IMHO open source only appears to play catchup. It is not always the case in reality.
If you look at Microsoft software and then search for a similar open source product, then of course open source will look like being catching up. This is because you used Microsoft as a reference to start with. Try looking the other way round. Look at open source software and then look at similar Microsoft product. You will find there are plenty of innovative and not so innovative open source software that leads on Microsoft.
although, since the Air France lavortories advertise themselves as "Libre" when available also, I wonder if there is different overloaded meanings in French for that word:). Perhaps I should find myself an available (?Libre?) girl next time I am in Paris?!
Checking my Larousse dictionnary, all connotations of the French "Libre" relate to freedom but the one you mention. This particular connotation applies to what is not busy or not held up by something/someone. This connotation could be translated by "available" in many cases. And yes, a girl without a boyfriend is sometimes said to be "libre".
No, it's not a trap. "Innocent infringement" mean you just remove the infringing lines, and damages are severely limited or none at all. It would certainly mean SCO would NOT be getting their "3 BILLION dollars! [evil laugh]".
The 3 billion are a red herring. SCO would never collect 3 billion for lots of reasons. For instance they have failed to mitigate the damages by disclosing the infringing code.
If IBM admits innocent infringement, then they admit to have improperly contributed code in the first place. Microsoft will be very happy to hear that. This is something they can use to spread FUD for years. They will say "you know these Linux guys don't check where the code come from, who knows what's in there, look at the SCO settlement yadda yadda". There will be no end to it.
On top of it SCO has no case and is being countersued for very valid counts of patent infingements and GPL violations. Having IBM to cave in for no reason like that is more than they can hope for. Of course there is no chance IBM falls for that.
The idea that IBM would use "innocent infringement" as a defense is utter nonsense. This not a defense at all. It sounds like a trap. SCO and Canopy would be very happy to lure IBM in this kind of admission of guilt.
The fact the are willing to embarass themselves to try this kind of long shot is very telling of how desperate they are.
No, if I was starting a project just to get MS to lower their prices, I would state that PRICE and only PRICE was what was driving me to look at alternatives. I wouldn't mention reasons that might piss MS off and hurt negotiations.
I would do just the opposite. What would Microsoft do if they are pissed off? Walk away and let Open Source win the deal? Look at the city of Munich. They were offered Microsoft stuff for almost free because they pissed them off as you say. The more pressure you put on Microsoft, the better the chances they cut you a good deal.
Trying is only a firt step. Next there is transition. Remember the city of Munich using VMWare. When there are thousands of PCs in an organisation, there is always a number of them that run applications that won't migrate easily. This is when virtualisation comes very handy.
Curiously this news comes out shortly after this story. Are they related? If Microsoft screws Intel by making it difficult to boot Linux on Intel boxes, Intel can retaliate by making this baby the next hardware standard complete with dual boot ROM support on the motherboard.
This assumes the chip will support as many virtual machines as there are concurrent applications. How many virtual OS this chip will support? I don't know but I fear it cloud be a very low number such as two.
If they have to file the lawsuit before they get Telco information, how are they going to know who they need to sue? this sounds like a big constraint to me.
Is there any ancient Unix code that is public domain? I thought the SGI code was previously released under a BSD-like license. Am I being confused or SGI is using terms in a sense that is not legally accurate? Not that it changes much on the validity of the case. I am just nitpicking in the legal terms.
Anyway, this means the SCO v. IBM case is not likely to ever make it to court because there's *no* motivation for Darl to go that far.
It will get to court for some of the very same reasons that cause Darl to have no motivation to get there. IBM will not drop its countersuits. Never forget they are two to have a vote on this.
The way I see it, it is even worse than what you say. The company you mentionned were all selling software. They could be countersued for their own patent infringements. That is what the so-called defensive patents are for.
US patent law actually favors those that hold patents and don't sell software. All they have to do is to apply for the patent and sue the first one the market the application. If they don't sell anything they can't be countersued because they won't infringe on any defensive patent.
Software vendors have assets that can be seized. Their sales can be invoked in court as "proof" the patent has value and can be used as a basis to calculate the "damages". Lawsuit companies that are just empty shells for lawyers and lawsuits have no such weaknesses.
If this business model is allowed to succeed, venture capitalists will eventually see how the game is rigged. They may stop investing in software vendors but they may start to see patent shell companies like some good risk capital.the whole software industry will stop.
The ironic thing is this bullshit may help some open source projects to prosper if software companies sees open source as a way to shift some liability to the hackers! That is assuming hackers are not afraid to be sued themselves and keep hacking.
This lawsuit underline an important point: selling software puts the seller at a large legal risk:
You never know when a patent lawsuit will pop up.
You have assets to be seized.
The sale revenue is proof the patent has commercial value and can be used by the court to establish the damages.
On the other hand, the lawsuit bastard has an advantage because he does not sell anything. He does not need patents, therefore he is not vulnerable to defensive patents countersuits.
The rule of the game are rigged in favour of the lawsuit bastard. Once venture capitalists figure that out capital for software development will dry out. On the other hand capital for patent lawsuit companies will be plentiful.
Oddly enough this may (somewhat) help open source. Some companies may see open source development as a way to shift some liability to the hackers. And it will harder for the patent lawsuit bastard to claim damages if there is no sales revenue in the first place. Of course some really odious scumbags will make a business model of suing individual hackers, seizing houses and turning them into identured slaves for life.
When you write to politicians about patent laws, I urge you to mention how the system is rigged in favour of the scumbags. This is a language even the most pro-business of them will understand.
So, it's official: SCO's complaint is entirely about Sequent, and their contributions to Unix and Linux.
I am not sure that it is entirely about that. Sequent's code is relevant to the Dynix license cancellation, but they keep changing their story. They may well complain about other portions of the code when taking future actions.
Totally agree. What is the good of having the GPL if it is not used in court in situations like this? Think of it as a test run to check the bugs. How can that be avoided?
It seems to me that the any mention of risk of lawsuits for using OSS software should be countered with the risks of using BSA patrolled software, particularly those covered by the MS license.
Agreed. I would say it should be countered with all applicable risks. BSA auditing is a good one. It should also be pointed out that if SCO wins its case, then SCO's definition of "derivative work" is likely to be accepted by the judge. Lots of software will instantly become derivative works because they match the new definition. Each of these works will have an instant new "original work copyright owner" with licensing rights on the derivative product. Current licenses do not plan for such a situation. This will cause a huge legal mess. Proprietary products are not safer than Linux.
Contrary to the popular belief, the SCO case never was and never will be about the GPL.
SCO has acted in patent violation of the GPL, like if they wanted to be countersued on the basis of the GPL. This is odd because if the GPL is invalidated, standard copyright law applies and SCO is likely to end-up liable for astronomical damages for willfull unauthorised distribution of Linux. It looks like they are doing some corporate equivalent of suicide bombing on behalf of someone else. IANAL.
I like the jail idea. SCO as a company is disposable. When SCO will go down, Microsoft will have had its FUD, SCO's exec will have sold their stocks, Canopy will have get their millions from their shell game (Vultus anyone?) and they will all be happy and ready to do it again. Criminal charges is the only thing that will stop them.
The way I see it, that would be true if they would tell me what part they claim is theirs, so I can make an informed consumer decision about whether to use it. So long as they refuse to identify which is their proprietary code, from a consumer perpective, their actions are indistinguishable from trying to license all of Linux, since it's all or nothing in the absence of code identification.
This misses a very important point. It does not belong to the customer to "make an informed decision". It belongs to them (SCO) to establish their titles of ownership. Since they have not done so, their license offer is moving ahead of times.
If a come up with a legal theory that I own a section of the Brooklyn bridge, I still can't open a tool booth on the bridge. I need to get the courts to approve my claim first. It is not a question of letting the bridge users review the papers and "making an informed decision" on paying the toll or not. I just can't open the toll booth.
Same thing here. SCO can't sell license without an undisputable title of ownership of intellectual property in Linux. The current copyright holders are not SCO. Until a court rules that SCO owns rights that are not currently attributed to them, they can't license thoses rights.
This is why lots of people call SCO's actions a fraud. They are selling something that is not yet theirs to sell.
For easy comparison with your GPL In A Nutshell, here is Copyright Law In A Nutshell:
Point 0: Anyone can download and use this work.
Point 1: You cannot make derivitive works off of this work, aside from "fair use", without express permission from the copyright holder.
Point 2: There is no Point 2. (Please refer to Point 1.)
Don't you mean:
Point 0: You cannot download or copy this work, aside from "fair use", without express permission from the copyright holder.
Considering that section 8.0 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY makes them non liable for a lot of stuff including misrepresentation and breach of contract, they clearly try to clear themselves out of that one. Not sure this is enforceable in a court. IANAL
I don't understand. IANAL but I can't help to ask if this is legal according to criminal law. If someone seriously tries to sell you the Eiffel Tower, won't you call the FBI? Isn't the first condition to be able to sell anything is to have a title of ownership on what you sell? Or at least to be authorised by the owner to sell on his behalf?
I know I know, SCO claims to have ownership of Linux. But if someone comes up with a legal theory to claim ownership of Eiffel Tower, isn't he required to have his title of ownership legally cleared before he is allowed to sell? Why would copyright titles be different? SCO doenn't own any title to Linux but an unsubstantiated allegation that is disputed in courts. They can't sell any rights based to allegations. What if the courts rule against them? They have to demonstrate actual ownership.
Examine the copyright notices. None of the Linux code is currently copyrighted by Caldera except the portions that they willfully GPLed when they were still contributing to Linux. They still have to demonstrate in court that Linux infringes on their rights. Until there is a judgement, they have no rights.
I may be talking through my rear end but this smells fishy. I believe Linus, the FSF, Red Hat, IBM and other parties should ask their lawyers to look at the possibility of a criminal investigation here. Someone is selling THEIR property without authorisation.
Yes it does help Red Hat customers. With a looming threat of a lawsuit, budget planners have to set aside funds for the fight and perhaps some more for liability just in case. This is idle money that could be better spent elsewhere. Clearing up the threat will release all those funds.
Slashdot Mirror
If you look at Microsoft software and then search for a similar open source product, then of course open source will look like being catching up. This is because you used Microsoft as a reference to start with. Try looking the other way round. Look at open source software and then look at similar Microsoft product. You will find there are plenty of innovative and not so innovative open source software that leads on Microsoft.
If IBM admits innocent infringement, then they admit to have improperly contributed code in the first place. Microsoft will be very happy to hear that. This is something they can use to spread FUD for years. They will say "you know these Linux guys don't check where the code come from, who knows what's in there, look at the SCO settlement yadda yadda". There will be no end to it.
On top of it SCO has no case and is being countersued for very valid counts of patent infingements and GPL violations. Having IBM to cave in for no reason like that is more than they can hope for. Of course there is no chance IBM falls for that.
The fact the are willing to embarass themselves to try this kind of long shot is very telling of how desperate they are.
Curiously this news comes out shortly after this story. Are they related? If Microsoft screws Intel by making it difficult to boot Linux on Intel boxes, Intel can retaliate by making this baby the next hardware standard complete with dual boot ROM support on the motherboard.
This assumes the chip will support as many virtual machines as there are concurrent applications. How many virtual OS this chip will support? I don't know but I fear it cloud be a very low number such as two.
If they have to file the lawsuit before they get Telco information, how are they going to know who they need to sue? this sounds like a big constraint to me.
Is there any ancient Unix code that is public domain? I thought the SGI code was previously released under a BSD-like license. Am I being confused or SGI is using terms in a sense that is not legally accurate? Not that it changes much on the validity of the case. I am just nitpicking in the legal terms.
US patent law actually favors those that hold patents and don't sell software. All they have to do is to apply for the patent and sue the first one the market the application. If they don't sell anything they can't be countersued because they won't infringe on any defensive patent.
Software vendors have assets that can be seized. Their sales can be invoked in court as "proof" the patent has value and can be used as a basis to calculate the "damages". Lawsuit companies that are just empty shells for lawyers and lawsuits have no such weaknesses.
If this business model is allowed to succeed, venture capitalists will eventually see how the game is rigged. They may stop investing in software vendors but they may start to see patent shell companies like some good risk capital.the whole software industry will stop.
The ironic thing is this bullshit may help some open source projects to prosper if software companies sees open source as a way to shift some liability to the hackers! That is assuming hackers are not afraid to be sued themselves and keep hacking.
- You never know when a patent lawsuit will pop up.
- You have assets to be seized.
- The sale revenue is proof the patent has commercial value and can be used by the court to establish the damages.
On the other hand, the lawsuit bastard has an advantage because he does not sell anything. He does not need patents, therefore he is not vulnerable to defensive patents countersuits.The rule of the game are rigged in favour of the lawsuit bastard. Once venture capitalists figure that out capital for software development will dry out. On the other hand capital for patent lawsuit companies will be plentiful.
Oddly enough this may (somewhat) help open source. Some companies may see open source development as a way to shift some liability to the hackers. And it will harder for the patent lawsuit bastard to claim damages if there is no sales revenue in the first place. Of course some really odious scumbags will make a business model of suing individual hackers, seizing houses and turning them into identured slaves for life.
When you write to politicians about patent laws, I urge you to mention how the system is rigged in favour of the scumbags. This is a language even the most pro-business of them will understand.
Eric Raymond has posted an analysis of the malloc code that discuss at length the origin of the code and its implications on the licensing issues.
Totally agree. What is the good of having the GPL if it is not used in court in situations like this? Think of it as a test run to check the bugs. How can that be avoided?
Looks like they really want this GPL fight in courts. Maybe they were setting for this all along. This suggests that this fight should be left to IBM.
I like the jail idea. SCO as a company is disposable. When SCO will go down, Microsoft will have had its FUD, SCO's exec will have sold their stocks, Canopy will have get their millions from their shell game (Vultus anyone?) and they will all be happy and ready to do it again. Criminal charges is the only thing that will stop them.
If a come up with a legal theory that I own a section of the Brooklyn bridge, I still can't open a tool booth on the bridge. I need to get the courts to approve my claim first. It is not a question of letting the bridge users review the papers and "making an informed decision" on paying the toll or not. I just can't open the toll booth.
Same thing here. SCO can't sell license without an undisputable title of ownership of intellectual property in Linux. The current copyright holders are not SCO. Until a court rules that SCO owns rights that are not currently attributed to them, they can't license thoses rights.
This is why lots of people call SCO's actions a fraud. They are selling something that is not yet theirs to sell.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
Point 0: You cannot download or copy this work, aside from "fair use", without express permission from the copyright holder.
That makes your argument even stronger.
Considering that section 8.0 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY makes them non liable for a lot of stuff including misrepresentation and breach of contract, they clearly try to clear themselves out of that one. Not sure this is enforceable in a court. IANAL
I know I know, SCO claims to have ownership of Linux. But if someone comes up with a legal theory to claim ownership of Eiffel Tower, isn't he required to have his title of ownership legally cleared before he is allowed to sell? Why would copyright titles be different? SCO doenn't own any title to Linux but an unsubstantiated allegation that is disputed in courts. They can't sell any rights based to allegations. What if the courts rule against them? They have to demonstrate actual ownership.
Examine the copyright notices. None of the Linux code is currently copyrighted by Caldera except the portions that they willfully GPLed when they were still contributing to Linux. They still have to demonstrate in court that Linux infringes on their rights. Until there is a judgement, they have no rights.
I may be talking through my rear end but this smells fishy. I believe Linus, the FSF, Red Hat, IBM and other parties should ask their lawyers to look at the possibility of a criminal investigation here. Someone is selling THEIR property without authorisation.
Yep! This is not chilling at all. Actually they can't sell any UnixWare if there isn't a Linux user to prey on. They are biting their own ass here.
Yes it does help Red Hat customers. With a looming threat of a lawsuit, budget planners have to set aside funds for the fight and perhaps some more for liability just in case. This is idle money that could be better spent elsewhere. Clearing up the threat will release all those funds.