OSDL Pays For Linus Torvalds' SCO Defense

geoff313 writes " For all of you who might be worried about what financial consequences Linus Torvalds might have to endure as a result of being subpoenaed by SCO, fear not: the Open Source Development Lab (OSDL) will pay for its law firm to represent him. the OSDL, who are Torvalds' employer, will announce on Friday that the "OSDL has agreed to fund legal representation for Torvalds and any other employees of the lab who may become involved in the litigation." Just in case you didn't you didn't know, the OSDL is funded by a variety of corporations including (but not limitied to) IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Sun Microsystems, Red Hat, Cisco, Computer Associates, Fujitsu, Hitachi, and Nokia. "

Comments

It gladdens the heart

[Space cowboy]

to see that there are occasions where companies don't automatically run the rule over individuals. Granted, this is Linus, and the companies involved have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, but it's still refreshing to see :-)

And, of course, it's less leg for SCO to stand on (I'm guessing they'd have to have been a millipede at this rate :-). BAD sco, BAD sco...

Simon.

Community would have supported a defense fund

[Mr. Dop]

This is great news, but I'm sure the community would have supported a defense fund for him if they hadn't.

worried?

[happyfrogcow]

Since when has anyone really been worried about Linus? There was probably a line of people bidding to represent him. With his cool headed demeanor and knowledge, lawyers would drool over helping him to shoot down SCO.

Linus, your allright man. There are thousands of people who have got your back. Keep on hacking.

Re:worried?

[Bastian]

Don't be so quick to cast the radical big mouthed hippie aside. He is certainly an iconoclast, I hear he has an abrasive personality, and he annoys a whole lot of people by being one of those rare types who sticks firmly to idealism rather than pragmatism. Don't let all that get in the way of your realizing just how valuable he is.

If it weren't for the radical big-mouthed hippie and his radical big-mouthed hippie ideas, there would be no FSF, no GPL. Linux would have never caught on because with no glibc an' all that, nobody would have plugged all that stuff into Linux in order to make it useful. I doubt Linux would have even become a truly viable kernel for non-recreational hacking use without GNU.

His radical big-mouthed hippie way of thinking is the way of thinking that gave us something like the GPL, and I seriously doubt that the GPL could have come out of a mind that doesn't work like RMS's. Someone less idealist would have come up with a much weaker license, probably something more like a BSD or MIT license. Someone less abrasive and bull-headed never would have started the project to begin with.

So unless you're a long-time FreeBSD user or a hardcore Windows geek, grow up and quit whining about RMS. Linux wrote a great kernel, but GNU has done more to make Linux (GNU/Linux, whatever) a viable OS and getting this whole movement to go mainstream than any other body. RMS started gathering all the fuel, Linus is just the guy who lit the match.

Won't SCO ultimately be the one that pays for his

[Bob Bitchen]

defense? The idea that OSDL or anyone else has to pay to defend themselves against a company that's gasping for air with some wild claims is wrong. What costs can be recovered once SCO is shown to be insignificant and wrong? All attorney's fees, travel fees, dining, babysitting, lost wages??

Question

[mbrod]

Have they succeeded in subpoenoing (sp?) Torvalds or have they just issued a request to have him subpoened that a judge may deny? Isn't that how it works or do they just get to subpoena anyone they want?

Also another question to the legal wise out there. There is little doubt in my mind Microsoft funding and incentive is pulling the strings behind SCO. Isn't this extremely illegal for them to do based on the ruling of the previous judgements? Obviously they get out of a lot of legal holes by using SCO as a proxy attacker of Linux but it is nonetheless doing this for reasons of destroying a competitor.

Re:Question

[WCMI92]

"Also another question to the legal wise out there. There is little doubt in my mind Microsoft funding and incentive is pulling the strings behind SCO. Isn't this extremely illegal for them to do based on the ruling of the previous judgements? Obviously they get out of a lot of legal holes by using SCO as a proxy attacker of Linux but it is nonetheless doing this for reasons of destroying a competitor."

That should be IBM's next counter claim in discovery... Get a court order that _ALL_ documents related to their dealings with Microsoft be preserved and provided.

If (and we know they are) Microsoft is backing Scaldera's baseless lawsuit they are probably in violation of the DOJ settlement.

Not that Ashcroft cares...

Someone want to give Linus a heads up

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't OSDN also get subpoenaed? Didn't IBM also get subpoenaed? Didn't one or more of the other funders of OSDN get subpoenaed?

IS OSDN picking Linus' lawyer(s)?

Huge conflict of interest, even if the lawyers won't admit to it in their salivation over the impending legal fees.

Linus, if you're reading this, you need to take the legal funding offered by OSDN, and find your own lawyer, one that hasn't done work for IBM or SCO (or SCO's principals) in the past, and one that doesn't expect to. At a minimum. Then have them put it in writing. Then have them check their records for others they may have done work for that are involved in this annoyance.

This is a big conflict of interest, yet the lawyers will do all kinds of twists and contortions to try and minimize any conflicts of interest.

OSDN funding legal fees is great. As long as it is for your benefit, and not for their benefit to your detriment.

Don't make a serious mistake at this juncture. What's said on the outside doesn't matter. What makes it into court (or doesn't make it in) is all that matters. And what makes it, or doesn't make it is what can save your skin, or skin you alive at a later date.

Reap what you sow, young geek

[csoto]

To support Linux, coders contribute code, and get... code in return!

Corporations (IBM, RedHat, Sun, etc.) contribute dollars and guess what they get for their support of Linux?

These corps. have a lot invested in Linux (and will continue to do so), simply because they stand to make boatloads of money using and growing it. It's in their interests to fight SCO.

Defense? Who's suing him?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell is this about a defense fund?

I wasn't aware that Linus was being sued, so why should he need a defense fund?

Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be far more surprising, and hence news-worthy, if either OSDL or TransMeta did not pay for Linus' lawyer.

Re:Bon Appetite!

[Baikala]

Just read this Linus's sig below on people disregarding penguins:

Why this is truely good for OSS

[BubbaTheBarbarian]

while there seems to an outpouring of support for Linus, the idea of contributing to a defense fund would actually hurt him. As opposed to RMs, who as an idealist and catalyst of social change makes his way through life via his supporters, Linus "works" for a living. Having OSDL and the various companies that support it come to his support gives the man, and therefore his product, an air of legitimacy that would not be had if his defense was being funded by OSS supporters. In this case, both methods of paying for their defense works, as RMS is supported by the people and Linus is not (from a monetary POV people).

Secondly is the screaming by those asking why the hell he needs a defense. In the case of both RMS and Linus they both are responsible for the two major things that makes Linux what it is today, free and strongly coded. SCO is attacking both the freedom we have in distributing code and the underlying source of the strength of it's code, ergo it is imperative for them to prove to the court that both of these things are not permissible under the law.

This is not just a test of the GPL and Linux. This is a coordinated attack meant to gauge the underlying strength of the OSS community and those that (corporate and private) that support it. The bet was made with the thought that after a little law action, one of the players would pull out making the house of cards fall.

Oppps.

Now they are faced with something they never thought they would have, the beginnings or a tighter conglomerate of users and corps that are ready and willing to defend our right to code and not have it stolen, and our right to distribute that code without interference from companies hell bent on stealing for a living. I have said before that this is not the last of this ordeal, and I truly thing that we are in for a rough 2 to 4 years here in regards to challenges on the GPL and the community in general, but seeing things like this makes believe even more that good things are all that can come of this.

Re:Subpoenas are for witnesses

[swb]

Even with OSDL providing him legal services, I'd be inclined to retain my own counsel whose sole responsibility is to me and my interests.

OSDL's counsel may prove to be just fine, but there's always the chance that in some way OSDL and Torvalds' interests may actually not be truly in sync, in which case OSDL's counsel may decide to drop Torvalds due to conflict of interest or have him do something not in his best interest, but in the best interest of OSDL.

This is the reason there's such huge legal teams around high-profile cases; each counsel represents a specific entity, such as a business, a person, etc. They may agree on the goal, but there are times where sacrificing someone on your team for your advantage can be appealing, and without your OWN counsel, you might end up being the sacrificial lamb.

What about Stallman?

[jmichaelg]

Glad to hear Linus is covered. Who is covering Stallman's legal expenses?

My guess?

[Anonymous Coward]

He gets more pro bono work by Eben Moglen or something. Eben has been kind enough to do so much already, after all, and...

Re:Subpoenas are for witnesses

[WCMI92]

"I thought Linus was being subpoenaed. A subpoena is issued to force a witness to testify; why would Linus need to be defended against this?"

You don't EVER EVER go into ANY legal proceeding without YOUR OWN LAWYER in tow.

Also, subpoenas are not automatic. If SCaldera failed to show sufficient cause as to why Linus, et all SHOULD be compelled to appear or testify, or give a deposition, whatever, then an attorney can quash the subpoena.

And I think they could do that in this case, as the Scaldera vs IBM case is a case of alleged BREECH OF CONTRACT on the part of IBM, which has nothing to do with Linus Torvalds OR Linux...

Re:Do you need a lawyer?

[Stephan Schulz]

I'm sure he will incur travel expenses during this process, so it's good that funding sources are available.

Travel expenses? At least in Germany, a witness gets reasonable travel expenses from the court and is also compensated for the time lost. Costs are part of the total court cost (and in Germany are paid by the loser).

I assumed that to be so in most western countries. Why on earth should a witness be put at a disadvantage for the fact that he or she helps the court finding a sound judgement?

Re:Won't SCO ultimately be the one that pays for h

[gcaseye6677]

I don't see any reason to exempt individuals. When people file baseless lawsuits against corporations, the costs will ultimately be passed on to the consumer. McDonalds is spending a lot of money defending themselves from baseless obesity lawsuits. Restaurants as a whole will be paying higher liability insurance costs to cover defense of these suits.

When a judge dismisses a case, he/she basically says that the case is so lacking in evidence that even if everything that the plantiff says could be proven true, they still don't have a case and should not have ever filed the suit. For this reason, going to a 'loser pays' system will not harm anyone with a valid reason for a lawsuit. There is no reason why the plantiff (and possibly their attorney) should not have to reimburse the defendant for abuse of the court system.