesn't know the difference between what they once called "Ancient Unix" (which the AT&T vs. Berkeley judge said AT&T lost to the public domain) and the System V code they actually own some rights to, despite the fact that they rereleased that code themselves under the old BSD license.
SCO doesn't know the difference between original BSD code (like the packet filter code they claimed as their own) and their System V code, despite the fact that they are legally required to retain the copyright notices on the BSD parts.
SCO can't tell the difference between a legal, original reimplementation of a detailed published standard (like that BPF example, and probably like much of the POSIX, Unix9x, BSD, etc. compatibility in Linux) and an obfuscated copy of the original implementation.
More recently, SCO has "responded" to IBM's interrogatories not with specific claims of wrongdoing, but with the output of "egrep -il (smp|rcu|numa)" and a disclaimer that they're not stating that the output includes some infringement.
If they have an actual case, why are they pubishing these embarrassments instead, still keeping their case secret in court where they might piss off a judge instead of just a bunch of Linux users?
I was beginning to think you were incapable of further follies. I've had my gut-laugh for the day and I feel much better now.
But seriously, wouldn't it be wise for Stallman, Torvalds and all to take the stand and essentially tear the case to ribbons from discovery? They wouldn't have to restrict themselves to quoting the e-mail chain that wandered around IBM's submissions to the kernel. They could actually give the oral version, complete with iterating under oath how retaining "freedom" is so important that they do everything they can to keep disallowed trade secrets from leaking into the kernel. Not a bad set of things to have show up in sworn testimony.
Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
Most of your rant was great (I jumped to Mac OS X for the same reasons you run Linux), but I just can't let this go:
"[Y]ou have to remember that if you exercise your own freedom effectively, war is not necessary."
That's only true if the other side also believes in effective exercise of freedom. In that case, everyone's happy. But if the other side doesn't, you can only exercise your freedom until they decide they're tired of your freedom and want to end it.
At that point, if you want to continue exercising that freedom, you have to fight (go to war, whatever your preferred terminology is) for it. Freedom isn't free -- it's been bought geopolitically in blood for hundreds of years, and bought judicially in countless dollars (pounds, euros/predecessors, yen) of legal fees.
Why would Microsoft license a company that distributes software that is a DIRECT competitor to their Server software?
Ever heard about it?
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
If I answer without those precise definitions, the jury might come to the wrong understanding of what I'm saying. Since I know that, that would be perjury, wouldn't it?
Would it? I'm curious. I've always equated perjury to lying. If someone truthfully answers a question when they *know* the answer will be interpreted incorrectly, have they committed perjury?
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
are belong to us..
Darl..
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
There are ogg recordings of 12 of his speeches from the last 3 years on the GNU philosophy audio page.
Also note that the issue of the name "GNU/Linux" is not about credit (more explanation here)
And an explanation of the fiasco regarding Stallman being asked to talk at a "Linux User Group" is available here.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
The Ibm questions for RMS and LT should open up some very interesting facets of Unix history. AT&T vs BSD, POSIX standards, BSD code in SysV, LKP questions, UNIX source in public domain, Caldera Linux history and more that SCO hoped would never be considered by the court.
SCO doesn't really want these two standard bearers of Open Source to set the court straight, which IBM will surely make happen.
Open Source is the life blood of these two men, they live and beleive it. They will both be well prepared and be SCO's worst nightmare come to life.
Sounds like SCO is following the Iraq WMD tactics.
They have yet to produce any Code of Mass Duplication.
--
SCO: All your codes are belong to us.
I just posted this in an earlier SCO story, but I thought it was worth posting again -- I sent a letter to our congressman, Barney Frank (D- MASS), about SCO's abusive use of the court system. He sent this reply:
- - - -
September 26, 2003
Dear Mr. Minsky,
I share your view that the suits being brought by the SCO Group
against the users of the Linux system are an entirely inappropriate
use of the legal systems for broader corporate purposes. While I have
not been able, obviously, to examine these in detail, the suits do
not appear to me, from what I have read, to have any merit, and in
fact seem to be motivated, as I said, by an effort simply to prevent
the use of Linux for competitive reasons.
There is, unfortunately, a very limited role for Congress here. I
agree with those who would like to see us "stop SCO from punishing
innocent consumers to inflate its other legal claims." But under our
separation of powers doctrine, Congress has no role whatsoever to play
in the pursuit of particular cases. We can pass laws which prevent
certain types of suits from being brought, but it is very, very
difficult to pass those in a way that would be retroactive ? that is,
that would apply to existing suits. And the problem with this suit is
not that it is of a sort of legal claim that is inappropriate to
bring, but that it is totally unjustified on the merits. In other
words, the remedy here is for these suits to be dismissed on their
merits and Congress has no role, as I have said, in doing that.
I am prepared to join in expressions of extreme disapproval of what
SCO is doing, and I will be consulting with my colleagues to see if
there is a movement to do that. I hope that will have some impact on
them. All of these lawsuits brought against individuals will of course
be dismissed but I realize that is of little consolation to people
who have had to go through the trouble and expense of defending against
them. It may be that at some point a judge will act decisively enough
in this regard to prevent this proliferation of suits, and while, as I
said, our Congressional role is very limited here, I will be
encouraging anything we can do along these lines.
Barney Frank
Wow. Dragging in those guys is like playing pickup basketball and demanding that Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, Kidd, and Garnett all get on the court against you at the same time. Unfortunately, I'm not sure the referee (the U.S. Court system,) is competent enough to call the game correctly. . . .
Then again, Groklaw has this nice quote:
Given the snail's pace of the U.S. legal system in this case, he might just decide to stay in Europe.
<sarcasm>You'd make a great engineer! Or a great scientist! Or a great artist! Or a great anything!</sarcasm>
Just because something better may not currently exist does not imply that something better cannot exist.
This applies to all freedoms.
You state "... this isn't about war, it's about freedom...and you have to remember that if you exercise your own freedom effectively, war is not necessary."
This lovely sentiment is only true until someone comes along and tries to take that freedom. Then, you either decide that peace is more important than freedom and let them have it, or you fight for that freedom.
The requirement to defend any freedom is is simply part of the human condition.
Absence of a need to defend your freedom is only evidence of living in a lucky time; it is not evidence of the absence of the requirement to defend that freedom.
We may be unlucky to have this SCO crowd attempt to kill GPL, but I thnk it is inevitable; if not them it would be someone else. OS is too powerful an idea for those corporate power types to leave alone. If you don't want to fight, fine, but quit whining and snivelling!
Linux: Reloaded
IBM - Which brings us at last to the moment of truth, wherein the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed, and the anomaly revealed as both beginning, and end. There are two doors. The door to your right leads to the dismissal, and the salvation of Linux. The door to the left leads back to the courtroom, to the GPL, and to the end of your company. As you adequately put, the problem is choice. But we already know what you're going to do, don't we? Already I can see the chain reaction, the chemical precursors that signal the onset of emotion, designed specifically to overwhelm logic, and reason. An emotion that is already blinding you from the simple, and obvious truth: Linux is going to exist, and there is nothing that you can do to stop it.
*McBride walks to the door on his left*
IBM - Humph. Greed, it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously the source of your greatest motivation, and your greatest weakness.
McBride - If I were you, I would hope that we don't meet again.
IBM - We won't.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
It seems perfectly plausible to me that M$ is using SCO to launch this completely unreasonable attack on GNU/Linux; I mean, why not? BG and M$ has been using top notch dirty tricks against many software companies before this, and Windows is currently being ridiculed as an unsafe, low-security, inadequate OS, even outside of communities like Slashdot. Explain to me again why we're not discussing this option? Is it too paranoid?
With all the comments and sugestions on /. Linux, RMS, et al don't need lawyers, they can read the comments and get all the coaching and legal advise they ever needed-for free!
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
go out with a bang!
If I'm not mistaken, the NSA has their own distribution of GNU/linux, isn't it ?
It puts them on the same level as IBM, from SCO's legal point of view, it seems to me.
I wonder why sco doesn't go and sue THAT part of the US governement.