SCO To Show Copied Code 646
A number of people have written this morning in regards to the latest update in the ongoing SCO dropping Linux, with word from LinuxJournal that SCO has broadened the implications of code copying. A number of analyst groups have come out, however, saying that it's fine to keep moving ahead with Linux adoption - and there's an interesting interview with SCO's General Manager of SCOSource.
Re:The business plan of (Score:5, Informative)
1. Sue IBM.
2. Irritate the dinosaur.
3. Get bought by dinosaur.
The reason for this being that SCO is on the way down, down, down. The only way to rescue shareholder value at this point from total obliviion is a large injection of equity. Since no-one is likely to weigh in with the millions needed, the best way to obtain that equity is to replace it with those of a more stable stock.
i.e. get bought by IBM.
It's a high-risk, last-ditch strategy by a failing company.
- K
Re:All your base (Score:5, Informative)
Jeroen
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:4, Informative)
The Complainant (SCO) is not required to publish the code in question. If such were the case, then trade secrets would be completely undermined by the judicial system. The time for disclosing the alleged infringing code is at trial, where the code can be kept under seal from the public, if necessary.
"Not telling the world what the code is, is a legal blunder of the first order. This means that they have unclean hands, as they are supposed to try and mitigate the damage in order to receive compensation."
SCO is not adding to the damages. Mitigation entails stopping damages that are under your control to stop. How is it that you propose SCO can stop IBM or others from distributing software while the suit is being pursued?
"You can't knowlingly add to the damage and then ask for compensation incl Punitive damages based on same. Any suit against Linux vendor in the future can site this as an Affirmative Defense" and pretty much get the suit tossed on that account alone"
Even if SCO were to lose this case, a futher defendant would not "site" it as an Affirmative Defense, but rather as a precedential case. And, being a breach of contract case, the precedential value would be limited for a future defendant.
UnixWare to Linux Porting Guide (Score:2, Informative)
UnixWare to Linux Porting Guide (development tools and the API)
http://people.redhat.com/drepper/
http://p
Re:IMPORTANT: Please translate. Infringement Doc. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Errrrr.... (Score:2, Informative)
Um, well, no. If a court were to rule that the code was released under the GPL without the authority of the proper copyright holders, then the GPL release would be voided.
Any license is only valid if the party releasing the material under that license, had a right to do so.
IANAL, blah blah blah...
Re:Stop it! (Score:1, Informative)
Karma whore.
Re:Errrrr.... (Score:4, Informative)
I believe it's the other way around (but I may be wrong - please correct/add). Caldera was originally a Linux-company which then bought the rights to Unix from SCO. About that time SCO changed it's name to something like tarantella or so and shortly after that Caldera also acquired the rights to the name SCO. Then they changed their name to SCO, stopped selling Linux (which used to be their core business) and the rest you know.
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:3, Informative)
No, that was a different SCO (Score:3, Informative)
In 2000, Caldera bought the Unix part of SCO. [slashdot.org] Then SCO changed their name to something silly, [slashdot.org] and later Caldera changed their name to "The SCO Group". [slashdot.org]
Suse, for one would like to see it (Score:3, Informative)
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong. Imaging that YOU wrote some code -- you own it. You can then "fork" your code. One branch can be GPL, the other can be sold/modified/whatever without having any requirements. The GPL just guartees that you cannot "take back" the forked version. Also, once forked, you cannot re-merge them or "borrow" bug-fixes from the GPL version without making your proprietary version GPL.
In short, if you "own" some code, you can do whatever you want with it! If you GPL it, then you can have a "GPL" version and a "private" version -- you can give away what you want, and keep what you want.
In fact, some companies do exactly this! Note that the code for Open Office came from Star Office. Yet Star Office is NOT GPL. In other words, Sun forked the code into a GPL and a non-GPL version.
Re:IMPORTANT: Please translate. Infringement Doc. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Failure to mitigate own damages (Score:4, Informative)
And the dumb thing is that they were doing this at the same time they say they were investigating possible code copying -- for the better part of the past year (if my memory is clear of what was in previous accounts). It would seem to me that as soon as someone at SCO thought they should start looking at possible copyright infringement that they would have ceased any further participation in Linux at that time. Not a year later.
Either there's a serious communications problem at SCO or we have a possible explanation as to why Boies's (sp?) law firm was brought in, i.e., their internal legal department doesn't know their elbow from a hole in the ground (I know what I want to say here but I'm trying to keep this as civil as possible).
Re:Due diligence shouldn't apply (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not sure what it is, if it isn't a kite, but it seems nearest to being a trade secret issue, in which case I would expect due dilligence to be applicable. It might be time to stop speculating until there are more data? On the other hand this is
Still distributing Linux (Score:2, Informative)
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:2, Informative)
Diligence *really* isn't relevant here (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, it is. They have patents, which they plan to enforce, namely with regard to multi-processor stuff. They also have copyright. Both of these supercede "trade secrets," and neither can be revoked due to any presence or lack of "due diligence."
If you have a source that suggests copyright (NOT TRADEMARKS) can be revoked by lack of due diligence, I'd definitely like to see it, because everything I've seen states clearly that copyrights are protected for Life+70. Otherwise, do musicians who allow their songs to be traded on Napster-clones lose copyright? No.
Any due diligence issues might play out in a penalty phase, but in terms of guilt and innocence, it's irrelevant.
There have been a jillion articles on this thing, including with SCO officials, so it's not a matter of more data. They claim that both patents and copyrights have been violated. Patents supposedly got leaked through IBM's AIX collaboration with SCO. Copyrights supposedly did because they claim that a lot of pre-IBM linux developers were privy to unix code that they were NDA'd from using elsewhere.
That's where it currently stands. Much of this was in the articles attached to this discussion, which you might have considered reading first.
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:3, Informative)
This is not entirely true. The original copyright holder of a GPLed work can do something no other distributor of that code can do. The owner can still fork the code under any license he chooses. He can also legally prevent anybody else from releasing derived works under anything but the GPL. This is a major basis of TrollTech's current business model. The XFree86 version of QT is GPLed but they also license it for closed programs. Granted someone could port the GPL QT to other platforms but it would still be GPL only TrollTech has the authority to license it otherwise.
This type of control is even used by some GPL critics to argue that it isn't "completely free". So which is it? A total permanent loss of control for anyone realeasing code under it or a fearsome utterly controlled straightjacket used to deny others freedom? I'll grant that the GPL is controversial in these parts but its critics can't have it both ways. I would say that the "utterly controlled straightjacket" has at least some arguable points going for it.
The only legal regime that your statement is true for is the Public Domain. Even the BSD Licenses (often held up as an exemplar of Total Freedom) allow legal recourse for plagiarism.
A Quick Discourse on Federal Procedure (Score:5, Informative)
SCO obviously wanted the case in state court. It very carefully pled no federal law claims such as copyright or patent. It pled only state law claims for unfair competetion, etc. The only reason to do this would be if SCO wanted this in state court.
IBM removed (that's the verb) the case to federal court - United States District Court for the District of Utah on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Not a thing SCO can do about it.
Why did SCO start the case in state court and why did IBM remove it? The state law claims of unfair competition, etc. are the same (the classic Erie decision still applies for all you budding 1Ls out there). The case will still physically remain in Utah.
IBM gets Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule 26(a), the parties must disclose to each other, without even a formal request, the most relevant documents to their case. The disclosure must be done relatively quickly. I doubt there is a similar automatic disclosure in the Utah rules. In state court, SCO might have been able to drag the discovery process out for at least a few months. It could keep its source code hidden for a while. Under the federal rules, it cannot do that. By removing the case to federal court, IBM undercut a big hunk of SCO strategy - namely FUD.
Obviously, the most relevant documents to this case are the source code listings SCO alleges IBM stole. These must be produced to IBM and produced quickly. There willl probably be a protective order preventing the rest of us from seeing them, but IBM gets to see them very soon (like maybe this month).
If there was no theft of code by IBM, expect a quick resolution of the case. If there was theft from Project Monterey in violation of the SCO-IBM agreement, expect a slugfest over intent and the the measure of damages.
In addition, by not even knowing the corporate home of its adversary, SCO comes in looking foolish. How hard would it be to determine IBM is a New York corporation, not a Delaware corporation? Not hard at all. Take a look at any of its SEC filings. It was a stupid mistake by SCO and although it does not logically follow that the rest of its allegations are undermined, it does decrease credibility of SCO and its attorneys.
The interesting question (at least for entertainment value) is who subpoenas RMS first to testify.
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is that they didn't put their IP under GPL in the first place, but (allegedly) someone else did without SCO knowing about it. Time is important here.
As far I understand, they licensed IP to IBM under NDA/whatever. IBM allegedly violated the contract by adding the code to Linux. IBM may be liable for that possible violation, regardless of what happened later.
Yes, after that, SCO licensed Linux and started relicensing (selling) that version of Linux, including the violating code. That may seem like they were licensing their IP under GPL, but a judge may find that it is not reasonable to assume that they could have noticed their own IP in it. Judges think and are reasonable, occasionally, you know.
It's a bit (though not exactly) same as with frauds. You can sign away your property, but if court finds that you did not know the relevant facts and the receiver of the property intentionally misled you, the receiver is guilty of fraud and you still own your property.
SCO's mistake (Score:5, Informative)
"Finally. Somebody raised a possible problem that you yourselves distribute the infringing code under the GPL licence. Do you see that as a problem from your point of view?
No we do not, because you do not have an infringement issue when you are providing customers with products that have your intellectual property in them.
OK, but Linux has a kernel which isn't yours. Are you saying that there are changes to the kernel?
We have concerns and issues even with areas of the kernel.
So you are saying that you are happy distributing the kernel because the offending code belongs to you anyway, as I understand it?
Yes."
I.e. these guys don't have clue 1 what the GPL actually says. Unfortunately for them, failure to comprehend a license does not relieve you of your responsibilities under said license.
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2003
Re: SCOX's case (Score:2, Informative)
Why can't you mount a SCO filesystem under linux? (Score:3, Informative)
Me-thinks SCO is full of SH*T and is going to fade into history. This is SCO's last stand, how tragic and sad.
Too bad I haven't finished migrating everything from SCO to Linux yet. I guess the clock it ticking and I better finish porting.