SCO Gets More Desperate; Sends More Letters 449
isn't my name writes "The New York Times is reporting that SCO has sent new letters to Linux-using businesses with specific examples of infringement. SCO has its fiscal earnings call scheduled tomorrow at 11am. In all probability, these letters are designed to get analyst/reporter interest focused on their claims instead of the numerous fundamental problems with their case. So, slashdotters, we need to find a copy of the letter and tear it apart with specificity before tomorrow morning in the US East Coast, so that any analysts/reporters will not be distracted."
Why do they -need- this response from their 6000? (Score:5, Interesting)
--
SCO, based in Lindon, Utah, is also sending letters to many of its 6,000 Unix licensees requiring them to certify in writing that they are complying with SCO licenses, a company executive said. SCO's Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux.
Why is this necessary? is it all media show just to look like they're being exceptionally diligent in keeping their property under control, leaning on their licensees to make sure they don't bring up a situation like they claim is happening with IBM, or are they asking for something MORE than is in the original 6000 unix licenses?
Presumably, those licenses (for real SCO Unix customers) already prohibit the revealing of code from SCO products to Linux or anything else, so this step of having those licensees say "no we're not contributing" looks to be a double up of effort. They've signed those licenses, isn't that already enough?.
However, the wording as stated in the article may be relevant. It seems a pairing of two things that may not be related; "certify that you are complying with SCO licenses AND that none of your employees have contributed to Linux". It sounds a little like if you're trying to defend yourself against a drunk driving charge, and are being asked to sign a document saying "certify you did not drive while intoxicated AND that your car now belongs to me". You can refuse and it sounds you're saying you did drive drunk, or you can sign and you've given up your car. There's probably a legal term for this tactic, but of course, IANAL. IANEAP.
So do those existing 6000 licenses NOT cover things adequately? Is it possible those licenses may through loopholes, or just by their very nature, allow some level of code copying as the licensees need, into other products, and SCO is trying to plug a hole that could be undermining them? Is it a double up of what's already in the license, or a way of sneakily extending that license?
Or are they hedging bets, to give them more ammunition/evidence to sue their own customers if the IBM case fails.
Re:Why do they -need- this response from their 600 (Score:5, Interesting)
It does however give them a signed document they can produce in a courtroom if one of your employees is found to have contributed some "infringing" code to Linux however. If I were one of SCO's customer's I'd be very worried they were about to pull an RIAA and start sueing the hand that pays the bills real soon now... Now *there's* the legal weasel tactic we all expect from SCO.
Re:Why do they -need- this response from their 600 (Score:5, Interesting)
Whoops. You're right there.
the latter *is* wrong unless the license of the Unix code concerned permits this, SCO's license does not.
That's the bit I didn't know and the reason I threw those thoughts together in my post, which is all quite a bit of a paranoid rant - they're my thoughts all the same.
If I were one of SCO's customer's I'd be very worried they were about to pull an RIAA and start sueing the hand that pays the bills real soon now... Now *there's* the legal weasel tactic we all expect from SCO.
Linux users, their own customers.. who next? Their ex employees? current employees?
(paranoid, yeah
Re:Why do they -need- this response from their 600 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why do they -need- this response from their 600 (Score:5, Interesting)
The case shows how dangerous IPR in the hands of failed companies may become.
SCO's action has to be investigated because of capital market fraud.
Re:Why do they -need- this response from their 600 (Score:5, Informative)
SCO fined $10,800 for Linux claims, IDG
http://www.tarent.de/html/tarent-vs-sco/030612_
Q & A tarent v. SCO
The Landgericht Munich I has enjoined SCO from claiming and from distributing the assertions in the course of its business activities
1. that the software Linux" contains SCO's intellectual property that has been unlawfully obtained
2. that end users who apply Linux are liable for intellectual property infringements towards SCO,
and / or
3. that LINUX is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX,
as far as such assertions are not proven to be true.
Re:Why do they -need- this response from their 600 (Score:5, Interesting)
If a company (lets say... IBM) creates a software form which is copyrighted, they can choose exactly what to do with it. If they want to release it under the GPL, they can do that. If they want to release it to SCO for inclusion in Unix, they can do that too.
Note that, because it is possible for the copyright holder to release exactly the same code under both the GPL and another form of license, should they so wish. They can also create derivative works of the original code of theirs and distribute those derivative works as they see fit.
OpenOffice/StarOffice works on this principle, as (i belive) does one or more of the SQL implementations.
What SCO are claiming in this case is that IBM have effectively assigned all copyrights to SCO for the code in question, and/or that by licensing the code to SCO for use in Linux, the same code cannot also be Licensed for use in Linux. This is a gross misstatement or misunderstanding of the GPL and copyright law.
As copyright holders, IBM can allow anyone they feel like to use their code (including anything they have written regarding JFS, NUMA and SMP).
Note that this means that the code in UNIX does not mean that any part of UNIX will have to be placed under the GPL.
See the Groklaw Article
And with that fact in mind we refer you to the RedHat case on anti-competitive practices.
Re:Why do they -need- this response from their 600 (Score:5, Informative)
Not quite. SCO (in their actual lawsuit against IBM, rather than their press FUD) are claiming that the terms of their license with IBM mean that any code that IBM develops which is a 'derivative work' of Unix can not be redistributed.
In this case, because NUMA et al are so closely bound to Unix, SCO are claiming they count as derivitive works, and are thus covered by the SCO/IBM license agreement, and should not have been included in Linux.
Despite this being a case about breach of contract, ie the Unix license to IBM, SCO are pitching it in the media as a breach of copyright case.
SCO still haven't made a single legal move that directly implies there is actual original SCO code (as opposed to IBM developed derivative code) in Linux, only lots of shouting and FUD. So legally speaking this is all about breach of contract by IBM, not breach of copyright by Linux users.
Re:Why do they -need- this response from their 600 (Score:5, Informative)
More specifically, IBM managed to score a clause in their contract with AT&T that allows Big Blue to keep copyright and control over any additions to and derivative works it creates from SysV. It has been noted, however, that the technologies in question were created by Sequent, which did not have such a clause in their Unix licence. IBM purchased Sequent, and the dynix/ptx-related SMP code. It was theorized, on
Although this seems like a potential avenue of victory for SCO, their total lack of cooperation so far with the discovery process and the court indicates they may not even have solid footing on these grounds. They could not cough up anything useful for discovery, in a lawsuit they initiated, and still haven't done so. Yet, the company has time to draft threatening letters with a list of filenames, which presumably have code they could present as part of their case.
Barring a surprise twist, I think SCO's shareholders are in for a sick surprise when the execs take the money and run.
Re:Why do they -need- this response from their 600 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why do they -need- this response from their 600 (Score:5, Funny)
I Am Now Eating A Pie.
I'm not sure why the orignal poster felt the need to inform us of his diet though.
Re:Why do they -need- this response from their 600 (Score:5, Funny)
Copyright is copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
For a group of people who make their living in software, slashdotters sure do hate it when someone el$e tries to!
yeah, yeah, I know... -1 flaimbait. *sigh*
Re:Copyright is copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
Assuming they are breaking it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Assuming they are breaking it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Copyright is copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Copyright is copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that even if they did have a legitamate claim their claim can't really cover what they are trying to do in any reasonable manner. They never even claim that any significant fraction of linux is built on infringing technology.
Suppose I had invented the computer with only a little help from an assistant (who perhaps now was dead). Then someone comes along and says that in some little piece of technology (say in the punch card reader mechanism..but I don't know this) my assistant had accidently copied it from them. Undoubtedly, if I knew what piece of technology was infringing I could easily engineer another solution. However, they won't tell me and demand royalties on every computer sold.
This goes beyond the pale even of using ridiculously overbroad patents to sue for money.
Re:Copyright is copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
If they can appear under the BSD license, then they can be redistributed with Linux, linked with GPLed works, etc.
If SCO wants to make a case, it's not going to be based on some BSD header files that consist of 50 lines of #define ERRNO -25.
Re:Copyright is copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, if they had a legitamate claim I would support them. But these scare tactics and Lionel Hutz style legal wrangling all seem like smoke and mirrors to raise stock prices. If as many lines of code are in Linux as they claim there are, then why keep it secret. Linux is open source so that infringing code is already in the public anyway.
Until they show me substance, my opinion about them wont change.
The sad thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rus
GOOD IDEA!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:GOOD IDEA!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't done the math, but there can't be that many outstanding shares of stock compared to the number of registered slashdotters.
Impractical of course, but as long as you're talking about a coordinated effort, why not just solve the problem entirely.
Re:GOOD IDEA!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, if thousands of Slashdotters were to place orders to buy at $0.50 with their brokers, that might get Wall Street's attention.
sPh
Re:GOOD IDEA!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm, if every slashdotter bought a couple hundred dollars worth of stock, would that make us (as a group, disparate though it would be) majority stockholders, in which case we would have more pull to make them drop the suit?
I haven't done the math, but there can't be that many outstanding shares of stock compared to the number of registered slashdotters.
It might work out (if everybody ponies up enough dough to buy SCO's overinflated stock), but, knowi
Re:GOOD IDEA!!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:GOOD IDEA!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
So what you're saying is basically that we should Slashdot the stock market. Wouldn't that be considered a DDOS on capitalism itself?
Re:GOOD IDEA!!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:GOOD IDEA!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
How is it inside trading? Insider trading is typically when someone acts on company information that is NOT available to the general public. Anything discussed here on slashdot is by nature already available to the public, and we have a link to that information (article) for each story, and then all the comments are public for anyone to view.
A mutual fund is a bunch of people putting their money together and buying stock, and you can have stock clubs (groups of friends pool their money to buy stock) and none of that's illegal. The closest thing to illegal is if we have bad intent, like we're trying to artificially change the price of the stock.
But if they consider that a crime, they'd need to prosecute SCO first, because they're doing it in secret, and lying about it.
Re:GOOD IDEA!!!! (Score:5, Informative)
A bunch of
Re:Better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Ya know, when I first read this artical I had a thought. SCO's stock price being "artificaly pumped" with all this Linux BS and it is going to correct itself. So hell why not short it.
Because:
Re:Better idea (Score:5, Informative)
So far, so good.
Now, a couple of quibbles:
# Shorting requires collateral
True, but the profit from the sale of the borrowed stock usually provides most of the collateral. I've never tried makeing a short sale the only position in my account, so I don't know how much additional collateral would be required.
There are a limited number of shares of any companies stock that are available for short trading, you certainly can't have all of slashdot shorting SCO, there aren't enough shares for that
Actually, not quite. I can borrow some shares from you and then sell them to party C. You can borrow the same shares from party C and sell them to party C, and so could all of slashdot. There are always enough shares to sell. In fact, one block of shares would be enough to support all the shorts in the world.
The problem comes when it's time (see the next quibble) to cover those short positions. If we've all borrowed the same one-and-only block of shares, and sold it, then when we all have to cover our positions by returning the borrowed stock, we'll all be bidding for that one block of shares. Watch the price go through the roof! This is called a short squeeze, and it can happen whenver the short interest gets bigger than a fraction of a normal day's trading volume. SCO has way more short interest than that. Any time there's a stock price spike, a few shorts get margin calls and have to bid the price up further.
* Shorting includes a set date when you promise to buy back the shorted shares.
I'm pretty sure that this isn't so. To the best of my knowledge, there is no time limit on a short position, though usually people prefer not to leave the ax hanging over their heads too long. If the price of the borrowed shares go up too far, the broker will demand that you deposit more money in your account. This is a margin call. If you cannot or will not meet the margin call, the broker will buy the stock to return what you borrowed, and your position has been closed out at a loss, which you will owe to the broker. You have been ``squeezed out''.
If you know SCO's going down, but guess wrong as to when, and their stock is still elevated when your date comes, you get mauled (hence the requirement for collateral).
This is right, except that even if you are dead on about when, if it goes up before it goes down, you can get squeezed out, and wind up with nothing to show for it but a bill from your broker.
Summary:
If you learned something from this, don't try to short SCO! You aren't nearly experienced enough, and Slashdot isn't the place to get investment advice, except DON'T DO IT!
NYT arcticle (for he privacy concerned) (Score:3, Informative)
By STEVE LOHR
Published: December 22, 2003
he SCO Group plans to announce today that it is escalating its campaign to collect license fees from corporations using the Linux operating system, with warning letters to the companies. Supporters of Linux, including I.B.M. and other companies, say that SCO's interpretation of its claim over Linux is exaggerated.
The letters, dated Friday, are the second round that SCO has sent to corporate users of Linux. SCO sent letters to 1,500 companies in May, warning them that it contended that Linux had violated its intellectual property rights. SCO owns the rights to the Unix operating system. The company asserts that Linux, a variant of Unix that is distributed free, violates SCO's license and copyright.
The new letters, signed by Ryan E. Tibbitts, SCO's general counsel, name more than 65 programming files that "have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted Unix code base and contributed to Linux."
The letters focus on application binary interfaces, the programming hooks by which a software application gains access to the underlying operating system. "We believe these violations are serious, and we will take appropriate actions to protect our rights," the letters state.
Letters asserting copyright violations in Linux are being sent to several hundred of its corporate users. SCO, based in Lindon, Utah, is also sending letters to many of its 6,000 Unix licensees requiring them to certify in writing that they are complying with SCO licenses, a company executive said. SCO's Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux.
The warning letters come after David A. Boies, a lawyer representing SCO, said on Nov. 18 that the company intended to single out and sue a large corporate user of Linux within three months.
The letters include an olive branch as well as a threat. "Once you have reviewed our position," the Linux letter said, "we will be happy to further discuss your options and work with you to remedy this problem."
SCO began its Linux campaign last March, when it sued I.B.M., the leading corporate champion of Linux. SCO, seeking $1 billion in damages, has accused I.B.M. of illegally contributing Unix code to Linux. I.B.M. has denied the charges.
On Dec. 5, a federal district judge in Utah ordered that within 30 days, SCO had to show the court and I.B.M. the Linux code to which SCO claims it has rights and where I.B.M. has infringed upon it.
Re:NYT arcticle (for he privacy concerned) (Score:5, Interesting)
As a small company who's lifeblood depends on Linux, it'd be great if we came together to fight SCO if and when the time comes. Pooling our resources would likely work much better than going it alone. It really does give me pause when wondering what I'd do if I were the recipient of this letter.
This whole deal is aggravating to others I'm sure; we want to focus our time and energy on technology, not on what we'll do if SCO starts demanding thousands of dollars from us.
$60/Month Colocated Linux Server [aktiom.net]
Re:NYT arcticle (for he privacy concerned) (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed, a difficult question. The paper is probably far too hard and scruffy for the obvious use, unless you've got an unusually thick-skinned arse...
On the other hand, however, the letter certainly makes some nice kindling for the fireplace ;-)
65 files! (Score:5, Funny)
Excuse me, I meant to say 65 files that have been copied verbatem into the Linux kernel.
And no, I cannot actually show you the list. Revealing the files would compromise the ability of our brave pattern matching experts to compile further lists.
Good Night, and God Bless Unixware.
quote discussion (Score:4, Interesting)
"The new letters, signed by Ryan E. Tibbitts, SCO's general counsel, name more than 65 programming files that "have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted Unix code base and contributed to Linux.""
and
"SCO's Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux."
and
"The letters include an olive branch as well as a threat. "Once you have reviewed our position," the Linux letter said, "we will be happy to further discuss your options and work with you to remedy this problem.""
hmmm...reaching for payoffs anyone?!
Re:quote discussion (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone else think "Pay us, or we'll hit you with olive branches!"? Could be quite painful - I'd comply if I received a letter like that...
Interesting turn of phrase... (Score:5, Insightful)
more than 65 programming files that "have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted Unix code base
So - they're saying that the files themselves have been copied "verbatim" - not that the files contain code that had been copied verbatim..
If this is true (and not a misinterpretation, or the result of judicious editing), then it would be pretty simple to call SCO's bluff, no? You just get a copy of the letter, and take a look at the files in question.
Now the question is: Did the reporter (or editor) do some doctoring, or is SCO actually identifying the alleged stolen code?
And can anyone get a copy of that letter?
Not a Single Reply (Score:5, Insightful)
Legalese: SCO's Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux.
Translation: Give us a letter which we can use as grounds or evidence against you, should we decide to file more lawsuits in the future.
Playbook:
The saddest part of this is that, in this day and age, I can spell "subpoena" without stopping to look it up.
Re:Not a Single Reply (Score:4, Funny)
Sub, meaning below.
Poena, referring to the projective portion of the male genitalia.
And thus, we discover the true meaning of the word sub-poena -- "below the projective portion of the male genitalia"... or, in more common parlance, "by the balls".
Do-Not-Mail List (Score:4, Funny)
That applies right? I don't want their telemarketing, "Register your copies of linux for only $699 per CPU"
Isn't that why Congress passed the anti-telemarketing bill right?
What next? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What next? (Score:3, Funny)
I must register my disapproval of this acronym expansion. I strongly resent being compared to SCO. You should not even be suggesting that SCO would do anything nice.
I'm bored with this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, it might feel like "we" are fighting them, but what's the result of that fighting? Do we just spread the word that people can get sued for using Linux, or do we convince people that it's safe to use Linux?
And how come we don't hear people saying that "we" should move to *BSD while this is going on, showing SCO that we rather not use Linux than pay them?
Ok, so it isn't always easy, or even possible, to move away from Linux, but why do most people seem to think that there's just "free" Linux or "pay to SCO" Linux?
Re:I'm bored with this... (Score:5, Informative)
Because SCO already said that they're going after BSD next [newsforge.com].
Re:I'm bored with this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Because SCO already said that they're going after BSD next.
Considering that SCO is on Microsoft and Sun's payroll, I'd think that EVERY non-MS or non-Sun OS product will be the subject of litigation, IF this travesty of a case succeeds.
And one can never tell whether it will or not. The Federal court system from top to bottom has clearly gone insane... Hell, laws can be passed now making it illegal to criticize SCO in ads 30 days prior to them having a board meeting and conference call...
Sound farfetched? It isn't. Once you've made a crack in the first amendment (Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech...), it's easier to use crowbars to widen it than it was to make the crack in the first place...
All it takes now is buying the right Congressmen. And the DMCA shows us how easy THAT is!
Here is the Letter (Score:5, Funny)
W3 0wn j00
r3g4rd5,
D4r1 Mcki1dd13
Actually, here's the real letter (Score:5, Informative)
The gist of it seems to be numerous copies of 'errno.h', 'signal.h', and 'ioctl*.h' in the various platform-specific ASM source files, 'bsderrno.h' and 'solerrno.h' in the sparc/sparc64 ASM sources, as well as the following files:
include/linux/ipc.h
include/linux/acct.h
incl
include/linux/a.out.h
arch
include/linux/stat.h
include/
lib/ctype.c
I need to do some code-reading myself, but as far as I'm aware all of those are part of the POSIX standard. I could be wrong, and even if they are in the POSIX standard, the files could be copies, but we'll have to wait and see from an official response from the kernel developers to see where these files come from.
Let's not rip them apart financially (Score:5, Interesting)
If SCO go bankrupt before the case gets tested in court it will leave a smear on the good name of linux.
Re:Let's not rip them apart financially (Score:4, Informative)
IF SCO goes belly up the assets don't disappear. Someone will buy them, and then they would have the right to pursue any litigation. More likely, though, is that whoever bought them would try to make peace and announce the claims were unfounded.
That said, SCO does not ever want to go to court. They are making their money now, and a trial could only hurt them. So if they don't go belly up they will drag things out as long as possible, and the problem will continue.
Say what? (Score:5, Informative)
Huh?
SCO is the one leaving a smear on the good name of Linux by making accusations of wholesale copyright infringement and theft. There are indications that SCO is involved in a pump-and-dump scheme, or at least a last-ditch attempt at grabbing as much easy cash as possible before the bottom falls out. If you haven't noticed, SCO hasn't exactly been forthcoming about what they claim Linux coders stole, something which may wipe out their case since it becomes obvious the legal action is not about legitimately correcting an injustice, but extortion.
If SCO ever comes clean with the kernel hackers about what specific code and other IP they claim is infringing, and if the kernel hackers fail to deal with what legitimate issues exist (if any, which at the moment does not appear likely), then it would smear the good name of the Linux community. Until then, the party acting in bad faith here appears to be SCO, while the Linux community, and the companies investing time and money in it, seem to be the ones that want to legitimately deal with copyright concerns--real copyright concerns, not vague claims of infringement that somehow keep turning out to be crap.
Re:Let's not rip them apart financially (Score:5, Funny)
you must aquit.
Registration-free link to NYT story (Score:5, Informative)
SCO hypocrits... (Score:5, Insightful)
from a company that willingly contributed with more than a few lines of code...
Half News, Half Propaganda? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, slashdotters, we need to find a copy of the letter and tear it apart with specificity before tomorrow morning in the US East Coast, so that any analysts/reporters will not be distracted.
This is about as bad as the stuff at indymedia.org! That's not news. In combination with the title of the story, SCO Gets More Desperate; Sends More Letters, this might as well be a political action site instead of a news source.
Michael, couldn't you just show an ounce of journalistic integrity and not accept stories with this much spin? Stating your opinion in something that's not an editorial doesn't help your credibility, either.
Re:Half News, Half Propaganda? (Score:5, Informative)
Pffft, Slashdot is not a news site. Slashdot links to news sites. They do no research of their own, and don't even bother verifying the validity of any of the articles. Indeed, all they have is editorial power. Remember, you're just posting a reply to a message about a news article.
Re:Half News, Half Propaganda? (Score:5, Funny)
I disagree. Logic dictates that to be a wanker you need to have a dick, it's not enough to be one.
More SCOmmy behavior (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, like any company with a legal department, or headed by someone smart enough to consult a lawyer will send ANYTHING like that to a litigious company like SCO.
Actually, even that is wrong.. SCaldera isn't just a litigious company... All their R&D and PRODUCTION now is litigation!
If not for their friends at Microsoft, Sun, The Melinda Gates Foundation, and the idiots who keep buying their stock (Don't weep for these people when they lose it all, had they even done a GOOGLE search on SCO they'd have known not to invest) they'd have been bankrupt months ago.
slashdotting via phone (Score:5, Informative)
To hear the SCO call:
"Please join us by dialing: 1.800.289.0436 -or- 1.913.981.5507 Confirmation Code: 510065"
11:00 AM Eastern Time Monday
Re:slashdotting via phone (Score:3, Informative)
Listening in last time, it was pretty much the same thing. Everything was all about Linux this and that, protecting their IP and so forth. I'd never figured out exactly what IP they were referring to.
It's too bad I didn't get picked for the Q&A afterwards. I had a couple of juicy questions.
Classic case of... (Score:3, Interesting)
Just a simple question (Score:5, Interesting)
Just a thought...
Re:Just a simple question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just a simple question (Score:5, Funny)
Header Files (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone get the impression that SCO is claiming that lines such as:
in files such as time.h are violating their 'copyright'?
In that case, wouldn't it also be a copyright violation to quote the title of a book? US Law seems to be quite clear [ivanhoffman.com] that a thing like a book title cannot be copyrighted and plenty of boos share titles.
Re:Header Files (Score:5, Interesting)
Then there is the matter that Caldera released the Linux header files under the GPL, so if necessary a new copy of the Linux header files could be derived from GPL'd material (ie. the Linux header files Caldera released).
Re:Header Files (Score:5, Insightful)
Single out one corporate? (Score:4, Interesting)
Funny (Score:4, Insightful)
only 65 files? (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting how they interpret the need to let customers remedy the situation. They don't tell you how to fix the source and be free of them. They force you to pay them licensing fees.
Even Microsoft was allowed to remove the offending plug-in patented technology from IE as part of a remedy.
hmmm
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter much what analysts think about the case itself. What matters is what analysts think other people think about the case. Even if every analyst on earth would think the lawsuit was fraudulent, doesn't mean they wouldn't recommend buying stock, because people are doing it anyway.
Chewbaca defense! (Score:5, Funny)
How can they be distracted? Just look at SCO's case:
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk who carried a gun and ran from the mob. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense.
But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case. Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer trying to prove SCO's case and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must find Linux guilty of copyright violation and find the GPL invalid.
I know SCO seems wrong. But ladies and gentlemen this is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a worthless software company'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 agree with SCO. Here look at the monkey, look at the silly monkey.
Re:Chewbaca defense! (Score:3, Funny)
Copyright is only ownership (Score:5, Informative)
- Copyright is a statement of
ownership - The fact that code that is copyright SCO is in Linux
means nothing. They own that source code which is copyrighted by
SCO, and it has nothing to do with whether or not it is linked into
Linux, and SCO's rights to control Linux.
- License is a statement of
permission to use - It is nothing more than permission given to
you by the copyright owner, and the ways you can use the code.
- Contract is an agreement -
A contract is an agreement with enumeration. From what I remember
from business related courses, you must have some form of payment in
order to to make a contract binding.
If copyrighted SCO code was contributed to Linux by SCO employees, and SCO management did not approve, then SCO was damaged by those employees, not Linux users. SCO can request that the code be removed and users running that code may be requested to stop running that code, but this must be done in a reasonable manner. They cannot go back and seek damages from the users, because they are innocent third parties. Damages would be limited to the guilty parties, presumably the SCO employees. If it was IBM instead of SCO employees, and IBM has a license that says the source code cannot be used in whole, or that anything derived from that code cannot be used, then SCO has a case against IBM, not the end user.Licenses that come with commercial software are embodied in a contract, and this is where the confusion usually comes in. You pay, you agree to the terms contained within the contract by some action, such as clicking on button in a dialog or ripping clear plastic off the media, and the contract then grants you a license. What is generally termed a license is really a contract, and this ends up confusing the general public.
There is significant controversy in the media over whether or not GPL is valid, and what it means, but in reality this is simple. GPL is permission given by the licensor, presumably the copyright owner, to the licensee to use the code, how to use it and under what conditions it is permitted. The only problematic area is the redistribution clause in GPL limits how much you can charge for redistributing the code. It mentions money, and therefore tends to pollute the license, so now its terms are no longer black and white, but it is still a license. Presumably, SCO was aware of the license when their code made it into Linux. Since they were distributing the code, including code they owned, in the form of a distribution under their trademark, it is difficult for SCO to argue their case. Most likely, they were aware of the situation, and knowingly distributed the code under the same GPL license. They accepted it, and to now claiming ignorance is questionable, at best. I doubt veracity of recent statements because of this.
If you are an end user and get one of their letters, do nothing, as any action you take may work against you. If you are part of the media, ignore it as it is just another attempt by SCO to manipulate you and have Linux tried in the court of public opinion.
Again, I am not a lawyer, just someone who has had to deal with them in this respect. This is only my opinion. Contact a lawyer for legal advice.
You're wrong on a key point (Score:4, Insightful)
No, copyright is simply a limited monopoly provided by the government to give the copyright holder the ability to limit distribution.
You cannot own an idea.
DMCA? (Score:5, Informative)
DMCA Notification Letter
SCO has commenced providing notification to selected Fortune 1000 Linux end users outlining additional violations of SCO's copyrights contained in Linux. Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces have been copied verbatim from the UNIX System V code base and contributed to Linux without proper authorization and without copyright attribution. Any part of any Linux file that includes the copyrighted binary interface code must be removed. This ABI code was part of a 1994 settlement agreement involving the University of California at Berkeley and Berkeley Systems Development, Inc., (BSDI).
Their stupidity never ceases to amaze me. Well, if it "must be removed", then tell us what is it that "must be removed", dammit!
Also note that they claim that the ABI code was part of the settlement between UCB and BSDI (and SCO/ATT/Caldera/Novell are neither of those two...) :-)
65 header files? (Score:3, Funny)
SCO reports LOSS for Q4 (Score:5, Informative)
Fourth quarter revenue from UNIX products and services was $14.0 million. In addition, revenue generated from the Company's SCOsource licensing initiative was $10.3 million, which was derived from licensing agreements reached with Microsoft Corporation and Sun Microsystems, Inc. earlier in fiscal 2003.
For the fourth quarter of 2003, the Company reported a net loss to common stockholders of $1.6 million, or $0.12 per diluted common share. Excluding the previously reported charge of approximately $9.0 million incurred in connection with its October 2003 private placement for compensation paid to law firms engaged to enforce its intellectual property rights, the Company would have reported net income for the fourth quarter of $7.4 million, or $0.44 per diluted common share. The Company reported a net loss to common stockholders of $2.7 million, or $0.26 per diluted common share, in the comparable quarter a year ago. A GAAP reconciliation of net income (loss) and earnings per share for the fourth quarter and fiscal 2003 excluding the above charge is included in the financial tables at the end of this release. ...
legal money's worth? (Score:4, Funny)
Final Solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Linus should finish the SCO matter by asserting his copyright
to the majority of the Linux kernel.
Forbid SCO to copy or duplicate his kernel.
Then he can sue SCO a mere $699 for each infraction. Poetic justice.
Translation: (Score:3, Funny)
But wait, we're still overlooking.. (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing I am seeing overlooked over and over, is the actual business perception to Linux adoption.
I spoke with a client the other day on a concall, a very large hotel chain in the US, who were in the midst of replacing their CRM systems (front desk check-in systems) with Linux, 600 installs to start with. They wanted some ideas about how to consolidate their server facilities using Linux, and to remove the "low-hanging fruit" (Samba servers, print, file, domain controllers, web, etc.). They also wanted to know if we could 'guarantee' that they would not be sued if SCO wins this case. Since anyone offering such a guarantee would be risking a lot, I mentioned that it was impossible to "insure" against a lawsuit, especially in the U.S., where anyone can be sued for anything, wrong or right, frivolous or legitimate.
Since we can't offer a "Linux Guarantee(tm)", this hotel chain mentioned that they are internally budgeting $699.00 for each Linux deployment they do, to indemnify themselves against the chance that SCO may win, and may sue them.
This is reality .
Companies are unsure about whether Linux is violating SCO's IP, or not, but they don't want to take the chance, no matter how much we advocate, educate, and teach them about the frivolousity of this FUD and lawsuits.
Add to this, the "risk" to a company like this, if I, for example, contribute to Linux (the kernel, or the OS proper), and am an employee of this company. I am now a "risk" to them, because right now, I could be contributing to a project (Linux) that is violating a commercial company's IP (SCO). Companies do not want this risk, and you can bet I'd be laid off/fired for it.
Deploying Linux (right now, to them) is a "risk". Employing people who contribute to Linux is also a "risk", until this thing is settled in the courts .
This is going to affect a lot of industries, jobs, and employment, in an economy which is already ragged and in tatters. The "economy" as a whole is improving, financially, because domestic jobs are being eliminated and offshored. Let's not let it continue, because some commercial litigation company (SCO) decides they want a piece of the pie they don't own and didn't create.
You can see what files they're claiming (Score:5, Informative)
The infringing files (Score:5, Informative)
include/asm-alpha/errno.h
include/asm-arm/errn
include/asm-cris/errno.h
include/asm-i386/er
include/asm-ia64/errno.h
include/asm-m68k/
include/asm-mips/errno.h
include/asm-mip
include/asm-parisc/errno.h
include/a
include/asm-ppc64/errno.h
include
include/asm-s390x/errno.h
incl
include/asm-sparc/errno.h
inc
include/asm-x86_64/errno
include/asm-alpha/signal.h
include/asm-arm/si
include/asm-cris/signal.h
include/asm-i38
include/asm-ia64/signal.h
include/asm
include/asm-mips/signal.h
include
include/asm-parisc/signal.h
include/asm-ppc64/signa
include/asm-s390/signal.h
include/asm-s390x/
include/asm-sh/signal.h
include/asm-spa
include/asm-sparc64/signal.h
include
include/linux/stat.h
includ
lib/ctype.c
include/asm-alpha/io
include/asm-alpha/ioctls.h
include/asm-arm
include/asm-cris/ioctl.h
include/asm-i3
include/asm-ia64/ioctl.h
include/asm-
include/asm-mips/ioctl.h
include/as
include/asm-mips64/ioctls.h
inc
include/asm-parisc/ioctls
include/asm-ppc/ioctl.h
include/asm-ppc/ioctl
include/asm-ppc64/ioctl.h
include/asm-ppc64/
include/asm-s390/ioctl.h
include/asm-s3
include/asm-sh/ioctl.h
include/asm-s
include/asm-sparc/ioctl.h
include/asm
include/asm-sparc64/ioctl.h
incl
include/asm-x86_64/ioctl
include/linux/ipc.h
include/linux/acct.h
inc
include/linux/a.out.h
arc
include/asm-sparc/bsderrno.h
include/asm-sparc64
include/asm-sparc64/solerrno.h
I'm listening in on the call now... (Score:4, Interesting)
The letter is online at LWN (Score:4, Informative)
It asserts files like errno.h are infringing. It acknowledges these files were part of the BSDI/USL settlement but says that their use in GPL'ed software was not allowed by the settlement.
You're all missing a BIG hole (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's suppose that SCO indeed has the now just "65" copyrighted files in the kernel for an ABI (betting it's the Intel ABI). The reason they have to attack the GPL is because all their other claims are tripped up by it. Don't forget that Caldera/SCO shipped these same files under GPL from their web-site for quite a long time. In my mind - they have willing released those files under GPL by that action, consequently, they have no claim UNLESS they can get the GPL invalidated some how.
I'll further wager that those files got their as part of SCO's original business pursuits and were put their by SCO, and not IBM or others. I have no proof of that - just pure speculation on my part.
insider trading (Score:4, Interesting)
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 91 $15.05 0
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 300 $15.06 0
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 1,300 $15.056 0
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 4,949 $15.1 0
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 91 $1.12 91
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 300 $1.12 300
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 1,300 $1.12 1300
GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 4,949 $1.12 4949
OLSON MICHAEL P VP 11/11/2003 144 10,000 N/A N/A
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 82 $16.3 51830
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 100 $16.4 51912
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 100 $16.6 54717
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 100 $16.69 54817
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 500 $16.92 51330
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 563 $16.8 50767
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 1,100 $16.5 53617
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 1,350 $16.75 54917
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 1,605 $16.42 52012
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 4,500 $17.0 47330
OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 OE 5,500 $2.07 56267
OLSON MICHAEL P VP 10/11/2003 144 10,000 N/A N/A
OLSON MICHAEL P VP 09/11/2003 144 10,000 N/A N/A
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 23 $14.721 105300
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 300 $14.714 105000
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 400 $14.72 105323
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 4,277 $14.71 105723
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/26/2003 AS 5,000 $14.74 110000
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/26/2003 AS 5,000 $14.74 110000
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/19/2003 AS 700 $10.44 119300
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/19/2003 AS 4,300 $10.4 115000
BENCH ROBERT K. CFO 08/08/2003 AS 7,000 $10.9 221043
BENCH ROBERT K. CFO 08/08/2003 144 7,000 N/A N/A
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/05/2003 AS 1,900 $12.57 123100
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/05/2003 AS 3,100 $12.56 120000
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/30/2003 AS 100 $12.81 129900
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/30/2003 AS 4,900 $12.8 125000
HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 100 $13.35 23894
HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 100 $13.43 24494
HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 500 $13.4 23994
HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 900 $13.44 24594
HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 3,400 $13.3 20494
HUNSAKER JEFF F. EMP 07/23/2003 144 5,000 N/A N/A
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 100 $13.0 130000
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 100 $13.2 149900
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 200 $13.19 149700
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 800 $13.02 145900
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 1,300 $13.1 130100
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 3,000 $13.07 146700
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 3,700 $13.13 131400
BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 10,800 $12.91 135100
Re:Comic relief (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Comic relief (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Tomorrow? (Score:4, Funny)
A speaking clock is "2, Informative" nowadays?
I wonder if the poster would even pass the turing test!
WTF! (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, ignoring a problem just allows it to grow and get worse. Easier to face these off now before the media fuels 20 "Experts" behind it and has a Larry King Live with Darl McBride.
Re:Make the Press Work For US (Score:3, Interesting)
Or better yet: if each and every one who ever contributed code to the kernel (of his own, not copied from elsewhere...) would send a letter to SCO denying them all rights to use that code... Would make SCO's own distribution (Caldera?) pretty usele
Re:Make the Press Work For US (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately they can't, as they have already released the code under the GPL.
I do think however, that now would be a good time to create a modified version of the GPL that specifically bars SCO from using the code.
Especially for Samba.
Re:Make the Press Work For US (Score:5, Funny)
Re:SEC? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SEC? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SEC? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Don't not annoy securities regulators as they are fickle and quick to delist"
If SCO loses it's lawsuit (which as far as I can tell is almost a sure thing), their stock price is going to go straight into the crapper, at which time NASDAQ will delist them.
{yes, I am aware that the SEC and NASDAQ
Re:SEC? (Score:5, Insightful)