Slashdot Mirror
FSF Subpoenaed by SCO
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."
> 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.
At least they got a check for $30 out of it!
Will RMS testify in his St. Ignucius costume.
Why didn't they ask for internet histories and newsgroup postings made as well? This sounds like they're grasping for straws when they don't even know what straw to look for. It sounds like harassment more than a subpoena.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
I say you should download every mail list, usenet archive, and online discussion group, then print it all out on 10,000 pages. Throw in RFCs and source code to bulk it up a bit.
_______
2B1ASK1
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
IANAL, but is this legal? Don't they have to somehow prove that the documents they're asking for have some relevance to their argument?
Furthermore, what exactly is their argument? Is it still that Linux contains SCO code? How would documents about "enforcement of the GPL" prove existence of SCO code?
OMG! Wau!
Assure them that you have the documents they, and also that you have undeniable proof of the documents. Refuse to provide them, on ground that it would violate agreements you have with certain parties (don't mention who these parties are).
If all else fails, claim that you cannot provide the documents because it is a matter of national security.
2003 was a very good year for learning new stonewalling techniques...
$8.95/mo web hosting
Related docs which could make the subpoena irrelevant: Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintoff IBM's Memorandum In Support of its Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgement on its claim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement (phew).
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.
Its pretty obvious what SCO's trying to do here. This had one of two objectives:
Why would communication between FSF and its contributors be confidential?
Evan Prodromou | evan@prodromou.name | http://evan.prodromou.name/
Now is the time to support the FSF, so they can fight this thing. It'd be awful if they had to give out private emails and other communication.
Become a member of the FSF and support them financially. (I am already a member). You can also send anonymous donations, or buy something from GNU Press.
The law firm misspelled their own name in the subpoena: "Boise Schiller & Flexner".
Shoot, they nearly asked for everything but the birth certificates of FSF members.
They are essentially asking for *anything* that might be related to the GPL, the companies that use it, people that write under it, enforcement, etc, including written communications, memo, documentation, etc.
No sig
besides letting the free software/open source community know what SCO is stooping to? maybe the FSF lawyers told them not to release the contents of the subpoena until they were certain of any legal actions they had to take.
agendas maybe. not all agendas are bad.
The documents are just getting posted, but IBM has just filed a "Cross-motion for partial summary judgment on claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement." They are asking for summary judgment on IBM's "Tenth Counterclaim." This is the counterclaim in question:
IBM is entitled to a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U. C. 9 2201 that IBM does not infringe, induce the infringement of, or contribute to the infringement of any SCO copyright through its Linux activities, including its use, reproduction and improvement of Linux, and that some or all of SCO' s purported copyrights in UNIX are invalid and unenforceable.
The docs are just starting to get up but you can follow the discussion on the Yahoo SCOX message board.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
Dear FSF,
All your documents are belong to us. Here's 30 bucks to cover your copying costs (in case you didn't get that this is a big "fuck you", let us clarify that for you - "FUCK YOU"). Toodle-oo!
Yours truly,
Your buddies at Dewey, Stickham and Howe
SCO is screwed by their own admission
Quote
SCO has advised the court that it has provided complete and detailed responses to the Court's orders. If that is true, then summary judgement is appropriate because SCO has no evidence of IBM's alledged infringement (as SCO has adduced none). If it is not true, then summary judgement is appropriate because SCO has not only defied two orders of the Court, but it has also falsely certified that it has provided complete, detailed and thorough answers to IBM's interrogatories and the Court's orders. Either way, the Court should forthwith enter summary judgment in favor of IBM.
Help fight continental drift.
"lack of best practices in the Open Source community."
The ONLY organization who follows best practices as I can tell, proprietary or open-source, is GNU.
I mean, honestly, in how many businesses do you think lawyers review code written by internal employees to verify that the code they include is original. How might one validate that, anyway? If someone is copying from a private archive, it would be impossible to tell, because it's private.
Anyway, open-source in general is the best about this, because the source code is available for third-party examination. So, if you feel someone might be infringeing on you, no need for lawyers or subpeonas, just check the code from the website!
With proprietary software, if someone is infringing, you have to subpoena the source code just to verify it, and you wind up with significant amounts of egg on your face if you are wrong.
Engineering and the Ultimate
1) principle
2) cost
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
At the hearing: "Your honor, it was addressed to whom it may concern. None of us were particularly concerned, so we trashed it."
As an alternative, they could just send backup tapes of the hard drives off of every server which FSF earns, and let Boies and company figure out how to extract the data. Extra points for using an obscure/obsolete tape format.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Read the document, it's data November 2003
This is online as a historical document, not as a new summons. Complience with it is now a moot point (unless there was something really freaky going on that we're not aware of), given they were due by 21st Nov 2003.
For the same reason that you don't let the police seach your house for no reason. After all, you have nothing to hide, what's the danger.
Can we search that computer for kiddie porn? You have nothing to hide, right? Call us in a month to see if our technicians are done searching, and where you can pick up your computer.
Have you ever been drunk? Can we take your liver so we can check?
You should never trust them, regardless. What's a "good reason" this week? Because you dress funny? Talk loud? Smell bad? Are a ?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Their stock price is just about the same level as when this whole thing got started.
Well, maybe. Depends on how you look at it.
Here's a table of SCOX stock price, sampled once per month. It starts with Caldera (the former company name) going public during the height of the NASDAQ bubble in March 2000.
SCOX: Historical Prices for SCO Group, Inc.
Some key dates and prices:
2002-07 $1.04 Darl McBride joins SCO
2003-01 $1.35 SCO makes anti-Linux noises
2003-03 $2.88 SCO files lawsuit against IBM
2003-10 $22.29 SCOX hits high
2004-05 $4.78 SCOX right now, 2004-05-20
So SCOX is still up a bunch from when McBride started the anti-Linux strategy. I consider the base price to be $1.50, and SCOX is still trading at 300% of that base price.
In my opinion, the products-and-services side of SCO is worthless, and their only viable business is this lawsuit. And the lawsuit is getting less viable every month.
Then neither am I. I had the priviledge of seeing Eben Moglen speak during OSConf at University of Toronto, and after that display, I feel it's safe to say that the FSF does not need any legal advice from the outside, much less IANALs from Slashdot getting the issue hopelessly confused.
Other lawyers who are ignorant of the law, seem to irritate him somewhat. I don't blame him. But given that tidbit of knowledge, just imagine how he feels about the garbage SCO is throwing around.
I am sure that if it has not done so already, the FSF will respond decisively in an ethical and legal manner, and certainly nothing substantial will ever come of SCO's whining.
Random and weird software I've written.
If FSF has nothing to hide
That mentality really pisses me off. Just because YOU don't value privacy, and just because YOU don't value the confidentiality of business communications, doesn't mean NOBODY does.
Should nudists pass laws requiring everyone to be naked when the weather is nice?
Laws protecting privacy were created to benefit those of us who DO value it. If you don't value privacy, you can post all your information on the web for all I care. But don't expect me to.
Can we search that computer for kiddie porn? You have nothing to hide, right?
Uh. Yes, sure. Why not?
Ok. Hope you don't mind being without a computer for an indefinite period of time. Don't worry -- we'll get to it shortly. The guys down at the lab say they're only 3 months behind in data analysis at the moment.
Oh, and we'd like to check your tax records for the past 7 years. Please provide all receipts that are applicable during that time period. If you donated any items to charity and claimed that as a deduction, you will need to provide proof of your cost basis as well as proof of value of the item at the time you donated it.
Oh, I'm sure you didn't do anything wrong. We just like to check from time to time. I do hope this doesn't inconvienece you. Of course, if you can't provide this information, then I'm afraid some penalties may apply...
Figured it out yet? It's not about having something to hide -- it's about wasting other people's time and money for no good reason.
In the case of police work, it's known as a fishing expedition -- you have no idea what the hell you're looking for, but everyone breaks the law sooner or later.
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.)
What if it doesn't eliminate you as a suspect? What if there is something that makes you even more suspicious - and yet, you are still completely unrelated to the crime - and you are taken to prison and, say, raped by an inmate?
We are paranoid about our government because it commands enormous resources that are under the purview of individuals that are sometimes not entirely trustworthy (compare to your concern about people being responsible enough to carry loaded guns). Our goverment hides and outright falsifies information about a myriad of things that could be enormously beneficial to its citizens and the world at large because it is beneficial to its somewhat shady, ill-defined, perhaps amoral goals.
Do you honestly believe any governmental system can be much different?
+++ATH0
Or, the police plant or contrive evidence to show you did commit a crime and you go to prison.
No, at least here, some police are more worried about finding *someone* to pin the crime on, rather than finding the actual criminal.
In that vein, before you do anything, speak to my lawyer first. *PERIOD*
If it appears as though you mean no harm, then I'll think about co-operating. More likely, you'll get exactly what the constitution allows and absolutly nothing more.
There are many who are in prison innocently who had their crime pinned on them by police who simply wanted a conviction rather than a conviction of the *right* person. Refusing the be questioned without an attorney, refusing searches and siezures without a properly executed warrant etc are the first steps to protecting yourself against these problems.
Sure, you're right, it's probably not the most polite and best approach, but when my freedom and reputation are at stake and I'm not sure of the character of those on the other side, that is just the way it must be to afford me the protection I require.
Just by 0.02 cents.
Cheers,
Greg
Now couple that with stories of cops pinning drugs on undesirables, police brutality, sending innocent people to jail for crimes they didn't commit, politicians serving their own interests, corrupt judges, etc, etc, etc.....yes, we have an inate distrust of government, why do you ask?
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
Those who trust government and distrust people have a serious problem... they don't realize government is just a bunch of regular people doing jobs - some well, some not so well, just like anywhere else.
I for one have never quite understood your paranoia about the government.
I, for one, have never quite understood why a person would blindly trust a faction of complete strangers who go to work every morning to make decisions on how you should live your life.
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.