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."
While some people are tired of the daily (hourly?) SCO update, I, for one, am not. This is a fascinating story and the first true (iirc) challenge to the open source movement. The outcome is much more important than the future of Linux, or even OSS in general. If you're tired of the stories, filter them out.
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
Isn't today ShutUP or PutUP Day for SCO?
:o)
How long until we know how this shakes out in court?
do() || do_not();
Call me crazy, but isn't that basically what the legal defense fund is? Vendor-based indemnification usually == the vendor will pay legal fees etc. if you wind up in court for using product X. Considering OSDL is technically a linux "vendor" (i.e. they "manufacture" portions of the "product" and distribute it....) and since the OSDL is basically a community figurehead type operation and Linux is a community project.... you can tell where I am going with this right? ;)
Why can't we all just find an automated form to sue SCO for violating the GPL? There's got to be one online these days with all the lawsuits.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
Cheers,
Craig
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
An interesting study in two very different we PR campaigns. I saw on cnn.com that the stylish Stewart site Martha Talks has gotten like 6,000,000 visitors. SCO's ugly-ass site, with jagged-aggressive "source" font, makes my insides burn.
I believe that Martha will eventually be proven innocent, and that SCO will ultimately be scraped from the bottom of this giant shoe we call earth.
Which raises the question:
Does lime green vindicate?
I believe it may.
<stay on topic>Nobody "owns" free software</stay on topic>
I have a plan. Using mainly spoons, we'll tunnel our way out of the city...
I don't get it? Isn't the legal fund a type of indemnification? What kind of indemnification do I get from any software company? As far as I can tell it only protects me from being sued if I follow their license. What if they sold me something they had no legal right to sell? Akin to me buying a stolen radio. Aren't I screwed here when the licensed is deemed invalid in the courts? And when was the last time you got a software vendor to warrant their product for a particular use. Or what about lost revenue due to defects in the product? All this talk about indemnification seems like a distraction technique to me.
With respect to SCO's claims on errno.h, perhaps copyright historians/experts can help me out here:
Since when did the association of a number (e.g. 12) and its specific meaning in a specific context (EACCES: Permission denied when accessing a file) become copyrightable?
Does this mean I can assert copyrights over /etc/X11/rgb.txt?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
They claim to own System V, but give no evidence regarding linux ownership.
They do indeed claim System V. They also claim that this ownership (in the form of copyright to the source code and design, I believe) automatically extends to all works derived in part or whole from System V.
Unless System V == Linux
This means that according to their claim, Linux in fact does not have to be the same as System V, it only has to be derived from it for them to have ownership of (part of) the Linux source code.
IANAL, but it seems to me that this claim of derivation is extremely tenuous. But copyright law does recognize the general notion of derived works, so its just possible that they are right about this. It will take a court - and probably several appeals courts - to decide this.
Even if they did establish that their copyright of System V gave them rights to derived works in the way they are claiming, I suspect they would also need to separately show that Linux was derived from System V in that way.
Again, their claim is not so much that specific blocks of code have been copied from their codebase into Linux, but that the general specifications and design (as well as code) of System V is present in Linux. If they are right about this then recoding specific infringing code may not be enough to satisfy the courts.
I suspect their case is deeply flawed, but it does seem at least based in a reading of the law.
Sailing over the event horizon
Gotta love #6 and #45:
6. Why doesn't SCO just simply publish this code so that it can be taken out of Linux if it is indeed infringing? And why do you require a non-disclosure agreement to view some of this infringing code?
Intellectual property forms the basis of the value of any software vendor. IP is confidential throughout the industry to protect competitive advantages one vendor has over another. Other industry vendors such as Microsoft and Apple do not routinely contribute their IP as vendors spend millions of dollars creating a competitive market.
SCO has confidentiality clauses in all of our contracts with more than 6,000 licensees that specifically state that this UNIX source code has to be held in confidence. If SCO published this UNIX source code, SCO itself would be in violation of these contracts.
SCO has a legal obligation to hold this source code in confidence, so it requires that individuals who view this code sign a non-disclosure in order to see it.
#45
. I am running BSD. Am I required to purchase a license?
No, you do not need to purchase a SCO IP license to run BSD.
Not to troll, but I'm curious why somebody using XP strictly for gaming would shell out the extra $$$ for XP Pro vs. XP standard/home?
This Yahoo! message post does a good job of breaking down the SCO press release. There is a simple rule when it comes to reading SCO press releases and public statements. They're communicating on two levels at the same time.
First is the perception level. This is what you're supposed to get the feel of when you read the statements. The second is the literal/factual level, which is far less impressive, and what keeps the SEC and other agencies off of their butt. But most people don't read at this level. It is *fun* when you do!
In short, the art of lying while telling the truth. You'll see it in the Yahoo! posting.
The release from SCO notes, "SCO's intellectual property is being found in Linux."
How should that be read? Does that mean that, "It is being worked on, and it is currently being found..." Which would explain the lack of evidence shown to date.
Or is it more of an anomaly, like "Really good prizes are being found in Cracker Jack boxes" ?
Oh my, have I dated myself by mentioning Cracker Jacks?
So does it actually work if almost all of the links to litigious bastards are located on the same web site? Wouldn't it be better if people started adding them to the blogs and personal or business sites?
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
According to http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=ftp.sco.c om, SCO is
running its FTP site using SCO Unix. However, I FTP'ed the site to see for
sure:
>ftp ftp.sco.com
Connected to ftp.sco.com.
220 ftp.caldera.com Ready.
User (ftp.sco.com:(none)): anonymous
331 Anonymous login ok, send your complete email address as your password.
Password:
230- Welcome to SCO's FTP site!
This site hosts UNIX software patches, device drivers and supplements
from SCO.
To access Skunkware and Supplemental Open Source Packages, please
connect to ftp2.caldera.com.
230 Anonymous access granted, restrictions apply.
ftp> cd bin
250 CWD command successful.
ftp> ls
200 PORT command successful
150 Opening ASCII mode data connection for file list
zcat
gzip
ls
tar
226 Transfer complete.
ftp: 21 bytes received in 0.00Seconds 21000.00Kbytes/sec.
ftp> get gzip
200 PORT command successful
150 Opening ASCII mode data connection for gzip (142512 bytes)
226 Transfer complete.
ftp: 143032 bytes received in 1.08Seconds 132.68Kbytes/sec.
ftp> quit
221 Goodbye
Examination of the gzip executable with the strings command reveals that it
contains the string:
@(#) The Linux C library 5.4.22
As well as the text of the standard "NO WARRANTY" header found in
GPL source files.
So, apparently their FTP site is running Linux, but they are hiding that fact
with deceptive http headers (or whatever it is that netcraft uses).
I still do not understand how SCO can threaten companies with a copyright infringement without first testing their claim in court.
If this is legal then what would stops Joe Schmoe from claiming they had input in some book on the top best seller list and start walking around threating BN and Amazon or anyone who bought the book. Why not since there is nothing to lose and maybe they will pay off.
But copyright law does recognize the general notion of derived works, so its just possible that they are right about this.
;-)
Well, this is still seems to be mostly U.S. problem.
In Finland - and I think in many other European countries too - the copyright law does not know about derivative works; you can draw Donald Ducks here without paying any royalties for Disney, as long as the stories are your own.
So maybe Linus should just return home to Helsinki and mail Darl that your law doesn't apply to me.
But well... I sorta agree that claiming Linux illegal in U.S. could somewhat disturb its development...
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
Right now, googling for litigious bastards takes you to an anti-Metallica page. So maybe this link to Metallica will help?
45. I am running BSD. Am I required to purchase a license?
No, you do not need to purchase a SCO IP license to run BSD.
Veeery...interesting....
The actions of these vendors today doesn't change the fact that SCO's intellectual property is being found in Linux. Commercial end users of Linux that continue to use SCO's intellectual property without authorization are in violation of SCO's copyrights. SCO continues to publicly show evidence of this infringement.
A post at Linux Daily news had an interesting take. Sentence one makes a true statement because we all know SCO (as Caldera) contributed to the kernel. Sentence 2 is also a true statement as using intellectual property without authorization would be inviolation fo SCO's copyrights. Sentence 3 says SCO continues to show proof of infringement which since there is no infringement is nothing. Therefore, SCO has put together a series of true statements that sound ominous, but actually are harmless.
Legal fund: We have this much money to defend you with. I hope it's enough.
Indemnification: We take full responsibility. Any legal action will come completely though us, no matter the cost.
You can see why not very many companies do it.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
While I see hints of Yossarian all over this, isn't it entirely feasible for a kernel developer to sign an NDA with SCO, create new code to eliminate the infringing pieces, and then release the new code into the kernel. In theory, they wouldn't be breaking the NDA by doing this.
Although you could count on SCO trying to sue because the developer "revealed the infringing code by the very fact that he removed it, people can go back through and see what was changed and thus have SCO's intellectual property"
I wonder how McBride would react if Linus asked to sign an NDA with SCO?
Not really. The most interesting parts of system V have been through an industry standard process where representatives of ATT, Novell and SCO/Caldera were present. If they attempt to put any claims to anything that has gone through that process they are up to the same serious shafting as RamBus(t).
Actually, it is interesting that IBM did not put this in their counterclaims. Possibly they are holding that one in reserve just in case SCO wins. Because, then it will be burried by the entire industry. After all about 10% of the fortune 500 had people in various POSIX groups. Basically, if SCO wins, it will lose because courts will declare the money uncollectable as in the Rambus case.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
While searching on the net, I came across this report (PDF form) by Dr. Stephen Lesavich, entitled, "Patent Enforcement: Extortion, Shakedown, Blackmail or the American Way?" It's a pretty interesting report. It outlines what the author calls the standard "Patent Enforcement Business Model" which seems to be what SCO is engaging in now, and cites other entities such as PanIP and Techsearch LLC who have also engaged in this kind of activity.
The author is an IP attorney, so you can imagine that the report ultimately has the lawyeresque resolution of, "Don't ignore any request - speak to an attorney" but it still reveals a lot of insight and info into the dynamic at play here.
What I find most troubling about this are some of the figures cited in the report:
From 1991 to 2000 there was a 48% increase in patent suits. I'd estimate that there were probably as much in the most recent three-year period as in the previous nine.
Average cost to prepare an answer to a suit is $250,000.
83% of these cases never come to trial.
Many people may not realize that it's much more likely that SCO will settle and this case may never come to trial, in which case SCO will have accomplished its objective of putting a dark cloud over Linux and continuing to extort unproven licensing fees from various users.
I don't know if there is, but there should be A CONDITION placed upon the donations and use of this fund so that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN THE MONEY BE USED IN A SETTLEMENT. We need to push for this trial to go all the way and not wuss out near the end, which would be a victory for SCO.
Hacking articles at http://www.geocities.com/chroo
If SCO feel so confident with their intellectual property claims, then they should put their money where their mouth is, and guarantee to refund all licence fees if (when) SCO looses the case.
Linus Blasts SCO's Header Claims
-- listen to interesting music, support independent radio... WPRB
Google isn't some little midget. They are a huge octopus, that can come up from the deep and drag most anything to its doom and their tentacles go everywhere. They are popular and well liked by many millions of people and have similar powers to a large media outlet, and as such they have the power to mount a very effective smear campaign of their own. If SCO attacks Google and Google calls them a bunch of punks and smacks them up side the head it will look very bad for SCO. Google calling SCO a thief will make the nightly news and maybe even get attention of the attorney generals and lawmakers. Any Wall Street firm that wants a part of the upcoming Google public offering will be severely pissed if SCO messes with the $billions they could make. If SCO wants to get eviscerated, they should pick on Google.
This issue was already addressed in Apple v. Microsoft. Apple claimed to hold a copyright on the "look and feel" of the interface. They court disagreed claiming the look and feel is a mechanical aspect that is better represented by patents.
The errno.h files, etc. define an interface. If anything that uses that interface is a derivative work, then all software built on a library is a derivative work of that library. Such an interpretation would mean that any Windows software would be a derivative of Windows. No doubt Microsoft would love such a ruling, but such a claim is ridiculous.
On the other hand, if the court rules that using an interface does not constitute a derivative work, then the GPL loses a great deal of its muscle -- effectively turning it into the LGPL. No matter how the court rules on this issue, it is a win for Microsoft.