LWN: Comments on "The text of IBM's counterclaims"

It's a conspiracy of silence

Max.Hyre — Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:53:08 +0000

The above documents do indeed have a striking similiarity to the papers in this case, but note that Mr./Ms. alobanov suggests redaction in the English.

Not being a Russian-reader, I tried the obvious: The Fish. While the first half seems pretty good for machine translation, it really deteriorates toward the end, where the good stuff lies.

Why won't anyone come clean here?

Best wishes,
Max Hyre :-)

The text of IBM's counterclaims

alobanov — Mon, 18 Aug 2003 17:50:10 +0000

Folks, this beautiful text needs an illustration. And it exist: "IBM managers writing counterclaim to SCO".
(for those who is interested with the real text of the counterclaim being written by those brave guys, including the initial claim: in Russian+Ukrainian and a (censored?) attempt of English translation. It is _really_ related to the article subject :-))))

Linux is here to stay

mitchus — Thu, 14 Aug 2003 17:20:14 +0000

> I think you GPLers need to grow up and realize Linux is dead.

This might be the worst case of bad judgment I've seen since that label that turned down the Beatles.

You think this will kill Linux?! Nowhere near it. Even if it turns out there is SCO code in the kernel, people will work at getting it the hell out of there. There is sufficient scaffolding and infrastructure to do this.

How could you possibly tear down a social contract like the GPL? Has it ever occurred to you that all the people who respect it CHOSE to do so? It represents a solid and transparent objective, and people have been rallying to this banner long enough to take this blow, and take it with a grin.

Pax, Mitchus

-------------
Penguins go through annual fasting periods. Breeding male emperor penguins may fast 90 to 120 days during courtship, breeding, and the entire incubation period (Davis and Darby, 1990).

Linux is like so hosed

Grievre — Wed, 13 Aug 2003 02:57:36 +0000

Linux is suiciding at our gates!

Class-Action Lawsuit

solaufein — Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:18:04 +0000

--> "If it's less costly for IBM to buy-out SCO instead of incurring legal fees, then I think IBM should swallow up SCO. Case over."

No, see that would only serve to give money to the schumcks that are causing this disturbance. SCO had to know that there's no real hope of winning this case, and as previously stated, in many places, this is just an attempt to drive up stock value. Let SCO face the legal system with false evidence, let them be sued, let the execs face criminal time in the "pound me up the a$$ prison." I think that IBM will want to make an example of SCO, so that others do not try the same BS.

Linux is like so hosed

corbet — Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:35:52 +0000



+--------------+
|  Don't feed  |
|  the trolls  |
|              |
|  thank you   |
+--------------+
      | |
      | |
      | |
      | |
  ....\ /....

(sign borrowed from Rik van Riel)

Linux is like so hosed

screed — Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:01:20 +0000

I think you GPLers need to grow up and realize Linux is dead. SCO has you people by the balls. I have seen SCO's evidence and everything SCO has shown me has been true. IBM has contributed truckloads of SCO code into Linux. SCO has full rights to do what they have been doing. This will come out in court and Linux and the GPL will finally die a much deserved death. Buy your Linux licenses now, you will need them. I have recently migrated to UnixWare after seeing the evidence and have never been happier, I was tired of the Theives and code terrorists that often times lurk in the Linux train.

Betting on the favorite.

economy1 — Tue, 12 Aug 2003 12:03:07 +0000

The GPL was going to be tested in court at some point (that's ultimately the point of it, after all) and one can hardly imagine a better scenario than having IBM's legal resources vying to enforce its terms. I think open-source programmers should take heart. The only thing better would be if Microsoft were the GPL's champion. Reports are that some SCO management-types have been dumping stock recently as a result of all of this. Sounds like a good strategy...

Class-Action Lawsuit

Salmozn — Tue, 12 Aug 2003 06:23:00 +0000

Hi,

I was reading the counterclaim of IBM and I just laughed at every section. SCO is so royalling f**ked. If SCO is profiting by distributing and selling licences that include code from GPL code which is the work of other contributors, then I smell a class-action lawsuit against SCO from the millions of linux developers under the GPL.

SCO should be sued for punitive damages, charged with stock fraud, and for every cent they received from their 'Fortune 1500' customer list.

If SCO tells me to pay for a linux licence, I will immediately call my lawyer to get the courts to charge SCO with fraud. Linux code, AIX code, etc, etc is not SCO's code. Simply packaging your code with GPL code does not make you have the rights to the code you did not develop.

What SCO is doing is like telling Microsoft that you own their source code and demand licencing fees.

SCO - another WorldCom, Enron, Martha, etc, etc.

Best quote, "IBM has more patent litigation lawyers than SCO has employees."

If it's less costly for IBM to buy-out SCO instead of incurring legal fees, then I think IBM should swallow up SCO. Case over.

Me, I don't like big gambles!

namaseit — Tue, 12 Aug 2003 01:25:01 +0000

Actually it is a very good thing. I mean the fact that IBM is using the GPL as a way to bitch
slap SCO is showing that they stand behind, support, and validate the GPL because they
are a huge company. I just got done reading "Rebel Code: Open Source and Linux History"
and IBM is a hard company to get to do anything. In the book they compare IBM to an
Elephant, hard to get moving. But once it is in the right direction its hard to stop. So I think
this is suck a huge thing that IBM is standing by the GPL. I think this will be the first case
that the GPL will be validated with. Which is a very good thing.

Me, I don't like big gambles!

mla — Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:17:06 +0000

A riveting document. But I am unconvinced of the wisdom of dragging GPL into it in such a prominent a way. SCO now have to demolish GPL to get anywhere, and they have nothing to lose in attempting to do so. Let's hope that IBM's legal eagles know what they are doing. Should GPL fall in court (which is always possible!), we have serious trouble. OTOH, if it stands, MS will be royally pissed.

Anybody got the rules of two-chamber Russian Roulette handy for consultation? :-)

The text of IBM's counterclaims

playfair — Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:48:55 +0000

Seems, from reading the GPL, that anyone who buys a SCO license breaches the GPL and must stop using Linux and probably all other GPL software.

Buying a license becomes an agreement under the terms of the section 7 quoted above.

So anyone who pays SCO for a license gets screwed by SCO and screws themselves, too.

The text of IBM's counterclaims

leandro — Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:14:31 +0000

> the user cannot legally combine both pieces. This would mean the end user cannot legally use Linux

Anyone can use any GPL code. The restrictions are on redistributing it.

Typos / OCR errors

corbet — Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:38:23 +0000

I believe that all of the errors and typos reported in the comments have been fixed. If you find others, please send them to lwn@lwn.net. Thanks to all for helping us clean up the document.

Some remaining typos

rrt — Mon, 11 Aug 2003 15:32:04 +0000

And a couple more:

"Exhibits 0" -> "Exhibits O"
"once apart" -> "once a part"

Some remaining typos

Antartica — Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:26:23 +0000

Some typos that are still in the text:

===CUT===
NATURE OF THIS ACTION/80./wimout -> without

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES/Second Defense/...engaged m any -> engaged in any

C. IBM and Linux/19./That SCO haa distibuted -> That SCO has distributed

C. IBM and Linux/19./is entitled to me protections -> is entitled to the protections

E. SCO's Scheme/22./if not all, of me UNIX technology -> if not all, of the UNIX technology

F. SCO's Lawsuit and Threats/26./injuction tenninating IBM's -> injuction terminating IBM's
===CUT===

Note that I've stopped reading in
SECOND COUNTERCLAIM/Lanham Act Violation

So I suppose that there may be some more O:-)

Disclaimer: I've repeated some of the ones found by other users... I suppose that it will be easier to the editor if they are collected in a single comment ;-).

BTW: Very interesting read :-b

The text of IBM's counterclaims

magician — Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:10:02 +0000

Search for " me " (space m e space) there are, I believe, six occurances in the legal document, all of which should be "the"

Similarly search for " die " (space d i e space) there is one occurance which should also be "the".

The text of IBM's counterclaims

Wol — Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:50:16 +0000

In which case, SCO would be welcome to use linux INTERNALLY. But they could NOT distribute it.

The problem is, they have been DISTRIBUTING code, and now they are claiming that the recipients cannot distribute it further because it contains SCO IP. In other words, they are DISTRIBUTING a MIX of GPL and non-GPL code. Bang! Clause 4 goes off!

And the fact that they are STILL distributing linux code to all and sundry from their ftp server merely compounds their breach of copyright.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, there's a simple way round that, if they wanted to pull the ftp server and still remain in compliance with the GPL, but I'm not going to give them ideas ...

But the fact is, SCO *is* and has been distributing linux to world+dog. They are also claiming that the distributed code contains their proprietary IP, which *users* are obliged to licence. That claim promptly breaches the GPL, which means SCO are not entitled to distribute linux, which means SCO are breaking copyright law in a BIG way!

Cheers,
Wol

SCO is like so hosed

Guido — Mon, 11 Aug 2003 05:46:32 +0000

You guys should look at this:

http://biz.yahoo.com/t/in/s/scox.html

The insiders at SCO are acquiring and selling stock, making a killing. Let's hope they join Martha Stewart in "Club Fed".

The text of IBM's counterclaims

niceguy2279 — Mon, 11 Aug 2003 01:15:02 +0000

OCR mistake?

The text of IBM's counterclaims

entre — Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:33:27 +0000

"without"

81. States that it is wimout information sufficient to form a belief
as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 81.

The text of IBM's counterclaims

entre — Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:24:59 +0000

Licensed typed twice

22. States that it is without information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 22, except admits
that AT&T Technologies, Inc. licensed licensed certain software to
IBM and Sequent.

The text of IBM's counterclaims

entre — Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:22:27 +0000

Change "m" to "in"

Second Defense

SCO's claims are barred because IBM has not engaged m any unlawful
or unfair business practices, and IBM's conduct was privileged, performed
in the exercise of an absolute right, proper and/or justified.

The text of IBM's counterclaims

entre — Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:02:03 +0000

section / paragraph 22 change "me" to "the".
22. SCO devised a scheme to profit from the UNIX rights that it
acquired from Original SCO, though UNIX was in no way developed by SCO.
Although most, if not all, of me UNIX technology that SCO purports to
own is generally known, available without restriction to the general public
or readily ascertainable by proper means, SCO undertook to create fear,
uncertainty and doubt in the marketplace in regard to SCO's rights in and
to that technology.

The text of IBM's counterclaims

uaimp — Sat, 09 Aug 2003 21:20:50 +0000

Who is still buying SCO stock at $10.75?

SCO is like so hosed

mbp — Sat, 09 Aug 2003 05:25:51 +0000

The state is not a party to this suit, although perhaps it would be for future criminal charges.

But somebody inside SCO may well have released some information. I wouldn't expect to hear about it yet though: IBM will likely save it until the decisive moment.

Zonk, thanks!

kmself — Sat, 09 Aug 2003 03:20:00 +0000

Mind if I swipe a copy?

The text of IBM's counterclaims

nix — Fri, 08 Aug 2003 23:33:38 +0000

SCO did still violate the GPL, because by compiling a Linux kernel, they link what they claim as non-GPL code to GPL code, which is not allowed.

Not quite right. It's permitted to links non-GPL code to GPL code, as long as none of the provisions of the GPL are violated. (Thus, you can link no-advertising-clause BSD-licensed code to GPLed code freely.)

The problem with SCO's situation is that their non-GPL code has more restrictions than the GPL. That is not allowed, under clause 6 of the GPL.

The text of IBM's counterclaims

dmantione — Fri, 08 Aug 2003 22:11:44 +0000

Exactly, it's perfectly legal to license some open source software to someone, and then
license some of your other "intelectual property" to the same person under a different
license.

BUT, because the GPL does not allow you to link GPL code against non-gpl code, the
user cannot legally combine both pieces. This would mean the end user cannot legally
use Linux, wether or not he has an SCO license.

SCO did still violate the GPL, because by compiling a Linux kernel, they link what they
claim as non-GPL code to GPL code, which is not allowed.

The text of IBM's counterclaims

vonbrand — Fri, 08 Aug 2003 19:43:52 +0000

> I believe he's wrong. Section 7 of the GPL is very explicit in this regard:

I'm not so sure... AFAIU it says that if _somebody else_ was to impose obligations on me that interfere with distributing freely, I can't distribute at all. In this case it is SCO themselves that impose the conditions, so it would look like they can distribute. Note that then the same GPL prohibits people who got Linux from SCO to distribute further.

IANAL, just a bewildered bystander in a country about to enter a free trade agreement (with IP rights and the works) with the USA.

The text of IBM's counterclaims

dwalters — Fri, 08 Aug 2003 18:35:07 +0000

Sorry to reply to my own post, but I had also meant to point out that Stowell's statement does not agree with section 4 of the GPL:

4. 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.

IANAL, but SCO's violation of the GPL appears to be nothing less than the misappropriation of the copyrights of the hundreds of individuals and companies that have contributed to Linux. They appear to be the ones who don't respect intellectual property.

The text of IBM's counterclaims

dwalters — Fri, 08 Aug 2003 18:26:31 +0000

It's good to see that IBM are leveraging the GPL here. It shows that IBM really understand it, are comfortable with it, and that their lawyers are confident in it, and that bodes well for IBM's future involvement with Linux.

Contrast that starkly with SCOs lack of understanding of (or complete disrespect for) the GPL:

SCO's Blake Stowell admitted that SCO was still providing Linux source code and security patches on its Web site in order to fulfill support contracts with customers, but said "If our IP is being found in Linux and that's being done without our say, then I don't think that the GPL can force us not to collect license fees from someone who may be using our intellectual property".

I believe he's wrong. Section 7 of the GPL is very explicit in this regard:

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

SCO is like so hosed

NerdlyMcGeek — Fri, 08 Aug 2003 18:14:07 +0000

SCO has declined
to reveal the

---- page ----

particulars of the alleged violations in order to artificially and improperly
inflate the price of its stock.

For IBM to put this into the body of their counter claim pretty much sums it up. Darl and his cronies need to find a country with no extradition agreements. How much of a stretch would it be for an insider to roll and give States evidence?