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.
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 ?
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)
Exactly and regardless, SCO's colors will come out in the wash, one way or the other. Nothing said here will change that. The danger is the damage that the linux community is doing to itself by spouting off like a bunch rabid loons. The penguin heads need to chill out and sit down and let SCO sink or swim. Really, what are they going to do, even if they are right? Linux isn't going to go away because of 2 lines or 200 lines of code. It won't go away even if they outlaw it altogether. :)
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
Due time! How long has this circus been going on?
Honestly, if they had a legitamate claim I would support them. But these scare tactics and Lionel Hutz style legal wrangling all seem like smoke and mirrors to raise stock prices. If as many lines of code are in Linux as they claim there are, then why keep it secret. Linux is open source so that infringing code is already in the public anyway.
Until they show me substance, my opinion about them wont change.
Just a thought...
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
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.
Pffft, Slashdot is not a news site. Slashdot links to news sites. They do no research of their own, and don't even bother verifying the validity of any of the articles. Indeed, all they have is editorial power. Remember, you're just posting a reply to a message about a news article.
In the long run, we're all dead.
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
I Am Now Eating A Pie.
I'm not sure why the orignal poster felt the need to inform us of his diet though.
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.
Actually, probably not. You might *think* SCO is doing an illegal pump-and-dump and should be done over by the SEC, but can you prove it? In court? Beyond all reasonable doubt? The SEC is going to have to be able to answer "yes" to all of the above before it will even consider the next step. I don't think the SEC is going to be ripping SCO apart until the aftermath of the IBM case somehow.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Then there is the matter that Caldera released the Linux header files under the GPL, so if necessary a new copy of the Linux header files could be derived from GPL'd material (ie. the Linux header files Caldera released).
- 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...) :-)
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.
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.
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.
I'm sorry, if they can make Martha Stewart's life hell for a couple thousand shares of stock (let's talk about insignificant) then they can go after McBride & company, damn it.
Do you have ESP?
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.
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.