Slashdot Mirror
SCO Responds to OSDL Legal Aid Announcement
Greyfox writes "SCO has issued a response to the earlier OSDL legal aid announcement. Basically the same old story, noting: 'If vendors feel so confident with the intellectual property foundation under their massive contributions into Linux, then they should put their money where their mouth is and protect end users with true vendor-based indemnification.' The release also refers us to their SCOSource web site, which they claim in their announcement shows 'proof' of infringement. I was unable to find any such 'proof' other than their claim that they own errno.h. Since I'm obviously too much of an idiot to find the 'proof' they claim they're showing, maybe someone else could go look and tell me where it is."
They claim to own System V, but give no evidence regarding linux ownership.
Unless System V == Linux
I don't think so.
Solaris...well....
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
"If vendors feel so confident with the intellectual property foundation under their massive contributions into Linux, then they should put their money where their mouth is and protect end users with true vendor-based indemnification," said Darl McBride, president and CEO, The SCO Group, Inc."
::sigh:: This is such a bunch of crap. I called up Microsoft and asked them about this. I'm running XP Pro (for gaming only... honest!) and wanted to know what if SCO started the same crap against Microsoft end users. Will I be indemnified for the use of their product? The answer was of course yes. Ok.. so how much then? If I'm reading the EULA correctly, I'm protected up to the purchase price of the product. So OEM that's what? $100? $150? They were unable to answer my question unfortunately. I think we all know what the answer is however.
"The actions of these vendors today doesn't change the fact that SCO's intellectual property is being found in Linux."
I can see it now. At then end when they are crushed. Daryll will say "Honest... we thought we owned the IP. It's not my fault!" Only thing he could say to try and stay outta jail.
SCO is full of it.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
I agree completely.
What excites me is that this potential major court case involving open source will not be a david and goliath mismatch as I always feared would cast an unfair chill on free software.
Having IBM and Intel (among others) battling to protect the GNU license and clarify code ownership will ensure that the OSS side can't be simply defeated by burying them in paperwork and expensive legal maneuvers.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
...I should just shell out the $699 for my "license". By the time they're done compiling all the different options I want for my kernel(s) (applying patches, maintenance, testing kernels, new features, etc), I bet they'd lose that $699 in manhours in the first week! And that'd only be for one cpu!
Just goes to show how rediculous it all is.
FLR
I think you've got it wrong. They should be turning over to IBM their discovery documents today, but we won't likely know anything about it until the next scheduled court date, Jan 23.
Check this article at groklaw
If some Linux guru could answer this quickly: I thought SCO was saying that only Linux kernel 2.4.x+ infringed on SCO's intellectual property. But don't the files SCO shows as evidence exist in previous kernels? Thanks.
If you want an update, just look at SCOX stock price DOWN 5+ points from the open today. Bet it won't move up tomorrow morning either. Their FUD is weaking.
Causing Chaos Everywhere,
Nik J.
The strange world of a loner, in a populous city, drowning in society
The question is why are they so pissed about this and keep asking for indemnification?
Easy answer.
First, it means that they cannot go after small time users. This kicks the legs out from under them, as they cannot build up case history by suing end-users and getting them to surrender (like the RIAA). This means the only thing they can do is go after companies in a vulnerable position, like Google (who in the midst of an IPO would HATE to have the pub of a SCO lawsuit)
Secondly, when a company indemnifies, all of the claims are paid out (most of the time) by it's insurance company. This would give SCO the ability to get money to eternity by suing end-users, have them spin to the company, and the company would pay via it's insurer. This is a brilliant move on OSDL's part. SCO was baiting them to push for the indemnification, but by NOT pushing for it and then getting the ability for end users to defend themselves, they have effectively castrated SCO in at least three strategies.
They have a cool chart that shows how Linux 0.01 is derived from earlier unix. I don't see how this is possible since Linus didn't start with Unix source code. Frankly, I find a high correlation between the use of the word "pedigree" and people who are entirely too full of themselves. The pedigree chart is interesting anyway.
Down 5 points from their 52 week high. Only down 1 point today, and they could put out a new press release tomorrow that would push it right back up. You could also say they are up 15 point (from their 52 week low).
14. How can SCO expect me to purchase a license when its case with IBM hasn't been resolved yet? What if SCO loses its case against IBM? Will it reimburse Linux customers who purchased a SCO IP License for Linux?
Some Linux users have the misunderstanding that the SCO IP License for Linux hinges on the outcome of the SCO vs. IBM case. If that case were completely removed, Linux end users would still need to purchase a license from SCO to use the SCO IP found in Linux. The IBM case surrounds mis-use of derivative works of SCO UNIX. It does not change the fact that line-by-line SCO IP code is found in Linux.
Ie.. the court case has nothing to do with the Linux licenses.. and by SCO saying that there is infringing code, you are required to pay a license fee to them for your use of linux, without any proof.
I would call their handy 1-800 number to complain! 1-800-726-8649 Call and say that you believe thier practices are unacceptable - on thier dime!
My theory is that this is yet another golden age of slashdot trolling. Not since Jon Katz was writing regularly could someone get modded up for a post as off-topic, unimaginative, inflammatory, and whiny as "I don't want to read this. You guys suck!".
U.K. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain waving the "Peace in Our Time" document whereby Germany agreed to play nice in Europe and never to go to war with England again.
In 1938.
We all know what happened next.
Darl's "proof" probably has as much value as Neville's scrap of paper.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
The paragraphs of such things as e.g. building codes are obviously copyrightable in the US. "The association of a number and its specific meaning in a specific context" sounds pretty much exactly like paragraph numbers and their related meaning.
"Sorry, your building application is rejected under paragraph 14." "Can I get a copy of what paragraph 14 says, so I can correct it?" "No, it is copyrighted, you have to *buy* a copy." "And if I don't want to?"
As for the rest of the conversation, it'll go something like this (adopted from Douglas Adam's The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)
"But Mr. Dent, the building code has been available in the government office for the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well, as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the code was on display..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well, the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the building code, didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'"
Even so, while they'll have a much harder time copyrighting error codes, rather than complex building codes, there's no clear precendent you can point to and outright dismiss the claim. It'll be word against word until settled by a judge.
I know they wouldn't be copyrightable here (in Norway). But then again DeCSS is legal here as well. What's that? You claim we're hiding Osama here? Invade? Aiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!!
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
> If SCO published this UNIX source code, SCO itself
> would be in violation of these contracts.
Of course, SCO has already published some offending UNIX source code (in its opinion). Has it violated its confidentiality clauses?
If not, they're playing with words, most likely. "this UNIX source code" could just be a reference to the whole body of UNIX source code it got (has on loan) from Novell. If they published *the* UNIX source code, yes, they'd be in hot water.
Sorry if any of the above was vauge. SCO constant squirming and repositioning makes concrete statements as easy as nailing jelly to a tree.
The reason the big players haven't wanted to offer indemnification on SCO's terms is that it allows the possibility of SCO getting some money. Suppose IBM offered indemnification for its Linux users and one of those users -- without IBMs knowledge -- did something improper with UNIX and Linux. Depending on how the indemnification is worded, IBM could be on the hook for the legal judgement. IANAL, but I believe that the size of the judgement is often based on the defendant's ability to pay. SCO could wind up spending huge bucks in legal bills for chicken feed.
And the truly shocking part: it looks like Wall Street noticed. The story showed up in the newspapers around noon, so I figure the release must have happened a couple of hours before that. And look at what happened to SCO's stock right around ten.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Nevill Chamberlain was an honest persong thath allowed his hopes to cloud his judgment.
Darl, well, is Darl.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Actually I think you are correct about McBride but mistaken about Cretin who is essentially correct in his quote. If you assert something, such as Iraq has WMD and we must invade because of them or that Linux IP is tainted then it is your obligation to both justify the specific logic of your proof and the assumptions and premises on which it it based, including the machinery of your proof itself.
It would, for example, be totally erroneous, after having your proof of Fermat's last theorem rejected, to ask: "Well, if that wasn't good enough then what would be good enough?" That is your job as the one making the assertion. Any single flaw in logic or subtle unjustified assumption is sufficient grounds to toss a formal proof out. The person tossing it out is under no obligation to specify what might be an acceptable, only to be clear and correct on why yours specifically was not.
In Darl's case he has made an assertion (that Linux is IP tainted.) and puts the Open Source community in the position of proving that it is not. In fact, that is the very foundation of his argument is that open source must always prove that it is untainted against proprietary software and this is impossible.
And it's 100% provable. They are STILl distributing GPL code (the kernel) while claiming that the GPL itself isn't enough authority for people to run it.
Even IF SCO has some copyrighted bits in the kernel that they can prove they didn't place there, and didn't authorize, they still don't own all the OTHER millions of lines of code they didn't author...
Which they are STEALING for themselves to exclusively profit from if they insist that ONLY having their "Linux license" are you allowed to use it.
SCO lost all legal rights to that code the minute they declared their DISAGREEMENT with the GPL. The GPL alone gives anyone authority to copy, use, modify, redistribute any of the code in Linux.
To claim that the GPL is illegal, SCO is confessing to violating US copyright law, unless they have seperate agreements from EVERY copyright holder of that code!
This is why I think their threats to sue Google, or another Linux user over COPYRIGHT issues are complete FUD. They have shown their hand. They are going to pick out some of their OWN customers who licensed SCO Unix in the past and sue them for breach of contract for using Linux...
Very, VERY weak if you ask me.
SCO wants to stay the HELL away from copyright and stick to breach of contract (which is all the IBM suit is) but use those cases to "win" the copyright case in the court of public opinion (and thus defame all Linux people) because a court of LAW is the last place they want to have to answer for the fact that they themselves have pirated MILLIONS of lines of code illegally just by continuing to distribute Linux...
Corporatism != Free Market
Ahh yes, the silly idea that while someone lies to the media, perpetrates stock fraud, and threatens to kill open software, we should be seen to not only be polite, but friendly to them.
And this will show what? That we're out of touch with reality?
If SCO had showed a single piece of evidence that didn't in fact end up proving that their code derived from open source code, and if they didn't threaten to send bills for a product they don't have rights to, and if they didn't handle the case in a way calculated to cause the most damage to the free software movement, AND if they weren't doing it all the pump their stock price while they cash in, we might cut them some slack.
Considering Enron and Worldcom tanked already, SCO's the best choice for fuck-the-innocent-to-make-money award.
Not intended to be a troll, but why do people bother commenting that they don't like seeing SCO stories? I mean, if I don't like potato peelers, I don't hang out in the kitchen utensils aisle and reminding the customers of my beliefs.
Its very misleading. They don't really mean to say "I hate all these SCO stories". What they really mean to say is "I love to bitch about something, and the SCO stories are a great bandwagon to jump on".
I see all kinds of stories that are meaningless to me. As a matter of fact, MOST of the stories on slashdot are not of interest to me, but they are to others, and thats the idea, to appeal to a broad audience.
The SCO situation is one of the more important issues to ever face Linux, GPL and Open Source in general. Ever. While most of us have faith that the courts will see the light, we know that we can't take this for granted. (ie: OJ) This will hopefully answer lots of legal questions on Linux, and in the end, be to the benefit of Linux and the GPL. Even the people bitching know this.
My conclusion is very simple: They just want to bitch, and like many other llamas, they are just following yet more llamas, and using SCO stories as a target for their bitching. Since it takes 100x more effort to post and complain than to ignore, this is obvious.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!