OSDL Releases Q&A on SCO Legal Actions 285
craigoda writes "OSDL released a Q&A today written by Lawrence Rosen, noted expert on technology and intellectual property law. The Q&A points to serious flaws in SCO's claims that end-users have to pay for Linux licenses." The press release is a little more diplomatic, saying that the document only helps one determine whether or not one should buy a license from SCO.
What if I do not use SCO code? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What if I do not use SCO code? (Score:4, Informative)
Thus, if SCO were right in all of their claims (highly unlikely the way I read it), you would be allowed to use Linux only if you did not have any copies of the SCO code anywhere on your system (or if you bought a license to use them)
So, yes. If you simply disabled those features, you'd still potentially be liable -- if you physically uninstalled them? you should be fine.
Re:What if I do not use SCO code? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What if I do not use SCO code? (Score:2)
Until they pony up the fucking code without requiring NDAs, I won't believe a word those asshats say.
And they are asshats.
-uso.
Re:What if I do not use SCO code? (Score:3, Interesting)
I just thought I'd peek at their site right now, to see what phantasm they were conjuring now.
They had a promising looking link at http://www.sco.com/licensing [sco.com]. The link says REGISTER [caldera.com], which in good fun, I clicked... Getting pages of badly escaped error in SQL connection. A Caldera URL, domain and coding are evident... Enough info in the error to guess that their CGI fields map to names in the table space.
A decent SQL injection could pr
Re:What if I do not use SCO code? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What if I do not use SCO code? (Score:2)
"If you requested more information, you will hear from us soon."
I probably typed way too much in there, since they're going to delete it anyway.
Re:What if I do not use SCO code? (Score:3)
...and if you look here [netcraft.com], you'll see that SCO are still using Linux themselves....
Re:What if I do not use SCO code? (Score:4, Informative)
No disagreements here, but that wasn't the point I was making. I was just helping to define "use" of IP according to US copyright law. That is not to say that, in this particular case, I think it will come out that way.
Just read SCO's outlandishly absurd reasoning why the GPL is invalid. It went something like: 'Copyright law gives right X, no contract that can be construed as granting any rights beyond X are valid'
Woah!!! but... what if I buy 5000 licenses to SCO's bullshitware. Those licenses would also be invalid by the same logic: after all, they grant me the right to make 5000 copies. 5000 is more than one, thus: not valid
Oh, and about not being liable because IBM is?
Assume, for the moment, that SCO owned IP that IBM gave to Linux. I know, it could never happen, but... just pretend for a minute.
Also lets assume that you are using Linux.
In this case, SCO can sue IBM for trade-secrets violations for giving code to Linux that is wasn't allowed to give away.
Additionally, however, you are using SCO IP without permission. Since IBM (or your distro) chose not to indemnify you against IP claims, you COULD (not necessarily, but quite possibly) be liable for damages. If you are a public library or educational institution and had a valid reason to believe that you had the right to use the IP (like you acquired a license that said you could from a provider without the authority to make that claim) then you would be allowed to remove the IP and avoid paying damages.
Otherwise its up to the judge.
Oh. I missed one other essential assumption: SCO never released a copy of its IP under a license that allows limitless copying (such as, say, Caldera under the GPL) Because, you see, if I am offered a license (a contract granting me certain rights, and forbidding me others in exchange for some (possibly monetary) value) to duplicate the software, and the organization granting the license had the right to do so, then I can do whatever the license says I can do. After all, thats what we agreed to. Contracts are binding like that. If you sign on the dotted line you are stuck. Especially if you wrote the contract (or offered the boiler-plate contract)
In short: because SCO released a copy of Linux under the GPL (assuming it survives a court test), and especially because it can be easily proven hat they know they did so (I'm sure it had a copy of the license on it) they are SOL.
Re:What if I do not use SCO code? (Score:2, Interesting)
that even if you use SCO code in violation (assumeing
they ever provide proof), you still don't
have to pay SCO because it is IBM who will
pay for damages, and SCO cannot collect twice.
This answers the question of the poster which
was about having to pay damages, and was
not about whether he will be in violation
of SCO's (alleged) violation of trade secrets.
Read the article, please. The laywer clearly said
that even if you use SCO code in violation (assumeing
they ev
Re:What if I do not use SCO code? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What if I do not use SCO code? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What if I do not use SCO code? (Score:5, Informative)
So here are some links with some history and the battle SCO has is to prove that the code they see in Linux didn't come from these sources instead of IBM because if it came from these sources there is nothing SCO gets.
Public Money, Private Code [salon.com]
Quote from above: In 1992, Berkeley released its version of Unix and TCP/IP to the public as open-source code, and the combination quickly became the backbone of a network so vast that people started to call it, simply, "the Internet"
Why Caldera Decided to Release Unix [oreillynet.com]
From that article note that Caldera did release Unix source code on some version and again SCO has to defend against the chance that code came from this source. And though it appears in protected System V it was also present in the release V7 and V32.
Introducing the Caldera OpenLinux Workstation [caldera.com]
From thie quote on the above:OpenLinux is Caldera's self-hosted source code Linux distribution that conforms to commercial software release procedures. OpenLinux is based on the most current stable open source technologies, but subjected to rigorous testing procedures similar to those used for proprietary operating systems. How can SCO clain they did not see infected code go into Linux if they had standards that if up to proprietary operating systems would include a check as such.
Berkley Lab Notes [berkeley.edu]
My question here is if you follow the links on this page and understand the history of Unix and how it became freely released can anyone tell me what if anything was left propietary in Unix?????
And maybe that is a question SCO should be answering.
And really this needs to be explored in detail because what does System V have that BSD does not and how does the BSDi vs USL case affect the Unix propietary code.
I know this is redundant it has all been said before but the Q&A is right. Without SCO showing the code in question and that code be compared to so much of the Unix system that legally leaked into the world they have no case.
Document summary (Score:5, Funny)
Q: Should I buy a license from SCO?
A: No
Re:Document summary (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing I don't get is this...
So this is the thing: what does this have to do with SCO declaring the GPL invalid? What the HELL does it have to do with their lawsuit against IBM. I do not understand.
Re:Document summary (Score:2, Funny)
But ladies and gentlemen this is Chewbacca [connect-dots.com]. Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a man's life is on the line? Why? I'll tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense you must acquit.
Re:Document summary (Score:2)
Re:Document summary (Score:4, Insightful)
The secondary element to this whole clusterfuck is that SCO is threatening to sue individual businesses and individual distributors of Linux unless they pay SCO licensing fees. If Linux is covered under the GPL, then SCO cannot legally force anybody to pay them license fees. It's against the GPL.
However, if the GPL is a legally invalid license, then SCO is released from that restraint. They can go to whomever and invalidate a potential license-purchaser's argument of protection under the GPL and have a stronger legal threat to extort^H^H^H^H^H^Hcollect license fees.
Of course, Rosen is absolutely correct that the courts would be exceptionally unlikely to allow SCO to claim damages from individual users of Linux *and* from IBM.
Disclaimer: IANAL
-jag
Re:Document summary (Score:3, Interesting)
By the way, there is some question of whether they can double collect damages.
If they collect from end users, can they also collect from IBM?
If they collect from IBM, can they also collect from end users?
One article that was written by a lawyer says that courts tend to take a very dim view of such double dipping.
IANAL, but I have sued a negligent company once (Score:2)
Re:Document summary (Score:5, Informative)
Step 2: SCO starts FUD campaign to scare people into not using Linux. Part of their FUD is to sell a license for their intellectual property that has been included in Linux which they have also distributed. Selling this license violates the GPL.
Step 3: SCO now finds itself in the position of having made probably unproveable claims about copyright infringement against IBM and Linux and having committed very public and thus proveable violations of the GPL. The only way SCO can continue their FUD campaign and charge people to use Linux is if they can now also get the GPL declared invalid.
The original lawsuit between SCO and IBM had absolutely nothing to do with the GPL. SCO brought the GPL into the mess by asserting they could sell licenses to Linux users for the portion of Linux that was based on their IP. This violates the GPL becuase they had distributed Linux with the offending code which makes it subject to the GPL.
If the issue had been strictly about copyright violations, it would have burried on the back page of some legal journal. SCO and their behind the scenes backers (think about who benefits from Linux and open source being discredited) have turned it into a public attack on Linux and free/open source software.
Re:Document summary (Score:3, Informative)
I won't respond to your general view of things legal/editorial comments about the progess of the SCO vs. IBM lawsuit, but what you say here is factually incorrect (and I'm
Re:Document summary (Score:5, Interesting)
The real problem is that, if the GPL is not invalid, SCO is in some serious legal problems. Because not only did they distribute their code under the GPL unknowingly, but they continued to do so after they were informed of the fact. And they still continue to do so, because otherwise they'd loose what few customers they have left. (The distribution in question is them providing Linux binaries, patches, and possibly source from their FTP site) If the GPL's valid, they have no right to do this unless they license the code/IP in question under the GPL, which makes their case (and stock price) collapse.
Unfortunately, they're equally screwed if the GPL is invalid. Just because Linux was "infected" with "confidential information" doesn't give them ownership over all the other IP in there. And if the GPL's invalid, that falls back to the default of US copyright law. Which means that SCO has no right to distribute it or modify it. So if it is invalid, they're equally screwed.
That's why they're now (IIRC) trying to not only claim that its invalid, but that anything formerly under the GPL is now public domain. Why? Because this is Chewbacca. No, wait, that's wrong. Because the author allowed unlimited copies.
Yeah, everyone else is just as puzzled.
Re:Document summary (Score:2)
unknowingly!? (Score:3, Informative)
GPL so they are not bound by it?
Now check these links from SCO's own website:
SCO releases OpenLinux 4 for Itanium [sco.com]
Date April 15,2003, 1 month after filing the suit against IBM. SCO
releases OpenLinux 4.0 for Itanium. Remember what SCO's amended
complaint states as their claims (NUMA,RCU,SMP,JFS).
Product Features [sco.com]
The product features of OpenLinux Server for itanium, released on April
14,2003, advertise JFS,SMP as enterprise features of th
Re:Document summary (Score:5, Informative)
In addition to licensing their code to IBM under whatever license they used, but they ALSO licensed the entire Linux 2.4 kernel, including things they claim to have IP rights over, to their customers under the GPL.
Any of SCO's customers, under the GPL, has the absolute right to commit those updates into the main Linux kernel tree. So in a way it's irrelevant if SCO has any rights to the code in question at all--even if they did, they gave it away.
Thus the GPL challenge. If the GPL is declared invalid, *nobody* would have any rights to use Linux except the copyright holders of the original code. Luckily, most things in Linux have their copyrights ascribed to the Free Software Foundation. If, however, SCO proves that it owns the copyright on this code, AND they invalidate the GPL, that would be the only way to successfully remove the code from Linux (legally speaking).
Just because it's a dumb-ass defense doesn't make it a Chewbacca defense.
Re:Document summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. But if their argument stopped here, all of the owners of original Linux code would have the right to sue SCO into the ground for violating their copyright anyways -- except that we'd have the right to sue them starting with their first distribution of Linux code.
The only way around that would be to say that anything put under the GPL was actually put into the public domain. Once it's in the public domain, SCO would be able to do anything that they want with the code -- including asking for further license fees.
On the other hand, this would also mean that -- since their code was distributed by them (with their knowledge) under the GPL license, IT would be public domain as well... and they wouldn't have any legal force behind a request for more money..
In other words, the worst case of this argument would be that all of Linux (including the SCO code) is public domain, and nobody has to pay anybody for any of it. (but SCO would be free to relicense it in the future).
Because they have not proof (Score:3, Insightful)
issue a press release to keep the soap opera
going. It is quite typical of them to outdo
their previous nonsense with even greater nonsense.
And if this shift the talk away from the main
issue, which is PROOF, then it is a good strategy.
These people have to show us proof before they
are allowed to open their mouth again.
Re:Document summary (Score:3, Funny)
A: No
But what if I were trying to protect my monopoly on x86 operating systems?
Re:Document summary (Score:5, Funny)
Well then, Mr. Gates, go ahead and purchase as many licenses as you see fit.
Re:Document summary (Score:5, Funny)
Q: But what if...
A: No.
Q: Okay, but suppose...
A: Even then, no.
TheFrood
SCO (Score:5, Funny)
Good Job Slashdot!
They didn't answer the real questions (Score:4, Funny)
- Normal service is now resumed -
Rus
Re:They didn't answer the real questions (Score:4, Funny)
Far enough to recieve legal advice from yesterday's dinner.
Re:They didn't answer the real questions (Score:2)
Math note: Topologically, it doesn't matter which way they bend, they still need a glass navel to see. Over backwards tends to work best since at least that way you're not in your own way when it comes to seeing where you're going. Also an IBM patent.
Ugly site (Score:2, Funny)
"SCO purports to be a respecter of intellectual property- but in fact at this time is violating no less than four IBM patents" -IBM counterclaim
Re:It came from PDF (Score:2)
2. Format your HTML as beautifully as possible.
3. Print it to PDF. Optimize PDF [versiontracker.com] as desired.
4. Post HTML and PDF to website.
Four steps, one of them expensive, two of them you'd do anyway. One of them supports shareware.
So... (Score:5, Funny)
Wouldn't that be great if a big time lawer for IBM called a huge press conference to say just that?
"Thank you all for coming today. We would like to say, in response to SCO's most recent *finger quotes* allegations, that SCO is full of shit. Thank you all for coming."
Re:So... (Score:3, Funny)
ARMONK, NY - Aug. 8, 2003 -- "Dodge this."
Paranoia (Score:5, Funny)
Boy, that gave me a nasty start.
Re:Paranoia (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Paranoia (Score:4, Funny)
That sound you just heard was the heads of every single slashdotter simultaniously exploding...
CEO of RIAAA (Score:3, Informative)
Her name is Hilary Rosen (one "l" in Hilary)
She is the president and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, which is the long arm of the law for major record labels.
Q&A in Html (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Q&A in Html (Score:2)
Re:Q&A in Html (Score:3, Informative)
Err, what Mozilla are you using? My copy of 1.4 has no trouble. Mind you, it's not pretty, but neither are any of the Google-autoconverted PDFs; this looks similar to one of those. Perfectly readable though.
SCO this, SCO that (Score:3, Insightful)
Oooh! I don't have to read the article, I am going to guess... NO! Anyone who purchases a license from SCO is either extremely paranoid, or a moron. Granted, I would be paranoid too with the ammount of money that these lawsuits are generating.
The real question is will Al Franken defeat the "Fair and Balanced" Fox News.
Same old Same old (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Same old Same old (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Same old Same old (Score:5, Funny)
"It wasn't insider trading! I sold because it was common knowledge that we were fscked; hell, I read it on Slashdot fuhchrissakes."
why would a user pay for the seller's crimes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:why would a user pay for the seller's crimes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I think their claims have any merit, anyway...
Re:why would a user pay for the seller's crimes? (Score:2)
2. I don't know if their claims have merits, either, but saying that the user owes them money makes me think not.
PDF v.s. HTML (Score:5, Funny)
Re:PDF v.s. HTML (Score:2)
Good idea actually, as the HTML version stinks. Looks like they used google to convert PDF to HTML(!)
SCO? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:SCO? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:SCO? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:SCO? (Score:2)
Call to linux developers (Score:4, Funny)
This is made difficult by the fact that SCO refuses to tell anyone what code actually is "theirs" in the kernel, other than it has to deal with computers with more than one processor.. I'm just getting sick and tired of hearing SCO's lawyers and execs and everyone else flaming because they can't figure out who really owns the code.... It's disgusting really. Please help
Re:Call to linux developers (Score:5, Funny)
Actually I claim ownership over the whole of linux myself - I wrote most of it in my spare time using notepad on the computer here in my cube at Walmart's admin offices. Oh yeah, and some of it I wrote on my palm pilot on the bus on the way to work..
Why are you panicking? Life is full of people who act like bullies. Usually they get whats coming to them. The key here is to draw SCO so far into this that they overstretch themselves, go belly up and take their shareholders down with them.
Re:Call to linux developers (Score:2)
Even when the code is replaced, SCO would still be legally entitled to whatever damages were appropriate for infringement in the first place (assuming they ever had a case), and the amount that they could be eligible for would not and could not change based on whether or not or how long it took to replace the code.
What's really bizarre is that this shows that SCO's reasoning for refusal to publically disclose the location of the code in question is ra
Re:Call to linux developers (Score:2)
No. It is neither appropriate, nor reasonable, for hard working developers to throw out the code they wrote and reimpliment it anew because a dying company, owned by a group of litigious thug
Only Windows and UNIX? Yeah right... (Score:2)
That's fsckn hilarious...I have a whole herd of computers that don't run either Windows or UNIX. They run the old-school classic MacOS. Most run 7.5.3 (Unity) but the newer ones run 9. I'm sure folks who run AmigaOS, BeOS and OS/2 and other classic-era operating systems are chuckling right now.
Oh yeah, I actually bought DR-DOS a long time
Already Started (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I wait for Stallman to put a price on my head for not only calling the Hurd Linux, but also for not calling it GNU/Hurd and GNU/Linux. :)
SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are anyone that you know runs SCO, find out why, and have the software that runs on SCO ported to Linux. It's usually quite easy, and it makes your skin feel better knowing that your SCO free. Somone (wink wink nudge nudge) should put up a web site that counts the number of SCO de-installs since the law suit was filed. I bet such a web site wouldn't make SCO stock holders feel so good. I've de-installed SCO from the 2 machines - any one else?
cluge
Re:SCO (Score:2)
Re:SCO (Score:2)
Outstanding achievement (Score:5, Funny)
Finally legalese I can understand
The Current SCO Situation...via the medium of song (Score:5, Funny)
Please mirror and spread if you agree with the sentiment (if not the singing
The Asshat Song [heypod.co.uk] [2.73MB MP3]
To the tune of You're So Vain by Carly Simon
Re:The Current SCO Situation...via the medium of s (Score:2)
That's some funny ass shit!
I love it, thanks!!
Should I pay for a SCO license (Score:3, Informative)
The way I see it, Caldera gave it to me for free. They didn't have to, but they did choose to. If they wanted money they should have asked for it. Any code, propriorty or not, was given to me freely.
Because it was made clear on the CD I was sent in the mail I could make unlimited copies of it... SCO is NOT going to get any money from me.
Re:Should I pay for a SCO license (Score:2)
For God's sake - what kernel was that? Because it hasn't been until somewhere in the 2.4 that SCO claims this crap. 2.2, I believe, is supposed to be untainted. That old Caldera distro isn't relevant here.
Anagrams of "Santa Cruz Operation" (SCO) (Score:2, Funny)
ran crap zoo, sue titan
i can root azure pants
rapacious, not zen art
can't earn it, zap our os
ip rat unto an os craze
- a post one czar in a rut
Not written for us (Score:5, Insightful)
But, it is written for all the bosses out there that are scared with what is going on. My boss is worried about this whole thing because of a major prodoct that we are releasing that will run on a Linux server. He is concerned that if SCO wins, can we still use Linux.
I for one am going to be sending him this Q&A.
Like I said, we all understand that SCO is full of crap, but our bosses don't.
assume, assume, assume... (Score:2)
It's a good Q and A, but I'm concerned that busy execs will only rapidly skim it (if they ever even see it) and only hit the parts where it says:
Boycott SCO (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Boycott Canopy Group (Score:5, Informative)
---
salesinfo@altiris.com
help@customercare.a
support@culturegrams.com
sales@cente
sales@cerberian.com
sales@cogitoinc.com
yslew@datacrystal.com
info
info@directpointe.com
info@fat
info@geolux.com
sales@helius.com
in
sales@iArchives.com
sales@in
brutledge@linuxnetworx.c
tyler@luxul.net,
sales@maxstream.net,
jclary
info@mti.com,
pr@myfamilyin
info@perimeterdata.com,
ProTools@SaberToo
ronastarns@aztecenterprises.com,
sa
info@trolltech.com
info@tuglet.
sales@viawest.net
Sales@wrenchead.com
---
I have worked in IT for 25 years, and have been involved in several major purchasing decisions.
I am infuriated at SCO/Canopy's attempts at fraud and extortion. As well as SCO's FUD campaign against Linux.
As such, I will no longer purchase, or recommend the purchase, of any products or services from any company that is even partially owned by SCO/Canopy. I intend to encourage my colleges to do the same.
Intel Skips SCO Forum Only HP left (Score:4, Informative)
Let me suggest you all email HP
Mod parent up! (Score:3, Interesting)
It appears that in the end, IBM is the only HW manufacturer worth supporting.
Re:Boycott Canopy Group (Score:3, Informative)
info@trolltech.com
Whoa...what's Trolltech (the makers of Qt) doing there? I can't believe that Trolltech would want to be associated with SCO in any way.
Hmmm, just found this:
Myth: Trol [urbanlizard.com]
Re:Boycott SCO (Score:2)
I can encourage others to boycott and refuse to do business with people who have bought from SCO in the time since they announced their war against all that is good and pure in the software world. But I doubt they will survive that long. They've broken a dozens of laws, violated at least 400 copyrights (that I know of), and more. If businesses don't sue them out of existence, the US legal system will tear th
An Allegory: The SCO Poker Game (Score:5, Funny)
There's a poker game on. Texas Hold 'Em.
There's five cards on the table.
The first player is from Utah.
He says "I got Ace High. I win the hand."
The second player. They call him the Finn.
He's got lots of friends, says "Show me your cards then."
Utah says "No, just hand over your cash. You don't need to see my cards."
Then the third player, Bluebeard pipes up: "Well I got a flush. So I beat ya anyway."
Utah says "Show me *your* cards then."
Bluebeard replies "Nope. I'm gonna wait to see your lame ass ace."
Utah smiles nervously "Did I say ace high? I meant four aces. Yeah. Four aces."
Now the silent fourth player, Berkeley pipes up
"Well I got a Royal Flush and I've had it since the flop."
But Utah has turned to Joe at the bar and says
"Well, you owe me $32 for this game."
Joe looks puzzled "But I ain't even playing the game."
Utah gets a mean look now and starts sweating.
He pulls his guns and shouts "Look, just give me your money now. No questions. I MEAN IT!"
Suddenly Utah is surround by a whole boatload of guns.
There's Joe Public, he has no guns, but good fists,
Linus the Finn and his friends have guns, but they rarely use them,
they're rumoured to be really quick on the draw.
Berkeley is calmest of all, he's won a gunfight just like this one already.
Finally Utah turns to Bluebeard. He has a shotgun.
Bluebeard smiles, and pulls the trigger.
And that's the legend of how old SCO died.
SCO's bulletproof action plan: (Score:5, Funny)
Scam Con & Overcharge (NAZDAC: SCO) today announced a barrage of new lawsuits against users of pornography processing software called Linux. A proprietary IBM product, Linux allegedly violates SCO intellectual property. This new development comes on the heels of another SCO lawsuit against God for denying immortality to SCO CEO Darl McBurglary.
"Women and young children are viewing cartoon images of NAKED penguins!" shouted McBurglary, throwing his coffee mug across the room during an interview. "It's disgusting! And besides, it contains OUR intellectual property! It's a conspiracy! And everybody's in on it!!!"
When asked which SCO intellectual property was found in Linux, McBurglary commented, "IBM invented, developed, trademarked, copyrighted and patented certain technologies. Therefore, they are infringing on OUR intellectual property rights!"
SCO spokespersons refused to specify what constitutes the allegedly infringing properties. McBurglary had to be escorted back to his home at the looney bin by two big black guys in pinstriped suits. "Die, fucker, die!!" he yelled at some child walking down the street with a stuffed penguin doll. (I know we're only joking, but with SCO, it could happen!)
OSDL Attorney Declares SCO Invalid (Score:5, Funny)
right after "SCO attorney declares GPL invalid"
What Is A Shame... (Score:3, Insightful)
Conectiva Linux Position (Score:4, Informative)
"There is no evidence that any piece of the Linux Kernel, from version 2.4 up, is of SCO intellectual property."
I just wonder if there is anyone out there that supports SCO in its claims.
I hereby nominate (Score:5, Funny)
Free Legal Research (Score:2, Insightful)
Not that SCO has much of chance, it just seems intersting that pretty much everyone who is anyone
Anyone notice this?? (Score:3, Funny)
interesting links?? (see below)
Coincidence??? Or prophecy?????
Sponsored Matches
(What are Sponsor Matches?)
Avoid Bankruptcy - Learn to Manage Your Money! Free Credit Counseling Services & More
Bankruptcy Alternative - Savings to 70% on Credit Card Debt on $20,000 up: Call 866-7xx-xxxx
"I Filed Bankruptcy" - Read my story and see what it is really like before you file
Patents and other IP claims (Score:2, Interesting)
Meanwhile, SCO has conveniently
Clip from one of the Federal IP offices (Score:2)
The repression of unfair competition is directed against acts or practices, in the course of trade or business, that are contrary to honest practices, including, in particular:
* acts which may cause confusion with the products or services, or the industrial or commercial activities, of an enterprise;
* false allegations which may discredit the products or services, or the industrial or commercial activities, of an enterprise;
* indications or allegations which may mislead th
If you get a SCO invoice: Claim Mailfraud (Score:5, Interesting)
IRA McGee [linuxtoday.com] over at LinuxToday had a brilliant suggestion, if you get one.
Call your local USPS or FBI and claim MailFraud [federalcrimes.com]
the objective of mail fraud is to accomplish a desired result by deception, trickery, concealment, and/or dishonesty, albeit through the use of the United States Mail Service or other private/commercial interstate carriers
This is taken serious and hopefully will result in Darl getting his behind serviced on a regular basis.
Finished the DRDOS lawsuit, need something to do? (Score:2, Funny)
3 months ago this was wound up [theregister.co.uk]. I suppose SCO's lawyers need to keep looking busy. Or maybe there's something more sinister going on, since this is Slashdot?
Doesn't completely answer indemnity problems... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're a big company, say Citibank, and you're considering whether or not to use Linux, or ANY open source or free software for that matter, (including sendmail, bind, etc), you have to consider what the risk is that someone has slipped code into the software that is under intellectual property restrictions. Take, for example, a patent. Suppose someone puts a challenge response antispam system into sendmail. Right or wrong, mailblocks claims to own the patent on that type of system. Mailblocks is not a party to the agreement between sendmail.org and Citibank, and they see that Citibank is infringing on their patent without a license. Mailblocks can sue Citibank for patent infringement, and Citibank doesn't have anyone to go to in order to complain because there is no indemnification provided by the license to use sendmail.
The indemnification problem is NOT specific to the SCO case. But looking at the case points out that there is a general problem. It means that anyone who uses free/open-source software has to consider the additional risk of potentially getting sued into oblivion by some unknown 3rd party with a patent portfolio.
And before you think I'm making this up, read this. [gigalaw.com]
I don't have an answer for this, short getting rid of software patents. Some please tell me there's another way to see this.
Re:Doesn't completely answer indemnity problems... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't completely answer indemnity problems... (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO-Linux EZ registration kit! (Score:5, Funny)
we good folks at Blackbag Opz have completed work on an all new registration kit for the confused.
Just run *this* [sourceforge.net] easy to use SCO Registration Kit,
fill in the blanks, check "Number of Cycles, Infinite" and press the SEND button.
Sit back and wait while your SCO-Linux EZ registration kit does the hard work for you!
And sleep well tonight knowing that SCO got your message!
even IF code was leaked... (Score:2, Insightful)
Troll Alert (Score:4, Informative)
The original link, second paragraph, states:
In the so called repost this changes to:
Come on folks! Stop modding up these trolls.