SCO License Fees Would Hurt Linux Market (ZDNet) [LWN.net]

SCO License Fees Would Hurt Linux Market (ZDNet)

Posted Jul 24, 2003 16:54 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

So, if SCO wins, can we count on the other companies (IBM, HP, Compaq, Fujitsu, Matsushita, Unilever, whoever) to help the Linux volunteers succeed in the lawsuits that should ensue? What about any additional help from IBM?

I'm posting this question here because I suspect there are a lot of Linux developers in corporations reading this site.

I don't make any money working on Linux, and they won't use it at my work. It is important to me, however, as an avid fan on my own time, to know where things are going with this, how I might help, and who we can count on to stand up to these monsters.

Please understand this: I believe it is possible that SCO could win this suit, whether they are in the right or not. There are problems with the American legal system, and I find it hard to put my trust in it.

The SCO Group Is Counting their Chickens Before They've Hatched

Posted Jul 24, 2003 18:05 UTC (Thu) by llywrch (guest, #9903) [Link]

> So, if SCO wins, can we count on the other companies (IBM, HP, Compaq, Fujitsu, Matsushita,
> Unilever, whoever) to help the Linux volunteers succeed in the lawsuits that should ensue? What about
> any additional help from IBM?

Please keep in mind that the SCO Group's claims to anything in the Linux codebase is still unproven: MacBride, et alia have made a lot of noise about how their intellectual property has been stolen, & is currently being used without proper compensation by countless Linux users, HOWEVER they have yet to prove that they own anything. A few people have signed NDAs, looked at SCO's evidence, & stated that _maybe_ Linux & SysV R4 share code. It has yet to be proved how it got there -- or if the original AT&T license to UNIX is relevant in their suit against IBM.

Right now, the SCO Group's statements are equivalent to the following threat: ``You better give me protection money, or I'm gong to beat you up -- right after I wipe the floor with that ex-Olympic champion who has been practicing several martial arts for years."

Any plans before this lawsuit starts -- let alone before we see the evidence offered -- are pointless exercises. (And if you feel compelled to talk about contingency plans, I suggest that you do it while enjoying your favorite beverage.) The only people who keep insisting that doom is about to engulf the Linux community are the shrills at Microsoft front organizations like Gartner, ZDNET, & so on; the rest of us have better things to do.

Geoff

Maybe, but....

Posted Jul 24, 2003 19:27 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

...the problem here is that there are other people who have jumped onto the "Linux may be dangerous because of SCO" bandwagon. At least the Germans have done something about it. However, SCO hasn't been shut up in the U.S. So, we get stuff like this one at NewsForge, which points out that Gardner Group is advising against Linux deployment.

These kinds of problems are the ones that might be good to look into before any trial, because SCO is making all kinds of umproven allegations, and people who don't like Linux are using those allegations to advise businesspeople.

Maybe, but....

Posted Jul 24, 2003 20:11 UTC (Thu) by dsime (guest, #5764) [Link]

This sounds like the tactic that MS used against Java.
They muddied the language which stalled the adoption of the language.
You know;
"We can't adopt Java until we find out if the MS extensions will be allowed"

Now we have;
"We won't be able to adopt Linux until we find out which way the SCO/IBM suit falls"

Maybe, but....

Posted Jul 25, 2003 17:26 UTC (Fri) by llywrch (guest, #9903) [Link]

People have been advising against use of Linux for years. Amazingly, I can't think of anyone who is claiming that the SCO lawsuit threatens Linux users who weren't in that group that has been advising against Linux. (Well, there's Laura DiDio, but I had never heard of her before she chimed in on the lawsuit.)

Back in high school, my science teacher repeated the cynical observation that for any new scientific theory to be accepted, you have to wait for all of the old scientists to die. It apparently applies to adopting Open Source software; almost all of its current critics apparently will refuse to acknowledge it as a viable solution to their death beds, no matter what the evidence is.

Geoff

The SCO Group Is Counting their Chickens Before They've Hatched

Posted Aug 1, 2003 14:13 UTC (Fri) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]

So you say: The only sensible reaction to such a threat - that alone damages other companies, after all - is to wait until one gets sued.

If this is really the state of the US legal system, than you're in much more trouble than with Gartner FUD. But according to my knowledge (I'm from Germany, but have had to do legal business with US companies), this is not the case.

So the real question is: Where are the US Linux companies and organizations that attack SCO due to this business-damaging threat?

Cheers,
Joachim

SCO License Fees Would Hurt Linux Market (ZDNet)

Posted Jul 24, 2003 20:09 UTC (Thu) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link]

I don't think SCO needs to be concerned about anything at all. They have yet to make any claims with substance. From the outset the whole nature of their complaint has changed a few times. Everytime they make some more noise, the boot licking toadies like Gartner pick it up and amplify it, and the stock price goes up a few more notches.

SCO was dead, SCO execs are now making real money every time they spit on Linux. Why shouldn't they keep it up? It's working like a dream for them.

It would certainly feel good if someone with some money would put SCO in their place, but it doesn't look like that is going to happen.

SCO License Fees Would Hurt Linux Market (ZDNet)

Posted Jul 24, 2003 17:20 UTC (Thu) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]

Not if someone pays them not to. Who could that be? Hmm....

SCO License Fees Would Hurt Linux Market (ZDNet)

Posted Jul 24, 2003 20:26 UTC (Thu) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]

The precise tactics used by SCO to suggest that users might be liable for IP issues involving Linux not only apply equally well to Microsoft, but a court case is already in progress, in which Microsoft has already failed with 33 claims, which alledges that most of Microsoft's products violate the IP of another company. The ironic part is that the IP in question is DRM, which is what Microsoft would use to lock everyone in.

I can imagine a day where almost every US company wakes up to find that a large foreign company has a reasonable claim that all use of their computers violates their patents. Of course, Microsoft is now claiming to handle this for you, but that only protects you against damages, not an injunction.

Prisoner's Dilemma? Faith in Lawyers?

Posted Jul 24, 2003 20:12 UTC (Thu) by AnswerGuy (subscriber, #1256) [Link]

RE:"too much of its faith in IBM's lawyers.

Sadly you aren't even considering expressing any faith in the U.S. justice system and our judges. Could it be that the judiciary has become some politicized that we truly, cynically, believe that the better lawyer prevails regardless of the merits of the case?

As for Gartner's pronouncement. They have to say something "different" to get their name in the news, to maintain their appearance of currency and relevance. They need to say something that will appeal to suits, because that's ultimately where their bread is buttered. Gartner has never been about technology, only about the business trends that emerge from the application technology (IT) among Fortune 1000 and their ilk.

Is there anything to prevent SCO from suing each Linux user one at a time? If SCO loses to IBM (which seems likely) then they could still litigate against as many others as they can afford. In suggesting that companies capitulate to SCO's extortion Gartner says something soothingly sensationalistic to the CEOs of companies outside of the computer and software industry.

However, they also pose a prisoner's dilemma. We are all better off if we all stand fast in opposition of this evident extortion. (Note the word tort is at the root of extortion: thus is would be redundant to say that SCO actions are tortious). Every one who pays in "protects" themselves from immediate litigation (by entering into a licensing contract with SCO) but enthralls themselves to future demands and risks being sued for some alleged breach of their license. (Keeping in mind that SCO started all this nonsense as a suit on contract law).

It is obvious way Microsoft and Sun ponied up to the bar. For Microsoft it's a way to promote FUD by proxy. For Sun it's a slap at IBM (and Linux). Sun has been losing some ground to IBM z-Series; and losing alot of mindshare to IBM's Linux PR.

Anyone else who "licenses" Linux from SCO is filling their coffers for the next offensive. It should be obvious that SCO will chew up its own customers for breakfast any time the bottom line withers. They have no products nor services worth selling so they must leech off of the work of others.

Prisoner's Dilemma? Faith in Lawyers?

Posted Jul 24, 2003 20:28 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

"They have no products nor services worth selling so they must leech off of the work of others."

QDOS.

That's where it starts. Where does it end?

Prisoner's Dilemma? Faith in Lawyers?

Posted Jul 24, 2003 20:41 UTC (Thu) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link]

Interesting point.

It never even occured to me that the US justice system and judges
would even think about doing something because it is the right
thing to do.

The nearly fantastic mishandling of MicroSoft by the US justice
department pretty much put to bed any thoughts whatsoever that
the courts had any interests at all in doing the right thing when
it comes to issues like this.

Sure, it seems cynical, but it is really just pragmatic.

SCO can sue whomever they wish. As long as they can afford to.
However, in this case, all they need do is threaten and their
stock goes up, they get more press, MicroSoft products look better
and better to the public at large, and the big dogs at SCO get
a few million closer to the big dream retirement.

There appears to be no downside.

SCO License Fees Would Hurt Linux Market (ZDNet)

Posted Jul 24, 2003 22:51 UTC (Thu) by Odysseus (guest, #11518) [Link]

If you know of any concrete action that Linux users can take add it to this site

Remember to indicate why a particular government office may want to investigate SCO (why such an investigation would fit the office's mandate)

http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/SCOvsIBMLawEnforcement

SCO License Fees Would Hurt Linux Market (ZDNet)

Posted Jul 25, 2003 1:19 UTC (Fri) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link]

Consider who Gartner's customer's are: large risk-averse organisations. This advice is meant for them.

You've also got to consider what other advice Gartner could possibly give its customers. They can't say "it's unfounded litigation" because Gartner's reputation amoung its customers would be toast if SCO had even a minor win. So in many ways this is a "cover our arse" statement from Gartner.

You'll notice how the analysis relies solely on SCO's claims. This is very unusual; typically in Gartner analysis all points of view are evaluated. So this statement is very remarkable for not considering the views of the open source sotware advocates.

I can only think that this is done so that the analysis doesn't need to state Gartner's thoughts on the likelyhood of the SCO litigation succeeding. If the litigation is eventually unfounded Gartner can simply claim to have been hoodwinked too.

Coming from the market where Gartner aims its advice, I've got two objections:

(1) By not exploring the likelyhood of a SCO success they are doing their customers a disservice. Gartner should have learned that total risk aversion is not useful advice. Too many of their customers spent far too much on Y2K issues because of their lack of clear-eyed evaluation of risk.

(2) The alternatives to SCO's licensing are not considered, rather SCO's licensing scheme is taken at face value. For example, many large corporations already hold UNIX source licenses. Even a new license may be more economic than per-CPU based binary licenses, yet Gartner doesn't consider this alternative. Given Gartner's minute examination of Microsoft Licensing 6.0 the acceptance at face value of SCO's licensing scheme is remarkable.

The most obvious strategy, wait until the outcome of the permanent injunction litigation with IBM, is given remarkably little consideration. The analysis is adverse to this approach but gives far too little legal basis for that aversion.

SCO License Fees Would Hurt Linux Market (ZDNet)

Posted Jul 25, 2003 6:30 UTC (Fri) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]

An IBM win would not prevent SCO from pursuing individual claims, which, if successful, could cost far more in penalties than buying a SCO license would.

First, sadly, being sued in the USA typically costs piles of money even if you win. That's sad, but true, and doesn't really have anything much to do with SCO. SCO can hurt you, simply by suing you. So can anyone else who have money and feel so inclined.

The if successful part merits a closer look though. How could SCO possibly be successful in a claim against a third party Linux user ? Let's look at the available legal theories:

Patent. Fine, if SCO does indeed have a patent on some algorithm used in Linux, you could indeed be liable. This is however pretty unlikely, since SCO did not even claim to have such a thing, and in general they're pretty free with their claiming.
Copyrigth. If SCO has copyrigth to some of the code in Linux, AND they didn't implicitly agree to this by distributing Linux under the GPL themselves. Ofcourse if this was proved to be true, it would take on the order of 2 hours for all the offending code to be removed, and you could carry on as usual.
Contract law. This is the hammer they claim they will use to crush IBM. If it will work or not is impossible to say without actually having read the contracts and the code in question. Problem is, a contract between parties A and B does not place any obligations on C. That is, it is not my concern what IBM and SCO agreed to between themselves. IBM, and anyone else stupid enough to sign any contract with SCO can be hammered by those contracts. Anyone who doesn't have a contract with SCO is safe.

In ligth of the last point above, and the statement from SCO that "Contracts are what you use against your bussineee-partners" it is questionable if the rigth thing to do is to sign contracts with SCO.

SCO License Fees Would Hurt Linux Market (ZDNet)

Posted Jul 25, 2003 7:48 UTC (Fri) by jdthood (guest, #4157) [Link]

> Copyright. If SCO has copyrigth to some of the code in Linux,
> AND they didn't implicitly agree to this by distributing Linux
> under the GPL themselves. Of course if this was proved to be
> true, it would take on the order of 2 hours for all the
> offending code to be removed, and you could carry on as usual.

I agree with your post, but I have a question. Can I be sued
for using a version of GNU/Linux IN THE PAST that contained
code on which SCO had copyright?

SCO License Fees Would Hurt Linux Market (ZDNet)

Posted Jul 31, 2003 10:52 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link]

Yes. You can be sued for using, in the past copyrigthed code. But you can be sued for ANYTHING -- LITERALLY.

You can be sued for wearing blue trousers, for breathing, for having a really funny hairdo. You won't be convicted, but there's nothing stopping you from being sued. (If you're unlucky enough to live in the US, it would quite possibly cost you a lot of money, even if you are found innocent.)

Now, the question I assume you wanted to ask, could you be convicted ?

In general yes. In this case, probably no.

SCO has publicly, repeatedly, officially, stated "This is NOT a copyrigth-case, it's about breach of contract". That is pretty clear.

Secondly, I don't know about you, but my running kernel is downloaded from SCO themselves. I read the licence-file they helpfully provide with it. It allows me to run it without restrictions. If they claim that's not the case, theyre saying two mutually exclusive things, they should consider stopping to say one of them.

Nor can they credibly claim they're not aware of distributing Linux. It's been commented on this site and slashodt and elsewhere hundreds of times. Infact I sent them an email and informed them about it. Got no response.

SCO has no case. They know it too. That's why they refuse to say what exactly the case is supposed to be about. They know that if they did, the community would pick their claims apart faster than you can say "pump-and-dump"

SCO License Fees Would Hurt Linux Market (ZDNet)

Posted Aug 3, 2003 7:41 UTC (Sun) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link]

I don't know about you, but my running kernel is downloaded from SCO themselves.

Where did you get it? I downloaded one of their 2.4.13 kernels, but I don't want to run a kernel that old (.13 was still in the middle of the Andrea-VM churn), so - did you find a newer one?

I do think it is rather stupid that their kernel download area is still available to the public this many months after they "discovered" their IP claims. One would think that they would provide their security updates in some access-restricted way so that only their customers could get them. Two weeks after their initial announcement, yeah, I can see how they could say "we just discovered the violation and haven't had time to take down the infringing material" - but that excuse kind of falls apart when they continue to distribute the thing several months later.