Weekly Edition
Return to the Front page
| |||||||||||||
SCO's new offensive[This article was contributed by Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier] As expected, SCO trotted out a new licensing program today that would give Linux users a license from SCO to what SCO claims is their intellectual property in the Linux kernel from 2.4 on. SCO also announced that they had received copyrights for the Unix System V source code. I sat in on the teleconference that SCO held to announce the new licensing program. McBride did most of the talking during the call, with David Boies adding just a few comments and clarifications, and answering a few questions that were directly addressed to him. I tried to get in the queue to ask a few questions about the impact of the GPL on their plans to offer a license relating to the Linux kernel, but I was not called on. Don Marti, of Linux Journal did get a question in about whether SCO would offer any additional evidence to substantiate their claims, but it was mostly ducked by McBride, though he did affirm that they were not talking about code coming from BSD. During the call, McBride claimed that "hundreds" of files related to SMP, NUMA and read-copy update (RCU) were infringing on SCO IP either directly or indirectly. According to McBride, if the Linux community were to remove the offending code there would be "little non-infringing code" left in the areas that SCO is claiming rights to. Essentially, SCO seems to be basically claiming ownership of most of the advancements in scalability whether they are directly taken from SCO's codebase or not. Also, McBride noted that some of the code that they claim infringes on their IP was not contributed by IBM, though he did not specify which vendor(s) he believed to be responsible. Other than announcing the new plan and the copyright registration, very little information was forthcoming. Essentially, they intend to offer a license of some kind that would idemnify companies from possible suits for copyright violations. Pricing was not disclosed, though McBride hinted that it would be equitable or similar to UnixWare 7.1.3 licensing. It will also likely be a per-server, per-CPU situation. Though SCO did not disclose all of the license terms today, it doesn't seem possible that the company would be able to abide by the terms of the GPL while charging for licenses to run their IP in conjunction with Linux. Even if SCO actually legitimately holds claim over code that's being used in the kernel, the voluntary act of licensing that code should require SCO to allow distribution of the same code under the GPL. According to Section 2b of the GNU GPL:
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.
And, if that weren't enough, Section 4 enjoins anyone from sublicensing programs under the GPL:
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.
Even "hundreds of files" would still be considered a derivative of the Linux kernel -- the majority of which is still uncontestedly free and clear of SCO's IP. If you take the folks from SCO at their word, and assume that they really do own claim to these "hundreds of files," they're ultimately useless without the remainder of the Linux kernel -- which is still under the GPL. And it's far from clear that SCO has legitimate claim over any code being used in the Linux kernel. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, SCO did not directly address the issue of how they could license code that's already been distributed as part of the Linux kernel as a separate component that would not fall under the terms of the GNU General Public License. McBride also made a point of emphasizing that the SCO license would be for "binary format." Which is puzzling, since SCO does not seem to be offering to distribute any kind of new code or new kernel -- simply a license that would give SCO's blessing to using code already available in the Linux kernel. McBride made the point several times that SCO would not be offering source code licenses. While SCO's antics have most of the Linux community seeing red, someone out there is responding well. SCO's share price has jumped more than a dollar today, and looks likely to close above $13 for the first time in a year. On the IBM front, Boies was asked whether there were any new developments in SCO's case against IBM. Boies said that he had "nothing to add" and that "as a litigator, I assume cases are going to court resolution." Boies also noted that a lack of resolution in the IBM case will not stop SCO from going forward with other plans based on claiming IP infringement in Linux. In a nutshell, SCO is formalizing a plan to try to charge companies for the privilege of using Linux or sue them for not doing so. Whether companies will be willing to do so remains to be seen. If they do so, it will basically be on SCO's say-so that they own the rights that they are trying to sell. (Log in to post comments)
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 1:13 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] How on Earth did we manage to come up with a legal system where extortionists and bottom-feeders like this could even exist, never mind get rich off of it? It's sickening. If the Founding Fathers had had a clue that this monstrosity would rise from the system they created, they would all have gotten on a boat, gone back to England, and volunteered to spend the rest of their lives in a small, dank cell in the Tower of England.All it takes is a few people calling SCO's bluff, and they get rich off of what they're doing. Which is essentially contributing nothing. Hell, I bet the mob does better community service than these guys. Why do we have a system that richly rewards parasites who do nothing? Can a patch to the system get rid of these sorts of things, or is our economic system so fundamentally broken that there's no hope? -Rob
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 1:55 UTC (Tue) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] It's the same legal system that will make it next to impossible for SCO to collectwhat they invoice out if no one wants to pay them. As a small contractor, it is scary to consider the lack of rights and recourse available. Even with a court decision in your favor, if your opponent doesn't want to pay, it takes years and great expense to get maybe a part of what is due. Even if it is obvious and clear that you are owed the amount. The economic system doesn't work because a judge says it should, it works because it is everyone's advantage to play by the 'rules'. Let SCO try to collect. Then it will go to court. And they will have to prove their point. And if someone wants to buy a useless piece of paper, maybe their names should be publicized, so we can all try to get something out of them. They would be a proven easy touch. Derek
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 8:22 UTC (Tue) by ayeomans (subscriber, #1848) [Link] We know two names - Microsoft and Sun (:-)Maybe not quite such an easy touch!
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 9:15 UTC (Tue) by swaldman (guest, #4269) [Link] Both Sun and Microsoft have ulterior reasons for not being too upset about a "leveling of the playing field" between Linux and proprietary operating systems. Their acquiescence doesn't say anything about how a company with no axe to grind would evaluate SCO's threats. It doesn't help though, that Sun and Microsoft are big names -- a follow-the-leader, cover-your-ass impulse might work in SCO's favor here, as SCO no doubt intended.We've all waited a long time to see how courts would handle the complex legal issues posed by the GPL. If SCO is not bluffing, and there really is a lot of commingling of code that SCO has a clear claim to, I guess we'll find out. Ain't no lawyer, but as far as I can tell, SCO can't succeed in doing what they're doing without persuading the courts to ignore the GPL in the face of competing commercial claims. If SCO does show infringement, then under GPL, the Linux kernel cannot be distributed at all until the infringing material is removed, notwithstanding any license anyone has bought from SCO. For these licenses to be worth anything, courts have to interpret GPL like LGPL, or enforce it not at all. Interesting times.
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 20:06 UTC (Tue) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] > We've all waited a long time to see how courts would handle the complex legal issues posed by the GPL.Please don't propogate this myth. The GPL does not pose any complex legal issues; the language of the GPL is very straightforward. All conditions it makes are clearly grounded in copyright law. Probably the only less ambiguous licenses are the new BSD one, and the MIT/X11/Expat/etc one.
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 22:30 UTC (Tue) by lolando (subscriber, #7139) [Link] > The GPL does not pose any complex legal issues;Unfortunately, it does, in probably most of the world. It's written in English, for a start, which makes it hard to be valid at least here in France. It also strongly depends on the USAn copyright system (which seems to be rather widespread so this point may not be very important). It may also go against seemingly unrelated laws, like concurrency and customer protection laws: it's not straightforward that offering no guarantee of any kind is legal here. I'm taking the example of France because I'm French, but I assume some of these points are valid in other continental Europe countries, and probably others too.
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 23, 2003 3:29 UTC (Wed) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] "It may also go against seemingly unrelated laws, like concurrency and customer protection laws: it's not straightforward that offering no guarantee of any kind is legal here."If this is not legal, then Microsoft, Sun, SCO, IBM, HP, and pretty much every other proprietary software company is in big trouble. Every proprietary EULA that I've read includes a disclaimer of warranty; the GPL is hardly alone in this regard. It's such common practice, both for free and non-free software, that any objections along these lines would be laughable; no court could rule against the GPL because of the lack of guarantee without also ruling against the entire software industry. Of course, everything SCO has been doing is laughable, but this would be even more so than usual.
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 24, 2003 11:02 UTC (Thu) by one2team (guest, #7316) [Link] Most shrink-wrapped licenses are almost certainly abusive and at least partly illegal/void in most of the world. They rely on the fact- almost no one reads the fine print Why do you think so many of them state "parts of this document may not be legal your country" ? (as to why companies bother with them - do *YOU* think a company lawyer will tell his clueless boss he's paid to write junk ?)
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 24, 2003 19:53 UTC (Thu) by mongre26 (guest, #4224) [Link] Before you attempt to "propagate" the myth that the GPL is somehow "magic" or "breaking new ground" please read Eben Moglens excellent essays on this exact subject. He is the lawyer most familiar with the GPL and its enforcement.http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html The short version is that the idea that the GPL needs to be "proven" in court is silly. Look at any of the files in Linux and you will find entries like the following in icside.c in the 2.4 kernel tree. * Copyright (c) 1996,1997 Russell King. What this shows, and what many people do not realize is that what protects Linux is not the GPL. The GPL is just a _contract_ under which you can use, modify and distribute Linux kernels. What protects Linux is copyright law. The same copyright law that the RIAA uses against university students, the same copyright law that Metallica used to sue Napster. Seems to be working out pretty well for them and I have no doubt it will work just as well for the Linux kernel authors. As far as other countries, again the GPL is not relevant nor is it relevant what language the GPL is written in. No matter what the country you are in what protects Linux kernel authors is Copyright law. The only question you need to ask is did the country in question sign onto the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview.html) or not ( or earlier copyright agreements ) and before you ask most countries signed it. If the country in question signed the agreement then the copyright stands and thus Russell's and any other kernel authors work is protected. To re-iterate, even if the GPL itself was not compatible with a particularly countries laws as long as said country signed the Berne Convention no one in that country can do anything with that code without Russell's explicit permission ( or that of other kernel authors ). Take the GPL away from Linux and you simply have a copyrighted and protected work, * All Rights Reserved *. I understand the confusion. What is Copy Right Law and what is contract law gets all mixed up. I blame the "copyleft" propaganda partly for confusing the issue. Simply put this is Copyright law. * Copyright (c) 1996,1997 Russell King. This is contract law /* You may use the kernel, which is copyrighted, if and only you follow the contract. If you choose not to follow the contract you have no additional rights to that work and are in violation of copyright. Simple really. Don't worry about Linux, it might seem all fuzzy and warm but it is protected by the same 8 foot thick reinforced steel doors that any other copyrighted work is. It is just that the kernel authors have agreed to let us all use their work as long as we sign their GPL contract. For this we all owe them our gratitude as the terms of the GPL contract are very generous indeed. No the party who should be worried is SCO if they try to start licensing Linux in violation of the GPL contract. If they do that copyright kicks in and SCO is likely to get their fingers caught in that steel door as it slams shut. - t All trademarks used in the above post are the properties of their respective owners
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 31, 2003 19:29 UTC (Thu) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] You may use the kernel, which is copyrighted, if and only you follow the contract. Actually, that's not really true. Just check out section 0 of the GPL: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. Once you have a copy of the program, you're free to use it as you see fit, provided that the use is otherwise legal. You only have to pay attention to the GPL if you plan on distributing the program or works derived from the program.
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 2:48 UTC (Tue) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] How on Earth did we manage to come up with a legal system where extortionists and bottom-feeders like this could even exist, never mind get rich off of it?This hasn't gone to court yet, so passing judgement on the US legal system on the basis of SCO's actions alone hardly seems fair. It remains to be seen if anyone at SCO will actually get rich from all this. For all we know they might end up being convicted for extortion.
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 4:49 UTC (Tue) by raph (guest, #326) [Link] >This hasn't gone to court yet, so passing judgement on the US legal system> on the basis of SCO's actions alone hardly seems fair. Actually, I think it is fair. What they're doing is threatening people and companies using nothing other than the US legal system. In a just world, nobody would pay them any attention, let alone give them enough credence to boost their stock and enable serious profits from stock sales. Just imagine how much good the total legal bills in this fiasco could do if they were embezzled towards the free software community instead.
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 12:38 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] Actually, I think it is fair. What they're doing is threatening people and companies using nothing other than the US legal system. In a just world, nobody would pay them any attention, let alone give them enough credence to boost their stock and enable serious profits from stock sales. Just imagine how much good the total legal bills in this fiasco could do if they were embezzled towards the free software community instead. Yes, thank you. And, it's not just the courts and the legal system I'm complaining about. It's the whole damn ball of wax. I will grant you that if you look at history, you can't find a system that's done better than our capitalistic mess (or, perhaps, than other versions of it-- I don't really believe that the USA has the highest standard of living for all of its citizens any more, although the true degree of personal freedom is debatable) when it comes to preserving human rights and individual freedom with large governments. But just because everything else that has been tried is worse doesn't mean that our system isn't a travesty... as this SCO business points out. I don't know the answer, but the whole thing makes me throw my hands up in frusturation. The fact that they might have a case and that people give them credence, the fact that according to the paper trail the people who are running SCO now and never contributed a damn thing (in contrast to the engineers and such from Caldera and SCO of years past-- it's not the same company any more), the fact that these parasites may actually "legally" have the intellectual property rights either to specific bits of code, or even to some more amorphously defined thing that could, under our system, make much of Linux a "derived work"-- well, it's plainly ridiculous on the face of it. Whatever you think about intellectual property in general, it's difficult to think that there is any justice in these particular SCO jokers being able to make the claim that they're making. And yet, our whole legal and economic system with its buying and selling of rights does allow a paper trail that makes that claim ostensively credible. If they are laughed at by everybody else, and if they eventually get laughed out of court, I'll feel a lot better. But it's almost already too late for that; the media has given them far too much credence, and analysists and such haven't come out and said that SCO should just be ignored. And there is a possibility that eventually the courts will say that the current implementation of Linux is derived from SCO's ill-gotten intellectual property. That will put a huge kink in Linux from which it may never recover. Sure, as soon as they're told what it actually is that SCO is bitching about, and as soon as they're given reason to believe that there might be something behind SCO's bitching (according to the potential opinion of the courts, even though it's almost certainly bullshit in reality), the Linux kernel developers will rip it out and replace it. But the damage will be done. Future versions of Linux, even without the infringing code, will always carry with them the doubt that there might be an SCO tie, and no corporate purchaser with any sense is going to allow it at his company. Linux will return in status to where it was in 1995 or thereabouts-- used by the hobbiest only, and with any driver support it has coming years after the support for proprietary operating systems. I sure as hell hope I'll still be able to use it in an academic setting, but we've all got our lawyers and such as well who will probably tell us to buy something proprietary "for safety". The fact that this is even a reasonable possibility just makes me sick thinking about our screwed up system. The whole idea of patents and copyrights and such is to encourage and reward creators, and the whole idea of civil law is to prevent people from taking advantage of each other. But the marriage of those two has spanwed this foul beast which is the SCO legal team making their intellectual property claims, despite the fact that they've never contributed a damn thing to society, despite the fact that they're the ones who would destroy one of the greatest movements of intellectual freedom in history for their own personal monetary gain, despite the fact that they never created the tiniest piece of Unix and as such are not the ones that copyright and patent laws in this country are theoretically supposed to be "protecting". That our system allows them even to try, even to be given the slightest bit of credence by those who listen, indicate that our system is fundamentally flawed and poorly motivated. And, yes, no other system is better, but as I said, not being worse doesn't make you good. -Rob
Silly legal and social systems Posted Jul 22, 2003 14:30 UTC (Tue) by jeff@uclinux.org (subscriber, #8024) [Link] Yes, actually Canada has a better standard of living and a (less than slightly?) lessmessed up legal system. Protections for Citizens is somewhat better too, and our "social safety net" is astonishing compaired to the US where if you can't pay, you could end up dying from it. Many other countries have evolved legal and social systems, based on the same principals, J.
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 14:33 UTC (Tue) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] I don't know the answer, but the whole thing makes me throw my hands up in frusturation.All of the world's problems can be summed up in one word: people. If we weren't here, everything would be fine. ;-)
loser pays Posted Jul 22, 2003 19:59 UTC (Tue) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link] Go read this:http://overlawyered.com/topics/lpays.html scroll past the articles at the top and read the summary.
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 24, 2003 6:06 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] I don't really believe that the USA has the highest standard of living for all of its citizens any more, although the true degree of personal freedom is debatableThis is uncontroversial. USA is at the forefront in pure economic terms (though beat by some small rich states) but in general living-standard they are not leading. The UN Human Development Index for example, is a index based on a multitude of social and economic indicators such as income, gender inequality, access to education, poverty-level, illiteracy, life-expectancy, infant mortality, access to healthcare and so on. In 2003 USA scored 7th place. Beat by (in sequence) Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Australia, Netherlands and Belgium. Still quite good offcourse, since 7th out of 55 "highly developed" countries is still respectable. This unshakeable belief that some Americans seem to have that their country is the best possible one is quite silly though.
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 24, 2003 8:34 UTC (Thu) by Liefting (subscriber, #8466) [Link] That's cute...As far as I know, 3 or 4 (I'm not sure about Norway) of these countries are actually kingdoms. One has a women president, and one was started by shipping prisoners to what was then considered a mostly-empty continent. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 31, 2003 13:22 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link] Norway is a kingdom.What does it make you wonder?
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 30, 2003 4:55 UTC (Wed) by ronzone (guest, #10671) [Link] This is uncontroversial. USA is at the forefront in pure economic terms (though beat by some small rich states) but in general living-standard they are not leading.The UN Human Development Index for example, is a index based on a multitude of social and economic indicators such as income, gender inequality, access to education, poverty-level, illiteracy, life-expectancy, infant mortality, access to healthcare and so on. In 2003 USA scored 7th place. Beat by (in sequence) Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Australia, Netherlands and Belgium.
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 31, 2003 10:07 UTC (Thu) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link] I think that even your nightmare scenario is just a matter of educating the public. Only a dumb lawyer would recommend buying proprietary software "for safety", because it isn't any safer. Consider that a victory for SCO (in some alternate reality :) would also mean IBM's AIX license is revoked, leaving all of IBM's customers in need of licenses from SCO. It would also mean that SCO has similar rights to every proprietary Unix except Sun's. Furthermore, buying proprietary software on a large scale generally means entering into a contract with the vendor, a contract in which you give up many of the protections normally available to a consumer. Microsoft, for example, explicitly disclaims liability for damages resulting from its products, even in cases where Microsoft acted negligently and in bad faith. (Whether it can successfully avoid this liability when sued is another matter, but the rights of copyright holders are getting stronger all the time so it wouldn't surprise me. Next time you see a software license, check if it specifies that disputes must be resolved in a UCITA state.) Then there's the Timeline incident, which shows that buying proprietary software is just as likely to get you into trouble, and you'll have no recourse other than to stop using the product entirely or pay extra license fees to a third party. Note that Microsoft, again, does not indemnify or protect its customers in such a case. My examples are from Microsoft because their licenses are public knowledge. I don't know if licenses from other vendors are any better. Judging by the history of the Unix licenses, I doubt they are...
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 14:20 UTC (Tue) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] Actually, I think it is fair. What they're doing is threatening people and companies using nothing other than the US legal system.Yes they are, but that's entirely SCO's transgression, not the US court systems. One of the foundations of the US legal system is the concept of "due process." I would be very concerned if this principle were set aside. Now that would be something worth complaining about. In other words, SCO can't be found guilty before they are found guilty. You may think this would be fine, but what if the circumstances were different? Say, for example, that you or I were punished for some crime before we had been tried in court, based soley on public opinion? This is the case in some parts of the world; places that I'm glad I don't live. It may be evident that SCO is in the wrong to you and I, but this has not yet been tried in court.
guilty plaintiff? Posted Jul 23, 2003 9:06 UTC (Wed) by djao (guest, #4263) [Link] SCO can't be found guilty before they are found guilty.Actually, SCO is the plaintiff in the IBM case (which is the only legal case that has been brought forth so far), and "guilty" is not a concept which applies to the plaintiff.
guilty plaintiff? Posted Jul 23, 2003 17:09 UTC (Wed) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] When I said "guilty" I was referring to the accusations against SCO by members of the Linux community, specifically within the context of this discussion, not the SCO v. IBM case. Sorry about the confusion, I should have been more explicit about this.It seems resonable (to me) to speculate that SCO's recent actions may result in additional trips to court, especially now that they are attempting to extort protection money from people without even saying what it's for.
guilty plaintiff? Posted Jul 31, 2003 16:10 UTC (Thu) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] > SCO can't be found guilty before they are found guilty.Actually, here in Germany, SCO has been stopped by court to repeat its lies without proof. We have consumer protection laws. The stuff SCO tells (without proof) is against those consumer protection laws. SCO has been found guilty. And they did stopp telling their lies in Germany (except that those lies they tell elsewhere still are spreaded around here). Usually, if you tell that someone else did something criminal (and that's what SCO is doing), you can do that legally in two ways: either you provide a proof, or you clearly mark it as satire or something like that, so that people understand that it is not meant seriously. Why can't someone sue SCO on consumer protection laws in the states? There are, you can get millions for being burned by a surprisingly hot coffee from McDonalds (ah, I expected coffee at McDonalds to be as stale and lukewarm as their fries are ;-). And why does nobody, since SCO now obviously breaks the GPL, sue them on breaking contract law (the GPL), go in, and shut down all their Linux boxes?
SCO's new offensive Posted Aug 1, 2003 16:39 UTC (Fri) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link] >>Yes they are, but that's entirely SCO's transgression, not the US court systems.<<What about the SEC, DOJ, FTC, and Attorney General? When a company tells you that you owe them money, when you don't really: that is a lie, and it's fraud. When the company threatens to sue you over rights that the company only pretends to have: that is extortion and barratry. When the company pumps it's stock price by proclaiming information that is not true, that is stock manipulation. The USA legal system is clearly failing in this matter.
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 11:00 UTC (Tue) by ctg (subscriber, #3459) [Link] It's all about the legal system and nothing else.- Either pay me a relatively small amount or face the threat of vast legal bills. If I win you will pay me a vast amount on top of legal bills; if I lose you won't get anything from me because I have nothing, but you will still have to pay a vast legal fee. So the choice is to pay a small sum or a very large sum. This is a feature of the legal system where any action is very expensive, regardless of the outcome. In addition it is lengthy, so you will be under a cloud of financial uncertainty for a while. Will people want to invest in you? Will you be able to get loans? Will customers want to enter a relationship with you?
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 1:35 UTC (Tue) by mbcook (subscriber, #5517) [Link] racketeer - rack·et·eer - n.
Sums things up nicely doesn't it? Where is the enforcement of RICO when you need it?
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 2:33 UTC (Tue) by DaveK (subscriber, #2531) [Link] The thought that crosses my mind now is that SCO has landed itself in an interresting position, on the one hand they refuse to state specifically which part(s) of the Kernel they claim to own, however, they wish to enforce a license on people to run the Linux Kernel. Surely at this point they have to identity which part(s) they are offering a license to, since they cannot claim the rights to anything BSD derived, nor to anything owned/developed by individual Kernel Hackers.Also, with such a modular Kernel as Linux, it is possible that people can build and run kernels that do not contain the disputed code, would they need a license too? Methinks not. Have SCO now put themselves in a position wherein they will be forced to identify exactly which part(s) they lay claim to?
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 14:28 UTC (Tue) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] ...SCO has landed itself in an interresting position, on the one hand they refuse to state specifically which part(s) of the Kernel they claim to own, however, they wish to enforce a license on people to run the Linux Kernel.These two points taken together may result in SCO being convicted of extortion. I think they really slipped up by trying to collect "protection money" without even saying what it's for. That looks real bad.
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 23, 2003 18:56 UTC (Wed) by ken (subscriber, #625) [Link] > These two points taken together may result in SCO being convicted of extortion. I think they really slipped up by trying to collect "protection money" without even saying what it's for. That looks real bad.
The sad thing is that there probably is people that will pay but long term what they are doing is going to fail it just is to many smart people on the opposit side for SCO to win this. But the legal system in US seems to reward this kind of behaviour. :(
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 3:23 UTC (Tue) by euvitudo (guest, #98) [Link] I would like to know one thing. The following article was posted the other day (I cannot remember whether it was here or /.). But regarless, it presents a few questions that I do not believe have been addressed.The article is: http://news.com.com/2100-1001-271812.html?legacy=cnet The background is that Ransom Love answers two questions, each regarding the futures of Caldera Linux, UnixWare, and OpenServer. I snip a few sentences from his responses. He says: With UnixWare we can now take Linux to 32-way systems. and With the technology we have we want to move into the high end, and the Unix kernel is two to three times more scalable than the current Linux kernel. But there are always trade-offs in putting everything into a single kernel, so what we want is a single-build environment, so we have to create a single application layer. and We have more than 2 million installations of OpenServer. The operating system is in maintenance mode now, so there will be no more major enhancements. But what we plan to do is to take the OpenServer technology to Linux, probably with some sort of open-source license but not GNU. and finally Our mission is to enable development, deployment and management of a unified Linux and Unix operating system. The goal is to make Linux on Intel the alternative business platform because it is built on open standards. --------- Using the snippets above, I conclude that Caldera's whole idea was to transfer code from UnixWare/OpenServer to Linux. This may be a generalization, as I have not had the chance to do more research into the issue. Now, if Caldera (Ransom Love et al.) had in mind to transfer the newly acquired UnixWare/OpenServer code to Linux, this would solve the issue of the new litigators finding word-for-word copies of code in Linux (hundreds of files?). My question is thus: If this is true (which I have no way of proving--Ransom? former employees? current employees? others?), wouldn't this invalidate any claims that the litigators (McBride, Sontag, Boies, and co-horts) have on Linux? If the code was released to Linux, would this not also imply that the code was also released through the GPL, and that SCO no longer have proprietary rights to the code? Also, do the litigators know about any copying that occurred (given it did occur) before they decided to threaten every Linux user on the planet? Are these legitimate questions, or am I out in left field? Thanks for reading,
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 18:31 UTC (Tue) by euvitudo (guest, #98) [Link] I apoligize that I am responding to my own comment, but the following link to a weblog (found through slashdot), seems to support my suspicions:http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/07/18.html --Phil
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 6:54 UTC (Tue) by jdthood (subscriber, #4157) [Link] All this threatens seriously to damage Linux's reputation. It could do sopermanently. Linux developers have never taken serious precautions against the possibility of plagiarism, so how can it ever be proved that Linux is legally safe to use? Let us recognize that a point has been scored against the Linux Microsoft and SCO could have agreed upon this strategy in order to protect Whatever is really going on, we have to recognize that Linux is vulnerable
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 7:56 UTC (Tue) by Soruk (guest, #2722) [Link] How long before individual kernel hackers (hopefully with the help of the EFF) get to kick SCO's arse on the resultant GPL violations to their code in the kernel?Maybe they need to make it "available" to SCO under an alternative licence (since by SCO's actions the GPL cannot be used) where SCO have to pay each and every kernel source code contributor (from the main driver maintainers to the individuals who donate one-line bug fixes or enhancements) - and to put a real sting in it, the licence does not allow sublicensing... that way SCO (whether or not they own the code in question) cannot sublicense the kernel since the applicable licences on the rest of it forbid it. So the only route the kernel is available is through the GPL. OK, I may be talking nuts here, but it's a crazy thought.
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 22, 2003 9:12 UTC (Tue) by jdthood (subscriber, #4157) [Link] SCO's demand for money from Linux users implies that SCO has distributedLinux in the past without granting the right to use SCO code that Linux is alleged to contain. Since that can't be done under the GPL, it follows that SCO has distributed Linux without obtaining a license to do so. The rights of copyright owners are important. I think that SCO would I hope someone is looking at SCO's UNIX products for enhancements that
SCO's new offensive and the GPL Posted Jul 22, 2003 9:23 UTC (Tue) by MathFox (guest, #6104) [Link] I think that you pointed to the reason why SCO stopped distributing Linux.The GPL doesn't (can't) forbid extor^H^H^H^H^H licencing schemes for software when you don't distribute it yourself. A big problem here is that SCO still has to proof that Linux contains their propriatary code, which they didn't distribute under the GPL by their previous distribution of Linux.
SCO's new offensive and the GPL Posted Jul 22, 2003 10:40 UTC (Tue) by jdthood (subscriber, #4157) [Link] Linux is big. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it contained someplagiarized code. So even if were to turn out that SCO's claims were _completely_ groundless, which is unlikely, we still have to face the possibility that Linux contains code plagiarized from some other proprietary code base. This leaves Linux open to FUD attacks. What's the defense?
SCO's new offensive and the GPL Posted Jul 22, 2003 12:11 UTC (Tue) by kfox (guest, #4767) [Link] The defense is: (1) a large, globalcommunity of developers, (2) an open and transparent development process, and (3) fast response in removal and replacement of infringing work. Oh wait, Linux already has that The problem is SCO has not attacked As far as FUD "attacks" go, those
SCO's new offensive and the GPL Posted Jul 22, 2003 16:32 UTC (Tue) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] The same things all apply to, for example, MicroSoft; there are a huge number of MicroSoft developers of varying degrees of technical proficiency. What are the chances that none of them has ever taken code from somewhere else (without a suitable license) instead of writing it like they were supposed to?This is a fundamental problem with copyrights on works which are not intended for distribution (like proprietary source); it's impossible to determine whether something you have belongs to someone else when nobody who knows will tell you. I'm not entirely clear on how the legal system intends this to be resolved (e.g., an author puts someone else's private letter in a book, gives it to a publisher as a work of fiction, and disappears; the original writer recognizes this when the book is published; the publisher couldn't have known beforehand, the plagarist is gone, and the original writer may not want the letter in print, and hasn't been compensated for it, either; what happens?) If anything, the risk with Open Source is that if you are violating a copyright, the copyright holder has a chance of finding out. But there's no more risk there than there is in buying books. And it's certainly possible that hidden offences will be discovered at some point, and a copyright dispute is certain to be much more acrimonious when and accidental offender has been profitting substantially from the offense for a while in secret.
SCO's new offensive and the GPL Posted Jul 23, 2003 18:48 UTC (Wed) by MathFox (guest, #6104) [Link] Improper copying takes place in propriatary software development too. The chances of discovery are small, only a few cases per year become public.Between software vendors the case is usually settled with the infringer taking a licence (paying damages) for the infringed software. The FSF prefers to settle cases like this by demanding the infringing company to change procedures to prevent further infringement. I have heard stories about distributers (Dell) that ask their suppliers to comply with the license (GPL). Awareness of licensing issues is certainly rising. Copyright limits the act of copying to the author and his/her licensees. So, in your example the author is (criminally) wrong in sending a copy of the letter to the publisher. The publisher is wrong (in civil law) by printing the letter in the book. Most publishers will recall the offending book; they are allowed to distribute a reprint with the offending pages removed. The amount of compensation for the original writer of the letter will depend on the damage that he sustained in the incident; the publisher could be sentenced to pay the damages if the author can't be found. [I am not a lawyer, and english is not my native tongue so bear with my choice of words here.]
SCO's new offensive and the GPL Posted Jul 31, 2003 9:43 UTC (Thu) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link] SCO never stopped distributing Linux. They're still distributing it. See for yourself.
"The effect of patents and copyright in combatting Linux remains to be investigated.", Microsoft , Aug 1998 Posted Jul 22, 2003 10:41 UTC (Tue) by ruoccolwn (guest, #2270) [Link] In http://www.opensource.org/halloween/ you can read that a key quote from:*Halloween II: Linux OS Competitive Analysis: The Next Java VM? says: "The effect of patents and copyright in combatting Linux remains to be investigated."
What happens next Posted Jul 22, 2003 15:34 UTC (Tue) by skybunny (guest, #4478) [Link] From the article:In a nutshell, SCO is formalizing a plan to try to charge companies for the privilege of using Linux or sue them for not doing so. Whether companies will be willing to do so remains to be seen. If they do so, it will basically be on SCO's say-so that they own the rights that they are trying to sell. This statement is essentially correct. SCO has taken out formal copyrights for System V UNIX code, something that under U.S. Copyright law, they don't actually have to do, since works are implicitly copyright. Note that in this round, we're not talking about breach of contract or patent violation - now we're talking about copyrights - the right for a given person to use code that's already been written. Taking out a copyright for source code essentially amounts to a publicity stunt, because a work that is written is already copyright the moment it's written. Obviously, investors believe the copyright application that the publicity stunt represents will bear fruit. The stock as of July 22 is at over $13 a share (up more than a dollar from the previous day). What SCO has done is taken out a copyright publically, and then turned around to say 'If you want to license this in a binary, you need to pay us a fee.' Yes, there is an entire argument about whether SCO is correct legally in doing this. But of course, proprietary software companies do this all the time. This is like Microsoft taking out a copyright for the source code of Windows XP, and then telling customers, 'We expect you to pay for binary copies of Windows made from this source code.' Of course, you can pay up, or you can challenge Microsoft's assertion in court, and you can guess how likely you would be to win that particular lawsuit. In any event, what SCO is attempting to do is no different, even though the details are terribly less clear cut. The details of what they are attempting to claim copyright over (whether it's BSD code or the most proprietary code on earth) is completely irrelevant until a lawsuit over the licencing fees occurs. That will be when SCO's claims are taken to task by someone who does not believe them (for any of these reasons), and refuses to pay them. SCO's belief at this point is pretty simple. They believe that the System V code they own is used in Linux, Microsoft, and Sun products. Microsoft and Sun have already paid SCO licensing fees to avoid legal hassle from SCO. Linux companies have not. This is the Linux companies' 'opportunity' to do so. SCO probably does not, as they have said, have much interest in suing end users. What they want to do is approach Linux distributors and add a 'SCO tax' to anything they distribute with the code SCO believes is theirs. The distributors have two choices. They can pay the tax and pass it on to customers, on the presumption that SCO is correct, or they can wait for SCO to sue somebody, anybody, on copyright violation. Whether SCO will go that far depends completely upon how seriously they take such a copyright violation. Until they bring a lawsuit to court, they are simply relying on copyright law and their interpretation of their copyrights. The number of people that pay them licensing fees amounts to the number of people that agree that SCO has a point and that they should be paid. Any argument to the contrary, like that there are GNU license issues involved, SCO doesn't own the code in the first place, or that the code they're talking about can't be copyright, can only be brought up in a court of law. Until then, anyone who pays SCO money is relying on SCO's word that they own what they say they do. In theory, SCO believes it has copyright law backing it up. People paying companies money based on what they claim to own happens all the time in the business world. Few dispute that Microsoft owns major swaths of Windows XP. High level discussion, arbitration, and lawsuits are what happen when companies can't agree on such things. Unless SCO decides that licensing fees for Linux aren't important enough to sue over, the question will be when, not if, a random company distributing or running Linux is sued for licencing fees - when they refuse to pay them (or simply don't). We'll then see for ourselves how close to the truth SCO is in the eyes of the U.S. justice system. -- The entire idea of licensing fees for Linux is a fairly safe road for SCO to take. Particularly until a lawsuit occurs, anyone who pays SCO licencing fees is giving them money nearly free and clear of engineering or marketing expenses, which they can use for future legal fees. Also, the more people that buy in, the higher SCO's stock price will go, which will make their company more valuable - and make it easier for them to sell bonds and other loans to potential investors. If SCO ultimately loses a copyright lawsuit, and particularly if their contract dispute claim with IBM also falls through, the company may very likely be bankrupted. Either because of or in spite of a class action lawsuit demanding the return of licensing fees that were found in a court not to be valid, the SCO group may just go chapter 7 or 11 bankrupt (given lawsuits make up the majority of their business outlook at this point), and licensing fees paid now will not be seen again. I expect to see a copyright lawsuit in very short order. Whether it will be SCO v. [company or distributor], or [company or distributor] v. SCO depends mainly on who decides to strike first.
What happens next Posted Jul 22, 2003 16:38 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] Particularly until a lawsuit occurs, anyone who pays SCO licencing fees is giving them money nearly free and clear of engineering or marketing expenses, which they can use for future legal fees. ...and yet Daryl McBride has up and said that it doesn't make sense for somebody to get something for nothing. Despite the fact that that is exactly what the business plan of his company has become. Parasites. Useless, worthless hangers-on to the economic system, that's what McBride and his ilk are. Honestly, I don't care if he goes off in some corner and gets rich from the implicit loopholes in our system, if only he could do it without causing trouble for the rest of us. -Rob
What happens next Posted Jul 22, 2003 22:43 UTC (Tue) by zonker (subscriber, #7867) [Link] Well, he really can't do that without causing trouble for the rest of us, unfortunately...
What happens next Posted Jul 31, 2003 12:04 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] No distributor would DARE pony up to SCO.If RH paid up, SuSE would sue and shut them down in a heartbeat, just as RH would do if the roles were reversed. In paying up, any distributor has just admitted breach of SCO copyright, and has agreed to mix Free and closed source together. In doing so, it has just breached copyright on all linux code except that written by themselves or SCO. No distributor is big enough to ride out the following storm ... Oh - I gather the copyright registration is NOT a publicity stunt. The works may be copyright, but apparently you do not have "standing to sue" in American courts unless it is registered. In other words, without registrations, SCO has no more right to sue than does the Public Domain. Registration is a mandatory pre-requisite to any suit... Cheers,
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 24, 2003 17:12 UTC (Thu) by alan (subscriber, #4018) [Link] From what I recall, RCU isn't even in linux 2.4,. it's a 2.5/6 feature.
SCO's new offensive Posted Jul 25, 2003 0:08 UTC (Fri) by umesh (guest, #3692) [Link] Guess what SCO uses for its own website, the evil Linux. If they are so proud of their own software they should be hosting their site on Unixware.http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.sco.com
SCO's new offensive Posted Aug 1, 2003 8:27 UTC (Fri) by dh (subscriber, #153) [Link] I don't understand you Americans...Here in "Old Europe" someone has to say _first_ whatfor he wants you to pay him. If he doesn't, it's unfair behaviour and can be forbidden by court. Exactly this happened to SCO Germany. But in the U.S., it seems as if it doesn't matter how stupid and ridiculous a claim is - one has to discuss it and talk about it just as if it was the most sensible thing ever. There are talks, papers, announcements and these ridiculous phone conferences where the SCO officials can spread their stupid crap. And everyone talks about it and reiterates it and asks himself loudly whether the claims are sensible or not... To me it seems like the fairytale of the emperor's new clothes. Hopefully, the little boy will not wait for too long any more to appear on the scene. Best regards, Di- "But they're naked!" -rk
|
|||||||||||||