SCO Responds to OSDL Legal Aid Announcement 473
Greyfox writes "SCO has issued a response to the earlier OSDL legal aid announcement. Basically the same old story, noting: 'If vendors feel so confident with the intellectual property foundation under their massive contributions into Linux, then they should put their money where their mouth is and protect end users with true vendor-based indemnification.' The release also refers us to their SCOSource web site, which they claim in their announcement shows 'proof' of infringement. I was unable to find any such 'proof' other than their claim that they own errno.h. Since I'm obviously too much of an idiot to find the 'proof' they claim they're showing, maybe someone else could go look and tell me where it is."
System V (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless System V == Linux
I don't think so.
Solaris...well....
Re:System V (Score:5, Interesting)
They do indeed claim System V. They also claim that this ownership (in the form of copyright to the source code and design, I believe) automatically extends to all works derived in part or whole from System V.
Unless System V == Linux
This means that according to their claim, Linux in fact does not have to be the same as System V, it only has to be derived from it for them to have ownership of (part of) the Linux source code.
IANAL, but it seems to me that this claim of derivation is extremely tenuous. But copyright law does recognize the general notion of derived works, so its just possible that they are right about this. It will take a court - and probably several appeals courts - to decide this.
Even if they did establish that their copyright of System V gave them rights to derived works in the way they are claiming, I suspect they would also need to separately show that Linux was derived from System V in that way.
Again, their claim is not so much that specific blocks of code have been copied from their codebase into Linux, but that the general specifications and design (as well as code) of System V is present in Linux. If they are right about this then recoding specific infringing code may not be enough to satisfy the courts.
I suspect their case is deeply flawed, but it does seem at least based in a reading of the law.
Re:System V (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, this is still seems to be mostly U.S. problem.
In Finland - and I think in many other European countries too - the copyright law does not know about derivative works; you can draw Donald Ducks here without paying any royalties for Disney, as long as the stories are your own.
So maybe Linus should just return home to Helsinki and mail Darl that your law doesn't apply to me.
But well... I sorta agree that claiming Linux illegal in U.S. could somewhat disturb its development...
Re:System V (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong. Finland adopted the Berne Convention, which includes pretty much the same rules about derivative works that US copyright law does.
Re:System V (Score:4, Informative)
See chapter 1, article 4, paragraph 2:
"If a person has drawn freely on a work to create a new and independent work, his copyright shall not be subject to the right in the original work."
I think a work could count as "new and independent work", even if you're using a lookalike of an already-known character, like DD as part of it. Using the already-known name, however, would be a violation of chapter 6, article 51:
"A literary or artistic work shall not be made available to the public under a title, pseudonym or signature that makes the work or its author liable to confusion with a previously disseminated work or its author."
Methinks we'll very soon need a real lawyer to work this out for us.
Re:System V (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really. The most interesting parts of system V have been through an industry standard process where representatives of ATT, Novell and SCO/Caldera were present. If they attempt to put any claims to anything that has gone through that process they are up to the same serious shafting as RamBus(t).
Actually, it is interesting that IBM did not put this in their counterclaims. Possibly they are holding that one in reserve just in case SCO wins. Because,
Re:System V (Score:4, Insightful)
This would be an acceptable statement iff the BSD lawsuits did not exist.
System V from the BSD OSes is public domain. That has been decided by a court of law.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this BSD fallout all happened around the time that Linux was born. Which would make it quite logical that Linux could have taken the System V code at the time, which has since been iterated over time and time again.
Derived works of public domain code, maybe. Derived works of SCO IP? No.
They have no case. There is no reading of law basis to their case. It's something printed on much smaller sheets and, worryingly for the western world, more important than law.
Don't you know? The SCO Group and all the individuals associated with it have made a fucking fortune. And you can bet your bottom dollar they're gonna milk it for every dime they can.
Worse still, it's an identical principle to the one the US government uses. If you repeat a lie enough, eventually it becomes a truth that people are willing to accept. And then you can get away with highway robbery with their approval.
Please, by saying that "they have a case based in a reading of law" you are not only being patronising, but condoning what should be and could be a criminal act and one that they will get away with.
Re:System V (Score:3, Informative)
System V from the BSD OSes is public domain. That has been decided by a court of law.
Noo....As far as I know headers might public domain (only one way to implement it, yada yada), but the rest is still copyrighted. The difference is the license the BSDs are distributed under is extremely unrestricting. Free of most all restrictions and public domain are different things.
Re:System V (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, if the judge had written something to the effect of "I find that there is no enforceable copyright in the SysV code", any copyright claim based on that material would be immediately sunk. Since he didn't, such a claim would still be sunk, but it'd take more work to sink it.
Re:System V (Score:5, Informative)
You have to be careful to interpret the law using the legal definition of derived work, not a vernacular definition.
A derived work contains material that is covered by copyright taken from another work.
Imagine I take some numbers from a table in your book to make a graph to put in my book. In a colloquial sense you might say my work is derived from yours, but it is not a derived work in the legal sense, because all I took was information, which is not protected under copyright law.
To justify a claim that Linux is a derived work, SCO would need to identify specific elements copied and show that these elements are protected by copyright law. In theory, non-literal elements in the design could be protected, but given the great variety of Unix-y operating systems that exist and the complicated history of their dissemination, it would be difficult to protect non-literal elements unless they exist uniquely in SysV.
Re:System V (Score:3, Informative)
Well, it's irrelevant, since Sun holds a license from SCO.
Pfft! (Score:5, Funny)
Here's the proof (Score:2, Funny)
If ever a post cried out for a goatse troll linked behind the words, "here's the proof", this would be it!
Sorry, but I just can't bring myself to actually do it...
Not tired of it yet (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not tired of it yet (Score:2)
Re:Not tired of it yet (Score:2)
Re:Not tired of it yet (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not tired of it yet (Score:3, Informative)
In fact, judging from the "main" icon (the one next to the story), I'd assume that this is in Linux businesses primarily, with a sub-categorisation of the others, including Caldera. Thus, my filtering is to no avail.
Of course, nothing was stopping me (or the OP) from simply *ignoring* the story...
Re:Not tired of it yet (Score:3, Informative)
They do, except it's labeled Caldera.
Re:Not tired of it yet (Score:3)
I...[gasp]...go somewhere else.
Re:Not tired of it yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Its very misleading. They don't really mean to say "I hate all these SCO stories". What they really mean to say is "I love to bitch about something, and the SCO stories are a great bandwagon to jump on".
I see all kinds of stories that are meaningless to me. As a matter of fact, MOST of the stories on slashdot are not of interest to me, but they are to others, and thats the idea, to appeal to a broad audience.
The SCO situation is one of the more important issues to ever face Linux, GPL and Open Source in general. Ever. While most of us have faith that the courts will see the light, we know that we can't take this for granted. (ie: OJ) This will hopefully answer lots of legal questions on Linux, and in the end, be to the benefit of Linux and the GPL. Even the people bitching know this.
My conclusion is very simple: They just want to bitch, and like many other llamas, they are just following yet more llamas, and using SCO stories as a target for their bitching. Since it takes 100x more effort to post and complain than to ignore, this is obvious.
Re:Not tired of it yet (Score:5, Insightful)
What excites me is that this potential major court case involving open source will not be a david and goliath mismatch as I always feared would cast an unfair chill on free software.
Having IBM and Intel (among others) battling to protect the GNU license and clarify code ownership will ensure that the OSS side can't be simply defeated by burying them in paperwork and expensive legal maneuvers.
Re:Not tired of it yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not tired of it yet (Score:3, Funny)
Wouldn't a Jon Katz editorial on the whole SCO deal be such a perfect topper to all this absurdity?
C'mon, Jon... we know you're listening. Give us the write-up!
Re:Not tired of it yet (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not tired of it yet (Score:3, Informative)
Hack teh Google! (Score:5, Funny)
By now I'm sure everyone now knows that entering "miserable failure" and clicking "I'm Feeling Lucky" on Google will bring them to a certain politician's homepage.. well if everyone reading this were to link "litigious bastards" to SCO's website [sco.com] on their webpages..
Ya never know
Re:Hack teh Google! (Score:5, Informative)
It's working! (Score:3)
I just Googled for "litigious bastards" and a SCO entry is now in the #6 spot!
Way to go guys!
Re:Hack teh Google! (Score:5, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12, @03:08PM (#7955752)
what like this litigious bastards [sco.com].
Exactly, now you're catching on. Everybody with me now: litigious bastards [sco.com].
Oops, I linked twice. Feel free to mod me up though
Re:Hack teh Google! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hack teh Google! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hack teh Google! (Score:3, Informative)
So does it actually work if almost all of the links to litigious bastards are located on the same web site?
NOWouldn't it be better if people started adding them to the blogs and personal or business sites?
YESRe:Hack teh Google! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hack teh Google! (Score:2)
Re:Hack teh Google! (Score:3, Insightful)
And this will show what? That we're out of touch with reality?
If SCO had showed a single piece of evidence that didn't in fact end up proving that their code derived from open source code, and if they didn't threaten to send bills for a product they don't have rights to, and if they didn't handle the case in a way calculat
Say..... (Score:4, Interesting)
How long until we know how this shakes out in court?
Re:Say..... (Score:2)
Or maybe they really are just full of it.
Damon,
Re:Say..... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Say..... (Score:5, Informative)
Breath-holding is likely to be ill-advised.
Re:Say..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless, of course, SCO actually has something legitimate that we've all missed. I can't say I'm very worried.
Re:Say..... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Say..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but:
"I have been seeing a lot of expectations about Monday, but personally, I don't expect to know much until the next court date on the 23rd, if SCO is being truthful and actually does turn over significant answers and documents. SCO may have media pronouncements to make, but IBM has to look over what they are given and evaluate it and that takes time. They aren't given to trying this case in the media, so my best guess is that our next event in the IBM matte
'proof'? No, "proof" (Score:4, Funny)
Re:'proof'? No, "proof" (Score:2)
Re:'proof'? No, "proof" (Score:3, Interesting)
A post at Linux Daily news had an interesting take. Sentence one makes a true statement because we all know SCO (as Caldera) contributed to the kernel. Sentence 2 is also a true statement as u
Vendor-based indemnification (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Vendor-based indemnification (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason the big players haven't wanted to offer indemnification on SCO's terms is that it allows the possibility of SCO getting some money. Suppose IBM offered indemnification for its Linux users and one of those users -- without IBMs knowledge -- did something improper with UNIX and Linux. Depending on how the indemnification is worded, IBM could be on the hook for the legal judgement. IANAL, but I believe that the size of the judgement is often based on the defendant's ability to pay. SCO could wind up spending huge bucks in legal bills for chicken feed.
And the truly shocking part: it looks like Wall Street noticed. The story showed up in the newspapers around noon, so I figure the release must have happened a couple of hours before that. And look at what happened to SCO's stock [yahoo.com] right around ten.
Why SCO acts the way it does (Score:5, Funny)
Son of.. the bride? It seems she has already given birth before the wedding ceremony. Which means the baby was born out of wedlock.
So it's obvious the CEO of SCO hails from a long line of bastards.
Re:Why SCO acts the way it does (Score:5, Funny)
-Ab
Re:Why SCO acts the way it does Mc and Brighid (Score:4, Informative)
So hard to read (Score:3, Funny)
SCO finally shows infringing code! (Score:5, Funny)
No, see, you misread their site. They aren't claiming to own errno.h. That is there official statement - as in:
IBM: Show us the infringing code.
SCO: Um, well, Err..... NO!
Re:SCO finally shows infringing code! (Score:3, Funny)
From Netcraft... " The site www.sco.com is running Apache on Linux." The source of their web site contains the full infringing code....
Aging McBride presenting evidence (Score:5, Funny)
Look how Darl has aged, this has clearly taken its toll.
Very appropriate picture!! (Score:3, Insightful)
In 1938.
We all know what happened next.
Darl's "proof" probably has as much value as Neville's scrap of paper.
Intentions. (Score:3, Insightful)
Darl, well, is Darl.
Re:Intentions. (Score:3, Insightful)
Neville should be pitied.
Darl should be pilloried.
lets all follow their example. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:lets all follow their example. (Score:5, Informative)
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
So, perhaps, they aren't violating the GPL itself because they don't accept it anymore, but they are violating the authors' copyrights, because the GPL is the only license the authors allow the code to be distributed under. You can hash words all day.
Re:lets all follow their example. (Score:5, Informative)
Well lets see now... [gnu.org]
Section 0. They're charging a fee (other that for the physical act of transferring a copy, or for a warranty)
Section 6. SCO are attemtping to impose further restictions (binary only licenses)
And the catch all... Section 4. Attempting to distrubute the software outside of the terms of the licence, terminates the license, therefore SCO is in breech for distributing any copy at all now.
Any others, anyone?
No fair! (Score:5, Interesting)
Cheers,
Craig
Email to abuse@osdl.org (Score:4, Funny)
To: OSDL Staff [abuse@osdl.org]
Subject: A message from his majesty.
To whom it may concern,
Now you have done it. I am not amused and if you don't quit defending yourselves, I'll say it again! Also, out of frustration, I kicked my pekinese cat and refused to feed Chriss Sontag and Laura DiDio. I hope you are happy with the pain and suffering you are causing!
Love, Darl.
PS,
Call me!
SCO drumming the indemnification drums... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The actions of these vendors today doesn't change the fact that SCO's intellectual property is being found in Linux."
I can see it now. At then end when they are crushed. Daryll will say "Honest... we thought we owned the IP. It's not my fault!" Only thing he could say to try and stay outta jail.
SCO is full of it.
Evidence (Score:2)
Intel, IBM, etc Donate $3 M (combined) (Score:2, Informative)
link [com.com]
No SCO proof, but (Score:5, Informative)
This is not SCO proof, I couldn't find any either, but proof that SCO is laying claim to code they did not write:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-ker
Look! Over There! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Look! Over There! (Score:3, Interesting)
Legal fund: We have this much money to defend you with. I hope it's enough.
Indemnification: We take full responsibility. Any legal action will come completely though us, no matter the cost.
You can see why not very many companies do it.
inconsistencies (Score:2)
Why, dear SCO, is there a difference between a commercial user and a hobbyist all of the sudden? I hereby deem myself a commercial user. Come and get me.
Really Amazingly Stupid Question (Score:5, Interesting)
With respect to SCO's claims on errno.h, perhaps copyright historians/experts can help me out here:
Since when did the association of a number (e.g. 12) and its specific meaning in a specific context (EACCES: Permission denied when accessing a file) become copyrightable?
Does this mean I can assert copyrights over /etc/X11/rgb.txt?
Schwab
Depends on where you live (Score:5, Insightful)
"Sorry, your building application is rejected under paragraph 14." "Can I get a copy of what paragraph 14 says, so I can correct it?" "No, it is copyrighted, you have to *buy* a copy." "And if I don't want to?"
As for the rest of the conversation, it'll go something like this (adopted from Douglas Adam's The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)
"But Mr. Dent, the building code has been available in the government office for the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well, as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the code was on display..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well, the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the building code, didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'"
Even so, while they'll have a much harder time copyrighting error codes, rather than complex building codes, there's no clear precendent you can point to and outright dismiss the claim. It'll be word against word until settled by a judge.
I know they wouldn't be copyrightable here (in Norway). But then again DeCSS is legal here as well. What's that? You claim we're hiding Osama here? Invade? Aiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!!
Kjella
The proof is in the Pudding! (Score:4, Funny)
Signed,
Darl McCosby
SCO's FAQ (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SCO's FAQ (Score:3, Interesting)
No, you do not need to purchase a SCO IP license to run BSD.
Veeery...interesting....
My favorite question.... (Score:3, Funny)
No. Nothing needs to be installed on the client, server or embedded device.
You know... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just goes to show how rediculous it all is.
for some more funny stuff about SCO .. (Score:5, Interesting)
Gotta love #6 and #45:
6. Why doesn't SCO just simply publish this code so that it can be taken out of Linux if it is indeed infringing? And why do you require a non-disclosure agreement to view some of this infringing code?
Intellectual property forms the basis of the value of any software vendor. IP is confidential throughout the industry to protect competitive advantages one vendor has over another. Other industry vendors such as Microsoft and Apple do not routinely contribute their IP as vendors spend millions of dollars creating a competitive market.
SCO has confidentiality clauses in all of our contracts with more than 6,000 licensees that specifically state that this UNIX source code has to be held in confidence. If SCO published this UNIX source code, SCO itself would be in violation of these contracts.
SCO has a legal obligation to hold this source code in confidence, so it requires that individuals who view this code sign a non-disclosure in order to see it.
#45
. I am running BSD. Am I required to purchase a license?
No, you do not need to purchase a SCO IP license to run BSD.
Re:for some more funny stuff about SCO .. (Score:3, Insightful)
> would be in violation of these contracts.
Of course, SCO has already published some offending UNIX source code (in its opinion). Has it violated its confidentiality clauses?
If not, they're playing with words, most likely. "this UNIX source code" could just be a reference to the whole body of UNIX source code it got (has on loan) from Novell. If they published *the* UNIX source code, yes, they'd be in hot water.
Sorry if any of the above was vauge
I have a quick question... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I have a quick question... (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe you're right. SCO's gamble is that the majority of people would listen to law and lawyers as their "proof" rather than listen to the hairy-scary magicological technical people.
Obligatory Godfather reference (Score:3, Funny)
Novell to idemify? (Score:5, Informative)
More at:
eWeek [eweek.com]
They be very smart (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy answer.
First, it means that they cannot go after small time users. This kicks the legs out from under them, as they cannot build up case history by suing end-users and getting them to surrender (like the RIAA). This means the only thing they can do is go after companies in a vulnerable position, like Google (who in the midst of an IPO would HATE to have the pub of a SCO lawsuit)
Secondly, when a company indemnifies, all of the claims are paid out (most of the time) by it's insurance company. This would give SCO the ability to get money to eternity by suing end-users, have them spin to the company, and the company would pay via it's insurer. This is a brilliant move on OSDL's part. SCO was baiting them to push for the indemnification, but by NOT pushing for it and then getting the ability for end users to defend themselves, they have effectively castrated SCO in at least three strategies.
If you want to understand SCO's PR.... (Score:5, Interesting)
First is the perception level. This is what you're supposed to get the feel of when you read the statements. The second is the literal/factual level, which is far less impressive, and what keeps the SEC and other agencies off of their butt. But most people don't read at this level. It is *fun* when you do!
In short, the art of lying while telling the truth. You'll see it in the Yahoo! posting.
the binary license? (Score:5, Funny)
Cool chart (Score:3, Insightful)
Slightly OT: SCO hides Linux usage? (Score:5, Interesting)
running its FTP site using SCO Unix. However, I FTP'ed the site to see for
sure:
>ftp ftp.sco.com
Connected to ftp.sco.com.
220 ftp.caldera.com Ready.
User (ftp.sco.com:(none)): anonymous
331 Anonymous login ok, send your complete email address as your password.
Password:
230- Welcome to SCO's FTP site!
This site hosts UNIX software patches, device drivers and supplements
from SCO.
To access Skunkware and Supplemental Open Source Packages, please
connect to ftp2.caldera.com.
230 Anonymous access granted, restrictions apply.
ftp> cd bin
250 CWD command successful.
ftp> ls
200 PORT command successful
150 Opening ASCII mode data connection for file list
zcat
gzip
ls
tar
226 Transfer complete.
ftp: 21 bytes received in 0.00Seconds 21000.00Kbytes/sec.
ftp> get gzip
200 PORT command successful
150 Opening ASCII mode data connection for gzip (142512 bytes)
226 Transfer complete.
ftp: 143032 bytes received in 1.08Seconds 132.68Kbytes/sec.
ftp> quit
221 Goodbye
Examination of the gzip executable with the strings command reveals that it
contains the string:
@(#) The Linux C library 5.4.22
As well as the text of the standard "NO WARRANTY" header found in
GPL source files.
So, apparently their FTP site is running Linux, but they are hiding that fact
with deceptive http headers (or whatever it is that netcraft uses).
Why you can't see the source code on the sight (Score:3, Informative)
So, basically you can't rebutt the claim since you can't see the source...and you can't see the source until you can't rebutt the claim (via NDA).
Has anyone contacted the ghost of Joseph Heller about this?
There FAQ is a trip.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Some Linux users have the misunderstanding that the SCO IP License for Linux hinges on the outcome of the SCO vs. IBM case. If that case were completely removed, Linux end users would still need to purchase a license from SCO to use the SCO IP found in Linux. The IBM case surrounds mis-use of derivative works of SCO UNIX. It does not change the fact that line-by-line SCO IP code is found in Linux.
Ie.. the court case has nothing to do with the Linux licenses.. and by SCO saying that there is infringing code, you are required to pay a license fee to them for your use of linux, without any proof.
Why is this behavior legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
If this is legal then what would stops Joe Schmoe from claiming they had input in some book on the top best seller list and start walking around threating BN and Amazon or anyone who bought the book. Why not since there is nothing to lose and maybe they will pay off.
Unhappy with SCO? (Score:4, Insightful)
found it (Score:4, Funny)
#ifndef _SYS_ERRNO_H_
#define _SYS_ERRNO_H_
#ifndef KERNEL
#include
__BEGIN_DECLS
int * __error __P((void));
__END_DECLS
#define errno (* __error())
#endif
#define EBULLSHIT 666
#endif
Interesting analysis of IP enforcement (Score:4, Interesting)
The author is an IP attorney, so you can imagine that the report ultimately has the lawyeresque resolution of, "Don't ignore any request - speak to an attorney" but it still reveals a lot of insight and info into the dynamic at play here.
What I find most troubling about this are some of the figures cited in the report:
From 1991 to 2000 there was a 48% increase in patent suits. I'd estimate that there were probably as much in the most recent three-year period as in the previous nine.
Average cost to prepare an answer to a suit is $250,000.
83% of these cases never come to trial.
Many people may not realize that it's much more likely that SCO will settle and this case may never come to trial, in which case SCO will have accomplished its objective of putting a dark cloud over Linux and continuing to extort unproven licensing fees from various users.
I don't know if there is, but there should be A CONDITION placed upon the donations and use of this fund so that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN THE MONEY BE USED IN A SETTLEMENT. We need to push for this trial to go all the way and not wuss out near the end, which would be a victory for SCO.
Re:Interesting analysis of IP enforcement (Score:3, Interesting)
That presumes that IBM will let them. IMB is currently in the process of dropping Microsoft operating systems. They have a lot invested in Linux, including the future of their company. Any kind of settlement will only substitute SCO for Microsoft as their lords and masters.
IBM has vowed to crack SCO's bones and suck them dry of marrow, and has considerable incentive to do so. And considerable ability to do so, as well.
SCO is a bunch of ideiots here is the proof... (Score:3, Informative)
Is is their lawsuit page (SCO's)
Click on the link that says "August 6, 2003 Defendant IBM's Answer to the Amended Complaint and Counterclaim-Plaintiff IBM's Counterclaims Against SCO"
Then read the small print in the PDF. Page 1 at the bottom where it says that this document is for the intended reciepiant and that distributing this document is a violation of attorney ... blah blah blah..
Your honor, if they can't keep their own attorney documents privelidged, then how can you expect them to keep their source code under control. I submit that SCO is responsible for letting loose the code in question and that their company should be divided up and diseminated, and that the owners of the company be all put in jail for being a bunch of dodo's!
SCaldera doesn't respect copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
Even IF SCO has some copyrighted bits in the kernel that they can prove they didn't place there, and didn't authorize, they still don't own all the OTHER millions of lines of code they didn't author...
Which they are STEALING for themselves to exclusively profit from if they insist that ONLY having their "Linux license" are you allowed to use it.
SCO lost all legal rights to that code the minute they declared their DISAGREEMENT with the GPL. The GPL alone gives anyone authority to copy, use, modify, redistribute any of the code in Linux.
To claim that the GPL is illegal, SCO is confessing to violating US copyright law, unless they have seperate agreements from EVERY copyright holder of that code!
This is why I think their threats to sue Google, or another Linux user over COPYRIGHT issues are complete FUD. They have shown their hand. They are going to pick out some of their OWN customers who licensed SCO Unix in the past and sue them for breach of contract for using Linux...
Very, VERY weak if you ask me.
SCO wants to stay the HELL away from copyright and stick to breach of contract (which is all the IBM suit is) but use those cases to "win" the copyright case in the court of public opinion (and thus defame all Linux people) because a court of LAW is the last place they want to have to answer for the fact that they themselves have pirated MILLIONS of lines of code illegally just by continuing to distribute Linux...
Re:SCaldera doesn't respect copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
The idea of a class action lawsuit makes even more sense IMHO.
1) SCO has already disavowed the GPL. I believe this is in their court filings. As such they have no legal right to use or distribute any GPL code.
2) This fact is easily provable. The court documents already are filed. As such - in many jurisdictions this is a summary judgement matter.
3) It costs only a couple hundred bux to file a statment of claim and a summary judge
Re:First (Score:2)
Re:Sharp Zaurus 5600 at Amazon (Score:2)