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."
"When the elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers."
-- "Sucks to your ass-mar"
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!
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.
um MS bought several unix liscences from sco like a year ago. no mysetery really. but the real motive is sco's own greed. it just so happens that it coincides withs MS's goals so they threw some money at it.
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?!?!"
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.
Are you kidding? I understand your concerns -- RMS comes across as a total wacko -- but this is the guy who invented the GPL! I think he understands better than most people exactly why free software is on solid legal ground, so I think he'd be a fine person on the witness stand. No judge will have a hard time believing that the last thing in the world he would ever want to do would be to steal somebody else's source code and release it for free. He'd sooner rewrite it from scratch, as he's done hundreds of times before.
Well, we do get our share of laughs making fun of European royal familes, so it probably balances out.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
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
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!
Don't worry, European courts have produced plenty of whoppers of their own -- German lawyers going on trademark jihads concerning trademarks they don't even own (Mobilix); British courts making it illegal to tell anyone that some servant saw Prince Charles and another man doing the nasty (whoops, now Slashdot will have to be banned in the UK!); French courts ruling that Google can't let a competitor use the AdWords feature to attach an ad to a search that mentions a competitor's name -- I could go on and on.
"Lets see how M$ or some other Linux enemy is in some way funding SCO here."
No matter how this case comes out, it can't kill Linux. You think if movie studios are forced to pay $700 per Linux box they're suddenly going to switch to Windows and rewrite all their software? Do you think companies will replace their webservers with IIS? Do you think the offending code won't be removed so infringing machines are immediately fixed?
Why would anybody assume Microsoft funded this? I suppose maybe because it's something Yosemite Sam would do.
"Derp de derp."
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...
"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."
This has the potential to be really funny with Stallman and Torvalds on the stand.
SCO lawyer: "And here we have exhibit [x] that clearly shows infringing code in Linux."
Stallman: "That's BSD code. It worked for a while, but someone else came up with a much better algorithm. That code hasn't been in GNU/Linux for quite some time."
SCO lawyer (clears his throat in embarrassment): "Moving on to exhibit [x], here is a flagrant example of more infringement."
Stallman: "I wrote that code myself in the early nineties. I know that for a fact because you didn't even bother removing my copyright notice."
(the courtroom comes alive in murmurs from the spectators, requiring the judge to silence the room)
The SCO lawyer finishes with Stallman and calls Torvalds:
SCO lawyer: "Exhibit [x] shows a Caldera copyright. It also shows that you personally modified it and included the code in Linux. We've got you now, you Finnish smartass!"
Torvalds: "Your own exhibit [y] shows that Caldera released the original code into the public domain on many different occasions. I originally tried retrofitting it into Linux, and it stayed for a few revisions, but it was so badly written that I was compelled to rip it out. It was replaced by a far superior version written by an Italian contributor on his 12th birthday."
(the courtroom spectators start to giggle)
SCO lawyer: "Moving on to our crown jewels, we see that the core of SCO Unix is nearly line-by-line identical to the core of Linux. Try explaining that one, hotshot."
Torvalds: "Hey! That's MY code! Rather, it's a very early and buggy version of my code. It looks very similar to Linux 0.2. Come on, guys. If you're gonna steal from Linux, at least steal the good stuff. No wonder SCO Unix sucks so bad."
Mmm, a condescending European. How novel.
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?
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
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 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