Slashdot Log In
SCO Prepares To Sue Linux End Users
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Aug 20, 2003 06:56 AM
from the bullying-tactics-101 dept.
from the bullying-tactics-101 dept.
Bootsy Collins writes "In a brief article,
Computer Business Review Online quotes Darl McBride as saying that SCO has been busily identifying Linux end users and is
preparing to launch lawsuits against them in order to encourage more such end users to buy licenses from SCO. SCO indicates that they'll start with a company that uses AIX, Dynix and Linux, so as to 'settle several legal arguments in one go.'" Not everyone is going to take the SCO approach sitting down; read on for a story on how (among others) Weta Digital and Australia's Massey University aren't jumping to say Uncle to SCO. Update: 08/20 13:11 GMT by T : Oops! Massey University is in New Zealand, not Australia.
Chris Brewer writes "Massey University's Helix supercomputer would incur a licensing charge of nearly US$100,000 for it's 132 CPU Beowulf cluster, and Weta Digital's render farm could cost somewhere between US$1.15 and US$1.5 million dollars at SCO's 'introductory' pricing, according to this Computerworld article. Massey's parallel computing director says it's unlikely that they'll buy a licence, instead, waiting for what the U.S. Courts decide. Weta's CTO Scott Houston says that they're also not going to buy a licence, but are focusing on making movies in the meantime."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
SCO Prepares To Sue Linux End Users
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 1209 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Koan (Score:5, Funny)
SCO answered: "There is no Linux, only SCO."
Thats Better... (Score:5, Funny)
the day can start now!
Re:Thats Better... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://google.com/)
Calvin Peeing on SCO (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.evilspock.net/)
Re:Calvin Peeing on SCO (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://umich.edu/~jamec | Last Journal: Monday November 19, @08:29PM)
Ask... (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.edmunds.com/)
http://homepage.mac.com/patgaddis/calvinpissingon
Re:Words to make the morning even better... (Score:5, Insightful)
So SCO says the GPL is invalid and won't stand up in court... but they use it as the basis to justify suing end users and hold them responsible for (supposedly) someone else inserting questionable code in the kernel? So which is it? Is GPL valid or not. Some of their claims depend on GPL being valid and others depend on it being invalid.
Re:Words to make the morning even better... (Score:5, Insightful)
That might be true if the user committed any sort of copying or distribution that did not constitute Fair Use and if they continued to do so after being reasonably notified that they were doing so in an infringing manner. Simple possession of a work does not violate any clause in Title 17 that I'm aware of. If you are aware of such a clause or a precedent in law that would be sufficient to back up the idea that simple possession of a work that was created or distributed in an infringing manner is illegal, please cite.
Patents are a different issue and there end users cannot use patented stuff without a license. To date I have not heard SCO once mention that they own patents that are being infringed.
Re:Words to make the morning even better... (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone else is responsible for the infringement and SCO knows who it is (apparently they do) then it is not reasonable to go after end-users who obtained the code in a legal manner from a source that they had a reasonable expectation to provide legal code.
Even if the end-user could in theory be guilty of copyright infringement, I don't think the user can be held responsible until SCO tells us all what sections of code are infringing. So far we just have idle threats with no evidence. If SCO were to let everyone know the supposedly infringing code I think we'd all take action to make sure we weren't using it. The fact that SCO doesn't tell anyone forces end-users to continue to infringe because we haven't been told what they think is infringing.
Basically, we can't do anything until we are sued by SCO. That's bogus.
The point is that even if the GPL is valid the end user is still responsible for any infringement.
I doubt that will be found to be the case if this goes to court. I think the infringement was committed by the people/persons/company that took code from SCO and put it in Linux (if it indeed happened). Those are the ones SCO needs to go after. Going after end users is like going after Honda owners because they own cars that happen to contain designs that Honda stole from Toyota.
Re:Words to make the morning even better... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've read that future editions of Ambrose's works will contain the correct attributions. How is this different that the potentially offending code being removed from the Linux kernel? And as far as I know there still isn't anything that compels me to purchase the newly corrected edition of the book. That would seem to leave it up to me to either upgrade/downgrade my kernel or not...
Re:Thats Better... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thats Better... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And here's another dose of humor from DiDio (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
From a little later in the article:
With as anal SCO is about showing people the code, I seriously find it hard to beleive that SCO just took her word on the agreement and still gave her the code. If she seriously did verbally agree to the NDA and planned on abiding by it, what difference does it make if you sign it? Does the Yankee Group really say "You can't sign NDAs, but you can give your word that you won't violate the NDA"?
Re:And here's another dose of humor from DiDio (Score:5, Insightful)
You can no longer can have faith in the Yankee Group's quality control and that this casts a great shadow of doubt over all their research reports. You can no longer trust their research when making decisions about IT investemts and industry trends, and you regret that you can no longer maintain a business relationship with the Yankee group.
But hard to get Linux experts to sign the NDA. (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday November 02, @02:49PM)
Not to mention that, as a Windows specialist, she has a vested interest in keeping its market share large enough that it remains newsworthy, so she doesn't have to retrain to stay in business. B-)
But by the same token signing the NDA could end the carreer of a Linux analyst. So it will be hard to get any to sign up just to view the internals of SCO's FUD.
World to SCO: (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.vems.co.nz/)
World to SCO: Fuck you.
No love lost here then...
Re:SCO to World: (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/na)
Fuck you too!
Seriously, this is the last death-twitch before the body stops moving. SCO is as dead as... death. Their tactics are getting more and more desperate, and they are trying to scare the world into believing their claims without presenting any real proof that the claims are valid. The bigwigs are selling off shares while they are still worth something, and as more and more information leaks out about the lawsuit, we get more and more confident that it does not have any valid grounds.
The code in the Heise screenshots was quickly identified and reviewed, and failed miserably - instead of proving to the Linux community and IBM that the lawsuit really could be something we need to think about, instead it proved the opposite.
My guess is this is what is going to happen:
1. More information about the code SCO claims infringes their copyright will leak out.
2. Code will be reviewed and shown as not proving SCO-s case.
2b. Code can not be shown as "innocent" and will be rewritten quickly.
2c. The Linux kernel will be cleaned from any "suspicious" code and released. Joe User with an x86 uniprocessor desktop architecure will be able to use the "clean" kernel right away.
3. SCO will fall apart together with the lawsuit.
In fact I don't think it will ever even come near a courthouse. My firm belief is that IBM and the Linux community will finally prevail and have an even better position than before the lawsuit.
SCO hasn't engaged in litigation, SCO has declared (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.exaflop.org/)
We shouldn't be worrying about the gritty details of what they are doing at treat this as what it is. SCO has declared war on the foundations of the open source community and we should be responding appropriately.
If they are claiming the GPL is invalid, the copyright holders of relevant software should be sending them personal letters telling them they are denied use of gcc, samba, apache, perl and all the other mainstays of modern computing that are released under the GPL. I'm not suggesting engaging in any illegal activity but what is kneaded here is attack rather than passive defence. Obviously the RedHat suit is a pretty good thing. The IBM counter suit I'm not sure about, there patent portfolio is a weapon that could just as easily be turned on us.
Re:SCO hasn't engaged in litigation, SCO has decla (Score:5, Informative)
(http://members.chello.be/cr50624/ | Last Journal: Tuesday July 29 2003, @02:24AM)
1 Freedom to use. A GPL licensed program can be used for any purpose whatsoever.
2 Freedom to copy and distribute. You are allowed to make exact copies and distribute these, in both source and binary code, as long as you grant the same right to the person you distribute it too.
3 Freedom to modify. You are allowed to modify the code in whatever way you want.
4 Freedom to copy and distribute modifications. Again, the distribution has to be in source and binary code, and it has to grant the same right to the person it is distributed to.
What you are proposing is breaking the 1st freedom; it is not because they claim the GPL is invalid that we believe so and should break it. A more valid request is IMHO the one GCC did, is to refuse to accept SCO specifics in the later (from now onwards) GCC versions. If they do want the GCC compilers, they'll have to branch them and maintain them themselves...
But I agree, a clear point should be made, they cannot expect to keep on benefiting from our efforts while at the same time attacking the fundamentals of the free and open software community. They basically declared war on us but still expect us to do work for them willingly.
Re:SCO hasn't engaged in litigation, SCO has decla (Score:4, Informative)
(http://antiwar.com/)
Actually the GPL does have a provision which automatically terminates the license if its provisions are not honoured.
Apache is not GPL, quite a bit of Free software is under BSD/MIT style licenses actually, but SCO has certainly terminated their own rights to use the stuff that is GPL because of that clause. It's just a matter of who has the money and time to C&D them and be ready to back it up with litigation.
Re:SCO hasn't engaged in litigation, SCO has decla (Score:5, Informative)
Ehm, IANAL, but I don't think so. The GPL covers distribution, not use. You don't have to agree with the GPL to use software it covers, that's only necessary when you want to distribute that software or derrived works.
Re:SCO hasn't engaged in litigation, SCO has decla (Score:5, Informative)
(http://antiwar.com/)
Yes, of course you're right, SCO still has the right, say, to run Samba on their servers.
But the main 'use' they engage in with Samba is modifying it and distributing it in their own system. That 'use' is in fact governed by the licensing which they have forfeited, and is therefore copyright infringement which the Samba team could pursue them for.
Re:SCO hasn't engaged in litigation, SCO has decla (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.inthri.com/)
Ahh, yes...there's this [smh.com.au] and this. [infoworld.com]
Does violating the GPL with one product (the kernel) violate it under another (samba)?
That is, could the Samba team actually file against SCO for injunctive relief to prohibit them from distributing Samba for license violation just because they violated the GPL where the Linux kernel is concerned?
And I do plan to terminate their license (Score:4, Informative)
(http://insecure.org/)
Yes, the GPL does have that handy section 4 whch allows for the termination of redistribution rights of any company that violates the GPL. I plan to exercise this (actually it happens automatically) to revoke their right to redistribute Nmap [insecure.org]. I just started on the wording and haven't run it by a lawyer yet (I will). But the announcement will probably be something like:
SCO Corporation of Lindon, Utah (formerly Caldera) has lately taken to an extortion campaign of demanding license fees from Linux users for code that they themselves knowingly distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL. They have also refused to accept the GPL, claiming that some preposterous theory of theirs makes it invalid. In response to these blatant violations, and in accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we hereby terminate SCO's rights to redistribute any versions of Nmap in any of their products, including (without limitation) OpenLinux, OpenServer, and UNIXWare.
-Fyodor
Concerned about your network security? Try the free Nmap Security Scanner [insecure.org]
Re:SCO hasn't engaged in litigation, SCO has decla (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.pctools.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday June 09 2005, @06:08PM)
1. To use GPL covered software you have to agree with the GPL.
2. SCO says GPL is invalid
3. Therefore SCO cannot agree with the GPL.
4. If you disagree with the GPL you are not allowed to use the software.
5. Kernel, GCC, GNU, samba, etc all sue SCO for violation of the license and SCO goes away.
*6. ???
*7. Profit
Note: * 6 and 7 are just for a bit of karma whoring
Re:SCO hasn't engaged in litigation, SCO has decla (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.aezis.net/)
And if code is unlicensed wouldn't SCO (and everyone else) be unable to use it wholly until it was relicensed formally under a different license?
So if sco win, they're guilty of using unlicensed code, if they lose, they're guilty of using unlicensed code =/
Re:SCO hasn't engaged in litigation, SCO has decla (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Copyright applies to all software. The GPL says, "This software is copyrighted, BUT we're going to allow you to do some things that copyright normally doesn't allow." If the GPL is found to be invalid, then GPL-licensed code is now technically unlicensed. However, that means that normal copyright kicks in. IANAL myself, but it seems to me that if something like Samba is no longer GPLed, then SCO has no rights to modify or distribute the code, since they have not made alternative licensing arrangements with the people who own/control Samba.
If that's true, then SCO is shooting themselves in the foot. Once the GPL is declared invalid, then SCO loses the ability to use any GPLed software until they make other licensing arrangements with the people who control/own that GPLed software.
Re:SCO hasn't engaged in litigation, SCO has decla (Score:5, Interesting)
The GPL thence is misnamed - it is more fo a copyright "rules of copying". As you have agreed to release your code under the GPL (read, rules of copying), the person doing the copying is bound by the rule you allowed or disallowed copying.
You follow me?
Okay, in this case the GPL says you are allowed to copy as long as you provide source code for free and a whole bunch of other blah in the same vein. As the copyright holder you are allowed to stipulate these resonable actions so that others may legally copy your work.
Thence, SCO is misstating the GPL - it is NOT a licence as per say. The only case the GPL has to be examined for is IF it is a resonable set of copying rules. I believe that as SCO has and continues to release code under the GPL, a case can be made they accepted these terms of copying as fair so to be honest even fi the first court has a brain fart and rules for SCO, it will not survive appeal. Copyright law is well understood and believe it or not, fairly clear.
SCO therefore they have a problem. Code is still copyrighted by the original writers and unless you public domain your right, it is never lost. SCO is copying Linux code AGAINST the wishes of the real copyright holders.
I'm afraid the GPL is better thought out that some realise and it's strength is the fact it is allowable under copyright law. That is a clear fact. The ONLY problem it could face is if it is an unresonable demand to grant rights of copying.
And if it is shown to be such, SCO is still fucked, cause they are distributing copyright code they dont own. Case reverts to normal copyright laws. All it will take is ONE person to sue SCO under copyright breach.
I really dont see how SCO can win.
That is a very, very bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://jm-smith.com/)
What do you do when SCO changes its name, is bought out by Microsoft (or IBM), or otherwise metamorphasizes itself through corporate/legal slight-of-hand. Do you ban the canopy group? What if canopy purchases an innocent bystander (if they haven't already)
SCO has violated the GPL on Linux. They are no longer allowed to distribute Linux under US copyright law, and they are violating that law massively even as I type this. That is enough.
Do not try to revoke SCO's GPL license to products they haven't violated the license of
Re:That is a very, very bad idea (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Re:SCO hasn't engaged in litigation, SCO has decla (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Saturday January 29 2005, @08:51PM)
The GPL expressly disclaims covering a "freedom to use", stating rather the following:
What does this mean? Not only does the GPL provide authors no handle by which to prevent someone from using the covered code, it also presumes that a user does not need additional permission from the copyright holder to use a copy which is legitimately obtained. If you buy a copy of a work, it becomes your property and you may use it; you need permission and licensure only when you wish to make and distribute copies.
The scammers behind proprietary licenses have come up with all sort of language to mask this fact: "licensed, not sold"; "you own the media, not the work"; and so forth, as if it were possible to deprive someone of a purchase retroactively by declaring it to have not taken place. (It isn't; if you walk into a store, and the store's staff and you carry out the overt ritual of selling and purchasing a given item, then you have purchased the item, even if a paper inside the box describes it as "licensed, not sold". Naturally, you have not purchased the copyright, but the copy you have purchased is yours to use or abuse.)
Vice versa, there is no way that SCO's post facto claims that the GPL is worthless can cause the GPL to be worthless to SCO. They may rail against it for years, and it will still be sufficient to grant them the right to copy and distribute binaries and source together. You can waive many sorts of right merely by saying you do, but the GPL isn't such a right. Rather, it is a grant of permission, which remains efficacious even if you deny it. No matter how much SCO says, "The GPL is worthless," they still have and hold the rights granted them under it.
That is, of course, one of its strengths.
Re:ABSOLUTELY FALSE!!!!! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://trolltalk.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday November 24, @08:16AM)
Here's the actual text: [gnu.org]
Note that this only applies when you are distributing the program in question, not when you are using it internally.So what's the problem? If you want to benefit from the community, but you don't want to put back in, don't distribute the program in any form, including binary.
Or you can distribute in binary and source form. Your intellectual property is still yours, but you've made it available for others to work with/improve. It's not a zero-sum game. You'll benefit in the long run.
Re:SCO hasn't engaged in litigation, SCO has decla (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://detroityes.com/index.html | Last Journal: Sunday May 09 2004, @02:04AM)
Companies that have been sued by SCO have bought their products from Red Hat or similar companies. This means, the responsibility actually falls on Red Hat and SuSe etc.
In essence SCO is suing Red Hat etc.
But Red Hat and SuSe are already suing SCO, and so is IBM.
This means the companies, users using linux aree insulated because their case will not proceed until the above cases are solved.
That means SCO can kiss my ass.
Re:SCO hasn't engaged in litigation, SCO has decla (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Monday June 30 2003, @05:54AM)
Technically, they can *start* a lawsuit without showing code. The initial complaint can be as little as a paragraph saying "They stole my code!" During the initial stages of litigation, they would have to introduce more evidence or the judge would eventually dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. To get scheduled for a trial they would have to show code. Unless they have a lot better evidence than what they showed at the SCOsource fiasco, they would get bounced in a heartbeat.
Also, Eben Moglen is right about the stupidity of Mark Heise's interpretation of the GPL as being preempted by the Copyright Act. (Heise is the lawyer representing SCO). If any lawyer were incompetent or malicious enough to waste a court's time with garbage like that they would likely get a stiff fine under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In layman's terms, Rule 11 is used by a judge to say "You have the nerve to bring that piece of shit argument into my courtroom?" It is hard to believe that Heise is really stupid enough to believe what he said so maybe he is just being deceptive. On the other hand, SCO has been repeating that reasoning in interviews with the press so maybe Heise and co. really are that dumb.
So take your pick--Heise is:
A. Dumb
B. Dishonest
C. All of the above
Why do you pretend you have a clue? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.pbs.org/w...rugs/special/us.html)
SCO is a professional organization with a good litigation team with a very good track record.
You're just throwing out assumptions like they were the gospel without bothering to consider that maybe 1 or ALL of your assumptions are wrong!
In layman's terms, Rule 11 is used by a judge to say "You have the nerve to bring that piece of shit argument into my courtroom?"
Do you really think SCO's lawyers are so enept that they're going to break Rule 11?
During the initial stages of litigation, they would have to introduce more evidence or the judge would eventually dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. To get scheduled for a trial they would have to show code.
What makes you think they WON'T show code in court? What makes you think they have to show ALL of the infringing code? Lastly, What makes you think they can't convince the judge to protect their "Trade Secret" from being dissemenated beyond the court?
Have you ever bothered to consider SCO is really fucking with our heads?
Consider Sun Tzu:
All warfare is based on deception.
Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;
when using our forces, we must seem inactive;
when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away;
when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
Hold out baits to entice the enemy.
Feign disorder, and crush him.
Rather than spouting conjecture about something you seemingly know very little about, maybe you should consider asserting fewer "facts" and asking more questions.
Re:SCO hasn't engaged in litigation, SCO has decla (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.rigidsoftware.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday September 24 2005, @11:58PM)
Patriot Act?
The Samba team has already sent SCO a letter (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.pcc-services.com/)
Over the past few months, the SCO (Santa Cruz Operation) Corporation (formerly Caldera International, Inc. a Linux distribution vendor) has been complaining about violations of its Copyright works by the Linux kernel code.
Recently, Darl McBride, the Chief Executive Officer of SCO has been making pejorative statements regarding the license used by the Linux kernel, the GNU GPL. In a keynote speech he recently said
"At the end of the day, the GPL is not about making software free; it's about destroying value."
In light of this it is the depths of hypocrisy that at the same event SCO also announced the incorporation of the Samba3 release into their latest OpenServer product. Samba is an Open Source/Free Software project that allows Linux and UNIX servers to interoperate with Microsoft Windows clients. The reason for this is clear; Samba3 allows Linux and UNIX servers to replace Microsoft Windows NT Domain Controllers and will add great value to any Operating System which includes it. However, Samba is also developed and distributed under the GNU GPL license, in exactly the same manner as the Linux kernel code that SCO has been criticizing for its lack of care in ownership attribution.
We observe that SCO is both attacking the GPL on the one hand and benefiting from the GPL on the other hand. SCO can't have it both ways. SCO has a clear choice: either pledge not to use any Open Source/Free Software in any of their products, or actively participate in the Open Source/Free Software movement and reap the benefits. For SCO to continue to use Open Source/Free Software while attacking others for using it is the epitome of hypocrisy.
The strength of Open Source/Free Software is that it is available to all without restrictions on fields of endeavor, as the Samba Team believes the ability to freely use, modify and learn from software code is one of the grounding principles of computer science, and a basic freedom for all.
Because of this, we believe that the Samba must remain true to our principles and be freely available to use even in ways we personally disapprove of.
Even when used by rank hypocrites like SCO.
Jeremy Allison,
Marc Kaplan,
Andrew Bartlett,
Christopher R. Hertel,
Jerry Carter,
Jean Francois Micouleau,
Paul Green,
Rafal Szczesniak.
Samba Team.
Breech the GPL (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
This does not mean I lose my license to distribute other products also licensed under the GPL.
Re:Breech the GPL (Score:4, Informative)
(http://antiwar.com/)
Actually it does. Violate the GPL on a GNU product and refuse to be reasonable when it's pointed out and they'll C&D you to cease modifying and distributing anything the FSF owns copyright on and licenses under the GPL, not just that one program. It's pretty clear in the license that this is the intent, and it's been asserted in the past. So far the violators have always backed down rather than risk their chances in court.
DO NOT PERSUE THIS APPROACH!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://jm-smith.com/)
Actually it does. Violate the GPL on a GNU product and refuse to be reasonable when it's pointed out and they'll C&D you to cease modifying and distributing anything the FSF owns copyright on and licenses under the GPL, not just that one program.
Yes, but the FSF owns the copyright on all those programs. The FSF cannot tell someone violating the GNU copyright (by violating the GPL) that they cannot use Linux (even though Linux is GPLed) because they do not own the copyright, and can therefor neither license, nor revoke the license of Linux. Likewise, Samba's copyright is owned by a different group of people than Linux, so the fact that SCO has committed massive copyright violations of Linux does not mean the Linux folks can revoke SCO's GPL license to Samba. And, since SCO has not violated Samba's license (the GPL) on Samba, at least to our knowledge, the Samba folks can't revoke that license either.
This is one of the reasons the FSF recommends one assign copyright to them when one GPLs a project...it does buy you a great deal of clout when things like this arise.
As it is, were the Samba folks (or the FSF) to attempt to revoke SCO's license on distributing GPLed software unrelated to Linux (the product whose copyright SCO is violating), I doubt very much it would hold up in court.
Think about it. The GPL doesn't allow willy-nilly revokation without cause, and your violating a license on Microsoft's code (even that small amount of code Microsoft has GPLed
I think any attempt to make one violation on one product apply to all licenses on all products who happen to be identically licensed won't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being upheld in court
Why not? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://antiwar.com/)
Look at this a little more closely.
It's true, of course, that they have standing to enforce copyright only where they own it. But don't confuse having standing to enforce copyright with license revocation.
In this case no person would be revoking the license except the licensee. The license terms are clear, if you violate them, the license is revoked automatically. Neither the FSF nor anyone else can revoke your license except for you yourself.
But if you do violate, and thereby revoke, your GPL license, then you stand in copyright violation any time you use any GPL code beyond your basic rights under copyright law. Since the violation is copyright infringment, it is up to the copyright holders to pursue legal sanctions if they wish. They have no obligation to, and so you might get away with it, but there is no guarantee - the copyright holder of any GPL code you are infringing on can serve you for it at any time once you revoke your license.
Now this is exactly what SCO has done - they've revoked their own rights to use GPL code, deliberately, and they've made an enourmous amount of noise about it. They're publically stating that they don't think the GPL is valid anyway. Well, if they don't think it's valid, how can they agree to it? If they don't agree to it, they have no right to use any code under it. They have no right to modify and/or distribute Samba, Linux, Gnome, the GNU toolchain... any of it. Both because they stand in violation of the GPL in the case of Linux specifically, and because their public statements make it clear that they do not agree to the GPL terms on the other packages which means that they have no license for those programs.
Now is it possible that a court would rule that the words of the GPL are not properly written to be able to enforce section 4 in this case? Sure. If so then it would be good to find out so the next revision can fix that. But even so the other line still means that SCO is practicing copyright violation in their use of any and all GPL software too. It's not uncommon or unwise to give courts multiple arguments in these cases, and the arguments can even contradict each other, that's not a problem. Look at SCO and IBMs court filings - both take this approach, saying A, then saying even if you reject A, then B, and in the event B is not true, then C must be...
Re:Breech the GPL (Score:4, Interesting)
But if you say that the GPL is not a valid license (which precisely what SCO is saying), you are therefore incapable of agreeing to it. You cannot distribute GPL'ed software without agreeing to the GPL license.
To quote from the GPL:
Boom.
Re:The Samba team has already sent SCO a letter (Score:4, Funny)
Even when used by rank hypocrites like SCO.
Goddam get these boys a beer. Open source commandos all the way. This warms my heart no end.
I aprove!
Re: Invalidating the GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?A=9713)
As I understand it, SCO isn't just trying to get the GPL declared invalid. They're trying to get the GPL declared invalid and all GPLed software declared public domain. Basically, their argument (however invalid it may be) is that anyone who gives you as much freedom as the GPL gives must obviously not care to do anything with their copyright, and therefore "GPL" == "public domain".
I personally find this "They gave us a piece, so they owe us the whole pizza!" argument reprehensible, but it seems as if it is perfectly acceptable to some people (read: SCO lawyers).
Re:SCO hasn't engaged in litigation, SCO has decla (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.michaelchaney.com/)
I've been saying this (and getting modded up) since SCO started, but nobody who matters cares. Linus et al need to start caring, because this is a major problem that is not going to disappear overnight without their involvement. SCO is currently guilty of massive copyright infringement, literally enough to shut the company down and possibly "pierce the corporate veil" and allow the officers to be pursued to help pay up. But they'll keep using that money to trash Linux and threaten others until someone does something about it. A lawsuit by Linus alleging that SCO is improperly using Linux code would allow him to subpoena their code without the stupid NDA.
It seems that the open source community thinks copyright law is something for the RIAA and MPAA to wield against file sharers. It works just as well for us, likely better since nobody likes the entertainment industry outside of Congress.
Anyway, you're right, it's time we go on the offensive. My suggestion was the establishment of a legal fund for offense, which is much more needed than Red Hat's defensive fund. Winnings would be split 50/50, with the copyright holder getting 50% and the fund getting 50% of the winnings. We'd be able to grow it within a few years to the point that nobody would want to mess with us, but only if people (e.g. Linus) pulled their thumbs out of their asses and started defending their property.
Michael
Jeebus... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday August 29 2002, @02:04PM)
Re:Jeebus... (Score:5, Insightful)
And the more ridiculous it gets, the better! The more SCO flail desperately around, attacking everybody around it, the more enemies and negative publicity they get. And that's great for us.
BTW, anybody notice how SCO's actions are more and more in line with Microsoft's wishes? Attacking GPL is one such thing, urging IBM and others to abandon their "futile" GPL use... Attacking Linux end users, trying to scare people away from Linux, saying how SCO code can not be removed from Linux, how the Linux business model is flawed... Many of their arguments don't even help their case at all, since they have no interest in doing Unix business anymore anyway. SCO is doing its best to drag the (once) good name of Unix (not just Linux, all of them) through dirt, making MSFT Windows look more and more attractive.
OMG (Score:5, Funny)
omg! they'll sue IBM again!
Re:OMG (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.indyassociates.com/)
omg! they'll sue IBM again!
No, they'll find a small or financially hurting IBM customer. Then they will settle for an undisclosed fee (where SCO gives financially hurting company a plane ticket to a news conference and a press release to put out). They'll do this a few times.
Their hope is that:
* The media will try the case and most users will lay down.
* They will get away with the trial by surprise strategy.
* IBM will be represented by the same people who represent the EFF.
The minute things go badly, heads will roll at SCO and this whole thing will be a misunderstanding. That's why it's critical that we start documenting actual dammages as a result of SCO's actions.
I'm sending for my law degree (Score:3, Funny)
(Last Journal: Friday February 04 2005, @10:11AM)
Until SCO gets squashed, they'll be working so many actions at once, they'll hire any lawyer with a pulse. They'll be lucky if the IBM suit isn't argued by paralegals.
Or maybe they'll just outsource the whole thing to India.
Re:I'm sending for my law degree (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Thursday July 25 2002, @08:36AM)
Massey is in New Zealand. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.vems.co.nz/)
Re:SCO r teh sux (Score:4, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday November 06 2002, @09:42AM)
Read... [urbanlizard.com]
Me [kde.org]
They have but 5.7% stake in the company. Canopy does technically control SCO, on the other hand. So, who's the real enemy here? Canopy, or SCO?
Oh goodie... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're making IBM's case for them.
Linux Counter (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.alessio.sevenseas.org/weblog/ | Last Journal: Thursday December 04 2003, @03:44AM)
can users infringe? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was under the impression that it was the distribution of copyrighted
materials that consituted copyright infringement, not the posession.
Is there a valid legal argument that makes users vulnerable to litigation
on the basis of copyright infringement?
Re:can users infringe? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.gamesurge.net/)
End users cannot infringe on a copyright unless they make unauthorized copies of the work -- users at home tend not to do this, but corporate users make enough copies that SCO could (if you assume they have a valid claim to copyright in the first place) claim that the corporate users infringe.
A person is only liable under trade secret or breach of contract laws if he is party to a contract or has reasonable knowledge that the information is protected. Someone who simply uses the Linux kernel would be safe from such a claim, as would a majority of developers.
SCO has no apparent basis to assert a trademark infringement complaint, so end users are safe there too.
SCO has not mentioned ownership rights in any patents -- in fact, most of the relevant patents seem to be assigned to companies they might sue. Here again, Linux users appear safe.
(ObDisclaimer: I am not a lawyer. If you want legal advice, retain counsel and ask for opinions specific to your situation.)
Re:can users infringe? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://antiwar.com/)
The interesting thing here is that the 'license' SCO is trying to bully companies into buying covers only the activities that SCO cannot possibly have any legal basis for pursuing them for in the first place - simply running the software. If you pay them, you get a contract limiting your rights to the ones which you already have, even assuming the strongest form of SCOs case! Under all other assumptions, you would be paying SCO to limit your rights drastically.
It would be absolutely stupid to agree to such a license from them - it gives the buyer nothing, gives SCO a contract which they can later use to sue you, after all the claims they're making now get dropped or dismissed, and you pay them for the privilege!
SCO obviously thinks the people running these companies are incredibly stupid.
Lets play IP-Infringment Mad-Libs! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.dq5studios.com/)
"In a brief article, {Industry} Business Review Online quotes {Figurehead} as saying that {Company} has been busily identifying {Debated IP} end users and is preparing to launch lawsuits against them in order to encourage more such end users to buy licenses from {Company}. {Company} indicates that they'll start with a company that uses {Example IP 1}, {Example IP 2} and {Example 3}, so as to 'settle several legal arguments in one go.'"
So can someone explain to me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Christ, have them stop already. They haven't even been to court yet and are acting as if they won. I wonder how the courts will react to these legal proceeding against the users on the basis of a pending legal case.
Re:So can someone explain to me... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.vems.co.nz/)
They can't.
They're going after small fish because if they step into the ring with RedHat, IBM, or any decently sized company, they'll lose. They know it, and that's why they haven't gone there. They won't go there until one of the bigger players forces their hand. I hope it happens soon, because this shit is getting old real fast. I think they're hoping to get some funds from scared/ignorant/"risk-managing" folks, and that it will bolster their perceived value - eg, their value in the stock market.
It's bullshit, and I hope the EFF/RedHat/IBM steps up and looks after the first person they try to sue.
Not the Chewbacca quote (Score:4, Funny)
A different lawyer joke, for a bit of variety
Smart move by SCO? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.basvanginkel.com/)
By going after the end users they can create clarity in the courts because the end users probably won't put up a defence like IBM or RedHat would. They simply wouldn't be able to afford the legal bill. So by going after these small time offenders first they can set precidence in the courts that would be harder (and take longer) to reverse when Redhat and IBM step up to the plate.
Luckly i am not in the position to be targetted by SCO. First off because i live an ocean away. If i were targetted by them however, thinking im a smaller than fortune500 company, i would probably be very tempted to pay up. I would however demand a addition to the license that would warrent me a refund if on a later date SCO was proven wrong in their statements.
A small company would go bankrupt before they could take on SCO. Is it time for the EFF to step up to the plate for us all? Possible defend the first company being sued by SCO? I would pay for that to happen. I would pay most certainly.
Re:Smart move by SCO? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://evilempire.ath.cx/)
If you pay up now, you'll be out all those license fees if and when IBM and Redhat tear apart SCO's dead body for pocket-change. You hold out now, and it takes $200 for a lawyer to delay the case.
Legal fund (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.radialthinking.de/)
According to a
Red Hat set up a legal fund to deal with this kind of tactic:
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/08/04/1817247.s
Re:Smart move by SCO? (Score:5, Informative)
IANAL, but if they sue some Linux end-user, they have to sue them for some real legal claim: contract violation, copyright or patent infringement, etc. Note that there is no "violating our IP" course of action.
Since there is no contract - let alone even contact- between SCO and the random Linux end-user, there cannot be a contract violation.
From SCO's own statements it's not patents. So it must be copyrights.
First question that SCO must answer: what exactly is infringing? The case goes nowhere until SCO 'fesses up. "Judge, they won't tell me what's infringing."
And the Linux end-user won't have to sign an NDA to get it - SCO would have to hope the presiding judge wouldn't allow the defendent to release the results of discovery.
That would run counter to everything SCO's done so far - which is run a PR campaign, not a legal one.
SCO's just making noise - IMO they are not going to sue.
Whatever you do - don't roll over!!! (yeah, IANAL and all that, but it's still a helluva lot cheaper to hire a lawyer to file a "show me the infringment" discovery motion than to pay $700...)
Bring 'em on!
Lawsuits... (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, lets assume that a lot of people has filed complaints against the behaviour of SCO... then why don't we see any results of those complaints? Are the people that received the complaints all sleeping or is SCO protected from legal investigation?
Sorry for my little understanding of US law, but here in Germany SCO had to shut up quite quickly after complaints were filed, but it looks like that in the US nothing of that sort happens.
Re:Lawsuits... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday February 11 2004, @08:13AM)
I'm starting to believe that the group getting the complaints (Securities & Exchange Comission) may be genetic replicas of the morons who grant the patents over at the USPTO.
Re:Lawsuits... (Score:5, Insightful)
Stick to that. Tell them you are a computer expert if you have to and that it is your professional opinion that their claims are groundless and that it seems everytime their stock takes a dip they make new claims.
Make sure to tell them that in Germany they were required to stop with their threatenting campaign by the German government because they have not produced proof and refuse to do so.
I am sure someone here can come up with better points than me.
Re:Isn't it odd... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not a big fan of the 'loser pays' court system, but something has to be done to stop these extortion lawsuits (SCO isn't the only one doing this) that have absolutely no legal merit.
SCO seems adept at manipulating media (Score:3, Interesting)
I really want to see how SCO is going to sue end users without disclosing the code.
Re:SCO seems adept at manipulating media (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday July 25 2002, @08:36AM)
A quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, makes me REALLY trust them . . .
SCO doesn't protect either (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
This is just doubletalk.
I would love to see SCO explain how their distribution of GCC, Samba or any other GPL code is any different from someone elses.
I don't think SCO has a general IP strategy. They are using open source, and fighting it at the same time.
I heard they had a Using GNU tools seminar at the same conference where they informed people about the dangers of the GPL. Maybe a corporate strategy would help them?
Oh, do shut up, Darl (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
The company has signed one large customer up to its Intellectual Property License for Linux. [...] "Instead of doing mass-mailings we're now taking a very targeted approach," [Darl McBride] said.
Yes, Darl, Microsoft has let you re-announce that they gave you $10 for a license, and yes, we know that everybody else has ignored you. Do you have any actual news, or are you still just trying to spin your past ineptitude into shinola again?
We need a sweepstake on when he's going to (illegally) dump his stock [yahoo.com] and head to Brazil for a face change. I'm guessing it'll be the day before they actually hit a court with this farce.
I hope the send my invoice via US Mail... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://tony.awtrey.com/)
DIE SCO, DIE!
Hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like they're going to try to use a contrived example to try to scare other users, whose cases are not as related to SCO's claims as SCO would like them to think.
I'm betting the details of their first lawsuit will center more around SCO's claim to have revoked IBM's license for UNIX that lets them make and sell AIX. They'll naturally try to make it LOOK like a general Linux copyright issue to the media, since they know some percentage of the masses won't be smart enough, or thorough enough, to detect the difference.
Xentax
Yeah right... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll belive it when I see it!
They stand no chance, at least not here in Germany (Score:4, Informative)
And hey, when SuSe 8.3 comes out I will buy it, although I am very satisfied with my current 8.2. Just to send a little "Fuck You" to SCO.
willful infringement (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.loconet.ca/)
How can it be willful infrigement if there hasn't been any violations proven yet? This is getting ridiculous. Germany already stopped these idiots, I can't believe nothing is being done here to stop these morons from talking so much shit!
SCO's "proof" of turns out bogus (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.iki.fi/kaip/)
Summarizing yesterday's events that put SCO's demands of payments into perspective (for references read analysis by Bruce Perens [perens.com]):
On Monday at their trade show in Las Vegas, SCO showed code that they claimed was copied illegally into Linux. Many who saw the slides in Vegas were convinced [com.com] of SCO's case.
However, probably unknown to and unauthorized by SCO, the German publisher Heise obtained photographs of two slides in SCO's presentation and published them yesterday.
It turned out that the code SCO showed in Vegas originated from 1973. The code has appeared in programming text books already in 70s and it has been released under BSD license several times by many parties, including SCO (then Caldera) itself last year. The code SCO showed, allegedly violating their rights, was therefore in Linux legally.
If this really was a sample of their "best evidence" then SCO and their executives are in deep trouble - considering all unsubstantiated allegations they have made, legal threats, demands of payments and stock pumping and insiders dumping.
Calling all crackpots (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.cyberista.com/)
Emotionally unstable, socially detached, angry and brilliant people are going to start having trouble holding it together. Kaczynski didn't have the benefit of the net to get better information or gravitate towards like minds.
What if SCO/Microsoft knows this and is purposely creating an environment where a small group snaps and discredits everything about the "eccentric" hobbies of geeks?
The whole concept of doing geek stuff outside of university walls is a very young concept. Read up on the history of astronomy. Rulers and the church had no problem with what these guys were doing as long as it stayed within the walls.
If we move all knowledge back to universities, corporations will call all the shots on progress. That's exactly what will happen after the first zealots decide that "Bombs not reason" is a good name for a political action committee.
How many idiots have issued death threats against spammers? The clock is winding down.
Trendy! Not Evil! (Score:4, Funny)
(http://unugunu.blogspot.com/)
File an SEC complaint (Score:5, Informative)
SEC Enforcement Complaint Form [sec.gov]
don't expect this in court soon (Score:3)
SCO just signed its own death warrant (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday January 02 2005, @11:51PM)
When Polaroid (The Land Corporation) sued Kodak for instant camera/photo patent infringement and enjoined Kodak from further production of the infringing products - Land never targeted the jobbers, distributors, end-unit-sales operators or individual owners of the infringing product. They were aware that they would poison the market for their products and create a vast public backlash from such tactics.
(Yes, the analogy is flawed: the laws were different then - but the option to sue a larger group and Land's decision not to do so was a valid option that they eschewed.)
SCO is far from their progenitor the Santa Cruz Operation and their UNIX for the PC OS.
I'm not certain what SCO brings to the market today, save chaos.
Has Ken Starr signed on as chief counsel? What good result can SCO possibly expect from this tactic?
SCO cannot survive this vast expansion of their litigation without a huge (vast, impossible to predict) infusion of cash to fund the litigation. Even with unlimited funds the secondary costs will eat them alive.
Public backlash over time and costs are two things that SCO clearly has not considered properly in this litigation. So long SCO - you won't be missed any more than a broken abacus.
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.fontosaurus.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday February 17 2004, @09:37AM)
It's not like there's any grounds for going after end-users -- they haven't even proved that there was theft of their intellectual property yet. It'll be hard for them to sue an end-user in court and say, "Well, he's using stuff that illegally contains our IP."
Joe Average end-user is never going to be able to see the SCO code or even bother to look at the Linux kernel code ("kernel? like in corn?"), and will have no basis for comparison. Furthermore, the IP onus is not on the end-user. That would be like Ford suing the owners of Nissan cars if Nissan were to happen to use a mechanical part that Ford owned the patent to, without licensing it properly.
Translation: SCOFUD.
Mystery Fortune 500 company... (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.garlanger.com/)
It would make sense- why not give move money over to SCO to allow them to continue suing (gives them a valid reason to hand over money), and gives other companies the impression that a major company has determined the "bogus" license fees are valid. Then other companies would think, maybe we need to investigate the claims more seriously since someone already paid.
I'm looking forward to it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see... $699. That's small claims court. As they haven't provided PROOF of anything, I'll be happy to meet them in small claims court for them to get their money. It'll cost 'em more than $699 to have their lawyer drive to the courthouse.
Bad business model.
Dear SCO (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.indyassociates.com/)
I'm afraid I can't pay your license fee as I do not use your SCO Unix product. Should I ever use your software, I will purchase it through my local SCO authorized partner.
Very Sincerely,
__________________
P.S. Your legal department is horrible at sales and marketing. They don't exactly inspire me to want to do business with you.
Small Retributions (Score:5, Insightful)
Like most users of Linux, we are at the point where we are not going to stand still while SCO trashes the entire Free Software movement. I have already authorized a payment of $10,000 to the FSF, and a payment of $5,000 to the Red Hat Open Source Now fund. If you want to do all you can during this waiting period before the trial, I would urge you to sign this petition [petitiononline.com] that signifies the unity of the Free and Open source communities against SCO's outlandish claims.
Re:Small Retributions (Score:5, Interesting)
Take the demands to your state attorney general and ask them if this qualifies as extortion, seeing as the "ownership" of Linux is currently being contested, SCO has shown no proof of ownership, and ask what they can do about it. AG love being seen helping out the little guy against the big bad guy. They can at least start an investigation, subpoena a bunch of stuff (including SCO code, maybe), and make things exciting in Utha.
Be prepared, with all the background material, the two suits (RF/IBM) and the legal stuff from the FSF and the logs from GROKLAW and lamlaw ... they pretty well cover the issues.
Also contact RedHat and ask them for a bit of advice. You are their customer and you are being harassed by the FUD machine from SCO. They may know of others who have a solid case to ask for an injunction against this crap until SCO proves ownership.
Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Saturday May 01 2004, @04:37AM)
IBM and AIX are entirely incidental to the affair, and the connection between AIX and Linux is a spurious convenience.
If SCO were serious about their original "license agreement" allegations with IBM they would stick to this point and not start commenting on the GPL. SCO may be lying, thieving scoundrels, but they are working for someone else, or they would stick to the issues that might pay off.
I've said this for months now: the most likely director of SCO's actions is Microsoft, the only significant player to benefit from this mess. Every time the "validity" of the GPL is discussed Microsoft get a thrill and achieve what they could not do directly - no-one takes Microsoft's propaganda seriously anymore.
At least one goal appears to be working, namely to discuss the "validity" of the GPL as if it were a law or a contract. The GPL is a license that an author (that is, the person who's sweat, blood and tears were spent on making a work) can choose as the vehicle for licensing his or her work. Period. Anyone taking this work must obey the license conditions.
If I choose to license my work with an agreement that says that you must wear only red, that is my right. SCO may say "we choose not to use the GPL for our work", but to attack it like this is purely malicious.
And, so, we come back to the people who have in the past spent so much effort attacking the GPL because they realize that it frames their demise. The Redmond Gang, the company that believs might makes right, that laws are for buying, not obeying, and that lawyers are for suing other people.
Sigh.
On the bright side, I assume if they sue me for using Linux, and they lose, then they will pay my legal fees?
SCO "Prepares" to sue Linux users (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Small Claims Court time (Score:4, Insightful)
If just the 1500 companies that had received threatening letters were to do this, each claiming the loss of say, 200 dollars for letter processing time and such, SCO couldn't possibly keep up with the docket.
Of course, I could be wrong (and often am).
Hello!? INJUNCTION anyone??!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
For fuck's sake: they are publicly stating that they are going to start an extortion racket! Where's the bloody police? Where's the C&D letters? Why is it so easy to lie and steal if you are a company? Any human individual would be behind bars by now.
TWW
Same as DirecTV v. smartcard programmer buyers (Score:4, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday November 02, @02:49PM)
Probably the same legal issues that caused the judge to throw out a similar move against DirecTV's extortion of money from purchasers of smartcard programming hardware.
They're threatening legal action. Any notices associated with it are "privileged". They don't get a cent unless they prove their cases in court or the defendant folds, so the legal system assumes the defendant is being properly handled and "gets his day in court".
Now AFTER you WIN you MIGHT be able to go after them if you can show they knew their case was bogus. But until it gets ground through the legal mill you're stuck.
This has to be unbridled stock price pumping. (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://members.cox.net/jmccorm)
I don't think there isn't anything illegal in that, per se, but in my mind, it kind of points to a goal in all of this. But then again, I could be tying the generation of a 'fear buzz' with the stock price. They are doing an excellent job of keeping the fear buzz going.
Sco being sued for racketeering? (Rumor) (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.cafeshops.com/gnuforpresident)
If sco sues linux users, Linus can sue sco : ) (Score:3, Interesting)
So if I have this straight, once SCO starts suing linux end users they must discontinue distribution of the linux kernel, or Linus (or the FSF on his behalf) can sue them for copyright infringement.
Or is it the case that they already lost permission to distribute the linux kernel because they've started demanding fees from end users so they can be sued NOW?
Isn't the correct term (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.users.qwest.net/~wjames159/)
Modeled after RIAA? (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/~coolmacdude | Last Journal: Sunday March 23 2003, @12:22PM)
LOL (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.somethingpositive.net/ | Last Journal: Monday November 24 2003, @01:20PM)
Jaysyn
Discovery Process? (Score:3, Insightful)
Linus says... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://knoppixquake.webhop.net/)
Call the FTC NOW! Read for the scoop . . . (Score:5, Informative)
These are the key points to make:
-You did not purchase software from SCO
-The company that "produced" your software did not purchase it from SCO
-It was not marketed or packaged by SCO
-Despite this SCO is asking for $199 from home users (You) and $699 from business for 1 CPU
They will ask for your name, phone number, address etc. That is mostly to verify your identity and citizenship I think.
Here is the number:
1-877-382-4357 option 4
They are nice and listen well. The lady I talked to even took the time to get a better understanding of what Linux is. The best quote from her "You didn't purchase it from them and they want you to pay them? That sounds crazy."
Re:Call the FTC NOW! Read for the scoop . . . (Score:5, Informative)
Here's some information that may help. They actually asked for this info:
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042
801-765-4999 phone
The guy I spoke with was actually somewhat familiar with what Linux is. One of his first questions was how this company got involved with me, which my answer was "Well, that's the problem. They didn't."
He eventually asked if SCO has contacted me personally with regard to this situation, which they have not. Don't lie to them. Be completely truthful. At the end of the call I got a reference number, and he said that if SCO does contact me personally, I should call back and let them know.
It was very easy to do, and took about 5 minutes of my time. The recording while I wated for the counselor to pick up the phone did say that the FTC does track trends in complaints. If we get enough people to complain, something will happen. Please, take a few minutes and call!
Thank you for this information, div_2n.
Same tactics as RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://supernicety.com/)
Same as RIAA, first they went after the corporates and scared them into rethinking linux, and now they're making noise about suing everyone, knowing that at least some people will decide to cut their losses and bail out rather than risk legal proceedings. Not to mention it makes a good news story and i'd bet their stock is up as of this evening.
SCO path (Score:3, Interesting)
They were very close to bankruptcy before they begun with this all.
Then, they challenge IBM with two objectives: burst up their stock options and sell the company to IBM.
When IBM opted to challenge them back, they got in BIG trouble, and now they need to stay in the media and try to get some funds anywhere to maintain their points. If they did not it, they will be accepting that they tried to manipulate the stock options, and will be in serious trouble ?
Now, they are looking for the end users because they are easier to extort. In this case, they will not try to chase everyone, but only a carefully choose handful to stay in the media and to bring fear to the others. Some of them will fail and send money to them, and this money will be used to maintain the process against others ?
In their position, now I will try to make some very public agreements with some minor users and make a BIG media show with that. They need to stay in the media.
The only way to protect us all against them is:
1. do not send any money to them.
2. talk to everyone you know about what they are trying and that they have to saty against it.
We have one thing that they do not. We have a great community in the INTERNET.
We need to use it, and the information we have, against them.
I do not know how your government works (I'm Brazilian), but if they did not block this patern very soon, your software development will became a real mess?
PA Linux Businesses (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're in PA and you use Linux, consider filling out this Consumer Complaint Form [attorneygeneral.gov]. Maybe we can get the PA, and other states', attorney general interested.
What about Google? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to see them try and get that.
Lord of the Rings (Score:3, Informative)
Does the acronym RICO ring any bells? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://home.cfl.rr.com/diehardanddragon/)
Doesn't this (here in the US) fall under RICO (racketeering, and used against corporate crooks, as well)?
mark "come on, SCO, come after *me* (now,
what's the phone # for the federal
prosecutor?)"
It is Not SCO.... (Score:4, Interesting)
___________________________
Mec's post:
The SCO Group is not a real company. They are an operating tentacle of The Canopy Group. More news of interest: Computer Associates Agrees to a $40 million settlement [thestreet.com] Level 7, another Canopy Group tentacle, sued CA and settled for $40 million. Check this line out: Level 7 didn't write its own software, it bought software, entered a contract with Computer Associates, and then turned around and sued them.
These aren't the death spasms of a dying company. It's actually the ordinary life cycle of a Canopy tentacle. The very name "The SCO Group" masks this, because it's associated with 20 years of Unix history.
___________________________
Below is a portion of an article from Forbes magazine; I bolded several sections.
In 1996, SCO's predecessor company, Caldera, bought the rights to a decrepit version of the DOS operating system and used it to sue Microsoft, eventually shaking a settlement out of the Redmond, Wash., software giant. In 1997, Darl McBride, now SCO's chief executive, sued his then employer, IKON Office Solutions, and won a settlement that he says was worth multiple millions. (IKON acknowledges the settlement but disputes the amount.)
McBride joined Caldera as chief executive in June 2002. Two months later he changed the company's name to The SCO Group, based on the name of an ailing Unix product that Caldera had purchased in 2001 from its creator, The Santa Cruz Operation, of Santa Cruz, Calif. The Santa Cruz Operation now calls itself Tarantella. As with the 1996 DOS lawsuit against Microsoft, in the current lawsuit over Unix and Linux this company aims to take a nearly dead chunk of old code, bought for a song, and parlay it into a windfall. Not only is the strategy the same--so are some of the players.
SCO is basically owned and run by The Canopy Group, a Utah firm with investments in dozens of companies. Canopy's chief executive, Ralph J. Yarro III, is chairman of SCO's board of directors and engineered the suit against Microsoft in 1996. Darcy Mott, Canopy's chief financial officer, is another SCO director, along with Thomas Raimondi, chief executive of a Canopy company called MTI Technology. In this cozy company, SCO even leases its office space from Canopy--a fact disclosed in Securities and Exchange Commission filings, along with the fact that SCO's chief financial officer, Robert Bench, has a side job as a partner in a Utah consulting firm that last year billed SCO for $71,200.
Canopy companies sometimes share more than a common parent. They form joint ventures and buy and sell one another's stock. Last November SCO formed a joint venture called Volution with Center 7, a Canopy company. In 2000, Caldera sold off part of its business to EBIZ Enterprises, a Texas company in which Canopy holds a controlling interest and whose board boasts three Canopy execs, including Mott, according to SEC filings. Previously, Caldera bought shares in two other Canopy companies, Troll Tech and Lineo, and later wrote off the Troll Tech investment but sold the Lineo shares at a profit, according to SEC filings. In 1999, Caldera sold its own shares to MTI, then bought those shares back last year, according to SEC filings.
bzzt! wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~dh003i/journal | Last Journal: Monday September 08 2003, @11:20PM)
Choosing a user of AIX and Dynix would help the company to back up its position that it terminated IBM's licenses for Unix in AIX and Dynix in June and August respectively
No, actually, it wouldn't help prove that, because SCO could not and can not terminate IBM's right to use AIX. IBM created AIX and has the absolute and unquestioned right to use or not use it.
"There is no warranty for infringement of intellectual property [in the GPL], so all of the liability ends up with end users."
There is no warrantee against infringement for *any* software you buy, from *anyone*, including Microsoft, SCO, IBM, etc. This is also true of the GPL. In fact, to even imply that there could be a warrantee for infringment is absurd. It is, quite frankly, impossible. There is so much bullshit crap out there that you can't write a single line of code without violating some trivial bullshit patent somewhere. At least, with FS and OSS licenses, the code is open-source, so issues of infringment can easily be identified.
There is no hiding skeletons in the closet when you develop FS and OSS software. It's all out in the open. If there really was an infringement issue, it would have been found and dealt with long long long ago (e.g., like when SCO was distributing Caldera). Also, by having distributed GNU/Linux, SCO loses the ability to seriously do any of this crap (which is why they have to attack the GPL).
"End users are improperly using this copyrighted material, and under copyright law SCO is entitled to damages and injunctive relief"
Until there's some actual evidence and a court rules, no-one is using misappropriated material. No-one is obligated to do anything until a court rules on real evidence, that SCO actually has valid claims. This is, of course, why they're pressing so hard, because they know the court will find that their case is non-sense. If they want to have any serious case against end-users, they need to show end-users *proof* that the software they use violates SCO's copyright. Even then, they still have no case, because they distributed a GNU/Linux distribution.
"Those who have chosen to ignore the license are more in a situation of potential willful infringement"
Actually, no, they aren't, since SCO hasn't presented any evidence what-so-ever that anyone is violating SCO's copyrights.
I don't get it... (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.bluefeathertech.com/ | Last Journal: Friday November 04 2005, @11:51AM)
All this grandstanding (without presenting independently-verifiable proof of their claims, I think that's all they're doing) is only going to do one thing: Create a serious financial drain on the company in terms of court costs.
One interesting side effect to this whole mess may be that BSD-based OS's will get more attention. As far as I know, neither NetBSD, [netbsd.org] nor FreeBSD, [freebsd.org] nor OpenBSD [openbsd.org] have ever been the subject of lawsuits of the type that SCO is pushing.
Whatever happens, I think SCO has gone utterly, irretrievably bonkers if they think this kind of behavior will help them in any way. I feel sorry for the employees...
My settlement offer with SCO (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.livejournal.com/users/maxomai)
How about I give you the finger, and you go sell your scam to someone else?
Thank you.
GPL affects copying and modification, NOT USE! (Score:3, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Saturday November 01 2003, @01:11PM)
Suppose that program A is distributed under the terms of the GPL. The GPL does not grant any right to use the program (it presumes none is required.) (It is an interesting question of law whether rights to use a program, legitimately obtained, can be covered by copyright law, and to what extent. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm clueless on this one.)
Thus it may (however unlikely) turn out to be the case that SCO's claim and licensing stuff is valid, yet only pertains to actually using the software. Note that they are selling per-CPU licences to use the software, and are placing no restrictions on usage. Thus they place no restriction modification or redistribution, but people who obtain a copy, whilst allowed to copy and modify it to their hearts content, are not allowed to use the kernel without a license from SCO.
Maybe the GPL 3.0 should explicitly include sections pertaining to use of the program (so that it is explicitly agains the license to freely allow redistribution, yet restrict usage of the code on a CPU.)
I suspect there are some serious flaws in the above. I hope there are, and I hope someone can explain where the problems lie.
wait until the other *heavies* jump in... (Score:3, Informative)
Online SEC Complaint Form (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.desertzephyr.com/employees/calabrese)
http://www.sec.gov/complaint/cf942sec9570.htm
to lodge on online complaint against SCO for manipulation of security prices.
Let them sue Los Alamos (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.rentacode...p?lngAuthorId=521214 | Last Journal: Friday October 03 2003, @02:52PM)
Semi-OT, but I'm sick of "IANAL" (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.hollinger.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday April 14 2005, @03:43PM)
I'll add you as my "friends" with some sort of karma modifier, and make the list publicly available. We should be able to improve the SNR that way.
If someone's already done something like this, point me in the right direction.
Am I missing something here? (Score:3)
(Last Journal: Wednesday May 21 2003, @01:51PM)
Did I miss the SCO vs. IBM trial already being settled? I didn't think so. So fuck off SCO.
Is this an oversight in the GPL? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not me (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.towardsafreeworld.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday June 26 2003, @03:38AM)
The only code they've so far shown anybody (2 snippets snapped at their show by Heisse) is from Ancient Unix and is covered by the BSD License from BSD 2.2 Onwards also released from its original 16bit Unix V5 under a BSD license by Caldera / the SCO group a couple of years back.
The license you bought, you can wipe your arse with, it's all its good for.
Re:$700 for a license for a couple lines of code?? (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.fangorn.dk/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 23 2003, @02:24PM)
NUMA is inconsequential on the 386 architecture - applies only to other architectures.
RCU is SMP only, not significant enough to be even mentioned.
JFS is an IBM contribution to the kernel, but since we have other jfs's, it could be removed with little pain.
Ext3, OTOH, is the only item being used by your average Linux user.
The SMP code in general is not in question.
And remember, it's between SCO and IBM. Anyone else got their Linux under the GPL license distributed by RedHat, SuSE etc, and shouldn't bother with SCO (except kicking any SCO products they might have).
Re:Not me (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.perlguy.net/sco.html)
Will I get sued, probably since they have my name and address.
Do I really care, not really. Since SCO has been showing *stolen* code (which is actually free code that was written somewhere around 1974).
SCO is a bunch of greedy dumbasses who are just out to make a buck.
At their conference they were saying how damaging the GPL and free software is, yet their latest release has over 100 OPEN SOURCE components.
HEY DUMBASSES (this means you SCO), I challenge you to release a product WITHOUT using ANY Open Source tools.
Re:How are they identifying these Linux users? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday February 11 2004, @08:13AM)
* Commodore Vic-20
* ColecoVision
* TI-99/4A
* Apple ][
* Adam
* BIC 0.5mm #2 Pencil