SCO's big legal gun takes aim (ZDNet)
Section 301 of the Copyright Act says the Copyright Act pre-empts any claims that are governed regarding use, distribution and copying. We believe that although the GPL is being tossed into the fray, it is pre-empted by federal copyright law." Should you be interested in pursuing this further, Section 301 can be found over here.
Posted Aug 21, 2003 20:45 UTC (Thu)
by juvvadi (guest, #7294)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Aug 21, 2003 21:28 UTC (Thu)
by stevegehl (guest, #3738)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Aug 22, 2003 3:06 UTC (Fri)
by dkite (guest, #4577)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 22, 2003 4:49 UTC (Fri)
by urulokion (guest, #14350)
[Link]
So the case boils down did IBM donating their code to Linux violate their Unix Contract. If the answer is yes, then IBM will pay X amount of money for the contract violation(s). But that will not give SCO any legal claim to go after the Linux kernel, because they have no ownership claim. If they try "we own Unix processes and methodologies" argument, it will short as well. "Unix processes and methodologies" sound a lot like trade secret. For the sake of argument, let say they were trade secrets before the of IBM contributions. OK, IBM revealed trade secrets, shame on you, pay some more money. Those secrets have now been seen countless legions of people. So they are now longer secrets. But you can't hold a copyright on methods and processes, so ergo SCO still has no claim to Linux. IANAL JALSUA
Posted Aug 21, 2003 20:46 UTC (Thu)
by rknop (guest, #66)
[Link] (1 responses)
These companies had the right to make their own flavor of Unix, (and) they did that for a while. But a new thing came out, open source, and they went into that but they weren't licensed to do that. Well, damn, I'm in trouble, because the last time I took a dump, I didn't have a licence from SCO or anybody else to do it, and it was something different from the things I had been licenced to do. -Rob
Posted Aug 21, 2003 20:50 UTC (Thu)
by Spike (guest, #14160)
[Link]
Posted Aug 21, 2003 20:54 UTC (Thu)
by rfunk (subscriber, #4054)
[Link] (1 responses)
Only because The SCO Group used to be called Caldera....
Posted Aug 21, 2003 21:13 UTC (Thu)
by allesfresser (guest, #216)
[Link]
:-)
Posted Aug 21, 2003 20:57 UTC (Thu)
by allenz (guest, #14161)
[Link]
Instead the whole case is a very particular, sticky discussion of who owns what and who can do what with UNIX and UNIX-like technology.
Posted Aug 21, 2003 20:59 UTC (Thu)
by tonnesen (guest, #3589)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 22, 2003 12:27 UTC (Fri)
by walterbyrd (guest, #11620)
[Link]
1) Scox has not proven any copywrite code in linux. Let scox *prove* their case first, then talk of linux licenses. 2) Scox has not specified all code they claim is infringing. No chance for community to remove that code. 3) Scox has not proven their right to go after end users. Scox's dispute is with IBM, not end users - unless scox can prove otherwise. 4) Scox has distributed, and is still distributing this code. Scox is as guilty as giving away "trade secrets" as anybody.
Posted Aug 21, 2003 21:08 UTC (Thu)
by danw6144 (guest, #14336)
[Link] (1 responses)
Section 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works. So what is pre-empted ?
Posted Aug 22, 2003 3:18 UTC (Fri)
by freethinker (guest, #4397)
[Link]
http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/08/18/160200&tid=23
Posted Aug 21, 2003 21:36 UTC (Thu)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link]
Posted Aug 21, 2003 21:45 UTC (Thu)
by butlerm (subscriber, #13312)
[Link] (3 responses)
The heading of Section 301 is "Preemption with respect to other laws". The very first paragraph states that the rights granted in section 106 preempt other equivalent legal rights the copyright holder may have had under state or common law. This specifically does not mean that Section 301 takes away the rights granted in Section 106. Rather it means that copyright holders do not have copyright-equivalent rights that are additional to those specified in Section 106. The rights in Section 106 are more than sufficient to enforce the GPL, as has been well commented on elsewhere. I can only wonder at the level of bluster or sheer ignorance required for Mr. Heise to promote such a nonsensically comical interpretation of federal copyright law.
Posted Aug 22, 2003 2:44 UTC (Fri)
by kmself (guest, #11565)
[Link] (1 responses)
I was going to make the same point you have, so I'll just ObAOL. The preemption is with respect to legal rights (and limitations) within federal copyright law. As the copyright holder has the right to "do and to authorize any of the following: ...reproduce ... prepare derivative works ... distribute copies". Whis is what the General Public License (not a contract, a license) grants. By the copyright holder. Anyone else note that when you merge SCO and Heise you get SCHeise?
Posted Aug 22, 2003 3:21 UTC (Fri)
by freethinker (guest, #4397)
[Link]
Damn, I was drinking when I read that. Almost sprayed my monitor :)
Posted Aug 22, 2003 6:12 UTC (Fri)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link]
Posted Aug 21, 2003 21:48 UTC (Thu)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link] (1 responses)
Also, just because there is a similarity between a play and a movie doesn't mean IBM violated any rights of SCO. If I see a movie, read a book, or watch a play, I can still make a movie or a book or a play on the *topic*, or even the *historical details* of the events portrayed. All I have to do is to make a *different* movie, book, or play. It's done all the time. If this is not true, then why are there so many different biographies of famous people on television? Every time I see this malarkty, it reminds me of the time IBM tried to convince people that every program on an IBM computer belonged to them (because it was all part of *their* program.) ...so either IBM is getting what it gave, or they're looking over the arguments that were made against them at the time.
Posted Aug 28, 2003 15:41 UTC (Thu)
by dps (guest, #5725)
[Link]
>If I see a movie, read a book, or watch a play, I can still make a movie or a book or a play on the *topic*, or even the *historical Provided you do it on pure woodsmoke, copyright allows you to create *exacly the same* work without infringement. However I have my doubts you could convince anyone that an identical novel, play or film, was done on pure woodsmoke. Things that you might manage on pure woodsmoke include the sound of a Harley-Davison motorbike and some bits of german landscape, which where being passed off as all sorts of non german places. There are also some things that are not subject to copyright including APIs. Do not bother suing anyone in europe for copying your API, at least for the moment. Patents on the other hand do give you rights over people than do the same thing on pure woodsmoke.
Posted Aug 21, 2003 22:16 UTC (Thu)
by sgb (guest, #14338)
[Link] (1 responses)
They can't say GPL is preempted by copyright law to stop Linux users from redistributing the GPL'd kernel when they are redistributing GPL'd Samba with Open Server. SCO have 'bet the company' on their attempt to extort licensing fees from Linux users and the Perens analysis http://www.perens.com of their 'evidence' shows that Linux and SCO Unix both have code derived for Free ancient Unix and BSD code.They are only left with a contract dispute with IBM where they claim that they own the rights to IBM code because it has touched Unix code. This claim will be very hard to get through a court and SCO will run out of money before it gets there. If Linux users do not pay SCO license fees then they will go bust in a matter of months, so SCOs lawyers will try anything to pressure users into paying. SCO (Calsera) was once a Linux company that made lots of money from their IPO, now they are a litigation company. I will never do business with them !!
Posted Aug 21, 2003 23:10 UTC (Thu)
by mmarq (guest, #2332)
[Link]
1. AIX is derived from Unix The crux of SCOs argument
2. Portions of AIX are contributed to Linux ( which were developed by IBM)
3. This is illegal under the original licensing agreement.
That is probably the basis of their claim that 1 Million lines are copied. Did IBM really
contribute a million linest linux? Perhaps they are adding any contributions from
HP-UX and Irix too.
I cant think of any better explanation than that. I dont think the judge will fall
for this kind of baloney, bizarre things have happnened before in courts.
Ramana
The Title 17 arguments are something of a red herring. But the argument further down in the article, about open source being different, like a play and a movie, so that the license agreements do not apply, is scary. I think he is trying to say that IBM does not have a license to make "open source", they can only make normal copyrighted material, similiar as one who is licensed to make a play does not have a right to make a movie. Very clever, just the kind of bs courts sometimes listen to.
The crux of SCOs argument
If in fact SCO owns all of IBM's intellectual property, they have a case. If all of The crux of SCOs argument
IBM's developments that were incorporated into AIX belong to or are
controlled by SCO, they have a case.
But consider the fact that IBM released EVMS under GPL. Note this comment
from http://evms.sourceforge.net/terminology.html
Quote:
Storage Region
An ordered set of logically contiguous sectors (that are not necessarily
physically contiguous). The underlying mapping can be to logical disks,
segments, or other regions. Linux LVM and AIX LVM LVs, as well as MD
devices, are represented as regions in EVMS.
end quote.
And another from http://www.faqs.org/docs/evms/layerdef.html
quote...
There are currently four region manager plug-ins in EVMS: Linux LVM, AIX,
OS/2, and Multi-Disk (MD).
Linux LVM
The Linux LVM plug-in provides compatibility with the Linux LVM and allows
the creation of volume groups (known in EVMS as containers) and logical
volumes (known in EVMS as regions).
AIX LVM
The AIX LVM provides compatibility with AIX and is similar in functionality to
the Linux LVM by also using volume groups and logical volumes.
end quote.
Obviously IBM's legal team feels quite confident I doubt this decision was
taken lightly.
Derek (I fully expect SCO to file another claim due to this being brought to
their attention. Hi Darl!)
SCO does not have any owner ship claim on IBM's work. SCO's own Exhibits show it. IBM got an aaddenum added to their Unix Contract. It pecifically says that any works that IBM creates or has created for them is owned by IBM. SCO has even publicly that IBM owns the RCU, JFS, NUMA and SMP code they donated to Linux.The crux of SCOs argument
SCO's big legal gun takes aim (ZDNet)
For Only $700 USD I'm sure you can get a dumping license from SCOX.
SCO's big legal gun takes aim (ZDNet)
SCO's big legal gun takes aim (ZDNet)
So the difference is that SCO didn't say, "Here is my copyrighted material, and I'm knowingly and willingly giving it to you under the GPL. Here's my copyrighted work."
You're not going to see that when you go into Linux. You're not going to see "copyright, The SCO Group."
linux-2.4.21/net/ipx/af_ipx.c:
* Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc. <greg@caldera.com>
* Neither Greg Page nor Caldera, Inc. admit liability nor provide
* warranty for any of this software. This material is provided
* "AS-IS" and at no charge.
Wait a second... it sure looks like they're not providing us indemnification in that source fragment! How dare they not provide a warranty! We'll sue! Oh... waitaminnit...SCO's big legal gun takes aim (ZDNet)
I find it interesting that SCO wants to make this case into some overarching statement about IP and technology in the "Internet age". I get this sense from this guy and others (Paul Thurott for example) that people view open source coders as "pirates" who want to copy all code in sight. How do people get this view? SCO's big legal gun takes aim (ZDNet)
I'm starting to think that all this talk about federal copyright law pre-emting the GPL is a red herring. What I believe they are really talking about is their claim that their own copyrighted works are being redistributed illegally under the GPL. In that context, it is true that the federal copyright law pre-empts the GPL for works that are covered by a copyright other than the GPL. However, the statements being made are ambiguous on this point, leaving the impression that all GPL licensed software is somehow invalidated by the federal copyright law.
federal copyright law == red herring
I agree this is a red herring.federal copyright law == red herring
The pre-emption provision of Section 301 is crystal clear.SCO's big legal gun takes aim (ZDNet)
So is:
(3) to distribute copies or phono records of the copyrighted
work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental,
lease, or lending;
The GPL is a license transferring an ownership right (use and distribution).
He is saying the Copyright Act pre-empts the Copyright Act.
This is gibberish.
See Professor Eben Moglen's comments at:
http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/08/18/160200&tid=23
Or, if you don't want to go to the bother of copying and pasting the URL:
SCO's big legal gun takes aim (ZDNet)
...we really do need to engage these people this way. Their arguments could be compelling to listen to, especially if the listener is used to reading and hearing people argue about what some religious text means. Fundamentalists are very good at engaging in such arguments (whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant.)
So, get out those virtual boxing gloves. This could get really hairy.
It just hit me....
Title 17 Section 301 governs preemption with respect to <em>other</em> laws
Bingo
Anyone else note that when you merge SCO and Heise you get SCHeise?
Bingo
Remember when this guy said that you're allowed to do a single copy only, which is the "backup in case you media gets screwed" provision? This was section 117 that he misread. Now this. And he is a LAWYER? He should go back to primary school and learn how to read properly.
Title 17 Section 301 governs preemption with respect to <em>other</em> laws
Hey....I thought Boise was SCO's "legal big gun."SCO's big legal gun takes aim (ZDNet)
A gaggle of electrons alledged that someone saidSCO's big legal gun takes aim (ZDNet)
>details* of the events portrayed. All I have to do is to make a *different* movie, book, or play. It's done all the time.
Then perhaps Heise should advise SCO that they are not allowed to distribute Samba with Open Server.If GPL does not allow free distribution
Come on guys, where is the mercy of the Linux/OSS community ?If GPL does not allow free distribution
If they dont collect fraudulent taxes upon stupidified users, how could they survive ?... selling software no ?... so lets give them a breack and just ignore them.