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 SCO feel so confident with the intellectual property foundation under their Linux kernel personality, then they should put their money where their mouth is and protect end users with true vendor-based indemnification for all 5 of its remaining UNIXWARE customers.
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".
By now I'm sure everyone now knows that entering "miserable failure" and clicking "I'm Feeling Lucky" on Google will bring them to a certain politician's homepage.. well if everyone reading this were to link "litigious bastards" to SCO's website on their webpages..
Ya never know
Trolling is a art,
Isn't today ShutUP or PutUP Day for SCO?
:o)
How long until we know how this shakes out in court?
do() || do_not();
The word proof never appears in the pr response. So I guess the quotes around proof in Greyfox's post are the hand-waving quotes, not the quote-unquote quotes.
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? ;)
The Scottish/Irish prefix Mc means "son of".
Son of.. the bride? It seems she has already given birth before the wedding ceremony. Which means the baby was born out of wedlock.
So it's obvious the CEO of SCO hails from a long line of bastards.
Woah, nobody must have pay the 699$ because they don't seem to be able to buy themselves a decent scanner so their exhibit would be readable!
Montreal - Best city to live in!
No, see, you misread their site. They aren't claiming to own errno.h. That is there official statement - as in:
IBM: Show us the infringing code.
SCO: Um, well, Err..... NO!
ThisIsAnExampleAccountGL@yahoo.com
Look how Darl has aged, this has clearly taken its toll.
Help fight continental drift.
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.
To: OSDL Staff [abuse@osdl.org]
Subject: A message from his majesty.
To whom it may concern,
Now you have done it. I am not amused and if you don't quit defending yourselves, I'll say it again! Also, out of frustration, I kicked my pekinese cat and refused to feed Chriss Sontag and Laura DiDio. I hope you are happy with the pain and suffering you are causing!
Love, Darl.
PS,
Call me!
Hate me!
"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
"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."
n el&m=107 212616605523&w=2
This is not SCO proof, I couldn't find any either, but proof that SCO is laying claim to code they did not write:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-ker
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
Signed,
Darl McCosby
SCO has interesting FAQ over here. It seems to me it contains several points I haven't read before.
--- Frantisek Fuka (Yes, that's my real name and you have no idea how it's pronounced)
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.
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.
Novell Inc. has decided to follow Hewlett-Packard Co.'s lead and indemnify its enterprise Linux customers against possible legal action by The SCO Group and/or others
More at:
eWeek
Your mom always said, a PB&J is better than nothing, and God is nothing, is a PB&J better than God?
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.
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.
With the whole errno.h "proof" and the binary license they are selling, arent you technicaly paying for the right to use the numbers 1-124?
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).
So, basically you can't rebutt the claim since you can't see the source...and you can't see the source until you can't rebutt the claim (via NDA).
Has anyone contacted the ghost of Joseph Heller about this?
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 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.
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!
Its even worse. The Mc prefix means "son of". Now what does the name Bride, from gaelic, mean? "From Brighid, a hostage, pledge, or security." Fits Darl's reign at SCO pretty well.
A careful search of my source libraries revealed this:
/* (c) SCO/AT&T */ ...
/* _POSIX_SOURCE */
#ifndef _SYS_ERRNO_H_
#define _SYS_ERRNO_H_
#ifndef KERNEL
#include
__BEGIN_DECLS
int * __error __P((void));
__END_DECLS
#define errno (* __error())
#endif
#define EBULLSHIT 666
#endif
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
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.
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