Slashdot Mirror
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. "
McBride is what is known in the poker world as a fish.
Which is to SCO's great misfortune because penguins literally eat fish for breakfast.
And Torvalds is the biggest, baddest penguin out there. One might even call him The Omega Penguin. The king of all penguins, indeed, of all penguin-kind. Their lord. The single template from which all other penguins were wrought.
I'm just sorry they're not selling tickets for this one.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
>>>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. "
Just in case that was someone hiding beneath a rock, SCO is funded by Microsoft.
Yep, I never spell check.
More incorrect spellings can be found he
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 :-)
:-). BAD sco, BAD sco...
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
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
This is great news, but I'm sure the community would have supported a defense fund for him if they hadn't.
Do you really need a lawyer for a subpoena? Even if Linus was a US citizen, he's not being investigated or anything. Just answer a few stupid questions from SCO, and you're scot free.
I've got good money on SCO suing OSDL within the next week for "blatant copyright violations and big meanie stupid poo faces"
It's not stupid. It's advanced.
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.
So, they try to pinch Linux where it hurts by going after the "little punks" who made it. I mean, what could some passive, nerdy, computer programmers have as a possible means of defense?
And so now, SCO stands in the middle of a jungle clearing, waving a stick and raving madly at the 800-pound gorilla of IBM. Suddenly, a rustle from the brush and SCO turns around to see a whole pack of 800-pound gorillas, all staring with steely eyes....
...
I would like to know if the OSDL will pay to have their lawyers develop a version of a GPL that forbids downloading/use/repackaging of a software package by any computer that has ever had a SCO OS within 1km of it.
That's just about what I want for my next Open Source software release.
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?
FWIW, you might want to read Motley Fool's Tom Taulli's take on this. th3m0nk
-- The Hollow Man
Non illegitimati carborundum
No it's not.
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??
http://tinyurl.com/3t236
ehm no? The members. So unless Microsoft has some special hidden member status I very much doubt it. Sure joining your enemies to fight them from the inside is a smart move but this one nobody would fall for.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Tom.
Oh arse
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.
You're right about Taco being inconsistent, but in the British vernacular (encompassing not just the British Isles, but also such far-flung places as Australia and South Africa), it's neither stilted nor unpopular. That's just how they say it. Americans say that the committee meets, the British say that the committee meet.
The difference between British and American English is mostly just a matter of pronunciation and vocabulary, but this is one of the few truly grammatical differences.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
"Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
I know, our contributions wouldn't make a monetary difference, but they would surely make us feel nice, along with putting some pressure on SCO :-)
unfinished: (adj.)
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.
And here you go
See? was that so hard?
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
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.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
Seeing the clothe they wear, they probably play at the $20,000 tables!
Unfortunately, in this case, it's clear that the SCO strategy is to draw out litigation long enough to give everybody an uncomfortable feeling in their rectal areas, until somebody snaps and decides to make a favorable acquisition offer. And if SCO loses, good luck getting a dime out of them, they'll fold the shop up in a way that lets them get out of everything, I'm quite sure, and still make off with a lot of money. This is definitely one of these cases where the malfeasance of corporate officers and attorneys is so blatant, I'd like to see the corporate veil pierced and have personal liability passed on to these fuckers for the financial losses and damaged reputations they have incurred on lots of other legitimate, hardworking people and companies.
I am sick and tired of gorillas being accused of being evil thuggish creatures. Gorillas are friendly and do not attack humans. Don't liken the friendly gorillas to a pack of bloodthirsty IBM lawyers.
they're called the Editors.
sulli
RTFJ.
If you've called them as a witness, you're responsible for their travel expenses and per diem.
I hope when Linus enters they either play the Ride of The Valkyries or Darth Vaders theme song so that SCO gets the full effect of the wrath they bring upon themselves.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
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.
What you have to understand is that your average slashdot poster has quite a lot of mouth and very little money.
One day all that old SCO merchandise is going to worth a lot to geeky collectors on eBay.
I'm holding out for a frisbee or baseball cap, myself.
-- clvrmnky
Glad to hear Linus is covered. Who is covering Stallman's legal expenses?
IBM cited a Judge who ruled in a 2001 securities case that fraud allegations "should not be a pretext for the discovery of unknown wrongs". That Judge, sharp-eyed posters of Groklaw have spotted, is the same Hon. Dale A Kimball who will hear the Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses, to which the filing is addressed.
Your honor, we have heard the courts say that "the fishing idea" is wrong and can not be done. What a brilliant point, excuse me...
Your honor (nice robe!) I had no idea you PERSONALLY said that. Absolutely amazing, poetic so Jeffersonian.
(turning to look at McBride, sticks tongue out and issues official IBM rasberry)
I'm just surprised SCO isn't a member of the OSDL. After all, they're becoming famous for their inability to know what they are doing ("I din't tell you we were issueing subpoena's to certain people because I didn't know we were.").
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
the British say that the committee meet.
Oh, no we don't !
At least I don't and none of my friends or aquaintances do. But then, we went to Grammar School and don't try to talk like Australian soap stars.
No but, yeah but, no but...
Being a "U.S. resident alien", he not only has to obey the same laws as you & I, but if he does not, he also can face the added consequence in some cases of being incarcerated by the INS, and even deported.
While it's entirely Linus's option to have legal representation, shouldn't SCO have to foot the bill for that too? In essence SCO is subpoening Linus as an expert witness.
I'm guessing that SCO will try to spin it that he and IBM somehow cooperated, or at least he was aware or should have been aware or could have been aware, that IBM was "illegally" putting code into Linux. At best, they'll spin it as someone who can't properly control what's in Linux.
Anything Linux answers to those FUD-fishing questions will have great importance, not so much for the merits of the case but for Linus and Linux's reputation as well as SCOs FUD campaign. That's why he should have a lawyer.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Open Source Defense League, kinda like the SuperFriends except they don't get along.
'mmmmmmmmm.... forbidden donut'
Ask any Mexican immigrant in Arizona, California, or Texas: If you have kids that were born in the US, you're practically guaranteed not to get deported. Those kids are quite the ticket. Of course if you want to go back to your home country, and your kids aren't citizens there, it can get pretty complicated.
I consider Scandinavia as something of an ideal. A realistic ideal, culturally, socially, geographically, and politically, not some kind of utopia. It never has quite added up that someone would move FROM Sweden, Denmark, Finland, TO the US. I can see maybe moving to Bavaria or the Netherlands or something. Or maybe going to Europe because there are no jobs in Iceland or Norway, or something. But I simply can't fathom why anyone would go FROM a free country with a good culture and society, TO the US, even if it is California. It just doesn't make sense.
https://secure.eff.org/
They're doing important work.
Linus will get the opportunity to allege copyright infringement in deposition. In SCO's reality the GPL is invalid, so they are infringing on Linus' copyrights or in the real world, by issuing a separate license for any part of Linux, SCO voids the use of the GPL thus infringing on Linus' copyrights. It's best to have a lawyer available in that circumstance. One who can explain copyright law to SCO's attorneys, as they seem to have some difficulties in that area.
Dang, forgot to check my grammer...oh deer....
"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??"
There needs to be a "loser pays" provision added to civil lawsuit law. If the loser is the initiator, and is a corporation (individuals should be exempt) they should have to pay ALL such legal expenses.
If the legal action causes the corporation to go bankrupt, persons whom the corp owes legal expenses go to the front of the line, ahead of all other creditors when it comes to claims against assets.
This little poison pill might discourage what Scaldera is doing right now. It also encourages officers, execs, and employees, who's wages, benefits, etc would fall in line BEHIND these claims to discourage such practice.
Corporatism != Free Market
No, no they don't.
SCO does not have genuine IP claims on code in Linux.
Not one iota.
Why do I say that?
I have no evidence to suggest that it is try, except SCO's word on it.
Everyone, and their mother, has asked SCO to reveal the evidence.
IBM is getting sued over it, and SCO will not even describe the infringement.
Beyond that, Caldera distributed the code under the GPL.
Read Groklaw, and you'll feel the same way about it.
If SCO had actual evidence of infringement, they would play it up big time.
Why? Because they would be able to easily drive IBM to settle---IBM has no business being in bullheaded lawsuits, they would license any IP that was actually stolen.
Remember, IBM has full access to ALL of SCO's source tree, and IBM has full access to AIX's source, and the Linux source.
IBM already knows what is in all three source trees.
As far as I am concered, SCO is not entitiled to have their side of the argument heard, because they are doing their best to spew BullShit(TM) in order to drive up their stock price.
If SCO want's their side of the argument to be heard, they need to put up, or shutup.....
Show us some code, SCO---Or die!
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
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.