FSF Subpoenaed by SCO

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thursday May 20, 2004 @06:09AM from the you-can't-make-this-stuff-up dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Bradley M. Kuhn on the FSF website: Late last year, we were subpoenaed by SCO as part of the ongoing dispute between SCO and IBM. Today, we made that subpoena available on our website. This is a broad subpoena that effectively asks for every single document about the GPL and enforcement of the GPL since 1999. They also demand every document and email that we have exchanged with Linus Torvalds, IBM, and other players in the community. In many cases, they are asking for information that is confidential communication between us and our lawyers, or between us and our contributors."

23 of 432 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

In many cases, by Threni · 2004-05-20 06:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

> In many cases, they are asking for information that is confidential communication
> between us and our lawyers, or between us and our contributors."

See JYA at Cryptome for how to deal with this sort of thing.
1. Re:In many cases, by jdreed1024 · 2004-05-20 06:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  or between us and our contributors.
  Why is that special in the eyes of the law? (seriously - the blurb does not make it clear) Attorney-client confidentiality, sure. Medical professional confidentiality, fine. Developer-packager confidentiality? I don't think so. Unless these are confidential for some other reason. Stamping "confidential" on it, doesn't make it confidential. That's kind of the point of subpoenas.
  Or am I missing something?
  
  --
  There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
Non issue by Jailbrekr · 2004-05-20 06:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

So lawyers are petitioning for confidential information from other lawyers, knowing it is confidential?

Why, preytell, have there been no petitions to have SCOs lawyers disbarred yet?

--
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
1. Re:Non issue by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · 2004-05-20 09:06 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I work in an R&D facility for a global leader in medical diagnostics.
  
  My "What the *#*$ were you thinking?" stamp was purchased back when I was part of the management team that processes individual awards for superior performance. We used to get award applications stating things like "John Smith came to work *every* day this week and was *on time* every single day. I think he deserves a $1000 award for his stellar performance." That's really not much of an exageration, either. Now I use it when reviewing requirements documents and just stamp it anywhere that needs it before returning the document to the orginator.
  
  The other rubber stamp was purchased when I was the project leader for a common cable that would link many of our various medical devices to a PC. We were suddenly hit with a patent lawsuit for a reagent chemistry that was similar to the one used in one of our devices and the lawyers started demanding every single sheet of paper that had the product name of the possibly infringing product on it (we won that battle, btw).
  
  Since my cable project had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the chemistry formulation in question, but DID talk to the medical device that used the formulation in question, I was told by the attorneys that I would need to submit all documentation that contained that particular product's name anywhere in it.
  
  That same day I got a copy of a catalog from NIC that specializes in selling badges and fake IDs (and I still don't know how I got on that particular mailing list) and they had these government surplus rubber stamps, including the one I bought.
  
  I bought the rubber stamp, started stamping the cover page of all my documents and then scanned in the image of one page and e-mailed it to our attorneys and told them that all of my documents were thusly stamped and as such, no longer existed, so I would not bother to submit them.
  
  I never heard back from the lawyers and never did have to submit my docs.
  
  Oh, and have you seen my stapler?.... why, I oughta burn this place to the ground...
  
  --
  A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
Past the deadline? by sphealey · 2004-05-20 06:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

5 months past the deadline and FSF is just posting this? Seems as if there is some agenda here...

sPh
SCO attempting to prove selective enforcement? by Aumaden · 2004-05-20 06:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

IANAL, but that's my take from reading the subpoena. It looks to me like Darl & company may be trying to assert that the GPL is void because it's not being enforced. And, its use against SCO is a special case.
1. Re:SCO attempting to prove selective enforcement? by Short+Circuit · 2004-05-20 06:46 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The way I read the situation, SCO thinks the FSF tracks the [lack of] enforcement of the GPL. If the FSF does track such things, it's likely that they wrote analysis essays on why, and what the effect on the overall public attitude towards the GPL is.
  
  --
  tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
2. Re:SCO attempting to prove selective enforcement? by JGski · 2004-05-20 07:41 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Neo-cons (which I think Daryl, et al. easily qualify as) have a pathological blindspot that sees human behavior only occuring due to some Real Politik control. It's sort of a conspiracy theory of human sociological behavior. The concept of emergent systems and behaviors are impossible in their dogma. It's pathetically Newtonian in a way. "God" or "god" (as in human leader) as the one and only watchmaker.
  You see it here. You also see it in US foreign policy - Bush, et al., seem to believe it's not possible that terrorism could simply occur out of a Heisenberg-like generation from the world soup of discontent; the fact is, it trivially can!
Confidential? by MisterBad · 2004-05-20 06:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

Why would communication between FSF and its contributors be confidential?

--
Evan Prodromou | evan@prodromou.name | http://evan.prodromou.name/
1. Re:Confidential? by twofidyKidd · 2004-05-20 07:13 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  If you are a linux user and you contributed to the FSF in the form of a donation, that's a communication, complete with any information you may have provided to the FSF including, but not limited to, your home address, phone number, age, name, etc. Do you want SCO to have that information? Wouldn't you consider that confidential?
  
  --
  
  Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
Yikes. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-20 06:18 · Score: 0, Interesting

The subpoena is pretty concerning in itself, but the fact that they were legally banned from talking about it until now is totally scary. It's totally like the PATRIOT Act, but it's imposed by a corrupt software company instead of the FBI. Da fuck?

I'm selling my K5 account "James A C Joyce" on eBay.
Confidentiality by VBJonC · 2004-05-20 06:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

"In many cases, they are asking for information that is confidential communication between us and our lawyers, or between us and our contributors." Where subpeonas are concerned, you may have confidentiality with your attorney, but certainly not with your contributors.

--
VBJonC
Re:Overburden them by dprovine · 2004-05-20 06:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

I understand from my attorney friends that giving people a zillion documents is known as `papering them over'. A prosecutor of my acquantance tells me that well-designed subpoenas try to avoid the situation where you end up with 23 pallet loads of paper.

What that says to me is that SCO's lawyers have specifically asked to be papered over, so as to have lots more billable hours for the time spent reading all the irrelevant paperwork.

It's possible, in fact, that they'll bill for 500 hours of reading these papers when they don't bother to read any of it at all; how would SCO prove that they didn't do it?
Harassment by nuggz · 2004-05-20 06:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

Can someone legally harrass a third party in this matter?

For many individuals and companies the cost of complying to such a demand is excessive, the threat of such might be enough to settle a case.
it's interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-20 06:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

the first line baxically invalidates the entire thing.

It asks for documentation concering UNIX based systems. Isn't Linux a UNIX like system.
Re:Overburden them by mfago · 2004-05-20 06:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

In a related tactic, I recall that SCO complained that IBM provided them AIX source code on CD -- but concatenated as one 800MB file per disc. True? IBM seemed to be above that...

While SCO's lawyers may be looking to increase billable hours, methinks it's more of a delay tactic and fishing expedition.
SCO Funds FSF! by Quila · 2004-05-20 06:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

"...will reimburse you for all reasonable duplication costs."

Going off a standard schedule for copy costs and associated labor ("reasonable") would still be an awful lot of money since we're talking likely hundreds of thousands of documents here, but probably more money than FSF would actually need to produce the documents. If an accounting is required of billable hours for those getting the docs together, hire OSS programmers who could use some extra cash. Therefore, this could in the end be a large donation by SCO to the FSF and OSS programmers.
Too Much Data Might be what they want by Linus+Sixpack · 2004-05-20 07:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

Given their delaying tactics they might love to be given too much data.

Aside from the question of who eventually will get that data ie invisible backers, they seem to be abusing the trial as a way to get press not justice.

Whatever intelligence they can collect for their backers is probably gravy, and if they can gain a delay based on its volume that must suit them fine.

Besides when you know there won't be proof you can use its easy to disregard stacks of paper.

Perhaps they could hire the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution to make grand pronouncements without the burden of the facts.
Re:Overburden them by AsimovBesterClarke · 2004-05-20 07:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

> how would SCO prove that they didn't do it?

Oh come on. I had this one figured out in what? 11th grade. Turned in an American History term paper with a footnote which read:

14. If you read this, check this box: [ ] and you will recieve a beverage (malt or otherwise) of your choice.

Needless to say, the box was not checked, and as the paper had been filled with sufficient BS to make it sail down the hall to the A pile [1], I recieved an A on said paper. On the other hand, since I wasn't on the basketball team, I only recieved a B for the class.

[1] time honored method for grading papers: Mark out the hall with sections for A, B, C, D, and E with A being farthest away, E being closest. Throw the papers down the hall (option: either all at once or individually). The ones which travel the farthest are A's, those closest recieve E's.

--
Ads are broken.
On the importance of GPL and FSF by BinLadenMyHero · 2004-05-20 08:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

My favorite part of the FSF letter:

In addition to answering and/or disputing the subpoena, we must also educate the community about why it is that Linux was attacked and GNU was not. For more than a decade, FSF has urged projects to build a process whereby the legal assembly of the software is as sound as the software development itself. Many Free Software developers saw the copyright assignment process used for most GNU components as a nuisance, but we arduously designed and redesigned the process to remove the onerousness. Now the SCO fiasco has shown the community the resilience and complete certainty that a good legal assembly process can create. (SCO, after all, eventually dropped their claims against GNU as a whole and focused on the Linux project which, for all its wonderful technical achievements, has a rather loose legal assembly process.)
Reply:In many cases, it is a fishing trip ... by OldHawk777 · 2004-05-20 08:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

SCO has finally gone fishing nuts.

Just me, from when I started my archives in 1987, for email and personal/work files (with some whoops redundancy).... I have a little over 10G [lots of pictures, some text, a few corrupt files, and I know there must be a couple ancient MS-DOS and/or CP/M viruses entombed for posterity].

If they want everything from FSF/GNU/RMS/EmployeeA-z/ContactA-Z/.... They could be fishing for years, and catch a few interesting zip-null files for all their efforts. Those folks at SCO must be getting sustenance from a deep-pockets source for these fishing expeditions, because they are wasting everyone's time ... time ... time ... will the FSF Foundation ever get reimbursed for all the time spent from a company that will just file bankruptcy when needed.

Maybe that is it, they are trying to bankrupt the FSF foundation by having everyone working at the FSF for nothing and costing time and money ... over months and years. That guy at SCO he ain't smart enough for such tactical/strategic thought ... I wonder who the real software boss is?

I will continue to make ($20-$200) donations to FSF and others, but I will continue to keep it all hand2hand without receipts or tax benefits. I don't got time or money for SCO to get me or maybe the US software Gestapo that went after that nice Georgia Cracker lady that protects the USA Constitution, Democracy, and voting ....

I may be paranoid, but I can see it coming ... $30 for everything copied and shipped ... sounds like they may want to know exactly which trash-dump FSF's trash was tossed in for the past decade. Then, maybe, next year SCO will ask FSF and RMS to deliver the trash dump to SCO.

"Reality is a self-induced hallucination." [Anyone know who owns this line?]

OldHawk777

--
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Re:Nothing to hide? by arcanumas · 2004-05-20 09:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

Here in Greece it is illegal for the IRS (the Greek version obviously) to even *touch* your computer, let alone take it.
They alway tell someone "show us this" and "Show us that".
this is because you can claim that they tampered it, in an effort to harm/collect more/frame you/whatever.
I know this because both my sisters are acocuntants and they've been taught this at the University.
I do not know what the situation is with the police, however, but i assume that similar reasoning would apply.

--
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
Re:Yes. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-05-20 11:16 · Score: 1, Interesting

I for one have never quite understood your paranoia about the government.
Well...just take a look at what our government is doing in our name - it should be clear why we don't trust them.
I'm paranoid of the government because I do not own or work in a high level of a major corporation, hence the government and I are on different teams.