SCO Awarded UNIX Copyright Regs, McBride Interview 1388
Prizm writes "It seems that SCO is continuing to build up its case for world domination, as today it was awarded U.S. copyright registrations for UNIX System V source code by the U.S. Copyright Office. Shares are up 20%, Novell is nowhere to be found, and SCO is releasing binary, run-only Linux licensing. You can read all about it over in their press release." C|Net is also running an interview with McBride.
The scary thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Extortion (Score:5, Insightful)
That's extortion...or some other form of legalese.
Class Action Lawsuit? (Score:5, Insightful)
whats the delay? (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL, so I might be missing something here, but the sooner they go to court, the better imho, else they will keep pumping out FUD and hyping their stock price.
Hello, SCO? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if I take those lines out, I don't need a license from you? Thanks.
After some thought (Score:5, Insightful)
After careful thought and ethical consideration, I have come to a conclusion regarding my use of Linux and the SCO license. It is as follows:
Mr. McBride, bite me.
I will not submit to your extortion. I will, however, point it out to my Missouri Attorney State General, for his consideration. In fact, the RICO statute comes to mind.
Prior art? (Score:0, Insightful)
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Note to any companies thinking of caving on this. According to Cnet [com.com], the license being offered is "run-time, binary use".
If you then duplicate this kernel in any way (yes, Virginia, downloading and installing from network or CD for internal use as well) without distributing or making available the contested SCO source under the terms of a GPL license, then regardless of whether you distribute the rest of the source you are breaking the terms of the GPL and violating the copy rights of every other rights owner that has contributed to the linux kernel, and you should expect to hear from them presently, possibly as a class action.
Furthermore, you are also declaring (implicitely) that you believe that IBM distributed without a license, that they violated both SCO's rights and (as a consequence) that they violated the rights of every other contributor as well. If you cave in to SCO, be prepared for IBM's lawyers to come around asking if you'd like to form part of a test case to see how implicit you can be while still libelling someone to their material loss.
I'd suggest that your best bet is to sit tight. You can always pay up if and when IBM lose the copyright case (which they probably won't), by which time the actual contested code will have been made public and rapidly replaced in kernel 2.6 anyway. So you can choose to upgrade for nothing, or you can pay to retain old code while sending a message that IBM are thieves and that you are prepared to cave in to any penny ante playa that sends you an invoice. Your choice.
Re:Class Action Lawsuit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Excellent idea. To what portion of the code do you hold a copyright, and how many million US dollars are you pledging?
It was bound to happen, and it will be resolved (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux has a radical new licensing model (relatively speaking) that has not been through all the legal machinations yet.
There is still grey area in terms of who owns what. Still, its ridiculous that SCO can try to take hostages here without actually showing any of the infringed on code!
"Guess what? Linux infringes on some code I bought the rights for back in the day. But I can't show it to you. Save yourself some trouble and send me $200 for every computer you have linux installed on."
I would just like to point out (Score:4, Insightful)
Just my $.04
Binary Only? (Score:2, Insightful)
The delay == the legal system (Score:5, Insightful)
todays world... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just make money with patent / copyright system abuse, and speading FUD about anything thats good for the world...
I'm glad I haven't written any big GPL apps or contributed as much as some to the open source world, as I would be seriously pissed off (and a little upset maybe) that my goodwill and hours spent contributing were being eroded by money grabbing, whiny corporations.
Confused? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The scary thing (Score:1, Insightful)
I assume an immediately new kernel would be released and everyone would move to a completely "clean" kernel.
I can't understand why that hasn't happened already, but what do I know?
I'm convinced that this is a stock scam now. (Score:5, Insightful)
The stock price jumped 15% yesterday and 20% today. I'm thinking to myself that a short term investor might have a good chance to make some money off of SCO. And also any insider for that matter.
If their goal is to be bought out, then the execs naturally want the stock price to be a high as possible when the buyout occurs.
Even if the source code exists (which I doubt), the moment it is revealed it will be out of the Linux kernel. They know this, and so they want to delay as much as they can to be bought out before getting to court.
Any companies paying for a "Linux lisence" before a judgement are stupid and are simply allowing SCO to continue this scam for a bit longer.
Re:The scary thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:whats the delay? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Linux users also will not get clarity from the courts soon. SCO's Stowell said the Utah court is not scheduled to hear the company's application for a permanent injunction to stop IBM from shipping AIX until 2005." -- eweek [eweek.com].
"Carey said this indicates that SCO's strategy is to let "the pot simmer for years and let people get increasingly worried about the legal risk."
More like it's their way to pump'n'dump the stock to make thousands on insider trades. Fucking scumbags.
Re:Do I read this right? (Score:5, Insightful)
If, on the other hand they say, "your existing license is invalid, here have another." Then they are in the right. They cannot license the GPLed pieces, but that's fine. You can demonstrate that you received those pieces under the GPL.
It's an ugly use of the GPL, and companies like Red Hat will be 100% screwed by this.
That's ok, though, because the current odds on SCO winning this case are somewhere around the odds of the Red Sox winning the Superbowl right after the Triple Crown
Repeat after me: You can't distribute Linux for 2 months under the GPL *after* claiming it contains your code, and *then* remove it from distribution. It's out there. It's GPLed. They're done. All they have left is a contractual dispute with IBM that affects no one by IBM and SCO.
Oh, and by the way IBM is likely to win that one too.
Re:The scary thing (Score:5, Insightful)
unfortunatly, no matter how we feel about this, they are doing it legally.
Umm, no. They can't distribute other people's copyrighted code, and this includes Linux. If someone inserted unauthorized code in Windows, would the copyright holder get to own Windows???? The only way SCO can distribute Linux is under the GPL.
Re:Is this war against the GPL? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they had an actual case, they would have shown the soruce code, IBM would have settled with them, and you can be sure as hell that all the infringing code would be rewritted in the next kernel release.
The goal of this lisence program is to con PHB's into sending them some cash to continue what now appears to be a grand stock scheme.
Re:The scary thing (Score:5, Insightful)
> fit.
True, but...
> If they can prove that Linux infringes upon those copyrights, then they will be
> able to charge for its use.
Linux can not possibly infringe. It was made from scratch.
This is like saying "Well, the makers of the Terminator movie have a copyright on that movie, so they can sue anyone that makes any story that even resembles a plot where robots take over the world."
That isnt how copyright works, even in copyrights current fucked up state.
Ford can not sue Chevy for designing 'a car'
Intel cant sue apple for making 'a computer'
Copyrights are very specific. Linux is NOT SysV in any way/shape/form. Linux was made from scratch.
The only possibly questionabe action is that IBM added code to Linux that they shouldnt have. They broke a contract. The fight is between IBM and SCO.
The _ONLY_ right SCO has using copyright of code is to demand you do not distribute it.
With Linux, this can EASILY be done by removing the code and replacing it.
That is the extent of the effect this could have over Linux.
Any and all damages caused are directly and soley IBMs fault, and they alone will pay for it if found guilty.
Re:The scary thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, if party A can prove that party B is infringing the rights of the party A, then the party B is in trouble. So far there's no trouble because there is no evidence.
Please stop helping the SCO FUD machine. They have not shown any evidence nor are they planning to.
This seems like a game (Score:5, Insightful)
I still don't understand why the legal system hasn't stepped in; Basically, SCO is saying IBM and all Linux distros are ILLEGAL, and they wave this Sys V copyright in everyone's face, as if that's proof that they own linux. How far can they go? Will they be able to scare people even more, without any kind of legal backing? How is this not libel/slander? Come on IBM, knock these guys down!
It still mystifies me why IBM isn't doing anything at this point. They really do have to defend themselves, or they will start to look guilty, even if the charges are completely baseless (I still don't see how SCO can believe they own linux).
Re:There can be no doubt about it (Score:3, Insightful)
instead SCO is hunting to make more money where they can find it.
Such sweethearts.
Re:The scary thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hello, SCO? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do I read this right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Distributing said kernel (by anyone including ftp.kernel.org) is apparently illegal if SCO's copyright claims are correct (which they aren't). SCO cannot sell a license allowing the Linux kernel to be distributed unless said license was compatible with the GPL (which it wouldn't be).
If SCO's copyright claims are correct, it is illegal for anyone except the copyright holders (all of them, including SCO, together as a group) to distribute copies of the Linux kernel - copyright law prohibits this (just like it prohibits distribution of copies of Windows XP by anyone other than Microsoft), and the GPL would be void (because SCO's part of the code isn't licensed by the copyright holder under a GPL-compatible license).
IANAL; somebody correct me.
Impossible (Score:5, Insightful)
Violating the GPL means that it is replaced by normal copyright of all the individuals who contributed to the kernel (we're still only talking about the Linux-kernel here) and you need to make explicit deals with each of them to distribute the kernel-code as a whole. It is more likeley that most of those copyrightholders will sue SCO for infringing on their copyrights by distributing their Linux under a restrictive license, in violation of the GPL and hence without permission.
This is just SCO raising up the ante again spewing propaganda to up their shares another few bucks. On the day their bubble bursts and the shares fall through the floor, i will cheer and gleefully tell all those idiots who bet their money on SCO 0wn1ng Linux, that Linux can't be 0wn3d and never will be.
The GPL war is near (Score:5, Insightful)
A company can not claim ownership of a few lines of code, and than steal millions of GPL-ed lines, package them and sell them. This is outrageous.
FSF is forced to react on this one. GPL is going to court.
regards
PiCz
BSD (Score:5, Insightful)
So what are the odds that Stallman is secretly enjoying this while toiling away at the hurd?
Not that simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sure looks that way (Score:2, Insightful)
LMAO. No it wouldn't, as the GPL alone has a contradictory nature all to itself, namely that the licensor doesn't have to check for IP infringement (because they can't without tainting themself) before changing the license to a freely copyable one. There's also completely lacking liability to the thing as a whole, something that courts aren't going to be prone to allowing.
Re:The scary thing (Score:5, Insightful)
We have to shoot everyone and start over to have a true untainted implementation.
Or we could bury SCO.
The GPL is untouchable (Score:5, Insightful)
Very simply, there is no way that the GPL can be defeated in a court-room. But, if it is, that might be good. If the GPL is invalidated, then ALL EULAs would necessarily be invalidated, as they take away rights granted by standard copyright law.
Re:I would just like to point out (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, they know they aren't going to get all 2.4 million (and companies like IBM and RedHat) to pony up, but if it makes a buck or two from the 2000 or so idiots that don't read the details behind the headlines, well, that's a good $400,000+ (ave $200 / license) in income just by a single press release. Not a bad piece of marketting when it comes to cost/income differences.
Re:The scary thing (Score:4, Insightful)
About $800,000 in the last couple of months . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
is how much SCO upper management has made off selling an artificially inflated stock (see for yourself [sec.gov]). That is assuming that major insider trading activities are not being concealed some how, which, considering the ethical principles of the people involved, is a dubious assumption. Most of this stock selling is in lots under 6k of shares, which shows a concious effort to avoid scrutiny from the SEC.
Enron might have lied about large numbers, however, I am convinced that SCO represents the most a company has ever multiplied the perception of its own worth through blatant lies. This has either exposed something horrible about our financial system or the complete incompetence in this area on the part of investors (probably both . . .).
Trademark (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't there one thing for certain: Linus owns the trademark on Linux. Even if they did own the code (which they don't), they can't market it as Linux after Linus says to stop. He'll be needing a lawyer soon. His inaction to date was waranted - he said it was between IBM and SCO. Now it should be nice and personal.
Re:The scary thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Ahh yes but would anybody use it after all this B.S.?
Whenever someone asks if I'm worried about a lawsuit I tell them not really. If SCO can demonstrate ANYTHING other than bullshit then I'll be happy to remove the code in question and continue using Linux. You know it will be just fine without their code. Hell... isn't this one of the reasons the source code is available? To get rid of stuff we don't want (or add it).
SCO can sue me all they want. They won't get a dime (nor lawyer fees). But if they want to send a cease and desist then I'll be happy to remove their code. Just tell me where
Re:The scary thing (Score:1, Insightful)
That's a pretty flaky clause.
Re:There can be no doubt about it - SCO == stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
In the first place, copyrights are not patents. Independently-arrived-at code does not infringe on "copyright" rights, which only affect the right to make copies, not independently-arrived at code.
Secondly, we all know how trustworthy the USPTO is **bullshit**.
Third, even if the copyright is held to be valid, they still have the problem of proving that current implementations contain copied code (not just that it's identical, but that the copying, if any, went from their crap to Linux and not the other way around).
Fourth, we have thw whole issue of them having released gpl-ed versions of Linux, so any code that was copied is still okay.
Fifth, they don't have the right to license Linux binaries, 'cause they don't own those rights. The gpl is quite clear on this. Either the gpl'ed software can be used free and clear, or it can't be used at all.
In summary, this means absolutely nothing, except that SCO may end up having to fork over any monies obtained for trying to "license" gpl-ed code under non-gpl terms.
Hey thats my code (Score:3, Insightful)
Proof..... Well that is forth coming. You can send the checks now though. If you wait for proof I will be increasing the price and will be holding you liable for those months you didn't pay.
Thanks
Nice doing business with you.
Creep73
Re:The scary thing (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think this matters. Copyright law prevents you from making a copy, but it does not prevent you from "writing it in your own words", just like when you turned in book reports in school.
Re:The scary thing (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't matter. (Score:3, Insightful)
- Convincing brain-dead and/or paranoid middle managers in random companies who don't understand enough of 'source code' or copyright law to understand this is bullshit to just toss off however much money SCO wants because it seems easier than fighting a lawsuit later. These are the only people SCO is targetting right now. It doesn't matter if 99.5% of linux users, including you, realize SCO is speaking utter nonsense; if the remaining 0.5% pay SCO $1500 each, SCO gets huge enough gobs of money to have made the entire exercise more than worthwhile. (Of course, maybe they'll use that money to buy more lawyers, and come for you and me and sue us later. Who knows. But we don't necessarily matter.)
- Continuuing to have fuel for their process of making more outlandish claims every week than the week before, so they can stay constantly in the news and their stock price will keep rising.
As to the last bit of your post, though:I will, however, point it out to my Missouri Attorney State General, for his consideration. In fact, the RICO statute comes to mind.
This is a fantastic idea. Please do so, and we should all follow your example.
I would like to try to do so, but I do not really know enough about "real law" to make a letter I am sure will be convincing. Can anyone give me recommendations for how I could write a letter to the Indiana state attourney general complaining about SCO's actions in light of whatever the RICO laws are around here?
Racketeering (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Clarification... (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets use Darl's words against him. Lets say there is proprietary code within the kernel. Lets say that, as a result, the GPL is not a valid license for the kernel. This simply means that SCO cannot distribute the kernel under the GPL, and must distribute it under some other license agreement. However, since:
1) There is bound to be much more code within the kernel that is not SCO-proprietary, and..
2) That code is copyrighted by the originating authors, and..
3) They will not be allowing SCO to license their code under anything other than the GPL (which it was previously released under), then..
4) SCO cannot distribute the current Linux kernel without violating copyright law.
The solution, of course, is to identify the proprietary code and replace it. The obstacle, of course, is to identify the alleged proprietary code when SCO will only do so under a NDA. There's no point in rehashing those topics, as they're covered in depth in every
I think its time for the FSF [fsf.org] to take a stand and notify SCO through legal channels that they are violating copyright by relicensing the OS community's code under a different license. Donate to the FSF now! [fsf.org]
Re:The scary thing (Score:5, Insightful)
A binary only Linux license is SOFTWARE PIRACY. There's really no other word for it. SCO doesn't own the entire Linux kernel so they can't authorize people to use the other parts of it. Only the original copyright holders can do that.
SCO is effectively claiming that the rules only apply to everyone else. Apply the rules in SCO's favor and you have to also apply them against SCO as well.
It's time for all the kernel programmers to register their own copyrights and let SCO be on the hook for 150K * N for every license of Linux they sell.
Re:Mitigating damage (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm not a laywer, but usually you have to give proof that you own a thing before being able to charge for it.
Re:The scary thing (Score:3, Insightful)
A judge might not be computer literate enough to grok the difference between http and ftp yet not computer illiterate enough to be bamboozled into believing that there is some sort of meaningful difference.
A judge isn't just going to believe everything a SCO lawyer tells him. Plus, there will be plenty of IBM lawyers to contradict anything that a SCO lawyer might say.
Awarded Copyright??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Registering a copyright is pretty much like a cat pissing on a couch to say "this is mine" and I will scratch cats who say otherwise. Actual ownership is a different question that gets resolved in courts.
If anyone else has a documented claim to any of the work that SCO just filed, then SCO's filing for a copyright puts them in a difficult position.
I have to admit the SCO news report is amazing. Basically with the investment of half hours work on the part of lawyer ($180), a days work for a filing clerk ($80), an envelope ($1), a express mail stamp ($3.70) and a $30.00 filing fee, they got a 20% boost in their stock. You gotta love the stock market.
We should get the SEC to look at the insider trading for the stock, if there were any insider purchases before this phenomenal scam and any insider selling after the scam, maybe we could get their theiving arses hauled before the judge.
Re:The scary thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Having said that, I'm going to be using Slackware on my main machine until I absolutely have to give it up. But, then, I'm not using any features that have been listed as potentially infringing, so I don't think I'm even involved in this; I'm not using SMP at all, for instance.
Re:It's important now, to act. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's important now, to act. (Score:5, Insightful)
Posting negative views of a company in large numbers on stock boards is a very old (relatively speaking) tactic that ceased to work years ago. If you post vehemently negative views about a company on stock boards, you will just be harassing innocent people that have likely already educated themselves on the subject and formed their own opinions. They do not need, nor will they enjoy or tolerate, your anti-SCO spam. They have to deal with enough whiny pseudo-activist screeds against whichever company some niche group hates already, they don't need the
Please find a more mature tactic than spam.
I have pictures of your wife naked. (Score:3, Insightful)
You would have to be a fool to give SCO money before they show proof that they own what you're using.
On the other hand, I hope SCO updates us regularly with press releases of who pays up. I want to know which corporate execs I can extort money out of by claiming to have pictures of them in compromising situations without actually needing to show them any pictures....
Re:There can be no doubt about it - SCO == stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the referenced work:
So, again, unless they can be shown to also be the current copyright owner of the above, they're SOLRe:It's important now, to act. (Score:3, Insightful)
I would think that send the stock plummeting, when McBride is seen talking doublespeak.
Re:The scary thing (Score:5, Insightful)
If they told people where the `infringing' code was, it would be removed and they'd lose any possible case that they have. They know this, so that's why they won't tell anybody.
Re:The GPL war is near (Score:5, Insightful)
To date, the only FSF response to SCO has been a subtle Linux should really be called "GNU/Linux" diatribe (See! we told you so!).
The most informative SCO response to date is still the OSI position paper by Eric Raymond et al.
I believe that the FSF and the OSI, in addition to the other Kernel copyright holders, should indeed seek legal action against SCO. I would like to see something spectacular, although any countersuit is likely to be limited - due to the nature of copyright law. I think the obvious action is simply to force SCO to disclose what infringing code exists.
This assumes, though, that the disclosed code really does infringe, which is somewhat unlikely (it was never in the interest of Linux development to allow proprietary code).
I think there is a lot the Linux developers could do to mitigate the damages on our side.
The Linux stewards need to lay to rest the myth that we don't really know where all of our code came from. Every line of code in the project has somebody's name on it, and there is someone out there who can vouch for it. If, in this process, we discover some holes, we have the power to fix them - we don't depend on SCO to tell us what is clean and what is not clean. It is dangerous to let SCO tell us what is theirs and what is ours because they are bent on claiming as much as posible, now matter how ridiculous the connection.
Having a very public Linux Accountability Project does a huge amount of good for the Linux cause.
1) There are very few commercial organizations that have anything like it. In addition to a totally transparent development model, in which all of the "property" can be examined by the public, the fact that the Linux community itself stands behind every line of code lends more credibility to it than any closed-source program.
2) It establishes a factual base from which to discuss the SCO claims. Currently, the only context that we have for discussion is SCO's outrageous allegations. We have the code, why don't we talk about it on our terms? Why must we prove SCO wrong? Why shouldn't they have to prove themselves right instead? This would be the case if we had a public manifest of all aspects of the Linux Kernel. If the public could see who the players are with a brief description of the origins of the features and a statement from the developers themselves, then SCO might have a lot more explaining to do.
I believe that this sort of a project can be accomplished in a reasonable amount of time. It might delay further development on Linux for a little while - losses that would be quantified and then extraced from SCO in the countersuits to follow - but it would be well worth it.
I also highly recommend that every Open Source developer keep a detailed log of all of their development so that, at any time, complete accountability can be made for your program. Don't let greedy corporations claim your work!
Well, I've digressed from the topic, so I'll shut up...
Re:There can be no doubt about it - SCO == stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
It's pretty irrelevant, and pretty lame on their part, to try to twist a couple hundred lines of code, which doesn't even apply to Linux, into "We Own Unix, Linux and the Whole Damn Universe".
Re:If Microsoft buys SCO, you folks are SO screwed (Score:5, Insightful)
How many companies have ever, in the history of IP, won an IP infringement case against IBM?
Hint: None.
Re:The GPL is untouchable (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that the GPL, unlike the BSD license, does not grant a copyright or even confer ownership privileges. Under the GPL, the author maintains the ownership privileges on their source all while releasing the source to the public. That's why I can release my app code under the GPL but still sell a closed source version with mods outside the GPL. So, unless SCO strips all code submitted by the other copyright owners (and there are many) then they would be in violation of the original agreement under which those authors distributed their work, namely the GPL. SCO would then be left with the 80 copied comment lines and nothing even close to a "Hello World" program.
Re:Sure looks that way (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhapse you could explain how the GPL differs from proprietary licenses in both checking for infringement or liability.
Surely when I'm coding for a project under a proprietary license, I'm just as suceptible to infringement and "tainting" as when I code for a GPL licensed project.
And the license I work under doesn't do much to protect me from liability. Sure - working as an agent to a large corporation might shield me personally from damages. But that works the same whether I'm working under the GPL or proprietary license. If I'm working for a small company, I have less protection. If that small company happens to be me and I haven't taken legal steps to limit my liability... I'm at even more risk.
And, of course, it doesn't matter if I'm working for a mega-corp if my actions were not performed as an agent of that company but rather on my own accord. For example, I leaked that company's proprietary code, trade secrets, etc.
Re:Awarded Copyright??? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of filing for Copyright registration, is so that they can USE COPYRIGHT LAW. All it takes to copyright something is to attach a copyright notice to it.
However, to USE the LAW to PROTECT your copyright, requires that you Register your Copyright with the Copyright Office.
This is a REQUIRED step for them to use any Copyright laws in any way shape or form to their advantage.
This is absolutely non-news. This is so non-news, it's pathetic. And there's 652 more comments I haven't read!
All this is is someone saying "Hey, this is mine. I want a legal document to show it's mine, so that I can use the laws that are in place to enforce that it is, in fact, mine."
Get a grip. Please?
Much doubt about their case (Score:5, Insightful)
A couple of questions I have. If I am using linux in desktop mode on a single cpu, how can I possibly be using the actual features that they claim were necessary to scale beyond 4 processors?
I also have a client that is running a 4 year old Linux distro on a closed network that just runs night and day. How could this possibly infringe since it predates the IBM kernel contributions that SCO claims started this bruhaha? Yet they seem to want a license fee for any vintage of running Linux.
SCO wants to distribute a binary only Unixware runtime that can execute Linux binaries, presumably as the only "legal and non-infringing" platform for doing so. How can they completely incorporate this capability without taking any GPL'd code and ignoring the license?
My opinion after dwelling on this for a while is this:
1 - SCO is trying to overthrow the entire Linux movement that threatens their struggling business. They are scaring the heck out of businesses that currently run or were thinking about deploying Linux. They are not allowing any access to information about their claimed code swap. This means they have no desire to co-exist, but to supercede completely. Their steps so far support this opinion, future moves may change this opinion. Kernel coders have expressed great interest in learning which features supposedly infringe on SCO IP so they can be replaced. It seems that SCO has been completely unwilling to inform them without having them sign an NDA that would then prevent them from fixing any actual code infringment.
2 - SCO is attempting to openly break and defy the terms of the (L)GPL. If they can do so, then they weaken it tremendously and encourage others to dissent too. They are also attempting to change established precedent concerning IP infringment and end user rights. Way back in the early 1990's Microsoft stole [vaxxine.com] compression technology from Stac and had to pay them a large settlement [base.com]. The outcome for consumers that had already purchased the infringing product? They got to keep possession and continue to use the product they had payed for. Some people got free upgrades, but the ones that chose to keep using the original MS stealware didn't have to get an additional license from Stac to remain legal. Microsoft also countersued claiming that Stac had illegaly reverse engineered part of MS-DOS to enable them to seemlessly integrate their product below the filesystem level. MS won the counter-suit and a smaller $13million award. Customers that had purchased Stac products still had the legal right to use them too. This is because the customer or end user wasn't involved in the actual theft and only indirectly get benefit from the illegal acts on both sides. This precedent holds true in all of the cases that come easily to mind, but there may be exceptions. What the freak is SCO trying to pull?
Re:All Linux 2.4 user in violation (Score:5, Insightful)
However, don't, don't, don't send me your names if you want to sue SCO, please. The email address I have posted at Slashdot is /dev/null, and I am presently (but hopefully not for too much longer) working for a giant law firm where I can't just decide to take a case if I want to. But if I were not under that limitation, I would be very interested in talking with anyone who became the target of a cease-and-desist letter from SCO. I'm sure there are others with similar interests who are not under the same professional constraints, and I suggest that anyone who gets a SCO Linux nastygram consider contacting www.chillingeffects.org and posting the letter there, whereupon students and professors at various law schools may offer free commentary and legal advice. It's my understanding that some victims of improper copyright abuse have obtained lawyers as a result of posting on chillingeffects (although I don't think the site actually offers representation).
I want to correct (or I guess just put a different gloss on) one statement that has been made in the discussion. The GPL's comments regarding standing to sue are probably the law in most jurisdictions. However, in California where I am licensed, there is a statute known as Section 17200 that gives its citizens broad standing to sue for unfair business practices on behalf of the public interest. Although the remedies would be limited to disgorgement of profits (paying back anyone who paid for a SCO Linux license) and injunctive relief (an order that SCO stop asking people to pay for licenses, claiming they own Linux, distributing binary-only, etc.), the interest of the open source community in continuing its free development and use of Linux seems in my view to be exactly the type of public interest this (oft-misused) statute was designed to protect. Moreover, attorney fees can be awarded under 17200, so I feel certain that if the news is well-disseminated, some lawyer not currently wearing the golden handcuffs (as I am) will take up the banner.
Re:After some thought (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Time for Linus to get medieval (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux got to where it is by being free and open. If you start to play favorites (even if justified) you're probably just going to detract from that point.
Re:The scary thing (Score:3, Insightful)
That might make it clear enough for people like you.
The GPL is doing you a favor by assuming that your otherwise unauthorized distribuition of the copyrighted file is done so in accordance with the GPL. Otherwise, you're liable for damages of up to $150k per file, per copy. You can claim that you didn't agree to the GPL when distributing the file, and everyone will accept it, but then the issue is why you knowingly violated its copyright.
The GPL is incredibly secure, in that you can only accept it if you implicitly agree that it's valid. If you don't agree, you don't accept it, and you have no extra rights at all.
So, is SCO violating the provable copyrights of all of the contributors of original work, or they agreed to the GPL. Which is it? Even if they could prove (hah) that they own some of the code in the kernel, unless they own Linus's original work from university, they're violating his copyright by distributing it.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again (Score:3, Insightful)
First, the fact that SCO still has a Linux dist. on their FTP server is not evidence of anything.
Wrong. It is evidence of the 'smoking gun' variety that they are doing one of the following
1) Legally distributing GPLed code
a) any Caldera contributed code is likewise GPLed and legal
b) Either there is no misappropriated code present or they have implicitly chosen to GPL it.
2) SCO is willfully and knowingly violating copyright, as violating the GPL (or disregarding it) means that regular copyright law applies, and they have no right to distribute any code but that which they wrote (which excludes virtually everything except that contributed by Caldera, if anything).
Either way, it is certainly evidence of 'something.'
The end users are in no way bound by the GPL, they are just in violation of SCO's copyright.
The end users most certainly are bound by copyright law, and are thus not permitted by default to download (ie. 'copy'), much less use the software in question unless they adhere to the GPL. Therefor, end users are REQUIRED by law to adhere to the GPL if they make any use of the software (including the Linux kernel itself). This includes SCO and anyone else.
Understanding that point, SCO is free to license their SysV code to linux users. Linux users are free to use it.
Yes, but in the extraordinarilly unlikely event that there is SCO code in Linux, users are NOT permitted to violate the GPL OR SCO's license. The two are incompatible, so the user in question must chose to adhere to one or the other (guess which one wins? Yup, the GPL, as SCO's contribution, if any, won't a working kernel make).
IBM is potentially in bad shape, legally and in damages. Of course, this is all assuming that their is merit to SCO's claim that their code was placed in Linux.
The world is in dire straights, assuming the claims of Osama bin Laden and your local suicide cult have merit. The fact of the matter is that SCO consistently provides absolutely no evidence of any of their claims, and has continued to do so for months, while the Linux development process has been in contrast very transparent and well documented. You have more chance of being right by joining the local suicide cult than you do by suggesting these fraudulant attorneys have any shred of legitimacy in their arguments. Indeed, the court filing papers underscore just how lacking their case really is, and how empty their bellecose assertions vis-a-vis Linux copyright really are.
That really isn't important. Even if SCO were 100% correct, they themselves would be willfully guilty of copyright violation, and while everyone might have to switch to FreeBSD from Linux (unlikely in the extreme), SCO would be buried under copyright suits of their own, and will not stay in business regardless. Their day is over, they have become little more than stooges for Sun Microsystems and Microsoft, and their passing is loud, noise, and annoying, but ultimately of little lasting interest. They do not own the copyright on Linux, they have no legal basis to license code they do not own, and once this stock bubble collapses there is a very real liklihood that most of their leadership will be in court, quite possibly followed by prison.
one strategy (Score:3, Insightful)
Then, just in case IBM tries to countersue, declare bankruptcy quickly and go away.
Re:Much doubt about their case (Score:2, Insightful)
I find it amazing that (Score:1, Insightful)
Shouldn't the government at some point step in and put an end to this ?
Doesn't it make sense that even if it were true that a few hundred lines of code belong to SCO that developers would be given the fair chance to eliminate those said lines instead of company just outright highjacking the rest of the codebase ?
Where the FUCK is justice in this country!
Re:It's important now, to act. (Score:2, Insightful)
What you are essentially saying is it's okay to go spread lies with the intent of manipulating the stock market. You openly confessed on a public forum. A disclaimer of 'opinion' will not protect you from the attorny general.
I hate what SCO has done as much as the next guy, but I seriously suggest people refrain from this type of behaviour.
BTW, 'hellish' is relative term. I would harldy compare a truely hellish life to what you are facing from SCO. Try living on a trash heap in India. That, my friend, is hellish.
Re:FSF should sue on behalf of the developers then (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes the lack of copyright assignment will be a barrier, but not a huge one.
Re:Hello, SCO? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well I suppose that's going to be the crux of the case, if and when this ever gets to court. It looks like SCO is going to claim it is, and that they own everything every Unix vendor has ever made. IBM has a little different reading of the contract.
Either way, frankly, their linux licensing crap is not just a joke, it's flat out illegal. Even if SCO were somehow to miraculously turn out to have a case against IBM, that doesn't translate into owning Linux. Every 'binary only runtime license' they sell is another case of copyright infringement, of 'software piracy' as it's usually phrased. Even if IBM violated their contract with SCO, that wouldn't give SCO a license to violate their contract with the Linux hackers and others whose work they've been, and still to this day are, distributing. At worst, they'd have to tell the kernel people what lines, exactly, IBM contributed improperly and then they'd work around it and fix the problem.
Now this is where SCOs claims go beyond just bizaare and improbable to downright twilight zone. They appear to also be claiming that linux itself, not just the parts that IBM allegedly contributed improperly, belongs to SCO too! That an independent work-alike, written from scratch to conform to publically known specifications by people with no contractual obligations to SCO whatsoever, is STILL a derivative work!
Their arrogance knows no bounds. Let's hope their ability to bribe judges is more modest. That's the only way such a bizaare theory could ever be upheld in a court of law.
I still don't believe they intend to ever see this to trial though. Their actions just aren't consistent with such a brazen plan. I think they know they haven't a case, against IBM or anyone else, but they hope if they make enough of a stink they can dump their stock for overinflated prices before everyone figures out what they're up to.
Re:Awarded Copyright??? (Score:3, Insightful)
I just think that they're going to wait for the most opportune time to do the most damage - sort of like SCO, except without the fud.
Re:I believe SCO could succeed here... (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. It's highly unlikely that a judge would dismiss this outright, unless some other defendant didn't show up.
This is true; in fact they are still distributing the code, although this may be accidental. I'm sure you can find the SRPM link somewhere around here. Let me explain why this doesn't matter:
I'm still waiting for your explanation of why it doesn't matter.
SCO is going to claim that they were not the ones to insert their proprietary code into Linux, IBM was. Therefore, it isn't their responsibility to take it out
This is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter who put it there, and it doesn't matter who's responisibility it is to remove it. What does matter is that while it's there, NOBODY CAN DISTRIBUTE IT, INCLUDING SCO. The only thing giving SCO the right to distribute the Linux kernel is the GPL, which SCO is implicitly agreeing to by continuting to distribute the code.
Simple three part question.
Is SCO aware of the requirements of the GPL?
Is SCO aware of "their" code in the kernel?
IS SCO DISTRIBUTING IT?
The answer to all three of these questions is YES
Therefore, it's highly likely that a judge would simply throw out SCO's assertions that the GPL doesn't apply. THE ONLY THING GIVING SCO THE RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE THE KERNEL IS THE GPL. AS SCO IS CONTINUTING TO DISTRIBUTE "THEIR" CODE, THEY ARE AGREEING TO THE GPL.
it is also a violation for every single other Linux distro
What "other distributions" are doing is irrelevant - "other distributions" are not claiming that they have proprietary code, and "other distribitons" are not suing to stop one another from distributing the kernel.
SCO can easily claim that it is literally impossible to legally replace the code; the kernel is so tainted now that any replacement code would simply be another violation. The only solution is for these companies to pay SCO what they owe.
Bullshit. You're trying to tell me that something can not be replaced? AT ALL ?!?!?! What have you been smoking?
And even if it's "impossible" to legally replace the code or not, the fact is that SCO hasn't told anybody where it is even when explicitly requested. By not doing so, SCO is saying that "their" code is worthless to them.
You have a very long troll - it's too bad you're not smart enough to actually make it convincing.
Re:From an investor's point of view (Score:2, Insightful)
All it would take is to email Linus a copy of the files that are in violation and tell him 'the following lines are copyrighted by us, please remove lines 38-89, 82-84, etc from your code, and since your such a nice guy, please don't go around posting the exact lines we asked you to remove, have a nice day'
how hard would that be. they have no legal grounds and should actually be getting hit with cease and desist letters from Linus or any of the developers(and ESPECIALLY corps like REDHAT) whose code might be affected. they are blackmailing unknowing companies with fud.
Re:Who's codes' on first? What license is on secon (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's important now, to act. (Score:2, Insightful)
Lets say we get a million open source coders and supporters to buy 7 shares each. Thats an investment of less than $100 per person.
We take our voting majority, and run SCO promptly into the ground - eating that $77 loss per person.
Unfortunately, the more people who take interest in SCO buy purchasing stocks, the more the value of the stocks will go up. The first people would be able to buy their stock at $77. But then the price will go up making it hard to finish with your plan.
Is Linux even Legitimate? (Score:3, Insightful)
Having just spoken with a corporate attorney about this (said attorney happens to be my father), I was told that only one thing really matters in this case:
What is the dimension of copyrightability or of patentability, as it applies to computer software?
This is to say, what can SCO claim it had patented or copyrighted. Narrowly, one could say that SCO's protection applies only to the letter of its source code, not to any ancillary ideas. But SCO could counter this claim, saying that its protections extended to the UNIX "user experience." Such things as the command syntax of the Bourne shell, the Shell/Kernel design, the presence of standard utilities like awk and make, or even the something as nebulous as the "shape of the integrated whole" (the experiential architecture of a UNIX system and what it "feels" like when it is operated) could, in fact, be claimed as intellectual property.
One should realize, in defense of SCO, that all essentially all early UNIX and UNIX-like technology was developed by a small team at AT&T Bell Labs, and clearly AT&T didn't pay and fund that team simply to write code. No, that team was funded by-and-large to craft an operating system, a "user-experience," "application programming interface experience" and "overall system architecture." Indeed, these latter ideas were far more important (and valuable) than the UNIX source code itself. AT&T forced Novell, as Novell later forced SCO, to pay good money for the rights to these ideas, so if I were SCO and had paid some $500 million for the rights to such ideas, I too would be rather perturbed should an individual and an organization (Linus and the FSF) come along with the vision of creating "a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software" (source: FSF website, GNU project homepage), this is to say, creating a product that uses all of my policy, interface specification, and design ideas, without rightfully paying for them.
Everyone here should realize that Linus, RMS, and their ilk simply wrote programs that implemented policy, architecture, and user-experience specifications and ideas developed, at the cost of millions of dollars, some twenty-years before at AT&T Bell Labs. That SCO later paid millions for those ideas, something that people here seem to laugh at, should not, in my mind, be taken lightly.
Re:It's important now, to act. (Score:3, Insightful)
Others have pointed out some of the other problems with your plan, you also have to worry about minority shareholder lawsuits. If, as a majority shareholder (or group of majority shareholders) you do anything that does not directly enhance shareholder value, you can be sued for whatever the company 'would have made' How this is determined is unknown to me, however I suspect that it is fairly arbitrary. If someone actually comes foreward with a plan to drive the stock into the ground, it would make it obvious that the actions were planed and malicious, so there would likely be punitive actions if not criminal charges.
This is supposed to prevent the majority shareholders from taking the money and running. Obviously it doesn't work as recent corporate failures can attest, but whether or not it actually works, you would still have some serious risk.
This is actually why CEO's can command such high salaries. When a 'superstar' CEO is hired, the stock often goes up a great deal. A company who has the ability to pay a 'superstar' CEO enough to keep others from hiring him away, and doesn't can be sued if it can be shown (by perponderence of the evidence, NOT reasonable doubt) that their stock value would have been greater were that CEO hired, the company can be held liable for damages.
That said, I like the idea in principle. I would love to run SCO, Microsoft, and everyone (the parent companies, not the subsidaries) involved in the RIAA, MPAA or mass media completely into the ground. Eliminate the companies, and make it so that no other like them could ever rise.
BTW INAL.