SCO Claims Linux Sales After Suit Irrelevant 692
molarmass192 writes "Here's the first reaction I've seen from SCO regarding the public's stance that the code they distributed under the GPL negates their claims on code in the Linux kernel. They claim that the lack of copyright notices "placed by the copyright holder" means that the GPL does not protect the unmentioned code in question. "
SCO.... (Score:4, Funny)
A couple of thousand times.
Re:SCO.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Careful! (Score:5, Funny)
Then you get to watch them pass the Schwarzschild Radius from the INSIDE!
Re:code theft. (Score:3, Funny)
I disagree.
If you put a copyright notice in your resume, they would have to sue themselves for violation of copyright because that's illegal.
I'm thinking about offering them to license my resume...
--
this->value = 0;
For Some Reason... (Score:3, Funny)
Lets every single one of us send them a resume a day for the next couple of months.
Re:SCO....vs Raelians (Score:5, Funny)
Small cult following space aliens
SCO:
Small company following space cadets
Raelians:
Believe genetics will keep them immortal.
SCO:
Believe SYS5 never died.
Raelians:
Announced a nonexistent clone for some rich suit, hid the evidence.
SCO:
Announced an expensive suit over a nonexistent clone, hid the evidence.
Raelians:
From France, prefer outer space.
SCO:
From outer space, prefer Utah.
Raelians:
Hideous pseudo-human spokesperson
SCO:
Ray Noorda
Raelians:
Pull stunts for public attention, hoping we'll buy their crap.
SCO:
Ditto, but hope IBM will buy their crappy company.
Oh good grief. (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate lawyers, I really do.
After the lawsuit, ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If on the other hand, they claim that their distribution did NOT have any SCO code, then simply diff their distribution against all others to find the files/code sections that they are potentially claiming are SCO code.
And if there is no difference, then we have further proof that their lawsuit is an extortionate gamble, a desperate grab for cash and a FUD tool of their new friend Microsoft.
Re:After the lawsuit, ... (Score:3, Informative)
MS/SCO hope there is NO "After the lawsuit, ..." (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, as long as the suit hangs like the Sword of Damocles over the heads of IT managers considering a move to Linux, it fuels the FUD. It's the threat that Linux could cost some undefined amount if SCO wins that gives MS the ability to scare the crap out of the PHBs.
You asked for it. (Score:5, Funny)
"Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, SCO's detractors would certainly want you to believe my client was issuing confusing EULAs, confounding their critics and confusing the multitudes, and they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself. But Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk who carried a gun and ran from the mob. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense.
But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case. Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer representing a major software company and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must not acquit.
I know he seems innocent. But ladies and gentlemen this is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when billions of dollars of recurring license revenue are on the line? Why? I'll tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense you must not acquit. Here look at the monkey , look at the silly monkey.
The plaintiff rests."
Re:Oh good grief. (Score:5, Informative)
SCO PR department working overtime. (Score:5, Interesting)
common with M$ PR department. They both must read slashdot and
then formulate their responses accordingly.
When this law suit first came out, I dismissed it as rubbish.
Then I started to think about it, and I got a little worried
there was some truth to it. Then I read the OSI
Position Paper [opensource.org]. I don't worry about this too much any more. The
OSI position paper makes some very compelling points, which SCO
hasn't addressed yet. In many cases they simply won't be able
to address them.
I'm not suprised that SCO has an opinion that this doesn't hurt
their case. Of course they'd have that opinion publicly, no
matter how pissed they are about it privately. Ultimately the
only opinion(s) that will matter are the judges.
Did you notice that hughes deflected and had no opinion on a
more questions than he answered? I suspect he is right about
the fact that the GPL can't make code free if the original
author didn't make it free, however the fact that they as the
original authors *were* distributing it under the GPL
complicates that claim greatly.
Of course that is all supposing there is any merit to their
claim that Linux contains enterprise code from SCO in the first
place. That is a claim that I and many others are dubious of in
the first place.
Re:SCO PR department working overtime. (Score:5, Interesting)
However, consider this... they still ARE shipping their IP under GPL because they have aggreed to indemnify their own users. That code is under GPL, period, or else they can't distribute without THEM violating the codes license. They need to actually recall their shipments of linux.
Otherwise, if they persist in their claim that it has their proprietary IP then they have violated the GPL by telling their customers they may keep it. Further, their CUSTOMERS can be sued for violating the GPL now that they have been informed that there is proprietary code mixed with GPL code, a mix the GPL doesn't allow in the case of "code fragments".
Re:SCO PR department working overtime. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:SCO PR department working overtime. (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I think they'll have a real hard time making that argument stick. I mean, what's next? "The guy who uploaded that tarball to our public server was just an intern we hired over the summer. Unless the Executive VP of Intellectual Property personally fired up an FTP client, the license doesn't apply..."
Re:SCO PR department working overtime. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SCO PR department working overtime. (Score:5, Interesting)
The better example would be if an MS engineer with access to Windows code dropped a Trojan horse in there that would wipe out people's hard drives on his birthday. Does MS turn around and tell its customers, "Sorry! We can't help you get rid of the Trojan ... that part of Windows isn't covered under our support agreement, because we didn't know it was in there when we released it"?
Re:SCO PR department working overtime. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not correct. Distributing doesn't matter if it is done either accidentally or because of a fraud. The legal point here is due diligence, and cross-checking Linux codebase against their own codebase is everything but routine operation, and might even be impossible.
However, this argument would only matter if they unknowingly distributed something they didn't intend to. That is not the case with SCO -- they continued distributing their (alleged) code under a conflicting license.
It doesn't matter a bit if the copyright holder did not place the code in GPL licensed codebase, if they knowingly continue distributing it under GPL. And if it does, they are breaking GPL by distributing non-GPL code in a GPL program. If they win, sue 'em, I say. Either way, Linux wins legally.
The better example would be if an MS engineer with access to Windows code dropped a Trojan horse in there that would wipe out people's hard drives on his birthday.
Due diligence applies also to this, to some extent. It's a court's decision what diligence is due.
Also notice that proprietary licenses must contain a warranty, and the provider can't disclaim just everything (well they can but it doesn't apply). GPL licensed software, on the other hand, can be provided without warranty, "as is", so diligence is not needed at all.
IANAL, IDKA
Knowledge of GPLed code (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:SCO PR department working overtime. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:SCO PR department working overtime. (Score:3, Informative)
It's SCO's fault; they have GPLed it, and worse! (Score:5, Interesting)
Now that they're aware and have taken some measures to stop the bleeding, any further bleeding is entirely The SCO Group's own corporate fault. So "existing customers" that they continue to support by shipping stuff to - including the Linux kernel source with their "valuable IP" - represent a deliberate "dilution" of the "valuable IP" by The SCO Group.
But it's worse than that: even presuming that there is some merit to their claims of IP theft (ha!), it no longer matters who "placed" the code under the GPL, because SCO have continued to ship (ie, "disclose") the source to that code themselves without removing it from the GPL, which is a clear statement that they accept the terms under which it is distributed.
But wait! It's worse than even that! (-:
In continuing to ship the code under someone else's copyright (call him/her/them/it Q) after they became aware of it they are acknowledging Q's ownership of that code... so Q now has some grounds for suing SCO for restricting distribution (of what SCO have acknowledged Q owns) contrary to the terms of the GPL which SCO have also implicitly accepted by "republishing" the code.
It's a kind of heads-I-win-tails-you-lose situation, so SCO are in the unenviable position of their best option being pressing on blindly and hoping the coin lands on its edge or the toss is cancelled.
Re:SCO PR department working overtime. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you're acting within the authority of your position, on behalf of your company, then yes, your company is liable for your actions. If you're a web admin, with write access to production webservers, and you replace your companies home page with, say, kiddie porn, you're damn right your company is going to get sued - especially if they didn't take IMMEDIATE action to remove you from your position and take the offending website offline.
You don't magically not represent your company anymore if you do something wrong - like not ensure that the code you know to be your trade secret (because you're filing a BILLION dollar lawsuit against one of the largest companies in the world) is removed from your anonymous FTP server, and that you continue distributing it under a license you know to be fundamentally opposed to the sort of controls you're trying to exert of this IP (because you're not a total fucking moron and had your lawyers read and explain the GPL). Yes, you're acting in your capacity as a company officer and within your authority as a representative of the company, and therefore you're actiing as a copyright holder.
Re:SCO PR department working overtime. (Score:3, Interesting)
The point that you are missing is that SCO voluntarily distributed a version of Linux with the supposedly offensive code. Sure, IBM might have put it in the kernel (yeah right), but SCO still distributed the kernel all the same.
Once I have a copy of that code, then I have a legal license to it. I didn't purchase my CD from IBM, I purchased it from SCO (no, I didn't actually pay money for SCO Linux, it's just an example). SCO should have been looking at the source code before they distributed it. It is
Re:SCO PR department working overtime. (Score:5, Interesting)
But if they continued to distribute linux, along with the GPL burned on all the CDs they made, after they knew that linux contained source code they owned, then I don't see how anyone can argue that they did not by that very act release the source code under the terms of the GPL.
As I see it (IANAL-BIPOOSD), the best they can hope for is to force everyone to stop distributing old versions of linux from the time after the alleged pirated code made it into linux but before SCO released it under the GPL. They could possibly even collect damages for copyright violations during that period. But, hey, if SCO sells me a CD that they published knowing it contained source code they owned, and they released it under a license that gives me the right to use and copy the source code, I'm going to do just that.
Re:SCO PR department working overtime. (Score:4, Insightful)
BIPOOSD (Score:4, Funny)
Then, epiphany.
"I Am Not A Lawyer, But I Play One On SlashDot"
Hah! Thought you had me there, but you were wrong!
Are SCO's hands dirty? (Score:4, Insightful)
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
SCO admits to not doing this.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
SCO's lawsuit itself is proof they aren't doing this.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
Obviously SCO is trying to have their cake and eat it too. You can't do that, not in this universe.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
If SCO distributes a modified version of Linux with their code in it, they must accept the license, or they have no legal rights to Linux.
Most of us here freely accept the GPL and understand the consequences of contributing code to a project whose code is covered by the GPL. It's pretty clear, when you actually READ the license (when's the last time you read that COPYING file?).
Re:Are SCO's hands dirty? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the part that SCO claims was done by someone else (IBM) with code SCO wrote without SCO's authorization.
I agree with your arguments, but the fact that SCO continued to ship a Linux distro after discovering that it contained their code (assuming that it does and that they did) instead of immediately yanking it nullifies their ability to sue most others, because at that point they started knowingly distributing that code of
Re:SCO PR department working overtime. (Score:5, Insightful)
the fact that the GPL can't make code free if the original
author didn't make it free, however the fact that they as the
original authors *were* distributing it under the GPL
complicates that claim greatly.
Hughes is full of it. His arguement might have some basis if they had stopped distributing Linux before they filed the suit, or even at the same time, or maybe even a little after. Then they might be able to argue that until that time they didn't really know that their proprietary code was in there, and perhaps that it took a little time for the "stop" order to filter through the beaurocracy. That isn't how they played it, though.
Not only did they continue to distribute Linux for a significant amount of time after filing the suit against IBM, they also continued distribution after stating publicly that other Linux vendors were facing legal action as well. How could they take those actions without knowing that their code was included in Linux? If they knew their code was included in Linux significantly before they stopped distributing Linux, and I don't see how they could possibly argue that they didn't, then they were knowingly distributing their proprietary code under the GPL.
Of course that is all supposing there is any merit to their
claim that Linux contains enterprise code from SCO in the first
place. That is a claim that I and many others are dubious of in
the first place.
I think it's far more likely that the code in question was stolen by SCO from software origionally under the GPL. Wouldn't that prove interesting?
Gift from the SCO morons (Score:5, Interesting)
Uh huh. Their argument and analysis of the GPL only holds logically if SCO never distribubted linux - obviously, GNU were smart enough to make sure the GPL had a clause about people trying to GPL someone else's copyrights, or else GPL could have been destroyed. They try to invoke this to save their ass, since IBM theoretically added the tainted code. But at the point that SCO also distributes it, these clauses don't have any relevance, since they have every right to distribute their own copyrighted code. Those arguments only pertain to works released under GPL that contain material that is copyrighted by someone else and not licensed.
There are other, much more compelling arguments that SCO could have made, such as the GPL representing an unfair burden to SCO, and/or that SCO made a good-faith effort to ensure that there was no proprietary code in what they were distributing.
However, this very press release KILLS that, as they fully admit that they continued to intentionally sell linux for months after knowing that it contained their code! There goes that good faith argument. Morons.
So obviously, this appears on face to be the worst argument they could have made invoking the GPL. But they have a decent legal team - theoretically - so my question is, why mention the GPL at this point when it can only hurt your case if/when you go to trial against linux vendors? They almost seem to have intentionally walked into this GPL argument. It's not relevant for the IBM suit, but if there's a phase 2, it's very relevant. And at that point, it almost looks like they're begging to make GPL the centerpiece of that suit.
Hey tinfoil hat crowd, think they're getting put up to it?
Re:My point of view from (Score:3, Interesting)
The only problem is, this [rootprompt.org] is an opinion that IBM's defence is more than a little half-hearted.
Wait and see, I suppose.
SCO has a point (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's just say I got my havds on the source for MS office, and I used their Doc reading routines to create an import filter for K-Office. I submit the code under the GPL. Since I am not the original copyright holder for the routines I have used, I cannot give any rights to it, The GPL is pretty specific in stating that code you don't own, you can't GPL.
The article is poorly
Re:SCO has a point (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's take that a bit further though. Let's say Microsoft is distributing K-Office in some way. They learn of your subterfuge. As the copyright holder, they are aware of the status of their code not actually being legitimately under GPL. BUT they continue to distribute it under GPL. Suddenly, THEY have KNOWINGLY distributed their allegedly proprietary code under the GPL, and therefore it seems to me that it ought to clearly be GPL now, not proprietary. Why exactly is this not the case here?
Re:SCO PR department working overtime. (Score:5, Funny)
Clippy: "It looks like you're trying to write a lawsuit. Would you like to:"
Embrace
Extend
Extinguish
Crapflood
Linux claims SCO irrelevant after suit (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Linux claims SCO irrelevant after suit (Score:3, Insightful)
Well DUH (Score:3, Funny)
Copyright notices (Score:5, Informative)
Law) something is copyright whether or not there is
a notice on it.
Re:Copyright notices (Score:5, Informative)
SCO is saying that work that belonged to them was placed under the GPL by somebody else, and that therefore that work is not protected by the GPL, and that therefore... well, you know the rest.
Re:Copyright notices (Score:5, Funny)
It is under US law, too (IANAL, but I'm pretty sure about that one).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they're arguing that they didn't put *their* copyright notices on the Linux code that contained "their" "stolen" code, so they didn't invoke the GPL on that code, even though that code was contained within GPLed code, and that they didn't do so because they didn't realize that "their" code was in there, because "they" didn't add it, "someone else" did. Am I paraphrasing their argument accurately? Because if I am, I suspect they are in legal lalaland.
But IANAL
Re:Copyright notices (Score:3, Interesting)
Since no one is required to sign the GPL, the analysis of any violation must take a two-pronged approach, either:
1. SCO did not accept the GPL, or
2. SCO did accept the GPL.
1. If SCO did not accept the GPL, then all of its IP rights in the Linux code (if any) are still intact. It is free to sue anyone who distributed that code without a SCO licens
Deplete the warchest (Score:5, Interesting)
If everyone does this right now they won't have $$$ to pay the lawyers and the whole thing might go away.
Won't help (Score:5, Funny)
Playground bully (Score:5, Insightful)
If code was released into the GPL public domain, then SCO has the right to get reparations against those responsible for releasing that code, and maybe those responsible for knowingly distributing that code. In this case, they fire the guy that release the stuff into public domain, and request removal of their propritary information. Getting back licensing fees is nothing more than being a playground bully asking for kids' lunch money to play kickball.
Re:Playground bully (Score:3, Interesting)
If code was released into the GPL public domain
Stop right there. The GPL is incompatible with the public domain. Please go back to the GNU site and reread the GPL before you post anything else on this subject. If code is public domain, it cannot be GPLed, because the GPL relies upon copyright law, and stuff that is in the public domain by definition is no longer subject to that law.
IANAL, but I know that.
Big Myths about copyrights (Score:5, Informative)
They claim that the lack of copyright notices "placed by the copyright holder" means that the GPL does not protect the unmentioned code in question. "
This was true in the past, but today all nations that follow the Berne copyright convention [cornell.edu] everything created after April 1, 1989 is considered copyrighted (GPL or otherwise) whether it has a notice or not.
SCO is running out of ideas. They are doomed.
Re:Big Myths about copyrights (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Big Myths about copyrights (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL doesn't give too many choices here (Score:3, Insightful)
(Disclaimer: Though I am an IBM employee, I am not a party to any "inside information" that makes
Re:Big Myths about copyrights (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not what the laughable dummies at SCO are arguing. They are now trying to say that the SCO employees who were selling SCO Linux, with the blessings of SCO top leadership, did not own the copyrights on the source code that SCO was distributing and therefore the GPL does not apply.
It's a total
reminds me of the cold war. (Score:5, Interesting)
1. US and USSR never entered into active confict but used deparate or greedy 3rd world countries (SCO) to engage in conflict.
2. Like Communism, MS was based around lofty principles but actually survives by strangling all percieved threats.
3. IBM was earlier in a partnership with MS that turned sour (think US-Soviet relations in WW2).
4. Both empires keep its people distracted from the real facts by spreading FUD about the other side, even if that means undertaking petty wars.
5. The soviet empire eventually came down, killed by its own weight. Will MS suffer the same fate?
Caldera != SCO and SCO != Caldera (Score:3, Interesting)
argument (Score:3, Interesting)
Liability by accident? (Score:3, Interesting)
So IBM are liable because SCO accidentally put some code into Linux? How there can present to the court a causal fault from IBM? IBM are not here to verify that SCO don't put there preciouse code into Linux.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
B&J sells their own Vanilla using plainly listed ingredients and readily available flavoring. During a brief joint-venture between the two companies, Ben and Jerry's and Baskin Robbins formulated a suite of flavors. During this time, B&J claims Baskin Robbins stole the Vanilla formula and process from their internal patented process files. No mention on if Baskin Robbins actually simply read the label on the product to mimic this flavor.
Vanilla, or "plain" ice cream has been around for quite some time. The original copyright owner is itself under question, since the ingredients and process to form a similar flavor to the B&J private version are deceptively simple. The knowledge for creating such a product predates B&J and is well known in academic cooking circles.
A spokesman for B&J's Ice Cream commented Thursday: "We own Vanilla. Any use of the process were without our permission to create an exact product. Nobody could create vanilla without knowing our process. We demand compensation for any other vanilla product which has diluted our market share."
And now for something completely different...
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ben and Jerry's was acquired by Unilever [unilever.com], a food and grocery product conglomerate, so the analogy still holds (SCO buying out the homegrown AT&T Unix).
More importantly, Ben and Jerry published an ice cream recipe book [amazon.com], which includes a variety of recipes for their special ice cream flavours. They even include tips on how to quickly and easily shatter 25 pounds of Heath (tm) bar to add to ice cream.
Now since SCO is talking about "enterprise" capabilities, you'd have to pick an "e
Call it out.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I bet if you look at the money, all trails will lead to The Beast. OSS has been expecting this to come from any other place (look at openGL for reference of another possible MS suit) then from one of "there own." Makes me ashmed to say I even assosiated with Calders before they became a bunch of a-holes.
WAR TUX!!!
Following the money (Score:3, Insightful)
3000 lawsuits can't be wrong.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's SuSE's public statement (Score:5, Informative)
The UnitedLinux product -- jointly designed and developed by SuSE Linux, Turbolinux, Conectiva and SCO -- will continue to be supported unconditionally by SuSE Linux. We will honor all UnitedLinux commitments to customers and partners, regardless of any actions that SCO may take or even allegations they may make.
SCO's actions are again indeed curious. We have asked SCO for clarification of their public statements, SCO has declined. We are not aware, nor has SCO made any attempt to make us aware, of any specific unauthorized code in any SuSE Linux product. As a matter of policy, we have diligent processes for ensuring that appropriate licensing arrangements (open source or otherwise) are in place for all code used in our products.
http://www.suse.de/en/company/press/press_release
From the GPL... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:From the GPL... (Score:3, Insightful)
None of this proves that there is actually SCO code in the kernel of course. The longer they delay in revealing exactly what it is, the more I think they're bluffing.
Re:From the GPL... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but only until they distribute the code.
If they had stopped distributing their Linux distro as soon as they found "their" code in the kernel, they might have a leg to stand on.
They knowingly distributed "their" code as part of a GPL'ed product. Therefore, the GPL *does* apply.
Re:From the GPL... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's why: If I get a job at Microsoft, and slip a bit of GPL code into the next Windows and Office release, without Microsoft's knowledge, it is just too bad for them and the whole thing is free (as in beer) now?
No, it means that Microsoft has either released it under the GPL or committed copyright infringement. They can cease distributing the version that includes the code they have no right to, and pay damages to the copyright holder. The latter option is no different than the consequences of an employee slipping in code copyrighted by someone else but not covered by the GPL.
Likewise, SCO can either claim that they have released the code in question under the GPL, or that they have committed copyright infringement by distributing code covered by the GPL (the rest of Linux that isn't the alleged proprietary SCO code) without complying with the terms of the GPL. The difference between the SCO case and the hypothetical Microsoft case is that the SCO case would be willful infringement, since they have continued to distribute Linux since they filed the suit.
nice try (Score:5, Insightful)
He had this to offer about the GPL and SCO: "The GPL, by its terms, only applies to software programs or works which contain a notice "placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. (emphasis by him)
But they published the code, and it contained a notice, which they also published, saying that it's under the GPL. Even if the code went through other hands first, they are claiming that they are the copyright holder, AND they published it with the notice. So they STILL fall under the GPL provisions.
Simon
For thoes who havent been keeping track... (Score:4, Funny)
Step 1. Caldera buys SCO.
Step 2. Flush SCO down the toilet, Linux and OpenUNIX rules!
Step 3. Caldera Linux and OpenUNIX sales aren't so good.
Step 4. Rebrand as SCO and embrace Linux (if embrace = SuSe's distro ~s/SuSe/SCO/)
Step 5. SCO Linux sales aren't to good, but we still own UNIX IP.
Step 6. Sue IBM, get them to buy us out for our UNIX IP.
Step 7. Read GPL.
Step 8. Woops, we GPL'd our way out of a case.
Step 9. Strip ourselves of Linux so M$ will give us money.
Step 10. Start a FUD war funded by M$.
Step 11. ???
Step 12. Profit?
Step 11: (Score:3, Funny)
Step 11.1 (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL also states (Score:3, Interesting)
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
As of 05/16/03 these files were available at ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/openlinux/contrib/RPMS/l ibc6
It looks like these files have been removed.
linux-kernel-binary-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 4525 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
[gnu.org]linux-kernel-binary-2.2.10-1.i586.rpm 4450 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-2.2.10-1.i686.rpm 4450 KB 07/28/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 4477 KB 07/22/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-2.2.7ac1-1.i686.rpm 4463 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-smp-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 4606 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-smp-2.2.10-1.i586.rpm 4589 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-binary-smp-2.2.10-1.i686.rpm 4589 KB 07/28/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-doc-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 800 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-doc-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 801 KB 07/22/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-include-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 836 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-kernel-include-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 864 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-alpha-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 295 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-alpha-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 292 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-arm-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 222 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-arm-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 274 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-common-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 9333 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-common-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 9403 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-i386-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 281 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-i386-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 276 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-m68k-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 602 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-m68k-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 583 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-mips-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 322 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-mips-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 322 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-ppc-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 419 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-ppc-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 403 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-sparc-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 489 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-sparc-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 489 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-sparc64-2.2.10-1.i386.rpm 458 KB 07/27/1999 12:00:00 AM
linux-source-sparc64-2.2.7ac1-1.i386.rpm 456 KB 07/23/1999 12:00:00 AM
Stable door (Score:3, Funny)
Judges are familiar with 'closing the door after the horse bolted'.
SCO has no case.
Isn't this just more media for Linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
I bet this all make for some pretty funny board meetings.
Is this really a big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
If one was served with a cease and desist from SCO regarding linux code, would it not be an acceptable response to then ask them to identify the offending code so that you could remove it from the code base you are using, and then replace it with code from elsewhere (created by you, obtained from another source, etc.) which would not infringe on their "technology"? Additionally would you not also be within your rights to request proof of SCO "ownership" of the offending code? Simply put, would not the burden of proof still be on SCO if they make such an accusation?
Note that one would be attempting to comply with their request, not going to court or settling for damages. Would this remedy avoid those two outcomes?
Basically it seems to me that given the nature of open source it would be trivial to shrug off any and all such threats/claims by SCO. I mention this not to discourage those who wish to punish SCO for their actions by dragging them through court and beating them, but more along the lines of attemting to nip any fear businesses may have in consideration of adopting Linux about the legality of using "tainted" code in the bud by establishing clear and easy methods of circumventing such chicanery.
You could kill the SCO ploy quickly and easily if it was viable to say that if SCO came calling you just need to have them identify "their" code, prove it is theirs, and then replace it by having coder x create substitute code from scratch or obtaining substitute code from open source project y. Would this work?
How about a Slashdot Interview (Score:5, Interesting)
Has anyone heard what any of the SCO techies are saying about this suit? We've all heard what the lawyers and the suits have to say.
How about we have a Slashdot Interview with an anonymous SCO techie? Most techies I know would jump at the opportunity to set the record straight if they were in a similar circumstance (espescially if their anonimity could be guarranteed.)
So what do you say Comandante Taco? Can we get and interview?
Re:How about a Slashdot Interview (Score:4, Interesting)
It's probably a small number, too. Any willing techie who could give sufficient information to make for an interesting interview would be quickly discovered, fired, and probably sued as well.
Anyone at SCO: look for another job now. Your execs have somehow managed to bring the wrath of IBM, the entire linux industry (hey it's a couple thousand dollars :)) and an entire demographic of the world population upon them. You're wasting time with IBM. You have two OSs that compete with each other, drain your time trying to write compatibility kits (which also add bloat..), and they both suck compared to the competition (and I've used OpenServer, I know that of which I speak). You're probably being asked to make up some creative bullshit for the court case. Aside from all that, countersuits are terribly likely.
I hope the utah job market pans out for you.
Re:How about a Slashdot Interview (Score:4, Insightful)
How about we have a Slashdot Interview with an anonymous SCO techie?
A SCO employee would have to be a complete fool to do this right now, regardless of what guarantees of anonymity might be provided. In a situation like this, the possible repercussions of being found out far exceed simply being canned.
Use OSS methodology against SCO (Score:3, Interesting)
According to latest thread on Kernel List Quoted below this is likely to have happened. Even though the Code is not public available there must be some versions floating around that can be used for "analysis". Once something is found public bug reports can be used as Evidence. Same bugs in SCO binaries as in Linux.
If someone have a copy of the SCO source code maybe make a Torrent file, so we can start analysing if they indeed stole something. A few nuggets will go a long way to quash the FUD from SCO. Anyone know where old SCO bug reports can be found?
Quote:
6. Possible License Violations Within The Kernel Source
Elsewhere, Christoph Hellwig replied to the original post as well, saying:
As somone who walked for SCO (or rather Caldera how it was called at that time) I can tell you this is utter crap. There were very people actually doing Linux kernel work then (and when the German office was closed down all those left the company) and we really had better things to do then trying to retrofit UnixWare code into the linux kenrel. Especially given that the kernel internals are so different that you'd need a big glue layer to actually make it work and you can guess how that would be ripped apart in a usual lkml review :)
It might be more interesting to look for stolen Linux code in Unixware, I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux fileystem in the Linux compat addon product for UnixWare..
Jim Nance said, "Wouldnt it be halirous if whatever code SCO is talking about when they say there is Unix code in Linux turns out to be code some SCO employee ripped out of some GPL program and stuck it into Unixware. That is actually far more likely than what they alledge."
--
Total Crap (Score:4, Insightful)
The hypocracy of SCO's position is amazing. Let's think about this... Linus and Co. wrote codeset A, the parts of Linux which are their original work. SCO claims it owns codeset B (the UnixWare stuff) and that IBM created codeset C=A+B. If SCO distributed C then they are infringing the licence on A for exactly the same reason that they claim everyone else is violating the licence to B by distributing C. In fact, for them to distribute C is worse from a legal point of view, because they believed that it was infringing, whereas nobody else does. Since SCO has refused to even notify anyone else who distributes C (including the authors of A) of which parts of codeset C they believe are infringing, they are the ONLY ones who could prevent the infringement since they are the only ones with the knowledge to prevent the infringement.
If their view of the facts turns out to be true, then their distribution of Linux was willful for-profit infringement, practically by stipulation, and Linus, Alan Cox, Dave Miller and every other legitimate code author should get statutory damages from SCO as well as any profits that SCO earned as a result of their infringement.
IF YOU WROTE ANY PART OF LINUX, YOU SHOULD SUE SCO FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT FOR DISTRIBUTING YOUR CODE IN VIOLATION OF YOUR LICENCE
Note to SCO... (Score:3, Funny)
Perfectly Reasonable (Score:4, Interesting)
Whatever of SCO's code that may or may not be in the generic Linux Kernel, it's perfectly clear that only the owner of a copyright may specify the contractual terms of licensing. Simply put, if someone other than the owner contributed code which was accepted into the kernel tree (or distributed said code as a patch), the owner shouldn't be held to account for having also distributed their own code by accident; code which they didn't knowingly or purposefully contribute.
Screwing SCO on a 'gotcha' because they continued to distribute the Linux kernel after they filed the lawsuit may seem like just deserts, but long term it could have damaging consequences to the Free Software community after the fact. We should instead be looking for prior examples of development and ownership for everything SCO claims copyright over. If everything they claim can be proven factually false, their case dies a just death. The way to win is to show that SCO has no legal basis for claiming copyright infringement: that they, as SCO, never created whatever code they claim as theirs is in the Linux kernel; nor could they have since the historical timeline clearly shows developments by a wide range of authors who have no connection to IBM, HP, or SCO (or Project Monterey, SCO OpenServer, and/or UNIXWare). Kill their idiotic suit with facts and they will shut up and die already.
Should it turn out that some small portion of the kernel contains illegally expropriated code copyrighted by SCO, then rip it out and recode ASAP. Remove the illegal code from all previous copies in the masters and mirrors. Minimize the damage once it's discovered and plead to the judge that the principal authors didn't and couldn't have known. Point out that the plagiarizing author, the one who submitted whatever infringing code in bad faith, should be the responsible party. Let SCO sue that infringer, the person who willfully broke the law, and then let it drop. SCO winds up with little or no money, the principal authors keep their good name and reputation, and Linux continues on it's merry way.
JMO,
--Maynard
Re:Perfectly Reasonable (Score:4, Interesting)
I own a company which writes a proprietary application sold to the public. It contains lib 'a' which is used for manipulating the general class of 'foo', something very useful. One of my employees releases the lib 'a' source under the GPL without corporate knowledge or acquiescence. This is then incorporated into several other GPL'd applications, one of which we happen to distribute without knowing that a part of this application contains our source. Is lib 'a' now covered under the GPL because of our mistake?
It need not be. You need not agree to the GPL, because you have never signed it. However, you have no right to distribute the GPL'd application (except for lib 'a' itself) in question without following the terms of the GPL, becuase you do not hold the copyright to it. You should thus immediately stop distributing versions of the application that contain lib 'a' (as should third parties, who have no right to distribute lib 'a' at all). In contrast, SCO has continued to distribute Linux long after filing this suit. If they have not caused their proprietary code to be licensed under the GPL, they are committing willful copyright infringement. I don't see how there can be other options available to them. (Also, in your example, one would expect your company to inform third parties that you hold the copyright to lib 'a' specifically and ask them to stop distributing it. SCO has not done this. No one yet knows what SCO is claiming copyright to sepcifically.)
The point is that others cannot distribute GPL'd software containing SCO's proprietary code, but neither can SCO itself. That is the whole point of the GPL! If its claim that Linux contains SCO's proprietary code is correct, it must cease distributing Linux, or at least excise its code from the version it distributes. If SCO continues to distribute Linux without excising its code or releasing its code under the GPL, it should be sued for copyright infringement by the kernel team.
Re:Perfectly Reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
> Linux kernel after they filed the lawsuit may seem like just deserts
Perhaps, but how about these ideas?
If we stipulate that there is some SCO IP in the kernel (which I doubt) and that IBM did indeed contribute it to Linus and claim it as their own (which I'd be shocked to find true) and acknowledge that SCO did indeed distribute said tainted code before and after learning it's origins we get the following:
1. SCO can not expect 3rd parties to be any more liable for infringement than SCO themselves are for their own lack of due dilligence. Since SCO is likely to hold themselves and their customers blameless they can't then expect damages from anyone else. After all, only SCO possessed their precious archival UNIX code to compare against so they were in the best position to detect the infringment.
2. Since SCO has yet to formally request a DMCA takedown, no distributer can be held liable up to such time as they file a formal takedown request. Yes, the DMCA is going to work in our favor in this case, especially for kernel.org and mirrors.
3. So we get a best case for SCO, where they prove their case anc get a total legal victory and are unable to collect damages from anyone other than IBM. And IBM can keep the case on appeal until sometime after the final trump blows so they get no money and end up bankrupt.
Statutory Damages (Score:5, Interesting)
Therefore, every copy of Linux that they've distributed since then (and maybe some before) meets all of the statutory requirements for "willful infringement," which carries a statutory damage of $50,000 to $150,000 per copy. It's not necessary to show damages in this case, the law itself specifies them. Slam-dunk summary judgment stuff.
The FSF (assignee of at least some of the GPL contributions) should sue SCO pronto, citing their own testimony. SCO is estopped from denying the charge, the Court awards $50,000 times a whole bunch of copies, plus legal fees, and the FSF ends up owning what's left of SCO.
Happily ever after.
[1] Since they knew that portions of the work were encumbered, the GPL ceases to enable distribution of any of it, thus copyright law applies. See damages above.
Lawyers can be idiots, too... (Score:4, Funny)
Their argument DOES NOT HELP THEM. (Score:3, Interesting)
They knew about the distribution of their code for over 5 months if other official statements made by SCO are to be believed. It is the obligation of distributors of ANY code that is GPLed to ensure that the said code is not encumbered with non-licensed code or patented algorithms without a compatible license. In other words, SCO, by distributing Linux is obligated at the time of discovery to NOT distribute the said code- excising it from the distribution as needed. Since they did not, they abrogated their rights under the GPL to distribute the code in question.
It's a simple matter really.
Either they tacitly licensed the code and they should cease comments about infringement or they're guilty of 5+ months of infringement on the copyrights of the code that has the alleged infringements in it.
In case you were wondering what happened to... (Score:4, Funny)
He now works for SCO.
Re:Slashdotted?? (Score:3, Insightful)
"In other words, the GPL itself covers situations where code is improperly or accidentally contributed to the GPL without proper authorization (sic) of the true copyright holder."
Which is true, so far as it goes. However, GPL section 7 states (emphasis added):
GPL Really stands for... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:GPL Really stands for... (Score:5, Funny)
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG^C
Sorry, got stuck in an infinite recursive loop.
Re:Sounds like "poisoned roots" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sounds like "poisoned roots" (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Source code is 'stolen' from SCO and put into Linux without SCOs knowledge.
2) SCO download the latest kernel, modify it and release it as SCO Linux, without realising that they're distributing some of their proprierty code.
3) They're now claiming that they never intentionally released the code under the GPL, and that it was put their illegally by someone else.
Of course they probably have buggered things up by not stopping their distribution of their Linux as soon as they discovered and announced that they were going to sue everyone over it.
Also any court is going to seriously look down on the fact that they're prolonging the time that their code is being used, by refusing to say exactly what it is.
Re:Sounds like "poisoned roots" (Score:3, Insightful)
but it puts sco in the wierd position of having infringed the copyright on their own code.
Re:not kernel (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why care? (Score:5, Funny)
Not in the United States, you don't.
Re:Why care? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Or in other words: (Score:4, Troll)
No, it doesn't. If SCO didn't explicitely choose to include the code in Linux (it really is stolen, as they claim), then SCO also didn't explicitely choose to license the code under the GPL. And if that's the case, then the GPL doesn't apply to their code, and it reverts to the standard Berne Convention rules.
Re:Or in other words: (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope. Once they discovered the infingement, they continued to distribute the code under the GPL. At this point, they have willfully released their code under the GPL, even if they weren't before. (GPL copyright notices were included with the code distributed by them.)
Before they knew, they were unknowingly violation the GPL. Afterwards, they knew they were distributing the code, and they knew the terms of the GPL. This leaves two possibilities:
Either way, SCO is fucked.
#1 leaves them with no damages. (Except possibly IBM, good luck.)
#2 leaves them willfully infringing on the copyright of the Linux kernel. This has all kinds of neat implications. I bet IBM owns the copyright on some part of the Linux code. They could sue SCO for more severe copyright infringement than SCO can sue them for.
Re:Caldera != SCO (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: When will we find out what the code is? (Score:3, Interesting)
> If it's already in the kernal, it's hardly secret. Where is it?
I thought they said it wasn't in the kernel. There were some hints that it had to do with the SysV init scripts, but of course Linux used those long before IBM started their Linux-for-enterprise push.
\methinks SCO is just making it up as they go...
BTW, does anyone have a summary of what enterprise-friendly code IBM has actually contributed? That should narrow the search for the Yeti down to a single continent at any rate.
> The lon