Open Source Victoria files ACCC complaint against SCO regarding Linux [LWN.net]

From:		Con Zymaris <conz@cyber.com.au>
To:		lwn@lwn.net
Subject:		RELEASE: Open Source Victoria files ACCC complaint against SCO regarding Linux
Date:		Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:15:29 +1000


                                               MEDIA RELEASE
                                               Open Source Victoria
                                               http://www.osv.org.au/

                                               Contact: Con Zymaris
                                               Number: 03 9621 2377
                                               Fax:    03 9621 2477
                                               Email: conz@cyber.com.au

OPEN SOURCE VICTORIA FILES COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SCO GROUP WITH THE
ACCC.

JULY 23, Melbourne, Australia. Open Source Victoria (OSV) has filed a
complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission,
specifically asking the ACCC to investigate The SCO Group's activities in
light of their unsubstantiated claims and their extortive legal threats
for money against possibly hundreds of thousands of Australians.

Additionally OSV notes that The SCO Group's recent registration of
copyright to the legacy UNIX SYSTEM V source code, on which they already
claim copyright, in no way affects Linux. Copyright registration is a
simple filing procedure which merely formally registers a claim and does
not in any way constitute proof of ownership.

"SCO have yet to prove their claims of the existence of any disputed
source in the Linux codebase. Linux was written from scratch by a global
community of free software volunteers and IT corporations" commented OSV
member Con Zymaris. "We believe that SCO will find it extremely difficult
to cement their claims in court, and until they do, they are spreading
fear to extract money from innocent users. We believe this is unethical
and possibly illegal in Australia."

If indeed SCO can show that any UNIX SYSTEM V source code did make it into
the Linux kernel (and was not intentionally contributed by their own
staff) SCO cannot absolve themselves from the fact that for the past few
months, they have been publishing all such code publically under the GNU
Public Licence. This releases all supposedly disputed code from any
additional encumberances from SCO, meaning that all users can use Linux
with impunity.

"Through their insistence on withholding public disclosure of any
worthwhile evidence in this case, The SCO Group are leaving an impression
that they have no such evidence" mused Zymaris. "One feels that this whole
fiasco is the IT industry equivalent of a Nigerian scam or Internet
extortion ploy."

"100% of the Linux operating system has been released as Open Source
Software. We want to remind the IT industry that by definition, there are
absolutely no license fees payable on Free and Open Source Software.
Anyone who claims that licence fees are required for Linux is deliberately
misleading and confusing the public" suggested fellow OSV member Andrew
Pam.

We take serious issue with The SCO Group's latest ploy, namely that of
seeking licence fees from Linux users. As such, we have filed a complaint
with the ACCC.

"OSV believes there that there may be a case to answer on the issue of
'misrepresentation of need', where an organisation is suggesting that
people must make payments that in fact they are not obligated to" added
Pam.

Zymaris concluded "we call on any Australian Linux users who feel so
pressured by SCO's actions to immediately contact the ACCC and file a
complaint. You can do this online at
http://www.accc.gov.au/about/fs-contact.htm"


About Open Source Victoria

--

Open Source Victoria is an Industry Cluster consisting of over 60
Victorian firms and developers which provide services and technology
related to Free and Open Source Software (FOSS.) Open Source Victoria
offers marketing, advocacy and information referral services, and aims
to raise the profile of FOSS in Victoria and work with other similar
organisations across Australia.

### END ###


-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
Con Zymaris <conz@cyber.com.au> Level 4, 10 Queen St, Melbourne 03 9621 2377 
Cybersource: Unix/Linux, TCP/IP and Web App. Development  www.cyber.com.au

(Log in to post comments)

Open Source Victoria files ACCC complaint against SCO regarding Linux

Posted Jul 23, 2003 16:47 UTC (Wed) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]

Hmm... I don't suppose the FTC would be of any help in this matter, would they? (In the US of course...in a similar vein to the ACCC in Australia)

Moral obligations

Posted Jul 23, 2003 17:17 UTC (Wed) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link]

Speaking of moral obligations...that a public company (Caldera/The SCO Group) who owes its public existence to a Linux-fueled IPO and used those proceeds to purchase, allegedly, certain (more or less) rights to UNIX System V code and contracts, is now claiming irreparable harm from Linux is unconscienceable.

If its claims are true and Linux is an illegal UNIX derivative SCOX should be delisted and all investors repaid monies spent on its illicit IPO. UNIX rights, whatever they are/are claimed, should be returned to the previous owner, with interest.

Caldera principals profited from Linux once and now they are trying to do so again. Sick.

--
SCO delenda est!

Moral obligations

Posted Jul 23, 2003 17:53 UTC (Wed) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

This kind of approach is starting to sound like a good idea. When Della Croche tried to commandeer the Linux trademark, the last published letters I saw on the matter were about people trying to find the guy to begin criminal preceedings against him.

To see such a thing happen to SCO's management seems really sweet at the moment. I haven't contributed much code to Linux (only a patch sent to a tape driver developer and a patch to a tape archive program developer, both of which were not added in my name.) However, I have great sympathy for the Linux developers, especially considering some of the caustic remarks that have come from SCO personnel about free software being ridiculous. The implication of what SCO management says is staggeringly dark; to wit, that priceless voluntary contributions of code are worth absolutely nothing to them.

Think about it; this very thing is what made American gold-miners and panners into paupers; whenever they would find gold, the locals would start inflating the price for goods and services; meanwhile, the people who were here first anyway (the Native Americans) were being literally stripped of everything they had, including their lives. The kind of behavior the corporate managers of SCO and the Canopy Group have engaged in is very much starting to remind me of the way Native Americans were treated. Scare tactis, derogatory remarks, accusation of theft (of property that was swindled from the natives in the first place,) and so on.

I went through a management change at my company, in which the new managers had already decided ahead of time what we needed. In the beginning, these new managers were very pompous, very much into stroking the egos of the people who were here already, and very dishonest about how much they valued our opinions. I saw that almost instantaneously, but, due to circumstances beyond my control, I had to put up with it.

As time went on, of course, the gloves came off and the claws came out.

If there's one thing all the Linux volunteers and supporters should understand right now, above everything else, it's this: there are some people who will do anything under the power of gold, including, but not limited to, the murder of their relatives. When dealing with corporation owners and *stock traders,* it's absolutely imperative that we watch like hawks.

Moral obligations

Posted Jul 23, 2003 22:39 UTC (Wed) by NerdlyMcGeek (guest, #8453) [Link]

More to the point. Many references are made to the Canopy Group but who controls them? A somewhat dark organization called Angel Investors who as it turns out are not publicly traded and are owned outright by the Mormon Church! Know you enemy!

Moral obligations

Posted Jul 24, 2003 13:34 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

So, then, the implication is that an organization controlled by a Christian church is trying to wreck a process where people share their ideas without malice, and without expecting anything in return?

Interesting.

Moral obligations

Posted Jul 24, 2003 14:22 UTC (Thu) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]

No, the implication (which I don't necessarily agree with) is that a very powerful and wealthy organization is behind the SCO extortion. <offtopic>And, just as a side note, although the LDS Church may very much like to call themselves Christian, they are rather far outside of orthodoxy as far as their history and theology goes, so many people don't consider them actually Christian--it just looks like it on the surface. But don't trust my word...go look for yourself.</offtopic>

Moral obligations

Posted Jul 24, 2003 14:56 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

Er...sorry about that. I should have added the following to my earlier post:

> ; |

...I have a bad habit of not filling in the pieces I think other people will know how to fill in (probably because there is a lot of room for opinion.

I was also trying to avoid discussing religion too much. The tendency to ban "sex, politics, and religion" in polite conversation is somewhat unfortunate though, because there are an awful lot of glaring examples where so-called "good" people have done some very *bad* things in the name of God, or Jesus, or Allah, or whichever god they claim to worship.

Anyway, to wrap up: Now that I know about the connection, I don't feel very good. I hope IBM and Linus and friends are able to cope with this, because it won't be easy.

Open Source Victoria files ACCC complaint against SCO regarding Linux

Posted Jul 30, 2003 13:33 UTC (Wed) by ernest (subscriber, #2355) [Link]

> The problem with asking SCO to expose infringing code is that
> they could just point at lines of code, and then make up whatever
> bogus excuses they want as to *how* it infringes, in particular,
> by pointing at other code or projects we aren't allowed to see.

You forget that there is an excellent history trace of what and when was put into the Kernel. By exposing the code, and even if they don't show their own source code, many people would be able to check out where it came from in the first place, and possibly even who contributed it to the kernel.

As this code is spread over the world there is just no way anybody could lie about it's origin. It will not be just SCO's words agains Linus, but SCO's words against many, many people.

Ernest.