Open Source Victoria files ACCC complaint against SCO regarding Linux

Posted Jul 23, 2003 16:23 UTC (Wed) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
Parent article: Open Source Victoria files ACCC complaint against SCO regarding Linux

I'd say "the more, the merrier," except that if SCO is forced to outline the supposedly-infringing code, that might tip IBM's hand. I think the people at IBM are trying to let SCO hang themselves.

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.

I believe the best legal remedy, for now, would be for SCO to be given a gag order about this until there's a trial.

I also believe it's the moral obligation of any former Caldera or SCO employee who knows about wrongdoing at SCO to go to IBM, the SEC, or wherever, and speak up.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the SCO people are up to no good; otherwise, they wouldn't be making so much noise.

Open Source Victoria files ACCC complaint against SCO regarding Linux

Posted Jul 23, 2003 16:47 UTC (Wed) by allesfresser (guest, #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] (5 responses)

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 (subscriber, #3222) [Link] (4 responses)

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] (3 responses)

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 (subscriber, #3222) [Link] (2 responses)

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 (guest, #216) [Link] (1 responses)

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 (subscriber, #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 (guest, #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.