Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera GNU is Not Unix IBM

SCO Says IBM is Beating Up on Them 1133

Posted by michael
from the cry-me-a-river dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Says IBM is Beating Up on Them

Comments Filter:
  • Fuck them. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Unknown Poltroon (31628) * <unknown_poltroon1sp@myahoo.com> on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:29AM (#6765284)
    Its like the class bully that suddenly goes crying to teacher when a kid from high school kicks them in the balls. You reap what you sow.
    • by fshalor (133678) <fshalor&comcast,net> on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:49AM (#6765573) Homepage Journal
      This is a little different. Elementry school dorks are stealing their lunches. The kindergardeners are getting in good punches. Soon, we're going to send in the diaper wearing users who accidentatly bought lindows computers from walmart.

  • Yeah... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ArmenTanzarian (210418) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:29AM (#6765289) Homepage Journal
    did you guys get your checks from IBM today? My hourly on posting anti-SCO stuff has gone through the roof!
    • by Sun Tzu (41522) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:45AM (#6765530) Homepage Journal
      http://pyrll.ibm.com/rewardprograms/scobounty/reba teform.html [ibm.com] is where I applied. I think they're paying quite generously for posts on message boards and even more if you have access to an authoritative-looking website. Now's your chance to use those 31337 h0x0ring sk1lz for big bux!
      --
      Send us your Linux Sysadmin [librenix.com] articles.
    • Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Funny)

      by Surak (18578) * <surak@maCOFFEEil ... m minus caffeine> on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:46AM (#6765532) Homepage Journal
      Checks? I have direct-deposit from IBM. After how much they've paid me to bash SCO here on Slashdot and everywhere else, I think I'm just gonna take the money about buy SCO... ;)

    • Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Funny)

      by oolon (43347) on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:00PM (#6765710)
      I found IBM wanting to reduce my hourly rate for SCO bashing as so many people are willing to do it for free!

      How is a guy ment to make a buck these days ;-)

      James
      • Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Darth (29071) on Friday August 22, 2003 @06:06PM (#6769252) Homepage
        I found IBM wanting to reduce my hourly rate for SCO bashing as so many people are willing to do it for free!

        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.

    • by aldousd666 (640240) on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:45PM (#6766208) Journal
      I'm still waiting for it... but..what I don't understand... even if IBM were orchestrating this whole insane SCO bashing thing... SO WHAT!

      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:Yeah... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Asprin (545477) <`moc.oohay' `ta' `dlonrasg'> on Friday August 22, 2003 @01:11PM (#6766491) Homepage Journal

      Mine was supposed to hit the ol' direct-deposit account this morning, but email's been a little slow, so my bank hasn't sent me a confirmation yet... Oh, wait, here it is:
      From: idiotuser@msn.com
      To: groovydude1337@slashdot.org
      Re: You're Approved!
      Cool, it looks like it's a...
      it's a...
      it's a...
      damn.

      Nope. I'm not getting anything from IBM either.
    • Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Funny)

      by dipipanone (570849) on Friday August 22, 2003 @03:15PM (#6767658)
      They must really believe this. In fact, they must be shitting their pants. They've had months and months and teams of coders and lawyers working together to dig up the best example of copyright contravention that they can find, and this is what they come up with.

      Five minutes after the code leaks, the world and his wife knows that SCO are completely full of shit and their law suit has suffered a mortal wound. Poor Darl's head must be spinning so fast that he doesn't know which way is up any more.

      Darl: "Bwahahahaha. Mom, mom, it isn't fair! That big bully, GPL is cheating. I only wanted to steal a little bit of money from all those linux hippies, but GPL wants to keep it all for himself. Make him play nice. Make him GIVE me the money, or I'll scream and scream and scream until I turn purple and you have to call the doctor out...."

      Darl's mommy: "Sorry son, but while you were out playing, I got myself a new boyfriend. Unlike GPL, my new guy IBM is pretty strict and he believes in corporal punishment for brattish children. You'd best run to your room and hide quietly, because I think I see him fetching his strap from the woodshed...."
  • Paranoia (Score:5, Funny)

    by PIPBoy3000 (619296) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:30AM (#6765297)
    Remember, it's not paranoia if they really are all out to get them.

    And we are.
    • Re:Paranoia (Score:5, Funny)

      by mikeee (137160) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:48AM (#6765565)
      But there's no conspiracy against SCO; it only looks that way because everyone hates them.

      • Re:Paranoia (Score:5, Funny)

        by Soko (17987) on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:31PM (#6766028) Homepage
        ..and in case you think we're kidding, I present evidence:

        Is Linus right that SCO is "smoking crack"? [eweek.com]

        Looks like the court of public opinion is speaking loud and clear.

        Soko
      • by tds67 (670584) on Friday August 22, 2003 @01:02PM (#6766400)
        We just dislike the way they try to disparage open source, try to hijack Linux, try to extort money from Linux users, try to pump and dump their stock, try to create a business model using the courts, try to prove they are still relevant by bragging about how much negative press they've generated, etc.

        No, we don't hate those people. And we certainly don't want to mash the SCO executives into a bloody pulp, either. Nor would we want to keep their body parts in our freezers. No. Hate is such a strong word.

        Let us put aside any negative feelings we might have toward them and simply put flame to some feces on their doorsteps.

    • Re:Paranoia (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sterno (16320) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:58AM (#6765685) Homepage
      Nope, it's not paranoia, it's desperation!

      There's no clearer sign that SCO is walking on thin ice here than the desperation of their tactics lately.

      Desperate acts:

      * They accuse IBM of being this manipulating orwellian company that could somehow motivate us open source advocates to hate them.

      * They claim the GPL is invalid on grounds that would effectively destroy the publishing industry if upheld.

      * They make many of their claims sound like legal claims without actually filing them in court

      They are trying to win a war of public opinion to infalte the stock price. They will lose in court, without question, so they are doing everything they can to try to make IBM bail them out.

      IBM is an evil corporation, don't get me wrong, but it's nice to see them excercising a little enlightened self interest and playing chicken with SCO.
      • Re:Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)

        by captain_craptacular (580116) on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:35PM (#6766091)
        * They accuse IBM of being this manipulating orwellian company that could somehow motivate us open source advocates to hate them.

        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.
        • Re:Paranoia (Score:4, Insightful)

          by jenkin sear (28765) * on Friday August 22, 2003 @01:12PM (#6766498) Homepage Journal
          I dunno - I'd be willing to bet that the readers of slashdot probably control IT budget money that's collectively greater than (say) eCRM magazine's readership. There's a crapload of fringe publications out there with readership in the 10,000 range- anyone know what the current biggest slashdot ID is?
      • Re:Paranoia (Score:5, Funny)

        by BiggerIsBetter (682164) on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:36PM (#6766102)

        IBM is an evil corporation, don't get me wrong, but it's nice to see them excercising a little enlightened self interest and playing chicken with SCO.

        I dunno about the evil-ness of IBM, but...

        I pictured an IBM semi-trailer rumbling down the highway, with an SCO chicken (looked like Darl with feathers) standing at the other end of a straight, squaking furiously at the oncoming behemoth. The chicken doesn't stand a chance.

      • Re:Paranoia (Score:4, Insightful)

        by dipipanone (570849) on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:53PM (#6767476)
        Nope, it's not paranoia, it's desperation!

        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.
    • by burgburgburg (574866) <.splisken06. .at. .email.com.> on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:00PM (#6765702)
      We. We are out to get them.
    • Re:Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RealityShunt (695515) on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:07PM (#6765772)
      From the Infoworld article:

      "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
    • Re:Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Grenade of Antioch (635095) on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:45PM (#6766211)
      I remember a kid in our neighborhood growing up who wasn't a very nice person. One time he said to a group of us: "You just hate me because I'm Jewish." To wit, I replied: "No David, we hate you because you're an a**hole..." We don't hate SCO because they are trying to make a profit selling software, we hate them because they are trying to make a profit by scheming and defaming and threatening people. Did I mention that IBM told me to say this?
  • by Demona (7994) * on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:30AM (#6765303) Homepage
    "Dear Darl McBride colon Having determined for myself that you and your band of scofflaws are as dead meat festering in the sun of Lindon and that his holiness Pope Stallman the First will one day dance upon the graves of you and your half-baked western heresies comma in all good conscience comma i must respectfully inform you that i would rather eat a half hyphen pound of diced earthworms raw than ever again have to stand within ten feet of your lice hyphen ridden comma foul hyphen smelling person comma and that further comma it is my considered opinion that all of your female ancestors must have mated with decidedly inferior breeds of bulls to produce to genuinely worthless a specimen of humanity as yourself period In hopes that this finds you dying of some singularly loathesome and painful disease comma i remain comma very truly yours comma archbishop sontag of the *eastern church*"

    "You don't have any...*objections* to signing that, do you...my son?"

  • by TopShelf (92521) * on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:31AM (#6765317) Homepage Journal
    I can't decide which is funnier - the point about IBM orchestrating all the outrage, or the point that SCO is somehow more "relevant" to the tech community because they've filed a bunch of press releases!

    Thanks, Darl - it's good to kick off the weekend with a good laugh...
    • by JiffyPop (318506) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:51AM (#6765599)
      "Hundreds of customers like and use SCO's Unix products."

      I think that is a pretty good example of have "relevant" SCO is... This is like the director (?producer, someone else) of Gigli getting quoted as saying "I've seen worse movies [than Gigli]"
    • by Zathrus (232140) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:51AM (#6765601) Homepage
      Oh, certainly the idea that IBM is orchestrating the outrage.

      I mean, just think about this for a minute -- IBM and RMS working together.

      Is there anything any more absurd than that? I mean, seriously... even RMS's most sane rants are off the deep end for IBM.
    • by NoUse (628415) on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:21PM (#6765926) Homepage
      No this is all part of his plan...

      Judge: You are being charged with criminal fraud and anti-competive and damaging business practices.. How do you plead?
      McBride: I plead insanity.
      Judge: On what grounds?
      McBride: Are you kidding? Did you see all the crazy shit I said? I was rambling for months that "they" were out to get me!


      Yeah he's crazy...Crazy like a fox...
  • by DavidNWelton (142216) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:31AM (#6765318) Homepage
    [vnunet.com]
    http://www.vnunet.com/News/1143155

    "As far as I'm concerned it's an issue between SCO and IBM, and I expect that IBM's resources will win the day,"
  • I admit it (Score:5, Funny)

    by theolein (316044) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:31AM (#6765322) Journal
    IBM paid me $699 to criticise SCO ;););)
  • by jeffy124 (453342) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:32AM (#6765330) Homepage Journal
    ... didnt ask any questions about the BSD involvement. almost like she didnt know about bruce peren's findings. yet, the day before (8/20) she published an article with peren's assertions. question becomes: when did this interview take place?
  • What is the sound of one hand slapping?

    More precisely, what is the sound of an 800 lb. gorilla's one hand slapping?

    Or, to be even more exact, what is the sound of an 800 lb. gorilla's one hand slapping an annoying monkey silly?

    My friends, it is the sound of delicious justice.

    And that other noise? That's the sound of a house of cards beginning to collapse.
  • by afra242 (465406) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:34AM (#6765357)
    From the linked article, the interviewer asks McBride about his contact with Linus:


    I've talked to him via e-mail. He's very pragmatic and tends to be a racehorse with blinders on. ... He doesn't want to know about IP or [commercial issues]. He readily admits that IBM has put a lot of code in Linux and says if you want to pursue it [legally], go ahead. But I said to him, 'I appreciate you didn't create the problem, but you have inherited it.' But he won't sign an NDA.



  • Yup (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kylus (149953) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:35AM (#6765369) Homepage
    "We have absolute direct knowledge of this..."

    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.
    • by DG (989) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:57AM (#6765668) Homepage Journal
      The more I read of SCO's garbage, the more I think that SCO Really Does Not Get It.

      I think that McBride and Cronys really do believe in their heart of hearts that people are not capable of organizing, co-ordinating, and for that matter, producing functional code, without the direct support of some company as a mastermind.

      When you think about it, the forces and processes behind Linux and other Open Source/Free Software are so contrary to what are taught at business schools that it must threaten to make your average MBA's head explode.

      In many ways, the whole Free Software movement is a direct refutation of the core principles of the MBA curriculem* I can't wait to see how Alan Cox does on his MBA. :)

      When one reads an SCO press release, one cannot help but imagine a group of dinosaurs confronted by an ice age - and mammals.

      DG

      * One may interpret through this that I think Free Software in inheritly Communist - and I don't agree. One of the central principles of Communism is Central Planning, and that's NOT how Linux etc development is done - it's more like a free market of ideas. Where the MBA-brainfuck comes in is that this "free market" has absolutely nothing to do with MONEY. There's no PRODUCT here - instead, it's a "free market" designed to provide something for the common good.

      So we have a quasi-Capitalist process - with no capital, per sae - in the service of a quasi-Communist ideal. This is, I think, something new and scary, and this fear colours everything coming out of SCO.

      Ah, brave new world!

    • Re:Yup (Score:5, Interesting)

      by worm eater (697149) on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:23PM (#6765951) Homepage
      The way I see it, an attack on one member of the Open Source community is an attack on all of us.

      I don't see this as just an attack on the Open Source community. This is an attack on our society, because it is an abuse of our legal system. As far as I'm concerned, abusing the legal system is worse than breaking the law. I noticed in an article that some SCO users, who even had booths at SCO Forum, were outraged by what this company is doing. And has been doing. Forbes points out [forbes.com] that SCO has pulled this same shit with Microsoft -- and won. In this case they bought the rights to an old, 'decrepit' version of DOS and proceeded to sue the shit out of Redmond. They are crafty bastards. And they basically leverage intellectual property law to fuck other people over. Obviously.

      This kind of behavior, taken to these extremes, has the potential to seriously disrupt the fabric of our society. Especially since our society is becoming increasingly dependant on software. If SCO wins, which they might (I mean hell, they beat MS), their example has the potential to make the software industry even more litigious, even less focused on solid product design and just generally shittier. EVERYONE should be up in arms about this... Darl McBride makes Bill Gates look like freakin RMS.

      The only thing that came close to pissing me off this much was when Rosa Parks sued Outkast [mtv.com] -- although the stakes were much, much lower.
      • Re:Yup (Score:4, Informative)

        by samwhite_y (557562) * <icrewps.yahoo@com> on Friday August 22, 2003 @01:32PM (#6766713)
        The part I am responding to is this.

        "And has been doing. Forbes points out that SCO has pulled this same shit with Microsoft -- and won. In this case they bought the rights to an old, 'decrepit' version of DOS and proceeded to sue the shit out of Redmond. They are crafty bastards. And they basically leverage intellectual property law to fuck other people over."

        To compare the DRDOS suit with the current SCO activity means that you have not been studying your history. The basis of the DRDOS (the "decrepit" version of DOS) lawsuit is as follows.

        DRDOS was superior (by many peoples accounts) to DOS for a brief period in Microsoft's history. The Windows operating system (Windows 3.1 and earlier) ran on top of both versions of DOS. Microsoft deliberately put into their Windows code a test to see if it was running on top of DRDOS and then create a nasty looking crash. Microsoft then spread rumours through its vendors that DRDOS was unreliable. This killed the market for DRDOS.

        There is clear and verifiable evidence of this and this is why Microsoft settled.

        To compare the current SCO lawsuit to a lawsuit based on clear criminal behavior is to legitimize SCO's current lawsuit -- exactly why Forbes and other magazines give the current lawsuit credibility. The previous lawsuits were valid, why can't this one be as well? Absurd, unfortunate, but probably true.

  • by A nonymous Coward (7548) * on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:35AM (#6765370)
    I for one welcome SCO's new IBM overlords ... in fact, I like 'em so much I wish for a GRID of them!
  • by DrJimbo (594231) * on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:35AM (#6765372)
    Q. Why on earth would McSnide come up with the loony idea that a big corporation (IBM) is backing all his opponents?

    A. Because all this SCO fud is being backed by a big corporation (M$).

    • MS buying shares? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bstadil (7110) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:55AM (#6765651) Homepage
      I saw an interesting posting on some of the Stock boards yesterday. The people were wondering why their shares went up $2.3 or so on VERY heavy volume. 360K if I rember.

      Considering there is 12.6Mu shares outstanding and 40% directly owned by Canopy and 20% indirectly, yesterdays volume is 8% or so of "normal" outstanding tradebable shares.

      So question arrises WHO IS BUYING especilly after the code snippet flap earlier in the week.

      Consensus, most likely MS' investment arm.

      It's the quid pro quo for SCO committing legal suicide.

  • by davmoo (63521) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:36AM (#6765374)
    I have started printing out SCOs press releases so I can save them and spread them on my garden for next year. Normally I would have to pay top dollar for bullshit that rich and strong.

  • by RobertB-DC (622190) * on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:36AM (#6765379) Homepage Journal
    You know, after the dot-com bust, I wondered where all those "visionaries" went. You know, the ones who could charm millions of American Dollars [typeonegative.net] from venture capitalists and day-trading shareholders with nothing more than a bottle of snake oil and a press release.

    I guess I found them:

    McBride proudly dumped two phone-book-sized binders of press clippings on the stage during his SCO Forum keynote on Monday as proof that his company had become more relevant in the high technology industry. SCO has issued 46 press releases since filing suit against IBM on March 7. Last year it issued only 29 press releases between March and August.

    Here I was, worried about unemployment among the "visionary entrepreneur" community. They're working for SCO! And just look at those results -- they've had a 58% increase in press release generation in just one year! I'm so glad to see that they've landed on their feet.

    Too bad the rug's about to get yanked out from under them again.
  • One issue to raise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jared_hanson (514797) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:38AM (#6765405) Homepage Journal
    If the Linux kernel is truly infringing on SCO's UNIX copyrights, why doesn't SCO ask a judge to issue an injunction against kernel.org/mirrors to stop them from distributing it.

    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.
    • by amcguinn (549297) on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:41PM (#6766158) Homepage Journal

      SCO have made exactly two legal filings to go with all this PR dross they were boasting about.

      First, they filed a suit against IBM (not on copyright grounds).

      Second, they amended the suit to remove some of the more blatant lies from it.

      That's the lot. None of the many contradictory allegations they've made against other Linux distributors or users have been backed by any legal action whatsoever. They didn't even bother to contest the application to get an injunction against them in Germany to stop them spreading this FUD. The injunction stands (in Germany).

  • by Picass0 (147474) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:38AM (#6765419) Homepage Journal
    What, you didn't get a Valentine's card from IBM?

    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.

  • by cperciva (102828) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:39AM (#6765432) Homepage
    Ok, let's put down the flamethrowers for a moment, and try to understand what SCO's lawyers are saying.

    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.
  • by Badgerman (19207) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:40AM (#6765452)
    Regarding the interview with the lawyer, I got the impression he was largely spouting the party line for his client. It did feel rather incoherent and he honestly didn't seem to believe what he was saying.

    Meanwhile back at SCO, apparently they're not buying crazy because they've got a stock of it. Claiming IBM is orchestrating some conspiracy to attack them is just another one of the bizarre psychological acrobatic displays we've seen from SCO, admittedly one of the more impressively stupid ones since this started.

    Looking at the articles, I'm feeling SCO is stuck in a "ratchet it up until they give in" mentality, where they'll keep making attacks and outrageous claims until someone gives in and buys them or gives them lots of money. However, they have to count on people backing down - which isn't really happening. Since they have no other options, I think they're going to keep at it.

    I actually do wonder just how in touch with reality some of the SCO execs are. Now that they've committed to a business path based on lawsuits and dubious legal claims, they can't really back out, so it seems they're becoming wrapped up in the worlds they created to justify their claims.

    Expect it to get even more insane.

    Get your popcorn out.

    • by Chordonblue (585047) on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:02PM (#6765728) Homepage Journal
      Hmmmm - let's see:

      - SCO ammends lawsuit to claim damages done by IBM's 'interference' with their business.

      - SCO announces new 'secure' initiative (don't they all)

      - Darl McBride claims that the original BSD/AT&T lawsuit is invalid and therefore not relevant to SCO, i.e. 'All Code Are Belong To Us'

      - SCO accuses the GPL as promoting communism in China, socialism in Europe, and drug use in California.

      - David Boies will never make another appearance unless SCO 're-rents' him for another day.

      - SCO will continue to reap the benefits of open source projects like GCC and SAMBA and yet slam the GPL for being too 'restrictive' on IP.

      Far Future Prediction:

      SCO's execs will be living in luxury on some tropical island while their customers, users, resellers, and programmers get totally screwed.

      "That's just the way it is. Some things will never change." - Bruce Hornsby

  • Clueful Judge (Score:5, Informative)

    by pjrc (134994) <paul@pjrc.com> on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:41AM (#6765474) Homepage Journal
    On every SCO story, invariably someone posts a paranoid concern that perhaps a clueless judge will be assigned to the case, and rule in favor of SCO. These are often moderated to +5, which is quite silly since Judge Dale A. Kimball [utahbar.org] has already be assigned to the case, and we can see that he's got a reputation for being fair and capable of understanding cases involving technology.

    Groklaw has very extensive research on Kimball's history [weblogs.com], which is nicely summarized and easy to read. Every case has links to much more detail. The overall appearance is that Kimball will probably do the right thing.

    Probably most important is the Jacobsen vs Hughes copyright case [deseretnews.com]. Apart from considering much of the material uncopyrightable historical facts, Judge Kimball was quite unimpressed by the plaintif's failure to act in a timely manner to mitigate damages. Quoting from that article:

    "Had Jacobsen voiced his disapproval in 1996, Hughes would have had the opportunity to take the offending material out of the books," Kimball wrote. "For Jacobsen to wait until three volumes of the series had been published before voicing his disapproval, when it is clear he had ample opportunity to let Hughes know of his disapproval as early as 1996, results in extreme prejudice to Hughes."

    Obviously this bodes quite well for IBM and all Linux users. SCO of course will claim they stopped distribution of linux, but this ruling at least shows that Judge Kimball isn't likely to be be charmed with the deplorable way SCO has conducted itself. Kimball's willingness to consider the writing a separate work, even though a part of it was loosely based on Jacobsen's also casts quite a shadow over SCO's chances (assuming the unlikely worst case scenario that SCO has an ace up its sleeve, rather than the bogus examples we've seen so far). It's certainly a good sign that Kimball is unlikely to buy SCO expansive theories about what constitutes a derivitive work.

    The groklaw page has examples where Kimball has ruled against big business, where he's shown competence at handling software intellectual property disputes (eg, Altiris vs Symantec), and where he's handled very complex cases.

    While nothing is 100% certain going into the courtroom, it is a fact that the Judge Kimball has been selected to hear this case. His history shows he's competent, fair, and at least in Jacobsen vs Hughes, he doesn't tollerate the sort of shenanigans SCO has been pulling!

  • by panurge (573432) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:43AM (#6765495)
    Would they be operating entirely by press release? There's a nasty possible point here. SCO wants a jury trial. They are sending out press releases like crazy, loads of exposure on the net. When (if) this case comes to trial, it will be hard to find anyone who knows anything at all about IT/IP who will not be liable to be removed from the jury. A jury consisting entirely of Mormon farmers might just be exactly what SCO wants. (This is not an anti-Mormon remark, I have Mormon relatives).

    What ever happened to the idea that once a case was under way it was sub judice, and if either party discussed it outside the courtroom it was highly prejudicial to their interests?

  • An honest question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Badgerman (19207) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:44AM (#6765506)
    The lawyer makes this quote: 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.

    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?
  • by 4of12 (97621) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:44AM (#6765514) Homepage Journal

    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".]

  • by hal9000 (80652) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:48AM (#6765561) Homepage
    From the first article (not that it matters):

    "McBride declined to reveal the sources of his allegations, ..."

    Anyone have a guess as to who these McBride sources are? My hunch is Miss Cleo.
  • by Sebby (238625) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:49AM (#6765579)
    Soon we'll see McBride putting his pinky to his mouth and say "100 billion press releases!"

    ok, ok, old joke, but I just couldn't resist how he's so proud of his 40+ releases.

  • by Simon Brooke (45012) * <stillyet@googlemail.com> on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:52AM (#6765616) Homepage Journal

    Quote:

    The difference between SCO and other companies that have put their copyrighted material into the GPL is SCO didn't do it.

    Uhhhmmm... It isn't fair to make fun of people with learning difficulties, I know; but -- they pay this guy to work as a lawyer? He can't even construct a sentence!

    And then further down he says:

    You're not going to see that when you go into Linux. You're not going to see "copyright, The SCO Group."

    Well, no you're not, but only because the SCO Group is just a new name for Caldera. You'd forgotten these ones, had you, Mark?

    Documentation/networking/tlan.txt:(C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
    drivers/net/tlan.c: * (C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
    drivers/net/tlan.h: * (C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
    net/ipx/af_ipx.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc. <greg@caldera.com>
    net/ipx/af_ipx.c: KERN_INFO "IPX Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc.\n" \

    You know what would be really interesting (editors, bloggers, are you listening)? It would be really interesting to hear what Marcus Meissner <Marcus.Meissner@caldera.de> and Greg Page <greg@caldera.com> think about all this.

  • by wikthemighty (524325) on Friday August 22, 2003 @11:56AM (#6765655)

    McBride: That's like if someone comes into your house while you're sleeping, takes your jewels, and as you start chasing them down...

    I'm no expert, but having dreams about about somebody cutting your balls off and running off with them doesn't sound good to me!
  • by kaip (92449) on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:00PM (#6765713) Homepage

    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:

    [Question:] What if, during the course of discovery or another time, you find that the code was originally under the GPL?

    [Heise:] 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. - -

    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.

  • Well, at least Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf has a job now...
  • by heironymouscoward (683461) <heironymouscoward&yahoo,com> on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:03PM (#6765739) Journal
    Q: Why are SCO suing everyone?
    A: SCO is run by a bunch of vicious, lying, cowardly, greedy, sociopathic lawyers.

    Q: Why is IBM being so slow to respond?
    A: IBM is still coming to terms with the fact that a company such as SCO would be so entirely suicidal and stupid. They are not used to dealing with complete and utter morons.

    Q: Do SCO's actions present a danger to the Linux and OSS community?
    A: Yes, a sociopathic killer who hates you can present a danger. He might just get lucky with that ax he is waving.

    Q: Are SCO doing this for the money, for the shares?
    A: SCO's executives will end up in prison getting midnight visits from large violent criminals. But that kind of logic never stopped a sociopath before.

    Q: How can I defend myself from SCO?
    A: This would be a good time to move to Texas and get a larger gun.

    Q: Does SCO have any valid arguments at all?
    A: Strictly speaking, all arguments have equal merit when digested by stupid and possibly corrupt members of the press, as government ministries of disinformation have shown over the centuries. SCO remain, however, a stinkin' bunch of evil mutant fiends, and everthing they say should be taken to be concentrated pranoid drivel.

    Q: Who stands to gain from this circus?
    A: Entertainment is good for everyone, and it has been a slow summer, so SCO is actually contributing to the mental well-being of many people with their daily antics. For this we should be grateful. If you mean financial gain, the only party who stands to gain is Microsoft, who enjoy watching people attack the GPL and Free Software, because these represent a way of life that is entirely incompatible with its own.

    Q: Could Microsoft actually be behind SCO?
    A: Is George Bush the President of the US? OK, poor comparison. Yes, of course they are. Even evil, corrupt, whore-mongering, cocaine-sniffing running dogs like SCO's executives have a sense of self-interest and only leap into dark holes when they know they will be paid well for it.

    Q: How is Microsoft paying SCO, then?
    A: It only has to pay the executives. SCO is a publicly traded company. I presume MS is offering the SCO legal eagles direct and indirect financial support, promises of future comfort, what have you. There are so many ways...

    Q: Should I be buying SCO shares?
    A: YES, and if you do, I also have some very nice shares in a brand-new satellite network called Iridium that might interest you. They are sure to do amazing things!!
  • by 13Echo (209846) on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:06PM (#6765767) Homepage Journal
    "You've got all of these guys and it looks like the whole world is coming against SCO. It's really IBM that has wired in all of these relationships," he said. "That's why it looks like they're sitting back and not doing anything. It's us fighting a whole bunch of people that they put on the stage."


    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?
  • by BuddhaDude (650004) on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:08PM (#6765781)
    Here's the beginning of SCO's self-description, clipped from one of their latest press releases:
    About The SCO Group

    The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses with UNIX business solutions.
    And here's a quote from Darl's latest interview:
    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. (Emphasis mine)
    Hmmmm! At this rate they'll fade away in a couple of weeks or so.
    • by ClayJar (126217) on Friday August 22, 2003 @01:31PM (#6766705) Homepage

      "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?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:14PM (#6765853)
    I posted this thought as an Ask Slashdot submission, but it was rejected, so I'll state it here.

    Perhaps it's time for Linux developers to consider suing SCO for slander. After all, SCO is accusing them of theft and therefore damaging their reputations, which not only hurts Linux, but could hurt the developers' ability to advance their careers. Would you hire a programmer accused of stealing code to put into his software? And note that SCO won't precisely define what they allege is stolen or who stole it, but it is crystal clear that they're accusing Linux developers of illegal acts.

    Suing SCO will have at least two consequences. First, it'll make SCO clearly define and prove their allegations. Second, any lawyer worth his salt will ask a judge to slap a temporary restraining order on SCO to stop their constant threats and accusations.

    Any developers out there who want to consider this?
  • by Tsu Dho Nimh (663417) <abacaxi@hotm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:22PM (#6765934)
    I read Heise's ramblings [zdnet.co.uk] And here is the reply I sent Ms. Bowman:

    Ms. Bowman:
    Yes, copyright law governs, but Mark Heise's interpretation of copyright law is one that would not pass muster in a beginning journalism copyright course, and would get well-buttered dinner rolls hurled at him if he presented it in an after-dinner speech in front of any professional writers' organization.

    USC 17 106 Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
    Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
    (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
    (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
    (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
    (4-6 deleted because they only deal with visual arts)

    If the owner of the copyrighted code wants to authorize, via the Gnu Public Licence or the Lesser Gnu Public Licence, or a license of the owner's own devising, unlimited reproduction and distribution and modification into derivative works, they can do it. USC 17 106 says they have the EXCLUSIVE rights to do so. And when licensing one's work, one can place restrictions in the license if one wishes. The GPL has a "poison pill" restriction in it: if you violate the GPL, the GPL ceases to apply, and your permission to copy and distribute and modify also ceases, making you immediately in violation of USC 17 106, and immediately infringing upon the copyright of the author or authors of the work.

    As for the USC 17 301 that Heise cites, claiming that it pre-empts the GPL, I sincerely hope he did not say what your article said he said: The section he cited has nothing at all to do with the author's absolute right to authorize use of the author's work:

    301 Preemption with respect to other laws
    (a) On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State.

    ... that does not affect the GPL at all. It does prevent the states from writing their own copyright laws, and nullifies any such laws they might have had before January 1, 1978. Heise fails to grasp that the GPL is not a law, it is a "license" in the legal sense of the word, and it does not conflict with USC 17 in any way. It is merely a widely used way to grant rights which a copyright holder is authorized to grant by USC 17 106.

  • by Mybrid (410232) on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:34PM (#6766083)
    Ha! If we want to talk conspiracy theories, my favorite is that Microsoft is behind SCO.
    The SCO lawsuit, then, is a conspiracy by Microsoft against Open Source.

    Baahh! You say! Here's the Evidence:

    • So far, the only major company [sfgate.com] [August 8, 2003] to publicly endorse SCO's claims by taking a license is Microsoft, the company that analysts say has the most to lose from the spread of Linux.
    • IBM used the notion of FUD [linux.org], once coined for IBM but now synonymous for Microsoft, to finger Microsoft as the culprit via this usage:
      In an internal memo obtained by internetnews.com [internetnews.com] targeted for IBM's sales force, Bob Samson, vice president of systems sales in IBM's Systems Group, discussed his company's thrust behind the SCO suit. "We see no merit in their claims and no supporting facts," Samson said. "Significantly, IBM counter sued SCO on a range of issues. Simply put, SCO's scheme is an attempt to profit from its limited rights to a very old UNIX operating system by introducing fear, uncertainty and doubt into the marketplace."

    There you have it. Microsoft is SCO. Have you indulged in your favorite conspiracy theory today?
    Cheers!
    -Mybrid
  • by Large Green Mallard (31462) <lgm@theducks.org> on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:38PM (#6766132) Homepage
    The scene, Dredrick Tatum, world heavyweight boxing champion is lecturering the class on staying in school, when nelson muntz becomes chemically attracted to Tatum as a bullying target after Lisa swabs tatum with sweat...

    Nelson: I can't help myself. [punches Tatum]
    Tatum: Young man, I insist that you desist.
    Nelson: Sorry. [continues punching] I'm so sorry. [near tears, he runs behind Tatum and gives him a wedgie] Please don't hurt me.
    Tatum: [rolling up his sleeve] You leave me little recourse.

    Source: http://www.snpp.com/episodes/CABF11 [snpp.com]

    I think there's a lesson in this for all of us.
  • Heise.de interview (Score:5, Informative)

    by theolein (316044) on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:41PM (#6766156) Journal
    Firstly three cheers to heise.de for asking pointed critical questions that shitrags like CNet don't have the fucking moral stamina to do.

    A Quote:
    c't:Mr. Sontag, the code that showed in the Forum has been analysed by experts. The result: the code was introduced by SGI into Linux, not IBM.

    Chris Sontag: That's correct. This example is not from IBM., but from another of our licencees. I can't comment about who that is at the moment.

    c't: The copy (of the code in SCO's presenttation) seems to reach far further back than your rights to Unix. On top of this, they seem to have already been distributed by AT&T under the BSD licence i.e. they're freely available, could have gotten into Linux from there.

    Sontag: This is completely untrue. We own all the files of this code with the complete development tree all the way back to the original 1969 version. We have researched all the tapes and all versions of the code. The code in question comes the exact version of the Unix System V code that we licenced in our contract to SGI. This version was available to SGI and was never in BSD or other releases. And the to-the-letter copy of this code is in Linux. We are raising awareness about such flagrant violations.

    c't: But you can't use this as evidence in your claim against IBM?

    Sontag: Correct.

    c't: Why are you then showing exactly these pieces of code? Your suit is against IBM..

    Sontag: We've found many kinds of copyright and contract breaches. The copying of code word for word was the most obvious kind and we wanted to demonstrate this. This is why we showed this in public and why we also show it under NDA. In the case of IBM we have not yet such cases of direct copying, but we haven't researched all the code yet. In IBM's case, it is mainly about another kind of breach of contract, namely the inclusion of derived code in large amounts. The contract states that all changes in the code and derivations thereof remain part of the origionally licenced code.

    c't: Your interpretation of copyright law -- relating both to directly copied code as well as derived works-- is described by Professor of Law, Egen Moglen, as being both snesless and as invalid in court

    Sontag: Moglen is not exactly known as an IP expert. I've spoken to IP experts and they state that Moglen's interpretation senseless.

    c't: Your lawyer, David Boies, is also no IP specialist.

    Sontag: True but his special area is contract law and that will be the deciding factor.

    c't: You didn't perhaps hire him because of his role in the Microsoft case?

    Sontag: Let's say that that aspect will at least not hurt us.

    c't:Are you going to sue this other licencee now?

    Sontag: I can't say anything about that now, but we're holding all our options open


    The rest is an interview with McBride about who has more resources SCO or IBM. Darl thinks he's got enough. The only interesting question is Darl's opinion of the GPL:

    c't: You're acting in a very agressive manner in the Forum. You're declared war against Open Source, because it's destructive for the Software branch. Does the whole movement have to die so that a couple of software companies can survive?

    McBride: I really meant the GPL there. There's a lot of valuables work in Open Source. Only the extreme claim that nothing that one has developed belongs to oneself anymore can not go carry on any more. Something must change in the GPL or it won't survive. I've discussed this with many representatives of the Open Source movement.


    I wonder if their answers consisted of the words "FUCK" and "YOU"?
  • by Apogee (134480) on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:46PM (#6766221)
    Don't know if this is good old Karma whoring, but I don't like the fishy fish tranlations, and since I speak german...

    SCO: We keep our options open for further law suits

    The dispute on whether parts of code from Unix development have possibly entered into Linux, and therefore whether rights held by SCO have been violated, has gained momentum again. At the SCOForum in Las Vegas, the SCO group has for the first time publicly presented parts of code and comments, which are supposed to prove the allegation of the company against IBM and the Linux community. Pictures of the code, which were published on Heise online, led to a first analysis by open source developers. Further investigations led to the assumption that the code shown in greek letters in SCOs evidence for code theft may point towards a transfer. Greg Lehey, for one, thinks so. Bruce Perens, however, merely concludes that none of the evidence brought forward by SCO would be sufficient to prove SCO Group's rights in court. SCO, in turn, argues that the code is protected by a licence with SGI.

    c't spoke to Chris Sontag, Vice President Intellectual Property SCO, and Darl McBride, head of SCO, about the origins of the purported stolen code, the further directions of the legal dispute and the situation of SCO as a company.

    c't: Mr. Sontag, the code sequences shown by you on the forum have been analyzed by experts. Result: Silicon graphics inserted them into Linux, not IBM

    Chris Sontag: That is right. This example is not from IBM, but another of our licensees. At the moment, I cannot comment on who it is.

    c't: The copy is supposed to go much further back than your rights on Unix. Moreover, it is said to have already been distributed by AT&T under the BSD licence, therefore freely accessible, and could have entered into Linux that way.

    Sontag: That's completely wrong. We posess all files of this code with the complete source tree (lit: pedigree) in all version, up to the origin in 1969. We have looked through all tapes and all versions of the code. The code in question dates from exactly the version of Unix System V which we have delivered to SGI and licenced with a signed contract. This version was at the disposal of the licensee, and it was never in BSD or other releases. And the letter-by-letter copy of this version is found in Linux. We want to point out such flagrant breaches.

    c't: But this evidence is useless in the dispute with IBM?

    Sontag: Correct.

    c't: Why then are you demonstrating exactly this code publicly as evidence? You are sueing IBM.

    Sontag: We found several kinds of breaches of copyright and of contracts. Literal copying of code was the most obvious kind, and we wanted to prove this as well. Therefore, we have shown it in the public talk, and demonstrate the example also unter terms of an NDA. In the case of IBM, we have not yet found such cases of verbatim copying, but we have not examined everything yet. With IBM, this is above all about a different kind of breach of contract, namely the transfer of derived results on a very large scale. The licensing agreement provides that all changes and derived products remain within the originally licensed body of work.

    c't: Your interpretation of copyright law -- concerning direct copies, as well as derived works -- was said to make no sense and not to be admissible at court by Egen Moglen, Professor of Law at Columbia University.

    Sontag: Moglen is not exactly known as an expert for intellectual property (IP) law. I spoke with IP experts - and they think Moglen's interpretation makes no sense.

    c't: Your lawyer David Boies is no IP specialist either.

    Sontag: Correct, but his expertise is in contract law, and that will be the decisive weapon.

    c't: You really didn't chose him for his highly publicised role in the Microsoft case?

    Sontag: Let's say that aspect won't harm us at least.

    c't: Will you sue this other licensee, as well?

    Sontag: I can't comment
    • by ratfynk (456467) on Friday August 22, 2003 @01:36PM (#6766753) Journal
      This is the most telling part of the interview;

      "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.

  • by syntap (242090) on Friday August 22, 2003 @12:53PM (#6766309)
    Internet Week: Why doesn't SCO just leave Linux customers, partners and developers alone and out of its dispute with IBM?

    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.
  • by CHaN_316 (696929) on Friday August 22, 2003 @02:23PM (#6767206)
    I think SCO should hire the Iraqi Information Minister to spread propaganda. A portfolio of the Minister's work is available here [welovethei...nister.com]

    Here are some sample answers he could be giving in an interview:

    Question: What do you think are your chances of winning a lawsuit against an industry giant like IBM?

    "We are not afraid of [IBM]. Allah has condemned them. They are stupid. They are stupid" (dramatic pause) "and they are condemned."

    "I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have started to commit suicide under the walls of [the courts]. We will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly."

    "My feelings - as usual - we will slaughter them all"

    Question: Could you elaborate on the perceived media attacks being launched against SCO?
    "I blame Al-Jazeera - they are marketing for [IBM]!"

    "Lying is forbidden in [SCO]. President [McBride] will tolerate nothing but truthfulness as he is a man of great honor and integrity. Everyone is encouraged to speak freely of the truths evidenced in their eyes and hearts."

    Question: What do you think will be a result of your lawsuit against Linux users?

    "Our estimates are that none of them will come out alive unless they surrender to us quickly."

    "We will welcome them with [lawsuits] and shoes."

    "Let the [Linux] infidels bask in their illusion"
  • My, oh my. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by evilpenguin (18720) on Friday August 22, 2003 @03:42PM (#6767984)
    Let me start by saying that I respect Mr. Raymond's acumen, accomplishments, and writing. His work is seminal and important. Thoughful people have leveled many criticisms at his works, but no matter what criticism is merited, "The Cathedral and the Bazzar" started a technological, economic, and philisophical discussion that continues to this day. His is the argument that frames the debate.

    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.
  • It looks like the staff at E-Commerce Times [ecommercetimes.com] have come up with a wonderful new logo [ecommercetimes.com] for SCO articles, as scaled down to icon size by Google News [google.com] (and I've stashed a backup [homeip.net] of, just in case).

    It shouldn't be a Caldera logo anymore anyway. I think a picture of someone shooting themself in the foot [ecommercetimes.com] is much more apropos :-)

When someone says "I want a programming language in which I need only say what I wish done," give him a lollipop.

Working...