SCO Fires back, Subpoenas Stallman, Torvalds et al

SirFozzie writes "SCO has just, within the past hour, announced that they have fired back against IBM's legal broadside, with one of their own, filing subpoenas against several of the biggest names in Linux. SCO filed subpoenas with the U.S. District Court in Utah, targeting six different individuals or organizations. Those include Novell; Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux kernel; Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation; Stewart Cohen, chief executive of the Open Source Development Labs; and John Horsley, general counsel of Transmeta."

How about an investigation

Lets see how M$ or some other Linux enemy is in some way funding SCO here. There is something going on beyond what we see my intuition tells me.

Re:How about an investigation

um MS bought several unix liscences from sco like a year ago. no mysetery really. but the real motive is sco's own greed. it just so happens that it coincides withs MS's goals so they threw some money at it.

Re:How about an investigation

"Lets see how M$ or some other Linux enemy is in some way funding SCO here."

No matter how this case comes out, it can't kill Linux. You think if movie studios are forced to pay $700 per Linux box they're suddenly going to switch to Windows and rewrite all their software? Do you think companies will replace their webservers with IIS? Do you think the offending code won't be removed so infringing machines are immediately fixed?

Why would anybody assume Microsoft funded this? I suppose maybe because it's something Yosemite Sam would do.

Re:How about an investigation

Here are a few nice little story about it: http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/2 208691 There have also been reports about Microsoft being in on several Cash investments that SCO has recieved over the last several months.

Re:How about an investigation

The article says Microsoft licensed the Unix code. It doesn't say "Microsoft gave money to SCO in order to destroy Linux." Microsoft has what, 80 million people using Windows? Multiply that by $699.

Re:How about an investigation

Why would Microsoft license a company that distributes software that is a DIRECT competitor to their Server software? Would it be to infuse a poor company with money so they can fight a lengthy legal process? I would be willing to bet the farm.

Re:How about an investigation

Because Windows contains some of that infringing code?

SCO can't even find any real infringements in code they're allowed to read. How on earth would they have found an infringement in code they aren't allowed to read?

They've released lots of info

The first thing the public saw was their stupid slide show, which included proof that:

SCO doesn't know the difference between what they once called "Ancient Unix" (which the AT&T vs. Berkeley judge said AT&T lost to the public domain) and the System V code they actually own some rights to, despite the fact that they rereleased that code themselves under the old BSD license.

SCO doesn't know the difference between original BSD code (like the packet filter code they claimed as their own) and their System V code, despite the fact that they are legally required to retain the copyright notices on the BSD parts.

SCO can't tell the difference between a legal, original reimplementation of a detailed published standard (like that BPF example, and probably like much of the POSIX, Unix9x, BSD, etc. compatibility in Linux) and an obfuscated copy of the original implementation.

More recently, SCO has "responded" to IBM's interrogatories not with specific claims of wrongdoing, but with the output of "egrep -il (smp|rcu|numa)" and a disclaimer that they're not stating that the output includes some infringement.

If they have an actual case, why are they pubishing these embarrassments instead, still keeping their case secret in court where they might piss off a judge instead of just a bunch of Linux users?

Re:How about an investigation

Easy to give their salespeople an advantage.

Ms salesmen can use the words "You could be held liable if you use Linux ... " and that would scare them until buying Windows.

Company Image is big business and being sued and raided can affect your stock price.

I like the saying...

"When the elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers."

Re:I like the saying...

Funny you should mention elephants. The first thing I thought of when I saw this article was "time to queue the Barnum and Bailey music".

Maybe slashdot could play is as a midi in the background of all the SCO articles; that would rock :)

Re:I like the saying...

just play this [wilstar.com] looped while you read thru the story ;)

Oh yay

Swell, Stallman will be rocking in his chair, picking fleas from his beard and muttering "GNU/SCO.. GNU/SCO.. GNU/SCO.." It's like a strawman argument against the millions of free software users..

I don't THINK so

Swell, Stallman will be rocking in his chair, picking fleas from his beard and muttering "GNU/SCO.. GNU/SCO.. GNU/SCO.." It's like a strawman argument against the millions of free software users.

Keep in mind the line from The Firm: "Remember - he's smarter than you.". Stallman will be well-prepared by Moglen. He will probably leave SCO's top-notch lawyers tied up in knots by their own questions.

sPh

Re:I don't THINK so

From what I've heard about Stallman (including that my mother knew him in the late 70s :)), he is not a good public speaker.

I saw him speak in public a couple of years ago. He's not bad. Not dazzling, charismatic or magnetic, but calm, insightfull and intelligent. He is no stranger to public speaking and will be on his home turf. I think (and hope) that he'll do fine.

Re:I don't THINK so

Worried?

From everything I've read since the fiaSCO started, I think the Judge(s) will be very convinced when Linus loses it on the stand and starts calling the SCO people morons.

Linus: YOU MORONS!
SCO Legal Minion: Objection!
Judge: Overruled, statement of fact.

Re:I don't THINK so

I just want to make sure that everyone out there realizes that the part about my mother knowing Stallman was a useless aside - since you've editted out the :) that marked it as something to be taken lightly. And some other posts seem to have missed that point. It was kind of a funny story - my mom was reading something online about this guy called Richard Stallman and she remembered having a class or something with him in Boston in the late 70s, so she sent him an e-mail to find out if it was the same guy and it was. I thought it was kinda neat and am going to exploit it for geek points :)

I should also point out that I'm well aware that your comment about 20 years passing was said in jest too, before someone accuses me of missing your :)

Anyway, back to defend my real point - while he can give very precise arguments, I think he has a tendancy to get side-tracked onto things that matter to him and not the matter at hand. He also seems to be very polarizing in his arguments - either you agree strongly, or you disagree strongly. A good speaker is capable of allowing people to listen to their arguments without forcing them to take a side, while Stallman seems to try and force his ideas on others. This makes it harder to take him seriously, as it almost makes it seem as if his ideas don't carry enough weight by themselves and instead need to be forced on people.

I honestly don't know how he'd do in a court case, but I know plenty of people who can't stand to hear him speak. He's kind of like Michael Moore in that respect - people either like listening to him or can't stand him. I personally can't stand anything Michael Moore says or does, even though I agree with him on several points. (I found Bowling for Columbine to be surprisingly good, though, because Moore was trying to start a debate and not to force his views on others.)

To try and show the parallels more clearly, think of the difference between the following:

I think that what most people call Linux really needs to be called GNU/Linux. The GNU project has provided many important components to what many refer to as the "Linux Operating System" and has received very little credit back in return. This is not right, so most Linux systems use the GNU utilities to run their systems.

Versus

If you don't call yourselves the GNU/Linux Assocation, I won't speak at your site. You also need to change it to "GNU/Linux" on your website.

While Stallman's explanation of GNU/Linux on the FSF webpage is well thought out and closer to the first paragraph, his dealings with reporters and others in public have been much closer to the second. It's this that makes me worry about his public speaking skills - he needs to come off as someone who can make an argument that stands on its own and not solely because it has the backing of the a person with strong convictions.

I hope this explains my position better - I haven't had a chance to listen to Stallman speak recently (he keeps on scheduling his speaches that I am close enough to attend at inopertune times :)), but based on the reactions to things he's said that I've seen or heard, I can only come to the conclusion that he isn't that good a public speaker.

Here's audios of RMS speeches:

There are ogg recordings of 12 of his speeches from the last 3 years on the GNU philosophy audio page [gnu.org].

Also note that the issue of the name "GNU/Linux" is not about credit (more explanation here [gnu.org])

And an explanation of the fiasco regarding Stallman being asked to talk at a "Linux User Group" is available here [gnu.org].

I think....

Stallman has been waiting for the opportunity to speak and this subpeona gives him a venue.

SCO may get more than they bargained for.

Re:sad but fun

Well, we do get our share of laughs making fun of European royal familes, so it probably balances out.

Re:sad but fun

Don't worry, European courts have produced plenty of whoppers of their own -- German lawyers going on trademark jihads concerning trademarks they don't even own (Mobilix); British courts making it illegal to tell anyone that some servant saw Prince Charles and another man doing the nasty (whoops, now Slashdot will have to be banned in the UK!); French courts ruling that Google can't let a competitor use the AdWords feature to attach an ad to a search that mentions a competitor's name -- I could go on and on.

Re:sad but fun

Mmm, a condescending European. How novel.

Re:sad but fun

And your language is very heavily based upon the British langauge ;-)

Bruce Perens

I bet ol' Brucie is pissed that he's not considered a "big name in Linux" by SCO.

Courtroom Drama??

Lawyer: Mr Stallman, can you explain what GNU is? Stallman: Gnu's Not Unix
Lawyer: Yes, Mr Stallman, but can you please answer the question.
Stallman: Gnu's Not Unix
ad infinitum.

Re:Courtroom Drama??

thanks for not making YET ANOTHER STUPID JOKE about GNU/Linux.

so I will:

Lawyer: now, this linux operating system that you wrote...

RMS: excuse me. Linux is a kernel, not an operating system. if you refer to a Linux-based operating system you should call it GNU/Linux. Also, I didn't write it, I wrote a text editor, a make system, part of a C library, and some other programs.

Lawyer: right, the new Linux, is that different than the old one?

RMS: not "new" Linux, GNU/Linux .. Guh-Noo Linn-Ucks. Also, I didn't write the Linux kernel, that guy over there did.

Lawyer: Okay forget that.. Mr Stallman, when is the last time you bathed?

Re:Courtroom Drama??

Prediction:

If Stallman makes it into a courtroom he'll wind up with a contempt of court charge against him. I wonder if he can resist pulling his "I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about." or "I won't answer unless you ask the question with my preferred terminology." when an attorney uses "free" and "open-source" interchangeably or refers to the "Linux operating system.

In fact, if I were an SCO lawyer I'd definitely bait him until the judge sanctioned him.

Re:Courtroom Drama??

You are still operating on the asumption that a SCO lawyer will ever see the inside of a court room for anything other than 1) a bankruptcy hearing or 2) a fraud trial. Too bad too. I would kinda like to see RMS defend the GPL...

Re:Courtroom Drama??

Stallman's precision is less than that of most members of the law profession. The legal system is quite used to Stallman's habit of precise definition and preambles of defining semantics before answering. That's how law works, and to a certain extent, is what constitutes law. The phrase "Intellectual Property" pisses Stallman off because it has no meaning, whereas "Patents, Copyright and Trademark", are three seperate concepts. In law, that's so true there are seperate law offices that work for each of the three... and using the phrase "intellectual property" without referring to one of those three in precision will get you laughed out of court.

Re:Courtroom Drama??

I strongly suspect that part of the reason that Stallman has such strong views about precision of terminology is precisely because he's been working on the legal side of things for so long. The GPL is as much about hacking the legal system as Linux (err, GNU/Linux) is about hacking computer systems. To create a hack as elegant as the GPL, it's necessary to be pretty well versed in the medium you're hacking, and it seems that a fair bit has worn off on RMS.

Curious

If I answer without those precise definitions, the jury might come to the wrong understanding of what I'm saying. Since I know that, that would be perjury, wouldn't it?

Would it? I'm curious. I've always equated perjury to lying. If someone truthfully answers a question when they *know* the answer will be interpreted incorrectly, have they committed perjury?

Re:WHAT!!!

Now all these subpoenaed people/companies need to get together and plan a really careful counterattack, not just a defense.

Umm, you do realize that a subpoena does not mean those people are being attacked? It merely means that SCO ostensibly thinks they possess information which is relevant to the case, and they are asking that it be turned over. Although the article said nothing at all about exactly what information SCO was after (going by their past performance, I'm guessing it will be overly broad and intended to show a bias in SCO's favour - something like "Give us all information you have that might validate our claims", then when the people can't come up with this they will accuse the linux community of holding back important information), it seems reasonable to me to subpoena the people that ostensibly know the most about the software in question. However, while issuing subpoenas for these people seems reasonable to me, I somehow doubt that the subpoenas themselves will be reasonable.

Uh, huh huh....

IBM is actually trying to get some facts with their subpoenas, like offending source code. What does SCO think they are going to get out of Linus? Hopefully he doesn't let them look a the Linux source code..... oh wait.

Re:Uh, huh huh....

What does SCO think they are going to get out of Linus?

Perhaps they're running low on crack [eweek.com]?

If Linus needs a defense fund

He's got my donation anytime!

Re:If Linus needs a defense fund

He is being subpoened not sued. Big difference

This should sum up SCO's entire campaign

SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said he did not know what the subpoenas asked for, but "I know that some of them have been served."

They haven't got a clue what they're doing, but they're doing it.

Re:This should sum up SCO's entire campaign

They haven't got a clue what they're doing, but they're doing it.

Welcome to Managment.

Re:This should sum up SCO's entire campaign

They haven't got a clue what they're doing, but they're doing it.

Further proof of Microsoft's involvement with SCO's recent irrational behavior. They're already adopted Microsoft's approach to software development!

IANAL, but here's some answers

1: do as ze Germans did. File an injunction and get it enforced [computerworld.com]
The fine comes nearly three months after a regional court in Munich issued the court order in response to a suit brought by the nonprofit Linux conference organization, LinuxTag e.V., and IT consulting firm Tarent GmbH. The two groups sought the injunction to prevent SCO from making claims about intellectual property violations in Linux without presenting any evidence...

2: do as IBM has done and try to get the facts out. And since we know SCO won't give up the goods, get it from anyone else with their hand in the SCO piggy bank. [forbes.com] "It is time for SCO to produce something meaningful. They have been dragging their feet and it is not clear there is any incentive for SCO to try this in court"

thats odd

I see how the others relate, but how exactly does John Horsley, general counsel of Transmeta fit into that list? Besides being Linus' old workplace, what do they have to do with all this?

Re:thats odd

Because if Linus worked on any Linux code while working for Transmeta, then Transmeta might own the code, and therefore be held liable for the code if it copied Unix. I guess that's what SCO is assuming.

RMS

I imagine this is what Stallman wanted, a chance to prove the GPL in court. And involvement in the case may give him legal room to see 'evidence' without signing non-disclosures.

-t

Re:RMS

"He is probably smarter then[sic] the lawyer questioning him."

Bill Gates is smarter than plenty of other people, yet he is still incapable of picking out a suit that does not make him look like a department-store shoe salesman. Brilliance and social skills tend to have an inverse relationship.

Re:RMS

Naw, he bathes regularly. I know this very well, because at least a few years ago, he lived in his office, and you could often see him in the morning going off to the showers ... wearing nothing but a towel... [gack!]

[I've also sat next to him for extended periods at social occasions, and had no complaints, about the smell anyway.]

Free Software is not Open Source.

I appreciate everything RMS has done, but I am not sure he is the best person to represent the open source movement [...]

He would not represent that movement at all [gnu.org]. He is the first to speak up when people make the mistake you just did [gnu.org]. If you listen to his speeches, you can read [gnu.org] or hear [gnu.org] him speak on this issue when he corrected Mike Uretsky. I think you would be well served to learn what he has to say instead of judging him by your prejudical view of his appearance.

Re:RMS

"I imagine this is what Stallman wanted, a chance to prove the GPL in court. And involvement in the case may give him legal room to see 'evidence' without signing non-disclosures."

This has the potential to be really funny with Stallman and Torvalds on the stand.

SCO lawyer: "And here we have exhibit [x] that clearly shows infringing code in Linux."

Stallman: "That's BSD code. It worked for a while, but someone else came up with a much better algorithm. That code hasn't been in GNU/Linux for quite some time."

SCO lawyer (clears his throat in embarrassment): "Moving on to exhibit [x], here is a flagrant example of more infringement."

Stallman: "I wrote that code myself in the early nineties. I know that for a fact because you didn't even bother removing my copyright notice."

(the courtroom comes alive in murmurs from the spectators, requiring the judge to silence the room)

The SCO lawyer finishes with Stallman and calls Torvalds:

SCO lawyer: "Exhibit [x] shows a Caldera copyright. It also shows that you personally modified it and included the code in Linux. We've got you now, you Finnish smartass!"

Torvalds: "Your own exhibit [y] shows that Caldera released the original code into the public domain on many different occasions. I originally tried retrofitting it into Linux, and it stayed for a few revisions, but it was so badly written that I was compelled to rip it out. It was replaced by a far superior version written by an Italian contributor on his 12th birthday."

(the courtroom spectators start to giggle)

SCO lawyer: "Moving on to our crown jewels, we see that the core of SCO Unix is nearly line-by-line identical to the core of Linux. Try explaining that one, hotshot."

Torvalds: "Hey! That's MY code! Rather, it's a very early and buggy version of my code. It looks very similar to Linux 0.2. Come on, guys. If you're gonna steal from Linux, at least steal the good stuff. No wonder SCO Unix sucks so bad."

Re:RMS

I bet you got a boner while writing that, didn't you?

Oh dear

Don't take this the wrong way, Gnuites, but I wish they hadn't gone for putting RS up on the stand...

RS is an idealist, and I honour him for his ideals, but idealism has no place in a courtroom, pragmatism is the rule of law.

Simon.

Re:Oh dear

Don't take this the wrong way, Gnuites, but I wish they hadn't gone for putting RS up on the stand...

RS is an idealist, and I honour him for his ideals, but idealism has no place in a courtroom, pragmatism is the rule of law.

Are you kidding? I understand your concerns -- RMS comes across as a total wacko -- but this is the guy who invented the GPL! I think he understands better than most people exactly why free software is on solid legal ground, so I think he'd be a fine person on the witness stand. No judge will have a hard time believing that the last thing in the world he would ever want to do would be to steal somebody else's source code and release it for free. He'd sooner rewrite it from scratch, as he's done hundreds of times before.

Re:Oh dear

... but this is the guy who invented the GPL! I think he understands better than most people exactly why free software is on solid legal ground, so I think he'd be a fine person on the witness stand. No judge will have a hard time believing that the last thing in the world he would ever want to do would be to steal somebody else's source code and release it for free. He'd sooner rewrite it from scratch, as he's done hundreds of times before.

Yep, agreed. His integrity is up there with the angels.

I have a horrible vision of the lawyer ripping him apart over the rights of closed-source programmers though. RMS thinks all programs should be free, not by choice but as a part of the natural order of things. Any competent lawyer should be able to do a character assassination on him, and by association the entire open source movement, with that material. I could, and I'm not a lawyer.

The other poster's comments about him being precise are valid too - he is. And he's a clever guy, but his principles and beliefs, while noble, verge on religious, which will just be ammunition in the hands of a lawyer :-(

Simon

Re:Oh dear

I have a horrible vision of the lawyer ripping him apart over the rights of closed-source programmers though. RMS thinks all programs should be free, not by choice but as a part of the natural order of things. Any competent lawyer should be able to do a character assassination on him, and by association the entire open source movement, with that material. I could, and I'm not a lawyer.

It's not the first time RMS has faced such accusations, nor will it be the first time he has responded to them. It won't be the fifth time, or the 20th time, or the 100th time. The internet gives a public persona a great deal of practice in responding to attacks. People just as intelligent as SCO's team of lawyers have been attacking RMS (at least verbally) for a long time, often with with no qualms about disingenuously misrepresenting his views.

I'd be much more worried about Linus, who has not been as willing to put himself in the middle of arguments, and is more apt to compromise. He'd be more likely to answer a question honestly, without recognizing the path down which the lawyer is trying to (mis)lead him. RMS won't lie, but he'll know not to offer facts or interpretations in a form that will provide ammunition for the lawyer.

RMS may be an extremist, but he's not a zealot. He's not blind to the opinions and perspectives of other people, even if he doesn't agree with them.

Re:Oh dear

I'll agree that Stallman is rational and that his views are internally consistent, but my understanding is that the word "zealot" just means a "fervent and even militant proponent of something". Synonyms include "drumbeater" and "partisan".

I realize that "zealot" is used pejoratively around here (perhaps not rightly so) but if one were to use it in a value-neutral sense, it would be a fair charaterization of Stallman.

(no disrespect intended.)

Re:Oh dear

"He'd sooner rewrite it from scratch, as he's done hundreds of times before."

Actually, the GPL was penned by Eben Moglen, not RMS. RMS came up with the idea, and Eben made it legally sound and defensible in court.

Re:Oh dear

Linus however worries me, he seems to be so uninterested in the legal system that he might be considered ignorant of it.

He would not be expected to be a legal expert, rather he is responsible for everything that is in the official linux tree. Its not his job to know copyright law and he will tell you flatly that he is not an expert, but he knows what HE wrote, including large parts of the SMP code that SCO is claiming as their own. Its a good thing he is politically apothetic, I would rather see him spending more time coding and less debating.

He statements on patents was simple: don't research them. The reason is, if you accidently infringe on one, you are liable. If you knew about it and infringed anyway, you are liable for treble damages. ANY shop will tell you the same, programmers should NEVER research patents, thats Legal's job. Its just bad business.

Torvalds is a far worse advocate than Stallman

Linus however worries me, he seems to be so uninterested in the legal system that he might be considered ignorant of it.

I concur. It is precisely this go-along-to-get-along attitude on issues that control his ability to continue to do what he wants to do that appeal to many Slashdot readers, unfortunately. Torvalds reaffirms apathy by tossing off subjects as unimportant. He is an impressive hacker, but I hesitate to point to his words for informed opinion on political and ethical matters.

Stallman, by contrast, makes you listen to uncomfortable things like ethical computing--a subject too few other people even approach in their public speaking. Stallman recognizes the importance of the legalized bribery system Americans call campaign finance, and he has said if he had a way to fix it he would do so and nothing could make him prouder. Stallman seems, to me, to be much more in tune with the technological forces that affect our lives as hackers and citizens.

Re:Fitting

Considering the history so far this doesn't look like planned. The people involved (apart from Linus) have little to no relation to the suit. Like elsewhere has been pointed out countless times already: SCO pulls a seemingly egregious stunt every time they are being slapped. Stock manipulation is as good an excuse as any.

When the latest IBM move to subpoena investors for information took place, I actually though that someone at IBM has struck with scary precision. They haven't taken that many separate steps. Instead they've hit seldom and hard. I think that whoever is directing their efforts against SCO works like a war strategist. Compare that to SCO's constant and almost random slinging of threats.

It's almost like a street-fight with two very unequal opponents. Other may be fast but lacking focus manages only to swing wildly at air. A more seasoned fighter just makes sure to avoid the hits and waits for an opening, and then promptly punches in their opponent's adam's apple. It's not pretty, it's not fair, but it is effective.

I only wish SCO choked soon enough.

Wonderful quote from the story...

Here's our good friend Blakey.... Quote... SCO spokesman Blake Stowell said he did not know what the subpoenas asked for, but "I know that some of them have been served." Unquote... I don't know what they hope to prove by service subpoenas on a handful of linux-related people...I mean, don't they technically have to serve some purpose at a TRIAL? Perhaps someday we will actually get to that point...but I think this is more meaningless pump-and-dumping on the part of the SCO people.

oh god

Fuck, this is bad.. stallman in court.. jesus christ.. i can't imagine what it'll be like... i feel bad for the lawyers questioning him, it'll be worse than questioning the soup nazi on the last episode of sienfeld.

My favorite quote:

SCO's Stowell said his company provided about a million pages of documents in response to IBM's requests. "They are trying to coerce and intimidate," Stowell said, referring to Big Blue's subpoenas. "I think what they're trying to do is that if you're a potential investor in our company or an industry analyst that says anything even remotely favorable toward SCO, you're going to be subpoenaed by IBM."


Hmmmm.... Sounds eerily familiar to some company trying to extort money by saying that if you use Linux, you may be violating our IP and subject to a big ass lawsuit. Unless you fork over $699 that is.

Has SCO gone completely mad?

> > Has SCO gone completely mad? What the fuck? ?
>
> Is SCO completely, utterly, loony? What the fuck? What the fucking fuck fuck?!

Oh, right. That as me, quoting myself from Septempter, and then from October.

So, to bring you all up to date. It's November. The proper question is now:

"Is SCO completely, utterly, apeshit and batshit, half-a-gig-short-of-a-Debian-ISO, stark, slavering, buggo?!? What the fuck? What the fucking fuck fuck fuck [ several dozen instances of the word "fuck" deleted for brevity ] fuck?!?!"

Re:Has SCO gone completely mad?

Try to work "fuckity" in:

"What the fucking fuckity fuck fuck..."

Thanks!

Re:Has SCO gone completely mad?

I hereby nominate you for 'The Most Gratuitous Use Of The Word "Fuck" In A Slashdot Posting'.

It's very prestigious.

SCO = Sphincter

Me: A sphincter says what?

SCO: What?

Me: Exactly.

(paraphrasing from Wayne's World [moviewavs.com])

Just in Time for Xmas

Cool, I'll get what I really wanted for Xmas - a smoking charred black lump of coal that used to be SCO!

I'm leaving out extra milk and cookies this year.

Another go at the pump machine?

Oh dear. Darl probably noticed that their stock didn't go up to $45 but rather went back down to around $14 and panicked and subponeaed a few guys in the lawsuit to make investors believe that they are competently litigating this.

Luckily the Pump seems to be a bit dry today, even after they opened their mouth; is it a sign that investors are catching on on their scam? I surely hope so.

Also, being served a subponea hopefully will be the last straw for Linus before he files a copyright infringement suit against SCO.

Raising the bar

That's just f***ing great, now the bar for being a cool guy in free software just got raised. It used to be you just had to write a million lines of useful code. Now you've got to get a subpoena from SCO to be cool.

"Should we invite Jeff to speak at our little conference?" "Well, he didn't get a subpoena from SCO, so he's probably not that important..."

jeff

Re:Raising the bar

I would buy a "They [SCO] are smoking crack. --Linus Torvalds" shirt.

A classic from UserFriendly/The Far Side

y'all might want to point your browsers at: http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030622& mode=classic

Just like the Korean war talks

This is nothing surprising. It's SCO's standard delay-as-long-as-we-can tactic. SCO knows that as soon as they actually have to offer up their proof that copied code is in Linux, it won't stand up to analysis, their case will be rejected, and their stock will drop like a stone. It'll be game over for SCO as a company. Their current business model depends on not offering any proof of their claims.

So why not subpoena everyone, to make things as slow and difficult as possible? I'm surprised Elvis and Bigfoot aren't on the list.

Kinda reminds me of the negotiations at the end of the Korean war. Every last detail of how the talks were to proceed were argued to death before the talks could begin. There were even provisions as to which direction the delegates sat and how high their chairs were in relation to each other before they'd talk. And the reason was, was that the delegates simply didn't want to be there. Same for SCO.

Weaselmancer

SCO Civil War Escalates; no clear leader

UTAH - Today, the civil war within The SCO Group Inc (SCOX) became unusually public with the rapid-fire serving of hundreds of subpoenas. The action -- and responses to it from SCO spokesman Blake Stowell -- serve to highlight the increasingly turbulent within its fortified compound for control of the company and its allegedly-valuable and -infringed intellectual property.

Stowell, spokesman for the company, was unable to explain the latest round of subpoenas in the company's lawsuit against IBM for copyright infringment. When asked what the purpose was, he replied that he had no idea, but"I know that some of them have been served."

For veteran SCO watchers, this is a sign that the previously-untouchable spokesman may be on the outs.

"Why wouldn't the spokesman know what was going on?" asked one CIA analyst. "It's his job. But it's little clues like this that give us a suprisingly good idea of what's going on in Utah."

A source within SCO, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed this view of events.

"Darl [McBride, CEO of SCO] just went crazy the other day when [Stowell] asked what the next step was," he said. "He started asking all sorts of questions about whose side [Stowell] was on, was he wearing a wire, who else felt like this, this sort of thing. He even pulled out his laptop and started Googling for Stowell's name on LKML [a mailing list for Linux kernel developers]. Now we're not allowed to talk to Blake at all."

"It's a shame, because Blake was one of the moderates," the source continued. "A while back Darl started talking about putting Richard Stallman's head on a pike outside the compound. Said it was the least he deserved. Blake talked him down from that before anything could happen. Now there's very few left to do that."

However, McBride's hold over the company is anything but absolute, and the future of his leadership is still in question. "There's still a significant group within SCO that are trying to find the combination for the safe where he keeps his shares," said the CIA analyst. "That's why he hasn't left the compound in over six weeks."

Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation, was unavailable for comment. Sources close to the computer guru said he had gone underground. "He saw some guy hanging around the office that he thought was a bounty hunter. That was enough for Richard."

Please Please Please stop it...

The only thing now left for me to see, is "Darl, linux, Stallman et all" on the front cover of Soap Opera Digest.

This drama is giving all those soaps a serious run for their money.

SCO's legal stratagem

boils down to "No GNU'S is good GNEWS"

What about Cox?

Didn't Alan Cox write a lot of the "offending" code? Besides being far more important to Linux than many of the subpoena'd people.

That part about Caldera (now SCO) supporting his writing the very code they are suing over might cause problems for them, though...

Re:What about Cox?

Alan Cox will not travel to the US after Dmitry Sklyarov got arrested.

SCOundrels

So this is it.

SCO takes off the wrapper and makes it absolutely clear that it intends make an attempt to destroy Open Source.

There can be no other reason for delivering subpoenas on Stallman and Cohen, to a lesser degree Torvolds.

They are going to go after the license, they almost _have_ to try and discredit GPL after distributing the code themselves.
They can't shine a light of accusation at IBM until they have done so.

I think it's time that the FSF put a call in to the ACLU.
Even with the help of IBM this portends to be big, dirty and long.
The stakes go much deeper than software they go to the heart of freedom and a free society.

RMS on the stand. . . Oh no!!!

Well, perhaps in a courtroom he will present himself a little better. Hopefully Eben Moglan will get him cleaned up, and prepped on what to talk about. Don't get me wrong: I like Richard Stallman. But, I've seen him at some Linux conventions, and some of the hardlines he takes makes him a good target for Red-Baiting.

I dunno, I just remember thinking at the shows I saw him at that, well, he's very good at evangelizing geeks about Free Software. But put him on the stand in a courtroom, or in some other very public setting, and he might do a good job of alienating the general public.

I truely hope that I'm wrong. Really, I do. Let's just say I think RMS might need to work on his people skills, and personal appearance, a little bit before getting on the witness stand.

Hand up, everyone who saw this coming

I read in an interview that Linus suspected that he could be drawn into this lawsuit, although he wasn't particularly interested in being drawn into a disagreement between SCO and IBM over contractual arrangements.

It's surprising that they didn't include Bruce Perens and/or ESR in their list. Those two have been pretty involved in pointing out SCO's FUD. SCO even implied that ESR was being paid by IBM to attack them!

I'm not sure what the point of sending a supoena to RMS is though. Perhap the braintrust at SCO is unaware that free software != open source software? I'm sure he would be happy to send them a copy of the free software manifesto. It might not hurt if he sent them a copy of the BSD ruling as well.

If SCO ever had a plan beyond:

1) Sue IBM

2) Get bought out by IBM
3) Profit

they are doing a very good job of hiding it. It just looks like one ad-hoc decision after another. Since they initiated the proceedings against IBM, the chewbacca defense isn't an option, and it is difficult to see any coherent strategy at work here.

Of course, slashdotters are not the intended audience. SCO is playing to the analysts who will repeat what they have been told about SCO's claims being legitimate in order to keep those share prices up there. It is obvious that SCO is not interested in speaking to people who know something about software and technology.

My fantasy: Geeks on the stand

Attorney: Isn't it true that you stole code from SCO?

Geek: Yes.

Attorney: What? So, you did steal code from SCO?

Geek: No.

Attorney: I'm confused, now, did you or did you not steal code from SCO?

Geek: Yes.

Attorney: Your Honor, I would like to treat this witness as hostile.

The Court: The witness is directed to answer only "yes" or "no".

Attorney: AAAARRRRGH!

Geek: Hmmm...Is is Sept 19 already?

Re:My fantasy: Geeks on the stand

Bah. We're talking of Richard Stallman here!

> (not (didp you (stealp you sco-code)))
t
> (didp you (stealp you sco-code))
nil
> (or (not (didp you (stealp you sco-code))) (didp you (stealp you sco-code)))
t

SCOs' Strategy

This may seem perverse to members of the OS community but by serving subpoenas to Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman, I'd say SCOs' PR strategy (via legal recourse) is aiming to discredit them as leftist/socialist/communist subversives (don't laugh) to the American pro-capitalist mainstream.

Consider SCO statements that claim "the GPL is unconstitutional" or the philosophy motivating linux is to "destroy commercial software".

I'll bet the questions directed toward them will include references to RS social contentions posted on his web site and perhaps if Linus Torvalds is - "a devoted communist, like your father".

the mind is its own beautiful prisoner

Good!

Linus being subpoenaed should be able to bring the code that SCO says in violation of thier licence.

Linus: "Please show me the code that is in question".
"That's it? Fuck here is the fix. Case closed.
By the way you owe me a palne ticket and $2000.00 for my time."

Fire back?!

Mmm... IBM requested proof of SCO's claims. That's how our system of "justice" works, the plaintiff files a case then proves it by providing evidence.

In alleged response to IBM's request, SCO filed a bunch of its own subpoenas. Exactly how is that "firing back"?! The only way SCO could "fire back" is by responding to IBM's request, i.e., PROVE ITS CASE!!!

SCO's subpoenas are nothing but a delay tactic. It's an attempt to avoid firing back as long as possible. SCO is not ready to let the world know it has absolutely no proof.

For any SCO supporters out there, ask yourself this: If SCO had evidence, why is it STILL hiding it?! An author cannot sue another author for plagiarism, but refuse to tell exactly what was plagiarized!

New Business Model

Business Professor: Now Students, we are going to learn about business models today. Forget what you have learned about supplying a product or service to a client, that way of making money is old school.

Business Student: But if a company has nothing to offer, how can they make money?

Business Professor: *shakes head* There is a new approach we are going to call the 'Legal Model.' In this model you don't need a product or service, but good lawyers. You see, you get a good law firm and you target innocent people, twelve year olds are good, or even large businesses. It does not matter the reason, in fact, the stupider the reason, the more you look to gain from it. Inveritably someone will invest in your cause, your stock will go up and whether you are bought out or win, you stand to make money. Helps to use bully tactics to force settlements out of people as well.

Business Student: But how do you plan to pay for the lawyers?

Business Professor: Oh just give them a large percentage if you are bought out or win the law suits. Lawyers are suckers for those types of deals. It's actually incentive for them.

Is this the Business Model of the Future?

A little precognition...

"So, Mr. Thorvalds, did you describe SCO as, and I quote, 'smoking crack'?"

"Yes, I did."

"Do you stand by that description."

"No, I do not. It would be an insult to crack-smokers everywhere."

Kjella

Yay!

Hopefully Linus or RMS will get the chance to use the line "It's absolutely true your honor. This man (McBride) has no dick" in court.

Subpoena != Court Appearance

Just in case anyone is getting wrongheaded expectations of RMS and/or Linus appearing in a courtroom anytime soon, these subpoenas most likely are asking for either: a) depositions relative to discovery or b) specific documents, answers or background information relative to one of the issues being considered at trial. Nothing terribly exciting here, although it does make for a catchy headline.

I mention this because a number of posts speculate on "the GPL finally going to trial" or some such as a consequence of this. That may very well happen, but not as an immediate result of this. So those of you awaiting the "GPL Final Combat" should probably sheathe the swords for a little while longer...

Thank You SCO!

I was beginning to think you were incapable of further follies. I've had my gut-laugh for the day and I feel much better now.

But seriously, wouldn't it be wise for Stallman, Torvalds and all to take the stand and essentially tear the case to ribbons from discovery? They wouldn't have to restrict themselves to quoting the e-mail chain that wandered around IBM's submissions to the kernel. They could actually give the oral version, complete with iterating under oath how retaining "freedom" is so important that they do everything they can to keep disallowed trade secrets from leaking into the kernel. Not a bad set of things to have show up in sworn testimony.

All your Malloc routine..

are belong to us..

Darl..

Congressman Barney Frank's reply to earlier suits

I just posted this in an earlier SCO story, but I thought it was worth posting again -- I sent a letter to our congressman, Barney Frank (D- MASS), about SCO's abusive use of the court system. He sent this reply:

- - - -
September 26, 2003

Dear Mr. Minsky,

I share your view that the suits being brought by the SCO Group
against the users of the Linux system are an entirely inappropriate
use of the legal systems for broader corporate purposes. While I have
not been able, obviously, to examine these in detail, the suits do
not appear to me, from what I have read, to have any merit, and in
fact seem to be motivated, as I said, by an effort simply to prevent
the use of Linux for competitive reasons.

There is, unfortunately, a very limited role for Congress here. I
agree with those who would like to see us "stop SCO from punishing
innocent consumers to inflate its other legal claims." But under our
separation of powers doctrine, Congress has no role whatsoever to play
in the pursuit of particular cases. We can pass laws which prevent
certain types of suits from being brought, but it is very, very
difficult to pass those in a way that would be retroactive ? that is,
that would apply to existing suits. And the problem with this suit is
not that it is of a sort of legal claim that is inappropriate to
bring, but that it is totally unjustified on the merits. In other
words, the remedy here is for these suits to be dismissed on their
merits and Congress has no role, as I have said, in doing that.

I am prepared to join in expressions of extreme disapproval of what
SCO is doing, and I will be consulting with my colleagues to see if
there is a movement to do that. I hope that will have some impact on
them. All of these lawsuits brought against individuals will of course
be dismissed but I realize that is of little consolation to people
who have had to go through the trouble and expense of defending against
them. It may be that at some point a judge will act decisively enough
in this regard to prevent this proliferation of suits, and while, as I
said, our Congressional role is very limited here, I will be
encouraging anything we can do along these lines.

Barney Frank

Who needs a lawyer?

With all the comments and sugestions on /. Linux, RMS, et al don't need lawyers, they can read the comments and get all the coaching and legal advise they ever needed-for free!

Well, if you've gotta go...

go out with a bang!

Re:just buy SCO out!

Is that you Darl?

Re:Criple Fight!!!!

Two outta three ain't bad. They can embrace and attempt to extend, but since they can't buy the IP they can't extinguish....

The real catch is the fact that if they embrace and extend, they have to open the source, which would be instantly forked without their contributions. They can't extinguish something they have to have in the open. If they DID embrace a program, lets say Mozilla, and then added some crapola that was MS only specific, called it Billzilla, then two years later dropped it. They have to show us the code, and the Bill part of the zilla would be stripped out instantly, and any good stuff would be left in. They can't kill it.

GPL is like the Borg in one way, you can't kill it. You can't revoke the license, you can't make any software under the GPL go away. It lives forever, and not even the copyright holder can kill it, because I can always take the last release and fork it, change the name (leave the copyrights) and release it. It's like Freddy Krugar, with #comments.

Re:just buy SCO out!

Preferences -> Home Page -> Exclude Stories from the Homepage -> check "Caldera"

I'm waiting my USD 100 :)

Re:just buy SCO out!

Actually, that's probably what SCO wants.

Sort of like if your neighbors found out there's a toxic waste dump in their back yard, so they sue you over the fence you put up, hoping your cheapest way out of the suit is to buy their house, toxic waste dump and all. There's no merit to the suit, but the point isn't to get the fence moved, it's to get you to buy them out and take the liability off their hands.

Re:just buy SCO out!

why doesnt ibm, redhat, sgi, and hp just all get together and chip in some $$ and just buy SCO?

Pretty much for the same reason businesses shouldn't pay extortion money. If SCO gets ground to dust by this it'll deter others from doing the same. If they get a big buy-out (which appears to be their goal) then what is to stop the next guy with some IP (or who buys some IP) from following SCO's example?

It seems pretty telling that SCO's Lawyers are promised 20% of the buy-out if one happens, doesn't it?

Re:Criple Fight!!!!

I know you started your reply by crying out: 'give me a break', but I would really wish to point out that you are the exact kind of poster that I want to give me a break

While attentions are diverted from Microsoft they are rebuilding. Once the dust of the present war ends Microsoft will step in, fully rested, and pick up where it left off however they will be fighting a tired and battle weary enemy.

Does somebody again want to clarify what this is all about in the first place. I bought a red-hat boxed linux sometime ago, and it did not come with sharp knives, camoflauge paint or gunpowder to get me ready for the up and coming technology war of the century, in fact, knowing then what I know now, I wouldn't have bought the box, since I can get that stuff free on the internet. What is the fight all about???? Who's doing battle with who??? You're stepping onto the battlefield to put your life on the line for what? So that people you've never met get forced to use your operating system of choice? Can't I just use my computer happily and quietly, the way I want...why do I have to fight in the trenches?

I've been reading slashdot for a while, and I don't post often, but you my friend, have finally caused me to put in my two cents. I use a computer running linux for one reason, and one reason only: it suits my needs. I am not planning on battling a giant software company by using it. Linux will _never_ die (I'd be willing to argue that point, but I won't now). People will continue to use windows as well, and most of the people I know that do, I don't blame them, as they have their own reasons. It makes no difference to anybody except yourself what you want to use, so if you have the savvy to run something like linux, then by all means, run your own box. What this isn't about is fighting a battle against a large software company (note that I don't call them a monopolist, as they aren't). I'll let redhat do that, as that's what they are in the business for. If I start my own company, no matter what I do, I'd buy software that works best for what we need. Do I stake my company on the automatic install of OSS based on my moral beliefs that OSS is better? How about I only hire employees that have the same moral opinion as I do, regardless of their skill level? Sounds like something's not right with this picture.

I sincerely hope that people like yourself will eventually realize that this isn't about war, it's about freedom...and you have to remember that if you exercise your own freedom effectively, war is not necessary.

Re:Criple Fight!!!!

> While attentions are diverted from Microsoft
> they are rebuilding. Once the dust of the
> present war ends Microsoft will step in,
> fully rested, and pick up where it left off
> however they will be fighting a tired and
> battle weary enemy.

Let's tell it like it really is ok?

While attentions are diverted from Microsoft, they are attempting to circumvent the letter of their agreement with the DOJ (such as it is). Once the dust of the present war ends, Microsoft will step in, with an untried codebase, and pick up where it left off. However, they will be fighting a battle hardened and litigation tested enemy.

Now, that is more to the point of it isn't it?