ZDNet Examines SCO Indemnity Options

SCO Sues an End User by Mr.+Darl+McBride · 2004-02-21 15:52 · Score: 5, Funny

Alright. This doesn't really seem to be going the way we wanted. I mean, you said no to $690 a seat. You aren't willing to assign future Linux refinements to me and my posse. You wouldn't even read the brochure I worked so hard on, or cry uncle when I surprised you with a titty twister. And now you say you've called the police, and that's kind of harshing my mellow. I mean, that's a fine how-do-you-do for your good friend Darl!

Listen, I mean - maybe we can still settle this. I want what we're due... you want what's fair... look: I'm taking one... two... see? Two big handfuls of mints from the nice bowl on the reception desk... all good? Okay so far? Excellent. And I'm keeping my visitor's name tag, and I want on your Christmas mailing list. No? Okay... just the mints and the tag? Just the mints? Excellent.

Hey, look -- Jesus at the copier!!

CHRIS! Grab another handful of mints! Let's bolt!@!!1

~Darl

Re:SCO Sues an End User by c1ay · 2004-02-21 17:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Hey Darl, maybe you should try negotiating indemnity from /. before someone posts your phone number here again...

--

No mention of the claims' validity... by dartmouth05 · 2004-02-21 15:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Berlind makes no mention of the validity of SCO's claims--his argument is simply based on the existance of the lawsuits. That's like telling the manager of the local fast food franchise to give in to the mob's protection racket, because if you don't pay them off and your store gets trashed, you might get fired. Even if the local mob is two 12 year olds with nerf guns. It is idiotic to argue for imdemnification without analysing the threat posed by the SCO lawsuits. Anyone can file a lawsuit--it doesn't mean you should pay a 3rd party to indemnify you.

Re:No mention of the claims' validity... by Rimbo · 2004-02-21 16:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

Yup. More to the point, he's saying "Just because the opposition to SCO is bigger, louder, and carries the most-respected voices, doesn't mean they're right." He's technically right in that regard; just because Torvalds says they're on crack doesn't mean they can't win.

On the other hand:
1. The fact that the very rights they claim to have are in dispute,
2. The fact that it took them MONTHS to produce, even for the court, any evidence supporting their claims -- and even admitted that they didn't have all of the evidence they'd claimed to have,
3. The fact that their high-priced lawyer hasn't shown up to court in a while,
4. Other facts related to the case,

those DO suggest that this is bullshit, and that there's nothing to fear.

So yeah. Don't believe us because we're loud. Believe us because the evidence supports us.
Re:No mention of the claims' validity... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-21 16:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

So yeah. Don't believe us because we're loud. Believe us because the evidence supports us.

Don't underestimate the US court system. I'll believe you if and when SCO's last appeal is dismissed.
Re:No mention of the claims' validity... by raga · 2004-02-21 19:34 · Score: 5, Informative

Correct. IANAL (but I do have a couple of friend who are, and this is how they explained it to me). YMMV/VWPBL etc. etc.:

As long as the ownership of any property (in this case the UNIX IP) is under dispute between two parties in a court of law, then the end user of that property is under no legal obligation to listen to or believe in the claims of either of the parties. The end user is only obligated to the contract she entered into with the original party at the time she started using the property, until directed to do otherwise by the court.

E.g., A rents B a house, and B, in good faith, signs a contract with A to pay a certain monthly rent, gets the keys to the house and starts using it. A couple of years later, C shows up and tells B that the house actually belongs to C, and B should be paying rent to C and not to A. Then, A and C sue/counter-sue each other re. the ownership of the house, and a court starts to look at the matter. While the matter is sub-judice, (and without any clear directive from the court to put the rent in an escrow fund etc.), B is only obligated to follow the contract with A.

This is true especially if the matter is sub-judice. So the issue of indemnity is moot.

cheers- raga
Re:No mention of the claims' validity... by Citizen+of+Earth · 2004-02-21 22:06 · Score: 5, Informative

2. The fact that it took them MONTHS to produce, even for the court, any evidence supporting their claims -- and even admitted that they didn't have all of the evidence they'd claimed to have,

The real issue is that what evidence they have produced in court is simply pointing out a well-known fact: that IBM contributed code that IBM itself wrote into Linux. SCO doesn't even claim ownership of the code; they are just claiming that IBM was supposed to ask SCO before contributing it. SCO does not claim and cannot support that there is any System V code in Linux.

So, regardless of whether IBM contributed code improperly or not, there is no code in Linux that is a "derivative work" of any SCO property. The asking permission thing is a contract dispute between SCO and IBM and end users can't be held liable for that; nobody but IBM can. And it looks very much like SCO has no control over IBMs actions since (1) Novell has retained the control rights for existing Unix licensees, and (2) the AT&T license gave it no rights over licensees own code anyway.

Skipping to the conclusion... by antiMStroll · 2004-02-21 16:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

" Most companies using Linux (not including embedded Linux-based appliance makers, which could have more significant risk) could easily bury the cost of protection in their IT budget without anyone batting so much as an eyelash. But, you can't bury the damages in the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, or the pink slip that goes with them.

Basically, you have one question to ask yourself: How much peace of mind do you have now and how much more are you willing to spend for a little extra?

Others here have argued that the appearance of such warnings in the popular press - making Linux a risk - was part of SCO's intent all along. Don't know if they're right but the warnings are here.

Microsoft shill ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-21 16:02 · Score: 5, Informative

from Berlind's Bio ...
... Prior to that, he served as editor-in-chief of Windows Sources, where he led the magazine's push for exclusive coverage of Windows NT for business users.

http://www.wirelessenterprisesymposium.com/sympo si um/speakers/DavidBerlindBio.shtml

Sounds like permanent brain damage to me.

Ziff-Davis is a Microsoft shill. Their bias
is pretty transparent.

Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.

Same. Old. Story.

Re:Microsoft shill ? by WIAKywbfatw · 2004-02-21 16:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

As someone with more familiarity with Ziff-Davis than the average person (hint: in my time I've done more than just read what they've got to say), I can honestly tell you that the overwhelming majority of ZD staffers are less than enamoured by Microsoft and its business practices.

However, living in the real world, it's a bit difficult to run a series of IT publications without writing about Microsoft and its products given their dominance in both the enterprise and the consumer markets. ZD (or CNet, IDG, VNU, etc) ignoring Microsoft would be about as sensible as a mainstream movie magazine ignoring any Hollywood productions.

Frankly, I'm fed up with this "Ziff-Davis is a Microsoft shill" line. ZD has spent the last two decades writing about Microsoft (and other) products that run on Microsoft operating systems because that's what sells magazines. If Joe Average had wanted magazines about Unix instead then they would have written about Unix instead, but they didn't, so get over it.

And, finally, why you would be surprised that the editor of a publication called Windows Sources would "push for exclusive coverage of Windows NT for business users" is a mystery to me - would it make more sense to you to devote large chunks of coverage to other OSes in a magazine that's devoted purely to Windows? I guess you'll be demanding that Apple magazines now cover Linux too.

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Re:Microsoft shill ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-21 16:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

Frankly, I'm fed up with this "Ziff-Davis is a Microsoft shill" line.

Okay. You're fed up with it. Regardless,
it's true. I got fed up with Ziff-Davis
and stopped subscribing to PC Magazine.

ZD has spent the last two decades writing about Microsoft (and other) products that run on Microsoft operating systems because that's what sells magazines.

Used to sell magazines. ZD is in a big hurt
these days. You're also ignoring the other
side of equation : ad sales. ZD was notorious
for kow-towing the Redmond. IMHO ZD went out
of their way to attack Linux in the early days.
They tried to bury the baby in the cradle.
They're sill trying to kill it. ZD could have
had some balance and pemitted some criticism
of the advertizers ... but they didn't. That's
the big reason ZD is irrelevant now.

If Joe Average had wanted magazines about Unix instead then they would have written about Unix instead, but they didn't, so get over it.

Oh beleive me, I am over it. Who subscribes
to PC mag. anymore? Or Computer Shopper ?
Or Network Week? or whatever fad bandwagon
ZD tried to domesticate?

ZD would have been better of hedging their bets.
The ruined their credibility.

SCO Code in Linux by ksuMacGyver · 2004-02-21 16:06 · Score: 5, Funny

So is SCO claiming that their code is in the least safe operating system?

I can see why no one wants to pay $699 for it! ;)

--

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

Interested in AI? MACR

What did SCO buy--Unix or the Brooklyn Bridge? by IgD · 2004-02-21 16:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/mai n/What_did_SCO_buy.html

This was another garbage article by Berlind IMHO. Even if SCO did "own Unix" (which it does not!) The whole idea is irrelevant. None of "Unix" got put into "Linux". Even if a few lines out of millions got copied in the there, the concept of "de minimi" applies. Such as small amount is in there that it is irrelevant. Case closed.

A - Its ZDNET; B - Its an opinion piece by holy_smoke · 2004-02-21 16:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

'nuff said.

--
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?

Lame article... by GoMMiX · 2004-02-21 16:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Reading the same FUD crap over and over through 'normal' media outlets is really getting old.

Though, I must admit, this is probably one of the better FUD articles I've read. Rather, it takes a new approach...

"Hey, normal users don't need to worry - you're safe. It's the big companies that have to worry. Just forget about it, and let SCO do their thing."

I'm not sure -- but it appears to me that the article is somewhat geared towards telling normal Linux users to abandon concern for the SCO situation and let the corporations take it all on alone.

Perhaps a new FUD tactic attempting to break up the community?

Regardless, I have a headache after reading it. 99% of the information in that article I've read 20 times already - with the only exception being the articles strong attempts to alleviate any concerns that normal Linux users may have of being sued.

Re:One Interesting Paragraph... by pez · 2004-02-21 16:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

I was actually reading the article with great interest until I read the paragraph you quoted above. After that, thoughts of "how much is this writer getting paid to write this?" started dancing in my head.

indemnification or not... by perlchild · 2004-02-21 16:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

I found an interesting contradiction in this article... In one line he speaks of the defense fund for developers, and mentions they aren't likely to get sued. And in another he mentions Linus Torvalds and Andrew Morton by name as likely to get sued... Just who did he think they are? Another case of someone WAYYYYYYYYY out of their depth...

What he probably meant to say was "my intended audience of (frightful?) enterprise users of Linux are NOT developers, so they don't want to know who is gonna get sued, they only care if they are gonna get sued..."

I also found it odd(in the sense that it indicates his research was skewed as not to sound alarmist) that he spent so little time speaking about how vital a part of a proper support contract indemnity used to be (in Mainframe and Minicomputer environments, which aren't as plentiful now) and are now being forgotten because people think anyone MCSE can run what they call "a departmental server" on 2000$ hardware with no backup or redudancy... As for indemnification I always thought a good rule of thumb was if your computers systems total 50000$ of book value, or handle more than a million a year in money value, you should either get indemnification, or negotiate an equivalent value out of your support contract(equivalent to the indemnification, not the 50000)

If anything, we live in interesting times...

People are easily confused.... by ewe2 · 2004-02-21 16:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

by the complications surrounding indemifying Linux because they don't understand the nature of Linux distributions. Linux and a distribution are not the same, yet Berlind keeps confusing the two in the case of HP, Sun and IBM, even though two of them contribute code and the other offers Linux on its hardware via Red Hat; one of them is suing SCO and the other two are indemifying against SCO lawsuits.

I don't see anything wrong with Red Hat's position; the software business is after all a get-rich-quick-via-litigation arena these days, and they are a valid target. So I don't buy Berlind's arguments of a preemptive strike either.

I'm not arguing against indemnity per se, but, especially in reference to Linux, I don't think anyone really knows how to measure it as an insurance cost; the estimates are currently wildly high or low. There would be a high barrier to entry from most insurers point of view in any case, which is why the big companies do a lot of research and wait to be sued over a product rather than take out a policy and cross their fingers.

--
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer

American FUD by k4_pacific · 2004-02-21 16:21 · Score: 5, Funny

Some time ago, I posted this to Groklaw, I've since updated it some, so here it is again. It can be sung to the tune of Don McLean's "American Pie" (sort of). You'll have to excuse the scarcity of carriage returns in the below text. Slashdot would not allow me to post with them, saying the lines were too short. Anyway, enjoy!

A long long time ago, I can still remember how Unix used to be so great, tape drives were as big as cars for saving files, known as tars and perhaps, we could save it from its fate

But Richard Stallman surely shivered when Windows NT was delivered, with icons on the desktop and a flying toaster backdrop

But I can't remember if I cried such great relief I felt inside, we had IBM on our side the day Caldera died

*Bye Bye Mr. Darl McBride, claimed there's Unix in our Linux but we know that you lied, and them Redmond boys are cursing Samba and WINE, thinking this'll be the way that they die, this'll be the way that they die.

Did you use the kernel source? Well the GPL you can't enforce. Just because I said it is so, we'll sue you if you don't desist, its not a slap across the wrist and that's the FUD that's coming out of SCO

Well, he belongs in a prison cell, or in the fiery pits of hell, his name is Darl McBride, and he'll take you for a ride, his SCOsource license costs a grand, but no one's got one in his hand. We all told him to go pound sand, the day Caldera died, we were singin'
repeat *
Didio came to spread the FUD, and SCO was after Linus's blood, but that's not how its going to be, cuz PJ came and did her blog, and Darl I'm sure, that dirty dog, reads it all, quite religiously

In Las Vegas back in August, SCO tried hard, tried with earnest to prove Linux wasn't free, but they showed us BSD. We all laughed and we all reeled, when we observed what they'd revealed. So now they keep their claims all sealed, the day Caldera died, we were singin'
repeat *
Then they released some header files, and that left them on the tiles, cause the files contained not a line of code. You can't lay claim to 123, its just a number you can see, that simply tells the program how to load

It's public knowledge, for all to know, that's what was told by us to SCO, but did those fools believe it? They just could not conceive it. We own Unix and all the works, all its traits and all its quirks, and then they called us stupid jerks, the day Caldera died, we were singing
repeat *
And now they're suing Novell too. They'll sue me and they'll sue you. They're saying this in every place. They are fighting against our IBM, and fighting the owners of RPM, but they don't have a solid case

It's gonna bust its gonna break, investor's money they plan to take. Stock won't be worth a dime, and it will be a crime. Insider trading we'll all cry, Linux was just their alibi, Darl and Kevin the feds will try the day Caldera died, we're a singin'
repeat *
When times were dark and things were glum, Darl had Linux by the thumb. Someone had to save the day. But like an episode of Scooby Doo, PJ and friends all came through, and Linux is here to stay

But back in Utah, so it seemed, SCO did cry, and then they screamed. They couldn't match a token, no copyrights were broken, and the OS I admire most, is free to all, from coast to coast, and SCO is but a distant ghost, the day Caldera died, and we were singin'
repeat *

IANAL or a poet or a musician. So there.

--
Unknown host pong.

Re:American FUD by kfg · 2004-02-21 17:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Dear Sir,

I am a founding board member of the nonprofit corporation that acquired the rights to the coffeehouse in which Mr. McLean first performed American Pie. As such, in our opinion, American Pie is a derivative work of our orginization.

Please remit a check for $699 dollars to me immediately.

Oh, yeah. Make it out to "cash," 'K?

KFG

OMG this is funny (link) by holy_smoke · 2004-02-21 16:23 · Score: 5, Funny

Maybe not related but d@m funny! SCO street photo at Groklaw

--
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?

Let me get this straight.... by malchus842 · 2004-02-21 16:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

ZDNet is, effectively, advising their readership to pay protection money to SCO, in order to protect their image? Gee, that's a nice house you have there, be a shame if something happened to it. And those are nice kids you have...be a shame if something happened to them.

Give me a break. First of all, what are your chances of actually being sued by SCO? Fairly slim, I suspect. And even then, a simple motion that says "Your honor, Novell claims they have the copyrights to this material, and SCO is involved in legal process with them. Until such time as SCO can demonstrate that they actually own the property they are claiming, I move the case be placed on hold.

Second, so SCO sues you - I don't believe that they can win (see Groklaw for exhaustive details. You don't look bad to anyone except perhaps a few SCO or MS shills. Everybody else thinks you are a hero!

Finally, even assuming that SCO does own the copyrights, they still have yet to prove that any of their code is in Linux. That's what the IBM lawsuit is all about. And if you check the analysis on Groklaw, SCO is digging their own grave at warp speed.

Ziff Davis is being irresponsible and is givnig VERY bad advise.

Re:Let me get this straight.... by kfg · 2004-02-21 17:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

Give me a break. First of all, what are your chances of actually being sued by SCO? Fairly slim, I suspect. And even then, a simple motion that says "Your honor, Novell claims they have the copyrights to this material, and SCO is involved in legal process with them. Until such time as SCO can demonstrate that they actually own the property they are claiming, I move the case be placed on hold.

Nah, you don't even have to do that. Things are going roughly the way I predicted a while ago. SCO threatened Lehman Brothers and they responded, in essence:

"Dude, you got the wrong party. We use Red Hat. If you have issues with your IP in Red Hat you have to resolve them with them. Now run along."

Red Hat is the one to bring up the Novell issue. The end user is the lowest man on the precedence totem pole and you work up from there.

Oh, wait. Red Hat has already sued SCO. Go figure. Well, that settles it. The issue of SCO's IP in Red Hat is already before the court.

KFG

Re:A question for SCO. by nomadic · 2004-02-21 16:39 · Score: 5, Funny

I thought SCO avoided that pitfall by not having products anymore.

Compare with SCO's S-3 by Xenographic · 2004-02-21 16:40 · Score: 5, Informative

Take a look at this article from a week or two ago on Groklaw.

PJ compares SCO's worst case scenarios with those of RedHat, IBM & co.

It makes for much more interesting reading than many of the other legal filings I've read... Note how in that article, SCO describes quite a few ways in which its business could fold, compared to rather bland statements that something bad might happen in the off chance SCO ever actually prevailed with some bit of their case.

It's kind of fun to read all the various ways in which SCO might be liquidated, though. I wonder which of them will happen?

Re:RH ducks the punch by nomadic · 2004-02-21 16:42 · Score: 5, Funny

I don't know, after you reach a certain level of wealth the law teams even out. Both IBM and RH can afford to hire the best, no reason why IBM would be any more intimidating than RH.

Cultish?!?!? by OnBeyondBeing · 2004-02-21 16:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Mr. Berlind wrote that we open source-ers are 'cultish.'
That's ridiculous.
I say we hex him.

SCO Linux? by elusus · 2004-02-21 16:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

In that worst-case scenario, distributing any version of Linux without a license from SCO or 100 percent clean room-developed code would be illegal.

But Linux can't be distributed under any license but the GPL. So an SCO licensed "Linux" would contain no lines of Linux code outside the code in question. So the choices should SCO win are a clean room implementation or no legal Linux at all. This is precisely the kind of statement that people like the author use to cloud the issue, not clarify it.

The article does not by A+nonymous+Coward · 2004-02-21 16:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

The author avoids thinking about the case, and instead treats the outcome as a black box whose final outcome is too mysterious to even think about. This is not your standard contract dispute, this is SCO getting desperate. The proof of that comes in their laughable attempts to show any proof of stolen code, their continually varying claims, line counts going from millions to dozens, switching from contract to copyright claims, contradictions from one press release to the next, lying to the judge, idiotic remarks about the GPL being unconstitutional and a danger to national security ... no one who has a valid claim wanders over such a large map without ever getting to the point. SCO's behaviour is more like a drunken walk or Brownian motion. They have no goal except to keep walking.

Perhaps there is some doubt as to how much of the copyright Novell and SCO actually own, perhaps some of the finer points are in doubt too, but there are far too many clear cut lies from SCO, and that AT&T statement from 1985 really cuts the ground from underneath them.

Once you get that in perspective, the reason to not offer indemnification makes a lot more sense.

--
Infuriate left and right

Re:One Interesting Paragraph... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-21 16:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Another interesting question to be asking is whether paying said money actually protects you in any fashion from being sued by SCO. First off SCO has shown they are ready and willing to terminate interminatable licenses at any time with anyone. Second off SCO has shown great interest in trying to legally implicate even further anyone who gives them money. Witness their recent incident in which all SCO UNIX licensees recieved a letter saying "Certify to us you are not using any linux installations containing SCO code, or we will terminate your license".

It's like kidnappers. Show them you're willing to cooperate by handing over the ransom, they'll just ask for more...

Re:RH ducks the punch by c1ay · 2004-02-21 17:03 · Score: 5, Funny

It's really a moot point since SCO is a Dead End...

--

Rolling eyes by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-21 17:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

Another clueless hack with a word processor.

I guess most people realize this guy knows little about computers, and nothing about law, so his main claim to fame is...that he is a journalism major writing for Ziff-Davis? That means his rant is just a nicely worded Slashdot troll.

He writes like he knows something when in fact he's being completely uncritical of not only *fact* but recent events. Particularly how SCO's lawsuit has completely changec character and is now down to 60 lines of code that they claim were copied.

SCO's case is on its last legs, but he talks as if SCO is an aggrieved party looking for a little love.

Lets do some digging on this chump and see what other jems he is pushing on an unsuspecting public.

email to the author by hankaholic · 2004-02-21 17:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

I just sent an email to the author of the article:

In your article, "The SCO legal train: Know your options", you suggest that legal indemnification is something that end-users should be concerned with.

However, what you didn't explain is exactly what SCO could sue end-users for doing. As SCO continued to distribute the Linux kernel under the GPL even after filing suit against IBM, they really cannot argue that end-users are infringing upon their copyrights. After all, the GPL provides explicit permission to redistribute under certain conditions.

If end-users didn't actually break the law, SCO has no case against them. "They should have paid us" isn't a strong core argument for the prosecution unless law was actually broken.

What exactly do you believe that SCO can sue end-users for doing?

--
Cheers,
Chet

I'll post any response I get ;)

--
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!

Re:RH ducks the punch by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-21 17:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm curious if Ziff Davis offers indemnity to their readers in case of copyright violation. If they really believe an end user is liable for copyright infringement they really should be.

Mods,
This is both insightful and funny.

Fight Fire With Fire by femto · 2004-02-21 17:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

Not that I think SCO actually has more chance than a snowball in hell, but *IF* SCO happened to win, the the case would extended the definition of a derivative work to an extent never seen before.

This could open an avalanche for copyleft. It would mean any code which has ever been *near* any copylefted code would be owned by copyleft. Removing the copylefted code would be no remedy. The FSF would have field day chasing down all past GPL violators and any company which has even looked at GPL code (the majority, even if they won't admit it or actually used it?). The opportunity for retribution against the Darl McBrides of this world would be fantastic, and make others wish the SCO case had never happened.

Moronic Op piece by pavera · 2004-02-21 17:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

This piece completely forgets that SCO just removed all of the Unix is in Linux parts of their case, and now it is only that AIX and Dynix are in Linux, which SCO has no reason to believe they actually own, and if a judge finds that code developed by IBM and Sequent is actually owned by SCO well, I'll have to move to a different country, based on that ruling code developed using Microsofts MFC is owned by microsoft, code developed using Qt is owned by trolltech, and so on and so on...

Netware as GPL? IBM writing a clean kernel? by The+Good+Jim · 2004-02-21 17:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

He's a bit hard to take seriously -

- IBM urgently writing a 'clean' kernel, when they don't know what is tainted?

- Novell releasing NetWare as GPL? Who would migrate to NetWare simply because Linux was no longer an option?

Both of these silly suggestions imply people want to run Linux for its kernel - whereas most people have limited interest in the kernel, but want an OS to let them run applications.

The information on indemnification wasn't bad, but the legal advice is essentially "Stop and think - accidents can happen to you". FUD

Open source is cultish? My response.... by borgheron · 2004-02-21 18:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Dear Sir,

I would like to point out something:

"SCO is a tiny company in Utah, with opposition that includes some of the
largest companies in the world, millions of Linux users, and the leaders of the
cultish open source movement."

Why is it that anytime there is something in the world that doesn't fit a mold
which is familiar to the layperson it is considered "cultish"?

I like GNU/Linux because it helps me run my business and because of all of the
other advantages of open source and free software and because I dare to be
different and think that some ideas should be free and open to the public.
Our founding fathers believed this. Why is it so hard to convince people
these days.

I do not think that makes me a member of some cult. If it does, then this
country is truly in deep trouble when it comes to personal freedoms.

Aside from the glaring inaccuracies and omissions, which I won't bother to
point out since the refutation of most of what SCO has said is on the net for
all to see, you're article disappoints me because it resorts to this type of
name calling to prove it's point.

What most people interpret as "cultish behavior" is the love and the attachment
which Linux users have to the operating system that they have worked so hard to
create. This sentiment is prevalent in many other communities. Last time I
talked to a die hard windows fan, I could swear I was talking to a cult member. :)

Please remember, that by stereotyping an entire community, such as you have
done in your article, you seek to diminish it's voice.

Good day, GJC

=====
Gregory John Casamento -- CEO/President Open Logic Corp.

--
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep

Major flaw in this article by njdj · 2004-02-21 20:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

he does seem to have made more of an effort to try to find reasons to back up SCO's claims than any of their other supporters have.

He ignores the fact (admitted by SCO) that SCO distributed Linux under the GPL. That's one very good reason why his article is hogwash. Many people already have an SCO license ... and that license allows them to redistribute it without fee, to anybody.

So despite the author's attempt to sound serious, balanced, objective, responsible, etc: he's just another FUD merchant.

Re:RH ducks the punch by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-21 21:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Insightful? Who's modding this?

A legal defense fund for developers covers EVERYONE that legally can be sanctioned by the court for copyright infringement. Does that explain Red Hat's move better? A clear explanation follows.

There's one thing in these lawsuits that even a non-lawyer can understand that really nullifies the whole point of your article. If I sell you a newspaper with a plagiarized article and the newspaper contains a license that says the newspaper comes with no warranty, you know no one can legally approach you for more license money later, since you never committed a crime. No warranty is a standard contract clause to avoid blame for buggy software, but it can't shift blame for a crime. No license can shift that responsibility. Likewise, only the parties that inserted stolen code and the parties that distributed it can possibly be guilty in this case. Darl McBride is no lawyer and clearly speaks often about legal issues without consulting one. He thinks that because the community owns the software, that they also get to answer for crimes, but they don't own it, since that's not how copyrights work. That copyright and its IP liability rests solely with the software authors or the companies they work for if it's work for hire. If there is stolen code in the Linux kernel, Linus Torvalds can be sued and sanctioned, but Google can not unless they added SCO IP.

HP chooses to indemnify, since it's something their customers ask for without understanding that only the developers can be held liable. Their indemnification doesn't protect modified software, so it's not worth the paper it's printed on. It's a cheap ruse that looks like a selling point.

Secondly, SCO has failed to add copyright claims regarding Linux to their IBM lawsuit after they claimed they were, which is the loudest canary singing today. Their new copyright claims are about IBM's failure to stop shipping AIX instead. Their trade secret claims have gone missing too.

I don't doubt a frivilous lawsuit can be won. I do doubt that it can be won without a lawyer's legal reasoning by the plaintiffs. Just because they can easily confuse the media doesn't mean they can confuse a judge.

Slashdot Mirror

ZDNet Examines SCO Indemnity Options

40 of 368 comments (clear)