Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Website Using Groklaw's Content

Posted by Zonk on from the hey-pot-you're-black dept.

darkonc writes "It looks like they didn't learn from the BSD debacle (where, having sued Berkley for copyright infringement, AT&T found that they were using BSD code without acknowledging it's source). Groklaw has an article detailing how SCO has documents created by and for Groklaw on their site -- without even acknowledging the source. It seems that the defenders of the holy IP principle have hoisted the skull and bones."

6 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. Wow.. by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...they either a) Have some balls. Or b) are dumb as rocks.

    Given their past behavior, I've gotta go with b. For a while, I was expecting ( but certainly not hoping for ) them to pull the rabbit out of their hat and set us all back on our heels. Their claims just seemed too silly not to be justified by *something*.

    Now of course, we've all got a pretty good idea what kind of clowns these really are.

    Still, to steal from groklaw...whew...that's just stunning in my opinion. You gotta respect the lengths these guys will go to.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  2. Too busy looking over... by SubDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think SCO must be too buy looking over their mountain of discovery proceeds to add a simple attribution to their legal docs website.

    Too busy, too cheap, too lazy... who knows what their excuse.

    Perhaps it is simply that SCO does not want to give credit where credit is due.

    Subdude

  3. However...they ARE claiming copyright. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On the site where they are using Groklaw's and Tuxrock's documents. SCO has claimed copyright of the work.

    So not only have they "borrowed" the work of others instead of doing their own (which apparently may be legal as that they are court documents, or may not be legal since the file itself may be copyrighted although the document cannot be etc... etc... ), they are also claiming copyright on the "borrowed" work.

    Regards,
    Z

  4. Plagiarism without Citation by jonathanbearak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is like doing a research paper in college.

    Let's say I look up some documents on Lexis-Nexus. I have to cite Lexis-Nexis; otherwise it's plagiarism. It doesn't matter where those documents originally came from. My citation must include a reference to Lexis-Nexus saying how I got this information.

    If I don't do this, I've committed plagiarism. I would receive an automatic F and face the possibility of further, much more damaging to myself, ramifications.

    I don't know about how this might play out in the minutae of copyright law, but in academics SCO would be in serious trouble.

  5. Re:Petty by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yes, they are court documents the *contents* of which are in the public domain, but that's not the point. Many of those documents have been manually transcribed, proof-read and reformatted into HTML or PDF documents by various volunteer members of the FOSS community, on their own time. Many of those documents are also provided for the good of all, free of charge and any form of licensing agreements/restrictions by their transcribers, so SCO probably hasn't actually infringed any laws, civil or otherwise.

    However, for a company currently in court claiming that the fruits of its labours have been misappropriated to turn around and do exactly the same thing... Well, it's hardly in the best taste is it, even if they are so strapped for cash and/or resources that they don't have the ability to transcribe it themselves. Plus, I wouldn't be at all surprised if IBM's legal team finds a way to let the court know about this to show just how two faced SCO can be.

    SCO shoot themselves in the foot. Again. We'll pass on the film at eleven, and proceed with the scheduled reality show re-run...

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  6. It all looks bad... by localman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But unless Darl and his buddies end up dirt poor, this has all been fun and games. That's the beauty of corporations: they can misbehave all they want, and when they are eventually killed, no real person has to suffer any meaningful consequences.

    To beat the dead horse: this is why corporations shouldn't be treated as equal to humans by the law, because they don't play by the same rules and they don't have the same motivations and limitations. It's unbalanced.

    Cheers.