Slashdot Mirror
SCO Gets More Desperate; Sends More Letters
isn't my name writes "The New York Times is reporting that SCO has sent new letters to Linux-using businesses with specific examples of infringement. SCO has its fiscal earnings call scheduled tomorrow at 11am. In all probability, these letters are designed to get analyst/reporter interest focused on their claims instead of the numerous fundamental problems with their case. So, slashdotters, we need to find a copy of the letter and tear it apart with specificity before tomorrow morning in the US East Coast, so that any analysts/reporters will not be distracted."
Copied/edited from a comment I posted on Groklaw, and thought very worth mentioning here too. .
--
SCO, based in Lindon, Utah, is also sending letters to many of its 6,000 Unix licensees requiring them to certify in writing that they are complying with SCO licenses, a company executive said. SCO's Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux.
Why is this necessary? is it all media show just to look like they're being exceptionally diligent in keeping their property under control, leaning on their licensees to make sure they don't bring up a situation like they claim is happening with IBM, or are they asking for something MORE than is in the original 6000 unix licenses?
Presumably, those licenses (for real SCO Unix customers) already prohibit the revealing of code from SCO products to Linux or anything else, so this step of having those licensees say "no we're not contributing" looks to be a double up of effort. They've signed those licenses, isn't that already enough?.
However, the wording as stated in the article may be relevant. It seems a pairing of two things that may not be related; "certify that you are complying with SCO licenses AND that none of your employees have contributed to Linux". It sounds a little like if you're trying to defend yourself against a drunk driving charge, and are being asked to sign a document saying "certify you did not drive while intoxicated AND that your car now belongs to me". You can refuse and it sounds you're saying you did drive drunk, or you can sign and you've given up your car. There's probably a legal term for this tactic, but of course, IANAL. IANEAP.
So do those existing 6000 licenses NOT cover things adequately? Is it possible those licenses may through loopholes, or just by their very nature, allow some level of code copying as the licensees need, into other products, and SCO is trying to plug a hole that could be undermining them? Is it a double up of what's already in the license, or a way of sneakily extending that license?
Or are they hedging bets, to give them more ammunition/evidence to sue their own customers if the IBM case fails.
quote from one of the stories :
"The new letters, signed by Ryan E. Tibbitts, SCO's general counsel, name more than 65 programming files that "have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted Unix code base and contributed to Linux.""
and
"SCO's Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux."
and
"The letters include an olive branch as well as a threat. "Once you have reviewed our position," the Linux letter said, "we will be happy to further discuss your options and work with you to remedy this problem.""
hmmm...reaching for payoffs anyone?!
SCO's solvency may depend upon this meeting. I'd rather see this meeting go O.K. so that SCO survive and the case goes through the courts fully. That way linux is shown in court to be a good member of society.
If SCO go bankrupt before the case gets tested in court it will leave a smear on the good name of linux.
-- Dave
Looks a lot like a BSA stormtrooper threat letter to me... Certify that you are in compliance...
Yeah, like any company with a legal department, or headed by someone smart enough to consult a lawyer will send ANYTHING like that to a litigious company like SCO.
Actually, even that is wrong.. SCaldera isn't just a litigious company... All their R&D and PRODUCTION now is litigation!
If not for their friends at Microsoft, Sun, The Melinda Gates Foundation, and the idiots who keep buying their stock (Don't weep for these people when they lose it all, had they even done a GOOGLE search on SCO they'd have known not to invest) they'd have been bankrupt months ago.
Corporatism != Free Market
Is anyone aware of smaller companies coming together to battle SCO if need be?
As a small company who's lifeblood depends on Linux, it'd be great if we came together to fight SCO if and when the time comes. Pooling our resources would likely work much better than going it alone. It really does give me pause when wondering what I'd do if I were the recipient of this letter.
This whole deal is aggravating to others I'm sure; we want to focus our time and energy on technology, not on what we'll do if SCO starts demanding thousands of dollars from us.
$60/Month Colocated Linux Server
It does however give them a signed document they can produce in a courtroom if one of your employees is found to have contributed some "infringing" code to Linux however. If I were one of SCO's customer's I'd be very worried they were about to pull an RIAA and start sueing the hand that pays the bills real soon now... Now *there's* the legal weasel tactic we all expect from SCO.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
And how come we don't hear people saying that "we" should move to *BSD while this is going on, showing SCO that we rather not use Linux than pay them?
Because SCO already said that they're going after BSD next.
Considering that SCO is on Microsoft and Sun's payroll, I'd think that EVERY non-MS or non-Sun OS product will be the subject of litigation, IF this travesty of a case succeeds.
And one can never tell whether it will or not. The Federal court system from top to bottom has clearly gone insane... Hell, laws can be passed now making it illegal to criticize SCO in ads 30 days prior to them having a board meeting and conference call...
Sound farfetched? It isn't. Once you've made a crack in the first amendment (Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech...), it's easier to use crowbars to widen it than it was to make the crack in the first place...
All it takes now is buying the right Congressmen. And the DMCA shows us how easy THAT is!
Corporatism != Free Market
Just a thought...
Anyone get the impression that SCO is claiming that lines such as:
in files such as time.h are violating their 'copyright'?
In that case, wouldn't it also be a copyright violation to quote the title of a book? US Law seems to be quite clear that a thing like a book title cannot be copyrighted and plenty of boos share titles.
I think your drunk driving analogy is a bit extreme - you left out the words "Unix code" on that occassion.
:)
Whoops. You're right there.
the latter *is* wrong unless the license of the Unix code concerned permits this, SCO's license does not.
That's the bit I didn't know and the reason I threw those thoughts together in my post, which is all quite a bit of a paranoid rant - they're my thoughts all the same.
If I were one of SCO's customer's I'd be very worried they were about to pull an RIAA and start sueing the hand that pays the bills real soon now... Now *there's* the legal weasel tactic we all expect from SCO.
Linux users, their own customers.. who next? Their ex employees? current employees?
(paranoid, yeah
In my mind Sco does criminal action. A Munich court ruled it anti-competitive, SCO Germany even had to pay a penalty, so we are secure against SCO FUD. A BSA troll used the SCO argument against Linux in a meeting in Germany, but we are more or less safe. Sco infringed basic business rules, when you are concerned about an infringement of copyright, nothing special, it happens, you don't start a public media campaign. Sco mixed up patents and copyright. Its messages to the press were intended to be misguiding.
The case shows how dangerous IPR in the hands of failed companies may become.
SCO's action has to be investigated because of capital market fraud.
The further point is that SCO don't have the right to determine what happens to copyrights held by other companies.
:: The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling for related discussion.
If a company (lets say... IBM) creates a software form which is copyrighted, they can choose exactly what to do with it. If they want to release it under the GPL, they can do that. If they want to release it to SCO for inclusion in Unix, they can do that too.
Note that, because it is possible for the copyright holder to release exactly the same code under both the GPL and another form of license, should they so wish. They can also create derivative works of the original code of theirs and distribute those derivative works as they see fit.
OpenOffice/StarOffice works on this principle, as (i belive) does one or more of the SQL implementations.
What SCO are claiming in this case is that IBM have effectively assigned all copyrights to SCO for the code in question, and/or that by licensing the code to SCO for use in Linux, the same code cannot also be Licensed for use in Linux. This is a gross misstatement or misunderstanding of the GPL and copyright law.
As copyright holders, IBM can allow anyone they feel like to use their code (including anything they have written regarding JFS, NUMA and SMP).
Note that this means that the code in UNIX does not mean that any part of UNIX will have to be placed under the GPL.
See the Groklaw Article
And with that fact in mind we refer you to the RedHat case on anti-competitive practices.
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
Hey, I thought it was supposed to be millions of lines of code.
Interesting how they interpret the need to let customers remedy the situation. They don't tell you how to fix the source and be free of them. They force you to pay them licensing fees.
Even Microsoft was allowed to remove the offending plug-in patented technology from IE as part of a remedy.
hmmm
This was already brought up in the past. The SEC isn't interested in pursuing the SCO pump-and-dump scheme because they think it has insignificant effects on the market in general. It's sad, but the only thing the SEC cares about is the general well-being of the stock market. If SCO defrauded all of it's customers it'd still be an insignificant blip on the radar compared to say.. if IBM did.
One thing I am seeing overlooked over and over, is the actual business perception to Linux adoption.
I spoke with a client the other day on a concall, a very large hotel chain in the US, who were in the midst of replacing their CRM systems (front desk check-in systems) with Linux, 600 installs to start with. They wanted some ideas about how to consolidate their server facilities using Linux, and to remove the "low-hanging fruit" (Samba servers, print, file, domain controllers, web, etc.). They also wanted to know if we could 'guarantee' that they would not be sued if SCO wins this case. Since anyone offering such a guarantee would be risking a lot, I mentioned that it was impossible to "insure" against a lawsuit, especially in the U.S., where anyone can be sued for anything, wrong or right, frivolous or legitimate.
Since we can't offer a "Linux Guarantee(tm)", this hotel chain mentioned that they are internally budgeting $699.00 for each Linux deployment they do, to indemnify themselves against the chance that SCO may win, and may sue them.
This is reality .
Companies are unsure about whether Linux is violating SCO's IP, or not, but they don't want to take the chance, no matter how much we advocate, educate, and teach them about the frivolousity of this FUD and lawsuits.
Add to this, the "risk" to a company like this, if I, for example, contribute to Linux (the kernel, or the OS proper), and am an employee of this company. I am now a "risk" to them, because right now, I could be contributing to a project (Linux) that is violating a commercial company's IP (SCO). Companies do not want this risk, and you can bet I'd be laid off/fired for it.
Deploying Linux (right now, to them) is a "risk". Employing people who contribute to Linux is also a "risk", until this thing is settled in the courts .
This is going to affect a lot of industries, jobs, and employment, in an economy which is already ragged and in tatters. The "economy" as a whole is improving, financially, because domestic jobs are being eliminated and offshored. Let's not let it continue, because some commercial litigation company (SCO) decides they want a piece of the pie they don't own and didn't create.