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."
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,
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.
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.
Tomorrow, according to Groklaw.
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.
"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
And even then it'll probably be a few days before IBM can look over whatever SCO gives them tomorrow, and possibly some unspecified period after that before information about what 'it' is starts leaking out.
Breath-holding is likely to be ill-advised.
"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
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
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.
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).
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!
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
You have to be careful to interpret the law using the legal definition of derived work, not a vernacular definition.
A derived work contains material that is covered by copyright taken from another work.
Imagine I take some numbers from a table in your book to make a graph to put in my book. In a colloquial sense you might say my work is derived from yours, but it is not a derived work in the legal sense, because all I took was information, which is not protected under copyright law.
To justify a claim that Linux is a derived work, SCO would need to identify specific elements copied and show that these elements are protected by copyright law. In theory, non-literal elements in the design could be protected, but given the great variety of Unix-y operating systems that exist and the complicated history of their dissemination, it would be difficult to protect non-literal elements unless they exist uniquely in SysV.
Now, if the judge had written something to the effect of "I find that there is no enforceable copyright in the SysV code", any copyright claim based on that material would be immediately sunk. Since he didn't, such a claim would still be sunk, but it'd take more work to sink it.