OSDL Releases New Paper on SCO's Claims

Ridgelift writes "The Open Source Development Labs have released a paper entitled SCO: Without Fear and Without Research [PDF, HTML version at the FSF] where Eben Moglen debunks SCO's claims to copyright infringement, and also discusses how they contradict themselves by citing that the GPL is both invalid and provides them legal protection. More information at the OSDL site and via an Internet.com article."

Comments

courtdate.

[simontek2]

Ok Whens the courtdate? i want to be present. I am dead serious. I am tired of SCO, and i want to see them disbanded.

Is there any kind of timeline for the cases?

[elfuq]

From Gartner's comments last week, it becomes clear that SCO's claims, press-releases and lawsuits are damaging the adoption of Linux, in the short-term, in corporate environments. I believe that is, partially, what RedHat's case against SCO is about.

So when do we expect that axe to fall? With the IBM case going into Oral arguments next month? Is there not anyway that this process can be accelerated by one of the judges, so that this hideous trainwreck can be put to bed.

Though Slashdot may not have anything to publish if there wan't a faily SCO story.

Mindless activity on SCO's part...

[Sheetrock]

or is there a method to their madness?

They've kept the Open Source world on the defensive. They experience consistent gains in the stock every time they announce a new initiative in their war on Free Software. They've been able to keep this going for far longer than I would have thought possible, and if this gets to trial the potential is there that they will prevail.

Who would have thought litigation was a way of making a living off of Free Software? I don't like what they're doing, but I have to confess my opinion of their strategy has changed. Fortunately, the rabid response they no doubt expected to provoke from the Open Source community hasn't manifested itself; I've been quite impressed with the professionalism and quality of the response as well. Keep posting these stories... we just can't get enough SCO.

is this argument conclusive?

[qcomp]

SCO's legal situation contains an inherent contradiction. SCO claims [...] that the Linux program contains material over which SCO holds copyright. It also has brought trade secret claims against IBM, alleging that IBM contributed material covered by non-disclosure licenses or agreements to the Linux kernel. But it has distributed and continues to distribute Linux under GPL. It has therefore published its supposed trade secrets and copyrighted material, under a license that gives everyone permission to copy, modify, and redistribute.

I am not sure I follow this argument: Is it obvious (or known) that the code that SCO has distributed contains everything that, say, a RHAT distribution contains? Or could it (in principle) be that SCO's distro (old and unkempt as it is ;-) does not contain the "infringing" pieces while other distributions do?
Similarly, has SCO distributed all of IBM's contributions to Linux (thus necessarily including the alleged trade secrets)?

Thanks.

What happened during the weekend?

[Serious Simon]

Hey, did I miss some bad news for SCO? SCO stock jumped from 14$ to 16$.

Turning around to bite them in the ass

[Avatar889]

Quoting the paper posted in the original article: "Unless SCO can show that the GPL is
a valid form of permission, and that it has never violated that permission's
terms, it loses the counterclaim, and should be answerable in damages not
only to IBM but to all kernel contributors."

Could this eventually be used to force SCO to pay kernel contributors because SCO was in fact infringing on their GPL'ed code?

So what's their game?

[Random BedHead Ed]

Another excellent summary of the problems with SCO's arguments. So what on earth are they trying to do? Everything they say is spin, and everything the Open Source and Free Software community says is well-organized, annotated fact. How can they possibly think this will go as they hope? Even more to the point, what is David Boies trying to accomplish? He either:

1. Thinks they can win on their existing evidence and arguments, in which case he is as crazy as SCO's executives, or
2. Wisely realizes they're likely to lose, or at least not get everything they're bargaining for, but is sticking around for the downfall anyway.

So what's his plan? Personally I think (2) is the answer, and he's sticking around for the money. He must be hoping there will be a buyout, perhaps by Microsoft or someone else of worth, which would raise the value of the stock he's been given.

Re:So what's their game?

[lcde]

I am not a lawyer or have any law experience, but I wonder if there is some kind of ruling that states if there is to much press on a particular subject or peice of evidence it can be ruled inadmissible.

If so all of these open letters and such would just be coming back to bite the OpenSource Community. Just a thought on a late monday.

Re:SCO is a rebel

[BuckaBooBob]

SCO is a bit more like RAMBUS was.. Other than RAMBUS had some legal legs to stand on... Wheres RAMBUS now ?

Re:I hope this doesnt get resolved out of court.

[Yobgod Ababua]

The(sic) arent(sic) in the unix business by any mesure and i(sic) cant(sic) remember one single product that even touches unix coming from MS.

You may have missed the following product they call "Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX"... LINK

From their 'Product Overview':

The Interix technology provides a UNIX environment that runs on top the Windows kernel, enabling UNIX application and scripts to run natively on the Windows platform alongside Windows applications. With this capability, you can continue to get value out of your UNIX scripts and applications--simply reuse them on Windows.

Mainstream media oblivious- why?

[l8apex]

To what degree is the mainstream media reviewing reports like this recent one from OSDL? If they are, they're certainly not reporting it. It's looking pretty biased to me!

...There's a chance for more "dramatic gains in the SCO stock price"

...The ability to yank one million lines of code out of five million is substantial; Investors seem to believe that SCO's suit has merit

So, to the average investor, SCO's claim that they matched 1 out of 5 million lines of code in Linux is pretty damning evidence.. whereas domain experts like us can easily see through these lies. Hopefully this comes to light in the courts, 'cause people like us are certainly screaming in a vacuum right now!

I'm thinking that the the financial/business media is leaning towards SCO side since SCO represents a more conventional corporate america, and Linux / GPL threatens that model?

Re:I hope this doesnt get resolved out of court.

[rongage]

Windows Server 2003 does have some "Unix" type technologies in it, including NUMA and LPR/LPD. Their event scheduler is based on AT.

Then, if you want even more Unix type technologies, there is always the addon package called "Unix Services for Windows".

Re:SCO is a rebel

[pjrc]

The question is, will anyone remember SCO in 5 years

This is a question best answered with another question...

Does anyone remember Della Croce, who falsely registered the trademark "linux" and attempted to extort licensing fees from the various companies who were selling cdroms (back then, many people purchased cdrom rather than downloaded ISOs).

At the time, it seems to drag on forever. Ultimately, the patent and trademark office assigned ownership of the registered "linux" trademark to Linus Torvalds.

In 6-7 years from now (based on the assumption SCO will lose or implode in 2004 or 2005), SCO will probably be a long distant memory, and the result will be absolutely no doubt about the validity of the GPL and openness which allows infrigements to be seen... just as today there is absolutely no doubt about the trademark, all thanks to the unscrupulous efforts (now mostly forgotten) Della Croce.

I support SCO, and so should YOU.

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people here are employed by companies doing software development? How many people here are PAID to develop software? How can any of you, in your right mind, even consider supporting the concept of "free" software? ALL software costs money, but in the case of "open source" or "free" software, the cost of the development is bourne by governments and corporations indirectly, instead of directly through paying actual developers. SCO is defending our RIGHT to create proprietary, closed source software. Apple and Microsoft are two examples of companies that simply could not exist if the notion of "open source" were dominant today. How much of our GDP is generated by these two companies alone? Are you all willing to give that up in your quest to destroy a 30+ year old profession?

Please, everyone, THINK before you go throwing your support behind a concept which is, in its most basic form, designed to undermine our fundamental rights and values.

Re:I support SCO, and so should YOU.

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

How many people here are employed by companies doing software development? How many people here are PAID to develop software? How can any of you, in your right mind, even consider supporting the concept of "free" software? ALL software costs money, but in the case of "open source" or "free" software, the cost of the development is bourne by governments and corporations indirectly, instead of directly through paying actual developers. SCO is defending our RIGHT to create proprietary, closed source software. Apple and Microsoft are two examples of companies that simply could not exist if the notion of "open source" were dominant today. How much of our GDP is generated by these two companies alone? Are you all willing to give that up in your quest to destroy a 30+ year old profession?

Please, everyone, THINK before you go throwing your support behind a concept which is, in its most basic form, designed to undermine our fundamental rights and values.

I know, do not feed the trolls. But this is important.

1. Most of the programmers in the U.S. are not employed by Apple or Microsoft. Between them they employ maybe 50,000 programmers (probably less). There are 1 million programmers in the U.S., and they don't benefit from the fact that Microsoft made more than a billion dollars in profit last year (and by the way, paid no taxes). For programmers outside the U.S. it makes even more sense to support open-source development instead of commercial software, to keep more of the capital inside the country.

2. The vast majority of programmers, even at Apple and Microsoft, do not have any significant amount of stock, nor do they get a royalty every time one of their software programs is sold. Spending $400 on a brand-new copy of Microsoft Office doesn't help put food on the table of Microsoft's programmers, it helps put cash in the bank that they use to buy up small companies.

3. Free software developers are not trying to take away SCO's right to create proprietary, closed source software. On the contrary, SCO is trying to take away the right of Linux developers to create open-source software.

I'm employed full-time as a software developer. Sometimes my organization lets me develop free / open-source software, when that makes sense for the application - for example, sometimes it's faster and cheaper to modify an existing open-source program than it is to create something new from scratch or build off of a proprietary program.

I also develop free software on the side. Because I like to. It isn't eliminating jobs, it's making me more employable.

If there is SCO code inside of Linux, of course it should be removed. And whoever copied it there should be held liable. But that shouldn't affect everyone else - the thousands of innocent developers who have contributed to Linux legitimately.

Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong!

[BanjoBob]

This is wrong. If Linux contains any formerly trade secreted code at all, that status has been forfeited not because of the GPL, but because it was published in the first place without their permission, and SCO would actually legitimately be entitled to compensation for damages (assuming that their IP was misappopriated in the first place, which I doubt).

This is to assume that Caldera or the previous SCO didn't willfully put it into THEIR distribution of Linux. Since SCO had to both review the code in question, compile it for their binaries and document it, it will be difficult to say they didn't know it was in there.

Repeditive, but necessary

[johnos]

Its important to continually restate the basic facts of the case. SCO is using the "Big Lie" propaganda strategy. To do this you keep saying big lies, the bigger the better. Eventually, some subset of the listeners will come to believe the lie, and another larger subset will come to believe some subset of the lie. In addition, all will be cowed. "Best not to risk it" being roughly equal to "you win". This method was perfected by Josef Goebbles (not that I want to trivialize his crimes through comparison to SCO). Of course Goebbles had sufficient control of the media to ensure no confilcting messages or inconvenient facts got in the way. Darl doesn't have that luxury. But the best way to counter the strategy is continual restatement of the facts in a credible manner. This paper should be viewed in that light, and is an excellent contribution to the cause.

How do I explain this to the Attorney General?

[Understudy]

I recently posted this comment on /.org. I sent in my complaints and got a response from the Attorney General's office. They basically said it was an issue under the jurisdiction of the SEC. How do I explain to them that the actions of SCO are also under their jurisdiction? I am thinking of their violating the GPL. Help me out to get a decent response to the Attorney General's office.

Re:I hope this doesnt get resolved out of court.

[nathanh]

The arent in the unix business by any mesure and i cant remember one single product that even touches unix coming from MS.

Windows Services For Unix. I have briefly played with it. It includes an NFS server, NIS integration, a bunch of GNU tools, ActivePerl (a version of Perl ported to NT) and some stuff from Mortice-Kern (now that brings back memories). I suspect the NFS and NIS stuff is what required a SYSV license.

It's actually a non-shallow attempt by Microsoft to offer UNIX services on Windows. I wasn't impressed with SFU as much as I'm impressed by CYGWIN - I think CYGWIN is a much better product even ignoring the fact that CYGWIN is free - but I was impressed that Microsoft seems to have made an honest effort with SFU.

SCO Puppets

[Anonymous Coward]

As this drags out it becomes more apparent that SCO's only real interest in Linux is to damage it's reputation through the media ... which makes me think more and more that some how M$ are involved some how ...

verbatim copying....

[violent.ed]

But if the GPL is not a valid and effective copyright permission, by what right is SCO distributing the copyrighted works of Linux's contributors, and the authors of all the other copyrighted software it currently purports to distribute under GPL? IBM's counterclaim against SCO raises that question with respect to IBM's contributions to the Linux kernel. Under GPL section 6, no redistributor of GPL'd code can add any terms to the license; SCO has demanded that parties using the Linux kernel buy an additional license from it, and conform to additional terms. Under GPL section 4, anyone who violates GPL automatically loses the right to distribute the work as to which it is violating. IBM therefore rightly claims that SCO has no permission to distribute the kernel, and is infringing not only its copyrights, but those of all kernel contributors. Unless SCO can show that the GPL is a valid form of permission, and that it has never violated that permission's terms, it loses the counterclaim, and should be answerable in damages not only to IBM but to all kernel contributors. (Copyright (C) Eben Moglen, 2003. Verbatim copying of this article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.) . .. ... .. . when, and i mean WHEN, SCO loses this case... i pray to the person/being/spirit of MY choice that every linux kernel developer files a suit against SCO! fuck letting them get bought out by someone (who would, and why?) let them wallow in bankruptcy for all the crap they have spewed. But i must thank them for legal precedent they will bring to the GPL and other such open licences.

Re:verbatim copying....

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened to IBM's motion to dismiss?

IBM, or someone else may also push for a ruling on copyright guilt. The advantage may be small claims courts should entertain 1000's of small suits, given a superior court has already established a ruling.

Another way for IBM, would be to make Monthly stock exchange announcements that their opponent has FAILED to respond adequately to each discovery motion to their satisfaction, and which ones, and the dismiss motion is now only X days away.

Either way, IMHO a lot of copyright statements have seen to have been dropped on the sco side - 2 can be accidental - but many - that will cause some explaining. If their CVS's are good,a suponea'ed programmer who testifies 'I was told to remove such lines' will take the cake.

You can be sure once the lines of dispute are known - the authors will be hunted down and put on the stand.

I support open-source software, and so should YOU.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

How many people here are employed by companies doing software development? How many people here are PAID to develop software? How can any of you, in your right mind, even consider supporting the concept of "free" software?

I spent 35 years of my life making money as a programmer (before returning to the "Hard(ware) side of the Force").

And before that I studied under Bernie Galler. In the same issue of CACM as Djikstra's "GOTO considered Harmful" letter, Bernie lamented the choice of some programmers to charge more than reasonable media, copying, and shipping costs for a copy of some source they wrote. His lament predicted the entire commercialization of software and its resulting inhibitory effects on the advancement of the art.

As an author of custom software applications for clients, my main problem was not competition from free software vendors. It was the lack of freely-reusable source code, which forced me to spend extra time re-inventing a plethora of wheels before "assembling the wagons".

If I had had access to the current results of the open-source movement, I could have been far more valueable to my clients - by completing things more rapidly or building more capable software. Thus I could have charged each customer more and moved to new customers more quickly, establishing a better reputation for productivity.

It is only the commercial software market that has any need to adjust its business models due to "competition" from open-source. This market employs a very small subset of programmers. And they're primarily employed by a few, large companies where most of the profit goes to administrators and investors rather than individual contributors.

Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong!

[Error27]

it was published in the first place without their permission

The key is that it is being published with their permision. No one is forcing them to distribute the kernel a year after they discoverred the "violations."

PR

[Lord_Dweomer]

My PR professor (who has been in the industry a LONG time and owns his own PR firm) made a comment tonight that surprised me. He is not the most technical person in the world, but not only did he comment about the absolute nonsense SCO has been spewing out, he also made a comment that surprised me due to the fact that he is NOT a very technical person.

He stated that M$'s "donation" to SCO was merely a PR investment by M$ to bash Linux.

You know its bad news when someone in the PR industry knows whats up.