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.
For a group of people who make their living in software, slashdotters sure do hate it when someone el$e tries to!
yeah, yeah, I know... -1 flaimbait. *sigh*
does the SEC not want to rip them apart insted?
Lotas T Smartman www.lotas-smartman.net
there stock price is going up, they will most likely make a profit and all for lying.
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
SCO Sends Second Warning Letter to Linux Users
By STEVE LOHR
Published: December 22, 2003
he SCO Group plans to announce today that it is escalating its campaign to collect license fees from corporations using the Linux operating system, with warning letters to the companies. Supporters of Linux, including I.B.M. and other companies, say that SCO's interpretation of its claim over Linux is exaggerated.
The letters, dated Friday, are the second round that SCO has sent to corporate users of Linux. SCO sent letters to 1,500 companies in May, warning them that it contended that Linux had violated its intellectual property rights. SCO owns the rights to the Unix operating system. The company asserts that Linux, a variant of Unix that is distributed free, violates SCO's license and copyright.
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."
The letters focus on application binary interfaces, the programming hooks by which a software application gains access to the underlying operating system. "We believe these violations are serious, and we will take appropriate actions to protect our rights," the letters state.
Letters asserting copyright violations in Linux are being sent to several hundred of its corporate users. 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.
The warning letters come after David A. Boies, a lawyer representing SCO, said on Nov. 18 that the company intended to single out and sue a large corporate user of Linux within three months.
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."
SCO began its Linux campaign last March, when it sued I.B.M., the leading corporate champion of Linux. SCO, seeking $1 billion in damages, has accused I.B.M. of illegally contributing Unix code to Linux. I.B.M. has denied the charges.
On Dec. 5, a federal district judge in Utah ordered that within 30 days, SCO had to show the court and I.B.M. the Linux code to which SCO claims it has rights and where I.B.M. has infringed upon it.
What ? Me, worry ?
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?!
I would like to put my business using Linux, and all my clients on the "Do-Not-Mail" list that Congress enacted
That applies right? I don't want their telemarketing, "Register your copies of linux for only $699 per CPU"
Isn't that why Congress passed the anti-telemarketing bill right?
Error 407 - No creative sig found
SCO sends out Christmas cards? Does SCO stand for Santa Claus Operation?
Seriously, nothing significant will happen before trial, so why do we give them the publicity they're craving?
Sure, it might feel like "we" are fighting them, but what's the result of that fighting? Do we just spread the word that people can get sued for using Linux, or do we convince people that it's safe to use Linux?
And how come we don't hear people saying that "we" should move to *BSD while this is going on, showing SCO that we rather not use Linux than pay them?
Ok, so it isn't always easy, or even possible, to move away from Linux, but why do most people seem to think that there's just "free" Linux or "pay to SCO" Linux?
perl -e'print$_{$_} for sort%_=`lynx -dump svanstrom.com/t`'
D34r L1nux u53r
W3 0wn j00
r3g4rd5,
D4r1 Mcki1dd13
getSexySig();
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
Registration-free link
I'm all for copyright, and I will even support the removal of every piece of copyrighted code from linux. IF and only if it was there and they started prove it. Its not really as hard as they make it sound, it involves a highlighter and a few judges. Thats the best thing about open source, if someone makes the mistake of putting in code that is copyrighted or just plain stupid it is removed. The reason everyone is agains SCO is the stupidity of their attacks. It goes against logic (and natural selection for that matter) to fix the problem in the way SCO is. UNLESS of course they dont want the problem solved so much as want to make money from it.
"Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux."
from a company that willingly contributed with more than a few lines of code...
What ? Me, worry ?
I know that many Slashdot editors and story submitters like to put their two cents in, but this story is worse than almost any that I've seen before.
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.
This is about as bad as the stuff at indymedia.org! That's not news. In combination with the title of the story, SCO Gets More Desperate; Sends More Letters, this might as well be a political action site instead of a news source.
Michael, couldn't you just show an ounce of journalistic integrity and not accept stories with this much spin? Stating your opinion in something that's not an editorial doesn't help your credibility, either.
Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
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
Everyone from Slashdot needs to buy SCO stock. But all at the same time as to not pay inflated prices. Now let's just say that all the Slashdot users put a few hundred dollars into SCO stock. Then we all co-ordinate to sell the stock at the now inflated price (once again at the same time). Not only will we all gain a few bucks from SCO but we may drive the share price down. Win-Win situation. (Oh and if this is illegal please tell me so I can spend the profit BEFORE my arrest)
Their time is almost up anyway.
Countdown!
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!
Can't wait to see if this will be the first case of slashdotting a phone call.
To hear the SCO call:
"Please join us by dialing: 1.800.289.0436 -or- 1.913.981.5507 Confirmation Code: 510065"
11:00 AM Eastern Time Monday
Its better to be thought of a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt. Personally, I would like to see SCO stand up and provide substantial claims to their suit other than a few lines of code that seem to be so generic anyone could have created them. I believe a few weeks ago a judge ordered SCO to cough up some real prrof and hopefully they run away with their tail between their legs.
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.
Actually, SCO is more like gollum. It's pathetic, corrupted, and still capable of doing some evil and cause harm.. but it is rotten and will not live much longer, and he may yet have some part to play in all this before the end :)
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
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.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
"IANAL, IANEAP" = "I am not a lawyer, I am not even a paralegal"
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
Today is the 22nd...
A speaking clock is "2, Informative" nowadays?
I wonder if the poster would even pass the turing test!
I Am Now Eating A Pie.
I'm not sure why the orignal poster felt the need to inform us of his diet though.
Or better yet: if each and every one who ever contributed code to the kernel (of his own, not copied from elsewhere...) would send a letter to SCO denying them all rights to use that code... Would make SCO's own distribution (Caldera?) pretty useless. Fight fire with fire!
Now that I think about it that all depends on how many photos of high quality ass-scannings are sent in.(I'm sending 4 as a side note)
Preferably, the ass shout have the SCO letter sticking out of it, for additional effect!
SCO manages to produce the code for threatening letters rather than the court
Excuse me, I meant to say 65 files that have been copied verbatem into the Linux kernel.
And no, I cannot actually show you the list. Revealing the files would compromise the ability of our brave pattern matching experts to compile further lists.
Good Night, and God Bless Unixware.
I take offence in your trollish remarks, Sir!
IANEAP - I am not even a paralegal. I believe the person at Groklaw (Pamela Jones) is currently employed in this supporting role within the legal profession. IANEAPBMSI (but my sister is).
Is customer the right word? Perhaps a better word would be remainder.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
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
send a letter to SCO denying them all rights to use that code
Unfortunately they can't, as they have already released the code under the GPL.
I do think however, that now would be a good time to create a modified version of the GPL that specifically bars SCO from using the code.
Especially for Samba.
It doesn't matter much what analysts think about the case itself. What matters is what analysts think other people think about the case. Even if every analyst on earth would think the lawsuit was fraudulent, doesn't mean they wouldn't recommend buying stock, because people are doing it anyway.
How can they be distracted? Just look at SCO's case:
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk who carried a gun and ran from the mob. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense.
But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case. Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer trying to prove SCO's case and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must find Linux guilty of copyright violation and find the GPL invalid.
I know SCO seems wrong. But ladies and gentlemen this is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a worthless software company's life is on the line? Why? I'll tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense you must agree with SCO. Here look at the monkey, look at the silly monkey.
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
The letters focus on application binary interfaces, the programming hooks by which a software application gains access to the underlying operating system. "We believe these violations are serious, and we will take appropriate actions to protect our rights," the letters state.
Its pretty obvious the 65 files are headers and they're hoping no one in court will mention POSIX. Unless they're actually crazy enough to believe they own POSIX standards!
Whilst there's always a great temptation when building standard headers to just borrow them from another implementation I can't see a court taking that very seriously even if it happened.
- Copyright is a statement of
ownership - The fact that code that is copyright SCO is in Linux
means nothing. They own that source code which is copyrighted by
SCO, and it has nothing to do with whether or not it is linked into
Linux, and SCO's rights to control Linux.
- License is a statement of
permission to use - It is nothing more than permission given to
you by the copyright owner, and the ways you can use the code.
- Contract is an agreement -
A contract is an agreement with enumeration. From what I remember
from business related courses, you must have some form of payment in
order to to make a contract binding.
If copyrighted SCO code was contributed to Linux by SCO employees, and SCO management did not approve, then SCO was damaged by those employees, not Linux users. SCO can request that the code be removed and users running that code may be requested to stop running that code, but this must be done in a reasonable manner. They cannot go back and seek damages from the users, because they are innocent third parties. Damages would be limited to the guilty parties, presumably the SCO employees. If it was IBM instead of SCO employees, and IBM has a license that says the source code cannot be used in whole, or that anything derived from that code cannot be used, then SCO has a case against IBM, not the end user.Licenses that come with commercial software are embodied in a contract, and this is where the confusion usually comes in. You pay, you agree to the terms contained within the contract by some action, such as clicking on button in a dialog or ripping clear plastic off the media, and the contract then grants you a license. What is generally termed a license is really a contract, and this ends up confusing the general public.
There is significant controversy in the media over whether or not GPL is valid, and what it means, but in reality this is simple. GPL is permission given by the licensor, presumably the copyright owner, to the licensee to use the code, how to use it and under what conditions it is permitted. The only problematic area is the redistribution clause in GPL limits how much you can charge for redistributing the code. It mentions money, and therefore tends to pollute the license, so now its terms are no longer black and white, but it is still a license. Presumably, SCO was aware of the license when their code made it into Linux. Since they were distributing the code, including code they owned, in the form of a distribution under their trademark, it is difficult for SCO to argue their case. Most likely, they were aware of the situation, and knowingly distributed the code under the same GPL license. They accepted it, and to now claiming ignorance is questionable, at best. I doubt veracity of recent statements because of this.
If you are an end user and get one of their letters, do nothing, as any action you take may work against you. If you are part of the media, ignore it as it is just another attempt by SCO to manipulate you and have Linux tried in the court of public opinion.
Again, I am not a lawyer, just someone who has had to deal with them in this respect. This is only my opinion. Contact a lawyer for legal advice.
DMCA Notification Letter
SCO has commenced providing notification to selected Fortune 1000 Linux end users outlining additional violations of SCO's copyrights contained in Linux. Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces have been copied verbatim from the UNIX System V code base and contributed to Linux without proper authorization and without copyright attribution. Any part of any Linux file that includes the copyrighted binary interface code must be removed. This ABI code was part of a 1994 settlement agreement involving the University of California at Berkeley and Berkeley Systems Development, Inc., (BSDI).
Their stupidity never ceases to amaze me. Well, if it "must be removed", then tell us what is it that "must be removed", dammit!
Also note that they claim that the ABI code was part of the settlement between UCB and BSDI (and SCO/ATT/Caldera/Novell are neither of those two...) :-)
I have decided to short 400 shares a bit above $19.00. This is the biggest scam since ENRON.
Currently long NOVL (SuSE).
Betting on Linux. Wish me luck?
--- Every day I am forced to add another to the list of people who can kiss my ass...
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.
Not quite. SCO (in their actual lawsuit against IBM, rather than their press FUD) are claiming that the terms of their license with IBM mean that any code that IBM develops which is a 'derivative work' of Unix can not be redistributed.
In this case, because NUMA et al are so closely bound to Unix, SCO are claiming they count as derivitive works, and are thus covered by the SCO/IBM license agreement, and should not have been included in Linux.
Despite this being a case about breach of contract, ie the Unix license to IBM, SCO are pitching it in the media as a breach of copyright case.
SCO still haven't made a single legal move that directly implies there is actual original SCO code (as opposed to IBM developed derivative code) in Linux, only lots of shouting and FUD. So legally speaking this is all about breach of contract by IBM, not breach of copyright by Linux users.
Wow! We're down from millions of lines of code to 65 files! Since they are "focusing" on API related issues does that mean they think they have copyright on the all files ending in .h ?
If SCO go bankrupt before the case gets tested in court it will leave a smear on the good name of linux.
Huh?
SCO is the one leaving a smear on the good name of Linux by making accusations of wholesale copyright infringement and theft. There are indications that SCO is involved in a pump-and-dump scheme, or at least a last-ditch attempt at grabbing as much easy cash as possible before the bottom falls out. If you haven't noticed, SCO hasn't exactly been forthcoming about what they claim Linux coders stole, something which may wipe out their case since it becomes obvious the legal action is not about legitimately correcting an injustice, but extortion.
If SCO ever comes clean with the kernel hackers about what specific code and other IP they claim is infringing, and if the kernel hackers fail to deal with what legitimate issues exist (if any, which at the moment does not appear likely), then it would smear the good name of the Linux community. Until then, the party acting in bad faith here appears to be SCO, while the Linux community, and the companies investing time and money in it, seem to be the ones that want to legitimately deal with copyright concerns--real copyright concerns, not vague claims of infringement that somehow keep turning out to be crap.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0903scofined.htm l
Q ue stions-and-Answers.html
SCO fined $10,800 for Linux claims, IDG
http://www.tarent.de/html/tarent-vs-sco/030612_
Q & A tarent v. SCO
The Landgericht Munich I has enjoined SCO from claiming and from distributing the assertions in the course of its business activities
1. that the software Linux" contains SCO's intellectual property that has been unlawfully obtained
2. that end users who apply Linux are liable for intellectual property infringements towards SCO,
and / or
3. that LINUX is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX,
as far as such assertions are not proven to be true.
Fourth quarter revenue from UNIX products and services was $14.0 million. In addition, revenue generated from the Company's SCOsource licensing initiative was $10.3 million, which was derived from licensing agreements reached with Microsoft Corporation and Sun Microsystems, Inc. earlier in fiscal 2003.
For the fourth quarter of 2003, the Company reported a net loss to common stockholders of $1.6 million, or $0.12 per diluted common share. Excluding the previously reported charge of approximately $9.0 million incurred in connection with its October 2003 private placement for compensation paid to law firms engaged to enforce its intellectual property rights, the Company would have reported net income for the fourth quarter of $7.4 million, or $0.44 per diluted common share. The Company reported a net loss to common stockholders of $2.7 million, or $0.26 per diluted common share, in the comparable quarter a year ago. A GAAP reconciliation of net income (loss) and earnings per share for the fourth quarter and fiscal 2003 excluding the above charge is included in the financial tables at the end of this release. ...
Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
"Copyright is a statement of ownership"
No, copyright is simply a limited monopoly provided by the government to give the copyright holder the ability to limit distribution.
You cannot own an idea.
Ignoring is no solution for this SCO thing... Not saying anything is how the most innocent people in the world find themselves in the electric chair while O.J. gets off with high-priced lawyers.
Seriously, ignoring a problem just allows it to grow and get worse. Easier to face these off now before the media fuels 20 "Experts" behind it and has a Larry King Live with Darl McBride.
OK, so here's what I found interesting:
more than 65 programming files that "have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted Unix code base
So - they're saying that the files themselves have been copied "verbatim" - not that the files contain code that had been copied verbatim..
If this is true (and not a misinterpretation, or the result of judicious editing), then it would be pretty simple to call SCO's bluff, no? You just get a copy of the letter, and take a look at the files in question.
Now the question is: Did the reporter (or editor) do some doctoring, or is SCO actually identifying the alleged stolen code?
And can anyone get a copy of that letter?
Linus should finish the SCO matter by asserting his copyright
to the majority of the Linux kernel.
Forbid SCO to copy or duplicate his kernel.
Then he can sue SCO a mere $699 for each infraction. Poetic justice.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
"We are hoping to boost our stock by reminding everyone before our big conference call that no matter what anyone else thinks, and despite the fact that every assertion we make has been logically shot down, and despite the fact that we've lost ground in court, and despite the fact that nothing has been decided in court yet, we're right!"
Legalese: SCO's Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux.
Translation: Give us a letter which we can use as grounds or evidence against you, should we decide to file more lawsuits in the future.
Playbook:
The saddest part of this is that, in this day and age, I can spell "subpoena" without stopping to look it up.
This is not my sandwich.
You own the expression of the idea, in this case the written code.
There is no implied monopoly granted by anyone, but protection of the effort you put into the creation of that idea, or code as in the case of Linux. Theoretically, you can extract every algorithm in Linux, write new code and publish it under any term you want. Copyright does not stand in your way. Even the license clause regarding derivative work does not protect you in this case. You can do the same for Unixware, as long as you steer clear of code protected by patent, and you did not sign a contract stating you would not do this.
You're argument pertains to software patents, and patents in general. It's been many, many years since the patent office required a working model in order to grant a patent. You can have an idea, write it down, apply for a patent and get legal protection for your idea. That's because when you get a patent, you are getting protection under the law to the rights of the invention, which may be an idea under current legislation, and may be a process which includes software algorithms. Arguably, this is a statement of ownership of the idea, which I personally disagree with.
Taking it out of the software realm, a doctor may patent a procedure to save your life, and license it to every practitioner on the planet for a fee. If your doctor refuses to pay the fee, does not use the procedure and you die, too bad. You should have gotten a doctor who was willing to charge you more in order to pay the fee. This is the heinous nature of patent law which, in my opinion, is far worse than one click shopping or your right to use a novel new sort.
Again, I am not a lawyer, just someone who has had to deal with them in these matters. This is just my opinion. Contact a lawyer for legal advice.
there stock price is going up, they will most likely make a profit and all for lying.
As I understand it, SCOX is basicaly owned by Canopy, and if you take a look at their website, you'll see a few companys that they own that are actualy making money by distributing, using, and offering supporting software for Linux, as appossed to SCOX which realy isn't with UNIX. So in the long run if SCOX wins, canopy, will probably lose more than they won.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Isn't that UNIX license pretty much irrelevant now anyway, unless you're one of the big commercial UNIX resellers? If you're not IBM, Sun and SGI then why do you need it?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Why not sue them for copyright infringement, and as part of discovery, make them supply all versions of unix source code so we can grep it for copyright infringement?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
quote: "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."
Truly mind boggling. I wonder if this is a good reason for a licensee to declare their contract with SCO void if SCO wants to add terms to it, and certainly if they are about use of ANOTHER OS.
Then release that to the press just before their conference call with SCO.
Ya know, when I first read this artical I had a thought. SCO's stock price being "artificaly pumped" with all this Linux BS and it is going to correct itself. So hell why not short it.
Because:
----
Open mind, insert foot.
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.
Legal analysis of Sauron's Offer and acceptance
Change a few names, and it sort of fits in a weird way
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I have removed all the proprietary code you have not divulged from my Linux derivative projects. I know it is no longer there because, after extensive tests, I cannot find it. If you can find additional code that is not there, but you believe to be proprietary to SCO then please let me know and I will make sure it really is not there. Thank you - Hadji
You can find it here.
u de/asm-sparc/a.out.h/ mips/boot/ecoff.hl inux/ctype.h
The gist of it seems to be numerous copies of 'errno.h', 'signal.h', and 'ioctl*.h' in the various platform-specific ASM source files, 'bsderrno.h' and 'solerrno.h' in the sparc/sparc64 ASM sources, as well as the following files:
include/linux/ipc.h
include/linux/acct.h
incl
include/linux/a.out.h
arch
include/linux/stat.h
include/
lib/ctype.c
I need to do some code-reading myself, but as far as I'm aware all of those are part of the POSIX standard. I could be wrong, and even if they are in the POSIX standard, the files could be copies, but we'll have to wait and see from an official response from the kernel developers to see where these files come from.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Not quite. SCO (in their actual lawsuit against IBM, rather than their press FUD) are claiming that the terms of their license with IBM mean that any code that IBM develops which is a 'derivative work' of Unix can not be redistributed.
/. and elsewhere, that SCO's case may ultimately hinge on whether IBM's exemption applies to code purchased from, or as part of, other companies, or if they're stuck with the code's original licence. In other words, does IBM's SysV contract override the contract provisions under which code the company purchases was developed? Do Sequent's contracts still exist, or are they now simply historical footnotes? And would IBM's legion of legal attack dogs manage to overlook this minor point, or was it discussed and cleared when the sale took place?
More specifically, IBM managed to score a clause in their contract with AT&T that allows Big Blue to keep copyright and control over any additions to and derivative works it creates from SysV. It has been noted, however, that the technologies in question were created by Sequent, which did not have such a clause in their Unix licence. IBM purchased Sequent, and the dynix/ptx-related SMP code. It was theorized, on
Although this seems like a potential avenue of victory for SCO, their total lack of cooperation so far with the discovery process and the court indicates they may not even have solid footing on these grounds. They could not cough up anything useful for discovery, in a lawsuit they initiated, and still haven't done so. Yet, the company has time to draft threatening letters with a list of filenames, which presumably have code they could present as part of their case.
Barring a surprise twist, I think SCO's shareholders are in for a sick surprise when the execs take the money and run.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Can you imagine paying 9 Mil up front and then you have to get your brother to appear in court for you.
Linux Weekly News has a copy of the letter. The 65 files don't sound quite as threatening when you discover the first 17 of them are errno.h. Quick, someone go warn the IEEE!
Does anyone know where the V7 source is available online to compare against? Even better would be something more modern. It seems a little meaningless to dig through the Linux kernel sources without something good to compare it against.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Found in http://lwn.net/Articles/64052/, from http://www.groklaw.com. Unfortunately, I need to add more characters per line to get past the slashdot lameness filter:
o .hr no.he rrno.hs 64/errno.hs m-ppc/errno.h/ asm-s390/errno.hu de/asm-sh/errno.hl ude/asm-sparc64/errno.h. hg nal.h6 /signal.h- m68k/signal.h/ asm-mips64/signal.h
include/asm-ppc/signal.hl .hs ignal.hr c/signal.h/ asm-x86_64/signal.he /linux/ctype.hc tl.h/ ioctl.h8 6/ioctl.hm 68k/ioctl.hm -mips64/ioctl.hl ude/asm-parisc/ioctl.h. hs .hi octls.h9 0x/ioctl.hh /ioctls.h- sparc/ioctls.hu de/asm-sparc64/ioctls.h. hl ude/asm-sparc/a.out.hh /mips/boot/ecoff.h
include/asm-sparc/solerrno.h/ bsderrno.h
include/asm-alpha/errno.h
include/asm-arm/errn
include/asm-cris/errno.h
include/asm-i386/er
include/asm-ia64/errno.h
include/asm-m68k/
include/asm-mips/errno.h
include/asm-mip
include/asm-parisc/errno.h
include/a
include/asm-ppc64/errno.h
include
include/asm-s390x/errno.h
incl
include/asm-sparc/errno.h
inc
include/asm-x86_64/errno
include/asm-alpha/signal.h
include/asm-arm/si
include/asm-cris/signal.h
include/asm-i38
include/asm-ia64/signal.h
include/asm
include/asm-mips/signal.h
include
include/asm-parisc/signal.h
include/asm-ppc64/signa
include/asm-s390/signal.h
include/asm-s390x/
include/asm-sh/signal.h
include/asm-spa
include/asm-sparc64/signal.h
include
include/linux/stat.h
includ
lib/ctype.c
include/asm-alpha/io
include/asm-alpha/ioctls.h
include/asm-arm
include/asm-cris/ioctl.h
include/asm-i3
include/asm-ia64/ioctl.h
include/asm-
include/asm-mips/ioctl.h
include/as
include/asm-mips64/ioctls.h
inc
include/asm-parisc/ioctls
include/asm-ppc/ioctl.h
include/asm-ppc/ioctl
include/asm-ppc64/ioctl.h
include/asm-ppc64/
include/asm-s390/ioctl.h
include/asm-s3
include/asm-sh/ioctl.h
include/asm-s
include/asm-sparc/ioctl.h
include/asm
include/asm-sparc64/ioctl.h
incl
include/asm-x86_64/ioctl
include/linux/ipc.h
include/linux/acct.h
inc
include/linux/a.out.h
arc
include/asm-sparc/bsderrno.h
include/asm-sparc64
include/asm-sparc64/solerrno.h
æeee!
Darl just said that the source files in question are "40 or so header files that are included by virtually all applications."
It asserts files like errno.h are infringing. It acknowledges these files were part of the BSDI/USL settlement but says that their use in GPL'ed software was not allowed by the settlement.
IANAL - but from all the reading I've done, this is just more of the same bluff and bluster that SCO is now so infamous for.
Let's suppose that SCO indeed has the now just "65" copyrighted files in the kernel for an ABI (betting it's the Intel ABI). The reason they have to attack the GPL is because all their other claims are tripped up by it. Don't forget that Caldera/SCO shipped these same files under GPL from their web-site for quite a long time. In my mind - they have willing released those files under GPL by that action, consequently, they have no claim UNLESS they can get the GPL invalidated some how.
I'll further wager that those files got their as part of SCO's original business pursuits and were put their by SCO, and not IBM or others. I have no proof of that - just pure speculation on my part.
Have you compiled your kernel today??
So far, so good.
Now, a couple of quibbles:
# Shorting requires collateral
True, but the profit from the sale of the borrowed stock usually provides most of the collateral. I've never tried makeing a short sale the only position in my account, so I don't know how much additional collateral would be required.
There are a limited number of shares of any companies stock that are available for short trading, you certainly can't have all of slashdot shorting SCO, there aren't enough shares for that
Actually, not quite. I can borrow some shares from you and then sell them to party C. You can borrow the same shares from party C and sell them to party C, and so could all of slashdot. There are always enough shares to sell. In fact, one block of shares would be enough to support all the shorts in the world.
The problem comes when it's time (see the next quibble) to cover those short positions. If we've all borrowed the same one-and-only block of shares, and sold it, then when we all have to cover our positions by returning the borrowed stock, we'll all be bidding for that one block of shares. Watch the price go through the roof! This is called a short squeeze, and it can happen whenver the short interest gets bigger than a fraction of a normal day's trading volume. SCO has way more short interest than that. Any time there's a stock price spike, a few shorts get margin calls and have to bid the price up further.
* Shorting includes a set date when you promise to buy back the shorted shares.
I'm pretty sure that this isn't so. To the best of my knowledge, there is no time limit on a short position, though usually people prefer not to leave the ax hanging over their heads too long. If the price of the borrowed shares go up too far, the broker will demand that you deposit more money in your account. This is a margin call. If you cannot or will not meet the margin call, the broker will buy the stock to return what you borrowed, and your position has been closed out at a loss, which you will owe to the broker. You have been ``squeezed out''.
If you know SCO's going down, but guess wrong as to when, and their stock is still elevated when your date comes, you get mauled (hence the requirement for collateral).
This is right, except that even if you are dead on about when, if it goes up before it goes down, you can get squeezed out, and wind up with nothing to show for it but a bill from your broker.
Summary:
If you learned something from this, don't try to short SCO! You aren't nearly experienced enough, and Slashdot isn't the place to get investment advice, except DON'T DO IT!
See what I've been reading.
http://www.tuhs.org/archive_sites.html
Pick your favorite mirror.
It does however give them a signed document they can produce in a courtroom
As a somewhat more relevant question, what gives SCO the right to "demand" written statements of compliance in the first place? Unless the original contract explicitly states "we can ask you to sign a promise of compliance at a later date", only an idiot (then again, we do talk about voluntary SCO customers here) would send anything other than "Dear Darl, I hereby swear that you suck, and we intend to migrate all of our servers to Linux in the next quarter, as, due to your actions, the odds of SCO still existing to provide us with continuing support seems exceedinly low. Sincerely, an soon-ex-SCO customer".
I don't see any people within SCO buying shares. They're all unloading it. That shows quite a lot of faith in their cause:
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 91 $15.05 0
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 300 $15.06 0
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 1,300 $15.056 0
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 4,949 $15.1 0
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 91 $1.12 91
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 300 $1.12 300
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 1,300 $1.12 1300
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 4,949 $1.12 4949
OLSON MICHAEL P VP 11/11/2003 144 10,000 N/A N/A
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 82 $16.3 51830
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 100 $16.4 51912
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 100 $16.6 54717
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 100 $16.69 54817
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 500 $16.92 51330
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 563 $16.8 50767
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 1,100 $16.5 53617
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 1,350 $16.75 54917
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 1,605 $16.42 52012
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 4,500 $17.0 47330
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 OE 5,500 $2.07 56267
OLSON MICHAEL P VP 10/11/2003 144 10,000 N/A N/A
OLSON MICHAEL P VP 09/11/2003 144 10,000 N/A N/A
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 23 $14.721 105300
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 300 $14.714 105000
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 400 $14.72 105323
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 4,277 $14.71 105723
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/26/2003 AS 5,000 $14.74 110000
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/26/2003 AS 5,000 $14.74 110000
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/19/2003 AS 700 $10.44 119300
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/19/2003 AS 4,300 $10.4 115000
BENCH ROBERT K. CFO 08/08/2003 AS 7,000 $10.9 221043
BENCH ROBERT K. CFO 08/08/2003 144 7,000 N/A N/A
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/05/2003 AS 1,900 $12.57 123100
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/05/2003 AS 3,100 $12.56 120000
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/30/2003 AS 100 $12.81 129900
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/30/2003 AS 4,900 $12.8 125000
HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 100 $13.35 23894
HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 100 $13.43 24494
HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 500 $13.4 23994
HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 900 $13.44 24594
HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 3,400 $13.3 20494
HUNSAKER JEFF F. EMP 07/23/2003 144 5,000 N/A N/A
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 100 $13.0 130000
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 100 $13.2 149900
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 200 $13.19 149700
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 800 $13.02 145900
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 1,300 $13.1 130100
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 3,000 $13.07 146700
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 3,700 $13.13 131400
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 10,800 $12.91 135100
Well, I know that COFF & ECOFF are pretty well known by now, COFF having been created for SVR3 to extend and replace a.out and support shared libraries but also having been used and extended by Microsoft since NT. According to this message, the format can be found in the programmer's reference manuals for SVR3. The a.out format debuted with UNIX V7.
Both are extremely well known formats, and SCO's claim pretty much has to be direct copying, because there's no way that a reimplementation could be a violation to two well-known, publicly published formats. Humorously enough, Caldera/SCO itself publishes the definitions of both COFF and ELF.
While I'm pretty sure you can copyright an interface like this, I'm positive that implementing code based on a published description (and not published source code) is not in and of itself a copyright violation, especially due to the importance that recent copyright laws have given to interoperability. Like I said, it's safe to bet that either SCO is either claiming direct copying (which could be shown to be false if it is) or they're once again invoking Chewbacca defense-like logic in defending their case like they have been in their claims about the GPL being against US copyright law.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
SCO have long maintained that their primary gripe is that IBM helped accelerate SMP and some memory management stuff on the x86 platform. They claim that prior to IBM dishing out their code to the Linux camp, SCO was dominant on the x86 platform.
Looking at their list of files now, it seems like they are losing the plot internally. Many of these files have nothing to do with the x86 platform, and SMP and memory management are very different on other platforms. Also, many of these files don't have anything to do with SMP or memory management specifically.
WTF?
-
8. COPYRIGHT. All title and intellectual property rights in and to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including but not limited to any images, photographs, animations, video, audio, music, text, and "applets" incorporated into the SOFTWARE PRODUCT), the accompanying printed materials, and any copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT are owned by Microsoft or its suppliers. All title and intellectual property rights in and to the content which may be accessed through use of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is the property of the respective content owner and may be protected by applicable copyright or other intellectual property laws and treaties. This EULA grants you no rights to use such content.
Note that last line.Nowhere in Microsoft's EULA is there an indemnification clause, in which Microsoft would guarantee to defend the end user against copyright claims by third parties arising out of copyrighted material shipped by Microsoft. IBM's Linux customers now have such contractual protection, but Microsoft customers are out in the cold.
SCO Group Fourth Quarter 2003 Webcast and Conference Call
Well, that's closer to the truth than my first guess
"I Am Not Even A Proctologist"
Given that this was an SCO story, I could see how that would need clarification...
Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
"I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."
Well, first and foremost, of course, it's SCO. But they seem to have a partner in crime, so to speak.
The popular press. If not for the press' focus on hype over content the SCO fiasco would have fizzled quite some time ago.
I have yet to see a reporter consistantly ask the tough questions. Questions like:
"Mr. McBride. Would you care to give a reply regarding statements made by those in the Linux community, as well as other in well established business sectors about their position that they 'need to see what a SCO Unix license is paying for'?"
or,
"Would you care to make a statement regarding why your brother Kevin McBride represented SCO in court and not someone from Mr. Boies' firm, especially given the ~$9 million in legal fees SCO has paid for representation?"
Instead, we get headlines that revolve around the issues but never really focus on the heart of the matter - The Code?
IMHO the press coverage seems to take the ever popular "he said, she said" format. for example:
SCO Position Under Fire
SCO Group Launches Broadside Against GPL
SCO Loses First Legal Round in Linux Battle
Open-Source Legal Experts Dismiss SCO's Copyright Claims
Denial-of-Service Attack Knocks SCO Group Offline
Some Security Experts Doubt SCO Was Attacked
SCO Dismisses Importance of Early Court Loss
SCO Letter Demands Certification From Unix Customers
SCO Identifies Copyrighted Code in Linux
Long time to get to the real question:
Show me the code=What the hell are you talking about?
If not for some sites like Groklaw would the popular press even really have a clue what the real issue is?
It was and is about the product (which SCO seems to think is an after thought to a business strategy).
To restate the real question in blunt everyday language:
To SCO
what the hell are you talking about?
What code?
When one refers to the base issue to this picture then it becomes clear. We all know that many are and have asked this question and the it's SCO that is perpetrating this scenario.
My problem is our illustrious fourth estate (aka the press) seems more than willing to participate as a player in this endevour, rather than being what they are really supposed to be - an observer and inquirer of facts and happenings. In otherwords, they don't want to find out what is really going on because they get so much more out of milking it - as long as it keeps a certain sensationalistic aire about it. Facts are dry and not all that exciting. Drama on the other hand... And that's what the popular press is all about because drama gathers more revenue than facts.