SCO Says IBM is Beating Up on Them 1133
SCO's McBride claims that IBM is stage-managing all the attacks and bad press, which would probably explain why I cleared this article with IBM World Headquarters before running it (not!). The publisher of Linux Journal invites SCO to sue. One of SCO's lawyers has this barely coherent interview where he spouts legal rubbish for a gullible reporter. There's an interview in German (machine translation) with SCO's execs. And finally, SCO is still hoping for a settlement with IBM. Update: 08/22 18:26 GMT by M : ESR responds.
Fuck them. (Score:4, Insightful)
YASA (Score:0, Insightful)
The SCO execs and shareholders must have been first in line on free labotomy day at Dr Nick Riviera's...
First long, thoughful post. (Score:2, Insightful)
That "barely coherent interview" [com.com] was anything but.
I'm tired of this hear-no-evil see-no-evil attitude, especially from the editors here.
For those of you who could care less about the article and want your daily SCO bashing, here's the thing:
It was a pretty good angle that the lawyer was making, and the interviewer was asking tough questions, the same ones
we all have. The main thrust is that he's betting on the fact that Copyright law trumps whatever provisions are in the
GPL, so IBM's GPL defense doesn't hold water; and also that just because Caldera released kernel source under that license does
not mean that the whole codebase (not just what was republished) should also be GPL'd.
These are important things to think about, and you have to worry about how they can muddle a jury, and whether IBM (Linux users)
have a clear defense against these new angles.
Of course, he hasn't addressed (and the interviewer didn't mention) that a lot of that code in question seems to derive from earlier
public domain sources.
He also tries to put some spin on the case later, but I think we all expected that, especially the parallels to Napster.
Whatever. The interviewer was still concerned about SCO's litigous stance, which is a good sign that McBride's "silent majority"
are just a figment of his imagination (otherwise the interviewer could have tried to address these thoughts for the readership).
The funny part is towards the end, the lawyer defends that by saying the RIAA is worse, and that maybe they need to change,
as he makes SCO out to be, like innovative.
(SCO doesn't want to sue you, they just want your money, like settling without serving you papers). ^_^
Please people, read the articles and THINK before you open your mouth. Things are not as rosy as they seem, and we should be prepared for a rough time,
which we can all laugh about later. Now is not the time to be smart-assed or smug, because we could eat our words if we are not careful.
Are you listening to me slashdot? Editors? Bruuuuce? Back me up here...
Yup (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup, and all this proof is, of course, documented with the 'illegal' source code. To see it you'll need to sign an NDA.
Seriously, I don't think Linus' comment that "they are smoking crack" really covered it. McBride obviously seems to believe that the Open Source community isn't capable of refuting their bullshit without the backing of a large company.
Here's a newsflash for you, Darl: IBM doesn't -need- to coordinate an attack on SCO. The way I see it, an attack on one member of the Open Source community is an attack on all of us. And I know it's been said before, but why not: put up or shut up, SCO.
This clinches it ... (Score:5, Insightful)
A. Because all this SCO fud is being backed by a big corporation (M$).
fair and balanced (Score:3, Insightful)
The positive press for SCO is coming from one cause and one cause only: namely, when news outlets report on press releases SCO puts out. It is being driven by SCO alone. The ONLY other impetus for a pro-SCO story that we've seen in eight months was that time that Microsoft put out a press release stating they'd bought a SCOsource license.
Are you all familiar with the psychological and propaganda phenomenon of "projection"?
Cue more... (Score:1, Insightful)
And utterly failing to realise that the SCO executives are rich. And will get much richer as a result of this, completely regardless of the outcome. And there you'll be at the end of this, crowing about how right you were, and how dumb they were, while they move into bigger mansions, or buy that third yacht. Hence why they're rich, and you're languishing as a second-rate programmer.
One issue to raise (Score:5, Insightful)
If they did this, however, they would have to show a *minimal* amount of compelling evidence. Enough so that it is justified, but not necessarily the amount it would take to prove the case in a court trial.
My bet is they know they don't have this much evidence. They are simply trying to extort license money from gullible companies. If they saught an injunction, and were denied, all their posturing would immediately be disregarded.
Anyway, just something I was thinking about. Mabey they did seek one already. I admit I've become lazy in my SCO-story-reading duties.
And they expected Chocolates? (Score:5, Insightful)
Boo-Hoo.
Frankly, I think they misdirrected their frustration - I think the OSS community has piled on worse than IBM at this point. Bruce Perins blew the crap out of their Vegas presentation. Linus says the "smoke crack". Grocklaw rips them a new one every day.
IBM is the storm cloud on the horrizon. SCO hasn't even begun to feel what they have in store.
"pre-empted by copyright law" (Score:5, Insightful)
When they say "the GPL is pre-empted by copyright law", they don't mean that the GPL is invalid. What they mean is this: You can't GPL something you don't own. In other words, the fact that the code in dispute was distribute "under the GPL license" is irrelevant -- the company which did that (IBM) didn't own the code, so the fact that they "licensed" the code under the GPL is irrelevant.
Re:First long, thoughful post. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come on. This is their same claim that Federal Copyright only allows 1 copy for backup and the GPL allows multiple copies and is therefore invalid.
Somehow out of all this, they conclude that since Federal Copyright only allows 1 copy, the GPL is invalid and they are now free to make unlimited copies. After all, they are STILL distributing the kernel and, even if you can accept that 1 million lines belong to them, the rest DON'T. Under their own theory, SCO is guilty of vast copyright infringement.
And this, of course, completely ignores the fact that the Federal Copyright law still allows the OWNER of a copyright to authorize additional copies. Duh.
This explains IBM's silence (Score:2, Insightful)
Then again, SCO seems to be forming a pattern of crying belated woes...
An honest question (Score:5, Insightful)
But from what I can tell, SCO argues if one of THEIR files (or some of their files) touches Linux, then Linux is essentially theirs, especially because Linux apparently benefitted from the code they "own."
Maybe its just me, but there appears to be some hypocracy here (OK, it's SCO, expecting hypocracy is a default setting). Maybe it relates to their twisted take on GPL and Copyright, but I think the lawyer's statement really makes them look worse.
Thoughts on this?
Signs of Mental Breakdown (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that there haven't been many signs already that SCO has lost touch with reality, but adding in the "it's all a conspiracy by IBM" really indicates that the paranoia has gone into high gear.
[It's akin to Hillary's claims of a "vast right wing conspiracy" out to get Bill. There certainly was (and is) a "vast right wing" that delighted in hating Bill Clinton; but that doesn't make it a "conspiracy".]
Re:incoherent (Score:5, Insightful)
- completely at odds with what the law actually states;
- not even applicable in the current context, which is not about "making a legal backup of licensed software that doesn't otherwise permit copying"
- contrary to the entire body of contract law
- full of lame meanderings, circumlocutions, and just plain bad sentence constructs/grammar
Besides, he still sounds like he's smoking more crack than the worstIt's incoherent in part because it matches everything else SCO has been doing lately.
Re:First long, thoughful post. (Score:3, Insightful)
Which it doesn't. There is no reason to think it might. None. Even a lawyer saying it might is not a reason. He just made it up because he's being paid by the hour to say anything that sounds good. It doesn't have to make sense. Which is just as well.
Copyright law specifically allows things like the GPL in clear, plain language.
SCO have nothing, SCO are nothing. This won't get to court because SCO don't want it to get to court; if they did it would already be there. That's why they don't release any code and allow the "damage" to be fixed: they don't want their IP protected because they know it doesn't exist.
SCO sure as hell don't want a jury to get at this; they can't even show that a crime has happened, let alone proving who did it.
TWW
Re:First long, thoughful post. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yup (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmmm. Does that include those of us in the Free Software movement as well?
Linus won't sign an NDA... of COURSE not! (Score:5, Insightful)
Any Linux developer would be INSANE to sign anything like SCO's NDA, as it would end their Linux career then and there. OF COURSE Linus won't go near it...
Gullible? The word is professional, Michael (Score:3, Insightful)
The reporter asked some straight questions. She didn't crucify OR enthuse over SCO, but rather revealed some facts, and let the opinions speak for themselves.
Amazing how professionalism is so rare (and CNet is normally a perfect example of just how rare it is!) that when it appears, some people call it gullability.
Re:First long, thoughful post. (Score:2, Insightful)
I was just hoping a little inaccuracy could save a lot of explanation. Of course we know one can charge for a kernel, but requiring one to tithe to SCO for its use is not compatible with the GPL's terms, which violates the license everyone has contributed their code under, which means SCO either has to stop distributing the kernel or comply with the license.
But this whole "some of our code is in there, therefore you have to pay us" line is a bunch of bull.
Re:First long, thoughful post. (Score:3, Insightful)
As for this being about "preserving evidence" all they need is a CD of a recent distro with source code, and that should be all the evidence they need. Preserve that, let the hackers fix their code if you really have a case, and go forward with a suit for the past damages. End of story.
Clearly, McBride is getting more psychotic as time goes on.
male cow crap (Score:4, Insightful)
Example:
What if, during the course of discovery or another time, you find that the code was originally under the GPL?
Using that hypothetical, if Caldera (International) put something into the GPL, with copyright attribution, the whole nine yards, they can't make the claim about what that thing is that they put in there. But that doesn't mean that--well, let's use an example. Let's say you have a hundred files, and you put one of your hundred files under the GPL. That doesn't mean you've lost the rights to your other 99 files. So I don't think it's going to have an impact.
First he tries to lamely categorize this as "hypothetical" then he puts forth the well maybe it's only 1 out of 100 files defense. This completely ignored the question being placed to him and also refuses to acknowlege the fact that what SCO was claiming as "evidence of copied code" in a public forum was shown to be anything but.
Plus we can look at their whole Chewbacca^WCopyright defense:
The Free Software Foundation apparently disagrees. If you look at the terms of the GPL and the terms of copyright law, copyright law governs. It is the exclusive authority regarding the use, distribution, etc., of copyrighted material. In the GPL, (there is a section that) specifically says it applies only to the use and distribution. In other words, the exact same topics that are covered exclusively by the Copyright Act are covered by the GPL. Section 301 of the Copyright Act says the Copyright Act pre-empts any claims that are governed regarding use, distribution and copying. We believe that although the GPL is being tossed into the fray, it is pre-empted by federal copyright law.
This is completely illogical. Copyright exists to restrict ALL rights to a creative work. LICENSES are what allow people to distribute copyrighted works. The GPL is a license, nothing more, nothing less. If SCO's theory were to hold true than ANY site-wide license would be invalid.
Re:First long, thoughful post. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see here...
The difference between SCO and other companies that have put their copyrighted material into the GPL is SCO didn't do it. SCO is not the one that put in these derivative works, which, as SCO has maintained, these companies were not allowed to do pursuant to their license. SCO is not the one that put its copyrighted System 5 source code into the GPL. It was another Unix licensee that violated the terms of their licensing agreement. So the difference is that SCO didn't say, "Here is my copyrighted material, and I'm knowingly and willingly giving it to you under the GPL. Here's my copyrighted work."
Yeah, they didn't KNOW any Unix code was in there. 1+ Million Lines out of 3-4 Million lines, and they had NO CLUE it was in there. Right. Uh, I think Heise's reality check just bounced.
Group." You'll see copyright IBM; you'll see copyright any other UNIX licensee, but it's not coming from us. The difference is that other companies have donated their copyrighted material, and they did so knowingly, and they're free to do that. But you're not free to take somebody else's copyrighted or otherwise protected material and put it into the GPL and suddenly it's for everybody.
Nevermind that one example of the code they showed, the stuff with the malloc() code in it (which, if not public domain, is easily BSD license) says Copyright SGI on it, not Copyright IBM on it. They're suing the wrong people!
Re:First long, thoughful post. (Score:3, Insightful)
It was a pretty good angle that the lawyer was making, and the interviewer was asking tough questions, the same ones
we all have. The main thrust is that he's betting on the fact that Copyright law trumps whatever provisions are in the
GPL, so IBM's GPL defense doesn't hold water; and also that just because Caldera released kernel source under that license does
not mean that the whole codebase (not just what was republished) should also be GPL'd.
Not really. What I got out of the article was the same old story that they've been telling more or less from the beginning; our copyrighted code was released under the GPL without our knwledge or permission, and therefor the GPL does not apply. This claim has yet to be substantiated, and there one attempt to do so has been thoroughly rebutted by the Open Source community.
SCO: GPL is valid after all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Heise, a SCO lawyer, claimed that GPL was "pre-empted by federal copyright law", to which Eben Moglen, FSF General Counsel, replied [gnu.org]. Heise repeats his argument in the CNET interview [com.com].
But in the same CNET interview Heise also says:
So - according to Heise - GPL is valid after all!
The only way to make any sense of this is that Heise's real argument - at least today - is that "GPL is pre-empted by federal copyright law" if something is released under GPL without right owners consent... This is of course trivial: if you release someone else's program under GPL without her permission then the GPL is obviously not valid (in that particular instance). But if you release your own or somebody else's code with her permission under GPL then GPL is valid and enforceable.
Re:First long, thoughful post. (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you address claims that SCO's demonstrated evidence so far is not theirs to copyright!
Nobody has answered the questions about the four kernal modules origin and algorithms being textbook common knowledge - in whole or in part. Why is this considered IP?
Why did SCO keep distributing the GPL'd code while putting out press releases?
Why does SCO make use of many many GPL'd tools for their own product?
Why does SCO [threaten to] spread this lawsuit out to Linux users instead of only IBM's copyright infringement case?
How is SCO planning a business model around a licensed copy of Linux when it will be quickly obsolete once the full body of evidence is released?
What are your definitions of "derivative works" in this case? Would future version of Linux without any SCO IP be within those bounds?
Why are the true numbers of lost existing customers for SCO due directly to their adopting a "free" Linux alternative? How are they calculating damages?
Can SCO provide the complete code references to things it DID contribute to Linux (as SCO or Caldera) and thus differentiate between given and stolen?
These are just a few things I'd like to ask anyone at SCO, legal or not, or both!
mug
Screw You, McBride. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck off, McBride. You've got an entire community of angry developers and end-users that are pissed because you refuse to cooperate in resolving this issue. Instead of giving us proof to back up your ludicrous claims, you just sit back and say "Give us money!". Do you really think that we are all that stupid? Nobody is going to give you shit (except, perhaps, for Micrsoft) until you produce some solid evidence... We're ALL going to be after your ass, in some form or another. If the courts find that you have no solid proof, after all, then I'll personally be among the first to jump into a class-action lawsuit against you and your cronies.
IBM hasn't wired shit for relationships. You're just too goddamn stupid to admit that you're digging your own grave. Better bail out while the stocks are high, bucko.
The bottom line. You're going to crash and burn. You're pissed because your company was unable to adapt and your products were bested by FREE alternatives. There's nothing left for you to do except blow smoke up everyone's asses.
You're going to ultimately have every Linux company in the world after you... Doesn't that feel great?
Re:Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
"You've got all of these guys and it looks like the whole world is coming against SCO."
Geez, Darl, you think? Couldn't be because you're attacking virtually the whole community?
What a putz.
realityshunt
Fluff piece? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And they expected Chocolates? (Score:2, Insightful)
I just can't wait till IBM comes.
Remember believers within SCO. Blood over the doors, blood over the doors.
Maybe slashdot should conduct an interview then... (Score:5, Insightful)
All I'm saying is that was probably the most level-headed, least-spun-out interview between the press and SCO's reps I've seen so far. Maybe that's not saying much...
I imagined myself reading that for the first time knowing little or nothing about the case or the GPL and realizing that the lawyer sounded quite reasonable from that point of view.
Now imagine you're an unbiased jury member (drawn from that same pool), and you here the same line of Q&A. Do you see where i'm going with this?
Re:First long, thoughful post. (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright law does not trump provisions in the GPL. This is a point that I think is very important and I don't see it mentioned here too often. Copyright law provides certain protection to the author of copyrighted works. The copyrighted works cannot be used beyond the normal "fair use" provided for by copyright law without the "express writtten permission" of the author.
The GPL provides this "express written permission" by the author and outlines the terms and conditions under which the permissions are granted. If the terms are not agreed to then the permissions are not granted. Any other use is in violation of the GPL "contract" and also copyright law!
Let's assume that Linux in fact DOES contain SCO code. There are two options. Remember that Linux existed and SCO code would have been added. SCO has two choices: 1) release their additions under the provisions of the GPL and be in compliance. 2) actively move to identify and remove the IP from the Linux code base and prosecute whoever was responsible for breaching SCO's intelectual property.
They cannot leave their IP in Linux and not release it under the GPL let alone try to license it. That is a violation of the GPL as well as a violation of the original author's (Linus's) copyright on Linux itself.
Guilty conscience Darl? (Score:3, Insightful)
Darl probably doesn't realize that he just handed IBM an actual good idea. They could build quite a position and reputation by offering themselves as a flag to rally under. Darl needs a PR handler badly.
Summary of SCO's legal position... (Score:2, Insightful)
In more typical
Sorry, SCO, but if that's your "legal" position, prepare to get laughed at by almost whatever judge you get.
As for McBride, I think the Linux advocates have finally driven him officially insane. He's now babbling even more incoherently about some conspiracy. Or is that just an accidental Freudian slip that points to a conspiracy in his corner... Microsoft, perhaps... hmmm?
Dang, this whole SCO thing is like a cyber-soap-opera for nerds. I almost feel guilty for following it this closely.
-Jellisky
Re:First long, thoughful post. (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO had every opportunity to review all of the code that they were distributing before they distributed it. I would say that reviewing each piece of code for IP is the responsibility of any distribution such as Red Hat, or Suse, or SCO. If a distributor is going to make money off of somebody else's work, they better make sure it is owned by the right person.
Distributing code under the GPL is analogous to signing a contract. SCO's argument that they aren't responsible for copyrighted items that they didn't know where in their distribution is simillar to claiming that they are not responsible for a signed contract that was not fully read. Anyone can say that they are not responsible for an item in a contract because they didn't read that part. At the end of the day, when the judge looks at the contract and sees the signature at the bottom - the contract will be full and binding and the person will be as accountable as if he had read all of the items.
SCO has signed the contract - even if they didn't read it before they signed it.
Paul Seamons
Profit! (Score:2, Insightful)
McBride: The Canopy Group [of Utah] is an investment company. Those are just ignorant statements about SCO's business. Hundreds of customers like and use SCO's Unix products.
then
CRN: CRN noticed that SCO recently changed its number of resellers from 16,000 to 11,000. Can you explain?
So, thay have hundreds of customers, using 11,000 resellers. Dong some simple math (100/11000) it shows that they need around 100 resellers per sale.
Since they want about $1300 for their Linux license, which I assume is about the price of their SCO Unix, we get ($1300/100) $13 profit on average per reseller.
Boy! Can I get on this gravy train and start selling this fantastically profitable product! Look out AmWay, you've got competition!
But wait! You also get...
Re:First long, thoughful post. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think that post was either long or thoughtful, think again.
The thing about Mark Heise's interview is that every single thing he said was quite simply untrue - and demonstrably untrue. It was, essentially, a tissue of lies - at least, all of it that made any grammatical sense at all was.
Firstly, Mark claims that SCO (then Caldera) didn't distribute the Linux kernel under the GPL (at least I think that's what he says, the sentence doesn't actually parse as English). Well, sorry Mark, I have a boxed set here of Caldera Linux and it says clearly that it is distributed under the GPL. Then he says there aren't any SCO copyright notices in the kernel. Well, sorry again, Mark, but there are. Just do cd /usr/src/linux; grep -ri caldera * and you'll find them.
Behind this is a claim that there is SCO source in the kernel which SCO didn't put there themselves. Well, that's a lie too (note: not a 'mistake', not a 'misunderstanding', a lie - a deliberate, intentional and fraudulent untruth). The code which SCO has shown as proof has all been shown to have been legally used. The larger corpus of material which they claim was never theirs in the first place - NUMA and RCU are both well understood concepts in computer science, and have been applied in many different operating systems, but it's a historical fact that they do not exist and never have in SCO's System V. SCO cannot claim to own what they didn't write and never had. Similarly, IBM's journalling file system - the one ported to Linux - was part of OS/2. It isn't SCO's and never was.
Copyright law is pretty much irrelevent here. Except for a few small portions which were legally donated by SCO and are properly acknowledged, SCO don't own any of the copyright. They never did own any of the copyright. So even if copyright law did 'trump' the GPL, it would be irrelevent, because it wasn't ever SCO's copyright in the first place.
It's a lie
Lamlaw (Score:2, Insightful)
What really stands out is that SCO has no legal reason to sue Linux users. The only reason SCO could sue is if Linux users were breaking the law. Not only are Linux users NOT breaking the law (the Napster arguement applies to a different set of circumstances), SCO are not making any claims that Linux users are breaking any laws. SCO is simply claiming that that Linux users MAY be infringing on their Intellectual Property and they should pay up now to avoid being sued later (aka - extortion).
Another thing that stands out is that even if SCO wins it's suit with IBM, SCO cannot go after IBM's customers or any other Linuux user. That would be getting awarded damages for the same thing twice.
Another thing that has been mentioned before, SCO's lawsuit with IBM is over a contract. It has nothing to do with copyrights. Yet SCO is claiming the Linux users may be infringing on their IP (copyrights). SCO has yet to provide any evidence that their IP is being infringed upon or even prove they they have sole ownership of what's being infringed upon (which they refuse to show anyone). Even if SCO turns out to be right (highly doubtful), SCO will lose anyways because they have refused to mitigate the damages that they are claiming to be surffering from.
Re:Yup (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Paranoia (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually no, they don't give a shit about what anyone in the open source community says about them. Their complaint is that the MEDIA is out to get them. And when they say Media, I doubt their talking about a bunch of ranting slashbots.
Not that I support SCO, but it is entirely possible that IBM is controlling a mainstream media attack against them. IBM definitely has the resources (It doesn't take as much as you would think).
Repeat after me: Slashdot is NOT the media.
Which brings me to my point (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM is allowed at least as many ridiculous publicity stunts as SCO.
isn't SCO admittedly controlling all of the PRO-SCO stuff?
Someone should tell SCO that if they are going to fight dirty then they should expect more of the same. I really don't care if IBM is paying people to say all this bad stuff about SCO, though the fact remains, they aren't.
Re:Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
Stage-managing?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Smoking Crack Operation (Score:2, Insightful)
Poor Analogy by Lawyer (Score:5, Insightful)
McBride: That's like if someone comes into your house while you're sleeping, takes your jewels, and as you start chasing them down [to retrieve your property], and now they want to say you're the one doing the bad thing.
No, more like someone is _alleged_ to have taken your jewels and you try to extort money from the orphanage that got the money from the Pawn shop.
Jeremey Paxman ? (Score:2, Insightful)
look at the photographs (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No. They say copyright law pre-empts (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright must come first, if IBM isn't the copyright holder than the fact they put GPL licence text on a file means nothing.
I totally agree with you on this. The problem is that SCO is not only going after the people who **allegedly** put SCO copywrited code into Linux. They are going after people who are just using Linux.
Now at this point it's really too late to put the cat back in the bag [assuming there really is a cat this time]. I think the best thing SCO could do is to let the kernel developers take the code out of the kernel, and for the kernel developers to put up a big notice on kernel.org asking that people cease using the affected kernels.
SCO is saying that it is not right for code to be released under the GPL without the permission of the copyright holders. They are 100% correct! and if there really is infringing code in the kernel, then SCO has every right to continue its attack on IBM and whoever illegally put SCO code into the kernel. However, SCO has *NO* right to use scare tactics to go after innocent bystanders who just happen to be using Linux. It's not OUR fault that someone else broke the law. It's also not the GPL's fault. The GPL works just fine, and it is BECAUSE of the GPL that SCO was able to find out about infringing code in the first place. If the Linux kernel source was kept behind closed doors, SCO would have never known if there was any of their code in it. And i doubt that IBM went to Linus and said, "Hey...psst... I got some SCO copyrighted code I want you to put in Linux. Don't worry, they won't notice, just don't tell anyone..."
Anyway, by going after innocent bystanders, and by making "crackhead" accusations like "IBM is paying people under the table to attack SCO", they are just acting like a bunch of toddlers yelling "HE DID IT ON PURPOSE!!!!" Haven't Darl and Co. grown out of that sort of thing??
They may have had a valid concern at the beginning of all this, but they have overstepped their bounds, and I hope they get crushed, and that the execs are punished properly.
Ender
Weapons of mass destruction (Score:2, Insightful)
They are using it to build back their company... (Score:1, Insightful)
I think this is just a sly move one their part to make it seem like they actully have a real business, while at the same time they do not. The business consist of them dishing out the PR crap and pumping their stock, with most of the money going to their legal battle.
But I also see them being serious about this because in their delusional minds they can win and will be the only legal place to get a Unix based OS. They are currently relying on businesses to be scared and worried of legal actions to use Linux, for said businesses to buy their licence and Unix, and if they manage to win they could have it made.
The impression I get is that they are running a and counting on their pump and dump, but they will stick along just in the case because they belive they can win since and the payoff will be worth the trouble. As soon as very clear they are going to lose, the "smarter" ones will jump ship.
Re:Paranoia (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No. They say copyright law pre-empts (Score:3, Insightful)
However, if you're IBM and you develop JFS for OS/2 and later port it to AIX, you do lose your rights to the file.
Re:SCO Says IBM is Beating Up on Them (Score:1, Insightful)
Just a little parse error... (Score:4, Insightful)
"The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX) helps millions of customers..." but "Hundreds of customers like and use SCO's Unix products." Why the discrepancy?
If you take the set H (helped by the SCO Group), the set U (use SCO's Unix products), and the set L (like SCO's Unix products), you will likely find that there is a fairly strong correlation between sets H and U. This is not to imply that H is either a superset of U or a subset of U, merely that there is a presumably significant intersection. On the other hand, the set L is by all accounts much smaller than either set H or set U.
Although a case could be made that there are members of set L who are there for the very reason that they are not themselves members of set U, it is logical and seemingly quite likely that all or virtually all members of set L are also members of set U. If we assume that set L is, in fact, a subset of set U then the statement that the intersection of sets L and U contains hundreds of members can be simplified and restated as "The set L contains hundreds of members."
In other words, although *millions* of customers are helped by the SCO Group, only hundreds of customers like them. Yep. Makes perfect sense now, eh?
Re:Manual tranlation of the Heise article (Score:4, Insightful)
"McBride: Actually, that was more aimed at the GPL, not open source as a whole. There's a lot of very valuable effort in open source. But the extreme interpretation that nobody himself owns anything that he developed himself, that can't remain like this. With this, created value gets destroyed. The GPL must change or it will not survive in the long run. I have discussed with many exponents of the open source side about this already."
So the SCO/Novell licence to IBM and all the other Unix developers and manufactures removes their rights to in house IP perminently and transfers it to SCO. I think the SCO license might get struck down on this basis. That is not how things work in any other field of developement, why make an exception for software? If I modify a physical product then agree to market that modified product and pay a royalty to the original first, I still have the right to apply my own modifications to other proprietary products under different terms and market both. This is just the nature of manufacturing never tie yourself to one supplier of raw materials unless you are a subsiduary and enjoy exclusives. In the case of IBM they learned this lesson with MS eating their lunch.
MS lookout you are about to be blindsided as your CITRIX and other custom site server licensees might eat you up if the SCO license is deemed to be illegal.
Re:SCOX share price (Score:5, Insightful)
Day traders and stock speculators. It's a day trader's dream, being relatively cheap, very volatile because of the small number of shares, and the subject of two lawsuits from companies that have a lot of cash.
Re:Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
They'd pull the rug out from under linux in an instant if it made buisness sense. As writing operating systems and maintaing them across all of IBM's platforms makes less buisness sense than getting a much cheaper one, maintained largely by other people and companies, working on all their platforms that is unlikely to happen. Especially as it has the added advantage of making ISV programs easily ported between the different IBM architectures, and makes support more easily streamlined within the corporation in the long term. IBM is _the_ company that linux makes buisness sense for.
"It'd be a real sweet plum if someone could take "ownership" of linux."
Not quite. It would be a rotten tomato if someone could take ownership of Linux. Take a quick look at how well buinsess has turned out for the non-free Linux distributions. Take a look at how well buisness was/is going for most other x86 proprietary unixes, even before Linux became more mainstream.
As you'd lose every developer, all support competence, all contracts, all evangelists in a single second, what do you think you could do with the ownership several millions of lines of unmaintained code without a single developer and with everyone in the computer industry hating you?
Proprietary Linux would not be a sweet plum. It would be a worthless pile of unsellable unmaintained code involved in litigation from every contributor to the end of computers as we know them.
Smart companies know the value of Linux is in its freedom. Idiots like SCO have a hard time realizing that there is no money in it for people who dont want to work to earn their money.
Re:I always wondered where they went... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not fair to classify SCO and Hitler together: the biggest difference is the fact that Hitler was actually a threat. But there are some similarities:
* Both recycled a bogus concept (racial supremacy/copyright infringement) into a plan to take over the world.
* Hitler envisioned a "thousand-year Reich". SCO envisions a "thousand-dollar License".
* Hitler blamed the Jews for his country's troubles as a way of diverting attention from real, structural problems in the country, and got blindsided when the whole free world came out against him. SCO blames IBM for their company's woes to distract investors from real problems in the company, and still doesn't realize that the whole free (software) world is against them.
* Hitler committed suicide, and ensured that everyone around him would suffer a similar fate. Yep, works for SCO.
That and.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Slander? (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAL (thank God), but wouldn't "slander" require them to say, "Mr Smith steals our product"? And wouldn't Mr Smith then be required to demonstrate that he was, in fact, not a criminal? And that would shift the burden of proof to the wrong person, wouldn't it?
What SCO is doing now is saying, "A group of people are stealing our code." No specific accusation, no slander, just a generic prejudicial statement. Safe & sound.
I say, it's time for SCO to put up or shut up. But now that they've locked horns with Big Blue -- which presumably has more lawyers on staff than SCO has employees -- SCO isn't about to call the hand.
Re:I think you've hit a key point here. (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a big difference 'twixt the two concepts.
In SOVIET RUSSIA (heh, I get to do this straight
This invariably lead to shortages or oversupply whenever the central planners got it wrong.
For the Linux kernel to follow the same method, Linus would have to come up with a development plan and then force each developer to work on his assigned task. You couldn't fix bugs as they turned up unless that bug happened to fit in the plan.
Linus doesn't work that way. He's a gatekeeper, not a dictator. You won't be seeing an email any time soon that says "your job for the next 6 months is to work on the eepro100 driver".
Finally, while it can be tough to get a patch approved unless you're on the whitelist, depending on the nature and correctness of the patch Joe Random can indeed get his patch accepted. Patches that fix obvious bugs in straightforward ways and do not interact or interfere with other sections of the kernel get accepted all the time. Attempts to rework the scheduler in your own image are a little tougher to get approved
So while there are communist-esqe aspects to Linux development, it is by no means a communist undertaking. It's not entirely free-market either, but it's closer to that pole than to the communist pole.
DG
try again, please. (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Slashdot is too specifically focused to be "the media". Only techies tend to read it - even technical magazines have a much wider audience than slashdot.
#2 is certainly debatable; I could be wrong - but really, when you consider #1, how can you call Slashdot "the media"?
Most papers are like that. They grab their stories from the wire. News organizations like UPS API and Kight Ridder write storries. Newspapers and broadcasters simply publish them. Slashdot has take the place of monthly journals and newspapers for me. They provide impartial publication of various sources and some original content of their own.
Slashdot is the future of media. Focused, knowlegable, open to cluefull commentary, and self moderating. I get better "news" from Slashdot than I do from MSNBC and other organizations that are living with the restrictions of pulp and 1900 radio transmision.
Re:Fluff piece? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fuck them. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't want a kick in the nuts, don't bully people who are physically less able than yourself.
THAT kind of attitude. I would ALWAYS fight back. I never had to go to that level (nuts), however. If bullies knew they were going to get some pain in return they tended to reveal themselves as the cowards they really are and would bail.
It actually turned into a kind of respect on their part of me. I didn't think much of them, but whatever, it's a strange world
Re:Paranoia (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. I think this is a clear response to the rapidity with which Operation Footbullet (ie showing the code) was discredited by the mass media. This is the first sign I've seen of SCO being genuinely on the defensive. The team have obviously all been told to get out there and start spinning to try and turn this story around again -- another clear indication that they want to fight this action in the court of public opinion, not the law courts.
They accuse IBM of being this manipulating orwellian company that could somehow motivate us open source advocates to hate them.
This, I think, is the clearest sign of their desperation. In the past, the line that SCO were peddling was that they were an upstanding American business who believed in fair play, Mormon values and straight dealing. Someone had ripped off their IP, and they just wanted paying for what was rightfully theirs.
After yesterday's blunder, it has become clear to even the most sceptical of media that SCO are simply taking the piss. What tiny wad of credibility they did have, has now been spattered all over the face of the whorish analysts who were pumping the line about how the GPL was a hippie joke and wouldn't stand up in court.
So now, they are taking the only tack available to them. Seeking to present themselves as a poor battered underdog being fucked out of their intellectual property by evil megacorp, IBM.
It's clear that they are floundering now, as this is the most desperate of tactics. Anyone who isn't totally retarded can see that SCO have been trying to steal the IP of everyone who has written GPL code over the last few year. Even the pro-Microsoft trolls who post here couldn't be taken in by this one.
I don't envisage a short, painless death either. I see a future of protracted, excruciating embarrassment for SCO, while RedHat, IBM, Suse, Novell, SGI, the FSF and a whole pile others slice away at them, one cut at a time while they gradually bleed to death. And the whores who have been touting their propaganda will be reduced to their rightful place in the public imagination, as the clueless ambulance chasers that they have truly shown themselves to be.
Re:Fuck them. (Score:3, Insightful)
When it comes down to you versus them, of course you have to protect yourself regardless of the means.
Re:If you don't comply with Big Blue... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Paranoia (Score:3, Insightful)
My, oh my. (Score:4, Insightful)
So, with all due respect, may I just say how abominably arrogant ESR is to refer the community of Free Software developers and users as "his people?"
My one and only criticism of ESR is the ever so slight note of messianic tendencies that seems to weave in and out of his writings. He is the Saint Paul to RMS's Saint Peter. Now, I may be misinterpreting the remark. He may merely have meant to include himself in the way one does when one says something like "I want to go home to be with my people." Or, "I'll send over some of my people to help with your project." But the tone to me always seems to be "beware the wrath of My People should you oppose me!" A different kettle of fish.
An SCO win won't destroy linux. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why ? At the worst kooky scenario, linux will just turn illegal
in the US
Linux will not be destroyed by this, but the US industries may suffer somewhat.
Re:MS buying shares? (Score:3, Insightful)
You misspelled a word: "wild uninformed speculation" doesn't begin with a "C". Large stock transactions of publicly traded companies require disclosure. You would know.
Re:Manual tranlation of the Heise article (Score:1, Insightful)
Well then for gosh sakes why don't you????????? Hasn't the community been asking you to do just that for the last several months?
Re:SCO Says IBM is Beating Up on Them (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the very title of the Law makes him look silly, "Preemption with respect to other laws". LAWS not LISCENCES. However think of the upside, if they it overrules the GPL it would also overrule various EULAs that prevent resale of M$ products via the shrink-wrap liscence. Of course thats just silly
Wait a second I have it
Re:First long, thoughful post. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it is in question. By demanding licensing fees, you have stated it is your property, while the rest of the world is still waiting for evidence - creditable evidence - which SCO has not yet provided. So SCO HAS brought the issue of copyright ownership into question.
Why did SCO keep distributing the GPL'd code while putting out press releases?
This is irrelevant. What is in question is whether the code that IBM distributed was done so legally. The distribution of legitimately GPL'd code is not in question. SCO can do that like any other organisation or person, as long as it keeps the conditions of the GPL.
How can that possibly be irrelevant? By releasing under the GPL SCO granted License to anyone to use, modify, and distribute the IP (could you possibly be a little less vague? I assume you are referring to copyright when you say IP, but you could be a LITTLE more specific...), but you are now saying that you either didn't mean to, or it didn't mean what it said, or that you really wish you hadn't, or SOMETHING - seems to depend on the day of the week.
If you know your IP is in a collection that YOU ARE RELEASING under the GPL, then you HAVE granted the use of your IP. Saying later that you knew it was there, BUT YOU DIDN'T PUT IT THERE, so your license doesn't count is disingenuous at best, and criminal at worst.
Why does SCO make use of many many GPL'd tools for their own product?
See the above answer
Except the above answer does not answer the posted question. You say the GPL (which is the only license giving you the right to use the tools) is invalid, so the question remains, if you have no license to use the tools you are using, why are you using them? Either the GPL is valid and gives you the right to use the tools, in which case it also gives me the right to use anything you released under the GPL, or it is invalid, removing my right to use anything you have released, but also removing your right to use the tools.
Why does SCO [threaten to] spread this lawsuit out to Linux users instead of only IBM's copyright infringement case?
Anyone who uses infringing code is commiting a copyright violation. As a management, we have responsibility to our shareholders to maximise the value of the company. This requires us to ensure that we are paid for our products, even if to do so we have to sue illegitimate users. This is the case for any organisation.
What infringing code? No court has said that any code is infringing.
By the way, I would guess most of the users are, in fact, legitimate (both of my parents were married!), even if you think they are using the software illegally. You should REALLY try to get the terms right...
How is SCO planning a business model around a licensed copy of Linux when it will be quickly obsolete once the full body of evidence is released? By continuing to license and produce excellent intellectual property
The same "excellent Intellectual Property" you have been losing money every quarter on for the last - how long has it been? 2 years?
What are your definitions of "derivative works" in this case? Would future version of Linux without any SCO IP be within those bounds? The law is quite clear on this point. Look it up;)
Out of order! Unresponsive, immaterial, and irrelevant. What is YOUR definition of "derivative works"? The law is also quite clear on several points that you have chosen to ignore or overlook - rights granted under copyright, licensing laws, extortion laws, stock manipulat
Re:SCO Says IBM is Beating Up on Them (Score:5, Insightful)
It gets even sillier. The Copyright Law says you can't do certain things without the permission of the copyright holder. The GPL says "as the copyright holder, I give you permission to do certain things you ordinarily wouldn't be allowed to do, as long as you follow certain rules."
The question isn't if the GPL is valid, or anything like that, it's if the SCO case can be thrown out because of the GPL. A judge could argue that it isn't valid if you didn't know your stuff was in there. It's not about GPL validity (which SCO seems to think it is) but GPL applicability in this case.
SCO's Hopes for Amicus Curae (Score:2, Insightful)
The real meat of the CNet article can be found at the bottom, and I'm shocked that it slipped under slashdot's collective radar.
Bowman: Are we going to see people come out and support the company in statements or legal filings?
Heise: [...] There haven't been any amicus briefs yet. It certainly wouldn't surprise me because a lot of issues in this case have applications outside of this narrow area.
Next question Heise answers, he's not talking about IT anymore, it's about Copyrights, and the Motion Picture Industry.
Heise: We're talking about copyright and how, in the Internet age, people are able to take protected material and have free access to it and make it accessible to millions of people at the flick of a switch. That's something that was unheard of in the past.
Does that argument sound familiar? It should do, because it's the party line that the MPAA and the RIAA have been offering as a defence of their anti-consumer actions for the past few years.
There are going to be entertainment industry executives following this case closely, because it already rings bells with their perceived struggle against 'intellectual property theft'.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the RIAA and MPAA filing anicus curae briefs on behalf of SCO, and I think Heise's interview is nothing more than a fishing trip to garner heavyweight support.
Microsoft and SCO (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
How is a guy ment to make a buck these days
so what you are saying is that you had a contract with IBM, but they are dropping you in favour of using the fruits of a bunch of free labor?
wow. that sucks. You should sue them for breach of contract. While you are at it, sue the free guys for violating your copyright anytime they say anything that sounds remotely similar to your anti-SCO comments.
That'll show 'em.
Re:Paranoia (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux is very prone to IP infringement. On the other hand, Linux being open gives no guarantees. Yes, accidentally, IP-infring code may be discovered, but Linux surely does nothing to prevent that.
And how is this different from proprietary code?
It's different in only one way: Infringing code in Linux is easy to find. At more than one of my places of employment I have had knowledge of misappropriated code, and in every case but one (my current employer, IBM -- where action was taken to correct the problem), the response from management was essentially: "shhh, no one will know".
Source code piracy is rampant in the software industry; I'd wager that the majority of closed-source products contain code that they technically shouldn't (very often in the form of bits of code that a developer wrote at a previous job and reused, or snitched from a library whose license didn't allow cut-paste-modify), but there's essentially no way for the piracy to be discovered and so it's not.
By any rational standard, OSS has a *vastly* better process for identifying infringing code. It may not consist of a documented set of procedures, but at least with OSS identification is *possible*.
Re:Fuck them. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Because it's not "fair fighting"? And how is (for example) three eighth graders beating the crap out of a sixth grader fair to begin with. The family jewels are fair game, man. ANYTHING is fair game, including the eyes. Fair fight my ass. You can't demand rules when you're the agressor and your target has no choice whether to fight or not.
Re:An SCO win won't destroy linux. (Score:4, Insightful)
The US has powerful treaty agreements with most industrialized nations which bind their
There are no "powerful agreements". an agreement is as powerful as the interest of keeping it. Was the Kyoto convention "powerful" ?
Do you think that european, japanese or asian nations are more likely to fulfil an exploitatory agreement than the US ? why ? are they "purer of heart" ?
which bind their action should the American courts decide Linux violates SCO IP, nations which further more have a history of rubber stamping copies of America's laws
First, AFAIK, when a court decides anything, it is not a law, but a precedent. Even other (equivelent or higher-ranked) courts in the same country are not nsececerily bound by a precedent. Let alone courts in other countries !
Second, again, there's the matter of perceived self-interest. If linux and FOSS will be viewed (corectly, IMHO), as a way for non-US industries and goverments to avoid US control,
Third, given the current anti-american popular sentiments (which IMHO are often pure irrational hatred, unrelated to any real issues with the US) what better way for a politician to get public-opinions brownie points than to be percieved as "the fighter for Euro rights against the evil amreican empire" ?
Witness the DCMA-type rollouts in the EU. Most of the developers and contributors are citizens of those countries. While you're correct that not every country will follow suit, I'd wager enough will to neutralize Linux as a viable alternative
No, what you must look at is the body of potential developpers and at the motivation. Two countries first spring to mind: Russia (short-term) and China (longer term). Also there are all the third-worlders, which I believe will gradually take the lead in FOSS anyway, even w/o US foolishness.
To summarize:
I really think the US is a bit insane in it's atitude to FOSS: I don't think the US can eradicate FOSS because, for infra-structure SW, it's just too good a developpment process. But, instead of joining, they're fighting it, hurting mainly themselves.
However, they are a smart people,often smarter than they seem, one can still hope they'll someday come to their senses.
Re:"pre-empted by copyright law" (Score:1, Insightful)
If you download the code from ftp.sco.com today, it pretty clearly says that the code is under the GPL. No one sneaked the GPL code onto the sco ftp site.
They pretty clearly put the code there along with the accompanying GPL notices.
Re:Paranoia (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, I think not. They're damn good businessmen with good lawyers, but they truely changed their ways since the 1970-1990. Back then, they believed they could own the world, but market proved them wrong.
And what's really fascinating is the fact that they seem to Get Linux and Open Source as well as anyone else. They're still in to do business, and they find that using a top-tuned, free and commoditized OS is much better than anything else they can come up with - and maintain - themselves.
No, I'm not paid by IBM :)